Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article conceptualizes assessment in early childhood education as a moral practice using Amartya Sen’s capability approach and Thomas A Schwandt’s practical hermeneutic approach to assessment and evaluation. After describing the moral connection Sen makes between development and assessment, Schwandt’s conceptualization of evaluation is presented as reframing it from a technical practice to one based on practical moral knowledge, having moral significance for teachers and children. Assessment as a moral practice must be done from two perspectives: from the learner’s perspective to assess children’s agency in guiding their own learning, and from the environment’s perspective to assess the opportunities for learning afforded children by the environment. Balancing assessment from these two perspectives is a moral challenge for teachers. The final section examines the recent work by Margaret Carr and Jennifer Keys Adair, who offer new approaches to assessment in early childhood that incorporate methods consistent with the capability approach and Schwandt. The goal of the article is to outline a moral practice of assessment in early childhood education.

Keywords

Assessment capability approach early childhood education evaluation moral dimensions

This article conceptualizes assessment in early childhood education as a moral practice using Amartya Sen’s (1980, 1985, 1992, 1999) capability approach and Thomas A Schwandt’s (2002, 2005, 2013) practical hermeneutic approach to evaluation. Building on previous work (Buzzelli, 2015a, 2015b) describing how the capability approach provides the foundation for a normative language for early childhood education, the present article proceeds in four sections. The first section presents an overview of Sen’s capability approach. It describes how Sen makes a moral connection between development and assessment. The second section aligns the capability approach to development and learning with the central concepts of a situated/sociocultural view of learning (Gee, 2004, 2008). Parallels are drawn between Sen’s concepts of functionings and capabilities and those of effectivities and affordances, respectively, from the opportunities to learn (OTL) perspective (Barab and Roth, 2006; Gee, 2004, 2008; Greeno, 1998; Greeno and Gresalfi, 2008). The third section describes Schwandt’s (2002, 2005, 2007, 2013) practical hermeneutic approach to evaluation. This approach redefines teaching and assessment as moral and political endeavors. As such, the teacher’s role is changed from one as a technical expert to that of a reflective practitioner facing the moral challenges and responsibilities of the profession. A final section examines the recent work by Margaret Carr (2001) and Jennifer Keys Adair (2014), who offer new approaches to assessment in early childhood that incorporate methods consistent with the capability approach and Schwandt. The goal of the article is to outline a moral practice of evaluation in early childhood education.

This topic is timely in light of the continued pressures of standardized testing in early childhood classrooms and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) initiating the International Early Learning and Child Well-Being Study in 2012. With the development of the International Early Learning and Child Well-Being Study by the OECD, there is concern by many (Moss et al., 2016; Moss and Urban, 2017) that standardized assessment in early childhood education will join the international movement which gathers data to evaluate and rank primary and secondary education across the globe. At the primary and secondary levels, such assessments are done with the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, conducted by the National Center for Educational Statistics with students in Grades 4 and 8, and by the Programme for International Student Assessment, administered by the OECD and completed by students at 15 years of age. The OECD has proposed that the International Early Learning and Child Well-Being Study

will provide countries with a common language and framework, encompassing a collection of robust empirical information and in-depth insights on children’s learning development at a critical age. With this information, countries will be able to share best-practices, working towards the ultimate goal of improving children’s early learning outcomes and overall well-being. (OECD, 2017: 14)

However, there continue to be concerns among early childhood professionals that the data will be used for purposes other than those quoted above.

The capability approach

The capability approach was formulated over a period of years by the economists Amartya Sen and Mahbub ul Haq. The goal for the capability approach was to establish a means of measuring individual well-being that did not rely on a single economic measure such as gross domestic product, but rather considered a range of indicators related to education, health, and the economic, social and political circumstances that contributed to well-being. In one of Sen’s early writings on the capability approach, he describes it as

a moral approach that sees persons from two different perspectives: well-being and agency. Both the “well-being aspect” and the “agency aspect” of persons have their own relevance in the assessment of states and actions. Each aspect also yields a corresponding notion of freedom. (Sen, 1985: 169; original emphasis)

At the heart of Sen’s (1985, 1997, 1999) view is the idea that human development should seek to enhance and develop individuals’ capabilities and the extent to which they can lead lives that they value and have reason to value.

For the purposes of this article, assessment and evaluation are used as defined in the National Association for the Education of Young Children’s (NAEYC, 2003) position statement on the early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation. This document notes the agreement on the four purposes of early childhood assessment. The document goes on to say that two of the purposes focus on assessment of children: “(1) assessment to support learning and instruction and (2) assessment to identify children who may need additional services” (10). The two other purposes are “assessment for program evaluation and monitoring trends and assessment for high-stakes accountability” (10), and are discussed in the position statement’s section on “Program evaluation and accountability.” Therefore, following these definitions and distinctions, and as offered by Gullo (2005), assessment is used to refer to practices teachers undertake to gather information on children through a variety of means which is then used for teaching and curriculum development. Evaluation, then, refers to data collected using informal, formal, and standardized measures for judgments about program effectiveness and accountability. Both are discussed as related to their moral dimensions for teachers.

