RUNNING HEAD: TRADITION AND CHANGE: THE VOYAGE OF REVISING
Tradition and Change: The Voyage of Revising an
Early Childhood Studies Preparation Program
Mary Ann Marchel
University of Minnesota Duluth
Karen M. S. Keenan
Duluth, Minnesota
Abstract
How does a university teacher education program stay afloat in a continuous sea of change? The purpose of this paper is to exemplify a university early childhood studies program revision experience. It identifies internal motivational change forces, such as personnel and cultural change; and external forces, such as federal mandates, best practices, and socio-economic needs. Diverse expertise, common vision, accommodating structures, and administrative leadership as supportive resources are examined. Decision-making and action planning strategies to assist the change journey are explicated. Results from student surveys, early childhood faculty reaction, focus groups with early childhood field-based practitioners, and interviews with college administration provide validation data. The outcome, a Unified Early Childhood Program (UECP), is described followed by future directions to monitor and promote best practices in early childhood professional preparation.
Tradition and Change: The Voyage of Revising an
Early Childhood Studies Preparation Program
How does a university teacher education program stay afloat in a continuous sea of change? One way to successfully navigate such seas is to recognize when the winds of change call for action. When all systems are aligned, faculty can respond thoughtfully, thus meaningfully right the course. The purpose of this paper is to exemplify the change experience of a university early childhood studies program. It identifies motivational forces, examines supportive resources, explicates a facilitative process to assist its journey, and proposes necessary future directions to promote best practices in early childhood professional preparation. These factors are described, preceded by a brief review of context and background.
The current Early Childhood Education Program in the Department of Education at the University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD) prepares undergraduates to work with children ages birth through third grade. The program is staffed by four tenure track and one contract faculty members. These individuals are responsible for the instruction and field supervision of approximately 100 students from rural and urban settings and are typically full time, “traditional” undergraduate students. The program is delivered through a block/cohort model in which students are required to complete three sequenced blocks of prescribed courses and a student teaching experience.
Background
Personnel preparation in early childhood education rests on rich historical and philosophical traditions. The work of philosophers and theorists such as Vgotsky, Piaget, and Dewey provide a classical foundation essential to the development and delivery of curriculum for effective preparation of future early educators (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Early childhood special education expands these foundations to include behavioral perspectives and approaches, maximizing equal access to educational environments through universal design (Sandall, McClean, & Smith, 2000). In accordance with universal design, materials, activities, and physical arrangements reflect access and usability for all people to the greatest extent possible (Howard, K. L. (2004). Curriculum for early educator and care provider preparation is rooted in these perspectives. Yet, the curriculum is not static, it is dynamic. In response to ever-changing forces impacting the educational needs of children, it is vulnerable to adaptation over time. The challenge is to balance change with tradition. A healthy teacher education program is one in which the examination of traditions is done in light of their compatibility with its future vision and direction. Similarly, it is important to study and assess societal and political transformations influencing the curricular content. This approach becomes the foundation upon which competent educators and caregivers are prepared to navigate in 21st century early childhood teaching and learning environments.
In the past decade, considerable change occurred in the early childhood landscape. Early childhood professional roles expanded to include work with children of diverse ability levels and culturally linguistic backgrounds. As these roles changed, dissatisfaction with the program emerged. Early childhood (EC) faculty members and students at UMD recognized a disparity between the preparation of experiences available in the current program and expectations of the field.
Dissatisfaction, often an initial fuel for change, fed faculty action. Consequently, EC Faculty initiated a curriculum revision process. These academics sought a way to address growing tensions created by previously mentioned dissatisfactions. At this juncture, an organization development consultant was contacted to provide change process guidance. This individual met with a small group of EC Faculty, called the design team, to clarify outcomes, develop a timeline, and explore possible processes to facilitate desired change. The consultant explained that, according to the theory supporting a commonly used change process, change often occurs when dissatisfaction (D) plus a vision (V) of the desired state plus identification of the first steps (1st steps) and recognition of capacity (C) is greater than (>) the resistance (R), or stated as a mathematical formula: Change = D + V + 1st Steps + C > R (Gleicher in Jacobs, 1994, p. 122). Faculty welcomed the emergence of change when dissatisfactions were identified. In doing so, these academics discovered the complexity of these dissatisfactions as they began the inquiry about what traditions could be sustained, and what changes were essential to prepare students for the changing environment of early childhood education. Other internal and external forces contributed to the depth of this desired change.
