Documentation and Assessment of Young Children's Learning

Jacqueline Jones

Educational Testing Service

Princeton, NJ

”…everyone deserves to share in the excitement and personal fulfillment that can come from understanding and learning about the natural world.” (AAAS 1993) .

Young children are fascinated by the natural world. They spend their time trying to figure out how the world works: how water can be transformed into snow or ice, how shadows are formed, what happens to the sun at night. Observing seeds grow into plants, watching animals eat and sleep, and baking bread are but a few of the routine activities in which teachers can find concrete evidence of how young children are making sense of the world around them. This paper will outline some school-based outcomes resulting from a series of collaborative studies, funded by US National Science Foundation. Researchers from Educational Testing Service (ETS) worked with classroom teachers to explore and evaluate strategies for identifying, collecting, and interpreting classroom-based evidence of the early science learning of children aged 3 to 8 years. Over a 3 year period, ETS researchers and several groups of early childhood teachers in New York City, New Jersey, and Philadelphia designed and evaluated a variety of methods for observing and documenting young children’s science learning. The teachers represented school sites in ethnically and economically diverse populations in both urban and suburban school districts. Teachers met once a month with researchers in “Documentation Study Groups” to discuss appropriate science learning goals and evidence of achievement of those goals. The overall purpose of the project was to develop documentation procedures that might enhance teachers’ understanding children’s thinking about the natural world. The project also provided an opportunity for teachers to engage in practical inquiry into young children’s perceptions of natural phenomena.  

In general, assessment may be defined as the process of gathering evidence in order to make informed decisions. The assessment of young children may have several purposes:

• Supporting instruction,
• Identifying special needs, and
• Evaluating program effectiveness (Shepard, Kagan et al. 1998) .

However, the major purpose for assessing young children should be to support and enhance classroom instruction. That is, to assist teachers in providing children with the most appropriate experiences for the child’s ongoing understanding of the natural world.

The real evidence of children’s early science understanding comes directly from everyday experiences. Documentation, is the process of process of identifying, collecting, and describing, evidence of young children’s learning. It is intended to yield records of children’s conversations and samples of drawings and constructions over time and across classroom settings. The central purpose of documentation is to enhance teachers’ observation skills and their understanding of young children’s learning in order to support instruction and monitor children’s progress. The process of documentation offers a model of assessment that is appropriate to the early grades. The model takes cues, in part, from advances in language arts assessment, where research and classroom studies have helped teachers appreciate the assessment value in children’s conversations and in their early efforts to read and write. Portfolios and other ways of sampling such classroom-based evidence have broadened the base of literacy assessment, while contributing to teachers’ theoretical understanding of early literacy (Tierney, Carter et al. 1991) . Such methods have also helped districts look beyond standardized, norm referenced tests for information on young children’s development. There is a comparable need to broaden the base of what is regarded as legitimate evidence of student learning in science (Hein and Price 1994) .

Throughout the project, the teacher’s sensitivity to what children, from a variety of backgrounds, brought to science-related experiences was especially critical. Since young children’s thinking reflects both developmental and experiential factors, teachers needed to have a good sense of the appropriate pace of instruction, allowing time for exploration and accommodation of new ideas. Children’s “misconceptions” were not necessarily unproductive; rather, these “misconceptions” often reflected keen observation and an intense effort to make sense of the world. Teachers worked to take cues from the children’s behaviors and language.

Classroom-based Evidence Records of children’s conversations, anecdotal notes, photographs of their actions, and samples of their drawings and constructions all formed the classroom-based data that helped teachers learn how children were thinking about the natural world. The documentation process itself helped teachers gain a deeper understanding of individual children in the class and enhanced general knowledge of how young children make sense of the world.

• Collect a variety of forms of the evidence of children’s learning
• Collect records of evidence over a period of time
• Collect evidence on the understanding of groups of children as well individuals

It was important to collect a variety of records because children conveyed their ideas in many different ways. Some children demonstrated their understanding through constructions or drawings, while others were more comfortable talking about what they saw or thought. Educators learned a great deal about children's thinking by listening carefully to their language and looking at samples of their drawings, writings, and constructions. Examples of various forms of evidence that were a part of almost every early childhood classrooms included: drawings; drawing and dictation of the child’s description or comments about the drawing; photographs; and records of children’s language.

Classroom-based evidence was collected over a period of time because young children’s learning is not linear. Rather, it is episodic and based on individual experiences. Any single piece of evidence captures just one moment in time when a child may be struggling with an idea or question. As teachers collected evidence over a period of time, they came to see the evolution of a child’s idea or concept. For example, a review of entries in children’s drawings over several weeks revealed the development of more focused and detailed observations. Children’s understandings of big ideas such as life processes and changes in matter were not established firmly with one experience. The children needed time to return to these ideas and concepts, to ask new questions, and to fit new learning into established ideas. The evidence of young children’s learning was most useful when it was viewed over a period of weeks or months.

Collect evidence on the understanding of groups of children as well individuals

Science is an inherently social activity, and children should be encouraged to discuss their ideas with one another. Collecting evidence of group learning helped the teacher to get the bigger picture of what the class as a whole was questioning or coming to understand about a concept. In addition, group evidence gave the teacher a better sense of what a group of children was bringing to a topic, what they shared, and where there were experiential differences. When evidence was collected for groups of children, patterns in thinking became apparent.

With the guiding principles as a foundation, the documentation and assessment of young children’s emerging science understanding was framed within a five-stage cycle of identifying, collecting, describing, interpreting, and applying the classroom-based evidence in order to plan more appropriate experiences and environments. 

Stage 1. Identify appropriate science-related goals and concepts, activities and experiences, and classroom settings

It was important to have some agreed-upon notion of what educators wanted children to experience, explore, and understand. In addition to specific curriculum goals, teachers who participated in this process often used the Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS 1993) or the National Science Education Standards (Council 1996) to guide their expectations for young children. These documents were especially useful in providing a focus for collecting those samples of children’s work that highlight specific science goals.

Stage 2. Collect evidence of children’s learning including records of children’s conversations and children’s work samples.

Records of children’s conversations and their work samples took a variety of forms, including whole-class discussions, individual interviews, drawings, constructions, and diagrams. At this stage teachers considered which forms of evidence would give the best indication of how children were coming to understand the selected science goals and concepts. For example, many teachers found that asking a child to dictate a description of their drawing and attaching the child’s comments to the drawing provided much more information about the child’s understanding than the drawing alone.

Stage 3 Describe evidence of children’s learning with colleagues, but without judgment

The close examination of records of children’s learning was a critical step in understanding what children were learning. Teachers found it useful to make a careful analysis of what was actually in the records of the children’s language and their drawings and constructions - before reaching a conclusion (Himley and Carini 2000) . The skill of describing a sample of work or a language record took some time and practice. However, this collaborative process gave the teachers greater insight into the children’s work.

Stage 4. Interpret evidence of individual and group understanding by connecting to learning goals and identifying patterns of learning

At this stage the children’s work was compared to the standards and goals identified by the teacher at the start of the cycle, Stage 1 (Stearns and Courtney 2000) . Teachers asked the questions, Does the work demonstrate the intended goals, such as observation or prediction? Are some additional types of work samples needed to demonstrate understanding? Are patterns of understanding emerging for the whole class? For example, some teachers, who wanted the children to observe living things in the classroom, noted changes that took place in drawings over time. The journal entries became evidence that the learning goals had been met. Because the major purpose of assessment is to inform instructional practice, they then applied this new information and understanding to modify their instruction and frame future assessment questions. The information from the documentation/assessment process was tied directly to new planning. The process began anew as the teacher used information and insights gained from the process to identify the next set of the science-related goals and experiences. The cycle continued with children’s emerging science understanding being nurtured and documented within the everyday life of the classroom. Teachers found this process valuable for understanding the learning of individuals and groups, for guiding instruction, and for reporting to parents.

Stage 5. APPLY new information to guide instruction.

Information gained from the documentation/assessment process must be tied directly to new teaching opportunities. At stage 5 the information that has been collected from Stages 1 through 4 is used to plan future instruction and to generate assessment questions. The process begins anew as the teacher uses the information and insights from the process to identify the next set of the science-related goals and experiences. 

What is the Impact of Documentation?

During the course of several projects groups of early childhood teaches responded to the question, How has the process of documentation been useful?  Teachers reported that documentation had been helpful to them in the following areas:

· Observing

· Listening

· Questioning

· Teacher Reflection

Observing

Teachers reported that the process of documentation helped them to increase their powers of observation. They reported that they were providing more science-related activities from which they were able to observe children’s learning. Some teacher reflection comments follow:

“The documentation process has made me focus on different ways to capture children’s learning for others to be able to see and appreciate that learning. It has forced me to share children’s learning with others in a more tangible form. It has affected my teaching in that I feel more of a sense of responsibility to validate for others what goes on with children in their making of sense of the world.”

“The documentation has helped me focus and be more sensitive to language. The language I use, how the children interpret it, and the language the children use. … In looking at conversations between two and three children, seeing how even they don’t “look” like they’re interacting sometime, they are listening to each other - learning from each other.”

Listening

Teachers also reported that documentation helped them to improve their listening skills and pay closer attention to what children are saying. It was interesting to note that as teachers began to listen to children’s conversations, they also began to provide more opportunities for those conversations to emerge. Reflection comments follow:

“ … by doing the documentation I learned that some of the quieter, somewhat shy and even the slower students were very expressive during science discussions. This documentation process keeps you aware that all children learn differently and has helped me to do a better job of evaluating students on their abilities.”

Questioning

Teachers became more aware of their own questioning strategies and the questions raised by the children.

“I like the process of asking a question as a way of getting to know what children know. I get a sense of the class as a whole – the common ground and the individual children – their interest in the topic and prior knowledge and experience.”

Reflecting on Practice

As teachers collected student work and enhanced their abilities to observe, listen and question, they also increased their opportunity to reflect on more general aspects of student learning and on their own practice.

“Documenting students thoughts, ideas, etc. over a long period of time allows me to see growth in all children and points out the fact that we are all individuals and learn at our own rate, revisiting often is important.  Looking at work throughout the year has pointed out to me the need for a variety of activity structures as well as strategies and how they can share knowledge with others.  At times I found students’ best work and my best evidence of their learning has come when students chose the medium or vehicle for their sharing.”

Establishing a few guiding principles for early childhood assessment and implementing the 5-stage documentation/assessment cycle gave teachers a deeper awareness of normal child development and a more focused look at young children’s science understandings. 

References

AAAS (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. NY, Oxford University Press.

AERA, APA, et al. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC, American Educational Research Association.

Chittenden, E. and J. Jones (1998). Science assessment in early childhood programs. Dialogue on early childhood science, mathematics, and technology education. Washington, DC, American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Council, N. R. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC, National Academy Press.

Hein, G. and S. Price (1994). Active assessment for active science:  A guide for elementary school teachers. Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann.

Himley, M. and P. F. Carini, Eds. (2000). From Another Angle:  Children's Strength's and School Standards. The Practitioner Inquiry Series. New York, Teachers College Press.

Shepard, L., S. L. Kagan, et al. (1998). Principles and recommendations for early childhood assessments. Washington, National Education Goals Panel.

Stearns, C. and R. Courtney (2000). Designing Assessment with the standards. Science and Children. 37: 51-55, 65.

Tierney, R. J., M. A. Carter, et al. (1991). Portfolio assessment in the reading-writing classroom. Norwood, Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.