Engaged Pedagogy.

One Alternative to "Indoctrination" Into DAP

"... that which we are, so shall we teach."

--Ralph Waldo Emerson

I first noted resistance to Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP)--as outlined by the 1987 National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) position statement (Bredekamp, 1987)--when doing research for my doctoral dissertation 10 years ago (O'Brien, 1990); in the intervening years, I have encountered and detailed many other instances (e.g., O'Brien, 1996). As I have noted before (O'Brien, 1993), my concern is that DAP comes from, and supports, albeit covertly, a white middle-class perspective, and works best for typically developing children from relatively "advantaged," Anglo home environments.

Children from non-mainstream and "disadvantaged" backgrounds may not have the requisite knowledge, skills, and dispositions that would allow them to benefit from the DAP approach. As Sally Lubeck says, "When the cultural beliefs and practices of one group are obscured in scientific claims regarding how all children should optimally learn and develop, psychology becomes a guise for dominant ideology" (1996, p. 156). Furthermore, parents and educators of children from outside the conventional mainstream (e.g., children of color or children with "special" needs) may have good reason to believe that their children need educational experiences that more directly prepare them for success in mainstream schools and society (Delpit, 1986; Mallory, 1994). Such concerns (and others--see, for example, Lubeck, 1998) remain despite the updating of, and changes to, the DAP position statement (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).

Because the field of early childhood education (ECE) is dominated by white, middle-class women, who are and who will be working with increasingly diverse populations not always sharing the same value set, it is crucial that teacher educators avoid "indoctrinating" preservice students into DAP (which was, in fact, a suggestion made in a roundtable discussion at the 1995 National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators conference). A preferable approach would be to increase awareness of the values and beliefs inherent in DAP, so that teachers of young children might decide for themselves if this approach makes sense to them and suits their situation. It is, at best, problematic to present synopses of research and theory translated into "teachers should" statements, as the DAP books (Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) and video (NAEYC, 1987) do. It is also contradictory and even hypocritical to promote a model of practice with young children that invites them to interact with people and materials so that they might construct their own understandings (although certainly critiques can be and have been made of the narrow, Piagetian constructivism used for such a model; for example, see Lubeck, 1996; O'Brien, 1991; O'Loughlin, 1991), while at the same time giving teachers of young children the knowledge they should have in order to do "appropriate practice."

Teachers bring to their pedagogy a wealth of diverse experiences that inform their knowing and their practices. Rarely are there "right answers" in teaching; it is (or should be) a highly individual craft "involving teachers' personal definitions of problems and their resolutions" (Goffin, 1996, p. 127). There simply may not be a theory or set of principles that we can universally apply (Katz, 1996; Lubeck, 1996). As the field of early childhood education is becoming aware, "... postmodernity means a resolute emancipation from the characteristically modern urge to overcome difference and promote sameness" (Bauman in Burbules & Rice, 1991, p. 396).

If we seek more respect for the field of ECE, we must ensure that teachers are creators of thoughtful, critical curricula, aimed at fostering democratic citizens--as Katz (1996) suggests, perhaps the one goal we can agree upon--rather than implementers of a given set of "appropriate practices" with which they have been "indoctrinated." Each teacher must view each child as a dynamic, culturally contexted being, who deserves curriculum developed in situ, based on his or her needs, interests, and experiences. This can be a tall order for teachers; as Delpit (1995) notes, we all have cultural lenses through which we see the world, and these lenses operate at the subconscious level, making the way we see the world "just the way it is."

One approach that might counter the "indoctrination" (or "inoculation") model of teacher education, and which helps us see the world through multiple lenses, is engaged pedagogy (hooks, 1994). In an applied extension of Lubeck's (1996), Katz's (1996), and Goffin's (1996) work, I offer here a description of my journey from Piagetian constructivism toward an approach that not only supports self construction of knowledge, but that also considers other dimensions of learning and knowing. Similar to the journeys described by Belenky et al. in Women's Ways of Knowing (1986), I have, given life experiences and much reflection, changed my practices in light of my changed understandings of the world. Engaged pedagogy forces us to examine who we are as teachers and learners, including our cultural contexts and constructs, thus leading to an expanded world view and, hence, a more respectful, thoughtful, socially conscious practice.

