Observed Stress Behaviors of 1st-Grade Children Participating in More and Less Developmentally Appropriate Activities in a Computer-Based Literacy Laboratory.

Abstract. This study examined the relationship between more and less developmentally appropriate learning activities (M-DAP; L-DAP) as well as the stress and nonstress behaviors of 1st-grade children during an existing computer-based literacy laboratory. The 50 African American children involved in the study were observed during their participation in a modified version of IBM's Writing To Read program. Data were collected using the Classroom Child Stress Behavior Instrument. Findings indicated that children exhibited more observed stress behaviors during participation in less developmentally appropriate learning activities than did children participating in more developmentally appropriate activities. No interactive effects of type of learning activity and gender on the frequency of stress behaviors were found.

The position statement by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) on developmentally appropriate practices for children birth through age 8 (Bredekamp, 1987) has been used extensively by practitioners, policymakers, and researchers in the field. Other publications by NAEYC have expanded, clarified, and updated the initial guidelines (e.g., Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992, 1995). Literacy is one area of focus in these NAEYC publications. Recently, the International Reading Association (IRA) and NAEYC (IRA & NAEYC, 1998) published a joint position statement on early literacy. These publications and others serve to highlight the complexity and evolutionary nature of developmentally appropriate practices (DAP). Although DAP is not easy to identify or describe, the position statements provide examples of more and less appropriate practices for illustrative purposes.

According to NAEYC, children develop both reading and writing competency from participating in meaningful literacy events that are challenging but achievable, with sufficient adult support (IRA & NAEYC, 1998). Developmentally appropriate activities for enhancing literacy development in beginning readers and writers include listening to, and reading from, a variety of print materials; shared reading of stories and poems; dictating stories; seeing print used in meaningful contexts; talking informally with other children and with adults; experimenting with writing by drawing, copying, and inventing their own spelling; and seeing adults demonstrate and model strategies for reading and writing (Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; IRA & NAEYC, 1998; Reutzel, 1997; Whitmore & Goodman, 1995). The teacher should stock the classroom with a variety of materials that promote reading and writing activities such as books, pictures, logos and labels, writing utensils, loose paper, notebooks, tablets, etc. The materi als are placed in the classroom where children can freely and actively explore them on their own or through interactions with other children or adults. The teacher uses flexible groupings and demonstrates and models strategies for reading and writing in meaningful contexts as needed by the children.

In less developmentally appropriate programs, teachers may make little effort to promote literacy development. There may be a lack of specified goals for literacy, and teachers may ignore children's requests for assistance with more difficult literacy tasks, believing the children are not ready for them (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Although stories are read, other exposure to reading and writing is believed to be useless or potentially harmful (IRA & NAEYC, 1998). In contrast, in other less developmentally appropriate classrooms, teachers place a strong emphasis on isolated skill development. Print materials are emphasized but frequently presented out of context or in nonfunctional ways. Extensive whole-group instruction and intensive drill-and-practice on isolated skills are prevalent (IRA & NAEYC, 1998). The children frequently work individually at their spaces on phonics worksheets or in workbooks. Inflexible reading groups are formed using ability grouping. The teacher follows the lesson as developed in the teacher's guidebook, with little variation. After the reading lesson, the children complete the assigned pages in their reading workbooks (Bredekamp, 1987).

Although child development professionals have spoken out concerning the potentially negative impact of less developmentally appropriate curricula (e.g., Elkind, 1987, 1989), until recently there existed little empirical data on those potentially harmful effects (Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, & DeWolf, 1993; Dunn & Kontos, 1997). Researchers have explored the consequences of less developmentally appropriate practices on achievement (e.g., Burts et al., 1993; Dunn, Beach, & Kontos, 1994; Marcon, 1992), behavior (Hart et al., 1998), motivation (Stipek, Feller, Daniels, & Milburn, 1995), and perception of self-competence (Jambunathan, Burts, & Pierce, 1999). Stress also has been the focus of several studies (Burts et al., 1992; Burts, Hart, Charlesworth, & Kirk, 1990; Hart et al., 1998).

