Early Childhood Education Journal

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 71–77 | Cite as

Science at the Center: An Emergent, Standards-Based, Child-Centered Framework for Early Learners

  • Joni L. BaldwinEmail author
  • Shauna M. Adams
  • Mary Kay Kelly


This article will describe an approach to planning and assessment that is designed to support an emergent, play-based curriculum while helping teachers make informed instructional decisions. Using assessment that supports curriculum allows early childhood professionals to infuse early learning content standards into meaningful, relevant and connected topics of study. Through a combined effort among teachers, administrators and university faculty, one demonstration school developed a method of integrating and evaluating content standards and developmental skills into an emergent curriculum model. While this remains a work in progress, it does show promise for being an effective way to address state standards while maintaining recommended developmentally appropriate practices.


Early childhood education Early childhood curriculum Early childhood assessment Project approach Early learning content standards Demonstration school Emergent curriculum Assessment supported curriculum 


  1. Adams, S. M., Baldwin, J., Comingore, J. L., & Smith, D. J. (2006). Emergent curriculum? Standards-based? Project Approach? Authentic assessment?: Making all the pieces fit for a developmentally appropriate approach to curriculum and assessment. Dayton’s Young Child, 2(1), 6–8.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, K. L., Martin, D. M., & Faszewski, E. E. (2006). Unlocking the power of observations. Science and Children, 44(1), 32–35.Google Scholar
  3. Bagnato, S. J. (2005). The authentic alternative for assessment in early intervention: An emerging evidence-based practice. Journal of Early Intervention, 28(1), 17–22. doi: 10.1177/105381510502800102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.Google Scholar
  5. Clifford, R. M., Barbarin, O., Chang, F., Early, D., Bryant, D., Howes, C., et al. (2005). What is pre-kindergarten? Characteristics of public pre-kindergarten programs. Applied Developmental Science, 9(3), 126–143. doi: 10.1207/s1532480xads0903_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dueschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  7. Epstein, A. S., Schweinhart, L. J., & McAdoo, L. (1996). Models of early childhood education. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.Google Scholar
  8. Espinosa, L. (2002). High quality preschool: Why we need it and what it looks like. NIEER Policy Briefs 1.
  9. Freeman, N., & Brown, M. (2008). An authentic approach to assessing pre-kindergarten programs. Childhood Education, 84(5), 267–273.Google Scholar
  10. Hatch, J. A., & Grieshaber, S. (2002). Child observation and accountability in early childhood education: Perspectives from Australia and the United States. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(4), 227–231. doi: 10.1023/A:1015177406713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Katz, L., & Chard, S. (2000). Engaging children’s minds: The project approach. Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. NAEYC & NAECS/SDE. (2003). Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8 [Joint position statement]. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.Google Scholar
  13. Pellegrini, A. D. (2001). Practitioner review: The role of direct observation in the assessment of young children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(7), 861–869. doi: 10.1017/S002196300100765X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Peterson, S. M., & French, L. (2008). Supporting young children’s explanations through inquiry science in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(3), 395–408. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R. M., Early, D., et al. (2005). Features of pre-kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed classroom quality and child–teacher interactions? Applied Developmental Science, 9(3), 144–159. doi: 10.1207/s1532480xads0903_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Raspa, M. J., McWilliam, R. A., & Ridley, S. M. (2001). Child care quality and children’s engagement. Early Education and Development, 12, 209–224. doi: 10.1207/s15566935eed1202_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ravanis, K., & Pantidos, P. (2008). Science activities in preschool education: Effective and ineffective activities in a Piagetian theoretical framework for research and development. International Journal of Learning, 15(2), 123–132.Google Scholar
  18. Ryan, S. (2008). Action or reaction: Reflecting on Sally Lubeck’s wisdom to reinvent the field of early education. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 6, 69–74. doi: 10.1177/1476718X07086602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Winter, S. M., & Kelley, M. F. (2008). Forty years of school readiness research: What have we learned? Childhood Education, 84(5), 260–266.Google Scholar
  20. Zales, C. R., & Unger, C. S. (2008). The science and literacy framework. Science and Children, 46(3), 42–45.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joni L. Baldwin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shauna M. Adams
    • 1
  • Mary Kay Kelly
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Education and Allied ProfessionsUniversity of DaytonDaytonUSA

Personalised recommendations