Constructivism

As an early childhood educator, I began my teacher education career knowing about Piaget's theory of constructivism and its relevance to classrooms for young children. I noticed many similarities in younger and older learners that could be addressed through pedagogy based on constructivist theory. I also noticed some aspects of working with adult learners that called for a broader conceptualization of creating knowledge based on the implicit and explicit power relations of the pedagogical situation (Giroux, 1988), which I will address below.

Although it has "many faces" (Phillips, 1995), constructivism is a theory about knowledge and learning that synthesizes current work in cognitive psychology, philosophy, and anthropology, and that defines knowledge as temporary, developmental, and socially and culturally mediated, and thus subjective (Fosnot, 1993). "Learning from this perspective is understood as a self-regulated process of resolving inner conflicts that often become apparent through concrete experience, collaborative discourse, and reflection" (Fosnot, 1989, p. vii). When one applies constructivism to teaching, "... one must reject the assumption that one can simply pass on information to a set of learners and expect that understanding will result" (Confrey, 1990, p. 109).

Constructivism was introduced and named by Jean Piaget. The individual's construction of mental structures is at the heart of this belief system. A constructivist believes our senses give us incomplete information about our worlds so that we must structure the physical inputs we receive to create mental understandings. Constructivists also believe that reflection on thinking is essential to development. Because we are at least partially aware of our constructions, we can "... modify them through our conscious reflection on that constructive process" (Confrey, 1990, p. 109). Most constructivists believe that for learning to be meaningful the learner must ask his or her own questions, and they argue that we best teach others by providing opportunities for experimentation, whether with objects or ideas (Forman, 1987). Individuals, then, are seen as questioners, explorers, problem solvers, and concept creators (Fosnot, 1989).

Recently, in a move away from the individualism inherent in Piagetian constructivism, the notion that learning is context-dependent and socially mediated has gained currency. As Cannella and Reiff note, "different cultural groups construct forms of knowledge, ways of thinking, values, and perspectives on the world that fit physical and social circumstance" (1994, p. 40). This approach argues against general human cognitive skills, proposing "that cognition is channeled by socio-cultural factors" (Cannella & Reiff, p. 40).

Emancipatory/Transformative Constructivism

Critical theorists focus on the "hidden curriculum" of education, emphasizing the value-laden content and methods of our schooling that favor some and disenfranchise others. In response to the perceived inequalities of our education system, many (e.g., Freire, 1970; Giroux, 1988) have called for emancipatory/transformative approaches that "empower all citizens to be respected, fulfilled human beings" (Cannella & Reiff, 1994, p. 43). Transformation is considered to be

... the development of a critical perspective through which individuals can begin to see how social processes are organized to support certain interests, and the process whereby this understanding is then used as the basis for active political intervention directed toward social change with the intent to disempower relations of inequality. (Lewis, 1990, p. 469)

Michael O'Loughlin argues that by enabling teachers to construct knowledge for themselves, they are then better able to engage their own students "in a similar process of coming to know" (1992b, p. 4). Such a process is possible, however, only if teacher educators can acknowledge that we do not have all the answers, "that teaching is context specific, and that the heart of teaching lies not in the imparting or facilitation of objective, authoritarian knowledge, but rather in the creation of opportunities [for students] to ... begin processes of emancipatory knowledge construction for themselves" (O'Loughlin, 1992b, p. 4).

Emancipatory knowledge construction, then, cannot take place unless teachers become aware of the need to construct a pedagogy that is inclusive, and that gives people opportunities to construct knowledge for themselves, on their own terms, so that they can change their worlds. Paulo Freire (1970) argues for much the same approach when he writes, "Education as the practice of freedom . denies that man [sic] is abstract, isolated, independent, and unattached to the world.... Authentic reflection considers.., men [sic] in their relations with the world" (p. 69). Emancipatory teacher education enables teachers to ask critical questions of themselves so they can construct critical visions of pedagogy appropriate to their contexts--in the interest of creating emancipatory education for their students. Emancipatory knowledge "increases awareness of the contradictions hidden or distorted by everyday understandings, and in doing so, it directs attention to the possibilities of social transformation inherent in the present configuration of social processes" (Lather, 1986, p. 259).

