8084MOD2DISCUSSION
Academic assessments have received a lot of media attention over the last decade. From the topic of political debates to rants on social media, the assessments which gauge academic progress radiate polarized views about effectiveness, validity, and cost. For every supporter who links testing to accountability, there is a colleague, family member, or friend who opposes mandated testing due to its omnipresence throughout the school year.
Discussion: Assessing Children’s Growth—A Piece of the Evaluation Process
Above all, we must guarantee that assessment reflects our highest educational goals for young children and neither restricts nor distorts the substance of their early learning.
Having Trouble Meeting Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on 8084MOD2DISCUSSION completed on time. avoid delay and – ORDER NOW
—National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), 2003
Academic assessments have received a lot of media attention over the last decade. From the topic of political debates to rants on social media, the assessments which gauge academic progress radiate polarized views about effectiveness, validity, and cost. For every supporter who links testing to accountability, there is a colleague, family member, or friend who opposes mandated testing due to its omnipresence throughout the school year.
Interestingly enough, assessment is not a new idea. Assessing academic progress has naturally gone hand in hand with schooling as far back as anyone can remember. From the earliest records of apprenticeships to the first brick and mortar schools, assessments have determined whether young children were retaining information and furthermore, if they could demonstrate mastery against a specific set of standards.
What then, has changed; and, where do you lie on the assessment spectrum? Are assessments the pillars to ensure the promotion of healthy development for all young children; or, do these assessments and their external factors restrict and distort early learning experiences?
In this Discussion, you explore the role of assessments in today’s early childhood programs. You also examine the controversy that is commonly associated with this piece of the program evaluation process.
To prepare
Revisit the Epstein article, first explored in Module 1, and reflect on the relationship between the promotion of healthy development across all domains of children’s growth (physical, intellectual, and social-emotional) and annual assessments. Then, consider her question, “How do you define and measure [program] quality without … children’s test scores…?” (Epstein, p. 1). As you begin this Discussion, also reflect on the controversy that is commonly associated with formally assessing a child’s growth. Specifically, consider the societal, political, and economic factors that may drive this controversy.
Part 1
By Day 3 of Week 3
Post an explanation of the relationship between healthy development across all domains and annual assessments. Then, explain the impact this relationship has had on today's early childhood programs and why. Support your post with content from required readings and viewings, information garnered from your own research and your own experiences. Support your statements with in-text citations and references.
Read and reflect upon your colleagues' postings.
Part 2
By Day 7 of Week 3
Post an explanation of how societal, political, and/or economic factors drive the controversy associated with the assessment piece of program evaluations. In addition, explain how this controversy might impact or has impacted the perceived effectiveness of early childhood programs.
Read and reflect upon your colleagues' postings.
By Day 3 of Week 4
Respond to two or more of your colleagues' postings by acknowledging their contributions to your own learning. Extend your response by including one or both of the following in your response:
· Propose additional impacts formal assessments might have on child outcomes and healthy development.
· Explain how societal, political, and/or economic factors might also impact the perceived progress of children's growth and healthy development related to your colleagues' posts.
Support comments made in your responses with in-text citations and references.
Part 2 of discussion Response
By Day 7 of Week 4
Return to this Discussion at least 3–4 times in the second week of the module to read the responses to your initial posting and other recent postings. Note what you have learned and/or any insights you have gained as a result of the comments your colleagues made and the connections you have made with the Learning Resources. Then, respond to two or more colleagues with questions or insightful comments.
Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific in-text citations and references to the Learning Resources and your own research following the APA style guide.
REFERENCES
https://www.naeyc.org/accreditation
http://families.naeyc.org/accredited-article/10-naeyc-program-standards#1
http://sitc-portal.isoveradev.com/sites/default/files/post-files/science-2013-sabol-845-6.pdf
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/early_years/2013/08/study_preschool_rating_systems_disconnected_from_child_outcomes.html
,
Colleagues, you have a wealth of learning resources for weeks 3 and 4! Please become familiar with each of them, including the required media. Use the resources that appear in Module 2 to support your initial post and dialogue with colleagues in your responses. Please look at the rubric for the various tasks you will be completing and note that in your dialogues with colleagues, you are to indicate what you learned from each person to whom you are responding in the response. This is also a good reminder that your initial post should be substantive and include several resources with in-text citations and references, so you are instructive in your post. Please think of yourselves as peer mentors! :=] Please be sure and read Module 2. I am only posting some highlights and adding clarifying information.
