University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Meaningful learning opportunities for children from low socioeconomic backgrounds in pre-kindergarten

(USC Thesis Other)

Meaningful learning opportunities for children from low socioeconomic backgrounds in pre-kindergarten

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 1
MEANINGFUL LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHILDREN FROM LOW
SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUNDS IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN

by

Kanika Jain Kadakia

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2019

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 2

Acknowledgements
There was a point in time when I thought I would never be at this place–being able to
finally express my gratitude to those who helped me get here. But I’m here. And I’m
overwhelmed with feelings of joy, pride, and a little confusion as to what I am to do with my
evenings now. Without the following people, this dissertation would not be what it is.
• To Dr. Julie Slayton, my dissertation chair: You had challenged me to think
differently during my master’s program and you no doubt pushed me so much harder
on this dissertation. The fear of signing up with you came true. I worked the hardest I
have ever had to academically. But I am so extremely grateful that that was true. You
encouraged me to think deeper, to exhaust all my resources to ensure that I had
covered everything, and to continue my research even after I had completed my
dissertation. But you were also so very patient with me. Taking my texts, calls, and
emails at all hours of the day and night. Talking me through those (many) moments of
confusion. Never rushing me or making me feel like I was wasting time. You made
every learning moment meaningful. Thank you.
• To Dr. Pat Gallagher, my dissertation committee: Thank you for allowing me to tap
into your expertise of early childhood education. Your feedback and insights made
me think about aspects of this study that I would not have on my own. I very much
appreciate you taking the time to guide me through this process.
• To Dr. Jessica Manzone, my dissertation committee: Thank you for helping me shape
one of the most integral aspects of this study, the role of play in early childhood
education. Your in-depth knowledge on this topic provided me with a new way of
thinking. I am also grateful for your enthusiasm and energy for teaching and learning.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 3

Every time I reached a milestone in this process, you were the first person to
acknowledge it and appreciate my achievement.
• To Dr. Pensavalle, my mentor: You have guided me throughout my academic and
professional career in education. Even in the face of challenges, you held high
expectations of me and encouraged me to live up to them. The support you showed
me as a beginning teacher and doctoral candidate is what brought me to this
dissertation. Thank you for always making time for me.
• To Atman Kadakia, my husband: It is because of you that I had the courage to enter
the field of education. And again, to pursue a doctorate. You know my capacities
better than I do. Thank you for never letting me give up. Thank you for pushing me to
be the best version of myself academically, professionally, and personally. You’re a
rock star.
• To My Family: Having two babies during my doctoral studies meant that I would
need (a lot of) help. And boy, did you jump in! Thank you for being there for me and
Taj and Jiya when I was in class or needed time to research and work on my
dissertation. You helped me find my way to this dissertation every time I felt that I
could not be away from the kids. Thank you for never letting me feel that I was
asking too much of you.
• To Taj and Jiya, my children: Even though you two distracted me the most, you were
also the reason that I kept going. Thank you for never making me feel bad about
having to work on my dissertation. Taj, thank you for being the loudest person to
scream “I love you, Mama!” when I finished. Jiya, I know you wanted to as well even
though you could not talk at the time.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 4

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………..……………....2
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………..6

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………….7

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY………………………………………………………………………..……………………….9
Background of the Problem…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………….9
Current State of Early Childhood Education………………………………………………………..………………….10
Current Policies in Early Childhood Education……………………………………………….…………………….13
Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………………………………………………...……………………………...16
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...…………………..16
Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...………...17
Organization of the Study……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...…………..17

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………………………………………………………19
Learning Opportunities for Young Children………………………………………………………..…………………………………..19
Discovery Learning………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………20
Play……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………33
Peer Play………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………33
Guided Play………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………44
Peer Effects…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………52
Classroom Climate………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………….64
Social and Emotional Climate………………………………………………………………………………………...64
Instructional Support……………………………………………………………………………………………..…….……….67
Social and Emotional Climate and Instructional Support………………………..………..72
Constructivism and Sociocultural Theory…………………………………………………………………………..…………………….92
Constructivism………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...93
Sociocultural Theory……………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………..98
Conceptual Framework……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………104
Teacher-Child Interactions………………………………………………………………………………………...…………………...107
Child-Peer Interactions………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………112
Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………..113

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………114
Research Design………………………………………………………………………………………………………...………………………………………...115
Sample…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………..115
Site Selection………………………………………………………………………………………………../.……………………………………...115
Criterion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...116
Participant Selection………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………116
Criterion 1……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………116
Criterion 2………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………117
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 5

Data Collection Procedures and Instruments……………………………………………………………………………...………...117
Interviews………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..117
Observations……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………120
Documents……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...123
Data Analysis Procedures…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………124
Delimitations and Limitations………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………..126
Credibility and Trustworthiness………………………………………………………………………………………………………...………...128
Validity…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………128
Reliability…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….130
Ethics…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………131
Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………..132

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………......133
Carter Early Head Start……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………133
Case Study One: Ms. Sanchez, PM Preschool Class…………………………………………………………………...…...134
Ms. Sanchez’s Background…………………………………………………………………………………..………………………..134
Students’ Background…………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………..134
Findings…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...135
Finding One……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………….136
Finding Two………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………….165
Case Study Two: Ms. Sherri, AM Preschool Class……………………………………………………………..………….…175
Ms. Sherri’s Background……………………………………………………………………………………………………..………….175
Students’ Background………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………..176
Findings...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................176
Finding One…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...177
Finding Two…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..195
Cross-Case Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………204
Finding One………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………….205
Finding Two………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……….210
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...211

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………..…….213
Summary of Findings………………………………………………………………………………………………………...…………………………..….213
Implications and Recommendations…………………………………………………....................................................................................218
Teacher Practice………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…218
Educational Policy……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...223
Future Research…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...225

References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....228

Appendix A: First Interview Protocol……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……..…239
Appendix B: Second Interview Protocol………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……….242
Appendix C: Classroom Layout Protocol……………………………….……………………………………………………………………...……....245
Appendix D: Observational Field Notes Protocol……………………………………………………………………………………………...246
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 6

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………107

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 7

List of Tables
Table 1: Interviews and Observations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………123

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 8

Abstract
The purpose of this dissertation was to examine how pre-kindergarten environments
provided meaningful learning opportunities to students from low socioeconomic (SES)
backgrounds. Research has consistently demonstrated that there are significant disparities in
achievement between students of low and high SES backgrounds prior to entering kindergarten,
indicating the importance of children’s early learning experiences. The literature provided in this
dissertation indicated that pre-kindergarten environments can provide learning opportunities
through two vehicles: the instructional climate as well as the social and emotional climate. Each
of these contexts is shaped by the interactions that take place between the teacher and child as
well as the child and peer.
A multiple-case study approach was employed to closely examine two pre-kindergarten
classrooms at an Early Head Start program in an urban neighborhood in Southern California. The
findings demonstrated that neither of the classrooms provided meaningful learning opportunities.
While in both cases, the teachers aspired to provide learning opportunities that were meaningful,
it was not evident that they had a strong understanding of what was expected of their role nor
were they positioned to teach in a way that was meaningful. The study recommends that early
childhood educators be provided with improved professional development, credentialing
requirements be upgraded, and pre-K programs be held accountable to ensure that students are
taught according to the National Association for the Education of Young Children standards.
Finally, future research is recommended in several areas, including examining current
professional development provided to Early Head Start educators.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 9

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
As a former kindergarten teacher and an aspiring administrator in early childhood
education, understanding how young children learn and what opportunities they are afforded in
pre-kindergarten is very important to me professionally. As a mother of two toddlers, one who is
currently in preschool, this area in education is particularly intriguing to me personally.
Together, these roles led me to study early childhood education with the hope of gaining a better
understanding of this context and its participants. Consequently, this study focused on what
happened in pre-kindergarten classrooms as related to children’s opportunities for meaningful
learning. The first chapter of this study provides background of an identified problem in early
childhood education. This is followed by the study’s purpose and significance. I conclude with
the organization of the study.
Background of the Problem
There are many factors that contribute to young children’s learning and outcomes,
including but not limited to parent involvement, resources that support children’s families,
health, nutrition (Camili, Vargas, Ryan, & Barnett, 2010), parenting, home environment
(Melhuish et al., 2008; Niklas, Cohrssen, & Tayler, 2016), and K-12 experiences (Magnuson,
Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2007b). Another key aspect that affects young children’s academic,
cognitive, and social outcomes is their pre-kindergarten experiences. The topic of early
childhood education has gained increasing attention in the education (e.g., Mulligan, McCarroll,
Flanagan, & Potter, 2016; Reardon & Portilla, 2016; Valentino, 2017) as well as the political
sector (e.g., Newsom, 2017; U.S. Department of Education, 2017). Acting on that understanding,
it is important to explore the current state of early childhood education as well as how policy has
shaped early childhood education. The following section first focuses on the academic and social
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 10

outcomes of young children, especially those from low socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds, and
then discusses policies regarding early childhood education.
1

Current State of Early Childhood Education
Belfield, Nores, Barnett, and Schweinhart (2006) found that the long-term benefits of
early childhood education, specifically the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program intervention for
at-risk children, far outweighed the costs of providing such programs. They found that for every
$1.00 invested, $12.90 was repaid. More generally, when compared to non-participants, pre-
kindergarten participants from low SES backgrounds demonstrate lower rates of juvenile arrests
and criminal activities, grade retention, special education placement (Belfield, Nores, Barnett, &
Schweinhart, 2006; Reynolds, Temple, Robertson, & Mann, 2001), welfare dependency (Belfield
et al., 2006); and higher rates of school completion (Reynolds et al., 2001), earnings and
educational attainment, and health statuses (Belfield et al., 2006). The benefits for society in turn
include higher tax revenues, lower expenditures for the criminal justice system, and lower
welfare payments (Belfield et al., 2006).
In terms of the short-term benefits, research indicates that children who attend preschool
demonstrate positive cognitive and social skills as well as school progress (Camilli et al., 2010).
Children attending preschool, especially those whose circumstances have put them at risk
(Magnuson, Ruhm, & Walfogel, 2007a), demonstrate higher academic skills at the beginning of
kindergarten than nonparticipants (Magnuson et al., 2007a & 2007b). However, in 2017, only
56% of 3- to 5 -year-olds in the United States was enrolled in pre-kindergarten (NCES, 2019).

1
For the purpose of this dissertation, early childhood education will refer to education provided to children before
entering kindergarten. It should be noted that the terms pre-kindergarten, pre-K, and preschool will be used
interchangeably throughout the dissertation. When referring to children from these settings, it should be inferred that
the age group of the children is between 3 to 4 years old, unless stated otherwise. I have chosen to specifically focus
on this age group, as it is the typical preschool age according to Barnett, Carolan, Squires, and Brown (2014).
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 11

Moreover, the percentage of 3- to 5-year-olds enrolled in preschool was higher for children with
parents who had more education than those with parents who had less (NCES, 2019).
Several studies found that there is a discrepancy in the learning outcomes of children who
participate in preschool when comparing racial, SES, and lingual backgrounds (Henry &
Rickman, 2007; Mulligan et al., 2016; Reardon & Portilla, 2016; Valentino, 2017). That being
said, research indicates that large disparities in achievement exist before children enter
kindergarten (Reardon & Portilla, 2016; Valentino, 2017) and persist through elementary school
(Reardon & Portilla, 2016). Henry and Rickman (2007) found that family income was associated
with pre-kindergartners’ literacy levels in that children from families with higher incomes
identified more letters and words compared to their classmates from families with lower
incomes. In 2016, third-grade reading, math, and science scores were lower for students from
families below the federal poverty level compared to those at or above 200% of the poverty level
when in kindergarten (Mulligan et al., 2016).
Some studies have found that the effects of preschool also depend on the quality of the
classroom (Barnett, Lamy, & Jung, 2005; Mashburn, Justice, Downer, & Pianta, 2009), as
preschool quality has been positively associated with preschoolers’ development of language
(Burchinal et al., 2008; Mashburn, 2008), academic (Barnett et al., 2005; Burchinal et al., 2008;
Mashburn, 2008; Mashburn et al., 2009), and social skills (Burchinal et al., 2008); as well as
school readiness (Barnett et al., 2005; Mashburn et al., 2009). However, as with learning
outcomes, classroom quality for children from low SES backgrounds differs from that provided
to children from high SES backgrounds (Early et al., 2010; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Pianta
et al., 2005; Valentino, 2017). Specifically, Early et al. (2010) found that children from low-
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 12

income families typically engaged in less stimulating and rich experiences in pre-kindergarten
compared to children from high-income families.
In efforts to increase the academic performance of American children and eliminate the
differences in achievement between children from low and high SES backgrounds, preschools
and elementary schools have either reduced or eliminated playtime during the school day (Zigler
& Bishop-Josef, 2004). Play has gradually been replaced with academic lessons (Zigler &
Bishop-Josef, 2004) despite the growing evidence of its positive effects on children’s academic,
social, and cognitive skills (Bulotsky-Shearer, Bell, Carter, & Dietrich, 2014; Bulotsky-Shearer,
Bell, Romero, & Carter, 2012; Coolahan, Fantuzzo, Mendez, & McDermott, 2000; Han, Moore,
Vukelich, & Buell, 2010; Samulesson & Johansson, 2006). Additionally, Early et al. (2010)
reported that children in state-funded pre-kindergarten programs spent 56% of the school day
engaged in early academic activities, including those that involved art and gross motor skills.
However, 44% of the school day (Early et al., 2010; Hamre & Pianta, 2007) and 88% of meals
and routines were labeled as no coded learning activities (Early et al., 2007). These activities
included children participating in daily routines, such as handwashing and having conversations
with peers that could not be coded. According to Early et al. (2010), in general, children from
low-income families engaged in less free choice time and fewer learning activities compared to
children from high-income families. Moreover, teachers were three times as likely to use didactic
instruction than scaffolding during teacher-assigned time (Early et al., 2010).
Overall, components of classroom quality, which affect learning, are constantly debated.
Some literature has suggested that the quality of structural variables, such as classroom space
and furnishings, learning materials (Mashburn, 2008), teachers’ level of education (Mashburn et
al., 2008; Pianta et al., 2005), class size, child-adult ratio, and length of school day (Mashburn et
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 13

al., 2008) may have indirect effects on classroom climate and/or outcomes of young children
from low SES backgrounds. However, other literature indicates that such structural qualities
have no direct effect (LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Mashburn et al., 2009). Rather, they find
that process qualities, such as teacher-student interactions play a larger role on children’s
outcomes (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Mashburn et
al., 2008; Mashburn et al., 2009). Specifically, preschool classrooms characterized by high-
quality social environments, in which teachers and children and children and their peers
experienced supportive and positive interactions were associated with positive development of
academic skills (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007;
Mashburn et al., 2008; Mashburn et al., 2009). The next section presents how the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the administration under former
President Barack Obama and current President Donald Trump have approached these issues in
early childhood education.
Current Policies in Early Childhood Education
Recognizing the existing significant differences in achievement in early childhood
education, the NAEYC developed standards that consider the child’s social and cultural context
in the classroom as well the home and community (NAEYC, 2005). First adopted in 1985, the
NAEYC standards have been revised several times in accordance with current empirical and
theoretical work regarding early education (NAEYC, 2012). Currently, several states use the
NAEYC classroom standards based on Piagetian and Vygotskian principles of teaching and
learning when developing early childhood education programs (Burchinal et al., 2008).
Created by the NAEYC in 1986 and most recently revised in 2009, Developmentally
Appropriate Practice (DAP) is an approach to teaching that is based on empirical research
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 14

regarding child development and learning (NAEYC, 2009). Acknowledging current
demographic trends, DAP attempts to address the following issues in early education:
• Reducing learning gaps and increasing the achievement of all children
• Creating improved, better connected education for preschool and elementary children
• Recognizing teacher knowledge and decision making as vital to educational
effectiveness (NAEYC, 2009)
DAP includes three core considerations and 12 principles of child development that take
children’s individual differences and social and cultural contexts into account (NAEYC, 2009).
DAP recognizes the importance of all areas of development and learning, learning goals that are
challenging and attainable, secure and positive relationships with adults and peers, as well as
play (NAEYC, 2009). DAP also provides five guidelines that highlight the need for (a) a caring
community of learners, (b) adult-guided and child-guided experiences, (c) well-planned
curriculum, (d) assessment, and (e) relationships with families as vehicles through which
teachers should provide high-quality instruction to and experiences for children (NAEYC, 2009).
As another response to the state of early childhood education, former President Obama
announced the Preschool for All initiative in his State of the Union Address in 2013 (The White
House, n.d.). Part of the Preschool for All initiative included Race to the Top: Early Learning
Challenge, a competitive fund that was meant to close the academic achievement gap by urging
states to improve program quality and expand access to preschool to all 4-year-olds from low-
and moderate-income families (The White House, n.d.). The initiative was also intended to
expand access to high-quality early education programs for children under the age of 4 including
Early Head Start; full-day kindergarten; and programs that support physical and mental health,
nutrition, and family (The White House, n.d.). By the end of former President Obama’s term in
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 15

2017, 18 states had received funding and 34 states had increased funding for their preschool
programs (The White House, n.d.). Since then, The State of Preschool 2017 Annual Report
found that while states were expanding access to publicly funded programs in a variety of
settings, overall states were not investing adequate resources to address the disparities in student
achievement (NIEER, 2019). Overall, the report stated that while some states were growing early
education enrollment rates and levels of quality, other states were not (NIEER, 2019).
Building on the Preschool for All initiative, in December of 2015, President Obama
signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) into law, which reauthorized the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). This essentially
replaced the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). For the
first time, this reauthorization included preschool as the ESSA promoted the involvement of
local communities, alignment of preschool with elementary school, and the educator’s role in
providing high-quality learning opportunities in early childhood education (U.S. Department of
Education, 2016). The ESSA emphasized the need to utilize direct federal resources to increase
opportunities for children from low-income families (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). In
2017, President Trump’s administration released an updated ESSA Consolidated State Plan
Template (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). U.S. Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos said,
“the streamlined ESSA template will promote innovation, flexibility and accountability to ensure
every child has a chance to learn and succeed” (U.S. Department of Education, 2017, p. 1). As
part of his cradle-to-career initiative aimed to increase educational opportunity for all
Californians, Governor of California, Gavin Newscom, said that his California Promise
campaign called for an expansion of universal preschool, mandatory kindergarten, and early
childhood educator recruitment and professional development (Newsom, 2017).
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 16

Statement of the Problem
Quantitative research has highlighted the importance of pre-kindergarten for children
from low SES backgrounds and the elements that contribute to high pedagogical and classroom
quality. Additionally, as discussed above, efforts are being made to standardize and increase
access to early childhood education. However, preschool and K-12 education continue to be
studied separately (Hamre & Pianta, 2007; NAEYC 2009) because terms such as “quality
teaching” and “developmentally appropriate practice” have different meanings in the context of
early childhood education (Hamre & Pianta, 2007). Moreover, the array of schooling experiences
that children are exposed to before entering kindergarten hinders researchers to have a clear
picture of the learning opportunities available to young children (Hamre & Pianta, 2007).
Ultimately, there is a lack of qualitative research that examines the way in which preschools
provide opportunities to learn for these children. Specifically, how participants in a pre-
kindergarten classroom interact has received little attention in the literature. It is problematic that
practitioners in pre-kindergarten settings do not currently have access to literature that models
how to provide learning opportunities through interactions between the teacher and students as
well as between students and their peers.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate how opportunities for meaningful learning
and interactions between participants in a classroom materialized in a preschool setting.
Therefore, this study aimed to answer the following research question and sub-questions:
1. How do pre-kindergarten environments provide meaningful learning opportunities to
children from low SES backgrounds?
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 17

a. What do interactions between a teacher and her students look like in a pre-
kindergarten classroom?
b. What do interactions between students and their peers look like in a pre-
kindergarten classroom?
Significance of the Study
This problem is significant as an opportunity gap between children from high and low
SES backgrounds currently exists prior to even entering kindergarten, which may continue
throughout their K-12 experiences as well. Literature has shown that preschoolers from low SES
backgrounds do not equally participate in preschool (NCES, 2016), receive the same quality of
education (LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Pianta et al., 2005), or achieve as well as their
classmates from higher SES backgrounds (Henry & Rickman, 2007; Reynolds et al., 2001). By
examining what actually happened in identified successful pre-kindergarten classrooms, I hope
to ultimately use the contents of this study to inform my decisions on how to provide meaningful
learning opportunities to pre-kindergarteners from low SES backgrounds so that these children
may also equally participate in school, receive the same quality of education, and academically
and socially achieve as well as their peers from higher SES backgrounds.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation consists of five chapters guided by the identified research question and
sub-questions. The first chapter provided context to the identified problem as well as the purpose
and significance of this study. The second chapter explores literature that discusses the
components of preschool environments that appear to provide meaningful learning opportunities
to children, as well as associated learning theories. The chapter concludes with a conceptual
framework that represents concepts that emerged from the literature and guided my study. The
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 18

third chapter examines the methods and instruments that were used to collect and analyze the
data, including an overview of the study’s research design, targeted sample and population, as
well limitations and delimitations. The chapter concludes by examining steps that I took to
increase the study’s credibility and trustworthiness and ensure that the study was conducted
ethically. The fourth chapter examines the study’s findings. Lastly, the fifth chapter provides a
brief summary of the first three chapters as well as an overview of the findings presented in
chapter four. It then looks at the study’s implications and recommendations for teacher practice,
educational policy, and future research.

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 19

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This dissertation looked at how pre-kindergarten environments provided students with
learning opportunities that were meaningful. The purpose of the literature review is to examine
empirical and theoretical research in relation to the following research questions:
1. How do pre-kindergarten environments provide meaningful learning opportunities to
children from low SES backgrounds?
a. What do interactions between a teacher and her students look like in a pre-
kindergarten classroom?
b. What do interactions between students and their peers looks like in a pre-
kindergarten classroom?
The following chapter first presents the empirical evidence regarding learning opportunities for
young children, and then addresses two learning theories that were reflected in the empirical
research–constructivism and sociocultural theory. This is followed by the study’s conceptual
framework and an overall summary of the chapter.
Learning Opportunities for Young Children
This section explores empirical studies related to children’s learning opportunities in pre-
kindergarten settings. The research included in this section represents the key components of
environments that appear to provide meaningful learning opportunities to young children,
especially to those from low SES backgrounds. Throughout the research process, it seemed that
the most relevant studies could be grouped according to four major themes: opportunities to learn
through discovery-based learning, play, peer effects, and the classroom climate.

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 20

Discovery Learning
The literature represented in this section discusses the incorporation of discovery-based
learning in pre-kindergarten environments. The studies were selected as they demonstrated a
relationship between exploration and preschoolers’ learning outcomes. This informed my
approach to addressing the research question, as exploration contributes to environments
supporting preschoolers’ learning. The first study included in this section compared children’s
developmental and learning outcomes in classrooms that used a child-initiated model to children
in classrooms that used a direct instructional approach or a blend of child-initiated and direct
instruction. The second study was set outside of the classroom and was guided by two
experiments that compared children’s behaviors and learning when exposed to targeted
instruction to explore a toy versus given no instruction and only time to explore the toy. Finally,
the third study discussed the effect of incorporating child-initiated and teacher-initiated activities
in pre-kindergarten classrooms. The studies are intentionally placed in chronological order to
demonstrate how the inclusion of discovery learning in pre-kindergarten settings has developed
over time.
The goal of Marcon’s (1999) quantitative study was to compare and evaluate
preschoolers’ development and mastery of basic skills in child-initiated (Model CI),
academically directed (Model AD), and middle-of-the-road (Model M) classrooms derived from
teachers’ survey responses of their beliefs and practices. The study classified Model CI
classrooms as those that led children to direct their own actions with the environment in ways
that were facilitated by the teacher and allowed for exploration. Model AD classrooms used a
more traditional instructional approach in which the teacher was in control of the learning that
took place through scripted and thoroughly sequenced lessons with a heavy focus on practice and
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 21

drill. The study described Model M classrooms as a blend of ideas of child development and a
competency-based curriculum. It should be noted that while the study made clear that Model M
classrooms were a blend of the theories adopted by the teachers in the Model CI and Model AD
classrooms, it also stated that Model M classrooms were not associated with sociocultural theory.
The Pre-K survey of Beliefs and Practices was created for this 3-year study and used to
classify the classrooms into one of the three models (Marcon, 1999). The survey results indicated
teachers’ beliefs of appropriate instructional approaches in early education as well as practices
they actually implemented in the classroom. One hundred ninety-three pre-kindergarten and
Head Start teachers completed the survey (94% return rate) in 123 tuition-free public schools in
the District of Columbia. Ten of the classes included in the study were half-day. Teachers were
assured that survey responses were confidential and that only programs would be evaluated, not
individual teachers. Based on the survey results, cluster analysis was used to classify classrooms.
Of the 114 classrooms included in the study, 42 were classified as Model CI, 18 as Model AD,
and 54 as Model M. Finally, 65 classrooms in 52 schools were selected from this sample that
proportionally represented the three different classroom models and exhibited a range of SES
qualities and program type. Classrooms were omitted if teachers modified their instruction in a
way that altered their classroom classification. Using the Classroom Practices Inventory, data
collectors who did not know of the classroom’s classification also observed each classroom for 4
to 6 hours to search for universal differences that paralleled with the model definitions. To verify
that classrooms were classified correctly, experimenters interviewed the early education
supervisors of Pre-K, Head Start, and Early Childhood Special Education. Researchers also
conducted independent observations in nearly all classrooms. Finally, a subsample of teachers
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 22

was given a second copy of the Pre-K Survey of Beliefs and Practices to retest the instrument’s
reliability. The reliability results indicated response stability.
Sixty-two teachers (95% return rate) from 50 schools (96% return rate) returned a total
of 721 children’s (80% return rate) data forms (Marcon, 1999). Of these 721 children included in
the study, 241 (33% of the sample) were enrolled in Model CI classrooms, 235 (33% of the
sample) in Model AD classrooms, and 245 (34% of the sample) in Model M classrooms. The
early education supervisors of Pre-K, Head Start, and Early Childhood Special Education
reported that the teachers included in each model represented a range of teacher qualifications
and experience. All teachers were college graduates certified to teach in the District of Columbia
Public Schools with a median teaching experience of 14 years. Most teachers were African
American and female. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of teacher
qualifications and experiences across all models. Children’s mean age was 4 years and 10
months. Ninety-five percent of the children included in the study were African American and
51% girls. Sixty-nine percent of the children qualified for subsidized school lunch and 59% lived
in single-parent homes. Covariates controlling for race, economic differences, and child-adult
ratio were included since Model CI classrooms served more Caucasian students and had a lower
child-adult ratio.
Teachers used the Classroom Edition of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales and the
district’s report card, Early Childhood Progress Report, to evaluate students’ skills (Marcon,
1999). The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales assessed children’s development of
communication skills (receptive, expressive, and written language), daily living skills (personal,
domestic, and community), socialization skills (interpersonal relationships, play and leisure time,
and coping), and gross and fine motor skills. Experimenters phone interviewed a stratified
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 23

sample of the first cohort’s parents using the Survey Edition of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior
Scales and a questionnaire measuring parents’ overall satisfaction with their children’s preschool
program. No statistical differences were found between parents’ and teachers’ survey responses
except for ratings on children’s daily living skills. Parents, especially single parents of children
enrolled in Model M classrooms, had rated their children’s daily living skills higher than
teachers did. Teachers used the Early Childhood Progress Report to compare children’s
classroom performance with district expectations of skills mastery based on the adopted
competency-based curriculum. Students received a grade point average (GPA) based on their
math/science, verbal, social, and physical skills. Data collectors explained the procedures for
completing these instruments to teachers prior. Teachers were also individually interviewed
about their qualifications and classroom environment but were never informed of their model
classification. The early education supervisors of Pre-K, Head Start, and Early Childhood
Special Education agreed with the instruments used to evaluate students.
Overall, the study showed that children taught by teachers who adopted a single theory of
how young children learn (either Model CI or Model AD) demonstrated stronger development
and mastery of basic skills than children served by teachers who tried to blend different
approaches (Marcon, 1999). Moreover, results indicated that children in the Model CI
classrooms exhibited greater mastery of basic skills compared to children in Model AD
classrooms. Mean scores on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales were lower for students
enrolled in Model M classrooms compared to Model AD and Model CI classrooms in all areas
except in daily living skills. Children in Model CI classrooms exceeded children enrolled in
Model AD classes in receptive and expressive language, personal, interpersonal, and gross motor
skills. Children in Model AD classrooms were significantly higher than Model CI children in
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 24

written language and play and leisure time skills. While children in Model CI and Model AD
classrooms had higher GPAs than children in Model M classrooms, overall, children in Model CI
classrooms performed better than children in Model AD classrooms in all areas. Report card
scores were lower in all areas for Model M students than those of Model CI students. They were
also lower than Model AD students in all areas except for math and science. Furthermore, the
study indicated that boys tended to score lower than girls across all models, especially those
enrolled in Model M classrooms.
Marcon (1999) noted that there were a few limitations that may have hindered the
generalizability of the present study. One such limitation was that all results were a product of
teacher ratings. Although there were several checks in place, teacher quality was not controlled,
and some teachers may have been more strict or lenient according to which skills they felt were
more important for the given student population. Teachers’ judgments of their students could
have been affected by comparing children in the sample to their classmates within the classroom.
Acting on that understanding, the author suggested that teacher expectations could have skewed
results, as teachers with lower expectations may have provided fewer learning opportunities to
children. The fact that there were significant differences in performance between boys and girls
could have possibly been attributed to teacher bias as well (Marcon, 1999). Second, the author
stated that unknown factors could have affected the overall findings. For example, although
parents did not choose their child’s preschool model, neither did the experimenters randomly
assign children to the different models. Since there was a lack of pretest data, children across all
models could not be compared before preschool entry. The study also did not account for any
family characteristics, such as parental education and values (Marcon, 1999). Even so, while the
study may have been limited in these ways, according to Marcon (1999), it demonstrated that
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 25

child-initiated and academically directed approaches provided benefits to children in different
areas of their development and mastery of basic skills. While blending them in a way done by the
teachers in this study was found to be ineffective, adopting each theory individually promoted
greater learning in certain areas (Marcon, 1999). This was especially true for classrooms in
which students were given the opportunity to take a more active role in their learning process,
such as in the Model CI classrooms (Marcon, 1999).
Bonawitz et al. (2011) conducted two experiments to investigate the effects of instruction
on exploratory play. The aim of the first experiment was to evaluate how pedagogy targeted to
teach a particular task influenced exploration. In the first experiment, the authors hypothesized
that when children receive explicit instruction regarding a specific function of a toy from a
knowledgeable teacher, they would be less likely to discover the toy’s other functions as they
might assume that there was nothing else to learn. The goal of the second experiment was to
understand if children engaged in the same pedagogical behavior when observing an adult or
child learner receive explicit instruction from a knowledgeable teacher. The authors
hypothesized that if children require that instruction be specifically directed to them, then they
would not engage in the same pedagogical behavior when observing another child or adult
receive explicit instruction. However, if children do not require instruction to be directed
specifically to them, then they would engage in the same pedagogical behavior when observing
another child receive explicit instruction. The basis of this hypothesis was that children were
thought to share a similar set of prior beliefs as opposed to those of adults. The methods and
results of the initial experiment will be discussed first followed by those of the second
experiment.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 26

Eighty-five preschoolers participated in the first experiment, which was held in an urban
Science Museum (Bonawitz et al., 2011). The average age of the participants was 4 years and 10
months. While the children represented a range of ethnicities, most were White and middle-class.
No other information about the children or location was provided. Twenty-five of the children
participated in the Pedagogical group and 20 in each of the Non-Pedagogical groups: Interrupted,
Naïve, and Baseline. Each child was observed individually and played with the same novel toy.
The toy had four functions: 1. a squeak sound produced when a yellow tube was pulled from a
larger purple tube, 2. a light produced when a small button inside a blue tube was pressed, 3.
music played when different parts of a yellow pad were pressed, and 4. reflection of the
observer’s face produced on two mirrors on two connected black tubes. The teacher brought the
toy out from under the table in each observation. The teacher in the Pedagogical group showed
the child how pulling the yellow tube from the purple tube produced a squeak sound. The same
routine was performed in the Interrupted group, except that the teacher interrupted herself after
demonstrating the function saying that she had forgotten to write something down. In the Naïve
group, the teacher pulled the yellow tube to make the squeak sound but acted as if it was by
accident. The teacher seemed surprised while pulling the yellow tube again to make the squeak
sound. The teacher in the Baseline group showed the child the toy, but none of its functions. The
authors clarified that although the teacher still showed the targeted function of the toy in two of
the three Non-Pedagogical groups, they were still all considered to be non-pedagogical, as the
learner did not perceive the teacher to intentionally choose what to teach based on a particular
hypothesis. In all instances, the teacher left the child alone to play with the toy afterwards until
he/she was done playing. All observations were videotaped and coded by a researcher unaware
of the hypothesis.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 27

The results of the first experiment supported Bonawitz et al.’s (2011) hypothesis. The
authors found that children in the Pedagogical group played with the toy for significantly less
time than children in the three Non-Pedagogical groups. Children in the Pedagogical group also
performed fewer different actions on the toy than did children in the Non-Pedagogical groups.
Additionally, children in the Pedagogical group played with the yellow tube that produced the
squeak sound for a greater proportion of time compared to children in the Interrupted and Naïve
groups. Finally, children in the Pedagogical group discovered fewer of the toy’s non-
demonstrated functions than did children in the Non-Pedagogical groups. The results indicated
that focused instruction limited exploration and confirmed the absence of anything not explicitly
taught.
Sixty-four preschoolers participated in the second experiment, which was located in a
metropolitan Science Museum (Bonawitz et al., 2011). The average age of the participants was 5
years and 1 month. Similar to the first experiment, the children represented a range of ethnicities,
however most were White and middle-class. No other information about the children or location
was provided. Sixteen children participated in each of the four groups: Direct, Indirect Child,
Indirect Adult, or Intentional. An additional 16 children participated as the primary learners in
the Indirect Child group and 16 adults participated as the primary learners in the Indirect Adult
group. The same toy from the first experiment was used in the second experiment. The children
in the Direct group received the same instruction as those in the Pedagogical group in the first
experiment. In the Indirect Child and Indirect Adult groups, the teacher told the child that she
would be back and then went to a nearby table and performed the same demonstration to either
another child (Indirect Child) or adult (Indirect Adult). The teacher in the Intentional group
showed the child the toy and then walked away to a nearby table where she talked aloud to
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 28

herself and experimented with the toy by making it squeak. In both the Indirect and the
Intentional groups, the teacher walked back to the child after the child had observed the teacher
pull the tube to make the squeak sound. The teacher told the child to play with the toy and to let
him/her know when he/she were done. Similar to the first experiment, the teacher left the child
alone to play with the toy in all instances until he/she was done playing. All observations were
videotaped and coded by a researcher unaware of the hypothesis.
Bonawitz et al.’s (2011) hypothesis was supported in the second experiment as well. The
children in the Direct and Indirect Child groups performed fewer different actions on the toy
compared to children in the Indirect Adult and Intentional groups. Furthermore, children in the
Direct and Indirect Child groups played with the yellow tube that produced the squeak sound for
a greater proportion of time than did children in the Indirect Adult and Intentional groups. Also,
children in the Direct and Indirect Child discovered fewer of the toy’s non-demonstrated
functions compared to children in the Indirect Adult and Intentional groups. The findings of the
second experiment extended those of the first experiment in that explicit instruction constrained
exploration even when the child was not the direct recipient of that instruction. By observing
another child receive explicit instruction, the observing child limited his/her interaction with the
toy to the targeted function. This however was not true when observing an adult receive the same
instruction as Bonawitz et al. (2011) suggested that children were aware that their prior beliefs
were similar to those of other children as opposed to those of adults’. The authors argued the
possibility that the children simply paid less attention to the unfamiliar adult than the unfamiliar
child was not probable since the observing children were equally as likely to perform the
demonstrated function in the Indirect Adult and Intentional groups.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 29

While the study’s results demonstrated the importance of providing children
opportunities to explore novel ideas in order to discover and learn beyond targeted instruction,
the authors stated that their findings did not suggest eliminating direct instruction entirely
(Bonawitz et al., 2011). They proposed a balance of direct instruction and discovery learning in
which the teacher was aware of how knowledgeable and helpful he/she was to the learner and
how likely the learner was to discover novel information on his/her own. Moreover, Bonawitz et
al.’s (2011) findings showed that learning opportunities did not require children to be the direct
recipients of instruction in order to act upon the targeted instruction. By observing learners, who
were assumed to hold prior beliefs similar to their own, children engaged in pedagogical
demonstrations even as indirect recipients of instruction.
Bonawitz et al.’s (2011) study was limited in its methodology. They suggested adopting
certain protocols could have strengthened the study’s findings. Considering the authors applied
the concept of similar prior beliefs to explain the findings of the second experiment, they might
have considered asking children for their interpretations and why they acted differently when
instruction was delivered to children versus to adults. The generalizability of the study may have
been affected by using a predominantly White, middle-class population as well. This limited
sample could have skewed the results, and thus the overall findings. Additionally, the authors did
not clarify how the participants were selected and if any were purposely included or excluded.
Siraj-Blatchford and Sylva (2004) conducted a qualitative study that examined the
incorporation of teacher- and child-initiated activities in pre-kindergarten settings. The study
collected data from the 5-year Effective Provision for Pre-school Education study conducted in
England. The authors employed a stratified random sampling approach that selected a sample of
12 pre-kindergarten settings, which included a playgroup, a local authority day care, three private
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 30

day nurseries, two locally run nursery schools, three nursery classrooms as part of primary
schools, and two excellence centers. Approximately 10 boys and 10 girls were observed in each
setting, which accumulated to a total of 254 children. From this sample, 141 were then randomly
selected for further observations. Additional information regarding the participants of the study
was not provided.
Trained researchers used various methods for data collection, such as documentary
analysis, observations, interviews, and focus group discussions (Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva, 2004).
The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale: Revised (ECERS-R) was used to rate the
quality of the classroom environment. Classroom observations were conducted over a period of 3
weeks along with semi-structured staff and parent interviews. Child assessments, specifically of
verbal comprehension, vocabulary, alphabet knowledge, rhyme/alliteration, standardized tests of
reading and math, similarities seen in pictures, and block building were obtained for analysis.
Preschool teachers used the Adaptive Social Behavioural Inventory to rate children’s social and
emotional adjustment in the classroom. The study controlled for family and child characteristics
but did not specify which characteristics.
The authors indicated that most of the settings in the study incorporated elements of
teacher- and child-initiated frameworks (Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva, 2004). Most of the
classrooms observed demonstrated good or excellent pedagogy. One of the ways the good and
excellent classrooms were distinguished was by the role of the teacher. In good settings, the
teacher used monitoring more often in his/her interactions with the child, whereas, in excellent
settings, the teacher assumed a more active role. The teachers and staff in all settings
demonstrated strong leadership and good communication.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 31

The results of the study suggested that the most effective settings for child development
provided a balance of teacher- and child-initiated opportunities (Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva, 2004).
Classrooms that exhibited teacher-initiated group activities and opportunities that allowed
children to choose which instructive and play activities to engage in served as the most effective
type of pedagogy. Therefore, the results from this study indicated that a balance of both types of
frameworks, teacher- and child-initiated, were necessary in order to support learning. Moreover,
activities that were carefully designed, whether teacher- or child-initiated, were considered to be
most effective.
The role of the teacher was equally important in teacher- or child-initiated activities
(Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva, 2004). The quantity and quality of the teacher’s instructional support
appeared to be directly related to children’s cognitive outcomes. In this sense, the way in which a
teacher provided sensitive scaffolding within the child’s zone of proximal development was key
to the child’s learning and development. Even during free play, children seemed to achieve most
when the teacher and child participated in co-construction of knowledge, referred to as sustained
shared thinking throughout the study. However, the authors emphasized that in order for
sustained shared thinking to occur, children should be motivated to construct knowledge and the
teacher should understand and engage in the process of co-construction. The study revealed that
worksheets and didactic teaching were considered to be unhelpful when trying to achieve shared
thinking, and rather, socio-dramatic play centers allowed for rich child-adult interactions to
occur. The findings indicated that it was the point at which adults “extended a child-initiated
episode” (Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva, 2004, p. 723) through the use of scaffolding, modeling,
instruction, conversation, or open-ended questions that most influenced children’s learning or
skill development.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 32

Although Marcon (1999), Bonawitz et al. (2010), and Siraj-Blatchford and Sylva’s
(2004) studies were conducted in very different environments, the results indicated that there was
a positive relationship between children’s participation in exploration and their learning
outcomes, thus demonstrating that providing time for discovery learning was important in pre-
kindergarten environments. Moreover, while the literature demonstrated that student exploration
was associated with positive outcomes, it should be noted that these experiences were carefully
facilitated by the teacher as evident in Marcon’s (1999) and Siraj-Blatchford and Sylva’s (2004)
studies. Therefore, it can be concluded that students made gains when a more knowledgeable
other could guide the learner through the discovery process to co-construct knowledge. The
studies also suggested that direct instruction, specifically teacher-initiated activities, should not
be entirely eliminated from preschool settings, as a balance between teacher- and child-directed
learning were important for children’s development and academic growth. It can be inferred that
children’s learning experiences could be enriched when given the opportunity to engage in both
teacher- and child-initiated activities. While Siraj-Blatchford and Sylva’s (2004) study did show
how the teacher could provide opportunities for knowledge construction in the classroom, the
other two studies included in this section did not explain how exploration promoted children’s
learning. For example, Marcon’s (1999) study did not investigate why or how children in child-
initiated classrooms achieved higher GPAs, and Bonawitz et al.’s (2010) study did not take
children’s perspectives into account to determine their reasons for acting the way they did in
both experiments. Moving forward, it is important to understand the quality of interactions and
environment in the classroom that provide opportunities for learning. The next topic that will be
explored in relation to preschoolers’ learning opportunities is the context of play.

