Running Head: DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 1

Developmentally Appropriate Education

Ohio Christian University

Shay Adkins

1 June 2018

Author note:

This essay on developmentally appropriate education was prepared for Mrs. Case and

Mrs. Diltz.
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 2

I. Introduction

Education is a forever growing, developing, and changing field. Scholars and researchers

are constantly meeting, discussing, and analyzing what works and what does not work in the

classroom. There are many different topics, issues, and key ideas that are constantly impacting

education today. Terms like testing, common core, and diversity are thrown around and taken

into consideration as teachers are working hard to develop the best strategies to use when

teaching their students.

One of the largest disputed and controversial topics within education today is

standardized testing. One does not have to be in education to know that standardized testing is so

widely argued. There are several people in favor of standardized testing while there are others

who are totally against it. With anything, there are pros and cons when analyzing this topic in

education. First, it is important to understand what standardized testing is defined as. The

Glossary of Educational Reform defines standardized tests as

. . .any form of test that (1) requires all test takers to answer the same questions, or a

selection of questions from common bank of questions, in the same way and (2) is scored

in a “standard” or consistent manner, which makes it possible to compare the relative

performance of individual students or groups of students . . .primarily associated with

large-scale tests administered to large populations of students . . . (2015, para. 1).

Now that it is better understood what is meant by the phrase standardized testing, one is able to

better understand the pros and cons of it.

ProCon.org takes several arguments for and against standardized testing and match them

accordingly. This allows one to see the parallels to both sides of the argument. For example,

many people argue that standardized testing is fair because everybody is being assessed at the
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 3

same level and on the same scale. However, one could also argue that this in and of itself makes

standardized testing unfair because not everybody is learning at the same level (n.d., para. 2).

The content students are being tested on is the same across the board; however, students are not

always being taught using the same methods across the board because they all have different

needs, and students’ needs are met through different avenues of differentiation. Another example

of parallelism that can be found in the argument of testing is the equivalence of content that has

been taught to students. Because schools teach based on state standards, standardized tests are

based on these state standards making it a level playing field for students. However, it is also

argued that, “Standardized tests measure only a small portion of what makes education

meaningful” (para. 4). One of the biggest arguments against testing is that teachers end up

teaching to the test instead of genuinely investing in the education of children because they feel

crunched for time. Parents are concerned that their children are not receiving a balanced

education because there is too much pressure to do well on the tests. In contrast, some people

feel like a little pressure is healthy because it keeps educators on track and eliminates wasted

time and activities (para. 5 & 6). Be that as it may, some argue that this pressure carries over into

the morale of the teacher and the students causing students to become too stressed about

performing well. The issues that can be found in standardized testing can be argued back and

forth for a long time. Nothing in education is perfect, that is why it is always changing.

Another prevalent topic in education is common core state standards. This concept of

standards-based education actually began in the early 1990s (Kendall, 2011, p. 3). Prior to this

concept being implemented in classrooms, there were no guidelines for teachers to go off of as

far as content to teach. The curriculum taught in schools was based off of the textbooks that they

had access to, and the methods used primarily consisted of seatwork (p. 4). The Common Core
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 4

State Standards Initiative, or the CCSSI, was implemented in 2009 in attempt, “To develop a set

of shared national standards that students in the world’s highest-performing countries are, and

that they gain the knowledge and skills that will prepare them for success in postsecondary

education and in the global arena” (p. 1). Before these standards were set into place, students

were learning all different things at all different times. This made it nearly impossible to

implement developmentally appropriate education and practice in the classroom.

In March of 2010, the Common Core State Standards were released from primarily the

Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association (Liebtag, 2013,

p. 2). Over the eight years, adjustments and changes have been made to the original set of

common core state standards. Kendall (2011) shares the Common Core State Standards

Initiative’s mission statement as follows

[they aim to] provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to

learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are

designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills

that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students

fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete

successfully in the global economy (p. 11).

Prior to the Common Core State Standards, curriculum depended on the textbooks. Now, the

content being taught in classrooms is based off of these standards, and textbooks are being made

accordingly to back up these textbooks, and students are on a level playing field with everybody

playing the same game.

Although the Common Core State Standards brought a sense of unity to education across

the nation and individuality was brought to each according to the state, there are some concerns
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 5

with today’s use of them. These sets of standards are used to bring equity to schools as well as a

higher quality of education; however, one issue that can be found within these standards is the

case of whether or not equity is really happening. The Common Core State Standards are

extremely beneficial to students, teachers, and parents because they focus the goals of curriculum

per age group. Nevertheless, just because schools have the same access to standards to teach, that

does not mean that schools have the same access to the resources to teach the standards. There

are some issues when it comes to the implementation of the Common Core State Standards

because this can occur in one of three ways according to Liedbtag. She says that “(1) States will

approach [it] . . .by continuing to use hard-copy textbooks, paper assessments, and face-to-face

professional development; (2) . . .lowest-cost alternative . . .will primarily utilize online and

open-source materials and resources; (3) States will use a mix of traditional and bare bones in a

balanced approach . . .” (2013, p. 60). There is no possible way to bring total fairness and

impartiality to education because different schools have different resources. Inner city students

do not have the same resources or education that students in higher income areas obtain. Tax

dollars can only go so far in some of these lower income areas.

