Ch.7 O’Malley & Valdez

Content Area Assessment
For ELLs

Purpose: at least 3. To monitor progress, review growth, and determine instruction; reclassification; accountability= students have to meet the same standards as all others, and are thus exempt from testing for the first three years} hmmmm, I wonder if our district ever used this exemption considering we’re 90+% LEP.

Integration of language and content! (an increased interest) with support from Cummins.
Changes for NES in content instruction in grade-level classrooms:

Higher order thinking skills used to be reserved for the advanced students, now they’re required for all students, as the present workforce situation demands adaptive skills added onto the basic literacy and numeracy skills once required.
This information is backed up by the current research that says that these thinking skills are “fundamental to learning.” As well as essential in the content areas. Now the Government made calls for higher performance standards for all students (NCLBA). See the Goals 2000 stuff, etc. This type of thinking curriculum requires flexible authentic assessments that cannot be standardized. Of course this causes financial problems, that instead get simplified into thinking in one of two ways- One way of thinking is “You get what you assess” which means to teach to the test, the other is that: “You do not get what you do not assess”. Hmmmm. I ‘ve seen that first one before.
Basic assessment approaches to utilize are:
Prior knowledge- awesome info and referenced to fig. 7.3 on ways to elicit this; Conceptual knowledge- use semantic maps referred to fig. 7.4; and Reading comprehension (and all it’s complexities that go into it). In this latter subject, teachers have to consider assessing the students’ skills in:
L2 vocabulary (alternative ways of assessing this knowledge preferred- see pp. 180-181); concepts; thinking skills (see pp 181-182 and fig. 7.6); reasoning; discourse structure; text structure; interpretation; integration; paraphrase; summarize; note taking complications as well, and cloze tests.

Techniques were provided for the Assessment of:
-writing across the curriculum
-cloze tests
-thinking skills

In scoring math problem solving problems, accuracy and use of problem processes are scores for declarative and procedural knowledge (see fig. 7.10 scoring rubric for mathematics with a prerequisite of basic achievement skills). The self assessment example for math is a reminder to me to create one for pre-readers- using pictures.

Now for science and social studies both need to have scores for declarative and procedural knowledge as well… thus, needing age appropriate rubrics will be on my to do list… that will most likely be like a checklist that would have statements that at one time or another focus on these types of knowledge, the scientific process and their funds of knowledge, thus requiring the use of the K-W-L chart.
And social studies at this age level requires more of their prior knowledge put into practice and an expansion of their vocabulary. Thus the use of the K-W-L chart again.

The instructional uses of assessment as seen on pages 198-199 reminds me of the SIOP lesson

ch6 writing assessment O'Malley&Valdez

Writing was a subject that I loved personally growing up, but after learning about rubrics and scoring guides and having to judge someones writing, I've pretty much avoided doing too much free time, pleasurable writing. Now, I'm noticing that I am not expecting too much writing from my students like I planned to this year. Instead I see that I am focusing on the kind of stuff from the kindergarten GLEs like handwriting formation, writing name with capital letter, and going from top to bottom, left to right. The assessment from our district for this subject at the kindergarten level does not seem to expect too much either and the purpose is for level placement and most likely more for accountability compared to the purposes given here despite not being a bilingual district which we should be considering our high percentage of classified LEP students.
Anyways....
I was surprised to see that, "The types of knowledge required in writing go far beyond these familiar elements." Those four elements are: knowledge of content; procedural knowledge for organization; knowledge of discourse structures, syntactic forms, and conventions; and procedural knowledge for integrating all the other types of knowledge.! This last one blew me away. I was like- wow, I have that?
I was glad to see the information about Process writing in which I like the information about the conferencing part. I've heard about Writing Across the Curriculum before, but have not managed to incorporate it into my primary grade classrooms. I could imagine doing it quite easily with fluent writers, but with beginning writers- I find that I take dictation way too much for this to be effective right now. I hope I can learn to do it right.
So, as you can see, this chapter is more applicable to the teachers teaching the higher grades, but I'm sure there's room for adaptations (with lots of drawings and dictations? only?) as required by the state GLEs for kindergartners. Prompts are ok if relevant to the students.
I'm familiar with the 6 traits, and the 6+1 writing traits, and I have introduced it to the students , but I tend to get stuck on that first stage and not following through with the whole thing- even though the writer's workshop stuff is awesome, I think I need at least one more year with kindergartners to know how to effectively manage the time to do everything I've always wanted to do besides the adopted curriculum...
The scoring guides and rubrics I use for this subject at this grade level (K) has been the GLE's. Is that cheating? Still, I like the Figure 6.3 Developmental Descriptors of Writing, which I could use for instruction and assessment, and as a communication tool with parents since it looks friendly. Now, the figure 6.4 Process Writing Checklist provided me with great definitions of the postwriting strategies.
There's no doubt that self-assessments in writing are crucial, or else you'd end up like me- lost interest in pleasurable writing. I need to do these beginning with the checklist formats like the surveys of interest and awareness, writing strategies and writing checklist the author's provided. The information on the writing assessment in instruction will be one I plan to revisit a few times. And I plan to use the suggestion given about posting a writing sample and having students score it and I list the criteria they're using- hopefully sooner than later.