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 33

Play
This section discusses children’s learning outcomes as related to how children play in
preschool. These studies focused on two types of play in a pre-kindergarten setting: peer play
and guided play. Therefore, the studies have been organized to first demonstrate the influence of
peer play on students’ learning followed by that of guided play. The studies selected for this
section reflected how children’s opportunities to participate in peer or guided play and the
quality of the play affected their learning and behavioral outcomes in the classroom. The first
four studies included in this section relied on quantitative methods while the last study used
qualitative methods. These studies were chosen as they demonstrated how pre-kindergarten
environments that promote play provided children with opportunities to construct meaning,
develop positive learning behaviors, and learn concepts of language.
Peer play. This section includes three quantitative studies that demonstrate the
relationships between peer play and preschoolers’ behavioral and learning outcomes in the
classroom.
Coolahan, Fantuzzo, Mendez, and McDermott’s (2000) quantitative study aimed to
understand the relationships between children’s interactive peer play skills and their learning
behaviors in a pre-kindergarten setting. The authors hypothesized that interactive peer play skills,
described as positive peer play interactions, would be associated with low levels of problem
behaviors and high levels of three specific learning behaviors: competence motivation,
persistence, and attitude. Coolahan et al. (2000) also expected that disruptive peer play
interactions, characterized by aggressive and hostile behavior, would be associated with high
levels of problem behaviors and low levels of the three identified learning behaviors.
Furthermore, the authors expected that disconnected play, such as behaviors that socially isolated
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 34

children, would be associated with behaviors that were withdrawn from the classroom and low-
learning behaviors, specifically, attention and persistence. Additionally, Coolahan et al. (2000)
investigated whether age and gender were related to children’s peer play interactions. The
authors hypothesized that older children would participate in more positive peer play interactions
compared to younger children. The authors also expected girls to engage in more positive peer
play interactions compared to boys, who were expected to demonstrate higher levels of
disruptive peer play.
The current study drew data from 556 children (75% response rate) in 14 Head Start
centers in a city in northeast Unites States (Coolahan, Fantuzzo, Mendez, & McDermott, 2000).
Parents of participating children were given a demographic questionnaire to complete. Children’s
mean age was 4 years and 11 months. Fifty-one percent of the sample was boys, 87% African
American, 9% Caucasian, and 1% Asian and Other. Sixty-four percent of children came from
single-parent households and 25% from two-parent households. Forty-three teachers
administered the assessments given to children at the end of the school year. Each classroom
received $5.00 worth of supplies for each child who participated in the study. Additional
information regarding the teachers was not provided. The researchers had shared the objectives
of the current study with parent leaders and teachers.
Researchers used several measures to assess children’s peer play skills and learning
behaviors in the classroom (Coolahan et al., 2000). Teachers used the Penn Interactive Peer Play
Scale (PIPPS-T) to rate children’s behavior as Play Interaction, Play Disruption, or Play
Disconnection. Teachers used the Preschool Learning Behavior Scale to evaluate three
dimensions of children’s learning behaviors: competence motivation, persistence, and attitude.
The competence motivation dimension measured children’s interest in classroom learning
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 35

activities. The persistence dimension was used to assess children’s level of attention during
classroom activities and individual tasks. The attitude dimension focused on children’s
tendencies to cooperate in the classroom and how they expressed themselves in challenging
situations. Finally, three subscales of the Conners’ Rating Scale Manual were used to evaluate
children’s problem behaviors: Conduct Problems, Hyperactivity, and Inattentive-Passive.
Children who demonstrated acts of aggressive behavior were considered to have conduct
problems. Children who were consistently agitated or impulsive were considered to exhibit
hyperactivity behaviors. The Inattentive-Passive subscale was used to identify children who were
easily distracted and disconnected from others.
The results of the study supported Coolahan et al.’s (2000) hypotheses. Regarding the
first hypothesis, the authors found that interactive peer play skills were positively related to
children’s learning behaviors. Children with strong interactive peer play skills demonstrated
higher levels of all three learning behaviors as well as a willingness to learn and cooperate in
classroom activities compared to their peers who participated in disruptive or disconnected peer
play. Children who practiced disruptive play did not consistently practice the learning behaviors,
especially attention and persistence. If anything, they demonstrated poor learning behaviors, such
as not accepting help from the teacher and not putting in effort when given educational
challenges. They demonstrated high levels of conduct problems and hyperactivity in the
classroom and often played alone and did not get along with their peers. Children participating in
disconnected play demonstrated tendencies of being inattentive-passive and low levels of
motivation. The present study showed that preschoolers with high levels of interactive peer play
skills demonstrated learning behaviors associated with school readiness as opposed to
preschoolers who practiced disruptive or disconnected peer play skills (Coolahan et al., 2000).
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 36

Therefore, the authors inferred that providing opportunities to children to acquire interactive peer
play skills was important to develop behaviors associated with learning.
Coolahan et al. (2000) found that age and gender were also correlated with children’s
peer play skills as expected. The authors found that older children displayed higher levels of
interactive peer play skills compared to younger children. Acting on that understanding,
Coolahan et al. (2000) reasoned that children became more social as they grew older, allowing
their social-cognitive skills to develop. Additionally, the authors found support for their
hypothesis that boys demonstrated lower levels of interactive peer play skills and higher levels of
disruptive and disconnected peer play compared to girls. Coolahan et al. (2000) asserted that
boys were more likely to be aggressive due to biological and social effects. Taking this into
account, the authors concluded that the older girls exhibited the highest levels of interactive peer
play skills in the study.
Certain limitations might have affected the study’s outcomes (Coolahan et al., 2000).
Relying on measures that were all teacher-reported subjected the study to shared-method
variance. In this way, teacher bias might have played a role in the results. Since all the
assessments were administered during a single month at the end of the year, teachers’ responses
might have reflected behaviors at that time instead of throughout the year (Coolahan et al.,
2000). In this sense, a longitudinal study would have provided greater reliability. Additionally,
the sample was predominantly African American. This not only affected the generalizability of
the study’s findings to other ethnic groups, but also, could have created teacher racial bias
towards teachers’ expectations of the boys’ behavior.
The primary purpose of Bulotsky-Shearer, Bell, Romero, and Carter’s (2012) quantitative
study was to investigate whether the relationship between student problem behavior and learning
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 37

outcomes depended on the students’ interactive peer play skills in a pre-kindergarten setting. The
study was guided by the following research questions: “a. Do preschool interactive peer play
competencies mediate associations between early externalizing and internalizing problem
behavior and learning outcomes? b. Is the mediating mechanism different for boys and girls?”
(Bulotsky-Shearer, Bell, Romero, & Carter, 2012, p. 55). In relation to the first research
question, the authors hypothesized that interactive peer play skills would mediate the association
between problem behavior and learning outcomes. Furthermore, they expected that boys and
younger children would exhibit more problem behavior, lower interactive peer play skills, and
lower learning outcomes. Regarding the second research question, Bulotsky-Shearer et al. (2012)
hypothesized that interactive peer play skills would mediate the relationship between problem
behavior and learning outcomes for girls and not for boys. An alternate model that investigated
whether problem behavior mediated the associations between interactive peer play and learning
outcomes was also tested in the study.
The study randomly selected 507 children (97% response rate) from 46 classrooms
(approximately five boys and five girls in each classroom) within an urban school district Head
Start program in northeast United States (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012). The Head Start program
was part of an initiative to improve the quality of assessments. The average age of the children in
the study was 4.5 years. Fifty-two percent of the children were girls, 74% African American,
12% Caucasian, 8% Hispanic, 6% Asian or Other. Ninety-four percent of the children came from
families with incomes below $12,000. Teams of a certified teacher and assistant teacher taught in
each classroom. All teachers who were requested to participate in the study consented. Sixty-six
percent of teachers were Caucasian and 31% African American. Thirty-eight percent of the
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 38

teachers had taught at Head Start for over 20 years, 27% between 10 and 20 years, and 35% for
fewer than 10 years.
Three measures were used to assess children’s problem behavior, peer play skills, and
academic skills (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012). The Adjustment Scales for Preschool
Intervention (ASPI) was used to assess children’s emotional and behavioral problems within the
classroom at the beginning and end of the school year. The ASPI consisted of five categories to
classify externalizing problem behavior (Aggressive, Oppositional, and Inattentive/Hyperactive)
and internalizing behavior (Withdrawn/Low Energy and Socially Reticent). Teachers used the
PIPPS-T to evaluate children’s peer play skills within the classroom at the beginning and end of
the academic year. The PIPPS-T consisted of three dimensions to categorize children’s peer play
behaviors: Play Interaction, Play Disruption, and Play Disconnection. However, the present
study only used Play Interaction, which reflected positive peer interactions. To assess children’s
learning outcomes at the end of the year, Bulotsky-Shearer et al. (2012) used the Cognitive Skills
dimension, which measured children’s emergent literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving skills.
Controlling for child demographic variables and interactive peer skills assessed in the
beginning of the school year, the authors found support for their first hypothesis, but not for the
second hypothesis or alternate model (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012). Regarding the authors’ first
hypothesis, Bulotsky-Shearer et al. (2012) found that interactive peer play skills mediated the
effects that problem behavior had on children’s learning outcomes. The authors claimed that
children who had demonstrated externalizing and internalizing problem behaviors struggled to
cooperate with their peers, which negatively affected their literacy and mathematical skills at the
end of the school year. Bulotsky-Shearer et al. (2012) asserted that most preschool learning
requires children to interact with their peers, such as small group activities and dramatic play.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 39

Therefore, children who were challenged to engage with their peers also suffered academically.
Regarding the second hypothesis, the authors found that interactive peer play skills did not
mediate the relationship between problem behavior and learning differently for boys and girls.
Therefore, Bulotsky-Shearer et al. (2012) could say with greater confidence that interactive peer
play skills mediated the effects of problem behavior on learning equally for boys and girls.
Additionally, the alternate model that tested whether problem behavior mediated the effects of
interactive peer play on children’s learning outcomes was not supported. This also provided the
authors more validity in their finding in that interactive peer play skills mediated the relationship
between problem behavior and learning.
The present study showed that children’s interactive peer play skills was an important
skill for children with problem behaviors to have in order to learn in the classroom, however the
study was limited in several ways (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012). First, the student sample was
located in the same location and predominantly came from low-income and African American
families, which limited the generalizability of the study’s findings (Bulotsky-Shearer et al.,
2012). Second, results may have been affected by teacher bias as the teacher administered all
three instruments used in the study. The study’s overall findings were largely dependent on how
each teacher used the instrument to evaluate students (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012). Finally, the
authors stated that they did not include certain variables that could have accounted for the
relationship between children’s problem behavior and learning, such as self-regulation, language
and initial cognitive skills. Therefore, the authors may not have had a fully accurate
representation of the students’ learning by the end of the year.
Bulotsky-Shearer, Bell, Carter, and Dietrich’s (2014) quantitative study aimed to
determine whether classroom quality mediated the relationship between interactive peer play and
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 40

children’s academic skills in a pre-kindergarten setting. With that said, Bulotsky-Shearer et al.
(2014) aimed to address the following research questions:
1. What are the associations between dimensions of interactive peer play displayed by
children in the Head Start year and literacy, language, and mathematics skills at the
end of the year?
2. Are these associations moderated by the level of classroom quality? (Bulotsky-
Shearer, Bell, Carter, & Dietrich, 2014, p. 821)
First, Bulotsky-Shearer et al. (2014) hypothesized that interactive peer play would be associated
with higher academic skills and that negative interactive peer play (referred to as disruptive and
disconnected play in the study) would be associated with lower academic skills. Second, the
authors hypothesized that the relationship between interactive peer play and children’s academic
skills would be stronger in high-quality classrooms exhibiting strong instructional, emotional,
and organizational support. Furthermore, the negative relationship between disruptive or
disconnected play and learning would be weakened or completely absent in high-quality
classrooms.
The study was part of a larger university-Head Start partnership project, which involved
eight centers located in urban neighborhoods of southeastern United States (Bulotsky-Shearer et
al., 2014). A subsample of those who provided parental consent was randomly selected,
however, the response rate was not provided. A total of 922 children with a mean age of 4 years
participated in 53 classrooms. Six children (three boys and three girls) were assessed in each
classroom. Of the children included in the study, 51% were girls, 45% African American, 44%
Hispanic, 6% Caucasian, and 5% other, and 41% bilingual, Spanish speaking. All children were
from families who were at least 200% below poverty. Fifty percent of primary caregivers had
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 41

graduated high school and 47% were single parents. A lead teacher and assistant teacher worked
as a team to teach children in each classroom. All lead teachers were female, 64% Hispanic, 28%
African American, and 4% White or Other. Teacher assistants were 98% female, 46% Hispanic,
34% African American, and 20% did not report their ethnicity. Seventeen percent of the lead
teachers held a master’s degree, 57% a bachelor’s degree, 23% an associate degree, and 4% did
not report their level of education. Eleven percent of assistant teachers held a bachelor’s degree
or higher, 68% an associate degree, 6% a high school diploma or an equivalent, and 16% did not
report their level of education. On average teachers and teacher assistants had 13 years and 12
years of experience as a preschool teacher respectively. Researchers had explained the study to
participating teachers.
Teacher assistants used the PIPPS-T to assess the selected children’s peer play
interactions within the classroom at the beginning of the academic year (Bulotsky-Shearer et al.,
2014). The scale measured children’s level of peer play interaction and classified behaviors as
Play Interaction, Play Disruption, or Play Disconnection. As described in previous studies, Play
Interaction reflected positive play behaviors that were considered to be successful peer play
interactions. Play Disruption reflected hostile play behaviors that hindered successful play
interactions. Play Disconnection reflected reserved play behaviors that showed a lack of play
interactions.
Several measures were used to assess classroom quality and children’s academic skills
(Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2014). Observers used the Classroom Assessment Scoring System-
Prekindergarten version (CLASS) to evaluate classroom quality based on three measures:
Emotional Support, Classroom Organization, and Instructional Support. Observers completed a
2-day training to become CLASS-certified. The observers then conducted 20-minute
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 42

observations four times in each classroom during winter. The researchers used the PreLAS2000
to determine in which language academic assessments should be given to students. The Three
subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement or Bateria III Woodcock-Munoz
were used to assess children’s academic skills at the end of the school year: Letter-Word
Identification, Picture Vocabulary, and Applied Problems. The Letter-Word Identification
measured children’s ability to identify icons, letters, and words and to pronounce words
correctly. The Picture Vocabulary evaluated children’s receptive vocabulary skills. The Applied
Problems assessed children’s early numeracy skills.
Controlling for family demographic variables, the study’s findings partially supported the
authors’ hypotheses (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2014). As hypothesized, children who participated
in disruptive play exhibited lower literacy skills, and children who practiced disconnected play
demonstrated lower vocabulary and mathematics skills at the end of the school year. Contrary to
their hypothesis, the authors found that interactive peer play was not directly associated with
academic skills. The authors asserted that perhaps disruptive and disconnected play were larger
contributors to children’s academic skills compared to interactive peer play. Bulotsky-Shearer et
al. (2014) found support for their hypothesis in that the relationship between interactive peer play
and children’s academic skills was moderated by the classroom quality. Specifically, the findings
showed that children who engaged in interactive peer play and received high levels of
instructional support, demonstrated higher mathematical skills. The authors asserted that
mathematics was often taught in structured, small group settings that encouraged students to
participate in cooperative learning with their classmates. Therefore, children who could aptly
interact with their peers thrived in environments in which peer play skills were needed to
develop certain academic skills. However, contrary to their hypotheses, the authors found that
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 43

the relationship between disruptive and disconnected play and academic skills was not
moderated by classroom quality in terms of instructional, organizational, or emotional support.
The authors reasoned that children who displayed disruptive and disconnected play in the
beginning of the school year might have been less engaged in the learning activities in the
classroom regardless of the classroom quality. This specific student population might have
benefited from individualized instruction to learn how to engage with their peers and participate
in learning activities in the classroom (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2014).
While the study demonstrated that children’s interactive peer play skills affected their
academic skills based on the classroom’s quality, there were several limitations that need to be
considered (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2014). First, the researchers did not assess children’s initial
academic skills at the beginning of the year, and therefore, were not able to gain an accurate
understanding of the children’s academic growth throughout the school year (Bulotsky-Shearer
et al., 2014). Second, only evaluating children’s play behaviors at the beginning of the year and
not accounting for any changed behavior patterns throughout the year could have significantly
affected the overall findings (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2014). The authors also did not calculate
the extent to which children displayed levels of disruptive and disconnected play. Bulotsky-
Shearer et al. (2014) suggested that research has shown that children who displayed severe
negative play and children who demonstrated moderate negative play had shown differences in
whether they continued that behavior throughout the year. Acting on that understanding, the
study did not account for children who might have begun the year exhibiting patterns of
disruptive or disconnected play, but ended the year showing otherwise. Finally, peer play
behaviors were also reported by assistant teachers, and therefore, could have been susceptible to
the observer bias (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2014).
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 44

Guided play. This section draws upon a quantitative study and qualitative study that
demonstrate the relationship between play that is guided by adults and children’s learning
outcomes in pre-kindergarten settings.
The purpose of Han, Moore, Vukelich, and Buell’s (2010) quantitative study was to
understand whether incorporating play would enhance at-risk preschoolers’ vocabulary
acquisition. The authors had previously created and used the Explicit Instructional Vocabulary
Protocol (EIVP), a tool that allowed children to associate vocabulary words with pictures and/or
actions. Although Han et al. (2010) had successfully used this tool to increase children’s
expressive and receptive vocabulary, they did not think the tool alone was adequate based on
children’s growth. Consequently, the authors aimed to investigate whether adding play to a
shortened vocabulary intervention using the EIVP would demonstrate greater growth in
children’s vocabulary compared to using the EIVP without play. The current study aspired to
address the following questions:
• Were there differences in the expressive- and receptive-vocabulary growth for those
children receiving EIVP compared to those receiving shortened EIVP + Play
intervention?
• Were there differences in the percentage of children performing at the age-
appropriate level between those children receiving EIVP and those receiving
shortened EIVP + Play intervention?
• Were there differences in the patterns of expressive- and receptive-vocabulary growth
for those children receiving EIVP compared to those receiving shortened EIVP + Play
as measured monthly by a curriculum-based measurement tool? (Han, Moore,
Vukelich, and Buell, 2010, p. 88).
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 45

The study derived data from 49 children selected from a group of 118 pre-kindergarteners
at a Head Start in a mid-Atlantic state (Han et al., 2010). The subsample consisted of children
who were considered to be at the highest risk in their classroom. All children came from low-
income families and had Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (PPVT-III) scores that were below
the standard mean. Of the selected sample, 53% of the children were boys, 65% Hispanic, 24%
African American, 4% Biracial, 4% Other, and 2% Caucasian. Fifty-nine percent of the children
spoke Spanish, 27% spoke English, and 14% were bilingual.
Han et al.’s (2010) study involved two groups–one that received 30 minutes of
intervention using the EIVP (referred to as the EIVP group throughout the study) and the other
that received 20 minutes of intervention using the EIVP and 10 minutes of play (referred to as
EIVP + Play throughout the study). Children were randomly assigned to either EIVP (51%) or
EIVP + Play (49%). Both groups received intervention in the form of tutoring (one adult with
two children) twice every week. While both groups received full instruction, the EIVP group
received it over a span of 30 minutes and the EIVP + Play group received it in 20 minutes,
allowing for 10 minutes of play at the end. Children in the EIVP group were given a visual of the
identified word in a storybook and were given time to say the word, define it, and display an
action or prop representing the word (Han et al., 2010). The EIVP + Play group received the
same content as that given to the EIVP group, but in a shortened period of time so that the last 10
minutes could be reserved for play. During the play portion given to the EIVP + Play group,
adults and children participated in guided dramatic or constructive play with props to provide
deeper meaning of the identified word. Tutors in both groups were given scripts even for the play
portion if applicable. The researchers trained all participating tutors and conducted random
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 46

observations every month. Each tutoring session was recorded, and tutors were required to
document each child’s tutoring session after each intervention.
Researchers assessed children three times throughout the duration of the study to
compare the progress of both groups (Han et al., 2010). The authors used the PPVT-III to
evaluate children’s receptive language skills. The Individual Growth and Development
Indicators: Picture Naming was used to assess how many pictures children could identify within
a minute. Finally, the authors used a curriculum-based measurement tool to evaluate the
effectiveness of the EIVP tool regarding children’s learning.
Results showed that both groups expanded their expressive and receptive vocabulary
after the intervention (Han et al., 2010). While children in the EIVP + Play group demonstrated
greater expressive vocabulary growth than children in the EIVP group, there was no significant
difference in children’s receptive vocabulary growth between the two groups. Prior to the
intervention, all children’s PPVT-III scores were below the standard mean. However, results
indicated that 62.5% of the children in the EIVP + Play group and 44% of the EIVP group met or
exceeded the standard mean (considered to be age-appropriate) after the intervention.
Additionally, the authors found that children in the EIVP + Play group consistently displayed
greater expressive and receptive vocabulary growth throughout the duration of the study.
Overall, while both groups demonstrated greater growth than children not receiving any tutoring,
children in the EIVP + Play group exhibited greater growth than children in the EIVP group. Han
et al. (2010) asserted that the addition of play provided a context for children to further develop
their literacy. Acting on that understanding, play-based learning allowed children to engage in
deeper exploration and learning.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 47

While the study might have demonstrated the educational effectiveness of incorporating
play in academic contexts for pre-kindergarteners, the small sample size and methodology might
have limited the generalizability of the study’s findings (Han et al., 2010). Considering the
sample consisted of 49 children, the study might not have accounted for individual differences
that could have influenced the effectiveness of the interventions. Additionally, the study did not
use a control group to compare the effectiveness of the intervention to another type of
instructional tool.
The purpose of Samuelsson and Johansson’s (2006) qualitative study was to explore the
dimensions of learning in play and the dimensions of play in learning through interactions
between children and teachers in a pre-kindergarten program. The authors investigated the
teacher’s role in either promoting or hindering the integration of play and learning during two
chosen settings consisting of a group activity and mealtime. Acting on that understanding,
Samuelsson and Johansson (2006) aimed to address the following questions:
• How is the play expressed and what kind of dimensions of learning might be
observed? Is there any form of play to be found in the learning situation, and in that
case how is this play characterized?
• Do children show any kind of creation of meaning, and how do the teachers react to
this?
• How is the power of the play distributed? Who plays? Who owns the play? Is the
child allowed to keep his/her play? (Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006, p. 55)
Samuelsson and Johansson’s (2006) study drew data from Johansson’s (2003) study,
which involved 30 groups of children throughout Sweden. Video recordings observing children’s
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 48

daily routines were conducted, from which two were selected for the purpose of this study. No
other information was provided regarding the methodology of the present study.
In the first observation, 15 children between the ages of 1 and 3.5 years were sitting at
three connected tables during mealtime (Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006). The authors noted that
eight of the children were Swedish and the other seven were of a different ethnicity. No other
information about the sample was provided. During the mealtime observation, a child named
Yani discovered how the sun was reflecting on his bib. He looked at the ceiling, laughed, made a
pattern, and said the word giraffe. He then moved his body in way that made the pattern appear
and disappear with each movement. The children and teachers watched Yani engage in this
behavior. One of the teachers said, “It’s amazing that he saw this. Such fantasy, to see a
giraffe…Children, did you see that Yani can do tricks?” (Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006, p. 56).
After saying this, Yani smiled and repeated the word giraffe. The other children also pointed (the
authors did not clarify to what they pointed) and laughed along with the teachers.
Samuelsson and Johansson (2006) concluded that the incident that took place during
mealtime integrated learning and play. Yani discovered the reflection and created meaning in
that the pattern resembled a giraffe. The authors suggested that he was striving to understand the
world around him. He demonstrated feelings of joy by smiling and laughing at his discovery,
affirming it as an action of play. The teachers appeared to promote this integration of play and
learning by actively drawing attention to and praising Yani’s discovery. In this way, the other
children were encouraged to engage in such play and learning. Yani experienced something new
and was encouraged by his teachers to go beyond just having a meal to fantasize and play along
with the other children at the table. Therefore, the authors claimed that the child initiated and
continued to own the play and directed the learning in the situation.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 49

In the second observation, children between the ages 1 and 3 years chose the activities
they wanted to participate in which were in different rooms (Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006).
There were three teachers with the children as they played. Additional information about the
sample was not provided. During the group activity, a teacher was observed at a table with three
children. A child named Nina sat on the teacher’s lap. Another child, Viktoria, had a physical
disability and sat on a highchair next to the teacher. The third child, Hilda, was at the opposite
side of the table. The teacher showed the children five pigs, sang about them, and moved the pigs
one by one to walk around the table, mainly focusing on Hilda. She encouraged Hilda to make
the sound that a pig makes. The teacher sometimes involved Viktoria, but Viktoria had difficulty
keeping her head straight and kept pulling on the tablecloth. The teacher then put a horse in front
of Viktoria, who took it. After some time, the teacher took out some cows, counting as she took
them out, and sang the same song. A little while later, two children, Lisa and Goran, came to the
table and asked if they could play. The teacher invited them to the table and asked Lisa to sing
the song with her. Hilda and Lisa sang along and made sounds like a cow. The teacher took out
some cows and Lisa counted three cows. Each time the teacher added a cow, Lisa answered how
many there were until the teacher added the fifth cow to which Lisa remarked, “She’s stupid”
(Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006, p. 57). After the teacher had Lisa clarify that she was referring
to the cows, she asked Lisa why she thought the cows were stupid. Lisa said, “‘They have
stepped in the puddles’ to which the teacher replied, ‘I see…without rubber boots?’”
(Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006, p. 57). Lisa confirmed this and the teacher responded, “‘Well,
we are not supposed to, are we? You are absolutely right Lisa.’” (Samuelsson & Johansson,
2006, p. 58).
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 50

In reference to this observation, the authors suggested that although the activity was
structured, it still contained elements of play as the children had the opportunity to play with the
farm animals and sing songs about them (Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006). However, Lisa
changed the meaning of the game when she said that the cow was stupid. The teacher prompted
Lisa to understand her thought process and agreed with her reasoning after Lisa explained that
the cow was not wearing rubber boots when stepping in the puddles. This showed that Lisa was
able to relate a game of pretend to her real world in which one can get wet when stepping in
puddles without wearing rain boots. In this way, learning and play were integrated as Lisa
created her own meaning of the situation in a playful and encouraging environment. While
initially the power of play was with the teacher, the situation was reversed when Lisa changed
the course of the game. At this point, Lisa owned the play and was allowed to keep the play as
the teacher participated in her fantasy world.
The authors inferred that integration of learning and play in both observations may not
have been possible without the teacher fostering such behavior (Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006).
Had the teachers separated play and learning by dismissing the children’s actions with the notion
that play interfered with learning, then perhaps the children may not have been able to create
meaning in the ways that they did. The teachers allowed children to change the course of what
was originally intended in each observation–in the first, to eat their meal and in the second, to
count the farm animals and produce their sounds. Consequently, teachers’ nurturing and sensitive
attitudes towards the children allowed children to integrate learning and play in a joyful and
meaningful way. Furthermore, it showed children that adults could participate in their world of
play as well (Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006).
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 51

Being a qualitative study, researcher bias could have interpreted observations in ways
that were not accurate (Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006). For example, the researcher could have
interpreted that learning occurred in a playful manner, when in fact, it did not. Threats to internal
validity exist by relying on a single source of data–observations. Even with the study’s
limitation, Samuelsson and Johansson’s (2009) work demonstrated that play could provide
learning opportunities to children in ways that may not have been expected, but still significant.
Additionally, teachers could promote the integration of play and learning by becoming an
integral part of that process.
The studies in this section indicated that peer play (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012;
Bulotsky-Shearer et al. 2014; Coolahan et al., 2000) and guided play (Han et al., 2010;
Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006) were positively related to children’s learning behaviors and
outcomes. Moreover, the results suggested that the teacher’s role in encouraging children to
develop interactive peer play skills or participating in guided play further supported children to
engage in play and learn. In this sense, the studies demonstrated that by promoting play and
using it as an educational tool, pre-kindergarten environments can provide opportunities for
learning especially for children from low-income families or those identified as at risk. While
Samuelsson and Johansson’s (2006) study and, to a certain extent, Han et al.’s (2010) study
demonstrated how play and learning were integrated and achieved, the other studies in this
section, namely those that were related to peer play, did not. Therefore, it was still important to
understand what aspects of peer play leads to children’s learning outcomes, so to better identify
in which ways teachers can provide children with learning opportunities in the classroom.
Another identified way pre-kindergarten environments can provide learning opportunities for
children are through peer interactions, which were examined next.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 52

Peer Effects
The studies included in this section discuss the effects of peers’ higher abilities on
children with lower abilities. The studies indicate that classrooms that provide opportunities for
children to interact with each other, especially higher-skilled children with lower-skilled
children, can support learning in pre-kindergarten environments. All studies in this section use
quantitative methods to show the influence of peers’ skills on children’s language and reading
outcomes in pre-kindergarten. The studies have been arranged to show the increasing complexity
of the topic and the number of ways that peer effects can be manifested.
Henry and Rickman (2007) conducted a quantitative study to examine the effects that
peers had on their classmates’ academic outcomes in preschool. By using the definitions of peer
effects as “the effects of the ability of peers” (p. 103) and ability as “a measure of what a child
knows and can do that may influence her peers” (p. 103), the authors hypothesized that “the
ability level of a child’s peers in preschool will produce positive, additive effects on the growth
of the child’s skills” (Henry & Rickman, 2007, p. 107).
The authors drew their data from the Early Childhood Study in Georgia. This study
followed 4-year-olds who attended fulltime preschool during the 2001-2002 academic school
year at Georgia’s tuition-free pre-kindergarten program, Head Start, and private preschools to
their kindergarten year. A total of 128 centers were randomly selected of which 69 were
Georgia’s Pre-K, 28 Head Start, and 28 private schools. Henry and Rickman (2007) included
classrooms in which they had assessments for at least five children and therefore included 119
classrooms in the study. The authors randomly selected six children from each classroom whose
parents had signed consent forms, however, the study did not provide the rate of parental
consent. The final sample consisted of 630 children (353 Georgia’s Pre-K, 134 Head Start, and
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 53

143 private school) of which 81% participated during their kindergarten year. Fifty-three percent
of children were boys, 50.4% White, 38% African American, and 11.6% other.
Student data was derived from several assessments (Henry & Rickman, 2007). The
Woodcock Johnson: Applied Problems was used to measure children’s cognitive skills. The
Woodcock Johnson: Letter Word Recognition and the PPVT assessed children’s language and
pre-reading skills. The Story and Print Concepts was used to evaluate children’s familiarity with
and comprehension of material that was read to them. The Oral and Written Language Scales
(OWLS) assessed children’s expressive language. Since this was a longitudinal study, trained
staff administered all assessments at the beginning of the preschool and kindergarten years,
except for the OWLS assessment, which was administered during the fall and spring terms of
preschool. Unique to this study was the child development production function, which was used
to evaluate the effects of peer abilities on their classmates’ skill development.
Henry and Rickman (2007) found support for their hypothesis in that peers’ abilities did
produce a positive effect on children’s reading, language, and comprehension skills. Higher peer
abilities were associated with higher child receptive vocabulary, expressive language, cognitive
abilities, and greater familiarity with print materials and comprehension skills. It should be noted
that the authors did not make clear whether children considered to exhibit higher abilities also
came from higher SES backgrounds. The study accounted for peers’ general abilities, the child’s
skills at the beginning of preschool, the gender and racial composition of the classroom, school
input variables (classroom environment as measured by the ECERS-R, various teacher variables,
total number of students in the class, and program type), and family characteristics (family
income, receipt for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, whether both parents had lived
with the child since birth, and mother’s education level). However, Henry and Rickman (2007)
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 54

found that these variables did not explain the positive effects of peers’ abilities on the child’s
academic growth. Further, the study revealed that time spent on discipline, the gender and racial
composition of the classroom, and teacher motivation were not significant factors that influenced
the results.
While Henry and Rickman’s (2007) study showed a positive relationship between peer
abilities and a child’s skill development, the study could have yielded different results had all
classmates been assessed instead of the six randomly selected. A sample that included all
students would have produced more accurate results, which may have affected the overall
findings of the study. Despite the study’s limitation, Henry and Rickman’s (2007) work
demonstrated that peer abilities affected their classmates’ academic growth regardless of the
children’s SES backgrounds. In this way, interaction with peers provided children with certain
language learning opportunities within the classroom.
The goal of Justice, Petscher, Schatschneider, and Mashuburn’s (2011) quantitative study
was to further contribute to existing research about peers’ effects on their classmates’ language
skills in preschool. The authors’ first objective was to evaluate whether peers’ language skills
had an effect on that of their classmates’. Justice et al.’s (2011) second objective was to
investigate whether peer effects influenced certain students more than others based on their
initial language skill level. The authors conjectured that children with less developed language
skills compared to their peers with more developed skills would benefit the most and that peers
with more developed skills would be unaffected by their peers’ language skills.
The study’s sample included 338 children enrolled in 49 publicly funded preschools that
prioritized children from low-family incomes (Justice, Petscher, Schatschneider, & Mashuburn’s,
2011). On average, seven children were assessed in each classroom, the equivalent of 44% of
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 55

each classroom’s enrollment. The data represented children of which 53% were boys, 94%
primarily from English-speaking homes, 50% White, 36% African American, 6% Latino, and
8% Other.
Trained research staff assessed the children’s language skills and the classroom’s
instructional climate in the fall and spring of the school year (Justice et al., 2011). Three subtests
of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Preschool, Second Edition were
administered: Sentence Structure, Word Structure, and Expressive Vocabulary. Sentence
Structure evaluated children’s receptive language skills and Word Structure and Expressive
Vocabulary measured children’s expressive language skills. Additionally, the PPVT-III was used
to assess children’s receptive vocabulary and the Narrative Assessment Protocol evaluated
children’s narrative discourse. Finally, trained individuals applied the CLASS tool to measure
three aspects of the instructional quality in the classroom: Concept Development, Quality of
Feedback, and Language Modeling.
Results indicated that all children demonstrated language growth in the spring (Justice et
al., 2011). To address their first objective, the authors controlled the instructional support offered
in the classroom to ensure that children’s language growth was not attributed to the quality of the
classroom. This allowed Justice et al. (2011) to conclude that peers’ language skills did affect
their classmates’ language skills in preschool. Regarding the second objective of the study, the
authors found support for their conjecture in that peers’ language skills had the greatest effect on
children with less developed language skills and did not have a significant statistical effect on
children with more developed language skills. However, when compared to their less skilled
classmates, children with greater language skills in the fall still demonstrated stronger language
skills in the spring. Another finding was that children with less developed language skills
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 56

showed more growth when enrolled in classrooms with higher-skilled peers than when in
classrooms with lower-skilled peers. However, the study revealed that children with less
developed language skills were more often in low- or average-ability classrooms while those
with more developed language skills were typically in average- or high-ability classrooms.
Justice et al.’s (2011) study may have been limited by the nature of its methodology. The
authors did not control for any variables other than the classroom’s instructional support.
Controlling for children’s primary language and race/ethnicity could have led to different results
considering that 94% of children were from English-speaking homes and 50% of the children
were White. Regardless of the study’s limitation, Justice et al.’s (2011) study contributed to the
field by showing that peers with more developed language skills positively affected their lower-
skilled classmates’ language growth. This showed that by offering children who had less
developed language skills opportunities to interact with their higher skilled peers could stimulate
children’s language growth.
Schechter and Bye (2007) conducted a quantitative study to investigate the receptive
language growth of children from low-income families through a quasi-experiment. To achieve
this, the study compared children from low-income families in preschool programs consisting of
children who were all from low-income backgrounds (referred to as low-income only programs
in the study) to programs that had children from low-, mid-, and upper-income backgrounds
(referred to as economically integrated programs in the study). The authors examined three
questions of which the first was listed as a hypothesis. The authors hypothesized that children
from low-income backgrounds enrolled in the economically integrated preschool programs
would have more growth in their receptive language skills compared to children enrolled in the
low-income only preschool programs. Regarding the first question, the authors examined how
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 57

the economically integrated programs influenced the receptive language skills of children from
homes in which a language other than English was spoken (referred to as “other language”
children in the study). The second question sought to compare the receptive language growth of
children from low-income families in the economically integrated and low-income only
preschools to children from mid- and upper-income families.
The study used seven state-funded preschool programs of which five were economically
integrated and two were low-income only (Schechter & Bye, 2007). All seven programs were
accredited by the NAEYC and considered to be of high quality. The five economically integrated
programs were located in a suburban community, which represented a range of family-income
levels. The two low-income programs were located in urban communities adjacent to the
suburban community. In the economically integrated programs, students from low-income
backgrounds never exceeded more than 20% of the class. The study used four cohorts of 4-year-
olds over a span of 4 years however, parental consent rates were not provided. A total of 274
children participated in the study (50 children from low-income families in low-income only
programs, 35 children from low-income families in economically integrated programs, and 189
children from mid- and upper-income families). The sample consisted of 138 girls and 136 boys,
however, there were significantly more girls from low-income families in the economically
integrated programs. About 20% of the sample spoke a language other than English at home
(36% of the children in low-income only programs, 54% of the children from low-income
families in the economically integrated programs, and 8% of children from mid- and upper-
income families). Data regarding children’s racial and ethnic background was not provided.
The study used the PPVT-III to assess children’s receptive English language skills in the
fall and spring of the academic year (Schechter & Bye, 2007). In the fall, the children from low-
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 58

income families performed poorer on the PPVT-III than children from mid- and upper-income
families as did the children from homes in which a language other than English was spoken
compared to the children who only spoke English.
Controlling for children’s fall scores, spring results supported the hypothesis that children
from low-income families in economically integrated programs would score significantly higher
on the PPVT-III than children in the low-income only preschool programs (Schechter & Bye,
2007). Furthermore, the children from low-income families in the integrated programs improved
from scoring below the national norm in the fall to just above the norm in the spring. While the
authors found support for their hypothesis, the results for the first question were not as clear.
While the “other language” children made gains in their receptive language skills, the impact of
the economically integrated preschools on these children was not significant. Regarding the
second question, results indicated that children from mid- and upper-income families performed
significantly better on the PPVT-III than children in the low-income only programs. However,
there was no statistical difference between children from mid- and upper-income families and
children from low-income families in the economically integrated programs.
The results from this study supported the authors’ assertion that peers from mid- and
upper-income families had the ability to exert influence on their classmates irrespective of the
classmates’ SES backgrounds, however, the study also had certain sample limitations (Schechter
& Bye, 2007). First, since the children were not randomly assigned to program types, there may
have been unknown differences between the groups that were not taken into account of the
study’s findings (Schechter & Bye, 2007). Additionally, the percentage of low-income children
in the integrated programs was small (Schechter & Bye, 2007). A larger sample may have
yielded more accurate results. Child variables, such as gender and race, were not controlled in
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 59

the study, which could have also altered the overall findings (Schechter & Bye, 2007). Another
factor that may have affected the way peers interacted with each other was the higher percentage
of “other language” children in the low-income only programs (Schechter & Bye, 2007).
Considering the low percentage of low-income children in the integrated programs (20%),
perhaps a greater percentage may have had a different impact of peers’ influence on their
classmates’ language development. Finally, even though all programs in the study were
considered to be of high quality, difference in the program’s structural or process variables may
have influenced the way peers interacted with one another, and thus, changed the final outcomes
(Schechter & Bye, 2007).
Mashburn, Justice, Downer, and Pianta’s (2009) quantitative study assessed the effects of
peers on children’s academic achievement in the classroom through three objectives. The first
objective evaluated peers’ expressive language effects on children’s language skills at the end of
preschool. The second objective strived to understand if peer expressive language abilities
influenced children’s language development when taking children’s initial skill levels into
account. The third objective examined whether the relationship between peers’ expressive
language skills and children’s language development during preschool was influenced by a
classroom context that provided more frequent and positive interactions among children.
Mashburn et al.’s (2009) study applied data from the National Center for Early
Development and Learning (NCEDL) Multi-State Study of Pre-Kindergarten and the NCEDL-
NIEER State-Wide Early Education Programs Study (SWEEP). Forty pre-kindergarten programs
from six states participated in the NCEDL Study from 2001 to 2002. One pre-kindergarten
classroom was randomly chosen from each program for a total of 240 classrooms. One hundred
pre-kindergarten programs participated from five states in the SWEEP Study from 2003 to 2004.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 60

One pre-kindergarten classroom was randomly chosen from each program for a total of 500
classrooms. Together, these 11 states accounted for 80% of the pre-kindergarten population in
the United States who attended state pre-kindergarten programs during this time. At the
beginning of the academic year, teachers sent home packets that consisted of a consent form,
demographic questionnaire, and family contact sheet. Sixty-one percent of the consent forms
were returned as part of the NCEDL Study and 55% of the SWEEP Study. Children were
eligible for both studies if they provided a consent form, did not have an Individualized
Education Plan, met the age criteria, and spoke either English or Spanish well enough to
understand basic instructions. Four students (two boys and two girls) were randomly selected
from each classroom for a total of 2,996 children from 704 pre-kindergarten classrooms. The
CLASS was used to assess the emotional climate within the classroom. Trained observers
administered the CLASS tool every 30 minutes during one day of observation for the NCEDL
Study and two days of observation for the SWEEP Study. The PPVT-III and the OWLS were
administered in the fall and spring of the academic year to assess children’s receptive vocabulary
and expressive oral language skills respectively.
However, the current study did not include children who did not have a valid score on the
English language version of the expressive language assessment in the fall of pre-kindergarten as
the study’s focus was only on peers’ English expressive language abilities. The final sample
included 1,812 children from 453 pre-kindergarten classrooms of which 51% were girls, 52%
White, 23% African American, 11% Latino/Hispanic, and 15% Other (Mashburn et al., 2009).
The authors did not find any statistical differences between the samples that were included and
excluded from the current study regarding children’s gender, quality of social interactions within
the classroom, and structural variables (class-size, child-teacher ratio, and length of school day).
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 61

However, children who were included in the study had mothers with higher education and were
more likely to be African American and White and less likely to be Latino/Hispanic.
After controlling for children’s skills at entry to preschool (except when researching the
first objective), child’s gender and race, mother’s level of education, and structural variables,
Mashburn et al. (2009) found support for the study’s three objectives. Regarding the first
objective, the authors learned that peers’ expressive language abilities positively influenced their
classmates’ receptive and expressive language development. In relation to the second objective,
peers with higher abilities demonstrated a stronger positive influence on students who began pre-
kindergarten with higher receptive language skills. Regarding the third objective, Mashburn et al.
(2009) found that peers’ expressive language abilities had a greater effect on students’ receptive
language development in classrooms that exhibited stronger behavior management. The authors
asserted that well-managed classrooms provided an organized structure in which students had
more opportunities to productively interact with one another. While none of the structural
elements affected children’s language achievement, supportive emotional interactions within the
classroom were positively associated with children’s expressive and receptive language
development. This suggested that a positive social climate offered children with more
opportunities to interact and be exposed to their peers’ language. Overall, the study showed that
peers’ higher language abilities had a positive effect on their classmates’ language development.
This finding was strengthened in a classroom context in which student behavior was well
managed and a social climate that was supported by positive emotional interactions. The research
from this study showed that when given opportunities to interact, children gained access to their
peers’ language abilities, which in turn positively influenced that of their own.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 62

Mashburn et al.’s (2009) study contributed to the research showing that peers’ language
skills did have an effect on their classmates’ academic achievement; however, the study was
limited by the authors’ selection bias in many ways. The study did not include children whose
parents had not provided consent and therefore, could not compare the children whose parents
had provided consent with those who had not (Mashburn et al., 2009). Unknown differences
between these two groups of children may have produced varied outcomes. Also, although the
sample was randomly selected, it excluded children who did not take the expressive language
assessment in English, which may have altered results (Mashburn et al., 2009). The authors
discussed that there were statistical differences between the children who took the language
assessment in English and those who took it in Spanish. Children who had completed the
assessment in Spanish were more likely to be Latino/Hispanic and have mothers with fewer
years of education. Eliminating this student population could have led to different interactions
within the classroom, which could have influenced the overall results and generalizability of the
findings to other linguistically diverse populations. Additionally, by placing an equal weight on
each of the four children within the classroom, the study’s methodology did not account for
which peers the children being assessed interacted with and how much (Mashburn et al., 2009).
The children might have interacted with peers who had stronger or weaker language skills, thus
skewing results as children may have scored differently on assessments after interacting with
other children. To this point, assessing all children in each classroom could have also limited the
study’s findings as the data might not have been representative of all students in the classroom.
The studies in this section demonstrated the effect of peers’ skills on children’s language
and reading skills. The studies suggested that the effects were especially strong for children who
came from low-income families or had lower abilities compared to their peers with higher skills.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 63

In this way, the research indicated that peer effects were an important component to providing
learning opportunities in preschool, especially for those from low SES backgrounds. However,
considering the quantitative nature of the studies presented in this section, the quality of peer
interactions was not assessed. It is therefore important to observe what these interactions look
like, what kinds of peer interactions promote learning, and how often they occur.
Moreover, it is unclear how peer effects are transferred and whether peer interactions
were responsible for children’s language growth. Henry and Rickman (2007) and Justice et al.
(2011) suggested peer effects could be directly transferred through child-to-child interactions or
indirectly through teacher expectations and efficacy. For instance, children with larger
vocabularies and more sophisticated language use may model these skills directly to their lower-
skilled peers through daily interactions (Henry & Rickman, 2007; Justice et al., 2011). On the
other hand, teachers with higher skilled students may have greater expectations for all students
and be more motivated to teach in ways that are highly intellectually stimulating, benefitting the
children with lower skills (Henry & Rickman, 2007; Justice et al., 2011). To provide the most
intellectually and developmentally rich opportunities to young children, it is important for
educators to understand how exactly peers affect other children in the classroom. Finally, as
indicated by Mashburn et al. (2009), classroom context needs to be taken into consideration
when examining learning opportunities for young children. The classroom’s social and emotional
climate as well as instructional support offered was explored in the final section of the literature
review.

