/




.

.

) (64
) (64 .

.

.
) (0.05=

.

Abstract
In the light of mounting interest in child education and the role of
kindergartens in this education, the need has risen to investigate the
evaluation of the growth of kindergarten children. This is in order to
create an opportunity for proper education. This study aims at describing
the recent evaluation as it is, developing a proposed model for the
evaluation of children in kindergarten and knowing the extent of the
acceptability of the model by the sample of the study. The researcher has
used a questionnaire of seven evaluation criteria that have indicators
pointing to them. The questionnaire consisted of 64 items and it was
distributed among the sample population which totaled 64 headmistresses
and teachers. To analyze the data, standard derivation, the means and
ANOVA have been used.
The results of the study showed the agreement of the sample study on
the proposed evaluative model, criteria and indicators referring to them,
and the results also showed that there are no statistically significant
differences at the point ( = 0.05) between the headmistresses' and
teachers' evaluation attributed to the following variables: kind of work,
academic qualification, years of experience and social status.

):1986 (45


):1995.(1

.
):1976 .(779
:

.1
.
.2
.
.3
) :1983 .(105

.4 .
.5
.
.6

.
4

 ) :
:1973:(126
.1 .

.2 .

.3
.
.4 .

) ::1981 :(206

.1 .
.2
.
.3
.

) (Butcher1984 :P166

):1999 .(115

)Leeper 1975 :P485
.(and Others
) (1986 )

:1986 (3
).(1986


):1981 .(144

) :1980 .(110

) :1980 .(111

):1992 .(135

.


.
:

:
:
.1 .
.2 ) (
.

.3
.
:

:
.1 .
.2 .

.3 .

.4
.
.5

.6

.
7


.
:
.1
.

.2
.
.3

.
: :
: .

: .

: 2007/ 2006 .
:
:
.1 .
.2
.

.3 .
.4 .
:
.1 ) (0.05=
.

 .2 ) (0.05=
.
.3 ) (0.05=
.

.4 ) (0.05=
.
:

)
:1986 (3
).(Freeman ,1989 : P95

):1995 (11

) :1980 .(221

):1975 .(72

) :1993 .(154

.

 ),1979 : P487
.(Heeper and Others

.

.

.



.

.
).(Austin ,1976 : P276

:
.1
.
.2 .

.3
.
.4
.
.5 .

.6 .
.7 .
.8 ).(210 :1993

10

) .(1991

)
.(1994
:
1975
Chart of recording individual interests and progress in the kindergarten

:
.1 .
.2 .
.3 .

.4 .
.5 .

.

1985

11

 .1
.
.2 .
.3 .

. :
"
"

"

"
"

" 6-4"

.
"
"


.
12

 1987 using young

children's writing samples in program evaluation

" " W.T.R

.

.
1989

.
:
.1
.

.2
.
.3
.
1992 Evaluation of the child

development project


.
1989

.
13

.
1995 "
"

.

) (60 )(105

.
)( .

.
.
) (2001

) (1673 )14.5(

) (16

14

.
) (2001 "

"

) (52
30.5
.1.6

:
.1
.
.2
.

.3
.
15

 .4
.
.5
.

:
.

:

) (64

2007/2006 .

:
) (64
) (%100
2007/2006.
) (1 .
)(1

36

%56.2

28

%43.8

64

%100
16

 ) (1 ) (36 ) (28
.
).(2
)(2

10

%15.6

28

%43.8

26

%40.6

64

%100

).(3
)(3

5-1

36

%56.3

10-5

11

%17.2

10

17

%26.5

64

%100

).(4
)(4

11

%17.2

49

%76.5

%6.3

64

%100
17

 :
)(
.
) (64 .

. .
)(
:
) 5(. ) 4(. ) 3(. ) 2(. - ) 1(.

:
.

.
.

) (64.

18

 :
) (15
,
) (5 .
)(5

)=(15

,82

,84

,88

,83

,87

,85

,89

) (5 )-,82
(,89 .

3:7 :
:
-1 .
-2 .
-3 .
-4 ) (64.
-5 .
-6 .

19

 :
) (SPSS
:
-1
.
-2 ).(ANOVA
-3 ) ( .

:
) (%80 .) (%79.99-%70 .) (%69.99-%60 .) (%59.99-%50 .) (%50 . .
: :

) (6 .
)(6


20

0.56

4.48

%89.6

0.50

4.32

%86.4

0.69

3.92

%78.4

0.55

4.31

%86.2

0.73

3.89

%77.8

0.70

3.43

%68.6

0.61

4.18

%83.6

0.70

3.93

%78.6

0.83

4.15

%83

10

1.13

3.71

%74.2

11

0.89

3.79

%75.8

12

0.84

3.59

%71.8

0.42

3.98

%79.6

* ) (5.

) (6 )4 2 1
(9 7 ) .(%89.6-%83
) (12 11 10 8 5 3
) .(%78.6-%71.8 )(6
).(%68.6
).(%79.6

21

 : :

) (7 .
)(7

0.59

4.26

%85.2

0.61

4.14

%82.8

0.62

4.12

%82.4

0.64

4.04

%80.8

0.81

4.00

%80

0.73

4.25

%85

0.69

4.20

%84

0.79

3.75

%75

0.38

4.09

%81.8

* ) (5.

) (7 )3 2 1
(7 6 5 4 ).(%85.2-%80
) (8
).(%75
).(%81.8

22

 : :

) (8 .
)(8

0.58

4.45

%89

0.63

3.60

%72

0.80

4.01

%80.2

0.51

4.62

%92.4

0.71

4.45

%89

0.58

3.93

%78.6

0.63

4.43

%68.6

0.54

4.37

%87.4

0.78

4.12

%82.4

10

0.56

4.25

%85

0.37

4.22

%84.4

* ) (5.

