EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 21(2), 234262 Copyright 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1040-9289

9 print / 1556-6935 online DOI: 10.1080/10409281003638717

ASSESSMENT CHAN AND WONG AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Exploring Assessment and Accountability for Childrens Learning: A Case Study of a Hong Kong Preschool
Sing Pui Chan and Siu Man Wong
Early Childhood Education The Hong Kong Institute of Education

Research Findings: Assessment and accountability have been given prominent attention in the field of education in recent decades. Educators have been debating what assessment is, how it is practiced in school, and how it is used for accountability purposes. A case study was conducted of the assessment practices in a Hong Kong preschool to understand the issues of assessment and accountability. This study investigates changes in assessment practices and explores implications for assessment and accountability. This research adopted various qualitative data collection methods, including interviews, site observations, collection of documents, and review of personal notes. The findings showed that there was a paradigm shift of assessment practice from an outcome-oriented approach to a process-oriented approach. Results revealed 4 major changes in the new assessment approach that involved the choice of assessment tools, the planning procedures, data collection methods, and new assessment activities. The major changes were built on the idea of assessment for learning and the strength of school capacity supporting self-improvement. The development of a culture of collaboration and professional learning communities helped to enhance teacher development and build school capacity. Practice or Policy: This study urges the improvement of process-oriented assessment, school capacity, and the use of assessment data to understand the impacts of the new accountability system. The study supports a more balanced approach of combining school internal capacity and external systems to uphold school accountability and advocates the use of process-oriented assessment in early childhood education.

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Sing Pui Chan, Early Childhood Education, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, 10, Ling Po Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong (China). E-mail: spto@ied.edu.hk

ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

235

The issue of assessment and accountability has been given prominent attention in education over the past few decades. Accountability in education is generally regarded as the practice of holding educational systems responsible for the quality of their productsstudents knowledge, skills, and behaviors (Kirby & Stecher, 2004, p. 1). The prevailing standards-based accountability system emphasizes using mandated assessments to hold schools accountable for their students to attain prescribed performance standards. Such a system involves high-stakes consequences bound to the outcomes of assessment (Hanushek & Raymond, 2002; Peterson & West, 2003). Some education researchers criticize this test-based system for not providing sufficient information on school quality and how well the school functions (K. Jones, 2006a). Hence, there are concerns about what assessment is, how it is actually practiced in school, and how it is used for accountability purposes. In Hong Kong, a new accountability system introducing the School Improvement and Accountability framework was established in 2003. This system repositions the school as having a pivotal role in continual self-improvement for educational purposes. However, launching an external accountability system does not necessarily bring about educational improvement within schools. Schools can still adhere to existing assessment practices, such as administering tests to measure student performances. In the early childhood education sector, only a few studies have investigated implementation issues related to this local accountability system (Ho, 2008; Li, 2005; Li & Rao, 2005; Li & Wong, 2008; Wong, 2006). None of these studies focused on current assessment practices in local schools and how assessment actually meets school accountability purposes. To better understand the issues of assessment and accountability, we conducted a case study of a Hong Kong preschool to investigate assessment of child development and learning. We aimed to (a) identify the changes the preschool made in terms of assessment practices when it attempted to implement the new accountability system and (b) explore major implications for better assessment practices and relevant directions for implementing a new accountability system. The selected preschool received professional support in deploying the new accountability system via participation in the Curriculum-Based Child Assessment Model for Quality Education Childhood Programme (Project CCAM) in 20052007. The project is collaboration between 15 local preschools and a teacher education institute. To further explore the assessment practices and accountability of early childhood institutions, one of the 15 preschools was selected to serve as a case study for this article. This case study started off by organizing around two specific questions in assessment and school accountability: (a) What were the changes in the preschools assessment practices after it participated in the collaborative project with the higher education institute? (b) What

236

CHAN AND WONG

accounts for the changes? It was anticipated that these questions would address the issues of what the assessment practices are and what underlies the changes. The findings would therefore be significant, as they would reveal how school could be held accountable. They would also chart the directions for upholding this accountability.

ACCOUNTABILITY AND ASSESSMENT Recent research on accountability and assessmentincluding issues of accountability, a balanced approach to accountability systems, and process-oriented assessment and accountabilityprovided the theoretical perspectives for this study. Issues of Accountability Accountability in education has been a subject of debate in recent years. The emphasis on a standards-based framework is based on the assumption that the academic achievement of students will improve when schools are held accountable for meeting certain standards. Some standardized assessments are developed to measure the degree to which students can meet performance expectations. On the one hand, a standards-based approach may provide a focal point around which teachers and students can work collaboratively to attain common goals (Schiller, 2000). On the other hand, education scholars and stakeholders have criticized both the underlying assumption and assessment-oriented approach of the framework (Jones, Jones, & Hargrove, 2003; Peterson & West, 2003). One of the arguments is that many teachers have not been sufficiently trained in assessment. Teachers do need ongoing and substantial professional development to develop valid and reliable assessment tasks for students (M. G. Jones et al., 2003). Furthermore, there is a lack of cohesion between the curriculum, the learning activities, and the assessment items (Schafer, 2002). A Balanced Approach to Accountability Systems In view of the demand for an accountability system that aims to improve and develop schools rather than relying solely on test scores for accountability purposes, education researchers have advocated a more balanced and holistic school accountability framework. Whitney (2006) argued that processes are as important as the products. The quality of curriculum planning, classroom instruction, learning environments, and school personnel should also be carefully considered. These are critical variables conducive to student learning and performance. Other researchers have inquired into the teaching and learning processes as well as contextual is-

ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

237

sues such as organizational factors, leadership, commitment, and collaboration among school staff and parents, and the professional development of teachers (K. Jones, 2006a; Reeves, 2004). A study by Newmann, King, and Rigdon (1997) examined how the accountability system within 24 restructuring schools across sectors in the United States enhanced school performance. One of their essential findings was that accountability is largely internally generated by school staff, a phenomenon known as internal accountability. Newmann and his colleagues conceptualized internal accountability as the shared commitment and collaborative efforts of school staff to monitor the schools progress and to achieve a clear goal for student learning. This commitment can lead to greater consensus around professional norms as well as knowledge and skill building among staff. The researchers claimed that these internally generated accountability systems constituted a major source of cohesion within the school (p. 48). Strong internal accountability tends to be related to a schools organizational capacity, such as effective leadership, teachers professional knowledge and skill, school autonomy, and resources. It is regarded not only as a building block of organizational capacity, but also as a result or product of high organizational capacity (p. 48). Hence, efforts to enhance external accountability should be closely aligned with efforts to increase the internal accountability within a school. Process-Oriented Assessment and Accountability In the field of early childhood education, researchers have put much effort into developing an assessment and accountability system that provides outcome data to (a) demonstrate childrens learning process and progress; (b) improve learning and teaching strategies; (c) review the overall curriculum development of the institution; and (d) evaluate the success of federal, state, or district programs (Rous, McCormick, Gooden, & Townley, 2007). According to K. Jones (2006b), assessment should be designed to meet contextual needs, and it should be embedded in local curricula instead of adjusting curricula to meet the external requirements of state tests. In recent years, many researchers have recognized a process-oriented assessment approach, such as naturalistic assessment methods, as appropriate for use with young children in educational settings (Bricker & Waddell, 2002; Horton & Bowman, 2001; McAfee & Leong, 2002). Children are observed following daily routines in the classroom and their behaviors are documented through checklists, anecdotal notes, videotapes, audiotape, or work samples. Children will probably make progress on assessments if the assessment and curriculum within the program align (Grisham-Brown, Hallam, & Brookshire, 2006; Grisham-Brown, Hallam, & Pretti-Frontczak, 2008; Meisels, 1997; Ratcliff, 2002; Weikart, 2004). As in developed countries, the curriculum guidelines for pre-primary education in Hong Kong stipulate that the assessment of childrens learning development be