As I became more familiar and comfortable with this approach, I began to suggest in my classes that often there is no one right answer, that struggle is necessary, growth is difficult and often painful, that philosophies are being (or should be) constantly revised, and that critique is the first step toward creativity and the "language of possibility" (Giroux, 1988). I encouraged students to ask difficult questions about their personal beliefs and the dominant societal beliefs, and we evaluated the standards and practices used by those in power to assess, stratify, and oppress.

I also have found I need to articulate what we are doing and why--as well as provide opportunities for students to question, choose, reflect, and argue. I continue to try new ideas, to reflect, and to change, for I feel that only by being a learner myself, and making this stance explicit, can I encourage others to do the same. As is often noted, I must "practice what I teach" in order for learners to create their own understandings. I must use "... forms of pedagogy that treat students as critical agents; make knowledge problematic; utilize critical and affirming dialogue; and make the case for struggling for a qualitatively better world for all people" (Giroux, 1988, p. 127). Schools--including institutions of higher education--can and should serve as sites of societal transformation by educating critical citizens.

Feminist Pedagogy

Critical theory, however, has its problems. For me, it is improved by feminist thinking about pedagogy. For example, the unexplicated, and hence hidden, power differentials present and played out in college classrooms can be obscured by the language of critical theory: "empowerment," student "voice," "dialogue," and even the term "critical" (Ellsworth, 1989). The teacher's ultimate authority in his or her role of "creator" of emancipatory education for another (the students) is problematic, as is the unequal, although often denied, power relationship between instructor and students. We need to acknowledge that we can never know others' experiences, and so we cannot pretend to construct common understandings, even if they are new (and presumably better in some way) understandings. Consequently, we need to acknowledge the power we do hold and use, as well as work to change the situations that perpetuate inequalities.

Feminist pedagogy, which is "passionate" and "democratic," aims for women to gain a "sense of themselves," and to "seek and write their own truths" (Rich, 1985, p. 27). At the heart of feminist pedagogies are differences in preferred teaching and learning styles, ways of viewing the world that are different from the rational, unitary view assumed by critical pedagogy (Ellsworth, 1989). The learner, based on his or her experiences, feelings, and beliefs, constructs his/her own world views in context, and judges for him/herself the merits of various positions. Feminist scholars (e.g., Longino, 1993) believe that knowledge is socially constructed and aver that any theories about how we know "... must attend to the complex ways in which social values influence knowledge" (Alcoff & Potter, 1993, p. 13).

Women college instructors are less likely than their male colleagues to use extensive lecturing and more likely to use class discussion, cooperative and experiential learning, field work, projects, and student-developed activities as instructional methods. Women instructors are also more likely to assign weekly essays and student presentations and to involve students in evaluating each other's work (Astin et al., cited in Park, 1996). These labor-intensive approaches permit individual and group understandings to emerge relatively uninfluenced by professorial dictates or beliefs. They cause difficulties, however, in patriarchal institutions, as a focus on measurable outcomes, expectations of professor-student distance, requirements for tenure, fiscal constraints, and so on conflict with pedagogical practice.

Examples of how I interpret and apply feminist pedagogy include the following: I often share the responsibility for choosing and grading assignments with students, we have co-created a group syllabus, individuals have designed their own syllabi, and I always give as many choices and open-ended assignments as possible. I conference with students, individualize expectations, focus on process as well as product, allow re-writes to improve quality of work, use journals to get to know my students as whole people, and do not preclude the possibility of professor-student friendships (although I acknowledge the power I have). Addressing the social, political, economic, cultural, and structural aspects of our society, including its patriarchal nature, is an integral, although not always overt, part of each class.

Engaged Pedagogy

Ideas from bell hooks's Teaching To Transgress: Education As the Practice of Freedom (1994) have expanded my understanding of teacher education. Her concept of "engaged pedagogy" demands more than constructivist, critical, or feminist pedagogy (although it draws upon them), in that it emphasizes the well-being of the individual and of the group. Utilizing engaged pedagogy means that the teacher must view his/her students holistically, but also must address his or her own personal growth--physical, cognitive, social, emotional, aesthetic--in order to help students grow. If I expect my students to change and grow, so too must I be committed to my own change and growth; teacher and student alike should be striving for self-actualization. And I must model this commitment in my pedagogical practices; again, I must practice what I teach. In this approach, feminist theory informs emancipatory constructivism, making feminist pedagogy central to engaged, passionate teaching and learning (hooks, 1994).

