Assessment in the Primary Grades – Research Paper



Assessment in the Primary Grades – Research Paper

When it comes to assessment in early childhood education, specifically in grades K-3, there are a wide variety of reasons for conducting assessment, as well as a variety of assessment strategies themselves. There are four major purposes for assessment in the primary grades. The first is to help promote children’s learning and development. Here, teachers can conduct simple evaluations, which give them a better insight into what a specific child is capable of. From there, teachers have a clearer idea of what strategies best fit each student’s individual needs (Wortham, 2012, p.3). Secondly, assessment allows teachers to identify children for health and social services. Assessment of children for these types of services can be done formally or informally and can be conducted by teachers, tutors, and psychologists. The sooner that delays are identified through assessment, the sooner intervention can be planned, and the more likely the student will be able to overcome or effectively deal with said obstacle (Wortham, 2012, p.3). Third, assessment helps to monitor trends and evaluate programs and services. Here, teachers can evaluate specific services that are being provided to students, and conclude whether or not they are actually effective (Wortham, 2012, p.3). Finally, assessment can be used to assess academic achievement so individual students, teachers, and schools can be held accountable (Wortham, 2012, p.3).

When looking at assessment through a close lens, it quickly becomes apparent that the word “assessment” itself is an extremely broad term. Assessment can be broken down into four different types, which are formative, summative, screening, and standardized (Wortham, 2012). Each form of assessment has its pros and cons, and each type can be successfully integrated into a Kindergarten through third grade classroom.

The first type of assessment is formative assessment. Formative assessment is defined as “an assessment designed to measure progress on an objective rather than to give a qualitative result” (Wortham, 2012, p.294). Formative evaluation is conducted over the course of the year, and is done to determine how students are progressing in regards to mastering their objectives (Wortham, 2012, p.112). While, it will not always be, many times formative assessment is some type of observation.

Evaluating children through observation is crucial, due to the fact that it is the most direct method to get to know a student. Since many children in the primary grades have not yet mastered the ability to read and write, it is impossible to expect them to demonstrate everything they know and understand through formal or informal assessments that require test taking (Wortham, 2012, p.117). Six different types of formative assessment include anecdotal records, running records, time sampling, event sampling, checklists and rating scales, and observations and technology (Wortham, 2012, p.125-134).

Anecdotal records are a written description of a child’s behavior, and are a very objective account that lists what happened, when it happened, and where it happened. When recording anecdotal records, teachers must make sure they record interpretations of what occurred separately from the actual incident (Wortham, 2012, p.125). The advantage to anecdotal records are that they are quick and easy to use, and it is easy for teachers to look back on them at a later date and reflect. The disadvantage is that they may not contain enough information to analyze thoroughly (Wortham, 2012, p.126).

A running record is a detailed narrative of a child’s behavior that puts events into a sequence. Unlike an anecdotal record, a running record lists everything that a child did in a specific time frame (Wortham, 2012, p.126). Running records are also objective, but in a column separate from the observation, teachers can make notes or comments. This form of assessment is often used to assess emergent literacy or reading instruction. One of the advantages to running records is that they provide more information than an anecdotal record, and can really paint a picture of what occurred over a certain period of time. A disadvantage to running records is that they must be scheduled, and will keep a teacher completely occupied with that one specific task of recording behavior, which is not very realistic in an elementary classroom (Wortham, 2012, p.127).

The next type of formative assessment is time sampling. Here, a teacher records the frequency that a behavior occurred over a specific period of time. The behavior being recorded could be how many times a child behaves aggressively, or becomes distracted while completing a task. One thing to keep in mind with this type of assessment is that it will vary based on the target behavior, the child’s familiarity with the observer, and the nature of the situation (Wortham, 2012, p.129). The advantage to this type of assessment is that your purpose is blatantly clear. Planning for this assessment occurs ahead of time, and only the target behavior is recorded. The disadvantage to time sampling is that it may be difficult to do on a regular basis (Wortham, 2012, p.130).

Event sampling is a type of formative assessment used instead of time assessment, when a behavior occurs in a particular setting rather than time period. Like time sampling, the advantage to event sampling is that it has a very specific purpose, which is finding out why a behavior is occurring. The disadvantage is that it could be difficult to anticipate when the behavior may occur, and you could waste time observing (Wortham, 2012, p.132).

