Developmentally Appropriate Practice: Pedagogical Interpretations in a Bilingual Head Start...

CATHERINE KURKJIAN, YVONNE SIU-RUNYAN & HELEN R. ABADIANO

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICE:PEDAGOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS IN A BILINGUAL

HEAD START CLASSROOM �

1. INTRODUCTION

It is the end of meeting time in Cheryl’s bilingual Head Start classroom.A time to play the Véo Véo game, a kind of ‘I Spy’ guessing game whichallows the children to be dismissed gradually to go wash their hands at thesink before breakfast.

Cheryl: Véo! Véo! (Look! Look!)

Children: ¿Que tienes? (What do you have?)

Cheryl: Un niño con color blanco. Is a niño a boy or a girl?

Allison: A boy, it’s Tommy

Cheryl: It’s Tommy! (Tommy gets up to wash his hands)

Alan: Tengo! Tengo! (Look what I’ve got!)

Children: ¿Que tienes? (What do you have?)

Alan: (points to his blue pants)

Cheryl: What’s this? (points to Alan’s pants)

Laura: Azúl (blue) (Alan crab walks backwards to the sink to

wash his hands)

(The game continues until all are dismissed.)

The Véo Véo game is an example of the interaction patterns that occurin Cheryl’s classroom. In this excerpt Cheryl uses the game format asa vehicle to assist her preschoolers in their learning of first and secondlanguages. Thus, the questions and responses both in English and inSpanish are acknowledged and encouraged. Within the context of this

� The first author served as the primary researcher in this study. The second authorserved as research advisor and mentor throughout the completion of this study. The thirdauthor provided a critical review of the study and offered an expanded perspective on itsdata analysis, findings, and conclusions.

L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 1: 209–233, 2001.© 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

210 CATHERINE KURKJIAN ET AL.

game there is a variety of acceptable responses, which may range frompointing at something, to saying the name of a color of an article ofclothing in one’s first language, to describing the color and kind of clothingworn in a second language. The children have a shared understanding ofthe rules of the game. They have opportunities to take the lead in initiatingthe turns. The format of the game provides occasions for Cheryl and herteaching assistant, Lupe, to work together to build on children’s languageand to encourage elaboration on what the children are describing. Withinthe functional daily routine of this ‘I Spy’ dismissal game, Cheryl and Lupeassist the children in their language use.

Our interest in Cheryl and her preschoolers has to do with her parti-cipation in a larger qualitative study that examined the ways in whichfour selected Head Start teachers interpreted developmentally appro-priate practice and mediated their preschoolers’ understanding of languageand literacy (Kurkjian, 1994). Cheryl was one of four teachers selectedto participate because she was designated by her supervisor as beingan outstanding literacy teacher (by virtue of the supervisor’s personalcriteria) and because she was considered to be knowledgeable aboutdevelopmentally appropriate practice as described in the position statementissued by the National Association for the Education of Young Children(NAEYC) (Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992, 1995) andmeasured by the Measures of Knowledge of Developmentally AppropriatePractice (MKDAP) (Snider & Fu, 1990), an instrument designed to assessteachers’ understanding of the NAEYC (1986) position statement on whatconstitutes educationally appropriate experiences for young children.

This paper describes the way in which one Head Start teacher inter-preted and operationalized her understanding of what constituted develop-mentally appropriate experiences regarding language and literacy withinthe context of a linguistically and culturally diverse bilingual classroom.The perspective of Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) regardinglanguage and literacy serves as a basis for describing social inter-active texts between Cheryl and her linguistically and culturally diversepreschoolers. More specifically, the question we address is: In what waysdoes Cheryl mediate her preschoolers’ understanding of literacy?

2. BACKGROUND: THE HEAD START PROGRAM

The National Center for Children in Poverty estimates that 22% ofyoung children in the United States live in poverty in families withincome below the poverty line, and that 10% of young children inthe United States live in extreme poverty, under 50% of the poverty

DAP IN A BILINGUAL HEAD START CLASSROOM 211

line (NCCP website: http://cpmcnet.cpmc.columbia.edu/dept/nccp). Since1965 when US President Lyndon B. Johnson waged his ‘War on Poverty’,Project Head Start has provided comprehensive educational, health andsocial services for over 15.3 million low-income preschoolers and theirfamilies residing in the United States, District of Columbia, Puerto Ricoand US territories. This federal project aims to give America’s poor a‘head start’ to counteract the devastating effects of poverty and enhancethe life opportunities of the children and families served. Head Startprovides services to meet goals for the components of Education, Health,Parent Involvement, and Social Services (Head Start Fact Sheet at http:www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opa/facts/headst.htm). Five objectives of thisprogram are to:

• enhance children’s growth and development,• strengthen the family as primary nurturers of their children,• provide children with education, health nutrition services,• link children and families to needed community services, and• ensure well-managed programs that involve parents in decision

making.

[Plutro, (2000). Head Start Bulletin Issue #67 athttp://www.hskids-tmsc.org/publications/

hsbulletin67/finalcurriculum.pd]

Head Start, currently administered by the US Administration for Childrenand Families, awards federal grants to local public or private non-profit agencies. Each community must contribute twenty five per centof the program’s cost. Approximately 1,400 community-based non-profitorganizations and school systems participate in the development of adiverse range of programs, including services to children under three yearsof age and to pregnant women. Throughout its history Project HeadStart has received public and bipartisan political support along withincreases in funding. In the fiscal year 1999, $4.66 billion dollars wasavailable for Head Start services (Fact Sheet-Head Start http://www.act.dhhs.gov/programs/opa/facts/headst.htm updated January 25, 2001).Despite the continued increase of children being served, Head Startprovides services to only 12% of eligible children due to limited funds.

Head Start serves a multicultural mix of low-income children andfamilies. It is estimated that up to 150 languages and dialects are spokenamong the families enrolled. Spanish is the most common language spokenat home among the nearly twenty percent of children enrolled in HeadStart who do not speak English at home [Plutro (2000). Head Start Bul-letin, Issue 67 at http://www.headstartinfo.org/publications/hsbulletin67/


finalcurriculum.pdf]. There are increasing numbers of Hispanic childrenenrolled in Head Start Programs; however, this group remains under-represented when compared to low-income preschool children acrossthe United States (excluding Puerto Rico) [ACF Press Room (1999) athttp://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/press/1999/hispan8o3.htm].

