Forget What You know about good study habits

September 6, 2010

Mind

Forget What You Know About Good Study Habits

By BENEDICT CAREY

Every September, millions of parents try a kind of psychological witchcraft, to transform their summer-glazed campers into fall students, their video-bugs into bookworms. Advice is cheap and all too familiar: Clear a quiet work space. Stick to a homework schedule. Set goals. Set boundaries. Do not bribe (except in emergencies).

And check out the classroom. Does Junior’s learning style match the new teacher’s approach? Or the school’s philosophy? Maybe the child isn’t “a good fit” for the school.

Such theories have developed in part because of sketchy education research that doesn’t offer clear guidance. Student traits and teaching styles surely interact; so do personalities and at-home rules. The trouble is, no one can predict how.

Yet there are effective approaches to learning, at least for those who are motivated. In recent years, cognitive scientists have shown that a few simple techniques can reliably improve what matters most: how much a student learns from studying.

The findings can help anyone, from a fourth grader doing long division to a retiree taking on a new language. But they directly contradict much of the common wisdom about good study habits, and they have not caught on.

For instance, instead of sticking to one study location, simply alternating the room where a person studies improves retention. So does studying distinct but related skills or concepts in one sitting, rather than focusing intensely on a single thing.

“We have known these principles for some time, and it’s intriguing that schools don’t pick them up, or that people don’t learn them by trial and error,” said Robert A. Bjork, a psychologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Instead, we walk around with all sorts of unexamined beliefs about what works that are mistaken.”

Take the notion that children have specific learning styles, that some are “visual learners” and others are auditory; some are “left-brain” students, others “right-brain.” In a recent review of the relevant research, published in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a team of psychologists found almost zero support for such ideas. “The contrast between the enormous popularity of the learning-styles approach within education and the lack of credible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion, striking and disturbing,” the researchers concluded.

Ditto for teaching styles, researchers say. Some excellent instructors caper in front of the blackboard like summer-theater Falstaffs; others are reserved to the point of shyness. “We have yet to identify the common threads between teachers who create a constructive learning atmosphere,” said Daniel T. Willingham, a psychologist at the University of Virginia and author of the book “Why Don’t Students Like School?”

But individual learning is another matter, and psychologists have discovered that some of the most hallowed advice on study habits is flat wrong. For instance, many study skills courses insist that students find a specific place, a study room or a quiet corner of the library, to take their work. The research finds just the opposite. In one classic 1978 experiment, psychologists found that college students who studied a list of 40 vocabulary words in two different rooms — one windowless and cluttered, the other modern, with a view on a courtyard — did far better on a test than students who studied the words twice, in the same room. Later studies have confirmed the finding, for a variety of topics.

The brain makes subtle associations between what it is studying and the background sensations it has at the time, the authors say, regardless of whether those perceptions are conscious. It colors the terms of the Versailles Treaty with the wasted fluorescent glow of the dorm study room, say; or the elements of the Marshall Plan with the jade-curtain shade of the willow tree in the backyard. Forcing the brain to make multiple associations with the same material may, in effect, give that information more neural scaffolding.

“What we think is happening here is that, when the outside context is varied, the information is enriched, and this slows down forgetting,” said Dr. Bjork, the senior author of the two-room experiment.

Varying the type of material studied in a single sitting — alternating, for example, among vocabulary, reading and speaking in a new language — seems to leave a deeper impression on the brain than does concentrating on just one skill at a time. Musicians have known this for years, and their practice sessions often include a mix of scales, musical pieces and rhythmic work. Many athletes, too, routinely mix their workouts with strength, speed and skill drills.

The advantages of this approach to studying can be striking, in some topic areas. In a study recently posted online by the journal Applied Cognitive Psychology, Doug Rohrer and Kelli Taylor of the University of South Florida taught a group of fourth graders four equations, each to calculate a different dimension of a prism. Half of the children learned by studying repeated examples of one equation, say, calculating the number of prism faces when given the number of sides at the base, then moving on to the next type of calculation, studying repeated examples of that. The other half studied mixed problem sets, which included examples of all four types of calculations grouped together. Both groups solved sample problems along the way, as they studied.

A day later, the researchers gave all of the students a test on the material, presenting new problems of the same type. The children who had studied mixed sets did twice as well as the others, outscoring them 77 percent to 38 percent. The researchers have found the same in experiments involving adults and younger children.

“When students see a list of problems, all of the same kind, they know the strategy to use before they even read the problem,” said Dr. Rohrer. “That’s like riding a bike with training wheels.” With mixed practice, he added, “each problem is different from the last one, which means kids must learn how to choose the appropriate procedure — just like they had to do on the test.”

These findings extend well beyond math, even to aesthetic intuitive learning. In an experiment published last month in the journal Psychology and Aging, researchers found that college students and adults of retirement age were better able to distinguish the painting styles of 12 unfamiliar artists after viewing mixed collections (assortments, including works from all 12) than after viewing a dozen works from one artist, all together, then moving on to the next painter.

The finding undermines the common assumption that intensive immersion is the best way to really master a particular genre, or type of creative work, said Nate Kornell, a psychologist at Williams College and the lead author of the study. “What seems to be happening in this case is that the brain is picking up deeper patterns when seeing assortments of paintings; it’s picking up what’s similar and what’s different about them,” often subconsciously.

Cognitive scientists do not deny that honest-to-goodness cramming can lead to a better grade on a given exam. But hurriedly jam-packing a brain is akin to speed-packing a cheap suitcase, as most students quickly learn — it holds its new load for a while, then most everything falls out.

“With many students, it’s not like they can’t remember the material” when they move to a more advanced class, said Henry L. Roediger III, a psychologist at Washington University in St. Louis. “It’s like they’ve never seen it before.”

When the neural suitcase is packed carefully and gradually, it holds its contents for far, far longer. An hour of study tonight, an hour on the weekend, another session a week from now: such so-called spacing improves later recall, without requiring students to put in more overall study effort or pay more attention, dozens of studies have found.

No one knows for sure why. It may be that the brain, when it revisits material at a later time, has to relearn some of what it has absorbed before adding new stuff — and that that process is itself self-reinforcing.

