Current Issues in Education > Volume 3, 2000 > Number 3

Citation Information

Stafford, M. E., van Rensburg, P. W., & Greene, A. (2000, February 1). Longitudinal efficacy comparisons of three levels of developmentally appropriate practice for former head start children. Current Issues in Education [On-line], 3(3). Available: http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume3/number3/.

Longitudinal Efficacy Comparisons of Three Levels of Developmentally Appropriate Practice For Former Head Start Children ¹

Mary E. Stafford
Arizona State University

Polly Whitman van Rensburg
Scottsdale Public Schools

Andrea Greene
Mesa Community College²

Abstract

In a longitudinal study of low socio-economic-status children who had attended Head Start programs, student progress was followed from kindergarten through third grade. Both achievement and teachers' perceptions of academic and social progress were investigated. Children's academic achievement and teachers' perceptions of children's affective, academic, and social growth were compared among schools in which instruction was categorized along a continuum of high, medium, or low levels of developmentally appropriate practice (DAP). High DAP teacher's perceptions of children's affective and academic growth were significantly higher than medium or low DAP teachers' perceptions. Children's academic achievement consistently showed no significant differences between groups.

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Method
• Participants
• Instruments and Data Collection Procedures
• Results
• Observed Classroom Structures for High, Medium, and Low DAP Classes
• Teacher perceptions
• Student achievement
• Discussion
• References
• Notes

Introduction

The foundation for children's educational success is laid during their early childhood experiences. Quality educational programs in early childhood that consider the developmental needs of children and actively aid their development in cognitive, motor, social, cultural, language, behavioral, and emotional areas are necessary for building a firm educational foundation (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Quality programs also depend on teachers establishing positive, personal relationships with children and treating them with respect, dignity, value, and acceptance. One outcome of such quality programs is increased academic achievement of participating children. This study investigated the efficacy of developmentally appropriate practice on former Head Start children's academic achievement progress in educational programs, as well as teachers' perceptions of children's affective, academic, and social growth, given their classroom methodological structure.

Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) is a familiar phrase in the field of early childhood education. Part of this familiarity can be attributed to the fact that the subject of DAP rarely draws a neutral response. Some educators advocate for it with fervor (Bredekamp, 1987, 1993; Elkind, 1989), while others raise concerns that it is focused on child-centered activities at the expense of necessary teacher-directed instruction (Fowell & Lawton, 1992, 1993; Kessler, 1991). Despite these strong feelings, there is not a clear consensus of what, in fact, developmentally appropriate practice is, how to implement it in the classroom, and how to evaluate its outcomes. It may be the lack of a clear-cut definition that is partially responsible for the controversy over DAP, as well as the lack of research to document its efficacy. In the following discussion a review of points common to its description will be presented in order to characterize and define the term "DAP" as it is used here. Next, assessment strategies for measuring its efficacy and a brief recap of research on developmentally appropriate practice that has been done to date will be presented.

What is DAP? As described by its proponents (Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997), DAP is a philosophy that guides the education of young children (birth through eight years). It is based on current empirical knowledge of child development derived from research and recognized theory. The essential element of DAP is child-centered learning. This includes the belief that children learn best by participating in social activities based on personal need and interest (Dewey, 1902/1956, 1916), as well as the notion that children literally construct their own logical structures, and thus their own intelligence, in order to interact with their environment (Piaget, 1926/1959). The teacher's role is conceptualized as that of a mediator or facilitator who provides the support, opportunity, and scaffolding that children need to achieve their maximum developmental potential, much like Vygotsky's (1934/1962) zone of proximal development (Rieber, & Wollock, 1997). A somewhat different perspective is offered by Fowell and Lawton (1992), who suggest that young children can benefit from a certain amount of structured learning and that a balance between teacher- and child-directed learning is an optimal combination for DAP.

Early conceptions of DAP described two major components: that which is age appropriate and that which is individually appropriate (Aldridge, 1992; Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, & DeWolf, 1993; Galen, 1994; Gestwicki, 1995). In a recent update of its policy the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) added a third component: that which is socially and culturally appropriate. Research on child development forms the basis for structuring age appropriate activities for children, while professionals conduct their own research daily in the classroom to determine what is individually appropriate for each child (Gestwicki, 1995). Recognizing social and cultural experiences unique to each individual child based on social and cultural differences among people rounds out the major components requisite to DAP.

