A comparison of frequencies of stress behaviors observed in kindergarten children in classrooms with developmentally appropriate versus developmentally inappropriate instructional

Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 407-423 (1990)

A Comparison of Frequencies of Stress Behaviors Observed in Kindergarten Children

in Classrooms With Developmentally Appropriate Versus Developmen tally Inappropriate

instructional Practices

Diane C. Burts Craig H. Hart

Rosalind Charlesworth Lisa Kirk

Louisiana State University

This research was an initial study designed to explore differences in the frequency of stress behaviors exhibited by children (n = 37) in developmentally appropriate (n = 20) and developmentally inappropriate (n = 17) kindergarten classrooms. Results indicated that children in the developmentally inappropriate classroom exhibited significantly more stress behaviors than children in the appropriate classroom. In looking at stress within various activity types, higher frequencies of stress behaviors were found during whole group and workbook/worksheet activities for children in the inappropriate classroom, whereas those in the appropriate classroom had higher levels of stress during center and transition activities. Differences were also found between the two classrooms in amount of time spent in various activities. More center, group story, and transition activities were found in the appropriate classroom, whereas there were more whole group and workbook/worksheet activities in the inappropriate classroom. Mar- ginal gender differences were also noted, with males exhibiting more overall stress behaviors than females.

This research was supported in part by a grant provided by the Council on Research at Louisiana State University. The authors wish to express appreciation to Carolyn Elzey, Terry Hughes Boyd, Jean Mosley, and Sue Hernandez for their assistance with this project.

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Diane C. Burts, School of Human Ecology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. n Received July 10, 1989; Revision received October 16, 1989; Accepted October 30, 1989.

408 Buts, Hart, Charlesworth, and Kirk

In recent years there has been a significant increase in the use of academically oriented, structured, paper-and-pencil activities with young children (Egert- son, 1987; Hatch & Freeman, 1988; Shepard & Smith, 1988). This trend has caused great concern for many child development and early childhood education professionals. Nationally, there has been an outcry calling for an end to the use of “inappropriate” objectives, activities, and instructional materials with young children and a return to “appropriate” methods and materials (Bredekamp, 1987; Charlesworth, 1985; Kamii, 1985; Williams & Kamii, 1986). Terms such as h&housing and hurried are being used to describe children enrolled in programs considered developmentally inappropriate (Elkind, 1981; Hills,1987; Sigel, 1987).

Experts have warned about possible increases in stress symptoms due to increased academic pressure on young children (Elkind, 1986; Isenberg, 1987). This research was an initial study designed to explore differences in the frequency of stress behaviors exhibited by children in developmentally appropriate and developmentally inappropriate classrooms. Two areas of literature guided our research: developmentally appropriate and inappropriate practices and stress.

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE/INAPPROPRIATE PRACTICES

One of the most comprehensive documents (Bredekamp, 1987) addressing appropriate/inappropriate practice in programs serving children birth through age 8 is the position statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). This document represents the ex- pertise of many of the foremost authorities in the field. It draws heavily from the theoretical frameworks of Piaget (1950, 1952, 1972) and Montessori (1912/1964) who advocated facilitating children’s learning through a pre- pared environment in which children actively explore concrete materials and interact with peers and adults.

In the NAEYC document, developmentally appropriate practice is described using the concepts of age appropriateness (knowledge of the typical development of children within an age span) and individual appropriateness (uniqueness of the individual). In contrast, inappropriate practice ignores expert opinion about young children’s development. Examples of inappropriate practices are: rote learning; abstract paper-and-pencil activities; and direct teaching of discrete skills, often presented to large groups of children.

Since the NAEYC publication, early childhood researchers have begun to investigate questions relevant to appropriate and inappropriate practices. Some researchers are focusing on teacher behaviors (Caruso & Oakes, 1988; Jensen & Chevalier, 1988), some are looking at both teacher and child behaviors (Bentley, 1989; Burts et al., 1989; Hyson, 1988), and others are investigating parent and child behaviors (Hirsh-Pasek & Cone, 1989).

Stress Behaviors in Kindergarten 409

There is also some evidence from longitudinal studies that developmentally appropriate programs have positive effects relative to student success in school and cost effectiveness to society. Larsen and Robinson (1989) found that second and third grade low-risk males who had attended a preschool that emphasized involvement learning and social interaction scored higher on language-related achievement tests than males who had not attended preschool. Schweinhart and colleagues (Schweinhart, Berrueta-Clement, Barnett, Epstein, & Weikart, 1985; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1985) studied high-risk children who had attended various high-quality preschool programs. Their findings included improved scholastic performance during early childhood, lower delinquency rates, and higher employment rates than control groups.

