Introduction

This paper explores case study research findings that examine curriculum frameworks and teacher planning in the context of Australian Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). We start by considering the national context in which this study is set. Then, following a literature review of international ECEC and case study research conducted across a range of national contexts, we review teaching planning templates in ECEC. Our methodology for this study, which includes key Bourdieusian tools as part of our analysis, is used to explore the case study and present findings and implications for curriculum studies in ECEC.

Background

This paper draws on case study research in education and a Bourdesian analysis to explore how a learning framework influences practice in various ways. Australia was chosen as the researchers are familiar and experienced educators and researchers in this context. Researcher 1 worked as an early childhood educator for more than 20 years within an Australasian context and now researches in the field. Researcher 2 has worked internationally in early childhood education in Sweden and Australia. Researcher 3 teaches in early childhood education programmes and researchers in the field. Researcher 4 is experienced with qualitative research and is a critical research friend to the project.

This paper focuses on the key Australian framework document which provides a substantive outline of outcomes, principles, and practices.

Australian ECEC Context

ECEC within Australia takes place in early childhood services from birth to five years. Prior to the release of the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration (Education Council, 2019) in 2019, The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 2008) underpinned ECEC principles within the National context. This policy document, signed by all Australian education ministers, was committed to all young Australians becoming successful learners, confident and creative individuals and active and informed citizens.

Other key documents guiding the Australian ECEC include the National Quality Framework, Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership—Teacher Standards and the Department of Education and Training (2019) Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) (Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2019). The introduction of the ‘Early Years Learning Framework: Belonging, Being and Becoming’ provides direction for ECEC teachers’ planning, implementation and evaluation of programs and practices. The positioning of ECEC in Australia is influenced by educational approaches taken within states and territories and can thus vary accordingly. For example, the Victorian Early Years Learning and Development Framework (VEYLDF) which guides ECEC practice supports all professionals who work with children aged 0–8 years. The VEYLDF aligns and builds on EYLF extending the principles, practices, and outcomes to cater for the contexts and increased age range of the children who attend school-age settings (Garvis et al., 2013).

The EYLF focuses on play-based learning, emphasising communication and language, including early literacy and numeracy, and social and emotional development. It encourages early childhood (EC) teachers to build partnerships with families. However, an analysis of how partnering with families informs the lived and planned curriculum is outside the scope of this paper. The EYLF reinforces the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in that all children have a right to an education “that lays a foundation for the rest of their lives, maximises their ability, and respects their family, cultural and other identities and languages” (2009, p. 5).

ECEC Curriculum

Approaches and Implementation

ECEC curriculum takes different approaches in different contexts and is analysed in a range of ways in the literature. Bennett (2005) reviewed twenty OECD countries’ curriculum issues and policy-making decisions and argues that curricular frameworks in ECEC take two broad approaches: a social pedagogic approach or a pre-primary approach. In Nordic countries, the ECEC curriculum is framed by a social pedagogical approach that is play-based and centres on children’s autonomy to attain curriculum goals (Bennet, 2005). In contrast, pre-primary curriculum frameworks, which are implemented in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Belgium, and the Netherlands, detail goals and outcomes with an assumption that EC professionals follow the curriculum in a standardised way. Curriculum frameworks also differ according to whether they adopt a pedagogical or more content-oriented approach. ECEC curriculum frameworks lean toward a more pedagogical view of curriculum in which a document outlines the content to be taught. In contrast, Grundy as cited in Churchill et al., (2016, p. 190), claims it is a “dynamic process which engages all participants, especially teachers and students, in its active construction through their work.” From this perspective, content matters, participants (teachers and children) and the educational environment are integrated allowing for greater flexibility for contextualisation of the curriculum to cater for the needs of specific groups in early childhood educational settings (Irving & Carter, 2018). The curriculum is seen as a lived set of resources, programs, activities, and plans, including relationships, feelings, and experiences (Lunenburg, 2011).

