scholarly journals The Importance of Developing Narrative Capacity

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Jennifer Lehmann

Welcome to our first Issue of Children Australia for 2018. We hope you have had a wonderful Christmas and entered the New Year with energy and enthusiasm for the challenges ahead. We also welcome back many of our Editorial Consultants and especially want to make our new members of the team feel engaged in the journal's activities for 2018. One of our new Editorial Consultants is Shraddha Kapoor who is Associate Professor at Department of Human Development and Childhood Studies, Lady Irwin College, University of Delhi. Dr Neerja Sharma, now retired, who has supported Children Australia for some years, was Shraddha's Professor before becoming her colleague and now a dear friend. Shraddha herself has been teaching in the department for last 27 years in the subjects of developmental psychology, child development, wellbeing, family and gender. Her particular interests are childcare, early childhood education and gender.

2007 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne B. Smith

THERE IS STILL RESISTANCE and hostility within some circles to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (the Convention), but professionals working with children should be familiar with rights principles and their use in advocating for change. A rights perspective fits well with the new paradigm of Childhood Studies, which is critical of developmental psychology and recognises multiple childhoods, children's agency and competency, and the primacy of children's lived experience. The Convention has been used in advocating for reforms in early childhood services in New Zealand. One example is the development and implementation of our early childhood education curriculum, Te Whariki. The second example is New Zealand's Strategic Plan for Early Childhood Education (Ngā Huarahi Arataki), which is focused on improving early childhood education quality and participation. It is argued that child advocacy for better early childhood education policies can be strengthened by the use of the Convention.


Author(s):  
Pushpita Rajawat

The relative effectiveness of different pedagogical approaches and pedagogies in early childhood has raised substantial debate. While the other are associated with the acquisition of basic skills and knowledge and some of them are associated with socio-emotional development and problem-solving abilities. In general, research revealed both positive and negative effects of pedagogical approaches, without favouring specific pedagogical approaches over mainstream ones. However, it is important to note that research evidence and studies considering the same approaches in the same context are very limited. On the other hand, specific pedagogical practices are found to enhance child development, including high-quality interactions involving sustained-shared thinking methods, play-based learning, scaffolding, as well as a combination of staff- and child initiated activities. Research impacts pedagogy and pedagogical practices in the sense that research findings can inform policy makers and practitioners on best practices and what works best in enhancing staff performance, process quality and child development. Research on pedagogy and practices is usually not conducted at the national level, but focuses on particular programmes. So, research review has been used as a guide or manual to provide pedagogical guidance for Early Childhood Education (ECE) staff not only in India but also worldwide. The main focus of the study is that how of the best pedagogical practices and approaches across the country can be useful and implemented in early childhood education


2021 ◽  
pp. 51-65
Author(s):  
Louisa Kate Penfold ◽  
Nina Odegard

Recent scholarship in childhood studies has raised concerns about humancentric, singular discourses regarding human-plastic relations. As a result, questions of how to develop new forms of learning with materials in environmental education are now an important issue for researchers, educators, and policymakers. This paper activates a feminist new materialist ontology to position plastic as an active participant in the formation of knowledge. Drawing on visual imagery of children’s and artists’ aesthetic experimentations, we explore the intra-related and complex relationship between plastic, children, and the planet. Haraway’s concept of making kin is operationalized to highlight plastic’s multidimensional complexities as both a destructive and creative force, producing a novel framework for understanding and learning with plastic in early childhood education.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 263-277
Author(s):  
Tomasz Dolski

The article consists of two parts. The first presents the implications for training early childhood music education teachers which arise from the theory of developmental psychology concerning Jerome Bruner’s system of representations. The author strives to point out that their proper understanding appears to be essential to building a good teaching foundation for working with early childhood education students. With reference to the theory in question, the second part of the article discusses a modification of selected methods of conducting music education at the indicated stage of education in relation to the challenges connected with the necessity to work remotely. The author discusses examples of methodology in detail and suggests modifications. The aim of such treatment of the matter is to demonstrate that it is possible to retain the practical nature of educational efforts in spite of the unfavourable conditions that stem from the need to be isolated and work online.