Classroom Climate
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 64

The studies selected for this section discuss the influence of classroom climate on
preschoolers’ behavioral and learning outcomes. There are two aspects of classroom climate that
are examined: the social and emotional climate as well as the instructional support offered in the
classroom. The studies in this section indicate that pre-kindergarten environments that are
characterized by a positive social and emotional climate and high instructional support promote
learning opportunities for young children, especially for those from low SES backgrounds. All
the studies included in this section are quantitative. First a study in relation to the social and
emotional climate will be examined followed by a study regarding the instructional support of
the classroom. Lastly, studies concerning both the social and emotional climate and instructional
support will be discussed. The studies in this particular section are arranged to first contribute a
broad overview of social and emotional and instructional elements in the classroom. The last
section first defines high-quality and low-quality classrooms in terms of their social, emotional,
and instructional elements and the gap that exists. Then, it focuses on how social, emotional, and
instructional elements contribute to a child’s development and academic growth.
Social and emotional climate. This section draws upon a study that discusses the effects
of teacher-child relationships and children’s behaviors and social status within the classroom on
children’s learning outcomes.
Palermo, Hanish, Martin, Fabes, and Reiser’s (2007) quantitative study used two models
to investigate whether children’s academic outcomes were influenced by their actions as well as
by their environment. Regarding the primary model, the authors examined whether children’s
behavior and social status in the classroom mediated the association between the quality of
teacher-child relationships and children’s academic readiness. The authors hypothesized that
children’s behaviors and specifically, peer group exclusion would account for the association
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 65

between the quality of teacher-child relationships and children’s academic readiness. An
alternative model hypothesized that teacher-child relationships would mediate the association
between children’s behavior and academic readiness.
The study’s data included 95 children (95% consent rate) and six teachers from six
classrooms in three types of preschools (university-sponsored, community-based, and Head
Start) located in a large metropolitan area in southwest United States (Palermo, Hanish, Martin,
Fabes, & Reiser, 2007). Data was collected over a period of 2 years. Children’s average age was
4 years old. Fifty-two percent of the children were boys, 54% Caucasian, 23% Hispanic, 6%
Native American, 6% Asian American, 5% African American, and 5% Biracial or Other. Sixty-
five percent of the children came from two-parent households and 22% from low-income
families. Five teachers were female, and one was male. No other information was provided about
the teachers.
Teachers completed questionnaires regarding children’s behavior and academic readiness
for kindergarten as well as the quality of their relationship with the children in the spring
semester of preschool (Palermo et al., 2007). Three subscales of the Student-Teacher
Relationship Scale were used to measure the quality of teacher-child relationships: Conflict,
Dependence, and Closeness. Teachers rated their relationships as Conflict if they tended to
struggle with the students, Dependence if students consistently required the teacher to be with
them, and Closeness if relationships were characterized by warmth and affection. The Child
Behavior Scale was used to assess children’s prosocial behavior and level of peer group
exclusion. The Child Behavior Checklist-Teacher Report Form was used to measure children’s
aggressive behavior. Teachers used a 19-item measure that averaged a child’s logical thinking,
mathematical, reading, and writing abilities to produce his/her academic readiness score.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 66

Palermo et al. (2007) considered children’s SES background and ethnicities but found no
significant effects in the study. Children’s age and gender were controlled in the primary and
alternative models.
The study found support for the primary model, indicating that children’s behaviors and
social status in the classroom did account for the association between teacher-child relationships
and children’s academic readiness (Palermo et al., 2007). Specifically, results suggested that
teacher-child closeness was related to higher levels of academic readiness, and teacher-child
conflict and dependence to lower levels of academic readiness. Prosocial behavior and peer
group inclusion partially accounted for the association between teacher-child closeness and
children’s academic readiness. This signified that positive relationships between teachers and
children prompted children to demonstrate positive behaviors and therefore be accepted by their
peers, which fostered an environment that allowed the preschoolers to be better prepared for
kindergarten. Children’s problem behaviors and peer group exclusion accounted for the
association between the negative teacher-child relationship and reduced academic readiness. In
this sense, children who experienced conflict or dependent relationships with the teacher were
more likely to display negative behaviors and be excluded by their peers, which ultimately led to
the preschoolers being less prepared for kindergarten. Only teacher-child closeness was directly
related to children’s academic readiness, while teacher-child conflict and dependence were fully
mediated by children’s behavior and peer group exclusion.
The alternative model was partially supported (Palermo et al., 2007). The alternative
model indicated that teacher-child closeness mediated the association between children’s
prosocial behavior and academic readiness. This suggested that when children demonstrated
positive behaviors in the classroom, they tended to experience positive relationships with the
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 67

teacher, which allowed for higher engagement and learning in the classroom. However, teacher-
child conflict and dependence did not mediate the association between children’s behavior and
academic readiness, further validating the findings from the primary model in which negative
teacher-child relationships were more strongly correlated with children’s diminished academic
readiness than children’s own negative behavior.
The present study was limited in its methodology (Palermo et al., 2007). First, since
teachers collected all the data, the study’s overall findings may have been affected by shared-
method variance (Palermo et al., 2007). The quality of the teacher-child relationship was
assessed by teachers’ own perceptions of their relationships. In this way, teacher bias could have
played a role, skewing the results of the study. Second, since the study was correlational,
causality of findings could not be determined (Palermo et al., 2007). Nonetheless, the findings in
the study suggested that children’s academic outcomes were affected not only by their actions,
but also, the social influences in their environment.
Instructional support. This section draws upon a study that discusses the effects of the
instructional support offered in the classroom on children’s learning outcomes.
Connor, Morrison, and Slominski (2006) aimed to understand the influence of language
and emergent literacy instruction on preschoolers’ language and emergent literacy skills. The
study addressed the following research questions:
• What is the nature of variation (amount and type) in preschool language and literacy
activities (both explicit and implicit) observed in preschool classrooms relative to
other activities (art, music, math, etc.)?
• How are differing amounts of time spent in language and literacy activities related to
preschoolers’ vocabulary and emergent literacy growth, and does the effect of
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 68

specific types of preschool language and literacy activities, across multiple
dimensions, depend on the outcome of interest? For example, do preschool activities
that predict letter-word knowledge also contribute to vocabulary growth?
• Does the effect of amount and type of preschool language and literacy activities
depend on the language and early reading skills children bring to the classroom? Are
there Child X Instruction interactions? (Connor, Morrison, and Slominski, 2006, p.
669)
In relation to the first question, Connor et al. (2006) hypothesized that some time would be
dedicated to explicit and implicit language and literacy activities; however, more time would be
spent on art, music, math, and non-instructional activities. Regarding the second question, the
authors hypothesized that language and literacy activities would be related to children’s
vocabulary and emergent literacy growth. Specifically, explicit and implicit meaning-focused
activities (related to reading comprehension–either children reading or being read to) would have
a positive influence on children’s vocabulary growth, but not on letter-word or alphabet growth.
Explicit code-focused activities (related to letter knowledge and phonological awareness) would
be associated with children’s emergent literacy growth, but not with vocabulary growth. Finally,
regarding the third question, the authors hypothesized that the effect of language and literacy
activities would be dependent upon the children’s preschool entry-level vocabulary, alphabet,
and letter-word recognition skills. Specifically, the authors expected that children with lower
levels of vocabulary and literacy skills would exhibit greater academic growth after participating
in explicit teacher-managed (TM) and teacher-child-managed (TCM) activities compared to
children with high levels of vocabulary and literacy skills. Children with lower levels of alphabet
and letter-word recognition skills were expected to exhibit greater academic growth after
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 69

participating in explicit code-focused TCM activities compared to children with high levels of
alphabet and letter-word recognition skills. Finally, children with lower levels of vocabulary
skills were expected to exhibit greater vocabulary growth after participating in meaning-focused
TCM activities that explicitly focused on language development compared to children with high
levels of vocabulary skills.
The study included 156 children (38% parental consent rate) from Head Start, state-
funded, and fee-for-service programs located in a major midwestern city in the United States
(Connor et al., 2006). The fee-for-service program served preschoolers who were identified as
academically at risk. The study indicated that children’s scores at entry to preschool did not
significantly differ across the Head Start, state-funded, and fee-for-service programs. The authors
also suggested that their interactions with the teachers and children indicated that children who
provided consent forms did not significantly differ from those who did not. On average, children
were 4 years old. Fifty-one percent of children were girls, 66% Caucasian, 5% African
American, 5% Middle Eastern, 5% Asian, and 3% Hispanic. The study did not indicate the
ethnicity of the remaining students. Six percent of the children spoke a language other than
English at home. Thirty-one percent of mothers had post-graduate experience, 37% had
completed college, 17% had completed one to three years of college, and 15% did not indicate
their education level. Fathers showed a similar distribution. Thirty-four classrooms (half day and
full day) taught by 25 teachers were included in the study. All teachers were certified, had a 4-
year degree, and had an average of 5.83 years of teaching experience.
The current study took place during the first year of a 5-year study (Connor et al., 2006).
Children’s language and literacy skills were assessed in the fall and spring of the school year.
Children were asked to identify all the lowercase letters as part of the Alphabet Task. The
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 70

Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement: Letter-Word Identification and Picture
Vocabulary tests were used to assess children’s letter/word recognition and expressive
vocabulary skills respectively. Data collectors conducted informal observations throughout the
school year and a half-day videotaped observation in each classroom in the middle of the school
year. During these observations, data collectors observed all activities but closely examined
language and literacy activities. Parents and teachers completed demographic questionnaires in
the winter and spring. The authors controlled for children’s fall scores and accounted for all
family and teacher characteristics gathered from the questionnaires as well as program type.
Overall, children in the study demonstrated age-appropriate growth in their alphabet,
letter-word, and vocabulary skills (Connor et al., 2006). Generally, children who came to
preschool with higher skills exhibited greater growth than those who came with lower skills.
Also, results indicated that most of the classroom activities were TCM meaning-focused, with
the exception of play, which was considered to be child-managed (CM) meaning-focused. The
authors noted that generally, language and literacy activities were delivered in interactive and
age-appropriate ways. For example, explicit code-focused activities were delivered through
songs, crafts, and games, and explicit meaning-focused activities through reading to children and
discussion. The study found that these opportunities were also provided to children through play.
The authors indicated that the classrooms in the study were considered to be of high quality in
terms of structural variables (teachers’ qualifications, teacher-child ratio, and physical facilities).
It was not clear if Connor et al.’s (2006) first hypothesis was supported, as there was
considerable variability across and within classrooms in terms of the amount and type of
language and literacy activities (including play) offered. For example, one classroom spent 4
minutes on language and literacy activities, whereas another spent 90 minutes. The authors also
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 71

found that sometimes children in the same classroom experienced varied language and literacy
experiences as well. For instance, while one child participated in art for most of the day, another
predominantly experienced explicit and implicit literacy instruction throughout the day.
Furthermore, the study indicated that children who attended school for more hours per week also
exhibited greater alphabet and letter-word growth, especially for children who had lower
alphabet and vocabulary scores at the beginning of the year.
The authors’ second and third hypotheses were partially supported (Connor et al., 2006).
Instruction in language and literacy led to children’s language and literacy growth. As expected,
explicit code-focused activities were associated with children’s alphabet and letter-word growth,
and explicit meaning-focused activities were associated with children’s vocabulary growth,
especially for children who came with lower levels at the beginning of the school year. Code-
focused and meaning-focused activities were related to children’s letter-word and vocabulary
growth for children who came with higher skills at the beginning of the school year. Moreover,
play, an implicit meaning-focused activity, was associated to children’s vocabulary growth,
especially for children who had lower vocabulary skills at the beginning of the school year.
Additionally, whole-class instruction was related to children’s vocabulary growth, and whole-
class along with individualized instruction was related to children’s alphabet and letter-word
growth. There were Child X Instruction interactions at the classroom level, but not at the student
level. TM, TCM, and CM activities were associated with children’s vocabulary growth and TCM
activities were associated with children’s alphabet and letter-word growth. This suggested that
teacher and child interactions allowed for greater learning.
While the present study showed that explicit code-focused and meaning-focused
instruction, including play, could lead to greater language and literacy skills, certain limitations
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 72

may have affected the study’s findings (Connor et al., 2006). Formal, videotaped observations
took place during half of one day, which may not have presented the most accurate depiction of
the daily routines in the classroom (Connor et al., 2006). The authors also stated that the study
did not examine how the teachers delivered instruction, such as in ways that were sensitive,
responsive, or organized, which can influence children’s outcomes (Connor et al., 2006).
Finally, since the study’s results did not demonstrate causality, other variables could have
accounted for the children’s outcomes, such as their home environments (Connor et al., 2006).
Social and emotional climate and instructional support. This section draws upon
studies that discuss high- and low-quality classrooms based on their social and emotional climate
as well as the instructional support offered. It then explores the effects of the classroom’s social,
emotional, and instructional elements on children’s learning outcomes.
The purpose of LoCasale-Crouch et al.’s (2007) quantitative study was to identify common
patterns of social and emotional climate and instructional support present in pre-kindergarten
classrooms and then classify classrooms based on the overall quality. The following questions
guided the study through this process:
1. What profiles describe classroom process quality in a large sample of pre-
kindergarten classrooms in the United States?
2. Do profiles differ with regard to teacher (age, ethnicity, education/certification, and
experience) and program characteristics (students enrolled, child/adult ratio, length of
program day, and location in public school) or specific classroom compositions
(poverty, ethnicity, and maternal education level)? (LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007, p.
6)
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 73

LoCasale-Crouch et al. (2007) hypothesized that most classrooms would demonstrate patterns of
positive social and emotional climate, but weak instructional support. The authors also expected
that a range of classroom qualities would be present across all classrooms, from high classroom
quality to low classroom quality.
LoCasale-Crouch et al.’s (2007) study drew data from the NCEDL Multi-State Study of
Pre-Kindergarten, and the SWEEP study. As previously mentioned, both studies represented a
total of 11 states and 80% of children in the United States who were enrolled in state-funded pre-
kindergarten for the 2001-2002 and 2003-2004 academic year respectively. A total of 701 sites
participated in the study and one classroom was randomly selected from each site for a total of
701 classrooms and 701 teachers (94% consent rate). However, 692 classrooms were represented
in the final analysis as only these classrooms contained observational data. About 19 children
were enrolled in each classroom with a 9:1 child-adult ratio. Ninety-nine percent of teachers
were female, 71% Caucasian, 11% African American, and 16% Latina. On average, teachers
were 41 years old, with 9 years of pre-kindergarten teaching experience, and $20.60 hourly
wage. Sixty percent had a bachelors’ degree and early childhood certification, 11.1% had only a
bachelor’s degree, 11.9% had a Child Development Associate certificate, and 16.8% did not
have a bachelor’s degree or early childhood certification. Data collectors asked teachers to help
recruit children, and a total of 2,800 children provided parental consent (61% and 55% for
NCEDL and SWEEP studies respectively) and were included in the study. Two boys and two
girls were observed in each classroom. The study stated that most children were 4 years old, 58%
were non-Caucasian, and 58% came from low-income families. On average, the maternal
education level was 12.8 years. The study did not provide any other information about the
children.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 74

LoCasale-Crouch et al. (2007) used two different measures to analyze the classrooms’
process quality and questionnaires to gain information about children, teacher, and program
characteristics. Observers used the CLASS to rate classrooms’ social and emotional climate and
instructional quality. Different observers used the ECERS-R to validate the process quality
scores derived from the CLASS tool. LoCasale-Crouch et al. (2007) stated that the CLASS and
ECERS-R tools were validated to predict gains in children’s learning and social outcomes during
the pre-kindergarten year. In addition, teachers, children’s families, and program directors
completed questionnaires. Teachers provided information about their demographics, education,
and teaching experience. Children’s families disclosed their income level, maternal education
level, and children’s ethnicity. Finally, program directors provided information regarding the
program’s location, length of school day, number of students enrolled in the selected pre-
kindergarten classroom, and the child-adult ratio in the selected classroom.
LoCasale-Crouch et al. (2007) clustered classrooms into five groups based on the overall
results obtained from the measures mentioned above. Of the classrooms included in the study,
14.5% were labeled highest quality, 16.9% positive emotional climate and high instructional
quality, 31.4% positive emotional climate and mediocre instructional quality, 18.5% mediocre
emotional climate and low instructional quality, and 18.8% poorest quality. These results
indicated that the classrooms that exhibited the highest quality were also the least prevalent.
Overall, the results partially supported the authors’ hypotheses. A range of classroom qualities
was present, and most classrooms demonstrated patterns of positive social and emotional climate
and high instructional support, with about 19% exhibiting a less positive emotional climate and
38% exhibiting low levels of instructional support.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 75

Classrooms considered to be of the highest quality demonstrated a positive social and
emotional climate, specifically regarding teacher sensitivity and behavior management, and high
instructional support, specifically related to productivity, concept development, instructional
learning format, and quality of feedback (LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007). Classrooms in this
group consisted of lower child-adult ratios and more teachers who were Caucasian and had more
pre-kindergarten teaching experience compared to the other classrooms. Classrooms in this
group also had lowest proportions of non-Caucasian children and children from low-income
families and highest levels of maternal education compared to the other classrooms. The authors
clarified that while classrooms classified as the highest quality represented the highest social and
emotional climate and instructional support, they did not clearly differ from the other classrooms
in terms of structural features, such as program and teacher characteristics. This suggested that
program and teacher characteristics did not affect the classroom’s quality level. Rather, the
teacher’s role in providing a positive social and emotional climate and high instructional support
may have largely impacted the overall classroom quality. Classroom compositions were related
to classroom quality though, as the poorest quality classrooms had higher proportions of children
from low-income families and non-Caucasian children and lower levels of maternal education.
The authors stated that limitations in their methodology might have influenced the
study’s findings (LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007). The study’s use of cluster analysis methodology
helped to reduce the sample size and organize results in a way that allowed the authors to
compare the different types of classrooms. However, it did not take individual differences into
account, which could have caused variations that were neglected in the study (LoCasale-Crouch
et al., 2007). Also, the authors suggested that state influences were not explored in the study,
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 76

which could have affected the process quality of classrooms in terms of variations across
standards implementation and professional development allocation.
In a quantitative study, Valentino (2017) investigated evidence-based factors that
contributed to the quality of preschool programs for students of different racial, ethnic, SES, and
lingual backgrounds. The author then examined the reason for the quality gaps between minority,
low SES students and non-minority, high SES students. She also explored how these quality gaps
varied by state and how these differences could be explained.
Valentino (2017) used data from SWEEPS and NCEDL studies. The final sample in this
case consisted of 647 classrooms and 12,334 three- and four-year-old students–0% of the
sampled classrooms with complete data. Several measures were used to evaluate classrooms’
process quality (referred to the quality of teacher-child interactions) and structural quality
(referred to the quality of the classroom’s structure). Most of the data was acquired through
direct observation using ECERS-R and CLASS. The Emerging Academics Snapshot was used
for a sample of four students in each classroom. The author also used data from the PPVT-III,
Woodcock-Johnson Pscyho-Educational Battery Applied Problems subtest (English and Spanish
versions), and the Teacher-Child Rating Scale. The author used additional structural quality
measures, such as length of school day, hours students spent in class, and teacher’s wage.
Teacher and director surveys were given along with a measure on teacher beliefs. Family
questionnaires asking about students’ SES, gender, and ethnicity were sent home. Valentino
(2017) also calculated state-level factors to assess state-level quality gaps. These factors included
each state’s pre-K spending per child, rate of pre-K expansion, and a measure of state-level
segregation.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 77

Results indicated that there were large disparities in achievement across the preschools
examined in this study, especially regarding the classroom’s instructional and emotional climate,
which are the strongest predictors of student outcomes (Valentino, 2017). These gaps were
reflective of the achievement gaps students displayed upon entry to preschool. Specifically,
Black, Hispanic, poor, and dual language learners (DLL) were significantly less likely to be
engaged in free choice and science activities and scaffolded instruction, and more likely be given
more individual time and letter/sound and didactic instruction compared to their White, non-
poor, and non-DLL counterparts. The study also found that Hispanic students had more students
in their classrooms compared to White students. Additionally, Hispanic, poor, and DLL students
had teachers with less teaching experience compared to White, non-poor, and non-DLL students.
Minority and poor students were also more likely to have teachers who held adult-centered,
authoritarian beliefs.
Valentino (2017) found that the classroom’s structural quality had very little effect on the
classroom’s process quality. Instead, students’ average academic skills, race, and SES explained
50% to 65% of the quality gaps observed. Teacher’s race and whether he/she spoke a language
other than English explained little to none of the quality gaps found. However, they did account
for teachers’ beliefs about child-rearing and half of the size of free-choice and scaffolding gaps.
The study’s results suggested that half of the quality gaps were a result of a greater percentage of
disadvantaged students in states with lower-quality preschools compared to the average
preschool.
On this note, Valentino (2017) found that the quality of preschools varied across states,
specifically in the amount of instructional time spent in free choice and scaffolded activities. The
study noted that it was not the spending per child nor the rate of pre-K expansion that accounted
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 78

for this variation in quality across states. Rather, the largest gaps in process quality were related
to the states with the highest levels of residential segregation. Results indicated that states that
were more segregated offered worse quality pre-K environments to minority students. The study
also found that states with the highest levels of residential segregation consisted of teachers who
held traditional beliefs regarding childrearing.
Valentino (2017) discussed several study limitations. The author cautioned that results
should not be interpreted as causal. She also mentioned that the study was limited by its level of
external ability as the student sample consisted of a higher proportion of children from
households below the poverty line, which was not representative of the population. On this note,
Valentino (2017) brought attention to the fact that the data included in this study was collected
15 years ago. There may have been changes in the quality of preschools since then. Acting on
that understanding, evidence of state variations was not entirely conclusive considering the small
sample size. Data collected on the 11 states included in the study was not representative of the
other states not included in the study. Valentino (2017) stated that more research is necessary
regarding which factors of the quality gaps found in the study are most problematic. The author
specifically mentioned looking into free play and scaffolded instruction as well as individual
time and didactic instruction.
Regardless of the study’s limitations, Valentino (2017) stated the fact simply–that there
were significant quality gaps between minority and non-minority students. One way pre-K can
close the achievement gap is by providing poor and minority students with equal or greater pre-K
quality experiences, which it is currently not. These quality gaps varied across states and
therefore should be analyzed at a state level as some states seem to provide worse quality pre-K
programs.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 79

Mashburn et al.’s (2008) study examined how classroom quality affected children’s
academic, language, and social skills in pre-kindergarten. The study drew data from the NCEDL
and SWEEP studies and included 2,349 preschoolers enrolled in 671 classrooms after excluding
499 children and 33 classrooms (Mashburn et al., 2008). The children who were not included in
the study either were assessed using the Spanish version, which the authors concluded did not
measure the same constructs as those in the English version, or children who were not assessed
at the end of the preschool year. As described in previous studies, four children (two boys and
two girls) were randomly selected from each classroom. Fifty-one percent of the children were
girls, 46% Caucasian, 21% African American, 17% Latino, and 15% other. Forty-seven percent
of children came from low-income families. The average maternal education level was 12.9
years.
Mashburn et al.’s (2008) study measured classroom quality using three measures:
National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) standards, the ECERS-R, and the
CLASS. Teachers or program directors completed surveys indicating whether classrooms met
the following nine standards of NIEER: 1. lead teacher had a bachelor’s degree, 2. lead teacher
had had an early childhood education certification, 3. assistant teacher had a bachelor’s degree or
early childhood education certification, 4. there were 20 students or fewer in the classroom, 5. a
comprehensive curriculum was used in the classroom, 6. the child-teacher ratio was 10:1 or
better, 7. at least one meal was served each day, 8. the program offered children vision, hearing,
and health screening, and 9. at least one family support was provided. Trained observers used the
ECERS-R to measure the classroom’s overall quality, including the furnishings, personal care
routines, language reasoning, activities, interactions, and program structure. Trained observers
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 80

used the CLASS to evaluate teacher-child interactions through two dimensions: instructional and
emotional support.
Children’s academic and language skills were assessed at the beginning and end of the
school year (Mashburn et al., 2008). The PPVT-III was used to evaluate children’s receptive
vocabulary. The OWLS was used to assess children’s oral language skills. The Woodcock-
Johnson III Test of Achievement: Sound Awareness, Rhyming and Applied Problems subtests
were used to measure children’s rhyme awareness and math problem-solving skills respectively.
Teachers used the Teacher-Child Rating Scale to assess children’s social skills and behavior.
Children’s pretest scores, gender, ethnicity, maternal education level, and family’s income level
were controlled in the study. The authors also accounted for differences across the 11 states
included in the study.
The results demonstrated that classroom process qualities, such as instructional, social,
and emotional support, were related to children’s outcomes (Mashburn et al., 2008). The authors
found that none of the NIEER standards were related to children’s academic, language, or social
skills, suggesting that teacher qualifications and classroom and program structure did not directly
account for the children’s outcomes in the study. It should be noted that Mashburn et al. (2008)
did not dismiss the importance of such structural variables, as research has shown that they
indirectly affect children’s learning opportunities and outcomes. The ECERS-R results indicated
that teacher-child interactions were related to children’s expressive language skills. The CLASS
results suggested that high instructional support was positively related to children’s overall
academic and language skills, and high emotional support was associated with high levels of
social skills and low levels of problem behaviors. Overall, the results of the three measures used
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 81

in the study indicated that the quality of teacher-child interactions accounted for the children’s
academic, language, and social gains as opposed to a classroom’s structural features.
While the study demonstrated the importance of high-quality teacher-child interactions,
there were four main limitations (Mashburn et al., 2008). The first limitation was that the study
did not include two NIEER standards that could have potentially affected the findings (Mashburn
et al., 2008). These standards included whether teachers participated in professional development
for 15 or more hours and whether there was a program monitoring system in place to oversee the
instructional and emotional interactions within the pre-kindergarten programs included in the
study. The authors discussed that both these components could lead to higher-quality teacher-
child interactions and therefore, could have produced different results had they been included in
the study. The second limitation was the generalizability of the study’s findings as all classrooms
included were considered to be part of well-developed and high-quality publicly funded
programs (Mashburn et al., 2008). The authors noted the study’s findings were limited to
classrooms that fit these specific criteria. The third limitation was related to the children included
in the sample (Mashburn et al., 2008). Since 60% of the parents’ provided consent, the study was
limited to this student population. Children who did not provide parental consent might have
differed from those who did, possibly affecting the results. Finally, the fourth limitation was the
effect size of the results. Although the results were statistically significant, Mashburn et al.
(2008) stated that they were relatively small.
Stipek et al.’s (1998) quantitative study compared the academic, cognitive, and
motivational outcomes of preschoolers and kindergarteners in classrooms that emphasized basic
skills in a negative social climate to classrooms that de-emphasized basic skills in a positive
social climate. The authors hypothesized that children enrolled in classrooms that emphasized
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 82

basic skills would score higher on standardized tests of basic skills and would have lower levels
of motivation compared to children in classrooms that de-emphasized basic skills, who were
expected to score higher on cognitive assessments.
The 2-year study included a total of 228 children of whom 46% were preschoolers and
54% kindergarteners in the study’s first year (Stipek et al., 1998). The average ages of the
preschoolers and kindergarteners were 4 years and 5 months and 5 years and 3 months
respectively. Children were randomly selected from those who provided consent forms (response
rate not provided). The sample was selected to equally represent the children’s ethnicities and
gender. Fifty-four percent of all children were girls, 39% Latino, 31% African American, 26%
Caucasian, 3% Asian, and 1% other. The authors stated that most of the Latino students did not
speak English fluently. Forty-two percent of the children were from low-income families.
The study continued to include 93 of the participating children in the study’s second year
of which 57% were in kindergarten and 43% in first grade (Stipek et al., 1998). Thirty-three
percent of the children were considered disadvantaged during the study’s first year and 67% as
advantaged. The researchers did not clarify what was meant by the terms disadvantaged and
advantaged in this case. Of this sample, 47% were boys, 43% African American, 35%
Caucasian, 20% Latino, and 1% Asian.
A total of 42 classrooms were included in the study (Stipek et al., 1998). Of these
classrooms, eight preschools and seven kindergarten classrooms were part of Head Start
programs or public schools located in urban school districts. Of the remaining classrooms, 19
preschools and eight kindergarten classrooms were in private schools of which 10 were
associated with religious or community nonprofit organizations and 17 were for profit. Eight
classrooms part of the religious and community programs served mainly children from low-
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 83

income families. Classrooms represented a range of ethnically and socioeconomically diverse
student population, varied instructional strategies, and public and private schools.
Several observations were made regarding the instructional and social climate of the
classroom as well as children’s behaviors (Stipek et al., 1998). All observers were given training
prior to administering the various assessments. Observers used Stipek’s Early Childhood
Instructional Program measure to assess the instructional and social climate of each classroom.
Observers also used Harms and Clifford’s Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale to
measure classroom quality and Hyson, Hirsh-Pasek, and Rescorla’s Classroom Practices
Inventory to measure whether classrooms followed NAEYC requirements. Data regarding
classroom size and teacher experience and education were also collected during an observation.
Children’s behavior was observed at the end of the first year. Of the 228 children included in the
study, 172 were observed in 4-minute increments eight times. After recording children’s
behavior and expressions during this time, each child was given a global rating of behaviors that
demonstrated their stress/anxiety and affection towards others.
Academic, cognitive, and motivation assessments were given in either English or Spanish
at the beginning and end of the school year during the study’s first year and at the end of the year
during the study’s second year (Stipek et al., 1998). The Woodcock-Johnson Achievement Test
and Peabody Individual Achievement Test were used to measure children’s math and literacy
skills respectively. Six subscales of the McCarthy test were used to assess children’s cognitive
abilities: Puzzle Solving Task, Word Knowledge task, Numerical Memory test, Verbal Fluency
subtest, Counting and Sorting subtest, and Conceptual Grouping task. Subscales of the Young
Children’s Feelings About School were used to measure children’s levels of anxiety and
perceptions of their abilities and attitudes toward school. Children were also given tasks that
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 84

indicated their levels of dependence, persistence, preference for risk taking, and expectations of
success. Initial scores of children’s achievement and motivation along with the child-adult ratio
in classrooms, and teacher education and experience were controlled in the study. Gender and
ethnicity were not controlled as no significant effects were found.
Stipek et al. (1998) found that classrooms that emphasized basic skills scored relatively
low on the social climate of the classroom compared to classrooms that de-emphasized basic
skills and demonstrated a positive social climate. The results indicated that basic-skills-oriented
classrooms used more structured and teacher-directed approaches that did not provide nurturing
environments for children and instead used behavioral strategies that relied on yelling at and
providing negative feedback to children. Whether children were in preschool or kindergarten, the
study found that basic-skills-oriented classrooms that had a negative social climate did not
support children’s academic, cognitive, and motivational outcomes. Otherwise, the results
differed for preschoolers and kindergarteners, so they will be discussed separately.
Regarding preschoolers, the study’s results partially supported the authors’ hypotheses as
preschoolers enrolled in classrooms that emphasized basic skills showed less growth on the math
and literacy tests compared to preschoolers enrolled in classrooms that de-emphasized basic
skills (Stipek et al., 1998). The subscales of the McCarthy test showed similar results in both
years of the study. However, the authors attributed these results to the fact that these classrooms
were also characterized by a negative social climate more so than to the type of instruction
provided. Stipek et al. (1998) asserted that perhaps a basic-skills-oriented approach could lead to
higher academic and cognitive outcomes within a more positive social climate. Children enrolled
in classrooms that de-emphasized basic skills demonstrated higher levels of motivation.
Whereas, children in classrooms that emphasized basic skills exhibited greater dependency,
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 85

higher levels of stress, more negative attitudes, and greater problem behaviors compared to
children in classrooms that de-emphasized basic skills. Two years later, children who had been in
classrooms that emphasized basic skills still demonstrated higher levels of anxiety and lower
expectations compared to children who were in classrooms that de-emphasized basic skills.
Overall, the authors indicated the importance of fostering a positive social environment in order
to motivate and provide greater learning opportunities for preschoolers. However, whether
emphasizing basic skills interfered with their learning was not clear in the present study (Stipek
et al., 1998).
In relation to kindergarteners, the study’s results partially supported the authors’
hypotheses as well (Stipek et al., 1998). Kindergarteners enrolled in basic-skills-oriented
classrooms demonstrated greater growth in math and literacy as well as the McCarthy numerical
memory task compared to children enrolled in classrooms that de-emphasized basic skills.
During the second year, children who were enrolled in the basic-skills-oriented classrooms
continued to exhibit more growth in literacy, but not in math. However, kindergarteners enrolled
in classrooms that de-emphasized basic skills scored higher on the puzzle solving task and word
knowledge task of the McCarthy test. Additionally, children who spent 2 years in classrooms that
de-emphasized basic skills performed better on the McCarthy conceptual grouping task as well.
Results for kindergarteners’ motivational outcomes were mixed. Children enrolled in basic-
skills-oriented classrooms displayed greater expectations of success, preference for risk taking,
and greater persistence. However, they also showed more negative attitudes, greater dependency,
and more problem behaviors compared to children enrolled in classrooms that de-emphasized
basic skills. The authors reasoned that perhaps the results were a reflection of the social climate
in the classroom. For example, teachers in basic-skills-oriented classrooms might have been less
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 86

tolerant of behaviors that deviated from what was expected and therefore, caused children to
exhibit more dependency on the teacher so to make sure that they conformed to the teachers’
rules. This could have also given children more ways to display problem behaviors and exhibit
negative attitudes.
Howes et al. (2008) conducted a study to investigate the influence of classroom structural
and process qualities on pre-kindergarteners’ academic and social skills. The authors expected
that structural features (teacher credentials, child-adult ratio, program location, and length of
school day) and classroom process qualities (instructional climate and teacher-child
relationships) would affect children’s academic and social outcomes. Additionally, Howes et al.
(2008) expected that instruction provided for a particular skill domain would lead to student
growth in closely related domains, and that effective teaching in general would predict academic
skills in all domains.
Howes et al. (2008) drew data from the NCEDL and SWEEP studies. As previously
mentioned, combined, these two studies included a total of 2,800 preschoolers from 692
classrooms. Data collectors were trained to use the three observational tools, which they
administered during the fall and spring of the school year. Observers used the ECERS-R to
assess two factors: 1. Teaching and Interactions (consisted of teacher-child interactions,
discipline, supervision, effort to encourage children to communicate, and use of language to
build reasoning skills) and 2. Provisions for Learning (related to items such as furnishings,
equipment, art, play, and science materials). Observers also used the CLASS to evaluate the
socioemotional and instructional climate of the classrooms. Different data collectors used the
Emerging Academics Snapshot to observe children’s activity setting, interaction with adults, and
engagement with activities.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 87

Data collectors administered language, pre-literacy, and math assessments during the fall
and spring, and teachers rated children’s academic and social skills, as well as their relationships
with the students (Howes et al., 2008). Data collectors used the PPVT-III to assess children’s
receptive vocabulary. The OWLS measured children’s oral language skills. Children were also
asked to identify the letters of the alphabet. Data collectors used the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests
of Achievement: Applied Problems Subtest to evaluate children’s math skills. Teachers also
assessed children’s literacy and native language skills in the fall and spring. Teachers used the
Social Skills and Behavior Problems scale to rate children’s social skills. Teachers completed the
Student Relationship Scale, which indicated the quality of their relationship with the students.
Teachers rated their relationships on a closeness scale rating the degree to which the relationship
was characterized by closeness or conflict. Finally, teachers completed questionnaires regarding
their educational background.
Howes et al. (2008) found that classroom process qualities, including the instructional
climate and teacher-child relationships, had a greater influence on students’ academic and social
outcomes as opposed to the classroom’s structural features. Howes et al. (2008) clarified that the
effect sizes for academic gains were small and only predicted for language, literacy, and social
skills, not math. However, this may have been due to the fact that on average, the classrooms in
the present study attained low scores on classroom process qualities. The study included state,
children’s gender, age, ethnicity, maternal education, poverty level, and household size as
covariates and controlled for parents’ pre-kindergarten program selection bias and children’s
skills at entry to preschool. The authors did not find any differences related to children’s gender
and ethnicity or other family characteristics.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 88

Howes et al. (2008) noted that while the quality of teacher-child relationships had a
positive impact on children’s academic and social outcomes, the instructional climate had a
greater effect. Teachers who provided a high instructional climate for students interacted with
children in ways that were engaging and encouraged children to communicate and develop
higher order thinking, reasoning, and creative skills. Also, these teachers provided students with
more verbal feedback regarding performance and more learning opportunities. Finally, these
teachers were sensitive and responsive to children and created an environment that fostered
respect and an enthusiasm for learning. Additionally, Howes et al. (2008) found that children
particularly made gains in domains where teachers provided instructional opportunities as
expected.
Howes et al. (2008) stated that this study was the first to show that different classroom
process qualities were related to children’s academic and social gains, however limitations
should also be considered. The authors stated that perhaps a 6-month period was not long enough
to evaluate children’s academic gains, which could have led to the small effect sizes. Howes et
al. (2008) noted that the study’s greatest limitation was its failure to provide a complete
description of academic gains for children who were evaluated in Spanish. Overall, the study
showed that providing preschoolers from low-income families with opportunities to learn in
environments characterized by high instructional support and positive teacher-child relationships,
could allow preschoolers to develop the academic and social skills needed for kindergarten.
Burchinal et al.’s (2008) study was an extension of their previous research (Howes et al.,
2008) discussed above. Burchinal et al. (2008) investigated whether the results from Howes et
al.’s (2008) research regarding the positive correlation between classroom process qualities and
preschoolers’ academic and social outcomes persisted during kindergarten. The authors expected
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 89

that the instructional climate experienced in preschool and particularly, teacher sensitivity would
predict whether gains made in preschool would be maintained in kindergarten. Moreover, the
authors expected that the instructional climate would be the stronger predictor of academic and
social gains in kindergarten compared to teacher-child relationships, as that is what was found in
Howes et al.’s (2008) study.
Nineteen states were found to serve at least 15% of their 4-year-old population. From this
sample, Burchinal et al. (2008) chose six states based on the following criteria: length of school
day, teacher credentials, program location, and geography. The study included five more states 2
years later and followed children to kindergarten. The study randomly selected 240 preschool
classrooms of which 227 were included in the final analysis as these classrooms provided
complete data. Data collectors asked teachers to help recruit children for the study. A total of 929
children (60% parental consent rate) were included in the study as they provided parental
consent, met the age criteria, did not have an Individualized Education Plan, and spoke English
or Spanish well enough to understand basic instructions. Four children were observed in each
class (two boys and two girls). The average age of children during the fall of preschool was 4.5
years old. Of the sample, 50% were girls, 42% Caucasian, 23% Latino, 21% African American,
9% other or Biracial, 4% Asian/Pacific Islander, and less than 1% Native American. Seventy-
nine percent of the children spoke English, 16% Spanish, and 5% other. The average maternal
education level was 12.42 years and 56.6% of the children came from low-income families. The
study followed 95% of the children into kindergarten. It should be noted that the study did not
include children who had missing data and indicated that these children and their families
differed regarding maternal education level, instructional quality received in preschool,
emotional climate received in kindergarten, and child outcomes compared to those children who
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 90

were included in the study. This missing data may have revealed different results had they been
included in the final analysis.
Trained data collectors assessed classroom quality and children’s academic skills, and
teachers evaluated children’s academic and social skills in the fall and spring of preschool and
kindergarten (Burchinal et al., 2008). Observers used the ECERS-R in the fall and spring in
preschool and winter in kindergarten to assess Interactions and Teaching as this dimension was
related to gains in preschool in Howes et al.’s (2008) study. Observers also used the CLASS to
evaluate classroom’s instructional climate as this dimension was also related to gains in
preschool in Howes et al.’s (2008) study. Data collectors assessed children’s academic skills in
receptive vocabulary using the PPVT-III, oral language skills using the OWLS, and math skills
using the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement: Applied Problems Subtest. They also
used the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement: Letter Word Identification Subtest and
the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing to assess children’s letter/word and sound
identification–tests that were not administered in the previous study. Teachers measured
children’s language and literacy skills using the Academic Rating Scale. Teachers also used the
Teacher-Child Relationship Scale to rate children’s social and behavior problems. The study
included children’s initial skills at entry to preschool, ethnicity, gender, and language spoken;
state; maternal education level; length of school day, preschool quality measures, and
kindergarten quality measures as covariates.
Overall, the authors found that on average, the instructional quality of the classrooms in
the study was low, but classrooms that did demonstrate high instructional quality continued to
contribute to modest, but significant gains in children’s language, academic, and social skills
after preschool throughout kindergarten (Burchinal et al., 2008). Specifically, children who
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 91

demonstrated academic growth were exposed to teachers who positively interacted with children
and provided opportunities to use language, scaffolding, clear instruction, and relevant feedback.
Furthermore, children continued to exhibit academic gains if their preschool teachers encouraged
children to communicate, develop their reasoning skills, had positive interactions with children,
used positive discipline, explained concepts clearly, and provided relevant feedback. The authors
noted that these activities typically took place during small groups or individual interactions with
children. The study also found that positive interactions with teachers that allowed children to
develop their language, reasoning, and social skills especially benefitted children whose mothers
had low education levels. However, this finding was only true for children who attended school
for at least 25 hours per week. Finally, the study’s results showed that children demonstrated
higher language and literacy skills in kindergarten when their preschool teachers taught concepts
in a way that built off the children’s skill levels and when they provided positive and relevant
feedback. This study extended the findings of the previous study, indicating that the high
instructional and socioemotional support received in preschool continued to have a positive
effect on children throughout kindergarten, however, over time, variability within the classrooms
may have altered the effect that children’s preschool experiences had on their academic and
social outcomes (Burchinal et al., 2008).
The studies in this section discussed the quality of the classroom and the influence of the
classroom’s quality on children’s learning. All of the identified studies acknowledged that the
classroom’s social and emotional climate and instructional support affected children’s learning.
However, Stipek et al.’s (1998) study showed that the social and emotional climate played a
greater role, while Burchinal et al. (2008) and Howes et al.’s (2008) studies indicated that the
classroom’s instructional support made a greater impact on children’s learning. Nonetheless, the
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 92

studies suggested that pre-kindergarten environments that provided a positive classroom climate
allowed for greater learning opportunities for children, especially for those from low-income
families. Considering that all the studies included in this section were quantitative and
correlational, there is a lack of evidence showing how classroom climate influenced children’s
learning. Specifically, the studies did not explain how children’s learning behaviors and
outcomes were affected by teacher-child interactions.
The studies represented in the empirical section of the literature review demonstrated the
observed effectiveness of the four major components of pre-kindergarten environments that
provide opportunities for learning. These included opportunities to participate in discovery
learning, participate in peer play as well as guided play, interact with high-level peers, and
engage in environments that exhibit a positive social and emotional climate and high
instructional support. It can be inferred that environments that include these components will
present learning opportunities for young children, especially for those from low SES
backgrounds. Having discussed the empirical evidence regarding the research question, it is
important to refer to the theoretical evidence that underlies the findings in this section. The next
section will focus on the theoretical evidence that emerged from the empirical research.
Constructivism and Sociocultural Theory
As components of Constructivism and Sociocultural Theory derived from the empirical
research, this section discusses the theoretical dimensions related to providing learning
opportunities to young children. The theorists represented in this section have built on Jean
Piaget and Lev Vygotsky’s work regarding Constructivism and Sociocultural Theory
respectively. In each section, an overview of the theoretical framework is provided along with an
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 93

in-depth analysis of specific aspects of the theories reflected in the empirical evidence.
Constructivism is discussed first, followed by Sociocultural Theory.
Constructivism
Constructivism, also often referred to as active learning, is the idea that learning is an
active process in which the learner constructs knowledge. The research included in this section
positions the learner as an active participant in the learning process as opposed to assuming the
role of a passive recipient of knowledge. It is therefore the educator’s role to provide
opportunities for active learning and teach students how to construct new knowledge. This is an
important component to consider when looking at the types of environments that support
learning. The first piece included in this section provides an overview of the main tenets of
Constructivism while the second provides a deeper understanding along with instructional
principles based on the theory of Constructivism. The last piece utilizes a constructivist lens to
emphasize the importance of meaningful learning. These pieces were specifically selected for
this section as they represent a holistic view of Constructivism as related to children’s learning.
In line with the view that an individual actively constructs knowledge in order to learn,
Anthony (1996) suggests the following three principles of Constructivism. First, the author
suggests that learning consists of “knowledge construction, not of knowledge recording or
absorption” (Anthony, 1996, p. 349). Second, learning depends on the learner’s prior knowledge
and experiences and how he/she uses them to construct new knowledge. Third, the learner’s level
of metacognition shapes how and what he/she learns. Therefore, in sum, Constructivism is the
way in which a learner actively uses his/her prior knowledge to make meaning of new
knowledge.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 94

