literacy

Helping young children learn language and literacy: Birth through kindergarten. Chapter 9

Chapter 9 Assessing the Foundations of Early Literacy Learning

Chapter Goals

9.1 Discuss the role of early learning standards in assessment activity.

9.2 Define the concept of an assessment system.

9.3 Identify the principles, types and features of early literacy assessment.

9.4 Describe an assessment model with examples.

9.5 Discuss the primary uses of assessment information.

Mrs. Saenz is observing 4-year-old Martine and Monique playing together in the post office center. She is making anecdotal notes of their interaction to inform her instruction. The children are pretending to be post office workers and are busy sorting letters into a mail sorter (a plastic office sorter that is divided into 24 slots, each labeled with an alphabet letter sticker). As she watches the children put the letters in the slots, Mrs. Saenz notices that Martine is accomplishing this task by recognizing the first letter of each name, then matching it to the appropriately labeled slot. She also notices that Monique, who is learning English, is simply putting the letters into the slots without paying any attention to the names on the envelopes. After a few moments, Martine stops Monique.

Martine: No, Monique. Look at the name. See the big letter? That letter tells you to put it in this mailbox.

Monique: What it say?

Martine: It says B. I think it is for Bobby. See? [He puts the letter in the B mailbox.]

Monique: Gimme. [She reaches for another letter.] What it say?

Martine: It says R.

Monique: [Thinking for a moment, she starts to sing the alphabet song. She puts her hand on each letter as she sings it.]

Martine: Singing helps . . . right?

Definition of Terms

Accountability.

When teachers, schools or agencies are held responsible for children’s learning

Assessment.

When teachers gather information about children’s learning

Benchmark.

A point of reference that describes progress at a point in time

Criterion-referenced test.

A test used to compare a student’s progress toward mastery of specified content, typically content the student had been taught. The performance criterion is referenced to some criterion level such as a cutoff score (e.g., a score of 60 is required for mastery)

Dual Language Learner.

A child who is learning English and a second language simultaneously

Formative assessment.

A form of assessment that relies on the regular collection of children’s work to illustrate children’s knowledge and learning. The children’s products are created as they engage in daily classroom activities. Thus, children are learning while they are being assessed

Metacognition.

Demonstrating an awareness of one’s own thinking

Norm-referenced test.

A test that is designed to compare one group of students with another group

Outcomes.

What children should know and be able to do, like standards

Pattern of Development.

The organization and direction of essential processes and skills

Portfolio.

A collection of student work

Portfolio Assessment System.

A system of marking progress by evaluating different types of student work over time

Reliability.

Consistency of the data; if the same test is administered to the same child on consecutive days, the child’s score should be similar

Standardized test.

The teacher reads verbatim the scripted procedures to the students. The conditions and directions are the same whenever the test is administered. Standardized tests are one form of on-demand testing

Summative assessment.

A type of assessment that occurs during a special time set aside for testing. In most cases, teaching and learning come to a complete stop while the teacher conducts the assessment

Validity.

Extent to which an assessment really measures what it claims to me.

The Role of Early Learning Standards

In its largest sense, assessment is a means of finding out what children know and can do. It is a central element of early education and effective teachers purposefully engage in assessment activities to help children learn and grow. Fortunately, early childhood teachers have several professional resources at their fingertips that describe the language and early literacy content for the early literacy assessment of young children. Two national groups—the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief School Officers—joined together and in Spring 2010 released standards in English language arts and mathematics, starting at kindergarten (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers Title: Common Core State Standards, 2010). These are referred to as the Common Core Standards.

National professional organizations have also identified learning outcomes or expectations. The federal Head Start program, for example, has developed a Child Outcomes Framework. It contains two language development categories: (a) listening and understanding and (b) speaking and communicating. It also addresses key early literacy domains: (a) phonological awareness, (b) book knowledge and appreciation, (c) print awareness and concepts, (d) early writing, and (e) alphabet knowledge (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Office of Head Start, n.d.).

Once there was considerable disagreement in the early childhood field regarding the appropriateness of child standards and outcomes in language and early literacy. What was at the heart of the disagreement? Educators and parents feared that standards would lead to a content-oriented, skill-based curriculum replacing a traditional child-centered, active play-based learning curriculum. Another fear was that assessment for accountability would overshadow classroom-based assessment geared to meeting children’s individual needs. All early childhood educators must be vigilant in ensuring that these fears are not realized.

Fortunately, today the majority of educators recognize that these frameworks are important because they express shared expectations for children. This is to say that the educators in each state or national group have agreed on what they value in language and literacy learning for children. Furthermore, once stated, all educators have a common language for assessing children’s progress toward standards or outcomes. Not only do standards and outcomes guide teachers’ assessment of children’s progress, but they also guide what teachers teach. They tell teachers what the public, parents, school district, or funding agency expect teachers to teach and children to learn (Bowman, 2006, as referenced in Gewertz, 2010).

Link to Practice

Search the web for your state’s early learning standards for young children. Review the standards related to language and literacy and bookmark the site. Then search for those in a neighboring state for the same age group and bookmark the site. Compare the two states’ sets of language and early literacy standards. What standards do the states have in common? Where do they differ? How do they compare as to a number of standards? How are the different sets organized? Which set is more teacher-friendly? Share your analysis with a peer.

An Assessment System

Assessment is the process of gathering evidence of what children can and cannot yet do. Sometimes this evidence is used to help children learn more, and at other times, it is used to evaluate and report how well they are learning in relation to expectations. It is useful to think about assessment as a coordinated set of multiple measures and methods or an assessment system. A system is a set of interrelated parts that work together to inform instruction. To truly inform early literacy instruction, assessment needs to be thought of as a system that provides reliable, valid information about an individual child’s language and emerging literacy skills. An assessment system allows teachers to find out children’s current levels of performance, to keep track of their progress, and to test the strength of the language and early literacy curriculum in early childhood programs. Figure 9.1 illustrates the important parts of an assessment system that work together to provide a comprehensive view of children’s oral language and early literacy learning.

Figure 9.1 Components of an Assessment System

Figure 9.1 Full Alternative Text

Generally speaking, an assessment system serves several purposes, as follows.

Screening. Screening serves the purpose of identifying potential problems in language and early literacy development. Screening assessments are usually quickly and easily administered to identify those children who may need further assessment. Screening is an essential assessment activity because it allows for early identification of and attention to emerging problems.

Instruction. Instructional assessment provides information about what children know and are able to do at a given point in time, guides “next steps” in learning, and provides feedback on progress toward goals. Assessment to support instruction is a continuous process that is directly linked to the language and literacy curriculum.

Diagnostic. Diagnostic assessment is a thorough and comprehensive assessment of early literacy development and/or learning for the purpose of identifying specific learning difficulties and delays, disabilities, and specific skill deficits, as well as evaluating eligibility for additional support services (e.g. speech and language), Infant and Toddler early intervention, and special education. Diagnostic assessments usually are conducted by trained professionals in speech and language and/or literacy using specific oral language and early literacy tests.

Evaluation. Evaluation assessment applies to program-level outcomes. It focuses on the performance of groups of children. It asks, “Is the language and early literacy program helping young children grow and thrive as speakers, listeners, readers, and writers?” Evaluation assessment is often required by external agencies and used by policy makers to make decisions about funding, program supports, and requirements.

Caveats of Early Literacy Assessment

Early literacy assessment is a relative newcomer to early childhood education and, as such, requires some special considerations. Before moving on to a deeper discussion of its foundations, a few caveats (or cautions) should be kept in mind.

First, as discussed throughout this book, early literacy research literature indicates specific skills and abilities of children birth to age 5 that predict later reading outcomes. In these early years there is considerable overlap between oral language comprehension and emergent literacy skills. Early literacy assessment, therefore, needs to reflect this overlap. Key predictive abilities and skills that are the foundations of early literacy assessment include the following:

Oral language skills represented in listening comprehension, that is, semantics (word meanings; vocabulary), syntax (grammar), inferencing, memory/recall, and integration of ideas

Alphabetic code knowledge of letter names and sounds and the ability to retrieve this knowledge quickly

Print knowledge/concepts related to the functions of print and understanding the match between spoken words and print

Second, young children present complex challenges in the assessment context and flexible procedures are required for gathering accurate and meaningful assessment information. Educators need to take into account personal variables such as fatigue, hunger, illness, and temperament, along with situational variables, such as time of day and setting (e.g., nosier vs. quieter settings) that may affect individual performance. They need to be prepared to modify assessment activities or reschedule them to ensure quality assessment information.

Finally, some early literacy assessment tools and procedures are better than others. Young children are action-oriented and demonstrate what they know best by doing. To the extent possible, early literacy assessment approaches should include opportunities to observe children in familiar settings (e.g., playful settings) and with familiar people to gauge their knowledge and skills. Vygotsky (1978, p. 102), for example, argued that in mature play children are “a head taller” than themselves, thus showing the upper limits of their knowledge and skills. Active play, therefore, is a prime setting for observing children’s oral language comprehension and emerging literacy skills. Be mindful, too, that more assessment does not translate to better assessment. It is most desirable to identify an appropriate (and small) set of tools and procedures to gather information for instructional decision making relevant to early literacy learning experiences.

Principles, Types, and Features of Early Literacy Assessment

Principles

The primary goal of early literacy assessment is to gather evidence of children’s learning to inform educational decision making that ensures children’s healthy literacy development. Helping children to acquire the foundations of literacy hinges on the quality of our decisions, and our decisions, in turn, depend on the quality of the evidence that we gather. Rick Stiggins (2017) offers several principles of sound assessment practice:

Clear assessment purposes that balance the uses of assessment in service of the users. In other words, differentiate assessment to improve not only children’s learning but also their well-being.

Clear learning targets that focus precisely on what children need to know and be able to do, that is, on individual, high-priority expectations that drive forward personal achievement.

High-quality assessments that are age-appropriate, efficient, aligned with standards, and that minimize bias

Effective communication of results that provides immediately usable information about a child’s performance. New technologies offer innovative ways to share assessment information via mobile devices and dashboards that make it more accessible, understandable, and usable by educators and families.