“The idea is that forgetting is the friend of learning,” said Dr. Kornell. “When you forget something, it allows you to relearn, and do so effectively, the next time you see it.”

That’s one reason cognitive scientists see testing itself — or practice tests and quizzes — as a powerful tool of learning, rather than merely assessment. The process of retrieving an idea is not like pulling a book from a shelf; it seems to fundamentally alter the way the information is subsequently stored, making it far more accessible in the future.

Dr. Roediger uses the analogy of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in physics, which holds that the act of measuring a property of a particle (position, for example) reduces the accuracy with which you can know another property (momentum, for example): “Testing not only measures knowledge but changes it,” he says — and, happily, in the direction of more certainty, not less.

In one of his own experiments, Dr. Roediger and Jeffrey Karpicke, who is now at Purdue University, had college students study science passages from a reading comprehension test, in short study periods. When students studied the same material twice, in back-to-back sessions, they did very well on a test given immediately afterward, then began to forget the material.

But if they studied the passage just once and did a practice test in the second session, they did very well on one test two days later, and another given a week later.

“Testing has such bad connotation; people think of standardized testing or teaching to the test,” Dr. Roediger said. “Maybe we need to call it something else, but this is one of the most powerful learning tools we have.”

Of course, one reason the thought of testing tightens people’s stomachs is that tests are so often hard. Paradoxically, it is just this difficulty that makes them such effective study tools, research suggests. The harder it is to remember something, the harder it is to later forget. This effect, which researchers call “desirable difficulty,” is evident in daily life. The name of the actor who played Linc in “The Mod Squad”? Francie’s brother in “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn”? The name of the co-discoverer, with Newton, of calculus?

The more mental sweat it takes to dig it out, the more securely it will be subsequently anchored.

None of which is to suggest that these techniques — alternating study environments, mixing content, spacing study sessions, self-testing or all the above — will turn a grade-A slacker into a grade-A student. Motivation matters. So do impressing friends, making the hockey team and finding the nerve to text the cute student in social studies.

“In lab experiments, you’re able to control for all factors except the one you’re studying,” said Dr. Willingham. “Not true in the classroom, in real life. All of these things are interacting at the same time.”

But at the very least, the cognitive techniques give parents and students, young and old, something many did not have before: a study plan based on evidence, not schoolyard folk wisdom, or empty theorizing.

