Citation
Preservice teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices in early childhood teacher preparation programs

Material Information

Title:
Preservice teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices in early childhood teacher preparation programs
Creator:
Duncan, Tashawna Kay
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Childhood ( jstor )
Classrooms ( jstor )
Developmentally appropriate practice ( jstor )
Early childhood education ( jstor )
Educational research ( jstor )
Preservice teachers ( jstor )
Special education ( jstor )
Student teaching ( jstor )
Teacher education ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
24887635 ( ALEPH )
45277269 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





PRESERVICE TEACHERS' BELIEFS ABOUT DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICES AND BEHAVIORAL TECHNIQUES AND
PRACTICES IN EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS


















By

TASHAWNA KAY DUNCAN


















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2000



























Copyright 2000

by

Tashawna Kay Duncan















TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
LIST O F TA B LES ................................................................................. .................. .......... v

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................ vii

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1

Introduction........................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................ 2
Importance to Teacher Education ...................................................................... 3
Research Questions .......................................................................................... 4
Summary and Overview of Remaining Chapters ......................................... ..... 5

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 6

Introduction to Teachers' Beliefs..................................................................... 6
Research on Teachers' Beliefs .......................................................................... 7
Acquisition of Beliefs .................................................................................. 7
Perseverance of Beliefs.................................................................................... 8
Influence on Practice.......................................................................................... 9
Study of Beliefs............................................................................................... 10
Early Childhood Teacher Preparation Programs ..................................... ........ 11
Early Childhood Education Teacher Preparation Programs ............................... 11
Early Childhood Special Education Teacher Preparation Programs ................. 12
Unified Early Childhood Teacher Preparation Programs .................................. 12
Differences in Early Childhood Education and Early Childhood
Special Education Teacher Training Programs' Practices, Goals,
and O utcom es..................................................................................... ......... 14
Developmentally Appropriate Practice ........................................ ............ 15
Behavioral Techniques and Practices ......................................... ............. 18
Applied Behavior Analysis in the Early Childhood Classroom ............................ 20
Advantages for Classroom Application ...................................... ......... 20
Criticisms for Classroom Application ..................... .. .......... 21
Behavioral Interventions ............................................................................ 24
R einforcem ent....................................................................................................... 24
Punishm ent............................................................................................................ 27
E xtinction .............................................................................................................. 28
C onclusion ................................................................................................................ 28


iii









3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES................................ ........................................ 31

Participants, Sampling Procedures, & Setting ......................................................... 31
Description of Programs ........................................................ 31
Individual Participant Characteristics ............................... ................................ 32
Instrum entation ......................................................................................................... 38
Teacher Beliefs Scale (TBS)..................................................................... ...38
Behavioral Beliefs Scale (BBS) ........................................................................ 39
Procedures ................................................................................................................. 53

4 R E SU LT S ............ ................................................ ............................................... 54

Teacher Beliefs Scale............... ........................... ................................................ 54
Beliefs about Developmentally Appropriate Practices ........................................ 54
Differences in Beliefs About Developmentally Appropriate
Practices .......................................................................................... 55
Relationships Between Developmentally Appropriate Practices and
Individual Characteristics ......................................................................... 56
Behavioral Beliefs Scale ........................................................ 62
Beliefs about Behavioral Techniques and Practices ......................... ............... 63
Differences in Beliefs about Behavioral Techniques and Practices ................ 63
Relationships Between Behavioral Techniques and Practices and
Individual Characteristics .................................................................. ...65
Sum m ary ................................. ............................................................... .......... 72

5 D ISC U SSIO N ........................................................................................................... 74

Introduction ................... ............................... ....................................................... 74
Beliefs About Developmentally Appropriate Practices ................................... 75
Beliefs about Behavioral Techniques and Practices ................................ ..... 78
Implications for Practice ........................................................................................ 80
Limitations of the Study.............................................................................. 82
A reas of Future Research ...................................................................................... 83
APPENDICES

A EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM DESCRIPTION MODIFIED
QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................................................... 85

B BEHAVIORAL BELIEFS SCALE (BBS) ........................................ .....90

REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................96

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..................................................................................... 108







iv














LIST OF TABLES

Table page

1. Participants' Program of Study by University .................... ......33

2. Number of Required Courses for Each Degree Program........................... ...35

3. Participants' Demographics, Placement History, and Current Year of
Study by Program Type ................................................................37

4. Eigenvalues and Associated Variance for the Initial Principal Axis
Factor Solution for the Behavioral Beliefs Scale............................. .....42

5. Scree Plot for Behavioral Beliefs Scale .................................................................. 43

6. Structure Matrix for Factor I of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale ................................44

7. Structure Matrix for Factor II of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale................................46

8. Structure Matrix for Items Failing to Load on Factors I or II of the
Behavioral Beliefs Scale .........................................................47

9. Structure Matrix for Factor I (Reinforcement) ..........................................50

10. Structure Matrix for Factor II (Punishment) ....................................... .....52

11. Second Structure Matrix for Items Failing to Load on Factors I or II
of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale ..................................... .............. 53

12. Group Means for Individual Teacher Beliefs Scale Items .....................................57

13. Mean Total Scores for Teacher Beliefs Scale ......................................................... 61

14. Summary ANOVA Table for Teacher Beliefs Scale ....................................... 61

15. Pairwise Comparisons for Teacher Beliefs Scale ..................................... .....62

16. Summary ANOVA Table for Teacher Beliefs Scale Total Scores and
E thnicity ................... ........................................ ................................................ 62

17. Group Means for Individual Behavioral Beliefs Scale Items .................................66




v









18. Mean Total Scores for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Section II .................................68

19. Mean Total Scores for Factor I (Reinforcement) of the Behavioral
Beliefs Scale ..................... ...............................................................................68

20. Mean Scores for Factor II (Punishment) of the Behavioral Beliefs
S cale .......................................................................................................................69

21. Summary ANOVA Table for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Section II.....................69

22. Summary ANOVA Table for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Factor I
(Reinforcement) of Section II .............. .................... ............... 70

23. Summary ANOVA Table for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Factor II
(Punishment) of Section II ...................................................... 70

24. Pairwise Comparisons for Section II of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale...................71

25. Pairwise Comparisons for Factor I (Reinforcement) of Section II of
the Behavioral Beliefs Scale .................................... ................ 71

26. Summary ANOVA Table for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Total Scores
and E thnicity .................................................... ...............................................72




























vi














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

PRESERVICE TEACHERS' BELIEFS ABOUT DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICES AND BEHAVIORAL TECHNIQUES AND
PRACTICES IN EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS By

Tashawna Kay Duncan

August 2000

Chairperson: John Kranzler
Major Department: Educational Psychology

The purpose of this study was to evaluate preservice teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices. Specifically, this study investigates similarities and differences between early childhood education (ECE), early childhood special education (ECSE), and unified early childhood (Unified) teacher preparation programs. Previous research indicates that teachers' beliefs largely influence their behavior in the classroom. Exploring some of the similarities and differences in beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices among preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs may assist in curriculum development and training as well as continuing education for inservice teachers. Moreover, understanding these differences may help teacher preparation programs bridge the gap between the traditionally different disciplines of ECE and ECSE. Preservice teachers' beliefs about developmentally



vii








appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices were assessed for 355 preservice teachers drawn from ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs using the Teacher Beliefs Scale (TBS) and the Behavioral Beliefs Scale (BBS). The results of this study indicated that preservice teachers in ECSE and Unified teacher preparation programs held similar beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices. However, this study found that preservice teachers in ECE programs held significantly different beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices when compared with preservice teachers in ECSE and Unified teacher training programs. Given these findings, it is imperative that the fields of ECE and ECSE work together to identify common beliefs and resolve belief differences if they are to successfully collaborate in meeting the needs of typically and atypically developing children.


























viii














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Teachers' beliefs largely influence their behavior in the classroom (Bloom, 1992; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, & DeWolf, 1993; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Dunn & Kontos, 1997; Hyson, Hirsch-Pasek, & Rescola, 1990; Fang, 1996; Isenberg, 1996; Munby, 1982; Smith, 1992); therefore teachers' beliefs are important to study, understand, define, and modify. Although in recent years, many attempts have been made to do so, no uniform conclusion about or definition of beliefs has emerged (Fang, 1996; see also Richardson, 1996).

Generally, a belief can be defined as some conception of reality containing enough validity or credibility, or that is backed by enough experience, to satisfy the individual holding the belief of its truth (Green, 1971; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996). Beliefs are generally formed or reinforced based on the experiences of the individual holding the belief. As a result, one would expect that they could be influenced by outside intervention. However, because beliefs are also frequently comprised of or related to other constructs, such as belief systems, attitudes, perceptions, values, opinions, judgments, rules, principles, perceptions, dispositions, and strategies, they are not easily modified (Malouf & Schiller, 1995; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996).

Recent research has developed a number of conclusions about beliefs that provide important starting points for studying and analyzing teachers' beliefs in early childhood




I





2


settings. Research on teachers' beliefs suggests that teachers develop their beliefs long before they enter teacher preparation programs (Lortie, 1975; Pajares, 1996; Richardson, 1996). Additionally, many research studies have recognized that teachers develop many of their deep-seated beliefs about teaching during their own formal education experiences (Lortie, 1975; Richardson, 1996). Lortie (1975) referred to this belief development experience as an "apprenticeship of observation."

Research on teachers' beliefs has also demonstrated that beliefs are very difficult to change or modify, particularly when teachers have held these beliefs for a long period of time (Abelson, 1979; Clark, 1988; Munby, 1982; Nespor, 1987; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Pajares, 1992; Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982; Rokeach, 1968). Many of the beliefs teachers develop during the so-called apprenticeship of observation are carried forward unchanged into teacher preparation programs.

Although understanding teachers' beliefs is critical to the study of teachers'

practices, very little is known about them. This is particularly true for teachers working with young children in segregated and inclusive educational settings (Carta, 1994; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, & Hernandez, 1991; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993; File, 1994; Lieber et al., 1998; Hatch & Freeman, 1988; Isenberg, 1990; Spodek, 1988). The systematic study of teachers' beliefs is likely to yield tremendous insight into the causes of teachers' behavior and practice, which may help teacher educators to change classroom dynamics or develop appropriate preservice teacher training programs.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate preservice teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices.





3


Specifically, the study investigates differences and similarities in these beliefs between three groups: early childhood education (ECE), early childhood special education (ECSE), and unified early childhood (Unified) teacher preparation programs. The results of this study may then be used to make recommendations for preservice teacher education in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs, particularly with reference to developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices. Given the findings of Sexton (1998) that there were no significant differences in the beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices held by early childhood and early childhood special educators, further research on particular types of practices theorized to be controversial is warranted. Particularly, since Sexton (1998) found a significant difference between teachers' beliefs about two behavioral techniques.

Importance to Teacher Education

This study will not only aid in the understanding of beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices, but it will also aid in developing appropriate training experiences for ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs. It should further aid in the understanding of differences in preservice teachers' beliefs among the types of programs studied, which should also aid in the development of appropriate programmatic changes by teacher educators and administrators, particularly in light of the recent trend towards inclusion in early childhood education.





4


Research Questions

The following questions will be addressed:

1. What beliefs do preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified

teacher preparation programs hold about developmentally

appropriate practices?

2. Are there significant differences in beliefs about developmentally

appropriate practices between preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE,

and Unified teacher preparation programs?

3. Are there statistically significant and noteworthy relationships

between beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and individual characteristics (e.g., chronological ages, ethnicity) of

early childhood preservice teachers?

4. What beliefs do preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified

teacher preparation programs hold about the use of behavioral

techniques and practices?

5. Are there significant differences in beliefs about behavioral

techniques and practices between preservice teachers in ECE,

ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs?

6. Are there statistically significant and noteworthy relationships

between beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices and

individual characteristics (e.g., chronological ages, ethnicity) of

early childhood preservice teachers?





5


Summary and Overview of Remaining Chapters

This study addressed (a) ECE preservice teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices, (b) ECSE preservice teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices, (c) Unified preservice teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices, (d) ECE preservice teachers' beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices (e) ECSE preservice teachers' beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices, and (f) Unified preservice teachers' beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices. Despite the importance of teachers' beliefs, little research has been devoted to examining the beliefs of early childhood preservice teachers (see Carta, 1994; Charlesworth et al., 1991; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993; File, 1994; Lieber et al., 1998; Hatch & Freeman, 1988; Isenberg, 1990). This research is a step toward enhancing the knowledge base on teachers' beliefs, specifically those that work with young children.

Chapter 2 provides a review and analysis of relevant literature from the following areas: teachers' beliefs, ECE teacher preparation programs, ECSE teacher preparation programs, Unified teacher preparation programs, developmentally appropriate practices, and behavioral techniques and practices. Chapter 3 contains a description of the research methodology and procedures used in this study. Chapter 4 describes the results of this study. The final chapter (Chapter 5), discusses the results of the study in light of previous research. Additionally, it discusses the scope and limitations of this study and the implications for teacher education and future research.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction to Teachers' Beliefs

Of the many constructs studied in educational psychology and practice, teachers' beliefs are some of the most important, yet most elusive, to researchers. Teachers' beliefs largely influence how teachers perceive, process, and act in their classroom (Bloom; 1992; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Fang, 1996; Dunn & Kontos, 1997; Hyson, Hirsch-Pasek, & Rescorla, 1990; Isenberg, 1996; Munby, 1982; Smith, 1992). Therefore, as an element of the causes of teacher behavior, it is important to understand teachers' beliefs (Richardson, 1996; see also Pintrich. 1990). The difficulty in understanding teachers' beliefs generally lies in how they are defined, how they are studied, and how they relate to other constructs and phenomena, many of which are themselves difficult to study or quantify.

While many researchers have studied constructs variously defined as "belief," no uniform definition has emerged (Richardson, 1996). Generally, a belief is a conception of some reality containing enough validity or credibility, or that is backed by enough experience, to satisfy the individual holding the belief of its truth (Green, 1971; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996). It is usually temporally and contextually bound and strongly guides thought, behavior, and action (Fang, 1996; Harvey, 1986; Pajares, 1992). Pajares (1992) suggests that confusion about beliefs usually relates to the distinction between beliefs and knowledge; beliefs are generally based on evaluation and judgment while



6





7


knowledge is generally based on objective fact (see also Nespor, 1987; Richardson, 1996). Also, beliefs are thought to have more affective and evaluative components than knowledge (Pajares, 1992; Malouf & Schiller, 1995). Thus, how teachers operationalize beliefs, as opposed to knowledge, further defines beliefs' characteristics. Of course, what is meant by teachers' beliefs is difficult to pinpoint with precise accuracy.

Beliefs also comprise or are related to other constructs, such as belief systems, attitudes, perceptions, values, opinions, judgments, rules, principles, preconceptions, dispositions, and strategies (Malouf & Schiller, 1995; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996). The extent to which these constructs guide and control thought and behavior has been the subject of study in education for the last five decades (i.e., since the 1950s) Most of the studies attempt to link teachers' beliefs and similar constructs (e.g., attitudes) to their educational practices (Richardson, 1996). It has only been in recent years (i.e., the last 15) that teacher education research has began to examine teachers' beliefs more thoroughly (Fang, 1996; see also Richardson, 1996). Although research on teachers' beliefs and attitudes received minimal attention between the early 1950s and the early 1970s (Richardson, 1996), there has been a surge of interest in beliefs' in recent years (Richardson, 1996). Research studies have developed a number of conclusions about beliefs that provide important starting points for studying and analyzing teachers' beliefs in early childhood settings.

Research on Teachers' Beliefs

Acquisition of Beliefs

Research on teachers' beliefs has demonstrated that beliefs are often acquired well before teachers have undergone formal training in education (Lortie, 1975; Pajares, 1996; Richardson, 1996: Tatto, 1998). Many studies have suggested that preservice teachers





8


develop a number of beliefs about educational practice from a so-called "apprenticeship of observation" that occurs during their own formative educational experiences (Lortie, 1975; Malouf & Schiller, 1995; Pajares, 1996; Richardson, 1996). In fact, most theories used by teachers are derived from personal experience (Kemple, 1995; Richardson, 1996; Spodek, 1988). For most teachers, this process of cultural transmission gradually occurs long before teacher education has even been given the opportunity to make its mark. Furthermore, preservice classroom experience and reflection on that experience often influences teachers' beliefs (Brousseau, Book, & Byers, 1988; Cherland, 1989; Fang, 1996; Richards, Gipe, & Thompson, 1987). Perseverance of Beliefs

Research on teachers' beliefs has demonstrated that beliefs -- held over long

periods of time -- are very difficult to change (Abelson, 1979; Clark, 1988; Munby, 1982; Nespor, 1987; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Pajares, 1992; Posner et al., 1982; Rokeach, 1968). Pajares (1992) describes this as the perseverance principle. Beliefs acquired during the apprenticeship of observation and generally held by preservice teachers often remain unchanged throughout the teacher preparation process and carry forward to classroom experience (Malouf & Schiller, 1995; Pajares, 1992). Such resistance to changes in beliefs explains why many practices considered to be developmentally inappropriate persist despite efforts at teacher education and training regarding more developmentally appropriate practices. Research also suggests that teachers' beliefs often persist despite contradictory information or recognition of incomplete knowledge (Abelson, 1979; Buchmann, 1984, 1987; Buchmann & Schwille, 1983; Clark, 1988; Flioro-Ruane & Lensmire, 1990; Ginsburg & Newman, 1985; Lasley, 1980; Lortie, 1975; Malouf & Schiller, 1995; Munby, 1982; Nespor, 1987; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Pajares, 1992; Posner





9


et al., 1982; Richardson, 1996; Rokeach, 1968; Schommer, 1990; Van Fleet, 1979; Wilson, 1990).

Influence on Practice

Research suggests that teachers' beliefs strongly influence behavior (Bloom,

1992; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993; Dunn & Kontos, 1997; Fang, 1996; Hyson, Hirsh-Pasek, & Rescorla, 1990; Isenberg, 1996; Smith, 1992; see also Abelson, 1979; Bandura, 1986; Brown & Cooney, 1982; Charlesworth et al., 1991; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Eisenhart, Shrum, Harding, & Cuthbert, 1988; Ernest, 1989; Goodman, 1988; Harvey, 1986; Kagen & Smith, 1988; Kilgo et al., 1999; Kitchener, 1986; Lieber et al., 1998; Malouf & Schiller, 1995; Nespor, 1987; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Rokeach, 1968; Smith & Shepard, 1988; Spodek, 1988; Spidell, 1988; Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1984). However, other research has shown that occasionally some teachers employ practices that are inconsistent with their beliefs (Kontos & Dunn, 1993). This is exemplified by research studies (e.g., Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, & DeWolf, 1993; Hatch & Freeman, 1988; Rusher, McGrenn & Lambiotte, 1992) indicating that district policies or principal directives inconsistent with a teachers' beliefs may be followed by teachers. This may have to do with other beliefs held by the teacher, including the belief that adherence to authoritative demands is an important value.

Green (1971) suggested that it is quite possible for individuals to hold beliefs that are incompatible. Green postulated that individuals hold beliefs in clusters. Each belief cluster falls within a larger belief system. Therefore, beliefs that are contradictory may be part of different belief clusters. Green further posited that conflicting beliefs may persist if they are never compared and examined for consistency.





10


Study of Beliefs

The extent to which the literature has discussed these themes in relating teachers' beliefs to teachers' practices suggests the importance of further research in this area. Currently, very little is known about the beliefs of teachers' working with young children in inclusive or segregated educational settings (Carta, 1994; Charlesworth et al., 1991; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, & Dewolf, 1993; File, 1994; Lieber et al., 1998; Hatch & Freeman, 1988; Isenberg, 1990; Spodek, 1988). However, teachers' beliefs are crucial considerations in understanding teachers' practices and integral aspects of successful teaching (Isenberg, 1990; Richardson, 1996). Thus, further research is warranted in this area.

In the past, research on teachers' beliefs has relied upon a variety of measures (e.g., interviews, questionnaires, observations; see Charlesworth et al., 1991; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, & DeWolf, 1993; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993; Erwin & Kontos, 1998; File, 1994; Kemple, Hysmith, & David, 1996; Hatch & Freeman, 1988; Kagan & Smith, 1988; Porter & Potenza, 1983; Smith, 1992; Spodek, 1988; Stipek & Byler, 1997; Wing, 1989). Currently, interviews and observations are two of the most frequently employed measures (Richardson, 1996). However, many of the research studies on early childhood teachers' beliefs have additionally utilized questionnaires and rating scales (see Charlesworth et al., 1991; Charlesworth, Harts, Burts, & DeWolf, 1993; Charlesworth, Harts, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993; Erwin & Kontos, 1998; File, 1994; Kagan & Smith, 1988; Kemple, Hysmith & David, 1996; Smith, 1992; Stipek & Byler, 1997). All of these research approaches (e.g., interviews, observations, questionnaires, rating scales) are appropriate and promising (Pajares, 1992). Ultimately, the approach employed depends on the researchers' question and how the








researchers wish to explore it (Pajares, 1992). Currently, new innovative techniques, such as the use of multiple measures, are providing researchers with better tools to explore and assess teachers' beliefs.

Measuring and assessing preservice teachers' beliefs is critical to understanding them, and is yet even more important to the process of developing appropriate preservice training programs (See Tatto, 1998). Assessing beliefs of preservice teachers from different types of teacher preparation programs provides an opportunity to compare beliefs among early childhood educators.

Early Childhood Teacher Preparation Programs

Early childhood education (ECE) teacher preparation programs train preservice teachers to work with young children in a variety of settings. Currently, three distinct teacher preparation programs have emerged in the United States: early childhood education (ECE) teacher preparation programs, early childhood special education (ECSE) teacher preparation programs, and unified early childhood (Unified) teacher preparation programs. Bredekamp (1993) noted that these three early childhood teacher preparation programs are often separated physically and philosophically. Following is a brief discussion on each type of teacher preparation training program. Early Childhood Education Teacher Preparation Programs

Early childhood education (ECE) teacher preparation programs train preservice teachers to serve typically developing children from birth to age eight. These programs have undergone considerable change since their emergence in the late 1800s (Spodek & Saracho, 1990). Currently, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) is the primary organization establishing professional guidelines for early childhood education (Burton, Hains, Hanline, McLean, & McCormick, 1992). The





12


NAEYC first began making efforts to establish preferred practice guidelines in 1981. Shortly thereafter, it developed policies and procedures for the voluntary accreditation of early childhood programs (Burton et al., 1992). Historically, ECE teacher preparation programs have been rooted in constructivism. Even today, constructivism dominates educational philosophy in these programs (Smith & Bredekamp, 1998; see also Wolery, Werts, & Holcombe, 1994; Wolery & Wilber, 1994). Thus, ECE teacher preparation programs typically are not grounded in behavioral theory. Early Childhood Special Education Teacher Preparation Programs

Early childhood special education (ECSE) teacher preparation programs train preservice teachers to serve children from birth to age eight with special needs. Traditionally, many ECSE teacher preparation programs have been largely grounded in behavioral theory (Smith & Bredekamp, 1998; see also Wolery et al., 1994; Wolery & Wilber, 1994). This is largely due to the inherent challenges faced by ECSE teachers in disciplinary and motivation matters. Just as NAEYC has been the primary organization establishing guidelines for ECE, the Division of Early Childhood (DEC), Council for Exceptional Children has been the primary organization establishing guidelines and ensuring a level of beginning and continuing professional competence within ECSE (McCollum, McLean, McCartan, & Kaiser, 1989). DEC has developed and established recommended practices for professionals working with young children with special needs. These practices support the use of behavioral techniques and practices (DEC Task Force on Recommended Practices, 1993).

Unified Early Childhood Teacher Preparation Programs

Unified early childhood (Unified) teacher preparation programs prepare

preservice teachers to serve all children, including those with special needs. These





13


programs typically draw upon philosophy and practice from both the fields of ECE and ECSE (Burton et al., 1992; Gargiulo et al., 1997). In many ways, Unified teacher preparation programs are ideal because the knowledge base and practices in ECE and ECSE are very similar (e.g., both work with young children at various developmental levels and should possess the ability to establish positive, meaningful relationships with families) (Appl, 1995; Garguilo, Sluder, & Streitenberger, 1997; Kemple, Hartle, Correa, & Fox, 1994; Lowenthal, 1992). Furthermore, professionals in the fields of ECE and ECSE have voiced their support of Unified teacher preparation programs by positing that the time has arrived to end segregated, categorical, teacher preparation programs (Burton et al., 1992; DEC Task Force on Recommended Practices, 1993; Gargiulo & Sluder, 1997; Miller, 1992; NAEYC, 1996; see also Bredekamp, 1993; Myers, Griffin, Telekei, Taylor, & Wheeler, 1998; Lowenthal, 1992; Safford, 1989). In fact, contemporary research refutes a categorical approach to teacher preparation training (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Miller, 1992). Unified teacher preparation programs have the potential to train early childhood teachers to meet the individual needs of children in a variety of settings (Garguilo et al., 1997). With full inclusion, more and more children with special needs are being included in early childhood programs designed for typically developing children (Garguilo et al., 1997; Sexton, 1998; Wolery, Brookfield et al., 1993; Wolery, Holcombe et al., 1993; Wolery, Holcombe-Ligon et al., 1993; Wolery, Schroeder et al., 1994). As a result, "early childhood educators are going to become increasingly responsible for teaching young children with special needs" (Garguilo et al., 1997, p. 137). The concept of collaboration across the fields of ECE and ECSE holds a great deal of promise (Myers et al., 1998). Teachers trained in these programs will be prepared to





14


provide early education services which are developmentally and individually appropriate (Gargiulo & Sluder, 1997). As a result of their teacher preparation training, they are able to draw upon effective practices from the fields of ECE and ECSE. Differences in Early Childhood Education and Early Childhood Special Education Teacher Training Programs' Practices, Goals, and Outcomes

Historically, educational philosophy and practice have differed between ECE and ECSE (Bredekamp, 1993; Burton et al., 1992; Wolery & Wilbers, 1994). As discussed earlier, ECE education has been traditionally grounded in constructivism while ECSE has been largely based on behavioral theory (Smith & Bredekamp, 1998; see also Wolery, Werts, & Holcombe, 1994; Wolery & Wilbers, 1994). More often than not, ECE and ECSE have maintained separate programs and services. Thus, it was possible for ECE and ECSE educators to keep their educational philosophies and practices separate (Smith & Bredekamp, 1998). However, in recent years more children with special needs are being included in early childhood classrooms (Sexton, 1998; Wolery, Brookfield et al., 1993; Wolery, Holcombe, et al., 1993; Wolery, Holcombe-Ligon et al., 1993; Wolery, Schroeder et al., 1994) resulting in professionals from a variety of fields working together. This sometimes results in the blending of techniques and practices (See Kilgo et al., 1999). However, at other times, it results in heated debates on appropriate practice (Smith & Bredekamp, 1998; see also Bredekamp, 1993; Carta, 1994; Carta, 1995; Carta & Schwartz, Atwater, & McConnell, 1991; Carta, Atwater, Schwartz, & McConnell, 1993; Johnson & Johnson, 1992; Johnson & Johnson, 1993; Johnson & Johnson, 1994). Unfortunately, many perceive some of the most commonly used techniques and practices in the fields of ECE and ECSE as incompatible. For example, some behavioral techniques (e.g., tangible rewards) used in ECSE have been criticized by ECE educators





15


(Mounts & Roopnarine, 1987; see also Wolery & Bredekamp, 1994). Smith & Bredekamp (1998) suggest that the techniques and practices utilized within the two fields should not be perceived as incompatible but as complimentary, representing different points on a continuum (see also Appl, 1995; Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1995; Kemple et al., 1994; Lowenthal, 1992). Furthermore, Smith & Bredekamp (1998) propose that a wide range of strategies can be viewed as appropriate and that techniques and practices should be selected and tailored to meet the individual needs of the child(ren).

The differences between ECE and ECSE educators' beliefs about

developmentally appropriate practices, specifically those held about behavioral techniques and practices, has drawn little empirical research, although they are easily perceived from a review of contemporary literature from both fields. However, what is meant by developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices requires some discussion before beliefs about them can be evaluated.

Developmentally Appropriate Practice

The NAEYC (the largest organization of early childhood educators) has as its mission "to act on behalf of children by improving the quality of programs and raising public awareness about what constitutes good quality" (Bredekamp, 1997, p. 39). In 1987, in response to a growing trend toward more formal academic instruction in the early childhood classroom, the NAEYC published its position on Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) guidelines (Bredekamp, 1997; Carta, 1995; see also Gestwicki, 1999). These guidelines attempted to clarify types of developmentally appropriate and inappropriate practices for children between birth and age eight (Bredekamp, 1987). Of course, it would be impossible for NAEYC to describe all appropriate and inappropriate practices. Therefore, NAEYC has only attempted to agree





16


on some reasonable and reliable principles to guide early childhood professionals in their decision making (Bredekamp, 1997). Essentially, the DAP guidelines attempt to assist professionals in ECE classrooms in making judgments by informing their decision making (Gestwicki, 1999).

NAEYC indicates that the DAP Guidelines are based on child development

knowledge (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997), NAEYC taking the position that "programs designed for young children should be based on what is known about young children" (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997, p. v). Considering child development knowledge is essential for ECE teachers, because it assists them in understanding how children learn. As a result, early childhood teachers can better structure the learning environment so that children are presented with experiences that are engaging, achievable, and challenging (Gestwicki, 1999). In summary, developmentally appropriate practice decisions are ones based on child development knowledge, each individual child, the child's family, and the child's culture (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Gestwicki, 1999).

