Art Un ticle I.1 ited Sta In the ates News - Woodring College of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Framework for Math - Western Washington University$

Article V.4 Alternative Assessment for TransitionalReadersBy Carol Beaumont, Julia Scherba de Valenzuela, Elise TrumbullBilingual Research Journal, 26: 2 Summer 2002 214Equitable assessment for English language learners remains one ofthe greatest challenges of educational reform. The complexinteraction of language, culture, educational background, andopportunities to learn make equitable, large-scale assessmentsparticularly difficult to achieve (Figueroa, 1990; García & Pearson,1994; Solano-Flores & Nelson-Barber, 2001; Ulibarri, 1985). Often,English language learners (ELLs) are assessed through the samemechanisms as their English-only counterparts. This practicecompromises the accuracy of results and may lead to inappropriateinterpretations about English language learners’ proficiency inreading and academic content areas (García, 1991; Miramontes,Nadeau & Commins 1997; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994).The purpose of this paper is to describe student performance on a specially designed assessmentof reading comprehension created for native Spanish-speaking students in their first year ofEnglish instruction. This study was guided by the following questions: (a) How do scoring andstudent evaluation practices in this assessment account for linguistic characteristics of first-yearEnglish language learners? (b) What evidence exists that reflects first-year English languagelearners’ ability to process English texts at an inferential level? (c) How can this transitionassessment inform curriculum and instruction for these students?Assessment Reform and English Language LearnersIn the decade-long debate on school reform, some educators favor new methods of assessment toremedy persistent problems in the American schooling. They have suggested that complex,cognitively demanding assessments can drive improvements in curriculum and instruction (e.g.,Darling-Hammond, 1994; Mitchell, 1992; O’Day & Smith, 1993). They have also pointed outthe overrepresentation of ELLs and other students from non-dominant cultures among poorperformers on standardized tests(Figueroa, 1990; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994; Williams, 1996) andthe consequent reinforcement and extension of social and educational inequalities (Darling-Hammond, 1994, Durán, 1989; Oakes, 1985).ELLs’ lack of full English proficiency is an obvious reason for their poor performance onstandardized tests (LaCelle-Peterson & Rivera, 1994; Cummins,1989; Genesee & Hamayan,1994), but it reflects a limited understanding of the factors contributing to a student’sperformance on an assessment or standardized test. To begin to grasp the relationship betweenEnglish proficiency and test performance requires a deep understanding of the developmentalnature of second language acquisition, the difference between surface fluency and the ability toparticipate in content area instruction in English, the time required to achieve academic fluency,the kinds of language conventions used on typical assessments and tests, and the language skillsnecessary for success on standardized tests. Because the length of time required for full English© 2008 Dr. Catherine CollierAll Rights Reserved164
proficiency is often underestimated (Collier; 1988;Cummins, 1989; Valdés, 1998), and studentsmay appear to be more proficient with English than they are, they may be expected to take testsin English long before they are fully proficient with the kind of academic language needed toperform well. All of these factors should be considered in designing appropriate assessment andinstruction.Standardization itself rules out any contextualization of assessment, meaning that linguisticdifferences among students cannot be accounted for adequately. The practice of assessingEnglish language learners with the same mechanisms as their English-only counterparts mayseriously compromise the validity of results and lead to misleading interpretations and unfairdecisions affecting their futures (August & Hakuta, 1997; García, 1991;LaCelle-Peterson &Rivera, 1994; Miramontes, Nadeau & Commins, 1997;Valdés & Figueroa, 1994).English-language assessment prompts that make extensive use of complex or idiomatic languagepenalize English language learners who may access important concepts in their first language,but not yet in English, or they may access them more slowly in English (Abedi, 2001; Abedi,Leon, & Mirocha,2001, Figueroa & García, 1994, García, 1991, Heubert & Hauser,1999).Misinterpretations of the directions or text of an assessment task can lead to flawedconceptualization of the problem to be solved and consequent failure to devise a correct solution(Durán, 1989). In such cases, teachers or others who grade or score an English language learner’sperformance may falsely underestimate that student’s level of understanding or skill.A move to standards-based performance assessments and other forms of “authentic” assessment(Valencia, Hiebert, & Afflerbach, 1994; Wiggins, 1993)does not ensure assessment validity forELLs. These kinds of assessments are subject to the same sources of error, particularly giventheir increased language demand in comparison to multiple choice or short answer tests(August& Hakuta, 1997; Shepard, 1993). Farr and Trumbull (1997) point out that, “good instruction andassessment should look different in different environments, depending on the students served”(p. 2).Assessments designed for native English speakers will simply not meet standards of validity forEnglish language learners. According to the Standards for Educational and PsychologicalTesting (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, &National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999):For all test takers, any test that employslanguage is, in part, a measure of their language skills. . . . Language dominance is notnecessarilyan indicator of language competence in taking a test, and some accommodation may benecessary even when administering the test in the more familiar language. Therefore, it isimportant to consider language background in developing, selecting, and administering tests andin interpreting test performance. (p. 91)Specific research studies on the validity of performance-based assessments for ELLs havefocused primarily on accommodations (e.g., increasing the time allotted for completion, allowingthe use of dictionaries, or modifying the language of test prompts) rather than on major changesin the instruments themselves (Abedi, 1997; Abedi, Lord, Hofstetter, & Baker,2000; Kiplinger,Haug, & Abedi, 2000; Kopriva, 1997; Olson & Goldstein,1997; Sweet, 1997). Some have madeefforts to make fairer the scoring of ELLs’ responses (Wong Fillmore & Lara, 1996). However,little research literature exists on performance assessments for English language learners.© 2008 Dr. Catherine CollierAll Rights Reserved165
Page 2 and 3:
"Those who arrive by age 12 or 13 m
Page 5:
Article I.2 Are Signed Languages "R
Page 8 and 9:
Biological analyses of the status o
Page 10 and 11:
and beyond, speaking and signing ch
Page 12 and 13:
Conclusion: Are Signed Languages Re
Page 14 and 15:
Article I.3 The Interpreter: Has a
Page 16 and 17:
A few weeks earlier, I had called F
Page 18 and 19:
“We struggled even getting to the
Page 20 and 21:
herself by strapping a cassette rec
Page 22 and 23:
In 1998, after nine years as the ch
Page 24 and 25:
momentary burst of excitement that
Page 26 and 27:
can shape core grammar. Because the
Page 28 and 29:
The authors compared animal and hum
Page 30 and 31:
monkey moved. He followed it with h
Page 32 and 33:
delight, fear, laughter, and surpri
Page 34 and 35:
Piipaío in a hut: Pirahã huts typ
Page 36 and 37:
LEP students, and equitable organiz
Page 38 and 39:
4. Second language development crea
Page 41 and 42:
curriculum or "teaching to the test
Page 43 and 44:
portfolio work was scanned and stor
Page 45 and 46:
experiences of many groups of stude
Page 47 and 48:
While not disagreeing that interpre
Page 49 and 50:
sound educational practice, however
Page 51 and 52:
arises from the efforts to abstract
Page 53 and 54:
Article II.2 Cross-Cultural Communi
Page 55 and 56:
males who can serve as positive rol
Page 57 and 58:
Understanding another culture is a
Page 59 and 60:
Pets and AnimalsWhich animals are v
Page 61 and 62:
to teach standard English is reflec
Page 63 and 64:
Asking personal questions of a pers
Page 65 and 66:
Using Cross Cultural Communication
Page 67 and 68:
Why Do Nonstandard English-Speaking
Page 69 and 70:
Before beginning to teach standard
Page 71 and 72:
• Negative attitudes toward low p
Page 73 and 74:
New standardized tests and assessme
Page 75 and 76:
Each of the behaviors listed above
Page 77 and 78:
Article II.3 Hard Work Hypothesis:
Page 79 and 80:
each point higher in SES, students
Page 81 and 82:
This case does not provide strong s
Page 83 and 84:
Article II.4 Language Acquisition a
Page 85 and 86:
1992, p. XI). These researchers, wh
Page 87 and 88:
comprehend a word within a specific
Page 89 and 90:
more to the truthfulness of the chi
Page 91 and 92:
This idea of “semilingualism” c
Page 93 and 94:
Article III.1 A Brief Description o
Page 95 and 96:
take different lengths of time to c
Page 97 and 98:
example, should involve the same co
Page 99 and 100:
As with all stages of BICS acquisit
Page 101 and 102:
Assessment techniques at stage 3 ca
Page 103 and 104:
different. Therefore, the social di
Page 105:
integrative motivation. Basically,
Page 109 and 110:
(Ellis, 1985; Hakuta, 1986). Howeve
Page 111 and 112:
that sociocultural processes have o
Page 113 and 114: Article III.3 How Children Acquire
Page 115 and 116: phonetic units (unique to signed la
Page 117 and 118: Article III.4 Toward a Sociocultura
Page 119 and 120: emember is that the fundamental goa
Page 121 and 122: The best practices models can be th
Page 123 and 124: By focusing on the dialectic betwee
Page 125 and 126: intergenerational wisdom shared by
Page 127 and 128: Daily Realities RecappedThe above v
Page 129 and 130: traditions. At a time in our histor
Page 131 and 132: We will now look at two examples of
Page 133 and 134: Speakers communicate fluently, main
Page 135 and 136: question the effects of such attitu
Page 137 and 138: Article IV.3 Culture Change: Effect
Page 139 and 140: and psychological characteristics o
Page 141 and 142: Contraryto what wewere expecting, t
Page 143 and 144: Article V.1 Assessment in ESL & Bil
Page 145 and 146: vocabulary does the student lack?Is
Page 147 and 148: whether they are LEP and to provide
Page 149 and 150: Fourth, ESL and bilingual program s
Page 151 and 152: competent reader/writer. All versio
Page 153 and 154: Table 1Comparison of Recent Accultu
Page 155 and 156: unilinear model, which measures the
Page 157 and 158: an English-only instructional progr
Page 159 and 160: Article V.3 Assessment of English L
Page 161 and 162: 8. Change answers only for a very g
Page 163: Riles, 1979; Jose P. v Ambac, 1983)
Page 167 and 168: Finally, when second language reade
Page 169 and 170: for their decisions, noting issues
Page 171 and 172: As mentioned above, when the transi
Page 173 and 174: ather than generic adjectives and t
Page 175 and 176: their imagined points of view. Ther
Page 177 and 178: English texts and demonstrate progr
Page 179: using inter-district teams). In the
show all

Art Un ticle I.1 ited Sta In the ates News - Woodring College of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?