Boffo Classrooms Take Students to Hiqher Levels of Performance

Assessing English LanguageLearners’ Content Knowledge inMiddle School ClassroomsThis 1* Believe Characteristics

• Assessment and evaluation programs that promote quality learning• High expectations for every member of the learning community• Multiple learning and teaching approaches that respond to their diversity

By N. Eleni Pappamihiel & Florin Mihal

The number of English Language Learners(ELLs) In U.S. public schools increased morethan 45% between the 1997-1998 school year

and 2003 (Padolsky, 2004). Given this trend, middleschool teachers are seeing more and more ELLs Intheir dassrooxns, but a significant number of theseteachers feel either unprepared or under-prepared towork with non-native speakers of English (Lewis,Parsad, Carey, Barifal, Farris, & Smerdon 1999;President’s Advisory Commission on EducationalExcellence for Hispanic AmerIcans, 2000). Thepurpose of this article is to highlight ways In whichmiddle school content area teachers can moreeffectively assess ELLa In their classrooms.

In the following pages, five questions are posed toguide middle school content teachers In makingadaptations and accommodations when usingtraditional classroom tests. The objective of theseadaptations Is to create a more valid and reliableassessment picture. We hope to show that teachersdo not need to create completely different tests forEfls In all instances, but rather, they can adapt omentclassroom assessment instruments to accommOdatethe linguistic and cultural needs of ELLs until theyare able toy paztidpate In classroom assessmentwithout adaptation. While we acknowledge thatthere are many types of alternative assessments,such as performance and portfolio assessments, that

are effective with ELLa, this article Is designed to assistregular middle school classroom teachers when theseother types of assessment are not feasible or available.Our hope Is that middle school teachers will use acombination of adapted traditional assessm1ts andeffective alternative assessments with ELI

Assessing English Language LearnersNF0r a non-native speaker of English ... every testg1venInP- - alanguageorliteracy tr agical Association,

I11

N. Ek, PsiUiSd is an assistant pwfèssor in the ,mdtilhssaLhnust&uItwal hmpw.ywn In the DcpL ofMiddle andSezmdai £ducatkm, Florida State University, Tallahassee. E-mail: pappI2mlh@xie.ftzLaka

Fiodn MW,.’ Is an assistant pofrssor- ofmlddk and secondary education at Florida State UniwrsWy, Tallahassee.E-mail: fmm581Ornaller4su.edu

34 Middle School journal • September 2006

1999, p. 73). Moreover, we know that bilingualIndividuals vary greatly in their academic use oflanguage, rnaldng language background an Importantconsideration In any testing situation (President’sAdvisory Commission on Educational Excellence forHispanic Americans, 2000). Yet, some teachers donot consider testing adaptations and accommodations“fair” to their native speakers of English, emphasizingthat any testing changes would alter the testingenvironment. However, for linguistically diversestudents, any test given in English automaticallyconstitutes an unequal testing environment whencompared to that of a native speaker of English.When teachers acknowledge the need for testingadaptations and accommodations, It Is often difficultto find information to guide them.

Much of the current literature concerning theassessment of ELLs is focused on the assessment oflanguage pmficiency So, when middle school teacherslook for resources about the assessment of ELLs, theymay find a vast amount of Information on how toeffectively assess how well an ELL speaks, reads, orwrites in English, but It Is more difficult to findeffective strategies to use when assessing ELLs’content knowledge. While It is critical to understandELLs’ English language profidency to assess theircontent profidenc this type of proficiency assessment is not the central evaluation task that concernsmost content area teachers. In other words, a scienceteacher would certainly care to know the ELL’slanguage proficiency but would be more concernedabout assessing the specific science content thatstudent had mastered.

