University and Journal Logo

Journal of Equity in Sciences and Sustainable Development (JESSD) (Optional)

2021, VOL 4 No. 2, 1-21
Copyright © Madda Walabu University
ISSN: 2523-1901 (Online)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20372/mwu.jessd.2021.1521
Teachers' Knowledge and Practice of Child Learning Assessment in Private and Public
Pre- Schools. The Case of Shashemene City Administration, Oromia Region.
Birhanu Jima*, Nagash Hikasa, Ayele Kumsa
College of Education and Behavioral Studies, Madda Walabu University Bale Robe, Ethiopia
Corresponding Email: [email protected]

Article History
Received 15 February 2021 and Accepted 11 October 2021

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess teachers' knowledge and practice of child learning
assessment in Shashemene city administration. In this study, a parallel convergent mixed
research design was employed. A total of 10 private and 6 public pre-schools were involved
in the study. In particular, a total of 117 samples, including 97 teachers, 16 school principals,
and 4 cluster supervisors were recruited for data collection using questionnaires and
interviews. In addition, focus group discussions, with a total of 24 participants were
conducted among the key stakeholders of the pre-schools. Quantitative data were analyzed
using descriptive statistics (percentage, frequency, mean and independent t-test). Qualitative
data were analyzed using a narrative and thematic description. The result shows that teachers
do not have adequate knowledge and practice of child learning assessment and implementing
different assessment techniques. The result also indicates that challenges such as a high ratio
of children to teachers, lack of learning resources, and lack of proper supervision affect child
learning assessment in the selected pre-schools. Therefore, better training for teachers, better
management follow-up, parents' active participation in following up their children's results,
equipping their children with proper knowledge, facilitating good and effective assessment
practice in early childhood care and education need to be considered.
Keywords: Child learning assessment, knowledge, practice, and Shashemene
Introduction

Child assessment plays an important role in early childhood education and care (ECEC).
Effective child assessment can provide baseline data on the knowledge, understanding, and
skills of children. This, in turn, is used to develop curricula that strengthen competencies and
provide appropriate experiences to support the learning and development of children. In
addition, information obtained from child assessment can contribute to making decisions
about issues such as identifying children with special needs during intervention programs and
moving children’s between levels as well as communicating with parents, administrators,
legislators, interested parties in the community, and other professionals (Kwi-Ok Nah, 2011).
Therefore, child assessment should constitute an integral part of educational programs.

When we look back to the concern and attention given to early childhood education and care,
there has been little work done in Ethiopia. The 1994 Education and Training Policy states
that preprimary education helps children to get ready for primary school. The program takes
three years and gives children to express their feelings, investigate their environment, and
learning numbers. This policy put forward the need for a holistic child assessment approach
at an early age as "kindergarten” focuses on the inclusive development of the child, especially
in preparation for formal schooling (MoE, 2010). It is critical that assessment is a learning
process and a vital growing component of high-quality early childhood learning programs.
Therefore, it is very important to review if its practices are helping and facilitating teaching
and learning.

However, there are few studies that were conducted in relation to teachers' knowledge and
practice of child learning assessment in Ethiopia. For instance, Firehiwot (2016) conducted
the same research and she reported that the statistical profile of preschool teachers shows that
about 15.3% of the teachers in Addis Ababa alone were not trained for preschool education.
Hence, to the researchers’ knowledge, there is no scientific study regarding investigating
teachers' knowledge, and practices of child learning assessment, particularly in Shashemene
city administration. The finding of this study helps as a baseline for concerned bodies to
focus on the importance of teachers' knowledge and practice of child learning assessment for
preschools and improve the quality of early childhood education. Accordingly, the following
basic research questions were formulated.  
1. What is the level of teachers' knowledge and practice of child learning assessment in
 pre-schools?
2. What are the benefits of child learning assessment for young children learning?
3. What are the factors affecting teachers’ child learning assessment in pre-school?
Materials and Methods
Study area description
This study was conducted in Shashemene city administration of Oromia regional state
extending from 40028 to 40050 E longitude and 08010 to 08043 N latitude with an area of
768.88km2. Shashemane is located 250km south of Addis Ababa at the edge or escarpment of
East African Rift Valley (figure 3.1) the location made the area adjacent to high land and low
land having the agro-ecological zones Kolla (tropical), woinadega (subtropical), and Dega
(high land).

Shashemene

Figure1: Location of the study area.

According to the 2007 report of CSA, the City has a total of 290,000 populations that lives in
8 sub-cities. According to the report of 2007 Shashemene City statistical center, the City is
the center of business and also consists of different service giving institutions like Banks,
Insurances, Colleges, Schools, and nationally communicating roads or gateways by which
Addis Ababa, Wando, Arbaminch, Hawassa, and Bale are connecting each other which makes
the city center of business.
Research approach and design
In this study, a mixed-method (quantitative and qualitative), with the parallel convergent
design was used to generate and analyze data obtained from diverse groups of respondents.
The design is convenient in collecting extensive quantifiable data from a large sample of
respondents within a short period.

