cm's - Butler and OMalley

Butler, F.A. & Stevens, R. (2001). Standardized assessment of the content knowledge of English language learners’ k-12: Current trends and old dilemmas. Language Testing, 18 (4), 409-427. Los Angeles, CA.

Accountability plays a major role in standardized assessment. The complexities of testing outcomes that arise among students whose second language is English are examined in the article. This includes the concept of ‘high stakes’ in relation to decision-making for all students, including students who are limited English speakers. Approaches such as accommodations are discussed. The need for more research on standardized content assessments are also discussed as well as suggestions for alternative approaches.

I thought this article was informative as far as standardized assessment and approaches as well as accommodations for English as second language learners. I found the section on “Opportunity to learn” (OTL) interesting. The fact that our country is vast and each subgroup of students are not the same in many respects makes OTL, rather than language, a barrier to higher achievement. Accountability issues arise on account of these barriers.

I have often wondered how and if such Yup’ik standardized assessment would one day become a reality. Accountability issues as mentioned in the article would probably arise. And who would be the stakeholders? Our state and national leaders would probably oppose such an endeavor on account of expenses.

O’Malley Pierce. (1996) Content assessment. Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical approaches for teachers. 163-199.

Language and content integration activities are discussed in this chapter. Approaches to authentic assessment in content areas such as mathematics, science, and social studies are presented in different ways. Procedures for self-assessment and peer evaluation are discussed and instructional uses of assessment in content areas described. Suggested rubrics are also given for classroom teachers.

I was somewhat surprised that some states allow exemptions from testing for ELL students on account of possible low test scores. It’s almost frustrating and unfortunate that fear of test scores become like forms of embarrassment and not as tools to help schools build a learning environment conducive for students who come to school.

It makes sense that appropriate content instruction helps immensely in language learning. When they talk about integrated language and content instruction it reminds me of SIOP instruction. It’s great that there are researchers out there who want to help make education worthwhile for second language learners. I wonder how much academic learning we (my high school year peers) would have had. I think it would be interesting to find a comparative result of certain test scores…maybe like ACT, of earlier days to students who were exposed to integrated instruction.

Peregoy

Peregoy, Chapter 10 Reading Assessment and Instruction.

This article describes reading assessment in terms of inventory of informal reading and information on consideration of oral language, reading and writing to aide in instructional strategies. It talks about theoretical approach to literacy assessment where the teacher’s values placed on reading play an important role. The article goes on to describing proficiency in language where speaking and reading or writing determines the oral and written communication skill levels of language learners.

I thought this article did a good job of explaining what goes on in the reading process of English learners. It was interesting also when the author described decoding skills in relation to meaning. Expressions such as “barking at print” caught my attention because it’s what some of my students do when they read word by word without really catching on to the meaning of the phrase or sentence. I also thought the article did a great job of explaining the role of prior knowledge and how it affects the meaning brought on by the reader. As teachers we really need to take that into consideration, especially when we deal with a diverse group of students.

Chapter 6 O'Malley Pierce

O’Malley, Pierce. Authentic Assessment For English Language Learners. Chapter 6.

Authentic assessment on writing assessment brings out two important aspects: self-assessment and peer assessment. This chapter describes nearly everything about writing, from the role of the writer to the nature of writing task and includes samples of scoring rubrics.

I found this chapter to be well worth reading. It brought on new perspectives for my own classroom and it also brought questions for me as a teacher. Writing has never really been strong area for nearly most of my students, especially boys. I wonder if there’s research out there about young boys and writing. It seems there’s always at least two or three boys who, no matter what tasks you bring out, never like to write. Some times I’d have to sit next to the student and encourage/prod and praise with ideas.

The area that I think we lack in our writing lies in self-assessment and peer assessment. As I read on I wondered to myself, again about those who don’t really like to write, how they would fair in writing a self-reflection or peer evaluation. All the ideas sound great, but in reality, some times we run into problematic areas, but at the end, the challenge lies in the teacher finding writing tasks that are interesting and fun.

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.