http://sites.google.com/site/assessmentportfolioproject/
Okay this is the right site for my assessment protfolio.
Back to Work
13 years ago
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Butler & Stevens
Standardized Assessment of Content Knowledge of ELL K-12, Butler & Stevens
The article states that the number of ESL students is increasing each year for grades k through 12. The students continue to take tests that are normed for English first language speakers, which makes it difficult for ELL students. If ELL students are excluded from tests they would not be represented, meaning needs will not be met for ELL students.
The article covered three ways ELL learners can be included in standardized tests. The first is testing in the first language. The tests are translated, and the translations have to compare to that of English academic language. The problem with that is that not all ELL students are literate in their first language, and if a test were translated in one language, other languages would be excluded. The second is that accommodations are made for ELL students (given extra time, a quiet place provided, use of dictionaries). The problem with accommodations is that results show no significant improvement in content area assessments, and also that accommodations made for one level may not be appropriate for other levels of ESL students. The third is one that seems to make more sense, and that is measuring growth in English. Students are assessed in ELD tests to measure growth in English as an additional or supplemental assessment. This measurement provides accountability for ELL students and gives students practice in taking standardized tests. If I’m not mistaken researches are continuing to be conducted that will benefit the ESL students.
The article states that the number of ESL students is increasing each year for grades k through 12. The students continue to take tests that are normed for English first language speakers, which makes it difficult for ELL students. If ELL students are excluded from tests they would not be represented, meaning needs will not be met for ELL students.
The article covered three ways ELL learners can be included in standardized tests. The first is testing in the first language. The tests are translated, and the translations have to compare to that of English academic language. The problem with that is that not all ELL students are literate in their first language, and if a test were translated in one language, other languages would be excluded. The second is that accommodations are made for ELL students (given extra time, a quiet place provided, use of dictionaries). The problem with accommodations is that results show no significant improvement in content area assessments, and also that accommodations made for one level may not be appropriate for other levels of ESL students. The third is one that seems to make more sense, and that is measuring growth in English. Students are assessed in ELD tests to measure growth in English as an additional or supplemental assessment. This measurement provides accountability for ELL students and gives students practice in taking standardized tests. If I’m not mistaken researches are continuing to be conducted that will benefit the ESL students.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Ch 6 Writing Assessment
Chapter 6 Writing assessment
What I got out of this chapter is that writing is “a personal act” where writers pick a topic, draw on their background knowledge, and conform it to their own style of writing. Another interesting point was teaching the process of writing and not concentrating on the product of writing. The process includes prewriting maybe using a graphic organizer, writing, and post writing where students share their writing with their peers. The process also involves conferencing with the teacher to talk about what process was used in writing, and also getting peer feedback.
Another point the chapter made was that writing across the curriculum allows students to write for a variety of purposes, and in the process students write to learn. This reminded me of how I used to study for exams in college. I found that I was able to retain more by writing and rewriting information I needed to remember for exams.
There is a student checklist that I would like to try for kindergarten. I think the checklist would include:
• Did you pick out a scene to draw about?
• Did you draw your story for the reader?
• Did you add details so the reader will know what your story is?
• Did you label your story using beginning sounds?
There are some really good checklists and rubrics that we can use for writing assessments. There’s the holistic scoring rubric where the paper is looked at as a whole and given one score. The primary traits, like the 6 + 1 traits, looks to see if there is evidence certain traits (idea, organization, sentence fluency), and the analytic scoring rubric where the paper is given several scores on different components of writing. The one I created is based on a holistic scoring rubric. The Process Writing Checklist is a good way to keep track of what writing process to cover in class. The chapter suggests that to find out what writing process to put in the checklist we should observe students as they write, see what is covered during conferencing, and to get a collection of student work. Figure 6.6 is a good way to see how students feel about writing, and what interests they like to write about, and figure 6.7 is a self-assessment on writing strategies. I am thinking this self-assessment would go nicely with the Talking, Drawing, Writing book for primary grades.
These are all very good points, but I have one question that keeps nagging at me for quite sometime now: what about the kindergarten students who are just about to acquire a second language? What worked for me in the past is to pick a topic (something the students will want to write about) and have students tell their story about it. I always start out by saying the topic in Yugtun, and when students want to share I make them repeat the topic first before they tell their story in their first language. Then I would translate and I have the student repeat the sentence several times before going off to draw the story. My only problem with that is students (always 1 or 2) who will copy their neighbors, or they would repeat one story each day, which I found (according to Horn and Giacobbe) is common for students who aren’t sure of their abilities.
What I got out of this chapter is that writing is “a personal act” where writers pick a topic, draw on their background knowledge, and conform it to their own style of writing. Another interesting point was teaching the process of writing and not concentrating on the product of writing. The process includes prewriting maybe using a graphic organizer, writing, and post writing where students share their writing with their peers. The process also involves conferencing with the teacher to talk about what process was used in writing, and also getting peer feedback.
Another point the chapter made was that writing across the curriculum allows students to write for a variety of purposes, and in the process students write to learn. This reminded me of how I used to study for exams in college. I found that I was able to retain more by writing and rewriting information I needed to remember for exams.
There is a student checklist that I would like to try for kindergarten. I think the checklist would include:
• Did you pick out a scene to draw about?
• Did you draw your story for the reader?
• Did you add details so the reader will know what your story is?
• Did you label your story using beginning sounds?
There are some really good checklists and rubrics that we can use for writing assessments. There’s the holistic scoring rubric where the paper is looked at as a whole and given one score. The primary traits, like the 6 + 1 traits, looks to see if there is evidence certain traits (idea, organization, sentence fluency), and the analytic scoring rubric where the paper is given several scores on different components of writing. The one I created is based on a holistic scoring rubric. The Process Writing Checklist is a good way to keep track of what writing process to cover in class. The chapter suggests that to find out what writing process to put in the checklist we should observe students as they write, see what is covered during conferencing, and to get a collection of student work. Figure 6.6 is a good way to see how students feel about writing, and what interests they like to write about, and figure 6.7 is a self-assessment on writing strategies. I am thinking this self-assessment would go nicely with the Talking, Drawing, Writing book for primary grades.
These are all very good points, but I have one question that keeps nagging at me for quite sometime now: what about the kindergarten students who are just about to acquire a second language? What worked for me in the past is to pick a topic (something the students will want to write about) and have students tell their story about it. I always start out by saying the topic in Yugtun, and when students want to share I make them repeat the topic first before they tell their story in their first language. Then I would translate and I have the student repeat the sentence several times before going off to draw the story. My only problem with that is students (always 1 or 2) who will copy their neighbors, or they would repeat one story each day, which I found (according to Horn and Giacobbe) is common for students who aren’t sure of their abilities.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Reading Assessment & Instruction
Chapter 10, Reading Assessment & Instruction, Peregoy & O. Boyle
This chapter is mainly of students in the elementary grades who are English language learners. There are three things to know about ELL students: 1) knowing student’s life experiences, interests, and aspirations is to use student’s prior knowledge to give him/her a purpose or motivation to read. 2) language knowledge, or how well they know their second language, 3) prior literacy experiences in their primary language means that knowledge of strategies can transfer over to their second language.
