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.

validity-McNamara & Nelson-Barber

Validity: testing the test\McNamara Ch. 5
The topic of validity at first brings to mind my logics and ethics class I took as an undergraduate. The terminology seemed confusing and I felt like I was going to fail the class. I remembered that there are degrees of validity based on the logic and that’s what threw mw off. Now, in this reading- the subject is easier to understand in this context of assessment. There are definitely a lot of things to consider and I wonder how a teacher can remember all of it when creating assessments for their class. Of course having a critical pedagogy most likely would help.
The example given of content validity being that tests don’t capture the whole person was delight to see in text, because it is a fact that there are people do not do well with paper-pencil tests but have the oral fluency in the language. This is definitely the case out here in our area. I believe this is one of the reasons why many of our students who graduate just stay home, because the tests they’ve taken label them negatively, to where they do not have the confidence to go out into the world on their own. So what could work then for our students here is what I would like to be on a quest for.
It was surprising to see that, “the more complex the content of performance, the more there is to jeopardize the validity of the ratings (52).”
Speculation and empiricism were a surprise to brought up finally in the conclusion of the chapter. Speculation- “reasoning and logical analysis about the nature of languages and language use, and of the nature of performance,” (as outlined in chapter 2.?hmmmm.) “Empiricism means subjectinbg such theorizing and specific implications of particular twesting practices to examination in the light of data from test trials and operational test administrations (54).”


Nelson-Barber, S. & Trumbull, E. (2007). Making assessment practices valid for indigenous American students. Journal of American Indian Education (3, 4), 132-147.
This article reminded me of the fact that there is a lot of research done on indigenous people, but nothing is done about it. In fact sometimes I think they do it just to degrade us and highlight the negatives instead of the positives. And it seems like they don't get real informed consents like the IRB has us doing for our research. Anyways, this article luckily came from an insider (technical name temporarily forgotten at this time) who proved to be well informed and has the ability to reinforce what the indigenous people's awareness of these standardized testing situations effects on the children and their communities to the public in this medium. I wonder if the author read the Maori articles?
I liked that they shared a school’s assessment procedures of using two scoring guides- one for the funds of knowledge and one for the academic knowledge. I definitely would love to have time to create those kind, especially now, since I’m doing my research on this topic, and I am supposed to be doing action research to compare the effects but this way sounds better- to incorporate both kinds of knowledge into the assessment.! Why didn’t I think of that????
Oh- when I read about the executive orders I got so frusterated and blamed the state of Alaska. When I was living on a reservation in Washington state, I learned that the tribe didn’t have to answer to the state, only to the feds, but that the state would find ways to impede or interfere with the tribes progress toward self-sufficiency- so this reminds me of the word hegemony. I think or wouldn’t be surprised if Alaska does the same thing as Washington state did and does when it comes to indigenous rights.
Besides asking if the test developers know who they’re dealing with, the other question is whether or not the state education departments really know and understand what the tests are about that they are requiring our students to take- besides it’s economic cost, let alone it’s emotional costs. Here I am concerned about others when I should be relating this stuff to me.... and I will need to work on that.

Solano- Flores, G. (2008). Who is given tests in what language by whom, when, and where? The need for probabilistic views of language in the testing o