Powerful links to personal motivation that help children strive for success, build confidence, maintain effort, and inspire imagination

Types of Assessment

Two major types of assessment are used to gauge young children’s progress toward end-of-year expectations described in language and early literacy standards. These are referred to as formative assessment and summative assessment. Formative assessment occurs as an integral part of instruction, whereas summative assessment measures achievement at some point in time after instruction.

Features of Assessment

Formative Assessment

Several features distinguish formative from summative assessment, as follows:

It is a “gap-finder” that locates the difference between an individual child’s current level of language and literacy skills and end-of-year expectations. It describes where the child is and the distance yet to go.

It generates feedback loops that provide information on the effectiveness of instruction. The teacher asks, “Is the instruction advancing the child’s knowledge and skills toward the expectations?” “Is it working?”

It helps children self-monitor their own learning in relation to a desired goal. Children become increasingly aware of the criteria for success (as modeled by the teacher) and ask, “How am I doing?” By including self-assessment routinely in early literacy instruction, teachers help children learn how to set goals, self-evaluate, and hold themselves accountable.

It facilitates the steady progression of language and literacy skills toward the achievement of desired outcomes. For example, Ms. Evans asks 5-year-old Hunter, who often skips details, to tell her about facts from several pages in his favorite book, Starfish (Hurd, 2000). She instructs and, in the process, scaffolds him toward meeting the listening comprehension standard: with prompting and support, ask and answer questions about key details in a text.

Formative assessment often relies on samples of children’s work as evidence of their knowledge and skills. These work products serve the dual purpose of instruction and assessment. They also have several advantages over single snapshots of performance. Children may work on their products for varying amounts of time, the classroom teacher can analyze each child’s performance on the spot and provide feedback, and the teacher can identify the child’s next learning target toward achieving expectations.

Summative Assessment

Teachers use, or are often required to use, summative assessments—sometimes referred to as on-demand assessments—to evaluate their children’s literacy achievement (Johnston & Costello, 2005). Think of summative assessments like an annual physical checkup. Periodically, we all need to stop what we are doing to take a formal measure of the state of our health. Summative assessments typically occur at specific times, like once a year or every 3 months. For example, on Tuesday all kindergarten children in the school district might take a paper–pencil test. They are asked to listen to several short stories composed of two or three sentences. Then the children would be asked to put an “X” on the picture that best matches each story. They may be asked to circle the letters said aloud by the teacher. They might be asked to listen to sounds said aloud by the teacher (e.g., b) and to circle the letter that makes that sound. A summative assessment also may involve children in performance tasks. For example, the teacher might read a short story and ask a child a set of questions about the story, or the teacher might say a sentence and ask the child to repeat the sentence.

Summative assessments are administered, scored, and interpreted in the same way for all test takers. Each child taking the test hears the same passages and answers the same questions. When all variables are held constant, the assessment would be known as a standardized test. These tests should produce reliable and valid data. Reliability refers to the consistency of the data; if the same test is administered to the same child on consecutive days, the child’s score should be similar. And if two different teachers administer an assessment to the same child, again the scores should be similar if the assessment is reliable. Validity refers to the extent to which an assessment really measures what it claims to measure.

There are two categories of standardized tests:

Criterion-referenced tests are developed with a specific set of objectives that reflect district, state, federal, or national learning standards. The goal of criterion-referenced tests is for all children to demonstrate mastery of the information and skills they have been taught. In Special Feature Standardized Assessment of Young Children, we describe a criterion-referenced assessment procedure known as curriculum-based measurement (CBM).

Norm-referenced tests are designed to measure the accomplishments of one child relative to the whole class, to compare one classroom of pre-K children to another classroom within the same school or center, to compare all the children in all classrooms in a district or project, or to compare all children across the country. Norm-referenced standardized tests can be used to determine whether a school’s curriculum reflects national expectations of what children should know at a specific age or grade level and to compare children to one another. In Table 9.1, we provide a description of several of the norm-referenced standardized assessments in language and literacy currently in use in early childhood programs across the United States.

Table 9.1 Standardized Language and Early Reading Measures Used with Young Children

Title/Publisher

Purpose

Description

When to Use It

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)–Letter-Naming Fluency

To assess fluency with which children identify letter names. To identify children at risk of reading difficulty early before a low reading trajectory is established.

Individually administered, timed phonemic awareness task. Randomly ordered lower- and uppercase letters are presented to children for 1 minute; children are instructed to name as many letters as they can.

Beginning kindergarten through fall of first grade or until children are proficient at accurately producing 40–60 letter names per minute.

Phonemic Segmentation Fluency

Publisher: CBM Network, School Psychology Program, College of Education, University of Oregon http://dibels.uoregon.edu/

To assess children’s ability to segment orally presented words into phonemes. To identify children who may be at risk of reading difficulty.

Individually administered, timed phonological awareness task. Words are orally presented to children for 1 minute; children are instructed to segment each word into individual phonemes (i.e., sounds).

Winter of kindergarten through first grade or until children are proficient at accurately producing 35–45 phonemes per minute.

IDEA Proficiency Test (IPT)

Publisher: Ballard & Tigh

To determine the English language skills of students who have a non–English language background.

Children are assessed on oral language abilities, writing, and reading and asked to write their own stories and respond to a story.

Administered to children K–12.

Individual Growth and Developmental Indicators (IGDI) www.getgotgo.net

To identify children’s phonological awareness strengths and weaknesses.

Three components to test: picture naming, rhyming, and alliteration. Takes approximately 5 minutes to administer.

Used for ages 3–5.

Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening, Pre-K (PALS Pre-K) http://pals.virginia.edu/PALS-Instruments/PALS-PreK.asp

To provide information on children’s strengths and weaknesses.

Measures name-writing ability, upper- and lowercase alphabet recognition, letter sound and beginning sound production, print and word awareness, rhyme awareness, and nursery rhyme awareness.

Used in fall of pre-K and can be used as a measurement of progress in the spring.

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–III (PPVT-III)

Publisher: American Guidance Service

To measure receptive vocabulary acquisition and serve as a screening test of verbal ability.

Student points to the picture that best represents the stimulus word.

Beginning at age 2.5 years to 90+ years.

The Phonological Awareness Test (PAT)

Publisher: LinguiSystems

To assess students’ phonological awareness skills.

Five different measures of phonemic awareness (segmentation of phonemes, phoneme isolation, phoneme deletion, phoneme substitution, and phoneme blending) and a measure of sensitivity to rhyme.

Beginning the second semester of kindergarten through second grade.

Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL)

Publisher: Pro-Ed

To identify children at risk of having problems or developing problems in literacy.

Individually administered. Provides information about print knowledge, single-word oral vocabulary and definitional vocabulary, and phonological awareness.

Used for ages 3 to 6.

Test of Language Development (TOLD)

Publisher: Pearson

To identify children’s strengths and weaknesses and major language disorders.

Individually administered. Provides information about receptive and expressive vocabulary, grammar, word articulation, word discrimination, and syntax.

Primary Version, assesses children between 4 and 8.11 years.

Assessment of Literacy and Language (ALL)

Publisher: Pearson

To detect early signs of language difficulties.

Individually administered. Assesses verbal and written language in the following areas: listening, comprehension, language comprehension, semantics, syntax, phonological awareness, alphabetic principles, and concepts about print.

Used for preschool, kindergarten, and first-grade children.

Special Feature Standardized Assessment of Young Children

Karen Burstein

During the past 20 years, assessment of young children has assumed increased prominence. Today early childhood teachers are frequently expected to administer and interpret multiple standardized tests as well as to conduct informal evaluations of children across the year. The notion of testing young children evokes passionate debate among teachers and scholars. To some it provides reliable measures for examining programs and attainment of standards; to others it conjures up negative images of subjecting children to trying experiences of questionable value. That said, there continues to be a push to test children to track their progress in preschool. What are early childhood educators to do?

Reasons for Testing

As assessments of young children are increasing, teachers and scholars ask why. The driving force behind assessment lies in the results: What information does the assessment yield? Who can use it? What is the benefit to the child? There are four primary reasons for assessment (Shepard, Kagan, & Wurtz, 1998):

To compare districts/schools with one another: Districts/schools are compared across communities, and the question posed is whether they are achieving state standards or benchmarks. For this purpose, early childhood programs are likely to be using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS); its preschool counterpart Get It, Got It, Go (Individual Growth and Development Indicators); and AIMSweb. These are standardized, individually teacher-administered measures of early reading skills that are responsive to the implementation of teaching methods consistent with scientifically based reading research. These tests provide districts and schools with benchmark information and teachers with child-specific skills attainment. The instruments are administered approximately three times annually and yield results on children’s acquisition of skills in sound (phonemic awareness), alphabet, letter, vocabulary, and oral reading fluency.

To determine which children need additional support services: Since the implementation of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; formerly P.L. 94-142) in 1975, the most common reason for administering standardized assessments to young children is to assist in determining children’s eligibility for special services. These tests include standardized measures of IQ, such as the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) or the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales for Early Childhood (Early SB5), and measures of different areas of child development such as the Vineland Social-Emotional Early Childhood Scales and Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III. All of these tests are individually administered, and some require special training or advanced credentials to administer and interpret. Children’s raw scores are usually converted into standard scores that fall along a continuum that allows for comparisons of individuals to a “normal” distribution of same-age children. They typically do not indicate academic strengths or weaknesses and generally do not help teachers develop instructional plans. The advantage of standardized assessments is that they expedite the process of determining eligibility for special services. However, important educational decisions should be based on multiple sources of information including observations, work samples, and family interviews.

To monitor children’s progress and assess the overall effectiveness of programs: One of the most prevalent and high-profile models of program evaluation is the Head Start National Reporting System (NRS). Early in 2003, the Bush administration announced its intention to require all 4- and 5-year-olds in the federal Head Start program to be assessed at the beginning and end of each program year. The NRS assessments were standardized and measured a limited set of skills that inculdes expressive and receptive English vocabulary, uppercase letter naming, and early math skills, such as number identity and simple addition and subtraction. Teachers administered the NRS, but it was scored by an external organization that sends reports of overall program outcomes to Head Start and local administrations. It is important to understand that the primary focus of the NRS was the overall progress that groups of children make in each Head Start program. The NRS was not designed to assess the school readiness of individual children. The NRS is now in moratorium.

