Page 49 - Second language development of newly arrived migrant kindergarteners - Frederike Groothoff

Theoretical perspectives 49 instructional support in the classroom, thus how the learning is happening in the classroom; b) the structural features of care, for example the child-to-staff ratio, cost of care, and professionalization of the staff, and c) the surrounding community and policy context. Phillips and Lowenstein further define high quality in ECE as a setting with features that foster positive developmental outcomes. Outcomes of studies about structural features of care are mixed and inconsistent, and they vary between countries regarding whether structural features influence the development of children (e.g., Early et al., 2006; Howes et al., 2008; Mashburn et al., 2008; Montie, Xiang, & Schweinhart, 2006; Slot, Lerkkanen, & Leseman, 2015b). Early et al. (2006) for example investigated the association between teachers’ education levels and gains in children’s outcomes in the United States. They concluded that education, training, and credentialing are not consistently related to classroom quality in programs that serve 4- year olds or other academic gains for these children. Montie et al. (2006) compared results from 15 different countries and found that the structural feature group size at age 4 was not related to language or cognitive outcomes at age 7. However, after further analysis they concluded that the relation “between group size and adult-child ratio and process characteristics are country-specific rather than universal” (Montie et al., 2006, p. 329). Slot et al. (2015b) found that single structural quality features of ECE are not consistently related to process quality. However, some configurations of structural characteristics did influence process quality. One of the five countries in their analysis was the Netherlands, and they found some main effects and interaction effects in their data about ECE for children from 2 to 6 years old. A smaller group size in combination with more unfavorable child-to-staff ratio was related to higher scores on emotional and behavioral support. Furthermore, more work experience of the teachers was related to higher quality in all domains of process quality and curriculum quality. Additionally, when a center provided more professional development opportunities, this was related to higher curriculum quality. Nevertheless, process quality has been found to be a better predictor of child outcomes than indicators of structural quality (see Mashburn et al., 2008; Whitebook, 1989). Process quality or program quality (Pianta et al., 2005; Mashburn et al., 2008) refers to the direct experiences of children while they are enrolled in ECE. These experiences are proximal-level interactions and transactions among teachers, children and also materials (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Pianta, 2003). It includes the ways in which teachers organize routines and implement activities and lessons. Furthermore, it concerns how teachers make interesting materials available to children. Finally, it is about the quality of teachers’ interactions with children (Hamre & Pianta, 2007; Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998). According to Van Schaik, Leseman, and De Haan (2018) “high process quality is defined as reflecting a setting where teacher–child relationships and interactions are warm,