While the objectives of Head Start encompass far more than preschooleducation, Head Start has been a catalyst in focusing attention on earlychildhood education and development. Head Start is currently enjoyingpublic support, yet it is hard won and tentative in an accountability erawhere justification for spending is closely scrutinized. Controversy hassurrounded the research base from which Head Start derives its publicsupport. Claims concerning positive long-term effects for children in HeadStart are based on research models, which were designed to be emulated,not based on representative Head Start programs.

Even Head Start’s staunchest supporters recognize the widespreaddisparities in program quality. Thus, ‘quality’ must be the qualifying termconcerning Head Start’s potential to improve the life opportunities of thechildren it serves.

This descriptive case study focuses on teacher practice as a criticalfactor in the quality of developmentally and culturally appropriate educa-tion within the context of a bilingual Head Start preschool classroom.

3. THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

Cheryl is a teacher in a half time Head Start bilingual classroom that meetsfour mornings weekly, three and a half hours each day. Cheryl, who issomewhat fluent in Spanish, has taught in this program for two years,along with a Spanish speaking teaching assistant, Lupe. Cheryl holds achildhood study degree from a university in the eastern part of the UnitedStates. Early childhood state certification was awarded the summer afterher participation in this study. While Cheryl is the lead teacher, both sheand Lupe collaborate in planning and implementing the curriculum.

Cheryl’s program is housed in an elementary school (Kindergartenthrough grade 2) located in a suburban neighborhood in the Western partof the United States and consists of two preschool classrooms of thirtychildren. One third of the program’s population consists of children whosefamilies qualify for Head Start. Another third of the children are thosewho qualify for a state funded preschool project. The entry qualificationguidelines for the state project are similar to Head Start in that they arebased on financial need, but they are somewhat less stringent in that theyencompass families with a broader range of economic need. Finally, the


last third of the population draws on children who live within the atten-dance area, or who are tuition paying families who live outside of theattendance area. The children who qualify for Head Start and/or the statepreschool project have the option of being bussed to and from school.

Cheryl’s class consists of 15 three–four- and five-year-old preschoolers,six of whom speak Spanish as their first language. Two of the children whobegan school as three-year-olds will spend a second year in Cheryl’s class.The other children will go on to Kindergarten, two of whom will havespent two years in Cheryl’s classroom. Cheryl works in collaboration witha full time bilingual teaching assistant, Lupe. Lupe’s role involves assistingin planning, and teaching, and communicating with parents and childrenin Spanish. While Cheryl serves as the lead teacher, Lupe plays an integralrole in ongoing daily teaching activities.

Cheryl’s room is a converted elementary school classroom. It has asink, tiled and carpeted areas with chalkboards on two of the four walls,and bathrooms that are located outside the classroom and down the hall.Cheryl’s classroom stands adjacent to the other Head Start classroomhoused at this school, both of which open onto a spacious fenced-in play-ground area separate from the rest of the school. The playground containsa large sandlot with access to water, a climbing structure, swings, a grassyarea and a small space for gardening. The play area is landscaped withshrubs and small trees and has a view of foothills and mountains in thedistance.

Because Cheryl’s classroom is housed in an elementary school, it hasaccess to physical education, movement and library classes. On Thursdaysof each week the preschoolers alternate attending Physical Educationand Library classes with Music and Movement classes. Additionally, theprogram has access to a computer lab. On Thursdays, Cheryl, Lupe andhelping parents, when available, accompany the children to various classesin order to support the special subject planned activities.

4. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

The construct of developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) as it relatesto language and literacy learning as defined by the National Association ofEarly Childhood Educators (NAEYC) (Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp &Copple, 1997; Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992, 1995) provides a frame-work for this study. Guidelines for practice as described in NAEYC’sposition paper stem from developmental theories and research on how chil-dren think and learn describing best practice as individually and culturallyappropriate (Stremmel, 1997). Informing DAP, is a synthesis of research


on the ways in which children become literate from birth to the timethey read and write in conventional ways (Clay, 1975, 1987; Ferriero& Teberosky, 1982; Teale, 1987; Sulzby & Teale, 1991; Reutzel, 1997;IRA/NAEYC, 1998).

While NAEYC’s position statement on developmentally appropriatepractice has been one of the most influential in early childhood educationin the United States, the concept of DAP has spawned ongoing contro-versy and debate. Dialogue revolves around: 1) its applicability to diversepopulations (Bowman, 1992; O’Brien, 1996, 1997; Wolery, 1992), 2) itstranslation into practice (Hart, Burts & Charlesworth, 1997; Kostelnik,1992), and 3) its conceptual base (Kessler, 1991; Lubeck, 1994, 1996;O’Laughlin, 1992). This ongoing dialogue has in turn generated the expan-sion and revision of the concept (Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1995; NAEYC,1995), as well as subsequent research and dialogue supporting its efficacyfor diverse populations (Hart, Burts & Charlesworth, 1997; Tabors, 1998).

The researchers in this study take the stance that DAP is a malle-able working hypothesis and as such it is an important starting point fordeliberation about what constitutes educationally appropriate experiencesfor young children (New, 1994). Moreover, while we believe that it isan important perspective, it is not sufficient to ensure its applicability todiverse populations. That is, we make the distinction between develop-mentally appropriate practice and a multicultural curriculum, which isderived from a variety of sources. Our view is in keeping with Stremmel’s(1997) recommendations that DAP must move toward practice whichincludes: 1) teacher awareness and self-reflection on biases, 2) pedagogicalbest practice, 3) knowledge of child development within a socioculturalcontext, 4) appreciation for value systems of differing cultures, and 5)knowledge of other disciplines.

Developmentally appropriate practice is grounded in a constructivisttheoretical orientation, which builds on the work of Piaget and Vygotsky.Piaget views the learner as an active constructor of knowledge in interac-tion with the physical and social world. Extending the Piagetian construc-tivist position of knowledge as an invention, Vygotsky emphasizes thesociocultural impact on cognition thus building upon the role of socialcontext and social interactions on learning. That is, social interactionswith others and with social institutions are seen to play a formative rolein cognitive development (Reid & Stone, 1991). Within this frameworklanguage and literacy development is considered to be a profoundly socialprocess.

A key construct of Vygotskyian thought is the notion of the zoneof proximal development (ZPD). Vygotsky (1978) defines the ZPD as


“the distance between the actual developmental level as determined byindependent problem solving and the level of potential development asdetermined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collabo-ration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978: 86). Within this zone,‘child sensitive’ interactions occur in which more skilled partners assist inaccomplishing shared goals just beyond the child’s reach (Reid & Stone,1991). The social interactions within the ZPD are seen to scaffold newlearning as they take into account actual and prospective levels of develop-ment (Vygotsky, 1978). Gallimore & Tharpe (1990) describe this processas teaching-as-assisted-performance.