Programs can also be evaluated at the local level. For example, Early Reading First projects, a federally-funded grants program, were required to have an evaluation plan to measure their effectiveness in boosting pre-K children’s school readiness. Therefore, the Arizona Centers of Excellence in Early Education (ACE3) project developed an evaluation model that included semiannual administration of a battery of standardized assessments, semimonthly systematic classroom observations, and weekly curriculum-based measurements. Many adequate skills-specific measures exist, so assessments were selected based on reliability and validity reported by test publishers and the test “fit” with the population of children being assessed (i.e., the populations were represented in the norming samples). The project’s evaluator trained a team of local substitute teachers to be the examiners. The ACE3 assessment battery provided the following information about each child: an English Language Fluency level, a baseline of initial sounds and rhymes, areas of competence in print awareness, a measure of receptive vocabulary, and the number and names of the letters recognized. Upon completion of the battery, teachers received an easy-to-understand summary of each child’s assessment results and a set of graphs of overall class results. Parents were provided with similar information and, at the end of the year, an exit summary of their child’s skills in each area.

To provide information to teachers about each child’s instructional needs: From the teacher’s perspective, the most important reason for assessment is to obtain accurate information about the instructional needs of their students. The assess- plan-teach-reflect model of instruction directs teachers to

know the content of the Early Childhood Education Standards in their community;

align their classroom curriculum to these standards;

assess each child’s skill attainment on these standards;

plan instruction that is responsive to children’s assessed needs and skills;

deliver instruction that explicitly targets needs; and

reassess to ensure that children are learning the content that was delivered.

Within this model, assessment is a critical step in good instruction. As the call for assessment has increased, there is now a plethora of measures covering myriad skills. Even curriculum developers have begun to develop standardized measures aligned with their materials. However, the vast majority of standardized assessments are limited in their scope and number of items. Couple this limitation with the dramatic developmental variations in young children, and one can begin to understand the consequences of trying to use standardized assessments to fully inform teachers of the needs of their students. Teachers need specific information from multiple models of assessment to develop effective plans and activities for their classes. Each teacher’s skill repertoire should include not only standardized assessment but also knowledge about child development and strong skills in observation techniques, work sampling, parent interviewing and collaboration, curriculum alignment, and curriculum-based measurement (see Special Feature Curriculum-Based Measurement).

Link to Practice

Interview a pre-K or kindergarten teacher about the assessment tools that he or she typically uses to collect evidence about children’s language and early literacy learning. How does the teacher use this information? How does the teacher organize this information to share with parents?

An Assessment Model

Instruction and assessment intersect in effective literacy instruction. In the opening vignette, Mrs. Saenz observes two children with differing levels of alphabet recognition. She recognizes that while Martine and Monique differ in their ability to recognize alphabet letters, both are making progress in their alphabet knowledge. She notes that Monique, a Dual Language Learner (DLL), is demonstrating greater command of the English language. Mrs. Saenz uses these observations to guide her selection of learning activities, such as alphabet games and one-to-one letter matching, which she knows will advance the children’s understanding of the alphabetic principle. She is sensitive to the challenges of accurately assessing the children’s early literacy knowledge and skills. She knows that her observations will be used to make important instructional decisions. Therefore, these observations need to be “informed,” based on what we know about early literacy development.

In 2004, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECD-SDE) adopted a joint position statement on curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation. These two early childhood associations agreed that “reliable assessment [should be] a central part of all early childhood programs”; the purpose of assessment should be to assess children’s “strengths, progress, and needs” (NAEYC & NAECS-SDE, 2004, pp. 51, 52). In brief, the position statement advocated an assess–plan–teach–reflect model where assessment informs instructional planning and teaching in a continuous improvement cycle. (See Figure 9.2.)

Figure 9.2 Assess–Plan–Teach–Reflect Model

Figure 9.2 Full Alternative Text

Let’s unpack this model a bit further. The important goal of early literacy assessment is to inform and improve instruction for each child. Achieving this worthwhile goal requires an ongoing process that involves systematic observation of children’s early literacy performance that, in turn, guides instructional decision making. In addition, the assess–plan–teach–reflect cycle provides an opportunity for teachers to reflect on the effectiveness of their instruction and the overall curriculum for helping children learn the early literacy knowledge and skills they need. Put simply, the cycle monitors not only children’s learning but also teachers’ teaching.

Beyond the classroom level, the assess–plan–teach–reflect cycle also serves as a mechanism for accountability purposes. Per federal legislation (Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act, 2007), for example, each Head Start agency must engage in a comprehensive self-study that describes children’s progress according to the Head Start Child Outcomes Framework. The assess–plan–teach–reflect cycle helps to provide the evidence that agencies need to demonstrate that their programs are working for the children they teach, and ultimately protect program funding.

Pause and Think about . . .  Thinking Like an Assessor

Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe (2005) recommend that teachers learn to think like an assessor. In this role, they keep focused on the assessment evidence necessary to see if expectations have been achieved. They think, in other words, about the end in mind. How does the role of assessor link to the role of teacher?

Early Literacy Assessment Approaches and Tools

Screening Assessment

Screening involves the rapid assessment of a group of children to identify those who need more in-depth assessment of their early literacy knowledge and skill development. Typically screening instruments are short and easy to administer. They are norm-referenced, comparing a child’s performance to peers, or criterion-referenced lists of skills to assess children’s early literacy knowledge and skills, such as story comprehension, alphabet letter knowledge, and so on. Screening assessments generally have a cutoff score, with scores below the cut-score indicting a potential problem in foundational early literacy concepts and skills. Examples of early literacy screening tools include the following:

Early Reading Screening Instrument (ERSI; Morris & Slavin, 2003). The ERSI is a reliable tool for identifying end-of-year kindergarteners at risk of not learning to read. It includes four assessment tasks: (1) alphabet letter identification and production, (2) concept of word, (3) spelling, and (4) word recognition. The total ERSI score is 40. Children with total ERSI scores one standard deviation below the mean are considered at risk (mean = 22.67; standard deviation = 8.67). The assessment requires about 25 to 30 minutes for administration per child. Some tasks more strongly predict first-grade reading performance than others (spelling, word recognition), although all subtests reflect skills that are needed for beginning reading. The tool is available in Morris and Slavin’s (2003) textbook on pages 29–32.

Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy or TROLL (Dickinson, McCabe, & Sprague, 2003). Intended for children ages 3 to 5, the TROLL contains three subscales: (a) language use, (b) reading, and (c) writing. It consists of 25 items, most of which are rated on a 4-point scale. For example, a child’s rhyming skills are rated from does not recognize rhyme (1) to spontaneously rhymes words of more than one syllable; always identifies when words rhyme (4). TROLL total raw scores are converted to percentiles for comparison purposes. It is a reliable (.89 internal consistency) and valid tool (teacher ratings solidly correlate with results found in formal tests) that can be used to identify and track children with special needs. The TROLL requires about 25 to 30 minutes for administration per child. The tool is available in Appendix A of a document published by the Center for Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA; CIERA Report #3-016; www.ciera.org).

Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL; Lonigan, Wagner, & Torgeson, 2007). The TOPEL is a norm-referenced test for children ages 3 to 5. It meets standards of reliability and validity. It is intended to identify children who are at risk for literacy problems and in need of early intervention. The TOPEL has three subtests: (1) Print Knowledge, (2) Definitional Vocabulary, and (3) Phonological Awareness. It requires an estimated 25 to 30 minutes for administration per child. Standard scores and percentile ranks are available for subtests and a composite score or Early Literacy Index. The TOPEL requires training for administration in early childhood settings. It is available through various commercial vendors (e.g., www.academictherapy.com) and costs approximately $250 per kit.

My IGDIs Preschool Universal Monitoring & Progress Monitoring (https://www.myigdis.com/preschool-assessments/early-literacy-assessments/). Developed at the University of Minnesota, the second edition of the Individual Growth & Development Indicators of Early Literacy utilizes a data-based approach to screening and monitoring. The assessment includes five early literacy measures: (1) Picture Naming (oral language), (2) Rhyming (phonological awareness), (3) Sound Identification (alphabet knowledge), (4) “Which one doesn’t belong?” (comprehension), and (5) Alliteration (phonological awareness). The assessment is quick, requiring only about 10 minutes per child. Tablets are used to administer the modules; computer adaptive technology allows teachers to automatically locate a child on an ability scale aligned with early literacy outcomes.

Screening is only a first step in identifying children’s readiness for reading. Assessments are broad indicators that a child is on track, delayed, or it’s unclear. Interpretations of scores rely on the sensitivity of the instrument to identify children at risk and its specificity in identifying only those children who truly have problems. High-quality screening practices rely on multiple sources of information (tests; observations; parent interviews). Assessments should include follow-up guidelines, that is, what to do if children fall below cutoff scores. Finally, assessments should meet standards of technical adequacy with respect to reliability and validity and should be used to identify children who will benefit from further assessment.

Classroom and Informal Diagnostic Assessment

Consider Chandra’s end-of-kindergarten comments about her journal writing:

I comed to this school a little bit nervous, you know. Nothin’. [She shakes her head for added emphasis.] I couldn’t read or write nothin’. Look at this. [She turns to the first few pages of her writing journal.] Not a word! Not a word! [She taps the page and adds an aside.] And the drawin’s not too good. Now, look at this. [She turns to the end of the journal.] One, two, three, four. Four pages! And I can read ’em. Listen. [She reads.] Words! [Nodding her head.] Yup! Now I can read and write a lotta words!

Chandra’s writing journal is one of several classroom assessment tools her teacher uses to gather evidence of literacy learning. Both Chandra and her teacher can see the writing growth from start to finish. The beauty (and practicality) of classroom assessment tools is that these tools permit teachers to gather information about literacy learning while at the same time engaging children in many of the developmentally appropriate activities described in this book. Here are several more tools that can do “double-duty.”

Anecdotal notes: These are teacher notes describing a child’s behavior. In addition to the child’s name, the date, and the classroom area, the specific event or product should be described exactly as it was seen and heard. The following is an example of an anecdotal note:

Martia 9/25

M. in the library center “reading” a page in a big book. As she reads, she points to the words. She runs out of words before she is done reading (with each spoken syllable she pointed to a word). She tries again, and again, and again, and again. She leaves, shaking her head.

