Module 5
Presentation 5
a. Learning the Language of Assessment
The first step in understanding and using assessment appropriately and
accurately is for teachers to acquire the vocabulary of assessment. As teachers become
more experienced in using various assessment methods and tools, their knowledge of
assessment—their assessment literacy—grows and deepens. Broadly defined,
assessment is the ongoing process of gathering evidence of children’s learning and
development, then organizing and interpreting the information in order to make
informed decisions about instructional practice (McAfee, Leong, & Bodrova, 2015).
Evidence is an outward sign or indication of children’s learning, such as their
response to a question or their solution to a problem (McAfee et al., 2015). Therefore,
assessment involves using multiple sources of evidence systematically collected over
time from which professionals make judgments about specific actions to take on
behalf of children. Each of the many different types of assessment has various
implications for how and when it is conducted. We begin by describing assessment in
its broadest terms—formative and summative—and then describe more specific types
of assessments.
Formative assessment is the process of gathering information about children
and using it to plan effective and individualized instruction (Riley-Ayers, 2014). The
information obtained from formative assessment helps form the next steps in the
teaching and learning process. In practice, formative assessment is so closely linked to
teaching and curriculum that teachers may not even recognize it as assessment. At the
end of an educational experience, student progress is assessed using a summative
assessment, which sums up or evaluates the effectiveness of an experience after it
concludes. Evaluation is the process of making a judgment about assessment results
and is frequently considered the last step in assessment (McAfee et al., 2015). In a
college English course, for example, the instructor’s feedback on student essays is
formative assessment, whereas the final exam is summative. Similarly, in a preschool
or primary classroom, summative assessment may occur at the end of the year, when
teachers compare their observations of children’s progress to those they conducted
when the school year began.
Assessments are often identified as informal or formal. Informal assessment
refers to information that is gathered for teachers’ use to make everyday classroom
decisions or adjustments to teaching (McAfee et al., 2015). For instance, while
reading a storybook to her preschool class, Abby Cosgrove observes that some
children are listening intently while others are clearly uninterested and not following
the story. She uses this informal observation of children’s cues to quickly adapt her
behavior. “This is a very long story,” she says. “I will finish reading it during choice
time if you want to hear the rest. Right now, let’s all reach for the sky . . . turn
around . . . touch the ground . . . and sit down.” As Abby slowly gives each direction,
all of the children become engaged in the physical movement and return their
attention to her. “Now who has a song for us to sing?” In this example, Abby used her
informal assessment of the children to adapt her teaching and engage them in the
learning process. A formal assessment is an assessment that follows a specific
procedure and uses a specially designed instrument or tool. Teachers often use such
assessments to report results to others. Formal assessments include structured child
observations or assessments that produce specific scores.
Observation of children’s behavior and development is the most important and
frequently used assessment strategy. Observation can be used for both formative and
summative evaluation, informal or formal. Teachers observe informally on a daily
basis as part of the instructional process, and they also assess children formally using
rigorously designed observational tools. One type of formative assessment is
curriculum-embedded assessment, which is based on teacher observation that is
integrated into the curriculum and not conducted as a separate procedure. The teacher
assesses the children while teaching using the classroom activity itself—for example,
when a teacher listens to children describe their reasoning or watches them write. A
similar formative assessment strategy is play-based assessment, in which the context
for observing and interacting with children is the children’s play.
Performance assessment, also known as authentic assessment, is used to
determine what children know and can do from their demonstration of a skill or their
creation of a product. Consider, for instance, how figure skaters are judged on the
basis of their skating performance, not on whether they can draw a skating maneuver
or write a description of how to do a triple axel. For children, authentic assessment
engages them in tasks that occur in real-life contexts, whether in the classroom or on
the playground, or in situations as close as possible to that context. For example, to
assess children’s reading ability, a teacher listens to them read aloud rather than giving
them a multiple-choice test. Assessments such as this, which call for a child to
produce a response rather than select from a list of possible responses, are also called
alternative assessments.
Based on Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal development, dynamic
assessment analyzes a child’s performance not just in terms of what the child can do
independently, as most assessment procedures require, but what the child can do with
the assistance of a teacher or peer (McAfee et al., 2015). A teacher may provide
prompts, cues, hints, or questions that elicit a child’s response. Analyzing the amount
and kind of assistance the child needs to perform a task provides information about
the child’s current level of understanding and skill and also guides the next steps in
teaching.
Many people hear the word assessment and automatically think of testing.
Standardized assessment refers to the assessment of all children, using the same
procedures and performing the same task under the same conditions. The thought
behind standardizing procedures is that it leads to less biased and more objective
results. Although assessment is sometimes used as a synonym for testing, testing is
only one part of the larger concept of assessment. Testing is a systematic procedure
for evaluating a child’s behavior and knowledge, which results in the assignment of a
score (McAfee et al., 2015). Therefore, a test is a snapshot of a child’s performance or
knowledge that is administered to an individual or group under controlled conditions.
Some tests are teacher developed, whereas others are developed by test publishing
companies. Some, but not all, commercially published tests are standardized.
Standardized testing uses prescribed methods for administering and scoring and needs
to meet technical standards for educational and psychological testing. These standards
are designed to ensure that tests have high levels of reliability and validity.
Reliability is the extent to which the results obtained from a test are accurate
and consistent over time. A test is said to be reliable if the tool is likely to get the same
or similar results when used by different people or on different days. To understand
the concept of reliability, consider an example unrelated to education: measuring
cooking ingredients. If=a recipe calls for 1 cup of flour, even a beginning cook would
reach for a standard, 8-ounce measuring cup. If one cook used a demitasse cup,
another chose a giant-size coffee mug, and another filled a tea cup half full, the final
results would vary considerably. The standard measuring cup, therefore, is reliable,
whereas the other cup selections are not.
Validity means that the instrument measures what it purports to measure. For
example, a test designed to measure children’s physical skills should not depend on
children’s ability to understand verbal directions; in such a case, the test is really a
measure of the children’s language. In revisiting our cooking example, suppose we are
trying to measure volume. There are a number of ways to measure volume, such as
using a liquid measuring cup or an 8-ounce standard cup, which would yield an
equally accurate amount of flour for a recipe. However, if we tried to measure flour
with a yardstick, which is for measuring length, the results would be not only messy
but also inaccurate and, therefore, lacking validity. If a standardized test lacks
reliability or validity, the results it yields are meaningless.
