15
This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries] On: 20 November 2014, At: 14:03 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Research in Childhood Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrc20 Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice Audra Parker a & Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett a a University of Georgia Published online: 03 Nov 2009. To cite this article: Audra Parker & Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett (2006) Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21:1, 65-78, DOI: 10.1080/02568540609594579 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02568540609594579 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 whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial 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 Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice

  • Upload
    stacey

  • View
    213

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice

This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]On: 20 November 2014, At: 14:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Research in Childhood EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrc20

Developmentally Appropriate Practice inKindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs andPracticeAudra Parker a & Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett aa University of GeorgiaPublished online: 03 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Audra Parker & Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett (2006) Developmentally Appropriate Practice inKindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21:1, 65-78,DOI: 10.1080/02568540609594579

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02568540609594579

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 licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitabilityfor any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, 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 with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

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

Page 2: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice

Journal of Research in Childhood Education2006, Vol. 21, No. 1

Copyright 2006 by the Association forChildhood Education International

0256-8543/06

65

Determining the appropriate type of instruc-tion for young children became the subject of research and debate when the National Association for the Education of Young Chil-dren (NAEYC) issued its first position state-ment on the subject in 1987. Because the wording of the NAEYC position statement was interpreted as suggesting a dichotomous relationship between teacher-centered and child-centered practices, the heart of the debate centers on whether teachers should use developmentally appropriate, child-cen-tered practices, or didactic, teacher-centered practices. Didactic or teacher-centered practices tend to rely more exclusively on passive forms of instruction as well as drill-and-practice approaches. Research gener-ally supports the use of developmentally appropriate practices with young children (Burts et al., 1993; Charlesworth, 1998a; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, & DeWolf, 1993;

Hart, Charlesworth, Burts, & DeWolf, 1993; Huffman & Speer, 2000; Marcon, 2002; Neuharth-Pritchett, 2001; Stipek, Felier, Daniels, & Milburn, 1995); however, there is often a discrepancy between what the research indicates and the philosophies of early childhood educators, which tend to be developmentally appropriate in nature, and their actual teaching practices, which tend to be developmentally inappropriate for young children (Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Mosley, & Fleege, 1993; Hatch & Freeman, 1988; McMullen, 1999). Furthermore, teachers often hold misconceptions about the actual attributes of developmentally appropriate and didactic practices and the usefulness of both in early childhood classrooms. The perceptions of instructional practices, as well as the types of practices used by teachers, are further influenced by external factors. The current period of high-stakes

Abstract. What teachers believe and the practices in which they engage are often not consistent, as they face accountability demands and a return to more structured approaches. Data were collected from 34 kindergarten teachers on their beliefs about instructional practice and the forces that shape the education. Findings indicated that regardless of teachers’ instructional approaches, teachers perceived that kindergarten was becoming more academic in nature. Teachers who endorsed a more child-centered perspective noted that they felt more pressure from 1st-grade teachers than did teachers who were classified as teacher-directed. Despite these general trends, about half of the teachers did not feel pressure from teachers in the next grade level. Also, teachers who were classified as child-centered believed that they had control over the curriculum, whereas teacher-directed teachers stated that they followed district policies and procedures. Regarding perceptions of teacher-directed instruction, teachers who endorsed a teacher-directed class-room believed that the directed approach was beneficial for high-ability learners, immature students, and students with special needs. Teachers who used a mixed instructional approach used direct strategies in small doses, while child-centered teachers described the use of very few teacher-directed activities and also noted that no children benefit from teacher-directed instruction.

Audra ParkerStacey Neuharth-PritchettUniversity of Georgia

Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

03 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 3: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice

PARKER AND NEUHARTH-PRITCHETT

66

testing and accountability is transforming the nature of schooling in the United States. Declines in time spent at recess and the arts, and increases in the use of workbook-based reviews and didactic practices, are commonplace. Furthermore, students who perform poorly on standardized tests face the possibility of retention, and low-scoring schools may lose funding and their accredi-tation. While the testing typically targets students in grades 3-12, it is certain that early childhood educators are under the gun to get children “ready” for the next grade. Additional external factors, such as pres-sure from upper grades teachers and cur-riculum constraints within a school district, make it increasingly difficult to teach in a developmentally appropriate manner. These external factors, coupled with teachers’ own beliefs and practices, shape the environ-ment that young children experience in the primary grades.

Didactic and DevelopmentallyAppropriate PracticesDidactic practices, which some teachers con-sider to be developmentally inappropriate, are directly tied to behaviorist theories of learning. However, some evidence suggests that didactic practices are beneficial to some children (Karnes, Shwedel, & Williams, 1983). According to behaviorism, learning occurs as responses to stimuli; thus, when applied to a classroom setting, children learn when they repeat correct responses to teach-er-produced stimuli and when children’s errors are corrected immediately so as to keep them from learning incorrect knowl-edge (Stipek, 1993). Typically, this approach to instruction incorporates teachers’ use of repetition, direct instruction, tasks taught in small sequential steps, and behaviors shaped by external reinforcement (Buchan-an, Burts, Bidner, White, & Charlesworth, 1998; Stipek, 1993). These practices are further characterized by teacher-directed learning that involves rote memorization, drill-and-practice, the use of workbooks and worksheets, lack of student choice, and lack of collaboration with peers (Burts, Hart, &

