An Unclear Task? The Perspectives of Swedish Preschool and Special Needs Teachers on their Role in Assessing and Documenting Child Development

Maja Erlandsson, Christina Gustavsson, P. Karlsudd
{"title":"An Unclear Task? The Perspectives of Swedish Preschool and Special Needs Teachers on their Role in Assessing and Documenting Child Development","authors":"Maja Erlandsson, Christina Gustavsson, P. Karlsudd","doi":"10.47985/dcidj.457","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study explored how preschool and special needs teachers in Sweden perceive their own role and the role of each other in the preschools’ documentation and assessment practices. It examines the possible consequences of this perception and of the actions based on it for children with special needs. Method: The study took a qualitative approach. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven special needs teachers and seven preschool teachers from different schools and municipalities. Results: The results show that the preschool and special needs teachers’ roles regarding assessment and documentation, as described and specified in the curriculum, are contradictory and difficult. Assessing an individual child’s knowledge development by observing and documenting the child group was regarded as problematic by both occupational groups, and further training in assessments was sought. Conclusion and Implications: Clear differences were found between the way in which preschool teachers and special needs teachers performed observations and assessments and documented them. Preschool teachers mainly used participant observations at a group level, while special needs teachers were usually tasked with observing a particular child. Preschool teachers’ reluctance to document the performance of individual children might result in children’s special needs remaining hidden. It is important to find methods which endorse assessments that allow for and appreciate diversity, and that are not based on normative notions which often result in differentiating between children and dividing them into different groups of learners based on their perceived level of knowledge. Limitations: From the interview results, it has sometimes been difficult to differentiate between the concepts of observation, documentation and assessment as they are often parts of a whole within the context of preschools. As the survey was of limited scope, the results cannot be generalised to all Swedish preschools, but the data obtained could provide important guidance for further work with inclusive preschools.","PeriodicalId":127712,"journal":{"name":"Disability, CBR & Inclusive Development","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disability, CBR & Inclusive Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47985/dcidj.457","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study explored how preschool and special needs teachers in Sweden perceive their own role and the role of each other in the preschools’ documentation and assessment practices. It examines the possible consequences of this perception and of the actions based on it for children with special needs. Method: The study took a qualitative approach. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven special needs teachers and seven preschool teachers from different schools and municipalities. Results: The results show that the preschool and special needs teachers’ roles regarding assessment and documentation, as described and specified in the curriculum, are contradictory and difficult. Assessing an individual child’s knowledge development by observing and documenting the child group was regarded as problematic by both occupational groups, and further training in assessments was sought. Conclusion and Implications: Clear differences were found between the way in which preschool teachers and special needs teachers performed observations and assessments and documented them. Preschool teachers mainly used participant observations at a group level, while special needs teachers were usually tasked with observing a particular child. Preschool teachers’ reluctance to document the performance of individual children might result in children’s special needs remaining hidden. It is important to find methods which endorse assessments that allow for and appreciate diversity, and that are not based on normative notions which often result in differentiating between children and dividing them into different groups of learners based on their perceived level of knowledge. Limitations: From the interview results, it has sometimes been difficult to differentiate between the concepts of observation, documentation and assessment as they are often parts of a whole within the context of preschools. As the survey was of limited scope, the results cannot be generalised to all Swedish preschools, but the data obtained could provide important guidance for further work with inclusive preschools.
任务不明确?瑞典学前和特殊需要教师在评估和记录儿童发展中的作用
目的:本研究探讨了瑞典的幼儿园和特殊需要教师如何看待他们自己的角色以及在幼儿园的文件和评估实践中彼此的角色。它审查了这种看法和基于这种看法的行动对有特殊需要的儿童可能产生的后果。方法:采用定性方法。对来自不同学校和城市的7名特殊需要教师和7名学前教师进行了个别半结构化访谈。结果:结果表明,课程中对学前和特殊需要教师在评估和记录方面的角色描述和规定是矛盾的和困难的。通过观察和记录儿童群体来评估单个儿童的知识发展,这两个职业群体都认为是有问题的,因此需要寻求进一步的评估培训。结论与启示:幼儿教师与特殊需要教师进行观察、评估和记录的方式存在明显差异。幼儿教师主要在群体层面上使用参与者观察,而特殊需要教师通常负责观察特定的孩子。幼儿教师不愿意记录个别儿童的表现可能导致儿童的特殊需要被隐藏。重要的是要找到支持评估的方法,允许和欣赏多样性,而不是基于规范性概念,因为规范性概念往往导致区分儿童,并根据他们的认知知识水平将他们划分为不同的学习者群体。局限性:从访谈结果来看,有时很难区分观察、记录和评估的概念,因为它们通常是幼儿园背景下整体的一部分。由于调查范围有限,结果不能推广到所有瑞典幼儿园,但获得的数据可以为进一步开展包容性幼儿园工作提供重要指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信