Get free samples crafted by our expert writers, backed by the best assignment help services in Australia.
Part One: Critical Analysis of the Dominant Position on Climate Change and Childhood in ECEC
1. Introduction to the Dominant Position
In the context of ECEC, there is a prevailing consensus that young children are not capable of handling difficult topics like climate change. Thus, the environmental education in the early years is reduced to the token practices and enactments, for example nature walks, planting flowers, and recycling. Although it is okay with the developmental objectives, it does not develop the ecological thinking or an action oriented sustainability.
2. Nature-Based Learning and the Developmental Focus
Embedded nature learning is one of the core aspects of the paradigm of the environmental education. According to Sommerfeld (2021), nature experiences are beneficial to children’s motor skills, social relationships, behavior, and cognitive abilities by enhancing their development among preschoolers. This focus on developmental outcomes supports the notion that the main purpose of nature in ECEC is its beneficent role for the child’s development, not education for the sustainable use of the environment and critical understanding of climate change. Similarly, Trina (2022) also points out that educators can gain significant learning associated with the use of plants as loose parts in the early learning context. Thus, it broadens the richness and diversification of the sensory experience and encourages formal creativity, but it appears that it is the environment that concerns, not the child, and how he or she might perceive or react to an environment in decline. This is because it supports the kind of developmentalist approach to nature that presents nature as object rather than as context for ethical and ecological thinking. Furu and Valkonen (2021) saw such a trend in the Finnish ECEC systems, and while sustainability education is becoming popular, it remains superficial more often than not. In their study, they identified that while educators are concerned with ensuring that learning is sustainable they tend to go no further than practicing what educators term as surface level sustainability policies such as recycling or put up energy saving slogans. These initiatives not often prompt discussions on ‘why or how’ climate changed or do not focus on negative aspects, thus sustainably in early childhood education does not take an urgent alarmist tone.
3. Emotional Protection and the 'Innocent Child' Assumption
A major postulate of the dominant view, therefore, is that children cannot be exposed to emotionally sensitive issues such as climate change. Hughes (2023) identified that while enjoying the effectuating nature and recreational play initiatives for learners in Australia nevertheless, even in play-based learning programs with children situated in natural settings, render climate issues off-limits to protect learners’ emotive well-being. The argument was that talking about ecological degradation may lead the child to develop fear or anxiety, despite the fact that children are capable of understanding intricate issues when presented in a careful manner. This is based on the concept of the ‘absent-minded child’ that regards children as politically passive and rational beings who should be protected from grown-up issues. This leads to curriculum that allow children to play without any regulation in natural surroundings with no discussion about pollution, consumption or fair use of natural resources (Hughes 2023). As noble as this may sound, it hinders the growth of children not only in their ability to gain information or ‘knowledge’, but also to construct meaning of the world they are subjected to.
4. Sustainability Framed as Behaviour, Not Critical Thinking
This dominant position also constructs sustainability as a question of personal action—that is, rationing the use of light, reusing products, taking care of plants, and other similar practices or ideas. As noted by Furu and Valkonen (2021), the educators that participated in the study defined sustainability as an approach, which refers to a list of operations to be fulfilled instead of a process to be adopted. This does not build up their critical thinking on how they can handle their interaction with the planet as well. (Alam et al 2025) discuss the tendency of incorporating technology into learning processes pointing out that environmental themes are frequently limited to quiz questions or friendly avatars encouraging people to recycle. As interesting as it is to use them, it creates surface learning if there is no follow-up discussion that involves critical analytical creation of connections.
5. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Dominant View
At the same time, it is important to note that the concept of sustainable development that currently prevails in ECEC has its logic and its advantages are not entirely unfounded. According to Sommerfeld (2021) and Trina (2022), there are numerous advantages associated with the natural learning environment amongst them being; many improvements in the ability to focus on a single task, observing growth of self-regulation, and developing creativity. These results reflect general ECEC purposes and promote the children’s welfare in everyday practice. Also, it can support parts of the EYLF (V2.0) framework like supporting and challenging environments to foster children’s interests and development. It also links to the National Quality Standard (NQS) Quality Area 3 for the implementation of environmentally friendly practices within the learning space. However, these strengths do not extend to the critical analysis of climate change as an issue. Observing this, Hughes (2023) and Furu and Valkonen (2021) established that most programs do not take complex discussions of environmental issues further and therefore children remain ignorant of the political, social, and ecological systems that shape their lives. Thus, ‘vulnerable children’ remain dependent on authoritative figures, and the opportunities offered by SE are not fully realised.
