ASSESSMENT WITH P-12 ENGLISH LANGUAGE...

ASSESSMENT WITH P-12 ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

TESOL 2011 A Quick Guide

Andrea B. Hellman

Assessment with P-12 English Language Learners

http://mssu.academia.edu/AndreaHellman/Papers Andrea B. Hellman 2011 Page 1

Assessment with P-12 English Language Learners A Q U I C K G U I D E

TABLE OF CONTENTS

What is assessment? 2

Key terms to get started 3

Types of assessments with English language learners 4

Federally mandated assessments 6

District instituted assessments 7

Instructional assessments 11

Sample timeline of assessment activities with ELLs 13

Guidelines for standards-based classroom assessment 14

Assessing speaking 15

Assessing listening 16

Assessing reading 16

Assessing writing 17

Recommended resources 19

Works cited 20

Appendix A: Intake assessment tool 22

Appendix B: Whole class profile form 23



Assessment with P-12 English Language Learners A Q U I C K G U I D E

WHAT IS ASSESSMENT? Assessment is a sub-specialty of teaching. It helps educators answer crucially important questions.

What does this student know?

What do I need to teach this student?

Where should we place this student?

What specialized services does this student need?

How much English does this student understand?

What are this student’s strengths and weaknesses?

Has the student mastered the lesson or course objectives?

Is the student progressing toward English language proficiency?

Does the student need English language support?

Are the support services effective?

Is this teacher effective with English language learners?

Is the school effective with educating English language learners?

In order to answer these questions, we gather and analyze data. The kind of data we need depends on the question we are trying to answer.

An example of an assessment process Let’s suppose we want to answer a basic question about our instruction, such as “Have my students learned the objective of today’s lesson?”. Instead of guessing the answer, we could conduct assessment and find out the answer in a step-by-step way.



Step 1: Define the lesson objective.

Step 2: Decide what constitutes valid evidence of having learned the objective.

Step 3: Gather the evidence using a suitable assessment tool (student self-report, quiz, worksheet, student writing or project).

Step 4: Analyze the evidence.

Step 5: Document the findings (on a checklist or class poster, in a grade book or student portfolio).

Step 6: Use the findings to benefit instruction (give feedback, re-teach, plan new forms of practice, proceed to next objective).

KEY TERMS TO GET STARTED Assessment has its own technical vocabulary. Assessment for English language learners (ELLs) in US public schools is even more specialized in terms of key vocabulary. Here are the very basics to keep in mind.

Assessment Answering questions by collecting and analyzing data. Assessment tool An instrument used to collect data (test, survey, questionnaire, checklist, portfolio,

rubric, observation record). Validity The extent to which the assessment is measuring what it is intended for. Reliability The extent to which the assessment results can be trusted to represent what they are

supposed to represent. Fairness The extent to which the assessment allows everyone equal opportunity to do well. Principles of assessment

Assessments should bring benefits to students. High stakes decisions should not be based on the results of a single assessment tool, but on multiple forms of assessment. Assessments must be both age appropriate and linguistically appropriate in content and method. Assessments must be tailored to the specific purpose for which they are intended. Attention must be paid to the intended purpose, fairness, validity, and reliability of the assessment tools for the population of students that they are used with.

Baseline A measurement prior to starting in a program (also treatment or intervention). Benchmark A sub-goal toward a main goal; a pre-established measurement which indicates that

the learner is on-target to meet the eventual goal. AYP Adequate Yearly Progress. AYP is a benchmark that subgroups are expected to

meet to be on target for achieving the eventual goal established for them (which is 100% will be proficient on the grade level by 2014).

AMAO 1 Annual Measurable Achievement Objective One. The subgroup of limited English proficient students (LEP) must meet benchmarks for progress toward English language proficiency. AMAO 1 is a benchmark that indicates that a pre-established percentage of students are showing progress toward English proficiency. Progress is most commonly defined as moving up one level of English language proficiency per year (up to 5-6 years), although this definition is problematic because the students do not progress through levels at a linear rate. (Language development is much faster at



lower proficiency than at higher proficiency (Cook, 2008).) AMAO 2 Annual Measurable Achievement Objective Two. AMAO 2 is a benchmark that

indicates that a pre-established percentage of students reach grade level English language proficiency. English language proficiency is defined in terms of a specific level on the state ELP test (for example, Level 5/Bridging or higher on the ACCESS for ELLs test).

Standards-based assessment

Assessment whose purpose in to evaluate whether specific academic or language proficiency standards have been achieved.

Standardized test A test that is administered is a uniform fashion, according to a strict protocol. The interpretation of standardized assessment assumes that all test takers took the test under the same conditions and the scoring was consistent.

Authentic assessment

As opposed to traditional forms of assessment when students may be evaluated on artificial tasks that they do not normally perform in real life, authentic assessment focuses on real life performance, products, or various actual manifestations of skills.

Exit criteria A pre-established set of expectations that define what students should be able to do to succeed academically with the district’s general curriculum without any specialized language support. Exited ELLs are no longer eligible to receive specialized support from the English language development program.

TYPES OF ASSESSMENTS WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS Teachers of ELLs may have responsibility for conducting or interpreting the findings of a number of different types of assessments depending on the district where they work. Some of these assessments are mandated by federal or state regulations, others are part of district Lau plans, some are an integral part of best teaching practices.

Federally mandated assessments

Home language survey

Purpose: To identify potential LEP students. Assessment question: Is the student a language minority student? Sample tool: See in Recommended Resources.

English language proficiency test

Purpose: To keep schools accountable for LEP subgroup’s progress toward English language proficiency in listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Assessment question: What is the student’s English language proficiency level? Sample tool: ACCESS for ELLs test

State academic achievement tests

Purpose: To keep schools accountable for LEP subgroup’s meaningful access to the mainstream curriculum and progress toward state academic standards in Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies. Assessment question: Has the student met grade level expectations in the content area? Sample tool: MAP test (Missouri)



District instituted assessments

Placement test Purpose: To obtain baseline ELP score; to recommend suitable forms of instructional support. Assessment question: What is the student’s English language proficiency level upon entry to the district? Sample tool: W-APT

Screening tests Purpose: To detect possible reading problems early. Assessment question: Is the student on grade level with specific reading skills? Sample tool: DRA2

Progress monitoring Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of placement, language support, and interventions. Assessment question: Is the student making progress with the specific skills necessary to be successful in the mainstream education program? Sample method: Records review, team meeting

Standards-based report cards

Purpose: To inform parents of grade level expectations and their child’s progress toward the goals of both standard and supplemental instruction. Assessment questions: Is the student on target to meet the grade level expectations? Is the student meeting the benchmarks of English language proficiency? Has the student achieved the goals of supplemental instruction? Sample tool: See in Recommended Resources.

Assessment portfolio Purpose: To supplement one-shot tests with fair, valid, robust, authentic evidence of standards-based learning. Assessment question: Specific question can vary. The portfolio is designed to document evidence for the specific assessment question. Sample tools: Item descriptions, scoring guide, rubric

Writing assessment Purpose: To evaluate writing against the grade-level Language Arts and English Language Proficiency Standards. Assessment questions: Does the writing sample evidence grade level expectations for academic writing? Does the writing sample evidence ELP writing benchmarks? Sample tools: Normed writing prompt, scoring guide, benchmark papers, rubric

Evaluation of the instructional environment

Purpose: To evaluate whether the instructional environment is conductive to language and literacy development. Assessment question: Does the classroom environment have the recommended qualities? Sample tool: ELLCO

Classroom observation protocol

Purpose: To observe the features of instruction that have known benefits for ELLs’ content learning and language development. Assessment question: Are the recommended features of instruction evident?



