El desafío del tránsito: de las emociones a los sentimientos

with each influencing the other. Te Whāriki (1996, p. 28) itself states that assessment should contribute to the development of the curriculum provided for children. Research internationally has shown that teacher knowledge of the curriculum and how to implement that curriculum and assess its learning outcomes is vital (Alvestad, Duncan & Berge, 2009; Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford & Taggart, 2004). However, because curriculum models vary, the assessment methods used to support the curriculum also vary. This section provides an overview of two curriculum models, competence and performance, before exploring international and New Zealand curriculum models and assessment practices.

2.4.1- Competence and Performance Curriculum Models

A useful framework for this comparison is to identify whether a country’s curriculum is based on either a competence model or a performance model of curriculum (Bernstein, 2000) and the resulting influence on assessment. A competence-focused curriculum is one where children have some influence on the “selection, pacing and sequencing of the curriculum” (McLachlan, Fleer & Edwards, 2013, p. 12). Competence models of curriculum are primarily focused

25 on children’s holistic development (Taguma, Litjens, & Makowiecki, 2013) and hold a view of the child as being competent. Within such a model, the curriculum provided for children is more open-ended, flexible and child-led. Competence models are seen as supporting children to develop “holistically and harmoniously to become the competent, autonomous, resilient and well- rounded human being” (Papatheodorou, 2010, p. 3). Competence models have been prevalent in the ECE sector, though this is not the case for all countries (McLachlan, Fleer, et al., 2013).

In contrast a performance based model of curriculum is more tightly structured, and outcomes focused, whereby individual subjects (such as mathematics) are taught using more formalised teaching practices and where learning is assessed against explicit criteria (McLachlan, Fleer et al., 2013). Performance models of curriculum, also referred to as outcomes based or academic models, tend to be more teacher directed, and are more closely aligned with developmental theories of learning, with a focus on supporting children’s cognitive development in preparation for school (Taguma et al., 2013). Much critique and criticism has been directed at performance models of curriculum due to the underpinning notion of universal norms, and the lack of attention given to the impact of the social, cultural and political context on children’s learning (Papatheodorou, 2010).

2.4.2- ECE Curriculum and Assessment Practices

The adoption of a performance or a competence based model of curriculum, and the different approaches inherent within each of these models, leads in turn to the utilisation of varying methods of assessment. For example, the curricula

26 used in England and some part of the United States can be considered to be performance based models. In 2008 the Early Years Foundation Stage framework (EYFS) (Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2008) was introduced in England, with subsequent revisions placing increased focus on literacy and numeracy (Roberts-Holmes, 2015). Children were assessed against a 117-point scale at the age of five, where children are still under the EYFS, to identify where children may require further support (McLachlan & Arrow, 2015), though this has now been revised to 17 early learning goals (Department for Education, 2017). The EYFS requires teachers to compile an ‘EYFS Profile’ for each child at the end of their first year in school based on the assessment information gathered to date, with results reported to the government (Bradbury, 2013). Photographs, work samples, written notes and lengthier observations are used to construct an individual child’s EYFS Profile (Bradbury, 2014). However, as noted by Nah (2014), the required focus on performance indicators is at odds with the play-based and developmentally appropriate practices utilised by most educators, creating tensions between curriculum and assessment and teacher practices.

The United States does not have a national early childhood curriculum, but rather each state sets its own ECE curriculum, structures and funding while being guided by the federal government. As a result of the ‘Good Start, Grow Smart’ initiative, all 50 states created academic criteria for ECE provision (Bracken & Crawford, 2010), and by 2015 all states had established early learning standards or guidelines (The National Institute for Early Education Research, 2016). These standards are akin to a performance based curriculum, in which “Criterion- referenced or curriculum-based measures are used to plan instructional

27 activities and monitor what children are learning” (Snow & Van Hemel, 2008, p. 33). US teachers often concentrate on providing a programme that will support children’s’ achievement in mandated assessments, which results in a narrowing of the curriculum offered to children (Halpern, 2013).

