Learning-Related Behaviors and Literacy Achievement in Elementary
School-Aged Children
Deborah Stipek and Stephen Newton,
School of Education, Stanford University.
Amita Chudgar
College of Education, Michigan State University.
In press, Early Childhood Research Quarterly
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620184/description
Stanford University makes this peer-reviewed final draft available under a Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercial License. The published version will be available from the publisher, subscribing libraries,
and the author.
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
Abstract
This longitudinal study investigated associations between children’s learning-related behaviors
and literacy achievement in an ethnically diverse sample of low-income children throughout
elementary school. Children’s literacy and learning-related behavior (e.g., working
independently, seeking challenges) were assessed when they were in kindergarten or first grade
and again in the third and fifth grades. The results showed fair consistency over time in both
learning-related behaviors and literacy skills. Learning-related behaviors in one grade predicted
literacy achievement in the subsequent grade in which it was assessed, but literacy skills did not
predict subsequent learning-related behaviors.
2
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
3
Learning-Related Behaviors and Literacy Achievement in Elementary School-Aged
Children
In this era of accountability, educators are being asked to increase students’ academic
achievement and to reduce the socioeconomic and racial achievement gap. The federal No Child
Left Behind law does not require student testing until third grade, but teachers in the early
elementary grades are being pressured to emphasize the literacy and math skills that will
ultimately be tested (Miller & Almon, 2009). Because the achievement gap exists when children
enter school (Stipek & Ryan, 1997), districts and states are also broadening access to preschool
as a strategy for improving children’s academic success in school (Barnett, Epstein, Friedman,
Stevenson Boyd, & Hustedt, 2008).
Evidence for the benefits of preschool education is strong now (see reviews by Barnett,
1995; Farran, 2000), but controversy continues about which dimensions of children’s
development should be emphasized. While policy makers focus on academic achievement, early
childhood educators complain, along with some early elementary school grade teachers, that
skills and behaviors on other dimensions are also important, both in their own right and because
they contribute to academic success (Stipek, 2006a, 2006b).
Empirical evidence on the behaviors in early childhood that contribute to learning can be
used to guide decisions about which dimensions of children’s development deserve special
attention in efforts to improve achievement. The current study examines learning-related
behaviors, such as working independently, seeking challenges, and accepting responsibility—
what teachers and parents might refer to as good work habits.
The learning-related behaviors examined in this study are connected to a large array of
behaviors and cognitive processing skills under the rubric of self-regulation. There has been a
proliferation of constructs and measures related to self regulation in recent years, in part because
of evidence connecting various aspects of self-regulation to academic performance. The
constructs and measures can be categorized, admittedly somewhat arbitrarily, into three large
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
4
groups. The first is emotional self-regulation (e.g., Cole, Martin, & Dennis, 2004), sometimes
referred to as “hot,” affectively mediated, self-regulation skills. The second is cognitive
processing skills, sometimes referred to as “cold” cognitively mediated self-regulation skills
(Ponitz et al., 2008), such as meta-cognition (Brown, 1987), executive functions (e.g., Posner &
Rothbart, 2007), and effortful and inhibitory control (Blair, 2003; Happaney, Zelazo, & Stuss,
2004; McClelland et al., 2007). The third is classroom behavior, such as sitting still, working
independently, and listening to the teacher (McClelland, Morrison, & Holmes, 2000). These
behaviors are sometimes combined in studies with items assessing academic social skills or
social responsibility, such as cooperation and conformity to rules(e.g., McClelland & Morrison,
2003; Wentzel, 1991).
While conceptual distinctions can be made, these various aspects of self-regulation are no
doubt interconnected. For example, presumably cognitive processing skills, which are typically
assessed in laboratory settings, contribute to behaviors children manifest in the classroom, such
as paying attention and completing tasks without becoming distracted. Few studies have
examined the association between performance on laboratory tasks and classroom behavior
directly. One exception is a recent study by Ponitz et al. (2008), which found significant
associations between young children’s (age 3 to 6 years) performance on the “Touch your Toes!”
task (presumed to tap attention and working memory) and teachers’ ratings of classroom
behavior (e.g., complying with adult directions, observing rules, and completing tasks).
Although the interconnections among the self-regulation constructs are not well known,
evidence suggests that some of the various measures of self-regulation are associated with
academic achievement (Blair, 2002; Bull & Scerif, 2001; McClelland et al., 2006; McClelland et
al., 2007; Matthews, Ponitz, & Morrison, 2009; National Institute of Child Health & Human
Development [NICHD] Early Child Care Research Network, 2003). We chose to study
behaviors that can be directly observed in classrooms and that have ecological validity for
teachers. We wanted to assess behaviors that teachers believe are important (Foulks & Morrow,
1989; Lewit & Baker, 1995) and often lacking (Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta, & Cox, 2000), and that
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
5
might be amenable to improvement by teacher interventions in the regular classroom context.
Classroom behavior was also selected because the study spans the elementary school years, and
most laboratory measures are only appropriate for children in preschool and the early elementary
grades. We focused on literacy achievement as the measure of academic success because it is
critical to learning in all subject areas and it is a primary focus in the early grades of school.
Although a number of studies have shown that learning-related behavior predicts
academic achievement, the direction of causality has not been tested directly. It is possible that
the causal direction is in the opposite direction, with achievement influencing learning-related
behavior, or more likely, the relationship is reciprocal. There is consistent evidence in the
motivation literature that success and the ensuing feelings of pride and self-confidence promote
greater motivation and effort to learn (Mac Iver, Stipek, & Daniels, 1991; see Stipek, 2002, for a
review). Also, children who perform relatively well academically are presumably reinforced with
high grades and social approval for learning-related behaviors, such as seeking challenge and
working independently, and these behaviors may increase as a consequence. In brief, academic
success may reinforce good behaviors, which in turn produce further academic success.