Ch. 10 Peregoy & Boyle. (2005). Reading Assessment & Instruction

The authors immediately pointed out that classroom assessments be a part of the instructional cycle. Effective direct instruction was described, which leads an isolated skill to a productive literacy strategy. I liked this information because it allowed me to breathe easier and feel less guilt about thinking of doing that, especially with kindergarteners I think that it's just easier on everyone if they are taught immediately a skill that will be a useful strategy in and out of school as a life skill. And what are those? I'm sure someone has a list. So, for now I see that it’s ok to effectively teach something directly that you see a child needing extra help in. And coming from these guys whom I already have a bias for because of their critical pedagogy chapters, I’d say this is sound, valid advice, to just directly teach effectively so that students can apply it as a strategy as soon as possible. School needs to be about learning and using strategies in different contexts to be contributing, critical thinkers of society.
The information in the beginning of the chapter was a welcome refresher on my reading vocabulary knowledge and self-reflection of my practices. I have to say that the section on the Resources that Non-Native English Speakers Bring to English Reading was helpful. Considering that I need to strengthen my philosophy on assessment, the familiar types of reading assessments defined by these authors allowed me to understand them from another perspective.
I know that I will be referring to this chapter for the guided reading section, especially. All in all, I have used some of these assessments described in this chapter before- but not from this perspective- for ELLs…. or even how to use the data gathered for instructional purposesas described through the IRI case study provided. Informal Reading Inventories, (IRI’s) are used to determine reading levels and now I am wondering if it’s like the DRA’s? I have this test box with the label DRA, with leveled books and questions to ask the students after they’ve read the story. The questions are more like a retell with some inferencing required. Anyways, the QRI-II sounds good, like the authors say.
I have not conducted an Echo Reading assessment formally, but I have used something like it as a quick informal spot check for my own pacing monitoring without documenting anything. This way described here sounds doable and may be useful to use for my age group of students.
We were given the chance to take a class on Reading First, and guided reading seemed to be a big part of it if my memory serves me right. We even had video tapes of actual guide reading lessons going on. This was back in the beginning of the millennium and decade.
I have not done ReQuests before- which sounds good and is badly needed
We’ve tried SSR as a whole school before but it is not like that anymore. Read Alouds are still needed in my grade level at least and that’s when I model comprehension strategies, although I want to and need to use it with the LEA.