238

CHAN AND WONG

done in a natural setting. Hong Kongs Curriculum Development Council (CDC) (2006) advises preschool teachers to refer to the information provided in the School Improvement and Accountability framework and to collect information on childrens learning abilities and developmental performance from multiple sources.

CONTEXT OF THE CURRENT STUDY This section introduces Hong Kongs new accountability system in relation to pre-primary institution and reviews current issues related to the implementation of the system.

School Improvement and Accountability Framework Since 1997, Hong Kong policymakers have initiated several educational reforms. Following a thorough review of the Hong Kong education system in 1999, the Education Commission (2000) stressed the importance of early childhood education (ECE) as the foundation for lifelong learning and stressed the need for quality early childhood education to support the learning and development of young children. Curriculum guidelines for all pre-primary institutions run by private or voluntary agencies have been issued, the qualifications of early childhood teachers have been upgraded, and the conception of and approaches to accountability in early childhood settings are changing. As in other educational sectors, a school improvement and accountability framework consisting of school self-evaluation and quality assurance inspection or external school review has been launched to support continuous improvement and development of quality early childhood education (Education Bureau, 2007). Since 2000, the Education Bureau (known as the Education and Manpower Bureau before July 1, 2007 and the Education Department before August 1, 2002) has formulated a set of performance indicators (PIs) and evaluation reference tools for pre-primary institutions. These pre-primary PIs were developed from translating education goals into quality performance. All together, there are 32 pre-primary PIs, which can be classified into four domains: Management and Organization, Learning and Teaching, Support to Children and School Culture, and Childrens Development. The PIs in the first three domains are purely process indicators, all of which reflect the pre-primary institutions provision of a desirable environment that contributes to the development of quality education. The PIs in the fourth domain are outcome indicators that have to do with the developmental progress of children (Hong Kong Education and Manpower Bureau & Social Welfare Department, 2003).

ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

239

Under the quality assurance framework, the PIs serve as tools of assessment for both schools self-evaluation and external school review. The outcomes of selfevaluation purport to provide feedback for formulating schools development goals and strategic plans for continuous improvement. External school inspections conducted by the staff of the Education Bureau serve to identify the strengths and weaknesses of individual schools as well as to provide an impetus to accelerate individual schools self-improvement (Education Bureau, 2008). Integral to the accountability framework, each individual school inspection report is published online for the general public to access. Online publication not only improves the transparency of a schools progress in accountability but also makes it easier for parents to make informed school selection decisions. In the 20072008 school year, the Pre-Primary Education Voucher Scheme (PEVS) was introduced to provide fee subsidies for parents of kindergartners aged 3 to 6 years (Hong Kong Government, 2006). However, beginning in 20122013, only those nonprofit kindergartens that have successfully implemented both ongoing self-evaluation and external review processes and that meet the prescribed standards as defined in the PIs can remain in or join the voucher program. Issues Related to the Implementation of the Accountability System As mentioned in the previous section, preschool institutions can refer to the pre-primary PIs in the domain of Childrens Development (i.e., cognitive development, physical development, affective and social development, aesthetic and cultural development) to gather objective evidence of childrens progress within a real-life setting. However, traditional teaching practices such as extensive drilling and formal assessment, which do not align with the requirements of the PIs, are still prevalent in many preschool settings because of inadequately trained teachers, limited resources, and parent expectations (Li, 2005; Li & Rao, 2005). From 2000 to 2005, only a few out of 120 preschools inspected by the Hong Kong Education Bureau attained a grade of excellentthe highest grade for performance within the external review framework (Ho, 2008). Preschool teachers have faced great challenges implementing the PI system (Li & Wong, 2008). They have difficulties understanding the concepts behind the PIs in various domains and identifying how the performance of children should be assessed. They have yet to formulate satisfactory assessment approaches that can effectively help children make developmental progress toward the indicators. Wong (2006) pointed out that the new quality assurance framework has caused anxiety in the preschool sector since the release of a negative inspection report to the public can have an adverse impact on the school in a highly market-driven context. In addition, many teachers are not familiar with or confident using the PIs for self-evaluation and further improvement. Implementing the PIs also creates extra work for school staff. Li and Wong (2008)

240

CHAN AND WONG

demonstrated that an ethos of commitment within the school network is crucial to overcoming these constraints and tackling these problemsand thus successfully implementing the PIs in a preschool setting. The new quality system as put forth by the Education Bureau is, in fact, a multilevel accountability system involving all stakeholders such as policymakers, school staff, parents, students, and the community. The government is no longer the sole gatekeeper of school quality. The primary responsibility for accountability has now shifted to individual schools. The current study, therefore, explores how a preschool in Hong Kong took responsibility to uphold the quality of childrens development and learning through assessment practices to meet the requirements of this new accountability system.

METHODS The case study method was adopted for this inquiry into a specific context. As Stake (1995, 2008) pointed out, the case study method aims to generate experiential knowledge out of a particular and instrumentally useful context through the collection of data from peoples experiences and from researchers understanding of intrinsic aspects embedded in the case. The present study used this method to contribute experiential knowledge in the ECE field.

The Site Out of the 15 preschools that participated in Project CCAM (20052007), 1 preschool was selected to participate in a follow-up study. Conditions for participation in the follow-up study were that the preschool had joined the Pre-Primary Education Voucher Scheme (PEVS), and that a good rapport had already been developed between the school staff and ourselves, former project consultants and the investigators of this study. The pertinent preschool was a nonprofit institution serving young children ages 3 to 6 at three levels: nursery (3- to 4-year-olds), lower preparatory (4- to 5-year-olds), and upper preparatory (5- to 6-year-olds). The teaching personnel consisted of 10 teachers and 1 principal who were all trained professionals. Some of the personnel were Qualified Kindergarten Teachers, whereas others were studying part-time for their degrees or taking postgraduate courses in ECE. The preschool underwent external school review on March 3 and 6, 2008. A team of inspectors from the Quality Assurance Division of the Education Bureau conducted a full school inspection. The overall performance of the preschool was rated excellent, and the preschool was categorized as a high-performing school.

ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

241

Participants In accordance with the school administrative arrangement, the school principal and two teachers out of the three who had participated in Project CCAM participated as the informants in this follow-up study. At the time of data collection, the two teachers, Cathy and Louise, were still final-year students in the part-time Bachelor of Education (ECE) program. Cathy had 20 years of teaching experience, whereas Louise had 8 years of teaching experience. The school principal, Fiona, who had her degree, was in a masters degree program in Early Childhood Studies. All informants were graduates of the teacher education institute where we hold academic positions. Thus, we had established a rapport with all of the informants in the teacher education institute prior to Project CCAM and this follow-up study. Researchers Role We and the informants formed a small case study team, a strategy mentioned by Stake (2008). Opportunities for personal contact between us and the informants were abundant. Between 2005 and 2007, we had conducted a series of professional development activities with other consultants in the context of Project CCAM. For each school term, we also had participated in the network sessions of the participating schools. We had taken a collaborative approach to building up knowledge of assessment in practice. Now that we were inquiring into the preschool, we became learners in this context. Wiersma (1995) acknowledged that collaborative efforts between teachers and researchers are promising for educational research. The relationship between us and the school staff was maintained through two subsequent collaborative projects. Data collection was assigned to one of us, but we both discussed and agreed on which parts of the data were to be examined in the context of the pertinent research questions. We complement each others work because of our different academic backgrounds. One of us is stronger in curriculum and assessment, whereas the other is stronger in teacher professional development. After writing our drafts, we cross-examined and fine-tuned each others work. Data Collection Qualitative research methods such as interviews, site observations, document gathering, and review of personal notes serve to provide multiple sources of information. The main data collection was conducted in November 2008, about 1 year after the completion of Project CCAM. Additional data collection occurred 8 months later so we could gain more understanding on some issues. Additional data collection included an interview with another teacher who had participated in Project CCAM and gathering some updated information on school practice changes.

242

CHAN AND WONG

The main body of data did not include only data collected at the aforementioned time; some relevant documents collected in Project CCAM were also extracted for this case study. Interviews, which consisted of three 90-minute one-to-one interviews, were audiotaped. Documents collected for this study included samples of the assessment tool, activity plans, child observation records, parent questionnaires of home observation, child self-assessment work samples, and teaching evaluation notes. A number of follow-up e-mail communications and phone calls were made to clarify content. Data Analysis In constructing knowledge from these experiences, we used the strategy of naturalistic generalization (Stake & Trumbull, 1982). Before themes were generated, all data were processed systematically. First, interviews were transcribed and indexed for easy retrieval. Second, the transcripts were segmented according to the propositions. Third, field notes, documents, and work samples were grouped and indexed by category. Based on our initial examination of the data, some themes were generated and presented as findings. The theoretical framework of theme generation was built on a collection of interrelated concepts, namely accountability, teaching and learning, curriculum planning, professional development, and capacity building. The segmented transcripts and categorized materials were initially arranged according to these five concepts. Themes were generated from these concepts and constantly refined during analysis. Triangulation of data was integrated into the analysis process. Whenever the three informants presented multiple perceptions of the same circumstances in response to the same sets of questions, these multiple views were triangulated to construe meaning and make inferences as appropriate. This process encompassed clarifying and verifying information as provided by different informants. Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) noted that triangulation is not just a matter of checking whether inferences are valid but involves discovering which inferences are valid. In this study, triangulating the perceptions of multiple informants as well as triangulating our own interpretations greatly facilitated the identification of valid inferences. The continuous process of triangulation at two levelsnamely, those of the informants and the researchersthus supported the credibility of the inferences made in this study. FINDINGS This section describes the changes in the preschools assessment practice. We further identify the underlying factors affecting these changes.

ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

243

Shift to a Process-Oriented Assessment Approach The preschool had undergone a fundamental change in the assessment approach since its participation in Project CCAM. Cathy, the schoolteacher, explained:
We use classroom activities to collect assessment data now because we have learned in the activities during the training workshops of the project the skills to observe children. In the past, we designed an activity for assessment. For these 2 years, we observed childrens performances in the natural context of the classroom. We abandoned setting a stage for children to act. Instead, we anticipated childrens performances in the corners and assessed accordingly; for example, children talked a lot about their drawings in the art corner and we would observe their use of language.

After participating in Project CCAM, the teachers had adopted a process-oriented approach to assessing childrens performance. Assessment was embedded in actual classroom activities, which put an emphasis on the learning process. Data collected documented childrens progress in terms of their strengths and needs. As the teacher suggested, this kind of assessment enabled the collection of information across various child development domains. In general, a criterion-referenced measure was used in assessing childrens authentic behaviors. This scenario was fundamentally different from the outcome-oriented assessment approach that had been used in the past. Teachers used to assess children by setting special tasks (e.g., a word recognition test) solely for the purpose of performance assessment. A norm-referenced tool was also used. The tasks were usually structured in procedures, and the results allowed for a comparison of performance relative to age norms. This shift of orientation represents a change of paradigm in the approach to assessment. Assessment as embedded in the learning process enables an integrated collection of authentic data that truly reflect what a child really knows and what tasks the child can perform. It is a more relevant source of data in terms of promoting developmentally and culturally valid assessment of young childrens learning (NAEYC & NAECS/SDE, adopted 2002). The process-oriented assessment approach is also in consistent with the principle of conducting assessment in the context of desirable learning as noted in the Guide to the Pre-Primary Curriculum (CDC, 2006). This approach can more aptly fulfill the ultimate purpose of assessment, that is, meeting child learning and development goals. The new approach was shaped by four key changes in the schools assessment practices. These changes are described here.

Making reference to the aligned assessment tool. There was a change in the choice of assessment tool. The preschool originally had adopted a checklist consisting of four child development areas. After the preschool participated in Project CCAM (20052007), the teachers adopted a new instrumentthe Child De-

244

CHAN AND WONG

velopment Checklist 2007 (CD Checklist 2007; Child Development Checklist Study Group, 2007). The CD Checklist 2007 was developed by academics for learning assessment purposes. Assessment items on the checklist are aligned with the pre-primary PIs (e.g., see Appendix A for the assessment items in the Language Domain). Based on a criterion-reference design, each assessment item in CD Checklist 2007 corresponds to a set of three-level descriptors. The descriptor criteria are defined with reference to pertinent studies on young childrens learning. A cross-reference of the alignment between CD Checklist 2007 assessment items and pre-primary PIs is illustrated in Appendix B for the Language Domain. In Project CCAM, the internal consistency of the assessment items on the CD Checklist 2007 was maintained for the three age groupsK1 (3- to 4-year-olds), K2 (4- to 5-year-olds), and K3 (5- to 6-year-olds)in all 15 participating preschools. Cronbachs alpha was calculated to measure reliability. For example, in the Language Domain, Cronbachs alpha coefficient for all items was .93, indicating a good level of reliability. Reflecting on the experiences of using the original and the new assessment tools, the two teachers, Cathy and Louise, and the school principal, Fiona, pointed out the value of the new checklist. The professional descriptions were easy to understand and corresponded to their original vague concepts of development. The provision of a developmental continuum helped teachers sketch a holistic portrait of the childs development. From teaching and learning perspectives, the tool was a reference blueprint that guided the teachers to be more sensitive in collecting relevant assessment data. The function of the checklist was not just helping teachers observe; not just for writing up the observations, but reminding teachers what to look for in childrens learning, said the principal. The school staff asserted the value of the new checklist that aligned with the desired standards, the PIs. They made a collective decision to use it as a reference to the assessment, complementing the original tool. In the process of using the new criterion-referenced tool, the teachers soon realized that each criterion was subject to various interpretations. In order to ensure the same interpretation for consistency, the teachers needed to talk a lot before they could obtain consensus on the performance standards and results. The three teachers who were responsible for teaching the same group of children in the same classroom were able to triangulate the assessment data. Teacher communication of assessment criterion and triangulation of data increased the credibility of the assessment results. The selection of a relevant assessment tool and the corresponding efforts to enhance the use of the instrument were fundamental to the successful implementation of this new approach.

