As an early childhood professional, it is critical to participate in ongoing professional development and research. Research is continuously challenging professionals to consider how best to create meaningful learning experiences and supportive environments. Reflecting on your professional
Assignment 2: Annotated Bibliography
As an early childhood professional, it is critical to participate in ongoing professional development and research. Research is continuously challenging professionals to consider how best to create meaningful learning experiences and supportive environments. Reflecting on your professional practice is integral to promoting children’s healthy development and learning. While this course has covered several aspects of promoting meaningful learning experiences in supportive environments, it is now your turn to explore this topic.
For this Assignment, you will research a topic that resonates with you in order to expand your knowledge in promoting meaningful learning experiences in supportive environments.
To Prepare:
Select a topic already discussed in this course or another concept you are interested in that relates to promoting meaningful learning experiences in supportive environments. Research this topic and identify at least 10 scholarly resources that broaden and/or deepen your understanding.
By Day 7 of Week 10
Submit an Annotated Bibliography that includes at least 10 scholarly resources, along with a rationale that explains why you selected the topic, and how the information you have learned will promote meaningful learning experiences and supportive environments for young children and their families.
Note:
You will find guidelines for completing your Annotated Bibliography
References
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=74750897&site=ehost-live&scope=site&authtype=shib&custid=s6527200
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=136523486&site=ehost-live&scope=site&authtype=shib&custid=s6527200
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED592467
http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/ld.php?content_id=16345933
As an early childhood professional, it is critical to participate in ongoing professional development and research. Research is continuously challenging professionals to consider how best to create meaningful learning experiences and supportive environments.
Reflecting on your professional practice is integral to promoting children’s healthy development and learning. While this course has covered several aspects of promoting meaningful learning experiences in supportive environments, it is now your turn to explore this topic.
For this Assignment, you will research a topic that resonates with you in order to expand your knowledge in promoting meaningful learning experiences in supportive environments.
To Prepare:
Select a topic already discussed in this course or another concept you are interested in that relates to promoting meaningful learning experiences in supportive environments. Research this topic and identify at least 10 scholarly resources that broaden and/or deepen your understanding.
Submit an Annotated Bibliography that includes at least 10 scholarly resources, along with a rationale that explains why you selected the topic, and how the information you have learned will promote meaningful learning experiences and supportive environments for young children and their families.
Note:
You will find guidelines for completing your Annotated Bibliography on this week’s Learning Resources page.
http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/ld.php?content_id=16345933
An annotated bibliography is a combination of the words “annotation” and “bibliography.” An annotation is a set of notes, comments, or critiques. A bibliography is list of references that helps a reader identify sources of information. An annotated bibliography is a list of references that not only identifies the sources of information but also includes information such as a summary, a critique or analysis, and an application of those sources’ information.
Review our resources on the following pages for more information about each component of an annotated bibliography. As always, read the instructions and any examples in your assignment carefully; some of what follows might not be required in your particular course.
Download the following sample to see the components of an annotated bibliography. Follow the links to more information on formatting, summary, critique/analysis, application, and example in the left sidebar menu. Note that citations are not necessary in the annotations since the notes are understood to be about the listed source.
