Developmentally appropriate practice in kindergarten: factors shaping teacher beliefs and practice.

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 classroom 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.

**********

Determining the appropriate type of instruction for young children became the subject of research and debate when the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) issued its first position statement 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-centered 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 generally 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 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 accreditation. 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 pressure from upper grades teachers and curriculum 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 environment that young children experience in the primary grades.

Didactic and Developmentally Appropriate Practices

Didactic practices, which some teachers consider 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 teacher-produced stimuli and when children's errors are corrected immediately so as to keep them from learning incorrect knowledge (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 (Buchanan, 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 experiences, and teachers typically manage student behavior by punishing unacceptable actions and offering extrinsic rewards for following 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 development refers to patterned changes over time (Schunk, 2000). Uniting the work of Piaget and Vygotsky is the concept of constructivism, which assumes that learners construct their own knowledge based on interactions with their environment that challenge their thinking (Schunk, 2000). With constructivist 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 developmental 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 actively through physical and social experiences to construct their own understandings of the world around them. In order to accomplish 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, instruction should be informal, relative to students' lives, integrated across content areas, and guided by student choice and interest.

Research on Didactic and Developmentally Appropriate Practices

Achievement

The research is limited with regard to the long-term effects of developmentally appropriate and didactic practices on the achievement of young children. In studies that followed students from kindergarten into elementary grades, the literature suggests that participation in DAP programs positively correlates with later grade level achievement (Burts, DeWolf, Hart, Charlesworth, & 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 methods 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 experiences 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 exhibiting a high level of developmental appropriateness and a teacher with a more child-centered philosophy (Neuharth-Pritchett, 2001).

The short-term effects of developmentally appropriate and didactic instruction yields mixed results. In their study of at-risk students in urban schools, Huffman 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 socioeconomic 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 significantly improved achievement for poor, minority students (Stipek et al., 1995). When considering these gains, it is important to note the long-term, negative impacts of didactic 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). Furthermore, 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).

Motivation

Research also suggests a connection between the use of developmentally appropriate practices and motivational levels. The work of Stipek, Feller, Daniels, and Milburn (1993) identified a relationship between developmentally appropriate practices and motivation, noting that students in developmentally appropriate classrooms had higher expectations for their success in school, chose more challenging math problems to solve, showed less dependency on adults for permission and approval, exhibited 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 investigation 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 addition, there were no identified academic advantages for children from highly academic environments (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 1990).

Teachers" Instructional Beliefs and Practices

The research on teachers' beliefs and practices is complex because didactic and developmentally appropriate practices are framed in the literature as completely dichotomous. 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 education 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 different achievement goals.

Over the past decade, teachers' beliefs in relation to developmentally appropriate and didactic practices were studied in early childhood literature with mixed results. Several studies investigated the external influences on teachers' practices. In a study of predictors of the developmental appropriateness of teacher beliefs and practices, the amount of control that teachers believed they had on planning and implementation of the curriculum 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 appropriate practices, including self-efficacy, locus of control, trait anxiety, and educational and professional experiences.

Several research studies revealed a positive correlation between teacher beliefs and teacher practices. When looking at teachers in kindergarten through 3rd grade, researchers determined that teachers' beliefs predicted classroom practices even after controlling for grade and educational background (Maxwell et al., 2001). Two research teams found moderately positive relationships between teacher beliefs and practices, noting that the more strongly teachers believed in developmentally 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 practices (Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Mosley et al., 1993).

In contrast, discrepancies between developmentally appropriate beliefs and observed practices were noted in a number of studies (Bryant, Clifford, & Peisner, 1991; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Mosley et al., 1993; Dunn & Kontos, 1997; Hatch & Freeman, 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 "politically correct," Hyson (1991) noted that it may be hard to find teachers who will admit to not incorporating DAP into their beliefs and practices (McMullen, 1999). Furthermore, teachers who adamantly claimed to believe in developmentally appropriate practices attribute the discrepancy to environmental or work-related stresses, such as unsupportive parents and administrators, personal perception of the need for skill development, and preparing students for standardized testing (McMullen, 1999).

Summary

The 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 contextual nuances of teachers' intentions for their instruction. Teachers provide instruction in complex environments. Classroom environments 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 powerful external factors shape the education of young children.

Method

Sample

Data 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 African Americans making up 13.5 percent of the population. Children of non-European descent represent 19 percent of the children in grades kindergarten through 12. Slightly over 8 percent of the population 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 information 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 number 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 information 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 Collection

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

Data Analysis

Initial 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 responses, 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 remaining 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 developmental 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 instruction in kindergarten classrooms? Are there particular children who benefit from that type of environment?

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

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

6) Do you feel pressure from other teachers 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, comparisons 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 teaching. Nine of the 34 teachers characterized themselves as primarily teacher-directed, 16 classified themselves as both teacher-directed 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 participants, the two researchers independently reviewed each teacher's chart and created additional 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 classification 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 understanding 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 characteristics influence their teaching. The assignment 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 education in all three categories. Therefore, the researchers dropped from the analysis any specific review for how those factors may have influenced the data.

Findings

The findings of this research illustrate the complexity of developmentally appropriate instruction for early childhood educators. The perceptions of the three groups of teachers, teacher-directed (didactic), child-centered (developmentally appropriate), and teachers using both approaches, will be discussed 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 Kindergarten

Teachers, 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 curriculum and objectives.