Criterion-referenced tests compare a person’s score to a predetermined level of
performance. They are designed to measure how well an individual has learned a
specific body of knowledge and skills (FairTest, 2007). Third-grade standardized
achievement tests administered by state departments of education are criterion-
referenced tests. The criterion for passing is a preset number of correct answers,
which presumably represents how much a child has learned. Similarly, the SAT test is
a criterion-referenced test, with different colleges setting the cut-off score, or
criterion, needed for admission.
By contrast, norm-referenced tests compare an individual’s score to that of
other test takers—who knows the most and who the least? Scores are reported by
percentage rank, with half scoring above and half scoring below the midpoint or
average (FairTest, 2007). Many school-administered tests are norm referenced. For
example, screening or diagnostic tests used in the process of identifying children’s
special needs compare children’s scores to that of other children to determine if their
development is within the typical, or “normal,” range. Norm-referenced tests are
developed by giving the tests to large numbers of children and comparing their scores.
These tests result in a distribution of scores that look like a bell or normal curve, with
most people scoring at the midrange and fewer scoring at the higher and lower ends.
For example, on a hypothetical vocabulary test of 4-year-olds, most children’s
vocabulary might average about 1,200 words, whereas some know as many as 2,500
and others know as few as 400.
In administering a norm-referenced test, it is essential to know the
characteristics of the group used to develop the norms—that is, the norming group. In
the vocabulary test example, the norming group is the thousands of 4-year-olds whose
vocabularies were measured. If a norm-referenced test is used, the administrator needs
to consider the composition of the norming group in terms of gender, ethnicity, age,
socioeconomic background, culture, language, and inclusion of children with
disabilities. If the norming group differs a great deal from the group of children with
whom the test will be used, the results may not be accurate or reliable. For example, if
a vocabulary test designed to identify language delays were given to a child who is
learning English, the result might indicate a learning problem where none actually
exists.
The language of assessment is inherently complex, encompassing a wide
range of terms and concepts that can often be challenging to grasp and apply
correctly. In practice, this complexity is further compounded by the frequent misuse
or inconsistent use of terminology. Words that have specific meanings within the
context of educational assessment are sometimes used interchangeably or incorrectly,
leading to confusion and miscommunication. This issue is not merely a matter of
semantics; it can have significant implications for the validity and reliability of
assessment practices, as well as for the accurate interpretation of assessment results.
For teachers, it is crucial to develop a deep and nuanced understanding of the
concepts underlying assessment terminology. This process, often referred to as
becoming "assessment literate," involves more than just learning definitions. It
requires teachers to comprehend the principles and theories that inform different types
of assessment, understand how to design and implement assessments that are fair and
effective, and be able to critically analyze assessment data to inform instruction and
support student learning.
Assessment literacy includes familiarity with key terms such as formative
assessment, summative assessment, reliability, validity, standardization, norm-
referenced and criterion-referenced assessments, and many others. Each of these
terms carries specific implications for how assessments are used and interpreted. For
instance, formative assessment refers to ongoing assessments aimed at providing
feedback to improve learning, while summative assessment evaluates student learning
at the end of an instructional period. Reliability concerns the consistency of an
assessment, while validity refers to the extent to which an assessment measures what
it is intended to measure.
Moreover, assessment literacy also involves understanding the ethical and
practical considerations associated with assessment. This includes issues such as
fairness, bias, and accessibility, ensuring that all students have an equal opportunity to
demonstrate their knowledge and skills. Teachers must be aware of how their own
biases can influence assessment and take steps to mitigate these effects.
In addition to theoretical knowledge, becoming assessment literate requires
practical skills. Teachers need to be able to design assessments that align with
learning objectives and standards, use a variety of assessment methods to capture
different aspects of student learning, and interpret assessment data accurately to make
informed decisions about instruction. They also need to be able to communicate
assessment results effectively to students, parents, and other stakeholders, providing
clear and meaningful feedback that supports learning and development.
Professional development plays a critical role in enhancing teachers'
assessment literacy. Ongoing training and support can help teachers stay current with
best practices in assessment and continue to refine their skills. Collaboration with
colleagues, participation in professional learning communities, and engagement with
current research and resources are all important components of this process.
In summary, the complexity of assessment language underscores the need for
teachers to become assessment literate. This involves developing a deep
understanding of assessment concepts and terminology, acquiring practical skills for
designing and implementing assessments, and staying informed about ethical and
practical considerations. By becoming assessment literate, teachers can enhance the
effectiveness of their assessment practices, support student learning more effectively,
and contribute to a more equitable and accurate educational system.
b. Purposes of Assessment: Why Assess?
Effective teaching cannot occur without ongoing assessment. The first step in
developmentally appropriate practice—meeting the learner or monitoring children’s
progress— requires assessment. Consider the following examples of how teachers use
the information they gather to make decisions about curriculum planning and
teaching: In David Billings’s preschool, a curriculum goal is for children to
distinguish beginning and ending sounds in words. David first introduced these skills
using poems and songs during whole-group time. But when he finds that a few
children can’t pick out the rhyming sounds, he plans to work with them in a small
group, playing rhyming games and reading rhyming books. Margie Wasky regularly
monitors whether her second graders comprehend what they read. She discovers a few
children who read very fast but can’t accurately answer questions about the passages
they read. She has these children read aloud to each other in pairs, and finds that
reading more slowly with expression to a partner improves their understanding of
what they’ve read.
In these examples, we see that planning and adapting curriculum and teaching
practices requires ongoing assessment. These teachers assessed children’s learning by
observing and documenting and then reflecting on and interpreting the information.
They then adapted their teaching and planned curriculum accordingly. Although we
address teaching, curriculum, and assessment in this book, in reality they are
integrally connected. Many schools now use systematic, ongoing assessment as an
integral part of three-tiered-models of instruction such as Response to Intervention
(RTI). In this framework, children’s learning is assessed regularly and teaching
adapted accordingly. Based on assessment data, some children receive more
individualized instruction in reading and mathematics or other areas; a few children
receive highly individualized interventions.
Teachers are the primary assessors as well as the primary audiences for
classroom assessment. In early childhood, much classroom assessment is informal and
performance based, relying heavily on teacher observations. Because everyday
decisions are not high stakes, and easily corrected, classroom assessment does not
need to meet technical standards for reliability and validity. For instance, if
participation in the small group doesn’t help Jamal’s rhyming, David begins working
with him one-on-one and also gives his mother some ideas to try at home.
Nevertheless, teacher observations and judgments can be unreliable, invalid, or
biased. This is why teachers need to use many sources of information. They should
observe children in different situations over time, rather than base their conclusions
about children’s ability on one encounter.
