Critical understanding of key concepts and theories related to early childhood education

Why is it Important for Early Childhood Educators to draw upon a range of Theoretical Perspectives in their Work?

The theories and concepts as covered in the ‘Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF)’ just indicate that the early childhood educators are in continuous search of ways to support a good development in children in their early ages. Such thoughts constantly ring in their mind as they endeavor to deliver the best outcomes and to also nurture their career as the childhood educators (Knaus, 2015). The main aim of this study is to analyze the concepts and theories covered in EYLF in practical terms. Hence, the analysis inspects a few of the strengths and weaknesses as well of EYLF.

A critical understanding of key concepts and theories related to early childhood education:

Early childhood educators look to be in the constant hunt at their convenience for the range of theories and concepts to effectively handle the early childhood developments. Educators tend to prove their existence as worthy to attain a good career. A fruitful outcome is beneficial also for the educational center (Weldemariam et al., 2017). Therefore, it is evident that theories and perspectives serve the diverse purposes of children, educators and the institutions.  

What is a ‘Theory’: Theory in context to the early childhood education can be called a set of ideas focussed on one or certain domains of children’s learning and development. A theory is produced from rational and thoughtful forms of generalized and abstract thinking. A theory is also based on independent and general principles. Hence, someone who works upon the certain facts and gives also the explanations for such facts is generally considered a theorist. This can also be said that some theorists come up with their abstract ideas and spend their whole life in proving them. They do it because ideas can also attract the dispute thoughts until the theorist proves their ideas to be the absolute facts. Theories are like the ways of knowing which influence thinking and also influence the practice in certain ways (Salamon et al., 2016).

Perspective: A perspective can be defined as ways that educators use to react to certain ideas or theories. Theories produce the set of assumptions about how children at their early ages should be dealt with at the educational centers. These assumptions influence the ways that educators think and act. Such assumptions do also impact their beliefs and ideas. The childhood educators assume a set of things from such assumptions or theories and try to see the world from their perspectives. They may differ from each other in respect to the different domains of the early childhood education. To choose a perspective does also mean selecting a value system which is a set of beliefs and ideas (Smith, Tesar & Myers, 2016).

Impact of theories on practice

Impact of theories on practice: Theories play the important roles in the early childhood education as it influences the perspectives of educators. The educators then get to know the ways and procedures to follow to support a diverse range of developments in children at their early ages. Courses are designed in accordance to theories and the diverse practices. The profession to teach the children at their early ages is underpinned by a number of theories which is related with several aspects of child development such as language development, social development, emotional & psychological development, physical & cognitive development, play, independence and autonomy (Somerville & Williams, 2015). Some of the major theorists from Western countries are Erikson, Ainsworth, Bowlby, Skinner, Vygotsky, Piaget, Chomsky, Bandura, Parten, Rogoff, Foucault, Smilansky and Bronfenbrenner. These theorists with their philosophies guide educators to effectively work with young children, their families and the community which they belong to. These theorists provide the conceptual understandings on different aspects which are otherwise difficult to comprehend. Aligning practices with the range of theories require the informed ways to head with to change the existing practices. This is indeed very difficult without such theorists. Educators are needed to reflect on the philosophies of these theorists and to also take the suitable actions. In fact, both reflection and action come together which is defined as praxis. Praxis produces the need for a transformative change process (Lafton, 2015).

All educators carry a different set of beliefs in terms of theories. Such beliefs do not remain confined to these educators but rather passed down from one generation to another. Other generations are actually given training on such practices which is the reason why few practices despite being less productive and competitive as well tend to persist in the study curriculum. These are the beliefs which rarely attract any critical appraisal. Such things happen because of the lack of careful examinations (Knaus, 2015). Notably, theories are hardly replaced with the better ones. Theories actually overlap each other. Some theories tend to lose the popularity and just fall out of favor. They are rarely displaced from the better ones. This is evident from a fact that theorists and thinkers of the 19^th century continue to have their impact on the educational theorists of the 20^th century. It means that theories governing the curriculum design at the early educational level can be both complex and intricate to educators with different perspectives (Davis & Degotardi, 2015).

Reflections on beliefs in theories

Types of theories according to EYLF: According to the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF), informed approaches to childhood learning and development can be categorized as follows (Boyd & Cutcher, 2015):

• Socio-cultural theories
• Critical theories
• Developmental theories
• Socio-behaviorist theories
• Post-structuralist theories

However, none of the listed theories can be categorized as perfect or ideal as theories overlap each other. Possibilities for overlap are always there creating chances of disagreement on any of the theories. It seems apparent that a slight difference between the ranges of theories can cause the disassociation from other theorists. There can be rifts also due to the strong disagreements (Hunkin, 2016).

Socio-cultural theories: Learning and development are also related to children’s communities. Educators and others transform the learning stages in relation to children’s prior understandings.

Critical theories: Curriculum can have certain hidden aspects. Educators challenge the assumptions in practice and their queries are taken for approved practices.

