final

5.1 Assessment and Evaluation: A Brief History

Tests related to school performance had their origins in the early 20th century with the creation in France of the "Binet Scale," designed to measure intelligence and, thus, predict future success or failure in education. Later, the scale was revised at Stanford University by the psychologist Lewis Terman and became known as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, complete with the concept of intelligence quotient, or IQ (Gullo, 2005). In subsequent years, various modifications were made to the Stanford-Binet, most recently in 2003.

Competing with the Stanford-Binet were the intelligence tests developed by David Wechsler in the 1940s. By 1967, he had published a preschool version that lowered the age range to less than 3 years (Wechsler, 1989). Both the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) are administered to children individually. Both contain a number of sub-sections that test abilities such as verbal and quantitative skills, short-term memory, and reasoning. It is important to remember that while intelligence tests are useful for understanding children's cognitive capabilities, they do not relate directly to educational performance.

The Emergence of Standardized Early Childhood Testing

The first standardized test directly related to education was the 1909 Thorndike Handwriting Scale, and testing became increasingly more common throughout the 1930s and beyond (Perrone, 1990). When a test is standardized, it is administered and scored consistently for all test takers. The Thorndike Handwriting Scale was a norm-referenced test, so called because performance was measured relative to that of all other students taking the test. It was, however, a test for children in the fifth grade and beyond; testing for younger children was not seen as necessary at this time.

The need for early childhood testing and program evaluations arose in the 1960s, with the emergence of Head Start and the many variations of curricula that were created. The development of these programs was one of the outcomes of President Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty." Because they were federally funded, evaluations were necessary for continued financial support. The evaluation instruments that were developed were less than perfect, but they did contribute to what was then a growing field of early childhood assessment, and they continued to improve over time (Gullo, 2005). Although more than 200 preschool tests were published over a 10-year period, even more were needed after the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, P.L. 94-142 in 1975. For example, such developmental instruments as the Bayley Scales could be used to identify potential developmental delays before a child's entrance into a Head Start program. And the Test of Early Language Development could be used either before or during the program. Its purpose has been to "identify children who are significantly language delayed as compared to their age peers, to assess their language strengths, and to document their progress as a result of intervention" (Gullo, 2005, p. 158).

The development of such widespread testing was, to a great extent, responsible for teachers beginning to "teach to the test," or focusing the curriculum primarily on what would appear on an upcoming standardized test. Assessment expert James Popham (2003) expressed his concerns about teaching in this way:

[T]eachers must aim their instruction not at the tests, but toward the skill, knowledge, or affect that those tests represent. . . . Preoccupation with test scores becomes so profound that many teachers and administrators mistakenly succumb to the belief that increased test scores are appropriate educational targets. They're not. (p. 27)

Along with teaching to the test, early childhood educators, sometimes at the insistence of their administrators, began watering down the elementary curriculum in the belief that scores would be higher. Somehow forgotten by many was the fact that

young children are active learners by nature. They learn and develop best when they have opportunities to manipulate concrete objects. . . . They construct their knowledge about the world through experiences that involve interactions with objects and people in their environment. . . . They are concrete thinkers and interactive learners; they are active thinkers and active learners. (Gullo, 2005, pp. 36–37)

Concerns over teaching to the test and inappropriately watering down the curriculum led to the writing of position papers on the part of NAEYC and other organizations from the 1980s onward. For example, the National Association of State Boards of Education stated in 1988, that "Preschool, kindergarten and primary grade teachers report an increasing use of standardized tests, worksheets and workbooks, ability grouping, retention and other practices that focus on academic skills too early and in inappropriate ways" (p. 3). Authoritative statements such as these, coupled with the popularity of NAEYC's publications, made it possible for early educators to resist some inappropriate curricula and testing. A move toward alternative assessment (also known as authentic assessment) began to emerge. This type of assessment represents a shift away from standardized testing and makes use of methods that assess children's progress in ways that are more meaningful to the learner, both inside and outside the classroom. Both child and teacher are involved, and materials may be tangible products, portfolio collections of work, and other teacher documentation. Authentic assessment will be discussed later in this chapter, as well as in Chapter 6.

