Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, WINNEBA
CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT PRACTICES OF KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS
IN GHANA
ASARE KOTOR
8101770007
i
May, 2014
ii
UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, WINNEBA
CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT PRACTICES OF KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS
IN GHANA
ASARE KOTOR
A Dissertation in the Department of Educational
Leadership, Faculty of Education and Communication
Sciences, submitted to the School of Graduate Studies,
University of Education, Winneba in partial fulfilment of
the requirements for award of the Master of Philosophy
(Educational Leadership) degree.
i
May, 2014
DECLARATION
STUDENT’S DECLARATION
I, Asare Kotor, declare that this Dissertation, with the
exception of quotations and references contained in
published works which have all been identified and duly
acknowledged, is entirely my own original work, and that
it has not been submitted, either in part or whole, for
another degree elsewhere.
SIGNATURE..........................................
DATE....................................................
SUPERVISOR’S DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the preparation and presentation of
this work were supervised in accordance with the guidance
ii
for supervision of Dissertation as laid down by the
University of Education, Winneba.
NAME OF SUPERVISOR: Dr. Samuel Ofori Bekoe
SIGNATURE..........................................
DATE....................................................
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my thesis
supervisor Dr. Bekoe. O. Samuel for his guidance,
advice, criticism, encouragement and insight throughout
the study. I will also thank Professor Frederick Kwaku
Sarfo, Reverend Father Dr. Francis K Sam and Mr. Kobina
Adentwi for their pieces of advice, criticisms and
insight related to this dissertation.
iii
My sincerest thanks also go to my dearest family
members notably Paapa Kwame Aboagye Kotor, Kwabena
Frimpong, Ama Nyarko, Akosua Aboagyewaa, Abenaa Pokuaah
and Maame Ama Asaah. I could not get to this stage of my
academic life without their encouragement. I am also
thankful to my sole brothers, Kofi Poku Fofie, Yaw Boakye
and Kwame Aboagye Kotor. I thank them for their love and
encouragement that have made this dissertation possible.
Besides, my sincere thanks also go to my dear
friends, Philip Boateng, Dr. Boakye Agyemang, James
Kwabena Bomfeh, Ghampson Ebenezer and the ‘‘sole complete
woman’’, Rita Daniels who proof read the entire
dissertation. Special thanks similarly go to the
participating kindergarten teachers from both Archer
Academy and DHI College of Health and Education in Kumasi
who spared their time to respond to the questionnaire. I
thank them all, for giving me their valuable time in your
schools!
Last but not least, I would also like to express my
appreciation to my lovely daughter, Maame Abenaa Owusuwaa
Kotor Papabi and these wonderful ladies, Evelyn Esiiv
Naami, Freda Koomson, Mary Boakyewaa, Sarah Okyere and
Saraphin Enyo Sasu for their prayers and support in
diverse forms.
DEDICATION
To the, Almighty God, and my late mother Maame Ama
Owusuwaa.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTSDeclaration ii
Acknowledgements iii
Dedication iv
Table of Contents x
List of Tables xi
Abbreviations
Abstract xii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background to the Study 1
1.2. Problem Statement 6
1.3. Purpose of the Study 7
1.4. Research Questions 8
1.5. Hypothesis 8
1.7. Delimitations of the Study 9
1.8. Limitations 9
1.9. Organisation of the Dissertation 10
1.10. Definition of Terms 11
1.11. Abbreviations and Acronyms 14
vi
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 16
2.0. Introduction 16
2.1. Learning Theories that Support Early Childhood Children
Learning 16
2.2. Zone of Proximal Development 16
2.3. Children as Co-Constructors of Knowledge 18
2.4. Activity Theory 19
2.5. Early Childhood Curriculum 20
2.6. Aligning the Curriculum 21
2.7. Types of Curricula 21
2.8. Models of Early Childhood Curriculum 23
2.9. Curriculum Models and Assessment 24
2.10. Montessori Curriculum Model and Assessment 24
2.11. Waldorf Curriculum Model and Assessment 26
2.12. Project Approach Curriculum Model and Assessment 27
2.13. Curriculum Development Issues in Ghana 28
2.14. Defining a Ghanaian Pedagogy for Kindergarten 30
2.15. Educational Change 31
2.16. Approaches to Curriculum Implementation 33
2.17. Fidelity of Curriculum Implementation 34
2.18. Adaptation 36vii
2.19. Factors that Promote Curriculum Implementation 37
2.20. Curriculum Alignment 37
2.21. Key Theoretical Constructs for Assessment 39
2.22. Emerging Approaches to Assessment 39
2.23. Performance Assessment and Authentic Assessment 39
2.24. What to Assess in Early Learning 41
2.25. The Essentials of Learning 41
2.26. A Range of Cognitive Abilities 42
2.27. Emotional well-being 43
2.28. Self-concept and Sociability 43
2.29. Approaches to Assessing Early Learning 44
2.29.1. A narrative approach to assessment of learning in
early childhood 44
2.29.2. Methods for collecting information on children’s
learning 44
2.29.3. Observing and Empathising 45
2.29.4. Conversations with Children 46
2.29.5. Making Sense of Children’s Learning 47
2.29.6. Sustaining Learning and Development through
Documentation 47
2.29.7. Portfolios 47viii
2.30. Supporting Learning and Development 48
2.31. The Nature of Early Learning 49
2.32. Play as a Context for Formative Assessment 49
2.33. Assessment and the Practitioner 50
2.34. Professional Knowledge 50
2.35. Skills Base 51
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 53
3.0. Introduction 53
3.1. Research Design 53
3.2. Population 54
3.3. Sample and Sampling Technique 55
3.4. Instrument for Data Collection 56
3.5. Test for Validity and Reliability of Instrument 58
3.6. Administration of the Research Instruments 58
3. 6. 1. Questionnaire Administration 58
3.7. Interviews with Teachers 59
3.8. Procedure for the Interviews 60
Table 3.1: Background of Teachers who Participated in the
Interview 62
3.9. Ethical Considerations 62ix
3.10. Analysis and Interpretation 63
3.1.1. Questionnaire Data 63
3.11. Qualitative Data Analysis Procedure 63
3.12. Validation 65
CHAPTER FOUR: THE RESULTS 67
4.0. Introduction 67
4.1 Demographic Data of Respondents 67
4.2 Kindergarten Teachers’ Views Regarding their Use of
Various Modes of Assessment Practices, the Reasons for
Selecting a Particular Mode of Assessment and the Impact of
Performance Assessment on their Professional Development 72
4.2.1 Respondents’ Views on the Use of Various Modes of
Assessment 72
4.2.2 Reasons for Selecting a particular Mode of Assessment
by Kindergarten Teachers 74
4.2.3. Hypothesis 81
4.4.0. Qualitative Data 86
4.4.1 Testing (paper-and–pencil teacher made test) 86
4.4.2. Reasons for selecting a particular mode of assessing
children’s learning outcomes (just to meet parent’s x
expectations) 88
4.4.3. Reasons for selecting a particular mode of assessing
children’s learning outcomes (to force children to learn) 89
4.4.4. Reasons for selecting a particular mode of Assessing
Children’s Learning Outcomes (Just to Meet the Expectations
of Educational Leaders) 90
4.4.5. Reasons for Selecting a Particular Mode of Assessing
Children’s Learning Outcomes (to make Children Scare and
Afraid of Teachers) 91
4.4.6. Reasons For Selecting a Particular Mode of Assessing
Children’s Learning Outcomes (Respect and Like Me as A
Teacher) 92
4.5.0. Performance Assessment 93
4.5.1. Teachers Views on Performance Assessment (Does not
Challenge Children to Learn Hard) 94
4.5.2. Teachers views on performance assessment (encourages
teachers to be lazy) 95
4.5.3. Teachers’ Views that Performance Assessment (Does Not
Measure the Exact Learning Outcomes) 95
4.5.4. Teachers’ Views That Performance Assessment (Does Not
Produce Same Results for Same Groups of Children) 96xi
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 98
5.0. Introduction 98
5.1. Discussion of Demographic Data 98
5.1.1 Institutional Placement of the Respondents 98
5.2. Discussion of the Three Research Questions Underpinning
the Current Research 99
5.2.1. Teachers’ Level of Agreement to the Use of the
Following Modes of Assessment in the Early Childhood
Classroom? 99
5.2.2. Teachers’ reasons for selecting a particular mode of
assessment 102
5.2.3. Teachers’ views on The Impact of the Performance
Assessment on Their Professional Development 106
5.2.4. Hypothesis 110
CHAPTER SIX : SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 123
6.0. Introduction 123
6.1. Summary of Research Process 123
6.1.1. Summary of Findings 125
6.2. Conclusion 126xii
6.3. Recommendations 127
REFERENCES 130
APPENDICES 158
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Background of Teachers who Participated in the
Interview 62
Table 4.1: Age of Respondents 68
Table 4.2: Gender of Respondents 68
Table 4.3: Highest Educational Qualification Respondents 69
Table 4.4: Area of Specialization of the Respondents 70
Table 4.5: Institutional Placement of Respondents 71
Table 4.6: Teaching Experience of Respondents 71
Table 4.7: Mode of Assessment Used by Kindergarten Teachers
72
Table 4.8 Respondents’ Reasons for Selecting a Particular
Mode of Assessment 75
Table 4.9: Respondents Views on Impact of Performance
Assessment on their Professional Development 79
Table 4.10 Independent Samples t-test on the Use of the
Various Modes of Assessment of Public and Private
Kindergarten Teachers 81
Table 4.11: Independent Samples t-test on the Reasons for
Selecting a Particular Mode of Assessment of Public and
Private Kindergarten Teachers 83xiv
Table 4.12: Independent Samples t-test on Teachers’ Views
on the Impact of the Performance Assessment on their
Professional Development with respect to their institutional
placement (public and private kindergartens) 85
Abbreviations
CRDD – Curriculum Research Division and Development
DAP – Developmentally Appropriate Practices
ECCD – Early Childhood Care and Development
ECE – Early Childhood Education
GES – Ghana Education Service
GNAT – Ghana National Association of Teachers
KG – Kindergarten
KG Teacher– Kindergarten Teacher
MOE – Ministry of Education
MOWAC – Ministry of Women and Children’s Affairs
MOEYS - Ministry of Education Youth & Sports
xv
NAEYC – National Association for the Education of Young
Children
PA – Performance Assessment
UCC – University of Cape Coast
UEW – University of Education, Winneba
UNICEF – United Nations International Cultural Education
Fund
WHO – World Health Organization
ABSTRACT
The study aimed at investigating kindergarten teachers’
assessment practices based on three subscales: (a)
teachers’ modes of assessment frequently used, (b) their
reasons for selecting a particular mode of assessment,
and (c) the impact of performance assessment on their
professional development. The sequential mixed methodsxvi
research design was employed. The quantitative data were
gathered through questionnaires administered to 192
teachers in public and private kindergartens in six
regions of Ghana. The qualitative data were gathered
through interviews with three participants selected from
the 192 sampled teachers. Independent samples t-test was
employed to test the quantitative data. The results of
the study indicated that paper- and- pencil test mode of
assessment is used frequently by the teachers. In
addition teachers also appeared to be using a particular
mode of assessment just to meet the expectations of the
parents and educational leaders without meeting the
curriculum assessment prescription. Results further
showed no significant difference between the public and
private kindergarten teachers on almost all the items in
the three subscales used in this study but differed
significantly on four reasons for selecting a particular
mode of assessment and also on three views regarding the
impact of performance assessment on their professional
development. Teachers’ assessment practices are therefore
not supported by any known developmentally assessmentxvii
theory for children. Workshops and in-service education
and training are therefore recommended for all the
stakeholders including the parents, educational leaders
and teachers on the use of developmentally appropriate
assessment practices in a much more interactive manner.
xviii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter, which is the introduction, covers the
background to the study, statement of the problem,
purpose of the study, research objectives, and research
questions. The rest include the significance of the
study, delimitation of the study, limitations of the
study and definition of terms.
1.1. Background to the Study
Formal child care provision in education has been
problematic worldwide since the days of yore. It probably
took the enviable efforts of great philosophers and
reformers like John Locke, Jean Piaget and Jack Jean
Rousseau, who had to fight at their peril to change
society’s poor perception about children. Until recently,
pre-school education and for that matter early childhood
care and development was seen as a less important aspect
of educational systems in many developing countries
including Ghana. Today, this is rapidly changing. In
1
Ghana, early childhood care and development has been
integrated into the formal educational system thanks to
the new educational reform. It has, therefore, become
compulsory before proceeding to primary school. It has
been noted that early childhood education is an important
foundation in the life of children, particularly in
today’s dynamic society and in a world where more and
more children in both the urban and rural areas are left
unattended to (Said, Wallhager, Cungua, & Ngie, 2003).
In the past, each community in Ghana had a well
organised traditional education and social welfare
system. The community ensured that each child born was
brought up according to its socially valued knowledge,
skills, dispositions, attitudes and cultural beliefs. The
community was interested in the child long before the
actual birth. The expectant mother received a lot of
attention, care and protection from all members in the
locality. The community saw to it that the expectant
mother had enough food, exercise, rest and was free from
fear, stress, panic or anxiety. Young men and women
2
received prior training and socialization in parenting
and parenthood.
Today, this traditional set-up, its beliefs,
customs, traditions and values have virtually broken down
due to the prevailing dynamic social changes. Thus, many
parents do not have sufficient, requisite knowledge,
skills and proper attitudes for bringing up children.
The importance of early childhood care and
development, therefore, cannot be over- emphasised.
Successful early childhood care and stimulation
programme, be it at home or public institution, may lay
the foundation for creativity, independence, imagination,
self-reliance and survival, as these are the cardinal
ingredients for future lifelong learning (MOWAC, 2001).
In view of this, in Ghana, greater emphasis is placed on
the philosophy that early childhood training is
essentially a preparation for life. Since the
introduction of the Ministry of Women and Children’s
Affairs (MOWAC) in 2001, Early Childhood Care and
Development (ECCD) has taken a new approach as the
Ministry has formulated comprehensive policies and3
programmes for children at birth to age eight (8), as
well as policies that cover parents and caregivers.
An early childhood programme is any group programme
in a centre, school, or other facility that serves
children from birth through age 8. Early childhood
programmes include child care centres, family child care
homes, private and public pre-schools, kindergartens, and
primary-grade schools (NAEYC, 1996).The early childhood
professional is responsible for establishing and
promoting standards of high-quality, and professional
practice in early childhood programmes. Although the
quality of early childhood programme may be affected by
many factors, a majority determinant of programme quality
is the extent to which knowledge of child development is
applied in programme practices – the degree to which the
programme is developmentally appropriate.
The four components in which developmentally
appropriate early childhood programme could be
implemented are: curriculum; adult-child interactions;
relations between the home and programme; and
developmental evaluation of children (NAEYC, 1984, 1996).4
When children enter kindergarten at age four, they come
with tremendous informal experiences covering various
areas of human experiences. It is therefore important to
identify these areas and create conditions favourable for
their consolidation and expansion (MOEYS, 2004). A
kindergarten curriculum, such as this, recognises the
principle that children at this age learn by “doing”.
Thus, the curriculum provides children with expressive
activities that demand their participation in all
learning (MOEYS, 2004). This lays a foundation for later
formal learning. In view of these, all activities such as
listening and speaking and experiences including
decision- making and comparing that children possess
before they come to school should be harnessed for
effective teaching and learning.
Questions about the nature of implementation and
evaluation in early childhood education persist in the
field today. Should the implementation and evaluation
focus on children – on outcomes such as academic
achievement, gains in intelligence, or attainment of
specific goals and objectives (Seefeldt & Galper, 1998)?5
One does not need to look very far to see how important
testing and assessment have become crucial in education
when implementing any curriculum and that of early
childhood programmes. Assessment of children should be
carried out for the primary purpose of providing adults
with the information they need to plan more appropriately
for children’s ongoing development and should involve
strategies that support rather than threaten children’s
feelings of self-esteem (Amponsah, 2004). Assessment of
curriculum effectiveness is an integral aspect of early
childhood programmes. Developmental goals and learning
outcomes are set for children and these must be monitored
to see how well they are being achieved (GES, 2009).
Today, however, there is an intensity surrounding
the issues of assessment of young children. The perceived
need to account for children’s learning has led to ‘high
stakes testing’’, and the most blatant misuse of
assessment. Despite the negative effects associated with
tracking practices, a single test score continues to be
the basis on which young children are grouped, retained
in grade, or assigned to special education classes6
(McGill–Franzen & Allenton, 1993). Children’s score on
standardised tests have been blatantly misused in the
economic marketplace as well. Test scores are published
by school and grade in local newspapers and reported in
the media; real estate firms then include such test
scores of children in specific school districts to
promote the sale of homes (Seefeldt & Galper, 1998).
With such practices in assessment like these, the
assessment of young children has gone well beyond the
desire to know and understand the nature of children’s
growth, learning, and development. Thus, a few
statistics, standard deviations, graphs and percentages
can affect children for the rest of their lives, as well
as the lives of others to ensure lifelong learning
(Seefeldt & Galper, 1998). This system whereby
educational programme quality now is being judged by
childrens’ test score is with us here in Ghana as there
is a national league results being published in the
national dailies at the Senior High School level to
create an unnecessary and unhealthy competition among
schools without taking into account other prevailing7
conditions in the various schools in Ghana. The big
question to ask, therefore: ‘‘Is education meant for life
or for high stakes or test scores?’’
Modern Ghanaian society and other societies the
world over have placed great expectations on the early
years of life. Whether a child comes from a wealthy or
poorer family, the collective belief is that children’s
future academic achievements would ensure later success
in life, irrespective of their physical, social and
emotional health. These have their roots in the early
years of life, which prevails and serves to guide and
direct assessment of young children. However, how many
times do we, teachers, as the implementers of the
curriculum, reflect on the mode of assessment carried out
on our children’s performance? How very sure could it be
that we make a very well informed decision that caters
for every child in our classrooms irrespective of the
varying special needs? How best would one assess the
performance of an armless child who cannot write owing to
such a physical challenge in our Ghanaian early childhood
or kindergarten context or setting? The above questions8
are necessary. Owing to this premise, as we presumably
live in a country called Ghana where the government of
the day pretends to pay teachers very well, whilst
teachers also pretend to teach very well in the
classrooms and suddenly, the children also pretend to
learn very well. This seeming pretence in Ghana’s
education might have rendered all teachers to be
lecturers as they lecture children from kindergarten up
to the university level.
Public outcry against poor-quality pre-schools and
the subjecting of young children to inappropriate
assessment practices has led to calls from diverse
quarters, such as the media, child development
professionals, and members of civil society for redress
in Ghana (Amponsah, 2004; Boakye, Adamu-Issah & Etse,
2001). These calls and the seeming paucity of literature
on early childhood service delivery in Ghana have served
as catalysts to my desire to be an instrument that could
contribute to the body of knowledge in literature on
assessment practices in early childhood or kindergarten
in Ghana, hence the need for this study.9
1.2. Problem Statement
In most countries, there is a considerable gap
between what is learned in the classroom and the real
life context of pupils’ present or future world (Anamuah-
Mensah & Towse, 1995). This is particularly true of the
less-developed countries where the needs of those not
progressing beyond the compulsory stages of primary or
junior secondary education are subservient to the
perceived academic needs of those progressing further,
and particularly by the small percentage proceeding to
the university. Ways of assessing children’s learning
and development cannot be separated from features of the
curriculum (for example, the degree of formality or
informality that characterise it), and from views of
learners and learning which are embodied in that
curriculum. Kelly (1992) identifies the interrelating of
curriculum and assessment as ‘‘… a highly complex and
sophisticated matter’’ p.16).
The Ghanaian curriculum planners and the entire CRDD
appear to have agreed on this very point the essential
role of teachers in curriculum implementation and the10
very informal nature of assessment in Ghanaian
kindergartens. At this stage, assessment must be as
informal as possible. Teachers must avoid the temptation
of subjecting children’s work to formal assessment.
Informal techniques such as observation, conversation,
and gallery works enable children to go round to
appreciate others’ work (MOEYS, 2004). Even though the
Ghanaian early childhood or kindergarten curriculum
designers prescribe appropriate assessment practices,
there is little or no evidence to show whether the
implementers are following the apparently fidelity
approach prescribed or not. There are few or no studies
on the entire assessment practices on the Ghanaian early
childhood or kindergarten curriculum and assessment.
UNICEF (2011) puts it in this way: [ “... of
particular importance is the limited number of
studies in the Ghanaian context and available
local studies focused on the entire evaluation
of Ghanaian Early Childhood Policy with a
little attention given to the assessment
practices in the early childhood or11
kindergarten curriculum implementation”]
(p.67).
The big question therefore is, to what extent are the
ordinary Ghanaian teacher’s involvement in the curriculum
development process let alone that of kindergarten
teachers who are often not well trained? It could be
implied, therefore, that there is little or no knowledge
at all as to how best to implement the entire early
childhood curriculum with special emphasis on the
assessment of the learning outcomes of these children at
their formative stages in life. This above assertion
could be true owing to a seeming paucity of literature on
the Ghanaian early childhood curriculum implementation.
This current research intends to bridge this gap in the
literature regarding the subject matter of early
childhood or kindergarten assessment practices by
curriculum implementers being the early childhood
caregivers or the kindergarten teachers, as they are
often called in our local Ghanaian parlance.
12
1.3. Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to track and
investigate the views of Ghanaian kindergarten teachers
in order to understand their assessment practices as part
of their instructional practices in line with their
curriculum implementation processes.
Moreover, this study investigated the possible
differences that might be in the teachers’ views on their
assessment practices based on their institutional
placement (i.e. whether public or private school).
1.4. Research Questions
The central question in the current study is: What views
do kindergarten teachers have about the various
assessment practices regarding their capability to
implement the kindergarten curriculum in Ghana?
The specific questions are:
1. What are kindergarten teachers’ views on the use of
various modes of assessment?
13
2. What are the kindergarten teachers’ views on the
reasons for selecting a particular mode of
assessment?
3. What are kindergarten teachers’ views on the impact
of the performance assessment on their professional
development?
1.5. Hypothesis
It was hypothesised that:
1. There will be no significant difference among the
kindergarten teachers teaching in public or private
schools with respect to their:
(a) Views on the various modes of assessment often
used,
(b) Reasons for selecting a particular mode of
assessment and
(c) Views on the impact of the performance
assessment on their professional development.
1.6. Significance of the Study
14
The findings of the study will help inform policy
makers, educational leaders, curriculum planners (CRDD),
private childcare providers and other stakeholders in
early childhood education in making developmentally
appropriate practices and pragmatic decisions to enhance
kindergarten teachers’ assessment practices.
The result of the study will also sensitise
government, private childcare providers and other
stakeholders in developing appropriate and sustainable
continuous professional development on assessment
practices for kindergarten teachers.
The findings of the study are a contribution to the
literature on curriculum implementation and assessment
practices on early childhood education and provide the
basis for further research in the field especially in the
Ghanaian context.
1.7. Delimitations of the Study
Early childhood education is too broad an area and
multifaceted in nature. However, the study was limited to
kindergarten teachers’ views regarding the implementation
15
of the kindergarten curriculum in line with their
assessment practices in Ghana. The study was also
confined to teachers working in some selected public and
private kindergarten schools in the six selected regions
of Ghana.
1.8. Limitations
There were several limitations to this study. First,
the use of closed-ended questions in the instrument means
that respondents would be expected to take a decision on
each item without allowing them any room for their own
open-ended responses in most instances. The respondents
in this study teach primarily in rural areas; and their
responses may not represent the views expressed by their
counterparts who live and teach in urban and suburban
areas. Generalisation of the findings to the kindergarten
teachers in the urban and metropolitan areas should
therefore be done with caution.
Second, a noticeable limitation was related to the
population of the study. Data were collected only from
the preschool teachers who were working in the private
16
and public schools which are under control of Archer
Academy. So, results of the study cannot be generalized
directly to all preschool teachers all over Ghana. Those
results can only provide us insights and general opinions
from the specific sample.
The third limitation was that data were derived from
the teachers’ self- reported data. Although, these data
were supported through interviews with teachers, the
findings of this study might not reflect what actually
happens in the classroom because observations, focus
group discussion, data analysis of the real classroom
settings were not included.
1.9. Definition of Terms
The terms used in this study are defined operationally as
follows:
Anecdotal Records: Dated, informal observational teacher
notations that describe an individual student’s
development in terms of social, attitudinal, learning
style, or anything else that seems significant at the
time of observation.
17
Assessment: The process of data collection and the
gathering of evidence about a student’s achievement and
progress.
Assessment for Learning as a product: Assessment that is
generally summative in nature and used by teachers to
measure learning outcomes and reports those outcomes to
students, parents, and administrators. It is generally
occurs at the conclusion of a class, course, semester, or
academic year.
Assessment for Learning as a process: Assessment that is
generally formative in nature and is used by teachers to
consider approaches to teaching and next steps for
individual learners and the class.
Audio/visual recording of student work: Audio or visual
recordings of student’s work made by teachers or peers to
be viewed for assessment purposes.
Checklist: Enumerates a number of behaviors or features
that constitute a procedure or product. When a procedure
is involved, the steps are typically listed in the
desired order.
18
Co-construct: learning takes place as children interact
with educators and other children as they work together
in partnership.
Criterion-referenced assessment: Assessment that is used
when candidates are measured against defined (and
objective) criteria. It is often, but not always, used to
establish a person’s competence (whether she or he can do
something) – example = driving test.
Curriculum: in the early childhood setting curriculum
means ‘all the interactions, experiences, activities,
routines and events, planned and unplanned, that occur in
an environment designed to foster children’s learning and
development.
Evaluation: The process of making decisions on the basis
of measurements. The on-going assessments, reviews, and
observations in a classroom; assessment during the course
of instruction rather than after it is completed
Formal assessment: Assessment that is given a numerical
score or grade based on student performance, usually
implicates a written document, such as a test, quiz, or
paper.19
Informal assessment: Assessment that is usually occurs in
a more casual manner and may include observation,
inventories, checklists, rating scales, rubrics,
performance and portfolio assessments, participation,
peer and self evaluation, and discussion. It does not
contribute to a student’s final grade.
Measurement: The process of gathering information about
learning. It is the process of quantifying the degree to
which someone or something possesses a given
characteristic, quality or feature.
Norm-referenced Assessment: Assessment that is not
measured against defined criteria. It is relative to the
student body undertaking the assessment. It is
effectively a way of comparing students–example = IQ
test.
Observation: A method of assessment where teachers gather
data not by asking for information but by watching
closely. The student performs some action and her
behavior is observed and recorded by the teacher.
One-to-one interview: Face to face conversations between
teachers and students where teachers have a predetermined20
list of questions to assess a change in student attitude
or what a student has learned about a subject.
Performance Assessment: A kind of assessments that often
emphasis “doing”, open-ended activities for which there
is no one correct answer and that may assess higher-level
thinking. Personality Test: The tests are used to measure
various kind of personality. There are several types of
personality measures such as self report inventories,
projective techniques and behavior rating scales.
Portfolio: A systematic and organized collection of a
students’ work compiled by students and teachers that are
reviewed against preset criteria to judge a student or
program.
Reliability: Refers to the extent to which assessments
are consistent.
Standardized tests: The kind of tests that are better
suited to large scale data collection and when uniform
comparisons across students are crucial. It is intended
to be administered, scored, and interpreted in the same
way for all test takers, regardless of where or when they
are assess.21
Rating scale: An instrument with a number of items
related to a given variable, each item representing a
continuum of categories between two extremes, usually
with a number of points along the continuum highlighted
in some way.
Selected-Response Items: It is also known as objective
assessment. It is a form of questioning which has a
single correct answer
Summative Assessments: Assessment that is used to
evaluate the effectiveness of instructional programs and
services at the end of an academic year or at a pre-
determined time; assessment after instruction is
finished.
Teacher made tests: Open-ended questions determined by
the teacher after a lesson has been completed to
encourage a variety of thoughtful responses.
