early childhood educators’ conceptions of development: a comparison of preservice and in‐service...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Waterloo]On: 06 November 2014, At: 18:30Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS’CONCEPTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT: ACOMPARISON OF PRESERVICE ANDIN‐SERVICE TEACHERSSusan L. Golbeck a & Elizabeth Young aa Rutgers UniversityPublished online: 03 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Susan L. Golbeck & Elizabeth Young (1999) EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS’CONCEPTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT: A COMPARISON OF PRESERVICE AND IN‐SERVICE TEACHERS,Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 20:3, 301-315, DOI: 10.1080/0163638990200308

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163638990200308

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0163638990200308

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163638990200308

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS'CONCEPTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT: ACOMPARISON OF PRESERVICE ANDIN-SERVICE TEACHERS

Susan L. Golbeck and Elizabeth YoungRutgers University

INTRODUCTION

Early childhood teacher educators havelong believed that knowledge of child devel-opment is essential for teachers to work effec-tively with young children and their families.Theory and research in child developmentserved as the basis for the first and secondeditions of the NAEYC's Guidelines for De-velopmentally Practice (Bredekamp, 1987;Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Although debateabout the role of child development theory inearly childhood curriculum has been vigorousin recent years, there is consensus on the valueof training and course work in child develop-ment for prospective teachers. Indeed, re-search on quality in child care has shown thatthe level of education and course work in child

development among caregivers predicts thequality of care provided for young children.

Despite consensus on the value of coursework and training, relatively little attentionhas been devoted to how teachers and caregiv-ers of young children actually think about theprocesses of child development. This is ironicbecause so many of the decisions teachersmake on a day-to-day basis in dealing withchildren and their families seem to be struc-tured by implicit conceptions of developmen-tal principles. Indeed, early childhood teach-ers' beliefs about children's learning anddevelopment have been identified as mediat-ing factors in decisions about kindergarten re-tention (Smith & Shepard, 1988), strategiesfor dealing with parents (Rescorla et al.,1991), discipline techniques, and relationships

• Susan L. Golbeck and Elizabeth Young, Department of Educational Psychology, Graduate School of Education,Rutgers University. 10 Seminary Place, New Brunswick, NJ 08903. Tel.: (732) 932-7496 (ext. 323); E-mail:golbeck@ rci. rutgers.edu

• An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Biennial Meetings of the Society for Research in ChildDevelopment, Indianapolis, IN, 1995. We gratefully acknowledge Ellen McLaughlin for her assistance in codingthe vignettes. We also thank the teachers who participated in the study.

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION, 1999, pp. 301-315 ISSN 0163-6388Copyright © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:30

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

302 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION Vol. 20, No. 3, 1999

with administrators (Hatch & Freeman, 1988,Walsh, 1988).

In the research noted previously, beliefsabout learning and development have beenassessed in a variety of ways. However, ingeneral, teachers' beliefs are seen as fixed andunchanging. Pajares (1992) contrasts beliefswith knowledge. Whereas knowledge can bemodified relatively easily, beliefs are moreenduring. From this perspective, beliefs arelike world views grounded in philosophicalassumptions rather than empirical data andthey are relatively difficult to influencethrough short-term intervention (Nespor,1987). For the most part, assessments of earlychildhood teachers' beliefs about learning anddevelopment have been closely linked to par-ticular curriculum concerns, most notably de-velopmentally appropriate practice. For exam-ple, in one recent study Stipek & Byler (1997)explored the relationships between teachers'professed beliefs and their actual practices inpreschool, kindergarten, and first grade.Teachers' beliefs were measured in terms oftheir endorsement of particular practices andgoals associated with a basic skills or child-centered orientation in the classroom. Theseresearchers found associations between be-liefs, goals, and practices for preschool andkindergarten teachers, but not for the firstgrade teachers. Similar findings for kindergar-ten and preschool teachers have been reportedby Charlesworth and colleagues (Charles-worth et al., 1991; Charlesworth et al., 1993).

We have taken a somewhat different per-spective on this important issue of how teach-ers think about learning and development.Rather than working from issues grounded inearly childhood curriculum, we have begun bylooking at adult cognition. Assuming a con-structivist stance, we argue that teachers' no-tions about children and their learning anddevelopment are constructed by teachersthemselves as they interact with children. Theconceptions teachers hold about how to sup-port children's learning and development inthe classroom derive from their teaching ex-perience and from their own active attempts to

make sense of this experience. Like children'sunderstanding of number, hierarchical classi-fication or combinatorial reasoning, teachers'beliefs, or ideas about development evolveslowly. Extensive experience interacting withthe environment is necessary but not sufficientfor change. Also necessary is active self-re-flection. From this perspective, teachers' con-ceptions of development function as implicittheories of learning and development. One im-portant difference between this stance and pre-vious work on teachers' beliefs is the assump-tion that conceptions about development canand do change.

Although little is known about teachers'conceptions of development, there is a sub-stantial literature on parents' implicit theoriesof development (Goodnow, 1988; McGuilli-cuddy-DeLisi, 1982; Miller, 1988). Oneframework for characterizing adults' concep-tions of child development was proposed bySameroff and Feil (1985). They contend thatparental conceptions of child development,like scientific theories of development, typi-cally specify the determinants of outcomes.And, parents, like scientists, vary in the im-portance they attach to influences arising fromthe child's nature (a constitutional approach),nurturing (an environmental approach) orsome combination of the two. Parental con-cepts also vary in the complexity of the rela-tionships between the child and the environ-ment and become more complex over time.Sameroff & Feil (1985) argue that conceptsincrease in logical complexity over time as aresult of experience and personal reflection.This gradual change is sequential and emer-gent. Concepts can be characterized in fourbroad levels. These vary in the degree towhich the adult is able to coordinate multipledeterminants of behavior into an increasinglybroader context. The least sophisticated, Level1, responses are considered nonreflectiveshowing little awareness of developmentalchange or developmental influences. "Cate-gorical thinking," at Level 2, focuses on asingle factor influencing development. Thisfactor can be either constitutional or environ-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:30

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Teachers' Conceptions of Development 303

mental. Level 3 is labeled "Compensating"when two or more influences upon develop-ment are identified. Finally, at Level 4, called"Perspectivistic," children's behaviors areviewed, not as the result of any single consti-tutional or environmental source, but rather asa combination of particular events in time.Here, conceptions are not viewed as static, butremain open and capable of incorporating ad-ditional influences. Table 2 provides furtherelaboration and examples for each of the fourbroad levels and three transitional levels.