For the primary grades, especially kindergarten level, their experience with text varies. Students who have been read to at home, who have exposure to variety of print come to school with knowledge of concept of print (reading left to right, top to bottom, opening the page, title and author). Another assessment we give out is to see how many reading strategies they know (do they look to the illustrations to get meaning? Are they able to predict what will happen next? And how many letters do they know?). Students who have funds of knowledge about print usually get the Yugtun concepts right away.
One procedure I found interesting in the reading is on echo reading. In echo reading students are assessed to see if they are able to repeat what the teacher said. If they have difficulty repeating word for word, then the students will probably have difficulty with the book which the phrase or sentence was taken from. Another procedure I liked was the ReQuest where the students ask a question and the teacher answers the question and then asks another question. This is done after reading a passage. For younger kids the teacher says the answer and has the students ask the question for it. The purpose of the activity is to be able to question while developing student’s comprehension. I noticed that in kindergarten students tend to say a statement when someone asks, “do you have a question?” I often wonder if that is part of developmental process. Is it too early to teach students to ask questions in kindergarten?
This chapter is mainly of students in the elementary grades who are English language learners. There are three things to know about ELL students: 1) knowing student’s life experiences, interests, and aspirations is to use student’s prior knowledge to give him/her a purpose or motivation to read. 2) language knowledge, or how well they know their second language, 3) prior literacy experiences in their primary language means that knowledge of strategies can transfer over to their second language.
For the primary grades, especially kindergarten level, their experience with text varies. Students who have been read to at home, who have exposure to variety of print come to school with knowledge of concept of print (reading left to right, top to bottom, opening the page, title and author). Another assessment we give out is to see how many reading strategies they know (do they look to the illustrations to get meaning? Are they able to predict what will happen next? And how many letters do they know?). Students who have funds of knowledge about print usually get the Yugtun concepts right away.
One procedure I found interesting in the reading is on echo reading. In echo reading students are assessed to see if they are able to repeat what the teacher said. If they have difficulty repeating word for word, then the students will probably have difficulty with the book which the phrase or sentence was taken from. Another procedure I liked was the ReQuest where the students ask a question and the teacher answers the question and then asks another question. This is done after reading a passage. For younger kids the teacher says the answer and has the students ask the question for it. The purpose of the activity is to be able to question while developing student’s comprehension. I noticed that in kindergarten students tend to say a statement when someone asks, “do you have a question?” I often wonder if that is part of developmental process. Is it too early to teach students to ask questions in kindergarten?
Monday, November 17, 2008
Reading Assessment
Reading Assessment, Ch. 5, O’Malley & Pierce
What I got out of the chapter is that reading for English language learners should include: large quantity of reading, time in class for reading, appropriate materials that encourage students to read, teaching reading strategies, materials & reading strategies matched to student level of interest and language. Reading should also be holistic not skill based, it should tap into students’ prior knowledge and experience, focus on comprehension while teaching reading skills, and allow time for collaboration among students. Discussing reading materials allows students to develop language skills.
There is another book that I’m reading (and I wish I had read it before school began) called Talking, Drawing, Writing Lessons For Our Youngest Writers, by Martha Horn & Mary Ellen Giacobbe. It is about a group of teachers who teach writing to kindergarten students by beginning with storytelling. From storytelling students move onto drawing, and by drawing they learn to draw their stories in detail (drawing to the reader). The teachers say that the more students are detailed in their storytelling, the more detailed they are in their drawing. And the more detailed they are in their drawing the more writing they produce when they learn to form words. This makes sense because as little kids are telling their stories they are practicing their language skills, which transfers to their drawing don’t you think?
I noticed as I’m concentrating on comprehension how hard it is to get across questions (who, what, where, when) to second language learners. The simplest question students can answer is what is this and who is this, but most still don’t get, “who/what is in the book”. I’m starting to wonder if we failed the previous kindergarten students by not teaching them to answer those questions. Before I used to notice 1st and 2nd grade students answer “I’m fine” when I would ask, “what are you doing?”
What I got out of the chapter is that reading for English language learners should include: large quantity of reading, time in class for reading, appropriate materials that encourage students to read, teaching reading strategies, materials & reading strategies matched to student level of interest and language. Reading should also be holistic not skill based, it should tap into students’ prior knowledge and experience, focus on comprehension while teaching reading skills, and allow time for collaboration among students. Discussing reading materials allows students to develop language skills.
There is another book that I’m reading (and I wish I had read it before school began) called Talking, Drawing, Writing Lessons For Our Youngest Writers, by Martha Horn & Mary Ellen Giacobbe. It is about a group of teachers who teach writing to kindergarten students by beginning with storytelling. From storytelling students move onto drawing, and by drawing they learn to draw their stories in detail (drawing to the reader). The teachers say that the more students are detailed in their storytelling, the more detailed they are in their drawing. And the more detailed they are in their drawing the more writing they produce when they learn to form words. This makes sense because as little kids are telling their stories they are practicing their language skills, which transfers to their drawing don’t you think?
I noticed as I’m concentrating on comprehension how hard it is to get across questions (who, what, where, when) to second language learners. The simplest question students can answer is what is this and who is this, but most still don’t get, “who/what is in the book”. I’m starting to wonder if we failed the previous kindergarten students by not teaching them to answer those questions. Before I used to notice 1st and 2nd grade students answer “I’m fine” when I would ask, “what are you doing?”
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Disproportionate Representation
Disproportionate Representation of Diverse Students in Special Education
The chapter spat out some numbers of minority groups who were identified as needing Special Education Services which was quite depressing. More minority groups were labeled as mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed, and learning disabled. There is little data on LEP students, but the data that came from Texas showed that a small percentage were LEP. But district wide the numbers increase. What I found interesting is that the criteria for receiving special education services differs in each state, so the same child that was identified as LD may not qualify for services in another state.
Was the latest information from 2002? and the book was published in 2005. The chapter starts out saying that the controversy first came about in 1968. Was there anything done to fix the problem after that?
The chapter spat out some numbers of minority groups who were identified as needing Special Education Services which was quite depressing. More minority groups were labeled as mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed, and learning disabled. There is little data on LEP students, but the data that came from Texas showed that a small percentage were LEP. But district wide the numbers increase. What I found interesting is that the criteria for receiving special education services differs in each state, so the same child that was identified as LD may not qualify for services in another state.
Was the latest information from 2002? and the book was published in 2005. The chapter starts out saying that the controversy first came about in 1968. Was there anything done to fix the problem after that?
Dynamic Assessment
Dynamic Assessment in the Language Classroom, Poehner & Lantolf
These are some of the things that I got out of the article:
Formative Assessment (FA):
- helps in teach planning and management
- provides evidence of student learning
- shows where student and teacher are in curriculum
- provides evidence of self-evaluation of teaching
- Shows what student still need to know
- Informal, hit or miss. May over or underestimate student ability
Dynamic Assessment (DA)
- Came from Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
- Cannot separate assessment and instruction
- Mediation focuses on meaning for development
- Mediation is intervention after assessment? And it is ongoing.
