Assess, Plan, Do, Review (APDR) Cycle: Reflective Practice

Q: What Are the Benefits of Using the APDR Cycle?

The APDR Cycle enhances reflective practice, supports evidence-based decision-making, and tailors learning experiences to individual needs. It also promotes consistent progress monitoring and timely interventions, leading to better cognitive and social-emotional outcomes for children.

Q: How Often Should the APDR Cycle Be Completed?

The frequency of the APDR Cycle depends on the children's needs and setting. Some settings may complete cycles weekly for general planning, while others run shorter cycles daily or moment-to-moment for specific children or activities.

Q: How Does the APDR Cycle Differ from Other Similar Models?

The APDR Cycle is tailored to educational settings, emphasizing assessment before planning, unlike models like PDSA or PDCA that originated in industrial contexts. APDR also allows more flexibility for immediate adaptations to meet children's needs.

Q: What Are Some Challenges in Implementing the APDR Cycle?

Challenges include time constraints, balancing structure and flexibility, documentation demands, and maintaining child-centered practice. Addressing these challenges involves prioritizing children's needs, professional development, and supportive leadership.

Q: How Can Technology Support the APDR Cycle?

Technology can enhance the APDR Cycle by streamlining assessments, facilitating collaborative planning, supporting activity delivery, and analyzing progress data. However, technology should be used to support—not replace—meaningful interactions with children.

Q: How Does the APDR Cycle Support Inclusive Practice?

The APDR Cycle supports inclusivity by tailoring assessments and plans to individual needs, allowing for flexible implementation, and monitoring the effectiveness of inclusive strategies. Culturally responsive approaches also ensure inclusivity for diverse backgrounds.

Key Takeaways

Cyclical improvement: The APDR cycle, rooted in Deming and Shewhart’s theories, provides a structured approach for continuous improvement in Early Years education through systematic assessment, planning, implementation, and reflection.
Enhanced practice: By encouraging ongoing reflection and responsiveness to children’s needs, the APDR cycle helps Early Years practitioners develop more effective, child-centered teaching strategies and improve learning outcomes.
Flexible implementation: While providing a structured framework, the APDR cycle should be applied flexibly in Early Years settings to maintain responsiveness to children’s spontaneous interests and developmental needs.
Evolving approach: The APDR cycle continues to adapt to changing educational landscapes, incorporating new insights from neuroscience, technology integration, and culturally responsive practices to remain relevant in modern Early Years education.

Introduction

The Assess, Plan, Do, Review (APDR) cycle is a fundamental framework in education that guides practitioners through a systematic process of continuous improvement. This iterative approach, rooted in reflective practice, has become increasingly significant in shaping pedagogical strategies and enhancing learning outcomes across various educational settings.

At its core, the APDR cycle provides a structured method for educators to evaluate their practice, develop targeted interventions, implement changes, and reflect on their effectiveness. This process aligns closely with the principles of evidence-based practice, encouraging educators to make informed decisions based on observed outcomes and empirical data.

The origins of the APDR cycle can be traced back to earlier models of cyclical improvement, such as the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle developed by W. Edwards Deming in the 1950s (Deming, 1986). While initially applied in industrial settings, these principles have been adapted and refined for educational contexts, recognising the unique challenges and opportunities within teaching and learning environments.

In Early Years education, the APDR cycle holds particular relevance due to the rapid developmental changes that occur during this critical period. Early childhood practitioners use this framework to:

Assess children’s current developmental levels and learning needs
Plan appropriate activities and interventions
Implement these plans in a thoughtful and intentional manner
Review the outcomes and reflect on their practice

This approach aligns with key principles of Early Years pedagogy, such as child-centred learning and responsive caregiving. It enables practitioners to tailor their approaches to individual children’s needs, fostering an environment that supports optimal growth and development (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2002).

The APDR cycle also plays a crucial role in professional practice beyond the Early Years. It provides a framework for continuous professional development, encouraging educators to engage in ongoing reflection and improvement of their teaching methods. This process of systematic inquiry and refinement contributes to the development of a more skilled and adaptable workforce, capable of responding to the evolving needs of learners in diverse educational contexts (Schön, 1983).

Moreover, the APDR cycle aligns with broader educational policies and quality assurance frameworks. In the UK, for instance, it resonates with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) emphasis on self-evaluation and continuous improvement in educational settings (Ofsted, 2019).

As we delve deeper into the components and applications of the APDR cycle, it becomes evident that this framework offers a valuable tool for enhancing educational practice. By providing a structured approach to reflection and improvement, it empowers educators to make informed decisions, adapt to changing circumstances, and ultimately provide higher quality learning experiences for their students.

Historical Context and Theoretical Foundations of APDR

The Assess, Plan, Do, Review (APDR) cycle, while widely recognised in educational contexts today, has its roots in earlier models of cyclical improvement that originated in industrial and scientific settings. Understanding this historical context provides valuable insights into the development and evolution of these iterative approaches to learning and improvement.

Origins of Cyclical Learning/Improvement Models

The concept of cyclical improvement can be traced back to the early 20th century, with the emergence of scientific management principles. However, it was in the field of quality control that these ideas truly began to take shape.

One of the earliest iterations of a cyclical improvement model was the Shewhart Cycle, developed by Walter A. Shewhart in the 1920s. Shewhart, a physicist and engineer, introduced the concept of Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) while working at Bell Laboratories. His model was primarily focused on statistical quality control in manufacturing processes (Shewhart, 1939).

