cm's Rhodes Ochoa

Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz in “Assessing Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students”

This article examines the assessment and placement process of ethnic minority students and other diverse special education school children. As early as l960’s it was found that there were mislabeled students due mostly to the misunderstanding of culturally and linguistically diverse children in school programs. Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of l975, requires that students be assessed in their native language and in a nondiscriminatory manner. This article also discusses the studies of the last twenty years of trends, the methodological and conceptual issues to be considered, the potential factors to explain why the problem exists, and suggested solutions along with policy recommendations.

I think the problem of disproportionate representation still exists in our states and local school districts where linguistically and culturally diverse students are. Although public laws are passed, I think there will always be cases arising because of the magnitude of students and their diversity. Also, assessment practices take time in evaluation, in updating, and in translating. It’s unfortunate that our school sites don’t have appropriate assessment procedures to meet the needs of our students who speak in their first language. In our site, this need for certified Yup’ik Special Education teachers as well as the need for evaluation procedures to be done in Yup’ik are almost always lacking. We often complain about how long it takes for referrals and Special Ed procedures before Yup’ik students are properly served. I know it takes a lot of paperwork in the referral process, but it’s the students who need the most help that everything boils down to.

cm's O'Malley Pierce ch 5

O’Malley/Pierce on Chapter 5: Reading Assessment

This chapter identifies and describes practical approaches to authentic reading assessment. It discusses the disposition of reading in the first language and reading in the second language and how these two relate to the other. New ideas are introduced with reading assessment in mind. Procedures for assessing reading are also discussed for use with English language learners. Some of these include identifying the purpose of reading assessments, involving students in self-evaluation and peer-evaluation, developing scoring rubric, and setting standards. Samples of reading assessment formats are given throughout the chapter. Suggestions are then given for recording teacher observations, developing reading/writing portfolios, and using assessment results for planning and teaching.

In reading this chapter I had, in the back of my head, my current students who read in their first language, Yup’ik. Whenever we had district wide discussions on reading, I often wondered how reading in Yup’ik compared to being able to read in English. I often hear that what the students learn to do in Yup’ik literacy, they should be able to transfer to English reading. One example is discussion about and finding the story problem and/or solution of a story. If students are able to that in Yup’ik they should be able to transfer that ability to English reading. Literacy at one time was thought to be mainly oral language and decoding. It’s a lot more than that now. For example, prior knowledge and/or personal experiences play a part in understanding (comprehension) of reading. Teachers of reading now need to be aware of the funds of knowledge that students hold in order for them to tap into their prior knowledge so that connections can be made and meaningful activities implemented in relation to the story. The story or reading becomes “alive” and makes sense when students can understand the content of the story. Unfamiliar vocabulary words are introduced through the process of scaffolding. One way of introducing vocabulary, that I find works well with my students is doing Total Physical Response (TPR.) I believe that involving students to come up with motions using their bodies for new words is beneficial. Through practice and repetition of words, using motion, the students soon learn to identify the new words and what they mean.

I think one of the things I’ve never really done in my classroom is assessment of reading that includes student attitudes and feelings toward reading or writing. (I also like the idea of holding students accountable for how they use time in class for reading or writing.) It would be well worthwhile to try the above ideas as part of authentic reading assessment.

cm's O'Malley ch 3

O’Malley/Vadez on Chapter 3: Portfolio Assessment

This chapter describes the use of portfolio assessments with English language learners. Basic features are described as well as student self-assessment and goal setting. Suggestions for getting started with portfolios are also given along with managing portfolios and using them in instruction. Whole language approach as an instructional content supports the use of portfolios. Both the teacher and student are involved in the input of learning and activities. As far as portfolio assessment, the learner has the main input and role in assessing his or her own progress. Instructional goals need to be defined before students make entries in their portfolios. In addition criteria for evaluation would have to be generated along with the students’ help before entries are made in the portfolio. Portfolios assess student growth as well as achievement.

I think having portfolio assessments for language learners is a positive tool. It has many benefits especially for the learner. Overall, the responsibility of learning and self-assessing becomes part of the language learner that it allows for high engagement. This reminds me of metacognition. I think this process, metacognition, is very important because it affirms your knowledge and helps build confidence in yourself as a language learner. The benefits of portfolio assessments are as real as water is useful for human beings. I think taking the time, finding the time, and being systematic would have to evolve and happen before these types of assessments become real. I would think that some students would have to see models of portfolio assessment before they make it a part of their own. I would think that for third graders we’d have to simplify parts of the portfolio so they don’t become overwhelmed. Things like using sad and happy faces, as part of the self-evaluation would have to do, as some students need more time and assistance. (At the same time, here I go again, in thinking about our Yup’ik values, I think self-assessment might be a hurdle to cross for some learners. In Yup’ik we are advised NOT to brag about ourselves. I remember how my older brother, once he learned to go out hunting on his own, was advised by my mother on being careful in talking about his catch to others. I guess we would have to talk about this, too, as we come across self-assessment and that it’s OK to talk about how well we did.)

cm's Nelson-Barber

Sharon Nelson-Barber and Elise Trumbull on “Making Assessment Practices Valid for Indigenous American Students”

This article describes the reasons why educational assessments do not typically reflect the important content knowledge and understanding of indigenous or native students. The author draws on experiences of native educators and communities to talk about their ways of knowing, of learning, and problem solving. And how these can be used in the validity of assessments in the school. Suggestions are given as to how researchers and test makers can identify strategies regarding school improvement for native students. Educators and/or research findings such as Dennis Demmert describe the key means to improving education for native students. One key means is using local knowledge and culture to help student improve in assessment. The authors of this article go on to explain the term cultural validity as introduced by Solano-Flores and Nelson-Barber. Cultural validity can be viewed as a core component in assessment development and testing practices. Local assessment development is one way of addressing cultural validity according to Solano-Flores, Trumbull, & Nelson-Barber (2002).