The article gave a lot of information about DA, and I’m really interested to see how it can fit into our kindergarten grades. Also, is mediation given individually? Sounds like it.
These are some of the things that I got out of the article:
Formative Assessment (FA):
- helps in teach planning and management
- provides evidence of student learning
- shows where student and teacher are in curriculum
- provides evidence of self-evaluation of teaching
- Shows what student still need to know
- Informal, hit or miss. May over or underestimate student ability
Dynamic Assessment (DA)
- Came from Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
- Cannot separate assessment and instruction
- Mediation focuses on meaning for development
- Mediation is intervention after assessment? And it is ongoing.
The article gave a lot of information about DA, and I’m really interested to see how it can fit into our kindergarten grades. Also, is mediation given individually? Sounds like it.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Portfolio Assessment
Ch. 3 Portfolio Assessment, O’Malley
When we were first introduced to portfolios during one of the teacher inservices I tried it out without success. I didn’t know much about portfolios but I followed one of the simple forms with the smiley face (to show they liked their selected work) and a frowning face (to show dislike). Students were to circle one of them and explain why they felt the way they did about their selected piece. Since I missed the part where we get students to explain their choice, my biggest worry was in students picking their best work and not being able to say why it was their best work. And since I was the only one in our building doing the portfolios, and I didn’t know where to turn to for help, I dropped the whole thing. I don’t remember how far I went with the portfolios.
The book describes three different ways students can assess their work: documentation, explaining why they chose that piece as their best work, comparison of their prior piece to their recent piece to show improvement, and integration, by describing their improvements in general ways. The book also states that students need to know how their work will be evaluated and by what standards so that they can set goals to work for. I think this will help them to explain their choice of “best work”. The book also states that students be given examples of an exemplary piece and a not so exemplary piece. By looking at the exemplary piece students are to discuss what makes it a good piece and to come up with a criteria chart. I like the example that was given on page 40 that has the heading “What a Good Writer Can Do”. The first criteria states, “I can plan before I write,” which is stated in a positive form. I’d like to try using Portfolios with my students, and I ‘d like to start out with writing which I think will be simple. But I’d need more guidance I think.
When we were first introduced to portfolios during one of the teacher inservices I tried it out without success. I didn’t know much about portfolios but I followed one of the simple forms with the smiley face (to show they liked their selected work) and a frowning face (to show dislike). Students were to circle one of them and explain why they felt the way they did about their selected piece. Since I missed the part where we get students to explain their choice, my biggest worry was in students picking their best work and not being able to say why it was their best work. And since I was the only one in our building doing the portfolios, and I didn’t know where to turn to for help, I dropped the whole thing. I don’t remember how far I went with the portfolios.
The book describes three different ways students can assess their work: documentation, explaining why they chose that piece as their best work, comparison of their prior piece to their recent piece to show improvement, and integration, by describing their improvements in general ways. The book also states that students need to know how their work will be evaluated and by what standards so that they can set goals to work for. I think this will help them to explain their choice of “best work”. The book also states that students be given examples of an exemplary piece and a not so exemplary piece. By looking at the exemplary piece students are to discuss what makes it a good piece and to come up with a criteria chart. I like the example that was given on page 40 that has the heading “What a Good Writer Can Do”. The first criteria states, “I can plan before I write,” which is stated in a positive form. I’d like to try using Portfolios with my students, and I ‘d like to start out with writing which I think will be simple. But I’d need more guidance I think.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Who is Given Tests
Making Assessment Practices Vaild for Indigenous American Students, S. Nelson-Barber & E. Trumbull
Who Is Given Tests by G. Solano-Flores
The two articel brought up many points about tests and ELL students. One thing that stood out for me from these two articles is that the tests do not address cultural validity, that test developers do not take into account the lives of the students. A student from a different culture may interpret a question differently than a student whom the test was developed for.
Did I read right that that simplifying the language on the tests can shorten the gap between ELL and non-ELL students? Another point that stood out for me was that there is no such thing as a “standard” language. By selecting one language as a standard benefits certain students and hurts the rest.
Who Is Given Tests by G. Solano-Flores
The two articel brought up many points about tests and ELL students. One thing that stood out for me from these two articles is that the tests do not address cultural validity, that test developers do not take into account the lives of the students. A student from a different culture may interpret a question differently than a student whom the test was developed for.
Did I read right that that simplifying the language on the tests can shorten the gap between ELL and non-ELL students? Another point that stood out for me was that there is no such thing as a “standard” language. By selecting one language as a standard benefits certain students and hurts the rest.
Monday, October 20, 2008
McNamara ch 5
Ch 5 Validity: testing the test
The chapter states that the test goes through validation procedures to make sure that it is testing what it is supposed to be testing, and if the test is relevant to the ability of the students. It was interesting to read that the test developer is often the one that checks for validity, if I’m not mistaken, but other test researchers may review the test data as well.
What I’d like more clarification on is the consequential validity. Is coaching much like teaching to the test? Or is it different because not all students in the classroom can be coached, and because of it the result of the test changes?
The chapter states that the test goes through validation procedures to make sure that it is testing what it is supposed to be testing, and if the test is relevant to the ability of the students. It was interesting to read that the test developer is often the one that checks for validity, if I’m not mistaken, but other test researchers may review the test data as well.
What I’d like more clarification on is the consequential validity. Is coaching much like teaching to the test? Or is it different because not all students in the classroom can be coached, and because of it the result of the test changes?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Authentic & Multiplism in Assessment
Designing Authentic Assessment, O’Malley & Pierce
Language Assessment Process: A “Multiplism Perpective, E. Shohamy & O. Inbar
Multiplism in language assessment looks at different ways a language is to be assessed: the purposes to assessment, defining language knowledge, and the types of instruments to elicit language knowledge. And both the readings say that assessment has to be valid in that the assessment and instruction are aligned. O’Malley included that thinking skills be incorporated into content validity. So if the purpose of the test is to find out if a student is able to interact in the target language, and how much, an interview or an oral test would be more valid than giving a written test. While reading this I thought of the time I was interviewed for the kindergarten position at the immersion school. One activity I had to perform was to do a quick write for 3 minutes. I knew the purpose was to see how literate I was in Yugtun.
One way to look at authentic assessment is that the assessment is aligned with instruction, or what is being taught is what should be assessed. The example I liked about authentic assessment is the way we interact with others is by listening, speaking, and sometimes reading notes. And that is how language should be assessed: production (writing, speaking) and receptive (listening, reading) skills combined. I was thinking of how comprehension was tested in the running records and how limiting it was, because aren’t we as immersion teachers supposed to ask a question in several different ways? If the student isn’t answering, does it mean that the student didn’t understand what was read or the question being asked? If it’s the question, do we mark down that the student didn’t comprehend what was read? What if that same student is able to answer questions during reading time (maybe not in so many words, or using props) or story time?
