Early Childhood Educ J
DOI 10.1007/s10643-013-0609-2
The Challenge Kindergarten Model: Integrating Body-Movement
and Scaffolding to Keep the Child in the Center and Make
Systematic Progress in Learning
Ella Shoval • Tal Sharir • Boaz Shulruf
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract This article presents a ‘‘child-centered’’ model
of the teaching–learning process—the challenge kindergarten model. The model is an attempt to deal with the
limitations of the ‘‘child-centered’’ approach without giving up its benefits. In this model, the teachers enable the
children to direct their activities and improve their independent learning thanks to careful planning and consistent
implementation. The model focuses on two learning-related skills that are most likely to bring about independent
learning and two teaching strategies designed to promote
these skills. The learning-related skills are self-regulated
learning and cooperative behaviors. The integrated strategies are allowing children to direct body-movement and
using it as an opportunity for setting up personal and group
scaffolding.
Keywords Self-regulated learning Cooperative
behaviors Body movement Scaffolding Independent learner
The Challenge Kindergarten Model was developed in the Division for
Experimentation and Innovation, the Ministry of Education Israel.
E. Shoval (&)
Physical Education Department, Givat Washington College of
Education, Beit-Raban, Israel
e-mail: [email protected]
T. Sharir
School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
e-mail: [email protected]
B. Shulruf
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
Introduction
Kindergartens based on developmentally appropriate
practices are child-centered; the children direct their own
activities, while their teacher provides them with the conditions to do so (Bredekamp and Copple 1997; Winsler and
Carlton 2003). The difficulty with this approach is that only
some of the children succeed in directing their activity
toward significant learning, necessitating intensive support
from their kindergarten teacher. In addition, research
shows that most children prefer to play games involving
gross motor activity and socio-dramatic games, and not
structured academic learning (Fuligni et al. 2012; Tonyan
and Howes 2003). The teachers also find it difficult to
provide adequate assistance to the children due to the many
simultaneously-occurring and constantly changing processes in the kindergarten classroom (Trawick-Smith and
Dziurgot 2011; Winsler and Carlton 2003).
The search for a solution to this problem revolves
around two central suggestions: the first one is dividing the
day in kindergarten into ‘‘free-choice activities’’ and
‘‘teacher-directed activities’’ (Fuligni et al. 2012; Winsler
and Carlton 2003). The second possibility includes the
teacher intervening in the learning process by creating and
setting up of learning-focused scaffolding (Fuligni et al.
2012; Winsler and Carlton 2003).
While both of these methods promote learning in kindergarten, they fall short of the mark. The first, dividing the
daily agenda, could lead to a reduction in the total amount
of time children spend in their child-directed activities
(Ceglowski 1997; Duncan and Tarulli 2003; Marcon 2002).
The second method, setting up of scaffolding, requires a
great deal of effort on the part of the teacher. His/her
chances of reaching each one of the children, listening to
them and supporting them are slim, and they diminish as
123
Early Childhood Educ J
the number of children per class increases (Trawick-Smith
and Dziurgot 2011; Van de Pol et al. 2010).
It can be stated that, in spite of the promise of the developmentally appropriate approach that puts the child at the center,
the method has limitations that make it difficult to apply and use
in kindergarten throughout the day. Moreover, the suggested
solutions to overcome the difficulties inherent in the method are
only partially successful. The aim of this article is to present a
model—an additional step based on the two solutions already
mentioned—that is likely to keep the child at the center of the
learning process and simultaneously improve his/her learning.
The Challenge Kindergarten Model
The units making up the model—two learning goals and two
teaching strategies—were chosen in order to deal with the
limitations presented above. There is nothing really new in
these two units. The uniqueness of the model lies in its
emphases, the way the two units are connected, and integrating the two so that each one supports the other. The basic
premise of the model is that a kindergarten teacher can be
goal-oriented and plan well to attain these goals without
diminishing the centrality of child-directed learning and
without the necessity of dividing the day at the kindergarten
into two separate time units. The presentation of the model
will include an explanation of the goals and the strategies
that can be used to attain them in order to strengthen the
hypothesis, and point out the way in which the model
overcomes the limitations mentioned in the introduction.