Additionally, Reid & Stone (1991) describe a Vygotskyian-extendedinterpretation of scaffolding which takes the stance that the meaningconstruction that occurs within the ZPD is not imitation or copying of anadult, but rather an act of invention as a result of the social negotiationswith a more capable other. Thus, rather than viewing scaffolding as a staticentity in which the adult decides what is to be learned, and guides learningby breaking down the task into component parts, scaffolding is consideredto be more of a dynamic social interactive collaborative process in whichthere is a shared frame of reference among participants within the learners’zone of proximal development (Stone, 1992).

Raphael & Hiebert (1996) articulate three underlying assumptions ofthis view:

– First, through language, teachers and learners construct knowledge. Thus languageand literacy are the foundations for students’ intellectual and social development. It isthrough language that the participants can create understandings together.

– Second, literacy (i.e. reading and writing) reflects ‘higher mental processes’ learnedthrough their meaningful use across multiple contexts within and beyond theclassroom.

– Third, learning is facilitated through the interactions among learners and more know-ledgeable members of the social and cultural communities within and beyond theclassroom. Such knowledgeable others include teachers, of course, but also includepeers, children of different ages and abilities and other adults.

(Raphael & Hiebert, 1996: 10)

In this article, the perspective of Developmentally Appropriate Practiceregarding language and literacy serves as a basis for describing social inter-active texts between Cheryl and her linguistically and culturally diversepreschoolers. It provides a careful description of the way one Head Startteacher interpreted and operationalized her understanding of what consti-tuted developmentally appropriate experiences regarding language andliteracy within the context of her linguistically and culturally diversebilingual classroom.


5. METHOD

5.1. Data Collection

As part of a larger study, The Measures of Knowledge of DevelopmentallyAppropriate Practice interview (MKDAP) (Snider & Fu, 1990) was indi-vidually administered to Cheryl as part of the process for selecting parti-cipants for this study. This tool was designed to assess teachers’ awarenessof what constitutes educationally appropriate experiences for preschoolersas defined by the NAEYC position statement (1986). The MKDAP consistsof a series of twelve vignettes describing teacher/child(ren) interactions.The respondent must decide whether or not the practices reflected in eachof the vignettes are instances of appropriate or inappropriate practice. Onlyparticipants who demonstrated knowledge about DAP and were recog-nized by their supervisors as outstanding literacy teachers (by virtue ofthe supervisors’ criteria) were qualified as participants in this study.

Once selected, Cheryl participated in a series of audiotaped inter-views containing descriptive, structural and contrastive focus questions asdescribed by Spradley (1997). The primary researcher served in the role ofparticipant observer during the data collection for ten classroom sessions.Documentation included taking field notes and videotaping teacher-children classroom interactions (10 hours each of the five classroomsessions). Several in-depth interviews were also conducted both during andfollowing the data collection period. Some interviews made use of video-taped teacher-student interactions as a source for critical and reflectivedialogue between the teacher and researcher.

The data obtained consisted of: (1) transcribed field notes, (2) teacherselected/verified literacy vignettes, (3) teacher interviews, (4) videotapedclassroom sessions, (5) Childcare Environment Survey (Johnson, Werner& Caverly, 1992), and (6) Measures of Knowledge of DevelopmentallyAppropriate Practice (Snider & Fu, 1990).

This study was limited by the scope of the inquiry. Given time para-meters, the decision was made to investigate the ways in which thelead teacher understood and operationalized what she considered to bedevelopmentally appropriate literacy practice for her preschoolers. It didnot explore in any depth other relevant factors such as children’s literacyinteractions with each other, the school’s social agendas regarding schoolsuccess, the impact of the community on the ways in which literacy wasmediated, or the development of the children’s identity over time withinthe socio-cultural context of the classroom. Instead, it only addressed thesefactors from the perspective of the lead teacher and only if she consideredthem relevant.


The study would have been enhanced and broadened if it hadconsidered a broader community of stakeholders. We do not know, forexample, the nature of the relationships that Cheryl had with the parents ofthe children she taught, and the degree to which Cheryl supported parentsin helping to maintain and preserve home language learning. We do nothave a sense for the community of parents because the study consideredonly the perspective of the teacher. Additionally, we did not investigate theinterpretive framework of the school, and Head Start administrators andsupervisors.

While the study is designed to describe the ways the classroom teacherunderstands and mediates literacy learning within the classroom, it wouldhave been enhanced if a longitudinal approach had been taken to describechildren’s development of identities within the socio cultural context ofthe described classroom. The contribution of this study, however, is inits careful contextualized and focused description of how one teacherinterprets and operationalizes what she considers to be developmentallyappropriate literacy practice within the context of her bilingual classroom.This investigation carefully documents the kinds of conversations thatoccur between the classroom teacher and her preschool students.

5.2. Data Analysis

The researcher as observer-participant engaged in an ongoing data collec-tion, analysis and interpretation throughout the course of the study. Thecentral question that guided the research process was: What is happeninghere? The meaning that Cheryl attributed to her practice was central toanswering this question.

Because Cheryl was one of the participants in the larger study, theresearcher engaged in an analysis in which Cheryl’s work was consideredin light of the range of categories generated from the other participants.As data sources became available, the researcher continually generatedquestions and hypothesis about the information.

In the first round of analysis of Cheryl’s work, each data sourcewas initially analyzed in order to identify broad patterns. Throughoutthe analysis, the researcher engaged in a recursive process in whichcategories identified in each source were adapted and modified as eachnew data sources were analyzed. Broad patterns were then revised andrefined as new ones emerged and earlier ones were reconceptualized. Addi-tionally, the researcher generated a working hypothesis about Cheryl’sbeliefs about what constitutes educationally appropriate experiences forher preschoolers and the way she mediated their understanding of literacy.While the data analysis process was formalized and systematized, the


generation of categories and establishing relationships among them didnot necessarily occur linearly.

Categories were documented by using a method developed by Constas(1992). Three components of category generation, their origination, veri-fication and nomination were documented during the categorizationprocess. The origination component addresses the issue of where theresponsibility resides for the creation of a given category. The verificationcomponent addresses the issue of justification for the existence of a setof categories, while the nomination component identifies the source of thename for a given category.

Finally, subjectivity is understood to be a given in naturalistic researchand as such must be addressed in order to evaluate whether findings aregrounded in the data and not a result of researcher bias (Lincoln & Guba,1985). Thus, measures were taken to enhance neutrality as follows: (1) areflective journal was kept for the purposes of sorting out biases and fordocumenting a priori categories, and (2) the researcher adopted Constas’(1992) method which publicly documents category development in dataanalysis.

