ON-LINE ISSUES

V.6 N.1, November 2000

Where does the developmentally appropriate practice formulated by the National Association for the Education of Young Children fit in the broader context of curriculum theory?

by Zoobi Waqar
zoobi@interchange.ubc.ca

Centre for the Study of Curriculum and Instruction
University of British Columbia

The purpose of this paper is to explore the philosophical and theoretical aspects of developmentally appropriate practices (DAP) and examine DAP from the perspective of curriculum theory. By providing analyses of Dewey (1902/1956a, 1938/1963, 1964, 1934/1964c, 1971), Tyler (1949), and Eisner's (1985) orientations to Curriculum, I will discuss DAP guidelines to bring forward whether DAP is consistent with or in conflict with the above mentioned curriculum theorists. This article will synthesize the primary differences between curriculum theory and developmentally appropriate practices.

One of the major purposes of schooling in any society is to socialize the young into the dominant culture, that is, to teach the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes that will enable individuals as adults to become productive members of society. The literature on early childhood curriculum reveals that for whatever reasons childcare settings till 1987 frequently used traditional school format as their structure. Why the school was adopted as the model format for many early childhood settings is unclear, and it may well have unreflectively, simply because other possibilities were not obvious and school was a model for the social world of children and adults. In contrast, curriculum is a word that evokes many images in the field of early childhood education. Early childhood educators, administrators and parents think curriculum has a powerful association with the whole child. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) is North America's largest professional organization of early childhood educators exclusively focused on the educational and developmental needs of young children. My interest in this debate stems in part from my experiences as a teacher and supervisor of early childhood educational (ECE) programs in three different counties (Canada, 1996-2000; England, 1992-1993; Pakistan, 1985-1992, 1994-1995).

The main objective of this paper is to provide readers the similarities and differences between DAP and curriculum theory in order to understand the rationale for providing early childhood services that meet the needs of children. And to consider how the comparison makes a contribution to thinking about education and practice in ECE classrooms. Therefore, this paper explicates the salient features of DAP and views of curriculum discussed by three curriculum theorists such as Dewey (1902/1956a, 1938/1963, 1964, 1934/1964c, 1971), Tyler (1949) and Eisner (1985) providing valuable insights, whether DAP is consistent with or in conflict with the curriculum theorists.

Developmental perspective on early childhood education

In response to the increasing pressure by the traditional school system to begin formal academic skill training at earlier ages, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), after extensive consultations with thousands of early childhood practitioners, issued a position paper entitled, Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children From Birth Through Age Eight (Bredekamp, 1987). The position paper on developmentally appropriate practice, seeks to highlight practices drawn from developmental theory that are appropriate to the age of the child as well as being responsive to a child's individual needs (Bredekamp, 1987). Developmentally appropriate practice refers to applying child development knowledge to making thoughtful and appropriate decisions about early childhood program practices. Developmentally appropriate practice "is not a curriculum, rather, it is a framework, a philosophy, or an approach to working with young children" (Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992, p. 4).

The purpose of DAP document is to guide teachers and supervisors of young children to think about a developmentally appropriate practices framework in their daily work with children and to use it as a tool for analyzing and conceptualizing appropriate curriculum for individuals and groups of children. The members of NAEYC believe that curriculum and assessment should be planned based on the best knowledge of theory and research about how children develop and learn. The salient feature of developmentally appropriate practice in the statement prescribed by NAEYC is that the curriculum should be child-initiated, child-directed and teacher supported so learning occurs primarily through play, projects and learning centers that are consistent with children's current interests and ideas. The DAP guidelines place great importance on curriculum, adult-child interactions, and relations between home and school. Direct manipulation of objects is central to this model. Teachers are to guide children's involvement in projects and enrich learning experiences by extending children's ideas, responding to their questions, and challenging their thinking. Children's play is a primary vehicle for cognitive, physical, emotional and social development.