The influence of a competence based model of curriculum can be seen in countries such as Australia, the Nordic Countries and in Reggio Emilia in Italy. Within these types of curricula, assessment is used to inform planning and teaching (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR], 2009), with an emphasis on assessment for learning. For example in Australia an emphasis on assessment for learning is promoted within ECE policy and curricula (Kirkby, Keary & Walsh, 2018) with educators being required to document and plan for children’s learning, though the amount of documentation required is not regulated. Also of note, the Australia ECE curriculum draws on and acknowledges Te Whāriki’s definition of curriculum, demonstrating the similar influences underpinning ECE practices in the two countries.

The city of Reggio Emilia in Italy is well-known worldwide for its distinctive approach to ECE provision, which focuses upon pedagogy. The underpinning philosophy supports children having influence over the direction of their learning, with the curriculum based around children’s interests and their learning through projects. The documenting of children’s learning as it happens is emphasised as a way of making children’s learning visible (Wien, Guyevskey & Berdoussis, 2011). This documentations is viewed as being a key role of the

28 teacher, with assessment considered “an integral part of the learning and teaching process” (Rinaldi, 2004, p. 1).

ECE provision within the Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway is strongly aligned with competence models of curriculum, as each of these countries has an ‘open’ rather than prescriptive ECE. In direct contrast with Australia and Reggio Emilia, assessment of children is not typically considered to be a part of ECE provision in Nordic ECE as it is culturally contradictory (Alasuutari, Markström & Vallberg-Roth, 2014). The focus of the curriculum influences the ways assessment is carried out and the countries discussed in this section were chosen because of their recognisable and ongoing influence on ECE provision in New Zealand. Assessment practices in New Zealand ECE settings are guided by the early childhood curriculum document Te

Whāriki, and its aspiration for children to grow as competent and confident beings (Arndt & Tesar, 2015). Te Whāriki is a competence curriculum, using Bernstein’s (2000) definition, and has been described as being one of ‘open possibilities’ where planning happens as a consequence of observing children and their interests (Dalli, 2011). It is therefore important to briefly explore how Te Whāriki is implemented in practice, before specifically exploring ECE teachers’ contemporary assessment practices in section 2.6.

Te Whāriki has been described by Dalli (2011) as deeming “the teacher’s pedagogic role as creative and agentic, rather than reactive and prescribed by narrow curriculum goals” (p. 235). As a result, the next steps for the child’s learning are not predetermined by the curriculum, but rather are guided by the child’s perceived learning and development level as identified within the

29 assessment process. Alvestad and Duncan (2006) noted that Te Whāriki is considered a significant and important document that underpins teachers’ daily teaching practice at a philosophical level. The nine New Zealand based teachers involved in Alvestad and Duncan’s (2006) study did however raise some issues and concerns with Te Whāriki, including a perceived lack of guidance and direction regarding methods for implementing the curriculum.

The same comparative study was also used to explore how teachers bridge the gap between the curriculum and what they do in practice (Alvestad, Duncan & Berge, 2009). Findings suggest that teachers are aware of the need to identify and support children’s interests and to focus on individual children. Alvestad et al.’s findings highlight the complex nature of Te Whāriki and demonstrate the need for teachers to be skilled and adept at weaving a responsive curriculum for children in conjunction with colleagues, children and their families. Because Te

Whāriki is not a prescriptive curriculum, implementation requires skilled teachers, something which the authors of Te Whāriki noted could be a challenge for the sector (Carr & May, 1993).

2.4.3- Summary

The curriculum underpinning ECE provision, either performance based or competence based models, influences not just curriculum provision itself, but also the approach taken to assessment. While countries implementing performance based models of curriculum are likely to use assessment methods such as checklists and tests, those with competence based models of curriculum are more likely to use assessment methods which document children’s learning in the moment and to use the information gathered to inform planning. Te

30 Whāriki is a competence based curriculum model, and the assessment methods used by teachers should align with this focus. Contemporary New Zealand ECE teachers’ assessment practices will be specifically examined in Section 2.6, following a historical overview of prior assessment beliefs and practices.

2.5- New Zealand ECE Teachers’ Historical Assessment Beliefs