6. RESULTS

In analyzing the ways in which Cheryl assisted her bilingual preschoolers’performance and understanding of language and literacy, five predominantpatterns in teacher-child(ren) interactions are revealed. The patterns whichemerged are characterized by (1) social collaboration allowing for avariety of entry levels and enabling more advanced levels of participation,(2) formatted language/literacy negotiations embedded in ongoing dailyorganizational routines and rituals, (3) permeable contexts, (4) curriculumas individually and culturally responsive to children, and (5) languageencouraging reflection, and metacognitive awareness. While each indi-vidual pattern is discussed separately, however, it is argued that thesepatterns are integrally and dynamically related to one another and wereembedded in the ongoing daily interactions. Thus, while the intent maybe to highlight a particular pattern, several patterns are often embeddedwithin the examples presented.

6.1. Contexts Accommodating for a Variety of Entry Levels forParticipation

In discussing what constitutes educationally appropriate experiences forpreschoolers Cheryl commented on her belief on the importance of ‘entry


points’ for all different ability levels. The Véo Véo game excerpt presentedin the introduction of this paper provides an example of a context in whichthe children are afforded opportunities to enter in at a variety of levels.In the Véo Véo excerpt Alan is unable to say the color blue in Spanish.Nevertheless, he is allowed entry in the game by the teacher pointing tosomething that is blue. Cheryl supports Alan’s participation by buildingon his response and by enlisting the help of a Spanish-speaking child.

Another example of a context affording a variety of entry levels forparticipation occurred daily during Cheryl’s attendance taking routine.The attendance routine occurred every morning when upon entering theclassroom Cheryl’s preschoolers took their own attendance by checkingthemselves into school. To do this the children had to remove a magneton which their names were written from under the Out/Fuero sign andplace it under the In/Entro sign. Figure 1 is an example of a discussionthat occurred at meeting time in connection to this daily routine. It demon-strates a wide range of entry levels for child participation. For instance,Tommy was struggling to find his name and Lupe encouraged Robbie toassist him in his efforts. Dennis used the chart independently while Robbieand Alan were actively interpreting the chart in considering who was andwas not at school. In this instance Cheryl enables Alan to participate at amore advanced level in his use of the attendance chart as a graphic repre-sentation of who was and was not at school. When Alan was puzzled aboutthe fact the Jamie had not yet arrived at school, but that his name appearedunder the In/Entro sign, Cheryl prompted Alan in his thinking about thisdiscrepancy by asking him if Jamie was at school. Information about theway the chart worked as a graphic organizer was articulated further whenCheryl asked Alan to check Jamie out so that he could check himself inwhen he arrived at school.

Providing for a variety of entry levels is a salient issue for Cherylwhen she reflects on the kinds of materials and activities she providesfor her preschoolers. She indicates that part of what makes her practicedevelopmentally appropriate is that she provides a range of materials forchildren of different experience levels. For example, Cheryl believes thatit is important “. . . to have a range of difficulty and everything from Dr.Seuss’ ABC book or Freight Train, a very simple book that has a couple ofwords per page all the way to this third grade level book, Adobe’s Doll”.She goes on to indicate that her library contains a variety of Spanish books,as well.

Similarly, when Cheryl reflected on an ongoing weaving curriculumthat was in place during the research, she called attention to the levels


Cheryl: Look at all those names of kids who haven’t checked in (Refers tocheck in board)!

Robbie: Tommy, Ean (Reads names of children who haven’t checked inyet). (Dennis gets up and checks in)

Robbie: Tommy hasn’t checked in.

Lupe: (In Spanish asks Tommy to check in)

Tommy: (Looks at board trying to find name)

Alan: Jamie has already checked in.

Teacher: Jamie has already checked in. Is Jamie already here?

Alan: No.

Teacher: Alan, will you check Jamie out so that he can check himself in.

Lupe: (In Spanish asks Robbie if he will help Tommy) (Robbie findsTommy’s name and checks him in)

Figure 1. Sample negotiations accommodating for a variety of entry levels for participa-tion.

of entry, and degrees of assistance required in using the looms that wereavailable:So that is where I have to keep an eye on the range. These kids wanted to be there andthey wanted it to be tough. They didn’t want help in using the loom. Some wanted help inwinding the bobbin, others did not. Some could do it with another kid’s help rather than anadult’s help.

6.2. Negotiations Embedded in Ongoing Daily Organizational Routines

In Cheryl’s classroom the children engaged in daily routines that servedto accomplish both teacher and child(ren) organizational purposes, andprovided a forum for her to assist children in their literacy and languagelearning. The Véo Véo routine and the attendance taking routine areexamples of negotiations embedded in ongoing daily organizationalroutines.

The use of these organizational routines provided opportunities forteaching and learning about written language, both its functional use andform. Cheryl commented on the check-in chart for taking attendance andindicated that it served as a tool for the lunch helpers because it helpedthem to know how many place settings were needed at the lunch table. Shealso explained that it provided the children with an opportunity to examinefeatures of print: “It is sort of an exercise in not just focusing on their ownname but the names of their friends. Incidental letter recognition – Alan,Alicia, Ann, Angel – they all start with A, so those sort of things.”


Other daily organizational routines, such as the brushing of teeth aftermeals, and the setting of the table for lunch, afforded Cheryl with oppor-tunities to extend and expand language learning. For example, Cherylmade use of a lunch helper chart that was referred to at various pointsduring the day. Children who arrived early assigned names on the chartof those who would help with lunch on that day. Children who wanted tohelp, but were not listed could put their name on a waiting list. Moreover,those who were signed up, but did not want to help that day could arrangefor other children to take their place.

When Cheryl reflected on the lunch helper chart, she spoke of it asan organizational tool: “Everybody is going to know who are the helpersbecause they are written. And they are clipped up there and if anybody hasany question of who the helpers are they know where to find that infor-mation.” At meeting time a discussion occurred in connection to the lunchhelper chart (see Figure 2). Once again this daily organizational routineprovides opportunities for children to use reading and writing in functionalways and provides a forum for Cheryl to expand and extend language andliteracy learning. In this instance, Cheryl capitalizes on the opportunity toencourage children to read their own names and those of their classmates.In her questions to Alan about how he knew the names on the lunch chartshe prompts him to consider the strategies he used to read the names of thehelpers.

