Full Terms Conditions of access and use can be found at [611924]

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=heed20
Download by: [70.55.79.137] Date: 22 March 2016, At: 14:38
Early Education and Development
ISSN: 1040-9289 (Print) 1556-6935 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heed20
How to support toddlers ’ autonomy: A qualitative
study with child care educators
Marilena C ôté-Lecaldare, Mireille Joussemet & Sarah Dufour
To cite this article: Marilena C ôté-Lecaldare, Mireille Joussemet & Sarah Dufour (2016): How to
support toddlers ’ autonomy: A qualitative study with child care educators, Early Education and
Development
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1148482
Published online: 22 Mar 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

How to support toddlers ’autonomy: A qualitative study with child
care educators
Marilena Côté-Lecaldarea, Mireille Joussemeta, and Sarah Dufourb
aDepartment of Psychology, Université de Montréal;bSchool of Psychoeducation, Université de Montréal
ABSTRACT
Research Findings : The present study explored the concrete manifestations of
autonomy support (AS) toward toddlers. Eight child care educators were inter-
viewed. Based on our assessment, these educators all valued AS. A qualitative
content analysis revealed 18 practices that this group of child care educators
considered supportive of toddlers ’autonomy. The present findings are in line
with the traditional conceptualization of AS, namely, offering choices and
encouraging initiatives, acknowledging the child ’s feelings and perspective,
and providing rationales and explanations for requests (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick,
& Leone, 1994; Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984), suggesting that these
practices are developmentally appropriate for toddlers. Yet, they also widen the
scope of AS, highlighting additional ca regiving practices that may support the
autonomy of toddlers. Practice or Policy : The results are discussed in light of
child care educators ’professional training context and the relationship between
AS and structure. The practices found in this study offer many means of
actualizing AS with toddlers on a daily basis.
Toddlers are spontaneous explorers of their social and physical environments, achieving many interest-
ing learnings. Toddlers are also increasingly taught the everyday rules, values, and conventions of society,
a process called socialization (Grusec, 2011 ; Smetana, Kochanska, & Chuang, 2000 ). One of socializa-
tion ’s main goals is for children not only to comply with these rules and regulations but to internalize
them; to adopt them as their own and regulate their behaviors accordingly (e.g., Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan,
1997; Ryan & Deci, 2000b ; Schaefer, 1968 ). Although children demonstrate natural tendencies toward
exploration and mastering important aspects of their environment, they are usually not left alone in
doing so. Assisting them are different socializing agents, mainly parents (Grusec, 2011 ) and other
caregivers close to the child. Nowadays, early childhood education is no longer limited to the home
environment, as it also takes place in child care centers (Malenfant, 2014 ). Child care educators thus play
a key role in young children ’s socialization and global development. In 2011, 38% of children ages 4 and
younger attended a day care center in the province of Quebec, Canada (Sinha, 2014 ). As such, child care
educators must find ways to support young children ’s learning of rules and regulations while also
sustaining their exploration and curiosity. Autonomy support (AS) is one such approach that may
help to promote toddlers ’optimal development, internalization, and well-being. The present study aimed
to investigate the daily practices used by child care educators to support toddlers ’autonomy.
Self-Determination Theory (SDT): Basic propositions
SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985 ,2000 ) offers a helpful framework within which one can better understand
how to promote children ’s optimal development and functioning. With its organismic perspective,
CONTACT Mireille Joussemet m.joussemet@umontreal.ca Department of Psychology, Université de Montréal, 90, avenue
Vincent d ’Indy, Pavillon Marie-Victorin, Montreal, Quebec H2V 2S9, Canada.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/HEED .
© 2016 Taylor & FrancisEARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1148482
Downloaded by [70.55.79.137] at 14:38 22 March 2016

SDT is a metatheory that emphasizes two important and natural developmental tendencies: intrinsic
motivation and internalization (Deci & Ryan, 2000 ). First, intrinsic motivation refers to people ’s
natural energy source for psychological and behavioral processes (Grolnick et al., 1997 ). This
spontaneous motivation is what drives individuals to engage in activities that are of true interest
to them, for no other reasons than personal pleasure and inherent satisfaction. Such behaviors are a
source of enjoyment, personal growth and learning, and do not require socialization in order to
occur (Deci & Ryan, 1985 ,2000 ,2013 ; Grolnick et al., 1997 ). Examples of intrinsically motivated
behaviors in young children are numerous, such as playing, manipulating new objects, and exploring
their surroundings.
Second, internalization refers to the process by which uninteresting behaviors, such as following
rules and social conventions, are taken in, transformed, and integrated into personal functioning
(Ryan & Deci, 2000b ). As a result, individuals come to experience these principles as their own and
feel volitional in regulating their behaviors accordingly (Deci & Ryan, 2000 ; Ryan & Deci, 2000a ,
2000b ). Indeed, self-regulation is an important aspect of internalization, as such an ability enables
people to adjust spontaneous behaviors (e.g., initiate, cease, postpone) in order to concur with rules
and standards of behaviors (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007 ; Kopp, 1982 ). Note that internalization occurs
to varying degrees, with fully internalized behaviors being the most autonomously self-regulated
(Deci & Ryan, 2013 ; see Ryan & Deci, 2000b , for more details). Of course, socializing agents aim to
foster the most fully internalized behaviors in the children they care for (Ryan & Deci, 2000b ). Some
examples of internalized behaviors in children are saying thank you, washing their hands, and not
playing with food. Research has shown benefits of intrinsic motivation and greater internalization
for optimal development and functioning (for brief overviews, see Deci & Ryan, 2013 ; Ryan &
Deci, 2000b ).
Even though both intrinsic motivation and internalization are considered natural processes, they
require support from the social environment to unfold optimally (Deci & Ryan, 2000 ; Deci &
Vansteenkiste, 2004 ). Within SDT, such support involves the fulfillment of three universal and
innate psychological needs: competence, relatedness, and autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1985 ,2000 ).
Although support for competence and relatedness needs is significant, satisfaction of the need for
autonomy is of central importance (Deci & Ryan, 2000 ; Ryan & Deci, 2000b ; Ryan, Deci, Grolnick, &
La Guardia, 2006 ). When the need for autonomy is supported, only then do individuals experience
an internal locus of causality for their behaviors and they can fully take in social requirements as
their own (Ryan & Deci, 2000b ). Thus, the extent to which the social context, such as socialization
practices, satisfies the need for autonomy has a great impact on children ’s healthy internalization,
motivation, and development (Deci & Ryan, 2008 ; Ryan & Deci, 2000b ).
The need for autonomy and AS
The need for autonomy (i.e., self-determination) denotes the need to experience volition, choice, and
personal endorsement regarding the enactment and the regulation of one ’s actions (Deci & Ryan,
2000 ; Joussemet, Landry, & Koestner, 2008 ; Ryan et al., 2006 ). It is important to note that this need
should not be confused with independence or individualism (Ryan & Deci, 2000a ; Ryan et al., 2006 ;
Soenens et al., 2007 ). Indeed, being autonomous implies acting in a coherent fashion with both a
sense of self and the external environment (Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004 ; Ryan & Deci, 2000a ). In
light of such a definition, AS from socializing agents is globally characterized by the active support of
a child ’s abilities to be self-initiating and autonomous (Ryan et al., 2006 ).
In an early study of AS, Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, and Holt ( 1984 )d e m o n s t r a t e dt h a ti tw a s
possible to encourage children to abide by behavioral rules (cleaning brushes during a painting
activity) without thwarting their interest and m otivation for the task, as long as the rules were
presented to the children in an autonomy-supportive manner. AS was operationalized in terms of
the four following elements, adapted from Haim Ginott ’s(1959 ,1961 ) empathic limit setting: (a)
providing a rationale and explanation for the beh avioral request, (b) acknowledging the feelings2 M. CÔTÉ-LECALDARE ET AL.
Downloaded by [70.55.79.137] at 14:38 22 March 2016

