-
ED 319 537
TITLE
INSTITUTION
SPONS AGENCY
PUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM
PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
DOCUMENT RESUME
PS 018 846
ERIC/EECE Digests Related to the Education and Careof Children
from Birth through 12 Years of Age.ERIC Clearinghouse on Early
Childhood Education,Champaign, Ill.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington,
DC.90
OERI-88-06201272p.
ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early ChildhoodEducation,
805 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Urbana, IL61801 (Catalog No. 206,
$6.95).Information Analyses - ERIC Information AnalysisProducts
(071) -- Reports - Descriptive (141)
MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.Child Caregivers; Child Development;
*Children; *DayCare; *Early Childhood Education; Educational
Policy;Educational Practices; Educational Quality;*E1FIdentary
Education; Elementary School Curriculum;Kindergarten; Latchkey
Children; ParentParticipation; *Preschool EducationDevelopmental
Assessment; *ERIC Digests; Infant DayCare; Screenin, Procedures
The ERIC/EECE Digests in this compilation focus ondifferent
aspects of the education and care of children from birththrough 12
years of age. The four digests produced in 1989 concernthe
escalating kindergarten curriculum, involvement of parents in
theeducation of their children, mixed-age groups in early
childhoodeducation, and praise in the classroom. The eight digests
from 1988focus on the training and qualifications of child care
directors,cooperative learning strategies for children, creativity
in youngchildren, cooperative problem solving in the classroom,
criticalissues in the provision of infant day care, latchkey
children andschool-age child care, the nature of children's play,
and youngchildren's oral language development. The 12 digests
produced in 1987deal with ability grouping in elementary schools,
the development ofsocial competence, early childhood classrooms and
computers,"hothousing" of young children, trade-offs between
program qualityand affordability in early childhood programs,
readiness forkindergarten, screening for school entry, the shifting
kindergartencurriculum, the shy child, training of day care
providers, and whatyoung children should be learning. Digests
produced before 1987address the assessment of preschoolers'
development, homework
policies, full- or half-day kindergarten, and parents and
schools.Materials concerning the ERIC System are provided. (RH)
**************************************************U********************Reproductions
supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original
document.************************************g**********************************
-
to U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research
and ImprovementEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CZ CENTER (ERIC)AThis document has been reproduced as
1111received from the person or organizationoriginating it.
13 Aim Or changes have been made to improve
Cn reproduction quality,Parasol view°, Opinions staled in this
dater-i ment do not necessarily represent officialOE RI position or
policy
ERIC /EECE DigestsRelated to the Education andCare of Children
from Birth
Through 12 Years of Age
Compiled by
ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood
Education
ERIC EECE Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood
Education805 W. Pennsylvania AvenueUthana, IL 61801
217-333-1386
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
2
-
ERIC /EECE DIGESTS
ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary andEarly Childhood
Education
University of Illinois805 West Pennsylvania AvenueUrbana, IL
61801
217-333-1386
-
47e
Catalog /1206$6.951990
This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, U.S.Department of Education,
under contract no. OERI 88462012. The opinions expressed in this
publication -'
not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI or the
Department of Education.
-
CONTENTS
1989
Escalating Kindergarten Curriculum. Lorrie A. Shepardand Mary
raee Smith
Involving Parents in the Education of Their Children.Patricia
Clark Brown
Mixed-Age Groups in Early Childhood Education.Demetra
Evangelou
Praise in the Classroom. Randy Hitz and Amy Driscoll
1988
Child Care Directors' Training and Qualifications.Paula
Jorde-Bloom
Cooperative Learning Strategies and Children.Lawrence Lyman and
Harvey C. Foyle
Creativity in Young Children. James D. Moran III
Cooperative Problem-Solving in the Classroom.Jonathan Tudge and
David Caruso
Infant Day Care: The Critical Icisues. Abbey Griffinand Greta
Fein
9
11
13
15
17
Latchkey Children and School-Age Child Care. 19Michelle Seligson
and Dale B. Fink
The Nature of Children's Play. David Fernie
Young Children's Oral Language Development.Celia Genishi
1987
21
23
Ability Grouping in Elementary Schools. 25-John Hollifleld
5
-
The Development of Social Competence in Children.Sherri Oden
Early Childhood Classrooms and Computers: Programswith Promise.
James L. Hoot and Michele Kimler
27
29
Hothousing Young Children: Implications for Early 31Childhood
Policy and Practice. Tynette W. Hills
Latchkey Children. Ellen B. Gray 33
Quality or Affordability: Trade-Offs for Early 35Childhood
Programs? Barbara Willer
Readiness for Kindergarten. Joanne R. Nurss 37
Screening for School Entry. Tynette Wilson Hills 39
The Shifting Kindergarten Curriculum. 41Harriet A. Egertson
The Shy Child. Marion C. Hyson and Karen Van Trieste 43
Training Day Care Providers. Brenda Krause Eheart 45
What Should Young Children Be Learning? Lilian G. Katz 47
Pre 1987
Assessing Preschoolers' Development. Lilian G. Katz 49
Developing Homework Policies. Yvonne Eddy 51
Full-Day or Half-Day Kindergarten? Dianne Rothenberg 53
Parents and Schools. Rhoda Becher 55
ERIC Document Reproduction Service Order Form 57UMI Article
Clearinghouse Order Form 59The ERIC System 61ERIC Fact Sheet 63ERIC
Clearinghouses (And Other Network Components) 65
6
-
ERICClearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood
Education
University of Illinois805 West Pennsylvania AvenueUrbana,
Illinois 61801(217) 333-1386
ERICDigest
Escalating Kindergarten CurriculumLorrie A. Shepard and Mary Lee
Smith
The practice of kindergarten retention is
increasingdramatically. In some districts, as many as 60% of
kinder-gartn ,rs are judged to be unready for first grade.
Thesechildren are provided with alternative
programming:developmental kindergarten (followed by regular
kinder-garten), transition or pre-first grade. or the repeating
ofkindergarten.
An extra year before first grade is intended to protectunready
children from entering too soon into a demandingacademic
environment where, it is thought, they will almostsurely experience
failure. The extra year is meant to be atime when immature children
can grow and develop learn-ing readiness skills, and children with
deficient prereadingskills can strengthen them. When parents are
asked toagree to retention or transition placement, they are
oftentold that with an extra year to grow, their children will
moveto the top of their classes and become leaders.
Advocates of kindergarten retention are undoubtedly
well-intentioned. They see retention as a way for the school
torespond to children's enormous differences in
background,developmental stages, and aptitude. They view
retentionas a means of preventing failure before it occurs.
What Research Says About Retention
The research on kindergarten retention which we con-ducted from
1984-88 led to three major findings:
1. Kindergarten retention does nothing to boost sub-sequent
academic achievement;2. Regardless of what the extra year may be
called,there is a social stigma for children who attend an
extrayear;3. Retention actually fosters inappropriate
academicdemands in first grade.
We have located 14 controlled studies that documenteffects of
kindergarten retention. Six were included inGredler's (1984) major
review of research on transitionrooms, and eight were newly
indentified empirical studies.The dominant finding is one of no
nifference betweenretained and promoted children. Credler concluded
thatat-risk children promoted to first grade performed as well
1
EDO-PS-89.2
or better than children who spent an extra year in
transitionrooms. In another study, retained children were
matchedwith promoted children. At the end of first grade,
childrenin the two groups did not differ on standardized mathscores
or on teacher ratings of reading and math achieve-ment, learner
self-concept, social maturity, and attentionspan (Shepard and
Smith, 1985).
Though many retention advocates cite findings that seemto be
positive, these studies are often flawed. A major flawis the
absence of a control group. A control group is acritical element in
the process of determining differencesbetween children who have
been promoted and childrenwho have been retained or placed in
transition classes.Studies with control groups consistently show
that readi-ness gains do not persist into the next grade. Children
endup at approximately the same percentile rank compared totheir
new grade peers as they would have had they stayedwith their age
peers. Furthermore, young and at-risk stu-dents who are promoted
perform as well in first grade asdo retained students.
Tests that are used to determine readiness are not suffi-ciently
accurate to justify extra-year placements. For ex-ample, Kaufman
and Kaufman (1972) have provided theonly reliability data on the
widely used Gesell SchoolReadiness Test. They found a standard
error of measure-ment equivalent to six months; in other words, a
child whois measured to be at a developmental level of 4 1/2
years,and thus unready for school, couid easily be at a
develop-ment level of 5 years, and fully ready. As many as 30-50%of
children will be falsely identified as unready (Shepard &Smith,
1986). Kindergarten teachers are generally un-aware of these end
results. They know only that retainedchildren do better than they
did in their first year of kinder-garten. In the short run,
teachers see rngress: longerattention spans, better compliance with
classroom rules,and success with paper and pencil tasks that were
astruggle the year before. But these relatively few
academicbenefits do not usually persist into later grades.
Social Stigma of Retention
Retained children understand that because of somethingthat is
wrong with them, they cannot go on with their
7
-
classmates. Retained children know that they are notmaking
normal progress. They also know the implicitmeaning of placement in
ability groups such as "thebluebird reading group."
Kindergarten retention is traumatic and disruptive forchildren.
This conclusion is supported by our extensiveinterviews with
parents of retained children. Most parentsreport significant
negative emotional effects associatedwith retention. Parents'
qualitative assessments of theirretained children also support our
arguments about thesocial stigma of retention. Kindergarten
retention also hasa negative consequence over the long run.
