TCHR3001: Early Childhood Matters
Summary
Title Assessment 1
Type Critical Review
Due Date Saturday, 23rd March at 11:59 pm AEST/AEDT (end of Week 3)
Length 1500 words
Weighting 50%
Academic Integrity GenAI may NOT be used in this task
Under the Rules – Student Academic and Non-Academic Misconduct
Rules (Section 3) students have the right to Appeal against the Academic
Integrity Officers academic misconduct Determination, to the Executive
Dean, with that determination being final and conclusive, and not subject to
further Appeal within the University. Students are not able to appeal
against academic misconduct via the Unit Assessor or unit staff.
Submission Word document submitted to Turnitin (do NOT submit PDF documents)
Unit Learning Outcomes This assessment task maps to the following ULOs:
• ULO1: Identify a range of issues important to early childhood education and care
• ULO2: Analyse a range of positions highlighted in authoritative literature on contemporary issues related to early childhood education and care
• ULO3: Critically reflect on their personal approach/philosophy of learning, development and teaching within early childhood education and care in relation to contemporary issues
• ULO4: Argue a position on current issues in early childhood education and care, in relation to the literature
Rationale
As an early childhood teacher your beliefs form the basis of your early childhood philosophy. How you implement this philosophy within your teaching practice will be influenced by a range of issues within your local community.
Task Description
Referring to the issues presented in Modules 1 to 3, and drawing on a range of current, scholarly literature, write your philosophy of early childhood, critically reviewing your approach to learning, curriculum development and teaching. Your critical review should address all the relevant issues in Modules 1 to 3.
Task Instructions
Drawing on a range of relevant current, scholarly literature and the issues addressed in Module 1 to 3 of this unit:
1
• Part 1: Create a personal philosophy that outlines your approach to learning, child development, and teaching in relation to the issues presented in Modules 1 – 3 (500 words).
• Part 2: Critically review your outlined approach, justifying why and how your personal philosophy best addresses all the relevant issues in early childhood teaching setting in Australia identified in Modules 1 to 3 (1000 words).
Please note:
• Both parts of this task can be written in first person (“I” statements) or third person, however you need to be consistent over the task in the tense and person you use.
• All areas of your responses to this task need to be supported by relevant and current scholarly literature. This means you need to cite relevant and current (within the last 10 years) literature that supports what you are saying throughout your writing.
• Please refer to your rubric for the literature that you MUST include in each of your responses.
• Please remember that you must use scholarly literature in this task.
Please refer to the following documents to support you in addressing this task:
General:
• How to Incorporate Evidence into Your Writing – https://www.scu.edu.au/media/scudep/current-students/learning-zone/quick-
guides/how_to_incorporate_evidence_into_your_writing.pdf
• Summarising and Paraphrasing – https://www.scu.edu.au/media/scu-dep/currentstudents/learning-zone/quick-guides/summarising_and_paraphrasing.pdf
Part 1:
• Please ensure you refer to the example philosophy statements provided in your unit workshop.
Part 2:
• Look at the meaning of ‘justify’ in the following document – https://www.scu.edu.au/media/scu-dep/current-students/learning-zone/quickguides/common_instruction_words.pdf
• Writing Paragraphs (PEEL method) – https://www.scu.edu.au/media/scu-dep/currentstudents/learning-zone/quick-guides/writing_paragraphs.pdf
• Planning and Writing Body Paragraphs (using the PEEL method) – https://www.scu.edu.au/media/scu-dep/current-students/learning-zone/quickguides/planning_and_writing_body_paragraphs.pdf
Formatting and style
APA 7 formatting is required for this task.
• Include a cover page that contains:
o The title of the task in bold o Your name (as author) and Student ID o Your faculty (Faculty of Education, Southern Cross University) o The unit code and name (TCHR3001 Early Childhood Matters) o Your unit assessor’s name (Kelly Simpson) o The due date
• Include a title or the prompt at the start of each response.
2
• Students may use headings that align with the task instructions to organise their responses.
• Indent the first line of each new paragraph.
• Use 12-point Arial font.
• Double line space your written response and your reference list
Referencing
• APA Referencing style is required to be used for this task.
