TCHR2003 Curriculum Studies in Early Childhood Education
Assessment 1: Critical Review
| Unit Code | TCHR2003 |
| Unit Title | Curriculum Studies in Early Childhood Education |
| Faculty | Faculty of Education, Southern Cross University |
| Assessment Title | Assessment 1: Critical Review |
| Assessment Type | Critical Review (Written) |
| Weighting | 50% |
| Length | 1,500 words (±10% leeway; excludes reference list and cover sheet) |
| Due Date | Monday, Week 4 @ 11:59 pm AEST/AEDT (Term 1, 2026) |
| Submission | Via the Turnitin link on the Assessments and Submissions page on MySCU. File naming: Surname_Initials_TCHR2003_Assessment1.docx (e.g., JSmith_TCHR2003_Assessment1.docx) |
| Referencing Style | APA 7th Edition |
| GenAI Use | Not permitted — see Academic Integrity section below |
| Availability | Brisbane, Gold Coast, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney, Online (all Terms) |
Unit Learning Outcomes Addressed
This assessment task addresses the following unit learning outcomes (ULOs). On completion of this assessment, students should be able to:
- Describe and justify what curriculum means in early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings, drawing on relevant frameworks, theory, and academic literature.
- Understand and demonstrate conceptual knowledge related to play-based learning as a curriculum approach for children from birth to five years.
- Argue, with reference to the literature, how curriculum key learning areas — linked to the EYLF v2.0, the National Quality Standard (NQS), and the Australian Curriculum (Foundation Year) — can be applied to support children’s learning.
- Critically analyse educator–child interactions in a real early childhood context and connect observable practice to curriculum frameworks and standards.
Assessment Rationale
Curriculum in early childhood education is not a document on a shelf. It is everything that happens — planned and unplanned — when educators and children share time and space together. For a beginning teacher, the ability to articulate what curriculum actually means, to locate play within a defensible theoretical and policy framework, and to observe and critically reflect on educator–child interaction are core professional competencies. Assessment 1 asks you to demonstrate all three. The assessment is designed around scenarios that reflect realistic professional contexts in Australian ECEC settings, and the frameworks you are required to engage with — the Early Years Learning Framework v2.0 (AGDE, 2022), the National Quality Standard (ACECQA, 2023), and the Australian Curriculum: Foundation Year (ACARA, 2022) — are the documents you will use daily as a practising educator.
Task Description
As an early childhood educator it is important that you develop a sound understanding of curriculum theory, key early childhood frameworks, and the role of play in children’s learning. Assessment 1 requires you to write a critical review that addresses the following three parts. Each part must be clearly labelled in your submission.
Part 1 Defining Curriculum in Early Childhood Education
Suggested word allocation: approximately 200 words
Scenario: You are an early childhood teacher in an ECEC setting. The Director of the service has asked you to contribute to the service’s family newsletter by writing a short statement that explains what curriculum means in your setting. The statement should reflect the Director’s request to make it accessible to families while still being grounded in the unit readings and relevant frameworks.
Write your newsletter statement (approximately 100 words), then provide a brief rationale of no more than 100 words explaining how your definition of curriculum is supported by the Early Years Learning Framework v2.0 (AGDE, 2022), the National Quality Standard (ACECQA, 2023), and at least one unit reading. Your statement and rationale together form Part 1.
Part 1 must:
- Define curriculum in early childhood education clearly and accurately.
- Be appropriate for a family audience while remaining consistent with professional and scholarly understandings of curriculum.
- Include at least one APA 7th in-text citation in the rationale section.
Part 2 Play-Based Learning and Curriculum Planning
Suggested word allocation: approximately 700 words
Scenario: A parent has sent you an email asking why educators use children’s play to plan and implement curriculum. They mention that they are worried their child is “just playing all day” and are not sure how play connects to learning. Write a professional response to this parent that justifies the use of play-based learning in early childhood education. Your response must go well beyond reassurance and must instead demonstrate genuine conceptual knowledge of why and how play is used as a curriculum vehicle.
Part 2 must:
- Discuss how educators use children’s play to plan and implement curriculum in ECEC settings.
- Justify the use of play-based learning by drawing on at least one developmental theory (e.g., Piaget, Vygotsky, Bronfenbrenner) covered in the unit.
- Make explicit and accurate reference to at least two of the following: the EYLF v2.0 Learning Outcomes; the EYLF v2.0 Principles or Practices; relevant NQS Quality Areas (e.g., QA 1 — Educational Program and Practice); and/or the Australian Curriculum Foundation Year learning areas.
