Theory, Research, and Rationale Behind the Focus on K2 Curriculum
August, 2013
Megina Baker
BPS Department of Early Childhood
and
Lynch School of Education, Boston College
1 The Boston Public School district (BPS), touted as the “birthplace of public education in
America” encompasses 125 schools and has over 200 kindergarten classrooms, serving up to
3,000 kindergarteners from diverse socio-economic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds (Boston
Public Schools, 2013). Beginning in the 2013-2014 school year, the Department of Early
Childhood will begin implementing Focus on K2 in “early adopter” schools. Focus on K2 is a
new, district-developed curriculum for kindergarten (K2) that aligns with the new Common Core
State Standards (CCSS), emphasizes active learning through work in centers, integrates learning
across content areas through thematic projects, and teaches foundational skills through
developmentally appropriate activities.
BPS has three main reasons for rethinking the K2 curriculum: a need to align with the
new Common Core State Standards, a desire to draw upon the successes of the pre-kindergarten
(K1) Opening Worlds of Learning (OWL)1 curriculum, and a responsibility to ensure that
Boston’s kindergarten students are experiencing curriculum that draws upon the vast body of
research on developmentally appropriate practices for young children. First, with the advent of
the Common Core State Standards (CCSS, 2013) has come a state-endorsed need to ensure that
students are supported to develop “college and career ready skills” such as the “4C’s” outlined
by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2012): critical thinking and problem solving,
collaboration, communication, and creativity and innovation. Simultaneously, data from districtwide pre-k evaluations of early childhood programs is now available, indicating that the OWL
curriculum, when implemented with moderately high fidelity, has resulted in significant gains on
district assessment tests for vocabulary, numeracy, executive functioning, and emotional
regulation skills (Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2013). Chavda’s (2012) research report on student
progress in Boston also shows that children who attend the K1 program and receive the OWL
curriculum score higher on kindergarten DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
Skills) literacy assessments than those who did not attend the program. However, the use of the
Reading Street curriculum at the kindergarten level has not produced equally promising results,
as evidenced by district assessment on the DIBELS test administered to both students who had
attended BPS pre-k programs and those who had not. Also in this report is evidence that
students who had attended pre-k and received the OWL curriculum performed better on the
assessments than those who attended only kindergarten. Yet by the end of the second grade,
after three years of receiving the Reading Street curriculum, increasingly more students received
“intensive” status, indicating a need for reading support interventions. These findings indicate
that gains made during the K1 year through the OWL are lost over time as children receive the
Reading Street curriculum, a situation that the district feels a strong need to remedy. Finally, the
body of research on how young children learn clearly points to the need for kindergarteners to be
engaged in active, integrated learning more complex than the curricula previously offered
(Coppel & Bredekamp, 2009). In order to address these needs, the Focus on K2 program has
been developed by the district.
One of the purposes of the development team was to align with both CCSS and the OWL
curriculum. Teams of teachers, Early Childhood Department staff, and Early Childhood
specialists from local universities collaborated to design the new curriculum through an iterative
process over the course of 18 months, utilizing Wiggins and McTighe’s (2005) Understanding by
1 The
OWL curriculum (Schickedanz & Dickinson, 2005) is a play-based, literacy-rich, thematic curriculum in
which children engage in integrated learning centers daily. 2 Design2 model of “backwards planning” to develop curriculum plans. The resulting Focus on
K2 program has three defining characteristics: it promotes integrated learning through
purposeful, guided play and deep exploration in interdisciplinary centers; it is thematic,
organized through in-depth themes grounded in science topics; and it utilizes effective
instructional practices through a combination of explicit instruction, small group work, and
creative endeavors such as storytelling. In addition, it pays attention to the needs of diverse
learners such as English Language Learners (ELLs) and children with special needs integrated
throughout the curriculum.
The purpose of this paper is to review the literature that forms the theoretical and
research basis upon which the Focus on K2 curriculum is based. Encompassing both conceptual
and empirical works, historic and contemporary, the scope of the review includes literature that
pertains to the education of young children in the Early Childhood years, defined as the period
from birth through age eight (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). The review builds on the work of
Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, Berk, and Singer (2009), whose insightful presentation of the evidence
for playful learning in preschool, including experimental, longitudinal, and correlational studies,
is foundational for establishing standards for high quality in Early Childhood education.
Organized in three sections, the flow of this paper is as follows: First, a theoretical framework is
presented for exemplary teaching in Early Childhood classrooms. Next, literature is reviewed
that underpins each tenet of the Focus on K2 curriculum as stated above. In the conclusion,
implications for policy and practice are offered.
Theoretical Framework
Much of the literature in the Early Childhood Education field is theoretical and focused
on building a strong body of knowledge about how young children learn. In this section, I
unpack how theory contributes to current best practices for teaching in the Early Childhood years
(pre-kindergarten through second grade), drawing connections to how these best practices are
evident in the Focus on K2 curriculum. The theoretical framework has three components: a
theory of development that considers the whole child; a theory of knowledge grounded in
constructivism, and a theory of assessment of learning that privileges authentic, formative
assessment.
A Theory of Development: The Whole-Child Approach
Taking a whole child approach to teaching young children means that educators support
the child across all realms of development (social, emotional, physical, and cognitive), rather
than attending only to cognitive skills such as literacy or numeracy. Through exploration and
play, children engage socially and physically while building knowledge about cognitive domains
such as science, math, and literacy. The theoretical literature describing this approach is vast;
two contemporary and significant works (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009; Copple & Bredekamp, 2009)
take up the conversation, summarizing the current stance among Early Childhood professionals
that this is the developmentally appropriate way for young children to learn. According to HirshPasek et al. (2009), “The central reason for the whole-child approach is that academic learning
and social development are inextricably intertwined. That is, children’s academic learning
cannot be separated and compartmentalized from their social and emotional state. Children who
2 Understanding by Design follows a three stage process to planning curriculum: 1) Identify desired results, by
examining content standards and setting priorities; 2) determine acceptable evidence of learning, including
formative and summative assessments; and 3) plan learning experiences and instruction. 3 are socially competent and who can self-regulate and communicate are more ready for school
and are more successful in school than are other children” (p.20-21). Copple and Bredekamp
(2009), in their statement of Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) for the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), echo this statement, detailing what
this approach should look like for children in kindergarten and in the early elementary grades.
They explain that taking a whole child approach does not preclude the use of explicit instruction,
but that explicit instruction should not be employed without also providing children with
authentic and motivating opportunities to learn playfully and to integrate learning through active
pursuits such as dramatic play or block building.