Shewhart’s work laid the foundation for future developments in cyclical improvement models. He emphasised the importance of continuous evaluation and adjustment, ideas that would later become central to educational practices.

Key Influencers and Theorists

While Shewhart’s contributions were significant, it was W. Edwards Deming who brought these concepts to wider attention and developed them further. Deming, a statistician and management consultant, was deeply influenced by Shewhart’s work.

In the 1950s, Deming introduced the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, a modification of Shewhart’s original model. Deming’s cycle placed greater emphasis on the ‘Study’ phase, highlighting the importance of analysis and reflection before taking action (Deming, 1986). This shift from ‘Check’ to ‘Study’ represented a move towards a more analytical and reflective approach, which would later prove highly relevant in educational contexts.

Deming’s work initially gained traction in post-war Japan, where his ideas on quality improvement were enthusiastically adopted by Japanese industries. The success of these methods in Japan eventually led to their wider recognition and adoption in Western countries.

Another significant contributor to the development of cyclical improvement models was Joseph M. Juran. Juran, like Deming, was instrumental in promoting quality management principles. He introduced the concept of the ‘Quality Trilogy’: quality planning, quality control, and quality improvement. This trilogy emphasised the continuous nature of quality improvement processes (Juran, 1986).

In the realm of education, the influence of these industrial models began to be felt in the latter half of the 20th century. Educators and researchers began to recognise the potential of applying these cyclical improvement models to teaching and learning processes.

Donald Schön’s work on reflective practice in the 1980s was particularly influential in bridging the gap between industrial quality improvement models and educational practice. Schön’s concept of the ‘reflective practitioner’ emphasised the importance of ongoing reflection and adjustment in professional practice, including education (Schön, 1983).

As these ideas were adapted for educational contexts, they evolved into various forms, including the Action Research cycle popularised by Kurt Lewin, and eventually, the Assess, Plan, Do, Review cycle commonly used in education today.

The journey from Shewhart’s initial PDCA cycle to the APDR cycle used in contemporary education illustrates the adaptability and enduring relevance of cyclical improvement models. While the specific terminology and emphasis may have shifted, the core principles of systematic observation, planning, action, and reflection remain central to these approaches.

Understanding this historical context helps educators appreciate the rich theoretical foundations underpinning the APDR cycle. It also highlights the interdisciplinary nature of educational theory, demonstrating how concepts from industrial and scientific fields can be successfully adapted to enhance teaching and learning practices.

The APDR Cycle Explained

The Assess, Plan, Do, Review (APDR) cycle is a structured approach to continuous improvement in educational settings. This cyclical process provides educators with a framework for systematically evaluating and enhancing their practice. Let’s explore each stage of the cycle in detail and examine how they interconnect.

Assess

The cycle begins with assessment, a crucial stage that forms the foundation for all subsequent actions. During this phase, educators gather and analyse information about the current situation. In Early Years settings, this might involve:

Observing children’s play and interactions
Reviewing developmental milestones
Conducting formal and informal assessments
Gathering feedback from parents and colleagues

The goal is to build a comprehensive picture of each child’s abilities, interests, and needs. This stage aligns with Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of Proximal Development, which emphasises the importance of understanding a child’s current level of development to scaffold their learning effectively (Vygotsky, 1978). Read our in-depth Article on Lev Vygotsky here.

Plan

Based on the insights gained from the assessment stage, educators move on to planning. This involves:

Setting clear, achievable objectives
Designing activities and interventions
Allocating resources
Considering differentiation strategies

Effective planning takes into account individual children’s needs, interests, and learning styles. It also considers the wider curriculum and developmental goals. The planning stage reflects Bruner’s theory of instructional scaffolding, where educators design supportive frameworks to guide learners towards new understandings (Wood et al., 1976).

Do

The ‘Do’ stage is where plans are put into action. This involves:

Implementing planned activities and interventions
Observing children’s responses and engagement
Making real-time adjustments as necessary
Documenting the process and outcomes

This stage requires flexibility and responsiveness from educators. It’s not simply about following a script, but rather about being attuned to children’s reactions and adapting accordingly. This approach aligns with the concept of ‘pedagogical tact’ described by van Manen (1991), which emphasises the importance of sensitive and responsive teaching.

Review

The final stage of the cycle involves reflecting on the outcomes of the ‘Do’ stage. Educators:

Evaluate the effectiveness of their interventions
Reflect on what worked well and what could be improved
Consider unexpected outcomes or challenges
Use insights to inform future planning

This stage embodies Schön’s concept of reflection-on-action, where practitioners critically analyse their practice after the event to improve future performance (Schön, 1983).

Interconnection of Stages

While presented as distinct stages, it’s crucial to understand that the APDR cycle is a fluid, interconnected process. Each stage informs and influences the others:

Assessment provides the data needed for effective planning
Planning shapes the actions taken in the ‘Do’ stage
The ‘Do’ stage generates new information for review
Review informs future assessments and planning

This continuous flow of information and action creates a self-improving system. As educators move through the cycle repeatedly, their practice becomes increasingly refined and responsive to children’s needs.

The cyclical nature of APDR also allows for ongoing adaptation. If a review reveals that an intervention wasn’t as effective as hoped, educators can quickly reassess, replan, and try a different approach. This flexibility is particularly valuable in Early Years settings, where children’s needs and abilities can change rapidly.

By providing a structured yet flexible framework for reflection and action, the APDR cycle enables educators to continuously enhance their practice. It encourages a proactive, evidence-based approach to teaching and learning, fostering environments where both children and educators can thrive and grow.

