Assessment in the Kindergarten Classroom Blind Copy...Angela Pyle & Christopher DeLuca Pyle, A. &...

TSpace Research Repository tspace.library.utoronto.ca

Assessment in the kindergarten classroom: An empirical study of teachers’ assessment approaches

Angela Pyle & Christopher DeLuca

Version Post-print/accepted manuscript

Citation (published version)

Pyle, A. & DeLuca, C. (2013). Assessment in the kindergarten classroom: An empirical study of teachers’ assessment approaches. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(5), 373–380. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10643-012-0573-2

Publisher’s Statement This is a post-peer-review, pre-copy edit version of an article published in Early Childhood Education Journal. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-012- 0573-2

How to cite TSpace items

Always cite the published version, so the author(s) will receive recognition through services that track citation counts, e.g. Scopus. If you need to cite the page number of the author manuscript from TSpace

because you cannot access the published version, then cite the TSpace version in addition to the published version using the permanent URI (handle) found on the record page.

This article was made openly accessible by U of T Faculty. Please tell us how this access benefits you. Your story matters.

HEADER: Assessment in the Kindergarten Classroom

Assessment in the kindergarten classroom:

An empirical study of teachers’ assessment approaches

Angela Pyle & Christopher DeLuca

Pyle, A. & DeLuca, C. (2013). Assessment in the kindergarten classroom: An empirical study of

teachers’ assessment approaches. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(5), 373–380.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10643-012-0573-2

Assessment in the Kindergarten Classroom

2

Abstract

Within the current accountability framework of public education, kindergarten teachers

face the challenge of balancing traditional developmental programing and current academically

oriented curriculum. Central to this challenge is teachers’ uses of assessment to measure and

communicate student learning in relation to their curricular stance. The purpose of this study was

to provide an in-depth examination of three teachers’ approaches to assessment within the

current context of kindergarten education in order to elucidate potential approaches to bridging

developmental and academic demands. Based on data collected from teacher interviews and

classroom observations, three profiles are constructed that link focal teachers’ curricular stances

with their approach to assessment. The paper concludes with a discussion on assessment within

kindergarten education and areas for future research in the field.

Keywords: kindergarten, assessment, curricular stance, accountability, early years


3

The current accountability context of public education has resulted in increased academic

standards and assessment mandates within K-12 classrooms (Ontario Ministry of Education,

OME, 2010a; Roach, Wixson, & Talapatra, 2010; US DOE, 2010). At the kindergarten level,

this movement has been met with significant debate as teachers negotiate the balance between

traditional developmental programing and the current academically-driven curriculum

(Goldstein, 2007b; Gullo & Hughes, 2011). Central to this debate is teachers’ uses of assessment

to measure and communicate student learning in relation to these curricular orientations

(Feldman, 2010). In practice, kindergarten teachers face the challenge of finding assessment

strategies that serve multiple purposes across curricular orientations (Brown, 2011; McNair,

Bhargava, Adams, Edgerton, & Kypros, 2003).

Compounding this challenge is a dearth of empirical research into classroom-based, early

years assessment. While there has been substantial focus on assessment issues in response to the

accountability movement, much of this work has been on the integration of large-scale

assessment mandates and on the measurement of learning in upper years education (Brookhart,

2004). Few studies have been conducted on kindergarten teachers’ classroom assessment

practices in relation to their negotiated curricular orientations (e.g., Brown, 2011). Rather, early

childhood researchers have provided a conceptual basis for understanding assessment practices

by delineating core tenets for early years assessment (Dunphy, 2010; Gullo, 2006). Accordingly,

there is a need to provide empirical support for kindergarten teachers’ assessment integration,

and to explore how teachers’ practices align with their curricular orientations.

The purpose of this study was to provide an in-depth examination of three teachers’

approaches to assessment within the current curricular context of kindergarten education.

Specifically, the three research questions guiding this investigation were: (a) How do teachers


4

describe and demonstrate their curricular stance in relation to developmental and academic

orientations to kindergarten education? (b) What assessment strategies do kindergarten teachers

integrate into their kindergarten program? and (c) How do teachers’ approaches to assessment

align with their curricular stances? Through interviews and classroom observations, findings

from this study contribute to the development of profiles delineating approaches to kindergarten

assessment, which serve to inform teacher practice and provide a basis for future research.

