Academic performance among at-risk children: The role of developmentally appropriate practices

Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, No. 2, 167–184 (2000) ISSN: 0885-2006

© 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Academic Performance Among At-Risk Children: The Role of Developmentally Appropriate Practices Loreen R. Huffman Missouri Southern State College

Paul W. Speer Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey Livingston Campus, Piscataway, NJ

This research examined the effect of developmentally appropriate teaching practices on the academic achievement of kindergarten and first grade children attending urban schools. One hundred-thirteen mostly African American and Hispanic children participating in the Head Start/Public School Transition Project were tested with three subscales from the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement (Woodcock & Johnson, 1990). Developmentally appropriate practices (DAP) were assessed in 28 classrooms by using the Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs: Research Version (Abbott-Shim & Sibley, 1992). Based on scores from the Assessment Profile, classrooms were divided into two levels (lower DAP and moderate DAP). A 2 ⫻ 2 ⫻ 2 ⫻ 2 repeated measures MANOVA indicated significant main effects for grade and semester and significant two-way interactions for grade ⫻ semester and DAP level ⫻ semester. Sex was not a significant variable. The results indicate that achievement was significantly higher in the more developmentally appropriate classrooms for letter/ word identification and applied problems over time and suggests that developmentally appropriate practices can improve children’s achievement in urban settings.

Academic achievement and school adjustment of at-risk children are the focus of increasing concern. America’s expanding urban underclass represents a crisis both socially and economically (Wilson, 1987), leading to calls for early intervention strategies to address this crisis (Schorr, 1989). Longitudinal research on lowincome and at-risk children in the first to fourth grades demonstrates a pattern of Direct all correspondence to: Loreen R. Huffman, Department of Psychology, Missouri Southern State College, Joplin, Missouri 64804; Phone: (417) 625-9620; E-mail: [email protected].

167

168

Huffman and Speer

declining achievement, frequent school moves, and increasing grade retention (Reynolds & Bezruczko, 1993). African American children, especially boys, are at greater risk for underachievement because of poverty, father absence, and racial prejudice (Slaughter-Defoe, Nakagawa, Takanishi, & Johnson, 1990). Schools, as the locus of many early intervention programs for at-risk children (e.g., Frede & Barnett, 1992), are often conceptualized as settings that may be cultivated to support child development. According to Bronfenbrenner (1979, p. 845), child development is enhanced in environments where children can observe and participate in “ongoing patterns of progressively more complex activity” guided by persons “with whom the child has developed a positive emotional relationship” where children have “opportunity, resources, and encouragement to engage in the activities,” on their own. Accordingly, optimal learning should occur in contexts with “social regularities”—patterns of interaction in the classroom—marked by an active and individualized dynamic interaction, without criticism or ridicule (Linney & Seidman, 1989). The properties necessary for child development in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) scheme, and the pattern of individualized social interactions described by Linney and Seidman (1989), are characteristic of developmentally appropriate settings (cf., Howes, in press). Developmental approaches are theoretically supported by a Piagetian, or constructivist, model. According to Bredekamp (1993), developmentally appropriate practices (DAP) are anchored by the assumption that each child actively constructs reality and that learning is facilitated by opportunities for the child to engage his or her environment. Ideally, DAP classrooms are organized for individualized learning experiences, according to each child’s individual, developmental, and cultural characteristics. Teachers structure the classroom environment to facilitate the process of learning, rather than the product of, for example, a uniform art project. Children, in conjunction with a supportive teacher, choose many of their activities and engage materials in a hands-on fashion. Social interactions with teachers and peers are also used to facilitate learning, with positive guidance from teachers and small group activities with other children. DAP does not preclude large group, highly structured, or teacher-directed activities; however, the dominant social regularity is defined by consistent use of diverse, student-initiated activities (see Charlesworth, Hart, Burts & DeWolf, 1993).

RESEARCH ON DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICE A growing body of research supports the efficacy of developmentally appropriate practices to enhance learning. Studies supportive of DAP have found positive outcomes for children in academic, social, and behavioral domains. For example, DAP was found to be positively related to cognitive performance and school readiness in a sample of Head Start children (Bryant, Burchinal, Lau, & Sparling, 1994). Similarly, preschool children in classrooms where implementation of the developmentally appropriate High/Scope Preschool Curriculum (Hohmann, Ba-