O'Malley/Valdez ch. 5

Ch. 5 Reading Assessment
This information sounds like I can use it with my kindergarteners. I love the format these author’s used for this chapter. I feel like I can begin now to gather data, sources, and information.
I taught the reading class for ESL-8th grade levels at a Job Corps., back in the late nineties for a bout a year and a half. Within that time, I was sent to a couple of conferences/ workshops focusing on ELLs which I remember as being more politically focused than educationally focused, or else I just felt defensive (and didn’t know it then) about my own language loss, and/or the Native Americans’ whose land the job corp. is in. But still, within my classroom the 16-24 year olds worked hard and were all working toward bettering their lives. The curriculum was already laid out, as far as what books and tests needed to be completed in each level to work their way out of TABEing out (Test of Adult Basic Education) of reading after level 8. I remember that the tests for each assignment was taken on a computer program similar to the accelerated reader tests we use today. In this way the students got immediate feedback on their results. This system seemed to work well for the Native English speakers, whereas the others were hesitant to take the tests. I would do guided reading or reading conferences with each of these hesitant students before he/she took the assignment test, which seemed to work in an informal way.
Ok- the chapter was ….
p.95, it sounded like they were describing something like a Place Based Education model and Funds of Knowledge when they said: “Reading skills, therefore, should be taught in the context of reading and writing activities that build on students’ prior knowledge.”
On the same page the section What Works In Reading Instruction sounded like I’d need to have 4 blocks/ sections of reading a day in these ways- time, direct comprehension strategy instruction, collaboration, and reading responses. Right now I have 2 reading groups that focus on 1-letter names, sounds, sight words, writing, worksheets for word matching; 2- rhyming, word length, word work and manipulation, sentence forms, genres, and reading comprehension strategies, from our adopted curriculum. Thirty minutes a day in each group is spent, so I still need two more groups- I guess in the afternoons when I’m alone with the students if I teach them how to collaborate and respond to reading. But the afternoons are spent on math and science. So, it would have to be collaboration and responses on the content areas.
They mention that we should have a philosophy of assessment, and I think in our other class we had to mention something about this- before we had this class. I’d like relook at that sometime.
I want to begin these rubrics with the question- what do good readers do? I’ve asked this before of my students and I ended up giving them the vocabulary/words. Now, I’ll try it again- for this purpose. I believe I will use the examples provided in this chapter for the peer assessment stuff when I eventually get to it.
The information on the literature discussion groups was good to know, which I thought I already did especially after being in Joan’s class this past summer. The suggestion they gave about having weaker readers listen to a tape of the reading… to participate in the literature discussion groups. I skimmed over the stuff about the cloze tests, although I’m sure there’s a reason for having the students become familiar with those, if looked at in a different perspective - which can be done in small groups and orally, right?
I remember when we were required to use running records, and were trained on how to administer and record them, but we didn’t get trained on how to use the data the way it is described in this chapter. I liked the information on the anecdotal records section that I’ll most likely use sooner than later.
Then finally, the information on having a bilingual or language classroom teacher made me wonder if it violates any regulations for our LEP students.

Dynamic Assessment

Poehner & Lantoff Dynamic Assessment
Here are my notes on this wonderful chapter:
Dynamic assessment (DA) – an approach
To assessment & instruction in the language classroom (via the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) theory).
Sociocultural theory element that is not specifically called DA by Vygotsky but the description he gives about this element is similar
Formative Assessment (FA) I thought I knew what this was until I came to the end and realized that this doesn’t sound like the ones the State of Alaska provides on their EED website. Even though in the abstract of this article it says that compared to Summative Assessments (learning outcomes, high stakes and systematic, static), Formative assessments “feed back into the teaching and learning process….” These sound to me like activities in the subject addressing each standard with a scoring guide, which I see as practice tests, that the state provides for teacher use foe each testing grade.
DA is a procedure
***P235…”to convince testers to redirect their efforts from concerns with the current state of children’s development to prognosis of theory potential (i.e., future) development.”(!!!)- Vygotsky did this.
And on p. 238 where Leontiev is quoted to have said that “American researchers are constantly seeking to discover not how the child cane to be what he is, but how he can become what he not yet is.’”
Section III that “This is an irrelevant question.” About the amount of each – development and environment- concerning persons. I said- WHOA!
I thought of action research teaching in section IV p239.
On p. 241 last of section IV that, “…require the same kinds of adaptations that will be expected of them in daily life.”
Assessment by teaching p242- reminds me of MAORI ARTICLE
Pp 242 referred to Newman and Holzman about development which sounds like the ILPs we’re doing- and also sounds like a good resource
In section VI DA and L2 development seemed to describe my type of language (re) learning- with “mediation in the ZPD (p243).” And that development in the ZPD is …’revolutionary…’”
I liked that they said that assessing without mediation… leaves out part of the picture- the future…” – so I need to see Lantolf and Poehner 2004, as they said.
I still like the explanation and examples they gave for Formative assessment, in that it serves teachers in four ways (p251). I see there are types of FA and that those used in the classroom can be done in a hit and miss fashion- as an author said that the author quoted. Whereas training is critical.
It’s scary to think teachers are inadvertently creating whirlpools for their learners due to this lack ….me
After reading the part about using assessments for instruction, then I realized that ZI too do this with the adopted curriculum chapter’s tests.
I agree with the part that teachers may have good openings but lack the theoretical understanding…. Thus fails to accurately intervene in the developmental process…. And lack of understanding of the relationship of assessment to learning.
On page 255 section 3 From FA to DA- I feel like I’m here.
I also liked the point that the authors shared from other authors about deciding not guessing what was right/important, and that their answers needed to be supported with good reasons, which can be better when done through collaboration- p258.