and perspective of the child, (c) offering choices and encouraging initiative, (d) minimizing the
use of controlling language and techniques such as should ormust statements to have the child
behave as desired (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994 ;K o e s t n e re ta l . , 1984 ). AS, conceptua-
lized with such practices, has been found to be beneficial for intrinsic motivation (Koestner et al.,
1984 ) and for better task internalization (e.g., Deci et al., 1994 ; Joussemet, Koestner, Lekes, &
Houlfort, 2004 ).
Additional positive outcomes for youth (i.e., children and adolescents) have been repeatedly
demonstrated in the literature investigating AS across different socializing agents: teachers, sports
coaches, and parents. For example, teachers ’AS has been found to relate positively to children ’s
motivation, engagement, and functioning in school (e.g., Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002 ; Reeve, 2002 ;
Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004 ); coaches ’AS to enjoyment, subjective vitality, and
motivation in sport involvement (Adie, Duba, & Ntoumanis, 2012 ; Alvarez, Balaguer, Castillo, &
Duba, 2009 ); and parental AS to more autonomous school and emotional self-regulation (Grolnick
& Ryan, 1989 ; Roth, Assor, Niemiec, Ryan, & Deci, 2009 ), social adjustment (Joussemet, Koestner,
Lekes, & Landry, 2005 ), and academic adjustment/performance (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989 ; Grolnick,
Ryan, & Deci, 1991 ; Joussemet et al., 2005 ; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2005 ). Note that AS is one of
the three constituent dimensions of Baumrind ’s(1967 ,1971 ,1978 ) optimal authoritative parenting
style, alongside structure (or behavioral control) and acceptance (or involvement; e.g., Gray &
Steinberg, 1999 ; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989 ; Steinberg, Elman, & Mounts, 1989 ).
AS with toddlers?
Supporting the universal need for autonomy seems particularly important during toddlerhood. First,
this developmental period is one in which the issue of autonomy is central, as toddlers begin to assert
themselves, to want choices, and to pursue their personal desires and drives in an increasingly
volitional manner (Erikson, 1963 ; Kopp, 1982 ; Ryan et al., 2006 ). Socializing agents must find a
balance between this nascent autonomy of children, and control and responsiveness to the child
(Spegman & Houck, 2005 ). Second, toddlers spontaneously explore, play, and interact with their
environment, learning by way of such natural propensities. Encouraging these behaviors is thus of
central importance for their development. Third, the socialization process takes off in the early
toddler years, with parents increasingly expressing rules and social standards to children (Gralinski
& Kopp, 1993 ; Smetana et al., 2000 ). Lastly, toddlerhood is one of the significant periods for the
emergence and refinement of self-regulation abilities (e.g., Kochanska, Coy, & Murray, 2001 ; Kopp,
1982 ; LeCuyer-Maus & Houck, 2002 ; Smetana et al., 2000 ) and the gradual internalization of rules
(e.g., Kochanska et al., 2001 ).
Yet AS with children of younger developmental periods has received relatively less empirical
attention. To our knowledge, a few studies have looked at AS with infants (e.g., Grolnick, Frodi, &
Bridges, 1984 ;L a n d r ye ta l . , 2008 ), and relatively few studies have investigated whether AS is also
beneficial for toddlers (e.g., Bernier, Whipple, & Carlson, 2010 ; Cleveland, Reese, & Grolnick, 2007 ;
Frodi, Bridges, & Grolnick, 1985 ;L a u r i n&J o u s s e m e t , 2015 ; Leyva, Reese, Grolnick, & Price, 2009 ;
Matte-Gagné & Bernier, 2011 ;W h i p p l e ,B e r n i e r ,&M a g e a u , 2011;Z u k , 2012). Nonetheless, positive
toddler outcomes have been found for parental provision of AS, such as better task-oriented persistence
(Frodi et al., 1985 ), better executive functioning performance (Bernier et al., 2010 ), more engagement in
conversations about past events (Cleveland et al., 2007 ;L e y v ae ta l . , 2009 ), and long-term self-regulated
obedience to parental requests (Laurin & Joussemet, 2015 ). All together, this emergent literature suggests
that AS is beneficial not only for children and adolescents but also for younger children, such as toddlers.
Autonomy-supporting caregiving practices can thus be of great interest for both socializing agents and
researchers looking at toddlers ’optimal development and functioning.
When looking at the literature on AS in toddlerhood, a central interrogation remains around
its concrete manifestations. Indeed, in previous observational studies with toddlers, behavioral
codifications and their related definitions of AS have varied. In codification systems, elementsEARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 3
Downloaded by [70.55.79.137] at 14:38 22 March 2016

reminiscent of the traditional conceptualization of AS (Deci et al., 1994 ; Koestner et al., 1984 ) are
sometimes used (e.g., taking the child ’s perspective, offering choices, providing rationales for a task;
Laurin & Joussemet, 2015 ; Whipple et al., 2011 ), as are a variety of other practices thought to reflect
AS (e.g., scaffolding, following the child ’s ongoing activity, making suggestions; e.g., Bernier et al.,
2010 ; Cleveland et al., 2007 ; Laurin & Joussemet, 2015 ). These variations may conceivably be due to
sensible adaptations of AS for younger children and to the different contexts in which AS was
studied (e.g., challenging game, requests, and parent –child conversations). Nonetheless, this varia-
bility in what may be autonomy-supportive practices with toddlers puts forward interesting and
significant questions: Is the traditional operationalization of AS, which was initially conceptualized
in a study involving elementary school-age children (Koestner et al., 1984 ), developmentally appro-
priate for toddlers, as there are various developmental differences between these age groups? What
may be the practices involved in supporting the autonomy of toddlers across various situations?
The present study
The purpose of the present study was thus to explore possible manifestations of AS toward toddlers.
To achieve this goal, we conducted individual interviews with child care educators, one important
socialization agent in a toddler ’s life. Specifically, this research aimed to identify and describe
different practices used by child care educators working in childhood day care centers to support
the autonomy of toddlers ages 18 to 36 months. By practices , the present study refers to (a) behaviors
(actions toward toddlers, accomplished in reaction to what they did or in prevention of what they
will do, including the alteration of toddlers ’immediate day care environment) and (b) communica-
tion (what is said to toddlers, including nonverbal ways of communicating with them, in prevention
of and/or in reaction to what they did or what they will do).
Epistemology
The present qualitative methodology was inspired by a constructivist approach. This approach
stipulates the existence of multiple realities, each constructed by every observer based on his or
her social environment and lived experiences (Guba & Lincoln, 1994 ). To fully comprehend a lived
phenomenon, one seeks the point of view of those who experience it daily (Schwandt, 1994 ,2000 ).
Through dialogue (Ponterotto, 2005 ), we aspired to obtain respondents ’multiple and experiential
points of view to better understand toddler AS.
We considered interviews an informative step in the exploration of autonomy-supportive
practices with toddlers, as this qualitative methodology enables an open, exploratory, and ecologi-
cally valid outlook on the topic. Indeed, interviews allowed access to actors ’experiential meaning of
AS expressed in their own words, thus complementing existing research that uses the traditional,
theory-based conceptualization of AS. By exploring AS from actors ’point of view, our hope was to
nourish further empirical, applied, and theoretical work.
Child care educators and Quebec ’schild care system
In 1997, in the province of Quebec (Canada), a universal child care system was implemented. At the
same time, an integrated educational program was put into place for early childhood services. This
educational program, reviewed in 2003, is intended for all early child care services of Quebec
(Berger, Héroux, & Shéridan, 2012 ; Québec, 2007 ). Currently there are four main types of child
care services, three of them publicly funded: child care centers ( Centre de la Petite Enfance ), family
day care, and day care centers (subsidized and unsubsidized). Class sizes vary according to child age
groups, with a typical ratio of 8 children to 1 educator for children ages 18 to 48 months (Berger
et al., 2012 ). In child care services, at least two thirds of child care or day care personnel must hold
professional qualifications (Québec, 2014 ). A college (i.e., preuniversity level) vocational diploma in4 M. CÔTÉ-LECALDARE ET AL.
Downloaded by [70.55.79.137] at 14:38 22 March 2016

