Sara Farlett

October 5, 2017

Tests and Measurement

Article Summary: Assessment

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

teachers assessment approaches. Early Childhood Educ J, 41, 373-380.

In the study, Assessment in the Kindergarten Classroom: An Empirical Study of

Teachers Assessment Approaches, Pyle and DeLuca examined three teachers philosophies of

education and how their philosophies impact the use of assessments in the classroom. Since the

mid 1990s, standardized testing has become a mechanism through which the state/providence

holds teachers accountable for the material they are presenting to the students. The topics that

were investigated were the relationship between curriculum and developmental and academic

orientations, the strategies used in kindergarten programs, and the relationship between

assessment and curriculum. This study aims to examine the impact of pedagogy, or philosophy

of education, on assessment methods.

These objectives were examined through interviews with and observations of three

kindergarten teachers in Ontario, Canada. The teachers came from the same school district,

which had recently begun the transition to full time kindergarten programs in order to allow for a

developmental orientation to kindergarten education while maintaining a strong academic

orientation. The teachers pedagogical approaches were characterized as developmental

assessment, blended assessment, and assessment for learning.

 The teacher who took on a developmental assessment approach, Karen, recognized the

importance of a standardized curriculum without allowing it to restrict student learning. Karen

emphasized the importance of developmentally appropriate expectations of students, and, when

she felt that the standards did not align with the developmental stage of students, she disregarded

the standard until it was developmentally appropriate. Karens primary assessment method was a

developmental checklist which addressed personal, social, emotional, physical, and cognitive

development. Karen also utilized assessments to determine a students baseline in order to guide

future instruction. Karens developmental assessment approach enabled differentiation amongst

her students.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Linda took an approach that implemented

assessment for learning. Linda, being a novice teacher, closely followed provincial curriculum.

Despite her dedication to the provincial standards, she felt she had flexibility to determine the

timing of the introduction of these standards. She also found it important that students had the

ability to guide the rate of instruction. Linda was able to differentiate through targeting specific

student needs in small group activities. Linda encouraged feedback from peers and self

assessment in order to foster independent achievements. Linda used video recordings of student

activities to allow the peer feedback and self assessments. Linda administered assessments to

help inform her instruction and the students learning of standards.

The final teacher, Samantha, implemented a blended assessment approach which

combined the previously mentioned educational methodologies. Samantha recognized her legal

responsibility to assess on and report the students progress throughout the year. This meant that

the provincial curriculum played a large role in instruction in her classroom. Samanthas

recognition of each childs existing abilities was guided by curricular expectations in order to
ensure that the program focused equally on the curriculum and the child. Samantha used the data

provided by assessments to guide instruction throughout the year.

The authors concluded that while commitments to the standards based curricula within

Ontario did impact educational methodology, teachers maintained enough pedagogical autonomy

to accommodate their curricular stance and pedagogical approach. The authors conceded extreme

limitations to this study due to limited sample size and the fact that only the teachers, and not

other stakeholders, views were examined. As such, the authors advised against drawing broad

conclusions regarding the relative effectiveness of any assessment approach.

While this article does expand on previous research by examining the interplay between

pedagogy and mandated curriculum standards at the kindergarten level, this is a minor advance

and applications were limited. As acknowledged by the authors, the sample size of one for each

assessment approach leaves significant room for biased results. Additionally, the extensive use of

self-reporting and reliance on characterization by researchers exposes the possibility of

confirmation bias. In regards to the three questions guiding the study, the authors did not

adequately address what assessment strategies do kindergarten teachers integrate into their

kindergarten programs? Assessment strategies were omitted in regards to Lindas classroom.

The authors found that in this specific school district, at this school, with these teachers, the

mandated curriculum standards allowed for various types of assessment strategies to be utilized.

While the flaws in the methodology of this study significantly limits the broad applications or

evaluations, even this limited sample size demonstrated significant variation in pedagogy despite

mandated curriculum standards. The literature could be further improved through observation

and evaluation of a greater number of teachers in a broader range of contexts. The impact of
curriculum standards on educational approaches and student development remains an important

subject of research.