"Developmentally appropriate" has become a standard label on materials for schools, toys, games, and other materials designed for children. But what does it mean to be developmentally appropriate, and how is it determined? Are these materials evaluated for their impact on child development or are they simply designed with a nod to certain theoretical positions? How do we decide what theory to apply when designing materials, and are different theories more informative than others for different kinds of materials? The purpose of this class is to evaluate different materials and/or contexts in reference to various theories and to develop a definition of "developmentally appropriate" that could be used to evaluate materials. The overall purpose of the course is to understand better how theory can inform practice and vice versa.
We will do this by engaging in a consideration of the characteristics and properties of different kinds of materials and learning environments. Our investigation will involve both reading and direct experience. We will start off with an examination of school environments and then move to "informal" environments, in particular television and interactive software. However, we will also consider learning environments or materials that are of interest to participating students.
This class will be conducted as a seminar. The instructor will rarely lecture or "deliver" material to students. Instead, we will work together, either as individuals or in small groups, to make sense of this area of investigation. This means all students will be expected to participate actively in class. Responsibility for making our class time productive will be shared by all of us. Students who do not wish to struggle with the ambiguity and responsibility that this approach requires may want to re-evaluate their commitment to the course.
I expect that students will have thoughtfully read the assigned readings before class begins. Three of the readings --Case (1992), Kail & Bisanz (1992), and Fosnot (1996) -- provide important background information. Although we will not directly cover them in class, understanding them will be important for evaluating the other readings and materials. Students will be asked to present the reading material and to observe a learning environment (e.g., children's television show, interactive software, visit the Exploratorium, etc) and present an analysis of the context. Students will also be required to write a series of short papers (1-2 pages) based on the readings or class discussion and to complete and present a group or individual project. The project can take many forms, ranging from an evaluation of a curriculum, museum exhibit, software, game, etc, to the design of a set of "developmentally appropriate" materials, such as a piece of software, a game, a museum exhibit, or a television show.
March 31: Introduction
April 2 to April 9: Theories of Development
Readings:
Case, R. (1992). Neo-Piagetian theories of child development. In R.J. Sternberg & C.A. Berg (Eds.), Intellectual development (pp. 161-196). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kail, R., & Bisanz, J. (1992). The information-processing perspective on cognitive development in childhood and adolescence. In R.J. Sternberg & C.A. Berg (Eds.), Intellectual development(pp. 229-260). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Fosnot, C.T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C.T. Fosnot (ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (8-33). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
April 14 to April 20: Three Approaches to Classroom Design
Readings:
Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1994). From visual word problems to learning communities: Changing conceptions of cognitive research. In K. McGilly (ed), Classroom lessons: Cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 157-200). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Book. Amy Pape
Foreman, G. (1996). The project approach in Reggio Emilia. In C.T. Fosnot (ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (171-181). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Alli Kraus
Readings:
Griffin, S.A., Case, R., & Siegler, R.S. (1994). Rightstart: Providing the central conceptual prerequisites for first formal learning of arithmetic to students at risk for school failure. In K. McGilly (ed), Classroom lessons: Cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 25-49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Book.Karla Alcala, Mike Broom
Schifter, D. (1996). A constructivist perspective on teaching and learning mathematics. In C.T. Fosnot (ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (73-91). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Erik Svenson, Linda Keeler
Readings:
Julyan, C., & Duckworth, E. (1996). A constructivist perspective on teaching and learning science. In C.T. Fosnot (ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (55-72). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Shana Johnson, Liz Scott
Brown, A.L., Campione, J.C., Metz, K.E., & Ash, D.B. (1997). The development of science learning abilities in children. In K. Harnqvist & A. Burgen (Eds.), Growing up with science: Developing early understanding of science (pp. 7-40). London, England: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Page Hayton, Anders Rosenquist
May 5 to May 7: Measuring the cognitive and emotional impact of television
Readings:
Lovelace, V. (1990). Sesame Street as a continuing experiment. Educational Technology Research Journal, 38 (4), 17-24. Amy Wertheimer, Sandi Weingart
Huston, A.C., Alvarez, M., Truglio, R., Fitch, M., & Piemyat, S. (1995). Perceived television reality and children's emotional and cognitive responses to its social content. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 231-251.Summer Moore, Demetria Malloy, Davonna Wadlington
Student presentations and analysis of children's television
May 19: Designing and Evaluating Interactive Technology
Readings:
Strommen, E.F., & Revelle, G.L. (1990). Research in interactive technologies at the Children's Television Workshop. Educational Technology Research Journal, 38 (4), 65-80.Pauline Brutlag, Loren Bentley
Lehrer, R., & Randle, L. (1987). Problem solving, metacognition and composition: The effects of interactive software for first-grade children. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, (4), 409-427.Elizabeth Marcus, Carmel Levitan
Student presentations and analysis of children's software
May 28 to June 2: Project Presentations