Hi based on this article i need the answers to these questions. Thank you!
1.In the article, it stated, "childrenwhoseteachers hold high expectations promote more studentlearning and higher achievement levels" and"low expectationsled to low achievement levels". As a parent or caregiver do you think you would be more judgmental towards child placement based on this information? As a teacher would you consider a self- evaluation and reconsider your skills and teaching methods? Why or Why not?
2. Based on the sample, it stated, "Teachers were predominantly African American and female, reflectingthe typical early learningyears staff in this school system". Would there be a difference in the results given based on educational development amongstgirls and boysif there was an even amount of men in the early learning years staff? Why or Why not?
3.Being that these schools were of an urban community. If there were a mixture in culture including African Americans and other minorities both teacher and student, would the outcome be somewhat similarto these results or would there be a drastic change? Are these positive changes, negative changes or both? Why?
Developmental Psychology 1999, Vol. 35, No. 2, 358-375 Copyright 1999 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0012-1649/99/S3.00 Differential Impact of Preschool Models on Development and Early Learning of Inner-City Children: A Three-Cohort Study Rebecca A. Marcon University of North Florida Three different preschool models operating in an urban school district were identified through cluster analysis of teacher responses to the Pre-K Survey of Beliefs and Practices. The language, self-help, social, motor, and adaptive development, along with mastery of basic skills, of 721 4-year-olds randomly selected from these models were compared. Children in the child-initiated model demonstrated greater mastery of basic skills than did children in programs in which academics were emphasized and skills were taught. Children in the combination model did significantly poorer on all measures except self-help and development of social coping skills compared with children in either the child-initiated or academ- ically directed models. Girls outperformed boys in all areas except gross motor development and play and leisure skills. Implications for educational policymakers are discussed. Benefits of academic instruction in early childhood have been debated for years. Kessler (1991) believed this debate stems from fundamental philosophical and political differences in beliefs about the purpose of schooling, value orientations, and cultural priorities. Recent decades have seen a downward shift in curricu- lum, with formal learning of math and reading skills now fre- quently introduced in kindergarten rather than first grade (Hatch & Freeman, 1988; Hitz & Wright, 1988). This shift has been accom- panied by high kindergarten exit requirements, leading to in- creased kindergarten retention rates (Shepard & Smith, 1988; Walsh, 1989) and concern over the appropriateness of formal instructional practices for young children (e.g., Elkind, 1986; Zigler, 1987). Escalating academic demands in kindergarten have affected preschool programs for even younger children. Goffin (1994) noted a downward movement of the debate between developmen- tal and academic orientations from elementary education to the preschool setting. Walsh (1989) believed these changes are driven by pressures for schools to become more effective and by public interest in positive findings of longitudinal research on early childhood programs (e.g., Campbell & Ramey, 1994; Lazar, Dar- lington, Murray, Royce, & Snipper, 1982; Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikart, 1993; Schweinhart, Weikart, & Lamer, 1986). This has led to a focus on early childhood in educational reform efforts and a renewed interest in differential effectiveness of curriculum mod- els as a broader constituency searches for effective educational interventions for economically disadvantaged preschoolers (Gof- fin, 1994). The emphasis of early intervention programs has typ- ically been school readiness, with a focus on development of cognitive and academic competencies needed to succeed in school. I wish to thank the teachers, children, and administrators of the District of Columbia Public Schools who participated in this study and used its findings to improve programs for young children in Washington, DC. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rebecca A. Marcon, Department of Psychology, University of North Florida, 4567 St. Johns Bluff Road, South, Jacksonville, Florida 32224. Electronic mail may be sent to rmarcon@unf.edu. Goffin (1994, p. 120) explained that when preschool was "recon- ceptualized as an appropriate beginning for primary schooling (especially for low-income children)," public school programs for 4-year-olds grew in number. This trend concerned Walsh (1989), who believed that as preschool education is absorbed into public schools, it becomes more like the elementary school in general with a narrowly focused, externally imposed curriculum. There- fore, research evaluating the impact of varying preschool models found within public school systems is especially important. Although it was once believed that any well-implemented pre- school program would achieve positive results (e.g., Lazar et al., 1982), a growing research base suggests otherwise. Powell's (1987) review of preschool programs and varying teaching prac- tices indicates that preschool curriculum does matter. The type of preschool program attended affects later academic and social out- comes. However, existing research is inconclusive in its support of a single best approach. Furthermore, outcomes may vary according to child's sex and other characteristics, suggesting a need to identify better matches between preschool programs and child characteristics. Some research supports a didactic approach. These studies typ- ically compare a direct instruction model (beginning in either kindergarten or first grade and lasting through third grade) with a comparison sample receiving "traditional" educational experiences during the same period of time. A direct instruction approach is highly prescriptive in that lessons are (a) scripted to assure con- sistency in presentation across teachers, (b) carefully sequenced with task analysis and a comprehensive system for monitoring student progress, and (c) consistently focused on academic instruc- tion with much of the available school day allocated to practice and drill in reading, language, and math. However, Carnine and Silbert (cited in Epstein, Schweinhart, & McAdoo, 1996, p. 175) indicated "the ideal Direct Instruction preschool model would include