English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In recent years sociocultural theory has provided an important conceptual tool for re-thinking many practices in early childhood education (e.g. Anning, Cullen &amp; Fleer, 2004; Edwards, 2001; Edwards, 2003). While much has been gained, many taken-for-granted practices still remain in need of critique. Although the term ‘Child Development’ has been debated in the past (see collection of papers in Fleer, 1995; Keesing-Styles &amp; Hedges, in press; Lubeck, 1996; 1998), we have not seen the emergence of a new approach or world view to replace it Ten years have passed, and we still find national materials which foreground Western middle-class notions of development (e.g. Responses to the National Agenda for Early Childhood, Australian Government, 2003). This paper seeks to stimulate debate within Australia and New Zealand around the term ‘Child Development’. Responses are invited so that the historical and cultural legacy of that term can be examined and a new term introduced which recognises our culturally and linguistically diverse communities. It is through public debate that we can as a scholarly community build new terminology to name and make visible new thinking.

Developmental Fossils—Unearthing the Artefacts of Early Childhood Education: The Reification of ‘Child Development’