Running Head: SOCIAL INTERACTION OF PRESCHOOLERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Observation Study: Comparative Social Interaction of Young Preschoolers and Preschoolers

Catherine Livingston

The University of Michigan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

           

            Preschool years are an important and formative time for the socialization of children. Research on this period has shown that patterns of peer interaction in preschool settings increasingly predict whether children will develop with competence or deviance in later stages of development. In this study we examine preschool aged child (2.5-5 year olds; N=32) for whether or not there are differences in peer interaction between different ages within a preschool setting. We compared the instances of social interaction, defined as smiling, eye contact, or direct verbalization, in sixteen young pre-school aged (2.5-3 years old) and 16 preschool aged (3-5 years old) children. The results confirmed our hypothesis, revealing that there are more instances of social interaction among the older preschool aged children (M = 3.85) than their younger counterparts (M = 2.85). Our findings implicate the importance of identifying non-normative patterns of social development at a young age in order to establish standards of intervention for children at risk of social and cognitive delays.

​

Introduction

​

            Preschools offer a unique environment in which toddlers and young children are exposed to numerous peers. This high concentration of peer exposure provides an opportunity to develop language skills, interpersonal skills, and for better or worse, conceptualizations of self-worth based on peer interactions (Spivak & Farran, 2016). Prior research has shown that forming relationships with other children is one of the major developmental tasks of early childhood (Rubin et al., 1998). How well children can form peer relationships appears to matter. It matters in creating a context in which children “evaluate their self-worth, competence, and view of the world as pleasant or hostile” (Harter, 1982; Ladd & Price, 1986). These early patterns of socialization can leave resounding effects into not just late childhood, but also adolescence and even adulthood. As evidence in a review of previous developmental research on peer interactions Kenneth H. Rubin, William M. Bukowski and Jeffrey G. Parker noted how “the peer group is a major determinant of an adolescent’s ability to achieve a sense of autonomy and independence from the family” (Rubin et al., 1998). In many ways the establishment of healthy peer relations is rooted in the onset of peer-to-peer interaction—preschool. Examining the nature of these interactions is vital in identifying deviant social behavior, and intervening in situations where a child is at risk for a lifetime of social, emotional, academic, professional, and economic difficulties (Guralnick et al., 1996). Using naturalistic observation, we compared levels of social interaction between young preschool (less preschool experience) and preschool aged children (more preschool experience) The difference in age will hopefully allow us to answer the question, does age affect the nature of social interactions for children in a preschool setting? We hypothesize that the older group will be show more instances of affect during peer interactions, that is smiling, making eye contact or verbally addressing their peer at the onset of or during play.

​

Methods

​

Participants

            The participants were 32 preschool children (17 Males, 15 Females). All 32 participants were enrolled in a university-affiliated daycare center in the Midwest. The daycare center’s curriculum is designed to “nurture social behavior and enhance the child's self-concept” with play-based classrooms and a well-defined daily routine (Children’s House). Sixteen of the subjects belonged to young pre school aged grouping, ranging from two to three years of age (n = 16). The remaining 16 subjects belonged to pre school aged grouping, ranging from three to four years of age (n = 16). Consent was attained via enrollment contract, i.e. when the parent enrolled his or her child into the daycare center, they signed a waiver acknowledging and approving their child’s participation in our observation study.  

​

Materials/Procedure

            After having requested a particular time slot to first calculate our Inter-rater Reliability, each researcher requested a second time slot to perform his or her individual observation. As researchers we had no control over which classroom we were assigned to. With consent obtained and our classroom assignments, we were ready to begin collecting data.