Check attachment to see sample Annotated Bibliography
1. https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/viewarticle/render?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bRNsK2wSK6k63nn5Kx94um%2bSq2prUquqLA4sLCuUbiqsjjOw6SM8Nfsi9%2fZ8oHt5Od8u6e1Tq6ttUiyprE%2b8d%2fiVeLZ4E%2byqOJLq6jhT7Sjsnuw2atQ49nhReOts3mvr7JMsduyTb7o43zn6aSE3%2bTlVePkpHzgs%2bN88dvqiKTq33%2b7t8w%2b3%2bS7a66ntE2zrbBQsKeuSLCvrkuk3O2K69fyVeTr6oTy2%2faM&vid=0&sid=dcb742d3-2c76-4c2c-8ecc-e75a19443e45@redis
By Liu, Lumei; Wang, Neng; Kalionis, Bill; Xia, Shijin; He, Qinghu. In Journal of Neuroimmunology. 15 January 2022 362 Language: English. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2021.577763, Database: ScienceDirect
2. https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/viewarticle/render?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bRNsK2wSK6k63nn5Kx94um%2bSq2prUquqLA4sLCuUbiqsjjOw6SM8Nfsi9%2fZ8oHt5Od8u6e1Tq6ttUiyprE%2b8d%2fiVeLZ4E%2byqOJLq6jhT7Sjsnuw2atQ49nhReOts3mvr7JMsduyTb7o43zn6aSE3%2bTlVePkpHzgs%2bN88dvqiKTq33%2b7t8w%2b3%2bS7a66msEyxqK5NsKeuSa%2bmsU6k3O2K69fyVeTr6oTy2%2faM&vid=0&sid=dcb742d3-2c76-4c2c-8ecc-e75a19443e45@redis
By Nestić, Davor; Hozić, Amela; Brkljača, Zlatko; Butorac, Ana; Pažur, Kristijan; Jullienne, Betsy; Cindrić, Mario; Ambriović-Ristov, Andreja; Benihoud, Karim; Majhen, Dragomira. In Life Sciences. 15 February 2022 291 Language: English. DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2021.120116, Database: ScienceDirect
3. https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/viewarticle/render?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bRNsK2wSK6k63nn5Kx94um%2bSq2prUquqLA4sLCuUbiqsjjOw6SM8Nfsi9%2fZ8oHt5Od8u6e1Tq6ttUiyprE%2b8d%2fiVeLZ4E%2byqOJLq6jhT7Sjsnuw2atQ49nhReOts3mvr7JMsduyTb7o43zn6aSE3%2bTlVePkpHzgs%2bN88dvqiKTq33%2b7t8w%2b3%2bS7a66mr0yyrrFNsKeuSLCvt0qk3O2K69fyVeTr6oTy2%2faM&vid=0&sid=dcb742d3-2c76-4c2c-8ecc-e75a19443e45@redis
By Wu, Jing; Liu, Lin-lin; Cao, Miao; Hu, Ang; Hu, Die; Luo, Yan; Wang, Hui; Zhong, Jia-ning. In Experimental Eye Research. October 2021 211 Language: English. DOI: 10.1016/j.exer.2021.108733, Database: ScienceDirect
4. https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/viewarticle/render?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bRNsK2wSK6k63nn5Kx94um%2bSq2prUquqLA4sLCuUbiqsjjOw6SM8Nfsi9%2fZ8oHt5Od8u6O1T7Spr0mzq68%2b8d%2fiVeTZtnqwp7NPq9rjULGjskjkr6tRtNu0ReGosUvkrbR5sK2veb7o43zn6aSE3%2bTlVePkpHzgs%2bN88dvqiKTq33%2b7t8w%2b3%2bS7a66vsk60rbBwsKeuSK6qt0uk3O2K69fyVeTr6oTy2%2faM&vid=0&sid=fc8b2157-de83-40f9-96e6-c233f76a271a@redis
By Bian, Jiang; Wang, Lingyun; Wu, Jie; Simth, Nathan; Zhang, Lingzhi; Wang, Yuanfeng; Wu, Xiaobin. In Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology. July 2021 66 Language: English. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtemb.2021.126759, Database: ScienceDirect
5. https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/viewarticle/render?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bRNsK2wSK6k63nn5Kx94um%2bSq2prUquqLA4sLCuUbiqsjjOw6SM8Nfsi9%2fZ8oHt5Od8u6e1Tq6ttUiyprE%2b8d%2fiVeLZ4E%2byqOJLq6jhT7Sjsnuw2atQ49nhReOts3mvr7JMsduyTb7o43zn6aSE3%2bTlVePkpHzgs%2bN88dvqiKTq33%2b7t8w%2b3%2bS7a7Cmt02xp69RsKa0S7GptVCk3O2K69fyVeTr6oTy2%2faM&vid=0&sid=dcb742d3-2c76-4c2c-8ecc-e75a19443e45@redis
Academic Journal
By DU, Kang; ZHAO, Wen-qing; ZHOU, Zhi-guo; SHAO, Jing-jing; HU, Wei; KONG, Ling-jie; WANG, You-hua. In Journal of Integrative Agriculture. December 2021 20(12):3143-3155 Language: English. DOI: 10.1016/S2095-3119(20)63337-8, Database: ScienceDirect
6.
