I once had a student who excelled in formative assessments. She understood my routine and, as soon as she received her pencil and paper, began working independently. While I explained the procedures to the class, she completed the task early and spent the remaining time doodling or creating art. Initially, I repeatedly encouraged her to join the group, but it became clear she thrived outside the structured classroom approach. After accepting her process, I allowed her to work independently. During summative assessments, however, she appeared less comfortable, working harder and seeming uneasy with my direct questioning, despite performing well overall. This experience shows that the approach to assessment is just as crucial as the content being evaluated when working with young learners.
Artwork created by Angelia Buckingham using ChatGPT4o, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DEED
Routine vs. Rigor: When Summative Assessments Disrupt Comfort Zones
The young learner from my opening paragraph, Shellby, struggled during a summative assessment, failing questions I knew she could answer. Her discomfort reminded me of Taylorism’s impact on education, where Frederick Taylor’s principles of scientific management shaped curricula, assessments, and classroom routines, often prioritizing efficiency over individual learning styles. Unlike the formative assessments, where the student was allowed to work independently and follow a familiar routine, the structured nature of the summative assessment disrupted her comfort zone. This shift in the process might create unnecessary cognitive load, impacting Shellby’s focus and ability to respond accurately. During our parent-teacher conference, her parents shared that she enjoys working independently. As an only child, she’s accustomed to playing and working quietly with minimal supervision, which aligns with her preference for solitary tasks and reinforces her natural independence in the classroom.
Skewing the Data: Misalignment with Learning Style
The data collected from Shelby’s summative assessment underscores the importance of adopting a culturally responsive interpretation of the data (Montenegro & Jankowski, 2017). Highlighting the need to promote student agency by acknowledging and validating her cultural context. This would consider Shelby’s unique background and learning preferences, emphasizing the need for alternative assessment strategies that reflect her strengths and provide an accurate picture of her capabilities beyond the constraints of standardized methods. Shelby, as an only child who thrives in solitary tasks, struggled with the standardized, structured format of the assessment.
Rethinking Kindergarten Assessments: Aligning with Individual Learning Styles
Kindergarteners are curious, creative, and diverse learners, yet traditional assessments often fail to capture their true potential. The data from summative assessments may not reflect a student’s understanding of the material but instead reveal how well they navigate the evaluation process itself. For many young learners, the rigid structure of standardized assessments can disrupt their natural learning style, causing unnecessary discomfort and skewing results. This disconnect highlights the importance of designing assessments that align with individual learning preferences, as well as cultural and developmental contexts.
Adapting assessment practices is not about lowering expectations but about meeting students where they are. For children like Shellby who thrive in independent, self-paced tasks, alternative methods such as project-based evaluations or creative demonstrations of knowledge may yield a more accurate picture of their abilities. Recognizing and embracing these differences can help educators provide equitable learning opportunities and foster a positive relationship with learning and assessment.
Final Thoughts
By rethinking how we test young learners, we improve our understanding of what they know while affirming their individuality and building confidence. Kindergarteners often struggle more with the assessment process than the material. It’s time to focus on supporting students, creating assessments that inspire and reflect their full potential.
References
Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: high‐stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2010.521261
Montenegro, E., & Jankowski, N. A. (2017). Equity and assessment: Moving towards culturally responsive assessment. (Occasional Paper No. 29). University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA).