Ochoa blog

I was wondering throughout the whole chapter about our state stuff like this- and where do we get it? Can we get it from our district office or even our SPED personnel? I wondered how come I never thought of all these fine points as these three guys did. Still, I am thankful again for this information laid out- since 2005!
This article came out after the NCLBA, but the sources cited are from research conducted before and seemingly tailored for it (NCLBA).
Now this article shows what I’ve seen growing up with pullouts for those needing extra help, or “slow” and, I remember there were specific Special Ed teachers who had their own classrooms. Then these labeled children were/are mainstreamed and were/are not pulled out anymore (which may be a factor here for the last of the older group who were identified and labeled SPED under this older pull-out system). Now I’ve only seen articulation sped services available now.
I was noticing how much the psychologists were referred to which has no bearing on us out here it seems. But am I wrong? Is having the lack of a school psychologist in each school a factor in mislabelment/ wrongful assessment also?
And finally, of course the new vocabulary was a pleasure to re-experience my brain getting refreshened, rewired & renewed. I hope it was for you as well.

portfolio assessment ch.3

Portfolio Assessment Ch. 3

I realized that I’ve heard of or saw portfolio’s in one form or another since high school and no one was exactly the same. I saw districts who used Xerox boxes for portfolios in schools that had no space to store them in that was also conveniently accessible for those needing access. More recently I see 3 ring binders (of assessments from the last 3 years for documentation, so I’ve been told). I saw “portfolios’’ in one stuffed manila folder held together with a thick rubber band. Now I finally read about them and feel like an ELL student myself in this class and subject. Fortunately, this chapter provided clear and explicit examples for new and old vocabulary and concepts that I desperately needed more of. (I wish I had another SLATEr to practice and play vocabulary card games with- (but of course those can be created on computers) just for this class alone in SLATE.)
I wish you could see all the underlines and notes just for this chapter my book right now and … I’ll just try to share some…
I found that the most amazing thing to read about what a portfolio is and isn’t was when the authors on page 35 shared from sources whom back in 1991 said that a portfolio ain’t a portfolio without a students’ self-assessments and reflections. That piece of information was an “aha!” for me; no wonder I felt like there was a reason I didn’t really do these in a systematic way in the first place and because I didn’t have a clear enough picture of, but this helps, then the other reason may have been that I know the follow-on teacher would not be interested in them if it’s “too much.”
The three different kinds of self-assessments information helped me to remember there’s kinds and types of everything.
The Clearly Stated Criteria section reminded me of the Individual Learning Plans (ILPs) we are working toward as a district, which we are getting more training on as needed. This too has been around as long as portfolios have been it seems.
Anyways, the Getting started with Portfolios section wore me out in a positive way. I am grateful for this stuff to already be written so that I don’t have to do that part at least, (which felt like I would need to do in order to start my own for this class,- which by the way should be part electronic and part paper, just to be on the safe side, you know- always need something tangible. Technology may not always be here. ☺)
Finally, the details provided by the authors make for easier beginnings in this process of portfolio creation, maintenance, and reflection. And last but not least, the list of nine 9 key points for using portfolios with ELLs provided at the end of the chapter was thoughtfully considerate of the authors to include for someone like me to feel more informed to begin to really begin to seriously think about using portfolios correctly.