1 / 24

Behavior Problems in Elementary School Among Low-income Males: The Role of Teacher-child Relationships

Behavior Problems in Elementary School Among Low-income Males: The Role of Teacher-child Relationships. Lauren H. Supplee Administration for Children and Families. Erin Eileen O’Connor New York University. Daniel S. Shaw University of Pittsburgh.

bridie
Download Presentation

Behavior Problems in Elementary School Among Low-income Males: The Role of Teacher-child Relationships

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Behavior Problems in Elementary School Among Low-income Males: TheRole of Teacher-child Relationships Lauren H. Supplee Administration for Children and Families Erin Eileen O’Connor New York University Daniel S. Shaw University of Pittsburgh The views expressed in this presentation are not those of the Administration for Children and Families

  2. Introduction • Children spend a large proportion of their time in a school context. Therefore schools have an important socialization role in the development of children (Baker, Grant, & Morlock, 2008: Bronfenbrenner, 1979). • Teacher-child relationships provide a context within which children may learn or continue to use adaptive or maladaptive inter and intra-personal strategies (Silver et al., 2005). • Children with early behavioral problems may be more likely to experience a low-quality teacher-child relationship (e.g. Birch & Ladd, 1997; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Howes et al., 2000; Hughes et al., 2001, & Kesner, 2000). • Few studies have been conducted to examine the quality and influence of teacher-child relationships for children considered “at-risk” for behavior problems (Decker et al., 2007), particularly over the critical first years of formal schooling.

  3. Teacher-child relationships and externalizing behavior • Some research points to teacher-child relationships as an important determinant of change in externalizing behaviors during the elementary school years. • Children with higher quality relationships in K or 2nd grade had decreases in behavior problems in later school years (Meehan, Hughes, & Cavell, 2003 ; Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, 1995) • Children with conflictual relationships in K are more likely to have high rates of externalizing behavior in later grades (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Silver et al., 2005) • Research suggests that an early high quality teacher-child relationship may place children on a positive developmental trajectory of low levels of externalizing behaviors while a low quality relationship may mean children are more likely to have higher behavior problems.

  4. Teacher-child relationships and internalizing behavior • More limited research on the relationship between teacher-child relationships and internalizing behaviors in children, especially with boys. • Some hypothesize that children with high levels of internalizing behaviors in early childhood may be particularly ill adapted to deal with aversive relationships due to their anxiety (Gazelle, 2006; Perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988). • One study indicates that girls with internalizing behavior were more likely to show depressive symptoms in 1st grade when they were in classrooms with negative classroom climates that included high conflict between teachers and children (Gazelle, 2006). • It may be that boys who are initially high on internalizing behaviors may be buffered by having a positive, stable relationship with teachers during early elementary school.

  5. Student-Teacher Relationships and At-risk Populations • A high quality relationship with a teacher may serve as a protective factor for children at-risk allowing them to develop more adaptive understandings of the social world and to form important socio-emotional abilities (Baker, 2006; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1992; Pianta, 1999). • On the other hand, a low quality teacher-child relationship may act as a risk factor for children with early behavior problems increasing the likelihood of their evidencing later behavior problems (Hamre & Pianta, 2001).

  6. Model 2 3 Externalizing behavior (Mother-report, age 5.5) 1 Externalizing behavior (Teacher-report, age 11) Teacher-child relationship quality trajectories (age 7, 8, 10, 11) Internalizing behavior (Mother-report ,age 5.5) Internalizing behavior (Teacher-report, age 11) Temperament (age 5.5) Maternal income & education (age 5)

  7. Trajectories of relationship quality • Relatively little is known regarding the nature and course of teacher-child relationships over the course of elementary school, especially among at-risk children (Baker, 2006). • Developmentally children are more independent, peer relationships are more important • Parent-child relationship quality indicates normative change in conflict and closeness as peers become more important (Bradley, Corwyn, Burchinal, McAdoo & Garcia Coll, 2001; Collins et al., 1995) and average teacher-child relationship quality decreasing over elementary school (Midgley, Eccles & Feldlaufer, 1991; O’Connor, in press). • Other research finds moderate stability across different teachers (Jermone, Hamre & Pianta, submitted; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004) • No study has been conducted to identify groups of children based on patterns of change in relationship quality over the entire course of elementary school and following the transition to middle school. • The current study uses a person-oriented, semi-parametric group-based method (Nagin, 1999) for modeling developmental trajectories to identify children who displayed specific trajectories of teacher-child relationship quality over time.