The Current State of Standards-Based Testing

Today, we continue to find much standardized testing in the classroom, particularly within the constraints of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002. This act, a product of the George W. Bush administration, brought a standards-based approach to educational reform. Public schools, their districts, and their states were to be held accountable for the annual yearly progress of all their students. The act affected educational requirements and funding nationally, but individual states were given the power to create their own assessment of basic skills in literacy and mathematics. Although the act mandated yearly testing only from grade 3 onward, many states instituted tests for younger children as well. Despite the pressures related to such testing, many educators continued to work toward assessments that would be more authentic, or meaningful, to both their students and themselves. Subsequent education legislation under Barack Obama's administration became known as Race to the Top (RTTT), with a focus on providing more flexibility to states under the NCLB requirements. Most recently, a Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge (RTTT – ELC) was announced. Its focus was to improve early learning programs, from birth to age 5, in three ways:

"increase the number and percentage of low-income and disadvantaged children in each age group of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers who are enrolled in high-quality early learning programs"

"design and implement an integrated system of high-quality early learning programs and services"

"ensure that any use of assessments conforms with the recommendations of the National Research Council's report on early childhood" (U.S. Department of Education, 2012)

Note particularly the requirements of the last bullet point. The National Research Council's extensive report from 2008 covers the many kinds of assessments given to infants and young children, such as those relating to cognitive, social, and physical development, and progress in academic subjects. It also addresses assessments focused on entire programs, as well as the need for well-trained assessors for many of the assessments given to young children (Snow & Van Hemel, 2008).

As of December 2011, nine states of the 35 that had applied for RTTT—ELC had received grants. In its announcement of the successful applicants, the White House press office stated that key reforms would include "aligning and raising standards for existing early learning and development programs; improving training and support for the early learning workforce through evidence-based practices; and building robust evaluation systems that promote effective practices and programs to help parents make informed decisions" (White House, 2011). Thus, the development of appropriate assessment and evaluation in early childhood continues.

The Most Widely Used Standardized Tests

Readers of this text who pursue a career in early childhood education will, no doubt, encounter at least one or more standardized tests for children and perhaps be expected to administer them. Table 5.1 lists some of the most commonly used, high-quality tests. Note that the names of the tests have been alphabetized for easy reference and that this list includes tests of diverse types, such as developmental screenings, intelligence tests, and educational achievement tests.

Table 5.1: Commonly Used Standardized Tests
Test	Category	Most recent edition	Ages tested	Skills tested
AGS Early Screening Profiles	Developmental screening	1990	2–6	Cognitive, language, motor, social development; self-help skills
Basic School Skills Inventory	Readiness	1998	4–8	Oral language, reading, math, behavior, daily living skills
Bayley Scales of  Infant Development	Developmental screening	1993	Birth–2½	Mental, motor, behavior
Boehm Test of Basic Concepts	Readiness	2000	3–5	Size, direction, spatial relationships, quantity
Brigance Diagnostic Inventory	Assessment/ Readiness	2004	Under 7	Knowledge, comprehension, pre-academics,  psychomotor, self-help, language
California Achievement Test (CAT)	Educational achievement	1996	School age	Literacy, spelling, language, math,science,  social studies, study skills
Child Development Inventory(CDI)	Developmental screening	1992	15 months–6	Social development, self-help ,motor, language, letters, numbers
Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learning (DIAL-3)	Developmental screening	2011	2–6	Motor, conceptual, language, self-help skills;  social development
Early Screening Inventory	Developmental screening to  identify at-risk  children	2008	N/A	Cognitive, social/emotional,motor  development; communication, adaptive behaviors
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS)	Educational achievement	2007	K–grade 3	Language, math
Metropolitan Achievement Tests	Educational achievement	2000	School age	Language, math, social studies, science
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test	Diagnostic test	2007	2½ and up	Receptive vocabulary
Preschool Language Scale	Diagnostic test	2011	Birth–7	Auditory comprehension ,communication
Screening Assessment for Gifted Elementary Students-Primary(SAGES)	Developmental test	2001	K and up	Reasoning, general information related to  giftedness
Stanford Early Achievement Test	Achievement	2010	K–grade 1	Language, math
Test of Early Language Development (TELD)	Diagnostic test	1999	2–7	Receptive and expressive language related to  Language delays
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test	Achievement	2009	School age	Comprehensive language, math
Wechsler Preschool &Primary  Scale of  Intelligence (WPPSI)	Diagnostic test	2012	3–7	Intelligence: verbal, performance
Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT)	Achievement	2006	School age	Language, math

5.2 The Purpose of Assessment and Evaluation

According to NAEYC,

assessment of children's development and learning is essential for teachers and programs in order to plan, implement, and evaluate the effectiveness of the classroom experiences they provide. Assessment also is a tool for monitoring children's progress toward a program's desired goals . . . [and] sound assessment takes into consideration such factors as a child's facility in English and stage of linguistic development in the home language. (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009, pp. 21–22)

In the following sections, the components of this statement by NAEYC are each addressed.

