This article was downloaded by: [University North Carolina - Chapel Hill]On: 08 October 2014, At: 07:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Educational ForumPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20

Developmentally AppropriatePractice: “Figuring Things Out”Dr. Alice P. WakefieldPublished online: 30 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Dr. Alice P. Wakefield (1993) Developmentally Appropriate Practice:“Figuring Things Out”, The Educational Forum, 57:2, 134-143, DOI: 10.1080/00131729309335404

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131729309335404

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Developmentally AppropriatePractice: "Figuring Things Out"

by Alice P. Wakefield

Before you settle into your chair andbegin reading this article in earnest, there isa task you must perform. It is not difficult.In fact, it only requires that you do what wehumans do best. Take a look atthe picture tothe right. What sense can you make ofit? Asyou examine the picture and attempt to"figure it out," what mental processes areyou experiencing?

Spend a few minutes looking at thepicture.Ask someone what they thinkit is. Are two heads better than one?Why? If you cannot figure it out afterpondering, I will give you a clue.

Orient the picture horizontally.Does that help? Keep "figuring."Were you able to see a cow in thepicture? If not, take another glanceuntil your thoughts are in tune withyour vision.

Examining the thinking you ex­perienced, as you constructed theimage of the cow, is the real object ofthis exercise. The typical responsewhen encountering something of in-terest that does not quite make senseis to engage in a mental wrestlingrnatch with it until it does make sense."Not knowing" is a condition that wehumans work very hard to overcome.Piaget (1936) used the termdisequilibrium to describe the intellec­tual tension that is experienced whenwe do not know what we want toknow. The result of this mental

disequilibrium is the internal drive we rec­ognize as interest. Interest leads to intellec­tual focus as we attempt to figure out some­thing new. Interest and focus ultimatelylead to the mental adaptation that we recog­nize as new understanding. It is the"ah-ha"we feel as we gain insight and resolve apuzzlement. The most motivating teachercannot do for us what we can quite easily dofor ourselves, if only we have the interest to

With permissionfrom GEl' FOll lldatioll, Sallta Alla, Calif.

The Educational Forum' Volume 57' Winter 1993134

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:29

08

Oct

ober

201

4

ResearchIn Practice

Source: Kamii and DeVries 1980

3. In relation to learning, we would like children to be alert,curious, critical, and confident in their ability to figurethings out, and say what they honestly think. We wouldalso like them to ha ve initiative;come up with interestingideas, problems and questions; and put things in relation­ship.

Early Childhood Objectives1. In relation to adults, we would like children to develop

their autonomy through secure relationships in whichadult power is reduced as much as possible.

2. In relation to peers, we would like children to developtheir ability to decenter and coordinate different points ofview.

do so. The questionearly childhoodeducators shouldbe asking them­selves is, What kindof classroom envi­ronment offers chil­dren the most op­portunity for intel­lectual tension,which will result inin terest and, conse­quently, in the chil­dren "figuring out"something new?

EDUCATIONAL GOALS IN THE CLASSROOM

Maximizing opportunity for intellec­tual tension and stretch is the first step inestablishing developmentally appropriatepractice (DAP) in the classroom. However,if we do not have educational goals worthimplementing, no classroom practice willbe appropriate. What are our goals for chil­dren? The ultimate goal parents have fortheir children is that the children will learnto maximize the richness of their own lives,as well as the lives of others around them.The challenge is that one day they mustaccomplish this on their own and withoutour assistance. Adults know that achievingthis goal requires a lifetime of effort andmore than a little mental adaptation. Onemother voiced this goal quite eloquently

when she expressed a wish for her child bysaying, "All I ha ve to offer you is wings andlove ." Although we generally recognize loveas essential to maximizing the richness oflife, the key question addressed here is:How do we offer our children "w ings?"

Kamii and DeVries (1980) provideearly childhood objectives that recognizethe importance of the child's developmentof "wings," i.e., autonomy. (See Figure 1.)Educational goals such as these encouragethe construction of moral and intellectualautonomy and ultimately lead to control­ling the quality of one's life . Further, thesegoals acknowledge a distinct role for thelearner as thinker in the educational pro­cess, as well as a definite break with the longtradition of teacher as the great imparter ofall knowledge and governor of all behavior.

