Introduction
The purpose of the article is clear due to the detailed thesis, which outlines the essence of the brief – understanding the necessity of kindergarten entry assessment (KEA) via exploration of its usage. The description of the overall confusion surrounding the introduction of KEA allows the reader to understand why such an agenda is discussed in the first place. The abstract does not render the main points of the article, since it focuses on the definition of the KEA and the lack of a clear explanation of why it is used. Meanwhile, the article is about how this assessment is used. The objective of the brief is effective at addressing the need for the field because it accentuates the lack of consensual comprehension of KEA, which leads to drastically different entry policies in various states.
The purpose of the article itself is clearly articulated in the thesis. As the objective is to understand the necessity, the authors conclude each section by referencing the thesis and explaining why certain states conduct KEA. The overall discussion is cohesive, which is evident in the logical structure of the text: the introduction explains why it is important to understand KEA, the four main sections explore different purposes, and the conclusion sums up the information. Overall, the strengths of the introduction are the structure, background, and thesis, while the abstract is the weakest part of the section.
Evaluating the Presentation/Organization of Information
The title is both clear and appropriate because it ascertains the essence of the text – finding a general explanation of why KEA is used. The section that follows the introduction lacks a conclusive statement, which is present in other sections, which could have been expanded by a single sentence that many states use KEA to inform instructions. The same section contains the most ambiguous statement of the overall article: “Despite a communicated purpose, these states may be falling short in the execution of the overall objective” (Garver, 2020, p. 2). The first statement of the conclusion is also unclear because it does not correspond with the thesis – it focuses on the potential of KEA instead of explaining why it is used.
The author’s major assumption is that KEA is important by default, which forces him to be biased and overstate the states’ perception of the importance of this assessment. At the same time, the author does ensure the objectivity of the article by using facts, data, and comparisons. The organization of the text is in line with its purpose because each section is dedicated to a different interpretation of the purpose of KEA. Overall, objectivity and organization of the text are the strengths of the article, while clarity of statements and the prevalence of the underlying assumption are the weaknesses.
Evaluating Methods
The use of a descriptive research design and methods is the most effective way to outline the necessity of using KEA. However, the author the use of methods is not specified as the author’s description is limited to the review of evidence. The author misses an important step of pointing out the type of data he plans to collect. The procedure is presented clearly – classification of types of usage of KEA into four categories, which can easily be duplicated by readers. Overall, the choice of research design and methods are the strengths of the study, whereas the lack of an overview of types of data in the introduction is the weakness.
Conclusion
The study describes how different states use KEA in the form of qualitative data, which is converted into quantitative data via systematization. The most important pattern is that states fail to recognize the significance of a unified approach to understanding KEA. This observation determines the concern that the resulting classification may not be coherent – after all, the author does presuppose that KEA is important while each state has a different perception regarding this assessment. Overall, the use of both quantitative and qualitative data is the strength of the study, while the possible bias in the classification of data is the weakness of the evaluation.
Reference
Garver, K. (2020). The “Why” behind kindergarten entry assessments. National Institute for Early Education Research. Web.