  8. The Current Study • Are there distinct trajectories of teacher-child relationship qualities for boy at-risk for the development of behavior problems? • Does early behavior problems predict trajectory group membership? • Does having consistent high-quality relationships with teachers act as a buffer for boys development of behavior problems in seventh grade?

  9. Method: Sample • 271 low-income boys participated in the current study • Low income mothers with male infants were recruited from Women, Infants, and Children Nutritional Supplement (WIC) sites in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania metropolitan area as part of a larger ongoing study on the developmental precursors of externalizing problems (see Shaw et al., 1998 for additional details). • When the boys were 18 months old, 310 families participated in the first assessment. Follow-up assessments occurred between every 6 months to 2 years. • For the current study, data are being used from interviews conducted when the child was 5, and 5.5 years of age and teacher-completed questionnaires when the child was 7, 8, 10 and 11. • Between the initial assessment at age 18 months and age 11 assessment, the retention rate was fairly high with 86% of participants having completed at least one assessment between the ages of 5 and 11. • At the time of the 18-month assessment, families had an average income of $12,567 (SD = $7,689) in 1989-90, and the mothers had an average of 12.6 years of education (SD = 1.70). Initially, mothers ranged in age from 17 to 43 years, with a mean age of 28. Fifty-three per cent of participants were Caucasian, 36% were African American, 5% were biracial, and 6% were other (e.g., Hispanic). At the 18-month visit, 65% were either married or living together, 26% were single, 7% were divorced, and 2% were in other categories (e.g., widowed).

  10. Method: Sample, cont. • At the time of the age 11-year assessment in 2000-2001, the families in the current sample had an average income of $27,962 (SD = $15,860), and mothers’ average education was 12.82 years (SD = 1.56). • The boys with school data at ages 7, 8, and 10 did not significantly differ from boys without school data on maternal education (F (1, 309) = 1.58, ns), family income (F(1,305) = 2.95, ns) or externalizing behavior (F(1,309) = 1.58, ns) at age 5.5.

  11. Method: Procedure • Mothers and sons completed a series of assessments when the children were 5 and 5.5 years of age. • During each assessment, mothers completed questionnaires and mothers and sons completed a series of interaction tasks. • The mothers questionnaires included topics such as family demographics, child temperament and child behavioral issues. • Each of the assessments were approximately two to three hours in length and participants were reimbursed for their time. • When the children were 7, 8, 10, and 11 years of age, their classroom teachers were sent a packet of questionnaires, including the Student-teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta & Steinberg, 1991). Each packet took approximately 30 minutes to complete per child and the teachers were reimbursed for their time.

  12. Method: Measures • Demographics (Age 5) • Child temperament (Age 5.5) Emotionality, Activity, Sociability, and Impulsivity Temperament Survey (Buss & Plomin, 1975; 1984) • Internalizing & Externalizing behavior (Age 5.5) Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL, Achenbach, 1990) • Internalizing & Externalizing behavior (Age 11) Teacher Report Form (TRF, Achenbach, 1991) • Relationship quality (Ages 7, 8, 10, 11) Student-teacher relationship scale (STRS, Pianta & Steinberg, 1991)

  13. Missing Data Methods • In order to be included in the sample the children needed to have participated in at least one assessment between age 5.5 and 11. • PROC TRAJ program assumes the data are missing at random and uses a general quasi-Newton procedure (Dennis, Gay, & Welsch, 1981; Dennis & Mei, 1979), allowing for analysis of the full sample (Jones, personal communication, August 19, 2007; Nagin, 1999).