In the Focus on K2 curriculum, learning in integrated centers allows children to explore
content and develop skills across domains simultaneously, rather than in isolation, thus drawing
upon the whole child approach. Instead of providing for separate blocks of time for each
individual subject, the K2 Centers curriculum integrates learning across content areas into work
within learning centers. The term centers (Heroman & Copple, 2006) refers to distinct areas of
the classroom (such as the block area, dramatic play area, or writing center) in which children
engage independently or in small groups in play-based activities that integrate learning across all
domains. Center activities allow children to practice skills, extend knowledge, and go deeper
with understandings from whole-group and small-group activities (McLaughlin, 2010). Teachers
introduce center activities during whole-group time, explicitly teaching children skills and
strategies for center work, embedding vocabulary, and modeling activities. During center time,
teachers support children in centers, scaffolding learning by posing open-ended questions and
making suggestions. Children reflect on their work after center time, through turn-and-talk or
opportunities to give and receive feedback on an ongoing project in a whole-group setting. In
centers, therefore, children learn by playing, but the play is intentional and structured, providing
children with opportunities to develop a wide repertoire of skills.
Consider a center-based activity as an example: as children learn about animals and
habitats during one of the Focus on K2 units of study, they reference non-fiction books and
photographs of actual animal habitats to build their own habitats using blocks and natural
materials. As children build animal habitats with the blocks, they are encouraged to collaborate
with each other, building social competencies, developing emotional control (such as selfrestraint), and cultivating oral language skills, including key vocabulary related to the unit,
through conversation about their structures. Physical development is fostered as children move
about the area, lifting large and small blocks that require both gross and fine motor skill. And
cognitively, children are learning about geometry and engineering as they manipulate the blocks
to carry out a plan for their habitat structures. In this example, the whole child approach is
evident, where all domains of learning are in play simultaneously.
One strategy that can foster development of the whole child, contemporary experts agree,
is to implement an integrated curriculum. The National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards, for example, insists that teachers should, “design curriculum to promote skill
development in such areas as language, mathematics, science, and the arts, integrating learning
across disciplines and around key concepts and essential questions” (Sadowski, 2006, p.4).
NAEYC states in their position statement on excellent teaching, “Young children learn best
when concepts, vocabulary, and skills are related to something they already know and care about
and when the new learnings are themselves interconnected in meaningful, coherent ways.
Young children do not learn as readily when information and experiences are presented in
isolated, unrelated chunks” (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009, p.42). The focus on the whole child is
4 further supported by the work of the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. As
noted by experts in the field, “Emotional well-being and social competence provide a strong
foundation for emerging cognitive abilities, and together they are the bricks and mortar that
comprise the foundation of human development” (National Scientific Council on the Developing
Child, 2007, p.7). Thus, attention to a theory of development focused on the whole child is
inherent in the Focus on K2 approach to integrated curriculum.
A Theory of Knowledge: Constructivism and Socio-Cultural Learning
In addition to attention to the whole child, the Focus on K2 curriculum is also grounded
in theories of how children learn. Specifically, the curriculum reflects the theories of
constructivism and social cultural learning. Psychologist and child development theorist Jean
Piaget (1963/2000) used the term constructivism to describe the process through which the child
acts as a scientist, or one who constructs knowledge through direct interaction with materials and
is active in his or her own learning. Manipulating objects, the child discovers cause and effect,
explores the properties of materials, and thus gradually builds, or constructs, understandings
about how the world works. In concert with this concept is the idea of socio-cultural learning, in
which experts scaffold learning for novices within the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD),
terms coined by Lev Vygotsky (1934/1986). Katz and Chard (2000) consolidate and summarize
these theories, drawing upon a number of sources to explain that the ZPD is the space between
what a child can accomplish independently and that which she might be capable of with the
thoughtful assistance, or scaffolding, of an expert (usually a teacher or other adult). Taken
together, constructivist theory is bolstered by the Vygotskian sociocultural approach. Katz and
Chard use this theoretical basis to frame their contemporary version of the Project Approach, in
which children conduct investigations, or projects, to discover knowledge about a topic of
interest. The constructivist theory of knowledge is ubiquitous in the Early Childhood literature
today, providing a strong foundation for offering children opportunities to construct their own
understandings, rather than simply teaching rote facts or using drill-and-practice curricula.
In Focus on K2, constructivist theories are evident in the design of the curriculum
activities, as well as in the way the classroom environment is prepared. In the curriculum design,
center activities are flexible, sustain over time, and invite children to explore original ideas. In
the environment, the presence of open-ended materials ensures that children can manipulate
objects to make their own discoveries. For example, each unit of study involves a series of
STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) explorations. One such investigation
involves constructing understanding of how a fish moves through water by observing live fish,
then using materials in a sensory table filled with water to investigate how narrow forms move
through water more easily than wide forms. Teachers scaffold learning within each child’s ZPD
by engaging with children in the STEM center by asking critical thinking questions, offering
materials, encouraging collaboration, and fostering problem-solving. The final STEM
investigation of each unit is left open for teachers to pursue child-initiated questions that have
emerged during the unit of study. This approach is reflected across each of the thematic units in
the curriculum.
A Theory of Assessment: Authentic, Formative Assessment
Along with the aforementioned theories on how children develop and learn we must
consider a framework for assessing children’s learning. Bowman, Donvan, and Burns (2001)
discuss several prevalent modes of assessing children in Early Childhood settings, including
5 standardized testing, performance assessment, and diagnostic testing. These authors present
evidence that norm-referenced testing, while useful in some situations, should be used sparingly
in early childhood, instead recommending that the bulk of assessment for young children
consisting of performance assessments. Performance assessments are not intended to compare
children to each other but rather to gather evidence of learning for individuals or groups over
time, using documented evidence of children’s daily classroom activities. Bowman et al. write,
“performance assessments may be considered ‘authentic assessment’ when they avoid ‘ondemand’ tasks and focus instead on the assessment of concrete, observable behaviors on real (or
realistic) tasks that are part of children’s ordinary classroom experiences” (p.248). This
emphasis on authentic, formative assessment is echoed in NAEYC’s guidelines for
Developmentally Appropriate Practice (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009), which state that:
Assessment of young children’s progress and achievements is ongoing, strategic, and
purposeful.
The results of assessment are used to inform the planning and
implementation of experiences, to communicate with the child’s family, and to evaluate
and improve teachers’ and the program’s effectiveness. (p.22)
This focus on formative assessment does not exclude the occasional and purposeful use of
summative assessments, but does indicate that formative assessments should be more prevalent
in the early childhood context.