I would like to become more familiar with self-assessment, and how to incorporate it into kindergarten immersion students. One interesting comment I heard over the weekend was when an immersion teacher and a foreign language teacher stated that some kids aren’t confident that they can speak in their target language until they hear themselves speak in a recording. It made me wonder if some of my students feel that way.
Language Assessment Process: A “Multiplism Perpective, E. Shohamy & O. Inbar
Multiplism in language assessment looks at different ways a language is to be assessed: the purposes to assessment, defining language knowledge, and the types of instruments to elicit language knowledge. And both the readings say that assessment has to be valid in that the assessment and instruction are aligned. O’Malley included that thinking skills be incorporated into content validity. So if the purpose of the test is to find out if a student is able to interact in the target language, and how much, an interview or an oral test would be more valid than giving a written test. While reading this I thought of the time I was interviewed for the kindergarten position at the immersion school. One activity I had to perform was to do a quick write for 3 minutes. I knew the purpose was to see how literate I was in Yugtun.
One way to look at authentic assessment is that the assessment is aligned with instruction, or what is being taught is what should be assessed. The example I liked about authentic assessment is the way we interact with others is by listening, speaking, and sometimes reading notes. And that is how language should be assessed: production (writing, speaking) and receptive (listening, reading) skills combined. I was thinking of how comprehension was tested in the running records and how limiting it was, because aren’t we as immersion teachers supposed to ask a question in several different ways? If the student isn’t answering, does it mean that the student didn’t understand what was read or the question being asked? If it’s the question, do we mark down that the student didn’t comprehend what was read? What if that same student is able to answer questions during reading time (maybe not in so many words, or using props) or story time?
I would like to become more familiar with self-assessment, and how to incorporate it into kindergarten immersion students. One interesting comment I heard over the weekend was when an immersion teacher and a foreign language teacher stated that some kids aren’t confident that they can speak in their target language until they hear themselves speak in a recording. It made me wonder if some of my students feel that way.
Monday, September 29, 2008
McNamara chapter 2
Communication & Design of Language Tests, ch 2
This chapter takes us through the history of language testing. First was a discrete point testing where parts of a language were tested separately (vocabulary, grammar). Then came the skills testing where the skills (reading, writing, listening) were tested. Foreign students wishing to study abroad led to integrative tests where pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary were tested but those were time consuming and expensive tests. By the 1970’s pragmatic tests, where language use was tested (how the learner integrates grammar, vocabulary, and context), and this was when cloze tests began. When communicative competence theory came out there was a change in the way testing was viewed. This view was that language use is different in different situations, and that knowledge of language was much more than knowing vocabulary or grammatical structures.
Today in our school we are using a language test that was when… in 1970’s? Was it ever revised? I think it’s about time our school looked into language assessments, but how would we capture how students use their new language? Right now the way I know a child is acquiring a language is through observation. Thinking about our Yugtun language heightens my interest in language assessment.
This chapter takes us through the history of language testing. First was a discrete point testing where parts of a language were tested separately (vocabulary, grammar). Then came the skills testing where the skills (reading, writing, listening) were tested. Foreign students wishing to study abroad led to integrative tests where pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary were tested but those were time consuming and expensive tests. By the 1970’s pragmatic tests, where language use was tested (how the learner integrates grammar, vocabulary, and context), and this was when cloze tests began. When communicative competence theory came out there was a change in the way testing was viewed. This view was that language use is different in different situations, and that knowledge of language was much more than knowing vocabulary or grammatical structures.
Today in our school we are using a language test that was when… in 1970’s? Was it ever revised? I think it’s about time our school looked into language assessments, but how would we capture how students use their new language? Right now the way I know a child is acquiring a language is through observation. Thinking about our Yugtun language heightens my interest in language assessment.
NCLB & English Language Learners
NCLB Act & ELL: Assessment & Accountability Issues
The issues with assessments and LEP that Abedi mention include:
1) no accuracy in AYP reporting of LEP students due to inconsistencies of LEP reporting or classifications within the state and/or districts.
2) LEP student population varies within states. Someone will have to explain more on this one. I’m having trouble grasping how different cultures and languages can affect the LEP reporting.
3) Number of LEP students s always changing. As students become proficient in English they are exited out of LEP status.
4) The academic achievement tests are not reliable measurements for LEP students because the tests are normed for “Native English speakers”.
5) Schools with high LEP student population have lower-baseline scores. It was interesting to find that the higher percentage of LEP there are, the higher the yearly increase becomes.
6) NCLB does not follow “compensatory model” where a subject with a higher score could compensate for a subject with a low score.
After reading about how NCLB is biased towards English speakers, what are some of the “steps to remedy issues” that Abedi concluded with?
The issues with assessments and LEP that Abedi mention include:
1) no accuracy in AYP reporting of LEP students due to inconsistencies of LEP reporting or classifications within the state and/or districts.
2) LEP student population varies within states. Someone will have to explain more on this one. I’m having trouble grasping how different cultures and languages can affect the LEP reporting.
3) Number of LEP students s always changing. As students become proficient in English they are exited out of LEP status.
4) The academic achievement tests are not reliable measurements for LEP students because the tests are normed for “Native English speakers”.
5) Schools with high LEP student population have lower-baseline scores. It was interesting to find that the higher percentage of LEP there are, the higher the yearly increase becomes.
6) NCLB does not follow “compensatory model” where a subject with a higher score could compensate for a subject with a low score.
After reading about how NCLB is biased towards English speakers, what are some of the “steps to remedy issues” that Abedi concluded with?
Monday, September 22, 2008
Moving Toward Authentic Assessment
Moving Toward Authentic Assessment
The first chapter on Authentic Assessment for English language learners got me curious to find out more about it, and it looks like something that will fit into our immersion program. I like the way assessment is tied into the way we teach, in that in order to adapt authentic assessment we must change our philosophy of teaching (pg. 5). This chapter reminds me of the critical pedagogy we spoke about in our second language teaching class. There are three models: transmission, generative, and transformative. Transmission is a perspective where the teacher holds all knowledge and the student is the receiver, and this model wouldn’t fit into authentic assessment because it doesn’t leave room for self evaluation. The generative model is a perspective in which the child is responsible for learning and the teacher acts as a guide, and transformative involves the community.
The scoring guide that is described in page 5 reminds me of our phase assessments. The students are graded basic, proficient, or advanced in each indicator. I’m curious now as to how phases came about, and are they for English first language speakers? I wonder, are the village schools taught as if all the students are English first language speakers? Is that why most villages aren’t doing so well in the standardized tests?
The first chapter on Authentic Assessment for English language learners got me curious to find out more about it, and it looks like something that will fit into our immersion program. I like the way assessment is tied into the way we teach, in that in order to adapt authentic assessment we must change our philosophy of teaching (pg. 5). This chapter reminds me of the critical pedagogy we spoke about in our second language teaching class. There are three models: transmission, generative, and transformative. Transmission is a perspective where the teacher holds all knowledge and the student is the receiver, and this model wouldn’t fit into authentic assessment because it doesn’t leave room for self evaluation. The generative model is a perspective in which the child is responsible for learning and the teacher acts as a guide, and transformative involves the community.