• Include one reference list for both responses on a new page at the end of task. Place the title References in bold in the centre at the top of this page.
• At a minimum, your sources for this task will include the EYLF (AGDE, 2022), the NQS (ACECQA, 2023), a range of unit materials, and broader current (last 10 years) scholarly literature.
• Broader literature may include textbooks, peer reviewed articles, and published newspaper and/or media articles by reputable sources (for example, the ABC, The Conversation, Early Childhood Australia)
• You need to include at least 10 current scholarly references in your response to this task as well as the EYLF (AGDE, 2022), NQS (ACECQA, 2023) and a range of unit materials.
Resources
• Academic Integrity – https://www.scu.edu.au/about/leadership/executive/academicportfolio-office-apo/academic-integrity-framework/
• SCU Student Learning Zone – https://www.scu.edu.au/current-students/learning-zone/
• The Early Years Learning Framework – https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/202301/EYLF-2022-V2.0.pdf
• National Quality Standard – https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/national-quality-standard
• Guide to the National Quality Framework (including the National Quality Standards) – https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/about/guide
Referencing Style Resource
Please refer to the APA 7th Referencing Guide for this task – https://libguides.scu.edu.au/apa
Task Submission
• Your task should be submitted using the submission point in the Turnitin folder titled Assessment 1: Critical Review in the Assessments Tasks and Submission section on the Blackboard TCHR3001 site. Only Microsoft Word documents submitted via the Turnitin portal on Blackboard will be accepted. You must label your final submission with your surname and initials and the assessment task’s name, e.g. SmithJ_CriticalReview.doc
• You are strongly advised to undertake your own SIMILARITY CHECK via Turnitin, PRIOR to the due date, to identify and resolve any academic integrity issues prior to submitting – see SCU Academic Integrity and Turnitin. You can submit up to three times and receive the similarity match report immediately – after three attempts, you will need to wait 24 hours.
• It is YOUR responsibility to ensure that you have submitted the correct file and the FINAL version of your assessment for marking BEFORE the due date/time.
• Turnitin does not generate an automatic email receipt. If you have successfully uploaded your assessment, a green bar will appear at the top of the screen that says: Submission
3
uploaded successfully: Download digital receipt. Use the hyperlink to download your digital receipt and store this with your assignment file.
• If you have any difficulty submitting your assignment, please contact Technology Services and make sure that you log a job with them, so you have evidence of your attempted submission. To avoid any last-minute problems, make sure you submit well before 11:59pm on the due date.
Academic Integrity
At Southern Cross University academic integrity means behaving with the values of honesty, fairness, trustworthiness, courage, responsibility, and respect in relation to academic work.
The Southern Cross University Academic Integrity Framework aims to develop a holistic, systematic, and consistent approach to addressing academic integrity across the entire University. For more information see the SCU Academic Integrity Framework
NOTE: Academic Integrity breaches include poor referencing, not identifying direct quotations correctly, close paraphrasing, plagiarism, recycling, misrepresentation, collusion, cheating, contract cheating, fabricating information.
Instructions for this task
GenAI May Not be Used
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools, such as ChatGPT, must NOT be used for this Assessment Task.
You are required to demonstrate if you have developed the unit’s skills and knowledge without the support of GenAI. Grammarly (but NOT GrammarlyGo) may be used to review your task and make changes to grammar or punctuation or to single words however it must NOT be used to re-write sentences or paragraphs.
Please note that GenAI tools include a range of translation tools. It is the responsibility of students to ensure that any translation tool they are using is not a GenAI tool. Students are encouraged to write their work without the support of translation tools for this reason.
If you use GenAI tools in your assessment task, it may result in an academic integrity breach against you as described in the Student Academic and Non-Academic Misconduct Rules, Section 3.
Under the Rules – Student Academic and Non-Academic Misconduct Rules (Section 3) students have the right to Appeal against the Academic Integrity Officers academic misconduct Determination, to the Executive Dean, with that determination being final and conclusive, and not subject to further Appeal within the University. Students are not able to appeal against academic misconduct via the Unit Assessor or unit staff.