Academic success and the accompanying reinforcing behaviors of teachers toward students who
perform well might also foster better relationships between students and their teachers, and thus
a desire to please their teacher by behaving in ways that conform to expectations.
If high academic achievement reinforces and enhances productive learning-related
behaviors, we would expect academic achievement in one grade to predict learning-related
behavior at a later grade with previous learning-related behavior held constant. If the causal
relationship is reciprocal, predictions should be significant in both directions, with learningrelated behavior predicting later achievement, and achievement predicting later learning-related
behavior.
The current study is longitudinal, with children entering the study in kindergarten or first
grade, and then being reassessed in third- and again in fifth grade. Mostly minority children, all
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
6
from low-income families, are included in the study because these children are most at risk of
school failure (Lee, 2002; Lee & Burkam, 2002)
The three time points allowed us to assess the possibility that the direction of the
relationship between learning-related behavior and literacy skills is different for early and later
grades, another issue that has not been previously addressed. Consistent with previous findings
we expected children who exhibited good learning-related behaviors at the beginning of
elementary school to learn more and thus achieve literacy skills at a faster rate than children who
began school with poor learning-related behaviors. By third grade children have had many
opportunities for good academic behavior to be reinforced by teachers. We reasoned, therefore,
that the direction of the relationship between learning-related behavior and literacy skills may
change, or at least become more reciprocal in the later grades. The association was therefore
examined separately for children as they moved from kindergarten or first grade to 3rd grade and
from 3rd grade to 5th grade. Direct comparisons of the associations between learning-related
behavior and achievement at different grades have not been made in previous studies.
Next we discuss previous findings on associations between academic achievement and
classroom behaviors that are similar to what we refer to as learning-related behavior.
Associations between Learning-Related Behaviors and Academic Achievement
Several studies have found significant contemporaneous associations between young
children’s learning-related behavior and academic performance. Normandeau and Guay (1998)
reported that first-graders’ “cognitive self-control” (the ability to plan, evaluate and regulate
problem-solving activities, attend to tasks, persist, and resist distraction) was associated with
their academic achievement, net of their intellectual skills assessed in kindergarten. Howse,
Lange, Farran, and Boyles (2003) found that teachers’ ratings of kindergarteners’ (but not second
graders’) motivation (e.g., “is a self-starter;” “likes to do challenging work”) predicted
concurrent reading achievement with receptive vocabulary (but not previous reading
achievement) held constant. And Ladd, Kochenderfer, and Coleman (1996) found that teachers’
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
7
ratings of children’s engagement and independence (e.g., “seeks challenges,” “works
independently”) predicted their academic progress and performance in kindergarten.
In a longitudinal study of children from kindergarten through second grade conducted by
McClelland et al. (2000), teachers’ ratings of kindergarten children’s work-related skills
(compliance with work instructions, memory for instructions, and completion of games and
activities) were significantly associated with children’s academic performance in kindergarten,
controlling for IQ. Work-related skills in kindergarten also predicted academic performance at
the end of second grade, with kindergarten academic scores controlled. In a more recent study,
McClelland et al. (2006) found that learning-related behavior in kindergarten predicted reading
and mathematics scores in sixth grade and growth in reading and math between kindergarten and
second grade, but not between second and sixth grade. The measure they used was very broad,
including social interaction and participation in play activities as well as task behavior (e.g.,
working independently and organizing work products). Matthews et al. (2009) report that
classroom self-regulation (e.g., completes tasks successfully) in the fall of kindergarten predicted
growth in math skills over the academic year. Green and Francis (1988) found that learning style
(e.g., settles down well at an activity that needs concentration, willing to try on his/her own,
copes with something new without getting nervous or upset) in 5- and 6-year-olds predicted
reading scores four years later, when children were 9 and 10 years old. The study did not,
however, hold constant previous reading scores.
Social-class, Race, and Gender Difference in Learning-Related Behavior
Only a few studies report group differences in learning-related behaviors. The
McClelland et al. (2000) study assessed associations at the beginning of kindergarten between
work-related skills and a variety of child and family variables. They found that children rated
low on work-related behaviors were more likely than children with medium or high ratings to be
Black and to have parents with relatively low education and occupational status. Connell and
Prinz (2002) similarly reported that ethnic minority children had lower behavior regulation, but
the effects disappeared when social class was controlled. McClelland et al. (2006) similarly
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
8
found that kindergarten children rated low on learning-related skills had relatively poorly
educated mothers. Analyses of the nationally representative Early Childhood Longitudinal Study
(ECLS) likewise revealed that kindergarten children from families with multiple risks (parents
who have not completed high school, low-income or welfare-dependent, single-parents, speak a
language other than English) were less likely to be rated as eager to learn and attentive than
children from families with one or no risks (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001). In
their study of children in kindergarten through second grade, Howse et al. (2003) did not find a
significant difference in teachers’ ratings of at-risk (low-income) and middle-class children’s
motivation (e.g., self-initiation, preference for challenge). But the at-risk and not-at-risk children
came from different schools, and teachers may have used different standards to rate children.
Given the limited range of family income (and concomitantly parent education) of
children in the present study, we expected income effects to be modest. But previous studies
suggest that children who are in the most impoverished circumstances have more negative
outcomes than children who are also living below the federal poverty line but relatively better off
(Dearing, Taylor, & McCartney, 2006; McLeod & Shanahan, 1996). If income effects were
found, we expected the children from the lowest-income families in our low-income sample to
be rated lower on learning-related behavior.
Several studies have reported gender differences in children’s task-related behavior.
Ponitz et al. (2008) report that 3-6-year-old girls performed better on their laboratory task
assessing behavioral self-regulation than boys. Matthews et al.(2009) report a gender difference
favoring girls for both teacher ratings and a direct measure of self-regulation. Keogh (1994)
studied 360 children who were in four different school placements--general elementary school,
general preschool, special education elementary school, and special education preschool.
