 |
customer@davidpublishing.com |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Contextually Appropriate Approach to Quality in Early Childhood Settings
Natalie Wade
Full-Text PDF
XML 275 Views
DOI:10.17265/2159-5542/2015.04.004
University of Tennessee at Martin, Martin, USA
Following will be a comparison of two different positions on quality in early childhood settings as it applies to an international platform. The two positions that will be compared are DAP (developmentally appropriate practice) as defined by NAEYC (the National Association for the Education of Young Children) and contextually appropriate approach as advocated by many in the international early childhood community. The discussion will begin with a definition of contextually appropriate approach to quality. This will be followed by a comparison of the two positions on ideals of quality with specific examples from various cultures. Then the discussion will turn to my personal perspective on DAP as it relates to my own culture. Finally, it will conclude with a look at the 2006 edition of Developmentally Appropriate Practice (Copple & Bredekamp, 2006) and how the changes made have or have not translated into a more diverse ideal of early childhood quality.
contextually appropriate practice, childcare, standards, rating scales, cultural diversity, DAP (developmentally appropriate practice)
Natalie Wade. (2015). Contextually Appropriate Approach to Quality in Early Childhood Settings. Psychology Research, 5(4), 249-252.
Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2006). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. Washington, D.C. National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Decker, C. A., Decker, J. R., Freeman, N. K., & Knopf, H. T. (2009). Planning and administering early childhood programs. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey & Columbus, Ohio. Pearson.
Edwards, E. (2004). Understanding context, understanding practice in early education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 12(1), 85-102.
Fleer, M. (2006). The cultural construction of child development: Creating institutional and cultural intersubjectivity. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(2), 127-140.
Gestwicki, C. (2007). Home, school, and community relations. Clifton Park, New York. Thomas Delmar Learning.
Han, H. S., & Thomas, M. S. (2010). No child misunderstood: Enhancing early childhood teachers’ multicultural responsiveness to the social competence of diverse children. Early Childhood Education, J(37), 469-476.
Harms, T., & Clifford, R. M. (1989). Family day care rating scale. New York. Teachers College Press.
Harms, T., Cryer, D., & Clifford, R. M. (2007). Family child care environment rating scale—Revised edition. New York. Teachers College Press.
Ho, C. W. D. (2008). Exploring the definitions of quality early childhood programmes in a market-driven context: Case studies of two Hong Kong preschools. International Journal of Early Years Education, 16(3), 223-236.
Singer, E. (1998). Shared care for children. In M. Woodhead, D. Faulkner, & K. Littleton (Eds), Cultural worlds of early childhood (64-84). London, Routledge.
Woodhead, M. (1998). “Quality” in early childhood programmes—A contextually appropriate approach. International Journal of Early Years Education, 6(1), 5-17.