Sample tool: SIOP

ELL program evaluation

Purpose: To report on the district’s existing needs, available resources, and the efficacy of ELL programs as evidenced by student outcomes (AMAO 1, AMAO 2, AYP). Assessment question: Is the program effective with serving the needs of ELLs? Possible formats: Self-study report; external evaluation team report

Instructional assessments

Intake assessment Purpose: To plan instruction and learning support. Assessment question: What are the student’s needs (personal, linguistics, academic), strengths, weaknesses? Sample tools: Academic records, test score reports, interview, L1 writing sample, autobiography, dialog journal

Benchmark tests Purpose: To ascertain that the student is on target for grade level reading proficiency. Assessment question: Is the student’s reading performance within the expected grade level norms? Sample tools: Running records, Comprehensive Reading Inventory (CRI; Cooter et al. 2007)

Formative classroom assessment

Purpose: To inform instruction. Assessment question: Has the student achieved the learning objective? What additional instruction may be necessary? Sample tools: Checklists, exit slips, self-evaluations, surveys, teacher observation notes, sample student work

Summative classroom assessment

Purpose: To evaluate whether the student has achieved the learning objectives of the instructional unit. Assessment question: Has the student achieved the learning objectives? Sample tool: End-of-unit tests, teacher-made quizzes, formal writing tasks, oral presentations, projects

Teacher work sample Purpose: To assess the efficacy of instruction through self-evaluation of planning, instructional activities, and students’ learning gains. Assessment question: Are there significant measurable learning gains as a result of instruction? Sample tool: Instructional unit with analysis of pre- and post-test results of LEP subgroup

Grading Purpose: To keep individual students accountable and provide them feedback on their progress toward grade level learning expectations. Assessment question: To what extent has the student met specific learning criteria? Sample tool: Differentiated rubrics



Federally mandated assessments

Home language survey

The home language survey serves to identify students who are non-native speakers of English and who may need support with English language development. This survey is completed by a caregiver upon enrollment in the district and yearly thereafter at the start of the school year. Survey questions ask about the languages spoken in the home to indicate whether children may qualify as language minority students. Translations of home language surveys are publicly available in many languages to help districts query caregivers in the language in which they are the most proficient. If the survey indicates that a student comes from a language minority background, follow-up is necessary to evaluate the student’s English language proficiency and academic record. Not all language minority students need academic support with English language development; in addition, some students who need English language development may come from homes where only English is spoken and may occasionally be missed if the home language survey is the sole form of identification. These students may be international adoptees, homeless or foster children.

English language proficiency test

Under the No Child Left Behind law, students identified as Limited English Proficient (LEP) must participate in yearly English language proficiency testing. The purpose of this testing is primarily to keep schools and districts accountable for the English language development of LEP students. The results of the test are used to determine whether the services provided to LEP students result in measurable progress toward language proficiency (AMAO 1, annual measurable achievement objective) and whether students eventually become proficient enough to succeed in the mainstream academic curriculum without English language development services (AMAO 2). The proficiency test must be aligned with the state English language proficiency standards and must include the four language skills areas (listening, speaking, reading, and writing).

The most widely used English language proficiency standards are the WIDA PreK-12 ELP Standards (Gottlieb et al., 2007), which are essentially identical to the TESOL PreK-12 ELP Standards (TESOL, 2006). The aligned English language proficiency test is the ACCESS for ELLs, which is administered in February. States with massive population of ELLs have their own ELP standards and aligned proficiency test. The score report forms of these mandated yearly assessments provide enough detail and analysis that they can be useful for planning services for groups of ELLs and well as for differentiating instruction for individual students. A particularly helpful feature of the widely used ACCESS for ELLs test is that the scores of individual students are accessible to the new district when the student moves, as long as both districts are in a WIDA member state.

State academic achievement tests

Federal regulations require that LEP students participate in standards-based academic achievement tests. They can postpone taking the state English language arts test for one year; however, they must take the mathematics tests from the first year they enroll. States can decide the acceptable forms of testing accommodations, which can vary from getting extra time to having access to an interpreter. The intent of the law is to ensure that LEP students gain access to the general curriculum and not be subjected to permanent tracking and limited to dead-end educational programs. They must be held to the same rigorous standards as native English speakers.

Both the validity and fairness of this testing have been hotly debated. The academic achievement of students cannot be validly measured by tests which students do not understand and may be apprehensive toward.



Evaluating schools based on test results of questionable validity is obviously unfair. Presently, the results of these tests are used to determine whether schools and districts are meeting annual achievement targets (AYP, adequate yearly progress) with the LEP subgroup. We are expecting changes to this practice. Solutions include (1) tests specially constructed for LEP students, (2) adaptive, accessible test environments (for example, ONPAR), or (3) formal performance portfolios.

District instituted assessments

Placement test

When students enter a district, they are typically given a placement test for two reasons. The first reason is to place them in the appropriate English language support program. The second reason is to obtain a baseline measure of their English language proficiency, so it is possible to track their progress over time. For this reason, it is good practice to choose a placement test whose results are comparable to the annually administered English language proficiency test. Districts in WIDA Consortium states use the W-APT test for the placement of new students or for students who are transferring from districts in non-WIDA states. Some districts use placement tests that were purchased years ago, which are not based on their state’s current ELP standards and whose scores do not match the scores of their annual ELP test. These tests cannot provide a valid baseline measure and may result in the misplacement of students or pre-mature mainstreaming without English language support.

Placement assessment does not need to be limited to English language proficiency tests. To make an appropriate placement, it is just as important to know students’ prior formal schooling, academic record, native language literacy. This information can be collected on a survey during an interview. A writing sample in the native language can be a practical indicator of academic preparation. Even when the interviewer is unfamiliar with the native language, it allows him to observe the level of competence, the length, and the variety in the written expression (Pierce, 2003). The fluency with which the student can read back the writing is a useful indicator as well. Of course, having an interpreter at the placement interview is highly recommended.

Screening tests

The Institute of Education Sciences applicable practice guide (Gersten et. al., 2007) strongly recommends that districts establish formal screening procedures to identify English language learners for reading problems. They suggest that the same measures can be used as with native English speakers.

Examples of commonly used screening packages are the Developmental Reading Assessment – 2nd edition (DRA2), the STAR Early Literacy assessment, and the AIMSweb system. Selecting valid and reliable assessments is a key task; districts should not use ad hoc or homespun screening instruments. In addition to choosing screening tests with demonstrated validity and reliability, staff that administer and interpret the measures should be appropriately trained in the use of the specific assessment package.

The recommendation is to use the data from screening tests to provide short-term instructional support in small groups and to keep with the same benchmarks for ELLs as with native English speakers. Researchers do not see benefit to delaying reading interventions with ELLs until students develop oral proficiency in English. Early reading intervention for at least 30 minutes a day in homogeneous groups of 3-6 has a demonstrated advantage for ELLs. (Gersten et al., 2007)



Progress monitoring

In addition to screening, districts should monitor ELLs at the minimum three times a year or more frequently depending on the severity of reading problems. The progress of high-risk students should be reviewed weekly or bi-weekly. (Gersten et al., 2007)

Assessments that have been validated with native English speakers may not adequately signal problems that are more prominent among English language learners. When monitoring students, educators should specifically attend to high-frequency vocabulary that is not explicitly taught to native speakers, syntactic development, reading comprehension, non-literal meaning, cultural content, and higher order thinking skills (August and Shanahan, 2006). Cummins (2007, 2009) specifically recommends that ELLs’ reading engagement should receive ongoing attention as poor reading comprehension tends to erode students’ desire and motivation for reading. Reading attitude surveys and reading logs can be useful supplements in monitoring reading engagement.


Many districts have introduced report cards which are rubrics that indicate students’ progress on the state grade level expectations in each content area. These report cards clearly articulate what is expected from students at each grade level and are very helpful for informing parents. They also provide an opportunity for teachers to document a detailed view of each student’s accomplishments and to note areas for future improvement.

ELLs need an additional report that documents the goals of the supplemental instruction programs they participate in and the progress they are making towards those expectations. Some districts have a separate, supplemental ELL report card to track progress on the state ELP standards and benchmarks in the areas of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. A few districts with large ELL populations have designed standards-based report cards that differentiate grade level expectations in the content areas for different English language proficiency levels.

Assessment portfolio

Assessment portfolios can serve as a supplement to one-shot statewide academic tests. Because academic knowledge tests developed for native English speakers are often not valid for ELLs, alternative valid forms of assessment are necessary to inform educators of individual students’ progress. A well-planned, criterion-referenced assessment portfolio can effectively serve this purpose.