Data sources
The primary data for this study was collected from kindergarten teachers, supervisors,
principals, and pre-primary education experts at city administration; whereas, the secondary
data was obtained from documents like a worksheet, assessment type, lesson plan schedule,
assessment checklist, children's portfolios, and teachers’ portfolio.

Samples and sampling techniques

In this study, using a simple random sampling technique ten (10) private pre-primary namely:
Lucy 03, Bright Head start, Biruh Edget Fana, Abune Teklehaimanot, catholic 04, Golden
Bridge, Farma, Yawonta, Paradise Valley, and Lead Star were selected. Regarding sample
sizes, using simple random sampling techniques, a total of 78 respondents were selected to
give an equal chance of being selected in the study. By employing the purposive sampling
technique, six (6) public pre-primary schools including Biherawi, Burka Bekumsa, Malka
Esa, Burka Gudina, Birbirsa karata, and Edu Madda were also selected. With regard to the
total samples of the study, 97 kindergarten teachers, 4 supervisors, and 16 school Principals
were selected, and as well as 1 city education expert was selected by employing the
availability sampling technique because this respondent was the only option to be included in
the study.
Data collection instruments

In this study, questionnaires, unstructured interviews, focus group discussions, and document
analysis was used to collect the data. A questionnaire was selected in collecting the data
because the numbers of respondents in the groups were large. Thus, a questionnaire is an
appropriate instrument to collect large-scale quantitative data from large numbers of people
(Creswell, 2007). Data collection in this study consisted of one questionnaire which was
adopted by the researchers. On the other hand, an interview was employed to collect factual
and detailed information from 3 public and 6 private preschools teachers, principals, and
cluster supervisors. This was done using guided interview questions as this type of interview
allows more flexibility and the new question can be forwarded based on the response of
previous questions.

Focus Group Discussion is a special type of group interview (Johnson and Christensen,
2004), which was often used to triangulate information obtained by using other data
collection instruments. The researcher led the discussions with 24 kindergarten teachers and
principals dividing into 6 groups, each group contains 4 members of teachers. In addition,
document analysis is the other essential data collecting tool in this study. Documents that are
found in the preschools such as assessment type, lesson plan, schedule, assessment checklist,
students’ portfolio, and teachers’ portfolio were reviewed to obtain deep information and data
about the child learning assessment implementation in preschools.

Data Analysis Methods

According to Kothari, (2004), data analysis refers to the method by which the data collected
through one or more data collecting instruments have been properly edited and then
organized in the forms of tables and analyzed by applying various statistical tools. To
analyze and interpret the collected data, the integration of quantitative and qualitative data
analysis was employed. In this study, the response that was obtained from the questionnaire
was analyzed quantitatively using SPSS version 20. In particular descriptive statistics such
as frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation and an inferential statistical tool
such as an independent t-test were used. On the other hand, data collected from an
interview, focus group discussion, and document analysis was organized, summarized, and
analyzed systematically using narrative and quotation approach that substantiates with
quantitative analysis. 

Results and Discussion

The major demographic characteristics of respondents were sex, age, education level, and
work experiences.
Table 1: Background Information of the respondents

R.No Variables Administration Teachers

1 Sex No % No %
Male 8 40 - -
Female 12 60 97 100
2 Age
Below 20 - - - -
21-30 6 30 40 41.2
31-40 10 50 52 53.6
 Above 40 4 20 5 5.1
Total 20 100 97 100
3 Work experience
<1 year
1--5 y ears 5 25 10 10.3
6-10 years 9 45 53 54.6
>10 years 6 30 34 35
Total 20 100 97 100
4 Educational Level
Certificate 9 45 57 58.8
Diploma 4 20 40 41.2
Degree 7 35 - -
Total 20 100 97 100
Source: Field survey January, 2020

As indicated in Table 1 above, all teachers in the KGs under research were females. As
Chowdhury and Chaudhry (2002), priority should be given to females to be trained as
teachers in the kindergarten because they are naturally endowed with motherly care which is
very important for the children at that level (Chowdhury and Chaudhury 2002: 145). On the
other hand, 8(40%) principals were males while the remaining 12(60%) administrators and
97(100%) of the teachers were females.

The result showed that 40(41.2%) teachers and 6(30%) administrators were between the ages
of 21-30 years. The other 52(53.6%) teachers and 10(50%) administrators were between 31-
40 years. Thus the majority of the respondents were in this age group and the rest were very
few 5(5.1%) teachers and 4(20%) administrators were in the age group of above 40 years.
This revealed that most teachers and administrators lie in a very active and productive age
which is required for the task that is needed in early childhood education. This is because the
amount of playtime and physical activity is much greater than the higher level. The teachers’,
as well as the principals’ age, were found matured to understand the purpose of the study and
respond appropriately.