The functional daily routines were contexts with rich opportunities forteachers to assist as well as to encourage children to collaborate withone another. These routines, which were embedded into the ongoing dailyactivities, provided Cheryl with a forum to: (1) encourage children to beindependent users of print, (2) to recognize their own names and those oftheir classmates, (3) to help children to examine features of print in use, (4)to read and interpret graphic representations, and (5) to help make explicitthe strategies readers use when they interact with print.

6.3. Permeable Contexts: Dynamic Negotiations across Settings andTime and Space

Cheryl considered salient language and literacy events as those thatspanned a variety of contexts across both the school day, and school year.In her classroom literacy events were not compartmentalized to a specifictime or place. Moreover, the kinds of social negotiations that occurredbetween Cheryl and her preschoolers sometimes reoccurred, evolved andpermeated subsequent events and settings. That is, current negotiations inone setting were sometimes permutations of interactions that occurred in


Cheryl: Who is going to help later on! (referring to lunch helpers)

Lupe: (asks in Spanish)

Cheryl: Alan, have you had a chance to see who the helpers are?

Alan: (reading the chart) Dennis, Laura

Cheryl: What other names do you see? (Cheryl peers over the top of heads ofchildren sitting at meeting) I can only see the top of Dennis’ head.

Alan: Dennis.

Jamie: Laura and Angel.

Cheryl: (asks Alan) How did you know those names?

Alan: I saw them.

Cheryl: How did you know them? What gave you the clue so that you couldread them?

Alan: (shrugs)

Cheryl: You certainly know how to read some of them. You are not sure (howhe knew).

Figure 2. Sample negotiations embedded in ongoing daily organizational routines.

other settings, and/or previous curriculum. Additionally, the artifacts in theclassroom environment, remnants of previous interactions, provided theteachers and children with a common frame of reference that sometimesserved to rekindle previous negotiations.

Permeability of negotiation across settings, time, and space are reflectedin Cheryl’s comments about literacy related interactions that sometimestook place during mealtime in the eating area:

I never had planned that if I walked into the classroom at the beginning of the year andsaid, “I know we are going to do lots of writing over there” (referring to the eating area), Iwould have had no idea. It is just that is where some of the more fascinating conversationscome up and so that is where it happens. So we have writing across the room.

Additionally, Cheryl placed value on helping children to see that projectscan extend over time when she comments on the long term nature ofan adobe house making project that came about when the focus on thecurriculum was on mud:

There is also an exercise in this in that preschoolers don’t often understand that in factthings often take more than a day – more than one sitting to complete and that is part ofwhat we were learning. That we can leave it here and work on it a little. And guess what,we finished it.

An example of negotiations evolving from a previous setting andcurriculum was observed at meeting time when the class was playing a


game referred to as ‘Pasa la Pelóta’ (Pass the Soccer Ball). In this gamethe person holding the soccer ball would first say the name of the personto whom the ball is intended. On one occasion the game evolved into a lipreading game when a child who had the ball required that the other childread his lips to figure out the name of the person to whom he would sendthe ball.

These interactions were similar to ones that were observed to occur laterthat morning during quiet reading time when Cheryl and a small group ofchildren played a guessing game making use of a riddle book. Instead oftelling the answer to a riddle aloud, the players had to guess the answerby reading the lips of the person telling it. This game continued, but tooka slightly different turn at lunch when children whispered the answers totheir riddles in the ears of a neighbor.

In reflecting on these lip reading interactions, Cheryl explained that shethought they were vestiges of what happened at the beginning of the yearwhen the children were engaged in a curriculum on disabilities.

Additionally, classroom artifacts in the environment such as displays ofan earlier curriculum and/or dictation that had been taken at meal times,and other ongoing projects sometimes rekindled previous collaborations.An instance of when an earlier collaboration was revisited in connection toan environmental artifact occurred while eating lunch when Jamie calledCheryl’s attention to several oak tag strips which were displayed on thechalkboard. On each of these strips the name of what they did after school.The letters on the strips represented the initial sounds of what the chil-dren had dictated to her. On one side of the strip the letters stood for theEnglish version of what they said they did, while on the other side theletters represented the Spanish words. In Figure 3, the display posted inthe lunch area cued the interactions which occurred and provided Cherylwith an opportunity to encourage children to revisit this event, althoughthe lunch area and lunch times were not officially designated places andtimes for learning about written language. In response to Jamie’s interestin the display the following occurred.

In Cheryl’s classroom any single language and literacy event wasnot seen in isolation. The permeable contexts over time, space, andsettings allowed children an opportunity to revisit, build and innovate uponprevious interactions both across time and space.

6.4. Curriculum as Individually and Culturally Responsive to Children

Cheryl believed her role includes providing curriculum that is both cultu-rally and individually responsive to children. She believed that it is her


Cheryl: (pointing to the strip) What do you do after school? (Jamie andCheryl collaboratively read what each letter stood for on the strip,both English and Spanish side).

Allison: Can I do mine?

Cheryl: I will need help. That E is very large (something about a big belly).

(Allison guesses Eat, they read Eat and the rest of her strip).

(Molly, Melanie, Laura and Kyle have become involved and theywant to read their strips as well, both in English and Spanish.)

Figure 3. Sample permeability of negotiations across settings, time, and space.

job to help children to answer their own questions by encouraging them toreflect back on their own questions and by supplying materials to supporttheir inquisitive nature. As Cheryl describes it:

For me DAP is about keying in on the interests of children rather than my own interest.It means that when somebody has a question about something, “Well how do you thinkthis works?” or “What do you think will happen if I mix this with that?” – supportingby making available that activity, “Oh, you want to find out if we can dye mud?” “Well,what do you think we need to dye mud?” Providing materials so they can answer their ownquestions because I think it is really important to develop problem solving skills and if theyhave questions that they really want to find out about then I like to support that inquiry andthat inquisitive nature.

Cheryl explained that her curriculum often evolves out of her interactionswith the children in response to their interests and her conversations withthem. She comments:

I think that because I don’t generally choose it (the curriculum). I think that every now andthen there comes a lull when I am not necessarily getting ideas from the children in whichcase I will throw something out and see what happens with it. But more often than not, Iwould rather listen to what they are talking about and how they are talking about it anddevelop a curriculum based on their interests and have it encompass the whole room if it ispossible in all different areas.

An example that Cheryl considered to be a developmentally appropriatecurriculum is one which was developed in response to her children’sinterest in mud.

And mud isn’t something that is always revered as wonderful and there are lots of reasonswhy mud is wonderful. So we brought mud into the classroom and this was a dictation.(Shares individual and group dictated responses). Lupe was working at making sure thatit happened in Spanish. The culture, the two different cultures – the Mexican/Hispanicculture versus the Anglo culture on how we use mud or not use mud is very different andwe were able to develop a broad curriculum that we will get to.