Although much has been written concerning the negative effects of developmentally inappropriate curricula (e.g., Dickinson & Snow, 1987; Elkind, 1986; Gallagher & Cache, 1987; Isenberg, 1987; Shepard & Smith, 1988; Short, 1988; Sigel, 1987; Willert & Kamii, 1985), there is not much data available to support claims of its damaging effects. There is some evidence from Schweinhart, Weikart, and Larner (1986) that a program for disadvantaged children emphasizing direct instruction may have been related to poor social performance (e.g., juvenile deliquency, poor relations with their families). Conclusions drawn from this study have been subject to criticism, however, and thus must be viewed with caution (e.g., Bereiter, 1986; Gersten, 1986; Karweit, 1988).

Other concerns about the effects of inappropriate practice come from in- formal observation and anecdotes of teachers and parents. Based on our anecdotal observations, it appears that children attending less developmentally appropriate kindergarten programs exhibit more stress-related behaviors in the classroom than do their counterparts attending more developmentally appropriate programs.

STRESS The stress literature represents a vast and diverse field of study crossing several disciplinary lines and including perspectives from the biological, psychological, and sociological sciences. Despite the voluminous amount of literature on stress, there is a lack of consensus regarding its definition (Goldberger & Breznitz, 1982). Selye (1976), considered the “father” of stress research, defined stress as the “response of the body to any demand” (p. 1.). In a recent review of the literature, Honig (1986) cited several definitions of stress including “a nonspecific response of the body to any demand that exceeds the person’s ability to cope, as a person-environment relationship that threatens or taxes personal resources, and as a mental state in response to strains or daily hassles” (p. 51). The lack of an accepted definition (Goldberger & Breznitz, 1982; Lazarus & Launier, 1978), and the variety

410 Surts, Hart, Charlesworth, and Kirk

of potential stressors and their duration, intensity, and interactions with other stressors, makes stress difficult to research (Honig, 1986).

In addition to various definitions, there are also a variety of theories or models of stress. Some researchers (e.g., Felner, Farber, & Primavera, 1983; Humphrey & Humphrey, 1985; Parfenoff & Jose, 1989; Zegans, 1982) have referred to the life events model whereby predictions can be made about stress and susceptibility to diseases by determining the number and kinds of critical life changes taking place within a limited period of time. Garmezy, Masten, and Tellegen (1984) presented an approach to stress resistance using three models (compensatory, challenge, and protective) to describe the impact of stress and personal attributes on adaptation. Lazarus (cited in Derogatis, 1982) categorized models or theories of stress into three types. Stimulus-oriented theories present stress “as a potential residing within the stimulus properties of the organism’s environment” (Derogatis, 1982, p. 272). Response-oriented theories describe stress in response to the events in the environment, and interactional theories emphasize the characteristics of the individual as mediating factors between the stimulus and response.

The concept of stress resistance or invulnerability (Garmezy, 1981; Rutter, 1979a, 1979b), gleaned from research on natural disasters, wars, and other traumatic events, seems to support interactional theory. Rutter (1979a) listed five factors that may affect vulnerability: multiplicity of stressors, change in circumstances, factors in the child (e.g., sex, temperament, genetic back- ground), factors in the family (e.g., positive parental relationships, extended family), and factors outside the home (e.g., neighborhood, quality of school). Magnusson (1982) presented stress reactions as a product of the vulnerability of the individual and the stress provocation of the situation.

Today’s young children are exposed to a multitude of stressors both in and outside the home (McCracken, 1986; Swick, 1987). Children are experi- encing greater stress in their lives for several reasons: (a) Parents are experi- encing greater levels of stress, (b) there is more pressure to succeed to please parents, (c) there is greater competition in the classroom and in outside activities (e.g., sports, music), and (d) there is increased uncertainty and fear in their lives (O’Brien, 1988). There is little, if any, research conducted in classrooms with young children documenting the relationship between potential stressors and academic, psychological, and social behavior. In a study exploring stress and burnout among preadolescent and early adolescent gifted students, Fimian and Cross (1986) found that classroom stress was strongly related to student burnout. According to Rutter (1979a), good school expe- riences can help counteract the effects of outside stressors. Appropriate practices described by the NAEYC (1986) appear to be the approach that would produce a low-stress classroom environment, whereas inappropriate practices are more congruent with those identified by Swick (1987) as stress producers.


METHOD

Subjects The sample for the study consisted of 37 kindergarten children (5- to 6-year- olds) enrolled in either of two classes in a small southern school district. Results of a teacher questionnaire administered to 113 kindergarten teachers in four southern states as part of a larger study exploring teachers’ beliefs and practices (see Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, & Hernandez, in press) indicated that the two classrooms used in this study represented more and less developmentally appropriate settings. The inappropriate teacher’s scores were over 1 SD below the mean of the 113 teachers on appropriate factors of the questionnaire (to be described later) and 1 SD above the mean on inappropriate factors. The appropriate teacher had scores that were over 1 SD above the mean on appropriate factors and 1 SD below the mean on the inappropriate factors. The two classrooms were selected based on questionnaire scores, classroom observations, and willingness to participate in the study. Both classrooms were housed in the same school. There were 17 subjects in the less developmentally appropriate classroom (8 males, 9 females) and 20 subjects in the more developmentally appropriate classroom (10 males, 10 females). Children were from lower and middle socioeconomic backgrounds.