Teachers use many different kinds of paper (e.g., notepads, paper in a loose-leaf binder, index cards, sticky notes) to make anecdotal records of children’s behavior. One technique some teachers have found helpful is to use a sheet of sticky computer labels. They put a child’s name on each label. Through the week, they write short notes describing the children’s behavior, much like the aforementioned note. At the end of the week, they remove the label and attach the note to each child’s folder. The next week, they begin again with a blank computer label sheet. A benefit of the computer label sheets is that, at a glance, teachers can see which children have been observed and which have been overlooked. With the increasing presence of electronic tablets in early childhood classrooms, teachers have another tool for recording their anecdotal notes. Teachers can, for example, create a file for each child using the notes app. Each child’s file can serve as a repository for the teacher’s yearlong observation of the child’s language and literacy behaviors.

Teachers use anecdotal notes to describe such behaviors as the processes children use while they write, the functions of writing children use while they play, and characteristics of children’s talk during large-group time. Note that anecdotal notes describe exactly what occurred and what was said verbatim, with no judgment or interpretation applied at the time of recording.

Vignettes or teacher reflections: Vignettes are recordings or recollections of significant events made after the fact, when the teacher is free of distractions. Because vignettes are like anecdotal notes, except that they are prepared some time after a behavior has occurred and are based on a teacher’s memory of the event, they are used for similar purposes as anecdotal notes. These after-the-fact descriptions or vignettes can be more detailed than anecdotal notes and are particularly useful when recording language and literacy behavior that is significant or unique for a specific child. The following is an example of a vignette.

Teachers use anecdotal notes to describe children’s behavior.

Suzanne Clouzeau/Pearson Education

For days Jamali had been complaining about the mess left by the children getting drinks at the classroom water fountain after outdoor play. “Look at that mess! Water all over the floor!” At his insistence, the class discussed solutions to the problem. While the problem wasn’t solved, I thought there was less water on the floor. Evidently, Jamali did not. Today he used the “power of the pen” to attempt to solve the problem. He wrote a sign:

BEWR!! WTR SHUS UP

ONLE TRN A LITL

(Beware! Water shoots up. Only turn a little.)

He posted his sign over the water fountain. This was the first time I had observed him using writing in an attempt to control other children’s behavior.

To prompt their memory of an event, teachers sometimes use an electronic device (Smartphone and tablet) to take a photo of the child or children engaging in a literacy behavior. Later in the day, they download the photo to their desktop, print it, and write their interpretation of the event on the bottom margin or back of the photo. They are careful to date the photo to make it easier for them to discuss each child’s developmental progression with the child’s parents.

Vignettes, then, are recollections of significant events. Because teachers can write vignettes when they are free of distractions, they can be more descriptive about the child’s concern that drove the literacy-oriented behavior, and they can connect this event to what is known about the child’s previous literacy-oriented behaviors.

Checklists: Checklists are observational aids that specify which behaviors to look for and provide a convenient system for keeping records. They can make observations more systematic and easier to conduct. The number of checklists available to describe children’s literacy development seems almost endless! In Figure 9.3, we provide an example of a checklist we have used to assess young children’s book-related understandings. When children engage in storybook reading and shared readings (see Chapter 6), teachers can closely and systematically observe children’s book-related behaviors and gather important information about children’s literacy knowledge and learning. Readers will notice that we have identified the items on our checklist with an asterisk that are similar to the kindergarten standards on the Common Core State Standards. When checklist items are linked to standards, teachers can regularly monitor children’s acquisition of key language and literacy behaviors.

Figure 9.3 Checklist for Assessing Young Children’s Book-Related Understandings

                                                                 can

                    (child's name)

Concepts about Books Date Comments

Handle a book without attempting to eat or chew it

                                       

                                                                        

Identify the front cover, back cover, and title page of a book*

                                       

                                                                        

Tum the pages correctly, holding the book upright

                                       

                                                                        

Recognize that the author writes the words and the illustrator draws the pictures*

                                       

                                                                        

Conventions of Print

Follow words from left to right, top to bottom*

                                       

                                                                        

Point to where a reader begins reading on a page

                                       

                                                                        

Point to the print when asked, “What do people look at when they read?”

                                       

                                                                        

Find a requested letter*

                                       

                                                                        

Name a requested letter*

                                       

                                                                        

Count the number of words in a sentence

                                       

                                                                        

Ask questions or make comments about letters

                                       

                                                                        

Ask questions or make comments about words*

                                       

                                                                        

Read words or phrases

                                       

                                                                        

Comprehension of Stories

Answer and ask literal questions about story

                                       

                                                                        

Ask and answer questions about the details and events of a story*

                                       

                                                                        

Answer and ask inferential questions about story

                                       

                                                                        

Ask “what do you think” questions

                                       

                                                                        

Ask questions about story or informative text

                                       

                                                                        

Use pictures to help to recall details*

                                       

                                                                        

Retell, including

    Setting*

                                       

                                                                        

    Main character(s)*

                                       

                                                                        

    Theme (what the main character wanted or needed)*

                                       

                                                                        

    Ending

                                       

                                                                        

    Sequence of events*

                                       

                                                                        

    From beginning to middle

                                       

                                                                        

    From middle to end

                                       

                                                                        

Connect information in stories to events in his or her life

                                       

                                                                        

Compare and contrast characters’ actions in familiar stories*

                                       

                                                                        

Locate information in an informative book*

                                       

                                                                        

Tell the main ideas presented in an informative book*

                                       

                                                                        

Attitude toward Books

Participate in book-sharing routine with caregiver

                                       

                                                                        

Listen attentively to a variety of genre

                                       

                                                                        

Voluntarily look at books

                                       

                                                                        

Show excitement about books and reading

                                       

                                                                        

Ask adults to read to him or her

                                       

                                                                        

Use books as a resource for answers to questions

                                       

                                                                        

The most common writing checklist used in early childhood programs is a version of the early forms of writing scale that you read about in Figure 8.1. Several school districts and child care centers across the United States have transformed this continuum into a checklist for teachers’ use to track their children’s progress toward conventional spelling. Figure 9.4 is an example of such an early form of a writing developmental checklist. With children’s increasing use of whiteboards for their writing as a visual record of the writing provides a visual record of the child’s development for the teacher and his or her parents or guardians. The camera in an electronic device, such as a mobile phone or tablet, makes it easy for teachers to make these visual records of children’s development.

Figure 9.4 Early Forms of Writing Developmental Checklist

Name                                        

Forms of Writing Date(s) Observed In What Context (e.g., dramatic play, writing center, science center)?

■ Writing as drawing

                                       

                                       

■ Scribble writing

                                       

                                       

■ Letter-like units

                                       

                                       

■ Non-phonetic letter string

                                       

                                       

■ Invented or phonetic spelling

                                       

                                       

Figure 9.4 Full Alternative Text

Checklists are useful because they provide information that teachers can see at a glance, showing what children can do. Teachers have learned that (1) children sometimes engage in a behavior today that does not reappear for several weeks and (2) many different variables (e.g., a storybook being read, other children in the group) can affect the literacy behaviors children display. Hence, teachers are careful to record the date of each observation and to use the checklist many times over the year in an attempt to create an accurate picture of their children’s literacy development. Knowing when each child demonstrates each literacy accomplishment helps teachers and parents understand that individual child’s pattern of development. Reading each child’s checklist informs the teacher of the child’s strengths and the instructional program that child needs. Collectively reading all children’s checklists informs the teacher of the instructional needs of all the children in the class.

Video and audio recordings: One means of accurately assessing children’s knowledge about and use of oral language is to record them talking. The following are guidelines we have used to gather video recordings:

Select an activity setting that encourages language interaction. (Dramatic play areas are a good place to start.)

Place the camera on a tripod and adjust the zoom lens so that it covers the main area where children will be interacting. Turn the camera on and check it occasionally to make sure that the camera angle is capturing the significant action.

Do a trial recording to make sure that the equipment is working correctly and that the children’s language is being clearly recorded. This trial will also help desensitize the children to the equipment.

View the recordings as soon as possible so that your memory can help fill in the gaps in unintelligible parts of the recordings.

In addition, for short observations, the video recording capacity of cell phones and tablets has made recording children’s verbal interactions remarkably easy. Video clips can also be stored in children’s electronic files for review and sharing. This is the only way to truly capture the full richness of children’s language—but then what? What should a teacher do after the sample has been gathered? The literature suggests that teachers make a verbatim transcription of what is said, along with detailed descriptions of the context in which the language occurred. The transcript can then be analyzed to determine the mean length of sentences used, which forms of language the child used, the pragmatic rules followed, and so forth (see Miller & Chapman, 2000, for additional suggestions). Unfortunately, such endeavors are very time-consuming and not practical for most teachers. Fortunately, a number of more practical options are available for assessing children’s oral language abilities. Each begins with the recording of the children’s talk within a classroom context. To illustrate these options, we use an incident observed by two of the authors in a university preschool. Julia is a 4-year-old Korean girl who had been in the United States for about 8 months. She participated in classroom activities, especially dramatic play, but rarely spoke either in Korean (she was the only child from Korea in the class) or in English. Julia’s teacher was playing with several other children at the time of the incident. The teacher had taken on the role of a customer and asked to use the toy phone in a post office theme center. She picked up the phone and made a pretend phone call to Buddy, whose behavior was becoming very raucous. The teacher said, “Ring, ring, ring . . . Buddy, there’s a package waiting here for you in the post office.” This was successful in redirecting Buddy away from the rough-and-tumble play that he had been engaging in. Julia is playing by herself in the housekeeping center, pretending to be a parent taking care of a baby (a doll). Julia overheard the teacher’s pretend phone call to Buddy, but she continued with her solitary play. A few minutes later, Julia picked up a toy phone in the housekeeping center and said, “Ring, ring . . . Teacher, will you come over to my house?” This is Julia’s first complete sentence used in the classroom!