Although stress is a common factor in adults' lives, few adults consider the adverse effects of stress in children's lives (Allen & Green, 1988). Despite extensive research on stress, there is little agreement on a precise definition of stress (Burts et al., 1990). Stress has been conceptualized as "a non-specific response of the body to any demand that exceeds the person's ability to cope, as a person-environment relationship that threatens or taxes personal resources, and as a mental state in response to strains and daily hassles" (Honig, 1986, p. 143).

Some researchers have found that children exhibit certain behavioral reactions during stressful situations (Allen & Green, 1988; Blom, Cheney, & Snoddy, 1986). These include thumb sucking, ear pulling, rocking, nail biting, throwing temper tantrums, exhibiting hostility, doodling on objects, and crying (Burts et al., 1990). Coping strategies used by early elementary school children for dealing with perceived stressors were identified by Dickey and Henderson (1989). The two major types included direct action and distraction. Several of these behaviors are not acceptable for the school environment; for example, hitting someone with a hand or other object, playing with a toy or other object instead of listening to the teacher, and talking to a friend at inappropriate times.

Burts and her colleagues (1992) explored the effect of classroom type (developmentally appropriate; developmentally inappropriate) on kindergarten children's observed stress behaviors. The researchers found that children in the inappropriate classrooms (with more developmentally inappropriate learning activities) exhibited more stress behaviors than those in the appropriate classrooms (with more developmentally appropriate learning activities). These results are consistent with an earlier study of stress (Burts et al., 1990) in kindergarten classrooms and with a study of preschool children and stress by Hart and his colleagues (1998). In a survey of kindergarten teachers, Wiedey and Lichtenstein (1987) found that the teachers believed that developmentally inappropriate tasks caused severe symptoms of stress in children. In the Dickey and Henderson (1989) study, school work was identified by the children as one of the prominent stressors.

Two factors that may affect children's responses to stressful situations are gender and socioeconomic status (Allen & Green, 1988; Honig, 1986). Boys and girls respond differently to stressors. Boys tend to externalize; girls tend to internalize. Boys are more likely to exhibit behavioral problems than girls. Because boys' physical development is slower than girls', boys tend to have more energy to expend and to have more problems adjusting to the passive, orderly, and quiet environment that is required for the traditional academic behavior in some less developmentally appropriate school settings (Allen & Green, 1988).

Socioeconomic status (SES) also acts as a stressor in children's lives. Honig (1986) cited poverty as a chronic family stressor that interferes with effective family functioning, decreasing the stability of the home environment. Researchers have suggested that low SES children experience more stress than high SES children in the school setting (Burts et al., 1992; Burts et al., 1990). Charlesworth (1989) proposed that low SES children have difficulty in adapting to the highly structured environment of formal instruction because they have different learning needs.

The computer is a tool that has the potential to diminish young children's frustration in writing when their fine motor skills are inadequate for the task (Clements, 1987; Guddemi & Fite, 1991; Shade & Watson, 1990). Computers also provide opportunities for print exploration and letter/word recognition, as well as self-monitoring techniques through the typing and editing capabilities of a word processor (Hoot & Silvern, 1988; Rosegrant, 1985). Proponents of computer use with young children argue that the manner in which the computer is utilized determines the educational value of the computer. It is the "quality of the software, the amount of time it is used, and the way in which it is used" that determines the effectiveness of children's interactions (Clements, 1987, p. 42). When the computer is used appropriately with young children, children show increased cooperative behaviors such as peer tutoring and interactive problem-solving (McMillan, 1988) and improved writing skills (Rosegrant, 1985).

Many schools have adopted computer-based literacy programs in an effort to increase literacy development. However, researchers have not addressed the developmental appropriateness of such programs and their impact on young children. Close examination of one such literacy program used in many school districts--IBM's Writing To Read (WTR)--indicates that some of the learning stations or activities associated with WTR may not be developmentally appropriate for teaching young children.