Planning and Adapting a Curriculum

A curriculum for young children should never be totally set in stone, kept the same way from year to year simply because it worked in earlier times. Different children have different interests and needs, and changes take place within the community and culture. Knowing how and when to adapt or alter curriculum, as well as how to create original plans, is achieved in part through assessing the interests, capabilities, and needs of the center's or school's children.

Assessment for this purpose is stated by NAEYC as "planning and adapting curriculum to meet each child's developmental and learning needs" (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009, p. 178). The National Education Goals Panel, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, stated this first purpose as "assessing to promote children's learning and development" (Gullo, 2005, p. 22). And in the words of Brough and Pool (2005), assessment is meant "to inform the teacher about effectiveness of the curriculum approach and instructional strategies used to present the objectives to the students. . . . [W]ithout well-planned effective assessment, educators lack data to make critical decisions about teaching and learning" (p. 196).

Ongoing, frequently administered assessment in a center or classroom is referred to as formative assessment. Its purpose is to check into children's development and learning to determine what can be done to help them continue to improve. Such "assessment of the child is implemented on a regular basis to determine progress and to suggest modifications that need to be made to insure progress" (Gullo, 2005, p. 137). From the viewpoint of NAEYC, there must be an assessment plan that is systematic and ongoing, one "that is clearly written, well-organized, complete, comprehensive, and well-understood by administrators, teachers, and families" (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009, p. 248). In addition, ongoing assessments should address the whole child: cognitive, social, emotional, and physical. Informal observations of preschoolers' use of a newly combined block-and-housekeeping center could be an example of formative assessment. Results might lead to the realization that a few children need some intervention from the teacher, perhaps in the form of playing with them for a while to model play possibilities.

Without ongoing formative assessment, a school year may end with only the final, or summative evaluation, providing unwelcome surprises for the families and no possible ways for the teachers to alter the curriculum to improve children's progress. A summative evaluation tells educators the end results of their teaching of a unit, a project, or an entire semester or year. Standardized achievement tests are an example of summative evaluation, as are report cards. Summative evaluations might even come much later when the long-term effects of an experimental curriculum are seen. Such was the case in evaluations of the different models of the original Head Start programs, when it appeared that the initial academic benefits wore off by the third grade. Those data, however, were not considered the very final summative evaluation. Children's progress was followed into young adulthood, where it was found that the truly long-term benefits were positive (Zigler & Muenchow, 1992).

When there is more than one teacher for an age- or grade-level of children, assessing by means of common assessment can be a positive approach to learning more about children's progress. Common assessments are created collaboratively by the teachers as a way to plan instruction, identify difficulties their individual children are having, and improve their own teaching. Common assessments can be both formative and summative.

Whether done collaboratively or individually, some assessment methods are used to determine the need for curriculum creation and alteration or updating. Specific examples will be described and discussed in the upcoming section Two Approaches to Assessment of Young Children. As a general statement, however, the intent of appropriate assessment is to see what needs to be done with the curriculum rather than to put the burden on the children, to try to "fix" them. The following case study demonstrates how one group of teachers collaborates on unit learning and how an informal, formative assessment led one of them in a different direction.

Improving Teacher and Program Effectiveness

All states have some way of identifying teacher—as well as program or school—effectiveness through assessment and evaluation of children's progress. NAEYC defines this "beneficial purpose" as "evaluating and improving teaching effectiveness" (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009, p. 178). The National Education Goals Panel described this as "assessing academic achievement to hold individual students, teachers, and schools accountable" (Gullo, 2005, p. 27). In the words of a researcher who was speaking of programs, evaluation should "provide accountability data on program outcomes for the purpose of program improvement" (Slentz, 2008, p. 14). Passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002 alerted schools to the issue of accountability as never before. As mentioned earlier, testing was mandated and instituted for grades 3 and above, but many districts across the United States began testing younger children as well, as preparation for the accountability that would soon matter for their programs.