Teachers rated girls higher than boys on a measure of task orientation (“school-appropriate
behaviors”), which included items such as: able to begin and complete classroom tasks, alert and
attentive to classroom proceedings, completes work on time, eager, enthusiastic, enjoys school
work, follows directions, and willingly participates in classroom activities. Girls were also rated
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
9
as more eager to learn, attentive in class, and persistent in completing tasks by kindergarten
teachers in the ECLS study (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001), as having better
work-related skills in the McClelland et al. (2000) study, and as more self-directed in a study by
Birch and Ladd (1997). Fantuzzo, Bulotsky-Shearer, Fusco, and McWayne (2005) did not find
gender differences in ratings of Head Start children’s willingness to take on and complete tasks,
but this study was done at the preschool level, when expectations for task completion might have
been less clear. If gender differences in learning-related behavior were found in the present
study, we expected them to favor girls.
Summary
There is a fair amount of evidence demonstrating that learning-related behaviors are
associated with contemporaneous academic achievement, and some evidence that these
behaviors in the early grades of school predict later academic achievement. Although most
researchers assume that children’s behaviors cause academic achievement, the opposite and
reciprocal causal directions have not been assessed.
To examine the directionality of the association between learning-related behavior and
achievement in the current study we assessed the degree to which learning-related behavior
predicted literacy achievement in a later grade, controlling for previous literacy achievement, and
the degree to which literacy achievement predicted later learning-related behavior, controlling
for previous learning-related behavior. Because we had assessed children on both variables at
three points in time, we were able to assess the nature of the associations within two separate
time spans.
In the few studies that have reported gender or social class differences in learning-related
behavior, boys and children from economically disadvantaged or high-risk homes were rated
relatively low in work-related skills. We accordingly predicted relatively low learning-related
behavior ratings for boys and the most disadvantaged children.
Method
Sample
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
10
Overview. The data used in this study are from a longitudinal, multi-state effort to track
development in low-income children through elementary school. The children included in the
present study had been enrolled in a previous study of low-income children; their selection in the
original study was based only on having incomes (based on needs/income ratio) below the
federally established poverty line. All of the children in the original study who could be found
and whose parents consented were included in the present study, which followed children from
kindergarten or first grade through the fifth grade. Some of the children had already completed
kindergarten when the present study began in 1996, and thus could not begin their participation
until the first grade. Kindergarteners and first graders were combined for analyses. The children
who entered the study at either kindergarten or first grade were re-assessed in third-grade and
again in the fifth grade. Those who began the study in kindergarten versus first grade did not
differ in terms of gender, race, or family income and their learning-related behavior scores did
not differ throughout the duration of the study.
Children. Altogether there were 379 children in the study. Of the 267 children who
entered the study in kindergarten, 136 were girls and 130 were boys and one did not have gender
recorded. Of the 112 children who began the study in first grade, there were 48 girls and 63 boys,
and one did not have gender recorded. The mean age of the children in kindergarten was 6 years
and 1 month; in first grade it was 6 years and 9 months. The children lived in rural and urban
communities in three states, two in the northeast and one on the west coast.
The sample was ethnically diverse. The children included in these analyses were 36.5%
Caucasian, 34.7% African-American, 23.6% Latino, 1.5% of mixed ethnic backgrounds, and
0.5% other ethnicity, and 3.2% missing this information. At the beginning of the study, 75% of
the Latino children were given all assessments in Spanish; they were either rated by their
teachers as having no or very little fluency or as having modest fluency (difficulty making
themselves understood in English), or the child expressed a preference for being assessed in
Spanish. By fifth grade all of the children preferred being assessed in English and their teachers
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
11
rated them as fluent or fairly fluent (has only occasional problems either with grammar,
vocabulary, or pronunciation).
All of the children came from families who met federal poverty guidelines, based on
income and household size. At the beginning of this study 76% of the families had annual
incomes below $15,000 and about half were receiving federal assistance (AFDC). The
distribution of income did not change much, increasing only $3,604 per year, on average. Parent
education was low; 50.6% of mothers had not completed high school; 33% had completed high
school, 14.5% completed some college, and 1.2% had bachelors or graduate degrees. Children’s
receptive vocabulary skills (which are strongly associated with other measures of cognitive
skills) were relatively low on average; 60-month standardized PPVT (Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test) scores averaged 86.02 (SD = 14.21).
Overall, attrition in the study was modest (less than 19% over a period of six years).
Analyses comparing children who were lost to those who were still in the sample at 5th grade
revealed no significant differences in family income, gender, or cognitive skills (measured at 60
months, before the present study began). A chi square analysis of ethnic differences in attrition
rates was, however, significant, X2(4) = 18.62, p ≤ .001. A higher proportion of Latino children
were lost than either African American or Caucasian children.
Teachers and schools. Teachers and schools were invited to participate because they had
a study child enrolled. In kindergarten and 1st grade the children were distributed across 58
schools and 48 school districts. By 5th grade children were distributed across 101 schools. The
modal number of study children in a classroom was 1. The number of teachers involved was as
follows: kindergarten, 71; 1st grade, 107; 3rd grade, 127; 5th grade, 135. Across grades, nearly all
teachers held Bachelor’s Degrees and about half held Master’s Degrees. There was a huge range
in teacher experience from novice teachers to teachers near retirement.
Most children in the study attended public schools that served a relatively high proportion
of low-income children. Averaging over the 5-year period of data collection between 1996 and
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
12
2001, 74% of schools had 50% or more students eligible for free or reduced lunch (higher than
the national average, which was about one-third).
Procedures
Principals of schools that were attended by a child who had parent approval to participate
in the study were sent a letter, explaining the purpose of the longitudinal study and our desire to
include the child. Only two principals refused or were not possible to reach. District approval
processes were followed when required. When district and principal approval was achieved,
teachers were contacted by letter and a follow-up phone call. Informed consent was received by
all participating teachers and child assent by all participating children.
Data were collected each year in the spring, at the end of kindergarten or 1st grade and
again in 3rd and 5th grades. Informed parental consent was obtained for all participating children.
