journal of environmental psychology (1986) 6, 205-231 center for

Journal of Environmental Psychology (1986) 6, 205-231

E F F E C T S O F T H E S P A T I A L D E F I N I T I O N O F B E H A V I O R S E T T I N G S O N C H I L D R E N ' S B E H A V I O R : A

Q U A S I - E X P E R I M E N T A L F I E L D S T U D Y

GARY T. MOORE Center for Architecture and Urban Planning Research, University of

Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

Abstract

Following from an ecological conception of environment-behavior relations, this study investigated the effects of three levels of the spatial definition of behavior settings--from well-defined to poorly defined--on children's social and cognitive behavior. The study used a quasi-experimental post-test-only control group design with multiple levels of treatment and proxy pretest measures. Systematic naturalistic observation was conducted of children and staff at 14 child care centers matched in three groups. The data were analysed by analysis of covariance controlling for subject group differences between settings remaining after the matching. The degree of spatial definition of behavior settings was found to be predictive of a range of behaviors. Significantly more exploratory behavior, social interaction and cooperation occurred in spatially well defined behavior settings than in moderately or poorly defined settings. Strong interactions were noted between teacher styles and spatial definition in affecting children's behavior. The conclusions emphasize the finding that the effects of physical environmental variables can only be understood when studied in interaction with social environmental variables. The results are supportive of a group x settings interactional theory of environment-behavior relations.

Introduction

Toward an interactional theory of environment-behavior relations One important contribution of the first decade of environment-behavior research (the 1970s) was the re-incorporation of the physical environment into certain areas of psychological theory and research (Canter, 1977; Smith and Connolly, 1980; Moore, 1981; Stokols, 1981). The behavioral significance of the ecological environment was recognized several decades earlier by psychologists such as Koffka (1935), Tolman and Brunswik (1935), Brunswik (1943), and Lewin (1951). Lewin's (1951) field theory of behavior as a function of the total situation, including ecological variables external to the organism, has been especially influential. Influenced by Lewin, Barker's theory of behavior settings and ecological psychology (Barker et al, 1941; Barker, 1968) has been extended into child development by Gump (1975, 1978) and Schoggen and Barker (1977). Another theory charting the broader socio- physical milieu as it relates to psychological issues of development has been Bron- fenbrenner's (1977, 1979) analyses of the ecology of human development.

One limitation of these theories is the restricted conceptualization of the 'environment'. Barker's concept of behavior settings, for example, focuses on the measurement of social and behavioral phenomena (e.g. adaptive reactions to conditions of understaffing and overstaffing of settings) and assigns only minor emphasis to the physical features of settings. Similarly, Bronfenbrenner's analysis

0272-4944/86/030205 + 27 $03.00/0 © 1986 Academic Press Inc. (London) Ltd

206 G.T. Moore

of human development focuses on the social-structural properties of settings with special emphasis on social networks (e.g. interpersonal linkages within and across settings), again placing less emphasis on the role of the physical environment in the ecology of human development. A few followers of Barker have begun to look at the connections between the architectural environment and conditions of over and understaffing of settings (e.g. Wicker and Kirmeyer, 1976, Bechtel, 1977) but these have not articulated the operative physical environmental construct nor have they been applied to developmental issues.

Stokols (1981; Stokols and Shumaker, 1981) has broken with these traditions, and has begun to incorporate the physical component on equal footing with the social context in the analysis of behavior. He has developed an interactional view that highlights the active role of individuals and groups in creating and modifying their environments and joins the analysis of persons, social units, and the physical milieu. In contrast to other approaches, Stokols' analysis focuses on the concept of place (the geographical and architectural context of behavior), on bilateral transactions between people and places, and on social units and grouIy-environment linkages. Likewise, Canter (1977) has discussed the poignancy of the interrelations between people and places and the need to build models of the ways in which the physical components and the social components of spaces combine to influence behavior.

Similar to Stokols' analysis and to Smith and Connolly's work, the present study explicitly questions the interactions between the social context, the architectural environment and human behavior. While putting more emphasis on the physical setting than has Barker, the present analysis makes use of his concept of the behavior setting and asks about the relation between the spatial definition of behavior settings and subsequent behavior. While also putting more emphasis on the physical environment than does Bronfenbrenner and more explicit attention than does Canter, the present analysis attempts to extend their general views of the interdependence of the physical, social and personal components of settings, in particular by articulating relevant dimensions of the physical environment for systematic study and by looking at linkages between the architectural-geographic environment and the social system as they independently and jointly influence behavior. This notion comes from a view of environment-behavior studies as necessarily incorporating the analysis of the multiple and mutual interactions among places, the characteristics of people, and individual and group behavior (Moore, 1979; Moore et al., 1985). Finally, meth- odologically, while not being able to meet the true experimental standards set by Smith and Connolly (1980), the study does try to meet Wohlwill's (1980) call for quasi- experimental designs in ~eal-world settings, for the measurement of responses to specified physical environmental conditions, and for the sampling of environments across a wide range of settings.

Research on behavior settings in children's environments

Barker's (1968) notion of behavior settings, and his behavior setting theory, focuses more on the social and behavioral phenomena of settings than on their physical (geographical or architectural) features. Considering the context of child care centers, much of a child's time is spent in informal, unstructured learning situations, what Barker would call behavior settings, with several children working on different projects at once, some with a teacher, some on their own or in small groups. The

Spatial Definition of Behavior Settings 2O7

question is, how does the spatial character and configuration of activity areas or behavior settings influence these activities, if at all?

Only a few studies have looked at activity settings in child care environments. Rosenthal (1974) studied the behaviors of a heterogeneous population of pre- schoolers balanced in terms of gender, race, and age during 37 child care sessions. Settings differed significantly in their attractive power as measured by the percentage of children involved in them, as well as their holding power as measured by the length of involvement. Settings for art, block play and novel ventures were the most attractive settings, while role playing settings had the greatest holding power. Somewhat similar findings were reported by Shure (1963), who found that the most popular areas were block play and art, with the block play area having the greatest holding power, although there were significant gender differences. No theoretical discussion was offered in either study to account for the differences in attractiveness or holding power of different settings. We don't know, for instance, whether the behaviors have anything to do with the characteristics of the physical environment, the materials provided, staff characteristics, or some combination.

On the other hand, it is known that children playing outdoors tend to congregate in groups of less than five children with a mean of just under two children in a setting (Aiello et al., 1974). Similarly, experts recommend that the best size for an indoor preschool play group is two to four children (Millar, 1968). A large sample national study in the U.S.A. indicated that the quality of child care programs as measured by the Preschool Inventory and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test is related to the size of the group, with small groups working best (Abt Associates, 1979).

At a more specific level, the now widely cited work of Smith and Connolly (e.g. Smith, 1978; Smith and Connolly, 1980) on the ecology of preschool environments in England has begun to shed considerable empirical light on child-environment linkages in early childhood indoor environments. Using experimental designs and naturalistic observation techniques, they have found, among other things, that more fantasy play is observed in smaller play groups though aggressive behavior does not vary with group size. Running, chasing and vigorous activities occur more frequently in large r spaces (those, for instance, around 6-75 m 2, or 75 ft 2 per child) while more physical contacts happen between children in smaller preschool spaces (2.2 m 2 or about 25 ft 2 per child), though again aggressive behavior was not found to vary with absolute space size. When more rather than less play equipment is available, children tend to play in smaller subgroups including playing alone some of the time; also with more equipment available, there is less sharing of equipment and less aggressive behavior and overall a less stressful situation for the children. Other findings are reported in Smith and Connolly's book, comparing structured activities to free-play conditions, and variations in the ratio of children to staff members, but for the most part these latter studies were conducted without explicit attention to the possible role of physical environmental variables.