Children whoare too old for their grade are much more likely than
theirclassmates to drop c ut of school..
The Escalating Kindergarten Curriculum
The fad to flunk kindergartners is the product of inap-propriate
curriculum. For the last 20 years, there has beena persistent
escalation of academic demand on kinder-gartners and first-graders.
In one survey, 85% of elemen-tary printipals indicated that
academic achievement inkindergarten has medium or high priority in
their schools(Educational Research Service, 1986). Many
middle-classparents who visit their child's school convey the
messagethat their only criterion for judging a teacher's
effectivenessis the teacher's success in advancing their child's
readingaccomplishments. What was formerly expected for thenext
grade has been shoved downward into the lowergrade. More academics
borrowed from the next grade isnot necessarily better learning. A
dozen national organiza-tions have issued position statements
decrying the nega-tive effects of a narrow focus on literacy and
mathematicalproficiency in the earliest grades (National
Association forthe Education of Young Children, 1988).
Many kindergarten teachers acknowledge that extra-yearprograms
would be unnecessary if children went on "to aflexible,
child-centered first grade. But educators do notexpress an
awareness that retention may actually con-tribute to the escalation
of curriculum. Teachers naturallyadjust what they teach to the
level of their students. if manychildren are older and read, then
teachers will not teach asif the room were full of five-year-olds.
The subtle adjust-ment of curricular expectations to the
capabilities of anolder, faster-moving group demonstrated in the
researchliterature on school entrawe ages (Shepard St Smith,1988).
The victims of inappropriate curriculum are thechildren judged inau
4uate by its standards: children whocan't stay in the lines and sit
still long enough.
Alternatives to Retention AOne alternative can be found in
schools where teachersand principals are committed to adapting
curriculum andinstructional practices to a wide range of individual
dif-ferences. In such schools, a child who is not yet proficientis
not failed. The kindergarten teacher begins at the child'slevel and
moves him along to the extent possible. Thefirst-grade teacher
picks up where the kindergartenteacher left off. In between-grade
arrangements, childrenmove freely across grade boundaries in such
activities ascross-age tutoring or student visits to the next grade
forthree hours r i week. The average standardized achieve-ment test
scores for third graders in these schools are nodifferent from
those of students in high-retaining schools.
Schools with appropriate curriculum and collegial
under-standings among teachers and principals make
retentionunnecessary. Once the larger context of curriculum
es-calation is understood, teachers and principals may havegreater
icentive to resist the pressures and accountabilityculture that
render more and more children "unready."
Reprinted with permission from the Summer, 1988 issue of
AmericanEducator, the quarterly journal of the American Federation
ofTeachers. Adapted by Jeanette Allison Hartman.
For more information:
Educational Research Service. "Kindergarten Programsand
Practices in Public Schools." Principal (May 1986).
Gredler, G.R. "Transition Classes: A Viable Alternative forthe
At-risk Chile?" Psychology in the Schools 21 (1984):463-470.
Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L. 'Tests Built from Piaget'sand
Gesell's Tasks As Predictors of First-gradeAchievement." Child
Development 43 (1972): 521-535.
National Association for the Education of Young Children."NAEYC
Position Statement on Developmentally Ap-propriate Practice in the
Primary Grades, Serving 5-Through C-Year-Olds." Young Children 43
(1988): 64-84.
Shepard, L.A., & Smith, M.L. (1985). Boulder
ValleyKindergarten Study: Retention Practices and RetentionEffects.
Boulder, CO: Boulder Valley Public Schools.
Shepard, L.A., & Smith, M.L. "Synthesis of Research onSchool
Readiness and Kindergarten Retention." Educa-tional Leadership 44
(1986): 78-86.
Shepard, L.A., & Smith, M.L. "Escalating AcademicDemand in
Kindergarten: Counterproductive Policies."Elementary School Journal
89 (1988): 135-146.
ERIC Digests are In the public domain and may be freely
reproduced and disseminated.
This publication was funded by the Office a Educational Research
end Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Opinions expressed
Inthis report do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies
of OERI.
2
-
E-1/41161 Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood
EducationUniversity of Illinois805 West Pennsylvania AvenueUrbana,
Illinois 61801(217) 333-1386
ERICDigest
EDO-PS-89-3
Involving Parents in the Education of TheirChildren
Patricia Clark Brown
When parents are involved in their children's education,both
children and parents are likely to benefit. Researchersreport that
parent participation in their children's schoolingfrequently:
enhances children's sea-esteem
improves children's academic achievement
improves parent-child relationships
helps parents develop positive attitudes towards schooland a
better understanding of the schooling process.
Despite these advantages, it is ncl always easy for parentsto
find time and energy to become involved orto coordinatewith
schedules for school events. For some parents, a visitto school is
perceived as an uncomfortable experience,perhaps a holdover from
their own school days. Othersmay have their hands full with a job
and other children. Theavailability and cost of babysitters are
other factors.Recently, teachers and other school staff have made
spe-cial efforts to increase communication with parents
andencourage involvement in children's teaming experiences.
Ways to involve Parents
One kind of parental involvement is school-based andincludes
participating in parent-teacher conferences andfunctions, and
receiving and responding to written com-munications from the
teacher. Parents can also serve asschool volunteers for the library
or lunchroom, or as class-room aides. In one survey, almost all
teachers reportedtalking with children's parentseither in person,
by phone,or on open school nightsand sending notices home(Becker
& Epstein, 1982). These methods, along withrequests for parents
to review and sign homework, weremost frequently used to involve
parents.
Parents can participate in their children's schools by
joiningParent Teacher Associations (PTAs) or Parent
TeacherOrganizations (PTOs) and getting involved in decision-making
about the educational services their childrenreceive. Almost all
schools have a PTA or PTO, but oftenonly a small number of parents
are active in these groups.
Another kind of involvement is home-based and focuseson
activities that parents can do with their children at homeor on the
teacher's visits to the child's home. However, fewteachers involve
parents through home-based acti cities,partly because of the amount
of time involved in developingactivities or visiting and partly
because of the difficulty ofcoordinating parents' and teachers'
schedules.
Ways to Reach ParentsSome programs aim to reach parents who do
not usuallyparticipate in their children's education. Such
programsprovide flexible scheduling for school events and
parent-teacher conferences, inform parents about what theirchildren
are learning, and help parents create a supportiveenvironment for
children's learning at home.
Many schools have responded to the needs of workingparents by
scheduling conferences in the evening as wellas during the day, and
by scheduling school events atdifferent times of the day tnroughout
the year.
It is important for teachers to keep the lines of commu
nica-tion open. This involves not only sending regular newslet-ters
and notes, but also obtaining information from parents.Phone calls
area greatly under-usea technique forkeepingin touch. A teacher
usually calls a parent to report a child'sinappropriate behavior or
academic failure. But teacherscan use phone calls to let parents
know about positivebehavior and to get input. Parents justifiably
becomedefensive if they think that every phone call will bring a
badreport. If teachers accustom parents to receiving regularcalls
just for keeping in touch, it is easier to discussproblems when
they occur.
Teachers need to consider families' lifestyles and
culturalbackgrounds when planning home activities. However,some
activities can be adapted to almost any home situa-tion. These are
activities that parents or children engagein on a day-to-day basis.
Teachers can encou -ige parentsand children to do these activities
together, and can focuson the opportunities that the activities
provide for learning.For example, although television viewing is a
pastime for
39
-
most children and adults, they do not often watch showstogether.
Teachers can suggest appropiate programs andsend home questions for
families to discuss. This discus-sion can be carried over into
class.
Busy parents can include children in such everyday ac-tivities
as preparing a meal or grocery shopping. Teacherscan also suggest
that parents set aside a time each day totalk with their children
about school. Parents may find thisdifficult if they have little
idea of what occurs in school.Notes on what the children have been
working on arehelpful. Parents and children can discuss current
eventsusing teacher-provided questions. Teachers often suggestthe
activity of reading aloud to children. Reading to childrenis an
important factor in increasing their interest and abilityin
reading. Teachers can also encourage children to readto parents. In
areas where children may not have manybooks, schools can lend
books, and teachers can providequestions for parents and children
to discuss.
Home activities allow parents flexibility in scheduling,
pro-vide opportunities for parents and children to spend
timetogether, and offer a relaxed setting. To be most
beneficial,home activities should be interesting and
meaningfulnottrivial tasksthat parents and children have to "get
through."When teachers plan home activities, they often think
interms of worksheets or homework that will reinforce skillsleamed
in school. But parents often grow tired of theendless stream of
papers to be checked and the time spenton "busywork." Another
danger of promoting home ac-tivities is the possibility tut there
may arise an uncleardistinction of roles, with teachers expecting
parents to"teach" at home. Teachers and parents need to
understandthat their roles are different, and that their activities
withchildren should be different.
Difficulties In involving Parents
All teaches experience he frustration of trying to
involveparents and getting littleiesponse. Teachers complain
thatparents do not come to conferences or school openhouses, check
homework, or answer notes. This leadssome teachers to conclude that
parents do not care abouttheir children's education. While it is
true that the emotionalproblems of a few parents may be so great as
to preventthem from becoming involved with their children's
educa-tion, most parents do care a great deal. This caring S
not,however, always evidenced by parent attendance atschool events.
There are a number of reasons why theseparents may not become
involved, and teachers need toconsider these before dismissing
parents as uninterested.
