child advocates transformed global perceptions of the nature of children and how they should be taught. Early American education began in a young country that had inherited strict religious traditions, rooted in methods where children’s young voices hummed, “In Adam’s fall, we sinned all” (Spring, 2008, p. 39) and where Puritan belief had led to a commonly held perception that children shared the sins of humanity and needed to have the devil purged out of them. In light of this early context, it is no small matter to consider the influence that early philosophers and educators such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke had on eighteenth century ideals concerning education. Rousseau’s belief that the child is inherently good and in danger of corruption from the outside world (Spring, 2008) contrasted starkly with early colonial beliefs. He endorsed that learning and the attainment of knowledge were for the individual’s benefit and not to be used as a tool of society to manipulate and use the child for societal purposes (Spring). Likewise, John Locke’s writings concerning education endorsed the idea that the child is shaped into an adult through education and the role of the teacher ought to mold children through careful education emphasizing performance and experience more than memorization (Chudacoff, 2007; Spring). Both Rousseau’s and Locke’s ideas initiated vast change in the methods of education (Spring, 2008) and in the perceptions of parents and society (Chudacoff, 2007). Traditional methods of instruction were discarded, and the organization of public education in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was greatly influenced by these philosophers (Rugg & Shumaker, 1969; Spring). In addition to education, these romantic views of childhood had a prominent role in initiating the study of child and adolescent psychology (Spring).
make the connection between theory and practice. The institutions also indicated the following as additional obstacles to in-depth training: lack of time within the program, state law constraining additional coursework, and a lack of consensus among professors on how child and adolescent development should be taught and applied in the program. In addition to the prominent need for more applicable coursework, providing teachers with a solid grounding in child and adolescent development psychology is inhibited by other factors. Often coursework is not taught to the experience level of the teachers in preparation programs (EKS-NICHD et al., 2007). The learning needs of novice teachers differ greatly with more experienced teachers in graduate programs; while specific application to age-level students would be helpful for a more experienced teacher, it would overwhelm a novice teacher needing basic knowledge of developmental patterns. ‘Carrying capacity’ has also been determined to be a barrier to better integration of child and adolescent development into preparation programs when state, local, or institutional policies limit what a department can do (EKS-NICHD et al.). A third inhibitor is lack of access to child and adolescent development research. Although current research and findings in child and adolescent development are a critical necessity, this information is not easily or appropriately disseminated to pre-service teachers, policy-makers, administrators, parents, and general educators alike, particularly in a form that is directly applicable and ready for use in the classroom (EKS-NICHD et al.). With these obstacles in mind, child development experts have sought to find a way to make integration with research and practice more readily available for teachers. Comer, the founder of the Yale Child Study Center School Development Program, recommended a framework that includes six developmental domains that have emerged from field-based
If only one recommendation were to be extracted for use from this study, the researcher hopes it would be a better understanding of the nature of children. It is often difficult to see meaning in research among numbers and data. Ultimately, however, the subjects most affected by this topic of research – and public education in general – are the students. And because this impact is so tremendous and life-altering for those individuals, the petition of this study is for educators, administrators, policy-makers, and education professionals to remember that “children do things for a reason” (EKS-NICHD, et al., 2007, p. v). When we learn to respect and understand those reasons, attempts made to connect to children and instill concepts and skills through education become successful, enabling, and life-lasting. REFERENCES American Council on Education. (1999). To touch the future: Transforming the way teachers are taught. Washington, DC: Author. Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 287-309. Bennett, R. E., Gottesman, R. L., Rock, D. A., & Cerullo, F. (1993). Influence of behavior perceptions and gender on teachers' judgments of students' academic skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 347-356. Berger, K. S. (2003). The developing person: Through childhood and adolescence (6th ed.). New York: Worth.
Brigham University. (2007). 08-09 Undergraduate Catalog: Teacher Education. Retrieved November 20, 2009, from http://saas.byu.edu/catalog/ 2008-2009ucat/departments/TeacherEduc/TEdMain.php Brophy, J. E., & Evertson, C. M. (1976). Learning from teaching: A developmental perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Butterworth, G., & Harris, M. (1994). Principles of developmental psychology. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press Ltd. Challenger School. (2008). Challenger School. Retrieved March 20, 2010, from http://www.challengerschool.com/ Chubbuck, S. M., & Zembylas, M. (2008). The emotional ambivalence of socially just teaching: A case study of a novice urban schoolteacher. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 274-318. Chudacoff, H. P. (2007). Children at play: An American history. New York: New York University Press. Coloroso, B. (2005). Kids are worth it! Giving your child the gift of inner discipline. (Rev. ed.). New York: Collins Lifestyle. J. P. (2004). Leave no child behind: Preparing today’s youth for tomorrow’s world. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A
New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Sternberg, R. (2008). Applying psychological theories to educational practice. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 150-165. Stipek, D., & Miles, S. (2008). Effects of aggression on achievement: Does conflict with the teacher make it worse? Child Development, 79(6), 1721-1735. Suskie, L. A. (1992). Questionnaire survey research: What works (2nd ed.). Tallahassee, FL: Association for Institutional Research. Taylor, B. J. (1999). A child goes forth: A curriculum guide for preschool children. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill. The University of Utah. (2009). The college of education at the University of Utah: Undergraduate degrees. Retrieved November 29, 2009, from http://www.ed.utah.edu/Undergraduate.html Tollefson, N., Melvin, J., & Thippavajjala, C. (1990). Teachers' attributions for students' low achievement: A validation of Cooper and Good's attributional categories. Psychology in the Schools, 27, 75-83. University of Phoenix. (2006-2009). Degree programs. Retrieved November 21, 2009, from http://www.phoenix.edu/programs/degree-programs.html Utah Performance Assessment System for Students. (2009). UPASS additional information report. Retrieved June 4, 2010, from the Utah State Office of Education website: http://www.schools.utah.gov/main/DATA-STATISTICS/Accountability/ Accountability-Reports.aspx Utah State Office of Education. (n.d.). Educator quality & licensing: Utah educator
Teachers with graduate degreeb 53.3% 57.1% 50.0% Teachers with EC Endb 46.7% 9.5% 40.9% Teachers mean years experienceb 16.3 20.6 13.6 Note. UPASS = Utah Performance Assessment System for Students. Acceptable range is 77%. Percentages were rounded to whole numbers. (UPASS, 2009). EC End = Early Childhood Endorsement. aSocio-economic status is determined by the percentage of students qualifying for free or reduced lunch. bAs reported on questionnaires; percentages calculated by number indicated against total responses. Response rate = 57% Appendix F Approval Request to District