Academic Performance

169

net, & Weikart, 1978) was adhered to, had, by the first grade, significantly greater cognitive skills (Frede, Austin, & Lindauer, 1993). Studies relating teaching practices to stress outcomes found significantly fewer stress behaviors in children in developmentally appropriate classrooms compared to less developmentally appropriate classrooms in preschool-aged children (Hart, Burts, Durland, Charlesworth, DeWolf, & Fleege, 1998) and kindergarten children (Burts, Hart, Charlesworth, Fleege, Mosley, & Thomasson, 1992). Likewise, Stipek, Feiler, Daniels and Milburn (1995) found that children in less developmentally appropriate classrooms had negative outcomes on several measures of motivation. Lastly, positive long-term effects of DAP are suggested by higher rates of high school graduation, fewer arrests and acts of misconduct, and higher monthly incomes among adults who had participated in the model High/Scope Perry Preschool Program (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1993, 1997). Despite the strong theoretical underpinnings of DAP, many questions concerning the suitability of this approach for young children, for at-risk children, and for children from varying cultural backgrounds exist. Moreover, most teachers do not provide this type of classroom context. The didactic or overly academic teaching strategies used in the upper grades are commonly reported in kindergarten and first grade (Bredekamp, 1993; Charlesworth, 1989; Hatch & Freeman, 1988; Walsh, 1989). For example, assessments of 103 kindergartens in North Carolina found that only 20% met even minimal standards for developmental appropriateness, although another 20% did approach this “ideal” (Bryant, Clifford, & Peisner; 1991). The kindergarten experience for most children, then, consists of much time with worksheets, rote learning, and didactic instruction. There is also support, both conceptual and empirical, for didactic or developmentally inappropriate approaches to instruction. Developmentally inappropriate practices (DIP) are defined by an emphasis on basic skills and highly structured, direct teaching approaches. From a conceptual perspective, DIP may better address the needs of economically disadvantaged children as well as those from diverse cultural backgrounds. Support for this position lies in the claim that the emphasis on basic skills and academic outcomes is responsive to values of low-income families (see Stipek & Byler, 1997), whereas DAP may be too influenced by developmental theory without an appreciation of historical, political, and cultural realities (Kessler & Swadener, 1992). Furthermore, educators have criticized the emphasis on active learning and individual needs in DAP, which may not reflect the values of, for example, some Native American cultures (Williams, 1994) or the traditional Taiwanese culture (Hsue & Aldridge, 1995). In addition to claims of cultural appropriateness, a basic skills instructional emphasis has empirical support for improving the basic skills of economically disadvantaged children (Gersten, Darch, & Gleason, 1988). This research is not conclusive, however, because developmentally inappropriate or didactic preschool environments have also been associated with negative outcomes in disadvantaged children, including relatively greater declines in school achievement by the fourth grade (Marcon, 1995) and poorer social adjustment in adolescence (Schweinhart, Weikart, & Larner, 1986). Examining the assertion that DAP is responsive to the needs of ethnically and economically

170

Huffman and Speer

marginalized populations, Hart, Burts, & Charlesworth (1997) reviewed research on academic performance in African-American children in DAP and DIP settings. They found that lower socioeconomic status (SES) and African American children gain as much academically in DAP classrooms as do White children. However, they fall behind their White counterparts in DIP classroom settings. Because they seem to prefer less structured activities (Huston, Carpenter, Atwater, & Johnson, 1986), boys in particular may be negatively affected by DIP, which could make it more difficult for them to learn in rigidly structured, developmentally inappropriate classrooms. Additionally, Marcon (1993, 1999) found that boys were detrimentally affected in academically oriented classrooms and were better supported in DAP classrooms (cf., Hart et al., 1998). The ambiguity of the educational benefits for DAP and DIP methods has led to a debate among proponents of each approach. The strength of this debate is spurred on partly because of the types of outcomes measured. When considering social and emotional effects, for example, the body of this research has linked DIP with negative social/emotional outcomes for children (Hart et al., 1997; Stipek, Feiler, Byler, Ryan, Milburn & Salmon, 1998). However, less clarity has been found with studies targeting academic outcomes. Although empirical evidence exists to support both DAP and DIP, an examination of academic outcomes reveals that these approaches differ by the type of academic outcome measured. For example, first grade children from more developmentally appropriate kindergartens were found to have higher grades in reading than did children from less developmentally appropriate kindergartens (Burts et al., 1993). Similarly, in a study of three different instructional approaches in preschool, Marcon (1999) found that child-initiated instructional methods generally had more positive academic outcomes than academically directed methods. Specifically, students in child-initiated, or DAP, classrooms performed better in receptive and expressive language skills compared to students in academic and blended (a mix of childinitiated and academic) classrooms, whereas children from academically directed classrooms performed better on written language skills than did children in child-initiated and blended classrooms. In contrast, Stipek et al. (19950 found that although there were costs with regard to children’s academic motivational factors, children from highly structured, basic skills preschool and kindergarten programs performed better on standardized letter/reading achievement tests than children from child-centered programs. However, these differences were not found on tests of math achievement. In a further exploration of academic achievement, Stipek et al. (1998) compared basic math and reading skills, as assessed by the Woodcock-Johnson Achievement Test (Woodcock & Johnson, 1989) among others, in DIP and DAP classrooms In preschool, children from DAP settings scored better in measures of both math and reading than did children from DIP settings. In the kindergarten year, however, the reverse was true, with DIP classrooms scoring higher on both tests. Furthermore, three classroom configurations were studied over time: two consecutive years of DAP, two consecutive years of academically oriented, and a mix from DAP to academic. A marginal difference (p ⫽ .10) was found for math, with children who moved from a DAP classroom to another DAP classroom over

