Queen Essays

J Child Fam Stud (2007) 16:209–218 DOI 10.1007/s10826-006-9079-0

ORIGINAL PAPER

Assessment and Decision-Making in Early Childhood Education and Intervention

Paul S. Strand · Sandra Cerna · Jim Skucy

Published online: 23 August 2006 C© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Abstract Assessment within the fields of early childhood education and early childhood intervention is guided by the deductive-psychometric model, which is a framework for legitimizing constructs that arise from theories. An alternative approach, termed the inductive-experimental model, places significantly more restrictions on what constitutes a legitimate construct. In this paper, the utility of these two assessment models, one more generative and one more restrictive, are evaluated within the context of a Head Start setting. Given the pragmatic goal of informing instruction, we argue for the superiority of the more restrictive approach. Implications for early childhood intervention are also discussed.

Keywords Early childhood . Education . Intervention . Psychometrics . Curriculum-based assessment

The failures of the relief and rescue efforts in the wake of hurricane Katrina will undoubtedly generate a review of policies that guide how human services agencies serve their constituents. Questions will arise about the quality of the information they acquire and the extent that it contributes to effective decision-making and action. It is perhaps timely, therefore, to undertake such a review as it applies to agencies that serve young children and families. To preview, the dominant model for generating information within early childhood education and intervention is described and contrasted with an alternative model. The utility of these models are then evaluated with respect to ongoing attempts by one Head Start agency to develop assessment procedures that inform teaching. Although this case study concerns an agency devoted to educational outcomes, implications of these conclusions for all agencies serving children and families are discussed.

P. S. Strand (�) Department of Psychology, Washington State University Tri-Cities, 2710 University Drive, Richland, WA 99534, USA e-mail: [email protected]

S. Cerna · J. Skucy Benton Franklin Head Start, Richland, WA, USA

Springer

210 J Child Fam Stud (2007) 16:209–218

Traditional assessment and intervention

The traditional approach to assessment and intervention that predominates in early childhood education and intervention is based on the idea that more information is better information. This approach is illustrated by early childhood education and intervention models that en- courage “providing a complete view of the child’s strengths and capacities” (Meisels & Atkins-Burnett, 2000, p. 233), and also by mandates for increasingly comprehensive as- sessments within Head Start (DHHS, 2000). With respect to the latter, Head Start employs an outcomes framework that targets eight Developmental Domains that include: Language Development, Literacy, Mathematics, Science, Creative Arts, Social and Emotional Devel- opment, Approaches Toward Learning, and Physical Health and Development. Each domain comprises between two and five Domain Elements for a total of 27 Domain Elements, which are further broken down into a total of 100 Indicators. Head Start agencies are legislatively mandated to assess, three times yearly, four specified Domain Elements and nine specified Indicators. In addition, each agency is encouraged to assess at least five additional Domain Elements or Indicators within the unmeasured Domains. Evaluating 18 Elements and/or Indicators three times equates to 54 pieces of information gathered on each child per year. Given an average class size of 17, teachers are called upon to manage, directly or indirectly, 918 pieces of information arising from formal assessments alone. These assessments are in addition to mandated academic readiness and social competence screenings that occur for each child within the first 45 calendar days of the child’s attendance. The assumption under- lying this gargantuan assessment undertaking is that in order to offer effective educational and developmental programs, teachers need a great deal of detailed information about the children they serve.

But do they? Although the idea that more information is better information has intuitive appeal, it is contrary to 50 years of decision-making research (Grove, Zald, Lebow, Snitz, Nelson, 2000; Kleinmuntz, 1990; Sarbin, 1986). Beginning with the work of the eminent psychologist Paul Meehl (1954), numerous studies have illustrated that rather than improv- ing human decision-making, a plethora of information oftentimes impairs it. Computers running very simple algorithms have been shown to outperform well trained and experi- enced clinicians with respect to diagnostic decision-making. Importantly, the advantage held by computers lies not in the fact that they process more information, but in the fact that they are programmed to process less. Clinicians are outperformed not by supercomputers but by algorithms that reflect scores on very few variables.

What is it about attending to less information that makes it more effective than attending to more information? Computers outperform clinicians to the extent that clinicians take into account redundant information or information that is less relevant to the judgment being made. In many cases, the more information made available to clinicians the poorer their performance relative to the computer, although more information leads clinicians to perceive their judgments to be more accurate. Similarly, analyses of expert versus novice performance illustrates that experts outperform novices not because they can account for more information, but because they effectively limit the information they use. These analyses suggest that agencies might improve outcomes by implementing procedures that limit the information available to staff, as opposed to exposing them to a great deal of information and expecting them to sort it out.

It is difficult to imagine how a data gathering process like the one specified by Head Start, as an example, could improve teacher performance. Even if all the measured Indicators and Domain Elements account for unique variance with respect to child development (i.e., they are non-redundant), it is beyond human information processing capabilities to synthesize and

Springer

J Child Fam Stud (2007) 16:209–218 211

prioritize them all. Tellingly, Head Start requiress that these data be gathered, but provides no clear guidelines about how they are to inform educational practice. How did we get to the point where teachers, or early childhood interventionists, spend time and energy taking measurements that provide no clear path to action? Is there a model available that may limit the information we collect to that which is relevant to educational efforts?

Competing models of construct development and assessment

The traditional approach to construct development within early childhood education and in- tervention follows the psychometric tradition. According to Cronbach (1957), psychometric psychology is a deductive science in which constructs arise from theories about human abil- ities and are then given scientific form when methods for their measurement are generated. Importantly, the methods of psychometrics allow for testing the legitimacy of measurement tools, but are silent regarding the legitimacy of constructs. The legitimacy of constructs is established at the level of theorizing—prior to a psychometric analysis.

A theoretical rationale exists for the assessment of each variable targeted by Head Start (DHHS, 2000). Having derived these variables from theory, the goal is to identify measure- ment techniques that illustrate adequate reliability and validity. In addition, factor analytic techniques may be used to identify redundancy with respect to how the constructs relate to one another, thereby reducing the number of variables studied. Nevertheless, even if a manageable number of variables remain, will they be relevant to teachers? It is very possible that they will not. The reason is that the variables have been chosen largely for theoretical reasons rather than for practical reasons. For example, even if only one vari- able having to do with motivation, cognitive ability, fine motor coordination, and language skills, respectively, survives a factor analysis, it may be that none have clear implica- tions for teacher behavior. The measured variables may tell us a great deal about child development without providing information relevant to classroom design, management or instruction.

In contrast to psychometrics, Cronbach (1957) identified experimental psychology as the inductive side of psychology. Rather than accepting constructs that flow from the top (i.e., ideas and general observations), the experimental tradition permits constructs on the basis that they illustrate functional relationships in the context of experimental manipulation. That is, experimentalists are interested in manipulating variables and exploring the effects of such manipulations on other variables. The presentation of these relationships usually takes the form of graphical displays regarding how changes in one variable are a function of changes in another variable. Traditionally, therefore, experimentalists do not put great weight in the reliability and validity of some measure unless that construct has been legitimized with respect to a functional analysis (Donahoe & Palmer, 1994).

To summarize, many constructs that meet the requirements of a deductive-psychometric approach to construct formation do not meet the criteria set by an inductive-experimental approach. In this way, the inductive-experimental approach has natural limitations on variable creation that a deductive-psychometric approach does not.

