Assessment name:

Portfolio of planning cycle

Due Date:

Friday 13 June 11:59pm

Weighting:

50%

Length:

2000 words

Task Description:

This Portfolio is comprised of two tasks. You must submit your assessment as one document.

Task 1: Anecdotal record and learning experience

Anecdotal record

View the video of pre-schoolers provided under the link "Video for Assessment 2" and complete a detailed anecdotal record of the childrens learning (use the template provided).

The link for the video is also here: https://youtu.be/sjon4rRQ_08

Learning experience plan

Based on the anecdotal record, write a plan on the planning template of a learning experience to follow up on and enhance the pre-school children's learning and development.

Task 2: Reflective practice

This is a real-world project based on scenarios or ethical dilemmas that you are likely to encounter in your professional work with preschoolers. It is important that you develop skills and understanding of these issues, and reflect on how to address them, with reference to your theoretical understanding, the National Quality Standards (NQS), the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) and current research in the field.

Background for the scenario

You are the trained teacher in a room with 25 children aged 3-5 years. The other educators in the room include one trained with a Diploma in Children's Services, Michelle, and the other educator, Zarla, is working towards Certificate III in Children's Services. Your centre is open for ten and a half hours per day from 7.30am until 6pm. You work full time on a variety of eight-hour shifts. The centre is licensed for 79 children and is a for-profit early learning centre.

Scenario

One of the children, Ishmael, in your room, who is 4.0 years old, sleeps for one hour per day at your centre. The child arrives at the centre every morning at 7.45am and is picked up at 5.45pm five days per week. Both parents work full time. The parents come to you, as the teacher in the preschool room, and say they do not want Ishmael to sleep anymore at the centre because she is not going to sleep at home until 11pm. They need their sleep, as they are both busy working. How do you respond to the parents, and what do you do to ensure that the parents and the children are achieving the best outcomes possible? Address the unit material, the relevant principles of the EYLF V2.0 (AGDE, 2022) and the NQS (ACECQA, 2018)- especially Quality areas 1, 2 and 6.

Referencing and formatting

APA Referencing style is required to be used for this task

Include one reference list for all responses on a new page at the end of task

A minimum of 8 (eight) academic sources are to be included in the reference list

At a minimum, your sources for this task will include the EYLF v2.0 (AGDE, 2022), NQS (ACECQA, 2018), the unit text, and a range of broader authoritative literature. Broader literature may include contemporary textbooks, peer reviewed articles, and other authoritative sources

Formatting: Use APA 7 formatting throughout (this includes indented paragraphs, double-lined spacing). No contents page is needed for this task.

Referencing Style Resource

About APA 7th - APA 7th Referencing Guide - Library guides at Southern Cross University (scu.edu.au)

Resources

National Quality Standard https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/national-quality-standard

Early Years Learning Framework https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023- 01/EYLF-2022-V2.0.pdf

Details of the Unit text are available via the Orientation Module on the unit Blackboard site.

Support Resources

Academic Integrity SCU guidelines

Academic Integrity Module - mandatory module for first year students Learning Zone workshops, Quick Guides, student appointments

Submission

You must include and complete in full the provided SCU coversheet as part of your submission (this can be found in the Assessment task folder on the TCHR5010 unit Blackboard site).

Submission of your assessment is via TURNITIN. The submission link can be found in the

Assessment Tasks and Submission Tab in the TCHR5010 Blackboard site.

Please note:

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.

After you have followed the TurnItin submission it is essential you download the Digital Receipt.

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.

Late Submission/Extension

Please refer to the Special Consideration section of Policy https://policies.scu.edu.au/document/view-current.php?id=140

Students wishing to request special consideration to extend the due date of an assessment task must submit a Request for Special Consideration form via their My Enrolment page as early as possible and prior to the original due date for that assessment task, along with any accompanying documents, such as medical certificates.

Late Submissions & Penalties

Please refer to the Late Submission & Penalties section of Policy

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.

For this task: Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools, such as Grammarly Premium, may be used ethically for this Assessment Task. However, you must write in your own words and provide appropriate references (APA 7). Then, to further refine your assessment you are allowed to use AI tools such as Grammarly and Copilot to check your grammar, spelling and punctuation.

You must acknowledge any GenAI usage, identify what has been used and how, and provide relevant evidence (e.g., screen shots) in an appendix.

If you use GenAI tools without acknowledgment it may result in an academic integrity breach against you as described in the Student Academic and Non-Academic Misconduct Rules, Section 3.

For example: You may use Grammarly Premium to provide feedback and suggestions on your writing for academic tone, written expression, grammar, Australian English spelling, and punctuation. You must not use GenAI to generate ideas for this assessment task. If you choose to use these tools, you must include an appendix to demonstrate your work prior to using GenAI.

NOTE : Academic Integrity breaches include poor referencing, not identifying direct quotations correctly, close paraphrasing, plagiarism, recycling, misrepresentation, collusion, cheating, contract cheating, fabricating information.

Grades and Feedback

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 10 days following submission for marks to be available.

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

(0- 49%)

Not addressed (0%)

Task 1: Anecdotal record and learning experience (45%) Articulation of the planning cycle.

Anecdotal record shows evidence of understanding childrens learning and

development with links to theory, the EYLF and NQS.

Demonstrates planning for Preschoolers learning and development, interests and competencies with links to the EYLF, NQS and theory.