https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/viewarticle/render?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bRNsK2wSK6k63nn5Kx94um%2bSq2prUquqLA4sLCuUbiqsjjOw6SM8Nfsi9%2fZ8oHt5Od8u6O1T7Spr0mzq68%2b8d%2fiVeTZtnqwp7NPq9rjULGjskjkr6tRtNu0ReGosUvkrbR5sK2veb7o43zn6aSE3%2bTlVePkpHzgs%2bN88drtgqTq33%2b7t8w%2b3%2bS7feLp4ofopK9N5Kqvfa6nt0%2b2qbJQ4K23SeHXsXri2bJJ36bkTLGvpH7t6Ot58rPkjeri8n326gAA&vid=0&sid=fc8b2157-de83-40f9-96e6-c233f76a271a@redis
By: Hua Yang; Mei Yu; Sen Zhong; Yan You; Fengzhi Feng. In: Journal of Ovarian Research, Vol 15, Iss 1, Pp 1-11 (2022); BMC, 2022. Language: English, Database: Directory of Open Access Journals
7. Solid histological component of adenocarcinoma might play an important role in PD‐L1 expression of lung adenocarcinoma
By: Tomoyuki Miyazawa; Kei Morikawa; Kanji Otsubo; Hiroki Sakai; Hiroyuki Kimura; Motohiro Chosokabe; Naoki Furuya; Hideki Marushima; Koji Kojima; Masamichi Mineshita; Junki Koike; Hisashi Saji. In: Thoracic Cancer, Vol 13, Iss 1, Pp 24-30 (2022); Wiley, 2022. Language: English, Database: Directory of Open Access Journals
8.
https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/viewarticle/render?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bRNsK2wSK6k63nn5Kx94um%2bSq2prUquqLA4sLCuUbiqsjjOw6SM8Nfsi9%2fZ8oHt5Od8u6O1T7Spr0mzq68%2b8d%2fiVeTZtnqwp7NPq9rjULGjskjkr6tRtNu0ReGosUvkrbR5sK2veb7o43zn6aSE3%2bTlVePkpHzgs%2bN88drtgqTq33%2b7t8w%2b3%2bS7feLp4ofopORI4KuzeePXt3m0rbJMr6u2ft%2bqtH3fp%2bB%2b4dziebenpH7t6Ot58rPkjeri8n326gAA&vid=0&sid=fc8b2157-de83-40f9-96e6-c233f76a271a@redis
By: Kang DU; Wen-qing ZHAO; Zhi-guo ZHOU; Jing-jing SHAO; Wei HU; Ling-jie KONG; You-hua WANG. In: Journal of Integrative Agriculture, Vol 20, Iss 12, Pp 3143-3155 (2021); Elsevier, 2021. Language: English, Database: Directory of Open Access Journals
9.
