DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 327 290 PS 019 262

AUTHOR Hazareesingh, Nedra, Ed.; Livingston, Jean, Ed.

TITLE Early Education: Building Bridges to the FUture.

Proceedings of the Annual Conference on EarlyChildhood Education (8th, Duluth, Minnesota,September 30 and October 1, 1988).

INSTITUTION Minnesota Univ., Duluth. Dept. of Child and Family

Development.

PUB DATE 88NOTE 50p.

PUB TYPE Collected Works - Conference Proceedings (021)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS *Art Education; Child Development; CognitiveDevelopment; Community Programs; Coping; CurriculumDesign; Disabilities; Early Childhood Education;*Educational Practices; *Fire Protection;Instructional Development; Learning Activities;Manipulative Materials; Mathematics Instruction;*Parenting Skills; *Piagetian Theory; *Play; StoryReading; Teacher Characteristics

IDENTIFIERS *Constructivism; Empiricism; Screening Programs;Transition Time

ABSTRACTThis collection contains the keynote address and

several presentations that were delivered at a University ofMinnesota conference on issues in early childhood education. Keynotespeaker Rheta DeVries discussed three tasks facing the educator whois learning to be a constructivist teacher: understanding the natureof the child's mind; overcoming four empiricist ideas about teaching

and learning; and completing four phases in movement toward thepractide of constructivist edudation. Sectional presentationsconcerned: (1) developing an understanding of artistic works throughart education during early childhood; (2) planning for play; (3)

rearing competent children by applying developmental concepts; (4)

teaching young children concepts in fire prevention, evasion, and

safety; (5) using books in the classroom; (6) using community-basedscreening in early childhood in public schools, preschools, and child

care programs; (7) using a Piagetian approach to mathematics with

manipulatives; and (8) coping with disability by means ofidentification of positive contributions made by disabled persons, an

informal support network, mixed support from professionals, andlimited expectations for the future. Citations accompanying thepresentations number 80. Mailing addresses of presenters are

provided. (RH)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE

EIGHTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

EARLY EDUCATION:

BUILDING BRIDGES TO THE FUTURE

September 30 and October 1, 1988

Duluth, Minnesota

EDITED BY: NEDRA HAZAREESINGH, Ed. D.

JEAN UVINGSTON, M. Ed.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD. /MD FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, DULUTH

DULUTH, MINNESOTA 55812

i

First published in 1981 by the Advisory Council of the Early Child Care and

Development Programs and Continuing-EducAtion and Extensim, Uni-versity of Minnesota, Duluth, Duluth, Minnesota.

Cover design by Alyce Johnsen.

The opinions expressed in these papers are those of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect those of the publishers.

Copyright 0 by the authors.

ii

Preface and Acknowledgements

The Department of Child and Family Development, University of Minnesota, Duluth, offers Early

Childhood Studies Programs ( formerly Early Child Care and Development) at both the undergraduate

and graduate level. The programs have an interdisciplinary cunicula designed to prepare students for

work in a variety of settings.

Sincel 981, the Advisory Council of the Early Childhood Studies Programs have sponsored an annual

conference in Early Childhood Education during Fall Quarter. Each conference highlights a particular

topic of interest to professionals and parents of young children. The focus of the Eighth Annual

Conference was Early Education: Building Bridges to the Future. The featured speaker was Dr. Rheta

DeVries, Professor, Department of Human Development and Consumer Services and Director, Human

Development Laboratory School, University of Houston. This monograph includes the keynote address

presented by Dr. DeVries and several sectional presentations.

We wish to express our gratitude to our colleagues and members of tke programs' Advisory Council

for their advice and support; to Dr. Terrie Shannon, Associate Dean, College of Education and Human

Service Professions for her words of welcome to the conference participants; to the Continuing

Education and Extension staff for all of their efforts; and to Sue Siverson, our word processor, for her

work in preparing the monograph for publication. We dedicate this monogaph to Dr. Jeane Sword

whose vision and commitment to early childhood education has inspired all of us.

III

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface and Acknowledgementsiii

Introduction of Keynote Speaker 5

I. Keynote AddressConstructivist Educition: Implications of Piaget's Theory 6

Rheta DeVries

II. Sectional Presentations

Developing an Understanding of Artistic Works

Through Art Education During Early Childhood 18

Jarfies H. Brutger

Planning for Play 22

Bruce Cunningham

Rearing Competent Children: Developmental Concepts

for Parents, Teachers, and Day Care Providers 26

Darryl Dietrich

Steve and Patty Do the Great Chicago Fire 31

Steve Hansock and Patty Bennett

Ideas for Extending Story Sharing34

Lee Karnowski and Kathleen Buss

Community Based Screening: An Interagency Alternative

for Public Schools and Preschool/Child Care Centers 37

Leese Maxwell

Mathematics Using Manipulatives 40

Mary Ann Rotondi and Nedra A. Hazareesingh

Four Themes in the Lives of Farr :es Coping With Disabilities 44

Crody S. Spillers

III. Author Index with Mailing Addresses 47

6

INTRODUCTION OF THE KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Dr. Rheta Devries

Eighth Annual Conference on Early Childhood Education

Dr. Rheta De Vries is Professor, Department of Human Development and Consumer Sciences,

and Director, Human Development Laboratory School at the University of Houston. Following four

years of pubiic school teaching in Illinois, she entered graduate school at the University of Chicago

where she received a Ph.D. in developmental psychology. She has lectured on constructivist

education in the United States, and in Mexico, Austaia, France, Germany, Argentina, and Korea

as well. Her research has inciuded studies of cognitive, social, and moral development in young

children, and work with teachers in classrooms to conceptualize and articulate principles and

examples of constructivist education informed by the work of Jean Piaget. She has authored

several books including Physical Knowledge in Preschool Education and Group Games inEarly Education: Implications of Piaget's Theory (with Dr. Constance Kamii), and Programs

of Early Education: The Constructivist View (with the late Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg). Recent

research focused on comparing sociomoral competence in children in Montessori and constructivist

preschool programs. Currently, Dr. DeVries is swdying sociomoral competence in kindergarten

children in DISTAR, constructivist, and child.centered public school classrooms.

5

7

CONSTRUCTIVIST EDUCATION: Implications of Piaget's Theory

Rheta DeVries

University of Houston

Education based on Piaget's work is calledconstructivist education because Genevan researchhas demonstrated that children actively constructtheir knowledge and even intelligence itself. Aconstructivist teacher is one whose teaching is in-formed by the body of research and theory supportingthis idea. Becoming a constructivist teacher is noteasy because education based on Piaget's work is

in many ways very different from traditional views ofteaching and learning. I see three tasks for theeducator in learning to tr a constructivist teacher.First, one must understand the nature of the child'smind. Second, one must overcome empiricist ideasabout teaching and learning that dominate our cul-ture. Third, one must complete four phases inmove ment toward the practice of constructivisteducation.

Understanding the Nature of theChild's Mind

We know children construct their knowledge andintelligence because children have so many ideaswe never teach them. Piaget's work revealed manysurprising ways in which children think. The classicstudies of conservation showed that young childrenbase their judgment of quantity on the amount ofspace occupied. During the 1960's, Kohlberg and Idevised modifications of some of Piaget's tasks in aneffort to demonstrate persuasively that children re-ally do experience the world differently from olderchildren and adults.

For example, I modified Piaget's classic experi-ment with number by using unequal rows of M&Mcandies. In this tasm, two pizza plates were presented,one having five M&Ms in a short line, and the otherhaving six in a longer line. Children were easily ableto point to the row of six when I asked which hadmore to eat. Then the row of six was arranged in arow shorter than the five, and children were told they

could take the row with more if they could correctly

6

point to it. Almost all high-IQ six and seven-year-olds conservedthat is, they picked the shorter rowof six as having more to eat. However, of the high-IQ five-year-olds, over 60% took the longer row offive, and of the average-IQ children, half the six andseven-year-olds failed to conserve. It amazed me tosee so many children count the six M&Ms, then thefive, yet still insist that the longeirow of five had moreto eat. One bright nonconserving kiddergartner(who was almost six years old) did not count, but wasencouraged at the end to do so. When she counted,she expressed conflict, commenting, "This one (six)should have more because it's six and this has five,but this (five) has more because it's spreaded out."She seemed highly aware of the "moreness" of thenumber six, and I thought she might then changeher mind and conserve. So I gave her anotherchance and asked, "So which has more candy toeat?" and she said, "I pick the plate with five." Forher, six was more than five only when she counted,but what really "counted" in determining quantitywas the amount of space occupied.

Another situation in which I observed the intimaterelation between thinking and emotion involvedconservation, but is not a classical Genevan task.Kohlberg and I devised a situation with ring-segmentcookies that present the child with a powerful illusioncalled the Jastrow effect. Although the two cookiesare the same size, the one on bottom always appearslarger. When the red one is below the blue, the redappears larger, and when the red is moved abovethe blue, the blue then appears larger. One 7-year-old clearly expected the conserved relationship andwas quite astounded at the apparent transformation.He spontaneously began switching them back andforth, to verify the consistency of the apparent change.Then he made a series of hypotheses, followed byexperiments to test them. First, he said that theboard must be the cause, and looked under it. Tocheck out this hypothesis, he took the cookies awayfrom its influence, to find out whether the change still

c'N

occurred in mid-air. Seeing that it did, he was puzzled,but then thought of superimposing them. When Isaw that, I expected him to understand. However, heagain created the illusion, and still insisted that theyindeed did change. For him, they were the sameamou nt to eat when superimposed, but in the illusionposition, they were not the same. Eventually, hemade n arbitrary choice--but to be on the safe side,ho took the one on the bottom.

In another study, I attempted further to explorePiaget's view that children's "incorrect" ideas aboutthe wodd reflect a unique and different subjectiveexperience, and that they interpret this subjectiveexperience as objective, failing to make the distinc-tion between the apparent and the real. I wonderedwhether the phenomenon of nonconservation ofproperties of inanimate objects had any parallel wifi,the way in whiuh children thought about the charac-teristics and identity of living creatures. So I traineda reluctant, but obliging black cat named Maynard towear a ferocious-looking dog mask and a benignrabbit mask. Then I interviewed children from threeto six years about whether the identity changedwhen the appearance changed. Let me quote in padfrom an interview with Christopher, a high-IQ boy ofthree years and eight months. He first was invited topet the cat and did so fearlessly and with greataffection. Then I screened the cat's head, and toldChristopher to watch the animal's tail (so he wouldknow I was not simply putting away one animal andtaking out another). Presenting the cat with rabbitmask, I said:

(Look, now it has a face like a rabbit. Whatis this animal now?) Rabbit (smiles, drawsfeet up onto seat of chair). (How can youtell?) (Laughs) Hi, rabbit. (How can you tellhe's a raobit?) He's a bunny rabbit! Hi! Hi!Hi! . . . (Is he a real rabbit?) Yes. (Whathappened?) Make him out a cat--a dog--now. (Could I make him a dog?) Yes ... .Make him out a monkey this time! Makehim out something else .. .. Make him outa cat again . . .. (Can he hop?) Hop. Hop,rabbit. He don't wants to hop. Hop, please.Hop. FIce for her. He'll hop for you later.(DeVries, 1969, pp. 14-16).

7

This type of response was given by all the three-year-olds, 80% of the four-year-olds, almost 40% ofthe five-year-olds, and even 25% of the six-year-olds.

Piaget's books and writings by otherdevelopmen-tal psychologists are filled with revelations aboutchildren's reasoning. However, the content studiedby Piaget and other developmental psychologistsare for the most part not the content with whichteachers are concerned. In oducation, we mustlearn how to explore children's reasoning in class-room activities.

In recent research (DeVries, 1986), I have tried todo the kind of research Piaget did with his tasks withso me content meeting criteria for activities incbnstructivist education. For example, in researchon children's conceptions of shadow phenomena, Ifound many surprising ideas. Almost all 9-year-oldsbelieve a merged shadow is still there even thoughthey can't see it. Even at this age, normal childrenattribute to shadows some properties of physicalobjects and reason that the merged shadow is underthe larger shadow or mixed up with it. Many alsobelieve that the way to make a shadow move iron,one side of themselves to the other is to tarn them-selves around 180 degrees. When they find thisdoes not work, they often go to great lengths tochange the shadow's position simply by their ownaction--never mind the light! They turn more slowlyor more quickly, stand up, and lean forward. Whenthey stand behind the light source and do not seetheir shadow, many children nevertheless insist thatit is still there somewhere--in thr' darkness, on thedark wall or inside themselves. One child said thatit ran out the door and went to look. When he didn'tfind it, he decided it was in the wall. During aSummer Institute on Construcfivist Education inHouston, one participant did some shadow activitieswith two-year-olds. They marked shadow outlinesof outdoor play yard objects ;n the sand, planning tocheck later to see if they wo:e in the same places.Unfortunately, it rained, and all the shadows disap-peared. One of the children said the shadows couldno longer be seen because the rain had pushedthem into the ground! The next day, he carefullypiled sand, dirt, and leaves "over" a shadow--as hesaid, "so no one will step on it and mess it up." Whatsurprised me about these findings was that under-

9

standing shadow phenomena requires such a longtime. Most 9-year-olds have not yet achieved thehighest stage of reasoning and knowledge. I was

also surprised that understanding shadows requiresthe construction of a whole network of spatial andcausal relations as well as conceptions about thenature of light.

Even when we think we have taught childrensomething, we often find they have understood in

surprisingly incorrect ways. For example, one 8-year-old boy, Joe, tried very hard to explain to mewhat he had been taught about shadows. Hedescribed a demonstration with a paper circle thatwas white on one side and black on the other, pasted

on the end of a stick. However, as Joe talked aboutthis experience, it became obvious that he hadunderstood nothing. He told me in careful detail thatwhat you do is move the stick in front of a light so theshadow falls on the wall. When I asked him thenwhat that meant, he struggled to say that it was thesun and the moon. When I asked him where the sun

was, he said it was as if the light was the sun and thecircle was the moon. I probed with a hint tor him tomention the earth: "And the shadow is where?" Hisreply, "The wall." The earth was nowhere in histhinking. I tried to get him to reflect further by saying,"So how does that work?" He struggled, "The lightmakes--the dark." I repeated, "The light makes thedark. So how does light make it dark? He sighed athis own paradox and exclaimed, "That's the hardestquestion I ever tried to figure out. He concluded,"It's just a mystery. Probly nobody knows."

This is an example of what Piaget called "schoolvarnish." It is very easy for children to recite thewords teachers tell them. And it is very easy forteachers to delude themselves into thinking theyhave therefore taught something. The sad thing is

that Joe knew he did not know what he was talkingabout and felt inadequate. What was really tragicwas that his energy was so focused on trying to giveme the school varnish that he had no energy left for

his own horest reasoning.

Consider an exam& of school varnish in arith-metic. One child quoted by Kamii (1984) wrote "5 -2 .-: 5." This made sense because he put out fivechips for the five, then two more for the two, then didwhat the sign said, and took away 2. Sure enough,

8

five remained! Another example from Kamii's (1984)research on how children understood equationsinvolved asking children to show what an additionstatement meant by giving the number of objects toa doll. Take 3 + 2, for example. Many children whowrote the correct answer nevertheless gave 10

objects to the doll! These phenomena are the resultof teaching children formalisms of mathematicsbefore they have the log::: it is intended to express.The teaching of arithmetic especially cannot be

divorced from the development of byic--and, clearly ,logic is not a result of understanding number state-ments, but prerequisite to it.

The studies I described are only a few of many inwhich researchers keep coming up with the sameresult. No matter what the content domain, youngchildren think in ways that are qualitatively differentfrom the ways in which older children and adultsthink. Certainly no one tells the child that quantity oridentity changes with a change in appearance.These ideas must, therefore, come from the child--from his or her own effort to make sense out of theworld--from the child's logic and psychological ex-perience. This is what Piaget meant when he said

that thz child constructs knoviedge.

When we take the trouble to find out howchildren

honestly think, we find that they learn many thingswe do not teach. A central problem in education isthe failure to adapt teaching to the way children

know. From this perspective, many learning dis-

abilities are in fact created by schools. Children at

risk and children beginning school are especiallyvulnerable when teachers demand they learn whatthey cannot understand. Piaget (1969) argued that

"If the child's thought is qualitatively different from

our own, then the principal aim of education is toform its intellectual and reasoning power" (p. 160).

Constructivist education is an effort to take intoaccount the nature of the child's mind and its naturallaws of development. Over the past 17 years, I have

struggled to figure out what this means in practicalterms. It is not so easy Decause after all, Piaget'sresearch is not research on learning, and his theoryis not a theory of teaching. A big gap exists betweenthe theory and its implications for classroom prac-tice. I have therefore had to build a bridge and travela two-way street between the theory and the

JO

classroom in order to conceptualize, experiment,and describe education informed by Piaget's work.Many teachers have worked with me to move froma vague conception of active education to specificactivities and principles of teaching. Lookinc backon this process, I can see that we had to give upmany of our old ideas and construci new ideas aboutteaching and learning. Since many of you are newto what it means to be a constructivist teacher, Ithought perhaps it would be helpful to talk aboutsome of the difficulties and obstacles toconstructivist

teaching.

Overcoming Empiricist ideas aboutTeaching end Learning

Most of the ideas to be given up in the cOurse of

becoming a constructivist teacher reflect the empiri-cist, behavioristic tradition in which we were all

reared. Piaget's revolutionary research and theorycontradict this tradition. The basic assumption ofbehaviorism is that the child is like a mirror, a vaseor a blank slate, or situated like a mirror to passivelyreflect the environment. In other words, in behavior-istic or stimulus-response theory, the environmentstimulates the child and elicits respo:Ises from anotherwise essentially passive creature.