Assessment portfolios can be designed to measure content area knowledge in the disciplines or the development of English language skills over time. They can be designed to inform instruction or to evaluate whether the student has achieved predefined criteria. Assessment portfolios should have the following features: (1) They are based on the standards of instruction. (2) Items are selected to serve as relevant evidence for specific standards. (3) The items are predetermined. (4) The scoring criteria for each item is predetermined. (5) The scoring is reliable. Raters are trained in scoring and have benchmark items to compare against. Portfolio assessment should be implement on the district level because it requires considerable investment with design, validating, professional development, and scoring. The instrument works best when it is an integral part of the instructional program rather than an add-on assessment whose value is unclear to teachers, students, and parents. (Gómez, 1999)



Writing assessment

Most districts recognize that writing across the curriculum better serves the development of academic writing than when writing instruction is limited to the Language Arts class. Writing across the curriculum is realized by teachers who are familiar with academic writing standards and apply those to writing assignments they create. They are able to assess writing against the grade-level expectations and give students consistent, constructive feedback on their written work.

Writing across the curriculum for ELLs requires benchmarks that are aligned with the state ELP standards. ELP standards can be transformed into a formal, proficiency-based writing rubric. (The WIDA PreK-12 ELP Standards already have a writing rubric.) District teachers can collect ELL writing samples on specific writing prompts that are representative of their district’s writing assignments. When these samples are evaluated against the proficiency-based writing rubric, benchmark papers are selected that best exemplify the strengths and weaknesses of academic writing on each level of English language proficiency. The features of these benchmark papers are highlighted and described with a clear terminology, so that these papers can be used by every teacher as a basis for evaluating writing and providing students with consistent, comprehensible feedback.

Evaluation of the instructional environment

Research shows that for very young children the quality of the instructional environment is a better measure of a program’s contribution to children’s academic success than learning outcomes are. Learning outcomes vary substantially due to differences in instructional time, length of participation in the program, individual differences in development and abilities. The instructional environment that is optimal for young English language learners has specific characteristics, which are best to evaluate with an observation tool that was created specifically for this purpose, for this population of young learners.

The two versions of the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO; Smith et al., 2008) are available to rate the instructional environment in PreK and K-3 classrooms. The ELLCO is a validated observational instrument that practitioners can use to assess whether ELLs are receiving optimal support for language and literacy development. The evaluation extends to classroom structure, curriculum, opportunities for language use, the quality of book reading, support with writing.

Teacher evaluation protocol

Many districts have adopted an empirically validated observation protocol to rate teachers’ instructional techniques when working with ELLs. The observation instrument that is by far the most widely used is the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP). This instrument can be used in different ways: (1) to rate the instruction of any teacher, (2) to measure that teachers who have been trained in the SIOP Model of instruction implement the approach with fidelity, (3) to provide formative feedback for teachers who wish to improve their outcomes with ELLs (Echevarría, Vogt, and Short, 2008).

The SIOP instrument includes descriptive indicators for 30 instructional features that are either necessary conditions of second language acquisition (motivation, comprehensible input, practice, interaction) or have demonstrated benefits for ELLs’ language, literacy, content learning (attention to language, strategies, feedback, adapted texts, native language support, multimodal approach). The 30 features are grouped into eight components: lesson preparation, building background, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction,



practice, delivery, assessment. Raters evaluate each feature on a Likert scale (0-4) and provide formative comments.

Instructional assessments

Intake assessment

Intake assessment is data gathering conducted by the teachers of ELLs for the purpose of instructional planning. This process can begin before the school year starts by looking at students’ academic records, attendance record, ELP test scores, portfolio, and by talking with former teachers. It is helpful to enter information into a whole class profile, as well as to assemble an informational folder on individual students that can be shared with the team of educators who have responsibility for the students’ academic progress.

The following information is potentially helpful to know about each student: native language, home language; country of origin; personal history; English language proficiency in the four domains – listening, speaking, reading, writing – the length of time to acquire the current level of English proficiency; age at which interaction in English began; academic history in the native language – in reading, writing, math, science, social studies – the educational system of the country of origin; academic history in the US; attendance, homework habits, attention in class, parental support for academics, home literacy environment, reading engagement.

Beyond the usual sources of information (home language survey, test reports, academic record), additional assessment tools can be employed: for example, writing samples in the native language and in English, which can come from an illustrated autobiography project or a dialog journal. Surveys and interviews with the student and the caregivers are highly recommended both to fill in gaps of information and to build rapport. See Appendix A for an intake assessment tool with guiding questions. Appendix B shows a sample whole class profile form.

Formative classroom assessment

Formative assessment is a process – even better, a habit - of using data to decide what adjustments are needed to reach specific learning goals. Research indicates that formative assessment has a robust effect on learning (Marzano, 2003). The process involves monitoring students’ progress toward learning goals, identifying and using a variety of tools to gather evidence of learning, and using the data to modify instruction accordingly (re-teach, elaborate, supplement, vary approaches, practice, review). Students themselves can be taught to actively engage in this process and monitor their own learning.

The tools of formative assessment are as varied as learning activities. Formative assessment is never just giving a quiz. A variety of tools can provide rich data; most any learning activity can be designed to generate data for assessment. With English language learners, formative assessment involves not only checking content learning, but also monitoring comprehension constantly and making certain that students have the language to be able to process the content and participate in the activities that are intended to bring about content learning. If the activities have a high language demand, different activities may better serve ELLs’ content learning. Formative assessment can help match the content learning goals with the best learning activities for individual students. It helps customize instruction for individual learners.

Quick, convenient assessment tools include hand signals – now the electronic clickers, slates – now individual wipe-erase boards, checklists, rubrics, charts (T-charts, KWL charts), anticipation guides, self-rating surveys,



Cornell notes, review chips, exit slips. Beyond the most prevalent approaches – questioning – and the traditional recitation, that is asking students to generate a verbal summary, other popular techniques are the thumbs up/thumbs down/thumbs in the middle technique, Kagan’s numbered heads together activity, asking students to generate nonverbal representations of the content (image, poster, demonstration), asking students to track their learning goals.

Grading

Grading is a form of student evaluation, only in part assessment. Because grading is used to keep individual students accountable and motivated, to give them feedback on their academic performance, grades are not objective reports based strictly on evidence of learning. Participation, effort, timeliness, presentation also figure into most grades, as well as adhering to the conventions and technicalities of the specific assignments. (Gottlieb, 2006.)

When grades are assigned based on the comparison of students’ products and performances, English language learners rarely have a fair chance at earning a high grade. For grades to be a source of motivation and feedback, ELLs should be graded on pre-established criteria that they can become familiar with prior to completing their assignments. The pre-established criteria should specify the language expectations embedded in the assignment. These language expectations need to be modified to reflect the student’s level of English language proficiency, what the student is able to do with language. The modified language expectations may require adding to the assignment checkpoints for checking the student’s understanding, providing language supports (a word bank, glossary, electronic translator) or introducing multimodal supports (demonstrations, visuals, manipulatives, graphic organizers). (Fairbairn and Jones-Vo, 2010.)

Here is an example of a mathematics assignment modified for a Level 3/Developing English language learner:

English language proficiency

Grade-level Level 3/Developing

Content standard

GLE: Mathematics. Algebraic relationships. 1B. Analyze patterns using words, tables, and graphs.

Assignment with language expectation specified

Read story problem independently. Record data on a graph. Interpret what the graph represents using complete sentences.

Read story problem and check understanding. Interpret the graph in one complete sentence using a word bank.

Support Blank graph. Teacher to confirm comprehension. Blank graph. Word bank.

For further examples of differentiated assignment grading rubrics, I highly recommend Fairbairn and Jones-Vo, 2010.) Helpful guidance on grading is also available in Gottlieb (2006; pp. 169-182).



SAMPLE TIMELINE OF ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES WITH ELLS Teachers need a timeline for scheduling assessment activities for their students. Below is a sample schedule, which shows multiple measures administered during the course of an academic year. The window for state mandated large-scale tests is typically set well in advance and cannot be changed by teachers. Most district instituted assessments have some flexibility within general limits. Some classroom assessments may be tied to instructional units; others can be ongoing or distributed purposively throughout the year.

An important consideration is the use of the assessment data: it is best to schedule assessments in a way that the findings are useful to inform instruction. Assessments that do not have a clear purpose, do not yield usable data or whose results are not used should be either eliminated or seriously rethought. It is a waste of resources and instructional time to administer assessments that do not benefit students. Careful planning, where the various measures are strategically administered, can improve the use of findings.