Student-Centered Classrooms

Characteristicsof Effective InstructionStudent-Centered ClassroomsPurpose
The purpose of this brief is to provide Iowa educators with a clearer understanding of what is meant by student-centered classrooms as a characteristic of effective instruction within the Iowa Core. Definition
In student-centered classrooms, students are directly involved and invested in the discovery of their own knowledge. Through collaboration and cooperation with others, students engage in experiential learning that is authentic, holistic, and challenging. Students are empowered to use prior knowledge to construct new learning. Through the development of the metacognitive process, students reflect on their thinking. Curriculum and assessment are centered on meaningful performances in real-world contexts. As a partner in learning, teachers intentionally create organized and cohesive experiences to assist students to make connections to key concepts.
Facilitation of a student-centered classroom is a key characteristic of effective instruction, and thus the Iowa Core. Student-centered classrooms can be linked to Piaget, John Dewey, and Russian developmental psychologist, Lev Vygotsky. According to Rallis (1995, p. 225), ―Piaget explored the process by which humans construct their knowledge of the world, and Dewey emphasized the learner’s interaction with the physical environment. Vygotsky developed the role of social interaction as a dimension of learning.‖
Qualities of a student-centered classroom can be traced back to the early 1900s. Constructivism states that students learn more by experiences and active involvement than by observing (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Brooks and Brooks describe the value of allowing student responses to steer lessons and create instructional strategies. Asking questions and leading students to solutions nurtures students’ natural curiosity and is recommended over simply giving answers (Brown, 2008).
In a review of the literature, there are some common attributes linking student-centered classrooms to student engagement and success. In a student-centered classroom, students are very much a part of constructing their own learning in a holistic environment that capitalizes on student interests. The students are encouraged to reflect on their own learning, share their insights with their peers, and apply new learning to real-life, authentic experiences. When learners are the focus, they become fully engaged in the process (McCombs & Miller, 2007).
Julie Brown describes student-centered classrooms in the article ―Student-Centered Instruction: Involving Students in Their Own Education,‖ where she writes, ―Put simply,
student-centered instruction is when the planning, teaching, and assessment revolve around the needs and abilities of the students‖ (Brown, 2008, p. 1). Critical Attributes of a Student-Centered Classroom
Critical attributes of the student-centered classroom include the following:
 Construction of learning
 Metacognition
 Educator/student partnership in learning
 Collaborative learning
 Meaningful assessment in real-world contexts Construction Learning
Armed with the knowledge of students’ previous understanding of concepts, student-centered teachers create situations that allow students to make connections to new ideas. These connections can then be developed into entirely new concepts that continue to grow throughout a student’s experiences. A deep understanding occurs when new information offered through higher order thinking activities prompts the learner to rethink and reshape prior ideas. A classroom teacher must be prepared to offer a variety of learning opportunities to meet the needs of all students as each of us constructs our own meaning about issues, problems and topics. Metacognition
Metacognition is thinking about your thinking. In order for students to be metacognitive they must know how and know the need to think about their thinking. In a student-centered classroom, teachers facilitate opportunities for students to be metacognitive. Teachers in learner-centered schools understand learning to be a self-regulated, ongoing process of making sense of the world through concrete experience, collaborative discourse, and reflection (Twomey Fosnot, 2005). Teachers can assist students to acquire a set of strategies, define goals, and monitor their progress (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2008). Providing opportunities for students to reflect on what and how they learn creates an environment where students take responsibility for their learning and become more of a partner with their teacher in engaging in meaningful learning experiences. Educator/Student Partnership in The classroom teacher must possess a deep understanding of the developmental characteristics of their students as well as how students learn to be an effective partner in the learning process. A student-centered teacher will design learning experiences that explicitly link essential concepts and skills to students’ current understanding and natural curiosity about the topic in order to scaffold additional or deeper understandings. Students are engaged in decision making in the classroom and have the opportunity to more fully explore topics. We are most effective as teachers when we help our students discover the
power of their own minds to work in their own ways to achieve success. ―Few students develop a sense of academic, self-efficacy by becoming mired in what they cannot do‖ (Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2006, p.19). Collaborative Learning
Teachers who rely exclusively on lecture are missing an important brain-based principle: people are social and the brain grows in a social environment. New meaning comes through social interaction, so the connection between students is important. Cooperative learning and collaboration should be encouraged (Jensen, 1998). The student-centered teacher recognizes this principle of learning and actively infuses collaborative opportunities into each lesson. Collaboration provides students opportunities to learn from their peers and to gain skills that will be beneficial throughout their lives. Authentic Assessment
When students are engaged in activities that result in authentic and challenging applications, they are more highly motivated to learn. A combination of real-world assessment and the attributes of Assessment for Learning provide student-centered classroom teachers with the challenge of moving away from paper and pencil exams. As teachers begin—and continue—to search for ways to provide meaningful assessment for their students, their instructional activities will begin to fold into and overlap with intended assessment. Students and teachers alike will begin to monitor their teaching and learning and to make necessary adjustments to their actions. A true learning culture will result.
Creating a student-centered classroom is not considered an easy task. One of the most complex factors in a student-centered classroom is that of maintaining balance. Each of the five above mentioned attributes is quite an involved concept and may call for extensive learning and practice on the part of the teacher. A true student-centered classroom offers a balance of each of these attributes. A balance of these attributes will empower students to take control of their learning and create classroom teachers who are true facilitators of learning.
There are myths about the concept of student-centered classrooms, too. It is important to develop an understanding of what a student-centered classroom is but also of what a student-centered classroom is not. A student-centered classroom is not a student-controlled classroom. Student-centered teachers can expect the same, if not better, classroom behavior from students who are actively engaged in their learning. The partnership between teacher and students contributes to the collaborative learning culture. A student-centered classroom does not ignore guiding standards of content or cognition. Aligning learning activities to essential concepts and skills is a key attribute of student-centered classrooms.
Using student’s prior knowledge in combination with essential concepts and skills provides for instruction that is both more motivating and engaging. Student-centered classrooms are not factory-model education with one size fits all instructional approaches or passive sitting, listening, and note-taking without recursive discourse. Educators who believe in identifying what works for different students under different conditions and delivering it to them may