We have extended this model of parentalconceptions to teachers. Teachers, like par-ents, make decisions about constitutional andenvironmental influences on development andhow best to integrate these factors. Teachers'conceptions of individual development are rel-evant to, but distinct from, beliefs about cur-riculum. Rather than adherence to a particulartheory of development, or allegiance to a par-ticular model of early education, what mattersis the complexity of the explanation for devel-opmental change. For example, early child-hood educators frequently contrast a strict en-vironmental view, typified by directinstruction, (e.g., Distar) with a more matura-tional, "readiness" model (e.g., Gesell, tradi-tional child centered) and again with a varietyof interactional approaches (e.g., Piaget, Mon-tessori, Bank Street) (see Epstein et al., 1996;Evans, 1982; Goffin, 1994). However, fromthe vantage point of teachers' thinking aboutdevelopment, and the model proposed here,both the strict environmental and the matura-tional approach represent "categorical" ap-proaches to development. Both attribute de-velopmental outcomes to single factors andare characterized as Level 2 thinking.

It's difficult to differentiate the vast arrayof approaches to instruction in early childhoodin terms of Compensating and Perspectivisticapproaches. No doubt this is because modelsor approaches to curriculum, even those mak-ing explicit reference to a developmental the-ory (e.g., High/Scope; Bank Street), mustspeak to general goals that may be imple-mented with groups of children. Processes of

learning and development, however, alwaysoccur at the level of the individual. An impor-tant distinction between the Level 3, Compen-sating, and the Level 4, Perspectivistic, con-cepts of development is the appreciation of thedynamic or transactional interplay between theindividual and the environment and the impor-tance of the individual's developmental his-tory for understanding any particular outcome.

The purpose of this study was to examinethe role of teaching experience in teachers'conceptions of development. We have alreadynoted the paucity of work on teachers' con-ceptions of child development. While therehas been some work on preservice teachers'beliefs, we are unaware of previous work ex-ploring the role of actual job experience in thesophistication of teacher's conceptions of de-velopment. In a recent study, Smith (1997)reported no change over the course of thestudent teaching experience in teachers' viewson Developmentally Appropriate Practice inthe early childhood classroom. However, asnoted earlier, beliefs about a curriculum ori-entation are not synonymous with conceptionsof development.

If teachers' thinking about developmentdoes change as a result of experience andactive reflection, we should see differencesbetween experienced and inexperienced teach-ers in their views of development. In thisstudy, we tested this hypothesis by adapting aninstrument developed by Sameroff & Feil(1985) for parents. The original measure in-cludes a set of vignettes, each describing achild experiencing academic and/or behavioralproblems in school or at home. Each vignetteconcludes with a question to which parents orteachers are asked to respond. Responses werescored and categorized according to criteriadifferentiating: 1) the number of developmen-tal determinants; 2) specification of causalmechanisms; 3) individual needs; 4) level ofelaboration, complexity and dynamic quality;5) the coordination of past and present events;and 6) possibilities for remediation. Using thevignettes, as well as a questionnaire designedto measure the same constructs, Sameroff and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:30

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


colleagues have shown a relationship betweenconcepts of development and children's intel-lectual functioning. They have also identifiedrelationships between maternal experience andcomplexity of reasoning about development(Barocas et al., 1991; Gutierrez et al., 1988;Gutierrez & Sameroff, 1990; Sameroff & Feil,1985;Seifer & Sameroff, 1989).

Informal discussion with teachers assuredus that the vignettes had face validity. If con-cepts of development are influenced in part byexperience, we expected that experiencedteachers should show more sophisticated lev-els of reasoning than inexperienced preserviceteachers. Some evidence consistent with ourapproach is provided by a study of preserviceteachers conducted by Hollingsworth (1989),who traced the changes in thinking among asmall group of preservice teachers and notedqualitative changes in their conceptualizationsof learning. Here, we directly tested the hy-pothesis that in-service teachers would showmore sophisticated reasoning about develop-ment than preservice teachers.

METHOD

Participants

The participants included two groups ofteachers; 15 preservice and 26 in-serviceteachers. The 15 preservice teachers were en-rolled in an Ed.M. program leading to earlychildhood/elementary teacher certification at amajor state university. Fourteen were female,one was male. Ages ranged from 22 to 25years. Four of the students were parents. Nonehad previous teaching experience. All werecurrently enrolled in a required course on earlychildhood curriculum.

The in-service teachers were all currentlyemployed in three elementary schools withinone district in southern New Jersey. Theschool district was predominantly white,lower middle to middle class. All participantsin this group were currently working as kin-dergarten, first, or second grade teachers and

had more than three years of teaching experi-ence. Ages ranged from 27 to 62 years. Twen-ty-five were female, one was male. Twentytwo were parents and four were not.