NAEYC (Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) provides a description of DAP that represents the most widely recognized and articulated view at this point in time (Elkind, 1989; Gestwicki, 1995). It defines DAP as programs that contribute to children's development by influencing development of children's knowledge in physical, social, emotional, and intellectual areas (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Recognizing individual differences, teaching only enough technical skills to accomplish the larger goal of children wanting to learn, incorporating parents as partners, and comparing children's progress to themselves over time are necessary aspects of DAP. The teacher's role is to prepare the environment and provide guidance and support.

DAP is a philosophy, not a curriculum (Galen, 1994). It is conceptualized as a continuous dimension (Johnson & Johnson, 1992) rather than as a dichotomy consisting of developmentally appropriate practice versus traditional education. DAP and traditional education can be viewed as the extremes of this dimension, with implementation in classrooms falling along the dimension.

The philosophical differences between traditional education and DAP are captured by David Elkind (1989). Elkind discusses four conceptual issues that differentiate DAP philosophy and the more traditional educational philosophy found in most public schools. First, DAP philosophy views the learner in terms of developing abilities, whereas the traditional school emphasizes the existing abilities of the learner, which are viewed as both quantifiable and measurable. Second, DAP defines the learning process as an integration of process and content, whereas traditional methods conceptualize learning as an acquired set of discrete skills (e.g., decoding) that are employed independent of content. The third issue addresses the concept of knowledge. In DAP, knowledge is a joint construction reflecting contributions from both the subject and the object. Knowledge represents the mind's interaction with the environment, and cannot be reduced to only one component or the other. From the traditional school, knowledge is something children acquire and it can be measured independently from the process of acquisition. From this perspective, knowledge is measured against an external standard that is independent of the learner and can therefore be assessed as right or wrong. Finally, the aim of education is to produce creative and critical thinkers. DAP proponents suggest this is best accomplished through giving children experiences in creative and critical thinking, and by allowing children to explore their own interests at their own pace. Traditional proponents accomplish this goal through teacher-assisted development of a broad knowledge base that provides basic tools for critical thinking in later life.

Given these guidelines, the qualities of high DAP classrooms can be compared to qualities of low DAP, or traditional instruction, classrooms. These qualities are presented in Table 1 and serve to define high and low DAP for the purposes of this study. In keeping with the position (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Fowell and Lawton, 1992) that we move from thinking in either/or to both/and terms relative to practices identified as developmentally appropriate, a medium DAP condition is added in this study in order to investigate whether a mixture of high and low DAP conditions may be more beneficial to children than the extremes.

Table 1
Comparing Qualities of High DAP and Low DAP classrooms

How can DAP outcomes be assessed? Discrepant views on the definition of DAP are reflected in arguments about how its impact is best assessed in young children. Whereas there is consensus about how not to assess young children (Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Elkind, 1989; Gestwicki, 1995; Schweinhart, 1993; Teale, 1988), there is little agreement as to what evaluation procedures are appropriate. The NAEYC guidelines (Bredekamp, 1987) state that children's progress should be assessed primarily through observation and recording using methods such as portfolios or work sampling (Elkind, 1989; Gestwicki, 1995; Schweinhart, 1993; Teale, 1988), or through standardized achievement tests only if those tests meet the utility criterion (i.e., testing occurs for the purpose of improving services to children and ensuring children benefit from educational experiences; NAEYC, 1987). However, these methods have yet to coalesce into a unified approach to developmentally appropriate student assessment that would permit a common metric for examining both individual and group progress across settings and across time. Standardized tests are used in this study for several reasons: They meet the utility criterion to ensure children benefit from their educational experiences. They provide a common metric that was unavailable across programs; that is, some schools used portfolio assessments and some used report card grades. They are instruments with established reliability and validity.

What do we know about the efficacy of DAP? The current state of debate about early childhood practice and assessment may be responsible, in part, for the lack of research on the topic of educational outcomes for children in developmentally appropriate programs. To date, little research on educational outcomes for children in developmentally appropriate programs exists. As Charlesworth and her colleagues (1993) note, there exists little empirical support for the conclusion that DAP is more advantageous for young children than traditional practice.