Understandings from the Reggio Emilia approach, widely respected in the field of Early
Childhood Education, also inform the assessment design for the curriculum. Pedagogical
documentation, defined by Rinaldi (2006) as, “a process for making pedagogical (or other) work
visible and subject to interpretation, dialogue, confrontation (argumentation) and understanding”
(p.16) is a form of authentic, formative assessment that can take many forms (written, visual,
video, etc) and maintains a focus on making learning visible (Project Zero & Reggio Children,
2001). Pedagogical documentation involves, in part, the gathering of artifacts from children’s
work and play (such as writing samples, photographs of children engaged in learning, and the
products of their work), in order to track and understand learning over time, and can be used
during or after the learning experience, and inside or outside of the learning community
(Krechevsky & Mardell, 2001). The Work Sampling approach (Meisels, Liaw, Dorfman, &
Nelson, 1994) is one published example of a formative assessment program developed for use in
Early Childhood programs that incorporates, to some degree, the above emphasis on formative
assessment and the idea that documenting learning can be achieved over time through gathering
samples of children’s work across domains.
Focus on K2 takes this theoretical frame for assessing children’s learning and applies it
using an assessment system inspired by the aforementioned Work Sampling approach and by the
practices of documentation used in the Reggio Emilia approach. In Focus on K2, teachers assess
children daily by gathering artifacts from center work, transcribing dialogue, and observing
children at work. These samples of children’s work are gathered in portfolios and, over time,
create a picture of both individual and group learning that can be used to inform instruction and
to share with parents, specialists, and, where appropriate, the wider school community. At the
time of this writing, the assessment system for Focus on K2 is under development, with the
underpinnings of the system grounded in the theoretical frame discussed above.
Disconnect Between Theory, Research, and Practice
This theoretical framework, built upon the concepts of teaching the whole child, offering
opportunities for the child to construct knowledge through exploration, and assessing learning
6 through authentic performance-based measures forms the foundation of the Focus on K2
approach. The three theories intertwine, withstanding the test of time to provide a strong
foundation upon which to build curriculum. Unfortunately, these theories have been ignored far
too often in the curricula and pedagogy in place in classrooms for young children, leading to
documented poor quality of programs and therefore disappointing outcomes for children.
Several prominent publications in recent years have brought this disappointing reality to
the forefront of the conversation about teaching young children. The work of Hirsh-Pasek and
her colleagues (2009) previously mentioned is an excellent example; despite the overwhelming
evidence in support playful learning in the preschool years that they review, their research also
uncovered a striking “depletion of informal, playful learning in young children’s lives” as
didactic instruction has increasingly taken the place of playful endeavors. Addressing the
kindergarten year in particular, the Crisis in the Kindergarten report (Miller & Almon, 2009)
notes:
The traditional kindergarten classroom that most adults remember from childhood – with
plenty of space and time for unstructured play and discovery, art and music, practicing
social skills, and learning to enjoy learning – has largely disappeared. The latest research
indicates that, on a typical day, children in all-day kindergartens spend four to six times
as much time in literacy and math instruction and taking or preparing for tests (about two
to three hours per day) as in free play or “choice time” (30 minutes or less). (p.11)
The report further articulates the serious consequences associated with a shift towards overly
academic kindergarten, including detriments to social and cognitive development, as well as a
drop in student motivation and interest in school before even reaching the first grade. Finally,
continuing this trend upwards into the early primary years, in the influential Turning the Page
report, Lesaux (2010) found that 43% of third graders in Massachusetts do not read at grade
level, with this percentage skewed towards lower income and minority students. This failure, the
report argues, is in part due to a failure of pre-K through third grade curricula to provide
“language-rich and content-rich” learning (p.15). To remedy this stark situation, one of Lesaux’s
suggestions to the state is to develop a literacy-enriched center-based curriculum for pre-K
through third-grade classrooms that encourages oral language and the use of print materials
throughout the classroom.
Numerous studies, such as the ECLS-K longitudinal study (Rathburn & West, 2004),
have demonstrated that learning during the early childhood years can be predictive of later
school success. Rathburn and West followed a cohort of kindergarten students from pre-entry to
kindergarten through, at the time of this writing, the end of their eighth grade year, documenting
how gaps in academic performance in literacy, mathematics, and scientific understandings
present in kindergarten persist over time. Gathering data from a nationally representative sample
of 10,500 children through one-on-one child assessments and parent interviews, this unique and
significant study provides information about how children with different backgrounds present
during the kindergarten year and beyond. According to the report, children with a greater
number of risk factors (i.e. single-parent household, below federal poverty level, primary home
language other than English) made smaller gains on assessments than peers with fewer risk
factors. Given this stark reality, as Early Childhood educators attend to the theory-driven need
for children to have opportunities for playful learning discussed previously, they must also
ensure that at-risk students are strongly supported and that the curriculum addresses necessary
academic skills that children need for school readiness.
7 In developing Focus on K2, these serious warnings and grounded suggestions have not
been ignored. The following section outlines how Focus on K2, grounded in the theoretical
framework laid out here, addresses the gaps between theory, research, and practice illustrated
above. For each feature of Focus on K2 that is described, substantial evidence from empirical
studies is presented to further demonstrate the efficacy of such approaches.
Reviewing the Literature
As mentioned previously, the Focus on K2 curriculum promotes integrated learning
across domains in interdisciplinary centers, it is organized around themes grounded in science
topics, and it utilizes effective instructional practices. This section elaborates on each of these
three aspects, providing evidence from empirical studies that speak to the efficacy of such
practices and sparked the development of Focus on K2 as such. The studies presented here have
been selected to represent and support the approach taken by the Focus on K2 curriculum
development team; therefore, the paper is not intended to be an exhaustive review of all literature
on the topics explored.
Integrated, Playful Learning Across Domains
Numerous studies report benefits of playful learning in integrated centers, with teachers
playing a significant role in enhancing learning outcomes as they support this playful learning
(Hirsch-Pasek et al., 2009; Kopasci & Hochwald, 1998; Smith & Dickinson, 2004). Nine
studies are reviewed here. Studies that focus more directly on specific domains, such as the
integration of literacy and science, have been grouped together in the discussion below.
Kopasci and Hochwald’s (1998) research is especially illustrative in our present context,
as they followed the implementation of a full integrated, center-based curricula over the course
of one year in 16 public school classrooms in Newark, New Jersey. Taking a mixed-methods
approach, the authors used data from interviews, surveys, focus-group discussions, and
classroom observations to investigate changes in teaching and learning as a result of
implementing the new curriculum. Comparing the experimental classrooms with other
classrooms in the district that continued to follow the prior curriculum (which involved more
direct instruction and did not utilize integrated, thematic learning centers) found that the children
in the program demonstrated greater gains on curriculum-based skills assessments in reading and
mathematics than children who continued to receive the prior, non-centers-based curriculum.