Alice P. Wakefield is an AssistantProfessor ofEarly Childhood Education in the

Darden College of Education at OldDominion University in Norfolk.

Virginia . Dr. Wakefield has taught at bothpreschool and primary levels .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:29

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Wakefield

DAP Self-Assessment Inventory

can examine the characteristics of DAP andtradition al classroom s and weigh themagainst these important criteria.

many stude nts studying to be teachers, aswell as many parents and school ad minis­trators, are products of the traditional class­room. Perhaps because of this, it is oftendifficult to break away from the pervasivemodel of traditional methods. However,with a proven learning philosophy andworthy educational goals as our guide, we

TraditionalPractice-1 -2

SeparateSkill-drivenExplicitHomogeneousGetting Read yTeacher-directedHeteronomyPrevious SkillRequires PracticeTest-as-instrument

a

DAP VS.

TRADITIONAL CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Wh en most of us went to schoo l,knowledge was "transmitted" (Monson andPah11991) to us by the teacher, one subjectat a time, following a fairly inflexible tim eschedule. We took out our math books forgroup lessons and assigned exercises. Thenwe took out our reading books for readingcircle where we had a long wait for a shortturn. After reading, if we had behaved andfinished ou r work, we lined up at the doorand walked single-file off to recess and afew minutes of freedom! After reces s camehandwriting practice, then lunch.

Eventually, most of us learned to pla ythe game of school, often by conforming to

Developmentally Appropriate vs.+2 +1

IntegratedMeaning-driven

IncidentalHeterogeneous

Read y NowChild-centered

AutonomyPrevious Knowledge

Requires Think ingHuman-as-instrument

THINKING AND DAP IN THE CLASSROOM

Is there a relationshi p between devel­opmentally appropriate practice and au­tonom ou s think ing in the classroom? Is au­tonomous thinking a consequence of DAP,or is DAP the likely result of providingstude nts with the opportunity for indep en­dent thinking? What kind of classroom en­vironmen t helpschild ren develop totheir max im um po­tential? To examinethese qu estions, letus compa re cha rac­te r istics o f cl ass­rooms in w hichteachers encouragestudents to "figurethingsout" forthem­selves wi th those oftraditional class­roo ms in which chil- N...dren are often told ~

""what and how to do ..things. (See Figure2.)

The two conditions essential to an ap­propriate learning envi ronment are (1) theteacher must recognize that each learnercons tructs new learning when he or she isinteres ted in "figuring it out," and (2) a planof action, i.e., educationa l objectives, isneed ed that provides children the opportu­nity to maximize their intellectual andsociomoral potential.

Developmentally appropriate practicein the early childhoo d classroom is the logi­cal consequence when the teacher's under­standing of the learning process is com­bined with such an educational plan of ac­tion. Altho ug h the teacher 's learning phi­losophy and ed ucational goals ma y not beliterally "seen," his or her early childhoodclassroom will give ample evidence of ex­plicit and implicit beliefs.

Examples of these beliefs appear inFigure 2. It is likely that most teachers and

The Educational Forum' Volume 57' Winter 1993136

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:29

08

Oct

ober

201

4

the teacher's requests . A few students re­belled. Some of my classmates did not orcould not overcome the hurdles. In thosedays we thought there was somethingwrong with them instead of there being aflaw with the system. How far have wecome since then? I have been in some DAPclassrooms where talking in small groups isrecognized as an opportunity for childrento explain and reexamine their own view­pointas it is rubbed against another student'sthinking. Does providing opportunity forthis kind of exchange fit in with what weknow about learning and with our goals forautonomy? Ask yourself if you think chil­dren are engaged in "figuring things out"when they are arguing over which answeris correct and how to prove it. Does the DAPclassroom reduce adult power? Is there anopportunity to decenter from one 's ownperspective as we hear other viewpoints? Ina DAP classroom, children talk and interactas they solve their own problems. Theteacher's role in this kind of classroomchanges dramatically.