Month Formal assessments Informal assessments

August Home language survey Intake assessment (academic records, interview, autobiography, dialog journal, writing sample)

September English language proficiency (ELP) placement test

October Reading inventory Standards-based report card ELP progress report

Writing sample Content area assessments Monitoring team meeting

November Running records Oral language sample

December Content area assessments

January Standards-based report card ELP progress report

Running records Content area assessments Monitoring team meeting Student-led conference

February Large-scale ELP test

March Large-scale academic achievement test

April District writing assessment Standards-based report card ELP progress report

Oral language sample Running records Monitoring team meeting

May Portfolio assessment Content area assessments

June Standards-based report card ELP progress report

Monitoring team meeting



GUIDELINES FOR STANDARDS-BASED CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT !"#$$%&&'()$$*$$'*+,(&-(.+/"0$1(2#+/3#/*(2*#%+*%$((

)+4%*#(56(7*""'#+8(90$$&3%0(:&3,1*%+(:,#,*(;+0<*%$0,=8(>%&?*@,(:6>6.6)6A6(

!"#$%&&$'()(&*$

)"0/+*4(B0,1(,1*(CDE)(>%*AFGH(.+/"0$1(2#+/3#/*(>%&I@0*+@=("*<*"$(#+4(J*%-&%'#+@*(0+40@#,&%$6(K:&3%@*L(M&N"0*O8(968(!%#+"*=8(96(.68(P(!#''0""*%08()6(KHQQRS6(