The idea of spatially well-defined behavior settings Our earlier applied work developing a pattern language for child care centers (Moore et al., 1979) argued that other facets of the spatial character of early childhood environments may have profound--though yet largely unmeasured--impacts on children's behavior. In particular, we suggested that architecturally well-defined

208 G . T . Moore

behavior settings (i.e. those with clear boundaries from circulation space and from other behavior settings, and with at least partial acoustic and visual separation) should decrease classroom interruptions and contribute to longer attention spans and greater involvement with developmentally appropriate activities (Moore et al., 1979, Pattern 908).

Well-defined behavior settings are areas limited to one activity, but not completely cordoned off from other activities. They are sized to accommodate two to five children plus one teacher (typically 5 to 10 m 2 or 50 to 100 ft2), and typically include storage, surface area, equipment plug-ins and display for the activity. In the better child care centers, one behavior setting is provided for each major developmental activity.

The notion of spatially well defined settings implies that the setting has a high degree of spatial differentiation from other settings and therefore from other activities. Thus, for example, spatially well-defined settings may be characterized by any or all of the following:

(1) partially surrounding walls or partitions; (2) bookcases, storage cabinets, or shelves used as partial dividers and able to be

moved and changed as staff and children wish in order to accommodate varied group sizes;

(3) changes in levels, either the floor or the ceiling; (4) changes in floor coverings or textures; (5) hangings and placement of overhead lighting to define spaces; and (6) implied boundaries suggested by the placement of columns, posts, or other

strong visual elements, or the visual completion of space by the implied visual connection between wall stub ends [i.e. the Gestalt principle of pragnanz or, more specifically, the law of perceived closure of almost closed figures (Koffka, 1935)].

Spatially well-defined settings are contrasted with poorly defined behavior settings, i.e. areas where the actual or implied spatial definition is low, where the area is too large or too small for the group size, and/or where the resources and work surfaces are not readily available for the particular activity. Diagrams showing the evolution of spatially well-defined behavior settings are shown in Figs 1-4.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the degree of spatial definition of behavior settings on a number of cognitive and social behaviors in child care centers.

Hypotheses: the two sets of hypotheses behind this study were as follows:

H 1 There will be more indicators of cognitive and social development (e.g. engagement, child-imitation of behavior, exploration, social interaction and cooperation) in child care centers with architecturally well defined behavior settings than in those with less well-defined behavior settings.

H2 As neither the social nor the physical environment acts independently of the other, there will be complex group-place interactions, specifically interactions between the backgrounds of the children, the teaching philosophy and style of the teachers, and the character of the physical environment will affect various cognitive and social behaviors.

Spatial Definition of Behavior Settings 209

( a ) ~Smoll groups work best (b )

I I i I

\ ~:::~ ..

~ " ~ t A I n , definition ~ . ~ = ~ / ¢ " without full

room walls

t "~.~[~,., '. ~ ~ Partitions [ ' ~ ' ~'~ " ~ ' i Storage • ~- - - ' f f '~ ' - - - - - Enclosed spaces

Definition Hangings inside the Ceiling height area Changes

Circulation

FIGURE I. Diagrams showing the evolution of spatially well-defined behavior settings for child care centers: (a) The U.S. National Day Care Study finding that small groups work best, translated into (b) the beginning definition of activity pockets or behavior settings inside the total space available. (Illustra- tions in Figs I-4 by Tim McGinty from Recommendations for Child Care Centers by G. T. Moore, C. G. Lane, A. H. Hill, U. Cohen and T. McGinty, 1979, Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Center for Architecture and Urban Planning Research. Illustrations copyright © 1979 by Tim McGinty,

reprinted by permission.)

(a) In any activity pocket

Reading, picture, books

m a t e r i ~

X-Sense of enclosure

2-5

Storage of manipulative toys

Soft places

Recorders i.J etc.

Relation to other activities, views, etc.

children

(b

"~3-4 small activity spaces

Easilly /~/"NJ visibile . ~ E ~ ,.1 by an ~'~.1 _a adult "Y'~

Cross I~ , ,~ t°° -J

visibility

FIGURE 2. Qualities of well-defined behavior settings. (a) The provision of a sense of enclosure and of resources in the behavior setting, and (b) the clustering of three or four behavior settings in proximity to

each other.

Method

The commitment to studying naturally occuring behaviors in the everyday physical environment leads to consideration of a number of methodological issues and problems (Proshansky, 1972; Smith and Connolly, 1980; Wohlwill, 1980; Moore 1981). Chief among them is the trade-off between ecological validity and causal inference. Our ultimate interest is to be able to make causal statements 'about the effects of features of everyday socio-physical environments on behavior, and multilateral statements about interactions among the physical, interpersonal and

210

(a)

G. T. Moore

(b)

{ -) t

*Light :

Level changes

* Lofts and , ~ level changes

(c)

7 * Impl ied boundries

made by changes in materials

(d ) * Defined but non-interfering circulation

Defined space View

. . . .

Low movable ca binets 5'or 4'

FIGURE 3. Ways to spatially define behavior settings (law of pragnanz applied to building design), including level changes, skylights and defining areas by pools of light, lofts and child-only crawl space underneath, separation of circulation from activity settings by storage units or other vertical elements,

and implied boundaries suggested by changes in materials or textures.

cultural aspects of environments. While much of the work in the environment- behavior field has been exploratory~lescriptive in nature or has been survey research with little intervention and little control (see, for example, the studies reviewed in Zeisel, 1981), only a few studies have been able to develop experimental procedures while maintaining the relative integrity of settings and events (e.g. Carp, 1966; Trites et al., 1970; Smith and Connolly, 1980). Though the field should move toward multilateral and multivariate causal explanations, adoption of a strict causal model does not seem appropriate at this time. An ecological model where the total ensemble of social and physical variables are related holistically seems more appropriate-- careful observation and systematic description must preceed explanation (Proshan- sky, 1972; Wapner et al., 1973; Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Wohlwill, 1980).

The problem of making causal inferences in field settings has been dealt with at length in a series of handbook chapters and books by Campbell and his colleagues

~ :~


FIGURE 4. An example of a spatially well-defined behavior setting, this one to double-function as a quiet nook for reading/listening, a breakaway and retreat area, and occasionally an informal napping area

(Pattern 1016 from Recommendations for Child Care Centers, 1979).

OA ~ O8

OA Xz O8

OA X~ O8

FIGURE 5. Diagram of the quasi-experimental post-test-only control group design with multiple levels of treatment and proxy pretest measures, using the nomenclature of Cook and Campbell (1979).

(Campbell, 1957; Campbell and Stanley, 1966; Cook and" Campbell, 1976, 1979). They have systematically explicated the threats to valid causal inference when the major features of laboratory-centered experimental research are not present (e.g. when randomization, physical isolation of respondents, short duration of the experimental treatment and strict control over all extraneous independent variables cannot be achieved). In research concerning everyday field settings, it is the researcher's task to systematically rule out as many alternative explanations limiting valid causal inference as possible. The Campbell approach and quasi-experimental research designs form the methodological basis for the current study, and the threats to internal and external validity form the basis for caution in interpreting the findings.

Research design and rationale It would have been ideal to redesign existing child care centers in the directions suggested by the hypotheses, to use other centers as controls, and to randomly assign children to conditions, thus permitting a true experimental design. Practical limitations working in naturalistic field settings did not make this feasible. Thus, a number of existing centers were located that were characterized by the physical

212 G.T. Moore

O

. . . . . . . %.~.,,~,. "~:, , , , ._ -~ , ~, , _ , _ . - - , ~ , . ~ . ~ . . . ~ . ~

._--_.eJ~ L t "~ , o , above ,/ / ' ~ \ ~ I f - H

o ., ~o ~ " " ~ - ; - " ( I ~ . ~ : ~ rr l ~IE____I~I~ ,::.'-.'." ; " ,L ./~i:l-¢" . ~ ~ ":. " . %"~

N

FIGURE 6. Example of a child care center with spatial well-defined behavior settings. Note the two overhead lofts, the well-defined kitchen accessible to children underneath the loft, the stairways from the lofts providing partial separation between behavior settings, and the use of bookcases and different

carpet textures to shield and differentiate 'activity pockets' or behavior settings.