Anthony (1996) discusses two interpretations of active learning. The first suggests that
the learner assumes control of his/her learning and directs his/her learning process, thus requiring
activities that involve “investigational work, problem solving, small group work, collaborative
learning, and experiential learning” (Anthony, 1996, p. 350). This is in contrast to activities
considered to involve passive learning, such as listening to the teacher’s instructions and point of
view, being asked questions with a predetermined answer, and answering questions on
information that has been presented. The second interpretation focuses on the learner’s level of
mental effort in acquiring new knowledge. This interpretation relies more greatly on the learner’s
metacognitive abilities and the way in which they are exercised.
Anthony (1996) clarifies that the two interpretations mentioned above are independent of
each other as an active learning experience can yield an active mental effort or a passive mental
effort on the learner’s part. Likewise, a passive learning experience can lead to an active mental
effort or a passive mental effort. For example, students who appear to be participating in rote
learning could be constructing knowledge. However, to achieve the highest level of knowledge
construction, Anthony (1996) suggests that learners participate in active learning experiences
while also employing active mental effort. In this sense, responsibility is not only the teacher’s to
facilitate activities that allow for active learning, but also, the learner’s to apply active mental
effort. Consequently, the learner’s knowledge acquisition also relies on his/her learning goals.
The use of learning strategies is a critical component for doing this. The author uses the
definition of learning strategies as “behaviors and thoughts affecting the learner’s motivation or
affective state, or the way in which the learner selects, acquires, organizes, and integrates new
knowledge” (Anthony, 1996, p. 351). By using different learning strategies, learners can
intentionally choose the type of knowledge they gain.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 95

Anthony (1996) cautions that leaving learners to construct for themselves without
providing any structure or guidance is not the intention of Constructivism. Rather, educators
should focus on creating opportunities that allow for active knowledge construction and ways in
which the individual can learn how to actively construct knowledge. It then becomes the
learner’s responsibility to use learning strategies to actively construct knowledge. The learner
must self-regulate his/her thoughts and behaviors and take control of the learning process by
using his/her prior knowledge to create new connections and insights.
Savery and Duffy (1995) explain that Constructivism is a theory that strives to explain
how individuals learn. According to Savery and Duffy (1995), Constructivism is based on three
main principles. The first principle is grounded in the understanding that learners construct
knowledge in ways that reflect their interactions with their environment (Savery & Duffy, 1995).
Although individuals construct their own knowledge, the process of constructing knowledge
develops when an individual engages with specific content in a particular context. Moreover, the
individual constructs knowledge according to his/her goals. This leads to the second principle,
which highlights that the learner’s goals determine the way he/she constructs knowledge. Savery
and Duffy (1995) emphasize that the individual’s goals determine what he/she attends to, what
prior experience he/she uses to construct an understanding, and what knowledge is ultimately
constructed. In this sense, the learner’s “cognitive puzzlement” (Savery & Duffy, 1995, p. 136)
is the stimulus for learning. This can further be explained by Piaget’s concept of accommodation
in which an existing schema needs to be modified or a new schema needs to be created (Savery
& Duffy, 1995). The third principle of Constructivism is that knowledge evolves as individuals
socially interact with others. Learners compare their understanding to their peers’ understanding.
Through collaborative groups, learners’ understanding can be strengthened or challenged.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 96

Savery and Duffy (1995) transfer the concepts of Constructivist Theory to eight
instructional principles. The first principle encourages an individual to understand the purpose of
a learning activity as opposed to completing a task for the sake of competing it. The second
principle emphasizes that the learner’s personal goals should align with the overall instructional
goals. The learner can initiate the task or he/she can develop ownership of a given task. Third,
the learner should be given the opportunity to engage in an authentic task that would require the
same type of cognitive demand as what might be faced in the field. For example, rather than
memorizing text, the learner should engage in discourse and problem-solving to understand the
task. Continuing with that line of thought, the fourth instructional principle indicates that the task
and learning environment should offer the complexity that the learner will ultimately be expected
to engage in. The fifth instructional principle stresses that the learner must not only have
ownership of the problem, but also, the process of reaching the solution to the problem. In this
way, learners can determine their own way to create an understanding. As part of the sixth
instructional principle, the teacher should create an environment that supports and challenges the
learner’s thinking as opposed to providing what the teacher considers to be the procedure to the
correct answer. Seventh, learners are given opportunities to compare their understandings to
those of others, possibly through collaborative groups. Finally, providing opportunities for
reflection about the process to understand what was learned is important for learners to develop
self-regulation skills.
Similar to Anthony (1996) and Savery and Duffy (1995), Michael (2001) says that it is
important for learners to create knowledge. However, he provides his insights on the importance
of doing so meaningfully. According to Michael (2001), it is essential that learning be
meaningful so that it can be transferred and used in settings other than the one in which it was
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 97

acquired. Therefore, the learner must go beyond participating in rote learning, which requires
knowledge to be memorized, to also integrate it with prior knowledge and create new
knowledge. This allows the learner to understand the new knowledge in relation to prior
knowledge and be able to apply it in various and new contexts. Doing so makes learning
meaningful.
Michael (2001) explains that several factors should be considered in order to promote
meaningful learning. First, it should be clear that learning meaningfully is valued by the educator
so that meaningful learning can become more attainable. The importance of learning
meaningfully can be expressed verbally, but also, through actions. By modeling behaviors that
can lead to learning meaningfully, educators can not only show learners that it is important to
them, but also, how learners can meaningfully learn. In this way, educators can prompt learners
to adopt meaningful learning as a goal as well. On this note, educators should also create
opportunities that allow students to participate in meaningful learning. For example, Michael
(2001) asserts that occasions which allow students to solve problems are especially beneficial to
learning and give it more meaning as it prompts students to think critically and reason causally,
and thus, think more deeply about the learning content.
Additionally, continuous guidance from a more educated other often results in a deeper
understanding of the learning content (Michael, 2001). This can be achieved through the process
of scaffolding, in which the more educated other encourages the learner to build more complex
mental models and think about and explain his/her understanding of what was learned. This
could ultimately allow learners to develop self-explanations during the learning process, which
has the potential to increase learning. Another form of guidance that may not be continuous but
still helpful is cooperative learning and peer teaching in which students learn from each other.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 98

This process could produce meaningful learning as learners are encouraged to discuss, justify,
and explain their thinking to a peer. In this way, they are encouraged to talk to one another about
the learning content and integrate a larger body of knowledge to arrive to their conclusions.
The literature included in this section provided a thorough overview of Constructivist
Theory. Anthony (1996), Savery and Duffy (1995), and Michael (2001) discuss that the
responsibility of constructing knowledge is that of the learner’s. However, it is the job of the
educator to provide an environment that allows for appropriate forms of knowledge construction
so that it can be meaningful. While Constructivist Theory centers on the learner, Sociocultural
Theory, which will be discussed next, focuses on the interactions between the learner and the
environment.
Sociocultural Theory
This section discusses concepts of Sociocultural Theory. The way in which Constructivist
Theory differs from Sociocultural Theory is the latter’s emphasis on the changing conditions of
an individual’s cultural and historical context and the role of an adult to assist with learning.
Therefore, this theory is especially important to help answer the research question as it discusses
the constructs and type of environment that support learning. The pieces included in this section
were selected because they provide a strong framework of Sociocultural Theory and further
discuss two main aspects of Sociocultural Theory considered to be relevant to the identified
research questions as inferred by the empirical research. First, the main tenets of Vygotsky’s
framework of Sociocultural Theory are examined (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996), followed by a
closer look at the zone of proximal development (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Lastly, Vygotsky’s
approach to play uses principles of Sociocultural Theory and the zone of proximal development
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 99

(ZPD) to discuss the adult’s role in providing learning opportunities for young children
(Bodrova, 2008).
John-Steiner and Mahn (1996) provide a conceptual framework of Vygotsky’s approach
to Sociocultural Theory, which was developed in the 1920s and 1930s. The premise of
Sociocultural Theory is that learning and development depends on an individual’s social,
cultural, and historical context (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). The authors identify three
fundamental tenets of Vygotsky’s sociocultural framework as social sources of development,
semiotic mediation, and genetic analysis. Building on the idea that learning is contingent upon
context, John-Steiner and Mahn (1996) suggest that learners develop skills and accumulate
knowledge as they interact with others. Specifically, through the use of physical and
psychological tools, such as language, symbols, gestures, play, scaffolding, and inner speech,
learners are able to first, construct meaning and then, internalize concepts. Consequently, John-
Steiner and Mahn (1996) state that the concept of semiotic mediation is an essential component
of knowledge construction. In this sense, the process involved is just as important as the
outcome. As previously stated, learning and development take place within an individual’s
social, cultural, and historical context. Since the conditions of these contexts are continuously
changing, opportunities for learning change as well. In this way, the social world, psychological
tools, and the learner are all interrelated. The desired goal of this process in which social,
cultural, and historical influences shape the learner’s skills so that those skills can eventually
become automated is internalization. Therefore, the authors emphasize that this process should
not be considered transmissive, but rather transformative.
Vygotsky’s approach to Sociocultural Theory involves the learner constructing as well as
being constructed by his/her social world (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). Acting on that
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 100

understanding, the authors highlight the importance of an individual’s prior experiences and how
those experiences inform his/her learning and development. Depending on the learner’s prior
knowledge, society should provide him/her with learning opportunities accordingly (John-Steiner
& Mahn, 1996). In this sense, the learner takes an active role in his/her learning and
development, making the process transformative as opposed to transmissive. The concept of the
ZPD illustrates the transformative process of social learning to internalization, which is
discussed next.
Tharp and Gallimore (1988) discuss how learning and development involve a process in
which the actions and speech of a learner’s social sources ultimately becomes internalized within
the learner. As the learner moves from the social plane to the psychological plane, his/her actions
and speech change from being socially regulated to self-regulated (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
This process can be demonstrated by the concept of the ZPD, which is the distance between a
learner’s actual developmental level without assistance to his/her potential developmental level
with the assistance of a capable adult or peer (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). The authors suggest
that there are four stages of the ZPD.
During the first stage, to aid the learner to achieve the learning or developmental
outcome, a capable adult or peer can scaffold the learning process through six means of
assistance: contingency management, feeding back, instructing, questioning, and cognitive
structuring (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). The authors suggest that peer modeling can be an
especially effective source of assisted performance. Contingency management involves the use
of rewards and punishments depending on the behaviors exhibited by the learner. Although,
Tharp and Gallimore (1988) indicate that effective teaching is focused on providing an
encouraging emotional climate, productive outcomes, and positive rewards. Feeding back is the
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 101

act of providing feedback that is compared to a standard. Through instructing, the capable other
must accept that his/her role is to assist performance rather than expecting the learner to learn on
his/her own. Questioning gives the learner the opportunity to use language to show what he/she
knows. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) clarify that assessment, although useful, is not a direct mean
of assistance. Finally, cognitive structuring allows the learner to develop a structure for thinking
and acting. Each of the means of assistance described has a separate intention and produces a
distinct action. The range of support offered during the first stage can vary from very frequent
and specific to less frequent and abstract as the learner gains understanding of the outcome.
The next three stages transfer the responsibility from the capable other to the learner
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). In the second stage, the learner takes control of achieving the
learning or developmental outcome without any assistance. During the third stage, the learner
has achieved self-regulation and the outcome becomes internalized. The fourth stage brings the
learner back to his/her actual developmental level and he/she must go through the process of the
ZPD again to achieve a learning or developmental outcome. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) explain
that even after going through the ZPD to achieve a certain outcome, a learner need not only rely
on internal mediation; he/she can ask for support if there is a problem. Also, what was once
automatized can become de-automatized in the case of a major event, such as a natural disaster
or other stressful event.
Tharp and Gallimore (1988) state that there may be several goals, such as the learner’s
goal and the overall goal. It is the capable other’s role to ensure that the support provided aims to
achieve both goals. In this sense, there needs to be a balance in the amount of support being
offered. Too little or too much assistance can impede the learner from achieving the goal and can
become an interference.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 102

Bodrova (2008) discusses how Vygotsky’s approach to play can positively impact
preschoolers’ development of academic skill prerequisites. In this piece, Bodrova (2008)
discusses how through adult scaffolding, children’s make-believe play can become more mature
and thus, contribute to children’s academic skills in richer ways. The author emphasizes that
Vygotsky viewed play as an activity that could enhance academic learning, especially early
literacy, and considered it to be the principal source of development in preschool. According to
Vygotsky, real play allows children to “create an imaginary situation, take on and act out roles,
and follow a set of rules determined by specific roles” (Bodrova, 2008, p. 359). In this way,
Vygotsky aimed to demonstrate that play was not completely natural, but rather requires shared
rules amongst those who play together. This is especially important as play mimics reality and
reality is directed by rules.
Vygotsky described play as a contributing factor to forming young children’s ZPD
(Bodrova, 2008). Considering that in make-believe play, a child typically acts in ways that are
more mature than his/her biological age, this higher level serves as the potential level of the
child’s ZPD. Not only is the child’s mental level higher during play, but also his/her self-
regulation skills are higher compared to when in non-play contexts. For example, Bodrova
(2008) applied the results of a related research study of a child playing the part of a lookout. To
do so, the child behaved in ways that were typical of a lookout and waited at his/her post for a
longer period of time compared to when asked to do so in a non-play context (Bodrova, 2008).
This example consists of several key components of Vygotsky’s sociocultural framework. First,
it demonstrates the need for the learner to connect his/her prior knowledge to the new setting.
For instance, the learner has to think about what he/she already knows about the role of a lookout
to behave similarly. Second, the situation indicates that the child is capable of some level of
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 103

abstract thought as the child assigns meaning to an object or in this case, role. Third, the make-
believe play calls for high levels of self-regulation skills on the young child’s part in order to
play the role of the lookout in ways that are in accordance with the rules of the game. This also
further indicates that the learner must abide by the shared rules to successfully participate in the
make-believe play. Through play, one can witness the child behave in ways that are strong
indicators of their problem-solving, communication, language, metacognitive, and imaginative
skills (Bodrova, 2008). Furthermore, play provides opportunities for reading and writing in a
meaningful context (Bodrova, 2008).
Bodrova (2008) suggests that the more mature the play, the greater meaning and impact it
will have on the child’s development of play and academic skills. Mature play can be
characterized in the following ways. First, the less resemblance an object has to what it is
substituting, the more mature the play is considered to be, such as by using a stick as a horse or a
box as a car (Bodrova, 2008). The second characteristic of mature play is the child’s ability to
engage in the behaviors and use speech that is typical of the role he/she is trying to play. The
third characteristic that demonstrates mature play is the child’s ability to follow the rules of the
make-believe scenario, such as playing a doctor as opposed to a teacher. Finally, the last
indicator of mature play is the quality of the make-believe play as it can involve multiple themes
over a span of weeks. Bodrova (2008) discusses that children will not automatically participate
in mature play as Vygotsky argued that play was less naturalistic than what was commonly
believed at the time. According to Vygotsky, young children needed to be taught how to play.
Acting on that understanding, he urged adults to provide play scaffolding in order to teach young
children play skills with the intention for children to participate in mature play. In this way, he
considered the role of the adult to be proactive rather than passive in the process of young
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 104

children’s play, as encouraging children to participate in mature play would lead to greater
development of play and academic skills.
John-Steiner and Mahn (1996) and Tharp and Gallimore (1988) provide an overview of
Vygotsky’s approach to Sociocultural Theory and the ZPD respectively. By providing children
opportunities to learn from capable adults and peers and eventually self-regulate and internalize
the actions and speech demonstrated to them, children can make progress to achieving the
learning or developmental outcome. Likewise, Bodrova (2008) employs Vygotsky’s approach to
demonstrate how through play scaffolding, adults can encourage children to engage in mature
play, which positively affects their play and academic skills. Sociocultural Theory heavily relies
on the contextual factors that can support children’s learning. In this way, Bodrova (2008), John-
Steiner and Mahn (1996), and Tharp and Gallimore (1988) indicate that social, cultural, and
historical influences can affect the learner and therefore, should be taken into account when
considering how the environment can provide learning opportunities for children.
The theoretical section of the literature review provided an overview of Constructivism
and Sociocultural Theory and took a closer look at the specific facets of each theory, particularly
those that were referenced throughout the empirical research. The theories presented offer a
conceptual understanding of how pre-kindergarten environments can provide meaningful
learning opportunities for children. This combined with the empirical research set a foundation
of the major components of effective learning environments for young children, which allowed
for the development of the conceptual framework that will be discussed next.
Conceptual Framework
This section describes the conceptual framework that guided the study. According to
Maxwell (2013), the conceptual framework is a tentative theory that is open to revision over
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 105

time. As mentioned in the previous section, the initial conceptual framework was based on the
findings of the empirical and theoretical research. The current conceptual framework is the
product of my examination of the empirical and theoretical work as well as the analysis I
completed in relation to the data I collected for this study. Figure 1 depicts the model that
provides a conceptual understanding of how the findings are framed. The model reflects the three
constituents, their individual roles, and their interactions that are necessary for a pre-kindergarten
environment to provide meaningful learning opportunities to children.
There are three constituents portrayed in the model–teacher, child, and peer–and each has
identified roles. The teacher is responsible for providing an environment that provides
meaningful learning opportunities for young children. As discussed previously, it was important
that learning be meaningful as research has indicated that knowledge learned in a meaningful
way allows the learner to “do something with it” (Michael, 2001, p. 147). Thus, for learners to
learn meaningfully, knowledge must be stored so that it can be accessed and built upon as
learners construct new knowledge (Anthony, 1996; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995). This
allows prior knowledge to be integrated with new knowledge as the learner applies that
knowledge to various contexts (Anthony, 1996; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995). In this
way, meaningful learning requires the learner to not only retain knowledge, but also, to be able
to transfer the knowledge (Michael, 2001). Therefore, a prerequisite of learning meaningfully
involves the learner to exercise high levels of cognitive strategy so to construct knowledge as
opposed to participate in rote learning (Anthony, 1996; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995). It
also requires learning to be valued by both educator and learner and intentional so that it can
fulfill a goal (Anthony, 1996; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995). Moreover, Savery and
Duffy (1995) suggest that learning be stimulated from an authentic task so to encourage
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 106

transferability to other contexts. Finally, learning can be a collaborative process involving others
to help shape the learner’s existing knowledge (Anthony, 1996; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy,
1995).
As indicated by the empirical and theoretical evidence, the teacher can create learning
opportunities that are meaningful by thoughtfully and purposefully facilitating opportunities for
students to participate in guided discovery learning, guided and positive peer play, and
interactions with peers. The teacher is also held accountable for providing an environment
characterized by high academic support
2
and a positive social and emotional climate. When
given the opportunity, the child participates in guided discovery learning, both types of play, and
interactions with peers. The child also interacts with the academic and social and emotional
climates created by the teacher. The peer’s role is to participate in peer play and interact with the
child. There are arrows between the teacher and child as well as the child and peer signifying
their interactions with one another. In this model, each of the constituent’s role and interactions
with the other affects opportunities for learning. The following sections discuss the specific
interactions between each of the constituents.

2
I use the term academic support as opposed to instructional support, which was originally used in the literature
review, as academic support will specifically describe the teacher’s actions that will support students’ academic
learning goals as opposed to instruction regarding other constructs, such as guided discovery learning, play, and peer
interactions.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 107

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
Teacher-Child Interactions
Since the research question centers on how pre-kindergarten environments provide
meaningful learning opportunities to children, this section primarily focuses on how the teacher
creates such an environment for his/her students. According to the model above, there are five
conditions the teacher can provide to construct a supportive learning environment. Each of these
are discussed at length in this section. The ways in which the child should respond will also be
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 108

highlighted, as the focus of this section is the interaction between the teacher and child that
makes for a productive learning environment.
One of the ways the teacher can support learning in a pre-kindergarten setting is by
facilitating opportunities for knowledge co-construction and guided discovery learning
(Anthony, 1996; Bonawitz et al., 2011; Marcon, 1999; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995;
Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva, 2004). While a balance of teacher- and child-directed activities is
important (Bonawitz et al., 2011; Marcon, 1999; Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva, 2004), allowing
children to actively construct meaning using high mental effort as opposed to passively receive
information using low mental effort, can provide greater opportunities for learning (Anthony,
1996; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995). Through participation in exploration and child-
initiated activities (Bonawitz et al., 2011; Marcon, 1999; Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva, 2004), which
are carefully facilitated by the teacher (Marcon, 1999; Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva, 2004), children
can discover novel solutions and learn beyond the targeted instruction (Bonawitz et al., 2011).
This can be achieved by giving children opportunities to not only construct a solution to a given
problem, but also, the process to reach their version of a solution (Savery & Duffy, 1995). These
opportunities can be enhanced by providing tasks that are authentic and reflect the complexity of
the task or skill in a real-world situation (Savery & Duffy, 1995). Finally, Michael (2001) and
Siraj-Blatchford and Sylva (2004) suggest that teachers and children should participate in co-
construction of knowledge whether in free play or academic activities so that children can attain
their potential of learning certain skills or concepts. In this way, Anthony (1996), Michael
(2001), and Savery and Duffy (1995) caution that while the responsibility of knowledge
construction is the learner’s, the teacher is accountable for carefully designing opportunities that
allow for meaningful construction of knowledge.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 109

Another way the teacher can provide learning opportunities to pre-kindergartners is by
teaching and scaffolding children’s play skills within their ZPD. Doing so would help children
develop high levels of mature play along with language and learning behaviors (Bodrova, 2008)
as evidenced through children’s peer play (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012; R. Bulotsky-Shearer et
al., 2014; Coolahan et al., 2000) and guided play (Han et al., 2010; Samuelsson & Johansson,
2006). Teaching children how to play (Bodrova, 2008), encouraging them to play in interactive
as opposed to disruptive or disconnected ways (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012; Bulotsky-Shearer
et al., 2014; Coolahan et al., 2000), and integrating play and learning (Han et al., 2010;
Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006) has shown to benefit children’s language and academic skills
(Bodrova, 2008; Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012; Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2014; Coolahan et al.,
2000; Han et al., 2010; Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006). Therefore, it is not only important for
the teacher to provide opportunities for peer play (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012; Bulotsky-
Shearer et al., 2014; Coolahan et al., 2000) and guided play (Han et al., 2010; Samuelsson &
Johansson, 2006), but also to teach children interactive play skills (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012;
Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2014; Coolahan et al., 2000) so that children in turn can appropriately
participate in such opportunities for mature play (Bodrova, 2008). Building on this concept, an
essential component of supportive learning environments is providing opportunities for children
to interact with each other in other ways, which is examined next.
Allowing children to interact with their peers offers many learning opportunities
(Anthony, 1996; Henry & Rickman, 2007; Justice et al., 2011; Mashburn et al., 2009; Michael,
2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995; Schechter et al., 2007). Specifically, giving lower-ability and
higher-ability students time to interact within the classroom can have a positive effect on lower-
ability students’ language and reading skills (Henry & Rickman, 2007; Justice et al., 2011;
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 110

Mashburn et al., 2009; Schechter et al., 2007). Consequently, teachers should be mindful of
carefully designing opportunities for children with different academic levels to play, talk, and
work with each other. This can take the form of collaborative groups, free play, or other ways in
which students can interact (Anthony, 1996; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995). To offer
opportunities for successful peer interactions, Mashburn et al. (2009) claimed that the classroom
quality must also be strong. Classroom components that contribute to a supportive pre-
kindergarten learning environment are discussed next.
Teachers can provide meaningful learning opportunities for pre-kindergartners by
creating a classroom climate characterized by high academic support and a positive social and
emotional climate (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2014; Burchinal et al., 2008; Connor et al., 2008;
Howes et al., 2008; LoCasale et al., 2007; Mashburn et al., 2008; A. Mashburn et al., 2009;
Palermo et al., 2007; Stipek et al., 1998; Valentino, 2017). To deliver high academic support in
pre-kindergarten, teachers will focus on language and literacy instruction (Connor et al., 2006).
Teachers will also provide clear instruction (Burchinal et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al.,
2007); concept development (LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007); relevant feedback (Burchinal et al.,
2008; Howes et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007); and opportunities for children to use
language to communicate and develop higher-order thinking and reasoning skills (Burchinal et
al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008). Additionally, teachers will scaffold the learning content within the
child’s ZPD (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996; Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva, 2004; Tharpe & Gallimore,
1998) by using various physical and psychological tools, such as feeding back, instructing,
questioning, and cognitive structuring (Tharpe & Gallimore, 1998). In this way, the teacher can
assist the child to ultimately internalize the concepts or skills being taught and ensure that the
learning content is being taught in a way that is within the learner’s actual developmental level
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 111

and potential developmental level (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996; Tharpe & Gallimore, 1998). It is
then the child’s responsibility to eventually reach his/her potential developmental level, which
will be demonstrated when the child self-regulates his/her learning without needing any further
assistance from the teacher (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996; Tharpe & Gallimore, 1998).
To develop a positive social and emotional climate teachers and children in turn, will aim
to foster close teacher-child relationships considered to be warm and affectionate as opposed to
relationships that are dependent or conflictive (Palermo et al., 2007). Teachers who aspire to
develop positive relationships with their students will interact with their students in sensitive and
responsive ways, provide high social and emotional support, and encourage respect for others
and an enthusiasm for learning, as these qualities can lead to lower levels of problem behavior
and higher levels of motivation (Mashburn et al., 2008; Stipek et al., 1998), the development of
social skills (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008; Mashburn et al., 2008), and academic
readiness (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Mashburn et
al., 2008; A. Mashburn et al., 2009; Palermo et al., 2007; Stipek et al., 1998). To further promote
a positive social and emotional climate, teachers can practice effective behavior management
skills (Burchinal et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Mashburn et al., 2009) so to
organize opportunities for children to productively interact with their peers (Mashburn et al.,
2009). Finally, teachers will encourage students to develop independence and self-regulation
skills, a key developmental goal in early childhood education that promotes learning behaviors
and allows students to succeed socially and academically (NAEYC, 2009)
3
.

3
Overall, the literature presented in this chapter aligned with the NAEYC standards discussed in Chapter One.
However, one point not overtly related to the literature that is part of the conceptual framework relates to the sixth
DAP core principle regarding the importance of students developing self-regulation skills.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 112

Child-Peer Interactions
Interactions with peers can provide meaningful learning opportunities for children as
indicated by the conceptual model and discussion earlier. Peer interactions–whether in the form
of collaborative groups or peer teaching–can produce deeper learning (Anthony, 1996; Michael,
2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995) and contribute to language and reading growth especially when
higher-ability peers interact with lower-ability peers (Henry & Rickman, 2007; Justice et al.,
2011; Mashburn et al., 2009; Schechter & Bye, 2007). The authors suggested that peer effects
could be directly transferred through child-to-child interactions. In this way, children who have
higher abilities may model their language skills to their lower-ability peers in daily interactions
(Henry & Rickman, 2007 and Justice et al., 2011).
Moreover, interactions with peers, especially during play provide learning opportunities
for pre-kindergarteners. Coolahan et al. (2000) found that interactive peer play skills were related
to high levels of learning behaviors, such as motivation, persistence, and attitude and low levels
of problem behaviors in a pre-kindergarten setting. In the same study, the authors found that
disruptive and disconnected play, in which the child was in conflict with or withdrawn from
his/her peers respectively, were related to poor learning behaviors as well as problem behaviors.
Bulotsky-Shearer et al. (2012) found that children exhibiting problem behaviors in the classroom
did not know how to cooperate with their peers, which negatively affected their academic skills.
Additionally, Bulotsky-Shearer et al. (2014) found that interactive peer play skills affected
children’s academic skills based on the classroom quality. This research suggested that children
should interact and play in interactive ways with their classmates otherwise effects can be null or
negative.

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 113

Summary
This chapter presented the relevant literature related to the research question regarding
how pre-kindergarten environments provide meaningful learning opportunities to children from
low-SES backgrounds. While the research described the components that made up a supportive
learning environment in pre-kindergarten, due to a shortage of qualitative studies, it did not
provide sufficient data on how these components came into play in a pre-kindergarten
environment. Consequently, the model in the above section represented the roles of and
interactions between a teacher and child, as well as, child and peer in a pre-kindergarten setting
that I argued were necessary in order to provide a supportive learning environment. The model
set the foundation for this study, which used qualitative methods to examine whether or not and
how the interactions discussed above materialized in a pre-kindergarten setting that
predominantly served children from low SES backgrounds. The basis of the study will be
discussed in the next chapter.

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 114

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
This chapter primarily focuses on the methods of data collection that were applied in this
study to answer the research question and sub-questions:
1. How do pre-kindergarten environments provide meaningful learning opportunities to
children from low SES backgrounds?
a. What do interactions between a teacher and her students look like in a pre-
kindergarten classroom?
b. What do interactions between students and their peers look like in a pre-
kindergarten classroom?
The study used qualitative methods so that, consistent with Creswell (2014) and Merriam and
Tisdell (2016), the identified constituents–teachers, children, and peers–could be studied in their
natural setting. Using qualitative methods allowed me to act as the primary instrument and
participate in an inductive process to understand the meaning the participants constructed in
these settings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). By learning the participants’ perspectives, I gained an
understanding of how they interpreted their experiences in a specific context (Creswell, 2014;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this way, applying qualitative methods allowed me to participate in
inquiry that was richly descriptive, as findings were represented by words and pictures as
opposed to numbers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Therefore, the methods of data collection relied
on the use of teacher interviews, classroom observations, and document analysis to answer the
identified research questions (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
This chapter first provides an overview of the research design followed by the sample and
methods of data collection. Next, I discuss my approach to data analysis and the study’s
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 115

limitations and delimitations. The chapter concludes with how issues of validity, reliability, and
ethics were addressed throughout the study.
Research Design
The study employed a multiple case study approach, as I focused on two pre-kindergarten
classrooms and the identified constituents within those classrooms. The case study approach
allowed for an in-depth analysis of a unit (Creswell, 2014) or what Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
referred to as a “bounded system” (p. 37). In this sense, the case study approach gave me the
ability to understand the learning context and how that context provided meaningful learning
opportunities to pre-kindergarteners from low SES backgrounds.
Sample
This case study utilized a non-probability sampling strategy, specifically that which was
purposeful (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this sense, I chose a purposeful sample of teachers
teaching in this setting that fit the criteria described below so that it could provide the most
relevant data to inform my research questions (Creswell 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Site Selection
The setting of the study took place in two federally funded Early Head Start classrooms
located in an urban area in Southern California. As indicated above, the sites selected were
purposeful so to provide the most pertinent information for my study. The criterion-based
selection that I used for my sample is outlined below. As recommended by my dissertation
committee, I used online resources to search for Early Head Start schools within a 20-mile radius
from where I was located. I also called the headquarter office to learn about the hierarchy and
steps needed to be taken in order to gain access, as recommended by Bogdan and Biklen (2007).
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 116

I then visited the headquarter office several times to seek permission and consent to conduct my
study at one of the Early Head Start campuses. I completed the required paperwork indicating
my background and the intent of my study. I also completed their vaccination requirements. The
headquarter office then directed me to a school director, who I also asked for permission and
consent to conduct my study at her site. In this way, I utilized an overt approach to my study and
made my position and intent clear to the headquarter office and school director (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007).
Criterion. The only criterion for the school was that it predominantly served children
from low-income families. Since my study aimed to investigate how pre-kindergarten
environments provided meaningful learning opportunities for children from low SES
backgrounds, this criterion was essential in order to address my research questions. Since this
school was part of an Early Head Start program, all of the students attending the school came
from families whose household incomes were at or below the poverty line.
Participant Selection
The participants in the study were two lead pre-kindergarten teachers from the school
described above. After selecting the site in which the eligible pre-kindergarten classrooms were
located, I asked the director to recommend teachers who would be a good fit for the study based
on the criteria discussed below. Once teachers had been identified, I asked for their permission to
conduct the classroom observations and interviews as recommended by Bogdan and Biklen
(2007). I continued to use an overt approach and made my position and intent clear to the
teachers (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
Criterion 1. The first criterion was that the teacher should have a minimum of 5 years of
teaching experience in pre-kindergarten. In this sense, I knew that the teacher had spent a
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 117

considerable amount of time in a pre-kindergarten setting and had probably gained enough
knowledge and experience to teach preschool students in a way that represented her teaching
philosophies and what she knew about the teaching and learning process.
Criterion 2. The second criterion was that the teacher must have a teaching certificate in
early childhood education. Research has indicated that a teacher’s level of education and earned
credentials can affect student outcomes especially for students from low SES backgrounds
(Mashburn et al., 2008; Pianta et al., 2005). Considering the context of this study, I thought it
was important to take this consideration into account when selecting participants.
Data Collection Procedures and Instruments
I primarily used teacher interviews, classroom observations, and documents and artifacts
to collect my data, which informed my research question of how pre-kindergarten environments
provided meaningful learning opportunities to children from low SES backgrounds. I selected
these methods of data collection, as they would collectively help me to understand what the
opportunities for learning and interactions look like in the classroom and how the teachers
perceive them. I focused on the content outlined in my conceptual framework when designing
the necessary protocols and conducting the interviews, observations, and document analysis.
However, I was also open to what emerged from these sources of data. Finally, through the use
of interviews, observations, and documents, I was able to triangulate my data so to crosscheck
and understand the data from different perspectives (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Interviews
Interviews provide a source of data that only the interviewees can provide–their
interpretations of certain events and ideas (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007), inner thoughts, feelings,
opinions, values, and experiences that cannot be observed (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Weiss,
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 118

1994). Additionally, gaining insight through the teachers’ lens would give me a perspective other
than my own to consider and contemplate during data analysis (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). I conducted a total of four formal interviews–two semi-structured interviews with
each of the two pre-kindergarten teachers in their classrooms. Each formal interview took
approximately 1 hour, totaling in 2 hours of interview for each teacher. I did not conduct any
informal teacher interviews.
I developed and used an interview protocol (see Appendix A & B) for each formal
interview so that I had a list of questions to ask both interviewees (Creswell, 2014). This kept me
focused on the topic and provided some structure to the conversation (Creswell, 2014). I
designed my interview protocols so to discuss the less sensitive questions first, such as the
teachers’ behaviors and experiences in the classroom (Patton, 2002). This was followed by
questions that asked them to describe their opinions and feelings, including some probing
questions (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Patton, 2002). My interviews were semi-structured in the
sense that I asked structured questions that were specifically related to the components in my
conceptual framework (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). However, there was room for flexibility in the
way the interview flowed so that I could use probing to explore questions that I may not have
intended prior (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I was mindful to word my questions so that they were
open-ended, clear, (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002) singular, and did not reflect any bias,
and did not lead the interviewees in any direction (Patton, 2002). I made sure that my questions
and behavior were sensitive to the interviewees and that I provided appropriate feedback during
the interviews (Patton, 2002).
The first formal interview took place 2 days before I conducted the first classroom
observation. The goal of the first interview was to build a “good interviewing partnership”
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 119

(Weiss, 1994, p. 61) as well as to gain the teachers’ insights once a collaborative relationship had
been established. I began the first interview by talking about something the teachers and I had in
common, such as teaching young children, to develop genuine rapport (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
Then, I articulated my background and purpose for conducting the interview (Bogdan & Biklen,
2007). I explained the time frame for the interview, thanked them for the opportunity, ensured
the teachers that they were free to ask and share whatever they were comfortable with, and
reviewed the consent form. I then asked for permission to audio record the interview so that I
could make sure that my notes aligned with what the teacher said. I used the initial interview to
understand how the teachers perceived and made meaning of their teaching practices,
interactions with students, and the learning opportunities they provided in the classroom. Most of
the interview questions reflected components from my conceptual framework. This helped me
understand how the teachers aimed to provide meaningful learning opportunities in their pre-
kindergarten classrooms and what kinds of learning opportunities they valued (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). I strived to understand their philosophy about teaching. I ended the
interview with questions about their background and demographics as suggested by Patton
(2002).
I conducted the second formal interview after a week of having completed all
observations in the given classroom. During this interview, I asked teachers specific questions
about what I observed and their opinions, feelings, and perceptions about what I saw during my
time in the classroom (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). I discussed patterns that emerged
from my observational data and gauged how the teachers made meaning of them. I extended on
the questions asked in the first formal interview to see if they had anything to add. Specifically,
investigated how they perceived their role in providing opportunities for components represented
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 120

in the conceptual framework, namely discovery learning, peer interactions, and play. I strived to
understand the ways in which they provided academic support. I also asked about what they
sought to establish in terms of the classroom climate and their relationships with their students.
Again, I reiterated my purpose so to keep us focused and aware, as time was limited (Patton,
2002).
With one of the interviewees’ permission, I audio recorded both her interviews so that I
could go back and listen to exactly what was said when analyzing the interviews (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). With the teacher who declined my request to audio record the
interviews, I wrote her responses verbatim. In both teachers’ interviews, I took notes so to make
the interviewees more comfortable (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and kept note of anything that
came up during the interviews, which I wanted to further discuss (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;
Patton, 2002). I took field notes and within 24 hours of conducting interviews, I took detailed
reflective notes so not to forget any immediate thoughts or ideas related to the interview and
study. I transcribed the interviews myself. Throughout data collection and analysis, I made
jottings and wrote memos to keep track of my methodological and analytic processes (Miles,
Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014).
Observations
Using observational data provided me with a firsthand account of what happened in the
classroom–where the phenomenon occurred most naturally (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Additionally, conducting observations provided s context in conjunction with the teacher
interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this way, my interview questions could clarify,
validate, and build on my classroom observations and vice versa.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 121

I conducted a total of 12 classroom observations, six in each pre-kindergarten teacher’s
classroom over a series of days, to ensure that I had captured a variety of data and reached
saturation as recommended by Merriam and Tisdell (2016). I conducted classroom observations
between the first and last formal interviews. These observations took place within the last two
months of the school year. Specifically, I observed Ms. Sanchez’s class on various days between
April 19, 2017 and May 4, 2017 and in Ms. Sherri’s class between May 18, 2017 and May 30,
2017. Each classroom observation was 2 hours to allow me to collect data on a variety of
activities and interactions. In each classroom, I conducted three of the observations during the
first half of class and the other three in the second half of the class alternatively so that I could
observe learning activities that were scheduled during those times. I took the role of only an
observer during observations. While this may not have given me the benefit of obtaining the
knowledge that a participant may have, I was able to collect a wide set of data as I observed the
activities and interactions taking place the entire time (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
I used two types of observation protocols to document what I saw and heard. One took
note of the physical layout of the classroom (see Appendix C). This protocol included a section
for the teacher’s name, school’s name, age group, and date of observation at the top. The rest of
the protocol was blank to allow me to sketch the physical layout of the classroom, including
seating arrangement, learning centers, and instructional equipment/facilities. In addition, I also
took pictures of the classroom. I used the second protocol to take notes during my observation
and included a section for the title of the document, date, start and end times of observation,
school name, teacher name, and age group as recommended by Bogdan and Biklen, 2007 (see
Appendix D). It also had a place for me to indicate the page number and total number of pages in
the document once completed as recommended by Bogdan and Biklen (2007). Finally, the
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 122

protocol included a section for timestamps and a section for my observations and observer
comments. The intention of having just one column to write my observations and observer
comments was so that I could write more efficiently since everything would be recorded in one
area. My research question was printed at the bottom of each page of the protocol to keep me
focused during the observation.
During my observations, I specifically looked for how the teacher and students interacted,
what they did together, and what they said to one another. I also observed how the students
interacted and played with each other. I looked at what the teachers and students said and did
individually and collectively in the classroom. I observed the kinds of learning activities that
took place, how students participated, and how the teacher facilitated opportunities for learning
and offered support. I looked at the environment as a whole and took note of indicators of the
social and emotional climate and instructional practices evident. I was cognizant of any subtle
factors, such as nonverbal communication, unplanned activities, and the absence of anything that
could be relevant as suggested by Merriam and Tisdell (2016). Finally, I maintained awareness
of my thoughts and behaviors as the observer. Even though I planned to be an observer to make
the experience as authentic as possible, my presence may have had an effect on the teacher’s and
students’ behaviors as it was not in accordance with the norm (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While
I took field notes during the observations, I also took detailed reflective notes within 24 hours of
the observation so that I could fully recall as many details, including quotations and my own
reflections, related to the observation and overall study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
following table provides an overview of the number of interviews and observations conducted
and the collective number of hours spent on each.