In order for self-regulation to occur, children have to be
able to choose a personal learning goal, to plan how to
achieve the goal through analyzing the difficulties they can
expect and suggest possible solutions, to choose one of the
solutions, to take responsibility for and to experience the
independent solution until the goal is achieved (Zimmerman 2000). Most children find it difficult to go through
these complex stages independently without the benefit of a
planned learning process (Boekaerts 1999). This difficulty
might be the Achilles’ heel of the child-centered approach
to learning (Bredekamp and Copple 1997). Regardless of
difficulty, however, the goal is worth achieving.
Achieving self-regulation in learning is likely to
improve the children’s academic achievements because it
is built on the choices they make for themselves, interest
them, and are relevant to them, simultaneously providing
them with tools to successfully deal with their choices
(Zimmerman 2000). Mastery of self-regulation reinforces
children’s perceptions of self-efficacy which forms the
basis for social processes (Zimmerman and Schunk 2007),
that open the door to their approaching the kindergarten
teacher and peers in seeking their help to achieve the goals
they have chosen (Whitebread et al. 2007; Zimmerman
2000).
Here the question should be asked whether the children
know how to enter the doorway that has been opened to
them. In other words, how can children be taught to turn to
others to seek help? How can they be taught to give others
help? No matter how much goodwill they may have, they
will certainly meet with difficulties for lack of tools (Weiss
et al. 2006).
The Goals: Learning-Related Skills
Cooperative Behavior
The goals of the model are to develop a self-regulated learner
and to foster in children the capability for cooperative
behavior in order to enable them to improve their achievements not only during kindergarten but also to acquire
learning tools for the future (Phillips and Wong 2010).
These goals unfold throughout the school year and are
integrated in the processes that occur in kindergarten. They
designated as goals because, in spite of their importance in
developing an independent learner who chooses what to
learn (McClelland et al. 2006; Solomon et al. 2000), these
goals cannot be acquired incidentally through practice. If
they are to be acquired, they require systematic teacher
support and consistency (Kutnick and Kington 2005;
Zimmerman 2000).
Self-Regulated Learning
This skill is one’s ability to consistently initiate and carry
out one’s own learning activities (Boekaerts 1999; Zimmerman 2000).
123
This occurs where two or more individuals play or work on
and solve problems together. It adds to the children’s
ability to enrich their own study, learn from each other and
get support from each other (Walker et al. 2011).
Fostering cooperative behavior in learning focuses on
encouraging learners to keep agreed-upon rules because
without agreed rules there can be no common basis for
action and social life. Following this, children must learn
how to persevere in cooperative learning activities until
completion (Goudas and Magotsiou 2009). Next, quarreling should be avoided, and if quarrels do break out, children should be assisted in settling them. In addition,
teachers should enable children to recognize the contribution that cooperation makes to their learning and to search
for options to learn through this method (Tarim 2009).
In the ‘‘child-centered’’ approach, children are expected
to know how to exploit social situations for learning
(Bredekamp and Copple 1997), but this does not always
happen, even when a directed-learning environment for this
Early Childhood Educ J
purpose is set up for them (Boekaerts and Cascallar 2006).
In such situations, an adult must intervene, but when
cooperative learning depends on the presence of an adult,
group dynamics change, and the children are no longer
independent (Whitebread et al. 2007). Therefore, before
challenging the children to learn cooperatively, they should
be given the opportunity to acquire the tools required for
this type of learning (Boekaerts and Cascallar 2006;
McClelland et al. 2006).
Many studies on this subject show a connection between
learning achievements and cooperative behavior (Caprara
et al. 2000; McClelland et al. 2000; Palermo et al. 2007).
Research shows the advantages of cooperation for efficient
independent learning (Gabbert et al. 2001) and offers two
explanations: first, the disparity in knowledge among children enables those with more knowledge to teach their peers
(Sullivan and Glanz 2006) and participate in processes such
as giving explanations, transferring information and correcting mistakes (Webb 1985, 1991). This with greater
knowledge can also confirm previous information, provide
additional ideas and model skills in motor-related learning
(D’Arripe-Longueville et al. 2002). The second explanation
concerns the potential arising from conflicts in peer interaction. While this can upset the balance of orderly thinking,
it also encourages children to look for solutions, ways around
the problem and other explanations (Darnon et al. 2007).