Data Collection Data for the study were collected in the spring of the school year. The research team consisted of graduate students majoring in early childhood education and faculty in child development and early childhood education. After establishment of procedures, extensive training was conducted prior to beginning the study. Checks were made throughout the project to determine if further training would be needed.

Three instruments were used to gather data for the study. The Teacher Questionnaire (Charlesworth et al., in press) was designed to identify teachers using the most and least appropriate practices. The Checklist for Rating Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten Classrooms (Charles- worth et al., in press) was a qualitative measure used to validate the identified teachers’ questionnaire responses. The Classroom Child Stress Behavior Instrument was an observational measure used to identify child behaviors that are believed to indicate stress.

Measures

Teacher Questionnaire. This measure was constructed using the position statement of the NAEYC on developmenta.lIy appropriate practice for 4- and 5-year-olds (NAEYC, 1986). The measure consisted of three p+rts. In the first section, respondents provided demographic information and information about their education and teaching experience. In addition, thei

412 Burts, Hart, Charlesworth, and Kirk

were asked to estimate the percentage of influence the following have on their planning and implementation of instruction: parents, parish or school system policy, principal, teacher (themselves), state regulations, and other teachers.

The majority of the questionnaire was composed of two subscales: Teacher Beliefs Scale (TBS) and Instructional Activities Scale (IAS). The Teacher Beliefs Scale was a 30-item paper-and-pencil measure designed to tap the teacher’s philosophy regarding developmentally appropriate practices as outlined by the NAEYC. Teachers were asked to rate each item on a 5- point Likert scale as to how important they felt each was in their classroom. For instance, items such as “Workbooks and/or ditto sheets are to the kindergarten program” were accompanied by a 5-point scale with 1 defined as “Not Important At All” and 5 defined as “Extremely Important” with varying degrees of importance assigned to each number in between. A factor analysis yielded the following four reliable factors (see Charlesworth et al., in press): developmentally appropriate (child-selected activity, in- vented spelling, etc.); appropriate positive teacher/child relationships (self- esteem, positive child/adult interactions); inappropriate materials and management (workbooks, flashcards, evaluation by worksheets); and inappropriate literacy activities (standardized testing, forming letters on lines, etc.). Subscale reliability as assessed by Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .68 to .85 on the four factors (see Charlesworth et al., in press).

The Instructional Activities Scale was used to assess how often teachers perceived children participating in various classroom activities. This scale contained 31 items and used a 5-point scale ranging from “Never or Almost Never (less than monthly)” to “Very Often (l-3 times daily).” Teachers were asked to mark the scale for each item, such as “Children circling, under- lining, and/or marking items on worksheets.” Six reliable factors were identified with internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, ranging from .60 to .75 (see Charlesworth et al., in press). The factor descriptors were: developmentally appropriate materials; choice making; and pacing (games and puzzles, manipulatives, center selection, etc.); appropriate creative/explorative learning (music, creative writing, etc.); appropriate art activities (art, free activity); developmentally inappropriate literacy activities (chalkboard, write on lines, etc.); inappropriate rote learning (rote count- ing, rote alphabet, etc.); and inappropriate teacher-directed learning/control (sitting 15 min, large groups, worksheets, loosing privileges).

Checklist for Rating Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kinder- garten Classrooms. The checklist was based on the NAEYC guidelines (NAEYC, 1986) and consisted of 28 items reflective of those included on the Teacher Questionnaire. Items were grouped into eight areas: Curriculum Goals, Teaching Strategies, Integrated Curriculum, Guidance of Social- Emotional Development, Motivation, Parent-Teacher Relations, Evalua-


tion, and Transitions. Each item was rated using a 5-point scale with the most appropriate practice descriptors listed under 5 and the least appropriate descriptors listed under 1. Observers marked 5 if the item they observed was close to 100% appropriate, 4 for more appropriate than inappropriate, 3 for about equally appropriate and inappropriate, 2 for more inappropriate than appropriate, and 1 for close to 100% inappropriate.

To verify that the two selected classrooms represented more and less developmentally appropriate settings, independent ratings were made by four members of the research team who were blind to the results of the Teacher Questionnaire. Eight, 30-min observations were made in each classroom over a 2-day period. After all observations had been completed, observers compared ratings, confirming the results of the Teacher Questionnaire. All observers scored the more developmentally appropriate classroom higher (M=4.2) than the less developmentally appropriate classroom (M= 1.4).