The scoring guide that is described in page 5 reminds me of our phase assessments. The students are graded basic, proficient, or advanced in each indicator. I’m curious now as to how phases came about, and are they for English first language speakers? I wonder, are the village schools taught as if all the students are English first language speakers? Is that why most villages aren’t doing so well in the standardized tests?
Testing, Testing... what is a language test?
Testing, Testing… What is language testing?
The chapter was difficult for me to read, but while reading this chapter I was thinking out it would be appropriate to keep notes on all my students throughout the day, instead of just observing and keeping mental notes. The aides could keep notes as well as they teach at their stations.
One memory that came up while reading this chapter was when I was in grade school. I was being “interviewed” by one of the aides in Yugtun. I remember being very intimidated by the person and the questions he was asking. Being a very private person I found it hard to answer questions about myself. One question that I remember was who my friends were, and I remember thinking that there’s only one person I hang out with outside of school so I said her name. He replied with, “who else?” at that point I froze and didn’t answer until he asked again. At that point I just blurted out whatever name popped into my head. I wonder now what he was looking for. If it is using the enclitic for and (-llu), did I fail that portion of the test?
In just about everything that we teach we give a test whether it’s informal or formal. I know for a while the math lessons for kindergarten weren’t aligned with the assessments, so we had to make up lessons or look around through our supplemental materials just to cover those indicators. Another thought that came up while reading the chapter was the principals are required to observe teachers and to fill out evaluation forms based on that one ½ hour to an hour of observation. Is it to find out how we do under pressure or is it to see if we are doing what we’re supposed to be doing? What I’m still grappling at are the terms test and criterion (pg 8). If the test is a performance and criterion is the target which the test is based on, then would criterion for the reading be listening and the test on that would be to ask comprehension questions from the reading? See, one of the indicators that the kindergarten child must pass in reading is to be able to listen to a story book for at least 5 to 10 minutes. But how do I know if the child is really listening and not daydreaming?
The chapter was difficult for me to read, but while reading this chapter I was thinking out it would be appropriate to keep notes on all my students throughout the day, instead of just observing and keeping mental notes. The aides could keep notes as well as they teach at their stations.
One memory that came up while reading this chapter was when I was in grade school. I was being “interviewed” by one of the aides in Yugtun. I remember being very intimidated by the person and the questions he was asking. Being a very private person I found it hard to answer questions about myself. One question that I remember was who my friends were, and I remember thinking that there’s only one person I hang out with outside of school so I said her name. He replied with, “who else?” at that point I froze and didn’t answer until he asked again. At that point I just blurted out whatever name popped into my head. I wonder now what he was looking for. If it is using the enclitic for and (-llu), did I fail that portion of the test?
In just about everything that we teach we give a test whether it’s informal or formal. I know for a while the math lessons for kindergarten weren’t aligned with the assessments, so we had to make up lessons or look around through our supplemental materials just to cover those indicators. Another thought that came up while reading the chapter was the principals are required to observe teachers and to fill out evaluation forms based on that one ½ hour to an hour of observation. Is it to find out how we do under pressure or is it to see if we are doing what we’re supposed to be doing? What I’m still grappling at are the terms test and criterion (pg 8). If the test is a performance and criterion is the target which the test is based on, then would criterion for the reading be listening and the test on that would be to ask comprehension questions from the reading? See, one of the indicators that the kindergarten child must pass in reading is to be able to listen to a story book for at least 5 to 10 minutes. But how do I know if the child is really listening and not daydreaming?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Teacher Suspended for Refusing to Give State Test
Teacher Suspended for Refusing to Give State Test
While I was reading the article I thought of the Yup’ik Fluency Test that students are given beginning in kindergarten. Like Chew I am opposed to our immersion kindergarten students taking the test simply because more than of the students will have the lowest scores out of the YFL sites. Only a small percent (like maybe 2 students in my room) might have an average score. And this test is taken ONCE out of the whole year. What does that show about the child’s growth?
Chew must have thought long and hard before deciding take action. I know I couldn’t do it. What’s happened to him now?
While I was reading the article I thought of the Yup’ik Fluency Test that students are given beginning in kindergarten. Like Chew I am opposed to our immersion kindergarten students taking the test simply because more than of the students will have the lowest scores out of the YFL sites. Only a small percent (like maybe 2 students in my room) might have an average score. And this test is taken ONCE out of the whole year. What does that show about the child’s growth?
Chew must have thought long and hard before deciding take action. I know I couldn’t do it. What’s happened to him now?
Maori Approaches to Assessment
Maori Approaches to Assessment
I feel like we as teachers are so programmed to assess the students to find what they’ve learned and still need to learn that I don’t think about looking at the child as a whole. The Maori approach to assessment moves away from the way the schools look at assessment but instead look at what it means to be Maori. While I was reading I thought of some expressions that I heard from several people when observing a person that is not of our culture. The expression is “tua-i Yup’igtun” or “tuar-tang Yuk” (just like a Yup’ik, looks like a Yup’ik), meaning that the person is acting or behaving like a Yup’ik. Once in a while I’ll hear these expressions at school, but I wonder if the immersion school was to make an assessment of being Yup’ik how others would take it.
I feel like we as teachers are so programmed to assess the students to find what they’ve learned and still need to learn that I don’t think about looking at the child as a whole. The Maori approach to assessment moves away from the way the schools look at assessment but instead look at what it means to be Maori. While I was reading I thought of some expressions that I heard from several people when observing a person that is not of our culture. The expression is “tua-i Yup’igtun” or “tuar-tang Yuk” (just like a Yup’ik, looks like a Yup’ik), meaning that the person is acting or behaving like a Yup’ik. Once in a while I’ll hear these expressions at school, but I wonder if the immersion school was to make an assessment of being Yup’ik how others would take it.
Pierce Reading
Pierce, L.V. Assessment
As I was reading chapter 8 of Pierce, I thought of our immersion school and its struggle with the state tests that students have to take beginning in the 3rd grade. When benchmark test first came out I remember our principal and some parents were against 3rd graders taking the tests. One reason was that students are immersed in Yugtun from kindergarten through 2nd grade all day with no English, then English is introduced for part of the day beginning in 3rd grade. The subject of translating the tests came up but for one reason or another that never happened. Now because of NCLB (I think. Correct me if I’m wrong) we have ELL classes beginning in kindergarten.
For many years we’ve been telling parents that because their children were learning a new language that they’ll be behind a grade but that they’ll eventually catch up in the upper grades. When the benchmark test results first came out parents were informed that the scores were low because students were just introduced to English in 3rd grade. There are some parents (including me) that are saying that it is more important that my child acquire Yugtun language. It’s okay if my child doesn’t pass the state tests because he’ll do just fine when he exits out of immersion.
One comment I found interesting in the chapter was to test the students in reading and writing to see if they're ready to take the standardized tests. I wonder if it would work for our program.