A number of factors influence the take-up of ECEC curriculum frameworks. For example, Kilderry, Nolan and Scott (2017) critiqued the Australian Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) and the National Quality Framework (NQF) which consists of seven quality areas that frame outcomes for children. The researchers found that EC teachers and educators can experience “uncertainty and apprehension” (p. 350) when curriculum discourse is unfamiliar. The EYLF was the first national ECEC framework introduced in Australia in 2009 to guide professional practices. Some teachers, especially those who obtained their EC qualifications before the introduction of the EYLF, and the implementation of the NQS, found it more challenging to align with this new discourse.

Case Study Research and ECEC Curriculum

We draw on a case study from the literature to explore further how a contextualised notion of the curriculum is played out; specifically in an Asian ECEC context. This research study investigates the influence of sociocultural and global factors on curriculum intentions and curriculum enactment. Bautista et al (2021) examine the influence of globalisation on ECEC curriculums in Asia, focusing on Singapore and Hong Kong as two examples. They contend that globalisation has led to these ECEC curriculums being shaped by Western values, theoretical frameworks, and pedagogies. They reference the Nurturing Early Learners (NEL) framework promoted by the Singaporean government as an example of a curriculum framework that does not meet the needs of more traditional local cultures. These researchers argue for more hybrid curriculum frameworks that balance globalisation and localisation to account for contextual and cultural considerations in curriculum intentions and practices.

How sociocultural contexts influence curriculum practices is of interest to the analysis in the case study reported in this paper. This paper explores how teacher planning templates and practices are influenced by policy and curriculum frameworks in an Australian ECEC setting.

Theoretical Framework: Bourdieu’s Thinking Tools

Bourdieu’s concepts of field, habitus and capital are powerful thinking tools for understanding the relationship between social structures and people’s everyday practices (Webb et al., 2002). In the context of ECEC, Bourdieu’s theory can help to understand the production of particular dispositions of individuals and the impacts of the dispositions in structuring early childhood professionalism in different contexts (MacFarlane & Lewis, 2012).

In this paper, we use Bourdieu’s thinking tools: field, habitus, and capital, to grasp the dynamics of teachers’ practices in an Australian ECEC context in response to the curriculum. To understand practices, Bourdieu (1984) proposes the following formula: [ (habitus) (capital)] + field = practice (p. 101). In this respect, practices such as teachers’ planning, are located in a space and at a particular time within the curriculum context. For example, Nolan and Molla (2018) argue that practices in the ECEC settings are structured in the field under national and state guidelines and policies. To understand the dynamics of the field, we need to locate the object in the local or national context and interrogate the generation of knowledge about this object.

According to Bourdieu (1984), a field is a structured space with its own laws of functioning and the structure of the field is dependent on the agents' positions in this field. Thomson (2005) summarises Bourdieu’s concept of field as having determined positions that: (a) are held in relation to others in the field; (b) are differentiated in a hierarchy of power and status; (c) produce in occupants and institutions particular ways of thinking, being and doing (p. 742).

To be able to navigate in the field, Bourdieu (1990) contends that the habitus informs one’s practices.

Habitus is a product of the internalisation of historical conditionings and is constantly being shaped in the present structures. It guides spontaneous behaviours, interactions and actions that are objectively adjusted to the field (Bourdieu, 1990). In ECEC in Australia, professionals’ practices are significantly structured based on each country’s history, guidelines, and policies. These conditions shape, produce, and reproduce teachers’ habitus, including pedagogic practices, which prompt intentional teaching and planning practices.

The third Bourdieusian concept that we employ in this study is capital. Capital is associated with social and cultural characteristics of habitus and is shaped by the field (Mahar et al., 1990). According to Bourdieu (1986), capital is accumulated labour produced and reproduced based on the structures of the field. Among different forms of capital, cultural capital is often engaged in early childhood education research (Brooker, 2015; Miller et al., 2014). Cultural capital in ECEC can comprise knowledge, skills, practices, and national and state ECEC policies and frameworks. In the context of this paper, EC teachers’ planning documents reflect cultural capital in the Australian ECEC.