Charlesworth, 1990; Charlesworth, 1998a; Stipek, 1993). Finally, didactic practices allow little room for integration of content areas or hands-on, concrete learning ex-periences, and teachers typically manage student behavior by punishing unacceptable actions and offering extrinsic rewards for fol-lowing the rules (Charlesworth, 1998a). In contrast, cognitive learning theories undergird developmentally appropriate instruction. Rooted in the work of Piaget and Vygotsky, cognitive learning theories are guided by the premise that develop-ment refers to patterned changes over time (Schunk, 2000). Uniting the work of Piaget and Vygotsky is the concept of constructiv-ism, which assumes that learners construct their own knowledge based on interactions with their environment that challenge their thinking (Schunk, 2000). With constructiv-ist learning, the motivation to engage in intellectual tasks is greatest when tasks are challenging but achievable, and when individuals are given autonomy in selecting and completing tasks. Developmentally appropriate practices, as defined by NAEYC, emphasize the develop-mental level and learning style of the whole child in terms of physical, social, emotional, and cognitive needs (Charlesworth, 1998b). This view asserts that children learn active-ly through physical and social experiences to construct their own understandings of the world around them. In order to ac-complish these goals, NAEYC recommends that educators in early childhood programs provide opportunities for work with peers and for exploration with manipulatives and hands-on activities. Furthermore, instruc-tion should be informal, relative to students’ lives, integrated across content areas, and guided by student choice and interest.

Research on Didactic andDevelopmentally Appropriate Practices

AchievementThe research is limited with regard to the long-term effects of developmentally appropriate and didactic practices on the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

03 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 4: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice

KINDERgARtEN tEACHERs AND DAp

67

achievement of young children. In studies that followed students from kindergarten into elementary grades, the literature sug-gests that participation in DAP programs positively correlates with later grade level achievement (Burts, DeWolf, Hart, Charles-worth, & Benedict, 1996; Burts et al., 1993; Charlesworth, 1998a; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, & DeWolf, 1993; Hart et al., 1993; Marcon, 2002). In a heterogeneous sampling of 204 students, researchers found that heavy reliance on academic, didactic meth-ods in kindergarten did not translate into achievement in later primary grades (Burts et al., 1996). Marcon’s research (2002) also highlighted the importance of early experi-ences for later childhood success, noting that those who experienced overly academic preschools earned significantly lower grades by the end of 6th grade than those students in developmentally appropriate classrooms. Finally, fewer children were recommended for retention in kindergarten classrooms exhibit-ing a high level of developmental appropriate-ness and a teacher with a more child-centered philosophy (Neuharth-Pritchett, 2001). The short-term effects of developmen-tally appropriate and didactic instruction yields mixed results. In their study of at-risk students in urban schools, Huff-man and Speer (2000) found that student achievement was significantly higher in developmentally appropriate classrooms for letter-word recognition and applied problem solving in reading and math. Similarly, the LSU studies (Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, & DeWolf, 1993, cited in Charlesworth, 1998a) indicated that when considering children from diverse backgrounds and socioeco-nomic levels, a developmentally appropriate curriculum is critical to promoting equity in developmental outcomes. Likewise, studies of didactic practices also suggest favorable results in terms of letter recognition and reading achievement, and a number of didactic programs have signifi-cantly improved achievement for poor, mi-nority students (Stipek et al., 1995). When considering these gains, it is important to note the long-term, negative impacts of didac-

tic practices on motivation and personality. Didactic instruction and programming may cost some children their self-confidence and inclination to engage in learning activities and, ultimately, may undermine any initial gains in achievement (Stipek, 1993). Fur-thermore, creative expression and emotional well-being may be lost in highly academic environments, even when little or no academic advantages are noted (Hirsh-Pasek, Hyson, & Rescorla, 1990).

MotivationResearch also suggests a connection be-tween the use of developmentally appro-priate practices and motivational levels. The work of Stipek, Felier, Daniels, and Milburn (1993) identified a relationship between developmentally appropriate prac-tices and motivation, noting that students in developmentally appropriate classrooms had higher expectations for their success in school, chose more challenging math prob-lems to solve, showed less dependency on adults for permission and approval, exhib-ited more pride in their accomplishments, and worried less about school.

Stress Differences in stress behaviors of students in developmentally appropriate and didactic classrooms were also observed. In an in-vestigation of 204 kindergartners mediated by race, gender, and socioeconomic level, researchers found that males in didactic classrooms exhibited more stress than males in developmentally appropriate classrooms (Burts et al., 1992). Furthermore, African Americans in didactic classrooms exhibited more stress than whites during transition, waiting, and whole-group activities, while whites exhibited more stress during group story time in didactic classrooms (Burts et al., 1992). Hirsh-Pasek, Hyson, and Rescorla (1990), using a strong interpretation of their data, noted that academically oriented preschool classrooms were related to less creativity, increased test anxiety, and a less positive attitude towards school. In addi-tion, there were no identified academic ad-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

03 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 5: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice

PARKER AND NEUHARTH-PRITCHETT

68

vantages for children from highly academic environments (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 1990).