Additionally, children in the experimental classrooms also demonstrated stronger social skills,
such as abilities to collaborate with peers and to solve interpersonal conflicts. Teachers also
reported, through interviews and surveys, changes to their teaching style that involved more
facilitation and a greater emphasis on documentation of learning. Interestingly, three of the
sixteen classrooms were bilingual, reflecting the diversity of Newark’s student population, not
unlike that of Boston today. Despite the positive results of the study, the researchers also note a
number of issues with implementation of the curriculum, including poor fidelity from some
teachers, lack of training for paraprofessionals, and excessive class sizes, all of which may have
compromised the impacts of the curriculum as written. Both the positive child outcomes from
this study and these noted shortcomings during implementation are of interest to the present
work underway in Boston, given the novelty of the Focus on K2 curriculum and intention of the
district to document the process of implementation carefully.
A number of other studies (Smith & Dickenson, 2004; Leseman, Rollenberg, & Rispens,
2001) have documented gains in oral language abilities, literacy development, and social skills
when children have time for purposeful, scaffolded play. Smith and Dickenson (2004), for
8 example, studied a sample of 84 preschool aged children, all of whom were eligible for Head
Start or comparable programs, and half of whom attended Head Start programs. The researchers
used teacher interviews, classroom observations following the Early Childhood Environment
Rating Scale (ECERS), and audiotapes of child and teachers language to analyze the quality and
nature of oral language use in the classroom. When the audiotapes were coded, findings showed
that children who were given time for playful learning in centers showed stronger oral language
abilities compared to a control group that received more direct instruction. The National Early
Literacy Panel (2008) reports that play-based instruction of vocabulary was at least as effective
as direct teaching. Cooper, Capo, Mathes, and Gray (2007) used an experimental design to
investigate whether a pre-K and kindergarten storytelling program inspired by Vivian Gussin
Paley’s (1997) work would impact children’s language and literacy development. In the
experimental classrooms, children dictated stories during center time, later acting out these
stories during whole group time, while children in the control classroom completed worksheet
based literacy tasks in centers. At the end of the study, Cooper et al. reported that the children in
the experimental group scored higher on a range of oral language and pre-literacy measures,
indicating significant positive impacts of the storytelling experience. And according to Miller
and Almon (2009), “Children in play-based kindergartens have a double advantage over those
who are denied play; they end up equally good or better at reading and other intellectual skills,
and they are more likely to become well-adjusted healthy people” (p.8).
Another group of studies have looked at the integration of language and literacy
instruction with the teaching of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) subjects.
Romance and Vitale (2012) explored the impacts of integrated literacy and science instruction in
grades K-2 in two schools over the course of a school year. They found that student achievement
on both science and reading measures were accelerated, with statistically significant increases in
scores noted on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills for both science and reading domains. These
impacts were present for each grade level and across student demographic differences such as
race and gender. Rivkin (2005) examined vocabulary development through classroom
observations in early childhood settings, finding that while students were engaged in science
activities, teachers could embed complex vocabulary related to the science concepts, and
understanding of this vocabulary was transferrable to other contexts. These findings are
embellished by the teacher-researcher perspectives of Huerta and Jackson (2010), who followed
English Language Learners in their bilingual kindergarten class, seeking to understand student
use written and spoken English. They found that participation in science experiments and using
science journals to document understandings motivated ELLs to use the English language more
frequently and richly than during isolated reading and writing tasks (Huerta and Jackson, 2010).
Although these results stem from a small-scale study, the implications of such findings are
nonetheless of interest the BPS context given the high numbers of ELLs in BPS classrooms.
Impacts of this Research on Focus on K2. Drawing upon these research findings, at the
heart of the Focus on K2 curriculum is an extended, roughly 120-minute block of center time
daily that includes a whole group time before and after center work. Seven centers will be open
during this time: Writing and Drawing, Library and Listening, Block Area, Dramatization, Art
Studio, STEM, and Word Work. Although individual centers do focus in on a particular domain,
learning is integrated throughout. The Library and Listening center, for example, is not only a
place to read and listen to books and stories, but is also a center for research where children can
extend their STEM investigations through reading and looking at informational texts, integrate
math by sorting and categorizing fiction and non-fiction books, and write about their research in
9 research journals. In these centers, children engage purposefully, but also playfully, with
materials to investigate topics related to curriculum themes. In alignment with Cooper et al.’s
(2007) work, storytelling and story acting is also integrated into the curriculum to further
promote children’s oral language and literacy development through an interdisciplinary model
that involves reading, writing, oral language, physical activity, and artistic elements through
acting and illustration.
Offering integrated, playful learning in centers, as illustrated in the block area and water
table examples earlier in this paper, means that children are invited and expected to engage in
learning through play and playful pursuits. This, however, is distinctly different than “just
playing” or “free play”, a point that is taken up by Copple and Bredekamp (2009) intentionally to
debunk the notion that developmentally appropriate practice for young children means an
absence of direct instruction. This point will be elaborated upon later in this paper.
Thematic, Science-Grounded Curriculum
Adding to the above studies on play and integrated learning is a body of research that
establishes the benefits of thematic curricula. Specifically, the research indicates that for young
children, thematic studies grounded in science topics are especially engaging, due to the
immediacy and tangibility of observing, conducting experiments, and other inquiry-related
activities. In a critical review of the literature summarizing the literature on science education in
the Early Childhood field, Trundle and Sackes (2012), explain that, “Science content provides
the perfect context in which to engage and captivate all children, including those with
disabilities” (p.245). They bring to light the troubling reality that science is frequently
marginalized in today’s Early Childhood classrooms, but suggest that this issue can be remedied
by using science as a vehicle to integrate instruction from other domains. Referring back to the
constructivist frame, the authors underline that children are naturally predisposed to investigate
how the world works, science investigations of tangible phenomena, such as observation of live
animals, investigation of natural materials, or construction and manipulation of objects. The
additional benefits that science-based instruction provides for children with special needs are
significant. In the studies reviewed by Trundle and Sackes (2012):
Results indicate that children with a wide range of disabilities were able to participate
successfully in and explain their results of inquiry experiences. These children were also
likely to become proficient in using science process skills, develop skills to work
independently, and be motivated to learn science. (p.245)
The project approach (Katz & Chard, 2000), previously mentioned as an example of
integrated learning, draws upon this evidence that starting with science engages children’s minds
and enables them to more deeply approach other content areas. The use of projects draws upon a
guided inquiry approach, in which children, guided by teachers, seek answers to their questions
about a science-related topic. Employing a project approach does demand that teachers balance
children's interests with curriculum standards, but despite this potential challenge, Trundle and
Sackes’ review of the literature confirms it as a recommended approach.