Exceptional

articulation of the planning cycle. The anecdotal record provides rich, insightful observations with deep understanding of childrens learning and development.

Comprehensive and seamless integration of relevant theory, EYLF Learning Outcomes, and NQS Quality Areas.

Planning is exemplaryhighly responsive to preschoolers'

interests, strengths, and competencies with clear theoretical and

practical justification.

Highly effective and clear

articulation of the planning cycle. The anecdotal record demonstrates strong understanding of childrens learning and development, with

consistently relevant and accurate links

to theory, EYLF, and NQS. Planning is thoughtful and well-aligned to preschoolers needs, showing excellent

awareness of their interests and

competencies.

Clear and competent

articulation of the planning cycle. The anecdotal record demonstrates a sound understanding of childrens learning and development, with

appropriate links to theory, EYLF, and NQS.

Planning reflects preschoolers interests and strengths, with evidence of intentional

teaching and theoretical consideration.

Adequate

articulation of the planning cycle. Anecdotal record shows basic understanding of learning and development, with some appropriate references to theory, EYLF, and NQS. Planning is generally relevant to preschoolers' interests and competencies, though may

lack depth or consistency in theoretical application.

Limited articulation of the planning cycle. Anecdotal record shows a basic or superficial understanding of childrens learning and development.

Some links to EYLF, NQS, or theory are present but may be inconsistent or underdeveloped. Planning meets minimal expectations with general references to childrens needs.

Incomplete or unclear

articulation of the planning cycle.

Anecdotal record provides minimal insight into childrens development and contains few or unclear links to EYLF, NQS, or theory. Planning lacks depth and is not sufficiently tailored to preschoolers interests or competencies

Poor or missing articulation of the planning cycle. Anecdotal record is

inaccurate, irrelevant, or absent. No meaningful

connection to EYLF, NQS, or

theory. Planning is inappropriate or not evident.

No attempt made to address the planning cycle, childrens learning, or relevant

frameworks. No submission or content provided.

Task 2: Reflective

practice (45%) Reflection and response to one ethical dilemma encountered in an early childhood centre with consideration to:

-All involved stakeholders perspectives

- The units readings,

the EYLF and the NQS,

Exceptional and deeply reflective response demonstrating

critical insight into the ethical dilemma. All stakeholders perspectives are thoughtfully considered with empathy and

nuance. Reflection

Highly reflective and well- reasoned response.

Demonstrates strong understanding of the ethical dilemma and thoughtfully incorporates

the views of all

Clear and considered reflection on the ethical dilemma.

Stakeholders perspectives are addressed

with sensitivity, and links to unit readings, EYLF,

NQS, and

Adequate reflection with clear effort to explore the ethical dilemma. Some perspectives

are considered, though discussion may lack depth or

balance.

Basic reflection on the ethical dilemma with minimal critical engagement.

Stakeholder perspectives are

mentioned but not well explored.

Limited or surface- level connections to unit readings, EYLF,

NQS, or scholarly

Superficial or unclear reflection.

Ethical dilemma may be poorly understood or described, with minimal recognition of stakeholders perspectives.

Few or

Very limited or no reflection. Ethical dilemma is not

appropriately addressed. Stakeholder perspectives are ignored or

misrepresented. No meaningful

use of readings,

No submission or no attempt to address the ethical dilemma or related reflections. No content provided.

and scholarly sources.

is richly supported by scholarly sources, unit readings, the EYLF, and the NQS, integrated

seamlessly. Response shows high-level ethical reasoning and professional integrity, going beyond expectations.

relevant

stakeholders. Reflection is well-supported by relevant readings, EYLF, NQS, and scholarly literature.

Shows advanced

critical thinking and professional awareness.

scholarly sources are relevant and mostly well integrated. Shows strong ethical

awareness and reflective thinking.

References to readings, EYLF, NQS, and scholarly sources are present but may be limited or unevenly applied. Shows developing reflective and ethical reasoning.

sources. Reflection meets minimum standards but lacks depth and clarity.

irrelevant connections to required

frameworks or readings.

Limited demonstration of reflective or ethical thinking.

EYLF, NQS, or

scholarly sources. Lacks evidence of reflection or understanding.

Criterion 3

Academic Literacy including correct word count, correct writing conventions, use of professional language and academic referencing (APA 7th style).

A minimum of 8 academic references included.

(10%)

Flawless use of

academic writing conventions and APA referencing with a comprehensive range of high- quality,

authoritative sources. All references are accurately formatted and seamlessly

integrated into the content.

Word count within

+/- 10% of the set

word count.

Accurate academic

writing and APA referencing with a strong range of relevant sources. Very minor formatting

errors may be present.

Word count within +/- 10% of the set word count.

Good academic writing and APA referencing with a range of appropriate sources, though there may be some errors or inconsistencies in formatting. Word count within +/- 10% of the set word count.

Adequate academic writing and referencing with some relevant

sources. Some minor and inconsistent errors with formatting.

Word count within +/- 10% of the set word count.

Basic academic writing and referencing with limited sources.

Some errors and inconsistencies with formatting.

Word count within

+/- 10% of the set word count.

Poor standard of academic writing and referencing with consistent errors in most/all areas. Word count significantly under or over

+/- 10% of the set word count for the task

Significant improvement needed in

academic writing and referencing.

Referencing is absent,

incorrect, or irrelevant

Not attempted