Variations and Related Models

While the Assess, Plan, Do, Review (APDR) cycle is widely used in educational settings, it’s part of a broader family of cyclical improvement models. Two prominent variations that share similarities with APDR are the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle and the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle. Understanding these related models can provide valuable insights into the evolution and application of cyclical improvement processes.

PDSA (Plan, Do, Study, Act)

The PDSA cycle, also known as the Deming Cycle, was developed by W. Edwards Deming as an evolution of earlier models. It consists of four stages:

Plan: Identify an opportunity for improvement and plan the change.
Do: Implement the change on a small scale.
Study: Analyse the results and compare them against the expected outcomes.
Act: If the change was successful, implement it on a wider scale. If not, begin the cycle again.

Deming emphasised the ‘Study’ phase, replacing the ‘Check’ from earlier models. This shift highlights the importance of in-depth analysis rather than simple verification (Deming, 1993). The PDSA cycle is widely used in healthcare and business settings, where it’s valued for its emphasis on testing changes on a small scale before full implementation.

PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act)

The PDCA cycle, often attributed to Shewhart but popularised by Deming, is another variation that’s closely related to APDR. Its stages are:

Plan: Establish objectives and processes necessary to deliver results.
Do: Implement the plan and carry out the process.
Check: Monitor and evaluate the processes and results against objectives.
Act: Apply actions for improvement based on the evaluation.

PDCA is particularly popular in manufacturing and quality management contexts. It’s often associated with kaizen, the Japanese concept of continuous improvement (Imai, 1986).

Comparison of Different Models and Their Specific Applications

While these models share a common cyclical structure, their nuances make them suited to different contexts:

APDR (Assess, Plan, Do, Review):
- Commonly used in educational settings, particularly Early Years.
- Emphasises initial assessment to inform planning.
- ‘Review’ stage encourages reflective practice.
- Well-suited to child-centred, responsive teaching approaches.
PDSA (Plan, Do, Study, Act):
- Often used in healthcare and organisational improvement.
- ‘Study’ phase emphasises in-depth analysis of outcomes.
- Encourages small-scale testing before wider implementation.
- Useful for complex systems where outcomes may be unpredictable.
PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act):
- Widely used in manufacturing and quality management.
- ‘Check’ phase focuses on verifying outcomes against set standards.
- Often associated with standardisation and process control.
- Effective for contexts where consistency and error reduction are key.

The choice between these models often depends on the specific context and goals of the improvement process. For instance, APDR’s emphasis on initial assessment makes it particularly suitable for educational settings where understanding learners’ current abilities is crucial. PDSA’s focus on studying outcomes in depth can be beneficial in healthcare, where interventions may have complex and far-reaching effects. PDCA’s emphasis on checking against standards aligns well with manufacturing processes where consistency is paramount.

It’s worth noting that these models are not mutually exclusive, and elements from each can be incorporated into practice as needed. For example, an Early Years practitioner might use the APDR cycle as their primary framework but incorporate aspects of PDSA when introducing new teaching strategies, using the ‘Study’ phase to analyse outcomes in greater depth.

Understanding these variations can help practitioners choose the most appropriate model for their context or adapt elements from different models to create a bespoke approach. Regardless of the specific model used, the underlying principle of continuous, cyclical improvement remains consistent, providing a structured approach to enhancing practice and outcomes.

Implementation of APDR in Early Childhood Education

The Assess, Plan, Do, Review (APDR) cycle has found widespread application in Early Years settings, where its structured yet flexible approach aligns well with the dynamic nature of early childhood development. Implementing APDR effectively requires practitioners to adapt the framework to the unique needs of young children and the specific context of their setting.

Practical Examples of APDR in Early Years Settings

In Early Years education, the APDR cycle can be applied to various aspects of practice, from individual child development to overall programme improvement. Here are some practical examples:

Language Development: A practitioner might assess a child’s current vocabulary through observation and parental input. Based on this assessment, they plan activities to introduce new words in context, such as themed storytimes or role-play scenarios. During the ‘Do’ phase, they implement these activities, observing the child’s engagement and use of new vocabulary. In the review stage, they reflect on the child’s progress and consider adjustments for future planning.
Physical Development: An Early Years setting might assess children’s gross motor skills through structured observations. They then plan a series of outdoor activities designed to challenge and develop these skills. After implementing the activities, they review children’s progress and engagement, using this information to refine future physical development opportunities.
Social-Emotional Learning: Practitioners might assess children’s ability to share and take turns through observations during free play. They could then plan structured group activities that encourage these skills. After implementing these activities, they would review their effectiveness, considering factors such as the group dynamics and individual children’s responses.

These examples demonstrate how the APDR cycle can be applied flexibly across different areas of Early Years practice, always with the goal of supporting children’s holistic development.

Case Studies Demonstrating Successful Implementation

Several case studies highlight the effectiveness of the APDR cycle in Early Years settings. For instance, Pascal and Bertram (2012) describe a nursery that used the APDR cycle to enhance their outdoor learning environment. The setting assessed children’s engagement with existing outdoor resources, planned changes based on children’s interests and developmental needs, implemented these changes, and then reviewed their impact. This cyclical process led to a more stimulating outdoor area that better supported children’s learning and development.

In another case study, Siraj-Blatchford et al. (2002) in the Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) project found that settings rated as ‘excellent’ consistently used cycles of observation, assessment, and planning to tailor their provision to children’s needs. This approach, closely aligned with the APDR cycle, was associated with better cognitive and social-emotional outcomes for children.

