Preparing preservice early childhood educators to use music in Australian settings: An audit of programmes

2021 ◽  
pp. 183693912110566
Author(s):  
Ginette Pestana

Music is ever-present in early childhood but does not feature strongly in the national curriculum framework – The Early Years Learning Framework in Australia or in the intentional practice of educators in early childhood education and care settings. This is mainly due to a lack of knowledge and confidence or self-efficacy to engage musically with the children. Preservice educator training plays a critical role in the development of effective pedagogical skills, knowledge and understanding. This article explored the music education preparation that preservice educators receive in initial training. A content analysis approach was used to review course content of all approved preservice educator programmes in Australia by the Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority. Interviews with tertiary teachers explored content taught. The findings offer rich insight into the extent of music education provided for preservice early childhood educators and implications for the development for future programmes.

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-175
Author(s):  
Frances Press ◽  
Linda Harrison ◽  
Sandie Wong ◽  
Megan Gibson ◽  
Tamara Cumming ◽  
...  

A considerable body of research suggests that knowledgeable and skilled educators are key to the quality of early childhood services. However, the skills and knowledge of educators is subject to being underestimated and contested. In response, the Exemplary Early Childhood Educators at Work Study has been designed to bring to light the distinctive nature of the work of early childhood educators and its complexity. The study draws its sample from centre based early childhood services that are rated as high quality by the Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA).


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brianne A. Bruijns ◽  
Andrew M. Johnson ◽  
Jennifer D. Irwin ◽  
Shauna M. Burke ◽  
Molly Driediger ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Early childhood educators (ECEs) play a critical role in promoting physical activity (PA) among preschoolers in childcare; thus, PA-related training for ECEs is essential. The Supporting PA in the Childcare Environment (SPACE) intervention incorporated: 1. shorter, more frequent outdoor play sessions; 2. provision of portable play equipment; and, PA training for ECEs. An extension of the SPACE intervention (the SPACE-Extension) incorporated only the shorter, more frequent outdoor play periods component of the original SPACE intervention. The purpose of this study was to explore the individual impact of these interventions on ECEs’ PA-related self-efficacy and knowledge. Methods ECEs from the SPACE (n = 83) and SPACE-Extension (n = 31) were administered surveys at all intervention time-points to assess: self-efficacy to engage preschoolers in PA (n = 6 items; scale 0 to 100); self-efficacy to implement the intervention (n = 6 items); and, knowledge of preschooler-specific PA and screen-viewing guidelines (n = 2 items). A linear mixed effects model was used to analyze the impact of each intervention on ECEs’ self-efficacy and knowledge and controlled for multiple comparison bias. Results The SPACE intervention significantly impacted ECEs’ self-efficacy to engage preschoolers in PA for 180 min/day (main effect), and when outdoor playtime was not an option (interaction effect). Further, the interaction model for ECEs’ knowledge of the total PA guideline for preschoolers approached significance when compared to the main effects model. Participants within the SPACE-Extension did not demonstrate any significant changes in self-efficacy or knowledge variables. Conclusions Findings from this study highlight the benefit of ECE training in PA with regard to fostering their PA-related self-efficacy and knowledge. Future research should explore the impact of PA training for ECEs uniquely in order to determine if this intervention component, alone, can produce meaningful changes in children’s PA behaviours at childcare.


2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 404-416
Author(s):  
Jane M Selby ◽  
Benjamin S Bradley ◽  
Jennifer Sumsion ◽  
Matthew Stapleton ◽  
Linda J Harrison

This article evaluates the concept of infant ‘belonging’, central to several national curricula for early childhood education and care. Here, the authors focus on Australia’s Early Years Learning Framework. Four different meanings attach to ‘belonging’ in the Early Years Learning Framework, the primary being sociopolitical. However, ‘a sense of belonging’ is also proposed as something that should be observable and demonstrable in infants and toddlers – such demonstration being held up as one of the keys to quality outcomes in early childhood education and care. The Early Years Learning Framework endows belonging with two contrasting meanings when applied to infants. The first, the authors call ‘marked belonging’, and it refers to the infant’s exclusion from or inclusion in defined groups of others. The second, the authors provisionally call ‘unmarked’ belonging. Differences between these two meanings of infant belonging are explored by describing two contrasting observational vignettes from video recordings of infants in early childhood education and care. The authors conclude that ‘belonging’ is not a helpful way to refer to, or empirically demonstrate, an infant’s mundane comfort or ‘unmarked’ agentive ease in shared early childhood education and care settings. A better way to conceptualise and research this would be through the prism of infants’ proven capacity to participate in groups.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ioanna Palaiologou ◽  
Trevor Male