Academic Performance

171

a 2-year period, scoring better than other transitional configurations. In contrast, children who moved from an academically oriented classroom to another academically oriented classroom scored significantly better on tests of reading than did children in the DAP-DAP configuration. When reviewing academic outcomes, little clarity about the relative strengths and weaknesses of these instructional approaches exists. This ambiguity may be due to differences in samples, methods, or measures. For example, in the three studies most relevant to the present work, the Stipek et al. (1995, 1998) samples were approximately 70% minority, and 40% of the sample was eligible for federal or state assistance, such as AFDC or free lunch, whereas the Marcon (1999) study was 95% minority, and 69% of the sample was eligible for low-income support programs. Methodologically, the studies differed. Marcon (1999) used children of one age, grouped according to the teaching practices used, the Stipek et al. (1995) study was cross-sectional, and the Stipek et al. (1998) study was pretest-posttest, with a subsample followed a year later at a third point in time. Whereas Stipek et al. (1995, 1998) measured academic outcomes with child assessments by using the Woodcock-Johnson and the Peabody Individual Achievement Test, Marcon (1999) used teacher ratings of child performance with the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. The current study sought to contribute to the literature by strengthening the research design with a targeted, at-risk population of children. Specifically, the study focused on achievement in children who were at greater risk for academic failure, that is, low-income, urban, minority kindergarten and first grade children. Given the claims of DIP proponents, research with an at-risk population was critical. Additionally, a pretest-posttest design was employed, and the WoodcockJohnson, a measure of basic skills, was used to access academic outcomes. Changes in test scores were examined in the fall and spring of the school year, in a sample of kindergarten and first grade boys and girls. Based on contradictory findings for academic outcomes in the previous research just cited, math and reading scores were obtained. To better clarify the influence of instructional approach on academic outcomes, math scores were obtained for calculations and applied problems and reading scores were obtained for letter-word identification and passage comprehension. Considering previous research (Marcon, 1999; Stipek et al., 1995, 1998), the disparate findings may relate to the age at which assessments are made and the nature of the assessments made at such young ages. Often assessments concern simple, rote tasks, but at times assessments require the active application of knowledge skills. Stipek et al. (1995) suggested that strong performance in developmental classrooms may be related to more applied knowledge, whereas strengths in didactic classrooms are demonstrated with measures requiring rote knowledge. Based on this hypothesis, it was expected in the present study that children in DIP-oriented classrooms would score better on simple, rote learning tasks (calculation, letter-word identification), and children in DAPoriented classrooms would score better on applied knowledge and real-world tasks (applied problems, passage comprehension). Because prior research showed differences between grade level (Stipek et al., 1998), comparisons between kindergarten and first grade children were included to explore possible develop-

172

Huffman and Speer

mental differences in the effect of DAP on academic performance by grade level. Because prior research showed sex differences (Marcon, 1993, 1999), child sex was examined in light of boys’ preferences for less structured activities (Huston et al., 1986) and their higher rates of stress in developmentally inappropriate settings (Burts et al., 1992). It was expected that boys would show poorer achievement in developmentally inappropriate classrooms.

METHOD Participants Participants were kindergarten and first grade children and their teachers from 13 schools participating in a Head Start/Public School Early Childhood Transition project. Data reported were collected as part of the Transition project, a national demonstration effort examining the effects of providing social and educational services to Head Start children as they transition from Head Start to kindergarten through third grade (Ramey & Ramey, 1994). The Transition research design included an experimental group in which participants received additional social and educational services and a control group, which provided no additional transition services. In this study, the experimental and control groups were determined by creating two groups matched for ethnicity and income (one with six schools and one with seven) and flipping a coin to designate experimental condition. All children attending Kindergarten and first grade classes in the experimental schools received enhanced social services, even though data were collected only for the participating Head Start children. Drawing from Head Start records, a sample of 225 families were recruited in sequential kindergarten years, resulting in two cohorts of children to be followed longitudinally from kindergarten to third grade with the Transition protocol of interviews, questionnaires, and assessments. Data in the larger project were collected from parents, teachers, school principals, and the children themselves, providing information on the child’s adjustment and academic achievement, as well as the quality of family life and the school context. The data reported here are from two cohorts of children, one in kindergarten and the other in first grade during the same school year. Of the 58 kindergarten and first grade classrooms in the 13 participating schools, 26 had only one or two participating children and were not assessed. Of the 32 classrooms with three or more participating children, 28 (16 kindergarten and 12 first grade classes) were assessed by using the Assessment Profile (Abbott-Shim & Sibley, 1992). Some classrooms were not assessed due to teacher absence (3) and teacher refusal (1). Of 140 participating children in the 28 observed classrooms, 1131 were tested in both fall and spring: 66 were in kindergarten, and 47 were in first grade classrooms. Most children were from low-income families, with 71% of families reporting earnings of less than $12,000 per year, and 82% of the sample eligible for federal or state assistance, such as AFDC or free lunch. However, 6% reported earning more than $24,000 per year. Most children were African American (48

Academic Performance Table 1.

173

Sex and Ethnicity of Sample by Grade and DAP Level Kindergarten Total Sample

# Classrooms # Children Sex Girls Boys Ethnicity African American Hispanic Biracial White

First Grade

Low DAP

Moderate DAP

Low DAP

Moderate DAP

8 45

6 21

5 21

9 26

53 (47%) 60 (53%)

24 21

11 10

5 16

13 13

86 (76%) 20 (18%) 6 (5%) 1 (.8%)

40

9 12

19 2

18 6 1 1

28 113

5

boys, 38 girls), with fewer Hispanics (9 boys, 11 girls), 6 children of mixed race, and 1 White child. Demographic information is presented in Table 1. Classroom Assessments of Developmental Appropriateness The Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs: Research Version (Abbott-Shim & Sibley, 1992) is an observational tool that examines the structure and teaching process of the classroom environment. It consists of five subscales: learning environment (quality of learning materials and space); scheduling (evidence of planning and varied classroom activities); curriculum (variety of teaching techniques, evidence of multicultural sensitivity, individualized and childoriented curriculum); interacting (positive interaction, responsivity, positive management of behavior); and individualizing (use of child assessments and provisions for special needs). The 75 items on the Assessment Profile are scored on a yes/no basis according to whether they characterize the individual classroom during the time observed. For example, an item regarding whether “there are at least 3 types of science material available to children” would be scored as a yes or no depending on the 1) number of different materials present and 2) whether these were clearly accessible to children. Items produce a quantitative score for each subscale that indicates the extent to which the context facilitates learning and development. Scaled scores, ranging from 1 to 99, are derived through item response theory analyses, described in more detail by Abbott-Shim, Neel, & Sibley (1993). The necessary analyses were conducted by Quality Assist, Inc. (Atlanta, GA), which provided the scaled scores for each of the five subscales. The content validity of the Assessment Profile as a measure of developmentally appropriate practices has been confirmed through several procedures (AbbottShim et al., 1993). Items have been reviewed by experts in early childhood and have also been cross-referenced with the professional standards for DAP established by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). All items on the Assessment Profile were in accordance with the

174

Huffman and Speer

Table 2.