6. The Broader Landscape of Perspectives
Comparing the presented view to other more critical approaches that will be considered in Part Two, it is possible to highlight that the dominant position also may lead to overlooking children’s perspectives in environmental issues. However, by paying attention only to the aspects of developmental appropriateness and protection of a child’s emotional well-being, this perspective fails to include children in affecting change to make the world around them more sustainable. The concept that early education should just sow seeds to future activity is now being criticized by the authors who maintain that meaningful participation is possible and desirable from an early age (Furu and Valkonen, 2021). However, even when these frameworks are in place, such as EYLF or NQS, the dominant approach rarely goes beyond them and does not use the frameworks, especially through the emphasis on the role and functions of the EYLF and the five principles of the NQS, to promote more in-depth, inquiry-based reforms.
7. Conclusion
There is a clear trend in ECEC to view environmental education as nature play, emotional protection and basic pro-environmental behavior. Although it supports developmental objectives and is consistent with issues important to major policy documents such as the EYLF and NQS, it is relatively silent on climate change. This view is based on assumptions that children are emotionally and cognitively incapable of handling the said topics, and environmental education should not be political. However, as will be seen in Part Two, children can and should be encouraged to do reflective action sustainability within a framework that acknowledges their capabilities and acknowledges them as responsible citizens of the world in the making.
Part Two: Alternative Perspective and Reflective Position on Climate Change and Childhood in ECEC
1. Introduction to the Alternative Perspective
The existing ideologies regarding ECEC portray children as being too young to grasp the concept of climate change and its impacts or be active in addressing climate change. This perspective fosters the early, purposeful, and transformative learning towards sustainability cultural perspective of children as active creators of ecological cognition and change (Yliniva and Brunila, 2024). This section expands on this idea, argues in support of the proposition, and considers how it bears on teaching in the Australian early years context.
2. Repositioning Children as Environmental Citizens
Rautio et al. (2022) have undertaken a critical analysis of participation in ecological citizen science and stated that children’s voice is still excluded from environmental education. Their analysis also reveals that in most programmes, children are assigned the role of the helpers while knowledge and decision making powers are not given to them. This critique suggests that it is about time for educators to change the dominant paradigms with regards to children and how they learn. In this regard, Yliniva and Brunila (2024) argue that it is misleading to consider children as either innocent or lacking the capacity to realize the political aspects of Anthropocene. They state that young children not only comprehend environmental change, but are also conscious of the impacts of change. Thus, they should be allowed to be part of the sustainability discourse as agents of change, social and political. Murris and Reynolds (2023) have expanded this view further through the posthumanist framework by positing that such children are part of ecosystems and they thus have an ethical connection with non-human beings. It brings into focus, their request to educators, to facilitate children’s critical environmental conversations that involve connectivity, accountability and justice. This approach takes a completely different turn than approaches where sustainability is directly translated to such things as recycling and gardening.
3. Critical Sustainability and the Value-Action Gap
Despite the fact that most educators actually care for sustainability, they fail to incorporate it on students’ learning process. According to Portus et al. (2024), this phenomenon is termed as “environmental value-action gap.” From their studies, they find expectations of integrating environmental values into policy and other discourses are not reflected in actual practice in the classroom. This can only be achieved by transitioning from the traditional illustrative practices to the educative practices whereby children are taken through real life ecological issues. (Chueca et al 2021) are also in support of this shift by arguing that sustainability goes hand in hand with systemic and technological change. Although their study is based on the fintech context, this work supports the argument of how the topic of environment should be integrated into structural and societal approaches including early learning education and sustainability has to be advanced-oriented even at this level.
4. My Position: A Critically Engaged, Child-Centred Approach
With reference to these conceptions, I emphasized that there is a virtue in children that shows they are capable of apprehending environmental issues and addressing them appropriately and ethically. I have dismissed the idea that environmental education should be downplayed or be made symbolic and kept for high levels of education. I agree with Yliniva and Brunila (2024) recommendations to offer children possibilities for discussing and reflecting on contexts being introduced and working in projects and art. This also concerns the approaches where children allow for the exploration of knowledge through difficult questions, engagement in the creation of sustainability interventions, allowing for reflection through storytelling of the natural environments, and engagement in nature-based inquiry. Based on the framework of posthumanist activity provided by Murris and Reynolds (2023), I would endorse activities that foster child’s engagement with animals, plants, weather, and waste as interrelated and interdependent systems. Such experiences would enable the children to learn interpersonal manners and how they would feel when they are held responsible on issues to do with the environment.
