|
Developmentally Appropriate Practice
Literature Review
My review of these articles gave me a chance
to reflect on what I do in comparison. Reviewing them made me
aware of what I already know about DAP, but also led me to form
questions and search for answers either in the article itself
or to do more research to understand. One example was the reference
to the "Reggio" way of preschool. I had heard this
mentioned in the past, but it wasn't until now that I understand
what it is. I didn't review each article. I found that some of
them were not relevant to me in becoming more aware of how I
can utilize the DAP principles in my classroom. All of this information
will guide me in the decisions that I make as I deal with students
and parents and develop curriculum. The information was considered
as I outlined what is appropriate for my classroom, how I will
assess my students and how I can use the Work
Sampling System in my classroom.
Charlesworth, R. (1998). Developmentally
appropriate practice is for everyone. Childhood Education,
74(5), pp. 274-283.
The revised edition of the DAP book answered to the critics who
felt that DAP should be culturally aware. DAP is a child-centered
approach to instruction that views the child as the primary source
of curriculum and recognizes young children's unique characteristics.
It emphasizes the whole child (physical, social, emotional, and
cognitive), while taking into account gender, culture, disabilities,
socioeconomic status, family factors and any other important
elements in order to meet the individual child's needs, developmental
level and learning style.
It has been shown that kindergarten children enrolled in DIP
programs exhibit more stress than those in DAP programs. African
American children are more adversely affected by DIP programs.
DAP is equitable regardless of race or SES.
Brain research supports language learning and meaningful activities
and both of those are supported in DAP programs. Certain developmental
tasks, such as those suggested by Piaget and Erikson, are the
same across cultures. DAP works well with multicultural education.
Native American culture values group cooperation rather than
competition. DAP supports this view.
ECSE students need individualized instruction. A DAP teacher
will be more willing and able to provide that. DAP appears to
place children from diverse backgrounds on a level playing field.
Lubeck, S. (1998). Is developmentally appropriate
practice for everyone? Childhood Education, 74(5), pp.
283-292.
Lubeck disagrees that the DAP guidelines are effective or appropriate.
She feels that there cannot be categories for everything to fit
into and that we need to agree to disagree and then communicate
about it.
However, DAP classrooms will not all look alike. No classrooms
will or should all look alike. If we are taking into consideration
our students then they shouldn't.
I don't know if Lubeck has a problem with DAP itself - she has
a problem with the system - the way that we evaluate and design
EC programs. She wants "dialogue to be honest and open,
without preordained decisions about what was "appropriate"
and "inappropriate" and without giving the weight of
a sanctioned consensus."
Who is Reggio Emilia? Actually it is a place. Their preschools
have realized communities based on relationships. So how do they
link with Responsive Classroom?
Lubeck doesn't appreciate that the DAP guidelines seem to be
written to discourage conflict - she apparently likes conflict
- or feels that it is useful to learning. Repeatedly, Lubeck
implies that the guidelines are an end-all. I disagree. I don't
jump into anything completely, that is not practical for meeting
all student's needs, especially young children. Lubeck does imply
that she has a problem with the system when she points out four
ways that she feels positivism is insufficient.
She keeps saying that teachers need more communication, more
flexibility, more control, but what if teachers are not trained
or prepared for that? This movement needs to start sooner, in
teacher education programs.
Lubeck, S. (1998). Is DAP for everyone?
A response. Childhood Education, 74(5), pp. 299-301.
Lubeck proposes that the DAP guidelines are prescriptive and
teachers shouldn't be limited to such a narrow way of teaching.
She contends that it is not what we see, but how we look at situations.
It is not that she disagrees with DAP, she just feels that it
is too constricting and instead teachers should communicate.
She suggests that our current consensus - DAP - may be limiting
our vision of what children can do. But I figure, if I am DAP
and in tune to children's needs then I will push them farther
if they need it.
Charlesworth, R. (1998). Response to Sally
Lubeck's "Is developmentally appropriate practice for everyone?"
Childhood Education, 74(5), pp. 293-298.
I want Charlesworth to defend DAP in her article. I feel like
it is useful and important and that professionals can do the
things that Lubeck proposes - communicate, disagree, work together
- and still recognize and respect the DAP guidelines.
Charlesworth feels that the guidelines are a place to start the
discussion that Lubeck feels is so crucial. "It bothers
me that Sally appears to to blame DAP for organizational and
attitudinal aspects of schools that "shut down conversation."
I believe that DAP is designed to promote conversation."
It bothers me too!