            During data collection, the children were playing in a classroom set up with various play areas. There was a corner for reading, flanked by book shelves and designated by a rug and couch. There was another corner of the classroom with hands-on toys like block, Manga-Tiles. There was a coloring station, a water table, and a arts & crafts table at which children were playing with what looked to be Play-dough or clay. Children were free to move from station to station at any rate and play with any of the toys they desired. Participants were selected in a non-randomized manner: I personally chose to observe the child that caught my attention first (which is by no means scientific or random for I am susceptible to personal biases—conscious or unconscious). I was sitting on the couch and usually chose which child was closest to me so I could stay in one spot and avoid drawing attention to myself by moving about the room. For the validity of the study, I tried to avoid making eye contact with the children so they did not approach me or try to interact with me.

​

Measures

            Social interaction observation procedure was used to obtain direct observational data on children's social interactions in the classroom during indoor free play periods. We sought to identify instances of social interaction, i.e. whenever the target participant smiled, made eye contact, or directly verbally addressed another peer. Prior to individual data collection, my co-researchers and I measured our inter-rater reliability, or IRR. To measure IRR, two researchers were assigned to the same classroom at the same time, and observed the same target child together. At each one-minute intervals the two researchers would designate the child a score of either a 1 or a 0. We did this for a total of five minutes, or five intervals. The child was designated a score of 1 if he or she presented any of the targeted behaviors (smiling, eye contact, or direct verbalization).  The child was designated a score of 0 if he or she did not present any of the targeted behaviors. For example, if the child was playing along side another child, this was coded as a 0 since they were not actually interacting but merely playing separately in proximity of one another. Additionally, if the child interacted with an adult in the room, this was coded as a 0 because we were only interested in how peers (of the developmental stage) interacted with each other. An example of the coding sheet we used can be found in Appendix 1. My fellow researchers and I scored an IRR of 100%. Confident in our coding scheme, we moved forward with individual observations.

            Four observers watched the play behavior of preschool children on three separate days. Two observers watched the same young preschool aged (ages 2-3) classroom on different days. And the remaining two observers watched two different preschool aged classrooms (ages 3-4) on the same day, two hours apart. The observer was assigned to a classroom in a non-randomized manner, based purely on the schedule availability of the researcher. Individual data was collected with the same coding scheme as described in the inter-rater reliability test. At one-minute intervals, for a total of five intervals, the individual observer would designate the child a score of either a 1 or a 0.  If the child displayed any of the targeted behavior (smiling, eye contact, or direct verbalization) in a 60 second window, the observer would mark the child with a 1. Conversely, the child was designated a score of 0 if he or she did not present any of the targeted behaviors in those 60 seconds. The observer coded a single child for a total of 5 minutes, therefore the child could exhibit a total score ranging anywhere from 0 to 5. Each observer coded 8 children, producing a total sample size of 32 participants.

​

Results

​

            Our findings indicated that older preschool children demonstrated higher instances of social interaction (M = 3.85, Range = 0, 5) than younger preschool children (M = 2.85, Range = 0, 5).  The findings of our individual observations confirmed our hypothesis that the older group would show more instances of affect during peer interactions. We used descriptive statistics—central tendency and variability— to help us analyze the data collected. As shown in Table 1, the number of instances of social interaction in the young preschool group (2.5-3 year-olds) was lower (M = 2.85, Range = 0, 5) than the number of instances in the preschool group (3-5 year-olds) (M = 3.85, Range = 0, 5). A graphical representation of the central tendency and variability of social interactions by age group can be found in Figure 1. 