Methodology

A social constructivist approach to qualitative research was adopted to provide perspectives of meaning on planning documents from an Australian ECEC location (Keary et al., 2022). Specifically, an embedded qualitative case study design (Yin, 2009) was undertaken to better understand how EC teachers describe their enactment of planning a program. Case study design involves ‘an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident’ (Yin, 2009, p. 49).

Contextual conditions are important to this case study, providing in-depth descriptions and analysis of “a bounded system” (Merriam, 2009, p. 40). As Creswell (2011) explains, bounded means that cases are separated from time, place and physical boundaries. The bounded systems in this study are the public ECEC programs in the south-eastern state of Victoria, Australia where teachers adapt a national curriculum framework into their planning documents. In this study, an embedded design is employed to examine multiple units of analysis with details (Yin, 2009).

This case study offers a snapshot of practice and an entry point into the lived professional practice of Australian EC teachers by exploring the connections between individual practice and broader curriculum frameworks. At times, these planning practices are consistent with curriculum frameworks, while there are tensions and contradictions at other times. As Dalli et al. (2012) note, “When doing what they do, the practitioners enact a reality that constructs its own knowledge, revealing that acting and knowing are two sides of the same coin” (p. 5). Our intention is not to generalize, as other cases within these contexts may be different; rather, we analyse the case for how EC teachers enact planning a program within a particular local national context.

Data Collection

This study incorporates the following data collection components: document analysis and interviews. Documents include EC teachers’ planning documents which provide insight into how teachers understand curriculum and can highlight shifts in emphasis as curriculum frameworks are translated into practice.

Our case study is set in the south-eastern state of Victoria where the second largest capital city of Australia is situated. In the Australian context, 18 teacher planning documents and 30 individual children’s planning documents were collected from an EC management association that manages approximately 40 ECEC settings. In this paper, we draw on one EC teacher’s planning document (see Appendix—Fig. 1) for the purpose of this analysis. The EC teacher was Joeline (pseudonym). Her planning document was selected as it was comprehensive and showcased a range of planning ideas. Joeline did not volunteer to be interviewed for this study.

Data was also collected from four interviews with EC teachers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four experienced EC teachers who are university qualified and have been working in ECEC for a number of years. Each interview with the teachers was 30–45 min in duration. The participants were given pseudonyms: Anna for Teacher 1, Beth for Teacher 2, Clare for Teacher 3, Danielle for Teacher 4. The four teachers were known for their exceptional practice by the community for supporting children’s perspectives.

Data Analysis

Interviews and the EC teacher’s planning document were analysed thematically, while the planning document was also analysed using a document analysis method. Hitchcock and Hughes (1995) contend that once written, documents nest particularities of historical facts. A case study supports document analysis as the strength of the cases is the detailed investigation of a context or a single document (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Punch (2013) notes that documents should be located within social contexts to give them real meaning. Therefore, the analysis of the teaching planning document is informed by the relevant national ECEC curriculum landscape to position the documents in their particular contextual characteristics (Davis, 2012).

The planning document was analysed inductively to reflect the broader ECEC curriculum and the tensions and contradictions in practice. We explore the language, principles and concepts that underpin the planning document. The deeper meaning is then derived deductively from analysis and interpretation using Bourdieu’s thinking tools. We argue that critical reading is helpful in unpacking the taken-for-granted assumptions that ground the document.

EC teacher interview data were analysed using an analytic approach for ‘identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data’ (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79). We followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) step-by-step thematic analysis guide. After our data was collected and transcribed professionally, we immersed ourselves in the data by repeatedly listening to recordings and reading the transcripts and notes. After this step, we coded the data based on literature and Bourdieu’s thinking tools. The coding process was then followed by the development of themes.