As I was reading chapter 8 of Pierce, I thought of our immersion school and its struggle with the state tests that students have to take beginning in the 3rd grade. When benchmark test first came out I remember our principal and some parents were against 3rd graders taking the tests. One reason was that students are immersed in Yugtun from kindergarten through 2nd grade all day with no English, then English is introduced for part of the day beginning in 3rd grade. The subject of translating the tests came up but for one reason or another that never happened. Now because of NCLB (I think. Correct me if I’m wrong) we have ELL classes beginning in kindergarten.
For many years we’ve been telling parents that because their children were learning a new language that they’ll be behind a grade but that they’ll eventually catch up in the upper grades. When the benchmark test results first came out parents were informed that the scores were low because students were just introduced to English in 3rd grade. There are some parents (including me) that are saying that it is more important that my child acquire Yugtun language. It’s okay if my child doesn’t pass the state tests because he’ll do just fine when he exits out of immersion.
One comment I found interesting in the chapter was to test the students in reading and writing to see if they're ready to take the standardized tests. I wonder if it would work for our program.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Triadic Scaffolds
Meskill, C. (2005). Triadic scaffolds: tools for teaching English language learners with computers, language learning & technology, pp 46-59, 9
In this article Meskill examines the use of computers in the classroom of English learners. She uses the term triadic scaffolds to mean how the teacher, learner and computer all work together in a classroom to build communicative competence (I’m guessing). One interesting point the teacher that she was observing made was how quickly the learner picked up on the language when working on the computer with the teacher.
After reading the article I felt how WAY behind our k to 1st graders are in technology, simply because the children don’t have access to technology. If they do, it is with the outdated computers that can’t connect to internet or the printer but yet we have all these Ethernet-erbobs hanging from the walls (on all four corners might I say). I can only imagine working on the computer with a 5-year old and how all the new terms the child could acquire. I can only imagine going into Word and instructing the child how to make shapes on a page, and how to enlarge it or make it smaller. I can only imagine printing that page off and instructing that child how to add colors inside the shapes, while the page is printing. I can only imagine giving her the paper and having the child color her paper to match what’s on the screen. Imagine how much language can be spoken there. I can only imagine.
In this article Meskill examines the use of computers in the classroom of English learners. She uses the term triadic scaffolds to mean how the teacher, learner and computer all work together in a classroom to build communicative competence (I’m guessing). One interesting point the teacher that she was observing made was how quickly the learner picked up on the language when working on the computer with the teacher.
After reading the article I felt how WAY behind our k to 1st graders are in technology, simply because the children don’t have access to technology. If they do, it is with the outdated computers that can’t connect to internet or the printer but yet we have all these Ethernet-erbobs hanging from the walls (on all four corners might I say). I can only imagine working on the computer with a 5-year old and how all the new terms the child could acquire. I can only imagine going into Word and instructing the child how to make shapes on a page, and how to enlarge it or make it smaller. I can only imagine printing that page off and instructing that child how to add colors inside the shapes, while the page is printing. I can only imagine giving her the paper and having the child color her paper to match what’s on the screen. Imagine how much language can be spoken there. I can only imagine.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Bloch reading
Bloch, J. (2007). Abdullah’s blogging: a generation 1.5 student enters the blogoshere, Language learning & technology, 11, 128-140
This article is about using blogging in a second language classroom in English. Abdullah is an immigrant student from East Africa who participated in blogging. Students shared a blogging site where they shared their ideas and comments, one of them about plagerism.
As I read the article I thought of how students at Ayaprun Elitnaurvik could use blogging in the classroom, much like this article, only in Yugtun. Reading in Yugtun can be difficult at times, but with practice students (and teachers) can become accustomed to reading and writing in Yugtun. Blogging could be a great place to start. What I liked about the article is that students were told to share and not worry about grammar. As students participate they begin to make meaning of what they read.
This article is about using blogging in a second language classroom in English. Abdullah is an immigrant student from East Africa who participated in blogging. Students shared a blogging site where they shared their ideas and comments, one of them about plagerism.
As I read the article I thought of how students at Ayaprun Elitnaurvik could use blogging in the classroom, much like this article, only in Yugtun. Reading in Yugtun can be difficult at times, but with practice students (and teachers) can become accustomed to reading and writing in Yugtun. Blogging could be a great place to start. What I liked about the article is that students were told to share and not worry about grammar. As students participate they begin to make meaning of what they read.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
July 21 readings
Thorn, S. (2006). New technologies and additional language learning. CALPER Working Paper Series, 1-26
The article is about the use of chats, emails, and other forms of internet communications (CMC or computer mediated communications) in the classrooms for learners of an additional language. Studies on the use of synchronous CMS (or chats) among learners of an additional language found that more students were involved in communication, and that language use was more complex than in a face-to-face instructional settings.
What I would like more clarification on is the study done by Payne and Ross (2005) where an experimental study was done on language learning and use of chat (where oral production was omitted) and with out chat. I think the outcome of the study was to produce a biomodal chat where both writing and oral communications can be used. Did the experimental group that did not use chat, use a traditional form of classroom instruction? Or how were the groups set up exactly?
Benefits to using internet and acquiring an additional language are tremendous. Interactionist researches on second language acquisition (SLA) suggest that comprehension comes about through interaction with other learners and native speakers. By negotiating for meaning and receiving feedback from others does a learner internalize the new language. Sociocultural theory also suggest that one cannot truly acquire a language without being exposed to the culture, activities, and language use (or being immersed in a language and culture). One finding that was interesting was how two different cultures seemed to clash among learners conversing with native speakers from another country.
McFarlane, S. (2008). The laptops are coming! The laptops are coming!, Rethinking Schools, 22, 22-26
McFarlane is a high school teacher who has dealt with students using laptops in the classroom. The school that McFarlane taught in was given laptops for each student and access to the internet for educational purposes.
Some positive points with technology in the classroom that McFarlane saw was in giving students who do not have computers at home an opportunity to be computer literate, and allowing more student involvement. The author raised concerns that would be worthy of research: the effects of the students’ bodies might have with the “increased screen time”, how learning might change, and how interaction amongst peers may be effected. One drawback to technology in the classroom is with students who are just learning English. McFarlane states that although shy and quiet students are more involved in the classroom, the English Language Learners (ELL) are alienated because they have difficulty reading and writing. Another drawback the author found was that the more time she spent on the computer the less time she was able to interact with her students face-to-face. What I liked was that there needs to be a balance between computer use and face-to-face communication among students.
Garcia, A. (2008). Rethinking myspace, Rethinking Schools, 22, 27-29
Garcia writes about her experiences with using MySpace as a communication and informational too with her students. All the articles that I read for this week, and including this article agree that student participation increases with the use of technology in the classroom. Most notable are those quiet and shy students who are able to express themselves through writing.
Although MySpace is banned the schools in our district, students do find away to get on that website which Garcia also noticed in her area. My son is constantly on that website and he communicates with a lot of his classmates and friends through that site. My greatest fear is that someone may lore him into sites he should be in. I wonder if curriculums on safety should include making students aware of the dangers of internet use.
