This paper presents a picture of the current theoretical positions and methods used to assess children's development. A maturational understanding of development is seen to be predominately used to inform the assessment tools which track how children develop across the 0-5 age group. This paper proposes that with the movement towards a cultural-historical understanding of development, a tool following from this standpoint should be developed. It is envisaged that a new assessment tool will be developed from this analysis. A theoretical rationale is given to support why the Zone of Proximal Development can be used to identify the indicators of children's actual and potential levels of development, moving away from age/level based testing. Developing an assessment tool aligned to the principles of the ZPD can offer alternative method to assess children's development in a theoretically robust way, providing empirical evidence to rethink the methodologies of child development assessments.Keywords: Cultural-historical theory, developmental assessments, Zone of Proximal Development, genetic research methodology.* Minson Victoria, PhD Candidate, Australia, Monash University. E-mail: Victoria.Minson@monash.edu ** Hammer Marie, PhD, Lecturer, Australia Monash University. E-mail: Marie.hammer@ monash.edu *** Veresov Nikolai, PhD, Associate Professor, Australia Monash University, Frankston, Australia. E-mail: nveresov@hotmail.com For citation: Minson V., Hammer M., Veresov N. Rethinking assessments: creating a new tool using the zone of proximal development within a cultural-historical framework.
Trauma in early childhood is a significant public health concern. Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) services are uniquely positioned to buffer the negative impact of early childhood trauma on children. This scoping review synthesized studies evaluating trauma-informed interventions in ECEC settings through a systematic search of four relevant online databases (PsycINFO, Medline, ERIC, A+ Education). Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, with 12 ECEC center-based trauma-informed interventions evaluated. Types and components of trauma-informed interventions, outcomes, and measures are presented. Findings suggest that trauma-informed interventions in ECEC settings are nascent but growing. Increasingly, programs are adopting multi-tiered system of support to address early childhood trauma, with these models suggesting promising results. The predominant focus of ECEC center-based trauma-informed interventions was upskilling teachers through training and coaching, with studies focused on assessment of teacher-level outcomes. Child, organization, and caregiver-level outcomes are not explored to the same extent, with evaluation of organizational outcomes relying predominately on qualitative methods. Whilst the short-term outcomes of trauma-informed approaches in ECEC have been examined, longer-term impacts and the causal mechanistic pathways of such programs have yet to be explored.
Early childhood assessment in Australia is guided by Australia's Early Years Learning Framework and a ‘storied’ approach. This article argues that Australia's policy and practice discourses of assessment in early childhood education lack clarity. The article situates early childhood assessment practice within Australia's curriculum, policy and regulatory context. Literature regarding Learning Stories assessment as a dominant discourse is presented to illustrate the ‘borrowed’ and underdeveloped nature of Australia's storied approach. Data is drawn on to provide insight into two educators’ assessment practices. The analysis suggests that storied assessment is being conflated with the Learning Stories approach within a wider practice of assessment eclecticism, whereby educators are taking a ‘grass-roots’ approach to assessment and doing ‘what works’. The article argues for urgent attention to concepts of assessment in the scheduled update of the Early Years Learning Framework.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.