childhood education is the primary training granting access to the profession ( Technique d ’éducation
àl ’enfance ). Other college- or university-level trainings are recognized as equivalents by the
government (e.g., a university certification in childhood or a college diploma in day care services),
most of them requiring additional relevant experience or classes (e.g., educational approach, child
safety; Québec, 2015 ).
Method
Participants
Eight child care educators took part in the research project to investigate autonomy-supportive
practices with toddlers. All participants were women and had received training related to their work
as child care educators either at a college level ( n= 6) or at a university level ( n= 2) in different
recognized programs. Four participants also held university-level training in other disciplines.
Among the participants, seven participants worked in child care centers ( Centres de la Petite
Enfance ) and one worked in an unsubsidized day care center, all located in the greater Montreal
region. Further participant characteristics are available in Table 1 .
Participants were selected on the basis of the age of the children under their care and their
motivational style. All participants were currently working with children in the target age group,
namely, toddlers between the ages of 18 and 36 months old. Moreover, all participants valued AS, as
measured by their mean score on two questions of a motivational style questionnaire adapted from the
Problems in School Questionnaire (Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981 ; Reeve, Bolt, & Cai, 1999 ).
These questions were completed beforehand as part of two ongoing projects or for the purpose of
recruitment in this study. Participants ’mean score was 4.75, with all above the reference sample mean
(M= 2.29 for the two items; reference sample maximum = 10, minimum = –5), which was composed of
94 child care educators from the greater Montreal area. In light of this purposeful sampling strategy,
these child care educators were considered information-rich and expert respondents (Patton, 2002 ).
Procedure
After obtaining ethical approval, the principal investigator recruited all child care educators (with the
exception of one) from among participants of a larger ongoing project, contacting solely educators
who had agreed to be contacted for further studies and who met the selection criteria. After they
consented verbally to take part in the study, the consent form and the interview protocol were sent
electronically to each participant a few days before the planned meeting. This allowed participants to
look over the consent criteria and the interview questions beforehand. Individual face-to-face
semistructured interviews were then conducted between March 2014 and September 2014. These
interviews took place at one of the following locations: the participant ’s workplace, our institution
Table 1. Participant characteristics.
Sociodemographic
Characteristics Toddlers
Child Care Educator
Identifier Age EthnicityAge Group
(Months)Experience With This
Age Group (Years)Total Experience
(Years)Number of Children
Under Care
1 35 Greek/Canadian 18 –36 13 13 —
2 28 Quebecker 21 –25 1 7 5
3 43 Quebecker 32 –40 3 19 8
4 34 Quebecker 31 –35 2 13 8
5 25 Quebecker 10 –36 2.5 2.5 4–8
6 32 Bulgarian 24 –35 1.5 2.5 8
7 25 Quebecker 18 –36 2 5 6
8 33 Haitian 24 –30 3 12 8
Note . Participant 1 was a specialized child care educator for children with special needs.EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 5
Downloaded by [70.55.79.137] at 14:38 22 March 2016

(the Université de Montréal), or the conference room of a public library. All interviews were audio-
recorded and later transcribed verbatim for analysis by a professional transcriber. Following the
interview, participants filled out a short sociodemographic questionnaire. A $35 monetary compen-
sation was given to each participant to thank her for her time and participation.
Data collection instruments
Interview protocol
The individual semistructured interviews lasted approximately 45 min. The interview protocol was
specifically designed for the needs of the present study. At the beginning of the interview, the three
distinct caregiving dimensions of acceptance, structure, and AS were defined, and it was made clear
that only AS would be the topic under discussion. Moreover, as the word autonomy can have
different connotations (e.g., independence, self-reliance), and as the meaning of self-determination
can sometimes be difficult to grasp, supporting authenticity was chosen to stand for AS in the
interview. We used this expression in an effort to render accessible the notion of AS to respondents
and to facilitate a common understanding of the topic under discussion. In choosing the terminol-
ogy, we had identified alternative words we judged to convey the essence of AS: authenticity and
respect . In furthering this reflection, we conducted an informal survey among eight adults unfamiliar
with SDT. After being provided with a simple definition of AS, they were asked to select the word
that best reflected AS from among authenticity, respect , and self-determination . They were also free to
suggest any other terms. In light of their answers and further discussion among ourselves, supporting
authenticity was chosen. Furthermore, Ryan and colleagues ( 2006 ) presented authenticity as one of
the concepts compatible with SDT ’s view of autonomy, as authenticity also pertains to the experience
of acting from the self and fully endorsing one ’s actions (see Ryan et al., 2006 , for more details).
Next open-ended questions were asked, allowing each participant to elaborate freely on her
autonomy-supportive practices with toddlers. Participants were first guided through five situations
that were thought to arise daily in a toddler ’s life in day care: (a) free play, (b) organized activities
(i.e., activities planned by the educator, in which toddlers are expected to participate), (c) clean-up
time, (d) lunch and snack time, and (e) misbehaviors (i.e., when a child hurts another child or breaks
a classroom rule, such as standing on a chair). Participants were also invited to share additional
autonomy-supportive practices if desired.
The five situations were selected by us based on personal knowledge and some readings on child
care centers (Malenfant, 2014 ). They were also thought to vary in terms of educational goals and
level of challenge for both children and educators. Moreover, these contexts targeted the two
developmental processes put forward by SDT, namely, intrinsic motivation (e.g., free play) and
internalization (e.g., clean-up time). All together, these five different situations were regarded as
allowing for the exploration of a wide range of AS practices, the main objective of the study.
Sociodemographic questionnaire
Sociodemographic and child care –related information was gathered for each participant by means of
a short questionnaire. Information can be found in Table 1 .
Data analysis
A content analysis, adapted from L ’Écuyer (1990 ) and Paillé and Mucchielli ( 2008 ), was performed
by the first author on the overt content of the interviews with the support of NVivo 8 software.
Content analysis entails identifying, coding, and categorizing the central patterns in data (Patton,
2002 ). The present analysis was cross-case (i.e., horizontal), aimed at synthesizing and classifying the
autonomy-supportive practices revealed by participants.
After the entire corpus was read a number of times to get a sense of its global content, the sections
containing relevant information to answer the research questions were identified. As the present6 M. CÔTÉ-LECALDARE ET AL.
Downloaded by [70.55.79.137] at 14:38 22 March 2016

project aimed to explore autonomy-supportive practices, only discourse regarding actual practices
was analyzed. Other information provided by participants, such as practices to avoid, rationales for
behavior, or objectives of the practices, were beyond the scope of the present study. Next informative
sections of the corpus were divided into precise meaning units, each corresponding to an idea or a
theme (i.e., autonomy-supportive practices). For each unit, a category representing the conveyed idea
was assigned to the excerpt, with all excerpts carrying similar ideas classified under the same
category. This data reduction procedure was performed sequentially. Furthermore, as a mixed
categorization process was selected, categories emerging from the participants ’discourse were
created and preexisting categories based on the traditional conceptualization of AS (offering choices
and encouraging initiatives, providing a rationale for behavioral requests, and acknowledging
feelings and perspective) were refined. This categorization process resulted in a coding grid com-
prising a number of categories representative of the interviews ’content (L ’Écuyer, 1990 ; Paillé &
Mucchielli, 2008 ) and respecting L ’Écuyer ’s(1990 ) quality criteria, such as exhaustiveness, coher-
ence, homogeneousness, exclusiveness, relevance, and well-defined. The grid was developed by the
first author (identification, definition, and illustration of categories) and validated by the two
coauthors. All problematic excerpts for the primary investigator were submitted to these authors
and were classified through consensus. Based on shared meaning and relationships (Paillé &
Mucchielli, 2012 ), the individual practices were clustered into practice domains, which were
subsequently grouped into stances an educator may have in relation to a toddler.
Finally, redundancy is a qualitative criterion that can be used to evaluate sample size (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985 ; Patton, 2002 ). Although redundancy cannot be definitely confirmed, thematic recur-
rence was observed in respondents ’discourse, suggesting a satisfactory and useful sample size for
exploring autonomy-supportive practices with toddlers.
Results
Respondents ’discourse revealed 18 autonomy-supportive practices with toddlers, discussed through-
out five differing situations, from free play to misbehaviors. We clustered these individual practices
into five practice domains, as presented here. A summary of these practices can be found in Table 2 .
Knowing the toddler
This first practice domain joins three of the autonomy-supportive practices revealed by child care
educators ’discourse: (a) observation, (b) chatting with the toddler, and (c) collaboration with parents.
Together, these practices can be seen as aiming to know and understand the toddler. As understood
from the discourse, knowing the child can refer to his or her state (e.g., his or her mood), traits (e.g., his
or her interests or eating habits), or factual information (e.g., what he or she is doing right now).
Observation of the toddler consists of observing and paying attention to one child or to the group
of toddlers under care, noticing various child-related information such as play interests, friendships,
abilities, or current states: “I watch, I see that such child, such child goes to see such child to give him
offerings or to invite him to play ”1(Participant 2). As highlighted in child care educators ’discourse,
observing the child takes place throughout the daily routine, can be more informative when achieved
over the long term (as opposed to 1 day), and can sometimes be written down on planning tools or
verbally communicated to the child.
Chatting with the toddler refers to the child care educator talking with and listening to the toddler.
Indeed, respondents evoked three types of behaviors: (a) chatting with the child about various topics;
(b) questioning children on matters such as their food preferences, their interests, or desired activities;
and (c) being attentive to what the toddler has to say. For example, Participant 7 recounted asking
toddlers about their weekend activities or talking about subjects brought up by children under her care.
1Free translation of respondents ’discourse by the first author. Salient linguistic errors and informal expressions were corrected.EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 7
Downloaded by [70.55.79.137] at 14:38 22 March 2016