In 1987, the release of the DAP guidelines sparked numerous debates among ECE educators regarding the clarity and interpretation of the practices presented (Bredekamp, 1997; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; see also Kessler, 1991; Mallory & New, 1994; Swadener & Kessler, 1991). Many ECE educators felt that NAEYC had oversimplified the concept of DAP (Bredekamp, 1997). These debates and professional literature on this topic contributed to a new knowledge base. NAEYC responded to this new information by revising its position statement, which was released in 1997.

The newly released guidelines (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) expand and clarify the definition of developmentally appropriate practice (Bredekamp, 1997). In the revised





17


guidelines, NAEYC posited that developmentally appropriate practice builds on three important kinds of information and knowledge: (a) "what is known about child development and learning; (b) what is known about the strengths, interests, and needs of the individual children in the group; and (c) knowledge of the social and cultural contexts in which children live" (NAEYC 1997, 8-9). Furthermore, these guidelines describe a continuum of teaching practices by including more examples of inappropriate and appropriate practices than the previous guidelines released ten years earlier. The newly revised DAP guidelines suggest that teachers should find the appropriate balance between adult-initiated and child-initiated learning in the ECE classroom. Thus, ECE teachers are not overly passive or overly directive (Bredekamp, 1997). Berk & Winsler (1995) suggest that the role of the developmentally appropriate classroom is a complex one that includes collaboration, support, reflection, instruction, modeling direction, and coconstruction of knowledge.

Unfortunately, developmentally appropriate practice has often been

misinterpreted. Many individuals in ECE have interpreted the DAP guidelines as a curriculum. However, developmentally appropriate practice "is not a curriculum; it is not a rigid set of standards that dictate practice. Rather, it is a framework, a philosophy, or an approach to working with young children" (Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992, p. 4). In addition, some have interpreted the DAP guidelines as hostile to behavioral techniques and practices (see Duncan, Kemple, & Smith, 2000). However, the concept of a continuum of appropriate practices precludes any categorical exclusion of particular techniques and practices.





18


Behavioral Techniques and Practices

Behavioral theory holds that behaviors acquired and displayed by young children can be attributed almost exclusively to their environment. Behaviorists believe that by improving children's environments and selecting appropriate teaching practices and materials young children can be taught to develop almost any competency (Peters, Neisworth, & Yawkey, 1986; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Behavioral theorists assert that all behavior is sandwiched between antecedent and consequent events and that the nature and quality of these events determines future behaviors (Craighead, Kazdin, & Mohoney, 1976; Kazdin, 1994; Peters et al., 1986; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Thus, they suppose, one can engineer behavior changes in directions deemed appropriate by the child, school, and even society by simply managing the environment of children.

The extension of experimental methods of behavioral theory to applied settings, such as the classroom, has generated a relatively new area of research known as applied behavior analysis (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968; Kazdin, 1977, 1994). Applied behavior analysis was first identified by Baer, Wolf, and Risley in the first Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis in 1968 (Kazdin, 1977, 1994). Specifically, Baer, Wolf, and Risley (1968) defined applied behavior analysis as the "process of applying sometimes tentative principles of behavior to the improvement of specific behavior and simultaneously evaluating whether or not any changes noted are indeed attributable to the process of application" (p. 91). Baer and colleagues' definition explicitly distinguished applied behavior analysis from previous basic operant research both in terms of methodology and substance (Kazdin, 1977). Historically, applied behavior analysis has been grounded in Watson's and Pavlov's behavioral theories, which hold that all behaviors are merely learned responses to environmental stimuli. However, applied behavior analysis draws





19


from theories of respondent conditioning, operant conditioning, and model learning (Brown, Pryzwansky, & Shulte, 1995; Schloss & Smith, 1998).

Applied behavior analysis is generally concerned with increasing or decreasing specific behaviors and then maintaining those behavioral changes under current environmental conditions (Deitz & Repp, 1983; Kazdin, 1977, 1994; Martin & Pear, 1988; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Surprisingly, only 2% of the field of applied behavior analysis is concerned with reducing maladaptive behavior (Deitz & Repp; 1983; Repp, 1983). However, this area still remains of vital interest to many researchers. Reducing maladaptive behaviors is also of primary concern to clinicians and teachers. Applied behavior analysis concerned with reducing maladaptive behavior usually involves one of three principles: reinforcement, extinction, or punishment (Schloss & Smith, 1998). Historically, punishment procedures have been widely used to reduce inappropriate behaviors. However, in recent years numerous complex legal and ethical issues have arisen regarding the use of these procedures (Deitz & Repp, 1983; Kazdin, 1978; Kazdin, 1994; Martin & Pear, 1988; Polsgrove & Rieth, 1993; Schloss & Smith, 1998). As a result, researchers have sought to develop less controversial alternative methods of reducing behaviors through the application of reinforcement. Such procedures have been referred to as positive reductive behaviors or reinforcement based reductive procedures (Deitz & Repp, 1983). In addition to avoiding many of the controversial issues surrounding the application of aversive reduction techniques, positive reduction techniques frequently result in the application of the principles of applied behavior analysis, as they focus on reinforcing improved behavior (Deitz & Repp, 1983). Furthermore, there has been a recent emphasis on more antecedent based techniques,





20


rather than consequence based methods, leading professionals to focus less on the manipulation of consequences than has been typical of behavioral techniques and practices (Homer et al., 1990). These antecedent based methods focus on the conditions that occur immediately before the target behavior (Wolery, Bailey, & Sugai, 1988). These antecedent based methods are considered less controversial than traditional behavioral methods.

Applied Behavior Analysis in the Early Childhood Classroom

Applied behavior analysis is frequently used by many professionals in education, including those in early childhood settings (e.g., teachers, guidance counselors, school psychologists; Griegler, 1977; Schloss & Smith, 1998). In fact, applied behavior analysis has been applied more in classrooms than in any other setting (Kazdin, 1978). To the chagrin of its detractors, researchers have continually demonstrated that applied behavior analysis techniques and practices are successful in public school settings with diverse populations, including preschool, elementary, secondary, collegiate, and children with special needs (Gordan & Browne, 1989; Kazdin, 1977, 1985; Martin & Pear, 1988; Mounts & Roopnarine, 1987; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Because applied behavior analysis has been demonstrated as effective in preventing and remedying problematic behaviors in the classroom setting, valuable instruction time is increased as teachers no longer have to interrupt, postpone, or delay lessons to deal with problematic behaviors (e.g., students not completing assignments, failing to follow directions, inattention, arguing, fighting; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Advantages for Classroom Application

Behavioral theory and applied behavior analysis techniques and practices offer many distinct advantages over other frequently used models (e.g., psychodynamic,





21


medical, ecological) implemented in the classroom (Kazdin, 1977; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Applied behavior analysis techniques and practices can be used by most school personnel. Training of personnel to implement applied behavior analysis can usually be accomplished quickly and easily through coursework and supervised practice, and the resources necessary to implement these techniques are normally minimal and readily available (Schloss & Smith, 1998; Wolery, 1994). Applied behavior analysis also requires a continual evaluation process. During this evaluation process the value of techniques, practices, and materials being used are assessed. Thus, evaluation facilitates the effective use of teacher and student time, because ineffective techniques, practices, and materials are revised or discarded (Schloss & Smith, 1998). Criticisms for Classroom Application

Although the merits of behavior analysis techniques and practices in classroom settings have been widely recognized, like many areas in which applied behavior analysis has been implemented, there has been criticism related to its use (Schloss & Smith, 1998). Some professionals, including ones in ECE and ECSE, view applied behavior analysis techniques and practices as "inappropriate" (Strain et al., 1992). In fact, there has been an ongoing debate on the appropriateness of applied behavior analysis techniques and practices among professionals in various early childhood settings (Strain et al., 1992).

Some professionals argue that each individual has the right to choose how to behave. Therefore, applied behavior analysis techniques and practices that attempt to change an individual's behavior are in violation of his or her own free will (Martin & Pear, 1988; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Martin and Pear (1988) provided an eloquent response to this concern by pointing out that changing a student's behavior is the major





22


goal of education. It is doubtful that anyone would argue that it is inappropriate to teach a child to add or subtract, which is a form of behavior change.

Some educators are concerned with specific techniques and practices utilized in applied behavior analysis. While this may be of legitimate concern, these fears can be allayed by careful consideration of the student's age, the severity and longevity of the problem, the previous efforts that have failed to solve it, and the possible effectiveness of the technique in solving the problem. Furthermore, techniques and practices should be monitored and evaluated continuously (Schloss & Smith, 1998). Failure to carefully monitor and evaluate techniques can result in the misuse of behavioral techniques and practices. For example, it would be inappropriate to "control" children by only utilizing behavioral techniques and practices rather than providing stimulating, developmentally appropriate activities that engage children.

Finally, some have described applied behavior analysis techniques and practices, such as reinforcement, as bribery (Kazdin, 1975; Kohn, 1993; Schloss & Smith, 1998; Zirpoli, 1995). These individuals argue that students should not have to be paid to behave or complete certain tasks, but rather that students should do these things because they are the right thing to do (Schloss & Smith, 1998; Stainback, Payne, Stainback, & Payne, 1973; Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1997). Kazdin (1975) argued that individuals who confuse reinforcement and bribery do not clearly understand the definition and intent of each, stating:

Bribery refers to the illicit use of rewards, gifts, or favors to pervert judgment or corrupt the conduct of someone. With bribery, reward is used for the purpose of
changing behavior, but the behavior is corrupt, illegal or immoral in some way.
With reinforcement, as typically employed, events are delivered for behaviors which are generally agreed upon to benefit the client, society, or both. (p. 50)





23


Kazdin's argument suggests that there are clear distinctions between bribery and giving reinforcement for appropriate behaviors. Zirpoli and Mellory (1993) further suggest that if one fails to give children their attention during appropriate behaviors, it is likely that they will try to get attention with inappropriate behavior. Most would agree that children behave themselves and complete tasks because it is the right thing to do; however, all acknowledge that some children require assistance in learning to do this. Reinforcers can enhance this learning over time (Schloss & Smith, 1998). In fact, the use of behavioral techniques and practices, such as reinforcement, does not preclude ECE and ECSE educators from providing children with a developmentally appropriate classroom (see Bredekamp & Copple, 1998) that is fun, engaging, and exciting (Wolery, 1994).

In addition to the above criticisms, Lepper & Greene (1975) argued that reinforcing educational performance with rewards negatively impacts on students' intrinsic motivation (see also Greene & Lepper, 1974a, 1974b). In particular, they criticized the use of tangible rewards for this very reason. Lepper and Greene (1975) conducted a series of experiments, in preschool and elementary classrooms, that "studied the effects of offering a child a tangible reward to engage in an initially interesting task on his subsequent intrinsic motivation to engage in that task in the absence of any expectation of external rewards" (p. 256; see also Greene and Lepper, 1974a, 1975b). The results of these experiments suggested that the use of external rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation (Lepper & Greene, 1975). However, a recent metaanalysis (Cameron & Pierce, 1994) of the literature on rewards and intrinsic motivation has debunked Lepper and Greene's conclusion that intrinsic motivation is reduced by rewards, at least where such rewards are made contingent on performance or given





24


unexpectedly (Cameron & Pierce, 1994, 1996; Eisenberg & Cameron, 1996; 1998). Thus, expected rewards which are not contingent on performance may have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation (Cameron & Pierce, 1994, 1996; Eisenberg & Cameron 1996,1998). According to Cameron and Pierce's (1994) meta-analysis of over 20 years of research, a tangible reward system that is contingent on performance will not have a negative effect on children's intrinsic motivation. In fact, results of their meta-analysis, including all relevant studies on the topic, indicated that external rewards can be used to maintain or enhance intrinsic motivation in activities. Their results clearly suggested that the negative effects of rewards occur under very limited conditions such as when tangible rewards are given without regard to level of performance. Behavioral Interventions

The principles of reinforcement, extinction, and punishment are the working tools of the early childhood professional in crafting and implementing appropriate behavioral techniques and practices (Schloss & Smith, 1998). Understanding these principles and how to use them appropriately as tools is a first step in understanding the implications that applied behavior analysis has for use in the school setting. Reinforcement

Reinforcement is one of the primary tools of applied behavior analysis. Two

types of reinforcement -- positive and negative -- act to strengthen behaviors (Craighead et al., 1976; Peters et al., 1986; Schloss & Smith, 1998). A particular behavior is said to be positively reinforced when the behavior is followed by the presentation of a reinforcer (e.g., praise, money) which increases the frequency of that particular behavior (Craighead et al., 1976; Martin & Pear, 1988; Peters et al., 1986; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Positive reinforcers may be used to strengthen a variety of behaviors. In contrast, negative





25


reinforcers generally attempt to increase the desired behavior by removing something unpleasant (e.g., escaping an argument, receiving an inferior grade). Reinforcement is also an effective method for reducing inappropriate behavior by reinforcing positive alternatives to the undesired behavior (Webber & Scheuermann, 1991). Research has demonstrated that young children's behaviors, appropriate and inappropriate, increase when they are positively reinforced (Wolery, 1994). Best practice dictates that teachers use a variety of reinforcement procedures to reward and encourage students (Schloss & Smith, 1998). Furthermore, reinforcement is effective in supporting children's development and learning in the early childhood classroom (Wolery, 1994). There are several types of reinforcers that are frequently used by early childhood teachers. Generally, reinforcers can be placed within one of three categories: social, activity, and tangible.

Social Reinforcers. Teachers employ social reinforcers when they use

interpersonal interactions as a reinforcer (Schloss & Smith, 1998). Social reinforcers can be verbal or nonverbal (Alberto & Troutman, 1986; Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991). Some examples of commonly used social reinforcers include praise, hugs, smiles, and pats on the back. Research has demonstrated that social reinforcers are very effective when used appropriately (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991). One of the major advantages of social reinforcers is that they are convenient, practical, and not very intrusive (Alberto & Troutman, 1986; Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991). In addition, social reinforces can be easily paired with other types of reinforcers such as activity and tangible (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991). Social reinforcers are the most frequently employed type of reinforcer





26


in early childhood classrooms. Furthermore, teachers display less resistance to using social reinforcers than activity or tangible reinforcers (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1992).

Activity Reinforcers. Teachers employ activity reinforcers when they use access to an enjoyable activity as a reinforcer (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991). Some examples of commonly used activity reinforcers include extra playground time, being classroom helper or any other special privilege (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991). When teachers utilize activity reinforcers they employ a "special" activity immediately following the behavior they want to increase. Activity reinforcers are the second most frequently employed reinforcer in the early childhood classroom (Alberto & Troutman, 1990). This is because they are less intrusive and more transferable than tangible reinforcers (SulzerAzaroff & Mayer, 1991).

Tangible Reinforcers. Teachers employ tangible reinforcers when they use any material or edible item as a reinforcer (Harlan, 1996). Some commonly used tangible reinforcers in early childhood settings include small prizes, trinkets, toys, tokens, candy and various foods. Tangible reinforcers are often the most powerful type of reinforcer. In fact, when used appropriately they almost always guarantee immediate success (Alberto & Troutman, 1990; O'Leary, Poulos, & Derne, 1972) even when social activity reinforcers have been unsuccessful. Furthermore, tangible reinforcers can be used to modify a variety of behaviors. Unfortunately, tangible reinforcers are very intrusive and often require more teacher time and commitment than social and activity reinforcers. As a result, the use of tangible reinforcers with young children has been highly controversial. They are frequently used as a "last resort" or limited to children with severe behavior problems (Vaughn, Bos, & Schumm, 1997). When used, tangible reinforcers should be





27


paired with social reinforcers. Eventually, after the desired behavior is achieved the tangible reinforcer will then be gradually faded out and the social reinforcer will be the only reinforcer employed.

Punishment

Punishment is another tool used in applied behavior analysis. The technical

definition of punishment differs substantially from the everyday use of the term (Schloss & Smith, 1998; Kazdin, 1994). Punishment is typically defined as providing an unpleasant consequence following misbehavior (Schloss & Smith, 1998). However, the technical definition includes an additional requirement, that the frequency of the responses must be decreased. (Kazdin, 1994). "Punishment in the technical sense is defined solely by the effect on behavior" (Kazdin, 1994, p. 38). It is extremely important that individuals using this technique understand the difference between the technical and popular definitions (Kazdin, 1994; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Just as there are two kinds of reinforcement, positive and negative, there are also two different kinds of punishment, positive and negative (Craighead et al., 1976). A particular behavior is said to be positively punished when the behavior is followed by the presentation of a punisher (e.g., paddling) that decreases the frequency of that particular behavior. In contrast, negative punishers attempt to increase the desired behavior by removing something pleasant (e.g., time-out) (Cantania, 1992; Craighead et al., 1976; Peters et al., 1985; Schloss & Smith, 1998). It is important to note the difference between positive and negative punishment, as they are frequently confused (Craighead et al., 1976). When used appropriately, punishment can be highly effective. However, there are several side effects from punishment that have caused its use in applied settings to be questioned. Some possible side effects include increased emotional responding, avoidance of the punishing agent,





28


and imitation of the use of punishment (Craighead et al., 1976). Furthermore, the ethical use of punishment has been discussed extensively (Schloss & Smith, 1998). Extinction

Extinction is a tool that works in conjunction with reinforcement to achieve the desired objectives of applied behavior analysis. By discontinuing reinforcers, the effect of the reinforcers on the target behavior is reduced and eventually extinguished over time (Kazdin, 1994; Martin & Pear, 1988; Schloss & Smith, 1998). School personnel frequently use extinction to reduce inappropriate and off-task behaviors, particularly where the reinforcers for such maladaptive behavior can be isolated and controlled (Polsgrove & Rieth, 1983). For example, some children engage in maladaptive behavior to attract attention to themselves. If the reinforcer of that behavior, attention, is discontinued, the predicted result would be less of the maladaptive behavior. The discontinuance of the reinforcer can be accomplished by the teacher ignoring the children's behavior. Extinction can thus be an important tool for the interventionist in fashioning strategies for applied behavior analysis.

Conclusion

In recent years, behavioral techniques and practices have been largely criticized by many ECE professionals and have frequently been labeled as developmentally inappropriate (see Duncan et al., 2000). However, many of these professionals have failed to recognize that some of the most effective and widely used techniques and practices in ECE settings are grounded in behavioral theory (Strain et al., 1992; Wolery, 1994; see also Gordan & Browne, 1989; Kazdin, 1977, 1985; Martin & Pear, 1988; Mounts & Roopnarine, 1987; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Furthermore, as reflected in the DAP guidelines (Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997), the appropriateness of






29


certain techniques and practices is measured on a continuum. Therefore, categorical exclusion of one type of technique or practice is inconsistent with developmentally appropriate practice.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate preservice teachers' beliefs about

developmentally appropriate practice, specifically behavioral techniques and practices in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs, and to compare the beliefs between these three groups for the purpose of identifying significant similarities and differences. Specifically, this research study will address the following questions:

1. What beliefs do preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs hold about developmentally appropriate practices?

2. Are there significant differences in beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices between preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs?

3. Are there statistically significant and noteworthy relationships

between beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and individual characteristics (e.g., chronological ages, years of experience) of early childhood preservice teachers?

4. What beliefs do preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs hold about the use of behavioral techniques and practices?





30


5. Are there significant differences in beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices between preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs?

6. Are there statistically significant and noteworthy relationships between beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices and individual characteristics (e.g., chronological ages, years of experience) of early childhood preservice teachers? The study of beliefs between preservice teachers attending ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs on such topics as developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices should help researchers to explore possible areas for preservice teacher preparation program improvement and to understand and identify differences in professional practices. While much remains to be studied about teachers' beliefs and practices, this study will augment the knowledge base and assist others in developing approaches to teacher preparation that are based on actual data and sound theory.














CHAPTER 3
METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Participants, Sampling Procedures, & Setting

Participants in the study were 355 preservice teachers attending 14 different colleges and universities throughout the United States (Midwest = 2; Northeast = 1; South = 9; Southwest = 1; West = 1). The sample consisted of 242 preservice teachers attending early childhood education (ECE) teacher preparation programs, 35 preservice teachers attending early childhood special education (ECSE) teacher preparation programs, and 78 preservice teachers attending unified early childhood (Unified) teacher preparation programs. For the purpose of this study, students receiving dual certification in ECE and ECSE were placed in the Unified group for program of study. Table I summarizes the participants' program of study by university. Description of Programs

The classification of the various programs of study at these universities into three general categories was based on each participant's description of their individual program. However, the principal investigator conducted a rudimentary analysis of the curriculum content of each of these programs for purposes of comparison. Specifically, upper-division courses were classified into curriculum content areas using a modified version of a questionnaire developed by Kemple (1994) (Appendix A). Unfortunately, course descriptions were not available from all of the participating universities. Therefore, the principal investigator classified all courses solely on their title. The information presented in Table 2 is solely for informational purposes, and no conclusions 31





32


were drawn by the principal investigator regarding the content and makeup of the programs. Further analysis of the data is beyond the scope of this study. Individual Participant Characteristics

Participants ranged in age from 18 to 44 years (M _= 22, SD= 3.79), and 98% were female. Of the total participants, 89% described themselves as White, 5% as Hispanic, 4% as Black, and 2% as Other. Most (55%) of the participants were seniors, 43% juniors, 1% sophomores, and 1% freshmen. Ninety-three percent of the participants had at least one prior field placement at the time of the study. A summary of the participants' demographics and placement history, as well as current year of study in their program is included in Table 3. Chi Square analyses were not conducted, because there were too few cases per cell. Too few cases per cell adversely affects the stability of the statistic (Agresti, 1990).





33


Table 1

Participants' Program of Study by University






University Number of Participants
Early Early Unified
Childhood Childhood Early
Education Special Childhood Education Education
Auburn University 39 0 0 East Tennessee State University 0 14 0 Florida Gulf Coast University 18 0 0 Florida State University 58 0 0 Louisiana State University 31 0 0 San Francisco State University 0 2 0 University of Delaware 19 3 6 University of Florida 0 0 64 University of Illinois 19 0 0 University of North Carolina at Chapel 0 0 5
Hill
University of South Florida 49 0 0 University of Tennessee 9 2 3 University of Wisconsin 0 0 5 Utah State 0 0 9










Table 2

Number of Required Courses for Each Degree Program

University Program Child Growth, Family & Curriculum Health, Early Childhood Young Field Misc.
Type Development, & Community Safety, & Professionalism Children Experiences Learning Relations Nutrition with (Including Special Internship) Needs
Auburn* EC 8 1 9 0 3 0 3 0 University (Pre-K
Grade 3)
East ECSE 1 1 4 0 0 2 2 8 Tennessee (K Grade State 12) University

Florida EC 2 1 6 1 2 2 3 0 Gulf Coast (Pre-K University Grade 3)

Florida State EC 2 1 12 0 1 1 0 1 University (Pre-K
Grade 3)

Louisiana EC 2 1 5 0 3 0 4 2 State (Pre-KUniversity Grade 3)

San *** ECSE 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 Francisco (Ages 3-5) State
University

Denotes program on quarter, rather than semester, system.
** Fifth year teacher certification program with internship being done during the graduate year
*** Certificate or add on endorsement program










Table 2--continued

University EC 3 2 7 0 3 2 5 of Delaware (Birth-5)


University ECSE 3 3 7 0 3 1 1 5 of Delaware (Birth
Grade 4)
University Unified 3 3 7 0 3 1 2 9 of Delaware (Birth
Grade 4)
University Unified 4 1 7 0 2 3 2** of Florida (Pre-K 3)

University EC 3 1 9 0 2 1 2 0 of Illinois (Pre-K-3)

University Unified 1 2 2 1 4 0 2 5 of North (Birth K) Carolina at
Chapel Hill

University EC 1 1 5 0 3 0 4 0 of South (Pre-K Florida Grade 3)

University EC 1 0 8 I 0 0 1 2 of (K Grade Tennessee 6)

University ECSE 0 0 4 1 0 4 0** 9 of (Birth Age Tennessee 8)
* Denotes program on quarter, rather than semester, system.
** Fifth year teacher certification program with internship being done during the graduate year
*** Certificate or add on endorsement program










Table 2--continued

University Unified 2 1 12 0 3 1 2 2 of (Birth Tennessee Grade 3) University ECSE 0 2 4 0 1 0 4 0 of (Birth Age Wisconsin 8) Utah State ECSE 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 3
(Birth
Age5)
* Denotes program on quarter, rather than semester, system.
** Fifth year teacher certification program with internship being done during the graduate year
*** Certificate or add on endorsement program





37


Table 3

Participants' Demographics, Placement History, and Current Year of Study by Program Type


Early Early Unified Early Total Childhood Childhood Childhood Education Special
Education

n(%) n (%) n(%) n(%)
Gender
Male 4(1.7%) 1 (2.9%) 3 (3.8%) 8 (2.3%)
Female 238 (98.3%) 33 (94.3%) 75 (96.2%) 346 (97.5%)
Not Reported 0 (0%) 1 (2.(%) 0 (0%) 1 (.3%) Reported Ethnicity
White 222 (91.7%) 32 (91.4%) 61(78.2%) 315 (88.7%)
Hispanic 9 (3.7%) 1 (2.9%) 8 (10.3%) 18 (5.1%) Black 7 (2.9%) 1 (2.9%) 5 (6.4%) 13 (3.7%) Other 4 (1.7%) 1(2.9%) 2 (2.6%) 7 (2.0%)
Not Reported 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (2.6%) 2 (.6%)

Year in Program
Senior 142 (58.7%) 24 (68.6%) 30 (38.5) 196 (55.2%) Junior 95 (39.3%) 8 (22.9%) 48 (61.5%) 151 (42.5%)
Sophomore 4(1.7%) 1(2.9%) 0 (0%) 5 (1.4%)
Freshmen 1 (.4%) 2 (5.7%) 0 (0%) 3 (.8%)

Age
Average 22 25 21 22
Range 18-43 20-44 19-26 18- 44

Ideal Teaching
Setting
Noninclusive 127 (52.5%) 0 (0%) 14 (17.9%) 141 (39.7%)
Special Education 4 (1.7%) 23 (65.7%) 8 (10.3%) 35 (9.9%)
Inclusive 107 (44.2%) 12 (34.3%) 52 (66.7%) 171 (48.2%)
Not Reported 4(1.7%) 0 (0%) 4 (5.1%) 8 (2.3%)





38


Instrumentation

Teacher Beliefs Scale (TBS)

The Teacher Beliefs Scale (TBS) was originally developed by Charlesworth et al. (1991) to reflect the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) guidelines first published in Young Children (1986). Because the original study was a pilot study, the scale was further developed and revised by Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al. (1993). During this revision, a few items were eliminated because they did not load on any component in the first principal components analysis, and the TBS was updated to reflect changes in the (NAEYC) guidelines published in 1987 (Bredekamp, 1987; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993).

The first item on the scale asks respondents to rate in order of importance the

amount of influence various school professionals, state regulations, and parents have on the way a teacher plans and implements instruction. The remainder of the questionnaire consists of 36 items related to developmentally appropriate and developmentally inappropriate belief statements. Participants use a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not Important At All) to 5 (Extremely Important) (Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993). Twenty-two of the items on the TBS represent developmentally appropriate beliefs and 14 of the items represent developmentally inappropriate beliefs. Developmentally inappropriate items are reverse scored during data analysis. All of the TBS items represent areas of kindergarten instruction specified in the NAEYC DAP Guidelines (Bredekamp, 1987; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993).

To examine the content validity of the TBS, as reported by the developers of the questionnaire (Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993), the questionnaire responses were supported by the results of classroom observations using the Instructional





39


Activities Scale (IAS). Twenty participants were selected for classroom observation. Using the IAS, participants were observed for a minimum of 3 hours on 2 different days. The results of this observation were compared with the participants' responses on the TBS (Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993).

To examine construct validity, the developers of the TBS conducted a principal components analysis after the questionnaire had been administered to 204 early childhood teachers. The principal components analysis revealed six components (developmentally inappropriate activities and materials, appropriate social, appropriate individualization, appropriate literacy, appropriate integrated curriculum beliefs, and inappropriate structure) with eigenvalues greater than one. These six components accounted for approximately 53.3% of the item variance (Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993).

Internal consistency was determined using Cronbach's coefficient alpha. The following levels of internal consistency were obtained for items comprising the six components: .84, .77, .70, .60, .66, and .58, respectively (Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993). Internal consistency for the total scale was not reported by Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomassonet al. (1993). Behavioral Beliefs Scale (BBS)

The Behavioral Beliefs Scale (BBS) (Appendix B) was developed by the principal investigator for the purpose of this study. The scale consists of 36 items that are presented in three sections. Section I consists of 8 items related to demographic and educational background information. Section II includes 22 items related to belief statements about behavioral techniques and practices using a 5 point Likert scale with points defined (1) Not Appropriate At All, (2) Not Very Appropriate, (3) Fairly





40


Appropriate, (4) Very Appropriate, and (5) Extremely Appropriate. On each item respondents indicate the level of appropriateness for each teacher belief statement. Section III contains 6 scenarios describing specific behavioral techniques or practices using a 4-point Likert scale with points defined: (1) The technique or practice is very inappropriate, (2) The technique or practice is somewhat inappropriate, (3) The technique or practice is somewhat appropriate, and (4) The technique or practice is very appropriate. For each item respondents indicate the appropriateness of each technique or practice described. In addition, respondents are asked the following questions about each technique or practice presented: (1) Would you use this technique or practice? and (2) Why or why not?

Prior to the study, the BBS was piloted on a sample of 100 preservice teachers. Participants were 11 undergraduate preservice teachers in ECE teacher preparation programs, 19 undergraduate preservice teachers in ECSE teacher preparation programs, and 70 undergraduate and graduate preservice teachers in Unified teacher preparation programs. During this field-test, respondents were asked to identify items that are confusing or posed other problems (see Litwin, 1995). This feedback was to be used for further revision of the questionnaire. However, participants in the study did not provide any suggestions for improvement of the questionnaire.

To examine the content validity of the BBS, it was critically reviewed for content and wording by the principal investigator, a university professor specializing in early childhood education, two university professors specializing in early childhood special education, and a university professor in school psychology specializing in early





41


childhood. Numerous revisions were made where necessary to enhance clarity and consistency.

To further assist in instrument development, an exploratory common factor

(principal axis) analysis was conducted on Section II by the principal investigator using data obtained from a sample of 100 preservice teachers. This sample size was considered adequate given the existence of two distinct factors, a relatively small number of variables, and an adequate factor/variable ratio (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). The initial solution extracted 9 factors based on Kaiser's eigenvalue greater than one rule (Kaiser, 1960). However, an inspection of the scree plot of eigenvalues suggested retaining two factors (Stevens, 1996). The scree test is generally regarded as superior to the eigenvalue greater than one rule in deciding on the number of factors to extract, particularly where the sample size is relatively small (Gorsuch, 1983; Stevens, 1996). Cattell (1966) recommended one should retain those factors that correspond to the eigenvalues left of the elbow of the scree plot. Because the elbow appears to fall between the 2nd and 3rd eigenvalue, only two factors were retained. The table of eigenvalues and scree plot from the initial solution are shown in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.

The factor matrix was rotated obliquely using a Promax rotation, because it was expected that both factors were interrelated. Tables 6, 7, and 8 show the obliquely rotated solution for Factor I, Factor II, and items that did not load on either factor on the BBS, respectively.





42


Table 4

Eigenvalues and Associated Variance for the Initial Principal Axis Factor Solution for the Behavioral Beliefs Scale

Factor Eigenvalue Proportion of Cumulative Proportion Variance of Variance


1 5.036 17.985 17.985 2 2.942 10.507 28.492 3 1.984 7.084 35.576 4 1.737 6.20 41.778 5 1.633 5.833 47.611 6 1.476 5.270 52.881 7 1.288 4.600 57.481 8 1.126 4.020 61.502 9 1.026 3.666 65.167







43 Table 5 Scree Plot for Behavioral Beliefs Scale



Scree Plot

6 5



4 3



2








3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27


Factor Number





44


Table 6

Structure Matrix for Factor I of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale

Item Factor I Factor II


1. It is for teachers to motivate .446 .125
children's learning and behavior through
the careful use of rewards and punishment in the classroom.

2. It is for teachers to use rewards to .612 .068
change behavior.

4. It is for teachers to set class goals .492 .143
for achievement and throw a pizza party
when a predetermined goal is met.

8. It is for teachers to give students .593 .244
prizes (e.g., stickers, toys, trinkets) who
complete their work on time.

10. It is for teachers to grant special .528 .116
privileges (e.g., line leader) to children
who are displaying appropriate
behaviors.

11. It is for teachers to use rewards .600 .126 (e.g., stickers) to enhance children's
internal motivation.

12. It is for teachers to praise students .448 -.060 for appropriate behavior.

13. It is for teachers to promote .588 .243 children's social-emotional development
by using rewards (e.g., stickers).

18. It is for teachers to reward the .520 .026 entire class' appropriate behavior by
granting extra playtime.

20. It is for teachers to promote .446 .-046 children's social-emotional development
by using praise.





45



Table 6--continued

25. It is for teachers to reward .788 .303
appropriate behavior with prizes.



Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. Note. Salient loadings are in boldface





46


Table 7

Structure Matrix for Factor II of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale

Item Factor I Factor II


26. It is __ for teachers to point out and .018 .570
use unpleasant consequences for
aggressive behaviors (e.g., hitting) in
front of the class.

27. It is for teachers to use unpleasant .018 .533
consequences to deter future
misconduct.

28. It is for teachers to point out .219 .512
inappropriate behavior (e.g., breaking classroom rules) in front of the class.

29. It is for teachers to take away .269 .378
privileges for breaking the classroom
rules.
30. It is for teachers to use unpleasant .073 .647
consequences to set an example for
other students.

31. It is for teachers to paddle students -.068 .490
who hit other students.

32. It is for teachers to use unpleasant .280 .498
consequences (e.g., name on board) with
children who don't follow classroom
rules.

33. It is for teachers to paddle students .021 .486
who break classroom rules.



Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. Note. Salient loadings are in boldface





47


Table 8

Structure Matrix for Items Failing to Load on Factors I or II of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale

Item Factor I Factor II


3. It is for teachers to give students .391 .388
candy for participating in activities.

6. It is for teachers to sometimes .202 .142
ignore the behavior of students who are
breaking the rules.

7. It is for teachers to sometimes .167 .150
ignore the behavior of students who are
displaying aggressive behaviors (e.g.,
hitting).

17. It is for teachers to use physical .161 .082
contact (e.g., pats, high fives) to let students know they approve of their
behavior.

19. It is for teachers to use "time-out" .302 .016
for aggressive behaviors (e.g., hitting,
biting).

21. It is for teachers to take away .308 .232
privileges for temper outbursts.

22. It is for teachers to use smiles to let .264 .140
students know they approve of their
behavior.

27. It is for teachers to ignore "acting .179 .041
out" behaviors.

28. It is for teachers to use "time-out" .119 .150
for breaking classroom rules.


Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. Note. Salient loadings are in boldface





48


To identify the salient loadings following oblique rotation, items with factor loadings greater than or equal to 1.40 I were considered to be salient (Stevens, 1999). The initial 2 factor solution, after oblique rotation (conducted to maximize item loadings on one of the 2 factors), had 9 items (6, 7, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 27, 28) that failed to load on either factor. One item (3) nearly loaded on both factors, a solution which did not make sense conceptually. Although 3 items (6, 7, 27) did not load on either factor, the principal investigator with a faculty supervisor made the decision to retain these items on the scale, because they assessed participants' beliefs about extinction (theoretically a third possible factor). Furthermore, it was decided to retain item 15 because of its relatively high loading (.378). From an analysis of the structure matrix, 7 items (3, 17, 19, 21, 22, 28) were removed from the scale. Inspection of the factor correlation matrix indicated that the 2 factors were mildly correlated (r = .244).

After these items were removed, another common factor (principal axis) analysis was conducted, and, again, the factor matrix was rotated obliquely. The second 2 factor solution had 3 items (6, 7, 27) that did not saliently load on either factor. These items (6, 7, 27) were the same three extinction items that did not load on the initial analysis. The principal investigator along with a faculty supervisor made the decision to keep these items. Examination of the factor solutions indicated that the factors appear to represent beliefs about reinforcement and punishment, respectively.

Factor I consisted of 11 items related to beliefs about the use of reinforcement.

Therefore, this factor was labeled reinforcement. Factor II consisted of 7 items related to beliefs on the use of punishment. Therefore, this factor was labeled punishment. These 2 factors accounted for approximately 22 and 13% of the variance, respectively, with a





49


total of 35% of the variance explained by the 2. Tables 9 and 10 shows the loadings of the items that make up Factor I and II, respectively. Table 11 shows the loadings of items that did not factor into either Factor I or II.

The internal consistency of the BBS, including Factors I and II, was established through Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Reliability levels of.70 or higher are generally accepted as representing good reliability (Litwin, 1995). Cronbach's alpha of the total score on Section II (based on all 22 items) was .81. Alphas for the 2 factors within Section II were .83 for Factor I (reinforcement) and .72 for Factor II (punishment). Examination of the individual item-total correlations indicated that all items were keyed in the positive direction (e.g., no need to reverse score any items). These correlations ranged from .14 to .69 indicating much variability in the contributions of each items to the overall reliability of the measure. Alpha for Section III was .49 which suggests unacceptably low reliability. Therefore, it was later dropped from the questionnaire.

During the field pretest, 60 preservice teachers were given the BBS ten days apart. Test-retest reliability for the total score was calculated on Sections II and III by correlating scores of 60 questionnaires across 2 administrations. The correlation on Section II (based on all 22 items) was .74. Specifically, the correlations were .73 on Factor I (reinforcement) and .69 on Factor II (punishment). The correlation on Section III was .71.





50



Table 9

Structure Matrix for Factor I (Reinforcement)

Item Factor I Factor II


1. It is for teachers to motivate .561 .083
children's learning and behavior through
the careful use of rewards and punishment in the classroom.

2. It is for teachers to use rewards to .621 .044
change behavior.

4. It is for teachers to set class goals .496 .210
for achievement and throw a pizza party
when a predetermined goal is met.

8. It is for teachers to give students .642 .212
prizes (e.g., stickers, toys, trinkets) who
complete their work on time.

10. It is for teachers to grant special .543 .124
privileges (e.g., line leader) to children
who are displaying appropriate
behaviors.

11. It is for teachers to use rewards .637 .077
(e.g., stickers) to enhance children's
internal motivation.

12. It is for teachers to praise students .400 .102
for appropriate behavior.

13. It is for teachers to promote .614 .165
children's social-emotional development
by using rewards (e.g., stickers).

18. It is for teachers to reward the .528 .116
entire class' appropriate behavior by
granting extra playtime.





51


Table 9--continued

20. It is for teachers to promote .405 .093
children's social-emotional development
by using praise.
25. It is for teachers to reward .753 .392
appropriate behavior with prizes.



Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. Note. Salient loadings are in boldface





52



Table 10

Structure Matrix for Factor II (Punishment)

Item Factor I Factor II


5. It is for teachers to point out and .085 .530
use unpleasant consequences for
aggressive behaviors (e.g., hitting) in
front of the class.
9. It is for teachers to use unpleasant .079 .513
consequences to deter future
misconduct.

14. It is for teachers to point out .317 .543
inappropriate behavior (e.g., breaking classroom rules) in front of the class.

16. It is for teachers to take away .246 .378
privileges for breaking the classroom
rules.
17. It is for teachers to use unpleasant .195 .590
consequences to set an example for
other students.

23. It is for teachers to paddle students -.055 .587
who hit other students.

24. It is for teachers to use unpleasant 0.27 .493
consequences (e.g., name on board) with
children who don't follow classroom
rules.
26. It is for teachers to paddle students -.065 .559
who break classroom rules.



Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. Note. Salient loadings are in boldface





53


Table 11

Second Structure Matrix for Items Failing to Load on Factors I or II of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale

Item Factor I Factor II


6. It is for teachers to sometimes .172 .240
ignore the behavior of students who are
breaking the rules.

7. It is for teachers to sometimes .200 .046
ignore the behavior of students who are
displaying aggressive behaviors (e.g.,
hitting).

27. It is __ for teachers to ignore "acting .216 .181
out" behaviors.



Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. Note. Salient loadings are in boldface Procedures

The principal investigator identified ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs from which to obtain possible participants. Next, 71 faculty members of these programs were contacted and asked if they would be willing to contact possible participants, and, then, obtain participant consent and administer the TBS and BBS. Upon obtaining permission from faculty members at 14 different colleges and universities, the principal investigator sent each faculty member a packet of envelopes containing the informed consent form, TBS, and BBS. After participants completed the BBS and the TBS, the questionnaires were returned to faculty members in sealed envelopes and then forwarded to the principal investigator for analysis. Of the 576 questionnaires distributed, 355 (62%) were returned.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Teacher Beliefs Scale

Although the developers of the Teacher Beliefs Scale (TBS) and several

subsequent researchers (e.g., Sexton 1999) have calculated reliability estimates for the TBS, the principal investigator estimated the reliability of the TBS based on the responses of the participants in this study. First, the internal consistency of the TBS was established through Cronbach's alpha, a measure of how the individual items complement each other on their measurement of a particular variable. Cronbach's alpha for the TBS (based on items 2-37) was .85. Examination of the individual item-total correlations indicated that all items were keyed in a positive direction and ranged from .09 to .56, indicating much variability in the contributions of each item to the overall reliability of the measure. Overall, alpha for the TBS was sufficiently high to suggest that TBS scores could be used with confidence. Beliefs about Developmentally Appropriate Practices

In order to address what beliefs preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs hold about developmentally appropriate practices, means were computed for items 2-37 of the TBS (item I was not included because it did not assess participants' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practice). Table 11 shows each group's means for each individual item. A comparison of the mean scores of all three groups for individual items in Table 12 reveals that 20 of the 36 items (e.g., 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 18, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 37), including the reverse scored 54





55


items, had mean scores of 4.0 or higher, indicating that beliefs were strongly held. Furthermore, inspection of individual item means by group indicates that mean scores for both the ECE and ECSE groups on 2 additional items (e.g., 14, 30) were 4.0 or higher and mean scores for the ECE group on 3 more additional items (e.g., 2, 4, 11) were 4.0 or higher. Generally, the higher mean scores indicated stronger beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices.

Differences in Beliefs About Developmentally Appropriate Practices

In order to address whether there were significant differences in beliefs about

developmentally appropriate practices between preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE and Unified teacher preparation programs, an one-way, between-subjects Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare the mean scores on the TBS between the three groups to determine if there were significant inter-group differences not attributable to random error. A significant difference was found at the a = .05 level. Mean scores on the TBS for all three groups are presented in Table 13. Results of the ANOVA for the mean scores on the TBS for all three groups are presented in Table 14.

Because an ANOVA involving more than 2 groups does not identify which intergroup differences may be significant, post hoc comparisons must be done. Holding the familywise Type I error rate constant at a= .05, a post hoc comparison of pairwise group differences utilizing the Tukey procedure revealed significant differences between the ECE and ECSE groups, and between the ECE and Unified groups, in their beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices. However, no significant differences were observed between the ECSE and the Unified groups in their beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices at the a = .05 level. The results of the pairwise comparisons are summarized in Table 16.





56


Relationships Between Developmentally Appropriate Practices and Individual
Characteristics

In order to address whether there were statistically significant and noteworthy

relationships between beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and individual characteristics of early childhood teachers, mean TBS total scores were compared for males and females using a t-test. The results did not suggest any significant relationship between gender and total scores (t (350) = -1.384, p > .05). A Pearson product moment correlation was computed for age and TBS total score and indicated no significant relationship (N = 348, r = .095). Finally, an ANOVA was performed to compare the mean scores on the TBS by ethnicity. There were no significant inter-group differences. Results of the ANOVA are presented in Table 15.





57


Table 12

Group Means for Individual Teacher Beliefs Scale Items

Item Early Early Unified Childhood Childhood Early Education Special Childhood Education



2. As an evaluation technique in the 4.43 3.71 3.99
kindergarten program, standardized
group tests are *

3. As an evaluation technique in the 4.72 4.63 4.70
kindergarten program, teacher
observation is

4. As an evaluation technique in the 4.05 3.63 3.74
kindergarten program, performance on worksheets and workbooks is *

5. It is for kindergarten activities to 4.60 4.54 4.51
be responsive to individual differences
in development.

6. It is for kindergarten activities to 4.56 4.43 4.49
be responsive to individual differences
in development.

7. It is that each curriculum area be 4.39 4.11 4.14
taught as separate subjects at separate
times.*

8. It is for teacher-pupil 4.80 4.86 4.88
interactions in kindergarten to help develop children's self-esteem and
positive feelings toward learning.

9. It is for children to be allowed to 4.54 4.43 4.38
select many of their own activities from
a variety of learning areas that the
teacher has prepared (blocks, science
center, etc.)





58


Table 12--continued

10. It is for children to be allowed to 4.51 4.29 4.12
cut their own shapes, perform their own
steps in an experiment, and plan their
own creative drama, art, and writing
activities.

11. It is for students to work silently 4.03 3.79 3.74
and alone on seatwork.*

12. It is for kindergarten to learn 4.78 4.74 4.55
through active exploration.

13. It is for kindergarten to learn 4.85 4.83 4.74
through interaction with other children.

14. Workbooks and/or ditto sheets are 4.26 3.97 4.00
to the kindergarten program.*

15. Flashcards (numbers, letters and/or 3.34 3.17 3.29
words) are to the kindergarten
program for instructional purposes.*

16. The basal reader is to the 3.70 3.09 3.27
kindergarten reading program.*

17. In terms if effectiveness, it is for 3.47 3.09 2.99
the teacher to talk to the whole group
and make sure everyone participants in
the same activity.*

18. In terms of effectiveness, it is 4.71 4.69 4.61
for the teacher to move among groups and individuals, offering suggestions,
asking questions, and facilitating
children's involvement with materials
and activities.

19. It is for teachers to use their 3.78 2.86 2.84
authority through treats, stickers, and/or
stars to encourage appropriate
behavior.*





59


Table 12--continued

20. It is for teachers to use their 3.87 3.80 3.57
authority through punishments and/or reprimands to encourage appropriate
behavior.*

21. It is for children to be involved 4.40 4.26 4.25
in establishing rules for the classroom.

22. It is for children to be instructed 2.75 2.60 2.41
in recognizing the single letters of the
alphabet, isolated from words.*

23. It is for children to color within 3.99 3.60 3.88
predefined lines.*

24. It is for children in kindergarten 3.46 3.43 3.43
to form letters correctly on a printed
line.

25. It is for children to have stories 4.77 4.57 4.75
read to them individually and/or on a
group basis.

26. It is for children to dictate stories 4.20 4.23 4.08
to the teacher.

27. It is for children to see and use 4.55 4.29 4.32
functional print (telephone books,
magazines, etc) and environmental print
(cereal boxes, potato chip bags, etc) in
the kindergarten classroom.

28. It is for children to participate in 4.75 4.51 4.58
dramatic play.

29. It is for children to talk 4.50 4.26 4.50
informally with adults.





60


Table 12--continued

30. It is for children to experiment 4.42 3.91 4.20
with writing by inventing their own
spelling.

31. It is to provide many 4.85 4.77 4.82
opportunities to develop social skills
with peers in the classroom.

32. It is for kindergartners to learn to 2.62 2.89 2.91
read.*

33. In the kindergarten program, it is 3.92 3.54 3.54
that math be integrated with all
the curriculum areas.


34. In teaching health and safety, it is 4.43 4.46 4.42
to include a variety of activities
throughout the school year.

35. In the classroom setting, it is for 4.75 4.57 4.74
the child to be exposed to multicultural
and nonsexist activities.

36. It is that outdoor time have 3.27 2.94 2.8
planned activities.

37. Input from parents is 4.70 4.77 4.75



* Developmentally inappropriate item that was reverse-scored.





61


Table 13

Mean Total Scores for Teacher Beliefs Scale


Early Childhood Early Childhood Unified
Education Special Education Early Childhood M 150.27 143.97 142.90




Table 14

Summary ANOVA Table for Teacher Beliefs Scale Source df SS MS F p Group 2 3819.379 1909.690 10.466* .000 Error 350 63862.066 182.463


* p <.05





62


Table 15

Pairwise Comparisons for Teacher Beliefs Scale

Program of Study Program of Study Mean Difference Std. Error p Unified EC -7.3778* 1.7683 .000 ECSE -1.0753 2.7537 .919 EC Unified 7.3778* 1.7683 .000 ECSE 6.3024* 2.4434 .027 ECSE Unified 1.0753 2.7537 .919 EC -6.3024* 2.4434 .027


* p <.05



Table 16

Summary ANOVA Table for Teacher Beliefs Scale Total Scores and Ethnicity Source df SS MS F p



Group 3 816.880 272.293 1.418* .237 Error 347 66618.860 191.985


* 1 > .05


Behavioral Beliefs Scale

Although reliability estimates were initially calculated during the development of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale (BBS) based on the pilot study, the principal investigator again estimated the reliability of the BBS based on the data collected for this study.





63


Again, Cronbach's alpha was calculated to measure the internal consistency. Cronbach's alpha for Section II (items 1 through 22) was .79. Alphas for the 2 identified factors within Section II were .77 for Factor I (reinforcement) and .72 for Factor II (punishment). Examination of the individual item-total correlations indicated that all items were keyed in the positive direction and ranged from .13 to .58, indicating much variability in the contributions of each item to the overall reliability of the measure. Beliefs about Behavioral Techniques and Practices

In order to address what beliefs preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs hold about the use of behavioral techniques and practices, mean scores were computed for each group for each of the items contained in Section II of the BBS. Table 16 summarizes the mean scores for each group by item. A comparison of the group means for individual items in Table 17 indicates that all three groups rated 2 items (e.g., 11, 17) 4.0 or higher, suggesting that beliefs range from "Very Appropriate" to "Extremely Appropriate." Furthermore, inspection of individual item means by group indicates that both the ECSE and Unified groups rated 1 additional item (e.g., 16) at 4.0 or higher. Inspection of the chart indicates that many additional items were rated at 3.0 (Fairly Appropriate) or higher. Differences in Beliefs about Behavioral Techniques and Practices

In order to address whether there were significant differences in beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices between preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs, an one-way, between-groups ANOVA was conducted to compare the mean scores on the BBS between the three groups to determine if there were significant inter-group differences not attributable to random error. A significant difference was found at the a = .05 level on Section II of the BBS, and Factor





64


I of Section II of the BBS. No significant differences between group means at the a = .05 level were found on Factor II (punishment) of Section II of the BBS, F(2, 352) = 1.054, p = .350. Mean scores of the BBS on Section II, Factor I (reinforcement) of Section II, and Factor II (punishment) of Section II for each of the three groups are presented in tables, 18, 19, 20, respectively. Results of the ANOVAs calculated on the mean scores of the BBS on Section II, Factor I (reinforcement) of Section II, and Factor II (punishment) of Section II for each of the three groups are presented in Tables 21, 22, and 23, respectively.

Because an ANOVA involving more than 2 groups does not identify which intergroup differences may be significant, post hoc comparisons must be done. Holding the familywise Type I error rate constant at a=.05, a post hoc comparison of pairwise group differences utilizing the Tukey procedure revealed significant differences between the ECE and ECSE groups, and between the ECE and Unified groups, in their beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices. However, no significant differences were observed between the ECSE and the Unified groups in their beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices at the a = .05 level. The results of the pairwise comparisons are summarized in Table 24.

A post hoc comparison utilizing the Tukey procedure for pairwise comparisons on Factor I (reinforcement) of Section II of the BBS revealed significant differences between the ECE and Unified groups, and the ECE and ECSE group, in their beliefs about reinforcement. However, no other significant inter-group differences were observed for Factor I (reinforcement) at the a =.05 level. The results of the pairwise comparisons are summarized in Table 25.





65


No post hoc comparison was conducted on Factor II (punishment) of Section II of the BBS, because, as indicated earlier, the ANOVA did not reveal any significant differences between the three groups.

Relationships Between Behavioral Techniques and Practices and Individual
Characteristics

In order to address whether there were statistically significant and noteworthy relationships between beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices and individual characteristics of early childhood preservice teachers, mean BBS total scores were compared for males and females using a t-test. The results did not suggest any significant relationship between gender and total scores (t (352) = .228, p > .05). A Pearson product-moment correlation was computed for age and BBS total scores and indicated no significant relationship (N = 350, r = -.011). Finally, an one-way, between groups ANOVA was performed to compare the mean scores on the BBS by ethnicity. There were no significant inter-group differences. Results of the ANOVA are presented in Table 26.





66


Table 17

Group Means for Individual Behavioral Beliefs Scale Items

Item Early Early Unified Childhood Childhood Early Education Special Childhood Education


1. It is for teachers to motivate 2.93 3.59 3.56
children's learning and behavior through
the careful use of rewards and punishment in the classroom.

2. It is for teachers to use rewards to 2.65 3.31 3.24
change behavior.

3. It is for teachers to set class goals 3.20 3.40 3.54
for achievement and throw a pizza party
when a predetermined goal is met.

4. It is for teachers to point out and 1.74 1.74 1.92
use unpleasant consequences for
aggressive behaviors (e.g., hitting) in
front of the class.

5. It is for teachers to sometimes 2.35 2.37 2.14
ignore the behavior of students who are
breaking the rules.

6. It is for teachers to sometimes 1.40 1.43 1.35
ignore the behavior of students who are
displaying aggressive behaviors (e.g.,
hitting).

7. It is __ for teachers to give students 2.43 3.17 2.94
prizes (e.g., stickers, toys, trinkets) who
complete their work on time.

8. It is __ for teachers to use unpleasant 2.63 2.88 2.88
consequences to deter future
misconduct.





67


Table 17--continued

9. It is for teachers to grant special 3.51 3.77 3.83
privileges (e.g., line leader) to children
who are displaying appropriate
behaviors.

10. It is for teachers to use rewards 2.88 3.51 3.49
(e.g., stickers) to enhance children's
internal motivation.

11. It is for teachers to praise students 4.33 4.74 4.65
for appropriate behavior.

12. It is for teachers to promote 2.63 3.29 3.17
children's social-emotional development
by using rewards (e.g., stickers).

13. It is for teachers to point out 2.21 2.17 2.17
inappropriate behavior (e.g., breaking classroom rules) in front of the class.

14. It is for teachers to take away 3.38 3.77 3.51
privileges for breaking the classroom
rules.

15. It is for teachers to use unpleasant 2.20 2.38 2.29
consequences to set an example for
other students.

16. It is for teachers to reward the 3.60 4.03 4.04
entire class' appropriate behavior by
granting extra playtime.

17. It is for teachers to promote 4.22 4.54 4.48
children's social-emotional development
by using praise.

18. It is for teachers to paddle students 1.07 1.17 1.04
who hit other students.

19. It is for teachers to use unpleasant 2.24 2.46 2.55
consequences (e.g., name on board) with
children who don't follow classroom
rules.





68



Table 17--continued

20. It is for teachers to reward 2.62 3.14 3.23
appropriate behavior with prizes.

21. It is for teachers to paddle students 1.06 1.17 1.05
who break classroom rules.

22. It is for teachers to ignore "acting 2.21 2.50 2.09
out" behaviors.





Table 18

Mean Total Scores for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Section II

Early Childhood Early Childhood Unified
Education Special Education Early Childhood M 57.29 64.11 62.61




Table 19

Mean Total Scores for Factor I (Reinforcement) of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale

Early Childhood Early Childhood Unified
Education Special Education Early Childhood M 34.88 40.29 40.01





69


Table 20

Mean Scores for Factor II (Punishment) of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale

Early Childhood Early Childhood Unified
Education Special Education Early Childhood M 13.12 13.83 13.65





Table 21

Summary ANOVA Table for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Section II Source df SS MS F P



Group 2 2640.709 1320.354 15.525* .000 Error 352 29937.331 85.049



* p <.05.





70


Table 22

Summary ANOVA Table for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Factor I (Reinforcement) of Section II


Source df SS MS F p Group 2 2095.183 1047.591 25.318* .000 Error 352 14564.89 41.378



* p < .05



Table 23

Summary ANOVA Table for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Factor II (Punishment) of Section II

Source df SS MS F p Group 2 27.382 13.691 1.054** .350 Error 352 4572.150 12.989



** p> .05





71


Table 24

Pairwise Comparisons for Section II of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale

Program of Study Program of Study Mean Difference Std. Error p Unified ECE 5.3303* 1.2008 .000 ECSE -1.4989 1.8763 .704 ECE Unified -5.3303* 1.2008 .000 ECSE -6.8292* 1.6678 .000 ECSE Unified 1.4989 1.8763 .704 ECE 6.8292* 1.6678 .000


* p_<.05.



Table 25

Pairwise Comparisons for Factor I (Reinforcement) of Section II of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale

Program of Study Program of Study Mean Difference Std. Error p Unified ECE 5.1285* .8375 .000 ECSE -.2729 1.3087 .976 ECE Unified -5.1285* .8375 .000 ECSE -5.4014* 1.1633 .000 ECSE Unified .2729 1.3087 .976 ECE 5.4014 1.1633 .000


* o<.05





72




Table 26

Summary ANOVA Table for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Total Scores and Ethnicity Source df SS MS F p


Group 3 296.045 98.682 1.072* .361 Error 349 32126.190 92.052


* p > .05


Summary

An analysis of the data gathered from each of three teacher preparation programs led to 6 general findings about preservice teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices. First, the study found that preservice teachers in each of the teacher preparation programs held relatively strong beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices. Second, significant differences in beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices were observed between preservice teachers in the ECE and ECSE programs and between the ECE and Unified programs. However, no significant differences were observed between the ECSE and the Unified groups in their beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices. Third, no statistically significant and noteworthy relationships between beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and individual characteristics (i.e., sex, chronological age, ethnicity) of early childhood preservice teachers were identified. Fourth, the study found that preservice teachers in each of the teacher preparation programs did not hold strong beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices. Fifth,





73


significant differences in beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices were observed between preservice teachers in the ECE and ECSE groups and between the ECE and Unified groups. However, no significant differences were observed between the ECSE and the Unified groups in their beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices. Finally, no statistically significant and noteworthy relationships between beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices and individual characteristics (i.e., sex, chronological age, ethnicity) of early childhood preservice teachers were identified.













CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Introduction

Educational philosophy and practice have historically differed between early

childhood education (ECE) and early childhood special education (ECSE) (Bredekamp, 1993; Burton et al., 1992; Wolery & Wilbers, 1994), with ECE being traditionally grounded in constructivism and ECSE being traditionally grounded in behaviorism (Smith & Bredekamp, 1998; see also Wolery et al., 1994; Wolery & Wilbers, 1994). The recent trend towards greater inclusion has increased the number of children with special needs in ECE classrooms, resulting in the need for professionals from a variety of fields to work together. With this greater inclusion has come a blending of techniques and practices from different fields and at other times friction and heated debates (Smith & Bredekamp, 1998; see also Bredekamp, 1993; Carta, 1991; Carta 1993; Carta et al., 1994; Carta et al., 1995; Johnson & Johnson, 1992; Johnson & Johnson, 1993; Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Kilgo et al., 1999). Since research indicates that teachers' beliefs largely influence their behavior in the classroom (Bloom; 1992; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, & DeWolf, 1993; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Dunn & Kontos, 1997; Hyson, Hirsch-Pasek, & Rescola, 1990; Fang, 1996; Isenberg, 1996; Munby, 1982; Smith, 1992), exploring some of the similarities and differences in beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices among preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs may assist in curriculum development and training



74





75


as well as continuing education for inservice teachers (see Tatto, 1998). Moreover, an understanding of such differences may help teacher preparation programs bridge the gap between these traditionally different disciplines. Thus, the first goal of this study was assess and evaluate ECE, ECSE, and Unified preservice teachers beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices.

A second goal of this study was the piloting, development, and testing of an

instrument used to assess beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices. To this end, the Behavioral Beliefs Scale (BBS) was developed to assess beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices, and its reliability was tested. Moreover, a comparison of responses on the Teacher Beliefs Scale (TBS) between types of preservice teachers was intended to add to the developing body of research surrounding the TBS.

Beliefs About Developmentally Appropriate Practices

An analysis of the data gathered from three types of teacher preparation programs led to three general findings about preservice teachers and their beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices. The results of this study suggested that, in general, preservice teachers in each of the three groups held strong beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices. The mean scores for a majority of the items, including the reverse-scored items, were in excess of 4.0 (the practice was very important), with only slight differences in responses by training program type. However, preservice teachers in ECE training programs held the strongest beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices, having mean scores in excess of 4.0 on 25 out of 36 items, suggesting that these preservice teachers have extremely strong beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices.





76


In addition to the strength of beliefs, significant differences in beliefs were

observed between preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs. In particular, preservice teachers in ECE teacher preparation programs held significantly different beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices from preservice teachers in ECSE and Unified teacher preparation programs. With nearly all of the participants being juniors and seniors (97.7%) in teacher preparation programs, some differences in beliefs may be attributable to differences in training, particularly since no demographic characteristics were determined to have significant relationships with beliefs.

Given that ECE teacher preparation programs have historically been rooted in constructivism, the fact that ECE preservice teachers held stronger beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices than ECSE preservice teachers who have not been typically rooted in constructivism, was not surprising. Furthermore, as indicated earlier, the Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) Guidelines were developed and published by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), the largest organization of ECE professionals. It was somewhat surprising that preservice teachers in ECE teacher preparation programs differed significantly from preservice teachers in Unified teacher preparation programs, because Unified teacher preparation programs draw upon philosophy and practice from the field of ECE (Burton et al., 1992; Gargiulo, Sluder, & Streitenberger, 1997). It was anticipated that preservice teachers in Unified teacher preparation programs would hold beliefs very similar to those of ECE preservice teachers -- that is, strong beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices. The observed differences between the two groups suggests that Unified programs may be





77


more closely patterned after ECSE programs than ECE programs, or, alternately, that ECE programs may simply differ from the others only in the limited areas addressed by this study. Also, the observed differences may have been attributable to the way in which the participating programs were classified or labeled. In addition, what may have been more surprising is how strong ECSE preservice teachers beliefs were about developmentally appropriate practices. Perhaps, the most significant conclusion to be drawn from these unanticipated differences is that further research might be warranted.

The results of this study also suggested that no significant relationships existed between demographic characteristics -- gender, age, ethnicity -- and beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices. Given this finding, it is possible that observed differences in beliefs were attributable to differences in program type, and thus, training. However, one might hypothesize that individuals in teacher preparation programs have pre-existing beliefs that make them more compatible with the teacher preparation program they select. However, this study tends not to support this hypothesis because most of the data comes from universities with only one type (i.e., ECE, ECSE, or Unified) of early childhood teacher preparation program, suggesting that students could not choose one program over another.

As indicated earlier, a secondary goal of this study was to further investigate the value of a questionnaire used to assess early childhood teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices. While a detailed analysis of the TBS was outside the scope of this study, the TBS was easy to use and was found to have satisfactory reliability, confirming other studies on the TBS (see Charlesworth, Hart, Burts,





78


Thomasson et al., 1993; Sexton, 1998). No significant problems or flaws with this instrument were noted.

Beliefs about Behavioral Techniques and Practices

Unlike the strength of participants' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices, the results from the administration of the BBS suggested that preservice teachers attending all three training programs did not hold extremely strong beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices. Preservice teachers attending all three training programs only endorsed a small number of behavioral techniques and practices as very appropriate to extremely appropriate when compared to the number of endorsed belief statements about developmentally appropriate practices. Only mean scores for 2 out of 22 items were in excess of 4.0 (indicating that the technique or practice was very appropriate), with slight differences in responses by training program type. Specifically, preservice teachers in ECSE and Unified teacher preparation programs on average rated only 1 additional item as very appropriate. Given that ECSE teacher preparation programs have been historically "rooted" in behaviorism, it was anticipated that more items would be endorsed as very appropriate or extremely appropriate by ECSE preservice teachers. In summary, overall stronger response (e.g., stronger beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices) was expected of ECSE preservice teachers than was actually observed.

Results of this study further suggested that significant differences existed in

preservice teachers' beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices in ECE, ECSE, and Unified Teacher preparation programs. Specifically, beliefs held by preservice teachers in ECE teacher preparation programs differed significantly from beliefs held by preservice teachers in ECSE and Unified training programs. Preservice teachers in ECE





79


teacher preparation programs did not endorse as many beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices as preservice teachers in ECSE and Unified teacher preparation programs. This finding was anticipated given the historical foundations of the two disciplines (see Smith & Bredekamp, 1998; Wolery et al., 1994; Wolery & Wilbers, 1994). Unified teacher preparation programs draw upon philosophy and practice from the fields of ECE and ECSE (Burton et al., 1992; Gargiulo, Sluder, & Streitenberger, 1997). Therefore, it was not surprising that preservice teachers in Unified teacher preparation programs endorsed more behavioral techniques and practices than those preservice teachers attending ECE teacher preparation programs.

Results of the analysis on each of the two factors on the BBS (i.e., reinforcement and punishment) suggested that there were significant differences in beliefs about reinforcement between the three training programs. Beliefs of preservice teachers in ECE teacher preparation programs differed significantly from those preservice teachers in ECSE and Unified teacher preparation programs. However, there were no significant differences between the three groups in beliefs about punishment. Data analysis indicated that, generally, all three groups did not endorse the use of punishment or unpleasant consequences with young children. In recent years, many forms of punishment in the classroom (e.g., paddling, other techniques that might be construed as humiliating) have been discouraged because of liability issues and for ethical reasons (Deitz & Repp, 1983; Kazdin, 1978; 1994; Martin & Pear, 1988; Polsgrove & Reith, 1993; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Furthermore, the DAP Guidelines also discourage the use of punishment (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Perhaps, due to these problems and





80


changes in society's expectations regarding the treatment of children, all three types of teacher education programs have begun to discourage the use of punishment.

Finally, there were no significant relationships between sex and beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices, age and beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices, and ethnicity and beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices.

Results of the pilot study on 100 preservice teachers indicated that the BBS has satisfactory reliability. Furthermore, the data gathered on 355 preservice teachers indicated that the BBS has satisfactory reliability and appears to be a promising instrument for use in behavioral beliefs assessment.

Implications for Practice

The results of this study suggest that preservice teachers in ECSE and Unified teacher preparation programs hold similar beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices. However, this study found that preservice teachers in ECE programs held significantly different beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices when compared with preservice teachers in ECSE and Unified teacher training programs.

Given findings of this study and the trend towards greater inclusion of young children with special needs in early childhood settings, it is even more important that professionals in the fields of ECE and ECSE work together to identify commonalities and resolve differences in order to successfully meet the needs of typically and atypically developing children. Teacher educators in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs may need to reconsider ways programs can be restructured so that significant differences in training no longer exist between the three program types. Collaboration between these teacher educators needs to occur with greater frequency despite the





81


departmentalization of most colleges and schools of education, many of which still maintain physically segregated facilities for different programs (Winn & Blanton, 1997).

The wide range of beliefs evident in this study suggests that the goals of unifying ECE and ECSE education have not been fully realized at the major institutions participating in this study, particularly at the philosophical level. Perhaps the adage, "old habits die hard" reflects how slowly institutional change occurs compared to theoretical or legal changes. The key to resolving the differences between ECE and ECSE in a meaningful way may be for teacher educators to recognize the merits of various philosophical orientations and expose students to them. Unified teacher preparation programs have attempted to do just this by blending the disciplines of ECE and ECSE in a formal way. However, the concept of combining two different disciplines is still relatively new and many Unified programs are still undergoing tremendous change. Similarly, in the classroom, new and emerging roles for ECSE teachers are being developed; many find that they are working in ECE classrooms or consulting with ECE teachers more and more (See Buysee & Wesley, 1993).

Assuming that teachers' beliefs do sometimes influence teacher practice, as some research suggests, school district administrators must begin to consider how teachers' beliefs can be modified so that teachers feel comfortable using a wide variety of practices with the children in their class, including developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices. One way administrators may begin to assist teachers in modifying their current beliefs is inservice training programs. Research concerning the alteration of beliefs has suggested that beliefs are more amenable to change when teachers are shown that particular practices are effective. Therefore, inservice training





82


aimed at demonstrating the effectiveness of developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices may be a useful tool in attempting to effectuate changes in teachers' beliefs (Dunn & Kontos, 1997). However, failure of the training to demonstrate the effectiveness of the practice may only reinforce existing beliefs.

There is much that remains unknown about teachers' beliefs and how these beliefs influence practice. What has become clear, after considering the results of this study, is that teacher educators must continue to work together across the fields of ECE and ECSE to improve the quality of teaching, classroom management, and education for all children, including those with special needs.

Limitations of the Study

One limitation of this study is that all beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices were self-reported. Thus, there is no evidence to suggest that participants' actual teaching practices would reflect their reported beliefs. However, there is some research that suggests a moderate relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices (Dunn & Kontos, 1997; Charelsworth et a., 1993, Hyson et al., 1990).

A second limitation of this study is the relatively small sample (N = 35) size of ECSE preservice teachers. The majority of this study's sample consisted of preservice teachers in ECE and Unified teacher preparation programs. However, harmonic means were used when means between the three groups were compared.

A third limitation of this study is that that participants' teacher preparation

programs were not critically examined and analyzed. Therefore, no clear conclusions can be drawn about the curriculum content of each of the three program types. In addition,





83


the classification of programs into the three types used in this study is not exact and program type may more appropriately be viewed on a continuum.

A fourth limitation of this study is that the BBS is a relatively new instrument. Although information gathered on reliability and validity are encouraging, additional studies need to be conducted.

Areas of Future Research

Areas of future research might include conducting additional studies investigating preservice teachers' or practicing teachers' beliefs using the BBS. These studies might also include the use of multiple measures (e.g., questionnaires, observations, interviews). The use of multiple measures would provide researchers with insight into the ways in which beliefs coincide with teacher practices. Furthermore, it would be interesting to see if the results of this study could be replicated on another sample of preservice teachers attending ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs.

Other areas of future research might also focus on how teachers' beliefs change over time. This might include a study of beliefs of persons entering teacher preparation programs, as well as a study of beliefs held by persons after teaching a few years. The participants in this study could be closely followed during their first few years of teaching. Furthermore, teachers' practices could be examined to see if they are closely aligned with their beliefs.

Future research studies might also consider evaluating practicing teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices (see Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993; Sexton, 1998) and behavioral techniques and practices. The results of such a study could be compared to this study and other studies on the TBS to examine a variety of constructs. This might include examining the relationship between teachers' beliefs





84


about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices and variables such as educational level, employment area, and years of teaching experience. Also, variables particular to practicing teachers such as demands of the school environment could also be factored into determining the extent that beliefs influence practice. Moreover, conclusions concerning training effects between types of programs could be further expanded.

In addition to future research on preservice and inservice teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices, research evaluating the beliefs of teacher educators in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs is also warranted. Such research may further develop whether observed differences in preservice teachers' beliefs are attributable to differences in training. Moreover, such research may further develop why differences in beliefs between preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE and Unified programs were found to exist.

As discussed in Chapter 2, research suggests that teachers' practices are not

always reflective of their beliefs. Research aimed at understanding the conditions and reasons for such divergence may be useful in understanding how to encourage the use of developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices, despite a wide variety of beliefs concerning those practices. Furthermore, research into teacher motivation and temperament may also contribute to this field of study.














APPENDIX A EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM DESCRIPTION MODIFIED QUESTIONNAIRE University or College: I. Child Growth, Development, and Learning (Principals of child growth and
development, developmental diversity, psychological foundations of early
childhood (ECE))

Course Title














II. Family and Community Relations (Understanding of the role of the family and
community, ability to cooperate with the family and community systems)

Course Title
















85





86


III. Curriculum Development, Content, and Implementation (Planning and
implementing, evaluating appropriate content and methods; selecting materials;
creating the learning environment; planning for special needs; observing,
recording and assessing behavior)

Course Title














IV. Health, Safety, and Nutrition (Basic health, nutrition, and safety management
procedures; health appraisal and referral; identification and correction of hazards)

Course Title






87


V. Early Childhood Professionalism (Value issues and legal issues; advocacy;
philosophy of ECE, historical, philosophical, and social foundations of ECE;
working with colleagues; career-long growth and development)

Course Title















VI. Young Children with Special Needs

Course Title





88


VII. Young Children with Special Needs

Course Title















VIII. Field Experiences

Supervised practicum as a classroom assistant prior to student teaching (student
is directly supervised by a college/university supervisor, and there is planned
communication between college/university supervisor and staff at the practicum
site.







Supervised student teaching (student is directly supervised by a college/university
supervisor, and there is planned communication between the college/university
supervisor and the staff at the practicum site)







VII. Other program requirements





89


IX. Does your institution operate on a quarter system or semester system (please circle one)

QUARTER SEMESTER X. What is the title of the program which you have just described?



XI. What is the name of the department in which the program is offered?



XII. Is this department part of the school or college within your institution (e.g.
College of Education, College of Consumer and Family Science)? If so, please
name.



XIII. Is the early childhood teacher preparation program which you have just described
(please check):

Regular Early Childhood

Early Childhood Special Education

Unified Early Childhood and Early Childhood Special Education















APPENDIX B BEHAVIORAL BELIEFS SCALE (BBS)

Your professional cooperation in completing this questionnaire will help all educators gain a better understanding of preservice teachers' beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices used in many early childhood settings. This is not a test; there are no right or wrong answers. Your opinion will be strictly confidential. Please give an independent reaction on each item.

Name:

Please respond to each item:

1. Your program of study (check one)
Unified (Combined) Early Childhood Education and Early Childhood Special Education
_ Early Childhood Education
Early Childhood Special Education
Other (please describe)

2. Your present year of study in your current program (check one)
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior Senior
Graduate Student in Master's in a 5th Year Preservice Program
Graduate Student in Master's Certification Program
Other (please describe)

3. Your age

4. The grade levels at which you have had field placements (check all that apply)
None
Preschool
Kindergarten
First Grade
Second Grade
Third Grade
Other (please describe)

5. The grade level you ideally would like to teach (check one)
Preschool First Grade Third Grade
Kindergarten Second Grade Other (please describe)90






91



6. The setting you ideally like to teach in (check one)

Noninclusive Regular Education Special Education Inclusive

7. Your sex (circle one) M F

8. Your ethnicity (check one)
White Black Other (please describe)
-Hispanic American Indian Please complete this section of the questionnaire by circling the response on the following continuous scale that most nearly reflects YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS about the appropriateness of the item in early childhood settings.

1 2 3 4 5
Not Appropriate Not Very Fairly Very Extremely At All Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate

1. It is for teachers to motivate children's learning and behavior 1 2 3 4 5
through the careful use of rewards and punishment in the classroom.

2. It is for teachers to use rewards to change behavior. 1 2 3 4 5 3. It is for teachers to set class goals for achievement and throw a 1 2 3 4 5
pizza party when a predetermined goal is met.

4. It is __ for teachers to point out and use unpleasant consequences for 1 2 3 4 5
aggressive behaviors (e.g., hitting) in front of the class.

5. It is for teachers to sometimes ignore the behavior of students who 1 2 3 4 5
are breaking the rules.

6. It is for teachers to sometimes ignore the behavior of students who 1 2 3 4 5
are displaying aggressive behaviors (e.g., hitting).

7. It is for teachers to give students prizes (e.g., stickers, toys, 1 2 3 4 5
trinkets) who complete their work on time.

8. It is for teachers to use unpleasant consequences to deter future 1 2 3 4 5
misconduct.

9. It is __ for teachers to grant special privileges (e.g., line leader) to 1 2 3 4 5
children who are displaying appropriate behaviors.

10. It is for teachers to use rewards (e.g., stickers) to enhance 1 2 3 4 5
children's internal motivation.

1 1. It is for teachers to praise students for appropriate behavior. 1 2 3 4 5





92



1 2 3 4 5
Not Appropriate Not Very Fairly Very Extremely
At All Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate


12. It is for teachers to promote children's social-emotional 1 2 3 4 5
development by using rewards (e.g., stickers).

13. It is for teachers to point out inappropriate behavior (e.g., breaking 1 2 3 4 5
classroom rules) in front of the class.

14. It is for teachers to take away privileges for breaking the classroom 1 2 3 4 5
rules.

15. It is for teachers to use unpleasant consequences to set an example 1 2 3 4 5
for other students.

16. It is for teachers to reward the entire class' appropriate behavior by 1 2 3 4 5
granting extra playtime.

17. It is for teachers to promote children's social-emotional 1 2 3 4 5
development by using praise.

18. It is for teachers to paddle students who hit other students. 1 2 3 4 5 19. It is for teachers to use unpleasant consequences (e.g., name on 1 2 3 4 5
board) with children who don't follow classroom rules.

20. It is for teachers to reward appropriate behavior with prizes. 1 2 3 4 5 21. It is for teachers to paddle students who break classroom rules. 1 2 3 4 5 22. It is for teachers to ignore "acting out" behaviors. 1 2 3 4 5




Full Text

PAGE 1

PRESERVICE TEACHERS' BELIEFS ABOUT DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICES AND BEHAVIORAL TECHNIQUES AND PRACTICES IN EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS By TASHAWNA KAY DUNCAN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2000

PAGE 2

Copyright 2000 by Tashawna Kay Duncan

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF TABLES v ABSTRACT vii CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction 1 Purpose of the Study 2 Importance to Teacher Education 3 Research Questions 4 Summary and Overview of Remaining Chapters 5 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6 Introduction to Teachers' BeHefs 6 Research on Teachers' Beliefs 7 Acquisition of Beliefs 7 Perseverance of Beliefs 8 Influence on Practice 9 Study of Beliefs 10 Early Childhood Teacher Preparation Programs 1 1 Early Childhood Education Teacher Preparation Programs 11 Early Childhood Special Education Teacher Preparation Programs 12 Unified Early Childhood Teacher Preparation Programs 12 Differences in Early Childhood Education and Early Childhood Special Education Teacher Training Programs' Practices, Goals, and Outcomes 14 Developmentally Appropriate Practice 15 Behavioral Techniques and Practices 18 Applied Behavior Analysis in the Early Childhood Classroom 20 Advantages for Classroom Application 20 Criticisms for Classroom Application 21 Behavioral Interventions 24 Reinforcement 24 Punishment 27 Extinction 28 Conclusion 28 iii

PAGE 4

3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES 3 1 Participants, Sampling Procedures, & Setting 31 Description of Programs 31 Individual Participant Characteristics 32 Instrumentation 38 Teacher Beliefs Scale (TBS) 38 Behavioral Beliefs Scale (BBS) 39 Procedures 53 4 RESULTS 54 Teacher Beliefs Scale 54 Beliefs about Developmentally Appropriate Practices 54 Differences in Beliefs About Developmentally Appropriate Practices 55 Relationships Between Developmentally Appropriate Practices and Individual Characteristics 56 Behavioral Beliefs Scale 62 Beliefs about Behavioral Techniques and Practices 63 Differences in Beliefs about Behavioral Techniques and Practices 63 Relationships Between Behavioral Techniques and Practices and Individual Characteristics 65 Summary 72 5 DISCUSSION 74 Introduction 74 Beliefs About Developmentally Appropriate Practices 75 Beliefs about Behavioral Techniques and Practices 78 Implications for Practice 80 Limitations of the Study 82 Areas of Future Research 83 APPENDICES A EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM DESCRIPTION — MODIFIED QUESTIONNAIRE 85 B BEHAVIORAL BELIEFS SCALE (BBS) 90 REFERENCES 96 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 108 iv

PAGE 5

LIST OF TABLES Table Eige 1 Participants' Program of Study by University 33 2. Number of Required Courses for Each Degree Program 35 3. Participants' Demographics, Placement History, and Current Year of Study by Program Type 37 4. Eigenvalues and Associated Variance for the Initial Principal Axis Factor Solution for the Behavioral Beliefs Scale 42 5. Scree Plot for Behavioral Beliefs Scale 43 6. Structure Matrix for Factor I of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale 44 7. Structure Matrix for Factor II of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale 46 8. Structure Matrix for Items Failing to Load on Factors I or II of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale 47 9. Structure Matrix for Factor I (Reinforcement) 50 10. Structure Matrix for Factor II (Punishment) 52 1 1 Second Structure Matrix for Items Failing to Load on Factors I or II of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale 53 12. Group Means for Individual Teacher Beliefs Scale Items 57 13. Mean Total Scores for Teacher Beliefs Scale 61 14. Summary ANOVA Table for Teacher Beliefs Scale 61 15. Pairwise Comparisons for Teacher Beliefs Scale 62 16. Summary ANOVA Table for Teacher Beliefs Scale Total Scores and Ethnicity 62 1 7. Group Means for Individual Behavioral Beliefs Scale Items 66 V

PAGE 6

18. Mean Total Scores for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Section II 68 19. Mean Total Scores for Factor 1 (Reinforcement) of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale 68 20. Mean Scores for Factor 11 (Punishment) of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale 69 21 Summary ANOVA Table for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Section II 69 22. Summary ANOVA Table for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Factor I (Reinforcement) of Section II 70 23. Summary ANOVA Table for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Factor II (Punishment) of Section II 70 24. Pairwise Comparisons for Section II of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale 71 25. Pairwise Comparisons for Factor 1 (Reinforcement) of Section II of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale "71 26. Summary ANOVA Table for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Total Scores and Ethnicity 72 vi

PAGE 7

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy PRESERVICE TEACHERS' BELIEFS ABOUT DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICES AND BEHAVIORAL TECHNIQUES AND PRACTICES IN EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS By Tashawna Kay Duncan August 2000 Chairperson: John Kranzler Major Department: Educational Psychology The purpose of this study was to evaluate preservice teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices. Specifically, this study investigates similarities and differences between early childhood education (ECE), early childhood special education (ECSE), and unified early childhood (Unified) teacher preparation programs. Previous research indicates that teachers' beliefs largely influence their behavior in the classroom. Exploring some of the similarities and differences in beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices among preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs may assist in curriculum development and training as well as continuing education for inservice teachers. Moreover, understanding these differences may help teacher preparation programs bridge the gap between the traditionally different disciplines of ECE and ECSE. Preservice teachers' beliefs about developmentally vii

PAGE 8

appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices were assessed for 355 preservice teachers drawn from ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs using the Teacher BeUefs Scale (TBS) and the Behavioral Beliefs Scale (BBS). The results of this study indicated that preservice teachers in ECSE and Unified teacher preparation programs held similar beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices. However, this study found that preservice teachers in ECE programs held significantly different beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices when compared with preservice teachers in ECSE and Unified teacher training programs. Given these findings, it is imperative that the fields of ECE and ECSE work together to identify common beliefs and resolve belief differences if they are to successfully collaborate in meeting the needs of typically and atypically developing children. viii

PAGE 9

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction Teachers' beliefs largely influence their behavior in the classroom (Bloom, 1992; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, & DeWolf, 1993; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Dunn & Kontos, 1997; Hyson, Hirsch-Pasek, & Rescola, 1990; Fang, 1996; Isenberg, 1996; Munby, 1982; Smith, 1992); therefore teachers' beliefs are important to study, understand, define, and modify. Although in recent years, many attempts have been made to do so, no uniform conclusion about or definition of beliefs has emerged (Fang, 1996; see also Richardson, 1996). Generally, a belief can be defined as some conception of reality containing enough validity or credibility, or that is backed by enough experience, to satisfy the individual holding the belief of its truth (Green, 1971; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996). Beliefs are generally formed or reinforced based on the experiences of the individual holding the belief. As a result, one would expect that they could be influenced by outside intervention. However, because beliefs are also frequently comprised of or related to other constructs, such as belief systems, attitudes, perceptions, values, opinions, judgments, rules, principles, perceptions, dispositions, and strategies, they are not easily modified (Malouf & Schiller, 1995; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996). Recent research has developed a number of conclusions about beliefs that provide important starting points for studying and analyzing teachers' beliefs in early childhood 1

PAGE 10

2 settings. Research on teachers' beliefs suggests that teachers develop their beliefs long before they enter teacher preparation programs (Lortie, 1975; Pajares, 1996; Richardson, 1996). Additionally, many research studies have recognized that teachers develop many of their deep-seated beliefs about teaching during their own formal education experiences (Lortie, 1975; Richardson, 1996). Lortie (1975) referred to this belief development experience as an "apprenticeship of observation." Research on teachers' beliefs has also demonstrated that beliefs are very difficuU to change or modify, particularly when teachers have held these beliefs for a long period of time (Abelson, 1979; Clark, 1988; Munby, 1982; Nespor, 1987; Nisbett &. Ross, 1980; Pajares, 1992; Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982; Rokeach, 1968). Many of the beliefs teachers develop during the so-called apprenticeship of observation are carried forward unchanged into teacher preparation programs. Although understanding teachers' beliefs is critical to the study of teachers' practices, very little is known about them. This is particularly true for teachers working with young children in segregated and inclusive educational settings (Carta, 1994; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, & Hernandez, 1991; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993; File, 1994; Lieber et al., 1998; Hatch & Freeman, 1988; Isenberg, 1990; Spodek, 1988). The systematic study of teachers' beliefs is likely to yield tremendous insight into the causes of teachers' behavior and practice, which may help teacher educators to change classroom dynamics or develop appropriate preservice teacher training programs. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to evaluate preservice teachers' beliefs about developmental ly appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices.

PAGE 11

3 Specifically, the study investigates differences and similarities in these beliefs between three groups: early childhood education (ECE), early childhood special education (ECSE), and unified early childhood (Unified) teacher preparation programs. The results of this study may then be used to make recommendations for preservice teacher education in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs, particularly with reference to developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices. Given the findings of Sexton (1998) that there were no significant differences in the beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices held by early childhood and early childhood special educators, further research on particular types of practices theorized to be controversial is warranted. Particularly, since Sexton (1998) found a significant difference between teachers' beliefs about two behavioral techniques. Importance to Teacher Education This study will not only aid in the understanding of beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices, but it will also aid in developing appropriate training experiences for ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs. It should ftirther aid in the understanding of differences in preservice teachers" beliefs among the types of programs studied, which should also aid in the development of appropriate programmatic changes by teacher educators and administrators, particularly in light of the recent trend towards inclusion in early childhood education.

PAGE 12

Research Questions The following questions will be addressed: 1. What beliefs do preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs hold about developmentally appropriate practices? 2. Are there significant differences in beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices between preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs? 3. Are there statistically significant and noteworthy relationships between beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and individual characteristics (e.g., chronological ages, ethnicity) of early childhood preservice teachers? 4. What beliefs do preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs hold about the use of behavioral techniques and practices? 5. Are there significant differences in beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices between preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs? 6. Are there stafistically significant and noteworthy relationships between beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices and individual characterisfics (e.g., chronological ages, ethnicity) of early childhood preservice teachers?

PAGE 13

5 Summary and Overview of Remaining Chapters This study addressed (a) ECE preservice teachers' beUefs about developmentally appropriate practices, (b) ECSE preservice teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices, (c) Unified preservice teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices, (d) ECE preservice teachers' beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices (e) ECSE preservice teachers' beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices, and (f) Unified preservice teachers' beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices. Despite the importance of teachers' beliefs, little research has been devoted to examining the beliefs of early childhood preservice teachers (see Carta, 1994; Charlesworth et al., 1991; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993; File, 1994; Lieber et al., 1998; Hatch & Freeman, 1988; Isenberg, 1990). This research is a step toward enhancing the knowledge base on teachers' beliefs, specifically those that work with young children. Chapter 2 provides a review and analysis of relevant literature from the following areas: teachers' beliefs, ECE teacher preparation programs, ECSE teacher preparation programs. Unified teacher preparation programs, developmentally appropriate practices, and behavioral techniques and practices. Chapter 3 contains a description of the research methodology and procedures used in this study. Chapter 4 describes the results of this study. The final chapter (Chapter 5), discusses the results of the study in light of previous research. Additionally, it discusses the scope and limitations of this study and the implications for teacher education and future research.

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction to Teachers' Beliefs Of the many constructs studied in educational psychology and practice, teachers' beliefs are some of the most important, yet most elusive, to researchers. Teachers' beliefs largely influence how teachers perceive, process, and act in their classroom (Bloom; 1992; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Fang, 1996; Dunn & Kontos, 1997; Hyson, Hirsch-Pasek, & Rescorla, 1990; Isenberg, 1996; Munby, 1982; Smith, 1992). Therefore, as an element of the causes of teacher behavior, it is important to understand teachers' beliefs (Richardson, 1996; see also Pintrich. 1990). The difficulty in understanding teachers' beliefs generally lies in how they are defined, how they are studied, and how they relate to other constructs and phenomena, many of which are themselves difficult to study or quantify. While many researchers have studied constructs variously defined as "belief," no uniform definition has emerged (Richardson, 1996). Generally, a belief is a conception of some reality containing enough validity or credibility, or that is backed by enough experience, to satisfy the individual holding the belief of its truth (Green, 1971; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996). It is usually temporally and contextually bound and strongly guides thought, behavior, and action (Fang, 1996; Harvey, 1986; Pajares, 1992). Pajares (1992) suggests that confusion about beliefs usually relates to the distinction between beliefs and knowledge; beliefs are generally based on evaluation and judgment while 6

PAGE 15

7 knowledge is generally based on objective fact (see also Nespor, 1987; Richardson, 1996). Also, beliefs are thought to have more affective and evaluative components than knowledge (Pajares, 1992; Malouf & Schiller, 1995). Thus, how teachers operationalize beliefs, as opposed to knowledge, further defines beliefs' characteristics. Of course, what is meant by teachers' beliefs is difficult to pinpoint with precise accuracy. Beliefs also comprise or are related to other constructs, such as belief systems, attitudes, perceptions, values, opinions, judgments, rules, principles, preconceptions, dispositions, and strategies (Malouf & Schiller, 1995; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996). The extent to which these constructs guide and control thought and behavior has been the subject of study in education for the last five decades (i.e., since the 1950s) Most of the studies attempt to link teachers' beliefs and similar constructs (e.g., attitudes) to their educational practices (Richardson, 1996). It has only been in recent years (i.e.. the last 1 5) that teacher education research has began to examine teachers' beliefs more thoroughly (Fang, 1996; see also Richardson, 1996). Although research on teachers' beliefs and attitudes received minimal attention between the early 1950s and the early 1970s (Richardson, 1996), there has been a surge of interest in beliefs' in recent years (Richardson, 1 996). Research studies have developed a number of conclusions about beliefs that provide important starting points for studying and analyzing teachers' beliefs in early childhood settings. Research on Teachers' Beliefs Acquisition of Beliefs Research on teachers' beliefs has demonstrated that beliefs are often acquired well before teachers have undergone formal training in education (Lortie, 1975; Pajares, 1996; Richardson, 1996: Tatto, 1998). Many studies have suggested that preservice teachers

PAGE 16

8 develop a number of beliefs about educational practice from a so-called "apprenticeship of observation" that occurs during their own formative educational experiences (Lortie, 1975; Malouf & Schiller, 1995; Pajares, 1996; Richardson, 1996). In fact, most theories used by teachers are derived from personal experience (Kemple, 1995; Richardson, 1996; Spodek, 1988). For most teachers, this process of cultural transmission gradually occurs long before teacher education has even been given the opportunity to make its mark. Furthermore, preservice classroom experience and reflection on that experience often influences teachers' beliefs (Brousseau, Book, & Byers, 1988; Cherland, 1989; Fang, 1996; Richards. Gipe, & Thompson, 1987). Perseverance of Beliefs Research on teachers' beliefs has demonstrated that beliefs -held over long periods of time are very difficult to change (Abelson, 1979; Clark, 1988; Munby, 1982; Nespor, 1987; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Pajares, 1992; Posner et al., 1982; Rokeach, 1968). Pajares (1992) describes this as the perseverance principle. Beliefs acquired during the apprenticeship of observation and generally held by preservice teachers often remain unchanged throughout the teacher preparation process and carry forward to classroom experience (Malouf & Schiller, 1995; Pajares, 1992). Such resistance to changes in beliefs explains why many practices considered to be developmentally inappropriate persist despite efforts at teacher education and training regarding more developmentally appropriate practices. Research also suggests that teachers* beliefs often persist despite contradictory information or recognition of incomplete knowledge (Abelson, 1979; Buchmann, 1984, 1987; Buchmann & Schwille, 1983; Clark, 1988; Flioro-Ruane & Lensmire, 1990; Ginsburg & Newman, 1985; Lasley, 1980; Lortie, 1975; Malouf & Schiller, 1995; Munby, 1982; Nespor, 1987; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Pajares, 1992; Posner

PAGE 17

9 et al., 1982; Richardson, 1996; Rokeach, 1968; Schommer, 1990; Van Fleet, 1979; Wilson, 1990). Influence on Practice Research suggests that teachers' beliefs strongly influence behavior (Bloom, 1992; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993; Dunn & Kontos, 1997; Fang, 1996; Hyson, Hirsh-Pasek, & Rescorla, 1990; Isenberg, 1996; Smith, 1992; see also Abelson, 1979; Bandura, 1986; Brown & Cooney, 1982; Charlesworth et al., 1991; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Eisenhart, Shrum, Harding, & Cuthbert, 1988; Ernest, 1989; Goodman, 1988; Harvey, 1986; Kagen & Smith, 1988; Kilgo et al., 1999; Kitchener, 1986; Lieber et al., 1998; Malouf & Schiller, 1995; Nespor, 1987; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Rokeach, 1968; Smith & Shepard, 1988; Spodek, 1988; Spidell, 1988; Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1984). However, other research has shown that occasionally some teachers employ practices that are inconsistent with their beliefs (Kontos & Dunn, 1993). This is exemplified by research studies (e.g., Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, & DeWolf, 1993; Hatch & Freeman, 1988; Rusher, McGrenn & Lambiotte, 1992) indicating that district policies or principal directives inconsistent with a teachers' beliefs may be followed by teachers. This may have to do with other beliefs held by the teacher, including the belief that adherence to authoritative demands is an important value. Green (1971) suggested that it is quite possible for individuals to hold beliefs that are incompatible. Green postulated that individuals hold beliefs in clusters. Each belief cluster falls within a larger belief system. Therefore, beliefs that are contradictory may be part of different belief clusters. Green further posited that conflicting beliefs may persist if they are never compared and examined for consistency.

PAGE 18

10 study of Beliefs The extent to which the literature has discussed these themes in relating teachers' beliefs to teachers' practices suggests the importance of further research in this area. Currently, very little is known about the beliefs of teachers' working with young children in inclusive or segregated educational settings (Carta, 1994; Charlesworth et al., 1991; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, & Dewolf, 1993; File, 1994; Lieber et al., 1998; Hatch & Freeman, 1988; Isenberg, 1990; Spodek, 1988). However, teachers' beliefs are crucial considerations in understanding teachers' practices and integral aspects of successful teaching (Isenberg, 1990; Richardson, 1996). Thus, further research is warranted in this area. In the past, research on teachers' beliefs has relied upon a variety of measures (e.g., interviews, questionnaires, observations; see Charlesworth et al., 1991; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, & DeWolf, 1993; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993; Erwin & Kontos, 1998; File, 1994; Kemple, Hysmith, & David, 1996; Hatch & Freeman, 1988; Kagan & Smith, 1988; Porter & Potenza, 1983; Smith, 1992; Spodek, 1988; Stipek & Byler, 1997; Wing, 1989). Currently, interviews and observations are two of the most frequently employed measures (Richardson, 1996). However, many of the research studies on early childhood teachers' beliefs have additionally utilized questionnaires and rating scales (see Charlesworth et al., 1991; Charlesworth, Harts, Burts, & DeWolf, 1993; Charlesworth, Harts, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993; Erwin & Kontos, 1998; File, 1994; Kagan & Smith, 1988; Kemple. Hysmith & David, 1996; Smith, 1992; Stipek & Byler, 1997). All of these research approaches (e.g., interviews, observations, questionnaires, rating scales) are appropriate and promising (Pajares. 1992). Ultimately, the approach employed depends on the researchers' question and how the

PAGE 19

11 researchers wish to explore it (Pajares, 1992). Currently, new innovative techniques, such as the use of multiple measures, are providing researchers with better tools to explore and assess teachers' beliefs. Measuring and assessing preservice teachers' beliefs is critical to understanding them, and is yet even more important to the process of developing appropriate preservice training programs (See Tatto, 1998). Assessing beliefs of preservice teachers from different types of teacher preparation programs provides an opportunity to compare beliefs among early childhood educators. Early Childhood Teacher Preparation Programs Early childhood education (ECE) teacher preparation programs train preservice teachers to work with young children in a variety of settings. Currently, three distinct teacher preparation programs have emerged in the United States: early childhood education (ECE) teacher preparation programs, early childhood special education (ECSE) teacher preparation programs, and unified early childhood (Unified) teacher preparation programs. Bredekamp (1993) noted that these three early childhood teacher preparation programs are often separated physically and philosophically. Following is a brief discussion on each type of teacher preparation training program. Early Childhood Education Teacher Preparation Programs Early childhood education (ECE) teacher preparation programs train preservice teachers to serve typically developing children from birth to age eight. These programs have undergone considerable change since their emergence in the late 1 800s (Spodek & Saracho, 1990). Currently, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) is the primary organization establishing professional guidelines for early childhood education (Burton, Hains, Hanline, McLean, & McCormick, 1 992). The

PAGE 20

12 NAEYC first began making efforts to establish preferred practice guidelines in 1981 Shortly thereafter, it developed policies and procedures for the voluntary accreditation of early childhood programs (Burton et al., 1992). Historically, ECE teacher preparation programs have been rooted in constructivism. Even today, constructivism dominates educational philosophy in these programs (Smith & Bredekamp, 1998; see also Wolery, Werts, & Holcombe, 1994; Wolery & Wilber, 1994). Thus, ECE teacher preparation programs typically are not grounded in behavioral theory. Early Childhood Special Education Teacher Preparation Programs Early childhood special education (ECSE) teacher preparation programs train preservice teachers to serve children from birth to age eight with special needs. Traditionally, many ECSE teacher preparation programs have been largely grounded in behavioral theory (Smith & Bredekamp, 1998; see also Wolery et al., 1994; Wolery & Wilber, 1994). This is largely due to the inherent challenges faced by ECSE teachers in disciplinary and motivation matters. Just as NAEYC has been the primary organization establishing guidelines for ECE, the Division of Early Childhood (DEC), Council for Exceptional Children has been the primary organization establishing guidelines and ensuring a level of beginning and continuing professional competence within ECSE (McCoUum, McLean, McCartan, & Kaiser, 1989). DEC has developed and established recommended practices for professionals working with young children with special needs. These practices support the use of behavioral techniques and practices (DEC Task Force on Recommended Practices, 1993). Unified Early Childhood Teacher Preparation Programs Unified early childhood (Unified) teacher preparation programs prepare preservice teachers to serve all children, including those with special needs. These

PAGE 21

13 programs typically draw upon philosophy and practice from both the fields of ECE and ECSE (Burton et al., 1992; Gargiulo et al., 1997). In many ways, Unified teacher preparation programs are ideal because the knowledge base and practices in ECE and ECSE are very similar (e.g., both work with young children at various developmental levels and should possess the ability to establish positive, meaningful relationships with families) (Appl, 1995; Garguilo, Sluder, & Streitenberger, 1997; Kemple, Hartle, Correa, & Fox, 1994; Lowenthal, 1992). Furthermore, professionals in the fields of ECE and ECSE have voiced their support of Unified teacher preparation programs by positing that the time has arrived to end segregated, categorical, teacher preparation programs (Burton et al., 1992; DEC Task Force on Recommended Practices, 1993; Gargiulo & Sluder, 1997; Miller, 1992; NAEYC, 1996; see also Bredekamp, 1993; Myers, Griffin, Telekei, Taylor, & Wheeler, 1998; Lowenthal, 1992; Safford, 1989). In fact, contemporary research refutes a categorical approach to teacher preparation training (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Miller, 1992). Unified teacher preparafion programs have the potential to train early childhood teachers to meet the individual needs of children in a variety of settings (Garguilo et al., 1997). With full inclusion, more and more children with special needs are being included in early childhood programs designed for typically developing children (Garguilo et al., 1997; Sexton, 1998; Wolery, Brookfield et al., 1993; Wolery, Holcombe et al., 1993; Wolery, Holcombe-Ligon et al., 1993; Wolery, Schroeder et al., 1994). As a result, "early childhood educators are going to become increasingly responsible for teaching young children with special needs" (Garguilo et al., 1997, p. 137). The concept of collaboration across the fields of ECE and ECSE holds a great deal of promise (Myers et al., 1998). Teachers trained in these programs will be prepared to

PAGE 22

14 provide early education services which are developmentally and individually appropriate (Gargiulo & Sluder, 1997). As a result of their teacher preparation training, they are able to draw upon effective practices from the fields of ECE and ECSE. Differences in Early Childhood Education and Early Childhood Special Education Teacher Training Programs' Practices, Goals, and Outcomes Historically, educational philosophy and practice have differed between ECE and ECSE (Bredekamp, 1993; Burton et al., 1992; Wolery & Wilbers, 1994). As discussed earlier, ECE education has been traditionally grounded in constructivism while ECSE has been largely based on behavioral theory (Smith & Bredekamp, 1998; see also Wolery, Werts, & Holcombe, 1994; Wolery & Wilbers, 1994). More often than not, ECE and ECSE have maintained separate programs and services. Thus, it was possible for ECE and ECSE educators to keep their educational philosophies and practices separate (Smith & Bredekamp, 1 998). However, in recent years more children with special needs are being included in early childhood classrooms (Sexton, 1998; Wolery, Brookfield et al., 1993; Wolery, Holcombe, et al., 1993; Wolery, Holcombe-Ligon et al., 1993; Wolery, Schroeder et al., 1994) resulting in professionals from a variety of fields working together. This sometimes results in the blending of techniques and practices (See Kilgo et al., 1999). However, at other times, it results in heated debates on appropriate practice (Smith & Bredekamp, 1998; see also Bredekamp, 1993; Carta, 1994; Carta, 1995; Carta & Schwartz, Atwater, & McConnell, 1991; Carta, Atwater, Schwartz, & McConnell, 1993; Johnson & Johnson, 1992; Johnson & Johnson, 1993; Johnson & Johnson, 1994). Unfortunately, many perceive some of the most commonly used techniques and practices in the fields of ECE and ECSE as incompatible. For example, some behavioral techniques (e.g., tangible rewards) used in ECSE have been criticized by ECE educators

PAGE 23

15 (Mounts & Roopnarine, 1987; see also Wolery & Bredekamp, 1994). Smith & Bredekamp (1998) suggest that the techniques and practices utilized within the two fields should not be perceived as incompatible but as complimentary, representing different points on a continuum (see also Appl, 1995; Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1995; Kemple et al., 1994; Lowenthal, 1992). Furthermore, Smith & Bredekamp (1998) propose that a wide range of strategies can be viewed as appropriate and that techniques and practices should be selected and tailored to meet the individual needs of the child(ren). The differences between ECE and ECSE educators' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices, specifically those held about behavioral techniques and practices, has drawn little empirical research, although they are easily perceived from a review of contemporary literature from both fields. However, what is meant by developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices requires some discussion before beliefs about them can be evaluated. Developmentally Appropriate Practice The NAEYC (the largest organization of early childhood educators) has as its mission "to act on behalf of children by improving the quality of programs and raising public awareness about what constitutes good quality" (Bredekamp, 1997, p. 39). In 1987, in response to a growing trend toward more formal academic instruction in the early childhood classroom, the NAEYC published its position on Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) guidelines (Bredekamp, 1997; Carta, 1995; see also Gestwicki, 1 999). These guidelines attempted to clarify types of developmentally appropriate and inappropriate practices for children between birth and age eight (Bredekamp, 1987). Of course, it would be impossible for NAEYC to describe all appropriate and inappropriate practices. Therefore, NAEYC has only attempted to agree

PAGE 24

16 on some reasonable and reliable principles to guide early childhood professionals in their decision making (Bredekamp, 1997). Essentially, the DAP guidelines attempt to assist professionals in ECE classrooms in making judgments by informing their decision making (Gestwicki, 1999). NAEYC indicates that the DAP Guidelines are based on child development knowledge (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997), NAEYC taking the position that "programs designed for young children should be based on what is known about young children" (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997, p. v). Considering child development knowledge is essential for ECE teachers, because it assists them in understanding how children learn. As a resuh, early childhood teachers can better structure the learning environment so that children are presented with experiences that are engaging, achievable, and challenging (Gestwicki, 1999). In summary, developmentally appropriate practice decisions are ones based on child development knowledge, each individual child, the child's family, and the child's culture (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Gestwicki, 1999). In 1987, the release of the DAP guidelines sparked numerous debates among ECE educators regarding the clarity and interpretation of the practices presented (Bredekamp, 1997; Bredekamp & Copple. 1997; see also Kessler, 1991; Mallory & New, 1994; Swadener & Kessler, 1991). Many ECE educators felt that NAEYC had oversimplified the concept of DAP (Bredekamp, 1997). These debates and professional literature on this topic contributed to a new knowledge base. NAEYC responded to this new information by revising its position statement, which was released in 1997. The newly released guidelines (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) expand and clarify the definition of developmentally appropriate practice (Bredekamp, 1 997). In the revised

PAGE 25

17 guidelines, NAEYC posited that developmentally appropriate practice builds on three important kinds of information and knowledge: (a) "what is known about child development and learning; (b) what is known about the strengths, interests, and needs of the individual children in the group; and (c) knowledge of the social and cultural contexts in which children live" (NAEYC 1997, 8-9). Furthermore, these guidelines describe a continuum of teaching practices by including more examples of inappropriate and appropriate practices than the previous guidelines released ten years earlier. The newly revised DAP guidelines suggest that teachers should find the appropriate balance between adult-initiated and child-initiated learning in the ECE classroom. Thus, ECE teachers are not overly passive or overly directive (Bredekamp, 1997). Berk & Winsler (1995) suggest that the role of the developmentally appropriate classroom is a complex one that includes collaboration, support, reflection, instruction, modeling direction, and coconstruction of knowledge. Unfortunately, developmentally appropriate practice has often been misinterpreted. Many individuals in ECE have interpreted the DAP guidelines as a curriculum. However, developmentally appropriate practice "is not a curriculum; it is not a rigid set of standards that dictate practice. Rather, it is a framework, a philosophy, or an approach to working with young children" (Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992, p. 4). In addition, some have interpreted the DAP guidelines as hostile to behavioral techniques and practices (see Duncan, Kemple, & Smith, 2000). However, the concept of a continuum of appropriate practices precludes any categorical exclusion of particular techniques and practices.

PAGE 26

18 Behavioral Techniques and Practices Behavioral theory holds that behaviors acquired and displayed by young children can be attributed almost exclusively to their environment. Behaviorists believe that by improving children's environments and selecting appropriate teaching practices and materials young children can be taught to develop almost any competency (Peters, Neisworth, & Yawkey, 1986; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Behavioral theorists assert that all behavior is sandwiched between antecedent and consequent events and that the nature and quality of these events determines future behaviors (Craighead, Kazdin, & Mohoney, 1976; Kazdin, 1994; Peters et al., 1986; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Thus, they suppose, one can engineer behavior changes in directions deemed appropriate by the child, school, and even society by simply managing the environment of children. The extension of experimental methods of behavioral theory to applied settings, such as the classroom, has generated a relatively new area of research known as applied behavior analysis (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968; Kazdin, 1977, 1994). Applied behavior analysis was first identified by Baer, Wolf, and Risley in the first Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis in 1968 (Kazdin, 1977, 1994). Specifically, Baer, Wolf, and Risley (1968) defined applied behavior analysis as the "process of applying sometimes tentative principles of behavior to the improvement of specific behavior and simultaneously evaluating whether or not any changes noted are indeed attributable to the process of application" (p. 91). Baer and colleagues' definition explicitly distinguished applied behavior analysis from previous basic operant research both in terms of methodology and substance (Kazdin, 1 977). Historically, applied behavior analysis has been grounded in Watson's and Pavlov's behavioral theories, which hold that all behaviors are merely learned responses to environmental stimuli. However, applied behavior analysis draws

PAGE 27

19 from theories of respondent conditioning, operant conditioning, and model learning (Brown, Pryzwansky, & Shulte, 1995; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Applied behavior analysis is generally concerned with increasing or decreasing specific behaviors and then maintaining those behavioral changes under current environmental conditions (Deitz & Repp, 1983; Kazdin, 1977, 1994; Martin & Pear, 1988; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Surprisingly, only 2% of the field of applied behavior analysis is concerned with reducing maladaptive behavior (Deitz & Repp; 1983; Repp, 1983). However, this area still remains of vital interest to many researchers. Reducing maladaptive behaviors is also of primary concern to clinicians and teachers. Applied behavior analysis concerned with reducing maladaptive behavior usually involves one of three principles: reinforcement, extinction, or punishment (Schloss & Smith, 1998). Historically, punishment procedures have been widely used to reduce inappropriate behaviors. However, in recent years numerous complex legal and ethical issues have arisen regarding the use of these procedures (Deitz & Repp, 1983; Kazdin, 1978; Kazdin, 1994; Martin & Pear, 1988; Polsgrove & Rieth, 1993; Schloss & Smith, 1998). As a result, researchers have sought to develop less controversial alternative methods of reducing behaviors through the application of reinforcement. Such procedures have been referred to as positive reductive behaviors or reinforcement based reductive procedures (Deitz & Repp, 1983). In addition to avoiding many of the controversial issues surrounding the application of aversive reduction techniques, positive reduction techniques frequently result in the application of the principles of applied behavior analysis, as they focus on reinforcing improved behavior (Deitz &, Repp, 1983). Furthermore, there has been a recent emphasis on more antecedent based techniques.

PAGE 28

20 rather than consequence based methods, leading professionals to focus less on the manipulation of consequences than has been typical of behavioral techniques and practices (Homer et al., 1990). These antecedent based methods focus on the conditions that occur immediately before the target behavior (Wolery, Bailey, & Sugai, 1988). These antecedent based methods are considered less controversial than traditional behavioral methods Applied Behavior Analysis in the Early Childhood Classroom Applied behavior analysis is frequently used by many professionals in education, including those in early childhood settings (e.g., teachers, guidance counselors, school psychologists; Griegler, 1977; Schloss & Smith, 1998). In fact, applied behavior analysis has been applied more in classrooms than in any other setting (Kazdin, 1 978). To the chagrin of its detractors, researchers have continually demonstrated that applied behavior analysis techniques and practices are successful in public school settings with diverse populations, including preschool, elementary, secondary, collegiate, and children with special needs (Gordan & Browne, 1989; Kazdin, 1977, 1985; Martin & Pear, 1988; Mounts & Roopnarine, 1987; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Because applied behavior analysis has been demonstrated as effective in preventing and remedying problematic behaviors in the classroom setting, valuable instruction time is increased as teachers no longer have to interrupt, postpone, or delay lessons to deal with problematic behaviors (e.g., students not completing assignments, failing to follow directions, inattention, arguing, fighting; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Advantages for Classroom Application Behavioral theory and applied behavior analysis techniques and practices offer many distinct advantages over other frequently used models (e.g., psychodynamic.

PAGE 29

medical, ecological) implemented in the classroom (Kazdin, 1 977; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Applied behavior analysis techniques and practices can be used by most school personnel. Training of personnel to implement applied behavior analysis can usually be accomplished quickly and easily through coursework and supervised practice, and the resources necessary to implement these techniques are normally minimal and readily available (Schloss & Smith, 1998; Wolery, 1994). Applied behavior analysis also requires a continual evaluation process. During this evaluation process the value of techniques, practices, and materials being used are assessed. Thus, evaluation facilitates the effective use of teacher and student time, because ineffective techniques, practices, and materials are revised or discarded (Schloss & Smith, 1 998). Criticisms for Classroom Application Although the merits of behavior analysis techniques and practices in classroom settings have been widely recognized, like many areas in which applied behavior analysis has been implemented, there has been criticism related to its use (Schloss & Smith, 1998). Some professionals, including ones in ECE and ECSE, view applied behavior analysis techniques and practices as "inappropriate" (Strain et al., 1992). In fact, there has been an ongoing debate on the appropriateness of applied behavior analysis techniques and practices among professionals in various early childhood settings (Strain etal., 1992). Some professionals argue that each individual has the right to choose how to behave. Therefore, applied behavior analysis techniques and practices that attempt to change an individual's behavior are in violation of his or her own free will (Martin & Pear, 1988; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Martin and Pear (1988) provided an eloquent response to this concern by pointing out that changing a student's behavior is the major

PAGE 30

22 goal of education. It is doubtful that anyone would argue that it is inappropriate to teach a child to add or subtract, which is a form of behavior change. Some educators are concerned with specific techniques and practices utilized in applied behavior analysis. While this may be of legitimate concern, these fears can be allayed by careful consideration of the student's age, the severity and longevity of the problem, the previous efforts that have failed to solve it, and the possible effectiveness of the technique in solving the problem. Furthermore, techniques and practices should be monitored and evaluated continuously (Schloss & Smith, 1998). Failure to carefully monitor and evaluate techniques can result in the misuse of behavioral techniques and practices. For example, it would be inappropriate to "control" children by only utilizing behavioral techniques and practices rather than providing stimulating, developmentally appropriate activities that engage children. Finally, some have described applied behavior analysis techniques and practices, such as reinforcement, as bribery (Kazdin, 1975; Kohn, 1993; Schloss & Smith, 1998; Zirpoli, 1995). These individuals argue that students should not have to be paid to behave or complete certain tasks, but rather that students should do these things because they are the right thing to do (Schloss & Smith, 1998; Stainback, Payne, Stainback, & Payne, 1973; Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1997). Kazdin (1975) argued that individuals who confuse reinforcement and bribery do not clearly understand the definition and intent of each, stating: Bribery refers to the illicit use of rewards, gifts, or favors to pervert judgment or corrupt the conduct of someone. With bribery, reward is used for the purpose of changing behavior, but the behavior is corrupt, illegal or immoral in some way. With reinforcement, as typically employed, events are delivered for behaviors which are generally agreed upon to benefit the client, society, or both. (p. 50)

PAGE 31

23 Kazdin's argument suggests that there are clear distinctions between bribery and giving reinforcement for appropriate behaviors. Zirpoli and Mellory (1993) further suggest that if one fails to give children their attention during appropriate behaviors, it is likely that they will try to get attention with inappropriate behavior. Most would agree that children behave themselves and complete tasks because it is the right thing to do; however, all acknowledge that some children require assistance in learning to do this. Reinforcers can enhance this learning over time (Schloss & Smith, 1998). In fact, the use of behavioral techniques and practices, such as reinforcement, does not preclude ECE and ECSE educators from providing children with a developmentally appropriate classroom (see Bredekamp & Copple, 1998) that is fun, engaging, and exciting (Wolery, 1994). In addition to the above criticisms, Lepper & Greene (1975) argued that reinforcing educational performance with rewards negatively impacts on students' intrinsic motivation (see also Greene & Lepper, 1974a, 1974b). In particular, they criticized the use of tangible rewards for this very reason. Lepper and Greene (1975) conducted a series of experiments, in preschool and elementary classrooms, that "studied the effects of offering a child a tangible reward to engage in an initially interesting task on his subsequent intrinsic motivation to engage in that task in the absence of any expectation of external rewards" (p. 256; see also Greene and Lepper, 1974a, 1975b). The results of these experiments suggested that the use of external rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation (Lepper & Greene, 1975). However, a recent metaanalysis (Cameron & Pierce, 1 994) of the literature on rewards and intrinsic motivation has debunked Lepper and Greene's conclusion that intrinsic motivation is reduced by rewards, at least where such rewards are made contingent on performance or given

PAGE 32

24 unexpectedly (Cameron & Pierce, 1994, 1996; Eisenberg & Cameron, 1996; 1998). Thus, expected rewards which are not contingent on performance may have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation (Cameron & Pierce, 1994, 1996; Eisenberg & Cameron 1996,1998). According to Cameron and Pierce's (1994) meta-analysis of over 20 years of research, a tangible reward system that is contingent on performance will not have a negative effect on children's intrinsic motivation. In fact, results of their meta-analysis, including all relevant studies on the topic, indicated that external rewards can be used to maintain or enhance intrinsic motivation in activities. Their results clearly suggested that the negative effects of rewards occur under very limited conditions such as when tangible rewards are given without regard to level of performance. Behavioral Interventions The principles of reinforcement, extinction, and punishment are the working tools of the early childhood professional in crafting and implementing appropriate behavioral techniques and practices (Schloss & Smith, 1998). Understanding these principles and how to use them appropriately as tools is a first step in understanding the implications that applied behavior analysis has for use in the school setting. Reinforcement Reinforcement is one of the primary tools of applied behavior analysis. Two types of reinforcement ~ positive and negative ~ act to strengthen behaviors (Craighead et al., 1976; Peters et al., 1986; Schloss & Smith, 1998). A particular behavior is said to be positively reinforced when the behavior is followed by the presentation of a reinforcer (e.g., praise, money) which increases the frequency of that particular behavior (Craighead et al., 1976; Martin & Pear, 1988; Peters et al., 1986; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Positive reinforcers may be used to strengthen a variety of behaviors. In contrast, negative

PAGE 33

25 reinforcers generally attempt to increase the desired behavior by removing something unpleasant (e.g., escaping an argument, receiving an inferior grade). Reinforcement is also an effective method for reducing inappropriate behavior by reinforcing positive alternatives to the undesired behavior (Webber & Scheuermarm, 1991). Research has demonstrated that young children's behaviors, appropriate and inappropriate, increase when they are positively reinforced (Wolery, 1994). Best practice dictates that teachers use a variety of reinforcement procedures to reward and encourage students (Schloss & Smith, 1998). Furthermore, reinforcement is effective in supporting children's development and learning in the early childhood classroom (Wolery, 1 994). There are several types of reinforcers that are frequently used by early childhood teachers. Generally, reinforcers can be placed within one of three categories: social, activity, and tangible. Social Reinforcers. Teachers employ social reinforcers when they use interpersonal interactions as a reinforcer (Schloss & Smith, 1 998). Social reinforcers can be verbal or nonverbal (Alberto & Troutman, 1986; Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991). Some examples of commonly used social reinforcers include praise, hugs, smiles, and pats on the back. Research has demonstrated that social reinforcers are very effective when used appropriately (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991). One of the major advantages of social reinforcers is that they are convenient, practical, and not very intrusive (Alberto & Troutman, 1986; Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991). In addition, social reinforces can be easily paired with other types of reinforcers such as activity and tangible (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991). Social reinforcers are the most frequently employed type of reinforcer

PAGE 34

26 in early childhood classrooms. Furthermore, teachers display less resistance to using social reinforcers than activity or tangible reinforcers (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1992). Activity Reinforcers. Teachers employ activity reinforcers when they use access to an enjoyable activity as a reinforcer (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991). Some examples of commonly used activity reinforcers include extra playground time, being classroom helper or any other special privilege (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991). When teachers utilize activity reinforcers they employ a "special" activity immediately following the behavior they want to increase. Activity reinforcers are the second most frequently employed reinforcer in the early childhood classroom (Alberto & Troutman. 1990). This is because they are less intrusive and more transferable than tangible reinforcers (SulzerAzaroff & Mayer, 1991). Tangible Reinforcers. Teachers employ tangible reinforcers when they use any material or edible item as a reinforcer (Harlan, 1996). Some commonly used tangible reinforcers in early childhood settings include small prizes, trinkets, toys, tokens, candy and various foods. Tangible reinforcers are often the most powerful type of reinforcer. In fact, when used appropriately they almost always guarantee immediate success (Alberto & Troutman, 1990; O'Leary, Poulos, & Deme, 1972) even when social activity reinforcers have been unsuccessful. Furthermore, tangible reinforcers can be used to modify a variety of behaviors. Unfortunately, tangible reinforcers are very intrusive and often require more teacher time and commitment than social and activity reinforcers. As a result, the use of tangible reinforcers with young children has been highly controversial. They are frequently used as a "last resort" or limited to children with severe behavior problems (Vaughn, Bos, & Schumm, 1997). When used, tangible reinforcers should be

PAGE 35

27 paired with social reinforcers. Eventually, after the desired behavior is achieved the tangible reinforcer will then be gradually faded out and the social reinforcer will be the only reinforcer employed. Punishment Punishment is another tool used in applied behavior analysis. The technical definition of punishment differs substantially from the everyday use of the term (Schloss & Smith, 1998; Kazdin, 1994). Punishment is typically defined as providing an unpleasant consequence following misbehavior (Schloss & Smith, 1998). However, the technical definition includes an additional requirement, that the frequency of the responses must be decreased. (Kazdin, 1994). "Punishment in the technical sense is defined solely by the effect on behavior" (Kazdin, 1994, p. 38). It is extremely important that individuals using this technique understand the difference between the technical and popular definitions (Kazdin, 1994; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Just as there are two kinds of reinforcement, positive and negative, there are also two different kinds of punishment, positive and negative (Craighead et al., 1976). A particular behavior is said to be positively punished when the behavior is followed by the presentation of a punisher (e.g., paddling) that decreases the frequency of that particular behavior. In contrast, negative punishers attempt to increase the desired behavior by removing something pleasant (e.g., time-out) (Cantania, 1992; Craighead et al., 1976; Peters et al, 1985; Schloss & Smith, 1 998). It is important to note the difference between positive and negative punishment, as they are frequently confused (Craighead et al., 1976). When used appropriately, punishment can be highly effective. However, there are several side effects from punishment that have caused its use in applied settings to be questioned. Some possible side effects include increased emotional responding, avoidance of the punishing agent.

PAGE 36

28 and imitation of the use of punishment (Craighead et al., 1976). Furthermore, the ethical use of punishment has been discussed extensively (Schloss & Smith, 1998). Extinction Extinction is a tool that works in conjunction with reinforcement to achieve the desired objectives of applied behavior analysis. By discontinuing reinforcers, the effect of the reinforcers on the target behavior is reduced and eventually extinguished over time (Kazdin, 1994; Martin & Pear, 1988; Schloss & Smith, 1998). School personnel frequently use extinction to reduce inappropriate and off-task behaviors, particularly where the reinforcers for such maladaptive behavior can be isolated and controlled (Polsgrove & Rieth, 1983). For example, some children engage in maladaptive behavior to attract attention to themselves. If the reinforcer of that behavior, attention, is discontinued, the predicted result would be less of the maladaptive behavior. The discontinuance of the reinforcer can be accomplished by the teacher ignoring the children's behavior. Extinction can thus be an important tool for the interventionist in fashioning strategies for applied behavior analysis. Conclusion In recent years, behavioral techniques and practices have been largely criticized by many ECE professionals and have frequently been labeled as developmentally inappropriate (see Duncan et al., 2000). However, many of these professionals have failed to recognize that some of the most effective and widely used techniques and practices in ECE settings are grounded in behavioral theory (Strain et al., 1992; Wolery, 1994; see also Gordan & Browne, 1989; Kazdin, 1977, 1985; Martin & Pear, 1988; Mounts & Roopnarine, 1987; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Furthermore, as reflected in the DAP guidelines (Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997), the appropriateness of

PAGE 37

certain techniques and practices is measured on a continuum. Therefore, categorical exclusion of one type of technique or practice is inconsistent with developmentally appropriate practice. The purpose of this study is to evaluate preservice teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practice, specifically behavioral techniques and practices ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs, and to compare the beliefs between these three groups for the purpose of identifying significant similarities and differences. Specifically, this research study will address the following questions: 1 What beliefs do preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs hold about developmentally appropriate practices? 2. Are there significant differences in beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices between preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs? 3. Are there statistically significant and noteworthy relationships between beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and individual characteristics (e.g., chronological ages, years of experience) of early childhood preservice teachers? 4. What beliefs do preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs hold about the use of behavioral techniques and practices?

PAGE 38

30 5. Are there significant differences in beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices between preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs? 6. Are there statistically significant and noteworthy relationships between beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices and individual characteristics (e.g., chronological ages, years of experience) of early childhood preservice teachers? The study of beliefs between preservice teachers attending ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs on such topics as developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices should help researchers to explore possible areas for preservice teacher preparation program improvement and to understand and identify differences in professional practices. While much remains to be studied about teachers' beliefs and practices, this study will augment the knowledge base and assist others in developing approaches to teacher preparation that are based on actual data and sound theory.

PAGE 39

CHAPTER 3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES Participants, Sampling Procedures, & Setting Participants in the study were 355 preservice teachers attending 14 different colleges and universities throughout the United States (Midwest = 2; Northeast = 1 ; South = 9; Southwest = 1; West = 1). The sample consisted of 242 preservice teachers attending early childhood education (ECE) teacher preparation programs, 35 preservice teachers attending early childhood special education (ECSE) teacher preparation programs, and 78 preservice teachers attending unified early childhood (Unified) teacher preparation programs. For the purpose of this study, students receiving dual certification in ECE and ECSE were placed in the Unified group for program of study. Table 1 summarizes the participants' program of study by university. Description of Programs The classification of the various programs of study at these universities into three general categories was based on each participant's description of their individual program. However, the principal investigator conducted a rudimentary analysis of the curriculum content of each of these programs for purposes of comparison. Specifically, upper-division courses were classified into curriculum content areas using a modified version of a questionnaire developed by Kemple (1994) (Appendix A). Unfortunately, course descriptions were not available from all of the participating universities. Therefore, the principal investigator classified all courses solely on their title. The information presented in Table 2 is solely for informational purposes, and no conclusions 31

PAGE 40

32 were drawn by the principal investigator regarding the content and makeup of the programs. Further analysis of the data is beyond the scope of this study. Individual Participant Characteristics Participants ranged in age from 18 to 44 years (M_= 22, SD= 3.79), and 98% were female. Of the total participants, 89% described themselves as White, 5% as Hispanic, 4% as Black, and 2% as Other. Most (55%) of the participants were seniors, 43% juniors, 1% sophomores, and 1% freshmen. Ninety-three percent of the participants had at least one prior field placement at the time of the study. A summary of the participants' demographics and placement history, as well as current year of study in their program is included in Table 3. Chi Square analyses were not conducted, because there were too few cases per cell. Too few cases per cell adversely affects the stability of the statistic (Agresti, 1990).

PAGE 41

33 Table 1 Participants' Program of Study by University T Jniversitv Number of Participants Early i^niiunoou Education Early v^nuuiioou Special PHiir*jitir\n Unified iZcLl ly Childhood PHiipatinn 1-^ U U ^ CI. 1 1 V/ i 1 Auburn University 39 0 0 East Tennessee State University 0 14 0 Florida Gulf Coast University 18 0 0 Florida State University 58 0 0 Louisiana State University 31 0 0 San Francisco State University 0 2 0 University of Delaware 19 3 6 University of Florida 0 0 64 University of Illinois 19 0 0 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 0 0 5 University of South Florida 49 0 0 University of Tennessee 9 2 3 University of Wisconsin 0 0 5 Utah State 0 0 9

PAGE 42

34 O a> — E — a. o 1) .2i X c -s: u. UJ C— 00 c 5 — u > U ^ cJt O E O trt "a S .2 O ^3 UJ CO 3 IX on Z >> I .2 1 E c5 o (2 U OS c u E D. O — > ce U Q -J o o T3 60 C CO & p. > o 00 o o (N o o (N (S o O m o O o o o — — — (N o EC (Pre-K Grade 3) ECSE (K Grade 12) EC (Pre-K Grade 3) EC (Pre-K Grade 3) EC (Pre-KGrade 3) ECSE (Ages 3-5) Auburn University East Tennessee State University Florida Gulf Coast University Florida State University Louisiana State University San *** Francisco State University 1> (L> CO 3 -o S 00 (U 00 c § T3 1> c o T3 00 C E X) 2i c CA CA E a> — E £ C r£ I00 K o C.2 Ceo CO 1 — at: § ?^ E| 00 CO O bI s E CO 00 o o -a c V c o T3 -a CO o u o
PAGE 43

35 3 .s c o I in ON — o >/-) o ri fN o o m en o EC (Birth-5) ECSE (Birth Grade 4) Unified (Birth Grade 4) Unified (Pre-K 3) EC (Pre-K-3) Unified (Birth K) EC (Pre-K Grade 3) EC (K Grade 6) ECSE (Birth Age 8) University of Delaware University of Delaware University of Delaware University of Florida University of Illinois University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of South Florida University of Tennessee University of Tennessee v >> u ts 3 T3 CO 60 1> 00 c *C 3 T3 c o •a 00 _• 'S c x> 1) — E 00 o E ob a. a.
PAGE 44

T3 U 3 C O o I JJ fN o — o (N O o O — fN — o Unified (Birth Grade 3) ECSE (Birth Age 8) ECSE (Birth Age5) University of Tennessee University of Wisconsin Utah State

PAGE 45

37 Table 3 Participants' Demographics. Placement History, and Current Year of Study by Program Type Early Childhood Education Early Childhood Special Education Unified Early Childhood Total n {%) n (%) n (%) n (%) vjeiiuci Male Female Not Reported 4(1.7%) 238 (98.3%) 0 (0%) 1 (2.9%) 33 (94.3%) 1 (2.(%) 3 (3.8%) 75 (96.2%) 0 (0%) 8 (2.3%) 346 (97.5%) 1 (.3%) Reported Ethnicity White Black Other Not Reported 222 (91.7%) 9 n 7%^ 1 (2.9%) 4(1.7%) 0 (0%) 32(91.4%) 1 (2.9%) 1 (2.9%) 1 (2.9%) 0 (0%) 61 (78.2%) 8 (10.3%) 5 (6.4%) 2 (2.6%) 2 (2.6%) 315 (88.7%) 18 (5.1%)) 13(3.7%) 7 (2.0%) 2 (.6%) Year in Program Senior Junior Sophomore Freshmen 142 (58.7%) 95 (39.3%) 4(1.7%) 1 (.4%) 24 (68.6%) 8 (22.9%) 1 (2.9%) 2 (5.7%) 30 (38.5) 48 (61.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 196 (55.2%) 151 (42.5%) 5(1.4%) 3 (.8%) Average Range 22 18-43 25 20-44 21 19-26 22 18-44 Ideal Teaching Setting Noninclusive Special Education Inclusive Not Reported 127 (52.5%) 4(1.7%) 107 (44.2%) 4(1.7%) 0 (0%) 23 (65.7%) 12(34.3%) 0 (0%) 14(17.9%) 8(10.3%) 52 (66.7%) 4(5.1%) 141 (39.7%) 35 (9.9%) 171 (48.2%) 8 (2.3%)

PAGE 46

38 Instrumentation Teacher Beliefs Scale (TBS) The Teacher Beliefs Scale (TBS) was originally developed by Charlesworth et al. (1991) to reflect the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) guidelines first published in Young Children (1986). Because the original study was a pilot study, the scale was ftirther developed and revised by Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al. (1993). During this revision, a few items were eliminated because they did not load on any component in the first principal components analysis, and the TBS was updated to reflect changes in the (NAEYC) guidelines published in 1987 (Bredekamp, 1987; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993). The first item on the scale asks respondents to rate in order of importance the amount of influence various school professionals, state regulations, and parents have on the way a teacher plans and implements instruction. The remainder of the questionnaire consists of 36 items related to developmentally appropriate and developmentally inappropriate belief statements. Participants use a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not Important At All) to 5 (Extremely Important) (Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993). Twenty-two of the items on the TBS represent developmentally appropriate beliefs and 14 of the items represent developmentally inappropriate beliefs. Developmentally inappropriate items are reverse scored during data analysis. All of the TBS items represent areas of kindergarten instruction specified in the NAEYC DAP Guidelines (Bredekamp, 1987; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993). To examine the content validity of the TBS, as reported by the developers of the questionnaire (Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993), the questionnaire responses were supported by the results of classroom observations using the Instructional

PAGE 47

Activities Scale (IAS). Twenty participants were selected for classroom observation. Using the IAS, participants were observed for a minimum of 3 hours on 2 different days. The results of this observation were compared with the participants' responses on the TBS (Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993). To examine construct validity, the developers of the TBS conducted a principal components analysis after the questionnaire had been administered to 204 early childhood teachers. The principal components analysis revealed six components (developmentally inappropriate activities and materials, appropriate social, appropriate individualization, appropriate literacy, appropriate integrated curriculum beliefs, and inappropriate structure) with eigenvalues greater than one. These six components accounted for approximately 53.3% of the item variance (Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993). Internal consistency was determined using Cronbach's coefficient alpha. The following levels of internal consistency were obtained for items comprising the six components: .84, .77, .70, .60, .66, and .58, respectively (Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993). Internal consistency for the total scale was not reported by Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomassonet al. (1993). Behavioral Beliefs Scale (BBS) The Behavioral Beliefs Scale (BBS) (Appendix B) was developed by the principal investigator for the purpose of this study. The scale consists of 36 items that are presented in three sections. Section I consists of 8 items related to demographic and educational background information. Section II includes 22 items related to belief statements about behavioral techniques and practices using a 5 point Likert scale with points defined (I) Not Appropriate At All, (2) Not Very Appropriate, (3) Fairly

PAGE 48

40 Appropriate, (4) Very Appropriate, and (5) Extremely Appropriate. On each item respondents indicate the level of appropriateness for each teacher belief statement. Section III contains 6 scenarios describing specific behavioral techniques or practices using a 4-point Likert scale with points defined: (1) The technique or practice is very inappropriate, (2) The technique or practice is somewhat inappropriate, (3) The technique or practice is somewhat appropriate, and (4) The technique or practice is very appropriate. For each item respondents indicate the appropriateness of each technique or practice described. In addition, respondents are asked the following questions about each technique or practice presented: (1) Would you use this technique or practice? and (2) Why or why not? Prior to the study, the BBS was piloted on a sample of 100 preservice teachers. Participants were 1 1 undergraduate preservice teachers in ECE teacher preparation programs, 19 undergraduate preservice teachers in ECSE teacher preparation programs, and 70 undergraduate and graduate preservice teachers in Unified teacher preparation programs. During this field-test, respondents were asked to identify items that are confusing or posed other problems (see Litwin, 1995). This feedback was to be used for further revision of the questionnaire. However, participants in the study did not provide any suggestions for improvement of the questionnaire. To examine the content validity of the BBS, it was critically reviewed for content and wording by the principal investigator, a university professor specializing in early childhood education, two university professors specializing in early childhood special education, and a university professor in school psychology specializing in early

PAGE 49

41 childhood. Numerous revisions were made where necessary to enhance clarity and consistency. To further assist in instrument development, an exploratory common factor (principal axis) analysis was conducted on Section II by the principal investigator using data obtained from a sample of 100 preservice teachers. This sample size was considered adequate given the existence of two distinct factors, a relatively small number of variables, and an adequate factor/variable ratio (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). The initial solution extracted 9 factors based on Kaiser's eigenvalue greater than one rule (Kaiser, 1960). However, an inspection of the scree plot of eigenvalues suggested retaining two factors (Stevens, 1996). The scree test is generally regarded as superior to the eigenvalue greater than one rule in deciding on the number of factors to extract, particularly where the sample size is relatively small (Gorsuch, 1983; Stevens, 1996). Cattell (1966) recommended one should retain those factors that correspond to the eigenvalues left of the elbow of the scree plot. Because the elbow appears to fall between the 2nd and 3rd eigenvalue, only two factors were retained. The table of eigenvalues and scree plot from the initial solution are shown in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. The factor matrix was rotated obliquely using a Promax rotation, because it was expected that both factors were interrelated. Tables 6, 7, and 8 show the obliquely rotated solution for Factor I, Factor II, and items that did not load on either factor on the BBS, respectively.

PAGE 50

Table 4 Eigenvalues and Associated Variance for the Initial Principal Axis Factor Solution for the Behavioral Beliefs Scale Factor Eigenvalue Proportion of Cumulative Proportion Variance of Variance 1 5.036 17.985 17.985 2 2.942 10.507 28.492 3 1.984 7.084 35.576 4 1.737 6.20 41.778 5 1.633 5.833 47.611 6 1.476 5.270 52.881 7 1.288 4.600 57.481 8 1.126 4.020 61.502 9 1.026 3.666 65.167

PAGE 51

Table 5 Scree Plot for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Scree Plot Factor Number

PAGE 52

44 Table 6 Structure Matrix for Factor I of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale Item Factor I Factor II 1 It is for teachers to motivate .446 1 25 children's learning and behavior through the careful use of rewards and punishment in the classroom. 2. It is for teachers to use rewards to .612 .068 change behavior. 4. It is for teachers to set class goals .492 .143 for achievement and throw a pizza party when a predetermined goal is met. 8. It is for teachers to give students .593 .244 prizes (e.g., stickers, toys, trinkets) who complete their work on time. 1 0. It is for teachers to grant special .528 .116 privileges (e.g., line leader) to children who are displaying appropriate behaviors. 1 1 It is for teachers to use rewards .600 1 26 (e.g., stickers) to enhance children's internal motivation. 1 2. It is for teachers to praise students .448 -.060 for appropriate behavior. 1 3 It is for teachers to promote .588 .243 children's social-emotional development by using rewards (e.g., stickers). 1 8. It is for teachers to reward the .520 .026 entire class' appropriate behavior by granting extra playtime. 20. It is for teachers to promote children's social-emotional development by using praise. .446 -046

PAGE 53

45 Table 6~continued 25. It is for teachers to reward .788 .303 appropriate behavior with prizes. Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. Note. Salient loadings are in boldface

PAGE 54

Table 7 Structure Matrix for Factor 11 of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale 46 Item Factor 1 Factor II 26. It is for teachers to point out and use unpleasant consequences for aggressive behaviors (e.g., hitting) in front of the class. 27. It is for teachers to use unpleasant consequences to deter future misconduct. 28. It is for teachers to point out inappropriate behavior (e.g., breaking classroom rules) in front of the class. 29. It is for teachers to take away privileges for breaking the classroom rules. 30. It is for teachers to use unpleasant consequences to set an example for other students. 3 1 It is for teachers to paddle students who hit other students. 32. It is for teachers to use unpleasant consequences (e.g., name on board) with children who don't follow classroom rules. 33. It is for teachers to paddle students who break classroom rules. .018 .018 .219 .269 .073 .068 .280 .570 .533 .512 .378 .647 .490 .498 .021 .486 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. Note. Salient loadings are in boldface

PAGE 55

Table 8 Structure Matrix for Items Failing to Load on Factors I or II of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale Item Factor I Factor II 3. It is for teachers to give students .391 .388 candy for participating in activities. 6. It is for teachers to sometimes .202 1 42 ignore the behavior of students who are breaking the rules. 7. It is for teachers to sometimes 1 67 .150 ignore the behavior of students who are displaying aggressive behaviors (e.g., hitting). 1 7. It is for teachers to use physical .161 .082 contact (e.g., pats, high fives) to let students know they approve of their behavior. 1 9. It is for teachers to use "time-out" .302 .016 for aggressive behaviors (e.g., hitting, biting). 21 It is for teachers to take away .308 .232 privileges for temper outbursts. 22. It is for teachers to use smiles to let .264 .140 students know they approve of their behavior. 27. It is for teachers to ignore "acting 1 79 .04 1 out" behaviors. 28. It is for teachers to use "time-out" .119 1 50 for breaking classroom rules. Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. Note. Salient loadings are in boldface

PAGE 56

48 To identify the salient loadings following oblique rotation, items with factor loadings greater than or equal to | .40 | were considered to be salient (Stevens, 1999). The initial 2 factor solution, after oblique rotation (conducted to maximize item loadings on one of the 2 factors), had 9 items (6, 7, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 27, 28) that failed to load on either factor. One item (3) nearly loaded on both factors, a solution which did not make sense conceptually. Although 3 items (6, 7, 27) did not load on either factor, the principal investigator with a faculty supervisor made the decision to retain these items on the scale, because they assessed participants' beliefs about extinction (theoretically a third possible factor). Furthermore, it was decided to retain item 1 5 because of its relatively high loading (.378). From an analysis of the structure matrix, 7 items (3, 1 7, 19, 21, 22, 28) were removed from the scale. Inspection of the factor correlation matrix indicated that the 2 factors were mildly correlated (r = .244). After these items were removed, another common factor (principal axis) analysis was conducted, and, again, the factor matrix was rotated obliquely. The second 2 factor solution had 3 items (6, 7, 27) that did not saliently load on either factor. These items (6, 7, 27) were the same three extinction items that did not load on the initial analysis. The principal investigator along with a faculty supervisor made the decision to keep these items. Examination of the factor solutions indicated that the factors appear to represent beliefs about reinforcement and punishment, respectively. Factor 1 consisted of 1 1 items related to beliefs about the use of reinforcement. Therefore, this factor was labeled reinforcement. Factor II consisted of 7 items related to beliefs on the use of punishment. Therefore, this factor was labeled punishment. These 2 factors accounted for approximately 22 and 13% of the variance, respectively, with a

PAGE 57

total of 35% of the variance explained by the 2. Tables 9 and 10 shows the loadings of the items that make up Factor I and II, respectively. Table 1 1 shows the loadings of items that did not factor into either Factor I or II. The internal consistency of the BBS, including Factors I and II, was established through Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Reliability levels of .70 or higher are generally accepted as representing good reliability (Litwin, 1995). Cronbach's alpha of the total score on Section II (based on all 22 items) was .81. Alphas for the 2 factors within Section II were .83 for Factor I (reinforcement) and .72 for Factor II (punishment). Examination of the individual item-total correlations indicated that all items were keyed in the positive direction (e.g., no need to reverse score any items). These correlations ranged from .14 to .69 indicating much variability in the contributions of each items to the overall reliability of the measure. Alpha for Section III was .49 which suggests unacceptably low reliability. Therefore, it was later dropped from the questionnaire. During the field pretest, 60 preservice teachers were given the BBS ten days apart. Test-retest reliability for the total score was calculated on Sections II and III by correlating scores of 60 questionnaires across 2 administrations. The correlation on Section II (based on all 22 items) was .74. Specifically, the correlations were .73 on Factor I (reinforcement) and .69 on Factor II (punishment). The correlation on Section III was .71.

PAGE 58

Table 9 Structure Matrix for Factor I (Reinforcement) Item Factor I Factor II 1 It is for teachers to motivate .561 .083 children's learning and behavior through the careful use of rewards and punishment in the classroom. 2. It is for teachers to use rewards to change behavior. 4. It is for teachers to set class goals for achievement and throw a pizza party when a predetermined goal is met. 8. It is for teachers to give students prizes (e.g., stickers, toys, trinkets) who complete their work on time. 10. It is for teachers to grant special privileges (e.g., line leader) to children who are displaying appropriate behaviors. 11 It is for teachers to use rewards (e.g., stickers) to enhance children's internal motivation. 12. It is for teachers to praise students for appropriate behavior. 1 3. It is for teachers to promote children's social-emotional development by using rewards (e.g., stickers). 1 8. It is for teachers to reward the .528 .116 entire class' appropriate behavior by granting extra playtime. .621 .044 .496 .210 .642 .212 .543 .124 .637 .077 .400 .102 .614 .165

PAGE 59

51 Table 9~continued 20. It is for teachers to promote .405 .093 children's social-emotional development by using praise. 25. It is for teachers to reward .753 .392 appropriate behavior with prizes. Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. Note. Salient loadings are in boldface

PAGE 60

52 Table 10 Structure Matrix for Factor II (Punishment) Item Factor I Factor II 5. It is for teachers to point out and .085 .530 use unpleasant consequences for aggressive behaviors (e.g., hitting) in front of the class. 9. It is for teachers to use unpleasant .079 .513 consequences to deter future misconduct. 1 4. It is for teachers to point out .317 .543 inappropriate behavior (e.g., breaking classroom rules) in front of the class. 1 6. It is for teachers to take away .246 .378 privileges for breaking the classroom rules. 1 7. It is for teachers to use unpleasant 1 95 .590 consequences to set an example for other students. 23. It is for teachers to paddle students -.055 .587 who hit other students. 24. It is for teachers to use unpleasant 0.27 .493 consequences (e.g., name on board) with children who don't follow classroom rules. 26. It is for teachers to paddle students -.065 .559 who break classroom rules. Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. Note. Salient loadings are in boldface I

PAGE 61

53 Table 1 1 Second Structure Matrix for Items Failing to Load on Factors I or 11 of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale Item Fpiptnr I Factor II 0. It is for teachers to sometimes 1 79 940 ignore the behavior of students who are breaking the rules. 7. It is for teachers to sometimes .200 .046 ignore the behavior of students who are displaying aggressive behaviors (e.g., hitting). 27. It is for teachers to ignore "acting .216 .181 out" behaviors. Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. Note. Salient loadings are in boldface Procedures The principal investigator identified ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs from which to obtain possible participants. Next, 71 faculty members of these programs were contacted and asked if they would be willing to contact possible participants, and, then, obtain participant consent and administer the TBS and BBS. Upon obtaining permission from faculty members at 14 different colleges and universities, the principal investigator sent each faculty member a packet of envelopes containing the informed consent form, TBS, and BBS. After participants completed the BBS and the TBS, the questionnaires were returned to faculty members in sealed envelopes and then forwarded to the principal investigator for analysis. Of the 576 questionnaires distributed, 355 (62%) were returned.

PAGE 62

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Teacher Beliefs Scale Although the developers of the Teacher Beliefs Scale (TBS) and several subsequent researchers (e.g.. Sexton 1999) have calculated reliability estimates for the TBS, the principal investigator estimated the reliability of the TBS based on the responses of the participants in this study. First, the internal consistency of the TBS was established through Cronbach's alpha, a measure of how the individual items complement each other on their measurement of a particular variable. Cronbach's alpha for the TBS (based on items 2-37) was .85. Examination of the individual item-total correlations indicated that all items were keyed in a positive direction and ranged from .09 to .56, indicating much variability in the contributions of each item to the overall reliability of the measure. Overall, alpha for the TBS was sufficiently high to suggest that TBS scores could be used with confidence. Beliefs about Developmentally Appropriate Practices In order to address what beliefs preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs hold about developmentally appropriate practices, means were computed for items 2-37 of the TBS (item 1 was not included because it did not assess participants' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practice). Table 1 1 shows each group's means for each individual item. A comparison of the mean scores of all three groups for individual items in Table 12 reveals that 20 of the 36 items (e.g., 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 18, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 37), including the reverse scored 54

PAGE 63

55 items, had mean scores of 4.0 or higher, indicating that beliefs were strongly held. Furthermore, inspection of individual item means by group indicates that mean scores for both the ECE and ECSE groups on 2 additional items (e.g., 14, 30) were 4.0 or higher and mean scores for the ECE group on 3 more additional items (e.g., 2, 4, 11) were 4.0 or higher. Generally, the higher mean scores indicated stronger beliefs about developmental ly appropriate practices. Differences in Beliefs About Developmentally Appropriate Practices In order to address whether there were significant differences in beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices between preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE and Unified teacher preparation programs, an one-way, between-subjects Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare the mean scores on the TBS between the three groups to determine if there were significant inter-group differences not attributable to random error. A significant difference was found at the a = .05 level. Mean scores on the TBS for all three groups are presented in Table 13. Results of the ANOVA for the mean scores on the TBS for all three groups are presented in Table 14. Because an ANOVA involving more than 2 groups does not identify which intergroup differences may be significant, post hoc comparisons must be done. Holding the familywise Type I error rate constant at a= .05, a post hoc comparison of pairwise group differences utilizing the Tukey procedure revealed significant differences between the ECE and ECSE groups, and between the ECE and Unified groups, in their beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices. However, no significant differences were observed between the ECSE and the Unified groups in their beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices at the a = .05 level. The results of the pairwise comparisons are summarized in Table 16.

PAGE 64

56 Relationships Between Developmentally Appropriate Practices and Individual Characteristics In order to address whether there were statistically significant and noteworthy relationships between beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and individual characteristics of early childhood teachers, mean TBS total scores were compared for males and females using a t-test. The results did not suggest any significant relationship between gender and total scores (t (350) = -1 .384. p > .05). A Pearson product moment correlation was computed for age and TBS total score and indicated no significant relationship (N = 348, r = .095). Finally, an ANOVA was performed to compare the mean scores on the TBS by ethnicity. There were no significant inter-group differences. Results of the ANOVA are presented in Table 15.

PAGE 65

57 Table 12 Group Means for Individual Teacher Beliefs Scale Items Item Early Early Unified Childhood Childhood Early Education Special Childhood Education As an evaluation technique in the 4.43 3.71 3.99 kindergarten program, standardized group tests are .* As an evaluation technique in the 4.72 4.63 4.70 kindergarten program, teacher observation is As an evaluation technique in the 4.05 3.63 3.74 kindergarten program, performance on worksheets and workbooks is .* 5. It is for kindergarten activities to 4.60 4.54 4.51 be responsive to individual differences in development. 6. It is for kindergarten activities to 4.56 4.43 4.49 be responsive to individual differences in development. 7. It is that each curriculum area be 4.39 4.11 4.14 taught as separate subjects at separate times.* 8. It is for teacher-pupil 4.80 4.86 4.88 interactions in kindergarten to help develop children's self-esteem and positive feelings toward learning. 9. It is for children to be allowed to 4.54 4.43 4.38 select many of their own activities from a variety of learning areas that the teacher has prepared (blocks, science center, etc.)

PAGE 66

58 Table 12~continued 10. It is for children to be allowed to cut their own shapes, perform their own steps in an experiment, and plan their own creative drama, art, and writing activities. 1 1 It is for students to work silently and alone on seatwork.* 12. It is for kindergarten to learn through active exploration. 13. It is for kindergarten to learn through interaction with other children. 14. Workbooks and/or ditto sheets are to the kindergarten program.* 15. Flashcards (numbers, letters and/or words) are to the kindergarten program for instructional purposes.* 16. The basal reader is to the kindergarten reading program.* 17. In terms if effectiveness, it is for the teacher to talk to the whole group and make sure everyone participants in the same activity.* 1 8. In terms of effectiveness, it is for the teacher to move among groups and individuals, offering suggestions, asking questions, and facilitating children's involvement with materials and activities. 19. It is for teachers to use their authority through treats, stickers, and/or stars to encourage appropriate behavior.* 4.51 4.29 4.12 4.03 3.79 3.74 4.78 4.74 4.55 4.85 4.83 4.74 4.26 3.97 4.00 3.34 3.17 3.29 3.70 3.09 3.27 3.47 3.09 2.99 4.71 4.69 4.61 3.78 2.86 2.84

PAGE 67

59 Table 1 2~continued 20. It is for teachers to use their authority through punishments and/or reprimands to encourage appropriate behavior.* 21 It is for children to be involved in establishing rules for the classroom. 22. It is for children to be instructed in recognizing the single letters of the alphabet, isolated from words.* 23. It is for children to color within predefined lines.* 24. It is for children in kindergarten to form letters correctly on a printed line. 25. It is for children to have stories read to them individually and/or on a group basis. 26. It is for children to dictate stories to the teacher. 27. It is for children to see and use functional print (telephone books, magazines, etc) and environmental print (cereal boxes, potato chip bags, etc) in the kindergarten classroom. 28. It is for children to participate in dramatic play. 29. It is for children to talk informally with adults. 3.87 3.80 3.57 4.40 4.26 4.25 2.75 2.60 2.41 3.99 3.60 3.88 3.46 3.43 3.43 4.77 4.57 4.75 4.20 4.23 4.08 4.55 4.29 4.32 4.75 4.51 4.58 4.50 4.26 4.50

PAGE 68

60 Table 12~continued 30. It is for children to experiment with writing by inventing their own spelling. 3 1 It is to provide many opportunities to develop social skills with peers in the classroom. 32. It is for kindergartners to learn to read.* 33. In the kindergarten program, it is that math be integrated with all the curriculum areas. 34. In teaching health and safety, it is to include a variety of activities throughout the school year. 35. In the classroom setting, it is for the child to be exposed to multicultural and nonsexist activities. 36. It is that outdoor time have planned activities. 37. Input from parents is 4.42 3.91 4.20 4.85 4.77 4.82 2.62 2.89 2.91 3.92 3.54 3.54 4.43 4.46 4.42 4.75 4.57 4.74 3.27 2.94 2.8 4.70 4.77 4.75 Developmentally inappropriate item that was reverse-scored.

PAGE 69

61 Table 13 Mean Total Scores for Teacher Beliefs Scale Early Childhood Early Childhood Unified Education Special Education Early Childhood M 150.27 143.97 142.90 Table 14 Summary ANOVA Table for Teacher Beliefs Scale Source df SS MS £ E Group 2 3819.379 1909.690 10.466* .000 Error 350 63862.066 182.463 E<.05

PAGE 70

62 Table 15 Pairwise Comparisons for Teacher Beliefs Scale Program of Study Program of Study Mean Difference Std. Error E Unified EC -7.3778* 1.7683 .000 ECSE -1.0753 2.7537 .919 EC Unified 7.3778* 1.7683 .000 ECSE 6.3024* 2.4434 .027 ECSE Unified 1.0753 2.7537 .919 EC -6.3024* 2.4434 .027 E < .05 Table 16 Summary ANOVA Table for Teacher Beliefs Scale Total Scores and Ethnicity Source df SS MS 1 e~ Group 3 816.880 272.293 1.418* .237 Error 347 66618.860 191.985 *E>.05 Behavioral Beliefs Scale Although reliability estimates were initially calculated during the development of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale (BBS) based on the pilot study, the principal investigator again estimated the reliability of the BBS based on the data collected for this study.

PAGE 71

63 Again, Cronbach's alpha was calculated to measure the internal consistency. Cronbach's alpha for Section II (items 1 through 22) was .79. Alphas for the 2 identified factors within Section II were .77 for Factor I (reinforcement) and .72 for Factor II (punishment). Examination of the individual item-total correlations indicated that all items were keyed in the positive direction and ranged from .13 to .58, indicating much variability in the contributions of each item to the overall reliability of the measure. Beliefs about Behavioral Techniques and Practices In order to address what beliefs preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs hold about the use of behavioral techniques and practices, mean scores were computed for each group for each of the items contained in Section II of the BBS. Table 16 summarizes the mean scores for each group by item. A comparison of the group means for individual items in Table 17 indicates that all three groups rated 2 items (e.g., 1 1, 17) 4.0 or higher, suggesting that beliefs range from "Very Appropriate" to "Extremely Appropriate." Furthermore, inspection of individual item means by group indicates that both the ECSE and Unified groups rated 1 additional item (e.g., 16) at 4.0 or higher. Inspection of the chart indicates that many additional items were rated at 3.0 (Fairly Appropriate) or higher. Differences in Beliefs about Behavioral Techniques and Practices In order to address whether there were significant differences in beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices between preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs, an one-way, between-groups ANOVA was conducted to compare the mean scores on the BBS between the three groups to determine if there were significant inter-group differences not attributable to random error. A significant difference was found at the a = .05 level on Section II of the BBS, and Factor

PAGE 72

64 I of Section II of the BBS. No significant differences between group means at the a = .05 level were found on Factor II (punishment) of Section II of the BBS, F(2, 352) = 1 .054, p = .350. Mean scores of the BBS on Section II, Factor I (reinforcement) of Section II, and Factor II (punishment) of Section II for each of the three groups are presented in tables, 1 8, 19, 20, respectively. Results of the ANOVAs calculated on the mean scores of the BBS on Section II, Factor I (reinforcement) of Section II, and Factor II (punishment) of Section II for each of the three groups are presented in Tables 21, 22, and 23, respectively. Because an ANOVA involving more than 2 groups does not identify which intergroup differences may be significant, post hoc comparisons must be done. Holding the familywise Type I error rate constant at a=.05, a post hoc comparison of pairwise group differences utilizing the Tukey procedure revealed significant differences between the ECE and ECSE groups, and between the ECE and Unified groups, in their beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices. However, no significant differences were observed between the ECSE and the Unified groups in their beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices at the a = .05 level. The results of the pairwise comparisons are summarized in Table 24. A post hoc comparison utilizing the Tukey procedure for pairwise comparisons on Factor I (reinforcement) of Section II of the BBS revealed significant differences between the ECE and Unified groups, and the ECE and ECSE group, in their beliefs about reinforcement. However, no other significant inter-group differences were observed for Factor I (reinforcement) at the a =.05 level. The results of the pairwise comparisons are summarized in Table 25.

PAGE 73

65 No post hoc comparison was conducted on Factor II (punishment) of Section II of the BBS, because, as indicated earlier, the ANOVA did not reveal any significant differences between the three groups. Relationships Between Behavioral Techniques and Practices and Individual Characteristics In order to address whether there were statistically significant and noteworthy relationships between beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices and individual characteristics of early childhood preservice teachers, mean BBS total scores were compared for males and females using a t-test. The results did not suggest any significant relationship between gender and total scores (t (352) = .228, p > .05). A Pearson product-moment correlation was computed for age and BBS total scores and indicated no significant relationship (N = 350, r = -.01 1). Finally, an one-way, between groups ANOVA was performed to compare the mean scores on the BBS by ethnicity. There were no significant inter-group differences. Results of the ANOVA are presented in Table 26.

PAGE 74

66 Table 17 Group Means for Individual Behavioral Beliefs Scale Items Item Early Early Unified Childhood Childhood Early Education Special Childhood Education 1 It is for teachers to motivate children's learning and behavior through the careful use of rewards and punishment in the classroom. 2. It is for teachers to use rewards to change behavior. 3. It is for teachers to set class goals for achievement and throw a pizza party when a predetermined goal is met. 4. It is for teachers to point out and use unpleasant consequences for aggressive behaviors (e.g., hitting) in front of the class. 5. It is for teachers to sometimes ignore the behavior of students who are breaking the rules. 6. It is for teachers to sometimes ignore the behavior of students who are displaying aggressive behaviors (e.g., hitting). 7. It is for teachers to give students prizes (e.g., stickers, toys, trinkets) who complete their work on time. 8. It is for teachers to use unpleasant consequences to deter future misconduct. 2.93 3.59 3.56 2.65 3.31 3.24 3.20 3.40 3.54 1.74 1.74 1.92 2.35 2.37 2.14 1.40 1.43 1.35 2.43 3.17 2.94 2.63 2.88 2.88

PAGE 75

Table 17-continued 9. It is for teachers to grant special privileges (e.g., line leader) to children who are displaying appropriate behaviors. 10. It is for teachers to use rewards (e.g., stickers) to enhance children's internal motivation. 1 1 It is for teachers to praise students for appropriate behavior. 12. It is for teachers to promote children's social-emotional development by using rewards (e.g., stickers). 13. It is for teachers to point out inappropriate behavior (e.g., breaking classroom rules) in front of the class. 14. It is for teachers to take away privileges for breaking the classroom rules. 1 5. It is for teachers to use unpleasant consequences to set an example for other students. 1 6. It is for teachers to reward the entire class' appropriate behavior by granting extra playtime. 1 7. It is for teachers to promote children's social-emotional development by using praise. 18. It is for teachers to paddle students who hit other students. 19. It is for teachers to use unpleasant consequences (e.g., name on board) with children who don't follow classroom rules. 67 3.51 3.77 3.83 2.88 3.51 3.49 4.33 4.74 4.65 2.63 3.29 3.17 2.21 2.17 2.17 3.38 3.77 3.51 2.20 2.38 2.29 3.60 4.03 4.04 4.22 4.54 4.48 1.07 1.17 1.04 2.24 2.46 2.55

PAGE 76

68 Table 17~continued 20. It is for teachers to reward 2.62 3.14 3.23 appropriate behavior with prizes. 2 1 It is for teachers to paddle students 1 .06 1.17 1 .05 who break classroom rules. 22. It is for teachers to ignore "acting 2.2 1 2.50 2.09 out" behaviors. Table 18 Mean Total Scores for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Section II Early Childhood Early Childhood Unified Education Special Education Early Childhood M 57.29 64.11 62.61 Table 19 Mean Total Scores for Factor I (Reinforcement) of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale Early Childhood Early Childhood Unified Education Special Education Early Childhood M 34.88 40.29 40.01

PAGE 77

Table 20 Mean Scores for Factor II (PunishmenO of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale Early Childhood Early Childhood Unified Education Special Education Early Childhood M 1112 ll83 1165 Table 21 Summary ANOVA Table for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Section II Source df SS MS £ Group 2 2640.709 1320.354 15.525* Error 352 29937.331 85.049 *E<.05.

PAGE 78

70 Table 22 Summary ANOVA Table for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Factor I (Reinforcement) of Section II Source df SS MS F E Group 2 2095.183 1047.591 25.318* .000 Error 352 14564.89 41.378 £ < .05 Table 23 Summary ANOVA Table for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Factor II (Punishment) of Section II Source df SS MS 1 E Group 2 27.382 13.691 1.054** .350 Error 352 4572.150 12.989 **2> .05

PAGE 79

71 Table 24 Pairwise Comparisons for Section II of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale Program of Study rrogrdm ui oiuuy IVlCdll JL/llltl til^^ Std Error n H Unified ECE 5.3303* 1.2008 .000 FCSF -1.4989 1.8763 .704 ECE Unified -5.3303* 1.2008 .000 ECSE -6.8292* 1.6678 .000 ECSE Unified 1.4989 1.8763 .704 ECE 6.8292* 1.6678 .000 E_< .05. Table 25 Pairwise Comparisons for Factor I (Reinforcement) of Section II of the Behavioral Beliefs Scale Program of Study Program of Study Mean Difference Std. Error E Unified ECE 5.1285* .8375 .000 ECSE -.2729 1.3087 .976 ECE Unified -5.1285* .8375 .000 ECSE -5.4014* 1.1633 .000 ECSE Unified .2729 1.3087 .976 ECE 5.4014 1.1633 .000 E < .05

PAGE 80

72 Table 26 Summary ANOVA Table for Behavioral Beliefs Scale Total Scores and Ethnicity Source df SS MS F E Group 3 296.045 98.682 1.072* .361 Error 349 32126.190 92.052 E > .05 Summary An analysis of the data gathered from each of three teacher preparation programs led to 6 general findings about preservice teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices. First, the study found that preservice teachers in each of the teacher preparation programs held relatively strong beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices. Second, significant differences in beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices were observed between preservice teachers in the ECE and ECSE programs and between the ECE and Unified programs. However, no significant differences were observed between the ECSE and the Unified groups in their beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices. Third, no statistically significant and noteworthy relationships between beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and individual characteristics (i.e., sex, chronological age, ethnicity) of early childhood preservice teachers were identified. Fourth, the study found that preservice teachers in each of the teacher preparation programs did not hold strong beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices. Fifth,

PAGE 81

73 significant differences in beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices were observed between preservice teachers in the ECE and ECSE groups and between the ECE and Unified groups. However, no significant differences were observed between the ECSE and the Unified groups in their beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices. Finally, no statistically significant and noteworthy relationships between beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices and individual characteristics (i.e., sex, chronological age, ethnicity) of early childhood preservice teachers were identified.

PAGE 82

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Introduction Educational philosophy and practice have historically differed between early childhood education (ECE) and early childhood special education (ECSE) (Bredekamp, 1993; Burton et al., 1992; Wolery & Wilbers, 1994), with ECE being traditionally grounded in constructivism and ECSE being traditionally grounded in behaviorism (Smith & Bredekamp, 1998; see also Wolery et al., 1994; Wolery & Wilbers, 1994). The recent trend towards greater inclusion has increased the number of children with special needs in ECE classrooms, resulting in the need for professionals from a variety of fields to work together. With this greater inclusion has come a blending of techniques and practices from different fields and at other times friction and heated debates (Smith & Bredekamp, 1998; see also Bredekamp, 1993; Carta, 1991; Carta 1993; Carta et al., 1994; Carta et al., 1995; Johnson & Johnson, 1992; Johnson & Johnson, 1993; Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Kilgo et al., 1999). Since research indicates that teachers' beliefs largely influence their behavior in the classroom (Bloom; 1992; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, &. DeWolf, 1993; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Dunn 8c Kontos, 1997; Hyson, Hirsch-Pasek, & Rescola, 1990; Fang, 1996; Isenberg, 1996; Munby, 1982; Smith, 1992), exploring some of the similarities and differences in beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices among preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs may assist in curriculum development and training 74

PAGE 83

75 as well as continuing education for inservice teachers (see Tatto, 1998). Moreover, an understanding of such differences may help teacher preparation programs bridge the gap between these traditionally different disciplines. Thus, the first goal of this study was assess and evaluate ECE, ECSE, and Unified preservice teachers beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices. A second goal of this study was the piloting, development, and testing of an instrument used to assess beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices. To this end, the Behavioral Beliefs Scale (BBS) was developed to assess beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices, and its reliability was tested. Moreover, a comparison of responses on the Teacher Beliefs Scale (TBS) between types of preservice teachers was intended to add to the developing body of research surrounding the TBS. Beliefs About Developmentally Appropriate Practices An analysis of the data gathered from three types of teacher preparation programs led to three general findings about preservice teachers and their beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices. The results of this study suggested that, in general, preservice teachers in each of the three groups held strong beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices. The mean scores for a majority of the items, including the reverse-scored items, were in excess of 4.0 (the practice was very important), with only slight differences in responses by training program type. However, preservice teachers in ECE training programs held the strongest beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices, having mean scores in excess of 4.0 on 25 out of 36 items, suggesting that these preservice teachers have extremely strong beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices.

PAGE 84

76 In addition to the strength of beliefs, significant differences in beliefs were observed between preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs. In particular, preservice teachers in ECE teacher preparation programs held significantly different beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices from preservice teachers in ECSE and Unified teacher preparation programs. With nearly all of the participants being juniors and seniors (97.7%) in teacher preparation programs, some differences in beliefs may be attributable to differences in training, particularly since no demographic characteristics were determined to have significant relationships with beliefs. Given that ECE teacher preparation programs have historically been rooted in constructivism, the fact that ECE preservice teachers held stronger beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices than ECSE preservice teachers who have not been typically rooted in constructivism, was not surprising. Furthermore, as indicated earlier, the Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) Guidelines were developed and published by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), the largest organization of ECE professionals. It was somewhat surprising that preservice teachers in ECE teacher preparation programs differed significantly from preservice teachers in Unified teacher preparation programs, because Unified teacher preparation programs draw upon philosophy and practice from the field of ECE (Burton et al., 1992; Gargiulo, Sluder, & Streitenberger, 1997). It was anticipated that preservice teachers in Unified teacher preparation programs would hold beliefs very similar to those of ECE preservice teachers ~ that is, strong beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices. The observed differences between the two groups suggests that Unified programs may be

PAGE 85

77 more closely patterned after ECSE programs than ECE programs, or, alternately, that ECE programs may simply differ from the others only in the limited areas addressed by this study. Also, the observed differences may have been attributable to the way in which the participating programs were classified or labeled. In addition, what may have been more surprising is how strong ECSE preservice teachers beliefs were about developmentally appropriate practices. Perhaps, the most significant conclusion to be drawn from these unanticipated differences is that further research might be warranted. The results of this study also suggested that no significant relationships existed between demographic characteristics gender, age, ethnicity -and beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices. Given this finding, it is possible that observed differences in beliefs were attributable to differences in program type, and thus, training. However, one might hypothesize that individuals in teacher preparation programs have pre-existing beliefs that make them more compatible with the teacher preparation program they select. However, this study tends not to support this hypothesis because most of the data comes from universities with only one type (i.e., ECE, ECSE, or Unified) of early childhood teacher preparation program, suggesting that students could not choose one program over another. As indicated earlier, a secondary goal of this study was to further investigate the value of a questionnaire used to assess early childhood teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices. While a detailed analysis of the TBS was outside the scope of this study, the TBS was easy to use and was found to have satisfactory reliability, confirming other studies on the TBS (see Charlesworth, Hart, Burts,

PAGE 86

78 Thomasson et al, 1993; Sexton, 1998). No significant problems or flaws with this instrument were noted. Beliefs about Behavioral Techniques and Practices Unlike the strength of participants' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices, the results from the administration of the BBS suggested that preservice teachers attending all three training programs did not hold extremely strong beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices. Preservice teachers attending all three training programs only endorsed a small number of behavioral techniques and practices as very appropriate to extremely appropriate when compared to the number of endorsed belief statements about developmentally appropriate practices. Only mean scores for 2 out of 22 items were in excess of 4.0 (indicating that the technique or practice was very appropriate), with slight differences in responses by training program type. Specifically, preservice teachers in ECSE and Unified teacher preparation programs on average rated only 1 additional item as very appropriate. Given that ECSE teacher preparation programs have been historically "rooted" in behaviorism, it was anticipated that more items would be endorsed as very appropriate or extremely appropriate by ECSE preservice teachers. In summary, overall stronger response (e.g., stronger beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices) was expected of ECSE preservice teachers than was actually observed. Results of this study further suggested that significant differences existed in preservice teachers' beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices in ECE, ECSE, and Unified Teacher preparation programs. Specifically, beliefs held by preservice teachers in ECE teacher preparation programs differed significantly from beliefs held by preservice teachers in ECSE and Unified training programs. Preservice teachers in ECE

PAGE 87

teacher preparation programs did not endorse as many beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices as preservice teachers in ECSE and Unified teacher preparation programs. This finding was anticipated given the historical foundations of the two disciplines (see Smith & Bredekamp, 1998; Wolery et al., 1994; Wolery & Wilbers, 1994). Unified teacher preparation programs draw upon philosophy and practice from the fields of ECE and ECSE (Burton et al., 1992; Gargiulo, Sluder, & Streitenberger, 1997). Therefore, it was not surprising that preservice teachers in Unified teacher preparation programs endorsed more behavioral techniques and practices than those preservice teachers attending ECE teacher preparation programs. Results of the analysis on each of the two factors on the BBS (i.e., reinforcement and punishment) suggested that there were significant differences in beliefs about reinforcement between the three training programs. Beliefs of preservice teachers in ECE teacher preparation programs differed significantly from those preservice teachers in ECSE and Unified teacher preparation programs. However, there were no significant differences between the three groups in beliefs about punishment. Data analysis indicated that, generally, all three groups did not endorse the use of punishment or unpleasant consequences with young children. In recent years, many forms of punishment in the classroom (e.g., paddling, other techniques that might be construed as humiliating) have been discouraged because of liability issues and for ethical reasons (Deitz & Repp, 1983; Kazdin, 1978; 1994; Martin & Pear, 1988; Polsgrove & Reith, 1993; Schloss & Smith, 1998). Furthermore, the DAP Guidelines also discourage the use of punishment (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Perhaps, due to these problems and

PAGE 88

80 changes in society's expectations regarding the treatment of children, all three types of teacher education programs have begun to discourage the use of punishment. Finally, there were no significant relationships between sex and beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices, age and beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices, and ethnicity and beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices. Results of the pilot study on 100 preservice teachers indicated that the BBS has satisfactory reliability. Furthermore, the data gathered on 355 preservice teachers indicated that the BBS has satisfactory reliability and appears to be a promising instrument for use in behavioral beliefs assessment. Implications for Practice The results of this study suggest that preservice teachers in ECSE and Unified teacher preparation programs hold similar beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices. However, this study found that preservice teachers in ECE programs held significantly different beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices when compared with preservice teachers in ECSE and Unified teacher training programs. Given findings of this study and the trend towards greater inclusion of young children with special needs in early childhood settings, it is even more important that professionals in the fields of ECE and ECSE work together to identify commonalities and resolve differences in order to successfully meet the needs of typically and atypically developing children. Teacher educators in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs may need to reconsider ways programs can be restructured so that significant differences in training no longer exist between the three program types. Collaboration between these teacher educators needs to occur with greater frequency despite the

PAGE 89

81 departmentalization of most colleges and schools of education, many of which still maintain physically segregated facilities for different programs (Winn & Blanton, 1997). The wide range of beliefs evident in this study suggests that the goals of unifying ECE and ECSE education have not been fully realized at the major institutions participating in this study, particularly at the philosophical level. Perhaps the adage, "old habits die hard" reflects how slowly institutional change occurs compared to theoretical or legal changes. The key to resolving the differences between ECE and ECSE in a meaningful way may be for teacher educators to recognize the merits of various philosophical orientations and expose students to them. Unified teacher preparation programs have attempted to do just this by blending the disciplines of ECE and ECSE in a formal way. However, the concept of combining two different disciplines is still relatively new and many Unified programs are still undergoing tremendous change. Similarly, in the classroom, new and emerging roles for ECSE teachers are being developed; many find that they are working in ECE classrooms or consulting with ECE teachers more and more (See Buysee & Wesley, 1993). Assuming that teachers' beliefs do sometimes influence teacher practice, as some research suggests, school district administrators must begin to consider how teachers' beliefs can be modified so that teachers feel comfortable using a wide variety of practices with the children in their class, including developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices. One way administrators may begin to assist teachers in modifying their current beliefs is inservice training programs. Research concerning the alteration of beliefs has suggested that beliefs are more amenable to change when teachers are shown that particular practices are effective. Therefore, inservice training

PAGE 90

82 aimed at demonstrating the effectiveness of developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices may be a useful tool in attempting to effectuate changes in teachers' beliefs (Dunn & Kontos, 1997). However, failure of the training to demonstrate the effectiveness of the practice may only reinforce existing beliefs. There is much that remains unknown about teachers' beliefs and how these beliefs influence practice. What has become clear, after considering the results of this study, is that teacher educators must continue to work together across the fields of ECE and ECSE to improve the quality of teaching, classroom management, and education for all children, including those with special needs. Limitations of the Study One limitation of this study is that all beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices were self-reported. Thus, there is no evidence to suggest that participants' actual teaching practices would reflect their reported beliefs. However, there is some research that suggests a moderate relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices (Dunn & Kontos, 1997; Charelsworth et a., 1993, Hyson etal., 1990). A second limitation of this study is the relatively small sample (N = 35) size of ECSE preservice teachers. The majority of this study's sample consisted of preservice teachers in ECE and Unified teacher preparation programs. However, harmonic means were used when means between the three groups were compared. A third limitation of this study is that that participants' teacher preparation programs were not critically examined and analyzed. Therefore, no clear conclusions can be drawn about the curriculum content of each of the three program types. In addition.

PAGE 91

83 the classification of programs into the three types used in this study is not exact and program type may more appropriately be viewed on a continuum. A fourth limitation of this study is that the BBS is a relatively new instrument. Although information gathered on reliability and validity are encouraging, additional studies need to be conducted. Areas of Future Research Areas of future research might include conducting additional studies investigating preservice teachers' or practicing teachers' beliefs using the BBS. These studies might also include the use of multiple measures (e.g., questionnaires, observations, interviews). The use of multiple measures would provide researchers with insight into the ways in which beliefs coincide with teacher practices. Furthermore, it would be interesting to see if the results of this study could be replicated on another sample of preservice teachers attending ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs. Other areas of future research might also focus on how teachers' beliefs change over time. This might include a study of beliefs of persons entering teacher preparation programs, as well as a study of beliefs held by persons after teaching a few years. The participants in this study could be closely followed during their first few years of teaching. Furthermore, teachers' practices could be examined to see if they are closely aligned with their beliefs. Future research studies might also consider evaluating practicing teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices (see Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson et al., 1993; Sexton, 1998) and behavioral techniques and practices. The results of such a study could be compared to this study and other studies on the TBS to examine a variety of constructs. This might include examining the relationship between teachers' beliefs

PAGE 92

84 about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices and variables such as educational level, employment area, and years of teaching experience. Also, variables particular to practicing teachers such as demands of the school environment could also be factored into determining the extent that beliefs influence practice. Moreover, conclusions concerning training effects between types of programs could be fiirther expanded. In addition to future research on preservice and inservice teachers' beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices, research evaluating the beliefs of teacher educators in ECE, ECSE, and Unified teacher preparation programs is also warranted. Such research may further develop whether observed differences in preservice teachers' beliefs are attributable to differences in training. Moreover, such research may further develop why differences in beliefs between preservice teachers in ECE, ECSE and Unified programs were found to exist. As discussed in Chapter 2, research suggests that teachers' practices are not always reflective of their beliefs. Research aimed at understanding the conditions and reasons for such divergence may be useful in understanding how to encourage the use of developmentally appropriate practices and behavioral techniques and practices, despite a wide variety of beliefs concerning those practices. Furthermore, research into teacher motivation and temperament may also contribute to this field of study.