All educators have a belief system, whether explicit or implicit, about how children learn and what they should be learning that guides and influences their practice. Theories are useful because they help teachers understand what they do and explain why something happens. For example, from a developmental perspective, the aim of education is to produce "creative, inventive discoveries to form minds which can be critical, can verify, and not accept everything that is offered" (Piaget, 1964, cited in Elkind, 1989, p. 115). The advocates for this developmental approach argue that the way to do this is to create learning environments that are developmentally appropriate. I agree with many early childhood professionals that the theories of learning and development of Piaget (1952, 1962), and Vygotsky (1978) inform the position statement of DAP. For example, Piaget's emphasis on the invariance of concept acquisition and his explanations of how children interact with the environment to construct their own understanding of the world proved enormously influential in helping early childhood educators to implement and defend a child-centered, activity-based early childhood curriculum. On the other hand, Vygotsky (1978) emphasized that the child's concept development can be described in stages, but the children also operate in a "zone of proximal development." Vygotsky (1978) used the term, "zone of proximal development," to describe the level of development where the child can function with the assistance of adults or more capable peers, leading to the level where the child is able to function independently. A teacher of young children, as advocated by Piaget (1972) and Vygotsky (1978), is like a guide or facilitator. Seen from this perspective, the role of teachers is to support children's development, in terms of their potential. Interactions between children and their teachers provide a powerful context for learning and development. Specifically, teacher-child interactions in ECE are important to my discussion because, teachers who engage with warmth and responsive interactions with children are more likely to develop nurturing relationships, which are essential to children's security. Children who have a more secure relationship with their teacher are, in turn, more likely to explore their environment and therefore, have more opportunities to learn. Thus, Piaget (1972) and Vygotsky (1978) emphasized that social interaction is not only necessary for intellectual development, but it is also necessary for development of social competence and self-esteem. A number of studies have reported that children who have less directive, less detached teachers, experience more positive interactions, are more considerate and sociable (Burt et. al., 1992). Studies relating teaching practices to stress outcomes found significantly fewer stress behaviors in children in developmentally appropriate classrooms (Hart et al., 1998). Young children in DAP programs seem more confident in their own cognitive skills. Although of critical importance, these findings do not provide much information about the nature and complexity of teacher-child interactions.

Teaching young children is a complex activity and requires teachers to make many decisions about the appropriate ways to respond. Specially, in a place like Canada where children in schools represent different ethnic backgrounds, it has become a pertinent issue. The proponents of DAP have not included the cultural perspective and do not address the problems faced by minority children (e.g., Block, 1992; Jipson, 1991; Kessler & Swadner, 1994; Walsh, 1991). Research studies have shown that early childhood teachers are unprepared to work with children from different cultures (Bernhard et al., 1997).

In the earlier part of this paper I discussed appropriate practices from a developmental perspective in early childhood education. Next, I will illuminate curriculum from the perspective of the three curriculum theorists who have considered this approach from the lens of curriculum theory.

Images of curriculum

To many or even some who work with the challenges, issues, problems and rewards of curriculum development in schools and colleges, curriculum is viewed as controversial, complex and difficult to define. Reviewing books and journal articles reveal a list of curriculum theorists who have discussed their views on curriculum. Presenting their theoretical conceptions on curriculum is beyond the scope of this paper. Therefore, for the purpose of this article I will be highlighting different approaches that define curriculum by drawing upon the three curriculum theorists, such as Dewey (1902/1956a, 1938/1963, 1964, 1934/1964c, 1971), Tyler (1949) and Eisner (1985).

Curriculum as a program of planned activities can be viewed from two extremes, one viewing curriculum as a written document and the other accepting plans that are in the minds of educators but remain unwritten (Beauchamp, 1981). What emerges is that each image of curriculum offers a description of what curriculum is and at the same time, implies what it should be. Therefore, implicitly one conceives curriculum as prescriptions for educational practice.

Curriculum as experience traces back to the work of Dewey's (1902/1956a, 1938/1963, 1964c, 1971) personalized child-centered approach to early childhood education. The progressive philosopher John Dewey's (1902/1956a, 1938/1963, 1964c, 1971) contribution to educational and curricular theory is incalculable. As an early advocate for an integrated early childhood curriculum, he stressed the integration of knowledge and experience, the fallacy of focusing on isolated subject matter, and the importance of child-initiated, self-directed activity. Many scholars (e.g., Kliebard, 1986; Schubert, 1986) assert that in Dewey's (1902/1956a) book, "The Child and the Curriculum," one finds Dewey's basic statement of curriculum theory. The Deweyian perspective criticizes the classical curriculum for routinization, memorization and recitation, and stresses that curriculum must not be an "external annex to the child's present life" (Dewey, 1964, pp. 352-353). Thus, Dewey was of the view that freedom of expression was necessary for growth but the teacher must guide such expression. For Dewey, "freedom and informality were means to intellectual development, not ends in themselves" (as cited in Osborn, 1991, p. 130). We can gain more insight into Dewey's philosophy by examining his "Pedagogic Creed":