A flexible, integrated inductive and deductive approach was taken to identifying themes and patterned meaning in the data. Themes generated from the data included planning and programming, the influence of curriculum framework documents, diversity, goals and outcomes, democratic principles and family involvement. A Bourdieusian theoretical approach was used to interpret and deeply think about the themes to make sense of what was happening in the data (Braun & Clarke, 2018).

Rigour

Robust research is associated with research findings reflecting the trustworthiness of the researchers with respect to ethics and methodology. As researchers, we considered processes of reliability of the data collection process, analysis, and interpretation (Brown & Gilligan, 1993). Ethics approval was obtained before commencing the project by the university in which the researchers were based and by the Department of Education, Victoria.

Findings

In this section, we describe EC teachers’ program planning by focusing on data from one planning document and four interviews. Like with Kemmis and McTaggart’s (2005) action research approach, we are interested in ‘learning about the real, material, concrete, and particular practices of particular people in particular places’ (p. 564). However, we acknowledge that in our describing and analysing, a degree of abstraction occurs (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005).

Programme Planning.

When asked about planning in the interview, Beth explained that “in your programming, in your planning, you set up things in awareness of all of the standards and rating expectations… that would be reflected in your QIP (Quality Improvement Plan)”. The QIP is part of the National Quality Standards as set out by the Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority (ACECQA, 2019) to assess the quality of your service’s performance in delivering quality education and care against the National Quality Standards (ACECQA, 2019). Beth remarked that ‘the [National] Quality Standards (ACECQA, 2019 are a reflection of what your practice is… your planning is part of it but there’s everything else; health and wellbeing, physical, all that sort of stuff… that would be in your programming.’

Danielle commented on the influence of the EYLF on teacher planning, ‘In the beginning, I think you could do programming as you wanted and then, when the (EYLF) framework came in, it was more, I guess, different perspectives and different outcomes on the framework.’ Danielle taught in an EC setting made up of families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. She explained how EC teachers undertake home-visits ‘so that we got to know all the children or tried to get to know them before they actually started [kindergarten]’. These visits helped the teachers to connect their planning with the family’s experiences.

Danielle and Beth noted that their planning draws on the children's and their families' experiences. Danielle stated, ‘a lot of the [planning] comes from the interests of the children and the ideas that they come up with, but also what we think they need to learn at that stage’. Joeline’s teacher planning document mentions building relationships with children and families through social stories and sharing family photos. However, the emphasis is more on the social aspects of forming relationships with families in contrast to the EYLF principle which focuses on furthering the literacy and numeracy capabilities of the family and community. The EYLF advocates for building “on the range of experiences with language, literacy and numeracy that children have within their families and communities” (Department of Education [DET], 2019, p. 41).

The EYLF states that the outcomes “acknowledge that children learn in a variety of ways and vary in their capabilities and pace of learning” ((Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2019, p. 22). Joeline’s teacher planning document indicates which children are to complete each skill-based activity. The pace of learning is not clear as it is in a weekly planner. The goals are discrete and prescriptive with the teacher planning document not indicating how to cater for children learning in a variety of ways. Although, for the goal ‘drawing a picture of themselves’ the document outlines a range of activities that support this goal.

Planning and Routines

In Australia, the month of March is early in the school year. Danielle commented:

we plan a lot for routines now. We never used to really focus on them. We’d of course take them into consideration but now we actually plan for group times which is really important—hello, goodbye, packing-up and handwashing, putting sunscreen on and those sorts of things, that do take up a lot of the day. We never used to really focus on that.

While the teacher planning document also focuses on the establishment of routines for wiping of brushes, the visual schedule, handwashing and toileting. In addition, children are to be taught about the colours of the bins and what they are used for. The goal ‘for children to sit cross legged with feet crossed at ankles for a short duration of time’ is most likely connected to small and whole group time. These routines connect with Outcome 1 of the EYLF framework: “Children have a strong sense of identity’. The EYLF suggests that evidence of children feeling safe, secure, and supported includes ‘use effective routines to help make transitions smoothly” (DET, 2019, p. 24).