Another major factor that impacts education today is diversity. Diversity applies to

culture, ethnicity, religion, gender, socioeconomic class; really anything that creates variety

within a group. “ . . .culture is ‘the system of shared beliefs, conventions, norms, behaviors,

expectations, and symbolic representations that persist over time and prescribe social rules of

conduct’ (Bornstein et al., 2011, p. 30)” (Berger, 2014, p. 12). The core of who a person is

reflects their culture. A person’s culture reflects their morals and values, and it determines how

they behave and what is considered expected and normal of themselves as well as others.

Commonly, one can find several different ethnic groups in a classroom depending on the
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 6

geographical location. “Ethnic groups [are] people whose ancestors were born in the same region

and who often share a language, culture, and religion” (p. 13). Berger goes on to explain that the

term race refers to “A group of people who are regarded by themselves or by others as distinct

from other groups on the basis of physical appearance, typically skin color . . .[however] race is a

misleading concept, as biological differences are not signified by outward appearance” (p. 13). It

is critical to understand that both ethnic groups and race have an impact on one’s culture. All of

these elements together represent diversity. By teachers recognizing these differences amongst

students in their classroom and investing in all of these children’s differences and lives, they are

further able to better understand how to let this translate into how they teach the students.

Children must be reached out to and met where they are both in cognitive development as

well as what is comfortable to them in a learning and social environment. Teachers cannot expect

to be able to stand at the front of the classroom and teach the same material using the same

strategies year after year to different batches of students who are all unique and diverse in their

own ways. By recognizing a student’s culture and clarifying what is important and expected, an

educator is able to modify his or her teaching accordingly. Through these adjustments and

modifications, educators are able to bring meaning to the content as well as purpose.

Emphasizing these two points during a lesson will aid students’ learning and comprehension

because it has now become more than just another monotonous lesson. The key to this, though, is

to truly find value and understanding in each students’ diversity because not all students can be

reached the same way.

Aside from just bringing meaning and purpose to a student’s education, investing in their

lives through better understanding their diversity and culture also builds relationships with

students, and this takes me to my final point. In order for significant learning to take place,
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 7

significant relationships need to be in place (TED Talk & Pierson, 2013, 1:13). Prior to the

opioid epidemic breakout, good home lives and quality parenting was not nearly as sparse as it is

today. Unfortunately, the investment of parents in their children’s lives and education has

become rare in some cases. This is not necessarily only because of the opioid epidemic, but it has

been a huge driving force in the issue. Other causing factors include jobs interferences, several

children in the home, single parent homes, shared custody, along with several others. Because of

the times changing and these situations wreaking havoc on education, it is vital that educators

bridge this gap and build the relationships required by students for significant learning to take

place.

Pierson (TED Talk, 2013) goes on to talk about a colleague of hers saying that she is not

paid to like her students and for them to like her. She felt like her only obligations were to teach

lessons and students to learn them. Ms. Pierson argued the point that kids do not learn from

people they do not like (1:51). This small, yet significant, point is so often overlooked and

underestimated. Building relationships with students exemplifies to them that they are more than

just another body at a desk. They are people with personalities and somebody worth knowing

and caring about. By investing in students and building positive relationships, one is also

building a positive classroom morale which will further translate in both teaching and learning.

Caplan Foundation for Early Childhood says, “Children can only reach their full potential when

all aspects of their intellectual, emotional, and physical development are optimally supported”

(n.d., para. 1). This means that educators are also responsible for creating a safe learning

environment based on both physical safety as well as emotional safety.

II. Definition
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 8

The phrases developmentally appropriate education, DAE, and developmentally

appropriate practice, DAP, are able to be used interchangeably. DAE can be considered

relatively self explanatory because it is exactly as it sounds. The National Association for the

Education of Young Children (NAEYC) defines DAE as, “ . . .an approach to teaching grounded

in the research of how young children develop and learn and what is known about effective early

education . . .[it] involves teachers meeting young children where they are . . .and helping [them]

meet challenging and achievable learning goals” (NAEYC, n.d., para. 1). It is no secret that a

classroom full of second graders is going to contain students with all different ability levels. Not

everybody is going to learn at the same pace and be at the same developmental level. The

comparison of children to snowflakes can be easily made because no two are alike.

It is essential for educators to teach according to the students in their classroom. In order

to help make this happen, a crucial starting point would be to understand what is typical

development for different age groups (NAEYC, n.d., para. 2). By recognizing the differences

between the capabilities of kindergarteners versus third graders, teachers are already establishing

that general window to teach towards. Critical periods in a child’s development are times when,

“ . . .something must occur to ensure normal development . . .,” and sensitive periods, which are

far more common, are a time when, “ . . .a particular development occurs more easily – but not

exclusively . . .” (Berger, 2014, p. 8). Knowing the cognitive development of the age group one

is working with along with the fine motor skills that are mastered and still being worked on

allows teachers to know what is achievable for their students.