Classroom Child Stress Behavior Instrument. For classroom observations of children’s stress behaviors, observers were trained to use the Class- room Child Stress Behavior Instrument (CCSBI) and a scan sampling pro- cedure (cf. Altmann, 1974). Items selected for the CCSBI were derived from teacher input and literature documenting manifestations of stress in child behaviors. Over 50 child stress indices were listed, including behaviors such as complains of feeling sick (Pearsall, 1983; Schultz & Heuchert, 1983); stutters (Anthony, 1959; Selye, 1976); physical hostility/fights (Garmezy, 1981; Johnson, 1986); tremors or tics (Schultz & Heuchert, 1983); nervous laughter (Selye, 1976); and nail biting (Anthony, 1959; Blom, Cheney, & Snoddy, 1986).

For organizational purposes and ease of use, the stress behaviors were grouped into four major categories labeled passive, self with self, self with others, and self with object. Examples of passive stress included behaviors such as daydreaming, withdrawn, and ignoring friendly overtures from adults/children. Self with self stress included behaviors such as mouth manipulation (e.g., grinding teeth, fingernail biting), ear pulling, and rock- ing. Behaviors such as physical hostility/fights, stutters, and nervous inappropriate laughter were included under self with others stress. The category labeled self with object stress included playing with toy/object at inappropriate time/way, pencil tapping, and destroys worksheet/workbook page. A nonstress category was also included. The measure was field tested in six kindergarten classrooms not included in the study.

In using the CCSBI in the study, observers, who were blind to results of the Teacher Questionnaire and checklist, scanned subjects in a different pre- determined random order each day (see Ladd, 1983; Ladd & Price, 1987; Ladd, Price, & Hart, 1988). All classroom observations occurred at the same time during the morning hours of classroom instruction. A total of 85 scans were coded for each subject. During each 2-s scan, observers focused


on the target child and coded nonstress behavior or one of the categorized stress behaviors. The activity of the child was simultaneously recorded (e.g., whole group, center activity, workbook/worksheet, group story).

To establish interrater reliability, at the beginning of each day two observers were assigned to one classroom where they conducted one cycle of observations of children within the class on a scan-by-scan basis. Agreement between observers was estimated with Cohen’s kappa. The resulting coeffi- cients fell within the range of .69 to .95, with an overall average of .82.

Measures of children’s stress behaviors were created by calculating proportional scores. This was done to control for potential confound of time spent in an activity in the different classrooms and stress scores within activity type. To compute an activity type proportional stress score for each child, frequencies in all categories of stress (e.g., self with self, self with object) were summed and then divided by the total number of observations (85). This was done for each activity type (e.g., center, workbook/worksheet). The proportional stress scores for each activity type were then summed to yield a total stress score.

RESULTS

Two sets of analyses were conducted to explore differences between classrooms and between boys and girls on the investigated measures of peer stress and activity type. The first set of analyses explored differences in child stress behaviors for each activity type (e.g., proportional scores for center stress, workbook/worksheet stress) and for all activity types combined (i.e., total stress scores). The second set assessed observed differences in instructional activities between the two classroom settings (i.e., frequencies of observations for each activity type). This second set of analyses was conducted to assess differences between the classrooms in the type of more or less developmentally appropriate activities that occurred.

Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAS) were used to control for statistical dependencies among the dependent variables (activity type stress scores and activity type, depending on the set of analyses) and to assess main and interactive effects of the independent variable (classroom, sex). The unbalanced method was used to control for unequal cell sizes. Where necessary, to control for the possibility of covariance between the means and variances of proportional data (Winer, 1971, p. 399), arc-sine trans- formations were applied to the proportional scores prior to analysis. Post- hoc tests (simple effects) were used to dismantle interactions and analyze mean differences.

Classroom Differences in Activity Type Stress Behaviors Classroom differences in stress behaviors for each activity type were examined with a 2(Classroom) x 2(Sex of Child) MANOVA where the propor-


Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Classrooms on Measures of Stress Within Activity Type

Activity Type/Stress Appropriate Inappropriate

Center Stress M

SD Whole Group Stress

M SD

Group Story Stress M SD

Transition Stress M SD

Workbook/Worksheet Stress M SD

Total Stress Scores M Sd

.10*

.03

.I4

.03

.03

.02

.08* .Ol

.03 .Ol

.02 .26*

.02 .03

.37 .65+

.07 .08

.03

.03

.31* .03

.04

.03

Nofe. Asterisk denotes where significant difference lies between groups. l p<.oo1.

tional stress scores for each activity type served as variates. Punishment stress was deleted from these analyses because there were not enough occur- rences of punishment to make comparisons. Findings for the stress measure produced a significant multivariate effect for Classroom Type, F(6,28)= 200.79, pc .OOl. Subsequent univariate effects were also found for Center Stress, F(1,33)=39.11, p< .OOl; Group Time Stress, F(1,33)=281.44, p-c .OOl; Transition Stress, F(1,33) = 191.88, p< .OOl; and Workbook/ Worksheet Stress, F(1,33) =446.52, p< .OOl.’