Teachers’ InstructionalBeliefs and Practices The research on teachers’ beliefs and practices is complex because didactic and developmentally appropriate practices are framed in the literature as completely di-chotomous. Teacher practices are portrayed as either one extreme or the other, rather than as existing on a continuum. This is primarily a result of the original NAEYC statement, which juxtaposed examples of appropriate and inappropriate educa-tion practices (Bevilacqua, 1997). This polarized view of teacher practices implies that there is only one correct way to teach young children (Bevilacqua, 1997). When considering teachers’ beliefs and practices, it is important to note that the literature on developmentally appropriate practices and didactic practices represents separate dimensions rather than opposite ends of the same spectrum, and teachers may believe in and utilize both types of instruction (Maxwell, McWilliam, Hemmeter, Ault, & Schuster, 2001). Stipek, Felier, Daniels, and Milburn (1995) suggested that the debate be framed in less black and white terms, noting that different instructional approaches may be better suited for differ-ent achievement goals. Over the past decade, teachers’ beliefs in relation to developmentally appropriate and didactic practices were studied in early child-hood literature with mixed results. Several studies investigated the external influences on teachers’ practices. In a study of predic-tors of the developmental appropriateness of teacher beliefs and practices, the amount of control that teachers believed they had on planning and implementation of the curricu-lum had positive influences (Buchanan et al., 1998). This study compared favorably with Charlesworth’s findings that teachers using didactic practices believed that parents and administration had more influence over their teaching than they did (Charlesworth, 1991, cited in Buchanan et al., 1998). McMullen

(1999) found that a number of beliefs and personality characteristics may influence teachers’ use of developmentally appropri-ate practices, including self-efficacy, locus of control, trait anxiety, and educational and professional experiences. Several research studies revealed a posi-tive correlation between teacher beliefs and teacher practices. When looking at teachers in kindergarten through 3rd grade, research-ers determined that teachers’ beliefs predict-ed classroom practices even after controlling for grade and educational background (Max-well et al., 2001). Two research teams found moderately positive relationships between teacher beliefs and practices, noting that the more strongly teachers believed in devel-opmentally appropriate practices, the more likely they were to implement the practices in the classroom (Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Mosley et al., 1993; Dunn & Kontos, 1997; Hyson, Hirsh-Pasek, & Rescorla, 1990). In addition, teachers viewed developmentally appropriate practices as having importance in early childhood education, even though they might not have used them frequently and may even use didactic instruction on a regular basis (Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Mosley et al., 1993). Furthermore, a strong correlation was made for teachers holding didactic beliefs and utilizing didactic prac-tices (Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Mosley et al., 1993). In contrast, discrepancies between de-velopmentally appropriate beliefs and ob-served practices were noted in a number of studies (Bryant, Clifford, & Peisner, 1991; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Mosley et al., 1993; Dunn & Kontos, 1997; Hatch & Free-man, 1988; McMullen, 1999). Typically, in research that reported a disconnect between teachers’ beliefs and their actual practices, the pattern was for teachers to report highly appropriate beliefs, but actually engage in significantly less appropriate practices (McMullen, 1999). Because developmentally appropriate practices are considered “politi-cally correct,” Hyson (1991) noted that it may be hard to find teachers who will admit to not incorporating DAP into their beliefs and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

03 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 6: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice

KINDERgARtEN tEACHERs AND DAp

69

practices (McMullen, 1999). Furthermore, teachers who adamantly claimed to believe in developmentally appropriate practices at-tribute the discrepancy to environmental or work-related stresses, such as unsupportive parents and administrators, personal per-ception of the need for skill development, and preparing students for standardized testing (McMullen, 1999).

SummaryThe purpose of this study was to examine the beliefs of 34 kindergarten teachers in relation to developmentally appropriate instruction, and the role of such external influences as peer pressure, high-stakes testing, and curriculum constraints in shaping their beliefs. While the literature contains numerous research studies on developmentally appropriate practice and, specifically, on such defined constructs as motivation, stress, and achievement, many of these studies do not consider the contex-tual nuances of teachers’ intentions for their instruction. Teachers provide instruction in complex environments. Classroom environ-ments are directly affected by outside forces, such as accountability, high-stakes testing, parental involvement, parental pressure about children’s success, financial resources, and administrative policies and procedures. The unique contribution of this study may be the increased awareness of how these power-ful external factors shape the education of young children.

MethodSampleData for this research were collected from 34 kindergarten teachers, representing seven schools, in a rural, southeastern U.S. school district located between a major metropolitan area and a large university town. The total population estimate for this county in 1998 was 40,344, with Af-rican Americans making up 13.5 percent of the population. Children of non-Euro-pean descent represent 19 percent of the children in grades kindergarten through 12. Slightly over 8 percent of the popula-

tion were children under the age of 5. A total of 13.3 percent of the residents of the county lived below the poverty level. The 34 participants’ overall years of teaching experience ranged from 1 year to 32 years (M=11.94, SD=8.86). Participants were asked to supply informa-tion on the number of years that they had been teaching kindergarten and the number of years that they had been teaching in the specific county in which the study took place. In both cases, the number of years ranged from 1 to 23 years. With regard to the num-ber of years of kindergarten teaching, the mean was 7.57 years (SD=7.13). The mean number of years teaching in the county in which the study took place was 7.10 years (SD=6.12). Teachers also provided informa-tion on the highest level of education they had attained. Of the 34 teachers, 18 had a bachelor’s degree and 16 had obtained a master’s degree. All of the teachers were female and all but one coded her ethnicity as white. One teacher identified herself as African American. The 34 teachers in this sample represent the entire population of kindergarten teachers in the school system in which the study was conducted.