Challenges and Considerations for Practitioners

While the APDR cycle offers many benefits, its implementation in Early Years settings is not without challenges. Practitioners need to consider several factors:

Time Management: The cyclical nature of APDR requires ongoing assessment and planning, which can be time-consuming. Practitioners need to find efficient ways to integrate these processes into their daily routines.
Balancing Structure and Flexibility: While APDR provides a structured approach, it’s crucial to maintain flexibility to respond to children’s spontaneous interests and needs. Overly rigid application of the cycle can stifle the natural flow of Early Years practice.
Developmentally Appropriate Assessment: Assessing young children requires specific skills and approaches. Practitioners need to use methods that are appropriate for the age group and that capture authentic information about children’s abilities and interests.
Collaborative Approach: Effective implementation of APDR often requires collaboration among staff members and with parents. Establishing good communication channels and shared understanding of the process is crucial.
Documentation: Keeping track of observations, plans, and reflections is essential for the APDR cycle. Practitioners need to develop efficient systems for documentation that don’t detract from their time with children.
Avoiding Over-planning: There’s a risk of over-planning in an attempt to cover all bases, which can lead to a prescriptive approach that doesn’t allow for child-led learning. Practitioners need to strike a balance between intentional teaching and following children’s leads.

Wood (2013) emphasises the importance of professional judgement in navigating these challenges, suggesting that effective implementation of cycles like APDR requires practitioners to blend theoretical knowledge with practical wisdom gained through experience.

In conclusion, while implementing the APDR cycle in Early Years settings presents certain challenges, its potential to enhance practice and improve outcomes for children makes it a valuable tool for practitioners. By understanding these challenges and considering them in their approach, Early Years professionals can harness the power of APDR to create responsive, effective learning environments for young children.

Impact of APDR on Professional Practice

The implementation of the Assess, Plan, Do, Review (APDR) cycle in Early Years settings has significant implications for professional practice. This systematic approach not only enhances the quality of education provided to young children but also contributes to the professional development of educators. Let’s explore how APDR influences reflective practice, benefits both educators and children, and examine the evidence for improved outcomes.

How APDR Enhances Reflective Practice

Reflective practice is a cornerstone of effective Early Years education, and the APDR cycle provides a structured framework for this critical process. By incorporating reflection at each stage of the cycle, educators are encouraged to consistently examine their practice and its impact on children’s learning and development.

The ‘Assess’ stage prompts practitioners to reflect on their observations and interpretations of children’s behaviour and learning. This reflective process helps educators to question their assumptions and consider alternative perspectives, leading to a more nuanced understanding of each child’s needs and capabilities.

During the ‘Plan’ stage, educators reflect on their previous experiences and knowledge to design appropriate learning experiences. This forward-thinking reflection encourages practitioners to anticipate potential challenges and opportunities, fostering a proactive approach to teaching.

The ‘Do’ stage involves real-time reflection-in-action, as described by Schön (1983). Educators must continually assess the effectiveness of their planned activities and make immediate adjustments based on children’s responses. This dynamic reflection hones practitioners’ ability to be responsive and adaptive in their teaching.

Finally, the ‘Review’ stage embodies reflection-on-action, where educators critically analyse the outcomes of their practice. This retrospective reflection deepens understanding of what works and why, informing future practice and driving continuous improvement.

Mcfee (2019) argues that the cyclical nature of APDR encourages a habit of ongoing reflection, which is crucial for professional growth and the development of pedagogical expertise. By consistently engaging in this reflective cycle, educators develop a more critical and analytical approach to their practice, leading to more informed decision-making and improved outcomes for children.

Benefits for Educators and Children

The implementation of APDR offers numerous benefits for both educators and children in Early Years settings:

For educators:

Enhanced professional judgement: Regular engagement with the APDR cycle sharpens educators’ ability to make informed decisions about children’s learning and development.
Increased job satisfaction: The structured approach to improvement can lead to a greater sense of professional efficacy and accomplishment.
Improved teamwork: APDR often involves collaboration, fostering better communication and shared understanding among staff members.
Continuous professional development: The cycle promotes ongoing learning and skill development, keeping educators’ practice fresh and current.

For children:

Individualised learning experiences: The assessment and planning stages of APDR enable educators to tailor activities to each child’s needs and interests.
Consistent progress monitoring: Regular assessments help track children’s development more accurately, ensuring timely interventions when needed.
Responsive learning environments: The iterative nature of APDR allows for quick adjustments to the learning environment based on children’s changing needs.
Enhanced engagement: Activities planned through APDR are more likely to be relevant and engaging for children, promoting active participation in learning.

Leggett and Ford (2013) emphasise that the benefits for educators and children are interconnected. As educators become more reflective and skilled practitioners through APDR, they are better equipped to support children’s learning and development effectively.

Evidence of Improved Outcomes

Research has provided evidence of the positive impact of APDR-like cycles on outcomes in Early Years settings. The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) project, a large-scale longitudinal study in the UK, found that settings using systematic observation, assessment, and planning cycles (similar to APDR) were associated with better cognitive and social-emotional outcomes for children (Sylva et al., 2004).

A study by Moyles et al. (2002) demonstrated that practitioners who engaged in reflective cycles similar to APDR showed improved ability to articulate their practice and make informed decisions about children’s learning. This enhanced professional practice was linked to improved quality of provision and better outcomes for children.

In a more recent study, Basford and Bath (2014) found that Early Years settings implementing cycles of assessment, planning, and review were better able to support children’s individual learning journeys. The researchers noted improvements in children’s engagement, well-being, and progress across various areas of learning.

