Section archive - Assessment & Evaluation

This article utilizes five characteristics of “good” scientific theory: accuracy, consistency, scope, simplicity, and fruitfulness- taken from the work of Thomas Kuhn. Based upon this examination, four suggestions are provided to support future research into technology integration that seek to help address limitations in the TPACK framework and to inform its appropriate and thoughtful use in research and practice.

This study investigated the current practices and training needs of early childhood professionals in conducting assessment with young children with and at-risk of disabilities. The findings reveal that the participants reported that they used a wide range of standardized tools and nonstandardized methods to assess children’s development in the developmental domains. Three of the top five tools most frequently used by professionals to assess children’s skills are curriculum-based assessment methods that are developmentally based and that take into consideration the child’s experiences and background. The authors recommend that preservice teacher preparation programs must include numerous targeted field assignments. Furthermore, preservice teachers must receive instruction in how to use a few of the most commonly used tools and assessment methods.

This study addresses the struggles White preservice English teachers’ experience in making sense of unfamiliar ethnicities in narrative forms and how this frustration might be mediated. Findings reveal a keen interest in understanding and engaging with multicultural literature among participants coupled with a persistent hesitation to include it and related conversations of race in their instruction. Participants opened themselves to learning more about others but struggled to implicate themselves in the transfer of new knowledge to teaching practice.

The purpose of this case study was to investigate the impact of using an electronic assessment systems (EAS) beyond meeting minimal teacher education program compliance obligations. The findings reveal that many of the challenges the authors have encountered while implementing this yearly evaluation cycle fall into three categories: data, analysis, and ownership. Based on their experiences, the authors suggest a framework for the systematic, continuous review of assessment data, a Yearly Program Evaluation Cycle. They argue that having a systematic assessment model helps build agreement among faculty and administration regarding assessment planning, analyzing results, and, then later, implementing the changes based on this analysis.