Information available for application to contentarea classrooms most often relates to various instructional strategies rather than testing strategies. Tohelp make the determination about mastery ofcontent objectives more valid, we suggest thatteachers answer five questions. These questions donot constitute an exhaustive inventory but ratherare intended to provide a starting point for contentarea teachers who are seeking to make theirclassroom tests and quizzes more valid. The fivequestions are listed below:

1. Do I know my students’ English languageproficiencies?

2. Have I designed a test that mirrors classroomobjectives, strategies, and activities?

3. Have I made use of all relevant and availablevisuals and graphics?

4. Have I Incorporated true accommodations to levelthe playing field for my ELI&

5. Have I created a dear scoring rubric that willallow me to provide culturally sensitive and usefulfeedback?

These five questions reflect major aspects of assessment and help provide a clearer, more holisticpicture of an ELlis abilities, strengths, and weaknesses.They account for English proficiency, the reductionof language requirements, the use of non-linguisticcues as adaptations, appropriate accommodations,and appropriate feedback. In the followingparagraphs, each will be outlined with links toresearch, classroom practice, and examples.

Do I Know My Students’ EnglishProficiency Levels?Embedded within this question are a variety ofcharacteristics that go beyond an Eli’s ability toform grammatically correct sentences in English.Acknowledging the fact that English proficiency is acomplex concept can help many teachers adapt theirtests to meet that proficiency. According to Canaleand SwaIn (1979), among others, English proficiencycan be viewed within the concept of communicativecompetence. This type of competence posits thatEnglish proficiency is not limited to grammaticalcompetence, but also includes soclolinguistic,strategic, and dIscourse competence. Hence, whenmaking adaptations for ELLs’ competence InEnglish, it Is Important to look at their ability tounderstand the culture embedded In the language,repair breakdowns In communication, and engage inappropriate conversations In addition to forminggrammatically correct sentences.

Moreover, understanding where an ELL falls interms of English language proficiency means makingnot only curricular adaptations and accommodationsfor them but also designing such adaptations forassessment purposes. Perhaps Ernst-Slavln, Moore,and Maloney (2002) provided the most comprehensive Information to help teachers match Englishlanguage proficiency with strategies and adaptations(see FIgure 1). Ernst-Slavln and associates haveprovided specific strategies that are intended toenhance students’ emerging abifitles and help themovercome linguistics deficits. For example, at theearly production level Ernst-Slavin has recommendedthat questions only require a yes/no or either/orresponse. Furthermore, they write that effective

Middle School Journal • September 2006 35

• Commaniutse with1i..a. action., and

verhel formulas•bb.lkaInreq1Ive

vocabulary.15 recyclIng learning

language predice• Bustle from Ilatenlag

ccnrnhensIan adiviti.

• Can wile answers toh levi quesilom

—Canrsoeeaidulctaveitelly

• Create a•nvfrnnmeof

• P1d support and

• Avoid asking dfrsct questions

• Fece*Iac. coiweasatios• Simple demoesirated

dbuctioan• Paitidpndom Is adeskj€• PIes/gamsa. rut

• Pishie bucks

Figure 1Stages of Language Development and Cultural Adaptation

LINGUISTIC CULTURAL SUGGESTIONS IUESIIONtNG 1IGHNIOUISCO#SWIBAHONS C0NIOLRATI0NS 104 IIACHEHS APPROPf4IATE QUESTIONS ACTiVITiES

STUDENT.. UICLUDE.

• Find lisa...•Polatle.• Put the — next 15 the —.

• Do you have lii. ..?• Who didj• While blamer earns?• Whit Is thIs (consfet. o*c*l7• Who Is helahe?•Whobastb ?

• Inleltiwly usdeasleadeliii English Is a cydem

• Label and cslagadzes• Eacearsers native— latoronve

• lives on.- and twowoid respoiwes andctws of toageage

• Can say 1 don’tunderntand.

• Meoller error coiTactis,,• Use adidpallan guide.a Use list of kay bums for

a 1J5 eudlolapan of rødlngsand toctines

• Use gnapMe oiga.tasrz

o Doadion. that rL4uk. a— answer

• Doullows that — .Itherfw

• Uses languagepeiposefullyProduces completesaisaces

•-maflnllatiun andaemburetice

a horn

siatfaligu.

• Use —comprehensioncheel

• Design leseons looming on

a_

• Use model, charts, maps,sod tlm.llees

•

• SInT,

apse

• Open ended questloee; why orhow questions

• SpecifIc questions•Howisltthat•Tellmeabout ?

AI

ai

• Wend —mhiprodedileil :

a$lmph.wfllinga Computer lessees playiii ieioplaylng

•cha.alwadlsg

a Can produce cormeded •‘

• Can, use reading andwilingInto buses

recommend —— writing

Isti let Inlonnatlan totnt areas

bookI

5ow EmsSWn, McOj &Ma1a,,r, 2002

•a WhitaD• How am these the same

or diftemat?• Whet would happen If_?