Curricular Context of Kindergarten Education

Following the accountability trend that began in the mid-1990s, contemporary

kindergarten in North America is now rife with standardized expectations that emphasize the

mastery of academic skills (Heydon & Wang, 2006). These expectations and the accompanying

standardization result in much discussion concerning the impact of these shifting expectations on

student learning and teacher practice (Goldstein, 2007b; Ray & Smith, 2010). Specifically, the

majority of research in this area has centered on the tension between the constructed dichotomy

of developmentally appropriate practices and the obligation to teach prescribed, academically

motivated standards (Einarsdottir, 2008). However, this dichotomy has been challenged in

practice, with evidence to suggest that teachers are able to balance multiple curricular demands

depending upon their pedagogical stance (Goldstein, 2007a). Accordingly, we follow Goldstein

in asserting that negotiating these orientations is a complex process in which teachers can

balance both orientations in their practice.

A developmentally appropriate program provides support for the individual child’s

social, emotional, and cognitive development. This type of program embraces constructivist

approaches to learning that are rooted in the educational theories of Piaget and Vygotsky. At the

centre of this approach is the belief that children construct knowledge through experience, where


5

knowledge is understood as meaning making through connections between prior knowledge and

interactions with real world situations (Nie & Lau, 2010). Developmentally appropriate

programs use child-centered learning approaches such as child-directed activities, collaborative

learning, and hands-on centres (Geist & Baum, 2005; Parker & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2006).

Conversely, an academically motivated program gives priority to academic skills and

content to support academic learning in upper years (Russell, 2011). Both current research and

policy documents espouse the early years as a “critical window of opportunity” (OME, 2003, p.

4), “when the brain’s plasticity, or adaptability, allows for greater information to be processed

and absorbed” (Rushton & Larkin, 2001, p. 26). In order to teach academic skills and content in

kindergarten, teachers are able to use diverse pedagogies; however, there is a general tendency

toward didactic, teacher-centric, and assessment-driven instruction (Stipek & Byler, 2004).

When used early in students’ academic careers, these instructional strategies are thought to

support children’s learning of essential skills necessary for subsequent grades (Steele, 2004).

Currently, kindergarten teachers are faced with the challenge of negotiating their teaching

and assessment practices to meet both traditional developmental and contemporary academic

orientations (Gullo & Hughes, 2011). Driving teacher practices within this context is a teacher’s

implicit pedagogical stance including their beliefs about the students they teach, the subject

matter, and their responsibilities as educators (Fang, 1996). Teacher stance is developed from

personal educational backgrounds and professional learning experiences (Abu-Jaber et al., 2010).

Teacher stance is also largely predicated on a teacher’s perspective about the purpose of

education and the goals of instruction. Stipek and Byler (2004) found that teachers who perceive

the primary goal of learning to be the acquisition of basic skills often believe in and thus enact a

teacher-centered instructional stance. In contrast, teachers for whom the development of


6

independence and social competency are the primary learning goals often believe in and enact a

child-centered educational stance. Thus while kindergarten education has evolved to include a

focus on accountability and assessment-based teaching, educator practices may still be shaped by

a developmental approach to learning and by a teacher’s pedagogical stance (Brown, 2011).

Assessment in Early Education

The vast majority of empirical research on classroom assessment has focused on upper-

years learning, mainly because the accountability and standards-based movement in education

has only recently begun to impact kindergarten learning (Roach et al., 2010, p. 25). Within the

current context, teachers are expected to integrate assessment data throughout instruction to

monitor student achievement and guide decision-making to meet mandated standards (Gullo &

Hughes, 2011; Stiggins, 2005). To this end, there has been a resurgence of diagnostic and

formative assessments to guide teaching and learning. In upper years education, this resurgence

has been supported by empirical research that effectively demonstrates the benefits of formative

assessment on increasing summative results (Gardner, 2006).