For many parents, a major impediment to becoming in-volved is
lack of the. Working parents are often unable to
attend school events during the day. In addition, eveningsare
the only time these parents have to spend with theirchildren, and
they may choose to spend time with theirfamily rather than attend
meetings at school.
For many apparently uninvolved parents school was not apositive
experience and they feel inadequate in a schoolsetting. Parents may
also feel uneasy if their cultural styleor socioeconomic level
differ from those of teachers(Greenberg, 1989). Some parents who
are uninvolved inschool may not understand the importance of parent
invol-vement or may think they do not have the skills to be ableto
help. Even parents who are confident and willing to helpmay
hesitate to become involved for fear of oversteppingtheir bounds.
It is the responsibility of teachers and ad-ministrators to
encourage such parents to become in-volved.
ConclusionThe suggestions offered in this digest can help
teachersinvolve parents who might not otherwise be involved.
Whileit is possible for a teacher to implement such a
parentinvolvement program alone, it is much easier if the schoolas
a whole is committed to the program. Administrativestaff can
relieve some of the burden of implementing acomprehensive parent
involvement program, and can offerhelp and support to teachers.
For More information
Becher, R. (1987). Parent Involvement: A Review of Re-search and
Principles of Successful Practice. ED 247032.
Becker, H. J. & Epstein, J. L. (1982). "Parent Involvement:A
Survey of Teacher Practices." Elementary SchoolJournal, 83, 2,
85-102.
DeKanter, A., Ginsburg, A., & Milne, A. (1986).
ParentInvolvement Strat6gies: A New Emphasis on TraditionalParent
Roles. ED 293 919.
Greenberg, P. (1989). "Parents As Partners in YOungChildren's
Development and Education: A NewAmerican Fad? Why Does It Matter?"
Young Children,44, 4, 61-75.
McLaughlin, M. & Shields, P. (1986). Involving Parents inthe
Schools: Lessons for Policy. ED 293 920.
Ste..3nson, D. & Baker, D. (1987). "The
Family-SchoolRelation and the Child's School Performance?
ChildDevelopment, 58, 5, 1348-57.
ERIC Digests are In the public domain and may be freely
reproduced and disseminated.
This publication was funded by the Office of Educational
Research and Improvement, U.S. Department c Aucation. Opinions
expressedin this report do not necessarily reflect the positions or
policies of DER!,
4 10
-
ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood
EducationUniversity of Illinois805 West Pennsylvania AvenueUrbana,
Illinois 61801(217) 333-1386
ERICDigest
Mixed-Age Groups in Early ChildhoodEducation
Demetra Evangelou
The practice of educating children in mixed-age groups inearly
childhood education, including the primary grades,has a long
history. Mixed-age grouping has also beenknown as heterogeneous,
multi-age, vegical, ungradedornongraded, and family grouping.
Cross-age tutoring isanother method of altering traditional ways of
groupingchildren in their early years.
If current trends in maternal employment continue, increas-ing
numbers of young children will spend larger proportionsof their
preschool years in care outside of their homes(Katz, 1988). Young
children who are cared for at homeare unlikely to spend large
amounts of time in groups ofchildren cf the same age. Natural
family units are typicallyheterogeneous in age. The family group
provides all mem-bers with the opportunity to observe, emulate and
initiatea wide range of competencies.
It is assumed that the wider the range of competenciesmanifested
in a mixed-age group, the greater the oppor-tunities for group
members to develop relationships andfriendships with others who
match, complement, or sup-plement the participants' own needs and
styies. Thegreater diversity of maturity and competence present in
amixed-age group, as compared to a s7-ie-age group,provides a
sufficient number of models to allow mostparticipants to identify
models suitable for their learning.
Given that spontaneously formed peer groups are
typicallyheterogeneous in composition, the separation of
childreninto same-age groups in early childhood education
settingsis questionable. This grouping practice is based on
theassumption that chronological age is the single most reli-able
developmental index. This assumption has led to theextensive
screening and testing related to kindergartenentrance. But
developmental indexes other thanchronological ageindexes such as
social, emciional, andcognitive level of maturitycan be used.
Advantages of Mixed-Age Classes
In mixed-age classes, it may be easier for kindergarten
andpreschool teachers to resist the "push-down" tendency-
EDO-PS-89-4
the trend to introduce the primary school curriculum
intokindergarten and preschool classes (Gallagher &
Coche,1987). Because mixed-age grouping invites cooperationand
other prosocial behaviors, the discipline problems ofcompetitive
environments can often be minimized.
A mixture of ages within a class can be particularlydesirable
for children functioning below age group normsin some areas of
their development. These children mayfind it less stressful to
interact eh younger peers than withame-age peers. Such interactions
can enhance younger
children's motivation and self-confidence.
Social Development in MIxed-Age Groups
Prosocial behaviors are often treated as indices of
socialdevelopment. Prosocial behaviors such as help-giving,sharing,
and turn-taking facilitate interaction and promotesocialization.
Social perceptions also play an importantrce in the development of
social competence. They are anessential part of a child's
increasing social awareness. Theformation of friendships is often
based on a child's percep-tions of the roles of peers in a variety
of social contexts.
Research evidence suggests that children of different agesare
usually aware of differences and attributes associatedwith age.
Consequently, both younger and older childrenin mixed-age groups
differentiate their expectationsdepending on the ages of the
participants. Interaction inmixed-age groups elicits prosocial
behaviors that are im-portant in the social development of the
young child.
A number of studies indicate that mixed-age grouping canprovide
remedial benefits for at-risk children. For example,it has been
established that children are more likely toexhibit prosocial
behaviors (Whiting, 1983) and offer in-struction (Ludeke &
Hartup, 1983) to younger peers titanto age-mates. Children are also
more likely to establishfriendships (Hartup, 1976) and exhibit
aggression withage-mates, and to display dependency with oldr
children.The availability of younger and therefore less
threateningpeers in mixed-age groups offers the possibility of
remedialeffects for children whose social development is at
risk.
11
-
Cognitive Development in Mixed-age Groups
Research suggests that the effect of mixed-age groupingon
cognition is likely to derive from the cognitive conflictarising
from children's interaction with peers of differentlevels of
cognitive maturity. In their discussio.: of cognitiveconflict,
Brown and Palinscar (1986) make the point thatthe contribution of
such cognitive conflict to learning is notsimply that the
less-informed child imitates the moreknowledgeable one. The
interaction between the childrenleads the less-informed member to
internalize new under-standings.
Along the same lines, Vygotsky (1978) maintains that
theinternalization of new understandings, or cognitive
restruc-turing, occurs when concepts are actually transformed
andnot merely replicated. According to Vygotsky, internaliza-tion
takes place when children interact within the "zone ofproximal
development." Vygcitsky (1978) defines this zoneas "the distance
between the actual development level asdetermined by independent
problem solving and the levelof potential development as determined
through problemsolving under adult guidance or in collaboration
with morecapable peers" (p.86).
Slavin (1987) suggests that in terms o; the Vygotskianconcept of
the "zone of proximal development," the dis-crepancy between what
an individual can do with andwithout assistance can be the basis
for cooperative peerefforts that result in cognitive gains. In
Slavin's view, "col-laborative activity among children promotes
growth be-cause children of similar ages are likely to be
operatingwithin one another's zones if proximal
development,modeling in the collaborating group behaviors more
ad-vanced than those they could perform as individuals" (p.1162).
Brown and Reeve (1985) maintain that instructionaimed at a wide
range of abilities allows the noviceto learnat his own rate and to
manage various cognitive challengesin the presence of
"experts."
implications for Early Childhood EducationMixed-age interaction
among young children can offer avariety of developmental benefits
to all participants. How-ever, this is not to suggest that merely
mixing children ofdifferent ages in a group will guarantee that the
benefitsmentioned earlier will be realized. Before grouping,
onemust consider the optimum age range, the proportion ofolder to
younger children, the allocation of time to themixed-age group and
the curriculum and teachingstrategies that will maximize the
educational benefits for
the group. The empirical data on the educational principlesthat
should guide instruction in mixed-age environmentsare not yet
available. When the data become available,they should support the
position that -iixed-age groupinteraction can have unique adaptive,
facilitating and en-riching effects on children's development.
For More Information
Brown, A.L., and Palinscar, A. Guided Cooperative Learn-ing and
Individual Knowledge Acquisition (TechnicalRep. No. 372).
Champaign, IL: Center for the Study ofReading, 1986.
Brown, A.L., and Reeve, R.A. Bandwidths of Competence:The Role
of Supportive Contexts in Learning andDevelopment (Technical Rep.
No. 336,1. Champaign, IL:Center for the Study of Reading, 1985.
Gallagher, J.M., and Coche, J. "Hothousing: The Clinicaland
Educatznal Concerns Over Pressuring YoungChildren." Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 2(3),(1987): 203-210.
Hartup, W.W. "Cross-Age Versus Same-Age Interaction:Ethological
and Cross-Cultural Perspectives." In V.L.Allen (Ed.) Children as
Teachers: Theory and Researchon Tutoring. New York: Academic Press,
1976, pp.41-54.
Katz, Lilian G. Early Childhood Education: What ResearchTells
Us. Phi Delta Kappa Fastback, No. 280.Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta
Kappa Educational Founda-tion, 1988.