Special Consideration
Please refer to the Special Consideration section of Policy https://policies.scu.edu.au/document/view-current.php?id=140
Late Submissions & Penalties
Please refer to the Late Submission & Penalties section of Policy https://policies.scu.edu.au/view.current.php?id=00255
Grades & Feedback
4
Assessments that have been submitted by the due date will receive an SCU grade. Grades and feedback will be posted to the ‘Grades and Feedback’ section on the Blackboard unit site. Please allow 7 days for marks to be posted.
Resubmission
There are NO resubmissions available for either of the tasks in this unit. Requests for resubmission of either task will be declined in line with the SCU Assessment, Teaching and Learning Procedure – https://policies.scu.edu.au/view.current.php?id=00255
Assessment Criteria
See the marking rubric for the marking criteria and grading standards.
… continued on next page….
5
Assessment Rubric
Marking
Criteria and % allocation High Distinction
+
100% High Distinction (85–99%) Distinction (75–84%) Credit (65–74%) Pass (50–64%)
Marginal Fail
(35-49%) Fail
(1-34%) Not
Addressed
(0%)
Criterion 1:
Part 1,
Philosophy – The impact of relevant issues from Module 1 to 3 on the teaching and learning approaches of an early childhood professional in the Australian early childhood education and care context is identified. 10% Achieves all the criteria for a high distinction to an exemplary standard. The impact of relevant issues from Module 1 to 3 on the teaching and learning approaches of an Australian ECEC professional outlined is outstanding and always relevant to the issues being considered. The impact of relevant issues from Module 1 to 3 on the teaching and learning approaches of an Australian ECEC
professional is outlined at an excellent level. How each issue impacts the professional’s approach to teaching and learning is excellently considered, very relevant to the issues being addressed, and relevance to the Australian The impact of relevant issues from Module 1 to 3 on the teaching and learning approaches of an Australian ECEC
professional is outlined at a very good level. How each issue impacts the professional’s approach to teaching and learning is meaningfully considered, clearly relevant to the issues being addressed, and clearly relevant The impact of relevant issues from Module 1 to 3 on the teaching and learning approaches of an Australian ECEC
professional is outlined. How each issue impacts the professional’s approach to teaching and learning is considered, relevant to the issues being addressed, and relevant to an Australian
ECEC setting. The impact of at least two relevant issues from Module 1 to 3 on the teaching and learning approaches of an Australian ECEC
professional is outlined. How the issues impact the professional’s approach to teaching and learning is identified basically, shows relevance to the issues being addressed, and would be The impact of one or more relevant issues from Module 1 to 3 on the teaching and learning approaches of an Australian ECEC
professional is outlined in a limited way or only one relevant Module 1 to 3 issue was addressed. How the issues impact the professional’s approach to teaching and learning is unclear, not identified or The impact of relevant issues from Module 1 to 3 on the teaching and learning approaches of an Australian ECEC professional is not outlined. Not attempted
ECEC setting is very evident. to an Australian
ECEC setting. suitable in an Australian
ECEC setting. needs development, and/or shows limited or no relevance to the issues being addressed, and/or may not be suitable in an Australian ECEC setting.
Criterion 2
Part 1,
Philosophy – The philosophy is supported by at least 4 relevant scholarly literature sources. 10% Achieves all the criteria for a high distinction, with consistently outstanding integration of a range of very relevant scholarly literature sources with no errors.
Philosophy is supported by at least 4 relevant, scholarly literature sources that are meaningfully integrated throughout the philosophy.
Philosophy is supported by at least 4 relevant, scholarly literature sources that are integrated over the philosophy.
Philosophy is supported by at least 4 relevant, scholarly literature sources that meaningfully support the philosophy.
Philosophy is supported by at least 4 relevant, scholarly literature sources that are relevant to the philosophy.
Philosophy does not include at least 4 scholarly literature sources and/or all or most sources cited are not scholarly.
Literature is not cited in the philosophy and/or literature sources used are not relevant to the philosophy presented or are invalid. No attempted.