As the teacher observed the videotape after the children had departed, she had several options for recalling Julia’s language breakthrough. She might use a checklist. Figure 9.5 is a checklist that might be used in a multilingual classroom. This checklist focuses on Michael Halliday’s (1975) functional uses of language. Such checklists are easy to use and require little time. This checklist can be easily modified to fit other situations (e.g., for a monolingual classroom, the language columns could be eliminated) or to focus on other aspects of language. Such instruments provide a broad view of the language that children use in the classroom. However, much of the richness of the children’s actual language is lost.

Figure 9.5 Oral Language Checklist

Figure 9.5 Full Alternative Text

The teacher might use a less-structured observation-recording form, such as the one illustrated in Figure 9.6. Forms like this allow teachers to record more detailed information about children’s language behaviors. Typically, such forms have columns for children’s names, samples of their speech, and other variables that might be of interest to the teacher. Some teachers are interested in knowing the context within which their children’s language samples are collected and the language forms illustrated. These teachers might add two columns to the observation-recording form. Notice that we did not put lines on the observation-recording form. This is intentional. No lines mean that teachers can record as much information about each incident as necessary for them to recall each language event.

Figure 9.6 Oral Language Observation Recording Form

Figure 9.6 Full Alternative Text

Teachers can use audio and video recordings for other purposes as well. For example, recording circle time or small-group time when the children are retelling a narrative story would provide the teacher with valuable information about the children’s developing abilities to comprehend stories. Which narrative structures do the children include in their retellings—the initiating event, the main character, the problem, the solution? How much teacher scaffolding is needed to support the children’s retelling?

Focusing the video camera’s lens on the dramatic play or the writing center also can provide the teacher with information about the children’s knowledge of the functions of writing. For example, in the campsite play setting in the dramatic play center in a kindergarten classroom, the video recording showed children writing tickets for campsite speeders and making signs like “DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!” and revealed the number of a camper’s tent location on a slip of paper and drawing a map to the location. The sign making demonstrated that the children knew that a purpose of writing is to control other people’s behavior, and the map demonstrated that they knew that a purpose of writing is to inform. Because the teacher was busy interacting with children in other centers, she might have missed this opportunity to understand her children’s developing knowledge of the functions of written communication.

Teachers would need to preplan each of the aforementioned video recordings. With an electronic device close at hand, teachers can capture children’s literacy activities more spontaneously. For example, while visiting a pre-K classroom with her tablet in hand for recording notes describing the children’s literacy activities, one of this book’s authors happened to observe a child collect a book and invite a classmate to listen to him read it. She quickly switched from the note app to the video camera and recorded the child systematically sounding out each word (/j/,/u/,/m/,/p/, jump) as he read to the classmate. The teacher asked that the video be forwarded to her so she could share it with the child’s parent when she arrived at the end of the day to collect her son. (The book’s author deleted it from her tablet because she did not have the parent’s permission to share it broadly.)

Products or work samples: Some products, such as samples of children’s writing, can be gathered together in a folder. If the children’s original works cannot be saved (e.g., a letter that is sent to its recipient), a photocopy or photograph can be made of the product. Other products, such as three-dimensional structures the children have created with labels written by them, might not be conveniently saved. In these cases, a photograph—still or video—can be made. Because memories are short, the teacher should record a brief description of the product or the activity that resulted in the product.

Each of the aforementioned examples described teachers’ use of an assessment tool in a classroom setting. Caspe and her colleagues (Caspe, Seltzer, Kennedy, Cappio, & DeLorenzo, 2013) remind us of the importance of involving families in the classroom-based assessment process. The central component of such a system is for teachers and parents to share information with each other on a regular, ongoing basis. For example, every child in an infant or toddler room might have a journal where the classroom teacher or an assistant can record quick observations of the child’s behaviors each day. The journal would travel home with the child, and the parent or caregiver would be encouraged to make quick recordings of the child’s behavior at home. In the examples we have seen, entries like the following were evident in parent’s notes to the teacher: “Cuddled and read Good Night, Moon. She pointed and cooed through the whole reading.” “While giving A. J. his bath, I said, ‘Ma-ma-ma-ma-ma-ma.’ He responded, ‘Da-da-da-da-da-da.’ His first conversation?” “No was her favorite word tonight. Is this normal for a 2-year-old?” Such two-way communication is critical to providing teachers and families with greater understanding of each child’s development and provides teachers with additional information to use in planning instruction for each child.

Pause and Think about . . .  How You Were Assessed

Recall your own experiences as a beginning reader and writer. How did your teacher assess your literacy progress? Did he or she create a scrapbook or portfolio of your work? What helped you the most to know how well you were doing as a beginning reader and writer?

Addressing Storage Problems

Using the various tools described earlier will result in the accumulation of many items that will need to be stored someplace. Some teachers use an assessment notebook that helps organize information about children’s literacy learning. These notebooks consist of several sections. One section contains a checklist documenting children’s emergent writing. Another section contains a checklist documenting emergent reading behaviors, including information about concepts of print and alphabet recognition. Another section might hold anecdotal notes or vignettes.

Some teachers maintain a folder on each child. Many teachers find that folders with pockets and center clasps for three-hole-punched paper serve as better storage containers than file folders. Checklists, prints of photographs, examples of the child’s writing, and other similar papers can be three-hole-punched, thus permitting easy insertion into each child’s folder. When anecdotal notes and vignettes are written on computer mailing labels, the labels can be attached to the inside covers of each child’s folder. When these notes are written on index cards, the cards can be stored in one of the folder’s pockets. When they are typed using the notes app on an electronic tablet, they can be downloaded and printed. Also, a plastic resealing sandwich bag might be stapled inside each child’s folder to hold a DVD. The self-sealing feature of the bag means that the DVD can be securely held inside the folder. The class’s folders might be housed in a plastic container or in hanging files in a file cabinet.

Often the folder described earlier is known as a portfolio, and the collecting of the children’s work, artifacts, and teacher notes is known as a portfolio assessment system. Each portfolio captures a child’s learning over time. Teachers study each child’s portfolio so that they know how to adjust their instruction and the kinds of experiences each child needs. Elida Velez Laski (2013) suggests one additional use for a portfolio. She suggests that it “provides children with an opportunity for self-assessment” (Laski, 2013, p. 39). Portfolios offer children the opportunity to do exactly what Chandra did when she paged through her journal; portfolios provide children with an opportunity to review their progress. Teacher Laski suggests that inviting children to study the artifacts in their portfolio is exactly the right kind of experience that supports children’s early development of metacognition (self-awareness of thinking and performance), an important aspect of cognition known to be critical for learning. Laski invites her children to select artifacts from their folder for inclusion in their portfolio, artifacts that demonstrate their achievement of a skill or standard. The children’s articulation of their thinking related to the selected artifact is central to their monitoring of their learning. Teachers like Laski use language such as “Why are you proud of this piece?” “Is there something you did on this piece that you could not do before?” “What do you remember thinking about as you worked on this piece?” and “What do you think you might be able do better next time? What might your goal be?”

One teacher we know prepared an end-of-year lasting treasure for her children’s parents. This teacher pulled examples of each child’s literacy behaviors as reflected using the formative assessment tools described earlier and digital photos of the child’s work, scanned the selected items, and created an end-of-year digital presentation for each child’s parents. The children and their parents were thrilled to see how each child’s language and literacy skills had progressed during the year.

With increasing access to technology, however, the conventional portfolio may soon morph into an e-portfolio stored on a cloud-based server, such as Dropbox or Google Drive, thus overcoming many of the physical storage and management problems related to physical portfolios of children’s work. E-portfolios in early childhood assessment are very new, and research on their use as an alternative form of assessment is limited. Inspired by the possibilities, a small group of teacher-researchers explored the process of e-portfolio assessment in a Greek kindergarten classroom (Tsirika, Kakan, & Michalopoulou, 2017). Using a suite of content management tools, the team developed a secure e-portfolio website. The portfolio was organized into three categories: free activities, thematic activities, and work products related to curriculum goals. At the end of each week, each child had the opportunity to choose one work from each category and to explain, in the form of comments, the reason for his or her selection. At first the teacher had a more advisory role in helping the children with their comments, while after a few months she encouraged more details and information about their selection. As a result, the choice for the material in the portfolio could range from a child’s favorite work to a difficult one. Using an action-research approach, the team found that the e-portfolio process supported active interaction between the teacher and the children. It encouraged the children to develop their reflective skills during the collection and selection process of the e-portfolio. It promoted the development of both self-assessment and peer assessment skills. And finally, the e-portfolio worked as a way for digitizing various projects of the children that were accessible to families, allowing them to participate more actively in the assessment process.

Bridging Classroom and More Formal Diagnostic Assessment

Classroom or instructional assessments are used to inform and monitor young children’s learning and emergent literacy development. These tools are most closely associated with ongoing teaching and learning. Diagnostic assessments, on the other hand, are used to address specific questions about the emergent literacy development of young children, and the essential knowledge and skills they are learning that lay the foundations for learning to read and write. The explicit purpose of diagnostic assessment is to pinpoint problems and inform decision making about early interventions. Consequently, it is reserved for those few children who are not demonstrating typical language and literacy growth and trajectories. Because diagnostic assessment is typically conducted by intervention specialists (e.g., speech and language therapists) and psychologists, we do not describe it in-depth here. Rather, we describe a few assessment tools that bridge classroom and diagnostic assessment procedures and that fall within the scope of early childhood teacher responsibilities. Two examples follow: Teaching Strategies GOLDTM and Curriculum-Based Measures. Many early childhood programs use these tools. Teaching Strategies GOLDTM is described in Special Features Teaching Strategies GOLDTM: Its Use in a Head Start Center and Curriculum-Based Measurement.

Teaching Strategies GOLDTM requires that teachers intending to use it participate in training to ensure that each observes children engaged in the same kinds of behaviors. Very specific parameters are defined for each level of behavior within each of the objectives. For additional information on the assessment tool, visit the Teaching Strategies GOLDTM website. In Special Feature Teaching Strategies GOLDTM: Its Use in a Head Start Center, Colleen Quinn describes how Teaching Strategies GOLDTM was used in a Head Start center with 3- to 4-year-olds.

Special Feature Teaching Strategies GOLDTM: Its Use in a Head Start Center

Colleen Quinn

Colonial School District

What Is Teaching Strategies GOLDTM?