In contrast, Piaget has shown that the child is notpsychologically empty, but is born with action sys-tems that function as instruments of knowing. Thenewborn already is acting on the world by suckingand grasping. Moreover, he is already elaboratinghis knowledge of objects through modifying hissucking and grasping actions to accommodate tothem. Here are the origins of intelligence thatbecomes more and more differentiated as the infantexpands this repertoire of actions. Notice the em-phasis on action In order to know.

Now let us be more specific about some of the oldidea:, constructivist teachers give up, and the newideas that replace them. I have conceptualizedthese into four shifts in teachers' thinking:

1. From instruction to construction

2. From reinforcement to interest

3. From obedience to autonomy

4. From coercion to cooperation

From Instruction to Construction. The teacherwho focuses on instruction,views teaching as trans-mission of information. In traditional teacher train-ing, the emphasis is on subject matter and how topresent it to children. The teacher's preoccupationis with instructing through sequencing content, drill-ing, correcting, and testing. In contrast, for teachersinformed by Piaget's theory, the preoccupation is notthe teacher's Instruction, but the child's construction.Piaget emphasized that the aim of education shouldbe not just to furnish the child's mind, but to form it.

In emphasizing the child's construction and de-emphasizing the teacher's instruction, Piaget madeit clear, however, that teaching in accordance withconstructivism should not be misunderstood to implythat the teacher has no role to play or that thechildren should be left with unlimited freedom towork gor play on their own. He notes that:

It is important that the teachers presentchildren with materials and situations andoccasions that allow them to move forward.It is not a matter of just allowing children todo anything. It is a matter of presenting tothe children situations which offer newproblems, problems that follow on fromone another. You need a mixture of di-rection and freedom. (Quoted in Evans,1973, p. 53).

Now consider the preoccupation of instructionwith subject-matter analysis. Too often, curriculummakers have sequenced content to be taught in

terms of what are the simplest elements from theadult perspective. Seldom are these the simplestfor children. For example, Emilia Ferreiro (Ferreiroand Teberosky, 1979) has shown that young childrentypically reject words of less than 3 or 4 letters as"something that can be read." They also typicallyreject the articles, "a," "an," and "the"as 'somethingthat can be written." The common practice of be-ginning reading instructicn with short words thusstarts with material dominated by what mostchildren

consider unreadable. For teachers informed byPiaget's theory, subject-matter analysis gives way tochild analysisthat is, to thinking about howchildrenthink about subject matter. Teaching subject mattercannot be isolated from fostering reasoning. Fos-tering reasoning about a given subject matter means

9,.I. 1

that you have to be more creative than those whomake the usual school curriculum. Activities sug-gested in traditional curricula are often inappropriatefor young children. By bringing knowledge about themind of the child to the subject matter, you cancreate better activities than those given in mostpublished curricula.

Teaching informed by Piaget's theory must bebased on knowledge of mental development withina subject-matter domain. Piaget himself expressedthis by drawing an analogy between the practice ofeducation and the practice of medicine. He said:

The art of education is like the art ofmedicine: It is an art that cannot be prac-ticed without special "gifts," but one thatassumes exact and experimental knowl-edge relating to the human beings onwhich it is exercised. This is not anatomicaland physical knowledge like a doctor's, butpsychological. (Piaget, 1948, p. 94).

Traditional teachqr training gives almost nopreparation in psychological knowledge about themind of the child and its development. Without thisknowledge, teachers will not understand children'sspontaneous procedures and may view them as awaste of time.

Consider the preoccupation with drill in thetransmission of information. The common as-sumption is that if children do not know something,they should practice reciting right answers. How-ever, from a constructivist perspective, when a childdoes not understand instruction, it is because hecannot. Therefore, the worst thing we can do ismake that child do more of what he cannot do. Thisturns out to be either a rehearsal of failure or re hearsalof what the child finds meaningless. There is nobetter waj to kill motivation. The large number ofchildren in learning disabilities classes are eloquenttestimony to the futility of drill and practice, and to thedamage it can cause to self esteem.

The next preoccupation related to instruction isteachers' obsession with eradicating children's er-rors. Our traditional teacher training has told us thatthe responsible tenter tells a child when she iswrong, ai id corrects the child's mistakes. In contrast,the te acher informed by Piaget's theory has a healthyrespect for errors as an important part of the c....-

10

structive process. Sequences of instruction ordi-narily ignore the important role of the wrong ideaschildren construct in their etforts to make sense oftheir experience. For example, Ferreiro andTeberosky reveal that it is progress toward readingwhen a child hypothesizes that each letter in a wordcorresponds to a spoken syllable. If this hypothesisis mercilessly corrected, the child learns to distrusthis own reasoning, and to believe that right answersare only in the head of the teacher. Worse, the childis retained because the teacher does not recognizeprogress.

Preoccupation with testing leads people to be-lieve that tests tell what children know. However,tests only scratch the surface of right answers. Theytell us nothing about why wrong answers makesense to children. The constructivist teacher wantsto know the child's reasoning behind wrong an-swers. This is information that will inform teaching.Preoccupation with testing is so entrenched that notonly do teachers feel forced to teach for tests, butteaching itself often becomes just more testing.Consider the widespread use of worksheets. I saythese are tests because a childcannot learn anythingnew by doing them. If he doesn't know the rightanswer, he can't understand why he is wrong. If he

knows it already, he doesn't need the practice.

From Reinforcement to Interest. Behavioristteachers believe children learn through reinforce-ment. This assumption is built upon the idea of the

child as basically a passive responder to environ-mental stimuli. From this perspective, the role of theschool is to arrange environmental stimulation tomodal/ the individual's behavior through condition-ing. It assumes that the teacher must be concernedabout reward and punishment as the essentialmechanisms for changing the child's behavior. Thete acher with this model of the child in mind focusseson strengthnning, weakening, extinguishing, ormaintaining behavior through positive and negativereinforcement. Preoccupation with reinforcementleads tu efforts aimed at artificially motivating chil-dren--for example, with gold stars or other rewards.In this model, the teacher attempts to regulate thechild's behavior. Sometimes well-intentionedteachers are heard many times during a day to say"Goodr to chikfren, thinking that this impro: es self-esteem. What such teachers fail to consider is that

such reinforcement can make children dependenton adult approval and short-circuit their own autono-mous motivations.

In contrast to this view, the ccnstructivist notion isthat the role of the school is to provide the conditionsfor development that can only be accomplished bythe child himself. In this model, the child is theregulator of action and learning. It is not the teacher'sregulation that is imponant, but the child's regulationof knowing activity.

In some ways, it is much easier to teach with afocus on behavior. The teacher is the instructor whotransmitsWormation and tests children on whetherthey can give back this information. However, whenchildren fail to gi' e back correct inform3tion, it ismore difficult to teach in this behavioristic fashion. Itis more difficult because more of the methods thatalready failed continue to fail.

When traditional education fails, it is not the child'sfailure so much as the failure of instruction. Piaget'swork gives us the basis for an alternative to the kindof education that has failed. The alternative I advocaterequires that we revise how we think about what thechild can know. This leads to fundamental revisionof how we think about what we do.

From Obedience to Autonomy. The shift inteacher's thinking from obedience to autonomy in-volves the teacher's basic objectives for children.Interest and experimentation do not thrive in anenvironment in which the teacher is the authoritydemanding obedience. Mental activity floudshesbest in a particular kind of relationship with adults.This relationship sets the tone, the 'moral atmo-sphere of a class that is crucial for intellectualdevelopment. Piaget (1932) contrasts two types ofadult child relationships, one which promotes theconstructive process and one which retards it.

The first type of adultchild relationship is one ofcoercion or constraint in which the adult prescribeswhat is necessary for the child to do by giving himready-made rules and instructions for behavior. Inthis relation, the respect in the relationship is unilat-eral-the child's respect for the adult. The child'sreason for behaving is thus external to his ownreasoning and system of personal interests andvalues. Piaget calls this type of relation "heterono-

mous." Certainly, the young child's relations toadults are necessarily and largely heteronomous.That is, for reasons of health and safety, as well abreasons stemming from practical and psychologicalpressures on the adult, parents and teachers mustregulate children extemally in many ways. The childis forced to submit to a whole set of rules whosereasons are incomprehensible to him. The obliga-tions to eat certain foods at certain times, to have abath before bed, not to touch certain delicate orimportant objects, etc., can only be felt by the childas external since the necessity to carry out theseobligations cannot be felt from within. Such adultconstraint tends to consolidate instead of to correctthe natural egocentric tendencies of the. child. Whengoverned continually by the values, beliefs, andideas o others, the child practices a submission thatcan lead to mindless conformity in both moral andintellectual spheres. In other words, so long asadults keep the child occupied with learning whatadults want him to do and with obeying their rules, hewill not be motivated to question, analyze, or examinehis own convictions and construct his own reasonsfor following rules. In get's view, following therules of others throu_ morality of obedience or ofduty will never lead to the kind of reflection neces-sary for commitment to a set of internal or autono-mous principles of moral judgment. Piaget warnedthat constraint socializes only the surface of be-havior and actually reinforces the child's tendency torely on purely external regulation.

Piaget contrasts the heteronomous adultchildrelationship with a second type that is characterizedby mutual respect .and cooperation. The adultreturns the child's respect by giving him the possi-bility to !,ulate his behavior voluntarily. This typeof relation Piaget calls "autonomous" or "coopera-tive." He argues that it is only by refraining fromexercising authority that the adult gives the child thepossibility to elaborate, at least in part, his own rules,values, and guidelines for action. In so doing, th3adult helps to open the way for the child to developa mind capable of thinking independently and cre-atively, to construct a decentered personality, and todevelop moral feelings of reciprocity in all kinds ofsocial relations. By insisting that the child only followrules, values, and guidelines given ready-made byothers, the adult contributes to the development of

an individual with a conformist mind, personality,and morality--an individual capable only of followingthe will of others. Much education for children in poorcommunities is based on the idea that strict, evenharsh discipline is necessary "because that's whatthese children understand." Parents often supportthis approach. Tragically, obedience.based schoolssimply perpetuate qualities needed for submission.

Essentially, the difference between these twotypes of adult-child relationships is a difference in theexercise of power. Piaget (1948) commented asfollows:

In reality, education constitutes an indis-soluble whole, and it, is net possible tocreate independent personalities in theethical area if the individual is also subjectedto intellectual constraint to such an extentthat he must restrict hmself to learning byrote without discovering the truth for him-self. If he is intellectually passive, he willnot know how to be free intellectually.Conversely, if ids ethics consist exclu-sively in submission to adult authority, andif the only social exchanges that make upthe life di the clan are those that bind eachstudent individually to a master ho' Ting allpower, he will not know how tc oe intel-lectually active. (p. 107).

The method by which the autonomous relation-ship operates is that of cooperation. Cooperatingmeans coordinating one's own feelings and per-spective with a consciousness of anothers feelingsand point of view. The motive for such decenteringand reciprocity begins in a feeling of mutual affectionand mutual trust which becomes elaborated intofeelings of sympathy and consciousness of theintentions of others. Cooperation is a social relationbetween equal individuals. Obviously, children andadults are not equals. However, when the adult isable to respect the child as a person with a right toexercise his will, one can speak about a certainpsychological equality in the relationship. Piaget, ofcourse, was not advocating complete freedom.Rather, he suggested simply that coercion be mini-mized to the Ntent practical, and that what is mostdesirable is a riixture increasingly in favor of thechild's regulatioi . .:f his own behavior.

12

When we talk about decentering, autonomy, andcooperation, we are talking about the processeswhich are simultaneously cognitive and emotional.Adult constraint produces a constriction of children'sminds, personalities, and feelings. Adult coopera-tion produces a liberation of children's possibilitiesfor construction of their intelligence, their personali-ties, and their moral and social feelings.

Although Piaget felt that mutual respect is pos-sible between the child and the adult, he pointed outthat:

It is extremely difficult to make the childforget that in the background there is alwaysan authority which could reappear, even ifone does one's utmost tr.; make him forget.There is always a basic unilateral respectbecause there is an inequality in fact.

He went on to emphasize that it is only in relationsamong children themselves that there is the possibil-ity for the real equality which can undo the constrict-ing effects of unavoidable unilateral respect for adults.There exist, of course, inequalities and unilateralrespect among children as well, but this is stilldifferent f rom the respect children feel toward adults.

I would like to add to these general comments onthe effects of heteronomy the fcllowing remarks.Children who are normal or advanced in their intel-lectual development suffer less from the effects ofheteronomy than at-risk children. This is becausechildren who are retarded or delayed intellectuallyare less able to take the point of view of the adult andunderstand some of the reasons behind adult coer-cion. They also suffer less to the degree that theyhave confidence in themselves and simply discountthe adult view. While perhaps placating adult wishes,children can sometimes retain their autonomy de-spite adults. In contrast, children who are notnormal in their intellectual development suffer morebecause they are unable to understand coercionexcept as completely arbitrary. Coercive enviror.ments for these at-risk children increase inequities ineducation. These children are the most vulnerable,and thus the most fikely to manifest the three un-fortunate effects of heteronomy. These are rebellion,conformity at the price of loss of will, and calculation.By calculation, I mean following adult rules when theadult is wathing, but doing what they like when the

, 4

adult is not watching.

From Coercion to Cooperation. This shift in-volves the teacher's most basic principle of teach-ing. It is actually the flip side of the previous shift fromobedience to autonomy. The teacher whose objec-tive is obedience must be coercive, even if sheattempts to foster obedience through positive meanssuch as cajoling or bribing. Certainly heteronomouspractices can be discussed as a continuum fromoutright hostile and punitive methods to sugar-coatedcoercion. What these all have in common is empha-sis on obedient behavior. The teacher is clearly theauthority, and children's behavior is regulated bywhat the teacher wants.

In contrast, the constructivist teacher is a com-panion and guide who expresses respect for chiklrenand practices cooperation rather than coercion.Affective reciprocity in mutual affection is part of thefoundation for reciprocity in reasoning--mobility inthought that involves coordination of relationships.

So what is constructivist education? Piaget saysit is above all active. His general ideas are that activeeducation:

1. Engages the child's interest;

2. Inspires active experimentation with all itsnecessary groping and error;

3. Fosters cooperation between adults andchildren and among children themselves.

Let us examine these ideas in the classroom con-text

interest. Active education does not occur in aclassroom where children sit at desks in isolationfrom one another, doing paperwork. A constructivistclassroom is one in which many different activitiesgo on simultaneously. These activities include ac-tivities long associated with the child-developmenttradition in early educatior (for example, paintingand other art activities, blocks and other construc-tion activities, and pretend play). In addition,constructivist teachers add physical-knowledgeactivities (Karnii and DeVries, 1978) and groupgames (Kamii and DeVries, 1980). They viewconflict as part of the curriculum and teach childrenhow to vote and other negotiation strategies.

13

It surprises many people to learn that constructivisteducation for cognitive development is equally fo-cused on effectivity. This "Piagetiarr principle waselaborated well before Piaget by John Dewey. I

recommend his short book published in 1913 onInterest and Effort in Education in which he arguesthat the aim of education is increase in ability to putforth effort. Dewey cautions, however, that somekinds of effort are uneducative. These are efforts intasks that involve nothing but sheer strain and theneed of external motivation for keeping at them.Such tasks he describes as not only uneducative,but miseducative. They are miseducative becausethey deaden and stupefy, leading to a confused anddulled state of mind that always results when actionis carried out without a sense of personal purpose.They are also miseducative becatise they lead todependence on the external pressrise of the task-master. When the child's interest ano motivation liein avoiding punishment or getting reward from theteacher, it is thus focused outside the task itself.Dewey says we shoukl not look for motives externalto activities, but for motives in activities. Whenteachers have to look for artifidal ways to motivatechildren, something is seriously wrong.

Interest in activity is at the heart of constructivisteducation. Both Dewey and Piaget recommend thatwe start from the active powers of children. In whatways can young children be mentally active? Thegeneral answer to this question is that young chikirenare motivated to be mentally active in the context ofphysical activity. Intelligence originates in infancyin action that is simultaneously mental and physical.The baby literally cannot think without physical ac-tion. Mental development is in large part a matter ofgradually freeing mental activity from physical activity.For many years in childhood, however, physicalactivity continues to be closely associated with andnecessary for mental activity. Many learning dis-abilities may be created by teaching methods thatrequire children to think out of the context of interestand activity.

In order to understand what Piaget meant byforming the child's mind, it is important to know thespecial way in which Piaget (1969) saw the role ofaction in development. He distinguished two distincttypes of action by which an individual obtains twokinds of knowledge. These two types of action arise

1 5

from two basically different types of psychologicalexperience.

The first kind of experience is physical experiencewhich consists of individual actions on objects andleads to knowledge of the objects themselves. Forexample, in picking up solids, the child can noticetheir weight by physical experience. In order toobtain this information , he must focus on this particularaspect ot an object and ignore other properties suchas color and shape. Piaget refers to this action assimple or empirical abstraction. Other examplesinclude abstracting properties of objects by observ-ing their reactions to being dropped or pushed.Knowledge which thus has its source mainly inobjects is referred to as physical knowledge.

Logico-mathematical experience, in contrast,consists of actions on objects which introduce intothe objects characteristics they do not have. Forexample, number is not a property of any group ofobjects but consists of relationships created by anindividual. That is, the "two ness" of two objects doesnot existin either object but is a group of relationshipscoordinated by the individual who confers on themthis characteristic of quantity. Piaget refers to thisaction as reflective abstraction. Reflective abstractionis based not on individual actions but on coordinatedactions. Knowledge which thus has its sourcemainly in the knower himself is logico-mathematicalknowledge.