Ludeke, R.J., and Hartup, W.W. "Teaching Behavior of S-and
11-Year-Old Girls in Mixed-Age and Same-AgeDyads." Journal of
Educational Psychology, 75(6),(1983): 908-914.
R.E. "Developmental and Motivational Perspec-tives on
Cooperative Learning: A Reconciliation." ChildDevelopment, 58
(1987):1161 -1167.
Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in Society: The Development ofHigher
Psycholvgicas Processes. Edited by M. Cole, V.John-Steiner,
Scribner, and E. Souberr Nn.Cambrit4e, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1978.
Whiting, B.B. "The Genesis of Prosocial Behavior." In
D.Bridgeman (Ed.) The Nature of Prosocial Development.Academic
Press: New York, 1983.
ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely
reproduced and disseminated.
This publication was funded by the Office of Educational
Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Opinions
expressed inthis report do not necessarily reflect the positions or
policies of OEM
6 12
-
[ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood
EducationUniversity of Illinois805 West Pennsylvania AvenueUrbana,
Illinois 61801(217) 333-1386
ERICDigest
Praise in the ClassroomRandy Hitz and Amy Driscoll
Most educators agree that children need to be in suppor-tive,
friendly environments. But recent research indicatesthat some
teacher attempts to create such environmentsby using praise may
actually be counterproductive.
The purpose of this digest is to give teachers new insightsinto
ways to make their statements of praise more effectiveand
consistent with the goals most early childhoodeducators have for
children, namely, to foster self-esteem,autonomy, self - reliance,
achievement, and motivation forTeaming. Most teachers praise
students in order to en-hance progress toward these goals. However,
currentresearch poses the possibility that some common uses
ofpraise may actually have negative effects in some or all ofthese
areas.
Praise: Effects on Self-Esteem and Autonomy
Some praise statements may have the potential to lowerstudents'
confidence in themselves. In a study of secondgraders in science
classrooms, Rowe (1974) found thatpraise lowered students'
confidence in their answers andreduced the number of verbal
responses they offered. Thestudents exhibited many characteristics
indicative of lowerself-esteem, such as responding in doubtful
tones andshowing lack of persistence or desire to-keep trying.
Inaddition, students frequently tried to "read" or check
theteacher's eyes for signs of approval or disapproval.
In a series of six studies of -Jbjects ranging in age fromthird
grade to adult, Meyer (1979) found that under someconditions,
praise led recipients to have low expectationsof success at
difficult tasks, which in turn decreased thepersistence and
performance intensity at the task. It seemsthat certain kinds of
praise may set up even the mostcapable students for failure. No
student can always be"good" or "nice" or "smart." In order to avoid
negativeevaluations, students may tend not to take chances
andattempt difficult tasks.
Praise as r Motivator
Many teachers attempt to use praise as a form of
positivereinforcement in order to motivate students to achieve
andbehave in positive ways. However, as Brophy (1981)points out,
trying to use praise as a systematic reinforcerin a classroom
setting is impractical. Even if teachers wereable to praise
frequently and systematically, say once
7
EDO-PS-89-1
every 5 minutes, the average student would still be praisedless
than once every 2 hours. Brophy's research disclosedthe reality
that much tcacher praise is not deliberate rein-forcement, but
rather, is elicited by studentsthe studentsactually condition the
teacher to praise them.
Even if teachers could praise students systematically,there is
still some indication that such praise would not beeffective.
Researchers point out that at best praise is aweak reinforcer. Not
all young children are interested inpleasing the teacher, and as
children grow older, interestin pleasing the teacher diminishes
significantly. Esler(1983) reports that correlations between
teachers' rates ofpraise and students' leaming gains are not always
positive,and even when correlations are positive, they are
usuallytoo low to be considered significant.
Some researchers (Martin, 1977; Stringer and Hurt, 1981)have
found that praise can actually lessen self-motivationand cause
children to become dependent on rewards.Green and Lepper (1974)
found that once teachers beganpraising preschool children for doing
something they werealready motivated to do, the children became
lessmotivated to do the activity.
Research demonstrates that various forms of praise canhave
different kinds of effects on different kinds of stu-dents.
Students from different socioeconomic classes,ability levels, and
genders may not respond in the sameway to praise. The use of praise
is further complicated bythe fact that it may have differential
effects depending onthe type of achievement being measured. For
example,praise maybe useful in motivating students to learn by
rote,but it may discourage problem solving.
Praise as a Classroom Management Tool
Teachers f ril;i:0 children are especially likely to try touse
praise as a way to manage individuals or groups ofchildren. A
statement such as "I like the way Johnny issitting," is often aimed
not only at Johnny's behavior butalso at nudging children in the
group to conform. Teachersof older students would never get away
with such controltechniques. Even young chihren who may not be able
toarticulate their frustration with such blatant manipulationmay
show their resentment by defiantly ref using to conformor by
imitating the "misbehaving" child.
.13
-
Kounin (1970) did extensive observations in
kindergartenclaspoloms in order to gain insight into effective
manage -met; , .ractices. He found that smoothness and main-tenai.
.1 of the momentum of classroom instruction andactivities were the
most powerful variables in controllingdeviant behavior and
maintaining student attention. Praisedid not contribute to
effective classroom management.
Praise Versus EncouragementResearch does indicate that there are
effective ways topraise students. The terms effective praiseand
encourage-ment are often used by researchers and other
profes-sionals to describe the same approach. In this paper, wewill
refer to both as encouragement
To praise is "to commend the worth of ar to expressapproval or
admiration" (Brophy, 1981, p.5). Dreikurs andothers (1982) say that
praise is usually given to a childwhen a task or deed is completed
or is well done. En-couragement, on the other hand, refers to a
positive ac-knowledgment response that focuses on student efforts
orspecific attributes of work completed. Unlike praise,
en-couragement does not place judgment on student work orgive
information regarding its value or implications of stu-dent status.
Statements such as "You draw beautifully,Marc, " or 'Terrific job,
Stephanie," are examples of praise.They are nonspecific, place a
judgment on the student, andgive some indication of the student's
status in the group.
Encouragement, on the other hand:
Offers specific feedback rather than general comments.For
example, instead of saying, "Terrific job," teacherscan comment on
specific behaviors that they wish toacknowledge.
Is teacher-initiated and private. Privacy increases thepotential
for an honest exchange of ideas and an oppor-tunity for the student
to talk about his or her work.
Focuses on improvement and efforts rat herthan evalua-tion of a
finished product.
Uses sincere, direct comments delivered with a naturalvoice.
Does not set students up forfeiture. Labels such as niceor
tercset students up forfeiture because they cannotatways be nice or
terrific.
Helps students develop an appreciation of their be-haviors and
achievements.
Avoids competition or comparisons with others.
Works toward sell-satisfaction from a task or product.
Children have an intrinsic desire to team. Ineffective praisecan
stifle students' natural curiosity and desire to learn byfocusing
their attention on extrinsic rewards rather than theintrinsic
rewards that come from the task itself (Brophy,1981). This kind of
praise replaces a desire to learn withblind conformity, a
mechanical work style, or even opendefiance. On the other hand,
teachers who encouragestudents create an environment in which
students do nothave to fear continuous evaluation, where they can
makemistakes and learn from them, and where they do notalways need
to strive to meet someone else's standard ofexcellence. Most
students thrive in encouraging environ-ments where they receive
specific feedback and have theopportunity to evaluate their own
behavior and work. En-couragement fosters autonomy, positive
self-esteem, awillingness to explore, and acceptance of self and
others.
For more Information
Brophy, J.E. "Teacher Praise: A Functional Analysis."Review of
Educational Research 51(1) (1981): 5-32.
Dreikurs, R., Greenwald, B., and Pepper, F. MaintainingSanity in
the Classroom: Classroom ManagementTechniques. New York: Harper
& Row, 1982.
Ester, W.K. A Review of Research on Teaching. Paperpresented at
the Convention of the Association of-rsscher Educators, Orlando,
Florida, 1983.
Green, D., and Lepper, M.R. "How to Turn Play into
Work."Psychology Today 8(4) (1974): 49-54.
Kounin, J. Discipline and Group Management in Class-moms. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.
Martin, D.L. "Your Praise Can Smother Learning." Learn-ing 5(6)
(1977): 43-51.
Meyer, W. "Informational Value of Evaluative Behavior:Influences
of Social Reinforcement on Achievement."Journal of Educational
Psychology 71(2) (1979): 259-268.
Rowe, M.B. "Relation of Wait-Time and Rewards to theDevelopment
of Language, Logic and Fate Control: PartII Rewards." Journal of
Research in Science Teaching11(4) (1974): 291-308.
Stringer, BR, and Hurt, H.T. To Praise or Not to Praise:Factors
to Consider Before Utilizing Praise as a Rein-forcing Device in the
Classroom CcmmunicationProcess. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of theSouthern Speech Communications Association,
Austin,Texas, 1981.
ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely
reproduced and disseminated.
This publication W13 funded by the Office of Educational
Research and Improvement. Opinions expressed in this report do not
necessarilyreflect the positions or policies of OERI.
8 14
-
ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood
EducationUniversity of Nino's805 West Pennsylvania AvenueUrbana,
Illinois 61801(217) 333-1386
ERICDigest
PS2-1988
Child Care Directors' Training and QualificationsPaula Jorge
-Bloom
The directors role in the early childhood center iscentral and
complex. While there is agreement aboutthe need for highly trained
personnel to serve as direc-tors, there is a surprising lack of
agreement aboutdirectors' training and minimum qualifications. This
digestprovides an overview of the competencies needed foreffective
center administration and summarizes stateregulations governing
minimum qualifications.