However, it’s important to note that the effectiveness of APDR depends on how well it is implemented. Coe et al. (2014) emphasise that for such cycles to be truly effective, they must be embedded in a culture of critical reflection and continuous improvement.

While the evidence generally supports the positive impact of APDR-like cycles, more research is needed to fully understand their long-term effects on children’s outcomes and practitioners’ professional development. Nonetheless, the existing evidence suggests that when implemented thoughtfully, APDR can be a powerful tool for enhancing both professional practice and children’s learning experiences in Early Years settings.

In conclusion, the APDR cycle has a significant impact on professional practice in Early Years education. By enhancing reflective practice, offering benefits to both educators and children, and showing evidence of improved outcomes, APDR provides a structured yet flexible approach to continuous improvement in Early Years settings. As the field of early childhood education continues to evolve, the principles embedded in the APDR cycle are likely to remain relevant, supporting practitioners in their ongoing quest to provide high-quality, responsive care and education for young children.

Evaluation

The Assess, Plan, Do, Review (APDR) cycle, while widely adopted in Early Years settings, has been subject to both criticism and support. A balanced evaluation of this approach requires consideration of its limitations, strengths, and the broader research context in which it operates.

Limitations and Criticisms of the Research/Theories

One of the primary criticisms of the APDR cycle is its potential to lead to an overly structured approach to Early Years education. Critics argue that strict adherence to the cycle might result in a rigid, prescriptive practice that doesn’t align with the spontaneous nature of young children’s learning. Wood (2020) suggests that an overemphasis on planning and assessment could detract from the responsive, child-led approach that is central to effective Early Years practice.

Another limitation is the challenge of implementing APDR in a way that truly captures the complexity of early childhood development. Moss (2016) argues that the cycle’s emphasis on observable outcomes might lead practitioners to focus on easily measurable aspects of learning at the expense of more nuanced, holistic development. This could potentially result in a narrowing of the curriculum and a neglect of important but less tangible areas of growth.

The time-intensive nature of the APDR cycle has also been criticised. Practitioners often report feeling overwhelmed by the documentation requirements associated with rigorous implementation of the cycle. This administrative burden could potentially detract from direct engagement with children, which is crucial in Early Years settings (Bradbury, 2014).

Furthermore, there are concerns about the cultural appropriateness of the APDR cycle. Developed primarily in Western educational contexts, the cycle may not align well with diverse cultural perspectives on early childhood education. Pascal and Bertram (2021) highlight the need for more culturally responsive approaches to assessment and planning in increasingly diverse Early Years settings.

Strengths and Support for the Research/Theories

Despite these criticisms, the APDR cycle has garnered significant support within the Early Years community. One of its key strengths is its alignment with the concept of reflective practice, which is widely recognised as crucial for effective teaching. The cycle provides a structured framework for reflection, encouraging practitioners to critically examine their practice and make informed decisions about children’s learning (Schön, 1983).

The APDR cycle also supports a differentiated approach to early childhood education. By emphasising ongoing assessment and responsive planning, it enables practitioners to tailor their approach to individual children’s needs and interests. This aligns well with contemporary understandings of child development, which recognise the unique trajectories of individual children (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2002).

Another strength of the APDR cycle is its potential to enhance communication and collaboration among Early Years practitioners. The structured nature of the cycle can facilitate more effective sharing of observations and ideas among team members, leading to a more cohesive approach to children’s learning and development (Moyles et al., 2002).

The cycle’s emphasis on review and reflection also supports continuous improvement in Early Years practice. By encouraging practitioners to regularly evaluate the effectiveness of their approaches, the APDR cycle fosters a culture of ongoing professional development and quality enhancement (Mcfee, 2019).

Contradictory or Supporting Research

Research on the effectiveness of the APDR cycle and similar approaches in Early Years settings has produced mixed results. Some studies have found positive associations between the use of such cycles and improved outcomes for children. For instance, the Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) project found that settings using systematic cycles of observation, assessment, and planning achieved better cognitive and social-emotional outcomes for children (Sylva et al., 2004).

However, other research has challenged these findings. A study by Basford and Bath (2014) found that while practitioners valued the APDR cycle, there was limited evidence of its direct impact on children’s learning outcomes. The researchers suggested that the effectiveness of the cycle might depend more on how it is implemented than on the cycle itself.

Bradbury and Roberts-Holmes (2018) present a more critical perspective, arguing that the emphasis on assessment and planning cycles in Early Years education has led to an ‘assessment culture’ that potentially narrows the focus of early childhood education and places undue pressure on young children.

On the other hand, research by Pascal and Bertram (2012) supports the use of reflective cycles like APDR, particularly when they are implemented flexibly and with a strong focus on child-led learning. Their work suggests that when used thoughtfully, such cycles can enhance the quality of Early Years provision.

It’s important to note that much of the research in this area is context-specific and may not be universally applicable. Factors such as cultural context, practitioner training, and the specific needs of different Early Years settings can all influence the effectiveness of the APDR cycle.

In conclusion, while the APDR cycle has both strengths and limitations, its effectiveness largely depends on how it is implemented in practice. When used flexibly and in conjunction with a strong understanding of early childhood development, it can be a valuable tool for enhancing Early Years practice. However, practitioners should be mindful of its potential limitations and strive to implement it in a way that maintains a child-centred, responsive approach to early childhood education. Further research is needed to fully understand the long-term impacts of APDR and similar cycles on children’s learning and development in diverse Early Years contexts.