Both Lubeck and Charlesworth agree that action research or teacher
as researcher is valuable! Charlesworth believes that milestones
or guidelines are important because adults need the best information
educators can provide to guide them in their decision making.
NAEYC refuses to support a complete curriculum, because it is
not possible. Every classroom or center needs to do what works
for them.
On the matter of whether or not direct instruction is appropriate
I agree with Charlesworth. There must always be direct instruction
to some degree, but there is certainly reasonable, or appropriate,
use and then there is extreme inappropriate use.
Charlesworth believes that the guidelines can serve as a beginning
point for reflection. I can look to see where I fit in the guideline
continuum. Then I can adjust my teaching or activities as needed.
I am in control.
I am not disappointed! Charlesworth led an argument or rebuttal
here that I can identify with. She stated that she agrees with
the problems that Lubeck identifies, she just doesn't see DAP
as the cause. I agree with that statement!
Bredekamp, S. (1992). What is 'developmentally
appropriate' practice and why is it important? Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 63(6), pp. 31-32.
There is a wide range of normal when you are discussing development.
There are many factors to consider within a classroom, including
children with special needs. Development is change that occurs
over time as a result of an interaction between what is happening
within the individual and the individual's experiences with the
physical and social world.
We cannot assume that young children can or should think and
act like adults. Their understanding and thought processes are
very different from adults. Young children must learn to move,
but they must also move to learn.
McMullen, M.B. (1999). Characteristics
of teachers who talk the DAP talk and walk the DAP walk. Journal
of Research in Early Childhood Education, 13(2), pp. 216-230.
Teachers who had an academic background in early childhood education
were found to be more DAP in their classroom practices. That
describes me. There are so many things that I do that are second
nature and other teachers aren't aware of why. I know that alot
of my beliefs and techniques come from my early childhood background.
When teachers believe in DAP, but don't practice it they usually
blame stresses such as test scores or lack of support. Along
with the environmental challenges, some personalities do not
easily lend themselves to working in a DAP manner. DAP decisions
are made by the teacher. Assessment in DAP curriculums is ongoing
and continuous. Assessment is done to show what is working and
to plan for what children need. This statement is familiar and
seems to ring true for National Board principles as well.
DAP curricula have been shown to lead to more prosocial behaviors,
lower stress levels for children, improved problem solving skills
and greater independence in children.
Teacher practices are typically somewhere along the continuum
from high DAP to low. I wonder where I fall? I hope that I fall
towards the high, but would be satisfied with middle.
Educational efficacy is a belief that education can have a positive
impact on student performance. Personal teaching efficacy is
a teachers' sense of their own effectiveness in having an impact
in student achievement. High personal efficacy goes along with
the idea that all children can learn. I do believe that all children
can learn.
The article shows research that sought to
answer this question: "What are the beliefs and characteristics
of teachers who engage in best practices in early childhood education?"
This article lost me completely when it began talking statistics
and research number terms. The descriptions and summary was much
more helpful to me. Something interesting that I noticed about
this article as I think about my own research is that the study
led to more questions. It did not have all the answers and it
listed it's shortcomings. That is something to keep in mind as
I write up my research.
When early childhood professionals reflect upon their practice,
they can analyze the effects of their decisions and actions on
students, and realize their impact on student success and failure.
There is the reflection piece again. That is a recurrent theme,
yet so hard to manage to do as a classroom teacher.
Minnesota's change in licensure to allow for a birth to age 8
license, or something like that, should lead to more DAP because
the teachers in the primary classrooms will have an early childhood
background.
Grineski, S. (1992). What is a truly developmentally
appropriate physical education program for children? The Journal
of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 63(6), pp.
33-36.
I was drawn to this article because the author, Steve Grineski,
was a college instructor of mine. His wife, Lee, was a teacher
at the University preschool were I did a couple of practicums.
His perspective is interesting because he is an educator of educators.
The idea of motor skill development is very pertinent to me -
kindergarten age children are experiencing tremendous gross motor
growth.
The points that the author makes are that children have motor
skill development that is sequential and age-related, progression
is similar for all children (except those with physical exceptionalities),
and the rate of motor development varies. I find these development
markers to be similar to the markers for other types of child
development. Teachers responsible for physical education of young
children need to be aware of how young children learn. They need
to provide an orderly sequence of motor skill learning, allow
for individual differences, have appropriate goals for the age
of students, and allow students ample time to experiment and
practice.
McGill-Franzen, A. (1992). Early literacy:
what does "developmentally appropriate" mean? The
Reading Teacher, 46(1), pp. 56-58.
