Poster #85 - Rethinking Developmentally Appropriate Practice

• In Event: 2-055 - Poster Session 06
  In Poster Session: PS 06 Section - Education, Schooling

Integrative Statement

The concept of Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) is highly influential in education and related fields. According to the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), “DAP involves teachers meeting young children where they are, both as individuals and as part of a group; and helping each child meet challenging and achievable learning goals” (NAEYC website, 8/1/18). The insights that motivate this idea are intuitive; specifically, learning is improved when instruction is consistent with a child's developing abilities. However, underlying this definition there are several problems. First, the DAP model is based on Piagetian developmental readiness (NAEYC, 2017). Stage-like accounts of cognitive development are inconsistent with current evidence (Newcombe, 2003), largely ignore individual differences, and set up misconceptions regarding the nature of readiness. Second, DAP does not provide teachers with the necessary knowledge and instructional tools to “meet children where they are” or provide appropriate instruction. Specifically, teachers need to understand how specific child-characteristics impact learning and how to adapt instruction appropriately. Third, DAP presents contradictory information on the role of challenge and achievability. The current model suggests that teachers should only teach concepts when children are “ready” yet instruction should be both “challenging and achievable”. Challenge is required for learning, but within challenge is struggle and even failure. However, the currently model implies that struggle and failure are evidence that the material is not developmentally appropriate and this approach might prohibit self-directed learning (“I haven’t been taught that, so I can’t do it.”).

We propose a new model for DAP that uses a developmental cognitive science model to outline child-relevant factors to learning. We use this model to delineate how these factors develop on a continuum of malleability. On one end are factors that change over time primarily due to maturation, or stable characteristics, such as working memory capacity. Although capacity can be functionally increased by improving the use of effective strategies, the capacity itself appears to be unchanged through training (Cowan, 2017). On the other end are factors that are primarily changed by instruction, or malleable characteristics, such as knowledge. The new model also outlines the relations between learning readiness and the contexts in which learning occurs. For example, difficult concepts can be broken down into pieces and taught through play, which promotes intrinsic motivation. Effective DAP instruction should focus on the conditions under which learning should be most effective (how), rather than at what age/stage (when) or even the type of content (what) because “any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development” (Bruner, 1960, pg. 33). Finally, we provide examples of how these factors can be used to guide instruction. Understanding how working memory capacity, executive function, processing speed, and knowledge change over time informs relevant instructional practices such as reducing cognitive and attentional load and effectively sequencing learning. In addition, how motivation and challenge can be used to promote learning and through which contexts learning is optimal (e.g., guided play, Weisberg et al., 2016).

Authors

• Shannon Zentall, The University of Akron
  Presenting Author

• Bradley J Morris, Kent State University
  Non-Presenting Author