Test: A question or a task or a series of such, designed
to elicit some predetermined behavior from the person
being tested.
22
Validity: Refers to the accuracy of an assessment,
whether or not it measures what it is supposed to
measure.
Written skills tests: Published diagnostic tests that
students complete for teacher use in student assessment.
1.10. Organisation of the Dissertation
The dissertation is organised into six chapters. The
first chapter, which is the introduction, covers the
background to the study, statement of the problem,
purpose of the study, research objectives, and research
questions. The rest include the significance of the
study, delimitation of the study, limitations of the
study and definition of terms.
Chapter Two is the literature review. The chapter
reviews existing and related literature to provide
23
theoretical and the conceptual framework for the current
study.
Chapter Three describes the research methodology which
covers the design of the study, population, sample and
sampling procedure, research instruments and
administration procedure and methods of data analysis.
Chapter Four presents and discusses the results of
the study whilst Chapter Five deals with the discussion
of the results. Chapter Six provides a summary of the
results, conclusions and recommendations.
24
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.0. Introduction
This chapter deals with the various key theoretical
constructs which form the conceptual framework of this
study. It begins with the various learning theories which
support this study, the early childhood curriculum issues
both international and Ghanaian, educational change,
curriculum implementation and finally the emerging
theories in early childhood assessment.
2.1. Learning Theories that Support Early Childhood
Children Learning
Curriculum is different from, but closely linked to,
learning theories and pedagogies (Kagan & Kauerz, 2012).
Behaviourist theories of child development led to highly
didactic models of direct instruction in which teachers
typically present discrete facts to the entire class of
children in whole groups. Maturationist theories of child
development advanced pedagogy wherein children are
expected to develop at their own pacing and advanced25
pedagogy and curricula that enable children to direct
their own learning outcomes. Constructivist theories of
child development advanced pedagogy wherein children are
active partners with their socio-cultural environment,
including teachers and peers.
2.2. Zone of Proximal DevelopmentVygotsky’s theory of learning (1978, 1986) has been
highly influential in helping to explain the processes of
learning in early childhood. In particular, his notion of
the zone of proximal development has provided the foundation
and potential for some of the most important recent
initiatives in the assessment of individual children’s
learning (Lunt, 2000). Berk and Winsler (1995) describe
Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) as:
a dynamic zone of sensitivity in which learning and cognitive
development occur. Tasks that children cannot do individually
but they can do with help from others invoke mental functioning
that are currently in the process of developing, rather than those
that have already matured (p.26).
It seems Vygotsky originally introduced the ZPD in
the context of arguing against intelligence testing which26
he felt was seeking to assess something static and did
not reflect the dynamic and ever-changing. This is
equally supported by early learning and development
through formative assessment (AISTEAR, 1998). Adult-child
collaboration within the ZPD is critical for effective
teaching and learning interactions because it is within
such interactions that the practitioner identifies how
the child may be assisted in learning and what the child
is capable of doing with appropriate support. The
practitioner also has the opportunity to assess the
impact of such support on the child’s progress. This
approach to assessment effectively merges the teaching
and assessment processes. It is commonly referred to as
dynamic assessment. When Feuerstein (1979) first proposed
this form of assessment, he was envisioning, in essence,
a joint problem-solving situation during which the
practitioner gauges the nature and extent of assistance
required by the child in order to solve the problem.
Children’s responsiveness to appropriate instructional
interactions is a key factor in dynamic assessment
situations and it is now considered to be an important27
predictor of learning potential (Berk & Winsler, 1995).
Lidz (1991) emphasises that:
The focus of dynamic assessment is on the assessor’s ability to discover
the means of facilitating the learning of the child, not on the child’s
demonstration of ability to the assessor (as cited in Berk &
Winsler, 1995, p.139 and in AISTEAR, 1998, p.16).
Dynamic assessment is considered by Berk and Winsler
(2000) as especially useful for making visible the
learning potential of those children whose early
experiences do not include experiences that prepare them
for learning in group or institutional settings. The
concept of scaffolding is often associated with ZPD.
Practitioner’s interactions with children often
incorporate both teaching and assessment. It is critical
that the practitioner is capable of engaging certain
interactive skills in such situations.
The co-construction of knowledge is supported and to be
discussed next in this section.
2.3. Children as Co-Constructors of KnowledgeIt appears that, in recent times, the term, ‘co-
construction’, has appeared prominently in influential28
early childhood publications, although it was implicit in
the last century in the work of Dewey (1933 cited in
AISTEAR, 1998, p.16) who placed premium on the ways in
which children construct their learning by actively
engaging in, and shaping, their experiences and
environments. For instance, Jordan (2004) explains the
term scaffolding and links it with co-construction. He explains
that the specific pattern of interaction that
characterised early accounts of scaffolding, as Jordan,
and also Rogoff (1998) generally maintained the power and
control with the adult. They argue that the term, co-
construction, emphasises the child as a powerful player
in his/her own learning. An example of how this process
of co-construction works in practice is illustrated in
the discussion of the Reggio Emilia approach to early
childhood education (Edwards et al., 1998). Co-
construction refers to adults and children making meaning
and knowledge together (MacNaughton & Williams, 2004).
Co-construction recognises the child’s expertise and in
order to understand this, the practitioner needs to
29
interact with the child and become aware of the child’s
thoughts and thereby to establish inter-subjectivity.
Contemporary research (Siraj-Blatchford, Sylva,
Muttock, Gilden, & Bell, 2002) also enlightened the
process of co-construction and found it to be a key
factor in terms of promoting children’s learning.
Importantly, a co-construction perspective emphasises
understanding and meaning on the part of the child and
adult, rather than the acquisition of facts by the child.
Jordan (2004) claims that the two concepts, scaffolding
and co-construction, have different applicability
depending on whether the goal of the educator is the
exploration of thinking or the achievement of pre-
specified learning goals. Co-construction of meaning and
knowledge is central to teaching, learning and assessment
and it occurs when both the child and the educator engage
together in achieving mutual understanding.
2.4. Activity Theory
Activity theory, as developmental aspects of
Vygotsky’s work (Engerstrom et al., 1999), is also being
30
highlighted as a theoretical construct that could be
helpful in explaining the complexity of learning–related
issues in early childhood. Fleer et al (2004) also
pointed out activity theory, in common with Rogoff’s
discussion of socio-cultural theory, which focuses on the
study of the complexity of human behaviour in social
groups and in specific contexts. The theory is pivoted on
the understanding that ‘‘the contextual features of a task contribute
to … performance on that task’’ (p.178). In addition, children
employ tools such as language, a particular resource to
mediate knowledge in interactions with others. However,
the cultural features of the context in which they use
these tools affect and influence the way activities are
performed and understood.
2.5. Early Childhood Curriculum
The curriculum is the teacher’s choice of what
knowledge and skills are important and also
developmentally appropriate for a particular group of
children (Bredekamp, 2009). Curriculum may be viewed as
an outline of knowledge and skills to be learned rather
31
than as a recipe for how they must be taught (Mayesky,
2012). Bredekamp and Rosegrant (1995) provide an all-
inclusive definition: curriculum is a framework that
delineates the content that children are to learn, the
process through which children achieve the identified
curricular goals, what teachers do to help children
achieve these goals, and the context in which teaching
and learning occurs. Curriculum therefore must be
relevant to the child at all times.
The researcher also sees early childhood curriculum
as encompassing all the learning experiences both planned
and unplanned that form part of the daily schedules and
routines a child goes through under the auspices of an
early childhood programme with both the early childhood
educator and the child being an integral part of a
stimulating, facilitating, enabling and inviting learning
environment with the appropriate use of all the child’s
senses. Kelly (1992) identifies the interrelating of
curriculum and assessment as ‘‘… a highly complex and
sophisticated matter’’ (p.16). However, this researcher opines
that curriculum, instruction, assessment and supervision32
are mutually interactive and as such a teacher cannot
underestimate the relevance of each one of them.
2.6. Aligning the Curriculum
Several types of curriculum operate in schools. When
they are reasonably congruent with each other, student
achievement is likely to improve. This section of the
literature review reviews briefly the several types of
curriculum.
2.7. Types of Curricula
Glatthorn et al. (2006) opined that these seven
types of curricula need the attention of the principal:
the recommended curriculum; the taught curriculum; the
supported curriculum; the assessed curriculum; the
learned curriculum and the hidden curriculum.
Recommended Curriculum
The recommended curriculum is that which is recommended
by scholars and professional organizations. The best
source for the recommendations of professional
organizations is the written curriculum (Kendall &
33
Marzano, 1997). The written curriculum, as the term is
used here, is the curriculum that appears in state and
locally produced documents, such as state standards,
district scope and sequence charts, district curriculum
guides, teachers' planning documents, and curriculum
units.
Taught Curriculum
The taught curriculum is that which teachers actually
deliver day by day
Supported Curriculum
The supported curriculum includes those resources that
support the curriculum-textbooks, software, and other
media.
Assessed Curriculum
The assessed curriculum is that which appears in tests
and performance measures: state tests, standardized
tests, district tests, and teacher-made tests.
Learned Curriculum 34
The learned curriculum is the bottom-line curriculum; the
curriculum that students actually learn.
Hidden Curriculum
This is the unintended curriculum. It defines what
students learn from the physical environment, the
policies, and the procedures of the school. Here is an
example. Each week, teachers in an elementary school
devote minutes to reading and minutes to art. Numerous
researches suggest there are varying patterns of
influence among the several types of curriculum. The
recommended curriculum seems to have little influence on
the written, although districts seem to be increasingly
concerned with state standards, especially if they are
accompanied by state tests. Teachers are likely much more
influenced by the assessed curriculum, especially if they
are held accountable for students' results. Students are
similarly sensitive to the assessed curriculum as
evidenced in the standard student question, "is this
going to be on the test?’’ (Glatthorn et al., 2006).
35
Teachers are perhaps most sensitive to the learned
curriculum, making their decisions on the basis of
students' needs, as they perceive them, and students'
responses to the taught curriculum. Whereas conventional
wisdom holds that teachers are textbook driven, the
research suggests that the textbook is only one of
several sources that the teacher consults in planning for
instruction (Brown, 1988).
2.8. Models of Early Childhood Curriculum
To be able to understand the
foundations of early childhood curriculum, looking
at the historical process gives the opportunity to see
how young children and their way of learning is perceived
by the past generations based on religious, ethnic,
political and economic pressures of the times
(Jackman, 2013). For example, Rousseau, who is famous
with his book “Emile”, believed in the idea of unfolding.
For him “unfolding” can occur as a result of development
according to children’s innate timetables (Morrison,
2008; p.58). In fact, such an approach is used now as
36
teachers choose their activities according to children’s
developmental levels.
Much the same way, Pestalozzi believed that children
learn through their senses and through this they can
achieve their natural potential. “Whole person”
observation and sympathetic approach of teachers were
among the significant principles that he contributed to
early childhood education (Clough et al., 2008, p.28).
Froebel, known as the father of kindergarten, is
another influential figure in early childhood
curriculum (Gordon & Browne, 2004, 2011). Froebel used
planned curriculum which included gifts and occupations
to educate children. Today, it is the same with the toys
we use when we educate children. The concepts of
unfolding and learning through play are among the biggest
contributions of Froebel to early childhood curriculum
models (Morrison, 2000, 2001; Morrison, 2007, 2008).
For the above mentioned reasons, curriculum in
early childhood education is structurally and
conceptually different from all other levels of
education. This is partly so since children are37
developing at such a rapid rate during the early years,
and because what children are capable of learning
and doing is so dependent on their
development, curriculum decisions regarding young
children’s education must take into account each
individual’s developmental level (Spodek & Saracco,
1994). In view of these, there is a variety in early
childhood curriculum models which includes Thematic or
webbing curriculum, Montessori, Reggio Emilia, Head
Start, Emergent Curriculum approaches and High Scope
(Highscope, 2009).
2.9. Curriculum Models and Assessment
The major purpose of this part of the review is to
provide detailed information about the assessment
strategies employed by different curriculum models. Under
this goal, concise information is provided for each of
some three widely known and used early childhood
education curriculum models the world-over including
Montessori, Waldorf and Project approach.
38
2.10. Montessori Curriculum Model and Assessment
Montessori programmes are based on Dr. Maria
Montessori’s original ideas, materials, and methods,
which were designed to meet the needs of impoverished
children in Italy at the time. The Montessori Method is
the second curriculum model created expressly for early
education (Goffin, 2001). (The first model was created by
Friedrich Froebel in Germany, who began the kindergarten,
or ‘garden for children”, in the mid – 1800s).
According to Dr. Montessori’s philosophy, children
learn best in a child-sized environment that is
stimulating and inviting for their absorbent minds – an
environment that offers beauty and order. The arrangement
of the room offers low open shelves holding many
carefully arranged materials (Jackman, 2012). The child,
therefore, chooses and decides an activity to carry-out
which offers meaning and understanding to him or her.
Montessori, therefore, viewed her schools as laboratories
to study how children learn best (Lillard, 2005). In
addition, there are times when carefully sequenced and
structured materials (sensory materials) are introduced39
by the teacher to the child (Wortham, 2006). The
Montessori curriculum is divided into motor education,
sensory education, and language and intellectual
education (Wortham, 2006, 2007, 2008).
Schute (2002) noted that: ‘‘Many of {Montessori’s}
once radical ideas – including the notions that children
learn through hands- on activity, that the preschool
years are time of critical brain development, and that
parents should be partners in their children’s education-
are now accepted wisdom”.
Montessori curriculum model, which emerged in the
early 20th Century, divides education into three main
parts: motor, sensory, and language or intellectual
education. The classroom is a prepared environment with
materials that are carefully sequenced and structured.
Materials are introduced by the teacher and also children
can select materials freely during their independent work
projects. One of the major principles of the curriculum
model aims to promote self- discipline in children.
Montessori education’s other key aspect is its use of
hands. Throughout the day, children use their hands and40
this supports their sensory development (Blount, 2007;
Wortham, 2006).
In Montessori schools, assessment is done through
teacher observations, anecdotal records, and parent-
teacher conference forms. The results of Roemer’s study
(as cited in Dunn, 2000) indicated that besides those
methods, 90% of Montessori schools of her sample used
some form of standardized tests. In the Montessori early
childhood education settings, anecdotal records, informal
conferences with students, observation of students, one-
to-one interviews with students, checklists of lessons,
demonstration of skill, mastery and standardized
achievement tests are used to assess each child’s
development areas independently (Dunn, 2000).
Unfortunately, here in Ghana, this Montessori Method
is seriously being misapplied as there is nothing
‘Montessori’’ about the numerous kindergartens which
claim to offer Montessori education. This statement is
premised on the fact that majority of these Montessori
schools in Ghana, if even not all, are logistically
constrained, when it comes to the use of those prescribed41
Montessori learning materials. The teachers and even the
educational leaders providing that type of education
themselves are suspect without any formal training in the
Montessori approach.
2.11. Waldorf Curriculum Model and Assessment
The first Waldorf schools were founded in Stuttgart,
Germany, in 1919 (Ashley, 2008). The major goal of
Waldorf schools was to assist young children to adjust to
both physical and spiritual facts of their existence and
use them in the best way possible. In the Waldorf
curriculum, a teacher is seen as a gardener of the
child’s soul and cultivator of environment (Ogletree,
1996). To Rudolf Steiner, who is the founder of Waldorf
education, a human being is composed of three being which
are spirit, soul and body. The capacities of these three
mechanisms are unfolded in early childhood, middle
childhood and adulthood. In the early childhood
years, which are considered as from birth to the age of
seven, the educational focus of Waldorf model is on play,
bodily intelligence and oral language (Schimitt-Stegmann,
42
1997). In this sense, imitation is the useful aspect of
life which will assist in the identification of oneself
with the environment with the help of active will.
Consequently, the environment of the child ought to
provide an opportunity to imitate in a meaningful way.
With the Waldorf curriculum, standardized tests that are
used to assess children’s educational progress are
problematic because they generally present an incomplete
picture of student’s abilities. On the other hand,
children’s products or three dimensional paradigms help
adults to recognize emotional, physical, cognitive
development of young children. Owing to this reason,
Waldorf teachers assess the development of young children
in many ways to understand their balanced whole
development. Consequently, the portfolio method (teachers
observe, describe and characterize a child’s school
performance) is found to be more appropriate for Waldorf
curriculum’s assessment (Petrash, 2002).
43
2.12. Project Approach Curriculum Model and Assessment
Project approach happened to be at the centre of
progressive education in the 1960s and 1980s. In today’s
early childhood education system, it is being used by
many schools as a form of curriculum. Projects can be
defined as an in depth investigation of a topic which is
undertaken with a small group of learners or as a whole
class. A main focus of the project work is finding
answers for the questions which are proposed by the
teacher, children or both the teacher and the children
(Helm & Katz, 2001).
With this project approach, a topic, learning
process and results are parts of a whole and therefore
indispensable. Moreover, children focus on many skills of
themselves in the form of selecting a topic,
investigating questions, characterizing findings and
contributing to others (Schuler, 2000). In view of this
reason, active learning of children should be fostered
through helping them to use their own questions and
directions used as steps for learning. Therefore, in
order to be able to understand the functions of the44
objects, an individual should have hands on experiences
with various objects (Feng, 1989).
Assessment in project approach is done through
informal assessment techniques. In detail, individual
portfolios and observations are done by the teachers
through the use of developmental checklists and anecdotal
notes. Children’s self-reflections based on
understandings of their own and narratives of learning
experiences of whole class, individual or small groups
are the major forms of assessment methods used in project
approach classes (Helm & Katz, 2001).
2.13. Curriculum Development Issues in Ghana
The Curriculum Research and Development Division
(CRDD) is one of the 12 Divisions of the Ghana Education
Service (GES). It was established on 1st September, 1967
at Saltpond and later moved to the premises of the
Ministry of Education in Accra. Currently, there are 12
professional members of staff and six support staff
(MOEYS, 2007).
45
Its vision is to be an efficient Division equipped
with resources for the development of Curriculum and
Instructional materials to make education delivery
relevant to the human resource needs of the nation. It
has the mission to manage and implement the Curriculum
Policy of the Ministry of Education (MOEYS) towards the
attainment of the educational objectives and development
goals of the nation.
FCUBE - Free Compulsory Universal Basic Education is to
make sure that all children of school going age have
Basic Education.
- Formalizing Kindergarten – All primary schools
should have K.Gs attached to them. This is to make
sure all children of school going age have access to
education.
- Policy on the use of Ghanaian Language from K.G to
Lower Primary. The child learns in his/her mother
tongue to facilitate learning.
- Linkages – Curriculum has been reviewed to ensure
linkages from K.G to Senior High School to ensure
smooth transition from one level to the other.46
Knowledge, Skills, Competencies have been scoped and
sequenced to ensure life- long learning (MOEYS,
2007).
The public kindergartens in Ghana which are under
the authority of the State do not rely on any of the
well-known kindergarten curriculum models on the
international stage discussed earlier. Ghana’s
kindergarten curriculum can therefore be seen as eclectic
in nature, since it tries to combine the good aspects of
almost all the known models with much emphasis on play
based, child-centred and or activity based oriented.
However, there are a lot of privately owned kindergartens
in Ghana which claim to be operating under the Montessori
approach, meanwhile they only adopt the name Montessori,
but in reality there is nothing ‘‘Montessori’’ about
those schools in practice. This is because they lack
those known Montessori materials, facilities and even the
required technical and human resource to implement the
Montessori model.
Here in Ghana, teachers have a very nominal
representation in the development of the curriculum. The47
government declared the implementation of the new
curriculum in 2007 without anticipating the complexities
in the process of textbooks development and production
(Ghanaian Times, June 20, 2008). One of the major
challenges is the production of textbooks. Due to
unavailability of textbooks, implementation of the
curriculum remains a far cry. One of the reasons why
educational policies could not be effectively implemented
was a failure to understand the objectives by the
curriculum planners. Teachers and curriculum planners,
therefore, need to work together to share practical
experience to address challenges of curriculum
development (Memon, 1999).
2.14. Defining a Ghanaian Pedagogy for Kindergarten
Ghanaian children at play often demonstrate enormous
energy, a sense of joy and well-being and an enviable set
of skills and attitudes (GOG, 1998, 2004). They are
curious, creative and resourceful explorers inventing
games by collaborating with their friends and making toys
from anything they find (GES, 2012). They concentrate for
48
lengthy periods of time when interested and actively
engaged. It is such qualities as these that should be
nurtured and developed in an effective kindergarten
education which includes but goes far beyond the teaching
of colours, shapes, numbers and letters (MOE, 1999, 2002,
2012).
Despite the great strides Ghana has made in
recognising the value and importance of early years
education, the delivery of kindergarten education remains
entrenched in a rote learning style which is neither
child-centered nor activity-based (GES, 2012). Teacher
pedagogical practice typically shows a lack of
understanding as to how children should learn and how
teachers should teach (MOE, 2012).The pioneering work of
Vygotsky, Piaget, Montessori, Froebel and many others
have challenged us to think beyond teaching to learning
and beyond learning to the learner. In order to define
and deliver a new Ghanaian pedagogy for kindergarten, GES
management and teachers should look to learning and
learner centered approach (MOE, 2012).
49
Every Ghanaian child is a unique individual who
develops and learns in diverse ways and at various rates
in different competencies. Effective teachers have a
sound understanding of child development and know that
children’s progress through different developmental
stages and milestones are affected by many factors
including health, the home environment, early attachment,
parental engagement and so on. It is essential to
reconsider the pedagogical approach regarding the
delivery of the KG curriculum, if child-centredness is to
be embraced (GES, 2012). In addition to defining ‘what’
is to be taught, the questions ‘why’ ‘when’ and ‘how’
that teaching happens must also be answered. This should
help establish a clear rationale for the move from the
prevalent, passive, rote learning model of delivery to an
active, experiential style (GES, 2012).
Siraj-Blatchfird et al. (2002) posit that research
into effective pedagogy in early years suggests that
children learn best through a balance of teacher-directed
and child-initiated learning experiences.
50
‘‘The new pedagogy also has implications for
instruction at the primary school level. Children
experiencing active teaching and learning
techniques in KG may not perform well in primary
school if they simply face rote learning methods.
In order to maintain and even enhance the
communication, creative thinking, reasoning and
problem solving skills that they acquired in KG,
the whole Ghanaian education system needs to work
towards fostering and building upon these initial
skills in order to foster a future generation of
Ghanaian citizens who can actively participate in
transforming the world in which we live’’ (GES,
2012).
2.15. Educational Change
Any curriculum may call for a change in teacher
behaviour and understanding. For instance, teachers were
required to undergo a role change and become facilitators
of learning during the 2007 Ghana Educational Reform. The
notion of a teacher as “the” authority is challenged now
51
(MOE, 2012). Teachers the world-over are now encouraged
to develop learner-centred practices based on
constructivist view of education in which learners take
responsibility for their own learning by construction
meaning and understanding of concepts under study.
The complexity of change is mentioned by various
authors (Fullan, 2001; Fullan, 2002; Fullan, 2003). The
nature of change is multidimensional and takes place in a
particular context that includes political, social,
economic and moral aspects. The organisations,
individuals involved and particular contexts are just a
few of the mitigating factors in any change effort.
Fullan (2001: p.39) identifies these as ‘’new or revised
materials, new teaching approaches, and alteration of
beliefs.’’
The multidimensional nature of change should be
considered. Apart from the subjective and objective
aspects of change, change also consists of a number of
activities. Berman (1981: p.261) contends that ‘‘the
educational change process consists of a trio of
processes that are loosely connected rather than being52
linked in a consecutive manner.’’ He identifies
mobilization, implementation, and institutionalisation as
the three processes of educational change. Carl (2002)
emphasises the process of design, dissemination,
implementation and evaluation. Taylor (2000: p.4)
explains the implementation process as including ‘‘macro
implementation and micro-implementation.’’
Fullan, (2001) explains implementation consists of
the process of putting into practice an idea, programme,
or set of activities and structures new to the people
attempting or expected to change. In his view, ‘‘the
change may be externally imposed or voluntarily sought;
explicitly defined in detail in advance or developed and
adapted incrementally through use; designed to be used
uniformly or deliberately planned so that users can make
modifications according to their perceptions of the needs
of the situation’’ (p. 69).
Human beings are social animals who make up a school
and by so doing change is inevitable. Curriculum
implementation is the process of putting a change into
practice (Fullan, 2001). Fullan therefore distinguishes53
curriculum implementation from adoption by stating that
the latter is the decision to use a new curriculum, but
the former focuses on the extent to which actual change
in practice occurs and those factors which influence the
extent of change. It is to be assumed, therefore, that
the link between the other two stages, the amount and
quality of change which occurs or fails to occur at the
implementation stage greatly affects what outcomes are
achieved in any given change effort. Rogers (1993) sees
implementation in three stages: the re-invention,
clarification and routinization. With this possible
pitfall in mind, the school would make sure that
effective processes of implementation are carried out to
the latter effectively.
2.16. Approaches to Curriculum Implementation
It is not uncommon to find policies, programmes and
projects developed by their makers being put into
practice. For a successful delivery of every developed
curriculum, there is the need to implement it thoroughly
in all the target areas for its coverage. Curriculum
54
implementation is often seen as the process of putting a
change into practice. The process ranges from the use of
formative evaluation devices such as try-out and field
trial to the actual large scale and final open use of the
programme (Lewy, 1977). Thus, implementation can be on
piecemeal basis so that in a situation where the
programme is failing, it can quickly be revised and
reinforced or discarded to avoid the commitment of huge
amount of resources into a wasteful venture.
There could be several dissemination strategies used
to smoothen the implementation process. They comprise
translocation, communication, animation and re-education.
Three main approaches to curriculum implementation would
also be employed in this section, thus: fidelity, mutual
adaptation and enactment. As noted by Snyder, et.al.
(1992), depending on the system of education, an approach
is adopted to implement educational programmes.
2.17. Fidelity of Curriculum Implementation
Much as some scholars in curriculum posit that no
consensus exists on what exactly constitutes fidelity of
55
implementation (Fullan & Pomfret, 1977; Scheire &
Rezmovic, 1983), Cobbold (1999) sees fidelity as how
“faithfully” teachers put the new or innovated curriculum
into practical use in accordance with the programme
mandates or dictates. Fidelity is the extent to which
curriculum is delivered in accordance with its tested
design. Implementing a programme with fidelity implies
delivering the programme as it was implemented in the
research that provided evidence of effectiveness.
To Snyder et al. (1992) “the desired outcome of
curricular change is fidelity to the original plan” (p.
404) confirms the assertion. In fidelity approach,
planning is often separate and distinct from
implementation. Curriculum knowledge is primarily created
outside the classroom by experts who design and develop
the curriculum innovation (Snyder et al., 1992, p. 404).
Teachers are always expected to implement the curriculum
as planned with minimum degree of deviation. It is
important to note that fidelity is not absolute but a
matter of degree. It is quite right to say that fidelity
56
of implementation is often used to deliver programmes in
centralised educational systems such as that of Ghana.
If a programme is not delivered as designed, its
outcome (i.e. impact on students) is likely to be
changed, diminished, or eliminated outright (Snyder et
al., 1992).This is the reason why fidelity aims at
identifying the conditions under which the programme
works best or approximates, at least, what was intended.
On the other hand, fidelity fails to recognize that there
are some unplanned learning outcomes that are desirable.
Such learning outcomes may lack any prior pre-
specification but result in the learning process. As Taba
(1962) puts it “A limited concept of school learning
limits the idea of what is expected of it” (p. 158). This
often leads to parochial view of education. Bondi and
Wiles (198, p. 114) noted that “… [Fidelity] is not yet
sophisticated enough to serve as an absolute guide to
practice” (emphasise mine). Fidelity is a matter of
degree rather than an absolute phenomenon. Achieving the
exact outcomes of the programme is therefore not
possible. The fact that sympathizers of the approach57
tolerated some margin of deviation of the outcomes
(Fullan, 1991) of a programme does not mean that it
should not be criticized for its failure to attain one
hundred percent (100%) fidelity.