The Louisiana State University (LSU) studies (Charlesworth et al., 1993) represent some of the few outcome research projects in this area. Other studies have addressed implementation of DAP and long term outcomes of early interventions, using various approaches. A summary of findings from LSU indicate fewer stress behaviors among children from DAP classes (Charlesworth et al., 1993). In addition, low socioeconomic status (SES) students from DAP classrooms had higher report card grades in early years, reflecting more positive teacher perceptions. High SES children do equally well in both types of instruction in terms of report card grades (Burts et al., 1993).

In an implementation study (Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, 1994), researchers at the Teacher Training Project (TTP) found a modest increase in children's engagement in collaborative learning and a modest decrease in children's nonconstructive activity. No effect was found on children's school attendance. When attempts were made to gather concrete evidence of achievement (i.e., work portfolios or standardized achievement tests), inconsistent practices between teachers and schools prevented meaningful comparisons.

How are teacher's perceptions associated with learning? The association between teacher perceptions and student achievement has been established in the literature for some time (see for example, Doyle, Hancock, & Kifer, 1972). Findings that higher teacher perceptions of students' abilities are associated with both higher student achievement (Doyle et al., 1972) and higher student motivation (Sweet & Guthrie, 1994) are particularly important in instructional settings such as DAP that are structured to fulfill the philosophical impetus to meet the needs of children in an holistic way. Therefore, in this study we were interested in examining teachers' perceptions of children's development across levels of DAP.

In the present longitudinal study the effectiveness of developmentally appropriate practice compared to traditional instructional methods for former Head Start children during their kindergarten, first, second, and third grade years was investigated. Growth in student's achievement over time were examined. Perceptions of low, medium, and high DAP teachers regarding children's affective, academic, and social skills development and progress were compared. Hypotheses included the following:

Hypothesis 1. High DAP teachers, compared to medium and low DAP teachers, will rate children more positively on affective, academic, and social skills development and progress.

Hypothesis 2. Students in high DAP classrooms will perform better on standardized measures of achievement over a three year period compared to medium and low DAP students.

Method

Participants

Participants included teachers (N = 42) and students (N = 192) in six schools that, through observation and analysis, have been categorized on a DAP continuum from high (i.e., use of developmentally appropriate instructional methods) to low i.e., use of traditional instructional methods) DAP. Two cohorts who started school in consecutive years comprised the students in this study. Attrition among the students over the four years in the study reduced the sample size for the achievement analyses to 110. However, all students remaining in the study, while not in the same teacher's class for multiple years, were in the same level of DAP classroom throughout their first four (i.e., K through third grade) years in school.

Three conditions (i.e., high DAP, medium DAP, and low DAP) were compared in the study. Teachers' perceptions were analyzed for students' kindergarten and first grade teachers (i.e., 9 high DAP, 18 medium DAP, and 15 low DAP) who were teaching children from Head Start programs in the Spring 1994. Students included low socioeconomic status (SES) children in the kindergarten and first grade classes (i.e., 66 high DAP, 56 medium DAP, and 70 low DAP) who had attended Head Start programs before entering kindergarten. Low SES was determined by criteria necessary for entry into the Head Start programs. The mean income for the students who participated in this study was half the poverty level, with 99% of all children in the study living in homes with an annual household income of less than $12,000 (Greene, Mulholland, & Ahern, 1994). Thus, children in this study can be characterized as more poor than most Head Start children.

Instruments and Data Collection Procedures

Each year of the study during the spring semester (see Table 2), observations in the classrooms were conducted and classrooms were categorized on the DAP continuum. In addition, teachers' perceptions were elicited and, although analyzed each year of the study, only teacher perception data for the first year that both cohorts were in school are reported here. Achievement data were reported longitudinally. The reason for reporting achievement longitudinally and teacher perceptions only on a one-time basis is that our primary purpose was to see whether instructional climate translated into student achievement gains. In the interest of space in this article, we only reported teacher perception data from the beginning of the student's school experience, because these data provide a picture of teacher perceptions during early school experiences and because similar findings occurred in subsequent years.