Because the total stress score was a linear combination of all activity type stress scores, a separate Z(Classroom) x 2(Sex of Child) ANOVA was conducted for this measure. This analysis produced significant and marginally significant main effects for both Classroom Type, F(1,36) = 127.03,~~ .OOl; and Sex, F(1,36) = 3.89, pc .06.

As means in Table 1 indicate, significantly more total stress behaviors as well as group time and workbook/worksheet stress behaviors were observed in the developmentally inappropriate classroom when compared to the more developmentally appropriate classroom. More transition stress and center time stress behaviors were observed in the more appropriate classroom in comparison to the inappropriate classroom. For the sample as a whole, boys

’ The large F values are due to the fact that within-group variance is very small relative to the large differences between the two groups (see Tables 1 and 2).

416 Burls, Hart, Charlesworth, and Kirk

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Classrooms on Frequencies of Activity Types

Activitv Aomomiate Inappropriate

Center M SD

Whole Group M SD

Group Story M SD

Transition M SD

Workbook/Worksheet M SD

29.06’ 1.98

22.88 36.70’ 3.22 3.28

I 1.06’ 7.90 2.25 1.65

16.18* 2.90

2.59 26.25+ 1.82 5.50

9.70 3.70

2.10 1.55

Nore. Asterisk denotes where significant difference lies between groups. * p<.OOl.

exhibited more stress behaviors than girls (M= S6, SD= .15; M= .50, SD= .16, respectively).

Classroom Differences in Activity Types Differences in activity types for the two classroom settings were examined with a 2(Classroom)x2(Sex of Child) MANOVA in which frequencies of observations for each activity type were used as variates. A significant Class- room effect was obtained in the overall MANOVA, using Wilk’s lambda as the criterion, F(7,27) = 114.29, p c .OOl , and in subsequent univariate analyses performed on Activity Measures of Center, F(1,33) = 376.78, p< .OOl; Whole Group, F(1,33) = 177.84, p< .OOl; Group Story, F(1,33) =22.73, pc .OOl; Transition, F(1,33) = 240.54, pc .OOl; and Workbook/Worksheet, F(1,33) = 273.67, pc .OOl. The more developmentally appropriate classroom had significantly more child-selected center time, group story, and transitions, and less whole group and workbook/worksheet activities when compared to the less developmentally appropriate classroom (see Table 2). Small, but approximately equal, amounts of testing were observed in both settings over the 10 days of observations because all children were required to take a criterion-referenced test during part of the observation period.

DISCUSSION

This research was designed to identify developmentally appropriate and inappropriate kindergarten classrooms and to explore the relationship between


appropriate/inappropriate practices and stress behaviors of kindergarten children. Caution should be exercised in interpreting the findings from this study due to several limitations: inability to disentangle teacher effects from classroom structure/curriculum effects, location of the research at only one school, small sample size, and subjects rather than classroom being used as the unit of analysis. Despite the limitations, the results do suggest some in- teresting relationships that have implications for planning curricula for early childhood programs and that also suggest directions for future research.

Subjects in the more developmentally inappropriate classroom exhibited significantly more stress behaviors than children in the more developmentally appropriate classroom. Children also displayed more stress behaviors during whole group and during workbook/worksheet activities in the more inappropriate classroom than did children in the more appropriate classroom. These findings are a first step in providing empirical data to support the position of Elkind (1986), Kamii (1985), Schweinhart and Weikart (1988), Gallagher and Cochd (1987), Shepard and Smith (1988), and others who have warned of the negative consequences of inappropriate practices. They also suggest a link between inappropriate practices and stress as hypothesized by the current researchers. Since children today experience much stress in their lives, additional stress from an inappropriate curriculum may leave children even more vulnerable and unable to cope effectively.

A rather unexpected finding was that children in the developmentally appropriate classroom exhibited more stress behaviors during center time and transition activities than did children in the more inappropriate classroom. To help explain these findings, it may be helpful to note the length of these activities in each classroom, anecdotal observations by the researchers, and literature on peer group entry styles.

The length of time children had for center participation was much greater in the appropriate classroom than in the inappropriate classroom as indicated by the teachers’ written daily schedules (45 min-appropriate; 25 min-inappropriate) and observed times (average 40 min-appropriate; 20 min-inappropriate) and as confirmed in the analysis of frequencies for classroom activities (see Table 2). In addition, during much of the observed center time, the teacher in the more appropriate classroom was testing individual children and was not able to move around the room and interact with the children in centers as she normally did. The children were still free to select the center activity they wished to engage in and the length of time they would stay in that center. Although they were not directed to do so, the children tended to stay at the first center they selected for most of the center time. The observers noted that there were few stress behaviors during the first part of center activity, and it was only during the last 10 to 15 min that stress behaviors occurred to any extent. Perhaps this was due to the fact that the teacher was not available to provide the guidance and direction needed to keep the activity from deteriorating and becoming stressful.