INnGRAnD vs. SEPARAn CURRICULUM

In a DAP classroom, the teacher inte­grates subjects into an overall theme ratherthan teaching them separately from oneanother in isolated time slots. What mean­ing does math have unrelated to real-lifeapplication? If you are six years old , thetime to learn math facts is when you areplaying a rousing game of sevens and youneed to know that 3plus 4equals 7.Contrastthis with the traditional math factworksheet.If you already know your math facts, thereis no reason to endure the worksheet. If youdo not know your math facts, there is noway the worksheet will teach them. Math,reading, or writing-almost any subject­is best taught when it is needed to accom­plish something else . Although this is truefor any age learner, it is especially true forthose under eight years old whose thinking

ResearchIn Practice

is still not flexible enough to flit from unre­lated subject to unrelated subject (Kamii1985; Katz and Chard 1990).

One class, for example, voted to studywhales.The children read,wrote, and talkedabout whales. They measured out the lengthof the blue whale on the playground. Theylistened to recordings of the "songs" ofwhales communicating with one anotherand saw a video of the birth of a baby killerwhale at Sea World. At the computer, sev­eral children made a crossword puzzle ofwhale terms like fluke and blowhole, whichwere also used for their weekly spelling list.In their journals they drew pictures andexpressed their thoughts about whales.Thechildren were thinking, as they discussedthe implications of their studies. They werealso curious, goal-oriented, and full of ini­tiative. They worked together at the com­puter to publish a class book about whatthey had learned about whales. Studentschecked out copies of the books from theschool library, took them home, and sharedthem with the ir families . Parents placedcomments about the book in a special insidepocket. These notes were then shared withthe class .

MEANING-DRIVEN vs.SKILL-DRIVEN CURRICULUM

Breaking down the whole into partsto be practiced separately would seem to bea useful strategy for teaching somethingnew. However , the prelogical child doesnot have the flexibility of thinking to con­sider both part and whole simultaneously(Piaget 1936). Therefore, if a child is focus­ing on learning the skills (i.e., part) associ ­ated with reading, the purpose of readingfor meaning (i.e., whole) or pleasure may belost. Skill lessons often become rote lessons,artificial and contrived. They are apt to beperformed unrelated to purpose, learnerinterest, or intellectual focus. Since the"whole" tends to be more meaningful and

The Educational forum' Volume 57 • Winter 1993137

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:29

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Wakefield

interesting, the child is able to learn about itmore successfully. Because of this, the DAPclassroom curriculum is meaning-drivenrather than skill-driven. Teachers teach skillsbut not in isolation from the "whole" andonly rarely in large-group lessons.Skill les­sons follow the need to know, such as whena student asks for help in reading a word.The teacher teaches alphabetizing when stu­dents need to file their writing portfolios ormake spelling dictionaries rather thanthrough isolated lessons and worksheets.The teacher reads big books to childrenpointing to each word. The children choosesmaller versions to "read" on their own.Teachers model and emphasize the plea­sure of reading. Student interest is encour­aged. Similarly, teachers teach writing inconjunction with the purpose of communi­cating. Note-passing is valued. The chil­dren write their own names on Iunch lists orwhen signing up for library study. Becauseof their need and desire for meaningfulcommunication, the children's ability to talk,read, and write emerges and improves.

INCIDENTAL VS. EXPLICIT LEARNING

Since children in a DAP classroom aremore apt to be "figuring things out" andDAP teachers are more apt to follow stu­dent interest, there is a greater chance forincidental learning in the DAP classroomthan there is in a tra di tional classroom. Ex­plicit learning is carefully described in theteacher's lesson plan. Incidental learningoccurs unexpectedly as a more interestingsidetrack to the planned topic. Because DAPteachers appreciate the importance of stu­dent interest, they recognize the potential offollowing the side track. For instance, whenyou have reptile eggs found by a neighborunder a rotten log one spring, there's notelling if or when they are going to hatch or,for that matter, what reptile they may be .All hands reach for the reptile guide book.Pages are flipped. At last we all agree that

we have seven, no, six fence swifts.What dothey eat? A quick call to the nature museum,and a plan is devised to attract fruit flies totheir terrarium home. One problem afteranother is solved, not by the teacher aloneafter school butby the whole class, and soonthose miniature dinosaurs are flicking theirtiny tongues at the fruit flies buzzing aroundthe banana slice. By week's end, one littleswift is drowned in the wa ter dish, and,sadly, we are compelled to reevaluate theirhabitat. To avoid further tragedy, we collec­tively decide to release the remaining fenceswifts so that they can live as they should inthe wild. So back they go to the rotten logwhere they were found.

