Search

This article describes the development of the Early Elementary Writing Rubric (EEWR), an analytic assessment designed to measure kindergarten and first-grade writing and inform educators’ instruction. Crocker and Algina’s (1986) approach to instrument development and validation was used as a guide to create and refine the writing measure. Study 1 describes the development of the 10-item measure (response scale ranges from 0 = Beginning of Kindergarten to 5 = End of First Grade). Educators participated in focus groups, expert panel review, cognitive interviews, and pretesting as part of the instrument development process. Study 2 evaluates measurement quality in terms of score reliability and validity. Data from writing samples produced by 634 students in kindergarten and first-grade classrooms were collected during pilot testing. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the EEWR. A one-factor model fit the data for all writing genres and all scoring elements were retained with loadings ranging from 0.49 to 0.92. Internal consistency reliability was high and ranged from .89 to .91. Interrater reliability between the researcher and participants varied from poor to good and means ranged from 52% to 72%. First-grade students received higher scores than kindergartners on all 10 scoring elements. The EEWR holds promise as an acceptable, useful, and psychometrically sound measure of early writing. Further iterative development is needed to fully investigate its ability to accurately identify the present level of student performance and to determine sensitivity to developmental and instruction gains.

This article describes the development and administration of a survey to identify early childhood educators’ successes and barriers when delivering remote instruction (e.g., online whole or small group instruction) during the COVID-19 pandemic to children 2–5 years old. The survey was developed using procedures outlined by the commonly accepted stages of an instrument development process. Content validity was established using four approaches: (a) identification of the purpose of the survey, (b) creation of a blueprint of items, (c) cognitive interviews, and (d) expert panel review. A total of 1,053 early childhood educators began the survey, with 808 (77%) of the responses included because educators met the inclusion criteria of working in the United States and responding to at least one question related to remote instruction. The survey contained 37 closed-ended and six open-ended items covering eight domains: (a) demographic information; (b) preparation, guidelines, and materials for remote learning; (c) caregiver communication and engagement; (d) assessment; (e) instruction; (f) educators’ levels of confidence before and after remote learning; (g) access to services (i.e., wraparound and/or special education); and (h) planning for the return to face-to-face instruction. Both quantitative (descriptive, t-test, regression, ANOVA, and Chi-square tests) and consensual qualitative research analyses were applied to summarize the survey results. Findings from this survey indicated that even with limited or no guidance from administrators, educators successfully adapted to remote instruction and their levels of confidence increased over time. Ongoing improvements need to be made to sustain regular communication with all families, to offer access to technology (i.e., devices and internet), to administer assessments or universal screeners, and to provide cohesive guidelines and expectations. Results from this study begin to shed light on early childhood educators’ adaptation to remote instruction as a result of COVID-19. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10643-021-01216-y.

The limited research available on writing in Grade 1 led to the development and implementation of an intervention for students who were performing below expectations. Ten students participated in a...

PurposeThis article describes the iterative development of a home review program designed to augment vocabulary instruction for young children (ages 4 and 5 years) occurring at school through the use of a home review component.MethodA pilot study followed by two experiments used adapted alternating treatment designs to compare the learning of academic words taught at school to words taught at school and reviewed at home. At school, children in small groups were taught academic words embedded in prerecorded storybooks for 6 weeks. Children were given materials such as stickers with review prompts (e.g., “Tell me whatbravemeans”) to take home for half the words. Across iterations of the home intervention, the home review component was enhanced by promoting parent engagement and buy-in through in-person training, video modeling, and daily text message reminders. Visual analyses of single-subject graphs, multilevel modeling, and social validity measures were used to evaluate the additive effects and feasibility of the home review component.ResultsSocial validity results informed each iteration of the home program. The effects of the home program across sites were mixed, with only one site showing consistently strong effects. Superior learning was evident in the school + home review condition for families that reviewed words frequently at home. Although the home review program was effective in improving the vocabulary skills of many children, some families had considerable difficulty practicing vocabulary words.ConclusionThese studies highlight the importance of using social validity measures to inform iterative development of home interventions that promote feasible strategies for enhancing the home language environment. Further research is needed to identify strategies that stimulate facilitators and overcome barriers to implementation, especially in high-stress homes, to enrich the home language environments of more families.