Integrating Factors in the Assessment of English Learners
The studies of language proficiency and academic achievement that have been
reviewed reflect the confusion surrounding models and definitions of language
proficiency, use, and ability, particularly when an attempt is made to apply these
definitions and models to the assessment of English language learners. If we accept
the assumption that operationalizing a definition of language proficiency in an
assessment of English language learners requires assessment designers to focus upon
pragmatic, performance based skills, we are still left grappling with, in the interpretation
and analysis of these assessment scores, how to take into account sociocultural factors
29
such as the effect of the authenticity of the assessment task and characteristics of the
test taker, particularly having to do with socio-economic background.
In an overview of language testing research, Bachman (1991) points out that a
language test score cannot be interpreted as an indicator of language ability only.
Instead, interpretation must take into account, “the characteristics and content of the
test tasks, the characteristics of the test taker, and the strategies the test taker employs
in attempting to complete the test task (p. 677). The process of interpretation is further
complicated if we take into account the interaction of the factors described.
In addition, Bachman (1991) presents a definition and model for judging the
“authenticity” of language testing tasks. His definition identifies two types of
authenticity, situational and interactional. Situational authenticity has to do with how
closely the test method resembles real life target language usage. Interactional
authenticity takes into consideration how involved the test taker’s language ability,
including language knowledge and strategies, are when completing the test task.
Even if a definition of language proficiency as defined by tests given to English
language learners in a school district or state seems grounded in current theory, it
remains to be seen whether this definition of English language proficiency or
development is reflected in content area assessments.
Redefining English Language Proficiency
a.. Academic language proficiency in the classroom
The foundation of the present study is in providing a clear description of the
language proficiency required for students to be successful within the academic
contexts of the classroom and, as a proxy of classroom performance, on assessments.
While discussions of language proficiency are often centered on a generalized notion of
basic language ability, a series of recent related studies in measurement issues
involving the academic achievement of ELs has provided more situated notions of
language proficiency. In these studies, language proficiency is described in terms of the
functions of language required in specific contexts (Hawkins, 2004).
Academic Literacy is a term that has been defined differently in many academic
contexts (Scarcella, 1999). Bilingual educators are well acquainted with the BICS/CALP
30
(Cummins, 1981) distinction of language acquisition. Thus it raises the issue of what we
really mean by the term and how it applies to what our students need to be
academically successful. At the secondary level, development of higher order literacy
skills is required if students are expected to master local, state and national standards
for language arts and other content areas. Level of English literacy has also been used
as the best criterion for determining readiness to meaningfully participate in English
language assessments (National Research Council, 1998).
b.. Academic language on tests
Research has also described the language features found on language
proficiency tests and compared them to descriptions of the language of classrooms and
content assessment. In a study designed to describe and compare the language and
performance of 7th grade ELs on tests of language proficiency and achievement
(Stevens, Butler & Castellon-Wellington 2000), text analyses revealed limited
correspondence between the two tests. Butler & Castellon-Wellington (2000) suggest
that “competent performance” on a commonly-used language proficiency test such as
the LAS may not provide sufficient evidence for determining whether or not ELs can
handle the academic language load of content assessments. Bailey and Butler (2003)
assert that “Academic language proficiency (ALP)” needs to be clearly defined using not
a single proficiency or standardized test but including national and state content
standards, English as a second language standards and information about teacher
expectations and school language (p. 6). By creating such a framework, Bailey and
Butler reason that we will be able to identify a “validity/language proficiency threshold,”
which up until now has been elusive because individual school districts and states have
used such varying requirements for identifying English proficiency (p. 37).
Fillmore and Snow (1999) examined prototype test items for a high school
qualifying examination for one of the 23 states that has adopted this requirement. Their
analysis reveals that students must have competence in academic English to do well on
the test. The language used in the tests is not different from that ordinarily used in
school textbooks and academic discussions about science, mathematics, literature or
social studies. Selected examples of what students must know in order to deal with
these tests successfully follow.
31
Students must analyze texts, assessing the writer s use of language for rhetorical
and aesthetic purposes, and to express perspective, mood, etc.; extract meaning &
information from texts, and to relate it to other ideas and information; evaluate evidence
and arguments presented in texts, and to critique the logic of arguments made in them;
recognize and analyze textual conventions used in various genres for special effect, to
trigger background knowledge, or for perlocutionary effect; recognize ungrammatical
and infelicitous usage in written language, and make necessary corrections to texts in
grammar, punctuation and capitalization; use grammatical devices for combining
sentences into concise and more effective new ones, and use various devices to
combine sentences into coherent and cohesive texts; compose and write an extended,
reasoned text which is well developed and supported with evidence and details;
interpret word problems--recognizing that in such texts, ordinary words may have quite
specialized meaning; extract precise information from a written text, and devise an
appropriate strategy for solving the problem based on information provided in the text.
Holistic assessments have the potential to solve the problem of tracking
individual achievement (Hewitt, 1995), particularly of English language learners.
However, the validity and reliability of the rubrics and scoring guides intended to convert
such data into quantifiable data are often unknown. Thus, standardized tests are used
for assessing curricula, programs, or for providing peer comparison information. In the
context of high-stakes, standards-based reform efforts such as the one in California,
standardized tests fulfill the accountability function required by standards-based reform
and so are also used to determine whether schools are doing their jobs effectively.
More information is needed, however, to find out when such assessment are
appropriate and can provide meaningful information about what English language
learners know and can do.
المادة المعروضة اعلاه هي مدخل الى المحاضرة المرفوعة بواسطة استاذ(ة) المادة . وقد تبدو لك غير متكاملة . حيث يضع استاذ المادة في بعض الاحيان فقط الجزء الاول من المحاضرة من اجل الاطلاع على ما ستقوم بتحميله لاحقا . في نظام التعليم الالكتروني نوفر هذه الخدمة لكي نبقيك على اطلاع حول محتوى الملف الذي ستقوم بتحميله .
|