The article is about the use of chats, emails, and other forms of internet communications (CMC or computer mediated communications) in the classrooms for learners of an additional language. Studies on the use of synchronous CMS (or chats) among learners of an additional language found that more students were involved in communication, and that language use was more complex than in a face-to-face instructional settings.
What I would like more clarification on is the study done by Payne and Ross (2005) where an experimental study was done on language learning and use of chat (where oral production was omitted) and with out chat. I think the outcome of the study was to produce a biomodal chat where both writing and oral communications can be used. Did the experimental group that did not use chat, use a traditional form of classroom instruction? Or how were the groups set up exactly?
Benefits to using internet and acquiring an additional language are tremendous. Interactionist researches on second language acquisition (SLA) suggest that comprehension comes about through interaction with other learners and native speakers. By negotiating for meaning and receiving feedback from others does a learner internalize the new language. Sociocultural theory also suggest that one cannot truly acquire a language without being exposed to the culture, activities, and language use (or being immersed in a language and culture). One finding that was interesting was how two different cultures seemed to clash among learners conversing with native speakers from another country.
McFarlane, S. (2008). The laptops are coming! The laptops are coming!, Rethinking Schools, 22, 22-26
McFarlane is a high school teacher who has dealt with students using laptops in the classroom. The school that McFarlane taught in was given laptops for each student and access to the internet for educational purposes.
Some positive points with technology in the classroom that McFarlane saw was in giving students who do not have computers at home an opportunity to be computer literate, and allowing more student involvement. The author raised concerns that would be worthy of research: the effects of the students’ bodies might have with the “increased screen time”, how learning might change, and how interaction amongst peers may be effected. One drawback to technology in the classroom is with students who are just learning English. McFarlane states that although shy and quiet students are more involved in the classroom, the English Language Learners (ELL) are alienated because they have difficulty reading and writing. Another drawback the author found was that the more time she spent on the computer the less time she was able to interact with her students face-to-face. What I liked was that there needs to be a balance between computer use and face-to-face communication among students.
Garcia, A. (2008). Rethinking myspace, Rethinking Schools, 22, 27-29
Garcia writes about her experiences with using MySpace as a communication and informational too with her students. All the articles that I read for this week, and including this article agree that student participation increases with the use of technology in the classroom. Most notable are those quiet and shy students who are able to express themselves through writing.
Although MySpace is banned the schools in our district, students do find away to get on that website which Garcia also noticed in her area. My son is constantly on that website and he communicates with a lot of his classmates and friends through that site. My greatest fear is that someone may lore him into sites he should be in. I wonder if curriculums on safety should include making students aware of the dangers of internet use.
Monday, July 14, 2008
week in review
What I took away from week one is he importance of planning aims and objectives. Progams work when everyone is involved, and if something is not working it is important to analyze what works and what isn't working and why. I've been trying to apply what we've covered to our immersion program. What is really working for immersion? What isn't working, and how can we go about those problems so that the program is running smoother?
Sunday, July 13, 2008
chapter 2 &pp 13-22
Sarieva, I., & Zoran, A. (2008). Guiding principles: second language acquisistion, instructional technology, and the constructivist framework. In Erben, T. & Sarieva, I. (Eds.), CALLing all foreign language teachers: comuter-assissted language learning in the classroom (pp.7-12). Larchmont: Eye on Education.
Integrating technology into a second language classroom allows for higher thinking skills and builds on knowledge through different tools (mediated learning). The teacher becomes the facilitator instead of being the only source of learning. The chapter lists hypothesis of computer-assisted language learning (CALL): webpages in the target language can be used to highlight vocabulary, language structures, and explain concepts or words; allowing students practice speech and receiving comprehensible input in a nonthreatening atmosphere; allowing students to notice errors and to practice skills; allows for language practice to more native speakers in the world; and all participants are involved.
It is true that today’s young children are becoming more and more computer literate, and classrooms today should follow along and integrate technology. We complain that there are no programs and activities for children in Yugtun. But if we don’t start making websites using our language, there will never be sites for students to visit. If we can utilize the programs, we can create more authentic materials for students to use.
Erben, T., Ban, R., Jin, L., Summers, R., & Eisenhower, K. (2008). Using technology for foreign lanuage instruction: creative innovations, research, and applications. In Erben, T. & Sarieva, I. (Eds.), CALLing all foreign language teachers: comuter-assissted language learning in the classroom (pp.13-20). Larchmont: Eye on Education.
The chapter states that computers can be used as teacher and tool. Learners have the opportunity to practice language use, read or hear language use, and to receive feedback. The positive sides to integrating technology in the classroom are activities are student-centered, students are active learners, participation is in a less stressful environment, and students are exposed to authentic material. Some of the challenges and concerns are that frustration can occur when technical difficulties occur or when students don’t know how to do the tasks, and control of the classroom where students may enter into wrong websites. Some ways to avoid the problems is to check to make sure technology is working before beginning the class, students should be trained before using technology, and to have students aware of the class goals and objectives before beginning the activities.
While I was reading this chapter I was thinking how technology would fit into my kindergarten classroom. I think one way to use technology is to have parent involvement. Students can check out websites or chat rooms with parents as homework. But that would leave out the families that can’t afford computers. As the weeks go by I’ll be thinking of how to apply technology with my kindergarten students. I know little kids have fun taking pictures and movies; how do I go from there to internet?
Integrating technology into a second language classroom allows for higher thinking skills and builds on knowledge through different tools (mediated learning). The teacher becomes the facilitator instead of being the only source of learning. The chapter lists hypothesis of computer-assisted language learning (CALL): webpages in the target language can be used to highlight vocabulary, language structures, and explain concepts or words; allowing students practice speech and receiving comprehensible input in a nonthreatening atmosphere; allowing students to notice errors and to practice skills; allows for language practice to more native speakers in the world; and all participants are involved.
It is true that today’s young children are becoming more and more computer literate, and classrooms today should follow along and integrate technology. We complain that there are no programs and activities for children in Yugtun. But if we don’t start making websites using our language, there will never be sites for students to visit. If we can utilize the programs, we can create more authentic materials for students to use.
Erben, T., Ban, R., Jin, L., Summers, R., & Eisenhower, K. (2008). Using technology for foreign lanuage instruction: creative innovations, research, and applications. In Erben, T. & Sarieva, I. (Eds.), CALLing all foreign language teachers: comuter-assissted language learning in the classroom (pp.13-20). Larchmont: Eye on Education.
The chapter states that computers can be used as teacher and tool. Learners have the opportunity to practice language use, read or hear language use, and to receive feedback. The positive sides to integrating technology in the classroom are activities are student-centered, students are active learners, participation is in a less stressful environment, and students are exposed to authentic material. Some of the challenges and concerns are that frustration can occur when technical difficulties occur or when students don’t know how to do the tasks, and control of the classroom where students may enter into wrong websites. Some ways to avoid the problems is to check to make sure technology is working before beginning the class, students should be trained before using technology, and to have students aware of the class goals and objectives before beginning the activities.
