“Assessing, Evaluating, and Reporting on Student Progress” in English Language Learners: A Guide for Classroom Teachers
This is a review of a chapter from the Ministry of Educations document “English Language Learners: A Guide for Classroom Teachers” which discusses evaluation of ELL students’ linguistic development. There is discourse over the importance of emphasizing concepts/knowledge rather then quantity. The reasoning behind this is that ELL students may take up to three times longer when completing assignments, which made me question whether teachers should be placing “word counts” on assignments if our assessment should not be focused on quantity?
The document also provides two samples of performance descriptors for language development, which could be a helpful starting point for teachers who do not have a lot of experience with ELL’s in their classroom. The only issue I had with this pre-designed assessment charts is that the language seemed very vague, which may lead to misinterpretation or generalization in the teachers assessment. In terms of ELL students and test taking, it is suggested that multiple choice and true/false assessment should be avoided as much as possible ( because of reading time and general comprehension).
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (1999). English Language Learners: A Guide for Classroom Teachers. Retrieved from British Columbia government website: www2.gov.bc.ca/ …/english-language-learners/classroom.pdf.
___________________________________________________________________________
Teacher Observation in Student Assessment
In Maxwell’s article “Teacher Observation in Student Assessment”, observation assessment was split into the two categories of incidental and planned. Incidental observations can sometimes be “missed” by teachers who are too focused on delivering the lesson. I believe that ELL students may benefit from planned observation as they have time to “prepare” mentally in regards to nervousness as well as scholastically. I also think it is important for all students to know when they are being assessed and clearly understand the requests from the evaluator. Maxwell also stresses the importance of building up a variety of evidence over time, and not simply basing your assessment on one observation. I believe this is where teacher bias may come into play, so it is important that judgment is not made based off of one observation, especially with ELL students language skills may hinder the knowledge that they are endeavouring to express.
Maxwell, Graham. (2001). Teacher Observation in Student Assessment. 1-12.
___________________________________________________________________________
Performance of English Language Learners as a Subgroup in Large-Scale Assessment: Interaction of Research and Policy
This article discourses about what the authors call “performance gaps” in the classroom environment between ELL students (subgroups) and non-ELL students (mainstream). As a side note, I do not agree with the authors labeling of “performance gaps” as it suggests one group is inferior in performance to another which encourages partiality.
The authors stress the importance of teachers familiarizing themselves with the factors/issues underlying subgroups when assessing them within the context of a mainstream classroom. In terms of cognitive factors that affect assessment, the authors state that “ELL students’ performance outcomes are very likely to be underestimated” when tested with the same format as non-ELL students (Abedi and Gandara 2006). Abedi and Gandara are suggesting that tests should be formatted differently for ELL students to better display their comprehension, which leads me to question the actual method of this. Is it enough to change the instructions so that they are more simplified or should ELL students be answering entirely different questions then non-ELL? I also suppose that this is pending the level of English that the ELL student has acquired and reliant on the judgment of the teacher. This article has made me consider the degree to which the format should be altered.
Abedi, J., & Gándara, P. (2006). Performance of English Language Learners as a Subgroup in Large-Scale Assessment: Interaction of Research and Policy. Educational Measurement: Issues & Practice, 25(4), 36-46
__________________________________________________________________________
Assessing English Language Learners: Theory and Practice
Since previous articles (above) have mentioned the importance of knowledge assessment, I wanted to find more in-depth information on content knowledge assessment with ELL’s.
In order to benefit from the assessment teachers must “establish meaningful relationships between the content of tests and the content of their teaching (Solano-Flores 2016). I understood this as meaning that teachers must carefully consider the actual content (questions) they ask on a test.
The chapter also mentions the importance of “openness” in testing, which refers to the degree that the test/assignment “allows the student to construct and provide their responses in multiple ways” (Solano-Flores 2016). I feel that this would be easier to implement in an English classroom setting versus a math classroom because of the flexibility of assessment. I agree that “openness” benefits not only ELL students, but also gives non-ELL students some autonomy with assessment.
Solano-Flores, G., & Taylor & Francis eBooks. (2016). Assessing English language learners: Theory and practice. New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203521953
__________________________________________________________________________
Success with ELL’s: Assessing ELL’s in Mainstream Classes
An important topic raised in this article was the use of questionnaires in the classroom to learn more about ELL students reading habits. The authors argue that these questionnaires are beneficial to understanding ELL reading habits outside of school and English language. Teachers are able to gage background information about students which can enable them to design lessons and assignments around student’s prior reading experiences and comfort levels.