Items from the Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs: Research Version

Subscale

Example Item

Learning environment

At least three different small muscle/manipulative materials are accessible to children (such as board games, jigsaw or floor puzzles, scissors, sequence beads . . .). Written time schedule is posted. (Written schedule reflects variety of activities, including at least 1 hour, cumulatively, for children to choose and guide their own activities). Activities that involve children of differing skill levels are modified to accomodate variation within the group. Teacher engages children in laughter and smiling through verbal exchanges and/or playful games and activities. A minimum of two developmental assessments for each child are completed annually.

Scheduling

Curriculum Interacting Individualizing

NAEYC guidelines. Additionally, the Assessment Profile subscales correspond with items from the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (Harms & Clifford, 1980). Examples of items from the Assessment Profile are presented in Table 2. Two researchers (L. Huffman and C. Esposito), trained by the authors of the Assessment Profile (Abbott-Shim & Sibley, 1992), to a reliability of at least 80% agreement, administered the Assessment Profile. We supervised but did not administer the children’s assessments and were unaware of the academic performance of participating children in the class. Classroom observations were conducted over several weeks in the spring of the school year. Each classroom was observed for three separate 20-min periods to increase the likelihood of getting a representative sample of teaching practices. Academic Assessments The Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised (Woodcock & Johnson, 1990) was administered individually by trained research assistants unfamiliar with the DAP status of children’s classrooms. Kindergarten and first grade children were tested in the fall and spring of the same academic year, with fall testing conducted in September and October and spring testing in April and May to allow at least 6 months of time to elapse between assessments. Standardized tests have been criticized as being developmentally inappropriate measures of ability (Bredekamp, 1987) and, when administered in a group setting, have been found to increase stress behaviors in kindergarten students (Fleege, Charlesworth, Burts, & Hart, 1992). To address some of these concerns, young adults experienced with child assessments tested the children individually, and children were given a sticker as a prize. Additionally, Spanish-speaking children were administered tests in Spanish, with bilingual children communicated to in either or both languages.

Academic Performance

175

Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised The Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised (Woodcock & Johnson, 1990) are individually administered assessments of achievement and cognitive abilities. Four subscales were administered to children: two assessing reading skills (letter-word identification and passage comprehension) and two assessing mathematics skills (calculation and applied problems). Because few kindergarten and first grade children were reading, the passage comprehension data had floor effects, and therefore, this measure was not included in the analyses. The letter-word identification assessed symbolic learning (matching of a symbol to a picture) and identification of letters and words. The mathematics tests included calculation, which assessed the child’s ability to do mathematical calculations, from the basic operations of addition and subtraction to more advanced mathematics. Applied problems assessed the ability to use simple counting and calculations to solve practical problems. These materials were all in English, but were presented in Spanish when necessary.

RESULTS Because the Transition intervention included the goal of increasing the use of DAP used by participating teachers, the school administration sponsored a 3-day teacher workshop on developmental theory and teaching practices to Transition teachers and any others who were interested. The workshop was conducted early in the project before the classroom observations were conducted. To examine the possible differences in the use of developmental practices between the original experimental and control teachers, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. This analysis, examining differences between Transition teachers and control teachers in the use of DAP, was not significant, indicating no apparent effects from this workshop. This absence of apparent effect corresponds to research on the efficacy of training seminars on practice (Haupt, Larsen, Robinson, & Hart, 1995) and can be explained in this case by 1) a lack of follow-up training or monitoring, 2) minimal financial or material support for developmental practices, and 3) continuing formal expectations by school administrators for DIP, such as rigid scheduling and worksheet assignments. Subsequently, the original experimental and control categories for teachers were dropped from the following analyses. To examine the possible effects of differences in classroom contexts, the 28 classrooms were divided into two groups, reflecting the level of DAP indicated by the Assessment Profile scores. The choice of two levels was based on the bimodal patterning of the Assessment Profile scores; a cluster of low scores and a cluster of higher scores anchored the distribution, with some middle scores divided as low or high at the median. Although Assessment Profile scaling ranges from 1 to 99, the low-DAP level’s actual scores ranged from 28 to 35, whereas the higher-DAP level’s actual scores ranged from 38 to 48. It is likely that the “higher” DAP classrooms fell short of the idealized developmentally appropriate classroom and are more accurately described at a “moderate” level of developmental appropriateness. However, the lower scoring classrooms did rely more

176 Table 3.

Huffman and Speer Mean Scores of Profile Subscales for Classrooms by Grade and DAP Level Kindergarten