Table 2
Timeline for Data Collection (Asterisks indicate data that are analyzed for this report)

Classroom Observations. In order to determine the level of implementation of developmentally appropriate practices in classrooms, classroom observations in forty two classrooms in six schools were conducted by two trained observers using the Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs, Research Version (Abbott-Shim & Sibley, 1992). Prior to beginning the classroom observations, observers were trained to use the instrument by the instrument's authors. Observers were required to attain an inter-rater reliability level of .85 or greater during actual classroom observations that were part of the training sequence, in order to be certified by the instrument's authors to use the instrument.

The profile provides a quantitative measure of classrooms and teaching practices as they reflect DAP. Ninety-one items are organized into five subscales: learning environment, scheduling, curriculum, interacting, and individualizing. Each item is scored either "Yes" (observed) or "No" (not observed or not observed consistently). Abbott-Shim and Sibley (1992) report three reliability estimates. The subscale reliabilities were estimated using Cronbach's alphas, the Spearman-Brown corrected split halves, and item response theory reliability. These coefficients ranged from .79 (for scheduling) to .99 (for interacting), indicating adequate to excellent internal consistency.

Classroom observations were conducted in late spring. According to standardized protocol for use of the Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs, Research Version (Abbott-Shim & Sibley, 1992), observations of instruction were sampled throughout the day for a total of three twenty-minute periods, followed by a thirty minute interview with the teacher and document review. These observations provided the basis for categorizing classrooms as high, medium, and low DAP. A series of planned comparisons were performed to differentiate among high, medium, and low DAP. Each of the three DAP levels was found to be significantly different from the others (p < 0.0001 for high vs. medium and high vs. low comparisons, p < 0.0003 for medium vs. low comparison), based upon scores on the five subscales derived from the classroom observations.

Teacher Ratings of Students' Affective and Academic Variables. Teachers rated students on several dimensions using the Teacher Rating of Students. This measure is a nonstandardized, locally developed rating measure and includes teacher judgments about student progress during the year on four affective (i.e., self-esteem, cooperative learning, comfort in school environment, family support) and three academic (i.e., interest in literacy, language development, and logical-scientific-mathematical thinking) variables. Teachers rated each child on each variable using a four-point scale: 1 = requires considerable development; 2 = requires some development; 3 = generally a positive area; 4 = strongly positive area. Internal consistency estimates using Cronbach's alphas revealed high (.88) reliability for this instrument.

Teacher Ratings of Students' Social Skills. Teachers rated students' social skills using the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott, 1990). The SSRS is designed to assess student social behavior. Thirty items are divided into three subscales: cooperation, assertiveness, and self control. Teachers rated how often each student participating in the study exhibited the behavior in the classroom during the year (never, sometimes, and very often). They also rated how important each behavior is to them as teachers (not important, important, critical), resulting in one set of importance ratings for each teacher. All teacher rating data reported here were collected in late spring 1994.

Internal consistency estimates for the three subscales of the elementary teacher form range from .86 (for assertiveness subscale) to .92 (for cooperation subscale), with .94 for the total scale. Test-retest reliability coefficients, with retesting after four weeks, were .85 for the total scale and ranged from .75 (assertiveness) to .88 (cooperation) for the subscales.

Student Achievement.Student achievement was measured using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R; Dunn & Dunn, 1981) and four subtests of the Woodcock Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised (WJ-R; Woodcock & Johnson, 1989). Although DAP philosophy guards against the use of standardized measures, these tests provided the only consistent, as well as reliable and valid, measures of achievement across classrooms. This is due in part to the fact that some teachers in this study used portfolios and some used grades for determining student achievement. These tests also were used because, regardless of educational philosophy, students should be able to demonstrate achievement in basic skills.

The first standardized measure used is the PPVT-R. It is designed to measure receptive vocabulary for Standard American English. Internal consistency estimates and two-week test-retest reliability estimates range from the lower .70s to the middle .80s, depending upon age ranges (Dunn & Dunn, 1981).

The second instrument, the WJ-R, is a battery of subtests designed to measure cognitive abilities, scholastic aptitudes, and achievement for children age 3 to adults. Four subtests were used for this study: letter-word identification, passage comprehension, calculation, and applied problems. Reliability indicators for the WJ-R included age-corrected test-retest, test stability, internal consistency, and trait stability indices. Internal consistency and trait stability coefficients fell in the .90s for all four subtests, whereas age-corrected test-retest coefficients fell in the .80s for all four subtests. Test stability coefficients ranged from .82 (passage comprehension) to .92 (letter-word identification).