In the children’s process of attaining each one of the
goals—the learning-related skills—these goals complete
each other. Regulated learning enables children to choose
goals and fulfill them. Cooperative behavior enables them
to do this with other children in a way that intensifies
learning (Whitebread et al. 2007).
The question is ‘‘what drives this whole process along
until the children master these learning skills? And how
does a kindergarten teacher lead such a structured process
and still enable the children to choose and direct their own
learning?’’
Teaching Strategies
The teaching strategies of the model are as follows: providing opportunities for body movement and setting up
scaffolding that is entirely directed toward the goals of selfregulation and cooperation. The detailed strategies and
their unique contribution to learning are given below.
Providing Opportunities for Body Movement
Movement involves changing the position of the parts of
the body, or the location of the entire body. Movement is
the basis of all active learning in early childhood. For this it
does not matter whether children choose fine motor skills
such as rolling dice or moving a card from one place to
another or gross motor such as jumping or climbing a
ladder or throwing the ball (Shoval 2006).
Given freedom of choice, children show a preference for
gross motor movement and persevere in it (Fuligni et al.
2012). There are a number of reasons for this: at this age
the kinesthetic system undergoes accelerated maturation
processes; the basic movements (Martina et al. 2009;
Raudsepp and Päll 2006), coordination and body balance
develop (Austad and van der Meer 2007; Hatzitkai et al.
2002). Children need a lot of physical activity that must be
repeated frequently in order to fulfill their potential (Colella and Morano 2011; Venetsanou and Kambas 2010). In
the era of television and computers, combined with safety
concerns regarding public spaces, kindergarten is often the
only place where children can develop their motor skills
(Pate et al. 2004). Additionally, when moving, children can
act independently since movement does not depend on
verbal expression (Deering and Meloth 1993; Shoval and
Shulruf 2011). As a result, they do not need the direct
assistance of adults (Akshoomoff 2002), provided that they
have enough space to move in, suitable facilities, and
objects that pose a challenge at a level that suits their age
(Bower et al. 2008).
Moreover, movement gives the children opportunities
for social contact and enables them to feel close to each
other and persevere in their chosen activity (Ben-Ari
2002).This sense of closeness has a cumulative value in the
learning process—the better and the longer are the children
acquainted with each other, the more likely they are to
learn from each other (Pellegrini et al. 2000).
In addition to the physical benefits of bodily activity,
this activity can serve academic learning if it is mindfulmovement—combining movement with verbal and thinking processes (Ben-Ari 2002; Shoval 2010). In order to
have a mindful-movement kindergarten, teachers should be
aware of their learning goals, offering the children combinations that will promote learning toward these goals. For
instance, the teacher can offer the children an environment
in which they write down or draw in symbols what they are
about to do as a part of choosing solutions in self-regulated
learning.
During movement, kinesthetic perception provides
learners with unique information such as spatial information—orientation and direction—information about the
weight of objects and concepts of time (Jensen 2005;
Shoval 2006; Tversky 2008). Movement provides learners
with complementary information to that attained through
other perceptions, which enhances academic learning
(Jensen 2005). For example, Shoval (2010) found that
gathering observational and visual information simultaneously with kinesthetic information was a significant
predictor of learning achievement. Through movement a
child is able to learn by trial and error, due to the
123
Early Childhood Educ J
immediate perceptual feedback received from success and
failure (Wulf et al. 2010). While often engaging others,
such as peers or adults, kinesthetic learning also involves
the interactions of other skills such as those required for
planning, guidance, explanation, and reporting. In such
activities, movement enriches a learner’s communication
skills by adding illustration and modeling of verbal concepts in a much more effective manner (Jensen 2005).
The strategy of providing children with learning
opportunities through body movement uses three kinds of
activity that are part of the daily kindergarten routine in
which the children direct their own activity. The first
strategy is to organize physical surroundings that stimulate
and encourage the children to be active and move about
indoors and outdoors (Bredekamp and Copple 1997). The
second is organizing the surroundings so that children are
encouraged to engage in social processes (Bredekamp
2004). The third is a whole-group activity, which should be
kept short, and in which the teacher offers the processes
through which children acquire norms, learning tools, and
sometimes knowledge that will constitute the basis for
independent learning (Fuligni et al. 2012).
