Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

The Effects of Manipulation of Teacher Communication Style in the Preschool

Nancy L. Smothergill, Frances Olson and Shirley G. Moore
Child Development
Vol. 42, No. 4 (Oct., 1971), pp. 1229-1239
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development
DOI: 10.2307/1127806
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1127806
Page Count: 11
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($34.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
The Effects of Manipulation of Teacher Communication Style in the Preschool
Preview not available

Abstract

12 day-care children were assigned to each of 2 teaching style conditions for 17 20-minute nursery school sessions. One group was taught in an elaborative style in which teachers gave elaborative task information and encouraged child comments and involvement. The other group was taught in a nonelaborative style in which teachers gave only necessary task information and did not encourage child involvement. Verbalizations during the teaching sessions, time-on-task and problem-solving behavior of the 2 groups were assessed. Results indicate that the elaboratively taught group gave more task-relevant elaborations and performed better from pre- to posttests on a verbal similarities task and on a story-telling task. The nonelaborative group gave more spontaneous directives, many of which were attempts to get teacher help and attention. The groups did not differ significantly on 3 nonverbal problem-solving tasks or on time spent on the teaching activities.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
[1229]
    [1229]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1230
    1230
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1231
    1231
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1232
    1232
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1233
    1233
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1234
    1234
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1235
    1235
  • Thumbnail: Page 
[1236]
    [1236]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1237
    1237
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1238
    1238
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1239
    1239