Future Directions

As the field of Early Years education continues to evolve, so too do the approaches to learning and teaching. The Assess, Plan, Do, Review (APDR) cycle, while well-established, is not static. It is adapting to meet the changing needs of children, educators, and society at large. In this section, we’ll explore emerging trends in cyclical learning models and consider potential adaptations for the changing educational landscape.

Emerging Trends in Cyclical Learning Models

One significant trend is the integration of technology into the APDR cycle. Digital tools are increasingly being used to support each stage of the process. For instance, Palaiologou (2016) discusses how digital documentation tools can enhance the assessment stage, allowing for more efficient and comprehensive data collection. These tools can capture children’s learning moments through photos, videos, and notes, creating a rich digital portfolio that informs planning and review.

Another emerging trend is the increased focus on children’s participation in the APDR cycle. Building on the principles of child-centred learning, there’s a growing emphasis on involving children more actively in the assessment and planning stages. Malaguzzi’s Reggio Emilia approach, which views children as capable co-constructors of their learning, is influencing this shift (Edwards et al., 2011). In practice, this might involve children participating in setting their own learning goals or contributing to the planning of activities. Read our in-depth Article on the Reggio Emilia approach here.

The concept of ‘in-the-moment planning’ is also gaining traction. This approach, advocated by Anna Ephgrave (2018), emphasises responding to children’s immediate interests and needs rather than planning activities far in advance. While still cyclical in nature, this approach challenges the traditional implementation of APDR by condensing the cycle into shorter, more responsive loops.

There’s also an increasing recognition of the importance of the learning environment in the APDR cycle. The ‘third teacher’ concept, derived from Reggio Emilia philosophy, is influencing how practitioners think about the role of space in learning. This has led to a greater emphasis on the ‘Review’ stage of APDR to include reflection on how the environment supports or hinders learning (Strong-Wilson & Ellis, 2007).

Potential Adaptations for Changing Educational Landscapes

As our understanding of early childhood development grows and societal needs change, the APDR cycle may need to adapt in several ways:

Incorporation of neuroscience insights: As we learn more about brain development in early childhood, this knowledge could inform how we assess children’s progress and plan activities. For example, understanding the importance of executive function skills might lead to more focused assessment and planning in this area (Center on the Developing Child, 2011).
Addressing digital literacy: With technology becoming increasingly prevalent, the APDR cycle may need to incorporate assessment and planning for digital skills and online safety, even in Early Years settings (Palaiologou, 2016).
Cultural responsiveness: As Early Years settings become more diverse, the APDR cycle may need to adapt to be more culturally inclusive. This could involve incorporating diverse assessment methods and planning culturally relevant activities (Pascal & Bertram, 2021).
Focus on social-emotional learning: With growing recognition of the importance of social-emotional skills, the APDR cycle may need to place greater emphasis on assessing and planning for these areas of development (Durlak et al., 2011).
Sustainability and environmental awareness: As environmental issues become more pressing, the APDR cycle might evolve to include assessment and planning related to sustainability education, even in Early Years settings (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2010).
Flexibility for blended learning: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for flexibility in educational approaches. Future iterations of the APDR cycle may need to accommodate both in-person and remote learning scenarios (Kim, 2020).
Trauma-informed practice: With increasing awareness of the impact of adverse childhood experiences, the APDR cycle may need to incorporate trauma-informed approaches to assessment and planning (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014).

As these adaptations are considered, it’s crucial to maintain the core principles of the APDR cycle – its emphasis on reflection, responsiveness, and continuous improvement. The challenge for Early Years practitioners will be to integrate these new elements while preserving the child-centred, play-based approach that is fundamental to effective Early Years education.

It’s also important to note that as the APDR cycle evolves, so too must the training and support provided to Early Years practitioners. Professional development will need to keep pace with these changes, ensuring that educators are equipped to implement new approaches effectively.

In conclusion, while the fundamental structure of the APDR cycle is likely to remain relevant, its implementation is set to become more nuanced, responsive, and technologically integrated. As we look to the future, the key will be to embrace these new directions while staying true to the core principles of Early Years education – supporting each child’s unique developmental journey through responsive, reflective practice.

Conclusion

As we reach the end of our exploration of the Assess, Plan, Do, Review (APDR) cycle, it’s valuable to reflect on the key points we’ve covered and consider the enduring importance of this approach in modern educational practice, particularly in Early Years settings.

Throughout this article, we’ve traced the evolution of cyclical improvement models from their origins in industrial settings to their adaptation and widespread use in education. We’ve seen how the APDR cycle, rooted in the work of influential thinkers like Deming and Shewhart, has become a cornerstone of reflective practice in Early Years education.

We’ve examined each stage of the APDR cycle in detail, understanding how the ‘Assess’ stage provides crucial insights into children’s current abilities and needs, how the ‘Plan’ stage allows for targeted and intentional teaching, how the ‘Do’ stage involves the implementation of these plans with flexibility and responsiveness, and how the ‘Review’ stage encourages critical reflection on practice and outcomes.

We’ve also explored practical examples of APDR in Early Years settings, from supporting language development to enhancing outdoor learning environments. These examples have illustrated the versatility and adaptability of the APDR approach across various aspects of Early Years practice.

The impact of APDR on professional practice has been a key focus. We’ve seen how this cycle enhances reflective practice, encouraging educators to continually examine and improve their approaches. The benefits for both educators and children are clear, from more tailored learning experiences to improved job satisfaction and professional development for practitioners.