When the activity can be done by gross motor movement,
a teacher will find it easier to create a learning environment
that challenges the children in a way that it is not too difficult
or too easy, so that the children can persevere in the activity
for prolonged periods of time. This is owing to the nature of
learning through the use of movement, which is by ‘‘trial and
error,’’ and during which the children choose goals that are
attainable through practice (Timmons et al. 2007). For
example, one such environment could have a variety of
targets marked with numbers that allow players to count
points scored, and balls of various sizes, weights, and textures. The children will have to find the suitable combination
of target and ball that will enable them to succeed in the
game. Additionally, the kindergarten teacher can use
movement to create an environment encouraging social
processes in which the participants are made mutually
dependent (Ben-Ari 2002). For example, the teacher may set
up one single springboard so that if the children want to play
with it, they have to come up with rules for cooperating. In
the whole-group meeting, too, if the children are required to
use movement, the teacher can show them ways to attain
their learning goals on the basis of the children’s experiences
of learning through movement. Although the teacher directs
this kind of activity by giving the children direct instructions, the directions still leave opportunities for the children
to choose activities on their own. One such direction from
the teacher might be ‘‘Find different ways to go ahead in the
group without breaking up the group and count how many
ways you have found.’’
In conclusion, it can be stated that giving the children
opportunities to use body movement is a door the children
123
open for us. It places the children at the center and opens the
possibility for their perseverance in learning out of choice.
When the teacher turns the children’s chosen movement into
mindful movement through organizing their learning environment and directing their activities, he/she also changes
movement into a useful tool for attaining learning goals.
Setting Scaffolding
This teaching strategy in which the one with knowledge
enables others, through mediation, to obtain this knowledge
(Van de Pol et al. 2010), is a central strategy in the ‘‘childcentered’’ approach mainly because it enables the teacher to
contribute meaningful knowledge and skills (Perry and
VandeKamp 2000; Trawick-Smith and Dziurgot 2011).
In order to set up effective scaffolding for learning, a
teacher should first assess each child’s learning level, give
each one the most suitable support possible, and should
know how to obtain such support so that each child is able
to continue to learn independently (Van de Pol et al. 2010).
This strategy, that is to say children using movement,
choosing their learning activities, regulating their own
learning, and cooperating with each other, enables kindergarten teachers to set up their scaffolding much better
than if they used verbal learning processes. This is due, first
and foremost, to the nature of gross motor movement. It
has visibility (Shoval 2006; Trawick-Smith and Dziurgot
2011). Visibility of an on-going activity allows the teacher
to see if a child is having difficulty choosing, or if a child
gives up quickly when trying to persevere in something he/
she has chosen and turns to some other activity, whereas if
all this had occurred in processes not involving body
movement, the teacher would have to ask the child for an
explanation of what was going on, and why he/she was not
progressing in his/her task. Movement often involves
playing with or using objects, and so there is a good chance
that the playing activity will last for a long while. This
gives the teacher the advantage of being able to observe the
children over long stretches of time because the objects
being played with act as a sort of indirect scaffolding,
something posing a challenge and raising questions with
which the children try to deal (Van de Pol et al. 2010).
Moreover, movement facilitates and gives children
opportunities for social contact as they interact playing. It
also involves groups of various sizes. In observations of a
group of playing children, not only can the teachers easily
locate each member of the group as the children engage in
a self-directed activity, but they can also set up a suitable
scaffold for the entire group (Van de Pol et al. 2010). This
will help the teacher overcome the limitations of having to
deal with each child individually (Trawick-Smith and
Dziurgot 2011), to set up the scaffolding more efficiently
and reach many more children every learning day.
Early Childhood Educ J
To conclude, body movement allows children an
opportunity to choose, to learn and to get involved in social
processes in areas that they would choose in any case for
independent activity. As the children move about, the
teacher has an opportunity to turn their movement into
mindful movement and to set up personal and group
scaffolding. These help support the acquisition of the
learning skills of self-regulation and cooperation. The
acquisition of such skills opens up for the children ways to
choose that gradually improve and foster independent
learning. In other words, movement constitutes a sort of
axis connecting the mutually-supporting components of the
model that enable fostering of learning.
