Early Childhood Education

Published on April 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 20 | Comments: 0 | Views: 328
of 1
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Article Critique Ashby and Grieshaber’s (1996) paper on the “Culture and Early Childhood Curriculum in Australia” examined the development of early childhood education curriculum in the country as well as trace the political, social, cultural and economic influences to what it is at present. The author’s argued that early childhood education in Australia was first conceived as an extension of child social services but however developed into an educational facility that was oriented towards child-centered education. Moreover, these programs had been designed to transmit culture and as a means of socialization. On the other hand, the authors also pointed out that the child-centered curriculum in early childhood education programs have not been as beneficial as it was thought to be for several reasons that they further expounded in the paper. The authors’ felt that the present curriculum adopted by the country to shape the early childhood education programs does not translate into educational competencies that children could use when they start formal education. For example, the child-centered curriculum is founded on Piagetian theory and stages of cognitive development that presupposes that children learn when they are ready to learn and when they reach a certain age. It does not however answer the goal of transmitting culture especially in the reality that Australian society has become multicultural. The authors gave sufficient evidence to back up their arguments and the logic behind the arguments followed a chronological pattern. They first presented and introduced the case and then went on to build historical background to track the changes in the early education curriculum. The authors however failed to convince the readers in how culture was transmitted in the present curriculum in the sense that they did gave evidence that it was culture specific. It was also argued that the current educational curriculum does not have a consistent and solid basis in determining its goals and objectives. For one, the curriculum was first borrowed from the rest of the Western world, uprooted from its British and American examples and then planted into Australian society without considering whether it was applicable or not. Secondly, the present curriculum made use of materials and instructional methods that are predominantly White and does not recognize the rich ethnical diversity of the country. Lastly, the curriculum had not actually kept pace with the developments and changes in the sociocultural context of the Australian society. The authors however said that the surge of new ways of thinking and ideas have actually contributed to the slow but inevitable change that is now being felt in the educational system. The authors speculate that the issue of whether universalism is the most appropriate pedagogical approach or whether cultural diversity should be adopted. The weakness in the authors discussion stem from the fact that they concluded that early childhood education is tied to parenting and values because they did not actually include it in their introduction or main body of the paper. It was probably added as an afterthought but it only succeeded to confuse the reader since they were arguing for one thing and then concluding with another thing. Lastly, the paper was written in 1996 and maybe at that time the arguments and observations presented by the authors were valid and true but in a span of 12 years, the educational system may now have changed and this article may only be useful as a historical account of the Australian curriculum and nothing more.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close