Forces Contributing to Change
Several internal and external forces created the climate for change. Internally, significant modifications in the early childhood program occurred when all of its tenured or tenure track faculty members relocated or retired. As a result, university administration became committed to rebuilding a seemingly vulnerable program. Administrators empowered the newly hired early childhood studies faculty to develop and implement a program for the preparation of future professionals who could manage the expanded roles of early childhood educators and caregivers. This new faculty capitalized on the context of support for the early childhood program. External forces, such as federal mandates, best practices, and socio-economic needs contributed additional momentum for curricular change.
Federal mandates. Recent federal mandates called for a range of options for serving children with disabilities in natural environments. These mandates created a higher incidence for inclusion of young children with disabilities in community and public school-based care and education settings. Consequently, it became essential for future early educators to demonstrate competency in working with children with diverse needs and backgrounds.
Best practices. The professional organizations of Early Childhood Education (National Association for the Education of Young Children) and Early Childhood Special Education (Division of Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children) recommend practices in support of a unified approach to teacher licensure for early childhood education (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Sandall, McLean, & Smith, 2000). In this approach, the disciplines of early childhood education and early childhood special education merge, weaving expertise across the two perspectives. Preparation experiences, according to this approach, encourage an integration of content, focusing on the notion of universal design (Howard, 2004; Moore, Gottman, & Iaconfano, 1992) in which the learning environment is adapted to maximize access for all. Therefore, each course in a unified early childhood teacher licensure program critically analyzes how to create developmentally appropriate learning experiences and equal opportunity for children of diverse cultural linguistic background and ability.
Socio-economic needs. An additional external force was the public’s attention to the socioeconomic benefits of quality early childhood education programs at both the state (Rolnick & Gruenwald, 2003) and national levels (Brooks-Gunn, J., McCormick, M.C., Shapiro, S.; Benasich, A. A., & Black, G. W., 1994; Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T., 1995). The public depended on well-prepared early childhood professionals to adequately prepare early learners for successful learning achievement. Consequently, this dependence provided further impetus for programmatic change.
Internal and external forces provide motivation for change. But what about the energy needed to fuel the change? As faculty identified the change forces, requisite resources and support for future growth and development was sought.
Resources and Supports
Encouraged by internal and external forces, forward motion was enhanced with access to existing resources. These included the diverse expertise of the EC Studies Faculty and Staff, their commitment to and vision of change, the existing structure of the Education Department, and administrative leaders who dedicated emotional and financial supports during the change process.
Accommodating structures. Fortunately, physical proximity was not an issue. The EC and EC special education faculty were housed in the same department and worked together within the Early Childhood Studies Program. Potential roadblocks typically faced by EC faculty who are housed in separate departments, such as turf issues, differences in philosophical underpinnings, and competition for resources, were nonexistent in this college/department’s organizational structure, and hence did not serve as barriers. This culture encouraged the common vision for the development and support of a new Unified Early Childhood Program (UECP) (Stayton & McCollum, 2002; Fader Dunne, 2002).
Administrative support. Emotional and financial support from administrative levels energized the program change process. Leaders within the college placed trust and value in the knowledge and skills of the early childhood faculty to design the curriculum. This support proved essential during challenges faced throughout the change process.
One such challenge was the bureaucratic negotiation process experienced at higher administrative levels. Faculty members were supported, with assistance from the Dean and Associate Dean, in navigation of this unfamiliar terrain. For example, the Associate Dean drafted and coached EC Faculty in the curriculum approval process for the University Board of Regents. The Dean provided funding to support curriculum development work during the summer months. Mutual trust between EC Faculty and Administration at the college level catalyzed the programmatic change process.
The development of a new Unified Early Childhood Program was accomplished by establishing an environment in which individuals were willing to “unfreeze” the current programmatic culture so that “restructuring” could occur that would prepare for the “re-freezing” of a new program (Lewin in French & Bell, 2002, p. 74). By the time the EC Faculty contacted a process consultant, a container, or conversational focus, vision, and direction for change (Schein, 1999; Quade, Perme, Eoyang, Barton & Holladay, 2004), was sufficiently formed. First, the key dissatisfaction was identified - the early childhood program did not meet the needs of the intended clients. Secondly, a common purpose/vision was crafted - create a professional development program that would prepare early educators to appropriately nurture and support young children and families with diverse abilities and backgrounds. Finally, the participants desiring change created a climate for vigorous dialogue and decision making.