Collaboration with parents entails communicating with the caregiver, formally or casually, about
diverse subjects regarding the toddler. According to some child care educators, this collaboration can be
bidirectional, with both the educator and the caregiver providing valuable information to each other.
Some examples taken from respondents ’discourse are talking about the toddler ’s achievements, his or
her interests, or his or her daily mood: “And comments also from parents, in the morning. If he tells us: ‘Ah
he/she did not sleep last night, ’then us, we know that, maybe he/she ’sl e s si ns h a p e ”(Participant 8).
Being sensitive and responsive
This second practice domain encompasses four autonomy-supportive practices that reflect the child
care educators ’attunement to toddlers: (a) availability, (b) perspective taking, (c) adapting to the
child, and (d) reflexivity. The toddler seems to be the adult ’s point of reference for behaviors and
interactions, in what could be qualified as a child-centered attitude.
Availability is twofold, as two patterns emerged from respondents ’discourse. First, the child care
educator is physically present with the toddler in various contexts (e.g., during play or snack time),
with some respondents qualifying this presence as discreet: “Myself, I really believe in playing with
the child, to sit down, you know, not necessarily participate in children ’s games, but being present ”
(Participant 1). Second, the child care educator provides help and support to the toddler if he or she
is in need of assistance or is experiencing difficulties.
Perspective taking consists of acknowledging and understanding the toddler ’s point of view or
experience; in other words, putting oneself in the child ’s shoes. Child care educators presented
different perspective-taking themes, such as the toddler ’s emotions and his or her perspective in a
conflict situation with another toddler. Furthermore, they spoke of putting into words what the child
may be experiencing or what might have happened in a given situation: “I will put words for him,
verbalize it, in fact. For example: I think you were mad because [. . .] child X wanted your truck. Hum,
so I acknowledge what he ’s experiencing [. . .] ”(Participant 2).
Adapting to the child is defined as the child care educator adjusting or modifying her behaviors,
activities, requests, and/or the classroom environment according to the individualities of one toddlerTable 2. Autonomy-supportive practices by practice domain.
Knowing the toddler
Observation of the toddler
Chatting with the toddler (chatting about various topics, questioning children, being attentive to what toddlers say)
Collaboration with parents
Being sensitive and responsive
Availability (being physically present, providing help if needed)
Perspective taking*
Adapting to the child
Reflexivity
Being partners
Offering choices*
Responsibilities
Make it fun/educational
Initiatives and exploration* (allowing the toddler to determine his or her activities, allowing him or her to lead, welcoming and
supporting discoveries)
Mentoring the child
Modeling
Scaffolding (letting the child accomplish actions within his or her abilities, guidance and scaffolding actions)
The intense feelings zone
Providing explicit guidelines and feedback
Requests and instructions (explaining rationales for requests, rules, and refusals*; establishing steady routines and preparing
transitions; ways to provide rules and request)
Positive feedback (congratulations, positive reinforcement, encouragements, motivation)
Feedback for misbehaviors (communicating disapproval, redirecting to alternative activities or behaviors, guided reflective
discussion, ways to provide feedback)
Consequences for misbehaviors (asking to make amends, giving consequences, intentional ignoring, temporary withdrawal)
Note . Asterisks identify practices similar to the traditional conceptualization of autonomy support (Deci et al., 1994 ;K o e s t n e re ta l . , 1984 ).8 M. CÔTÉ-LECALDARE ET AL.
Downloaded by [70.55.79.137] at 14:38 22 March 2016

or of toddlers in general. Respondents discussed different child features to which they adapt, which
can be divided and labeled as follows: (a) pace and abilities, (b) interests and preferences, (c)
temperament and mood, and (d) perceived needs and difficulties. Some illustrations are organizing
activities according to children ’s interests, adjusting lunch portions to food preferences, providing
play materials within children ’s reach, and letting children clean up at their own pace. Furthermore,
some educators highlighted the need to be flexible and creative to adapt to children. Lastly, others
pointed out limits to this practice. For example, Participant 7 spoke about respecting children ’s food
preferences but requesting that a child eat something if this toddler continually refuses to eat lunch.
Reflexivity refers to a process by which the child care educator is thinking and questioning herself
on subjects related to the child and to her role as an educator. Indeed, some respondents talked
about reflecting on the toddler ’s reactions or behaviors (e.g., why a child may not want to do an
activity), whereas others discussed reflexivity regarding their daily activity planning for the children
(e.g., Are the activities adapted for the day?) or their personal stance as educators (e.g., Is it necessary
that my classroom be all cleaned up before we move on to the next activity?).
Being partners
This third domain groups together four autonomy-supportive practices that seem to be characterized
bya collaborative stance between the child care educator and the toddler, as the former (a) offers
choices, (b) offers responsibilities, (c) makes some tasks more fun/educational, and (d) allows
initiatives and exploration. With these four practices, child care educators appear to treat toddlers
as partners and volitional individuals.
Offering choices consists of giving the toddler the opportunity to make choices or suggesting
more than one option for him or her to make a choice. As can be highlighted from respondents ’
discourse, offering choices can be explicit (e.g., “What color toy do you want to put away ?”
Participant 6) or implicit (e.g., through the disposition of games in the classroom or the availability
of activity material). Some child care educators also spoke of choices they sometimes labeled false
choices , in which the child is given options about ways to engage in a task rather than about engaging
in the task or not: “You want to eat with your fork or your spoon? ”(Participant 4).
Responsibilities as an autonomy-supportive practice consists of the child care educator involving
the toddler in various tasks, having him or her take part in the day care center routines and jobs.
Respondents spoke about assigning responsibilities to children (e.g., cleaning up specific toys,
distributing plates and utensils) and soliciting toddlers ’help and knowledge at times. In further
describing this practice, some participants talked about using a responsibility chart, which visually
presents tasks and which children are in charge of them, whereas others indicated that responsi-
bilities should be specific and adapted to the child ’s developmental level.
Making tasks fun/educational primarily refers to including playful features in a task or transforming a
chore or task into a game. While evoking this practice, participants spoke of songs, music, and games,
sometimes tailored to the toddler ’s personal interests: “I do a clean-up game. For example, to say, ‘Now,
we’re going to pretend that our toys, they are treasures. We ’re going to put them away in the treasure chest ’”
(Participant 3). Adding another dimension to this pra ctice, some respondents discussed the inclusion of
educational themes in fun activities or tasks (e.g. , learning colors while building block towers).
Initiatives and exploration is defined as the child care educator allowing the toddler to take on a
leading role. Several behaviors were discussed by respondents and can be divided into three
categories. First, the adult allows the child to determine his or her activities (e.g., pursuing his or
her desired game or selecting the day care task he or she wants to do). The child is even free to
decide if he or she wishes to take part in activities planned by the child care educator. Child care
educators may invite the child to join the activity but ultimately respect his or her decision. Second,
the adult allows the toddler to lead his or her activities. Different illustrations were found in
respondents ’discourse, such as letting the child decide on the materials and direction of a craft
project, how to eat his or her lunch (e.g., with hands or utensils), or whether he or she wants theEARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 9
Downloaded by [70.55.79.137] at 14:38 22 March 2016

adult to take part in his or her play or not. Third, the adult welcomes and supports the toddler ’s
discoveries, entailing here a more active stance on the part of the child care educator. For example,
Participant 8 spoke of bringing new foods for children to discover. Lastly, limits to allowing
initiatives and exploration were mentioned in domains such as child safety and classroom rules.
Mentoring the child
The practices encompassed in this fourth domain can be seen as sharing a common guidance feature,
inwhich the adult, in a mentoring posture, provides help and information to the child: (a) modeling,
(b) scaffolding, and (c) making use of an intense feelings zone .
Modeling refers to the child care educator demonstrating a behavior to the child or performing a
desired action alongside the child. Several modeling behaviors were highlighted in participants ’
discourse, such as eating or cleaning up with the toddler, showing him or her how to use a toy, and
demonstrating an activity.
Scaffolding refers to the child care educator letting the child accomplish tasks or behaviors that
are within his or her abilities and engaging in scaffolding and guidance behaviors. With regard to
guidance behaviors, some respondents referred to breaking down tasks into steps and gradually
enabling the child to accomplish more behaviors by himself or herself, whereas other respondents
spoke of making suggestions or asking reflective questions about the child ’s activity: “You want this
BIG truck to fit in the SMALL house, do you think that it ’s possible? ”(Participant 6).
The intense feelings zone consists of an available space in the classroom where the toddler can
calm down or relax when feeling strong emotions such as frustration or sadness. Respondents
referred to different objects that are included in this space, such as a chair, teddy bears, or images
depicting different emotions. The child care educators ’discourse also revealed two patterns for this
practice, which can be labeled as follows: (a) a child regulation focus, in which the child care
educator directly asks the child to withdraw to the intense feelings zone to regain his or her calm and
to return to the group once soothed; and (b) a helping focus, in which the child care educator more
actively supports the child in calming down.
Providing explicit guidelines and feedback
This last practice domain joins together four autonomy-supportive practices: (a) requests and
instructions, (b) positive feedback, (c) feedback for misbehaviors, and (d) consequences for misbe-
haviors. These practices can all be seen as characterized by the adult providing the child with explicit
directives, information, and rules regarding his or her behaviors.
Requests and instructions consist of communicating rules, requests, and expectations to the
toddler, either verbally or with nonverbal strategies. In further discussion of this practice, three
themes emerged from respondents ’discourse. First, the child care educator explains to the toddler
the rationale behind requests, rules, or refusals. Second, the educator establishes steady routines and
prepares transitions between activities by notifying the child in advance, stating what the following
activity will be, and using nonverbal aids such as a schedule or a visual timer. Third, respondents
mentioned ways to give rules and requests, such as regularly repeating rules, posting drawings
depicting the rule, and wording requests positively and clearly: “I always make the request positively,
like ‘Sit down on your bum ’[. . .] not ‘Don ’t stand on the chair ’”(Participant 5).
Positive feedback refers to the following behaviors evoked in respondents ’discourse: congratulating
or positively reinforcing toddlers ’efforts, behaviors, or accomplishments; encouraging toddlers in
activities or tasks; and motivating them. A few illustrations were given, such as saying “Bravo! ”or
“Thank you, ”praising the child (e.g., “Bravo, you cleaned up well! ”) giving a thumbs up, displaying
children ’s artwork, and encouraging the child to accomplish a task by means of something he or she
enjoys (e.g., telling a child who likes to draw that we took out the pencils, or using stickers). As can be
understood from the discourse, positive feedback can be offered verbally or with nonverbal strategies.10 M. CÔTÉ-LECALDARE ET AL.
Downloaded by [70.55.79.137] at 14:38 22 March 2016

