TCHR5010: Competency and capability of Preschoolers Portfolio

TCHR5010:
Competency and capability of Preschoolers
Assessment Two: Portfolio
(Deferred Placement)
Information Booklet
Assessment name: Portfolio of planning cycle
Due Date: Monday 10th June (WEEK 7) 11:59pm
Weighting: 60%
Length: 2000 words

TCHR5010 Competency and Capability of Preschoolers: Assessment 2 Portfolio Guide

Introduction to TCHR5010 Assessment 2

Students completing TCHR5010 Competency and Capability of Preschoolers who are undertaking deferred placement will find Assessment 2 — the Portfolio of Planning Cycle — one of the most practically grounded assessments in the entire early childhood teacher education program. The portfolio asks students to demonstrate their capacity to observe, document, plan for, and critically reflect on preschool children’s learning and development through the structured lens of the planning cycle and in direct response to an ethical dilemma in early childhood practice. Educators who can execute this cycle with rigour and sensitivity are demonstrating the core professional competency that distinguishes an effective early childhood teacher from one who is merely managing a room.

The assessment comprises two tasks: Task 1, an anecdotal record and learning experience plan based on video observation of preschoolers; and Task 2, a reflective response to a real-world ethical dilemma in an early childhood setting. Both tasks must be submitted as one document, submitted via Turnitin, and are assessed according to the rubric provided in the assessment information booklet.

Task 1: Anecdotal Record and Learning Experience Plan

Writing a Strong Anecdotal Record

The anecdotal record is the foundational document in the early childhood planning cycle, yet it is frequently misunderstood or poorly executed by preservice teachers. An effective anecdotal record is not a general description of what a group of children did — it is a precise, objective, and theoretically informed observation of an individual child’s specific actions, language, and interactions during a defined period of time. Students completing TCHR5010 who want to produce anecdotal records that meet Distinction and High Distinction criteria must resist the temptation to write interpretively from the outset and must instead discipline themselves to describe what they observe before drawing analytical inferences (Sims & Hutchins, 2020).

A strong anecdotal record based on the TCHR5010 video observation will include: the child’s name or pseudonym, age in years and months, the date and context of the observation, a verbatim transcription of the child’s language where relevant, detailed description of the child’s gestures, motor actions, and engagement with materials, and an accurate record of peer and adult interactions. The analytical component — connecting the observation to EYLF Learning Outcomes, theoretical frameworks, and NQS quality areas — belongs in the “Learning Analysis” or “Interpretation” section of the observation template, separated from the descriptive record. This structural distinction between description and interpretation is one of the most important disciplinary conventions in early childhood pedagogical documentation (Fleer & Raban, 2020).

Connecting Observation to Theory, EYLF, and NQS

Preschool children aged three to five years exhibit developmental capacities that, while variable across individual children, share certain broad characteristics that students of TCHR5010 should be able to identify and theorise. At this age, children are typically in Vygotsky’s phase of intense socio-dramatic play — using symbolic substitution, narrative structure, and collaborative role assignment to organise their social experience and rehearse their cultural knowledge (Fleer & Raban, 2020). When a child in the video assigns roles (“You be the doctor and I’ll be the patient”), negotiates the terms of the shared narrative (“No, the patient has to stay in bed!”), and maintains the narrative across multiple interruptions and redirections, they are demonstrating capacities that align with EYLF Learning Outcome 2 (Children are connected with and contribute to their world) and Outcome 5 (Children are effective communicators) simultaneously.

The NQS Quality Areas most directly relevant to a preschool learning experience plan are Quality Area 1 (Educational Program and Practice) and Quality Area 3 (Physical Environment). QA1 requires that the educational program be based on ongoing assessments of each child’s learning and development; the planning cycle, from which this task takes its name, is the mechanism through which that requirement is met in practice (ACECQA, 2020). A learning experience plan that does not draw explicitly and specifically on what was observed in the anecdotal record — that could have been written without observing the child — fails to demonstrate the responsive, child-centred planning that QA1 requires.