Discussion: Assessing Children’s Growth
To prepare between the promotion of healthy development across all domains of children’s growth (physical, intellectual, and social-emotional) and annual assessments. Then, consider her question, “How do you define and measure [program] quality without … children’s test scores…?” (Epstein, p. 1). As you begin this Discussion, also reflect on the controversy that is commonly associated with formally assessing a child’s growth. Specifically, consider the societal, political, and economic factors that may drive this controversy.
Part 1: By Day 3 of Week 3 – Wednesday, 16 March 2022
Post an explanation of the relationship between healthy development across all domains and annual assessments. Then, explain the impact this relationship has had on today's early childhood programs and why. Support your post with content from required readings and viewings, information garnered from your own research and your own experiences. Support your statements with in-text citations and references.
Read and reflect upon your colleagues' postings.
Part 2: By Day 7 of Week 3 – Sunday, 20 March 2022
Post an explanation of how societal, political, and/or economic factors drive the controversy associated with the assessment piece of program evaluations. In addition, explain how this controversy might impact or has impacted the perceived effectiveness of early childhood programs.
By Day 3 of Week 4 – Wednesday, 23 March 2022
Read and reflect upon your colleagues' postings. Respond to two or more of your colleagues' postings by acknowledging their contributions to your own learning. Extend your response by including one or both of the following in your response:
· Propose additional impacts formal assessments might have on child outcomes and healthy development.
· Explain how societal, political, and/or economic factors might also impact the perceived progress of children's growth and healthy development related to your colleagues' posts.
· Support comments made in your responses with in-text citations and references.
By Day 7 of Week 4 – 27 March 2022
Return to this Discussion at least 3–4 times in the second week of the module (Week 4) to read the responses to your initial posting and other recent postings. Note what you have learned and/or any insights you have gained as a result of the comments your colleagues made and the connections you have made with the Learning Resources. Then, respond to two or more colleagues with questions or insightful comments.
Group Discussion 1: Introductions - PLEASE SEE GROUPS AT THE TOP OF THIS ANNOUNCEMENT!
Throughout this course, you will work alongside a group of your colleagues to analyze, aggregate, and synthesize evaluation data. In Week 3, take time to get to know your group members and to set group expectations. It is also highly recommended that you look ahead to Project deliverables, set individual and group deadlines, and identify exact dates and times when your group will meet. These ways of working will be decided by each group and not dictated by the facilitator of the course. Please let the facilitator (Dr. Mary Barbara Trube) know if you have questions or need input.
To prepare
Identify the group to which you have been assigned, as detailed in your Instructor’s class Announcement. If you have yet to do so, take time to review the Project deliverables outlined in the “Overview of Learning Outcomes Project #4 and Group Project” document.
By Day 5 of Week 3 – Friday, 18 March 2022
Introduce yourself to your group members by posting the following in your Group Discussion Board:
· Your name, where you live, and a brief description of your experience in the field of early childhood
· Day(s) of the week and time(s) which work best for group meetings
· Your preferred communication method (e-mail, phone, Skype, Zoom, Teams and such).
Colleagues, please contact me with any questions, confusions, concerns, or just to say, "Hello!" Please have a safe and productive week.