• Which do you prier? Why?

a Ex$seaifcne at new

and lest.• Lee dIscussion.• Ulerasy analysis at plot.cb.1b, —

a Simple roped writing

36 Middle SchoI loumal • September 2006

strategies would Include retelllngs, oral readings,and some written practice. Whereas, at the speechemergence level, ELLs have relatively good socialEnglish skills and are becoming more familiar withacademic English structures. An ELL at this level wouldbe relatively comfortable with open-ended questionsand descriptions. Knowing these characteristics of astudent’s English language proficiency, a ninth gradescience teacher could adapt test questions so thatmore open-ended questions are posed. In addition,this same teacher could accommodate an Eli at thislevel by providing a glossary of useful terms andfill-In-the-blank paragraphs that would allow thestudent to focus on expressing content mastery ratherthan linguistic advances. An example of an extremelinguistic burden can be seen In the following ninthgrade word problem taken from the practice Itemsfor the florida Comprehensive Assessment Test(FCAT, n.d.) mathematics section. Students wereasked to calculate volume.

An engineer Is designing a metal gasket for a spaceaaft. The gasket has the shape of a cylinder with acylindrical hole through the center. The diameter ofthe gasket Is 9 centImeters, and its height Is 4 cent!meters. The diameter of the hole is 3 centImeters.What Is the volume of metal, In cubIc centimeters,that Is required to make the gasket?

While an unlabeled diagram of the cylinder with thehole Is provided, the vocabulary of the problemitself, (gasket, spacecraft, cylindrical, etc.) can makethis problem Impossible for an Eli to solve. To anEU. at the early production level (assuming thathe/she has mastered such vocabulary as “shape,”“diameter,” “volume,” and “cylinder), this problemmay very well have read like this:

An

______

Is designing a metal

______

for a

_____.The _____

hastheshapeofacylinderwIth a

______

hole through the center. Thediameter of the

_____

Is 9 centimeters, and Itsheight Is 4 centImeters. The diameter of the hole is 3centimeters. What Is the volume of -. in____centimeters, that Is required to make the

_____

Even though the necessary Information to solve theproblem still exists In the item, It is Inaccessible forthis ELL By simplifying the word problem andLabeling the diagram (FIgure 2) with the appropriatevocabulary that has been learned and reinforced Inclass, the teacher could assess this student’s masteryof the concept of volume by reducing the linguisticburden of the math assessment. It Is important tonote that, although the language of the problem has

been changed, the concept being assessed has notbeen altered. With some word simplification, thisword problem may change to read as Illustrated InFigure 2.

Language simplification, repetition offrequently used phrases, and peer/teacheraid can help ELLs respond to contentquestions within their linguistic boundaries.

By knowing and working within ELLs’ Englishlanguage proficiencies, a teacher is able to morevalidly and reliably determine their mastery ofcontent rather than making this expression ofknowledge dependent upon their limited mastery ofthe English language. Language simplIfication,repetition of frequently used phrases, and apeer/teacher-aid can help ELLs respond to contentquestions within their linguistic boundaries. Trustedpeers and teachers can provide scaffolded languagesupport, especially at the beginning stages oflanguage acquisition and In Instances whereclassroom concepts are text driven, as in a socialstudies classroom (Egbert & Sitmch-Dudgeon, 2001).It Is essential that a content area teacher know not

Figure 2Example of labeling with language simplification

T4IltI

A cØlndv has. diametir ifS cedL, sild b hitN 114 Celd!m.tiua. Tham isa hal. I. the rIddle at the c)llnder. The dlsmste,of 1k. hoIsts 3 celdhneb,.. You wild to liii Iii cylbide, with wldir.Whit!. the vokime if water that!. required to lit! the Cylinder Incable ceadniatais (cii’)?

Middle School Journal • September 2006 37

only what ELLs can do on their own, but also whatthey are capable of with appropriate linguistic aid(e.g., graphic organizers, tables, glossaries). This typeof assessment can also help content area teachersdetermine what other types of adaptations andaccommodations are necessary as ELIs progressthrough the stages of language development.