1 j i :.--'."i.

s t ~

] ' U p

N

T

oowo /-H ]

, r [[ L I I 0 I0

ft

FIGURE 7. Example of a child care center with partially defined (transitional) behavior settings. Note the lack of overhead differentiation or any strong vertical elements, but also note the clustering of similar types of furniture together and the use of carpets and some low furniture to partially differentiate behavior

settings.

patterns hypothesized to have impacts on children's behavior, and other centers that did not have the patterns.

Inasmuch as it was impossible to assign subjects randomly to conditions, subject groups were matched and proxy pretest data were collected to aid in matching groups, to check on the equivalency of groups, and to use as covariates to remove remaining initial group differences in subsequent data analyses. To determine the


\ I l l ( ~ ~ tcL_/I

office 13 o 1 o ~ . . . . . . . ' ~

- ~ - - ' - ~ I lL°unge~ ~ ]-(-:::ill: i!J L-I

z--'I ......... s'° Ir I

I >N I I 0 I0

fi

FIGURE 8. Example of a child center with poorly defined behavior settings. Looking at the three child care rooms on opposite ends of the building, note the wide open spaces and the lack of any dividers,

overhead elements, book cases, or other furniture used to differentiate behavior settings.

relative effects of different treatment levels, three levels of the independent environmental construct (definition of behavior setting) were selected. Thus, following the nomenclature of Cook and Campbell, the research design would be referred to as a combination of two quasi-experimental nonequivalent control group designs, the post-test-only design with multiple levels of treatment and the untreated control group design with proxy pretest measures (Cook and Campbell, 1979, pp. 98-99, 112-115) and would be depicted diagrammatically as shown in Fig. 5, where X stands for the treatments in three ordinal levels from poorly defined to well defined spatial settings, O stands for proxy pretests and post-treatment observations, where the subscripts A and B refer to different measures, and where the dotted lines refer to non-equivalent groups, intact rather than randomly assigned.

Settings The settings were 14 child care centers in Milwaukee County selected to represent a minimum of two sets of centers for each of the three levels of the spatial definition of behavior settings: well-defined, moderately defined (transitional) and poorly defined (see Figs 6-8). The degree of spatial definition was measured in terms of ten variables, including the degree to enclosure, degree of visual separation from other settings, appropriate size, degree of separation from circulation, and appropriateness of the amount of storage, work surfaces, and display space to the activity in the setting. Independent verification was achieved using judges' ratings on the ten-item Early Childhood Physical Environment Scale.

The centers were selected to be similar and were matched as well as possible in terms of size, socio-economic status of the children, general educational philosophy,

214 G . T . Moore

and four specific dimensions of teacher style. Thus for example, three centers similar in size, stated educational philosophy, an d observed teacher styles were identified within a five-block radius in a lower-middle income mixed ethnic area that had, respectively, well-defined, partially defined and poorly defined behavior settings. A large middle-income center was also chosen that had a varied clientel but had well defined, transitional, and poorly defined settings in different rooms. The effectiveness of this matching strategy was assessed by a Center Profile, a Teacher Style Rating Scale, and a Dimensions of Education Rating Scale (described below). No significant differences were found between centers, children or teachers on 23 of the 28 measures (82.14%). Remaining differences (center size, open versus traditional philosophy, and socio-economic status) were used as proxy pretest or control variables in subsequent analyses of covariance thus removing most of the initial group differences and increasing the interpretability of the quasi-experiment (Cook and Campbell, 1974, p. 114).

Subjects The subjects were selected on the basis of random space and time sampling. They ranged from 2.5 to 6 years of age. Each center was mapped and divided into a grid of cells. The days when each center were observed was determined randomly, the time of day and order of observing different rooms and spaces were determined randomly, and the time and order of observing particular cells were determined randomly. Every child starting in or entering a cell during an observational period was observed. All cells were observed equally over equal periods of time. Cases were the observational cells. A total number (N) of 1,061 cases were observed.

Physical environmental variables To ensure construct validity for the physical environmental variables, a detailed operational definition and rating scale were prepared for each level of spatial definition. The requirement that these scales focus on specific physical environmental variables meant that the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale of Harms and Clifford (1980) and our own Facility Inventories used in an earlier study of child care centers (Cohen et aL, 1978) were not appropriate. Inspection of the Harms and Clifford scale indicated that it deals more with the social than the physical environment, and in fact makes no distinctions between different types of physical settings. Our own earlier inventories were too general for the present study. The new pair of scales developed for this study are called the Early Childhood Physical Environment Scales. Using these scales, the validity of the selection of settings was tested by having a panel of three judges not familiar with the hypotheses independently rate each of the settings on a series of ten five-point items. The results of this pilot test indicated that the behavior settings were significantly different from each other in terms of spatial definition and always in line with the characterization given them by the principal investigator (paired sample t-tests ranging from 1-97 to 4.15, df = 59 to 119, P-values ranging from <0.05 to <0.001).

Subject group variables As the dependent behavioral consequences measured in this study were based on an ongoing 'treatment' (the ongoing program and design of each center), proxy 'pre'test


measures were collected on variables correlated with post-test scores.* Previous studies of child care setting have found several variables to be highly correlated with observational measures of children's behavior: children's socio-economic status (Reiss and Dyhdalo, 1975); age and gender of the children (Wright, 1975); achievement levels on various perceptual-cognitive tests, including on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale and Vocabulary, Torrance Creativity, California Achievement, Bender-Gestalt, and Hooper Visual Organization tests (Bell et al., 1974; Reiss and Dyhdalo, 1975; Wright, 1975); various measures of teacher style and philosophy of teaching, including the Dimensions of Schooling Questionnaire, Teacher Practices Observation Form, Teacher Belief Rating Scale, and Environmental Standards Profile (Prescott et al., 1972; Traub et al., 1972; Verma and Peters, 1975; Fowler, 1980); and size of center (Prescott et al., 1972). The variables measured on these tests and scales have been found to be potential pre-existing sample biases that could affect our dependent measures. As randomization was impossible in the present study, these variables were selected as proxy pretest measures, both to test for equivalence of non-equivalence of samples, and to use as covariates in subsequent analyses.

As the preschool centers used in the present study did not have perceptual- cognitive test scores for the children, and as the size of the sample and the age of the children made this very difficult to collect, achievement test scores were not used. But as center size is inversely related to the quality of child care (Prescott et al., 1972), centers were selected to be similar in number of children enrolled (most were medium sized centers between 25 and 75 children, M = 61-86, S.D. = 38-76), and data on number of children enrolled ('size') was recorded,

Ages in our sample ranged f rom 2.5 to just over 6 years of age (M = 4.3). Of the children, exactly 50% were boys and 50% girls; 85% were white, 6% black, 4% Hispanic and 5% of other ethnic groups. As only group data was available (access was limited to individual private data), socio-economic status was computed as an index based on average family income, ethnicity, and family education on a range from 0 to 7 (M = 4.04, S.D. = 2-69).

Finally, to measure any initial group differences in philosophy of education or style of teaching, two scales were developed. Some of the existing scales are cumbersome and time-consuming to administer (e.g. the Traub et al., 1972, Dimensions of Schooling Questionnaire contains 28 items each with five ~lternatives that must be ranked without ties and requires an elaborate scoring procedure), while others are very informal and are not susceptible to quantitative analysis (e.g. the interview procedures used by Prescott et al., 1972).

Two new scales were developed that incorporated portions of the work of Traub et al. and Prescott et al. The Traub et al. (1972) Dimensions of Schooling (DISC) questionnaire used extensively in Canada measures the openness versus closedness of general educational phi losophy (not the physical space) of preschools. It is

* This strategy is recommended by Cook and Campbell (1979, pp. 112-115) for the 'untreated control group design with proxy pretest measures'. As this particular quasi-experimental research design has not, to the best of my knowledge, been used previously in the environment-behavior literature, a brief description may help. From Cook and Campbell: 'Different pretest measures are also needed when evaluating the consequences of an ongoing practice, since in this case it may not be possible to collect any measures other than those found in the archives or those where changes are not likely to be affected by the treatment (e.g., stable characteristics like age, sex, or socioeconomic status). Such variables function in the design and analysis as proxies for the pretest' (p. 113).