This purpose of assessment encompasses routine checks for vision, hearing,
and immunization to ensure healthy development as well as identification of physical,
cognitive, or emotional disabilities. Regular health checks by physicians beginning at
birth may also uncover possible disabilities or special needs. Vision and hearing
problems, if undetected, can have long-term consequences for children’s learning, so
early health screenings are essential for every child. Because the benefits of early
intervention are well established, professionals have an ethical as well as a legal
responsibility to accurately identify young children with special needs and help them
access appropriate services (Division for Early Childhood [DEC], 2014). These
decisions have lasting consequences for individual children; therefore, the instruments
used need to meet high standards of reliability and validity (McAfee et al., 2015).
Screening and diagnostic tests are used as part of a two-step process of identifying
children who may have disabilities or special learning or developmental needs.
Screening tests, also called developmental screening, are administered to all
children, usually in preschool or kindergarten, as the first step in a process to
determine which children are at risk of a possible disability or learning problem.
Teachers or other professionals administer these brief tests, which include general
items on motor development, perception, language, and cognitive development. A
screening test is like the toy screen used in a sandbox; most of the grains of sand will
pass through readily, but a few will be left for closer inspection. In many preschools
and child care programs, screening is a well-established rite of fall. The process is not
foolproof, and some children may have problems that go undetected. Therefore,
teachers and families play a critical role in contributing information to the screening
and identification process. Information on a child’s functioning should be drawn from
multiple sources, and include family members in the screening process (DEC, 2014).
As teachers assess children’s progress on a daily basis, they may obtain information
that raises concerns that formal screening may confirm or deny. Those few children
who do not pass the initial screening may or may not have a more serious condition;
to make this determination, diagnostic testing is required.
Diagnostic tests are designed to gather information to identify the specific
learning or developmental delays a child may have and to plan educational
interventions. The second part of the two-step process is a complete diagnostic
evaluation designed to identify the child’s areas of need and strength, to prepare
individualized goals, and to plan activities and supports. Multiple sources of
information are used, such as medical evaluations, standardized tests, and teacher and
parent observations in authentic contexts. The Division for Early Childhood (2014)
recommends that assessment for children with disabilities include input from the
family and address children’s interests, needs, and personal characteristics in addition
to intellectual and ability testing. Furthermore, testing should be done in the child’s
dominant language, and should consider other cultural factors. Diagnostic tests
require specialized training to administer and interpret and, therefore, are given by
special educators, school psychologists, speech pathologists, or therapists. For the first
two purposes of assessment—to support learning and to identify children with special
needs—the target of assessment is the individual child. Next we turn to assessment
purposes, for which information is gathered on groups of children.
Program evaluation is the process of gathering information about the quality
of the classroom and its effects to determine whether the program is achieving its
goals and objectives. Observational instruments that are often used to evaluate the
quality of children’s experiences are the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scales
for infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and school-agers and the Classroom Assessment
Scoring System for preschool through primary grades. These tools are frequently used
to evaluate the quality of programs as part of state Quality Rating and Improvement
Systems and in Head Start and public prekindergarten. Some types of program
evaluation such as licensing or accreditation may not require information about
children’s performance. Increasingly, however, program evaluation includes data on
child outcomes—how well the group of children as a whole is achieving the goals of
the program. The results of assessment for program evaluation are usually aggregated;
that is, they are combined and reported as total scores for the group rather than scores
attached to individual children.
The primary audience for program evaluation data typically consists of
policymakers, funders, and other key stakeholders who are deeply invested in
understanding whether a program represents a cost-effective use of public or private
resources. These individuals or groups are often responsible for making critical
decisions about the continuation, expansion, modification, or termination of programs
based on the evaluation findings. They seek comprehensive and accurate data that can
demonstrate the effectiveness, efficiency, and impact of the program in question. This
information is crucial for justifying the allocation of limited resources and ensuring
that public or private dollars are being used in the most beneficial way possible.
Policymakers and funders rely heavily on program evaluation data to make
informed decisions about future investments. They need to know whether the goals of
the program are being met, whether the program is reaching its intended audience,
and whether it is producing the desired outcomes. In addition to quantitative data,
such as cost-benefit analyses and performance metrics, qualitative data from
participant feedback and case studies can provide valuable insights into the program's
effectiveness and areas for improvement. Accurate and detailed program evaluation
data helps these stakeholders understand the broader context of the program's
operation, including any external factors that may influence its success or challenges.
Despite the importance of program evaluation data, the stakes for such
assessments are generally not as high as those for accountability assessments.
Accountability assessments are typically associated with high-stakes testing and
performance evaluations, where the results can have significant and immediate
consequences for individuals or organizations. For instance, the outcomes of
accountability assessments can determine whether a school receives additional
funding, faces sanctions, or undergoes significant restructuring. In the context of
accountability, the pressure to achieve certain performance benchmarks can be
intense, and the consequences of failing to meet these benchmarks can be severe.
In contrast, while program evaluation data is critical for decision-making, the
consequences are often more long-term and less immediate. Program evaluations aim
to provide a comprehensive picture of how a program is functioning and its overall
impact, rather than simply measuring performance against a set standard. This allows
for a more nuanced understanding of the program's strengths and weaknesses and
provides opportunities for continuous improvement. Stakeholders use this data to
make strategic decisions about resource allocation, program design, and
implementation strategies, with the goal of enhancing the program's effectiveness
over time.
Moreover, program evaluations often incorporate a formative component,
which focuses on providing feedback during the program's implementation to help
improve its processes and outcomes. This ongoing assessment allows for adjustments
and refinements to be made in real-time, contributing to a more responsive and
adaptive program. In contrast, accountability assessments are typically summative,
providing a final judgment at the end of a specified period, with less opportunity for
ongoing improvement based on the results.
In addition to policymakers and funders, other stakeholders who benefit from
program evaluation data include program staff, participants, community members,
and partner organizations. Program staff can use evaluation findings to refine their
practices and enhance their professional development. Participants can gain a better
understanding of the program's goals and how it benefits them. Community members
and partner organizations can use the data to advocate for continued or increased
support for the program and to build stronger collaborative efforts.
In summary, the audience for program evaluation data primarily includes
policymakers and funders who need to determine the cost-effectiveness and impact of
a program to make informed decisions about future investments. While the stakes for
program evaluation are significant, they are generally not as high as those for
accountability assessments, which can have more immediate and severe
consequences. Program evaluations provide valuable insights that guide strategic
decision-making and continuous improvement, ultimately contributing to the
program's long-term success and sustainability.
High-stakes testing. Accountability is “holding teachers, schools, or programs
responsible for meeting a required level of performance” (McAfee et al., 2015).