Modified objectives reduce the linguisticburden on the ELL without reducing thecognitive demand of the objective.

An example of such an assessment may Include ashort answer response Item on a social studies testthat would normally be answered with a shortessay written by the student. More spedficaflwhen a social studies teacher Is focusing onconsumerism and wants to assess students’ abilityto comparison shop, he may ask students to answerthe following question.

You want to buy a new lacket. The Pistons jacket Isalmost twice the price of a similar jacket sold byMacy’s. Do you buy the expensive Pistons jacket orthe Macy’s brand? Why?

This short answer question can be broken down intoa series of simplified questions that scaffold the ELL’sresponse in a manner that allows the teacher todetennine exactly where the student’s comprehension may be compromised. Another method ofscaffolding the Item would be to have studentscomplete a graphic organizer. Examples of each ofthese methods are given In Figure 3.

Have I Designed a Test That MirrorsClassroom Objectives, Strategies, andActivities?A dear statement of objectives Is necessary for anyassessment of student achievement (Genessee &lJpshur, 1996). Tdeall before any testing takes place,content area teachers have already adapted classroomobjectives and activities according to their ELLs’language profldency For example, a science teachermay have the following class objective for hermiddle school earth science class, “Students willbe able to accurately define the words ‘gravity,’erosion, and ‘deposition’ and give examples ofeach.” For an ELL at an early production level, shemay have adapted this objective to, “Student is able

to accurately identify pictorial examples of graviy,

evsion, and deposzdon and provide two- to three-worddescriptions.” The test designed to assess the EU.student’s mastery of this Information should reflectthe adapted objective. While It is not recommendedthat teachers consistently create completely differentlearning objectives for their ELLs, all Instructionalobjectives should fit each ELL’s level of Englishlanguage profldenc As tests should be directreflections of classroom objectives, so shouldadapted classroom objectives be assessed usingadapted tests. In the example, the science teacherwould not ask her early production ELL to write acomplete definition as she might her native Englishspeakers, but mthei, the ELL would engage In anappilcation activity similar to classroom activitiesthat make use of visuals and short two- to three-wordphrases. Modified objectives reduce the linguisticburden on the EU. without reducing the cognitivedemand of the objective.

Figure 3Comparison 5hopplng

;ffcH EMtHGUCi

wa a ye L Ibme Is aee ackeI Bial c. zao. I IiU1..Ibw I N alaII spuR loam eeIL ThouIs aaiu — me Is made By Iso dlii Isal souR 15$. TWO jackaldoe, ad Iso ourned Iso urlo moo B. loIs lackali are maded medial hose a dIs hoar.

1. Whol Is Iso cad al lack jackal?—___

Ye,

_____________

3. ickouomeddyeuby?4.Why?

No

EARLY ‘-RODUCBON‘. — lo y a — Thai Is mu a1Isal souR $211. I IsapaoaIb, biei It has Is. eame do Iaee.s qua Re. on U.There Is aaeluer jecad Bid Is male W Iso does Bid souR $11. TWO— Ieee id ama Iso mooed me qua mm on N. Slab lidoRire male wool hos. 11* liner.

1. welecheejadma.She. Jackal___

LIweeWbIki Iadmtboeauu

38 Middle School journal • September 2006

In classrooms this understanding of criteria alsoindicates an equally dear understanding of test task.In other words, teachers should not introduce a newtask to ELLs on test day; all test tasks should reflectactivities that have already been introduced in aninstructional setting multiple times. This type oftransparency and established routine is critical sothat ELLs are assessed on their knowledge of contentnot their knowledge of how to do the activity. Forexample, some ELLs may consider a short answerresponse to be as brief as three to four words,whereas many American teachers might considera short answer task to be the equivalent of at leastone paragraph. If ELLs are only asked to produceshort answer responses on tests, they may notdemonstrate full mastery of content because theirunderstanding of the task is different from that ofthe teacher.

