The Future of Child Development Laboratory Schools: Collaboration for Applied Developmental Research Nancy Barbour, Kent State University Diane Horm, University of Oklahoma- Tulsa With: Jim Elicker, Purdue University Melissa Grove, Cindy Ratekin, Susan Toussaint, California State University, Chico Marty Lash & Carol Bersani, Kent State University Brent McBride, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Andy Stremmel, South Dakota State University Jim Moran, Pennsylvania System of Higher Education Paper presented at EECERA 2007, Prague

Introduction & Historical Overview Definition of “Child Development Laboratory School” (CDL) Historical purposes and functions Beginnings of the child study movement Lab schools’ place in institutions of higher education The 3-part function of lab schools Research Service Professional Preparation

Current Status of Child Development Laboratory Schools Viability of historical models of program services Shrinking resources Disappearance of many programs

Challenges Being Faced Changing paradigms guiding child development and early years research Changing funding streams for child development & early years research Disconnect between CDL activities and the original 3-part mission Increased pressures for accountability

The Emergence of Applied Development Science Paradigm Need for a new paradigm in human sciences research Overview of guiding principles of Applied Development Sciences (ADS) Parallels between ADS and shifts in research paradigms in child development laboratory schools Emphasis on ADS requires change in research paradigms in CDLs

Description of Simple Model Traditional paradigms Traditional foci of CDL research Limitations of the traditional model

Complex Models Generation of new knowledge vs. traditional views of research Multiple levels and role of each Examples of generation of new knowledge Children & Families Teachers Classrooms/ Programs Figure 1 Traditional: Child as Subject Faculty-Generated Paradigm Teacher as Researcher Society Field Figure 2 INSTITUTION: Academic Unit/College Community

Children & Families Teachers Classrooms/ Programs Figure 1 Traditional: Child as Subject Faculty-Generated Paradigm Teacher as Researcher

Society Field Figure 2 INSTITUTION: Academic Unit/College Community

Conclusions & Insights Lab schools exist to generate new knowledge; there are various methods to generate knowledge Can these various forms co-exist? The many types of lab schools need to inform each other and work collaboratively in order to be sustained How can they also build stronger links across CDLs and with other communities (e.g., schools, child care, agencies)? CDL researchers must be intentional about their audiences, both primary and secondary Who initiates research? Who is it for? How will it be used?

Conclusions & Insights CDLs provide settings for professional preparation, research and service: students observe children as part of their course work; students and faculty engage in inquiry into practice (teacher research) Students and faculty may involve children as participants or co-inquirers Faculty researchers may study children, student teachers, curriculum, or classroom processes CDL research must relate to the vision and mission of the institution

Conclusions & Insights Successful CDLs: Engage in innovative practices Engage in activities that sustain them over time (e.g., longitudinal research) Have some kind of internal review process Make public their operations and findings Link theory and practice Develop community and collaboration at many levels Have a close alignment of what is taught and what is observed in the CDL Develop a unique niche and make themselves irreplaceable and necessary on campus

Next Steps Continue to build the consortium Disseminate our thinking to date Explore the possibilities of the complex model Begin a cross-site study

Discussion? We welcome your thoughts, comments, and suggestions! Contact us at: Nancy Barbour, Kent State University Diane Horm, University of Oklahoma – Tulsa