Accountability requirements often specify what children should know and be able to
do based on state learning standards. The audiences for accountability data include
federal, state, and local policy makers; parents; and the general tax-paying public. As
we discussed earlier, the stakes attached to accountability testing are high. By the
same token, holding schools accountable can lead to more attention being focused on
the children who need it and on improvements in teaching and learning (Au, 2007).
The standards for accuracy of accountability testing must be extremely rigorous
because scores are attached to individuals—children and teachers—rather than a
group or program.
c. Indicators of Effective Assessment
According to the NAEYC and the National Association of Early Childhood
Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS-SDE) (2003), ethical,
appropriate, valid, and reliable assessment is a central part of early childhood
education. These professional associations call for assessment methods that are
“developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive, tied to
children’s daily activities, supported by professional development for teachers,
inclusive of families, and connected to beneficial purposes” (NAEYC & NAECS-
SDE, 2003, p. 2). The ultimate goal of all early childhood assessment should be to
benefit children by making sound decisions about teaching and learning, providing
access to intervention services, or improving the quality of the program. Early
childhood professional organizations have established guidelines for effective
assessment and evaluation (DEC, 2014; NAEYC & NAECS-SDE, 2003). assessment
practices, teachers need to understand the implications for assessing very young
children, English language learners, and children with special needs, discussed in the
sections that follow.
Most parents, grandparents, and teachers would agree with the statement
“Young children are not good test takers.” But why is this statement a truism? Sound
assessment of young children is difficult for several reasons: (1) the nature of typical
child development, (2)=children’s sensitivity to context, and (3) their lack of
motivation, as well as (4) their inability to perform many of the tasks required by
traditional assessments (McAfee et al.,=2015). For assessment to be developmentally
appropriate, each of these factors must be taken into consideration.
Many of the characteristics of young children make it difficult to obtain
trustworthy assessment information. Children’s development is rapid, uneven, and
embedded in their own cultural and linguistic contexts (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2013).
For example, 2½-year-old Brian barely said a word at child care, and then one day he
got so excited about the new set of trucks that he couldn’t stop talking. Four-year-old
Wyatt spent all day showing off how he could balance on one foot, but when his aunt
arrived to pick him up, he refused to demonstrate this newly acquired skill. Young
children’s development and learning is marked by spurts and plateaus (McAfee et al.,
2015). For months, 6-year-old Aura struggled during language arts period. Then in
March, she seemed to have an “ah-ha” moment. She stopped guessing at words she
didn’t know and began really reading for the first time. At times, children’s
development may even go backward. Three-year-old Jacob seemed to have
thoroughly mastered the potty until his baby sister was born, and then he started
having accidents every day.
Children’s progress is also uneven across different developmental areas. Five-
yearold Claudio has the vocabulary of an 8-year-old and can read at the second-grade
level, but he struggles to regulate his emotions and is aggressive when frustrated. If
only Claudio’s reading skills were assessed, we would have a skewed picture of his
school performance. Language development is also a work in progress during early
childhood. Most types of assessment require that children understand directions, know
particular vocabulary words, or be understood by an adult, perhaps even a relative
stranger. Limited language skills can easily interfere with obtaining an accurate
picture of children’s competence.
The context where an assessment takes place, either informal or formal, can
affect children’s performance. Context includes the physical setting, whether in the
classroom, home, or on the playground, and the social setting: one on one, small
group, or whole group. A familiar context can serve to make children comfortable and
relaxed and more likely to perform naturally and do their best. A strange or unfamiliar
context, either in terms of the place or the people, can be distracting or even stressful.
Consider Hugo, who is a relatively fearless 5-year-old. Because Hugo usually charges
into new situations head first, his mother wasn’t concerned about taking him to the
community center for kindergarten readiness testing. But Hugo became so interested
in seeing the other children and examining the lines on the floor of the basketball
court that he didn’t attend at all to the tasks the kindergarten teacher asked of him.
Context influences not only children’s attention to the assessment task but also
their actual performance. Young children behave differently at home than at family
child care, the child care center, or school. Five-year-old Dolly goes to gymnastics
with her mom and can do backflips and cartwheels, but when her teacher at school
asks her to skip, Dolly says, “I don’t know how.” Perhaps Dolly didn’t demonstrate
her advanced physical skills at school because she didn’t want to be different from the
other children, but maybe she just wasn’t interested in skipping. Motivation, as well
as context, is a big factor in obtaining accurate assessment of young children.
Developmentally appropriate assessment must be culturally and linguistically
responsive (Ritchie & Willer, 2008a). One of the biggest challenges is serving the
needs of dual language learners because, to some extent, all assessments of children
are fundamentally measures of language ability (Espinosa, 2010a). Children’s ability
to demonstrate their learning depends a great deal on their language capacity, both to
understand the demands of the task and to respond either to a teacher’s question or a
written test. Although the role of language in assessment is relevant for all children, it
is of special concern for children whose home language is not English. In many
instances, the only way to get a fully accurate picture of children’s learning is to
assess them in their home language. But even if valid and reliable assessment tools
were available in multiple languages, which they are not, such assessments are not a
foolproof solution. All languages, including English, have dialects, so translations do
not always solve the problem. A child from Mexico and one from Peru may not
understand the same Spanish translation of a test. Nonetheless, children should be
assessed in their dominant language (usually home language for young children) and
in other languages they are learning, Often their language competence is found in the
combination of their capacity in each language.
Determining whether a child is sufficiently proficient in English for accurate
testing is also difficult. Academic language used in schools is quite different from the
conversational language children use on a daily basis. Linguists estimate that it takes
4 to 7 years to acquire proficiency in academic English (Garcia, 2005). A child may
speak English well on the playground or in casual conversation, yet struggle with the
language of an assessment. Because of this, it is especially important to include
families in assessment of dual language learners. Some research suggests that parents
are often more reliable reporters of their children’s vocabulary learning than are
teachers. The importance of linguistically appropriate assessment is illustrated in the
Language Lens: Involving Parents in Assessment of Dual Language Learners feature.
eachers and educational leaders (Atkins-Burnett et al., 2012). Children’s
language and prior knowledge are closely tied to their culture, yet assessment
materials do not take into account culturally influenced variations in knowledge and
skills. For example, a language assessment may ask children to identify items that are
unique to U.S. culture, such as a hamburger. Inclusion of many such culturally biased
items in a measure biases the outcome for individual children and misrepresents their
abilities. High-stakes standardized testing is particularly problematic, as the following
examples demonstrate. Children’s learning is a product of their experiences, which
occur in cultural contexts. For example, a standardized test asks where to find a lion,
and 4-year-old Omari replies, “In the park.” His answer, accurate in his native Kenya,
is marked incorrect because the correct answer in the test manual is “in the zoo.” Such
cultural influences exist within the United States as well. Consider a test item that
asks children to point to a picture of a swamp. Imagine the blank stares of children
living in New York City or rural Nebraska when presented with such a request,
compared to the nodding heads of those from parts of Florida or Louisiana. Omari’s
experience and its consequences are powerful reminders not only of the importance of
using linguistically appropriate assessment tools but also the risks of high-stakes
testing.