Again, the advice about being careful with language on tests and assignments was stressed as an important factor in ELL understanding and success. What was not mentioned was the importance of the language used in the classroom, such as colloquial terms, which teachers may fall back on for explanation without realization? In an English classroom, it is important to pre-read any material delivered in class and select any terms or phrases that could be confusing for ELL students. A glossary of definitions could be attached or these terms could be discussed in context when used.
A final point made by the authors was something that I had not yet thought about during my inquiry. They stated that “accepting ELL’s as a homogenous group is a common misconception” (Guler and DelliCarpini 2013) . This statement made me realize that I had been grouping all ELL students into one category with specific needs. ELL students are diverse, with different backgrounds, experiences and understanding levels of English. Even though we wish to accommodate different assessment strategies for ELL students, we must also realize that these assessments should be altered to fit each student’s needs.
Guler, N., & DelliCarpini, M. (2013). Assessing ELL students in mainstream classes: A new dilemma for the teachers. English Journal, 102(3), 12
__________________________________________________________________________
“Improving comprehension and assessment of English language learners using MMIO”.
This article gives many pointers for teaching ELL students and setting them up for success during assessment. MMIO stands for multiple modes of input and output and focuses on methods teachers can implement to “make content comprehensible and assessment possible for their ELL’s” (Carrier 2006). There are three steps to using MMIO and are as follows; selecting a key concept for the lesson, making sure that these key concepts are presented with many different mediums during the lesson, and creating assessment methods that allow ELL students to demonstrate their understanding. When the unit/lesson begins it is important that the teacher lay out content objectives in language that ELL’s can comprehend (aka not academic jargon). The article focuses on cells as a lesson topic and suggest a word wall (posters with word definitions) created by all students at the beginning of the unit. These word walls will engage ELL students in new vocabulary and assist in their understanding. Carrier also suggests modeling as a good strategy to help build ELL understanding, especially when introducing something new. In terms of test assessment, Carrier suggests that multiple choice tests are generally not a good way of assessment for ELL’s because of the “high level of language proficiency needed to first comprehend the question and each answer choice” (Carrier 2006), and then the time it takes to figure out the correct answer. Carrier suggests alternatives such as pictures, graphic organizers, oral report and that “performance-based assessments depend on actions more heavily then written or spoken language” (Carrier 2006).
Carrier, K. A. (2006). Improving comprehension and assessment of English language learners using MMIO. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas,79(3), 131-136. doi:10.3200/TCHS.79.3.131-136.
__________________________________________________________________________
Supporting English Language Learners: A Practical Guide for Ontario Educators
http://edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/esleldprograms/guide.pdf
This resources is from the government of Ontario’s education board and is a lengthy document discussing ELL’s in Ontario’s public education system. Topics in the document range from character development, placement and programming, accessible content strategies, as well as large scale assessment and in the classroom. On page 45 there is a chart labeled “Some potential difficulties related to language learning or to Special Education needs” which I found to be useful for teachers seeking information about assessing whether or not an ELL students is actually struggling with a learning disability or just the language content.
On page 62 under the topic of assessment there is a “checklist” for teachers assessing ELL students which I found useful as a significant foundation for assessment and have copied directly below.
Assessment of English language learners should:
- focus on improving student learning
- be linked directly to curriculum expectations (as modified for each ELL’s degree of English language proficiency)
- recognize linguistic and academic progress, while taking into account realistic and varying rates of second-language learning
- incorporate student self-assessment
- actively involve students and parents.
To determine if their assessment procedures for ELLs are appropriate, teachers should consider:
- Do assessments reflect appropriate program adaptations?
- Are assessments based on clear statements of expectations?
- Do assessments take into account the student’s developing understanding of English?
- Do assessments take into account the cultural and linguistic background of the student?
- Do assessments allow for the use of the student’s first language as appropriate?
- Do assessments include clear guidelines for program monitoring?
(Bullet points taken from http://edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/esleldprograms/guide.pdf)
It is also important to note that I liked the suggestion of conferencing for ELLs as an “effective way of allowing them to communicate their understanding and demonstrate their acquisition of the knowledge and skills outlined in the curriculum expectations” (Government of Ontario 2008). I have not witnessed any conferencing during my observations but I do agree that this method could be more effective for assessment as it allows ELL students to build conversation skills and express ideas without reading and writing comprehension. Most ELL students that I have met have had stronger English verbal skills then written, so I can see how this assessment method would work.