Faculty readiness for change was based on the articulation of dissatisfactions, identification of internal and external forces to support change, recognition of capacity for change through diverse professional perspectives and administrative resources. According to Gleicher’s Change Model, Change = D + V + 1st Steps +C > R (in Jacobs, 1994, p. 122), faculty fleshed out 3 of 4 of the necessary change dimensions. They needed assistance with first steps to develop a plan for change. Further, faculty recognized a benefit to this work. It would strengthen relationships among the academic team and the practitioners in the field with whom they worked.
The consultant collaborated with first a small faculty design team to plan an appropriate meeting agenda. During this meeting, the consultant would guide the faculty through an inductive action planning process model based on the Institute of Cultural Affairs (ICA) Workshop Method (ICA, 1994) using the Objective – Reflective – Interpretative – Decisional (O.R.I.D.) Process. This four-stage inquiry process would flow through a series of questions to surface comprehensive data from which meaningful actions would emerge. The four inquiry stages were 1) the objective level (O), to explicate facts, 2) the reflective level (R), to invite personal reaction to objective data, 3) the interpretative level (I), to bring forth interpretations and meaning, and 4) the decisional level (D), to decide on action for implementation (Stanfield, 1997). In this manner, planning participants moved in the direction of the questions asked. Therefore, the formulation of questions was a crucial first-step in the planning process.
First, the design team, guided by the consultant, crafted a question that would serve as an inspirational guide for the initial 2-day planning process (see Figure 1).
Then, sub-questions were developed to illuminate objective data (O), surface emotional responses (R), explore possible options for action (I), and choose a common direction (D). See Figure 2 for an outline of the O.R.I.D. questions for action planning process.
The entire faculty was asked the set of Objective (O), Reflective (R), and Interpretive (I) (O.R.I.D.) questions during the initial planning meeting in June of 2003. In doing so, data to inform program development (see below) were generated.
O.R.I.D. inquiry data. Examination of unified early childhood programs at five universities currently engaged in innovative professional preparation practices provided data essential to inform the program revision process. EC Faculty gathered programmatic information through on site and online investigations of five model programs at other universities. Field notes were generated from each site and were used to answer the questions at each O.R.I.D. level. Responses were as follows:
Objective (O) questions prompted faculty consideration of attractive elements practiced at five unified model programs worthy of adoption at UMD. These included: The use of reflective and ongoing thematic seminars, The integration of first aid and CPR, Opportunities for family-student partnerships, organizational approaches that broke down curriculum methods courses into age groups, a focus on diversity and literacy, and interdisciplinary approaches as appealing or worthy of further discussion. Faculty also voiced the need for more rigorous admission criteria. Further, it was suggested that fewer students be admitted to the program annually by adopting a “one-cohort” a year model, as was the case in several of the model programs, rather than the existing 2-cohort a year model.
An exploration of common elements among the five model programs was conducted. Faculty recognized all programs included ongoing practical experiences. Also, general early childhood and special education courses were offered as “unified” or “stand alone” based on the nature of the topic. For example, courses such as assistive technology were delivered with a special education prefix due to the specificity of the content and its relationship to special education. Additionally, the existence of a clear focus in mission and vision was identified across model programs and was perceived by EC Faculty to be a central catalyst in guiding program.
EC Faculty identified programmatic elements common to UMD’s program and those at the five models. For example, all programs had a course dedicated to EC Mathematics. Further, all embedded practical experiences in early childhood care and education settings throughout the preparation program.
To move toward the central question in a deeper way, faculty were asked to Reflect (R) upon elements of the model programs in terms of appealing values. First, it became apparent the five programs valued work of the professional organizations. Features identified as most valued mirrored many aspects of early childhood personnel preparation outlined in recommended practices of the Division of Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC:CEC) (Sandall, McClean, & , Smith, 2000) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (Bredekamp & Coppel, 1997). Secondly, the faculty embraced the adoption of a unified approach to professional preparation. Such an approach would prepare graduates of the program to work with children of diverse ability levels and cultural backgrounds. Thirdly, a unified approach, integrating general early childhood and early childhood special education content, met the requirements for dual licensure, hence extended career options for graduates of the program. Finally, similar to several of the five model programs, EC Faculty supported a one cohort a year program. Adoption of this element attended to the perceived need to create greater rigor in the program admission process, therefore the acceptance of highly competent early childhood candidates.