For Sen, assessing the well-being of individuals must be based on what they are able to do and be—what Sen refers to as “functionings”—and on the extent of freedom individuals have to expand on what they are able to do and be—what Sen calls “capabilities.” Functionings can be thought of as one’s current level of skill and knowledge, and the abilities one has to engage in a range of activities. Examples include being literate because of having the opportunities to learn to read and the availability of reading materials, or good health as the realization of proper nutrition and medical care. Capabilities, on the other hand, are the freedoms persons have to engage in activities to expand their abilities and, ultimately, allow for “persons to lead the kind of life they value—and have reason to value” (Sen, 1999: 18). The writings on the capability approach have influenced a range of human endeavors beyond development and welfare economics, including education (Alkire and Deneulin, 2009; Robeyns, 2006a, 2006b; Saito, 2003; Unterhalter 2009), special education (Terzi, 2010), and gender equality (Walker, 2009).

The capability approach and assessment

Sen’s view of well-being and development differs from other views in two significant ways. Firstly, it is not tied to a specific theory of development and learning, which means applications of the capability approach to early childhood education can be applied broadly across diverse theories, allowing for a range of implications and applications. Secondly, Sen’s concepts of capabilities and functionings are a radical departure from previous ways of assessing well-being and development. Rather than consider individuals’ skills or economic and personal resources as measures of well-being and development, the capability approach takes these into account but also considers the opportunities and freedoms the environment provides individuals to pursue activities they value and have reason to value. The crucial difference is that the capability approach assesses well-being and development from two perspectives: functionings—individuals’ current abilities—and capabilities—the freedoms and opportunities available to them to expand their abilities by engaging in activities they value and have reason to value. It follows, then, that assessment practices must also look at children’s functionings—their current knowledge and abilities—and, in addition, assess their capabilities—the opportunities children have available to them for expanding their knowledge, skills, and abilities.

Addressing the dual perspectives on assessment has presented challenges to conducting capability approach research with children (Adair and Colegrove, 2014; Ballet et al., 2011; Colegrove and Adair, 2014; Robeyns, 2005). Ballet et al. (2011: 22) outlined a framework for “considering children not simply as recipients of freedoms, but as active social actors in their communities with their own priorities, strategies and aspirations.” In their view, assessments should address what children are able to do and be from the children’s perspectives. These researchers also acknowledge the necessity for respecting the legal and moral responsibilities of the adults who care for young children. For teachers, this means balancing children’s agency and freedom against their responsibility as teachers for guiding children’s learning and development. This balance poses theoretical, moral, and practical challenges.

These challenges are met in the following sections. In order to address these challenges, providing the capability approach with theoretical grounding in development, learning, and assessment is a needed first step. The following section examines how principles of a situated sociocultural view of learning, presented as OTL, align with the central concepts of the capability approach, thereby providing the capability approach with the theoretical grounding for its perspective on children’s learning and assessment practices. In order to address the moral challenges of assessment posed by the capability approach, a moral discourse for assessment is taken up in the third section of this article. Here, Schwandt’s proposal for reclaiming a moral discourse of assessment is outlined. The final section examines the practical challenges facing teachers and provides examples of current practices consistent with the capability approach and within a moral framework.

OTL and the capability approach

This section first presents Gee’s outline of a situated sociocultural perspective on students’ OTL. Based on Gee’s description of OTL, alignments are then made between the central concepts of OTL and the constructs of learning and development in the capability approach. The alignments of the two sets of constructs provide the capability approach with a theoretical foundation in learning and development.

Gee (2004, 2008) and others (Barab and Roth, 2006; Greeno, 1998; Greeno and Gresalfi, 2008; Moss, 2008) argue that a situated sociocultural approach to learning provides a more complex and richer view of students’ OTL. While the situated sociocultural perspective is a group of related views with differences existing among them, there are important common themes.

The first common theme is that knowledge and learning are considered “in terms of a relationship between an individual with both a mind and a body and an environment in which the individual thinks, feels, acts, and interacts” (Gee, 2008: 81; original emphasis). Writing along similar lines, the ecological perspective described by Barab and Roth (2006) has as its central focus individual–environment interactions. Barab and Roth use the term “life-world” to describe that space in which individual–environment interactions occur and “the customary ways of structuring activities that take place within it” (4). They go on to note that “a life-world contains those objects and (social and material) phenomena that are salient to the active individual in part because of her current goals and intentions and in part because of her having the requisite effectivity sets” (4; original emphasis).