find student-centered learning appealing. Student-centered learning is not minimally guided and does not exclude direct instruction techniques. In fact, student-centered learning actively utilizes direct instruction on a just-in-time basis (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). Direct instruction and other learning techniques are utilized at the times that they work best within a student-centered learning experience. Each student has their own wealth of background knowledge and experiences and each student has their own preferred learning style. Teachers in a student-centered classroom will create opportunities for learning that take each of those student traits into consideration. Students will be expected to learn and grow in their understandings enough to develop new understandings. Evidence Base
As schools become more familiar with this characteristic of effective instruction, they will begin to realize that the benefits are many and varied. Brown (2008, p. 2) states, ―Through student-centered learning, students become self-sufficient, creative thinkers, and people who appreciate and value the subject being taught.‖
Jackson and Davis (2000) in Turning Points 2000, a revision of the 1989 Carnegie Corporation report, provided insights into curriculum, assessment, and instruction. The Carnegie document refers to previous research by Brooks and Brooks (1993), Bransford et al. (1999), and Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde (1998) concluding that constructivism is one of the best practices for learning.
According to Newmann, Marks, and Gamoran (1995, p. 3), to be authentic, ―achievement must reflect: construction of knowledge, disciplined inquiry, and value beyond school.‖ Newmann et al. describe the authentic instruction that addresses the construction of knowledge and requires students to engage in higher-order thinking. The authors suggest implementation of several key ideas: connect new information to old, engage students in challenging work, offer choices, stress learning that is experiential, provide opportunities to work collaboratively, and assess understanding using authentic means and products. All are elements of a student-centered classroom.
Newmann and his colleagues also discuss authentic assessment tasks as part of the model to promote authentic achievement. His research generally confirms the value of authentic learning. In a study of twenty-four public schools, when teaching was consistent with standards for authentic instruction, assessment, and performance, students achieved at high levels, regardless of social background (1996). Newmann and associates believe standards must be in place for what constitutes authentic intellectual activity in order to have significant cognitive learning. These standards can be used to improve learning activities and assessment.
Another research study also indicated better performance through authentic instructional settings. Silver and Lane (1995) demonstrated that middle school students were able to outperform their peers in a demographically similar school when they participated in the QUASAR Project, a mathematics program that emphasized reasoning, problem solving, and understanding in poor and minority student populations. The QUASAR Project focused on
instructional practices that offer meaningful experiences for students and assessment that assesses student performance on open-ended tasks involving mathematical problem solving, reasoning and communication. One of the main contributions of the multi-year QUASAR project is the improvement to instructional practices based on the validity of the assessment data provided to teachers and school administrators. Additional Important Aspects ofStudent-Centered Classrooms
The following section discusses how student-centered classrooms relate to the three connecting elements of the Iowa Core regarding planning, instructing, and assessment. Planning
Student-centered classrooms are a planned process.
 Problems can be structured around big ideas to provide a framework with which to gather information and build knowledge.
 Make learning high-interest and personalized… ―If students are introduced to topics that interest them, they’re more likely to be motivated‖ (Jones, 2007, p. 13).
 Realize ―students and teachers are partners in a caring relationship and be willing to be co-learners and co-creators of learning experiences‖ (McCombs & Miller, 2007, p. 110).
 Student-centered classroom teachers plan with an emphasis on the knowledge of who their learners are both individually and collectively and are armed with the best available knowledge about learning and about the best teaching practice (McCombs & Miller, 2007). Instructing
Student-centered instruction revolves around the needs and abilities of the students.
 A student-centered school offers each child many opportunities to learn. Teachers experiment with different approaches to learning to enable each child’s different learning style (Brooks & Brooks, 1993).
 Teachers facilitate a variety of learning opportunities: experiential, holistic, authentic, and challenging in a student-centered classroom.
 Constructing ideas or systems is interactive (Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 2005).
 ―Learner-centered teachers recognize that knowledge construction is not entirely an individual process… The teachers question and probe to help children make meaning. They listen carefully, encouraging reflection and stimulating new connections and interpretations‖ (Rallis, 1995, p. 226).
 ―The teacher’s role is more that of a facilitator than instructor; the students are active participants in the learning process. The teacher helps to guide the students, manage their activities, and direct their learning. Being a teacher means helping people to learn;
and, in a student-centered class, the teacher is a member of the class as a participant in the learning process‖ (Jones, 2007, p. 2). Assessment
Student-centered assessment is authentic.
 Without training, most learners cannot accurately judge what they do and don’t know (Paschler et al. 2007).
 For collaborative group work to have an impact, teachers must design effective learning tasks. The tasks must have clear outcomes and be interdependent among the students. The teacher needs to carefully monitor activities and give constant feedback (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005).
 Performance assessments are those involving students in activities, which require them to demonstrate mastery of certain performance skills or their ability to create products that meet certain standards of quality (Stiggins, 2001). Conclusion
The primary goal of student-centered classrooms is to help students become independent.
By keeping students at the center of one’s classroom, a teacher can encourage and inspire students to seek out knowledge and to strive for understanding at a deeper level. Through this process, students see a greater relevance for and a stronger connection to the subject at hand. Through student-centered instruction, our students can achieve independent minds and the capacity to make educational decisions and value judgments (Brown, 2008, p. 5).
Facilitating the tenets of the student-centered classroom will be an essential ingredient in implementing the characteristics of effective instruction in the Iowa Core.
Sources:
Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brown, J. (2008). Student-centered instruction: Involving students in their own education. Music Educators Journal, 94(5), 30–35.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., Barron, B., Cervetti, G., Pearson, P. D., Schoenfeld, A. H., Stage, E. K., et al. (2008). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
Jackson, A., & Davis, G. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York: Teachers College Press.
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jones, L. (2007). The student-centered classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McCombs, B., & Miller, L. (2007). Learner-centered classroom practices and assessments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Newmann, F., Marks, H. & Gamoran, A. (1995). A guide to authentic instruction and assessment: Vision, standards, and scoring. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
Newmann, F., & Associates (1996). Authentic Achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pashler, H., Bain, P., Bottge, B., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., & Metcalfe, J. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning (NCER 2007-2004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ncer.ed.gov
Rallis, S. (1995). Creating learner centered schools: Dreams and practices. Theory into Practice, 34(4), 224–229.
Silver, E. A., & Lane, S. (1995). Can instructional reform in urban middle schools help students narrow the mathematics performance gap? Some evidence from the QUASAR Project. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 18(2), 49–70.
Tomlinson, C., & Jarvis, J. (2006). Teaching beyond the book. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 16–21.
Twomey Fosnot, C. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyle, A. (2005). Best practice: Today’s standards for teaching & learning in America’s schools (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences:
A Theory for Everyone