The Multifaceted Role of the Child Care DirectorThe skills and
competencies needed to effectively ad-minister a child care center
vary according to the age andbackground of the children enrolled,
the services provided,the philosophical orientation of the program,
the localsponsorship of the center, and program size. Directors
ofvery small programs may have few administrative tasksand may
serve ;as a classroom teacher part of the day,while directors of
large programs may have to coordinatemultiple sites and funding
sources and a large staff. Re-searchers and teachers agree that
four major task perfor-mance areas are encompassed in the
director's role:
Organization, Leadership and Management. Directorsare expected
to:
assess program needs,
articulate a clear vision,
implement goals,
evaluate program effectiver.2ss,
recruit, train, and supervise staff,
translate program goals into well-written policies
andprocedures,
knz,vi about leadership styles and group behavior,
understand their professional identity and responsibility,
be alert to changing demographics, social andeconomic trends,
and developments in the field.
Child Development and Early Childhood Programming.Directors need
to assess each child's needs and assiststaff in planning
developmentally appropriate experiences.Their organizational skills
can be used to implement effec-tive systems to keep track of
enrollment, attendance, andanecdotal data.
Directors need to understand:
developmental patterns in early childhood and their
im-plications for child care,
environmental psychology and the arrangements ofspace and
materials that support development,
health, safety, and nutrition in care programs.
Fiscal and Legal Considerations. Directors are ex-pected to
knowfederal, state, and local regulations govern-ing child care
centers, and be able to develop a budget,set tuition rates, prepare
financial reports, maintain in-surance coverage, and use
fundraising and grantsmanshipto secure funding from various
sources.
Board, Parent, and Community Relations. Directorsneed to be able
to:
articulate a rationale for program practices to the ad-visory
board, owner, or sponsor,
interpret child development for parents and others in
thecommunity,
regularly contact professional organizations, congres-sional
representatives, public schools, the media, com-munity service and
other groups,
understand the dynamics of family life,
be aware of community resources that can support ef-forts in
marketing and in serving parents.
State Regulations Governing Minimum QualificationsThere are no
federal regulations governing the qualifica-tions of directors.
Standards are mainly determined bystate regulatory bodies. In most
states, regulation of childcare personnel is tied to center
licensing and falls underthe auspices of the Department of Public
Welfare or thestate's equivalent to the Department of Child and
FamilySocial Services. Among states, regulations for almostevery
requirement iffier with striking diversity (Morgan,1987). The
regulatic s are neither consistent nor specific.
Requirements for child care personnel are not
uniformlyregulated, as are requirements for entry into
primaryeducation positions (Berk, 1985). Some states do not
dif-ferentiate personnel roles in child care settings, and
placedirectors in the broad category of child worker. Others
9/5
-
define a second level of teacher more highly qualified inchild
development than other teachers, but do not neces-sarily designate
this person to fill the role of director. Statesthat set
requirements for directors often use quite differentterms to define
the director's role.
Background Qualifications. The minimum age for direc-tors is set
at 18 or 21 in most states. Some states requiredemonstrated
proficiency in basic literacy skills. In 9 states,directors are not
required to have any relevant qualifyingeducation. Several states
require high school education,but only if the centers employ
someone else to be respon-sible for programmatic aspects (Morgan,
1987). Directorsare required to be well-qualified in child
development in 26states, and 10 require substantial coursework.
Only 6states require directors to have had courses in
administra-tion. Ongoing training for directors is required by 12
states(Morgan, 1987).
Experience and Formal Education Qualifications. I nthe past,
states often equated a year of experience with ayear of college.
But research has shown that education inearly childhood or child
development has a far strongerpositive impact than years of
experience on teacher be-havior and student achievement. States are
increasinglylinking levels of experience to formal educational
require-ments.
Current Levels of Training and ExperienceChild care directors
are overwhelmingly (88-92%) female.They are experienced, averaging
over 9 years in the fieldof early childhood. The baccalaureate is
held by 78%, and38% have a master's or doctorate. The level of
formal train-ing appears to have increased in the last 15
years.
Child care directors are typically promoted to their posi-tions
from the ranks of teachers. Of the directors Nortonand Abramowitz
(1981) surveyed, 78% were headteachers or assistant directors
before they assumed theirpositions. Inte rest and experience,
rather than formal train-ing, seem to be the primary criteria for
promotion. Direc-tors with concentrated course work in child care
manage-ment are rare. Most have put together a patchwork
ofcoursework, in-service professional development, and on-the-job
training. Only recently have intensive graduateprograms in child
care administration appeared (Jorde-Bloom, 1987; Manburg,
1984).
Conclusion
Current trends reflect awareness of the importance of thechild
care director. Several states are making a concerted
effort to increase minimum qualitications. A tendencytoward
professionalization is emerging. Directors arereceiving more
education, increasing participation inprofessional organizations,
and using training oppor-tunities to increase their expertise in
administration.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Almy, Millie. "Interdisciplinary Preparation for Leaders inEarly
Education and Child Development." In Sally Kil-mer (Ed.), Advances
in Early Education and Day Care.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1981.
Berk, Laura. "Relationship of Caregiver Education to
Child-oriented Attitudes, Job Satisfaction, and Behaviorstoward
Children." Child Care Quarterly 14 (1985):103-109.
Greenman, James and Robert Fuqua (Eds). Making DayCare Better:
Training, Evaluation, and the Process ofChange. New York: Teachers
College Press, 1984.
Jorde-Bloom, Paula. "Training for Early Childhood Leader-' ship
and Advocacy: A Field-based Model." Illinois
School Research and Development 24(1) (1987): 29-33.
Manburg, Abbey. "An Innovative Response to the Chal-lenge of
Field-based Program Design." InnovativeHigher Education 8(2)
(1984): 108-114.
Morgan, Gwen. The National State of Child Care Regula-tion 1986.
Watertown, MA: Work/Family Directions, Inc.,1987.
Norton, Marcia and Sheila Abramowitz. Assessing theNeeds and
Problems of Early Childhood Ad-ministrators/Directors.1981. ED 208
963.
Peters, Donald and M. Koste Inik. "Current Research in DayCare
Personnel Preparation." In Sally Kilmer (Ed.), Ad-vances in Early
Education and Day Care. Greenwich,CT. JAI Press, 1981.
Sciarra, Dorothy and Anne Dorsy. Developing and Ad-ministering a
Child Care Center. Boston: HoughtonMifflin, 1979.
Spodek, Bernard and 0. Saracho. "The Preparation
andCertification of Early Childhood Personnel." In BernardSpodek
(Ed.), Handbook of Research in EarlyChildhood Education. New York:
The Free Press, 1982.
ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely
reproduced and disseminated.
This publication was funded by the Office of Educational
Research and Improvement. Opinions expressed in this report do not
necessarilyreflect the positions or policies of OERI.
10 16
-
[ERIC! Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood
EducationUniversity of Illinois805 West Pennsylvania AvenueUrbana,
Illinois 61801(217) 333-1386
ERICDigest
EDO-PS-88-5
Cooperative Learning Strategies and ChildrenLawrence Lyman and
Harvey C. Foyle
Cooperative learning is a teaching strategy involvingchildren's
participation in small group learning activitiesthat promote
positive interaction. This aigest discusses thereasons for using
cooperative learning in centers andclassrooms, ways to implement
the strategy, and the long-term benefits for children's
education.
Why Try Cooperative Learning?
Cooperative learning promotes academic achievement, isrelatively
easy to implement, and is not expensive.Children's improved
behavior and attendance, and in-creased liking of school, are some
of the benefits ofcooperative learning (Slavin, 1987).
Although much of the research on cooperative learning hasbeen
done with older students, cooperative learningstrategies are
effective with younger children in preschoolcenters and primary
classrooms. In addition to the positiveoutcomes just noted,
cooperative learning promotes stu-dent motivation, encourages group
processes, fosters so-cial and academic interaction among students,
andrewards successful group participation.
Can Cooperative Learning Be Used in EarlyChildhood Classes?
When a child first comes to a structured educational set-ting,
one of the teacher's goals is to help the child movefrom being
aware only of himself or herself to becomingaware of other
children. At this stage of learning, teachersare concerned that
children learn to share, take turns, andshow caring behaviors for
others. Structured activitieswhich promote cooperation can help to
bring about theseoutcomes. One of the most consistent research
findings isthat cooperative learning activities improve
children'srelationships with peers, especially those of different
so-cial and ethnic groups.
When children begin to work on readiness tasks,coopera-tion can
provide opportunities for sharing ideas, learninghow others think
and react to problems, and practicing orallanguage skills in small
groups. Cooperative learning inearly childhood can promote positive
feelings towardschool, teachers, and peers. These feelings build an
im-portant base for further success in school.
What Are 'he Advantages of Cooperative Learningfor Elementary
School Students?According to Glasser (1986), children's motivation
to workin elementary school is dependent on the extent to
whichtheir basic psychological needs are met. Cooperativeteaming
increases student motivation by providing peersupport. As part of a
learning team, students can achievesuccess by working well with
others. Students are also en-couraged to learn material in greater
depth than they mightotherwise I-:ave done, and to think of
creative ways to con-vince the teacher that they have mastered the
requiredmaterial.