Teachers, according to this perspective, are
considered as the implementers of the change (Darling-
Hammond, 2000). The curriculum cannot achieve its aims or
be fairly evaluated unless the teacher implements it in a
manner in which it was intended. Teachers’ role in the
process is that of a consumer who makes use of the wisdom
of programme developers. The result of standardisation in
implementation is the ease with which evaluation can be
done to see how different sites of programme
implementation compare. Lewy (1977) opines that “where
uniformity of conditions does not exist, interpretation
of result is very difficult” (p.11) and it therefore
becomes pointless to compare results from different sites
of programme implementation as this has often been the
constant troubles in the Ghanaian educational system
where conditions are not the same in all schools.
58
2.18. Adaptation
According to Barnes (2005, p.2) “Teachers
acknowledge the existence of programmes, policy,
directives, school regulations, and recommendations but
in practice they often feign what needs to be done to
comply with requirements”. A centrally developed
curriculum may lend itself to manipulation by
implementers. Its implementation may be flexible to the
extent that teachers can alter its elements to suit their
peculiar school or classroom situation. Teachers have the
liberty to adapt the change to obtain the highest
possible result. This approach of curriculum
implementation is referred to as adaptation. Adaptation
is operational in the flexible school system.
Due to the lack of uniformity in conditions across
schools, Paris (1989) explains “…to teachers, the skills,
talents and knowledge necessary to enact a curriculum
were context specific …” (p.13). Curriculum adaptation is
not exclusive to only a geographical area but it can be
done to meet individual students with intellectual
disability needs (Lee et al., 2006). Teachers achieve59
maximum curriculum returns by manipulating the
conventional curriculum to meet their local needs. What
the curriculum students actually receive is influenced by
what teachers believe, by what peers believe and do, and
by other more elusive cultural issues (Sergiovanni, 1996;
Wallace, 1998 cited in Barnes, 2005). In order to meet
the diversity in culture, there is need for “adaptations”
of the regular curriculum. The effects of this exercise
may involve organisational modifications in the goals and
contents, in the methodologies, in the didactical
organisation, in the temporality, and in the evaluation
philosophy and strategies. The aim is to make it possible
to meet everyone’s educational needs in the creation of
knowledge.
2.19. Factors that Promote Curriculum Implementation
The implementation of any programme or innovation is
always characterised by certain impediments. This is so
because there are some several factors that facilitate
it. Gross, Giacquinta and Bernstein identified five
60
factors that inhibit curriculum implementation (Snyder et
al., 2008). They include:
1. Teachers lack of clarity about the innovation;
2. Teachers lack of skills and knowledge needed to
conform to the role model;
3. Unavailability of required instructional materials;
4. Incompatibility of organisational arrangements with
the innovation;
5. Staffs lack of motivation.
Usually, these barriers can be categorised into
three. Thus, the problems associated with the teachers’
professionalism; those that are administratively
oriented; and those problems that are associated with the
change itself. Fullan (1991), however, summarizes these
factors into four characteristics. These include
characteristics of the change, characteristics of the
school district, characteristics of the school and
finally characteristics external to the local system
(Marsh & Willis, 2007). These are not impediments per se
61
but it depends on how they are managed to achieve
results.
2.20. Curriculum Alignment
Achieving a complete fidelity is often a mirage and
often not possible. The planned curriculum is almost
always ideal. It is just a blueprint to guide teachers
during instruction. However, teachers should endeavour to
approximate the plan. Ensuring the perfection of this is
often seen as the hallmark of curriculum alignment.
According to Marsh and Willis (2003, p. 260)
“Curriculum alignment is an attempt to ensure maximum
congruence between planned curriculum and the enacted
curriculum through extensive testing of what is taught”.
Basically, it is students who are tested, yet teachers’
performance is measured indirectly in terms of how well
students perform in standardised tests. Although teachers
are not the sole determinants of students’ success or
failure, they play a key role in ensuring that the right
learnable bits are imparted. Such experiences must
necessarily stem from the planned curriculum. Myers and
62
Myers (1995) have discussed that incentives for teachers
are tied to school-wide student performance. Teachers are
rewarded according to how they perform in aiding students
pass examinations. Thus, teachers’ salaries are adjusted
as they put up a remarkable performance especially in
some private schools here in Ghana. Continuous monitoring
of teachers to ensure that they instruct students based
on the plan will help increase the degree of fidelity of
implementation.
Curriculum alignment also means ensuring that the
material taught in the school matches the standards and
assessments set by the region or district for specific
grade levels. It is a way of “mapping” the curriculum
onto the standards to be sure that the school is teaching
the content that is expected. In some states or regions
that often employ the use of tests to assess students’
mastery, schools may also align their curriculum with the
content of the tests to ensure that students have studied
the required content before taking the tests.
63
2.21. Key Theoretical Constructs for Assessment
Portions of the theoretical framework by AISTEAR-
NCCA (2004, 2005, and 2007) were adapted to form the
basis for the conceptual framework of the present study.
2.22. Emerging Approaches to Assessment
The rationale for using assessment to enrich and
extend children’s learning can be located in recent
developments in society’s understandings of learning in
the early years. For instance, in recent decades there
have been very big changes in our understandings of human
nature and of learning. Gardner (1999) states what he
describes as ‘‘several lines of evidence from the cognitive, neural, and
developmental sciences which point to a far more capacious view of the
human mind and of human learning than that which informed earlier
conceptions’’ (p.91). He presents a picture of assessment
that builds on the new emerging picture of human
development. Gardner’s principles complement the earlier
principles presented by Shepard et al. (1998).
64
2.23. Performance Assessment and Authentic Assessment
Emerging approaches to assessment take account of
developments in theories about learning and about human
development. Performance assessment is currently seen as
an approach that is particularly appropriate for
assessing many aspects of early learning and development
(Bowman et al., 2001). Meisels (1999) describes performance
assessment as assessments that are founded on the notion
that learning and development can only be assessed over
time and in interactions with materials, objects and
other people. In this approach to assessment, the
expectation is that tasks must be practical, realistic
and challenging for children (Torrance, 2001).
Performance assessment implies observation of children as
they undertake a number of routine tasks in early
learning settings. According to Meisels (1999) these
should meet a number of criteria:
tasks should bring together various skills that
children display and demonstrate during the course
of interactions
65
children should be assisted to perform to the very
best of their ability
tasks should be guided by developmental standards
tasks should engage children in reflection about
their work and in articulating their ideas about
their learning ( p.58).
Authentic assessment is a type of performance
assessment. It is described as ‘‘compatible with the prevailing
philosophy that emphasises whole child development’’ (Puckett & Black,
2000, p.7). This philosophy explains development across a
range of domains (for example social, moral, emotional,
language and cognitive). It also recognises the diversity
of early learning and the role of environmental factors
in shaping that learning. From an authentic assessment
perspective, curriculum and assessment are interwoven and
emphasise relevant and meaningful experiences.
Assessment focuses on what children do, and on how
they do it in the context of meaningful tasks. Authentic
assessment has a number of identifiable features (Puckett
& Black, 2000), including the following:
an emphasis on emerging development 66
a focus on the young child’s individual strengths
and weaknesses
it is based on principles of child growth and
development
emanates from logical, meaningful, relevant and
applicable curricula
it is performance based
recognises different intelligence and learning
styles
it is reflective and analytic
it is on-going and occurs in many contexts
it is collaborative with learners, parents and
others involved in children’s learning
it is interwoven with teaching (p.7).
Authentic assessment is compatible with a whole child
perspective on learning.
2.24. What to Assess in Early Learning
This section of the study identifies aspects of
learning that are of concern in assessing children’s
early learning and development. The challenges of
67
assessing a wide range of learning and development in a
balanced way are discussed.
2.25. The Essentials of Learning
Skills and knowledge are important in respect of
early learning. However, increasingly, there are calls
for a wider view of what it is that children are learning
in the years from birth to six, and for explicitness
about other areas of children’s development that are now
recognised as critical for long term success.
AISTEAR (2008) describes the assessment of children’s
progress in these areas is dependent on practitioner
judgement, and from this perspective relatively
subjective. As practitioners assess these they will look
for evidence of development and learning in dispositions,
knowledge, skills, values and attitudes.
2.26. A Range of Cognitive Abilities
Krechevsky (1998) explains how Project Spectrum was
set up with the explicit aim of developing a new means of
assessing the cognitive abilities of pre-school children.
It is described as a research and development project
68
based on the theories of Gardner and Feldman (Krechevsky,
1998). Both theories emphasise a broader view of human
cognition than that offered by previous theories.
Krechevsky (1998) describes how Gardner’s theory
emphasises a wide range of intelligence not previously
identified or documented in assessing children’s learning
while Feldman articulated a theory of universal and non-
universal domains of development.
During the course of the project, curriculum and
assessment materials; Krechevsky (1998) describes: ‘‘which
tapped a wider range of cognitive and stylistic strengths than typically had
been addressed in early childhood programmes’’ (p.1). According to
Krechevsky the project provides early childhood
practitioners with an alternative assessment tool to
those traditionally used, and a framework for curriculum
enhancement.
Gardner (1999) describes how children are surveyed
in a variety of intellectual domains (movement, language,
Mathematics, Science, social, Visual Art and Music) and
in each case the approach used is one where children are
exposed to experiences in the particular domain of69
interest and then an observation is made of how the child
becomes involved in that domain. Specific tasks and
measures that are engaging to children, for example,
mathematical games in the case of Mathematics, are
introduced in the course of natural classroom activity
and children are assessed using these.
It claims to embed assessment in meaningful real
world activities; to blur the lines between curriculum
and assessment; to attend to the stylistic dimensions of
performance; to use measures that are intelligence-fair;
and to avoid using language or logic as assessment
vehicles (Krechevsky, 1998). Assessing children’s
emotional well-being is also part of a holistic approach
to assessment.
2.27. Emotional well-being
Laevers (2000) argues that well-being and
involvement of children are keys to enabling them to
enter into what he terms ‘‘a flow state. This he defines as a manifest
feeling of satisfaction and a stream of energy felt throughout the body…
Young children usually find it in play’’ (p.24-5). This in turn is
70
important, from Laevers perspective, because it enables
learning that affects deep structures on which
competencies and dispositions are based. Laevers’
approach to pre-school education is known as Experiential
Education (Laevers, 1994), the essence of which is a focus
on the child’s experiences in the educational setting.
Practitioners using this model carry out systematic
observation of children using well-being and involvement
scales at least three times a year. As with emotional
competence, assessing self-concept and children’s
sociability is also important and yet challenging (Mould
& Hall, 1998). .
2.28. Self-concept and Sociability
Rogoff (1990, 1998) building on the work of
Vygotsky, emphasised the social nature of cognitive
development. From a socio-cultural perspective then, the
ways in which children operate in social contexts is
clearly important for their learning and development and
also has implications for assessment of learning and
development. Broadhead’s (2004) work explicates the links
71
between intellectual development, the growth of language
and the emotional well-being of children. Her Social Play
Continuum offers the practitioner an observation tool; a
tool for assessing children’s social development; and a
means of developing children’s sociability. The continuum
focuses on children’s play activity and their language
across the age range three to six years and it
illustrates the increasingly complex ways in which
children are able to operate socially and co-operatively.
2.29. Approaches to Assessing Early Learning
This section of the study explains the significance
of a narrative approach to assessment in early childhood.
A number of methods of assessing children’s early
learning and development are discussed. The process of
documentation of information derived about children’s
learning is described with specific reference to the work
of practitioners in Reggio Emilia, in Northern Italy.
72
2.29.1. A narrative approach to assessment of learning in
early childhood
Narrative or story approaches have been used by a
number of educationists both to understand practice and
to communicate with others their thoughts about that
practice. Bruner (1999) describes narrative as ‘‘a mode of
thought and a vehicle for meaning making. However, he also
cautions that if narrative is to be made an instrument of mind on behalf
of meaning making, it requires work on our part-reading it, making it,
analyzing it, understanding its craft, sensing its uses, discussing it’’(p.176).
The implications then for narrative assessments are that
they are not ends in themselves, but must be used as
tools for reflection and for sharing with others in order
to seek out possible other meanings. From Bruner’s
perspective then, narrative has both a meaning-making
function and a communicative one.
2.29.2. Methods for collecting information on children’s
learning
Genishi (1993) suggests that ‘‘an adequate means of
assessment is compatible with the curriculum it is to assess’’ (p.280). AISTEAR
73
(2008) emphasises the themes of well-being, identity and
belonging, communicating and exploring and thinking.
There are a variety of methods that may be used in the
assessment of these aspects of early learning and
development. Authentic situations where children are
engaged in meaningful and relevant tasks in everyday
activities are the best context in which to assess. The
observational, interactional, reflective and documenting
skills of the educator will be key in carrying out
assessments.
2.29.3. Observing and Empathising
Drummond (2000, p.4) describes how Issacs put her
rich observational data to excellent use in drawing it
together to construct a coherent account of the development of
children’s intellectual and emotional powers.’’
Practitioners who have close personal relationships
with babies, toddlers and young children are the people
best placed to make observations of their learning.
Goldschmied and Jackson (2004) describe how such
relationships provide the context within which children
74
are most likely to seek appropriate support from adults
and so progress their learning and development. It is
also within the context of close relationships that
children are most likely to make their feelings known and
thus make it easier to assess their well-being. By
knowing individual children very well, practitioners are
then well placed to read and understand the messages that
babies, toddlers and young children express through their
body language and non-verbal and verbal behaviour.
Knowledge of core developmental lines (for example
mobility, manipulative skills, feeding and bodily care,
and the acquisition of the ability to communicate in
words) is seen by Goldschmied and Jackson as essential
for practitioners in early education settings. Such
knowledge equips them to play their part in ensuring that
learning and development progress smoothly.
Observation is central in assessing the learning and
development of children. Its validity is likely to be
enhanced if a practitioner who knows the child well, and
with whom the child has established a close relationship,
carries out the observations.75
Children’s interactions and conversations with the key
people in their lives can tell us a lot about their
learning and development. This study looks at these next.
2.29.4. Conversations with Children
Day-to-day conversations provide rich contexts for
assessment of children’s early learning and development.
To maximise the potential of these conversations for
assessment, it is essential that practitioners listen
carefully in order to understand what the child is
seeking to communicate, either through gesture, behaviour
or language (MacNaughton & Williams, 2004). Conversations
with babies, toddlers or young children engage the
practitioner in reflection and interpretation in their
efforts to understand the child’s intent. Skilful use of
questioning during these conversations can elicit
children’s theories and understandings, enabling them to
share feelings and engaging them in speculation and
imaginative thinking (Fisher, 1990; Siraj-Blatchford &
Clark, 2003; Wood, 1992).
76
Children’s drawings can be understood as their
personal narratives “which they use to order and explain the
complexity and their experiences of the world’’ (Anning & Ring, 2004,
p.5). Discussions with children about their drawings, or
listening to children explain their drawing to others,
can give the practitioner rich insights into children’s
understandings, preoccupations, sense of identity, and
interests.
2.29.5. Making Sense of Children’s Learning
This part of the study looks at how to compile the
information we have learned about children’s learning and
development and discusses documentation and portfolios.
2.29.6. Sustaining Learning and Development through
Documentation
Documenting generally refers to the processes of
recording, reflecting on and using information about
children’s learning. Documentation in the form of
observations of children and extensive record keeping has
long been encouraged and practised in early childhood
education and care (Katz & Chard, 1996). In recent years
77
however, documentation practices in early childhood
education have been greatly advanced by practitioners in
the Reggio Emilia pre-schools. The next part of the study
explains how documentation can be compiled in portfolios
so that it can be shared with children, parents and
practitioners.
2.29.7. Portfolios
Portfolios offer a practical approach to the
challenge of assembling and organising the range of
information on children’s learning and development
(Puckett & Black, 2000). Portfolios are purposeful
collections of evidence of early learning and development
and of children’s progress in relation to the learning
goals of the curriculum. They draw from the range of
information on children’s learning. In the case of babies
and toddlers, the responsibility is on the practitioner
(perhaps in conversation with parents or guardians) to
select the information that will be compiled as a record
of learning. As soon as they can, children should be
encouraged to participate in the selection process with
78
adults. Digital technologies, for example, cameras and
video recorders, offer considerable potential to enhance
the range of material and information that can be
assembled about children’s early learning and
development. Digital technology is also a useful way of
collecting and presenting a great deal of information
about a child’s early learning and development in a
succinct form. The material thus compiled has a number of
functions: it can be the basis for adult/child
conversations; it can be central in providing information
to parents or guardians; it can be the basis for
practitioner reflection, either by the practitioner alone
or with colleagues; it can be the focus for planning
activities based on what is known about the child.
Puckett and Black (2000) opined that two-way flow of
information between practitioner and parents is
important. Parents are an important source of information
about children’s learning and development and their
observations and insights are essential in putting
together a comprehensive picture of individual children’s
strengths and needs. Information from practitioners can79
help parents support, extend and promote children’s
learning at home.
The next section of the study looks at professional
development for early childhood educators to support them
in developing their assessment practice going forward.
2.30. Supporting Learning and Development
Assessment in early childhood has been identified as
having a number of functions - diagnostic, summative,
evaluative and informative (Wood & Attfield, 2005).
Assessment in early childhood has enormous potential to
support learning and development. A recent large-scale
longitudinal study of early learning settings in England
confirmed the importance of assessment in meeting
children’s needs and in supporting their cognitive
progress (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2002). The ultimate
purpose of assessment in early childhood is to make
learning more interesting, enjoyable and successful for
children. Drummond (1993) suggests that assessment must
work for children:
80
We can use our assessments to shape and enrich our curriculum, our
interactions, our provision as a whole: we can use our assessments as
a way of identifying what children will be able to learn next, so that we
can support and extend that learning. Assessment is part of our daily
practice in striving for quality (p.13).
Assessment in early childhood promotes the extension and
enrichment of children’s early learning and development.
2.31. The Nature of Early Learning
This section of the study discusses the
characteristics of early learning and identifies some key
theoretical constructs that guide the teaching, learning
and assessment processes during early childhood.
Theoretical considerations have been influential in
shaping new and emerging approaches to assessment and the
most salient of these are discussed in relation to their
implications for the assessment of early learning and
development.
81
2.32. Play as a Context for Formative Assessment
Children’s learning is complex and assessment
approaches need to take cognisance of this. In early
childhood, this complexity is abundantly evident as
children engage in play. The importance of play to young
children’s learning and development is a key principle
for early childhood practitioners (Wood, 2004).
Assessing children’s understandings and progress as
they play, either alone or with others, is a crucial
activity in early year’s settings. In assessing the
child’s learning through play, the adult can use a range
of approaches and methods. Practitioners make assessments
by focusing on children’s play interests, their levels of
engagement and participation (Kernan, 2007). Kerman says
that teachers make assessments while skilfully engaging
with children in play. Skilful engagement includes
intervention in play as and when appropriate. Such
interventions may serve to initiate or sustain
interactions, thereby leading to shared talking and
thinking. Kerman further says that teachers may also
involve scaffolding children in order to enable them to82
reach their potential. Children’s learning is a complex
matter and assessment approaches need to take cognisance
of this. The literature review now looks at emerging
approaches to assessment, all of which take account of
play as a vehicle for learning and development. Assessing
children’s understandings and progress as they play,
either alone or with others, is a crucial activity in
early year’s settings.
2.33. Assessment and the Practitioner This section identifies and discusses the demands
which assessment makes of practitioners in carrying out
assessment of early learning and development in ways that
enhance children’s leaning and development; are sensitive
and respectful to children; do justice to children;
protect children’s rights, and ultimately support
children’s further learning and development. This
discussion may be helpful in mapping the way forward in
supporting the early childhood sector in developing
assessment practice.
83
2.34. Professional KnowledgeThe importance of looking at assessment from the
basis of sound professional knowledge of all aspects of
early learning and development is articulated as follows:
Perhaps it is now time to shift the emphasis in the early years; time to
move from a position whereby starting with the child has prevailed
into one where we begin from an informed understanding of learning.
As we move into an era where observations in early year’s settings
become the norm rather than the exception, let’s not think about
watching the children; rather let us talk and think about
understanding their learning (Broadhead, 2006, p.202).
Assessment is a matter of informed judgement. It
involves the practitioner judging the nature and extent
of a child’s learning and development; the significance
of the learning under scrutiny; the role of the context
in that learning; and how best to support further
learning and development. The ability to make informed
judgements then is critical to the process assessment.
Assessment engages the practitioner in theorising
(Bowman et al., 2001). Indeed, Carr (2001), in writing of the
learning stories approach, highlights the issue that
84
while the approach provides evidence of learning,
translating the learning stories into assessments can be
very challenging. Putting observational data to good use
was found to be an area of professional activity that
practitioners in New Zealand needed support (Carr-May &
Podmore, 2000). Considerable professional understanding
is required to carry out assessment of early learning and
development.
2.35. Skills BasePractitioners draw on a range of skills in carrying
out assessments and in using information from those
assessments to support children’s learning and
development. Interactive skills have been shown to be of
particular significance. These include scaffolding and
co-construction. Different skills are appropriate for
different purposes. Skills such as questioning, talking
and listening play a key part in using assessment to
impact positively on learning and development. Observing,
documenting and reflecting likewise are necessary
especially in supporting practitioners to come together
85
to analyse and interpret information about early learning
and development.
86
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.0. Introduction
The methodology describes the research design,
population, sample and sampling technique. It also deals
with the instruments for data collection and
administration of the instruments. It further spells out
the techniques used to gather and analyse the data, the
research trustworthiness and ethical considerations are
each discussed.
3.1. Research Design
The current research used mixed methods,
specifically the explanatory sequential mixed methods
approach. In the Social Sciences, mixed methods have
become increasingly popular and may be considered a
legitimate, stand-alone research design (Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 1998, 2003; Creswell, 2002, 2003). It may be
defined as “the collection or analysis of both
quantitative and qualitative data in a single study in
which the data are collected concurrently or
87
sequentially, are given a priority, and involve the
integration of the data at one or more stages in the
process of research” (Gutmann & Hanson, 2003, p. 212).
The mixed methods research design whereby both
quantitative and qualitative data are used was preferred
in the current study, because it might enrich the results
in ways that one form of data does not allow (Brewer &
Hunter, 1989; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Using both
forms of data, for example, allows researchers to
simultaneously generalize results from a sample to a
population and to gain a deeper understanding of the
phenomenon of interest. It also allows researchers to
test theoretical models and to modify them based on
participant feedback. Results of precise, instrument-
based measurements may, likewise, be augmented by
contextual, field-based information (Greene & Caracelli,
1997).
There can be three types of sequential designs:
sequential explanatory, sequential exploratory and
sequential transformative (Creswell et al., 2003).
Sequential explanatory designs do not use an explicit88
advocacy lens. In these designs, quantitative data are
collected and analyzed, followed by qualitative data.
Priority is usually unequal and given to the quantitative
data. Qualitative data are used primarily to augment
quantitative data. Creswell et al. (2003) explained that
data analysis is usually connected, and integration
usually occurs at the data interpretation stage and in
the discussion. These designs are particularly useful for
explaining relationships and or study findings,
especially when they are unexpected.
In line with the above, the current study employed
mixed methods research design (Creswell, 2003) to study
kindergarten teachers’ views on assessment practices
regarding the implementation of the kindergarten
curriculum in Ghana. Like Russek and Weinberg (1993), the
researcher believes that by using both qualitative and
quantitative data, studies related to teacher assessment
practices will give insights that neither type of
analysis could provide alone.
89
3.2. Population
The target population for the study was all
kindergarten teachers enrolled on an in-service programme
at Archer Academy, a privately owned Early Childhood
Training Centre in Kumasi, with the students spread in
six regions of Ghana, namely Upper West, Upper East,
Northern, Brong Ahafo, Ashanti, and Western. However, the
accessible population were the semester two student
teachers at Archer Academy who teach in both public and
private Kindergarten schools in those six regions of
Ghana. Other students could not have been chosen because
they had not been taken through a course in assessment as
the semester two students have done.
3.3. Sample and Sampling Technique
The sample size for this study was 192 kindergarten
student teachers at Archer Academy drawn from both
private and public kindergartens. Multilevel mixed method
sampling was used to draw the samples for the current
study.
90
First, purposive sampling was used to select Archer
Academy as the case site. I chose Archer Academy due to
proximity and familiarity. This is because I doubled as a
tutor in a course ‘Introduction to Early Childhood
Assessment Practices at Archer Academy’, which offered me
the comfort of obtaining rich information from the study
participants.
Non-probability sampling is more often applied in a
case study (Merriam, 1998; Burns, 2000). The usual form
of non-probability sampling is purposive, purposeful or criterion-
based (Stake, 1995). This means that the sample is
selected purposefully, thus, precisely because it is
believed to be a rich source of data of interest (Gay,
1996). Patton (1990) argues that the logic and power of
purposeful sampling lies in selecting information- rich
cases for study in depth, hence the researcher did so
based on the considerations of proximity and familiarity.
Second, the actual sample size of 192 for the
current study was selected randomly from an accessible
population of over 400 kindergarten student teachers at
Archer Academy through the lottery approach, whereby91
‘‘yes’’ and ‘‘no’’ were written and entered into a lucky-
dipped. In view of this, all the student teachers who
picked yes therefore qualified as participants in the
current study.
Third, the three respondents who consented to be
interviewed in the current study whose views constituted
the qualitative data were selected through opportunity
sampling technique (Borg & Gall, 1989). This means that
only those three student teachers who consented to
participate in the final phase of the study were selected
for the interviews within the entire 192 sample size that
initially filled the survey questionnaires (Refer to
Appendices’ C for the interview and A for questionnaire
protocols respectively). To ensure anonymity, each
respondent was given a pseudonym or addressed by his or
her title.
3.4. Instrument for Data Collection
A Likert-type questionnaire and interview protocols
were developed to collect data. The interview protocols
were used for triangulation purposes. In educational
92
research, Likert-type scales are commonly used to measure
different kinds of variables, such as teacher stress and
burnout (Dworkin, 2002), self-efficacy (Cheung, 2006),
school and teacher effectiveness (Reynolds, 2001;
Bangert, 2006), school organization (Firestone &
Firestone, 1984) school climate and culture (Wagner,
2006), and the likes including assessment practices. The
reason is that the Likert scale empowers me to
effectively operationalize the variables and then
identify their relationships in order to improve our
kindergarten educational system.
However, some researchers claim that the use of
midpoints on Likert scale may affect research reliability
and validity, but some other researchers disagree. It is
necessary for education researchers to learn this debate
about whether midpoint opinions (such as 3, 5, 7, and 9
point Likert Scales) are included in a scale, because the
debate not only directly points to the problem of
research quality but also the validity of research
implications and recommendations to educational system.
93
According to the literature reviewed above, it is
obvious that there is still no conclusion as to whether
the midpoints on Likert scale are desirable or not.
Nevertheless, according to the methodological viewpoint,
thus, the issue about the impact of midpoints on
measurement reliability and validity, both use and no use
of midpoints are acceptable because the midpoints may not
really affect the reliability and validity (take more
consideration to the epistemological issue while
designing the rating scale of a measurement (Matell &
Jacoby, 1971). Therefore, it is suggested that
educational researchers should take more consideration to
the epistemological issue while designing the rating
scale of a measurement. In view of this, I opted for a 4-
point scale without any midpoint controversy as in the
case of using 5 or 7 point scales.
The questionnaire consists of four parts. The first
part sought to collect background information of
respondents such as age, educational background, length
of teaching experience, gender, teacher status (area of
94
specialization) as well as institutional placement
(public and private).
The remaining three areas measure kindergarten
teachers’ views on their assessment practices in the
following areas: (6 items) on teachers’ various modes of
assessment they often use, (13) on teachers’ reasons for
selecting a particular mode of assessment and (11) on
teachers’ views on the impact of the performance
assessment on their professional development.