Throughout reflective conversation faculty voiced concern for missing elements in the current EC program. For example, several of the model programs from other universities included stand-alone courses, or information within courses, related to infant mental health. EC Faculty identified the absence of content that addressed early brain development and relationships. Commitment to this content was based on current research findings in cognitive science emphasizing the importance of attention to critical periods in early childhood, and the interactive relationship between brain development and early relationships (Nelson, 2000; Siegel, 1999). This preparation component was viewed as an essential ingredient to the preparation of competent early childhood professionals.
As a final reflective question, EC Faculty members were asked to share feelings about changing the Early Childhood Program at the University of Minnesota Duluth. During this part of the program revision process, a sense of joint commitment and shared appreciation of one another emerged. Faculty felt the EC program development was “do-able” because of the caliber of colleagues with whom they worked. As one faculty member stated, “We have the tools, we can do this!” The creation of a structure for the program was viewed as pivotal to maintain and enhance program quality.
At the Interpretive (I) level, faculty realized the immensity of the emerging new path that was being charted. Although there was a shared understanding of program revision work as an “ongoing process”, a desire to put tangibility to the change emerged. Several faculty members voiced a need for physical evidence of progress. Additionally, several potential challenges to the facilitation and implementation of the proposed programmatic changes surfaced. How would the admission of one cohort a year affect the enrollment numbers and would this be supported at the administrative level? Would extended program length impact overall marketability of the program?
Faculty responses to O, R, and I sub-questions provided the foundation for the Decisional (D) questions ultimately leading to the identification of possible action items. Among these included: develop strategies to improve program rigor, address licensure options, develop a structure to support reflective practitioners, develop and integrate cognitive ecology, strengthen field experiences, and develop, re-align, and deepen coursework. The group decided to direct its efforts to course revision as it would inform program structure while attending to action items listed above.
As process is iterative, it became important to again develop relevant questions to guide the group’s conversation about course revision. This time, however, rather than a general focus, questions were crafted to specifically facilitate the course revision process. The design team, with the process consultant’s guidance, drafted questions to explicate the gap between the present and the desired program (a gap analysis) (see Figure 3).
The ICA Action Planning Method using O.R.I.D. inquiry and program gap analysis facilitated the emergence of overarching and specific elements of the new program structure. The group had a destination and was ready to prepare for departure.
The Voyage: Stage Two-Preparing for Departure
Faculty unanimously supported the adoption of a unified model. It would embrace the desired philosophical foundation and meet Minnesota State licensure requirements in Early Childhood and Early Childhood Special Education. One major tenet of a unified model is the integration of expertise across general early childhood and early childhood special education (Stayton & McCollum, 2002; Fader Dunne, 2002). The EC Faculty expressed commitment to structuring course content in a blended fashion when appropriate. However, it was believed important to offer separate and specific content with regard to children with disabilities. Therefore, several early childhood special education courses were proposed to address this need. These courses would help meet state teacher licensure requirements in this area. Content in these proposed courses would focus on universal design of learning environments for young children with disabilities, behavior management strategies, assessment practices in special education, policy and law, and collaborative teaming with related service providers. Faculty also mentioned the need to include practicum experiences with children who have disabilities throughout the pre-service program.
Approaches to fill perceived gaps in the current EC program were also put forth. One was to develop a course on cognitive science. This content would also be threaded across all courses in the new program. Other revisions and additions to the existing program were suggested, such as expanded coverage of subject area content in reading, math, social studies and science. Faculty believed that future graduates of the program would benefit from more information and practice in these content areas in order to meet the demands of teaching in early primary settings in the public schools.
With tangible information in hand, EC Faculty assumed individual tasks for course proposal development. Additionally, as noted in the process timeline (see Figure 4), an incubation period ensued during which faculty members allowed the emergent program development information to gel. Faculty gathered together once again in March 2004 to finalize a draft of the program structure and included courses. Faculty fondly referred to this meeting’s process as “leg wrestling” during which differing views with regard to specific courses and features of program structure were addressed. As expected, concerns surfaced as this group grappled with a natural sense of loss accompanying change. These individuals agreed to the revisions and supported the draft for administrative review. Finally, a map was in place from which to navigate the unknown waters that lie ahead.
Program draft and validation. The program’s draft plan emerged as a four and a half year professional offering providing the courses and experiences necessary to obtain a dual license in Early Childhood (defined as birth through third grade in our state) and Early Childhood Special Education. Significant changes from the previously implemented early childhood program to the unified early childhood program included movement from admitting 2 cohorts to 1 each academic year (see Figure 3). To address the identified gaps related to teaching in the early primary grades, mental health and working with the diverse needs of children, 6 courses and an additional student teaching experience were added to program requirements.