Being intelligent does not always mean that someone tests well -- a problem with which teachers and school administrators have struggled since the earliest days of organized education. Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences helps educators think differently about "IQ,"  and about what being "smart" means. The theory is changing the way some teachers teach.

When Howard Gardner's book, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (Basic Books, 1983) burst on the scene, it seemed to answer many questions for experienced teachers. We all had students who didn't fit the mold; we knew the students were bright, but they didn't excel on tests. Gardner's claim that there are several different kinds of intelligence gave us and others involved with teaching and learning a way of beginning to understand those students. We would look at what they could do well, instead of what they could not do.

Later Gardner books, such as The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach (Basic Books, 1991) and Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice (Basic Books, 1993) helped us understand how multiple intelligences could help us teach and evaluate our students in new and better ways.

WHO IS HOWARD GARDNER?

Howard Gardner, Ph.D. is a professor at Harvard University and the author of many books and articles. His theory of multiple intelligences has challenged long-held assumptions about intelligence -- especially about a single measure of intelligence. Dr. Gardner also co-directs Harvard's Project Zero.

THE ORIGINAL SEVEN INTELLIGENCES

Howard Gardner first identified and introduced to us seven different kinds of intelligence inFrames of Mind.

·         Linguistic intelligence: a sensitivity to the meaning and order of words.

·         Logical-mathematical intelligence: ability in mathematics and other complex logical systems.

·         Musical intelligence: the ability to understand and create music. Musicians, composers and dancers show a heightened musical intelligence.

·         Spatial intelligence: the ability to "think in pictures," to perceive the visual world accurately, and recreate (or alter) it in the mind or on paper. Spatial intelligence is highly developed in artists, architects, designers and sculptors.

·         Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence: the ability to use one's body in a skilled way, for self-expression or toward a goal. Mimes, dancers, basketball players, and actors are among those who display bodily-kinesthetic intelligence.

·         Interpersonal intelligence: an ability to perceive and understand other individuals -- their moods, desires, and motivations. Political and religious leaders, skilled parents and teachers, and therapists use this intelligence.

·         Intrapersonal intelligence: an understanding of one's own emotions. Some novelists and or counselors use their own experience to guide others.

Then, Gardner identified an eighth intelligence, the naturalist intelligence.

HOWARD GARDNER TALKS ABOUT AN EIGHTH INTELLIGENCE

Gardner discussed the "eighth intelligence" with Kathy Checkley, in an interview for Educational Leadership, "The First Seven... and the Eighth." Gardner said, "The naturalist intelligence refers to the ability to recognize and classify plants, minerals, and animals, including rocks and grass and all variety of flora and fauna. The ability to recognize cultural artifacts like cars or sneakers may also depend on the naturalist intelligence. (S)ome people from an early age are extremely good at recognizing and classifying artifacts. For example, we all know kids who, at 3 or 4, are better at recognizing dinosaurs than most adults."

Gardner identified Charles Darwin as a prime example of this type of intelligence.