Cooperative learning helps students feel successful atevery
academic level. In cooperative learning teams, low-achieving
students can make contributions to a group andexperience success,
and all students can increase theirunderstanding of ideas by
explaining them to others(Featherstone, 1986).
Components of the cooperative !earning process asdescribed
byJohnson andJohnson (1984) are complimen-taryto the goals of early
childhood education. For example,well-constructed cooperative
learning tasks involve posi-tive interdependence on others and
individual account-ability. To work successfully in a cooperative
learningteam, however, students must also master
interpersonalskills needed for the group to accomplish its
tasks.
Cooperative learning has also been shown to improverelationships
among students from different ethnic back-grounds. Slavin (1980)
notes: "Cooperative learningmethods [sanctioned by the school]
embody the require-ments of cooperative, equal status interaction
betweenstudents of different ethnic backgrounds..."
For older students, teaching has traditionally
stressedcompetition and individual learning. When students aregiven
cooperative tasks, however, learning is assessed in-dividually, and
rewards are given on the basis of thegroup's performance
(Featherstone, 1986). When childrenare taught the skills needed for
group participation whenthey first enter a structured setting, the
foundation is laidfor later school success.
II 1 7
-
How Can Teachers Use Cooperative LearningStrategies?
Foyle and Lyman (1988) identify the basic steps involvedin
successful implementation of cooperative learning ac-tivities:
1. The content to be taught is identified, and criteria
formastery are determined by the teacher.
2. The mos' useful cooperative !earning technique is
iden-tified, and the group size is determined by the teacher.
3. Students are assigned to groups.
4. The classroom is arranged to facilitate group
interac-tion.
5. Group processes are taught or reviewed as needed toassure
that the groups run smoothly.
6. The teacher develops expectations for group learningand makes
sure students understand the purpose of thelearning that will take
place. A time line for activities ismade clear to students.
7. The teacher presents initial material as appropriate,using
whatever techniques she or he chooses.
8. The teacher monitors student interaction in the groups,and
provides assistance and clarification as needed. Theteacher reviews
group skills and facilitates problem-solv-ing when necessary.
9. Student outcomes are evaluated. Students must in-dividually
demonstrate mastery of important skills or con-cepts of the
learning. Evaluation is based on observationsof student performance
or oral responses to questions;paper and pencil need not be
used.
10. Groups are rewarded for success. Verbal praise by
theteacher, or recognition in the class newsletter or on the
bul-letin board can be used to reward high-achieving groups.
Conclusion
Early childhocd educators can use many of the samestrategies and
activities currently being used to encouragecooperation and
interaction in older children. Effectivecooperative learning
experiences increase !!..) probabilityof children's success
throughout their school years.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Clark, M.L. Gender; Race, and Friendship Research.Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research
Association, Chicago, Illinois,April 1985. ED 259 053.
Cohen, Elizabeth J. Designing Groupwork: Strategies forthe
Heterogeneous Classroom. New York: TeachersCollege Press, 1986.
Dishon, Dee, and Pat Wilson O'Leary. A Guidebook forCooperative
Learning: A Technique for Creating MoreEffective Schools. Holmes
Beach, FL: Learning Publi-cations.
Featherstone, Helen (editor). "Cooperative Learning."Har-yard
Education Letter (Sept. 1986): 4-6
Foyle, Harvey, and Lawrence Lyman. Interactive
Learning.Videotape currently in production. (For further
informa-tion, contact Harvey Foyle or Lawrence Lyman, TheTeacher's
College, Emporia State University, 1200Commercial St., Emporia, KS
66801.)
Glasser, William. Control Theory in the Classroom. NewYork:
Harper and Row, 1986.
Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, Edythe HolubecJohnson, and
Patricia Roy. Circles of Learning:Cooperation in the Classroom.
Alexandria, VA: As-sociation for Supervision and Curriculum
Development,1984.
Kickona, Thomas. "Creating the Just Community withChildren."
Theory -into- Practice 16 (1977): 97-104.
Lyman, Lawrence, Alfred Wilson, Kent Gerhart, Max Heim,and
Wynona Winn. Clinical instruction and Supervisionfor Accountability
(2nd edition). Dubuque, IA: Ken-dall/Hunt Publishing Company,
1987.
Slavin, Robert. "Cooperative Learning: Can Students HelpStudents
Learn?" instructor (March 1987): 74-78.
Slavin, Robert. Cooperative Learning: What ResearchSays to the
Teacher. Baltimore, MD: Center for SocialOrganization of Schools,
1980.
Slavin, Robert. Cooperative Learning: Student Teams.West Haven,
CT: NEA Professional Library, 1984.
ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely
reproduced and disseminated.
MI5 publication was funded by the Office of Educational Research
and Improvement. Opinions expressed in this report do not
necessarilyreflect the positions or policies of OERI.
12 18
-
ERICI Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood
EducationUniversity of Illinois805 West Pennsylvania AvenueUrbana,
Illinois 61801(217) 333-1386
ERICDigest
CreatiVity in Young ChildrenJames D. Moran III
The precursors of adult creativity are clearly evident inyoung
children. This digest explores factors that affectcreativity in
children and techniques for fostering thisquality. The need to
study creativity, ind the definition ofcreativity within a
developmental framework, are also dis-cussed.
Why Study Creativity In Young Children?
Just as all children are not equally intelligent, all
childrenare not equally creative. But just as all children exhibit
be-haviors which evidence intelligence from birth, they alsoexhibit
behaviors which evidence the potential forcreativity.
Creativity is essentially a form of problem-solving. But it isa
special type of problem-solvingone that involvesproblems for which
theie are no easy answers: that is,problems for which popular or
conventional responses donot work. Creativity involves adaptability
and flexibility ofthought. These are the same types of skills that
numerousreports on education (e.g., the Carnegie Report, 1986)have
suggested are critical for students.
What Is Creativity?
Creativity has been considered in terms of process,product or
person (Barron and Harrington, 1981) and hasbeen defined as the
interpersonal and intrapersonalprocess by means of which original,
high quality, andgenuinely significant products are developed. In
dealingwith young children, the focus should be on the
process,i.e., developing and generating original ideas, which
isseen as the basis of creative potential. When trying to
un-derstand this process, it is helpful to consider
Guilford's(1956) differentiation between convergent and
divergentthought. Problems associated with convergent thoughtoften
have one correct solution. But problems associatedwith divergent
thought require the problem-solver togenerate many solutions, a few
of which will be novel, ofhigh quality, and workablehence
creative.
For a proper understanding of children's creativity, onemust
distinguish creativity from intelligence and talent.
13
EDO-PS-88-6
Ward (1974) expressed concern about whether creativityin young
children could be differentiated from other cogni-tive abilities.
More recent studies (for example, Moran andothers, 1983) have shown
that components of creativepotential can indeed be distinguished
from intelligence.The term "gifted" is often used to imply high
intelligence.But Wallach (1970) has argued that intelligence
andcreativity are independent of each other, and a highly crea-tive
child may or may not be highly intelligent.
Creativity goes beyond possession and use of artistic ormusical
talent. In this context, talent refers to the posses-sion of a high
degree of technical skill in a specialized area.Thus an artist may
have wonderful technical skills, but maynet succeed in evoking the
emotional response that makesthe viewer feel that a painting, for
example, is unique. It isimportant to keep in mind that creativity
is evidenced notonly in music, art, orwriting, but throughout the
curriculum,in science, social studies and other areas.
Most measures of children's creativity have focused onideational
fluency. Ideational fluency tasks require childrento generate as
many responses as they can to a particularstimulus, as is done in
brainstorming. Ideational fluency isgenerally considered to be a
critical feature of the creativeprocess. Children's responses may
be either popular ororiginal, with the latter considered evidence
of creativepotential. Thus when we ask four-year-olds to tell us
"allthe things they can think of that are red," we find
thatchildren not only listwagons, apples and cardinals, but
alsochicken pox and cold hands.
For young children, the focus of creativity should remainon
process: the generation of ideas. Adult acceptance ofmultiple ideas
in a non-evaluative atmosphere will helpchildren generate more
ideas or move to the next stage ofself-evaluation. As children
develop the ability for self-evaluation, issues of quality and the
generation of productsbecome more important. The emphasis at this
age shouldbe on self-evaluation, for these children are exploring
theirabilities to generate and evaluate hypotheses, and revisetheir
ideas based on that evaluation. Evaluation by others
9
-
and criteria for genuinely significant products should beused
only with older adolescents or adults.
What Affects the Expression of Creativity?For young children, a
non-evaluative atmosphere appearsto be a critical factor in
avoiding what Treffinger (1984)labels as the "right answer
fixation." Through the socializa-tion process, children move toward
conformity during theelementary school years. The percentage of
originalresponses in ideational fluency tasks drops from about50%
among four-year-olds to 25% during elementaryschool, then returns
to 50% among college students(Moran et al., 1983). It is important
that children be giventhe opportunity to express divergent thought
and to findmore than one route to the solution.
Rewards or incentives for children appear to interfere withthe
creative process. Although rewards may not affect thenumber of
responses on ideational fluency tasks, theyseem to reduce the
quality of children's responses and theflexibility of their
thought. In other words, rewards reducechildren's ability to shift
from category to category in theirresponses (Groves, Sawyers, and
Moran, 1987). Indeed,any external constraint seems to reduce this
flexibility.Other studies have shown that structured materials,
espe-cially when combined with structured instructions,
reduceflexibility in four-year-old children (Moran, Sawyers,
andMoore, in press). In one case, structured instructions
con-sisted only in the demonstration of how to put together amodel.
