Classroom-based assessment strategies for science teachers

6 downloads 0 Views 311KB Size Report
Level 3: De- veloping. Using a sequence of the processes involved in the water cycle, the ELL… listens to the para- graph and draws a representation of what.
Classroom-based assessment strategies for science teachers Martha Castañeda and Nazan Bautista

D

espite the burgeoning numbers of English language learners (ELLs) in our schools, many science teachers have little training in meeting their specialized needs. During the 2007–2008 academic year, 4.7 million or 10% of students in U.S. schools were classified as ELLs (Boyle et al. 2010). By the year 2030, it is estimated that 40% of K–12 classrooms in the United States will contain nonnative English speakers with varying levels of proficiency (Thomas and Collier 2002). Teaching this growing number of ELLs poses a pressing new challenge for educators.

40

The Science Teacher

Effective education of ELLs requires that teachers adapt instruction to meet the needs of this unique population of students (TESOL 2006). This is especially true for teachers of subjects requiring specialized vocabulary, such as science. Since the academic success of ELLs depends on effective instruction and assessment in the mainstream classroom, it is imperative that teachers have proven strategies for working with ELLs. In this article, we provide four classroom-based assessment strategies for science teachers. These strategies include tailoring assessment to ELLs’ language proficiency, making the

Teaching Science to ELLs, Part II

assessment tasks accessible, diversifying the ways in which ELLs can demonstrate content knowledge, and documenting student growth.

Assessment To properly assess science content knowledge, teachers must learn how to evaluate ELLs based on their level of language proficiency. Though standardized tests are used to determine whether or not students have met state and national standards, these tests do not detect incremental growth in ELLs’ content learning; they cannot provide the kind of day-to-day feedback teachers need.

Classroom-based assessment strategies help teachers make instructional decisions on a daily basis. They diagnose students’ strengths and weaknesses related to classroom instruction, and provide specific feedback to support students’ language and content learning. The following sections present four classroom-based assessment strategies for ELLs.

S t rat e g i e s 1. Tailor assessment to language proficiency Prior to assessing content, science teachers must establish—or re-establish—ELLs’ level of language proficiency. Teachers should acquaint themselves with the English-language pro-

FIGURE 1

Differentiated science assessment: Lesson on the water cycle. Listening

Reading

Speaking

Writing

Using a diagram depicting the water cycle, the English language learner (ELL)… Level 1: Starting

points out the location of a process (e.g., “Show where evaporation occurs”).

matches the word (e.g., evaporation) to the process on the diagram.

uses key vocabulary to describe the process (e.g., liquid, evaporation, gas).

labels the diagram.

Using definitions of each process in the water cycle, the ELL… Level 2: Emerging

listens to sentencelevel oral descriptions and matches these with the processes on the diagram.

matches written sentences with the processes on the diagram.

voices a one-sentence definition of the process.

writes a one-sentence definition of the process.

Using a sequence of the processes involved in the water cycle, the ELL… Level 3: Developing

listens to the paragraph and draws a representation of what he or she hears.

reads the paragraph and demonstrates understanding via a visual representation or a retelling.

summarizes the water cycle using his or her own words.

creates a poster of the water cycle.

Using a case-study reading in which a water cycle problem, such as pollution, is presented, the ELL…

Level 4: Expanding

listens to peers present their arguments supporting their stand on the water cycle debate.

reads the paragraphs, answers comprehension questions, and identifies the causes of the problem and their consequences in this particular case study.

formulates arguments to support his or her stand on the water cycle debate.

writes an action plan that addresses all areas of concern and presents this action plan to peers.

formulates arguments to support his or her stand on the water cycle debate.

writes a summary that justifies his or her stand on the water cycle debate.

Using a debate format, the ELL… Level 5: Bridging

listens to peers’ arguments and responds orally.

reads the problem statement regarding the water cycle to prepare for the debate.

March 2011

41

ficiency standards developed by the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) organization. These standards specify five levels in which ELLs can demonstrate measurable language proficiency (TESOL 2006): starting, emerging, developing, expanding, and bridging (Figure 1, p. 41; see also Figure 1 in Part I of this series, p. 36). At the starting level, ELLs can react to language with frequently used words and memorized chunks of language; they can also communicate minimally to meet their social needs. At the emerging level of proficiency, they demonstrate further understanding and production, including the use of simple academic vocabulary. At the developing level, ELLs understand more complex speech and can comprehend some specialized academic vocabulary. The expanding level is evidenced by a well-developed degree of understanding, coupled with some difficulty in comprehending abstract academic content.