Although the NCLB has put more outside pressure on individual teachers and programs, the concept of using children's progress as a "beneficial purpose" of evaluating teacher effectiveness is not a new one. A characteristic of effective assessments has always been the inclusion of teaching that is guided by corrective feedback for teachers as well as for children. Accurate self-assessment is a core activity related to such feedback, and effective teachers openly model their self-assessments so that students can learn to do so themselves.

Examples of teacher self-assessment techniques include thinking aloud with children listening, emphasizing the fact that teaching and learning often include making mistakes and that is okay, engaging in activities that are new and challenging and then reflecting on them, and providing examples of good work and best practice (Brough & Pool, 2005). Case Study: Modeling Self-Assessment in the Preschool demonstrates that, even in preschool, self-assessments are possible for both teachers and children.

Tracking Children's Progress for Teachers and Families

Families as well as teachers need ongoing and continuous information about their children's progress, or formative assessment. They may also be in a position to provide information that teachers need. According to NAEYC, ongoing assessments "are based on multiple sources of information," including "observations by teachers and specialists and also information from parents" (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009, p. 247). Returning to our earlier example of preschoolers needing teacher assistance to learn to play in the block-and-housekeeping center, it might be that parents feel their neighborhood is unsafe, requiring them to keep their children inside watching television much of the time. When they share this information with the teacher and the teacher shares observations of the children's play, joint planning can take place. For example, if the teacher describes or demonstrates how she plays with the children, the parents might be encouraged to do the same.

One method that teachers and families rely on to share both ongoing assessment and summative evaluations is report cards. These typically start formally in kindergarten, but preschools sometimes produce them as well. The following case studies present samples of report cards for the early years, along with some opportunities to read between the lines.

Screening for Special Needs

Young children with disabilities have been a focus of federal legislation since the passage of PL 94-142 in 1975, titled the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. For the first time, such children were guaranteed equal education in public schools receiving funds from the federal government. In 1986, amendments to the law strengthened the support for early childhood, so that provisions begin at birth. In 1990, PL 101-576, or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), added a requirement that the needs of all children must be met within an early childhood program. What had previously been called mainstreaming was now called inclusion (Gullo, 2005). The idea behind mainstreaming was to invite children with special needs into the regular classroom. Inclusion, on the other hand, assumes that everyone is included from the start, that there are no outsiders in need of an invitation. Such an approach to early education indicates the importance of regarding young children on a continuum of development rather than an either/or designation of "regular" and "special."

NAEYC identifies the federally required purpose of assessment as "screening and diagnosis of children with disabilities or special learning or developmental needs" (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009, p. 247). Slentz (2008) defines this purpose as "to diagnose strengths and areas of need to support development, instruction, and/or behavior. To diagnose the severity and nature of special needs, and establish program eligibility" (p. 14). In the words of the National Education Goals Panel, such assessment means "identifying children for health and special services." The panel defined special needs as "blindness, deafness, speech and language disabilities, cognitive delays, emotional disturbance, learning disabilities, and motor impairment" (Gullo, 2005, p. 23). Teachers and caregivers can expect to participate in initial screening, but once that is done, further tests are undertaken by specialists appropriate to the situation. Case Study: Two Children, Two Approaches shows how the federal requirements were carried out in one kindergarten class. This case also demonstrates how vital assessment is "because positive developmental and academic outcomes are associated with early identification of and attention to problems" (Slentz, 2008, p. 15).

Whatever the purpose might be for assessment and evaluation, here is a short list of some important things to remember (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009):

Teachers need to engage continually in assessment, keeping in mind that its goal is to improve both teaching and learning.

There is wide variance between individual children; they should be allowed to demonstrate their competence in multiple ways, not just according to what is easiest for the teacher. This is especially important when decisions will have a major impact, e.g., placement or screening for special needs.

Families should be called on whenever possible to contribute information about their children; this information should be an integral part of assessment.

Assessment should be geared toward goals that are developmentally appropriate and educationally important.