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 123

Table 1. Interviews and Observations

Documents
Collecting documents provided another avenue of what learning opportunities were
presented to students. Analyzing documents gave me insights on how the components of my
conceptual framework came into play in the classroom as well as other types of opportunities not
included in my conceptual framework, such as how the teacher abided by the daily classroom
schedule. With the teacher’s permission, I used a combination of personal and visual documents
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), including student work, teacher lesson plans, curriculum guides, and
photographs of the classroom environment, to help me understand the learning opportunities
provided to the children in the pre-kindergarten classrooms. These documents were a natural part
of the research setting that provided a rich source of data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Student
work demonstrated how students made sense of the learning activities. Teacher lesson plans
provided me with insights on how the teacher planned to offer academic support and facilitate
opportunities for discovery learning, peer and guided play, and student interaction. Classroom
resources, such as learning centers suggested what kinds of learning opportunities and
instructional support were provided to the students. Other classroom resources, such as posters
on the walls, served as indicators of the classroom’s social and emotional climate as well as the
instructional support offered and reinforced in the classroom.

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 124

Data Analysis Procedures
I began to engage in data analysis during the process of data collection as recommended
by Bogdan and Biklen (2007), Lichtman (2014), and Merriam and Tisdell (2016). The reason for
this was so that I could follow up on patterns that emerged from the data, develop supplementary
questions, and plan how to collect additional data while I still had the opportunity to go back into
the field (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This helped me to focus on
specific areas and further narrow the study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
As previously mentioned, I recorded my observer comments and wrote theoretical,
methodological, and analytical memos about my decision-making process, thoughts, and
opinions related to what I learned in the field (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These outlets also
allowed me to analyze the data in and out of the field (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
The purpose of data analysis was to make sense of the data and use the data as evidence
to support my findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As recommended by researchers, after
reading my field notes, interview transcripts, collected documents (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016), and memos, I began to search for commonalities (Harding, 2013) and engaged in
open coding my data. I recorded my codes in a codebook that listed every time the code emerged
in the interview or observation for each classroom separately. I used a priori codes, codes
established prior to data collection (Harding, 2013)–in my case from the literature review and
conceptual framework. Examples of my a priori codes included play, peer interactions,
instructional support, and social and emotional climate. I also used empirical coding, words or
phrases that were in the data (Harding, 2013). Examples of my empirical codes were respect,
safety, and independence. I coded my data using Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) analytic tools,
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 125

including the use of questioning, making comparisons, drawing from personal experience, and
looking at language and expressed emotions in the data. Through multiple cycles of reading
through the literature and my data, I engaged in the process of changing, adding, and omitting
codes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). At this point, I coded the various documents I had collected as
they related to the codes that had developed. I coded the daily schedules to crosscheck the times
that the class was expected to begin and finish activities with the times I had noted in my
observations. I used photographs of student work to note what students were producing in
relation to what the teachers had expected them to do, as stated in their interviews as well as
what I had recorded in my observations. Similarly, I drew upon the photographs I had taken of
the posted curriculum and teacher lesson plans. I was able to look back at these to verify what
the teachers had stated they expected to accomplish in the classroom as well as what I saw
students participate in during my observations.
Subsequently, I began to find connections and group codes into categories and sub-
categories (Harding, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) as they related to my research questions in
my codebook, also known as axial or analytic coding (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).Using these
categories, I ultimately identified relationships within and across categories and developed
themes, including level of cognitive demand, practical skills, teaching philosophy, and teacher
actions (Harding, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Having established my themes, I presented
my findings in a narrative form (Harding, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) in the next chapter.
These findings answer my research questions, using the raw data as concrete evidence to support
my assertions and propositions (Lichtman, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Miles, Huberman, &
Saldana, 2014).
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 126

In order to participate in data analysis, I needed to manage my data and keep it organized
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Therefore, I electronically filed all raw and edited data in a way that
they could be easily retrieved (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, I created an audit trail
by dating every revision and keeping a journal of all my memos detailing my decision-making
process regarding how I coded and categorized my data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This
provided concrete evidence for when and why I made certain revisions and decisions.
Delimitations and Limitations
Given the qualitative nature of the study, I was the primary instrument of data collection
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), which could limit the study in certain ways. The delimitations of the
study included my observation and interview protocols and in turn, what I chose to look at and
ask during my observations and interviews respectively even after my dissertation committee and
the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved my protocols. I may not have looked
in the right places or asked questions that could have led to richer data during these moments.
For example, there was little to no evidence of instruction pertaining to and student participation
in discovery learning during my time in the classrooms. It is possible that had I attempted to
investigate the idea of learning through discovery more directly with both teachers during the
interviews, they may have indicated their beliefs in guided discovery learning. As the
interviewer, it was my responsibility to carefully listen to what the interviewees were saying or
perhaps, not saying. However, since it was impossible to record everything during my
observations, I may have missed certain events (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I may have also
overlooked the interviewees’ cues and not have asked the correct probes or follow-up questions
during interviews.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 127

Another delimitation was conducting observations at the end of the school year. Other
than the last observation in Ms. Sherri’s class, which was during the last week of school, it
appeared that the teachers and students were participating in ways that were typical of their daily
routine throughout the rest of the observations. Yet, still conducting the study in the last months
of the academic year could have presented me with different data and produced different results
from perhaps going in the middle of the school year.
It should also be noted that while I conducted a multiple-case study in two different
classrooms, both classrooms were located in the same school. Although readers may establish
the study’s transferability to other settings, the findings represented in this study are limited to
the two classrooms at Carter Early Head Start.
A limitation of the study was the interviewees’ responses. I could not control how
truthful the participants were during interviews. As Weiss (1994) suggested, interviewers cannot
assume that interviewees will provide “the whole truth nor the precise truth” (p. 149). For
example, even though Ms. Sherri agreed to do the interviews, she did not demonstrate a
willingness to participate in them, as she said they conflicted with her computer time. This may
have been the reason for why she displayed a preference to not engage in conversation as she did
not elaborate on her responses or offer support for her rationale of doing what she did in the
classroom. Nonetheless, it was important for me to remember that the goal of qualitative studies
was not necessarily to obtain the truth or seek validity in responses, rather the perspectives of the
participants (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Furthermore, through the
implementation of triangulation, interview responses should have been validated and clarified
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) as discussed in more detail in the next sections.

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 128

Credibility and Trustworthiness
Ultimately, it is important for readers to be able to trust the research results otherwise the
study’s findings will not be useful to other participants and settings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Therefore, it is important to examine any threats to the validity and reliability of the study and
how those threats can be mitigated.
Validity
The validity of a study depends on the credibility of its findings (Creswell, 2014;
Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). I employed
strategies recommended to increase the study’s credibility and trustworthiness and to ensure its
internal validity, including adequate engagement in data collection, collection of rich and
descriptive data, triangulation, peer review, and researcher reflexivity (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell,
2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). Weiss (1994) highlighted
that multiple observations and interviews reveal more accurate evidence. Therefore, I spent a
long time in the field and conducted as many interviews and observations as necessary until I
reached saturation. As mentioned in the previous section, it appeared that Ms. Sherri may have
withheld information about her teaching practices due to her perceived time restraints. This could
have affected what she was willing and not willing to share, thus limiting data that could have
served as evidence for her actions in the classroom. However, I made sure to gather a variety of
data and take the time to look for data that may not have supported my initial findings so that my
expectations did not bias the results. I also looked at the frequency of codes that appeared in the
data in my codebook and the amount of evidence I had for each interpretation to test the validity
of my findings (Maxwell, 2013). During the interviews and observations, I was able to collect
rich data describing what the participants said and did as well as their expressions and body
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 129

language. I also described the classroom activities in detail, including the materials being used,
classroom layout during each activity, and physical positions of the teacher and students. I
triangulated my methods of data collection by conducting interviews, observations, and
document collection. Additionally, I crosschecked my sources of data by comparing my
observations conducted at different times, multiple interviews with both participants, and a
variety of documents (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I also triangulated my data in
terms of validity threats as specifically suggested by Maxwell (2013). Peers knowledgeable
about my topic, namely my dissertation chair and committee, reviewed the entire process from
creating my research design to data analysis several times.
Finally, the last strategy to increase the study’s internal validity was for me, as the
researcher, to be cognizant of my reflexivity. It is important for me to be transparent so that
readers are aware of my position and how that could affect my biases, assumptions, and
interpretations in field and post field. My prior experience as a kindergarten teacher at a charter
school serving children from low SES backgrounds has shaped the way I believe students in pre-
kindergarten are offered opportunities in the classroom. Although I have pre-existing biases and
assumptions about the topic, I tried to approach the process of data collection and analysis with
objectivity so to not look for what I thought existed in the data, and instead, for what the data
presented. Again, participating in negative case analysis helped me, as I intentionally and
consistently sought evidence that challenged my expectations. I checked whether I was only
asking questions that supported my initial interpretations or if I truly looked at what the data
said. Acting on that understanding, I purposely asked questions that were aligned with my initial
interpretations. However, it should be noted that my position may have naturally influenced my
analysis in some ways as my perspectives and experiences make me who I am and cannot–and
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 130

should not–be eliminated according to Maxwell (2013) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016).
Moreover, simply my presence could have affected the participants’ responses and behaviors in
the study, known as reactivity (Maxwell, 2013). Again, instead of trying to eliminate this
influence, I tried to understand how I influenced the participants and the setting and how it may
have affected the validity of my interpretations (Maxwell, 2013) through the use of reflective
notes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). In this sense, it was especially important to be mindful of how I
worded my interview questions–avoiding leading questions and asking questions which sought
concrete incidents (Weiss, 1994). Likewise, I was cognizant of the effects the case had on the
way I collected and analyzed the data by not letting my participants think for me (Miles,
Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014).
While I cannot ensure the external validity of my study, I can provide a strong database
so that readers may establish the study’s transferability to alternate participants and contexts. I
strived to capture rich and descriptive data so that readers would have enough information to
make sound decisions for other settings (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Miles,
Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). This will help make the study’s findings applicable to other
settings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Reliability
Reliability refers to the consistency (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and
dependability of the study’s results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña,
2014). I ensured the results of this study were internally reliable through the use of triangulation,
peer review, reflexivity, and the audit trail as recommended by Merriam and Tisdell (2016). As
previously mentioned, triangulation of data sources demonstrated whether there was consistency
in what the data showed. Peers provided another lens and checked whether my research and
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 131

design aligned and interpretations made sense and accurately represented the data. To take full
advantage of peer review, I set aside time frequently to seek my dissertation chair’s perceptions
and opinions. Reflecting on my position as the researcher helped safeguard that I had not
misinterpreted the data because of my prior biases and assumptions. Finally, an audit trail
demonstrated how I interacted with the data and arrived at my results. Specifically, I tracked my
decisions on how data and which kind of data was collected. I showed that the definitions for my
codes were consistent and that their meanings were correctly applied to the data through the
development of my codebook. Additionally, I explained how I created categories and themes,
which led to my ultimate findings. I made this transparent through the use of dated theoretical,
methodological, and analytical memos, which explained my decision-making process and
included reflective notes.
The results of the study will be externally reliable if they can be confirmed (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Again, an audit trail was necessary to confirm that the sources of data could be
tracked (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Therefore, I needed to keep a record of my original
protocols, raw data, field notes, and memos detailing my thoughts and decision-making process.
Ethics
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) emphasized that a study’s validity and reliability are largely
dependent upon the researcher’s ethics. Ultimately, the credibility and trustworthiness of the
data is contingent on the credibility and trustworthiness of the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). In this sense, it was my responsibility as the researcher to be honest and transparent in
every part of the research design, implementation, and reporting process. I made sure to abide by
the laws outlined in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and took pictures of student
work only when it did not have any personally identifiable information about the student on it
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 132

(U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Acting on that understanding, I followed IRB’s policies
and thought about my research’s potential consequences for my participants and eliminated all
unnecessary risks, as suggested by Glesne (2011) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016). I made my
purpose and intentions clear to participants (Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I obtained
ongoing informed verbal consent from participants to conduct the study (Glesne, 2011). I made
clear to participants that they could share information with which they were comfortable and
could withdraw from the study at any point (Glesne, 2011). I informed them when I would
record interviews and conduct observations. I kept their identities confidential by using
pseudonyms and providing general descriptions of my participants in my fieldnotes and
dissertation.
Summary
This chapter focused on the qualitative methods for data collection. I discussed that I
collected interviews, observations, and relevant documents and used my reflective notes and
memos to analyze the data. I interviewed two pre-kindergarten teachers; observed the
interactions, activities, and environment in the participants’ classrooms; and obtained documents,
which I found useful to help answer the research questions. I analyzed data by using codes,
which I grouped into categories and then developed into themes. I implemented strategies to
increase the validity and reliability of my methods for data collection and analysis and presented
my findings making ethical decisions throughout the dissertation process.

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 133

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this dissertation was to discover what kind of meaningful learning
opportunities pre-kindergarten environments provided students from low SES backgrounds. The
first chapter provided research on the existing achievement gap between students from low and
high SES backgrounds beginning in pre-kindergarten, as well as, preschool standards and
policies intended to close this achievement gap. The second chapter discussed literature
surrounding the factors that promote opportunities for learning and lead to academic gains in pre-
kindergarten. In the third chapter, I presented the process for my research study, which in this
case, applied a qualitative approach to two classrooms. In this chapter, I discuss my findings
which answer the following research question and sub-questions:
1. How do pre-kindergarten environments provide meaningful learning opportunities to
children from low SES backgrounds?
c. What do interactions between a teacher and her students look like in a pre-
kindergarten classroom?
d. What do interactions between students and their peers look like in a pre-
kindergarten classroom?
First, I present my findings in each case separately and then provide a cross-case analysis which
leads to the conclusion.
Carter Early Head Start
Both case studies took place at Carter Head Start, a government-funded early childhood
education program, situated in an urban neighborhood in Southern California. Early Head Start is
part of a greater initiative aimed to equip children with school readiness skills and empower
families whose incomes are at or below the federal poverty line and/or have other high-risk
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 134

circumstances (OCHS, 2018). Like all Early Head Start facilities, at the time of this study, Carter
Head Start served only children from low-income families at no cost (OCHS, 2018). This
specific school held classes in the morning from 8:00AM to 11:30AM as well as classes in the
afternoon from 12:30PM to 4:00PM five days a week, providing each student with 3.5 hours of
preschool daily.
Case Study One: Ms. Sanchez, PM Preschool Class
Ms. Sanchez’s Background
Ms. Sanchez taught the PM preschool class as the lead teacher from 12:30PM to 4:00PM
Monday through Friday. She was Mexican and could speak English and Spanish fluently. She
said that she had attended school in Mexico but did not complete her education there. She
expressed that she “always [had] the idea of being a teacher since [she] was a teenager” and
completed her education in California when she came at the age of 18. At the time of the
interview in May of 2017, she had been employed by Head Start for 25 years. The first 5 years
she worked in the kitchen. Afterwards, she became a teaching assistant and completed school
until she became the lead teacher at the age of 35. She then obtained a permit to teach early
childhood education. She had taught at Carter Early Head Start as the lead teacher for 4 years. In
2017, she was in school to obtain her Bachelor of Arts degree.
Students’ Backgrounds
There were 18 students between the ages of 3 and 5 in Ms. Sanchez’s class. Of these
students, 13 were boys and five were girls. There were six students who were 3 years old, four 4-
year-olds, and eight 5-year-olds. All students were born in the United States. Sixteen of the
students’ parents were Mexican. One student’s parents were Caucasian and the other student’s
parents were Colombian. According to Ms. Sanchez, most students lived in the city where the
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 135

school was located. Two of the students lived in a neighboring suburb and one transferred from
another suburb nearby. Three students spoke only Spanish, one spoke mostly Spanish, four could
speak English and Spanish, nine only spoke English, and one chose to speak only English but
also knew Spanish.
Findings
The following sections will discuss what meaningful learning opportunities Ms.
Sanchez’s pre-kindergarten environment provided its students. The literature reflected the fact
that meaningful learning opportunities are academically and socially driven. Specifically, the
conceptual framework highlighted that to provide opportunities for meaningful learning, the
teacher must construct a high instructional climate and a positive social and emotional climate.
Moreover, within each of these two climates exist two dimensions involving the interactions that
take place within a classroom–those between the teacher and students and those between
students and their peers.
My first finding will describe the teacher-student and student-peer interactions as part of
the classroom’s instructional climate and the second finding will focus on the interactions
between the teacher and students and students and their peers in the social and emotional climate.
Overall, I found that Ms. Sanchez aspired to provide a high instructional climate, however she
did not demonstrate an understanding of how to do so, and therefore, did not deliver high quality
instruction. Likewise, Ms. Sanchez expected herself to provide a positive social and emotional
climate, however, was not aware of what her role consisted of and did not interact with students
in a way that achieved that. In both findings, I will discuss that while there may have been
student-peer interactions that were productive, they were not a direct product of the teacher’s
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 136

efforts. Thus, there was a lack of evidence indicating that the classroom environment provided
meaningful learning opportunities to the students.
Finding One: The Teacher Demonstrated a Desire to Provide a High Instructional Climate,
However, Did Not Enact Those Desires
As evident from the conceptual framework, there are several ways a teacher can provide
opportunities for meaningful learning. One such way is by constructing a classroom climate
characterized by high-quality instruction (e.g., Burchinal et al., 2008; Connor et al., 2006; Howes
et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Mashburn et al., 2008; Stipek et al., 1998).
Specifically, this would involve students being given opportunities to participate in play
(Bodrova, 2008; Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012; R. Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2014; Coolahan et al.,
2000; Han et al., 2010; Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006), academics (Burchinal et al., 2008;
Connor et al., 2006; Howes et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007), peer interaction
(Anthony, 1996; Henry & Rickman, 2007; Justice et al., 2011; Mashburn et al., 2009; Michael,
2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995; Schechter et al., 2007), and discovery learning (Anthony, 1996;
Bonawitz et al., 2011; Marcon, 1999; Savery & Duffy, 1995; Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva, 2004)
that is meaningful. In this case, Ms. Sanchez did not construct an instructional climate that
provided for meaningful learning opportunities. She recognized a desire to provide learning
opportunities to her students through play, the academic climate, and peer interaction, however,
she did not demonstrate a deep understanding of how to do so. Ultimately, she did not enact
those desires and thus, did not provide high-quality instruction. While there were positive
impulses, it seemed that what she did and said remained to be surface-level and did not
materialize into meaningful learning for her students. Further, Ms. Sanchez did not express a
desire to provide instruction that allowed students to learn through discovery nor did she provide
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 137

opportunities for guided discovery learning. Ms. Sanchez’s approach to students’ academics,
play, peer interaction, and discovery learning will be analyzed in the following sections.
Ms. Sanchez’s intention to create an academic climate that offered her students
occasions to learn did not result in one which provided meaningful learning opportunities.
As discussed previously, one of the ways a teacher can provide meaningful learning
opportunities to students is through a high-quality academic climate. Specifically, this can take
the form of scaffolding the learning content within the student’s ZPD (John-Steiner & Mahn,
1996; Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva, 2004; Tharp & Gallimore, 1998). Through methods such as
feeding back, instructing, questioning, and cognitive structuring, the teacher can assist students
to ultimately internalize the concepts or skills being taught (Tharp & Gallimore, 1998). Other
ways the teacher can encourage students to participate academically in a meaningful way is by
offering students opportunities to actively construct knowledge (Anthony, 1996; Michael, 2001;
Savery & Duffy, 1995) and use language to communicate and develop higher-order thinking and
reasoning skills (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008). It is also important for the teacher to
provide instruction in language and literacy (Connor et al., 2006). Finally, it is the teacher’s
responsibility to provide clear instruction (Burchinal et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007),
relevant feedback (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007), and
concept development (LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007) in order to promote a strong academic
culture in the classroom. The following section will demonstrate how Ms. Sanchez intended to
provide an academic climate that offered learning opportunities, but ultimately did not engage in
any of the activities discussed above in a meaningful manner. Thus, the teacher provided a
climate characterized by low-quality academic instruction.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 138

Ms. Sanchez’s actions indicated that she may not have been aware of the conditions of a
high-quality academic climate. For example, she expressed that she asked students open-ended
questions during work time so that they could have an opportunity to talk about what they were
doing. However, it was not clear whether she was aware of why she wanted students to use
language or what students would gain from doing so. She said,
So, I send them to work time. And I just checking each area where they are. Asking what
are they doing and they tell me about their projects, building uh mostly try to ask open-
ended questions. “Tell me about you your project. Tell me about your activity.” Uhh “I’m
building.” “You’re building what?” I give them more so they can start explaining what
are they doing.
Ms. Sanchez seemed to understand that it was her responsibility to play an active role
during work time by checking in with students and asking them questions about what they were
doing. She suggested that she asked students open-ended questions such as “Tell me about you
your project” and “Tell me about your activity.” She then indicated that she continued the
dialogue so that students could have opportunities to use more language to communicate what
exactly they were doing. For example, if a student responded, “I’m building,” she urged him/her
to continue talking by asking, “You’re building what?” It can be inferred that the teacher’s
intention during work time was for students to use language because she was creating
opportunities for them to talk to her through the questions she asked. She said, “I give them more
so they can start explaining what are they doing.” However, the end goal was not clear.
According to the literature, prompting students to generate language allows them to
communicate their thoughts and develop their reasoning skills (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et
al., 2008) and contributes to their social skills (Burchinal et al., 2008). In this case, Ms. Sanchez
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 139

did not indicate her understanding of why she wanted students to explain what they were doing.
By not assigning a purpose to her instruction, she eliminated opportunities for meaningful
learning to occur.
As discussed earlier, a rich academic climate includes student engagement with
cognitively demanding activities that would position students for meaningful learning (Anthony,
1996; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995). In the following example, Ms. Sanchez asked
students to share the story of “The Three Little Pigs.” However, immediately after, she took
control of the storytelling. In doing so, I make the argument that not only did she not offer clear
instruction, but also, that she did not encourage students to use high cognitive skills as she
limited their use of creativity and language by taking control of the learning. The absence of any
opportunities to construct knowledge in this exchange suggests that this activity required little
cognitive demand. Further, there was no evidence of any meaningful student learning as students
did not express what they took away from the story or demonstrate that they understood what
they were saying.
The teacher sits next to the two students who were playing with the “Three Little Pigs”
storyboard.
T
4
: Ok, I want to hear this story. Once upon a time there was a…
S: Big, bad wolf.
T: Ok, then he says, “Little pig, little pig let me in.” And what does the pig say?
S: Not by the hair of my chiny chin chin.
While Ms. Sanchez began by asking to hear the story from the students, she did so by dictating
the story and having the students fill in the blanks. The teacher’s instructions were not clear. She

4
In the following sections, T will be used to refer to the respective teacher, S for an unnamed student, SS for several
students, and K for me, Kanika.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 140

asked to hear the story and then started to tell it herself. Initially, she sent the message that the
students had control of the learning, but it was evident that the responsibility was maintained by
the teacher. Research suggests that students who make gains in preschool are exposed to teachers
who provide clear instruction (Burchinal et al., 2008). In this case, Ms. Sanchez’s instructions
were confusing and misleading.
The teacher took control of the interaction by speaking for the students and dictating how
the story should begin. The teacher said, “Ok, I want to hear this story” and immediately
followed with “Once upon a time there was a…” What Ms. Sanchez actually seemed to want
was for the students to repeat the story to her, thus taking away any opportunity for the students
to apply cognitive effort. One of the students responded “Big, bad wolf.” Ms. Sanchez then said,
“Ok then he says, ‘Little pig, little pig let me in.’ And what does the pig say?” Asking students to
complete the sentence did not require critical thinking skills. In this way, students were not
offered the opportunity to play an active role in constructing any new knowledge in order to
create a deeper understanding of the learning content (Anthony, 1996; Michael, 2001; Savery &
Duffy, 1995). Instead, students were afforded the role of a passive recipient of knowledge and
were encouraged to think that there was only one way to tell the story and that was by
memorizing it.
In this sense, this interaction limited any space for creativity. Burchinal et al. (2008)
suggests that one of the markers of a high instructional climate is one that allows students to
develop their creative skills. In this particular exchange, students may have had a different
approach to the story and what they took away from it, however, they were not given this
opportunity of expression. Ultimately, repeating the story did not show the teacher what the
students took away from the interaction.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 141

Since Ms. Sanchez spoke for the students, the opportunity to develop language was
missed. Burchinal et al.’s (2008) findings indicate that students who make academic gains in
preschool are exposed to teachers who provide opportunities to use language and communicate
their thinking. In doing so, the teacher also missed any opportunities to check for understanding,
which would have required students to produce language to communicate their thinking. There
was no space for concept development to build off of what students had already learned from the
story and interaction. Burchinal et al. (2008) state that students demonstrate higher language and
literacy skills when preschool teachers explain concepts clearly and in a way that builds off of
students’ current skill levels. As a result, this entire exchange did not demonstrate that the
students had the opportunity to participate in any meaningful learning.
Another aspect of a strong academic climate is to focus on literacy (Connor et al., 2006)
in a way that develops students’ language and critical thinking skills (Burchinal et al., 2008;
Howes et al., 2008). Ms. Sanchez stated that she posed open-ended questions during literacy
time. However, while it appeared that she was aware that she had a responsibility towards
student learning, she did not indicate a deep understanding of the questions’ purpose. She said,
We focus on the WH questions. Why, when, how. “Tell me how it happens? What do you
think will happen?” Um we ask um uh when we’re you’re reading something you come
across like how–the little boy who liked the um “how–what do you think the book is
about if you just see by the picture?” We need to focus on we call it the “WH” questions.
Ms. Sanchez’s intention was to ask students questions about a story. She asked questions, such
as, “What do you think will happen?” and “What do you think this book is about if you just see
by the picture?” While she articulated what the questions were, she did not communicate how or
why they should be asked. In this sense, she seemed to have some understanding of using
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 142

questioning as a teaching tool to develop reading strategies that could assist with students’
comprehension, which is supported by literature (Tharp & Gallimore, 1998). At some level, she
saw her role as promoting student thinking. However, she did not name the reading strategies nor
did she discuss how to use the strategies before or during reading a story. Ms. Sanchez did not
articulate how students could internalize these reading strategies and perform them
independently without assistance, one of the goals of the learning process (John-Steiner & Mahn,
1996; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
Ms. Sanchez’s approach to learning demonstrated an awareness of her instructional
responsibility. She said, “We need to focus on what we call it the ‘WH’ questions.” However,
she did not demonstrate an understanding of why they needed to focus on the WH questions.
From what the teacher said, it was not clear that she had a plan for the questions and an end goal
in mind. Having a direction in mind prior to asking questions allows teachers to ensure that
students understand the content (Tharp & Gallimore, 1998) are encouraged to make connections
beyond the text, and/or have the opportunity to share their thinking and use language (Burchinal
et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008). In this way, having a purpose for the questions would make
reading and learning more meaningful.
The following is an example of how Ms. Sanchez did not create a productive academic
climate in which students were well-positioned to develop critical thinking skills. In this
interaction, Ms. Sanchez read a book to the students and asked questions but did not promote
language or verbalization of student thinking. She also did not provide any student feedback and
instead, demonstrated deficit thinking, which in all, did not create opportunities for meaningful
learning.
T: This is a very special book by Eric Hill.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 143

E: I don’t like that book.
T: You know I’ve never read that book so we’re going to read the book.
Timothy sits in a chair. Rafael goes to sit in a chair.
T: You know I’m really sad with you today, Timothy.
The teacher reads.
T: Who likes to play hide and seek?
Ana points to Rafael.
A: Teacher, teacher, teacher.
T: (Reads) So what’s behind the curtain?
SS: A bear.
T: A bear. What’s behind the cupboard?
TA sets snack on the tables at the back of the room.
OC: I can hear George talking to himself.
T: What’s behind the curtain?
J: A hippopotamus.
T: How did you know? You read this book before?
Julian shakes his head.
T: So then how did you know? Oh, you see this line?
The teacher points to the outline of the hippopotamus.
T: Silly way to hide huh? Ok we’re ready to turn the next page? What’s behind the
door?
SS: A monkey, snake, dog, giraffe.
T: Who said ‘monkey’?
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 144

Lucas raises his hand.
T: Oh, you were right. Oh, what’s behind the table?
AL: A Pikachu.
The teacher lifts the flap to show a dog.
TA is with Gabriel in the back of the room in between the library and writing center.
Guillermo sits on a chair at Table 1.
The rest of the students are on the rug looking at the teacher reading.
In this situation, the teacher asked several questions that did not afford students opportunities to
develop their critical thinking or language skills. Ms. Sanchez asked students closed questions
that required a one-word response, such as, “So what’s behind the curtain?” and “What’s behind
the cupboard?” While these questions may have encouraged students to think about which
animals they thought were hiding behind the curtain and cupboard, they were not given an
opportunity to explain their thinking. Research indicates that students who demonstrate academic
gains are exposed to teachers who provide opportunities to communicate in order to develop
their reasoning skills (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008). However, there was no
evidence of this form of instruction in this setting. Moreover, the teacher did not extend the
conversation to probe students’ thinking. She either repeated the student’s response or did not
respond at all. She did not provide any verbal feedback regarding what students said or offer
more learning opportunities, qualities indicative of a classroom driven by a high instructional
climate (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et a., 2008).
Later, Ms. Sanchez asked Julian a question and then answered for him, limiting the
student’s role in the learning process and his potential to develop critical thinking and language
skills. She asked Julian an evidence-based question. When Julian said that a hippopotamus was
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 145

hiding behind the curtain, the teacher asked, “How did you know?” This question would have
required the student to explain his thought process as to how he was able to decipher that a
hippopotamus was hiding behind the curtain. In this sense, this potential exchange would have
provided Julian an opportunity to communicate his thinking and develop his higher-order
thinking skills. However, Ms. Sanchez did not require him to respond to the question. Instead she
followed the question with another question that assumed he had read the book. Ms. Sanchez
asked, “You read this book before?” Not only did this display a deficit mindset but also took
away the Julian’s opportunity to demonstrate how he knew a hippopotamus was hiding behind
the curtain. The teacher assumed that the only way the student would have known the correct
answer was because he had read the book before, which he had not. She did not display any
confidence in his ability to correctly make sense of the happenings in the book even after he did
exactly that. In this sense, her assumption demonstrated a form of deficit thinking marked by low
student expectations. The NAEYC (2009) maintains the importance of early childhood educators
to hold high expectations of students and to build off of and support students’ skills, imagination,
and sense of persistence so that all students can academically and socially succeed. After she
learned that Julian had indeed not read the book before, she asked again “So then how did you
know?” However, again she did not give him an opportunity to respond to the question as she
immediately said, “Oh you see this line?” She did not give the student a chance to respond to this
question either and continued to the next page in the book. Ms. Sanchez had answered her own
question and further, did not check whether what she said was indeed how Julian knew that a
hippopotamus was hiding behind the curtain. She spoke for him and made an assumption about
how he arrived at his response. In these ways, Ms. Sanchez took away Julian’s opportunity to
develop his critical thinking skills and use language to provide evidence for his answer.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 146

However, more detrimental, she also displayed a lack of confidence in his ability to
independently arrive to the correct answer.
Finally, Ms. Sanchez demonstrated that she was only looking for the correct answer and
was not interested in understanding what the students were thinking and how they were arriving
to their answers. For example, when Ms. Sanchez asked, “What’s behind the door?” several
students said different animals, such as “monkey,” “snake,” “dog,” and “giraffe.” The teacher
then asked, “Who said ‘monkey’? When Lucas raised his hand, she said, “Oh, you were right.” It
was evident that Ms. Sanchez was more focused on hearing the correct answer. She did not use
this time to allow students to explain their thinking. She did not promote any use of cognitive
strategy and did not provide students with the mental tools to make an educated guess.
Vygotsky’s approach to Sociocultural Theory involves the learner constructing his/her learning
as well as being constructed by his/her social world (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). Consequently,
the student must play an active role in his/her learning, but the more knowledgeable other–in this
case the teacher–must provide opportunities for learning and scaffold the learning process in
order for meaningful learning to occur (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Acting on this understanding,
the teacher did not support meaningful student learning in this interaction.
It should also be noted that Gabriel was not given an opportunity to participate in this
activity at all. During this time, Gabriel was asked to sleep in the back of the room, however we
see that he was talking to himself and was clearly not sleeping. He had been denied access to
story time–a time when he could have been learning. Connor et al. (2006) state that instruction in
language and literacy leads to children’s language and literacy growth. Without exposure to
language and literacy instruction, students cannot be expected to make academic gains in these
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 147

areas. The teacher’s assistant was also in the back attending to Gabriel at the expense of
providing a more meaningful learning experience for other students.
Ms. Sanchez’s aspiration to integrate learning into play activities did not translate
into meaningful learning opportunities for her students. As discussed in the conceptual
framework, students can develop higher levels of mature play, language, and learning behaviors
when the teacher scaffolds students’ play skills within their ZPD (Bodrova, 2008). It is the
teacher’s responsibility to teach students how to play productively (Bulotsky-Shearer et al.,
2012; Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2014; Coolahan et al., 2000) and integrate play and learning (Han
et al., 2010; Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006). The following section exhibits how Ms. Sanchez
aspired to provide opportunities for play in a way that gave meaning to the play and enhanced
learning but did not ultimately accomplish this.
Although Ms. Sanchez understood that play was an important way for her students to
learn, she did not understand the way that play translated into meaningful learning opportunities.
Thus, she expressed an impulse that is aligned with what we know to be true about play–that it
can provide students opportunities to engage in self-directed learning behaviors, such as student
motivation, attention, and persistence, that builds knowledge or skills associated with the activity
in which they are engaged (Coolhan et al., 2000). On the other hand, she did not appear to
understand the way that play translated into meaningful learning as she spoke about play as an
activity devoid of any purposeful learning of knowledge or skills. For example, she said,
Oh yeah. They they learning to play and I think this is the best way to learn–to play. And
uh I think I’m doing good because right now it’s the last day of last month. And we are–
the older ones they get bored but if I you bring new stuff, they will get engaged. Uh. For
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 148

example, last week we have paint and we were doing painting activity, but they decided
to do handprint, so let them. Let them do whatever they want.
In this quotation, Ms. Sanchez indicated that play “is the best way to learn,” offering her
awareness of its potential to afford students with self-directed learning behaviors. She furthered
this idea when she indicated that she provided them with the freedom to make choices on their
own during the activities when she said, “they decided to do handprint, so let them.” Here, her
inclination to provide her students with the autonomy to decide how they wanted to engage in the
activity was consistent with the way play has the potential to promote meaningful learning. This
is consistent with Sammuelsson and Johansson’s (2006) finding that allowing students to change
the course of play should be welcomed as long as the teacher can still integrate learning and play
in a joyful and meaningful way. However, Ms. Sanchez’s understanding was limited as she
spoke most specifically to how they “engage[d]” in the activity, not in an intellectual or skill-
building way but so that they would not be bored. She further demonstrated the limits of her
understanding as she spoke to letting them “do whatever they want” without having any learning
goals in mind. According to the literature, the teacher’s role in providing high instructional
support during the play is necessary in order to build students’ knowledge and skills (Bulotsky-
Shearer et al., 2014; Han et al., 2010; Sammuelsson & Johansson, 2006). Thus, Ms. Sanchez
expressed a belief in the role of play but was not positioned to translate it into meaningful
learning opportunities for her students.
Likewise, in class, Ms. Sanchez exposed students to situations that seemingly tried to
integrate learning and play, however, learning did not appear to be meaningful. The following
interaction shows Ms. Sanchez and the students playing a game centered on the topic of nutrition
during small group.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 149

T: Ok, today’s Wednesday. What do we usually do on Wednesday?
OC: Jesus is saying words that don’t make sense to me.
T: We’re going to talk about nutrition. Remember when we make Bingo we find all
the letters.
OC: Jesus says different words, one of which I understand as “jelly.”
T: You know, I’m not playing today. She makes a stern face and looks at Jesus.
We’re going to talk about food.
The teacher passes Bingo cards and squares to students. Bingo cards have various
pictures on the individual squares.
T: You know what is this? The teacher points to one of the pictures on the Bingo
card.
J: I don’t know.
T: Why don’t you ask me. “Teacher what is this?” It’s a heart.
OC: The heart as in the human organ.
T: If you get them all across or down, you get Bingo. Look for the letter O, and if
you have this you put a square.
The teacher shows a Bingo card to everyone.
T: See you (looking at Emmanuel) have this. See if you have this. Mama (looking at
Bianca), you have this. On letter N, you gonna find the heart. Oh, I have the heart.
I have a heart.
The teacher puts a square on the heart on her card.
T: Where’s your letter O? You’re going to find smile. Here, you have it. On letter I
you find stretching.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 150

V: I have stretching. She puts a square on the picture of someone stretching.
T: On letter G you have helmet. You (to Guillermo) have it. You have it.
Guillermo looks down, looks up, and smiles.
N: Teacher, Bingo!
T: No, not yet. Not yet. Look you still need more.
N: Bingo. Bingo.
In this example, Ms. Sanchez did not overtly identify the learning activity or what learning was
important in the context of play. The teacher mentioned that they were “going to talk about
nutrition.” Then she immediately said, “Remember when we make Bingo we find all the letters.”
Afterwards, she stated that they were “going to talk about food.” In this sense, she made three
statements that were completely independent of one another. The first was about an idea–
nutrition. The second statement was about a game–Bingo. The third was about what they should
have presumably learned or talked about–food. However, the teacher did not provide any
explanation on how nutrition, Bingo, and food were related. Burchinal et al.’s (2008) findings
indicate that students who are exposed to clear instruction demonstrate academic growth. In this
case, the teacher did not make an explicit association between nutrition, Bingo, and food. In
doing so, she did not provide students with the support to make the connection between these
topics and thus, participate in any meaningful learning.
Additionally, Ms. Sanchez was more focused on the game of Bingo as opposed to the
element of nutrition and what students were to learn from the activity. The teacher modeled how
to play Bingo, when she said, “Oh I have the heart. I have the heart.” This was followed by Ms.
Sanchez placing a square on the heart on her card. In this way, students were exposed to some
vocabulary words loosely related or completely unrelated to nutrition, such as “heart,” “smile,”
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 151

“stretching,” and “helmet.” She did not, however, give any meaning to these words. Neither did
she provide students with the opportunity to make a connection of how these words related to
nutrition, to define nutrition, or to understand how the purpose of the activity related to nutrition.
According to Connor et al. (2006), explicit meaning-focused activities are associated with
children’s vocabulary growth. By not providing any meaning to the words in this game, students
missed any opportunities to develop language. Research indicates that high instructional support
is positively related to students’ academic and language skills (Mashburn et al., 2008).
Specifically, high instructional support can take the form of providing opportunities to use
language and encouraging students to communicate and develop higher order thinking,
reasoning, and creative skills (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008). In this case, students
were not given opportunities to produce language or develop vocabulary in a meaningful way.
They were not expected to say, define, or act out the vocabulary words, which according to Han
et al. (2010) is associated with increased vocabulary.
Furthermore, throughout the game, Ms. Sanchez limited any cognitive demand the
activity may have required by performing the task for the students and telling them where to put
their square. For example, she said to Emmanuel, “See you have this.” To Bianca, “Mama, you
have this.” To Guillermo, she said, “You have it. You have it.” By not providing her students
with the space or time to think about what to do and instead, telling them what to look for and
what to do, she took away opportunities for students to exert any cognitive effort. In this way, the
teacher also limited the opportunity for students to make meaning of the activity.
Finally, there was no evidence of meaningful student learning as students did not have
the opportunity to demonstrate what they already knew about the topic and what they ultimately
took away from participating in the activity. Ms. Sanchez did not review anything about nutrition
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 152

and neither did she check for understanding during the process of the game. It appeared that
students typically did something related to nutrition each week as Ms. Sanchez asked the
students, “What do we usually do on Wednesday?” However, students were not given the
opportunity to respond to the question or communicate their previous knowledge on the topic.
Burchinal et al.’s (2008) findings indicate that students demonstrate higher language and literacy
skills when preschool teachers teach concepts in a way that builds off of students’ skill levels.
However, Ms. Sanchez did not assess students’ current skill level on the topic in order to carry
out the activity accordingly. Neither did she check for understanding throughout the game. For
example, when Victoria said, “I have stretching,” Ms. Sanchez did not elaborate on how
stretching related to nutrition and if students’ understood that association. In these ways, there
was no evidence of meaningful learning during this interaction.
Ms. Sanchez recognized that play could be incorporated into the learning environment,
however, she did not show that she understood how to use play to produce meaningful learning.
Through the literature, we know that play can be integrated in the learning environment even
spontaneously, however, it is still the teacher’s job to ensure that it is done so in a meaningful
way (Sammuelsson & Johansson, 2006). While Ms. Sanchez showed that she was aware of the
benefits of play, she did not articulate how to reap those benefits. She said,
Play is learning. I use play in the learning environment. If we gonna do a tea party, I’m
going to talk about what we’re gonna do in the house area. Uh I’m gonna have some tea.
“Can we bring the sugar?” Engage all the children in the play. And it’s a learning. It’s a
language development. If I’m gonna do play on building–“how many you have?” That’s
numbers. Ey whatever I think play has to be in the learning environment too. In a fun
way.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 153