Subscale Learning environment Scheduling Curriculum Interaction Individualizing Mean

n M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

First Grade

Both Grades

Low DAP

Moderate DAP

Low DAP

Moderate DAP

Low DAP

Moderate DAP

8 36.55 7.70 32.77 5.45 30.09 3.41 34.33 6.36 33.62 7.27 33.47 3.30

6 47.08 4.20 42.84 5.36 43.86 4.95 41.67 4.60 43.22 5.58 43.73 2.73

5 33.24 3.49 32.48 2.34 30.95 4.92 31.15 6.82 35.81 2.24 32.73 2.32

9 39.41 7.12 36.69 4.14 36.62 1.18 45.02 1.39 43.49 4.40 40.25 1.15

14 35.19 6.29 32.68 4.26 30.57 3.97 32.96 6.51 34.63 6.29 33.22 2.85

14 44.21 7.15 38.90 5.36 39.20 4.62 43.85 3.24 43.44 4.64 41.51 2.47

F

p

— 17.9

— ⬍.001

10.4

⬍.01

23.1

⬍.001

32.6

⬍.001

16.5

⬍.001

68.6

⬍.001

heavily on large group activities, didactic and formalized instruction, negative evaluation, and identical work activities. The moderate-scoring teachers used some hands-on activities, varied their instructional techniques, and were less punitive than were the low-DAP teachers. Subscale scores for these two groups are presented with a breakdown by grade in Table 3. Kindergarten and first grade teachers in this sample were not significantly different in their use of developmental practices. The average of the five Assessment Profile scores ranged from 28 to 48 in the 13 kindergarten classrooms and from 31 to 42 in the 15 first grade classrooms. The mean scores for kindergarten and first grade were very close, at 37.4 and 37.2, respectively. Academic Performance To examine whether children in the more developmentally appropriate classrooms performed better on academic tests than did those in less developmentally appropriate classrooms, as moderated by child sex, grade, and semester, a 2 (grade) ⫻ 2 (DAP level) ⫻ 2 (child sex) ⫻ 2 (semester) repeated measures MANOVA was conducted. Grade (kindergarten, first grade), DAP level (low, moderate), and child sex (boy, girl) were the between-subjects factors, and semester (fall [pretest] and spring [posttest]) was the within-subjects factor. Four-way interactions were suppressed in the analysis because of inadequate cell sizes. Dependent variables were the Woodcock-Johnson letter-word identification scores (reading) and calculation and applied problems (math; see Table 4). As noted earlier, the Woodcock-Johnson passage comprehension scores were dropped because of floor effects. Although the main effects of child sex and DAP level were not found to be

Academic Performance Table 4.

Test Letter-word Calculation Applied problems

Note

177

Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges for Fall and Spring Woodcock-Johnson Assessments Semester

M

SD

Actual Range (Possible Range)a

Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring

88.09 97.64 96.59 104.63 93.03 105.45

10.8 11.8 13.1 15.9 13.5 15.8

67–127 (20–179) 71–141 (21–175) 72–129 (57–187) 71–160 (33–187) 62–128 (0–191) 61–140 (1–196)

a

Possible range is based on age range of students at time of testing.

significant in the MANOVA, a significant main effect for grade [F(3,102) ⫽ 3.87; p ⬍ .01] and semester [F(3,102) ⫽ 48.07; p ⬍ .001] was found. Subsequent univariate tests indicated that first grade children scored higher than kindergarten children on each of the tests, and children scored higher in the spring semester than in the fall semester on each of the tests (see Table 5). These findings were qualified by two significant multivariate two-way interactions for grade with semester [F(3,102) ⫽ 4.13; p ⬍ .01] and DAP level with semester [F(3,102) ⫽ 3.24; p ⬍ .05]. Subsequent univariate analyses for grade Table 5.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Univariate Tests for Main Effects of Grade and Semester

Dependant Variable

Main Effect

Academic Test

Semester

Letter-Word Calculation Applied Problems Academic Test Letter-Word Calculation Applied Problems Note *p ⫽ .05; **p ⫽ .01; ***p ⫽ .001.

Univariate Results M

SD

Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring

88.4 98.7 98.8 105.5 93.9 106.4

11.9 12.8 13.4 17.8 13.3 17.4

Kindergarten First Grade Kindergarten First Grade Kindergarten First Grade

91.1 96.0 99.2 105.1 95.7 104.5

10.8 10.9 12.4 12.6 13.3 13.4

Univariate F (1,104) 93.9*** 14.5*** 78.5***

5.7* 6.2** 11.7***

178

Huffman and Speer Table 6.

Means, Standard Deviations and Univariate Tests for Two-Way Interactions of Grade ⴛ Semester and DAP ⴛ Semester

Dependent Variable

Two-Way Interaction

Academic Test Grade ⴛ Semester Letter-word

Calculation

Applied problems

DAP ⴛ Semester Letter-word

Calculation

Applied problems

Univariate Results M

SD

Kindergarten fall Kindergarten spring 1st grade fall 1st grade spring Kindergarten fall Kindergarten spring 1st grade fall 1st grade spring Kindergarten fall Kindergarten spring 1st grade fall 1st grade spring

86.1 96.1 90.6 101.3 93.6 104.7 104.0 106.2 87.6 103.9 100.1 108.8

11.6 12.5 11.8 12.7 13.2 17.6 13.3 17.6 13.1 16.9 13.2 17.3

Low DAP Fall Low DAP spring Moderate DAP fall Moderate DAP spring Low DAP fall Low DAP spring Moderate DAP fall Moderate DAP spring Low DAP fall Low DAP spring Moderate DAP fall Moderate DAP spring

89.1 96.9 87.7 100.4 98.6 102.4 98.9 108.5 94.2 103.6 93.5 109.1

12.8 13.7 10.9 11.7 14.5 19.1 12.3 16.2 14.4 18.8 12.2 15.9

Univariate F (1,104) .1, N.S.

6.6***

7.3***

5.4*

2.8, N.S.