A third type of knowledge is arbitrary social knowl-edge which has as its source people. This is conven-tional knowledge that includes truths that are truthssimply because people have agreed they are. Forexample, there is no logical or physical necessitythat leads to the fact that school days are Mondaythrough Friday, or that July 4 is Independence Dayin the United States. The individual cannot find outthese facts by deduction or by acting on the physicalworld. They must be communicated in some way bypeople. The communication must, of course, still bestructured and given meaning by the individual.

Although Piaget has made these important dis-tinctions, he then goes on to point out that thedifferenttypes of experience, action, and knowledgeare really inseparable. There can be no physicalexperience without a logico-mathematical frame-work, and the logicomathematical frarnev.ork itself

14

is built in the course of physi, e rerience. Forbabies and yonng 0..,:be no logioai-mathematical experieetce without objeds to put rrrelationship. During tk; preperatio nal period (be-tween approximately two and ceven years), thephysical-material-observable continues to dominatethe child's thinking. The observable result of actionsis the child's main interest.

These distinctions enable us to think about teach-ing in terms of the kind of knowledge involved in ourobjectives. In the case cf physical knowledge, weneed to encourage children to act on objects andthink about their reactions. In the case of logico-mathematical knowledge, we must devise indirectways of teaching that foster the child's constructionof networks of relationships. In the case of arbitrary-social knowledge, we tell children directly, but stillkeep in mind that conventional knowledge, too,must be structured. For example, to learn thatAustin is the capital of Texas, the child must con-struct a part-whole relationship. A five-year-oldtaught me this when I sat beside him on a flight fromHouston, Texas to Los Angeles, California. Heobviously had been told he was going to another cityin anetherstate and had h-ren pondering the meaningof this. As he looked down on the earth shortly aftertake-off, he asked, "Is that still Houston?" I told himit probably was. He then asked, "Is Houston byTexas?" The spatial inclusion and double clas sifica-Con are not so easy for the child to construct.

The theoretical distinction of three kinds of knowl-edge also helps us know that when we teach childrento recite numbers, we are teaching arbitrary socialknowledge, not number in the logico-mathematicalsense., We therefore know that it is wrong to talk

about teaching children *number facts." This iswrong because knowledge of number requires thechild to construct the whole system of numericalrelationships. Consider again the example I gaveearlier of the child who said six should be more thanfive but was not. She had some school varnishabout six and five, but obviously did not understandthe relation of inclusion--that since 5 is included in 6,6 must be more than 5. TWs is not just a fact ofarithmetic. It is logic.

Piaget's (Piaget and Szeminska, 1941) studies ofclass inclusion demonstrated the lack of logical

1 6

inclusion in the reason:rig of young children. In

researct:!ollowing Piaget, I showed children 4 brownM&Ms and a white mint. The class inclusion questionwas, "Is there more chocolate or more candy?"Even most seven-year-olds said "More chocolate."I asked them to put all the candy in my hand. Noproblem. They had the language. They knew thecorrect referents for the words. Yet, when i askedaoain, "So--more chocolate or more candy?" theysaid, "More chocolate." What I want to emphasIzeis that children's difficulties with number and arith-metic are problems of logic. Teaching arithmeticcannot be divorced from teaching to promote rea-soning. The system of number is not just a pile offacts, but a network of logical relations of inclusion,seriation, and transitivity.

Experimentation. With Piaget's distinctionsamong different kinds of knowledge in mind,Constance Kamii and I worked with teachers todevelop physical-knowledge activities with objectsout of actions in the child's repertoire (Kamii andDrAtries, 1978). Such actions on objects includepushing, pulling, rolling, sliding, tilling, throwing,dropping, blowing, sucking, swinging, balancing,and jumping. We d..veloped four criteria for goodphysical-knowledge activities involving movementthat teachers have found useful. First, the move-ment must be observable to the child. Second, thechild must be able to produce it by his own action.Third, it must be variable so the child can noticecorrespondences between actions and reactions.Fourth, the reaction of the object must be immediatebecause correspondences are easier to establishwhen the child sees the reaction right away. Thereactions of adults to children's experimental effortsare crucial. Sometimes such efforts are viewed asmisbehavior by adults. It is easy to squelch a child'sexperimental attitude. The challenge for the teacheris how to foster it.

Cooperation. Social play is an important contextfor social and moral development bemuse childrenhave opportunities fordecentering--recognizing and

taking account of the behavior, desires, feelings,ideas, and psychological states of others. Inevita-bly, conflicts arise, and children must cope withopposition. Interpersonal conflicts of all sorts are animportant part of a cons tructivist program of educa-

tion because children are forced (sometimes pain-fully) to confront the opposed behaviors of others.With sensitive teacher guidance, children can beginto take account of the opposed desires lying behindopposed behaviors, and develop methods of coop-eration--of coordinating their desires with those ofothers.

Four Phases in Moving TowardConstructivist Teaching

Teachers who attempt to become constructivistteachers go through a developmental process thatis not easy. These are four overlapping phases Ihave observed.

1. Skepticism

2. Environmental change

3. Paralysis

4. Autonomy

Skepticism. The first skeptirml reaction is oftentotal rejection: "It won't work." Then there is theskepticism in the reaction, "I can't do it," and "Thesechildren can t do it." Another type of skepticism isconcern that the teaching of content wili be lost:"Reasoning and moral ,levelopment are nice, butwhat about reading and writing?" As if the teacher'sown skepticism were not enough, there is theskepticism of parents the teacher must deal with.

I cannot allay these skepticisms. It is you whomust do that through your own efforts--and skepti-cism will not disappear overnight. I would say thatfor most teachers, it takes about two years. In fact,you can count on your skepticism to increase. Bythat I mean that as you try to implement a constructivistprogram, the nature of your skepticism will change.After all, constructivism is not just a process ofchildren's development of knowledge and convic-tions. Teachers, too construct their conception ofwhat constructivist teaching means and their con-victions about it. Through your efforts, you willdevelop new questions and concerns that must beworked out in the course of teaching.

Environmental Change. This phase is charac-terized by such issues as "How do I arrange theroom?" "What materials do I need?" "What activitiesdo I write on the lesson plan?" A teacher new to

15

7

constructivist teaching typically goes through a pe-riod of panic reflecting anxiety over not havingenough for children to do. The development g arepertoire of activities is important. As the repertoirebecomes richer, the teacher also becomes moreflexible in planning and changing plans to follow upon children's ideas and interests.

Resistances encountered in this phase includeexternal and internal obstacles. Administrators areoften not supportive. Fellow teachers are oftencritical, and their skepticism may increase your ownself doubts. There may be no place to put the desksyou want to remove. The floor may be too cold forchildren. The budget may not be large enough toprovide all the materials you need. Making materialstakes a lot of time. The classroom cannot be fullyequipped all at once. When you haven't done thiskind of teaching before, it's hard to know just whatmaterials to give first priority.

This phase can be softened by apprenticeshipswith teachers who have been through it, by visitingclassrooms where the program is already imple-mented, and by getting solidly into a social networkin which you can talk about difficulties. I cannotemphasize too strongly the necessity for a system ofmutual support with colleagues. Different peoplewill be learning different things, and everyone can bea resource for someone.

Paralysis. Once the environment is basicallymade ready for children, the next phase consists ofquestions about the teachers role. I have heardteachers say, "I used to know what to do and say tochildren, but suddenly I seem immobilized." In thisphase, the leacher must confront issues of "What doI say?" "What do I do?" "How do I reduce my au-thority and not have chaos?" Skepticism maytake the form of concern that children are wastingtime. New problems will emerge in children's be-havior. In acoercive environment, children suppressa lot. In a cooperative environment, emotionaldifficulties are more freely expressed. his sometimessmall consolation to realize that these difficulties willnot be overcome unless they are expressed so youcan work on them. Too, children who are accustomedto a coercive environment in school may react to thenew freedom by testing it to see what its limits are.Teachers in the Human Development Laboratory

16

School say they sometimes feel coercive when theyhave to follow through in enforcing classroom rules.They stress that they have had to make a specialeffort not to take children's misbehavior personally.Sometimes it feels like :hildren are "out to get you."The feeling that childr )n are trying to make youmiserable is unhelpful .lecause it then keeps youfrom taking a professional, problem-solving attitudefocused on helping the child construct now scnemesof social reaction.

As I have observed teachers with regard to thinkingabout children's thinking, three sources of difficultyhave impressed me.

1. Some teachers spend such a large proportion oftheir time in classroom organization that they givethemselves little opportunity to observe children'sreasoning;

2. Some teachers provide few activities . let inspire4

children's reasoning;

3. When teachers do engage in activities, th ey relateto children in an authoritarian way that orients chil-dren to trying to figure out what the teacher wantsthem to say. This cuts off or circumvents theflourishing of children's spontaneous reasoning.

In our Lab School, the main problem for newteachers is how to talk to children--and also how notto talk too much. Experienced teachers say that oneof the hardest thh igs they had to do was to eliminate"Don't," "Stop," and "Because I say so" from theirvocabulary. They had to retrain themselves on howto talk so as to express respect for children. Thismeans consulting with children, asking children forsolutions to problems, and giving real choices thatpreserve the child's control of his behavior. I en-courage you to meet in groups specifically to discusshow to talk to children, and especially how to listen.Teachers at the Lab have found it helpful to know'words to say" as they were working out their un-derstanding of what it means to respect children,consult them, and give them choices. For example,they learned to ask new kinds of questions. Theygave up asking flr information, and began asking

ohestions that aupeal to action. An example isAstead of asking "What color do you have to put inblue to make green?"; it was more fruitful to ask, "Iwonder what would happen if you put in yellow?"

The child who already knows usualiy answers whathe anticipates and does it. The child who does notknow does notfeel pressured to give an answer, butis free to try and find out. In shadow activities,teachers had to overcome a desire to get children totell about shadows. Instead, they inspired experi-mentation by suggesting effects like "Could youmake the shadow bigger/longer?" and asking "Whatwould happen if you backed up?" or "What wouldhappen if you raised your flashlight higher?"

All of this takes a lot longer than telling childrenwhat to do. At first you may be skeptical of the worthof taking this time. Teachers I know are not reallyconvinced until they see changes in children. Forexample, two teachers recently told me they heardmy advocacy of cooking activities, but did not reallyunderstand until they tried them how powerful theycan be in engaging children's interest in reading,thinkinc, and cooperating. In cooking, too, theybecame convinced that it is sometimes useful not tocorrect children's errors. For example, two five-year-old cooks were careless with neasuring theingredients in their cookies. At snack time, theynoticed tiat the cookies tasted "Yucky". The nexttime the recipe was used, they knew the reason formeasuring carefully. Moral development was pro-moted as children felt a real responsibility to make agood snack for everyone to enjoy. These teachersbegan cooking because I suggested it, but theycontint id it because they became convinced bychildren's reactions.

Autonomy. It is this conviction that r,haracterizesteacher autonomy. Like constructivism, autonomyis not just for children. The autonomous teacherknows not only what to do, but why. She has a sadnetwork of convictions that are both practical andtheoretical. The autonomous teacher can thinkabout how children are thinking and at the same timethink about how to intervene to promote the con-structive process. Auton omy, too, is reflected in newways of evaluating teaching effectiveness, new waysof assessing learning. The teacher becomes sen-sitive to subtle but profound changes.

Teachers in the Lab emphasized that they de-veloped understanding in layers, each new onetaking them beyond former understanding. In par-ticular, their autonomy meant overcoming elemen-

17

tary education training and their own childhoodeducational experiences. They found that fouryears of college does not make one a teacher.Instead, growing never ends because children keepbringing new reactions to which teaching must beadapted.

The autonomous teacher gives up a lot of control.If child autonomy is to be fostered, the teacher hasto give children the freedom to control themselves.This is scary because it is hard to know whetherchildren can. The teacher new to constructivistteaching is skeptical with good reason. Developingconfidence in children's ability is also something thattakes time.

Autonomous teachers do not just accept uncriticallywhat curriculum specialists give them. They thinkabout whether they agree with what is suggested.They take responsibility for the education they areoffering children.

ConclusionIn reflecting about the task confronting us of

constructing constructivist education, I am remindedof an experience from my own childhood At agefive, my mother learned to knit, and so did I. Forsome time, I knitted a narrow fabrc that got longerand longer. Finally, someone asked me, "Rheta,what are you knitting?" I answererl, "I don't know--I'm not finished yet?" We cannotknow ahead of timeexactly what a constructivist program will be becausethis depends on what children contribute as well aswhat talented teachers contribute. I invite you to joinme in the constructive process.

DEVELOPING AN UNDERSTANDING OF ARTISTIC WORKS THROUGH

ART EDUCATION DURING EARLY CHILDHOOD

James H. Brutger, Ph. D.

Universi;y of Minnesota, Duluth

The Associated Press, in June of 1988, sent outa release based on a survey of kindergarten teach-ers from a major city. The survey indicated that halfof the children who enter the Chicago public schoolsystem are unable to say their first and last namesor to speak in a complete simple sentence. Thereport also stated that "...most of the youngsters arealso unable to identify basic shapes such as squaresand circles, hold a pencil or crayon correctly, sit stilland listen to a brief story or settle disputes withoutphysical aggression." If this situation exists in Chi-cago then, in all probability, it exists elsewhere.

Surveys of this type show that programs areneeded which will provide children with the basiclearning tools so they are able to compete success-fully in educational settings. Various programs havebeen developed for preschoolers that involve learn-ing habits and building self confidence. A programbased in art education can provide much of theneeded background for children about to enter kindergarten level.

The current trend in art edut.drion is centeredaround learning to talk about, and produce art. Thistrend is referred to as Discipline-Based Art Educa-tion. Clark, Day, and Greer (1987) speak of reasonsfor DBAE to be recognized as part of the total schoolcurriculum. "Discipline-based art education, as partof general education, aims to develop mature stu-dents who are comfortable and familiar with majoraspects of the disciplines of art and who are able toexpress ideas with art media, who read about andcriticize art, who are aware of art history, and whohave a basic understanding of issues in aesthetics."(P. 138)

The purpose of this paper is to discuss ways inwhich young children can develop an understandingof artistic works. These techniques include lookingat, discussing, and producing works of art. Anexcellentex ample of what can be done is a coopera-tive ver;:ure undertaken by an art gallery and par-

18

ents and their young children. In the 1988 July issueof Art Education, Barbara Piscitelli descrVes theprogram that took place in the Queensland ArtGallery in Brisbane, Austrara. A twelve week studyconducted by the gallery, in col:aboration with theSchool of Early Childhood Studies at Brisbane Col-lege of Advanced Education, involved thirty families,two museum educators and an early childhoodeducator. The project was called *Share the Joy!"(Piscitelli, 1988) and its purpose was to provide artappreciation experiences for preschool children andparticipating adults in a gallery setting.

An orientation session was held for the parents.They met with the staff and were made aware ofproject goals. As part of this session, they weremade familiar with the gallery and its art works.Tutors were introduced and the parents were askedto provide them with information about theirchildren.

At first, the tutors were used to point out variousthemes, techniques, and concepts to the children inan informal way. As the groups progressed, thetutors found themselves isolated from the parentsand children. The younger children, ages three tofour, seemed to prefer to discuss the art works withtheir parents while children four and five years oldseemed to relate better in a group.

To get the children to respond to works of art, thetutors and parents used open-ended questions andcasual conversation to probe the children's thoughts.Other methods such as role playing, movement,dressing up, and sensory explorationwere used.Props such as homemade binoculars and othercardboard viewers were provided to help tne chil-dren to focus in on various aspects of the artwork. Bywatching the children's body language and facialexpressions, both parents and tutors began to sensewhen it was or was not appropriate to prompt re-sponses from the children.

The responses of the children varied from the shychild who felt more comfortable talking quietly with a

20

parent to the child who enjoyed holding the floor byexpressing verbal ideas to the entire group. Fur-nished with two roils of cardboard taped together,the children went bird watching by peering into apainting depicting a variety of birds. Some childrenresponded well to the idea of imitating the sculpturalobjects in the museum by lying down or standing insimilar positions. The children often used the sub-ject of the paintings and sculptures es vehicles forstory telling.

Following the gallery experience the children andparents were taken to an area where both could getinvolved in the making of art.

Another program, involving a museum, took placein St. Paul, Minnesota in 1974. The St. Paul Mu-seum, in cooperation with local college art depart-ments, designed an environment emphasizing thefive senses. Volunteers were employed to visitparticipating schools. The volunteers made contactwith children and teachers of the third and fourthgrade classes. These classes were designated, toviSit the'museum and take part in the program. Thevolunteers explained the program to the children sothat when they arrived at the museum they wouldhave some idea of what to look for.

When the buses arrived at the museum, theywere met by guides who organized the children intosmall groups of about twelve each. These groupswere given an introduction to an exhibition. Theywere then told to look at the show individually or witha friend. Questions about the show were answeredby the guides who were nearby to assist and encour-age the children to become involved in the exhibi-tion. In one situation, a fiber work was displayed ina horizontal position under a plastic box. Thechildren were encouraged to identify with the pieceby lying down on the floor in imitation of the fiberwork.

After viewing the exhibit, the children were intro-duced to a tunnel that led into a room where thefocus was on the five senses. Before entering thetunnel, the children and adults had to take off theirshoes. The tunnel was dark and coated with hang-ing strings and ropes giving the person crawlingthrough it an eerie feeling.

Inside ihe room the children were introduced to alarge ear and hand lying on the floor, eyes hanging

19t

from the ceiling, and a huge nose into which theycould enter The ear contained several small speak-ers; each was broadcasting an unusual sound. Thechildren were told to place their ears against the bigear to determine how many sounds they could hear.The eyes contained beautiful colors and visual pat-terns. The hand had pockets at the knuckles and atthe joints of the fingers. Each pocket contained atextural object. The objects ranged from smooth tocoarse giving the children a variety of tactile experi-ences. The nose was a sturdy structure (some of thechildren climbed on top of it) containing sheNes withvarious containers of smells. The chiKren wereexposed to many different odors which challengedthe sense of smell.