Aligning assessment with curriculum planning, teaching, and learning. Implementing the new assessment approach required systematic assessment planning. In this preschool, assessment planning was integrated into the process of cur-

ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

245

riculum planning for each school term. A school year comprised two school terms. The process of planning assessment would start at the beginning of each school term. In each school term, two developmental domains were selected for assessment. For each developmental domain, one observation record was created for two learning activities. The observation records of each child were compiled into a portfolio that would be given to the parents for communication purposes. The systematic procedures entailed in assessment and curriculum planning as mentioned by the school principal and the teachers are illustrated in the form of a roadmap in Figure 1. In January 2007, acting as consultants in Project CCAM, we spent 4 days in the preschool providing professional advice to the school staff. In the regular classroom setting, the teachers had conducted videotaped assessment of learning activities. Table 1 shows an example of how teachers aligned assessment areas with classroom activities in K1 curriculum planning.

FIGURE 1

Roadmap of planning assessment.

TABLE 1 K1 Language Assessment Planning Example Date 1/26/07 Time 9:009:30 Learning Activity Large-group discussion on the design of red pockets for the Chinese New Year Small-group activity of making red pockets and writing blessings Free reading at the book corner Assessment Areas Listening and speaking skills, and attitude Writing skills, attitude, and print knowledge Reading skills, attitude, and book knowledge Methods/Tools Videotaping/CD Checklist 2007 Items 1.11.3, 2.12.5 Videotaping/work sample/CD Checklist 2007 Items 4.14.5 Videotaping/CD Checklist 2007 Items 3.13.6

9:3010:00

10:0010:15

Note. K1 = 3- to 4-year-old age group; CD Checklist 2007 = Child Development Checklist 2007. For CD Checklist 2007 items, see Appendix A.

246

CHAN AND WONG

The content and procedural changes in assessment planning contributed significantly to the practice of process-oriented assessment. Assessment was no longer a separate activity conducted deliberately for the sake of assessment. The systematic planning provided authentic data in the form of young childrens actual learning behavior, on which teaching and curriculum improvements were based. A major problem in conducting process-oriented assessment was its labor intensiveness. It was time consuming to observe and document evidence of performance, such as by writing anecdotal observations, processing photos, filing work samples, and compiling the portfolio, not to mention analyzing these data to write up the observation record. The staff of this school tackled this problem by selecting focused assessment areas, selecting some activities for assessment, and matching the activity procedures and content with the selected items of the assessment tool. This type of planning was a practical way for the staff to resolve a stressful problem.

Improving collection of assessment data. Improvements to data collection methods represented another major change in the assessment practices. The number of observational activities doubled from that in the past. Cathy said that integrating the two assessment data gave a more objective view. Louise said, The evidence illustrated in the record helped parents understand what the teacher assessed and how she assessed the child. It was a holistic view of the childs performance in regard to an area of development. The school started to involve parents as the assessors in the assessment process because the staff believed that the assessment data not only informed [the teachers] about the child, but also the curriculum. Its the feedback from parents. Parents were invited to participate in some assessments, such as of the individual childs self-confidence or enthusiasm for involvement in an activity. Parents observed childrens performance at home and recorded their own judgments in a parent questionnaire. Through these exercises, the teachers were able to collect assessment data from multiple sources to better understand how and what a child learned in different occasions. Teachers could triangulate a childs performance at home to provide stronger or weaker evidence of that childs development progress. Involving parents in the assessment process could accelerate childrens learning. Increasing the number of observation activities and involving the parents in observation broadened the source of data for better understanding the child. These improved methods enhanced the credibility of the data collected in the assessment. Introducing self-assessment activities. In the course of improving the assessment practice, the school principal and the teachers gradually learned that they could introduce self-assessment in childrens learning processes as a way of intertwining learning with assessment. They believed that we could help children sys-

ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

247

tematically organize and articulate their learning experiences. The decision was made collectively that children would start to carry out self-assessment in learning activities. Worksheets were designed on which children could circle icons to express their preferences in terms of activity as well as conduct their own performance evaluation. When teachers encouraged children to exercise their own choice and self-reflection, learning was no longer a business solely run by teachers and parents. Children were supported in managing their own learning progress. Introducing the new dimension of self-assessment helped learners learn how to learn, meeting the overarching curriculum goal of the local education reform.

Factors Underlying the Changes This section attempts to identify what factors underlay the changing assessment practices. Two significant factors were perceived as underlying the changes. First was the conception of assessment for learning that guided the practice. Second was the strength of the schools capacity for internal accountability.

Assessment for learning. Views of assessment were identified as guiding the changing practices in this preschool. Fiona, the school principal, believed that for the essence of assessment, learning and teaching should be closely adhered and that it was therefore vital for the teachers to understand the relation between teaching objectives, content, and assessment. Her view on assessment governed her child assessment practices. The frontline teacher, Louise, expressed a similar belief that assessment, teaching, and learning were interrelated:
Eight years ago, I took assessment as testing against the criteria directly from what I saw. It was just like an examination and had nothing to do with learning and teaching. Further education has helped me understand the conceptions of and rationale for early childhood education. I also participated in the project [Project CCAM]. I learned a lot. I understood the relationship between assessment and teaching. I thought about the purpose and meaning of the items in the assessment checklist. I could relate the assessment data to the impact incurred in a daily event happened in the classroom. Now, I also think about why the child can or cannot do something, and how, as a teacher, I can help that child.

Louises reflection further disclosed the impact of further education and professional development activities, such as the project experience, on her changing view of assessment. Another teacher, Cathy, also realized the concept of relating assessment to teaching and learning. She realized that through assessment, I understand the child better, and then I will help the child from another angle.