All education proceeds by the participation of the individual in the social consciousness of the race. This process begins unconsciously almost at birth and is continually shaping the individual's powers saturating his consciousness, forming his habits, training his ideas, and arousing his feelings and emotions. The most formal and technical education in the world cannot safely depart from his general process. (Dewey, 1964, pp. 352-353)

Dewey (1938/1963) emphasized three fundamental factors in educative process: learner, subject matter and society. Children were seen as active social beings, and the curriculum became flexible grouping activities to promote social problem-solving processes. Dewey recommended teachers find alternative strategies to social problems that stem from the doubt and perplexity felt in a directly experienced situation and lead to practical inquiry and problem situation. Thus, Dewey's views are his conceptions on curriculum but another coherent theory referred as the technical orientation towards curriculum was associated with the work of Tyler (1949).

According to Tyler (1949), goals of the curriculum should be determined by examining the needs and interests of the student, studies of contemporary life, and recommendations from subject matter experts. Teachers through a psychological and philosophical screen ensure that the goals are appropriate to the developmental level of the student and to what the community thinks is worthwhile. Furthermore, the two other sources of curriculum, recommendations from subject matter experts and studies of contemporary life, in Tyler's rationale (1949) were that the knowledge that is selected for the curriculum could serve the purpose of the average student. Tyler recommended that curriculum developers select a type of organizing element appropriate to their task and then use each element to build continuity, sequence and integration into the curriculum. Tyler believed that each school should decide upon an organizing structure that suits it. In these ways Tyler's rationale concentrates on the how of curriculum making, not the what of the curriculum.

Eliot Eisner's (1985) work in curriculum theory highlights different perspectives on curriculum from Dewey (1938/1963, 1971) and Tyler (1949). Instead of "images" of curriculum by Dewey and Tyler, Eisner (1985) sets forth five basic orientations toward curriculum. Eisner (1985) is a reconceptualist, whose orientations to curriculum, taken collectively, emphasizes the importance of the interaction of societal norms, values and expectations in curriculum and schooling. His orientation corresponds to the academic skill approach. Tyler's (1949) rationale is the blueprint for developing curriculum from this perspective. Though Eisner (1985) and Tyler (1949) worked in different eras, their conceptions on curriculum were similar and much in contrast to Dewey's thinking (1902/ 1956a, 1938/1963, 1964, 1934/1964c, 1933/ 1971).

A basic value difference between Tyler (1949) and Dewey (1938/1963) is that Dewey saw educational ends arising within the process of experiential activity, with learning as a by-product of that activity. Dewey (1938/1963, 1971) saw that plans arise from action and can be modified through actions. Such a curriculum had to be based on experience and education, not spectator, pedagogy and epistemology. In contrast, Tyler (1949) saw educational ends prior to experience, with learning a specifically intended, directed and controlled outcome, one that can be measured.

In spite of the diversity of thought and the conceptual conflicts among the curricularists discussed above there are some general points of agreement (Klien, 1990). First, what curriculum theorists do in curriculum is of fundamental importance to students and society, the process of education and the development of the curricularists own field. Second, curriculum development is a heavily value-laden activity and is never value-free. Third, it is agreed that there is no single comprehensive theory to guide the entire field of curriculum. Another important point is that Dewey (1902/1956a, 1938/1963, 1964, 1934/1964c, 1933/1971), Eisner (1985) and Tyler (1949) may be diverse in their beliefs, but are united in their consideration for the traditional approach or academic skill approach.

What these curriculum theorists have discussed is the appropriateness of programs from the lens of curriculum theory but both curriculum theory and developmentally appropriate practice have ignored the fact that there are different cultural interpretations of development and learning.

Consistencies and conflicts between DAP and the curriculum theorists

In viewing the developmentally appropriate approach, the theoretical concepts that form the framework for the NAEYC (1987) position paper guidelines seem in agreement with the curriculum philosopher John Dewey (1938/1963), who anticipated such ideas about half a century ago. For example, Piaget's cognitive/interactive theory of intellectual development when placed along the continuum of Dewey's (1964, 1934/1964c) philosophy forms a framework for developmentally appropriate practices that suggest children construct knowledge through adaptation to the environment and are naturally motivated to understand their surroundings. Moreover, DAP's most important feature, the explanation of the experience-centered curricula, can trace its legacy to John Dewey: "Everything depends upon the quality of the experience which is had" (Dewey, 1916, p. 7). These thoughts are very much compatible with the publication of guidelines for developmentally appropriate practices.