4.8*

Notes *p ⫽ .05; ***p ⫽ .001.

with semester indicated significance for math calculation [F(1,104) ⫽ 6.56; p ⬍ .01] and applied problems [F(1,104) ⫽ 7.30; p ⬍ .01], but not for letter/word identification [F(1,104) ⫽ 0.07; N.S.] (see Table 6). Tests of simple effects revealed that children in the kindergarten year performed significantly better in the spring semester on math calculation (t ⫽ 4.70; p ⬍ .001), and children in the kindergarten year performed significantly better in the spring semester on applied problems (t ⫽ 7.55; p ⬍ .001). This was not the case for first grade classrooms (t ⫽ 1.84; p ⬎ N.S. and t ⫽ 3.24; p ⬍ .02, respectively). In exploring the two-way interaction of DAP level with semester, univariate analyses indicated significance for letter-word identification [F(1,104) ⫽ 5.43; p ⬍ .05] and applied problems [F(1,104) ⫽ 4.78; p ⬍ .05], but not for math

Academic Performance

179

calculations [F(1,104) ⫽ 2.78; N.S.]. Tests of simple effects revealed that children in moderate DAP classrooms performed significantly higher in the spring semester on letter-word identification (t ⫽ 7.87; p ⬍ .001) and significantly higher in the spring semester on applied problems (t ⫽ 6.79; p ⬍ .001). This was not the case for low DAP classrooms (t ⫽ 2.03; N.S. and t ⫽ 3.63; p ⬍ .01, respectively).

DISCUSSION The results in the present study add to the growing body of evidence indicating the benefits of a developmental approach (e.g., Hart et al., 1997; Marcon, 1999). Previous research has found evidence that developmentally appropriate contexts facilitate positive adjustment (Burts et al., 1992; Schweinhart et al., 1986), but evidence of improved performance on standardized tests has been inconclusive. Recent studies examining classroom instructional approaches on academic performance have been mixed. For example, although Stipek et al. (1995) found that children in didactic programs performed better on reading achievement, Stipek et al. (1998) found that math and reading skills were better in developmental classrooms during the preschool year, but better in the didactic classrooms in the kindergarten year. A subsample in Stipek’s (1998) study followed over 2 years revealed that reading skills were significantly better for students in didactic classrooms for two consecutive years than for students in developmental classrooms for 2 years. In contrast, math skills were slightly better (though not significantly) for students in developmental classrooms for two consecutive years compared to those in didactic classrooms over the same time period. Marcon (1999) found that children were better at receptive and expressive language in child-initiated classrooms, but children in academically directed classrooms were better at written language. As hypothesized, one possible conclusion from these studies is that developmental classrooms represent more applied knowledge, whereas didactic classrooms emphasize rote knowledge. Findings in the present study, however, indicated partial support for both rote and applied knowledge in the more developmental classrooms. Although no differences were obtained for math calculation, letter-word recognition (drawing on rote learning) and applied problems (drawing on applied knowledge skills) were significantly better in the moderate DAP classrooms. More important, two design characteristics of this study contribute to the uniqueness of these findings to the early education literature. First, the study sample was drawn from a population at exceptional risk for academic underachievement. In comparison to the Stipek (1998) studies, which were approximately 70% minority with 40% of the sample eligible for federal or state assistance, the Marcon (1999) study, which was 95% minority with 69% of the sample eligible for low-income support programs, the sample for this study was 99% minority with 82% of children eligible for federal or state assistance. Because great effort in educational policy is expended on the chronic academic failure of the urban “underclass,” this study’s sample makes our findings particularly important to the underclass issue. Second, the study incorporated a pretest-

180

Huffman and Speer

posttest design. Because of expense, mobility of samples, and time of effort, most studies comparing DAP and DIP instruction have been cross-sectional (an exception is Stipek et al., 1998). In contrast, this study captured changes in academic performance over the course of an academic year. The combination of these design characteristics with a focus on academic rather than social criterion make this study unique in the early childhood field. Inasmuch as academic tests may be said to represent intellectual development, these findings support DAP advocates who argue that DIP inhibits intellectual development. The didactic, or DIP, approach places emphasis on simple, rote learning rather than on a depth of understanding or an ability to apply knowledge to real-world tasks (Stipek et al., 1995). Although this study is unique, it must be considered in the context of disparate findings about instructional approaches and academic outcomes. As stated earlier, unlike previous studies linking instructional approaches and academic outcomes (Burts et al., 1993; Marcon, 1993, 1999; Stipek et al., 1998), this study is unique in combining a low-income, minority sample, with a repeated-measures design and basic skills assessments in the kindergarten and first grade years. Although the superior performance of children in the moderate DAP classrooms in applied math problems was expected, children from the moderate DAP classrooms also outperformed children from low DAP classrooms in letter-word identification (as assessed by the Woodcock-Johnson scales). These results lend support to the use of developmental approaches for the learning of basic skills. Alternatively, other classroom variables, such as quality of classroom materials and teacher enthusiasm, could increase performance regardless of classroom approaches. As noted by Stipek et al. (1998), there is a need to study programs with a basic skills emphasis in a more nurturing, child-centered environment. Those who promote didactic instruction often claim that an emphasis on academic achievement in early education comports with the values of low-income and minority families (Gersten, Darch, & Gleason, 1988; Kessler & Swadener, 1992). Adherents to DAP argue that developmentally appropriate teaching practices explicitly address the diverse skills, personalities, and cultural backgrounds of children and that DAP would enhance the ability of schools to educate and manage the behaviors of children of varying contexts and capacities. Regardless of the instructional approach best suited for at-risk, minority populations, surveys and observations of typical public school classrooms frequently show that teaching practices consist of large group activities, didactic instruction, negative evaluation, and identical work activities (Bredekamp, 1993; Bryant et al., 1991). The findings from this study suggest that the developmentally inappropriate contexts typical of public school classrooms may contribute to lower academic achievement, particularly among at-risk populations. The expectation for sex differences in achievement according to level of developmental appropriateness was not supported. It is possible that problems for boys in low-DAP classrooms could be manifested in other domains. An examination of teachers’ positive and negative comments on the permanent records of these children indicated that teachers in the low-DAP group made significantly more negative and fewer positive comments about boys than they did about girls