Young children with disabilities or special needs face a lifetime of being
assessed. Federal laws govern how, when, and under what conditions children with
disabilities are to be assessed and how assessment information should be used by
teachers in implementing individualized education plans and individualized family
service plans. Furthermore, the Council for Exceptional Children’s Division for Early
Childhood (2014) has established recommended practices for screening, establishing
eligibility for special education services, individualized planning, monitoring child
progress, and assessing child outcomes for reporting. Ensuring that assessments are
individually appropriate for all children may require accommodations or
modifications to the tools or procedures used. Accommodations are changes in
assessment procedures, materials, or setting to eliminate barriers related to the child’s
disability that might keep children from demonstrating their full capabilities (Pretzel,
Hiemenz, & Kahng, 2009). Assessments for children with disabilities should take
child’s age and developmental level into account (DEC, 2014). A child with a physical
disability might be allowed to answer questions verbally rather than in writing. A
child with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) might be given more time
or allowed to take a test in a separate place away from distractions.
Modifications are changes in the assessment that alter what the assessment
measures or what the results mean (Pretzel et al., 2009). For example, rather than
asking Jade, a child with special needs, to point to pictures of objects to measure her
receptive vocabulary, her teacher talks with Jade as she plays with real toys and
makes notes of which ones Jade names correctly. The process of identifying children
for special education services requires the use of many different sources of
information, including standardized, norm-referenced tests. Even with these various
sources, however, the wide use of standardized tests with children who have special
needs is fraught with problems (Macy & Bagnato, 2010). Because standardized tests
are based on norms of typically developing children, the results are often not relevant
or useful to the goals for a child who has a disability. It is important to use tools that
are very sensitive to identify children’s progress, as changes are sometimes small
(DEC, 2014). Moreover, considerations needed to make assessment developmentally
appropriate and authentic are even more important for children with special needs,
such as learning about their functioning in multiple environments, including home,
school, child care, and community (DEC, 2014). Early childhood special educators
strongly advocate a play-based approach to assessment that focuses on children’s
functional skills, the essential abilities needed to fulfill goals parents have for their
children such as communicating, making friends, and learning self-help skill, play-
based assessment involves systematic observation of children’s behavior and skills in
the context of their play. The feature titled Including All Children: Individually
Appropriate Assessment Practices discusses assessment practices for children with
special needs.
d. Observation and Recording to Improve Learning
Like every other aspect of intentional teaching, assessment engages teachers in
professional decision making. They must decide what evidence is important to collect,
as well as how and when to gather information. The process of gathering evidence of
children’s learning is also called documenting and involves two kinds of decisions: (1)
how to gather information about children, and (2) how to record the findings (McAfee
et al., 2015). Thinking of these processes separately opens up more options for
assessment, or more “windows” into children’s learning (McAfee et al., 2015).
Observation is the most frequently used method of gathering information. However,
there are many ways of recording findings from observation—among them, anecdotal
records, checklists, or rating scales—that increase teachers’ options for learning about
children. In the sections that follow, we describe ways teachers can observe and
collect information about children, and then we describe various ways to record or
document the information for later reflection and analysis.
The most effective classroom assessment procedures need to be part of every
teacher’s repertoire. These include systematic observation, eliciting responses from
children, collecting work products, and gathering information from family members
and other adults (McAfee et al., 2015). We begin with observation, which is the
foundation of effective, developmentally appropriate practice (Copple & Bredekamp,
2009). Keen observation skills are the most important assessment tool a teacher can
develop and use. Effective teaching requires positive relationships and building on
children’s prior learning. Therefore, teachers must know as much as possible about
children’s strengths, needs, interests, temperament, typical behavior, and much more.
Careful observation is the best way to get to know individual children, especially
infants, toddlers, and young preschoolers who have limited ability to create products
and communicate verbally. During preschool, kindergarten, and the primary grades,
teachers continue to regularly observe children’s interests, interactions, and
performance of tasks to assess their skills and understanding as part of an overall
assessment plan (Mindes & Jung, 2015). Since play is so central to young children’s
experiences, it is also an important context for assessing children’s interests,
interactions, and skills. In the feature Promoting Play: Play as an Assessment Context,
read how one teacher uses play to assess and document children’s progress, and
applies the information to inform her teaching.
Systematic observation means that teachers focus their attention on individual
children or groups, watch what children do as they work and play together, and listen
carefully as they speak. At times, teachers stand back and observe children as they
engage in the ongoing life of the classroom or on the playground. Who does Marcus
play with and for how long? Does he play alone or with a friend? At other times,
teachers arrange specific tasks or activities and observe children’s performance. First-
grade teacher Ms. Victor adds frequently used words to the “word wall” each week
and observes which children refer to them as they are writing. In most situations,
teachers are participant-observers who converse with children, listen carefully, and
assess while they teach individuals as well as small and large groups. Observation is
most effective if teachers think in advance about what they want to observe while
remaining flexible to observe events as they proceed. Janice planned to observe the
babies in her care during feeding time to see how their fine-motor skills were
developing. She observed that two of the 13-month-olds, Josie and Ana, could pick up
the cereal on the highchair tray. However, 15-month-old Tania became frustrated and
started to cry. Janice watched to see whether and how soon Tania would calm herself
before she had to intervene. In this case, an observation of fine-motor skill turned into
an observation of emotional selfregulation, an example of the kind of shift that occurs
constantly in early childhood programs.
Aspects of children’s learning and development that cannot be directly
observed, such as their conceptual understanding or reasoning, can be elicited from
children through questioning, conversation, or other informal teacher–child
interactions. Eliciting children’s responses—drawing out their ideas or reflections—is
an efficient way of gathering information; this way, teachers do not have to wait for
behaviors or responses to occur spontaneously (McAfee et al., 2015).
Teachers can have interviews and conferences to elicit children’s ideas,
problem-solving strategies, and feelings (McAfee et al., 2015). Interviews usually
involve the teacher asking predetermined questions that are designed to reveal what
children understand. For example, rather than asking a closed question such as “How
many is 9 + 5?” the teacher might ask, “How would you figure out what 9 + 5 is?”