I found this article to have a lot of new vocabulary amongst a couple of surprises...
First in the abstract were the words: testing of ELLs is a random process, and deterministic views.... that caught my attention. Then the phrases/statements that caught my attention were:
*erroneous assumptions about the capacity of assessment systems to serve ELL's
*affects of the dependability of academic achievement measures
The new vocabulary that I appreciated is: mapping sentence. A descriptors tool- an awesome tool provided. It looks like a rubric and I see that it is referred to as a guide. It looks very useful.
The six components (who, tests, language, by whom, when, and where) of the process of ELL testing were analyzed for their affects, which I found beneficial and helpful. I just ended up feeling so sold by this article.... I was wondering to my self, where was the author all these years? And will something be done now that this is out? Will the government take this information into consideration or action?
I want to remember that ELL's are from the WHO section: rarely tested comprehensively enough; neglected as a source of information .... because of basing evaluation on L2 development!, and inaccurately classified because of assessment of their linguistic proficiencies. From the TESTS section: Underrepresented in pilot tests and that accomodations may not be appropriate or beneficial at all.
From the LANGUAGE section, I was totally surprised, almost blown away to see that word dialect and the serious issues involved with it. The topic of translations and translator technicalities gave me something to think about. In the By WHOM section, I thought it was a very good question to ask, (and wondered why I didn’t think of that before) when the author asked, “What are the developers qualifications?”
I was thankful for the reminder of the bilingual and foreign language teachers’ job differences. The question about whether or not the author of the tests are familiar with the target population's communicative style? I appreciated that the author said, “the process of ELL testing suggests that the ability of assessment systems to communicate with ELLs needs to be examined.” I think that the word communicate in this sentence the key to test development.
In the WHEN section, the information about the instability of performance across testing occasions for ELLs, was a concern even ten years ago I remember.
In the WHERE section, linguistic simplification, was good information to think about as well as the information on test localization, both of which I assumed would not be factors. In the part where the author said, “Improved approaches to ELL testing should be based on research that examines the effect of context on the effectiveness of testing strategies for ELLs.” I realized that I think this is where I find myself stuck about assessing students on things that require real-life performance when we’ve only been practicing amongst ourselves.
The information under the heading: Probabilistic views of language on the process of ELL testing, was enlightening. The whole paragraph that begins, “In an ideal world.....,” I want in my thesis as a quote.
I see that there’s a new buzz word: fidelity. It was brought up at our in-service.
It was a relief to see and nice to finally know there's a way to deal with this issue when the author shared that effective research approaches can be devised through the G theory! Thank God- so why isn't it in use???
For the Conclusion section, it was very smart of the author to remind me of the fact that "Valid testing for ELLs cannot be achieved of we focus solely on the proficiency of the ELLs in English but fail to examine linguistic factors involved in the development, adaptation, administration, and scoring of tests."
All in all, I'm sold on the G theory even though I don't understand how it works, I see what it does.

Shohamy 10/7

Shohamy, E. & Inbar, O. The language assessment process: A “multiplism” perspective.
Tel Aviv University.

This article made me wish we had this class along side our research methods class the first summer… but that’s ok, better late than never… or not???. Anyways- I like this article for it’s fluent flow and especially that the authors provided some of the definitions, from their origins which I thought was nice (and smart because this almost felt like a review and almost boring). The authors also provided the definitions according to the original creators which was beneficial, they helped put the assessment/teaching/politics indefinate puzzle/picture together.
Obviously I got hung up on definitions and couldn’t wait to read up more on what the “tools” were…. It seemed like that was a mysterious word, and I so wanted to see what its definition would be in this article…. And I missed it…. For a little while… so I was hooked… on “tools” which seemed to be used interchangeably with instruments. Anyways…
After reading up to half way, I began to wish I created a flow chart, then began wondering if these authors did, then I felt like they should have and provided that instead along with their little text boxes.
The three questions suggested to consider before designing the instrument (tool?) was at first glance appearing easy enough to answer and thus was the case with the first question-easy to answer about what is the purpose(s) of the assessment procedure?- of course these were already thought of for us to be in our 6th- 7th year of standards based design… levels. The second question: How is the language knowledge to be assessed defined?- in which the term valid arrives in the explanation…. Then the 3rd question was: What instruments or assessment procedures will be chosen to elicit the required language knowledge? I like this question because I’ve wanted to ask something like this for a while
The section on the teaching approaches, language knowledge and testing methods was finally able to provide me with what they meant by tools, which was a relief to see, because we do require these in our district… just when I was beginning to wonder if our administrative people really knew what they were getting themselves into, because I’ve never heard them refer to theories or methods or anything “professional” like that at our inservices- so when I go to them and then read this stuff, I see parts of us in this whole SLATE program as far as the classes… just that I wonder who else knows this stuff in this district that we can begin to collaborate with using this information we’re gaining here to really have these authentic assessments that are genuine and effective enough for the state to accept for those needing alternative assessments so as not to be left behind/ out of the job market.
I have seemed to use the words assessment s and tests interchangeable but now, I am more aware of their specific differences, to where I feel confident I can use them appropriately and proficiently in context.
Oh- there’s more but this will do for now.