248

CHAN AND WONG

The conception of assessment held by the teaching personnel shaped the actual assessment practices. Assessment was integrated into classroom teaching and learning. Assessment data were used for teaching evaluation and curriculum improvement. The purpose of assessment now focused on supporting child development and learning. In the classroom setting, teachers encouraged children to learn by observing, talking, and assessing their own work. Teachers feedback was focused on childrens work, and feedback became constructive in building childrens confidence. Commissioned research conducted by Black and Wiliam (1998) expounded on the notion of assessment for learning. The two researchers claimed that assessment in education must first and foremost serve the purpose of supporting learning (Black & Wiliam, 2006). According to the Assessment Reform Group (2002), learning is defined as the process of seeking and interpreting evidence for use by learners and by their teachers in deciding where the learners are in their learning progress, what learners need to do to achieve desirable learning goals, and how best to achieve those goals. The teaching personnel who participated in Project CCAM learned about assessment. They learned to use assessment as a means of providing feedback for children and teaching. In this regard, assessment in this preschool was accountable for childrens learning progress in a realistic and developmentally appropriate fashion, not as a blind pursuit of high-stakes outcomes. Assessment for learning is a powerful strategy for changing teaching and learning behaviors (Fullan, 2005, 2006). The conception of assessment for learning shaped this schools educational goals and governed teachers curriculum decision and teaching practices. The school principal held a strong view of assessment for learning. In Fullans (2005) words, the leader requires a compelling and driving conceptualization to move the teaching workforce in the same direction in sustaining educational change. On the issue of assessment and accountability, leadership with the capacity to articulate a clear conception of assessment as directing school practices is crucial in making substantive improvements in accountability.

School capacity. The other significant factor behind changing assessment practices was the strength of school capacity. Attending to beliefs and values and supporting day-to-day practice are crucial aspects of school capacity (Shank, 2006). Teachers applying shared expectations based on these beliefs and values to their own work and to that of their colleagues is referred as internal accountability, according to Newmann et al. (1997). In the sample school, internal accountability was developed with the principals strong belief and the teachers shared expectations. The capacity of the school was displayed in effective school organizational components. The visible roadmap of the assessment procedures (see Figure 1) reflected the teaching staffs common understanding of values. They were characterized by a coherence of aspects, including curriculum, teaching, and assessment in

ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

249

working for childrens learning. The roadmap exemplifies the strength of effective organizational processes. Furthermore, a structural component enabling effective classroom practices and ongoing school improvement was visible in this preschool. It took the form of a two-tiered teamwork structure. The first tier was formed by three teams of teaching staff who were responsible for children of three age groups: 3-, 4- and 5-year-olds. Each team had designated a leader who was an experienced teacher and who had completed the professional development activities in Project CCAM. Each team held regular meetings to develop a collective curriculum and made pedagogical decisions. Since the teachers were responsible for the same group of children and needed to work together in the same classroom, they shared teaching materials and workload. The second tier of the teamwork structure was composed of the entire school. The team structure was in the form of staff meetings that regulated consistency in criteria and principles spanning across all curricular aspects. Internal accountability and organizational capacity have received growing attention in studies of school improvement. Newmann et al. (1997) referred to organizational capacity as the structuring of human, technical, and social resources at the school level. In Shanks (2006) study, the organizational capacity of a school referred to a number of aspects, such as the structuring of space, time, learning activities, and curriculum. For the school in our case study, the teamwork structure increased the schools internal capacities. The evolvement of the new self-assessment activity is an example of the teaching staffs capacity for self-improvement. As Cathy said, Actually, we never thought about whether we attained the standard. We always do this. We seldom compare ourselves with others. We just make self-improvement. The introduction of this new activity was the result of staff self-improvement. The strength of school capacity as characterized by organizational processes with a teamwork structure and capacity for self-improvement enhanced school improvement for accountability. In the next section, we relate these findings regarding assessment practices to a broader discussion of accountability.

DISCUSSION The new educational accountability system launched in Hong Kong in 2003 has school improvement work at its heart. The mandated quality assurance framework and the desired PIs direct school improvement against the prescribed quality standards. Thus, schools are being held accountable for their quality level, not bound to standardized testing like some places in the United States and the United Kingdom. The preschool presented in this case study was holding itself accountable at the level of ongoing school improvement for young childrens learning. Childrens development and learning were assessed in a process-oriented approach through

250

CHAN AND WONG

curricular activities. This approach was responsive to young childrens developmental growth and conducive to the improvement of teaching and learning. On the one hand, the external system providing the quality assurance framework and the desired outcomes exerted its influence on school improvement. On the other hand, the drive for school improvement sprang from each staff members individual desire for professional development. It was the common vision of excellence in child education as directed by the school leaders, including the principal and managers, that formulated the educational goal behind the schools improvements. In other words, the drive for self-improvement was rooted inside the school. Apart from shedding light on what the assessments were at the school, how they were practiced, and how the practices were held accountable, these findings exemplify a more balanced approach of combining school internal capacity and external systems to uphold school accountability. And these findings lend support to efforts to advocate for process-oriented assessment under a more balanced approach of accountability for early childhood education. Acknowledging the importance of building school capacity for accountability purposes, we will discuss the key driving forces behind school capacity building in the following subsections. The key driving forces are (a) teacher development under a culture of collaboration and (b) professional learning communities.

Teacher Development Under a Culture of Collaboration Teacher development is fundamental to school capacity building. A connection between teacher development and a culture of collaboration is obvious in this case. The practices for assessing childrens development and learning as identified in this preschool reveal that rapid changes took place after teaching staff participated in a professional project. Conceptually, the staff understood the relationships among assessment, teaching, and learning. Practically, they learned about assessment methods and about the use of appropriate assessment tools. In the end, the assessment practices helped in terms of teacher development. Recent studies on school accountability have acknowledged a growing recognition of the importance of school capacity in facing the increasing demand for educational accountability (Fullan, 2005, 2006; K. Jones, 2006a, 2006b; Malen & Rice, 2009; Shank, 2006). In Fullans (2006) study of school changes, ongoing professional development was one crucial capacity-building component. Fullan documented capacity building as involving everything one does that affects new knowledge, skills, and competencies; enhanced resources; and stronger commitments. Hargreaves (2001) asserted that in school reforms, complex changes cannot be achieved without considerable learning. Considering accountability in the face of complex educational change, a different concept of professional development is deemed necessary.

ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

251

The staff development activities within Project CCAM promoted a culture of collaboration. The development activities were school-based and were catered specifically to meet teachers needs. More important, staff development activities created an open atmosphere of teacher inquiry. Teachers were facilitated to analyze and interpret their own inquiries and problems. Through sharing and applying child development and pedagogical knowledge, teachers generated and refined interpretations against the assessment criteria and principles. Deeper understanding and transferable knowledge were more likely to be attained as a result of such a dynamic learning process. Teachers gained greater confidence and satisfaction through the positive climate that was established. In Project CCAM, teachers were not merely recipients of knowledge but were active constructors of new knowledge. They reciprocally provided feedback to modify the assessment tool, that is, the CD Checklist 2007. Under a climate of collaboration, learning was promoted. According to recent literature, the notions of professional development, staff development, teacher development, and teacher learning are sometimes used interchangeably or are not differentiated from one another. Two decades ago, the demand for school-based professional development was already perceived in the United Kingdom. Professional development should be considered from a career-long perspective in facing rapidly changing economic and political environments. Schools should aim to promote a positive culture in which teachers can work together and be responsible for the activities taking place in their schools (Dean, 1991). In Fullans (2001) proposal for transforming the culture (i.e., changing the way people do things), working collaboratively with others is a prime concern. A culture of collaboration makes for effective professional development while supporting teachers growth and development; learning that takes place in partnership can improve practices (Zepeda, 2008). The results of this study imply that teacher knowledge is developed under a culture of collaboration in professional development activities. In other words, building a culture of collaboration among teachers is of paramount importance. However, in reality, building this collaborative culture can be quite challenging because teachers in general have a long tradition of working alone. Effective strategies, such as the examples illustrated in this study and in other studies, are worth considering in developing a culture of collaboration. Professional Learning Communities In connection with the culture of collaboration, another outstanding driving force in building school capacity is the provision of a learning community networks. Learning communities create a safer and more dynamic atmosphere in which teachers can think and take risks to improve teaching (Bogler & Somech, 2004; Hargreaves, 1997; Zepeda, 2008). The network established in Project CCAM con-