Data CollectionThe kindergarten teachers in this county were asked to participate in a large reten-tion study involving surveys, interviews, and observations. Each teacher was in-terviewed for approximately one hour, and audiotaped recordings of these interviews were transcribed. The interviews, which focused on the issue of retention, also ques-tioned teachers about their instructional beliefs and practices.

Data AnalysisInitial data analysis began with a reading of each interview. Preliminary notes were made in the margins for later use. After reviewing all interview questions and re-sponses, six questions were chosen as being most relevant to the purpose of this research. Although these key questions were the focus of this research article, the remain-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

03 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 7: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice

PARKER AND NEUHARTH-PRITCHETT

70

ing questions provided a valuable context for individual responses. These additional questions were often referenced to assist with clarification or further explanation. The six key questions were:

1) Do you perceive a switch from the de-velopmental focus of kindergarten to an academic focus?

2) Would you characterize your teaching as more teacher-directed or child-centered, and why?

3) Would you comment on developmentally appropriate or child-centered instruc-tion in kindergarten classrooms? Are there particular children who benefit from that type of environment?

4) Would you comment on the role of teach-er-directed instruction in kindergarten? Are there particular children who ben-efit from that type of environment?

5) What is the philosophy of the school dis-trict with regard to the most appropriate instructional practices for children?

6) Do you feel pressure from other teach-ers in the next grade level in terms of student preparation?

Each interviewee’s responses to these six questions were teased out of the larger interview transcript and reorganized into charts. A chart of quotes from the interview transcripts was created for each teacher. Where teachers’ quotes supported previous statements or perspectives, data within cases served to provide evidence as to the strength of the belief of the specific teacher. After each teacher’s individual data was reduced to meaningful summaries, com-parisons among the teachers’ overall beliefs were assessed. This assessment allowed the researchers to sort the charts into three categories, based on the teachers’ responses to how they would characterize their teach-ing. Nine of the 34 teachers characterized themselves as primarily teacher-directed, 16 classified themselves as both teacher-di-rected and child-centered, and 9 classified themselves as primarily child-centered. To analyze the data in each of these three

groups, a cross-case analysis approach was used. While the researchers did not conduct member checks with the individual par-ticipants, the two researchers independently reviewed each teacher’s chart and created ad-ditional charts that summarized data within three types of teacher belief categories. While not reported in this article, researchers also observed the kindergarten classrooms with standard early childhood observation tools. These observations also provided evidence as to the appropriate placement of teachers in a given teacher belief category. These data served to triangulate the primary classifi-cation of the teacher within a category, as well as to verify teacher beliefs as they were translated into practice. This method enhanced generalizability, identified themes, and deepened understand-ing of the data in each of the three subgroups (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Responses to the six focus questions from teachers in each of the three subgroups were first compared within the group. This allowed the researchers to compare and contrast responses among the teachers with a similar approach to instruction. The next step was to identify trends and themes across the groups as they emerged from the data. Some research suggests that particular groups of teachers exhibit unique characteristics, such as years of teaching experience and advanced degrees, and that these charac-teristics influence their teaching. The as-signment of the teachers to a given teacher belief category was examined to look for a specific type of teacher—for example, one with extensive classroom experience—to be in a particular category. Findings showed a representation of teachers with both years of teaching experience as well as level of educa-tion in all three categories. Therefore, the researchers dropped from the analysis any specific review for how those factors may have influenced the data.

FindingsThe findings of this research illustrate the complexity of developmentally appropriate instruction for early childhood educators.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

03 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 8: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice

KINDERgARtEN tEACHERs AND DAp

71

The perceptions of the three groups of teachers, teacher-directed (didactic), child-centered (developmentally appropriate), and teachers using both approaches, will be dis-cussed according to four different issues: the shift to a more academic kindergarten, the pressure from their peers, their perceptions of teacher-directed instruction, and their perceptions of child-centered instruction.

The Shift to a More Academic KindergartenTeachers, regardless of how they described their instructional approach, believed that kindergarten had become increasingly more academic in nature. All 34 teachers noted a significant shift from a developmental focus to an academic focus. One teacher said, “It has switched from social learning to learning skills that get them ready for 1st grade.” Another described kindergarten as “putting so much pressure on these children so early; now there is so much curriculum that we have to cover that at the end of the week, we forgot to do the fun things we had planned.” Finally, one teacher summarized the experience by saying, “I think it is what 1st grade used to be.” Clearly, all teachers perceived changes in the kindergarten cur-riculum and objectives.

The PressureThe teachers’ descriptions of the pressure to ready students for the next grade level varied; however, the number of teachers ex-periencing pressure increased as we moved across the spectrum from the teacher-direct-ed group to the child-centered instructional group. In terms of student preparation pres-sure, teacher-directed kindergarten teach-ers were less likely to feel pressure, while child-centered teachers were more likely to feel pressure. Of the nine teachers in the teacher-directed category, only three com-mented that they felt pressure to get their students ready for 1st grade. Of the major-ity that felt little or no pressure, many were blunt in their responses. One teacher said, “I just tell them (the 1st-grade teachers) that we did what we were supposed to do, so get over it.” Others felt that knowing the expec-