9/30 rdg responses-NCLB

McNamara Ch. 2 Communication and the design of language tests

I found myself skimming through the history section of testing when I realized that they seemed to coincide with the reading readiness and emergent literacy periods. It seems like they also coincide with the SLA theories of the time also (I think).
The author seemed to imply the politics of it all, which I naturally read deeper into and allowed myself to get frustrated. Still, I liked that McNamara said that the complexities of communication competence and performance measurements cause difficulties for standardization.
I took a great interest in the section, “Models of communicative ability”, particularly the strategic competence information.
The information provided on page 19 about strategic competence and the test designs and complexities were of great interest to me. I found myself agreeing with a lot of the statements he mentioned because I realized that I’ve wondered about some of those things before (which made me feel ok about having those thoughts, and glad that they were stated more clearly than I could have ever done.) For instance,
I’m aware of the factors, and am having a hard time thinking of authentic assessments to create, but I don’t feel that I’m reluctant like the author states the assessment field to be.
The author said it best, that it definitely is an “eclectic scene in language testing (p. 21- conclusion).” (I’m biased because eclectic is how my classroom syllabuses are.)


Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners:
Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33, 4-14.

This article presents very important information about the annual yearly progress (AYP) reporting issues. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) has four subgroups of children not to leave behind. These subgroups are based on a student’s financial standing, major racial & ethnic groups, disabled, or/and Limited English Proficiency status. The requirement to report the status of these four subgroups presents serious issues.
Of these four subgroups, the author focuses on the complicated and serious issues involving the LEP students. The author pointed out that many LEP students also fit in to one of the other subgroup categories. I suppose the not so many group would consist of stereotyped groups of people/students like say, for instance, the immigrants, like maybe Russians. Where they would fit in? What happens to them? Are they considered a part of the unstable group? I’m assuming that they’re not poor, disabled, but I guess they’re from a major racial & ethnic group. Anyways,…that was my little brainstorm. I now share the author’s identified four critical issues concerning the LEP students within states, counties, school districts, schools, classrooms, and they are:
1. Classification inconsistency
2. Sparse LEP population
3. lack of LEP subgroup stability
4. Measurement quality of AYP instruments for LEP students
On top of that, it should be remembered, as we were reminded by the author, that “state academic achievement tests have lower reliability and validity for LEP population that are constructed and normed for Native English speakers.” It doesn’t look like Alaska is taking that advice? Is it because a lot of the schools are funded by the state?
The information about the cut off points of compensatory aseessments that allow test scores to compensate for each other is of the past, and that that government now has the nation under the conjunctive model which is known as the NCLBA, which does not allow any one subject to be less than proficient for positive AYP results to occur, despite your subgroup category and it’s issues.

I needed more time to understand, but finally read their interpretations and it took a while for me to see the point of the tables because it was explaining accountability. I am glad for the high expectations, but I remember when this word first came flying around when we were abruptly told that our district was now a standards based model and teachers got so frusterated and turned the accountability word around and left it in the hands of the students with little guidance and direction, either in retaiation against change or maybe that was their interpretation of accountability, literally to mean that the students were now/ finally accountable for their own learning and took no responsibility for their learning after that for the rest of the year. My son got caught in this change over adaptation and it was not cool.

Finally, the information on the LEP baseline scores section about not meeting AYP for four (again) years in a row are considered a school in “crisis” which is supposed to get overhauled as they say, hasn’t happened yet to a school I know and this is their fifth year in crisis. This real life situation is not just a scenario, it’s about student’s lives that are going to affected by this NCLBA’s AYP expectations. It goes to prove that invalid assessments and unreliable reporting can determine if a student gets a diploma or not to be able to make a decent living.