216 G . T . Moore

comprised of ten subdimensions of openness-closedness with a total of 28 items. To simplify administration and scoring, two items were selected from each of the ten subdimensions and were transfered into Likert-type items. Thus, for example, the subdimension of 'student control' with items about rule-making and rule- enforcement was transformed into items about children being free to talk and move about (+ loading on openness) and about the rules of the room being set for the convenience of the teachers ( - loading on openness). The completed scale of general educational philosophy, comprised of 20 five-point items, is called the Early Education Dimensions of Education Rating Scale.

The second scale was based on the Prescott et al. (1972) Day Care Environmental Inventory. A factor analysis of 52 variables about patterns of teacher behavior (Prescott et al., 1972) indicated four bipolar dimensions of preschool teacher style: (1) encouragement versus restriction of the children; (2) conformity versus nonconformity to routine; (3) group versus individual teaching; and (4) fostering independence versus dependence. A Likert-type scale was developed for each of these dimensions by using the variables having the greatest positive and negative factor loadings (selected from Tables 1 to 4 of Prescott et al., 1972), and transforming each variable into a Likert-type item. Thus, for example, the scale for 'encouragement-restriction' was based on Likert-type statements about encouraging children to pursue their own interests (factor loading +0.89) and ensuring that children know the correct rules of social living (-0-31). Other scales were likewise developed for 'conformity-nonconformity', 'group-individual teaching,' and 'independency- dependency'. The completed scale of teacher styles, comprised of 16 five-point items, is called the Early Childhood Teacher Style Rating Scale.

Both sets of scales were validated by comparisons between the directors' and teachers' self-ratings at the largest center. Analysis with paired sample t-tests did not indicate any significant differences between self ratings and director's ratings on five of the six dimensions (t-values ranging from 0.25 to 1.43, df = 15, P > 0-10, not significant, for all t-values). Though the t-values were moderately low, this analysis suggests that the scales are valid indicators of the teachers' philosophies of education and practical styles of working with children.

Dependent behavioral variables An observational instrument was developed for the operationalized dependent variables suggested by the hypotheses (task versus transition time, degree of engagement, child-initiated versus staff-directed activity, exploratory behavior, type of social interaction, cooperative versus competitive behavior, teacher involvement, and teacher-teacher interactions). The research literature was" scoured for the most appropriate and reliable measures, with an eye to using existing measures, adapting them or, as a last resort, developing a new instrument.

Many observational schedules have been used in the literature, but none was found that covered the needed range of behaviors. For example, schedules have been developed for observing and recording attention span in classroom settings (Kupietz and Richardson, 1978), active engagement versus disordered behavior (Doke, 1975), teacher-child interactions (Passman and Weisberg, 1975; Jennings et al., 1979), and other single behaviors. Many other studies in the literature, because they use experimental designs, measure these behaviors through predetermined games or puzzles (e.g. Vlietstra, 1978), a procedure not applicable to a naturalistic


field study such as the present one. The closest observational schedules to that needed for the present study have been reported in the environment-behavior literature by Prescott et al. (1972), Harms and Clifford (1980), Perkins (1980), and Smith and Connolly (1980).

Based on review of the above, an Environment/Behavior Observation Schedule for Early Childhood Environments appropriate for the present study was con- structed. The main data recording sheet is comprised of three types of observations: (1) setting, (2) individuals and (3) observed behaviors.

The major portion of the observation schedule is given over to space for recording observed behaviors in seven categories: (a) general type of behavior (engagement, transitional, functional, random and withdrawn); (b) initiation of behavior (spontaneous free, individual directed and group-directed); (c) quality of exploratory behavior (immersed, somewhat involved, not involved); (d) type of social interaction (cooperation, competition, aggression, affection); (e) degree of social interaction (reciprocated, acknowledged, not acknowledged, no social interaction); (f) type of teacher involvement (co-action, encouragement, control, information, observation, presence but no involvement, no teacher present); and (g) type of teacher-teacher interaction (group, colleague, observation, more than one teacher but no interaction, one or no teacher present). Ordinal and interval scales were developed within categories (e.g. distracted, attending and immersed under the category of engagement; parallel, associative and cooperative under cooperation).

Each of the categories and scales was based on the existing research literature for that behavior type. For example, Parten's (Parten, 1932; Parten and Newhall, 1943) conceptualization of the stages of social participation of preschool children has become one of the classics of child psychology. She introduced six categories of social participation in play behavior: unoccupied behavior, solitary play, onlooker behavior, parallel play, associative play, and cooperative play. This category system has been used in many studies and has been simplified and re-examined (e.g. Smith, 1978). In the present case, Parten's six categories have been divided into two sections of the Observation Schedule. The two behaviors that are not strictly play behaviors (unoccupied and onlooker) were recorded under 'general type of behavior', while the four types of social play (solitary, parallel, associative and cooperative) were recorded under 'type of social interaction--degree of cooperation'.

While space does not permit giving all the operational definitions here, a sample of the most important observational categories used for later analyses can be sum- marized:

Engagement Child is visually and/or physically involved with a point of focus. Point of focus may be another person, object or activity. Behaviors include looking at, listening to, participating in a prescribed or spontaneously initiated activity with, and/or touching or manipulating the point of focus.

Random behavior Behavior that is nondirected and shifts rapidly from one setting or object to another. Includes behavior that is hyperactive, impulsive, fast moving, and ineffective, and actions that are incomplete.

218 G . T . Moore

Withdrawn Behavior that is not focused on any activity. Characteristic behaviors include vacant staring, staying close to adults without visually or physically exploring the environment, and indications of fearfulness such as crying, hiding, thumb-sucking, auto-manipulation, and trembling.

Initiation of behavior--child-initiated.vs, staff-directed behavior The person or persons who initiated, suggested, or directed the behavior observed based on the sequence of behaviors in a setting, e.g. a staff member initiating a sequence of behaviors by offering 'options ' or 'choices', versus the child choosing from among activities available without anyone having suggested which activities to do.

Exploration Behavior that is directed toward investigating, examining, studying, or searching for an object, activity, person, setting or other points of focus, including inspection, asking questions, manipulat ion and producing effects, etc.

Based on these and similar considerations, a detailed set of operational definitions and coding book were prepared for training observers, for checking reliablility, and for use in the observation sessions.* For ease of recording, the schedule was reduced to one page, as shown in Fig. 9.

After three training sessions, interobserver agreement was significantly high (percentage of exact agreement = 85.71, P <0.001; kappa k = 0-86, P <0.001).

Procedure The study was conducted in three phases. First, centers were located and contacted, permission forms for the teachers and parents of children were completed, and demographic profiles were filled out by the center director and parents. Second, each teacher in the 14 selected centers was asked to fill out the Teacher Style Rating Scale and the Dimensions of Education Rating Scale. Third, the children's and staff's behaviors were observed in each of the settings on a random space and time sampling basis.

The observer stationed herself in a position in each room that would provide views of all portions of the room, but would not interfere with the children's behavior (e.g. the corner of a large loft, a chair behind a bookcase, in a corner of the room). This was done with sufficient time before the beginning of observation to allow the children to adapt to the new person in the room. A mini-tape-recorder with unobtrusive ear-plug, clipboard with observation forms, and pencils were all the equipment needed by each observer. There were no obvious signs of disruption or complaints caused by our observations.

Observations were conducted by two trained observers over a period of a month. They were done for 20 min sessions, then a 5 min break, and then additional sessions of 20 min each for a 2.5 hour observational period. Each observation lasted for 10 s (timed by beeps on the tape-recorder) with 1 min and 50 s for recording and a deep breath. At each time beep of the recorder, the observer moved her attention to the next randomly selected observation cell.

* The behavior mapping instrument, called the Environment/Behavior Observation Schedule for Early Childhood Environments, together with operational definitions and coding book and the other scales used in this study are available from the author.