French (2004) offers a specific example of the impacts an integrated, science-grounded
curriculum (ScienceStart!) can have for children’s learning. In this study, implemented in 37
public pre-kindergarten classrooms in Rochester, NY, children participated in science
investigations through center-based learning and whole group discussions. Read aloud texts,
dramatic play, writing projects, and block play each related to the science theme. During the
10 twelve-week study, engagement levels in the center activities were high, and post-test measures
showed gains on both standardized vocabulary tests as well as performance-based measures that
indicated learned understandings of science concepts. Taken along with Trundle and Sackes’
work, this study provides an example of how science-grounded curricula can serve as a vehicle
for learning in multiple domains. These findings are important at a time when the Next
Generation Science Standards are on the horizon and critical thinking skills are in focus in the
CCSS standards. Grounding thematic curricula in science taps into young children’s dispositions
to act as “little scientists” (Piaget, 1969,2000) and provides meaningful cohesion to the
curriculum.
Impacts on Focus on K2. In the development of Focus on K2, the Department of Early
Childhood utilized these research findings, collaborating with district science specialists to
design four science-grounded units of study to span the kindergarten year. Topics selected for
study were chosen to allow for children to engage directly with the natural world and with
physical objects. For example, the study of Animals and Habitats begins with investigation of
fish and tadpoles, animals that can be brought into the classroom for direct observation. As in
the French (2004) study, center activities relate to this theme, and key read aloud texts explore
the science topic by offering children exposure to rich informational texts about the topic. In
each unit of study, STEM investigations guide children through hands-on inquiry, for example
through direct observation and documentation of the structures of a human body, and then a
fish’s body, in order to compare and contrast these structures. Relating back to the group of
studies on integrated STEM curriculum mentioned previously (Romance & Vitale, 2012; Rivkin,
2005; Huerta & Jackson, 2010), these investigations draw upon research that shows how science
investigations can promote learning not only in the domain of science, but in other domains as
well, while also providing hands-on interaction with materials that support and benefit English
Language Learners and children with special needs.
Effective Instructional Practices
The final group of studies reviewed here pertains to the ways in which teachers support
learning in the Early Childhood classroom. The research is clear on two points regarding
instruction: 1) in the early childhood years, a balance between child-led playful learning and
teacher-led direct instruction is necessary for optimal learning and the development of selfregulation to occur, and 2) teachers must differentiate and adapt instruction to meet the strengths
and needs of a diverse range of learners, applying instructional strategies that support English
Language Learners, children with special needs, and at-risk populations so that all children can
access the curriculum and succeed in school and in life.
Balancing Instruction. The research on how young children learn best has expanded
dramatically in recent years. The majority of this body of knowledge today speaks to the need
for children to have choice in their learning and opportunities to develop not only cognitive but
social skills as well. A variety of terms have been used to define these additional abilities,
including non-cognitive skills (Heckman, Stixrud, & Urzua 2006), essential life skills (Galinsky,
2010), self-regulation skills (Leong & Bodrova, 2012), and learning-related skills (McLelland,
Acock, & Morrison, 2006). Regardless of the term used, the abilities in question include selfregulation, planning and organizational skills, social competencies, and emotional skills. Each of
the studies discussed here sheds light on the significance of developing such skills in the early
elementary years, and how teachers can best support their students to this end.
In one notably broad longitudinal, correlational study involving over 500 children,
11 McLelland et al. (2006) measured learning-related skills using a behavior rating scale during the
kindergarten year, then followed children’s reading and math scores on standardized state
achievement tests through the sixth grade. Findings indicated that children who developed strong
learning-related skills in kindergarten were more successful academically in sixth grade than
their peers with weaker learning-related skills. In fact, the gap between the two groups widened
between kindergarten and second grade, then persisted until the sixth grade. These findings
speak to the significance of developing not only the cognitive child, but the whole child, as
discussed earlier in this paper. The work of Heckman et al. (2006), which focuses on labor
market outcomes for individuals with differing levels of cognitive and non-cognitive skills, show
that both types of skills are predictive of later life outcomes such as likelihood of high school
completion and income levels later on. According to these authors:
Our demonstration that non-cognitive skills are important in explaining a diverse array of
behaviors helps to explain why early childhood programs, like Head Start and the Perry
Preschool program, are effective. The evidence from these programs indicates that they
do not boost IQ but they raise non-cognitive skills and therefore promote success in
social and economic life. (p.28)
Galinsky (2010) further adds to this conversation, describing seven essential life skills that
children should be developing from early childhood, including: focus and self-control,
perspective taking, making connections, taking on challenges, and self-directed engaged
learning.
So how can Early Childhood educators help children to develop these critical
competencies? Recent brain research (Diamond & Lee, 2011) has demonstrated that in order to
best develop core executive functions such as problem solving, flexibility, reasoning, and
planning, curriculum for young children should be active, playful and joyful, engage children’s
interests, and encourage social interactions. Today, the Tools of the Mind curriculum, which
draws upon Vygotsky’s theories, has shown gains in self-regulation among preschoolers and
kindergarteners when they participate in scaffolded, intentional make-believe play (Leong &
Bodrova, 2012). In the current Handbook of Early Childhood Education, Trawick-Smith (2012)
provides additional insight into what scaffolding playful learning means, as he considers the state
of play in early education, describing three strategies teachers might employ to support play in
the classroom. Teachers who “trust in play” may step back to allow children to play
autonomously, “facilitate play” advocates enter play in order to enhance it, and teachers who
“enhance-learning-outcomes-through-play” scaffold the play situation in order to promote
academic learning within the play. Trawick-Smith proposes, and defends through three
difference correlational research studies, “an integrated, responsive model for teacher-child play
interactions” in which all three of these strategies coexist, with teachers observing and adapting
to individual children and to the situation to determine which strategy best fits at any given time.
Adding a practitioner’s perspective, Florez (2011) proposes three strategies that teachers can use
to support the development of self-regulation: modeling appropriate behavior, providing hints
and cues (such as gestures) to remind children of expectations, and gradually releasing adult
control so that children have more choice in their own learning.
Yet this is not to say that there is no place for direct instruction. Additional research
reminds us of the importance of direct teaching, especially for the acquisition of early reading
skills. Englemann and Stockard (2008), for example, representing the National Institute for
Direct Instruction, conducted a review of the literature on academic kindergarten and later
academic success. The studies reviewed found that children who received a teacher-directed,
12 direct instruction program in kindergarten "significantly outperformed the comparison group
when they reached third grade in reading as well as mathematics and language" (p.8), and note
that these effects seemed to maintain through the ninth grade. Additional literature on full-day
versus half-day kindergarten (eg. Carnes & Albrecht, 2007; Lee, Burkam, Ready, Honigman &
Meisels, 2006) also advocates a more rigorous academic approach, demonstrating that
kindergarteners who receive additional direct instructional time daily perform better on
standardized tests than children who attended half-day programs. Studies such as these remind us
that a balance between child-directed learning and explicit instruction is necessary in the early
years. Additionally, as mentioned earlier in this paper, the aforementioned findings on play and
learning direct teachers towards scaffolding of purposeful play, during which teachers
intentionally support active discovery and mastery of skills through play-based learning
experiences. It should be noted that this approach differs greatly from simply providing children
with unstructured free play. In this way, some direct instruction may be embedded into the childled learning experience as well, in addition to thoughtful and appropriate whole-group direct
instruction.