- Use a minimum of three peer-reviewed academic sources published between 2018 and 2026 to support your argument.
- Maintain a professional tone appropriate for communication with a family, while demonstrating scholarly depth and accuracy.
Part 3 Critical Reflection on Educator–Child Interactions
Suggested word allocation: approximately 500–600 words
Watch the early childhood activity video provided in the Assessment 1 folder on MySCU. The video shows an educator working with a small group of children in a play-based learning context.
Part 3 requires you to:
(a) EYLF Principles and Practices (approximately 300 words)
Identify and discuss at least two EYLF v2.0 Principles and at least two EYLF v2.0 Practices that are evident in the educator’s interactions with the children shown in the video. For each principle and practice you identify, explain specifically how and why the educator’s behaviour demonstrates that principle or practice, and make relevant links to at least two NQS Quality Areas that align with what you have observed.
(b) Critical Reflection on Interactions (approximately 200–300 words)
Critically reflect on the quality and effectiveness of the educator’s interactions with children in the video. Consider: What aspects of the interaction appear to promote children’s learning most effectively, and why? Are there any moments where the educator’s response could have been adjusted to better support children’s thinking or agency? Ground your reflection in theory and academic literature — do not simply describe what you see. Your reflection should demonstrate the kind of critical, evidence-based thinking expected of a graduate early childhood educator.
Part 3 must:
- Reference specific, observable moments from the video — do not write in generalities.
- Use EYLF v2.0 and NQS language accurately and in context.
- Include at least two academic sources to support your critical reflection.
- Avoid summarising or retelling the video; analysis and critique are required throughout.
Formatting and Submission Requirements
- Total length: 1,500 words (±10%); the reference list and cover sheet are not included in the word count.
- Clearly label each part: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3(a), and Part 3(b).
- Font: 12-point Arial or Times New Roman; 2.54 cm margins; 1.5 or double line spacing.
- Include a cover sheet with: full name, student ID, unit code and title, assessment title, word count, campus/online, and submission date.
- Submit one Word document (.docx) via Turnitin on MySCU. PDF submissions are not accepted.
- File name format: Surname_Initials_TCHR2003_Assessment1.docx
- Re-submissions for this assessment task are not permitted as per SCU policy.
- A minimum of six (6) academic references is required across the whole assessment: at least four must be peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2018 and 2026.
- APA 7th edition applies to all in-text citations and the reference list.
Academic Integrity and Generative AI Policy
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools — including but not limited to ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, and Claude — may not be used for any part of this assessment task. This assessment is designed to evaluate whether you have independently developed the knowledge and professional skills central to this unit. Submitting AI-generated content as your own work, whether in whole or in part, constitutes an academic integrity breach under the Southern Cross University Student Academic and Non-Academic Misconduct Rules, Section 3.
Academic integrity at SCU means behaving with honesty, fairness, trustworthiness, courage, responsibility, and respect in relation to academic work. Breaches include, but are not limited to: plagiarism, close paraphrasing, poor referencing, contract cheating, collusion, and fabricating information. Students have the right to appeal an Academic Integrity Officer’s determination to the Executive Dean. For full details, see the SCU Academic Integrity Framework on MySCU.