ENVIRONMENT/BEHAVIOR OBSERVATION SCHEDULE FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD ENVIRONMENTS

Observer _ _ Date _ _ Time _ _ Seq # - -

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Location of the Observed Behavior

Center [ ] [ ]

Room/Area [ ] [ ]

Observational Cell [ ]

INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED The Number and Characteristics of Children and Adults Involved

Group Size [] Children []

Adults [ ]

Genders Girls [ ]

Boys [ ]

Ages 2 to 3 [ ]

3to4 [ ]

4 to5 [ ]

5to6 [ ]

6 and over [ ]

Ethnicity White [ ]

Black [ ]

Hispanic [-7

Other [ ]

OBSERVED BEHAVIORS Observable Behaviors Charact as a Whole or for Most of the Observation Segment

SECTION i: GENERAL TYPE OF BEHAVIOR

Engag .... t [ ] I . . . . sed [ ]

Attending [ ]

Distracted [ ]

Transitional [ ] Only Transitional [ ]

Partially Transitional [ ]

Primarily Engaged [ ]

Functional [ ] Only Functional [ ]

Partially Functional [ ]

Primarily Engaged [ ]

Random [ ] No Sustained Activity [ ]

Directed Interest [ ]

Spontaneous Interest [ ]

Withdrawn [] Vacant Staring []

Intermlttant Focusing []

Passive Observation [ ]

Empty Cell [ ] Unclear [ ]

The School of The Archilccture .U0iversity of

& Ur4b~n Wisconsin. Planning Milwaukee

(~ntc:r Ex Architecture & L ~ n t~nning Rc"scatt~

OBSERVED BEHAVIORS {continued)

SECTION 2: CHILD-INITIATED VS STAFF-DIRECTED BEHAVIOR

Initiated [ ] Spontaneous Free [ ]

Individual Directed [ ]

Group Directed [ ]

Unclear [ ]

SECTION 3: EXPLORATION

Exploration [ ] Immersed [ ]

Somewhat Involved [ ]

Not Applicable[] Unclear [ ]

SECTION 4: SOCIAL INTERACTION

Interaction [ ] Reciprocated [ ]

Acknowledged [ ]

Not Acknowledged []

Not Applicable[] Unclear [ ]

SECTION S: COOPERATION, COMPETETION, AGGRESSION, AFFECTION

Cooperation [ ] Cooperative Activity [ ]

Associative Activity [ ]

Parallel Activity []

Competition [ ] Absolute Gains [ ]

Relative Gains [ ]

Rivalry [ ]

Aggression [ ] Physical Attack [ ]

Threatened Attack [ ]

Verbal Abuse [ ]

Affection [ ] Intimate Physical [ ]

Friendly Physical [ ]

Verbal [ ]

Not Applicable [ ] Unclear [ ]

SECTION 6: TYPE OF TEACHER INVOLVEMENT

Involvement [ ] Co-Action [ ]

Encouragement [ ]

Control []

Information [ ]

Observation [ ]

No Involvement [ ]


SECTION 7: TYPE OF STAFF-STAFF INTERACTION

Interaction [ ] Group [ ]

Colleague [ ]

Peer Observation [ ]

NO Interaction [ ]


FIOURE 9. The Environment-Behavior Observation Schedule (behavior map) for Early Childhood Environments. Complete instructions for its use are available from the author.

220 G.T. Moore

Data analysis The results of interactions between physical environmental variables (the spatial definition of behaviour settings), subject group variables (the various measures of teacher style and philosophy of teaching), and resultant dependent behavioral variables (social and cognitive b e h a v i o r s ) w e r e analysed using multivariate parametric and non-parametric statistics available in the SPSS package (Nie et al., 1981). Included were nominal and ordinal data analysed by three-way Z 2 tests controlling for subject and environmental variables and Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance with ranks.

The majority of the data was interval in level and was analysed using three-way factorial analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) on the adjusted means on the dependent variables with two covariates, for example, settings x teacher styles x dimensions of education, with socio-economic status and center size as covariates *. This analysis was deemed most appropriate for the data collected for a number of reasons, among them that the physical environmental variables (the spatial definition of behavior settings) and the subject group variables (the scales of teacher style and of open versus traditional philosophy of education) were independent of each other, that the factorial analysis allows the important and too-often neglected analysis of interaction effects, that the covariates though gathered concomitantly with the dependent measures served as appropriate proxies for pretest variables (Cook and Campbell, 1979), that the proxy pretest covariates are stable characteristics and therefore not likely to be affected by the treatment, and that the analysis of covariance allows the analysis of F-scores based on adjusted means, SS, MS and df, or, said differently, the analysis of covariance is appropriate for eliminating any initial group differences remaining after the matching of centers and subject groups. Power was increased by using multiple covariates which were also un-correlated with each other. The covariates and dependent variables were assumed to be colinear, though this was not tested directly.

The A N C O V A procedures are not without difficulty and potential sources of bias, however, when used with intact groups and the non-equivalent control group design. This has been discussed in detail by Reichardt (1979). Despite the matching, multiple treatment levels, and analysis of covariance of some of the expectedly most important remaining initial group differences, the presence of other selection differences between the groups is inevitable. Unfortunately, various forms of experimental control, randomization and design elaboration are not possible in many field settings, leading to a balancing act between internal and external validity. A degree of uncertainty always remains in quasi-experimental non-equivalent control group studies, and despite relatively powerful quantitative analysis of the data, the results and conclusions below must be rendered as tentative and suggestive of causal connections, not as conclusively demonstrative.

Results

The findings are presented in terms of four subsets of hypotheses, those pertaining

* All reported Fs and df in the analyses of covariance pertain to adjusted means on the dependent variables due to the use of the covariates within the statistical analyses. Though collection occurred concomitantly with that of the dependent variables, the proxy pretest variables used as covariates meet the assumption that scores on the covariate not be influenced by the treatment variables as they are stable characteristics of the subjects and centers.


to (a) style of behavior and degree of engagement, (b) child-initiated and exploratory behavior, (c) group sizes and cooperative behavior, and (d) teacher involvement. Each will be examined in turn.

But first, a binomial test of proportions indicated that child care centers with well defined behavior settings have significantly more such settings (sometimes referred to as 'activity pockets') than centers with moderately and poorly defined areas (Z- values ranging from 1.73 to 2.04, P-values ranging from < 0-05 to < 0-02). That is, not only do some centers tend to have better defined behavior settings, but they also tend to have more of them. In many cases this is because the same overall square footage is subdivided into smaller, and therefore better defined 'pockets'. It remains to be seen whether this has any impact on behavior.

Style o f behavior and degree of engagement Contrary to expectation, the incidence of engaged versus random and withdrawn behaviors did not differ between different types of behavior settings (~(2 = 2.91, df = 2, P > 0.20, not significant; see Table 1). A three-way Z 2 analysis was

TABLE 1 General categories of observed behavior in spacially well-defined, partially

defined and poorly defined behavior settings

Partially Poorly Well-defined defined defined

Engaged behavior 38-9 25.0 26-2 3-3 3.1 3.5

Note. Transitional and functional behaviors are omitted from this table as they do not figure in the hypothesis under analysis, and proportions have been adjusted accordingly to total 100%.

Z2 = 2.91, df = 2, P > 0.20, not significant.

performed to see if, in the absence of main effects, there might be any interaction effects. The results indicated a small but statistically significant relationship. For centers with teachers scoring high on the scale of open educational philosophy, there was a significant interaction between the definition of the behaviour setting and the philosophy of education jointly affecting engaged styles of behavior (~(z = 4-68, df = 1, P < 0.05). The physical environment and teaclfing philosophy appear to reinforce each other in affecting engaged versus non-engaged behavior only at the 'highest' levels of both spatial definition and open educational philosophy.