Discussion
The challenge kindergarten model (CKM) does not change
the daily agenda of the ‘‘child-centered’’ kindergarten. In
the model, the kindergarten continues to function, as in the
past, as a kindergarten that places child-directed activity at
the center. The uniqueness of this model is that the time the
children spend in the senso-motor center and in the outdoor
facilities has a central function in their academic learning
process and in the setting up of scaffolding by their teacher.
In other centers too, such as the building block center, the
socio-dramatic center, etc., whose activities have a body
movement component, the teacher pays special attention to
movement since it has the potential of becoming the basis
of learning processes and of the teacher’s determining the
children’s level for setting up suitable scaffolding.
Learning through the use of body movement enables the
teachers to establish a planned learning and goal-directed
framework in which they can work in a gradual and precise
way in choosing their next steps to attain their goals while
the children continue to direct activities, choosing and
learning on their own. These abilities improve with time as
the children reach the learning-related skills and are more
capable of choosing and learning. Table 1 presents the
teacher’s plan—goals matrix and the planning of steps to
attain the goals.
The CKM is woven, as it were, in a crisscross pattern of
horizontal and vertical ‘threads.’ The horizontal threads
focus on the learning goals step by step, while the vertical
ones focus on teacher strategies—giving the children
opportunities for body movement in its three forms, and
directing individual and group scaffolding. The matrix
shows the situation of the goal- and strategy-focused kindergarten teacher at any given moment. Simultaneously,
the children continue choosing and directing activity most
of the time through moving in an environment tailor-made
to their needs and through the scaffolding created for the
purpose.
In addition to the advantages already mentioned, the
CKM has two more: one is the teacher’s ability to integrate
in it language and arithmetic. In order to learn, children
need contact with their surrounding space (Gelman 2000;
Tversky 2008). Movement, which is the preferred activity
of kindergartners, enables them to learn under these conditions, acquiring in the process a lot of informal knowledge that forms the basis for formal knowledge (Shoval
2006). The transition from informal to formal knowledge
does not occur automatically, but requires systematic
learning (Ginsburg and Amit 2008). By integrating mindful
movement, the model creates systematic learning that
already contains the experience of language and arithmetic
together with systematic learning aimed at self-regulation
and cooperative behavior.
The additional advantage of the model is that its ‘‘childcentered’’ approach can be suited to diverse populations
(Lee and Ginsburg 2007). Our model gives the teachers a
chance to enable the children to choose and experience
non-verbal learning. At the basic level, this kind of learning
does not demand learning skills (Shoval and Shulruf 2011),
but they can help push forward the wheels of independent
choice that enable a teacher to organize the children’s
learning environment and set up scaffolding so that the
children are able to acquire the learning skills they lack
(Ludwig and Phillips 2008).
The CKM, however, also has a number of limitations, the
most important of which is the fact that it limits the children’s ‘‘autonomy’’ and their ‘‘free choice’’ by creating a
choosing space in which they play in a goal-directed environment. Indeed, the assumption that if children are granted
‘‘autonomy’’ and ‘‘free choice,’’ significant amounts of
learning will occur did not prove itself (Fuligni et al. 2012;
Winsler and Carlton 2003). Nevertheless, one cannot ignore
the price that must be paid for the model’s success: the loss
of freedom of choice and creativity.
The second limitation is that the model requires teachers
to take responsibility, to be highly professional in the
strictest sense of the word, and to be precise in their work.
Although the framework suggested in the model also supports the teachers’ work by enabling them to set up scaffolding much more easily, the teachers also suffer from
losing their sense of ‘‘autonomy,’’ and ‘‘the flow of the day’’.
To conclude, a rational, theory-based building of a CKM
and running it on an experimental basis as a prototype, as it
has been done up to now, are only the beginning. The aim
of this article is to stimulate a critical discussion of the new
model. In addition, many questions have come up that
require scrutiny in the field. One of the questions is whether
kindergarten teachers can function in this model and under
what conditions. Does the model really contribute to the
acquisition of learning skills, to academic attainments, and
to learning in the long term several years later?