This study examined the influence of type of learning activity (more developmentally appropriate; less developmentally appropriate) on the stress behaviors displayed by 1st-grade children during their involvement in the existing learning activities that were a part of one school's modified version of the WTR program. The secondary objective was to determine the interactive effect of type of learning activity and gender on the frequency of observed stress behaviors. Based on previous research, the authors hypothesized that children would exhibit more observed stress behaviors during the less developmentally appropriate activities (L-DAP) while in the computer lab program than children engaged in the more developmentally appropriate activities (M-DAP) during the computer lab. We also expected that males would exhibit more stress behaviors than females during L-DAP activities.

Method

Participants

The study was conducted at a single public school located in a medium size city in the southern United States. The four 1st-grade teachers who used the existing computer lab agreed to be a part of the study. Parental permission was received for 53 of the 59 students in the four classes. The final sample size was 50, due to attrition. The SES of the sample was defined as low, based on students' eligibility for free lunch. All of the children were African American.

Of the four 1st-grade classes, two classes attended the computer lab as a combined class. There were 23 students (9 males; 14 females) in the combination class participating in the study. The other two classes attended lab separately. One class had 16 children (9 males; 7 females) in the study, and the other had 11 children (6 males; 5 females) in the study. The observations of the children occurred during their regular participation in a modified version of the WTR lab. The study began approximately one month after the school year began, and it lasted two months.

Setting Description

The physical environment of the computer lab used in the study was based on the framework presented in the IBM WTR Teacher's Manual (Martin, 1986). The lab was in a separate room and consisted of five main learning stations, with one optional learning station. The six stations that made up the primary WTR lab in the study were the Computer Station, Work Journal Station, Listening Library Station, Make Words Station, Writing/Typing Station, and the Art Station (optional). In order to accommodate the number of children in the combined classes during the lab activities, the teachers in these classes provided a second optional learning station, the Manipulatives Station, for the children to use.

The management of the lab differed from the suggested management in the teacher's manual in many ways. The children attended the lab three days a week (i.e., Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) for 50 minutes each day throughout the entire school year, as opposed to the suggested one hour, five days a week, for half the school year. Other differences included the role of the teacher and aide, the movement of children through the stations, and the amount of time spent at the stations. The activities in which the children participated during lab time also varied from those suggested in the WTR manual (see Appendix A for activities and corresponding WTR work stations). Because of the numerous differences, this research cannot be viewed as a study of IBM's Writing To Read program.

There were 16 activities occurring during computer lab time. The researchers categorized the 16 activities as either more developmentally appropriate (M-DAP) or less developmentally appropriate (L-DAP), based on information from the NAEYC guidelines (Bredekamp, 1987). There were six activities classified as M-DAP, and 10 activities classified as L-DAP. Each activity and classifying criteria are described below.

The learning activities that seemed to fit the developmentally appropriate framework were Writing/Typing, Art, Make Words-Independent, Library Book, Other Tape, and Other Manipulatives. In general, the activities were open-ended. The children chose what they wanted to do and how to do it. The children were allowed to work individually or collaboratively, and headphones that restricted interaction were limited to only one activity (Other Tape). Also, the children were free to share ideas with the other children working around them.

Writing/Typing. At this activity, the children typed, using a simple IBM word processing program. The children were allowed to copy words printed around the room, type random letters, or create a story using words that they saw around the room or from their computer lesson. The activity was child-directed, with the teacher offering guidance when requested by the child. The children were allowed to work individually or collaboratively with the other children involved in the activity.

Art. At this activity, the children used markers and crayons to illustrate their work from the Writing/Typing activity. The children chose what they used or created for their illustrations. The children could work independently or collaboratively.

Make Words-Independent. At this activity, the children used multiple materials to form words they learned from the day's computer lesson or from previous lessons. Manipulative materials included magnetic boards and letters, pocket charts and letters, rubber letters, wooden block letters, plastic letters, letter cards, letter beads for stringing, plastic locking letters with word boards, small lettered floor tiles, letter stamps and ink pads, and alphabet cereal letters or macaroni letters. In addition to the letter manipulatives, this activity also included two WTR supplemental games-Make Words Game and Writing To Read Bingo. The children could use them individually or collaboratively.