Inspection of the three-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) in Table 2 indicates that, where it does occur, the degree of engagement is more intense depending on the spatial definition of the behavior setting (F = 6-51, df = 2, 654, P < 0.01) and the overall size of the center (F = 20.40, df = 1,654, P < 0-001). A follow-up multiple classification analysis (Nie et al., 1981) and an ordinal Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance with ranks confirmed that it was indeed in the spatially well- defined behavior settings where the most immersed forms of engaged behavior occurred (Kruskal-Wallis; Z 2 = 30-59, df = 2, P <0.001).

222 G . T . Moore

TABLE 2 Degree of engaged behavior in spatially well-defined, partially defined and

poorly defined behavior settings

Source of Variation Adjusted df Adjusted MS F

Covariates SES 1 1.89 3.60 Center size 1 10.71 20.40"**

Main effects Behavior setting 2 3"41 6.51 ** Teacher styles 2 0.42 0.81 Open-traditional 1 0-54 1-02

Explained 7 2.93 5.58 *** Residual 654 0.53

Note. Due to empty cells or a singular matrix, interactions could not be calculated. ** P < 0-01, *** P < 0.001.

TABLE 3 Initiation of behavior in spatially well-defined, partially defined and poorly defined behavior

set tings

Variation N M s.o.

Well-defined settings 419 1.93 0.81 Transitional settings 296 1.91 0.80 Poorly defined settings 308 1-98 0.81


Covariates SES 1 1.45 2.31 Center size 1 3.70 5.88

Main effects Behavior setting 2 0.04 0.06 Teacher styles 2 1.54 2.44 Open-traditional 1 11.09 17.61 ***

Explained 7 2-57 4.08 *** Residual 1009 0"63

Note. Due to empty cells or a singular matrix, interactions could not be calculated. * P < 0.05, *** P < 0.001.

The initiation of behavior and exploratory behavior A 3 x 3 x 2 analysis o f covar iance with two covar ia tes (behav ior set t ing x teacher

styles × ph i l o sophy o f educ t ion , wi th SES and center size as covar ia tes) showed no evidence o f a m a i n effect for the def ini t ion o f behav io r set t ings no r for teacher styles on whether ch i ldren or s ta f f in i t ia ted behav io ra l sequences ( F < 1-0, no t significant), but did indicate a significant ma in effect for p h i l o s o p h y o f educa t ion ( F = 17-61, d f = 1, 1,009, P < 0-001; see Tab le 3). Due to e m p t y cells or a s ingular matr ix , in teract ions cou ld no t be ca lcu la ted on this th ree -way analysis o f var iance . Thus a pa i r o f two-way analyses were conduc ted , first us ing teacher style and set t ing as the ma in factors, and then us ing educa t iona l p h i l o s o p h y (open- t r ad i t iona l ) and sett ing


TABLE 4 Exploratory behavior in spatially well-defined, partially defined and poorly defined behavior

settings

Variation N M S.D.

Well-defined settings 434 0"78 0.91 Partially defined settings 304 0.59 0.79 Poorly defined settings 317 0"65 0'79


Covariates SES 1 1-20 1.61 Center size 1 7-54 10-84"**

Main effects Behavior setting 2 4-10 5.90 **

Teacher styles 2 1.60 2.30 Open-traditional 1 2.23 3-21 Explained 7 2-85 4.09 *** Residual 1009 0"70

Note. Due to empty cells or a singular matrix, interactions could not be calculated. ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001.

TABLE 5 Relative group size, number of children, and number of adults in spatially well-defined, partially


Well- Partially Poorly defined defined defined df MS F

2 34.82 1.17 Group size M 5.54 5-83 5.16 S.D. 5.02 6"90 4.39 Residual

No. of children M 4-93 4.86 4-34 S.D. 4"58 6-21 3"57 Residual

No. of adults M 0.64 0.97 0"83 S.D. 0'75 1.21 1"10 Residual

1058 29-86

2 35-35

1058 23.56

2 9.87

1058 1-01

1.50

9.74*** -

*** P < 0-001.

as the ma in factors. In bo th cases, while again a ma in effect for behavior setting did no t appear, there were significant interact ions between env i ronmen t and style (F = 8.87, d f = 2, 1,009, P < 0.001) and between env i ronment and phi losophy (F = 2.74, df = 2, 92, P < 0.05) in affecting the ini t ia t ion of behavior. Thus, while the env i ronmen t by itself does no t seem to have a significant ma in effect on the in i t ia t ion of behavior, well-defined behavior settings and open styles of educat ion reinforce each other in jointly affecting who initiates behavioral sequences.

224 G . T . Moore

TABLE 6 Degree of social interaction in spatially well-defined, partially defined and poorly defined

behavior settings

Variation N M S.D.

Well-defined settings 436 1.56 1.38 Partially defined settings 303 0.95 1-23 Poorly defined settings 315 1.10 1.28


Covariates SES 1 7-20 4-34" Center size 1 0.17 0.10

Main effects Behavior setting 2 12.81 7"72"** Teacher styles 2 10-76 6.49 ** Open-traditional 1 5.01 3.02

Explained 7 7-77 4.68 *** Residual 621 1.66

Note. Due to empty cells or a s ingu la r mat r ix , in te rac t ions cou ld no t be calculated. * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001.

TABLE 7

Proportion of cooperative versus competitive behavior in spatially, well- defined, partially defined and poorly defined behavior settings

Well-defined Partially defined Poorly defined

Competition 0-2 2-1 1"4 Cooperation 41 "8 25.6 29.0

Note. Z 2 = 15.87, df = 2, P < 0.001.

With regard to exploratory behavior, the results of the 3 x 3 x 2 analysis of covariance with two covariates in Table 4 indicate that exploration is directly related to the spatial definition of behavior settings (F = 5.90, df = 2, 1,009, P < 0-01) and inversely to center size (F = 10.84, df = 1, 1,009, P < 0.001). A follow-up multiple classification analysis confirmed that the highest degree of exploratory behavior occurred in spatially well-defined behavior settings in contrast to moderately and poorly defined settings. Two-way analyses of variance on exploratory behavior did not turn up any evidence for interaction effects between the environment and style or philosophy of eduction (F-values ranging f rom 0-89 to 1.72, df = 2, 1,009, P-values > 0.20, not significant).

Group size and social interaction Table 5 indicates no evidence for any difference in the number of children or total group size between centers with spatially well-defined, transitional, or poorly defined behavior settings (F-values ranging f rom 1.17 to 1.50, df = 2, 1,058, not significant), but does suggest significantly fewer adults involved in activity pockets when they

Spatial Definition of Behavior Settings

TABLE 8 Level o f teacher involvement with children in spatially well-defined, partially


225

Well-defined Partially defined Poorly defined

N of instances 205 166 159 M ranks 252.31 253.12 295.42

Note. Kruskal-Wallis: ;t 2 = 9.16, df = 2, P < 0.01.

are well-defined and resource rich (20% less adults present than in either of the other types o f activity areas; F = 9.74, d f = 2, 1,058, P < 0.001; see Table 5).

Table 6 indicates that the degree o f social interaction among children was significantly affected by the architectural definition o f behavior settings (F = 7.72, d f = 2, 621, P < 0.001), by the style o f teachers a round the children (F = 6.49, d f = 2, 621, P < 0.01), and by the socioeconomic background of the children (F = 4.34, d f = 1, 621, P < 0.05). A follow-up multiple classification analysis confirmed that the highest degree o f social interaction occurs in well-defined settings (M = 1.55, midway on a scale f rom 0 to 3, and almost 0.50 higher than partially or poor ly defined settings).

Table 7 gives us more informat ion about the type o f social interactions occurring in these settings, and indicates that cooperat ive versus competit ive interactions are strongly related to type o f behavior setting (Z 2 = 15-87, d f = 2, P < 0.001), again with teacher style also influencing the type o f interactions (Z 2 = 6.15, df = 2, P < 0.05). A three-way X 2 analysis indicated a s t rong interaction---cooperative behavior is more p ronounced in well-defined settings staffed by teachers with strongly open styles o f educat ion (Z2 = 14.34, d f = 2, P < 0.001).