Each item is measured on a four – point Likert
scale – ‘‘SD = Strongly Disagree, D= Disagree, A = Agree
and SA= Strongly Agree’’. Three of the respondents were
selected for interviews to provide reasons for their
choice of options.
3.5. Test for Validity and Reliability of Instrument
To further validate the questionnaire in this
context, it was pilot-tested using the semester two
kindergarten student teachers who were undergoing an in-
service training course at DHI Early Childhood Training
Centre also in Kumasi. Cronbach alpha was used to
95
determine the degree of its validity and reliability.
Cronbach alpha is often used as an appropriate measure of
internal consistency of an instrument. The test of
reliability of the instrument based on the responses of
early childhood teachers from the selected schools
yielded a reliability coefficient of .830 (Refer to
Appendix E). According to De Vellis (1991) the
coefficient is very respectable and capable of helping to
obtain the relevant data. Undoubtedly, the items had the
potential of eliciting the desired information as
expected.
In spite of the potency of the instrument in
collecting the required data, suggestions about the
fourth item on the questionnaire provided some inputs for
modification of that particular item. The item in its
original form directly asked respondents to provide their
information on their professional status (trained or
untrained). Thus, whether they have had any qualification
in early childhood education? The argument was that most
of the respondents, though not having any professional
academic qualification in early childhood education might96
still indicate that they are trained teachers. This stems
from the way the question was crafted. The modified item
was therefore changed; ‘what is your area of
specialization?’’ The entire questionnaire was, however,
not tested again.
3.6. Administration of the Research Instruments
3. 6. 1. Questionnaire AdministrationBefore administering the instrument, I visited the
participating school, Archer Academy, where I doubled as
a tutor, with a letter of introduction from the Head of
the Department of Educational Leadership, University of
Education, Winneba- College of Technology Education,
Kumasi Campus. A personal letter seeking permission to
involve the student teachers in the study was also sent
to the Director of Archer Academy (Refer to Appendix C).
The questionnaire was administered personally. The
advantage of this is summarized by Osuala (1982) that the
researcher has the opportunity to brief respondents to
understand exactly what the items mean so as to obtain
the right responses. Moreover, since I was a tutor who
handled a course in early childhood assessment in the97
same school, the student teachers were quite familiar
with most of the concepts used in assessment, which
formed the basis of the items on the questionnaire.
It is ethical in research to assure respondents of
their confidentiality and anonymity, hence the
questionnaire was accompanied with a cover letter to this
effect and to crave the respondents’ maximum co-
operation. The letter also indicated a one week period
within which respondents were requested to complete the
questionnaire. After the one week period, the researcher
went back to the respondents to collect the completed
questionnaire. Three respondents whose questionnaires
were not ready at that time, owing to their absence from
school were given an extra one week to fill them. There
were some follow-ups to remind respondents to get the
questionnaire ready. The questionnaires recorded 100%
return rate as all the 192 questionnaires were returned
eventually.
3.7. Interviews with Teachers The second form of data collection was the teachers’
interviews, following the successful collection and98
analysis of all the 192 questionnaires administered.
After the analysis of the data, some of the student
teachers were interviewed to validate the quantitative
results. The interview focused on obtaining the student
teachers’ views on their assessment practices with regard
to their curriculum implementation process in their
kindergartens. Maiklad (2001:p. 96) posits that
interviewing is the most frequently used method in
qualitative research. It generally appears in teachers’
beliefs and investigations as a dominant or follow-up
method. The purpose of using the interviews actively
allows the teachers to revisit and reflect on what they
had been doing and saying in their classroom. The
question and answer exchange in the interview could
disclose how the divergent and tacit interfering forces
intervened in their daily assessment practices of their
daily teaching pedagogy.
3.8. Procedure for the InterviewsInterviews are the “most prominent” data collection
tool in qualitative research (Punch, 2009, p. 144).
Interviews may vary in their degree of structure and99
formality (King, 2004). I adopted a semi-structured
interview approach (Refer to Appendix B).
The advantage of semi-structured interviews is that an
interviewer has predetermined questions and that the
order of those questions can be modified. I decided the
sequence and wording of questions during the interview.
Based upon my perception of what seemed most appropriate,
the question wording was changed and explanations given;
particular questions which seemed inappropriate with a
particular interviewee were omitted or additional ones
included (Robson, 2002). Patton (1990, 2002) argued that
the semi-structured interview is a guided interview
approach. The characteristics of this approach are that
the topics and issues covered were specified in advance
in outline. This outline increases the comprehensiveness
of the data and makes data collection somehow systematic
for each respondent. Moreover, the interview-style with a
planned focus in advance allowed the researcher to
efficiently use the time as an interviewer.
However, before conducting the interviews, the
researcher gave each person a detailed description of the100
study, and all those approached signed the ethics consent
form (Refer to Appendix D). Three teachers from three
different kindergarten schools fully cooperated and
showed interest in contributing to the study. Each signed
a consent form and they were informed that one could
withdraw at any point during the data collection phase.
The researcher also explained to the teachers that
participation was optional and that they could withdraw
before the interview took place. These interviews were
all conducted separately. The interviews lasted for about
30-45 minutes and took place at the teachers’ place of
work, either before the school day began or at the end of
the school day, according to the teachers’ preferences.
Questions in the interview protocol were used to gather
more in-depth information regarding the early year’s
teachers’ views about their role in assessment practices
in the classroom.
These interviews included additional questions to
follow-up if clarification was needed. Thus, the
interview was most helpful in stimulating respectively
teacher recollection of the assessment practices in the101
interactive phase during their interaction with the young
children. In short, interviewing the teacher allowed the
researcher to gather descriptive data in their own words
(Freeboby, 2003), thus to investigate teachers’ views on
their assessment practices. The interviews were MP3
digitally recorded. They were transcribed using the
‘clean transcript’’ approach described by Elliot (2005)
where unnecessary words or sounds are not included.
Finally, the transcripts were returned to the
interviewees in order for them to check the meaning. This
process is for ‘member checking’’ (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Table 3.1: Background of Teachers who Participated in
the Interview
Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 3Age 26 32 43Type of
Institution
Private Private Public
Highest
Qualification
SSSCE Diploma Degree
102
Area of
Specialization
Visual
Arts
Basic
Education
ECCD
Teaching
Experience
5 years 4 years 8 years
3.9. Ethical Considerations
Ethical issues are highly emphasized in interpretive
research. In this regard, Cohen et al., (2000: p.66)
indicate that "methodological and ethical issues are
inextricably interwoven in much of the research we have
designated as qualitative or interpretive". According to
Daniel (2005), ethics has three aspects which are worth
mentioning in the context of educational research. The
first aspect is that the research should be without harm.
The second aspect is that responses must be kept
confidential. The third ethical concern about educational
research is that the participants take the time of
respondents on behalf of the research, and this
contribution of time should be respected and not be
wasted. There were a number of ethical considerations
that challenged the researcher to think through the
103
overall ethical conduct of the research and to safeguard
the interests of the participants.
Firstly, before any data were collected, the
proposed research was presented and approved by the
University of Education, Winneba in the year, 2012.
The most highly emphasized ethical consideration for
the researcher was informed consent. The research data
resources were mainly through interaction with human
beings who possess thoughts, beliefs, emotions and
feelings; the researcher therefore did not see the
participants as samples or numbers (Yang, 2003). In this
regard, participants had the right to be informed about
the nature and consequences of the research in which they
were to be involved, and being properly informed about
the study gave the participants a clear picture of the
research (Ruane, 2005). Therefore, the researcher gained
informed consent from the teachers participating in this
research.
104
3.10. Analysis and Interpretation
3.1.1. Questionnaire Data
Out of the 192 distributed questionnaires, all the
192 were returned and were analyzed. The responses of the
participants to each questionnaire were analyzed using
the SPSS statistical program for windows. The resultant
descriptive data from the analysis of the three research
questions were organized into tables of frequencies,
simple percentages, and standard deviation. Independent
samples t-test was conducted to determine the possible
differences in the hypothesis. The .05 alpha level was
used as a criterion of statistical significance for all
the statistical procedures employed. The results of the
data analysis are reported in the next chapter.
3.11. Qualitative Data Analysis Procedure
The data were analyzed using content analysis.
Analyzing qualitative data is not always smooth sailing
and can bring some frustration and difficulties. Patton
(2002) states that “analysis brings moments of terror
that there is nothing there and there are times of
105
exhilaration from the clarity of discovering ultimate
truth. In between are long periods of hard work, deep
thinking, and weight lifting volumes of material.” (2002,
p. 371). The thematic content analysis is, perhaps, the
most common method of data analysis used in qualitative
work. This method arose out of the approach known as
grounded theory (Stewart et al., 2008). The method can be
used in a range of other types of qualitative work,
including ethnography and phenomenology. Indeed, Stewart
et al, explained the process of thematic content analysis
is often very similar in all types of qualitative
research, in that the process involves analyzing
transcripts, identifying themes within those data and
gathering together examples of those themes from the
text.
This analysis involved discovering themes in the
interview transcripts and attempting to verify, confirm
and qualify them by searching through the data and
repeating the process to identify further themes and
categories. In order to do this, once the interviews have
been transcribed verbatim, I read each transcript and106
made notes in the margins of words, theories or short
phrases that sum up what is being said in the text. This
is usually known as open coding. The aim, however, was to
offer a summary statement or word for each element that
is discussed in the transcript. The initial coding
framework used in the data generated from an actual
interview with the three teachers in a qualitative
assessment study, exploring their views on the mode of
assessment used, the reasons for using them and the
impact of performance assessment on the teacher’s
professional development. In the second stage, I
collected together all of the words and phrases from all
of the interview transcripts onto a clean set of pages.
These were worked through and all duplications crossed
out. This was to reduce the effect of the numbers of
‘categories’ quite considerably.
Once this second, shorter list of categories had
been compiled, I went a step further to look for
overlapping or similar categories. Informed by the
analytical and theoretical ideas developed during the
research, these categories were further refined and107
reduced in numbers by grouping them together. This
reduced the list formed the final category system that
can be used to divide up all of the interviews. The next
stage was to allocate each of the categories its own
coloured marking pen and then each transcript was worked
through and data that fit under a particular category was
marked with the corresponding colour. Finally, all of the
sections of data under each of the categories (and thus
assigned a particular colour) was cut out and pasted onto
the A4 sheets. Subject dividers were labeled with each
category label and the corresponding coloured snippets,
on each of the pages, were filed in a lever arch file. I
therefore achieved an organised dataset filed in one
folder. It is from this folder that the report of the
findings was written.
3.12. Validation
The analysis of qualitative data does, of course,
involve interpreting the study findings. However, this
process is arguably more subjective than the process
normally associated with quantitative data analysis since
108
a common belief amongst social scientists is that a
definitive, objective view of social reality does not
exist (Stewart et al., 2008).
Consequently, this leads to the issue of the
verifiability of qualitative data analysis. Therefore, to
cure the debate as to whether qualitative researchers
should have their analyses verified or validated, the
researcher subjected the transcript to a third party.
Stewart et al., (2008) argued that this process can make
the analysis more rigorous and reduce the element bias.
There are two key ways of having data analyses validated
by others: respondent validation (or member check) –
returning to the study participants and asking them to
validate analyses – and peer review (or peer debrief,
also referred to as inter-rater reliability) – whereby
another qualitative researcher analyses the data
independently.
I therefore did such a validation which involved
returning to respondents and asking them to carefully
read through their interview transcripts and or data
109
analysis for them to accept, or refute the researcher’s
interpretation of the data. Furthermore, I subjected the
emerging theme through the process of peer review by
engaging Dr. Boakye Agyemang an experienced researcher to
independently review and explore the interview
transcripts, data analysis and emerging themes.
110
CHAPTER FOUR
THE RESULTS
4.0. Introduction
The results of the study are presented in three sections.
The first section deals with demographic data of
respondents. The second section also presents the results
on the views of kindergarten teachers regarding the use
of various modes of assessments, teachers’ reasons for
selecting a particular mode of assessment and teachers’
views on the impact of the performance assessment on
their professional development. The last section presents
results of independent samples t-test on the hypothesis.
4.1 Demographic Data of Respondents
Section A (refer to Appendix A) of the questionnaire
was used to generate the demographic data of the
respondents. Respondents were asked to provide their age,
gender, highest educational qualification attained, area
of specialization, the type of institution they teach
(private or public), and years of teaching experience.
The respondents were kindergarten teachers working in111
public and private kindergarten schools within the six
regions of Ghana namely Upper West, Upper East, Northern,
Brong Ahafo, Ashanti and Western. The backgrounds of
respondents are presented in Tables 4.1 – 4.6.
112
Table 4.1: Age of Respondents Age group Private Public Total
20yrs & below 20 (10.4%) 0 (0%) 20 (10.4%)
21-30 0(0%) 86 (44.8%) 86(44.8%)
31-40 54 (28.1%) 0(0%) 54(28.1%)
41-50 24 (12.5%) 6 (3.1%) 30 (15.6%)
51-60 2(1.0 %) 0 (0%) 2 (1.0%)
Total 100 (52%) 92 (48%) 192 (100%)
Source: Researcher’s field data
Table 4.1 shows the age group of respondents. From
Table 4.1, out of 192 respondents, 86 of them
representing 44.8% were between the ages of 21-30, 54 of
the respondents representing 28.1% were between the ages
of 31-40. Thirty of the respondents representing 15.6%
were between the ages of 41-50 whilst 20 representing
10.4% of the respondents were between 20 years and below.
Twenty of the respondents representing 1.0% were between
51-60 years.
Table 4.2: Gender of RespondentsGender Private Public Total
Male 14 (7.3%) 24 (12.5%) 38 (19.8%)
113
Female 86 (44.8%) 68 (35.4%) 154(80.2%)
Total 100(52.1%) 92 (47.9) 192 (100%)
Source: Researcher’s field data
Table 4.2 shows the gender of the respondents. It
shows that a higher percentage of females (80.2%) than
males (19.8%) are engaged in working with both public and
private kindergarten schools sampled for this study.
Table 4.3: Highest Educational Qualification Respondents
Educational Qualification Private Public Total
Middle Sch. Leaving Cert 0 (0%) 20(10.4%) 20 (10.4%)
SSSCE/ WASSCE 40 (20.8%)
0(0%) 40 (20.8%)
Teachers’ Cert A 0(0%) 10 (5.2%) 10 (5.2%)
Diploma in Basic Education 0 (0%) 30 (15.6%)
30 (15.6%)
BEd ECCD 10 (5.2%)
0(0%) 10 (5.2%)
Masters 0(0%) 2(1.0%) 2(1.0%)
Pre-School Cert 20(10.4%)
30 (15.6%)
50 (26.0%
Diploma in ECCD 30(15.6% 0(0%) 30(15.6%
114
) )
Total 100 (52%)
92 (48%) 192 (100%)
Source: Researcher’s field data
Table 4.3 shows the highest educational
qualification attained by respondents. It reveals that
among the kindergarten teachers who participated in the
study, 50 of them constituting 26.0% had certificate in
pre-school education. Forty of the respondents
representing 20.8% were holders of SSSCE / WASSEC. Thirty
of the respondents constituting 15.6% each were also
holders of Diplomas in Basic Education and Early
Childhood respectively. Twenty of them constituting 10.4%
were Middle School Leaving Certificate Holders. Ten of
the respondents representing 5.2% were holders of B.Ed.
in ECCD and Teachers’ Certificate ‘A’ respectively. Among
the respondents sampled for the current study, only 2
persons representing 1.0% had a master’s degree.
115
Table 4.4: Area of Specialization of the Respondents Area of specialization Private Public Total
Early Childhood Education 60 (31.2%)
30(15.6%) 90 (46.8%)
Mathematics 21 (10.9%)
3(1.6%) 24(12%)
English 0(0%) 12 (5.2%) 12 (6.2%)
Science 19 (9.9%)
3(1.6%) 22(11.5%)
Physical Education 0 (0%) 5(2.6%) 5 (2.6%)
Social Studies 0(0%) 23(11.9%) 23(11.9%)
Basic Education 0(0%) 16(8.3%) 16(8.3%
Total 100 (52%)
92 (48%) 192 (100%)
Source: Researcher’s field data
Table 4.4 shows the area of specialization of the
respondents. It indicates that among the kindergarten
teachers who participated in the study, as many as 90 of
them constituting 46.8% had specialised in Early
Childhood Education. Twenty-four of the respondents
representing 12.0% were holders of certificate in
Mathematics. Twenty-three of the respondents constituting
116
11.9% were specialists in Social Studies. Twenty-two of
them constituting 11.5% read Science. Sixteen of the
respondents representing 8.3% were products of Basic
Education. Among the respondents sampled for the study,
12 persons representing 6.2% read English at school
whilst only 5 respondents with 2.6% read Physical
Education.
117
Table 4.5: Institutional Placement of Respondents Institutional placement
No. of respondents Percentage
Private 100 52.0%
Public
Total
92
192
48.0%
100 %
Source: Researcher’s field data
Table 4.5 shows that 100 of the respondents
representing 52.0% teach in private kindergarten schools
whereas the remaining 92 constituting 48.0% were working
in public kindergarten schools in the six sampled
regions.
Table 4.6: Teaching Experience of RespondentsTeaching experience
Private Public Total
0-5 80 (41.6%) 0 (0%) 80 (41.6%)
6-10 0 (0%) 62(32.3%) 62(32.3%)
11-15 0 (0%) 30 (15.6%) 30(15.6%)
16-20 15 (7.8%) 0(0%) 15(7.8%)
21 yrs and above
5 (2.6%) 0(0%) 5(2.6%)
Total 100(52%) 92 (48%) 192 (100%)
Source: Researcher’s field data
118
Table 4.6 shows the teaching experience of
respondents. It reveals that the teaching experience of
the kindergarten teachers varied: 41.6% of them had 0-5
years of teaching experience, 32.3% have 6-10 years
teaching experience, 15.6% of them have 11-15 years of
teaching experience, 7.8% of them have 16-20 years of
experience, and 2.6% of them had more than 21 years of
experience.
4.2 Kindergarten Teachers’ Views Regarding their Use of
Various Modes of Assessment Practices, the Reasons for
Selecting a Particular Mode of Assessment and the Impact
of Performance Assessment on their Professional
Development
Kindergarten education in the Ghanaian education
system has formally been integrated into the mainstream
as part of the Universal Primary Education since the
introduction of the 2007 New Educational Reform. It is
often seen as the foundational level on which the future
learning of every child is pivoted on. The quality or
otherwise of our kindergarten education is often
determined based on the children’s learning outcomes
119
(MOWAC, 2004). This development has brought teachers
under this area into much scrutiny as they are seen as
the drivers behind the success of the kindergarten
programme. Teachers’ assessment practices are therefore a
critical issue to be researched into. The first research
question sought to find out kindergarten teachers’ views
regarding their use of various modes of assessment, the
reasons for selecting a particular mode of assessment and
their views on the impact of the performance assessment
on their professional development with reference to the
implementation of the Kindergarten Curriculum in Ghana.
4.2.1 Respondents’ Views on the Use of Various Modes of
Assessment
An attempt was made to find out kindergarten
teachers’ views with regard to their use of the various
modes of assessment which happens to be the Research
Question 1. Six items on a 4-point Likert scale were used
to measure kindergarten teachers’ views on the use of
various modes of assessment in their instructional
practices during their curriculum implementation
obligation. Each response category on the scale was
120
assigned a value ranging from 1 to 4 for the positive
statements with 1 representing ‘strongly disagree’, 2=
‘disagree’, 3= ‘Agree’, and 4= ‘strongly agree’. The
respondents were asked to rate their responses. The
results are shown in Table 4.7.
121
Table 4.7: Mode of Assessment Used by Kindergarten TeachersVarious modes of assessment
SD D A SA Total Mean STD
building portfolio on the learning outcomes.
56(29.2%) 50(26.0)% 64(33.3) 22(11.5%) 192(100%) 2.27
1.008
using standardised test.
55(28.6%) 55(28.6%) 44(22.9%) 38(19.8%) 192(100%) 2.34 1.095
interviewing to assess learning outcomes.
55(28.6%) 44(22.9)% 56(29.2%) 37(19.3%) 192(100%) 2.39 1.097
assessing learning outcomes through children’s' performanceof task.
49(25.5%) 46(24.0)% 60(31.2%) 37(19.3%) 192(100%) 2.44 1.072
observation of learningoutcomes.
29(15.1%) 65(32.8)% 76(38.4%) 22(11.5%) 192(100%) 2.47 .886
testing (pencil and paper test).
39(20.3%) 38(19.8)% 87(45.3%) 28(14.6)% 192(100%) 2.54 .975
72
Total 2.40 1.022
73
Table 4.7 shows a summary of respondents’ views on the
use of the various mode of assessment. It reveals that
among all the modes of assessments, respondents appear to
agree to the use of only testing (paper- pencil- and
teacher made test) which recorded a higher mean value of
2.54 (SD= .975) in an answer to the question; ‘What is
your level of agreement to the use of testing (paper-
pencil- and teacher made test)?’ ‘What is your level of
agreement to the use of building portfolio on children
learning outcomes?’ recorded a mean score of 2.27 (SD =
1.008). This implies that the respondents appear to
disagree to the use of building portfolios on children’s’
learning outcomes. ‘What is your level of agreement to
the use of standardised test?’ also recorded a mean score
of 2.34 (SD= 1.095). The implication is that the
respondents seem to disagree to the use of standardised
test in assessing the children’s learning outcomes.
The respondents further appear to disagree to the
use of interviewing to assess the learning outcomes of
the children in response to the question ‘what is your
level of agreement to the use of interviewing to assess73
children’s learning outcomes, a mean value of 2.29 (SD
=1.097) was recorded. ‘What is your level of agreement to
the use of performance assessment and observation of
children’s learning both recorded a mean score 2.44 (SD=
1.072) and 2.47 (SD = .886) respectively. This clearly
shows teachers’ disagreement to the use of those two
modes and all other modes of assessments with the
exception of the paper pencil and teacher made test)
which is their preferred choice in their implementation
of the kindergarten curriculum with regards to their
assessment practices.
4.2.2 Reasons for Selecting a Particular Mode of
Assessment by Kindergarten Teachers
The ability of a teacher to select the best form of
assessment practices in a classroom is a critical factor
in any educational setting. This is a very difficult task
for every teacher and most especially for children who
are in their very formative years as kindergarteners.
This task of developmentally appropriate assessment
practices is very challenging, whether for well- trained
74
or not, let alone the numerous untrained kindergarten
teachers in Ghana.
It is also difficult for teachers to decide on
behaviours, skills or activities to assess in the form of
either observation or documentation or other methods of
assessment (Gober, 2002).
In view of this, I attempted to solicit the views of
kindergarten teachers in order to ascertain the exact
reasons for selecting a particular mode of assessment.
This was the focus of Research Question 2; ‘What are your
views on the reasons for selecting a particular mode of
assessment of kindergarten teachers?’ Participants of the
study were asked to rate their relative agreement or
disagreement on 13 items on a four (4) -point Likert-type
agreement scale. Each response category on the scale was
assigned a value range of positive statements from 1 to 4
with 1 representing ‘strongly disagree’ 2= ‘disagree’, 3=
‘Agree’, and 4= ‘strongly agree’.
However, the following coding were given to the
negative statements; from 4 to 1 with 4 representing
‘strongly disagree’, 3= ‘disagree’, 2= ‘Agree’, and 1=
‘strongly agree’. The respondents were asked to rate
75
their responses. Four-point Likert scale was chosen for
two reasons; (1) to reduce the deviation to be the least
or reduce the risks which might be happening from the
deviation of personal decision making and (2) to get a
higher discrimination and reliability values which are
higher than the Likert’s scale 5 points (Gwinner, 2006;
Chomeya, 2010). The results are presented in Table 4.8
Table 4.8 Respondents’ Reasons for Selecting a ParticularMode of AssessmentReasons for selecting a particular mode of assessment
SD D A SA Total Mean STD
I use a particular mode of assessment just to meet parents’ expectations.
81(42.2)
77(40.1)
27(14.1)
7(3.5)
192(100%) 1.79 .818
I use a particular mode of assessment that meets the DAP in assessment.
65(33.9)
53(27.3)
44(22.9)
30(15.6)
192(100%) 2.20 1.07
6
I use a particular mode of assessment toreduce test anxiety.
58(30.2)
65(33.9)
39(20.3)
30(15.6)
192(100%) 2.21 1.04
4
I use a particular mode of assessment tomake children respect and likeme as a teacher.
52(27.1)
61(31.8)
45(23.4)
34(17.7)
192(100%) 2.32 1.05
8
I use a particular mode
76
Reasons for selecting a particular mode of assessment
SD D A SA Total Mean STD
of assessment just to meet theexpectations of educational leaders.
56(29.2)
60(31.2)
31(16.1)
45(23.4)
192(100%) 2.34 1.13
3
I use a particular mode of assessment that reflects myteaching philosophy.
52(27.1)
60(31.2)
40(20.8)
40(20.8)
192(100%) 2.35 1.09
2
To really understand each child, I use more than one mode of assessment.
52(27.1)
62(32.3)
35(18.2)
43(22.4)
192(100%) 2.36 1.10
7
I use a particular mode of assessment toforce children to learn.
46(24.0)
67(34.9)
43(22.4)
36(18.8)
192(100%) 2.36 1.04
4
I use a particular mode of assessment toimprove my instructional practices.
41(21.4)
61(31.8)
66(34.4)
24(12.5)
192(100%) 2.38 .958
I use a particular mode of assessment tomake children scared and afraid of teachers.
43(22.4)
67(34.9)
47(24.5)
35(18.2)
192(100%) 2.39 1.02
7
I use a particular mode of assessment topunish children.
41(22.9)
72(37.5)
49(25.5)
27(14.1)
192(100%) 2.46 2.42
1
I use a particular mode of assessment that religiouslyconforms to the curriculum
28(14.6)
45(23.4)
46(24.0)
73(38.0)
192(100%)
2.85 1.088
77
Reasons for selecting a particular mode of assessment
SD D A SA Total Mean STD
guidelines.I use a particular mode of assessment tobe able to compare childreneasily.
17(8.9)
43(22.4)
70(36.5)
62(32.3)
192(100%) 2.92 .948
Total 2.38 1.139
*N=number of respondents; SD= standard deviation
1=strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3= Agree; and 4= strongly Agree for positive
statements.
4 = strongly Disagree’, 3= Disagree’, 2= Agree, and 1= strongly Agree for
negative statements.
Table 4.8 displays a summary of respondents’ reasons
for selecting the various mode of assessment. Table 4.8
reveals that among all the negative statements in this
category, the respondents appear to agree to all of them
with the exception of this statement; ‘I use a particular
mode of assessment to punish children’ which recorded a
mean value of 2.46 (SD= 2.421). This mean value is
approximately (3.0) which tilts more to their
disagreement to this particular item. The remaining
negative statement all recorded a mean value of less than
three (3) indicating their agreement to the following
78
negative statements; ‘I use a particular mode of
assessment just to meet parents’ expectations with a mean
value of 1.79 (SD = .818), ‘I use a particular mode of
assessment to force children to learn, recording a mean
value of 2.36 (SD = 1.044); ‘I use a particular mode of
assessment just to meet the expectations of educational
leaders’ similarly recorded a mean value of 2.34 (SD =
1.133); ‘I use a particular mode of assessment to make
children scared and afraid of teachers’ also did not
depart from the pattern by recording a mean value of 2.39
(SD= 1.027) and ‘I use a particular mode of assessment to
make children respect and like me as a teacher’ in the
same fashion recorded a mean value of 2.32 (SD=1.058),
all indicating the respondents level of disagreement to
all those negative statements.