Have I Made Use of All Relevant andAvailable Visuals and Graphics?When working with most ELLs at any level ofEnglish language profidency visuals and graphicorganizers are essential tools. However, many teachersdo not use many visuals or graphics on their tests,relying on students’ prior knowledge and memory toaid them in responding to questions. Teachersshould use the same visuals and graphic organizerson tests that were used in classroom instruction tohelp reduce the language requirements of contenttests. Moreover, visuals and graphics should appearin stinilar positions on tests as they have in classroomactivities. For example, if pictures are placedimmediately beside a complex passage to aidunderstanding, then that same picture should beplaced in a similar position on the test relating tothat passage. Also, if a Venn diagram is used in aclassroom activity, the teacher should not switchto a T-diagram on a test to compare two objectsor concepts.

ELLs who are more advanced in their Englishprofidency can help teachers with visuals. Case(2002) wrote that In science classes, ELLs themselvescan create pictures and visuals to supplement theiranswers on classroom tests that require higher orderthinking skills. This type of response enables the ELLstudent to provide another avenue of communicationthat is not linguistically dependent. Additionally,Case found that ELLs were more successful whenallowed to supplement their test responses withquotes from their own past journals, allowing them

Figure 4Pictorial responses to mathematics problems

to demonstrate mastery of a concept by findingexactly the right quote without having the burdenof reproducing English sentences under testconditions that may have taken them a long timeto create originally.

In math classes, word problems are especiallydifficult for ELLs due to the extreme linguisticdemands of these types of problems. Celedon-Pattichis(2004) found that middle school ELLs had extremedifficulty distinguishing “natural languages’ frommathematical language, resulting in students confusing numbers that appeared as natural language(e.g., size 7 dress or number 2 can of peas) in theword problem with mathematical language thatrelated to the actual calculation needed. She

He ‘ t’r;.kj.s 7% eac.

3,y’2b

V

Middle School Journal ‘ September 2006 39

emphasized that teachers spend time Initially readingfor understanding, which is often not done at testtime. Therefore, word problems should be written Insuch a way that the ELL student can process thelanguage and mathematics aspects of the problem ina reasonable amount of time. Lee, Silverman, &Montoya (2002) recommended that young ELLS beencouraged to create diagrams and other types ofdrawings when responding to word problems ontests (Figure 4). In these problems, students havebeen asked to “draw” math problems to provide avisual check of their comprehension. By having ELLscreate their own visuals, teachers can be sure thatthey are understanding the problem tself as well asapplying the appropriate mathematical process.

Accommodations are not meant to giveELLs an edge over native English speakingstudents but rather to help eliminate thelinguistic burden placed on non-nativespeakers of English.

Have I Incorporated TrueAccommodations to Level the PlayingField for My ELLs?According to Butler and Stevens (1997) the mostcommonly used accommodations for ELLs includebilingual dictionaries, extended time, alternativesetting, simplification of directions, test modifications(e.g., translation, visual supports, additional examples),and procedural modifications (e.g.. breaks duringtesting, reading aloud of questions, oral directions inthe native language). In most cases, these accommodations are used on large-scale assessments, butresults from studies of their use can inform classroomtesting by providing classroom teachers with a morerealistic picture of what constitutes a true testingaccommodation. Some of these accommodations aremore feasible than others, and some, such as directtranslation, should be avoided altogether undermost conditions.

Abecli, Hofstetter, and Lord (2004) wrote that atrue accommodation can, “level the playing field forEnglish learners, without giving them an advantageover students who are not receiving accommodatedassessments. ... ideally, an assessment accommodation

should yield an interaction effect, where theaccommodation improves the performance ofEnglish language learners but not the performanceof native English speakers.” (p. 6) In other words,accommodations are not meant to give ELla an edgeover native English speaking students but rather tohelp eliminate the linguistic burden placed onnon-native speakers of English.

For classroom tests, we can recommend thefoUowing accommodations that reduce the linguisticburden for ELLs while still retaining the responsibilityof content mastery. Teachers can reduce idiomaticand slang expressions as well as phrasal verbs (e.g.,to run over to, to run into, to run out of) that maybe confusing. While many teachers allow ELLs touse bilingual dictionaries on tests, glossaries andcustomized dictionaries have been shown to bemore effective (Abedi & Helri, 2004). SInce a bilingualdictionary’ is not content or context specific, it willprovide all possible translations of a word. Thecommon English word “go” has 20 definItions justin its intransitive sense. Adding the transitive senseleaves a student with nine more possibilities.However a glossed text would define “go” withinthe boundaries of the particular context of that text.For example, in the sentence ‘This shirt goes withthis tie,” the word “go” would be glossed at themargin as “to be compatible with.”