123
123
Making verbal and calculation
processes available to support
taking personal and mutual
responsibility
Environment encouraging learning
through movement over
relatively long stretches of time
Environment makes available
ways for children to work in a
group while directing them to
analyzing and understanding the
stages of the process. Provides
children with opportunities to
help and get help from other
children in the group
Provides children with
opportunities in settling quarrels
Environment makes available
ways through which children can
show the group that they care
about them
Provides children with
opportunities to take
responsibility for playing games/
play with their peers
Making verbal & calculation
processes available to support
problem solving including avoid
quarreling
Environment encouraging
choosing solutions and applying
them in movement
Making verbal and calculation
processes available to support
choosing solutions and their
application
Environment makes available
ways of having new members
join the group
Provides children with
opportunities to persevere in
playing with peers
Environment facilitates children’s
joining playing group enabling
them to understand the principle
of the process involved in joining
groups
Provides children with
opportunities to choose
playmates
Environment encouraging children
to keep agreed-upon rules,
having them learn rules by heart
Teacher organizes the social
environment B
Environment encouraging children
to persevere in movement as they
search for solutions to problems
Making verbal and calculation
processes available for
strengthening perseverance
Environment encouraging children
to persevere in movement
activities
Making verbal and calculation
processes available for
improving goal-choosing
processes and agreement on rules
Environment encouraging choices
of movement activities
Teacher organizes the physical
environment A
Giving children opportunities for body movement
Teaching strategies
Developing self-regulated learners h improving cooperative behavior D
Searching for options to learn
cooperativelyD
Taking responsibility for learning,
and planning achievement in
stagesh
Stage 5
Help in settling quarrelsD
Choosing one solution for
applicationh
Stage 4
Avoid quarrelingD
Stage 3
Suggesting possible solutionsh
Persevering in cooperative
learning activities until
completionD
Analyzing and explaining the
difficulties encountered during
learningh
Stage 2
Keeping agreed- upon rulesD
Stage 1
Choosing personal learning
goalsh
September–June
Learning-related skills children
acquire
Table 1 Planning steps—learning goals in stages and strategies to attain them
Teacher directs children to depend
on peer group in performing
complex movement activities
over long stretches of time and in
analyzing the process verbally
Teacher directs children to depend
on peer group in performing
complex movement for
prolonged stretches of time and
in raising ideas verbally before
and during activity
Teacher directs children to choose
a random group of peers in
performing a simple movement
activity for a brief stretch of time
and has them give names to each
activity
Teacher directs children to choose
a peer at random for a brief
period of time while they
perform a simple movement that
they are required to describe
verbally
Teacher directs process by which
every child meets every other
child in kindergarten
Teacher offers whole-group
activity C
Teacher: Assists children in taking
responsibility for learning and
planning their learning in stages;
mediates cooperation among
learners
Teacher: Assists children when
they are choosing what to learn
and when applying their
solutions; mediates in search of
resolutions of quarrels among
children
Teacher: Assists children in
searching for solutions; mediates
practice in order that children
become aware they have
acquired the skill; mediates
preventing quarrels between
children
Teacher: Assists children in
analyzing learning difficulties
providing explanations and
mediates in ensuring children’s
perseverance in activities
Teacher: assists in agreed-upon
rules and explains their
importance and Mediates
choosing learning goals
Personal and group scaffolding by
teacher; children verbalize their
experience of movement D
Early Childhood Educ J
Early Childhood Educ J
References
Akshoomoff, N. (2002). Selective attention and active engagement in
young children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 22(3),
625–642.
Austad, H., & van der Meer, A. L. (2007). Prospective dynamic
balance control in healthy children and adults. Experimental
Brain Research, 181(2), 289–295.
Ben-Ari, R. (2002). Mindful movement: Toward enhanced intergroup
relations in heterogeneous classrooms. Curriculum and Teaching, 17(2), 19–36.
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today.
International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 445–457.
Boekaerts, M., & Cascallar, E. (2006). How far have we moved
toward the integration of theory and practice in self-regulation?
Educational Psychology Review, 18(3), 199–210.