Chapters 1

The language assessment chapter was definitely a general introduction to assessment. I almost got myself stuck on the politics of it even more so than the author did. I noticed that I was expecting more new vocabulary than the author provided also. The information about the test-criterion relationship got me wondering if it's something like Bloom's Taxonomy that we need to be utilizing. Finally, the requirements for the testers that were laid out in the conclusion got me wondering about our practices in KSD. We do not have official testers and the training that we're provided doesn't touch on looking for signs and the theory(ies) behind them. All in all, the chapter was definitely general and I can't wait to read more to see what I'll learn.

The authentic assessment chapter caused me to feel sad, mad, and even guilty (about my philosophy). It was disappointing to see that districts have trouble making effective decisions about testing for English Language learners (because of the politics). In the end, I was glad for the useful information this chapter provided. I also ended up thinking about the Maori article and figured that the characteristics of the performance assessment they had were numbers 1, 3, 4, and maybe 5. I also thought about our district's standards and the GLE's and saw that we seem to be following these guidelines. I kept thinking though that they are not very applicable to the grade I'm teaching- kindergarten, even though this chapter includes K-12, and it even mentioned including pre-K in these instruction and assessment procedures. Finally, I am actually looking forward to more information on reliability and validity.

LING612 9/16 rdgs

Teacher Magazine. April 22, 2008, by the Associated Press 2007. Teacher suspended for refusing to give state test

A 60 year old teacher refusing to administer the WASL test to his students should be expected. I feel like if I was that old and still teaching, then I’d probably do some “radical” stuff myself. I’ve been to a couple of conferences where I’ve seen some of the teachers be quite opinionated and political that I wish more teachers and the public for that matter would ban together and refuse to give the standardized tests; to stand up against the federal government for all the trouble they’re causing by requiring archaic methods of assessment for their accountability sake.
This Seattle teacher did, give a good point about offered monies to him to instead donate their money to an alternative assessment “research” organization that is assessing the state’s education system. Now, this was nice to see, but is there really such an organization?
In the end, this teacher’s demand for justice and equality, (as I believe the boycott will be), was a win-win situation as the he saw it, because he “didn’t get fired.” I wonder if he’d have taken it like Rosa Parks, etc… those people that were into civil rights long ago were able to contribute to the culminating result of their end goal. So, when will it happen in education? Will it ever?
Finally, the Seattle teacher suggests simplistically (it seems) that we have to, “work as hard as we can with these kids and their families.” I had to read this line several times and ended up having more questions from wondering if this statement is as simple as black and white or is it something else? I wish I was there to interview him myself.



Pierce, L.V. (2006). Assessment. In Ovando, C.J., Combs, M.C. & Collier, V. (Eds) Bilingual and ESL Classrooms, Boston: McGraw Hill.

The information that pertained to the politics got me so frustrated, I wished we could all boycott the lawmakers in the federal government like the 60 year old Seattle teacher who refused to give the state standardized test to his students and got suspended, not fired, for a couple of weeks. That, I believe is what needs to be planned by us as a cohort to start this kind of ban before elections this year! Especially, now that we are aware of this assessment politics, we can’t just do what we can in our own classroom. That’s not what the government wants, but they would have to accept our authentic assessments if we boycotted them right now! What do you say about that!?
Anyways, I was surprised to see the authors provide test taking skills information to us in this part of the chapter (Coping with Standardized Tests p.348. After thinking about this information, I realized that although I have access to these test taking strategies, I find that I do not utilize them neither as a student or a teacher (I wonder why?).
Finally, the suggestion to provide ten days of inservice was beautiful to see suggested, and would be beautiful if it actually could happen. Maybe, there’s a way. It was so easy to get worked up reading this selection, I have to work hard to stay positive about assessments that are conducted on our students who should be assessed the way the Maori’s are assessed (Rameka 2007).
Rameka, L. (2007). Maori Approaches to Assessment. Canadian Journal of Native Education: Edmonton, 30, 126-146.