Cheryl explained that in this curriculum children participated in a varietyof activities related to mud, such as dyeing mud, making mud paintingsand a class mural, creating group/individual dictated stories, graph making,and over time constructing an adobe house. The idea for making an adobehouse stemmed from conversations she had with the children about waysmud can be used and from her interest in a curriculum which is culturallyresponsive. She got the idea from one of her preschoolers who had recentlyarrived in the United States from Mexico.So we were brainstorming on mud . . . and he recognized that mud is a major ingredient inadobe and he had helped his father and his grandfather build an adobe house and he said,“I am going to build a house”. So we said, “What a great opportunity to use what is alreadygoing on in the classroom, integrate the culture, make it relevant to him to really bring it toschool”. He said to Lupe in Spanish, “First we need hay so it doesn’t fall apart”. He knowswhy, he knows what, he knows how.

Similarly, another curriculum focus evolved out of joke telling interactionsand developed into a full-fledged weeklong curriculum in which childrencreated their own Knock Knock Jokes, dictated, illustrated and sharedtheir jokes to the class. In this curriculum, dictation was taken primarilyin English, but on occasion in Spanish, as well.

Cheryl had taken it upon herself to learn Spanish. The examplespresented thus far reflect how she encouraged her preschoolers to use andlearn both languages (English and Spanish) by embedding these languagesinto their daily organizational routines (Véo Véo, Pasa la Pelóta, singingsongs in Spanish and English, etc.), and by taking dictation in Spanish andin English. In the Véo Véo example, it was Allison, whose first languageis English, who responded to the teacher’s clue in Spanish, “Un niño concolor blanco. Is a niño a boy or a girl?” with “A boy (niño), it’s Tommy!”Laura, a Spanish-speaking child, responded, “Azúl (blue)” to the teacher’sprompt, “What’s this?” to Alan’s clue. Additionally, Cheryl encouraged thelearning of both languages by labeling materials in the classroom environ-ment in both Spanish and English, and by providing books written bothin Spanish and in English. Moreover, Cheryl encouraged the learning ofboth languages through teacher demonstration and talk about language.Informal conversations at lunch sometimes focused on how one mightsay something in the second language. Cheryl and Lupe, the Spanish-speaking teaching assistant, consciously served as models in asking eachother questions about various translations.


6.5. Language Encouraging Reflection, and Metacognitive Awareness

When Cheryl spoke about supporting her preschoolers’ ‘inquisitive nature’she reflects on her underlying view of children as problem generators,problem solvers and ‘thinkers’. She describes her role to be one of assistingher preschoolers in their ‘inquiries to life’. In Cheryl’s conversationswith preschoolers she sometimes poses problems by presenting contra-dictory information that challenged their reasoning. Other times she askedreflective questions which required children to think back and evaluatetheir experiences or to put themselves in hypothetical situations. Sheencouraged her preschoolers to articulate their thinking about the way theyfigured something out and modeled her own thinking and confusion.

In her conversations with her preschoolers, Cheryl’s language waspeppered with words and phrases that made reference to cognitive internalprocesses such as notice, think, understand, know, remember, and I wouldbe happy to. For example, at lunch Jamie looked as if he was having aproblem with someone sitting next to him. Cheryl explained, “If you havesomething to say, think of the words and tell him”. In this instance Cherylreferred to the internal process of thinking, prior to speaking, somethingthat is usually implicitly done. Likewise, she made public the reasonsfor doing things that were sometimes implied, thus making explicit thethinking underlying actions. For example, she asked Jamie to be sure toput his name on his paper, “So they will be sure that they will know that itis his page and his hard work.”

In Cheryl’s interactions in connection to print in use, she made explicitthe process of focusing on initial sounds by prompting children to key inon initial sounds through use of sign language. At meeting time, referringto the Helper Chart, she commented that she didn’t know who the helperswere. From this interaction she prompted the children to key in on initialsounds by using sign language. “So we see the ‘L’ sign (signs with hand).Remember in our sign language that this is ‘L’?” The children said ‘L’ andguessed that the name on the chart was Laura. Cheryl continued signinginitial letters of the children’s names as they figured out whose names wereposted on the Helper Chart. Cheryl demonstrated the way she used initialsounds as clues for reading by thinking aloud at various times about theprocess she used to figure out a name. Cheryl relates thinking out loudto problem solving: “If I do it all in my body they [the preschoolers]are not going to learn the process of how – what am I supposed to bethinking, how do I get through this difficulty? These are some of the stepsI take.” In addition to making her own thinking explicit, Cheryl asked herpreschoolers to articulate their own thinking strategies. For example, when


Dennis read the name Allison, Cheryl asked him how he figured out hername. He told her it had an ‘A’.

In Cheryl’s conversations with preschoolers she posed problems bypresenting contradictory information on which she invited reflection. Onone occasion when the children were pretending to live in houses, Cherylmoved in as one of the tenants. In this context she invited them to writedown their telephone numbers and addresses. When Kyle wrote downletters for his telephone number, her response was, “I understand numbers,but not letters.” After she and the children examined the telephone, Cherylcommented, “Now that Kyle has pointed this out I see little letters as wellas numbers.”

Cheryl posed questions requiring the children to reflect on and evaluatetheir experiences. At times explanations to these questions were writtendown as dictation, posted on the wall and revisited. She asked questionssuch as, “What do you do after school?” or “What was your favorite partof the day?” or “What did you like best about outside?” Additionally, sheencouraged children to expand their thinking by posing hypothetical situa-tions. In response to a conversation at lunch-time in which Laura calledher a kid, Cheryl asked, “If I am a kid, who are the teachers?” She thenposed this question to other children sitting nearby and their explanationswere taken down in writing.

7. DISCUSSION

This study provides a description of the way one Head Start teacherinterpreted and operationalized her understanding of what constituteddevelopmentally appropriate experiences regarding language and literacywithin the context of a bilingual classroom. It describes discourse patternsbetween teacher and her preschoolers as it relates to the mediation ofliteracy amd second langauge learning.

Both Cheryl’s interpretations of DAP regarding language and literacyand the way in which she mediated literacy for her preschoolers representa social constructivist Vygotskyian view of learning and instruction.Cheryl’s classroom practices are clearly in keeping with the underlyingassumptions of a social constructivist as articulated by Raphael & Hiebert(1996). That is, through interactive language events Cheryl created socialcontexts in which there was a shared frame of reference, shared definitionsof tasks, and a classroom culture in which teachers and more capable peersassisted children within their ZPD. Cheryl’s work reflects the Vygotskyianview of literacy as a ‘higher psychological processes’ – literacy was medi-


ated through social interaction. Moreover, she uses language as a tool tomake explicit metacognitive strategies of literacy and language use.

