Ongoing Assessment
of Language, Literacy, and Content Learning
Ongoing assessment of student learning provides continuous feedback on the effectiveness of instruction and indicates areas where a change in instructional strategy may be advised. Such assessments may range from planned assessments (such as quizzes, end-of-chapter tests, and report or essay writing) to informal classroom observations of student language and literacy behaviors.
Teachers of ELLs are often well-positioned to assess students through their
performance, examining student work, observing oral language development,
and evaluating incremental progress. Ongoing, performance-based assessments may reveal strengths and growth increments not detectable by annual high-stakes testing (Hurley & Tinajera, 2001; Fradd & McGee with Wilen, 1994). Questions that commonly relate to
assessments in the classroom are answered
below.
- How should an ELL's performance be
assessed by a classroom teacher?
- How can
English oral language proficiency skills be assessed?
- How can students' literacy activities
in their first language be assessed?
- How can family literacy activities be
assessed when the parents do not speak
English?
- How
can ELL writing be assessed in the classroom?
- When assessing student writing, what
cultural issues should be taken into
account?
1. How should an ELL's performance be
assessed by a classroom teacher or a group of classroom
teachers? Performance-based assessment is a type of
assessment in which students demonstrate what they can actually do.
Portfolio assessment is one type of performance-based assessment in
which students are evaluated on what they produce in the classroom.
This type of evaluation is thought to be a more authentic reflection
of the student's capabilities. Portfolios are appropriate for all students (Gomez,
1998), and can be of great benefit to secondary school teachers
working with ELLs (Solis, 1993).
A portfolio is a collection
of artifacts. Portfolios are commonly found in the arts, but in ever
increasing numbers are now being used in classrooms for both students
and teachers. The portfolio should be viewed as a display case containing works representative of a student's best scholastic efforts, rather than as a storage bin for every item a student produces in class.
Regular classroom teachers
using portfolios to assess ELLs need to understand how
second-language acquisition impacts student learning and the products
that demonstrate learning. These teachers should be paired with ESL
teachers who have had training in second-language acquisition to
examine student work with a shared perspective (Gomez,1999).
When implementing a
portfolio assessment program in the classroom, it is useful to think
about what makes a successful portfolio. Moya and O'Malley (1994)
identified five characteristics of an exemplary ELL portfolio: it is
(1) comprehensive, (2) predetermined and systematic, (3) tailored,
(4) informative, and (5) authentic. The following discussion of Moya
and O'Malley's five key portfolio characteristics takes a number of
issues into account.
(1)
Comprehensive. A portfolio is comprehensive if there is
both breadth and depth to the artifacts contained in it. One or more
teachers, members of a school-wide committee, or members of a
district-wide committee may be involved in determining what merits a
work being included in the portfolio. It is also important to have
artifacts that ESL and regular classroom teachers can easily collect
and manage.
The following questions can help determine if
the contents of an ELL's portfolio are comprehensive:
- Have
the items in the portfolio been carefully selected to show the range
of language and literacy skills the student has mastered as well as
the ELL's growth in content knowledge and skill?
- Do the
items in the portfolio indicate broad as well as "deep"
knowledge?
- Do the items indicate the student's mastery of
higher-level thinking skills?
- Do the items illustrate any special talent or
skill that the student possesses?
- Are there examples of
cross-curricular artifacts in the portfolio?
- Are there
artifacts that represent both formal and informal
assessments?
- ELLs need to be taught both oral and written
English language skills. Is there evidence of oral language
development as well as that of literacy skills?
- Are there
artifacts that illustrate the ELL's appreciation for his or her rich
cultural
heritage?
(2)
Predetermined and Systematic. A portfolio is predetermined
when its purposes, aims, and recommended artifacts have been
established in advance. When both a classroom teacher and an ESL teacher or bilingual education specialist serve ELL students, it is
important for all of the educators to work together to determine a
systematic way of gathering artifacts for the portfolio.
The
following questions can help determine if the portfolio policy is
predetermined and if the contents are systematically gathered.
- Are the purposes and aims of the portfolio
clear and well articulated?
- Have these purposes and aims
been communicated to all of the relevant stakeholders?
- Are
the contents gathered on a regular basis?
- Does the
portfolio represent the range and level of skills that students are
expected to master -- e.g., ESL standards, state or district ESL
standards, and/or the standards for the course of study?