Following the sensory room the children were ledto a large auditorium where a movie, screen camedown to the floor of a stage. Slides were projectedshowing abstract images. The chitrfren were en-couraged to come onto the stage and to use fabricsand costume material to make themnelves blendinto the projected image. This activity involvingmotion and play acting, accompanied by musicalsounds, lasted for about a half hour.

The next stop was at an area where severalstations were set up to give the chiidren a chance tocreate images using a vaelty of materials. Onestation allowed the children to pound nails into aboard; string was then added to create abstractpatterns. Another station contained fibers and yarn;here Ihey were encouraged to develop their ownweaving looms. One station contained severaleasels. The children were given paints and bmshesand were told to paint what ..03r they wanted. Therewere stations that had tabies of three dimensionalmaterials. The children were invited to constructshapes and objects of their choice.

After the period of constructive activity, the chil-dren were called together into a large area to discusstheir art work. On a volunteer basis the childrenshowed their work or commented on the work ofothers. The monitor skillfully directed the conversa-tion so that basic concepts of creativity and anunderstanding of the art elements were empha-sized.

In many ways these two programs, one involvinga museum and the other an art gallery, are modelsof how to give children, from preschool on up, the

21

background to formulate thoughts about the visualartsby means of shared experiences. An analysis ofthe two programs shows that: (1) Pre-planning tookplace which prepa,ed the children, parents, andschool personnel iortheir visits, (2) Volunteers were

'trained to provide the direction for interaction be-tween child and adult. (3) Sensitivity was developedto detect when it was appropriate to elicit a ;esponsefrom the child. ,(4) Basic props wet,' tl.ad to inviteeasy entrance into detailed viewing of various works,and to better understand the art elements. (5)Activities culminated in the use of art materialswhere the children could express their ideas in avisual way.

Posit' ie and NegatNe Influence

The early life of young children is one of constantexposure to their immediate environment. In thatenvironment they learn to walk, speak, and expressthemselves in countless ways. They are exposed tothe sounds of music, family anger and joy, andnumerous other sounds of daily living. Visually theyare exposed to surrounding colors, shapes, tex-tures, and linea patterns. As the children growolder, they are iold stories and exposed to manyfeelings of adventure. It is within this framework thatwe can assist children to develop a visual artsawareness.

Art experiences based on problem solving orchild-oriented discovery are best for developing afundamental understanding of the functioning of thevisual arts. Negative art stimulation should be avoidedas much as possible. Negative art stimulation is anytype of activity thrust upon the child that tends tointerfere with his/her natural artistic development.

Coloring book type activities are a good exampleof negative art. These activities call for the child toaccept adult-made images of subject matter at atime when the child's own images are forming. Anincident now and then involving coloi ing books willnot permanently damage a child's artistic develop-ment; however, constant bombardment at home, inschool, or by the social environment will interfereseriously with image formation. Coloring contests innewspapers, magazines, and through various busi-nesses, are constantly before the child. At schoolwell-meaning teachers will often use coloring print-outs to teach other subject areas.

20

The problem lies in the fact that it is one morecoloring book exposure that interferes with the child'saesthetic and creative development. The questionthat arises is: Is it fair to sacrifice one subject areafor the gain of another?

Art Games and Tools

Besides the use of countless art activities, artgames and tools can be used to nurture the child'svisual and aesthetic growth. The use of severe!prints of artists from a given art period can be madeinto a learning game. In one situation children, agesfour to live, were asked to match small reproduc-tions of paintings by French Impressionists withlarger prints done by the same artist. The challengefor the children was to look at the smaller print payingattention to the theme, color, texture, brush stroke,etc. and to match successfully the print with theartist. Five large prints by Monet, Cezanne, Gauguin ,Van Gogh and Degas and twenty small prints ofdifferent paintings by the same artists were used.The children did surprisingly well even when thetheme was different. They knew Van Gogh's "SelfPortrait" belonged with his "Starry Night". Theyknew well over 50% on the first try and rarely tookmore than two tries for a correct response (Brown).

Another game, designed to familiarize childrenwith various artists and the style of their paintings, isas follows: Six pairs of postcard size prints varyingfrom abstract to realism are used. Prior to initiatingthe game, a discussion is held with the four to five-year-old children to explain the difference betweenabstract, realism and expressionism. (The childrenseem to like the abstract prints because the colorsare vivid.) When it is determined that the childrenunderstand the basic differences betwesn the stylesof art being used, the game begins. The prints aremixed and turned upside down. The challenge is toguess where the work of an artist (by name) or a styleof painting is located. After a brief period of time thechildren seem to have little trouble identifying thelocation of all of the prints (Brown).

The "Texture Bag" is designed to allow rthildren todevelop an awareness of different textures. The"Texture Bag" can bo a small box, a paper bag, acoffee can with a sock top or any other type ofcontainer large enought to hold several items withvarying textures. Two-dimensional or three-dimen-

22

sional objects can be used. There are a number ofways to use this tool as well. One method t;.-, to gluedifferent fabrics onto cardboard disks making two ofeach kind. One disk is placed in the bag while theother is displayed outside of the bag. The challengeis to find the mate 20 the disk that can be seen byfeeling the various disks in the bag. This works bestwhen a disk is held in one hand while the othersearches for the mate. Getting the children toverbalize about the appearance of each disk aidsthem in their tatile search. Degrees of difficulty canbe introduced by using obviously discrepant materi-als such as cotton and fur to begin with and thenpresenting materials such as terry cloth and silktogether so that differences are more subtle.

Another version of the *Texture Bag" is to usethree-dimensional materials such as shepes thatare basically rectangular, circular, or.triangt,lar. Thesame procedure can be followed as with the clothdisks. Single items either two-or three-dimensionalcab be placed in the bag. Another challenge wouldbe to tell a story about the items based on how theyfeel. The story can eventually be translated into adrawing or painting.

Talking About Art

Children who have a basic understanding of theart elements of line, form, texture and color areready to discuss the works of aGult artists. Discus-sions about art works should be conducted in sucha way as to get the children tobecome involved in theart work. To do this it is best to start by having thechildren identify what they see when they look at the

work. When the content of the work has beendescribed the next step is to get the children to lookat how shapes, lines, textures, and color are used by

the artist. Reasonable questions to ask would be"How important are these to the art work?" "Whatwould the work look like without any color?" Open-ended and leading questions such as these will getthe children to relate to earlier discussions about theart elements. Other questions pertaining to likes anddislikes of the %v.:irk should be asked to get thechildren to focus on the merits of the work accordingto their own personal choices. ("Would you like toown this art work?" "Would you hang it in yourroom?")

After a reasonable period of discussion, childrenshould be told something about the history of the

21

work. Using a story telling format, give some basicbackground about the artist. Where did he/she live?How did he/she become an artist? What type of artis it called? [Realism, Expressionism, Impression-ism, Surrealism, etcl What tools did the artist use tomake the work?

When the art work has been discussed as far asthe interest of the children extends, it is time tosummarize what has been said about the work andto bring the discussion to a meaningful conclusionby having the children do an art actllity that reflectsthe study of the art work.

An example of a good activity is one that wasobserved at a day care center. The children agesthree to five were shown works by George Seurat.The subjects were discussed, using the above pro-cedure and the technique of pointillism (placingprimary colors side by side in dot form to create othercolors) was explained. The activity involved havingthe children make a painting of any subject using thepointillism approach. A critique followed the activityallowing each child to discuss his/her painting(Rainbow Day Care).

Unlike those children mentioned in the Chicagosurvey, children who are exposed to the visual artsthrough activities which allow for the discovery of thefundamental art elements and who are given theopportunity to hear about the artists am; their work,will be able to identify with the basic concepts of thevisual arts. They most certainly should be able togive their first and last names, hold a pencil orcrayon, and be able to sit to listen to a brief story by

the time they enter kindergarten.

REFERENCES

Brown, Sheryl. Field-based report by early child-hood art student.

Clark, G. A. , Day, & Greer (1987). Discipline-basedart education: Becoming students of art. Journalof Aesthetic Education, 21 (2), 138.

Piscitelli, Barbara (1988). Preschoolers and par-ents as artists and art appreciators. Ad Educa-tion, 41 (4), 48.

Rainbow Day Care Center, Duluth, Minnesota.Observation.

PLANNNG FOR PLAY

Bnic:e Cunningham, Ph. D.University of Wisconsin-Stout

.'eachers of young children have long recognizedthe developmental values of play. Through play,young children develop physical skills by activelyusing the large and small muscles of the body; socialand emotional skills by interactrig with other chil-dren; and cognitive skills by manipulating a variety ofmaterials in new ways. Teachers can help youngchildren reap these benefits by carefully planning avariety of play experiences. The first step in thisprocess is for teachers to recognize that there aredifferent types of play and different social levels ofplay.

Types of PlayRather tha n considering play as an undifferentiated

activity, several researchers have identified specifictypes of children's play. The following scheme offunctional play, co nst:uctive play, dramatic play andgames with rules comes from Rubin, Watson, andJambor (1978) which in turn was influenced byPiaget (1962) and Smilansky (1968).

Functional play, which is also called sensorimo-tor, exercise, or practice play, involves simple repeti-tive muscle movements with or without objects thatare repeated with no purpose to construct. Ex-amples of this type of play include running in theplay-yard, pedaling a tricycle, swinging, or tumblingon a mat.

ConstructiVe play involvos the manipulation ofobjects to construct or create something. The endproduct of the construction is somewhat important,but the focus here is on the prbcess of building.Examples of this type of play inc.:Me blocks, smallmanipulative materials, such as legos, and most artmaterials.

Dramatic play invblves role playoq, or pretend-ing to be someone else. Make believe transforma-tions, such as using one thing for another or pretend-ing to do some action, are other components ofdramatic play. Superhero play, such as pretendingto be He-man, has been the subject of several recentarticles (Holcomb, 1987; Kostelnik, Whiren and Stein,1:186). Postive aspects of this type of dramatic play

22

include the child:en gaining a feeling of power, whilesome of the negative aspects include the oftenviolent and sex-stereotyped scripts of the play.

Games with rules involve conforming to acceptedand preestablished rules Examples of this type ofplay include tag, hide-and-seek, and kickball. Youngchildren are not able to fully participate in this type ofplay until the cognitive abilities of decentration.reversibility, and perspective-taking develop, whichgenerally occurs around six to seven years of age(Bogdanoff and Dolch, 1979). This type of play isquite popular during the elementary school years.

Social Levels of PlayPlay typically takes place in a social context and

several different patterns or levels of social playhave been recognized. The following scheme ofsolitary, parallel, associative, and cooperative playwas developed by Parten (1932).

Solitary play occurs when a child plays alone andindependently with no reference to other children.This type of play is the first type of play a young childengages in, although it can be found among childrenof auy age.

Parallel play occurs when a child plays indepen-dently but near or among other children. At this levelof play, children may use the same types of materi-als but do not generally interact with one another. Aschildren grow older they may use parallel play as ameansto ease into, or out of, a more social level ofplay (Rubin, Fein, and Vandenberg, 1983).

Associative play occurs when a child interactswith others, even while using the same materials,but does not subordinate her or his own interests tothe other children. In this type of play, crildren mayplay with the same materials and talk about them,but the play and the conversation has a disjointedand uncoordinated quality by adult standards. As-sociative play typically occurs only during the earlyyears.

Cooperative play occurs when a child's actionsare organized and coordinated with actions of an-

other child. For example, in cooperative dramaticplay, the children would have family roles and worktoward the same goal, such as making and eatingdinner together. As with games with rules, coopera-tive play is dependent on a child's advancing cogni-tive structures.

There has been much discussion in the literatureregarding which type or levtit .nf play is more matureor immature (Pellegrini and Perlmutter, 1987; Smith,

1978). Rather than address this issue here, adescriptive graph in Figure 1 shows at what ages thetypes and social levels of play are typically present.

Planning tor PlayTeachers of young children can influence the

types and social levels of play by varying the provi-sions of materials, time, space, and preparatoryexperiences in the classroom. Close observation ofthe childron will then provide feedback to the te acher,as well as suggest when and how the teacher canbecome involved in the children's play. This modelof planning for play is adapted from Collier (1985),Manning and Sharp (1977), and Johnson, Christie,and Yawkey (1987).

ProvisionCertain materials have been recognized to pro-

mote certain types and social levels of play(Hendrickson, Strain, Tremblay, and Shores, 1981;Rubin, 1977). For example, housekeeping toys,dolls, dress-up clothes, andwheeled vehicles tend topromote dramatic play at the associative andcooperatiave levels. Blocks tend to encourage con-structive and dramatic play at all levels of social play.Natural materials such as clay, play-do, sand andwater promote functional play at the solitary andparallel levels, while ail materials such as scissorsand paints encourage constructive play that is soli-tary or parallel.

All types of play, especially dramatic play at thecooperative level, take time for children to recruitfriends, work out differences, elaborate or extend theplay episode and repeat the play. If children do nothave enough time to play in this manner they maycome to understand that play is not a valued activity.For this reason ik is recommended (Gritting, 1983)that children have 30 to 50 minute blocks of time to

play, if on!, a few times a week, rather than short 15

to 20 minute time blocks each day.

23

The amount of space in the classroom also influ-ences play. Space is defined in square footage ofgcar space per child, minus space taken up by thetables, chairs, and shelves. Smith and Connolly(1980) investigated the effect of the amount ofopace on children's play and found that at 75 to 50square feet per child there was much functional playat all levels of social i.'...ty. At 25 square feet per childthe amount of functional play decreased and therewas more associative and cooperative play. Whenthe amount of space was reduced to 15 square feetper child there was a marked increase in aggressionand play seemed to break down altogether.

The arrangement or division of space in theclassroom is a more complex matter, but in general,large open spaces tend to encourage functionalplay. Partitioned spaces, created by dividing theroom with shelves or dividers encourages moreassociative and cooperative play. Enclosed areas,such as a blanket thrown over a card table, tend toencourage dramatic play amoung small groups of

children.Preparatory experiences, or things children have

done, seen, or heard about appear to be especiallyimportant for encouraging dramatic play (Smilansky,196e). Children need prior experience throughfieldtrips, guest speakers, book:, films, filmstrips,songs, and other stories hebre they can adequatelyrecreate a setting or storyline in their play.

ObservationTeachers whc, have planned for play and who are

familiar with the various types and social levels ofplay can use observation to gain valuable feedback.Observations that focus on the type of play that isgoing on, and the provisions that cause those typesof play will het! -Aver the question of how theprovisions can t ..anged to encourage, enrich, orextend a specific type or social level of play. Severalscales to systematic* guide teacher's observa-tions of play are available in Johnson, Christie, andYawkey (1987).

Teacher InvolvementTeacher involvement in children's play can indi-

cate approval, increase rapport and persistence,and encourage more elaborate play. When children'splay is going well it may be desireable for the teacherto let the children play undisturbed. When children

are not interested in the play materials, or areabusing them, then more intrusive measures areappropriate. The followng methods of teacher in-volvement can be used in a variety of situations andare derived from Wood, McMahon and Crianstoun(1980).

Parallel playing occurs when a teacher is close tothe child and uses the same type of play materialsbut makes no attempt to interact with or influence thechild. This is similar to when children parallel playwith one another, and is best used when the child isplaying well and is very involved with the playmaterials.

Co-playing occurs when the teacher joins in anongoing play episode and asks ler information,instructions, or responds to the children's actions ina playful manner. In co-playing it is important thechildren still control the course of the play. Co-playing is appropriate when the play is generallygoing well but is repetitious or could use a little extraparticipation to keep it interesting and fun.

Play tutoring can take several forms and involvesthe teacher taking on a dominant or major role andpartially controlling the course of the play (milansky,1968). This can be doneas inside int erve);:ittn whenthe teacher assumes a major role within the playcontext, models behaviors that the children have notyet performed and directs the children in their playbehaviors. An example would be a dra:ratic playarea set up as a restaurant in which the thilorenhave taken no interest or are playing there butmisusing the props. The teacher would assume therole of the cook or a customer, and in that role makesuggestions and direct the play. Outside interven-tion occurs when the teacher remains outside theplay context and directs the children by makingcomments and positive suggestions, giving direc-tions, or directly demonstrating how to use thematerials. To use the above example of re staurantdramatic play, a teacheA using outside interventionwould stand in or near the play area and in the roleof a teacher, tell the children how they need to playwith the materials and props. These types of playtutoring are intrusive and may not be appropriate touse when children are playing well with the materialsand each other.

Being a spokesperson for reality occurs when the

teacher remains outside the context of play andmakes comments that encourage the child to makeconnections between their play and objects or eventsin the real world. For example, if children were layingblocks on the floor and the blocks happened to formthe shape of a letter, the teacher would interrupt theplay rind point out that the children have made aletter with th3 blocks. This method is appropriatewhen there is an important opportunity for learningthat the children will miss if the teacher does notintervene. This method should be used sparinglybecause it disrupts the play of the children.

SummaryTeachers can plan good play experiences by

recognizing how the provisions of materials, time,space and preparatory ei:periences effect thediffer-ent types and social levels of play. Observing thechildren at play can provide valuable feedback onthe provisions foi play and suggest ways teacherscan become involved to extend and enrich playepisodes.

REKRENCESBogdanoff, R. & Dolch, E. (1979). Old games for

young children: A link to our heritap. YoungChildren, 34, 37-45.

Collier, R. (1985). Preschool teachers andchildren'splay. Paper presented at the annual Meeting ofthe Association for the Anthropological Study of

Play, Washington, D.C.