Such an open-ended question is valuable because it requires an extended response that
reveals more about children’s thinking and understanding. Conferences engage
children in reflecting on their own work. Second-grade teacher Ernestine Cunningham
holds regular writing conferences with her students to discuss the child’s writing
samples and identify ways to edit or improve them.
Small-group discussions provide opportunities to elicit children’s thinking in
collaboration with other children. At the end of each science unit, rather than giving a
multiple-choice test to see what facts children remember, third-grade teacher Devon
Kerns meets with small groups of children and asks them to discuss the phenomenon
they have been studying. During one such discussion, Mr. Kerns begins this way:
“We’ve been learning about sinking and floating. So why don’t giant ships weighing
several tons sink?” The children’s responses reveal varying degrees of understanding
of the concept of displacement. Barry stays silent until the end when he admits, “I
think there’s something magic going on.”
Much of children’s work and play produces a product such as a drawing, a
painting, a construction in a particular medium, a piece of writing, a dramatic
performance, or speaking in a group. These products, if systematically collected over
time, provide evidence of changes in children’s development and learning. Examples
of individual work might be one child’s journal or an art project. Teachers may also
collect or evaluate the work of a group, such as a mural, or a compilation of children’s
observations from a field trip, such as a PowerPoint presentation with digital photos.
Portfolio assessment, is one strategy for systematically collecting and analyzing
children’s work samples.
Parents are often thought of as the audience for assessment information,
passively receiving report cards or listening attentively during parent–teacher
conferences. However, teachers must not only give information to parents, they must
get information from parents as well. Parents can provide insights about children’s
behavior and capabilities outside the school or child care center. They can also serve
as key informants about children’s culture and language. Family involvement is so
necessary to valid assessment of children with disabilities and special needs that it is
legally required (DEC, 2014). Each of these methods of gathering assessment
information has advantages and disadvantages, which are summarized in Table 11.4.
Effective assessment systems—those that provide valid, reliable, and useful
information for decision making—use all the ways of gathering evidence discussed in
previous sections. Intentional teachers regularly gather evidence and then use it to
inform their teaching decisions about individual children. In the feature Becoming an
Intentional Teacher: Using Assessment to Inform Teaching, we see this process in
action for one teacher.
Narratives are stories in which the narrator stands outside the experience and
describes the people, situation, and events that occur. The same is true of narrative
approaches to observation. Narrative records are teachers’ attempts to record detailed
descriptions of children in a situation or event that is the focus of the observation
(McAfee et al., 2015). It is important for narrative records to focus on the observed
behavior rather than implying judgment. “Kery kicked over Stan’s building, threw the
sand toys on the floor, and pushed Mimi down” is much more informative and useful
later than “Kery was disruptive at school today.” Teachers use various methods of
collecting anecdotal records for later reflection and analysis. They may take brief
notes while observing children in action or as soon as possible, adding more detail
later. After documenting their observations, teachers reflect on nd interpret their
records and plan how to improve teaching and learning. Anecdotal records should
include the date and time of observation, names of children observed, location of the
incident such as lunch table or hallway, and what the children said and actually did
(Mindes & Jung, 2015).
One of the most commonly used recording methods, checklists, are practical
and versatile tools for gathering assessment information about almost any aspect of
children’s behavior, skills, or attitudes (McAfee et al., 2015). They can be based on
learning standards in literacy or mathematics, or on sequences of development such as
physical or social skills. Some checklists are designed by teachers; others are
commercially published. Some checklists require marking only “yes” or “no” as to
whether a child engages in a behavior (such as “Follows two directions”). Other, more
open-ended checklists require the teacher to make a judgment of the degree to which a
child has mastered a skill. Teachers may make notes while observing children and
then use those notes to complete the checklist at a later time. One of the strengths of
checklists is that they focus teachers’ observations; in effect, checklists tell teachers
what to look for and which skills are important. Checklists can provide data that can
be analyzed and compared over time and also aggregated for a group of children.
Their limitation is that no checklist can adequately capture the complexity of an
individual child’s competence.
Rating scales and rubrics record teachers’ judgments about how a child’s
performance compares to that of peers or to a predetermined standard (McAfee et al.,
2015). Ratings should be based on sound assessment evidence collected over time.
Rating scales require the assessor to evaluate an individual on a characteristic and
then rank the individual’s ability on a continuum from low to high frequency or
quality (McAfee et al., 2015). For example, a frequency scale might rate whether a
child performs a skill “usually,” “sometimes,” “seldom,” or “never.” A scale designed
to rate the quality of a child’s performance might be “exceeds standard,” “meets
standard,” or “making progress toward standard.” Rubrics are descriptive rating scales
that include clear descriptions of each point on the scale or guidelines for making
judgments about a rating (McAfee et al., 2015). COR-Advantage articulates 8=levels
of development or learning because it is designed for children from infancy through
age 5. Note that in this instrument, all 8 levels of the rubric are described. This
specificity helps teachers make more accurate ratings and increases reliability
between teachers. The tool also includes additional descriptions of what behaviors to
observe as well as examples of anecdotal observations that would lead teachers to
make their ratings.
So far we have described two major steps in classroom assessment: (1)
gathering evidence of children’s development and learning, and (2) recording the
findings. The next step is interpreting and using the evidence to plan curriculum or
adapt teaching strategies. Accurate interpretation and effective use of assessment
evidence depend on how well teachers know what children should accomplish at
developmental junctures and when those junctures occur. This means that every
teacher needs to be familiar with the continuum of development and expected learning
sequences relevant to the age range he or she teaches. Given the wide range of
individual variation, in fact, early childhood teachers should be familiar with the full
range of development from birth through age 8. A developmental continuum is a
predictable, but not rigid, sequence of typical accomplishments within age ranges that
is used to plan curriculum. A developmental continuum is an effective assessment tool
because it helps teachers to focus attention on what is important to assess—what
children can do—and to identify goals for continued progress.
When teachers are well-versed in the predictable sequences of learning and
development, they are equipped with a powerful tool that can significantly enhance
their educational practice. These sequences, which are grounded in well-established
developmental theories and research, outline the typical progression of skills and
knowledge that children acquire as they grow. By understanding these sequences,
teachers can more accurately assess where each child is in their individual
developmental journey and tailor their instruction to meet the specific needs of each
learner.
For example, in early literacy development, children typically move through a
series of stages that include recognizing letters, understanding letter-sound
relationships, and eventually decoding words. A teacher who is knowledgeable about
these stages can observe a child’s reading behaviors and identify which stage the child
is currently in. This insight allows the teacher to provide targeted instruction that
builds on the child’s existing skills and supports their movement to the next stage of
development. If a child is struggling with phonemic awareness, the teacher can
incorporate activities that specifically strengthen this foundational skill, thereby
facilitating smoother progress in reading.