Cheryl’s classroom practices clearly fall within the guidelines ofwhat can be considered to be developmentally appropriate practice(IRA/NAEYC, 1998). In her classroom literacy is mediated within themeaningful context of its use. Her practice reflects the social, functionalnature of literacy and the interrelatedness of reading and writing, listeningand speaking. Independent explorations of reading and writing are clearlyevident, while not as actively emphasized. The ways in which Cherylmediates literacy are congruent with developmentally appropriate literacypractice. It is argued, however, that Cheryl’s work goes beyond develop-mentally appropriate practice in her efforts to make her program culturallyrelevant to the students she serves.

Cheryl’s practice is culturally appropriate to the degree to which itis in keeping with Stremmel’s (1997) recommendations that DAP mustmove toward practice to include: 1) teacher awareness and self-reflectionon biases, 2) pedagogical best practice, 3) knowledge of child develop-ment within a sociocultural context, 4) appreciation for value systems ofdiffering cultures, and 5) knowledge of other disciplines.

While not a native speaker of Spanish, Cheryl clearly values andrespects the home languages and the cultural backgrounds of the childrenwith whom she works. In an ideal setting the classroom teacher would be anative speaker of Spanish, or at least a more proficient speaker of Spanish,yet Cheryl takes the initiative to learn Spanish, something which is aboveand beyond what the Head Start Program provides. Her curriculum isimpacted by the cultural context of the children she serves and is derivedfrom varied sources.

Beyond this, Cheryl demonstrates respect and appreciation of diversitywhen she models and encourages second language learning not only forthe Spanish-speaking children, but also for the children whose homelanguage is English. Her value for learning a second language is evid-enced in the ways in which she mediates her students’ language literacylearning in both languages and in her collaborative partnership with theSpanish speaking teaching assistant. The discursive patterns of (1) socialcollaboration allowing for a variety of entry levels and enabling moreadvanced levels of participation, (2) formatted language/literacy nego-tiations embedded in ongoing daily organizational routines and rituals,(3) permeable contexts, (4) curriculum as individually and culturallyresponsive to children, and (5) language encouraging reflection, and meta-cognitive awareness were ones which encourage children to appropriate


classroom language and community resources. That is, the scaffoldedopportunities for literacy/language learning lay the groundwork for secondlanguage learners to access what their peers know and to co-constructmeaning in interactions with one another (Toohey, 2000). Moreover, thedescribed discourse patterns provide opportunities for students to developmore powerful identities as learners. That is, while English is clearly themore privileged language, the playing field is leveled because all childrenmust rely on each other’s expertise in order to appropriate the first languageof their peers. Thus, the described discourse practices may provide accessto community resources and may mediate against stratifying Spanish-speaking children as less powerful learners at school. Further longitudinalevaluation, however, is required to determine if these practices do indeedfacilitate second language learning and do indeed impact the identity ofstudents as empowered learners.

The contribution of this study, however, is in its careful contexualizeddescription of how one teacher interprets and operationalizes what sheconsiders to be developmentally appropriate literacy practice within thecontext of her bilingual classroom. It provides rich data for reflectionand discussion on how developmentally and culturally appropriate literacypractice may be understood and applied by teachers in the complexity of areal life setting. As such, this study provides data that can serve to informand refine both theory and practice underlying the construct of develop-mentally appropriate practice as it applies to the mediation of literacy. Thisconclusion is supported by the findings of the larger study from which thisfine tuned analysis was taken.

Across all four settings there were variations in interpretations of DAPliteracy practices, in theoretical underpinnings, variations in the waysand the degree to which discourse patterns empowered second languagelearners to appropriate community resources and to develop powerfulidentities as learners at school. These differences provide an opportunityto dialogue to further refine our understanding of theory and practice,to generate questions, and to design investigations situated in real lifecontexts to answer our evolving questions (Kurkjian, 1994).

8. CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this research, and the questions that it generated suggestthat attention be paid to how teachers understand and apply their under-standing of DAP as it relates to language and literacy learning within thecomplexity of their own classrooms. An underlying assumption of this


recommendation is that like all learners, teachers are not passive reci-pients of knowledge and what they learn is impacted by what they alreadyknow within the parameters of their own situations. Thus, variations ininterpretations are expected. Through teacher-initiated research, teachershave the opportunity to reflect on their own work in light of their under-lying conceptual framework and add to the continuing conversation aboutwhat constitutes educationally and culturally appropriate literacy-relatedexperiences for preschool children.

Clearly, when teachers like Cheryl research their own work, theyare empowered to contribute to and challenge theory. These conclusionsare consistent with teacher-research models which maintain that teachersare guided by implicit and explicit theories as they interact with theirstudents in context specific classrooms which are embedded in largercommunities (Howe, 1992; Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1992; Ross, Cornett& McCutcheon, 1992). Context explicit descriptions of how teachers applytheir understanding of what constitutes developmentally and culturallyappropriate language and literacy practice provide a database for criticalreflection.

REFERENCES

Administration for Children and Family Services Press Room (1999). Retrieved fromhttp://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/press/1999/hispan803.htm.

Beal, L.G. (1991). A qualitative investigation of the relationship between kindergartenteachers’ beliefs and behavior and the intervening factors (Doctoral dissertation, Univer-sity of Colorado, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(04A), 1138.

Bowman, B.T. (1992). Reaching potentials for minority children through developmentallyand culturally appropriate programs. In S. Bredekamp & T. Rosegrant (Eds), Reachingpotentials: Appropriate curriculum and assessment for young children (pp. 129–135).Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Bredekamp, S. (Ed.) (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhoodprograms serving children from birth through age 8 (rev. ed). Washington, DC: NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children.

Bredekamp, S. & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early child-hood programs (#237). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education ofYoung Children.

Bredekamp, S. & Rosegrant, T. (Eds) (1995). Reaching potentials: Appropriate curriculumand assessment for young children, 2. Washington, DC: National Association for theEducation of Young Children.

Bredekamp, S. & Rosegrant, T. (Eds) (1992, 1995). Reaching potentials: Appropriatecurriculum and assessment for young children, 1, 2. Washington, DC: National Asso-ciation for the Education of Young Children.

Clay, M. (1987). What did I write? Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann Educational.


Constas, M.A. (1992). Qualitative analysis as a public event: The documentation ofcategory development procedures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2),253–266.

