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