Gaffing, ?. (1983). Encouraging dramatic play inearly childhood. Young Children, 38, 13-22.

Hendrickson, J., Strain, P., Trembla,, A. & Shores,R.(1981). Relationship between toy and materialuse and the occurrence of social interactive bohaviors by normally developing preschool children. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 500-504.

Holcomb, B. (1987). Why children are hooked onsuperhercs. Working Mother, July, 94-98.

Johnson, J., Christie, J. & Yawkey, T. (1987). Playand Early Childhood DevelOpment. Glenview, 11:Scott, Feresman.

Kostelnik, M., Whiren, A. & Stein, L. (1986). Livingwith He-man: Managing superhero fantasy play.Young Children. 41, 3-9.

24n

Manning, K. &Sharp, A. (1977). Structuring Play inthe Early Years at School. London: Ward LockEducational.

Patten, M. (1932). Social participation among pre-school children. Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, 27, 243-269.

Peliegrini, A. & Perlmutter, J. (1987). A re-examina-tion of the Smilansky-Parten matrix of play behav-ior. Journal of Research in Childhood Education,2, 89-96.

Piaget, J. (1962). Play, Dreams and Imitation inChikhood. New York: Norton.

Rubin, K. (1977). The social and cognitive value ofpreschool toys and activities. Canadian JoymaloiBehavioral Sciences, 9, 382-385.

age in

years

Figure 1

Rubin, K., Fein, G., & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play.In P.H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vo14., Socialization, Personality,and SocialDevelopment (4th ed., pp. 693-774). New York:

Rubin, K;, Watson, K;, & Jambor, T. (1978). free-play behaviors in preschool and kindergartenchildren, Chikl Development, 49,534-536.

Smilansky;S. (1968). The Effects of SociodramaticRayon Disadvantaged Preschool Chikken. New

York: Wiley.

Smith, P. & Connolly, K. (198(J). The Ecology ofPreschool Behavior. Cambridge, England: Cam-bridge University Press.

Wood, D., McMahon, L & Cranstoun, Y. (1980).Working Wdh Under Fives. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.

Frequency and Duration ofTypes of Pray and Social Levels of Play

functisoal

0 1 2 3 It 5 6

solftaryparallel

25

diesels, fowls's,batiste or mkt pl.

associative

2 7

cooperative

REARING COMPETENT CHILDREN: DEVELOPMENTAL CONCEPTS

FOR PARENTS, TEACHERS, AND DAY CARE PROVIDERS

Darryl Dietrich, Ph.D.

College of St. Scholastica

Because of the inadequacy of much of thechildrearing advice received by parents and be-cause too many children in our society fail to realizetheir full potential due to inadequate parenting, I amon a crusade to spread the word to teachers andparent educators about an extensive body of re-search findings from the field of developmental psy-chology that focuses on rearing competent children.This research has led to guidelines for childrearingthat are based on empirical connections betweendevelopmental outcomes in children and the type ofparenting they have experienced. Throughout mydiscussion, I will extend thesechildrearing principlesto the educational context by highlighting relatedconcepts and examples covered by Dr. DeVries in

her presentations last night and this morning. Al-though the conceptual framework I use is basedmostly on work with parentsand their children, I findthat the same concepts--if not the identical terms--are applicable to educational settings.

For my conceptual framework I have chosen toconcentrate on Baumrind's work (1967, 19 /1, 1973),because hers is one of the best-known studies andbecause a simplified version of her concepts hasproven to be quite useful to me in understandingchild-adult interactions and in introducing studentsto child development issues. [See Maccoby andMartin (1983) for an extensive discussion of re-search on parenting in addition to Baumrind's.j

Dimensions of ParentingThe four dimensions of parenting identified by

Baumrind are control, maturity demands, commu-nication, and nurturance.

Control. Control-which involves setting bound-aries, guidelines, and expectations for children--isessential to the development of competence. Con-trol contributes to independence and to internaiiza-lion of parental standards. How you communicaterules and consequences for transgressions is vital.

26

As we will see later in the discussion of parentingstyles, this means that exerting control over childrenwithout appropriate use of the other three dimen-sions can lead to poor developmental outcomes.Eventually, control has to come from the individual ifhe/she is to become a competent adult. That is whyinternalization is important.

PA:turIty Demands. A major developmental out-come focused on by Baumrind is thedevelopment ofindependence in children. Independence does notmean isolation from others or lack of need for otherpeople, but rather it describes children who can thinkfor themselves and function competently on their

,mn when necessary. Appropriate maturity de-mands contribute to the development of indepen-dence.

Maturity demands should be matched to the de-velopmental level of the child. Neither unreasonabledemands nor unchallenging demands will be veryhelpful to a child. Making appropriate maturitydemands means that you expect the child to performa'. her level--cognitively, emotionally, or physically.You expect the child to act up to that level and a littlebit beyond. You would not say, "You must get all A's

in school," if the child is currently doing C work.Instead, you might say (if you are sure it is due to loweffort), "We're going to set aside an extra halfhour forstudying after dinner to help you learn more, andmaybe you'll be able to earn a C+ or even a B nextterm: You challenge the child in a positive manner.

Control and maturity demands work hand-in-handin that the amount of control a parent exerts declinesas the child gets older, that is, as the child becomesmore competent and internalizes more of the behav-iors appropriate forfunctionirg in society. The sameprinciple applies in the classroom. You shouldexpect children to participate in structuring the ma-terials for the day, in helping to plan activities, or in

helping other children understand the rules of agame.

II r't... 6

Implicit in the preceding examples is the fact thatparents and teachers need to be aware of what theirchildren and students are capable of doing. Whilean understanding of average abilities at given agesis very important for making initial "best guesses"about a child's developmental level, careful obser-vation andassessment of the child's abilities is es-sential for appropriate individualized instruction orguidance.

Communication. The third dimension ofparenting, communication, involves conveying ex-pectafions (i.e., controls and maturity demands) at alevel the child can comprehend. Obviously, youwould not give long explanations to 2-year-olds, andyou would not give preschoolers complex orabstractexplanations of why things need to be the way theyare. For the older child, of course, extensive verbaland logical explanation is appropriate. Communi-cate your expectations, but do so in a developmen-tally appropriate way so that the child can under-stand.

The corn municafion recommended by Baumrindis two-way communication. Instead of always tellingthe child what to do, ask the child about a situationthat you need to discuss with him/her. Ask the childwhat he/she thinks or how he/she interprets thesituation or what his/her feelings are about it. Theidea is to listen to the child's opinions. This does notimply, however, a purely democratic family or class-room. Baumrind has purposely not labeled any ofher parenting patterns "democratic," because sherecognizes that there is a natural power differentialbetween the mature adult and ihe child, who simplydoes not know as much about how the world oper-ates. Nevertheless, it is important to solicit and takethe child's opinion into account. This approach givesthe child a sense of responsibility and a context foraccepting situations when their parents have to say"no." li you get children to a point where they areaccustomed to the constructivist style of teachingand they are functioning well within it, then manydecisions can be made democratically. But, therestill will be situations in which the teacher makes theultimate decision.

Nurturance. There are two aspects tonurturance: warmth and involvement. Warmth,which is what we most often think of when we hearthe term nurturance, includes loving the child, hay-

,

ing compassion and empathy for the child, andexpressing these feelings both in words and dis-played attitudes. Nurturance also includes interestor involvement in the child's life. This means showingpride in his/her accomplishments, praising his/heraccomplishments, and showing pleasure and interestin what he/she is doing. Children need nurturancein addition to control, maturity demands, and com-munication. A child needs to f' ,I that he/she "issomebody" who is valued positively by others, be-cause these feelings become an important part ofthe self concept, influencing the value (self-esteem)the child attaches to himself/herself.

Using the Four Dimensions. The preceding fourdimensions run through my mind when I am ob-serving interactions between adults and children. I

actively think about the type of control, maturitydemands, communication, and nurtu ranee exhibited.If I am consulting with a parent or teacher about achild, these concepts also come in handy for inter-preting what the parent/teacher is telling me and fororganizing my questions and suggestions. Now letus see how these four dimensions can be combinedinto distinct styles of parenting.

Parent PatternsThe next step is to describe how the scores on

each of the four dimensions define general patternsof parenting. Most parents' styles correspond ap-proximately to one of three parent patterns: theauthoritative, the authoritarian, and the permissivepatterns. A pattern is defined by a unique combina-tion of high or low scores on the four dimensions.

The authoritative pattern has high scores on allfour dimensions (i.e., control, maturity demands,communication, nurturance). I highly recommendthis approach to interacting with children, based onmy values regarding what competent children are orshould be.

The authoritarian pattern is fairly high on control,but the authoritarian's maturity demands and com-munication often are not appropriate. There is verylittle clear communication, and nurturant behaviorsand attitudes are not common.

The permissive pattern is low in control, fairly lowin appropriate maturity demands and communica-tion, but is high in nurturance.

27

n 04; t)

Misunderstanding DevelopmentIt is apparent that permissive and authoritarian

parents do not understand child development verywell. They share this characteristic with the non-constructivist educators we saw in Dr. De Vries'videotapes. These individuals miss important cluesin the behavior of children. I will next point out howeach of them, in unique ways, do not understandimportant aspects of child development.

Authoritarian adults do not understand the inabil-ity of the young child to reason like an adult whenfaced with instructions or commands. What thismeans is that authoritarians assume that becausethey have stated something in simple and clearlanguage, the child will understand and follow acommand. The authoritarian may not realize sev-eral possible areas which children might not under-stand well: (a) Logical sequences of ideas. (b) Thetime dimension, as in past- or future- orientedstate ments.(c) The understanding, not recitation, ofthe concept of number. (d) Serial order relationshipsamong objects. (e) Conditional statements.

An extreme example: "I want you to take thethreesmallest and four largest plants from the window intwo hours if the sun is still shining brightly so that th eydon't burn." The likelihood of this instruction beingcarried out by a 4-year-old is low. What happenswhen the child inevitably "disobeys instructions?"The authoritarian is likely to think, "This is an irre-sponsible child who needs to be disciplined now.I've got to impress on him the importance of listeningto instructions. Next time he'd better listen to me."The general context from which these feelings ariseindicates that the authoritarian also fails to appreci-ate the child's need for nurturance.

Permissive adults do not appreciate youngchildren's need to have controls Children needstructure or guidelines. They are still learning aboutlife and about the way the world operates. Thepermissive parents are not giving the child a verygood chance to learn because they are followingwhat amounts to a "sink or swim" style of childrearingwhich ;an be overwhelming to the child and whichfails to help the child develop internal controls. It is

no surprise, then, that the result is a less mature,more dbpendent, and less self-reliant child.

28

Comparing Three Patterns of TeachingNow let us translate the three parenting styles to

teacher-child relationships by discussing someclassroom examples.

First, consider the authoritarian style of teacher-child interaction by recalling the "drill sergeant" mathteacher in Dr. DeVries' videotape. Her lock-stepdrilling showed high control, as did the well-trainedchildren shouting back their answers in unison. Shealso had clear control in instantly being able to getcompliance by saying, "stop, don't sit," etc. Herstyle, however, might involve inappropriate maturitydemands, because the lock-step drilling task itselfmight be creating the behavior problems by boringthe children.

You certainly saw boredom in the videotape of theman teaching a board game to a child. I, too, gotimpatient just watching him teach, which helped meempathize with the bored and restless child. Eventhough we did not see scolding or other harshbehaviors, this teacher showed authoritarian char-acteristics of high control, inappropriate maturitydemands, ineffective communication, and lack ofnurturance. It he had attempted to monitor hiseffectiveness by observing the child, he might havenoticed the child twisting around, not paying atten-tion, seeming to get tired, etc. In fact, the child'sbehaviors were probably brought about by theteacher's need to control through lecturing, his inat-tentiveness to the student, and his failure to makedevelopmentally appropriate maturity demands asdemonstrated by his choosing to communicatethrough a monologue with the young child.

Dr. DeVries' videotape of the woman teachingchildren how to play the Halloween board game is anexcellent example of an authoritative teaching style.You saw her nurturance (warmth) and her maturitydemands in that she knew where her students weredevelopmentally. Yet, saw clear communication--not the type of communication where you tell thechild what to do at each step but rather the type ofcommunication in which the teacher asks and sug-gests. And yet there was appropriate control, andlearning was taking place--those children were en-gaged in the task and were cooperating nicely. If youwould enjoy playing/teaching with children like thatand are envious of the teacher's "good luck" in

having suchstudents, keep in mind th atthe teacher'sauthoritative style probably had a lot to do with howthe children behaved.

I do not recall an example in Dr. DeVries' video-tapes of a permissive teacher, but a permissiveteacher probably would engender chaos in the Hal-loween game teaching situation. The permissiveteacher would not have communicated clear expec-tations to the children, and at the same time he wouldnot have provided structured guidance that wouldhave allowed the children to accomplish something.He may have had a lot of aimless wandering orinappropriate use of the board game. The permis-sive teacher would have been nurtu rant, however,thinking things like, "Isn't this wonderful how thechildren are playing. Isn't it wonderful how wereallowing the children to blossom and bloom and dotheir own thing."

Developmental OutcomesUp to now, I have described the four dimensions

of parenting and how they combine into three basicpatterns of parenting/teaching. What I have not yetaddressed, however, are these important questionsabout developmental outcomes in children: Do thedifferent styles of parenting and teaching matter?Why do I recommend the authoritative style? Whyam I h ard on the authoritarian and permissive styles?To answer these questions, let us look at whatBaum rind found in her research about the character-istics of children who have been raised under thethree parenting styles.

Children of authoritative parents are the mostmature and competent They are content, indepen-dent, realistic, self-reliant, self-controlled, explor-ative (i.e., they are more likely to try to discover abouttheir world on their own), affiliative (i.e., they statetheir needs and ask questions of peers or adults).This, then, is the general picture of what Baumrindmeans by competent children: independent, able tofunction well socially, able to learn on their own, andcontent aoout their life.

It is not just what the authoritative adult does to orwith the child that leads to these positive outcomes;the ch ild also observes an excellent model of some-one who is competent, self-assured, fair, andnurtu rant. You are all well aware that young childrenlearn much of their behavior through observational

learning and. therefore, children of authoritativeparents tend to imitate authoritative behavior.

Children of authoritarian parents are moderatelyself-reliant, and it should not surprise you that theyare also moderately self-controlled, since they get alot of "don't do that, do this" commands. They are,however, relatively discontented, insecure and ap-prehensive, withdrawn, dietrtx.tfili, and less inter-ested in affiliating with their peers. At least when thethreat of externally imposed consequences is presentthey behave well, but the development of internalcontrols is not as thorough as in children of authori-tative parents.

The outcome for children of permissive parents isa surprise for people who believe that children needto "blossom" on their own (without interference fromthe "corrupting" adult way of seeing things), be-cause these are the most immature children. Theyare highly dependent, less self-controlled, less self-reliant, and more withdrawn.

Effective Schools Are Authoritative SchoolsI would like to expand on my earlier discussions of

how the parenting dimensions can be applied to theeducational setting. Let us use as an example thediscredited, non-structured, completely "open"classroom concept. In the extreme version of theopen classroom, there is little recognition that somechildren may need quiet space, or that some chil-dren may need suggesOns as to what learningcenters to address themselves to. There is nostructure because the teacher believes that, "I've gotto ;et children blossom; I've got to let them discoveron their own because Piaget says so." This, ofcourse, is a misunderstanding of Piaget. The con-cept of control in Baumrind's model tells us thatchildren need structure and guidelines. Not, how-ever, the "do this, don't do thar type of structure, but,subtle, structured control that can help guide themas they actively learn on their own. The constructivisteducators Dr. DeVries described provide this kind ofauthoritative teaching.

In my experience very effective teachers--andhere I include not just cognitive effectiveness, butalso effectiveness in classroom management andattending to the needs of the whole child--tend to beauthoritative, no matter what particular pedagogicaltheory they have been taught. The authoritative

29 31

pattern may have been part of their individual stylesbefore they began studying for their teaching de-grees, or it may have developed through experienceas they were shaped into the types of interactionsthat pro:3 to be most conducive to helping studentsdevelop cognitive, social, and emotional compe-tence. This is not to suggest that college preparationis unnecessary for teachers--obviously there is a lotmore to know about children and teaching than isinherent in Baumrind's modell--but within the gen-eral parameters that we see in good teacher drepa-ration programs, personal "parenting" st 'e (andexperience) contribute much to the differences be-tween effective and ineffective teachers.

To take a broader perspective that encompassesnot only the one-on-one teacher-child interaction, Irefer you to Rutter's (1983) article. Rutter reviewsresearch on (a) what wa mean by effective school-ing, and (b) the outcomes of schools that are effec-tive. His review included school size, class size,available money, the climate of the school, theinstructional expectations, and the teachers' prepa-ration. Rutter defines the better outcomes of effectiveschools not only in terms of higher scores on stan-dardized tests and attendance, but also in terms ofless destructiva school behavior, less delinquency,more students going on to college, higher studentself-esteem.

To summarize Rutter's 25-page article in onesentence: Although he did not use the term "authori-tative," his conclusions indicate that unusually effec-tive schoolr ciie authoritative, that is, their character-istics as institutions are similar to those of authorita-tive parents. (NOTE: The use of the term "authori-tative" to describe Rutter's conclusions was sug-gested by Helen Bee (1985).) Furthermore, Rutterfound that the effective schools are authoritativeschools from top to bottom. The adm'histration'sinteractions with teachers are authoritative ratherthan authoritarian. The teachers interactions withtheir children are authoritative rather than authori-tarian or permissive. There is a climate in theschools of clearly communicated high expectationsin a nurturant environment.

