Doing Assessment: A Multicase Study of Preschool Teachers’ Language and Literacy Data Practices

Abstract

Early childhood research and policy have promoted the use of language and literacy assessment data to inform instruction. Yet, there is a limited understanding of preschool teachers' data practices and sensemaking, particularly when considered from the perspectives of practicing teachers. In this multicase study, we used a phenomenological approach to generate a theory about preschool teachers' data practices in relation to supporting children's language and literacy outcomes. Twenty preschool teachers participated in a series of three observations, planning interviews, and stimulated recall interviews designed to tap their pedagogical reasoning and data use practices. The framework that emerged through iterative within-and cross-case analyses comprised three major elements (what teachers knew, how they knew it, and the way they used the data) and suggested that teachers could be characterized into three data use profiles (data gatherers, in-the-moment data users, and integrated data users). Findings indicate (a) teachers may understand data differently than researchers or policymakers do, (b) teachers' understanding of data sources goes beyond traditional conceptualizations, (c) a continuum in teachers' data use practices, and (d) a need to better support teachers in moving from simply doing assessment to using data in ways that are meaningful for practice and children's language and literacy outcomes. Researchers have advocated for early childhood teachers to use language and literacy assessment data to inform instruction (e.g., Kincaid,

Early Childhood Teachers’ Emergent Literacy Data Practices

“…In our prior work (Schachter & Piasta, 2022), we found that EC teachers gathered three types of data that overlapped with these constructs. Specifically, teachers gathered data from standardized measures, documented observations commonly used in EC (Edwards et al, 2019;Hall et al, 2010), and informal noticing; unlike the other forms of data, the latter were not systematically collected or documented by teachers.…”

“…We had two aims: 1. To confirm and elaborate teachers' emergent literacy data practices based on the framework developed in qualitative analyses (Schachter & Piasta, 2022), focusing on how teachers gathered information about children's emergent literacy skills (data gathering), what they knew from those data (data knowledge), and how they used those data to inform their practice (data use). 2.…”

“…

Despite a growing focus on access to and use of emergent literacy assessment in early childhood, little is known about early childhood teachers' data practices and their associations with children's emergent literacy skills. A questionnaire was used to confirm and elaborate findings from prior qualitative work (Schachter & Piasta, 2022) investigating U.S. teachers' emergent literacy data practices. We focused on how teachers gathered data (data gathering), what they learned from those data (data knowledge), and how they used those data in their practice (data use) along with associations between the practices and children's emergent literacy skills.

…”

“…The purpose of this study was to describe EC teachers’ reported data practices and associations between those practices and children's emergent literacy skills. Specifically, this study builds from prior qualitative work (Schachter & Piasta, 2022) wherein we identified that EC teachers engaged in three types of data practices—data gathering, data knowledge (learning about children from data), and data use—and that there were notable differences in these practices across teachers.…”

Key Knowledge to Support Phonological Awareness and Phonics Instruction

“…As the field discusses the Science of Reading, we emphasize the important role of teachers in providing high‐quality instruction informed by this body of evidence. Teachers make decisions about what is taught and how, in their selection of curriculum, materials, and instructional strategies; planning; and in‐the‐moment instructional interactions (Borko et al, 1981; Schachter & Piasta, 2021). As for other professions, these decisions require specialized knowledge.…”