Ms. Sanchez said that she “engage[d] all the children in the play,” however this did not translate
into creating meaningful learning opportunities for them. She articulated that the students
developed language through play, which is supported by research. Han et al. (2010) asserts that
incorporating guided play into instruction so that students are allowed to say and define key
identified words and act out the words using props help increase student vocabulary in preschool.
Participating in such constructive play provides a deeper meaning of the given vocabulary words
(Han et al., 2010). Ms. Sanchez’s approach, however, did not highlight the students’ role during
guided play as suggested by Han et al. (2010). For example, she said, “I’m going to talk about
what we’re gonna do in the house area,” and ask questions, such as, “can we bring the sugar?” In
this case, the teacher modeled how to engage in everyday activities and exposed students to
vocabulary associated with those activities. She did not, though, require that students generate
language. What Ms. Sanchez said demonstrated opportunities for the teacher to talk, and for the
students to act as the passive recipients of the play. In this sense, she implied that she was aware
that it was her responsibility to incorporate play in the learning environment. Yet, she did not
understand the next-level complexity of embedding play in a way that also imposed some
learning responsibility on her students to generate key words and act out the play, which Han et
al. (2010) say is associated with increased student vocabulary in preschool.
Lastly, another indication that the teacher valued learning through play but did not know
how to operationalize her desire was when she said that students could learn numbers through
play by answering how many of something they have. This did not lend itself to meaningful
learning as much as that students could count, requiring low cognitive demand. While Ms.
Sanchez demonstrated that her intention was for students to learn through play, she did not show
that she understood how to necessarily create opportunities for meaningful learning.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 154

An example of how Ms. Sanchez did not provide meaningful learning opportunities
during play is represented in the following interaction between her and a student in a one-on-one
interaction. The limitation in the interaction is reflected in the fact that although she participated
in the student’s play, she did not play an active role in providing the student with opportunities to
demonstrate that he took away meaning from the situation and learned anything.
The teacher and Jesus are in the house center.
T: Who are you?
J: Doctor.
The teacher pulls up a chair to him. He’s wearing a doctor shirt and takes out his tools.
J: I’ll come back.
T: What do you mean you’ll come back? I’m sick.
Jesus comes back with more doctor tools.
T: I think I have a headache. I think I have a fever. So, what is this? She picks up a
stethoscope.
J: For your heart.
T: How do you use it?
Jesus puts it on. Then he gives her a bottle.
J: It’s medicine.
T: Is it for my cold?
A girl comes up to the teacher and says she is going to make a heart for her.
The teacher acknowledges this by saying something about the heart to her.
T: Ok doctor. Hold on, wait for me.
The teacher gets up and puts on the “Three Little Pigs” song for the group.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 155

T: (to the group of students) One more time.
The teacher sits back in the house center where Jesus was.
Jesus is making something using paper and a marker in the center next to the house
center.
Another student holds a phone in the house center.
T: (to the student holding the phone) Let me show you something.
She shows the student the numbers on the phone and reads some of the numbers.
J: Ok, your heart is broken.
Jesus hands her the piece of paper he drew on.
T: My heart is broken? Don’t say that.
J: You can show your mom.
T: Oh, my mom is going to be very sad.
J: But you’ll be fixed.
T: Because you gave me the medicine?
J: Yes.
T: Oh, you’re a good doctor. You know you can be a paramedic. They go with
firefighters with an ambulance.
J: Yeah.
T: Wow, that’s awesome. You need to learn how to write your name and learn to
read and write.
J: Over the summer.
T: Yeah, we have a lot to do this summer.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 156

During this interaction, Ms. Sanchez did not foster student vocabulary growth. She used words
related to the scenario, such as “fever,” “paramedic,” and “ambulance.” However, she did not
explicitly provide meaning to any keywords during the play. According to Connor et al. (2006),
explicit meaning-focused activities are associated with vocabulary growth. The teacher simply
used the words in context without further providing any explanation. Further, Ms. Sanchez did
not check if these words were already part of Jesus’s vocabulary as she did not review his
previous knowledge. There was also no evidence indicating that he understood what she meant
by these words or if he created his own meaning, as she did not check for understanding on any
new vocabulary being presented. For example, Ms. Sanchez said, “You know you can be a
paramedic. They go with firefighters with an ambulance.” Jesus responded, “Yeah.” This
exchange did not highlight the student’s understanding of the words “paramedic,” “firefighters,”
or “ambulance.” Ms. Sanchez also did not make an effort for Jesus to use the vocabulary in any
way. According to Han et al. (2010), saying, defining, and acting out vocabulary is associated
with vocabulary growth. However, Ms. Sanchez did not provide Jesus the opportunity to do so.
Further, Ms. Sanchez did not require Jesus to answer her questions and spoke for him,
which limited his opportunities to produce language. For example, when she picked up a
stethoscope and asked him what it was, Jesus said, “For your heart.” Although he knew what it
was for, he did not identify the item by its name, and neither did the teacher. Then Ms. Sanchez
asked Jesus a question that would have allowed him to elaborate on his previous response when
she asked, “How do you use it?” Jesus did not answer and instead gave her a bottle saying, “It’s
medicine.” The teacher asked if it was for her cold, which again he did not answer. Burchinal et
al.’s (2008) findings suggest that students who make academic gains in preschool are exposed to
teachers who provide opportunities to use language. However, the student was not encouraged to
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 157

respond to the teacher’s questions in this case, which hindered his language use. In another
example, when Jesus said, “But you’ll be fixed,” Ms. Sanchez stated, “Because you gave me the
medicine.” Jesus replied, “Yes.” Instead of asking him how he knew she would be fixed, she
spoke for him and stated how he knew that she would be fixed, thus limiting his use of language.
By denying these opportunities to use language, Ms. Sanchez impeded Jesus’ potential to
participate in meaningful learning.
Finally, Ms. Sanchez did not create opportunities for meaningful learning through the
context of pretend play. Jesus had few opportunities to demonstrate how the use of play
contributed to his knowledge of doctor-patient interactions. Bodrova (2008) suggests that play
should indicate a child’s problem solving, communication, language, metacognitive, and
imaginative skills. Ms. Sanchez and Jesus’ interactions did little to show any of these indicators
other than the student had some previous knowledge of what a doctor does. It was not clear what
meaning he took away from the play. According to Sammuelsson and Johansson (2006),
successful learning and play integration is characterized by the child creating his/her own
meaning of the play. This was not necessarily displayed in this situation. While Jesus mimicked
the actions and language typical of a doctor, there was nothing that indicated that his
environment provided opportunities for him to participate in meaningful learning. Literature
suggests that the teacher must play an active role in the child’s play and learning environment in
order to foster mature play, which integrates play and learning (Bodrova, 2008; Sammuelsson &
Johansson, 2006). Adults must scaffold children’s make-believe play so that it can become more
mature and thus, contribute to children’s academic skills in richer ways (Bodrova, 2008). In this
scenario, Ms. Sanchez participated in the child’s play and exposed the him to some vocabulary.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 158

However, she did not play an active role in encouraging him to develop language in a way that
made him say, do, or think things that went beyond what he already knew.
Although students interacted, opportunities for productive interaction were not
facilitated by the teacher so that learning could be meaningful. Another part of creating a
high instructional climate is providing opportunities for students to interact with one another
(Anthony, 1996; Henry & Rickman, 2007; John-Steiner and Mahn, 1996; Justice et al., 2011;
Mashburn et al., 2009; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995; Schechter et al., 2007).
Specifically, when the teacher allows lower- and higher-skilled students to interact, students are
given exposure to and opportunities to develop language and reading skills (Henry & Rickman,
2007; Justice et al., 2011). Even though the interaction is between the students, it is the teacher’s
role to ensure that students of different academic levels are given the space and time to
productively interact (Mashburn et al., 2009; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995). It is the
teacher’s responsibility to thoughtfully structure play, small group, and other interactive
activities so that students are given maximum opportunities to learn from one another in a
meaningful way (Mashburn et al., 2009; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995).
As stated, for meaningful learning to occur, certain conditions must be in place. Among
these conditions, is the need to mindfully plan opportunities for peers to interact with each other
(Mashburn et al., 2009; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995). In the following exchange
between me and the teacher, Ms. Sanchez
demonstrated that she was unaware of the conditions required for students to engage in
meaningful learning.
K: And then how often do your lower-skilled peers have opportunities with skills uh
with students who have higher skills?
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 159

T: Well usually, younger children seem to interact themselves you know because
maybe of the gap and the ages it may not be a lot. Because you see young children
working together and older children working together Hardly. Very rarely I see
them interact–older one with a younger one.
K: And what about within the older children–those who know more and those who
know less. Just among the older children. How often–or the younger children–
how often do they interact with each other?
T: I think little. Not so much.
K: Why do you think that is?
T: Maybe because the gap of the age difference. I don’t know.
Ms. Sanchez misinterpreted my question to be about younger and older students as opposed to
lower-skilled and higher-skilled students. Regardless, she said that she “very rarely [saw] them
interact–older one with a younger one.” Ms. Sanchez did not know why this was so but
ultimately attributed it to the “gap of the age difference.” Acting on this understanding, the
teacher did not seem to have reflected on this aspect of peer interaction until posed with this
question. It can be inferred that she did not think to provide opportunities for older and younger
children to interact. Research indicates that learners build their skill set and acquire knowledge
as they interact with each other (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy,
1995). Specifically, when higher- and lower-ability students interact, higher-ability students can
positively affect their lower-ability peers’ language and reading skills (Henry & Rickman, 2007;
Justice et al., 2011). However, it is the teacher’s responsibility to organize the space and time for
peers, especially a combination of lower- and higher-skilled students (Henry & Rickman, 2007;
Justice et al., 2011), to productively interact with one another (Mashburn et al., 2009; Michael,
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 160

2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995). Ms. Sanchez, however, did not demonstrate an awareness to
provide such learning opportunities to her students.
Ms. Sanchez seemed to be unaware of the qualities that made learning through peer
interaction meaningful. She did not know which of her students interacted with one another,
which indicated that she did not use her role to encourage higher- and lower-skilled students to
interact. She had articulated that the older and younger students rarely interacted. However, in
the following scenario, we see one of several peer interactions between older and younger
students. It can be argued that in this case, 5-year-old Victoria had more skills and experience
with doing the art project as she was guiding her 3-year-old peer, Bianca.
Bianca, Victoria, Timothy, and Sara are at the art table.
V: No, you need to fold it Bianca. That’s how I did it. Ok, now put a lot of glue. I’ll
do it.
B: No, I’m going to do it.
Bianca puts glue on the paper.
B: Now fold it?
V: Put tape, Bianca.
B: There’s no tape.
V: But we need some.
V: (to the teacher) We need tape.
This form of peer interaction between a higher- and lower-ability student demonstrated that the
older and younger students or the higher- and lower-ability students in Ms. Sanchez’s class did
interact. However, Ms. Sanchez was unaware of their interactions perhaps because she did not
intentionally facilitate opportunities for them to talk to and work with each other. Research
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 161

indicates that it is the teacher’s responsibility to create opportunities for peer interaction
(Mashburn et al., 2009; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995), especially between higher- and
lower-skilled students, in order to benefit their language skills (Henry & Rickman, 2007; Justice
et al., 2011).
Bianca seemed to have learned from her interaction with Victoria, who in this case was
an older and more skilled peer. Victoria was explaining to Bianca how to do something and
initially tried to perform the action for her. Even though Bianca demanded to do it herself, she
asked Victoria for her advice. Victoria continued to guide Bianca and when she realized they did
not have the resources to complete the project, she asked the teacher for that item, which in this
case was tape. In this situation, Bianca was exposed to the language Victoria used to demonstrate
her thought-process to complete the art project. It was evident from their exchange that by
following Victoria’s directives, Bianca took steps she would not have otherwise taken.
Moreover, Bianca took ownership of the actions that Victoria dictated. In this sense, Bianca self-
regulated her own behavior by not allowing the older and more skilled peer to perform the
actions, further suggesting that learning took place. This interaction also served as an opportunity
for peer observational learning. Bianca had the opportunity to internalize the process of
completing this art project and asking the teacher for the needed resources when unavailable.
The literature suggests that learners develop skills and accumulate knowledge as they interact
with others (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995) specifically
through the use of language, gestures, play, scaffolding, and inner speech (John-Steiner & Mahn,
1996). Learners first construct meaning and then internalize concepts (John-Steiner & Mahn,
1996; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995). In this situation, Victoria scaffolded Bianca’s
learning through instructing, one of the ways a capable peer can provide assistance to a learner
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 162

(John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996; Michael, 2001). Victoria also served as a peer model as she
demonstrated the steps needed to be taken to complete the project by asking the teacher for
assistance.
As discussed earlier, it is the teacher’s responsibility to thoughtfully plan occasions for
students to interact with one another even during play (Anthony, 1996; Michael, 2001; Savery &
Duffy, 1995) as a way for students to learn in a meaningful way. While Ms. Sanchez seemed to
understand how her students progressively interacted, she did not discuss her role in facilitating
these interactions so that students could gain the most from them. She said,
Sometimes, they’re uh when they’re brand new they’re building together they just put
one on top of another they don’t say much. But when they know they got to know each
other, they tell each other their plans. “We gonna do a house for the cow” and they bring
the cow. “Oh, how about we put this toy in here?” They are talking back and forth
conversation of what they doing in that moment.
Ms. Sanchez seemed to be knowledgeable about how her students interacted, however, she did
not discuss her role in fostering opportunities for productive peer interactions. The teacher
suggested that once students became well-acquainted with one another, they talked about their
play. This could take the form of telling each other their plans, such as “We gonna do a house for
the cow.” They may also ask each other questions about the next steps in the play, such as “Oh,
how about we put this toy in here?” While peer interaction is important to build students’
language skills (Henry & Rickman, 2007; Justice et al., 2011; Schechter & Bye, 2007), it is also
critical for the teacher to manage the classroom so to provide an organized structure in which
students have opportunities to productively interact with one another (Mashburn et al., 2009;
Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995). Moreover, the interaction would be increasingly
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 163

advantageous to lower-skilled students when afforded opportunities to interact with their higher-
skilled peers (Henry & Rickman, 2007; Justice et al., 2011). Ms. Sanchez did not indicate that
she was knowledgeable of or providing these conditions of peer interaction.
The following is another example of older and younger students interacting during work
time–a time when students initiated their own play. Since Ms. Sanchez had indicated that she did
not think younger and older students interacted, it can be presumed that she did not design
opportunities for them to interact. However, we know from the literature that carefully planning
activities which allow for students of varying ages and academic levels to interact (Henry &
Rickman, 2007; Justice et al., 2011) is an effective instructional tool that can assist students to
participate in meaningful learning (Mashburn et al., 2009; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy,
1995). For frame of reference, at the time of this observation, Rafael was 3, Julian was 4, and
Nicolas and Gabriel were 5 years old. According to Ms. Sanchez, these students demonstrated
the skill set that was expected at their age. Specifically, the teacher had stated that Rafael was
new to the class and had not yet developed the skill set that the other boys in this group had.
Academically, Gabriel had exceeded grade-level expectations. Therefore, in this case, it can be
safely assumed that the older students had developed higher skills than their younger peers.
Gabriel, Nicolas, Julian, and Rafael play with the cardboard blocks that look like bricks.
N: This is…
OC: I don’t understand what he says next.
Nicolas holds up a dinosaur and walks away from the group of boys.
G: We need more. Oh, wait guys. No, it’s upside down.
J: Oh, like that.
Julian changes the position of the wooden blocks placed on the rug as he says this.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 164

R: Not like that. Hey nooo.
G: Sorry, sorry.
It was clear that students of varying ages and ability levels interacted throughout my time in the
classroom. However, the teacher had previously stated that older and younger students rarely
interacted with one another. It was also inferred that she did not intentionally facilitate
opportunities for students of varying ages and skill levels to interact. Literature indicates that the
teacher’s role involves purposefully organizing the classroom and its students so that they can
maximize their opportunities to interact productively with their peers (Mashburn et al., 2009;
Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995). However, Ms. Sanchez had not intentionally provided
opportunities for the lower- and higher-skilled students to interact.
While it cannot be confirmed that this interaction contributed to either students’ language
or cognitive skills, it can be inferred that they were using and being exposed to their peers’
language and actions. Gabriel was instructing the group what to do. He said, “We need more.
Oh, wait guys. No, it’s upside down.” Julian took Gabriel’s feedback and changed the position of
the blocks. Rafael then said, “Not like that.” Gabriel responded by apologizing. It is evident that
students were listening to each other and responding to one another’s statements. Research
shows that lower- and higher-ability student interaction has language benefits especially for
lower-ability students (Henry & Rickman, 2007; Justice et al., 2011). In this case, lower- and
higher-skilled students had opportunities to interact. However, those opportunities were not
intentionally set up by the teacher nor was the teacher aware that the students had such
opportunities. In these ways, Ms. Sanchez did not create an instructional climate which allowed
for meaningful student interactions to take place.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 165

Ms. Sanchez did not demonstrate a desire to provide instruction that involved
guided discovery learning, and neither were students given opportunities to construct
knowledge. Finally, as discussed in the conceptual framework, a pre-kindergarten environment
can support learning by facilitating opportunities for students to participate in knowledge co-
construction and guided discovery learning (Anthony, 1996; Bonawitz et al., 2011; Marcon,
1999; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995; Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva, 2004). This requires the
teacher to create an environment that encourages students to actively construct meaning whether
individually or collectively (Anthony, 1996; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995). However,
throughout the interviews, Ms. Sanchez did not use the opportunities afforded to her to
communicate that she included the concept of discovery learning in her teaching agenda. There
was a lack of awareness on how students had opportunities to construct knowledge. Although
there could have been times when students participated in exploration and discovery, it was not
apparent that the teacher had preemptively designed occasions for them to do so. Ultimately,
there was no evidence indicating that the learning environment provided students with
opportunities to learn through discovery.
Finding Two: The Teacher Expected to Provide a Positive Social and Emotional Climate,
However Did Not Fulfill Those Expectations
Another way to support meaningful learning in a pre-kindergarten environment is by
creating a positive social and emotional climate (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008;
Palermo et al., 2007; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Mashburn et al., 2008; Stipek et al., 1998;
Valentino, 2017). Literature indicates that characteristics of a positive social and emotional
climate include positive student-teacher relationships (Palermo et al., 2007), effective classroom
management (Burchinal et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Mashburn et al., 2009) and
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 166

opportunities for students to self-regulate their behavior (NAEYC, 2009, 2012; Tharp &
Gallimore, 1988). While Ms. Sanchez spoke to all these qualities that make up a positive social
and emotional climate and expected herself to implement them, she was unaware of how to carry
out those expectations. Consequently, the teacher did not provide the conditions required for a
positive social and emotional climate as there was much variation in what she said and did
throughout my time there. This contributed to an environment that did not provide meaningful
learning opportunities for her students. Each of the aspects of the social and emotional climate in
Ms. Sanchez’s classroom will be discussed in the following sections.
Ms. Sanchez expected to cultivate positive relationships with her students by
applying concepts of respect and kindness equally to all, however she neglected the needs of
some students while catering to those of others’ and thus, established a sense of inequality
in the classroom. Consistent with Stipek et al. (1998), Ms. Sanchez seemed to recognize that in
order to create opportunities for meaningful learning, the learning environment must be
characterized by a positive social and emotional climate. Without students first feeling welcomed
and respected in the classroom, they will not be positioned to learn productively (Burchinal et al.,
2008; Howes et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Mashburn et al., 2008; A. Mashburn et
al., 2009; Palermo et al., 2007; Stipek et al., 1998). In the following quotation, Ms. Sanchez
described her teaching philosophy in way that suggested that she aspired to develop relationships
with her students built on respect and trust.
Important to me as a teacher is respect. Treat children respect. No matter what no matter
IEPs no matter language uh barriers no matter class a social class uh cultural. Respect
giving the same respect to one give it to the other one. Uh be kind, be generous be uh
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 167

make them look like “I want to go to school because someone over there is waiting for
me.” For me it’s more than anything else respect. To treat children with respect.
It is evident that Ms. Sanchez desired to foster positive relationships with her students.
She stated that treating students with respect was her foremost priority as a teacher. She
recognized that her students brought differences to the classroom however, she was cognizant to
treat them all with the same kindness regardless of their backgrounds. She wanted her students to
see her as someone who was there for them. This was expressed when she explained that she
wanted her students to think that “I want to go to school because someone over there is waiting
for me.” Consequently, there was an availability she was suggesting that she wanted to be true.
She aspired for her students to feel wanted. These factors were indicative of fostering warm and
affectionate relationships in the classroom, which literature suggests is important for teachers to
develop in order to create a positive social and emotional climate (Palermo et al., 2007). This
required the teacher to interact with his/her students in sensitive and responsive ways, to provide
high social and emotional support, and encourage respect for others and an enthusiasm for
learning (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Mashburn et
al., 2008; A. Mashburn et al., 2009; Palermo et al., 2007; Stipek et al., 1998). As expressed in the
conceptual framework, this leads to lower levels of problem behavior and higher levels of
motivation (Mashburn et al., 2008; Stipek et al., 1998), the development of social skills
(Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008; Mashburn et al., 2008), and academic readiness
(Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Mashburn et al., 2008;
A. Mashburn et al., 2009; Palermo et al., 2007; Stipek et al., 1998). Ms. Sanchez expected
herself to give her students respect and generosity and hoped that her students would feel
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 168

wanted. In this sense, it appeared that she wanted to create a nurturing social and emotional
climate.
However, although Ms. Sanchez had expressed that she wanted to lend the same level of
respect and kindness to all her students regardless of their backgrounds, she and her assistant did
not practice this concept of equality in the classroom. In the following example, the teachers
offered Gabriel certain liberties which they did not extend to Rafael. It should be noted that Ms.
Sanchez had previously mentioned that in addition to this class, Gabriel attended another class
that offered resources that specifically catered to his needs. Consequently, the teacher and
teacher’s assistant believed that Gabriel was often tired and typically gave him space and time to
sleep during class.
Gabriel is behind a small table.
TA: (to the teacher) Gabriel is over there.
T: Gabriel, the floor is really cold.
TA: You want to sleep?
TA takes Gabriel to the other side of the classroom.
Rafael walks there too.
T: Rafael, Rafael.
Rafael walks and points to Gabriel.
TA: No, because then you’re going to play.
OC: Doesn’t seem fair that only Gabriel can sleep.
Rafael is moving from side to side.
T: Rafael, Rafael. Relax Rafael.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 169

The above exchange demonstrated two aspects of the inequality that was present in the
classroom. These include the teachers exhibiting low expectations of Gabriel’s ability to
participate in class and not meeting Rafael’s needs in the way that the teachers thought they were
meeting Gabriel’s. It appeared that the teacher and teacher’s assistant had good intentions–to
meet what they perceived to be Gabriel’s needs. However, in doing so, they made assumptions
about Gabriel and Rafael and neglected the fact that two were not being treated in the same way.
The teacher’s assistant assumed that Gabriel wanted to sleep and thus, took him to the other side
of the classroom so that he could sleep there. Gabriel never mentioned that he was tired nor was
he given the opportunity to respond to the teacher’s assistant when she asked him if he wanted to
sleep. She simply assumed that he wanted to sleep and made the decision for him. Research
indicates that fostering students’ independence and self-regulation skills promotes learning
behaviors and allows students to succeed socially and academically (NAEYC, 2009). Acting on
this understanding, not only did the teachers take away Gabriel’s say in the matter, but also,
physically took him away from any academic and social activities that the other students would
continue to participate in during literacy and other daily activities. It is evident from the literature
that instruction in language and literacy leads to children’s language and literacy growth (Connor
et al., 2006). Without receiving instruction in language and literacy, students cannot be expected
to make academic gains in these and related areas. Acting on this understanding, the teachers
committed a disservice to Gabriel’s education as they denied him access to classroom instruction
and activities.
The teachers seemingly tried to cultivate a nurturing environment by thinking they were
catering to Gabriel’s needs. Yet, while trying to do so, they not only took away Gabriel’s
opportunities to learn, but also, demonstrated to other students in the class that they were not
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 170

worthy of the same treatment. Rafael had indicated that he wanted to go to the same area where
Gabriel was being allowed to go to. However, the teacher’s assistant responded, “No, because
then you’re going to play.” In this sense, she made an assumption about Rafael’s intention to go
to the other side of the room. The teacher then told Rafael to relax because he was moving from
side to side. It appeared that Rafael wanted to be taken away from the instructional setting as
well but was not allowed to do so. This sent the message that Gabriel’s needs deserved more
attention than those of Rafael’s. As mentioned previously, in order to provide a positive social
and emotional climate it is important that the teacher be responsive and sensitive to the students’
needs (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Mashburn et al.,
2008; A. Mashburn et al., 2009; Palermo et al., 2007; Stipek et al., 1998). This did not hold true
in Ms. Sanchez’s classroom as the teachers made an assumption about Gabriel’s needs and did
not acknowledge Rafael’s. In this way, they did not ultimately act in a responsive or sensitive
way. It was clear that not all students’ needs were being treated equally which spoke against to
what the teacher had said previously: “treat children respect. No matter what no matter IEPs no
matter language uh barriers no matter class a social class uh cultural. Respect giving the same
respect to one give it to the other one.”
Ms. Sanchez was not aware of her responsibility to encourage peer interaction nor
did she perform this role in the classroom. Another quality of a positive social and emotional
climate is a well-managed classroom (Burchinal et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007;
Mashburn et al., 2009) in which students are offered opportunities to productively interact with
their peers (Mashburn et al., 2009; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995). In the following
quotation Ms. Sanchez discussed her approach to student conflict in a way that did not promote
such student interaction.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 171

Let’s say they fight for a toy and I don’t want to I don’t want to tell them why they
fighting but “tell me what happened?” Uhh “we fighting for this toy. I had it first.” “Ok
what can we do? Can we put it away? Can we? What can we do? Give me ideas.” And I
make them tell me. Maybe they tell me we can play together. Or we can put it away. So,
they decide what to do.
Ms. Sanchez spoke to what would ensue in the face of conflict, however, she did not indicate
how she encouraged students to develop self-regulatory behaviors which would allow them to
interact productively. Ms. Sanchez said in a situation where students were arguing about a toy,
she would urge them to tell her what happened and how to resolve the issue so that “ultimately
they decide what to do.” Ms. Sanchez demonstrated that she would scaffold the situation, but she
did not describe any instances in which students would be given the opportunity to interact with
one another. As discussed, in order to promote a positive social and emotional climate, it is
essential that the teacher structure opportunities for productive student interaction (Mashburn et
al., 2009). However, it seemed that the teacher would still be at the center of the interaction as
opposed to positioning the students to interactively work out a solution. By not offering students
the space and time to solve the problem, Ms. Sanchez would be limiting their opportunities to
learn in a meaningful way.
Consistent with what Ms. Sanchez said, in the following observation we can see that the
teachers did not provide opportunities for students to productively interact, which is an essential
component of a positive social and emotional climate (Mashburn et al., 2009). Instead, they
spoke for Gabriel and Rafael when the students had gotten into a conflict and had thwarted their
interaction.
T: Who was playing with these blocks?
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 172

SS: Rafael.
T: Rafael come over here.
Rafael puts the blocks away.
Timothy is playing with toys in the kitchen.
TA: (to Gabriel) Did you talk to him?
G: Rafael you…
TA: Tell him how you feel.
G: How you feel.
TA: Tell him how you feel.
G: I feel sad.
TA: (to Rafael) He feels sad.
Gabriel walks away and holds a microphone.
In this situation, the teachers were at the center of the conflict. Ms. Sanchez asked Rafael to
come to her. The teacher’s assistant asked Gabriel whether he had talked to Rafael. However,
when Gabriel began to talk to Rafael, the teacher’s assistant interrupted him as he was doing
what she had just asked him to do. Then, when she said to him, “Tell him how you feel,” Gabriel
said, “How you feel.” At this point it was clear that Gabriel was just repeating what the teacher’s
assistant was telling him to say. The teacher’s assistant again said, “Tell him how you feel.”
Gabriel then said, “I feel sad.” The teacher’s assistant repeated Gabriel’s statement and the
conflict was supposedly ended as nobody was given an opportunity to talk about it or resolve it
afterward. The teacher did not encourage students to talk to one another about their problem nor
how they could solve it. In this sense, there was a lack of conflict resolution and any potential
meaning the students could have taken away from this exchange. This contributed to a classroom
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 173

climate that was not positive as students were consistently not given opportunities to
productively interact (Mashburn et al., 2009). Without being exposed to a positive social and
emotional climate, students cannot be expected to learn in a meaningful way (Bulotsky-Shearer
et al., 2014; Burchinal et al., 2008; Connor et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008; LoCasale et al.,
2007; Mashburn et al., 2008; A. Mashburn et al., 2009; Palermo et al., 2007; Stipek et al., 1998).
Ms. Sanchez did not execute her intention to develop students’ independence skills.
The teacher highlighted the need for students to learn skills that would allow them to be
independent and self-sufficient. She valued developing students’ independence skills and
believed it to be a critical aspect of the learning process. Similarly, current early childhood
education standards emphasize the development of independence, responsibility, self-regulation,
and cooperation skills for preschoolers to be academically ready for the early grades (NAEYC,
2009, 2012). Considering that one of the goals of teaching and learning is for students to
eventually perform tasks and skills independently, it is essential that young students develop
these skills (NAEYC, 2009). Ms. Sanchez said,
Their role is to they learn independence they know they can do it themselves. Uhh they
they learn to share after me. You’re gonna be. Uh they need to uh to know this is what we
can do at home. So, I’m not doing nothing you don’t do at home. Sometimes when
they’re little you know mommies put everything in their plate but here we pass it so we
can see everybody can help themselves. More than anything, independence. People
parents are surprised. When they’re coming to pick them up. (gasps) “They’re pouring
the milk by themselves?” And I say, “Of course.” And I say, “You don’t see this at
home?” So, independence is important for them. And they feel powerful. They feel “oh I
can do it.”
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 174

It is evident that Ms. Sanchez was compelled to foster students’ social learning and practical
skills, however, it was not clear that she understood why doing so was important. In this case, the
teacher indicated that students were given the responsibility of serving themselves food, a task
that she suggested parents may not have enforced before. Ms. Sanchez said that being given
independence made her students feel powerful. However, while she expressed that
“independence is important for [the students],” she did not articulate why. We know from the
research that encouraging students to be independent and self-regulate their behavior helps them
succeed socially and academically (NAEYC, 2009, 2012). Promoting students’ independence
and self-regulation skills has been a key developmental goal in early childhood education as it
predicts students’ ability to develop problem-solving and planning skills as well as levels of
attention and metacognition, behaviors that allow for meaningful learning to occur (NAEYC,
2009). It was not clear that Ms. Sanchez understood that cultivating students’ independence
skills would position them to succeed socially and academically by allowing them to develop
self-regulatory behaviors which could be transferred to other activities once internalized,
consistent with Tharp and Gallimore’s (1988) findings.
While Ms. Sanchez expressed that she wanted her students to develop social learning and
independence skills, her actions did not correspond to what she said. In the following example,
Ms. Sanchez did not hold a student accountable when the student was faced with a problem
during snack time. Instead, she performed the resolving action for the student, denying the
student any responsibility to develop skills of independence, which is an integral aspect of social
and academic development (NAEYC, 2009, 2012).
The teacher and TA are talking to students at their tables.
The teacher helps pass the cups and food.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 175

Students take turns pouring milk in their cups from small jugs.
T: Oh, this lunch is super mega good. What do you think–this is healthy food?
S: Yes.
T: Yeah, all the vegetables, chicken nuggets, milk.
S: Where’s my cup?
T: That’s a good question. Where’s your cup? How do we know?
S: We should get another cup.
T: That’s right.
The teacher gets up to get a cup.
When the student asked, “Where’s my cup?” The teacher asked her the same question and then
said, “How do we know?” Although it was not clear what Ms. Sanchez meant by this, the student
responded with a solution to the problem, which was to get another cup. However, the teacher
ultimately got the cup, completing the behavior and withholding the responsibility from the
student. In this sense, there was little integrity in the action as the student was not given the
opportunity to actually solve the problem on his/her own. This went against what Ms. Sanchez
had expressed earlier about giving students the opportunity to develop skills of independence by
serving themselves. Instead, this interaction between the student and teacher exhibited that the
teacher maintained authority and controlled the direction of the situation, placing the student at
the weaker end of the power dynamic.
Case Study Two: Ms. Sherri, AM Preschool Class
Ms. Sherri’s Background
Ms. Sherri taught the AM preschool class as the lead teacher from 8:00AM to 11:30AM
Monday through Friday. She could speak English fluently. She did not provide any information
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 176

about her background other than she had completed her Bachelor of Arts degree. At the time of
this interview in May of 2017, she had been the lead teacher at Carter Head Start Preschool for
three years. She had taught pre-kindergarten for a total of 17 years.
Students’ Backgrounds
There were 18 students between the ages of 3 and 5 in Ms. Sherri’s class. Of these
students, 12 were boys and six were girls. There were four students who were 3 years old, two 4-
year-olds, and twelve 5-year-olds. One of the students was Vietnamese, two were half Hispanic
and half Caucasian, one was half Vietnamese and half Caucasian, and 14 were Hispanic. Fifteen
of the students could speak Spanish.
Findings
The following sections will address how Ms. Sherri’s pre-kindergarten environment
provided meaningful learning opportunities to its students. According to the research, preschool
students are afforded learning opportunities through the classroom’s academic as well as social
context. Additionally, within each of these contexts, opportunities to learn can be presented
through interactions between the teacher and students and those between students and their peers.
Acting on this understanding, this study’s conceptual framework asserted that to provide
opportunities for meaningful learning, the teacher must create a high instructional climate and a
positive social and emotional climate as evidenced by the teacher-student and student-peer
interactions.
My first and second findings will describe how Ms. Sherri’s prekindergarten classroom
provided meaningful learning opportunities as part of its instructional as well as its social and
emotional climate respectively. In the first finding, I will present how Ms. Sherri demonstrated
that she had some idea of the conditions required to create a high instructional climate, however,
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 177

ultimately did not deliver high-quality instruction. Similarly, in the second finding, I will discuss
that to some degree, Ms. Sherri displayed that she had an understanding of how to create a
positive social and emotional climate. And while she had constructed a social and emotional
environment that was positive in one way, for the large part, she did not. Overall, there was little
evidence indicating that Ms. Sherri’s prekindergarten environment provided meaningful learning
opportunities to students.
Finding One: The Teacher Expected Herself to Provide a High Instructional Climate,
However, Did Not Employ the Conditions Necessary to Create One
As described in the conceptual framework, one of the ways a classroom environment can
afford meaningful learning opportunities to students is by creating a strong instructional climate
(e.g., Burchinal et al., 2008; Connor et al., 2006; Howes et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al.,
2007; Mashburn et al., 2008; Stipek et al., 1998). This includes providing students opportunities
to participate in academics (Burchinal et al., 2008, Connor et al., 2006, Howes et al., 2008,
LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007), play (Bodrova, 2008; Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012; R. Bulotsky-
Shearer et al., 2014; Coolahan et al., 2000; Han et al., 2010; Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006),
peer interaction (Anthony, 1996; Henry & Rickman, 2007; Justice et al., 2011; Mashburn et al.,
2009; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995; Schechter et al., 2007), and discovery learning
(Anthony, 1996; Bonawitz et al., 2011; Marcon, 1999; Savery & Duffy, 1995; Siraj-Blatchford
& Sylva, 2004) that is meaningful. In this case, Ms. Sherri did not provide her students with
opportunities to learn in meaningful ways. She suggested that she may have had an idea of how
to deliver high-quality instruction in some ways but did not indicate that she understood all the
conditions required to create a high instructional climate. Ultimately, the teacher’s perception of
the quality of her instruction did not level with her instruction in the classroom. Ms. Sherri stated
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 178

that she placed importance on students’ academics but did not give attention to peer play or peer
interaction. She did not discuss opportunities for her students to co-construct knowledge through
participation in guided discovery learning at all. There was no evidence indicating that the
teacher’s instruction focused on students’ opportunities to meaningfully participate in academics,
play, interactions with peers, or guided discovery learning. A lack of these qualities contributed
to an instructional climate that did not afford its students with meaningful opportunities to learn.
The following sections will discuss Ms. Sherri’s approach to and instruction in academics, play,
peer interaction, and discovery learning.
Ms. Sherri suggested that she provided high-quality academic instruction, however,
her actions in the classroom did not pair with what she said she did. As discussed in the
conceptual framework, one of the ways a pre-kindergarten environment can provide meaningful
learning opportunities is through a high-quality academic climate (Burchinal et al., 2008, Connor
et al., 2006, Howes et al., 2008, LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007). This can take the form of
providing clear instruction (Burchinal et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007), instruction in
language and literacy (Connor et al., 2006), and opportunities to use language to communicate
and develop higher-order thinking and reasoning skills (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et al.,
2008). Regarding students’ academic learning, Ms. Sherri expressed that she did the following in
the classroom: provided academic instruction driven by expected student outcomes and goals,
positioned students as the focal of learning, and included time for literacy in the classroom
consistently. However, this did not hold true. The following section will discuss each of these
three aspects of the academic climate separately in terms of what the teacher said she did and
what was observed.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 179

As mentioned above, Ms. Sherri indicated that she taught according to pre-determined
goals and expected certain outcomes from students based on those goals. When asked what she
wanted to happen on any given day, Ms. Sherri answered, “To get a result. They learn something
based on whatever the goal is. End result should be positive.” As discussed in the previous
chapter, Ms. Sherri displayed an inclination to get through the interview quickly as she said it
interrupted her computer time. This limited the amount of information she shared with me and
the number of clarifying questions that I was willing to ask her–not wanting to cause further
disturbance. Therefore, it is possible that she may have had a more complex or complete set of
expectations that she did not communicate through her interviews.
Based on the information given, it is evident that the teacher expected her students to
deliver a result every day. There was a learning goal set in advance and students were expected
to meet that goal and produce a result. Furthermore, she expected the result to be positive.
However, it was not clear whether her interpretation of expectations referred to academic or
behavioral learning. It was also not possible to determine whether learning was the result and if
so, how it would be measured. Finally, Ms. Sherri did not demonstrate if she had constructed in
her mind what she meant by the result needing to be positive. Overall, her response was vague,
which made it difficult to decipher what she understood about what she said or what it meant.
Ms. Sherri did not specify what her learning goals were during the interviews and also
did not communicate those goals with her students in the classroom. The teacher had said that
she expected students to learn according to a given goal, yet the purpose of activities and the
anticipated outcome was often not clear as she did not explicitly articulate to students what the
goal of any activity was or what she expected from them. In the following example, we see that
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 180

there was no learning goal established and there was a lack of instructional support offered to the
students.
T: Roll your sleeves. Please. We don’t want them to get dirty. Do we use the brush
on the table? No, we use it on the?
S: Paper.
T: What color is this?
SS: Yellow.
T: What color is this?
SS: Red.
T: I’m going to give you two colors and then we’re going to see what’s going to
happen. Are you excited? I want you to draw a nice one for mommy and daddy.
The teacher passes paper in trays to the students.
T: Oh, Ryan do we roll the paper like that?
G: Teacher, I want the red one.
T: No, you’ll get two colors.
T: Oh, you’re mixing already?
B: It turns to orange.
T: Oh, it makes orange. How do you think green?
B: Blue and yellow makes green.
T: Oh, blue and yellow makes green.
The boy is first to mix the colors in the bowl.
Other students at the table do not mix the colors in the bowl but are applying paint
individually to the paper.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 181

Miley mixes the colors on the paper.
The boys next to the boy also mixes colors. All the boys in that row are mixing colors on
the paper.
The teacher walks around the table.
T: What color are you making? What happens when you mix it? (to the boy) What
color is this?
B: Orange.
T: How did that happen?
B: Mixed them.
T: Because you mixed the yellow and red.
In this example, the expected outcome and objective of the activity was not clear. Ms. Sherri told
the students that she would give them “two colors and then we’re going to see what’s going to
happen,” but did not explain what students were expected to do with the colors or what the
purpose of the activity was. In order to provide high-quality instruction, it is essential that the
teacher provide clear instruction (Burchinal et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007).
However, in this case, Ms. Sherri gave students little direction on what to do with the colors or
why they were given the colors. She indicated that they would work with two colors, however, it
was not clear that the objective of the activity was to possibly discover what would happen when
the colors were combined. This could have been an effort to embed discovery learning in a
classroom activity, however, it was ultimately limited by the lack of clear instruction. In this
sense, students could not be expected to produce the learning result that she may have wanted.
Moreover, there was no evidence of any meaningful learning that took place during this
interaction. A boy mixed the colors and told the teacher that “it turns to orange.” The teacher
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 182

repeated this statement and asked, “How do you think green?” This question did not make any
sense, but it could be inferred that she meant to ask which two colors he thought would produce
the color green because he replied, “Blue and yellow makes green.” The teacher again repeated
his response. Towards the end of the interaction, the teacher asked the boy how he made the
color orange. The boy responded, “Mixed them.” The teacher then said, “Because you mixed the
yellow and red.” In this case, the teacher did not probe the boy’s thought process or encourage
him to elaborate on what he was saying and doing. According to the literature, effective
instruction requires that the teacher provide relevant feedback (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et
al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007) and opportunities for students to use language to
communicate and develop higher-order thinking and reasoning skills (Burchinal et al., 2008;
Howes et al., 2008). However, in this case neither of these aspects of high-quality instruction
was achieved. Although the boy answered the teacher’s questions correctly, there was no
evidence of any meaningful learning as he did not express what he took away from the activity
or whether he understood what he was doing. Throughout the interaction, students were observed
either mixing the colors or applying them individually. However, the teacher did not provide
feedback to any of the students. It did not seem relevant to her if students were doing what was
expected or not. This interaction between the teacher and students demonstrated that it was not
important if students were learning based on a given goal or whether learning was meaningful.
Another characteristic of her classroom instruction was to position students at the center
of the learning process. When asked what her students’ role was in their learning, she said,
“They’re always the main character when it comes to learning. They’re the focal of learning.
Each of them.” The teacher’s statement was vague and difficult to unravel. Given what she
shared, it was apparent that she expected students to be the “main character” of their learning. It
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 183

was not clear what their role would be as the main character though. What they were expected to
do and say being the main character and the focal of learning was not explicitly stated. It is
possible that she was unwilling to include some of her perspectives that made up her beliefs
because of her time restraints.
Although Ms. Sherri stated that students should be the focal of learning, she often did not
focus on what and if students were learning at all. In the following example, it appeared that the
teacher asked questions for the sake of asking questions without considering students’ responses
or what they took away from the small group discussion about the story, The Three Little Pigs.
T: Ok Diego. Are you ready? Who remembers about the pig? Oink, oink. This is
about the three little pigs.
L: This is kind of scary.
T: Scary? What do you think?
L: There’s a big bad wolf.
Luciano points to the picture on the cover.
T: What kind of house do you think they’re going to build? Diego, Diego. Are you
listening? Give it to me. What happened to the house?
L: He broke it.
T: Why?
L: I don’t know.
T: Why do you think he’s mad?
L: Because he had an idea. And they tricked him.
T: Did you hear him?
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 184

