Butler, F. A. & Stevens, R. (2001). Standardized assessment of the content knowledge of English language learners’ k-12: Current trends and old dilemmas. Language Testing, 18 (4), 409-427. Los Angeles, CA.
O’Malley, M. & Pierce, L. V. (1996) Content area assessment
Some of the similarities between the two readings involve ELL’s being tested using the old system of standardized approaches which we have learned and discussed innumerably this quarter is not valid. Some of the reason to test in content areas includes accountability, continued programs for funding, and to see how schools are doing across the board. This process seems helpful in a way that school are accountable for their learners, however the way in which testing is carried out proves invalid for several reasons stated in both readings, such as: students are more diverse that come in speaking another language other than English, testing is usually standardized, little or no accommodations are made to meet individual needs, these assessment are mostly one time deal and so often is not a valid measurement, and do not test in language of the ELL’s.
In Butler’s article some solutions were suggested such as to look into accommodations for the ELL’s and to provide a measure of growth in English. Accommodations would be in the area of test and procedural modifications and Measures of growth is screening students to see if they are proficient enough to participate in high stakes testing.
O’Malley and Pierce suggested authentic means of testing such as scaffolding to show if students can respond to tasks, such as Graphic Organizers to help thinking skills, problem solving, and strategic approaches to learning.
Further it has always been suggested to include the learners in the process through their prior knowledge, self-assessments, and empowerment of their educational process by setting goals. This can mean that the teacher include and not exclude learners in assessing and or creating rubrics so that learners know and understand the criteria.
One thing I will remember from this reading is the differentiated scoring. My district does encourage us to differentiate instruction as we teach in multilevelized classrooms. It does make sense that we should also differentiate scoring. A good example is differentiating writing from the grammatical and the concepts. I will try to include more writing in their Math, which I seem to shy away from as compared to other Content Areas. One example I have begun to use is for them to explain in their own words how they came to this conclusion or to explain their results.