Regarding the experience 10(10.3%) of teachers and 5(25%) of administration had work
experience ranging between one and five years. Whereas, 53(54.6%) of teachers and 9(45%)
of administration had work experience ranging between six and ten years. The other 34(35%)
of teachers and 6(30%) of administrators had a work experience of above ten years. This
shows even if the teachers are young, yet they have good experience to deliver the required
child nurturing and development.
 Concerning the teachers' qualifications, 57(58.8%) of teachers and 9(45%) administrators
have a certificate in ECCE education. This means the educational level of the participants is
above the minimum standard of MOE which states that the minimum requirement of pre-
school teachers’ education level is 10 grades complete. 40(41.2%) teachers and 4(20%)
administration staffs have a diploma in other education. While 7(35) of administration staffs
have B.A degree. This implies that half of the percentage of the teachers and administration
staff were not trained in KG education training.

Table 2: Teachers’ and principals' knowledge towards child learning assessment

N Items Responde N DA U A Mean SD Sig
% % %
o. nts
1 Teachers do know how, Teachers 97 55(56.7) 12(12.4) 30(30.9) 2.69 1.253 0.343
Principals 20 15(75) 1(5) 4(20) 2.40 1.188
when, what, and why to Total 117 70(59.8) 13(11.1) 34(29.1) 2.55 1.221
assess
2 Teachers know the Teachers 97 80(82.5) 4(4.1) 13(13.4) 2.16 1.038 0.591
Principals 20 17(85) - 3(15) 2.30 0.923
applications of child
Total 117 97(83) 4(3.4) 16(13.6) 2.23 0.981
assessment techniques
for children learning
3 The teachers Teachers 97 70(72.1) 3(3.1) 24(24.7) 2.45 1.155 0.201
Principals 20 18(90) - 2(10) 2.10 0.912
understand the area that
Total 117 88(75.2) 3(2.6) 26(22.2) 2.28 1.034
is covered regarding
the assessment of pre-
school children.
4 The teachers know Teachers 97 75(77.3) 10(10.3) 12(12.4) 2.26 0.930 0.480
Principals 20 18(90) - 2(10) 2.10 0,718
about the policies and
Total 117 93(79.5) 10(8.5) 14(12) 2.18 0.824
guidelines in place
regarding pre-school
children assessment.
5 The teachers know how 97 65(67) 5(5.2) 27(27.8) 2.53 1.316 0.384
Principals 20 17(85) - 3(15) 2.25 1.118
to communicate
Total 117 82(70) 5(4.3) 30(25.7) 2.39 1.217
assessment results with
parents
Source: Field survey January 2020

Note: A= agree, U= undecided, DA= disagree and N= Population, and to analyze this data the
researcher merged strongly agree and agree= "Agree", Disagree and strongly disagree =
“Disagree".
Regarding item no 1 of Table (2) above, 55(56.7%) of teachers and the majority 15(75%) of
principal respondents were not known how, when, what, and why to assess. The rest 13
(11.1%) and34 (29.1%) of the total respondents rated undecided and agree respectively. The
mean score of teachers and principals were 2.69 and 2.40 respectively. This shows that there
was no significant difference in mean scores between teacher respondents and principal
respondents (p-value> 0.05). This affirmed that teachers do not know how, when, what, and
why to assess. To substantiate this finding during document analysis the researcher observed
the teachers' educational background 40(41.2%) teachers and 4(20%) principals have a
diploma in other education. While 7(35) of principals have B.A degree. This implies that half
of the percentage of the teachers and principals were not trained in relating to early childhood
education.

Concerning this, the knowledge and educational background relating to early childhood
education is seen to greatly contribute to the ease of which assessment is understood and
conducted, supporting what has been found in many other studies (Basford & Bath, 2014;
Ridzwan & Mokhsein, 2017; Buldu, 2010; Chilvers, 2002; National Research Council,
2001; Payler, 2009).

Regarding item no 2 of Table 2, the respondents were asked the degree to which teachers
know the applications of child assessment techniques for children learning. Accordingly, the
majority 97(83%) of the respondents (teachers and principals) replied disagree. Whereas,
only 4(3.4%) and 16(13.6%) of the respondents rated undecided and agree respectively. The
average mean score for teacher (M= 2.16, SD = 1.038) and principals (M = 2.30, SD =
0.923). The variation in responses was also confirmed by the t-test (P-value> 0.05) shows
there is no statistical significance difference between the teacher and principal respondents.
This confirmed that teachers do not know the applications of child assessment techniques for
children learning. 
It was further supported by one of the participants in FGD. She asserts that:

I apply different approaches to assess children learning through formal testing, quiz,
and worksheet and ask a question because it is easy to identify the strength and
weakness of children in academic achievement. (January, 2020).

In contrast to this finding, NAEYC (2009) and NAECS/SDE (2003: 10) state that often
people think of child assessment as formal testing only, but the assessment has many
components and many purposes. Child assessment methods include observation,
documentation of children's work, checklists and rating scales, and portfolios.

Regarding item no 3 of the same table above, respondents were asked the level of teachers’
understanding of the area that is covered regarding pre-school children assessment.
Accordingly, the majority 88(75.2%) of the respondents (teachers and principals) replied
disagree. The rest 3(2.6%) and 26 (22.2%) of them rated undecided and agree respectively.
The mean score of teachers and principals was 2.28 which is below the average. There was
no significant difference between teachers and principals (p-value >0.05). This confirmed that
teachers do not understand the area that is covered regarding the assessment of pre-school
children.