Teaching Strategies GOLDTM is an observation-based authentic assessment system for children from birth through kindergarten that is designed for teachers to use as their young learners engage in the ongoing classroom activities. It may be used with any developmentally appropriate curriculum. It addresses 38 developmental objectives (36 basic and two related to English Language acquisition), covering the knowledge, skills, and behaviors identified in the research literature that are predictive of children’s later school success. The objectives are organized into the four major areas of development (social-emotional, physical, language, and cognitive), five areas of content learning (literacy, mathematics, science and technology, social studies, and the arts), and English language acquisition.

Teaching Strategies GOLDTM is one of the systems of assessment that is available for use in Head Start and other early childhood development and education programs. Each Head Start center must choose a system of assessment to use and gain the approval of the Office at Head Start. An assessment’s validity and reliability are critical to ensuring that young children’s development and learning is accurately monitored.

How Do Teachers Use Teaching Strategies GOLDTM?

Teachers in one Head Start agency use Teaching Strategies GOLDTM in the following way. These teachers begin collecting Teaching Strategies GOLDTM observations on all children at the beginning of the school year or when a child enters the program. During the first 6 weeks of the assessment cycle, teachers observe and assess each child’s functioning along a developmental continuum for each of the 38 objectives. Observation notes are collected and entered online into the child’s performance record or portfolio, thus documenting each child’s current level of performance on each objective and setting the stage for ongoing progress monitoring. The need to support and document progress on the objectives frequently drives lesson planning (e.g., a math activity is planned to assess children’s performance quantifying sets of 6 through 10 items), although incidental observations are frequent (e.g. a teacher observes a child using mock letters to “write” a prescription in the dramatic play doctor’s office).

Observations are ongoing and continuous. Teachers use various methods to collect observations, including, but not limited to, writing anecdotal notes on random papers, taking photographs, or preparing observation sheets in advance, depending on the activity and objectives observed. There are three checkpoints throughout a school year—the first is 6 weeks into the school year, the second is 12 weeks later, and the third is at the end of the school year. By each checkpoint date, all observation data, approximately three substantiating observations to support each objective, must be entered into each child’s individual developmental record or portfolio.

Teachers utilize assessment information to support lesson planning, progress monitoring, and communication of development and learning to children’s families and other service providers. While the teachers collect observations data throughout each day, they struggle to find time to enter the data into each child’s online developmental record or portfolio. Teachers report entering most of the data while at home in the evenings and on weekends. They are allotted time at the beginning and end of each school day that is supposed to be available for entry of the observations; however, the time is usually consumed by other tasks and responsibilities. Some teachers rely on their assistants to help collect observation data (e.g., small-group observations of a literacy goal are completed by a teacher assistant while the teacher conducts a lesson). However, in some instances, the lead teacher feels responsible to collect most of the observations in order to better identify or detail the description of progress reported. Observations are used to address more than one objective whenever possible (e.g. a writing activity is used to document both literacy and fine motor skills objectives). At this center, the teachers are responsible for the entry of all data into children’s portfolios; teaching assistants may not assist with the inputting of the observation data.

Teaching Strategies GOLDTM is a robust assessment approach that embeds diagnostic thinking in routine classroom language arts instruction. It has been determined to be a valid and reliable measure of child growth and development. Initial research establishing its validity and reliability was conducted with data collected during the 2010–2011 academic year (Lambert, Kim, Taylor, & McGee, 2010). In addition, the Center for Measurement and Evaluation at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte conducted extensive research to establish norms that enable teachers to compare their own children’s progress to typically developing children’s expected growth (Lambert, 2012). The measure was found to be equally valid and reliable for children with disabilities and for children whose home language is not English (Kim, Lambert, & Burts, 2013). This is an important finding given that the early education population includes significant numbers of children classified under each of those categories. Future research may focus on identifying effects of teacher variability imposed by years of teaching experience, educational level, and the quality and amount of training teachers receive on the assessment system. Effects of family demographics and additional characteristics of children with and without disabilities may also inform issues of two raters rating the child’s performance differently and variance of scores reported in the data (Lambert, Kim, & Burts, 2013).

Curriculum-Based Measurement or CBM is a simple, reliable and valid set of measurement procedures that teachers can use to measure frequently and repeatedly the growth of students in basic academic skills—and in our case the growth of young children in oral language and early literacy skills essential for literacy achievement. CBM uses curriculum materials and standards as the basis for selecting and creating tasks on which child performance is measured. A good example is the Preschool Early Literacy IndicatorsTM (PELI) assessment developed by the Dynamic Measurement Group to screen and progress monitor foundational early literacy skills of preschoolers. The PELI measures four early literacy skill domains: Alphabet Knowledge, Phonological Awareness, Vocabulary and Oral Language, and Comprehension. All test items are presented in a storybook format that centers on common preschool themes (e.g., On the Farm, Trip to the Grocery Store). The establishment of benchmark goals is under development. The PELI is projected for general educational use in the near future (Dynamic Measurement Group, n.d.). In Special Feature Curriculum-Based Measurement, Karen Burstein further describes CBM, and how it can be used to monitor early literacy growth of individual children and inform how well instruction and early literacy interventions are working.

Special Feature Teaching Strategies GOLDTM: Its Use in a Head Start Center

Colleen Quinn

Colonial School District

What Is Teaching Strategies GOLDTM?

Teaching Strategies GOLDTM is an observation-based authentic assessment system for children from birth through kindergarten that is designed for teachers to use as their young learners engage in the ongoing classroom activities. It may be used with any developmentally appropriate curriculum. It addresses 38 developmental objectives (36 basic and two related to English Language acquisition), covering the knowledge, skills, and behaviors identified in the research literature that are predictive of children’s later school success. The objectives are organized into the four major areas of development (social-emotional, physical, language, and cognitive), five areas of content learning (literacy, mathematics, science and technology, social studies, and the arts), and English language acquisition.

Teaching Strategies GOLDTM is one of the systems of assessment that is available for use in Head Start and other early childhood development and education programs. Each Head Start center must choose a system of assessment to use and gain the approval of the Office at Head Start. An assessment’s validity and reliability are critical to ensuring that young children’s development and learning is accurately monitored.

How Do Teachers Use Teaching Strategies GOLDTM?

Teachers in one Head Start agency use Teaching Strategies GOLDTM in the following way. These teachers begin collecting Teaching Strategies GOLDTM observations on all children at the beginning of the school year or when a child enters the program. During the first 6 weeks of the assessment cycle, teachers observe and assess each child’s functioning along a developmental continuum for each of the 38 objectives. Observation notes are collected and entered online into the child’s performance record or portfolio, thus documenting each child’s current level of performance on each objective and setting the stage for ongoing progress monitoring. The need to support and document progress on the objectives frequently drives lesson planning (e.g., a math activity is planned to assess children’s performance quantifying sets of 6 through 10 items), although incidental observations are frequent (e.g. a teacher observes a child using mock letters to “write” a prescription in the dramatic play doctor’s office).

Observations are ongoing and continuous. Teachers use various methods to collect observations, including, but not limited to, writing anecdotal notes on random papers, taking photographs, or preparing observation sheets in advance, depending on the activity and objectives observed. There are three checkpoints throughout a school year—the first is 6 weeks into the school year, the second is 12 weeks later, and the third is at the end of the school year. By each checkpoint date, all observation data, approximately three substantiating observations to support each objective, must be entered into each child’s individual developmental record or portfolio.

Teachers utilize assessment information to support lesson planning, progress monitoring, and communication of development and learning to children’s families and other service providers. While the teachers collect observations data throughout each day, they struggle to find time to enter the data into each child’s online developmental record or portfolio. Teachers report entering most of the data while at home in the evenings and on weekends. They are allotted time at the beginning and end of each school day that is supposed to be available for entry of the observations; however, the time is usually consumed by other tasks and responsibilities. Some teachers rely on their assistants to help collect observation data (e.g., small-group observations of a literacy goal are completed by a teacher assistant while the teacher conducts a lesson). However, in some instances, the lead teacher feels responsible to collect most of the observations in order to better identify or detail the description of progress reported. Observations are used to address more than one objective whenever possible (e.g. a writing activity is used to document both literacy and fine motor skills objectives). At this center, the teachers are responsible for the entry of all data into children’s portfolios; teaching assistants may not assist with the inputting of the observation data.

Teaching Strategies GOLDTM is a robust assessment approach that embeds diagnostic thinking in routine classroom language arts instruction. It has been determined to be a valid and reliable measure of child growth and development. Initial research establishing its validity and reliability was conducted with data collected during the 2010–2011 academic year (Lambert, Kim, Taylor, & McGee, 2010). In addition, the Center for Measurement and Evaluation at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte conducted extensive research to establish norms that enable teachers to compare their own children’s progress to typically developing children’s expected growth (Lambert, 2012). The measure was found to be equally valid and reliable for children with disabilities and for children whose home language is not English (Kim, Lambert, & Burts, 2013). This is an important finding given that the early education population includes significant numbers of children classified under each of those categories. Future research may focus on identifying effects of teacher variability imposed by years of teaching experience, educational level, and the quality and amount of training teachers receive on the assessment system. Effects of family demographics and additional characteristics of children with and without disabilities may also inform issues of two raters rating the child’s performance differently and variance of scores reported in the data (Lambert, Kim, & Burts, 2013).

Curriculum-Based Measurement or CBM is a simple, reliable and valid set of measurement procedures that teachers can use to measure frequently and repeatedly the growth of students in basic academic skills—and in our case the growth of young children in oral language and early literacy skills essential for literacy achievement. CBM uses curriculum materials and standards as the basis for selecting and creating tasks on which child performance is measured. A good example is the Preschool Early Literacy IndicatorsTM (PELI) assessment developed by the Dynamic Measurement Group to screen and progress monitor foundational early literacy skills of preschoolers. The PELI measures four early literacy skill domains: Alphabet Knowledge, Phonological Awareness, Vocabulary and Oral Language, and Comprehension. All test items are presented in a storybook format that centers on common preschool themes (e.g., On the Farm, Trip to the Grocery Store). The establishment of benchmark goals is under development. The PELI is projected for general educational use in the near future (Dynamic Measurement Group, n.d.). In Special Feature Curriculum-Based Measurement, Karen Burstein further describes CBM, and how it can be used to monitor early literacy growth of individual children and inform how well instruction and early literacy interventions are working.