Barbara
Dr. Mary Barbara Trube Contributing Faculty – Walden University College of Education & Leadership – ECE Remote: Florida USA ET
Text: 941-281-0507
,
Response1
WFarley Discussion – Module 2 Part 1
Top of Form
In my opinion, the greatest debate in the field of early childhood is the understanding of developmental domains and their importance to children’s development. When children are of age to attend preschool and pre-k, many families bombard me with questions about their child’s development in reading, writing, and math. This comes with little regard for whole-child development and the rate at which children grow and learn. A common theme that is found when gaining a deeper understanding of child development is the interrelatedness of all domains of development. By providing learning environments that are conducive to the interrelatedness of physical, cognitive, social-emotional, and language development, as well as approaches to learning allows early childhood educators the ability to foster healthy development and improved student academic outcomes (National Association for the Education of Young Children, n.d.). With this in mind, many early childhood professionals deem play-based learning and assessment as the most effective means for children’s healthy development. Play allows children to make sense of the world around them through a combination of structured and unstructured exploration (Dennis et al., 2013; National Association for the Education of Young Children, n.d.; Singer, 2013). When children engage in play experiences, this leads to more authentic opportunities for holistic development and ongoing assessment.
I believe that ongoing assessment of young children allows for educators to create a holistic view into the child’s development, developmental patterns, and developmental needs. The use of annual assessment to track young children’s development is simply not developmentally appropriate due to the nature of how children learn and develop. Strategies for the developmentally appropriate assessment of young children should include assessment measures that collect data through authentic observation of children’s tasks and behaviors in their natural setting (Jiban, 2015). This is known as authentic assessment. In today’s culture of early childhood development, programs tend to utilize annual assessments to drive their curriculum and teaching practices. This is detrimental to the field as a whole because of the potential for educators to begin to teach for assessment and not for the holistic development of the child. Often, improper assessment tools focus on reduced developmental abilities and can lead to the narrowing of teaching practices and misalignment of curriculum goals (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2003). Alignment of the program’s goals, curriculum, and assessment practices should be at the forefront of program goals and outcomes. I believe that this ever-growing phenomenon within the field can be interrupted through the use of authentic assessment measures closely aligned to developmentally appropriate curriculum and program goals with holistic child development in mind.
References
Dennis, L., Rueter, J., & Simpson, C. (2013). Authentic assessment: Establishing a clear foundation for instructional practices. Preventing School Failure, 57(4), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2012.681715.
Jiban, C. (2015). Early childhood assessment: Implementing effective practice. Northwest Evaluation Association. http://info.nwea.org/rs/nwea/images/EarlyChildhoodAssessment-ImplementingEffectivePractice.pdf.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2003). Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8. https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/CAPEexpand.pdf.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (n.d.). Principles of child development and learning and implications that inform practice. https://www.naeyc.org/resources/position-statements/dap/principles.
Singer, E. (2013). Play and playfulness, basic features of early childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2013.789198.
Bottom of Form
RE: Discussion – Module 2
Top of Form
Initial Post
After reviewing the relationship between healthy development of young children across all domains and annual assessments, the assessments have a tremendous impact on early childhood development programs offered in preschools and the early grades of primary schools. Some of these annual assessments require continuous observation, monitoring, and evaluating developmental and learning progress to allow an accurate annual assessment to be achieved. One specific tool that focuses on teacher-student interactions as the key to the learning progress is the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) which is a proven assessment tool developed at the School Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning that allows an effective way to measure teacher-student interactions in the classroom and offer suggestions for improving these interactions across any age group or subject matter (University of Virginia/School of Education and Human Development, 2021). The CLASS tool involves four cycles of 15 minutes observations of teachers and students by a certified CLASS observer, and the interactions are rated using a manual of behaviors and responses (University of Virginia/School of Education and Human Development, 2021). This is an observational teacher-assessment tool that clarifies teachers’ behaviors to student gains and has proven to work in many classrooms from preschool to high school (University of Virginia/School of Education and Human Development, 2021).