Developing the Learning Experience Plan

The learning experience plan for Assessment 2 should flow directly from the anecdotal record, identifying and extending the specific interests, competencies, and developmental edges observed in the video. It should include: a clear learning intention connected to specific EYLF Learning Outcomes; a description of the resources, environment, and educator role; anticipated learning and links to the Australian Curriculum Foundation level where relevant; and a brief rationale drawing on scholarly sources that explains why this particular experience is developmentally appropriate for preschool-aged children. Students who are able to draw on specific research — for example, citing Verdine et al. (2017) on the link between spatial play and mathematical reasoning when planning a construction-based experience — demonstrate the kind of evidence-informed planning that distinguishes outstanding early childhood practice from competent but unreflective care.

Task 2: Reflective Practice and Ethical Dilemmas

Approaching Ethical Dilemmas in Early Childhood Settings

Early childhood educators encounter ethically complex situations regularly — situations in which the interests, rights, and wellbeing of different stakeholders are in tension, where regulatory requirements and professional values do not point unambiguously in the same direction, and where there is no formula that resolves the dilemma cleanly. The four ethical dilemmas provided for TCHR5010 Assessment 2 are drawn from real-world scenarios in Australian early childhood centres, and students should treat them with the seriousness they deserve. An ethical dilemma is not a straightforward problem with a correct answer; it is a situation that requires educators to draw on professional frameworks, scholarly evidence, and their own values to construct a considered and defensible response (Early Childhood Australia, 2016).

The Early Childhood Australia Code of Ethics (2016) provides the professional framework within which all ethical decision-making in Australian ECEC should occur. It identifies four primary areas of ethical responsibility — to children, to families, to colleagues, and to communities — and acknowledges that these responsibilities may sometimes conflict in practice. When they do, the code places the wellbeing and rights of children as the primary obligation, while requiring that practitioners engage in genuine and respectful dialogue with families and colleagues before acting unilaterally. Students responding to Assessment 2’s ethical dilemma should demonstrate fluency with the Code’s principles and an ability to apply them to the specific stakeholder tensions presented in their chosen scenario (Early Childhood Australia, 2016).

The NQS and EYLF provide additional frameworks for ethical reflection. Quality Area 6, which addresses collaborative partnerships with families and communities, specifies that families must be treated as partners in decisions affecting their children — a requirement that may be in tension with confidentiality obligations or with assessments of risk to child wellbeing in some scenarios. Students who can navigate these tensions thoughtfully, drawing on multiple frameworks rather than applying a single rule, will produce responses that meet the highest assessment criteria for Task 2.

The Professional Significance of the Planning Cycle for Preschool Educators

The planning cycle that TCHR5010 Assessment 2 asks students to demonstrate — observe, document, analyse, plan, implement, review — is not merely an academic exercise; it is the professional infrastructure of quality early childhood teaching. Research consistently demonstrates that services in which educators engage in systematic, theoretically informed observation and planning cycles produce measurably stronger learning outcomes for children across all developmental domains, with effects particularly pronounced for children from disadvantaged backgrounds (Sylva et al., 2020). The capacity to write a strong anecdotal record, develop a responsive learning experience plan, and reflect critically on an ethical dilemma are not discrete assessment skills — they are the foundations of a professional practice that will serve children, families, and communities throughout a teaching career. Students who invest genuine effort in developing these capacities during preservice education are investing in the educators they are becoming.

References

Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2020). Guide to the National Quality Framework. https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/about/guide

Australian Government Department of Education (AGDE). (2022). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia (V2.0). https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-01/EYLF-2022-V2.0.pdf

Early Childhood Australia. (2016). Code of ethics. Early Childhood Australia. https://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/our-publications/eca-code-of-ethics/

Fleer, M., & Raban, B. (2020). Early childhood education and care: Building a future. Cambridge University Press.

Sims, M., & Hutchins, T. (2020). Program planning for infants and toddlers (3rd ed.). Pademelon Press.

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj, I., & Taggart, B. (2020). Effective pre-school, primary and secondary education project (EPPSE 3–16). Institute of Education, University of London.

Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2017). Links between spatial and mathematical skills across the preschool years. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 82(1), 1–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12280