A popular large-scale test accommodation isextended time. Often ELla are given.:is much timeas needed, provided that they can complete aparticular section or portion of the test within oneschool day. However, classroom teachers who arelimited by bell schedules and physiial ‘.onslraintswithin the classroom cannot easily make use of thispopular accommodation. So, instead of giving ELLsextra time In class, take-home tests can be given orELla can be given a test with a reduced number ofitems that correspond to the same constructs andobjectives on the full version.

With the Increasing popularity of the Internet,translations of text have become easier; however,research has found at least threemajor problems.First, rarely are identical translations possible. Worddifficulty and pT cedures do not have a one-to-onecorrespondence in alt langu.ges (Figueroa, 1990).Secondly, if the language of instruction has beenEnglish, it is unlikely that the ELL student will befamiliar with the content in his or her nativelanguage. For example, If our intrepid math teacherwants to translate the previously cited word problem

40 Middle Schoo’ journal • September 2006

of ipadlfc prodenac Stcdea( ldeat)lIea Immigmdcmpafl.ms ki bdh coenbiac toea nof proctde conartcon ornnaUac

Siided Idedlftea knmoa Stcdm* feabfl IiHgraaoq,pitter Hi both cmmftln provldlrq pottenc In both cou*lea. p?o,$delat Inst . poh dmfladty and mace Itaci on 9MM of atmibiflydiffacenca for eacti pam and dflteai, cWn ponible

reason for each

to Spanish, she may use the term “junta de culata”for the English term “gasket,” but if the EU. studentfrom Mexico has only studied that concept inEnglish It is unlikely he or she will know the wordin Spanish since it may not be part of that student’ssocial vernacular. Unless ELLs are taught contentbilingually, they should not be expected to demon-strata knowledge learned In English in their nativelanguage. The third, and related, difficulty withtranslation is that L1.l- inas or ITIJV not be literatein their native language. testing in Haitian-Creolewill only be onsidered vajid if haitian studeiitscan read and write at au apJ’ropriJtv level inthat language.

Have I Created a Clear Scoring RubricThat Will Allow Me to Provide CulturallySensitive and Useful Feedback?Shepard (2000) wrote, “Students must have a clearunderstanding of the criteria by which their workwill be assessed” (p. ii). Rubrics are an essential partof the assessment process and allow teachers to besure “a score or grade was based on actual studentperformance rather than some idiosyncratic orIndefensible application of the scoring criteria”(OMalley & Piette, 1996, p. 20). in addition, andespecially for EUs, shared rubrics allow teachers toshow students exactly what will be expected of themon tests and other assessments. This increasedtransparency can help to reduce test anxiety and actas a study guide for ELLs. For teachers of ELLs,rubrics give them a further opportunity tolyexamine the English demands of a given test. Finally,specific rubrics tied to instructional objectives canhelp ensure consistency throughout the entireteaching-testing cycle (Brown, 2004).

Rubrics for ELLs should take into considerationtheir level of English proficiency in addition toteacher expectations in relation to content mastery.For example, if teachers develop rubrlcs of accomplishment that Include “approaches standard” and

“exceeds standard” definitions as well as “meetsstandard,” they can track student progress incontent and language mastery. This feedback cyclecan help teachers lndMdualize interventionprocedures that can provide positive washback onthe instructional process. For example, in a middleschool social studies class in which students areasked to compare and contrast immigration patternsin the U.S. and Canada, teachers can create rubricsthat Identify several key Indicators and levels ofaccomplishment (Figure 5).

In this rubric indicator, the teacher can nowsee evidence of content mastery approaching,meeting, or exceeding standard and. can viewlanguage pwgress.

With regard to culturally sensitive feedback.content area teachers should provide feedback thatis clear, concise, and understandable as well asculturally appropriate. It does little good to spendtime providing feedback that will be eithermisunderstood or disregarded by an Eli studentwho does not understand the cultural context ofthat feedback.

If the language of instruction has beenEnglish, it is unlikely that the ELL studentwill be familiar with the content in his orher native language.