Given this perspective, I must be aware of myself as a physical, female presence in the classroom. We all, teacher as student and students as teachers (Freire, 1970), share personal narratives and link them to the academic information in the course; in so doing, we gain a voice and broaden our perspectives. We address "personal" issues as being politically and socially contexted, and we try to act responsibly together to create a learning community, for however brief a time.

Hooks also writes of the need to be aware of, and feel empowered to address, issues beyond our immediate classrooms. "All of us in the academy . are called to renew our minds if we are to transform educational institutions--and society--so that the way we live, teach, and work can reflect our joy in cultural diversity, our passion for justice, and our love of freedom" (hooks, 1994, p. 34). Thus, teacher educators are called upon to reflect upon their lives so that they might engage, with their students, in liberatory praxis--or education as the practice of freedom (Freire, 1970). Teaching as a profession is, then, integrally connected with the teacher as a person. And that person ought to be a reflective, aware, passionate, fully engaged being in the world.

This type of teacher education curriculum combines "the paradigm of practical inquiry" with "the paradigm of critical praxis" (Schubert, 1986). The goal is to focus on concrete problem solving in specific situations and an "increased capacity to act morally and effectively in pedagogical situations" (Schubert, 1986, p. 289). "Education that is both multicultural and social reconstructionist [as engaged pedagogy must be] explicitly teaches students to analyze ways in which inequality is maintained and prepares them for social actions" (Lubeck, 1996, p. 162). Jean Anyon calls for "useful theory" integrated with practice; that is, theory that makes "recommendations to those who work for a more humanitarian, more equitable society" and which has a progressive effect on society itself, leading to social change (Anyon, 1994, p. 117). I believe engaged pedagogy to be just this kind of theory and practice.

Some Final Thoughts

O'Loughlin (1991), Walsh (1991), Jipson (1991), New and Mallory (1994), and Lubeck (1998), among others, have critiqued--for diverse reasons--an unquestioning acceptance of DAP. By and large, however, we are still expecting early childhood teachers, regardless of their concerns and their situations, to accept and utilize this approach. If we wish to support teachers in their work of caring for and teaching young children to be vital contributors to our democracy, we must strive for a model of teacher development that is the antithesis of indoctrination, which asks them instead to view teaching as a complex, challenging, social, and intellectual task. In this approach, "... becoming educated involves being exposed to many knowledge claims, perspectives, and critiques and developing the capacity to critically evaluate alternatives" (Lubeck, 1996, p. 159).

Good teacher education prepares "... teachers to be observers and documenters of children and researchers of learning rather than consumers of dicta for practice" (Darling-Hammond, 1996, p. 12) and "challenges us to ask not what is `true' but rather what fits the situation" (Lubeck, 1996, p. 159). This kind of preparation "... also helps teachers learn how to look at the world from multiple perspectives, including those which may be quite different from the teacher's, and to use this knowledge in developing pedagogies that can reach diverse learners" (Darling-Hammond, 19996, p. 12). For those of us in early childhood teacher education, this means we must go beyond substituting one type of discourse for another, as it appears we have sometimes done with "appropriate practice" (e.g., Morgaine, 1996).

As we debate what the changing face of early childhood teacher education might look like, we must ask ourselves this crucial question: For what purpose(s) do we educate (Lubeck, 1996; Miller, 1992; Noddings, 1992)? Although we probably cannot ever answer this question definitively, one possible answer is that we ought to educate students to really see the worlds in which they live, and to be willing and able to act to effect change when necessary. This is the essence of democratic schooling and the foundation for democratic life. This purpose calls for engaged pedagogy: an approach to teaching and learning that supports teachers as reflective practitioners, as transformative intellectuals, and as whole, passionate, caring people.

References

Alcoff, L., & Potter, E. (Eds.). (1993). Feminist epistemologies. New York: Routledge.

Anyon, J. (1994). The retreat of Marxism and socialist feminism: Postmodern and poststructural theories in education. Curriculum Inquiry, 24, 115-133.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.