Of the children assessed in the 3rd - and 5th grade, 23 had been retained in kindergarten, 1st or 2nd
grade, and 5 more were retained in 3rd or 4th grade. For these children, there was an additional
year between the first and second or second and third set of assessments. Literacy achievement
was assessed individually at the child’s school by a trained experimenter. The number of
experimenters varied from 27 in kindergarten and 1st grade to 16 in 5th grade. Experimenters had
one full day of training before a trainer observed them assessing a child. Before being certified
by the lead trainer, experimenters had to satisfy high standards for interacting in a supportive
way with children and following protocols. They were observed intermittently following
certification to ensure consistent effectiveness and appropriately supportive interactions with
young children.
Teachers completed a questionnaire about each study child in their classroom, which
included ratings of children’s learning-related behavior. Questionnaires were mailed or given to
teachers and returned by mail. Information on family income was obtained in an interview with a
parent, usually the mother, conducted in homes or over the telephone by a trained interviewer
and in the native language of the parent (English or Spanish).
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
13
Measures
Learning-related behavior. Four items (e.g., works independently, seeks challenges,
accepts responsibility for a given task, tuned in to what’s going on in the classroom) from the
Teacher Rating Scale of School Adjustment (TRSSA; Birch & Ladd, 1997; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs,
1999; Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1997) were used as a measure of learning-related
behavior. All items have a 3-point response scale (doesn’t apply, applies sometimes, and
certainly applies). Previous research using the TRSSA scales show high reliabilities for children
the same age as in this study as well as associations with child outcomes, such as feelings about
school and academic achievement (Ladd et al., 1997). In Ladd et al. (1999), the TRSSA scores
mediated the relationship between cognitive maturity and academic achievement and between
the quality of teacher-child relationships and achievement. Ladd et al., (1997) report that scores
on the TRSSA were positively associated with children’s social skills and relationships, and their
own reports of how much they liked school; they were negatively associated with children’s
desire to avoid school. In this previous study, for boys but not girls, TRSSA scores were
negatively correlated with children’s reports of having conflict with peers. Although the original
scale includes additional items, the alphas in previous studies were so high that additional items
were somewhat redundant. We limited the scale to four items to reduce the burden on teachers.
Reliabilities (alpha) for the four items used in the present study were high, .87, .85, .87 and .85,
for kindergarten, 1st-, 3rd- and 5th grades, respectively. The mean of the ratings were used in
analyses. The significant correlations across years, shown in Table 1, provide some evidence
from the current study of the validity of the measure, given that different teachers were rating
children in entirely different classroom contexts.
Literacy achievement. Two subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson psycho-educational
battery-revised (Woodcock & Johnson, 1990) were used for the 3rd- and 5th graders: the letterword reading and the passage comprehension. The first test asks children to decode single words.
In the second, children read a passage and fill in a missing word. The Woodcock-Johnson letterword identification subscale was used more as a model for the kindergarten and 1st-graders.
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
14
(Pilot testing revealed very little variation on the letters part of the test, and a floor effect on the
words.) Instead of asking children to identify only the 9 letters in the Woodcock Johnson, they
were shown all 26 letters of the alphabet. Kindergarten and 1st-grade children were also given a
larger number of simple (2 - 4 letters) words to identify than are provided in the Woodcock
Johnson test. All subscale scores were converted to standardized scores and then combined
within each grade to create an overall mean literacy achievement score. Alphas for the literacy
scores at each grade were as follows: kindergarten, .82; 1st-grade, .82; 3rd-grade, .81; 5th-grade,
.74.
Family income. The parent interviewed (usually the mother) was asked about the total
family income for the previous year coming from any source (including from jobs, business,
farm, rent, dividends, alimony, child support, welfare, social security payments and
unemployment insurance). Respondents were given 10 ranges (e.g., less than $3,000, $3,0016,000, etc.) from less than $3,000 to over $50,000, and asked in which range their income fell.
Because most parents answered the question multiple years, responses were averaged. The 10
ranges were then collapsed into three for analyses ($9,000 or less; $9,001-20,000; and more than
$20,000). Note that in this sample, the highest income group is relatively low compared to the
general population.
Results
The primary research question concerned the direction of effects between learning-related
behavior and literacy skills. Does learning-related behavior promote better literacy learning or
does relatively good mastery of literacy skills, and the presumed concomitant rewards for good
behavior, promote more learning-related behavior, or is the relationship reciprocal?
Data Imputation
As is common in longitudinal datasets, subjects often were missing one or more values.
We explored these cases with missing values to determine whether the data were missing at
random or whether there were systematic differences between students missing data as compared
with those who were not. We conducted independent sample t-tests comparing students missing
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
15
data with those who were not missing data for each grade level (K-1, 3, 5) and key measure
(literacy, learning-related behavior) to determine whether the groups differed on the other key
measures. For example, we compared students who had literacy scores in grade 3 with those who
were missing them on the five remaining measures of learning-related behavior and literacy. We
ran these comparisons for the sample overall and also, separately by ethnicity (African
American, Latino, White), resulting in a total of 120 comparisons (30 tests x four groups). Of
these 120 comparisons, only one was significant at the p < .05 level, which would be expected by
chance. We concluded that the data were missing at random and therefore it was appropriate to
replace the missing data using multiple imputation.
We replaced missing values using the “ice” multiple imputation procedure in Stata to
create five datasets. Multiple imputation, when used in appropriate contexts, is considered a
superior method for dealing with missing values as compared with traditional approaches such as
mean substitution, case-wise deletion, and even more recent approaches such as single
imputation (Acock, 2005). The final sample with imputation was 379.
Regression Analyses
To assess evidence for the causal order of learning-related behavior and literacy skills we
adopted a strategy similar to that developed by Marsh (1990; Marsh, Byrne & Yeung, 1999).