https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/viewarticle/render?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bRNsK2wSK6k63nn5Kx94um%2bSq2prUquqLA4sLCuUbiqsjjOw6SM8Nfsi9%2fZ8oHt5Od8u6O1T7Spr0mzq68%2b8d%2fiVeTZtnqwp7NPq9rjULGjskjkr6tRtNu0ReGosUvkrbR5sK2veb7o43zn6aSE3%2bTlVePkpHzgs%2bN88dvqiKTq33%2b7t8w%2b3%2bS7a66ntEiyp7BIsKeuSK%2borkuk3O2K69fyVeTr6oTy2%2faM&vid=0&sid=fc8b2157-de83-40f9-96e6-c233f76a271a@redis
By Yan, Yu; Wang, Guang; Luo, Xin; Zhang, Ping; Peng, Shuang; Cheng, Xin; Wang, Mengwei; Yang, Xuesong. In Environment International. July 2021 152 Language: English. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106495, Database: ScienceDirect
10
https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/viewarticle/render?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bRNsK2wSK6k63nn5Kx94um%2bSq2prUquqLA4sLCuUbiqsjjOw6SM8Nfsi9%2fZ8oHt5Od8u6O1T7Spr0mzq68%2b8d%2fiVeTZtnqwp7NPq9rjULGjskjkr6tRtNu0ReGosUvkrbR5sK2veb7o43zn6aSE3%2bTlVePkpHzgs99R5pzyeeWzv2ak1%2bxVr6uwTa6psUyynOSH8OPfjLvc84Tq6uOQ8gAA&vid=0&sid=fc8b2157-de83-40f9-96e6-c233f76a271a@redis
1
The Importance of Play in the Early Childhood Environment
Marcia Phillips
Doctor of Early Childhood Education, Walden University
EDDD-8082: Meaningful Learning Experiences in Supportive Environments
Dr. Daniel Yarosz
February 05, 2022
Annotated Bibliography Topic
The topic selected is “The Importance of Play in the Early Childhood Environment”. Learn through play research continues to show why it is important for children to experience and explore ways to learn while playing in the early childhood environment helps children to develop content skills. The skills that children are developing are physical, social-emotional, language, cognitive, and mathematics. Many children have benefited from learning through play with their behavior and progress in future academics. Learn through play is also good for at home activities. At school the children develop positive relationships with their teachers and peers and at home the children develop positive relationships with their families. There is a gap, in learning through play in the school environment where teachers are teaching more academics and less play due to the demand of standardized testing. Children need included in their daily curriculum play. For example, children need that physical development for oxygen to get to the brain for development and infants early movement experiences are beneficial for brain development.
Annotated Bibliography
Alharbi, M. O., & Alzahrani, M. M. (2020). The Importance of Learning through Play in Early Childhood Education: Reflection on the “Bold Beginnings” Report
. International Journal of the Whole Child, 5(2), 9–17.
Alharbi et al. & Alzahrani et al., provided a case study (Ofsted, 2017) of a review of the curriculum for four-and-five-year-old children in the United Kingdom, that argues for teachers to teach young children more academic subjects, instead of introducing learning through play. The authors argue that play provides children with a range of support that includes mental, physical, social interactions, and emotional well-being. The authors explains that this study (Ofsted) which is the acronym for The Office of Standards in Education, children’s services and Skills underscores the importance that children learn and play about the world with authenticity, relevance, and developmentally appropriate opportunities. The authors explain in detail how learning through play provides children the opportunities to communicate with peers, develop language, enhance cognitive ability, investigate, and discover various subjects, and grow in a risk-free environment.
The study indicates teachers teach reading, writing and mathematics which is fundamental. They are considered the building blocks for all other learning. However, an open letter signed by over 1800 educators believe this study should be rejected because of the negative effect on children and undervalues play-based approaches for children. The authors explains that children also learn to read, write, and use math through play. Many exiting studies demonstrate the role of play in each of these curricular areas.
The authors explain children benefit from playing in many ways; to develop language, self-regulation, social-emotional skills, problem-solving skills, interact with others, and discover the world. Also, the authors explained children who experience play-based learning become more likely to sustain a higher level of engagement and motivation in later more formal learning experiences and the children will benefit from this. However, more research is needed if play is to be implemented into the early childhood curriculum daily.
Liu, X., Hu, B., & Huang, J. (2019). The Quality of Play Center Activities of Early Childhood Education in China. English Language Teaching, 12(8), 95–105.