As can be seen from item no 4 of table 2 above, the respondents were asked to rate the degree
to which the teachers know about the policies and guidelines in place regarding pre-school
children assessment, and the majority 93(79.5) of the total respondents (teachers and
principals) perceived that they have no awareness of the policies and guidelines regarding
child learning assessment in the pre-school. Only 14(8.5%) of respondents agreed that
teachers and principals know the policies and guidelines of implementing child learning
assessment; whereas 10(8.5%) of respondents rated undecided. The mean score of teachers
and principals was 2.18 which is also below the average. The t-test result showed that there
was no significant difference between teachers and principals (p-value >0.05). This
confirmed that teachers do not know about the policies and guidelines in place regarding pre-
school children's assessment.

Item no 5 of Table 2 indicates that the respondents were asked the extent of teachers’
knowledge of how to communicate assessment results with parents, and the majority
82(70%) of the respondents (teachers and principals) replied disagree. The rest 5(4.3%) and
30 (25.7 of the respondents rated undecided and agree respectively. The mean score of
teachers and principals was 2.39 which is below the average. The result of the t-test shows
that there was no significant difference between teachers and principals (p-value >0.05). This
confirmed that teachers do not know how to communicate assessment results with parents.
This result was further supported by one of the interview participants. She states:

…we meet two times a year with the parents, they formally communicate the
results through marks but in an informal way by explaining to each parent
 where their child has reached aspects of all development in his/her physical,
affective, social, and cognitive development. (January, 2020).

Benefits of Child Learning Assessment

Table 3.Teachers’ and principals’ response based on the benefits of child learning assessment
No. Items Responden N DA U A Mean SD Sig
ts % % %
1 Monitor child learning and Teachers 97 13(13.4) 2(2.1) 82(84.5) 3.78 0.881 0.311
Principals 20 6(30) - 14(70) 4.00 0.795
developmental progress.
Total 117 19(16.2) 2(1.7) 96(82.1) 3.89 0.838
2 Check the effectiveness of Teachers 97 22(22.7) 10(10.3) 65(67) 3.61 1.132 0.606
Principals 20 3(15) 1(5) 16(80) 3.75 1.020
the educational program
Total 117 25(21.4) 11(9.4) 81(69.2) 3.68 1.076
3 Identify children who may Teachers 97 22(22.7) 5(5.2) 70(72.2) 3.64 1.023 0.180
Principals 20 - - 20(100) 4.20 0.410
need further assistance
Total 117 22(18.8) 5(4.3) 90(76.9) 3.92 0.717
4 Identify strengths of the Teachers 97 19(19.6) 6(6.2) 72(74.2) 3.59 1.106 0.324
young children Principals 20 2(10) 1(5) 17(85) 3.85 0.938
Total 117 21(17.9) 7(5.9) 89(76.2) 3.72 1.022
5 Identify weaknesses of the Teachers 97 10(10.3) 1(1) 86(88.7) 3.79 0.841 0.261
Principals 20 4(20) 2(10) 14(70) 3.55 1.050
young children
Total 117 14(11.9) 3(2.6) 100(85.5) 3.67 0.946
6 Encourage parents’ full Teachers 97 5(5.2) - 92(94.8) 3.90 0.568 0.721
Principals 20 2(10) - 18(90) 3.95 0.759
participation in the
Total 117 7(5.9) - 110(94.1) 3.93 0.664
assessment process.
7 Providing information that Teachers 97 14(14.4) 3(3,1) 80(82.5) 3.77 1.016
can be used to inform their Principals 20 - 2(10) 18(90) 4.15 0.587 0.112
caregivers and teachers, to
improve the quality of their Total 117 14(11.9) 5(4.3) 98(83.8) 3.96 0.802

care and educational

environments
8 Assessment result used as a Teachers 97 32(33) 6(6.2) 59(60.8) 3.35
Principals 20 8(40) - 12(60) 4.20
base for promotion 0.159
Total 117 40(34.2) 6(5.1) 71(60.7) 3.78

Source: Field survey January 2020

Note: A= agree, U= undecided, DA= disagree and N= Population, and to analyze this data the
researcher merged strongly agree and agree= "Agree", Disagree and strongly disagree =
“Disagree".

Regarding item no 1 of Table 3, the respondents asked about monitoring child learning and
developmental progress, and the majority 96 (82.1%) of the respondents replied agree. The
remaining 2(1.7%) and 19(16.2%) of them rated undecided and disagree respectively towards
monitoring child learning and developmental progress. The mean score of teachers and
principals was 3.78 and 4.00 respectively. This shows that there was no significant difference
in mean scores between teacher respondents and principal respondents (p-value> 0.05). The
following are the interactions made during the interview with the teachers collaborates what
emerged from the questionnaire data:

The benefits of assessment are to evaluate their physical, mental, and social
development, and help their learning grow, help their knowledge grow to
assess their academic potential to decide if a child should repeat or not.
(January, 2020).