Library Book. The activity included reading any of the high-quality children's books from the library collection that were suggested in the WTR program, or reading the books added by the WTR aide or classroom teachers. The children had their choice of books to read and could read by themselves or with other children.

Other Tape. At this activity, the children listened to taped stories. These tapes were provided in addition to the ones provided by the WTR program. According to the WTR guidelines, the additional tapes were to be devoid of natural speech inflection in the story narration. However, the tapes in this activity contained natural inflection. The children were allowed to choose the story they wished to hear, and they worked alone or in pairs. Although the use of headphones limited children's interactions, the use of high-quality literature and the presence of natural inflection in the stories' narrations defined the activity as M-DAP.

Other Manipulatives. At this activity, the children worked independently or collaboratively with an assortment of manipulatives provided by the classroom teacher. The manipulatives included several types of plastic or rubber counting and sorting sets, as well as parquetry blocks with pattern cards. The children were allowed to choose the manipulatives they wished to use. Occasionally, the teacher provided guidance and encouragement to connect the children's activities to classroom studies.

L-DAP Activities

Ten learning activities--Computer, Work Journal, Make Words-Guided, Library Tape, Reader Rabbit, Reading Group, Vocabulary Review-Independent, Vocabulary Review-Guided, Waiting, and Punishment--did not seem to fit the developmentally appropriate framework. The activities were closed-ended, and the children participated in the assigned activities in a prescribed manner. The activities tended to involve specific right or wrong answers. Socialization was not encouraged because the children were less able to communicate freely with their partners when wearing headphones. Also, teacher direction was needed in order for children to participate in, or finish, the activity. In some activities, there were extended time periods when children waited for teacher direction.

Computer. The essential feature of the WTR program is the computer tutorial/drill program used in the computer activity. The children worked in pairs and spent 12 to 15 minutes daily following the instructions given by the computer, which guided them through one of the three words in each of the 10 cycles of the system (tutorial/drill program). The children used headphones to listen to the words and sounds. They repeated the words and sounds, used letters to make words, and responded to the vocal and visual commands of the computer with chanting, hand clapping, and foot stamping. There was a lack of shared language during this activity. Two children, wearing headphones, practiced sounds and words at the computer's direction, without a meaningful context.

Work Journal. The children worked in pairs and listened to taped lessons that reinforced the sounds learned during the computer lesson. Children copied the letters and words from the day's computer lesson into their work journals. On the inside back cover of the journal, there was a chart with boxes for the children to document their progress. This chart allowed the children to determine when they were ready to move to the next level. At Work Journal, the children were engaged in paper-and-pencil activities by filling in blanks. There was little meaningful exchange about what the words meant and how they were used.

Make Words-Guided. At this activity, the WTR lab aide directed the children in a group game chosen by the aide. The games included several versions of the Make Words game and Writing To Read Bingo. These games emphasized the practice of isolated skills. The games were closed-ended; responses were either right or wrong. The children had to participate in the directed activity. The aide monitored children's social interactions.

Library Tape. At this activity, the children used headphones and listened to taped recordings of children's stories while following in the book. The taped readings were devoid of natural inflection for the purpose of making it easier for the children to follow along. The children chose which stories they wanted to hear, and they worked individually or in pairs. Although the activity was child-directed, the lack of natural inflection on the story tapes defined the activity as L-DAP. Authorities describe inflection as an integral part in the communication of meaning (Fields & Lee, 1987).

Reader Rabbit. This activity involved the children's use of the software program, Reader Rabbit, which is a tutorial/drill program that stresses practice of isolated skills. The teacher chose when the children could use the software program and which game in the program the children could play. The children worked in pairs at the computer.

Reading Group. The classroom teacher pulled children from the other learning activities to participate in this teacher-directed group activity, which was a part of their regular classroom studies. Examples of activities included reading aloud from the basal books and discussing the story. However, there were also extended periods of waiting for the teacher's direction while the teacher was engaged in other activities.