Measure: Concepts of DevelopmentVignettes

Beliefs about development were measuredusing an adaptation of the Concepts of Devel-opment Vignettes (CODV) developed bySameroff & Feil (1985). Understanding of de-velopment is assessed through responses to thevignettes. Each vignette describes a child ex-periencing academic and/or behavioral prob-lems in school or at home. Included in thevignette is a brief description of the child'shome and/or school situation. Each concludeswith an open-ended question. The five vi-gnettes taken from Sameroff & Feil (1985) areshown in Table 1.

The original CODV measure included sixstories. We used five of these in the presentstudy. The sixth was dropped because the con-cluding question focused on an explanation ofparental behavior rather than child behavior.Although teachers' understanding of parentalbehavior is interesting and important, it wasnot of central concern in our present study.

Responses to each vignette were analyzedfor conceptual level according to the proce-dures described by Sameroff & Feil (1985).Four broad levels; Nonreflective, Categorical,Compensating and Perspectivistic and threetransitional levels were defined by Sameroffand Feil. This resulted in a system of sevenordered steps. Criteria for each level and ex-amples are shown in Table 2. These criteriaand examples are taken from the originalSameroff and Feil scoring manual.

Procedure

The CODV was administered in a writtenformat. Participants were asked to read eachvignette and to respond in writing to the con-cluding question. Each vignette was presented

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:30

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 1

Concepts of Development Vignettes (Sameroff & Feil, 1982)

Vignette #1: AnnAnn is in the third grade. Ever since she was little she has been a creative child. At school Ann is often late,

daydreams all the time and frequently fails her math and spelling tests, but after school she spends all her timepainting and drawing with great enthusiasm. Her teacher is concerned about her because when Ann's olderbrother, Mark, was in the third grade, he had been an A student. Her parents also wonder why Ann is not doingas well as Mark.

How would you explain Ann's poor school achievement?

Vignette #2: EllenEllen attends fourth grade in a school in a deprived area. She is not able to read. Ellen is a well-behaved child

in class but by the way she is dressed, the teacher thinks that she may be neglected at home. The schoolpsychologist tested Ellen and found that her IQ score was below average, although she was not retarded. Thepsychologist also found that Ellen had difficulty in paying attention.

How would you explain Ellen's low IQ score and reading problem?

Vignette #3: SusieSusie is an only child who lives with her mother, father, and grandfather. Her grandfather is sick a lot so

Susie's parents spend a lot of time taking care of him. Susie has just started first grade this year, and her teacherhas told Susie's parents that Susie is slow to play with other children and doesn't seem to be happy in school.

Why do you think Susie may not be getting along in school?

Vignette #4: David and JohnnyLast year Mr. and Mrs. Smith argued a lot almost every night when Mr. Smith came home from work. Their

arguments got more and more frequent during the year. Their two sons, 9-year-old David and 4-year-old Johnny,heard much of the fighting. Finally, Mr. and Mrs. Smith decided that they would separate. This year David'sfourth grade teacher told Mrs. Smith that David was having a hard time paying attention in class and wasfighting with other kids on the playground. Johnny's nursery school teacher told Mrs. Smith that Johnny seemedupset at school and misbehaves a lot in the classroom.

How would you explain the boys' behavior?

Vignette #5: RobertMr. and Mrs. Brown had a baby boy named Robert. Soon after they brought him home from the hospital they

became very unhappy because little Robert cried all night long and they could never get any rest. In order to gethim to sleep, they had to carry him around for hours. After a month of sleepless nights, the Browns took Robertto their doctor. The doctor examined the baby and said that he was normal and would grow out of the cryingproblem. When Robert was six-months old he no longer cried very much, but he still demanded his parents'attention and fussed when they left him alone. Mr. and Mrs. Brown were very puzzled by Robert's behaviorbecause their older son, Peter, had been quiet and contented when he was a baby.

How would you explain baby Robert's behavior?

on a separate sheet of paper. Participants werefree to use as much space as needed to writetheir response. In addition to the vignettes,participants were asked to complete a formrequesting background information including;age, teaching experience, status as a parent,and gender.

Both groups were told they were participat-ing in a study of teachers' beliefs about childdevelopment. The preservice group receivedthe CODV packets on the last night of class

and they were given time during class to com-plete the forms. Fifteen of 19 students enrolledin the class completed the CODV. The in-service teachers were drawn from threeschools within the school district. In allschools the CODV was distributed at a staffmeeting. Within the first school all 17 teacherscompleted the packet. Within the secondschool 7 of 12 teachers completed the CODV.Within the third school, 2 of 16 teachers com-pleted the CODV.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:30

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

306 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION VOL. 20, NO. 3, 1999

TABLE 2

Concepts of Development: Criteria for Scoring CODV and Sample Responses (Sameroff & Feil, 1982)

Level 1.0: Nonreflective• No cause or rationale for the behavior is stated.• Influences and outcomes are not differentiated.• Developmental influences such as environment or constituion are not mentioned.• Individual characteristics are not considered to have temporal antecedent.

Example: (Vignette 1)She's not a good student. I don't know why.

Level 1.5: Transition to Categorical• Restates story but offers poorly differentiated explanations.• Rationales are usually tautological.

Example (Vignette 1):It could be that she likes art and creativity better than other subjects.

Level 2.0: Categorical• Causes or determinants of developmental outcomes considered in isolation.• Only one influence is considered for a particular situation.• Or, only one developmental path to a particular outcome.• Either constitutional or environmental factors identified as determining outcome, but not both

simultaneously.• Explanations are situation specific and uncoordinated across problems.• Using labels to explain problems (e.g., she's spoiled).

Example (Vignette 3):She's never had anyone to play with so she hasn't learned how to play.

Level 2.5: Categorical-Compensating Transitional• Two causes or influences stated but not explained or coordinated.• Or, one cause or influence explained in detail. •• Internal state or feelings are explained.