This finding is further supported by Gullo (2005) states that assessment in early childhood
education serves different purposes and benefits. The most valued purposes and benefits of
assessment in early childhood education are to monitor child learning and development. As
indicated in Table 3, the majority 81 (69.2%) of the respondents (teachers and principals)
replied agree. The rest 11(9.4%) and 25 (21.4%) of the total respondents rated undecided and
disagree respectively. It was also further supported in the analysis that the mean score of
teacher and principal respondents was 3.61 and 3.75 respectively which shows that there was
no significant difference in mean scores (p-value>0.05). This affirmed that child assessment
checks the appropriateness or effectiveness of the educational program.

In Table 3, the respondents were asked about identifying children who may need further
assistance and the result showed that the majority 90(76.9%) of the total respondents
(teachers and principals) replied agree. The rest 5(4.3%) and 22(18.8%) of the total
respondents rated undecided and disagree respectively. As the result in table 3 noted, the
mean score of teacher and principal respondents was 3.64 and 4.20 respectively. This shows
that there was no significant mean difference between teacher respondents and principal
respondents (p-value>0.05). This confirmed that child assessment identifies children who
may need further assistance. This finding is supported by Snow and Hemel (2008:32) child
assessment data used for planning activities and tracking learning collected individually
about all children in a program or classroom can be used at the individual child level to
identify children who may need further assistance of the group as a whole and at the center or
school level.

Regarding item 4 in Table 3, the respondents were asked to identify the strengths of the
young children and the result reveals that the majority 89 (76.2%) of the total respondents
(teachers and principals) replied agree. The rest 7(5.9%) and 21(17.9%) of the total
respondents rated undecided and disagree respectively. There was also no significant mean
difference among teacher respondents (M=3.59, SD=1.106) and principal respondents (M =
3.85, SD = 0.933) (p-value>0.05). This confirmed that child assessment is critical to identify
the strengths of the children. These findings further supported by Snow and Hemel
(2008:32) in a sense that child assessment data used for planning activities and tracking
learning collected individually about all children in a program or classroom can be used at
the individual child level to identify strengths and weaknesses of the group as a whole and at
the center/school level.

Regarding item 5 in Table 3, the respondents were asked to identify weaknesses of the
young children, and the result unfolds that the majority100 (85.5%) of the total respondents
replied agree. The rest 3(2.6%) and14 (11.9%) of the respondents rated undecided and
disagree respectively. These findings also further supported in the t-test that the mean
differences between teacher respondents (M=3.79, SD=0.841) and principal respondents (M
= 3.55, SD = 1.050) were not statistically significant (p-value >0.05). This approved that
child assessment helps to identify the weaknesses of the children. 

Regarding item 6 in Table 3, the respondents were asked about the encouragement of parents’
full participation in an assessment process, and the result shows that the majority 110 (94.1%)
of respondents replied agree and the rests 7(5.9%) of the respondents rated disagree. The
result of the  t-test reveals that the mean difference between teacher respondents (M=3.90,
SD=0.568) and principal respondents (M = 3.95, SD = 0.759) was not statistically significant
(p-value>0.05). This affirmed that child assessment encourages parents to participate in the
child learning assessment process. This result was also supported by one of the interview
participants. She states as follows:

… Child assessment process is benefits for the parents because it gives them
an insight through the assessment information to what the children are
currently doing and how they can get involved in their children’s learning and
development”. Interview participant, (January, 2020).

This finding is further supported by Birbili and Tzioga (2014). As the authors noted,
collaborating with parents in documenting and reflecting on children’s learning and
development is important not only because it provides teachers with richer and more accurate
information but also because it helps parents to understand the role assessment can play in
children's learning and motivation. Moreover, when parents are provided with opportunities
to observe, record, and reflect on their children’s learning they are able both to see the ‘acts
and products’ of learning and to appreciate their child’s progress, efforts, successes, and
achievements over time.

Regarding item 7 in Table 3, the respondents were asked about providing information that can
be used to inform their caregivers and teachers, to improve the quality of their care and
educational environments. The result shows that the majority 98(83.8%) of the respondents
replied agree. The rest 5(4.3%) and14 (11.9%) of the respondents rated undecided and
disagree respectively. The result of the t-test reveals that the mean difference between teacher
respondents (M=3.77, SD=1.016) and principal respondents (M = 4.15, SD = 0.587), was not
statistically significant (p-value>0.05). This approved that child assessment provides
information that can be used to inform their caregivers and teachers, to improve the quality of
their care and educational environments, and to identify child risk factors that can be
remedied. This fining was supported by Snow & Hemel (2008).

In Table 3, the respondents were also asked about the assessment result which is used as a
base for promotion, and the result shows that the majority 71 (60.7%) of them replied agree,
and 6(5.1%) and of teachers and 40(34.2%) of principal respondents rated undecided. As the
result indicates, the mean difference between teacher respondents (M=3.35, SD=1.031) and
principal respondents (M = 2.20, SD = 1.436), was statistically significant (p-value< 0.05).
However, since the majority of respondents were agreed, the assessment result was used as a
base for promotion. To support this idea group discussion was held with teachers and one of
the participants perceived that:

… the assessment result is used as a baseline for promotion because we need

the means to justify whether a child can pass to the next level or not. Interview
Participant, (January, 2020).