Checklists and rating scales are also a useful form of observation. A checklist is a list of behaviors that are arranged into categories. The teacher uses the checklist to mark whether or not a student is displaying specific skills or behaviors (Wortham, 2012, p.132). An advantage to the checklist is that it can be made quickly and is easy to use. A rating scale provides some form of basis to determine the degree to which a child is demonstrating a behavior. These are especially useful when a teacher needs to evaluate a wide range of behaviors at one time (Wortham, 2012, p.134).

Finally, formative assessment can be conducted using technology. Using a laptop to type observations into a word document can be quicker and easier than using a notebook and pen. Videotaping can be helpful when a teacher is unable to conduct any other form of assessment during a lesson. Videotapes also provide teachers with an opportunity to go back and further analyze an event. Audiotapes are useful when recording student’s language. Smart boards can be connected to computers or projectors, to display presentations or photographs to other teachers, students, and parents (Wortham, 2012, p.134).

When looking over all of the different types of formative assessment, and comparing them to what I have seen in my own first grade classroom, it is evident that some types are used prominently, and others not so much. I have observed very little in terms of technology-based assessment in my classroom. However, the lack of smart board use is more based on my cooperating teacher’s desire to use them rather than lack of availability. While I never see my cooperating teacher walking around the classroom, writing down anecdotal notes about specific children, it is clear that notes are made based on her understanding of what children work well together, what behaviors to expect from certain children in certain situations, and what children need more attention in certain subjects rather than others. What my cooperating teacher really does is a lot of classroom observation. By observing the interaction between different students with their work and one another, she can come up with effective partner pairings, places to send students to do work, and activities that certain students will responds positively to. One other way that I have seen my cooperating teacher use formative assessment in the classroom is through her use of checklists during literacy, when working with students in their reading groups.

The second type of assessment is summative assessment, which can be defined as “a final assessment to assign a grade or determine mastery of an objective” (Wortham, 2012, p.297). Three different types of summative assessment are rating scales, rubrics, and teacher designed tests (Wortham, 2012).

Rating scales are one type of summative assessment. These are the easiest types of scales to use and follow one common numerical system (Wortham, 2012, p.166). 1 is equivalent to unsatisfactory, 2 is equivalent to below average, 3 is equivalent to average, 4 is equivalent to above average, and 5 is equivalent to outstanding. The problem with numerical scales is that there is often disagreement about what the numbers really represent. Because of this graphic rating scales are often use and use descriptors of a behavior occurring such as never, seldom, occasionally, frequently, and always (Wortham, 2012, p.166-167). One of the most common types of rating scales is a report card, which report characteristics of personal and social development. However, one issue that often comes up when using report cards is that they are subject to teacher biases about specific students (Wortham, 2012, p.170).

The advantages to using a rating scale for summative assessment is that they can be used for behavior that is difficult to measure any other way. Rating scales are also quick and easy to complete, and the descriptors make it easy to complete the scale long after the observation has been done. Minimum training is required to use these scales, and they are also fairly easy to develop (Wortham, 2012, p.172). One of the major disadvantages to this form of summative assessment is that they are extremely subjective and teacher bias often becomes a problem (Wortham, 2012, p.174).

Another type of summative assessment is rubrics. Rubrics are a qualitative instrument that can be used to assess student progress or final work and are usually related to performance assessments (Wortham, 2012, p.174). The three types of rubrics are holistic, analytic, and developmental. Holistic rubrics assign a single score to a student’s overall performance (Wortham, 2012, p.175). Analytic rubrics describe and score each task separately, and a developmental rubric is designed to serve multiple age groups (Wortham, 2012, p.176). Rubrics have many purposes, but are most commonly used to assess student work or products (Wortham, 2012, p.179).

Some of the advantages to rubrics are that they provide clear-cut guidelines to what quality work is expected from students. They are also very flexible and can be designed for a variety of learning levels. Rubrics can be used by both teachers and students, and can be translated into a final grade if need be (Wortham, 2012, p.179). Some disadvantages to rubrics are that they are very difficult to design, and holistic rubrics may not be completely reliable (Wortham, 2012, p.180).

One final type of summative assessment is teacher-designed tests (Wortham, 2012, p.188). In the earlier grades, teacher designed tests are going to be more oral, because children have yet to master reading and writing skills. However, as the students get older, paper and pencil tests will come into use. Using pictorial or visual cues on these types of tests will be of assistance to children who are still learning to read and write. Teacher designed tests can be both formative and summative and are matched to specific curriculum objectives (Wortham, 2012, p.189).

Some of the advantages to teacher-designed tests are that they can be constructed to match the exact skills being learned in that teacher’s classroom. These tests can also be looked back at and improved upon when needed. One of the disadvantages is that the quality of the test is directly related to the teacher’s ability and skill to create tests of this type (Wortham, 2012, p 209). One other disadvantage is that many times, teachers will become dependent on using commercially made tests, and not put in the time or effort to create their own (Wortham, 2012, p.209).

Looking back to my own observations of my first grade classroom, I would say that my cooperating teacher uses a variety of summative evaluations. Teacher designed tests are often used, however, I have noticed a lot more commercially made tests than homemade ones. Checklists are often used to evaluate students when they are engaged in literacy activities. Finally, I have observed the use of rubrics/rating scales quite a bit. From what I have seen, rating scales are more or less how the teachers at my school complete report cards for the students. Students are rated based on whether they are below, meeting, above, or exceeding expectations for a certain area of study or behavior.

The third type of assessment is screening. By 2006, screening tests were being used in many states for children entering public schools. These tests were also being used for hearing, vision, and developmental assessment/readiness tests (Wortham, 2012, p.14). Most often, these tests are used to identify at risk students who have some sort of developmental disorder, whether it be academic or behavioral. Different types of screening tests include the Apgar Scale, the Mullen Scales of Early Learning, and the Gesell Developmental Schedules (Wortham, 2012, p.56). When a child is in the process of being screened, there are a variety of tests that are implemented such as diagnostic tests, language tests, and achievement tests.

When looking at my own placement classroom, I have seen some usage of screening tests for students who are at risk for academic and behavioral reasons. Teachers and parents in my classroom work together to decide if the child needs screening, from there the person completing the screening refers the child to additional services if need be.

The fourth and final type of assessment is standardized assessment. These types of group achievement tests are developed by individual states and are typically given every year to determine student progress as well as evaluate the instructional success in various school districts (Wortham, 2012, p.64-65). The results from standardized testing identify schools that are falling below or above a set standard. In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act was passed and required all states to implement achievement tests in their public schools (Wortham, 2012, p.66). For younger students, the tests are often verbal, but as students get older they are usually written tests with multiple choice, true/false, and matching components. These types of tests are designed for specific populations based on gender, age, community, geographic area, socioeconomic factors, and ethnic factors (Wortham, 2012, p.69).

Some advantages to standardized tests are that there is uniformity in the test administration, they are valid and reliable, and scores are quantifiable (Wortham, 2012, p.101). However, there are also a variety of disadvantages to standardized testing. Since these tests often determine whether or not a school gets funding or a student graduates from high school, the stakes are often set very high, which can ultimately affect performance. Another disadvantage is that there is a limit on how many things one of these tests can measure. These tests also tend to assume that the students taking them have been exposed to a white, middle class background, which in reality a majority have not, which will completely affect test results. One final disadvantage is that, by law, students who have disabilities are also required to take these tests. If a school has a high special needs population, then their scores are not going to be as high, and this school could be inappropriately deemed failing (Wortham, 2012, p.104). When looking at my own classroom, I have seen very little standardized testing. However, this does not necessarily mean that it is not being implemented. Simply, the time of year that I have been in my first grade classroom does not correlate with the times of year that standardized testing is done.

In order for assessment to be successful in the primary grades, there is often a need for two other types of services for students. The first is DI, or differentiation of instruction, and the second is RTI or Response to Intervention. Differentiation of instruction is, most simply put; the efforts of teachers to respond to the variety of skills are learning strategies of each and every one of the students in their classroom (Tomlinson, 2000, p.1). The four different ways that teachers can provide differentiation of instruction in the classroom is through content, process, products, and learning environment. Using differentiation of instruction in the primary grades is crucial because you as a teacher want to maximize the likelihood of each student succeeding. There is also endless evidence that students are more successful in school if they are taught in a manner that is responsive to their personal learning levels. Some principles to follow when providing students with differentiated instruction is to remember that the process is ongoing, work hard to ensure each student feels respected in their form of instruction, and try to keep flexible groupings (Tomlinson, 2000. p.2).

RTI, or Response to Intervention is also very important in the primary grades. The basic belief of RTI is that schools should not wait until a student is completely and totally behind in a subject before taking action. Classrooms should identify the additional support students’ need quickly, and help to solve the problem through systematic measures rather than simply referring them to special education services (Buffum, Mattos & Weber, 2010, p.10). Basically, RTI wants teachers to stop thinking that it is always the student’s fault that they are not learning material properly, and that maybe the teacher is simply not teaching the student properly.

The use of differentiation of instruction and response to intervention time are two programs that are extremely prominent in my own first grade classroom. My cooperating teacher uses DI every minute of every day. There are a variety of behaviors and learners in my classroom, and she adapts her teaching strategies for each student. For example, M.C. is a very hyperactive student who has a difficult time sitting on the rug and paying attention during lessons and morning meeting. When M.C. has to join the class on the rug, she provides him with a chair to sit in on the outskirts of the circle. This typically helps M.C. to sit still and pay better attention. Another example of differentiated instruction my cooperating teacher uses is with E.R. who is way above everyone else academically. Since E.R. tends to finish his assignments long before other children, my cooperating teacher will have a special worksheet prepared for him where he is given the opportunity to practice challenge addition and sometimes even multiplication problems. Since E.R. is a kind and patient student, she will oftentimes pair him with children who struggle more academically, which gives him an opportunity to slow down and really focus on the work, as well as help other classmates at the same time.

Response to Intervention is also a program that occurs in my classroom each and every day. The children in my classroom form four RTI groups, which are combined with the students from the other first grade classroom. Some students work on math, some literacy, and some focus on things that are more social. The program is very consistent, and the students understand what is expected of them. The activities the students do, tend to be more game related than typical classroom instruction would be, which also gets the students excited about RTI time. Performance and test data is also used to place students within my classroom into differentiated RTI groups and reading and mathematic teams. We have four RTI teams. One group works on reading, one writing, one mathematic, and one group (which is the higher level students) do a variety of different things. Our reading and math groups are also leveled into four different teams. Having the test scores to differentiate which groups students should be placed in is very beneficial because it ensures that all of the students will receive the attention they need to specific topics and learning material levels.

After reviewing all four of the assessment types, and reflecting on the assessment I have seen in my own placement classroom, I have come to form a personal philosophy of assessment in the primary grades of my own. I believe that each form of assessment has its advantages and disadvantages, and that some are more effective than others. When it comes to formative assessment, I love the use of anecdotal notes. At this age students are still demonstrating a variety of social behaviors that are best recorded by simply writing them down. I also feel that anecdotal notes are useful when conferencing with families. Because anecdotal notes are so objective, you run less risk of upsetting families with news that they might not want to hear. For example, you might believe a student has some form of ADHD. Telling parents this outright is just going to put them on the defensive. However, showing them multiple anecdotal records of behaviors that indicate this type of disorder might help them to accept the situation more willingly. When it comes to summative assessment, I believe that rubrics and rating scales are most effective for children in the early primary grades. Implementing a written test can be risky, considering students are still learning to read and write. Rubrics and scales are more fluid, just like learning is with this age group. While I believe written tests can serve a purpose, I feel that when used, teachers, who know their students well should design them.

The only type of assessment that I do not feel is necessary in early primary grade classrooms, or any primary grades at all for that matter are standardized tests. Each child is an individual and has his or her own habits, skill sets, and understanding of the world. I do not believe that some corporation should have the right to create a test that tries to generalize the learning abilities and behaviors of millions of children into one booklet. As previously discussed, the use of differentiated instruction is to ensure that children are given the opportunity to succeed through programs that work for them. Using a standardized test negates everything that DI is trying to promote. One standardized score should not determine what a child knows, and whether or not they require special assistance, that role should be left up to the teacher who has worked all year with the child, and knows all the factors that influence that child’s learning, that a written test could never determine.

In the end, every form of assessment serves a purpose, and is integrated into primary grade education. Formative assessment, summative assessment, screening, and standardized testing are all forms of assessment that help teachers decide which students need differentiated instruction, and which topics each child needs to work on in RTI.

Bibliography

Tomlinson, C. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. Clearinghouse on

Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

Weber, C., Mattos, M., & Buffum, A. (2010). The why behind RTI. Educational Leadership, 10-

16.

Wortham, S.C. (2012) Assessment in Early Childhood Education (6th edition). Upper Saddle

River NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download