- Have lists of potential portfolio contents been developed and
agreed upon by various stakeholders such as parents, teachers, and
school administrators? The adult stakeholders may wish to work
together to develop a portfolio contents checklist. There can be one
checklist or several different ones.
- Have the students
developed their content checklist for the portfolio? ELLs and native
English speakers may be teamed up together to develop a portfolio
contents list.
(3)
Informative. A portfolio is informative if it conveys useful
data about the student's progress and achievement to the classroom
teacher, the ESL teacher or bilingual education specialist, other
staff members, parents, and the student him/herself. A writing
sample taken at the beginning of the year compared to one from the
end of the year should give all stakeholders a clear idea of the
student's academic growth.
The following are questions that
can help determine if stakeholders will find the portfolio
informative.
- What type of information
does the portfolio provide the teachers? Does the portfolio assist
the teachers in making instructional decisions pertaining to a
student as well as a group of students?
- What type of
information does the portfolio convey to parents? Do the contents of
the portfolio accurately display the student's skills and
achievements? (Any documents given to parents regarding portfolios
should be translated into the parents' primary language. Since all
parents may not be literate in their primary language, interpreters
should be made available who can orally translate for the
parents.)
- What type of information does the portfolio offer
to ELLs themselves?
- Have students been taught how their
portfolio artifacts document their academic achievement and
growth?
- Have rubrics been designed to help all
stakeholders understand the contents of the portfolio?
(4)
Tailored. A model portfolio is crafted to meet specific
objectives. The specific objectives of a tailored portfolio are
designed to meet the particular needs of the student as well as the
broader goals of the teacher, school, school district, and state or
territory where the student attends school. The process for
determining the specific contents of a classroom portfolio should be
led by the classroom teacher, but might also involve input and
feedback from other stakeholders involved such as the ESL teacher or
bilingual education specialist. For example, a classroom teacher
might use a portfolio to communicate a student's development and
progress to other teachers, the ESL teacher, or the bilingual
education specialist.
These questions may help determine if
a portfolio has been tailored to meet its specific objectives.
- Is the portfolio tailored to meet applicable
priorities and goals? For example, if the portfolio is being used to
display a student's annual progress, does it clearly demonstrate that
student's academic growth over the year?
- Are there a
variety of recommended items included in the student's portfolio
based on his or her specific English language and literacy
levels?
- If students possess literacy skills in their primary
language, are there opportunities for them to demonstrate such
knowledge and growth through their portfolio?
- Does the
portfolio at the very least provide a glimpse into the student's rich
cultural and linguistic heritage?
(5)
Authentic. A portfolio is authentic if its artifacts derive
from actual classroom activities. The portfolio should include work
resulting from tasks carried out in the classroom. Such tasks should
incorporate oral and written literacy exercises designed to foster
both academic skills and English language development.
The
following are questions that can help determine if portfolio contents
are authentic.
- Do artifacts in the
portfolio represent authentic tasks conducted in the classroom?
- Are the artifacts in the portfolio examples of purposeful work
such as a story the child has written, a thank you note to a
classroom visitor, or a personal budget?
- Has the ELL been
involved in the selection of artifacts for inclusion in the
portfolio?
[TOP]
2. How
can English oral language proficiency skills be assessed?
English oral language proficiency is an essential prerequisite skill
for English language learners (ELLs) wishing to read in English (Garcia,
2002). Students who have not developed adequate oral language
skills in English will not be able to comprehend what they read.
Without strong oral language skills they are also more likely to lack
confidence when they read aloud in English. ELLs should be given
numerous opportunities to develop oral language before and during
their development of literacy skills.
ELLs need to develop
both receptive and expressive oral language skills in English. The
receptive skills refer to the skills required to comprehend what has
been said. The expressive or productive skills refer to one's ability
to speak and convey one's thoughts and ideas to others. Without a
foundation of receptive skills, students will not be able to develop
strong expressive skills. Receptive and expressive skills should be
assessed.
ELLs need to have conversational as well as academic
language skills. According to Cummins (n.d.), ELLs must be
proficient in academic language in order to be academically
successful in the English language curriculum. When students are able
to talk with one another and participate in informal conversations
with their teachers, it is easy to assume that they have mastered the
English language. However, we must not confuse this ability to
converse informally with a mastery of academic language. ELLs do
need to be able to converse informally, but they also need to be able
to use more complex, abstract language in order to comprehend and use
academic English.
