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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.