Moreover, familiarity with developmental sequences enables teachers to set
realistic and developmentally appropriate expectations for their students. This
awareness helps to prevent frustration and disengagement that can occur when tasks
are too challenging or too easy for children. For instance, understanding that young
children develop fine motor skills at different rates allows a teacher to offer a range of
writing activities that cater to varying levels of dexterity. Some children might
practice tracing letters, while others might be ready to write words independently.
This differentiation ensures that each child is challenged appropriately, fostering a
sense of accomplishment and motivation to learn.
Teachers can also use their knowledge of developmental sequences to create a
more inclusive classroom environment. Recognizing that children develop at different
paces, teachers can design flexible instructional plans that accommodate a wide range
of abilities. For example, in a math lesson, a teacher might provide manipulatives and
visual aids for students who are still developing concrete operational thinking, while
offering abstract problem-solving tasks for those who have advanced to more formal
operational stages. This approach not only supports individual learning but also
promotes a classroom culture where diversity in development is valued and respected.
Additionally, understanding developmental sequences helps teachers to
identify and address potential learning difficulties early on. If a child’s progress
deviates significantly from typical developmental patterns, it may signal the need for
further assessment and intervention. Early identification of learning challenges, such
as dyslexia or developmental delays, allows teachers to collaborate with specialists
and provide the necessary support to help the child overcome these obstacles. This
proactive approach can prevent small issues from becoming major barriers to
learning.
In the realm of social and emotional development, knowledge of predictable
sequences can guide teachers in fostering healthy interpersonal skills and emotional
regulation among their students. For instance, young children often go through stages
where they learn to share, take turns, and manage their emotions. A teacher who
understands these stages can create classroom activities that promote social
interaction and model appropriate emotional responses. By providing opportunities
for cooperative play and discussing strategies for dealing with frustration, teachers
help children navigate their social world more effectively.
Furthermore, teachers’ awareness of developmental sequences can inform their
communication with parents and caregivers. When teachers share insights about a
child’s developmental stage and progress, it helps to build a collaborative relationship
with families. Parents can reinforce and extend learning at home when they
understand the developmental milestones their child is working towards. For instance,
if a teacher explains that a child is developing narrative skills by telling simple stories,
parents can support this by encouraging storytelling during family time. This
partnership between home and school creates a more cohesive and supportive learning
environment for the child.
In conclusion, when teachers are familiar with predictable sequences of
learning and development, they are better equipped to assess where children are in
these sequences and adjust their teaching to support each child’s progression. This
knowledge allows teachers to provide developmentally appropriate instruction,
differentiate their teaching to meet diverse needs, identify potential learning
challenges early, foster social and emotional growth, and collaborate effectively with
parents. Ultimately, this comprehensive understanding of development enhances the
educational experience for all students, promoting their academic success and overall
well-being.
e. Standardized Testing of Young Children
Anyone who has attended school in the United States in the past half century
is intimately familiar with the regular rituals of standardized testing. We have all
taken some form of state-mandated achievement test at some time in our educational
careers. Most of us took the SAT or ACT to get into college. In many states, passing
standardized tests is required to become a certified teacher. Despite educators’
concerns and increasing doubts expressed by the general public, standardized testing
is inescapable in today’s political climate. Therefore, teachers must be more
knowledgeable than ever about the content that will be tested as well as the
appropriate and inappropriate uses of standardized tests.
One of the most familiar types of standardized tests are achievement tests such
as the SAT, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, or the California Achievement Test.
Achievement tests are designed to measure what children have learned in general or
in a content area such as reading or mathematics. The test items are a sample of the
curriculum content, and children’s responses are an indication of what they have
learned. Recent examples of achievement tests are those administered to meet federal
requirements or state learning standards.
School readiness tests are typically administered before entrance to
kindergarten (Snow, 2011). Some norm-referenced readiness tests are considered
aptitude tests because they purport to predict whether children are sufficiently
developed to benefit from kindergarten instruction. These tests are especially
problematic because the younger the child, the more difficult it is to obtain an
accurate assessment of what she or he has learned, much less what the child is capable
of learning in the future (NAEYC & NAECS-SDE, 2003). The fact is that children’s
scores on readiness tests actually reflect their past experiences and opportunities to
learn and, hence, are more accurately categorized as achievement tests (Snow, 2011).
The use of readiness tests to keep children out of kindergarten is considered
inappropriate by NAEYC and other early childhood professional organizations
because it denies children what they need most: the opportunity to attend school
(Snow, 2011).
Standardized tests are not inherently good or evil. Although some published
tests do not meet technical requirements for reliability and validity, many others are
technically sound. Tests are also used for research purposes. Standardized testing has
appropriate uses as long as the instruments are technically sound, used for the
purposes for which they were designed, used to benefit children, and used in
conjunction with other sources for decision making. Throughout your career as a
teacher, you will face decisions about using standardized tests. Although there are
appropriate uses for standardized testing, there are controversies and concerns that
surround their use, which we discuss next.
High-stakes testing refers to the use of standardized test scores to make
decisions that have potential long-term consequences for individual children, teachers,
or schools. Today’s school accountability movement has increased the amount of
high-stakes testing. Test results can lead to children being retained in grade, a decision
with lifelong consequences. School districts use children’s test scores in teacher
performance evaluations and even for decisions about teacher pay. Schools are ranked
on websites according to test scores. When the stakes surrounding testing become so
high, unintended consequences may result, such as narrowing the curriculum to teach
only what is tested, or even cheating by giving children assistance or changing the
conditions under which a test is administered (Au, 2007; Meisels, 2007). High-stakes
accountability testing can have adverse consequences for teaching practices in
primary grades that trickle down into kindergarten and preschool. Among the major
concerns about standardized testing are potential for bias and negative effects on
curriculum and teaching.
The power of paper-andpencil, multiple-choice tests to drive what happens in
schools is well documented (Ravitch, 2010). Although testing was a controversial
issue before federal laws such as No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top were
introduced, since these policies went into effect, schools report narrowing of the
curriculum to put more focus on the content that is being tested, especially reading
and math. This means that other areas of the curriculum such as physical education,
the arts, and even academic subjects such as social studies are sacrificed. Some
schools have even taken away recess to allow more time for reading practice. Another
negative effect of standardized testing is on instruction itself. Because multiple-choice
tests tend to measure basic skills and factual knowledge, instructional practices are
adversely affected (Ravitch, 2010). Instead of using effective teaching practices that
emphasize learning as a socially constructed process, direct instruction on the basic
skills that will be tested takes precedence in many classrooms. The “one right answer”
format fails to reveal children’s true competence.