Marking Criteria / Grading Rubric
| Criterion | High Distinction (85–100%) | Distinction (75–84%) | Credit (65–74%) | Pass (50–64%) | Fail (0–49%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part 1: Curriculum definition and rationale (20%) Accuracy, clarity, and scholarly grounding of curriculum definition; appropriateness for family audience |
Precise, professionally framed definition; rationale is insightful, uses EYLF v2.0, NQS, and unit readings with accuracy and depth | Clear definition with sound rationale; good use of frameworks with minor gaps in depth or specificity | Definition is mostly accurate; rationale references frameworks but links are sometimes implicit | Definition is basic or partially inaccurate; rationale is thin and relies on description rather than scholarly support | Definition is inaccurate or absent; rationale missing or unsupported by any framework or academic source |
| Part 2: Play-based learning — knowledge and justification (35%) Depth of conceptual knowledge; quality of theoretical and framework links; scholarly support |
Sophisticated, well-evidenced argument for play-based curriculum; precise and accurate links to theory, EYLF v2.0, NQS, and Australian Curriculum; four or more strong academic sources used | Sound argument with clear links to two or more frameworks and relevant theory; three peer-reviewed sources used effectively | Argument is present but some theoretical or framework links are underdeveloped or superficial; sources are adequate | Limited justification; connections to theory or frameworks are vague; fewer than three sources or sources are not peer-reviewed | Play-based learning is asserted rather than argued; no meaningful reference to theory or frameworks; sources absent or inappropriate |
| Part 3(a): Identifying EYLF Principles, Practices, and NQS links (20%) Accuracy and specificity of identification; quality of links to observable practice and NQS |
Two or more Principles and Practices accurately identified with precise, evidence-based explanation of how each is observable in the video; NQS links are specific and well-reasoned | Correct identification of Principles and Practices; explanations are mostly specific; NQS links are present and generally appropriate | At least one Principle and one Practice correctly identified; explanations tend toward description rather than analysis; NQS links are included but vague | Principles or Practices are partially identified or confused; NQS links are absent or incorrect | EYLF Principles and Practices are not correctly identified or are absent; no NQS reference |
| Part 3(b): Critical reflection on educator–child interactions (15%) Depth and quality of critical analysis; evidence-based reasoning; avoiding mere description |
Insightful, specific, evidence-based critique of educator interactions; identifies both strengths and areas for development with clear scholarly justification; first-person voice is reflective, not anecdotal | Clear critical reflection grounded in theory and academic sources; addresses both effective and less effective aspects of the interaction | Reflection present but leans toward description; some critical analysis evident; at least one academic source used | Reflection is largely descriptive; little evidence of critical thinking; unsupported by academic literature | No reflective component, or response merely retells the video without analysis |
| Academic writing, structure, and APA referencing (10%) Clarity, organisation, register, APA accuracy, and sufficiency of sources |
Exceptionally well-organised and clearly written; parts clearly labelled; APA 7th applied accurately throughout; six or more credible and current sources | Well-organised; minor APA errors; sources are appropriate and current; academic register maintained throughout | Mostly clear structure; some APA errors or inconsistencies; academic register generally maintained | Structure is inconsistent; APA errors are frequent; writing is sometimes informal or unclear | Poor structure; pervasive APA errors; fewer than four sources; writing does not meet academic standards |
Submission Checklist
- Cover sheet completed (name, student ID, unit code and title, word count, campus/online, date)
- All three parts clearly labelled in the submission
- Word count within 1,500 words ±10%
- Part 1: newsletter statement (~100 words) plus rationale (~100 words) included
- Part 2: play-based learning justified with theory, EYLF v2.0, NQS, and at least three peer-reviewed sources
- Part 3(a): minimum two EYLF v2.0 Principles and two Practices identified with NQS links
- Part 3(b): critical reflection grounded in evidence, not description
- Minimum six academic references in APA 7th edition; at least four peer-reviewed and published 2018–2026
- File named correctly: Surname_Initials_TCHR2003_Assessment1.docx
- Submitted via Turnitin on MySCU by Monday Week 4 @ 11:59 pm AEST/AEDT
- Re-submission is not available for this task — check your work before submitting
Sample Student Response Excerpt
Sample Answer (Not a Model Answer)
Part 1 — Newsletter Statement: At our service, curriculum is not a workbook or a program we deliver to children. It is every experience, interaction, and opportunity for discovery that we intentionally create — and those that arise spontaneously — to support each child’s learning across all aspects of their development. We plan with children, not for them, and we draw on each child’s interests, strengths, and family context to shape what learning looks like every single day.
Rationale: This definition aligns with the EYLF v2.0, which frames curriculum as “all the interactions, experiences, activities, routines and events, planned and unplanned, that occur in an environment designed to foster children’s learning and development” (AGDE, 2022, p. 74). It also reflects NQS Quality Area 1, which requires that educational programs are based on individual children’s needs, interests, and experiences, and that educators continuously evaluate the effectiveness of their planning (ACECQA, 2023).
Part 2 — Excerpt: Play is not a break from learning in early childhood education — it is the primary means through which young children construct knowledge, test ideas, and develop the social and cognitive skills they will rely on throughout their lives. As Pyle et al.’s (2020) analysis of play-based learning in early years classrooms demonstrates, the integration of educator-guided play with child-initiated exploration produces stronger learning outcomes than either approach in isolation, suggesting that the educator’s role is not to stand back but to enter children’s play purposefully and responsively. This aligns directly with EYLF v2.0 Practice 4 — Learning through play — which positions play as both a context for learning and a means through which educators observe, assess, and extend children’s developing understanding (AGDE, 2022). When a child spends forty minutes constructing a ramp out of blocks and testing how different objects roll, they are engaging in scientific thinking, mathematical reasoning, and problem-solving — all of which are foundational to the Australian Curriculum Foundation Year learning areas of Science and Mathematics (ACARA, 2022). The educator’s role in that moment is to notice, to ask the right question at the right time, and to know when silence is more useful than commentary.