Liu et al., Hu et al., and Huang et al., study used the Activities Sub-scale of the Chinese Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (CECERS) to measure the quality of the play center activities in K2 (4-5years old) classroom, which is based on a stratified random selection of 48 classrooms in Guangdong Province in China. This study used stratified random sampling approach that selected the participants from three regions based on per capita to represent high, middle, and low socioeconomic development of Guangdong. The sample included 16 urban and 32 rural classrooms.
The authors explained the overall quality of play in some samples is judged from inappropriate (1 point) to the maximum good level (7points). The authors’ samples show there are differences in the overall quality of play center activities between urban and rural, private, and public, high, and low level of kindergartens. The authors explained the space and materials quality of play center activities involved the richness, safety, and suitability of materials, equipment, and space were less than 5 points which reached the minimum requirements and qualified level. This would show that depending on which school the children were attending the quality was better at the private school than the public schools.
Therefore, more research needs to be done to include the same types of experiences the children can have at all schools over time. The
study suggest that the teachers are more inclined to continue with teacher-led play due to the lack of materials and space in the urban-rural schools verses the private schools with the materials and space needed for preparation that affect the activities and performance of the children.
Sandseter, E. B. H., Kleppe, R., & Sando, O. J. (2021). The Prevalence of Risky Play in Young Children’s Indoor and Outdoor Free Play. Ear
ly Childhood Education Journal, 49(2), 303–312.
In this study Sandseter et al. suggest that children have limited outdoor or indoor opportunities to have risky play. When there is play, it occurs under adult supervision, which regulations only allow children to do what the adults decide. The settings are early childhood education and care (ECEC) institutions. Sandseter et al., defines risky play as “thrilling and exciting forms of physicals play that involve uncertainty and a risk of physical injury”.
In this study, Sandseter et al., & Kleppe et al., there are eight categories of risky play which have been identified: 1. Play with great heights; 2. Play with high speed; 3. Play with dangerous tools; 4. Play neat dangerous; 5. Rough-and-tumble play; 6. Play where children go exploring alone; 7. Play with impact; and 8. Vicarious play. These different types of risky play and risk-taking activities are found in different ages including 1-3-year-olds, 4-6-year-olds, and 4-13-year-olds. This study is relatively new but the possible benefits of risky play to children’s development and learning are interesting to do research on. Along, with leading to more physical activity, improved motor/physical competence, handle risky situations in an appropriate way, and positive psychological outcomes. There were 86 children for the study 51% were boys and 49% were girls, ages 3.8years to 4.7 years. Data consisted of 1878 randomly recorded two-minute videos, that were coded second by second for the occurrence of several of the categories of risky play.
Sandseter et al., study concluded that risky play was observed sometimes once a day, but by all the children were at one point doing some type of risky play. More research needs to be done to get better data for good conclusion. The study showed that risky play is a common type of play, like symbolic play. This study also, concluded that risky play was more likely done outdoor than indoor.
Watanabe, N. (2019). Effective Simple Mathematics Play at Home in Early Childhood: Promoting Both Non-Cognitive and Cognitive Skills in Early Childhood. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(2), 401–417.
For this study Watanabe et al., research was done with one female starting from age 3 years 0 month and ending at 6 years 5 months old. Dated September 22, 2014 and ending March 21, 2018. With her parents which was easy due to having a rapport with already and securing sufficient investigation time. Formal consent was obtained from both parents. The single case study was done at home by the parents for three years, which was non-cognitive skills (social and emotional skills) in early childhood, and play is useful to acquire the skills. While young children need to acquire mathematical cognitive skills as a learning foundation. This study was done with the parents also due to parental engagement and attachment have impact on non-cognitive skills.
The authors created a form of simple mathematics quiz game that children can play at home. This was to show that application of systematic and extensive mathematics in early childhood, without promoting only cognitive skills as a primary objective. The materials used for the study was commercially available stationery supplies (compass, triangular ruler, triangular scale, ruler, etc.), commercially available building blocks (Lego, Pythagoras puzzles, etc.), commercially available drills, commercially available puzzles (two-dimensional and three-dimensional), commercially available measuring instruments (scale, thermometer, body temperature thermometer, weighing scale, watch, water temperature thermometer, air temperature thermometer, etc.), commercially available 100-ball abacus, commercially available multiplication table CDs, commercially available 3-D models, commercially available fraction puzzles, and commercially available tablets with software installed.