Wow, this author really ties things together! She makes reference
to Marilyn Adams, Marie Clay, Frank Smith and several 19th century
researchers. McGill-Franzen raises many good questions. I hadn't
considered the questions, because my approach is that all children
can learn and I don't interpret it to be inappropriate to introduce
young children to literacy - writing and the alphabet. The author
stresses that disadvantaged young learners really need the intervention
of strong language models and the expectation that they can learn
along with an environment that stresses literacy to be successful
in school. I feel that DAP in early literacy is what I am doing.
I am providing the students with multi-level experiences so that
they can take what they are ready for. I heard not so long ago
that "we need to teach to the top, the middle will grasp
it in a day or two and the low students will need that extra
reinforcement regardless." I agree with that - I know that
meeting children where they are at is what they need. My goodness
that is a challenge!
National Association for the Education
of Young Children. (1998). Learning to read and write: developmentally
appropriate practices for young children. The Reading Teacher,
52(2), pp. 193-217.
This is a position statement that is available at http://www.naeyc.org.
It was created by the NAEYC and the Interaction
Reading Association (IRA). It is alarming to me that so many
Early Childhood educators interpret the DAP guidelines to mean
no literacy instruction for young children. The brain research
that we have done shows us that the window of brain development
is so wide open for young children that we are really failing
if we don't take advantage of it and instruct them in the literacy
learning - at their level and pace, of course.
A key point that was considered during the planning of this position
statement was that literacy does not just come naturally, it
must be taught. I agree with that - but the teaching must be
appropriate. The position statement would also just focus on
reading and writing and not on the other areas that can be interpreted
as literacy. The ultimate goal is to teach young children to
read well enough that by third grade they can successful read
to learn.
I have used a quote similar to this in the past "Because
of individual and experiential variations, it is common to find
within a kindergarten classroom a 5-year range in children's
literacy-related skills and functioning." The variations
come from their culture, their prior experience and their exposure
to school settings. "Young children especially need to be
engaged in experiences that make academic content meaningful
and build on prior learning."
"Excellent instruction builds on what children already know
and can do, and provides knowledge, skills, and disposition for
lifelong learning." This article states that the single
most important activity we can do to foster literacy is to read
aloud to children. So why do I have such difficulty accomplishing
this in my classroom? How can I engage everyone at once to experience
a story? "It is the talk that surrounds the storybook reading
that gives it power, helping children to bridge what is in the
story and their own lives."
Children develop the alphabetic principle early in life. They
need experience with shapes of letters to begin to distinguish
how they are alike and different. They can play with letters
- use alphabet books and puzzles. While they are learning these
symbols they are learning the linguistic awareness as well, ie:
phonemic awareness. There is some debate about the instruction
of phonemes and phonemic awareness, because it appears to not
always be appropriately presented. Rhyming and songs and games
are fine, but pencil-paper activities are not DAP.
Writing is an important factor in alphabetic awareness. Temporary,
or invented, spelling may contribute to beginning reading. This
is what my action research is addressing. I believe that children
will acquire stronger letter-sound knowledge through writing
because the letters they use will mean something to them. Children
are beginning to understand that writing is meaningful.
IRA and NAEYC
believe that goals and expectations in reading and writing should
be developmentally appropriate, challenging, but with adult support.
It is suggested that most children will achieve beginning conventional
reading by the age of 7. But this is not set in stone.
"Good teachers make instructional decisions based on their
knowledge of reading and writing, current research, appropriate
expectations and their knowledge of individual children's strengths
and needs."
This position statement includes a table of suggested phases
of children's development in early reading and writing. There
is a section that is directed toward Kindergarten learners. I
am curious to see how it lines up with the Work
Sampling System guidelines for kindergarten.
The position statement identifies some policies that are essential
for appropriate literacy experience:
-strong system of early childhood professional preparation
-resources that provide for an acceptable child to staff ratio
-sufficient resources to provide adequate literacy materials
-opportunities for children to experience continuous learning
progress
-appropriate assessment strategies and techniques
-access to health care for all children
-increased public investment in quality preschools
Dunn, L. & Kontos, S. (1997). Developmentally
appropriate practice: what does research tell us? (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED413106).
This article is a review of the research regarding DAP. Much
to the dismay of Lubeck, the research does indicate that DAP
classroom are a benefit to children over the didactic classroom
style. It was found that implementation was a struggle, which
is what was pointed out in the McMullan article. Also, parents
often misunderstand DAP and feel that their children should be
receiving academic type instruction in order to learn. Emotional
and social impacts of DAP are still being investigated. I feel
that the ideas of the responsive classroom are valid and they
tie in nicely with DAP - the two could be linked. This article
has a great list of references.
|