Feedback for misbehaviors is defined as the child care educator providing various types of
information to the toddler about his or her misbehavior. Different feedback behaviors were evoked,
which can be grouped as follows. First, the child care educator communicates disapproval of the
toddler ’s behavior either verbally (e.g., making a sound, stating disapproval) or with nonverbal
strategies (e.g., hand gestures, stares). Second, the adult redirects the child to an alternative behavior
or activity. Third, the adult engages and guides the child in a reflective discussion about his or her
behavior, the consequences, and possible solutions. Finally, some ways in which to provide feedback
were discussed, such as using short sentences and a firm tone, using “I”statements (e.g., “I don ’t
like it . . . ”Participant 5), speaking individually with the child, or wording sentences to convey
disapproval with the behavior and not with the child.
Consequences for misbehaviors consists of four types of consequences revealed by child care
educators ’discourse: (a) asking the toddler to make amends (e.g., verbal excuses, hugs, cleaning up
his or her mess), (b) giving consequences (e.g., a child cannot eat his or her snack if he or she refuses
to wash hands), (c) intentionally ignoring the child who misbehaves, and (d) temporarily with-
drawing that child. With regard to consequences, some features were mentioned, such as giving
logical (i.e., associated with the toddler ’s actions) or natural (i.e., occurring naturally in response to
the act) consequences and using a calm voice. With regard to temporary withdrawal, some educators
referred to isolating the child in response to the misdeed, whereas others spoke of withdrawing the
child while taking care of the one who was injured (e.g., bitten) or when the toddler repeatedly
misbehaves.
In further analyzing these five practice domains and their related autonomy-supportive practices,
we suggest that they indicate three different positions the adult may embrace when socializing
toddlers. We have thus grouped these practice domains according to the child care educator ’s stance
in relation to the toddler: a personal stance, a dyadic stance, or an overt educational stance. We offer
here a brief overview, as Figure 1 fully presents these stances. The first stance is a personal one, in
which the child care educator orients himself or herself toward the child to eventually understand and
respond to him or her. Next, the dyadic stance presents the educator when engaged in collaborative
interactions with the toddler. Finally, with the overt educational stance, the educator is more actively
butrespectfully structuring the child ’s behaviors. The child is still somewhat involved in the inter-
action, but in a more receptive role.
PERSONAL STANCE DYADIC STANCE OVERT EDUCATIONAL
STANCE
KNOWING THE TODDLER
BEING SENSITIVE AND
RESPONSIVE
With these practice s, the childcare
educator demonstrates an open and
genuine interest towards the child,
paying attention to toddler’s signals,
understanding them and considering
them to guide his own response. BEING PARTNERS
MENTORING THE CHILD
Whether in a partnership or a
mentorship role, the childcare
educator is engaged in collaborative
interactions with the toddler. There is
space for the toddler’s active
participation, input and volition, as
well as for the educator’s guidance
and involvement. PROVIDING EXPLICIT
GUIDELINES AND FEEDBACK
The childcare educator takes on an active
educational role, with the toddler being in
a more receptive position. The educator is
structuring the toddler’s behaviors, with
what appears to be respectful provision of
rules, comments, feedback and
consequences.
Figure 1. The five autonomy-supportive practice domains organized according to the child care educator ’sstance in relation to the
toddler.EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 11
Downloaded by [70.55.79.137] at 14:38 22 March 2016

Discussion
The central goal of this study was to explore autonomy-supportive practices with toddlers ages 18 to
36 months. To this end, eight child care educators who, based on our assessment, appeared to value
AS were interviewed. The qualitative analysis of the interviews revealed 18 practices these child care
educators considered supportive of toddlers ’autonomy. They were discussed in the contexts of
intrinsic motivation (e.g., play) and internalization (e.g., clean-up time), two important processes in
child development and socialization (Ryan & Deci, 2000b ). These practices were grouped into five
practice domains, which were then organized into three stances the educator may have in relation to
the toddler.
In light of these findings, we propose that being supportive of autonomy is a threefold stance.
First and foremost, it is a child-oriented personal stance, in which educators genuinely pay attention
to toddlers ’signals, try to apprehend them accurately, and use them to guide their responses. Second,
it involves engaging in a reciprocal and collaborative relationship with the child. Educators do not
establish a one-up/one-down relation with toddlers. Instead, they strive to foster a horizontal,
cooperative climate. Third, AS is about considering the child as a full-fledged individual , granting
as much importance to toddlers ’reality and experiences as to one ’s own. The practices found in this
study represent many means of actualizing AS with toddlers.
The eight participating child care educators, presumably not familiar with SDT, evoked practices
similar to the traditional conceptualization of AS: providing a rationale and explanation for beha-
vioral requests, acknowledging feelings and perspective, and offering choices and encouraging
initiatives (Deci et al., 1994 ; Koestner et al., 1984 ). As our findings are in line with such practices,
they offer further support for their validity and suggest that these practices are developmentally
appropriate for a younger age group, namely, toddlers. Yet the study ’s results also widen the scope of
AS, highlighting additional caregiving practices that may support the autonomy of toddlers. Indeed,
respondents discussed practices such as adapting to the child, being available, and modeling, which
capture what it means to be autonomy-supportive from their professional perspectives and perhaps
their personal perspectives as well.
Like all of us, child care educators are part of a larger context that influences beliefs, interactions,
and practices. Indeed, the sociocultural context shapes educational models and practices by estab-
lishing educational norms among diverse existing values and practices (Schultheis, Frauenfelder, &
Delay, 2007 ). In Quebec, offering conditions for optimal child development, providing caring
environments, and preventing child adversity are some prevailing societal values (Québec, 1991 ).
Policies in turn tend to reflect these sociocultural messages regarding childhood education. Of
particular significance is Quebec ’s educational program for child care services, a central reference
document in child care educators ’professional training (Québec, 2007 ). As we were unaware of child
care educators ’professional context during the interview protocol design and data analysis, we
explored it further to better appreciate respondents ’perspectives on AS. In a nutshell, this program
promotes five basic principles grounded in attachment theory (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall,
1978 ), Bronfenbrenner ’s(1979 ) ecological model, and the active learning approach (HighScope;
Hohmann & Weikart, 2002 ) as well as the democratic intervention style (Québec, 2007 ). The five
basic principles suggest central caregiving guidelines: respecting each child ’s individualities, support-
ing his or her natural developmental tendencies, facilitating child development in all of its domains
(cognitive, affective, motor, etc.), considering play as a main learning tool, and creating a collabora-
tive and trusting relationship with parents to foster children ’s sense of security with educators
(Québec, 2007 ).
When further exploring the interventions avenues advocated by this program and some of its key
references, we discovered that several of them have similarities to our results (e.g., acquiring
knowledge about each child, working with children ’s individualities, providing children with time
and an adequate play environment, allowing choices and decision making, supporting initiatives,
establishing steady routines and problem solving; Hohmann, Weikart, Bourgon, & Proulx, 2001 ;12 M. CÔTÉ-LECALDARE ET AL.
Downloaded by [70.55.79.137] at 14:38 22 March 2016