Functional control as criterion for construct legitimacy

Most educators and clinicians influenced by the inductive-experimental tradition focus on behavioral repertoires that are component elements of desirable complex behaviors, such as

Springer

212 J Child Fam Stud (2007) 16:209–218

reading, problem-solving and rule following (Ducharme, 1996; Nelson, Benner, & Gonzalez, 2005; Shinn, 1989; Strand, Barnes-Holmes & Barnes-Holmes, 2002). A primary assumption arising from this tradition is that mastery in the form of fluency with respect to component skills gives rise to higher-order skills. Oftentimes, what constitutes a functionally important component skill is surprising in its simplicity relative to the higher-order skill (Johnson & Street, 2004). For example, few would suspect that something as seemingly mundane as improving the speed and accuracy of saying and writing numbers could improve performance with respect to higher-order mathematics. Nevertheless, this functional relationship was observed among college students struggling with calculus (Haughton, 1980, cited in Johnson & Layng, 1992). Similarly, compliance on difficult tasks such a picking up toys is improved to the extent that compliance is established with respect to easy tasks (Strand, 2000). Therefore, the inductive-experimental approach utilizes experimental analysis to identify functional relationships between what are thought to be component skills and higher-order skills. Importantly, a component skill is defined as such via the experimental method, and not based on appearances or a priori theoretical considerations (i.e., deduction).

An apparent drawback of this approach is the paucity and simplicity of variables consid- ered legitimate. Might such an austere approach lead to a poverty of legitimate constructs? After all, things that seem intuitively related to child development and welfare may be ignored within such a model. For example, the concept of attachment would be deemed irrelevant to the extent that it could not be manipulated or evaluated repeatedly over time (Gewirtz & Pelàez-Nogueras, 2000). Moreover, variables that may appear simplistic are sometimes thor- oughly investigated from this perspective. In this way, the inductive-experimental perspective takes seriously the primary proposition that guides the natural sciences—simple processes, occurring at certain frequencies and in certain combinations, give rise to complex phenom- ena (Novak & Pàelez, 2002; Thelen & Smith, 1994). In addition to being philosophically consistent with natural science, the approach is appealing because it may prove necessary to overcome problems arising from the limitations of human information processing.

Transitioning to an inductive-experimental assessment strategy

In our experience, attempts to utilize the Developmental Domains to inform teaching have thus far failed. Originally the challenges seemed primarily logistical and included how to gather, score, and distribute data to teachers in a timely manner. Relatedly, faced with so much data, we needed to prioritize it. This latter issue did not worry us too much because it was our intention to conduct factor analyses to identify a list of non-redundant variables. Despite having a strategy for identifying what data would be useful, we still struggled with the problem of how they would be useful. Unfortunately, because a variable explains variance in regression or structural equation models does not mean that it is useful with respect to clinical or educational planning and action.

Another activity mandated by Head Start involves the assessment of certain pre-academic skills, including letter recognition and one-to-one correspondence (object counting). The process for measuring letter recognition involves asking children to identify as many as they can of the 26 letters of the alphabet as they appear on a set of three cards. One-to-one correspondence is measured by having children count objects such as stars or triangles as they appear printed on a card in five rows of five. Both of these constructs meet the legiti- macy criteria of the inductive-experimental approach in that they: (1) represent functional, component skills of identified higher-order constructs, (2) have been shown in controlled situations to be sensitive to changes in environmental conditions (i.e. they can be manipulated

Springer

J Child Fam Stud (2007) 16:209–218 213

through practice), and (3) are amenable to repeated measurement and graphical display. In the next sections of the paper we will describe how, by beginning with only one of these two constructs—letter identification—we hope to generate a comprehensive assessment-based intervention program for preschool education. Importantly, it is our belief that the long-term success of such a program hinges on the extent to which it allows individual teachers max- imum freedom with respect to curriculum development, within the confines of achieving measurable progress on pre-defined pre-academic skills.

Assessment and educational decision-making

Having concluded that the Developmental Domains provide little guidance to teachers, we began to explore in more detail the implications of repeated assessments of constructs that represented components of desired higher-order skills (Shinn, 1989). Because of the increased emphasis at a nationwide level on literacy readiness, improving letter recognition scores became a focus for this Head Start agency. As part of this focus, a phonics-based instructional program was implemented in 4 of 22 classrooms at the beginning of the school year. The program was implemented in the remainder of the classrooms beginning in March.

Figure 1 presents Letter Recognition results over the two-year period 2003–2004 and 2004–2005. The x-axis reflects the number of letters known by children towards the beginning of each school year (in October), and the y-axis reflects the percentage of children who recognized 10 or more letters toward the end of the school year (May of the next year). The results show that for both academic years, the percentage of children who met the 10- letter goal in May was predicted by the number of letters the child recognized previously. Moreover, they illustrate that across all levels of initial letter recognition, children in the 2004–2005 school year had better year end letter recognition scores.

Initially, one might attribute the between-year differences to the introduction of the phonics program in 2004–2005. However, a comparison in January revealed no differences

24%

45%

79% 83%

11%

20% 20%

60%

70%

94%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 Letters 1 Letter 2 Letters 3 Letters 4-9 Letters

C h

ild re

n R

ec o

g n

iz in

g 1

0 L

et te

rs

2003 2004

Fig. 1 Percent of children who identified 10 letters at the end of the school year as a function of the number of letters identified at the beginning of the school year for academic years 2003–2004 (n = 154) and 2004–2005 (n = 128)

Springer

214 J Child Fam Stud (2007) 16:209–218

in letter recognition scores for children not yet exposed to the phonics program and those exposed to it in October. Moreover, end-of-year scores did not differ across classrooms as a function of phonics exposure. We concluded, therefore, that the improved performance reflected an agency-wide commitment to improving letter recognition skills—of which the implementation of the phonics program was only a part.

Presentation of these data at an agency-wide meeting had an energizing effect for agency personnel. What was important to teachers was not whether the results supported or did not support a phonics-based intervention for preschoolers. Rather, they were taken by the potential usefulness of exploring the development, over the course of the school year, of a skill that was shown to be functionally related to changes in the classroom environment. Practical applications of these data were readily apparent. For example, the data revealed that initial assessments provide information about the probable learning trajectory of individual children, and that these trajectories are sensitive to the learning environment. Furthermore, they suggest that to attain certain goals some children would require more letter recogni- tion instruction than others—and this could be predicted in advance. Therefore, these data provide information relevant to individualizing instruction. As a result, teachers welcomed the suggestion that frequent assessments of letter recognition be conducted over the course of the upcoming school year because such assessments would allow them to titrate specific curriculum elements depending on the progress of individual children.

Of course, comparisons like those presented in Fig. 1 could also be made for repeated measures of Developmental Domain scores or other psychometrically-based variables. How- ever, the power of letter recognition as a variable involves the extent that it is functionally related to particular educational interventions. The assessment process inspires speculation about potential changes to the preschool environment, which is something that is under the control of teachers. Psychometric data, on the other hand, typically inspires speculation about innate differences and the adequacy or inadequacy of home environments—neither of which is under the control of teachers.