tations of the 1st-grade teachers alleviated the pressure and helped them “teach (the children) what they needed to know,” and “not send children if they weren’t ready.” Within the group of 16 teachers who were characterized as using both teacher-directed and child-centered evenly, approximately half felt pressured in terms of student prepa-ration. One teacher noted, “It is nothing they (the 1st-grade teachers) directly say, but you know they will look at where their students have come from. A teacher noted comments like, “This class, they just don’t have it” or “I can’t imagine that child being sent to 2nd grade.” In contrast, six of the nine child-centered teachers felt pressure to make sure students were ready. As one teacher stated, “I don’t want the teachers who have my students coming to me and asking why they don’t know things.” Kindergarten teachers experienced a range of pressure in terms of student prepa-ration. While there were differences in the numbers of teachers experiencing pressure in terms of student preparation across the categories, there also were differences in the kinds of pressure felt by individual teachers across the groups. The types of pressure can be divided into two categories: self-imposed and overt. One teacher, describing self-im-posed pressure, said, “A little pressure is good . . . we do (feel pressure) because we want to be accountable for what the children have learned.” Another teacher replied, “I know I shouldn’t, but it is a pride thing to know that you have taught them what they need to know. . . . I do feel that pressure, not because anyone has put it on me but myself.” Teachers from each of the three groups described overt pressure similarly. One teacher said of her 1st-grade colleagues, “(They) are always saying that they didn’t learn this, or they don’t know that.” Another commented, “I feel that we have too much pressure. I feel like we are very responsible. I think that they (1st-grade teachers) are very strict on what they want them to know when they walk in the door.” For approximately half of the teachers in this study, pressure for student preparation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

03 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 9: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice

PARKER AND NEUHARTH-PRITCHETT

72

for 1st grade was not a concern. Several noted that good communication with the 1st-grade teachers helped alleviate the pres-sure. One teacher said, “We get along well, we work closely, we talk, [and] we are helpful to each other.” Another teacher commented, “We ask them [1st-grade teachers] what they think the child needs to know. . . . We meet with the 1st-grade teachers at the end of the year to find out maybe what they want us to do the next year.” The retention policy in this particular county was cited by a num-ber of teachers as alleviating the pressure they experienced in kindergarten. Because students could only be retained one time in elementary school, many of the 1st-grade teachers preferred that struggling students be sent to 1st grade. One teacher described a typical response: “[The 1st-grade teach-ers] said, ‘Send them [struggling students] to us; if they don’t succeed in 1st grade, we will just retain them, then they will repeat academics, not just playing.’ ” Another stated, “If they are going on, they are going on because they are able. If they are going to struggle, and we have to send them, then we talk to the 1st-grade teachers.” Data are graphically displayed in Figure 1.

Curricular and Instructional ControlPerceived control over instructional practices also varied among individuals, but showed a pattern across the three instructional groups. Only three of the nine teacher-di-rected instructors perceived themselves as having control over the curriculum and how it was delivered, and as being able to make individual choices about instructional prac-tices. On the other hand, three felt that the county curriculum drove the instructional practices. One teacher commented, “[The activities] must be age appropriate and fol-low the curriculum; it is pretty much devel-opmentally appropriate.” Another said, “We have a guide that we go by for every chapter and every six weeks.” Many mentioned the guidance that was received from the county with regard to expectations, but added that delivery was individualized. Some flexibility was noted within the prescribed curriculum:

“We have a kindergarten instructional note-book, and the curriculum, and take it in differ-ent directions depending on what is needed.” It is important to note that three of the nine teachers in this group were not able to identify the district’s policy regarding appropriate instructional practices for children. Of the 16 teachers who used both teacher-directed and child-centered instructional practices, six believed that decisions about instructional practices were theirs. One teacher described her situation as “teach the curriculum, but it is up to me how.” Another stated, “They allow a lot of freedom; they give us the [curriculum], but we are allowed to do it the way we want.” Again, four persons were not sure of a particular school district philosophy regarding instructional prac-tices. Much as in the previous group, seven teachers felt that the district encouraged a particular set of instructional practices for kindergarten children. One described the philosophy as “trying to go to a more back to basic approach in getting the three R’s. They encourage a more hands-on/manipulative approach.” Another teacher described the county philosophy as a balance of teacher and student-directed activity. With the exception of two teachers who were unsure of district philosophy, every teacher in the child-centered group felt she had the freedom to make her own decision regarding the instructional practices used. Two teachers noted how important this freedom was, due to differences across the board in teacher styles. One teacher best summarized a typical response from this group when she said, “We have a curriculum, and it is up to us how we deliver it. The way I teach isn’t the same as other teachers’.” Data are graphically displayed in Figure 1.

Perceptions of Teacher-Directed InstructionThe nine teacher-directed teachers de-scribed their preferred method of instruction as “direct,” “paper and direction based,” and “modeling.” One teacher, describing her fairly advanced class, said, “If you don’t keep them busy, the choices that they make are play without purpose. I have no prob-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

03 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 10: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice

KINDERgARtEN tEACHERs AND DAp

73

lem with play, like center time, if there’s a purpose. . . . It is more “my” purpose. . . . I direct them and I tell them where to go . . . but I don’t let them choose. . . . I like to send them home with at least one paper per day.” Another noted, “You have to give them direction on a lot of stuff before they do it themselves. I mean, they couldn’t just come in here and do whatever they wanted to and think about whatever they wanted.” Sev-eral commented on the need for modeling: “They need to see the activity, the teacher directing them through the process.” The teacher-directed group identified three types of students who best benefited from teacher directed instruction: high-ability students, immature students, and students with special needs. One teacher described how her special needs children “had trouble staying on-task unless there (was) struc-ture; they just can’t handle change.” The group of teachers using a mixed instructional approach described applying teacher-directed techniques as necessary, but in small doses. Phrases similar to those of the teacher-directed group dotted their descriptions of teacher-directed instruction. They cited extra worksheets, whole-group instruction, demonstrations, and teachers in front of the classroom as typical attributes of teacher-directed instruction in kindergar-ten. Teachers’ responses from this group are indicative of their belief in using both ap-proaches. One teacher felt that method must match content. “(It) depends on what you

are teaching,” she said. “Concepts of print, top to bottom, left to right, it’s going to be teacher directed. If it’s like our water unit, we’ve been making waterfalls and tunnels.” Teachers in this group were much more like-ly to suggest that all students benefit from both teacher-directed and child-centered in-struction. Where the teacher-directed group suggested that brighter students benefited more from child-centered instruction and struggling students from teacher-directed instruction, teachers in the mixed group implied just the opposite. Several teachers specifically stated that more mature, aca-demically advanced students benefited most from teacher-directed instruction. On the other hand, several noted that struggling students benefited most from developmen-tally appropriate instruction. As one teacher stated, “[Children] are able to learn at their own pace; slow children can still participate in these activities and feel comfortable.” The child-centered group described only a few typically teacher-directed characteris-tics. Phrases like “lecturing,” “large group,” and “structured” were noted on several responses. One teacher described teacher-directed instruction as a time to “give them information that they don’t know and have to have.” In most cases, rather than describe the attributes of teacher-directed instruction, the teachers described why they don’t use teacher-directed instruction. One teacher said, “When I stand in front and teach, they get bored.” Another replied,

Figure 1 Teachers’ Perceived Levels of Pressure and Curricular and

Instructional Control Based on Cross-Case Analysis

Teacher-Directed(N = 9)

Combination of Teacher-Directed and

Child-Centered(N = 16)

Child-Centered(N = 9)

Pressure ↓ ↓↑ ↑

Curricular and In-structional Control

↓ ↓↑ ↑

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

03 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 11: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice

PARKER AND NEUHARTH-PRITCHETT

74

“You are not a lecturer in kindergarten.” A teacher noted, “I feel that to stand up there and make sure that 5-year-olds are listen-ing, it just doesn’t work.” This group, much like the first group, tended to think that those with behavior problems and immature, struggling students were the most likely to benefit from teacher-directed instruction. It is important to note that two teachers in this group said that no child benefits from teacher-directed instruction. Data are graphically displayed in Figure 2.

Perceptions of Child-Centered InstructionThe teacher-directed teachers were incon-sistent in how they defined developmen-tally appropriate practices and identified those children who benefited. Several key words occurred repeatedly when teachers in the teacher-directed group were asked to describe developmentally appropriate

practices: play, center time, hands-on, do-it-themselves, manipulatives, and discussion. Even though they professed to rarely using child-centered approaches, two teachers in this group noted that all or a lot of students benefited from this type of instruction. Oth-ers felt that a few children need this type of instruction, and that mature students were the students who could best handle it. The perceived difficulty of using develop-mentally appropriate practices also hindered several teachers in this group. A teacher replied, “I always thought that I wanted to do more child-centered [practices], but I have found that it is easier for me to be teacher-directed. They seem to have adapted . . . because when I give them a little room for discussion, I just find that everything falls apart.” Another teacher similarly noted, “I have read a lot about child-centered and I think they are great, but I wouldn’t know how

Figure 2 Teachers’ Perceptions of Instructional Approaches Based on Cross-Case Analysis

Teacher-Directed(N = 9)

Combination of Teacher-Directed and

Child-Centered(N = 16)

Child-Centered(N = 9)

Teacher-Directed Instruction

DirectPaper and Direction-Based

Modeling“Busy”

No ChoiceOne Paper Home Per Day

WorksheetsWhole Group

DemonstrationsTeacher in Front

LecturingLarge GroupStructured

Child-Centered Instruction

“Play”Center-Time

Hands-onDo It Themselves

Hands-onSmall Group

IndividualizedExploration

ChoiceDiscovery

Learning from Others

Free ChoiceOwnership of

RoomLittle Teacher

LectureSmall Group

Student Involvement

Doing ActivitiesExperiences

Children Explaining to

ChildrenHands-On

Centers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

03 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 12: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice

KINDERgARtEN tEACHERs AND DAp

75

to do it. It takes a lot of work from the teacher (and you have) to provide a lot of materials.” Teachers in the group using both strate-gies defined child-centered instruction as “monitoring kids doing things,” fun, hands-on, small-group, individualized, exploring, choosing, discovering, and learning from each other. One teacher said, “I do a lot of centers and spend a lot of time preparing those cen-ters for what I know is work, and what they perceive is fun.” Another teacher felt that child-centered was the most age-appropriate for kindergarten students. She said, “The attention of a child in kindergarten is quick. I have them focused for just a few minutes.” The child-centered teachers offered a large number of descriptors for child-centered practices, including free choice, ownership of the room, little teacher lecture, small-group, student involvement, doing activities, experi-ences, kids explaining to kids, hands-on, “to be in what they are doing,” and centers. One teacher acknowledged that a child-centered approach can go too far. Another teacher acknowledged that becoming a child-centered teacher is not easy, saying, “I used to be more teacher-directed, but I have become more child-centered. It has taken me a long time to get there.” Another teacher described the role of children in a child-centered class this way: “Kids can explain things in a way that other kids understand; they are able to show somebody how to do something easier . . . be-cause they are on their level.” Most teachers in this group responded that all students of all learning styles benefit from this type of instruction. Additionally, several teachers in this group described how child-centered instruction benefited slower, quieter children. Data are graphically displayed in Figure 2.