While the diagnostic-formative-summative sequence of assessment has traditionally been

used to structure assessment integration, more contemporary notions of assessment as, for, and of

learning have emerged as a set of strategies that involve students in using and understanding

assessment data to support and guide teaching and learning (Earl, 2003). Specifically, assessment

of learning and its subcomponent assessment as learning, involves actively engaging students in

monitoring their learning through self-, peer-, and instructor-based feedback (Assessment Reform

Group, 2002), with the aim of not only developing their understanding of content but also

developing students’ metacognitve and self-regulating capabilities. This function of assessment is a

critical benefit within early years learning, as one of the fundamental aims of kindergarten is to


7

begin students on a pathway to independence. Further, underpinning contemporary processes and

uses of assessment is a view of assessment rooted in a socio-developmental theory of learning,

which recognizes the importance of classroom context, social interactions, and developmental

learning continuums as foundational to student learning (Black & Wiliam, 2006). Brookhart (2003,

2004) asserts the importance of integrating assessment with developmentally appropriate,

individualized instruction to move learners from their initial level of knowledge toward the

achievement of academic standards; thus connecting developmental and academically oriented

approaches to teaching. As a practical guide to teachers who are endeavoring to balance

developmental and academically oriented approaches, Gullo and Hughes (2011) identify the

following three principles for kindergarten assessment: (a) assessment should be a continuous

process, (b) assessment should be a comprehensive process that involves multiple formats that

yield information on diverse learning, and (c) assessment should be an integrated process with

learning goals and instructional periods (i.e., assessment for learning). However, across assessment

and early years literature, there remains little empirical research on how teachers navigate these

assessment approaches in relation to developmental and academically oriented stances.

Method

This research used a qualitative methodology including in-depth interviews and

classroom observations to explore the assessment approaches and practices of kindergarten

teachers in three public schools within an Ontario school district. At each school, participating

teachers were selected based on the recommendations of teaching colleagues. The schools were

selected based on their provision of full day kindergarten programming, which, at the time of this

research, was in the second year of implementation. In Ontario, a new Full Day Kindergarten

Early Learning Program has been mandated that attempts to maintain the academically oriented


8

expectations of earlier kindergarten curriculum documents while requiring a play-based approach

to learning (OME, 2010b). The current policy and curricular context in Ontario makes this an

ideal research setting to explore how teachers negotiate the balance between developmental

practices and academic standards within kindergarten education.

Participants

The three focal teachers spent their entire teaching careers working in the same school

district but their prior experiences varied. Karen had been teaching for 22 years within the school

district. Four of these years were as a kindergarten teacher with another ten years spent

supporting the learning of kindergarten teachers as a school district consultant. Similarly,

Samantha had been teaching for 19 years, four of these years in a kindergarten classroom.

Samantha’s other teaching assignments had been within the elementary panel. Linda represented

the perspective of a novice teacher. She had four years of teaching experience with the last two

in a kindergarten classroom.

Data Collection

Over a four-month period in 2012, data were gathered through semi-structured, audio-

recorded teacher interviews and classroom observations. This two-tiered approach provided the

opportunity to explore and observe each teacher’s curricular orientation and approaches to

assessment in the kindergarten classroom (Fung, 2009) and support triangulation of findings

(Mathison, 1988). Interviews were approximately 60 minutes in length and focused on teachers’

interpretations of assessment policy, their curricular orientations, and their intended assessment

practices. In each classroom, between 56 and 70 hours of observational data were recorded

through field notes (Wragg, 1994). Observation durations varied due to class availability and

access but each visit to a classroom consisted of a full day observation. The purpose of


9

observations was to document the daily and ongoing nature of assessment programming in the

classrooms, and to provide a description of the enactment of teachers’ assessment planning.

Data Analysis

Data, both interview and observation, were conjointly analyzed in relation to each

participant. Specifically, data were analyzed for the relationship between teachers’ curricular

stances and teachers’ assessment approaches. Data were thematically analyzed using an

inductive method based on data-driven codes (Patton 2002). Firstly, a code list was generated

and used by two researchers to independently code all data. Codes were then clustered as related

to either teachers’ curricular stance or teachers’ assessment approaches. A description of each

teacher’s curricular stance was generated in relation to the current developmental-academic

discourse shaping kindergarten education. The results from this analysis situated each teacher

differently within this discourse. Each teacher’s assessment approaches were then linked to their

curricular stance to present three distinct profiles on how these teachers integrate assessment in

relation to their curricular stance. We present the results from this study through profile

descriptions of each teacher.