Vocabulary Review-Independent. In this activity, one or two children used flash cards to practice identifying vocabulary words that were part of their regular classroom studies. The classroom teacher pulled the children from the other activities and directed them to practice their vocabulary words. Although the children worked without the teacher's direct participation, the activity was closed-ended and emphasized isolated skills.

Vocabulary Review-Guided. In this activity the teacher worked with a child, using flash cards to practice or test word identification and spelling skills. Occasionally, the activity included a graded vocabulary or spelling test. The teacher pulled the child from the other learning activities to participate in this activity.

Waiting. This activity included extended periods of waiting for the adults' assistance with a learning activity, or waiting for permission to move to another activity. The classroom teachers and the lab aide were frequently unavailable to give assistance because they were often involved in teacher-directed activities with other children. A goal of the WTR program (Martin, 1986) is child-directed movement through the learning activities. However, the children were required to wait for the adults' permission before moving to another activity.

Punishment. This activity involved teacher-directed punishment. Children who were causing a disturbance were removed from the activity and placed in a time-out area as punishment for misbehavior. Also, children who misplaced or forgot their WTR folders were made to sit by themselves while the other children participated in the learning activities. The teacher controlled the time-out or nonparticipation. The children had to wait for extended periods of time without teacher supervision. Occasionally, the children's behavior during the waiting prompted the teacher to continue the punishment for a longer period of time.

Data Collection

Data were collected by one graduate student and one graduate research associate in early childhood education, who used a scan sampling technique (Altmann, 1974) and the Classroom Child Stress Behavior Instrument (Burts et al., 1992; Burts et al., 1990; Hart et al., 1998). Training was conducted prior to the study and included studying the instrument and scan sampling technique, role playing, and using the instrument in the field.

The Classroom Child Stress Behavior Instrument (CCSBI) was developed by Burts and her colleagues for their study on more and less developmentally appropriate teaching practices and the observed stress behaviors of young children (Burts et al., 1992; Burts et al., 1990; Hart et al., 1998). The CCSBI is composed of over 50 child stress behaviors, which are grouped into four major stress categories for ease in coding: passive, self with self, self with others, and self with object. Examples of passive stress behaviors include yawning, slumping, frowning, and refusing to do work/giving up. Self with self stress behaviors include nose picking, hand-hand manipulation, foot shuffling, and playing with/sucking hair. Examples of self with others stress behaviors include arguing, sassing, stuttering, and compulsive talking. Self with object stress behaviors include doodling on desk, destruction of materials, and pencil tapping.

Each lab day, the observer scanned the children in a different predetermined random order. Each scan lasted 2 seconds, after which the researcher recorded the observed stress or nonstress behavior. A stress behavior was defined as the presence of at least one behavior identified on the CCSBI. A nonstress behavior was defined as the absence of any behavior identified on the CCSBI (Burts et al., 1992; Burts et al., 1990). Approximately 5-6 scans per child per day were recorded over a two-month period. To establish interrater reliability, a graduate research associate acted as the reliability judge for 11% of the observations. Agreement of the observer and the reliability judge was calculated at 97%.

Data Analysis

At the end of the data collection, frequency totals for stress and nonstress behaviors were calculated for each child. The learning activities were categorized as M-DAP (6 activities) or L-DAP (10 activities). Frequency totals for stress and nonstress behaviors observed at M-DAP and L-DAP learning activities were calculated. The total frequencies were charted on a frequency table.

An overall total of 4,457 behaviors were observed at learning activities. There were 2,089 behaviors observed at M-DAP learning activities and 2,368 behaviors observed at the L-DAP learning activities. Of the 2089 behaviors at the M-DAP learning activities, 702 were stress behaviors and 1,387 were coded as nonstress behaviors. Of the 2,368 behaviors observed at the L-DAP learning activities, 1,203 were stress behaviors and 1,165 were nonstress behaviors. There were 501 more stress behaviors observed at L-DAP learning activities than at M-DAP learning activities.