Malenfant, 2014 ; Post, Hohmann, Bergeron, & Léger, 2003 ; Québec, 2007 ). It thus seems that our
group of autonomy-supportive educators have brought some practices that are part of their profes-
sional context under the umbrella of AS, probably reflecting their internalization of these caregiving
guidelines. In addition, we suggest that this correspondence also stems from conceptual similarities
between AS and two basic principles of Quebec ’s program: (a) each child is unique, having his or her
own individualities, developmental pace, needs, and interest; and (b) children are the primary agents
of their development, with the majority of children ’s learnings stemming from their intrinsic
motivation and active learning abilities (Québec, 2007 ). As can be noted, some facets of the
program ’s caregiving philosophy bear a resemblance to the SDT perspective of AS: recognizing the
child as active and self-directed and being responsive to his or her initiatives, ideas, and preferences.
Such conceptual similarities probably facilitated the discussion of practices familiar to our respon-
dents, which they personally considered autonomy supportive.
Some findings, however, were unexpected, in particular those concerning positive feedback and
feedback and consequences for misbehaviors. These practices are more akin to the concept of
structure than AS. In the parenting literature, structure refers to the provision of clear expectations,
feedback, limit setting, and consequences regarding behaviors (Barber & Olsen, 1997 ; Grolnick &
Raftery-Helmer, 2013 ). To our knowledge, behavioral interventions aimed at shaping desirable
behaviors or decreasing undesirable ones are also part of child care educators ’training (S. Major,
Petite enfance et famille: éducation et interventions précoces program coordinator, Faculty of
Continuing Education, Université de Montréal, personal communication, June 22, 2015). During
interviews, respondents thus also spoke about some familiar structure practices, such as positive
reinforcement, contingent attention, consequences, and timeout (e.g., Assa, 2002 ; Malenfant, 2014 ).
As such interventions are not featured in Quebec ’s educational program per se, their place in
educators ’training and practice may have stemmed from the more general emphasis on behavioral
interventions at the societal level (Kohn, 1999 ).
The design of the interview protocol can also shed light on such results. Participants were guided
through five day care situations: free play, organized activities, clean up, lunch and snack time, and
misbehaviors. This was intended to facilitate discussion of autonomy-supportive practices by means
of familiar cues for child care educators. However, some of these situations can be seen as conducive
to structure strategies, in particular misbehaviors, which may be thought as pulling for controlling
methods (Grolnick, 2003 ). It thus appears that our interview protocol gave rise to a unique
discussion about the close relationship between structure and AS. Indeed, this association was
highlighted by some of the respondents during their interviews. This is interesting, as it may be
more challenging to support autonomy in situations perceived as requiring greater authority, such as
responding to misbehavior or lack of cooperation. Thus, we suggest that we had access to some of
the respondents ’structure practices, often with an autonomy-supportive twist. Some illustrations
include engaging the toddler in a reflective discussion about his or her behaviors and asking him or
her to make amends. These strategies can be seen as open to toddler input and self-direction.
Moreover, positive verbal feedback, which was most salient in respondents ’discourse, can be
expressed in either a controlling or informational manner (e.g., Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999 ;
Henderlong & Lepper, 2002 ; Kast & Connor, 1988 ), the latter being more autonomy supportive.
However, from the present results, we cannot clearly determine whether our autonomy-supportive
respondents make such a distinction.
All together, these unexpected findings put forward the idea that an autonomy-supportive style
does not imply permissiveness (i.e., lack of structure). Rather, it is about implementing rules,
promoting appropriate behavior, and following through with consequences in a manner that is
respectful of each child ’s feelings, ideas, and sense of volition. Indeed, structure can be provided in
either an autonomy-supportive or a controlling manner (e.g., Grolnick et al., 2014 ; Reeve, 2006 ).
Studies have demonstrated that providing structure in an autonomy-supportive way, as opposed to a
controlling way, generally leads to better outcomes for children and adolescents (e.g., Grolnick &
Ryan, 1987 ; Kast & Connor, 1988 ; Koestner et al., 1984 ; Mouratidis, Lens, & Vansteenkiste, 2010 ;EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 13
Downloaded by [70.55.79.137] at 14:38 22 March 2016

Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, Soenens, & Dochy, 2009 ). Moreover, recent studies looking at
teachers ’provision of AS and structure found those constructs to be both distinct and positively
correlated (Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010 ; Sierens et al., 2009 ). In their study, Jang and colleagues ( 2010 )
found that both constructs uniquely promoted student engagement and concluded that to foster
optimal student engagement, structure must be provided in an autonomy-supportive way. In sum,
ASand structure are both needed for optimal outcomes in socialization relationships in which
guidelines and supervision are involved, which is a reality also portrayed in our findings.
With regard to the larger literature on AS, some of our autonomy-supportive practices appear
concordant with elements of the behavioral codifications of AS utilized in previous studies with
toddlers, such as following the child ’s pace, making suggestions, and providing opportunities to
make choices (e.g., Bernier et al., 2010 ; Laurin & Joussemet, 2015 ; Whipple et al., 2011 ). Moreover,
some of the practices reported by our autonomy-supportive educators (e.g., attentively listening to
children, engaging in perspective taking, offering choices) are in line with the parenting program
based on Ginott ’s writings, “How to talk so kids will listen and listen so kids will talk ”(Faber &
Mazlish, 2010 ,1980 ; Joussemet, Mageau, & Koestner, 2014 ), which includes numerous autonomy-
supportive practices. Finally, Reeve and collaborators ( 1999 ;2006 ) have observed the behaviors of
autonomy-supportive teachers, and a number of their practices bear a resemblance to the present
findings, such as allowing students to accomplish tasks in their own ways and giving progress-
enabling hints (akin to scaffolding; Reeve, 2006 ; Reeve et al., 1999 ; Reeve & Jang, 2006 ). It thus
appears that some of the autonomy-supportive practices revealed by our group of child care
educators relate well to a number of existing practices in the youth AS literature.
Strengths, limitations, and future directions
A methodological challenge encountered in this study related to rendering accessible to respondents
thenotion of AS (i.e., fostering self-determination). To foster common understanding, we used the
term supporting authenticity in the interviews and provided an accessible definition that was found
to make sense from respondents ’points of reference: “authenticity as the child being a unique
individual who has a role to play in his learnings and development .”These words we judged to be
simple and meaningful, and they were found to be conducive to rich discourse. We would
recommend the use of these words in future studies.
We identified three main limitations to the design of the present study. First, autonomy-
supportive practices with toddlers were investigated through interviews and not through direct
day care observations. Reporting one ’s own behaviors can sometimes be challenging, as people are
not always fully aware of their own actions. Thus, some autonomy-supportive practices may not
have been discussed by respondents. Second, the impacts of these self-reported practices on toddler
outcomes (e.g., well-being, internalization of rules) were not investigated. Thus, it is not yet possible
to assert the benefits of such practices for toddlers. Third, the child care educators ’professional
context may be seen as a possible confounding variable, as one may ask about the relative influence
of this training versus the respondents ’personal autonomy-supportive orientation on the present
findings. Although respondents appeared to share a common professional training context, it was
probably not identical. Indeed, there is heterogeneity in early child care training, which can be seen
in day care centers (Major, 2014 ), and our respondents had studied in different recognized training
programs and time periods, given their varied ages. Moreover, individuals integrate learnings into
their sense of self to differing degrees as a function of the coherence between these teachings and
their personal values and style. It is therefore likely that our group of autonomy-supportive
educators spoke from both their professional context and personal styles.
Future studies on AS with toddlers could seek to replicate the present findings in another sample
of child care educators to increase confidence in the results. This sample could include male
educators, as all of our respondents were women. Replication studies could also be done among
educators with different professional training in order to see whether common autonomy-supportive14 M. CÔTÉ-LECALDARE ET AL.
Downloaded by [70.55.79.137] at 14:38 22 March 2016