HETEROGENEOUS VS.

HOMOGENEOUS GROUPING

Grouping is a distinctive characteris­tic in aDAP classroom. Instead of the teachergrouping the children by ability to mini­mize diversity, i.e., homogeneous, childrenare grouped according to their interests.Not only is this grouping achieved by thechildren themselves , it is likely to crossability levels, maximizing diversity, i.e.,heterogeneous. Again, the role that learnerinterest plays in intellectual growth dictatesthat we examine the reasons we group chil­dren by our perception of their abilities.Thefollowing scenario describes a reasonablealternative to ability grouping arranged bythe teacher:

The kindergarten teacher says, "I'vebeen wondering about all the duct work Isee in the ceiling. What does it do? Howdoes it work? Do you have some questionstoo?" The teacher records the students' ques­tions on the chalkboard. Next, the studentschoose which question they want to inves­tigate; grouping is accomplished, and theinvestigation begins. It is interesting to no tethat when children group themselves byinterest, it is often across ability groups.

Many state and national professional

The Educational Forum · Volume 57 • Winter 1993138

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:29

08

Oct

ober

201

4

ResearchIn Practice

Eagerness to learn is a

condition to nurture.

When children are eager

and ready to learn, their

attempts and efforts

must be valued and

encouraged.

organizations have come out stronglyagainst ability grouping (NASBE 1988;NAEYC 1990). They have found that themore varied the group, the more likely theteacher is to recognize each child as a uniquelearner. This allows for much more indi­vidualizing of instruction, which means it ismore likely that attention will be paid tostudent interest.

READY Now vs. GEmNG READY

Children are always ready tolearn something of interest tothem. When their minds areengaged, stopping "to getready" may delay or eveninterfere with their inter-est and the mental en­gagement that is likely tolead them to new learn-ing. Because the DAPclassroom teacher recog­nizes how learning is con­structed by each learner,she recognizes that all chil­dren are ready now for think­ing challenges that are age-ap-propriate and appropriate for the in­dividual (Bredekamp 1987).This brings upthe one caution thatteachersmustconsider.Eagerness to learn is a condition to nurture.When children are eager and ready to learn,their attempts and efforts must be valuedand encouraged. A DAP teacher recognizesthat a right-or-wrong-answer approach isinappropriate for prelogical children. Whatadults may perceive as a "mistake" shouldinstead be valued as an approximation or"on the way to being right." Pointing out anerror tends to interrupt the child's progresstoward"figuring out" a solution that makessense to the child. DAP teachers recognizethat there is more than one right way toapproach an arithmetic problem. For ex­ample, students in a DAP class are not askedto memorize algorithms to execute without

reflection. Instead of pronouncing astudent's work right or wrong, which closesdown thinking, DAP teachers ask their stu­dents to explain their thinking, which keepsthem engaged. Eventually, by recognizingapproximations as "on the way to beingright" and by asking students why and howquestions, the students will not only "figureout" the right answer, they will know whyit is right. When children know why anarithmetic problem is correct, they are more

likely to enjoy math and recognize itas useful to them. When chil­

dren are required to think tosolve arithmetic problems,

they will construct aknowledge base that cansupport ever more com­plex levels of mathemat­ics (Kamii 1985).

CHILD-CENTERED VS.