Students were tested individually by trained examiners in the spring of the year during kindergarten, first, second, and third grades using the WJ-R and in the spring of their kindergarten, first, and third grades using the PPVT-R. Raw scores were used to compare groups because students' standard scores fell in the lowest range on the normal curve, thus restricting variability.

Results

Observed Classroom Structures for High, Medium, and Low DAP Classes

Analysis of results of classroom observations using the Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs, Research Version (Abbott-Shim & Sibley, 1992) revealed three distinct groups with statistically significant differences between their subtest scores on all five dimensions. Classrooms with the highest scores were designated as the high DAP group; those with the second highest scores as the medium DAP group; and those with the lowest scores as the low DAP group.

High DAP classrooms showed the following characteristics. The learning environment consisted of materials that were visibly displayed and physically within the child's reach to develop small muscles, self-help, art, role play, science, math, language (both oral and written), nutrition/health, and social studies skills. Displayed art materials included children's original artwork rather than commercially produced material. Classroom space was organized into distinguishable areas with appropriate materials in each area and included areas where children could work alone or in small groups. Within the learning centers, there was an integration of subject matter with a culminating art or written activity. There also was evidence of a variety of activities and written evidence of time scheduling of these activities. The curriculum was individualized, and the children were encouraged to manipulate materials, to select their own activities among options given, to work at their own pace, and to engage in cooperative learning experiences. During unstructured free-time, children chose activities of interest to them. Teachers managed the children's behavior primarily through positive interactions, which were respectful of the children, and did so with consistency, resulting in an orderly classroom. The children appeared eagerly engaged in activities and aware of posted classroom rules.

Low DAP classrooms evidenced few of the characteristics described above. For example, children's displayed artwork was primarily commercially produced worksheets. When children gathered in small groups for instruction, teachers directed children in activities in which the children would respond to the teacher's questions, such as recognizing individual letters of the alphabet or counting objects. There was no evidence of unstructured free time as in high DAP classes.

Medium DAP classrooms included some characteristics from high and some from low DAP classrooms. For example, there was evidence of learning centers, but also of circle activities in which the teacher directed the activity and the children responded to direct questions. Both commercially produced worksheets and child-initiated artwork were present. Most like the low DAP classrooms, however, there was little evidence of the use of unstructured free time.

Teacher Perceptions

To examine relationships among high, medium and low DAP teachers' perceptions of students' affective, academic, and social development, analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures were performed with the level of DAP as the independent variable. Tukey honestly significant difference tests were used to explore further which groups differed when significant differences occurred. Four affective variables (i.e., self-esteem, cooperative learning, comfort in the school environment, and family support) and three academic development variables (i.e., interest in literacy, language development, and logical-scientific-math thinking) were examined. Additionally, separate ANOVAs and Tukey tests were performed for the following six social dependent variables derived from teachers' ratings of students: how important is it for children (1) to be assertive, (2) to cooperate, and (3) to exhibit self control in class; and how often the student (4) is assertive, (5) cooperates, and (6) exhibits self control in class. Affective and academic developmental variable means and standard deviations are listed in Table 3; social variable means and standard deviations are listed in Table 4 and Table 5; and all results are discussed below.

Table 3
Affective and Academic Variable Means and Standard Deviations by Level of DAP classroom

Affective and academic development and progress. High DAP teachers rated their students significantly higher (p <.05) on two of the four affective development variables (Table 3) compared to teachers from medium and low DAP teacher's ratings: cooperative learning (i.e., working cooperatively with others) and comfort in school environment (i.e., enjoying learning and participating in class). They also rated their students higher than medium DAP teachers did in family support (i.e., receiving family support for schoolwork). No significant differences were found among high, medium, and low DAP teachers' ratings of children's self-esteem (i.e., feeling good about themselves and having positive attitudes in class).

In academic development (Table 3) high DAP teachers' ratings were significantly higher (p <.05) than low DAP teachers' ratings of children's logical-scientific-math thinking (i.e., participating in experiments and exploring materials to build knowledge). No significant differences were found among high, medium, and low DAP teachers' ratings of their students on interest in literacy (i.e., showing pleasure in reading and writing, selecting books independently, and sampling a variety of written materials) and language development (i.e., participating in class discussions, asking questions, and sharing ideas and stories with the class).