Another important assessment tool is Teaching Strategies GOLD which is an ongoing observational system of children’s development in the context of everyday experience from birth through kindergarten based on 38 objectives for developmental learning that involve predictors of school success and grounded on school readiness standards (Teaching Strategies, 2021). The assessment areas involving these objectives include: physical, socio-emotional, language, literacy, cognitive, mathematics, social studies, science and technology, and arts development (Teaching Strategies, 2021). The assessment approach provides a more broad, meaningful interpretation of a young child’s whole development. The two examples of assessment tools demonstrate the rationale for their usage and applications to monitor children’s development and progress across all domains and also clarify the teacher’s behaviors and instructional styles to see what is working effectively in interacting with young learners. Research on the relationship between assessment tools and the healthy developmental and learning progress of young children show a clearer picture that can be drawn regarding the importance and value of the tools.
One area is young children developing and learning technical skills by interacting with electronic devices such as tablets and computers which is emphasized by the Teaching Strategies GOLD as the science and technologies learning domain. Herodotou (2018) conducted a systematic review of studies involving 2-5-year-olds interacting with electronic tablets across subject areas and found positive effects in literacy development, science, mathematics, problem solving, and self-efficacy which implies that developmental progress for children interacting with the tablets or any electronic device will be relevant and important to incorporate into ongoing, daily, and annual assessments for educators. Also, research indicates that young learners are experiencing positive effects from their interactions with the tablets. Teachers and educators need to assess and evaluate the interactions through measurable standards to allow progress and development to be tracked. One of the objectives of the Teaching Strategies GOLD is development in children using technological tools in their learning tasks (Teaching Strategies, 2021). Another study conducted by Margaret Burchinal, writing for Child Development and Perspectives, found that her most significant critique of high-quality early care and educational (EDC) programs is that more focus needs to be placed on teacher-student interactions and assessing these appropriately so that progress can be charted for both teacher and student in improving the quality of the interactions (Burchinal, 2018). The study demonstrates that assessment tools such as Teaching Strategies GOLD and CLASS which effectively measure the quality of teacher-student interactions are especially valuable. This is also supported by experience being an educator of young children and how the interactions between the educator and student learners is an area that requires professional assessment consistently to improve the quality of education for young learners. By having these assessment tools available and using them for purposes of improving teacher-student interactions can bring benefits for both teachers and students.
References
Burchinal, M. (2018). Measuring early care and education quality. Child Development Perspectives, 12(1), 3-9.
Herodotou, C. (2018). Young children and tablets: A systematic review of effects on learning and development. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(1), 1-9.
Teaching Strategies. 2021. Teaching Strategies GOLD Birth Through Kindergarten Touring Guide. Teaching Strategies – GOLD-Touring-Guide_5-2013.pdf (buffalo.edu)
University of Virginia/School of Education and Human Development. 2021. Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). Classroom Assessment Scoring System™ | School of Education and Human Development | University of Virginia
RESPONSE 2
Sarwat Suraiya
RE: Discussion – Module 2
Top of Form
Part 1
Healthy development and program evaluation are interrelated in all educational settings. As an EIP teacher for k-5th grades, I have to conduct a lot of assessments when deciding on a student's need for an EIP service. These assessments involve not only their test scores on a particular subject such as reading, but also other significant factors that influence their overall development, such as math, social, emotional, and physical developments. A team works on collecting these data for all of the domains related to the specific child’s overall development. To describe healthy development, Epstein (2003) stated that the primary purpose of early childhood programs is to promote healthy development in domains of children’s growth which are physical, intellectual, and social.
When K-12 No Child Left Behind Act initiative took place, all states implemented standards for education, and students are held accountable by being tested to see if they met those standards (Epstein, 2003). Early childhood settings are no exception as they are receiving funds. Governments and other public sectors who provide these funds and grants want to know how these grants and funds are being utilized with evidence (Epstein, 2003). The assessments provide this evidence. However, to evaluate a programs’ quality, the assessment scores alone cannot assure the quality of today’s early childhood programs. In recent years, as measuring the quality of a program is every early childhood professionals’ main goal, several initiatives have been put into place both federally and state-wide to expand access to high-quality early education programs. An objective for the program evaluation tool is essential to maintain a common language between the stakeholders about program quality and development (Epstein, 2003). High/Scope’s Preschool Program Quality Assessment, known as Preschool PQA, and Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) are some valid tools to measure program quality. These tools are used to evaluate the quality of today’s early childhood programs and the required training for the staff.