I am thrilled to know that there are researchers and educators out there who are talking about learning how indigenous and/or native students learn and their ways of knowing and being. In addition finding ways to make assessment valid and meaningful for them. I really liked the way the Navajo teachers and non-native teachers collaborated to make assessment relevant and meaningful for the students. I think we need more awareness of educators who work with indigenous or native students. The highest benefit would go, undoubtedly, to the learner. However, as I was reading, as I almost always do, I wondered about those students who are in between. These are students who are not yet fully immersed in their own culture and/or language. I’m not sure if there’s a term for such learners. We have a few students who neither are full speakers of Yup’ik nor are they fluent speakers of English. Some times we talk about how we as educators might deal them but find no real answers on account of varied factors.

Poehnern Lantolf

Poehner and Lantolf in “Dynamic assessment in the language classroom” (2005)

This article describes using dynamic assessment (DA) and instruction as resultant from Vygotsky’s theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The work of Reuven Feuerstein in dynamic assessment is discussed as well as comparison of DA to formative assessment. Suggestions are given as to how formative assessment may be thought of in relation to DA principles. Formative is intended as a feedback into the teaching and learning process while summative assessment has to do with the outcome of learning. Dynamic assessment requires the help of a capable person so the learner can benefit in completing a task, but also in transferring the mediated performance to other similar tasks or tests. Although Vygotsky did not use the term dynamic assessment, his ideas concerning ZPD were similar to DA.

The interesting part about the article that got me thinking had to do with the concept of future in developmental psychology. One idea is the concept of past-to-present. This idea “…acknowledges ‘the role of the past life history of the organism in leading to its present state of functioning’ (Valsiner, 2001:86 in Poehner & Lantolf, 2005). Another idea has to do with when the future has already become present. I think this way of thinking is intriguing because we’re always in the process of changing. Our thoughts and things we’ve learned never really come to a standstill. That’s the beauty of life itself. I’ve heard it said that learning never ends. Maybe that’s why some assessments don’t really matter to some people. I’ve heard some people say that the grade they received for a certain class doesn’t really bother them because the grade is only a letter and it doesn’t mean much. The important thing is that they learned something in some way that is not reflected in the grade. I believe that dynamic assessment happens in all walks of life.

cm on Solano-Flores

Solano-Flores on “Who Is Given Tests in What Language by Whom, When, and Where? The Need for Probabilistic Views of Language in the Testing of English Language Learners.”

This article describes the limitations of current ELL testing practices and their effectiveness or ineffective as well. Solano-Flores based his reasons on categorical, deterministic views of language and erroneous assumptions of assessment systems in ELL students. He also describes the need for probabilistic approaches based on generalizability theory in order to address valid measures of academic achievements for ELL students. In addition the process of ELL testing is affected by factors that are unpredictable and beyond the control of test makers and all those involved in the test. It is stated that probabilistic views of language in ELL testing helps to see a clearer picture between assessment system effectiveness and score dependability.

I guess the idea that “one test fits all” is hardly true. There are so many factors involved that makes validity of tests ineffective. One of the factors mentioned in the article has to do with dialects. Some where in the back of my mind, I’ve always wondered how educators or others come up with “standardized” languages or other. The article on this subject really spoke to me when it said that there really isn’t a standard language or dialect. And that standardized dialects actually come from those who have more power or voice in all the sites put together. In our site, we often hear about standardized Yup’ik and I some times wonder what that really means. I think I know what the author is talking about now. There really isn’t a standardized Yup’ik or standardized Yup’ik writing system, is there.

cm chapter 5 Validity

Language Testing by Tim McNamara
Chapter 5 Validity: testing the test

This chapter describes the validity of testing. It begins by drawing parallels with the court system on the basis of evidence. The chapter then goes on to describe the process of test validation and what it entails. The defensibility and fairness of tests based on performance are the main issues here. If the procedures used are found faulty then the test or assessment itself is questioned and becomes a matter of concern to the recipients involved. Proficiency tests, as opposed to achievement tests, look to the future. Validation should continue as long as the test is given to language users. Questions arise as new and various cases bring new challenges. The development of new assessments validation takes on a new form as the stakeholders have to consider the general public for its’ acceptability. This is where face validity comes into play. Consequential validity is explained toward the end of the chapter. Consequential validity, in terms of ability, in the end, is reflected by the “haves” and “have nots.”


This chapter reminds me of our Yup’ik Proficiency Test that we have to give every year to our students in LKSD. I had never really thought about stakeholders as those who are most concerned about the validity of the test. It seems, out of a need for immediate proficiency test in language, that this test was translated from an English version. Any two languages are not the same. The ways of thinking, of being, and ways of knowing are different and these connect to the culture. Just last week we had a discussion about the test itself and many concerns came up. For example, the possible ways of answering some questions with only word endings like in –llru. Perhaps as more and more concerned people give voice the validity of the test will one day make more sense.