Content provided in partnership with

Are Campus Child Development Laboratories Obsolete?

College Student Journal, March, 2000 by Susan Bowers

The purpose of this study was to explore the effectiveness of hands-on laboratory training for students enrolled in child development and early childhood education. Two groups of students were compared. One group (n=30) interacted with children in the lab during a semester-long clinical, and the other group (n=30) observed the chioldtren form behind a two-way mirror. Results indicated a significant positive change in attitudes towards infants for those students who interacted with the infant/toddlers. There was no significant change in attitudes for the obserbvation group. Results are discussed uin terms of the efficacy of keeping small, hands-on programs alive in the wake of increased market competition, and the drive toward more efficient" teaching methods.

Most Popular Articles in Reference: The importance of understanding organizational culture; Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students; What factors attract foreign direct investment?; Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...; How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques; More »

Since the 1920%, child development laboratories have been a popular method of training university students about the development of young children (Osborn, 1991). These programs, in which care and education is provided for children from the community, have evolved over the years from part-day, part-time programs (McBride, 1996) to, increasingly, full-day care, some of which is inclusive of care offered through student service funds (Keyes, 1984; Shirah, 1988). Although child development laboratories are accessed by a variety of university majors, including speech pathology and audiology (Cook, 1984) and medicine (Kourany, Humphreys & Rabin, 1987; Puduano, 1978), it is the programs in early childhood education and child development that most readily use such facilities. Typically, these programs have students engage in hands-on interactions with young children over the course of several weeks or an entire semester.

Recently, however, several societal changes have necessitated a reexamination of the utility of this method of instruction. First, child development laboratory programs are increasingly costly to operate, particularly in the wake of private, for profit child care available elsewhere in the community. Child development laboratory programs are costly because they are typically small, due in part to limited university housing, and an effort to keep such programs within university departments, e.g., staffed by departmental personnel. Secondly, early childhood education and child development are increasingly popular university majors, begging the question of whether large numbers of students can continue to be serviced by small laboratory programs. And thirdly, the advent of new technology, such as cd-rom and interactive video, raises the question of whether hands-on methods are still the best and most cost-effective way to teach.

Previous research has suggested that interactions with children, such as at the child development laboratory, has unique benefits for learning about child development. Kourany, Humphreys & Rabin (1987), for example, assessed the responses of medical students (N=102) who were assigned a 1 1/2 hour visit to a campus child care center. The medical students completed a series of behavioral checklists and engaged in limited interaction with the children. Results indicated favorable responses from students regarding their time in the center. Students reported "increased comprehension and acceptance of theoretical concepts presented in lectures and textbooks" and, for some, a new view of children--e.g., "I was very surprised at how much 2-year-old children can do" (p. 175).

Data from the Kourany, Humphreys & Rabin (1987) study suggest hands-on training is likely at least as beneficial for early childhood students, if not more so. Yet to date, little data exists regarding the efficacy of such training for students enrolled in early childhood education and child development. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore the effectiveness of hands-on training in the child development laboratory for students enrolled in early childhood education and child development. Specifically, the relationship between hands-on laboratory experience and student attitudes towards infants following a semester-long clinical experience was examined.

Sample

Data are drawn from a sample of undergraduates (N=60) enrolled in a one-credit child development clinical at a large university in the Midwest. Study participants were sophomores or juniors majoring in child development or early childhood education. The clinical represented their first formal exposure to infants/toddlers in their university program and their first exposure to the child development laboratory. All students enrolled in the clinical were female. Mean age of the students was 21.05 years; 75% were Caucasian.

Methods

Two student groups were created. One group of students (n=30) spent two hours a day for rive weeks interacting with infants and toddlers (2-24 months of age) in the university child development laboratory. This group also spent an additional 20 hours observing the infant/toddlers behind glass. The second group of students (n=30) spent 30 hours over the course of the semester observing the infant/toddlers from behind a two-way mirror, and had no child interaction time. Observations were scheduled to occur once a week: thus behind-glass time consisted of two hours a week over the course of 15 weeks.

Are Campus Child Development Laboratories Obsolete?

College Student Journal, March, 2000 by Susan Bowers

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Reference

Most Popular Articles in Reference

Most Popular Publications in Reference