The crucial point here is that while it may appear that two individuals live in the same circumstances, in fact they are not, due to them inhabiting different life-worlds as a result of the social, material, political, and cultural phenomena “salient to the active individual.” The construct of life-worlds means that no two individuals can experience the same OTL. Thus, assessment must take into account the individual, along with that individual’s goals and intentions, and the social, material, political, and cultural phenomena in the environment with which the individual interacts. Learning, then, is examined from two perspectives—that of the individual and that of the environment. The situated sociocultural view uses the terms “effectivities” and “affordances” to refer to aspects of individuals and environments, respectively. As described below, assessment must occur from two perspectives—one which assesses the individual and the other which assesses the environment. In OTL terms, assessment must take into account affordances and effectivities.

The term “affordance” describes “the perceived action possibilities posed by objects or features in the environment” (Gibson, 1979, cited in Gee, 2008: 81; original emphasis). Affordances are conceptualized as perceived possibilities to act with or on the environment. A key characteristic of an affordance is that it is perceived by the individual; thus, an affordance exists only to the extent that individuals are able to perceive it. Yet, and importantly, when an affordance is recognized, a human actor must also have the capacity to transform the affordance into an actual and effective action.

Affordance networks “are dynamic sociocultural configurations that take on particular shapes as a result of material, social, political, economic, historical and even personal factors but always in relation to particular functions” (Barab and Roth, 2006: 4). Similarly, the capability approach places attention on the entire context and circumstances of an individual and the community in which that individual lives—namely, the social, economic, political, and cultural factors which influence what that individual is able to do and be. Thus, the concept of affordances as “action possibilities” is very similar to Sen’s concept of capabilities. Both refer to the opportunities and possible courses of action open to the individual. Both concepts acknowledge that an affordance/capability exists if and when an individual is able to “perceive its presence” and recognize it as a possibility (Gee, 2008: 81).

Likewise, once recognized, an individual must have both the opportunity and the ability to transform an affordance into action. Barab and Roth note that:

If an affordance is a possibility for action by an individual, an effectivity is the dynamic actualization of an affordance. Functionally defined, an effectivity set constitutes those behaviors that an individual can in fact produce so as to realize and even generate affordance networks. (Barab and Roth, 2006: 6)

Thus, while the concepts of affordances and affordance networks address aspects of the environment available to learners that can support or hinder learning in the individual–environment interactions, the construct of effectivities describes characteristics of the learner. In capability-approach terminology, effectivities can be likened to functionings—the abilities an individual has to transform a capability into an expanded set of functionings.

For assessment purposes, then, teachers must understand each student’s OTL, which means recognizing each student’s functionings/effectivities and capabilities/affordances. Gee (2008: 76) notes that: “Ensuring that all learners have had equal OTL is both an ethical prerequisite for fair assessment and a solid basis on which to think about educational reforms that will ensure that all children can succeed in school.” Greeno and Gresalfi (2008: 190) make a similar point, saying that “different assessment practices also position students very differently in ways that involve moral issues of treating students justly.” It is to the moral dimensions of assessment that we now turn.

The moral dimensions of assessment

This section presents the case for reclaiming a moral discourse for assessment in early childhood education. In the first part, I describe how the capability approach can serve as a normative framework for early childhood education (Buzzelli, in press; Robeyns, 2005, 2006a, 2006b; Sen, 1999). Following this, I present Schwandt’s (2002, 2007) philosophical and theoretical perspective on an ethical and moral practice of assessment.

At the outset, however, it is important to make some crucial distinctions between terms. As above, when differentiating between assessment and evaluation, here I differentiate between the terms “ethics” and “morality.” Based on an earlier distinction (Buzzelli & Johnston, 2002), ethics refers to a code of practice developed and used by a professional organization to guide the practices of a profession—the case in point here is teaching (NAEYC, 2011). Morality, on the other hand, involves “personal, private values and beliefs” (Buzzelli & Johnston, 2002: 5), which play out in social activities—in this case, teaching in classrooms. However, being personal, they are not regulated by professional organizations. These distinctions lead to another crucial distinction and one that goes to the heart of this article. Teachers encountering an ethical dilemma can refer to the NAEYC’s (2011) Code of Ethical Conduct or to one of the excellent texts on ethics in early childhood education (e.g. Dahlberg and Moss, 2005; Feeney, 2012; Freeman et al., 2012). Teachers encountering a moral dilemma in which two or more of their deeply held beliefs or values come into conflict must mediate the conflict for themselves and then choose a course of action (Ayers, 2004, 2010; Buzzelli & Johnston, 2002; Hansen, 1999, 2001).