ScarceU.a (1992) provided some situations wheremiscommunicatlon regarding feedback may takeplace. The first of these involves the role of feedbackprovided by students. As many teachers are aware, itis not unusual for EL.Ls to feign understanding sothat they do not draw unwanted attention tothemselves in class. hence, content area teachersshould question culturally appropriate “signals”(e.g., nodding) that indicate that ELLs are paying

Figure 5Rubric Element for Assessing Understanding of Immigration Patterns

INDICATOR APPtQP.CHLS EXPECTATTOdS MEETS EXPEC1AflONS EXCEEDS EXPECTATiONS

Middle School loumal . September 2006 41

attention and understanding. In addition, teachersneed to ensure that ELLs are aware of what theyview as paying attention and demonstratingunderstanding. Some cultures consider eye contactto be very disrespectful, but It Is thought to be anIndicator of attention in many US. classrooms.

Scarcella went on to note six other areas ofpossible misunderstanding.

1. What constitutes criticism or compliments forthat student?

2. How does that student view or value errorcorrection? How is peer feedback treated In theclassroom?

3. How does this student request darificatlon? Howwould these requests be interpreted by a teacher?

4. How does this student feel about being singledout (spotlighted) in class?

5. How does the teacher use questions to checkcomprehension? How would these questions beinterpreted by the student?

6. How are pauses and wait time interpreted by thestudent and the teacher? How fast does thestudent need to respond to a question?

These areas of potential miscommunicatlon areoften easily circumvented by simply asking thestudents themselves. Because many teachers andELLs have not consdously thought about theseclassroom aspects before, they do not realizemisunderstanding is even possible until a conflictoccurs. By establishing guidelines ahead of time,teachers can help ensure that their feedback Is beingprocessed In a useful manner. For example, if ELLscome from cultures In which display questions arenot often asked (e.g., “What time Is It?” asked whilethe teacher Is looking at the dock), the ELLs maybecome offended thinldng that the teacher IsInsulting them. Additionally, if ELLs come fromcultures that value thoughtful consideration of aquestion before a response is expected, the relativelyshort wait time allowed in US. classrooms will beconfusing and send conflicting signals. The ELLstudents may think that the teacher must not valuetheir answers If the teacher does not allow enoughtime to ponder It. If the teacher does not feelcomfortable talking directly to the ELL, often otherstudents from that same cultural group can provideimportant insights.

Error correction Is often a controversial topic.How much and how often should ELLs be correctedIn class? Because ELLs are going through a variety ofstages of language acquisition (Emst-SIavln, Moore,& Maloney 2002), It is generally considered Inappro.priate to constantly correct an ELL’s English.Modeling correct usage and grammatical structureare thought to be more helpful In the long run.However, not all cultures view Indirect correction asvaluable (Scaicella, 1992). Ran (2001) found thatChinese parents were disappointed when they metwith teachers because the teachers did not provideenough critical feedback concerning their children.On the other hand, the teachers felt that the parentsdid not appreciate their supportive tone that highlighted their children’s strengths and progressdespite their ongoing limitations in the language.

In sum, rubrlcs can provide teachers with focused,clear direction in providing culturally sensitivefeedback to students who may or may not fullyunderstand the academic culture they findthemselves in. This transparency and stability canhelp both groups—teachers and students—movethrough murky waters.

ConclusionsWe have outlined several questions that content areateachers can ask themselves when preparing classroom assessments and tests for ELLs. The questionsthemselves are designed to move teachers who havenot received extensive training In teaching Englishas a second language through a series of stages fromtest development to feedback and correction.However, we do not want to further complicate theassessment process by insinuating that thesequestions will solve every problem and challengethat teachers face when working with ELLs.

Classroom assessment is, by far, a more complexIssue than we have time and space to address. Tomore effectively address this comp1exlty In thesefinal paragraphs we would like to encourage contentarea teachers to use multiple assessment pointswhen working with ELL. We are optimistic thatteachers will use not only formal tests but alsoinformal assessments such as running records andJournals to assess the content mastery of their ELLs.Even more so, we hope that content area teacherswill make extensive use of portfolios and performancetypes of assessments In combination with moretraditional classroom tests adapted to gain a fuller,more holistic, picture of ELLs’ abffitles in both theEnglish language and In content areas.