a variety of activities, including small-group instruction and play activities." Direct instruction seems to produce higher academic gains for students with mild cognitive disabilities (Ger- sten, 1985). In a national evaluation of the Follow Through pro- gram (cited in Epstein et al., 1996), the direct instruction model 358 DIFFERENTIAL IMPACT OF PRESCHOOL MODELS 359 ranked at or near the top on most academic measures and first on affective measures and language outcomes, although it did not do as well on measures of creative problem solving. Direct instruction has also been shown to enhance reading and mathematics achieve- ment on standardized tests in third (Meyer, Gersten, & Gutkin, 1983), fifth and sixth (Becker & Gersten, 1982), and ninth grades (Meyer, 1984). However, like many early interventions, achieve- ment of direct instruction students drops in comparison with test standardization samples following discontinuation of direct in- struction after third grade (Becker & Gersten, 1982). Miller and Dyer (1975) found a similar drop in achievement test scores for children who entered a nondidactic program following a direct instruction preschool experience. Support for a developmental orientation in early learning expe- riences can also be found. These studies typically compare the effectiveness of several preschool models and find long-term pos- itive effects of child-initiated learning on school achievement (e.g., Miller & Bizzell, 1984) and social behavior (e.g., Schweinhart et al., 1986, 1993). This model of early childhood education is broadly based on Piagetian notions of development and a belief that learning should be an active process involving exploratory interaction between the child and the environment. Therefore, in contrast to the didactic approach, children who participate in a child-initiated model are not directly taught concepts, but rather learn them through self-directed actions facilitated by a teacher. In this approach a teacher facilitates learning by (a) providing chil- dren with a wide variety of experiences, (b) encouraging children to choose and plan their own learning activities, (c) engaging children in active learning by posing problems and asking ques- tions that stimulate and extend learning, (d) guiding children through skill acquisition activities as needed, and (e) encouraging children to reflect on their learning experiences. Curriculum is integrated across disciplines and builds on what children already know and are able to do. A child-initiated approach is consistent with many experts' beliefs about what constitutes appropriate educational practices for young children (e.g., Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Ongoing research on the impact of developmen- tally appropriate practices (DAP) and developmentally inappropri- ate practices (DIP) indicates distinct advantages of DAP. Aca- demic performance in the early school grades is better among children who attended DAP preschools (Frede & Barnett, 1992) or kindergartens (Burts, Hart, Charlesworth, & DeWolf, 1993). Pri- mary grade teachers rated children who had attended DIP kinder- gartens lower in conduct and work-study habits and perceived them to be more distractible, less willing to follow directions, and less prosocial (Hart, Charlesworth, Burts, & DeWolf, 1993). Sti- pek, Feiler, Daniels, and Milburn (1995) found motivational dif- ferences favoring a child-initiated model of early education com- pared with a didactic approach. They cautioned that early academic gains in reading skills associated with didactic instruc- tion "come with some costs" (p. 220) that could have long-term negative effects on achievement. DeVries, Reese-Learned, and Morgan (1991) expressed similar concerns, arguing that temporary benefits of direct instructional approaches cannot be justified in light of possible negative consequences for social development. Other findings are more variable, suggesting a model's influ- ence is moderated by individual characteristics such as child's sex or disability condition. In general, boys do not adjust as well as do girls to didactic early learning approaches. Boys show more stress behaviors in DIP kindergartens (Burts et al., 1992). This is espe- cially true for African American boys in lower socioeconomic status (SES). Development and achievement of inner-city boys are fostered by kindergartens that emphasize socioemotional growth over academics and are hindered by overly academic, didactic kindergarten experiences (Marcon, 1993). Boys from nondidactic preschool programs showed higher math and reading achievement in high school than did boys whose early learning experiences were didactic (Miller & Bizzell, 1984). Early direct instruction seemed to benefit young handicapped children who were relatively higher functioning at pretest, whereas a mediated-learning experi- ence produced greater long-term gains for children who were relatively lower performing at pretest (Mills, Dale, Cole, & Jen- kins, 1995). This is consistent with Miller and Bizzell's (1984) speculation that processing of verbal instruction typical of didactic approaches could be difficult for young children with slower rates of development. Because existing research is inconclusive, a "combination" or "intermediate" approach has been suggested as a compromise (e.g., Fowell & Lawton, 1992; Stipek, Daniels, Galluzzo, & Mil- burn, 1992). This approach varies but has been described as being higher in structure than child-initiated approaches yet involving more active student participation than is found in the passive learner activities of a didactic approach (e.g., Rawl & O'Tuel, 1982). It may also use different instructional approaches for dif- ferent subject areas and different groups of children (e.g., Stipek et al., 1995). Not surprisingly, studies that have included such a model in curricular comparisons also find varying results. Lawton (1978) contrasted child-initiated learning experiences in a Piagetian-based preschool program with an Ausubelian program that combined verbally presented teacher instruction with oppor- tunities to concretely practice lessons. The combination Ausu- belian program resulted in greater improvement on classification and conservation tasks. However, a combination approach is not always effective. Rawl and O'Tuel (1982) compared three reading and mathematics ap- proaches for kindergarten students: (a) Direct Instructional System for the Teaching of Arithmetic and Reading (DISTAR), (b) a cognitive-developmental readiness program based on Piagetian theory that stressed comprehension over phonics and manipulative three-dimensional mathematics activities rather than worksheets, and (c) Action Reading, which was similar to DISTAR in its use