In addition to allowing for changes to the educational curriculum as a result of the progress made by individual children, frequent assessments of skills such as letter recognition allow for evaluating the effects of different curricula on groups of children. For example, Fig. 2 illustrates letter recognition scores as a function of time for children from different language backgrounds exposed to a phonics program over a 6-month period. These data provide information relevant to frequently asked questions about learning differences across groups and also the differential effects of direct instruction teaching methods. First, these data are consistent with previous studies reporting that phonics instruction may be most helpful for children at highest risk for school failure (Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows, 2001; McConnell, 1982; Nelson et al., 2005). In this case, we see that Spanish-speaking children “catch up” by the end of the term. Second, these data show how time factors into differential performance across these language groups. That is, the graph reveals that the curves for Spanish-speaking compared to English-speaking children look quite similar over the first seven assessments. That is, both groups improved steadily, and the slight differences observed toward the beginning of the year are maintained until sometime after Winter break (between T6 and T7). Interestingly, the performance decline brought about by Winter break is steeper for the English than it is for the Spanish speaking children. After Winter break, the curves show differences, with improvements for Spanish-language children being relatively steeper than for English-speaking children, to the point that, as a group, Spanish speakers out perform English speakers on letter recognition skills at T10.

These data were well received by teachers anxious to identify methods for improving the relative performance of non-English-speaking children, and also for assessing learning

Springer

J Child Fam Stud (2007) 16:209–218 215

0

5

10

15

20

25

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10

A ve

ra g

e N

u m

b er

o f

L et

te rs

R ec

o g

n iz

ed

English

Spanish

Fig. 2 Letter recognition scores for English-speaking (n = 45) and Spanish-speaking (n = 24) preschoolers over the course of 6 months of phonics instruction

trajectories for all children over the course of the school year. Teachers recognized that these data could serve as a benchmark for exploring the letter recognition skills development of children in future years. Unlike normative data gathered on national samples, these data are clearly representative of the population served by this agency and, therefore, represent a valid point of comparison for future samples.

Given that teachers are most interested in data gathered at their own agency, it is our belief that data such as these may serve another important function with respect to improving the educational environment. Specifically, exposure to this type of data—more so than hours of in-service training—has the potential for dispelling the crippling effects on disadvantaged and minority children of low teacher expectations (see Rist, 2000). That is, after examining Fig. 2, it is hard to maintain the belief that the Spanish-speaking children must necessarily lag behind their English-speaking peers with respect to letter recognition skills development. Any agency for which minority children do so, and that implements a tracking process such as that described above, is in a position to intervene to reverse such trends. Stereotypes are best combated with data rather than rhetoric.

Feedback as intervention

A working hypothesis that will guide our future efforts is that, given clear feedback about child progress toward objective goals, teachers will oftentimes succeed in generating methods for achieving those goals. But unless teachers can see what is happening with respect to learning, they will be unable to act in effective ways. Said differently, given timely and relevant feedback about child progress toward specified goals, teachers will identify the means for achieving those goals. In all likelihood, however, different teachers will generate different methods. Nevertheless, while appearing to differ in terms of content, these different methods may be functionally equivalent in that they produce similar outcomes.

A corollary of this assumption is that only for children for whom a teacher’s chosen methods are failing to generate desired outcomes will agency personnel encourage alternative educational plans. Moreover, planning will occur with respect to the observable progress of individual children, and not with respect to fidelity to popular curricula. That is, to the extent

Springer

216 J Child Fam Stud (2007) 16:209–218

that children are meeting specified goals, teachers have great freedom with respect to how they structure classroom activities. Given productive feedback, teachers should naturally gravitate toward intervention programs that work. Moreover, when even the best curricula fail in a given circumstance, ongoing assessment data allow for generating alternative plans in a timely manner. By timely, we refer to curriculum changes that can be assessed for effectiveness within weeks rather than months of implementation.

That performance may be enhanced by simply providing timely feedback to teachers is a testable hypothesis. It is our plan to test it with respect to one-to-one correspondence skills by providing bi-monthly feedback to teachers for each child regarding this skill. No specific math curriculum or training has been implemented, although teachers have been made aware that local school districts and national Head Start have identified counting 10 objects as minimum competence for Kindergarteners. It is our belief that providing teachers with an expectation and frequent feedback about performance will result in improved performance. Such a finding would suggest that, as is the case with other aspects of human performance (i.e. weight loss, smoking, gambling), frequent feedback that tracks performance improves performance (Rachlin, 2000). Although this is likely not true with respect to the teaching of some skills or for poorly trained teachers, we believe that it will hold true with respect to the teaching of object counting by skilled teachers. Such a finding would illustrate that educational improvements may be achieved by implementing feedback mechanisms with respect to teachable skills.

Assessment and early childhood intervention

Although the example we have presented is concerned primarily with early childhood edu- cation, the principles of the inductive-experimental approach apply also to early childhood intervention. Indeed, the drawbacks of the deductive-psychometric approach to assessment have been noted within that field, and efforts are underway to establish approaches to assess- ment that are influenced more by ecological validity concerns rather than concerns about reliability and construct validity (Meisels & Atkins-Burnett, 2000). Nevertheless, there ap- pears to be little or no call for limiting assessment within clinical and agency settings to constructs that may be subject to manipulation. Take, for example, the description of what constitutes some of the abilities deemed relevant with respect to early childhood intervention:

“Can the child get around on different floor surfaces? Does the child play and explore on calm days but tend to sit, watch, and suck his or her thumb when things get confusing? Can the child draw a circle on a horizontal surface but not on an easel? Does the child need to master a simple gestural symbol system in order to communicate with peers, although family members respond to different, highly familiar cues from the child? Answers to these questions lead to a more differentiated view of the child’s skills and resources, and ultimately to a more individualized set of interventions” (Meisels & Atkins-Burnett, 2000, p. 235).

Clearly, the assumption of this quotation is that assessing these variables will lead to better intervention outcomes. But what assurance do we have that that is true? Our only guarantee comes from studies in which attempts are made to manipulate these variables. Therefore, to the extent that these variables have not been shown to be responsive to intervention, their measurement is of questionable value in clinic or agency settings. That does not mean, however, that their measurement is questionable in all settings. For example, such variables should be explored by researchers interested in identifying the extent to which they may be

Springer

J Child Fam Stud (2007) 16:209–218 217

manipulated, and with respect to the possibly wide-ranging effects of such manipulation. Such efforts represent attempts to evaluate functional utility, and should be undertaken within naturalistic settings. Nevertheless, because a construct is a legitimate focus of research does not make it legitimate with respect to intervention.

Feedback in early childhood intervention

The challenges of implementing an inductive-experimental assessment procedure for early childhood intervention may be greater than they are for early childhood education. That is so because the component skills underlying academic competence are easier to identify and measure than are the component skills underlying healthy social and family functioning. Nevertheless, developing an assessment program based on constructs that are functionally related to intervention may provide a framework for focused, evidence-based interventions in agency settings (Repp & Horner, 1999).

Fortunately, a broad research base points to a set of infant and toddler social behaviors that have been shown, within naturalistic contexts, to be functionally related to interventions (Novak & Pelàez, 2004). These variables include, but are not limited to, smiling, verbal behavior, aggression, tantruming, imitation, and social cooperation. In addition to child variables, caregiver and family variables may be important targets as well (Cavell & Strand, 2002; Wahler, 1997). To the extent that these variables can be frequently assessed, they could serve as the basis for an inductive-experimental approach to assessment and intervention.

Conclusions

A problem with assessment as it is currently practiced in educational and agency settings is that much information is collected and disseminated that has no clear implications for intervention. It is our belief that the treatment utility of assessment is maximized to the extent that information is limited to that which has clear implications for intervention. Moreover, frequent feedback regarding performance on a limited set of manipulable variables may improve teacher and clinician performance, in lieu of directly altering educational or clinical practices. In this way, a procedure that is restrictive with respect to assessment may afford teachers and clinicians greater freedom with respect to curriculum development and intervention. Under these circumstances, we may find that teachers and clinicians generate a wide array of effective, individualized, early childhood interventions.