Of all the positive statements in this category on
the other hand, respondents appear to have agreed to only
two statements and rather disagree with all the remaining
statements. Respondents agreed to these; ‘I use a
particular mode of assessment that religiously conforms
to the curriculum guidelines’ which recorded a mean value79
of 2.85 (SD = 1.088) and ‘I use a particular mode of
assessment to be able to compare children easily’
recorded a mean value of 2.92 (SD = .948). The
respondents, therefore, disagreed to the following
statements; ‘I use a particular mode of assessment that
reflects my teaching philosophy’ recorded a mean value of
2.35 (SD = 1.076), ‘I use a particular mode of assessment
to improve upon my instructional practices’ further
scored a mean value of 2.38 (SD = .958), ‘I use a
particular mode of assessment to reduce test anxiety’
likewise recorded a mean value 2.21 (SD = 1.044), ‘I use
a particular mode of assessment that meets the
developmentally appropriate practices in assessment’
followed a similar pattern recording a mean value of 2.20
(SD = 1.076) and ‘To really understand each child, I use
more than one mode of assessment’ scored a mean value of
2.36 ( SD = .958). All these indicate their level of
disagreements to those negative statements.
80
Table 4.9: Respondents Views on Impact of Performance Assessment on their Professional Development
Impact of performance assessment on their professional development
SD D A SA Total Mean STD
PA measures learning outcomes as a product.67(34.9%) 95(49.5%) 28(14.6%) 2(1.0%) 192(100%) 1.82
.711
PA does not challenge children to learn hard. 79(41.1%) 61(31.8%) 43(22.7%) 9(4.7%) 192(100%) 1.91
.905
PA does not measure the exact learning outcomes. 65(33.9%) 70(36.5%) 39(20.3%) 18(9.4%) 192(100%) 2.05
.959
PA encourages teachers to be lazy.57(29.7%) 68(35.4%) 46(24.0%)
21(10.9%) 192(100%) 2.16
.976
PA measures learning as a process.49(25.5%) 70(36.5%) 54(28.1%) 19(9.9%) 192(100%) 2.22
.942
PA produces same results for same groups of children. 51(26.6%) 64(33.3%) 52(27.1%)
25(13.0%) 192(100%) 2.27
.996
PA does not produce same results for same
groups of children. 48(25.0%) 60(31.2%) 56(29.2%)28(14.6%) 192(100%) 2.33
1.010
PA measures the exact learning outcomes.44(22.9%) 62(32.3%) 62(32.3%)
24(12.5%) 192(100%) 2.34
.969
PA provides experience for teachers on how
to use portfolios in education. 47(24.5%) 49(25.5%) 70(36.5%)26(13.5%) 192(100%) 2.39
1.002
PA assessment helps teachers to realize 49(25.5%) 51(26.6%) 59(30.7%) 33(17.2%)
192(100%) 2.40
79
their own strengths and weaknesses in their
instructional practices. 1.04
8PA provides opportunities for teachers to teach assess children learning outcomes at the same time. 47(24.5%) 50(26.0%) 54(28.1%)
41(21.4%) 192(100%) 2.46
1.082
Total 2.213 .963
80
Table 4.9 displays a summary of respondents’ views on the
impact of the performance assessment on their
professional development. Table 4.9 reveals that among
all the negative statements in this category, the
respondents appeared to have agreed to all the
statements; ‘Performance assessment does not challenge
children to learn hard’ recorded a mean value of 1.91
(SD= .905).This mean value is approximately (2.0) which
is tilted more to their agreement to this particular
item. The remaining negative statement all recorded a
mean value of less than (3) indicating their agreement to
the following negative statements; ‘Performance
assessment encourages teachers to be lazy’ with a mean
value of 2.16 (SD = .976), ‘Performance assessment does
not measure the exact learning outcomes’ recorded a mean
value of 2.05 (SD = .959); ‘Performance assessment does
not produce same results for same groups of children’
similarly recorded a mean value of 2.33 (SD = 1.010)
Of all the positive statements in this category, the
respondents appeared to have disagreed with all the
statements. The respondents disagreed with these;80
‘Performance assessment measures learning outcomes as a
product’ which recorded a mean value of 1.82 (SD = .711)
and ‘Performance assessment measures learning as a
process’ recorded a mean value of 2.22 (SD = .942). The
respondents further disagreed to the following
statements: ‘Performance assessment produces same
results for same groups of children’ recorded a mean
value of 2.27 (SD = .996), ‘Performance assessment
measures the exact learning outcomes’ also scored a mean
value of 2.34 (SD = .969), ‘Performance assessment
provides experience for teachers on how to use portfolios
in education’ likewise recorded a mean value 2.39 (SD =
1.002), ‘Performance assessment helps teachers to realize
their own strengths and weaknesses in their instructional
practices’ followed a similar pattern recording a mean
value of 2.40 (SD = 1.048) and ‘Performance assessment
provides opportunities for teachers to teach and assess
children’s learning outcomes’ scored a mean value of 2.46
( SD = 1.082). Of all the seven positive statements in
this category, the respondents appear to have disagreed
with all those statements as described earlier. 81
4.2.3. Hypothesis These hypotheses were formulated to guide the
current study:
1. There will be no significant difference among
the kindergarten teachers teaching in public or
private schools with respect to their:
(a) Views on the various modes of assessment often
used,
(b) Reasons for selecting a particular mode of
assessment and
(c) Views on the impact of the performance
assessment on their professional development.
The independent samples t-test statistical technique
was employed to test the hypothesis with the p-value
pegged at .05 (two-tailed). The results of the data
collected to test the hypothesis are presented in the
following tables.
Table 4.10 Independent Samples t-test on the Use of the
Various Modes of Assessment of Public and Private
Kindergarten Teachers
Teachers’ views on the use of the
various modes of assessment
DF MD t P-
valu82
eTesting (paper-and-pencil test) 190 -
0.25
4
-
1.813
0.71
Observation of learning outcomes 190 0.01
3
0.98 0.92
Using standardised test 190 -
0.26
4
-
1.704
0.09
0
Building portfolio on the
learning outcomes
190 -
0.06
4
-
0.441
0.66
0
Interviewing to assess learning
outcomes
190 0.18
7
-
1.179
0.24
0Assessing learning outcomes
through children’s’ performance
assessment of task
190 0.12
0
0.771 0.44
1
*Significant at p ≤ .05 (2-tailed)
Table 4.10 shows that the results of the independent
samples t-test on the use of the various modes of
assessment between the public and private kindergarten
teachers appeared not to be significant at 5% level of
probability with the following specifics: ‘‘testing
(pencil and paper test recorded’’ (t (190)=-1.813; p=.71),
‘‘ Observation of learning outcomes (t (190)=.98; p=.92),
83
‘‘Using standardised test’’ (t (190)=-1.704; p=.090),
‘‘Building portfolio on the learning outcomes’’
(t(190)=-.441; p=.660), ‘‘Interviewing to assess learning
outcomes’’ (t (190)=-1.179;p=.240), ‘‘Assessing learning
outcomes through children’s performance assessment task’’
(t (190)=.770; p=.441).
From Table 4.10, the meaning of this is that all
the other various modes of assessment do not differ as
far as institutional placement of respondents are
concerned. The null hypothesis is therefore upheld or
confirmed.
84
Table 4.11: Independent Samples t-test on the Reasons for Selecting a Particular Mode of Assessment ofPublic and Private Kindergarten Teachers
Reason for selecting a
particular mode of assessment
DF MD t P-
valueI use a particular mode of
assessment that reflects my
teaching philosophy.
190 0.13 0.870 0.385
I use a particular mode of
assessment that religiously
conforms to the curriculum
guidelines.
190 0.325 2.088 0.38
I use a particular mode of
assessment just to meet parents’
expectations.
190 0.268 2.293 0.023
I use a particular mode of
assessment to improve my
instructional practices.
190 -
0.084
-
0.605
0.546
I use a particular mode of
assessment to punish children. 190 -
0.216
-617 0.053
8I use a particular mode of
assessment to force children to
learn.
190 0.419 2.282 0.005
I use a particular mode of
assessment just to meet the
expectations of educational
leaders.
190 0.087 0.528 0.598
85
I use a particular mode of
assessment to reduce test
anxiety.
190 0.306 2.043 0.42
I use a particular mode of
assessment to make children
scared and afraid of teachers.
190 0.573 0.402 0.00
I use a particular mode of
assessment to be able to compare
children easily.
190 0.121 0.885 0.377
I use a particular mode of
assessment to make children
respect and like me as a
teacher.
190 0.464 3.014 0.002
I use a particular mode of
assessment that meets the DAP in
assessment.
190 0.390 2.545 0.12
To really understand each child,
I use more than one mode of
assessment.
190 0.273 1.713 0.088
*Significant at p ≤ .05 (2-tailed)
Table 4.11 shows that the results of the independent
samples t-test on the following nine out of a total of
thirteen reasons for selecting a particular mode of
assessment between the public and private kindergarten
teachers appeared not to be significant at 5% level: ‘‘I
86
use a particular mode of assessment that reflects my
teaching philosophy’’ (t (190) = .870; p =.204), ‘‘I use a
particular mode of assessment that religiously conforms
to the curriculum guidelines’’ (t (190) =. 325; p =.38),
‘‘I use a particular mode of assessment to improve my
instructional practices’’ (t (190) = -.605; p =.546), ‘‘I
use a particular mode of assessment to punish children’’
(t (190) = -.216; p = .0538), ‘‘I use a particular mode of
assessment just to meet the expectations of educational
leaders’’ (t (190) = .528; p =.598), ‘‘I use a particular
mode of assessment to reduce test anxiety’’ (t (190) =
2.043; p =.42), ‘‘I use a particular mode of assessment
to be able to compare children easily’’ (t (190) = .885; p
=.377), ‘‘I use a particular mode of assessment that
meets the DAP in assessment’’ (t (190) = 2.545; p =.12),
‘‘ To really understand each child, I use more than one
mode of assessment’’ (t (190) = 1.713; p =.088).
However, there appeared to be a significant
differences in the following four reasons for selecting a
particular mode of assessment between public and private
kindergarten student teachers; ‘I use a particular mode87
of assessment just to meet parent’s expectations’ (t
(190)= 2.29; p=.023), ‘I use a particular mode of
assessment to scarce children and make them afraid of
teachers’ (t (190)=.402; p=.001), ‘‘I use a particular
mode of assessment to force children to learn’’ (t (190) =
.419; p =.05) and ‘I use a particular mode of assessment
to make children respect and like me as a teacher’ (t
(190)= 3.014; p=.002).
This result clearly means that the student teachers
views on this subsection in this study with respect to
their institutional placement (public and private
kindergartens) did not differ significantly on nine items
but differed significantly on only four items as reported
earlier.
Table 4.12: Independent Samples t-test on Teachers’Views on the Impact of the PerformanceAssessment of Public and Private Kindergartens
Teachers’ views on the impact of
the performance assessment on
their professional development
DF MD t P-
valu
ePA provides opportunities for
teachers to teach and assess
children’s learning outcomes at 190 0.20 1.290 0.19
88
the same time. 1 9PA does not challenge children to
learn hard.
190 0.02
9
0.219 0.82
7PA encourages teachers to be
lazy.
190 0.43
5
3.158 0.00
2PA helps teachers to realise
their own strength and weakness
in their instructional practices.
190 0.17
6
1.161 0.24
7PA does not measure the exact
learning outcomes. 190 -
0.33
8
-
2.475
0.01
4
PA measures the exact learning
outcomes.
190 0.05
5
0.391 0.69
7PA does not produce same results
for same groups of children. 190 -
0.04
9
-
0.333
0.73
9
PA produces same results for same
groups of children. 190 0.17
6
1.225 0.22
2PA provides experience for
teachers on how to use portfolios
in education.
190 0.27
0
1.878 0.06
2PA measures learning outcomes as
a product.
190 -
0.32
9
-
3.284
0.00
1
PA measures learning outcomes as 190 0.07 0.552 0.58
89
a process. 5 2*Significant at p ≤ .05 (2-tailed)
Table 4.12 shows the results of the independent
sample t-test on the views on the impact of the
performance assessment on their professional development
between the public and private kindergarten teachers
appear not to be significant at 5% level of probability
on eight out of a total of eleven student teachers views
on PA: ‘‘ PA provides opportunities for teachers to teach
and assess children’s learning outcomes at the same
time’’ (t (190) = 1.290; p =.199), ‘‘PA does not challenge
children to learn hard’’ (t (190) =. 219; p =.827), ‘‘PA
helps teachers to realise their own strength and weakness
in their instructional practices’’ (t (190) = 1.161; p
=.247), ‘‘ PA measures the exact learning outcomes’’ (t
(190) = .391; p = .697), ‘‘ PA does not produce same
results for same group of children’’ (t (190) = -.333; p
=.739), ‘‘PA produces same results for same group of
children’’ (t (190) = 1.225; p =.222), ‘‘ PA provides
experience for teachers on how to use portfolios in
education’’ (t (190) = 1.878; p =.062), ‘‘ PA measures
90
learning outcomes as a process’’ (t (190) = .552; p
=.582).
However, there appeared to be significant
differences in the following three views of the student
teachers in both private and public schools on PA and
their professional development: ‘Performance assessment
encourages teachers to be lazy’ (t (190)= 3.158; p =.002),
‘Performance assessment does not measure the exact
learning outcomes’(t (190)=2.475; p=.014) and ‘Performance
assessment does not measure learning as a product’ (t
(190) =3.284; p=0.001).
This result clearly means that the student teachers
views on this subsection in this study with respect to
their institutional placement (public and private
kindergartens) did not differ significantly on eight
items but differed significantly on only three items as
reported earlier.
4.4.0. Qualitative Data
4.4.1 Testing (Paper-and–Pencil Teacher Made Test)Teacher made test is the most commonly used mode of
assessment by elementary school teachers.The purpose of91
assessment for young children is to collect information
necessary to make important decisions about their
developmental and educational needs. Gathering data about
children to make judgments about their learning and
development is a central part of the teacher’s role.
Teachers must make daily decisions about children that
should be based on accurate and appropriate information.
People outside the teaching profession often misuse tests
for their own purposes. Politicians frequently use test
scores to show that a vote for them will be a vote for
better education (Seedfeldt & Galper, 1998).
Therefore, test scores may be frequently misused to
justify budget requests, to judge teachers, and to
determine merit pay. Schools frequently misuse tests to
compare classrooms of children and to screen out the
“undesirable” or those children who supposedly cannot
benefit from their program (Seedfeldt & Galper, 1998).
This seeming pressure comes to play for teachers when
deciding the most appropriate mode of assessment to be
employed in assessing their children. When asked the
various modes of assessment they do know:92
I know of WAEC Exams and my own teacher made end of term
examination my own teacher made test, I also know of WAEC exams
and other forms of standardized tests… (T1)
My own teacher made paper-and-pencil test and others that we learnt
at college including observation, portfolios, performance assessment
and rating scales or checklist… (T2)
Pre-school teachers, regarding the various modes of
assessment known to them, indicated those known to them.
When asked which of those modes of assessment they use
frequently, their answers were obvious as they almost
always employed a teacher made paper-and-pencil test.
Despite knowing a few other modes of assessment, they
often use paper- and-pencil test as this has been tried
and tested over the years even when they were students,
since their teachers were still using these same modes of
assessment. These were some of their responses:
I really make use of paper- and- pencil teacher made test by my good
self (T1)…
I have almost always relied on paper and pencil test (T2)…
I do not want to deviate from the norm in this school so I often use
paper and pencil test even though I sometimes observe the children’s
93
learning outcomes. I only observe their learning outcomes to see their
trends in progression in learning but I do not use observation to
promote or repeat a child in class. How can I be observing individual
children numbering over 60 in class? (T3)…
The kindergarten teachers stressed that there is
nothing to do for the teachers to properly assess
children’s learning outcomes other than the paper and
pencil test even though they might be aware of the
existence of other ways of assessing the learning
outcomes.
4.4.2. Reasons for Selecting a Particular Mode of
Assessing Children’s Learning Outcomes (Just to Meet
Parent’s Expectations)
One of the reasons for using paper and pencil test
often in assessing the children is to enable the teachers
to meet the expectations of the parents of the kids in
the classrooms. They elaborated that none of the known
methods of assessments could convince the parent better
other than the paper-and-pencil test. Furthermore, more
teacher-directed and guided activities were chosen to be
carried out within the classroom environments which are
94
more of cognitive oriented activities. The following are
excerpts of what the student teachers said:
Much as the syllabus recommends a much more informal way of
assessments for these kids, the demands on you as a teacher is so
great that there is nothing one can do than to give in to the parents’
demands by subjecting these kids through a competitive end of term
exams in order to be able to rate their performances in the order of
merit. Children are therefore placed in the order of merit using first,
second, third, etc till the last child in that order. Every parent expects
the child to top the class (T3)…
Parents expect to see their children’s marked end of term exam scripts
and so there is no other form of assessment that will be accepted
except this teacher made paper and pencil test (T2)…
These parents will lambast you the teacher should you fail to set exam
questions for their kids at the Parents Teachers Association meeting
and in order to avoid such an embarrassment and possibly losing your
job, one has no choice than to heed to the demands of the parents (T1)
…
95
The student teachers appear to just assess the
children learning in order to appease the parents and to
also protect their job without conforming to the
developmentally appropriate practices in assessment
children.
4.4.3. Reasons for Selecting a Particular Mode of
Assessing Children’s Learning Outcomes (to Force Children
to Learn)
Another reason of using the paper-and pencil teacher
made test could be seen as a way of urging the kids to
learn by force, knowing that at the end of the term, they
would be expected to sit and write a formal examination.
Below are excerpts of what the student teachers said:
Each child knows that he or she would not make it to either KG2
or class one should he or she fail the end of term exams. This
puts some pressure on them to learn as their parents likewise
are very much aware of this and so they assist them to even
learn at home by securing the services of a home teacher for
them (T1)…
96
Children are very lazy when it comes to reading and writing
work, they will only be serious when they know that exam awaits
them (T2)…
How can I know this child came first, second, third and last in
class if they do not sit to write A,B,C,D and 1,2,3,4? This exam
helps us to be able to calm them down and also force them to
learn even at home (T3)…
Teachers often have seen the children as being lazy
in doing classroom work. In view of this, it is often
through this formal exam which will place the children
under some form of pressure to learn knowing that they
will surely write exams and should they fail, they are
not going to be promoted to the next class.
4.4.4. Reasons for Selecting a Particular Mode of
Assessing Children’s Learning Outcomes (Just to Meet the
Expectations of Educational Leaders)
The teachers appear to seek the protection of their
job to the detriment of the children’s interest with
regards to assessment practices. Theories of children’s
growth and development are often not considered by the97
teachers when selecting an assessment tool. They appear
just to conform to the authorities religiously in order
not to incur the displeasure of the educational leaders
who themselves often lack the knowledge in child growth
and development processes. These were evident in their
responses below when they were asked whether the
assessment tool selection is influenced by their
educational leaders:
Hmmmmm, these head teachers even give much pressure than the
parents as they demand of us as teachers to submit our end of term
exam questions to them before the start of the term so that they can
monitor our teaching process. The head teachers always want to
satisfy the parents and all other stakeholders with a very good
children’s test scores (T1)…
Honestly, I don’t want the head teacher to disgrace me or sack me for
non-compliance with regards to children’s assessment so I am always
the first to send my end of term exam questions to him for vetting (T2)
…
I was hired by the head teacher and so I must obey his set of
instructions for testing the children several times to prove to him that,
indeed, I am teaching (T3)…98
The student teachers appear just to conform to the
authorities religiously in order not to incur the
displeasure of the educational leaders who themselves
often lack the knowledge in child growth and development
processes.
4.4.5. Reasons for Selecting a Particular Mode of
Assessing Children’s Learning Outcomes (to Make Children
Scare and Afraid of Teachers)
Teachers appear to be happy to be given the chance
to set and administer the test items for children to
answer during examinations by using those processes to
let children conform to their dictates. They answered in
the affirmative to the issues of how they are able to put
fear and scare the kids through the administration of
their paper and pencil test to them.
You see, in this school, we no longer use cane on the children, so the
only way to put fear in the children is to use the threat of exams to let
children respect and conform to me (T1)…
Honestly, the fear of my exam put children in order and they obey my
instructions (T2)…
99
I was hired by the head teacher and so I must obey his set of
instructions regarding assessment. There will be no difference between
me and their parents had it not been my exam questions they will be
writing. They will surely respect you because of your end of term exam
questions (T3)…
Student teachers appear to be happy to be given the
chance to set and administer the test items for children
to answer during examinations by using those processes to
let children conform to their dictates as a disciplinary
measure instead of using the assessment outcome to
improve upon their instructional practices as teachers.
4.4.6. Reasons For Selecting a Particular Mode of
Assessing Children’s Learning Outcomes (Respect and Like
Me as A Teacher)
Teachers appear to be fortunate to be given the
opportunity to set questions for children to answer
during examination by using those avenues to let children
conform to their dictates. They answered in the
affirmative to the issues of how they are able to gain
100
respect from the children through the administration of
their paper -and -pencil test.
You see, this exam makes the children like and respect me a lot as they
know my questions can make them happy or sad at school (T1)…
Like I said earlier, the fear of my exam puts children in order and they
obey my instructions (T2)…
They respect you because of your end of term exam questions (T3) …
In sum, teachers appear to often select a particular
mode of assessment in order to meet the expectations of
the parents and heads of schools, to make children scared
of them and also to gain the respect from the children as
well as forcing them to learn. Surprisingly, they often
even do not look at these modes of assessments in line
with the theories underlying children’s learning or
development. Much the same way, issues like conforming to
the demands of the curriculum with regards to teaching
and assessments, reliability, validity and developmental
appropriateness to assessments are of no major
101
consideration to the teachers when selecting particular
modes of assessment.
4.5.0. Performance AssessmentPerformance assessment is relatively a new dimension
in assessment practices in schools. For a variety of
reasons, more emphasis has been placed on the use of
performance assessment in educational evaluation or
assessment (Seedfeldt & Galper, 1998). Some impetus
towards the expanded use of performance assessment seems
to be a reaction to abuses of standardized testing such
as pencil and paper, or teaching to test, and changing
student answers. Other impetus towards the expanded use
of performance assessment comes from curriculum
specialists who wish to better integrate instructional
and assessment activities. However, there are some few
concerns about the use of performance assessments in
school and the researcher wanted to find out the
teachers’ views on the impact of the performance
assessment on their professional development.
102
4.5.1. Teachers Views on Performance Assessment (Does not
Challenge Children to Learn Hard)
The kindergarten teachers elaborated their views of
not using performance assessment in assessing their
children’s learning outcomes in schools. The teachers
attributed the reason of not finding time for writing
detailed assessment including observation checklists,
rating scales and building of portfolios as there is a
loaded curriculum during the day so this occupies the
whole time of teachers. Then, no time is left for
teachers to write and complete the evaluation in three
parts; including interviews, building portfolios, and
observation scales. When asked what their concerns about
performance assessment are, these were some of their
responses:
There is already a program to follow during the day so I don’t have
time to write detailed performance assessment. This form of
assessment even has the tendency of making children lazy knowing
that there is no test to write at the end of the term (T3)…
103
Honestly, I don’t like this thing which is going to make these already
lazy children much lazier (T2)…
In addition to following the program required for the day, it is
nonsense to expect pre-school teachers not to subject these children
through proper testing. Do they want to make children lazy and
collapse the schools in Ghana for us? (T1)…
Student teachers clearly appear not to even
understand the whole concept of performance assessment
let alone embracing its usage at school.
4.5.2. Teachers Views on Performance Assessment
(Encourages Teachers to be Lazy)
Kindergarten teachers appear to think that should
teachers be asked to use this assessment tool it has the
tendency of making them too lazy because teachers are
often resistant to change. To them, if they are asked to
use the performance assessment then they might not be
used to the new approach and the worst to happen is that
they may lose interest of what they like doing which is
the testing.104
There is already a program to follow during the end of term
assessment, or do they want us to be lazy? (T1)…
Honestly, I don’t want to deviate from the testing which also has the
potentiality of making us lazy by just observing children playing and
making noise in class (T2)…
In addition to all these I just don’t want to be seen as a lazy teacher by
the parents of these kids (T3)…
The student teachers seemed to prefer working within
their comfort zone and appeared not to be ready to try
new assessment practices such as performance assessment
or any other constructivist approach.
4.5.3. Teachers’ Views that Performance Assessment (Does
Not Measure the Exact Learning Outcomes)
Kindergarten teachers in the current study think
that validity of performance assessment cannot be
guaranteed. They appear to believe that it will be very
difficult to measure certain learning outcomes when using
performance assessment. These were some of their
responses when the validity of this mode of assessment
was quizzed:
105
It will be highly difficult to measure certain learning outcomes in the
children particularly when measuring a cognitive related outcome
when performance assessment is employed as against the much tried
and tested testing (T1)…
Honestly, I don’t think it can be used to measure all learning outcomes
among children (T2)…
I just cannot guarantee the validity of performance assessment. This
method can’t be equally used to rank children in the first to last
ordering in order to know who came first and last in the class and even
parents will surely kick against its usage in our school in particular (T3)
…
The student teachers are very much not really sure
of both validity and reliability issues in using
performance assessment, hence their uncertainty of using
it in measuring children’s’ learning outcome in class.
4.5.4. Teachers’ Views That Performance Assessment (Does
Not Produce Same Results for Same Groups of Children)
Kindergarten teachers in the current study think
that reliability of performance assessment cannot be
guaranteed. They appear to assume that it will be very
106
difficult to achieve the same score for a group of kids
when using performance assessment.
These were some of their responses when the validity of
this mode of assessment was quizzed:
It will be highly difficult to record the same learning outcomes for the
same group of children particularly when performance assessment is
employed as against the much tried and tested testing (T1)…
Honestly, I don’t think it can be used to achieve same results on the
same children at different instances when same assessment is done on
a different day to arrive at learning outcome among children (T2)…
I cannot just be sure of the reliability of performance assessment (T3)…
In sum, the student teachers in the current study
appeared not to be excited about the use of performance
assessment as they doubt both the validity, reliability
and even its acceptability by the children’s parents and
other educational leaders.
107
108
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
5.0. Introduction
This discussion of the findings was generated from
the study and its implications for theory and practice.
The discussion consists of four main parts, (1) a
discussion of the demographic data in this study, (2) a
discussion of kindergarten teachers’ views on the use of
the various modes of assessment in their instructional
practices, their views on the reasons for selecting a
particular mode of assessment and teachers’ views on the
impact of the performance assessment on their
professional development, (3) results of Independent
sample T-Test among public and private kindergarten
teachers with respect to the three-subscales in the
current study.
5.1. Discussion of Demographic Data
5.1.1 Institutional Placement of the Respondents
From the study, one hundred (100) of the respondents
representing 52.1% teach in private kindergarten schools
109
whereas the remaining 92 constituting 47.9% were working
in public kindergarten schools in the six sampled
regions. By implication, there could be as many teachers
in both the private and public kindergarten schools in
Ghana. This finding supports the position held by the
Ghana Education Service as the data from the Education
Management Information System (EMIS, 2011-12) indicate
that the private sector kindergartens in Ghana typically
have better infrastructure than public schools, but
suffer from a shortage of trained teachers.
In view of this, both the private and public
educational leaders ought to hire the services of well
qualified educators for their schools as both of them are
equally implementing the same curriculum since Ghana
operates a centralised curriculum. This also is supported
by Jaweria (2008) and Kontos & Wilcox-Herzog (2012; 2002)
who found comparative study that male and female teachers
of public and private schools have different
qualification but the school culture among the public and
private schools are the same. 110
5.2. Discussion of the Three Research Questions Underpinning the Current Research
The results from this current study show that
kindergarten teachers appear to disagree to all the three
research questions or the sub-scales. Participants mean
score for all the three subscales were 2.40, 2.38 and
2.21 out of 4 specifically on the use of the various
modes of assessment, their reasons for selecting a
particular mode of assessment and the impact of
performance assessment on their professional development
respectively and the overall mean score of 2.32 which
indicates their disagreement.
5.2.1. Teachers’ Level of Agreement to the Use of the
Following Modes of Assessment in the Early Childhood
Classroom?