Diverse Learners. Given the diversity of the BPS population, understanding the
research on teaching English Language Learners (ELLs), Dual Language Learners (DLLs)
children with special needs, and at-risk populations is essential for the development of a new
curriculum. The research presented here frames current thinking about effective instructional
practices for today’s diverse student populations.
English Language Learners and Dual Language Learners. Extensive research has been
conducted in recent years on how young English Language Learners and Dual Language
Learners can best be supported in the classroom. According to Tabors and Snow (2001), use of
the child’s home language in school instruction is beneficial, and school personnel should make
efforts to educate parents on the importance of maintaining and using the home language in the
home and for home literacy activities. These authors also suggest that assessment for DLLs
should be flexible and creative, and due to the lack of formal assessments available in multiple
languages, the use of formative assessments is recommended as a means of gathering and using
information about individual abilities and needs. Additionally, a recent policy brief released by
the Center for Early Care and Education Research on DLLs (Castro, Garcia, & Markos, 2013)
outlines classroom practices that are beneficial to DLLs, such as, “integrated learning, positive
teacher-child and home-school relationships, play as a context for learning…” (p.2). This work
also emphasizes that while the benefits of learning two languages in early childhood shows
limited or no detrimental effects and may even have positive effects on metacognitive linguistic
abilities, teachers should understand that DLLs will not, and should not be expected to, resemble
their monolingual peers in language development.
Honoring the fact that DLLs deserve tailored instruction, Tabors (2008) provides
additional research-based suggestions for scaffolding language development in the classroom,
including: predictable routines and classroom organization; a curriculum that brings the home
languages of second-language learners into the classroom; a language and literacy rich classroom
environment; modifications to the curriculum that help DLLs to feel “more comfortable,
included, and competent” (p.124), such as the use of concrete materials to facilitate dialogue and
understanding, small group inclusion, and explicit yet contextual integration of vocabulary
instruction within play; and facilitation of peer interactions through scaffolding of play and
supporting monolingual peers to support DLLs. Lucas and Villegas (2011) are also frequently
cited in the literature for their recent framework outlining the expertise that should be held by
13 “Linguistically Responsive Teachers” (p.56-57). Addressing the realities of ELL students as
whole children, not merely academic beings, this framework suggests that Linguistically
Responsive Teachers should possess particular orientations, such as an inclination to advocate
for ELL students and an understanding of the connections between language, culture, and
identity, as well as knowledge and skills such as how to identify the language demands of
classroom tasks and scaffold instruction to promote ELL students’ learning.
Children with special needs. The case for providing an inclusive education for children
with special needs is well established in the field (Odom & Diamond, 1998). Current policy on
inclusion, as issued in a joint policy statement by NAEYC and the Division for Early Childhood
(DEC & NAEYC, 2009), articulates a need for access, or “providing a wide range of activities
and environments for every child… offering multiple ways to promote learning and
development” as well as participation, or “using a range of instructional approaches to promote
engagement in play and learning activities, and a sense of belonging for every child” (p.1).
Given the range of individual differences between children, broad suggestions for supporting
children with special needs in centers are inappropriate; however, Brown and Bergen (2002),
through a study that analyzed video footage of one center-based inclusion classroom over five
hour-long sessions, found that teachers’ presence in centers was integral to fostering peer
interactions between typically-developing children and children with special needs. When
teachers provided verbal and physical support or offered physical scaffolds (such as picture cards
to facilitate role-play in dramatic play), children with special needs were more likely to be
included and to sustain their engagement in center activities.
At-risk students. The student population in BPS is 87% minority and 76% low income
(McArdle, Osypuk, & Acevedo-Garcia, 2010), therefore, any curriculum design efforts in BPS
must highlight the needs of this diverse population. Recently, Weiland and Yoshikawa (2013)
conducted a study examining the effects of the Opening Worlds of Learning (OWL; Schickedanz
& Dickinson, 2005) BPS pre-kindergarten curriculum on student outcomes. As mentioned
earlier in this paper, the OWL curriculum is currently used throughout BPS in pre-kindergarten
(K0 and K1) classrooms, and is a research-based program that focuses on integrated learning in
centers. This study is of particular interest as it focuses on a student population similar, if not
identical, to the students targeted in Focus on K2. Weiland and Yoshikawa (2013) found that
students receiving the OWL curriculum demonstrated statistically significant gains in vocabulary
development, numeracy, executive functioning, and emotional regulation skills, and that these
benefits were more pronounced for at-risk students, including those qualifying for free or
reduced lunch as well as Black and Hispanic students. The researchers concluded that integrated
curriculum as a whole, delivered by well-prepared and supported teachers, could be considered
responsible for the gains. These findings, which reflect actual outcomes from the district in
question, are most relevant in considering the type of curriculum that might best serve these
children as they graduate from BPS pre-kindergarten programs and continue into kindergarten.
Impacts on Focus on K2. These research findings on effective instructional practices
contribute to the foundation of the Focus on K2 center-based learning approach. As children
decide in which center to work, how long to stay, and in which order to visit other centers, they
are given opportunities to develop self-regulation. Teachers gradually release control to students
by providing sign-out sheets so that children keep track of which centers they have visited during
the course of the week. Within centers, children collaborate and discuss work with each other,
developing social competence and fostering oral language skills in meaningful contexts with
concrete materials, while teachers scaffold to support oral language and vocabulary development
14 in context, vital for ELLs and DLLs as well as children requiring additional language support for
other reasons. The choice that children have in deciding the flow of their day is, according to the
aforementioned research, necessary for the development of skills that predict later life success.
When this breadth of choice is deemed inappropriate for a particular child because of his or her
particular learning needs, the curriculum is flexible, allowing teachers to respond to individual
children, perhaps by offering visual scaffolds or tailoring expectations accordingly.