Academic Performance

181

(Fox & Huffman, 1995). It is also possible that boys’ negative evaluations do not correspond to academic deficits or that deficits from a developmentally inappropriate environment appear later in school. Longitudinal data will be needed to examine this further. Several limitations to this study should be considered. One potential limitation was the clustering of classrooms into “moderate” and “low” DAP scores based on the Assessment Profile. Although the moderate and low groups were significantly different from each other, scores at the cutoff were not substantially different. More important, the “moderate” DAP classrooms may only be weak examples of developmental appropriateness, thus limiting our ability to draw clear conclusions in theory or practice relevant to developmental methods. Also related, positive academic results in “moderate” DAP classrooms may have less to do with an effect of DAP than with an absence of the negative consequences of DIP on academic performance. It is possible that the inappropriate classrooms, which tended to be either highly regimented or highly disordered, limited children’s achievement in ways that the moderately developmentally appropriate classrooms did not. A second limitation was the use of a set of standardized, basic skills tests (Woodcock-Johnson) to assess the results of DAP. Despite the apparent contradiction of using a basic skills assessment to study the efficacy of DAP, the assessment was valuable because it allowed a comparison of the relative efficacy of these differing instructional approaches. It may be argued that our use of a basic skills assessment was likely to have underestimated the full effects of DAP. However, one of the subscales, the applied problems subscale, may better approximate the problem-solving approach that would be developed through actively constructed, hand-on learning experiences characteristic of DAP. Furthermore, policy makers may be more responsive to tests of academic achievement than to developmentally appropriate strategies of assessment. So, although these measures are not best at capturing the full effects of DAP, they provide a relative assessment of the efficacy of different instructional approaches. Given these limitations, future research should focus on assessing both classroom contexts and academic performance. The mechanisms through which classroom instructional practices impact children’s learning should be explored. Conceptually, the limits on exploration, individual initiative, and peer interaction associated with DIP may create a context in which classroom “social regularities” limit the involvement and recognition of the individual child, resulting in “isolation” (Linney & Seidman, 1989) or “alienation” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Isolation and alienation should be evident in children’s emotional behavior. Observations of quality day care settings have shown that positive affect for children is associated with a high degree of teacher involvement with children, not the quality of activities or materials in the day care setting (Hestenes, Kontos, & Bryan, 1993). This is consistent with a large body of evidence that links positive social and emotional outcomes for children to developmentally appropriate settings (Hart et al., 1997). Regardless of whether emotional well-being is the most important goal of school, it is probably an important indicator of the optimal learning environment and may well facilitate the learning experience. Given this importance, methods of assessing classroom settings will remain critical to future research.

182

Huffman and Speer

Related to this, methods of assessing academic performance are also critical. A range of methods to access performance would be optimal and scrutiny of performance over time will be an important contribution to the early education literature. Although longitudinal data regarding the characteristics of classroom contexts promoting optimal learning are greatly needed, few children could be followed longitudinally with the data presented here. A small group (25) of the first grade children had been in a kindergarten classroom assessed on DAP for this study. Eleven of these children were enrolled in a low DAP classroom in kindergarten and first grade, and two children were enrolled in a moderate DAP classroom for both years. The two children experiencing moderate DAP classrooms in kindergarten and first grade compared to the 11 children experiencing developmentally inappropriate classrooms their first 2 years of school, averaged gains of 17 points (vs. 6.8 points) in reading and 7.25 points (vs. 5.0 points) on math in the first grade. Clearly, it would be highly speculative to conclude that a few children benefited relatively more from the consistent provision of a more developmentally appropriate classroom, and the possible longitudinal impact of DAP awaits an adequate sample of children experiencing developmental teaching practices over a period of time.

CONCLUSION We found that, over the course of one school year, kindergarten and first grade children from an impoverished urban setting performed significantly better on tests of letter-word identification and applied problems in more developmentally appropriate classrooms than did children in less appropriate classrooms. The students in this sample were low-income, minority children attending an urban district and were presumably at greater risk for academic underachievement. These results indicate that, to the extent that test scores reflect learning, these at-risk children learned more over the course of a year in classrooms rated as more developmentally appropriate. This research has implications for the design of interventions for children at-risk and offers evidence that optimizing the quality of the learning context with methods grounded in knowledge of child development can increase children’s academic achievement.

NOTES 1.

Twenty-seven children were not included in the final sample because they moved out of the participating classrooms. Many of these children were followed and evaluated for the larger transition study, but were not included in this research because they were not students in the assessed classrooms for the entire school year.

REFERENCES Abbott-Shim, M., Neel, J. H., & Sibley, A. (1993). Development and validation of the assessment profile: Research version. Poster presented to the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA. Abbott-Shim, M., & Sibley, A. (1992). Assessment profile for early childhood programs: Research version. Atlanta, GA: Quality Assist.