Table 4.7 shows a summary of respondents’ views on
the use of the various mode of assessment. Table 4.7
reveals that among all the modes of assessments,
respondents appear to agree to the use of only testing
(paper and pencil teacher made test) which recorded a
higher mean value of 2.54 (SD= .975) in an answer to the
question; ‘What is your level of agreement to the use of
111
testing (pencil and paper teacher made test)?’ This
clearly shows teachers’ ‘disagreement to the use of all
other modes of assessments with the exception of the
pencil and paper teacher made test which is their
preferred choice in their implementation of the
kindergarten curriculum with regards to their assessment
practices.
This finding is quite expected as in the case of our
Ghanaian setting where rote learning and memorisation
appear to be the teachers’ main pedagogical strategies
irrespective of one’s educational training and
qualification. This also featured prominently during the
interview session or the qualitative phase of the current
study. The following interactions during the interview
phase with the teachers collaborates what emerged from
the questionnaire data:
I really make use of paper- and- pencil test made by my good self (T1)…
I have almost always relied on paper –and- pencil test (T2)…
I do not want to deviate from the norm in this school and so I often use
paper –and- pencil test even though I sometimes observe the children’s
learning outcomes. I only observe their learning outcomes to see their
112
trends of progression in learning but I do not use observation to
promote or repeat a child in class. How can I be observing individual
children numbering over 60 in class? (T3)…
The teachers further explained that much as they
were aware of other forms of assessments probably learnt
at the various teacher training institutions, they still
hold on to this testing which obviously conforms to their
instructional strategies. This finding is further
supported by a position statement by local educational
authorities in Ghana as EMIS (2011-2012) reports that
curriculum delivery is largely based on rote learning
methods relating to letters and numbers. Practice is
neither child-centred nor activity-based. This document
further states that an average class size of 64 children
in the Ghanaian pubic kindergartens make it very
difficult to effectively assess the progress of each
individual child.
It is, however, heart-warming to learn that GES, in
association with UNICEF, has developed a Pupil Assessment
Toolkit for KG teachers (2008), which have been
distributed to some few schools on a pilot basis.113
However, not all teachers have access to it or have been
trained to use it. This clearly shows that teachers still
prefer being in their comfort zones with regard to the
instructional and the corresponding assessment practices
in the classrooms. By implication, if nothing is done
about the instruction and assessment practices, then the
educational authorities might never achieve their desired
aim of making the pedagogy at that level in a much more
child oriented and activities based hovering around play
as captured in all the Ghana education policies on
kindergarten in the country. There has not been any study
on this phenomenon at least on early childhood in the
Ghanaian context to the best of my knowledge but there
are such studies on the international stage which can be
used to corroborate this finding.
A number of studies conducted in Turkey related to
assessment and evaluation techniques used by teachers.
The results revealed that the teachers were faced with
problems in implementing new assessment and evaluation
techniques in their classrooms (Gelbal & Kelecioglu,
2007). These problems might emerge due to teachers’ lack114
of knowledge about the implementation of these new
constructivist assessment techniques. As a result of
their lack of knowledge, they mostly prefer to use the
most familiar assessment technique for them as teacher
made test as in the case of the current study in Ghana.
For instance, in the study conducted with elementary
school students, researchers investigated assessment
strategies used by primary school teachers (Gelbal &
Kelecioglu, 2007). Teachers stated that they mostly
prefer to use traditional assessment techniques while
assessing their students’ progress, the least likely used
method is students’ self-evaluation as in the case of
authentic assessments.
The implication of this subsection of the current
study indicates that preschool teachers used assessment
methods which they believed might be suitable for
preschool children but also convenient for them. By
extension, if kindergarten teachers in Ghana are solely
employing the use of teacher made paper –and- pencil test ,
then the possible danger is that majority of those needed
115
domains of the child’s learning will go unevaluated
relating the problem of validity and reliability.
5.2.2. Teachers’ Reasons for Selecting a Particular Mode
of Assessment
Table 4.8 displays a summary of respondents’ reasons
for selecting the various mode of assessment. Table 4.8
reveals that, among all the negative statements in this
category, the respondents appear to agree to all of them
with the exception of this statement; ‘I use a particular
mode of assessment to punish children’, which recorded a
mean value of 2.46 (SD= 2.421). This mean value is
approximately 3.0 which tilt more to their disagreement
to this particular item. Respondents in the study
tenderred to select a particular mode of assessment owing
to the seemingly public accountability issues emanating
from parents, politicians, and school authorities and not
purposely based on the teachers’ professional sound
judgement which is reliant on their knowledge about
learning theories, and curriculum alignment with
assessment and instruction. Teachers also further tried116
to use tests and exams to stamp their authority on the
little kids. This trend does not augur well for Ghana’s
early childhood future development and growth. This
assertion is based on the analysis of both the
qualitative and quantitative data. The following
positions taken by the respondents during the interview
confirmed this assertion:
Hmmmmm, these head teachers even give much pressure than the
parents, as they demand of us as teachers to submit our end of term
exam questions to them even before the start of the exams so that they
can monitor our teaching coverage. The head teachers always want to
satisfy the parents and all other stakeholders with a very good children
test scores (T1)…
Honestly, I don’t want the head teacher to disgrace me or sack me for
noncompliance with regards to children’s assessment so I am always
the first to send my end of term exam questions to him for vetting (T2)
…
117
I was hired by the head teacher and so therefore I must obey his set of
instruction of testing the children several times to proof to him that
indeed am teaching (T3)…
Aside teachers conforming to social accountability
and public pressure on assessment, they themselves appear
to be using the tests as a way to instill discipline and
gain authority and positive regards from the children.
Samples of such indications from the teachers are seen in
this interaction when they were asked to assign some
other reasons for selecting a particular mode of
assessment:
You see, in this school, we no longer use cane on the children, so the
only way to put fear in the children is to use the threat of exams to let
children respect and conform to me (T1)…
Honestly, the fear of my exam puts children in order ad they obey my
instructions (T2)…
I was hired by the head teacher and so therefore I must obey his set of
instruction of There will no difference between me and their parents if
118
not my exam questions they will be writing. They respect you because
your end of term exam questions (T3)…
The implication for this situation is that the
teachers are rather not following the numerous emerging
theories and principles governing childhood assessment
practices in line with developmentally appropriate
practices. This possible effect is that it will result in
misuse of assessment on these children and as such it
will result in poor curriculum implementation and
alignment in the Ghanaian kindergartens. Common examples
of the several effects of misuse of assessment borne out
of empirical research are numerous on the international
stage in these situations below:
Single scores are typically reported for
accountability purposes. While this satisfies
criteria such as clarity and ease of understanding,
single scores that characterize complicated
achievements by students are misleading. For this
reason, a score profile—a set of scores linked to
content and knowledge—offers an alternative of more
119
information that is possibly diagnostic (Wood &
Schmidt, 2002).
We might ask whether the present system is working
well. Carnoy and Loeb (2003) provide evidence that in
states with high-stakes large-scale testing programmes,
scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
are higher than in states without such testing systems.
However, there is also evidence that large-scale testing
has unintended consequences. Curricular shifts follow
high-stakes testing and lead to a narrowing of the
curriculum, a focus on superficial factual knowledge and
basic skills, practice not on subject matter but on test
taking skills, and cheating on the test (ARG, 2002;
Shepard, 2003)
It was a result of such misuse of assessment in
America which led to the revolution in assessment
nationwide in the late 1980s. Increased testing and
misuse of testing were well documented phenomena in the
1980s and extended well beyond the confines of the early
childhood years (Office of Technology Assessment, 1992).
120
Inappropriate curriculum and instructional practices were
closely tied to inappropriate testing practices.
Therefore, it was impossible to address one without
addressing the other. This seeming misuse of assessment
in Ghana is confirmed by Gordon and Browne (2011) that
anyone involved in evaluation should avoid the following
misuse or concerns about assessment in early childhood:
unfair comparison, bias, and overemphasis on norms,
interpretation, too narrow of a perspective, too little
or too much time and probably forcing children to learn.
Similarly, NAECS/SDE (1987) issued a statement
against Unacceptable Trends in Kindergarten Entry and
Placement, and that same month, the NAEYC adopted its
position statement on standardized testing. NAECS/SDE
argued against denying school entrance to age-eligible
children or segregating children into extra-year classes
because such practices denied opportunities for cognitive
growth through social interaction to children who most
needed to be in school, labeled children as failures, and
assigned the burden of responsibility (for readiness) to
the child, rather than the school program.121
It is therefore not too late for Ghana, a third
world country, to begin looking into the seeming looming
danger on the misuse of assessment in the kindergartens,
even if America of all nations only had its revolution in
that area only in the late 1980. A comprehensive policy
assessment covering all areas of assessment and seeing to
its fullest implementation is capable to reversing this
worrying trend.
5.2.3. Teachers’ Views on the Impact of the Performance
Assessment on Their Professional Development
Table 4.9 displays a summary of respondents’ views
on the impact of the performance assessment on their
professional development. Table 4.9 reveals that among
all the negative statements in this category, the
respondents appear to agree to all the statements;
‘Performance assessment does not challenge children to
learn hard’ which recorded a mean value of 1.91
(SD= .905).This mean value is approximately 2.0 which is
tilted more to their agreement to this particular item.
The remaining negative statement all recorded a mean
122
value of less than 3 indicating their agreement to the
following negative statements; ‘Performance assessment
encourages teachers to be lazy’ with a mean value of 2.16
(SD = .976), ‘Performance assessment does not measure the
exact learning outcomes’ recording a mean value of 2.05
(SD = .959); ‘Performance assessment does not produce
same results for same groups of children’ similarly
recorded a mean value of 2.33 (SD = 1.010)
Of all the positive statements in this category on
the other hand, respondents appear to disagree with all
the statements. Respondents disagreed with these;
‘Performance assessment measures learning outcomes as a
product’ which recorded a mean value of 1.82 (SD = .711)
and ‘Performance assessment measures learning as a
process’ recorded a mean value of 2.22 (SD = .942). The
respondents further disagreed to the following
statements; ‘Performance assessment produces same
results for same groups of children’ recorded a mean
value of 2.27 (SD = .996), ‘Performance assessment
measures the exact learning outcomes’ also scored a mean
value of 2.34 (SD = .969), ‘Performance assessment123
provides experience for teachers on how to use portfolios
in education’ likewise recorded a mean value 2.39 (SD =
1.002), ‘Performance assessment helps teachers to
realise their own strengths and weaknesses in their
instructional practices’ followed a similar pattern
recording a mean value of 2.40 (SD = 1.048) and
‘Performance assessment provides opportunities for
teachers to teach and assess children’s learning outcomes
at the same time’ similarly scored a mean value of 2.46 (
SD = 1.082). Of all the seven positive statements in this
category, the respondents appear to disagree with all
those statements as described earlier.
The findings from this very subsection on the use of
performance assessment to help teachers in professional
practice is not only shocking but equally interesting. It
shows clearly the teachers’ possible lack of knowledge
and skills on the use of it in assessing children’s
learning outcomes. Results from both the qualitative and
quantitative data indicate that the teachers had strong
issues with both the perceived invalidity and
unreliability often associated with the use of124
performance assessment. These concerns of the
kindergarten teachers in the current study in Ghana are
normal and were expected as they confirm what the
literature says on the international and the global
stage.
In early childhood years, development is so rapid.
Therefore, it is very difficult to assess development of
young children appropriately (Gelbal & Kelecioglu, 2007;
Gober, 2002), and because of this, assessment in early
childhood education is different from the concepts of
education in older ages. Another assessment technique is
called authentic assessment. In this method, an
individual’s growth and development is evaluated by using
real life events (Taylor & Nolen, 2008). Some examples of
authentic (informal) assessment techniques are;
observation, teacher designed measures, checklists,
rating scales, rubrics, performance and portfolio
assessments, interviews, directed assignments,
portfolios, narrative reports and technology based
assessments (Wortham, 2006; 2008). In a study by Kevin
(1991) on some potential comparative advantages of125
performance assessment over paper-and-pencil test in
kindergarten and elementary schools, it was found out
that the major advantage of multiple choices had to do
with its ability to sample a large number of learning
outcomes relative to reliability and validity efficiency.
However, performance assessments are increasingly
being used to observe concept acquisition and skills
development in reading, writing, and Mathematics.
Performance assessments were, therefore, seen as superior
to paper- and -pencil test in their influence on
learner’s motivation and preparation because they can be
natural and normal part of the instructional setting.
Incredibly, the teachers in this study think otherwise
owing to their seeming limited knowledge in both theory
and practice on the use of performance assessment.
Similarly, the teachers surprisingly are of the
opinion that performance assessment rather makes both the
teachers and children lazy in class which debunks the
knowledge in the existing literature. One would have
expected to hear the teachers complain about the rather
tedious and time consuming nature of the performance126
assessment. Parallel with the findings of the current
study, in the study conducted by Şıvgın (2005), which
showed that evaluation in a form of performance or
authentic assessment took too much time and effort for
teachers. Besides, teachers were having problems in
finding related documents and filing them for each child
in the classroom.
Furthermore, in line with the findings of the
previous study, according to the study conducted by
Karakus and Kösa (2009), teachers find constructivist
assessment tools time consuming and leading to extra
effort. The implication, therefore, is that teachers are
likey not going to ever make use of the performance
assessment which is an aspect of authentic assessment in
those kindergartens in Ghana. By extension, those
teachers will continue to use only one tool of assessment
and obviously their preferred testing and a possible
misuse of assessment. This is also probably so because
teachers have not been given enough training on the use
of performance assessment in the Ghanaian schools since
127
it is still seen as an emerging trend in education which
is yet to catch up with us here in Ghana.
Moreover, the teachers in this study appeared to be
confused about the issue of performance assessment
capable of measuring learning outcomes in children either
as a process or product. Their responses to those items
in both the qualitative and quantitative data indicated
that performance assessment is incapable of either
assessing learning as a process or a product, which here
again debunks the known literature. Parallel to the
findings in this study, Kevin’s (1991) study on some
potential comparative advantages of performance
assessment over paper-and-pencil test in kindergarten and
elementary schools, showed that performance assessment
measures learning outcomes as a process and deeply
integrates with the instructional process whilst paper-
and- pencil test rather teaches children to take test and
much emphasis placed on learning as a product. In order
to have a balance between the goals of education and ways
of assessment that can be used throughout the process,
teachers are to know assessment and evaluation techniques128
in accordance with the curriculum models they are
implementing.
Another purpose of the study was to investigate the
differences that might be in the teachers’ views among
public and private kindergartens regarding the three
subscales; their use of a particular mode of assessment,
their reasons for selecting a particular mode of
assessment and the impact of performance assessment on
their professional development.
5.2.4. Hypothesis There will be no significant difference among the
kindergarten teachers teaching in public or private
schools with respect to their:
(a) Views on the various modes of assessment often
used,
(b) Reasons for selecting a particular mode of
assessment and
(c) Views on the impact of the performance
assessment on their professional development.
This hypothesis was designed to find out whether or
not there were significant differences in the mode of129
assessment between public and private kindergarten
teachers.
Table 4.10 shows that the results of the independent
samples t-test on the use of the various modes of
assessment between the public and private kindergarten
teachers appeared not to be significant at 5% level of
probability with the following specifics: ‘‘testing
(pencil and paper test recorded’’ (t (190)=-1.813; p=.71),
‘‘ Observation of learning outcomes (t (190)=.98; p=.92),
‘‘Using standardised test’’ (t (190)=-1.704; p=.090),
‘‘Building portfolio on the learning outcomes’’ ( t
(190)=-.441; p=.660), ‘‘Interviewing to assess learning
outcomes’’ (t (190)=-1.179;p=.240), ‘‘Assessing learning
outcomes through children’s performance assessment task’’
(t (190)=.770; p=.441).
All the six modes of assessments appear not to
differ so far as institutional placement (public or
private) of respondents is concerned. Therefore, the null
hypothesis could not be rejected. The meaning of this is
that the modes of assessment as part of the instructional
practices among public and private kindergarten teachers130
did not differ significantly. This result is extremely
surprising because one would have simply thought that
there might be a significant difference in the modes of
assessment as part of their instructional practices
between public and private kindergarten teachers in Ghana
owing to differences in teacher certification and
qualification as they also found themselves in different
working environments.
There appears to be no empirical research findings
in the Ghanaian context on this subject matter of
kindergarten teachers’ assessment practices at least to
the best of my knowledge, comparison therefore cannot be
made in the local context. However, several international
studies have examined how teaching practices including
assessment are similar or different in public and private
schools. While some results have been mixed (Chandler,
1999), most have found that private schools tend to have
teachers who use more traditional methods.
In a study of 115 Catholic and Public elementary
schools in Pittsburg, Catholic school principals more
often reported that direct instruction was used while131
public school principals reported more self-directed
student learning (Chandler, 1998). The same study found
that students in private schools more often expressed
traditional beliefs about the nature of mathematics than
students of similar backgrounds in public schools such as
a belief that there is only one way to solve a
Mathematics problem and that learning Mathematics mostly
involves memorizing facts. Multiple studies using the
ECLS-K kindergarten data have also confirmed that private
school teachers report using more traditional methods
such as using worksheets and textbooks to practice
computation, while public school teachers more often
reported using mixed-achievement grouping, problem
solving and manipulative activities (Hausken & Rathbun,
2004, Carbonaro, 2006; Guarino, et al., 2006).
Lee et al. (1993) argued for Catholic school
superiority. They conceded that instruction in the
Catholic high schools they visited was largely textbook-
driven with many lectures, and state that efforts are
needed to improve teachers’ pedagogical skill (p.309).
132
Given the promising findings surrounding many aspects of
reform-oriented Mathematics teaching practices, it seems
possible that the greater use of these practices in
public schools could help explain why public school
Mathematics achievement is higher than Mathematics
achievement in demographically similar Catholic schools.
Parallel to the above study, Liaqat (2009) found in
her study that quality of teaching is better in private
schools as compared to public schools and the teachers of
private schools prepared lesson plans before teaching as
compared to public schools. Shim and Herwig (1997)
examined the beliefs and practices of Korean early
childhood teachers in public and private programs. The
results revealed that the majority of public kindergarten
teachers had higher levels of education and more teaching
experience than teachers in private kindergartens or
child care centres. Public kindergarten teachers also
reported more frequent use of developmentally appropriate
activities including assessment in their classrooms than
other teachers. In contrast, child care teachers had the
least teaching experience and showed less expectation and133
use of appropriate activities in their classrooms.
Overall, Korean child care, private kindergarten, and
public kindergarten teachers demonstrated a high desire
toward DAP, but low developmentally appropriate teaching.
It can therefore be concluded that the finding from
this current study on the subscale on the various modes
of assessment often used by teachers could be either
rejected or supported by other international studies as
there has not been any conclusive finding which shows
that there should always be differences or not in the
kindergarten assessment practices regarding their
institutional placement of either being in the public or
private.
Firstly, the possibility of the finding in the
current study could be that over time, one school type,
being public or private, has become more or less
effective in teaching various subjects due to shifts in
structure, culture, or the school’s philosophy and or
teaching practices.
Secondly, it is possible that test questions on
recent assessments have shifted to reflect the Standards
134
(GES assessment Tools, 2012), and public school
teachers, who are more often held accountable through
high stakes testing, have altered their curriculum and
instructional methods to match these changing assessments
practices.
Thirdly, it could also probably mean that since
Ghana operates a centralised curriculum, all teachers are
trying to conform to ensure alignment and uniformity,
hence all of them want to rely on the much more
traditional and well known assessment mode which is the
paper and pencil teacher made test.
Moreover, there can equally be as many as possible
other explanations for the no difference in the use of
the various modes of assessment between public and
private kindergarten schools in Ghana. Differences in
school and class sizes, teacher characteristics, school
climate, parental involvement, teacher autonomy, and
teaching practices are among the possible explanations
for why there appear to be no such difference. Another
possibility is that recent kindergarten piloting
assessment tools in Ghana has shifted the focus on the135
content or types of learning (e.g., conceptual
understanding versus procedures) they test for, and these
assessments more closely match what is currently taught
in public schools.
It could, however, be concluded that probably the
teacher training institutions did not prepare the
teachers specifically for the various challenges and
obstacles that confront an early childhood teacher (NAEYC
& NAECS/SDE, 2002). For this reason, public and private
kindergarten teachers in the current study reported no
significant difference in their use of various modes of
assessment in line with their instructional practices.
Table 4.11 shows that the results of the independent
samples t-test on the following nine out of a total of
thirteen reasons for selecting a particular mode of
assessment between the public and private kindergarten
teachers appeared not to be significant at 5% level: ‘‘I
use a particular mode of assessment that reflects my
teaching philosophy’’ (t (190) = .870; p =.204), ‘‘I use a
particular mode of assessment that religiously conforms
136
to the curriculum guidelines’’ (t (190) =. 325; p =.38),
‘‘I use a particular mode of assessment to improve my
instructional practices’’ (t (190) = -.605; p =.546), ‘‘I
use a particular mode of assessment to punish children’’
(t (190) = -.216; p = .0538), ‘‘I use a particular mode of
assessment just to meet the expectations of educational
leaders’’ (t (190) = .528; p =.598), ‘‘I use a particular
mode of assessment to reduce test anxiety’’ (t (190) =
2.043; p =.42), ‘‘I use a particular mode of assessment
to be able to compare children easily’’ (t (190) = .885; p
=.377), ‘‘I use a particular mode of assessment that
meets the DAP in assessment’’ (t (190) = 2.545; p =.12),
‘‘ To really understand each child, I use more than one
mode of assessment’’ (t (190) = 1.713; p =.088).
However, there appeared to be a significant
difference in the following four reasons for selecting a
particular mode of assessment between public and private
kindergarten student teachers; ‘I use a particular mode
of assessment just to meet parent’s expectations’ (t
(190)= 2.29; p=.023), ‘I use a particular mode of
assessment to scarce children and make them afraid of137
teachers’ (t (190)=.402; p=.001), ‘‘I use a particular
mode of assessment to force children to learn’’ (t (190) =
.419; p =.05) and ‘I use a particular mode of assessment
to make children respect and like me as a teacher’ (t
(190)= 3.014; p=.002).
The effect size for this analysis (d=0.542) was
found to exceed Cohen’s (1988) conversion for medium size
effect.
This result clearly means that the student teachers
views on teachers reasons for selecting a particular mode
of assessment in the current study with respect to their
institutional placement (public and private
kindergartens) did not differ significantly on nine items
but differed significantly on only four items as reported
earlier.
It is quite not surprising to arrive at this finding
of a fairly no significant difference between public and
private kindergarten teachers’ reasons for selecting a
particular mode of assessment. The possible reasons for
no difference could be as follows; teacher quality and
teaching practices, but research has also been138
inconclusive regarding other factors as well, including
school and class size, climate, parental involvement,
teacher education, curriculum implementation model and
teacher autonomy. The researcher draws this conclusion
knowing that children and teachers in public and private
kindergartens in Ghana do not differ so much
demographically.
However, the finding in the current study on the
four reasons for selecting a particular mode of
assessment, where they differ slightly, much as such as
there appears to be no empirical research findings in the
Ghanaian context to juxtapose it with, a countless number
of international findings can be compared with.This
finding is in line with a study conducted by Ohania
(2009) on refocusing on assessment in children; ‘‘the 4
and 5 year-old students are finding the tests
bewildering. "They're scared as they are forced to learn
by their teachers. They just don't understand you're
supposed to bubble in next to the answer."
Similarly, a study conducted by Ohania (2009) on
refocusing on assessment confirms the finding from the139
current study; which states that “administering the exams
is a complete headache, teachers said”. They don't know
how to hold pencils," said a Bronx kindergarten teacher
whose class recently took the Pearson exam. "They don't
know letters, and you have answers that say A, B, C or D
and you’re asking them to bubble in . . . They break
down; they cry." At the same time, officials defended the
use of multiple choices as an easy way for even
kindergarten teachers to learn how much their students
know at the beginning of the year. Out of this
frustration teachers go through in test administration,
it might have resulted in this jovial statement "Sharing
is not caring anymore; developmentally, it's not the
right thing to do," said one Queens teacher, whose pupils
kept trying to help one another on the Mathematics test
she gave for the first time this fall. The young students
are not being allowed to help each other with the tests,
even though they keep trying to do so as cited in a study
conducted by Ohania (2009).
The possible reasons accounting for this slight
significant difference in those four items between both140
private and public kindergarten teachers in the current
study in their reasons for selecting a particular mode of
assessment could include but not limited to the following
as opined by karakus & Kosa (2009) and Kutlu, (2006):
First, teaching practice courses in which students
encounter the complexity of learning environments may
lead them to acquire enough repertoire of classroom
management skills.
Another reason of the slight differences on those
three reasons for selecting a particular mode of
assessment between public and private kindergarten
teachers may be the crowded classrooms. Class size might
also have an effect on public kindergarten teachers’
reasons for selecting a particular mode of assessment.
Kindergarten teachers in the public school have large
classes than their counterparts in the private schools.
Large class size is a central problem for the
implementation of interactive strategies since forming
groups, involving all the students, gaining cooperation,
maintaining appropriate behaviours and using the time
141
efficiently are more difficult in large classes than
small classes. Researchers have investigated the
relationship between class size and classroom management
attitudes of teachers and found out as the class size
increases, the level of teacher control increases
especially in terms of behaviour and people management
strategies (Kutlu, 2006; Erol, 2006).
Moreover, teachers’ qualification between public and
private kindergartens could also be the main reason for
such a slight significant difference between public and
private kindergarten teachers. This is because all things
being equal, a well-trained early childhood practitioner
ought not to select a mode of assessment just to force
children to learn, just to let children like teachers
and also making children scared of teachers. Research
have shown that there is consensus in the literature that
staff need to be well educated and professional, with
qualifications directly relevant to early childhood
education in order to deliver better outcomes and
services that focus on the social, emotional, cognitive
and physical development and learning of children142
attending formal early childhood services (Barnett, 2003;
Berk, 2006).
Similarly, although the level of benchmark
qualifications and proportion of qualified staff in early
childhood centres vary from country to country (Munton et
al., 2002; Dalli et al., 2010), the research literature
confirms that qualified teachers result in an improved
quality learning environment and positive outcomes for
children (Munton et al., 2002).
The implication of this finding based on the reasons
which guide teachers in selecting a particular mode of
assessment in public and private kindergartens showing
no significant difference in nine out of a total of 13
items, is quite alarming one for both policy and
practice in the Ghanaian schools. It has the potentiality
of resulting in poor curriculum implementation and
instruction, unfair assessment practices such as
unhealthy comparison among children, labelling children
as failures by emphasising on norm, test anxiety among
the children and a possible wrong interpretation of
assessment results. 143
Similarly, traditionally, Ghanaians have valued the
products over the process of learning. The major stake
holders involved in education, students, teachers and
parents, have not been involved in the assessment process
at all. As Stiggins believes, “We are a nation of
assessment illiterates. We are a society that has come to
care very much about high standards of achievement but we
are a society that is incapable of understanding whether
those standards are being met” (Stiggins, 2007, 2002,
2001, p. 535).
These implications could clearly be summed up as;
‘‘too many school systems expecting children to conform
to an inappropriate curriculum and finding large numbers
of ‘unready’ children react to the problem by raising the
entrance age for kindergarten and or labelling the
children as failures’’( NAEYC & NAECS/SDE, 2003). The
implications of such testing may further degrade the
curriculum when teachers, wishing to conform to would be
test, may alter or change instructional practices to what
is to be tested. They may then start teaching children to
learn the ‘‘correct’’ answers rather than to engage in144
active, critical thinking. Rather, the teachers’
accountability, ‘‘the overuse (and misuse) of
standardised testing has led to the adoption of
inappropriate teaching practices as well as admission and
retention policies that are not in the best interest of
individual children or the nation as a whole” (NAEYC &
NAECS/SDE, 2003).