Table 4
Means and Standard Deviations for Teachers' Ratings of Importance on Three Social Variables by Level of DAP classroom

Social skills development and progress. Teachers' ratings of the importance of children's assertiveness, cooperation, and self-control in class resulted in one rating for each of the 42 teachers (i.e., 9 high, 18 medium, and 15 low DAP teachers) in the study for each variable. Thus, because of the small sample size, it was difficult to detect significant differences among the three DAP conditions (Table 4) in teachers' perceptions of the importance of these three qualities. Although high DAP teachers seem to value children' assertiveness more than low DAP teachers do, and low DAP teachers seem to value children's cooperation in class more than high DAP teachers do, no statistically significant results occurred.

Teachers also rated each child on how frequently they exhibited assertiveness, cooperation, and self-control in class (Table 5). High DAP teachers, compared to both medium and low DAP teachers, rated their children significantly higher in assertiveness. Additionally, they rated their children significantly higher than medium DAP teachers did in the frequency with which their children exhibited self-control in class. No significant differences were found among the three levels of DAP teachers for frequency of cooperation in class.

Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations for Teachers' Ratings of Frequency on Three Social Variables by Level of DAP classroom

Student achievement

To examine relationships among students' achievement in high, medium, and low DAP classrooms, a repeated measures analysis of variance design was used. Separate analyses were performed using raw scores for children from the spring of their kindergarten, first, second, and third grade years for the following WJ-R reading and math achievement dependent variables: letter-word recognition, passage comprehension, calculation, and applied problems. To examine differences in sight vocabulary skills, raw scores for the PPVT-R from their kindergarten, first, and third grade years also were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance. Tukey honestly significant difference tests were used to explore comparisons when significant differences occurred. Mean raw score and standard deviation results for each grade level for the WJ-R subtests are listed in Table 6 and for the PPVT-R in Table 7.

Table 6
Mean Raw Test Scores and Standard Deviations for Woodcock-Johnson Revised Subtests by DAP Treatment by Grade Level

No significant differences were found among the DAP levels on any of the five achievement measures (see Tables 6 and 7). Similar growth in achievement occurred for children in all three DAP instructional groups. Thus the second hypothesis, that high DAP children will perform better on standardized measures of achievement, is not confirmed. However, no instructional group emerges as producing significantly greater achievement than the others.

Table 7
Mean Raw Test Scores and Standard Deviations for PPVT- R by DAP Treatment by Grade Level (Note: PPVT-R was not given in second grade.)

Discussion

With few empirical studies addressing the efficacy of developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood education, the debate about its relative benefits continues. Intuitively, DAP is appealing as a theory-driven instructional practice that focuses on children's development in a variety of areas rather than just on children's academic achievement. Critics of DAP (Kessler, 1991) point to the lack of focus on teacher-directed instruction, which is believed to promote academic growth, when arguing that more traditional instructional methods are necessary. This study was conducted, in part, to address this debate, that is, to investigate whether positive teacher perceptions are associated with positive academic growth.

Clearly, high DAP teachers view their students more positively on many affective, academic, and social skills developmental dimensions than medium and low DAP teachers did. This finding is not surprising because the emphasis in DAP is on the development of physical, social, emotional, and cognitive skills (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). One would expect high DAP teachers to focus on evidence that children are making progress in emotional and social areas as well as in achievement. In addition, their ratings can be considered similar to report card grades because they are based on teachers' perceptions of children's work as well as actual output from students. Thus, this result supports findings from the LSU studies (Charlesworth et al., 1993) that low SES students from high DAP classrooms have higher report card grades in early years, reflecting more positive teacher perceptions.

One would expect that teachers' perceptions of children's achievement would reflect actual achievement outcomes, but this was not the case, as children from high DAP classrooms consistently scored similarly to children from medium and low DAP classrooms. That is, children in high DAP instructional settings did not progress more slowly nor faster than those in medium or low DAP settings. From another perspective, children in high DAP classrooms are able not only to enjoy instruction that stimulates their thinking, meets their developmental needs, allows them to actively participate in the direction and pace of the instruction, but also to enjoy positive teacher perceptions of their affective, academic, and social development as well as achievement commensurate with their peers in more traditional instructional settings.