Once a base line is established for the age group being worked with, the next crucial step

in teaching appropriately is knowing and understanding each child’s abilities. NAEYC explains

that, “By continually observing children’s play and interaction with the physical environment
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 9

and others, we learn about each child’s interests, abilities, and developmental progress” (n.d.,

para. 3). There are always going to be exceptions to the base line standard window of abilities.

These children’s needs need to be met in order for there to be genuine learning take place. These

needs are met through differentiation. “Differentiation is what we do to enable more students to

meet their state’s standards . . .it is the way in which we respond to learning differences as

students engage in daily activities in our classroom” (Heacox, 2018, p. 7). By knowing the

students’ strengths and weaknesses, we can teach accordingly. Knowing whether or not students

learn best kinesthetically, visually, or verbally will make a huge impact on how a teacher gives

instruction. If a child struggles with dyslexia, then the educator will need to recognize the

changes that need to be made. Differentiation is a huge part of teaching according to the students

sitting in the seats rather than teaching according to what textbooks and statistics say these

children should be able to do, and it applies to all students no matter what the cognitive ability is.

The third crucial step in teaching developmentally appropriately is the recognition of

what is culturally important to the child and their family (NAEYC, n.d., para. 4). By

understanding what is culturally important, educators are better able to bring meaning,

importance, and value to the classroom and the material being taught and learned. Understanding

that a child’s family, including their values and expectations, shapes the life of the child greatly

will benefit the child overall because that gives teachers one more glimpse at how to best reach

their students.

III. Review of Literature

Now that there has been a definition for developmentally appropriate education

established, it is important to read deeper into research and see what scholars have to say about it

pertaining to education in classrooms.

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 10

Carol Gestwicki (2013) discusses in thorough detail throughout her book,

Developmentally Appropriate Practice: Curriculum and Development in Early Education, the

ins and outs of early childhood education. She explain that DAP is only what it is today because

of our understanding of how children develop and learn and that the term, “ . . .refers to applying

child development knowledge in making thoughtful and appropriate decisions about early

childhood program practices . . .” (p. 8). She also warns of not making assumptions about what is

appropriate for different students of different age groups. Rather, one should base their decisions

off of knowledge. There is a fine line between assumptions and knowledge, but it is a great one.

Gestwicki furthers explores the National Association for the Education of Young Children’s

mission statement by establishing five interrelated dimensions of early childhood programs

practice which include

1. Creating a caring community of learners, within the context of relationships in the

classroom

2. Teaching to enhance development and learning, with consideration of teacher roles and

strategies to support children’s learning processes

3. Constructing appropriate curriculum with attention to both content and strategies

4. Assessing children’s learning and development

5. Establishing reciprocal relationships with families (p. 8).

These dimensions of developmentally appropriate practice amongst early learners give a clearer

picture of what all is entailed. This information that has been discovered now helps guide teacher

in how, “ . . .to create learning environments that match their [the students’] abilities and

developmental tasks” (pp. 8-9).

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 11

To help further understand what developmentally appropriate practice is and how it is

developed, Gestwicki explains what it is not leading to what it is. She explains how it is not a set

curriculum or rigid standards that dictates education. Instead, “ . . .it is a framework, a

philosophy, or an approach to working with young children” (2013, p. 9). Over the next several

pages of her book, Gestwicki discusses the essential components of DAP. She covers things like

how development and learning occur at varying and uneven rates across individual students, and

how development progresses when there is greater complexity and self-regulation. She talks

about how children develop best when they feel secure and have established positive

relationships with the teacher and peers, and how social and cultural contexts influence a child’s

development and learning. Gestwicki explains that children learn in numerous ways, and she

explains how play is important for young learners. She concludes by stating that children thrive

when they are challenged right above their level of mastery, and the experiences of a child’s life

shapes their motivation and approaches to learning (pp. 9-14). All of these factors, plus others,

make up developmentally appropriate practice. Without these essential fragments taken into

consideration, the practice would no longer be appropriate.

Gestwicki compares developmentally appropriate practice to developmentally

inappropriate practice allowing educators to make connections and classify their own decisions.

The key difference mentioned by her really has to do with the results of whatever practice has

taken place whether it be appropriate or inappropriate in reference to developmental ability.

Stress. When developmentally inappropriate practice has taken place, students are often left

feeling stressed because they are working at a level that is way above their mastery level (2013,

p. 21). It is unhealthy for students to be pushed to work using methods that contrast with the

learning methods they are most comfortable with. Children who have no positive relationships
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 12

with the teacher or peers are not receiving what they need socially to feel developmentally secure

and ready to learn. When developmentally appropriate practice has occurred, students are

alleviated of all stress and they can learn more constructively.