​

Discussion

​

            The findings of our study showed that the older group of preschoolers engaged in more peer interactions compared to the younger group of preschoolers. These results further support previous research on the subject by demonstrating the dynamic and fast-paced nature of early childhood. This velocity of development indicates that pre-school is an important and formative time for the socialization of children. The increase in instances of social interaction from young preschool aged children to older preschool aged children exhibits the increasing need for peer-to-peer play and the increasing tendency to look for socialization outside of home environments. They learn how to interact with peers and begin to shape their sense of self around the nature of peer-to-peer interactions (Harter, 1982; Ladd & Price, 1986). There are several identifiable limitations to our research. Our researchers were not assigned randomly to a classroom. We indicated the dates we were available to observe the preschoolers and were assigned to a classroom accordingly. This lack of random assignment is significant because a child’s behavior could vary from day to day; this lack of consistency in the day of data collection can skew the data. Along the same strain, we as researchers had no control over the time we could see the children. The opportunity for peer-to-peer interaction can be affected by the time of day. For instance, most of our researchers observed the children in the morning, while another observed them afternoon immediately after nap time (the children could have been groggy and less inclined to play and interact). In future research we recommend that data collection remains consistent in terms of date and time to control for variability in behavior. Another limitation to our study was our physical presence in the classroom. It is possible that the preschoolers’ behaviors could be affected when they see a strange adult in the room. For instance it is possible that when a child sees a foreign adult in the room, he or she will act out to gain attention. On the other hand, a child may introvert and act shyer than he or she would if the researcher was not present. This limitation could be eradicated with the use of a one-sided mirror. The researcher would be able to observe the children without his or her presence as a possible confounding variable. Another limitation to our study was the difference in gender between age groups. This threaten the validity of our data because—hypothetically speaking—if boys are more likely to engage in peer interaction, then the older group (which had more boys in it) is likely to show more instances of peer interaction. This confounds our ability to attribute differences in levels of peer-to-peer interaction solely to age. In future repetitions of this study, we advise researchers to control for gender difference by maintaining an even ratio of boys to girls in both age groups. Besides the limitations in our research, we were confident in the operationalization of our target behavior. Since our IRR was 100%, I believe that this operationalization was one of the strengths in our study. In the future our study could benefit from a larger sample size. It would also be interesting to design a more complex study, analyzing the main effects and interaction between gender and age on the level of peers interactions. Do girls or boys interact more? Is there a crossover at a certain age? Also, I would be interested in conducting a longitudinal study that tracks children based on their level of peer interaction in preschool and susceptibility to social deviance later on. Are there patterns of social behavior we can be identified in the pre-school context that will help us identify deviance? This could help us establish standards for early intervention to prevent social delays in adolescence and adulthood.

            As children transition from the family context into the peer context, they are exposed to a different set of criteria for “acceptance.” While they may have thrived at home, socializing with peers is very different than socializing with parents, caretakers, or family members. Socializing outside of home environments can prove to be very difficult for some children. Young children begin to shape their sense of self around whether or not they are successful in making friendships and getting along with peers. Children who cannot establish or maintain peer connections are susceptible to a host of developmental risks down the lines, these can range from academic failure, bullying, or even depression. Studies like these are important in identifying normative social development: when is it “typical” for a child to begin to make friends? At what point should we become concerned when a child cannot establish peer relationships? More importantly, studies like these can help us to know how and when to intervene in instances of deviance. These are salient issues not only for parents or guardians, but also for childcare professionals, medical professionals, teachers, administrators and policy makers. Understanding the mechanisms of normative and non-normative social development in children is an integral to securing the well being of our nation’s youth

 

References

 

Beehler, K. A. (1974). Social Interactions of Preschool Children as Correlates of Play Activities.

​

Children's House. (n.d.). In www.hr.umich.edu. Retrieved from https://hr.umich.edu/benefits-

 

              wellness/family/childrens-centers/center-locations/towsley-childrens-house  

​

Guralnick, M.J., R. Connor, M. Hammond, J.M. Gottman, and K. Kinnish (1996). The peer relations of preschool

 

              children with communication disorders. Child Development 67:471-489.

​

Leah Spivak, A., & Farran, D. C. (2016). Predicting first graders’ social competence from   their preschool classroom

 

               interpersonal context. Early Education and Development, 1-16.

​

Rubin, K.H., W. Bukowski, and J.G. Parker
 (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. Pp. 619-700 in

 

                Handbook of Child Psychology, Volume 3: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, Fifth Edition.              

               W. Damon, ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

​

Shonkoff, J.; Phillips, D. A.; Council, N. R. (Eds.). 2000. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early

 

                 Childhood Development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

​