Table 4.12 shows the results of the independent
sample t-test on the views on the impact of the
performance assessment on their professional development
between the public and private kindergarten teachers
appeared not to be significant at 5% level of probability
on eight out of a total of eleven student teachers views
on PA: ‘‘ PA provides opportunities for teachers to teach
and assess children’s learning outcomes at the same
time’’ (t (190) = 1.290; p =.199), ‘‘PA does not challenge
children to learn hard’’ (t (190) =. 219; p =.827), ‘‘PA
helps teachers to realise their own strength and weakness
in their instructional practices’’ (t (190) = 1.161; p
=.247), ‘‘ PA measures the exact learning outcomes’’ (t
(190) = .391; p = .697), ‘‘ PA does not produce same145
results for same group of children’’ (t (190) = -.333; p
=.739), ‘‘PA produces same results for same group of
children’’ (t (190) = 1.225; p =.222), ‘‘ PA provides
experience for teachers on how to use portfolios in
education’’ (t (190) = 1.878; p =.062), ‘‘ PA measures
learning outcomes as a process’’ (t (190) = .552; p
=.582).
However, there appeared to be significant
differences in the following three views of the student
teachers in both private and public schools on PA and
their professional development: ‘Performance assessment
encourages teachers to be lazy’ (t (190)= 3.158; p =.002),
‘Performance assessment does not measure the exact
learning outcomes’(t (190)=2.475; p=.014) and ‘Performance
assessment does not measure learning as a product’ (t
(190) =3.284; p=0.001).
The effect size for this analysis (d=0.547) was
found to exceed Cohen’s (1988) conversion for medium size
effect.
This result clearly means that the student teachers
views on this subsection in this study with respect to146
their institutional placement (public and private
kindergartens) did not differ significantly on eight
items but differed significantly on only three items as
reported earlier.
The results from this part of the study was well
expected as I hypothesised even before the start of data
collection that there was not going to be no significant
difference between public and private kindergarten
student teachers sampled with respect to the use of
performance assessment and its impact on their
professional development.
First, this is partly because performance assessment
is an emerging trend in the educational enterprise the
world over and more especially in a developing country
like Ghana. Lu (1993) used Beliefs and Attitudes of
Teachers of Early Childhood (BATEC) to examine public
school teachers of four-year-old program and kindergarten
teachers in South
Carolina. The beliefs and attitudes of four year-old and
kindergarten teachers’ years of teaching, degrees held,
and certifications held showed no significant147
differences in teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about DAP.
Teachers viewed professional journals, teachers
(themselves), and other teachers having influence on
their planning and implementing of a DAP curriculum. In
contrast, standardized testing, state regulations, and
parental opinions had negative influences on their
planning and implementing a DAP curriculum. According to
these findings, the author concluded that the majority of
South Carolina public school early childhood teachers
showed strong agreement about DAP. Formal education in
child-related areas and professional information were
important components for providing quality care for young
children. The teachers indicated that the pressure of
following administrative mandates caused them to use
developmentally inappropriate curriculum content and
assessment practices.
Second, the issues and uncertainty surrounding the
validity and reliability of performance assessment and
its potential rejection by their Ghanaian parents who
often expect to rather see their children’s test scores
and possibly see their wards topping the class in that148
traditional league of examination position. The potential
for mischief and negative consequences is heightened when
public accountability reports are accompanied by strong
sanctions and rewards such as student graduation or
teacher salary enhancements. Test items may be stolen,
teachers may teach the answers to the test, and
administrators may change students’ answers on the test
(e.g., Assessment Reform Group, 2002; Shepard, 2003;
Black, 2007).
Third, the Ghanaian kindergarten curriculum itself
lacks clear implementation policy or guidelines
especially with respect to the curriculum and assessment
linkages or alignment which forms the broader conceptual
framework of this current study. Throughout the entire
Ghanaian kindergarten document, one could only read a
single sentence which recommends that the assessment
practices as much as possible be informal. The newly
developed assessment tool as an intervention to the
identified current assessment gap had still remained in a
pilot phase over the past years and as such yet to be
fully implemented nationwide.149
Fourth, early childhood education itself is equally
an emerging field in Ghana which does not boast of a lot
of qualified and trained practitioners in both the public
and private kindergarten schools capable of using this
authentic or naturalistic mode of assessing children’s
developmental learning outcomes effectively. The early
childhood field lacks adequate numbers of qualified and
sufficiently trained staff to implement appropriate,
effective curriculum and assessment. Turnover continues
to exceed 30 percent annually (Whitebook et al., 2001;
Lombardi, 2003), and compensation for early childhood
educators continues to be inadequate and inequitable
(Laverty et al., 2001). The staff turnover rate is
greatly affected by a number of program characteristics,
including the adequacy of compensation. All early
childhood settings—including public-school-based programs
—are experiencing critical shortages and turnover of
qualified teachers, especially in areas that serve
children who are at the highest risk for negative
outcomes and who most need outstanding teachers (Keller,
2003).150
Fifth, the large class size in both private and
public kindergartens in Ghana alone might permit teachers
to be able to developmentally assess each child’s
learning outcome separately. The implication, therefore,
is that teachers are still going to employ testing as the
sole means of assessing children’s learning outcomes.
‘‘Table-top testing” and or “pencil-and-paper
standardized tests” are discouraged for children from
birth to age 8 for a variety of reasons. For example,
young children and children in kindergarten may not be
able to use a pencil effectively to demonstrate their
knowledge. A test of this type does not capture some of
the skills that are critical to success in school (i.e.,
social and emotional development; approaches to learning)
(Scott-Little & Niemeyer, 2001).
151
CHAPTER SIX
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.0. Introduction
This chapter of the current study provides a summary
of the results, conclusions and recommendations as well
as implications for further research..
6.1. Summary of Research Process
This part is divided into two sections. The first
section summarizes the process of the research, and the
second presents summarised findings of this current
study. The overriding objective for conducting this
current study was to investigate the assessment practices
of kindergarten teachers with regard to the
implementation of the new kindergarten curricula.
Subsidiary to this was an investigation to study the
relationship between kindergarten teachers’ views on
assessment practices and other factors such as
institutional placement (private and public) and area of
specialization. The questions addressed were broadly
152
categorised into two: the overarching and the subsidiary
research questions. The overarching questions were:
What is your level of agreement to the use of the
following modes of assessment in the early childhood
classroom?
What are your reasons for selecting a particular mode of
assessment?
What are your views on the impact of the performance
assessment on your professional development?
The subsidiary questions, the solution to which
helped in the investigation of the overarching question,
were:
What is the difference in the assessment practices
of kindergarten teachers with differing institutional
placement (private and public)?
A self-designed and validated four-point Likert
scale questionnaire was used to collect the relevant
data. Additional items were designed to gather
demographic data from the respondents. The two separate153
set of items were integrated to form the entire
questionnaire for the data collection. The instrument was
administered to 192 kindergarten teachers which had 100%
return coverage. All the 192 of the returned
questionnaires were fit for inclusion in the analysis.
Individual kindergarten teacher’s responses to items were
added up to obtain group raw scores. The resulting raw
scores were then converted to percentage, mean, standard
deviation, frequency, and mean differences. An interview
was also conducted since this current study employed a
mixed method approach to further examine the kindergarten
teachers’ assessment practices on the three sub-scales.
In all, three kindergarten teachers who consented to take
part in the interview and their responses were content
analyzed to help in the discussion process.
Further investigations were carried out to determine
whether the views of the kindergarten teachers’ in the
study assessment practices on the three subscales, namely
the various modes of assessment teachers often used,
teachers reasons for selecting a particular mode of
assessment and the impact of performance assessment on154
their professional development, were dependent of factor
such as institutional placement (public and private). The
differences among these independent variables and the
assessment practices on the three sub-scales were tested
using independent samples t-test.
6.1.1. Summary of Findings The group profile analysis revealed that
kindergarten teachers who took part in the study overall
disagreed to all the three main subscales; teaachers’
views on modes of assessment often used, reasons for
selecting a particular mode of assessment and the impact
of the performance assessment on their professional
development. However, majority of the kindergarten
teachers recorded the highest mean score value of 3.1 out
of 4 agreed to the use of teacher made paper-and-pencil
classroom test. A further analysis revealed that the
kindergarten teachers, however, differed slightly on
these four reasons for selecting a particular mode of
assessment; ‘‘… to force student to learn’’; ‘‘… to scare
children and make them afraid of teachers’’, ‘‘….just to
meet parents expectations’’ and ‘‘… to respect and like155
teachers’’. Similarly, the Kindergarten teachers slightly
differed on the use of performance assessment on these
three items; ‘‘Performance assessment measures learning
outcomes as a product’’, ‘‘PA does not measure the exact
learning outcomes’’ and “Performance assessment
encourages teachers to be lazy’’. In addition, there
were no statistically significant differences in the
kindergarten teachers’ institutional placement with
respect to all others items on the three sub-scales using
the Independent Sample t-test. The summaries of key
findings are that:
1. Kindergarten teachers in this current study disagreed
strongly to the use of all other known modes of
assessment with the exception of the teacher made
paper and pencil classroom test.
2. This current study also revealed that the
kindergarten teachers select a particular mode of
assessment just to meet the expectations of parents
and educational leaders in order to keep their jobs
without recourse to the current knowledge and
156
theories on children learning, instruction and
assessment practices in early childhood.
3. No significant differences were found in the
kindergarten teachers assessment practices in all the
three sub-scales namely the mode of assessment used,
the reasons for selecting a particular mode of
assessment and performance assessment usage on their
professional development among their institutional
placement (public and private kindergartens) with the
exception of the four reasons for selecting a
particular modes of assessment and three other
teachers views on the impact of performance
assessment on their professional development as
discussed above.
6.2. Conclusion
From the present study, the following conclusions can be
made:
1. The kindergarten teachers solely employ the use of
teacher made paper and pencil test in their
assessment drive in the classroom. The teachers in
157
this study are not using developmentally assessment
practices in assessing children learning outcome.
Teachers, therefore, do not have the requisite
knowledge and skills to effectively assess the
children learning outcomes appropriately. They seem
to be working within their comfort zone by relying
on a traditional mode of assessment.
2. The teachers’ reasons for assessing children are not
supported by any known learning and assessment
theories among children.
3. The teachers lack the requisite knowledge on the use
and practices involved on the impact of performance
assessment on their own professional development.
4. The teachers’ current assessment practices cannot
help them to effectively implement the curriculum
developmentally as the developers of the curriculum
prescribed.
6.3. Recommendations
From the findings and conclusions of the study, it is
recommended that:
158
1. The inspectors in charge of the curriculum
implementation and plans should be informed about
the difficulties of the teachers that they are
having in evaluation. Inspectors or circuit
supervisors should take this issue into
consideration when checking the plans, reports and
related curriculum documents.
2. The GES should give teachers in-service training to
enable them use different modes of assessment and
evaluation techniques in order to assess children
learning outcomes developmentally.
3. It is recommended that the school administrations
should monitor the problems related to assessment
and evaluation and work in cooperation with
preschool teachers. Equally, school heads and other
educational leaders should be taken through
comprehensive and elaborate workshops, seminars and
symposiums on other modes of contemporary assessment
to be facilitated by experts in early childhood
instruction and assessment in order to sensitize the
159
educational leaders to also embrace the various
developmentally appropriate modes of assessment.
4. It is further recommended that the school inspectors
or circuit supervisors should also be taken through
comprehensive and elaborate workshops, seminars and
symposiums on other modes of contemporary assessment
to be facilitated by experts in early childhood
instruction and assessment in early childhood.
5. The Ghana Education Service should formulate a
comprehensive policy on assessment in the
kindergartens; however, its implementation should
take a bit radical approach in a form of fidelity
owing to the numerous untrained early childhood
teachers who are teaching in the various schools as
they cannot use an adaptation approach successfully.
6. Also, the findings from this current research showed
that the kindergarten teachers appear to just assess
the children in a way that will satisfy parents and
educational leaders without taking curriculum
specifications on assessment, theories in children
learning and emerging trends in assessment into160
consideration. Accordingly, it is recommended that
comprehensive and elaborate workshops, seminars and
symposiums should be organized for parents and all
other stakeholders on other modes of contemporary
assessment to be facilitated by experts in early
childhood instruction and assessment in early
childhood.
7. Some kindergarten teachers appeared to be using
assessment as a tool to force the children to learn
and also as a means of instilling discipline among
the children in the classroom. In view of this, it
is recommended that further comprehensive and
elaborate training, workshops, seminars and
symposiums should be organized for the teachers to
rather see assessment as a process and an integral
part of instruction and not a disciplinary measure.
6.4. Areas of Further Research
161
Future investigations and efforts can be
concentrated on:
1. Investigating into the possible differences between
kindergarten teachers areas of specialization with
respect to their assessment practices using an
appropriate statistical tool.
2. Investigating into the possible differences between
kindergarten teachers gender (male or female) with
respect to their assessment practices using an
appropriate statistical tool.
162
REFERENCES
Abid, N, M., Ishfaque, M., & Gondal, M. (1993). Private
school on our government. School on Tadreesi- Moazna.
Unpublished Master's Thesis. Lahore: IER,
University of the Punjab.
Ahmad, Z., & Mirza, M. S. (2012). The financing of privately-
managed schools in the Punjab. Retrieved 20 -12-2012
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/ 0007/000715/071513eo.pdf.
AISTEAR. (2008). Supporting early learning and
development through formative assessment: The
Framework for Early Learning, Research paper. Dublin: NCCA.
AISTEAR. (1998). Play as a context for early learning and
development: The Framework for Early Learning, Research paper.
Dublin: NCCA.
American Psychological Association (APA). (1985). Standards
for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Amponsah, M. (2004). The status of coordination and
supervision of early childhood education in Ghana.
163
Unpublished master's major project report. Victoria:
University of Victoria, Canada.
Anamuah-Mensah, J., & Towse, P. (1995). Bringing industry
into the science classroom problems, concerns and
prospects associated with a paradigm shift. In van
Trommel, J. (Ed.), Science and technology education in a
demanding
society (Proceedings of the 7th IOSTE Symposium),
Enschede (Netherlands): National Institute for
Curriculum Development, 165-180.
Anning, A., & Ring, C. (2004). Making sense of children’s
drawings. UK: Open University Press.
Ashley, M. (2008). Here’s what you must think about
nuclear power: Grappling with the spiritual ground
of children’s judgment inside and outside Steiner
Waldorf Education. International Journal of Children’s
Spirituality, 13(1), 65-74.
Assessment Reform Group. (ARG). (2002). Testing,
motivation and learning. Assessment Reform Group.
Available from the University of Cambridge Faculty
of Education.164
Bangert, A, W. (2006). The development of an instrument
for assessing online teaching effectiveness. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 35 (3), 227-244.
Barnes, M. A. (2005). Learning disabilities: From identification to
intervention. New York: Guildford Press.
Barnett, S. W. (1995). Long term effects of early
childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes.
The Future of Children, 17, 69-8.
Barnett, W. S. (2003). Better teachers, better
preschools: Student achievement linked to teacher
qualifications. New Brunswick, NJ: NIEER.
Beck, L. G., & Murphy, J. (1994). Ethics in educational leadership
programs: An expanding role. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press, Inc.
Berk, L., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learning:
Vygotsky and early childhood education. Washington, DC:
National Association for The Education of Young
children.
Berk, L. E. (2006). Child Development (7th ed.). Boston:
Pearson International and Allyn & Bacon.
165
Berk, L.E., & Winsler, A. (2000). Successful phonological
awareness instruction with preschool children:
Lessons from the classroom. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education May 2008 28: 3-17.
Berman, C. (1989). Family-directed evaluation and
assessment under the Individuals with Disabilities
Act (IDEA): Lessons learned from experiences of
programs and parents. Zero to Three, 14(6), 16-22.
Black, P. J. (1993). Assessment and classroom learning.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–73.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2007). Large-scale assessment
systems: Design principles drawn from international
comparisons. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and
Perspectives, 5, 1-53.
Blount, B. (2007). Why Montessori works. Montessori Life, 1,
84-91.
Boadu, A. (June, 20, 2008). Lack of teaching and learning
materials in public basic schools in Ghana. Accra:
The Ghanaian Times, 9.
166
Boakye, K., Adamu-Issah, S. & Etse, S. (2001). A case study
on ECD development in Ghana. Unpublished manuscript.
Cape Coast: University of Cape Coast.
Boakye, J. K. A., Agyeman-Duah, J., Osei, J. & Brew-Ward,
M. (2001). Causes of dropout from basic education in Ghana.
Accra: Ministry of Education.
Bondi, J., & Wiles, J. (1989). Curriculum development (3rd
ed.).New York: Merrill.
Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Education Research: An
Introduction (5th Ed.). New York: Longman.
Bowman, B., Donovan, S., & Burns, S. (Eds.). (2001). Eager to
learn: Educating our pre schoolers. Report of Committee on
Early Childhood Pedagogy, Commission on Behavioural
V and Social Sciences and Education National
Research Council, Washington DC: National Academy
Press.
Bredekamp, S. (Ed). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice
in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8
(expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Association
for the Education of Young Children.
167
Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice
in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8
(Expanded.). Washington, DC: National Association
for the Education of Young Children.
Breedekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally
appropriate practice in early childhood programs (Rev. ed.).
Washington, DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
Breedekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally
appropriate practice in early childhood programs (Rev. ed.).
Washington, DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multi-method research: A
synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage
Broadhead, P. (2004). Early years play and learning: Developing social
skills and cooperation. UK: Routledge.
Broadhead, P. (2006). Developing an understanding of
young children’s learning through play: the place of
observation, interaction and reflection. British
Educational Research Journal, 32 (2), 191-207.
168
Brown, C. R. (1998). An evaluation of two different
methods of assessing independent investigations in
an operational pre-university level examination in
biology in England. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 24, 87-
98.
Bruner, J. (1999). Folk pedagogies. In J. Leech & B. Moon
learners and pedagogy. UK: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Burns, R. B. (2000). Introduction to research methods (4thed.).
Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education.
Calabrese, R. L. (1989). Ethics for principals. The
Education Digest, 54, 16-19.
Carbonaro, W. (2006). Public-Private differences in
achievement among kindergarten students: Differences
in learning opportunities and student outcomes.
American Journal of Education, 113(1), 31–65.
Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2003). Does external
accountability affect student outcomes?: A cross-
states analysis. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24:
305-331.169
Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P.L., Chiang, C.,
Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children's
mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An
experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26,
499-531.
Carr, M. & Claxton, G. (2002). Tracking the development
of learning dispositions, Assessment in Education, 9 (1),
9-37.
Carr, M. (2000). Let me count the ways to do assessment.
Proceedings of the Practice, Policy and Politics
Conference, Victoria University of Wellington, 9-12
July 2000. New Zealand: New Zealand Educational
Institute.
Carr, M. (2001). Assessment in early childhood settings: Learning
stories. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Carr, M. (2002). Emerging learning narratives: A
perspective from early childhood education. In G.
Wells and G. Claxton Learning for Life in the 21st Century.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Carr, M., May, H., & Podmore, V. (2000). Learning and
teaching stories: Action research on evaluation in early childhood. Final
170
Report to the Ministry of Education. New Zealand: New Zealand
Council for Educational Research.
Chandler, L. (1999). Traditional schools, progressive schools: Do
parents have a choice? Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation.
Chandler, L.A. (1998). Two models of educational practice: Their
prevalence in the public and Catholic schools of South Western
Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh, PA: Commonwealth Education
Organization.
Cheung, H. Y. (2006). The measurement of teacher
efficacy: Hong Kong primary in- service teachers.
Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research
and Pedagogy, 32 (4), 435-451.
Chomeya, R. (2010). Quality of psychology test between
likert scale 5 and 6 points. Journal of Social Science. 6, 399-
403.
Clay, M. M. (1998). An observation survey of early
literacy achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clough, P., Nutbrown, C. & Selbie, P. (2008). Early childhood
education: history, philosophy and experience. London: Longman.
171
Cobbold, C. (1999). Implementation of the social studies programme
in teacher training colleges in Ghana: An evaluation. Unpublished
MPhil Thesis, University of Cape Coast.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research
methods in education (5thed.). London: Routledge /
Falmer.
Creswell, J. (2003). Educational research planning, conducting, and
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed methods approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., &
Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs.
In A.Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed
methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Cronbach, L. J. (1950). Further evidence on response sets
and test design. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
10 (1), 3-31.
172
Cummins, R. A. (2004). The pot of gold at the end of
rainbow: Mentoring in early childhood education.
Journal of Childhood Education, 80, 254-257.
Cummins, R. A., & Gullone, E. (2000). Why we should not
use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective
quality of life measurement. Paper presented at the
Proceedings, Second International Conference on Quality of Life,
Singapore: National University of Singapore.
Dalli, C., White, E. J., Rockel, J., & Duhn, I., with
Buchanan, E., Davidson, S., Ganly, S., Kus, L., &
Wang, B. (2010). Quality early childhood education for under-two
year olds: What should it look like? A literature review. Report to
the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Institute for
Early Childhood Studies, Victoria University of
Wellington.
Daniel, D. (2005). Designing experiments and conducting
simulations. In Doing research: Methods of inquiry for conflict
analysis. 55-81. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student
achievement: A review of state policy evidence.
173
Educational Policy Analysis Archives. Retrieved on 10-06-2011
from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1).
Delgado, R. (1995). Legal storytelling: Storytelling for
oppositionists and others. In R. Delgado (Ed.),
Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge, 267-277. Philadelphia:
Temple University.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale Development: Theory and
Applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1933). Experience and education. New York:
Macmillan.
Donaldson, M. (1983). Children’s minds. London: Fontana.
Doverberg, E., & Pramling, I. (1993). To understand children’s
thinking: Methods for interviewing children. University of
Goteborg: Department of Methodology, Report No. 5
Downs, A. & Strand, P. (2006). Using assessment to
improve the effectiveness of early childhood
education. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 671-680.
Doyle, W. (2011). Classroom organization and management.
In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching
(3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
174
Drummond, M. J. (1993). Assessing children’s learning. London:
David Fulton Publishers.
Drummond, M-J. (2000). Comparisons in early years
education: History, fact and fiction. Early Childhood
Research & Practice, 2 (1).
Dunn, S. E. (2000). Assessment and accountability in
Montessori schools: Q and A with Dr. Kathy Roemer.
Montessori Life, Summer.
Dunphy, E. (2005). Ethical and effective interviewing of
young children in pedagogical contexts. European Early
Childhood Educational Research Journal, 13 (2), 79-96.
Dunphy, E. (2006). .An exploration of young children’s number sense
on entry to school in Ireland. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Open University, UK.
Dworkin, A. G. (2002). Teacher burnout. In D. L.
Levinson, P. W. Cookson & A. R.Sadovni (Eds.),
Education and sociology: An encyclo`pedia,. New York:
Routledge Falmer, 659-664.
Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (Eds.). (1998). The
hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach-advanced
175
reflections (2nd ed.). London: Ablex Publishing
Corporation.
Elliot J (2005). Using Narrative in Social Research. London: Sage
Publications.
Engerström, W., Berk, L.E., & Hagberg, I. B. (1999).
Evolution of clinical signs. In: Hagberg B, Anvret
M, Wahlstrom, J. Clinical and Biological Aspects. Clinics in
Developmental Medicine. London: Mac Keith Press, 26–39.
Erol, Z. (2006).
Sınıföğretmenlerininsınıfyönetimiuygulamalarınailişk
ingörüşleri Unpublished master’s thesis,
AfyonKocatepeÜniversitesi, Afyonkarahisar.
Essa, E. (2007). Introduction to early childhood education (5thed.).
Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning.
Evans, J. L., Meyers, R. G., & Ilfeld, E. M. (2000).
Early childhood counts: A programming guide on early
childhood care for development. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
Feng, J. (1989). Why the project approach (Report No.PS
019064). Memphis, Memphis state University
176
Feuerstein, R. (1979). Dynamic assessment of retarded performers:
The learning potential assessment device: Theory, instruments and
techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Firestone, W. A., & Firestone, C. A. (1984). The study
of loose coupling: Problems, progress, and
prospects. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Fisher, R. (1990). Teaching children to learn. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Fleer, M., Anning, A. & Cullen, J. (2004). A framework
for conceptualizing early childhood education. In A.
Anning, J. Cullen and M. Fleer (Eds.), Early childhood
education: Society and culture. London: Sage Publications.
Flewitt, R. (2005). Is every child’s voice heard:
Researching the different ways 3-year old children
communicate and make meaning at home and in a pre-
school setting. Early Years, 25 (3), 207-222.
Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education: Interaction
and practice. London: Sage Publications.
177
French, G. (2007). Children’s early learning and
development, The Framework for Early Learning, Research
paper. Dublin: NCCA.
Fritz, J. J., Miller-Heyl, J., Kreutzer, J. C., &
MacPhee, D. (2001). Fostering personal teacher
efficacy through staff development and classroom
activities. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 200–208.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New
York: Teacher’s College.
Press. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2002). The new meaning of educational change (4th
ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (2003). The new meaning of educational change (4th
ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum
and instruction implementation. Review of Educational
Research, 47(1), 335–397.
Gardner, H. (1999). Assessment in context. In P. Murphy
(Ed.), Learners, learning and assessment. London: Open
University/Paul Chapman Publishing.178
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the
21st century. New York: Basic Books.
Gay, L. R . (1996). Educational research (5th.). New Jersey:
Merrill.
Gelbal. S., & Kelecioglu, H. (2007). Teachers’
sufficiency perception and the problems they
encounter about measuring and assessment methods.
Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Magazine (H.U. J.
Educ.), 33: 135-145.
Genishi, C. (1993). Assessing young children’s language
and literacy: Tests and their alternatives. In B.
Spodek & O. Saracho (Eds.), Language and literacy in early
childhood education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ghana Education Service (GES). (2012). Narrative report
to support the operational plan to scale up quality
KG education in Ghana. Accra: Ministry of Education.
Ghana Education Service (GES). (2004). KG pupil assessment
toolkit. Accra: Teacher Education Unit.
Ghana National Commission on Children (GNCC). (2000).
Ghana's children: The child's perspective. Accra: GNCC.
179
Giroux, H. A. (1988). Schooling and the struggle for public life:
Critical pedagogy in the modern age. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Giroux, H. A. (1992). Educational leadership and the crisis of
democracy. UCEA Monograph.
Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., & Whitehead, B. M. (2006).
Curriculum leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction
(3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
Gober, S. (2002). Six simple ways to assess young children. New York:
Thomson Learning Delmar.
Goffin, S. G. (2001). Curriculum models and early childhood
education: Appraising the relationship (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill / Prentice Hall.
Goldhaber, D. (2002). The mystery of good teaching:
Surveying the evidence on student achievement and
teachers’ characteristics. Education Next, 2(1): 50–55.
Goldschmied, E., & Jackson, S. (2004). People under three:
Young children in day care (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
180
Gordon, A. M., & Browne, K, W. (2004). Beginnings and beyond:
Foundation in early childhood education. New York: Thomson
Delmar Learning.
Gordon, A. M., & Browne, K. W. (2011). Beginnings and beyond:
Foundations in early childhood education (7thed.). New York:
Thomson Delmar Learning.
Government of Ghana (GOG). (1998). Children’s Act, (Act
560). Accra: Government of Ghana.. Retrieved on 18th
June, 2011 from
http://www.mowacghana.net/files/childrens_act.pdf
Government of Ghana (GOG). (2004). Early childhood care and
development policy. Accra: Government of Ghana.
Retrieved on 20th June, 2012 from
http://www.mowacghana.net/files/eccdp.pdf
Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of
motivation. In D. C. Berliner & R. C.
Gredler, G. R. (2000). Early childhood education-
assessment and intervention: What the future holds.
Psychology in the Schools, 37(1), 73-79.
Green, S.P., Shriberg, D., & Farber, S. (2008). What’s
gender got to do with it? Teachers’’ perceptions of181
situation severity and requests for assistance.
Journal for Educational and Psychological Consultation, 18(4), 346-
373.
Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defining and
describing the paradigm issue in mixed method
evaluation. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli
(Eds.). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and
benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. (New Directions for
Evaluation, No. 74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guarino, C., Hamilton, L., Lockwood, J., & Rathbun, A.
(2006). Teacher Qualifications, Teaching Practices, and Reading and
Mathematics Gains of Kindergartners (NCES 2006-031).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W.E. (2003). Integrating
qualitative and quantitative methods: comparing HIV-related
risk behaviors . Newbury Park, NJ: Sage.
Gwinner, K. (2003). A model of fan identification: Antecedents and sponsorship outcomes. Journal of Services Marketing, 17, 275-294.
182
Hall, B., Burley, W., Villeme, M., & Brockmeier, L.
(1992). An attempt to explicate teacher efficacy beliefs among first
year teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco.
Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2006). .Implementing change: Patterns,
principles, and potholes (2nded.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hall, R., & Mould, C. (1998). Analysing the Relationship
Between Process and Outcome in Young Children’s
Learning. European Early Childhood Research Association
conference. Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Hausken, E.G., & Rathbun, A. (2004, April 12-16).
Mathematics instruction in kindergarten: Classroom
practices and outcomes. Paper presented at the
American Educational Research Association meeting, San Diego:
CA.
Helm, J.H. & Katz, L. (2001). Young Investigators the Project
Approach in the Early Years. New York, Teachers Collage
Press. 183
Highscope, (2009). .Assessment. Retrieved December 20th,
2009, from
http://www.highscope.org
Hunt, J. M. (1961). Intelligence and experience. New York:
Roland Press.
Jackman, H. L. (2002). Early education curriculum: a child’s
connection to the world. USA: Thomson Delmar Learning.
Jackman, H. L. (2005). Early education curriculum: A child’s
connection to the world. USA: Thomson Delmar Learning.
Jackman, H. L. (2012). Early childhood curriculum: A child’s
connection to the world (5th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth,
Cengage Learning.
Jackman, H. L. (2013). Early childhood curriculum: A child’s
connection to the world (5th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth,
Cengage Learning.
Jaweria, J. (2008). Early literacy assessment systems: Essential
elements. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing
Service.
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The age factor: The science of mental ability.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
184
Jordan, B. (2004). Scaffolding learning and co-
constructing understandings understanding. In
Anning. J., Cullen, A., & Fleer, M. (Eds.), Early
childhood education: Society and culture. London: Sage
Publications, 31 - 42.
Jordan, B. & Rogoff, B. (1998). Assessment as practice:
notes on measurement, tests, and targets. Human
Organization, 63(3), 346-358.
Kagan, S. L., & Kauerz, K. (2007). Reaching for the
whole: Integration and alignment in early education
policy. In R. C. Pianta, M. J. Cox, & K. L. Snow
(Eds.), School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the
era of accountability. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing.
Karakus, F., & Kösa. T. (2009). Elementary School
Mathematics Teachers’ Views on New Measuring and
Assessment Methods. National Education, 181: 184-197.
Katz, L., & Chard, S. (1996). The contribution of
documentation to the quality of early childhood
education. ERIC Digest, April, EDO-PS-96-2.
185
Keller, B. (2003). Drive on to improve evaluation systems
for teachers. Education Week, 27 (19), 1-8.
Kelly, A.V. (1992). Assessment in early childhood education.
London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Kendall, J. S., & Marzano, R. J. (2004). Content knowledge: A
compendium of standards and benchmarks for K-12 education.
Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and
Learning (McREL). Online database:
(http://www.Mcrel.org/standardsbenchmarks ( Retrieved on 3 rd May ,
2012).
Kernan M. (2007) Play as a context for early learning and
development, The Framework for Early Learning, Research paper.
Dublin: NCCA.
Kevin, C. (1991). Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Arizona educational research on some
potential relative advantages of performance
assessment strategies over paper-and-pencil tests
using short-answer and multiple-choice item formats
Association (Flagstaff, AZ, October 1991).
King, N. (2004). Using interviews in qualitative
research. In Cassell, C. & Symon, G. (eds), Essential
186
guide to qualitative methods in organizational research, London:
Sage.
Kontos, S., & Wilcox-Herzog, A. (2002). Teacher preparation
and teacher-child interaction in preschools. ERIC Digest.
Kontos, S., & Wilcox-Herzog, A. (2012). Teacher preparation
and teacher-child interaction in preschools. ERIC Digest.
Kotaman, H. (2010). Turkish early childhood educators
sense of teacher efficacy. Electronic Journal research in
Educational Psychology, 8(2), 603-616.
Krechevsky, M. (1998). Project spectrum: Pre-school
assessment handbook. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kutlu, E. (2006). Classroom teachers' classroom management
behaviours according to interview evaluation of the editing process.
Unpublished master's thesis, Erciyes University,
Kayseri.
Laevers, F. (1994). The innovative project experiential
education and the definition of quality in
education. In F. Laevers (Ed.). Defining and assessing
187
quality in early childhood education. Leuven: Leuven
University Press, Studia Paedagogical.
Laevers, F. (2000). Forward to basics: Deep-level-
learning and the experiential approach. Early Years, 20
(2), 20-29.
Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy within
the postmodern. New York: Routledge.
Laverty, K. A., Burton, M., Whitebook, & Bellm. D.
(2001). Current data on child care salaries and
benefits in the United States. Washington, DC:
Center for the Child Care Workforce.
Lee, E., Compte, M.D. & Preissle, J. (2006). Ethnography
and qualitative design in educational research. New York:
Academic Press.
Lee, V.E., Bryk, A.S., & Smith, J. B. (1993). The
organization of effective secondary schools. Review of
Research in Education, 19, 171-267.
Leithwood, K.A., & Montgomery, D.J. (1982). The role of
the elementary school principal in program
improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52, 309-339.
188
Lewy, A. (1977). Handbook of curriculum evaluation. New York:
Longman Inc.
Liaqat, S. (2009). Comparison of quality of teaching
between government and private schools. Unpublished
Thesis of Master in Education. Division of
Education, University of Education, Lahore.
Lidz, C.S. (1991). Early childhood assessment. New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons.
Lillard, S.A. (2005). Montessori: The science behind the genius.
New York: Oxford. University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Lombardi, J. (2003). Time to care: Redesigning child
care to promote education, support families, and
build communities. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Lu, M. (1993). Early childhood teachers’ attitudes concerning
developmentally appropriate practices. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of South Carolina.
189
Lunt, A. (2000). Assessment made visible: Individual and
collective practices. Mind and Culture, and Activity, 15(1),
32-51.
MacNaughton, G., & Newman, B. (2001). Masculinities and
men in early childhood: Reconceptualising theory and
practice. In E. Dau, (ed.). The anti-bias approach in early
childhood, 145-157. London: Longman.
MacNaughton, G., & Williams, G. (2004). (2nd ed.).
Techniques for teaching young children: Choices in theory and
practice. Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman.
Mailklad, C. (2001). The beliefs and practices of Thai English
language teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Exeter: The University of Exeter.
Marsh, C. J., & Willis, G. (2003). Curriculum: Alternative
approaches, ongoing issues. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice
Hall.
Marsh, C. J., & Willis, G. (2007). Curriculum: Alternative
approaches, ongoing issues. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice
Hall.
Marshall, C. (1988). Analyzing the culture of school
leadership. Education and Urban Society, 20 (2), 262-275.190
Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J. (1971). Is there an optimal
number of alternatives for Likert scale? Study I:
Reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 31 (3), 657- 674.
Mayesky, M. (2013). Creative activities for young children. New
York: Cengage Learning.
McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R.L. (1993). Flunk ‘em
or get them classified: The contamination of primary
grade accountability data. Educational Researcher, 22
(1), 19-23.
Meisals, S. J. (1999). Assessing readiness. In Pianta. R &
Cox. M (Eds.). The transition to kindergarten. Baltimore, MD:
Paul Brooks Publishing, 39-66.
Menon, P. (1999). Care and nutrition: Concepts and measurement.
International Food Policy Research Institute, 6.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case study research in education: A qualitative
approach. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Ministry of Education (MOE). (1996). Basic education sector
improvement program policy document. Accra, Ghana: Ghana
Publishing Corporation.
191
Ministry of Education (MOE). (2002). Report of the president’s
committee on review of education reforms in Ghana (Anamuah-
Mensah Report). Accra: Ministry of Education, 209-240.
Ministry of Education (MOE). (2012). Programme to scale-up
quality kindergarten in Ghana. Accra: Ghana Education
Service.
Ministry of Education Youth and Sports (MOEYS). (2004).
Curriculum for kindergarten .Accra: Ghana Education
Service/UNICEF.
Ministry of Education Youth and Sports (MOEYS). (2004).
White paper on the report of the education review committee. Accra:
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports.
Morrison, G. S. (2007). Early childhood education today. New
Jersey.: Pearson Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Morrison, G. S. (2008). Early childhood education today. New
Jersey.: Pearson Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Morrison, J. W. (2000). Under colonialism to
democratization: Early childhood development in
Ghana. International Journal of Early Childhood 32 (2) 24. ERIC.
(http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Ghana/GhanaECCDP.pdf
Retrieved Dec, 21, 2013).192
Morrison, J. W. (2001). Early Care and Childhood
Education in Ghana. Childhood Education, 77 (4), 213 -
214.
Ministry of Women Affairs and Children (MOWAC). (2004).
Early childhood care and development policy. Accra: Republic of
Ghana.
Munton, T., Mooney, A., Moss, P., Petrie, P., Clark, A.,
& Woolner, J. (2002). Research on ratios, group size and staff
qualifications and training in early years and childcare settings.
Research Report 320. London: Thomas Coram Research Unit,
Institute of Education, University of London.
Myers, R., & Myers, R. G. (1995). The twelve who survive:
Strengthening programs of early childhood development in the third
world. Ypsilanti, Michigan: High/Scope Press.
NAECS/SDE. (1987). Early childhood curriculum, assessment
and program evaluation: Building an effective
accountable system in programs for children, birth
through age 8. www.naeyc.org/about /positions/ cape.asp
(retrieved 12-11-2012).
National Association for the Education of Young Children
& National Association of Early Childhood193
Specialists in State Department of Education (NAEYC/
NAECS/ SDE). (2003). Early childhood curriculum,
assessment and program evaluation: Building an
effective accountable system in programs for
children, birth through age 8. www.naeyc.org/about
/positions/ cape.asp (retrieved 10-11-2012).
National Association for the Education of Young Children
& National Association of Early Childhood
Specialists in State Department of Education (NAEYC/
SDE) (1987). Early childhood curriculum, assessment
and program evaluation: Building an effective
accountable system in programs for children, birth
through age 8. www. naeyc.org/about /positions/ cape.asp.
Retrieved 10-11-2012.
National Association for the Education of Young
Children (NAEYC). (1984). Position statement: A
conceptual framework for early childhood
professional development. Online:
www.naeyc.org/about/positions/ pdfpsconf98 Retrieved 16-12-
2013.
194
National Association for the Education of Young Children
(NAEYC). (1996). Position statement: A conceptual
framework for early childhood professional
development. Online:
www.naeyc.org/about/positions/p dfpsconf98 Retrieved 16-12-
2013.
National Commission on Children (NCC). (1997). The state of
kindergarten in Ghana. Accra: Ghana Publishing Co.
National Association of School Psychologists (NASP).
(2005). Demographics of the profession of school
psychology. Retrieved on December 29, 2013 from
University of California, Santa Barbara.
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA).
(2004). Towards a framework for early learning: A consultative
document. Dublin: NCCA.
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA).
(2005). Primary curriculum review: Phase 1 Final Report. Dublin:
NCCA.
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA).
(2007). Assessment in the primary school: Guidelines for schools.
Dublin: NCCA.
195
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA).
(2008). Listening for children’s stories: Children as partners in the
framework for early learning. www.ncca.ie. Retrieived 26th
June, 2012.
Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An
alternative approach to education. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1992). Testing in
American schools: Asking the right.
Ogletree, E. J. (1996). The comparative status of the creative
thinking ability of Waldorf Education students: A survey (Report
No. PS 024 589). (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No.ED 400 948).
Ohania, S. (2009). Refocusing on assessment National
Council of Teachers of English, 86 (5), 371-885.
Öncü, H. (2009). Ölçmevedeğerlendirmedeyenibiryaklaşım:
portfolyodeğerlendirme. TSA, 13 (1), 103-130.
Paris, S. G. (1991). A developmental perspective on
standardized achievement testing. Educational Researcher,
20 (5), 12-20.
196
Parker, L. & Shapiro, J. P. (1992). Where is the
discussion of diversity in educational
administration programs? Graduate students’ voices
addressing an omission in their preparation. Journal of
School Leadership, 2 (1), 7-33.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods
(2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research
methods. Thousand Oaks, C.A: California, Sage
Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2003). Qualitative evaluation checklist.
Western Michigan University .Retrieved on March 2,
2012, from http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/qec/.
Petrash, J. (2002). Understanding Waldorf Education: Teaching from the
inside out.
Puckett, M., & Black, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of the
young child, (2nd ed.). USA: Prentice Hall.
Punch, M. (2009). Politics and Ethics in Qualitative Research. In
Denzin, N. K & Lincoln, Y. S. (2nd ed.). Handbook of
qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.197
Reynolds, D. (2001). Beyond school effectiveness and
school improvement? In A. Harris & N. Bennett
(Eds.). School effectiveness and school
improvement: Alternative Perspectives London Continuum, 26-43.
Reynolds, D.H. (2001). What does the teacher do?
Constructivist pedagogies and prospective teacher’s
beliefs about the role of a teacher. Journal of Teaching
and Teacher Education 16, 21-32.
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research. (2nd Ed.). Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
Rogers, C. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 80s. New York:
Merrill-Macmillan.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Ruane, J, M. (2005). Essentials of research methods: A guide to
social science research. Victoria: Blackwell Publishing.
Russek, B. E., & Weinberg, S. L. (1993). Mixed methods in
a study of implementation of technology-based
materials in the elementary classroom. Evaluation and
Program Planning, 16(2), 131-142.
198
Said, A. A., Wallhager, B., Cungua, R.M., & Ngie, P.
(2003). Handbook for Pre-school. Stockholm / Accra:
Star of Hope International.
Saracho, O. (1990). Teaching young children: The
teachers’ function in the early childhood
curriculum. Early Child Development and Care. 61 (1), 57-
63.
Scheirer, M. A. & Rezmovic, E. L. (1983). Measuring the
degree of program implementation: a methodological
review. Evaluation Review, 7, 599–633.
Schimitt-Stegmann, A. (1997). Child development and
curriculum in Waldorf Education (Report No. ED 415
990). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 415
990).
Schuler, D. (2000). The project approach: Meeting the
state standards (Report No. PS 028526). (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No.ED 439 854).
Scott-Little. C., & Niemeyer, J. (2001). Assessing
kindergarten children: A compendium of assessment
instruments. Tallahassee, FL: SERVE. Online:
199
www.serve.org/publications/rdakcc.pdf. Retrieved on Dec, 3rd
2013.
Seedfeldt, C., & Galper, A. (1998). Continuing issues on early
childhood (2nd. Ed.). Toronto: Prentice-Hall Canada Inc.
Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of
school improvement. Jossey Bass.
Sergiovanni, T. (1996). Moral leadership: getting to the heart of
school improvement. Jossey Bass.
Sergiovanni, T. (2000). The life world of leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2001). Ethical leadership
and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to
complex dilemmas. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Shepard, L.A. (2003). The challenges of assessing young
children appropriately. Phi Delta Kappan, 76: 206–12.
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a
learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29 (7), 4-14.
Shepard, L., Kagan, S. & Wurtz, E. (Eds.). (1998).
Principles and recommendations for early childhood assessments.
Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.200
Shim, S., & Herwig, J. (1997). Korean teachers’ beliefs
and practices in Korean early childhood education.
Early Child Development Care, 132, 45-55.
Shute, J. (2002). The independent evaluation of "Starting
Well". In evidence, policy & practice: Public Health Research In
Scotland. Edinburgh: Scotland. ScholarID:118501.
Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Clark, P. (2003). Supporting
identity, diversity and language in the early years. UK: Open
University Press.
Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Muttock, S., Gilden, R.
& Bell, D. (2002). Researching effective pedagogy in the early
years (REPEY): DFES Research Report 356. London: DFES, HMSO.
Şıvgın, N. (2008).
Okulöncesieğitimkurumlarındauygulananeğitimprogramın
a
ilişkinöğretmengörüşleri (DenizliiliÖrneği).
(Unpublished master’s thesis).
Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey.
Snyder, T., Planty, M., Hussar, W.,Provasnik, S., Kena,
G., Dinkes, R.,KewalRamani, A., & Kemp, J. (2008).
201
The condition of education 2008 (NCES 2008-031).
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute
of Education Sciences, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
Spodek, B., & Sarocco, O. N. (1994). Right from the start:
teaching children ages three to eight. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Starratt, R. J. (2004). Ethical leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey bass.
Starratt, R. J. (1994). Building an ethical school: a practical
response to the moral crisis in schools. London: Falmer Press.
Stewart. K., Gill. P., Chadwick, B. & Treasure, E.
(2008). Qualitative research in dentistry. Br Dent
Journal, 204: 235-239.
Stiggins, R. J. (2007). Assessment crisis: The absence of
assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappa. 8 (10), 758-
765.
202
Stiggins, R.J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of
assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappa. 8 (10), 758-
765.
Stiggins, R. J. (2001). Student-involved classroom assessment (3rd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J. A., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis,
S. (2004). Classroom assessment for student
learning: Doing it right—using it well. Portland,
OR: Assessment Training Institute.
Stiggins, R. J., & Conklin, N. F. (1986). Bridford
classroom assessment: A key to effective Education
Measurement Issues and Practice, 5 (2): 5-17.
Strand, P.S., Cerna, S. & Skucy, J. (2007). Assessment
and decision making in early childhood education
and intervention. Journal of Child Family Studies, 16, 209-
218.
Stringfield, S., &Teddlie, C. (2003). Schools make a
difference: Lessons learned from a 10-year study of
school effects. New York: Teachers College Press.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development theory and practice. New
York: Harcourt Brace & World.203
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology:
Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Taylor, C. & Nolen, S. (2004). Classroom assessment. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice.
Taylor, C.S. (2000). Classroom assessment supporting
teaching and learning in real classrooms. New Jersey,
Pearson.
Taylor, H. G., Klein, N., Schatschneider, C., & Hack, M.
(1998). Predictors of early school age outcomes in
very low birth weight children. Journal of Developmental
and Behavioral Pediatrics, 19, 235-243.
Taylor, K. K., Gibbs, A. S., & Slate, J. R. (2000).
Preschool attendance and kindergarten readiness. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 27, 191-195.
Torrance, H. (2001). Assessment for learning: Developing
formative assessment in the classroom, Education 3-13,
26-32.
United Nations International Education Fund (UNICEF).
(2001). We the children: Meeting the promises of the World Summit
for Children. New York: Author.204
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge MA: MIT
Press.
Wallace, T.L. (1998, November). A study of the viability
of reducing instructor contact using web-enhanced
instruction: Student achievement and attitudes in
classroom measurement. Orlando: Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Florida Educational Research
Association, 34-37.
Whitebook, M., L. Sakai, E. Gerber, & Howes, C. (2001).
Then and now: Changes in child care staffing, 1994–
2000. Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care
Workforce.
Wood, D. (1992). Teaching talk: How modes of teacher talk
affect pupil participation. In Norman, K. (Ed.).
Thinking voices: The work of the national orally project. London:
Hodder Stoughton.
Wood, E. & Attfield, J. (2005). Play, learning and the early
childhood curriculum (2nd ed.). London: Paul Chapman
Publishing.205
Wood, E. (2004). Developing pedagogy of play in early
childhood education: Society and culture. London: Sage
Publications.
Wood, R., & Schmidt. J. (2002). History of the
development of Delaware Comprehensive Assessment
Program in Science. Unpublished memorandum.
Wortham, S.C. (2008). .Assessment in early childhood education.
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Merril.
Wortham, S.C. (2007). Early childhood curriculum. New Jersey:
Pearson Merrill
Wortham, S.C. (2006). Early childhood curriculum. New Jersey:
Pearson Merrill.
Yang, M. (1997). The beliefs of kindergarten teachers, principals, and
parents regarding developmentally appropriate practice in early
childhood programs in the China, Taiwan. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Northern
Colorado: Greeley.
Yang, S. C. (2003). The report of early childhood educational survey.
Taipei: The Ministry of Education.
206
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE ON KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS’ VIEWS ON
ASSESSMENT PRACTICES IN KINDERGARTENS IN GHANA
Dear Teacher,
This questionnaire is part of a study designed to find
out the kindergarten teacher’s assessment practices in
their ability to promote effective assessment of
kindergarteners work and learning, and I would be
grateful to have you participate in the study.
Please, be informed that your participation is voluntary
and responses will be treated confidentially and used for
only academic purpose.
207
Thank you very much in anticipation of your co-operation.
QUESTIONNAIRE ON KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS’ VIEWS ON
ASSESSMENT PRACTICES IN KINDERGARTENS IN GHANA
Please respond to all the questions as truly as possible.
Tick [√] the appropriate box for your answer.
SECTION A- Personal information
1. Age
1. 20 and below { }
2. 21 – 30 { }
3. 31 – 40 { }
4. 41 – 50 { }
5. 51 – 60 { }
6. 61 and above { }208
2. Gender
1. Male { }
2. Female { }
3. Highest educational qualification attained
1. Middle School Leaving Cert. { }
2. S.S. S. C.E / WASSCE { }
3. Certificate in Pre-school Education { }
4. Teacher’s Cert. ‘A’ { }
5. Diploma in Basic Education { }
6. Diploma in Early Childhood Care & Development {
}
7. B.Ed in Early Childhood Care & Development
{ }
8. Other First Degrees (e.g. B.Ed, B.Sc) {
}
9. Master’s Degree (e.g. MA, M.Sc, M.Ed, M.Phil) {
}
10. Others
{ }
Please specify ………………………………………
4. What is your area of specialization?
Please specify ………………………………………
5. In which type of institution are you teaching?
1. Private { }
2. Public { }
6. How many years have you been teaching at the
kindergarten level?
209
1. 0 – 5 years { }
2. 6 – 10 years { }
3. 11 – 15 years { }
4. 16 – 20 years { }
5. 21 years and above { }
Please, place a tick (√) in the appropriate box to
indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with
the following statements using the following scale:
SD= Strongly Disagree, D =Disagree, A= Agree, SA=
Strongly Agree.
SECTION B
No.
Teachers’ views on the use of various modes of assessment: (What is your level of agreement to the use of the following modes of assessment in the early childhood classroom?)
SD D A SA
7 Testing (pencil- and -paper test)8 Observation of learning outcomes9 Using standardised test10 Building portfolios on the learning
outcomes 11 Interviewing to assess learning
outcomes12 Assessing learning outcomes through
children’s performance of taskSECTION CTeachers’ views on the reasons for selecting a particular mode of assessment:
13 I use a particular mode of assessmentthat reflects my teaching philosophy
210
14 I use a particular mode of assessmentthat religiously conform to thecurriculum guidelines
15 I use a particular mode of assessment, just to meet parents expectations.
16 I use a particular mode of assessment to improve upon my instructional practices
17 I use a particular mode of assessment to punish children
18 I use a particular mode of assessmentto force children to learn
19 I use a particular mode of assessmentjust to meet the expectations ofeducational leaders
SD D A SA20 I use a particular mode of assessment
to reduce test anxiety21 I use a particular mode of assessment
to make children scared and afraid of teachers
22 I use a particular mode of assessment to be able to compare children easily
23 I use a particular mode of assessmentto make children respect and like me asa teacher
24 I use a particular mode of assessment that meets the developmentally appropriate practices in assessment
25 To really understand each child, I use more than one mode of assessmentSECTION DTeachers’ views on the impact of the performance assessment on their
211
professional development26 Performance assessment provides
opportunities for teachers to teach andassess children learning outcomes at the same time
27 Performance assessment does not challenge children to learn hard
28 Performance assessment encourages teachers to be lazy
29 Performance assessment helps teachers to realize their own strengths and weaknesses in their instructional practices
30 Performance assessment does not measurethe exact learning outcomes
31 Performance assessment measures the exact learning outcomes
32 Performance assessment does not producesame results for same groups of children
33 Performance assessment produces same results for same groups of children
34 Performance assessment provides experience for teachers on how to use portfolios in education
35 Performance assessment measures learning outcomes as a product
36 Performance assessment measures learning as a process
Thank you for completing this questionnaire.
APPENDIX B
212
January, 2013
Letter of Permission
To Whom It May Concerned
Subject: Permission to conduct a research at Archer
Academy
I am an Mphil student of University of Education,
Winneba. I am writing to seek for your permission to
conduct research in your institution solely dedicated for
the training of early childhood teachers.
I need your permission and cooperation to conduct this
research in your institution. I humbly request that you
sign the consent below so that I can secure official and
ethical clearance to conduct the research during the
period of the second semester spanning from January to
April, 2013.
Consent
By signing below it indicates that you:
1. Understand that confidentiality will be maintained
and no identifying information will be released: and
2. Give me the permission to conduct the research in
your institution.
Name:...............................................
....................................................
................213
Designation:........................................
....................................................
.............
Signature...........................................
....................................................
................
Date:...............................................
....................................................
..................
I trust that you will assist me in this study.
Yours sincerely,
Signed
Asare Kotor.
APPENDIX C
Kindergarten Teachers’ Views on Assessment Practices in
Kindergartens in Ghana (Interview – Sample
Questions)
Thank you for contributing your professional expertise
for granting me this interview. This interview is
intended to solicit your views on the various modes of214
assessment you often used in the classroom and also give
you the opportunity to elaborate on how you make
decisions regarding the implementation of the
kindergarten curriculum. It will be an open-ended
interview in order for you to give your ideas and
thoughts on reading instruction. Feel free to talk about
any experiences or ideas that come to mind as we proceed.
1. What are the various modes of assessment you do
know?
2. Which of these modes of assessment do you use often?
3. Why do you use a particular mode of assessment?? (It
is to meet your own teaching philosophy, parents or
educational leaders’ expectations?)
4. What are your general views on performance
assessment (with regards to its user friendly or
otherwise, validity and reliability issues?)
215
APPENDIX D
Teachers’ Consent
Researcher: Asare Kotor
Contact Details: Tel: 0244725604
Research Title: Teachers’ views on assessment
practices with regards to the implementation of the
Ghanaian kindergarten curriculum.
Purpose of the Research
As the title suggests the purpose of this research is to
investigate into the assessment practices of the Ghanaian
kindergarten teachers with regards to their
implementation of the curriculum, since the introduction
of the 2007 Educational Reforms in Ghana.
Possible Material risk to the participants
Participation in this study does not involve any known
risk to the participants.
Confidentiality of the data
216
Only the researcher will know the identities of the
participants. All tapes and transcriptions of the
interviews will be kept in a secured place with password,
and only the researcher will get access to them. No
identifying information about the participants will be
used in any paper that may result from this study.
Questions or Concerns
You are welcome to contact the researcher regarding any
questions or concerns you may have about this study.
Should you have any concerns relating to the ethical
conduct of this study, kindly feel free to contact the
researcher or the Dean of Graduate School of University
of Education, Winneba.
Feedback to the participants
Feedback will be provided to the participants through
publications.
Consent
By signing below you indicate that you:
217
1. Acknowledge that the nature of this research and
your involvement in this study has been explained to
you;
2. Understand that confidentiality will be maintained
and no identifying information will be released;
3. Understand that you may withdraw from this study at
any time, without comment or penalty: and
4. Understand that your participation in this study is
voluntary.
Name: ...................................................
.........................................................
................
Signature:...............................................
.........................................................
.................
Date:....................................................
.........................................................
....................
I trust that you will be able to assist me in this study
and that I look forward to hear from you.
Thank you,218
Signed
Asare Kotor.
219