For ELLs and DLLs in particular, the curriculum draws upon the research discussed
previously to ensure that K2 classrooms provide strong supports for children learning English in
school. Consistent daily routines provide ELLs with a predictable structure so that they can feel
secure. The predictable structure of whole group time prior to centers, for example, includes a
greeting activity followed by “Introduction and Planning for Centers”, during which teachers
preview and explicitly teach center activities that will be available that day. As activities are
introduced, actual materials from centers are used, offering opportunities for explicit vocabulary
instruction in a concrete context, as well as modeling of how to physically use materials. This
authentic and motivating moment (as children look forward to trying the activities themselves) is
one example of an activity that is designed to be beneficial for all children, and especially for
ELLs. One goal of piloting the curriculum during the 2013-2014 “early adopter” year is to
further develop materials and adaptations to ensure that all aspects of the curriculum are
accessible and beneficial to the linguistically diverse student population of Boston.
Consistent with Trawick-Smith’s (2012) research, teachers observe, scaffold, and support
learning in centers by asking critical thinking questions, offering materials to deepen play,
encourage collaboration, and document learning. Direct literacy instruction is provided daily
through a large-group Literacy Circle, and in smaller guided reading groups as the year
progresses. Math instruction is also offered in a combination of direct instruction and childdirected learning through the TERC Investigations (2012) curriculum. Children thus receive
direct skill-based instruction and have plentiful opportunities to use and integrate this learning
through center work.
Focus on K2 builds upon the successes demonstrated by the OWL curriculum (Weiland
& Yoshikawa, 2013), following a similar curriculum framework developmentally appropriate for
kindergarten. The fact that this type of curriculum has shown success with at-risk populations is
encouraging, and the district plans to follow the results of Focus on K2 implementation to better
understand if these benefits will hold true for the K2 curriculum as well. In BPS classrooms,
most children with special needs are included in regular education classrooms, and virtually all
classrooms are home to ELLs, DLLs, and monolingual children together. The strategies
mentioned earlier for supporting language development (Tabors, 2008), such as the use of
concrete objects and incorporation of vocabulary instruction into the daily activities of the
classroom, benefit all children while specifically addressing the needs of student learning the
English language or pragmatic language skills. Finally, as suggested by Tabors and Snow
(2001), connections with families will be fostered through Focus on K2, through the Beautiful
Stuff (Weisman Topal & Gandini, 1999) project that invites children to bring objects from home
to the school, and through storytelling work inspired by Vivian Gussin Paley (eg. Paley, 1987).
Building relationships with families is expected to complement instruction, in that teachers will
have the opportunity to learn more about the lives of the children they teach, and to reach out to
families as needed.
15 Conclusions and Implications for Practice
The literature supporting an approach such as Focus on K2 has been building for decades.
Each of the research studies, policy statements, and theoretical papers discussed here highlight
curriculum and instruction practices that are appropriate for teaching children in the early
childhood years, validating the need for a curriculum such as Focus on K2. The critical
importance of the early childhood years comes across clearly in the literature; children need
excellent teaching and curriculum in order to develop across all domains, not only cognitively.
While the establishment of school readiness skills such as language, literacy, mathematics, and
scientific understandings are critical for young children, the literature says clearly that this is not
enough; children also need classrooms that allow them to develop self-regulation, emotional
control, social skills, and physical prowess. The current curriculum in place in BPS early
childhood classrooms partitions learning into subject categories and focuses primarily on the
cognitive child, marginalizing development across other domains. With the advent of the
Common Core standards (CCSS, 2013), this approach is no longer rigorous enough for Boston’s
youngest citizens. The need for an integrated, challenging curriculum grounded in theories of
playful learning is needed to address the needs of today’s classrooms for young children. It is to
this end that Focus on K2 has been developed. The curriculum, as demonstrated in examples
throughout this paper, is theoretically and empirically based, designed to ensure that children
develop 21st Century Skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, and collaboration in
addition to strong foundations in academic content.
Although some research evidence exists to support the theory that a playful learning
approach is effective for teaching young children, additional studies in this area are in great need.
As the literature presented here illustrates, this approach is more strongly supported by theory
than empirical studies. Most of the studies reviewed in this paper examine particular aspects of
an integrated, playful learning curriculum, but few examine the impacts of a comprehensive
curriculum approach such as Focus on K2. Two studies may be viewed as examples that more
closely the findings demonstrate the potential for implementing such programs (integrated, etc).
Studies by Weiland and Yoshikawa (2013) and Kopasci and Hochwald (1998) reviewed earlier
in this paper are exceptions that have examined broader impacts of a center-based, playful
learning approach to teaching, and both indicated strong positive results. Given the broad
theoretical base for such approaches, a critical need exists for further research in this area.
This being the case, the task at hand is now to carefully follow the implementation of
Focus on K2 in the Boston Public Schools. Data will be gathered and analyzed, initially with the
goal of further honing the curriculum and related professional development programs, and later
to evaluate impacts that this new curriculum has on teaching and learning. Numerous research
questions might be posed to this end, which could require a range of research methodologies
including both qualitative and quantitative approaches. At present, a small pilot study is
underway to examine the impacts of professional development for Focus on K2 on teaching and
teacher attitudes towards the curriculum during a five-week-long summer pilot of one Focus on
K2 unit of study. Interviews, teacher surveys, and classroom observations are being used to
understand levels of fidelity to the curriculum following a professional development workshop.
In addition, feedback is begin gathered from teachers to better understand what supports they
feel are needed to support their implementation of the curriculum. Next steps for research will
include examining the impacts of Focus on K2 on student learning and outcomes during and
beyond the “early adopter” year in 2013-2014. Research questions might include: How do
student test scores change after participating in the Focus on K2 program? If gains are noticed,
16 do these sustain over time? How does teaching look in a Focus on K2 classroom, compared to
other kindergarten classrooms? Might there be merit to adopting a similar program in the early
elementary grades as well? The answers to these questions may take time, resources, and effort
to answer, but doing so will certainly further contribute to the research base on teaching young
children, and will continue to inspire the process of research-based design that underpins the
Focus on K2 curriculum.
References
Bowman, B., Donovan, S. & Burns, M. (2000) Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers.
Washington DC: Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy, National Research Council.
Boston Public Schools (2013). Facts and figures. Retrieved from
http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/facts-and-figures.
Brown, M., & Bergen, D. (2002). Play and social interaction of children with disabilities at
learning/activity centers in an inclusive preschool. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 17(1), 26-37. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02568540209594996
Carnes, G. & Albrect, N. (2007). Academic and social-emotional effects of full-day
kindergarten: the benefits of time. Emporia State Research Studies, 43(2), p.64-72.
Castro, D., Garcia, E., & Markos, A. (2013). Dual language learners: Research informing
policy. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Grahm Child
Development Institute, Center for Early Care and Education – Dual Language Learners.
Chavda, K. (2012) Boston public schools k1 cohort performance on 2009-2010 beginning of
year DIBELS. Boston, MA: Boston Public Schools Department of Research and
Development.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2013). Implementing the common core state
standards. Retrieved from: http://www.corestandards.org/.