Gestwicki (2013) concludes her first chapter by revealing some common

misunderstandings about developmentally appropriate practice. The first being there is only one

right way to carry out DAP (p. 22). Different children call for different strategies, so what might

work for one student or one classroom is not necessarily the right way to do it because it might

not work for every student or every classroom. The second misunderstanding is the idea that

DAP classrooms are unstructured (p. 23). People often believe that classrooms are unstructured

because teaching is based off of student needs. However, it is quite the opposite because that is

the whole point about DAP: There are intentional steps and structures set to ensure student

learning. Another common misunderstanding is that DAP is set in place and only works for

developing white, middle-class children (pp. 26). However, as mentioned previously, DAP is

based off of individual student needs. Also, programs are being put in place to aid students in

lower income areas and for students with special needs. Yet another misunderstanding named by

Gestwicki is that there is no way to tell if children are learning through DAP (p. 28). This is not

the case though because the DAP method requires teachers to observe their students and be self-

reflective about play, language, interaction, and increasing abilities to use literacy skills (p. 28).

The author names other misunderstandings, but these are the key ones.

Carol Copple and Sue Bredekamp continue to bring clarity to the idea of developmentally

appropriate practice by providing key components to it. Like Carol Gestwicki, Copple and

Bredekamp compare and contrast both developmentally appropriate and inappropriate practices.

The key components offered by Copple and Bredekamp (2008) include

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 13

 Curriculum and experiences that actively engage children

 Rich, teacher-supported play

 Integrated curriculum

 Scope for children’s initiative and choice

 Intentional decisions in the organization and timing of learning experiences

 Adapting curriculum and teaching strategies to help individual children make

optimal progress (para. 5).

These key factors all ensure that educators are providing developmentally appropriate practice as

well as a DAP classroom. These points have been discussed throughout this portion just in

different words. However, there is still the focus on adaptations being made according to

students’ needs along with the recognition of what is important enough to students to bring

initiative to students. Providing choice for students allows them to take ownership of their own

learning, and it will assist with keeping them engaged. By engaging students in learning and

supporting them as best as one can, educators can make monumental differences in children’s

lives.

To have developmentally appropriate practice, there must be developmentally

inappropriate practice, and this comes with its own components as well. Copple and Bredekamp

(2008), state these as

 Highly linear instruction, especially when it follows an inflexible timeline

 Heavy reliance on whole group instruction

 Fragmented lessons without connections that are meaningful to children

 Rigid adherence to a packaged, “one size fits all” curriculum

 Teachers following a predetermined script without regard to children’s responses

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 14

 Highly prescriptive requirements, along with rigid timelines for achieving them

 Narrow focus (for example, only on literacy and math instruction) (para. 6)

The best term that can be used to describe developmentally inappropriate practice would be

cookie cutter. Teachers using these practices are completely ignorant to the individual needs of

students. When a teacher operates this way, they are like a train chugging full steam ahead with

no regards to anything else going on around them. Lack of attention to student feedback enables

errors to continue to be made. Maintaining a perfect cookie cutter lesson for cookie cutter

students disables variety and diversity within a classroom to thrive. Teachers have to engage

with students and observe how they are comprehending the material. This allows them to self-

evaluate and make any corrections if need be. Engaging students in meaningful conversation

about the content and making connections permits students to understand the deeper meaning – it

gives the lesson a “so what.” Students ask so what? What do I need to know about this material?

How does it truly affect me in a meaningful way? It is the educator’s responsibility to guide

these connections for students.

David Elkind (1989) contributes to the developmentally appropriate practice discussion

by explaining how, “ . . .the curriculum should be matched to the child’s level of mental ability .

. .” (p. 113). He goes on to explain how this idea has been supported for a period of time. Elkind

takes two different philosophies based on DAP and compares the two. He explains that, “Any

philosophy of education must include some conception of the learner, of the learning process, of

the information to be acquired, and of the goals or aims of education” (p. 113). The philosophy

focused on here is the theory of Jean Piaget. This theory pertaining to the conception of the

learner explains that children’s mental abilities are developing, and most children develop the

same abilities, but not necessarily at the same age (p. 113). Elkind then goes into Piaget’s theory
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 15

pertaining to the learning process of children. He explains that we as educators working under

Piaget’s theory never simply just copy and regurgitate content to students. Instead, “ . . .learning

is always seen as a creative activity . . .we engage the world in a way that creates something new,

something that reflects both our mental activity and the material we have dealt with” (p. 114).

Every student brings a different background with different experiences and these aspects impact

the way students learn as well as how educators teach. From there, Elkind saw it valuable to look

at the conception of knowledge from Piaget’s perspective. He explains that “ . . .knowledge is

always a construction, inevitably reflecting the joint contributions of the subject and the object”

(p. 114). This concept is not new to the realm of education. This construction can be further

understood through the explanation that our brains categorize the information that we receive.