Example (Vignette 2):There could be a lack of communication at home or there could be some kind of disability that keeps her from

responding. (Two influences, uncoordinated.)

Level 3.0: Compensating• Two or more causes or influences are discussed and coordinated for specific developmental outcomes.• Cause is internalized.• One environmental influence is said to affect two children differently.• Differentiation of past and present developmental stages may be discussed.

Example (Vignette 3):She hasn't received proper care or attention at home from her parents. She hasn't been with other children as

much as she should be—whether at nursery school or other experiences.

Level 3.5: Compensating-Perspectivistic Transitional• Cause is explained in the context of the whole behavior including the influence, internalization, and the

behavior outcome (all three aspects are developed and coordinated).• What is lacking is a dynamic developmental or transactional aspect.

Example (Vignette 3):First, if she's an only child and not socializing with others and her parents aren't paying attention to her, she's

totally on her own. She may not have learned how to go about forming friendships. Second, might be a meansof getting attention which she is lacking at home. (All three aspects of the developmental process arediscussed—environment, internal experience, behavior.)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:30

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 2—Continued

Concepts of Development: Criteria for Scoring CODV and Sample Responses

Level 4.0: Perspectivistic• All three aspects (3.5) are developed but now stated in terms of the concept of change as a function of the

child's development.• Multiple influences on developmental outcomes are considered.• Means of remediating developmental problems are articulated.• Explanations are transactional showing the adult's influence on the child as well as the child's influence on

the adult.

Example (Vignette 4):They lived with fighting so they learned to fight. They were never taught how to work at problems if all they saw

was screaming. They might be doing it for attention because the parents are all wrapped up in their ownproblems. The two boys would be really affected by a divorce at this age. They have inner anger. They can'tstrike out at Mom and Dad so they strike out at peers. Sometimes kids feel responsible. Maybe they arefighting to get beat up, as a punishment, because they feel guilty about what's happened to their parents.

Scoring Responses to the CODV

Because each participant responded to fivevignettes, a total of 205 responses were gen-erated. Each vignette was scored indepen-dently by the second author following proce-dures described by Sameroff & Feil (1985).The rater was naive regarding group status ofthe respondent at the time of scoring. Re-sponses to each question were treated as awhole and assigned a value based on the cri-teria specified in Table 2. Responses to eachvignette were assigned a numerical value inthe following manner: Nonreflective, 0; Tran-sition to Categorical, 1.5; Categorical, 2.0;Categorical-Compensating Transitional, 2.5;Compensating, 3.0; Compensating-Perspec-tivistic Transitional, 3.5; Perspectivistic, 4.0.Criteria for coding and examples are includedin Table 2.

gnettes were scored by two raters. Twentyreceived the same score, four were within onelevel, and two scores were discrepant. Ifscores within one sublevel are consideredagreements, (the strategy used by Gutierrez etal., 1988), inter-rater reliability is 95%. Scor-ing discrepancies were discussed and re-solved.

Determining Conceptual Level

Conceptual level for each individual wasdetermined by computing an overall mean ofthe five individual vignette scores. This strat-egy of combining individually scaled itemsinto an overall mean score to identify cogni-tive level has been used previously in cogni-tive developmental research (Case, 1996;Damon, 1977).

Inter-rater Reliability

Twenty percent of the 205 vignettes (75 forPreservice group, 130 for In service group)were rated by a second independent rater.These were sampled separately for eachgroup. For the preservice group, 10 of 15 vi-gnettes received the same score by both raters.Four of the five discrepancies were within onesublevel. For the in-service group, 26 vi-

RESULTS

Descriptive Overview

Responses to Individual Vignettes

No participant offered a response that wasscored as Nonreflective (1.0) or as Nonreflec-tive-Categorical Transitional (1.5). The re-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:30

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


maining five points on the scale; Categorical(2.0), Categorical-Compensatory Transitional(2.5), Compensatory (3.0), Compensatory-Perspectivistic Transitional (3.5), and Perspec-tivistic (4.0) were all represented in both thepreservice and the in-service groups. To illus-trate these five levels of reasoning, we haveselected illustrative responses. (For an over-view of each level, see Table 2).

Categorical (Level 2)

This was the least sophisticated type ofresponse found in our sample. As noted inTable 2, at this level the individual is able toconsider causes or determinants of develop-mental outcomes. However, only one influ-ence is considered for a particular situation, oronly one developmental path to a particularoutcome is described. Either constitutional orenvironmental factors (or an aspect of these)can be named as determining development.Explanations are situation specific and unco-ordinated across problems. There is a ten-dency at this level to label children and in thisway stereotype their development.

In response to the Ann vignette (see Table1), one teacher said, "She's spoiled. She onlydoes what she wants to do. She likes art so shespends all her free time drawing instead ofdoing homework." This response was scoredas categorical because only one factor, thatAnn is spoiled, is cited as a reason for herbehavior. The problem is explained awaythrough the label.

In response to the Ellen vignette, anotherteacher said, "Maybe she needs glasses orsomething and can't see." This response wasscored as categorical because only one influ-ence, constitution, was cited as an explanationof the problem.

Another respondent commenting on thesame dilemma said, "She didn't get enoughattention at home. She was neglected." Thistoo is a categorical response because only oneinfluence was cited, the environment.

Categorical-compensating Transitional(Level 2.5)

This level is characterized by an awarenessof two influences on development. Althoughtwo influences are considered or perhapslisted, they are not coordinated. They are notdiscussed in interaction with each other. Or,one influence may be explained in greater de-tail than at Level 2. There may also be anextensive elaboration or explanation abouthow a single factor affects development.