To determine if the frequency of observed stress behaviors differed between 1st-grade children working at M-DAP learning activities and those working at L-DAP learning activities, a 2 x 2 frequency table of behavior (stress; nonstress) x type of learning activity (M-DAP; L-DAP) was analyzed. A chi-square statistic was calculated to test the independence of type of behavior and type of learning activity. The difference between the frequency of stress behaviors observed at M-DAP learning activities and the frequency of stress behaviors observed at L-DAP learning activities was significant at the p [less than].001 level, [chi]2 (1, N = 4457) = 134.13.

Because the total-data frequency table was based on 50 children with an overall total of 4,457 data points and not 4,457 independent data points, additional analysis was needed to support the finding. The 50 children had individual data totals ranging from 79 to 92. To support the finding of the total-data frequency table, 50 individual-data frequency tables were created for each child. The individual chi-squares were summed to produce a total chi-square statistic, [X.sup.2] (50, N = 4457) = 235.427. A comparison of the two chi-squares was used to examine the accuracy of the total-data chi-square.

The finding of the summed-total chi-square supported the finding of the total-data chi-square. The difference between the frequency of stress behaviors observed during more developmentally appropriate learning activities and the frequency of stress behaviors observed during less developmentally appropriate learning activities was significant at the p [less than] .001 level. The finding suggests that children exhibit more stress behaviors when involved in less appropriate learning activities.

To compare the frequency of observed stress behaviors of male versus female 1st-grade children working at L-DAP and M-DAP learning activities, a three-way frequency table of type of learning activity (M-DAP; L-DAP) x gender (male; female) x behavior (stress; nonstress) was analyzed. The resulting chi-square statistic for gender x behavior at L-DAP learning activities was not significant, [X.sup.2] (12368) = .089, p = .766. Thus, the null hypothesis of independence between the variables was not rejected.

Discussion

Findings from the present study supported the hypothesis that the frequency of observed stress behaviors exhibited by 1st-grade children working at less developmentally appropriate (L-DAP) learning activities was greater than the frequency of observed stress behaviors of 1st-graders working at more developmentally appropriate (M-DAP) learning activities. These results offer additional support for findings from previous studies (Burts et al., 1992; Burts et al., 1990; Hart et al., 1998) that found connections between the occurrence of stress behaviors in young children and the developmental appropriateness of their learning environment.

While the findings of the present study were similar to these earlier studies, there were some differences. In the present study, 50% of the behaviors observed at L-DAP learning activities were stress behaviors; 33% of the behaviors observed at M-DAP learning activities were stress behaviors. Researchers in prior studies (Burts et al., 1992; Burts et al., 1990; Hart et al. 1998) also reported 50% stress behaviors observed in less developmentally appropriate classrooms; however, they noted only 25% stress behaviors observed in more developmentally appropriate classrooms.

A factor that may account for this discrepancy involves differences in the physical location and the overall atmosphere of classrooms in the present study and previous studies. In the aforementioned studies (Burts et al., 1992; Burts et al., 1990; Hart et al., 1998), the researchers compared overall stress behaviors in environments that were physically separate from one another, in which teachers either used predominantly developmentally appropriate or developmentally inappropriate practices. In the present study, the stress and nonstress behaviors were observed in a single physical environment (i.e., computer lab) that was more developmentally inappropriate than it was developmentally appropriate (i.e., a greater number of L-DAP activities than M-DAP activities). In addition, all the children in the present study were from low SES families. According to Honig (1986), these children already experience additional stress in their lives because of the conditions of poverty.

There also may have been a ceiling effect in the L-DAP activities that was not present in the M-DAP activities. The lack of a consistent transitional pattern of movement from one activity to another within the lab setting, as well as the potential for unexpected removal from an activity by the teacher, may have provided additional stress that affected the children's behavior even during the M-DAP learning activities. Furthermore, the overall lack of teacher assistance when needed also may have placed additional stress on the children's behavioral responses to the M-DAP activities. While the presence of these factors may have been sufficient to affect the behaviors of children during M-DAP activities, their presence may not have been substantial enough to affect their observed behaviors during L-DAP activities, and thus created a ceiling effect.