Receptive Oral Language Skills. Listening skills can be assessed for ELLs at all stages
of language acquisition, even at the beginning. Novice ELLs can
demonstrate comprehension nonverbally. Teachers can assess this
comprehension by observing how well ELLs follow simple commands such
as, "Stand," "Take out your pencil," or "Go
to the window."
Teachers can also ask novice ELLs
to indicate comprehension by holding up pictures and showing yes/no
cards. ELLs can point to appropriate pictures in response to simple
questions. For example, "Show me a banana," or "Show
me something that you eat."
Teachers may wish to keep anecdotal
records to indicate how much individual ELLs are comprehending.
These records may be kept in ELLs'
portfolios.
Expressive Language
Skills. Oral language skills can be assessed
holistically or analytically. Holistic assessment provides one
overall score or rating, whereas analytic assessment rates discrete
language skills. Both holistic and analytic rubrics can help teachers
pinpoint different aspects of language that should be assessed. Breiner-Sanders, Lowe, Miles, and Swendler
(1999) believe that the way an educated person uses language is a
good yardstick for language proficiency. This philosophy is the
basis of the revised Proficiency Guidelines on Speaking that the
authors developed for the American Council of Teaching Foreign
Languages (ACTFL). In addition to tests, there are other analytic
tools that help teachers focus on the different aspects
of language use. Rubrics and matrices generally focus on the
following aspects of language use: comprehension, fluency,
pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary.
It is important to
carefully observe how individual ELLs use both
receptive and expressive language. Listed below are questions that
may help teachers analyze ELL oral language use. Note that the first
two items focus on receptive skills, though receptive and expressive
oral language skills are often
intertwined.
- Does the ELL understand what
is being said?
- Does the ELL understand conversational as
well as academic language?
- Can others easily understand what
the ELL says, or does pronunciation interfere with the ELL's
communication?
- Does the ELL speak at a natural pace or
haltingly?
- Does the ELL make many grammatical errors? What
types of errors are made? Are these errors typical of a beginning
language learner or of someone who is at a higher level of language
acquisition?
- What types of vocabulary words does the ELL
use? Does the ELL use academic vocabulary appropriately? Is the
vocabulary used appropriate to the message being
conveyed?
[TOP]
3. How can
students' literacy activities in their first language be
assessed? Research has found that first-language literacy
skills can facilitate students' acquisition of literacy skills in
their second or foreign language. Research has also proven that
family literacy can greatly enhance students' chances for academic
success. It is very common for schools to encourage and in some
cases require that children participate in family literacy experiences
with their parents or other family members. Although it may be
difficult to find books in children's primary languages, many public
libraries across the nation have made a concentrated effort to
develop collections of books in different languages. English
language learners should be included in family literacy programs even
though it may be difficult for teachers to assess the reading that
has taken place in their first language.
There are a number
of different strategies that can be used to assess literacy
activities in children's primary languages. For example, students
can make graphic organizers, including simple story maps, to indicate
that they have read and attempted to comprehend books in their
primary languages. Students can also keep records indicating how
much time they have spent reading books in their primary language.
Parents can initial these records.
Students can also produce
written products about the books that they have read. These include
book reports, reviews, or other summaries of stories. Parents who
have literacy skills can be encouraged to rate or rank their
student's work using a number system between 0 and 10. (Grades such
as A, B, C, D and F are not used in many other countries and could be
confusing for non-English speaking parents.)
More information on assessing native language literacy is available under Questions 3 and 4 of the Initial Assessment section of this site.
[TOP]
4. How can
family literacy activities be assessed when the parents do not speak
English? Family literacy provides students with a foundation
for the development of school literacy skills. Many schools require
parents of children in kindergarten and first and second grades to
participate in family literacy activities. Public libraries can be a
good source of books in different languages. In addition, wordless
books can be used. It is easy to show parents how to participate in
shared reading experiences with wordless books. Many larger public
library systems have bilingual librarians who can work with parents
to help them locate appropriate resources.
Parents and other
family members can be given a simple form to complete indicating the
amount of time spent with family literacy activities each night. The
forms can be made up of clocks and other simple graphics.
5. How can ELL writing be assessed in
the classroom? Teachers in the current educational climate
are striving to prepare their students for high stakes testing that
often requires the students to produce a writing sample. Assessing
ELL writing can be especially difficult, however (McKeon,
1992). ELL writers will certainly make more grammatical errors
than their native English-speaking counterparts, who have already
acquired the structural features of oral English. ELLs may also come
from cultures that have different styles of expression, and this may
impact their writing.