Teachers need to remember that the structure ofchildren's responses
is very subtle. Research suggeststhat children who appear to be
creative are often involvedin imaginative play, and are motivated
by internal factorsrather than external factors, such as rewards
and incen-tivt
How Can Adults Encourage Creativity?
Provide an environment that allows the child to exploreand play
without undue restraints.
Adapt to children's ideas rather than trying to structurethe
diild's ideas to fit the adult's.
Accept unusual ideas from children by suspendingjudgement of
children's divergent problem-solving.
Use creative problem-solving in all parts of the cur-riculum.
Use the problems that naturally occur ineveryday life.
Allow time for the child to explore all possibilities,moving
from popular to more original ideas.
Emphasize process rather than product.
ConclusionAdults can encourage creativity by emphasizing
thegeneration and expression of ideas in a non-evaluativeframework
and by concentrating on both divergent andconvergent thinking.
Adults can also try to ensure thatchildren have the opportunity and
confidence to take risks,challenge assumptions, and see things in a
new way.
For More Information
Barron, Frank and David M. Harrington. "Creativity,
Intel-ligence and Personality." Annual Review of Psychology32
(1981): 439-476.
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. "A Na-tion
Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century."Washington, DC: Camegie
Forum on Education andtheEconomy, 1986.
Groves, Melissa M., Janet K. Sawyers, and James D.Moran, III.
"Reward and Ideational Fluency in PreschoolChildren." Early
Childhood Research Quarterly 2(1987): 335-340.
Guilford, J.P. "The Structure of Intellect."
PsychologicalBulletin 53 (1956): 267-293.
Moran, James D. III, Roberta M. Milgrim, Janet K.Sawyers, and
Victoria R. Fu. "Original Thinking in Pre-school Children." Child
Development 54 (1983): 52.1-926.
Moran, James D. III, Janet K. Sawyers, and Amy J. Moore."The
Effects of Structure in Instructions and Materialson Preschoolers'
Creativity." Home Economics Re-search Journal 17 (1988):
148-152.
Treffinger, Donald J. "Creative Problem-Solving forTeachers."
Lecture delivered to Project Interact SpringConference, Radford,
VA, April, 1984.
Wallach, Michael A. "Creativity." In Carmichael's Manualof Child
Psychology, Vol. 1, edited by P.H. Mussen. NewYork: Wiley,
1970.
Ward, William C. "Creativity in Young Children." Journal
ofCreative Behavior 8 (1974): 101-106.
ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely
reproduced and disseminated.
This publication was funded by the Office of Educational
Researchand Improvement. Opinions expressed in this report do not
necessarilyreflect the positions or policies of OERI.
14 20
-
ERI Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood
EducationUeiversity of Illinois805 West Pennsylvania AvenueUrbana,
Illinois 61801(217) 333-1386
ERICDigest
EDO-PS-88-8
Cooperative Problem-Solving in the ClassroomJonathan Tudge and
David Caruso
Over the years, early childhood education has stressed
theimportance of cooperative play and learning for the youngchild's
development (Dewey, 1897). Cooperative teaminginvolves children in
the active exchange of ideas ratherthan passive learning. Research
has demonstrated thepotential of cooperative problem-solving for
enhancingyoung children's cognitive development and learning.
Cooperative problem-solving is likely to be effective ifchildren
share a goal, and have differing perspectives onthe best way of
attaining it. This sharing of differing pointsof view in the
attempt to achieve a common goal results incognitive advance.
Cooperative problem-solving often oc-curs in classroomsfor example,
when two children at-tempt to ride on a swing at the same time.
Piaget and Cooperative Problem-Solving
Research on the effects of collaboration between
peersoncognitive development has primarily been based onPiaget's
theory concerning the impact of social interactionon cognitive and
moral development (Piaget, 1932, 1959).Piaget maintained that
opportunities for becoming lessegocentric are more common when
children discuss thingswith each other because then they must face
the fact thatnot everyone has the same perspective on a
situation.Psychologists have based most of their research in
thisarea on Piaget's theory, and have examined
children'sperformance on conservation tasks, working in pairs
andindividually. Several researchers have found that childrenwho
were paired with a more advanced child were laterable to solve
conservation tasks at a higher level, whilechildren who worked
individually did not Improve.
Piagetian scholars argue that cognitive conflicta dif-ference in
perspective that leads to discussion of eachpartner's opinionis
necessary for development. In tryingto resolve conflicts, partners
have to explain to each othe-their points of view. In the course of
the explanation, theless advanced child can be led to greater
understanding.
Study results (Tudge, 1985, 1986) suggest that in theabsence of
feedback, cognitive conflict (brought about bypairing children with
different perspectives) only helps
15
children who reason at a less advanced level than theirpartner
when the partner is confident of his or her opinions.But in a third
study (Tudge, 1987), in which childrendiscovered whether or not
their views were correct,children improved regardless of whether
their partner ini-tially reasoned at a less or a more advanced
level. Thusour research indicates that the effects of cooperative
prob-lem-solving are by no means straightforward. We canmerely
suggest possible consequences of encouragingcollaboration in the
classroom.
Guidelines for Teachers
Teachers can encourage children to interact and sharetheir
perspectives during cooperative play by:
Planning activities in which children have a shared goal.It is
not enough to have children working side by side onan activity. For
example, when two children are playingwith building blocks together
but working on different partsof a structure, they may not be
trying to accomplish thesame goal. Children who try to achieve a
shared objectivewill find it helpful to discuss their ideas about
the problemand agree on a strategy. Teachers can promote
realcooperative activity by encouraging collaboration duringthe
activity-planning stage.
Ensuring that the goal is intrinsically interesting.Young
children are likely to pursue a goal only if they findit
interesting. Quite often, when teachers present problemsthat they
see as important, they inadvertently fail to con-sider the
children's degree of interest in solving the prob-lem. One
effective approach for maximizing the child'sintrinsic interest is
to involve children in activities in whichthey can determine their
own objectives, that is, activitieswith several possible goals or
which offer several ways ofreaching the goals.
Making it possible for children to achieve their goal
throughtheir own actions.This guideline, suggested by Kamli and
DeVries (1978) forphysical knowledge activities, can lead to
successfulcooperative problem-solving. Through acting on objectsand
observing the effects, young children receive feed-
-
back, which helps them adapt their differing perspectiveswhen
working cooperatively. Rollinga ball down a ramp tohit a target,
for example, provides many opportunities foradapting the actions
involved. Children can vary the speedand direction of the ball, the
slope of the ramp, and so forth.They can discuss why they miss the
target and the bestway to solve the problem.
Seeing to it that the results of the child's actions are
visibleand immediate.The give and take of sharing perspectives and
strategiesduring cooperative activity will be encouraged by
immedi-ate feedback about the results of children's actions.
AsKamii and DeVries (1978) point out, when children seeresults,
they are likely to be motivates` to keep tryingdifferent
strategies. Contrast an activity such as plantingseeds, which
results in a long-delayed reaction, with agame of target-ball, in
which the child chooses the objec-tive, produces the object's
action, and observes an imme-diate result.
The Teacher's Role In Cooperative Problem-Solving
Because the objective of cooperative problem-solving isfor
children to share perspectives as they pursue goals, itis essential
that teachers encourage and suggest ratherthan give directions.
These guidelines will help teachers inthis effort:
1. Encourage children to interact with each other.A teacher
might introduce an activity in an open-ended wayby saying, "Here's
an activity for 2 or 3 children. What doyou think we could do with
these things, Brett and Sally?"This conveys the importance of each
child's perspectiveand encourages children to come up with
tht.:;:.s.wn goals.
2. Help children clarify or adapt their sharedgoals.In order for
children to pursue goals cooperatively, theymust agree upon a
clearly delineated goal. During earlychildhood, when children often
act first and discuss later,a teacher can play a vital role by
helping them clarify theirgoal before they attempt to solve the
problem. Teacherscan verbalize the objective for the children. A
teacher mightsay, for example, "I see. You're trying to get this
wateroverthere by using the tubes and funnels?'
3. Involve children who are unlikely to initiate.Quieterchildren
are less likelythan more assertive childrento become involved or
state their ideas. It is critical forteachers to encourage these
children to participate and tohelp them state their perspectives on
the problem.
Teaching strategies that may be approprir o for otheractivities
limit the effectiveness of cooperative problem-solving. Even if
children are struggling, it is not appropriateto demonstrate
solutions or solve a problem for them.
Research suggests that arriving at the correct answer isless
important for children's cognitive development thanthe process of
struggling with the problem cooperatively.
ConclusionAs Damon (1984) points out, when children explore
newpossibilities jointly, their thinking is not constrained by
anexpert who "knows better," but rather is limited only by
theboundaries of their mutual imaginations. When teacherspresent
problems that children at differing developmentallevels can work on
together, encourage children's effortsto share perspectives, and
help children arrive at a com-mon objective, cooperative
problem-solving becomes avaluable part of the curriculum.
This digest was adapted by Sue Ann Kendall from "Cooperative
ProblemSolving in the Classroom: Enhancing Young Children's
CognitiveDevelopment,* Young Children, November, 1988, pp.
46-52.