The sources of curriculum that Tyler (1949) identified are the needs, interests of the students, studies of contemporary life, and recommendations from subject matter experts. The first two sources of curriculum (the needs and interests of the student) seem to be the position endorsed in the NAEYC position paper. The third curriculum theorist, Eisner (1985), stated five basic orientations toward curriculum. Eisner's two categories "personal relevance" and "development of cognitive processes" suggest a curriculum that corresponds to the assumptions and values of the developmentally appropriate practices position paper. The development of cognitive process orientation aims to help children strengthen their intellectual powers and learn how to learn. This orientation appears to fit some of the assumptions of the advocates of appropriate practices who adhere to a Piagetian perspective of cognitive development. Elkind (1989) re-emphasized this perspective when he stated that the purpose of the curriculum prescribed in the NAEYC position paper aims"…to produce thinkers who are creative and critical" (p. 115). In Eisner's personal relevance category, the goal of the school is to provide a rich environment so that the child is able to find what he/she needs in order to grow. Furthermore, in this orientation, teachers must treat pupils as individuals and not provide direct instruction to the group as a whole. These two orientations appear to fit easily with the developmental perspective envisioned in the DAP guidelines.

What is interesting in this analysis is that, although the curriculum and developmental theories are distinct, each type of theory informs the other. Developmental theory describes how and when children learn and develop, whereas, curriculum theory informs work with preset objectives to be achieved in a fixed time span. However, neither of the theories can be generated from the other. Developmental theory considers multiple influences that transform individuals (e.g., behavioristic theory, Piagetian theory, and Vygotskian theory) whereas curriculum theory focuses on only one influence, 'the school,' on individuals (Fein & Schwartz, 1982). What appears to be a debate between those who are well informed by current research in child development and those who do not believe in research, in reality, is a debate between individuals who hold different values about the purposes of schooling.

Discussion

The following discussion synthesizes the differences and similarities between curriculum theory and developmentally appropriate practice. There appear to be strong conflicts between the two pronounced approaches, advocating for specific academic skills and developmentally appropriate practices. The former group believes the classroom is characterized by varying degrees of the following practices. First, the curriculum includes the traditional content areas (math, science, social studies, etc.), with no attempts to integrate across these domains through relevant and meaningful child hands-on activities. Second, the advocates for the specific academic skill approach believe that school subjects/specific academic skills should be presented as soon as possible to young children so that academic achievement can be accelerated through teacher direction. In this approach, children are evaluated on the basis of a predetermined standard of achievement (Hart, Burts, & Charlesworth, 1997). This point of view assumes that young children learn in the same ways that older children do. Third, little opportunity for children to interact with teachers and peers in the classroom, make choices, and actively explore a constructed learning environment full of concrete experiences. Furthermore, the activities directed by teachers are generally conducted in large groups of students.

On the other hand, developmentally appropriate practice as defined in the NAEYC guidelines emphasizes the whole child (physical, social, emotional, and cognitive). These guidelines help early childhood teachers in decision-making for the curriculum designed as an interactive process utilizing activities that are relevant and meaningful for young children. The advocates of DAP prepare environments where teacher and child both interact and contribute, and learning is carried out through play related themes/projects so that children acquire some skills over a certain period of time. The teachers favoring developmentally appropriate practices usually carry out classroom activities in small groups or individually.

Although both camps hold opposite views on children's education, there appears to be one thing in common. Both curriculum theory and DAP have ignored the fact that there are different cultural patterns of development. Many critics argue that curriculum theory fails to include the needs of students from different cultures (Cazden & Leggert, 1981; Crittenden, 1996; Delpit, 1988; Kessler, 1992). Similarly, the supporters of DAP guidelines have not looked into the cultural aspect of children growth and learning and because of this reason DAP had received lot of criticism (Block, 1992; Kessler & Swadner, 1994; Lubeck, 1994; Walsh, 1991).

Each view of the different camp brings something unique to our understanding of children's learning and development. A question arises as to what DAP would look like if it were to include content, placing it with curriculum theory. If DAP takes an alternative theoretical view then the proponents of developmentally appropriate practice will be contradicting the reasons for which the DAP approach was formulated in 1987. One must not forget that the developmentally appropriate practice guidelines were formed in response to the increasing pressure by the traditional school system for beginning formal academic skill training to children at earlier ages.

Summary

In this paper I have tried to explicate the conflicts and consistencies between developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood education and curriculum theory, in order to provide the reader with a thorough understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of the two approaches. As viewed, it is a debate between two or more different interest groups lobbying for a particular set of values, taking different political positions, and representing different philosophical schools of thought. I believe and hope that the primary teachers not only in North America but at the global level understand the importance of developmentally appropriate programs so as to engage children in the learning environments that are familiar, challenging, and meaningful to them.