Criterion 3:
Part 2, Critical
Review – Achieves all the criteria for a high distinction, with Excellent justification of the teaching and learning approaches Very good
justification of the teaching and learning approaches Good
justification of the teaching and learning approaches Satisfactory justification of the teaching and learning approaches Limited justification of the teaching and learning approaches An appropriate justification of teaching and learning approaches outlined in the philosophy is Not attempted
An appropriate justification for the teaching and learning approaches discussed in the philosophy is outlined with reference to the appropriate issues from Module 1 to 3 and using relevant scholarly literature to support points. 10% outstanding justification of the teaching and learning approaches outlined in the philosophy provided with outstanding consideration of the relevant issues from Modules 1 to 3 that underpin these approaches evident, and all points supported by range of relevant scholarly
literature at an exemplary standard.
outlined in the philosophy provided with very clear consideration of the relevant issues from Modules 1 to 3 that underpin these approaches evident, and all points supported by a range of relevant scholarly literature.
outlined in the philosophy provided with clear consideration of the relevant issues from Modules 1 to 3 that underpin these approaches evident, and all points supported by relevant scholarly literature.
outlined in the philosophy provided with clear consideration of the relevant issues from Modules 1 to 3 that underpin these approaches evident, and all points supported by relevant scholarly literature.
outlined in the philosophy provided with satisfactory consideration of the relevant issues from Modules 1 to 3 that underpin these approaches evident, and some points supported by relevant scholarly literature. outlined in the philosophy provided with limited consideration of the relevant issues from Modules 1 to 3 that underpin these approaches evident, and limited points supported by relevant scholarly literature. OR a combination of the above. OR no support from scholarly literature OR relevant discussion instead of justification provided.
not provided and/or the discussion/justification is not relevant to the philosophy and/or does not consider the underpinning issues from Modules 1 – 3 and/or literature sources used to support justification are not relevant or are invalid.
Criterion 4:
Part 2, Critical
Review – Achieves all the criteria for a high distinction, The critical review of the
issues reflects
deep The critical review of the issues reflects very good The critical review of the
issues reflects
good The critical review of the issues reflects satisfactory The critical review of the issues reflects limited No engagement with the EYLF (AGDE, 2023), NQS (ACECQA,
2023) and/or unit Not attempted.
The critical review of the philosophy demonstrates
engagement
with the unit learning materials/areas (including learning areas covered in
tutorials) and is supported by at least 6 relevant scholarly literature sources including the EYLF (AGDE,
2023) and NQS
(ACECQA,
2023). 10%
with consistently outstanding integration of a range of very relevant scholarly literature sources and unit learning materials/areas with no errors.
engagement with the EYLF (AGDE, 2023),
NQS (ACECQA, 2023), and unit materials/areas as well as a range of current scholarly
literature with a minimum of 6 relevant scholarly sources integrated within the review. engagement with the EYLF (AGDE, 2023),
NQS (ACECQA, 2023), and unit materials/areas as well as a range of current scholarly
literature with a minimum of 6 relevant scholarly sources integrated within the review. engagement with the EYLF (AGDE, 2023),
NQS (ACECQA, 2023), and unit materials/areas as well as some current scholarly
literature with a minimum of 6 relevant scholarly sources supporting the review. engagement with the EYLF (AGDE, 2023),
NQS (ACECQA, 2023), and unit materials/areas with a minimum of 6 relevant scholarly sources cited in the review. engagement with the EYLF (AGDE, 2023),
NQS (ACECQA, 2023), and unit materials/areas with at least 3 relevant scholarly sources cited in the review. OR a relevant critical review that is not supported by relevant scholarly literature. learning materials/areas and/or the critical review is not supported by relevant scholarly literature and/or the literature cited is not relevant and/or is invalid.
