Colección: La Educación
Número: (129-131) I,III
When the three groups of five-year-olds, one from kindergarten, and two from day care centers, were compared with four-year-old day care children on basic language concepts, significant differences were found. The one way analysis of variance comparing all groups resulted in an F ratio of 12.91, which was well beyond the 4.31 required for the .01 level of significance that has been accepted for all comparisons in this study. The four-year-olds scored significantly lower than all other groups. The data for this comparison is reported in Table 1.
Although there was some variance within groups, the largest variance was reported for differences between groups. In order to further analyze these differences, t tests were used to compare the means of the groups. The t test between the four-year-olds mean and each of the five-year-old groups means resulted in t scores of 3.976, 6.367, and 3.58, all significantly beyond the required 2.797 for the .01 level. The only other comparison that resulted in significant t test results was the comparison between the kindergarten children and one group of five-year-old day care children. The t test score for the comparison of these two means was 2.97, slightly beyond the required 2.797 for .01 level of significance differences. Therefore there was some indication of the influence of the day care experience in this instance on childrens language ability. The major factor, however, appeared to be the age of the children in the comparisons of differences on knowledge of basic language skills concepts.
In order to evaluate differences due to sex, a two-way analysis of variance was used for groups of boys and girls at ages four and five. Since, however, the number of girls who were in the kindergarten without previous day care experience was minimal, the kindergarten group was dropped from the comparison of sex differences for the age groups on basic language concepts. The subsequent comparison resulted in an F ratio of 1.849 for the interaction between age and sex, which did not attain significance. The main effect of group membership, that is, age, resulted in an F ratio of 16.454 which was significant beyond the .01 level. The results of this comparison are reported in Table 2. It would appear that age was the most predominant factor in the differences and that sex did not appear to a major factor.