Education ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Underwood ◽  
Gillian Parekh

Inclusive education as a model of service delivery arose out of disability activism and critiques of special education. To understand inclusive education in early childhood, however, one must also engage with broader questions of difference, diversity, and social justice as they intersect with childhood studies. To that end, this article contains references that include other critical discourses on childhood and inclusivity as well as critiques of inclusive education. Inclusive education has a much deeper body of research in formal school settings than in the early years. School-based research, however, often examines social relationships and academic achievement as outcome measures. This research has established that education situated in a child’s community and home school is generally more effective than special education settings, particularly when classroom educators have access to appropriate training, resources, policies, and leadership. Schools, of course, are part of the education landscape of the early years, but they are not inclusive of the full spectrum or early years settings. The early years literature on inclusion is different in focusing more attention on development, family, and community (as described in the General Overview of Early Childhood Inclusion). A critique of early childhood education research has focused on school readiness and rehabilitation and the efficacy of early identification and early intervention. This research is largely informed by Western medical research, but this approach has led global institutions to set out priorities for early intervention without recognizing how our worldview shapes our understanding of childhood and difference. The dominant research domain, however, has also identified that family and community contexts are important. This recognition creates a fundamental difference between inclusion research in school settings and such research in early childhood education and care. Early childhood education and care has always focused on the child and their family as the recipients of services, while educational interest in the family has been viewed as a setting in which the conditions for learning are established. Support for families is at the center of early childhood inclusive practice, both because families are largely responsible for seeking out early childhood disability services and because families are critical in children’s identity. Inclusion in schools and early childhood education and care can both be understood through theories of disability, ability, and capability. In both settings, education and care have social justice aims linked not only to developmental and academic outcomes for individual children, but also to the ways that these programs reproduce inequality. Disability as a social phenomenon has its historical roots in racist and colonial practices, understood through critical race theory, that are evident today in both early childhood and school settings. Understanding the links between disableism and other forms of discrimination and oppression is critical both for teaching for social justice broadly and for better understanding of how ability, capability, and critical disability theory and childhood studies are established through practices that begin in the early years.


2020 ◽  
pp. 146394912097852
Author(s):  
Kristy Timmons ◽  
Lee Airton

This research takes up the challenge of interpreting the two newest grounds of human rights protection across Canada – gender identity and gender expression – for professional practice in early childhood education. To date, no human rights tribunal ruling on these grounds has engaged early childhood education, and while the legal duty remains for early childhood educators to provide an environment free of gender-identity and gender-expression discrimination, the Ontario profession’s governing bodies have provided no explicit guidance as to how. This research bridges early years educators’ new and likely unfamiliar legal responsibilities in relation to both grounds and everyday life in early years contexts. The findings demonstrate that ample support exists within the profession’s key guiding documents for ‘gender-expansive’ practice, or an approach to teaching children and supporting their development that both expects and sustains gender diversity. A similar analysis of guiding documents is needed internationally.


2005 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 2-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilyn Fleer

In recent years sociocultural theory has provided an important conceptual tool for re-thinking many practices in early childhood education (e.g. Anning, Cullen & Fleer, 2004; Edwards, 2001; Edwards, 2003). While much has been gained, many taken-for-granted practices still remain in need of critique. Although the term ‘Child Development’ has been debated in the past (see collection of papers in Fleer, 1995; Keesing-Styles & Hedges, in press; Lubeck, 1996; 1998), we have not seen the emergence of a new approach or world view to replace it Ten years have passed, and we still find national materials which foreground Western middle-class notions of development (e.g. Responses to the National Agenda for Early Childhood, Australian Government, 2003). This paper seeks to stimulate debate within Australia and New Zealand around the term ‘Child Development’. Responses are invited so that the historical and cultural legacy of that term can be examined and a new term introduced which recognises our culturally and linguistically diverse communities. It is through public debate that we can as a scholarly community build new terminology to name and make visible new thinking.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document