[雙語翻譯]--外文翻譯--真實性評估衡量兒童在早期學(xué)習(xí)中的進步（節(jié)選）

1、2000 單詞， 單詞，1.1 萬英文字符， 萬英文字符，3600 漢字 漢字出處： 出處：Grisham-Brown J, Hallam R, Brookshire R. Using Authentic Assessment to Evidence Children’s Progress Toward Early Learning Standards[J]. Early Childhood Education Journal, 200

2、6, 34(1):45-51.Using Authentic Assessment to Evidence Children’s ProgressToward Early Learning StandardsJennifer Grisham-Brown, Rena Hallam,and Robyn BrookshireThe increasing emphasis on accountability in early care and

3、education has created an opportunity for programs to revisit their child assessment practices. This article presents a model for using authentic assessment practices to document children’s progress toward a set of progra

4、m standards, specifically the Head Start Child Outcomes Framework, as well as describe how authentic assessment processes can inform curriculum planning. Programmatic implementation issues are discussed and a case study

5、is presented.KEY WORDS: authentic assessment; program evaluation; early childhood standards; linking assessment and curriculum.Administering Authentic AssessmentCurriculum-embedded assessments, such as the AEPS can be ad

6、ministered in a variety of formats; observation, direct testing, and interview. Our experience has been that when teachers are given a developmental test or checklist, there is a tendency for them to pull children from p

7、referred activities and assess them in an item-by-item fashion. This format is problematic because it is contrary to recommended assessment practices and particularly not useful with a curriculum embedded instrument that

8、 is primarily developed for purposes of guiding curriculum development. As a result, we chose to systematically embed each item of the AEPS 3-6 into a set of naturally occurring activities. These included Book about me,

9、Going on a bear hunt, Playdough, Snack, Manipulatives, Dramatic Play and Storytime. Table II gives a brief overview of each of these activities. In addition to this set of activities, some communication items were listed

10、 in a generic teacher observation form, and some adaptive items were included in a parent interview piece. In essence, by engaging the children in each of these activities, the teachers were conducting the test. Figure 1

11、 shows the first page of one of these activity protocols.Once the activity protocols were developed, teachers were expected to gather assessment information on each child in his/her class using that format. Play-based as

12、sessments have been recommended by our profession as a preferred method of assessing young children with and without disabilities (Bell Cook, 2004; Krechevsky, 1998) and are increasingly being used by state prekindergar

13、ten programs as a means to assess young children (Hoff, 2002). Although teachers were positive about the idea of conducting assessment in this manner, they needed guidance to understand that play-based assessments requir

14、e structure. Following are the guidelines we provided for successfully completing the assessment:? Set up two assessment activities each week. Have those activities set up for the entire week and attempt to have all of t

15、he children assessed during those activities within that period of time.? Do not force children to sit at the activity and complete every item associated with the activity. If the activities are available throughout the

16、week, children will leave and return to the the development of individual child development plans. In addition, once the assessment was completed, at the end of the school year, teachers could show families their child’s

17、 progress over time.In addition to individual child information, we designed a data management program that allowed teachers to see aggregate data for his/her classroom so he/she could determine general areas of strength

18、/ weakness of the class. This could then guide curriculum planning. For example, if the teacher found that a majority of her children were below the developmental cut-off in language development, he/she would want to ens

19、ure that language development was emphasized in the curriculum.Administrators also were able to use the computer program to aggregate data by center and ultimately for the entire program. This provided them with a pictur

20、e of the general areas of strength and need for the program. For example, if the majority of the children were performing at or above the developmental cut-off in literacy, but not in math, the program might consider pro

21、viding additional funding for professional development and materials in math. In addition, if the assessment was completed at the beginning and end of the school year, administrators could show the percentages of childre

22、n who made progress throughout the year. This type of data might be useful for program evaluation purposes, as well.CASE STUDY: EFFECTS OF PROJECT LINK ASSESSMENTSharon had 16 years of experience teaching in Head Start w

23、hen she began participating in Project LINK. Prior to participation in Project LINK, Sharon conducted standardized diagnostic assessments on each child three times a year. She developed individual learning goals for chil

24、dren that were often based on the discrete skills contained in the test, such as “will cut out a diamond with scissors,” or “will write a V.” Lesson plans contained plans for daily activities and had a space to write dow

25、n children’s individual goals to the side. Brief anecdotal notes were written for each child every week in six developmental domains. Sharon recognized that these components were not connected and did not result in a sys

26、tematic plan for addressing targeted learning goals in language, literacy, and numeracy associated with the Head Start Outcomes Framework.As part of the Project LINK model, Sharon was trained to conduct authentic assessm

27、ents with the children in the fall and spring and collect work samples throughout the year to evidence children’s progress toward individual goals that were determined through the authentic assessment. Weekly technical a

28、ssistance was provided to support Sharon in interpreting the assessment data in order to develop meaningful goals for children and to plan targeted curriculum activities. For instance, more reading and writing materials

29、were embedded within the various learning centers in the classroom to provide more opportunities for child-directed literacy play since this was an area of need for the children in her classroom. Sharon changed her lesso

30、n planning practices and integrated the Head Start outcome areas into her lesson planning. Instead of planning for activities because they related to a theme and then pulling children aside to do individual lessons, Shar

31、on began choosing and planning activities to deliberately address children’s individualized goals. Rather than planning for many activities related to a theme about apples, for example, Sandra planned activities based on

32、 the needs of the children in her classroom. For example, during a game about different apple types, she addressed one child’s goal of developing concepts of quantity such as few and many, another child’s goal of using m