The Pressure

The teachers' descriptions of the pressure to ready students for the next grade level varied; however, the number of teachers experiencing pressure increased as we moved across the spectrum from the teacher-directed group to the child-centered instructional group. In terms of student preparation pressure, teacher-directed kindergarten teachers 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 commented that they felt pressure to get their students ready for 1st grade. Of the majority 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 expectations 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 preparation. 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 preparation. 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-imposed 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 for 1st grade was not a concern. Several noted that good communication with the 1st-grade teachers helped alleviate the pressure. 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 number 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 teachers] 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 Control

Perceived control over instructional practices also varied among individuals, but showed a pattern across the three instructional groups. Only three of the nine teacher-directed instructors perceived themselves as having control over the curriculum and how it was delivered, and as being able to make individual choices about instructional practices. On the other hand, three felt that the county curriculum drove the instructional practices. One teacher commented, "[The activities] must be age appropriate and follow the curriculum; it is pretty much developmentally 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 notebook, and the curriculum, and take it in different 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 practices. 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 Instruction

The nine teacher-directed teachers described 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 problem 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." Several 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) structure; 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 kindergarten. Teachers' responses from this group are indicative of their belief in using both approaches. 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 likely to suggest that all students benefit from both teacher-directed and child-centered instruction. 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, academically advanced students benefited most from teacher-directed instruction. On the other hand, several noted that struggling students benefited most from developmentally 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 characteristics. 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, "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 listening, 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 Instruction

The teacher-directed teachers were inconsistent in how they defined developmentally 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. Others 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 developmentally 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 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 strategies 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 centers 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, experiences, 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 ... because 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 Conclusion

Several 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 assertions can be made. Teachers from the teacher-directed group noted the perceived difficulty and their lack of confidence in using child-centered practices. Also, teachers in the child-centered group noted the additional time it takes to create child-centered activities. Time and pressure certainly go hand-in-hand. Furthermore, if your philosophy is such that you teach children in a developmentally appropriate way, this may translate into not forcing parts of the curriculum 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, developmentally appropriate practices correlates with perceived freedom to make instructional decisions. The majority of teachers using didactic practices perceived themselves as having little control over their instructional decisions, whereas nearly all of the child-centered 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 articulate 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 practices. Instead, they chose to state why they didn't use a teacher-directed approach.

The teachers using both types of practices offered the clearest rationale for their decision making on instructional practices. Their statements also may demonstrate why the child-centered group felt more pressure 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 described 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 academically, 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 perceive 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 translate into child-centered classrooms. In some cases, there were conflicting opinions about who best benefited from teacher-directed and child-centered approaches. The conclusion 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 consistently 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 approaches, and with determining the students who would benefit from each.

Implications

There 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-centered 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 children and provide quality staff development in child-centered practices. Opportunities for classroom teachers to become familiar with research findings, as well as opportunities 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. Observations 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 including 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 external factors affecting teacher practices would enhance the literature and best inform educators working toward implementing developmentally appropriate classrooms.

References

Bevilacqua, L. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice: What have we learned? Common Knowledge, 10(1/2).

Bryant, D. M., Clifford, R. M., & Peisner, E. S. (1991). Best practices for beginners: Developmental 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 graders. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(3), 459-483.

Burts, D. C., DeWolf, M., Hart, C. H., Charlesworth, R., & Benedict, J. (1996, April). Developmental 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 appropriate 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 kindergarten 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 appropriate and inappropriate kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 297-318.

Charlesworth, R. (1998a). Developmentally appropriate 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: Building a research base for developmentally appropriate 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 kindergarten 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 Development, New Orleans, LA.

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

Hirsh-Pasek, K., Hyson, M. C., & Rescorla, L. (1990). Academic environments in preschool: 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.

Marcon, R.A. (2002). Moving up the grades: Relationship between preschool model and later school success. Early Childhood Research 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 Quarterly, 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). Recommendations for kindergarten retention: Assessing classroom practices and their relationship to non-promotion decisions. Paper 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.

Audra Parker

Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett

University of Georgia 

Figure 1
Teachers' Perceived Levels of Pressure and Curricular and
Instructional Control Based on Cross-Case Analysis

                                     Combination of
                 Teacher-Directed   Teacher-Directed   Child-Centered
                     (N = 9)              and             (N = 9)
                                     Child-Centered
                                        (N = 16)

Pressure           [down arrow]       [down arrow]       [up arrow]
                                       [up arrow]

Curricular and     [down arrow]       [down arrow]       [up arrow]
Instructional                          [up arrow]
Control

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

              Teacher-Directed    Combination of     Child-Centered
                  (N = 9)        Teacher-Directed       (N = 9)
                                       and
                                  Child-Centered
                                     (N= 16)

 Teacher-       Direct Paper
 Directed           and             Worksheets         Lecturing
Instruction   Direction-Based      Whole Group          L Group
                  Modeling        Demonstrations       Structured
                   "Busy"        Teacher in Front
                 No Choice
               One Paper Home
                  Per Day

  Child-           "Play"            Hands-on         Free Choice
 Centered         Hands-on         Small Group        Ownership of
Instruction     Center-Time       Individualized          Room
              Do It Themselves     Exploration       Little Teacher
                                      Choice            Lecture
                                    Discovery         Small Group
                                  Learning from         Student
                                      Others          Involvement
                                                         Doing
                                                       Activities
                                                      Experiences
                                                        Children
                                                     Explaining to
                                                        Children
                                                        Hands-On
                                                        Centers