Whereas they used structural equation modeling, we ran four regression analyses to predict
literacy and learning-related behavior in grade 3 and in grade 5, with literacy and learningrelated behavior in prior years as predictors. This approach allowed us to examine evidence for
causal ordering separately for the earlier and the later grades, as well as to replicate the findings
at two different grade intervals. We did not use a nested design for analyses because the modal
number of children in a classroom was one, and intraclass correlations across schools were all
below .10 and averaged .04.
In assessing the relationship between literacy and learning-related behavior, we held
constant the effects of gender, ethnicity, and household income in kindergarten by including
them in the model as predictors, giving us the following model:
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
16
Y i = B 0 + B1 X 1 i + B 2 X 2 i + B 3 X 3 i + B 4 X 4 i + B 5 X 5 i
where Y i = Predicted outcome (literacy or learning-related behavior in Z-scores), B 0 =
Intercept, B 1 = slope coefficient for prior literacy, X 1 i = prior score for literacy for student i, B 2 =
slope coefficient for prior learning-related behavior, X 2 i = prior score for learning-related
behavior for student i, B 3 = coefficient for gender (female=1), X 3 i = gender of student i, B 4 =
coefficient for ethnicity (African American, Latino), X 4 i = ethnicity of student i, B 5 = coefficient
for Kindergarten household income, = household income for student i. Using the three
categories of income described earlier, we created dummy-coded variables for low income,
medium income, and high income, and in the regression model used low income as the reference
group. For ethnicity, African American and Latino were entered as predictors, with Caucasian as
the reference group. The multiple imputation procedure created five data sets, and because of
this, standard errors would be artificially low without modeling the effects of the imputation
process. In order to aggregate the results from these different imputations in an appropriate way,
we used the micombine procedure in Stata that implements the aggregation method
recommended by Rubin (1987). This procedure averages the parameter estimates for the separate
regressions done for each imputed data set and adjusts the standard errors by utilizing
information on within-imputation and between-imputation variation. In this way, it accounts for
the variability across imputations, increasing standard errors to the extent that results differ
across the imputed data sets. The aggregated results for the four regression analyses using this
method are shown below in Table 2, and graphically in Figure 1.
The regression results showed a similar pattern of relationships in the lower and upper
grades, K-1 to grade 3, and grade 3 to grade 5, although there were some differences in the
magnitude of the relationships. Our primary concern was with the coefficients represented by the
diagonal lines (between variables, over time), which is the extent to which literacy and learningrelated behavior predict each other in a later grade. Learning-related behavior at the prior grade
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
17
was a very strong predictor of later literacy skills with prior literacy skills held constant for both
3rd and 5th grade. Literacy skills at the prior grade predicted learning-related behavior with
previous learning-related behavior held constant at 5th, but not as 3rd grade.
The stability coefficients for both literacy and learning-related behavior were statistically
significant and positive in all cases. The coefficients for learning-related behavior were very
similar in size (0.32 vs. 0.31), whereas for literacy the coefficient predicting grade 5 based on
grade 3 was much larger than the coefficient predicting grade 3 literacy from literacy in
Kindergarten-grade 1 (0.26 vs. 0.69). We conducted analyses to determine whether stability
patterns might be the result of collinearity between these variables and other predictors by
removing the other predictors from the model, and then predicting literacy and learning-related
each by the prior score on the same construct. We found essentially the same results and
therefore we ruled out collinearity as an explanation for the pattern of results for stability
coefficients.
Gender, Race, and Grade Effects
We also conducted a 2 x 3 x 3 repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) on
learning-related behavior, with gender, race, and income as between-subject variables and grade
as a within-subject variable. (The 16 children who were not Latino, African American or
Caucasian were eliminated from this analysis.) The gender, F(1, 338) = 4.09, p < .001, and the
grade, F(16.82, 385), p < .01, main effects were significant. Girls (M = 2.45) were rated higher in
learning-related behavior than boys (M = 2.28), and children in K-1 (M = 2.34) were rated higher
than children in both 3rd (M = 2.15) and 5th (M = 2.13) grade. The gender by race interaction was
also significant, F( 2, 322 ) = 3.95, p < .05. Latino boys (M = 2.36) were rated higher than
African American (M = 2.15) and White (M = 2.11) boys (p < .05). The race differences were
not significant for girls. The race and income main effects, all other two-way interactions and the
three-way interaction were not significant. A second 2 x 3 x 3 repeated measures ANOVA on
literacy using the same predictors did not find any statistically significant differences.
Discussion
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
18
This study builds on prior research finding associations between self-regulation and
children’s learning (e.g., Blair, 2002; Bull & Scerif, 2001; Green & Francis, 1988; McClelland et
al., 2006; McClelland et al., 2007; National Institute of Child Health & Human Development
[NICHD] Early Child Care Research Network, 2003). The present study is different from most
previous studies because it focused exclusively on children living in poverty. It also goes beyond
previous studies by assessing evidence related to alternative causal directions. We assessed
evidence for the hypothesis that children who performed well in literacy, and were presumably
reinforced for their good behavior, would increasingly exhibit positive learning-related behavior,
as well as for the hypothesis that children who exhibited positive learning-related behaviors
develop more literacy skills. By analyzing changes from K-1 to 3rd grade separately from
changes from 3rd to 5th grade, we were able to examine age differences in the nature of the
relationship, as well as embed a replication in this study.
The evidence clearly and consistently supported the view that positive learning-related
behavior promotes literacy achievement. Learning-related behaviors in kindergarten and 1st
grade predicted literacy skills in 3rd grade, over and above the effects of kindergarten and 1st
grade literacy. The same was found for children moving from 3rd to 5th grade. The results cannot
be explained by the three possible confounds included as covariates: gender, ethnicity, and
family income.