Likewise, it is necessary to note that while there is a substantial literature addressing morality in early childhood education, with a few notable exceptions—one being Ayers’ (2010) To Teach—it does not specifically address the moral dimensions of teaching. Instead, the literature examines ways teachers can support children’s moral development (e.g. Damon, 1988; DeVries and Zan, 2012; Kagan and Lamb, 1987), moral education (e.g. DeVries and Zan, 2012), or the moral role of teachers and moral aim of education (Cooper, 2009).

When assessing an individual’s well-being, Sen (1985: 195) poses the following moral questions: “What kind of life is she leading? What does she succeed in doing and in being?” These questions focus our attention on the opportunities present to individuals in their current life circumstances. The opportunities for Sen are seen as freedoms—“the freedom ‘to do this’ or ‘to be that’ that a person has” (201). Understanding freedom in this way makes possible normative comparisons among different individuals’ life circumstances because they are “comparisons of actual opportunities that different persons have” (201).

The significance that the capability approach places on freedoms and opportunities as a necessary feature of assessing well-being means that the capability approach differs significantly from a human capital perspective of assessment (Robeyns, 2005, 2006b). The human capital view of human development focuses exclusively on outcomes, lacking consideration of the range of opportunities afforded individuals. On the other hand, the capability approach, while focusing on the attainment of specific outcomes, also includes assessment of the extent and range of freedoms and opportunities available to individuals to expand their capabilities. In the capability approach, then, freedoms function as both a means and an end. Thus, while the capability approach provides the normative framework for assessment practices, recent work by Schwandt (2002, 2005, 2007, 2013) provides the theoretical and philosophical grounding for a moral practice of assessment and evaluation.

The practice of assessment and evaluation

For Schwandt, the practice of assessment is inextricably tied to the practice of teaching. Further, how teachers conceptualize the practice of teaching influences how they view other aspects of teaching, such as what they teach, how they teach, how children learn, and, importantly, how and what they assess. The complementary and reciprocal relationship of teaching and assessment practices means that how teachers view teaching should mirror their view of assessment.

When considering this relationship, Schwandt (2005) describes two types of practice. The two types of practice inform our understandings of teaching as well as assessment and evaluation. The types of practice are an instrumental-rational practice and a practice based on practical wisdom. The instrumental-rational view is based on Aristotle’s notion of techne, which objectifies the self, the other, and society. There is reliance on the application of scientific and rational knowledge to improve practice. Schwandt (2002: 44) says: “Knowledge is something that results from the faculty or capacity to reason in a way free from one’s standpoint, that is, independent of historical context, prejudices, tradition and so on.” The independence from contexts, traditions, and prejudices prevents any type of corrupting influence from obstructing and obtaining the ideally objective viewpoint. This view of rationality and objectification leads to a disengagement of individuals from their activities and the products of their efforts.

The second form of practice is based on Aristotle’s notion of praxis, which “is always related to our being and becoming a particular kind of person and requires a mode of knowledge called practical wisdom (phronesis)” (Schwandt, 2002: 49). Praxis in an Aristotelian sense can be thought of as “socially embedded action and ways of being” (2). Schwandt notes three essential characteristics of this type of praxis. The first is its mutability: practice changes from situation to situation and over time. A teacher’s practice continues to change and evolve for a variety of reasons. The key point is that practice is not static or set in time, but, rather, changing. Second, and relatedly, practice is contextual. Ways of acting and being are dependent on context—there is no “one size fits all” approach to teaching. Teaching practice changes in response to or in anticipation of the context in which it occurs. Finally, practice exhibits particularity. It is enacted “in the fine-grained particulars of specific situations” (49). Teachers and students are unique individuals engaged with one another through the relational practice of teaching (Hansen, 1999, 2001; Noddings, 1992). Unlike an instrumental view of practice concerned with effectiveness in meeting goals, teaching as praxis can provide “answers to questions about what goods a practice aims to realize, what it means to be a good practitioner and so on” (Schwandt, 2005: 98).

Reclaiming the moral discourse of assessment

Schwandt (2002: 154) notes the recent interest in the literature on participatory and collaborative forms of evaluation. These forms of assessment shift the role of evaluators from that of making value judgments on the quality and worth of educational programs to one “more like a facilitator or collaborator who supports the efforts of practitioners to evaluate their own practices.” Prominent in this shift is the notion of dialogue as an important feature of assessment. That assessment is a dialogical activity accords with the description of it as engaging both the evaluator and the one being evaluated—the teacher and the student—in a dialogue about a learning activity and its products.