The study did not support the second hypothesis that male children would exhibit a greater frequency of observed stress behaviors during L-DAP learning activities than would female children. This is not consistent with the literature that indicates that male children are more vulnerable to stress than female children (Honig, 1986) and that certain stressors may affect boys differently than girls (Burts et al., 1992; Burts et al., 1990; Hart et al., 1998). Hart and colleagues (Hart et al., 1998) found that boys exhibited more stress during small motor paper-and-pencil activities, such as those involving workbooks and worksheets. The method of data analysis used in the present study did not allow the researchers to focus on individual learning activities; therefore, there were no findings at that level. In addition, differences in sample composition between this study and previous studies make it somewhat difficult to compare the results. In previous studies (Burts et al., 1992; Hart et al., 1998), the samples included African American and European American children from both high and low SES backgrounds. The present study had a homogeneous sample with regard to race and SES (i.e., low SES African American children). These factors, as well as others, may be considered strengths of the study. Also, the relatively controlled environment (the modified WTR lab) enabled the researchers to conduct the study with fewer confounding variables that tend to be present among different classrooms.

Implications

The computer has great potential for enhancing young children's literacy development and for diminishing the frustration that children may experience while reading and writing. Even so, not all commercially published programs provide a meaningful, contextually relevant curriculum in a low-stress environment. School districts must carefully evaluate commercial programs, adopting those that challenge children while also providing an environment where children can feel psychologically safe (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Teachers must thoughtfully evaluate the literacy activities they provide for young children, the commercial programs they use, and the modifications they make to those programs. Given the findings of this study, as well as studies by Burts and her colleagues (1990; 1992; 1993) and Hart and his colleagues (1998), educators of young children should place greater emphasis on planning curricula that provides a developmentally appropriate environment, one that challenges yet supports children's developme nt and understanding. The lower levels of stress behaviors observed in DAP classrooms in the previous studies have not been equated with negative consequences for young children, while the higher levels of stress behaviors, as a function of less developmentally appropriate experiences, have been associated with negative child developmental outcomes (Hart et al., 1998).

Not all stress should be viewed as harmful to young children (Gozali & Crase, 1991). In addition, children differ in their resiliency to stressors, and certain factors either may serve as buffers (e.g., good school experiences) or make children more vulnerable to stress (e.g., low SES) (Hart et al., 1998). However, because young children are exposed to a multitude of stressors outside the classroom, additional stressors within the classroom environment may have serious consequences. The number, timing, and duration of stressors are known to influence the impact of stress (Breznitz & Goldberger, 1982). As suggested by Elkind (1987), academic stressors--combined with the social and psychological stressors that contemporary American children are already experiencing--may be placing young children at risk for no useful purpose. Humphrey and Humphrey (1985) have pointed out that poorly managed stress in young children can lead to child burnout, as well as to a diminished capacity for adaptive behaviors.

Although the amount of empirical data that supports the link between less developmentally appropriate learning environments and stress in young children is growing, there is still a need for additional research in this area. What kinds of activities challenge young children without creating excessive stress? What impact do commercial programs that include both developmentally appropriate and inappropriate activities have on children's level of stress and on their learning? How much stress is too much, and how does it differ for individual children? To help answer these questions, researchers should continue to explore the relationship between developmentally appropriate and developmentally inappropriate activities for children who are from diverse backgrounds. They should examine other commercial learning programs bought and used by schools, such as IBM's Writing To Read. Research within such environments could provide more specific information to teachers on the relationship among the appropriateness of learning activities, stress levels, and developmental outcomes in young children.

References

Allen, D. A., & Green, V. P. (1988). Helping children cope with stress. Early Child Development and Care, 37, 1-11.

Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Behavior, 49, 227-267.

Blom, G. E., Cheney, B. D., & Snoddy, J. E. (1986). Stress in childhood. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bredekamp, S. (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth to 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.

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.