Special Feature Curriculum-Based Measurement

Karen Burstein

What Is Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)?

CBM is a formative assessment method that teachers can use to determine how students are progressing in essential reading skills, such as phonological awareness, alphabet letter knowledge, and oral vocabulary. It is intended to provide week-to-week information on how well students are making progress toward benchmarks and/or end-of-year of expectations. In this sense, it is a diagnostic tool. It also is a means to monitor the effectiveness of instruction. If students are not progressing, then instructional changes are needed.

How Does CBM Work?

CBM can be used with individual and small groups of children. Brief tests are used that take about 1 to 5 minutes. CBM tests are available in commercial literacy programs or online sources, such as Intervention Central (http://www.interventioncentral.org).

Teachers can also develop their own CBMs based on their weekly lessons and decide the specific alphabet letter knowledge, phonological awareness skills, and oral vocabulary to monitor progress. A CBM, for example, might assess receptive vocabulary (“Show me”), expressive vocabulary (“Tell me”), letter identification, and alliteration (identification of initial sounds). Only a few items are needed in each skill area: six to eight target words, two to four alphabet letters, and two sounds for alliteration from a weekly lesson plan. To monitor children’s progress over time, use the same number of words, sounds, and letters each week.

CBMs are administered at the same time each week, following the same procedures and wait time for each child. Some teachers hold brief 5-minute weekly conferences with one or two individual children from high-, average-, and low-performing groups to learn if a particular child is having a problem or if all the children are making errors and the instruction is missing its mark (e.g., the material is too difficult for everyone). Each child’s scores on each CBM test are summed and a graph is prepared. The horizontal axis indicates the date of the assessment, and the vertical axis presents the number of correct responses on each CBM subtest. (See Figure 9.7; also see online sources for making graphs.) Graphs give teachers an overview of each child’s mastery of the curriculum; they can compare the performance of children with special needs, as well as at risk, typical achieving, and high achieving children.

Figure 9.7 Illustrative Graph of CBM Data

Figure 9.7 Full Alternative Text

What Are the Benefits?

CBMs help teachers monitor how well students are doing toward meeting early literacy expectations. Studying the data, they can ask, (1) “Are one or two children not meeting expectations?” (2) “Are all children not meeting expectations?” or (3) “Are all the children exceeding expectations?” They can establish an aim line to evaluate students’ rate of progress toward an expectation. Then they can make decisions about the effectiveness of instruction for helping students learn essential skills. Teachers should include parents in the process by sending parents (or discussing) an explanation of CBM, the words and letters being focused on in each exploration or week, and the individual students’ graphs. They should explain the graph, noting positive changes in the child’s progress and provide parents with activities to do at home that support classroom learning.

Sources for Making Graphs

http://nces.ed.gov/NCESKIDS/createagraph/default.aspx

http://www.jimwrightonline.com/php/chartdog_2_0/chartdog.php

Evaluation Assessment Tools

In the previous sections, we discussed assessment approaches and tools that are used to find out what young children know and can do in the earliest years of literacy development and learning. The assessment information we gather is important because it helps educators to address questions and make decisions about early language and literacy experiences and instruction. Assessment also serves another purpose, however, and that is to evaluate overall program quality. Here approaches and tools address the important question: Is the language and literacy program working? Program evaluations are conducted to support the continuous improvement of an early childhood program or service. Most teachers are not directly involved in administering program evaluation, but they are active participants. And they are expected to act on the outcomes of program evaluation to strengthen overall program content and delivery. One prime example is the Classroom Assessment Scoring System or CLASS (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008), which is widely used in PreK–Grade 3 programs. The system is an observation instrument that evaluates classroom quality in three major domains of classroom experience: emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support. Results are used for accountability purposes (determining overall quality), program planning and evaluation (identifying program strengths and weaknesses) and professional development and supervision (providing direct feedback on classroom practices). Other examples of program-level assessment tools include the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale or ECERS (Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 2005; https://www.ersi.info/scales.html), the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation Scale PreK and K–3 (ELLCO; Smith, Brady, & Anastasopoulos, 2008), and the Family Child Care Environment Scale–Revised Edition (FCCERS-R; 2007). Across their professional careers, early childhood educators can expect to become involved in one or more program level assessment tools such as these.

Effective Uses of Assessment Information

To Inform Instruction

In Special Feature Standardized Assessment of Young Children Karen Burstein identified four reasons for assessing children. In our view, the last reason, to inform teachers of children’s instructional needs, is a top-priority. We strongly agree that no single test score should be used alone to judge a child’s progress in literacy knowledge and skills. However, if most of the children in a classroom do not perform as expected on a standardized test, then teachers must be prepared to reconsider their methods of teaching language, reading, and writing. Teachers need to ask themselves, “What could I have done better or differently?” “Did I not spend enough time explicitly teaching phonological awareness?” “Did I explicitly teach vocabulary children need for listening and reading comprehension?” Others certainly will raise these questions, as well. Teachers must be able to respond by analyzing their teaching practices and by learning what legitimately needs revising to support children’s literacy achievement. They need to reflect on assessment information to determine what works or not, what was challenging or not, what was authentic performance or not—and to critically examine their teaching practices for continuous improvement.

We need to be ever mindful that early childhood teachers do not teach a program. They teach children. Assessments—both formative and summative—must be done (and done well) to help teachers understand what young children know and can do, as well as what they cannot do yet. In a continuous improvement cycle, this is the necessary information that informs the instructional planning for tomorrow.

To Share Assessment Results with Parents and Families

Teachers should use parent conferences to build parent–teacher partnerships and to share the critical details of children’s literacy progress. Children are complex, social individuals who must function appropriately in two very different cultures, school and home. Parents need to understand how a child uses his or her language and literacy skills to become a participating member of the classroom community. Likewise, experienced teachers appreciate the child’s home life and recognize its significant influence on a child’s behavior and ability to learn. Partnerships reach their full potential when parents and teachers share information about the child from their unique perspectives, value the child’s individual needs and strengths, and work together for the benefit of the child.

Progress Review Conferences

The progress review conference is an opportunity for parents and teachers to share information about children’s development. Most schools and centers schedule three progress review conferences each year. One way to help a parent and teacher prepare to share information during the conference is a preconference questionnaire. The teacher sends the questionnaire home to the parent to complete and return prior to the conference. In Figure 9.8, we present the notes made by Manuel’s mother as she prepared for her conference with Ms. Jones, her son’s kindergarten teacher. The information Mrs. Rodriguez provides also tells Ms. Jones what concerns she has; therefore, Ms. Jones has a better idea about how to focus the conference. Remember, it may be necessary to have this letter and questionnaire translated into the language spoken in the home.

Figure 9.8 Preconference Questionnaire

Figure 9.8 Full Alternative Text

During a progress review conference, the teacher shares information about the child’s academic progress. In addition to academic progress, most parents want to know about their children’s social interactions and classroom behavior. The observational data that the teacher has recorded help provide a more complete picture of the child in the classroom context.

The success of the parent–teacher relationship depends on the teacher’s ability to highlight the child’s academic and social strengths and progress. When areas of concern are discussed, it is important to provide examples of the child’s work or review the observational data to illustrate the point. Often, the issues the parents reveal are directly related to the concerns the teacher has. Whenever possible, connect these concerns, as this reinforces the feeling that the teacher and the parents have the same goals for helping the child learn. It is essential to solicit the parents’ views and suggestions for helping the child and to provide concrete examples about how they might help the child learn.

To make sure both teacher and parents reach a common understanding, briefly review the main ideas and suggestions that were discussed during the conference. Allow parents to orally discuss their views of the main ideas of the conference. Check the parents’ perceptions. Finally, briefly record the parents’ oral summary on the conference form. Figure 9.9 is a progress review conference form from Manuel’s conference.

Figure 9.9 Progress Review Conference Form

Figure 9.9 Full Alternative Text

Child–Parent–Teacher Conferences

A somewhat newer innovation in progress conferences is the inclusion of the child. The child participates equally—sharing work, discussing areas in which he or she has noticed improvement, and establishing academic and/or social goals. This type of conference requires that the children are active participants in selecting what work will be featured during the conference. Child–parent–teacher conferences are a natural outgrowth of frequent child–teacher conferences.

Because a three-way conference may be a new experience for parents, it is important for the teacher to establish guidelines for parents and children. A letter sent home explaining the format of the conference and discussing each person’s role is essential. Parents are encouraged to ask open-ended questions, such as

“What did you learn the most about?”

“What did you work the hardest to learn?”

“What do you want to learn more about?”

Questions such as these encourage children to analyze their own learning and help them to set new goals. Parents should not criticize the child’s work or focus on any negative aspect of any material that is presented during the conference. Negative comments, particularly from parents, will only inhibit learning and dampen excitement about school.

Effective Uses of Assessment Information

To Inform Instruction

In Special Feature Standardized Assessment of Young Children Karen Burstein identified four reasons for assessing children. In our view, the last reason, to inform teachers of children’s instructional needs, is a top-priority. We strongly agree that no single test score should be used alone to judge a child’s progress in literacy knowledge and skills. However, if most of the children in a classroom do not perform as expected on a standardized test, then teachers must be prepared to reconsider their methods of teaching language, reading, and writing. Teachers need to ask themselves, “What could I have done better or differently?” “Did I not spend enough time explicitly teaching phonological awareness?” “Did I explicitly teach vocabulary children need for listening and reading comprehension?” Others certainly will raise these questions, as well. Teachers must be able to respond by analyzing their teaching practices and by learning what legitimately needs revising to support children’s literacy achievement. They need to reflect on assessment information to determine what works or not, what was challenging or not, what was authentic performance or not—and to critically examine their teaching practices for continuous improvement.

We need to be ever mindful that early childhood teachers do not teach a program. They teach children. Assessments—both formative and summative—must be done (and done well) to help teachers understand what young children know and can do, as well as what they cannot do yet. In a continuous improvement cycle, this is the necessary information that informs the instructional planning for tomorrow.