It is interesting as well to note that high DAP teachers rated the value of assertiveness higher than low DAP teachers, although significant differences were not found, most likely due to low sample size. However, the frequency with which they observed assertiveness in their children was significantly higher than the frequencies for medium and low DAP teachers. Thus, preliminary evidence suggests that high DAP teachers both value assertiveness and observe it frequently in their children. Historically, assertiveness has not been valued in schools, yet when children become adults they are both expected and rewarded for assertive behavior. Changing instructional practices to reflect expectations for the future may help children develop more adaptive skills.

High DAP teachers also viewed children as exhibiting self control at higher levels than medium and low DAP teachers. This finding in the face of no differences among teachers in the three different DAP levels in valuing self-control among children suggests that either high DAP teachers find that their practices lead to children exhibiting greater self control or that high DAP teachers have a different definition of what constitutes self control. Regardless, their view that children frequently exhibit self control is likely to be communicated to children in more positive ways than if they did not believe the children exhibited self control, and to lead to more adaptive ways that children view themselves.

As educators we are interested in developing both emotionally healthy and well-educated children. Developmentally appropriate practice is compelling because it is based on psychological principles of development and includes activities to enhance the development of emotional and social skills as well as physical and cognitive skills. Findings that indicate that low SES children who receive instruction in developmentally appropriate practice classrooms achieve at similar paces as those in more traditional classrooms is encouraging.

Limitations. Several limitations exist in this study. Because DAP is encouraged in early childhood instruction, but instructional practices in second and third grades tend to move along the continuum toward more traditional practices, it is difficult to draw clear conclusions about the relative efficacy of high versus medium or low DAP instruction. We observed that patterns of DAP levels corresponded with the philosophy of the leader (i.e., principal) of each school. Thus, in second and third grades, classroom climate across classrooms could still be categorized as high, medium, or low DAP. However, we provided results only of teacher perceptions early in the child's school experience and we tracked only achievement through third grade.

The unequal and low sample sizes of teachers in the three conditions who provided information about the value of assertiveness, cooperation, and self-control is an additional limitation to this study. Because there were fewer teachers whose classrooms reflected high DAP, the ability to detect differences in values was limited.

Another limitation in the study relates to the use of standardized testing to measure achievement. High DAP teachers were resistant to having their students assessed with standardized assessment measures, yet, as can be seen, their students held their own compared to more traditional instructional structures. Being able to use valid and reliable measures for reporting achievement progress is important in establishing the efficacy of any approach. Being able to use measures that both high and low DAP teachers would agree are reasonable measures for assessing their students' achievement is ideal. However, there is yet little agreement upon what those measures are.

Finally, the results are limited by the fact that there is a restriction of range relative to variance and floor effect for standardized achievement scores. Because socioeconomic status is positively associated with achievement, one might expect that the children participating in this study are likely to score lower than one would expect for those in the standardization sample. In fact, this was true. However, given this population, similar results are likely regardless of the assessment instrument used.

Future research directions. As stated earlier, a paucity of outcome research is evident in the area of efficacy of developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood education, due in part to a lack of clear definitions of the implementation of DAP, of the expected outcomes, and of ways to measure those outcomes. With clearer definitions perhaps progress will be made toward understanding ways DAP is effective in the education of young children or ways it may need to be modified to be more effective. Outcomes in cognitive, affective, physical, and academic areas must be researched in order to best understand the benefits of DAP for children of differing SES, language, and ethnic groups. Longitudinal studies also should provide information about the long term effect of DAP in early childhood education.

Authors

Address all correspondences to Mary E. Stafford, Division of Psychology in Education, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 870611, Tempe, AZ 85287-0611, (480) 965-6283.

Mary E. Stafford is an Assistant Professor in the School Psychology Program in the Division of Psychology in Education, College of Education, at Arizona State University. Her research interests include issues related to at-risk students. Dr. Stafford can be reached via e-mail at mary.stafford@asu.edu.

Polly Whitman van Rensburg is a school psychologist with the Scottsdale Public Schools in Arizona. She received her Ph.D. in School Psychology and while attending worked at Morrison Institute, actively participating in this project by supervising the collection of child data.

