Case Study on a Child’s Play Running Record
A case study on a child’s play running record
The field of education has made tremendous gains over the years. These changes have been both covert and overt especially in the area of curriculum planning. The myriad studies done in this area have been precipitated by the fundamental role that education has played in society since time immemorial. One of the areas that has persistently benefited from this research is the teaching methodology. From the days of informal education to the contemporary highly technical age, there have been many changes in between most of which remnants can be seen even in the sophisticated modern methods. However, these developments have not been all smooth and again, this can be blamed on the special interest that society has in education. One of the most debated learning tools has been child’s play and though it has been incorporated in most modern curriculums, there are still conservative notions that this might not be very instrumental.
This case study employs a running record to analyze the effectiveness of child’s play and also to monitor the growth and development of the child. Running records have been used for a long time as very crucial learning assessment tools in language learning. They are commonly used in the first years of learning and teachers use their time recording and analyzing children records based on their performance. These analyses are then used for parent’s reports but more importantly, to organize children into achievement based programs (Goodman & Burke 1972). Running records originated from studies done in the 1960s especially by Marie Clay but at the time, the emphasis was on miscued analysis which can be termed as simplified forms of the later (Clay,1967). The running record used in this analysis will be decoded based on five fundamental areas namely; physical growth, social adjustment, mental growth, emotional growth and the child’s interests as outlined by (Muasen & Kagan, 1984).
The early years learning framework approves the child based play learning. This case has taken place in a normal setup of a playroom and the teacher does not interfere with the choice of play. The sense of belonging in a group is seen in the other children but our character is not portraying this. The sense of being an independent and creative person is nonetheless reflected as an outcome. The two have learnt to socialize but in a cooperative manner. These outcomes can all be taught by an educator from the observed play based experience. The Australian curriculum framework is followed in our school set up example. The children have been given ample time to play while at school. This is one of the methods recommended in the guidelines. The curriculum looks into ways of promoting and supporting respectful relationships (Sue, 2009). This is by helping the child feel a sense of belonging, see herself as a contributor to the community, engage in relationship of respect and caring. Jane needs to be indulged into better ways in terms of relating to her peers. The curriculum also appreciates the efficacy of the communication process, working and collaborating together. This is as a means of coming up with new ideas, progressing in life, being innovative and creative in thinking and further attaining the knowhow of solving problems (Eileen and Lynn,2009). Jane has a creative thinking that should be nurtured by the educator for her to progress in life. The educator can further assist the children to generating new ideas during the play and assist them to work as a team. This is focused in upgrading the social skills of a child. The curriculum further appreciates the concept underlying making connections and meaning. Jane is imaginative in the shop deal and the teacher should pursue to create meaning in the activity and connect the small ideas that...
References: Ann, M. and Kathryn, W. 2010, Beginnings and Beyond: Foundations in Early Childhood Education Whatās New in Early Childhood Series, 8th Ed. Cengage Learning, Columbia.
Berk, L, 2005. Infants, Children, and Adolescents, Allyn & Bacons, Boston.
Carol G. and Jane B. 2011, Early Childhood Education, 4th Ed. Cengage Learning, Columbia.
Eileen A. and Lynn R. M. 2009, Developmental profiles: pre-birth through twelve, 6th Ed. Cengage Learning, Columbia.
Eva, L. E. 2010, Introduction to Early Childhood Education Whatās New in Early Childhood Series, 6th Ed., Cengage Learning, Columbia.
Fountas, Irene. C, & Pinnel, 1996, Guided Reading; Good First Teaching for All
Gross, F. L, 1987, Introducing Erik Erikson: An invitation to his thinking, University Press of America, Lanham, MD.
Janette, B. B. & Marshall M. H. 2009, Social and Emotional Development in Infancy and Early Childhood Encyclopedia of Infant and Early Childhood Development, Academic Press, America.
Kail, R. E, 2006, Children and Their Development (4 ed.), Prentice Hall, UK.
Muasen, Conger & Kagan.( 1984). Child Development and Personality, (6th ed) Harper E Row, New York.
Nature, Nurture, and Early Brain Development, (2000). University of Missouri; Columbia.
Patterson, C. 2008, Child Development, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Sue C. W. 2009, Early Childhood Curriculum: Developmental Bases for Learning and Teaching 5th Ed. Pearson, America.
Vygotsky, 1998, Child psychology: The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 5. Problems of the theory and history of psychology, Plenum, New York.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document