252

CHAN AND WONG

sisted of three learning communities. The first one was the school community. The teaching personnel worked collaboratively on the schools capacity in curriculum planning and assessment practices. Trying out new assessment tools and methods was not the sole responsibility of a single teacher but was a collective decision and effort. A bigger community, the second community, was the schoolinstitute partnership, through which new knowledge essential for the project was imparted at the onset. This community transformed teachers knowledge in the process of inquiry and provided the main impetus for change. The largest community in this network, the third community, was the peerschool communitya place containing teachers frustrations and their emotional need to solicit support in resolving problems or celebrating successes. Project CCAM network consisted of the three learning communities, which effectively supported teachers growth and school improvement in the demand for accountability. As Moller and Pankake (2006) suggested,
The real learning happens in the cycle of conversations, actions, valuation, and new actions that are supported through intentional leadership that gently pressures and nurtures teachers. This inquiry process must be organizationally embedded rather than externally imposed to build teachers knowledge and skills or increase human capital, within the schools social networks. (pp. 128129)

The learning community network in this study created a trusting social network for teacher inquiry. We have been impressed that the teaching personnel in the preschool built up trust among themselves as well as among us. Trust makes real learning happen. The school principal listened to teachers voices and respected teachers collective decisions. Experienced and novice teachers worked together to design teaching plans. Teaching ideas could be openly expressed. The principal and the teachers were graduates of our teacher education institute; therefore, trust existed in this partnership. From conversations with the teaching staff, we knew that they had faith in the integrity of the institute. The teaching personnel joined the professional projects conducted by the institute one after another. One of us has been a researcher of one of the schools projects for 6 years. Words cannot describe how this lovely, energizing team of people looked for our help when they decided to apply for the Chief Executives Award for Teaching Excellence 2009, an incentive provided by the government to foster teacher professional development. The teachers waited for the recommendation letter outside one of our homes until late in the evening. Relational trust is acknowledged as a core resource and prerequisite for building a positive school climate and culture (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Zepeda, 2008). We deliberately highlight the importance of trust because it is vital to building learning communities. What are the ways to build trust in learning communities? This question deserves greater attention and research.

ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

253

CONCLUSION In this article, we have described the changes in a preschools practices of assessing childrens development and learning after staff participated in a collaborative project with higher education institute. We have also identified the factors underlying these changes. The major finding shows a paradigm shift of assessment practice from an outcome-oriented approach to a process-oriented approach. The new approach is shaped by four keys changes: (a) making reference to the aligned assessment tool; (b) aligning assessment with curriculum planning, teaching, and learning; (c) improving collection of assessment data; (d) introducing self-assessment activity. The findings imply that two underlying factors account for the changes: the conception of assessment for learning that guides practice, and the strength of school capacity for internal accountability. Two key driving forces behind building school capacityteacher development under a culture of collaboration and professional learning communitieswere discussed. This study has implications for assessment of childrens development and learning, school accountability, Hong Kong preschool environments, and current issues of assessment and accountability. In terms of assessment practices, more attention should be given to the improvement of process-oriented assessment approaches in enhancing early childhood education. There are three main concerns about improving process-oriented assessment practices for credibility. The first concerns the development of criterion-referenced assessment tools. The second concerns the modification of assessment methods, and third concerns the use of assessment data for the improvement of curriculum, teaching, and learning. These concerns imply the need for further research and a dedication of effort to support an assessment approach, which is demanding in terms of labor and time. For school accountability, this study suggests that in meeting external accountability requirements, it is basic to expand school capacity for internal accountability. To build school capacity, teacher development can be fostered through a culture of collaboration and through greater teacher participation in professional learning communities. It is desirable for higher education institutes to take a greater initiative to develop collaborative projects and learning communities. The findings of this study imply that three factors are critical to building collaborative projects: long-term perspective, trust among partners, and commitment to the profession. Teacher education programs, professional projects, and learning communities are critical factors for successfully nurturing a committed workforce. Teacher educators, professionals, and academics should take into consideration the aforementioned factors when developing projects and programs. In Hong Kong, the intricacies of implementing the new accountability system and the challenges encountered by the teaching personnel while doing so still receive too little attention from the government. The four published progress reports

254

CHAN AND WONG

on education reform, the latest published in 2006, have not undertaken any review of the accountability system or raised any concerns about the quality of learning (Education Commission, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006). Whether local schools adhere to inappropriate assessment practices, such as high-stakes testing and drilling to test, is still uncertain. We are skeptical of the governments strategies and schedule for monitoring and reviewing the implemented policy. Stagnant development or laissez-faire strategies are not conducive to enhancing school capacity. The implemented policy should be evaluated and monitored. The institution conducting the external school review has the responsibility of aggregating the collected school assessment data with regard to the PIs and providing a comprehensive picture of the effects of the mandated requirements and improvements that have been made under the new accountability system. With these data, policymakers can further develop strategic plans and estimate how much to invest in early childhood education. In the demand for educational accountability, reliance on standardized assessment is not trustworthy, as it does not adequately reveal the full range of a students abilities. Variables of curriculum and instruction, school culture, and personnel account for the quality of education. Outcome-based accountability cannot provide sufficient information on these variables for school improvement. Processes of accountability have an important role to play in enhancing school capacity for self-improvement. As shown by this case study, accountability processes enable the cohesion of assessment and curriculum that enhances learning. These processes also foster teacher professional development and a culture of collaboration that expand school capacity for self-improvement. To address current issues of assessment and accountability, the findings of this study support a more balanced approach of combining school internal capacity and external systems to uphold school accountability. In the search for a better assessment practice, the findings of this study lend support for advocating a process-oriented approach of assessment for early childhood education. The present case study was composed of committed personnel striving for excellence of educational quality. In light of this, our concluding remark is that practitioners, academics, and professionals should collaborate to strengthen the capacity of the struggling teaching workforce for accountability in the pursuit of quality education.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to the staff, parents, and children of Caritas Ling Yuet Sin Kindergarten for their contributions to this study. We offer our special thanks to the school principal and the two teachers interviewed for their continual support of the study. We are also thankful for the contributions of the investigators and partici-

ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

255

pants of A Curriculum-Based Child Assessment Model for Quality Education Childhood Programme (20052007), which enabled this follow-up study.