The holistic approach to evaluating
student writing samples yields a single overall score for the written
work. This approach is problematic for ELLs, because raters can
assign too much weight to grammatical forms and conventions that
take years for ELLs to master. This approach also does not provide
learners with the detailed feedback they need to improve
their English writing skills, nor does it take into account that
different ELLs can be at the same grade level, but in varying stages
of learning English. It should be noted that educators in New York
State have put together a set of holistic rubrics specifically
designed for students at different levels of English language
acquisition.
The more analytical approach to evaluating
writing samples requires evaluators to identify different traits of
the written work and to assign a score to each trait. This method is
time consuming, but thought to be more useful to students and
teachers alike. Some of the most widely used traits for analyzing
written work are those developed by the Northwest Regional
Educational Lab (NWREL) in their "6 + 1" formula. The
traits are: ideas, organization, voice, word choice, sentence
fluency, conventions, and presentation. These traits help teachers
identify for their students the different aspects of their writing
that need to be improved. Definitions of the traits may be viewed on
NWREL's Web site at http://www.nwrel.org/assessment/definitions.asp?d=1.
Not
all rubrics are appropriate for every classroom. A teacher, or a
group of teachers, may wish to develop their own rubric for assessing
their students' writing. Mansoor and Grant (2002)
worked with teachers to create rubrics for their group of English
language learners. The process of creating rubrics can itself help
teachers tailor their instruction to meet the unique needs of their
ELLs.
Writing Prompts for ELLs. Writing
samples used for assessment purposes are usually written in response
to prompts in the form of an assigned topic, a picture to describe, a
question to answer, or a statement with which to agree or disagree.
Writing prompts for ELLs should include clear directions and should
describe the context or situation to be written about. They need to
be carefully construed to take into account cultural and linguistic
factors. Prompts should be based on the cultural knowledge the
students possess as well as the information they have learned as part
of their academic studies. Although it is impossible to have
culture-free prompts, teachers should strive for prompts that allow
learners to draw upon their cultural heritage. Similarly, teachers
should try to avoid prompts in which students are expected to learn
about the new culture.
The following prompt could be very
confusing for ELLs: "Do you plan to go to the Thanksgiving sales
at the Mall? Why or why not?"
Although the students may
know about the shopping mall, about Thanksgiving, and about sales in
general, they may not understand the broader concept of Thanksgiving
sales. A more appropriate prompt could be: "We do not have any
school on Thursday and Friday because of Thanksgiving. What do you
plan to do? What would you like to do?"
In addition, the
instructions should be written using clear and straightforward
language. It is challenging enough for an ELL to learn how to write
in a foreign language without having to struggle with the
instructions and prompts for a written assignment. Following is a good
example of clear instructions: "During the last month we have learned about three
presidents. We learned about President Kennedy, President Carter and President Clinton. Pretend that you could meet one of these three presidents and talk to him. Write about the president whom you would choose to meet and talk to. Explain why this president would be your
choice."
Making General Comments on Student
Writing. ELLs benefit most from concrete feedback
about their writing. When Lyons and Bolton (1999) conducted a wide-scale
assessment of ESL writing, they found that two types of comment were
especially useful: praise and suggestions for improvement. Both
types of comment should be clear and straightforward.
Analytic
writing traits, such as those previously mentioned, help teachers
focus their comments and feedback. For example, a comment on word
choice might be: "I like the way you used the words
wavy and dark to describe Melinda's hair. It
helped give me a picture of Melinda."
Suggestions for
improvement should be specific as well and can also be based on the
analytic writing traits. A comment relating to sentence fluency
could be: "All of your sentences were very short. I felt like
I was on a bus that kept starting and stopping. Let's combine some
sentences to have a smoother ride."
Commenting on
Language Usage. One of the biggest challenges facing
teachers working with ELLs on their writing is language use. Since
ELLs tend to make more grammar errors than their native-English
speaking counterparts, it is sometimes difficult to determine if all
of an ELL's errors should be corrected or just some of them. Some
errors are common to ELLs; others are common to anyone using English,
such as incorrect use of subject (I, he) and object (me, him)
pronouns or subject verb agreement. A course in second-language
acquisition can help classroom teachers determine which errors are
more common among second-language writers. If a course is not
available, the teacher may wish to work with an ESL teacher or
bilingual education specialist to determine which errors are worth
focusing on. Teachers can also give their students editing
checklists highlighting the types of errors they will be corrected
on. Such checklists could be compiled with assistance from an ESL
teacher and/or bilingual education specialist.