One teacher, in response to Ann, said,"Maybe she doesn't do well in school becauseshe has a low I.Q. Maybe her parents don'tmake her do her homework. They should bestricter with her at home and not let her dowhat she wants." Here, two influences arelisted, but the relationship between them is notwell coordinated.

In response to the Susie story, another par-ticipant said, "Because she wants more atten-tion from her mother. She's jealous-and she'slittle and doesn't understand that he's sick."This response was coded Level 2.5 becausebehavior is explained in terms of a direct re-action of the environment. It is more elabo-rated than a Level 2 explanation.

Compensating (Level 3)

This level is characterized by discussion oftwo or more influences on development thatare coordinated for specific developmentaloutcomes. This may involve constitutional andenvironmental influences, two constitutionalinfluences, or two environmental influences.Additionally, if one environmental influence issaid to affect two children differently, then theresponse is scored at this level. Differentiationof past and present developmental stages maybe discussed at this level. This level also in-cludes responses involving differentiation ofone environmental influence, not just elabora-tion of one influence (e.g., she comes from aloving family, but which provides little intel-lectual stimulation... they may not have theskills, but they care). Further, environmental

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:30

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


influences may be discussed with greater dif-ferentiation than at Level 2.5. An environmen-tal factor is described as affecting an individ-ual's internal state, although the process isincomplete because the mechanism by whichthis internal experience affects behavior islacking (Sameroff & Feil, 1985).

An example of this type of response to theAnn dilemma follows. "She's not very brightacademically. All kids aren't good at every-thing. But if her skill weaknesses were iden-tified and addressed by the teacher, she couldbegin to show signs of improvement." Heretwo influences on development are identifiedand coordinated. Furthermore, remediation isdiscussed and there is some developmentalorientation.

Another example of Level 3 was providedin response to the story about Susie: "Sheprobably has had little interaction with kidsher own age, so she lacks the self-confidencethat a child needs to make new friends." Here,environmental influences and internal experi-ence are differentiated.

Another example of this level of reasoningwas provided in response to the story aboutRobert. "All babies are different. Some aremore docile and quiet and others are a littlemore colicky and require more attention. Onceinfants get a lot of attention, it's hard for themto give it up. They still want it or need it asthey get older." Here, the need for a singleenvironmental influence (parental response) tobe differentiated for different children is iden-tified. Also, past and present are coordinated.

Compensating-perspectivisticTransitional (Level 3.5)

This level of reasoning is characterized bygreater differentiation and coordination be-tween and among underlying influences, inter-nal experience, and behavioral outcomes com-bined in the responses. What is lacking is adynamic developmental or transactional as-pect to the explanation. Interactions are recog-nized between the behavior of the parent and

the child, but they are unidirectional. The par-ents are generally seen as affecting the childbut the child's influence on the adult is notacknowledged. Remediation is explained notonly in terms of "needing extra attention," butis geared to particular needs of the child (e.g.,she may need remedial reading help, but thereis also an emotional problem for which sheneeds therapy for). Missing is the child's ef-fect back on the system.

A preservice teacher said, "Ann knows sheis good at art. She gets lots of praise for herwork, which encourages her to keep drawing.She's not very good at academics and there-fore avoids them. A wise teacher may try tocombine art with her academics. Art activitiesmay be the medium of instruction that wouldget her interested in math and spelling. Herindividual needs are not being met."

Another teacher, in response to the samequestion said, "Ann has different interests, andif they are repeatedly showing her how she isfailing with respect to her brother, she will feelthat it is worse trying to live in his shadow.She will just do her own thing, more or less."In both of these responses, all three aspects ofthe developmental processes are discussed; en-vironment, internal experience, and behavior.

Perspectivistic (Level 4.0)

Responses at this level offer a comprehen-sive explanation of the developmental process.Multiple influences on developmental out-comes are considered, and any particular de-velopmental equation is understood with theset of all hypothetical examples. Means ofremediating development problems can be ar-ticulated more effectively than at the previouslevel. Adult-child relations are presented astransactions, with parent affecting child be-havior and child affecting parent behavior.Parents may be described as changing as wellas their children.

In response to the Ann dilemma, oneteacher said, "Ann is going through a stagewherein she is preoccupied with art. She en-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:30

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


joys it and is getting a lot of praise from herteacher and parents. This makes her want todraw even more. The current skill area ad-dressed in the math instruction may be diffi-cult for her now. So, she may be avoiding itbecause it is uncomfortable for her and she isnot getting good grades. She may need extrahelp after school for awhile until she is able tocatch the concepts and regain her sense ofsuccess and accomplishment in math. In themeantime, she retreats to art to preserve herself-esteem and integrity." This teacher offersan explanation that is transactional. Also, de-velopmental and psychological processes arewell differentiated, a clear means of remedia-tion is identified, and there is a coordination ofpast and present.

Another perspectivistic explanation was of-fered in response to the Ellen story. "Probablyshe was not given encouragement at home.Maybe as a young child she was not givenreading or early experiences that help you de-velop. Maybe she was not born bright either.Teachers are only human-they gravitate tobright, shiny-faced children. They give moreattention to cuter, more attractively dressedchildren. They don't mean to." This explana-tion emphasizes the transactional nature of thedevelopmental process.

Overall Score

As noted above, responses of each individ-ual to the five vignettes were summarized inan Overall Score. The scores on the five indi-vidual vignettes were combined in an overallmean score for each participant. Scores oneach of the five vignettes, as well as the Over-all Score, for each participant, are shown inTable 3.

Preservice versus In-service Teachers

The primary hypothesis in this study wasthat because of their experience with children,in-service teachers would demonstrate moresophisticated patterns of reasoning about child

TABLE 3

Concepts of Development: Participants'Individual Vignette Scores and Overall Scores

as a Function of Teaching Experience

1

3.52.52.02.53.03.52.53.03.04.03.52.54.04.02.53.53.02.02.54.04.02.53.02.54.02.5

Mean 3.1S.D. .697

In-service Teachers

2

2.52.52.02.53.03.02.52.52.53.53.02.53.53.53.04.03.02.02.53.53.02.53.03.03.53.52.9

(n = 26)Vignette

3

2.53.02.02.52.03.53.52.03.54.02.52.54.03.52.53.53.02.02.54.04.02.52.54.04.02.53.0

.510 .734

4

2.03.52.02.52.53.52.53.03.54.02.52.54.03.54.03.03.52.52.54.03.52.52.52.53.52.53.0

.648

5

2.03.52.52.03.03.52.52.52.54.02.52.53.53.02.54.03.02.52.54.03.52.52.52.53.52.52.9

.610

Overall Mean

2.53.02.12.42.73.42.72.63.03.92.52.53.83.52.93.63.12.22.53.93.62.52.72.93.62.62.97

.536

development than preservice teachers. There-fore, we expected that in-service teacherswould receive higher scores on the CODV.

The hypothesis that In service teacherswould show higher levels of performance thanthe preservice teachers was tested by compar-ing the Overall CODV Scores with a one-tailed t test. Results showed a significant dif-ference between the groups, ?(39)=1.72, p <.05, with the in-service group outperformingthe preservice group. The in-service group(M=2.90, SD=0.54) received higher scoresthan the preservice group (M=2.69,SD=0.35), f(39)=1.72,p < .05.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:30

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 3—Continued

Participants' Individual Vignette Scores andOverall Means as a Function of Teaching

Experience

r2.52.03.03.02.02.02.52.02.52.53.03.52.52.02.5

Mean 2.5S.D. .46

Preservice Teachers

2

3.02.02.03.02.52.52.03.02.52.04.03.02.52.53.02.6

.55

(n-= 15)Vignette

3

3.03.02.53.53.03.02.03.02.52.53.03.53.52.54.03.0

.52

4

2.53.02.53.52.53.03.52.52.53.03.02.53.52.52.52.8

.41

5

2.52.53.02.52.52.52.52.52.52.52.54.03.52.52.52.7

.46

Overall Mean

2.72.52.63.12.52.62.52.62.53.23.23.33.12.32.92.69

.347

Reasoning about Problems Related toSchool Achievement

It is argued here that experience workingwith children contributes to more sophisti-cated reasoning about their development. Twoof the vignettes included in this version of theCODV concluded with a question about thechild's school achievement (Vignettes 1 & 2).The remaining three described problems re-garding interpersonal relationships or "behav-ior problems" (Vignettes 3 - 5). Because ourexperienced teachers all worked in publicschool kindergarten and primary settings, wewondered if greater differences would be ev-idenced between the preservice and in-servicegroups on the "achievement" focused vi-gnettes rather than on the vignettes focusingon interpersonal relationships. We calculatedseparate scores for the Achievement and In-terpersonal vignettes. On the Achievement vi-gnettes, the in-service teachers showed higherscores (M=2.98) than the preservice teachers'

(M=2.57). However, on the interpersonal vi-gnettes, the difference was much smaller (in-service, M = 2.95; preservice, M = 2.82).

Within Individual Variation

We also expected that experienced teacherswould show greater internal coherence andless variability in their responses across vi-gnettes than would the inexperienced teachers.If the CODV measure teachers' broad concep-tualization of developmental processes, wewould expect to see some cohesiveness intheir reasoning patterns. Therefore, we wereinterested in how variable individuals were intheir responses to the five vignettes.

To explore this question, we tallied thenumber of teachers responding at the samelevel to three of the five vignettes. Of the 26in-service teachers, 20 evidenced the samelevel of reasoning on three of the five vi-gnettes. Of the 15 preservice teachers, sevenevidenced the same level of reasoning on atleast three of the five vignettes.

DISCUSSION

We suggested that teachers' conceptions ofchildren's learning and development are con-structed by teachers in their work with chil-dren. We argued that these notions developgradually, during the course of teachers' ev-eryday experiences with children. We ex-pected that experienced teachers would holdmore elaboratated and more complex concep-tions of children's learning and developmentthan inexperienced teachers. Results from thisstudy of preservice and in-service teacherssupported our hypothesis. Experienced teach-ers' responses to the vignettes were more de-tailed, integrated causal mechanisms in a morecomplex manner, specified more developmen-tal determinants, and provided better coordi-nation of past and present events.

The differences between experienced andinexperienced teachers were even more pro-nounced when the vignettes focusing on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:30

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


school achievement were considered. This isnot surprising because the teachers in the thisstudy were primary-level public school teach-ers who are held accountable for children'sacademic performance. Seeking to understandfactors influencing children's school perfor-mance is a daily concern of teachers. Hence, itis not surprising that the in-service teachersshowed the most sophisticated reasoning whenthey were addressing school achievement re-lated problems.

These findings support the notion thatteachers' concepts of development are influ-enced by experience and self reflection. It isalso noteworthy that experienced teachersshowed greater consistency in their explana-tions across problems or vignettes than didinexperienced teachers. Perhaps experiencedteachers have more clearly articulated ideasabout children's learning and development.

The overall mean level of reasoning forexperienced teachers fell close to what Samer-off & Feil (1985) termed a "Compensating"view of development. Here, the adult fullyrecognizes the role of multiple influences (en-vironmental and constitutional) in develop-ment and she is able to differentiate the twosources clearly. The adult has a clear grasp ofthe notion that a single environmental factorcan influence two children differently. Theoverall mean for the preservice teachers wascloser to a "Categorical-Compensating Tran-sitional" view of development. Here, two in-fluences are considered, but not coordinated,and a clear explanation of interaction is notoffered. Importantly, within each group, indi-viduals evidenced a range of responses fromLevel 2, Categorical to Level 4, Perspectivis-tic.