!"#$%&'("#)"*+',$+-./0+1"*2)&,+3("*4(*$+5%678)$"89+:'("#(%#&;+0+%$&64%8$+*4)#$6(9#40$&+8(CDL(CDE)(!&+$&%T3'6S(

U10$(4&@3'*+,(B#$(+&,(J%&43@*4(&%(*+4&%$*4(O=(CDE)6(D,('#=(O*(3$*4(O=(J#%T@0J#+,$(0+()+4%*#(7*""'#+V$(B&%W$1&J6((

X&%(J*%'0$$0&+8(@&+,#@,(#+4%*#O1*""'#+Y/'#0"6@&'6(Z&,(0+,*+4*4(-&%(@&''*%@0#"(40$,%0O3T&+6(

•!)""&B($,34*+,(,&($1&B(3+4*%$,#+40+/(O=(+&+F<*%O#"('*#+$(KJ&0+T+/8(

0""3$,%#T+/8($*"*@T+/[&%/#+0\0+/(J0@,3%*$(#+4(0@&+$8(4*'&+$,%#T+/8(

'&4*"0+/8(3$0+/('#+0J3"#T<*$8(]&B@1#%,$8(/%#J10@(&%/#+0\*%$S6(

•!)""&B($,34*+,(,&(3$*(+#T<*("#+/3#/*(,&(@&'J"*,*(#$$*$$'*+,(,#$W$6(

•!>%&<04*(#(B&%4(O#+W6(

•!)""&B(O0"0+/3#"(40@T&+#%0*$8(*"*@,%&+0@8(0>#48(#+4(B*O(,%#+$"#,&%$6(

•!.+"0$,(J#%#J%&-*$$0&+#"$8(<&"3+,**%$8(J**%$(,&(J%&<04*(+#T<*("#+/3#/*(

$3JJ&%,6(

•!9&4*"(,#$W$^(#""&B('3"TJ"*(&JJ&%,3+0T*$(-&%(%*1*#%$0+/6(

!"#$'()(&$+$,$-./(#0.1$

!"#$'()(&$2$,$3(10..0.1$

!"#$'()(&$4$,$5()(&"60.1$

•!)""&B($,34*+,(,&($1&B(3+4*%$,#+40+/((&%#""=(3$0+/(*<*%=4#=(

@&+<*%$#T&+#"("#+/3#/*(B0,1(<0$3#"($3JJ&%,$(#+4(+#T<*("#+/3#/*6(

•!;$*(#/*F#JJ%&J%0#,*($3JJ"*'*+,#%=('#,*%0#"$(,1#,(J%&<04*(%0@1(<0$3#"(

$3JJ&%,(-&%(,1*(@&+,*+,(#+4[&%(+#T<*("#+/3#/*(*_J"#+#T&+$6(

•!.+@&3%#/*($,34*+,(,&(#44(/%#J10@($3JJ&%,(,&(B%0T+/(K<0$3#"(&%/#+0\*%8(

/%#J18(0""3$,%#T&+$8("#O*"$S6()""&B(#+$B*%$(0+("*#%+*4(J1%#$*$(&%(

%*J*TT<*($0'J"*($*+,*+@*$6()""&B($&'*('#@10+*(,%#+$"#,*4(#+$B*%$6(

•!>%&<04*($*+,*+@*($,#%,*%$^('&4*"(*_J*@,*4(&3,J3,6(

•!X&@3$(&+(B1#,(,1*($,34*+,(J%&43@*4(@&%%*@,"=6(

!"#$'()(&$7$,$-869.:0.1$

!"#$'()(&$;$,$3#0:10.1$

!"#$'()(&$<$,$=(9>?0.1$

•!._J*@,($,34*+,(,&(3$*($&'*($J*@0I@("#+/3#/*(&-(,1*(@&+,*+,(#%*#6(

•!>%&'J,($,34*+,(,&(%*$J&+4(&+(,1*($*+,*+@*("*<*"(O&,1(&%#""=(#+4(0+(

B%0T+/6(

•!.+@&3%#/*($,34*+,(,&(-&@3$(&+('*#+0+/(%#,1*%(,1#+(&+(@&%%*@,+*$$(

#+4('*@1#+0@$6(

•!`*,#0+(<0$3#"($3JJ&%,$(#+4($3JJ"*'*+,#%=(,*_,$(0+(,1*(+#T<*("#+/3#/*6(

•!9#=(#4'0+0$,*%(J#%#""*"(,*$,(-&%'$(B0,1($0'J"0I*4("#+/3#/*8(

#++&,#T&+$8(B&%4(O#+W8(#+4(/"&$$#%=6(

•!>%&'J,($,34*+,(,&(3$*($&'*($J*@0I@("#+/3#/*(#+4(,*@1+0@#"(

<&@#O3"#%=(&-(,1*(@&+,*+,(#%*#6(

•!._J*@,($,34*+,(,&(%*$J&+4(0+('3"TJ"*($*+,*+@*$(#+4(B0,1(0+@%*#$0+/"=(

<#%0*4($*+,*+@*($,%3@,3%*6((

•!.+@&3%#/*($,34*+,(,&(*"#O&%#,*(#+4(4*<*"&J(04*#$(O=(J%&<040+/(

*_#'J"*$(#+4(*_J"#+#T&+$6(

•!M0<*(-**4O#@W(&+(J*%$0$,*+,(*%%&%$(,1#,(0+,*%-*%*(B0,1('*#+0+/6(

•!._J*@,($,34*+,(,&(*+/#/*(B0,1(,*_,$(,&(*_,%#@,('*#+0+/6(

•!.+@&3%#/*(,1*(3$*(&-(,*@1+0@#"(<&@#O3"#%=(#+4(/%*#,*%(J%*@0$0&+(B0,1(

"#+/3#/*6(>%&'J,($,34*+,(,&(3$*(#@#4*'0@("#+/3#/*6(

•!)$$0/+(<#"3*(,&(%*<0$0+/8(*40T+/8($*"-F@&%%*@T+/8(#+4(J%&&-%*#40+/6(

•!>%&<04*(#'J"*(&JJ&%,3+0T*$(-&%(*_,*+4*4($J**@1(#+4(B%0T+/8(

0+@"340+/('3"TJ"*(%*1*#%$#"$(-&%(,#$W$6(

•!!%*#,*(%3O%0@$(,1#,($J*@0-=(*_J*@,#T&+$^(1#<*($,34*+,$(*<#"3#,*(

,1*'$*"<*$(B0,1(,1*(%3O%0@6(

•!D+<&"<*($,34*+,(0+(%*43@0+/(J*%$0$,*+,(*%%&%$6(

•!.+$3%*(,1#,(@&+,*+,("*#%+0+/(&O?*@T<*$(#+4(,#%/*,$(#%*(O#$*4(&+(

/%#4*("*<*"(@&+,*+,($,#+4#%4$(#JJ%&J%0#,*(-&%(,1*($,34*+,V$(#/*6(

•!E*$0/+(#$$*$$'*+,$(,1#,(@#+(=0*"4(<#"04(0+-&%'#T&+(#O&3,(,1*(

$,34*+,V$(@&+,*+,(W+&B"*4/*(#,(10$[1*%(@3%%*+,("*<*"(&-("#+/3#/*(

J%&I@0*+@=6((

•!9#,@1(,1*("#+/3#/*(O3%4*+(&-(,1*(#$$*$$'*+,(,&(,1*($,34*+,V$(

"#+/3#/*(#O0"0T*$6(

•!>%&<04*(@"*#%(,#$W(*_J"#+#T&+$6(D-(+*@*$$#%=8(4*'&+$,%#,*(,#$W$(#+4(

1#<*(,1*($,34*+,($1&B(3+4*%$,#+40+/(O=(@&'J"*T+/(J%#@T@*(0,*'$(

O*-&%*(O*/0++0+/(,1*(#@,3#"(#$$*$$'*+,(,#$W6(

•!)""&B($,34*+,$(,&(3$*(,1*($#'*($3JJ&%,$(,1#,(,1*=(B*%*(#O"*(,&(3$*(

43%0+/(,1*(%*<0*B($*/'*+,(&-(0+$,%3@T&+6(((

•!.+$3%*(,1#,(,1*(4*J,1(&-(W+&B"*4/*(%*a30%*4(&+(,1*(#$$*$$'*+,(

'#,@1*$(,1*(4*J,1(&-(W+&B"*4/*(,1#,(B#$(*_J"0@0,"=(,#3/1,6(KX&%(

*_#'J"*8(0-(&+"=((<<2)8(=6"+B#$(,#3/1,8(O3,(+&,($>(24(=6"8(4&(+&,(

0+,%&43@*(*<#"3#T&+(&+(#+(#$$*$$'*+,(,#$W6S(

•!E0b*%*+T#,*(%3O%0@$(,&(B*0/1(@&+,*+,(W+&B"*4/*(#+4("#+/3#/*(0+(#(

B#=(,1#,(0$(-#0%(-&%(,1*(0+40<043#"($,34*+,V$("*<*"(&-("#+/3#/*(

J%&I@0*+@=(O3,(#"$&(,&('&T<#,*(,1*($,34*+,(,&(@&+T+3&3$"=(0'J%&<*(

"#+/3#/*($W0""$(#@@&%40+/(,&(10$[1*%(#O0"0,=6(

•!:1#%*(*_J*@,#T&+$(B0,1(,1*($,34*+,(#1*#4(&-(T'*(O=(*_J"#0+0+/(,1*(

%3O%0@(,1#,(B0""(O*(3$*4(,&(*<#"3#,*(,1*(B&%W6((

•!M%#4*(*#@1($,34*+,(#@@&%40+/(,&(J%*4*I+*4(@%0,*%0#(J%*$*+,*4(

*_J"0@0,"=(0+(#(%3O%0@(#+4($1#%*4(B0,1(*#@1($,34*+,6((

•!)<&04(/%#40+/(,1#,(0$(O#$*4(&+(@&'J#%0+/($,34*+,$(,&(*#@1(&,1*%6(

•!D-(#JJ%&J%0#,*8(#""&B($,34*+,$(,&($*"*@,(-%&'(#('*+3(&-(#$$*$$'*+,(

&JT&+$(,&(O*$,(4*'&+$,%#,*(,1*(@&+,*+,(W+&B"*4/*(,1*=(1#<*(

#@a30%*46((

•!>%*-*%(#3,1*+T@(#$$*$$'*+,(K4*'&+$,%#T&+$8(J%*$*+,#T&+$8(J%&?*@,$8(

'&4*"$8(J&$,*%$8(%*#"F"0-*(J%&O"*'$S(,&(@&+,%0<*4(-&%'$(&-(#$$*$$'*+,((

K'3"TJ"*(@1&0@*(,*$,$8(%*@0,#T&+$8(J*4#/&/0@#"(J%&O"*'$8(B&%W$1**,$S6(

•!;$*($*<*%#"(-&%'$(&-(#$$*$$'*+,(-&%('#W0+/(@&+$*a3*+T#"(4*@0$0&+$(

#O&3,(*#@1($,34*+,6(D-(,1*(4#,#(-%&'(40b*%*+,(-&%'$(&-(#$$*$$'*+,(4&(

+&,(#/%**8(/0<*(@&+$04*%#T&+(,&(,1*(<#"040,=(&-(,1*(4#,#6(

•!9&+0,&%($,34*+,(&3,J3,(#+4(J%&<04*(3$*-3"(-**4O#@W(,&(,1*($,34*+,(&+(

#+(&+F/&0+/(O#$0$6(20$,*+8(%*J*#,8(%*@#$,8(#+4(*"#O&%#,*($,34*+,(

&3,J3,6((

•!>&0+,(,&($,%*+/,1$(#+4(B*#W+*$$*$(0+(,1*($,34*+,V$(B&%W6(X&@3$('&%*(

&+($,%*+/,1$(,1#+(&+(B*#W+*$$*$6(

•!5*(-%3/#"(#+4($,%#,*/0@(B0,1(*%%&%(@&%%*@T&+6(5*(#B#%*(,1#,(,1*(,=J*(&-(

*%%&%$($,34*+,(@#+(#N*+4(,&(0$(O#$*4(&+(,1*0%(@3%%*+,("*<*"(&-(

J%&I@0*+@=(#+4(4*<*"&J'*+,#"(%*#40+*$$6(

•!;$*(,1*('&$,(3$*-3"(-&%'(&-(*%%&%(@&%%*@T&+(-%*a3*+,"=L(*"0@0,#T&+6(

>%&'J,($,34*+,$(B0,1(@3*$(,&(J%&43@*($*"-F@&%%*@T&+6((

•!)""&B(&+"=(J%*F#JJ%&<*4(-&%'$(&-(#@@&''&4#T&+$(&+(,*$,$6(

)@@&''&4#T&+$(,1#,(1#<*(4*'&+$,%#,*4(3$*-3"+*$$(#%*(B&%4(O#+W$8(

/"&$$#%0*$8(#+4(40@T&+#%0*$(,1#,($,34*+,$(#%*(-#'0"0#%(B0,1(#+4(#"%*#4=(

#@@3$,&'*4(,&(3$0+/6(

•!.<#"3#,*(,*$,(@&+,*+,(,&(#$$3%*(,1#,($,34*+,$(1#<*(,1*(@3",3%#"(#+4(

/*+*%#"(O#@W/%&3+4(W+&B"*4/*(,1#,(0$(*'O*44*4(0+(,*$,(0,*'$6(D-(0,(0$(

+&,(J&$$0O"*(,&(*"0'0+#,*(0,*'$(,1#,(%*a30%*(3+-#'0"0#%(O#@W/%&3+4(

W+&B"*4/*8(,*#@1(,10$(W+&B"*4/*(*_J"0@0,"=(,&($,34*+,$6(

@"A#>(*$

.@1*<#%%0#8(c68(d&/,8(968(:1&%,8(E6(c6(KHQQeS6(?(@)"*+86"'$"'+86A<%$,$"&)B2$+C6%+1"*2)&,+

+++++2("*4(*$+2$(%"$%&;+D,$+:.E5++?6#$2F(5&$,&+8(9)L(>*#%$&+6(.""0$8(`6(KHQQfS6(!&%%*@T<*(-**4O#@W(#+4(,*#@1*%(4*<*"&J'*+,6(3G+H64%"(2I+J+KGS8(GFGe6(

X#0%O#0%+8(:68(P(c&+*$Fd&8(:6(KHQGQS6(/)K$%$"=(="*+)"&'%48=6"+("#+(&&$&&A$"'+C6%+1"*2)&,+

+++++2("*4(*$+2$(%"$%&;+0+*4)#$+C6%+LMJG+'$(8,$%&6(>10"#4*"J10#8(>)L(!#$"&+6(

X%#+@0$8(E6(c68(`0<*%#8(968(2*$#3_8(Z68(A68(A0*b*%8(96(c68(P(`0<*%#8(76(KHQQgS6(5%(8=8(2+

+++++*4)#$2)"$&+C6%+',$+$#48(=6"+6C+1"*2)&,+2("*4(*$+2$(%"$%&F+!*+,*%(&+(D+$,%3@T&+F+

•!.+@&3%#/*(*_,*+4*4("#+/3#/*(3$*(0+(O&,1(&%#"(#+4(B%0N*+(,#$W$6(

•!7#<*(10/1(*_J*@,#T&+$(-&%(J%*@0$0&+(B0,1("#+/3#/*(-&%(#""("*#%+*%$6(

•!d#"3*(,1*(3$*(&-(#@#4*'0@("#+/3#/*(0+(#""(#$$0/+'*+,$6(

•!5*(*_J"0@0,(B0,1(=&3%(*_J*@,#T&+$(-&%(,1*(a3#"0,=(&-("#+/3#/*(3$*(0+(

#$$0/+'*+,$^(3$*(%3O%0@$(,&(@&''3+0@#,*(*_J*@,#T&+$(@"*#%"=6(



ASSESSING SPEAKING When we assess speaking, we gather evidence about the student’s ability to communicate through speech in social, instructional, and academic contexts. Communication through speech involves a number of language sub-skills: listening comprehension, phonology (producing sounds, stress, intonation), grammar (knowing phrase patterns), vocabulary (knowing content vocabulary, collocations, choosing the right word for the context), pragmatics (knowing how to achieve communicative goals in particular situations, choosing the appropriate register). Depending on our purpose for assessment, we can assess these sub-skills separately with an analytical rubric or more globally with a holistic rubric.