A Concluding RecommendationBaumrind's research, DeVries ideas on

constructivist education, and Rutter's conclusions

about effective schools all converge on the idea ofauthoritative style. Therefore, if I hao to choose justone, brief recommendation for teachers educators,parent educators, and future teachers, it would be toencourage them to internalize the basic dimensionsof the authoritative style. They should becomefamiliarwith the meaning and implications of control,maturity demands, communication, and nurturanceso that they can use these concepts in makingdecisions about how to work with children in the widevariety of situations they encounter. Much of thetraining and advice that teachers and parents re-ceive consists of myriad childrearing prescriptionsfor specific situations. The power of the approach Ihave outlined is its emphasis on general rather thanspecific characteristics of child-adult interactions.When internalized by the parent or teacher, theBaumrind ccncepts can be used (a) to generateplausible solutions to childrearing situations, (b) tosee connections with other terms and ideas learnedthrough training, and (c) to systematically analyzefor later application examples from histher ownexperience.

REFERENCES

Baurrrind, D.(1967). Childcare practices antecedingthree patterns of preschool behavior. GeneticPsychology Monographs, 75, 43-88.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parentalauthority. Developmental Psychology Mono-

graph, 4, (1, Pt. 2).

Baumrind, D. (1973). The development of instru-mental competence through socialization. In A.D. Pick (Ed.), Minnesota Symposium on ChildPsychology (Vol.7). Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press.

Bee, H. (1985). The developing child (4th ed.). NewYork: Harper & Row.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socializationin the context of the family: Parent-child interac-tion. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook ofchild psychology:Vol. IV. Socialization, personali-ty, and social development. New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

Rutter, M. (1f)83). School effects on pupil progress:Research findings and policy implications. Child

30 Development, 54, 1-29.

nt't

STEVE AND PATTY DO THE GREAT CHICAGO FIRE

Steve Hartsock

Firefighter, Duluth Fire Department

Patty Bennett

Early Childhood Teacher, Duluth School District

On October 8, 1871, Mrs. Patrick Oleary's cowkicked over a lighted lantern starting her barn on fire.Strong gusts of wind blew the flames from theSouthwest Side barn and raced the blaze in alldirections. This mishap is believed to be the ignitionof the Great Chicago Fire. The people were in apanic! Flames swept throughout the city, chasingsome residents out of town, while others dove intothe cool waters of Lake Michigan to save their lives.The fire burned for over 24 hours, killing at least 300people, leaving 90,000 homeless, and destroyingthe entire downtown and surrounding areas.

Recognizing the need to educate the public aboutfires, the United States established Fire PreventionWeek in 1922. The week including October 9th wasselected, the anniversary of the Great Chicago Fire.

It used to be that passing out plastic fire hats anddistributing coloring books was all there was toobserving Fire Prevention Week with young chil-dren. But this is not enough. The July, 1987 editionof "Fire In The United States" reveals the UnitedStates as ranking third highest in deaths amongindustrialized nations of the world. Childre n, from 1-4 years, are targeted as the second most vulnerablevictims. (Elderly people over 75 years came first.)Identifying young children as a risky population, firedepartments have prompted a new strategy; "Edu-cation and Prevention".

Their new approach emphasizes positive fire pre-vention steps for children. Fear is minimized andreplaced with accurate information. Their theoryaffirms that children do have the ability to think fastand clear in emergency situations, but they must relyon previous experiences to be effective. Withoutprior knowledge, their first reactions can be fatal tothem. In fires, many children run to their mostfamiliar exit, rather than crawl to the closest meansof escape. Some hide in closets, unaware that the

31

approaching stranger is a firefighter dressed in un-familiar gear.

Firefighter Steve Hartsock, from Duluth, Minne-sota, understands children's behavior in fires andtook measures to change their attitude. With sup-port from his union, he co-created Operation EDITH,a 16 foot by 16 foot, seven room "house" thatteaches children to react quickly and sensibly to afire alert. "We, (the firefighters); want children tomake their own fire escape decisions, so we builtOperation EDITH (Exit Drills In The Home)", heexplains. A smoke machine and a revolving beaconlight make a simulated fire in the portable house.The children's task is to crawl through the house,avoid the fire and decide on the safest means ofescape. Operation EDITH travels through the com-munity with firefighters volunteering their time tohelp teach the children.

Like Duluth, fire departments across the UnitedStates are initiating innovative fire prevention pro-grams. Puppet shows, comedy acts, mechanicalrobots and computer programs introduce children togood fire safety habits which help rovide them withconfidence to protect themselves in emergencysituations. But because of limited resources, firedepartments want to involve the whole community infire prevention. In many areas, public and privateorganizations have acted and formed palnershipsagainst fire. Unfortunately, far too many people lookat the nation's fire problem with indifference. Theyallow their "it won't happen to me" attitude to neglectresponsibilities. In 1973, Congress appointed theNational Commission on Fire Prevention and Con-trol to identify problems and suggest solutions to thisdifficult issue. Their recommendations compiled thelengthy reoort,"America Burning". Last fall, fourteenyears later, a conference was held to measure the

reports progress. The disappointing results re-

a 3

vealed America is still burning. Although somestrides have been made in the past fourteen years,not enough has changed to make a difference. Lackof concern still dominates public opinion, with theyoung children ead the elderly paying the highestprice.

This dilemma does not have to continue. If

education is the key to the solution, we, as earlychildhood educators can make an impact on thisserious problem. Young children are capable ofunderstanding fire safety skills if these are pre-sented appropriately. Also, as we teach the chil-dren, we influence the parents as well. Fire safetybecomes a family project, with each member partici-pating to make it work.

Emphasizing the responsibility does not rest en-tirely upon the teacher, fire departments suggestworking cooperatively for best results. Duluth FireMarshall, Dave Mattson, stresses this message."We welcome calls from teachers," he says. "If weeach contribute our strengths, we can provide aprogram that benefits all."

The problem occurs when we feel inadequatelytrained to teach fire safety. Besides assistance fromthe local fire department, there are printed resourcematerials as well. With cooperation from SesameStreet, the Federal Emergency Management Agencysponsors the "Fire Safety Book". Geared for pre-school children, the book includes songs and playsto deliver the fire safety message. A free copy canbe obtained by writing:

FEMA

P.O. Box 70274

Washington, D.C. 20024

Attn: SSFS

I have found the "Learn Not To Burn" curriculum,developed by the National Fire Protection Associa-tion, to be my most valued resource. Many firedepartments own copies of the curriculum and ea-gerly share them with interested teachers. Unfortu-nately, "Learn Not To Burn" targets kindergartenchildren as their youngest age group. Even thoughthe detailed lesson plans are helpful, work is neededto make the information developmentally appropri-ate for preschool children.

32

Firefighter Steve Hartsock and I have collabo-rated to bring the fire safety message to more than300 preschoolers in a six-year period. Adapting the"Learn Not To Burn" curriculum to meet the needs ofyoung children, the following concepts have beensuccessfully taught:

1. THE FIRE DRILL: Chances are, each person willbe involved in a fire once in their lifetime. In a crisis,people draw on past experiences to get them through.The fire drill, observed at various timesand places,is effective in preparing children to escape. Usuallythe school has a set procedure, but also involve thechildren in creating the plan. This experience givesthem the confidence to take care of themselves.

2. STOP, DROP AND ROLL: If your clothes catchfire, stop immediately and drop to the ground. Ex-tend your arms above your head and roll over andover until the flames are smothered. Practice Stop,Drop and Roll with the children. Give the signal,"Clothes on firer, and encourage the children torespond quickly. When space is limited, suggestthey roll a short distance in one direction, thenreverse. Roll back and forth until the fire is out.

3. CRAWL LOW: Smoke rises, the cleanest air isnear the ground. fires, most people die frominhaling the smoke. If you are in a fire or a smokyplace, remember your escape plan and crawl tosafety. This idea helps children understand thebehavior of smoke: A large piece of black materialcan simulate smoke. Demonstrate how smoke risesby lifting the opened fabric above head. Lower thefabric for the children to visualize how smoke movescloser to the ground as it builds up in a room.Encourage the children to crawl under the fabric toescape the smoke.

4. FEEL FOR HOT DOORS: When in a fire, firsttouch the door you plan to exit. If the door is hot,there is a fire on the other side and you must think ofanother means of escape. If the door is cool, openit slightly and look for smoke, heat or flames beforeexiting. Role play a house fire with the children.Include crawling to the door as part of the activity.(Be sure to distinguish this role play from a schoolfire when they should walk tc the door.) Ask, "Is thedoor hot? What should we do next?"

5. THE MEETiNG PLACE: Many people diesearching for family members in a burning house.

Each family should decide on a prearranged placeaway from the home where they can meet once theyhave escaped the fire. This lets everyone know whois safe and who may still be inside. If someone ismissing, let the firefighters know when they arrive.Never go back inside yourself, firefighters are trainedand dressed for that type of rescue. Send a notehome to the parents informing them of the meetingplace idea, and asking them to make selecting ameeting place a family activity. Also in the note,stress the imponance of smoke alarms. Remindthem that working smoke alarms are usually thefamily's first alert lo a fire.

6. THE FIREFIGHTER IS YOUR FRIEND: Asmentioned earlier, a firefighter in unfamiliar gearand maskcan be frightening to a child. Contact yourlocai fire department and arrang e to have a firefighte rvisit your children. (Better yet, find out if a child in theclass has a parent who is a firefighter.) Ask thefirefighter to bring the gear and explain to thechildren how thl equipment is used. i usually dressin the gear myself while the firefighter shows thechildren how it works. We also encourage the chil-dren to try the gear themselves. This techniquealleviates a lot of apprehension. (Also, you willdevelop a big appreciation for the firefighter. Theweight and bulk is tremendous!)

7. TREAT BURNS WITH COOL WATER: Ofcourse the best way to avoid burns is to stay awayfrom hot objects, but should an accident occur,children need to get help immediately. Stop minorburns by applying cool water to the skin. Bringmatches, heating equipment, coffee pot and mug,iron, toaster, lighters, etc. to show the children.Discuss how these are objects to stay away from.

8. DONT PLAYWITH MATCHES: A match is a tool

with many uses, but it is also dangerous if not usedsafely. Matches should only be used by adults.Give examples of people using matches and ask if

the use is risky or safe. Extend their answers byasking the children what they should do.

There is more to Fire Prevention Week than plastic

fire hats and coloring books. In fact, there is more

to fire safety than observing it one week in October.As teachers, we have the ability to increaseawarenes s. of this serious problem. Through ourguidance, 'ire safety can be spotlighted throughout

.93

the year, so young children have the knowledge andconfidence to help themselves in a fire alert.

REFERENCES

America burning (1973). Washington, D.C.: Na-

tional Commission on Fire Prevention and Con-

trol.

Brennan, T. (1988). America still burning. FireEngineering, March, 0-71.

Cadson, K. (1985. Fire! Science Teacher, Novem-ber, 21-23.

Chicago. World Book Encyclopedia (1982), 3, 345.

Eisenberg, T. & Dalton, J. (1985). Partnershipagainst fire. Firehouse, September, 119-120.

Fire in the United States (1986). Washington, D.C.:Federal Emergency Management Agency of theUnited States Fire Administration.

Fire Prevention. World Book Encyclopedia (1982),7, 127-128.

Fire safety book (1 988). Washington, D.C.; FederalEmergency Management Agency of the UnitedStates Fire Administration.

Kimmerly, J. (1988). -America burning- revisited.Firehouse, February, 33-34.

Learn Pot to burn (1981). Quincy, MA: National Fire

ProtecZion Agency.

Make timei for safety (1981). USA: Burger King

Corporation. .

tAarinuoci, R.A., Gag, M. & Kurzeju, W.M. (1987).

Fire on display. Fire Engineering, October, 28-

30.

Naughton, T. (1983). Can your family escape afire?

Family Safety. Fall, 4, 5, 30.

Public fire education today: Fire service programsfrom across America (1986).Washington, D.C.:

Federal Emergency Management Agency of the

United States Fire Administration.

Simmons, K.K. (1988). Childs' eye view. FireEngineering, January, 30-31.

Straus, D.M. (1985). Escape house program teach-

ers survival. Fire Engineering, September, 35-37.

,15

SHARED BOOK EXPERIENCES IN THE CLASSROOM

Lee Karnowski

University of Wisconsin, River Falls

Kathleen Buss

University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point

Corduroy's pocket, Goldilock's three bears, andLitt Is Hen's loaf of bread are familiar story conceptsto young childean who have had the privilege ofspending their early years in a home environmentrich with literature. The importance of storybooksharing can no longer be underplayed in programsfor young children. Researchers have documentedthat children who have been read to at an early agehave a good start in constr ;ding concepts about theforms and functions of literacy (Baghban, 1984;Bissex, 1980; Durkins, 1987; Heath, 1982; Sulzby,1985; Taylor, 1983; Teale, 1981.)

For children who have not been read to at hoMe,it is the schoors responsibility to provide theseexperiences. Before educators can expect thesechildren from non-literacy-rich environments to con-struct concepts about print, they need many andvaried experiences with books. For children whohave been read to at home, educators have theresponsibility to extend and enrich their existingknowledge. They will also benefit from continuedexperiences with literature.

A curriculum designed around story sharing canprovide experiences for all children to help themeither umulale corKiepts about print or expand andenrich these concepts. The "Shared Book Experi-ence", which Don Holdaway (1979) has writtenabout, closely parallels the home story sharing time.A parent shares a story with the child, the child asksfor repealed readings of fevorite stories, and thenthe child enjoys "reading" the story alone. In theclassroom, the sequence includes introducing afavorite story for enjoyment, often in a Big Bookformat, repeated readings of favorite stories, andthen encouraged indenendent *reading" and avail-ability of activities related to the shared book. Theseactivities can be multi-sensory and can encourage

34

art, music, science, cooking, and composing expe-riences.

To facilitate shared story time, we have classifiedfavorite books into the following curriculum areas:art/cooking, music, social studies (familios, friends,and fealings), science, math and writing/language.This will encourage the sharing of books throughoutthe day. The shared book activities involve thechildren actively with the text, the concepts in theteat, and with the role of storyteller.

I. Art/Cooking

Harold and the Purple Crayon - Crockett Johnson,1955; I Can Draw It Myself - Dr. Seuss, 1970;Rainbow of My Own - Freeman, 1966; Little BlueLittle Yellow - Leo Lionni, 1959; Stone Soup - MarciaBrown, 1947; Chicken Soup With Rice - MauriceSendak, 1962; Poppy Seed Cakes - Margery Clark;Bread and Jam for Frances - Russell and LillianHoban, 1964; Fedorich - Leo Lionni, 1963.

II. Music

Boy With a Drum Harrison; Old MacDonald -Lippincott, 1972; The Wheels on the Bus - NancyLarrick, 1972; There Was an Old Woman - RoseBoone, Alan Millis, 1961; A Hunting We Will Go -John Langstaff, 1974; Frog Wera A Courtin' - JohnLangstaff, 955.

III. Social Studies

A. Families: Make Way for Ducklings - RobertMcDoskey, 1941; Ask Mr. Bear - Marjorie Flack,1932; The Little House - Virginia Burton, 1942; ABaby Sister of Frances - Russell Hoban, 1964;You'll Soon Grow Into Them - Pat Hutchins, 1971

B. Friends: A Pocket for Corduroy. - Don Freeman,

1968; The Little Red Hen - Paul Galdone, 1973;Yummers - James Marshall, 1973; Mr. Grumpys

Jting - John Burningham, 1971; I'm Not OscarsFriend Anymore - Marjorie Sharmat, 1975; Lers BeEnemies - May Jai lioe Vary, 1961; Will I Have AFriend - Miriam Cohen, 1971.

C. Feelings: Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible,No Good, Very Bad Day - Judith Viorst, 1972;There's a Nightmare in My Closet - Mercer Mayer;Where the Wild Things Are - Maurice Sendak, 1963:Leo the Late Bloomer - Robert Krause, 1970; TheGorilla Did It - Barbara Hazen, 1974; The Ginger-bread Boy - Paul Galdone, 1975; Nobody Listens toAndrew - Elizabeth Gullfoile, 1957; Ira Sleeps Over- Weber; The Polar Express - Van Allsburg, 1985;Why Mosquitos Buzz in People's Ears - VernaAardema, 1975; Madeline - Ludwig Bemelmans,1939; Jeanne Marie Counts Her Sheep - Francoise,1957; A Bag Full of Puppies - Dick Gackenbach,1981; The Story of Bluebonnet - dePaola; The Storyof Ping - Marjorie Flack and Kurt Wiesa, 1933.

IV. Science

Little Blue, Little Yellow - Leo Lionni, 1959; Underthe Sun - Ellen Kandoian, 1987; The King Bidgood'sin the Bathtub - Audry Wood,1985; The Carrot Seed- Ruth Fraus, 1945; Inch by Inch - Leo Lionni, 1960;Blueberries for Sal - Robert McCloskey, 1948; Capsfor Sale - Esphyr Slobodkina, 1947; The Very BusySpider - Eric Carle, 1984; Whistle for Willie - JackEzra Keats, 1964; Swimmy - Leo Lionni, 1963;Rosie's Walk - Pat Hutchins, 1968; Country NoisyBook - Margaret Wise Brown, 1940; You LookRidiculous - Bernard Weber, 1966; The Very HungryCaterpillar - Eric Carle; Snowy Day - Jack EzraKeats; Stone Soup - Marcia Brown, 1947; Harbor- Donald Crews, 1982; Gobble, Growl, Grunt - PeterSeir, 1971; We Like Bugs - Gladys Conklien, 1952;A Tree is Nice - Janice May Undry,1956.