Teacher involvement with children The final analysis inquired about possible differences in teacher or care-giver involvement with the Children in the three types o f behavior settings. As the entries on the observat ion schedule for this dependent variable were ordinal in level, a Kruskal -Wal l i s one-way analysis o f variance with ranks was conducted. The results in Table 8 indicate a significant difference in the level o f teacher involvement with children as a funct ion o f the definition o f the setting (Kruskal-Wall is : ;(2 = 9.16, d f = 2, P < 0.01). Teachers are more involved with the children in active ways (co-action and encouragement , in contras t to passive observat ion or controlling behavior) in centers having spatially well-defined activity pockets than in centers with less well-defined behavior settings.*

Summary and Discussion

This study was designed to address two sets o f hypotheses: (1) that there are

* A comment has been requested regarding the type of activities (e.g., crafts, arts, reading, science, building, etc.) observed in the different behavior settings. No hard data was collected on this, but it did appear that while all centers had a full range of child care activities, centers with the better defined behavior settings tended to have more of a one-to-one relation between activities and particular settings, while activities seemed to meander all over the place in the more poorly defined centers.

226 G . T . Moore

more developmentally supportive behaviors in child care centers characterized by architecturally well-defined behavior settings than in centers with poorly defined behavior settings; and (2) that there are complex interactions linking characteristics of individuals to characteristics of environments in influencing children's behavior. The study attempted to address these issues in a field setting, using a systematic naturalistic observation and quasi-experimental research design in a way that results could be looked at with a fair amount of methodological rigor and analytic control.

The findings from this study might be considered somewhat equivocal. Centers with better architecturally defined behavior settings seem to have an impact on certain behaviors, but not on others. For example, contrary to expectation, no differences were found between engaged versus random and withdrawn behaviors in different types of behavior settings. While a relation was found between these variables for centers with teachers espousing a very open educational philosophy, the relation was mild and must be t rea ted with caution. Similarly, no evidence was found for any effects of the definition of behavior settings on who initiates activities-- child or staff--while a significant and strong relationship was found between teacher philosophy and who initiated activities. Not surprisingly, open philosophy teachers permit children to initiate activities more than their traditional colleagues.

On the other hand, several analyses indicated quite clearly that the architectural definition of behavior settings is significantly related to other behaviors such as the degree of engagement in developmentally supportive activities and the amount of exploratory behavior. Considerably more engaged or immersed behaviors with little or no time spent watching other activities or being interrupted occurs in architecturally well-defined behavior settings than in poorly defined settings. Similarly, considerably more exploratory behavior occurs in and around well-defined settings than poorly defined ones. This finding for exploratory behavior held across all proxy variables, and seems to be uninfluenced by other subject or group variables.

Another pair of relationships were found for the type and the degree of social interaction among children. Cooperative behavior occurs most often in well defined settings, and competitive behavior seems to be related in part to poorly defined settings. The fact that poorly defined settings are in many cases also What we call 'resource poor ' settings with a relative lack of materials visible and readily available to the child may account in part for this difference (cf. the findings of Smith and Connolly, 1980). Similarly, the degree of social interaction among children is related to the definition of the setting in which the interaction takes place, with the degree of social interaction being highest in spatially well defined setl~ings. Finally, the style of teacher interaction is related to definition of behavior settings, with teachers more involved with the children in active, encouraging ways.

How are we to account for these findings that the spatial definition of behavior settings is related to degree of engagement, amount of exploratory behavior, degree of social interaction, cooperative behavior in particular, and active styles of teacher involvement, but not to engaged versus random-withdrawn behavior or who initiates behavioral episodes? While some might be sanguine with a score of five goals against two in favor of spatially well-defined behavior settings, the lack of two hypothesized relationships, or why these two particular measured behaviors failed to follow the general trend, deserves attention.

One possible interpretation is that certain classes of behaviors in child care settings may be so strongly influenced by social environmental variables (in this case teacher


styles and philosophy of education) that the physical environment does not--and maybe cannot--have an independent impact. This interpretation gains some support from the pair of findings that both of the negative results--initiation of behavior and type of behavior--were significantly related in the first case to an open philosophy of education and in the second case to a mild interaction between open philosophy and type of setting. Nothing behind this study presupposes an environmental deter- minist, or empiricist orientation, and these findings are in fact not supportive of a strictly empiricist theory (this general point is discussed in more detail in Moore, in press).

Another possibility is that only certain types of behaviors, perhaps those that are inherently more active adaptations to the environment (like immersion in activities and exploratory behavior) and those that are more small-group social (like reciprocated social interaction, mutual cooperation, and co-action between staff and children), are subject to the influences of well articulated spatial settings that are acoustically and visually separated, provide a stage-set for less interruptions and longer attention spans, and thus to greater involvement in cognitive and social developmental activities. The social behavior side of this interpretation gains some tangential support from the findings of Smith and ConnoUy (1980) that children play in smaller social groups or switch from larger parallel subgroups to smaller parallel subgroups when resources are increased; it may be that they are affected in this way both by the definition of the space and by the amount of resources, but this remains to be tested. Similarily, the possibility that the spatial definition of behavior settings may effect social and exploratory behaviors through the mediating variables of less interruptions and longer attention spans was not tested in the present study and awaits empirical investigation.

For many of these issues, however, significant interaction effects were found for group x setting interactions. For example, we saw that there was a significant interaction between the definition of behavior settings and the philosophy of education jointly affecting engagement in developmentally supportive behaviors. Similarly, the degree of spatial definition of behavior settings and teacher styles (open styles of preschool education) combine to affect the amount of behavioral episodes initiated by children versus by teachers. And third, the type of social interaction among children---cooperation in particular--is related to the definition of the setting in interaction with the teaching style of the staff members present.

A caveat must, however, be offered. The work of Smith and Connolly (1980) indicated that not only is the amount of space important in predicting the type of play observed in preschools, but also one must take into account the scarcity or abundance of resources within that space. They found, for example, that when more equipment was available, children play in smaller subgroups or switch from large parallel subgroups to smaller parallel subgroups or solitary play. The present study included a rough measure of the amount of resources available within the behavior setting as one of the ten defining characteristics of well defined settings. Due to the quasi-experimental nature of the present study, where the independent environmental treatment variables could not be directly manipulated or changed, but where existing centers were used as the basis for study, it was not possible to systematically vary the amount of resources independently of the degree of implied spatial enclosure. These two important facets of what we have previously termed 'Resource-Rich Activity Pockets' (Pattern 908 of Moore et al., 1979) remain to be disentangled in future studies.

228 G.T. Moore

The study lends considerable support for an interactional theory of environment and behavior. According to the model described in the introduction, children's behavior in everyday environments can usefully be seen in ecological terms. According to this general theory, behavior is a function of the total ecological environment surrounding the individual or group.

[Jnlike most earlier approaches in the social sciences, the current model suggests that it may be important to see the 'environment' as involving physical components, while in contrast to many approaches in the professions concerned with the physical environment, the current model also suggests the importance of seeing the 'environment' as involving social components. The approach taken here, therefore, intentionally crossed social and physical factors in trying to understand children's behavior in everyday situations. The position is taken that to understand any behavior in its ecological context it is necessary to understand the effects of both social and physical environmental factors, and the interaction between the two. A few investigations and more general analyses of behavior have begun to incorporate the physical component on equal footing with the social context in the analysis of behavior (e.g. Stokols, 1981; Stokols and Schumaker, 1981).

The interactional theory gains considerable support from the findings on group x setting interactions. Specifically, the results show many examples where the social environment and the physical environment do not act independently of each other in affecting behavior but, rather, there are highly significant interactions between the backgrounds of the children, the teaching philosophy and style of the staff, and the character of the physical environment in affecting both cognitive and social behavior.

