by Hanna Vock and Barbara Teeke


Throughout the two years of a IHVO Certificate Course the participants are to write five reports on their assigned practical projects. These reports document how the respective kindergarten teacher has gone about fostering a selected child, assumed or tested gifted, or a child well above average with regard to cognitive development, in her practical work.
The measures taken are to be integrative in nature. This means, the child is to be advanced in its cognitive development with regard to its individual learning needs and in a holistic manner, specifically supporting it …

    • in improving its well-being and standing in the group,
    • in moving about in the group with self-confidence and in accordance with its ability,
    • in having positive experiences in playing and working with other children (similarly talented or less so).

The following list of criteria for the evaluation of written reports on practical assignments was originally intended for the instructors only. In current Certificate Courses we hand it out to or participants so that there is more transparency with regard to our evaluation. The list may also be helpful to the participants in making their own assessment of the quality of their work.

+ The report is intelligible and clear.
– Some parts are not so intelligible (unclear wording, not enough details, not
descriptive enough).

+ All pedagogic statements made in the report are acceptable.
– There are pedagogic statements which we find questionable.

+ All pedagogic considerations and actions have as their initial point the gifted child (subject of observation).
– There is no specific consideration for the gifted child’s needs.

+ It becomes clear which pedagogic stimuli are being applied.
– It does not become clear. / Too few or no recognisable stimuli at all are being

+ The contents of the previous seminar can be recognised in the report, the attempt to apply what has been learned is visible.
– This is hardly or not at all visible.

+ There is due reflection of the described activities, including a valid evaluation of the benefits for the gifted child.
– There is no such reflection. The reflection is too shallow.

+ The report shows how the child is being understood better (by the kindergarten teachers and the other children) and that it understands and deals with its own situation better than before.
– There is hardly any or no mention at all of this.

+ The report shows that the child has received adequate cognitive advancement or at least that this has been attempted.
– This is not the case.

+ The child’s learning processes are being analysed and reflected upon.
– This is not done, or it is done insufficiently.

+ The actions and reactions of the gifted child and of other involved children with regard to the offered activities are described and reflected in sufficient detail.
– This is not the case.

+ The described activities are of appropriate volume given the several months of time between seminars.
– The activities are not sufficient in volume.

+ The child’s strengths (interests, abilities, talents) are in focus.
– The activities are centred more around the deficits of the child.

+ The kindergarten teacher has actively shown interest in the child’s thoughts and ideas and encouraged the child to mention them.
– This was not the case. The child’s interesting utterances were not given any further attention.

On the first page of the returned copy you will find either the phrase:
“The assignment has been fulfilled.”
or the phrase:
“As has been discussed via telephone, the work does not meet the requirements and needs supplementary editing. See annotations at the end.”


Translation: Arno Zucknick
© Copyright Hanna Vock / Barbara Teeke, see Imprint.