References
Bottom of Form
,
1
Discussion – Module 2 Part 2
Top of Form
Part 2
Societal, Political, and/or Economic Factors
Assessment decisions can be very controversial. Stakeholders have different views when it comes to assessments. Some parents feel that too much time is spent on assessments, and some parents feel that assessments are needed to know whether or not their child is making progress. Some teachers think that there should be more time spent on instruction within the classrooms and less time on assessments. In order to know whether or not students are making progress and whether the programs being used are effective, program evaluations must be performed. Epstein (2003) stated that the purpose of education is to promote healthy development. Early development depends on the structural and process elements of the program. National Association for the Education of Young Children (n.d.-a) mentioned in Standard 4 that assessments benefit children and help teachers by making informed decisions and program improvement. Assessments must be appropriate for each child’s development level and age. In standard 7, programs must involve families in their child’s educational growth, establish relationships built on mutual trust and respect, and allow families to participate in the program (National Association for the Education of Young Children, n.d.-a). In standard 8, the society and/or community can help a program by providing resources to families that support the healthy development of children and their learning.
The Impact
Controversy has impacted the effectiveness of early childhood programs by assessments. Programs are being held accountable for their performance. If funding is provided and the program is not performing well, the program loses that funding. Early intervention can also compensate for the effectiveness of early education programs. Early Childhood Education supporters argue that disadvantaged children behind on their developmental dimensions compensate for those conditions prior to entering any EC program (Besharov et al., 2020).
References
Besharov, D. J., Call, D. M., & Scott, J. M. (2020). PROTOCOL: Early childhood education programs for improving the development and achievement of low-income children–A Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(3).
Epstein, A. S. (2003). Holding your program accountable: Introducing high/scope’s new preschool program quality assessment (PQA). High/Scope ReSource, A Magazine for Educators, 11–14. https://web.archive.org/web/20150321075739/http://www.highscope.org/file/Assessment/PQA.pdf
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (n.d.-a). The 10 NAEYC program standards.
Part 2
Whitney Farley
WFarley Discussion – Module 2 Part 2
Top of Form
The ongoing controversy that surrounds common core state standards and standardized assessment within the k-12 system is beginning to trickle down towards the field of early care and learning. This trickle-down effect stems from societal, political, and economic factors. Federal and state entities that have adopted the common core standards for k-12 have begun to consider how these established standards can link to early childhood standards (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2003). With the assessment piece of program evaluations, governmental agencies can utilize the data to their advantage to drive the creation of common core standards and standardized assessment practices for early childhood programs. As early childhood professional leaders, we are often divided between the concept of knowledge for understanding and knowledge for advocacy. Knowledge for understanding focuses directly on what we do not know while knowledge for advocacy focuses on what we know (Shonkoff, 2004). When it concerns societal, political, and economic factors, knowledge for advocacy can be skewed towards the outcome desired by the entity. In a well-meaning nature, the early childhood field would be governed by the concept of knowledge for understanding and how all stakeholders can come together to provide equitable outcomes for the healthy development of all children. I believe that through knowledge for advocacy, many societal, political, and economic entities use program assessment data against programs to push their own agenda.
This has severely impacted the perceived effectiveness of early childhood programs. By pushing the common core agenda onto early childhood programs, societal, political, and economic entities have shown their disregard for the developmentally appropriate learning practices that are the foundation of our field, thus potentially diminishing the effectiveness of early childhood programs. We as early childhood professionals are knowledgeable of what it takes to ensure that our youngest learners are afforded healthy opportunities to learn and grow. When policy makers and governmental agencies try to devalue and diminish our programs, we must act as advocates for our children. Reliable and valid data from the assessment piece of program evaluations that assess children on the full spectrum of developmental domains can serve as a source of knowledge for understanding.
References
Shonkoff, J. (2004). Evaluating early childhood services: What’s really behind the curtain. The Evaluation Exchange, 10(2), 3-4.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2003). Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8. https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/CAPEexpand.pdf.
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