Finally, at the bridging level, students have moved through the continuum but still need some language support, guidance, and modification of instruction when working with academic language and concepts. (Note: See the complete PreK–12 English language proficiency standards document for more detail [TESOL 2006].) Although these five levels represent predictable patterns and identifiable stages of proficiency, teachers cannot assume that all ELLs will progress through this language continuum at the same rate (Harper and de Jong 2004). This variation demonstrates another reason why classroom-based assessment—specific to ELLs—is a vital skill for teachers. TESOL (2006) states that ELLs are expected to demonstrate their language-proficiency levels in four domains: listening, reading, speaking, and writing. Listening and reading are receptive skills that require the learners’ active engagement. Speaking and writing are productive skills that

FIGURE 2

Sample portfolio rubric for an English language learner (ELL) at Level 3.

42

Does not meet criteria­— needs further work (1 point)

Meets criteria— minimal requirements (3 points)

Exceeds criteria— excellent (5 points)

Portfolio content and artifacts

The number and variety of artifacts included in the portfolio provide little or no evidence of student’s performance. Artifacts are of poor quality.

The number and variety of artifacts included in the portfolio provide some evidence of the student’s overall performance. Artifacts are of good quality.

The number and variety of artifacts included in the portfolio provide good evidence of the student’s performance. Artifacts are of exceptional quality.

Content development

Artifacts provide little or no evidence that target learning objectives were achieved. The student has little or no understanding of the content.

Artifacts provide evidence that some of target learning objectives were achieved. The student has some understanding of the content.

Artifacts provide evidence that target learning objectives were achieved. The student has a good understanding of the content.

Organization of the portfolio

Portfolio is disorganized and lacks clarity. No connections are made between the artifacts.

Portfolio is somewhat organized and artifacts are presented in a logical format. Connections between artifacts are somewhat clear.

Portfolio is detailed, well organized, and creative. Connections between artifacts are clear.

Language development (Level 3)

Content is barely comprehensible. Student lists a variety of discrete sentences and uses some cohesive devices. Vocabulary use is inadequate, inaccurate, or too basic for this level.

Content is somewhat comprehensible and requires some interpretation on the part of the audience. Students uses some paragraph-length discourse, a variety of cohesive devices, and adequate vocabulary, including academic vocabulary for this level of proficiency.

Content is comprehensible and requires minimal interpretation on the part of the audience. Student uses paragraph-length discourse, a variety of cohesive devices, and vocabulary, including academic vocabulary and idiomatic expressions.

The Science Teacher

Teaching Science to ELLs, Part II

engage students in oral and written communication and expression. Effective communication requires a concurrent coordination of all four skills. For fair assessment of ELLs, science teachers must be aware of language proficiency. The manner in which ELLs demonstrate content understanding should be based on what they can do with the language. Figure 1 presents possible learning outcomes for a lesson on the water cycle. The outcomes are differentiated based on language-proficiency levels and organized based on the four domains of language development.

uu

have questions read aloud in English or in their native language, depending on their proficiency level.

3. Diversify content knowledge demonstrations

Teachers can diversify the manner in which ELLs demonstrate their content knowledge through the use of performance-based assessments. In these kinds of assessments, students demonstrate their understanding through a performance (e.g., labeling the processes of the water cycle) or by creating a product (e.g., drawing a concept map for the water cycle). For instance, to assess a Level 3 (i.e., developing) student’s understanding of the water cycle, a teacher may ask the stu2. Make the assessment task accessible dent to draw a representation of it or to summarize what he Teachers must understand that ELLs’ primary challenge or she read or learned, using his or her own words. in science classrooms is a lack of the language and vocabuMoreover, as ELLs move through the languagelary needed to understand and express the many nuances proficiency levels, tasks should be adapted to continuof content. Unless otherwise identified, ELLs’ cognitive ously foster language development. For abilities are on par with those of their example, students with low language native-speaking peers. Modifying for Modifying for ELLs does proficiency may be asked to demonstrate ELLs does not mean compromising or knowledge in less language-dependent not mean compromising lowering the content of the lesson or ways through drawings, charts, and conthe difficulty of the assessment task; it or lowering the cept maps; students with high language requires making the content or the task proficiency may be asked to apply what content of the lesson comprehensible and attainable. they learned in new situations and to rely To fairly assess the science knowl- or the difficulty of the on increased language skills. edge of ELLs, teachers need to modify For instance, a Level 1 (i.e., startassessment task. the assessment instrument so that stuing) student can participate in a debate dents can first discern the task and then about water pollution with appropriate planning and use subsequently demonstrate knowledge—even when English of technology resources. Prior to the debate, the learner proficiency is limited. ELLs must understand the language researches the topic online using her or his native language, used in the assessment instrument; teachers should modify uses emerging language to write statements that argue pros this language to match their proficiency. or cons of the issue, gathers images that represent or enhance To accomplish this task, teachers can highlight key voeach statement, and creates a PowerPoint presentation that cabulary; avoid reduced or embedded clauses and passive combines the elements. voice; and use shorter sentences, high-frequency words, and In this manner, the Level 1 ELL can participate in the questions rather than sentence completions (Flaitz 2009). debate by presenting rather complex arguments with the asFurther, even when limited by language, ELLs need the sistance of simple, level-appropriate statements and visuals. A opportunity to demonstrate their content knowledge. This Level 5 (i.e., bridging) student, on the other hand, can verbally can be achieved by providing a word bank, allowing students justify and defend his or her position on the same issue. In to use pictures instead of words, converting true-or-false both cases, students demonstrate their content understanding questions to yes-or-no questions, limiting choices, providing and simultaneously develop their language skills. examples, and creating matching items (Flaitz 2009). If constructed and used effectively, performance-based It is important to understand that as ELLs develop lanassessments can provide teachers with a more complete guage, they will make developmental errors. Consequently, picture of student understanding and progress in the classit may be necessary to focus on content knowledge when room. More important, having the opportunity to show grading, rather than spelling and grammar. their understanding in multiple ways helps build ELLs’ When possible, modifications should be allowed during confidence in the science classroom. assessments. ELLs should uu uu uu