Results

Three profile descriptions were constructed based on each teacher’s curricular stance and

approach to assessment. Drawing on the current developmental-academic discourse for

kindergarten education, we have entitled these profiles as: (a) developmental assessment

approach, (b) blended assessment approach, and (c) assessment for learning approach. In

addition to expanded descriptions of each profile below, we synthesize our results in Table 1.

Insert Table 1 Here


10

One of the fundamental features that characterized each teacher’s curricular stance and

approach to assessment was a commitment to and recognition of contemporary mandates on

standards-based education. Thus while results point to differing approaches, these approaches

should be construed in relation to an overall framework of educational accountability. Each

teacher emphasized the role and importance of teaching to and achieving academic standards

within their kindergarten program, regardless of their propensity for a developmentally

appropriate teaching orientation.

Developmental Assessment Approach

The developmental assessment approach was best observed in Karen’s teaching practice.

While Karen noted, “having a standardized curriculum is critical; it is a building block to the

next step,” she did not allow it to guide all student learning. Instead she explicitly described a

flexible curricular stance stating, “I think you can always make an argument for why or why not

something else may be included.” In this way, Karen’s interpretation of the standards reflected

an integrated but mediated address of academic mandates. For example, while Ontario curricular

standards explicitly state that students are to communicate in writing by the end of senior

kindergarten, Karen made the conscious decision to omit writing from her kindergarten program

stating that she didn’t believe in “pressuring them to get their thoughts on paper until

mechanically they are able to do that.” Her ‘writing program’ involved instruction in the

mechanics of writing including “formation, proper pencil grip, pressure...[and] comfortable

positioning.” While functional grip is a curricular standard related to fine motor development, it

is not expressed as a writing expectation in Ontario. A related example was observed when

Karen introduced phonemic awareness to students. In this context, Karen focused on letter sound

identification and sound blending to create words but did not extend these concepts to the


11

Ontario standard of creating meaning in text. These examples highlight that Karen’s support of

the kindergarten curricular standards was tempered by a professional belief system that informed

the omission of expectations that she believed to be developmentally inappropriate for

kindergarten-aged children.

Karen maintained a primarily developmental stance, stating that teachers should

“understand the developmental norms of the continuum of development that happens for children

and try to tie that with the expectations of the curriculum.” Accordingly, Karen used a pre-

established developmental continuum to structure her assessment approach that aimed to create a

picture of the “whole child” in relation to his/her individual development. To develop this

holistic picture of the child, Karen relied primarily on naturalistic observations that documented

student behaviors and processes. Her observations of student behaviors were then recorded on

developmental checklists that addressed the multiple domains of learning beginning with

personal and social development (e.g., uses strategies to solve social problems), emotional

development (e.g., demonstrates self-reliance and a sense of responsibility), physical

development (e.g., demonstrate balance, whole body and hand-eye coordination), and cognitive

development (e.g., orally retell events and stories in sequence).

Pairing her developmental stance with academic standards, Karen subscribed to the

traditional diagnostic-summative assessment approach where baselines were used to determine

“what children know already…we do some really focused instruction together…and then the

summative task will be presented.” While Karen did attend to academic standards, her focus

remained on measurable and observable behaviors; Karen did not rely heavily on formative

assessment structures in her classroom. This pattern of assessment was reinforced in our

observations of Karen’s practice, which were characterized by using developmental observation


12

checklists that first assessed students’ social growth then moved to the assessment of academic

standards. Overall, Karen maintained a strong commitment to a traditional developmental

orientation to teaching but endeavored to integrate aspects of an accountability model.

Blended Assessment Approach

The blended assessment approach was best observed in Samantha’s classroom. She

openly expressed the role that the provincial curriculum had in her planning: “I have a legal

responsibility to the curriculum expectations. I need to assess those and report on them and the

documentation that happens around that so I am tied to that.” In contrast to Karen, this curricular

stance meant that curricular expectations necessarily informed what was taught in her classroom.