Criterion 5: Standard of writing and presentation – spelling, punctuation, grammar, paragraph Achieves all the criteria for a high distinction to an exemplary standard, without any errors. Excellent standard of writing and presentation with no errors
in spelling, punctuation, grammar, Very good standard of writing and presentation with very minor and very inconsistent errors in Good standard of writing and presentation with some minor and inconsistent errors in one or two areas of Satisfactory standard of writing and presentation with errors in most areas of spelling, punctuation, Poor standard of writing and presentation with consistent errors in most/all areas of spelling, punctuation, Significant
improvement needed in writing and presentation with consistent errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, paragraph Not attempted.
structure, appropriate word count, APA 7th referencing. 10% paragraph structure, or APA 7th referencing. Word count within +/- 10% of the set word count. spelling and punctuation and grammar and paragraph structure and APA 7th referencing. Word count within +/- 10% of the set word count. spelling or punctuation or grammar or paragraph structure, or APA 7th referencing. Word count within +/- 10% of the set word count. grammar, paragraph structure, APA 7th referencing
– Or –
Consistent errors in one or two of the above areas – and/or – Word count over/under +/- 10% of the set word count.
grammar, paragraph structure, and APA 7th referencing – and/or – Word count significantly under or over +/- 10% of the set word count for the task structure, and APA 7th referencing
10
Description of SCU Grades
High Distinction:
The student’s performance, in addition to satisfying all of the basic learning requirements, demonstrates distinctive insight and ability in researching, analysing and applying relevant skills and concepts, and shows exceptional ability to synthesise, integrate and evaluate knowledge. The student’s performance could be described as outstanding in relation to the learning requirements specified.
Distinction:
The student’s performance, in addition to satisfying all of the basic learning requirements, demonstrates distinctive insight and ability in researching, analysing and applying relevant skills and concepts, and shows a well-developed ability to synthesise, integrate and evaluate knowledge. The student’s performance could be described as distinguished in relation to the learning requirements specified.
Credit:
The student’s performance, in addition to satisfying all of the basic learning requirements specified, demonstrates insight and ability in researching, analysing and applying relevant skills and concepts. The student’s performance could be described as competent in relation to the learning requirements specified.
Pass:
The student’s performance satisfies all of the basic learning requirements specified and provides a sound basis for proceeding to higher-level studies in the subject area. The student’s performance could be described as satisfactory in relation to the learning requirements specified.
Fail:
The student’s performance fails to satisfy the learning requirements specified.
11
- WE OFFER THE BEST CUSTOM PAPER WRITING SERVICES. WE HAVE DONE THIS QUESTION BEFORE, WE CAN ALSO DO IT FOR YOU.
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS
QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO ChatGPT.NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER
Looking for unparalleled custom paper writing services? Our team of experienced professionals at AcademicWritersBay.com is here to provide you with top-notch assistance that caters to your unique needs.
We understand the importance of producing original, high-quality papers that reflect your personal voice and meet the rigorous standards of academia. That’s why we assure you that our work is completely plagiarism-free—we craft bespoke solutions tailored exclusively for you.
Why Choose AcademicWritersBay.com?
- Our papers are 100% original, custom-written from scratch.
- We’re here to support you around the clock, any day of the year.
- You’ll find our prices competitive and reasonable.
- We handle papers across all subjects, regardless of urgency or difficulty.
- Need a paper urgently? We can deliver within 6 hours!
- Relax with our on-time delivery commitment.
- We offer money-back and privacy guarantees to ensure your satisfaction and confidentiality.
- Benefit from unlimited amendments upon request to get the paper you envisioned.
- We pledge our dedication to meeting your expectations and achieving the grade you deserve.
Our Process: Getting started with us is as simple as can be. Here’s how to do it:
- Click on the “Place Your Order” tab at the top or the “Order Now” button at the bottom. You’ll be directed to our order form.
- Provide the specifics of your paper in the “PAPER DETAILS” section.
- Select your academic level, the deadline, and the required number of pages.
- Click on “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to provide your registration details, then “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT.”
- Follow the simple payment instructions and soon, our writers will be hard at work on your paper.
AcademicWritersBay.com is dedicated to expediting the writing process without compromising on quality. Our roster of writers boasts individuals with advanced degrees—Masters and PhDs—in a myriad of disciplines, ensuring that no matter the complexity or field of your assignment, we have the expertise to tackle it with finesse. Our quick turnover doesn’t mean rushed work; it means efficiency and priority handling, ensuring your deadlines are met with the excellence your academics demand.