Collection of information from faculty perspectives seemed key to the fulfillment of the program’s mission to prepare competent early childhood professionals. Faculty members were naturally interested in feedback to proposed program changes from potentially affected groups. For this reason, preliminary feedback was collected from students, faculty, field-based early childhood professionals and administration. Students participated in a brief survey. Faculty shared their reactions to the revised curriculum informally following the development process. Early childhood-related professionals participated in a focus group. College administration participated in a brief interview.
The student survey was conducted prior to completion of curriculum revision and was used to support the decision to develop the new program (see Figure 3 - step 2, Spring, 2004). Students enrolled in the previous early childhood curriculum received a description of the proposed unified early childhood structure. They were invited to complete a brief survey. Student survey questions and associated responses are included in Figure 6.
Faculty shared reactions to the Unified Early Childhood Program (UECP) throughout the curriculum development process. These individuals expressed confidence in the integration of early childhood and special education. However, caution was indicated by faculty concerning curricular areas requiring consultation with colleagues holding specific expertise. For example, one faculty member shared,
“I feel strongly that this is the way to go [the unified model], though I’m also clear that I’m not the best person to represent or speak to issues around content area changes, (e.g. math literacy, etc.). I frankly don’t know whether it’s better to have 2 math classes vs. 1 or more literacy related courses…I’ll let the expertise in those areas speak to this.”
Willingness to admit to a lack of knowledge and to seek information from others was helpful to the program design process. As suggested by Stayton and McCollum (2002), the integrity of a unified program model depends on the openness of faculty to learn from and depend on one another’s area of expertise, rather than assume competency in unfamiliar subject areas.
Focus groups were conducted with early childhood and related professionals (i.e., occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech language pathologists, and administrators). The purpose of these focus groups was not to gather responses specific to the proposed UECP, but to brainstorm and gather authentic responses about central themes relevant to the preparation of early childhood professionals. Focus group questions and response dialogue themes are included in Figure 7
Administrative support precipitated the initiation and accomplishment of program change. In a semi-structured interview, the Dean of the College articulated several elements that appeared to significantly impact the program change process. The Dean shared a personal belief. Early childhood education is an investment in the future. From this belief emerged the commitment to advocate for the growth and development of the early childhood program. During a time when faculty retrenchment occurred within the university system and tenured EC Faculty members left for other opportunities or retired, the EC Program was likely to be dissolved. In the face of challenge, the Dean remained committed to maintaining and rebuilding a potentially vulnerable program. This leader’s vision included an EC “curriculum for the 21st century”. Therefore, EC Studies was deemed a “growth area” and the Dean advocated aggressively for funding. As a result, a new academic team was formed who appeared committed to carry out the vision. As stated by the Dean:
Four dynamic tenure track faculty [members] were hired. As a leader with a vision, I can’t do it by myself. I rely on faculty with energy and a vision to do good things. I had the general vision: Faculty had the specific knowledge. It’s not the accomplishments that the leader makes that create a difference. The difference is made by the people who he/she hires.
In the Dean’s perspective, change was most likely to happen through investment in faculty who had a common vision. This administrator communicated long term goals for the program including national visibility and becoming the perceived leader in the state in early childhood policy and professional preparation. The time was ripe for transition.
The Voyage: Stage Three-Setting Sail
Change invites transition. It began with letting go of some practices and mental models, then moved to a middle place of uncertainty, coupled with the momentum of promise, before reaching the final stage in which new routines and ways of being will emerge (Bridges, 1991). In the examination of the former early childhood model, faculty gathered multiple perspectives from early childhood professionals and students, reviewed recommended practices in early childhood professional preparation, and engaged in a thorough decision-making process. Evidence from these activities supported intuitions that programmatic change would assist in the preparation of teachers prepared to work in inclusive settings for young children.
The transition plan for movement from the old to the new program included helping current students caught in the wake of changes, development of new courses, and admission of new students. Once the new program was approved at the necessary levels, a plan was put in place to work with currently enrolled students. In many cases, individual adaptations such as course substitutions were required by current students. Faculty members were committed to program integrity, but also to working closely with students to address their timelines and personal concerns. The first UECP cohort will be admitted in Fall of 2005 and will begin coursework in spring of 2006.
The UECP is grounded in group intuition and shared decision-making, of this there is confidence. However, letting go of tradition for change is accompanied with some unknown risks. Therefore, there is a need to remain sensitive to emerging winds over time to ensure program quality and success. How can success of the program be monitored? How will it be known that the envisioned program is accomplishing what was intended? What specific information indicates attainment of the vision?