In this conceptual article, the authors examine the context of early childhood education and care in England and the underpinning predominant ideologies to explore how these impact on the framing of leadership. The English context entails several contradictions (antinomies) at ontological, epistemological and axiological levels, and is heavily influenced by an ideological struggle concerning the value of play within the sector as opposed to a climate of child performativity. Moreover, the predominately female workforce (a factor itself) has faced relentless changes in terms of qualifications and curriculum reforms in recent years. With the introduction of the graduate leader qualification (Early Years Teacher Status), a vast body of research has been seeking to conceptualise what leadership means for early childhood education and care. In this article, the authors argue that these attempts are helpful and contribute to this discourse of leadership, but it needs to be thought of not only abstractly, but also practically. Thus, the authors conclude, the (re)conceptualisation of leadership should locate it as pedagogical praxis after evaluating the inherent deep dispositions of leaders in conjunction with their history, surrounding culture and subjective perspectives/realities.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Rouse

Research acknowledges that outcomes for young children are enhanced when effective partnerships are developed between educators and families. The Australian Early Years Learning Framework provides direction for the professional practice of early childhood educators by acknowledging the importance of educators working in partnership with families. In the Victorian state-based early years framework, family-centred practice has been included as the practice model. Family-centred practice has as its core a philosophy of professionals supporting the empowerment of parents as active decision makers for their child. The early childhood education and care sector in Australia, however, is made up of a workforce which is largely perceived as being undervalued as a profession. This raises questions as to the capacity of these educators to support the empowerment of parents when they themselves are coming from a position of disempowerment due to their professional status. This article reports on findings from a small-scale study of childhood educators working in a long day-care setting which aimed to identify perceptions of the partnerships that exist between themselves and parents. In the course of the investigation, it became evident that some of educators felt disempowered in the relationships that exist with some families.


2002 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawn Garbett ◽  
Belinda R Yourn

In the past few decades there has been an increasing awareness of the importance of early childhood education in New Zealand. Concomitant with this has been the move towards professionalising the early childhood sector through a national curriculum and increased expectations for its practitioners. This paper examines issues relating to the changing role of early childhood teachers as they manage the implementation of the New Zealand curriculum. There is no consensus about what makes up the professional knowledge base for early childhood educators. This paper explores the nature of professional knowledge and suggests that subject matter knowledge may be more important than previously recognised for early childhood educators.


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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-182
Author(s):  
Chris Peers

This article contributes to a growing debate within the field of early childhood education about the concept of ‘belonging’. It continues from earlier discussions that commented on the adoption of Belonging as a key term in the development of a national curriculum for the early years in Australia in 2009, as well as increasingly common references to belonging in various aspects of debate within the field. The article focuses specifically on the idea of belonging as it has emerged within existentialist philosophy in the 20th century, and more recent post-structuralist theories, especially the work of Jacques Derrida. The article ties belonging to language as a means of redefining approaches in early childhood education to the notions of place and context, so as to more rigorously connect ‘belonging’ to the philosophical debates of the 21st century.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Young

References to neuroscience and the brain now crop up regularly in academic and pedagogical literatures in early childhood music education. In this article, I discuss this recent ‘brainification’ (a term coined by Vandenbroeck) of early childhood music and point out problems and pitfalls that can arise from this current enthusiasm for neuroscience narratives. Concern at the misinterpretation of neuroscientific research in music education, often referred to as neuromyths, has led to a small and important body of literature. This literature is reviewing, analysing and providing summaries of neuroscience in music, correcting misconceptions and clarifying the implications for educational practice. First, I introduce this work and outline its main arguments. However, despite these corrections and clarifications, neuromyths persist. Therefore, I go on to ask why ‐ when the research base is being demonstrated to have many limitations ‐ do certain neuroscientific ideas continue to occupy such a prominent position? The answer I suggest lies in the current context of social media proliferation of information together with the certainty that neuromyth narratives (falsely) promise. I will go on to explain how the prominence of neuromyths goes hand in hand with the current policy environment for early childhood education and care that constructs children as a form of future investment. The article arrives at a number of suggestions for how the problems and pitfalls might be overcome or avoided.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document