• Beauchamp, G. A. (1981). Curriculum Theory (3rd edition). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.
• Bernhard, J. K., Lefebvre, M. L., Chud, G., & Lange, R. (1997). Preparing early childhood educators: Diversity issues. Canadian Children, 2, 2-25.
• Bloch, M. N. (1992). Critical perspectives on the historical relationship between child development and early childhood education research. In S. Kessler & B. B. Swadner (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the early childhood curriculum: Beginning the dialogue (pp. 3-20). New York: Teachers College Press.
• Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age eight. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
• Bredekamp, S., & Rosegrant, T. (Eds). (1992). Reaching potentials: Appropriate curriculum and assessment for young children (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
• 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.
• Cazden, C., & Leggert, E. (1981). Culturally responsive education: Recommendations for achieving Lau remedies 11. In H. Trueba et al. (Eds.). Culture and the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp. 71-86). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
• Crittenden, B. (1996). Thinking about Education: Essays for discussion in teacher education. Melbourne: Addison Wesley.
• Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Education Review, 58, 78-95.
• Dewey, J. (1956a). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published in 1902)
• Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books. (Original work published in 1938)
• Dewey, J. (1964). Pedagogic Creed. In M. Dworkin (Ed.), John Dewey on Education: Selected writings (pp. 149-150). New York: Teachers' College Press.
• Dewey, J. (1964c). Need for a philosophy of education. In R. D. Archambault (Ed.), John Dewey on education: Selected writings (pp. 3-14). New York: Random House. (Original work published in 1934)
• Dewey, J. (1971). How we think. Chicago: Henry Regnery. (Original work published in 1933)
• Eisner, E. (1985). The educational imagination. New York: Macmillan.
• Elkind, D. (1989). Developmentally appropriate practice: Philosophical and practical limitations. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 113-117.
• Fein, G., & Schwartz, P. M. (1982). Developmental theories in early education. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research in early childhood education (pp. 82-104). New York: Free Press.
• Hart, C. H., Burts, D. C., & Charleswoth, R., (Eds.), (1997). Integrated curriculum and developmentally appropriate practice: Birth to age 8. New York: SUNY Press.
• Hart, C. H., Burts, D. C., Durland, M. A., Charleswoth, R., DeWolf, M. & Fleege, P. O. (1998). Stress behaviours and activity type participation of preschoolers in more and less developmentally appropriate classrooms: SES and sex differences. Research in Childhood Education, 12(2), 176-196.
• Jipson, J. (1991). Developmentally appropriate practice: Culture, curriculum, connections. Early Education and Development, 2(2), 120-136.
• Kessler, S. (1992). The social context of the early childhood curriculum. In S. Kessler & B. B. Swadner (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the early childhood curriculum: Beginning the dialogue (pp. 21-42). New York: Teachers College Press.
• Kessler, S. & Swadner, B. B. (1994). Reconceptualizing the early childhood curriculum: Beginning the dialogue. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Kliebard, H. M. (1986). The struggle for the American curriculum. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Klein, M. F. (1990). Approaches to Curriculum Theory and Practice. In Sears, J. & Marshall, J. Teaching and thinking about curriculum (pp. 3-14). New York: Teachers College Press.
• Lubeck, S. (1994). The politics of developmentally appropriate practice: Exploring issue of culture, class, and curriculum. In B. L. Mallory & R. S. New (Eds.). Diversity and developmentally appropriate practices (pp. 17-43). New York: Teachers College Press.
• Piaget, J. (1952). The child's conception of number. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood (H. Weaver, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton.
• Piaget, J. (1964). Quoted in R. E. Ripple and V. E. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget Rediscovered: A Report of the Conference on Cognitive Studies and Curriculum Development, Ithaca, NY: School of Education, Cornell University, cited in D. Elkind, (1989) Developmentally appropriate practice: philosophical and practical implications, Phi Delta Kappan (October): 113-117.
• Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York: Macmillan.
• Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scrinner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Walsh, D. (1991). Extending the discourse on developmental appropriateness: A developmental perspective. Early Education and Development, 2(2), 109-119.

Zoobi Waqar is a graduate student at the Center for the Study of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of British Columbia. Currently conducting her research, she is interested to learn from childcare teachers about how they use developmentally appropriate practice approach in their classrooms when dealing with children from diverse cultures.

Copyright rests with the author.