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

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

Burbules, N., & Rice, S. (1991). Dialogue across differences: Continuing the conversation. Harvard Educational Review, 61, 393-416.

Cannella, G. S., & Reiff, J. C. (1994). Preparing teachers for cultural diversity: Constructivist orientations. Action in Teacher Education, XVI(3), 37-45.

Confrey, J. (1990). What constructivism implies for teaching. In R. B. Davis, C. V. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, 4, 107-122.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching: Research, policy, and practice for democratic education. Educational Researcher, 25(6), 5-17.

Delpit, L. (1986). Skills and other dilemmas of a progressive Black educator. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 379-385.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people's children: Cultural conflicts in the classroom. New York: The New Press.

Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297-324.

Forman, G. (1987). The constructivist perspective. In J. L. Roopnarine & J. E. Johnson (Eds.), Approaches to early childhood education (lst ed., pp. 71-84). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan.

Fosnot, C. T. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing Company.

Giroux, H. (1988). Teachers as transformative intellectuals: Towards a critical pedagogy of learning. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Goffin, S. (1996). Child development knowledge and early childhood teacher preparation: Assessing the relationship--A special collection. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(2), 117-133.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.

Jipson, J. (1991). Developmentally appropriate practice: Culture, curriculum, connections. Early Education and Development, 2(2), 120-136.

Katz, L. (1996). Child development knowledge and teacher preparation: Confronting assumptions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(2), 135-146.

Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 257-277.

Lewis, M. (1990). Interrupting patriarchy: Politics, resistance, and transformation in the feminist classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 60(4), 467-488.

Longino, H. (1993). Subjects, power, and knowledge: Description and prescription in feminist philosophies of science. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 101-120). New York: Routledge.

Lubeck, S. (1996). Deconstructing"child development knowledge" and "teacher preparation." Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(2), 147-167.

Lubeck, S. (1998). Is developmentally practice for everyone? Childhood Education, 74, 283-292.

Mallory, B. (1994). Inclusive policy, practice and theory for young children with developmental differences. In B. Mallory & R. New (Eds.), Diversity and developmentally appropriate practices: Challenges for early childhood education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Miller, R. (1992). What are schools for? Holistic education in American culture (2nd rev. ed.). Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press.

Morgaine, C. (1996). Holistic knowledge for appropriate professional development in early childhood education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 17(2), 66-81.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice for children birth through five [videotape]. (Available from NAEYC, Washington, DC)

New, R. S., & Mallory, B. L. (1994). Diversity and developmentally appropriate practices: Challenges for early childhood educators. New York: Teachers College Press.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York: Teachers College Press.

O'Brien, L. M. (1990). Teacher values and preschool classroom culture: A case study of a rural Head Start program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.

O'Brien, L. M. (1991, October). Turning my world upside down: Learning to question developmentally appropriate practice. Paper presented at the Reconceptualizing Research in Early Childhood Education Conference, Madison, WI.

O'Brien, L. M. (1993). Teacher values and classroom culture: Teaching and learning in a rural, Appalachian Head Start program. Early Education and Development, 4(1), 5-19.

O'Brien, L. M. (1996, October). Resistance to D.A.P.... still!: Teachers, parents, and graduate students speak out. Paper presented at the Reconceptualizing E.C.E. in Research, Theory, and Practice Conference, Madison, WI.

O'Loughlin, M. (1991, October). Rethinking early childhood education: A sociocultural perspective. Paper presented at the Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Education Conference, Madison, WI.

O'Loughlin, M. (1992a). Engaging teachers in emancipatory knowledge construction. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(5), 336-346.

O'Loughlin, M. (1992b, September). Appropriate for whom? A critique of the culture and class bias underlying developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood education. Paper presented at the Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Education: Research, Theory, and Practice Conference, Chicago, IL.

Park, S. M. (1996). Research, teaching, and service: Why shouldn't women's work count? The Journal of Higher Education, 67(1), 46-84.

Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.

Rich, A. (1985). In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 21-28). Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Schubert, W. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York: Macmillan.

Walsh, D. (1991). Extending the discourse on developmental appropriateness: A developmental perspective. Early Education and Development, 2(2), 109-119.

Leigh M. O'Brien is Associate Professor, Nazareth College, Rochester, New York.