Samantha’s programming sought to integrate subject areas in order to address all provincial

standards. Her teaching was characterized by whole group lessons and structured small group

activities. Learning centered on subject-specific content and expectations; for example, science

through the exploration of living versus non-living things and math as the students learned about

the names and value of coins. Samantha also used structured approaches such as guided reading

to facilitate growth toward provincial reading standards.

As evidenced through observed learning activities, Samantha placed great importance on

the learning of academic skills. However, she also expressed a belief that while curriculum

documents dictate instructional content, they provide sufficient flexibility through pedagogical

delivery: “I think the kindergarten curriculum is written in such a way that it does allow

flexibility and freedom to meet those expectations at different times through the year, teacher

directed or child directed.” Samantha valued the pedagogical flexibility because “the group of

children change[s] every year...and I have to adapt to what their needs are.” In Samantha’s

classroom, knowledge of each child’s existing abilities was integrated with knowledge of the


13

curricular expectations to design a program that was simultaneously curriculum- and child-

focused.

This blended assessment approach centered on a negotiated stance between assessment of

academic standards and students’ social and cognitive developmental stages. Rather than a

sequenced approach of measuring students’ social development prior to their academic

development, the blended assessment approach places an equal emphasis on assessing students’

social and academic development throughout the entire school year. Samantha commented, “it’s

heavily on the social-emotional part, those are the major components that run through the whole

year…I focus on interest and ways in which they’re using the materials and toys and

manipulatives within the classroom and if they’re bringing the direct instruction into their play.”

Samantha further emphasized her assessment of academic standards by stating she completes

“DRAs [Developmental Reading Assessment] that will be done on the senior kindergartens or

any JKs…and assessment on letter recognition, number recognition, many of the readiness skills

to see where growth has happened.”

Samantha followed a formal sequence of assessment rooted in a traditional assessment

framework of diagnostic, formative, then summative assessments. Integrating mandated,

standardized, and teacher-constructed assessments, Samantha used assessment data to guide and

plan her instruction and to respond to students’ learning needs related to the standards. For

example, during classroom observations, Samantha met with each student individually to video

record students’ baseline understanding of problem solving by posing the following problem:

“There are three students sitting at a table and two more students come over. How many chairs

will they need?” Manipulatives were provided for students including counters, paper, and

crayons/pencils. Samantha described that she completes this process, “three times in the year


14

with the baseline and the summative and all of them seem to tie very nicely with what I’m

reporting on.” She also noted that she regularly met individually with students to “build their

confidence and give them suggestions about what the next steps might be, how they could be a

little better at this, or a little better at that.” Overall, Samantha served as a model that blended

contemporary assessment approaches (diagnostic, formative, summative sequence) associated

the accountability movement with a developmental orientation to student growth and learning.

Assessment for Learning Approach

In contrast to the previous two orientations, Linda expressed a strict adherence to

curricular standards stating: “we need to be able to cover the entire curriculum.” This strict

adherence was framed by an accountability structure in Linda’s school that imposed instructional

strategies (e.g., learning goals and success criteria) and required teachers to report curricular

planning and assessment data to school administrators. This accountability structure influenced

Linda’s programming decisions as she stated, “I still have to submit long range plans. I still have

to submit day plans...With the other kindergarten teacher we’ll work together and develop a plan

on how we’re going to structure our year in terms of the curriculum.” While Linda did place

significant importance on academic learning, she also acknowledged that curricular prescription

of a particular skill is not necessarily accompanied by child readiness. Thus, similar to Samantha

and Karen who endeavored to address developmental learning models, Linda expressed her

belief that she had the flexibility to determine when particular academic skills were introduced to

students and that these decisions were, in part, influenced by her knowledge of child

development. Specifically, Linda stated, “we know from many studies, they are developmentally

not always there to start learning them first thing in the year. You need to start with word

awareness, syllables, and rhyming before we can really match those letters and letter sounds.”


15

While curricular expectations still drive much of Linda’s decision making, this strict curricular

adherence was accompanied by a burgeoning belief in the importance of allowing student ability

to guide instruction: “they can teach me a lot about what they’re ready for and not to push it too

soon because it’s just not going to work...that’s different for every kid.” The description of

individualized student needs demonstrated a subscription to developmentally appropriate

practices where children’s experiences were considered in relation to provincial learning

standards.