Andrea Greene was a Senior Research Analyst at the Morrison Institute, Arizona State University, when this study was conducted. She was Principal Investigator for the evaluation of the Arizona Head Start-Public School Transition Project. Currently, she is Director of Research & Planning, Mesa Community College, Mesa, Arizona. Andrea Greene can be reached by email at greene@mail.mc.maricopa.edu.

References

Abbott-Shim, M., & Sibley, A. (1992). Assessment profile for early childhood programs: Research manual. Atlanta, GA: Quality Assist, Inc.

Aldridge, J. (1992). Issues in developmentally appropriate practice and individual differences. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 19, 71-78.

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

Bredekamp, S. (1993). Myths about developmentally appropriate practice: A response to Fowell and Lawton. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 117-119.

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice for early childhood programs (Revised ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Bredekamp, S., & Rosegrant, T. (Eds.). (1992). Reaching potentials: Appropriate curriculum and assessment for young children (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Burts, D.C., Hart, C.H., Charlesworth, R., DeWolf, D. M., Ray, J., Manuel, K., & Fleege, P.O. (1993). Developmental appropriateness of kindergarten programs and academic outcomes in first grade. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 8, 23-31.

Charlesworth, R., Hart, C.H., Burts, D.C., & DeWolf, M. (1993). The LSU studies: Building a research base for developmentally appropriate practice. Advances in Early Education and Day Care, 5, 3-28.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1956). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1902).

Doyle, W. J., Hancock, G., & Kifer, E. (1972). Teachers' perceptions: Do they make a difference? Journal of the Association for the Study of Perception, 7(2), 21-30.

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Elkind, D. (1989). Developmentally appropriate practice: Philosophical and practical implications. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 113-117.

Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. (1994). The teacher training project: Study of the implementation of developmentally appropriate practice in classrooms and schools. Final report. San Francisco, CA: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 379 085).

Fowell, N., & Lawton, J. (1992). An alternative view of appropriate practice in early childhood education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 53-73.

Fowell, N., & Lawton, J. (1993). Beyond polar descriptions of developmentally appropriate practice: A reply to Bredekamp. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 121-124.

Galen, H. (1994). Developmentally appropriate practice: Myths and facts. Principal, 73 (5), 20-22.

Gestwicki, C. (1995). Developmentally appropriate practice: Curriculum and development in early education. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers.  

Greene, A., Mulholland, L., & Ahern, P. W. (1994). Head Start goes to school: 1993-94 evaluation report. (Morrison Institute for Public Policy). Phoenix, AZ: Southwest Human Development, Inc.

Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Johnson, J. E., & Johnson, K. M. (1992). Clarifying the developmental perspective in response to Carta, Schwartz, Atwater, and McConnell. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 439-457.

Kessler, S. A. (1991). Alternative perspectives on early childhood education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 183-197.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1987). Standardized testing of young children 3 through 8 years of age: Summary of NAEYC position statement. [On-line].
Available: http://www.america-tomorrow.com/naeyc/position/pstestin.htm.

Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child. In M. Gabain (Trans.), The language and thought of the child by Jean Piaget. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. (Original work published 1926)

Rieber, R. W., & Wollock, J. (Eds.), Van Der Veer, R. (Trans.). (1997). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Volume 3, Problems of the theory and history of psychology. NY: Plenum Press.

Schweinhart, L. J. (1993). Observing young children in action: The key to early childhood assessment. Young Children, 48 (5), 29-33.

Sweet, A. P., & Guthrie, J. T. (1994). Teacher perceptions of students' motivation to read. (Reading Research Report No. 29). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center; College Park, MD: National Reading Research Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 378563)

Teale, W. H. (1988). Developmentally appropriate assessment of reading and writing in the early childhood classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 89, 172-183.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and word. In E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar (Eds. and Trans.), Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press. (Original work published in 1934).

Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Chicago, IL: The Riverside Publishing Co.

Notes

1.  The analysis for this study is based upon a larger study of one demonstration site (Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona) within the National Head Start-Public School Transition Demonstration Project. The progress of children who attended Head Start preschool was tracked from kindergarten through grade three in six public elementary schools. The authors wish to thank Beth Jones for her assistance in analyzing the data.

2.  When this study was conducted, Andrea Greene was working for the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University, as the project’s primary investigator.