Bower, J. K., Hales, D. P., Tate, D. F., Rubin, D. A., Benjamin, S. E.,
& Ward, D. S. (2008). The childcare environment and children’s
physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
34(1), 9–23.
Bredekamp, S. (2004). Play and school readiness. In E. F. Zigler, D.
G. Singer, & S. J. Bishop-Josef (Eds.), Children’s play: The
roots of reading (pp. 159–174). Washington, DC: Zero to Three.
Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate
practice in early childhood programs. Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., &
Simbardo, G. (2000). Prococial foundations of children’s
academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11(4), 302–306.
Ceglowski, D. (1997). Understanding and building upon children’s
perceptions of play activities in early childhood programs. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 25(2), 107–112.
Colella, D., & Morano, M. (2011). Gross motor development and
physical activity in kindergarten age children. International
Journal of Pediatric Obesity, 6(S2), 33–36.
Darnon, C., Butera, F., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Achievement
goals in social interactions: Learning with mastery vs. performance goals. Motivation and Emotion, 31(1), 61–70.
D’Arripe-Longueville, F., Gernigon, C., Huet, M. L., Cadopi, M., &
Winnykamen, F. (2002). Peer tutoring in a physical education
setting: Influence of tutor skill level on novice learners’
motivation and performance. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education., 22(1), 105–123.
Deering, P. D., & Meloth, M. S. (1993). A descriptive study of
naturally occurring discussion in cooperative learning groups.
Journal of Classroom Interaction, 28(2), 7–13.
Duncan, R. M., & Tarulli, D. (2003). Play as the leading activity of
the preschool period: Insights from Vygotsky, Leont’ev, and
Bakhtin. Early Education and Development, 14(3), 271–292.
Fuligni, A. S., Howes, C., Huang, Y., Hong, S. S., & Lara-Cinisomo,
S. (2012). Activity settings and daily routines in preschool
classrooms: Diverse experiences in early learning settings for
low-income children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
27(2), 198–209.
Gabbert, B., Johnson, W. D., & Johnson, T. R. (2001). Cooperative
learning, group-to-individual transfer, process gain, and the
acquisition of cognitive reasoning strategies. The Journal of
Psychology, 120(3), 265–278.
Gelman, R. (2000). The epigenesis of mathematical thinking. Journal
of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 27–37.
Ginsburg, H. P., & Amit, M. (2008). What is teaching mathematics
to young children? A theoretical perspective and case study.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(4),
274–285.
Goudas, M., & Magotsiou, E. (2009). The effects of a cooperative
physical education program on students’ social skills. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 21(3), 356–364.
Hatzitkai, V., Zisi, V., Kollias, I., & Kioumourtzoglou, E. (2002).
Perceptual-motor contributions to static and dynamic balance
control in children. Journal of Motor Behavior, 34(2), 161–170.
Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind (2nd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Kutnick, P., & Kington, A. (2005). Children’s friendships and learning
in school: Cognitive enhancement through social interaction?
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 521–538.
Lee, J. S., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2007). Preschool teachers’ beliefs about
appropriate early literacy and mathematics education for lowand middle-socioeconomic status children. Early Education and
Development, 18(1), 111–143.
Ludwig, J., & Phillips, D. A. (2008). Long term effects of head start
on low income children. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, 1136(1), 257–268.
Marcon, R. A. (2002). Moving up the Grades: Relationship between
preschool model and later school success. Early Childhood
Research and Practice, 1(4). Retrieved February 21, 2013 from
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/marcon.html.
Martina, H. E., Rudisillb, E. M., & Hastieb, A. P. (2009).
Motivational climate and Fundamental motor skill performance
in a naturalistic physical education setting. Physical Education
and Sport Pedagogy, 14(3), 227–240.
McClelland, M. M., Acocka, A. C., & Morriso, F. J. (2006). The
impact of kindergarten making decisions skills on academic
trajectories at the end of elementary school. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 21(4), 471–490.
McClelland, M. M., Morrison, F. J., & Holmes, D. L. (2000).
Children at risk for early academic problems: The role of
learning-related social skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(3), 307–329.
Palermo, F., Hanish, L. D., Martin, C. L., Fabes, R. A., & Reiser, M.