Schwandt (2002) describes two types of dialogue—procedural and substantive—each type of dialogue enacts a form of practice described above. To wit, assessment based on procedural dialogue and an expert knowledge-rational practice evidences an instrumental, utilitarian type of assessment. Conversely, assessment based on substantive dialogue enacted in a practice of practical wisdom seeks a deeper understanding of self, others, and learning on the part of all involved.

An instrumental-rational form of practice enacts a procedural type of dialogue, which views assessment dilemmas as technical problems to be solved through expert knowledge with the belief that an answer can be found. Focus is on assessing the effectiveness of meeting goals and objectives—the extent to which students learn what was taught. A teacher can defend her assessment decisions on the grounds of expert knowledge. Schwandt (2002) says that the moral perspective of this view is limited because “[w]hen evaluation focuses exclusively on the provision of scientific evidence as the best means to improve social practice, it seals off moral inquiry” (31). Schwandt notes that “equipping the teacher with our best science and decision rules will do little to help her grasp the fact that in making evaluation decisions she is morally accountable” (22).

Assessment based on practical wisdom is a social practice that, according to Schwandt, is “morally engaged … in a dialogue about the moral meaning of practice” (34). This type of assessment demands a receptivity to the uniqueness of each individual involved. Assessment must be contextual, acknowledging particulars of the environment in which it takes place. Further, its form of engagement is relational rather than objective and instrumental. It calls for attention to the immediate details of students’ experiences, the activities in which they are engaged, and the physical and social environments in which those activities occur. Schwandt sees this type of assessment as a form of social criticism, the purpose of which is to “examine the concrete lived experiences of practitioners, seeking to understand and portray the virtues or the internal goods sought by practice” (35). Here, the evaluator “seeks to foster the posture of a reflective practitioner among stakeholders and is far more concerned with probing than proving” (36).

The question then arises: Does reclaiming the moral discourse on assessment mean conceptualizing assessment as a dialogue between the teacher and the student? The argument I am making here is that forms of practice are enacted through forms of dialogue. This places dialogue at the heart of teaching (Hansen, 1999, 2001). As the forms of practice reflect a philosophical stance, forms of dialogue reflect a moral stance. This, in turn, means that the form of dialogue reflects the nature of the relationship between the teacher and the student. Because dialogue reflects the moral stance of practice, and each of the two forms of practice reflect a type of assessment, it is the form of dialogue as embodied in a practice that imbues the corresponding assessment practices with moral significance. Reclaiming a moral discourse of assessment, then, means reclaiming a practice of teaching based on practices informed by moral forms of dialogue. Reclaiming the moral discourse is reclaiming the nature of the teacher–student relation that lies at the heart of assessment.

Assessment in early childhood education

Schwandt’s (2005: 104) practice of assessment describes teaching as a “site of human flourishing” because it is within the interactions between teacher and student that “we become aware of what it means to be human, to live together, to prosper (and not just function).” Similarly to Sen, Schwandt refers to “human flourishing” when describing teaching as a practice. Based on the capability approach, a moral approach to assessment would examine young children’s current abilities, what they can do and be, and the opportunities the environment affords them as a “means to achieve.” The environment, then, is assessed as an entity that can support or hinder young children’s learning and development, and, as such, it takes on moral significance. Based on the work of Schwandt and Sen, and consistent with the capability approach, the four points below can serve as guidelines for a moral practice of assessment in early childhood. The four principles are:

Teachers engage in assessment as a practice of practical wisdom by recognizing that assessment is contextual. Assessment must be cognizant of and sensitive to the particularities of the individuals involved and the settings in which learning occurs.

Children are active participants in the planning and gathering of assessment information. The focus is on children’s agency as learners and their participation as partners in dialogue about learning and assessment.

Assessment documents children’s learning from children’s and adults’ perspectives using multiple methods and sources. Communication between school and home is a vital part of assessment.

Assessment documents children’s knowledge and achievements, and the freedoms and opportunities the environment affords them in learning activities.

Examples of assessment which incorporate these principles can be found in the recent work of Adair and Colegrove (Adair, 2014; Adair and Colegrove, 2014; Colegrove and Adair, 2014) and of Carr and her colleagues (Carr, 2001; Carr and Lee, 2012; Carr et al., 2009). The assessment practices developed by Carr and her colleagues are used in a preschool setting, and while not specifically framing them with the capability approach, they are consistent with the capability approach’s principles as outlined above. The practices described in the work of Adair and Colegrove are drawn from a research project focusing on immigrant children in first grade.