Anna developed routine-building in a different way and spoke of ‘scheduling’. She explained:

We've always had small group experiences, but they tended to be related to the activities that had been planned. So, you might be sitting at the play doh table interacting with children, but plan for group experiences on what to do when you're feeling angry, what strategies could you use, using social stories and visuals and role playing and puppets, and I actually schedule them into our program now.

Setting up play spaces to support small group play supports EYLF Outcome 1, according to which “children learn to interact in relation to others with care, empathy and respect” (DET, 2019, p. 27). It is suggested in the EYLF that teachers promote this learning when they ‘organize learning environments in small ways that promote small group interactions and play experiences’ (DET, 2019, p. 27). It is also stated in the planning document that “Staff spend lots of time connecting and listening to children in lots of one-on-one conversations. This activity also supports EYLF Outcome 1, where EC teachers ‘initiate one-to-one interactions with children… during daily routines” (DET, 2019, p. 27).

Clare described how she often plans for four groups: ‘We would often be in four small groups for sort of language experiences. They would be honed in on specific skills for specific groups. So, for those children who can’t put a sentence together… then other children who were more confident, you would do more complex things’.

From the interviews, it can be seen that the teachers plan for routines and schedule of activities. This scheduling involved small group experiences for children. Teacher interaction, according to the EYLF (DET, 2019), is an essential aspect of connecting with children.

Children as Communicators

EYLF Outcome 2 is that children are connected with and contribute to their world through responding to diversity with respect, becoming aware of fairness, becoming socially responsible and showing respect for the environment is not evident in the teacher planning document (DET, 2019). EYLF Outcome 3, that children have a strong sense of wellbeing, is partially considered through some of the activities noted that reflect EYLF Outcome 1.

EYLF Outcome 4, that children are confident and involved learners, is not foregrounded in the teacher planning document. The document outlines skills-based activities in contrast to children:

(i):

developing dispositions for learning such as curiosity, co-operation, confidence, creativity, commitment, enthusiasm, persistence, imagination and reflexivity;

(ii):

developing a range of skills and processes such as problem solving, inquiry, experimentation, hypothesizing, researching and investigating;

(iii):

transfer and adapt what they have learned from one context to another (DET, 2019, p. 37).

EYLF Outcome 5: Children are effective communicators is not, in the main, evident in Joeline’s teacher planning document. The focus is on the teachers communicating with the children by initiating conversations, reading stories and teaching songs. Songs and stories are listed in the planning document and are connected to the outlined goals. For example, stories include ‘eggspression’, which is linked to the goal of ‘drawing of themselves.’ However, these activities are not focused on EYLF’s outcomes for communicative practices which include:

  • interacting verbally and non-verbally with others for a range of purposes

  • engaging with a range of texts and gain meaning from these texts

  • expressing ideas and make meaning using a range of media

  • using information and communication technologies to access information, investigate ideas and represent their thinking (DET, 2019, p. 42).

There is some evidence for children beginning to understand how symbols and pattern systems work through the planning for children to write their own names, but this is a very narrow interpretation of this competency.

Theory Informed Planning

Danielle remarked that she has ‘tried to focus a bit more on theory this year’ to inform her planning. In particular, she’s drawn on the ‘Eight Ways of Learning’ framework noting: ‘So being the Eight Ways of Learning, we’ve got some that are non-verbal or have additional needs, such as autism. So, we’ve paid particular attention to that… and how to meet their needs and analyse their learning….’

While Anna and Beth commented on how planning is part of a cycle and informed by evaluation. Anna interestingly commented, ‘we do a lot of it in our heads.’ She continued, ‘it helps us with what we’re then going to set as goals for the children moving forward’. Beth mentioned that they ‘use the information [from assessment] to form goals for the child… In our program plan we would work out what sort of learning experiences we can use to support development in an area’.