Cooper, P., Capo, K., Mathes, B. & Gray, L. (2007). One Authentic Early Literacy Practice and
Three Standardized Tests: Can a Storytelling Curriculum Measure Up?, Journal of Early
Childhood Teacher Education, 28(3), 251-275.
Copple, C. & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood
programs serving children from birth through age 8. (3rd ed.) Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
DEC/NAEYC. (2009). Early childhood inclusion: A joint position statement of the Division
for Early Childhood (DEC) and the National Association for the Education of Young
Children (NAEYC). Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child
Development Institute.
Diamond, A. & Lee, K. Interventions shown to aid executive function development in
children 4 to 12 years old. Science 333, 959-964.
Englemann, K., & Stockard, J. (2008). Academic kindergarten and later academic success: The
impact of direct instruction. Eugene, OR: National Institute for Direct Instruction.
Florez, I. (2011). Developing young children’s self-regulation through everyday experiences.
Young Children 66(4), 46-51.
French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 138-149.
Galinsky, E. (2010). Mind in the making: The seven essential life skills every child needs. New
York, NY: HarperCollins.
17 Heckman, J. J., Stixrud, J., & Urzua, S. (2006). The effects of cognitive and noncognitive
abilities on labor market outcomes and social behavior (Nw12006). National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Heroman, C. and Copple, C. (2006) Teaching in the kindergarten year. In D. Gullo (Ed.) K
today: Teaching and learning in the kindergarten year. Washington, DC: NAEYC.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R., Berk, L., & Singer, D. (2009). A Mandate for Playful Learning
in Preschool: Presenting the evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huerta, M. & Jackson, J. (2010). Connecting literacy and science to increase achievement
for English language learners. Early Childhood Education Journal 38, 205-211.
Katz, L. & Chard, S. (2000) Engaging children’s minds: The project approach. 2nd ed.
Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Kopasci, R. & Hochwald, E. (1998). Restructuring kindergarten in an urban school district:
The case of Newark, NJ. AERA paper presented 1998. Newark: Newark Public
Schools.
Krechevsky, M. & Mardell, B. (2001). Four features of learning in groups. In Project Zero and
Reggio Children (Eds.) Making learning visible: Children as individual and group
learners. Reggio Emilia: Reggio Children.
Lee, V., Burkam, D., Ready, D., Honigman, J., & Meisels, S. (2006). Full-day versus half-day
kindergarten: in which program do children learn more? American Journal of Education,
112, 163-208.
Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Turning the page: Refocusing Massachusetts for reading success.
Strategies for Children, Inc.
Leong, D. & Bodrova, E. (2012) Assessing and scaffolding make-believe play. Young
Children, 67(1), 28-34.
Leseman, P., Rollenberg, L., & Rispens, J. (2001). Playing and working in kindergarten:
cognitive co-construction in two educational situations. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 16, 363-384.
Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. (2011). A framework for preparing linguistically responsive teachers.
In T. Lucas (Ed.) Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms (55-72).
New York: Routledge.
McArdle, M., Osypuk, T., & Acevedo-Garcia, D. (2010). Prospects for equity in Boston public
schools’ school assignment plans. Retrieved from http://www.diversitydata.org.
McLaughlin, M. (2010). Guided comprehension in the primary grades. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
McLelland, M., Acock, A., & Morrison, F. (2006). The impact of kindergarten-related skills on
academic trajectories at the end of elementary school. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 21, 471-490.
Meisels, S.J., Liaw, F., Dorfman, A., & Nelson, R.F. (1994). The work sampling system:
Reliability and validity of a performance assessment for young children. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly 10(3), 277-296.
Miller, E. & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why children need to play in school.
College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood.
National Early Literacy Panel (2008). Developing early literacy: A scientific synthesis of early
literacy development and implications for intervention. Jessup, MD: National Institute
for Literacy.
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2007). The science of early childhood
18 development. Retrieved from: http://www.developingchild.net.
Odom, S., & Diamond, K. (1998). Inclusion of young children with special needs in early
childhood education: The research base. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 13(1), 3
25.
Paley, V.G. (1997). The girl with the brown crayon: How children use stories to shape their
lives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2012). P21 common core toolkit: A guide to aligning the
common core state standards with the framework for 21st century skills. Washington,
DC: Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
Pearson Education (2008). Scott Foresman reading street. Lebanon, IN: Pearson.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969/2000). The psychology of the child. (Weaver, H., Trans) New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Project Zero and Reggio Children (2001). Making learning visible: Children as individual and
group learners. Reggio Emilia: Reggio Children.
Rathburn, A. & West, J. (2004). From kindergarten through third grade: Children’s beginning
school experiences (NCES 2004-007). US Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching and learning. New
York: Routledge.
Rivkin, M. (2005). Building teamwork through SCIENCE. Scholastic Early Childhood Today
19(6), 36-41.
Romance, N. & Vitale, N. (2012) Science IDEAS: A research-based K-5 integrated
instructional model linking science and literacy. Science Educator 21(1), 1-10.
Sadowski, M. (2006) Core knowledge for pk-3 teaching: Ten components of effective
instruction. (FDC policy brief: Advancing pk-3 No.5) New York, NY: Foundation for
Child Development.
Schickedanz, J. & Dickinson, D. (2005) Opening Worlds of Learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
Smith, M. & Dickinson, D. (1994). Describing oral language opportunities and
environments in head start and other preschool classrooms. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 9, 345-366.
Tabors, P. (2008). One child, two languages: A guide for early childhood educators of children
learning English as a second language (2nd ed). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Tabors, P. & Snow, C. (2001). Young bilingual children and early literacy development. In S.
Neuman and D. Dickinson (Eds.) Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 159-178).
New York: Guilford Press.
TERC (2012). Investigations in number, data, and space: Kindergarten. Retrieved from:
http://investigations.terc.edu.
Trawick-Smith, J. (2012). Teacher-child play interactions to achieve learning outcomes: Risks
and opportunities. In R. Pianta (Ed.) Handbook of early childhood education, (259-277).
New York: Guilford Press.
Trundle, K. & Sackes, M. (2012). Science and early education. In R. Pianta (Ed.) Handbook of
early childhood education, (240-258). New York: Guilford Press.
Weiland, C. and Yoshikawa, H. (2013), Impacts of a Prekindergarten Program on Children's
Mathematics, Language, Literacy, Executive Function, and Emotional Skills. Child
Development. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12099
19 Weisman Topal, C. & Gandini, L. (1999). Beautiful stuff: Learning with found materials.
Philadelphia, PA: Davis.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson.
Vygotsky, L. (1934/1986). Thought and language. (Kozulin, A., Trans.) Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
20