The theory of children's development is one of the basic theories that preschool educators must master, the new foundation of kindergarten curriculum, and the particularly important foundation. This book is beyond reproach, which is of course determined by the characteristics of preschool education.
However, the theory of child development is not equal to the theory of preschool education. Taking the theory of children's development as the only theoretical basis of kindergarten curriculum is not only limited in theory, but also problematic in practice. In this sense, slogans such as "all for children's development" can be understood as corrective policies for a period of time, but as a permanent program of action, it may lead to behavioral deviations of educators. In this sense, such as "curriculum suitable for children's development", as a reaction to the disadvantages of traditional kindergarten curriculum, still has certain value in a certain historical stage, but as a curriculum model that can be applied everywhere, it may go to the opposite.
Children's development theory is different from education theory.
More than ten years ago, an American scholar Goffin(s. g. 1994) expounded the problems that would arise if the theory of children's development was taken as the only theoretical basis for curriculum development. Gu Fen's exposition deserves our consideration.
Gu Fen believes that equating the theory of children's development with the theory of education equates the question of "what is" with the question of "what should be". The theory of children's development focuses on the general law of children's development and points out what children of a certain age can do. If children's development is regarded as the result of education, it is equivalent to emphasizing what children can do, not what children should do. In fact, the question of what children should do is the most instructive, which needs to be clarified from the aspects of philosophy and ethics, rather than being solved by development theory. Excessive dependence on development theory will make educators abandon political tendencies and social values. For example, depending on the theory of children's development to determine the educational goals and curriculum goals will blur the political and cultural orientation of teaching content, which is intended to point out that the choice of curriculum should be determined by the suitability of development, not by the priority of politics and morality. For another example, relying on the theory of children's development to determine educational goals and curriculum goals will mistake "development goals" for educational goals and curriculum goals, and "development goals" is a word with many ambiguities.
Gufen believes that every child development theory has two hypotheses. One is that the theory of child development can explain and predict children's development and behavior better than any other theory. The other is to recognize those behaviors that can be explained by system theory and deny those behaviors that can't be explained by theory. As a result, teachers who adhere to a certain development theory expect to turn what they think is normal and typical into what they expect, and then use this ideal thing to support their behavior, while denying other behaviors, which often deprives children of creativity and the opportunity to act in a meaningful way. For example, constructivism theory, multiple intelligences theory and other theories are often regarded by teachers as correct educational concepts and action guides, and as a standard to judge whether their actions are correct, regardless of whether their actions are feasible in practice.
Gufen also believes that the theory of children's development is basically based on the conclusions of the study of white children. This theory is applicable to children of all races and nationalities in the world, and it is unfair to exclude children who do not meet the conclusions put forward by these theories from normal children. This theory is widely used in curriculum development, and it is often difficult to adapt to these children in a specific background.
In a word, the theory of children's development is different from the theory of education for the following reasons: ① The theory of children's development focuses on and describes something universal, while the theory of education needs to solve specific educational problems, which are different. ② The theory of children's development involves the minimum explanation of development or learning, while the theory of education involves the maximum explanation that affects development or learning. ③ The theory of children's development mainly examines people's development or learning process from the perspective of "reality", while the theory of education examines people's development or learning process from the perspective of "ought to be" of value.
As early as the middle and late 1980s, in view of the primary tendency of American preschool education, the National Association of Early Education advocated the development of appropriate curriculum (DAP), and proposed that preschool education should be suitable for children's age characteristics and individual differences. Their ideas have exerted considerable influence in the United States and many other countries. At that time, it seemed to be the ideal and goal pursued by many preschool education theorists and practitioners. However, once the adaptive curriculum was launched, it encountered many problems and challenges. Spodike, a famous American preschool educator, and others believe that the theory of children's development should not be the only theoretical basis for curriculum design, and philosophy and social culture are equally important for curriculum design. Kohlberg and Mayer criticized that the development of appropriate curriculum is only rooted in the limited theory of children's development, especially Piaget's theory as its main theoretical basis. Criticism from all sides forced the National Early Education Association to revise its position several times and put forward the concept of "cultural suitability" on the basis of "development suitability". 1997 edition of the Guide emphasizes the role of family and culture in children's development, and also affirms the role of teachers as decision makers and curriculum compilers. However, the development of appropriate courses is constantly questioned and criticized by all parties.