Our brains are like filing cabinets that file away information in appropriate places. This

information is determined by the content that the world provides (p. 115). Together, these two

pieces comprise knowledge. Elkind concludes the needs for the philosophy of education by

taking a look at the aims and goals of education. In short, he explains how if all of the previously

mentioned concepts are seen as true, “ . . .then the aim of education must surely be to facilitate

this development, this creative activity, and this construction of knowledge,” according to the

theory of Piaget (p. 115). Then, Elkind offers Piaget’s statement of the goals of education. He

says that the first primarily goal of education is to create children who are competent enough to

do new things, and the second goal of education is to help shape minds that can think critically

and verify new information exposed to them without just accepting it at face value (p. 115).

Davild Elkind analyzed the philosophical theory of Piaget, one of the men who we base

education off of today, to validate his views of practical implications of these concepts in

developmentally appropriate practice.

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 16

Though the concept of developmentally appropriate practice is not new by any means,

major research has been done and processed and the implications and strategies used have been

altered over the years. David Dickinson (2002) discusses the differences of teaching strategies

used over the years when implementing developmentally appropriate practice in his article,

Shifting Images of Developmentally Appropriate Practice Through Different Lenses. He explains

how in the 80s, educators were told that the proper way to teach young children was to view

themselves as guides or facilitators instead of lecturing and verbally instructing them (p. 28).

This differs from the warnings and descriptions given to today’s educators.

The lecture warning is no long as precedent of an issue. Instead, “ . . .teachers are warned

about failing to challenge children adequately and reminded of the need for intellectually

engaging classrooms” (Dickinson, 2002, p. 28). It is important to ensure that students are

appropriately challenged. It would be inappropriate to challenge them at a level that is way above

their level of mastery causing them to reach their level of frustration resulting inevitably to shut

down. Educators must work within students’ zone of proximal development, or ZPD. ZPD is

described as, “ . . .the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by

independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through

problem-solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers” (McLeod,

2012, para. 2). It is critical for teachers to recognize where this zone is for each of their students

so that they can teach them accordingly. If one is working far below a child’s ZPD, then no

significant learning is taking place. Similarly, if one is working far above a child’s ZPD, then no

significant learning is taking place either. In order for this significant learning to take place in

classrooms, educators need to work in the ZPD of their students as supported by Dickinson’s

research.
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 17

To begin their article, Audra Parker and Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett (2006) examine what

kind of teaching strategies should be used when looking at the National Association for the

Education of Young Children, or NAEYC’s mission statement. When looking at the mission

statement, there appears to be a push for the use of, “ . . .dichotomous relationship between

teacher-centered and child-centered practices . . .” resulting in an analysis of whether educators

should use developmentally appropriate, child-centered practices or didactic, teacher-centered

practices (p. 63) . However, Parker and Neuharth-Pritchett say that both can be appropriate and

usefull in early childhood classrooms (p. 63).

Parker and Neuharth-Pritchett (2006) describe what didactic or teacher-center practices

are like: “ . . .[they] tend to rely more exclusively on passive forms of instruction as well as drill-

and-practice approaches” (p. 63). It is expressed that some teacher consider this strategy to be

developmentally inappropriate for students; however, some research disagrees. “According to

behaviorism, learning occurs as responses to stimuli; thus when applied to a classroom setting,

children learn when they repeat correct responses to teacher-produced stimuli and when

children’s errors are corrected immediately . . .[to prevent] them from learning incorrect

knowledge” (p. 64). This dichotomous concept is usually seen executed through the use of

repetition, direct instruction, sequential steps, workbooks, and textbooks.

In contrast, child-centered classrooms are heavily grounded in the combination of both

Piaget and Vygotsky’s theories. This combination “ . . .assumes that learners construct their own

knowledge based on interactions with their environment that challenge their thinking . . .[with

this] motivation to engage in intellectual tasks is greatest when tasks are challenging but

achievable . . .” (Parker & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2006, p. 64). This strategy is supported primarily
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 18

through the use of choice, opportunities to work with peers, use of manipulatives and hands-on

activities, and informal instruction.

Throughout the rest of their article, Parker and Neuharth-Pritchett (2006) take a deeper

look at the research that has been done on these two strategies pertaining to achievement,

motivation, and stress. In conclusion, they decide that there is a time and a place for both

strategies to be implemented in a classroom. They argue that the misconceptions of both

strategies results in the misuse and lack of use for both strategies. There needs to be a balanced

blend of the two. Students determine what is required for learning to take place, but teachers

support them, decide the strategies used, and guide them along the way.

IV. Personal Observations

I have had the opportunity to partake and observe many different teachers in many

different classrooms over the last three years that I have spent at Ohio Christian University, and I

can honestly say that I think more learning has taken place in these environments than by reading

any textbook for a class. There truly is no better learning experience than hands-on learning

experience and having the ability to put the textbook strategies to the test with incredible mentors

as cooperating teachers.