In this exchange, Ms. Sherri did not seem to focus on whether students were learning. Firstly, she
did not require students to respond to her questions. For example, when the teacher asked, “What
kind of a house do you think they’re going to build?” she did not wait for a response. Instead, she
directed her attention to Diego, who she felt was not listening, and then asked a new question
immediately after. On this note, she also did not require participation from all her students in the
discussion as Luciano was the only student answering questions. According to the literature,
students should be given opportunities to use language to communicate and develop higher-order
thinking and reasoning skills (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008). However, students
were not given that chance in this exchange.
Secondly, Ms. Sherri did not encourage students to engage in dialogue and use their
critical thinking skills when they did not know why something happened. Instead, the teacher
moved on to a new question. For example, Ms. Sherri asked, “What happened to the house?”
When Luciano replied, “He broke it,” Ms. Sherri asked him why he may have done that. Luciano
then responded that he did not know. Ms. Sherri moved on to a new question instead of trying to
help Luciano understand why the wolf broke the house.
Another way to provide high quality instruction is by creating opportunities for concept
development (LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007). However, in this case the teacher made no effort to
support Luciano’s learning. He did not understand why something happened in the story and Ms.
Sherri did not try to help him understand why certain events took place or what it all meant.
Finally, at the end of this interaction when the teacher asked, “Why do you think he’s mad?”
Luciano responded, “Because he had an idea. And they tricked him.” Again, Ms. Sherri did not
respond to Luciano’s comment. By disregarding whether students participated in the discussion
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 185

or understood the context of the story, Ms. Sherri neglected student learning and her role to
ensure that students were learning.
Finally, Ms. Sherri said that she provided academic support by providing time for literacy
on a daily basis. When asked how literacy instruction figured in her day during the time I did
observations in her classroom, she responded, “Part of the routine. Read the books for literacy.
Always like that.” From what she said, it can be inferred that to her, literacy is the equivalent of
reading books. Again, it could be that Ms. Sherri thought that literacy consisted of more than just
reading books, however this is all that she was willing to share with me about her literacy
instruction during her final interview. She said that she included literacy in her daily schedule as
it was her part of the routine. Since, it is “always like that,” it could be assumed that she
consistently included literacy in her teaching agenda.
However, in the classroom Ms. Sherri consistently skipped literacy instruction or only
read a few pages as they were often running behind schedule. In the next example, we see that
the teacher asked a few questions that could be slightly related to the book she was expected to
read but ultimately did not read the book as it was time for lunch. The following is one of several
times that Ms. Sherri decided to not read a book during the scheduled time for literacy.
T: I want to see who’s the picky eater. I want to see who’s the picky eater. Are you
ready?
The teacher holds a book, D.W. the Picky Eater.
T: Ian are you ready? I know one more week and we’re done. Oh, Diego one more
week and you’re in a different school. Ok do you still want me to read the book?
It’s time for lunch. It’s time for picky eater.
TA: Who’s picky eater?
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 186

G: What does that mean?
I: It means you don’t like fruit, vegetables, protein.
TA: What is protein?
I: Dairy is milk.
T: In the big school you get what you get. You eat what they give you.
I: I went to my brother’s school.
T: And they just eat what they get right?
I: I don’t know. I was just doing my work. I was outside. Not inside.
T: Diego can you keep your hands to yourself? Ok I’m going to close this book
because look at the time. It’s time for lunch.
OC: Again, skipping literacy!
At the beginning of this exchange, Ms. Sherri told Diego that there was only one more week left
for school. It was not entirely clear what she meant by this statement. From a behavioral
standpoint, it seemed to have sent the message that they needed to pay attention for one more
week and then they would be going to a different school. This set the tone of this exchange as
obligatory and forced from the onset.
The teacher and TA attempted to ask students questions about the book, D.W. the Picky
Eater. However, it was not clear how all the questions were connected. Neither did the teachers
provide feedback on what students said to contribute to the conversation. The TA posed the
question, “Who’s picky eater?” To which a girl asked, “What does that mean?” Ian responded,
“It means you don’t like fruit, vegetables, protein.” While Ian attempted to define what a picky
eater is for the girl, his definition was not entirely correct. However, neither of the teachers made
an effort to provide a more accurate answer to the posed question. Instead, the TA asked, “What
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 187

is protein?” Ian did not answer the question and instead said, “Dairy is milk.” Again, the teachers
did not respond to what the student said. Providing relevant feedback is one of the ways a teacher
can provide high instructional support to students (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008;
LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007). However, in this case there was none provided. Instead, a series
of seemingly unrelated questions were posed to the students.
Later in the interaction, the teacher made a statement that was never clarified on how it
was relevant to the conversation. She said, “In the big school you get what you get. You eat what
they give you.” Ms. Sherri did not explicitly make a connection between what being a picky
eater had to do with eating whatever “the big school” would give them to eat. Providing
opportunities for concept development is an important part of instructional support in pre-
kindergarten (LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007). However, the teacher did not clarify what she said
had to do with the topic at hand.
Ms. Sherri also neglected to provide students with opportunities to use language. When
Ian said that he went to his brother’s school, the teacher spoke for him and said, “They just eat
what they get right?” Ian responded, “I don’t know.” Throughout this teacher-student interaction
there was no evidence of academic support being offered to the student so that he could construct
meaning from the exchange of ideas. Ian did not say or do anything that suggested that he had
the opportunity to learn in a meaningful way. The teacher did not encourage him to use language
to navigate his thinking and communicate further, which according to the literature is necessary
for students to develop higher-order thinking and reasoning skills (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes
et al., 2008).
Finally, the teacher did not read the book because they did not have time. Two minutes
into the exchange, she said, “Ok I’m going to close this book because look at the time. It’s time
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 188

for lunch.” This did not make sense as she had begun literacy instruction only a couple of
minutes ago. It seemed that she was either expecting to read the book and ask questions within
two minutes or never planned to read the book. Either way, she dismissed the importance of
literacy instruction. According to the literature, focusing on language and literacy instruction is
an integral part of providing high instructional support in pre-kindergarten (Connor et al., 2006).
Yet there was a lack of both language and literacy instruction in this case, which hindered
students’ ability to learn in a meaningful way.
The teacher did not demonstrate that she was aware of what play looked like to her
and did not provide opportunities for meaningful play to occur. Another way a pre-
kindergarten environment can provide high quality instruction is by creating opportunities for
meaningful play to occur (Bulotsky-Shearer et al.; 2012, R. Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2014;
Coolahan et al., 2000; Han et al., 2010; Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006). Literature indicates that
peer play (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012; R. Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2014; Coolahan et al., 2000)
and guided play (Han et al., 2010; Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006) are positively related to
students’ learning behaviors and outcomes. Further, it is the teacher’s responsibility to help
develop students’ play skills and provide them with the mental and physical tools to make their
play constructive and valuable (Bulotsky-Shearer et al.; 2012, R. Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2014;
Coolahan et al., 2000; Han et al., 2010; Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006). When Ms. Sherri was
posed with the question about how play figured in the day during the time that I was in the
classroom, she said, “Included in working time. Opportunity to explore or play. They choose.
Call it working time. Not playing. Call it ‘work time’ because according to High Scope.”
The teacher said that play was included in what was called working time. She seemed to
refer to play as “work time” because that was the terminology used by the school’s adopted
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 189

curriculum. However, it was not clear if she knew how she constructed the idea of play or what
she wanted it to look like in the classroom. She said that it was a time to explore and for students
to choose what they wanted to do, which is in line with what the research says about discovery
learning. Providing students with opportunities to direct their own actions with the environment
in ways that are facilitated by the teacher and allow for exploration are associated with positive
outcomes in preschool (Bonawitz et al., 2011; Marcon, 1999; Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva, 2004).
However, an important part of child-initiated activities is that they are framed in a way that allow
them to be meaningful. This is ultimately the teacher’s responsibility towards student learning. In
this case, Ms. Sherri did not indicate what her role was in the students’ play. She seemed to be
more concerned about the vocabulary being used to label the play as opposed to what it actually
consisted of. Moreover, she described play as a single occurrence as it was stated in the
curriculum instead of thoughtfully considering when play could occur throughout the academic
day, if at all. In this sense, it was not apparent that Ms. Sherri had given thought to her role in
constructing her students’ play to be productive and meaningful.
The following is a typical example of how the students and the teacher participated in the
dedicated work time. In this particular case, these students chose to play in the house center and
were using the provided physical resources to engage in some form of pretend play. Ms. Sherri
involved herself only to attend to a behavioral matter. Otherwise, she seemed to be removed
from the situation and left to use the restroom.
Nicole and a girl walk in the house center.
Nicole puts on an oven mitt.
Teresa and Hector talk.
OC: I don’t understand what they are saying to each other.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 190

Hector puts a stethoscope to a stuffed toy’s body and listens. He does this again. Adan
puts on a stethoscope.
Alexa puts a hat on a baby.
The teacher says she has to go to the bathroom and uses the phone to call the office.
Adan swings the stethoscope.
T: (to Adan) That’s for a doctor. Not to swing it like this ok. You can listen to the
heartbeat.
Adan puts the stethoscope away.
The teacher steps out and Ms. Sadie comes in.
In this example, Ms. Sherri seemed to be disconnected from the students’ play. The only time
she engaged with a student in this interaction was when she told Adan what not to do with the
stethoscope and what it was supposed to be used for. However, there was no evidence of learning
that took place as Adan then put the stethoscope away and did not engage with it further.
Although Adan may have learned to not swing the stethoscope, it was not clear if he had learned
why not to and how to use it correctly. The teacher told him, “You can listen to the heartbeat,”
but it was not apparent that Adan understood what she meant by this. Research indicates that
integrating play and learning benefits students’ language and academic skills. (Han et al., 2010;
Samuelsson & Johansson, 2006). Specifically, this consists of teaching and scaffolding students’
play skills within their ZPD to allow for mature play to transpire (Bodrova, 2008). In this sense,
Ms. Sherri had provided the physical tools for students to use during their work time but did not
indicate that she had equipped them with the mental resources to make their play meaningful.
Ms. Sherri did not express an awareness of her responsibility to facilitate students’
peer interactions nor did she create opportunities for students to interact in ways that were
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 191

meaningful. Research shows that meaningful interaction with peers, especially those between
lower- and higher-ability peers, is associated with higher academic skills (Henry & Rickman,
2007; Justice et al., 2011; Mashburn et al., 2009; Schechter et al., 2007). However, when asked
how often lower-skilled students had opportunities to interact with their higher-skilled peers, Ms.
Sherri replied, “It doesn’t matter to them. As long as they know each other, they will play.” In
this case, the teacher did not answer the question and did not indicate that she was concerned
with how students interacted at all. By saying, “It doesn’t matter to them,” she suggested that she
also did not construct ways for lower- and higher-ability peers to interact nor did she think it was
important. According to the literature, embedding time for lower- and higher-skilled students to
interact within the classroom can have a positive effect on lower-ability students’ language and
reading skills (Henry & Rickman, 2007; Justice et al., 2011; Mashburn et al., 2009; Schechter et
al., 2007). Therefore, teachers should carefully create opportunities for students of different
academic levels to play, talk, and work with each other. However, Ms. Sherri did not show that
she was aware of the benefits of productive peer interaction, especially that between lower- and
higher-ability students.
Ms. Sherri also indicated that she did not play a role in encouraging students who did not
know each other to interact. This suggested that if lower- and higher-ability students were not
familiar with one another, they did not interact in the classroom. Mashburn et al. (2009) said that
another factor that plays a role in the success of peer interactions is the classroom quality that is
created by the teacher. It is the teacher’s responsibility to create a supportive social and
emotional climate so that students are encouraged to interact with their peers.
Finally, the teacher’s interpretation of peer interaction seemed to be limited to when
students play only. However, students can interact outside of play as well. Peer interaction also
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 192

involves students talking and working with each other whether one-on-one or in small
collaborative groups (Anthony, 1996; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995). Acting on that
understanding, Ms. Sherri did not demonstrate that she was aware of the conditions under which
students could interact.
Correspondingly, there was little evidence of students interacting outside of their
dedicated play times. Moreover, the duration of those exchanges was too brief to be considered
meaningful. In the following example, Alexa, 4 years old, and Max, 5 years old, were using
differently shaped magnetic tiles to build a house together during work time. As noted earlier,
students were free to choose to play where and with whom they wanted during this period.
A: (to Max) I’m going to make a house. What are you making?
Alexa builds a house with Max.
M: Are you making it bigger?
Alexa nods her head.
T: 9:45 we have to be out. In five minutes. We’ll start cleaning.
M: Wait. Stop. I’m ready.
Max puts squares on top of the building.
M: No more, no more. This is the last one ok.
Alexa puts tiles on top and then takes them off.
A: You can’t see it.
Max and Alexa add tiles to the top of the building.
Max has his mouth wide open.
M: You’ve gotta be kidding me.
Max places a tile on top.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 193

M: No more, no more. There. No more.
Max sighs.
A: You can’t do that.
Alexa takes off the tiles that Max had added vertically. Alexa adds the tiles vertically
again.
M: And that’s it. No more, no more. There that looks good. You need to cap it ok. Ok
maybe no cap. Maybe we don’t need to cap it.
Max takes the tiles off which he had placed as lids.
M: Teacher!
Diego plays with Legos by himself at Table 1.
T: Ok time for clean up my friends.
The teacher puts on the cleanup song.
In this example, we see Max and Alexa strategizing about how to build a house without it
breaking. Max seemed to be hesitant to add more tiles presumably in fear of it toppling over.
However, Alexa still tried a couple of different styles. After Max said, “No more, no more. This
is the last one ok,” Alexa put tiles on the top and then only took them off because she said, “You
can’t see it.” Then again, after Max added more tiles and said, “No more, no more. There. No
more,” Alexa said, “You can’t do that.” She took off the tiles he had added and then put them on
again. The two students were listening to each other and working according to the other person’s
actions. They were taking turns and communicating with one another about what to do next.
However, while this may have been a productive exchange, there was no evidence that the
teacher facilitated this interaction or was aware that these two students were interacting. Max and
Alexa independently chose to work with the magnetic tiles and then with each other. Further,
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 194

when Max called the teacher to look at their house, she did not do so. She said it was time to
clean up and then put on the cleanup song. Although the literature indicates that it is the teacher’s
responsibility to create opportunities for students to interact (Mashburn et al., 2009; Michael,
2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995), especially between lower- and higher-skilled peers (Henry &
Rickman, 2007; Justice et al., 2011; Mashburn et al., 2009; Schechter et al., 2007), there was no
evidence in this case suggesting that Ms. Sherri had done that.
Finally, it should be noted that at 9:35AM, Ms. Sherri informed the class that they had to
be out by 9:45AM and that they had 5 minutes left to work at their centers. However, according
to the daily schedule given to me at the beginning of observations, work time was scheduled
from 9:10AM to 9:55AM with recall time following from 9:55AM to 10:00AM before going
outside. Even though at this point students should have been given an additional 20 minutes of
work time, as typical in her class, Ms. Sherri cut work time so that they could go outside to play.
This constant act of limiting students’ interactions inside the classroom to increase time for free
play outside hindered the students’ opportunity to fulfill the expectations of participating in work
time. Mashburn et al. (2009) state that the teacher should practice effective classroom
management skills to ensure that students are given opportunities to productively interact with
their peers. However, Ms. Sherri was often observed rushing students through their activities as
opposed to making sure that they were making the most of their learning.
Ms. Sherri did not exhibit awareness of the importance of guided discovery learning
and did not provide instruction allowing students to construct knowledge. Finally, as
discussed in the conceptual framework, a pre-kindergarten environment can support meaningful
learning by providing opportunities for students to actively construct meaning using high levels
of mental effort (Anthony, 1996; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995) and participate in
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 195

exploration and child-initiated activities (Bonawitz et al., 2011; Marcon, 1999; Siraj-Blatchford
& Sylva, 2004). These activities should be carefully designed by the teacher so that students can
learn in a meaningful way (Anthony, 1996; Michael, 2001; Savery & Duffy, 1995). However,
throughout the interviews, Ms. Sherri did not use the opportunities afforded to her to discuss the
potential of students learning through discovery. There was no mention of students having
opportunities to actively co-construct knowledge or participate in guided discovery learning. It
could be interpreted that the teacher did not understand its importance as part of the instructional
climate. There is some evidence indicating that Ms. Sherri may have intended to use discovery
learning as discussed previously, however, it was limited due to a lack of clear instruction.
Overall, it did not appear that the learning environment encouraged students to construct
knowledge in a meaningful way.
Finding Two: The Teacher Expressed that She Had an Understanding of How to Construct
a Positive Social and Emotional Environment and Suggested that She Had Created One,
However, What She Said Did Not Always Translate to Her Actions in the Classroom
Another way a teacher can provide meaningful learning opportunities to her students is
by creating a positive social and emotional climate (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008;
Palermo et al., 2007; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Mashburn et al., 2008; Stipek et al., 1998;
Valentino, 2017). According to the literature, this requires the teacher to foster relationships with
her students that are characterized by warmth and care (Palermo et al., 2007) in which the
teacher provides students with a high level of social and emotional support (Burchinal et al.,
2008; Howes et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Mashburn et al., 2008; A. Mashburn et
al., 2009; Palermo et al., 2007; Stipek et al., 1998) and practice effective behavior management
(Burchinal et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Mashburn et al., 2009). Ms. Sherri
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 196

described the social and emotional make up of her classroom as positive. She further
demonstrated that she had some idea of how to create a positive environment by saying that she
ensured that students were safe and had developed loving relationships with them. However, she
did not always provide the conditions required to construct a positive social and emotional
climate. While she made sure that her students were physically safe, there was no evidence
indicating that she had nurtured loving relationships with her students, practiced effective
behavior management skills, or provided them with high social and emotional support. Each of
these elements of the social and emotional climate in Ms. Sherri’s classroom will be discussed
next.
As mentioned, Ms. Sherri discussed that students’ safety was important to her. When
asked to describe her teaching philosophy, she said, “Always children first. Benefit and safety of
students. First priority.” The teacher suggested that children came first. However, she did not
articulate in what way she meant this. It can be inferred that she was referring to their “benefit
and safety” as she stated next. However, it was difficult to determine how she defined students’
“benefit.” As stated previously, Ms. Sherri was in a rush when sitting for the interview so she
may not have responded with the amount of detail she would have if she had the time. Therefore,
while students’ “benefit” is too vague to decipher, it is evident that she was concerned about her
students’ safety.
There were several instances when Ms. Sherri attended to her students’ physical safety.
The following enactment is typical of the way the teacher addressed students when she believed
them to be in an unsafe situation. This particular exchange took place during outside play time
when the teacher noticed a few students on the gate that separated the playground from the
parking lot.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 197

T: Amigos away from the gate please. Ian and Luciano. Ian and Luciano.
The teacher walks over to them.
T: (to Nicole) Do you see what happened?
T: Get down please. That’s not safe. Luciano over here. Calm down. Make
something.
Luciano and Nicole sit at the art table.
Luciano uses scissors to cut paper. He seems to be frowning.
Ms. Sherri removed the students from what she perceived to be an unsafe situation, which in this
case was climbing the gate. She asked the students to “get down please” indicating the action
they should take in order to be safe. As in this example, the teacher often did not articulate to the
students the conditions deeming the situation to be unsafe. Likewise, the students did not
demonstrate that they understood the circumstances causing them to be in a position that was not
safe. Regardless, during my time in the classroom, Ms. Sherri consistently worked to sustain a
physically safe environment by reminding students to act in a way that allowed them to be safe.
Ms. Sherri expressed that she had a loving relationship with her students. She also stated
that they respected her because she was the teacher. It was unclear whether she equated love with
the concept of respect and how she constructed the notion of love in her mind. She said,
I’m good with them. They love me. They miss me. And the parents will tell me. “The
student wants to come to school because they miss you.” Because of my connection with
them. They know I’m the teacher. They need to follow whatever I do. They like me. They
love me. The best point is that they respect me because I’m the teacher.
There were two separate ideas represented in the above statement–one that involved how the
teacher felt that her students loved her and the other, how they also respected her. However, it
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 198

seemed that Ms. Sherri thought of these two as the same. She said, “I’m good with them. They
love me. They miss me.” Although it was not evident what she meant by “I’m good with them,”
it was apparent that she felt that her students felt very fondly for her and missed her when she
was away. She had received feedback from parents telling her that their children would want to
come to school because they missed her, which Ms. Sherri attributed to the bond that she had
developed with the students. She then said, “They know I’m the teacher. They need to follow
whatever I do.” This statement seemed to suggest that students loved her because they knew that
she was the figure of authority in the classroom and ultimately controlled the direction of
whatever took place in that space. Ms. Sherri concluded with, “The best point is that they respect
me because I’m the teacher,” again reinforcing the idea that students respected her because they
had to. Research says that to develop a positive social and emotional climate, the teacher and
students will foster a close relationship that is considered to be warm and affectionate (Palermo
et al., 2007). Ms. Sherri described her relationship with her students as one consisting of love and
respect. However, she did not demonstrate that she had delved deeply into what it meant to be
loved and respected and what each of these qualities conveyed about her relationship with her
students. One suggested that her students loved her and the other implied that they were expected
to follow and respect her.
Although Ms. Sherri felt that her students loved and respected her, there was little
evidence that reflected her characterization of the relationship she had with her students.
Considering that the teacher was present during all my observations, it was impossible to analyze
students’ love for her as she had described that feeling in a context when she was only away.
Regarding students’ respect for Ms. Sherri, there were occasions that depicted students listening
to the teacher and following her directions, however, there were also several occurrences when
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 199

students did not do so. One such instance is discussed next. In the following exchange, the
teacher asked a group of students to stop playing with musical instruments during work time,
however, the students did not follow through with what she had asked.
T: Oh Adan. Can you stop because it’s hurting my ears?
OC: He’s not the only one making noise with instruments.
The teacher walks over to the group of boys (including Adan) playing with the
instruments.
T: Hold on friends. Maybe we can play this at music time. Ok? Let’s play
somewhere else.
Students continue to play.
I: Teacher, I can’t hear you because it’s too loud.
T: I know.
I: (to the group of boys playing with the instruments) Quiet.
Nicole screams something at the boys playing with the instruments.
TA: Nicole.
The teacher walks over to the boys playing with the instruments.
T: Boys put away instruments.
In this example, the teacher first asked Adan to stop playing with the instruments. Then, she
walked to the group and asked them to play music at “music time” and to play somewhere else in
the meantime. Although there was no time in the schedule that was specifically allotted for
“music time,” students did not listen to Ms. Sherri’s directions and continued to play. After Ian
and Nicole brought the teacher’s attention to the boys playing with the music instruments again,
Ms. Sherri went back to the group of students and told them to put away their instruments. As
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 200

stated earlier, the teacher had highlighted the fact that her students respected her and
demonstrated their respect by following whatever she asked them to do. However, according to
the teacher’s own standard, students ultimately did not show respect for what she asked them to
do, a behavior which occurred often during my time in the classroom.
Another aspect of the classroom’s social and emotional climate depends on the teacher’s
behavior management skills. Ms. Sherri suggested that the way she enforced behavioral
expectations differed for each student. She said,
Depends on child. Depends on behavior. You have to first learn their weaknesses–how to
deal with the child. For more active [Ian] if he’s interested in doing something, send him
there. Same with Diego because if not, oh my gosh. So that’s why you have to study their
weaknesses first. Takes time. Elizabeth. Based on interests. Who are active, always
remind them of the rules.
Ms. Sherri said that the way she implemented behavioral expectations in the classroom depended
on the student and the behavior. She suggested that she approached students’ behaviors after
taking the time to study their weaknesses. For example, students who were more active, such as
Ian and Diego, were allowed to do whatever they were interested in because if they were not, the
teacher implied that there would have been a problem. She later said that she consistently
“reminds [students who are active] of the rules.” It should be noted that it was not entirely clear
how the teacher defined an “active” student in her mind. However, it was evident that she
considered being active a weakness and her approach to managing the more active students was
different than the way she would approach those who were less active. Moreover, the teacher
said that she enforced behavioral expectations for other students, such as Elizabeth, based on
interests. It was not clear what she meant by this at all and why she took some students’ interests
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 201

into consideration before enforcing her expectations of their behavior. The concept of addressing
students’ behavior based on their interests seemed to be an entirely different idea that Ms. Sherri
had included as part of this particular discussion.
The teacher not only consistently displayed that her approach to managing students’
behavior was different for each student, but also, her behavioral expectations of students
differed. The following is a typical example of the teacher reprimanding Ian for certain behavior
which other students were participating in as well. However, only Ian’s behavior was addressed.
The teacher puts on a song.
Song: If that diamond ring…
The teacher sits on the front chair and wraps her arms around herself.
Diego lays face down on the rug.
Max and Ian are in child’s pose.
Mateo holds his arms.
T: Ian how many times do I have to tell you accidents happen when you lay down on
the carpet?
The teacher touches Max.
T: (to Max) Right?
T: Martin give yourself a hug.
Although Diego, Max, and Ian were all laying in some form on the rug, the teacher
only addressed Ian. She said, “Ian how many times do I have to tell you accidents happen
when you lay down on the carpet?” This demonstrated that her expectations and approach was
different for each student. By only addressing Ian, Ms. Sherri sent the message to the class that it
was acceptable for Diego and Max to lay down, but an accident would occur if Ian was laying
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 202

down on the carpet. It also conveyed that Diego and Max were allowed to behave as desired,
however, Ian was expected to behave according to the teacher’s standards. Immediately
afterwards, the teacher asked Max, “Right?” It was not clear what kind of affirmation she was
searching for from Max, and neither did Max respond. According to the literature, to promote a
positive social and emotional climate, teachers can practice effective behavior management skills
(Burchinal et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Mashburn et al., 2009). However, in this
case, the teacher only attempted to manage one student’s behavior even though other students
were exhibiting the same actions.
In general, Ms. Sherri felt that the quality of the classroom’s social and emotional
makeup was positive. She described her classroom climate as “Always positive. If you feel
negative, you will not like that. Even your co-teacher. Even the kids. They can feel it.” This was
the teacher’s response to one of the last questions posed during the final interview. It is possible
that she wanted to finish the interview quickly and so did not share more about how she
characterized the quality of her classroom’s climate. It is apparent though that she felt that the
classroom’s environment was positive. She said that if it was negative, “you will not like that.”
She further stated that her co-teacher and students could feel whether the climate of the
classroom was positive or negative. Ms. Sherri, however, did not provide any indication of why
she felt that the classroom’s climate was positive.
Although the teacher described the climate of the classroom as being positive, there were
several instances that demonstrated her not tending to students’ issues in a supportive manner.
The literature states that to provide a positive classroom climate, teachers will offer high levels
of social and emotional support to students. However, as can be seen in the following exchange,
Ms. Sherri did not help Diego work through his issues in a way that was productive or nurturing.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 203

T: Diego are you sharing? Diego are you sharing?
D: It’s mine. It’s mine.
T: Remember we have to share.
Diego picks up a Lego piece. Adan tries to take it. Diego grabs Adan’s face. Diego and
Adan fight. Diego cries.
T: Do we have to cry?
The teacher takes Diego to Table 2.
T: Look I saw another one over here. Diego. Diego. There’s more toys over here.
Diego is standing behind a shelf and throws wooden blocks on the rug.
T: And what do you think you’re doing?
The teacher walks around to Diego.
T: There move over there.
Diego plays with Legos.
In this scenario, Ms. Sherri did not try to better understand the situation or Diego’s frustrations.
When Diego began to cry, the teacher asked him, “Do we have to cry?” and then moved him to
another area in the room. In this sense, she did not try to understand what had happened between
Adan and Diego nor what role either of them played in the conflict. She also never addressed
either of Adan or Diego’s concerns and actions. Research indicates that teachers can practice
effective behavior management skills (Burchinal et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007;
Mashburn et al., 2009) so to organize opportunities for children to productively interact with
their peers (Mashburn et al., 2009). However, Ms. Sherri did not manage students’ behavior or
encourage Adan and Diego to engage in any type of interaction at all.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 204

After Diego was moved to a different location, he decided to throw blocks on the rug.
The teacher’s inclination was to again move Diego to a different place in the classroom instead
of trying to help him sort through his issues. The literature states that to provide a positive social
and emotional climate, teachers will interact with students in sensitive and responsive ways and
encourage respect for others (Burchinal et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al.,
2007; Mashburn et al., 2008; A. Mashburn et al., 2009; Palermo et al., 2007; Stipek et al., 1998).
Doing so can lead to lower levels of problem behavior and higher levels of motivation
(Mashburn et al., 2008; Stipek et al., 1998), the development of social skills (Burchinal et al.,
2008; Howes et al., 2008; Mashburn et al., 2008), and academic readiness (Burchinal et al.,
2008; Howes et al., 2008; LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007; Mashburn et al., 2008; A. Mashburn et
al., 2009; Palermo et al., 2007; Stipek et al., 1998). In this case, the teacher did not provide any
comfort to the students or care to help them understand one another and how they could better
handle themselves in such situations. Rather, Ms. Sherri wanted to put a stop to the conflict by
distracting Diego from the situation.
Cross-Case Analysis
The conceptual framework guiding this study consisted of two major avenues through
which pre-kindergarten environments could provide students with meaningful learning
opportunities. These avenues included teacher-student and student-peer interactions that existed
within the classroom’s instructional climate and those interactions within the social and
emotional climate. Further, the instructional climate was discussed in terms of students’
opportunities to participate in academic learning, play, peer interaction, and discovery learning.
In the previous sections, I discussed how each classroom provided opportunities to learn as part
of its instructional as well as its social and emotional climate. In the following section, I discuss
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 205

two themes that emerged in both cases: (1) the teachers’ use of language and operation of that
language as part of their instruction and (2) student interaction as evident only during play. Each
of these components regarding the teachers’ instruction and students’ play and interaction was
represented in the conceptual framework and discussed in detail above in each teacher’s case.
However, I now examine how Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Sherri formulated these aspects of
instruction and draw commonalities in both cases along the themes of teacher language and
conditions of student interaction in the cross-case analysis. These themes reflect how Ms.
Sanchez and Ms. Sherri constructed elements of instruction, including language, student
interaction, and play in their mind. This will help better understand the rationale behind the
instructional choices they ultimately made in the classroom, which were discussed in the
previous sections, allowing me to delve deeper into the teachers’ understanding of their role, as
well as, their instruction more holistically.
Finding One: There was a Disconnect Between Language and Operation of Language
To support students to achieve established learning outcomes, teachers would have to
understand the relationship between what they have to do and what they have to accomplish. It
was important to me to learn Ms. Sanchez’s and Ms. Sherri’s teaching philosophies so that I
could understand what drove their instruction and approach to student learning. The teachers’
respective teaching philosophies would inform their practice in the classroom, however, neither
demonstrated that they understood this relationship. When asked to describe her teaching
philosophy, Ms. Sanchez said,
Is hard, but I’m dedicated and it’s um it’s a lot of reward after you’re the year is over and
satisfaction of a good job in class. Ah when you prepare a child to start recognizing
colors and by the time the first day they don’t know they are shy. Later on, they start
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 206

talking and you are doing one month two months and they don’t get the colors let’s say
the colors. And one day they say you know my blouse blouse is white and you notice that
uh they know their color they know they’re learning it’s really really good. Uh that
satisfaction you get it in your heart for me it’s very rewarding knowing trying to do a
good job and knowing that I have answers back.
In this case, Ms. Sanchez presented her perception regarding the complexity of teaching. She
expressed that instruction on a given day may not directly translate to students’ learning.
However, there was a high chance that it would happen at some point. In this sense, Ms. Sanchez
indicated that learning was not predictable or immediate, but rather gradual. Further, she said
that she gained satisfaction at the end of the process. She said, “it’s very rewarding knowing
trying to do a good job and knowing that I have answers back.” However, Ms. Sanchez never
described her role in her students’ learning or in this case, what instruction she provided to
ensure that students would ultimately learn their colors.
Ms. Sherri had a different perspective of student learning but similar to Ms. Sanchez, did
not discuss her responsibility to support students’ learning. As discussed previously, on any
given day, Ms. Sherri wanted “to get a result.” She said she wanted students to “learn something
based on whatever the goal is. End result should be positive.” In this sense, Ms. Sherri indicated
that she expected students to deliver a positive result based on a given goal every day. This was
very different from Ms. Sanchez’s belief of how students’ progress was expected to be gradual
and not always transparent. However, like Ms. Sanchez, she did not discuss what she would do
instructionally so that students could achieve a result.
In either case, both teachers did not demonstrate a deep understanding of the teaching and
learning process. Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Sherri stated what they expected to happen in the
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 207

classroom, but their teaching philosophies did not reflect the choices they would make
instructionally in order for students to achieve results. In this sense, they did not develop a strong
connection between what they expected to happen and what they would do in order to enable it
to happen. In this sense, both teachers expressed a shallow understanding of their role in their
students’ learning, which would ultimately be reflected in their instruction and limit their ability
to provide students with meaningful learning opportunities as was discussed in the case studies
previously.
This was further demonstrated in the way they spoke about their teaching practice and the
students’ learning process and how those constructs ultimately came to play in the classroom.
While Ms. Sherri and Ms. Sanchez often used similar language, they did not demonstrate that
they knew how to operationalize that language. For example, both teachers did not reflect their
understanding of the term “work time.” While they used the phrase to label play that students
participated inside the classroom, neither demonstrated that they had thought deeply about what
students were expected to do and accomplish during this period of time. As discussed in the
second case study, when asked how play figured in the day during my time in her classroom, Ms.
Sherri said, “Included in working time. Opportunity to explore or play. They choose. Call it
working time. Not playing. Call it ‘work time’ because according to High Scope.”
In this example, Ms. Sherri indicated that play was built into the day’s routine and took
place during work time. Other than describing it as an “opportunity to explore,” Ms. Sherri did
not discuss what students were expected to do and learn during this time. She said, “They
choose,” which I interpreted to mean that students decided how they wanted to spend their time
during work time. It seemed that students were free to do what they wanted without Ms. Sherri
having constructed a clear goal or purpose for this time allocated for play. She was clear to state
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 208

that it was called work time and not play as stated in their adopted curriculum, High Scope. In
this sense, there was no meaning associated with the label for play, only that it was referred to as
work time as Ms. Sherri was instructed to call it. The teacher did not demonstrate that she
understood the meaning of work time or what students were expected to do during this time.
Likewise, Ms. Sanchez did not express an understanding of what students did and gained
from participating in work time. As can be seen in the following exchange between me and her,
she also made it clear that play was only included in work time.
K: Umm and how does the play usually get started? Who starts the play or how how
does it get started?
T: Like in work time? Regular play?
K: Just yeah regular umm–not the outside play–but when you use play in the learning
environment. How does it get started?
T: If when I dismiss the children for work time, that’s their own time.
K: Ok.
T: This is the only time they have by themselves. And they initiate.
Similar to Ms. Sherri, Ms. Sanchez equated all play that took place in the classroom with work
time. Also, like Ms. Sherri, Ms. Sanchez did not show that she had reflected on how play may
have manifested throughout the day. They were both focused on work time being the only outlet
for play. Just as Ms. Sherri had mentioned that work time was an opportunity for students to
choose what to do, Ms. Sanchez said that work time was students’ own time “and they initiate.”
She further stated that it was “the only time they have by themselves.” Similar to Ms. Sherri, Ms.
Sanchez did not discuss her role in students’ play and what students were to do and learn during
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 209

this time. Both teachers used the same language to describe students’ play but showed a lack of
understanding of what it meant in the context of the learning environment.
Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Sherri also spoke about the role of questioning during literacy,
however, ultimately did not demonstrate their understanding of how to implement what they
wanted to in the classroom. When asked how literacy instruction figured in the day, Ms. Sherri
said, “They like literacy because I have a technique I like to use. I use puppets and change my
puppets. You don’t have to read the whole book like this. You have to ask them questions.” Ms.
Sherri’s approach to literacy instruction included the use of puppets and asking questions.
However, it was not clear what purpose each of these activities served. The teacher was aware
that it was her responsibility to ask students questions during literacy. She said, “you have to ask
them questions.” However, she did not demonstrate that she understood the function of these
questions or the reasoning for using questioning as a literacy tool.
Similar to Ms. Sherri, Ms. Sanchez did not exhibit a deep understanding of the role of
questioning during literacy. She indicated that it was her instructional responsibility to ask
questions but did not articulate the intended purpose these questions served towards students’
learning. As discussed previously, when asked how Ms. Sanchez decided what questions to ask
during literacy, the teacher said,
WH questions. Why, when, how. “Tell me how it happens? What do you think it will
happen?” Um we ask um uh when we’re you’re reading something you come across like
how–the little boy who liked the um “how–what do you think the book is about if you
just see by the picture?” We need to focus on we call it the WH questions.
In this example, Ms. Sanchez had internalized the types of WH questions she could ask
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 210

during literacy, however, did not demonstrate that she understood the rationale behind asking
such questions. She said, “We need to focus on we call it the WH questions.” The teacher
recognized that asking WH questions was part of the literacy curriculum, however, her
knowledge on the role of these questions and the way they would contribute to students’ learning
was not apparent.
In both cases, the teachers seemed to have been exposed to the same academic language
but not to a deeper understanding of that language. This resulted in a disconnect between the way
the teachers appeared to have been trained to perform and how they had internalized those
concepts towards students’ learning. This pattern was consistent throughout both teachers’
interviews. It seemed that they did not have a more complex understanding of the language
and/or program that guided their instruction. Neither Ms. Sherri nor Ms. Sanchez demonstrated
that they had reflected on how to identify their students’ needs, recognize their own role towards
student learning, and meet students where they were academically positioned. Acting on this
understanding, the teachers exhibited a superficial understanding of their role, language, and
program and were therefore not able to enact. This could explain why Ms. Sanchez and Ms.
Sherri demonstrated a lack of high-quality instruction and few opportunities for students to
participate in meaningful learning in the case studies discussed previously.
Finding Two: Peer Interaction was Only Evident During Play
In this section, I present Ms. Sanchez’s and Ms. Sherri’s constructs of peer interaction,
including the circumstances under which students interacted and the nature of these interactions.
As discussed in the conceptual framework, in order to provide students with meaningful learning
opportunities, the learning environment should be structured so to provide opportunities for
students to interact with one another. However, as demonstrated previously in both case studies,
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 211

Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Sherri did not provide any opportunities for students to interact at all. Any
peer interactions that were substantial occurred during times of play. These interactions were not
facilitated by the teacher, but rather, left to student discretion. Moreover, both teachers
demonstrated a lack of awareness of which students interacted with one another and what they
took away from these interactions.
In both situations, the teachers demonstrated that they had not considered periods during
the academic day that were dedicated to non-play activities as a time for students to interact.
When asked when students interacted with each other, Ms. Sanchez said, “That’s on on work
time. And outside of course recess.” The teacher indicated that students had opportunities to
interact during times of play. This suggested that Ms. Sanchez considered the idea of student
interaction only relevant to play rather than throughout the academic day.
When asked Ms. Sherri what interactions between students looked like, she said, “About
the things they’re doing at the time. ‘I’m a doctor. You’re a patient.’” Again, the teacher talked
about peer interaction in the context of play. Perhaps if the teacher was willing to share more
about the nature of students’ interactions with one another, she may have talked about
opportunities outside of play for students to interact. However, given the information in both
cases, it seemed that the teachers did not think it was important for students to talk to their peers
during the academic day. This sent the message that the classroom climate was less student- and
more teacher-driven as most interactions were between the teacher and student.
Conclusion
There was little evidence suggesting that the pre-kindergarten environments in this study
provided students with opportunities for meaningful learning. As evidenced by the teacher-
student and student-peer interactions, Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Sherri were not positioned to create
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 212

instructional or social and emotional climates that could afford their students opportunities to
learn in ways that were meaningful. Although it appeared that on some level they both believed
that they had provided opportunities to learn through play, peer interactions, the academic
climate, and the social and emotional climate, they demonstrated a superficial understanding of
what each of these constructs individually consisted of and ultimately, did not deliver in ways
that were impactful or productive. As is discussed in the next chapter, this may have been due to
the fact that they were not prepared in a way that allowed them to truly comprehend what was
expected of their role and further, how to carry out their role as teachers in the classroom.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 213

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This dissertation examined how preschool environments provided meaningful learning
opportunities to students from low SES backgrounds through interactions that took place
between the teacher and students and students and their peers. A qualitative, multiple-case study
approach was used to address the following research question and sub-questions:
1. How do pre-kindergarten environments provide meaningful learning opportunities to
children from low SES backgrounds?
a. What do interactions between a teacher and her students look like in a pre-
kindergarten classroom?
b. What do interactions between students and their peers look like in a pre-
kindergarten classroom?
To answer the above questions, I used a purposeful sampling strategy to ensure that both sites
predominantly served children from low-income families and that both teachers had at least 5
years of teaching experience as well as a teaching permit. For each classroom, I collected data
from an initial and concluding teacher interview, six classroom observations, and documents and
artifacts, such as pictures of the classroom, student work, daily schedules, and curriculum guides.
I then coded the data using a priori codes derived from my conceptual framework as well as
empirical codes that emerged in relation to my research questions after examining the data. From
these categories I identified relationships and patterns that informed my themes. These themes
were represented as my findings, which are briefly discussed next.
Summary of Findings
In both cases, I found that the teachers had expected themselves to provide learning
opportunities to their students but were not able to do so in a meaningful way. As highlighted in
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 214

the conceptual framework, a pre-kindergarten classroom environment could provide
opportunities to learn in two ways: through the creation of a high instructional climate as well as
a positive social and emotional climate. Further, the instructional climate consisted of four
elements, including the incorporation of discovery learning, play, peer interaction, and academic
learning. While Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Sherri expressed a desire to provide students with
opportunities to learn through a high instructional climate and a positive social and emotional
climate, ultimately, they did not demonstrate that they had a complete understanding of how to
do so. Therefore, as evidenced by their interactions with their students and the students’
interactions with their peers, the teachers were not able to enact their desires.
Regarding the classroom’s instructional climate, Ms. Sanchez indicated that she had
some knowledge of how to create opportunities for learning, however, did not indicate a deeper
understanding of the conditions required and therefore, did not construct a learning environment
that allowed for meaningful learning. While Ms. Sanchez wanted to provide a high-quality
academic climate, ultimately, she did not do so. She did not indicate that she had a goal in mind
when asking students open-ended questions. Moreover, she often prompted students on what to
say, limiting their creativity and use of language. In this way, students were made to be passive
recipients of learning as they were subjected to practice memorization as opposed to critical
thinking skills. Additionally, Ms. Sanchez expressed that she wanted to integrate learning into
play. However, she did not provide instructional support or clear learning goals during play.
Further, there was little evidence of students being given opportunities to use language or learn
in a meaningful way. Also, Ms. Sanchez did not facilitate opportunities for peer interaction.
While students did interact during play, Ms. Sanchez did not demonstrate that she was aware that
it was her responsibility to facilitate these interactions so that they could be productive and
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 215

meaningful opportunities for learning. Finally, Ms. Sanchez did not use the opportunities
afforded to her to discuss the place of discovery learning in the instructional climate. There was
also no evidence of students having opportunities to discover and construct knowledge.
Therefore, it was concluded that during my time there, students did not have opportunities to
learn through discovery.
Ms. Sherri demonstrated a similar desire to provide a high instructional climate and
believed she was placing importance on students’ academics but was not aware of her
responsibility towards facilitating opportunities for play, peer interaction, and discovery learning.
Ms. Sherri thought she was providing academic instruction driven by her teaching philosophy,
which involved expecting a result from students every day, positioning students as the focal of
learning, and developing a sense of routine. However, her actions in the classroom did not reflect
these beliefs. Learning objectives were consistently not explained clearly, students were not
given opportunities to use language and exercise their critical thinking skills, and literacy and
other activities were often either shortened or skipped as the teacher said they were running
behind schedule. This indicated that she did not provide high-quality academic instruction that
allowed students to learn in a meaningful way. Furthermore, Ms. Sherri did not demonstrate that
she was aware of what play looked like in her classroom. She often seemed disconnected from
students’ play and did not provide opportunities for meaningful play. Likewise, she did not
demonstrate awareness of her responsibility towards facilitating opportunities for peer
interaction. Like in Ms. Sanchez’s class, students’ interaction was limited to their play and even
during those times, it was not apparent that Ms. Sherri had preemptively created opportunities for
students to interact with one another. Finally, similar to Ms. Sanchez, Ms. Sherri did not use the
opportunities afforded to her to discuss opportunities for students to learn through discovery nor
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 216

was there sufficient evidence suggesting that students participated in discovery learning in the
classroom during my time there.
Regarding the classroom’s social and emotional climate, Ms. Sanchez wanted to and
thought she had provided a positive climate, but ultimately did not provide the conditions
necessary to foster one. She expressed that she wanted to develop positive relationships with her
students but did not treat her students equally and was not responsive and sensitive to all of her
students’ needs. Through her actions and words, she often sent the message that some students’
needs deserved greater attention than others’. Also, she did not demonstrate that she was aware
of her responsibility to encourage peer interaction during student conflict, often telling students
what to say and do and speaking for them. Finally, Ms. Sanchez had discussed at great length
that it was important to foster students’ independence skills. However, the teacher maintained the
authority in the classroom and did not follow through with actions that would allow students to
develop their self-regulatory and independence skills. In these ways, although Ms. Sanchez
desired to develop a positive social and emotional climate, she was not able to.
Similarly, Ms. Sherri thought that she had created a positive social and emotional climate,
and while she did so in one way, there were many other conditions still lacking. Ms. Sherri
expressed that her top priority was ensuring that her students were physically safe, and she
consistently demonstrated concern for their safety during my time there. The teacher also stated
that her students loved and respected her. However, there was evidence indicating that her
students did not always listen to her or follow her directions. Further, Ms. Sherri expressed that
her behavioral expectations and approach to managing students’ behavior was different for each
student. This held true as some students were allowed to do what they wanted while others were
not. Finally, although Ms. Sherri thought that the social and emotional makeup of the classroom
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 217

was positive, she often did not provide high levels of emotional support when students displayed
a lack of control over their emotions or a need for comfort. These factors suggested that while
Ms. Sherri understood some of the conditions needed to create a positive social and emotional
climate, she did not know how to put them into effect.
In the cross-case analysis, I discussed two themes that emerged from the data that were
dominant in both cases and reflected how Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Sherri had internally constructed
elements of good instruction. The first was that both teachers shared a common language but did
not demonstrate a deep understanding of that language or how to operationalize it. They both
spoke about their respective philosophies, work time, and the nature of questions during literacy,
however their instruction did not reflect that they understood or practiced what they discussed
during the interviews. The second piece that emerged from the data was that peer interaction
only emerged during play. In both classrooms, there was a lack of evidence indicating that
students had opportunities to interact outside of play. Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Sherri did not
express an understanding of the nature of peer interaction or its importance. At this point, it is
important that I reiterate two of the study’s limitations that could have affected these particular
findings. First, I was at the site towards the end of the school year and it may have been the case
that I would have seen some of these points that I mentioned were lacking had I been present
earlier in the school year. Second, I was in each classroom for only 6 hours; it is possible that
had I been there for long enough, I would have seen some of these points mentioned. However,
during my time at the site, both cases demonstrated that the teachers did not have a strong
understanding of the teaching and learning process.