According to the EYLF framework (DET, 2019), the five learning outcomes ‘are designed to capture the integrated and complex learning and development of all children across the birth to five age range’ (p. 22). They are ‘broad and observable’ (p. 22). In contrast, Joeline’s teacher planning document is skills-based with specific goals to achieve. For example, ‘for the children to draw a picture of themselves using a mirror to describe their features’ and ‘for the children to throw and catch a ball or beanbag to a target’.

As such, the idea is that the work team is respectful of children, engaging them in aspects of planning and promoting and supporting children to have influence over their education. All children are given equal influence and scope for participating.

Bourdieusian Analysis

Field

The case study findings offer a glimpse into EC teachers’ practices in response to the national EYLF curriculum framework. According to Krieg (2011), the EYLF has strengths in articulating teaching and learning in the ECEC context. However, teachers can also be left feeling uncertain about the learning outcomes. As shared by Anna and Danielle who have been working in the Australian ECEC field for many years, transitioning into planning with the EYLF was complex. Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) argue that habitus, as an immanent product of a field, needs to be considered in relation to the field and the primary conditionings that structure it. Although EC teachers worked in the same Australian ECEC field, the field was modified in 2009 by introducing the EYLF and its five learning outcomes. These learning outcomes can be seen as discourses in the field, ‘constituting the beliefs, values and practices produced within them as normal, right and desirable’ (Ortlipp et al., 2011, p. 63). For teachers such as Anna and Beth, their prior teacher education courses endorsed different teaching and learning practices providing them with various capital than those required in the present field. According to Bourdieu and Passeron (1990), teaching can lead to conflicts between values and ideologies due to the routinisation effect, making it difficult to reach a consensus on program planning. Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) maintain that when an individual’s habitus is congruent with the field, it is like a ‘fish in water’ (p. 127). On the contrary, agents can lose the ‘feel for the game’ (p. 128).

Habitus

Another theme that emerged from the findings is that EC teachers’ understandings and planning practices can be divergent from the philosophical dimensions of EYLF. This can be explained by Bourdieu’s concept of pedagogic habitus. Grenfell (1996) extends Bourdieu’s concept of habitus into teacher education and develops the concept of pedagogic habitus. According to Grenfell (1996), pedagogic habitus is defined “as those aspects of habitus that have a significant effect on practice within pedagogic contexts; for example, social background, experience as a pupil/student, knowledge of theory, etc.” (p. 292). In this study, the ECEC pedagogic contexts, experiences as working with children, knowledge of ECEC, professional qualifications, and other factors can shape EC teachers’ pedagogic habitus, which further influence teachers’ decisions and interpretations of EYLF.

For example, the EYLF encourages child-centred learning, implying a holistic approach to young children’s learning and development as indicated by five learning outcomes. The introduction of the EYLF was the first time that learning outcomes for children were nationally specified (Ortlipp et al., 2011). The findings showed the EC teachers acknowledging the importance of children’s interests and connections with other children, corresponding to Learning Outcome 1—‘Children have a strong sense of identity’. However, other learning outcomes are less clear and explicit in the planning document; for instance, Learning Outcome 5. It is about ‘children being effective communicators. The EC teacher’s planning document (Appendix—Fig. 1) communicative learning goals for young children were skill-based, with outcomes such as recognising letters and writing their first names. The planning documents in this regard, did not reflect the broad EYLF outcomes, principles and practices to develop young children as effective communicators.

Krieg (2011) contends that teachers use subject knowledge to support children’s learning, but it can be confined to tools of the subject. Grenfell and James (2003) point out that ‘if habitus brings into focus the subjective end of the equation, field focuses on the objective’ (p. 15). EC teachers’ subjective interpretations of learning outcomes; for example, as illustrated in the planning document (Appendix—Fig. 1), did not necessarily reflect a holistic view of the learning. Webb et al. (2002) suggest that ‘the habitus is both durable and oriented towards the practical: dispositions, knowledges and values are always potentially subject to modification, rather than being passively consumed or reinscribed’ (p. 41). In this sense, EC teachers’ planning documents are part of their habitus demonstrating their orientation toward the EYLF. However, in this instance, there appears to be resistance to catering for children’s learning in a variety of ways. Musofer & Lingard (2021) remind us that teachers’ habitus and the curriculum field can experience dissonance due to positioning and repositioning, particularly when teachers have been comfortable with their teaching throughout the years. Bourdieu (1977) introduced the idea of hysteresis which refers to a disruption between habitus and field. Despite risks, hysteresis can create new opportunities (Hardy, 2014). Although every field is dynamic and constantly changes, in this study when there are habitus-field disruptions, EC teachers need to exercise their social agency such as practices and changes to improve their field positions.