V. Math

One, Two Where's My Shoe? - Torni Ungerer, 1964;Cricktor - Tomi Ungerer, 1958; Blueberries for Sal- Robert McCloskey,1948; Goldilocks and the ThreeBears - Paul Galdone, 1972; The Doorbell Rang -Pat Hutchins, 1986; Three Billy Goats Gruff - MarciaBrown, 1957; Millions of Cats - Wanda Gag,1928;

10 Bears in my Bed - S'Izn Mack, 1974; AnnosCounting Book - ,. tsumasa, 1977.

VI. Writing

Frog and Toad Are Friend - Arnold Lobel, 170; TheJolly Postman - Janet and Allan Ahlberg, 1986;Letter to Amy - Ezra Jack Keats, 1968; Frog andToad Together - Arnold Lobel, 1972.

VII. Playing with words

A Chocolate Moose for Dinner - Fred Gwynne, 1976;The King Who Rained - Fred Gwynne, 1976; ChickenSoup With Rice - Maurice Sendak, 1962; A Hole isto Dig - Ruth Krause, 1952; Don't Forget the Bacon- Pat Hutchins, 1976; I Can't Said the Ant - Cameron,1961. ,

Shared Book ActivitiesI. Art/Cooking

(A) Harold and the Purple Crayon - Students canshare their own experiences by drawing their ownpurple lines and dictating their story.

(B) Stone Soup - Recipe: 1 washed agate stone; 3qts. water plus soup bone; 4 carrots, sliced; 4potatoes, diced; 4 stalks celery, sliced; 4 smallonions, chopped; 1 can of tomatoes. Simmer boneand stone 30 minutes. Add vegetables and cookuntil done. .

II. Music

(A) There Was An Old Woman Who Swallowed AFly - A woman is cutout of tagboard and has a plasticpocket for a stomach. Children participate by puttingthe appropriate animals into her stomach.

III. Social Studies

(A) Families - A Baby Sister for Francis - LanguageExperience. Story about new siblings.

(B) Friends - The Lillie Red Hen - Participation Story- as teacher reads, students hold a stick puppet of apig, cat or duck and join in when their part is read.

(C) Feelings - Ira Sleeps Over - Children write theirown stories about what they would bring to a sleep-over ai a fi iend's home.

35 rt,...,' l

IV. Science

(A) The Carrot Seed - Children are given seeds toplant their own carrots.

(B) The Snowy Day - Parts of the story are pastedon a sturdy box to make a story cube. The cube isrolled and tho student tells that part of the story.

V. Math

(A) Inch by Inch - Children are given a foot-longfootprint to measure things that are longer andshorter than one foot.

(B) Goldilocks and the Three Bears - A dramaticplay center is set up with: a table, three bowls, threebears, three small chairs, three small beds, a doll.

VI. 'Writing

(A) Frog and Toad Are Friends (Chapte6The Letter)- Children write a letter to Toad.

(B) Frog and Toad Together (Chapter: The List) -Students write a list to share with Toad.

VII. Language

(A) A Hole Is To Dig - Children make up their owndefinitions for familiar things in their classroom.

The Shared Book Experience encourages childrento join in tha reading process. Children also needmany opportunities to interact with the concept oftext and the concepts within the text. Developingactivities for favorite books will help children becomeactively involved in litorature.

REFERENCES

Baghban, M. (1984). Our daughter learns to readand wnte. Newark: International Reading Association.

Bissex, G. (1960). Gnys at work: A child learns toread and write. Cambridge: Harvard UniversIyPress.

Durkins, D. (1987). A classroom - observation studyof reading instruction in kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2, 275-300.

36

Heath, S. (1982). What no bedtime story means:Narrative skills at home and school. Language inSociety, 11, 49-76.

Holdaway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy.Auckland: Ashton Scholastic.

Sulzby, E. (1985). Children's emergent reading offavorite storybooks: A developmental study.Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 458-481.

Taylor. D. (1983). Family literacy: Young childrenteaming to read and write. Exeter, N.H.:Heinemann.

Teale, W. (1981). Parents rerding to their children:What do we know and need to know. LanguageArts, 58, 902- 912

COMMUNITY BASED SCREENING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD: AN ALTERNATIVE

FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PRESCHOOL AND CHILD CARE PROGRAMS

Leesa A. Maxwell

Coordinator, Mequon-Thiensville School District

The Early Intervention SystemEarly intervention programs for children with de-

velopmental delays and disabilities are recognizedas an integral part of exceptional education servicedelivery. Today it is generally acknowledged thatchildren, parents, school districts and social servicesystems will experiencv benefits from quality inter-vention programs provided at an early age. Positiveeffects of early programming are supported by bothefficacy research and learning theory (Hanson, 1985;Peterson, 1987; Ramey, Bryant, Sperling, & Wasik,1985; Schweinhart, Berrueta-Clement, Barnett,Epstein, & Weikart, 1985; Simeonsscn, Cooper &ScheMer, 1982).

In most states, children are eligible for exceptionaleducation services through their public school dis-trict beginning at 3 years of age. These public schoolservices are mandated in the Education for All1-iandicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142) of 1975 andreauthorized in more recent legislation. P.L. 99-457(1986). In addition, many children below 3 years ofage are receiving services through developmentalcenters which provide specially designed programsfor very young children with special needs. It isexpected that services to children, birth through 2years old, will increase because of provisions con-tained in P.L. 99-457.

Childfind ProcessesThe availability of exceptional education programs

at early ages is certainly forward progress, however,NO program is considered useful unless childrenwho can benefit from the service are properly lo-cated and identified. Efforts to access children arereferred to as Childfind activities. Childfind can tak3many forms and may range from pamphlets aboutpublic school exc;mtional education services tonewspaper announcements to -round-ur ir large

group screening programs.Community Based Screening in early childhood is

37

a ChildEnd strategy designed to systematically in-volve preschool teachers and child care providers inthe process of locating children who may requireexceptional education programming. This approachis based cn the notion that if preschool/child careeducators are trained to understand the purpose ofdevelopmental screening and the implementation ofscreening strategies, they will be better equipe,ai toact as an Integral part of the Chikffind mcess.

Developmnt of the Commuoity Based Screen-ing model began as part of Wiscorsin Department ofPublic Instruction Preschool Discretionary grantaward (P.L. 99-457 funds) to the Mequon-ThiensvilleSchool District in 1986. Prior to th3 modeldevelop-ment, preschool Childfind consisted of screening allchildren entering kindergarten and screening otherpreschool-aged children on an individual requestbasis. Using this proceduie, approximately 90% ofchildren who required early childhood-exceptionaleducation services were identified before enteringkindergarten. Although the system was working, thedata also indicated that there was a significant influxof children referred in the spring prior to their kinder-garten entry. In some cases, this would be consid-ered appropriate timing, but in many cases interven-tion could have been pevided at an earlier point intime. A major goal of Community Based Screeningwas to create allies in the community who wereaware of the steps to take as soon as they becameconcerned about a child's development. ThisChildfind strategy has increased the timely nature ofreferrals in the Mequon-Thiensville School District.

The first step in the Childfind process is Casefindingor accesJing the preschool-aged population andsoliciting referre. (Peterson, 1987). It is imperativeto effectivo casefinding that we reach out to thosepeople who have access to young children. Achallenge arises with consideration of the variety ofsituations in which preschoolers can participate. Incontrast to the school-aged population who are

r,,:f

essentially all accessible through their school place-ment, preschoolers can be any number of places:home with a parent or babysitter, day care centers,preschool programs, community recreation pro-grams, doctor's offices, or immunization clinics.

To access the school-aged population, one goesto school buildings and informs teachers, adminis-trators, and parents of the available screening/refer-ral services, evaluation processes and programpossibilities. Community Based Screening appliesthis same strategy to the preschool aged child.Aormation and training is provided to those whohave contact with young children. This includespreschool educators, childcare providers, and othercommunity preschool service personnel. It is impor-tant to note that additional strategies need to beconsidered to access children who are at home.Community Based Screening is considered an alter-native for school districts who have a high percent-age of children in community settings.

The second step in the Childfind process isscreening. The term screening is defined as 1) abrief and general measure designed to identifyPOTENTIAL problem areas and 2) a preliminarystep in determining if further evaluation is necessary(Hayden & Edgar, 1977; Meisels, 1985; NAEYC,1988). A clear definition of the prelin Aary purposeof screening is important to the Community BasedScreening instruction program. It is essential thatparticipants do not confuse SCREENINGwithEVALUATION which is done for the purpose ofdiagnosing a child's exceptional education needsand determining a program placement. Screeningis done to verify if further evaluation is necessary.The confusion of screening and evaluation has beendocumented as a source of ambiguity ems's thecountrv. A recent survey indicited that some stateswere using terms such as screening assessment,evaluation, and identification inTerchangeably todescribe the purpose of their screening programs(Gracey, Azzara & Reinherz, 1981).

Readiness vs. Developmental ScreeningAnother aspect which plays a role in the descrip-

tion of Community Based Screening is clarifying thedifference between readiness vs. developmentalscreening. Samuel Meisels states "The major differ-ence between the two procedures is the differerre

38

between skill acquisition and the ability to acquireskills." (p. 7, 1985). Developmental screening teststell us if there is a question about a child's develop-mental potential. neediness tests tell us if a childhas acquired skills which will help him/her be suc-cessful in a specific curriculum. Developmentalscreening information allows educators to makedecisions about referrals for exceptional educationevaluation. Readiness information is most useful forcurriculum planning and it is not advisable to use thisinformation to prevent children from attending kin-dergarten. In a recent position paper, the NationalAssociation of Early Childhood Specialists in StateDepartments of Education states "The educationalcommunity can no longer afford to ignore the conse-quence of policies and practices which...assign theburden of responsibility to the child, rather that theprogram..." (p.2). Their recommendation is thatprograms accommodate the broad range of normaldevelopment by providing kindergartens whichimplement developmentally appropriate teachingstrategies (NAECS/SDE, 1987).

Community Based Screening TrainingModel

Communi,y Based Screening is developmentalscreening and connected to the exceptional educa-tion referral process. The following definitions havebeen taken from the National Association for YoungChildren's position paper Standardized Testing ofYoung Children 3-8 Years of Age (p. 45, 1987).These are the concepts that are used in the Commu-nity Based Screening training model.

Developmental Screening. A test used to iden-tify children who may be in need of special services;as a first step in identifying children in need of furtherdiagnosis: focuses on the child's ability to acquireskills.

Readiness Test. Assessment of a child's levelof preparedness or a specific academic or pre-academic program.

The training model is currently being packaged asmanual and video ripe module. The 10 hour

program is designed to cover the concept of devel-opmental screening as a many faceted informationcollection process. The administration of a formalscreening test is only a part of the process. Theability to recognize child behaviors, share results

4

and concerns with parents, and access the excep-tional education system are all addressed as goalsfor the training participant. The training module hasbeen implemented using the Denver DevelopmentalScreening Test as the formal tool, although anotherinstrument could be substituted if desired.

Training is recommended over a five week periodto allow for practice and self study of somematerials.Each two hour session is comprised of lecture,discussion, and practical experiences. The instruc-tor is supplied by the school district at no cost to the

preschool or child care providers. The training does

supply the participants with credit for requiredinservice hours for child care licensing.

In conclusion, it should be noted that this is.not ananswer for every district or community. If the circum-

stances are favorable, this program can provide a

time and cost effective method of locating and

identifying children in need of evaluation. It alsopromotes a cooperative atmosphere which canstrengthen interagency relationships. The benefitfor school districts the operation of an activeChildfind

system.

Further information about the Community BasedScreening training module can be obtained by con-

tacting the author.

REFERENCES

Gracey, C.A., Azzara, C.V., & Reinherz, H. (1984).Screening revisited: A survey of U.S. requirements. Journal of Special Education, 18(2), 101-

107.

Hanson, M.J. (1985). An analysis of the effects of

early intervention services tor infants and toddlers

with moderate and severe handicaps. Topics inEarly Childhood Special Education, 5 (2), 36-51.

Hayden, A. & Edgar, E. (1977). Identification,screening, and assessment. In Jordan et al.(Eds.), Early childhood education for exceptionalchildren. Reston, Virginia: Council for Exceptional Children.

Meisels, S. (1985). Developmental screening in

early childhood: a guide. Washington, D.C.:NAEYC.

39

NAEYC (1988). Position statement on standardizedtesting of young children:3 through 8 years of age.Young Children, 43 (3!. 42-47.

National Association of Early Childhood Specialists

in State Departments of E.!..ation (1987).Unaccpetable trends in Kindergarten entry andplacement. Adopted at the Association's annualmeeting, November 11, 1987, Chicago, Illinois.

Peterson, N. (1987). Early intervention for handi-capped and at-risk children. Denver, Colorado:Love Publishing.

Ramey, C.T., Bryant, D.M., Spading, J.J. & Wasik,

B.H. (1985). Project CARE: A comparision ofintervention strategies to prevent retarded devel-opment. Topics in Early Chile od Special Edu

cation, 5 (2), 12-25.

Schweinhart, U., Berrueta-Clement, J.R., Bamett,W.S., Epstein, AS., & Weikart; D. P. (1985).Effects of the Perry Preschool Project on youthsthrough age 19: A summary. Topics in EarlyChildhood Special Education, 5 (2), 26-35.

Simeonsson, R.J., Cooper, D.H., & Scheiner, A.P.,(1982). A review of the effectiveness of earlyintervention programs. Pediatrics, 69 (5), 635-641.

4 1

{.t

MATHEMATICS USING MANIPULATIVES: A PIAGETIAN APPROACH

Mary Ann Rotondi

Duluth School District

Nedra A. Hazareesingh

University of Minnesota, Duluth

An understanding of intellectual or cognitive de-

velopment is of crucial importance to educators of

young children. A cognitive approach to learningemphasizes mental processes. One of the foremostcognitive theorists was the Swiss biologist and phi-losopher, Jean Piaget. Piaget viewed the mind ascentral to the understanding of how human beingslearn and develop. The purpose of this article is to

outline some of Piaget's ideas and to provide theteacher with actMties based on Piagetian theory,

designed to teach mathematical concepts.

Plaget's Theory of Cognitive DevelopmentContributions of Piaget's cognitive theory to the

field of education are many and varied. Osborn and

Osbom (1983), have outlined several key features

of Piaget's t heory which will be discussed here. The

first is the idea that children view their world differ-

ently from adults. This is manifested in many ways.For example, Piaget believed that young children

are egocentric and are not willing or able to takeanother person's point of view. Also, at this stage in

their development, children often view inanimateobjects as alive and do not seem capable of moral

reasoning.Another feature of Piaget's theory is the process

of intellectual organization. Cognitive structures or

schemas are the organized patterns of behaviorand

perception which the child attainsthrough experience.Schemes are constantly adapted through a processof assimilation and accommodation to make them

better fit environmental conditions. Assimilation is

the process of integrating new information into an

existing schema whereas accommodation is theprocess of changing a schema to fit a new situation.Through this process of assimilation and accom-modation, the child achieves a balance orequilibrium

which is important for cognitive growth.40

A third idea stemming from Piaget's theory is thatintelligence or knowledge is constructed. In otherwords the child is actively involved in exploring and

interpreting the environment. Through manipulatingobjects, tes ting out ideas, and modifying theories the

child constructs generalized concepts which will aid

learning.Ways of acquiring knowledge is a further idea

noted by Piaget. He believed that there are threetypes of knowledge. The first, physical knowledge,

is acquired through physical activity, for example,experimenting with a block might lead thechild to

discover its properties and function. The next typeof knowledge, logico-mathematical knowledge, isacquired through the observation of relationships.

For irltance, having observed the properties of a

group of blocks, the child might note certain relation-

ships between the blocks. Social knowledge is the

third type of knowledge. The child acquires this

through interactacting socially with others in the

environment.

Another key idea in Piaget's theory is that acti..ity,

both physical and mental, is a vital part of cognitivedevelopment. In addition to thinking about a con-

cept, children need "hands on", concrete experiences

in order to make learning more meaningful. Piaget's

cognitive theory also posits that this meaningful

activity must be coupled with a nurturing andstimulating environment, one thatchallenges children

to explore their surroundings. Lastly, play is important

for growth, both in terms of skilldevelopment and as

an imaginative outlet. Through play children learn

the skills and roles necessary for later life.

Piaget designed several experiments which pro-vide added insight into the child's way of thinking.These experiments or "cognitive tasks", when ad-

ministered to children with care and sensitivity, can

help in the assessment of thinking skills. The

A 04

Piagetian tasks include one that determines cogni-tive style, or how impulsive or reflective a child is, aswell as tasks related to conservation, classification,temporal relations, and spatial relations (Osbornand Osborn, 1983).

Activity-Centered Mathematics CurriculumBaratta-Lorton (1976) has suggested an activity

related mathematics curriculum based on some ofPiaget's ideas. The activities suggested by Baratta-Lorton, which will be discussed in this section, havebeen successfully used with early childhood andprimary children. The activities are related to realworld experiences and use materials from the natu-ral environment. When implementing an activity-centered mathematics curriculum, Baratta-Lorton(1976) notes that it is extremely important to let thechild explore new materials in his or her own waybefore directing those explorations. This will enablethe child to focus on mathematical concepts ratherthan on the materials themselves.

Pattern. Pattern is an underlying theme in math-ematics. According to Adams and Hamm (1989),"Patterns of mathematics - number, space, logic,infinity and information are directly related to thepsychological activities of perception, emotion,thought, intuition ano communication" (p. 93).Baratta-Lorton note s that it is also a valuable problemsolving tool for the child and hasa profound effect onthe development of mathematical understanding.Children need toexperience pattern visually, auditorilyand physically in order to analyze, duplicate andextend each pattern in a variety of ways.

