Source : http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/instrctn/in5lk5.htm
Developmentally appropriate practices include the following teaching strategies:
- Active Learning Experiences. Developmentally appropriate programs promote children's active exploration of the environment. Children manipulate real objects and learn through hands-on, direct experiences. The curriculum provides opportunities for children to explore, reflect, interact, and communicate with other children and adults (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1996). Learning centers are one means of providing active learning experiences. Field trips, real life experiences--such as cooking, reenacting historical events, conducting scientific experiments, and participating in community service projects--are other examples.
- Varied Instructional Strategies. Developmentally appropriate practice encourages the use of varied instructional strategies to meet the learning needs of children. Such approaches may include process writing, skill instruction, guided reading, modeled writing, cooperative learning, independent learning activities, peer coaching and tutoring, teacher-led instruction, thematic instruction, projects, learning centers, problem-based learning, and literature-based instruction (Privett, 1996; Stone,1995; American Association of School Administrators, 1992). By providing a wide variety of ways to learn, children with various learning styles are able to develop their capabilities. Teaching in this way also helps provide for multiple intelligences, and enables children to view learning in new ways.
- Balance Between Teacher-Directed and Child-Directed Activities. Developmentally appropriate practice encourages a mixture of teacher-directed and child-directed activities. Teacher-directed learning involves the teacher as a facilitator who models learning strategies and gives guided instruction. Child-directed learning allows the child to assume some responsibility for learning goals.
- Integrated Curriculum. An integrated curriculum is one that connects diverse areas of study by cutting across subject-matter lines and emphasizing unifying concepts. It combines many subject areas into a cohesive unit of study that is meaningful to students. An integrated curriculum often relates learning to real life. It also recognizes the importance of basic skills and the "inclination to use them" (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1996).
One technique for integrating curricula is a thematic approach, which "motivates students to investigate interesting ideas from multiple perspectives. The central theme becomes the catalyst for developing concepts, generalizations, skills, and attitudes" (American Association of School Administrators, 1992, p. 25). Not all integrated curricula revolve around a theme, however. Whole language and writing across the curriculum are examples of integrated approaches that may or may not involve a thematic approach (American Association of School Administrators, 1992).
- Learning Centers. Learning centers are independent stations set up throughout the classroom where children can go to actually engage in some learning activity. Children choose the center they will go to and decide on the amount of time to spend there. The learning center approach provides a time when children explore and practice skills to their own satisfaction. These centers provide children with opportunities for hands-on learning, cooperative learning, social interaction, real-life problem solving, autonomous learning, and open-ended activities. "Open-ended activities allow for each child to successfully engage in the activity at whatever skill level the child happens to be," notes Stone (1995, p. 123). Learning centers should reflect the goal of active learning; they must not be workstations full of worksheets for students to complete. Learning centers offer an opportunity for children to be responsible for their own learning; this responsibility is the foundation for lifelong learning (Stone, 1995).
Anderson, R.H. (1992, April). The nongraded elementary school: Lessons from history. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 348 161)
Anderson, R.H., & Pavan, B.N. (1993). Nongradedness: Helping it to happen. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing.
American Association of School Administrators. (1992). The nongraded primary: Making schools fit children. Arlington, VA: Author.
Barker, S. (n.d.). Multiage grouping: An old practice becomes a new trend [Online]. Available: http://www.ocmboces.org/OCM/administration/info/ep1/update1pg/upd2.html
Bredekamp, S. (Ed). (1990). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (Exp. ed). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Bruner, J.S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J.S., & Haste, H. (Ed.). (1987). Making sense: The child's construction of the world. New York: Methuen.
Caine, R., & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Calkins, T. (1993). Off the track: Children thrive in ungraded primary schools. In D. Sumner (Ed.), Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of America's schools (pp. 26-30). Peterborough, NH: Society for Developmental Education
Clark, A. (1996, Fall/Winter). Special-needs children and mixed-age grouping. TheMAGnet Newsletter on Mixed-Age Grouping in Preschool and Elementary Settings, 5(1).