) (8 )4 3 1
(10 9 8 5 )-%80.2
.(%92.4 ) (6 2
) .(%78.6-%72 ) (7
).(%68.6
).(%84.4
23

 : :

) (9 :
)(9

0.64

4.45

%89

0.83

3.76

%75.2

0.53

4.03

%80.6

0.73

4.14

%82.8

0.85

3.68

%73.6

0.51

4.28

%85.6

0.68

4.31

%86.2

0.82

3.87

%77.4

1.28

3.43

%68.6

10

0.78

4.15

%83

11

0.85

3.85

%77

0.34

4.00

%80

* ) (5.

) (9 )4 3 1
(10 7 6 ).(%89-%80.6
) (11 8 5 2
) .(%77.4-%73.6 ) (9
).(%68.6
).(%80
24

 : :

) (10 :
)(10

0.66 .
.
0.61

4.31

%86.2

4.14

%82.8

0.53

4.56

%91.2

0.63

4.06

%81.2

0.60

4.17

%83.4

0.84

3.92

%78.4

0.50

4.31

%86.2

0.38

4.21

%84.2

1
2

* ) (5.

) (10 )2 1
(7 5 4 3 )-%81.2
.(%91.2 ) (6
).(%78.4
).(%84.2
: :

) (11 :
25

 )(11

0.53

4.43

%88.6

0.57

4.28

%85.6

0.58

4.31

%86.2

0.59

4.32

%86.4

0.65

3.71

%74.2

0.73

3.84

%76.8

0.65

4.21

%84.2

0.63

3.85

%77

0.39

4.12

%82.4

* ) (5.

) (11 )2 1
(7 4 3 ).(%88.6-%84.2
) (8 6 5
).(%77-%74.2
).(%82.4
: :

) (12 :

26

 )(12

0.61

4.31

%86.2

0.81

4.14

%82.8

0.70

4.06

%81.2

0.58

4.59

%91.8

0.64

4.45

%89

0.61

4.18

%83.6

0.75

4.50

%90

0.90

3.85

%77

0.39

4.26

%85.2

* ) (5.

) (12 )2 1
(7 6 5 4 3 )-%81.2
.(%91.8 ) (8
).(%77
).(%85.2
) (12-6
) (
) (%92.4 . )
(
) .(%91.8 ) (
27


) .(%91.2 ) (12-6
)
( ) (
) (
) (%68.6 .
).(%82.51

:
:
" :
) (0.05 =
".
)( ) (T-test
.
).(12
)(13
)(

4.08

0.27

4.16

0.37

)(

0.91

0.362

* ) .(0.05=
) (13
) (0.05 = .

28


.
:
" :
) (0.05 =
".

. ).(14
)(14

3.98

4.12

4.15

)(ANOVA

. ) (15 .
)(15
) (ANOVA

0.21

0.109

61

9.90

6.04

63

6.26

* ) .(0.05=
29

---

1.10

*
0.338

 ) (15
) (0.05 = .


.
:
" :
) (0.05 =
".

. ).(16
)(16

5-1

10-5

10

4.14

4.01

4.11

)(ANOVA

. ) (17 .
)(17
) (ANOVA

0.13

6.83

6.12

61

0.10

6.26

63

---

* ) .(0.05=
30

0.68

*
0.510

 ) (17
) (0.05 = .

.
:
" :
) (0.05 =
".

. ).(18

)(18

4.12

4.13

3.89

)(ANOVA

. ) (19 .

31

 )(19
) (ANOVA

0.21

0.108

61

9.90

6.04

1.09

*
0.341

63

6.26

---

* ) .(0.05=
) (19
) (0.05 = .

.

:
.1 .
.2
.
.3 .

32


.1 ) .(1993 . .

.2 ) .(1991 . :

.
.3 ) .(1985 .
. 5 1.
.4 . ). (1985

. 5 2 .

.5 . . ) .(2001

. .

.6 ) .(1992 . 27

.
.7 ) .(1981 . .
.8 ) .(1986 .
.

.9 . ) .(2001

.
.
.10 ) .(1976 .
.

.11 ) .(1973 . .
.12 . . . ).(1975

33

 .13 ) .(1986
. .
.14 ) .(1986 .

:.

.15 . ) .(1980 . :.
.16 ) .(1995
.
:.

.17 ) .(1994 .:

.
.18 . ) .(1981 .
- .
.19 . ) .(1986 .

.20 ) .(1999 .
27 1 .
.21 . ) .(1983 ..

1. Adams, Olga. Kinsman, Priscilla (1975). Chart for recording individual
interests and progress in the kindergarten. United kindergarten and first
grade teaching. Ginned Company, U.S.A.
2 . Austin, Gilbert (1976). Early Childhood Education. Academics Press,
London.
3. Butcher, Robert (1984). Analysis Teacher Judgment of pupil
achievement level. Journal of Educational psychology, Vol76.No5.
4. Freeman, Evelyn (1989). Evaluation of kindergarten Students: An
analysis of report cards in Ohio Public Schools. Elementary Schools
Journal, V.89.
5. Heeper, Sarah and Others (1979). Good Schools for Young Children.
Macmillan Publishing Comp. U.S.A.
6. Leeper, Sarah Hammond and others (1975). Good Schools for young
Children. Macmillan Publishing Co., Fourth Edition.
34

7. Naron, Nancy. Norbert, Elliot (1987). Using young children's writing

samples in program evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association.
8. Solomon. Daniel and others (1989). Evaluation of the child
development project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association.

35