In this study it was suggested improvements in mathematical cognitive skills can be recognized and help acquire non-cognitive skills and mathematical cognitive skills (self-control and GRIT) in early childhood. While at home does promote both non-cognitive and cognitive skills in simple mathematics play. The hypothesis of the research is supported in this study. Therefore, the child’s mathematical ability can and did increase through this study.
Lin, X., Li, H., & Yang, W. (2019). Bridging a Cultural Divide between Play and Learning: Parental Ethnotheories of Young Children’s Play and Their Instantiation in Contemporary China. Early Education and Development, 30(1), 82–97.
This study of Lin et al., Li et al., & Yang et al., explores the ethnotheories of 6 Chinese families in the city of Shanghai, a Westernized metropolis in China. The purpose of this study was to explore families’ young children play at home. Due to Chinese parents influenced by Confucian heritage culture they tend to believe in a dichotomy between play and learning in young children. The study is conducted to promote play-based teaching and learning in kindergartens in play of the Chinese traditional belief. There was purposive sampling to select the families. All of which were families that had a child that attended a playgroup for children younger than 4 years of age. The authors restricted the analysis to this age group because of the parents’ thoughts and values that were believed to carry the most weight for their children’s learning and play in the year preceding kindergarten. The six families were divided up into three groups,2 families identified as traditional parents (i.e., structed profile); 2 families as contemporary parents (i. e., unstructed profile); and 2 families as eclectic parents (i. e., structed-unstructed profile). The families wee middle-or upper middle-class families with high education levels.
The authors discuss that in this cultural that respect of teaching authority was valued as Chinese learning virtues, whereas play was seen as the antithesis of formal education. Even though China has imported Euro-American educational ideas and implemented progressive ECE policies, making a difference from didactic, adult-directed, and academically oriented practices to child-centered and developmentally appropriate practices. The data collected was in-depth interviews, home visit observations, and 1 -week recordings of child’s play daily activities. The evidence revealed that the families did practice eduplay with their children. But the Chinese version of play-based learning or a compromise between contemporary Western notions of child-centered play and the Chinese tradition of adult-directed academic training.
The focus of the six families believed that play and learning were related and included reading, mathematics, problem-solving skills, socializing with others and so on. Some of the parents stressed that play for the development of foundational competencies for more complex cognitive and social processes later for academic success. Also, some of the parents perceived children’s play as an instrument for getting an early academic start. The study was limited due the participants. Therefore, more research is needed to examine how to implement learning through play with an emphasis on what is going to be good for the children’s academic and well-being success in the future.
Magnusson, M., & Pramling, N. (2018). In “Numberland”: Play-Based Pedagogy in Response to Imaginative Numeracy. International Journal of Early Years Education, 26(1), 24–41.
This study of the researchers Magnusson et al. & Pramling er al., is about the opportunities and support needed to keep play-based character in early childhood education while learning mathematical skills at home with a child and adult. The study focus was on a 6.5-year-old child and adult communicating back and forth about the child’s drawing of “Numberland”. The child and adult discuss the drawing and tells us about his emergent mathematics skills is analyzed. This is a demonstration of the child shifting between speaking and enacting “as if” and “as is”, also how the adult supports the child’s mathematics understanding through the play-frame that is analyzed.
Through this study the primary focus was on the child’s interest in and understanding of the development in mathematics and play. The child’s learning about conventional symbols, such as the triangle, cross as signaling warning and prohibition. This has developed into the child learning about graphical symbols and how to identify features important to how to organize for learning in preschool while still having play based. This study has a form of case report with detailed transcripts from empirical data with video observations in the child’s home environment that provided an informal situation while the child could feel comfortable.
