Argument stated that early childhood curriculum needs to be analyzed because the old curriculum was introduced by another culture. “Early childhood curriculum as defined by Haliwell is also called “cultural construction work” (Ashby, Grieshaber, p 127) and trading post between boundaries of culture, generations, and sexes (Ashby, Greishaber, p 128). ” Consideration is given to the child centered education in order to answer the questions on what to be taught, who decides and who are the learners to develop childhood curriculum into “person-making” (p128). 2.
Is the statement of the problem clear in the beginning to the end? The readings concluded that early education in the past did not respond to the changing circumstances (p. 139) makes it unclear since the circumstance of Australia is becoming a nation with multi-racial population contradict the point that traditional education in the past brought by European countries and the west did not respond to change. Statement is incoherent towards a universal outlook or people go through a phase of “inculturation “which if traced back came out from the west or European in origin.
3. Evidences that support the arguments which is leading to the conclusion. The argument is to consider the present trend with regards also to the so called child centered learning elaborated in the examples by the PCF (see pages 137-138). However, it did not provide other evidence on the effects of the child centered learning option which undermines classroom behavioral patterns or the teacher and pupil relationship. 4. Relevance of the evidence that support argument is it up to date?
Moreover, it criticizes that the old or early childhood programs legitimated diverse cultural viewpoints (page 138). Evidence gathered to answer the question about who to teach and be thought and what should be taught was not very well implicated in the succeeding arguments although it discusses on the aboriginal culture of the nation. 5. Is there sufficient evidence to prove the case? Relevance? What is missing? The argument is to determine the best approach in the present childhood curriculum.
However, there are no sufficient evidences if the past or the present trends are successful. 6. What (if any) would be a better order to present to strengthen the line of reasoning? The paper is to consider the methods of teaching early childhood education. What is missing are the comparative analysis or the pros and cons of both the early trend and the new trend which is child-centered. The argument discussed several avenues of conflict especially when culture, sex and generation gaps are examined.
7. Are there examples of flawed reasoning? Attempts to persuade the reader through an appeal to the emotions? Is evidence interpreted and used correctly? The reader is appealed to the emotion of seeking identity to a fast changing world and competencies in teaching (page 137-138). Article did not answer the question on how early childhood education should be taught in Australia. Further there is no conclusion for instance concluding that Child centered pedagogy must also become teacher focused.