While I was reading this chapter I was thinking how technology would fit into my kindergarten classroom. I think one way to use technology is to have parent involvement. Students can check out websites or chat rooms with parents as homework. But that would leave out the families that can’t afford computers. As the weeks go by I’ll be thinking of how to apply technology with my kindergarten students. I know little kids have fun taking pictures and movies; how do I go from there to internet?
Thursday, July 10, 2008
chapter 9
Richards, J. (2001). Approaches to evaluation. In Curriculum development in language teaching (pp. 286-308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The chapter states that evaluation of the language program is important to make that it is running the way it’s supposed to. There are different purposes to evaluation which include: formative evaluation that looks at what is working, what is not, and what the problems are; illuminative evaluation looks at how different aspects of the program are working by concentrating on the teaching and learning aspects; and summative evaluation looks at the effectiveness of the program.
There are two types of evaluators, insiders (people that deal directly with the program) and outsiders (evaluators who have no connection to the program). Teachers can give a formative evaluation of how the course is working while students can be the participants of the summative evaluation to see the product of the course. Outsiders are used to get an objective insight to the program.
After reading this chapter I’m beginning to wonder if the immersion program has ever been evaluated, and if so when was it done? I’d be interested to see what is working well and what needs improvement in the immersion program. It would be interesting to see why the two positions at our school keep changing teachers.
The chapter states that evaluation of the language program is important to make that it is running the way it’s supposed to. There are different purposes to evaluation which include: formative evaluation that looks at what is working, what is not, and what the problems are; illuminative evaluation looks at how different aspects of the program are working by concentrating on the teaching and learning aspects; and summative evaluation looks at the effectiveness of the program.
There are two types of evaluators, insiders (people that deal directly with the program) and outsiders (evaluators who have no connection to the program). Teachers can give a formative evaluation of how the course is working while students can be the participants of the summative evaluation to see the product of the course. Outsiders are used to get an objective insight to the program.
After reading this chapter I’m beginning to wonder if the immersion program has ever been evaluated, and if so when was it done? I’d be interested to see what is working well and what needs improvement in the immersion program. It would be interesting to see why the two positions at our school keep changing teachers.
chapter 8
Richards, J. (2001). The role and design of instructional materials. In Curriculum development in language teaching (pp. 251-284). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The materials act as resources or support in language teaching. Such materials can be authentic (magazines, newspapers, teacher created) and created materials (textbooks, instructional resources). The chapter makes good points about selecting textbooks. One of the important criteria to look for in selecting textbooks is that student needs are met. Textbooks tend to be costly so it is important to carefully look through them before purchasing them. Authentic materials are good in that students are introduced to language used in real situations. But the downside is that it takes time to collect materials and to create activities around those materials.
What we do at immersion is to keep a collection of old and new textbooks and teacher resources (both English and Yup’ik materials) and use them as resources in teaching our language. I’m excited about having to develop materials around a theme that we don’t have materials for. In the past I’ve had to quickly make books or activities for family and animal units. Those take up time that we don’t have in the school year.
The materials act as resources or support in language teaching. Such materials can be authentic (magazines, newspapers, teacher created) and created materials (textbooks, instructional resources). The chapter makes good points about selecting textbooks. One of the important criteria to look for in selecting textbooks is that student needs are met. Textbooks tend to be costly so it is important to carefully look through them before purchasing them. Authentic materials are good in that students are introduced to language used in real situations. But the downside is that it takes time to collect materials and to create activities around those materials.
What we do at immersion is to keep a collection of old and new textbooks and teacher resources (both English and Yup’ik materials) and use them as resources in teaching our language. I’m excited about having to develop materials around a theme that we don’t have materials for. In the past I’ve had to quickly make books or activities for family and animal units. Those take up time that we don’t have in the school year.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
chapter 6
Richards, J. (2001). Course planning and syllabus design. In Curriculum development in language teaching (pp. 145-197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The chapter deals with planning and creating a syllabus in a language course. In planning and creating a syllabus, the course should include a rationale describing beliefs, values, and goals behind the course, describe the entry and exit level (who will be the learners and what will they be able to do when completing the course), and the course content and structure to name a few. The chapter also points out that grammar-based courses tend to focus on sentence and not on the whole language use, that focus is on form and not on meaning. Although it is part of communicative competence it should not be taught in isolation.
The chapter describes guidelines for creating a curriculum that the immersion program can use to create its own curriculum. This way more concentration will be placed on the language and language use for learners of the Yup’ik language. The curriculum for the Yup’ik First Language program is a great program for students who already speak the language but not quite adequate for learners of the language.
The chapter deals with planning and creating a syllabus in a language course. In planning and creating a syllabus, the course should include a rationale describing beliefs, values, and goals behind the course, describe the entry and exit level (who will be the learners and what will they be able to do when completing the course), and the course content and structure to name a few. The chapter also points out that grammar-based courses tend to focus on sentence and not on the whole language use, that focus is on form and not on meaning. Although it is part of communicative competence it should not be taught in isolation.
The chapter describes guidelines for creating a curriculum that the immersion program can use to create its own curriculum. This way more concentration will be placed on the language and language use for learners of the Yup’ik language. The curriculum for the Yup’ik First Language program is a great program for students who already speak the language but not quite adequate for learners of the language.
chapter 5
Richards, J. (2001). Planning goals and learning outcomes. In Curriculum development in language teaching (pp. 112-144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
In planning a language curriculum planners look at the long term goal of the learners including: academic rationalism (justifications behind teaching a language), social and economic efficiency (looking at the needs of learners including economic needs of a society), learner-centeredness (looking at the individual needs of a learner), social reconstructionism (empowering learners by making them aware of the social injustices and acting on them), cultural pluralism (that other cultures are just as important as the dominant culture). The curriculum should also include aims or goals, and objectives or learning outcomes specifying the goals of the program.
The chapter describes in detail of how a language curriculum should entail, which makes me want to investigate the curriculum of our Yup’ik program. Do the outcomes include the non language outcomes like the thinking skills? When I was reading about the social and economic factors, I was reminded of one outcome that I read somewhere. The statement was that a child will have more job opportunities that deal with the Yup’ik language.
In planning a language curriculum planners look at the long term goal of the learners including: academic rationalism (justifications behind teaching a language), social and economic efficiency (looking at the needs of learners including economic needs of a society), learner-centeredness (looking at the individual needs of a learner), social reconstructionism (empowering learners by making them aware of the social injustices and acting on them), cultural pluralism (that other cultures are just as important as the dominant culture). The curriculum should also include aims or goals, and objectives or learning outcomes specifying the goals of the program.
The chapter describes in detail of how a language curriculum should entail, which makes me want to investigate the curriculum of our Yup’ik program. Do the outcomes include the non language outcomes like the thinking skills? When I was reading about the social and economic factors, I was reminded of one outcome that I read somewhere. The statement was that a child will have more job opportunities that deal with the Yup’ik language.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