42 MIddle School journal • September 2006

Finally, we have not touched on the topic oflarge-scale assessment with ELLs. This highlycontroversial topic has, and will continue to be, amuch-debated issue in all schools as accountabilityat the state and federal levels becomes moredependent on the scores of special populations ofstudents, like English Language Learners. Asmentioned previously, our hope is that assessmentof ELLs becomes more of a process of developing aholistic picture of students’ abilities and needs basedon their growth over time and the development ofhigher order thinking skills In another language.

ReferencesAbedi, J., Hofstetter, C. H., & Lord, C. (2004). Assessment

accommodations for English Language Learners:Implications for policy-based empLrlcal research. ReviewofF4ucational Research, 74(1), 1-28.

Abedi, J., & Hejrl, R (2004). Accommodations for studentswith limited English proffdency In the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress. Applied)Aeasurement In EducatIon, 17, 371-392.

American Psychological Association. (1999) Standards fireducatIonal and psychological testing. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment Principles andclassroom practices. New Yoric Pearson Education.

Butler, R A., & Stevens, R. (1997). Accommodation strategiesfi,r English language learners on large-scale assessments:Student characteristics and other considerations (CSE Tech.Rep. No. 448). Los Angeles: University of California,National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards,and Student Testing.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1979). Convminlcatlve approachesto second language teaching and testing. Ontario, Canada:Ontario Department of Education. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED187152)

Case, R. E. (2002). The Intersection of language, education,and content Science Instruction for ESL students. TheClearing House, 76(2), 71-74.

Celedon-Pattlchis, S. (2004). AlternatIve secondary rnathematics programs for migrant students: Cultural and linguistic considerations. In C. Salinas & M. & Franquls(Eds.), Scholars In the fleith The challenges ofmigrant education (pp. 195-208). Charleston, WV: ERIC.

Egbert, J., & Slmlch-Dudgeon, C. (2001). ProvIding support for non-native learners of English in the socialstudies classroom. The Social StudIes, 92(1), 22-25.

Ernst-SlavIn, G., Moore, M., & Maloney C. (2002).Changing lives: Teaching English and literature to ESLstudents. Journal ofAdolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(2),116-131.

Flgueroa, R. (1990). Assessment of linguistic minoritygroup children. In C. Reolds & L Kamphaus (Eds.),Handbook ofpsychological and educational assessment ofchlldrem Intelligence and achIevement (pp. 671-696). NewYorlc The Guilford Press.

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. (n.d.) RetrievedMarch 3,2005, fromhttp://vw.flrn.edu/doe/sas/fcat/fcatft02.htm

Genessee, F., & Upshur, J. A. (1996). Classroom-based evaluation in second language education. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Lee, F. Y., Silverman, F. L, & Montoya, P. (2002). AssessIngthe math performance of young ESL students. Principal,81(3), 29-31.

Lewis, L, Parsad,. B., Carey, N., Bartfal, N., Fanls, &, &Smerdon, B. (1999). Teacher quality A report on the preparation and qualifications ofpublic school teachers.Statistical Analysts Report. Washington, DC: NationalCenter for Educational Statistics. (NCES No. 1999080)

O’Mal1ey J. M., & Pierce, L. V. (1996). Authentic assessmentfor English language language learners: Practical approachesfor teachers. Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley

Padolsky D. (2004). How many school-aged English languagelearners (ELLa) are there in the U.S.? NationalClearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.RetrIeved March 3,2005, fromhttp://www.ncela.gwu.edulexpert/faq/Olleps.htm

President’s Advisory Commission on EducationalExcellence for Hispanic AmerIcans. (2000, September).Creating the will: Hispanics achieving educationalexcellence. Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 441652)

Ran, A. (2001). 1aveling on parallel tracks: Chinese parents and English teachers. Educational Research, 43,311-328.

Scarcella, R. (1992). ProvIding culturally sensitive feedba&in P. A. Richard-Amato & M. A. Snow (Eds.), The multicultural classroont Readings for content area teachers (pp.126-142). Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley.

Shepard, L A. (2000). The role of assessment In a learningculture. F4ucational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.

Middle School loumal • September 2006 43