The naturalist intelligence meshed with Gardner's definition of intelligence as "the human ability to solve problems or to make something that is valued in one or more cultures." And the naturalist intelligence met Gardner's specific criteria:

·         "Is there a particular representation in the brain for the ability?

·         "Are there populations that are especially good or especially impaired in an intelligence?

·         "And, can an evolutionary history of the intelligence be seen in animals other than human beings?"

IMPLEMENTING GARDNER'S THEORY IN THE CLASSROOM

When asked how educators should implement the theory of multiple intelligences, Gardner says, "(I)t's very important that a teacher take individual differences among kids very seriously The bottom line is a deep interest in children and how their minds are different from one another, and in helping them use their minds well."

An awareness of multiple-intelligence theory has stimulated teachers to find more ways of helping all students in their classes. Some schools do this by adapting curriculum. In "Variations on a Theme: How Teachers Interpret MI Theory," (Educational Leadership, September 1997), Linda Campbell describes five approaches to curriculum change:

·         Lesson design. Some schools focus on lesson design. This might involve team teaching ("teachers focusing on their own intelligence strengths"), using all or several of the intelligences in their lessons, or asking student opinions about the best way to teach and learn certain topics.

·         Interdisciplinary units. Secondary schools often include interdisciplinary units.

·         Student projects. Students can learn to "initiate and manage complex projects" when they are creating student projects.

·         Assessments. Assessments are devised which allow students to show what they have learned. Sometimes this takes the form of allowing each student to devise the way he or she will be assessed, while meeting the teacher's criteria for quality.

·         Apprenticeships. Apprenticeships can allow students to "gain mastery of a valued skill gradually, with effort and discipline over time." Gardner feels that apprenticeships "should take up about one-third of a student's schooling experience."

With an understanding of Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, teachers, school administrators, and parents can better understand the learners in their midst. They can allow students to safely explore and learn in many ways, and they can help students direct their own learning. Adults can help students understand and appreciate their strengths, and identify real-world activities that will stimulate more learning.

Article by Anne Guignon
Education World®
Copyright © 2010 Education World

http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr054.shtml

Intrinsic Motivation and Achievement

http://www.edarticle.com
Intrinsic Motivation and its effects on Student Academic Achievement
Intrinsic Motivation and its effects on Student Academic Achievement
Jason Creekmore
August, 2010
Motivation 101
Schools across the nation are experiencing ever-increasing pressure to raise student test scores. In order to
meet the growing demands of student achievement, educators at all levels have created and implemented
strategic plans that focus on adult controlled variables such as professional development and the purchasing of
computer-based learning programs. However, perhaps the most significant factor in determining student
achievement is simply student motivation. Motivation is one of the most widely-studied areas in the field of
psychology and its implications in the field of education are apparent. Psychologists have established two
major concepts in regards to motivation: extrinsic and intrinsic.
Extrinsic motivation is described as an outside force influencing an individual's behavior. These types of
motivators can be effective in helping students meet short-term goals, but have a tendency to make students
depended on rewards. Examples of such motivators include stickers, trophies, extended break, and even
money. Students who perform for the sole purpose of being rewarded by an outside variable, often times lose
focus on why overall academic success is important. For extrinsically motivated students, their goal is to be
rewarded for their efforts, rather than the results of their efforts, the learning itself, act as the reward.
The other major motivational concept is intrinsic motivation. Psychologists explain intrinsic motivation as
when an individual completes an activity for the basic enjoyment of the activity, or understands the underlying
value of the activity. Students who are intrinsically motivated to complete tasks see the value in the activity
itself and are not reliant on an outside reward for their efforts. There are many theories concerning the concept
of intrinsic motivation, but one that has recently gained momentum is the Self-Determination Theory (SDT).
Implications of Intrinsic Motivation within the Classroom
The Self-Determination Theory was established by Ed Deci, professor of psychology at Rochester University.
According to Deci, this theory represents a broad framework for the study of human motivation and
personality (Deci, 1995). SDT identifies three specific areas which directly influence intrinsic motivation
levels. These areas include: autonomy, competence and relatedness. Deci argues that these are essential needs
of all learners and as the degree to which these needs are fulfilled, the degree of intrinsic motivation will also
rise. Intrinsic motivation has the ability to foster lifelong learning skills (Messali, 2010). Deci agrees with the
importance of intrinsic motivation and has consequently, created an instrument to evaluate student levels of
intrinsic motivation: the Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-A).
Being a school administrator myself, student motivational levels, and more importantly student achievement
levels are a priority. The study of intrinsic motivation and its effects on academic achievement, naturally
posed the question: Is there a positive correlation between student's level of intrinsic motivation and their
academic performance?
Study
In the spring of 2010 a study was completed that dealt with academic achievement and intrinsic motivation.
Sixty 7th and 8th grade students from a rural middle school in Kentucky completed the SRQ-A evaluation
tool. Students were randomly selected from two distinct groups: students with a 2.5 grade point average or
below, and students with a 3.5 grade point average (GPA) or above. The purpose of the study was to
determine if a positive correlation exists between the intrinsic motivational levels as determined by the SRQ-A
tool and student academic achievement as evidenced by GPA.
Results
The average GPA of the 60 students was 2.72 and the average SRQ-A score was 13.9. The numbers changed
dramatically when examining the two distinct subgroups. The top 30 students had an average GPA of 3.67 and
a SRQ-A score of 17.8. The bottom 30 students had an average GPA of 1.76 and a SRQ-A score of 10.1. A
correlation test was applied to the two variables to measure the relationship between intrinsic motivation and
academic achievement. The results indicated a positive correlation of .891, meaning that there was an 89
percent chance that the variables of GPA and SRQ-A data were related. The data suggests a close relationship
exists between academic achievement and intrinsic motivation.
In a field which values data-driven decisions, this study assuredly indicates that schools would benefit from
focusing more time and energy on increasing student intrinsic motivation. In some respects, intrinsic
motivation can be thought of as a precursor to increasing academic performance. Schools should make every
effort to implement teaching strategies and create an atmosphere which fosters intrinsic motivation. As test
score requirements rise with each passing year, educators must seek every advantage possible to raise student
performance levels and according to this study, intrinsic motivation plays a significant role in our future
success.
Reference
Deci, Ed. (1995). Why we do what we do: understanding of self-motivation.
Messali, Janice. (2010). The effect of motivation on academic achievement.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5804273_effect-motivation-academicachievement.
html#ixzz0w2aZMmCQ.
About the Author
Jason Creekmore
Jason Creekmore has served as a public educator for the past decade and is currently the principal of
McCreary County Middle School, located in southern Kentucky.
Read more articles on education topics at http://www.edarticle.com