___________________________________________________________________________
Mainstreaming ELL’s
This article discusses the ongoing matter of ELL students being “mainstreamed” into non-EAL classes before they are proficient enough. The supporters of mainstreaming argue that it helps ELL students to “learn faster because they have English proficient peers as models… [and are] being included in all aspects of the school, rather than segregated into a separate classroom” (Varela 2010). Another push for mainstreaming ELL students comes from the No Child Left Behind Policy, which sometimes forces ELL’s too quickly into non-EAL classes so that they can graduate on time. Varela claims that this rapid mainstreaming is having a very negative effect on ELL students. According to research, it can take five to seven years for ELL students to be exposed to and comprehend enough academic language to survive in grade school (Varela 2010).
Since mainstreaming is not going anywhere, according to Varela, teachers must educate themselves with basic second language acquisition theory and research (Varela 2010). Varela goes on to introduce the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) which is a tool for organizing 30 features of effective lessons into eight modules. Teachers must make academic content comprehensible for ELL learners while at the same time they are practicing and developing their English language skills (Varela 2010). Classroom community and team teaching are also two other methods suggested by Valera that would support SIOP in the classroom.
Varela, E. (2010). Mainstreaming ELLs into grade-level classes. Education Digest, 76(2), 39.
__________________________________________________________________________
Academic Literacy and ELL Students
Similar to the data provided in the Varela article review above, research has found that ELL students have been mainstreamed too soon into non-EAL classes and are preforming much lower than their non-ELL classmates. An inquiry of the academic performance of ELLs on the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress “indicates that only 29 per cent of ELLs in eighth grade scored at or above the basic level in reading, compared to 73 percent of non ELL” (Perez and Holmes 2010). This article basis its thesis off of these facts and questions how the education system can ensure that ELL students “have equal access to a quality education”, which includes teachers adjusting lessons so that while ELL students are learning curriculum content they are concurrently developing literacy skills and academic vocabulary (Perez and Holmes 2010).
One of the most important factors of academic literacy for ELL’s is understanding the background of the student such as socialized literacy based on culture and the resources available to the student at home (Perez and Holmes 2010). When teachers have a better understanding of what each ELL student’s background in education practices and their English language experiences, teachers can use flexibility and tailor lessons and assessment towards a realistic expectation of each ELL student.
Another important concept discussed by Perez and Holmes is that we must consider each ELL student differently, not as a group within the class. This is a concept that has been mentioned through previous articles I have reviewed. There are five stages of second language acquisition; preproduction, early production, speech emergence, intermediate fluency, and advanced fluency (Perez and Holmes 2010). These stages effect the ELL students’ academic literacy and the stage that each student may be at is dependent on factors such as “immigration history, language of instruction in the country of origin, and program models used to provide ESL support” (Perez and Holmes 2010). What I inferred from this portion of the article was the importance of knowing background information and building relationships to gain knowledge that will be used to assist ELL students with academic literacy.
Perez, D., & Holmes, M. (2010). Ensuring academic literacy for ell students. American Secondary Education, 38(2), 32-43.
_________________________________________________________________________
How Culture effects English Language Learners
I found this article very useful for teaching in Vancouver because from what I have observed, the majority of ELL students are Chinese. According to Cong, many Americans (and presumably Canadians) assume that all Chinese ELL students come into the public education system with special academic skills and acumen (Derderian-Aghajanian and Cong 2012). This stereotype can negatively affect Chinese ELL students as it “promotes invisibility and disguises the social realities of many other children from different families and sociocultural contexts” (Derderian-Aghajanian and Cong 2012).
The article then goes on to depict certain challenges related to cultural difference that Chinese ELL students may encounter in American (or Canadian) public education system. For Chinese students, literacy is embedded in cultural values, something that may not be as present in American education system, which ELL students struggle to comprehend (Derderian-Aghajanian and Cong 2012).
Below are listed the three educational differences in learning styles between China and the USA which focus around teacher/student-centered teaching and explicit/implicit learning. I found these three differences very important foundational blocks for beginning to understand Chinese ELL learning styles.
- “Chinese learners require a large number of facts to be committed to memory (Li, 2002). This difference reflects the unique characteristics of Asian cultural concepts of literacy acquisition” (Derderian-Aghajanian and Cong 2012).
- “Chinese students are accustomed to teacher-centered classrooms in their home country” (Derderian-Aghajanian and Cong 2012).
- “Traditionally, in Chinese schools, content and curriculum are often standardized across the nation. In Canada, teachers provide guidance only; learning is open and at the initiative of individual students” (Derderian-Aghajanian and Cong 2012).
Derderian-Aghajanian, A., & Cong, W. C. (2012). How culture effects on English language learners’ (ELL’s) outcomes, with Chinese and Middle Eastern immigrant students. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(5).