For More information
Damon, W. "Peer Education: The Untapped Potential."Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology5 (1984):331-343.
Dewey, J. "Speech to Parents of Dewey School." (1897).Quoted in
K. Mayhew, and A. C. Edwards (Eds.). TheDewey School: The
Laboratory School of the Universityof Chicago 1896-1903. NY:
Atherton, 1966.
Kamii, C., and R. DeVries. Physical Knowledge in Pre-school
Education: Implications of Piaget's Theories.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1978.
Piaget, J. The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York:Harcourt
Brace, 1932.
Fiaget, J. The Language and Thought of the Child (3rded.).
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1959. (Firstpubiished
1923).
Slavin, R. Cooperative Learning. NY: Longman, 1983.
Tudge, J. R. H. "The Effect of Social Interaction on Cogni-tive
Development: How Creative Is Conflict?" QuarterlyNewsletter of the
Laboratory for Comparative HumanCognition 7 (1985): 33-40.
Tudge, J. R. H. Beyond Conflict: The Role of Reasoning
inCollaborative Problem-Solving. Paper presented at thePiaget
Society Conference, Philadelphia, May 30,1986.ED 275 395.
Tudge, J. R. H. Peer Collaboration and Cognitive Develop-ment.
Paper presented at the biennial meeting of theSociety for Research
in Child Development, Baltimore,April 24, 1987.
ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely
reproduced and dissem::::,ted.
ibis publication was funded by the Office JI Educational
Research and improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Opinions
expressedin this report do not necessarily reflect the positions or
polickis of OERI.
16 22
-
ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood
EducationUniversity of Illinois805 West Pennsylvania AvenueUrbana,
Illinois 61801(217) 333-1386
ERICDigest
Infant Day Care: The Critical IssuesAbbey Griffin and Greta
Fein
There is a critical need to increase the availabilityof quality
infant care. If parents, caregivers andpolicymakers are to
understand standards of quality,they must first understand the
development of attach-ment, the effects of early separations,
parent charac-teristics and family circumstances that may
contributeto insecurity, and the potential benefits of secure
at-tachment to a caregiver. This digest discusses infantcare
quality and the debate on infant attachment.
Infant Day Care Today
In March 1970, 24% of mothers with children under 2 yearsold
were in the labor force. By March 1984, the figure was46.8% (U.S.
Dept_ of Labor, 1984). Who takes care of thebabies while the
mothers work? Some infants (25%) arecared for in their own homes.
Others (75%) are cared foroutside the home by a baby-sitter, or in
family day care(group care by an individual in her home). Only 6%
of in-fants under a year old and 12% of those under 2 are caredfor
in licensed center-based care (U.S. Dept. of Com-merce, June 1982).
Although state licensing standardsapply to center-based and family
day care, most family daycare programs remain unlicensed. The
crisis in day care issuch that the choice of care is often
determined by costand availability, rather than quality.
What Do We Know About Quality?
Research on university-based day care models and agrowing number
of studies on community-based caregiv-:rig arrangements
(baby-sitters, family day care) are iden-tifying indices of quality
care. Phillips and Howes (Phillips,1987) organize information on
infant day care quality intothree categories: (1) structural
features (group size, staff-child ratios, caregiver training,
equipment, space); (2)dynamic aspects (experiences and
interactions); and (3)contextual feats 'es (staff stability and
turnover, type ofsetting).
Structural Features: The National Day Care Study(Roupp, Travers,
Glantz and Coelen, 1979) found that forchildren under 2, small
group size, low staff-infant ratios,and strong caregiver
qvolifications, predicted positive out-comes. Caregivers with
larger groups spent more time inmanagement tasks and restricting
behavior, and less time
17
PS1-1988
in one-to-one interaction and cognitive-language stimula-tion.
High adult-infant ratios were associated with in-creased apathy and
distress in infants. Caregivers with lit-tle child-related formal
education engaged in less frequentpositive adult-infant
interactions and were less likely tohave a developmentally
appropriate program.
The optimum standards of the Accreditation Criteria of
theNational Academy of Early Childhood Programs(Bredekamp, 1984)
specifies a maximum group size of 8and a staff-child ratio of 1:4
for infants under 12 months.For infants of 1 to 2 years, maximum
group size should be12, and staff-child ratio 1:4. The lead teacher
in an infantcenter should have a baccalaureate degree in
earlychildhood education or child development.
Dynamic Features: Quality and frequency of
adult-childinteractions are critical variables in infant care.
Childrenunder two rely on and learn from interactions with
adults.Adults are the secure base from which infants explore
theenvironment and develop social competence with peers.Adults who
talk to infants encourage language develop-ment. Adults who respond
to infant signals and needs buildinfants' self-esteem and physical
and cognitive abilities(Bredekamp, 1986).
Contextual Features: Studies contrasting types ofcaregiving are
limited in number and report mixed results.Most confirm that
staff-child ratios, group size, andcaregiver stability define
quality in infant care. In each typeof care, there is great
variability in environment andcaregiver qualities. Thus child
outcomes depend less onform of care than on characteristics of the
setting (Phillips,1987, Clarke-Stewart and Fein, 1984).
Caregiver stability is of concern because of the high turn-over
rate: 40% in centers and 60% in family day care andout-ot-home
babysitting (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 1954). Lowsalaries and inadequate
benefits make it difficult to attractand maintain qualified
caregivers. Constant changes ofcaregiver or caregiving arrangement
inhibit benefits of care(Ainslie and Anderson, 1984; Phi!lips and
Howes, 1987).
Effects of Infant Care
Several studies show that day care mar benefit low-in-come
children and have benign, if not beneOcial, effects oil
23
-
middle-class children. High quality care can prevent thedrop in
10 that often occurs between 12 and 30 months inhome-reared,
low-income children, and enhance their lan-guage and
problem-solving skills. Greater curiosity, betterconcentration, and
improved on-task behavior have beenassociated with day care
experience in all income groups.Day care children are also seen as
being more sociallycompetent and independent (Clarke-Stewart and
Fein,1984; Belsky and Steinberg, 1987).
Research findings on socioemotional development are
notunanimous. Several recent studies suggest that develop-ment
outcomes are related to the infant ; experience in aparticular
caregiving environment (Phillips, 1987). Struc-tural, dynamic, and
contextual aspects may determine theinfant's quality of life in
care, and thus the effects of care.Another concern is age of entry.
Some studies indicate thatday care children who appear more
assertive, less respon-sive to adults, and more avoidant in
reunions with parents,frequently have begun day care before their
first birthday.
Infant Care: The Issue of Attachment
Some researchers suggest that for infants under 1, separa-tion
from mother for over 20 hours a week may disruptdevelopment of
attachment and thus put some children at-risk for social and
emotional problems. Daily separationsmay represent the kind of
unavailability that infants ex-perience as maternal rejection.
Maternal rejection or un-predictability are associated with
insecure attachment ininfants. Other researchers argue that these
conclusionsare premature, the effects reported are weak, and
thestudies have serious methodological problems. Criticschallenge
definitions of negative social behaviors (e.g., ag-gression, which
may really be assertiveness) and in-dicators of insecurity (e.g.,
avoidance of mother, whichmay really indicate precocious
independence). Thesepositions have been presented in the special
infant daycare issues of the Early Childhood Research
Quarterly.
Studies comparing home versus employed mothers do nottell us
what factors affect parents' ability to offer infants thekind of
environment associated with secure attachment.For example, stress
from balancing work and family is par-ticularly evident in single,
adolescent and low-incomefamilies (Ainslie, 1984). In one study,
families under stressreported that they spent less time researching
day care op-tions, needed longer hours, and used poorer quality
care(Phillips, 1987). A satisfactory support system may be im-
portant for parents and essential to parents experiencingstress.
Mothers of insecurely attached infants may haveless harmonious
marriages and receive less support fromspouses and community.
Mothers who prefer to work or tostay at home and do so may have
more secure infants thanthose whose work status is at odds with
their preference.Work preference is linked to mothers' anxiety
about leav-ing children. Stress and parent anxiety may make
separa-tion and adjustment to care difficult. On the other
hand,secure attachment to the caregiver may offset damagingeffects
on the infant. Quality day care can reduce stress byproviding a
support system for parents and allaying theirconcerns about their
infant (Ainslie, 1984).
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Ainslie, Ricardo (Ed.). The Child and the Day Care
Setting:Qualitative Variations and Development. New York:Praeger
Press, 1984.
Belsky, Jay and Lawrence Steinberg. "The Effects of DayCare: A
Critical Review." Child Development49 (1978):929-949.
Bredekamp, Sue (Ed.). Developmentally AppropriatePractice.
Washington, DC: National Association for theEducation of Young
Children, 1984.
Clarke- Stewart, Alison and Greta Fein. "Early
ChildhoodPrograms." In M. Haith and J. Campos (Vol. Eds.),Handbook
of Child Psychology Vol. 2: Infancy andDevelopmental Psychobiology.
New York: Wiley, 1983.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, vol. 3, nos. 3 and
4.(Special Infant Day Care Issues.)
Phillips, Deborah. Quality in Child Care: What Does Re-search
Tell Us?Washington, DC: National Associationfor the Education of
Young Children, 1987.
Roupp, Richard, J. Travers, F. Glantz, and C. Coelen.Children at
the Center: Final Results of the National DayCare Study. Cambridge,
MA: Abt Associates, 1979.
U.S. Department