The Voyage: Stage Four-Navigation
Implementation of the UECP presents rich opportunities to examine the outcomes of this professional preparation model. Currently, there is a limited body of information comparing the outcomes of unified versus separate early childhood or early childhood special education professional preparation programs (Stayton & McCollum, 2002). Such investigations may meaningfully inform early childhood professional preparation. Successful preparation of preservice professionals does not occur in a vacuum, but is characterized by collective partnerships across public schools, community agencies, and institutions of higher education. To understand program impact, it seems critical to elicit information from individuals and agencies involved in professional preparation efforts. Perhaps revisiting the guiding question for program revision presents a direction for examination of the dynamic and multilayered phenomenon of professional preparation program effectiveness (see Figure 1).
As implied in the guiding question, the impact of program revision and effectiveness can be understood through ongoing investigation of several program facets across the collaborative partnership. It is the intent of program designers to attract student from across the state and to prepare graduates who are highly sought after for early childhood professional positions. An additional hope is for program graduates to assume advocacy and leadership roles in their work with young children and families. Monitoring student enrollment patterns and postgraduate employment status may provide insight to these student related outcomes.
The perspectives of field-based collaborative partners (e.g. early childhood educators, administrators) who interact with students enrolled in and graduates of the UECP are potential data sources for gaining insight about program impact and effectiveness. Potential strategies for gathering this information include focus groups and interviews addressing features such as marketability and perceived level of preparedness of students. Additionally, EC Faculty could monitor program impact through ongoing reflection and self evaluation of instructional and field-based supervision practices.
As articulated throughout the final section of this paper, transition toward the implementation of the new Unified Early Childhood Program is underway. Faculty shares a programmatic vision and is navigating in a common direction. Modifications to the program’s implementation journey will occur through specifically crafted means of evaluation. The impact of this new program may be felt locally, regionally, and nationally. Let the winds of planned change support forward movement.
References
Bredekamp, S. & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs (rev. ed.). Washington, D. C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Brooks-Gunn, J.; McCormick, M.C., Shapiro, S., Benasich, A. A., & Black, G.W. (1994). The effects of early education intervention on maternal employment, public assistance, and health insurance: The Infant Health and Development Program. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 924-930.
Bridges, W. (1991). Managing transitions: Making the most of change. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Campbell, F.A., & Ramey, C. T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high-risk African-American student at middle adolescence: Positive effects of early intervention. American Education Research Journal, 32, 743-772.
Fader Dunne, L. (2002). Characteristics of unified and separate early childhood education and early childhood special education programs: A national study. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(3), 219-235.
Howard, K. L. (2004, February). Universal design for learning: Meeting the needs of all students. Learning and Leading with Technology, 31 (5), 26-29.
Institute of Cultural Affairs (ICA). (1994). Technology of participation (ToP): Focusing
collective power for change – group facilitation methods. Phoenix, AZ: ICA in
the U.S.A.
Jacobs, R. (1994). Real time strategic change: How to involve and entire organization in
fast and far-reaching change. San Francisco: Berrett-Kohler Publishers.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. In French, W. L. & Bell,
C. H. (2002). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for
organizational improvement, sixth edition. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India.
Moore, R.C., Gottman, S.M. & Iacofano, D. S. (1992). Designing and management of outdoor play setting for all children. Berkley: MIG Corporation.
Nelson, C. (2000). The neurobiological bases of early intervention. In Shonkoff, J., & Meisels, S. (Eds.), Handbook of Early Intervention (pp. 204-227), New York: Cambridge.
Quade, K., Perme, C., Eoyang, G., Barton, K. & Holladay, R. (2004). Tried and true:
How the emergent theory of human systems dynamics informs the long-term
success of large group events. OD Practitioner: Journal of the organization
development network, 36(3), 14-18.
Rolnick, A. & Gruenwald, R. (2003, December). Early childhood development: Economic development with a high public return. The Region, 17, 6-12.
Sandall, S., McLean, M.E., & Smith, B.J. (2000). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Schein, E. H. (1999). Process consultation revisited: Building the helping relationship.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Siegel, D. (1999). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are. New York: Guilford.
Stanfield, R.B. (1997). The art of focused conversation. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: The
Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs.
Stayton, V. & McCollum, J. (2002). Unifying general and special education: What does
the research tell us? Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(3), 211-218.