Play In the Early Years

Key to
School
Success
A Policy Brief
Play
Early Years:
in the
© Bay Area Early Childhood Funders
May 2007
Based on the work of the late Dr. Patricia Monighan Nourot and
dedicated to her memory
Edited by Jean Tepperman,
Executive Director, Action Alliance for Children
NANU CLARK/MILLS COLLEGE CHILDREN’S SCHOOL
STEVE FISCH PHOTOGRAPHY
NANU CLARK/MILLS COLLEGE CHILDREN’S SCHOOL
The education of young children has been the center of unprecedented attention in recent
years. In California and elsewhere, this attention has generated significant efforts to offer
high-quality preschool to every child. Much of this interest has been based on new research on
brain development, which shows that the very structure of the brain is powerfully shaped by
early experiences.
At the same time, this and other research has demonstrated that young children learn
differently from older children and adults. It is essential that early childhood programs do not
simply attempt to teach preschoolers the same material with the same
methods that are now used in grades K-12.
There is a well-established consensus among early childhood
professionals that play is an essential element of developmentally
appropriate, high-quality early education programs (Alliance for
Childhood, 2006; NAEYC & NAECSSDE, 2003). Play provides benefits for cognitive,
social, emotional, physical, and moral development (American Academy of
Pediatrics, 2006; Elkind, 2007) for children from all socio-economic, cultural, and
linguistic backgrounds (Zigler, E. & Bishop-Josef, S., 2006). To provide these
benefits, play must be consciously facilitated by skilled teachers, who are
well-trained in observing children and in understanding how play
contributes to the children’s mastery of concepts and skills.
Most Americans from all cultural backgrounds are more familiar with
“direct instruction” teaching methods based on teaching discrete skills
isolated from children's interests and activities. But research shows that
the exploratory and creative activity that young children initiate themselves (play) is the
primary way they develop concepts and understanding about the world. Play helps children
develop the skills necessary for critical thinking and leadership. Play is how children learn to
solve problems and to feel good about their ability to learn.
A play-centered preschool curriculum is not a laissez-faire approach. It's not the
same as giving children "free play" separate from "teaching." Rather, teachers use the
power of children's developing ideas, interests, and competencies to promote learning—
through play, circle-time, and small-group activities. This power is most evident in children's
play, as play is the central force in the development of young children.
Play is not a break from the curriculum; play is the best way to implement the
curriculum.
This policy brief focuses on play as an essential foundation for developing children’s ability to
succeed in school and in life.
Play in the Early Years:
Key to School Success
Pouring water
into different
size containers,
these children
learn about
volume and
measurement
while developing
their eye-hand
coordination.
NANU CLARK/MILLS COLLEGE CHILDREN’S SCHOOL
High-quality preschools provide lasting benefits
In high-quality preschools, well-trained early childhood teachers use children's ideas, interests,
and activities to guide their learning. In such programs, children make choices among
developmentally appropriate activities.
Such child-initiated activities were key components of the high quality preschool programs
that showed strong evidence of success in three major longitudinal studies. These studies
found that the programs saved taxpayers between $2.69 and $7.14 for every dollar invested
(Galinsky, 2006), by reducing special education, law-enforcement, and other costs.
Other studies provide evidence that highly structured, scripted, primarily teacher-directed
instruction is not as effective in promoting young children’s academic success as is teaching
that supports and extends children’s self-initiated activities and interests. In fact, research
suggests that over-use of didactic teaching can suppress child-initiated learning and
undermine young children’s self-confidence and motivation to learn (Chang, Stipek & Garza, 2006;
Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Singer, Golinkoff & Hirsh-Pasek, 2006).
Play contributes to school success in many ways
A growing body of research shows that every competency important to school success is
enhanced by play (Isenberg & Quisenberry, 2002; Singer, 2006). For example, high-quality pretend play is
related to children’s abilities to begin to think abstractly and to take the perspectives of others
(Bergen, 2002; Berk, Mann & Ogan, 2006; Singer, Singer, Plason & Schweden, 2003). Connections between the
complexity of children’s pretend play and early literacy, mathematical thinking, and problemsolving
are documented in this research literature (Singer et al., 2006; Smilansky, 1990; Van Hoorn, Nourot,
Scales & Alward, 2007).
WHEN CHILDREN PLAY:
▼ They have many opportunities to apply mental representations of the world to new objects,
people, and situations—the key ability for future academic learning.
▼ They integrate all types of learning—physical, social, emotional, intellectual, and language
development.
▼ They are engaged in things they’re interested in—so they have a natural motivation to
learn (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).
▼ Children develop concepts and skills together as they are integrated in the context of
meaningful and playful experiences. For example, as four-year-old Cecily learns to write the
letters in her name, she is also learning the concept that each letter
represents a sound—and she is highly motivated by the meaning:
her own name. Skills have limited value without concepts. For
example, it doesn’t do a child any good to be able to count to
five by rote unless she understands the quantity represented
(5 = five blocks).
◆ Children are more likely to retain skills and concepts they
have learned in meaningful contexts.
◆ Concepts are developed through activities that occur
naturally during play, such as counting, sorting,
sequencing, predicting, hypothesizing, and evaluating.
As they design
and build a
sloping
structure, these
girls are
experimenting
with basic
principles of
physics
and logic.
BETTY RAPPAPORT/KUMARA SCHOOL
The development of representational competence
Through pretend play, children develop the ability to use their imaginations to represent
objects, people, and ideas.
WHAT YOU SEE:
▼ A toddler flaps her arms, pretending to be a butterfly.
▼ Another picks up a banana, holds it to his ear, and says, “Hello.”
▼ A preschooler builds a firehouse with blocks.
HOW IT PROMOTES SCHOOL SUCCESS:
This ability to use one object to symbolize another is the essential
foundation for literacy and numeracy—the ability to understand
that numerals represent quantities and letters represent sounds and
words (Jones & Cooper, 2006; Singer et al., 2003; Zigler, Singer & Bishop-Josef, 2004).
The development of oral language
and narrative understanding
Through dramatic play with objects, people, and
imagined situations, children develop their oral language
skills and capacity for narrative, or “thinking in stories.”
WHAT YOU SEE:
▼ Children act out scenes in the “housekeeping corner.”
▼ A child makes her stuffed animal “talk,” telling a story.
HOW IT PROMOTES SCHOOL SUCCESS:
Oral language skills and narrative capacity form the
foundation for reading comprehension, the ability to produce coherent writing,
and the ability to understand subjects such as history, social studies, and science
(Fein, Ardeila-Ray & Groth, 2000; Jones & Cooper, 2006; Kim, 1999; Nicolopoulou, McDowell &
Brockmeyer, 2006; Schickedanz & Casbergue, 2004).
The development of positive approaches to learning
When children are engaged in activities they have chosen, learning is enjoyable because it is
based on their own curiosity and connected to a sense of mastery.
WHAT YOU SEE:
▼ Classrooms organized with various activity centers (blocks,
dramatic play, painting and drawing, writing, reading, science, etc.),
with children encouraged to work in areas and in ways they choose.
HOW IT PROMOTES SCHOOL SUCCESS:
Research indicates that children’s attitudes of curiosity, motivation
and sense of mastery are key to success in the elementary grades
(Chang, et al., 2006; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Singer et al., 2006).
NANU CLARK/MILLS COLLEGE CHILDREN’S SCHOOL
JANET BROWN McCRACKEN
JANET BROWN McCRACKEN
These
children are
exploring and
experimenting
with materials
in different
ways, guided
by their own
curiosity.
These boys are
using blocks to
symbolize the
buildings
of a city.
Creating a
conversation for the
stuffed animals
gives these girls
experience in using
oral language and
telling stories.
Children learn specific competencies related
The development of logic
Through play with blocks, clay, sand, water, and other materials, children
develop skills in logic. They begin to learn scientific concepts such as cause
and effect and mathematical concepts such as quantity, classification, and
ordering. They practice inventing strategies for solving problems.
WHAT YOU SEE:
▼ Children experiment with blocks to figure out how to build
a stable structure.
▼ Children compare blocks, discovering that two squares are
the same size as one rectangle.
▼ Children pour sand into different size containers.
HOW IT PROMOTES SCHOOL SUCCESS:
This practice in experimentation, observation, comparison, and work with
shapes, sizes, and quantities forms the basis for understanding math and science and
higher-order thinking in all subjects (Ginsberg, Inoue & Seo, 1999; Ginsberg, 2006; Wyver & Spence, 1999).
The development of
self-regulation and social negotiation
As children interact with each other, negotiating the sharing of materials or planning
imaginative play, they learn concepts and skills in cooperating, advocating one’s own ideas and
listening to others, handling frustration, and empathizing with others.
WHAT YOU SEE:
▼ Children plan dramatic play together, negotiating over roles and situations. “We can both