Perhaps the most widely used holistic rubric for assessing speaking is the Speaking Rubric of the WIDA Consortium. The WIDA rubric clusters the descriptors of each proficiency level under the headings linguistic complexity, vocabulary usage, and language control. Examples of somewhat more analytical rubrics are the Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) and the Massachusetts English Language Assessment – Oral (MELA-O). These rubrics rate both comprehension and production, with production broken down into four sub-areas: fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar. There are links to these tools in the Recommended Resources section.

Because the above mentioned rubrics only differentiate five or six levels of proficiency, they are not suitable to use for formative assessment. Research shows that students advance through these levels in 6-7 years on average, typically progressing at a rate of one level per year for the first 3-4 years, then slowing down to passing a level only every other year (Genesee et al., 2006, Cook, 2008). For formative assessments then, teacher-created rubrics are more effective; these can describe in detail the specific skills embedded in the performance of the speaking tasks.

Ekbatani (2011) lists four authentic assessment situations: (1) speaking to an assessor, (2) speaking to an interlocutor in the presence of an assessor, (3) speaking to another learner, (4) speaking to a group. It is preferable for the assessor and the discussion partner to be different individuals. Tasks can include oral interviews, paired interviews with a list of topics or questions provided, group discussions, role plays, simulations, oral presentations, verbal summaries, narration for silent films or cartoon strips, dramatization of visually presented events, explanations of graphics.

Fairbairn and Jones-V (2010) emphasize the importance of selecting assessment tasks that are a good match for the student’s proficiency level. For Level 1/Starting students, examples of appropriate speaking tasks would require repeating, supplying learned phrases on a cue, naming objects and images with single words. On Level 2/Emerging, tasks would elicit phrases and simple sentences in everyday and general instructional situations. For example, students can perform role plays about scenarios presented in images; they can narrate a visually presented sequence of events using simple phrases; they can describe objects or images. Level 3/Developing students are expected to produce sentence level utterances and use constructed expressions rather than learned phrases and formulaic expressions. Novel sentences can be elicited in creative scenarios that take place in familiar contexts, which are needed given that Level 3 students have a limited vocabulary. For Level 4 students, suitable tasks are those that elicit the use of increasingly specialized and academic vocabulary, as well as longer conversational turns. Students should begin to retell, explain, summarize, provide directions, predict – gradually begin to treat abstract concepts verbally. Tasks in which contextual support is reduced – such as making telephone calls – are especially appropriate. Level 5 students



need speaking tasks in which they can demonstrate their growing ability to produce extended discourse, such as reporting, giving technical explanations, analyzing scenarios, making speeches, presenting to classmates, and partaking in group discussions.

ASSESSING LISTENING Listening is a receptive language skill; in the educational context we can only assess it indirectly through observable behaviors. Evidence of listening comprehension may include repeating what one heard, filling in blanks or information gaps, responding appropriately to instructions, directives, questions – verbally or physically. Physical responses can include pointing, gesturing, acting out, drawing, tracing a route, sequencing images, constructing to verbal specifications. The assessment of advanced listening comprehension could require making inferences, drawing conclusions, differentiating fact from opinion, producing an outline or summary.

The sample performance indicators of the PreK-12 ELP Standards (TESOL, 2006) provide guidance on the types of assessment tasks that are particularly suitable for each proficiency level. For example, Level 1 students can demonstrate listening comprehension by identifying whole objects from pictures and realia or by responding to simple commands. On level 2, learners can identify objects from oral description or definition. They can arrange objects, take measurements following multistep oral directions. Level 3 students can identify parts, elements, features, relatedness – not just whole objects. They can complete graphs and diagrams according to specifications or arrange a scene from verbal description. On level 4, verbal descriptions can become increasingly complex and technical. Students can apply oral explanations to novel problems. Students can gain meaning from extended discourse or follow along audiovisual presentations. Level 5 learners follow along verbally presented texts without visual support; they can retell a story they heard; they can take notes while listening to brief lectures. Level 5 students can draw inferences based on conversations they hear and they can evaluate orally presented problems.

ASSESSING READING For native English speakers, typical reading assessment involves testing discreet reading skills that have predictive value for reading development: letter naming, letter phoneme correspondence, blending phonemes into words, sight reading of high frequency words. Once children succeed with these discreet skills, assessment focus shifts to fluency and comprehension. Fluency is assessed by counting the number of correctly read words per minute. There are fluency norms established for each grade level (Hasbrouck and Tindal, 2006). Reading comprehension is assessed by retelling or answering comprehension questions. Texts used in reading assessments are leveled according to readability formulas, which are derived from a combination of mean sentence length/syntactic complexity and mean word length/word frequency.

The What Works Clearinghouse (Gersten et al., 2007) suggests that the same reading assessment can be used with ELLs as with native English speakers for the purpose of screening for potential reading difficulties. For the purpose of diagnosis, however, this may be inadequate. The National Literacy Panel (August and Shanahan, 2006) did note a few important differences between language minority students and monolingual English speakers, which impact the development of reading. First, many ELLs lack oral language in English, which forms the basis for reading comprehension. Second, ELLs start school with a significantly smaller vocabulary. The average native English speaker child already has a vocabulary of 5,000 words prior to



starting formal schooling and these high-frequency words which most children already know are not taught explicitly during the school years. Many ELLs also lack background knowledge that native English speakers share and which are featured in children’s texts, such as stories from popular children’s literature and television shows, shared cultural experiences (nursery rhymes, pets, sports, holidays, occupations, hobbies, places and events in the community). In addition, ELLs often miss out on phonics instruction, which is usually limited to grades K-2, either because they lack the English skills necessary to fully benefit from it or because they enter the instructional sequence late. For these reasons, using the same reading assessment for ELLs as with native English speaker may be problematic – particularly for the diagnosis of reading difficulties.

We can supplement mainstream reading assessments for ELLs to ensure that their special needs are being met. First, because the lack of comprehension quickly erodes reading engagement, ELLs’ reading engagement should be monitored on an ongoing basis. One way to accomplish this is to administer a reading attitude survey periodically. For this purpose, even more useful are dialog journals and reading logs because teachers can provide immediate encouraging feedback. Reading conferences are another method to support reading engagement; these can also further reading comprehension through instructional conversations (Cloud et al., 2009; Celic, 2009). Second, because knowing high-frequency words well is essential for reading comprehension, ELLs should be assessed on their knowledge of the most frequent words. Frequency wordlists and vocabulary tests on these are available. One example is the Vocabulary Levels Test (Nation, 2001; Schmitt et al., 2001), which is suitable for diagnostic purposes for secondary ELLs. In short, reading engagement monitoring and vocabulary testing should be added to standard reading assessment.

Running records are strongly recommended for ELLs on Levels 2 and 3 (Cloud et al., 2009). With running records, the teacher follows along with the student’s oral reading, marks and codes all the errors, and analyzes them to diagnose specific reading problems. The number of correctly read words per minute can be used to measure the student’s progress and to compare the student’s reading performance to the grade level norm.