Capital

Tensions abound in our research which can be interpreted with Bourdieu’s concept of capital. Bourdieu (1986) reminds us that capital is “a vis insita, a force inscribed in objective or subjective structures, but it is also a lex insita, the principle underlying the immanent regularities of the social world” (p. 81). In the ECEC curriculum context, principles and outcomes in EYLF imply vis insita and lex insita, which indicate inherent values and professional requirements for teachers to adhere. In this process, recognition of this field-specific cultural capital or to become “legitimate competent” takes a significant amount of time (Bourdieu, 1986). In this study, the EC teacher’s planning document suggests an orientation towards skill-based outcomes for individual children in contrast to the Australian EYLF curriculum framework (DET, 2019) overlapping areas of learning outcomes (e.g. developing young children as effective communicators), principles and practice centred on children’s learning. In the Australian EYLF curriculum framework, connection with children includes embodied cultural capital which can mean creating a range of experiences with language, literacy and numeracy. Nonetheless, the EC teacher acknowledges connections with other children, but other learning outcomes are less evident—perhaps suggesting some resistance from the teacher. This example also encourages a reconsideration of different cultural capital demanded in the curriculum context and EC teachers’ trajectories and interpretations of this cultural capital in the teaching and planning moments.

Conclusion

ECEC curriculum is framed by a range of pedagogical approaches. A pedagogical view of the curriculum is endorsed by the Australian EYLF (DET, 2019) which describes the curriculum as “All the interactions, experiences, activities, routines and learning and development” (p. 9).

In this Australian case study, it could be seen that EC teachers actively considered the pedagogical approach they adopted to play-based programs and how they worked with children in their care. Irving and Carter (2018) contend that when engaging with curriculum frameworks, it is crucial that ECEC teachers “interrogate what, how and why we teach to ensure that this matches particular contexts and learners and what we don’t become robot-like teachers who simply implement what others have decided for us as opposed to carefully considering the desired skills, knowledges, values and attitudes for specific groups of learners”. We suggest that these principles came into view in this case study showing the strength of EC teacher practice. We also suggest such findings are important for acknowledging the importance of context, especially when looking across international systems.

This paper aimed to examine how pedagogical documentation tools and practices are informed by ECEC curriculum frameworks in an Australian context. In this context, a national ECEC curriculum framework was available to inform pedagogical documentation and practices. The introduction of the national curriculum in the field provided guidance on new capital: inherent values and professional requirements for teachers. Since habitus is defined as “'relational in that it designates a mediation between objective structures and practices” (Bourdieu, 1989, p. 43), teachers’ planning and practices are products of conditioning and structures of the new field. However, it was not clear how the specific socio-cultural context influenced how the ECEC curriculum was planned and enacted at a local level. For example, given the complexity of teaching, there can be tensions between the ‘legitimate’ ways of teaching and thinking and individual teachers’ habitus-specific predispositions (Grenfell, 1996). In this study, the skills-based approach represented in Joeline’s planning document contrasted with the broader interrelated learning outcomes, principles and practices as set out in the Australian EYLF curriculum framework (DET, 2019).

We suggest that this study also provides important lessons for the international context. In particular, the importance of acknowledging how national ECEC curricula is implemented and enacted in the daily practice of teaching. While curricula may have one intention, the actual implementation by early childhood teachers may imply different meanings and understandings. It is unclear the frequency of these episodes, however it is an important consideration for policy makers in any country.