References

Cavell, T. A., & Strand, P. S. (2002). Parent-based interventions for aggressive, antisocial children: Adapting to a bilateral lens. In L. Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in parent-child relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families/Head Start

Bureau. (2000). The Head Start Path to Positive Child Outcomes. Washington, DC: Author. Donahoe, J. W., & Palmer, D. C. (1994). Learning and complex behavior. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Ducharme, J. M. (1996). Errorless compliance training: Optimizing clinical effectiveness. Behavior Modifi-

cation, 20, 259–280. Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students

learn to read: Evidence from the national reading panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 393–447.

Springer

218 J Child Fam Stud (2007) 16:209–218

Gewirtz & Pelàez-Nogueras, (2000). Infant emotions under the positive-reinforcer control of caregiver at- tention and touch. In J. C. Leslie & D. Blackman (Eds.), Experimental and applied analysis of human behavior (pp. 271–292). Reno, NV: Context Press.

Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19–30.

Harbin, G. L., McWilliam, R. A., & Gallagher, J. J. (2000). Services for young children with disabilities and their families. In J. P. Shonkoff, & S. J. Meisels (Eds.). Handbook of early childhood intervention. (2nd ed.; pp. 387–415). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Haughton, E. C. (1980). Practicing practices: Learning by activity. Journal of Precision Teaching, 1, 3–20. Hayes, S. C., Nelson, R. O., & Jarrett, R. B. (1987). The treatment utility of assessment: A functional approach

to evaluating assessment quality. American Psychologist, 42, 963–974. Johnson, K. J., & Layng, T. V. J. (1992). Breaking the structuralist barrier: Literacy and numeracy with fluency.

American Psychologist, 47, 1475–1490. Johnson, K. J., & Street, E. M. (2004). The Morningside Model of generative instruction: What it means to

leave no child behind. Concord, MA: Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies. Kleinmuntz, (1990). Why we still use our heads instead of formulas: Toward an integrative approach. Psy-

chological Bulletin, 107, 296–310. McConnell, B. B. (1982). Bilingual education: Will the benefits last? Bilingual Education Paper Series, 5 (8).

Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University. Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Meisels, S., & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2000). The elements of early childhood assessment. In J. P. Shonkoff,

& S. J. Meisels (Eds.). Handbook of early childhood intervention (2nd ed.; pp. 231–257). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., & Gonzalez, J. (2005). An investigation of the effects of a prereading intervention on the early literacy skills of children at risk of emotional disturbance and reading problems. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13, 3–12.

Novak, G., & Pelàez, M. (2004). Child and adolescent development: A behavioral systems approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rachlin, H. (2000). The science of self-control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Repp, A., & Horner, R. H. (Eds.) (1999). Functional analysis of problem behavior: From effective assessment

to effective support. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Rist, R. C. (2000). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto

education. Harvard Educational review, 70, 266–301. Sarbin, T. R. (1986). Prediction and clinical inference: Forty years later. Journal of Personality Assessment,

50, 362–369. Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford. Strand, P. S. (2000). A modern behavioral perspective on child conduct disorder: Integrating behavioral

momentum and matching theory. Clinical Psychology Review, 20, 593–615. Strand, P. S., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2002). Educating the whole child: Implications of

behaviorism as a science of meaning. Journal of Behavioral Education 12, 105–117. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of language and cognition.

Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books. Wahler, R. G. (1997). On the origins of children’s compliance and opposition: Family context, reinforcement,

and rules. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 6, 191–208.

Springer

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (None) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (ISO Coated) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJDFFile false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Perceptual /DetectBlends true /ColorConversionStrategy /sRGB /DoThumbnails true /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /SyntheticBoldness 1.00 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 524288 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts false /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 150 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages false /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 150 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 600 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org?) /PDFXTrapped /False /Description << /DEU <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> /ENU <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> >> >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [2834.646 2834.646] >> setpagedevice

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION—ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION: WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS

gilbert r. gredler

University of South Carolina

The field of early childhood education has undergone several changes over the years. Current is- sues concerning assessment-intervention programs for kindergarten and first grade children are ex- amined. The future state of the field and how it will impact the role of the school psychologist are discussed. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Introduction

The purpose of this article is twofold. One is to discuss four trends in the assessment and in- struction of “at-risk” children in kindergarten and first grade that are predicted to continue into the next millennium. (1) Changes in theoretical focus; (2) increasing emphasis on early childhood in- terventions; (3) increased discussion of flaws in assessments to identify “at-risk” children; and (4) the influence of parental concerns and legal decisions. The second is to discuss the impact of these trends on the role of the school psychologist.

Emergent Trends

The four emergent trends that are predicted to continue into the next millennium are: (1) changes in theoretical focus; (2) increasing emphasis on early childhood interventions; (3) increased discus- sion of flaws in assessments to identify “at-risk” children; and (4) the influence of parental concerns and legal decisions.

Changes in Theoretical Focus

School readiness is the concept traditionally used to identify the essential characteristics or re- quirements for the young child to benefit from education. The term “readiness” implies that the child is able to benefit from a structured school experience. There are a number of differing theoretical perspectives about the nature of school readiness, and these perspectives have a distinct bearing on educational practices. For many years, the maturational perspective has predominated among school personnel. This theory views the child as an organism whose readiness inextricably is linked with biological unfolding. It is best described by such maturationalists as Grant (1989) and Uphoff & Gilmore (1985).

From the 1930s to the 1980s, this view was the major theoretical perspective accepted by schools. Its impact was felt in a number of areas. The maturationalists fought to increase the entry age for school. Over the last thirty-five years (1963–1998), the required entry age for kindergarten and first grade has risen steadily. It was stated that children needed “time to grow.” Therefore, the use of retention for the “immature” child, as well as the establishment of prekindergartens and tran- sition rooms for the “unready” child, were the favored intervention approaches. Though important psychologists such as Gates, as early as 1937, provided practical research results demonstrating that appropriate instructional methods and curriculum materials were closely linked to a child’s progress in reading, Gesellian psychology remained dominant in American schools.

In the early 1980s, another theory took center stage. Robert Gagné (1977, 1985), an education- al psychologist, emphasized the role of the environment and/or the curriculum in human/behavioral development. His cumulative-skills perspective emphasized that three principles contributed to suc- cessful learning. They are (1) providing instruction on the set of component tasks that build toward the final task, (2) ensuring that each component task is mastered, and (3) sequencing the component tasks to ensure optimal transfer to the final task. The importance of the cumulative-skills model is

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 37(1), 2000 © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0033-3085/00/010073-07

73

that education should identify the sequences of skills that build on each other and proceed to teach these skills. Thus, Gagné laid the groundwork for the importance of designing and implementing ef- fective instructional approaches to help the child progress in learning.

In the 1980s, the perspective advanced by Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist of the 1930s, be- gan to influence school practices related to readiness. One of Vygotsky’s main contributions was his questioning of the definition of developmental level as the tasks that the child can carry out inde- pendently. He stated that a better measure of child’s potential for development consists of tasks that the child can complete in collaboration with an adult. Vygotsky’s concept of readiness makes use of the ‘zone of proximal development.’ This concept places major emphasis on the child’s interactive social experiences with more knowledgeable members of society (Gredler, 1992b).

Heartening for the field of early childhood education is the appearance during the 1980s and 1990s of a number of sophisticated theories (from psychologists such as Gagné, Piaget, Vygotsky, and Clay) concerning the development of the child—theories that questioned the saliency of the mat- urational approach. It is projected that these theoretical perspectives will gain in influence. Despite the entrenchment of the maturational approach in many public schools, the popularity of the matu- rational definition of readiness is on the wane.