Linda’s assessment approach leveraged assessment as a tool to support student learning

of standards. Her assessment approach centered on the use of assessment for and as learning

principles. Specifically, Linda used feedback strategies to not only promote student learning of

content but also support students’ metacognitive development. One example that highlighted

Linda’s approach to teacher-based feedback was her sequencing of one-on-one to whole-group

instruction. “I’m going to pull kids during center time and work with them in a small group, give

them feedback on whatever it is, before we move on to the next whole group thing.” This was

observed as students were grouped together to show the number five in various ways (i.e., word,

numeral, and picture demonstrating quantity). During a subsequent lesson, students demonstrated

this learning by recording individual responses to a whole group question on white boards. These

responses were then orally assessed by the teacher as she described students’ strengths and areas

for improvement. She then described a subsequent follow-up activity where she targeted

individual learning needs through independent work: “You need to show me 12. You need to

show me three. Everyone at the table would have a different number so they can’t copy off each

other but they are all in the same whole group assessment activity.” This activity sequence


16

provided the opportunity for students to develop specific academic skills while also allowing

Linda to provide both positive and constructive feedback to students.

As a complement to teacher feedback, Linda also used assessment as learning principles

by encouraging her students to self and peer assess work and explain how that assessment

contributed to learning. For example during the observations, Linda first video recorded one-on-

one conferences of students retelling a familiar story and then showed these videos to the whole

class. While students watched the videos, they were invited to provide feedback on their own

performance and the performances of their peers. Linda concluded the activity by summarizing

the feedback and explaining how it could be used to further develop their skills as learners.

Specifically, she identified for students both ‘stars’ and ‘stairs’, which corresponded to areas of

strength and areas for growth. This orientation to assessment aligns with contemporary

frameworks for assessment in education by using assessment as both pedagogy and a tool for

measuring student learning whilst moving students towards provincial standards within a school-

based accountability model.

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to contribute empirical evidence that linked teachers’

curricular stances with their approaches to classroom assessment practice. We situate the need

for this study in relation to the existing accountability and standards-based context of

kindergarten education and teachers’ current challenge of balancing developmentally appropriate

programming with academic mandates (Roach et al., 2010; Goldstein, 2007b; Gullo & Hughes,

2011). Instead of dichotomizing these aspects of contemporary kindergarten teaching, we

approached this research with the assumption that teachers can, in various ways, negotiate a


17

balance in their classroom assessment practices to meet multiple developmental and academic

purposes, as demonstrated by the data in this study.

While all teachers expressed commitments to the standards-based curricula within

Ontario, they differed in their treatment of these standards. The developmental assessment

approach largely prioritized learning about self and others in relation to a developmental

continuum prior to teaching and assessing provincial standards. In contrast, the assessment for

learning approach leveraged assessment strategies as a means to promote student growth toward

the standards with a secondary focus on developmentally appropriate learning. The blended

assessment approach endeavored to merge both orientations simultaneously, in an effort to serve

the teachers’ developmental understandings with provincial priorities.

Interestingly, the assessment programs within the focal kindergarten classrooms differed

widely, despite the fact that all teachers were using the same curricular documents, meeting the

same academic standards, and working within the same school district. This finding suggests that

these teachers maintained enough pedagogical autonomy to tailor academic mandates under the

accountability framework to fit with their curricular stance and pedagogical approach. While

each of these teachers needed to alter their kindergarten programming as a result of the

standards-based movement, they were nonetheless able to find a balance between provincial

mandates and their own pedagogical stance, thus maintaining and engendering unique spaces of

teaching and learning at the kindergarten level. As such, we assert that while the accountability

movement does standardize achievement expectations and mandates the use of some

standardized assessments and reporting procedures (Brookhart, 2004; Stiggins, 2005), it does

not, as of yet and in this context, prescribe standardized teacher pedagogy. Accordingly, there

may still be room within the existing framework of education to empower teachers to leverage


18

their pedagogical autonomy to enact their individual curricular stances whilst meeting provincial

mandates.