Developmental theories: The focus is on the continuous and/or discrete stages of development. Educators plan the activities in terms of children’s developmental stages.

Socio-behaviorist theories: Experience is given the high values in shaping the children’s behavior. Educators-directed activities are coupled with reinforcements and rewards.

Post-structuralist theories: The main focus is on the number of forms of knowledge. Educators exploit power relationships which give privilege to some children over others.

Developmental theories: Developmental theories are good because it mainly focuses on the childhood learning and development. An individual child is measured against the developmental norms. It is suitable also for those who have behavioral issues genetically transmitted into them. Theories have been challenges for not focussing on the social, cultural and political aspects of life. Children are not seen as capable, sufficient and strong enough in their own learning. They are instead considered to be in a process of becoming (Davis, Torr & Degotardi, 2015).

Critical theories: As mentioned in the EYLF, critical theories encourage childhood educators to challenge the existing assumptions about curriculum and consider other ways to make the changes. These educators are constantly focused on highlighting the granted beliefs; however, this alone won’t help to revise the curriculum to make it productive. Educators with a different set of beliefs can affect the highlighted critical appraisal (Luke, 2018).

Socio-cultural theories: The theory assumes the actions as a reflection of what children have learned from their community. Hence, the development is planned as a way to meet the needs of different cultures (Minson, Hammer & Veresov, 2016). However, the socio-cultural theories may create a complex learning and development environment where different actions will be required to deal with children from distinguished communities.

Types of theories according to EYLF

Socio-behaviorist theories: It governs a teacher-directed approach where teachers make decisions about what to learn and how to improve the diverse behaviors of children. Emphasis is given to the learning process. Behaviors are influenced by motivating factors such as reinforcements and rewards. Motivating factors may not be equally beneficial for all the children. Hence, development may suffer (Li et al., 2017).

Post-structuralist theories: These theories believe that learning and development are affected by age, class, gender and others. Hence, it says that educators should hold a number of perspectives in order to deal with diverse children (Grieshaber & Graham, 2017). The good thing is that children of all groups based on their ages, genders and classes will have opportunities to learn. However, diversity such as the one spoken about will require a flexible curriculum which is rarely possible considering that theories overlap each other.

Conclusion

In summary, this can be said that theories overlap each other and that educators with different perspectives do not have a much of scope to bring improvements to the curriculum. A total agreement over one theory is rarely there. Theories as according to EYLF can be categorized into five different types. Different theories have the distinguished implications. However, none of them can be considered as the absolute method for children’s learning & development.

References

Boyd, W., & Cutcher, L. (2015). Learning from early childhood philosophy, theory and pedagogy: Inspiring effective art education. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 40(1), 91.

Davis, B., & Degotardi, S. (2015). Who cares? Infant educators’ responses to professional discourses of care. Early Child Development and Care, 185(11-12), 1733-1747.

Davis, B., Torr, J., & Degotardi, S. (2015). Infants and toddlers: how visible are they in the Early Years Learning Framework?. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 9(1), 12.

Grieshaber, S., & Graham, L. J. (2017). Equity and educators enacting the Australian early years learning framework. Critical Studies in Education, 58(1), 89-103.

Hunkin, E. (2016). Deploying Foucauldian genealogy: Critiquing ‘quality’reform in early childhood policy in Australia. Power and Education, 8(1), 35-53.

Knaus, M. (2015). ‘Time for Being’: Why the Australian Early Years Learning Framework opens up new possibilities. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 13(3), 221-235.

Lafton, T. (2015). Digital literacy practices and pedagogical moments: Human and non-human intertwining in early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 16(2), 142-152.

Li, M., Nyland, B., Margetts, K., & Guan, Y. (2017). Early childhood educator’perspectives on how infants and toddlers learn: Australia and China. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 11(1), 11.

Luke, A. (2018). Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint. In Critical Literacy, Schooling, and Social Justice (pp. 168-188). Routledge.

Minson, V., Hammer, M., & Veresov, N. N. (2016). Rethinking assessments: creating a new tool using the zone of proximal development within a cultural-historical framework. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 12(3), 331-345.

Salamon, A., Sumsion, J., Press, F., & Harrison, L. (2016). Implicit theories and naïve beliefs: Using the theory of practice architectures to deconstruct the practices of early childhood educators. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 14(4), 431-443.

Smith, K., Tesar, M., & Myers, C. Y. (2016). Edu-capitalism and the governing of early childhood education and care in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Global Studies of Childhood, 6(1), 123-135.

Somerville, M., & Williams, C. (2015). Sustainability education in early childhood: An updated review of research in the field. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 16(2), 102-117.

Weldemariam, K., Boyd, D., Hirst, N., Sageidet, B. M., Browder, J. K., Grogan, L., & Hughes, F. (2017). A critical analysis of concepts associated with sustainability in early childhood curriculum frameworks across five national contexts. International Journal of Early Childhood, 49(3), 333-351.