In the more developmentally inappropriate classroom, center activity was handled quite differently. Only four or five children were allowed in centers at a time, while the majority of the class was in large group, teacher- directed instruction, or working on workbook/worksheet activities. The length of time they were in centers was comparatively brief, and perhaps it was not long enough for their play to deteriorate and signs of stress to appear.

Although speculative, the peer group entry literature (e.g., Dodge, Schlundt, Shocken, & Delugach, 1983; Putallaz & Wasserman, 1989) may also help to explain why children in the appropriate classroom exhibited more stress behaviors during center activity than children in the inappropriate classroom. Children employ various techniques when making entry into the peer group, including behaviors such as waiting and hovering and dis- agreeing. These behaviors are similar to those included on the CCSBI (e.g., onlooking, argues). Because children in the appropriate classroom were free to enter and leave groups of peers as desired, it may have been that many of the stress behaviors recorded were behaviors exhibited as they tried to gain entry into ongoing peer group center activity. Future studies need to look carefully at the inclusion/exclusion of various activities, what is occurring during those activities, and the length of time children are in an activity to help determine the stressfulness of activities within the classroom setting.

Differences were also found between the two classrooms in frequencies of various activities. In the more appropriate classroom, there were significantly more center, group story, and transition activities, whereas in the developmentally inappropriate classroom, there were more whole group and workbook/worksheet activities. These findings are generally what one would expect based upon the NAEYC guidelines (Bredekamp, 1987; NAEYC, 1986) and help to confirm the validity of the Teacher Questionnaire (Charlesworth et al., 1989) and the Checklist for Rating Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten Classrooms (Charlesworth et al., in press) used to identify appropriate and inappropriate classrooms. The guidelines describe an inappropriate classroom as one where instructional strategies revolve around teacher-directed, whole group activities; paper-and-pencil tasks such as workbooks and worksheets; and transitions which tend to fragment the day with little attempt by the adult to coordinate smooth transitions. This is contrasted with a developmentally appropriate program that pro- vides learning opportunities through child-initiated center activities, daily reading of books by the teacher, and a minimum number of whole group transitions.

One might then wonder why there were significantly more transition times with more stress behaviors during transition in the appropriate classroom as compared to the inappropriate classroom. Anecdotal observations by the researchers along with the data on frequencies of activity types indicate that in the inappropriate classroom, children spent large blocks of time


seated in whole group and workbook/worksheet activities. In the appropriate classroom, children spent much more time in self-selected center activity during which they could move freely from one activity to another. Children in this classroom also had more freedom of movement during other activities throughout the day. The researchers did not code separately individual transitions (such as might occur in center activities and peer group entry) and whole group transitions, and this precludes a clear interpretation of the findings. Because transition activity showed up as a significant variable in both measures of stress and activity type analyses, future studies need to document the type of transition (individual, small group, whole group) and look carefully at what is occurring during this time.

Analyses also revealed marginal gender differences. Males exhibited more total stress behaviors than females. These findings are consistent with the literature which indicates that male children are more vulnerable to stress than female children and that certain stressors may affect boys and girls differently (e.g., Humphrey & Humphrey, 1985; Rutter, 1979a). Magnusson (1982) cited greater anxiety reactions in males as compared to females in response to achievement-demanding situations. Teachers must, therefore, be especially cognizant of the types of activities that are planned for boys to insure that they are developmentally appropriate.

Although this study was an initial step in early childhood classroom stress research and the results must therefore be viewed as tentative, a model for future research has been established through the development of useful procedures for identifying appropriate and inappropriate classrooms and the stress behaviors of children in those classrooms. In addition, this study has provided data in an area where there has been much speculation but little empirical evidence. Initial support has been obtained documenting that developmentally inappropriate educational programs (which emphasize the use of workbooks, ditto sheets, and whole group instruction) are poten- tially harmful to young children, Such a program produced significantly more stress behaviors in kindergarten children than did a more developmentally appropriate program. As Breznitz and Goldberger (1982) have noted, repeated exposure, duration, and pacing of stressors are important factors in determining the potential impact of stress.

Because today’s young children are exposed to a multitude of stressors outside the school setting, additional stress produced in the classroom may have serious consequences. Humphrey and Humphrey (1985) have pointed out possible long-term effects of poorly managed stress for children in school including child burnout and diminished reserves of adaptive energy. Findings from the current study suggest that curricula should be planned to provide a setting that is developmentally appropriate. However, additional research is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. The paucity of empirical data in the area reinforces the need for additional research to

420 Buts, Hart, Charlesworth, and Kirk

determine the short-term and long-term effects of developmentally inappropriate practices on the development of young children.