Each profile presents a different set of assessment practices informed by teachers’

curricular stances. We assert that each profile offers strengths in measuring student development

and achievement. Specifically, the developmental assessment approach provided well-

established structures for monitoring child development along a continuum by using a

developmental checklist in diagnostic and summative ways. The strength of the blended

assessment approach was the balanced monitoring of both developmental and academic growth

using formal assessment structures that aligned with provincial assessment instruments and

developmental models. Finally, the assessment for learning approach drew on a contemporary

assessment framework to support students’ learning about content and metacognition via

assessment. Overall, we see value in potentially bridging the strengths of these assessment

approaches as teachers continue to negotiate the balance of developmental and academically

based orientations.

While this research pointed toward several interesting findings, we recognize limitations

of the present study in an effort to mitigate misrepresentation of results. Firstly, this is a small-

scale study involving three teachers. Results cannot be generalized beyond these participants and

their specific teaching contexts. We further recognize that our study focused solely on teachers’

expressed curricular stances and assessment approaches, and while we did observe teachers to

confirm the enactment of their intended stances and approaches, we did not solicit the views of

other stakeholders, namely students, to explore the value of teachers’ approaches on learning.

Thus we caution against interpretations that suggest a valuing of one profile over another and

their impact on promoting student learning. Finally, we recognize that the profiles constructed in


19

this research are contextually situated and temporally dependent. Given the ongoing changes in

kindergarten education across North America, we argue for continued research, expansion, and

validation of the profiles across differing kindergarten contexts.

Accordingly, in heeding these limitations, we also see several specific avenues for

additional research. The phenomenon of pedagogical autonomy within an accountability

framework of education merits further exploration. We believe that carrying this work out in

relation to kindergarten teachers’ programs of assessment would be most interesting, as it is

often perceived that an assessment regime limits teachers’ pedagogical creativity. However, to

this end, we would argue, that such a response would be dependent upon the nature of the

assessment regime and its relationship to student learning and teachers’ curricular stances.

Finally, we see value in continuing to profile assessment practices within the evolving curricular

context of early primary education. Given the rapidity of changes occurring in early years

learning, there is a need to support teachers in their efforts to understand their curricular stances

as they engage progressive assessment and teaching practices. Thus we hope that these avenues

of research serve to impact both the advancement of theoretical developments in kindergarten

education as well as teachers’ on-the-ground work with kindergarten students.


20

References

Abu-Jaber, M., Al-Shawareb, A., & Gheith, E. (2010). Kindergarten teachers’ beliefs toward

developmentally appropriate practice in Jordan. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38,

65–74.

Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. University of

Cambridge: Author.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Developing a theory of formative assessment. In J. Gardner

(Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 81-100). London, UK: Sage.

Brookhart, S. M. (2003). Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes

and uses. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(4), 5-12.

Brookhart, S. (2004). Classroom assessment: Tensions and intersections in theory and practice.

Teachers College Record, 106, 429–458.

Brown, C. (2011). Searching for the norm in a system of absolutes: A case study of standards-

based accountability reform in pre-kindergarten. Early Education and Development, 22,

151–177.

Dunphy, E. (2010). Assessing early learning through formative assessment: Key issues and

considerations. Irish Educational Studies, 29(1), 41-56.

Earl, L. (2003). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximise student

learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Einrsdottir, J. (2008). Children’s and parents’ perspectives on the purpose of playschool in

Iceland. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 283–291.

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research,

38(1), 47–65.


21

Feldman, E. N. (2010). Benchmarks curricular planning and assessment framework: Utilizing

standards without introducing standardization. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 233–

242.

Fung, C. K. (2009). The complexities in promoting play-based kindergarten curriculum in Hong

Kong: One teacher’s story. Canadian Children, 34(2), 16–24.

Gardner, J. (2006). Assessment for learning: A compelling conceptualization. In J. Gardner

(Ed.), Assessment and Learning (pp. 197-204). London: Sage.

Geist, E., & Baum, A. C. (2005). Yeah, but’s that keep teachers from embracing an active

curriculum overcoming the resistance. Young Children on the Web, 1–8.

Goldstein, L. S. (2007a). Beyond the DAP versus standards dilemma: Examining the unforgiving

complexity of kindergarten teaching in the United States. Early Childhood Research

Quarterly, 22, 39-54.