Bredekamp, S., & Rosegrant, T. (Eds.). (1995). Reaching potentials: Transforming early childhood curriculum and assessment (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Breznitz, S., & Goldberger, L. (1982). Stress research at a crossroads. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 3-6). New York: The Free Press.

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(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.

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

Charlesworth, R. (1989). Behind before they start? Young Children, 44(3), 5-13.

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.), Advances in early education and day care: Perspectives on developmentally appropriate practice (Vol. 5, pp. 3-28). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Clements, D. H. (1987). Research in review. Computers and children: A review of research. Young Children, 42(5), 34-44.

Dickey, J. P., & Henderson, p. (1989). What young children say about stress and coping in school. Health Education, 20, 14-17.

Dunn, L., Beach, S. A., & Kontos, S. (1994). Quality of the literacy environment in day care and children's development. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 9, 24-34.

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

Elkind, D. (1987). Miseducation: Preschoolers at risk. New York: Knopf.

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

Fields, M. V., & Lee, D. M. (1987). Let's begin reading right: A developmental approach to beginning literacy. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing.

Gozali, E., & Crase, S. J. (1991, April). Academic stress among school age children and early adolescents in the United States and Indonesia. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.

Guddemi, M., & Fite, K. (1991, January). Is there a legitimate role for computers in early childhood programs? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, Washington, DC.

Hart, C. H., Burts, D.C., Durland, M.A., Charlesworth, R., DeWolf, M., & Fleege, P. O. (1998). Stress behaviors and activity type participation of preschoolers in more and less developmentally appropriate classrooms: SES and sex differences. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 12, 176-196.

Honig, A. S. (1986). Stress and coping in children. In J. B. McCracken (Ed.), Reducing stress in young children's lives (pp. 142-167). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Hoot, J.L., & Silvern, S.B. (Eds). (1988). Writing with computers in the early grades. New York: Teachers College Press.

Humphrey, J., & Humphrey J. (1985). Controlling stress in children, Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

International Reading Association & National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1998). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young children: A joint position statement of the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Young Children, 53(4), 30-46.

Jambunathan, S., Burts, D. C., & Pierce, S. H. (1999). Developmentally appropriate practices as predictors of self-competence among preschoolers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 13, 167-174.

Marcon, R. A. (1992). Differential effects of three preschool models on inner-city 4-year-olds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7,517-30.

Martin, J. H. (1986). Writing to read: Teacher's manual (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: IBM.

McMillan, B. (1988, August). Computers and the development of young children. Paper presented at the Australian Development Conference, Sydney, Australia.

Reutzel, D. R. (1997). Integrating literacy learning for young children: A balanced literacy perspective. In C. H. Hart, D. C. Burts, & R. Charlesworth (Eds.), Integrated curriculum and developmentally appropriate practice: Birth to age eight (pp. 225-254). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Rosegrant, T. (1985). Using the microcomputer as a tool for learning to read and write. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 113-115.

Shade, D. D., & Watson, J. A. (1990). Computers in early education: Issues put to rest. Journal of Educational Computing, 6,375-92.

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

Whitmore, K. F., & Goodman, Y. (1995). Transforming curriculum in language and literacy. In S. Bredekamp & T. Rosegrant (Eds), Reaching potentials: Transforming early childhood curriculum and assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 145-166). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Weidey, L. B., & Lichtenstein, J.H. (1987). Academic stress in kindergarten children (Research/technical Report No. 143). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 310 865)

        Activities and Corresponding Writing To Read (WTR) Stations
M-DAP ACTIVITIES              WTR STATION
Writing/Typing                Writing/Typing
Art                           Optional
Make Words-Independent        Make Words
Library Book                  Listening Library (modified)
Other Tape                    Listening Library (modified)
Other Manipulatives           Optional
L-DAP ACTIVITIES              WTR STATION
Computer                      Computer
Work Journal                  Work Journal
Make Words-Guided             Make Words (modified)
Library Tape                  Listening Library
Reader Rabbit                 Computer (optional)
Reading Group                 None
Vocabulary Review-Independent None
Vocabulary Review-Guided      None
Waiting                       None
Punishment                    None