REFERENCES
Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge, Assessment Reform Group. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998, October). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139148. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Assessment for learning in the classroom. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 926). London: Sage. Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers organizational commitment, professional commitment, and organization citizenship behaviour in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 277289. Bricker, D., & Waddell, M. (2002). Volume 4. Curriculum for three- to-six-year olds. In D. Bricker (Series Ed.), Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System (AEPS) for infants and children (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes. Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Child Development Checklist Study Group. (2007). [Child development checklist (CD Checklist 2007)] (3rd ed.). Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Education. (In Chinese) Curriculum Development Council (CDC). (2006). Guide to the pre-primary curriculum. Hong Kong: Education & Manpower Bureau. Dean, J. (1991). Professional development in school. Milton Keynes, PA: Open University. Education Bureau. (2007). Quality assurance frameworkDistinctive features. Retrieved February 28, 2010 from http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=2188&langno=1 Education Bureau. (2008). [External review report of Caritas Ling Yuet Sin Kindergarten]. Hong Kong: Education Bureau. (In Chinese) Education Commission. (2000). Reform proposals for the education system in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Printing Department. Education Commission (2002). Progress report on the education reform (1). Hong Kong: Printing Department. Education Commission (2003). Progress report on the education reform (2). Hong Kong: Printing Department. Education Commission (2004). Progress report on the education reform (3). Hong Kong: Printing Department. Education Commission (2006). Progress report on the education reform (4). Hong Kong: Printing Department. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Fullan, M. (2006). Turnaround leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Grisham-Brown, J., Hallam, R. A., & Brookshire, R. (2006). Using authentic assessment to evidence childrens progress toward early learning standards. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(1), 4551. Grisham-Brown, J., Hallam, R. A., & Pretti-Frontczak, K. (2008). Preparing Head Start personnel to use a curriculum-based assessment: An innovative practice in the age of accountability. Journal of Early Intervention, 30(4), 271281.

256

CHAN AND WONG

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Tavistock. Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2002). Sorting out accountability systems. In W. M. Evers & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), School accountability (pp. 75104). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution. Hargreaves, A. (1997). Cultures of teaching and educational change. In M. Fullan (Ed.), The challenge of school change (pp. 5784). Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing. Hargreaves, A. (2001). Learning to change: Teaching beyond subjects and standards. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ho, C. W. D. (2008). Exploring the definitions of quality early childhood programmes in a market-driven context: Case studies of two Hong Kong preschools. International Journal of Early Years Education, 16, 223236. Hong Kong Education and Manpower Bureau & Social Welfare Department. (2003). Performance indicators (pre-primary institutions): Domain on childrens development (2nd ed.). Hong Kong: Printing Department. Hong Kong Government. (2006). Policy address. Hong Kong: Government Printer. Horton, C., & Bowman, B. (2001). Child assessment at the preprimary level: Expert opinion and the state trends. Chicago: Erikson Institute for Advanced Study in Child Development. Jones, K. (2006a). A new model for school accountability. In K. Jones (Ed.). Democratic school accountability: A model for school improvement (pp. 128). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Jones, K. (2006b). Thinking ahead. In K. Jones (Ed.), Democratic school accountability: A model for school improvement (pp. 233245). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., & Hargrove, T. Y. (2003). The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Kirby, S. N., & Stecher, B. (Eds.). (2004). Introduction. In B. Stecher & S. N. Kirby (Eds.), Organizational improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors (pp. 110). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Li, H. (2005). Developing school-based curriculum in Hong Kong kindergartens: Insights, challenges and solutions. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education. Li, H., & Rao, N. (2005). Curricular and instructional influences on early literacy attainment: Evidence from Beijing, Hong Kong and Singapore. International Journal of Early Years Education, 13, 235253. Li, H., & Wong, N. C. M. (2008). Implementing performance indicators of early learning and teaching: A Chinese study. International Journal of Early Years Education, 16, 115131. Malen, B., & Rice, J. K. (2009). A framework for assessing the impact of education reforms on school capacity: Insights from studies of high-stakes accountability initiatives. In C. Roellke & J. K. Rice (Eds.), High stakes accountability: Implications for resources and capacity (pp. 332). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. McAfee, O., & Leong, D. J. (2002). Assessing and guiding young childrens development and learning (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Meisels, S. J. (1997). Using work sampling in authentic assessments. Educational Leadership, 54(4), 6065. Moller, G., & Pankake, A. (2006). Lead with me: A principals guide to teacher leadership. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. (NAECS/SDE) (2002, November). Early learning standards: Creating the conditions for success. Retrieved July 8, 2009 from the NAEYC database. Newmann, F. M., King, M. B., & Rigdon, M. (1997). Accountability and school performance: Implications from restructuring schools. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 4170. Peterson, P. E., & West, M. R. (Eds.). (2003). No child left behind: The politics and practice of school accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

257

Ratcliff, N. J. (2002). Using authentic assessment to document the emerging literacy skills of young children. Childhood Education, 78(2), 6669. Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school leaders can take charge. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Rous, B., McCormick, K., Gooden, C., & Townley, K. F. (2007). Kentuckys early childhood continuous assessment and accountability system: Local decisions and state supports. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27, 1933. Schafer, W. D. (2002). How can assessment contribute to an education utopia? In R. W. Lissitz & W. D. Schafer (Eds.), Assessments in educational reform: Both means and ends (pp. 8091). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Schiller, L. (2000). Politics, pedagogy, and professional development in Michigan. In A. A. Glatthorn & J. Fontana (Eds.), Coping with standards, tests, and accountability: Voices from the classroom (pp. 95107). Washington, DC: National Education Association. Shank, M. J. (2006). School capacity: Organizing for high standards and continuous learning. In K. Jones (Ed.), Democratic school accountability: A model for school accountability (pp. 107126). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stake, R. E. (2008). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed., pp. 119150). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stake, R. E., & Trumbull, D. J. (1982). Naturalistic generalizations. Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science, 7, 112. Weikert, D. P. (2004). Head Start and evidence-based educational models. In E. Zeigler & S. J. Styfco (Eds.), Are we failing the children most at risk? 53 of Americas leading experts weigh in: The Head Start debates (pp. 143160). Baltimore: Brookes. Whitney, J. (2006). Opportunities to learn: Beyond access to engagement. In K. Jones (Ed.), Democratic school accountability: A model for school improvement (pp. 5578). Oxford, England: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Wiersma, W. (1995). Research methods in education: An introduction (6th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Wong, N. C. M. (2006). The culture of self-evaluation and the quality of early learning and teaching. In N. C. M. Wong, H. Li, & Y. M. A. Yung (Eds.), From self-evaluation to self-improvement (pp. 816). Hong Kong: Longman. (In Chinese) Zepeda, S. J. (2008). Professional development: What works. New York: Eye on Education.