5.3 Two Approaches to Assessment of Young Children

For students of any age, early childhood through adulthood, two basic approaches to assessment and evaluation can be accessed: formal and informal. In the next section, we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches in the context of early childhood education.

Formal Assessment and Evaluation

Formal assessment and evaluation consists of standardized tests, that is, tests that have been rigorously evaluated to ensure that they reliably compare the competence of one individual child to others with similar backgrounds or characteristics, and that they do so with fairness. You will recall that the Thorndike Handwriting Test, fulfilling these qualifications, was called norm-referenced. Although standardized tests may be designed for different purposes, such as special education screening or achievement testing, they have the following characteristics in common:

A specifically stated purpose that guides each application of the test

Established procedures for administering the test that are not deviated from

Meaningful interpretations of results that are described for test givers and graders

A clearly stated description of the sample group of students on which the test was developed

Clearly stated limitations of the test (Gullo, 2005)

There are many standardized tests to choose from for young children and the programs they attend. Although standardized tests have existed since the early years of the 20th century, their numbers increased with the advent of Head Start in the 1960s and have continued to grow with the introduction of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. These tests may have any number of purposes, such as evaluating children's language development or early literacy skills, mathematics ability, motor capabilities, temperament and behavior, or general intelligence.

Although formal tests have the advantage of standardization, thus ensuring some measure of fairness, they present only a snapshot in time. As NAEYC points out, "Sound assessment of young children is challenging because they develop and learn in ways that are characteristically uneven and embedded within the specific cultural and linguistic contexts in which they live" (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009, p. 22). In addition, if a child is hungry, tired, upset, fidgety, or uncooperative, the results might well vary extensively from one day to the next. Many young children do not yet have the verbal or cognitive skills to do well on a structured formal test. Finally, tests may be standardized across some criteria such as age and gender, but neglect other criteria such as class, ethnicity, or English language competence. Thus, it is important to assess in multiple forms.

Informal Assessment and Evaluation

The less formal methods of assessment and evaluation are often presented as an alternative to standardized testing. The intent of using them is to assess children's progress in ways that are more authentic to their lives. Thus, the various informal approaches are also referred to as authentic assessment or alternative assessment. In addition, they provide good ways to engage in formative assessment so that instruction can be altered for better learning experiences.

Simply because these methods are informal, however, does not mean that one should be less careful when using them. Observation methods, for example, may be biased based on the observer's opinion of a child. Checklists might lead to less bias, but they can also leave out important behaviors to look for. Multiple methods of assessment are necessary for the full picture of a child, a class, a teacher, or a center or school. Following are explanations of authentic or alternative assessment listed alphabetically. In Chapter 6, you will have opportunities to explore them further.

Anecdotal Records

This might be the most informal observational technique, but it can still provide useful information if observers have specific behaviors they are looking for. Focused on a specific event, an anecdotal record is a written observation of what a child or group of children does within a designated time frame. The goal is to describe what is seen without making editorial comments or inserting opinions. Thus, an observer might write, "Tiffany sucks her thumb while dragging her 'blankie' to the doll bed. She lies on the floor next to the bed while staring quietly out the window." The observer would not, during this time, comment, "Tiffany is obviously very tired today." Comments such as these are written in later, when all evidence has been gathered and reflected on.

Checklists

Some checklists are available commercially. For example, readiness for preschool can be tested using checklists from Leap Frog at http://www.leapfrog.com. Included are social and motor skills, reasoning, language, math, science, and creative arts. Other checklists can be created as needs and interests arise; these will be tailored to a specific center or school, reflecting local culture and expectations. They might be extensive with sub-sections or contain just a few items as appropriate.

Checklists require the observer to either check or leave blank a behavior that is evident or a criterion that has been met. Behaviors for youngsters just learning to eat at the table with others might include using a spoon effectively, drinking from a cup with two hands and no adult help, and carrying dishes to the dirty dish tub. A criterion checklist might relate to academic milestones that children are expected to meet before advancing to the next grade. For example, many kindergartens require letter recognition, and a checklist could be used for each child with each letter listed and ready to check off. The use of a checklist for such a purpose indicates that it is criterion-referenced. That is, there are stated criteria or goals to be met, but children are not ranked across a standardized set of peers, as would be the case in a norm-referenced test.