However, our evaluation has also highlighted some limitations and criticisms of the APDR approach. Concerns about over-structure, time constraints, and potential cultural biases remind us of the importance of implementing APDR flexibly and thoughtfully, always keeping the unique needs of each child and setting at the forefront.

Looking to the future, we’ve explored emerging trends and potential adaptations of the APDR cycle. From the integration of technology to a greater emphasis on children’s participation in the process, these developments suggest that the APDR cycle will continue to evolve to meet changing educational needs and contexts.

The importance of APDR in modern educational practice, particularly in Early Years settings, cannot be overstated. In an era where evidence-based practice and continuous improvement are highly valued, the APDR cycle provides a structured yet flexible framework for achieving these goals. It aligns with our current understanding of how children learn and develop, emphasizing the importance of responsive, individualized approaches to early education.

Moreover, the APDR cycle supports the professionalization of Early Years practice. By encouraging systematic observation, thoughtful planning, and critical reflection, it elevates the role of Early Years practitioners as skilled professionals capable of making informed decisions about children’s learning and development.

The APDR cycle also aligns with broader educational trends towards more child-centred, play-based approaches in Early Years education. As Moyles (2010) argues, effective play-based learning requires careful observation, planning, and reflection – processes that are at the heart of the APDR cycle.

Furthermore, in an increasingly diverse and rapidly changing world, the flexibility and responsiveness encouraged by the APDR cycle are more important than ever. It provides a framework for practitioners to continually adapt their practice to meet the changing needs of children, families, and communities.

However, as we look to the future, it’s crucial to remember that the APDR cycle is a tool, not a solution in itself. Its effectiveness depends on how it is implemented and the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of the practitioners using it. As Pascal and Bertram (2012) remind us, reflective cycles like APDR are most powerful when they are embedded in a culture of continuous learning and improvement.

In conclusion, while the APDR cycle may continue to evolve and adapt, its core principles of systematic assessment, thoughtful planning, responsive implementation, and critical reflection are likely to remain relevant in Early Years education for years to come. By providing a structure for reflective practice and continuous improvement, the APDR cycle supports Early Years practitioners in their crucial role of laying the foundations for children’s lifelong learning and development.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Assess, Plan, Do, Review Cycle?

The Assess, Plan, Do, Review (APDR) Cycle is a structured approach to continuous improvement in educational settings, particularly in Early Years education. It consists of four stages:

Assess: Gathering information about children’s current abilities, interests, and needs.
Plan: Designing activities and interventions based on the assessment.
Do: Implementing the planned activities.
Review: Evaluating the effectiveness of the activities and using this information to inform future planning.

This cycle provides a framework for reflective practice, helping educators to continuously improve their teaching methods and support children’s learning more effectively.

How Does the APDR Cycle Work in Practice?

In practice, the APDR Cycle works as a continuous loop of improvement. Here’s a simple example:

Assess: An Early Years practitioner observes that a child struggles with turn-taking during play.
Plan: The practitioner plans activities that encourage turn-taking, such as board games or structured group activities.
Do: These activities are implemented over a period of time, with the practitioner supporting and encouraging the child’s participation.
Review: The practitioner reflects on the child’s progress, noting any improvements or ongoing challenges.

This review then feeds into the next cycle, where the practitioner might adjust their approach based on what they’ve learned. The cycle continues, allowing for ongoing refinement of teaching strategies and support for the child’s development.

What Are the Benefits of Using the APDR Cycle?

The APDR Cycle offers several benefits for both educators and children:

For educators:

Enhances reflective practice, encouraging continuous professional development
Provides a structured approach to planning and evaluation
Supports evidence-based decision-making in teaching

For children:

Ensures learning experiences are tailored to individual needs and interests
Promotes consistent monitoring of progress
Facilitates timely interventions when needed

Research by Sylva et al. (2004) in the Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) project found that settings using systematic cycles like APDR achieved better cognitive and social-emotional outcomes for children.

How Often Should the APDR Cycle Be Completed?

The frequency of completing the APDR Cycle can vary depending on the context and the specific needs of the children and setting. However, it’s generally recommended to engage with the cycle regularly to ensure responsive and effective practice.

Some settings might complete a full cycle weekly for overall planning, while also running shorter, more focused cycles daily or even moment-to-moment for individual children or specific activities. The key is to maintain a balance between structure and flexibility, allowing for both planned activities and spontaneous responses to children’s emerging interests and needs.

Mcfee (2019) suggests that the cyclical nature of APDR encourages a habit of ongoing reflection, which is crucial for professional growth and the development of pedagogical expertise. Therefore, rather than thinking of APDR as a discrete process to be completed at set intervals, it’s beneficial to view it as an ongoing approach to practice.

How Does the APDR Cycle Differ from Other Similar Models?

The APDR Cycle shares similarities with other cyclical improvement models, such as the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) and Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycles. However, there are some key differences:

Focus: APDR is specifically tailored for educational settings, particularly Early Years, while PDSA and PDCA originated in industrial and quality management contexts.
Terminology: The ‘Assess’ stage in APDR emphasizes the importance of understanding learners’ needs before planning, which is particularly crucial in education.
Application: APDR is often applied more flexibly, allowing for spontaneous adaptations to meet children’s immediate needs, while PDSA and PDCA are sometimes implemented more rigidly in business contexts.

Despite these differences, all these models share a common goal of continuous improvement through systematic reflection and action. The choice between them often depends on the specific context and needs of the setting.

What Are Some Challenges in Implementing the APDR Cycle?