TEACHER-DIRECTED

CLASSROOM

Qualities of the DAPteacher have been inferred

thus far in the discussion. TheDAP teacher shares power with her

students to the extent that each child canhandle it. Because a child-centered class­room provides more opportunity for chil­dren to investigate that which is of interestto them, DAP teachers become facilitatorsofstudentchoice.In a teacher-directed class­room, the teacher plans the week's eventsand carries out those plans with little inputfrom the students. Some teachers are veryskilled at long-range planning and pridethemselves on having every day of theiryear planned in advance. The consequenceof this teacher-directed classroom is thatopportunities for following student interestare often missed. In addition, if the teacherhas used these same plans repeatedly, sheor he knows what will happen. There willbe no surprises. How will the teacher model

The Educational Forum' Volume 57 • Winter 1993139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:29

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Wakefield

to the students the disposition to becurious, creative, experimentative,or risk-taking? Children learn thesedispositions, as well as others,through modeling and from re­peated opportunities to try themfor themselves in an atmospherewhere these dispositions are val­ued (Katz 1988). Teachers who direct in­stead ofguide take opportunities away fromtheir students to develop autonomy and tolearn how to direct themselves confidently.

The criteria of play continuum may beuseful in helping teachers move toward amore child-centered approach. (See Figure3.)To determine if the play experience avail­able to young children is more child-cen­tered or more teacher-directed, ask your­self these questions. Who decides what todo with the play dough the teacher puts outon the table? In pretend play, does the childdetermine what to pretend, or does theteacher arrange for the children to act out astory? Is the child following his or her owninterest rather than trying to please theteacher? Depending on the situation, eitherend of the criteria of play continuum maybe appropriate. However, our stated objec­tiveofautonomy requires us to make choicesavailable to the individual child to the ex­tent possible for the child to handle. Occa­sionally, teachers encounter a child whohas not had enough previous experiencewith play dough to know what to do with it.What is developmentally appropriate forthat child? In this situation, DAP teachersmay elect to provide the structure of a roll­ing pin or other tool that, by its presence,suggests to the child a way to use the playdough (Tegano,Sawyers,andMoran 1989).The point is that when a teacher has anunderstanding for how learning occurs andhas an educational plan to follow, she makeseducational decisions deliberately and forspecific reasons rather than intuitively. Inother words, she offers the choice of the

Criteria of Play Continuum

Child-Centered --- Teacher-Directed

Who is in control?Who directs reality?Who is interested?

rolling pin and cookie cutters to some chil­dren but withholds that offer for childrenwho can initiate their own choices. In achild-centered classroom, even teacher di­rection is developmentally appropriate.

AUTONOMY vs. HETERONOMY

Ifchildren are to "just say no to drugs"when no supervising adult is present orwhen saying no goes against the choice oftheir peers, it will not be because they havebeen to a couple of anti-drug rallies or beensternly lectured to about the dangers ofdrugs. It will be because the children ha verepeatedly, starting at an early age , madeindependent decisions and been held ac­countable for the logical consequences tothese decisions. These children will be con­fident and competent to freely examine theconsequences of drug use and to decidewhat is in their best interest. Obviously, thedecision opportunities provided by parentsand teachers must be age and individuallyappropriate. For example, two-year-oldsmay choose the color of the toothbrush youbuy for them but not whether or not theywill brush their teeth! Kindergartners canchoose what kind of sandwich they wantfor lunch or which book to check out fromthe library. They can even sign up for thesechoices on a sign-up chart. To achieve au­tonomy, children need to have repeatedopportunities to make decisions and th inkabout the consequences of their moral andintellectual choices (Piaget1932) .In the DAPclassroom, the teacher recognizes that moraland intellectual independence will be con­structed by the students over time as they

The E.ducational Forum' Volume 57' Winter 1993140

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:29

08

Oct

ober

201

4

make more and more complex moral andintellectual decisions. When a teacher or aparent makes a decision that could havebeen made by the child, the opportunity ismissed for the child to grow in his or herability to make a decision and be held ac­countable for it. Often adults fear that thechild will make a mistake in his or herchoice. Consequently, the adult makes anynecessary decisions in the best interest ofthe child. However, this does nothing tobuild the child's competence and confidencein his or her own decision-making abilities.The unfortunate consequence to compli­ance today is the lack of intrinsic controltomorrow. It is no wonder that so manychildren are unable to make healthy choiceswhen they find themselves in a position tochoose without the help and the influenceof their adult protectors.

PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE VS. PREVIOUS SKILL

Karmiloff-Smith and Inhelder (1975)found that there are three lines of access toconstructing new knowledge. The percep­tualline of access connects what is new towhat we have seen before. The action lineconnects to what we have done before. Theconceptual line connects to what we havethought about before. Since what childrenhave seen, done, and thought before are socrucial to what they are able to learn now,teachers need to be alert to evidence of theirprevious knowledge. And, since they maynot know which line of access may be ap­propriate, there should be ample classroomopportunities to see and manipulate and tothink and talk. The key question teachersmust ask of themselves about each of theirstudents is, "Do I know what you know?"This is a complete turn-around to the ques­tion asked by the traditional classroomteacher who, with a teacher's edition opento the day's lesson, asks, "Do you knowwhat I know?" What does it matter that thebasal program builds so beautifully from

ResearchIn Practice

previous skill to today's lesson if the child'slack of previous experience prevents anyconnecting line of access?

THINKING VS. PRACTICE

Nothing is more human than to try tomake sense of the events in our lives. Whatis the universal appeal of a puzzle but theengaging process of "figuring it out." Wehumans are thinkers. Whenever possible,DAP teachers favor classroom activi ties tha tencourage thinking over rote practice. How­ever, there is a place for practice in the DAPclassroom. This practice mayor may notinvolve "relevant" thinking.What were youthinking about when you had to go beforethe class and recite your times tables? Iwonder how many of us knew what thisrote exercise represented. Being able to tellthat 6 times 7 equals 42 does not mean thatthe teller knows the relationship that existsbetween 6 times 7 and 6 times any othernumber. Making relationships requiresthinking, not rote practice. Although thereis a place for rote practice in learning themultiplication tables , it should come afterthe student understands what the timestable represents.

There also is a place for practice in thedevelopment of a motor skill. Practicing thecorrect fingering for typing makes it auto­matic so a writer can write rather than thinkabout where to find each letter. Playing thepiano "automatically" after years of prac­tice allows the player to concentrate on theartistic interpretation of the music. Tyingyour shoelace does not need to be a thought­ful process.

Although writing spelling words tentimes each did not make better lifetime spell­ers, it did help prepare students for theFriday spelling test. Thinking is requiredfor invented spelling, but standard Englishis too irregular to invent through logic alone.Proponents of invented spelling are encour­aging their students to think. However,

The Educational Forum· Volume 57 • Winter 1993141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:29

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Wakefield

when the student recognizes the existenceof and/or the need for a spelling standard,spelling can be taught through the use andthe subsequent practice of that standard.The difference between practice in the DAPclassroom and practice in the traditionalclassroom is the timing. Practice followsand supports the student's interestand needto know. Practice is not a method for teach­ing students new relationships.

HUMAN-AS-INSTRUMENT VS.

TEST- AS-INSTRUMENT

Studentassessment in DAP classroomsis undergoing a profound change. The tra­ditional method of comparing students toone another by group testing is graduallybeing replaced with a method of comparingan individual's present work with his or herprevious work. Standardized achievementtesting, which is still required in most schooldistricts, is the most visible exception to thischange. The national emphasis on achieve­ment testing continues to pressure teachersto teach to the test (Kamii 1990).The conse­quence of this is that time for "figuringthings out" is replaced with pumping chil­dren full of facts, i.e., drill and practice, formany weeks prior to the test. This results inundue stress for everyone concerned. Toassess a student's progress, the only perti­nent criteria is that particular student's pre­vious work. How does his or her presentwork compare to earlier,work? What evi­dence is there of progress? Checklists andportfolios of student work help DAP teach­ers document this progress. Each student'sdocumented progress is then shared withparents at a teacher conference. These one­on-one meetings are beginning to replacethe traditional letter grade card (Flood andLapp 1989; Green 1990).

The traditional emphasis has been toget students where we want them to be bythe end of the school year. Whether they areis usually determined by an achievement

test. The implication of this is that goodteachers can direct their students so thatthey will all end up knowing what the teach­ers want them to know in a prescribedamount of time. DAP teach ers know this isnonsense! The rate and the amount of stu­dent learning is affected by many things,e.g., the student's previous knowledge, hisor her interest, the opportunity for thinking,etc. However, rate and amount of studentlearning will not be positively affected bydirectives outlining what the school districtwants to be accomplished by year's end. Inthe DAP classroom, the learning philoso­phy and educational plan call for centeringon where each child is now. When teachersknow that about each of their students, theycan provide individual and ag.eappropria teactivities that will maximize their opportu­nities for thinking.