There was also some modest support for the hypothesis that high achievement led to an
increase in positive learning behavior in the later grades in elementary school. Presumably by 3rd
grade, children with strong literacy skills have been reinforced with teacher praise, good grades,
and the like for relatively high performance in school. The reinforcement, in turn, may explain
the increase in the behaviors that preceded the good performance. This interpretation is
speculative because we do not have data on grades or other forms of reinforcement. If it is valid,
it suggests a kind of multiplicative effect of beginning school with strong learning-related
behaviors. Not only may the produce better reading skills directly, but the higher reading skills
lead to even stronger learning-related behaviors.
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
19
These findings, along with other studies finding associations between children’s learning
behavior in the early grades and their academic success in school (e.g., Green & Francis, 1988;
McClelland et al., 2000, 2006; Matthews et al., 2009), provide strong evidence for the
importance of learning-related behavior, and they suggest that we may be able to promote
literacy skills by helping children develop good work habits in preschool and elementary school.
Although the study does not provide information on how learning-related behaviors contributed
to the development of the wide range of literacy skills assessed, there are a number of possible
explanations for the effect. For example, children who pay attention, are responsible, and who
work independently, should be more likely to complete their work and generally to take good
advantage of opportunities to learn. Children who seek challenge are also more likely to have
opportunities to expand their skill levels.
The children in this study all came from very low income families, so it is not surprising
that learning-related behavior did not vary systematically among the income levels involved and
that income could not explain the effects of learning-related behavior on literacy skill
development. The findings do, however, suggest that learning-related behaviors are important for
low-income children.
Boys were rated somewhat lower than girls on our measure of learning-related behavior.
Few studies have assessed gender differences, but our findings are in the same direction as those,
reviewed above, which reported differences. Gender difference in such behaviors may partially
explain previous studies that have found girls to have closer and less conflictual relationships
with their teachers (e.g., Birch & Ladd, 1997). It is likely that teachers prefer students who
exhibit the learning-related behaviors assessed in the present study because they make students
easier and more enjoyable to teach (Keogh, 1994). Beginning school with these behaviors better
developed could give girls an advantage that increases with time. In addition to helping them
master the material they are taught, these behaviors may also lead to favored treatment and
positive relationships with teachers, making school generally a more pleasant and comfortable
place for girls.
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
20
We do not attempt to explain the higher learning-related behavior ratings given to the
kindergarten and 1st graders because it is likely that teachers’ interpretation of the items and their
expectations for age appropriate behavior varied by grade. The significant grade effect does not
necessarily mean that children’s learning-related behaviors declined after the first two grades of
school, although the gap between children’s behavior and teachers’ expectations may have
increased.
With regard to gender and ethnicity differences, we found one potentially important
significant difference. Latino boys were rated higher by teachers in learning-related behavior
than White and African-American boys. The differences may reflect cultural expectations and
norms. There is some evidence that responsibility and respect of teachers is stressed in Latino
homes (Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1995) and in a related study Latino children were rated higher
than Euro-American classmates on classroom social skills (e.g., participates well in a group;
O’Neil, Welsh, Parke, Wang, & Strand, 1997). It is possible that the Latino boys had been
socialized at home to take responsibility and to respect the demands the teacher made on them as
students.
The methods used have several limitations. First, the measure of learning-related
behavior was modest and focused on behaviors that can be observed in the classroom. Although
the four items seemed to be sufficient to capture meaningful variance in children’s behavior, a
more robust measure is advisable. We caution researchers, however, to maintain clarity in their
measures and avoid mixing constructs (e.g., attention, motivation) which may be correlated with
learning-related behaviors but are conceptually distinct. Although it is one of the few
standardized achievement measures available in both English and Spanish, the Woodcock
Johnson measure is also very limited, and an older version of the measure was used in this study
than the measure that is currently available. The findings are also limited to children from lowincome families who attend schools with a relatively high concentration of low-income children.
The findings are, therefore, not necessarily generalizable to more middle-class samples or school
contexts.
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
21
Research on self-regulation is burgeoning, and would be helped by future studies that
include independent measures of the different components of self-regulated learning, analyze
associations among them, and assess differential predictions of achievement and other important
child outcomes. Studies using multiple measures of self-regulation would help identify which of
the cognitive, affective, and motivational variables considered part of self-regulation are most
directly connected to learning gains.
Practical Implications
Despite the limitations, the findings of this study suggest the importance of efforts to help
young children develop positive classroom behaviors in preschool and the early grades of
elementary school. We do not have systematic evidence on how to promote behaviors such as
independence, responsibility, and challenge-seeking in young children. But programs designed to
promote self-regulation skills are being developed. Tools of the Mind, for example,
trains
teachers to implement exercises that are designed to help children develop strategies for
controlling their own behavior (e.g., telling themselves out loud what they should do), and
enhancing their memory and attention. A study involving random assignment of both teachers
and children demonstrated the value of the program on a measure of executive function
(Diamond, Barnett, Thomas, & Munro, 2007), which most likely underlies the kinds of learningrelated behavior examined in the present study.
Bedrova and Leong (2006) summarize strategies teachers have been encouraged to use to
support the development of self-regulation, including using props (e.g., pictures that remind
children what they are supposed to be doing, such as an ear to remind them to listen), and
analyzing and redesigning activity settings that might undermine self-regulation, such as circle
time that is too long or choice times that provide too few or too many options. They also suggest
that teachers introduce interventions slowly, withdrawing their own involvement to give students
increasing amounts of autonomy.
Our own observations of classrooms suggest additional classroom qualities that might
promote learning-related behavior. First, children are more likely to develop independence and a
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
22
sense of responsibility in classrooms in which they are given some discretion but held
accountable for their work than in classrooms in which children are told what to do and how and
when to do it all day long, or who are given discretion but not held accountable. Likewise, we
expect children to seek challenges in classrooms in which they have options, are encouraged to
attempt more difficult tasks, and where there are no negative consequences for failure. In
classroom contexts in which children risk peer ridicule or teacher irritation when they have
difficulty with a task, or in which only successful outcomes are rewarded (e.g., by teacher praise,
good grades or having papers displayed on the bulletin board), we would expect children to
select tasks that they are confident they can complete successfully and to be concerned and
dependent on the teacher to make sure they are doing what the teacher has in mind.