This finding is in contrast with MoE (2010:29) that suggests assessment should not be used
as a basis for promotion, retention, or selection which means it must not be used to label the
child.

Factors that affect Child learning Assessment

Table 4.Teachers and principals' response towards the factors that affecting child learning
assessment.
No. Items Respondents N Low Medium High Mean SD Sig
% % %
1 Teachers do not know child Teachers 97 9(9.3) 11(11.3) 77(79.4) 4.21 1.070
 Principals 20 4(20) 2(10) 14(70) 3.70 1.302
Total 117 13(11.1) 13(11.1) 91(77.8) 3.96 1.186
2 Parents do not give Teachers 97 21(21.6) 21(21.6) 55(56.7) 3’64 1.416
Principals 20 1(5) 3(15) 16(80) 3.75 1.118
feedback about the child
Total 117 22(18.8) 24(20.5) 71(60.7) 3.70 1.267
assessment practicing in 0.743
preschools
3 Lack of sufficient time Teachers 97 16(16.5) 19(19.6) 62(63.9) 3.85 1.310
Principals 20 2(10) 2(10) 16(80) 3.85 0.813
0.988
Total 117 18(15.4) 21(17.9) 78(66.7) 3.85 1.062
4 The ratio of children to Teachers 97 22(22.7) 14(14.4) 61(62.9) 3.63 1.379
Principals 20 2(10) 3(15) 15(75) 3.80 0.834
teachers is high 0.594
Total 117 24(20.5) 17(14.6) 76(64.9) 3.72 1.107
5 Lack of enough materials Teachers 97 4(4.1) 29(29.9) 64(66) 4.06 0.966
Principals 20 1(5) 3(15) 16(80) 3.85 0.671
0.352
Total 117 5(4.3) 32(27.3) 80(68.4) 3.96 0.819
6 Lack of proper supervision Teachers 97 20(20.6) 27(27.8) 50(51.5) 3.52 1.308
Principals 20 4(20) 6(30) 10(50) 3.10 0.852
0.177
Total 117 24(20.5) 33(28.2) 60(51.3) 3.31 1.080
7 The schedule does not Teachers 97 19(19.6) 15(15) 63(64.9) 3.58 1.306
Principals 20 2(10) 2(10) 16(80) 3.90 0.852
promote the practice of 0.292
Total 117 21(17.9) 17(14.5) 79(67.6) 3.74 1.079
informal assessment
Source: Field survey January 2020

Note: L =Low, M=Medium, H= High and to analyze this data the researchers merged Very
high and high = “High”, Low and Very Low =“Low”.

As one can see from item 1 in Table 4, the respondents were asked to rate the idea that says
“teachers do not know child assessment”, and the result shows that the majority 91(77.8%)
replied high. Whereas the rest 13(11.1%) and 13(11.1%) of the respondents rated medium
and low respectively. As indicated in the Table 4, the mean difference between teacher
respondents (M=4.21, SD=1.070) and principal respondents (M = 3.70, SD = 1.302), was
not significant (p-value> 0.05). This revealed that teachers do not know child assessment.
To substantiate this idea, an interview was conducted with the cluster resource center
supervisor and stated as follows:

The major problem that we face in the child assessment process is the lack of
qualified teachers in early child care education. The reason is that teachers
who have completed their secondary education do not get any training or
workshop concerning child assessment and learning before they are engaged
in their actual teaching in the preschool. Moreover, they didn't know how to
handle or treat them concerning meet learning of the children. (January, 2020).
Concerning this, factors such as lack of training, especially in the assessment knowledge
and understanding about child development and psychology among teachers hinder the
implementation of child learning assessment (Balkish et al., 2010).

Regarding item 2 in Table 4, the respondents were asked to rate the view that says “parents
do not give feedback about the child assessment practicing in preschools”, and the result
indicates that the majority 91(77.8%) of the respondents replied high. While the rest 13
(11.1%) and 13 (11.1%) of the respondents rated medium and low respectively. However,
the mean difference between teacher respondents (M=3.64, SD=1.416) and principal
respondents (M = 3.75, SD = 1.118) was not significant (p-value>0.05). This affirmed that
parents do not give feedback about the child assessment practicing in preschools. To
support this idea a group discussion was held with teachers and principals and they
perceived that:

Most of the parents are not willing to follow up their children in attending the
program even if the preschools have the program to meet the parents every
month to discuss with them about their children's behavior and performance.
They have mentioned that most of the parents do have a lot of works and they
do not have time to come to school since most of the parents are business
persons (January, 2020).