Learning Stories in a preschool classroom

Learning Stories is a method of assessment developed by Carr (2001) and then expanded on with her colleagues (Carr and Lee, 2012; Carr et al., 2009). A central goal of Learning Stories is that teachers involve children as active agents in the selection of learning activities and in the assessment of their participation in those activities. A second goal is the use of a variety of methods, media, and technology to document the nature and quality of children’s participation in learning activities and the outcomes of those activities. A third goal is to document, along with children and their families, the children’s learning dispositions toward and during the learning activities. According to Carr (2001: 9–10): “Learning dispositions that take account of the situation can be defined as participation repertoires from which the learner recognizes, selects, edits, responds to, resists, searches for and constructs learning opportunities.”

Each goal aligns with one or more of the four principles listed above. Through Learning Stories, teachers and children gather data on children’s engagement in learning activities. Included are children’s descriptions of their plans and their goals for the activity, as well as their aspirations for and their dispositions toward the activity. There is recognition of the unique strengths, needs, and personality of each child as a person and learner. Children are supported and guided in the critical assessment of their activity toward reaching their goals, considering what may have helped and supported their efforts and factors that may have challenged their hoped-for progress.

Learning Stories makes it possible for children’s agency to be seen, heard, and experienced by themselves and others. The documentation process can involve teachers, other adults, and peers who have a significant role in children’s learning. Also captured are children’s reflections on their progress, the value they place on their work, and descriptions of how they addressed the challenges they encountered. Many forms of documentation record the processes and products of children’s decisions about what and how they learn, with whom they learn, and how and with whom they assess their work. The many forms can include, but are not limited to, written and spoken text, illustrations, photographs, other forms of artwork, and videos, along with the reflections of teachers, children, and parents on factors in the learning environment that may have encouraged, supported, or hindered children’s learning.

Supporting and documenting agency in first grade

Adair (2014) was the first researcher to consider the implications of the capability approach for early childhood education. Her research examines the opportunities children have to use their agency in early childhood contexts for their own learning and that of their peers. She conceptualizes agency within the context of schooling, and from a capability-approach perspective, as “being able to influence and make decisions about what and how something is learned in order to expand capabilities” (219). The following are offered as examples of children’s agency:

being able to help determine unit topics; experiment and engage in open-ended exploration and conversation; plan projects or help their friend with ideas; explore materials, text and other resources to generate content; and use their curiosity as motivation and inspiration for inventing, planning, designing and problem solving. (219)

Important here is that Adair includes both the “what” and the “how” in her definition of agency. Such agency, Adair notes, expands children’s learning and capabilities beyond narrowly focused curriculum, teaching, and assessment practices, which reduce children’s agency and restrict learning opportunities and the further development of more complex abilities and critical thinking.

Adair cites the example of Mary’s agency in her volcano project. In her volcano project, Mary engaged in all the activities listed above. The description that follows will focus, first, on how Mary used agency in assessment, both with her teacher and her peers, and then, more generally, on what assessment can look like when children are allowed to be agents in their assessment.

In a series of discussions with her teachers and peers at various points in her project, Mary responds to questions and, in doing so, engages in assessing and evaluating how she addressed the challenges she faced in building her volcano: what worked, what did not work, what she learned in this project, what she learned for future projects, how to use resources, and how to evaluate her planning, designing, and implementing. Likewise, Mary documents her progress on her project through writing, drawing, and building. The discussions, texts, drawing, photographs, and model all document Mary’s engagement in her volcano project and, as such, are forms and methods of assessment in which she was a central player.

A subsequent study by Adair and Colegrove (2014) documented how conceptualizing agency as expanding children’s capabilities counters deficit assumptions about children’s learning and development, particularly for immigrant children and English language learners. In the study, the authors describe communal agency in which children using “their agency to work in groups can expand social capabilities” (74). Taken together, these studies point to specific ways in which narrowly defined, standardized curricula limit children’s opportunities and freedom to be active agents in their own learning and in the assessment of their learning. Alternatively, teaching practices, curricula, and forms of assessment consistent with the principles of the capability approach, which envision children as active agents, support and promote children’s learning, development, and well-being.

Conclusion

Sen’s (1999: 291) capability approach defines development as the process of expanding individuals’ agency by increasing their freedom and “the opportunity to achieve outcomes that they value and have reason to value.” This definition enlarges our view of development and agency while presenting challenges to early childhood professionals as they seek to balance the extent they value children’s agency, well-being, and freedom with their moral responsibility for guiding children’s learning and development. These challenges are part of what makes teaching and assessment moral practices.

As a moral practice, assessment must examine the learner’s perspective when assessing how children use their agency in guiding their own learning, and the environment’s perspective to assess the opportunities for learning afforded children by the environment. The task of balancing assessment from these two perspectives is another moral challenge for teachers.