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have changed the landscape of
child assessment—directly in kindergarten and higher grades, and indirectly in
preschool. States are simultaneously interpreting the standards for curriculum while
attempting to assess what children are learning and how well teachers and schools are
teaching. In order to manage the large task of integrating standards, and aligning
curriculum and assessment, states have formed consortia to establish guidelines and
develop products. Two such consortia are the Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortium (http://www.smarterbalanced.org) and the Partnership for Assessment of
Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) (http:// www.parcconline.org). Both
groups developed assessment approaches aligned to the CCSS in English language
arts and mathematics. The groups differ in how technology is used to achieve their
assessment goals. While PARCC uses computerized assessments, Smarter Balanced
uses computer adaptive assessment with which it is possible to individualize a
student’s questions. Because the Common Core standards focus on higher-level
competencies such as problem solving, analyzing, and interpreting evidence, the
assessments differ from other large-scale testing efforts that rely on machine-scored,
low-level multiple-choice questions. For example, Common Core assessments require
written responses to open-ended questions and keyboard skills.
The Early Learning Challenge grants emphasize that KEAs are not designed
or intended to function as high-stakes assessment and should adhere to the NRC’s
recommendations on assessment in early childhood (NRC, 2008). NAEYC (Snow,
2011) echoes these recommendations and asserts that KEAs can have value for
identifying children with special educational needs and targeting effective
interventions, but cautions that the tools used must have strong psychometrics
(reliability and validity) and be administered in ways consistent with developmentally
appropriate practice. For dual language learners, assessments should be culturally
appropriate, include the child’s family in the process, and be administered by someone
who has linguistic and cultural competence that aligns with the child’s experience.
Although these standards may be difficult to achieve, they are necessary conditions to
increase the validity of assessment for dual language learners. Used properly, KEAs
could prove to be a valuable tool for states and school districts in determining what
supports are needed for early childhood programs and for teachers in planning the
kindergarten curriculum and adapting for individual children. Despite the challenges
and controversies surrounding testing of young children, accurate assessment of
young children’s development and learning is an essential component of
developmentally appropriate practice.
Intentional teachers understand that effective assessment strategies are
fundamental to meeting children where they are in their learning journey. These
teachers employ a variety of assessment techniques, to gain a comprehensive
understanding of each child's current knowledge, skills, and developmental stage. By
using these strategies, they can gather detailed and accurate information that guides
their instructional planning and decision-making.
One of the key components of effective assessment is the use of formative
assessments. These ongoing assessments are conducted throughout the learning
process to monitor student progress and provide immediate feedback. Intentional
teachers use formative assessments to identify students' strengths and areas for
improvement, which allows them to tailor their instruction to address individual
needs. For example, a teacher might use observations, checklists, and anecdotal
records to track a child's progress in literacy skills. Based on this data, the teacher can
implement targeted interventions, such as small group instruction or one-on-one
tutoring, to support the child's development in reading and writing.
In addition to formative assessments, intentional teachers also utilize
summative assessments to evaluate student learning at the end of an instructional
period. These assessments provide a comprehensive overview of what students have
learned and how well they have met the established learning goals. Summative
assessments can include standardized tests, final projects, or end-of-unit exams. By
analyzing the results of these assessments, teachers can determine the effectiveness of
their instruction and make necessary adjustments to their curriculum and teaching
methods. This reflective practice ensures that teachers are continually improving their
instructional strategies to better support student learning.
Another important aspect of effective assessment is the use of diagnostic
assessments. These assessments are administered before instruction begins to
determine students' prior knowledge and skills. Diagnostic assessments help teachers
to identify any learning gaps or misconceptions that students may have, allowing
them to design instruction that builds on students' existing knowledge and addresses
any deficiencies. For example, a teacher might use a diagnostic math test at the
beginning of the school year to assess students' understanding of key mathematical
concepts. The results of this test can inform the teacher's planning, ensuring that
lessons are appropriately challenging and that all students have the necessary
foundational skills to succeed.
Intentional teachers also recognize the value of authentic assessments, which
require students to apply their knowledge and skills in real-world contexts. These
assessments, such as portfolios, projects, and performance tasks, provide a more
holistic view of student learning and allow teachers to assess higher-order thinking
skills. Authentic assessments can be particularly effective in engaging students and
making learning more meaningful and relevant. For instance, a science teacher might
ask students to design and conduct an experiment to solve a real-world problem, such
as testing the effectiveness of different materials for water filtration. This type of
assessment not only evaluates students' understanding of scientific concepts but also
their ability to apply the scientific method and think critically.
Furthermore, intentional teachers use assessment data to differentiate
instruction and create a more inclusive classroom environment. By understanding
where each child is in their learning, teachers can provide differentiated activities and
resources that cater to diverse learning styles and abilities. This might involve offering
multiple pathways for students to demonstrate their understanding, such as through
written reports, oral presentations, or artistic projects. Differentiated instruction
ensures that all students are challenged appropriately and that their unique needs are
met.
Effective assessment also involves collaboration with students in the
assessment process. Intentional teachers encourage students to engage in self-
assessment and peer assessment, helping them to take ownership of their learning and
develop critical reflective skills. By involving students in setting learning goals and
evaluating their progress, teachers foster a growth mindset and promote a culture of
continuous improvement. For example, a teacher might ask students to use a rubric to
assess their own work and set specific goals for improvement. This process not only
enhances students' metacognitive skills but also provides valuable insights for the
teacher to adjust instruction accordingly.
Additionally, intentional teachers communicate assessment results clearly and
constructively to students and their families. They use assessment data to provide
meaningful feedback that highlights students' achievements and offers specific
suggestions for improvement. Effective communication with parents and caregivers
about assessment results helps to build a supportive home-school partnership, where
families are informed and engaged in their child's learning. For instance, a teacher
might hold regular parent-teacher conferences to discuss assessment outcomes and
collaboratively develop strategies to support the child's learning at home.
In conclusion, intentional teachers use a range of effective assessment
strategies to meet children where they are and plan curriculum that supports their
growth. By employing formative, summative, diagnostic, and authentic assessments,
teachers gather comprehensive data that informs their instructional planning and helps
them to adapt their teaching to meet the diverse needs of their students. Through
differentiated instruction, collaboration with students, and clear communication with
families, intentional teachers create an inclusive and supportive learning environment
that fosters academic success and personal growth.