My very first field placement was in Beth Jacobs’s second grade classroom at Circleville

Elementary. I had no idea what to expect, but Mrs. Jacobs was an incredible experienced teacher

who was more than willing to lend advice. I was nervous about when it was appropriate to step

in because I did not want to overstep my boundaries, but she encouraged me to engage with the

students. By doing so, I was able to have front row seats to developmentally appropriate

education. Kindergarteners are known to be rambunctious, but Mrs. Jacobs knew how to teach

accordingly. She set her schedule according to the students’ needs. She knew that their focus was
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 19

the best in the morning, so that is when she worked on math and a little bit of language arts. Mrs.

Jacobs wrapped up the afternoon by finishing up language arts and tying up loose ends.

Mrs. Jacobs primarily used centers to really exercise students’ math skills. This was

extremely beneficial to students because they were grouped according to ability, and then each

center was altered as needed depending on that group’s needs. Students worked on number

recognition, counting, and small addition problems. The centers primarily consisted of games

which really helped keep the students engaged. Students spent anywhere from ten to fifteen

minutes at each center, so they were never really bored, and it took up a large part of their

morning prior to lunch and gym. Students worked with manipulatives such as di, counting

blocks, and other objects like chips and bears. The use of manipulatives was great because it

solidified the concepts for students by being able to work it out and see it for themselves.

When it came to be my turn to teach a lesson, I was beyond excited. I had developed a

lesson that had three parts. The first part provided students with a sight word bank and students

had to identify the sight words in the sentences and highlight them. The second part was that they

had to trace the sight words on the lines provided and then practice writing them by themselves.

The third part required students to construct their own sight word sentences. I learned two major

things in the process of this lesson: highlighters look like markers to kindergarteners and writing

full fledge independent sentences is a little ambitious. In hindsight, I liked the overall goal of

identifying the sight words and even the practicing of writing them, but the execution of it all

was far too mature for the age group I was working with. Mrs. Jacobs was forgiving with this

and offered feedback to help.

My second field experience took place with Miss Angel and Miss Brooke at New Hope

in a preschool classroom. I was there to teach students science and social studies. This concept
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 20

totally intimidated me because my students were three, and I had no idea how to keep them

engaged enough to teach science and social studies. Miss Angel and Miss Brooke explained to

me that their number one focus for the students was to offer several avenues for sensory and

exploration, and this reflected in their classroom. The students had the option to play different

things that encouraged them to use their imagination, and there were beads, sand, and water to

explore.

Keeping this tip in mind, I tried to include as much sensory and explorative factors as I

could. Together, we observed night crawlers; identified solids and liquids and made oobleck;

made tissue box guitars; used star stickers to make the Big Dipper star constellation; and we also

talked about textures using construction paper hands that I had cut out and hot glued five

different textures to the finger tips. A lot of background work went into the construction of these

lessons, but I loved every minute of it, and the kids did too. Preschoolers were ecstatic to look at

big creepy crawling worms and play with goo. The texture lesson was one of my favorites

because it seemed to be the one that students really had to work their minds to achieve. As

mentioned earlier, each finger on a construction paper hand cut-out had a different textured item

hot glued to it: smooth, rough, bumpy, soft, and hard. Then, we passed around different items

and discussed what their textures could be. Students had to work to decipher the difference(s)

between rough and bumpy, but they did it!

Social studies proved to be more of a challenge, but we still had fun, and I encouraged

them to explore and create. We talked about our birthdays in correlation to when other people’s

birthdays are; made classroom maps and talked about the significance of maps; painted our hand

red, white, and blue and made fireworks to talk about holidays and what they were; and drew

ourselves as presidents and made our own “laws” for the classroom. By aking hands-on activities
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 21

and applying them to some concepts that would be otherwise considerably boring for 3-year-

olds, I was able to use those experiences as a reference. For example, I could have students refer

back to the time when we painted our hands and made fireworks to talk about the 4th of July.

These activities allowed kids to be kids while still encouraging growth and learning.

My third field experience was in Miss Young’s second grade math class at Washington

Elementary. Subtraction with regrouping was the biggest focus when I joined this class, but we

focused on other things as well. Preschool to second grade was a huge jump in age for me, so I

did not know what to expect as far as what was developmentally appropriate for this age group.

They seemed to be very familiar with worksheets, but I still pushed to use hands-on learning

activities with the students I worked with. We did subtraction with regrouping using tens frames

and blocks to represent tens and ones. We played a board game that I had made that included

solving word problems using regrouping.

In another lesson, students were working with money, so each student received a card

with different coins on them. The students had to find the total amount of money on the card they

had received and find the person in the class that had the same amount. Another lesson to

practice money that I did with a group was they were given different amounts of coins and

different items were offered “for sale.” Students had to calculate if they had enough money to

buy the item for sale. This was particularly fun because it kept students engaged because of the

use of money, and it brought a sense of healthy competition to the surface. The last concept we

worked on together was time. We played clock bingo; we played a matching game where

students had to match an analog clock with a digital clock; and we played a game where students

matched up the tops and bottoms of Easter eggs according to their right times. Students did not

have the opportunities to work with manipulatives that often, so the inclusion of them in my
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 22

lessons were exciting and a nice change of pace. I think the use of the ten frames and blocks

worked really well for students who struggled with the subtraction with regrouping. I learned a

lot during my time here about what worked and what did not.