The choice of words used to describe this, as said by the author, overaching philosophical framework was amazing. My vocabulary knowledge was refined. As I read this article, I kept on relating it to our indigenous people here in America. It was amazing to see how carefully detailed the New Zealand’s Indigenous people’s way of life and learning was explained.
The perspectives shared about the children of the Maori people was inspiring. I liked the statement that, “Children’s learning was, therefore, not left to chance (126).”
Of course the information about the government thinking they’re conceiving a conspiracy against them by asserting their rights as the people they are is typical government practice in order to have an excuse to control and subject the people. Luckily, private and public organizations are available resources that can contribute greatly to a cause.
The author (I assume) is an insider to this culture for this article to be as comprehensive about the Maori’s perspectives and lives.
I was just so amazed at the cooperation and teamwork and details that were considered for this framework. I’m going to assume that if the Alaska Native Knowledge Network and their affiliates were to write something up about their work, it might be something like this.
All in all, this was a beautiful article to read. I could imagine the beauty/ serenity in this type of learning environment. I say this, because my Kindergartners come into school and learn a different way to learn that is not natural to them and I find myself not feeling comfortable with molding them to do so- knowing that it is not natural for then to sit and write and listen for many hours a day when all these years they’ve been learning through natural situations that do occur spontaneously. My critical pedagogy is being tested here. I want to move to New Zealand and work in this school that has this awesome authentic assessment information and access.

Triadic scaffolds

Meskill, C. (2005). Triadic scaffolds: Tools for teaching English language learners with computers. Language Learning & Technology, 9, 46-59.

The computer, teacher and a pair of students make the triadic in triadic scaffolds. The teacher supports the computer software's language through her conversations with the beginning ELL students. The "computer-supported classroom discourse" through the use of instructional conversation with the children provide the students with models of what's needed for participation in school.
The scaffolds are the words the teacher uses as models for school participation. The teacher provides scaffolds for the ELLs during their one period a day intensive English class during their computer time through modeling of the different types of language used in the mainstream classroom (and from the computer program). The students were said to be using the language they hear from the teacher and computer activities they used within a couple of days.

I could see how this can be applied to my kindergarten classroom by modeling the language commands during their time on the computer and making sure that they understand them, instead of just assuming that they should already know. Providing this scaffold through modeling the English language's forms and functions of school ("words") language in context/ during the situation, while their attention is high was a good point to mention and take note of.

Abdullah's Blogging

Bloch, J. (2007). Abdulah’s blogging: A generation 1.5 student enters the blogosphere.
Language Learning & Technology, 11, 128-141.

The integrated approach toward academic writing through the use of Blogging about the controversial issue of plagiarism for a group of immigrant second language learners enrolled in a college composition course was analyzed. For this to happen, four blog use goals were established. Although the students were using the expressive style of writing, the author’s intended to use that as a stepping stone toward applying that to their academic writing. The student Abdulah found his voice, became an expert and most likely was able to transfer that to his academic writing assignment about plagiarism. This format and its content could be seen as critical literacy The issue of plagiarism was meaningful and relevant because the university they were attending was considering solutions to dealing with this problem as the same time. The students wrote onto a class blog by first introducing themselves (the Western way of communicating). The instructors didn’t expect the students to focus on correct grammar. Instead, they wanted the students to write freely, which happened. The author/ teacher felt that using this mode of writing would help the students to develop a critical perspective and evaluation on a current events topic. I liked that on page 136 the author said that the students’ own language was valued and they were considered experts as their background on this issue was increased, thus allowing them to cite their classmates’ text in their academic writing assignment. The students’ way with words on the blog was analyzed in a way that I felt was useful to me as an elementary teacher. I feel that this article can be beneficial to teachers of any grade working with writing, critical thinking, and/or technology.

Rethinking Schools articles

McFarlane, S. H. (2008). The laptops are coming! The laptops are coming! What am I
learning from my school’s infatuation with computers. Rethinking Schools, 22, 22-26.