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 218

Implications and Recommendations
This dissertation examined how pre-kindergarten environments provided meaningful
learning opportunities to students from low SES backgrounds. Specifically, I focused on the
teachers’ interactions with the students and students’ interactions with their peers as part of the
classroom’s instructional as well as its social and emotional climate. The findings suggested that
the teachers in this study thought they provided a high instructional climate and positive social
and emotional environment and demonstrated some level of awareness of the conditions needed
to do so. However, ultimately, they did not exhibit a deep understanding of or create an
environment that provided meaningful opportunities to learn. The following section discusses the
implications that surfaced from this study’s findings, as well as, recommendations for teacher
practice, educational policy, and future research in the field.
Teacher Practice
The findings demonstrated that the pre-kindergarten teachers in this study did not have a
deep understanding of pedagogy, and therefore, were not positioned to teach in a way that would
allow for meaningful student learning. As of December of 2018, to teach in an early childcare
facility in California, teachers must have a certain amount of field experience depending on their
educational background and hold either a Child Development Associate Teacher Permit, an
alternative permit approved by the California Department of Education, an associate’s degree or
higher, a multiple subject teaching credential, a single-subject teaching credential in home
economics, or 12 units in Early Childhood Education (CDE, 2018). Acting on this
understanding, preschool teachers enter the field with a bare minimum understanding of early
childhood development and are not required to have formal education in pedagogy. From a
practice standpoint, early childhood educators are exposed to a patchwork of courses and
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 219

fieldwork experience that may not include the guidance of a mentor teacher in conjunction with a
university partner, which unlikely supports their ability to pedagogically foster the academic and
social environments needed for students to learn meaningfully. In Ms. Sanchez’s and Ms.
Sherri’s case, they had a basic understanding of what it meant to create learning opportunities but
were not equipped with the tools to foster opportunities that translated to meaningful learning. It
was evident that both teachers were exposed to elements of effective teaching but were not
positioned to operate in a meaningful way. For example, Ms. Sanchez expressed that students
could learn through play, such as by developing independence and language, however, she did
not demonstrate that she understood how to implement these opportunities to learn. She often
told students what to do or say or carried out the action or interaction for them. In another
example, Ms. Sherri, stated that students should always be the focal of learning. However, she
could not elaborate on what this looked like nor did her actions position students at the center of
learning. Finally, Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Sherri knew that asking questions was an appropriate
teaching practice, but they did not demonstrate that they understood what a good question was or
the purpose of the questions. In these ways learning was not meaningful; students were not given
opportunities to exercise high levels of cognitive strategy, construct knowledge, or add new
knowledge to prior knowledge and apply it to other contexts. It could be concluded that some
level of professional development was available but not enough so to adequately situate the
teachers so that they could engage in a variety of productive ways.
Given, the modest level of knowledge and skills early childhood educators are required to
have to enter the field, they would need substantial support to ensure that they have a strong
understanding of their role as teachers as well as how to provide their students with meaningful
learning opportunities. Therefore, my first recommendation would be that organizations
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 220

providing early childhood education draw on teachers’ understanding of their coursework and
accordingly, prepare educators to demonstrate how to successfully deliver the requirements of
their role and instruction of the learning content so that students can learn meaningfully. This
would require leadership to improve the professional development provided to pre-kindergarten
teachers so that they have the support needed to teach effectively as well as provide appropriate
learning opportunities that are meaningful. This would include educating teachers on how to
build a high instructional climate and a positive social and emotional climate so to foster
meaningful learning opportunities. Barnett (2003) recommends that professional development be
used to prepare preschool teachers to teach according to NAEYC standards, as well as provide
them with knowledge of child development and best teaching practices along with the skills
needed to teach diverse populations. Several studies indicate that professional development
targeting specific skills and strategies that teachers can use in the classroom are most effective
(e.g., Bodrova & Leong, 2007; Early, Maxwell, Ponder, & Pan, 2017; Fantuzzo, Manz, Atkins,
& Meyers, 2005). As cited by Bulotsky-Shearer et al. (2014), an example of such professional
development is a classroom-based intervention guided by Vygotskian theory, Tools of the Mind
curriculum, that provides teachers with a set of tools and strategies, such as peer-mediated and
play activities, to develop students’ foundational literacy skills (Bodrova & Leong, 2007).
Another classroom-based intervention, cited by Bultosky-Shearer et al. (2012), called Resilient
Peer Treatment, focused on socially withdrawn and maltreated students in preschool and resulted
in higher levels of collaborated peer play interactions (Fantuzzo et al., 2005). Early, Maxwell,
Ponder, and Pan’s (2017) findings suggest that professional development interventions designed
to improve teacher-child interactions result in higher teacher scores on Emotional and
Instructional Support as well as Classroom Organization.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 221

My second recommendation would be to position a knowledgeable mentor who has
demonstrated high quality pedagogy to supervise preschool teachers’ instruction and provide
them with feedback on their practice to ensure that they have a solid understanding of their role
and that they are consistently providing meaningful learning opportunities to their students.
Studies indicate that an important component of professional development is providing less
experienced teachers with a mentor who can support them with non-evaluative feedback on ways
to improve their teaching (e.g., Bierman, Domitrovich et al., 2008; Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999;
Pianta, Mashburn, Downer, Hamre, & Justice, 2008). Diamond and Powell (2011) found that
Early Head Start teachers held positive views of a pilot professional development intervention
that incorporated coaching sessions to improve teachers’ language and literacy instruction.
Similarly, Onchwari and Keengwe (2008) received positive feedback from Early Head Start
teachers regarding a mentor-coaching model targeting specific literacy practices after being
implemented in the classroom. Not only did studies find that coaching was well received by
preschool teachers, but also that they led to positive results in the classroom. For example, as
cited by Mashburn et al. (2008) and Valentino (2017), a study found that teachers at an Early
Head Start who received online-based professional development including consultation and
feedback via My Teaching Partner demonstrated higher quality interactions with their students
than those who only received access to the website and video clips (Pianta et al., 2008). The
effects were especially significant in classrooms where students were at greater economic risks.
In another example, cited by Valentino (2017), several studies found that teachers who were
provided a professional development intervention, the Head Start REDI program, consisting of a
4-day workshop and weekly in-class support from a mentor teacher, talked to students more
frequently and in more cognitively demanding ways, created a positive classroom climate, and
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 222

used more preventative behavior management strategies that resulted in improved students’
executive functioning, academic, and social and emotional skills compared to the control group
(Bierman, Domitrovich et al., 2008; Bierman, Nix, Greenberg, Blair, & Domitrovich, 2008;
Domitrovich et al., 2009). Consistent with Burchinal et al. (2008) who have cited training and
feedback as recommendations, several studies found that childcare givers who were given
training and feedback, facilitated more student-peer interactions (Girolametto, Weitzman, &
Greenberg, 2004), were more sensitive and responsive to their students (Howes, Galinsky, &
Kontos, 1998), and had developed far more positive relationships with the students and had
decreased levels of detachment (Rhodes & Hennessy, 2000) compared to those who had not
received the training.
However, given the fact that many preschools teachers in the field are not equipped with
the knowledge and skills to teach effectively, it would be difficult to identify teacher educators
who could prepare their colleagues on effective teaching practices. Therefore, it would be
important to first develop teacher mentors so that they understand their role as teacher educators
and then, position them as mentors to their less-experienced colleagues. Feiman-Nemser (2001)
asserts that educative mentors must have a solid understanding of effective teaching, as well as,
of teacher learning. In this sense, teacher educators must be actively present in educative
mentoring so to give less experienced teachers “a concrete sense of pedagogical thinking and
acting” (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1987, p. 40). This would require teacher educators to
have the time, be committed, and well-equipped to support novice teachers (Feiman-Nemser &
Buchmann, 1987). Such support would take the form of fostering a sense of inquiry in novice
teachers, allowing them to learn from their more experienced colleagues’ practice, and assessing
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 223

them so to create opportunities and conditions that allow for meaningful teacher learning so that
they, in turn, can create opportunities for meaningful student learning (Feiman-Nemser, 2001).
Educational Policy
The findings suggested that the pre-kindergarten teachers in this study were receiving
insufficient training in order to teach effectively so that students could learn meaningfully. As
discussed in the previous section, early childhood educators are not required to hold a credential
to teach and may not have sufficient pedagogical knowledge to teach effectively. As of 2017, of
the 43 states with pre-kindergarten programs, 20 of those states, including California, did not
require early childhood educators to have a bachelor’s degree and nine, including California, did
not require specialized training in early childhood education (NCES, 2017). Moreover, Levinson
(2011) reported that 21% of Early Head Start teachers held a Child Development Associate
Teacher Permit, 15% an alternative teacher permit, 24% an associate degree, 19% a bachelor’s
degree, 2% an advanced degree, and 19% held none of the required credentials. Further, one
third of the Early Head Start programs employed only teachers with the required credentials to
teach pre-kindergarten. Sixty-five percent of the programs employed at least one teacher who did
not hold the required credentials.
There are several states that do not require preschool teachers to have specialized training
in early childhood education or a credential. However, Vu, Jeon, and Howes (2008) suggest that
teachers’ level of education predict classroom quality in Early Head Start classrooms. Likewise,
Burchinal, Cryer, Clifford, and Howes (2002) assert that caregivers with formal early childhood
education interact in more sensitive ways and provide higher quality care than those who do not
receive formal childhood education even after adjusting for work experience, differences related
to state, adult-child ratios, and type of classroom. Moreover, students in those classrooms
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 224

demonstrate more advanced language skills compared to their peers taught by teachers without
specialized training. Similarly, Son, Kwon, Jeon, and Hong’s (2013) findings suggest that Early
Head Start teachers who hold a degree in early childhood education and receive ongoing
coaching support, improve classroom environments and students’ school readiness skills.
Therefore, my first recommendation is that educational policies be put in place to ensure that
adequate resources are directed towards early childhood educator credentialing. Based on similar
findings, studies also recommend that the credentialing requirements for preschool teachers be
upgraded (Barnett, 2008; Connor, Son, Hindman, & Morrison, 2005). This would require all
early childhood educators to earn a teaching credential and participate in more rigorous course
and fieldwork that better equips them with the knowledge required to teach early childhood
education. Barnett (2003) not only recommends that Early Head Start teachers hold a 4-year
college degree and specialized training to teach in preschool, but also, that policy makers create
subsidized professional development programs for lead and assistant teachers to obtain 4-year
college degrees.
My second recommendation in educational policy would be to focus resources on
monitoring and supervising preschools to ensure that the outcome measures outlined in the
NAEYC standards are being met. Currently, being accredited by NAEYC Early Learning
Program Accreditation is optional, otherwise childcare facilities are not held accountable to the
content addressed in the classrooms or whether they teach according to the NAEYC standards
(NAEYC, 2018). My recommendation to hold preschools accountable to the NAEYC standards
is consistent with Mashburn et al. (2008) who suggest program mentoring as a method to do so.
The authors specifically discuss the Los Angeles Universal Preschool Program that uses a 5-star
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 225

rating system to rate the quality of preschool programs of which one of the dimensions of quality
is based on the ECERS-R.
Future Research
Acting on the understanding that pre-kindergarten teachers require stronger professional
development regarding the teaching and learning process, future research could look at what
professional development pre-kindergarten teachers at Head Start currently receive. Although the
findings presented in this study do not translate to all Early Head Start classrooms, studies that
provide a lens of Head Start teachers’ training would provide a greater understanding of how
they are prepared to create a high-quality classroom climate. There are studies that have reported
results after implementing professional development interventions at Early Head Start facilities
(e.g., Bierman, Domitrovich et al., 2008; Pianta et al., 2008), however, there is a lack of research
examining current professional development provided to Head Start teachers. On a similar note,
another topic worth of exploration would be to examine the role of leadership in Early Head
Start. Researching how leadership amongst the faculty and administration supervises and
monitors preschool teachers’ actions and instruction in the classroom would provide insights into
how much consistent support teachers receive to provide a high-quality classroom climate and to
teach in ways that promote learning opportunities that are meaningful. This would expand on the
research discussed above (e.g., Bierman, Domitrovich, et al., 2008; Pianta, et al., 2008; Rhodes
& Hennessy, 2000) and primarily focus on the aspect of supporting less-equipped teachers
regularly throughout the academic year.
An issue that surfaced during my literature review was the lack of qualitative studies that
have explored learning opportunities in preschool. The majority of the studies in this area of
research were quantitative in nature and did not explore how the qualities that contribute to a
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 226

high instructional climate and positive social and emotional climate came into play in the
classroom. There were very few studies that focused on what academic instruction, play,
students’ interaction with their peers, discovery learning, and the social and emotional support
provided by the teacher looked like in the classroom. There is a need for qualitative studies that
expand on the existing literature and examine other minority student populations as well as a
variety of early childhood education environments that predominantly serve students from low
SES backgrounds and are perhaps, based on play and discovery learning.
Another point that was implied in the literature review was the interrelation of
components presented in the conceptual framework, and how that interdependence of various
constructs within the classroom environment could affect students’ opportunities to learn. For
example, in Mashburn et al.’s (2009) study, peers’ expressive language abilities had a greater
effect on student’s receptive language development in classrooms where student behavior was
well-managed, and the social climate was supported by positive emotional interactions. In
another study, Bulotsky-Shearer et al.’s (2014) findings suggest that peer play skills mediate the
level of instructional support offered. Studying the effects of the interconnection of classroom
constructs on students’ learning would be a topic that could offer new insights on how pre-
kindergarten teachers can provide meaningful learning opportunities to their students.
Although prevalent in my literature review, due to time constraints, I was not able to
investigate the indirect effects of teacher-student interactions on children not directly addressed
in a given learning activity. Research (e.g., Bonawitz et al., 2011; Henry & Rickman, 2007;
Justice et al., 2011) indicates that children might be offered learning opportunities through
teacher-peer interactions in two ways. Firstly, studies propose that peer effects could be
indirectly transferred through teacher expectations and efficacy, as teachers with higher-ability
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 227

students may set greater expectations and teach in ways that are highly intellectually stimulating
(Henry & Rickman, 2007; Justice et al., 2011). In this sense, even lower-ability students in the
classroom would be accorded higher expectations and academically engaging learning content
(Henry & Rickman, 2007; Justice et al., 2011). The second way teacher-peer effects could take
form is represented by Bonawitz et al.’s (2011) study, which demonstrates that children engage
in the same behavior when they observe their peers receive explicit instruction regarding the
learning content. This research suggests that children are affected by teacher-peer interactions
even when they themselves are not directly involved in the learning activity. In this way,
investigating how teacher-peer interactions can influence the way children learn in the classroom
would be a noteworthy topic to explore given its close relation to the research questions that
guided this dissertation.
Finally, although not addressed in the dissertation because it was not directly responsive
to my research question, the teacher interviews demonstrated that Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Sherri
may not have understood the role of parents in their children’s learning process. This begs the
question, what do preschool teachers know about how to involve parents in their children’s
learning? Future research could examine pre-kindergarten teachers’ understanding of the parents’
role in the students’ learning process. Such research would provide educational leaders with data
regarding teacher perceptions of the responsibilities that parents should have towards their
children’s learning. While there are studies that examine predictors of parental involvement in
their children’s education in Early Head Start programs (e.g., Waanders, Mendez, & Downer,
2007), there is scant literature that has examined pre-kindergarten teachers’ understanding of
parents’ role and involvement.

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 228

References
Anthony, G. (1996). Active learning in a constructivist framework. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 31(4), 349-369.
Barnett, W. S. (2003). Better teachers, better preschools: Student achievement linked to teacher
qualifications. NIEER Preschool Policy Matters, 2, 3-13.
Barnett, W., Carolan, M. E., Squires, J. H., & Brown, K. C. (2014). The State of Preschool 2013.
National Center for Education Statistics.
Barnett, W. S., Lamy, C., & Jung, K. (2005). The effects of state prekindergarten programs on
young children's school readiness in five states. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute
for Early Education Research.
Belfield, C. R., Nores, M., Barnett, S., & Schweinhart, L. (2006). The High/Scope Perry
Preschool Program: Cost-benefit analysis using data from the age-40 follow-up. The
Journal of Human Resources, 41(1), 162-190.
Bierman, K. L., Domitrovich, C. E., Nix, R. L., Gets, S. D., Welsh, J. A., Greenbery, M. T., . . .
Gill, S. (2008). Promoting academic and social-emotional school readiness: The Head
Start REDI program. Child Development, 79, 1802-1817.
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(3), 357-369.
Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2008). Executive
functions and school readiness intervention: Impact, moderation, and medication in the
Head Start REDI program. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 821–843.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2007). Tools of the Mind: A case study of implementing the
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 229

Vygotskian approach in American early childhood and primary classrooms. International
Bureau of Education, P.O. Box 199, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (5
th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Bonawitz, E., Shafto, P., Gweon, H., Goodman, N. D., Spelke, E., & Schulz, L. (2011). The
double-edged sword of pedagogy: Instruction limits spontaneous exploration and
discovery. Cognition, 120(3), 322-330.
Bulotsky-Shearer, R., Bell, E. R., Carter, T. M., & Dietrich, S. L. (2014). Peer play interactions
and learning for low-income preschool children: The moderating role of classroom
quality. Early Education and Development, 25(6), 815-840.
Bulotsky-Shearer, R., Bell, E. R., Romero, S. L., & Carter, T. M. (2012). Preschool interactive
peer play mediates problem behavior and learning for low-income children. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 33(1), 53-65.
Burchinal, M. R., Cryer, D., Clifford, R. M., & Howes, C. (2002). Caregiver training and
classroom quality in child care centers. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), 2-11.
Burchinal, M., Howes, C., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R., & Barbarin, O. (2008).
Predicting child outcomes at the end of kindergarten from the quality of pre-kindergarten
teacher-child interactions and instruction. Applied Developmental Science, 12(3), 140-
153.
California Department of Education (CDE). (2018). CSPP Staffing Qualifications. Retrieved
from https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/ci/csppstaffqual.asp
Camili, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 230

education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record,
112(3), 579-620.
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Slominski, L. (2006). Preschool instruction and children’s
emergent literacy growth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 665-689.
Connor, C. M., Son, S. H., Hindman, A. H., & Morrison, F. J. (2005). Teacher qualifications,
classroom practices, family characteristics, and preschool experience: Complex effects on
first graders’ vocabulary and early reading outcomes. Journal of School
Psychology, 43(4), 343-375.
Coolahan, K., Fantuzzo, J., Mendez, J., & McDermott, P. (2000). Preschool peer interactions and
readiness to learn: Relationships between classroom peer play and learning behaviors and
conduct. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 458-465.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Diamond, K. E., & Powell, D. R. (2011). An iterative approach to the development of a
professional development intervention for Head Start teachers. Journal of Early
Intervention, 33(1), 75-93.
Domitrovich, C. E., Gest, S. D., Gill, S., Bierman, K. L., Welsh, J. A., & Jones, D. (2009).
Fostering high-quality teaching with enriched curriculum and professional development
support: The Head Start REDI program. American Educational Research Journal, 46,
567-597.
Early, D. M., Iruka, I. U., Ritchie, S., Barbarin, O. A., Winn, D. M. C., Crawford, G. M., ... &
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 231

Bryant, D. M. (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.
Early, D. M., Maxwell, K. L., Ponder, B. D., & Pan, Y. (2017). Improving teacher-child
interactions: A randomized controlled trial of Making the Most of Classroom Interactions
and My Teaching Partner professional development models. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 38, 57-70.
Fantuzzo, J., Manz, P., Atkins, M., & Meyers, R. (2005). Peer-mediated treatment of socially
withdrawn maltreated preschool children: Cultivating natural community resources.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 322-327.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). Helping novices learn to teach: Lessons from an exemplary support
teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 17-30.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1987). When is student teaching teacher education?
Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(4), 255-273.
Fideler, E., & Haselkorn, D. (1999). Learning the ropes: Urban teacher induction programs and
practices in the United States. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers.
Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., & Greenberg, J. (2004). The effects of verbal support strategies
on small group peer interactions. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools,
35, 256–270.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4
th
ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). Learning opportunities in preschool and early elementary
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 232

classrooms. In R. C. Pianta, M. J. Cox & K. L. Snow (Eds.), School readiness and the
transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability (49-84). Paul H Brookes
Publishing, Baltimore, MD.
Han, M., Moore, N., Vukelich, C., & Buell, M. (2010). Does play make a difference? How play
intervention affects the vocabulary learning of at-risk preschoolers. American Journal of
Play, 3(1), 82-105.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Henry, G. T., & Rickman, D. K. (2007). Do peers influence children’s skill development in
preschool? Economics of Education Review, 26(1), 100-112.
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(1), 27-50.
Howes, C., Galinsky, E., & Kontos, S. (1998). Childcare givers’ sensitivity and attachment.
Social Development, 7, 25-36.
John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A
Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3-4), 191-206.
Justice, L. M., Petscher, Y., Schatschneider, C., & Mashburn, A. (2011). Peer effects in
preschool classrooms: Is children's language growth associated with their classmates’
skills? Child Development, 82(6), 1768-1777.
Levinson, D. R. (2011). Most early Head Start teachers have the required credentials but
challenges exist. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Inspector General.
Lichtman, M. (2014). Qualitative research for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 233

Publications.
LoCasale-Crouch, J., Konold, T., Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., . . . Barbarin,
O. (2007). Observed classroom quality profiles in state-funded pre-kindergarten
programs and associations with teacher, program, and classroom characteristics. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(1), 3-17.
Magnuson, K. A., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2007a). Does prekindergarten improve school
preparation and performance? Economics of Education Review, 26(1), 33-51.
Magnuson, K. A., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2007b). The persistence of preschool effects: Do
subsequent classroom experiences matter? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(1),
18-38.
Marcon, R. A. (1999). Differential impact of preschool models on development and early
learning of inner-city children: A three-cohort study. Developmental Psychology, 35(2),
358-375.
Mashburn, A. J. (2008). Quality of social and physical environments in preschools and children’s
development of academic, language, and literacy skills. Applied Developmental Science,
12(3), 113-127.
Mashburn, A. J., Justice, L. M., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2009). Peer effects on children’s
language achievement during pre-kindergarten. Child Development, 80(3), 686-702.
Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D., ... &
Howes, C. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s
development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development, 79(3), 732-
749.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 234

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Melhuish, E. C., Phan, M. B., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2008).
Effects of the home learning environment and preschool center experience upon literacy
and numeracy development in early primary school. Journal of Social Issues, 64(1), 95-
114.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4
th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Michael, J. (2001). In pursuit of meaningful learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 25(3),
145-158.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Mulligan, G. M., McCarroll, J. C., Flanagan, K. D., & Potter, D. (2016). Findings from the third-
grade round of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, kindergarten class of 2010-11.
National Center for Education Statistics.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2012). 2010 NAEYC Standards for
Initial & Advanced Early Childhood Professional Preparation Programs.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2018). Early Learning Program
Accreditation Standards & Assessment Items. Retrieved from
https://www.naeyc.org/accreditation/early-learning/standards
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Position Statement:
Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children
from Birth Through Age 8. Retrieved from
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PSDAP.pdf.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 235

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2005). Position Statement: NAEYC
Early Childhood Program Standards. Retrieved from
https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/Position%20Statement%20EC%20Standards.pdf
National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER). (2019). State of Preschool Yearbooks
2017: Growing Disparities in Enrollment, Investments, and Quality: 2002-2017.
Retrieved from http://nieer.org/state-preschool-yearbooks/yearbook2017
Newsom, G. (2017). My commitment to early learning and K-12 education. Medium. Retrieved
from https://medium.com/@GavinNewsom/my-commitment-to-early-learning-and-k-12-
education-28e56dc9836d
Niklas, F., Cohrssen, C., & Tayler, C. (2016). Improving preschoolers’ numerical abilities by
enhancing the home numeracy environment. Early Education and Development, 27(3),
372-383.
Onchwari, G., & Keengwe, J. (2008). The impact of a mentor-coaching model on teacher
professional development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(1), 19-24.
Orange County Head Start Inc. (2018) About Us: Giving Children a Head Start. Retrieved from
http://www.ochsinc.org
Palermo, F., Hanish, L. D., Martin, C. L., Fabes, R. A., & Reiser, M. (2007). Preschoolers’
academic readiness: What role does the teacher-child relationship play? Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 22(4), 407-422.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R., Early, D., & Barbarin, O. (2005).
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 236

Features of pre-kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict
observed classroom quality and child-teacher interactions? Applied Development Science,
9(3), 144-159.
Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., Hamre, B. K., & Justice, L. (2008). Effects of
web-mediated professional development resources on teacher-child interactions in pre-
kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(4), 431-451.
Reardon, S. F., & Portilla, X. A. (2016). Recent trends in income, racial, and ethnic school
readiness gaps at school entry. AERA Open. 2(3), 1-18.
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2001). Long-terms effects of an
early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest. The Journal
of the American Medical Association, 285(18).
Rhodes, S., & Hennessy, E. (2000). The effects of specialized training on caregivers and children
in early-years settings: An evaluation of the foundation course in playgroup practice.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 559-576.
Samuelsson, I. P., & Johansson, E. (2006). Play and learning: Inseparable dimensions in
preschool practice. Early Child Development and Care, 176(1), 47-65.
Savery, J.R., & Duffy, T.M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its
constructivist framework. In B.G. Wilson (Eds.), Constructivist learning environments.
(pp. 135-148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.
Schechter, C., & Bye, B. (2007). Preliminary evidence for the impact of mixed-income
preschools on low-income children’s language growth. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 22(1), 137-146.
Siraj ‐Blatchford, I., & Sylva, K. (2004). Researching pedagogy in English pre ‐schools. British
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 237

Educational Research Journal, 30(5), 713-730.
Son, S. C., Kwon, K. A., Jeon, H. J., & Hong, S. Y. (2013). Head Start classrooms and children’s
school readiness skills benefit from teachers’ qualifications and ongoing training. Child
Youth Care Forum, 42, 525-553.
Stipek, D. J., 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(1), 41-66.
Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
The White House. (n.d.). Early Childhood Learning. Retrieved from
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/education/early-childhood
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). U.S. Department of Education Releases Guidance on
Supporting Early Learning through the Every Student Succeeds Act. Retrieved from
https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-guidance-
supporting-early-learning-through-every-student-succeeds-act
U.S. Department of Education (2017). U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy Devos Announces
Release of Updated EESA Consolidated State Plan Template. Retrieved from
https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-secretary-education-betsy-devos-announces-
release-updated-essa-consolidated-state-plan-template
U.S. Department of Education. Laws and Guidance: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
(2015). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2019)
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 238

Preschool and Kindergarten Enrollment. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cfa.asp
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2017). State
Pre-Kindergarten Standards and Teacher Qualifications, by State 2016-17. Retrieved
from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab3_15.asp
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2010). The
Condition of Education: 2010 Spotlight High-Poverty Public Schools. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/analysis/2010-index.asp
Valentino, R. (2017). Will public pre-k really close achievement gaps? Gaps in prekindergarten
quality between students and across states. American Educational Research Journal,
55(1), 79-116.
Vu, J. A., Jeon, H. J., & Howes, C. (2008). Formal education, credential, or both: Early
childhood program classroom practices. Early Education and Development, 19(3), 479-
504.
Waanders, C., Mendez, J. L., & Downer, J. T. (2007). Parent characteristics, economic stress and
neighborhood context as predictors of parent involvement in preschool children's
education. Journal of School Psychology, 45(6), 619-636.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Zigler, E. F., & Bishop-Josef, S. J. (2004). Play under siege: A historical overview. Zero to
Three, 30(1), 1-13.

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 239

Appendix A
First Interview Protocol

TITLE

RESPONDENT
DATE

LOCATION
TIME

SCHOOL

Thank you so much for taking the time to meet with me. The interview should take about an
hour. Is that ok with you?

Before beginning the interview, I want to remind you about the overall purpose of my study. As
you know, I am a doctoral student at USC writing a dissertation about the learning opportunities
provided to children in pre-kindergarten. I am particularly looking at teachers who provide such
opportunities, especially to children from low socioeconomic backgrounds. That is why I have
chosen to interview you. I am interested in the details about the activities, routines, and
relationships present in your classroom. Do you have any questions about this or anything related
to the interview so far?

I do want you to know that I will do my best to treat any and all information relayed during this
interview confidentially. Before quoting you in my work, I will ask for your permission. Your
identity will remain confidential. I will use a pseudonym and will not provide any details that can
be traced back to you. Also, you can create your own pseudonym if you would like! If at any
point you choose to withdraw from the study, you are completely entitled to do so. At the end of
the day, I am interested in the learning environment – not in the performance of the specific
individuals in the study. I would like you to feel comfortable to share whatever you think is
relevant, as I am not here to make any judgments about your performance as a teacher.

I will not share my notes with anyone other than possibly my dissertation chair. I will save my
notes on a password-protected computer and destroy all files within three years. Would you look
over this consent form and sign if you agree with the terms please?

I brought an audio recorder so that I can listen to our conversation again to make every effort to
ensure that I do not misconstrue any information provided by you. I will email the file to myself
and delete it from the recorder immediately after. Do I have your permission to record our
conversation?
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 240

Interview Questions

During this interview, I will ask questions about your specific pre-kindergarten classroom that
you are currently teaching.

1. How would you describe your teaching philosophy?
a. What is your role in your students’ learning?
b. What is your students’ role in their learning?

2. Think of a recent day that is a good representation of a typical day in your classroom.
Walk me through what that day would look like.
a. When did these activities take place in the day?
b. What did you do on that day? (walk through each activity)
c. What did you say? (walk through each activity)
d. What was your students’ role? (walk through each activity)
e. What were the daily routines in your classroom?
f. When did these routines take place during the day?
(Omit any sub-questions if already answered)

3. How do you plan your day?
a. Think of a recent lesson plan. Walk me through it.
b. What is it that you want to be true on any given day?

4. How do you typically start a lesson?
a. What is the role of students typically at this time? (walk through each part of the
lesson)

5. How do you expect your students to spend their time?
a. Think about a recent activity. What did the students do?

6. How does play figure in your day, if at all?
a. How does play get initiated?
b. How do you encourage play?
c. What kind of resources do you provide students for play?
d. What is your role in this play?
e. How do you provide opportunities for peer play?
f. How long do children play with one another typically throughout the day?
g. How do children play with one another typically? (Probes: Clarify: do they play
well with one another or are they hostile/withdrawn from one another. Elaborate:
on response if necessary with specific examples)
h. Tell me about a time you used play as a way to teach a particular skill or content.
i. How long do children participate in this kind of play typically throughout the
day?

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 241

7. How does literacy instruction figure in your day, if at all?
a. How do students use language in the classroom, if at all?
b. What academic skills do you expect your students to achieve?
c. How do you provide feedback to your students, if at all?

8. Tell me about the way your students interact with one another in your classroom, if at all.
a. Under what circumstances will students interact with peers?
b. How have you set norms to encourage this type of interaction?
c. Walk me through what these interactions look like.
d. How long do students interact with one another during activities? (in general or
during specific activities)
e. How often do lower-skilled peers have opportunities to interact with higher-
skilled peers?

9. How do your students demonstrate acceptable behavior in your classroom?
a. How do your students demonstrate unacceptable behavior in your classroom?
b. Typically, how do their behavior patterns fluctuate throughout the day?

10. How would you characterize your relationships with your students?
a. Describe a specific example showing this kind of relationship. (ask about the
different kinds of relationships separately)
b. How do you think your students would describe their relationships with you?

11. How would you characterize the overall climate of your classroom?
a. Describe specific examples that would illustrate this.

Before we wrap up, I would like to ask you about your background in education.
• How did you become interested in the field of education?
• How many years have you been teaching pre-kindergarten?
• How many years have you been teaching at this school?
• What (if any) other positions have you held in the field of education?

Closing

Is there anything you would like to add to our conversation that we did not cover or you did not
have the opportunity to talk about?

Thank you so much for openly sharing your thoughts with me today. I appreciate your time and
willingness to help me understand this area in education better. What you shared today is very
helpful for my study. If I have any other follow-up questions, may I meet with you later?

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 242

Appendix B
Second Interview Protocol

TITLE

RESPONDENT
DATE

LOCATION
TIME

SCHOOL

Thank you so much for taking the time to meet with me again. The interview should take about
an hour. Is that ok with you?

Before beginning the interview, I want to remind you about the overall purpose of my study. As
you know, I am a doctoral student at USC writing a dissertation about the learning opportunities
provided to children in pre-kindergarten. I am particularly looking at teachers who provide such
opportunities, especially to children from low socioeconomic backgrounds. That is why I have
chosen to interview you. I am interested in the details about the activities, routines, and
relationships present in your classroom. Do you have any questions about this or anything related
to the interview so far?

I do want you to know that I will do my best to treat any and all information relayed during this
interview confidentially. Before quoting you in my work, I will ask for your permission. Your
identity will remain confidential. I will use a pseudonym and will not provide any details that can
be traced back to you. Also, you can create your own pseudonym if you would like! If at any
point you choose to withdraw from the study, you are completely entitled to do so. At the end of
the day, I am interested in the learning environment – not in the performance of the specific
individuals in the study. I would like you to feel comfortable to share whatever you think is
relevant, as I am not here to make any judgments about your performance as a teacher.

I will not share my notes with anyone other than possibly my dissertation chair. I will save my
notes on a password-protected computer and destroy all files within three years. Would you look
over this consent form and sign if you agree with the terms please?

I brought an audio recorder so that I can listen to our conversation again to make every effort to
ensure that I do not misconstrue any information provided by you. I will email the file to myself
and delete it from the recorder immediately after. Do I have your permission to record our
conversation?

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 243

Interview Questions

This interview will serve as a follow-up to what we have discussed in our previous conversations
and what I have seen during my observations during my time in your classroom.

1. How was your day on [insert recent date(s)] a representation of a typical day in your
classroom?
a. What was your role in your students’ learning?
b. What was your students’ role in their learning?

2. How did you plan your lesson on [insert recent date(s)]?

3. We talked about how _____ is what you expect to be true on a given day. How do you
think this played out on [insert recent date(s)], if at all?

4. I saw you do ______ on [insert recent date(s)]. How did you make the decision to act this
way?

5. How did your students spend their time on [insert recent date(s)]?
a. What did they do?

6. How did play figure in your day on [insert recent date(s)], if at all?
a. How did play get initiated?
b. How did you encourage play?
c. What kind of resources did you provide students for play?
d. What was your role in this play, if any?
e. How did you provide opportunities for peer play?
f. How long did children play with one another typically throughout the day?
g. How did children play with one another typically? (Probes: Clarify: did they play
well with one another or were they hostile/withdrawn from one another.
Elaborate: on response if necessary with specific examples)
h. Tell me about a time you used play as a way to teach a particular skill or content.
i. How long did children participate in this kind of play typically throughout the
day?

7. How did literacy instruction figure on [insert recent date(s)], if at all?
a. How did students use language, if at all?
b. What academic skills did they achieve, if at all?
c. How did you provide feedback to your students, if at all?

8. How did your students demonstrate acceptable behavior in your classroom on [insert
recent date(s)]?
a. How did your students demonstrate unacceptable behavior in your classroom?
b. How did their behavior patterns fluctuate throughout the day?

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 244

9. How would you characterize your relationships with your students on [insert recent
date(s)]?
a. Describe a specific example showing this kind of relationship (ask about the
different kinds of relationships separately).
b. How do you think your students would describe their relationships with you?

10. What was the overall climate of your classroom on [insert recent date(s)]?
a. Describe specific examples that illustrate this.

Closing

Is there anything you would like to add to our conversation that we did not cover or you did not
have the opportunity to talk about?

Thank you so much for openly sharing your thoughts with me today. I appreciate your time and
willingness to help me understand this area in education better. What you shared today is very
helpful for my study. If I have any other follow-up questions, may I meet with you later?

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 245

Appendix C
Classroom Layout Protocol

DATE

TEACHER
SCHOOL

AGE
GROUP

Include: seating arrangement, learning centers, instructional equipment/facilities, evidence of
student work, etc.

FRONT

BACK
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN PRE-KINDERGARTEN 246

Appendix D
Observational Field Notes Protocol

PAGE

TITLE TOTAL #
OF
PAGES

DATE

SCHOOL
START
TIME

TEACHE
R

END TIME

AGE
GROUP

TIME NOTES

Research Question: How do pre-kindergarten learning environments provide meaningful
learning opportunities for children from low SES backgrounds?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this dissertation was to examine how pre-kindergarten environments provided meaningful learning opportunities to students from low socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds. Research has consistently demonstrated that there are significant disparities in achievement between students of low and high SES backgrounds prior to entering kindergarten, indicating the importance of children’s early learning experiences. The literature provided in this dissertation indicated that pre-kindergarten environments can provide learning opportunities through two vehicles: the instructional climate as well as the social and emotional climate. Each of these contexts is shaped by the interactions that take place between the teacher and child as well as the child and peer. ❧ A multiple-case study approach was employed to closely examine two pre-kindergarten classrooms at an Early Head Start program in an urban neighborhood in Southern California. The findings demonstrated that neither of the classrooms provided meaningful learning opportunities. While in both cases, the teachers aspired to provide learning opportunities that were meaningful, it was not evident that they had a strong understanding of what was expected of their role nor were they positioned to teach in a way that was meaningful. The study recommends that early childhood educators be provided with improved professional development, credentialing requirements be upgraded, and pre-K programs be held accountable to ensure that students are taught according to the National Association for the Education of Young Children standards. Finally, future research is recommended in several areas, including examining current professional development provided to Early Head Start educators.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Latino cognitive apprenticeship: creating a meaningful learning environment for Latino students through authentic teacher care

PDF

The intersections of culturally responsive pedagogy and authentic teacher care in creating meaningful academic learning opportunities for students of color

PDF

Characteristics that create a quality early learning center: An evaluation study

PDF

Examining elementary school teachers’ beliefs and pedagogy with students from low socioeconomic status and historically marginalized communities

PDF

Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement

PDF

Blended learning: a look into teachers’ perceptions on their role in a 21st century classroom

PDF

Are students better off? An analysis of administrators’ commitment to serving transitional kindergarten students in multilingually diverse communities in Central Coast California

PDF

Low-socioeconomic status families: the role of parental involvement and its association with early childhood academic achievement trajectories

PDF

Improving early grade reading instruction in Ghana: a discrepancy gap analysis

PDF

Getting paid: the promise of paid work-based learning opportunities for youth

PDF

Support for single parents in college: a gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Kadakia, Kanika Jain (author)

Core Title Meaningful learning opportunities for children from low socioeconomic backgrounds in pre-kindergarten

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/26/2019

Defense Date 03/27/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag achievement gap,classroom climate,classroom environment,Early childhood,Early Childhood Education,Early Head Start,Head Start,instructional climate,learning opportunities,low socioeconomic,low-income,OAI-PMH Harvest,opportunity gap,peer effects,peer interaction,peer language,Play,pre-kindergarten,Preschool,professional development,social and emotional climate,socioemotional climate,teacher responsibility,teacher-child interaction,teacher-child relationship

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Gallagher, Pat (committee member), Manzone, Jessica (committee member)

Creator Email kanika@kadakia.com,kanikaja@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-195204

Unique identifier UC11663129

Identifier etd-KadakiaKan-7647.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-195204 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KadakiaKan-7647.pdf

Dmrecord 195204

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Kadakia, Kanika Jain

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA