March, 2011, No. 1
Trend Briefs
Trend Briefs are communications from the NAEYC Academy for Early Childhood Program Accreditation intended
to share data on programs seeking accreditation and to connect the findings to early childhood research trends.
Teaching
Accreditation of Programs for Young Children
Standard 3
T
his is the first in a series of Trend Briefs to provide a
snapshot of data captured by the NAEYC Reliability
and Validity Study 1 (ReVal-1).1 ReVal-1 is the first in
a set of studies exploring the reliability and validity of the
accreditation site visit assessment tools and processes
that were developed and field tested for the 2006 revision
to NAEYC accreditation process for programs for young
children. The analysis of this data provides insight into
the performance of early childhood programs seeking
accreditation. This brief provides data on specific criteria
within the Teaching Standard that differentiate programs
that achieve accreditation from those that do not. Beyond
its technical use, the data tells the story of successful
approaches used by teachers to engage children in high
quality programs. We intend that this brief will inform
practitioners about the data findings, deepening their
knowledge. We also hope to connect the daily activities
that take place in programs to the wider implications of
informing best practice in early education programs.
Findings
Examining program performance data on Standard 3’s seven Topic Areas and 67 teaching criteria, we compared the
pass rates for 114 programs accredited by NAEYC to those
that were not accredited (13 Programs). For example, criterion 3.G.03 was met in 90% of the programs that became
accredited, but it was met in only 31% of the programs that
were deferred or denied accreditation, showing a difference in pass rate of approximately 60 percentage points
(see figure 1). The average pass rate difference for the
criteria within each of the 7 topic areas in Standard 3 are
shown in Table 1. Note that these rates represent the average pass rate across the criteria in a given topic. Across all
topics, the pass rate was higher among accredited programs than those not accredited, although the difference
in pass rates (in absolute percentage points) varied across
topics, from a low of 7.9 points to a high of 32.7 points.
As noted in Table 1, pass rates differed between
accredited and not-accredited programs in each of the 7
topic areas in Standard 3. It is also possible to examine
each of the 67 specific criteria in Standard 3. From this
set, 18 individual criteria showed the greatest differences
in how often they were met in accredited programs when
compared to not- accredited programs. Pass rate differences for these 18 criteria are shown in Table 2; they
range from 30.7% to nearly 60%.
The criteria that demonstrated the greatest pass rate
differences (as noted above) mapped onto several key
themes related to scaffolding.
About the Reliability and Validity Study (ReVal–1)
NAEYC Accreditation requires programs to demonstrate
their ongoing capacity to meet each of the 10 NAEYC
Early Childhood Program Standards. Each program
standard is defined by a set of accreditation criteria
which are organized into topic areas. There are 417
criteria across the 10 standards. The primary goals of
ReVal-1 were to describe the standards and criteria (e.g.,
pass rates, means, variance) across and within the measurement tools; to replicate the initial field study findings of
internal consistency within the 10 program standards; and
to relate standards and criteria to accreditation outcomes
(i.e., whether the programs became accredited or not). The
ReVal-1 sample included approximately 130 programs receiving accreditation site visits between September 2009 and July
2010. During these visits, experienced assessors captured
data on all 417 of NAEYC’s criteria. Programs in the ReVal-1
study were scored, like other programs, on only a subset of
the criteria for purposes of their accreditation decision. In
this sample, 114 programs were ultimately accredited and 13
were not accredited (8 were deferred, 5 were denied).
1
March 2011, No. 1
Scaffolding as Developmentally
Appropriate Practice
Five criteria (3.E.01, 3.E.02, 3.E.04, 3.G.03, 3.G.08) include
content that speak specifically about scaffolding, reflecting its importance as a teaching strategy for enhancing
program quality. Scaffolding has emerged as a critical
teaching strategy for enhancing children’s learning.
Strongly supported by research, scaffolding is a teaching strategy that strives to help children reach beyond
their current competence in any area.2 It has been found
to increase children’s executive functioning, vocabulary
growth, reading comprehension, and literacy skills.3 The
importance of scaffolding children’s learning is reflected
in the literature that stresses the importance of teachers
implementing learning activities that draw on children’s
experiences, backgrounds, and interests.4 Teachers identify the child’s current understanding of a concept and
seek to raise that level of understanding by adapting their
instruction in ways that best fit the child. To effectively
scaffold young children’s development, teachers need
to couple their knowledge of practice with their understanding of the children being served and the intended
outcomes of instruction. They intentionally choose from
among a number of teaching strategies or adapt these
teaching strategies depending on the needs of the child
and the targeted learning goal. Likewise, they accept a
dynamic role in the learning process, at times leading the
child, at other times responding to the child’s lead, and at
times engaging in reciprocal interaction.
Use of multiple teaching strategies
Two criteria (3.G.01, 3.G.02) address the availability and
use of several strategies as a highly effective practice in
early childhood education. Teaching strategies, as used
here, refers to the broad context of instruction—the
ways in which teachers structure the environment for
children’s learning.5 Teachers may provide activities that
are largely controlled, structured experiences for young
children but may also allow children to engage in relatively unstructured activity. Both approaches have been
shown to be advantageous for aspects of children’s learning.6 Some research strongly supports the idea that all
activities, including play, should be guided or scaffolded
at some level in order to maximize the children’s learning
experience.7 Other research has linked the benefits of unstructured activities such as dramatic play to language
and cognitive development.8 In determining the level
of structure for the activity, teachers should reflect on
the needs of the child and align the activity accordingly.
Teachers may also interact with children in groups of
varying sizes (typically small or large group) or individually. Research on group size tends to show more favorable learning out- comes for children working in small
groups.9
2
3.G.03: As children learn and acquire new skills, teachers use their knowledge of children’s abilities to finetune their teaching support. Teachers adjust challenges as children gain competence and understanding.
Reciprocal and guided interactions
Eight criteria speak to the nature of the interactions
between teacher and child. Four criteria (3.B.09, 3.E.02,
3.E.07, 3.F.07) highlight reciprocal interaction; 4 criteria
(3.B.09, 3.E.03, 3.G.02, 3.G.07) address aspects of specifically child-initiated and/or adult-initiated teaching strategies to promote learning. Just as scaffolding assumes
some flexibility in the use of general teaching strategies,
it also provides for different styles of interaction. At its
broadest level, scaffolding requires some reciprocal interaction between the teacher and child; this fosters a sense
of shared experience, and also has been shown to increase child learning and engagement. At the same time,
there is room for each participant in the interaction, the
teacher and child, to lead. Child- initiated instruction is
effective in that children are allowed to choose activities
that build on areas that have already captured their interests and are at a level close to their current abilities.10 On
the other hand, adult-guided strategies (direct instruction, modeling, guidance, etc.) have also been found to be
effective in engaging children and in supporting a child’s
growth in skills.11 When teachers are effectively scaffolding children’s development, the style of interaction would
be expected to be fluid, blending opportunities for the
child to lead the activity with moments of teacher-led
focus and shared or reciprocal interaction.
Figure 1: Scaffolding, Criterion 3.G.03 Met/Not Met
Rates for Accredited vs. Not-Accredited Programs
100%
10%
80%
69%
60%
40%
90%
20%
31%
0%
Accredited
Programs
Not Met
Deferred or Denied
Programs
Met
Note: Data based upon observations at 127 programs; 114 of these were
accredited and 13 were not accredited (8 deferred and 5 denied).
March 2011, No. 1
Table 1. Standard 3. Teaching: Topics, Number of Criteria in Each Topic, Topic Area, and
Average Difference in Pass Rate between Accredited and Not-Accredited Programs Topic Area
Number of Criteria
Average Pass Rate Difference
A. Designing Enriched Learning Environments 7 criteria
16.8
B. Creating Caring Communities for Learning 13 criteria
20.6
5 criteria
7.9
12 criteria
9.1
E. Responding to Children’s Interests and Needs
9 criteria
32.7
F. Making Learning Meaningful for All Children 7 criteria
14.6
14 criteria
31.2
C. Supervising Children
D. Using Time, Grouping, and Routines to Achieve Learning Goals G. Using Instruction to Deepen Children’s Understanding and
Build Their Skills and Knowledge Note: Data based upon observations at 127 programs; 114 of these were accredited and 13 were not accredited (8 deferred and 5 denied). The
Average Pass Rate difference was calculated considering the difference in pass rates for each of the criteria within the topic area.
Table 2. Standard 3. Teaching: Criteria with the Greatest Difference in Pass Rate between Accredited
Programs and Programs Not-Accredited
Criterion
Difference
Dif.Rank
Criterion Language
3.G.03
59.6%
1
As children learn and acquire new skills, teachers use their knowledge of children's abilities to fine-tune their teaching support. Teachers adjust challenges as children gain competence and understanding.
3.B.08
56.4%
2
Teachers notice patterns in children's challenging behaviors to provide thoughtful, consistent, and individualized responses.
3.E.04
55.4%
3
Teachers use their knowledge of individual children to modify strategies and materials to enhance children's learning.
3.B.09
50.0%
4
Teaching staff create a climate of respect for infants by looking for as well as listening and responding to verbal and nonverbal cues.
3.G.07
47.7%
5
Teachers use their knowledge of content to pose problems and ask questions that stimulate children's thinking. Teachers help children express their ideas and build on the meaning of their experiences.
3.E.01
43.3%
6
Teaching staff reorganize the environment when necessary to help children explore new
concepts and topics, sustain their activities, and extend their learning.
3.A.02
40.7%
7
Teachers design an environment that protects children's health and safety at all times.
3.G.08
40.7%
8
Teachers help children identify and use prior knowledge. They provide experiences that extend and challenge children's current understandings.
3.F.07
40.0%
9
Teaching staff use varied vocabulary and engage in sustained conversations with children about their experiences.
3.G.02 40.0% 10[Abridged] Teachers use multiple sources to identify what children have learned; adapt
curriculum to meet children's needs and interests; foster curiosity; extend engagement; and support self-initiated learning.
3.A.07
38.3%
11
Teaching staff and children work together to arrange classroom materials in predictable ways so children know where to find things and where to put them away.
3.E.02
37.2%
12
Teachers scaffold children's learning by modifying the schedule, intentionally arranging the equipment, and making themselves available to children.
3.E.08
36.5%
13
Teachers use their knowledge of children's social relationships, interests, ideas, and skills to tailor learning opportunities for groups and individuals.
3.E.03
35.4%
14
Teachers use children's interest in and curiosity about the world to engage them with new content and developmental skills.
3.B.06
35.0%
15
Teachers manage behavior and implement classroom rules and expectations in a manner that is consistent and predictable.
3.D.09
32.3%
16
Teaching staff help children follow a predictable but flexible daily routine by providing time and support for transitions.
3.G.01
32.1%
17
Teachers have and use a variety of teaching strategies that include a broad range of
approaches and responses.
3.E.07
30.7%
18
Teaching staff actively seek to understand infants' needs and desires by recognizing and
responding to their nonverbal cues and by using simple language.
Note: Data based upon observations at 127 programs; 114 of these were accredited and 13 were not accredited (8 deferred and 5 denied).
3
March 2011, No. 1
Establishing rules and routines
Four criteria (3.A.02, 3.A.07, 3.B.06, 3.D.09) relate to the
importance of structure through the establishment and
maintenance of rules and routines within the early childhood classroom. While flexibility of instruction, use of
multiple strategies, and combining reciprocal with adultdirected and child-directed activities are important components of scaffolding, this range of activity is necessarily
bounded by rules and routines that provide structure for
the teacher and the children. Indeed, research has found
that teachers who spend time early in the year establishing clear procedures and routines have classrooms in
which children become more involved in academic tasks
later on.12 Establishing standards with children regarding
student safety, classroom order, and decorum is important as long as the rules are few, easy to understand, positively stated, enforceable, and can be generalized across
multiple situations and classroom activities.
Conclusion
The NAEYC Accreditation criteria related to Standard 3
Teaching were designed to reflect developmentally appropriate practice (DAP). Because accreditation is based
on demonstrating that the majority of criteria are met, it
is not unexpected that as a set, these criteria differentiate programs that are accredited from those that are not.