Increasing Emphasis on Early Childhood Interventions

The introduction of new intervention programs for young children has been more influential than any other event within the last thirty years in reducing the need for individual assessments of young children by the school psychologist. These sophistical programs have demonstrated that they will be able to handle a number of learning problems of “at-risk” children in an effective manner. For example, the Writing to Read program (Martin & Frieberg, 1986) was added to the kindergarten program in the Tulsa school system. Its use resulted in a large number of children improving their readiness status despite their original low ‘developmental age’ on the Gesell test (Zenka & Keatley, 1985).

The introduction of a Reading Recovery program is another intervention that has aided a num- ber of first-grade children, who had been referred for learning difficulties, to progress successfully. This program perhaps has been the most influential of the early-intervention programs to date. Chil- dren who demonstrate poor performance in reading and writing are selected for the program. Al- though the target group consists of the lowest achievers in these two skill areas, selection does not depend on screening by the school psychologist or elementary-school counselor. No child is excluded on the basis of IQ, language background, learning-disability status, or ethnic background (Clay, 1987).

The program provides individual tutoring for the children 30 minutes per day for 12 to 20 weeks. The children are removed from the classroom for the tutoring and work with a specially trained teacher. A critical feature of the program is that the first two weeks are spent in establishing a close relationship with the child in an assessment in a thorough manner of the child’s learning strategies and knowledge. Thus the program makes use of the important features of therapeutic tutoring, as out- lined by Rie (1974). Included are reducing the child’s fear of the teaching adult; providing an atmo- sphere where concern about possible failure is reduced; and providing an emotionally supportive at- mosphere wherein children will feel comfortable in using reading strategies they already know and in learning new ones. Children are not referred to special education for classification as possible learning-disabled cases. Instead, appropriate intervention is provided as soon as signs of difficulties with the reading process are noticed.

An important investigation of how a Reading Recovery program reduced the incidence of learn- ing disability placement in one school system was undertaken by Lyons and Beaver (1995). A large number of low-achieving first-grade students in Ohio were classified as learning disabled (LD) by

74 Gredler

school psychologists prior to entering first grade. Implementation of a Reading Recovery program in the schools resulted in a reduction of children classified as learning disabled from 36% to 6% over a five-year period. At the same time, the number of first-grade retentions was reduced by two thirds. Such a development significantly reduces the need for individual psychoeducational assessments.

It is also important to note that when Reading Recovery students were followed from the first through the fifth grades in a California school district, more than 75% of the children who received the full Reading Recovery program demonstrated average or above-average scores on standardized reading tests at the end of the fifth grade (Brown, Denton, Kelly, & Neal, 1999).

Another example of the effectiveness of Reading Recovery is seen in developments in a New England state. New Hampshire is a state that, up to the 1980s, had been known for its allegiance to the Gesellian maturational philosophy. As a result of commitment to this belief, New Hampshire schools placed heavy reliance on placement in transition rooms and first-grade retentions as the schools’ solution for children with possible learning difficulties.

The majority of school psychologists in that state followed the Gesellian approach and utilized the Gesell test for screening children as ‘developmentally immature.’ However, due to the interven- tion of Helen Schotanus, an elementary-education consultant from the State Department of Educa- tion, the legislature funded and implemented the Reading Recovery program for many schools in the state. In the past nine years, the number of children enrolled in transition rooms has plummeted from 2,397 to 732 placements, a decline of more than 69%. It is predicted that the influence of the theo- retical perceptions of Gagné, Vygotsky, Clay, and like-minded educators and psychologists will pre- dominate in the millennium.

Another helpful intervention program involved the implementation of a program modeled af- ter Slavin and colleagues’ Success for All (1992). Implemented in six disadvantaged schools in Aus- tralia, the program’s emphasis was on the provision of an early language and library curriculum for kindergarten students. The children made significantly more progress on a number of literacy mea- sures (Center, Freeman, & Robertson, 1998). The authors remark: [The data presented] “demon- strates graphically and substantially greater literacy success for disadvantaged or delayed students can be routinely ensured in schools through teacher commitment, parent involvement and the best available classroom programs” (pp. 167–168).

Issues in the Screening and Assessment Process

Screening programs for school readiness are currently in place in many school systems today. However, a number of problems are inherent in their design and use—problems of which the user may not be aware.

These problems include the following: First, if a child entering kindergarten is labeled as ‘at risk,’ we actually are speculating the child will have difficulty in learning because poor performance in reading has not appeared yet, and in most instances, formal instruction has not been introduced (Potton, 1983). Second, language problems, delays in neurodevelopment, and behavioral problems may not be signs of learning problems. Instead, they may reflect problems in children who are mild- ly retarded or maladjusted (Keogh & Bernheimer, 1996). Other factors include variations in the be- havior of the developing child, which, in turn, lead to low reliability of results from test measures. The large error in predicting who is truly ‘at risk’ is also related to the skill of the teacher, the in- structional methods in use, the frequency of school changes, and frequency of attendance of the child. These factors do not enter into the predictions of at-risk status. Therefore, predicting the outcome of a young child’s performance on either academic or behavioral measures is subject to a substantial rate of error. At-risk groups formed on the basis of a score from a screening procedure will exclude a number of vulnerable children (false negatives) and will also include many children who will turn out not to be really at risk (false positives) (Kingslake, 1983). Misidentifying children as false pos-

The Future of Early Childhood Education 75

itives and placing them in an intervention program that is unnecessary for them obviously will dis- tort the seemingly beneficial effects of the particular intervention program.

The overall effectiveness of a prediction matrix often is misunderstood. The reason is that the high-effectiveness index reported for an instrument frequently reflects more the ability of the screen- ing measure to predict (accurately) the academic performance of the children who were considered originally not to be at risk (Leach, 1981). The high prediction rate of those who do succeed masks the large error rate in the prediction of who are at risk. Leach (1981) also determined that screening procedures were usually more accurate in predicting successful children than those who might fail (p. 192).

Many American educators and psychologists support the use of screening and readiness tests to such an extent that alternative approaches that could be used to monitor performance of the students and to improve academic functioning often are not attempted. Utilization of teacher ratings in place of psychometric measures will not necessarily improve decision making as teachers also make many errors in attempting to predict learning/behavioral problems in kindergarten and first-grade children.

Because the high-error rate in predicting who is at risk for learning problems is inherent in so many of the developmental screening and readiness measures available today, their use in the com- ing years definitely will decline.

Dworkin (1989) also has spoken out sharply against the use of developmental-screening and school-readiness tests. He suggests a process of ‘developmental surveillance.’ Such surveillance would include obtaining relevant developmental information, engaging in careful observation of children, and attending to parental concerns (pp. 620–621). School psychologists, working in con- junction with early childhood education personnel, effectively could carry out all of these functions.

The Role of the School Psychologist in Early Childhood Education

The four trends that previously have been described will obviously impact the role of the school psychologist in the coming years. How the school psychologist might function is now discussed.

The assessment role of the school psychologist will be expanded rather than diminished; how- ever, it will take on quite a different character. Gone will be the simple IQ/Achievement discrepan- cy reports now used to gain entrance to LD status for first- and second-grade children. Gone will be screening measures such as curriculum-based assessment (CBA) with its emphasis only on the child’s reading rate. Instead, the school first will be engaged in more meaningful diagnostic prac- tices. Consideration of cognitive abilities will be only one facet of the assessment process when a child is referred for possible learning problems. The school psychologist will be involved in (1) de- veloping an initial diagnostic formulation; (2) attempting to delineate the learning problem in more specific detail; (3) analyzing the referral question from school personnel; (4) addressing teacher and parental concerns; and (5) helping coordinate an intervention plan (Aylward, 1994).

School psychologists will utilize algorithms or “decision trees” (Alyward, 1994) to aid them in arriving at a meaningful diagnosis. The same approach to meaningful assessment is mirrored in the diagnostic model presented by Berninger (1998). She states, “We need a multi-domain develop- mental approach to differential diagnosis of school age disorders . . .” (p. 97). Five domains or areas are suggested for assessment: (1) developmental history; (2) coexisting medical conditions; (3) brain functions (i.e., motor, memory, language, perceptual, executive functions, etc); (4) school function- ing, and (5) family, school, and classroom stressors and supports (pp. 97–99).

In addition to the use of the above-mentioned diagnostic models, school psychologists and teachers working with kindergarten and first-grade children will incorporate and utilize the concepts of emergent literacy as developed by Marie Clay (1987). The school psychologist will also be as- sessing the young child’s competency in the following areas: directional learning, concepts about print, and sequential ability in writing, and ability to locate letters and words. The school psycholo- gist also will be utilizing well-constructed criterion-referenced measures.

76 Gredler

To help implement the increased attention to the learning problems of young children, the school system will restructure the kindergarten, first and second grades into one separate unit.

A school psychologist will be attached full time to such a unit depending on the size of the class enrollment. In addition to the psychoeducational assessment role, the school psychologist will have an expanded consultation function. Because a student’s behavior is often the result of complex in- teractions between the student and the school setting, there always will be a need for a school psy- chologist to bring expertise, understanding, objectivity, and impartiality in making decisions about children.

The Consultant Role

The school psychologist also will carry out consultant activities. Dessent (1992) states that the behavioral method is “currently looking distinctly yellow at the edges.” It is inadequate to cope with the increasingly complex problems with which [school] psychologists are confronted (p. 51). To fa- cilitate the consultation process, “models based on individual consultations are unlikely to be total- ly adequate for this purpose, given the greater complexity of group interactions” (Sigston, 1992, p. 28). Therefore, as we enter the millennium, the school psychologist in early childhood education also will be trained in organizational consultant approaches as described by Schein (1987, 1988) and Ar- gyris (1976).

Calls for assessment of children for possible retention in kindergarten and first grade will have disappeared since no such decisions have to be made either at the end of kindergarten or first grade. Secondly, young children will not be assessed for learning-disabled placement since more appropri- ate interventions will have been put in place. This obviously creates more time for the school psy- chologist to be engaged in consultation and counseling activities.

The Influence of Parental Concerns and Legal Decisions

Unnoticed by many professionals in psychology and education has been the increase in parental concerns about various facets of present-day early childhood education. Parents have become more active in the schools, and they are increasingly vocal about their concerns. Analysis of interviews of parents in Florida, New Hampshire, Tennessee, and Texas indicated concerns about (1) school screen- ing and assessment practices; (2) lack of definable criteria for retention; (3) the focus on ‘late’ birth- days to the exclusion of other factors considered more indicative of competence to begin school; (4) legal issues, (5) the social effects of retention, and (6) the nature of the curriculum (Gredler, 1992a).

Among the specific comments were the following:

(1) “We’ve been told that the school never retains children for academic reasons; only for so- cial reasons. What are the criteria? We are never told of the specific reasons.”

(2) “The teacher told me my child will probably be in the transition room next year. How can they know that it will be the best placement when my child has been in kindergarten only six weeks?”

(3) “My child has been labeled ‘emotionally immature’; also ‘developmentally young.’ What are the criteria and who decides?”

(4) “My child was tested with four readiness tests during the kindergarten year—A Gesell and Metropolitan in October and the same tests in April. Isn’t that too much testing?”

An important legal decision also has impacted the field of early childhood education and has fostered increased parental involvement. In 1987, a mother, objecting to the assignment of her daugh- ter to a developmental kindergarten, brought a class-action suit against the New York State Depart- ment of Education. The legal action resulted in the following decisions: (a) The child was to be trans- ferred to a regular kindergarten, and no kindergarten child could now be placed in a developmental kindergarten without the written consent from the parents; (b) the court stated that the readiness test in use (the Gesell) did not meet professional standards of reliability and validity and thus was inap-

The Future of Early Childhood Education 77

propriate. Also placement in the developmental kindergarten was based solely on the results of this one measure; (c) the court stated that children could not be placed in a separate class with separate educational programming and removed from the regular school environment “without first demon- strating that such children possess handicapping conditions, the nature and severity of which pre- cludes regular placement . . .” (State of New York, Department of Education, 1987, p. 19); (d) the school used two kindergarten teachers in the evaluation process. No other specialists were involved in the evaluation and placement process; other disciplines needed to be involved.

Placement procedures for prekindergarten and transition-room programs had become a nation- al problem by the late 1980s. Two states, Pennsylvania and Michigan, have incorporated into their State Department of Education codes regulations ensuring certain rights to parents of kindergarten and first-grade children. These regulations state that children who meet the entrance age for kinder- garten or first grade cannot be required to be placed in a transition or prekindergarten class.

The increasing concerns of parents, federal court decisions, and state department of education regulations described in this section, will have a clear impact on early childhood education in the coming years.

Summary

A number of aspects about the future direction of early childhood education have been pre- sented. These issues are summarized below:

(A) There is a definite trend to change screening practices for kindergarten and first-grade stu- dents. ‘High-stakes’screening, wherein decisions about a child’s placement in kindergarten or first grade are made on the basis of a brief screening measure, will disappear in future years.

(B) The important contributions to the instructional climate that has come from the field of ear- ly childhood education, educational psychology, and reading will continue to provide im- portant insights in educating our young children.

(C) Legal decisions and parental concerns will continue to reinforce the importance of provid- ing a positive school climate for our young children.

(D) As full-time members of the early childhood education team, the school psychologists’ role will include (1) psychoeducational assessment, (2) consultation, and (3) counseling func- tions within the new organizational structure of primary education. Kindergarten, first, and second grades now will be combined into one primary-educational unit. Assessment of children for possible retention in kindergarten and first grade will have disappeared since no such decisions will be made at the end of kindergarten or first grade. Children will not need to be assessed for transition-room or LD placement since more appropriate interven- tions will be in place. Obviously, this will create more time for the school psychologist to engage in consultation and counseling activities.

(E) More emphasis also will be placed on understanding the problems and functions of the school as a complex organization. The school psychologist will be available to talk to par- ents who are concerned about their children’s learning, and early childhood education teachers will welcome the supportive role of the school psychologist.

References

Argyris, C. (1976). Leadership, learning and changing the status quo. Organizational Dynamics, Winter, 29–43. Aylward, G.P. (1994). Practitioner’s guide to developmental and psychological testing. New York: Plenum. Berninger, V.W. (1998). Guides for intervention: Reading, writing. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Brown, W., Denton, E., Kelly, P., & Neal, J. (1999). Reading recovery effectiveness: A five year success story in San Luis

Coastal Unified School District. ERS Spectrum, 17(1), 3–12. Center, Y., Freeman, L., & Robertson, G. (1998). An evaluation of school wide early language and literacy (SWELL) in six

disadvantaged schools. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 45(2), 143–172. Clay, M.M. (1979). The early detection of reading difficulties. Exeter, NH: Heinemann. Clay, M.M. (1987). Implementing reading recovery: Systematic adaptations to an educational innovation. New Zealand Jour-

nal of Educational Studies, 22, 35–38.

78 Gredler

Dessent, T. (1992). Education psychologists and ‘the case for individual casework.’ In S. Wolfendale, T. Bryans, M. Fox, A. Labram, & A. Sigston (Eds.), The profession and practice of educational psychology: Future directions (pp. 34–48). London: Cessell.

Dworkin, P.H. (1989). Developmental screening—expecting the impossible? Pediatrics, 83, 619–622. Gagné, R.M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Gagné, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Gates, A.I. (1937). The necessary mental age for beginning reading. Elementary School Journal, 8, 497–508. Grant, J. (1989). Theory is reality. School Success Network, Fall, 1, 4. Gredler, G.R. (1992a). School readiness: Assessment and educational issues. Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing

Co. Gredler, M.E. (1992b). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Keogh B.K., & Bernheimer, L.P. (1996). Learning disabilities in preschool children. In F.R. Brown, G.H. Aylward, & B.K.

Keogh (Eds.), Diagnosis and management of learning disabilities (3rd ed., pp. 19–36), San Diego, CA: Singular Pub- lishing Group.

Kingslake, B.J. (1983). The predictive (in)accuracy of on-entry to school screening procedures when used to anticipate learn- ing difficulties. British Journal of Special Education, 10, 24–26.

Leach, T.J. (1981). Early screening for school learning difficulties: Efficacy problems and alternatives. Occasional papers. Division of Educational and Child Psychology. British Psychological Society, 5, 46–59.

Lyons, C.A., & Beaver, J. (1995). Reducing retention and learning disability placement through reading recovery: An edu- cationally sound, cost-effective choice. In R.L. Allington & S.A. Walmsley (Eds.), No quick fix: Rethinking literacy pro- grams in American elementary schools (pp. 116–136). New York: Teachers College Press.

Majsterek, D.J., & Ellenwood, A.E. (1995). Phonological awareness and beginning reading: Evaluation of a school-based screening procedure. Journal of Learning disabilities, 28(7), 449–456.

Martin, J., & Friedberg, A. (1986). Writing to Read. New York: Warner. Potton, A. (1983). Screening. London: Macmillan Education. Rie, H.E. (1974). Therapeutic tutoring for underachieving children. Professional Psychology, 5, 70–75. Schein, E. (1987). Process consultation (Vol. I). Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley. Schein, E. (1988). Process consultation (Vol. II). Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley. Sigston, A. (1992). Making a difference for children: The education psychologist as empowerer of problem-solving alliances.

In S. Wolfendale, T. Bryans, M. Fox, A. Labram, & A. Sigston (Eds.), The professional and practice of educational psy- chology: Future directions (pp. 19–33). London: Cassell.

Slavin, R.E. Madden, N.A., Karweit, N.L., & Wasik, B.A. (1992). Success for all: A relentless approach to prevention and early interventions in elementary schools. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

State of New York Department of Education (1987). Appeal case of Diane and David LIE3FRED, Nov. 30. Uphoff, J.K., & Gilmore, J. (1985). Pupil age at school entrance—how many are ready for success? Educational Leadership,

43, 86–90. Zenka, L.L., & Keatley, M.J. (1985). Progress toward excellence: Tulsa’s kindergarten program. ERS Spectrum, Fall (3),

3–8.

The Future of Early Childhood Education 79

Copyright of Psychology in the Schools is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Observation and Early Childhood Teaching: Evolving Fundamentals

Author(s): Stuart Reifel

Source: YC Young Children , March 2011, Vol. 66, No. 2 (March 2011), pp. 62-65

Published by: National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42730724

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to YC Young Children

This content downloaded from ������������132.174.248.234 on Mon, 31 Oct 2022 20:36:52 UTC������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

t/5

a

2 Cu c

©

Our Proud

Heritage Observation

and

€arly Childhood

Teaching Evolving

Fundamentals

Stuart Reifel

Let them observe, lead their

pupils to observe, and render

themselves and their pupils conscious of their observations.

– Friedrich Froebel

Observation of children has a long history in early childhood teaching. Early nineteenth-century German educator Friedrich Froebel (1782- 1852) wanted kindergarten teachers to be observers of children (Froebel [1826] 1902) so they could learn how children think and learn, build on their interests, and understand the

importance of their play to growth and development. He believed that children learn to solve problems and think about life, science, and art as

they manipulate objects and observe the results of their actions. Teachers

were also seen as learners, about their

students: they needed to observe to understand how children were

developing.

To this day there is a continuous emphasis on classroom observation of young children in education texts and professional preparation. To under- stand each developmentally unique child (compared to other children) requires teachers to use observation and interpretation skills. Standardized school assessments fail to provide this kind of information about chil-

dren. In the past decade of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, with US society placing more emphasis on testing and academic curriculum, many teachers are expected to give more attention to children's written

work than to things that teachers can actually see children do. It is worth our while to reconsider the impor- tance of teacher observation and how

our thinking about observation has evolved over the years.

From the past to the present

When Froebel encouraged teachers to observe and make themselves con-

scious of their observations, he had

in mind something very different from how we think about observation in the

twenty-first century. Teachers then were to think about how children with

Froebel's gifts and occupations were

Stuart Reifel, EdD, is professor of early childhood education at the University of Texas at Austin. He teaches undergraduate courses on childhood play and cur- riculum and works with graduate students on research related to play, teaching, and curriculum. Stuart's major focus is play theory and practice.

Our Proud Heritage is published in the March, July, and November issues of Young Children and features contributing writers who offer insights on past practice, knowledge, and leadership in early childhood education. For submission guidelines, go to www.naeyc.org/yc/columns/ourproudheritage or contact one of the coeditors: Edna Runnels Ranck at [email protected], or Charlotte Anderson at [email protected].

This column is available in an online archive at www.naeyc.org/yc/columns.

62 Young Children • March 201 1

This content downloaded from ������������132.174.248.234 on Mon, 31 Oct 2022 20:36:52 UTC������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

T3

S JC,

£ "S £ ©

playing their way to an understanding of nature, beauty, and divine unity.

Froebel wanted teachers to see

how children developed as they manipulated specific objects (gifts and occupations he designed for their education), such as blocks for design construction, parquetry shapes for picture creation, paper strips for weaving, and drawing forms (Brosterman 1997).

Teachers knew what to look for as

the child manipulated these objects from simpler forms (such as stacked block piles) to more complicated configurations (such as symmetrical configurations of blocks that resem- bled flowers). They used their obser- vations to nurture children toward the

next developmental object manipula- tion, assuming that children were acquiring the knowledge that Froebel built into his play objects. Today's teachers have a broader range of

developmental and learning concerns than those identified by Froebel.

The Child Study Movement. Through his Child Study Movement, G. Stanley Hall (1844-1924) and the many graduate students who followed him asked teachers to observe and

interview children to understand their

developmental stages and ultimate readiness for school learning. Using direct observation and systematic ver- bal interviews with children, teachers could learn about children's interests

and thinking. Hall's recapitulation theory

described how children re-create the

evolutionary history of our species. Through play they outgrow their "primitive" origins on the way to the civilizing benefits of education. Observation allowed teachers to rec-

ognize the signs that children were still playing in ways that made them too immature to benefit from academics.

Research into practice. Hall and many who followed him wanted sci- entific research to serve as a basis for

teachers to think about children's edu-

cation, including the physical, social, emotional, and intellectual aspects of human development.

John Dewey (1859-1952) encour- aged educators to see the seeds of democratic social relationships in the classroom play of young children. Arthur Jersild (1902-1994) wanted teachers to observe and have con-

versations with children to under-

stand more about their interests, as

well as their motor, language, social, emotional, cognitive, and imaginative learning. Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) and Jean Piaget (1896-1980) focused on their theories of what we know

about children's thinking; they also showed us how to observe the ways children make sense of their worlds.

For nearly two centuries, research- ers used their observations and con-

versations with children to identify new aspects of how children behave in classroom activity and, perhaps more

Why Observation? How Teachers Benefit

To build relationships with children

• Get to know each child

• Respect and appreciate children • Connect with children

• Foster children's competence and success

To become a skilled observer

• What do I want to find out?

• When and where should I observe?

• How do I record what I observe?

• How do I organize the information I collect?

To observe and document

effectively

• Observe over time

• Watch children in varied situations

• Record what you observe

• Organize the information you collect

Adapted from J.R. Jabloň, A.L. Dombro, and M.L. Dichtelmiller, The Power of Observation from Birth through Eight, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies & NAEYC, 2007), iii. © The authors. Used with permission.

important, to provide new ways educa- tors could reflect on or become con-

scious of what those activities mean

for children's education. Interestingly, while play is defined differently throughout the changing eras, it con- tinues to be a major focus of observa- tion (Frost, Wortham, & Reifel 2008).

Teacher preparation. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centu- ries, textbooks for teachers of young children were prescriptive, explain- ing how to get children to march to music and how to lead counting drills. Frequent descriptions of chil- dren's activities reflected teachers'

use of observation (for examples, see McMillan 1921).

Young Children • March 201 1 63

This content downloaded from ������������132.174.248.234 on Mon, 31 Oct 2022 20:36:52 UTC������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

a

£ e

©

With increased research on social

relationships, emotional needs, and children's interests for teachers

to draw on, early childhood texts began to explicitly call on teachers to observe and interview children so

they could begin to nurture all dimen- sions of the "whole" child. Suggestions of what to look for when observing varied, depending on the findings of new research about children.

Teachers might look for motor, social, and emotional skills and understand-

ings about aesthetics and nature and the physical world (for examples, see Landreth 1942). They could observe children as scientists, mathemati- cians, and players (Gans, Stendler, & Almy 1952) or see how children socially adjust and deal with feelings (for examples, see Read 1960).

Observation as a new asset

Eventually, observation itself became an explicit topic in texts, including how teachers might use

informal notes and keep running records on each child (Read & Patterson 1980) and develop differ- ent data collection techniques for recording individual, group, and student progress (Almy & Genishi 1979). Vivian Paley (2004) illustrates the contributive value of observation

and other documentation of children

for the teacher. Jablon, Dombro, and Dichtelmiller (2007) further cement the power of observation.

Whether providing explicit guidance for teachers about how to observe or

suggesting specific aspects of chil- dren's behavior to observe and inter-

pret, all of these resources appear to help teachers understand more about the children they teach. Some authors (for example, Paley 2004) provide wonderfully rich descriptions of chil- dren and, by example, demonstrate the power of observation for improv- ing classroom practice.

Increasingly, new research focuses as much on teacher consciousness

or awareness as on the play teach- ers are to observe. Sherwood and

Reif el (2010) report their findings that today's preservice teachers bring with them beliefs and understandings that influence how they see children's play.

Reflective teaching. Observation is necessary for teachers' understand- ing of children, but developing the skills to think about what teachers

observe and to integrate their reflec- tions in their teaching are what lead to the planning that supports children's learning. Teachers then begin to see all the aspects of development and learning that researchers tell us are there to be seen.

There are many conceptual lenses to help us all understand children. The need is to learn which lens to

use when we watch what children do

(Frost, Wortham & Reifel 2008). When we look at group play, do we see only the formation of social relationships, or do we also consider how children's

play reflects their growing under- standing of events in the real world? When we watch children build with

blocks, do we see only construction and collaboration, or do we also look

for evidence of spatial thinking in the construction and the story narrative the children are thinking about as they build?

Observation as a part of documen- tation. An observation can lead to

many understandings about children, all of which merit documentation and

reflection (see Carter & Curtis 2011). What we see can help us plan further lessons about world events, spatial thinking, narrative development, and many other worthy topics that chil- dren are ready to explore.

Looking to the future

Educators no longer watch children for signs of Froebel's version of play nor do they look for Hall's play stages. But we do want to see how children

are developing and learning, whether they are solving social problems, in- ternalizing self-control, or making

64 Young Children • March 201 1

This content downloaded from ������������132.174.248.234 on Mon, 31 Oct 2022 20:36:52 UTC������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

sense of classification (Coppie & Bredekamp 2009).

Building on a long heritage of observation, teachers will discover

new things to see and new ways to understand children. With these

in mind, they can know more, for example, about children's friendships, their depth of thinking (especially when children cannot say all that they know), the social influences on classroom learning, how children are constructing their gender notions of what it means to be a girl or a boy, and what motivates children to do

what they do. All of children's classroom play

requires sensitive observation and constant reflection to see how play contributes to children in the present and over time. These are aspects of children's performance that can tran- scend what tests help us to know, and they all build on observation.

References

Almy, M., & C. Genishi. 1979. Ways of Studying Children. Rev. ed. New York: Teachers Col-

lege Press. Brosterman, N. 1997. Inventing Kindergarten.

New York: Harry N. Abrams. Coppie, C., &S. Bredekamp, eds. 2009. Develop-

mentally Appropriate Practice in Early Child- hood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Curtis, D., & M. Carter. 2011. Reflecting Chil- dren 's Lives: A Handbook for Planning Your Child-Centered Curriculum. 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf.

Froebel, F. [1826] 1902. Education of Man. Trans, by W.N. Hailmann. New York: Appleton.

Frost, J.F., S. Wortham, & S. Reifel. 2008. Play and Child Development. 3rd. ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall/Merrill.

Gans, R., C.B. Stendler, & M. Almy. 1952. Teach- ing Young Children in Nursery School, Kinder- garten, and the Primary Grades. New York: World Books.

Jabloň, J.R., A.L. Dombro, & M.L. Dichtel- miller. 2007. The Power of Observation for

Birth through Eight. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies & NAEYC.

Landreth, C. 1942. Education of the Young Child: A Nursery School Manual. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

McMillan, M. 1921. The Nursery School. Lon- don: J.M. Dent & Sons.

Paley, V.G. 2004. A Child's Work: The Impor- tance of Fantasy Play. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Read, K. 1960. The Nursery School: A Human Relationships Laboratory. 3rd ed. Philadel- phia: Saunders.

Read, K., & J. Patterson. 1980. The Nursery School and Kindergarten : Human Relation- ships and Learning. 7th ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Sherwood, S., &S. Reifel. 2010. "The Multiple Meanings of Play: Exploring Preservice Teachers' Beliefs about a Central Element of

Early Childhood Education." Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 31: 322-43.

Additional resource

Jablon, J. 2010/2011. "Taking It All In: Obser- vation in the Classroom." Teaching Young Children 4 (2): 24-27.

Copyright © 2011 by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. See Permissions and Reprints online atwww.naeyc.org/yc/permissions.

Young Children • March 201 1 65

This content downloaded from ������������132.174.248.234 on Mon, 31 Oct 2022 20:36:52 UTC������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

TAKE A LOOK: Observation and Portfolio Assessment in Early Childhood (3rd ed.) Ricketts, Jennie Childhood Education; Spring 2006; 82, 3; Research Library pg. 184

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.