We have observed preschool and kindergarten classrooms that are organized to promote
independence and responsibility. Materials are directly accessible to children, and they are
expected to return materials to their places. Tasks (e.g., at centers) are clearly defined and can be
done with minimal teacher assistance. Children are taught directly how to use classroom
resources (e.g., letters on the walls, information on the board, computers) and each other to solve
problems and complete tasks. Teachers hold children accountable for their learning by regularly
reviewing work and giving feedback and by interacting with children while they are working on
tasks to assess understanding and make suggestions.
Preschool is not too soon to invest in children’s learning related behavior. This study, like
many others, found that literacy skills at the beginning of school predicted literacy skills at 5th
grade. Other studies have shown predictions from school entry to high school (see Stipek, 2001,
for a review). Indeed, the authors of one meta-analysis estimated that about half of the total
black-white math and reading gap at the end of high school is explained by the gap between
blacks and whites at school entry (Phillips, Crouse, & Ralph, 1998). There are many reasons why
early behavior and academic skills might affect later achievement. Children who enter with
relatively productive behavior and good skills may be able to take better advantage of the
academic curriculum. Their behavior and skills also engender higher expectations in teachers,
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
23
which can lead to placement in higher ability groups and more challenging instruction (see
Stipek, 2001).
There are other reasons to promote independence, responsibility and challenge-seeking in
children. These behaviors will serve children well in and out of school and throughout their lives.
But even if academic achievement is the only concern, the results of this study suggest that
learning-related behaviors merit direct and proactive attention.
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
24
References
Acock, A. C. (2005). Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 67,
1012-1028.
Barnett, S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school
outcomes. Future of Children, 5, 25-35.
Barnett, S., Epstein, D., Friedman, A., Stevenson Boyd, J., & Hustedt, J. (2008). The state of
preschool. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.
Bodrova, E., & Leong,D. (2006). Self-regulation as a key to school readiness: How early
childhood teachers can promote this critical competency. In M. Zaslow & I. MartinezBeck (Eds.), Critical issues in early childhood development. (pp. 203-224). Baltimore,
MD: Brookes Publishing Company.
Birch, S., & Ladd, G. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school
adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61-79.
Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological
conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57,
111-127.
Blair, C. (2003). Behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation in young children: Relations
with self-regulation and adaptation to preschool in children attending Head Start.
Developmental Psychobiology, 42(3), 301-311.
Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious
mechanisms. In F. Reiner & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and
understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001). Executive functioning as a predictor of children's mathematics
ability: Inhibition, switching, and working memory. Developmental Neuropsychology,
19, 273–293.
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
25
Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific construct:
Methodological challenges and directions for child development research. Child
Development, 75, 317–333.
Connell, C., & Prinz, R. (2002). The impact of childcare and parent-child interactions on school
readiness and social skills development for low-income African American Children.
Journal of School Psychology, 40(2), 177-193.
Dearing, E., Taylor, B.A., & McCartney, K. (2006). Within-child associations between family
income and externalizing and internalizing problems. Developmental Psychology, 42(2),
237-252.
Diamond, A., Barnett, S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves
cognitive control. Science, 318, 1387-1388.
Fantuzzo, J., Bulotsky-Shearer, R., Fusco, R., & McWayne, C. (2005). An investigation of
preschool classroom behavioral adjustment problems and social-emotional school
readiness competencies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 259-275.
Farran, D. (2000). Another decade of intervention for children who are low-income or disabled:
What do we know now? In J. Shonkoff & S. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early
childhood intervention (2nd ed., pp. 510-548). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Foulks, B., & Morrow, R. (1989). Academic survival skills for the young child at risk for school
failure. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 158-165.
Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (1995). Immigrant Latino parents' values and beliefs about their
children's education: Continuities and discontinuities across cultures and generations. In
P. R. Pintrich, & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Culture,
ethnicity, and motivation, Vol 9 (pp. 183-228). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Green, L., & Francis, J. (1988). Children’s learning skills at the infant and junior stages: A
follow-on study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 120-126.
Happaney, K., Zelazo, P. , & Stuss, D. (2004). Development of orbitofrontal function: Current
themes and future directions. Brain and Cognition, 55, 1–10.
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
26
Howse, R., Lange, G., Farran, D., & Boyles, C. (2003). Motivation and self-regulation as
predictors of achievement in economically disadvantaged young children. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 71, 151-174.
Keogh, B. (1994). Temperament and teachers' views of teachability. In W. Carey & S. McDevitt
(Eds.), Prevention and early intervention: Individual differences as risk factors for the
mental health of children (pp. 246-256). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Ladd, G., Birch, S., & Buhs, E. (1999). Children’s social lives in kindergarten: Related spheres
of influence. Child Development, 70, 1373-1400.
Ladd, G., Kochenderfer, B., & Coleman, C. (1996). Friendship quality as a predictor of school
early adjustment. Child Development, 67, 1103-1108.
Ladd, G., Kochenderfer, B., & Coleman, C. (1997). Classroom peer acceptance, friendship, and
victimization: Distinct relational systems that contribute uniquely to children’s school
adjustment? Child Development, 68, 1181-1197.
Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward equity?
Educational Researcher, 31, 3-12.
Lee, V., & Burkam, D. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in
achievement as children begin school, Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute
Lewit, E. M., & Baker, L. S. (1995). School readiness. The Future of Children, 5, 128-139.
Mac Iver, D., Stipek, D., & Daniels, D. (1991). Explaining within semester changes in student
effort in junior high school and senior high school courses. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83, 201-211.
Marsh, H. (1990). Causal ordering of academic self-concept and academic achievement: A
multiwave, longitudinal panel analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 646-656.
Marsh, H., Byrne, B., & Yeung, A. (1999). Causal ordering of academic self-concept and
achievement: Reanalysis of a pioneering study and revised recommendations.