Rhythmic clapping is a good introduction to theskill of patterning. The teacher claps a pattern (forexample, clap clap snap clap clap snap) and thechildren join in when they know the pattern. Later,the children's suggestions can be incorporated intothe rhythmic clapping. Children should be encour-aged to experience different ways to interpret apattern (for example, clap the pattern with a partner,cross your hands on the snap or play patty cake and

snap). This will help to stretch their imagination,forcing them to think of alternatives.

A pattern can also be constructed with unifixcubes. The teacher can clap a pattern which thechildren interpret with the cubes. As children dem-

41

onstrate increased skill, they can create more diff i-cult patterns and label the pattern auditorily. Forexample, the children can make trains which corre-spond to clapping patterns such as AABAABAAB orthey can say the colors of the cubes as they clap apattern (clap snap snap clap snap snap--blue yellowyellow blue yellow yellow). Pattern block activitiesemphasize hand-eye coordination, strengthen left toright progression and give children the opportunity toreproduce, extend and create patterns.

"People Row Patterns" have the children actingout a pattern and verbalizing the visual result. Forinstance, children can draw pictures of people sittingand standing. These pictures can be laid out to forma pattern (tor example, stand stand sit stand stand

sit). Some of the children can chant the pattern"stand stand sit..." as the rest of the class stands orsits to act out the pattern. .

Children can also make designs using patternblocks. They can then copy their designs by cuttingout the appropriate construction paper shapes andgluing them down onto tagboard. Each child canalso glue a picture of himself or herself onto thetagboard. This helps to recognize the value of theircontribution thereby enhancing their feelings of self-worth. The completed tagboards can be used infuture patterning sessions, either by individual chil-dren or by groups of children. Cl.,..len can also gluetheir paper shapes onto 9" x 12" construction paperso as to make placemats to be used by the class onspecial occasions. The children can make borderpatterns for placemats by using shapes cut fromdifferent colors of construction paper. They can startwith a simple pattern using two colors or two shapesbefore they attempt more complicated pr tterns.Crayon designs can also be used to create borderpatterns for placemats. The tagboards and placematscan be covered with contact paper for durability.

Literature lends itself well to patterning as manychildren's books have a predictable pattern - "ThreeBilly Goats Gruff," "The Very Hungry Caterpillar,""Henny Penny," and "Where the Wild Things Are."Greater learning takes place and knowledge is morereadily transferred when there is integration of differ-

ent curricular areas.

Sorting and Classifying. According to Baratta-Lorton (1976), sorting and classifying are fundamen-

tal aspects of life. People use these skills when theygo to a grocery store for particular selections, putaway dishes, recall a politician's name or selectcoins to buy an ice cream cone. Forming classesand dealing with the relationships within a class andamong different classes encourages the growth ofclear and logical thinking. To be able to sort andclassify a group of objects, children first need torecognize at attribute, i.e. an intangible idea de-scribing a partictilar property which some objectshave in common. In order to sort objects, childrenneed to focus on one particular property of theobjects to the exclusion of the others.

Sorting items in treasure boxes is a favorite activitywith children. This involves manipulating matarialschildren find attractive - buttons, bottle caps, jewels,sea shells, nuts and bolts, keys, seeds, rocks andpostage stamps. The most obvious attributes ofsize, shape, and color are often discovered first afterthe child has had ample opportunity to manipulateand talk about the objects. The children can work ingroups to sort the objects in a variety of ways. Theycan be enccxaged to use vocabulary to describethe relationships of size, shape, color, texture andother properties. Children's cognitive andlanguagedevelopment can thus be assessed by the teacheias she observes the children working in groups.

"People Sorting" is another activity which usesthe skills of observation, problem solving, predictionand drawing conclusions. Before beginning theactivity a black and white arrow pointing oppositedirections needs to be cut out and pasted on thefloor. Each child Is then given a black ano dhiteunifex cube. The teacher can begin the activity bysaying that the children are going to sort themselvesaccording to a particular attribute (for example,buttons on shirt or no buttons on shirt). Each childis asked to come to the front of the group. If a childhas a button on his/her shirt, then he/she is asked tofollow the black arrow. If he/she does not have abutton on his/her shirt, then the child is asked tofollow th e white arrow. As each child comes forward,the rest of the children can be asked to show withtheir cubes what arrow the child should follow. (thegroup shows their black cubes if the child hasbuttons on his/her shirt and their white cubes if thechild does not have buttons on his/her shirt). The

42

activity can continue until ten or fifteen children havebeen sorted into the two groups. This activity can berepeated many times, changing the categories eachtime.

A more difficult level of the same activity is "SilentSorting" in which no one is allowed to talk during thegame. The teacher, having silently determined theattribute by which the sorting will be done, motionsto each child to follow a particular arrow until three orfourchildren are sorted into each category. It is thenupto the children to abstract the attribute from thevisual evidence and predict with their black andwhite cubes which arrow each child will follow.When the sorting is complete a discussion can takeplace as to how the sorting was done.

Estimation. Estimation is a life-long skill thatcannot be underestimated in the hierarchy of skillstaught to our children today. Estimating the numberof objects in a jar, the number of counties in our state,the circumference of a pumpkin, and the time it takesto walk to school are everyday opportunities tc teachthis skill. According to Poulas (1988), in order toavoid innumeracy, the mathematical analogue offunctional illiteracy, we need to develop a feel fornumbers and probabilities - some ability to estimateanswers to the ubiquitous questions: How many?How likely? The recent Mathematics Report Cardreleased by the Educatio nal Testing Service indicatesthe rampant innumeracy of our high school studentsshowing the urgent need to emphasize estimation atan early stage of mathematical awareness.

This is on4 a beginning, but a beginning in theright direction - away from teacher talk and testinginto application of reai-world situations. We need toincrease children's ability to &al with the variouslevels of mathematical reality rather than overem-phasize computation and arithmetic. As Minsky (inAdams & Hamm, 1989) notes, our children's math-ematics knowledge must be shaped into "robust,cross-connected webs" (p. 91) instead of "slender,shaky tower chains" (p.91), which can break at anylink.

REFERENCESAdams, D., & Hamm, M. (1989). Media and literacy.

Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

44

Baratta-Lot:3n, M. (1976). Mathematics their way.Mon lo Park, CA: AddisonWesley.

Poulas, J. A. (1988). Innumeracy: Mathematicalilliteracy and its consequences. New York: HID &Wang.

Osborn, J. D., & Osborn, D.K. (1983). Cognition inearly childhood. Athens, GA: Education Associ-ates.

43

4 5

FOUR THEMES IN THE LIVES OF FAMILIES COPING WITH DISABILITY

Cindy S. Spillers, Ph.D.University of Minnesota, Duluth

10

Practitioners who work with people who havedisabilities have recognized the need to identify andexamine different impacts of disability on families atva rious transitions in thelife cycle (Bristol & Soho !pier,

1983; Turnbull, Summers, & Brotherson, 1986).Examining these impacts and issues could helpidentify problems that interfere with life cycle transi-

tions. Strategies to aid families in preparing forthose transitions can eventually be found. Thisstudy was conducted in an attempt to understandmore fully how the continuous presenceof a memberwith a disability may affect a family throughout thefamily life cycle. The original study, on which thispaper is based, examined families at two transitionpoints in the life cycle: transition into and transitioncut of formal school for the family member with a

disability. This paper will focus primarily on theeffects and issues pertinent to the families with achild in transition into school. For a more completereport of the study and its results, see Brotherson

and Spillers (in press).

MethodologyThe current study used a qualitative research

design to investigate and examine issues that familiesidentified at the transitions into and out of formalschool. The design of this research study gavefamily members the opportunity to express issuesand cnncemsin their own words. Qualitative researchfocuses on what actually occurs in the lives of peopleand how the individuals describe those events in

their lives. For a more detailed description ofqualitative methodology, see Brotherson and Spill-er s (in press), Patton (1980), or Taylor and Bogdan

(1984).

Subject Selection. A purposive sampling proce-dure was used to obtain subject families for thepresent study. With purposive sampling, subjects

were chosen to provide divergent representation on

selected characteristics. Originally, four familieswere chosen to provide diverse representation on

44

the following criteria: one or both natural parents athome, one member with a moderate-to-severedisability; variety of disabilities represented; mem-ber with the disability in transition into or out of formalschool; and li"ing in urban or rural areas.

Data Collection. Data were collected from indepthinterviews and field notes. The indepth interviewswere semi-structured in nature, in that the researchersused a set of general questions to guide the inter-actions. The interviews were conducted in thefamilies' homes with at least two researchers presentto conduct the interviews and to take field notes.Each interview was tape recorded and later tran-scribed verbatim for analysis (Stainback &Stainback,1984).

Field notes are personal logs that help research-ers document the development of the investigation.During each interview, the researchers recordedfield notes containing two separate sections. In thedescriptive section, the researchers attempted tonote exactly what they saw and heard. In thereflective section, the researchers noted their ownfeelings, speculations, and impressions (Stainback& Stainback, 1984).

Data AnalysisData analysis involved the process of indepth

reading.2 nd rereading of over 400 pages of interviewtranscripts and over 60 pages of interviewer fieldnotes. The researchers organized and categorizedinformation in a search for patterns. Through thismethod of data analysis, four major themes emergedregarding the impact of disability on the families witha child in the early life cycle transition (transition intoformal school). These themes cut-across disabilityareas, and in fact, cut-across both life cycle transi-tions, as they were salient in the other two familiesas well. This section will describe the four themesand will substantiate the results with statementsfrom the interviews and field notes. The four majorthemes discussed are the identification of positive

4 G

contributions made by the member with a disability,the importance of an informal support network, themixed support from professionals, and the limitedexpectations for the future.

Identification of Positive Contributions. The litera-ture on f amilies with disability is replete with examplesand evidence of the negative impact of a disability onfamily members (Longo and Bond, 1984; Wikler,1981). Very few sources have acknowledged thatpositive growth and benefits can occur in relation toa disability. Both of the families with a young childwith a disability spoke freely of the positive contribu-tions that the disability and the member with thedisability have made toward the family.

In Family A, both parents said that they havebecome more observant of people since the birth ofChris, their child with a severe-profound hearingimpairment. Mrs. A expressed that, "We saw a lot oft hings in people that we never really noticed before...We've become more sensitive to the problems andstruggles of others." The members of Family Bexpressed how they haie become a closer knitfamily since Shawn, their child with communicationdelays and behavior problems, was born. Mrs. Bsaid that she "explains so much to Shawn." BothMrs. A and Mrs. B shared several instances in whichthey noticed themselves becoming more assertivethan before. AsMrs. B explained it: "When you haveto fight for your child you can get pretty demanding."

Importance of Informal Support. Both familiesdiscussed the importance of an informal social net-work in their lives. In situations where informalsupport was not available to families, the void wasevident as a source of pain or stress.

In Family A, one side of the extended familydemonstrated support, whereas the other side didnot, and in fact, denied the ramifications of thedisability. Mrs. A reported that one set of grand-parents refused to learn sign language. "They thinkthey're signing something when they're really not.They want to be blind to it." Mr. and Mrs. A spoke oftheir difficulty reconciling the strain and distancebetween themselves and these grandparents. Mr.A said with some resignation in his voice, "You can'tdisown them (grandparents) yetyou can't turn around

and say, 'Well, we're not going to let liou see himanymore.'" Conversely, Family A described how the

45

other side of the !wilily supports them and acceptsChris. These grandparents have attended signingclasses with Mr. and Mrs. A. They, and an aunt anduncle, often provide respite care and work at com-municating with Chris.

Similarly, Family B experienced positive supportfrom one side of the family and little or no supportfrom the other side of the family. In speaking of oneset of grandparents, Mrs. B said that, "We don't getsupport...For a long time theyd just say (Shawn)'sgoing through the terrible twos. (The grandfather)tried to discipline Shawn once because he thoughtall that Shawn needed was more discipline. Thatdidn't work at all." Mrs. B further described howShawn became the family joke. "At first it was funny,but then it got old and it hurl"

Both families reported changes in theirfriendshipsbecause of their child with a disability. Close friendsbecame distant and some acquaintances and neigh-bors became closer to them. Mr. A expressed hisfeelings this way: "You visualize that your friendswould come to help you out. It wasn't that way at all.And people that you don't expect anything from turnout to be your friends."

Mixed Professional Support. Interactions withprofessionals was a prominent topic of discussionwithin both families. Each family reported a host ofnegative experiences with medical and educationalpersonnel. For each family, however, at least oneprofessional emerged as a positive support personto whom the parents could pm questions, expressconcerns and fears, and whose opinions the family

trusted.

In Families A and B most of the discussion andcommunication with professionals centered arounddiagnosing the disabi:ity and finding appropriateservices for the child. Both Mrs. A and Mrs. Breported having a suspicion that something waswrong when their children were infants, yet theirfamily physicians discounted the intuitions andknowledge of these women. As Mrs. A said in

reference to explaining her observations of Chris'impaired hearing to the pediatrician: "I just don'tunderstand why she wasn't listening to me." When

the diagnosis was eventually made and the family

sought a second opinion at a renowned teachinghospital, Mr. A described their experiences as

"awful...it was a nightmare...they were cruel."

Mrs. B described her difficulty in convincing aphysician to take her seriously. With incredulity, sherecalled her third visit to a physician's office regardingShawn's behavior: "He gave Shawn the SuckerTest. He said, 'S hewn, if you come over here, I'll giveyou a sucker.' Well, of course Shawn went over to

him, so the doctor figured there was nothing wrong."Mrs. B continued to explain how the physicianreferred her to a child psychiatrist, although shewould have to waft four to five months for an appoint-ment with this professional. No referrals for speech-language or behavior therapy were made by theseprofessionals. Mrs. B said that she found out aboutpotential services and agencies through conversa-tions with one of her neighbors.

Limited Expectations for the Future. These familiesindicated limited expeclations for the future anddemonstrated difficulty with making long range plansfor needs of the individual with a disability. Eachfamily had different reasons for their limited expec-tations and difficulty in planning. Both familiesfocused on short term, concrete goals, mther thanon long term goals. As Mr. A said: "I'm not going tobe shooting for goals that Chris can't obtain." Theconcerns for both families centered around educa-tional placement and general development. FamilyA expressed that they just "want to stay ahead ofChris in signing so that he can still learn from us."Family B expressed concern that "Shawn will slipthrough the cracks and not get the help that heneeds. He got where he is because of a lot of hardwork." Mrs. B captured the sentiments of bothfarnilies when she said: "It's hard to look at what'sdown the road so we're just looking at next Fall."

ConclusionBoth of these families provide evidence that at

least four themes typify their lives as they raise theirchild with a disability. Families having children withdisabilities have many stresses, issues, and chal-lenges before them. Sometimes professionals be-corne too narrowly focused in their work with fami-lies. We acknowledge the needs of the family andchild at only one life cycle stage or transition. Weneglect to consider the state of their inforrnal supportnetworks. We treat the parents as "part of theproblem" and deny them the respect that they de-

46

serve. The identification of the issues in this studyhave given us more Information with which to workwith families so that we can give optimal support topersons and families with disabilities.

REFERENCES

Bristol, M.M. & Schopler, E. (1983). Stress andcoping in families of autistic adolescents. In E.Schopler and G.B. Mesibov (Eds.) Autism inadolescents and adults (pp. 251-278). New Yol k:Plenum Press.

Brotherson, M.J. & Spillers, C.S. (in press). Aqualitative study on families with disability: Twotransitions in the life cycle. Family Relations.

Longo, D. & Bond, L. (1984). Families of thehandicapped child: Research Ind practice. Fam-ily Relations, 33, 57-65.

Patton, M. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Stainback, S. & Stainback, W. (1984). Method-ological considerations in qualitative research.Journal of the Association for Severe Handicaps,9, 296-303.

Taylor, S. & Bogdan R. (1984). Introduction toqualitative research methods: The search formeaning. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Turnbull, A.P., Summers, J.A., and Brotherson, M.J.(1986). Family life cycle: Theoretical and empiri-cal implications and future directions for familieswith mentally retarded members. In J.J. Gallagher& P.M. Vietze (Eds.), Families of handicappedpersons: Research, programs and policy issues(pp. 45.65), Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Wi' ler, L. (1981). Chronic stresses of families ofmentally retarded children. Family Relations, 30(2), 281-288.

4'S

Author Index with Mailing Addresses

Patty Bennett

Early Childhood Teacher/ECFE

Duluth Public Schools -ISD #709

Duluth, MN 55802

James H. Brutger, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Department of Art

University of Minnesota, Duluth

Duluth, MN 55812

Kathleen Buss, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

School of Home Economics

University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point

Stevens Point, WI 54481

Bruce Cunningham, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Human Development, FamilyLiving,

and Community Educition Services

University of Wisconsin - Stout

Menor )inee, WI 54751

Rheta DeVries, Ph.D.

Proicssor

Department of Human Development andConsumer Services

University of Houston

Houston, TX 77004

Darryl Dietrich, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Psychology Department

College of St. Scholastica

Duluth, MN 55811 47

Steve Hartsock

Firefighter, Duluth Fire Department andCoordinator, Adult Education Fire School, DuluthTechnical College

Duluth, MN

Nedra A. Hazaraesingh, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Child and Family Development

University of Minnesota, Duluth

Duluth, MN 55812

Lee Kamowski, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Elementary Education

University of Wisconsin - River Falls

River I:alls, WI 54022

Leesa Maxwell

Community Consultant, Early DovelopmentAwareness Project

Mequon-Thiensville School District

Mequon, WI 53092

Mary Ann Rotondi

Gifted/Talented Curriculum Specialist

Duluth Public Soh( )1s, ISD #709

Duluth, MN 55802

Cindy S. Spillers

Assistant Professor

Department of Allied Clinical Health

University of Minnesota, Duluth

Duluth, MN 55812

4

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.

50