Notably, the criteria include a combination of practices
that are necessary to promote safety and classroom
See “About the Reliability and Validity Study [ReVal-1]”)
1
See L.E. Berk and A. Winsler, Scaffolding Children’s Learning: Vygotsky
and Early Childhood Education (Washington, DC: NAEYC, 1995); E.
Bodrova & D.J. Leong. Tools of the Mind: Vygotskian Approach to Early
Childhood Education, 2nd ed. (New York: Prentice Hall, 2007).
2
See, for example, S.D. Henderson, J.E. Many, H.P. Wellborn, and J.
Ward, “How Scaffolding Nurtures the Development of Young Children’s Literacy Repertoire: Insiders’ and Outsiders’ Collaborative
Understandings,” Reading Research and Instruction 41 (Summer 2002):
309–30.
3
See, for example, G.M. Jacobs, “Providing the Scaffold: A Model for
Early Childhood/Primary Teacher Preparation,” Early Childhood Education Journal 29, no. 2 (2001): 125–30.
4
Some have called this “classroom engagement.” See N.C. Chien, C.
Howes, M. Burchinal, R.C. Pianta, S. Ritchie, D.M. Bryant, R.M. Clifford,
D.M. Early, and O.A. Barbarin, “Children’s Classroom Engagement and
School Readiness Gains in Prekindergarten,” Early Childhood Research
Quarterly 81 (September/October 2010): 1534–49.
5
C.M. Connor, F.J. Morrison, and L. Slominski, “Preschool Instruction
and Children’s Emergent Literacy Growth,” Journal of Educational
Psychology 98 no. 4 (2006): 665–89.
6
4
management (e.g., topics B, C, and D). These aspects of
teaching are more likely to be addressed through regulatory requirements and would be reasonably expected in
classrooms even without the frame provided by DAP. The
topic areas that closely map the construct of scaffolding
(topics A, E, F and G) and DAP principles are those that
underscore the teacher’s role in supporting children’s
learning.
Examining the degree to which both topic areas and
specific criteria distinguish accredited programs from
programs that are not accredited reinforces the centrality
of DAP and scaffolding in NAEYC’s standards for instruction. Those criteria were most frequent among the 18
criteria that showed the greatest differences in pass rates
between programs. Criteria in topic G (Using Instruction to Deepen Children’s Understanding and Build Their
Skills and Knowledge) accounted for 5 of the 18 most discriminating criteria. In topic E (Responding to Children’s
Interests and Needs) 6 out of 9 criteria within the topic
area were among these 18 with high pass rate differences.
The 11 criteria in these 2 topic areas reflect the central
ideas in scaffolding. That they are best able to distinguish
accredited from not-accredited programs underscores
the importance of scaffolding within the NAEYC Accreditation criteria and demonstrates the power of NAEYC
Accreditation to distinguish high quality programs that
are effectively supporting children’s learning. NAEYC Accreditation is designed to be the mark of quality in early
childhood education and this analysis makes evident its
ability to set apart high performing programs.
G.S. Ashiabi, “Play in the Preschool Classroom: Its Socioemotional
Significance and the Teacher’s Role in Play,” Early Childhood Education
Journal 35 no. 2 (2007): 199–207.
7
J.F. Christie and B. Enz, “The Effects of Literacy Play Interventions on
Preschoolers’ Play Patterns and Literacy Development,” Early Education and Development 3 (July 1992): 205–20.
8
Chien et al. 2010; B. Wasik, “When Fewer Is More: Small Groups in
Early Childhood Classrooms,” Early Childhood Education Journal 35
no. 6 (2008): 515–21.
9
L.J. Schweinhart and D.P. Weikart, “Education for Young Children
Living in Poverty: Child-initiated Learning or Teacher-directed Instruction?” Elementary School Journal 89 no. 2 (1988): 213–25.
10
See for example B.K. Hamre and R.C. Pianta, “Can Instructional and
Emotional Support in the First Grade Classroom Make a Difference for
Children at Risk of School Failure?” Child Development 76 (September/
October 2005): 949–76.
11
C.M. Bohn, A.D. Roehrig, and M. Pressley, “The First Days of School
in the Classrooms of Two More Effective and Four Less Effective
Primary-Grades Teachers,” The Elementary School Journal 104 (March
2004): 269–87.
12