Play-Curriculum Connection with Current Evidence
Research on play-based learning in Australian ECEC settings has grown considerably since the first release of the EYLF in 2009, and the updated EYLF v2.0 (AGDE, 2022) reflects a more explicit commitment to intentional teaching within play contexts. One distinction worth drawing carefully — and one that students frequently collapse — is between free play, guided play, and structured play. Weisberg et al. (2016) argue that guided play, where an educator frames a play scenario with a learning goal in mind but allows children to explore within that frame freely, consistently outperforms both unstructured free play and direct instruction for concept acquisition in children under six. That finding matters for how we read QA1 of the NQS, which calls for educational programs to be intentional — meaning that the educator’s decision to step back from a play scenario is itself a deliberate pedagogical choice, not the absence of teaching. Students writing Part 2 of this assessment will strengthen their argument considerably by specifying which type of play they are describing and why that type is appropriate for the developmental stage and learning goal in question, rather than treating “play” as a single undifferentiated idea.
Common Misconceptions and Critical Reflection in Part 3
A pattern that appears frequently in early drafts of Part 3(b) is the tendency to evaluate the educator in the video as either “good” or “not good” without connecting that judgement to evidence. Critical reflection in the professional sense used by the EYLF v2.0 does not mean finding fault — it means standing back from an observed interaction and asking what assumptions are embedded in it, what the evidence suggests about its effectiveness, and how a practitioner might respond differently in a different context. Brookfield’s (2017) work on critical reflection in teaching, which remains widely used in Australian teacher education programs, proposes four lenses through which educators can examine their own practice: the autobiographical lens, the students’ lens, the colleague’s lens, and the theoretical or research lens. Applying even one of those lenses deliberately to the video interaction in Part 3(b) — rather than simply listing what the educator did — will produce a qualitatively stronger response. Students sometimes also underestimate the relevance of NQS Quality Area 5, which addresses relationships with children, for this part of the task; sustained, warm, and responsive educator-child interaction is not only an EYLF Practice but a legally mandated quality standard under Australian national law.
Recommended References
Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA]. (2023). Guide to the National Quality Framework. ACECQA. https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-03/guide-to-the-national-quality-framework.pdf
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2022). Australian Curriculum v9.0: Foundation Year. ACARA. https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au
Australian Government Department of Education [AGDE]. (2022). Belonging, being and becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (V2.0). Australian Government. https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-01/EYLF-2022-V2.0.pdf
Fleer, M. (2021). Play in the early years (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108914772
Pyle, A., Poliszczuk, D., & Danniels, E. (2020). The integration of play and literacy instruction: Teacher perspectives and implementation challenges. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1716920
Siraj, I., Kingston, D., & Melhuish, E. (2015). Assessing quality in early childhood education and care: Sustained shared thinking and emotional wellbeing (SSTEW) scale for 2–5 year olds provision. Trentham Books.
Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Kittredge, A. K., & Klahr, D. (2016). Guided play: Principles and practices. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(3), 177–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416645512
Assessment 2 Preview
Unit: TCHR2003 Curriculum Studies in Early Childhood Education | Southern Cross University
Assessment Item: Assessment 2 — Learning Environment Portfolio (Individual)
Weighting: 50% | Length: 2,000 words | Due: Monday, Week 7 @ 11:59 pm AEST/AEDT
Overview: Assessment 2 builds directly on the conceptual foundations of Assessment 1 by asking you to design, analyse, and critically justify a learning environment for children aged birth to five years in an early childhood setting. You will create or source an image of an indoor or outdoor play-based learning environment that integrates at least three of the following curriculum key learning areas: science and technology, mathematics, creative arts, language and literacy, or physical wellbeing. For each learning area represented in the environment, you will write an analysis that connects the physical resources, spatial design, and educator role to relevant EYLF v2.0 Learning Outcomes, Principles, and Practices, as well as to at least one NQS Quality Area and one Australian Curriculum Foundation Year learning area where applicable. The portfolio concludes with a reflective statement addressing how the environment you have designed reflects your own developing philosophy of early childhood curriculum. APA 7th edition referencing applies, with a minimum of six peer-reviewed sources required.