This regular classroom teacher shares her mostly stressful experiences with laptops for each student in her school (the new trend in schools nowadays). Her experiences sound like ours in our school district. The positives are there but not without their complications and side effects, as we have seen in our district. The issue of power seemed to be bothering her (and me) a lot. I liked that this teacher was concerned about justice, equality, analytical/critical thinking, values on relationships that teachers and students should be concerned about also. The questions she provided as” notes for next time” shows her critical pedagogy, which I would not mind sharing with my co-workers with her permission of course. The information she shared was like she was talking about our students. So this was good to see that we were not the only ones going through this dilemma. She’s keeping it real, just the way I like it. No pretentiousness here. Is she a jewel in a haystack?

Garcia, A. (2008). Rethinking myspace Using social networking tools to connect with
students. Rethinking Schools, 22, 27-29.

Garcia’s diary like format touched on some serious issues involving MySpace in education. The one important fact is that this a way to extend class outside of the classroom. Another fact that I’ve found to be repeating itself concerning the web is the issue of power/justice/equity. It can be seen that Garcia believes in critical thinking and pedagogy, which can be seen in his “hope to sway students to use MySpace to spread messages and bulletins to fellow classmates- to take “ownership” of the mass media and to use MySpace to create a difference in the school atmosphere (p.29).”
Obviously the Internet can be a powerful tool for intermediate, middle, and high school teachers who have a critical pedagogy and believe in critical thinking.
Finally, I feel that I understand this program clearer (especially since I still haven’t created a MySpace for myself yet, because of the old excuse of paranoia of identity theft and the real excuse of lack of time- for now.).

LING611 Thorne reading

Thorne, S.L. (2006) New technologies and Additional Language Learning. CALPER Working paper No. 7. The Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research. The Pennsylvania State University. pp1-26.

This review essay, as the author Thorne calls it, seemed more like a computer techie’s literature review of the research on the Internet’s impact(s) on communication. Three topics of Internet communication technologies most related to the educational setting that Thorne chose to focus on were: chat, cross-cultural communication in second language education, and additional language learning for participation. The issue of equity as a factor in the incorporation of digital technology in the classroom was strongly expressed to be a serious issue that the education system cannot afford to ignore, especially because the borders being crossed today from the Internet should indicate to the schools the importance of utilizing the it in a meaningful way for language learners.
After reading this paper, the strongest point I got out of it was the issue of equity. Now that I’ve read about equity issues caused by the Internet, I can see this problem in our school district, which has laptops for jr. high and high school students, to use. This equity issue arises when it comes to their eligibility for Internet privileges. Even in my class, I’ve used the computers as an incentive for staying on task and at times as a reward for good student behavior. I did eventually realize of who was benefiting and who wasn’t from this system within my classroom, but now imagine the guilt trip I’ve been having about the ramifications! I’m sure the students are aware of this issue. I guess this is where I’d have to have a class discussion about this issue to find an equitable solution, I hope. This feels like the first and least I could do until other solutions are found, which I noticed weren’t specifically suggested in this article.

LING695 Prompt 3 responses

Prompt #3 pp. 84-117; 136-151

1. The understandings that I gathered about the content and reviews in these sections have to do with truth, reality, and resilience. When I was young, I was told by my aunt that I was resilient. She explained what it meant, and I embraced it as a mode of survival through my teens and twenties when I was away from home going to school. I see this concept of resiliency in these reviews and poems despite the anger or pain they express. The reviewers’ and poets’ ability to tell the truth is a reality that all readers of indigenous stories and poems need to acknowledge, accept and amend and not just be a passive reader. That’s the message I’m getting from them and am thankful for it.

2.The genre, elements of literature and forms and features have been addressed in each review at one time or another. I noticed that the photographs, background or history, voice, and word choices were carefully analyzed in each review. Additionally, the publisher’s or editor’s influence in the Native author’s text was researched and included, which I thought was very smart of the reviewer to do and share.

3. These reviews provide me with a framework and focus that I want to apply in my own research as well as in my classroom. I’d like to have my kindergartners analyze the photographs, background or history, voice, and word choice of books written about their culture and hopefully of other cultures for accuracy and truthfulness.