In Table 4, respondents were asked to rate the degree to which lack of sufficient time affects
the child learning assessment and the result shows that the majority 78(66.7%) of the
respondents replied that lack of sufficient time highly affects the child learning assessment
whereas 21(17.9%) and 18(15.4%) of them rated medium and low respectively. As also
indicated in the table 4, the mean difference between teacher respondents (M=3.85,
SD=1.310) and principal respondents (M = 3.85, SD = 0.813) was not statistically significant
(p-value> 0.05). This indicates that lack of sufficient time is the critical problem that affects
child learning assessment in Shashemene. This result was also further supported by one of the
teachers and her idea is discussed below:

It is very difficult to have sufficient time for child assessment because I am

the only one in charge of my class and have to lead the activity. Children have
to do their activities by themselves in learning areas when I do assessments. It
takes too much time to observe and record their individual need and interest
area (January, 2020).
The demand for the time and the effort spent on the different aspects of children's
assessment were cited as potential roadblocks for its regular use in kindergarten
classrooms, despite its perceived usefulness (Buldu, 2010; Nah, 2014). Time was also
found to be a major obstacle in allowing an organic transition from educators
employing a traditional individualistic documentation approach to a more socio-
cultural one (Fleer & Richardson, 2004).

In Table 4, respondents were asked the degree to which high ratio of children to teachers
affecting child learning assessment, and the result reveals that the majority 76 (64.9%) of
them replied as high whereas 17(14.6%) and 24(20.5%) of were rated as medium and low
respectively. The mean score of teachers and principals was 3.63 and 3.80 respectively but
statistically, the difference was not significant (p-value> 0.05). This indicated that a high ratio
of children to teachers is one of the factors that affect child learning assessment. This result is
also supported by results extracted from interviews among teachers and principals. They
perceived that:

It is hard to assess each child in the classroom because the ratio of children to
teachers is more than 1:70 in per-classroom. Thus, it is difficult to assess
individual children numbering over 70 in class. Interview, (January, 2020).

Teacher structure, adult-child ratio, and group size were found to be associated with the
quality of early years' service provision, with the co-teacher structure, lower ratio, and
smaller group size pointing to greater positive teacher behaviors and higher child care
quality (Shim, Hestenes, & Cassidy, 2004).

Regarding item 5 in Table 4, the respondents were asked the degree to which lack of
enough materials affecting child learning assessment, and the result shows that the majority
80 (68.4%) of the respondents replied high whereas the rest 32(27.3%) and 5(4.3%) of them
rated as medium and low respectively. The mean score of teachers and principals was 4.06
and 3.85 respectively but statistically, the difference was not significant (p-value> 0.05).
This affirmed that lack of enough materials is one of the factors that affect child learning
assessment.

This finding was supported by Buldu (2010) that the co-teacher structure is thought to be
more collaborative and fosters a more constructive atmosphere for learning, creating a
positive environment for educators. Apart from this, other structural aspects such as
equipment, material, and financial support, especially by the leadership of early childhood
settings, are considered to be essential to effectively adopt the practice of documentation.

Regarding item 6 in Table 4, the respondents were asked to rate the degree to which lack of
proper supervision affecting child learning assessment, and the result reveals that the
majority 60(51.3%) of the respondents replied high, and the rest 33(28.2%) and 24(20.5%)
of them rated as medium and low respectively. The mean score of teachers and principals
was 3.52 and 3.10 respectively. However, statistically, the difference was not significant (p-
value> 0.05). This result affirmed that lack of proper supervision is one of the factors that
affect child learning assessment.

As one can understand from item 7 indicated in Table 4, the respondents were asked to
indicate the degree to which the schedule does not promote to practice informal assessment
which affects child learning assessment, and the result unfolds that the majority 79 (67.6%)
of the respondents replied high whereas the rest 17(14.5%) and 21(17.9%) of them rated as
medium and low respectively. As indicated in the same Table (4), the mean difference
between teacher respondents (M=3.58, SD=1.306) and principal respondents (M = 3.90, SD
= 0.852) was not statistically significant (p-value>0.292). Thus, one can conclude that the
schedule which does not promote the practice of informal assessment is one of the factors
that affect child learning assessment.

This result also substantiates the result extracted from document analysis. The researchers
reviewed that the schedule which was prepared in pre-schools is more emphasis on formal
assessment practice such as tests, examinations, and worksheets. Therefore, this result
indicates that the learning assessment practice schedule didactically structured rigidly and
fixedly like that of the formal school system. Therefore, this result confirmed that the
assessment schedule is not promoting informal assessment practice.

As a solution to the above stated major factors affecting assessment practice in pre-schools,
principals, teachers, and cluster supervisors suggested the following points:

Better training for teachers, better management follow up, parents need to be
more present and active with the school to follow up their children’s learning
and development results; being equipped with the proper knowledge to do so
are seen as important by educators in facilitating good and effective
assessment practice in early childhood care and education. (January, 2020).
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
Based on the major findings, the following conclusions were drawn. The major objective of
the study was to explore the teachers' knowledge and practices of child learning assessment
in Shashemene city administration. The practice of child assessment has been benefited a

considerable number of young children learning in monitor child learning and developmental
progress, check the appropriateness or effectiveness of the educational program, identify
children who may need further assistance and weaknesses of the young children, strengths of
the young children, encourage parent's full participation in the assessment process, and
providing information that can be used to inform their caregivers and teachers, to improve the
quality of their care and educational environments.