be pilots if we have two seats.”
▼ One child cries and another says, “Don’t worry, your mom is coming soon.”
HOW IT PROMOTES SCHOOL SUCCESS:
Numerous studies have shown that children with better social skills and emotional
health succeed academically—and are more likely to avoid high-risk activities as adolescents
(Berk, Mann & Ogan, 2006; Fromberg, 2002; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).
These children
are working
together to
figure out which
blocks to use
and how to
place them so
their tower
won’t fall over.
These children have cooperated to decide
what to put in the boat and are working
together to carry it to the location
they’ve chosen.
NANU CLARK/MILLS COLLEGE CHILDREN’S SCHOOL
NANU CLARK/MILLS COLLEGE CHILDREN’S SCHOOL
to academic and social success through play
To facilitate learning through play, the teacher must be well educated and trained in order to
have the necessary skills and knowledge about early childhood development, curricula,
standards, and assessment. The teacher is intentional in guiding and extending children’s
play to make sure children are developing in all areas and key learning goals are achieved.
Through careful, trained observations of children’s play, the teacher can assess their learning
needs and their mastery of curriculum.
Teachers use keen observation to assess and support
children’s learning and development through play.
▼ A series of photos of a child’s block structures over time
shows the development of her understanding of spatial
relations.
▼ Observation of a child writing letters and talking about
what they “say” shows his understanding that letters
represent words.
▼ Hearing a child say “Put all the red food in that basket
and the yellow food in this basket” shows his ability to
sort objects based on specific characteristics.
▼ Observation of a child lining up toy dinosaurs by size
shows her understanding of ordering objects and size
comparisons.
Teachers facilitate play through responsive interactions
with children, based on an understanding of how play
contributes to academic and social learning.
▼ A teacher observes two children making silly rhymes while pouring juice. “You’re juicygoosey!”
“You’re juicely-goosley-foosley!” She extends this play by teaching songs that play
with sounds of language, such as “Apples and Bananas,” or rhyming, such as “Down by the
Bay.” She knows this practice with oral language helps children develop their understanding
of “phonemes,” or the phonetic components of words (Van Hoorn et al., 2007).
This teacher can
assess the
child’s skills by
watching and
asking questions
as he plays
with playdough.
The teacher is the key
to the play-centered curriculum
STEVE FISCH PHOTOGRAPHY
These children are learning the joy
of working hard on a project they
chose and designed.
NANU CLARK/MILLS COLLEGE CHILDREN’S SCHOOL
▼ One week a teacher turns the dramatic play area into a shoe
store. Play in the “store” encourages dialogue and introduces
new vocabulary (sneakers, hiking boots, canvas). Children
practice cooperation and oral language by acting out
interactions between “customers” and “sales people.”
Children may also make signs for the store: younger
preschoolers may draw or make up “writing;” older
preschoolers may want to practice writing real letters and
words. Some children may want to practice writing numbers
to price the shoes. Some older preschoolers may even learn
simple addition and subtraction by making change for
purchases (Van Hoorn, et al., 2007).
▼ A teacher observes a child's play and provides language for the concepts involved, building
the child’s vocabulary: "Isn’t that interesting? You’ve lined up these animals from small to
big, tiny to gigantic."
▼ A teacher observes a child pretending that a chair is a car and “driving.” She asks, “Where
are you going in the car? What are you seeing along the way?”—encouraging the child to
develop her imagination and oral language skills.
Because young children’s play is so important to the development of the skills, concepts, and
approaches they will need in order to be effective learners throughout their lives, it is essential
that public policy promote and support early education methods that make full use of play
and child-initiated activities. State and local policymakers should:
▼ Adopt preschool learning standards/foundations that identify play as the primary method
for early learning
▼ Require the adoption of preschool curricula that emphasize play and child-initiated
activities
▼ Fund in-depth training and ongoing education for early
childhood educators and elementary school teachers about
methods for using play to promote learning
▼ Establish parent education programs that explain the
importance of play to cognitive development
▼ Require assessment based on teacher-documented
observations of children during play. Rule out high-stakes
testing of preschool children.
Policy Recommendations
This teacher is
encouraging the
children to experiment
with the physical
properties of sand
and water—and she’s
there to help them put
their new concepts
into words.
CHASE HARDY/KUMARA SCHOOL
Early Childhood Funders
P.O. Box 2306
El Cerrito, California 94530-2306
For more information, contact the Early Childhood Funders at 415.733.8576
For an online copy of this report, go to www.4children.org/ecf.htm
Produced by lockwood design, Oakland, CA; Printed by Chimes Printing, Concord, CA
References
Alliance for Childhood. (2007). A call to action on the education of young children. Retrieved from: www.allianceforchildhood.org/pdf_files/Call_to_Action_on_Young_Children.pdf.
American Academy of Pediatrics: Ginsburg, K.R. and the Committee on Communications and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2006, October). Clinical
report: The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Retrieved from: www.aap.org/pressroom/playFINAL.pdf.
Bergen, D. (2002). The role of pretend play in children’s cognitive development. In Early Childhood Research and Practice, 4(1), 2–15.
Berk, L.E., Mann, T.D., & Ogan, A.T. (2006). Make-believe play: Wellspring for the development of self-regulation. In D.G. Singer, R. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.) Play = learning:
How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 74 – 100). New York: Oxford University Press.
Chang, H., Stipek, D., & Garza, N. (2006). Deepening the dialogue: Key considerations for expanding access to high quality preschool in California. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford School of Education.
Elkind, D. (2007). The power of play: How spontaneous, imaginative activities lead to happier, healthier children. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.
Fein, G. G., Ardeila-Ray, A., & Groth, L. (2000). The narrative connection: Stories and literacy. In K. Roskos & J. Christie (Eds.), Play and literacy in early childhood: Research from multiple
perspectives (pp. 27–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fromberg, D. P. (2002). Play and meaning in early childhood education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Galinsky, E. (2006). Economic benefits of high quality early childhood programs. Washington: Committee for Economic Development.
Ginsburg, H. P., Inoue, N., & Seo, K. H. (1999). Young children doing mathematics: Observations of everyday activities. In J. V. Copley (Ed.), Mathematics in the early years (pp. 88–100).
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Ginsberg, H.P. (2006). Mathematical play and playful mathematics: A guide for early education. In Singer et al., op. cit. (pp. 145-165).
Isenberg, J. & Quisenberry, N. (2002). Play: Essential for all children. A position paper of the Association for Childhood Education International. Retrieved from:
www.acei.org/playpaper.htm
Jones, E. & Cooper, R. (2006). Playing to get smart. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kim, S. (1999). The effects of storytelling and pretend play on cognitive processes, short-term and long-term narrative recall. In Child Study Journal, 29(3), 175–191.
McAfree, O., Leong, D.J., Bodrova, E., (2004), Basics of Assessment: A Primer for Early Childhood Educators, Washington: NAEYC.
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) (2003).
Joint position statement: Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8. Retrieved from:
www.naeyc.org/about/positions/pdf/CAPEexpand.pdf.
Nicolopoulou, A., McDowell, J. & Brockmeyer, C. (2006). Narrative play and emergent literacy: Storytelling and story-acting meet journal writing. In Singer et al., op. cit. (pp. 124-144).
Schickedanz, J.A. & Casbergue, R.M. (2004). Writing in Preschool: Learning to orchestrate meaning and marks. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Shonkoff, J. & Phillips, D. (Eds.) (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington: National Academy Press.
Singer, D. G., Singer, J. L., Plaskon, S. L., & Schweder, A. E. (2003). The role of play in the preschool curriculum. In S. Olfman (Ed.), All work and no play: How educational reforms are
harming our preschoolers (pp. 43–70). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Singer, D.G., Golinkoff, R., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (Eds.) (2006). Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth. New York: Oxford University Press.
Smilansky, S. (1990). Sociodramatic play: Its relevance to behavior and achievement in school. In E. Klugman & S. Smilansky (Eds.), Children’s play and learning: Perspectives and policy
implications (pp. 18–42). New York: Teachers College Press.
Van Hoorn, J., Nourot, P.M., Scales, B. & Alward, K. (2007). Play at the center of the curriculum, Fourth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Wyver, S. R., & Spence, S. H. (1999). Play and divergent problem solving: Evidence supporting a reciprocal relationship. Early Education and Development, 10(4), 419–444.
Zigler, E., Singer, D. & Bishop-Josef, S. (Eds.) (2004). Children's play: The roots of reading. Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press.
Zigler, E. & Bishop-Josef, S. (2006). The cognitive child vs. the whole child: Lessons from 40 years of Head Start,. In Singer et al., 2006.
Non-Profit Organization
U.S. Postage
PAID
Oakland, CA
Permit #1846