Event Sampling

This observational method focuses on a single child and a single behavior that is cause for concern. Each time such an event takes place, the observer writes down what leads up to it, what takes place during it, and how it eventually ceases. Writing about what happens before and after, as well as during the event, helps the observer determine cause and effect. Perhaps a small boy has been biting others but the teachers have not been able to figure out what causes it. They begin to keep a record of each time it happens, noting the time of day and the events immediately before and after the biting behavior. Soon it becomes apparent that the child is most inclined to bite just before naptime and is calmed afterward, not by teachers talking to him about appropriate behavior, but by a teacher rubbing his back as he goes to sleep. Thus, once the event sampling is analyzed, teachers know to keep a close watch on the child before naptime, ready to redirect his behavior, and they know that a quiet backrub will no doubt be in order.

Portfolios

Portfolios are not in themselves assessment methods but instead are collections of artifacts. Portfolios contain children's work over time and can take the form of a manila folder, box, or other type of container. A portfolio box for younger children will probably contain art products or science projects that take up too much space for a folder. Children in the primary grades are more likely to have portfolios made up of written work. When teachers help children evaluate their products over time by giving them specific things to look for, children gain skills in self-assessment.

Rating Scales

A rating scale is essentially a checklist that has been modified to indicate levels of quality. Some are commercially available, especially those for teachers and administrators who wish to evaluate their care and learning sites. Perhaps the best known of these comes from the University of North Carolina. There are four versions available: the original Early Childhood Rating Scale (revised), Infant-Toddler, Family Childcare, and School-Age Care. These can be explored at ers.fpg.unc.edu. Another example of rating scales can be seen in the report cards in Case Studies 5.1–5.3. Whether letter grades or descriptive words such as "developing" and "proficient" are used, the degree of competence is stated.

Rubrics

Originally, a "rubric" was the ornate red heading to a new chapter in a medieval manuscript. Today, the word "rubric" tends to be used in a different sense, to mean a chart containing a list, long or short, of criteria to be met, along with a rating scale. The criteria are usually lined up along the left side of a page. Across the top of the same page, the associated ratings are listed. A kindergarten example might be a list of alphabet letters to be learned. The top of the page could be in three sections: Confident, In Progress, Introductory. Children can participate in self-assessment using a rubric, and these are usually simple and attractive, with clever illustrations. One might say, for example, "I can tie my shoes" and be illustrated with a picture of a shoe. Ratings at the top might be two faces, one with a smile and the other with a neutral expression indicating that the skill is still in progress.

Running Record

This technique is often used when children are learning to read, but it is adaptable to any number of situations. The teacher sits close to the child and makes notes pertaining to whatever is being observed. A running record form is typically in three columns: a left-hand column for date and time, a central column to record behavior, and a column on the right for comments. The form is most typically used with a single child for a finite period of time and to record a single activity, such as the reading of a story or playing during a recess. Skills and problems with the activity are usually the focus, and the observer typically writes down everything the child does, perhaps in abbreviated form.

Teacher and Child Self-assessments

In the case study Modeling Self-Assessment in the Preschool, we met Allison, who engaged in self-assessment and changed her behavior. Further, she was quite verbal about what she did at the snack table, and even the younger children began to assess their own behavior and, as needed, alter it. The same can be done with any area of the curriculum. When children are permitted to work with the teacher to choose exemplary products for their portfolios, they gain skills in self-assessment. One-on-one discussions between teacher and child about any work product can also enhance children's skills in this area.

Time Sampling

This form of observation is similar to event sampling, but it is confined to a specific period of time. As an example, there might be observations lasting one or two minutes, scheduled for every five or 10 minutes, for a total of a half hour. If done over a period of days or weeks, it would be possible to evaluate the improvement of behaviors, or lack thereof. Time sampling is one way of observing a child to see how often a behavior of concern appears.

Informal methods offer a variety of ways to assess progress and are known for the greater flexibility they provide as compared with formal methods. Because they are typically not standardized, however, there is always the danger of assessing in a biased way. Having more than one person, particularly an outsider, engage in the same method for a specific assessment is one way to deal with this potential problem. Without some training, teachers may find that the results of their assessment are inconclusive as well as biased. It is suggested that beginners turn to trained, experienced evaluators for assistance.

Krogh, S. (2013).  A Bridge to the Classroom and Early Care: ECE Capstone  [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/