A review: Journal of Research in Childhood Education Vol. 9, No. 2, Spring/Summer 1995

Childhood Education, Fall 1995 by Bergen, Doris

Four data sources were used for the triangulation analysis: observer field notes, staff notes, conversations with parent and child preschool records. The categories of prosocial behavior that emerged in the analysis were proximity seeking, helping others, sharing, leadership, communication, empathy and other. Centers included those for construction (blocks, table toys), pretend play (housekeeping, grocery, puppets), individual activity (listen computer), process activity (music, reading), creating (writing, art, woodworking), manipulative (puzzles, discovery, water) and small group.

Results indicated that the most prosocial behavior occurred in the creating centers. The types of it prosocial behavior most often observed were sharing, helping and proximity seeking. The facilitating behavior of the adult staff is discussed, as well as the possible effect on prosocial behavior of the relatively abundant choices of materials and activities available for children in this particular setting. Of special interest for practice is the implication that teachers affect opportunities for prosocial behavior when they make decisions about the types of learning/activity centers they provide for children.

* The Struggle for Developmentally Appropriate Literacy Instruction -- McIntyre

This study examines teacher decision-making by exploring the beliefs and practices of a team of three teachers in a multiage, non-graded primary classroom. A pilot classroom of children ages 5-8 provided non-competitive, individually paced and developmentally appropriate instruction. The three teachers who agreed to work together in this classroom were joined by a researcher who observed the day-to-day educational environment, particularly focusing on literacy instruction. The researcher also collected information about the teachers' beliefs through interviews, surveys and in-depth group planning and reflection sessions.

As these teachers moved from a traditional approach to the new one, the researcher charted their increasing understanding of developmentally appropriate practice and described the decisions that resulted from their attempts to put their understandings into literacy instruction practice. The researcher studied how these decisions were influenced by teacher observation of and discussions about the children and their learning progress, by the teachers' increasing understanding of developmentally appropriate practice and by the differing beliefs, strengths, roles and personalities of the team members. The teachers brought varied viewpoints about how much structure and direct instruction should be used in literacy instruction. They started the year by putting into practice the strategies that arose from their initial understanding of developmentally appropriate racy instruction and from their disparate viewpoints about structure. As the year progressed, their observations and reflections enabled them to make decisions incorporating a wider range of strategies in response to children's needs. By the end of the year, as the teachers had the opportunity to reflect about developmentally appropriate practice for individual children, they came to be more similar in both practice and beliefs. The study points out the importance of having time both for teacher learning and for reflection on this learning.