practices would emerge. Methodological triangulation (e.g., interviews, classroom observation, self-
reported questionnaires) could also strengthen and expand findings, allowing for deeper insight into
caregiver autonomy-supportive practices and their influence on toddlers. Note that observation grids
and self-report questionnaires could be inspired by the practices revealed by the present qualitative
study, informing subsequent investigations of AS toward toddlers. Moreover, we suggest continuing
the investigation of autonomy-supportive practices with child care educators and also with parents,
as they may reveal additional and complementary practices. Finally, it would be informative to
investigate how AS relates to other caregiving constructs, such as maternal sensitivity and coopera-
tion with infant behaviors (Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1971 ; Bretherton, 2013 ; Mesman & Emmen,
2013 ), and to do so using longitudinal designs. Perhaps highly sensitive and cooperative educators
are more likely to act in an autonomy-supportive way as infants grow into toddlerhood.
Implications
The present study identified several caregiving practices developmentally appropriate for toddlers.
Alltogether, they contribute to a more comprehensive picture of the possible means of actualizing
AS with young children, adding to both theoretical knowledge and practical applications of AS. With
further support for their benefits with toddlers, such practices could also provide the basis for
concrete recommendations for child care educators interested in promoting toddlers ’motivation and
functioning. Heightening educators ’awareness of these practices could be achieved through work-
shops, for example. In a study by Reeve and colleagues ( 2004 ), high school teachers took part in a 1-
hr information session workshop on AS and had access to an interactive website to assist them in
applying the autonomy-supportive principles learned (see Reeve et al., 2004 , for details). As empiri-
cal knowledge on autonomy-supportive practices with toddlers continues to grow, such a knowledge
transfer strategy would be relevant to helping child care educators satisfy toddlers ’basic need for
self-determination.
References
Adie, J. W., Duba, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2012). Perceived coach-autonomy support, basic need satisfaction and the
well- and ill-being of elite youth soccer players: A longitudinal investigation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise ,13(1),
51–59. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.07.008
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. J. (1971). Individual differences in Strange Situation behaviors of one-
year-olds. In H. R. Schaffer (Ed.), The origins of human social relations: Proceedings of a C.A.S.D.S. study group on
“The origins of human social relations ”held jointly with the Ciba Foundation, London, July, 1969: Being the fifth
study group in a C.A.S.D.S. programme on “The origins of human behaviour ”(pp. 17 –57). London, UK: Academic
Press.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the
Strange Situation . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Alvarez, M. S., Balaguer, I., Castillo, I., & Duba, J. L. (2009). Coach autonomy support and quality of sport engagement
in young soccer players. The Spanish Journal of Psychology ,12(1), 138 –148. doi: 10.1017/S1138741600001554
Assa, E. L. (2002). À nous de jouer! en service de garde éducatif: Guide pratique pour résoudre les problèmes
comportementaux des enfants d ’âge préscolaire [A practical guide to solving preschooler behavior problems] . Sainte-
Foy, Quebec, Canada: Les Publications du Québec.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and
suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students ’engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational
Psychology ,72(2), 261 –278. doi: 10.1348/000709902158883
Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (1997). Socialization in context: Connection, regulation, and autonomy in the family,
school, and neighborhood, and with peers. Journal of Adolescent Research ,12(2), 287 –315. doi: 10.1177/
0743554897122008
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-regulation, ego depletion and motivation. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass ,1(1), 115 –128. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00001.x
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child-care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology
Monographs ,75(1), 43 –88.EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 15
Downloaded by [70.55.79.137] at 14:38 22 March 2016

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph ,4(1), 1 –103.
doi:10.1037/h0030372
Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth Society ,9(3), 239 –276.
doi:10.1177/0044118X7800900302
Berger, D., Héroux, L., & Shéridan, D. (2012). L’éducation à l ’enfance. Une voie professionnelle à découvrir [Childhood
education. A career path to discover] (2nd ed., G. Morin, Ed.). Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Chenelière Éducation.
Bernier, A., Whipple, N., & Carlson, S. M. (2010). From external regulation to self-regulation: Early parenting precursors
of young children ’s executive functioning. Child Development ,81(1), 326 –339. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01397.x
Bretherton, I. (2013). Revisiting Mary Ainsworth ’s conceptualization and assessments of maternal sensitivity-insensitivity.
Attachment & Human Development ,15(5–6), 460 –484. doi: 10.1080/14616734.2013.835128
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cleveland, E. S., Reese, E., & Grolnick, W. S. (2007). Children ’s engagement and competence in personal recollection:
Effects of parents ’reminiscing goals. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology ,96(2), 131 –149. doi: 10.1016/j.
jecp.2006.09.003
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory
perspective. Journal of Personality ,62(1), 119 –142. doi: 10.1111/jopy.1994.62.issue-1
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of
extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin ,125(6), 627 –668. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior . New York,
NYbk_AQCmts10b: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what ”and “why ”of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of
behavior. Psychological Inquiry ,11(4), 227 –268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life ’s domains.
Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne ,49(1), 14 –23. doi: 10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). The importance of autonomy for development and well-being. In B. W. Sokol, F. M.
E. Grouzet, & U. Muller (Eds.), Self-regulation and autonomy: Social and developmental dimensions of human
conduct (pp. 19 –46). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults ’orientations toward
control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of
Educational Psychology ,73(5), 642 –650. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.73.5.642
Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: Understanding human
development in positive psychology. Ricerche Di Psicologia ,27(1), 23 –40.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society: Growing up in an age of uncertainty: Issues in society . New York, NY:
Norton.
Faber, A., & Mazlish, E. (1980). How to talk so kids will listen and listen so kids will talk . New York, NY: Rawson.
Faber, A., & Mazlish, E. (2010). How to talk so kids will listen; Group workshop kit . New York, NY: Faber\Mazlish
Worskshops.
Frodi, A., Bridges, L., & Grolnick, W. (1985). Correlates of mastery-related behavior: A short-term longitudinal study
of infants in their second year. Child Development ,56(5), 1291 –1298. doi: 10.2307/1130244
Ginott, H. (1959). The theory and practice of “therapeutic intervention ”in child treatment. Journal of Consulting
Psychology ,23(2), 160 –166. doi: 10.1037/h0046805
Ginott, H. (1961). Group psychotherapy with children: The theory and practice of play-therapy . Toronto, Ontario,
Canada: McGraw-Hill.
Gralinski, H. J., & Kopp, C. B. (1993). Everyday rules for behavior: Mothers ’requests to young children.
Developmental Psychology ,29(3), 573 –584. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.29.3.573
Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a multidimensional construct.
Journal of Marriage and Family ,61(3), 574 –587. doi: 10.2307/353561
Grolnick, W. S. (2003). The psychology of parental control: How well-meant parenting backfires . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: The self-determination theory
perspective. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children ’sinternalization (pp. 135 –161). New
York, NY: Wiley.
Grolnick, W. S., Frodi, A., & Bridges, L. (1984). Maternal control style and the mastery motivation of one-year-olds.
Infant Mental Health Journal ,5(2), 72 –83. doi: 10.1002/1097-0355(198422)5:2<72::AID-IMHJ2280050203>3.0.
CO;2-O
Grolnick, W. S., & Raftery-Helmer, J. N. (2013). Facilitating autonomy in the family: Supporting intrinsic motivation
and self-regulation. In B. W. Sokol, F. M. E. Grouzet, & U. Muller (Eds.), Self-regulation and autonomy: Social and
developmental dimensions of human conduct (pp. 141 –164). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Grolnick, W. S., Raftery-Helmer, J. N., Marbell, K. N., Flamm, E. S., Cardemil, E. V., & Sanchez, M. (2014). Parental
provision of structure: Implementation and correlates in three domains. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly ,60(3), 355 –384.
doi:10.1353/mpq.2014.001616 M. CÔTÉ-LECALDARE ET AL.
Downloaded by [70.55.79.137] at 14:38 22 March 2016