Educational Psychology, 34, 154-157.
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
27
Matthews , J., Ponitz, C. Morrison, F. (2009). Early Gender Differences in Self-Regulation and
Academic Achievement, Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 689-704.
McClelland, M., Acock, A., & Morrison, F. (2006). The impact of kindergarten learning-related
skills on academic trajectories at the end of elementary school. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 21, 471-490.
McClelland, M., Cameron, C., Connor, C., Farris, C., Jewkes, A., & Morrison, F. (2007). Links
between behavioral regulation and preschoolers' literacy, vocabulary, and math skills.
Developmental Psychology, 43, 947-959.
McClelland, M. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2003). The emergence of learning-related social skills in
preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(2), 206–224.
McClelland, M., Morrison, F., & Holmes, D. (2000). Children at risk for early academic
problems: The role of learning-related social skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
15, 307-329.
McLeod, J. D., & Shanahan, M.J. (1996). Trajectories of poverty and children’s mental health.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 37 (September), 207-220.
Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten. College Park, MD: Alliance for
Childhood.
National Center for Education Statistics (2001). Entering Kindergarten: Findings from the
Condition of Education. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network
(2003). Do children's attention processes mediate the link between family predictors and
school readiness? Developmental Psychology, 39, 581–593.
Normandeau, S., & Guay, F. (1998). Preschool behavior and first-grade school achievement: The
mediational role of cognitive self-control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 111121.
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
28
O’Neil, R., Welsh, M., Parke, R., Wang, S., & Strand, C. (1997). A longitudinal assessment of
the academic correlates of early peer acceptance and rejection. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 26, 290-303.
Phillips, M., Crouse, J., & Ralph, J. (1998). Does the black-white test score gap widen after
children enter school? In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.). The black-white test score gap
(pp. 229-272). Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Ponitz, C., McClelland, M., Jewkes, A., Connor, C., Farris, C., & Morrison, F. (2008). Touch
your toes! Developing a direct measure of behavioral regulation in early childhood. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(2), 141-158.
Posner, M., & Rothbart, M. (2007). Educating the human brain. Washington DC: American
Psychological Association.
Rimm-Kaufman, S., Pianta, R., & Cox, M. (2000). Teachers’ judgments of problems in the
transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 147-166.
Rubin, D. (1987). Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: Wiley.
Stipek, D. (2001). Pathways to constructive behavior: Importance of academic achievement in
the early elementary grades. In A. Bohart & D. Stipek (Eds.), Constructive and
destructive behavior: Implications for family, school, and society (pp. 291-315).
Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Stipek, D. (2002). Motivation to learn: Integrating theory and practice (4th edition). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Stipek, D. (2006a). Accountability Comes to Preschool: Can We Make it Work for Young
Children? Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (10), 740-744, 747.
Stipek, D. (2006b). No child left behind comes to preschool. Elementary School Journal, 106(5),
455-465.
Stipek, D., & Ryan R. (1997). Economically disadvantaged preschoolers: Ready to learn but
further to go. Developmental Psychology, 33, 711-723.
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
Wentzel, K. (1991). Social competence at school: Relation between social responsibility and
academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 61, 1-24.
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1990). Woodcock-Johnson psycho-educational batteryrevised. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.
29
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
30
Table 1
Correlation Matrix, Means, and Standard Deviations for Learning-Related Behavior and
Literacy Achievement
K-1st
3rd
5th
L-R
behavior
Literacy
ach.
L-R
behavior
Literacy
ach.
L-R
behavior
Literacy
ach.
(272)
(347)
(310)
(323)
(320)
(285)
(N)1
K-1
L-R behavior
Literacy ach.
0.34***
3rd
L-R behavior
0.36***
0.15*
Literacy ach.
0.39***
0.51**
0.27***
L-R behavior
0.20***
0.19**
0.34***
0.19***
Literacy ach.
0.39***
0.46**
0.34***
0.71***
0.18**
Mean
2.34
.08
2.15
-.05
2.14
-.06
SD
.57
2.66
.53
1.68
.53
1.67
Range
1-3
-4.7-8.9
1-3
-4.9/6.1
1-3
-5.5-3.6
5th
*p < .05;
**
p < .01;
***
p < .001
Note: Means for literacy achievement are close to 0 because they are based on standardized
scores.
1
N is before imputation
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
31
Table 2
Regression Coefficients (standard errors in parentheses)
Dependent Variable
Literacy
Learning-Related Behavior
_____________________________________________________
Predictor
Grade 3
Grade 5
Grade 3
Grade 5
_____________________________________________________________________________
Prior Literacy
.26*** (.04)
.69*** (.02)
.01 (.05)
Prior L-R Behavior
.80*** (.19)
.41*** (.06)
.32*** (.02) .31*** (.02)
Female
.05 (.16)
-.01 (.06)
.03 (.01)
.10*** (.02) .13*** (.02)
African American
-.20 (.19)
-.50*** (.07)
Latino
-.61** (.23)
-.03 (.07)
Parent Income (med)
-.03 (.19)
-.01 (.06)
-.03 (.03)
.00 (.03)
Parent Income (high)
-.01 (.25)
-.05 (.08)
.01 (.04)
.04 (.04)
-1.74*** (.51)
-.69*** (.13)
Constant
** p < .01; *** p < .001
-.05 (.03)
.04 (.03)
.13*** (.03) .02 (.03)
1.35*** (.06) 1.38*** (.06)
Running head: LEARNING-RELATED BEHAVIORS
32
Figure Caption
Figure 1. Parameter estimates from regression analyses of Teacher Ratings of Learning-Related
Behavior, and Child’s Literacy Achievement in 1st, 3rd, and 5th Grades, holding constant
ethnicity, gender, and parent income
Grade K/1
Literacy
Grade3
.26***
Literacy
.01
.32***
.69***
Literacy
.03**
.80***
L-R Behavior
Grade 5
.41***
L-R Behavior
L-R Behavior
.31***