(2007). Preschoolers’ academic readiness: What role does the
teacher–child relationship play? Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 22(4), 407–422.
Pate, R. R., Pfeiffer, A. K., Trost, G. S., Ziegler, P., & Dowda, M.
(2004). Physical activity among children attending preschools.
Pediatrics, 114(5), 1258–1263.
Pellegrini, A. D., Melhuish, E., Jones, I., Trojanowska, L., & Gilden,
R. (2000). Social contexts of learning literate language: The role
of varied, familiar, and close peer relationships. Learning and
Individual Differences, 12(4), 375–389.
Perry, N. E., & VandeKamp, K. O. (2000). Creating classroom
contexts that support young children’s development of selfregulated learning. International Journal of Educational
Research, 33(7–8), 821–843.
Phillips, V., & Wong, C. (2010). Tying together the common core of
standards, instruction, and assessments. Phi Delta Kappan,
91(5), 37–42.
Raudsepp, L., & Päll, P. (2006). The relationship between fundamental motor skills and outside-school physical activity of
elementary school children. Pediatric Exercise Science, 18(4),
426–435.
Shoval, E. (2006). Activity—enhance learning—physical movement
and its contribution to academic learning. Haifa, Israel: Ach
Publication.
Shoval, E. (2010). Using mindful movement in cooperative learning
while learning about angles. Instructional Science, 39(4), 453–466.
Shoval, E., & Shulruf, B. (2011). Who benefits from cooperative
learning with movement activity? School Psychology International, 32(1), 58–72.
123
Early Childhood Educ J
Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Watson, M., Schaps, E., & Lewis, C.
(2000). A six-district study of educational change: Direct and
mediated effects of the child development project. Social
Psychology of Education, 4(1), 3–51.
Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2006). Building effective learning communities: Strategies for leadership, learning and collaboration.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Tarim, K. (2009). The effects of cooperative learning on preschoolers’ mathematics problem-solving ability. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 72(3), 325–340.
Timmons, B. W., Naylor, P. J., & Pfeiffer, K. A. (2007). Physical
activity for preschool children: How much and how? Applied
Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 32(suppl 2E), S122–S134.
Tonyan, H. A., & Howes, C. (2003). Exploring patterns in time
children spend in a variety of child care activities: Associations
with environmental quality, ethnicity, and gender. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(1), 121–142.
Trawick-Smith, J., & Dziurgot, T. (2011). ‘Good-fit’teacher–child
play interactions and the subsequent autonomous play of
preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
26(1), 110–123.
Tversky, B. (2008). Spatial cognition: Embodied and situated. In P.
Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of
situated cognition (pp. 201–216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in
teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational
Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.
Venetsanou, F., & Kambas, A. (2010). Environmental factors
affecting preschoolers’ motor development. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 37(4), 319–327.
Walker, C. L., Shore, B. M., & French, L. R. (2011). A theoretical
context for examining students’ preference across ability levels for
learning alone or in groups. High Ability Studies, 22(1), 119–141.
123
Webb, M. N. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups:
A research summary. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to
cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 147–172). New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Webb, M. N. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics
learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 22(5), 366–389.
Weiss, I., Kramarski, B., & Talis, S. (2006). Effects of multimedia
environments on kindergarten children’s mathematical achievements and style of learning. Educational Media International,
43(1), 3–17.
Whitebread, D., Bingham, S., Grau, V., Pino, P. D., & Sangster, C.
(2007). Development of metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children: Role of collaborative and peer-assisted
learning. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 6(3),
433–455.
Winsler, A., & Carlton, M. P. (2003). Observations of children’s task
activities and social interactions in relation to teacher perceptions in a child-centered preschool: Are we leaving too much to
chance? Early Education and Development, 14(2), 155–178.
Wulf, G., Chiviacowsky, S., Schiller, E., & Ávila, L. T. G. (2010).
Frequent external-focus feedback enhances motor learning.
Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1–7.
Zimmerman BJ (2000) Attaining self-regulation a social cognitive
perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, M. Zeidner (Eds,).
Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39) San Diego, CA:
Academic Press
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2007). Motivation: An essential
dimension of self regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk &
B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning:
Theory, research, and applications (pp. 1–30). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.