The authors do feel there will need to be further empirical research due to many concerns from educators as to the challenge of supporting children in developing play and/or developing basic mathematics through play in preschool. It needs to be recognized that play projects and supporting children developing their content-based knowing basic mathematics are not dichotomous goals. While play is conversing, content is always constituted with development in preschool. Professional development for teachers annually should include learning through play.
Nolan, A., & Paatsch, L. (2018). (Re)Affirming Identities: Implementing a Play-Based Approach to Learning in the Early Years of Schooling. International Journal of Early Years Education, 26(1), 42–55.
Nolan et al. & Paatsch research was conducted to understand the impact implementing a play-based approach for the learning environment especially in the areas of literacy and language and the identity of two foundation teachers (first year of compulsory schooling) in a Catholic primary school in Victoria, Australia. The method was qualitative approach, the theory was intrpretivist. The data collection included group interviews with the two teachers and their early years coordinator at different points during the school year and two classroom observation sessions. The participates also included 49 children aged 5-6 years into one large open space. They were separate into small groups to accommodate between 5 and 6 children per group. This study took place over a 12-month period to see the difference in the play-base program from the beginning of the school year throughout to the end of the school year.
Before, implementing the study the teachers contacted the researchers for the support and visited others early childhood playgroups and other schools that had the play-based programs to learn how to plan and document children’s learning. The researchers also supported the teachers through professional learning with readings, open discussions around the purposes and value of planning for play in the early years. There were three points during the year (beginning, middle, and end) with informed consent gotten. The interviews were approximately 45- 60 minutes each with the teachers and early years coordinator. These interviews covered the challenges and affordances of their play-based approach. Also, the researchers conducted two 2-hour classroom observations in throughout the school year. The interviews wee audio recorded and later transcribed.
Throughout the school year the room had to be reorganized to accommodate the ongoing challenges due the large number of children and teachers sharing one room. The teachers felt the need to validate the work they were doing was legitimate. There was progress in the children and the findings suggested there is the need for ongoing professional development for the teachers to implement the play-based approach into the curriculum. More research is needed to support the teachers implementing the play-based approach and understanding the ways teachers negotiate the familiar and unfamiliar.
Hu, J., Degotardi, S., Torr, J., & Han, F. (2019). Reasoning as a Pedagogical Strategy in Infant-Addressed Talk in Early Childhood Education Centres: Relationships with Educators’ Qualifications and Communicative Function. Early Education and Development, 30(7), 872–886.
Hu et al., Degotardi et al., Torr et al., & Han study identifies the reasoning talk used during educators play interactions with children under two-year-old in (ECEC) centers, based in and around Sydney, Australia. The authors investigated the language environment in a total of 56 ECEC centers. The ECEC centers had to meet minimum quality standards stipulated by the Australian National Quality Framework (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority). There were 34 not-for-profit, 18 privately owned, and 4 work-based centers in all that participated in the study. The educators were all females with experiences ranging from 1.6 to 30.5 years. The educators’ qualifications in early childhood range from a 6-month vocational certificate to a bachelor’s degree.
The data collected was approved by the Macquaire University Human Ethics Research Committee for signed consent from the educators. The data selection was 20-minute episodes of the educators’ talking during infants’ naturally occurring play that was selected. Reasoning for the selected play was due to the play-based approach and substantial educator-infant individual interactions that occurred during play. The recordings were coded according to the sentence that had messages in them, that referred to play. After this coding was done another coding (inter-coder reliability) was conducted to narrow down the previous coding for reasoning talk to be valued in the study.
The results from the study acknowledged the limitations of the information was due to the educator’s education background, the data coding, and educators’ language. The researchers felt the educators with the less amount of education language was not valued as much as the educators with the bachelor’s degree. The data coding was not reliable because only certain language was used that they considered to be related to play, instead of all language. Therefore, more research needs to be done to retrieve valid information for the study.