Goldstein, L. S. (2007b). Embracing pedagogical multiplicity: Examining two teachers’

instructional responses to the changing expectations for kindergarten in U.S. public schools.

Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21, 378–399.

Gullo, D. F. (2006). Assessment in kindergarten. In D. F. Gullo (Ed.), K Today: Teaching and

Learning in the Kindergarten year (pp. 138-150). Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Gullo, D. F., & Hughes, K. (2011). Reclaiming kindergarten: Part I. Questions about theory and

practice. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 323-328.

Heydon, R. M., & Wang, P. (2006). Curricular ethics in early childhood education programming:

A challenge to the Ontario kindergarten program. McGill Journal of Education, 41(1), 29–

47.

Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13-17.


22

McNair, S., Bhargava, A., Adams, L., Edgerton, S., & Kypros, B. (2003). Teachers speak out on

assessment practices. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(1), 23–31.

Nie, Y., & Lau, S. (2010). Differential relations of constructivist and didactic instruction to

students’ cognition, motivation, and achievement. Learning and Instruction, 20, 411– 423.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010a). Growing success: Assessment, evaluation and reporting

in Ontario schools. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printers for Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010b). The Full-day Early Learning Kindergarten Program.

Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printers for Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2003). Early reading strategy. The report of the expert panel

on early reading in Ontario. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Parker, A., & Neuharth-Pritchett, S. (2006). Developmentally appropriate practice in

kindergarten: Factors shaping teacher beliefs and practice. Journal of Research in Childhood

Education, 21(1), 65–78.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Ray, K., & Smith, M. C. (2010). The kindergarten child: What teachers and administrators need

to know to promote academic success in all children. Early Childhood Education Journal,

38(5), 5–18.

Roach, A. T., Wixson, C., & Talapatra, D. (2010). Aligning an early childhood assessment to

state kindergarten content standards: Application of a nationally recognized alignment

framework. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(1), 25-37.


23

Rushton, S., & Larkin, E. (2001). Shaping the learning environment: Connecting

developmentally appropriate practices to brain research. Early Childhood Education

Journal, 29(1), 25–33.

Russell, J. L. (2011). From child’s garden to academic press: The role of shifting institutional

logics in redefining kindergarten education. American Educational Research Journal, 48,

236–267.

Steele, M. M. (2004). Making the case for early identification and intervention for young

children at risk for learning disabilities. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(2), 75–79.

Stiggins, R. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment for learning: A path to success in

standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(4), 324-328.

Stipek, D., & Byler, P. (2004). The early childhood classroom observation measure. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 375–397.

US Department of Education. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

Wragg, E. C. (1994). An Introduction to Classroom Observation. New York, NY: Routledge.


24

Table 1 Teachers’ curricular stance and assessment approaches in balancing developmental and academic orientations Assessment Approach

Curricular Stance Assessment Approach and Practices

Developmental − Prioritizes cognitive & social developmental stages

− Constructivist & child-centered approaches to learning based on individual student readiness

− Traditional diagnostic-summative assessment sequence

− Documenting student behavior and processes through naturalistic observation

− Assessment is intended to create a holistic picture of the child along a pre-established developmental continuum

− Example: developmental assessment checklists

Blended − Equal emphasis on social & academic development

− Pedagogical freedom to teach mandated curricular expectations

− Teaching based on differentiated student strengths & needs

− Formal sequence of baseline, formative, and summative assessments

− Integrates standardized and teacher-constructed assessment

− Assessment data used to direct teaching

− Examples: Developmental reading assessment (DRA), video-based assessment, teacher-based feedback

Assessment for Learning

− Prioritizes achievement of curriculum standards

− Integrates developmental approaches in timing and sequencing of academic standards

− Integrates assessment for and as learning principles to enhance learning of academic standards

− Uses assessment to support students’ metacognitive and self-regulating abilities

− Examples: self and peer assessment, video supported feedback, learning goals planning

Assessment in the Kindergarten Classroom Blind Copy...Angela Pyle & Christopher DeLuca Pyle, A. &...

Documents

Transcript of Assessment in the Kindergarten Classroom Blind Copy...Angela Pyle & Christopher DeLuca Pyle, A. &...