  14. Results • In general children’s mean relationship quality over elementary school in this sample is decreasing . • Total STRS scores at each age – higher score = higher quality • Age 7, x= 61.29; SD = 8.11 • Age 8, x = 60.95; SD = 10.12 • Age 10, x = 57.05; SD = 9.56 • Age 11, x = 56.48; SD = 10.12 • A result confirmed in the NICHD SECCD sample as well.

  15. Results • Nagin cluster analyses were used to identify groups of children with relatively homogenous trajectories for teacher-child relationships from age 7-11. Three groups were identified. • Children evidenced high-stable quality relationships, moderate-decreasing quality relationships or low-increasing quality relationships (Figure 1).

  16. 76% 17% 7% BIC scores: 3-group: 1940 4-group: 1944 5-group:1960

  17. Relationship of behavior to trajectory group • Multinomial logistic regressions were conducted to examine if externalizing or internalizing behaviors at age 7 predicted trajectory group membership. • Mother-rated externalizing behavior at age 5.5 (β2 = .13, p < .05) was found to predict trajectory group membership (χ = 35.33, df = 12, p < .001). • On the other hand, mother-rated internalizing behavior at age 5.5 did not predict trajectory group membership.

  18. Frequency of risk type by trajectory group Internalizing (age 5.5) Externalizing (age 5.5) χ = 18.55, p < .001 NS Proportion of the total in that risk type is in parentheses

  19. Results • Multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine whether teacher-child relationship group membership was associated with externalizing or internalizing behaviors at age 11. • Results demonstrated that after controlling for age 5.5 externalizing behavior, children in the moderate-decreasing (β = .22, p < .001) and low-increasing (β = .27, p < .001) teacher-child relationship quality groups evidenced higher levels of externalizing behaviors at age 11 than the high-stable group (F (8, 262) = 16.78, p < .001). • After controlling for age 5.5 internalizing behavior, children in the low-increasing teacher-child relationship group (β = .22, p < .001) also demonstrated higher levels of internalizing behaviors at age 11 (F (8, 262) = 16.74, p < .001). • Since group membership predicts age 11 behavior problems, does group membership serve as a protective factor for the children at greatest risk?

  20. Membership in the high-stable group a buffer for highest risk children? High Internalizing (age 5.5) High Externalizing (age 5.5) F (1,42) = 7.42, p < .01 F (1,41) = 7.07, p < .01 Mean (SD)

  21. Conclusions • Trajectories indicated some support for the hypothesis that relationship quality decreases along with developmental changes. • Children who begin school with higher rates of externalizing problems are more likely to have poorer quality relationships with their teachers. • Membership in the high stable group does seem to act as a buffer for those children who began with high rates of internalizing and externalizing behavior.

  22. Future Directions • In future analyses we’d like to break down the teacher-child relationship construct to examine conflict and closeness separately as they relate to externalizing and internalizing behavior differentially. • Additional analyses may also examine the variability of the teacher-child relationship over time rather than focusing on mean differences.

  23. Implications • The results provide some support for the importance of building supportive relationships with teachers. • Given the challenges teachers may face with developing these relationships with children who enter their classroom already high on externalizing behavior, we may need to have a dual intervention that targets both the child’s behavior and relationships with adults AND giving teachers strategies on how to build quality relationships with challenging children.

  24. Contact Information • Lauren Supplee, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L’Enfant Promenade SW 7th Floor West, Washington DC 20447, 202-401-5434, lauren.supplee@acf.hhs.gov • Erin Eileen O’Connor, Steinhardt School of Education, New York University, NY, NY 10003212-992-9473, eoc2@nyu.edu • Daniel S. Shaw, University of Pittsburgh, 210 South Bouquet St, 4101 Sennott Square, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, 412-624-1836, casey@pitt.edu

More Related