Teachers' perceptions of the school functioning of Chinese preschool children with callous-unemotional traits and disruptive behaviors

Callous-unemotional Traits and Child Response to Teacher Rewards, Discipline, and Instructional Methods in Chinese Preschools: A Classroom Observation Study

“…Consistent with this explanation, disruptive behavior was also unrelated to more frequent discipline or harsh discipline in the current study. Our study extends the understanding of the relationship between CU traits and teacher use of discipline to Chinese preschool children, as well as to a wide spectrum of observed discipline strategies ranging from mild to severe disciplinary practices (Cao et al, 2023 ).…”

“…The adapted code list consisted of three main themes of codes: instructional methods, rewards and discipline. Instructional methods included 4 main types of instructions used by Chinese preschool teachers (Cao et al, 2023 ): teacher-directed activities, peer cooperation activities, individual learning activities and one-to-one teacher-child interaction. Unlike the first three instructional methods, which typically last for an entire observation window and do not usually occur simultaneously, one-to-one teacher-child interaction often only lasts for a few minutes and can occur alongside other classroom activities.…”

“…Consistent with theory, qualitative research with high school teachers in England reported that students high in CU traits displayed uncaring and confrontational attitudes towards teachers when disciplined (Allen et al, 2016 , 2018 ). Recent qualitative research in China found that preschool teachers perceived children with disruptive behavior and high CU traits as more likely to show uncaring or oppositional responses to discipline than children with disruptive behavior and low CU traits (Cao et al, 2023 ). Children with disruptive behavior and higher levels of CU traits did not appear guilty or concerned about the impact of their behavior on others, and refused to apologize following a transgression.…”

“…Qualitative interviews with high school teachers in England were mixed, as some teachers identified praise and a positive teacher-child relationship as increasing the prosocial behavior and school engagement of students high in CU traits, while others stated that neither social nor tangible rewards had any effect unless they could be used to enhance social status or achieve dominance over others (Allen et al, 2016 , 2018 ). A recent qualitative study in China found more consistent views among preschool teachers, who reported that children with disruptive behavior high in CU traits were equally responsive to social rewards as children with disruptive behavior low in CU traits (Cao et al, 2023 ). Despite the value of classroom observation in providing an objective assessment of interactive exchanges between teachers and children in real-time, previous studies on CU traits and child responses to teacher discipline and rewards have relied on either student or teacher interview or questionnaire methods, which may be subject to mood, memory, and other subjective biases.…”

“…For example, Bird et al ( 2019 ) suggested that boys high in CU traits performed more poorly than girls in Science, due to their not receiving the same benefits from group work because of the lower empathy and poorer social competence that accompanies CU traits in boys compared to girls. In qualitative research, Cao et al ( 2023 ) found that teachers perceived Chinese preschool children with disruptive behavior and CU traits as showing poorer engagement during teacher-directed activities but showed similar levels of engagement to their low-CU peers during one-to-one activities with teachers or individual learning activities that allowed them to select learning materials based on their interests. Furthermore, previous qualitative research indicated that teachers perceived high school children with CU traits as needing more intense monitoring and individual feedback in class to engage in academic work (Allen et al, 2018 ).…”