Schwandt provides a moral framework for guiding teachers’ assessment from both perspectives. The framework shifts assessment practices from being based exclusively on expert knowledge, which precludes learners’ perspectives, to being guided by practical wisdom that embraces praxis as “socially embedded action and ways of being” (Schwandt, 2002: 2). This shift changes a teacher’s role from seeing evaluation practice as a technical problem to be solved to one where she must “grasp the fact that in making evaluation decisions she is morally accountable” (22).

The assessment practices of Adair and Carr described above use multiple methods from multiple perspectives. As such, they capture the learning activity and the setting in which the activity occurs as examined from the perspective of the teacher and the child, and often the child’s family. The assessment data also documents the ways environmental factors—which include, but are not limited to, the teacher and other adults in the room, the child, and peers, and the social, physical, and cultural aspects of the classroom and school contexts—are gathered as part of the assessment. In this way, they demonstrate how the four principles derived from Schwandt’s work are enacted in ways that support children’s agency, well-being, and freedom.

Children’s agency is supported by the second and third principles, which actively involve children as agents in the planning and assessment of their learning. As agents in their own learning, children are given a voice in what they value and have reason to value. The second principle speaks to children’s freedom to make choices about what they learn, how they learn, and how their learning is assessed. Likewise, the fourth principle focuses on the freedoms and opportunities the environment affords children in learning activities. Children’s well-being is supported when teachers recognize that assessment must be contextual by acknowledging the particularities of learners and settings. Teachers also support children’s well-being when they honor the uniqueness of each individual child and how within each particular setting they can provide the means for each to flourish.

By following these principles, the teacher’s role shifts from framing assessment practices as technical problems to be solved to a role that requires her to “grasp the fact that in making evaluation decisions she is morally accountable” (Schwandt, 2002: 22). From a capability-approach perspective, assessment becomes a way “to explore a moral approach that sees persons from two different perspectives: well-being and agency,” both of which “have their own relevance in the assessment of states and actions. Each aspect also yields a corresponding notion of freedom” (Sen, 1985: 169; original emphasis).

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biography

Cary A Buzzelli, PhD, is professor of Early Childhood Education at Indiana University. He is a former preschool teacher. His research focuses on the moral dimensions of teaching in which he co-authored with Bill Johnston a number of articles and the book, The Moral Dimensions of Teaching (Routledge/Falmer, 2002). His current research examines the implications of the Capability Approach for teaching practices and assessment methods in early childhood education.

References

Adair

(2014) Agency and expanding capabilities in the early grades: What it could mean for young children in the early grades. Harvard Educational Review 84(2): 217–241.

Adair

Colegrove

(2014) Communal agency and social development: Examples from first grade classrooms serving children of immigrants. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education 8(2): 69–91.

Alkire

Deneulin

(2009) A normative framework for development. In: Deneulin

Shahani

(eds) An Introduction to the Human Development and Capability Approach: Freedom and Agency. Oxford: Earthscan and International Development Research Centre, pp. 3–21.

Ayers

(2004) Teaching the Personal and the Political: Essays on Hope and Justice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ayers

(2010) To Teach: The Journey of a Teacher. 3rd ed. New York. Teachers College Press.

Ballet

Biggeri

Comim

(2011) Children’s agency and the capability approach: A conceptual framework. In: Biggeri

Ballet

Comim

(eds) Children and the Capability Approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 22–45.

Barab

Roth

W-M

(2006) Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing from an ecological perspective. Educational Researcher 35(5): 3–13.

Buzzelli

(2015a) The capabilities approach: Rethinking agency, freedom and capital in early education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 16(3): 203–213.

Buzzelli

(2015b) How human capital theory sells early education short: Revaluing early education through the capabilities approach. In: Lightfoot

Peach

(eds) Questioning the Discourses of Human Capital in Early Childhood Education: Reconceptualizing Theory, Policy and Practice. New York: Palgrave, pp. 215–230.

10.

Buzzelli

(in press) Critical questions: A personal perspective. In: Brown

McMullen

File

(eds) Wiley Blackwell Publishing Handbook of Early Childhood Care and Education. Oxford, UK.

11.

Buzzelli

Johnston

(2002) The Moral Dimensions of Teaching: Language, Power and Culture in Classroom Interactions. New York: RoutledgeFalmer Press.

12.

Carr

(2001) Assessment in Early Childhood Settings: Learning Stories. London: Paul Chapman.

13.

Carr

Lee

(2012) Learning Stories: Constructing Learner Identities in Early Education. London: SAGE.

14.

Carr

Smith

Duncan

et al . (2009) Learning in the Making: Disposition and Design in Early Education. Rotterdam: Sense.

15.

Colegrove

Adair

(2014) Countering deficit thinking: Agency, capabilities and the early learning experiences of children of Latina/o immigrants. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 15(2): 122–135.

16.

Cooper

(2009) The Classrooms All Young Children Need: Lessons in Teaching from Vivian Paley. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

17.