5. Relevance to Practice in the Australian Early Years Context
I support EYLF (Framework for Practice V2.0) principle of High Expectations and Equity whereby educators are required to expect the best in children and respect their ideas (AGDE, 2022). When the government regards children as capable of participating in the climate dialogue, this automatically puts children on an equal pedestal as any other party to be educated, a move that is important for equality. Additionally, my practice is aligned with the National Quality Standard (NQS): Quality Area 1 Educational Program and Practice that states that educational program has to be meaningful, responsive, and intentional. Fostering sustainability objectives into what children come across in their daily lives whether it is through gardening initiative, clean-up activities, or constructing the narrative through stories enhances the curriculum to be aligned to life. In the classroom, I would encourage the use of reflective journals, project documentation and collaborative work for documentation of ethical development map of the children on climate change. I would also build a strong cooperation with families to ensure students learn environmental conservation practices to be implemented at home.
For more teaching-focused tasks on EYLF and NQS, explore our education assignment help support.
6. Conclusion
This section has provided a contrasting view to the ECEC discourse on climate change and childhood as one that positions children as agentic environmental citizens. This is in connection with the following research by Rautio et al. (2022), Yliniva and Brunila (2024), Murris and Reynolds (2023), Portus et al. (2024), and Chueca Vergara and Ferruz Agudo (2021) to advocate for a critically engaged and ethically sensitive and participative sustainability education. However, this approach also corresponds to EYLF and NQS principles and demonstrates the program’s concern for children as future guardians of the environment.
Reference List
Journals
Part 1:
- Sommerfeld, T. L. (2021). How Can Nature-Based Learning Support Healthy Overall Development Of Preschoolers In Early Childhood Education?.[Retrieved From: https://digitalcommons.csp.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=teacher-education_masters]
- Trina, N. A. (2022). The play value of plants: Altering parts of plants as loose parts play materials in early childhood learning landscapes (Doctoral dissertation).[Retrieved From:https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/bitstreams/a87dcaa7-8431-4af3-81e8-5bcb7ea94903/download]
- Furu, C. and Valkonen, S., 2021. Gearing up for sustainability education in Finnish early childhood education and care (ECEC): Exploring practices and pedagogies by means of collegial reflection and discussion. International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 8(2), pp.30-42.[Retrieved From:https://research.abo.fi/files/33582160/6._furu_valkonen_final.pdf]
- Hughes, F. (2023). Early Childhood Educators' Professional Learning for Sustainability Through Action Research in Australian Immersive Nature Play Programmes. Educational Research for Social Change, 12(1), 69-83.[Retrieved From:https://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/ersc/v12n1/07.pdf]
- Alam, T. M., Stoica, G. A., & Özgöbek, Ö. (2025). Asking the classroom with technology: a systematic literature review. Smart Learning Environments, 12(1), 7.[Retrieved From:https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s40561-024-00348-z.pdf]
Part 2:
- Rautio, P., Tammi, T., Aivelo, T., Hohti, R., Kervinen, A., & Saari, M. (2022). “For whom? By whom?”: critical perspectives of participation in ecological citizen science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 17(3), 765-793.[Retrieved From: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11422-021-10099-9.pdf]
- Chueca Vergara, C., & Ferruz Agudo, L. (2021). Fintech and sustainability: do they affect each other?. Sustainability, 13(13), 7012.[Retrieved From:https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/13/7012/pdf]
- Yliniva, K., & Brunila, K. (2024). Re-conceptualizing the political agency of young children in the Anthropocene. In Handbook of Children and Youth Studies (pp. 1109-1128). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.[Retrieved From: https://iartem-17.sciencesconf.org/data/pages/book_iartem_17_papers_OK.pdf#page=166]
- Murris, K., & Reynolds, R. A. (2023). Posthumanism and childhood studies. Oxford University Press.[Retrieved From: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Karin-Murris/publication/367075111_Posthumanism_and_Childhood_Studies/links/6545cfdfce88b87031c2f0ad/Posthumanism-and-Childhood-Studies.pdf]
- Portus, R., Aarnio-Linnanvuori, E., Dillon, B., Fahy, F., Gopinath, D., Mansikka-Aho, A., ... & McEwen, L. (2024). Exploring the environmental value action gap in education research: a semi-systematic literature review. Environmental Education Research, 30(6), 833-863.[Retrieved From: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13504622.2024.2314060]