take tests in a comfortable and familiar setting, be permitted to use a bilingual dictionary, be allowed additional time to complete a test, and

4. Document student growth Portfolio assessments are an effective way to monitor and document an ELL’s content and language development March 2011

43

Teaching Science to ELLs, Part II

themselves and view their input in the learning progress as throughout the year. Teachers can systematically collect and meaningful, learning outcomes improve (Heritage 2007). preserve records of a variety of student work—such as the It is important to note that teachers must first teach examples presented in Figure 1 (p. 41)—that reflect growth students what a self-assessment is and how it is conducted. in content and language achievement. Portfolios should be Teachers should provide clear criused to gather evidence of students’ best efforts, rather than store all of Closing the achievement gap teria that are differentiated based their work. between ELLs and native on the language-proficiency levels of students. For instance, Level By documenting student perforspeakers requires effective 5 (i.e., bridging) students can be mance over time, portfolios provide a more complete way to cross-check classroom-based assessment asked to write a reflection on their science knowledge growth, based student progress compared with teachers using a one-time assess- strategies that help teachers on artifacts accumulated in their portfolios. Students with lower ment. Portfolios can include samples and students monitor language proficiency may be asked of written student work (e.g., lab reports), drawings representing stuELLs’ development in both to use visuals to share how they think they have improved their dent science knowledge and profilanguage and content. knowledge, based on the artifacts ciencies (e.g., a water cycle diagram), in their portfolios. and audio or video recordings of oral work (e.g., presentations and debates). All of these provide Closing the gap evidence for student learning of content and language. Closing the achievement gap between ELLs and native Portfolios are a collection of student artifacts and do not speakers requires effective classroom-based assessment provide a specific answer to a particular question. Therestrategies that help teachers and students monitor ELLs’ fore, teachers should set clear criteria for evaluating this development in both language and content. If implementtype of comprehensive performance, which demonstrates ed effectively, the strategies presented here—and in Part growth in both language and content. The criteria must I of this series—can benefit both native and nonnative clearly communicate the expectations and tasks to ELLs speakers of English alike. n and address both language and content development. For instance, artifacts should demonstrate advanceMartha Castañeda ([email protected]) is an assistant ment in the two productive skills—namely speaking professor of foreign language education, and Nazan Bautista and writing—and illustrate development in academic ([email protected]) is an assistant professor of science language. Moreover, the teacher should consider ELLs’ education, both at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. language-proficiency levels and set ambitious yet attainable language objectives. References Criteria can be presented in the form of a rubric. Teachers should consider students’ content knowledge and language proficiency among their expectations and use these predetermined criteria to summarize students’ growth. Although the criteria that focus on content gain and portfolio organization should be comparable for both mainstream students and ELLs, criteria on language growth should only be used to document and provide evidence for ELLs’ language development. To be fair to ELLs, language growth should not be included in their overall portfolio assessment scores; the information should be used as a formative assessment to inform both the teacher and the student on the language progress. Figure 2 (p. 42) provides a sample portfolio rubric with a supplementary section for evaluating a Level 3 (i.e., developing) ELL. Portfolios also serve as a great self-assessment tool for students. They help students learn how to monitor their own learning and reflect on how well they are doing with regard to their teacher’s goals. When students are expected to evaluate 44

The Science Teacher

Boyle, A., J. Taylor, S. Hurlburt, and K. Soga. 2010. Title III accountability: Behind the numbers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/titleiii/behind-numbers.pdf Flaitz, J. 2009. Assessment and English language learners. Workshop presented at Miami University, Oxford, OH. Harper, C., and E. de Jong. 2004. Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 48 (2): 152–162. Heritage, M. 2007. Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan 89 (2): 140–145. Teachers of English of Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). 2006. PreK–12 English language proficiency standards. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Thomas, W.P., and V.P. Collier. 2002. A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. http://repositories. cdlib.org/crede/finalrpts/1_1_final