This past year, I actually worked in three different classrooms. I worked with Miss Rauch

in a second grade classroom, Mrs. Syner in a fourth grade classroom, and Mrs. Ross in another

fourth grade classroom all at Madison Christian Academy. Because of my getting the fourth and

fifth grade endorsement, I also had the opportunity to work with older students like fourth

graders. To say that I was busy this past year would be an understatement, but it was priceless. I

learned a lot about myself as a teacher as well as developmentally appropriate practice in these

settings.

In Miss Rauch’s second grade class, I was paired with the two lowest academic students

in the classroom for language arts as my focus students and the lowest reading level to do guided

reading lessons with. One of my case study students had already been in second grade, and this

was his second time through. He struggled a lot with reading and writing, and it took me a while

to figure out what worked and what did not because even though he and the other girl were the

two lowest, there was still a huge gap in ability. Together, the student and I worked on long and

short vowels by playing board games that I had created. We did several reading records, so I

could attempt to pinpoint where he was becoming confused. In hindsight, I am pretty sure that

there was some sort of a processing disorder. It was difficult to pinpoint the one critical spot, but

we did figure out little things that progressed his reading. If I pointed to each word, then he could

process the words significantly better, and eventually, he pointed to the words on his own. Even

when he made errors, he would correct himself. He really did improve over the course of the

year that we spent together.

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 23

When I worked with the small group to do guided reading lessons, I was faced with the

challenge because technically, all of the readers were in the same reading level group; however,

none of them were reading at the same level. When it came time to pick a book, I felt

overwhelmed because I did not want to pick anything that was too easy for the higher-leveled

readers in the group to where they were bored, but I also did not want to pick something that

would cause my lower-leveled readers to become overwhelmed and frustrated. After much

deliberation, I decided to go with Junie B. Jones and the Stupid Smelly Bus by Barbara Parks

because I knew it was a topic that they could all relate to, and it was gaged for first through third

graders, so it fit perfectly with my mid to low second graders. We did whisper reading and

engaged in meaningful conversation. We made connections between the chapters and our own

lives. We did different activities to reflect and comprehend our reading like writing short

paragraphs, drawing and coloring, venn diagrams, and much more. There were often times that

students got to choose what activity they wanted to do. By providing choice to my students, I did

not lock them into anything that they do not want to do allowing more of a change for

meaningful learning to take place.

Fourth grade was far different, and I really struggled switching gears so fast because

fourth graders and second graders are completely different in their cognitive ability. I could not

even talk to them the same way because there were so many differences in maturity level

between the two age gaps. Understanding what was developmentally appropriate for fourth grade

took some observation, conversations with cooperating teacher, and critical thinking. However,

when it was all said and done, I feel like I had a very clear understanding about what was

developmentally appropriate for this age group.

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 24

For Mrs. Ross’s class, we worked on language arts. We focused on things like character

development, facts versus opinions, thesis statements, and varying sentence structures. The

content chosen was based off of Mrs. Ross’s needs from me along with the state standards, so I

knew that was all developmentally appropriate practice for that age group, but I wanted to make

sure that my execution of teaching it was appropriate as well. We engaged in meaningful

discussions both with partners and as a class that helped navigate through the material. We made

real connections between what we were learning and our everyday lives. We played games that

encouraged student participation and engagement. This journey started in September, and we got

to spend the whole year together. By April, my students and I had a really positive relationship,

and we learned a lot about fourth grade “stuff” and each other.

I got to work with the same group of students in Mrs. Syner’s class to teach math. This

proved to be a little more difficult for both myself and the students. It involved a lot of relearning

material and studying Singapore math because that is the method used at Madison Christian.

Together, we studied adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing decimals and the metric

system with conversions. Decimals became second nature, but the students seemed bored with

textbook and workbook math, so when I taught my lessons, I tried to include engaging activities

that encouraged critical thinking and problem solving. For example, when we were working on

multiplying decimals, students partnered up with somebody and they took turns rolling a di.

They multiplied the price of the grocery items listed on the left by the number that they rolled.

Then at the end, each student added up their total to figure out who spent the most amount of

money grocery shopping. The students loved this, and it worked two different concepts –

multiplying and adding. I tried to include several of these strategies while teaching.
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 25

No matter what grade I taught or what subject it was we were working on, one thing

stayed true in all of my lessons. I really made a focus on I do, We do, You do. I wanted to ensure

that students felt the scaffolding and support that they needed to feel confident to perform on

their own. To ensure that this happened, I began each lesson with an introduction into what we

were doing and we connected it to either everyday lives or something that we had already

learned. This helped students assign meaning to what we were learning, and it gave us a clear

direction and purpose. Then I would do a few examples of the content while thoroughly

explaining in various ways the methods used to complete the task. From there, we would do

examples together with the students’ help. Finally, students would complete some work on their

own asking for help when need me. This helped me reflect on whether or not I covered the

content enough. Through self-reflection, I was able to make adjustments as needed.