PAGE 93

APPENDIX A EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM DESCRIPTION — MODIFIED QUESTIONNAIRE University or College: ^ I. Child Growth, Development, and Learning (Principals of child growth and development, developmental diversity, psychological foundations of early childhood (ECE)) Course Title II. Family and Community Relations (Understanding of the role of the family and community, ability to cooperate with the family and community systems) Course Title 85

PAGE 94

86 III. Curriculum Development, Content, and Implementation (Planning and implementing, evaluating appropriate content and methods; selecting materials; creating the learning environment; planning for special needs; observing, recording and assessing behavior) Course Title IV. Health, Safety, and Nutrition (Basic health, nutrition, and safety management procedures; health appraisal and referral; identification and correction of hazards) Course Title

PAGE 95

Early Childhood Professionalism (Value issues and legal issues; advocacy; philosophy of ECE, historical, philosophical, and social foundations of ECE; working with colleagues; career-long growth and development) Course Title Young Children with Special Needs Course Title

PAGE 96

VII. Young Children with Special Needs Course Title 88 VIII. Field Experiences Supervised practicum as a classroom assistant prior to student teaching (student is directly supervised by a college/university supervisor, and there is planned communication between college/university supervisor and staff at the practicum site. Supervised student teaching (student is directly supervised by a college/university supervisor, and there is planned communication between the college/university supervisor and the staff at the practicum site) VII. Other program requirements

PAGE 97

89 IX. Does your institution operate on a quarter system or semester system (please circle one) QUARTER SEMESTER X. What is the title of the program which you have just described? XI. What is the name of the department in which the program is offered? XII. Is this department part of the school or college within your institution (e.g. College of Education, College of Consumer and Family Science)? If so, please name. XIII. Is the early childhood teacher preparation program which you have just described (please check): Regular Early Childhood Early Childhood Special Education Unified Early Childhood and Early Childhood Special Education

PAGE 98

APPENDIX B BEHAVIORAL BELIEFS SCALE (BBS) Your professional cooperation in completing this questionnaire will help all educators gain a better understanding of preservice teachers' beliefs about behavioral techniques and practices used in many early childhood settings. This is not a test; there are no right or wrong answers. Your opinion will be strictly confidential. Please give an independent reaction on each item. Name: Please respond to each item: 1 Your program of study (check one) Unified (Combined) Early Childhood Education and Early Childhood Special Education Early Childhood Education Early Childhood Special Education Other (please describe)_ 2. Your present year of study in your current program (check one) Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Student in Master's in a 5* Year Preservice Program Graduate Student in Master's Certification Program Other (please describe)_ 3. Your age 4. The grade levels at which you have had field placements (check all that apply) None Preschool Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade Other (please describe) 5. The grade level you ideally would like to teach (check one) Preschool First Grade Third Grade Kindergarten Second Grade Other (please describe) 90

PAGE 99

91 6. The setting you ideally like to teach in (check one) Noninclusive Regular Education Special Education Inclusive Other (please describe)_ 7. Your sex (circle one) M F 8. Your ethnicity (check one) White Black Hispanic American Indian Please complete this section of the questionnaire by circling the response on the following continuous scale that most nearly reflects YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS about the appropriateness of the item in early childhood settings. 1 Not Appropriate At All Not Very Appropriate 3 Fairly Appropriate 4 Very Appropriate 1 It is for teachers to motivate children's learning and behavior through the careful use of rewards and punishment in the classroom. 2. It is for teachers to use rewards to change behavior. 3. It is for teachers to set class goals for achievement and throw a pizza party when a predetermined goal is met. 4. It is for teachers to point out and use unpleasant consequences for aggressive behaviors (e.g., hitting) in front of the class. 5. It is for teachers to sometimes ignore the behavior of students who are breaking the rules. 6. It is for teachers to sometimes ignore the behavior of students who are displaying aggressive behaviors (e.g., hitting). 7. It is for teachers to give students prizes (e.g., stickers, toys, trinkets) who complete their work on time. 8. It is for teachers to use unpleasant consequences to deter future misconduct. 9. It is for teachers to grant special privileges (e.g., line leader) to children who are displaying appropriate behaviors. 10. It is for teachers to use rewards (e.g., stickers) to enhance children's internal motivation. 11. It is for teachers to praise students for appropriate behavior. Extremely Appropriate 3 4 5 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4

PAGE 100

92 1 Not Appropriate At All Not Very Appropriate 3 Fairly Appropriate 4 Very Appropriate Extremely Appropriate 12. It is for teachers to promote children's social-emotional development by using rewards (e.g., stickers). 13. It is for teachers to point out inappropriate behavior (e.g., breaking classroom rules) in front of the class. 14. It is for teachers to take away privileges for breaking the classroom rules. 15. It is for teachers to use unpleasant consequences to set an example for other students. 16. It is for teachers to reward the entire class' appropriate behavior by granting extra playtime. 1 7. It is for teachers to promote children's social-emotional development by using praise. 1 8. It is for teachers to paddle students who hit other students. 19. It is for teachers to use unpleasant consequences (e.g., name on board) with children who don't follow classroom rules. 20. It is for teachers to reward appropriate behavior with prizes. 21. It is for teachers to paddle students who break classroom rules. 22. It is for teachers to ignore "acting out" behaviors. 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

PAGE 101

93 Please complete this section of the questionnaire by circling the response on the following continuous scale that most nearly reflects YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS about the behavioral technique or practice described in the following examples. 1 To reduce Christopher's habit of using his cupped hands to toss water out of the water table, Mrs. Jackson has told Christopher that each day he plays without throwing water out of the table, he may be table washer after snack time (a responsibility in which Christopher delights). Please circle one of the following: The technique or practice is very inappropriate B The technique or practice is somewhat inappropriate The technique or practice is somewhat appropriate D The technique or practice is very appropriate Would you use this technique or practice? (circle one) YES or NO Why or why not? 2. Six-year-old Teddy has trouble paying attention during morning circle time. He often rolls around on the floor or has his back toward the teacher. The other children in Teddy's class laugh at Teddy's behavior, resulting in total disruption. His teacher, Ms. Aaron, has tried changing Teddy's location in circle time and has attempted to use prompts to maintain his attention, with little success. She is confident that the circle time activities are interesting and appropriate. She has now decided that when Teddy exhibits these off-task behaviors, she will send Teddy to time-out until he is ready to pay attention and participate with the rest of the class. Please circle one of the following: The technique or practice is very inappropriate B The technique or practice is somewhat inappropriate The technique or practice is somewhat appropriate D The technique or practice is very appropriate Would you use this technique or practice? (circle one) YES or NO Why or why not?

PAGE 102

94 3. Mr. Hal is at his wits end. Bobby is disruptive during morning circle time each day. To reduce Bobby's disruptive behavior during morning circle, Mr. Hal decides that if Bobby can be a good listener and participate with the rest of the class he is awarded a token. Bobby can later trade in a specified number of earned tokens for various prizes and trinkets. Mr. Hal makes sure that he praises Bobby each time he awards a token. Please circle one of the following: A B C D The technique or The technique or The technique or The technique or practice is very practice is practice is practice is very inappropriate somewhat somewhat appropriate inappropriate appropriate Would you use this technique or practice? (circle one) YES or NO Why or why not? 4. When five year old Sally remembers to put the caps on the classroom markers Ms. Tarrant says, "Sally, you put the markers back in their caps. I'm pleased. Now the markers won't get dried up. They will be fresh and ready when someone else chooses to use them." Please circle one of the following: The technique or practice is very inappropriate B The technique or practice is somewhat inappropriate The technique or practice is somewhat appropriate D The technique or practice is very appropriate Would you use this technique or practice? (circle one) YES or NO Why or why not?

PAGE 103

95 5. During large group time, Mr. Clark's kindergarten class is having trouble remembering to raise their hands. When children shout out Mr. Clark simply ignores their behavior and makes sure he calls on a child with his or her hand raised. Please circle one of the following: The technique or practice is very inappropriate B The technique or practice is somewhat inappropriate The technique or practice is somewhat appropriate D The technique or practice is very appropriate Would you use this technique or practice? (circle one) YES or NO Why or why not? 6. Ms. Watford is extremely frustrated with her second grade class's behavior. She decides to implement a new classroom management technique. When a child breaks one of the class's rules his/her name is placed on the board. If a child breaks additional rules he/she receives checks by his/her name. When a child receives two checks he/she loses recess. When he/she receives three checks he/she is sent to the principal. Please circle one of the following: The technique or practice is very inappropriate B The technique or practice is somewhat inappropriate The technique or practice is somewhat appropriate D The technique or practice is very appropriate Would you use this technique or practice? (circle one) YES or NO Why or why not? Comments: Thank you for your time.

PAGE 104

REFERENCES Abelson, R. (1979). Differences between belief systems and knowledge systems. Cognitive Science, 3, 355-366. Agresti, A. (1990). Categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley. Alberto, P.A., & Troutman, A.C. (1990). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (3rded.). Columbus: Merrill. Appl. D. (1995). Moving toward inclusion by narrowing the gap between early childhood professionals. Early Childhood Education Journal. 23(1), 23-26. Baer, D.M., Wolf, M.M., & Risley, T.R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91-97. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Berk, L., & Winsler, S. (1995). Scaffolding children's learning: Vygotsky and early childhood education. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Bloom, P.J. (1992). Looking inside: Helping teachers assess their beliefs and values. Child Care Information Exchange, 88, 1 1-13. Bredekamp, S. (1987). Developmentallv appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age eight. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Bredekamp, S. (1993). The relationship between early childhood education and early childhood special education: Healthy marriage or family feud? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13(3), 258-273. Bredekamp, S. (1997). NAEYC issues revised position statement on developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. Young Children, 52(2), 34-40. Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. 96

PAGE 105

97 Bredekamp. S., & Rosegrant, T. (Eds.). (1995). Reaching potentials: Transforming early childhood curriculum and assessment. Vol. 2. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Brousseau, B.A., Book, C, & Byers, J. (1988). Teacher beliefs and the cultures of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 33-39. Brown, C.A., & Cooney, T.J. (1982). Research on teacher education: A philosophical orientation. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 15(4), 267-273. Brown, D., Pryzwansky, W., & Shulte, A.C. (1995). Psychological consultation: Introduction to theory and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Buchmann, M. (1984). The use of research knowledge in teacher education and teaching. American Journal of Education, 93, 421-439. Buchmann, M. (1987). Teaching knowledge: The lights that teachers live by. Oxford Review of Education, 13, 151-164. Buchmann, M., & Schwille, J. (1983). Education: The overcoming of experience. American Journal of Education, 42, 43-51. Burton, C, Hains, A., Hanline, M., McLean, M., & McCormick, K. (1992). Early childhood intervention and education: The urgency of professional unification. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. 1 1(4), 53-69. Buysse, V., & Wesley, P.W. (1993). The identity crisis in early childhood special education: A call for professional role clarification. Topics in Ea rly Childhood Special Education, 13(4), 418-429. Cameron, J., & Pierce, W.D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363-423. Cameron, J., & Pierce, W.D. (1996). The debate about rewards and intrinsic motivation: Protests and accusations do not alter the results. Review of Educational Research. 66(1), 39-51. Cantania, A.C. (1992). Learning (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Carta, J.J. (1994). Developmentally appropriate practices: Shifting the emphasis to individual appropriateness. Journal of Early Intervention, 1 8, 331-341. Carta, J.J. (1995). Developmentally appropriate practice: A critical analysis as applied to young children with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27 (8), 1-14.

PAGE 106

98 Carta, J.J., Atwater, J.B., Schwartz, I.S., & McConnell, S.R. (1993). Developmentally appropriate practices and early childhood special education: A reaction to Johnson & McChesney Johnson. Topics in Special Educa tion. 13, 243-254. Carta, J.J., Schwartz, I.S., Atwater, J.B., & McConnel, S.R. (1991). Developmentally appropriate practice: Appraising its usefulness for young children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. 11(1), 1-20. Cattell, R.B. (1966). The meaning and strategic use of factor analysis. InR.B. Cattell (Ed.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (pp. 174-243). Chicago: Rand McNally. Charlesworth, R., Hart, C.H., Burts, D.C., & DeWolf, M. (1 993). The LSU studies: Building a research base for developmentally appropriate practice. Advance in Early Education and Day Care, 5, 3-28. Charlesworth, R. Hart, C.H., Burts, D.C., & Hernandez, S. (1991). Kindergarten teachers' beliefs and practices. Early Child Development and Care. 70, 17-35. Charlesworth, R., Hart, C, Burts, D., Thomasson, R., Mosley, J., & Fleege, D. (1993). Measuring the developmental appropriateness of kindergarten teachers' beliefs and practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 8. 255-276. Cherland, M. (1989). The teacher educator and the teacher: When theory and practice conflict. Journal of Reading, 32, 409-413. Clark, CM. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions of research on teacher thinking. Educational Researcher. 17(2). 5-12. Clark, CM., & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M.C.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillian. Craighead, W.E., Kazdin, A.E., & Mohoney, M.J. (1976). Behavior modification: Principles, issues, and application. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Deitz, D., & Repp, A.C (1983). Reducing behavior through reinforcement. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 3(4), 34-46. Division of Early Childhood Task Force on Recommended Practices (Eds.). (1993). DEC recommended practices: Indicators of quality progra ms for inflants and young children with special needs and their families Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

PAGE 107

99 Duncan, T., Kemple, K., & Smith, T. (2000). Developmentally appropriate practice and the use of reinforcement in inclusive early childhood classrooms. Childhood Education. 76(4), 194-203. Dunn, L., & Kontos, S. (1997). What have we learned about developmentally appropriate practices? Young Children, 52(5), 4-13. Eisenberg, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth. Americal Psvchologist. 51(1 1), 1 153-1 166. Eisenberg, R., & Cameron, J. (1998). Reward, intrinsic interest, and creativity: New findings. American Psvchologist, 53(6), 676-679. Eisenhart, M.A., Shrum, A.M., Harding, J.R., & Cuthbert, A.M. (1988). Teacher beliefs about their work activities: Policy Implications. Theorv into Practice. 27(2), 137144. Ernest, P. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of the mathematics teacher: A model. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15, 13-34. Erwin, E.J., & Kontos, S. (1998). Parents' and kindergarten teachers' beliefs about the effects of child care. Earlv Education & Development. 9(2), 131-146. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research. 38(1). 47-65. File, N. (1994). Children's play, teacher-child interactions, and teachers' beliefs in integrated early childhood programs. Earlv Childhood Research Ouarterlv, 9, 223240. Florio-Ruane, S., & Lensmire, T.J. (1990). Transforming furture teachers' ideas about writing instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22 277-289. Gargiulo, R.M., Sluder, L.C., & Streitenberger, D. (1997). Preparing early childhood educators for inclusive programs: A call for professional unification. Early Childhood Education Journal, 25(2), 137-139. Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D.K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367-395. Gestwicki. C. (1999). Developmentallv appropriate practice: Curriculum and development in early education (2nd ed.). Albany, NY: Del Mar. Ginsberg, M.B., & Newman, K.K. (1985). Social inequalifies, schooling, and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Educafion, 36(2), 49-54.

PAGE 108

100 Goodman, J. (1988). Constructing a practical philoshopy of teaching: A study of preservice teachers' professional perspectives. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4, 121137. Gordan, A.M., & Browne, K.W. (Eds.). (1989). Beginnings & beyond, Albany, NY: Del Mar. Gorsuch, R.L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum. Green, T. (1971). The activities of teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill. Greene, D., & Lepper, M.R. (1974a). Effects of extrinsic rewards on children's subsequent intrinsic interest. Child Development. 45(4), 1 141-1 145. Greene, D., & Lepper, M.R. (1974b). Intrinsic motivation: How to turn play into work. Psychology Today 8, 49-54. Grieger, R.M. (1977). Teacher attitudes as a variable in behavior modification consultation. In J. Meyers, R. Martin, & I. Hyman (Eds.), School Consultation (pp. 137148). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Harvey, O. (1986). Belief systems and attitudes toward the death penalty and other punishments. Journal of Personality. 54, 143-59. Harlan, J.C. (1996). Behavior management strategies for teachers: Achieving instructional effectiveness, student success, and student motivationE very teacher and every student can! Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Hatch, J.A., & Freeman, E.B. (1988). Kindergarten philosophies and practices: Perspectives of teachers, principals, and supervisors. Early Child hood Research Quarterly. 3. 151-166. Homer, B.H., Dunlap, G., Koegel, R.L., Carr, E.G., Sailor,W., Anderson, J., Albin, R.W. O'Neill, R.E. (1990). Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 15(3), 125-32. Hyson, M.C., Hirsch-Pasek, L., & Rescola, L. (1990). The classroom pracfices inventory: An observation instrument based on NAEYC's guidelines for developmental ly appropriate practice for 4and5 year-old children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 475-94. Isenberg, J. P. (1990). Teachers' thinking and beliefs and classroom practice. Childhood Education. 66(5). 322-327. 1 i -i

PAGE 109

101 Johnson, J.E., & Johnson, K.M. (1992). Clarifying the developmental perspective in response to Carta, Schwartz, Atwater, & McConnell. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. 12(4), 439-457. Johnson, K.M., & Johnson, J.E. (1993). Rejoinder to Carta, Atwater, Schwartz, and McConnell. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. 13(3), 255-257. Johnson, J.E., & Johnson, K.M. (1994). The applicability of developmentally appropriate practice for children with diverse abilities. Journal of Early Intervention, 18(4), 343-346. Kagen, D.M., & Smith, K.E. (1988). Beliefs and behaviours of kindergarten teachers. Educational Research, 30(1), 26-35. Kaiser, H.F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151. Kazdin, A.E. (1977). A token economy: A review and evaluation. New York: Plenum. Kazdin, A.E. (1978). History of behavior education: Experimental foundations of contemporary research. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Kazdin, A.E. (1994). Behavior modification: In applied settings (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Kemple, K. (1994). Early childhood program description. Unpublished Questionnaire. Kemple, K. (1995). Early childhood teachers' attitudes and beliefs regarding the promotion of peer competence. Unpublished Manuscript. Kemple, K.M., Hysmith, C, & David, G.M. (1996). Early childhood teachers' beliefs about promoting peer competence. Early Child Development and Care, 120, 145163. Kemple. K., Hartle, L., Correa, V., & Fox, L. (1994). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: The development of a unified teacher education program in early childhood and early childhood special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(1), 38-51. Kessler, S. (1991). Alternative perspectives on early childhood education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 7(2). 183-97.

PAGE 110

102 Kilgo, J.L., Johnson, L., LaMontagne, M., Stayton, V., Cook, M., & Cooper, C. (1999). Importance of practices: A national of general and special early childhood educators. Journal of Early Intervention. 22 (4), 294-305. Kitchener, K.S. (1986). The reflective judgement model: Characteristics, evidence, and measurement. In R.A. Mines & K.S. Kitchener (Eds.), Adult cognitive development: Methods and models (pp. 76-91). New York: Praeger. Kohn, A. (1993). Punished bv rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans. A's. praise and other bribes Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Kontos, S., & Dunn, L. (1993). Caregiver practices and beliefs in child care varying in developmental appropriateness and quality. Advance in Earlv Education and Dav Care. 5. 53-74. Lasley, T.J. (1980). Preservice teacher beliefs about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education. 31(4). 38-41. Lepper, M.R., & Greene, D. (1975). When two rewards are worse than one: Effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Phi. Delta Kappan. 56(8). 565-566. Lieber, J., Capell, K., Sandall, S.R., Wolfberg, P., Horn, E., & Beckman, P. (1998). Inclusive preschool programs: Teachers' beliefs and practices. Earlv Childhood Research Quarterlv. 13(1). 87-105. Litwin, M.S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lowenthal, B. (1992). Collaborative training in the education of early childhood educators. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24(4), 25-29. Mallory, B.L., & New, R.S. (1994). Social constructivist theory and principles of inclusion: Challenges for early childhood education. Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 322-37. Malouf, D.B., 8l Schiller, E.P. (1995). Practice and research in special education. Exceptional Children. 61(5). A\A-A1A. Martin, G., & Pear, J. (1988). Behavior modification: What is it and how to do it, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

PAGE 111

103 McCollum, J., McLean, M., McCartan, K., & Kaiser, C. (1989). Recommendations for certification of early childhood special educators. Journal of Early Intervention. 13(3), 195-211. Miller, P. (1992). Segregated programs of teacher education in early childhood: Immoral and inefficient practice. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. 1 1(4), 39-52. Mounts, N.S., & Roopnarine, J.L. (1987). Application of behavioristic principles to early childhood education. In J.L. Roopnarine & J.E. Johnson (Eds.), Approaches to Early Childhood Education (pp. 127-142). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Munby, H. (1982). The place of teachers' beliefs in research on teacher thinking and decision making, an alternative methodology. Instructional Science. 1 1 201-25. Myers, V.L., Griffin, H.C. Telekei, J., Taylor,J., & Wheeler, L. (1998). Birth through kindergarten teacher training. Childhood Education, 74(3), 154-159. NAEYC (National Association for the Education of Young Chldren). (1997). NAEYC position statement: Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. In S. Bredekamp & C. Copple (Eds.), Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 19, 3 1 7-328. Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgement Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. O'Leary, D.K., Poulos, R.W., fe Deme, V.T. (1972). Tangible reinforcers: Bonuses or bribes. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 38, 1-8. Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research. 62(3), 307-332. Peters, D.L., Neisworth, J.T., & Yawkey, T.D. (1986). Early childhood education: From theory to practice. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Pintrich, P.R. (1990). Implications of psychological research on student learning and college teaching for teacher education. In W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 826-857). New York: Macmillan. Polsgrove, L., & Rieth H.J. (1983). Procedures for reducing children's inappropriate behavior in special education settings. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 3(4), 20-33. 1

PAGE 112

104 Porter, C.J., & Potenza, A. (1983). Alternative methodologies for early childhood research. In S.J. Kilmer (Ed.), Advances in Early Educat ion and Day Care (pp. 155-186). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 21 1-27. Repp, A.C. (1983). Mental retardation: A behavioral approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: A project of the association of teacher educators (2nd ed., pp. 102-1 19). New York: Macmillan. Richards, J.C., Gipe, J., & Thompson, B. (1987). Teachers' beliefs about good reading instruction. Reading Psychology, 8(1), 1-6. Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rusher, A.S., McGrenn, C.Z., & Lambiotte, J.G. (1992). Belief systems of early childhood teachers and their principles regarding early childhood education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 277-296. Safford, P.L., (1989). Integrated teaching in early childhood: Starting in the mainstream White Plains, NY: Longman. Schloss, P.J., fe Smith, M.A. (1998). Applied behavior analyses in the classroom (Rev. ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Schoomer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504. Sexton, D. (1998. December). Measuring and comparing the developmentally appropriate beliefs of general and special early childhood practitioners. Paper presented at the 14th Annual DEC International Early Childhood Conference on Children with Special Needs. Chicago, IL. Smith, K.E. (1992). The development of the primary teacher questionnaire: A teacher beliefs scale based on the NAEYC guidelines for appropriate practice in the primary grades (Report No. PS 021 061). East Lansing, Ml: National Center for Research on Teacher Leanring. (ERIC Document Reproducation Service No. ED 356 031).

PAGE 113

105 Smith, B.J., & Bredekamp, S. (1998). Foreword. In L.J. Johnson, M.L. Lamontagne, P.M. Elgas, & Bauer, A.M. (Eds.), Early Childhood Education: Blending theory, blending practice (pp. xv-xx). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Smith, M., & Shepard, L. (1988). Kindergarten readiness and retention: A qualitative study of teachers' beliefs and practices. American Educational Research Journal, 25(3), 307-333. Spidell, R.A. (1988). Play in the classroom: A descriptive study of preschool teachers' beliefs. Early Childhood Development and Care. 41(1), 153-172. Spodek, B. (1988). Implicit theories of early childhood teachers: Foundations for professional behavior. In B. Spodek, O.N. Saracho & D.L. Peters (Eds.), Professionalism and the early childhood educator (pp. 161-171). New York: Teachers College Press. Spodek, B., & Saracho, O.N. (1990). Introduction. In B. Spodek & O.N. Saracho (FAaX Early Childhood Teacher Preparation (vii-x). New York: Teachers College Press. Stainback, W.C., Payne, J.S., Stainback, S.B., & Payne, R.A. (1973). Establishing a token economy in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Stipek, D., & Byler, P. (1997). Early childhood education teachers: Do they practice what they preach? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 305-325. Strain, P.S., McConnell, S.R. Carta, J.J., Fowler, S.A., Neisworth, J.T., & Wolery, M. (1992). Behaviorism in early intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. 12(1), 121-141. Sulzer-Azaroflf, B., & Mayer, G.R., (1991). Behavior analysis for lasting change. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace. Swadener, B.B., & Kessler, K. (1991). Introduction to the special issue: Reconceptualizing early childhood. Early Childhood Education and Development. 2(2). 85-94. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.

PAGE 114

106 Tabachnick, B., & Zeicher, K.M. (1984). The impact of the student teaching experience on the development of teacher preparation of teacher perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 28-36. Tatto, M.J. (1998). The influence of teacher education on teachers' beliefs about purposes of education, roles, and practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(1), 66-77. Van Fleet, A. (1979). Learning to teach: The cultural transmission analogy. Journal of Thought. 14, 28 1 -290. Vaughn, S., Bos, C.S., & Schumm, J. S. (1997). Teaching mainstreamed, diverse, and at-risk students in the general education classroom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Webber, J., & Scheuerman, B. (1991). Mannaging behavior problems: Accentuate the positive eliminate the negative! Teaching Exceptional Children, 24(1), 13-19. Wilson, S.M. (1990). The secret garden of teacher education. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 204-209. Wing, L. A. (1989). The influence of preschool teachers' beliefs on young children's conceptions of reading and writing. Early Childhood Research Ouarteriy, 4(1), 61-74. Winn, J., & Blanton, L. (1997). The call for collaboration in teacher education. In L.P. Blanton, C.C. Griffin, J.A. Winn, & M.C. Pugach (Eds.), Teacher education in transition: Collaborative programs to prepare general and special educators (pp. 1-17). Denver, CO: Love. Wolery, M. (1994). Including children with special needs in earlv childhood programs Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Wolery, M.. Bailey, D.B., & Sugai, G.M. (1988). Effective teaching: Principles and power during applied behavior analysis with exceptional students Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Wolery, M.. & Bredekamp, S. (1994). Developmentally appropriate practices and young children with disabilities: Contextual issues in the discussion. Journal of Earlv Intervention, 18. 331-341. Wolery, M., Brookfield, J., Huffman, K., Schroeder,C., Martin, C, & Holcombe, A. (1993). Preparation in preschool mainstreaming as reported by general eariy education faculty. Journal of Eariy Intervention, 17. 298-308. Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Venn, J.L., Brookfield, J., Huffman, K., Schroeder, C, Martin, CO., & Fleming, L.A. (1993). Mainstreaming in eariy childhood programs: Current status and relevant issues. Young Children, 49( 1 ), 78-84.

PAGE 115

107 Wolery, M., Holcombe-Ligon, A., Brookfield, J., Huffman, K., Schroeder, C, Martin, C.G., Venn, M.L., Werte, M.G., & Fleming, L.A. (1993). The extent and nature of preschool mainstreaming: A survey of general early educators. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 222-234. Wolery, M., Schroeder, C, Martin, C.G., Venn, M.L., Holcombe, A., Brookfield, J., Huffman, K., & Fleming, L.A. (1994). Classroom activities and areas: Regularity of use and perceptions of adaptability in general early educators. Early Education and Development. 5, 181-194. Wolery, M., Werts, M.G., & Holcombe, A. (1994). Current practices with young children who have disabilities: Issues in placement, assessment, and instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 26(6), 1-12. Wolery, M., & Wilbers, J.S. (1994). Introduction to the inclusion of young children with special needs in early childhood programs. In M. Wolery & J.S. Wilbers (Eds.), Including Children with Special Needs in Earlv Childhood Programs (pp. 1-22). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Zirpoli, T.J. (1995). Understanding and affecting the behavior of young children. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill. Zirpoli, T.J., & Mellory, K.J. (1993). Behavior Management: Applications for teachers and parents. New York: Macmillan.

PAGE 116

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Tashawna Kay Duncan was bom and raised in Okeechobee, Florida. After completing her secondary schooling in Okeechobee, she earned a bachelor of arts in education in 1993, master of education in 1995, master of arts in education in 1998, and doctor of philosophy in 2000, all from the University of Florida. Currently, she resides in Palmetto, Florida and is employed by the Pinellas County Schools. 108

PAGE 117

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is flilly adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. mi ;2— Joh(n As^ iKranzler, Chair / jciate Professor of Educational Psychology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Tina Smith-Bonahue, Cochair Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Maureen Conroy Assistant Professor of Special Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Hazel J Associate Professor of Special Education

PAGE 118

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Associate Professor of the School of Teaching and Learning I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. CZ c-.^^^-p--^— Anne Seraphine Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of the Doctor of Philosophy. Augu^i ^000 Airman, Educational Psychology Dean, College of Educaticfn Dean, Graduate School


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E59WXQ8RT_MIXUS3 INGEST_TIME 2014-12-19T00:14:38Z PACKAGE AA00026496_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES