Universal Expectations vs. Individual Variations
You already know that developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) addresses both the general characteristics of groups of children as well as unique variations from child to child at any particular point in time. A good curriculum will be one that is flexible enough to allow the teacher to use insights and observations of children to plan, adapt, and implement activities. The scenario from the opening vignette illustrates the need for a flexible curriculum. It is also advisable to describe and communicate curriculum decisions and adaptations in terms of the elements of DAP, so that families and administrators can understand the rationale for your choices. (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Gestwicki, 2011). To do this, teachers need to be aware of:
- What is generally accepted as typical in each of the three major domains of development (physical, affective, cognitive)
- What constitutes normal individual variations in both development and learning style
- The influence of culture and family on development
- How developmental delays and other special needs affect children’s learning and behavior patterns
Further, we know that developmental researchers describe, from differing theoretical perspectives, how children grow and learn. Teachers need to be able to recognize when a curriculum is written or described from a particular point of view. The DAP position statement describes growth and development generally from a constructivist perspective (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). However, a behaviorist orientation emphasizing sequential learning and positive reinforcement for desired responses or actions can be seen in early childhood curricula as well, particularly those that focus on direct instruction. For example, teachers provide children with exploratory experiences (constructivist), by using materials like blocks, to promote acquisition of fundamental concepts about size, shape, balance, symmetry, and so on. But they also use rhymes, songs, and stories to provide intentional practice and positive reinforcement for rote counting (behaviorist).
The constructivist influence can be seen in advocacy for standards and curriculum that are goal-oriented, while curriculum scope and sequence still display activities for development of discrete skills on a time line (Clements & Sarama, 2004). Teachers use their knowledge of diverse developmental perspectives to make decisions about curriculum that match what they observe about how individual children learn best.
We expect to see children’s development follow a general trajectory over time as they master increasingly complex skills and gradually move from concrete to abstract thinking. For example, a 2-year-old will learn to put on his shoes, but by the time he is 4 or 5 he will also be able to tie them. That same 2-year-old may be able to name and differentiate between a horse and tiger, but 2 years later he will also be able to describe how they are similar and different.
Within this predictable sequence, curriculum must account for and support uneven development from child to child and differences in personality, interests, and dispositions (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Gestwicki, 2011). Some children are more physically active or assertive; others are passive or submissive; some children are very verbal; others are introspective and quiet. One child may hone fine motor skills primarily through the use of manipulative materials like Legos or puzzles; another might want to spend a lot of time cutting paper, painting, and drawing. And during any general age period, a child may seem to be surging ahead in one area of development seemingly to the exclusion of others. It all evens out eventually, but a “one-size-fits all” approach to curriculum for young children is not considered developmentally appropriate at any time.