Discussion and ConclusionSeveral interesting patterns emerged from the data that warrant discussion. First, pressure to prepare students for the next grade increases as teachers move along the spectrum from teacher-directed to child-centered instructional approaches. While this research does not definitively address the reason behind this trend, several as-

sertions can be made. Teachers from the teacher-directed group noted the perceived difficulty and their lack of confidence in us-ing child-centered practices. Also, teachers in the child-centered group noted the addi-tional time it takes to create child-centered activities. Time and pressure certainly go hand-in-hand. Furthermore, if your phi-losophy is such that you teach children in a developmentally appropriate way, this may translate into not forcing parts of the curricu-lum on students who are not quite ready. In turn, this influences the level of self-imposed pressure a teacher might feel when sending students on to the next grade level. A second conclusion that can be drawn is that an increased use of child-centered, devel-opmentally appropriate practices correlates with perceived freedom to make instruction-al decisions. The majority of teachers using didactic practices perceived themselves as having little control over their instructional decisions, whereas nearly all of the child-cen-tered teachers noted that the decision to use instructional practices was entirely theirs to make. One can conclude that when teachers perceive they have the professional freedom to make instructional decisions, they will use child-centered, developmentally appropriate strategies more frequently. There are consistencies in how teachers in each of the three groups perceive teacher-directed and child-centered practices. Not surprisingly, the teachers in the teacher-directed group were able to clearly articu-late their perceptions of teacher-directed instruction. The same was true of the child-centered teachers and their portrayals of child-centered classrooms. Neither of these two groups was particularly clear about the attributes of their counterparts, to the point that the child-centered teachers rarely described examples of teacher-directed prac-tices. Instead, they chose to state why they didn’t use a teacher-directed approach. The teachers using both types of prac-tices offered the clearest rationale for their decision making on instructional practices. Their statements also may demonstrate why the child-centered group felt more pressure

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

03 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 13: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice

PARKER AND NEUHARTH-PRITCHETT

76

in terms of grade preparation. One teacher best described it when she said, “I think all children benefit more from a child-centered approach, but we have to do teacher-centered to get them ready for 1st grade.” Another de-scribed the need for both types of instruction. “[Instruction] has got to be developmentally appropriate or you will go nuts . . . but if you have a place you want them to go academi-cally, you have to get them there. And they can’t play in the playhouse all day.” Finally, one teacher emphasized the need for both practices as a means of preparing students for 1st grade. She said, “The way I see child-centered is the centers, the exploring, and a lot of hands-on activities. If we didn’t have teacher-directed, I don’t think they would be successful in 1st grade. . . . The teachers expect us to prepare them for that.” The most telling conclusion is drawn from the inconsistencies with which teachers per-ceive the students who benefit from teacher-directed and child-centered instructional approaches. Many teachers, regardless of the type of instructional practices used in their classrooms, felt that all students benefit from child-centered practices. Unfortunately, it is clear that this belief did not necessarily trans-late into child-centered classrooms. In some cases, there were conflicting opinions about who best benefited from teacher-directed and child-centered approaches. The conclu-sion can be made that teachers are not fully cognizant of the research findings regarding different instructional approaches and how they will benefit children. While the findings of this study consis-tently reflect the existing research literature on teacher beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices, it also offers new insights into how external pressures may be affecting teachers’ instructional choices. Pressure, in terms of grade preparation, and perceived decision-making opportunities, affect the type of instructional approach used in classrooms. In addition, there are inconsistencies with how teachers perceive teacher-directed and child-centered ap-proaches, and with determining the students who would benefit from each.

ImplicationsThere are numerous implications of the research. The pressure felt by many of the participants, regardless of source, should be a red flag to school administrators. While pressure is inherent in any job, and self-imposed pressure is a matter of personality, external factors are present that can be adjusted to minimize the pressure exerted by peers in a school setting. The increases in pressure exhibited by more child-cen-tered teachers are also a cause for concern. Furthermore, while teachers in all groups noted that many students benefit from child-centered approaches, those techniques are used inconsistently. Teachers in this study cited the difficulty in using child-centered approaches and their lack of confidence as barriers. Colleges and school districts need to further support teachers of young chil-dren and provide quality staff development in child-centered practices. Opportunities for classroom teachers to become familiar with research findings, as well as opportu-nities to conduct their own action research projects in classrooms, might further inform their choice of instructional approaches. This research study is only a beginning and, as with any good project, often leaves one with more questions than answers. This particular study relied solely on interview responses for grouping teachers into three large categories. The research literature suggests that teachers’ beliefs and practices may not be a perfect reflection of each other (Bryant et al., 1991; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Mosley et al., 1993; Dunn & Kontos, 1997; Hatch & Freeman, 1988; McMullen, 1999). In other words, while the teachers in this study described their instructional beliefs, this may not be an accurate portrayal of what happens in the classroom. Observa-tions of the teachers would not only enhance how they were sorted into categories, but also provide additional contextual data to support this research. A longitudinal study includ-ing pre-kindergarten and 1st-grade teachers would enhance the research on the impact of instructional approaches on young children. Also, more in-depth research into additional

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

03 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 14: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice

KINDERgARtEN tEACHERs AND DAp

77

external factors affecting teacher practices would enhance the literature and best inform educators working toward implementing de-velopmentally appropriate classrooms.