As the characteristics of developmen­tally appropriate practice are reviewed, itshould be apparent that each of these char­acteristics encourages and supports thechild 's effort to "figure things out." Thethree early childhood goals revealed in Fig­ure 1can only be achieved in a de velopmen­tally appropriate classroom. Stri ving toimplement these goals could ultimately leadto developmentally appropriate practice.Traditional teachers regularly agree thatthese goals are worthy of implementation.However, when you visit their classrooms,they persist in using traditional teachingmethods. A gap exist s between what theysay they want to do and what they actuallydo . Usually, the "missing link" for theseteachers is their lack of understanding forthe role children play in constructing theirown knowledge. Until traditional teachersexperience the intellectual discomfort thatcomes when confronted with a viewpointthat challenges their present belief systems,there will be no change. Withoutdisequilibrium, there will be no interestthatleads to the intellectual scrutiny and focus

The Educational Forum' Volume 57 • Winter 1993142

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:29

08

Oct

ober

201

4

need ed to form new belief systems and adifferent classroom practice . Teachers, too,must construct the "missing link" to morecomplex thought patterns for themselves.Our role as advocates of developmentallyappropriate practice is to exchange view­points with unconvinced educators. Dur-

REFERENCESBredekamp, S.1987. Deveiopmentallyappropriatepractice

in early childhood programs serving children frombirth through age 8. Washington , D.C: NationalAssoc iation for the Ed ucation of Young Child ren .

Flood ,J., and D.Lapp.1989.Reporting reading progress:A comparison portfolio for parents. The ReadingTeacher 7:508-14.

Gr een, C 1990. Assessing kindergarten child ren'swriting . Dimensions 16(2): 14-18 .

Karnii, C , ed . 1990. Achievement testing in the earlygrades: Games adults play. Wash ingt on , D.C :National Asso ciation for the Educa tion of YoungChildren.

Kamii, C K. 1985. Young children reinvent arithmetic:ImplicationsofPiaget's theory. New York: TeachersCollege Pres s.

Karnii, C , and R. DeVries. 1980. Group games in earlyeducation.Washington, D.C :National Associationfor the Educat ion of Young Children .

Karm iloff-Smi th, A., and B. Inhelder.1975. If you wa ntto ge t ahead , ge t a theory. Cognition 3:192-212.

ResearchIn Practice

ing this exchange , we must attempt to con­nect what is new for them (i.e., DAP) withwhat they have seen or done or thought be­fore. Actually, it ought not be so very diffi­cult. After all, knowing how knowledge isconstructed and having a specific plan ofaction does offer an advantage!

Katz, L. G. 1988. Wha t sho uld young children bedoing? American Educator 12(2): 28-33.

Katz, L. G., and S. C Chard. 1990. Engaging children'sminds:The project approach. Norwood, N.J.: AblexPublish ing Corp.

Monson, R. J., and M. M. Pahl. 1991. Ch art ing a newcourse with whole language.EducationalLeadership48(6): 51-53.

Na tional Association for the Educat ion of YoungChildren. 1990. NAEYC position statement onschoo l read iness. Young Children46(1): 21-23.

National Associat ion of State Boards of Ed ucation.1988.Rightfrom thestart:Report of theNASBETaskForce on Early Childhood Education. Alexandria,Va.: NASBE.

Piaget, J. [1932.] 1965. The moral judgment of the child.Reprint. New York: At Free Press.

Piaget,J. [1936.]1963.Theoriginsofintelligenceinchildren.Rep rint. New York: At No rton.

Tegano, D. W., J. K. Saw yers, and J. D. Moran. 1989.Problem-finding and solving in play:The teacher' sro le. Childhood Education 66(2): 92-97.

The author wishes to express gratitude toLucy Stephenson and Jane Duhl

whoseeditorial comments wereextremely helpful.

© Kappa DeltaPI

The Educational Forum' Volume 57' Winter 1993143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity N

orth

Car

olin

a -

Cha

pel H

ill]

at 0

7:29

08

Oct

ober

201

4