While the APDR Cycle offers many benefits, its implementation can present challenges:

Time constraints: The cycle requires ongoing assessment and planning, which can be time-consuming.
Balancing structure and flexibility: There’s a risk of becoming overly rigid in following the cycle, potentially limiting responsiveness to spontaneous learning opportunities.
Documentation: Keeping thorough records for each stage of the cycle can be demanding.
Maintaining child-centred practice: There’s a risk of focusing too much on the process rather than on the children’s needs and interests.

To address these challenges, Wood (2020) suggests implementing APDR flexibly, always prioritizing children’s needs over strict adherence to the cycle. Professional development and supportive leadership can also help practitioners navigate these challenges effectively.

How Can Technology Support the APDR Cycle?

Technology can enhance the implementation of the APDR Cycle in several ways:

Assessment: Digital tools can help in capturing observations more efficiently, through photos, videos, and quick note-taking apps.
Planning: Online platforms can facilitate collaborative planning among team members.
Implementation: Interactive whiteboards and tablets can support the delivery of planned activities.
Review: Data analysis tools can help in identifying patterns and trends in children’s progress.

However, Palaiologou (2016) cautions that while technology can be beneficial, it should be used thoughtfully and not at the expense of meaningful interactions with children. The focus should always be on how technology can support, rather than replace, high-quality Early Years practice.

How Does the APDR Cycle Support Inclusive Practice?

The APDR Cycle can significantly support inclusive practice in Early Years settings:

Individual assessment allows for identification of each child’s unique needs and strengths.
Personalized planning ensures that activities are tailored to support all children, including those with additional needs.
Flexible implementation allows for adaptations to meet diverse learning styles and needs.
Regular review helps in monitoring the effectiveness of inclusive strategies and making necessary adjustments.

Pascal and Bertram (2021) emphasize the importance of culturally responsive approaches within the APDR Cycle to ensure inclusivity for children from diverse backgrounds. This might involve considering cultural perspectives in assessment, planning culturally relevant activities, and reflecting on potential biases during the review stage.

References

Basford, J., & Bath, C. (2014). Playing the assessment game: An English early childhood education perspective. Early Years, 34(2), 119-132.
Bradbury, A. (2014). Early childhood assessment: Observation, teacher ‘knowledge’ and the production of attainment data in early years settings. Comparative Education, 50(3), 322-339.
Bradbury, A., & Roberts-Holmes, G. (2018). The Datafication of Primary and Early Years Education: Playing with Numbers. Routledge.
Center on the Developing Child. (2011). Building the Brain’s “Air Traffic Control” System: How Early Experiences Shape the Development of Executive Function. Harvard University.
Coe, R., Aloisi, C., Higgins, S., & Major, L. E. (2014). What makes great teaching? Review of the underpinning research. Sutton Trust.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Deming, W. E. (1993). The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education. MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-432.
Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (2011). The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Experience in Transformation. Praeger.
Ephgrave, A. (2018). Planning in the Moment with Young Children: A Practical Guide for Early Years Practitioners and Parents. Routledge.
Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success. McGraw-Hill.
Juran, J. M. (1986). The quality trilogy: A universal approach to managing for quality. Quality Progress, 19(8), 19-24.
Kim, J. (2020). Learning and Teaching Online During Covid-19: Experiences of Student Teachers in an Early Childhood Education Practicum. International Journal of Early Childhood, 52(2), 145-158.
Leggett, N., & Ford, M. (2013). A fine balance: Understanding the roles educators and children play as intentional teachers and intentional learners within the Early Years Learning Framework. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 38(4), 42-50.
Mcfee, S. (2019). The Cycle of Reflection: Enhancing Professional Practice in Early Childhood Education. Early Years Educator, 21(8), 34-37.
Moss, P. (2016). Why can’t we get beyond quality? Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17(1), 8-15.
Moyles, J. (2010). The Excellence of Play. Open University Press.
Moyles, J., Adams, S., & Musgrove, A. (2002). SPEEL: Study of Pedagogical Effectiveness in Early Learning. DfES Publications.
Ofsted. (2019). Education inspection framework: Overview of research. Ofsted.
Palaiologou, I. (2016). Teachers’ use of technology and adaptability to student needs in the digital information age. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(5), 535-550.
Pascal, C., & Bertram, T. (2012). Praxis, ethics and power: Developing praxeology as a participatory paradigm for early childhood research. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 20(4), 477-492.
Pascal, C., & Bertram, T. (2021). What do young children have to say? Recognising their voices, wisdom, agency and need for companionship during the COVID pandemic. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 29(1), 21-34.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.
Shewhart, W. A. (1939). Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control. Department of Agriculture.
Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Muttock, S., Gilden, R., & Bell, D. (2002). Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years. Department for Education and Skills.
Siraj-Blatchford, J., Smith, K. C., & Pramling Samuelsson, I. (2010). Education for Sustainable Development in the Early Years. Organisation Mondiale Pour l’Education Prescolaire (OMEP).
Strong-Wilson, T., & Ellis, J. (2007). Children and place: Reggio Emilia’s environment as third teacher. Theory into Practice, 46(1), 40-47.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4884.
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2004). The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Final Report. DfES Publications.
van Manen, M. (1991). The Tact of Teaching: The Meaning of Pedagogical Thoughtfulness. State University of New York Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.
Wood, E. (2013). Play, Learning and the Early Childhood Curriculum. SAGE Publications.
Wood, E. (2020). Learning, Development and Children’s Action in ECEC. Bloomsbury Academic.