4. The poem that I couldn’t get over was on page 85, She’s a Hawk, by Mary TallMountain not only because of the humor but also because of its reality. It made me remember an elder in our village who would be like Tatiana. This poem showed that less is more/ actions speak louder than words. It’s typical for an outsider or even young people today who don’t know how to listen to come in and think s/he knows it all, whereas it’s useless to argue, so you let your actions speak and maybe they’ll finally hear you. I’d like to try writing a poem or two describing people’s actions and reactions, using them to speak for themselves as the author, Mary TallMountain did. When I first read this poem, I wasn’t sure what gisakk meant, although I imagined an indigenous person being frustrated with someone who doesn’t know how to listen (most likely an outsider, I thought). Then I got to the end and saw that gisakk meant white man and I went into a giggling fit even more (than before I even knew what gisakk meant). Humor is good medicine, and in this case an effective method of writing which in turn can be used as a teaching tool.

Erben & Sarieva pp13-20

Erben, T., Ban, R., Eisenhower, K., Jin, L., and Summers, R. (2008). Using technology
for Foreign Language Instruction: Creative innovations, Research, and Applications. In Erben, T. & Sarieva, I. ( Eds.), CALLing all foreign language teachers: Computer-Assisted language learning in the classroom (pp. 13-20). NY: Cambridge University Press.

The use of technology as a classroom resource was defended, justified and motivating for me as a teacher to read. I felt guilty and surprised, but relieved to see the following statement, “…technology needs to be relocated as the fundamental basis for all of the things we do in the foreign-language classroom (p.13).” Computer assisted language learning’s effect on classroom practices include authentic materials, cooperative learning, and is student centered. The student’s ownership and motivation naturally follow if integration is smooth and inevitable technicalities that come with the territory are prepared for and handled patiently. A needs analysis of students’ computer skills will help in choosing appropriate materials and the organization of learning groups. Needless to say, the teacher’s effectiveness in modeling and supporting language use first is a must. New technologies are inevitable.

day 3 readings part 1

Day 3 readings for Ling611 7/14/08
Richards, J. Ed. (2001). The role and design of instructional materials. In Curriculum
development in language teaching (pp. 251-285). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Instructional materials are just as important as the other elements in language curriculum development. The process and considerations for this subject are the types of materials needed for the curriculum. Two types of material are to be considered- print and nonprint, From those, are they authentic or created by publishers. Textbook evaluations have a process and criteria to carefully consider like adaptations of them and the development process/ nature. Then there’s decisions to be made about materials design and exercise types. Even the management of a materials writing project has a lot of factors to consider as the author has shown, like the monitoring of the use of materials.

It was humbling to see why we are adopting textbooks- because of all the work involved in the planning and creating. Before, I was complaining about the adoptions because they’re generic, and not culturally relevant. Still, I will continue to supplement our adopted text especially because they’re so generic.

Richards, J. Ed. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Approaches to
evaluation. In Curriculum development in language teaching (pp. 286-310). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Curriculum evaluation of several/all aspects of a language program should come from the stakeholders, about the material, and even the environment to name a few. There is a purpose for evaluation that can be either a formative, illuminative, or summative evaluation. The issues in program evaluation deal the audience, participants, quantitative and qualitative measures, documentation, implementation, and the procedures used in conducting evaluations.

This is a great, big task that involves a lot of detail for every topic and idea, it’s no wonder the textbook makers charge so much for their material. Still, our curriculum directors have a lot on their plate and I wish they’d share some of their information with us as teachers and ask for our input. Maybe that’s why we end up doing our own thing


Erben, T. (2008). Introduction: CALLing All Foreign Language Teachers. In Erben, T & Sarieva, I.( Eds.), CALLing all foreign language teachers: Computer-Assisted language learning in the classroom (pp. 1-4). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

In a letter format to foreign language teachers, Erben talks about the history, purpose, and authors of the book. An overview of the book layout along with some definitions of technical terms or names were explained.

This information helped to get me interested and excited about reading on. Even in this short reading, I felt I learned more than I did before reading this. I felt like this author sounded so supportive of the graduate authors, which helped me to be more motivated about integrating technology in my classroom.