258
Level 1 Listens to teacher when spoken to but does not respond appropriately Listens to teacher when spoken to and responds appropriately Level 2 Level 3 Remarks Listens to peer when spoken to but does not respond appropriately Listens to peer when spoken to and responds appropriately Understands teachers instruction but does not understand meanings of change in teachers or peers tone Speaks his/her own name; greets others; uses simple words to express needs, feelings, or opinions; recount daily experiences; or describe objects Speaks haltingly, nervously, shyly, or hesitatingly; unclear pronunciation of common vocabulary; or difficult for others to understand Understands teachers instructions, responds appropriately, and is aware of the meanings of change in teachers or peers tone Uses a few social expressions; draws on appropriate language to express needs, feelings, and opinions; recount daily experiences; or describe objects Speaks spontaneously and steadily; clear pronunciation of most common vocabulary; or is understood by others During group time or when teacher speaks to her/him, s/he is a good listener, is attentive, speaks with others at suitable moments When conversing with peer, s/he is a good listener, is attentive, and talks at suitable moments Understands others complex instruction, understands the meanings of change in tone, and responds appropriately Uses social expressions generally in daily life; expresses needs, feelings, or opinions clearly; speaks appropriately, orderly, with a focus, or with confidence Speaks fluently; clearly pronounces or articulates common vocabulary except extraordinary words; or speaks attractively

Appendix A Child Development Checklist 2007Language Domain (English Version) (Child Development Checklist Study Group, 2007)

Performance Indicator

1. Listening

1.1 Understands teachers language when spoken to and responds appropriately

1.2 Understands peers language when spoken to and responds appropriately 1.3 Understands the meanings of change in others tone and responds appropriately

2. Speaking

2.1 Uses language to express needs, feelings, and opinions; talks about daily experiences, recounts happenings, describes objects, and engages in social interaction 2.2 Speaks fluently, with clear pronunciation

2.3 When conversing with others, uses appropriate tone, volume, and facial expression and speaks in a good manner Willingly or courageously raises different views Able to express coherent ideas in more than three consecutive sentences Understands that there is a difference between oral and written language and shows interest in asking and talking about relevant words

2.4 Willing to initiate communication with others 2.5 Able to use consecutive sentences to express coherent ideas Pays attention to the pictures or symbols while reading a storybook or in his/her daily environment

When conversing with others, looks at the counterpart, but the tone, volume, or facial expression is inappropriate to the context Not yet initiating communication with teacher or peers Able to use at least three words in a sentence

Converses with others using appropriate tone, volume, or facial expression and in a polite manner

Speaks gracefully or expressively, in a sincere manner; displays tenderness or supportiveness

3. Reading

3.1 Understands that there is meaning behind the words

3.2 Knows the way to read a book

Understands how to hold a book and on which page to begin reading

Initiates communication with peers, teacher, or others Able to use sentences constructed with several words and with varied syntactic structures Pays attention to the pictures, symbols, and words while reading a storybook or in his/her daily environment and understands that the text and pictures in a storybook are interrelated Understands where the title of a book is and reads page by page from left to right, or from the top to the bottom Able to realize that each word has a syllable, a phrase that consists of a group of words and brings out the meaning of the text, the content between each page is interrelated, or understands some other concept related to a book (e.g., a book is written by an author)

259

(continued)

260
Appendix A (Continued) Level 1 Able to tell briefly the characters and the plot of a story after reading it Able to tell the details of the characters, the plot, the ending, the background, or the theme of a story after reading it Able to predict the consequences of a story, expresses ones feeling toward a story, asks questions or gives comments Able to take initiative to get a book and read Level 2 Level 3 Remarks Listens attentively while others read a book aloud Turns the pages of a book sometimes but does not read attentively Requests others to read a book aloud to him/her or give him/her a book to read Gets a book and reads attentively its contents sometimes/always Able to respond to teachers questions sometimes while reading Able to use pencil and paper to draw or write upon the request of an adult Able to make use of the words or phrases of the text to respond to teachers questions while reading Initiates drawing or writing by using pencil and paper Develops good reading habits (e.g., able to read a storybook from the beginning to the end and tell others something about a book after reading it), likes to read different types of books, or reads daily Able to make use of printed materials, such as storybooks and newspapers, to acquire necessary information Likes to choose or make use of appropriate writing tools to express or create through drawing or writing seriously

Performance Indicator

3.3 Understands the ideas expressed through pictures, symbols, or words

3.4 Likes to select a book and read

3.5 Develops good reading habits

3.6 Knows to search for information in books to answer questions

4. Writing

4.1 Freely uses writing tools to draw or write

4.2 Able to express what he/she knows or his/her ideas through drawing, symbols, words, or words created by him/her Able to write on a line/in a blank space, or from left to right/top to bottom

Able to express ones thoughts through drawing or symbols

Able to express ones thoughts through drawing, symbols, or words created by oneself and tell others what one has written Acquires the right posture of writing and the right way of holding a pencil Able to write some simple words related to daily life

Able to express ones thoughts by using correct words or able to revise what has been written

4.3 Acquires the right posture of writing and the right way of holding a pencil 4.4 Able to write some simple words and sentences related to daily life 4.5 Able to use different ways to learn writing Observes how teacher writes or asks others to write what he/she wants to write Requests the teacher or classmate to demonstrate writing and model or inquires about how to write a certain word

Able to acquire the right posture of writing but not the right way of holding a pencil Able to draw or write some lines, strokes, or Chinese characters

Able to write some simple sentences related to daily life Able to look for and copy the words he/she wants to write from printed materials or tries to use strokes and word components to write

261

Appendix B Cross-Reference of Performance IndicatorsPre-Primary Institutions and the Child Development Checklist 2007: Language Domain Language Development Assessment Item No. (Child Development Checklist Study Group, 2007)

262
1.1, 1.2 1.1, 1.2 1.1, 1.2 1.1, 1.2 1.3 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.3, 2.5 2.1, 2.3 2.4 3.1, 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.4, 4.5

Aspect

Items of Performance (Performance IndicatorsPre-Primary Institutions, EMB, and Social Welfare Department, 2003)

Listening ability

Speaking ability

Reading ability

Writing ability

Use the sense of hearing to identify the meaning of different sounds, willing to communicate with others Understand the meaning of sounds and make appropriate reactions Understand the contents of conversation and make appropriate response Have an appropriate listening habit, be attentive and polite Understand the meanings in peoples tone and react accordingly Speak with clear pronunciation Able to use verbal or body language to communicate with others, and able to speak in a polite manner Able to speak with confidence, to use language to describe things, express experiences, feelings, and idea in daily life Able to control tone, volume, and speed when speaking and speak logically Able to use natural, proper tone and manner in daily conversation to express feelings and opinions and to participate in discussions Willing to express oneself and communicate with others Able to understand ideas expressed in pictures, symbols, or words Able to master the method of reading Show interest in reading, like to choose books for reading Show good reading habits Able to look up information from books to solve problems Enjoy manipulating the writing tools freely, have an interest in drawing Able to express ideas through pictures, signs, or writing when communicating with other people Able to grasp the right posture for writing and the proper way of holding pencils and write with correct strokes Able to write single words and simple sentences that are commonly used in daily life Have an interest in expressing ideas in simple words

Note. For CD Checklist 2007 items, see Appendix A.

Copyright of Early Education & Development is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.