However, the kindergarten teachers solely employ use of teachers are not using
developmentally assessment practices in assessing young children learning. Teachers do not
know how, when, what, and why to assess and the applications of child assessment
techniques for children learning. School teachers do not understand the area that is covered
regarding the assessment of pre-school children. This is because those teachers do not know
about the policies and guidelines in place regarding pre-school children assessment. The
study concludes that teachers do not know how to communicate assessment results with
parents and there are also problems that parents do not give feedback about the child
assessment practicing in preschools. Other challenges such as lack of sufficient time, high
ratio of children to teachers, lack of enough materials, lack of proper supervision, and poor
schedule affect the implementation of effective child learning assessment in private and
public preschools. Recommendations
Based on the preceding findings and conclusions the following recommendations were
forwarded:

The practical child assessment of pre-schools in Shashemene city administration has a

positive indication in monitor child learning and developmental progress, check the
appropriateness or effectiveness of the educational program, encourage parent's full
participation in the assessment process, and providing information that can be used to inform
their caregivers and teachers, to improve the quality of their care and educational
environments. Therefore, to sustain and improve this practice, the Shashemene city
administration education office, pre-school teachers, families, and communities shall be
closer through strengthening the connections between children's learning and experiences to
enhance children’s interactions with various contexts and to build their identity.

It is recommended that the Shashemene city administration education office need to organize
short-term training and workshops for pre-school teachers particularly in child assessment
practices so that they would improve their knowledge on the use of developmentally
appropriate assessment practices in a more interactive manner.

The Shashemene city administration pre-school principals and CRC supervisors shall be
recommended that they provide timely feedback for pre-school teachers concerning the
strengths and weaknesses they observed in the child assessment practice. Since the outcome
of the program contributed to monitoring child learning and developmental progress, it is
critical to check the appropriateness or effectiveness of the educational program. Identify
children who may need further assistance is critically important based on the analysis of the
child’s strengths and weaknesses. More importantly, it needs to encourage parents to fully
participate in the assessment process and be able to provide information that can be used to
inform their caregivers and teachers to improve the quality of their care and educational
environments as a whole. Moreover, professionals, non-governmental organizations, and
responsible bodies shall participate in support of child assessment for young children learning
to create a good group effort for constructing competent future citizens.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the valuable guidance from two anonymous reviewers. The
author is also thankful to Shashemene City all early child care education practitioners who
have supported and/or inspired this work through the various support. Finally, this research
did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-
for-profit sectors.

References
Balkish, S., Ali, S. and Jamaluddin, S. (2010). Preschool Teachers’ Assessment Practices,
Knowledge and Perceptions in Selected. Jurnal Pendidikan, 30, (issue no) 127–
157if there is DOI number
Basford, J., & Bath, C. (2014). Playing the assessment game: An English early childhood
education perspective. Early Years, 34(2), 119-132. doi:
10.1080/09575146.2014.903386

Birbili, M., & Tzioga, K. (2014). Involving parents in children’s assessment: Lessons from
the Greek context. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 34(2), 161-174.
doi: 10.1080/09575146.2014.894498

Buldu, M. (2010). Making learning visible in kindergarten classrooms: Pedagogical

documentation as aformative assessment technique. Teaching and Teacher
Education,26,1439-1449.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.05.003.

Chilvers, D. (2002). Assessing the future: Baseline assessment. In C. Nutbrown (Ed.),

Research studies in early childhood education(pp.23-37).England:TrenthamBooks.

Chowdhury, A. and Chaudhury, R. (2002).Preschool Children: Development, Care and

Education. New Delhi: New Age International Publisher.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Frey, B., Schmitt, V., and Allen, J. (2012). Defining authentic classroom assessment.
Practical
Gullo, D.F. (2005). Understanding assessment and evaluation in Early Childhood Education
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers’ College Pres.
Johnson and Christensen. (2004). Educational Research Qualitative, Quantitative And Mixed
approach.2nd ed.USA:Pearson Education ,Inc.).

MOE (2010a). National Policy Framework for Early Childhood Care and Education: Addis
Ababa: Ethiopia. Ultimate printing press.

NAEYC and NAECS/SDE (2003) Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and

Program Evaluation: Building an Effective, Accountable System in Programs for
Children Birth through Age 8by the National Association for the Education of Young

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. (2009). Aistear: The early childhood
curriculum framework. Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.
Payler, J. (2009). Co-constructing meaning: Ways of supporting learning. In T.
Papatheodorou & J.Moyles (Eds.),Learning together in the early years:Exploring
relational pedagogy(pp.120-138).Oxon:Routledge.

Ridzwan and Mokhsein (2017). Creativity in Preschool Assessment. International Journal of

Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i2/2663.

Shashemene City (2007). Shashemene City Administration Statistics center. Shashemene.

Shim, J., Hestenes, L., & Cassidy, D. (2004). Teacher structure and child care quality in
preschool classrooms. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19(2), 143-157.
doi: 10.1080/02568540409595061

Snow, C. E., & Van Hemel, S. B. (2008). Early childhood assessment: Why, what, and how.
Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.