To Share Assessment Results with Parents and Families

Teachers should use parent conferences to build parent–teacher partnerships and to share the critical details of children’s literacy progress. Children are complex, social individuals who must function appropriately in two very different cultures, school and home. Parents need to understand how a child uses his or her language and literacy skills to become a participating member of the classroom community. Likewise, experienced teachers appreciate the child’s home life and recognize its significant influence on a child’s behavior and ability to learn. Partnerships reach their full potential when parents and teachers share information about the child from their unique perspectives, value the child’s individual needs and strengths, and work together for the benefit of the child.

Progress Review Conferences

The progress review conference is an opportunity for parents and teachers to share information about children’s development. Most schools and centers schedule three progress review conferences each year. One way to help a parent and teacher prepare to share information during the conference is a preconference questionnaire. The teacher sends the questionnaire home to the parent to complete and return prior to the conference. In Figure 9.8, we present the notes made by Manuel’s mother as she prepared for her conference with Ms. Jones, her son’s kindergarten teacher. The information Mrs. Rodriguez provides also tells Ms. Jones what concerns she has; therefore, Ms. Jones has a better idea about how to focus the conference. Remember, it may be necessary to have this letter and questionnaire translated into the language spoken in the home.

Figure 9.8 Preconference Questionnaire

Figure 9.8 Full Alternative Text

During a progress review conference, the teacher shares information about the child’s academic progress. In addition to academic progress, most parents want to know about their children’s social interactions and classroom behavior. The observational data that the teacher has recorded help provide a more complete picture of the child in the classroom context.

The success of the parent–teacher relationship depends on the teacher’s ability to highlight the child’s academic and social strengths and progress. When areas of concern are discussed, it is important to provide examples of the child’s work or review the observational data to illustrate the point. Often, the issues the parents reveal are directly related to the concerns the teacher has. Whenever possible, connect these concerns, as this reinforces the feeling that the teacher and the parents have the same goals for helping the child learn. It is essential to solicit the parents’ views and suggestions for helping the child and to provide concrete examples about how they might help the child learn.

To make sure both teacher and parents reach a common understanding, briefly review the main ideas and suggestions that were discussed during the conference. Allow parents to orally discuss their views of the main ideas of the conference. Check the parents’ perceptions. Finally, briefly record the parents’ oral summary on the conference form. Figure 9.9 is a progress review conference form from Manuel’s conference.

Figure 9.9 Progress Review Conference Form

Figure 9.9 Full Alternative Text

Child–Parent–Teacher Conferences

A somewhat newer innovation in progress conferences is the inclusion of the child. The child participates equally—sharing work, discussing areas in which he or she has noticed improvement, and establishing academic and/or social goals. This type of conference requires that the children are active participants in selecting what work will be featured during the conference. Child–parent–teacher conferences are a natural outgrowth of frequent child–teacher conferences.

Because a three-way conference may be a new experience for parents, it is important for the teacher to establish guidelines for parents and children. A letter sent home explaining the format of the conference and discussing each person’s role is essential. Parents are encouraged to ask open-ended questions, such as

“What did you learn the most about?”

“What did you work the hardest to learn?”

“What do you want to learn more about?”

Questions such as these encourage children to analyze their own learning and help them to set new goals. Parents should not criticize the child’s work or focus on any negative aspect of any material that is presented during the conference. Negative comments, particularly from parents, will only inhibit learning and dampen excitement about school.

Assessing Dual Language Learners

Research suggests that assessment problems often stem from a lack of training, awareness, and sensitivity. To do a good job assessment young children whose home language is not English, skill, sensitivity, and knowledge of the children’s culture and language is required. In Special Feature Assessing Young Dual Language Learners’ Language and Literacy, Sohyun Meacham presents best practice recommendations for appropriate assessment of young children whose home language is not English.

Special Feature Assessing Young Dual Language Learners’ Language and Literacy

Sohyun Meacham

Northern Iowa University

The best-practice recommendations for appropriate assessment of young children whose home language is not English are as follows:

Consider each DLL’s unique language background. Dual Language Learner (DLL) children’s competency in two languages varies by contexts (Langdon & Wiig, 2009; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994). They choose different words or speak a combination of words from the two languages based on the topic and situation. Gather as much evidence as possible of DLL children’s language and literacy competency in their home language and in English.

Carefully choose linguistically and developmentally appropriate and culturally sensitive assessment instruments. Study the items on the instrument before using it with the children to determine if any items are inappropriate for use with the particular group of DLL children to be assessed.

Select tools that are appropriate for the purpose of the assessment. Different measures can be used for a variety of purposes, for example, (1) determining a child’s eligibility for services, (2) meeting accountability requirements, (3) planning classroom instruction, or (4) monitoring a child’s progress. For example, because standardized norm-referenced tests can be administered only a few times a year, they are inappropriate for monitoring progress in classrooms. On the other hand, CBMs cannot be used for screening purposes because they do not provide norm references.

Be sure to assess all aspects of a child’s language and literacy proficiency: receptive and expressive language, phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and print concept. Teachers should not overemphasize one dimension of children’s language and literacy skills. It is possible, for example, that while a DLL’s oral language skills are less proficient than his or her English-speaking peers, the child can name all of the English alphabet letters, both upper- and lowercase. All aspects of language and literacy are important for later reading development. To plan appropriately for each child, teachers need information on all the aspects of each child’s language and literacy skill development.

Multiple factors beyond language proficiency may interact with DLLs’ performance (Spinelli, 2008). English Language Learners (ELLs), for example, may have fewer experiences than their English-speaking peers in taking tests. This may make them more anxious or distracted than their English-speaking peers (Meisels, 2001). Examiners are advised to be friendly and to build rapport with DLL children to gain their trust (Spinelli, 2008). DLLs from low-income families may have nutrition issues (Ortiz, 2003). The assessment of their language and literacy performance might be negatively affected when they are hungry. Consider these factors and do your best to meet each child’s unique needs.

When possible, modify the testing conditions for DLLs. When testers who speak the child’s home language are available, which various groups and researchers suggest is optimal (Noland, 2009), it might be permissible to translate the test’s directions into each child’s home language. When a test is administered only in English, the testers might consider administering the missed items later in children’s home language. Although not calculated in the children’s score, this information could prove helpful for teachers as they design plans to meet each child’s needs. The teacher might be able to use the language and literacy knowledge that the DLL children possess in their home language to assist them in mastering these skills in English.

When acceptable, reword the test’s directions and ensure that DLLs understand what is being asked of them before proceeding with the administration of the test. Perhaps the items and directions can be presented through graphics and pictorial representations. Be sure to allow sufficient response time for the children to process the question (Spinelli, 2008).

Determine whether further testing is needed; consider follow-up classroom observations and conversations with family members. The goal is to confirm the interpretations of the child’s behavior during the assessment process.

Interpret the results of standardized tests with caution. A prominent problem with using standardized or norm-referenced tests with DLL children is that few tests have norms for DLL children. Therefore, the use of these tests for DLLs can be a stretch (Noland, 2009). Although the use of such tests often is unavoidable for screening purposes to determine the eligibility for governmental services, careful interpretation is required.

Adopt an in-depth approach beyond standardized tests to support individualized intervention planning for DLL children (Langdon & Wiig, 2009; Roseberry-McKibbin & O’Hanlon, 2005). Interview family members to obtain language history information. Include alternative assessments such as language samples, anecdotal notes, criterion-referenced tests, observations, journals, and portfolios for dynamic and authentic assessment procedures. Aim to obtain a picture of what DLL children know and can do, not just what they do not know and cannot do.

Summary

9.1 Discuss the role of early learning standards in assessment activity. Early learning standards provide frameworks that describe what children should know and be able to do as emerging readers and writers. They define language and literacy learning outcomes of early childhood programs and guide assessment of young children’s development and progress. They also provide a common language for discussing expectations with parents, families and the wider community.

9.2 Define the concept of an assessment system. An assessment system is a coordinated set of multiple measures and methods that provides reliable, valid information about a child’s language and emerging literacy skills. The system includes assessments for purposes of screening, instruction, diagnosis, and evaluation of program outcomes. A sound system reflects the overlap between language and early literacy in the early years; it takes into account the personal variables involved in early childhood assessment; and it should ground observations in authentic and familiar settings of early childhood (e.g., play).

9.3 Identify the principles, types, and features of early literacy assessment. Early literacy assessment adheres to principles of practice that guide balanced, focused, high-quality, effective, and personally motivating assessment of young children. It consists of two major types: formative assessment, which occurs as a regular part of instruction, and summative assessment, which periodically evaluates children’s achievement in comparison to peers. Formative assessment is used to locate gaps in learning, to provide feedback, to help children self-monitor, and to facilitate progress toward expectations. Summative assessment often relies on standardized or criterion-referenced tests that meet technical adequacy in terms of reliability (consistency) and validity (measures what a test claims to measure). It is conducted at a few specific times spread across a program year.

9.4 Describe an assessment model with examples. A model of assessment uses an assess–plan–teach–reflect cycle that propels continuous improvement in children’s learning and teachers’ instruction. Assessment approaches and tools are organized around the major purposes of assessment, that is, to screen, inform instruction, diagnose, and evaluate programs. The Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL) is an example of a screening measure or tool. A variety of tools are used for informal classroom assessment (e.g., anecdotal notes, checklists, audio/video recordings). Results of these assessments are often collected into individual child portfolios. Curriculum-based measures, or CBMs, are examples of more formal diagnostic tools that pinpoint gaps in children’s skill development. CBMs are typically short, quick, and easy-to-administer probes that help teachers to monitor a child’s growth on a target skill (e.g., alphabet letter knowledge). At the program level (to evaluate if programs are working or not), observation instruments such as the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) are increasingly used in early childhood programs to judge the quality of language and literacy teacher–child interactions.

9.5 Discuss the primary uses of assessment information. As an integral part of the language and early literacy curriculum in a program, it is critical that assessment data be used to inform instruction and that results are shared with parents, caregivers, and the children themselves to create healthy contexts for growth and collaborative communities that nurture each child’s speaking, listening, reading and writing abilities every day. Lacking this, assessment loses its compass—its purpose and benefits are lost.