Dahlberg

Moss

(2005) Ethics and Politics in Early Childhood Education. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

18.

Damon

(1988) The Moral Child: Nurturing Children’s Natural Moral Growth. New York: Free Press.

19.

DeVries

Zan

(2012) Moral Classrooms, Moral Children: Creating a Constructivist Atmosphere in Early Education (2nd ed). New York: Teachers College Press.

20.

Feeney

(2012) Professionalism in Early Childhood Education: Doing Our Best for Young Children. Boston, MA: Pearson.

21.

Freeman

Pizzolongo

Feeney

(2012) Ethics and the Early Childhood Educator: Using the NAEYC Code. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

22.

Gee

(2004) Situation Language and Learning: A Critique of Traditional Schooling. London: Routledge.

23.

Gee

(2008) A sociocultural perspective opportunity to learn. In: Moss

Pullin

Gee

et al . (eds) Assessment, Equity and Opportunity to Learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 76–108.

24.

Gibson

(1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

25.

Greeno

(1998) The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist 53(1): 5–17.

26.

Greeno

Gresalfi

(2008) Opportunities to learn in practice and identity. In: Moss

Pullin

Gee

et al . (eds) Assessment, Equity and Opportunity to Learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 170–199.

27.

Gullo

(2005) Understanding Assessment and Evaluation in Early Childhood Education. 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

28.

Hansen

(1999) Understanding students. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 14(2): 171–185.

29.

Hansen

(2001) Exploring the Moral Heart of Teaching: Toward a Teacher’s Creed. New York: Teachers College Press.

30.

Kagan

Lamb

(eds) (1987) The Emergence of Morality in Young Children. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

31.

Moss

(2008) Sociocultural implications for assessment. In: Moss

Pullin

Gee

et al . (eds) Assessment, Equity and Opportunity to Learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 222–258.

32.

Moss

Dahlberg

Grieshaber

et al . (2016) The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s International Early Learning Study: Opening for debate and contestation. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 17(3): 343–351.

33.

Moss

Urban

(2017) The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s International Early Learning Study: What happened next. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 18(2): 250–258.

34.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (2003) Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment and Evaluation: Building an Effective, Accountable System in Programs for Children Birth through Age 8. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

35.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (2011) Code of Ethical Conduct and Statement of Commitment. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

36.

Noddings

(1992) The Challenge to Care in Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

37.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2017) Early Learning Matters. Paris: OECD.

38.

Robeyns

(2005) The capability approach in practice. Journal of Political Philosophy 14(3): 351–376.

39.

Robeyns

(2006a) Three models of education: Rights, capabilities, and human capital. Theory and Research in Education 4(1): 69–84.

40.

Robeyns

(2006b) The capability approach in practice. Journal of Political Philosophy 14(3): 351–376.

41.

Saito

(2003) Amartya Sen’s capability approach to education: A critical exploration. Journal of Philosophy of Education 37(1): 17–33.

42.

Schwandt

(2002) Evaluation Practice Reconsidered. New York: Peter Lang.

43.

Schwandt

(2005) The centrality of practice to evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation 26(1): 95–105.

44.

Schwandt

(2007) Expanding the conversation on evaluation ethics. Evaluation and Program Planning 30(4): 400–403.

45.

Schwandt

(2013) On the mutually informing relationship between practice and theory in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation 35(2): 231–236.

46.

Sen

(1980) Equality of what? In: McMurrin

(ed.) The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press and Cambridge University Press, pp. 196–220.

47.

Sen

(1985) Well-being, agency and freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984. Journal of Philosophy 82(4): 169–221.

48.

Sen

(1992) Inequality Reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

49.

Sen

(1997) Human capital and human capability. World Development 25(12): 1959–1961.

50.

Sen

(1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

51.

Terzi

(2010) What metric of justice for disabled people? Capability and disability. In: Brighouse

Robeyns

(eds) Measuring Justice: Primary Goods and Capabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 150–173.

52.

Unterhalter

(2009) Education. In: Denuelin

Shahani

(eds) An Introduction to Human Development and Capability Approach. London: Earthscan, pp. 207–227.

53.

Walker

(2009) Selecting capabilities for gender equality in education. In: Walker

Unterhalter

(eds) Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach and Social Justice in Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 177–196.

The moral dimensions of assessment in early childhood education

Abstract

Keywords

The capability approach

The capability approach and assessment

OTL and the capability approach

The moral dimensions of assessment

The practice of assessment and evaluation

Reclaiming the moral discourse of assessment

Assessment in early childhood education

Learning Stories in a preschool classroom

Supporting and documenting agency in first grade

Conclusion

Footnotes

Funding

Author biography

References