Observation can be another supplement for the reading assessment of ELLs. With observation, the teacher can focus on one or two specific reading skills at a time and record students’ performance on these skills using a checklist or rubric. Examples of specific reading components teachers might focus on during observation are: establishing purpose for reading, matching reading strategy to purpose, identifying text elements, decoding strategies, sight reading of high frequency words, phrasing, meaningful text segmentation, comprehension strategies, variety of texts, level of independence. Stages of progression on these skills are nicely presented in a rubric created by O’Malley and Pierce (1996). (See in Recommended Resources.)

ASSESSING WRITING Three forms of writing assessment are of special interest to ESOL teachers: large-scale writing tests, classroom writing assessment, and writing performance portfolios.

ELLs take several different large-scale writing tests: (1) on the district placement test, (2) on the annual English language proficiency test, (3) on the state language arts assessment, (4) the annual district writing assessment. Large-scale writing tests involve timed impromptu writing tasks. These mainly reflect students’ ability to record ideas and produce a first draft to a prompt that they had not prepared for. Students have very limited time to apply pre-writing techniques, and they do not have access to resources that they may be accustomed to



using, such as a reference grammar, electronic translator, dictionary, or model texts. These large-scale writing tasks are evaluated with a holistic rubric by raters who do not know the test taker. While the scoring is reliable, it is global with only a few levels of performance discriminated. Feedback to students is limited to a few standard comments. Large-scale writing tests are appropriate for placement and for annual progress measure of the effectiveness of the writing program. (Weigle, 2002) An example of a large-scale writing assessment rubric is WIDA’s writing rubric, which is calibrated with benchmark papers (Gottlieb et. al., 2007).

Weigle (2002) recommends that, when conducting classroom writing assessment, teachers focus more on construct validity, authenticity, and feedback (not as much on reliability, which is a priority of large-scale tests). One way is to evaluate both in-class and out-of-class writing in order to gauge performance when writing is not completed in a testing situation, when there is no time limit, and when additional resources are available to the writer. Another good practice is to evaluate multiple writing samples, when the writer treats different topics for different audiences. Thirdly, teachers can interact with students throughout the writing process and observe how students do when they receive feedback during the various stages of writing (pre-writing, outlining, drafting, sharing, revising, editing). Interacting with students throughout the writing process allows teachers insights into how to best help their students make progress as writers. Fourth, in-class writing assessments need scoring instruments that are specific to the assignment and allow teachers to provide feedback that is clear, constructive, appropriate for the student’s current level of development. The elements to be assessed can include (1) content, (2) control over linguistic features (grammar, vocabulary), (3) the development and organization of ideas, (4) writing conventions (genre, tone, style, format, mechanics).

Gottlieb (2006, p. 56) suggests that classroom writing assessment include a range of writing genres. For emergent writers, these can be as simple as a list, a labeled diagram, a learning log, a journal entry, or a brief dialog. Developing writers can use sentence frames to construct descriptions, lab reports, brochures, biographies, narrations, interview questions, email messages. Suitable genres for expanding writers are editorials, letters, expository paragraphs, interviews, summaries. Competent writers should be developing extended discourse on cognitively demanding subjects as with reports, reviews, critiques, essays, or formal letters.

Writing conferences with individual students provide an excellent context for formative classroom assessment of writing. Celic (2009) shares both detailed examples of how writing conferences work and how teachers can track their observations. During conferences teachers can gain insights into students’ ways of processing tasks by asking students to give think-alouds. Feedback can be more usable when the teacher relates it to the student’s thinking and when the feedback is given at the right stage of the writing process. In the context of the writing conference, the teacher can elicit self-corrections and revisions from students, both of which are highly beneficial for the development of second language writing.

Writing performance portfolios are collections of student writings that are selected by students to demonstrate specific criteria for learning. Students reflect on their progress and complete self-evaluations. In the final step, the portfolio is evaluated by teachers or independent raters using the rubric that was available to students during the selection process. Portfolios allow a longitudinal view of students’ writing development; they can also promote revising and seeking feedback, and thus can become an integral part of the instruction (Weigle, 2002). To better understand the implementation of portfolio assessment in L2 writing, I recommend Weigle (2002) and Gómez (1999).



RECOMMENDED RESOURCES

Webcast with Lorraine Valdez Pierce

Reading Rockets - http://www.readingrockets.org/webcasts/1003

Home language surveys Illinois State Board of Ed. - http://www.isbe.net/bilingual/htmls/tbe_tpi.htm

W-APT placement test WIDA Consortium - http://www.wida.us/assessment/w-apt/index.aspx

Sample ACCESS for ELLs score reports

WIDA Consortium - http://wida.wceruw.org/assessment/ACCESS/ ScoreReports/ACCESS_Interpretive_Guide10.pdf

WIDA CAN DO descriptors

WIDA Consortium - http://www.wida.us/standards/CAN_DOs/index.aspx


Stoughton Public Schools - http://www.stoughtonschools.org/Administration/Docs

Sample assessment portfolio item list

Gómez, E. L. (1999). Assessment portfolios and English language learners: Frequently asked questions and a case study of the Brooklyn International High School. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance, LAB at Brown University. http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/ass_port_ell/ass_port_ell.pdf

SIOP protocol Echevarría, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon: 222-227.

Differentiated grading rubrics

Fairbairn, S., & Jones-Vo, S. (2010). Differentiating instruction and assessment for English language learners: A guide for K-12 teachers. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.

Whole class profile forms

Celic, C. M. (2009). English language learners day by day K-6: A complete guide to literacy, content-area, and language instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann: 29, 192-194.

Sample observation checklists

Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English language learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin: 46, 95.

SOLOM oral assessment rubric

Center for Applied Linguistics - http://www.cal.org/twi/evaltoolkit/appendix/solom.pdf

MELA-O oral assessment rubric

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education - http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/mepa/testadmin/mela-o_overview.pdf

WIDA speaking rubric WIDA Consortium - http://www.wida.us/standards/RG_Speaking%20Writing%20Rubrics.pdf

WIDA writing rubric WIDA Consortium - http://www.wida.us/standards/RG_Speaking%20Writing%20Rubrics.pdf

Gottlieb listening comprehension rubric

Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English language learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin: 120.

Pierce-O’Malley reading rubric

Colorín Colorado -http://www.colorincolorado.org/pdfs/webcasts/Webcast%201003%20-%20Analytic%20Scoring%20Rubric.pdf

Reading and writing conferences

Celic, C. M. (2009). English language learners day by day K-6: A complete guide to literacy, content-area, and language instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann: 172-175, 183-186, 198-199.



FURTHER READINGS

Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2007-4011). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee

Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English language learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Fairbairn, S., & Jones-Vo, S. (2010). Differentiating instruction and assessment for English language learners: A

guide for K-12 teachers. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon. National Council of La Raza (NCLR) (2005). Educating English language learners: Understanding and using

assessment. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance, LAB at Brown University. Retrieved from http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/nclr/edells_assessment.pdf

WORKS CITED

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.) (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Celic, C. M. (2009). English language learners day by day K-6: A complete guide to literacy, content-area, and language instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2009). Literacy instruction for English language learners: A teacher’s guide to research-based practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cook, H. G., Boals, T., Wilmes, C., & Santos, M. (2008). Issues in the development of annual measurable achievement objectives for WIDA consortium states (WCER Working Paper No. 2008-2). Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php

Cooter, R. B., Flynt, E. S., & Cooter, K. S. (2007). Comprehensive reading inventory: Measuring reading development in regular and special education classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill, Prentice Hall.

Cummins, J. (2007). Pedagogies for the poor? Realigning reading instruction for low-income students with scientifically based reading research. Educational Researcher, 36 (9), 564-572.

Cummins, J. (2009). Literacy and English-language learners: A shifting landscape for students, teachers, researchers, and policy makers. Educational Researcher, 38 (5), 382-384.

Echevarría, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon.

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1 (1), 1-18. Ekbatani, G. (2011). Measurement and evaluation in post-secondary ESL. New York: Routledge. Fairbairn, S., & Jones-Vo, S. (2010). Differentiating instruction and assessment for English language learners: A

guide for K-12 teachers. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon. Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical guidelines for the education

of English language learners. Portsmouth, NH: Center on Instruction. Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W. M., & Christian, D. (Eds.) (2006). Educating English language

learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective literacy

and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide (NCEE



2007-4011). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee

Gómez, E. L. (1999). Assessment portfolios and English language learners: Frequently asked questions and a case study of the Brooklyn International High School. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance, LAB at Brown University. Retrieved from http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/ass_port_ell/ass_port_ell.pdf

Gottlieb, M., Cranley, M. E., & Cammilleri, A. (2007). The WIDA English language proficiency standards and resource guide: Pre-kindergarten through grade 12. Madison, WI: The WIDA Consortium.

Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English language learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading

teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59 (7), 636-644. Hellman, A. B., & Goswick, J. A. (2010). Getting to know your learners during intake assessment [Workshop].

Webb City, MO: Southwest Center for Educational Excellence. Retrieved from http://mssu.academia.edu/AndreaHellman/Talks

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. New York: Cambridge UP. No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, Public Law No. 107-110. O’Malley, J. M., & Pierce, L. V. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical approaches

for teachers. New York: Pearson Longman. Pierce, L. V. (2003). Assessing English language learners. National Education Association. Smith, M. W., Brady, J. P., & Anastasopoulos, L. (2008). Early language and literacy classroom observation.

Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of

the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18 (1), 55-88. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) (2006). PreK-12 English language

proficiency standards: Augmentation of the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) Consortium English language proficiency standards. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. New York: Cambridge UP.



APPENDIX A: INTAKE ASSESSMENT TOOL

APPENDIX A: INTAKE ASSESSMENT TOOL

!"#$%&'())&))*&"#'+,,-'

.$*&'

+&$/0'*

&'1,23'"$*&4'

(5&'60&"')75"78/$"#''7"#&3$/9,"'

7"':"5-7)0';&5$"'''

<0&"'=7='1,2'/,*&'#,'#07)'/,2"#31>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<

0&"'=7='1,2')#$3#')?&$%7"5':"5-7)0'&@&31'=$1>'

A&"5#0',B'9*&',B')75"78/$"#'

7"#&3$/9,"'7"':"5-7)0'

C,6'-,"5'0$@&'1,2';&&"')?&$%7"5':"5-7)0>'''''''''''''''''''''''''<

0&"'=7='1,2')#$3#')?&$%7"5':"5-7)0'&@&31'=$1>'''

D,9@$9,"'B,3'-&$3"7"5':"5-7)0'

+&--'*

&'$;,2#'-7@7"5'0&3&4'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''E

7='1,2'6$"#'#,'/,*&'0&3&>'C,6'=7='1,2'B&&->'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

E,'1,2'6$"#'#,'-7@&'7"'#07)'/,2"#31>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<0&"'1,2'53,6'2?F'60&3&'67--'1,2'-7@&>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

C,6'=,'1,2'B&&-'$;,2#'-&$3"7"5':"5-7)0>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''E,'1,2';&-7&@&'7#'7)'"&/&))$31'#,'-&$3"':"5-7)0>'

.$9@&'A$"52$5&'

<0$#'-$"52$5&'=7='1,2'-&$3"'$)'$';$;1>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.$*&',B'1,23'0,*&'-$"52$5&>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

<0$#'-$"52$5&'=,'1,2'-7%&'#,')?&$%>'''''''''''''''''''''''

.$9@&'A$"52$5&'?3,8/7&"/1'$"='

-7#&3$/1''''G()%':HA'+&$/0&3I

J$3&"#IK7-7"52$-'?$3$?3,B&))7,"$-L'

C,6'6&--'=,&)'#0&'/07-=')?&$%'#0&'"$9@&'-$"52$5&>''''''''''!)'#0&'/07-='-7#&3$#&'7"'#0&'"$9@&'-$"52$5&>'''

J37,3'H/0,,-7"5'G()%':HA'+&$/0&3I

/0&/%'3&/,3=)L'

C,6'*

$"1'1&$3)'/07-='$M&"=&=')/0,,->''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''C

750&)#'53$=&'/,*?-&#&=>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

<&3&'#0&3&'5$?)'7"'$M&"=$"/&',B')/0,,->'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<

0$#')2;N&/#)'6&3&'#$250#>''

<0$#')2;N&/#'6$)'1,23'B$@,37#&>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

<0$#'6$)'#0&'0$3=&)#')2;N&/#>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<0$#'53$=&)'=7='1,2'5&#>'''''''''''''

A$"52$5&'A&$3"7"5'

E7='1,2')#2=1',#0&3'-$"52$5&)>'''

C,*&'-7#&3$/1'

<0$#'=,&)'1,23'B$*7-1'-7%&'#,'=,>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<

0,'#&--)')#,37&)'7"'1,23'0,2)&>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

+&--'*

&'$;,2#'#0&';,,%)'7"'1,23'0,2)&4''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<0,'3&$=)'#0&*>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

<0$#'=,'1,2'-7%&'#,'3&$='$#'0,*&>''

H,/7$-'O$?7#$-'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

G!"#&3@7&6'?$3&"#)I#&$/0&3)L'

<0$#'=,'1,2'67)0'B,3'1,23'/07-=>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<

0,'7)'3&)?,")7;-&'B,3'#0&'/07-=P)'&=2/$9,">''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

<0$#'$3&'),*&',B'#0&'#07"5)'1,2'=,'#,')2??,3#'1,23'/07-=P)'&=2/$9,">'''

C7)#,31',B':HA')2??,3#'G()%':HA'

+&$/0&3I/0&/%'3&/,3=)L'

C,6'=7='#07)'/07-='-&$3"':"5-7)0>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<

0$#'%7"=',B':"5-7)0')2??,3#'=7=')I0&'5&#'7"')/0,,->'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

<$)'#0&':"5-7)0'-$"52$5&')2??,3#'/,")7)#&"#>'''

Q??,3#2"79&)'#,'7"#&3$/#'7"'

:"5-7)0'

<0&"'=,'1,2'2)&':"5-7)0>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<

0,'=,'1,2'-7%&'#,')?&$%'67#0'7"':"5-7)0>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

E,'1,2'0$@&'B37&"=)'60,'-7%&'#,')?&$%':"5-7)0>''''''''''''''

:"5-7)0'?3,8/7&"/1'-&@&-'G()%':HA'

+&$/0&3I/0&/%'#&)#'=$#$L'

<&3&';,#0'),/7$-'$"='$/$=&*7/'-$"52$5&')%7--)'$))&))&=>'''

E7='#0&'/07-='0$@&':"5-7)0'-$"52$5&'?3,8/7&"/1'7"')?&$%7"5F'-7)#&"7"5F'3&$=7"5F'$"='6379"5>''

C$)'#0&3&';&&"'7*?3,@&*&"#'7"'&@&31'=,*$7"',@&3'9*&>'

C,6'7)'#0&'/07-=R)'$/$=&*7/'-$"52$5&'?3,8/7&"/1'7"'#0&'/,"#&"#'$3&$)>'

!"#$%&'()&**+

,-.(/0(10.(,-2(3"45

6%7.(80(/0(9:;<;=0(3&>-?(@"(7-"5(A"#$(*&,$-&$4(2#$6-?(6-@,7&(,44&44+&-@0(/B,6*,C*&(,@(DEF'GG

+44#0,%,2&+6,0&2#G/-2$&,)&**+

,-GH,*74((



APPENDIX B: WHOLE CLASS PROFILE FORM

!"#

$%!"&'($%

)"*+,"+$%

-.,*&/0%

.1%./'+'*%

2$"/3%'*%45%

67%8/.1'9'$*90%

67%)'&$/"90%

:9";$#

'9%

<"9=+/.,*;%%

2$"/3%&.%)$"/*%>*+)'3?%

>6@%58$"='*+%

>6@%6'3&$*'*+%

>6@%A$";'*+%

>6@%B/'&'*+%

5&/$*+&?3%

!$$;3%

A$3.,/9$3%

7C%

%

%%

%%

%% % %

%%

%%

%%

%%

DC%

%

%%

%%

%% % %

%%

%%

%%

%%

EC%

%

%%

%%

%% % %

%%

%%

%%

%%

FC%

%

%%

%%

%% % %

%%

%%

%%

%%

GC%

%

%%

%%

%% % %

%%

%%

%%

%%

HC%%

%

%%

%%

%% % %

%%

%%

%%

%%

IC%

%

%%

%%

%% % %

%%

%%

%%

%%

JC%

%

%%

%%

%% % %

%%

%%

%%

%%

%

ASSESSMENT WITH P-12 ENGLISH LANGUAGE...

Documents

Transcript of ASSESSMENT WITH P-12 ENGLISH LANGUAGE...