Ferriero, E. & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before schooling. Exeter, New Hampshire:Heinemann.

Gallimore, R. & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling andliterate discourse. In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp. 175–205). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Hart, C.H., Burts, D.C. & Charlesworth, R. (1997). Integrated curriculum and develop-mentally appropriate practice: Birth to age eight. New York: State University of NewYork Press.

Head Start Fact Sheet (updated 25 Jan. 2001). Retrieved from http:www.act.dhhs.gov/programs/opa/facts/headst.htm.

Howe, K.R. (1992). Getting over the quantitative-qualitative debate. American Journal ofEducation, 100, 236–256.

International Reading Association & National Association for the Education of YoungChildren (1998). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices foryoung children. The Reading Teacher, 52(2), 193–213.

Johnson, A., Werner, P.H. & Caverly, D.C. (1992). Developing professionalism in the childcare industry: An instructional program guide for child care workers. Southwest TexasState University, Center for Initiatives in Education.

Kessler, S.A. (1991). Early childhood education as development: Critique of the metaphor.Early Education and Development, 2, 137–152.

Kostelnik, M.J. (1992). MYTHS associated with developmentally appropriate practices.Young Children, 5, 17–23.

Kurkjian, C. (1994). The mediation of literacy in selected Head Start classrooms.(Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1994). Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 56(03A), 0820.

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, California: SagePublications.

Lubeck, S. (1994). The politics of developmentally appropriate practice: Exploring issuesof culture, class, and curriculum. In B.L. Mallory & R.S. New (Eds), Diversity& Developmentally appropriate practices: Challenges for early childhood education(pp. 17–43). New York: Teachers College Press.

Lubeck, S. (1996). Deconstructing ‘child development knowledge’ and ‘teacher prepara-tion’. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 147–167.

Lytle, S.L. & Cochran-Smith, M. (1992). Teacher research as a way of knowing. HarvardEducational Review, 62, 447–474.

National Center for Children in Poverty. Retrieved from NCCP website: http://cpmcnet.cpmc.columbia.edu/dept/nccp.

National Association for the Education of Young Children Position Statement: Respondingto linguistic and cultural diversity recommendations for effective early childhoodeducation (1995). Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/resources/position_statements.psdiv98.pdf.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (1986). NAEYC position state-ment on developmentally appropriate practice in programs for 4- and 5-year-old. YoungChildren, 41(6), 20–29.


Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of CurriculumStudies, 19(4), 317–328.

New, R.S. (1994). Culture, child development, and developmentally appropriate practices:Teachers as collaborative researchers. In B.L. Mallory & R.S. New (Eds), Diversity& developmentally appropriate practices: Challenges for early childhood education(pp. 17–43). New York: Teachers College Press.

O’Brien, L.M. (1996, 1997). Turning my world upside down: How I learned to questiondevelopmentally appropriate practice. Childhood Education, 73, 100–102.

O’Loughlin, M. (1992). Appropriate for whom? A critique of the culture of class and classbias underlying developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood education.Paper presented at the Conference on Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Education:Research, Theory, and Practice, Chicago, September.

Plutro, M. (2000). Head Start Bulletin Issue #67. Retrieved from http://www.hskids-tmsc.org/publications/hsbulletin67/finalcurriculum.pd.

Raphael, T.E. & Hiebert, E.H. (1996). Creating an integrated approach to literacyinstruction. Orlando, Florida: Harcout Brace College Publishers.

Reid, D.K. & Stone, C.A. (1991). Why is cognitive instruction effective? Underlyinglearning mechanisms. Remedial and Special Education, 12(3), 5–18.

Reutzel, D.R. (1997). Integrating literacy learning for young children: A balanced literacyperspective. In C.H. Hart, D.C. Burts & R. Charlesworth (Eds), Integrated curriculumand developmentally appropriate practice: Birth to age eight (pp. 225–256). Albany,New York: State University of New York Press.

Ross, E.W., Cornett, J.W. & McCutcheon, G. (1992). Teacher personal theorizing:Connecting curriculum practice, theory and research. Albany, New York: State Univer-sity of New York Press.

Snider, M.S. & Fu, V.R. (1990). The effects of specialized education and job experienceon early childhood teachers’ knowledge of developmentally appropriate practice. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 5, 69–78.

Spradley, J.P. (1997). The ethnographic interview. New York: Harcourt College Publishers.Stone, C.A. (1992). What’s missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In E.A Forman,

N. Minick & C.A. Stone (Eds), Contexts for learning: Social dynamics in children’sdevelopment. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stremmel, A.J. (1997). Diversity and the multicultural perspective. In C.H. Hart, D.C.Burts & R. Charlesworth (Eds), Integrated curriculum and developmentally appropriatepractice: Birth to age eight (pp. 363–388). Albany, New York: State University of NewYork Press.

Sulzby, E. & Teale, W.H. (1991). Emergent literacy. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal& P.D. Pearson (Eds), Handbook of reading research, 2 (pp. 727–758). White Plains,New York: Longman.

Tabors, P.O. (1998). What early childhood educators need to know: Developing effectiveprograms for linguistically and culturally diverse children and families. Young Children,20–26.

Teale, W.H. (1987). Emergent literacy: Reading and writing development in early child-hood. In J.E. Readence & R.S. Baldwin (Eds), Research in literacy: Merging perspec-tives (36th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference) (pp. 45–74). Rochester, NewYork: National Reading Conference, Inc.

Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroompractice. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.


Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychologicalprocesses. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Wolery, M., Strain, P.S. & Bailey, D.B. Jr. (1992). Reaching potentials of children withspecial needs. In S. Bredekamp & T. Rosegrant (Eds), Reaching potentials: Appropriatecurriculum and assessment for young children (pp. 92–111). Washington, DC: NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children.

CATHERINE KURKJIAN

School of Education and Professional StudiesDepartment of Reading and Language ArtsCentral Connecticut State UniversityNew Britain, CT 06050, USAE-mail: [email protected]

YVONNE SIU-RUNYAN

School for the Study of Teaching and Teacher EducationUniversity of Northern ColoradoMcKee Hall, 2nd fl., Greeley, CO 80639, USAE-mail: [email protected]

HELEN R. ABADIANO

School of Education and Professional StudiesDepartment of Reading and Language ArtsCentral Connecticut State UniversityNew Britain, CT 06050, USAE-mail: [email protected]

Date post:	29-Jan-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ccsu
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Developmentally Appropriate Practice: Pedagogical Interpretations in a Bilingual Head Start...

Documents