[TOP]
6. When
assessing student writing, what cultural issues should be taken into
account? Commenting on student writing is an important
function performed by classroom teachers. In order to provide the
most useful feedback, classroom teachers working with ELL students
must consider a variety of issues related to culture. Teachers
should be as knowledgeable as possible about the cultures that their
students represent. ELL students' cultural backgrounds can impact
their writing in a variety of ways.
When an ELL turns in a
piece of writing, his or her cultural background may be reflected in
the work. The physical appearance of a paper written following
standard conventions in the United States may be vastly different
from the appearance of a conventional paper in his or her country
of origin. The cursive script, including the formation of individual
letters, may be different from what is expected in the United States.
In addition, the student may have been taught that neatness and
presentation are as important as content. This can result in students
being afraid to revise or improve their writing for fear of having to
erase or cross anything out.
Cultural presentation styles also
impact the way that ideas are presented. There are many different
ways to convey notions and concepts through writing. The thought
patterns used by members of different cultural groups vary (Bower,
Kiser, McMurty, Milsaps, & Vande Brake, 2000). As Holt
(1996) explained, non-native English writers may not make as many
explicit connections between ideas as native-English speaking writers
because they do not want to "insult" their readers with
linkages that seem apparent or obvious. Whether ELL students have
been schooled in the U.S. or in their countries of origin, their
background may impact their writing and should be taken into
account.
[TOP]
References:
[return] Bower, V., Kiser, C.,
McMurty, K., Milsaps, E., & Vande Brake, K. (2000). Cultural
thought patterns. In Tutor.edu: A manual for writing center
tutors (chap. 9). Available: http://www.montreat.edu/tutor/9-3.htm
[return] Breiner-Sanders, K., Lowe,
P, Miles, J., & Swendler, E. (1999). ACTFL proficiency
guidelines: Speaking (Revised 1999). Foreign Language
Annals, 33(1), 13-18. Available: http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3325
[return] Cummins, J. (n.d.)
BICS and CALPS. Available from iteachilearn.com:
http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/bicscalp.html
[return] Fradd, S., & McGee, P., with Wilen, D. (1994).
Instructional assessment: An integrative approach to evaluating student performance. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishers.
[return] Garcia, G. E. (2002).
Oral English proficiency (Issues and questions). In Reading
instruction of English language learners (chap. 2c).
[return] Gomez, E. (1998).
Portfolio assessment and English language learners: An annotated
bibliography. Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands Regional
Educational Laboratory. Available: http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/ass_port_ell/portellbib.pdf
[return] Gomez, E. (1999, March).
Creating large-scale assessment portfolios that include English
language learners. Perspectives on policy and practice.
Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational
Laboratory. Available: http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/PolPerELL.pdf
[return] Holt, S. (1996). ESL/NNS
main document. Available from the University of Minnesota Department
of English, Instructors' Web site: http://composition.cla.umn.edu/instructor_web/NNS/
responding_to.htm
[return] Hurley, S. R., & Tinajero, J. V. (Eds.). (2001). Literacy assessment of second language learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
[return] Lyons, C., & Bolton,
S. (1999, Summer). Using rater comments in large-scale writing
assessment. MidTESOL Matters. Available: http://www.midtesol.org/Newsletter/nlsum99b.htm
[return] Mansoor, I., & Grant,
S. (2002). A writing rubric to assess ESL student
performance. Available from the Massachusetts Department of
Education, System for Adult Basic Education Support (SABES) Web site:
http://www.sabes.org/resources/adventures/vol14/14mansoor1.htm
[return] McKeon, D. (1992).
Holistic writing assessment for LEP students. Proceedings of the
Second National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient
Student Issues: Focus on Evaluation and Measurement. Washington,
DC: OBEMLA. Available: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/symposia/second/vol2/
holistic-dis.htm
[return] Moya, S., & O'Malley,
M. (1994, Spring). A portfolio assessment model for ESL. Journal
of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 13, 13-36.
Available: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/jeilms/vol13/portfo13.htm
[return] Solis, A. (1993,
November-December). Portfolios in secondary ESL classroom assessment:
Bringing it all together. IDRA Newsletter. Available: http://www.idra.org/Newslttr/1993/Nov/Adela.htm#Art5
[TOP]
|