Several writers have talked about the 'fit' or 'synomorphy' between environment and behavior where the tendencies of the organism and the configuration and character of the physical environment are congruent (e.g. Barker, 1968; Alexander et al., 1977). One would hope that those involved in the environmental social sciences and the design professions would turn to the difficult but necessary task of adapting environments to people in order to contribute both to the quality of the environment and to the quality of life. The current findings suggest some directions for achieving these types of fit between the socio-physical environment and human behavior.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts No. AZ15533-80. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the Division of Population and Environmental Psychology, American Psychological Association annual convention, Anaheim, California, August 1983.

My thanks to Seymour Wapner and Ina Uzgiris for their advice on the Study, to Naomi Leiseroff and Marleen Sobczak for assistance in data collection, to Thomas Laurent for assistance in data analysis, and to Sherry Ahrentzen, David Canter, Roger Hart, Daniel Stokols, David Stea and two anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft.

References

Abt Associates. (1979). Children at the Center: Final Report o f the National Day Care Study. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

Aiello, J. F., Gordon, B. and Farrell, T. J. (1974). Description of children's outdoor activities


in a suburban residential area. In D. H. Carson (ed.), Man-Environment Interactions, Part 6. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S. and Silverstein, M. (1977). A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford University Press.

Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological Psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Standford University Pressl Barker, R. G., Dembo, T. and Lewin, K. (1941). Frustration and regression. University of

Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, 18 (Whole No. 1). Bechtel, R. Enclosing Behavior. (1977). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross. Bell, A. E., Switzer, F. and Zipursky, M. A. (1974). Open area education: an advantage or

disadvantage for beginners? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39, 407-416. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). The ecology of human development in retrospect and prospect.

In H. McGurk (ed.), Ecological Factors in Human Development. Amsterdam: North- Holland.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brunswik, E. (1943). Organismic achievement and environmental probability. Psychological Review, 50, 255-272.

Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in field settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 297-312.

Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Canter, D. (1977). The Psychology of Place. New York: St. Martins. Carp, F. (1966). A Future for the Aged. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Cohen, U,, Moore, G. T. and McGinty, T. (1978). Case Studies of ChildPlay Areas and Child

Support Facilities. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Center for Architecture and Urban Planning Research.

Cook, T. D. and Campbell, D. T. (1976). The design and conduct of quasi-experiments and true experiments in field settings. In M. D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Cook, T. D. and Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation. Chicago: Rand MeNally. Doke, L. A. (1975). The organization of day care environments: formal versus informal

activities. Child Care Quarterly, 4, 216-222. Fowler, W. (1980) Environmental standards profile: Method of assessing quality group core

and education of young children. Infant and Child Care, Vol. 2. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gump, P. V. (1975). Ecological Psychology and Children. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press. Gump, P. V. (1978). School environments. In I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (eds), Children

and the Environment. New York: Plenum. Harms, T. and Clifford, R. M. (1980). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale. New York:

Teachers College Press. Jennings, K. D., Harmon, R. J., Morgan, G. A., Gaiter, J. L. and Yarrow, L. J. (1979).

Exploratory play as an index of mastery motivation: Relationships to persistence, cognitive functioning, and environmental measures. Developmental Psychology, 15, 386- 394.

Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New York: Harcourt. Kupietz, S. S. and Richardson, E. (1978). Children's vigilance performance and inattentiveness

in the classroom. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 19, 145-154. Lewin, K. (1951). Behavior as a function of the total situation. In K. Lewin, Field Theory in

Social Science (D. Cartwright, ed.). New York: Harper. Millar, S. (1968). The Psychology of Play. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin. Moore, G. T. (1979). Environment-behavior studies. In J. C. Snyder and A. J. Catanese

(eds), Introduction to Architecture. New York: McGraw-Hill. Moore, G. T. (1981). Holism, environmentalism, and ecological validity. Man-Environment

Systems, 11, 11-21. Moore, G. T. (in press). Environment and behavior research in North America: History,

developments, and unresolved issues. In D. Stokols and I. Altman (eds), Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: Wiley.

Moore, G. T., Lane, C. G., Hill, A. H., Cohen, U. and McGinty, T. (1979). Recommendations

230 G.T. Moore

for Child Care Centers. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Center for Architecture and Urban Planning Research.

Moore, G. T., Tuttle, D. P. and Howell, S. C. (1985). Environmental Design Research Directions. New York: Praeger.

Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K. and Bent, D. H. (1981). SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (2nd Edit.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Parten, M. B. (1932). Social participation among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27, 243-269.

Parten, M. B. and Newhall, S. M. (1943). Social behavior of preschool children. In R. G. Barker, J. S. Kounin and H. F. Wright (eds), Child Behaviour and Development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Passman, R. H. and Weisberg, P. (1975). Mothers and blankets as agents for promoting play and exploration by young children in a novel environment: the effects of social and nonsocial attachment objects. Developmental Psychology, 11, 170-177.

Perkins, E. P. (1980, March). An ecological assessment of two preschool environments. Paper presented at the Environmental Design Research Association Conference, Charleston, South Carolina.

Prescott, E., Kritchevsky, S. and Jones, E. (1972). The Day Care Environmental Inventory. Part 1 of Assessment of Child-Rearing Environments: An Ecological Approach. Pasadena, CA: Pacific Oaks College.

Proshansky, H. M. (1972). Methodology in environmental psychology: problems and issues. Human Factors, 14, 451460.

Reichardt, C. S. (1979). The statistical analysis of data from nonequivalent control group designs. In T. D. Cook and D. T. Campbell. Quasi-Experimentation. Boston: Houghton- Mifflin.

Reiss, S. and Dyhdalo, N. (1975). Persistence, achievement, and open-space environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 506-513.

Rosenthal, B. A. (1974). An ecological study of free play in the nursery school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1973. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34 (7-A), 4004A--4005A.

Schoggen, P. and Barker, R. G. (1977). Ecological factors in development in an American and an English small town. In H. McGurk (ed.), Ecological Factors in Human Develop- ment. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Shure, M. B. (1963). Psychological ecology of a nursery school. Child Development, 34, 979- 992.

Smith, P. K. (1978). A longitudinal study of social participation in preschool children: solitary and parallel play reexamined. Developmental Psychology, 14, 517-523.

Smith, P. K. and Connolly, K. J. (1980). The Ecology of Preschool Behaviour. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Stokols, D. (1981). Group x place transactions: some neglected issues in psychological research on settings. In D. Magnusson (ed.), Towarda Psychology of Situations. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Stokols, D. and Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in places: a transactional view of settings. In J. H. Harvey (ed.), Cognition, Social Behavior, and the Environment. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Tolman, E. C. and Brunswick, E. (1935). The organism and the causal texture of the environment. Psychological Review, 42, 43-77.

Traub, R. E., Weiss, J., Fisher, C. W. and Musella, D. (1972). Closure or openness: describing and quantifying open education. Interchange (Ontario Institute for Studies of Education), 3, 69-83.

Trites, D. K., Gailbraith, F. D,, Sturdavant, M. and Leckwart, J. F. (1970). Influence of nursing-unit design on the activities and subjective feelings of nursing personnel. Environment and Behavior, 2, 303-334.

Verma, S. and Peters, D. L. (1975). Daycare teachers practices and beliefs. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 21, 46-55.

Vlietstra, A. G. (1978). Exploration and play in preschool children and young adults. Child Development, 49, 235-238.

Wapner, S., Kaplan, B. and Cohen, S. B. (1973). An organismic-developmental perspective


for understanding the transactions of men and environments. Environment and Behavior, 5, 255-289.

Wicker, A. W. and Kirmeyer, S. L. (1976). From church to laboratory to national park. In S. Wapner, S. B. Cohen and B. Kaplan (eds), Experiencing the Environment. New York: Plenum.

Wohlwill, J. F. (1980). The confluence of environmental and developmental psychology: signpost for an ecology of development? Human Development, 23, 354-358.

Wright, R. J. (1975). The affective and cognitive consequences of an open education elementary school. American Educational Research Journal, 12, 449-468.

Zeisel, J. (1981). Inquiry by Design. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Manuscript received: 14 August 1985 Revised manuscript received." 4 April 1986

journal of environmental psychology (1986) 6, 205-231 center for

Documents