It is important to emphasize that sophisti-cation in conceptions of development does notaccord a privileged position to either a behav-ioral or a maturational view of development.Both of these views, taken alone, are viewedas categorical and would lead to relatively lowscore on the measure used here. (See Table 2for examples of reasoning at each level).Rather, a conception of development that ac-

counts for both factors, in a coordinated, dy-namic fashion, with an understanding of spe-cific individual needs in a developmentalcontext leads to a high score. The differencebetween a compensating and perspectivisticapproach to development is important to ap-preciate. According to Sameroff & Feil(1985), a compensating view acknowledgestwo or more influences in development and thetwo are occasionally coordinated to explainbehavior. However, within a compensatingframework, the adult fails to provide a com-prehensive explanation of the developmentalprocess and effects upon development are de-scribed as unidirectional, (e.g., Tommy is veryactive child and the teacher may not have verygood strategies for dealing with this kind ofchild in her classroom). Within the perspec-tivistic framework, the dynamic nature ofadult-child interactions are acknowledged.The same actions by a teacher may elicit verydifferent reactions from different childrenwhich in turn influence the way a teacher andthe child respond (e.g., Tommy often fails tosit still through the lesson, frequently disrupt-ing the class and the teacher gets angry withhim. This anger interferes with her ability tounderstand why he is being disruptive. Per-haps he's hyperactive; perhaps he's just notinterested in the lessons and his immaturitymakes it difficult for him to sit still; or perhapsthere's a problem at home and he's acting outfor attention. The teacher must get past herown anger so she can understand more aboutTommy's individual situation. Then she canidentify a strategy for helping him).

We contend that some of the current debateabout the relevance of child development the-ory as a base for early childhood curriculumactually reflects debate between "compensat-ing" and "perspectivistic" approaches to de-velopment. Calls for a greater focus on context(Goffin, 1996; Stott & Bowman, 1996; Walsh,1991) and a greater sensitivity to individualand cultural differences are fully consistentwith a "perspectivistic" concept of develop-ment. Lubek "deconstructs" child develop-ment knowledge arguing that, "there are many

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:30

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


ways of understanding how children learn anddevelop." (Lubek, 1996, p. 147). Indeed,Sameroff & Feil (1985) make reference todialectical approaches to development (e.g.,Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Sameroff, 1982).Rather than focusing on throwing out theory inchild development as a basis for early child-hood curriculum, we suggest adding teachers'conceptions of development. Only by under-standing how individual teachers conceptual-ize learning and development and then makeuse of their understanding in the process ofinstruction can we appreciate the complexityof the learning teaching process in the earlychildhood classroom.

This study is limited in a number of ways.We have focused on the role of teaching ex-perience as a variable mediating changes inteachers' conceptions. However, we measuredsuch experience in a very global manner. Inthe future, it would be interesting to studyteachers' conceptions of development longitu-dinally. Are particular types of teaching expe-riences, such as the first year, critical in shap-ing teachers' developing conception oflearning and development? Are such experi-ences mediated by the supervisor's view oflearning and development? What is the role ofclose collaboration and peer support amongteachers in their understanding of children?Only by following teachers longitudinally andmeasuring various aspects of their work envi-ronment (e.g., strong communities or net-works) and work experience can we fully sortout factors supporting change and develop-ment in teachers' conceptions. Even afterfirmly establishing that "experience as a class-room teacher" is the critical variable, we stillneed to identify what aspects of this experi-ence contribute to the increased complexity inteachers reasoning. Future work with a largersample would permit a more fine tuned anal-ysis of experience.

Future inquiry should also focus on teach-ers' understanding of development in conjunc-tion with their actions in the classroom andtheir relationships with individual children. Itwould be useful to understand more about the

intersection between teachers' conceptions ofdevelopment, their views about curriculumand instruction and their enacted understand-ing in the classroom (i.e., DeVries et al.,1991). Recent work by Stipek and Byler(1997) has shown that the relationship be-tween professed beliefs and actual classroompractices are easier to see among preschoolteachers than first grade teachers. Another re-cent study also noted relationships betweenclassroom characteristics, teacher characteris-tics and self reported teacher beliefs and ob-served practices relevant to developmentallyappropriate practice in primary classrooms(Buchanan et al., 1998). However, as we havenoted, our view of conceptions of develop-ment is different from beliefs about appropri-ate practice (see Spidell et al., 1992; Spodek,1988; Stipek, 1993 for further discussion ofthese issues). We believe these issues meritfurther examination in light of teachers' con-ceptions of development.

What is the role of other life experience,such as becoming a parent oneself upon teach-ers' views of learning and development? Oursample was too small to examine the role ofthis factor, but we suspect it is important. Theexperienced teachers no doubt acquired expe-rience with children in a variety of roles. An-other factor to consider is further educationand professional development and the role ofthese experiences upon teachers' thinking.

In summary, we have some preliminary ev-idence for the role of teaching experienceupon teachers' emerging conceptions of learn-ing and development. We have adapted a mea-sure, derived from a strong theoretical frame-work, which offers a vehicle for assessing theemerging complexity of teachers' thinkingabout child development. We've shown thatexperience in the classroom- working withchildren is related to the sophistication andcomplexity of teachers' views about child de-velopment. Finally, we've shown that the dif-ferences between preservice and in-serviceteachers are greatest in those areas occupyingthe greatest amount of teachers' attention,school achievement issues.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:30

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


REFERENCES

Barocas, R., Seifer, R., Sameroff, A. J., Andrews,T., Croft, R. T., & Ostrow, E. (1991). Social andinterpersonal determinants of developmentalrisk. Developmental Psychology, 27, 479-489.

Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally ap-propriate practice in early childhood programsserving children from birth through age 8.Washington, DC: National Association for theEducation of Young Children.

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds). (1997). Devel-opmentally appropriate practice in early child-hood programs. Revised Edition. Washington,DC: National Association for the Education ofYoung Children.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of humandevelopment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

Buchanan, T.K., Burts, D., Bidner, J., White, F., &Charlesworth, R. (1998). Predictors of the de-velopmental appropriateness of the beliefs andpractices of first, second, and third grade teach-ers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13,459-483.

Case, R., & Okamoto, Y. (1996). The role of centralconceptual structures in the development ofchildren's thought. Monographs of the Societyfor Research in Child Development, Serial No,246, 61 (1-2).

Charlesworth, R., Hart, C. H., Burts, D. C., &DeWolf, M. (1993). The LSU studies: Buildinga research base for developmentally appropriatepractice. Advances in Early Education and DayCare, 5, 3-28.

Charlesworth, R., Hart, C. H., Burts, D. C., &Hernandez, S. (1991). Kindergarten teachers'beliefs and practices. Early Childhood Develop-ment and Care, 70, 17-35.

Damon, W. (1977). The social world of the child.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DeVries, R., Reese-Learned, H., & Morgan, P.(1991). Sociomoral development in direct-in-struction, eclectic, and constructivist kindergar-tens: A study of children's enacted interpersonalunderstanding. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 6, 473-517.

Epstein, A., Schweinhart, L., & McAdoo H. (1996).Models of early childhood education. Ypsilanti,MI: High/Scope Press.

Evans, E. (1982). Curriculum models and earlychildhood education. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Hand-

book of research in early childhood education(pp. 107-134). NY: Free Press.

Goffin, S. (1996). Child development knowledgeand early childhood teacher preparation: Assess-ing the relationship. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 11, 117-134.

Goffin, S. (1994). Curriculum models and earlychildhood education: Appraising the relation-ship. New York: Merrill Publishing Co.

Goodnow, J. (1988). Parents' ideas, actions andfeelings: Models and methods from develop-mental and social psychology. Child Develop-ment, 59, 286-320.

Gutierrez, J., Sameroff, A. J., & Karrer, B. M.(1988). Acculturation and SES effects on Mex-ican-American parents' concepts of develop-ment. Child Development, 59, 250-255.

Gutierrez, J., & Sameroff, A. J. (1990). Determi-nants of complexity in Mexican-American andAnglo-American mothers' conceptions of childdevelopment. Child Development, 61, 384-394.

Hatch, A., & Freeman, E. B. (1988). Kindergartenphilosophies and practices: Perspectives ofteachers, principals, and supervisors. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 3, 151-166.

Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cogni-tive change in learning to teach. American Ed-ucational Research Journal, 26(2), 160-189.

Lubek, S. (1996). Deconstructing "child develop-ment knowledge" and "teacher preparation."Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(2),147-168.

McGuillicuddy-DeLisi, A. (1982). Parental beliefsabout developmental processes. Human Devel-opment, 25, 192-200.

Miller, S. (1988). Parents' beliefs about children'scognitive development. Child Development, 59,259-285.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practiceof teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies,19(4), 317-328.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educa-tional research: Cleaning up a messy construct.Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-322.

Rescorla, L., Hyson, M., & Hirsch-Pasek, K. (Eds.).(1991). Academic instruction in early child-hood: Challenge or Pressure? San Francisco:Jossey Bass, Inc.

Sameroff, A. (1982). Development and the dialec-tic: The need for a systems approach. In W.A.Collins (Ed.), Minnesota Symposium on Child

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:30

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Psychology, 15 (pp. 40-71). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-baum.

Sameroff, A., & Feil, L. (1985). Parental conceptsof development. In I. E. Sigel (Ed.), Parentalbelief systems: The psychological consequencesfor children (pp. 83-105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-baum.

Seifer, R., & Sameroff, A. (1989). Multiple deter-minants of risk and invulnerability. In E. J. An-thony & B. J. Cohler (Eds.), The invulnerablechild (pp. 127-152). NY: Guilford.

Smith, K. (1997). Student teacher beliefs about devel-opmentally appropriate practice: Pattern, stability,and the influence of locus of control. Early Child-hood Research Quarterly, 12, 221-243.

Smith, M. L., & Shepard, L. A. (1988). Kindergar-ten readiness and retention: A qualitative studyof teachers' beliefs and practices. American Edu-cational Research Journal, 25(3), 307-333.

Spidell, A., McGrevin, C , & Lambiotte. (1992).Belief systems of early childhood teachers andprincipals regarding early childhood education.Early Childhood Education Research Quar-terly, 7, 277-296.

Spodek, B. (1988). Implicit theories and early child-hood teachers: Foundations for professional be-havior. In B. Spodek, O. N. Saracho, & D. L.Peters (Eds.), Professionalism in the early child-hood practitioner. NY: Teachers College Press.

Stipek, D. (1993). Is child centered early childhoodeducation really better? Advances in Early Ed-ucation and Day Care, 5, 29-52.

Stipek, D., & Byler, P. (1997). Early childhoodeducation teachers: Do they practice what theypreach? Early Childhood Research Quarterly,12, 305-326.

Stott, F., & Bowman, B. (1996). Child develop-ment knowledge: A slippery base for practice.Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(2),169-184.

Walsh, D. (1988). Changes in kindergarten: Whyhere? Why now? Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 4, 377-391.

Walsh, D. (1991). Extending the discourse on de-velopmental appropriateness: A developmentalperspective. Early Education and Development,2, 109-119.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 1

8:30

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

early childhood educators’ conceptions of development: a comparison of preservice and in‐service...

Documents