REFERENCES

Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Behavior, 49, 227-267.

Anthony, J. (1959). Stress in early childhood. In The nature oj’stress disorder (pp. 199-227). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Bentley, S. (1989, April). Stress levels in kindergarlen children: Full-day versus half-day and academic versus developmentally appropriate programs. Paper presented at the meeting of the Oklahoma Home Economics Association, Tulsa.

Bereiter, C. (1986). Does direct instruction cause delinquency? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, 289-292.

Blom, G.E., Cheney, B.D., & Snoddy, J.E. (1986). Stress in childhood. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bredekamp, S. (1987). Developmentally appropriate pracrice in early childhood program serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Breznitz, S., Kc Goldberger, L. (1982). Stress research at a crossroads. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspecrs (pp. 3-6). New York: Free Press.

Burts, D.C., Hart, C.H., Charlesworth, R.. Hernandez, S., Kirk, L., & Mosely, J. (1989, March). A comparison of /he frequencies of stress behaviors observed in kindergarten children in classrooms with developmentally appropriate vs. inappropriate practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa- tion, San Francisco.

Caruso, D., & Oakes, P. (1988, November). Assessing teachers’ use of developmentally appro- priare pructices. Paper presented at the preconference sessions for the meeting of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, Anaheim, CA.

Charlesworth, R. (1985). Readiness: Should we make them ready or let them bloom? Duycare and Early Educa/ion, 12(3), 25-27.

Charlesworth, R., Hart, C.H., Burts, D.C., & Hernandez, S. (in press). Kindergarten teachers’ beliefs and practices. Early Childhood Development and Care.

Derogatis, L.R. (1982). Self-report measures of stress. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 270-294). New York: Free Press.

Dickinson, D.K., & Snow, C.E. (1987). Interrelationships between prereading and oral language skills in kindergartners from two social classes. Early Childhood Research Quor- terly, 2, l-25.

Dodge, K.A., Schlundt, D.C., Shocken, I., & Delugach, J.D. (1983). Social competence and children’s sociometric status: The role of peer group entry strategies. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 309-336.

Egertson, H.A. (1987). The shifting of kindergarten curriculum. ERIC Diges/. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

Elkind, D. (1981). The hurried child. Needham, MA: Addison-Wesley. Elkind, D. (1986). Formal education and early childhood education: An essential difference.

Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 631-636.


Felner, R.D., Farber, S.S., & Primavera, J. (1983). Transitions and stressful life events: A model for primary prevention. in R.D. Felner, L.A. Jason, J.N. Moritsugu, & S.S. Farber (Eds.), Preventive psychology: Theory, research and praciice (pp. 199-215). New York: Pergamon.

Fimian, M.J., & Cross, A.H. (1986). Stress and burnout among preadolescent and early adolescent gifted students: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Early Adolescence, 6, 247-267.

Gallagher, J.M., & Cochk, J.H. (1987). The clinical and educational concerns over pressuring young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2, 203-210.

Garmezy, N. (1981). Children under stress: Perspectives on antecedents and correlates of vulnerability and resistance to psychopathology. In A.I. Rabin, J. Aronoff, A.M. Barclay, & R.A. Zucker (Eds.), Further exploralions in personality (pp. 196-269). New York: Wiley.

Garmezy, N., Masten, A.S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and competence in children: A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 97-111.

Gersten, R. (1986). Response to “Consequences of three preschool curriculum models through age 15.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, I, 293-302.

Goldberger, L., & Breznitz, S. (Eds.). (1982). Handbook of stress: Theorefical and clinical aspecfs. New York: Free Press.

Hatch, J.A., &Freeman, E.B. (1988). Kindergarten philosophies and practices: Perspectives of teachers, principals, and supervisors. Early Childhood Research Quarter/y, 3, 151-166.

Hills, T. (1987). Children in the fast lane: Implications for early childhood policy and practice. Early Childhood Research Quarferly, 2, 265-213.

Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Cone, J. (1989, April). Hurrying children: How does it affect their academic, social, creative, and emotional development? Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City, MO.

Honig, A.S. (1986). Stress and coping in children. In J.B. McCracken (Ed.), Reducingsfressin young children’s lives (pp. 142-167). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Humphrey, J., & Humphrey, J. (1985). Controlling stress in children. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Hyson, M. (1988, November). Can NAEYC’S “Guidelines for developmentally appropriate teaching practices” be operationalized and developed into a reliable observation instrument? Paper presented at the preconference sessions for the meeting of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, Anaheim, CA.

Isenberg, J. (1987). Societal influences on children. Childhood Education, 63, 341-342. Jensen, M., &Chevalier, Z. (1988, November). Can ear/y childhood teachereducafion studenfs

use NAEYC’S developmentally appropriate practice guidelines to analyze observed or described circularpractices? Paper presented at the preconference sessions for the meeting of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, Anaheim, CA.