V. Implications and Conclusions

According to the research performed by many scholars and my own observational

research in several different classrooms, it is nearly impossible to not see the clear differences

between students who have received developmentally appropriate education and those who have

not. “Developmentally appropriate education is being able to assess students’ learning levels and

abilities and being able to appropriately differentiate lesson plans to meet each student where

they are academically, as well as emotionally . . .” (N. Rauch, personal communication, May 29,

2018). In order for educators to do this properly and efficiently, it is necessary for them to be

aware of how their students learn best, the backgrounds of their students, the interests of their

students, as well as the interests of their students. Being aware of these factors will play heavily

into how teachers implement developmentally appropriate education in their lessons. The

recognition of these differences will allow them to better understand the idea that their students
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 26

are growing at different rates, and they may not grasp concepts the same ways that other students

do.

By providing choice to students in their lessons, teachers are implementing some

developmentally appropriate practice because it allows students to take ownership of their

learning. It also enables students to pick avenues that they are more comfortable with as well as

ones that they will enjoy more. When students are comfortable and entertained, then true

engagement can occur in the classroom and real challenges can be provided. Through

differentiation, or adaptations to the lessons, teachers can make learning more focused on

individual student needs and encourage effective learning. For example, if students really

struggle with writing and a lesson requires a written explanation for an answer, teachers can offer

students the choice to write a couple sentences and aid it with a picture – something they are

strong at and enjoy. At the end of the day, the student has still supported and defended their

answer; it was just done in a way that was developmentally appropriate for them.

To provide developmentally appropriate education to all of your students takes a lot of

time and effort. However, it is detrimental to the education of children if the education they are

receiving is developmentally inappropriate. By not creating individualized learning environments

for your students, you are forcing them to fit a mold that is not appropriate for them. Children are

different. They come from different backgrounds, and they are at different academic levels even

if they are in the same grade and sitting in the same classroom. Not all children learn the same

way. It is up to us as educators to learn these differences and reach children where they are

developmentally.

When lessons are not taught according to the individual needs of children, then no

significant learning is taking place. As mentioned previously, we must work within their zones of
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 27

proximal development. If we aim too high or low, then students become disengaged in the

classroom, and uninterested. They can become bored or overwhelmed and begin to shut down.

When we do not invest in the lives of our students and we teach them as just one same group, we

are taking away their identity and ignoring the key details that make all the difference in their

learning. We must build relationships with students and pay attention to what is working for

them and what is not working.

When students become disengaged from the lesson and no effective learning is taking

place, they can begin to build a resentment towards school and education. I have spoken to

students who hate school because of a teacher they had that made the whole learning experience

miserable for them. Because we are early childhood educators, we set the stage. We set the tone

for their future years in school. We must not turn learning into another monotonous task that is

required of them. Instead, we must learn our students and create a fun, safe, and developmentally

appropriate environment for them to learn.

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 28

VII. Bibliography

Berger, K. S. (2014). The developing person through childhood and adolescence. (9th ed.) New

York, NY: Worth Publishers.

Caplan Foundation for Early Childhood. (n.d.). Early Childhood Welfare. Retrieved from Caplan

Foundation for Early Childhood website: http://earlychildhoodfoundation.org/

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2008). Getting clear about developmentally appropriate practice.

YC Young Children, 63, 54-55.

Dickinson, D. K. (2002). Shifting images of developmentally appropriate practice as seen

through different lenses. Educational Researcher, 31, 26-32.

Elkind, D. (1989). Developmentally appropriate practice: Philisophicall and practical

implications. The Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 113-117.

Gestwicki, C. (2013). Developmentally appropriate practice: Curriculum and development in

early education. (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

The Glossary of Education Reform. (2015). Standardized test. Retrieved from The Glossary of

Education Reform website: https://www.edglossary.org/standardized-test/

Heacox, D. (2018). Making differentiation a habit: How to ensure success in academically

diverse classrooms. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.

Kendall, J.S. (2011). Understanding common core state standards. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Liedbtag, E. (2013). Moving forward with common core state standards implementation:

Possibilities and potential problems. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCl), 7, 56-

70.

McLeod, S. (2012). Zone of proximal development. Retrieved from Simply Psychology website:

https://www.simplypsychology.org/Zone-of-Proximal-Development.html
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 29

NAEYC. (n.d.). Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) introduction. Retrieved from

NAEYC website: https://www.naeyc.org/resources/topics/dap

Parker, A., & Neuharth-Pritchett, S. (2006). Developmentally appropriate practice in

kindergarten: Factors shaping teacher beliefs and practice. Journal of Research in

Childhood Education, 21, 63-76.

ProCon.org. (n.d.). Is the use of standardized testing improving education in America? Retreived

from ProCon.org website: https://standardizedtests.procon.org/

TED Talks. (2013, May 3). Every kid needs a champion / Rita Pierson [Video File]. Retrieved

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFnMTHhKdkw