BOOK REVIEW

Authentic Assessment for Early Childhood Intervention: Best Practices

By Stephen J. Bagnato

Paperback: 315 pages. Guilford Press, New York, NY. Cost: not known.

Most researchers and clinicians working with individu-

als with intellectual disability face a common challenge

with regard to measurement of cognitive and behaviour-

al difficulties. Identifying appropriate assessments and

measures that have been designed for the intellectual

disability population can be difficult. In this book,

Stephen Bagnato provides a very detailed description

of the rationale, structure and methods for what he

terms ‘authentic’ assessment of young children with

disabilities.

Bagnato covers a wide range of assessments from

assessing early developmental milestones and curricu-

lum-based assessment to functional analysis of challeng-

ing behaviours in this population. There is a strong

emphasis on moving away from using standard-

ized assessment tools within the intellectual disability

population towards more individualized assessments

that require detailed and careful observation in natural

and analogue situations alongside extensive consultation

and observation with parents and carers and other

professionals.

Some may find the suggestion to ‘abandon standard-

ized testing’ a somewhat extreme perspective. However,

the principles for ensuring careful and detailed assess-

ment of complex difficulties that are highlighted

throughout the book are clearly very important in this

population. The suggestion for careful consideration

with regard to where DSM classifications and criteria

may, or may not, be appropriate or helpful in ensuring

suitable intervention programmes for individuals with

intellectual disability is particularly helpful.

Another problem raised is the reliance on Piagetian

theory to underpin the selection of assessment tools

and suitable measures and the expectation of an indi-

vidual’s developmental pathway. Bagnato suggests that

a ‘Piagetian framework to observe and understand

developmental stages and progressions for all children’

is somewhat limited and does not fully take into

consideration the concept of atypical trajectories of

development that have been observed in a wide

range of genetic syndromes associated with intellectual

disability. A focus on Piagetian developmental sequen-

ces may result in failure to consider and identify

uneven profiles of development that are typical of this

population.

Overall, the approach to assessment and intervention

in individuals with intellectual disability that Bagnato

highlights in this book is important and helpful. The

‘Best Practice Guide Points’ that appear throughout the

book and at the end of each chapter provide a very use-

ful summary of the key points for consideration and

help to guide the reader through an appropriate assess-

ment and intervention process. This book will be a very

useful resource for a wide range of clinicians and

researchers and a good addition to the literature regard-

ing assessment in intellectual disability.

Patricia Howlin

Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry,

King’s College London, London, UK

(e-mail: [email protected])

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2013, 26, 181

� 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 10.1111/j.1468-3148.2009.00537.x

Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities

Copyright of Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities is the property of Wiley-Blackwell 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.

Relooking Assessment: A Study on Assessing Developmental Learning Outcomes in Toddlers

Marjory Ebbeck • Geraldine Lian Choo Teo •

Cynthia Tan • Mandy Goh

Published online: 30 July 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract In most countries the funding for early child-

hood education has increased and governments in some

countries have taken serious steps to bring about positive

change in the profession. However, the increase in funding

by governments and other funding organisations around the

world has, understandably, attracted increased account-

ability as these organisations need to know that their

financial investments are achieving desired outcomes. To

seek evidence that positive learning outcomes have indeed

been achieved through these investments is a reasonable

request, and there is a shared responsibility and account-

ability for professionals to provide appropriate evidence.

The downside, however, can be the request for standardised

test information, as if performance on such tests provides

proof of all desired outcomes. More than ever before, it is

important for early childhood educators to be able to pro-

vide accurate, objective information about children’s

assessment in ways other than by standardised testing,

which may not reflect the complex reality of children’s

lives. This paper reports on a research study in Singapore

that investigated curriculum effectiveness using develop-

mental learning outcomes as a means of assessing children.

The research was devised to examine if eight specified

broad developmental learning outcomes could measure the

effectiveness of the curriculum by assessing children’s

learning as shown in qualitative data. Practical examples

showed evidence of children’s learning and the role of the

educator in facilitating and documenting developmental

learning outcomes.

Keywords Assessment � Developmental learning outcomes � Singapore research � 18 months–3 years age range

Introduction

Findings from neuroscience have provided evidence that

the early years are critical for promoting optimal devel-

opment in children (Shonkoff and Phillips 2000; Oberk-

laid 2007; Berk 2012; Papalia et al. 2009). Economists

have argued convincingly that financial investments in the

early years will bring about positive outcomes which, in

turn, will reduce later costs to society (Mustard 2008;

Heckman 2000). Funding for early childhood education

has increased and governments in some countries instituted

policies to bring about change in early childhood educa-

tion, and have increased the allocation of resources. This

has been a very positive move, supported in the reports and

position statements of the National Association for the

Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National

Association of Early Childhood Specialist in State

Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) (NAEYC and

NAECS/SDE 2003).

M. Ebbeck (&) School of Education, University of South Australia, Magill

Campus, St Bernards Road, Magill, SA 5072, Australia

e-mail: [email protected]

G. L. C. Teo � M. Goh SEED Institute, 73 Bras Basah Road, NTUC Trade Union House

#07-01, Singapore 189556, Singapore

e-mail: [email protected]

M. Goh

e-mail: [email protected]

G. L. C. Teo � C. Tan The Caterpillar’s Cove Child Development and Study Centre,

535 Clementi Road, Block 53, Level 3 Ngee Ann Polytechnic,

Singapore 599489, Singapore

e-mail: [email protected]

123

Early Childhood Educ J (2014) 42:115–123

DOI 10.1007/s10643-013-0602-9

The increase in funding by governments and other

funding organisations around the world has understandably

attracted increased accountability as these organisations

need to know that their financial investments are achieving

desired outcomes (Dodge et al. 2004). To seek evidence

that positive learning outcomes have indeed been achieved

through these investments is a reasonable request and there

is a shared responsibility and accountability for profes-

sionals to provide appropriate evidence (NAEYC and

NAECS/SDE 2003).

The downside, however, can be the request for standardised

test information. More than ever before, it is important for

early childhood educators to be able to provide accurate,

objective information about children’s assessment in ways

other than by standardised testing. Dalberg et al. (1999)

proposed that the assessment of children’s learning and

thinking through standardised testing does not reflect the

complex reality of children’s lives. According to its posi-

tion statement (NAEYC and NAECS/SDE 2003), the

National Association for the Education of Young Children

(NAEYC 1988) has confirmed their opposition to the use of

standardised testing for all early childhood contexts. They

assert that assessment is a systematic procedure for

obtaining information from observation, interviews, port-

folio collections, projects, tests and other sources that can

be used to make judgments about children’s characteristics

(NAEYC and NAECS/SDE 2003). Jones (2004) stated

that:

As the accountability/testing debate continues young

children need assessment-literate advocates who are

equipped not only with powers of observation and

documentation but also with the knowledge and skills

to participate in an assessment-related discourse that

is rounded in the basic principles of sound assessment

practice (pp. 14–15).

The debate about assessment has continued now for

many decades and it is interesting to contrast current per-

spectives against what Kelly wrote in 1986:

If evaluation, appraisal and accountability procedures

are imposed on teachers from outside, if they are

created and operated by others, the teachers must be

strongly tempted to be constantly looking over their

shoulders to the criteria of evaluation being used, so

that these will quickly become their criteria for

planning and thus the evaluation tail will wag the

curriculum dog (p. 229).

Kelly (1986) further stated that if the curriculum pro-

cedures were concerned with describing, illuminating, and

portraying what is going on in order to promote its

continuing development, then teachers would be able to

exercise professional judgment. The intent of Kelly’s

message still resonates today even after 27 years.

A Closer Look at the Purpose of Assessment

It is important to be clear about why assessment is

important beyond the accountability issues mentioned

previously. One of the primary purposes of assessment is to

gather information about children’s development and use it

as a basis for curriculum decision making. When seen in

this light, it will allow children to make further progress in

their learning. It also enables this information to be shared

with all those who have a stake in the children’s future,

including parents, teachers and caregivers, centre admin-

istrators and referral agencies for children who have

additional needs. Furthermore, this kind of developmental

assessment also enables teachers to evaluate how well the

programme is meeting its goals.

In Australia, the Victorian Department of Education and

Early Child Development has developed a comprehensive

statement for early childhood professionals about assess-

ment and reporting (http://www.education.vic.gov.au/

school/teachers/support/Pages/advice.aspx). This statement

proposes that there are three interconnected learning pro-

cesses in relation to assessment, namely, planning, facili-

tating and assessing learning. In summary:

• Assessment for learning extends children’s learning by enhancing teaching. It is formative and occurs contin-

uously. It is enriched when children, families, and all

educators are actively involved in the process.

• Assessment as learning occurs when educators recognise the process of assessment as a powerful tool for learning.

This involves discussions with children, documenting

learning together, enabling children to recognise that

they themselves are learners, and developing the under-

standing of how they learn.

• Assessment of learning emphasises the summative aspects of assessment and confirms what children know

and understand what they can do.

Assessing Children Through Their Engagement

in the Curriculum

Assessment is, therefore, an integral part of early childhood

curriculum, and educators need to be clear about their

understanding of curriculum. The focus of curriculum

needs to reflect identified learning goals for children, and

appropriate assessment can be used to make informed

decisions about curriculum objectives and their outcomes

116 Early Childhood Educ J (2014) 42:115–123

123

(Pyle and DeLuca 2013). A teacher can plan for, and

implement, curriculum decisions that facilitate a child’s

learning engagement as an individual and as part of a

group. Once the curriculum road map had been developed,

one way of doing this assessment is to focus on develop-

mental learning outcomes (Department of Education,

Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) 2009;

Goodfellow 2009).

Assessing Developmental Learning Outcomes

There is a range of available literature proposing that

assessment should be developmentally appropriate (Copple

and Bredekamp 2009; Gestwicki 2011; Kostelnik et al.

2011; Saracho and Spodek 2013). Developmental learning

outcomes link specified elements of children’s learning

achievements to domains of development. For example,

there is rapid change in the physical development of chil-

dren in the age range of birth to 3 years. Assessing out-

comes of gross motor skills can inform a caregiver of the

ongoing development of an individual child. A caregiver

makes judgments about such outcomes through focused

and ongoing observation, watching how a child uses some

materials or equipment and how skills and understanding

are interrelated.

A number of recent curriculum frameworks and/or

guidelines have identified learning outcomes in their

assessment procedures (DEEWR 2009; Ministry of Social

and Family Development, Singapore 2011; NTUC First

Campus (NFC) Singapore 2011). There has been a con-

tinued thrust to use a naturalistic and authentic curriculum

that assesses what children know and can do, as well as

identifying growth areas for further development.

This growing trend to assess learning through develop-

mental learning outcomes (Laevers 2005) demonstrates a

universality of learning outcomes. Assessment of content

knowledge is still necessary but needs to be viewed in the

totality of the child’s overall development.

In Singapore, a research study was designed to ascertain

if children’s assessment using developmental learning

outcomes over a 6 month period could indicate curriculum

effectiveness. Using a qualitative approach as espoused by

Denzin and Lincoln (2005, p. 3) that incorporated an

interpretive, naturalistic approach, researchers studied

children aged 18 months–3 years old. This approach also

took account of Eisner’s (1991) view that not everything

can be said in a test form, for some things we need literary

forms (p. 23).

A research question was agreed upon to ascertain In

what ways do the eight broad developmental learning

outcomes (Department of Education and Children’s

Services (DECS) 2001) measure the effectiveness or non-

effectiveness of the curriculum in developing children’s

learning as shown in qualitative data?

The eight developmental learning outcomes used in the

study were:

1. Trust and confidence

2. Positive sense of self and a confident personal and

group identity

3. Sense of being connected with others and their worlds

4. Intellectual inquisitiveness

5. Range of thinking skills

6. Effective communication

7. Sense of physical well-being

8. Range of physical competencies.

The sample of children reported in this paper was in the

age range of 18 months–3 years and were grouped as

shown in Table 1.

Educators in the study

There were two educators assigned to each group of chil-

dren. Their teaching experience ranged from 2 to 17 years.

Parent Involvement

Parental consent was gained before the study began, and

parents were kept informed by individual conferences in

relation to each child and newsletters about the progress of

the study. Parents also spent time in the classrooms with

their children.

Methodology

The study adopted a multi-method approach collecting

both qualitative and quantitative data. This paper deals

only with the qualitative aspects of the study (Bell 2010;

Creswell 1994, 2009; McMurray et al. 2007). An

Table 1 Demographics of child-participants in each group

Class No. of participants Mean age

(years)

Junior toddlers

(18 months–2 years)

9

M = 7, 8.6 %,

F = 2, 2.5 %

1.9

Senior toddlers

(2–3 years)

18

M = 10,12.3 %,

F = 8, 9.9 %

2.8

M = Male, F = Female

Early Childhood Educ J (2014) 42:115–123 117

123

interesting perspective on the study design related to seeing

the ‘‘researcher as a bricoleur’’ where the analogy is of the

bricoleur as a quilt maker (Denzin and Lincoln 2005, p. 4).

In relation to the research design a bricoleur is like that of a

quilt with overlapping perspectives.

The data gathered over a 6 months period for the

qualitative aspect of the study were diverse, like a quilt

giving a rich overview of the child’s total development. It

also comprised evidence from the educator’s planning

cycle as documented in work programmes, observations of

children, work samples, records of dialogues, and educa-

tor–child and child–child interactions, which were also part

of the data. The data when analysed, showed that it was

possible to measure children’s growth through develop-

mental learning outcomes over time and also to assess the

curriculum effectiveness. In addition, it gave teachers the

opportunity to assess the well-being of the children

(DEEWR 2009; Gonzalez-Mena 2005; Laevers 1994,

1997; Pascal and Bertram 1999).

Results of the Study

The overall research question—In what ways do the eight

broad developmental learning outcomes (DECS 2001)

measure the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of the cur-

riculum in developing children’s learning as shown in

qualitative data? was fully answered, and showed that this

approach to assessment did provide evidence of the

effectiveness of the curriculum within the research study.

Educators in the study stated that using the develop-

mental learning outcomes had required them to plan for,

and assess, individual children in a focused way differently

from what they had done previously. They developed an in-

depth profile of each child, recording the domains of

development, and the curriculum content in all areas.

Previously, their assessments had focused largely on the

curriculum content—literacy, mathematics, science, arts,

social and environmental awareness, health and physical

well-being (Klein and Knitzer 2006; Oberklaid 2007).

Specifically, identifying exemplars of best practice was

also a new dimension to the educator’s role in that they

became more self-reflective as they identified what had

worked well and what needed further analysis or action

(Roberts-Holmes 2010). They reflected on the individuality

of children in the teaching and caring situations and then

discussed this individuality in teams, bringing an objective

view of each individual child and her/his progress. Edu-

cators also reported that using developmental learning

outcomes made their decision-making for curriculum much

more focused and effective. Group activities were still part

of the planning, but they were underpinned by the detailed

individual planning (Essa 2011; DEEWR 2009).

The following two examples taken from the detailed

eight developmental learning outcomes used in the study

demonstrate how teachers planned and recorded. Using

developmental learning outcomes was a means of gather-

ing data in an authentic, naturalistic way. The domains that

learning areas were linked to were psycho-social, physical,

and thinking and communicating self. Curriculum content

was recorded under key learning areas, and the exemplars

of best practices of teaching were also identified.

Educators’ Planning in the Research Study

Educators for each of the groups of children planned in

advance for each week (see Table 2). They used a planning

framework, which was a cycle of Plan, Implement, and

Review. This framework facilitated an analysis of exactly

what plan, implement and review meant in practice. It was

shown to be an effective way of documenting and gather-

ing evidence.

The following tables show how teachers documented the

learning outcomes of the children. This was done for each

of the 27 children and reflected the work achieved in the

plan, implement, and review cycle. Very detailed pro-

gramme records were kept for each group of children.

Planning occurred and the event was implemented and

reviewed. Each week a small number of focus children

were observed.

Developmental Learning Outcome: ‘Children are

confident and involved learners’ (Example 1)

For assessment (see Table 3), educators, planned, observed

and recorded.

Observations about Zachary (3.0 years old) were based

on three domains of development.

Psycho-Social Self

Zachary had a very pro-social disposition; he made friends

easily and interacted well with other children. He was seen

as the initiator of many conversations and tended to take

lead roles in play. However, in his attempts to be helpful,

he had been perceived by the other children to be aggres-

sive and self-absorbed in his play on several occasions.

Physical Self

Zachary’s fine and gross motor skills were well developed

at entry to child care. He was well coordinated and dem-

onstrated good agility in the outdoor playground. He was at

ease with self-help skills like dressing, feeding and clearing

118 Early Childhood Educ J (2014) 42:115–123

123

up after himself after the normally occurring activities at

the centre. He demonstrated a preference for physical play

and caused some challenges with appropriate indoor

classroom behaviour prescribed by the educator.

Thinking and Communicating Self

At the beginning of the observation period, it was noted

that Zachary lacked the ability to focus on directed tasks

Table 2 Review of curriculum planning for one sample week (children aged 18 months–3 years)

Junior toddlers (18 months–2 years)

Gross motor skills

Controls body movements and

demonstrates coordination and

balance

Through movement—plays on

large equipment

Fine motor skills

Controls fingers and hands, and

shows eye-hand coordination—

painting, drawing, finger painting,

dough modelling, basic collage

introduced

Self-help skills

Attempts to feed self and helps with

dressing/undressing

Aware of health routines, washes

hands independently under

supervision

Personal relationships with

peers

Demonstrates beginning social

skills with other children—

knows the names of all

children in the group. Enjoys

being with others

Shows sensitivity to others’

feelings—the beginnings of

empathy noted in some of the

2 year olds

Self-awareness

Demonstrates confidence in own

abilities—display of photos,

identifies self

Self-control