ReferencesBevilacqua, L. (1997). Developmentally ap-

propriate practice: What have we learned? Common Knowledge, 10(1/2).

Bryant, D. M., Clifford, R. M., & Peisner, E. S. (1991). Best practices for beginners: Devel-opmental appropriateness in kindergarten. American Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 783-803.

Buchanan, T. K., Burts, D. C., Bidner, J., White, V. F., & Charlesworth, R. (1998). Predictors of developmental appropriateness of the beliefs and practices of first, second and third grad-ers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(3), 459-483.

Burts, D. C., DeWolf, M., Hart, C. H., Charles-worth, R., & Benedict, J. (1996, April). De-velopmental appropriateness of kindergarten and achievement in third and fourth grades. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Burts, D. C., Hart, C. H., & Charlesworth, R. (1990). A comparison of frequencies of stress behaviors observed in kindergarten children in classrooms with developmentally appro-priate versus developmentally inappropriate instructional practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 407-423.

Burts, D. C., Hart, C. H., Charlesworth, R., DeWolf, M., Ray, J., Manual, K., et al. (1993). Developmental appropriateness of kinder-garten programs and academic outcomes in first grade. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 8(1), 23-31.

Burts, D. C., Hart, C. H., Charlesworth, R., Fleege, P. O., Mosley, J., & Thomasson, R. H. (1992). Observed activities and stress behaviors of children in developmentally ap-propriate and inappropriate kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quar-terly, 7, 297-318.

Charlesworth, R. (1998a). Developmentally ap-propriate practice is for everyone. Childhood Education, 74, 274-282.

Charlesworth, R. (1998b). Response to Sally Lubeck’s “Is developmentally appropriate practice for everyone?” Childhood Education, 74, 293-298.

Charlesworth, R., Hart, C. H., Burts, D. C., &

DeWolf, M. (1993). The LSU studies: Build-ing a research base for developmentally appro-priate practice. In S. Reifel (Ed.), Perspectives on developmentally appropriate practice in advances in day care and early education (Vol. 5, pp. 3-28). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Charlesworth, R., Hart, C. H., Burts, D. C., Mosley, J., & Fleege, P. O. (1993). Measuring the developmental appropriateness of kinder-garten teachers’ beliefs and practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 255-276.

Dunn, L., & Kontos, S. (1997). What have we learned about developmentally appropriate practice? Young Children, 52(5), 4-13.

Hart, C. H., Charlesworth, R., Burts, D. C., & DeWolf, M. (1993, March). The relationship of attendance in developmentally appropriate or inappropriate kindergarten classrooms to first and second grade behavior. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Develop-ment, New Orleans, LA.

Hatch, J. A., & Freeman, E. B. (1988). Kinder-garten philosophies and practices: Perspec-tives of teachers, principals, and supervisors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 151-166.

Hirsh-Pasek, K., Hyson, M. C., & Rescorla, L. (1990). Academic environments in pre-school: Do they pressure or challenge young children? Early Education and Development, 1(6), 401-423.

Huffman, L. R., & Speer, P. W. (2000). Academic performance among at-risk children: The role of developmentally appropriate practice. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(2), 167-184.

Hyson, M. C. (1991). The characteristics and origins of the academic preschool. In L. Rescorla, M. C. Hyson, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), New directions in child development. Academic instruction in early childhood: Challenge or pressure? (No. 53, pp. 39-46). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hyson, M. C., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Rescorla, L. (1990). The classroom practices inventory: An observation instrument based on NAEYC’s guidelines for developmentally appropriate practices for 4- and 5-year old children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 475-494.

Karnes, M. B., Shwedel, A. M., & Williams, M. B. (1983). A comparison of five approaches for educating young children from low-income homes. In The Consortium for Longitudinal Studies (Ed.), As the twig is bent…Lasting effects of preschool programs. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

03 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 15: Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Kindergarten: Factors Shaping Teacher Beliefs and Practice

PARKER AND NEUHARTH-PRITCHETT

78

Marcon, R. A. (2002). Moving up the grades: Relationship between preschool model and later school success. Early Childhood Re-search and Practice, 4(1), 1-20.

Maxwell, K. L., McWilliam, R. A., Hemmeter, M. L., Ault, M. J., & Schuster, J. W. (2001). Predictors of developmentally appropriate classroom practices in kindergarten through third grade. Early Childhood Research Quar-terly, 16, 431-452.

McMullen, M. B. (1999). Characteristics of teachers who talk the DAP talk and walk the DAP walk. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 13(2), 216-230.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Neuharth-Pritchett, S. (2001, April). Rec-ommendations for kindergarten retention: Assessing classroom practices and their relationship to non-promotion decisions. Pa-per presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Stipek, D. (1993). Is child-centered education really better? Advances in Early Education and Day Care, 5, 29-52.

Stipek, D., Felier, R., Daniels, D., & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of different instructional approaches on young children’s achievement and motivation. Child Development, 66, 209-223.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

03 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014