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children ’s learning: An experimental and individual difference
investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,52(5), 890 –898. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.890
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children ’s self-regulation and competence in
school. Journal of Educational Psychology ,81(2), 143 –154. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.81.2.143
Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school achievement: Motivational
mediators of children ’s perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology ,83(4), 508 –517.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.4.508
Grusec, J. E. (2011). Socialization processes in the family: Social and emotional development. Annual Review of
Psychology ,62, 243 –269. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131650
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105 –117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Henderlong, J., & Lepper, M. R. (2002). The effects of praise on children ’s intrinsic motivation: A review and synthesis.
Psychological Bulletin ,128(5), 774 –795. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.774
Hohmann, M., & Weikart, D. P. (2002). Educating young children: Active learning practices for preschool and child care
programs (2nd ed.). Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press.
Hohmann, M., Weikart, D. P., Bourgon, L., & Proulx, M. (2001). Partager le plaisir d ’apprendre: Guide d ’intervention
éducative au préscolaire, traduction de Educating young children (2nd ed.). Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Gaëtan Morin.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or
structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology ,102(3), 588 –600. doi: 10.1037/
a0019682
Joussemet, M., Koestner, R., Lekes, N., & Houlfort, N. (2004). Introducing uninteresting tasks to children: A
comparison of the effects of rewards and autonomy support. Journal of Personality ,72(1), 139 –166. doi: 10.1111/
j.0022-3506.2004.00259.x
Joussemet, M., Koestner, R., Lekes, N., & Landry, R. (2005). A longitudinal study of the relationship of maternal
autonomy support to children ’s adjustment and achievement in school. Journal of Personality ,73(5), 1215 –1235.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00347.x
Joussemet, M., Landry, R., & Koestner, R. (2008). A self-determination theory perspective on parenting. Canadian
Psychology ,49(3), 194 –200. doi: 10.1037/a0012754
Joussemet, M., Mageau, G. A., & Koestner, R. (2014). Promoting optimal parenting and children ’s mental health: A
preliminary evaluation of the how-to parenting program. Journal of Child and Family Studies ,23(6), 949 –964.
doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9751-0
Kast, A., & Connor, K. (1988). Sex and age differences in response to informational and controlling feedback.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin ,14(3), 514 –523. doi: 10.1177/0146167288143010
Kochanska, G., Coy, K. C., & Murray, K. T. (2001). The development of self-regulation in the first four years of life.
Child Development ,72(4), 1091 –1111. doi: 10.1111/cdev.2001.72.issue-4
Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children ’s behavior: The differential effects
of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality ,52(3), 233 –248.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1984.tb00879.x
Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A ’s, praise and other bribes . Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Kopp, C. B. (1982). Antecedents of self-regulation: A developmental perspective. Developmental Psychology ,18(2),
199–214. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.18.2.199
L’Écuyer, R. (1990). Méthodologie de l ’analyse développementale de contenu, méthode GPS et concept de soi . Sillery:
Québec, Canada: Presses de l ’Université du Québec.
Landry, R., Whipple, N., Mageau, G., Joussemet, M., Koestner, R., DiDio, L., & Haga, S. M. (2008). Trust in organismic
development, autonomy support, and adaptation among mothers and their children. Motivation and Emotion ,32
(3), 173 –188. doi: 10.1007/s11031-008-9092-2
Laurin, J. C., & Joussemet, M. (2015). Autonomy-supportive practices and toddlers ’internalization: A prospective,
observational study . Unpublished manuscript.
LeCuyer-Maus, E. A., & Houck, G. M. (2002). Mother-toddler interaction and the development of self-regulation in a
limit-setting context. Journal of Pediatric Nursing ,17(3), 184 –200. doi: 10.1053/jpdn.2002.124112
Leyva, D., Reese, E., Grolnick, W. S., & Price, C. (2009). Elaboration and autonomy support in low-income mothers ’
reminiscing: Links to children ’s autobiographical narratives. Journal of Cognition and Development ,9(4), 363 –389.
doi:10.1080/15248370802678158
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Major, S. (2014). Mamès, profèsorn oun kindèr likht. Éducation en petite enfance en CPE. Le cas des femmes Belz en
services de garde en milieu familial accrédité (Doctoral dissertation, Université de Montréal). Retrieved from http://
hdl.handle.net/1866/11625
Malenfant, N. (2014). Routines et transitions en services éducatifs: CPE, garderies, SGMS, prématernelle et maternelle
[Daily routines and transitions in child care services: Childcare centers, daycares, school-based child care, pre-
kindergarten and kindergarten] (3rd ed.). Sainte-Foy, Québec: Presses de l ’Université Laval.EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 17
Downloaded by [70.55.79.137] at 14:38 22 March 2016

Matte-Gagné, C., & Bernier, A. (2011). Prospective relations between maternal autonomy support and child executive
functioning: Investigating the mediating role of child language ability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology ,110
(4), 611 –625. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.06.006
Mesman, J., & Emmen, R. A. G. (2013). Mary Ainsworth ’s legacy: A systematic review of observational instruments
measuring parental sensitivity. Attachment & Human Development ,15(5–6), 485 –506. doi: 10.1080/
14616734.2013.820900
Mouratidis, A., Lens, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). How you provide corrective feedback makes a difference: The
motivating role of communicating in an autonomy-supporting way. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology ,32(5),
619–637.
Paillé, P., & Mucchielli, A. (2008). L’analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales [Qualitative analysis in the
humanities and social sciences] . Paris, France: Armand Colin.
Paillé, P., & Mucchielli, A. (2012). L’analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales [Qualitative analysis in the
humanities and social sciences] (3rd ed.). Paris, France: Armand Colin.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and
philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology ,52(2), 126 –136. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126
Post, J., Hohmann, M., Bergeron, L., & Léger, S. (2003). Prendre plaisir à découvrir: Guide d ’intervention éducative
auprès des poupons et des trottineurs, traduction de [Tender care and early learnings: Supporting infants and toddlers
in child care settings] . Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Gaëtan Morin.
Québec. Ministère de la famille et des services sociaux. Direction de communications. (1991). Un Québec fou de ses
enfants [A Quebec crazy about its kids] . Québec, Canada: Ministère de la famille et des services sociaux.
Québec. Ministère de la famille et des aînés. (2007). Meeting early childhood needs: Québec ’s educational program for
childcare services . Montréal, Canada: Ministère de la famille et desaînés. Direction des relations publiques et des
communications.
Québec. Ministère de la famille (2014). Éducatrices et Éducateurs de la petite enfance. Une carrière pleine de vies. [Early
childhood educator: A career full of lives] . Montréal, Canada: Ministère de la famille et des aînés.
Québec. Ministère de la famille et des aînés. (2015). Directives concernant l ’évaluation de la qualification du personnel
de garde et les équivalences de formation reconnues [Guidelines for the assessment of child care personnels ’qualifica-
tion and recognized training equivalences] . Québec,Canada: Ministère de la famille et des aînés.
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.),
Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183 –209). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and why their students benefit. The
Elementary School Journal ,106(3), 225 –236. doi: 10.1086/501484
Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach and motivate students. Journal of
Educational Psychology ,91(3), 537 –548. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.537
Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students ’autonomy during a learning activity.
Journal of Educational Psychology ,98(1), 209 –218. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students ’engagement by increasing teachers ’
autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion ,28(2), 147 –169. doi: 10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f
Roth, G., Assor, A., Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). The emotional and academic consequences of
parental conditional regard: Comparing conditional positive regard, conditional negative regard, and autonomy
support as parenting practices. Developmental Psychology ,45(4), 1119 –1142. doi: 10.1037/a0015272
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic psychological needs as a
unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry ,11(4), 319 –338. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_03
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being. American Psychologist ,55(1), 68 –78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., Grolnick, W. S., & La Guardia, J. G. (2006). The significance of autonomy and autonomy
support in psychological development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental
psychopathology (Vol. 1, pp. 795 –849). New York, NY: Wiley.
Schaefer, R. (1968). Aspects of internalization . New York, NY: International Universities Press.
Schultheis, F., Frauenfelder, A., & Delay, C. (2007). Maltraitance: Contribution à une sociologie de l ’intolérable
[Maltreatment: Contribution to a sociology of the unbearable] . Paris, France: L ’Harmattan.
Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretativist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118 –137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189 –213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Dochy, F. (2009). The synergistic relationship of perceived
autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational
Psychology ,79(1), 57 –68. doi: 10.1348/000709908X304398
Sinha, M. (2014). Child care in Canada . Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada.18 M. CÔTÉ-LECALDARE ET AL.
Downloaded by [70.55.79.137] at 14:38 22 March 2016

Smetana, J. G., Kochanska, G., & Chuang, S. (2000). Mothers ’conceptions of everyday rules for young toddlers: A
longitudinal investigation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly ,46(3), 391 –416.
Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Antecedents and out comes of self-determination in 3 life domains: The role
of parents ’and teachers ’autonomy support. Journal of Youth and Adolescence ,34(6), 589 –604. doi: 10.1007/s10964-005-
8948-y
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Beyers, W., & Ryan, R. M. (2007). Conceptualizing
parental autonomy support: Adolescent perceptions of promotion of independence versus promotion of volitional
functioning. Developmental Psychology ,43(3), 633 –646. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.633
Spegman, A. M., & Houck, G. M. (2005). Assessing the feeding/eating interaction as a context for the development of
social competence in toddlers. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing ,28(4), 213 –236. doi: 10.1080/
01460860500396799
Steinberg, L., Elman, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic
success among adolescents. Child Development ,60(6), 1424 –1436. doi: 10.2307/1130932
Whipple, N., Bernier, A., & Mageau, G. A. (2011). Broadening the study of infant security of attachment:
Maternal autonomy-support in the context of infant exploration. Social Development ,20(1), 17 –32. doi: 10.1111/
j.1467-9507.2010.00574.x
Zuk, S. (2012). Les pratiques parentales maternelles et la symptomatologie des enfants victimes d ’agression sexuelles d ’âge
préscolaire [Mothers ’parental practices and the syptoms of sexually abused preschoolers] . (Doctoral dissertation,
Université de Montréal). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1866/10351EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 19
Downloaded by [70.55.79.137] at 14:38 22 March 2016