Academic Performance

183

Bredekamp, S. (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Bredekamp, S. (1993). The relationship between early childhood education and early childhood special education: Healthy marriage or family feud? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13, 258 –273. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American Psychologist, 34, 844 – 850. Bryant, D. M., Burchinal, M., Lau, L. B., & Sparling, J. J. (1994). Family and classroom correlates of Head Start’s developmental outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 289 –309. Bryant, D. M., Clifford, R. M., & Peisner, E. S. (1991). Best practices for beginners: Developmental appropriateness in kindergarten. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 783– 803. Burts, D. C., Hart, C. H., Charlesworth, R., DeWolf, D. M., Ray, J., Manuel, K., & Fleege, P. O. (1993). Developmental appropriateness of kindergarten programs and academic outcomes in first grade. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 8, 23–31. Burts, D. C., Hart, C. H., Charlesworth, R., Fleege, P. O., Mosley, J., & Thomasson, R. H. (1992). Observed activities and stress behaviors of children in developmentally appropriate and inappropriate kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 297–318. Charlesworth, R. (1989). Behind before they start: How to deal with the risk of kindergarten “failure.” Young Children, 44, 5–14. Charlesworth, R., Hart, C. H., Burts, D.C., & DeWolf, M. (1993). The LSU Studies: Building a research base for developmentally appropriate practice. In S. Reifel (Ed.), Perspectives in developmentally appropriate practice. Advances in early education and day care, Vol. 5 (pp. 3–28). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Fleege, P. O., Charlesworth, R., Burts, D. C., & Hart, C. H. (1992). Stress begins in kindergarten: A look at behavior during standardized testing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 7, 20 –26. Fox, T., & Huffman, L. R. (1995, June). Less developmentally appropriate teachers have difficulty with boys: Evidence from permanent records. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, New York, NY. Frede, E., Austin, A., & Lindauer, S. (1993). Relationship of preschool teacher practices to skills in first grade. In S. Reifel (Ed.), Perspectives in developmentally appropriate practice. Advances in early education and day care, Vol. 5. (pp. 95–111). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Frede, E., & Barnett, W. S. (1992). Developmentally appropriate public school preschool: A study of implementation of the High/Scope curriculum and its effects on disadvantaged children’s skills at first grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 483– 499. Gersten, R., Darch, C., & Gleason, M. (1988). Effectiveness of a direct instruction academic kindergarten for low-income students. The Elementary School Journal, 89, 227–240. Harms, T., & Clifford, R. (1980). The Early Childhood Rating Scale. New York: Teacher’s College Press. Hart, C. H., Burts, D. C., & Charlesworth, R. (1997). Integrated developmentally appropriate curriculum: From theory and research to practice. In C. H. Hart, D. C. Burts, & R. Charlesworth (Eds.), Integrated curriculum and developmentally appropriate practice: Birth to age 8. New York: State University of New York Press. 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. Haupt, J. H., Larsen, J. M., Robinson, C. C., & Hart, C. H. (1995). The impact of DAP inservice training on the beliefs and practices of kindergarten teachers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 16, 12–18. Hatch, J. A., & Freeman, E. B. (1988). Kindergarten philosophies and practices: Perspectives of teachers, principals, and supervisors. Early Education Research Quarterly, 3, 151–166. Hestenes, L. L., Kontos, S., & Bryan, Y. (1993). Children’s emotional expression in child care centers varying in quality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 295–307.

184

Huffman and Speer

Hohmann, M., Banet, B., & Weikart, D. (1978). Young children in action. Ypsilanti, MI: High/ Scope. Howes, C. (In press). Social-emotional classroom climate in child care, child-teacher relationships and children’s second grade peer relations. Social Development. Hsue, Y., & Aldridge, J. (1995). Developmentally appropriate practice and traditional Taiwanese culture. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 22, 320 –323. Huston, A. C., Carpenter, C. J., Atwater, J. B., & Johnson, L. M. (1986). Gender, adult structuring of activities, and social behavior in middle childhood. Child Development, 57, 1200 –1209. Kessler, S., & Swadener, B. B. (Eds.). (1992). Reconceptualizing the early childhood curriculum: Beginning the dialogue. New York: Teacher’s College Press. Linney, J. A., & Seidman, E. (1989). The future of schooling. American Psychologist, 44, 336 –340. Marcon, R. (1993). Socioemotional versus academic emphasis: Impact on kindergartners’ development and achievement. Early Child Development and Care, 96, 81–91. Marcon, R. (1995, April). Differential effects of preschool models on inner-city children: The “Class of 2000” transitions from third to fourth grade. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN. Marcon, R. (1999). Differential impact of preschool models on development and early learning of inner-city children: A three-cohort study. Developmental Psychology, 35, 358 –375. Ramey, C., & Ramey, S. (1994). The transition to school: Why the first few years matter for a lifetime. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 194 –199. Reynolds, A. J., & Bezruczko, N. (1993). School adjustment of children at risk through fourth grade. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 457– 480. Schorr, E. B. (1989). Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage. New York: Anchor Books. Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1993). Success by empowerment: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through age 27. Young Children, November, 54 –58. Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1997). The High/Scope preschool curriculum comparison study through age 23. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 117–143. Schweinhart, L. J., Weikart, D. P., & Larner, B. (1986). Consequences of three preschool curriculum models through age 15. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, 15– 45. Slaughter-Defoe, D. T., Nakagawa, K., Takanishi, R., & Johnson, D. J. (1990). Toward cultural/ ecological perspectives on schooling and achievement in African- and Asian-American children. Child Development, 61, 363–383. 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. Stipek, D. J., & Byler, P. (1997). Early childhood education teachers: Do they practice what they preach? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 305–325. Stipek, D. J., Feiler, R., Byler, P., Ryan, R., Milburn, S., & Salmon J. M. (1998). Good beginnings: What difference does the program make in preparing young children for school? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 41– 66. Walsh, D. (1989). Changes in kindergarten: Why here? Why now? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4, 377–391. Williams, L. R. (1994). Developmentally appropriate practice and cultural values: A case in point. In B. L. Mallory & R. S. New (Eds.), Diversity and developmentally appropriate practices: Challenges for early childhood education (pp. 155–165). New York: Teacher’s College Press. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1990). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational BatteryRevised. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.