Obee, P., Sandseter, E. B. H., Gerlach, A., & Harper, N. J. (2021). Lessons Learned from Norway on Risky Play in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). Early Childhood Education Journal, 49(1), 99–109.
Obee et al., Sandseter et al., Gerlach et al., & Harper et al., study was to identify social factors that could impact children’s affordances for risky play in the context of a Norwegian ECEC setting. These researchers explored how parents and early childhood practitioners promote children’s risky play. Due to risks for young children being perceived negatively and considered avoidable. There is research that suggest some risky play can promote positive health and developmental outcomes for children. Such as improve mental health, increase physical activity, well-being, improve motor skills, self-regulation, emotional expression, self-esteem, and promote the development of risk-assessment.
The methods the authors used was observation field notes for risky play, pedagogical practices, practitioner-child interactions, and social factors that could impact affordances in risky play. These observations were done over 33 non-continuous day for 100 hours with pen and paper and there were recordings after and during the occurrences. There also were eight 30 to 45 minutes semi-structed interviews with practitioners and parents to gain insight into social factors that could influence the children’s risky play.
Therefore, more research is needed due to the limitations of the sample size and lack of diversity in the study. The study was done with one ECEC center and given the findings suggest that pedagogical theoretical frameworks may impact assumptions about childhood, relating practices surrounding risky play. Also, the educators were limited to only a few with bachelor’s degrees and the majority were educators with some certificates and little training with children. The researchers believed that if there were more educators with more schooling their would be a significant differences in reasoning talk between the educators and children, to observe for the study not to be a small sampling.
Desouza, J. M. S. (2017). Conceptual Play and Science Inquiry: Using the 5E Instructional Model. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 12(4), 340–353.
Desouza et al., study focuses on the development of conceptual play by using the pedagogy of the 5E instructional model and the role of conceptual play in learning science as viewed through the cultural-historical lens. Young children understand simple phenomenon which the nature of science is the process and development of appropriate skills. It is essential to learn science in an early childhood setting. It starts the foundation for problem solving and critical thinking which is preparing children for school readiness. This is a necessity for curricular standards and technology made for kindergarten.
Play is the activity that is most defined in childhood learning. The environment which children learn interactions with others is where they realized themselves. Zone of proximal development is created for the consequences of play and various areas such as cognitive development. The author research was based around the 5E model, developed by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study that gets its phases and sequences from the learning cycle model which originally constituted of the exploration, explanation, and extension phases.
The 5E model used in this study consisted of a group of 4-year-olds with their teacher. The activity was on the fact that a bird’s survival is dependent on its environment and habitat. There were five different stages:
1. The engage stage: To get the children interested
2. The explore stage: Nature walk with the children (exploratory play)
3. The explanation stage: after the walk the teacher explained the concept of a habitat.
4. The elaboration stage: After the children explored and collected materials, they addressed what they collected.
5. The evaluation stage: each child shared information about the bird habitat.
The content of the lesson focused on bird habitats, inviting children to design their own nests using materials found in the environment. The 5E lesson imbibed intrigue and facilitated children to explore on their own, while examining a variety of material to discern that was suitable for their nests. The teacher’s role was exposing the children to conceptual play using the 5E instruction model. The importance of play in learning is what makes a case of pedagogies that support sustained shared thinking in early childhood curriculum. The children and teachers benefited from the interactions, where the children learned science concepts and made connections in the real world, and the teachers learn and observed the interactions and development skills of social exchanges. Further research is needed due to the small sample.
�The APA style is off on this. Please double check it. Thank you.
��The APA style is off on this. Please double check it. Thank you.
�Yes.
��The APA style is off on this. Please double check it. Thank you.
��The APA style is off on this. Please double check it. Thank you.
��The APA style is off on this. Please double check it. Thank you.
��The APA style is off on this. Please double check it. Thank you.
��The APA style is off on this. Please double check it. Thank you.
��The APA style is off on this. Please double check it. Thank you.
��The APA style is off on this. Please double check it. Thank you.
��The APA style is off on this. Please double check it. Thank you.