Johnson, J.H. (186). Li’e events as stressors in childhood and adolescence. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.

Kamii, C. (1985). Leading primary education toward excellence: Beyond worksheets and drill. Young Children, 40(6), 3-9.

Karweit, N. (1988). Quality and quantity of learning time in preprimary programs. The E/e- men tary School Journal, 89, 119-l 33.

Ladd, G.W. (1983). Social networks of popular, average, and rejected children in school settings. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 283-307.

Ladd, G.W., & Price, J.M. (1987). Predicting children’s social and school adjustment following the transition from preschool to kindergarten. Child Development, 58, 1168-I 189.

422 But-b, Hart, Charlesworth, and Kirk

Ladd, G.W., Price, J.M., & Hart, C.H. (1988). Predicting preschoolers’ peer status from their playground behaviors. Child Development, 59, 986-992.

Larsen, J.M., & Robinson, C.C. (1989). Later effects of preschool on low-risk children. Ear/y Childhood Research Quarterly, 4, 133-144.

Lazarus, R.S., & Launier, R. (1978). Stress-related transactions between person and environment. In L.A. Pervin & M. Lewis (Eds.), Perspeclives in inreracrionolpsycl~ology (pp. 287-327). New York: Plenum.

Magnusson, D. (1982). Situational determinants of stress: An interactional approach. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of slress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 231-253). New York: Free Press.

McCracken, J.B. (1986). Reducing stress in young children’s lives. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Montessori, M. (1964). The Montessori merhod. New York: Schocken. (Original work pub- lished 1912)

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1986). NAEYC position statement on developmentally appropriate practice in programs for 4- and S-year-olds. Young Children, 41(6), 20-29.

O’Brien, S.J. (1988). Childhood stress: A creeping phenomenon. Childhood Educufion, 65, 105-106.

Parfenoff, S.H., & Jose, P.E. (1989, April). Measuring daily srress in children. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City, MO.

Pearsall, P. (1983). De-stressing children. Wellness for children. Offspring, 25(2), 2-9. Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: Norton. Piaget, J. (1972). Science of educofion and psychology of the child (rev. ed.). New York:

Viking Press. Putallaz, M., & Wasserman, A. (1989). Children’s naturalistic entry behavior and socioeco-

nomic status: A developmental perspective. Developmenral Psychology, 25, 297-305. Rutter, M. (1979a). Maternal deprivation, 1972-1978: New findings, new concepts, new

approaches. Child Development, 50, 283-305. Rutter, M. (1979b). Protective factors in children’s responses to stress and disadvantage. In

M.W. Kent & J.E. Rolf (Eds.), Primary prevention of psychopathology: Vol. 3. Social competence in children (pp. 49-74). Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Schultz, E.W., & Heuchert, C.M. (1983). Child stress and the school experience, New York: Human Sciences Press.

Schweinhart, L., Berrueta-Clement, J.R., Barnett, W.S., Epstein, AS., & Weikart, D.P. (1985). The promise of early childhood education. Phi Delta Kuppan, 66, 548-553.

Schweinhart. L.J.. & Weikart, D.P. (1985). Evidence that good early childhood programs work. Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 545-55 1.

Schweinhart, L.J., & Weikart, D.P. (1988). Education for young children living in poverty: Child-initiated learning or teacher-directed instruction? The Elemenfary School Jour- nal, 89, 213-225.

Schnweinhart. L.J., Weikart, D.P., & Larner, M. (1986). Consequences of three preschool curriculum models through age 15. Em/y Childhood Research Quarterly, I, 15-45.

Selye, H. (1976). The stress o/life (rev. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Spehard, L.A., & Smith, M.L. (1988). Escalating academic demand in kindergarten: Counter-

productive policies. The Elemenfory School Journal, 89, 135-145. Short, V.M. (1988). President’s message: The curriculum “flunks” the test. ACEI Exchange,

56(6). 3. Sigel, I.E. (1987). Does hothousing rob children of their childhood? E&y Childhood Research

Quarterly, 2, 21 l-225.


Swick. K. (1987). Managing classroom stress. Dimensions, 15(4), 9-l 1. Willert, M.K., 8c Kamii, C. (1985). Reading in kindergarten: Direct vs. indirect teaching.

Young Children, 40(4), 3-9. Williams, C.K., & Kamii, C. (1986). How do children learn by handling objects? Young Chil-

dren, 42(l), 23-26. Winer, B.J. (1971). Statisticsprinciples in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-

Hill. Zegans, L.S. (1982). Stress and the development of somatic disorders. In L. Goldberger & S.

Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 134-152). New York: Free Press.

Documents

A comparison of frequencies of stress behaviors observed in kindergarten children in classrooms with developmentally appropriate versus developmentally inappropriate instructional