Cohen, D. (1990). A look at multiage classrooms. Education Week, 9, 13-15.
Cotton, K. (1993a, November). Implementing a nongraded elementary program [Online]. Available: http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/8/s029.html
Cotton, K. (1993b). Nongraded primary education [Online]. Available: http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/7/cu14.html
Cushman, K. (1993). The whys and hows of the multiage primary classroom. In D. Sumner (Ed.), Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of America's schools (pp. 20-25). Peterborough, NH: Society for Developmental Education.
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Education Office. (1996). Handbook of engaged learning projects [Online]. Available: http://www.ncrel.org/mands/FERMI/cover.html
Fox, C.L. (1996a, February). Multiage program proposal. In School program study guide: The multiage classroom. Unpublished guide developed for the Michigan Department of Education.
Fox, C.L. (1996b, February). Self-study instrument for schools. In Developing a plan of action: The multiage classroom. Unpublished guide developed for the Michigan Department of Education.
Fox, C.L. (1997). The multiage nongraded model. Unpublished presentation materials.
Gardner, A., & Johnson, D. (1997). Teaching personal experience narrative in the elementary and beyond. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona Writing Project Press.
Gaustad, J. (1992, August). Nongraded primary education. ERIC Digest [Online]. Available: http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED347637
Gaustad, J. (1995, May). Implementing the multiage classroom. ERIC Digest [Online]. Available: http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED381869
Gaustad, J. (1997, June). Building support for multiage education. ERIC Digest [Online]. Available: http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED409604
Goodlad, J.I., & Anderson, R.H. (1987). The nongraded elementary school (Rev. ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Grant, J. (1993). Questions and answers about multiage programs. In D. Sumner (Ed.), Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of America's schools (pp. 17-19). Peterborough, NH: Society for Developmental Education.
Gutierrez, R., & Slavin, R. (1992). Achievement effects of the nongraded elementary schools: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 62, 333-376.
Johnson, D., & Newman, S. (1996). Student dispositions. Unpublished material.
Jones, M.B. (1996). Smoothing rough edges in Concrete [Online]. Available: http://www.nwrel.org/nwedu/winter%5F96/article5.html
Katz, L.G. (1988). Early childhood education: What research tells us. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Katz, L.G. (1992). Nongraded and mixed-age grouping in early childhood programs. ERIC Digest [Online]. Available: http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED351148
Katz, L.G. (1993). Dispositions as educational goals. ERIC Digest [Online]. Available: http://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed363454.html
Katz, L.G. (1995, May). The benefits of mixed-age grouping. ERIC Digest [Online]. Available: http://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed382411.html
Katz, L.G. (1996, Fall/Winter). Addressing the potential risks of mixed-age grouping. TheMAGnet Newsletter on Mixed-Age Grouping in Preschool and Elementary Settings, 5(1).
Katz, L.G., Evangelou, D., & Hartman, J. (1990). The case for mixed-age grouping in early education. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Kentucky Department of Education. (1996, June). Learning descriptions and research on children's learning and development: A component of the Kentucky Elementary Learning Profile (KELP). Frankfort, KY: Author.
Lincoln School. (1997, Spring). Lincoln news. Mundelein, Illinois: Author.
Lodish, R. (1992). The pros and cons of mixed-age grouping. Early Childhood Education, 71, 20-22.
Luchow, L., Miller, J., & Yates, R. (1998). Chimacum intermediate multiage program [Online]. Available: http://www.chimacum.wednet.edu/elementary/imap/
Mackey, B., Johnson, R., & Wood, T. (1995). Cognitive and affective outcomes in a multiage language arts program. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10, 49-61.
Mazzuchi, D., & Brooks, N. (1993). The gift of time. In D. Sumner (Ed.), Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of America's schools (pp. 39-41). Peterborough, NH: Society for Developmental Education.
McClellan, D.E. (Ed.). (1993, Fall/Winter). Thinking about Piaget in relationship to the mixed-age classroom. TheMAGnet Newsletter on Mixed-Age Grouping in Preschool and Elementary Settings, 2(1), 1-2.
McClellan, D.E. (1994). Multiage grouping: Implications for education. In P. Chase & J. Doan (Eds.), Full circle: A new look at multiage education (pp. 147-166). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
McClellan, D.E. (Ed.). (1995, Fall/Winter). Looping though the years: Teachers and students progressing together. The MAGnet Newsletter on Mixed-Age Grouping in Preschool and Elementary Settings, 4(1), 1-3.
McClellan, D.E. (Ed.). (1996, Spring/Summer). Mixed-age grouping: Lifeline to children at risk? The MAGnet Newsletter on Mixed-Age Grouping in Preschool and Elementary Settings, 4(2).
McClellan, D.E. (1997, Spring/Summer). Addressing the risk of bullying in mixed-age groups. The MAGnet Newsletter on Mixed-Age Grouping in Preschool and Elementary Settings, 5(2).
McClellan, D., & Kinsey, S. (1996, Fall/Winter). Mixed-age grouping helps children develop social skills and a sense of belonging. The MAGnet Newsletter on Mixed-Age Grouping in Preschool and Elementary Settings, 5(1), 1-3.
McLoughlin, W. (1969). Evaluation of the nongraded primary. Jamaica, NY: St. John's University.
Miller, B.A. (1993). A review of the quantitative research on multigrade instruction. In D. Sumner (Ed.), Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of America's schools (pp. 65-83). Peterborough, NH: Society for Developmental Education.
Miller, B.A. (1996, January). A basic understanding of multiage grouping: Teacher readiness, planning, and parent involvement required for successful practice. The School Administrator, 1(53), 12-17.
Miller, W. (1995, February). Are multiage grouping practices a missing link in the educational reform debate? National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Bulletin, 27-32.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1996). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (NAEYC position statement) [Online]. Available: http://www.naeyc.org/resources/position_statements/daptoc.htm
National Middle School Association. (1996). Exemplary middle schools. NMSA research summary #4 (Online). Available: http://www.nmsa.org/research/ressum4.htm
Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory. (1997). Looping: Supporting student learning through long-term relationships [Online]. Available: http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/ic/looping/looping.pdf
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (1998). Toolkit '98 [Online]. Available: http://www.nwrel.org/assessment/ToolKit98.asp
Nye, B. (1993, Summer). Questions and answers about multiage grouping. Educational Research Service (ERS) Spectrum, 38-45.
Pratt, D. (1993). On the merits of multiage classrooms. In D. Sumner (Ed.), Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of America's schools (pp. 83-87). Peterborough, NH: Society for Developmental Education.
Privett, N. (1996, January). Without fear of failure: The attributes of an ungraded primary school. The School Administrator, 1(53), 6-11.
Shepard, L., & Smith, M. (1990). Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention. Educational Leadership, 47, 84-88.
Stone, S. (1995). The primary multiage classroom: Changing schools for children. Unpublished manuscript.
Tompkins, G. (1990). Teaching and writing: Balancing process and product. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Co.
Uphoff, J.K, & Evans, D.A. (1993). The country school comes to town: A case study of multiage grouping and teaching. In D. Sumner (Ed.), Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of America's schools (pp. 36-38). Peterborough, NH: Society for Developmental Education.
Villa, R.A., & Thousand, J.S. (1993). Enhancing success in heterogeneous classrooms and schools: The powers of partnership. In D. Sumner (Ed.), Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of America's schools (pp. 51-61). Peterborough, NH: Society for Developmental Education.
Willis, S. (1991). Breaking down grade barriers. Update, p. 4.
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan