ADN newsletter I've talked about

http://www.and.com/opinion/story/591565.html

Native students need schools that acknowledge culture

COMPASS: Other points of view

By SHIRLEY TUZROYLUKE

Published: November 16th, 2008 09:39 PM
Last Modified: November 16th, 2008 10:15 PM

If you look back through the history of Alaska Natives in the state's education system, you will find that culture and language were systematically removed from children in the classrooms, in well-intentioned attempts to prepare them for life in Western society.

Today, Alaska Native student performance clearly reflects the cumulative effects of those cultural disconnects. What is missing in the classroom is the wealth of knowledge embedded in the history, languages and cultures of Alaska Native students. What is missing has the power to make education relevant and promote better achievement.

Look at the American Indian and Alaska Native students we're pushing out of our schools, and the truth is alarming. Our students are leaving because they cannot relate to the classroom content. Their classroom instruction isn't relevant to their day-to-day lives. It's clear that this educational system still has not learned the teaching strategies that work best with Alaska Native students.

But other options exist. In Juneau, we have an example of success. At the Yakoosgé Daakahídi Alternative High School, the small student body receives individualized support from staff and has a role model in their Alaska Native principal, Ronalda Cadiente. Students are organized into small communities, and instruction is based in culture. Students benefit from flexible school schedules that accommodate work and family commitments. The school environment fosters success by working within the family and community constraints that too often hinder progress. More than a third of the school's largely Alaska Native student body receive a diploma each year.

That record is important, because a closer look at Alaska's dropout rates reveals frightening facts.

ADVERTISEMENT
Alaska Native students account for only a quarter of the total enrollment in the state's public schools, grades 7 to 12, and yet they make up nearly 40 percent of all Alaska dropouts. Twelve percent of Native Alaskans are unemployed compared with only 4 percent of their white counterparts. Students who failed to graduate with their peers in 2007, many of whom are Alaska Native students, will cost the state more than $1.1 billion in lost wages over their lifetime. By and large our neighborhood schools are not serving American Indian and Alaska Native students academically or culturally. We must demand policy changes that prepare schools to support and nurture tomorrow's leaders.

In Anchorage, the confusing data categories for Alaska Native students cloud the stark reality of the dismal graduation rates that afflict our students. Accurate and dependable information is particularly essential to close the achievement gaps in Native student performance.

The good news is that we have opportunities on the state and the federal level to address these challenges and provide every student with a high quality education. Successful models can be found in our own backyard and in other states.

An example is in Montana, where a new law requires that Native culture be incorporated into all curricula. Imagine the possibilities in Alaska, which is exactly what I hope my colleagues will do when we draft a statewide education plan this month.

And when the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee returns to Washington, D.C., after its field hearing in Anchorage, I hope that they leave with a clear understanding of ways the federal government can help our young people succeed. I hope they understand that a stronger No Child Left Behind Act is the only vehicle for change. I hope that everyone remembers that for Alaska Native students to succeed in college and in the modern work force, our languages and culture must be woven into the fabric of our educational system.

Shirley Tuzroyluke is president of the Alaska Native Education Association and currently serves on the board of the National Indian Education Association.

Butler, F., & Stevens, R., and O’Malley & Valdez Pierce’s Content Assessments.

These readings had similar ideas what is the meaning of content assessments for English Language Learners (ELL). Through content assessments teachers can monitor student progress, determine if they are ready to move on, and if the school had met the expectation for student accountability.

Something that stuck out from O’Malley’s and Valdez Pierce reading was that academic language can take five to seven years, or more for students to master. So this means that student’s who are not taught the content language of assessment will not fare well in the language their taking the assessment. Butler and Steven’s article, on page 410 stated, “different states curriculum do not always align with the curriculum students have been taught”. This is something that needs to be considered when giving content standardized tests. It is not fair that ELL student have to take the test, when it has been taught differently.

Another subject that both articles mentioned was to give some adaptations, or a form of accommodation. Valdez Pierce and O’Malley gave ideas of scaffolding for ELL or English Second Language (ESL) learners. These are done through graphic organizers or semantic maps as listed in figure 7.4 on page 178. Butler and Stevens (B and S) main point of accommodations was that they are not always consistent, especially since each state have different definitions, and that each has different assessments they use to determine the proficiency of the students. Something that each state ignores from B and S’s is counting the scores of ELL students. If states would account these scores, there might be a better picture of weaknesses for all ELL students, and there would be data to compare the scores of ELL’s through out the states.

Our school district has adopted a social studies curriculum called the Social Studies Alive! When I first saw the ideas in this curriculum it reminded me of the SIOP method of teaching. What is lacking for me is the translating it. Our district has a lot of work to do for the Yugtun side of teaching. What they need to meet on before translating this is to come up with a common idea for each translation, and I don’t’ think they have the funding to accomplish this.

Through out the years I’ve taught in the school district is to teach the language in content. As I remember, I’ve attended in services where it was stressed that we need to teach the content language to our students, especially in math. One of the assessments my students had to do was to write up a story problem to go along with a number sentence. They struggled with this, and I was happy when the school district took this assessment out. It was complicated for my students, but I continue to teach them to use the academic language that they see daily with their lessons. What I need to do is to group them into cooperative learning groups so they’d become more familiar to the academic language, instead of me giving them ideas. I need more practice implementing academic language to their daily writing of the contents.

Ch 6 Writing Assessments: O'Malley & Valdez Pierce

This chapter gives an overview of the writing process, where it includes the role of the writer, and considerations that are needed to teach English Language Learners using the four processes of language across the curriculum. These are ideas that all language teachers need to consider when teaching language.

After reading this chapter it made me realize how unfamiliar I am with writing assessments. Currently I use the holistic approach to rate my students using the LKSD Yugtun scoring guide. I have not scored my students writing analytically, and it is something I should begin doing, so my students and their parents can understand their strengths and weaknesses.

My weakness in assessments is writing, and I only follow the district prompts when I assess my students. Something that I need to do is to do a survey of their interests, and substitute the prompts used for the assessments. Another thing that I don’t do is implementing writing to other contents. I do this on and off for our Upingaurluta units, where I have my students write about what was taught, as well as their production in art.

I like figure 6.1 in page 143. Our LKSD Yugtun scoring guide doesn’t have the precise definition for each term. Most of my students fall on level 2 where they use the same vocabulary day after day. This lets me know that I need to teach them other vocabulary words, and post them on the wall. If I were to use this rubric, I would modify it to how my students write. Each year, in writing instruction, I share a writing sample to my students where I would like to see them in the end of the year. What I’ve learned from reading this chapter, I need to have a rubric of my expectations, instead of having my students guess where I want them to be.

I also rarely have the students share their writings with their peers. The only thing I do is to have an emergent writer help a struggling writer when they’ve completed their work. Sometime, I would like to teach my students to begin doing is to review their work with each other, instead of my instruction to be teacher-centered.

Perogoy & Boyle’s Reading Assessment and Instruction, Chap 10

This chapter focuses on informal reading assessments, as well as the forms of communication (oral language, reading, and writing) to show the strengths and weaknesses of the students.

As teachers, we must determine the language proficiency of our students in reading, writing, listening, and speaking. We can capture this through different forms of reading assessments and instructions. As found in the article they included the informal reading inventory where we can capture the students reading proficiency, comprehension, decoding skills for a reading level (independent, instructional or frustration), and retelling skills. From the information that was gathered through running records, miscue analysis, observations during guided reading (a way of linking assessment to instruction), as well as different forms of reading mentioned in the article, teachers can decide what to concentrate for their instruction. Similar to Valdez/O’Malley’s article, this article also mentioned the importance of student background/language knowledge, and literacy experiences for information for reading experiences.

The part I liked from reading this article was the ReQuest procedure. My students do not ask questions after and during reading, even though I encourage them to ask questions. I am planning to begin teaching my students to ask questions similar to the game found in page 407 by a primary teacher. I’m hoping in doing this, my students will begin asking questions.

Something that I learned is: “barking a print”, a term used for reading word to word found in page 379. In Yugtun reading, this would be syllable-by-syllable reading in our polysynthetic language. Most of the Yugtun immersion first graders are in this stage. I often have to consider the length of the word when they read for reading proficiency, especially when they answered the comprehension questions correctly.

Other off subject note: My sons are participating in the Bethel Regional wrestling tournament this weekend, and I hope they do well!

O'Malley's/Valdez Reading Assess Ch 5

This chapter has ideas that I implement in the Reading Assessments. One of them involve the running record where I open the student’s prior knowledge to what their about to read. Before they read, I tell them the main idea of the story, inform them that I’ll be asking them questions when their done reading pertaining to what they’ve just read, and to be prepared to retell the story in their own words. Something that I’ve learned from reading this chapter is to note hesitations. I do not mark that in their running records, and I will begin doing that, but I do write in the word substitutions and self-corrections. The chapter stated that running records benefit with training, something that I haven’t received. I learned by practicing testing my own students.

Often, my students have trouble reading with expression. During reading instruction, I highlight the punctuation marks and allow the students to practice. I’ve observed that students who are struggling to read are finding it more difficult to read with impression. I also practice asking the students what they think the story will be about when I show the cover of the story. When there is no answer, which is most of the time, I do a model think-aloud of what I think the book will be about. According to the readings on page 120, the students will be ready to do a think aloud in groups or individuals after practicing for a number of times.

I know that good readers became good readers by reading every day. In class, right after the students are done with their spelling words, I tell them to read until its time for math. Each day, I roam around the classroom and listen to the students read, but I mostly spend listening and working with struggling readers. I allow the students to choose the book they want to read, but when I notice a student trying to read above their frustration level, I tell them to choose another book. Something that I would like to begin doing is to give time for the students to talk to each other about what they’ve just read. My students often have trouble retelling the story in their own words. This would give them a chance to practice retelling with each other.

Assessing Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students. Rhodes, Ochoa, Oritz

Minority students have been labeled to be mentally retarded, learning disabled, seriously emotional disturbed, emotionally disturbed, and many other labels for special education compared to Caucasians. In 1997, the reauthorization of IDEA was written to change the difference, but minority students continue to be defined in those categories more than the Caucasians. It has been found that the higher the population, the greater percent of labeling, including students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). It is unfortunate that is usually the case for LEP students in the schools, and the way each state implement assessments are different. I was surprised to read that school psychologists are not well trained in testing the LEP students for special education, especially when there are cultural differences. In LKSD the school psychologist is often the one who tests students, and it makes me question how well trained they are about student’s culture although they live in Bethel where it’s a multicultural.

In LKSD we started doing interventions about a year ago, which we call the Child Intervention Study (CSI). This is done to work closely with students we believe that are at risk in academics or social development. It is hard to refer a student into Special Education in our school, although we keep track of the CSI records. Our district office believes that referrals should not occur until they are taught in English. This sounds reasonable, but they are not taught in English until they reach third grade. This is unfair for the student, especially since it delays the services they should receive. Most of these students are limited in both languages.

Poehner & Lantolf’s Dynamic Assessment in the Language Classroom

After reading this article, my understanding of Dynamic Assessment (DA) is that it’s a form of intervention between the student and the teacher. In this form, the child’s response to learning is taken into account in the testing situation, which is the whole picture of how the child came into the conclusion. Dynamic Assessment is not a traditional form of assessment; it considers Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), and the mediation given during the assessment. Vygotsky’s ZPD brings the student to a learning zone where the child learns to take the assessment with some form of mediation. ZPD’s goal is to allow the child to learn by taking into consideration their current performance, and performance with help of the teacher. Mediation is almost like scaffolding, but the examiner is looking to induce change where it is believed that the student will apply what was learned to another situation. Dynamic Assessments brings out what is beginning to mature, and it keeps the learning and testing situations together. In DA, the questions that are asked are to allow the child to notice what has been difficult to learn, and that is to bring them to their ZPD. What seemed to be impossible can be possible with Dynamic Assessment, especially since you raise the student’s learning through mediation.

I’d be interested to view a video on how Dynamic Assessment is done in a primary immersion setting. Like I said many times before, the assessments that my students take, the language is too complicated from them. If I tested the students through this approach, since most of my students are not language delayed in their first language, according to DA, they’d do well on their assessment through my mediation.

O'Malley's/Valdez Portfolio Assessment Ch 3

Wow! The reading makes it sound easy to begin a portfolio in the classroom. I can picture using this next year along with the SBA folders. I like the idea that it gives parents a clear picture of student learning/developing, rather than me showing the parents the test they’ve taken and talking about where they failed. It is also a wonderful tool for teachers when there is a transferring or promoted student. Each year I get students who transfer into Bethel, where all I see is the phase check off sheet when they come from LKSD. I have to guess how they passed these assessments, and I don’t know what weaknesses and strength the student has; this is where a portfolio would have been very helpful for me. I'd know where to begin instruction for that student if there were portfolios. This is something that I have to do each new school year when Kindergartner’s become first graders. I have no idea of their oral proficiency level in Yugtun, other than the YPT scores, which are not valid to their speaking level.

In the past, I’ve used portfolios, but I didn’t have a clear understanding of how they worked. I like that in having portfolio assessments, you have a specific learning goal. It is so much more authentic than the tests that I give to my students where it doesn’t explain to the parent the process it took for the student to learn that concept. Portfolio assessments are like a working process where you and your student choose what goes into the portfolio to show that growth to the content/goal your teaching. You and the student can decide on the criteria for grading, of course, the student’s should know what their graded against (the prime example and also an example of non-exemplary, and also ELL students will need more time). You’ll have to do much practice with the whole class by comparing papers to the model paper. From this, they can learn to reflect on their work, and become self-assessors where they begin to ask themselves questions, as well as to their peers. From there, you can have the students’ partner with a peer to review their work against the criteria, and give reflections on each other. After practicing all these processes, you can have the student independently check their work where the teacher becomes the inter-rater. When weaknesses are found, they will become the improvement goals for the student, and can also be a helpful tool for teachers in their instruction for all students to work on those goals, like in centers, peer-to peer teaching, as well as ELL student extra time for the teacher.

Like I said in the beginning, it sounds so easy, but takes a lot of work. I’d like to see myself in the future beginning from one subject before I do everything. I can picture this going along with the SBA’s and comparing the portfolio with the parent. I’d be curious to hear and see the actual growth that the student has done to perform the assessment by confident.
Tua-I, piurci.

Solano-Flores' Who is Given Tests...

After reading this article, it made me think of our schools, and districts current Yugtun reading assessments. The reading assessments come from tests aimed for Yugtun First Language (YFL) students. The tests for reading involve comprehension questions where the language assumes that the student will understand. I often adjust the questions to my current students understanding, mostly using gestures. This is like adjusting the question for an English Language Learner (ELL). The way I translate is different from another teacher, so the test might be invalid.
The language I use to ask the questions come from my dialect and I often revert to the dialect they’ve learned in Kindergarten. There isn’t an official standardized Yugtun language, and if there were one, I’d have to question if my students know this language, like an ELL test has to consider. Another thing is that dialectal differences have to be taken into consideration when giving a test.
The whom portion of the test is the teacher. The way I rate the test is different from another teacher, as well for an ELL administrator/rater for their test. Ratings might be different from each teacher, the number of years of learning the language differs for each student, and as well as the proficiency of the language they’re learning. It makes you question the validity of the test you administer. The student who has more exposure to the Yugtun language will most likely score better than the student who had only a few years of instruction. Like ELL students, our Yugtun immersion students need many years to develop their language before given a language test. Another consideration to take is the number of times they were tested. I’ve seen a student who memorized a test, and has become invalid.
The where of the student is the environment their taking the test. Like, I’ve said in the beginning, the reading assessment test my students take is aimed for YFL students. The approach that I use is different for an YFL teacher for the reading assessment. The approach that an ELL depends on what they determine to be proficient in their school/environment.
The article overall explains more in detail the complications of testing for ELL students. What is categorized in another state for ELL is different for each state. The way ELL students are accommodated, labeling of proficiency, administrations of tests, and how they rate their students are different through out the state.
Something I need more clarification on is the G-theory.

Making Assessment Practices Valid for Indigenous American Students

When did the test writers realize the assessments written by outsiders are not valid for Indigenous people? I remember taking the CAT test when I was in third grade. I vividly remember filling in any answer to questions I wasn’t familiar with. One of the questions was on where papers came from, and I didn’t know the answer, and it was culturally biased. I don’t remember my teachers teaching this concept. The judgment of the test writers was not valid to the funds of knowledge I grew up with, so was the socioculture. This test was aimed for students who grew up in the Lower 48. This assessment did not agree with the curriculum and the instruction I received growing up. The assessment did not take into consideration of my language proficiency of English. This is the same case for the high stakes tests students currently take.

It is true that many of us Indigenous people grew up by observing before we performed our knowledge. It may take years to be confident to perform what we know, and it reminds me of Walkie’s “Only when their ready.” (It would be great to have him do a presentation on it.) This is unlike the school culture where teachers decide when their ready, probably mainly because of NCLB. Despite the legislation, we continue to educate our students of our culture mainly in the primary grades. Each day Ayaprun Elitnaurvik recites Yuuyaraq, although the students do not understand exactly what it means. We hope that as their lives go on, they'll begin to understand the meaning when they meet it. Like, only when their ready. We continue to feel the pressure to make AYP every year. Ever since this law was passed, our school has been more focused on reading, writing, and math. Before this law was passed, the Kindergartner’s were mainly taught the Yugtun oral language. This is unfortunate their more focused on SBA's now.

The current assessments that I do are not culturally relevant, even though they try to include cultural relevant pictures. These assessments were translated into Yugtun using the English SBA assessments, although some of the assessments are not par to the GLE’s.

As schools of Indigenous students, we need to become multimodal teachers, and assess them by implementing their funds of knowledge. Implementing Demmert’s finding, as well as the researchers on culture-based curriculum could do this. When I read this part, it was complicated for me to picture this in the classroom. I have become so intoned to how assessments are done in school.

After reading this article, I am curious to view a rubric that the Navajo Indians used. Where can I find it?

McNamara's Validity: Testing the test

Assessments are written to prove learning, and are captured from the data as evidence. Before it is considered valid, the evidence has to be scrutinized by carefully investigating the procedures and conclusions made about the evidence. It is the matter of judgment of what calls for validation. It is not the test itself that calls for validity, but the interpretations that we make of the test.

In developing a language test, and validating it, one has to review the procedures on how it was elicitated, the judgment of the test writer, and the observations that were used to conclude about the insights of the test takers.

Determining the validity of the test involve the evidence of the test performance as well as the appropriateness of the test to what was taught. We need to determine what procedures were used in the test, the judgment, the purpose, stakeholders, the criterion, content, method, and who developed and validated the test. A test may be valid, but the conclusion, that is the judgment of the test maybe invalid. If the test has been proven to be faulty, we have to speculate why it happened, observe and experiment in determining the validity of the test, rather than theorizing.

Once a test has been validated, it will not always be valid for different groups of students. It has to be revisited and revised for the criterion needs of the assessment, as well as for student inferences. Each year, there will be different data from each group of students, and will continually need some investigation. A valid test considers the intended population, and the author bases the assessment on the evidence, not assumptions.

The questions to think about are:
Was the construct of what your measuring defined?
Is the domain your looking for being measured?
Does the test measure the intelligence or skill of what you’re looking for?

Designing authentic assessment and The Language Assessment Process...

These readings seemed to have much in common on planning, developing, and use of authentic assessment. When designing authentic assessment you have to involve co-teachers, administrators, and parents. A group has to determine the purpose of the assessment, what do you want to build on, what objectives will be assessed, who will you share it with, what types of authentic assessments will you look at, what to look for when piloting the assessment you’ve made, who will you review the assessment with, assessment validity to the curriculum, fairness for all students, grading and reporting of the assessment, and the reliability in scoring.

I liked Shohamy and Inbar’s list of language assessment tools that can be include on page 4. Putting on a play reminded me of Abby Augustine’s study for her Master’s degree. Her students would do a short skit while her whole class told the story. I am curious if this was part of her assessment tools. Also, I thought Shohamy’s and Inbar’s article was easier reading for me, especially since it listed varies ways of administering a test for authenticity, and other tables in the article. This is something where I can quickly refer to when I have questions on authentic assessments especially on the valid and reliability part. It would be good to talk more about this in class, especially how a test can be reliable, but not valid.

As I began reading the rater training in O’Malley’s and Pierce’s chapter, on page 21, it reminded me of being one of many raters for the LKSD writing assessment that takes place in the Fall. In this type of meeting, teachers first have to practice rating papers, for I think 1/2 a day. The next 2 1/2 days involved a lot of papers. We had to rate the written assessments by following a rubric given by the school district. If there are two scores being two points or more away from each other, the two teachers had to explain why they have scored as they did, and both had to come into a consensus. We also compared the paper to another paper that was scored by an expert.

McNamara Chapter 2

Just like theories on how we learn languages, there are theories on language testing. The psychometric-structuralis was the first period where it only focused on testing the four-macro skills of listening, reading, writing, and speaking. Next, came the integrative assessments where it focused on pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary. The third was John Oller who came up with the cloze test as a substitute for language production skills, and the on-line processing of “real” language (sort of like authentic language). The cloze test was a good introduction to the educational world, but it doesn’t show what communication skills the learners acquired. After that came the communicative competence assessments where the researchers learned that language assessments are more than grammar. It involves socioculture factors of the correct way to communicate, gestures, beliefs, and so on.
In AE, the only language test we have is the YPT. In the beginning, this book was literally translated from the English Proficiency Test. Each year, the students take the same test, and some had literally memorized the test a few years ago (they’ve taken the test too many times where one student said the phrase I was about to ask him, so this test was not reliable anymore). We continue to assess our students with the YPT. The beginning part of the test involves giving a one word answer to pictures. As the test progresses, it gets a little more complicated to listening to a story, answering questions, and retelling the story.

NCLB

This article discusses six issues relating to Limited English Proficiency (LEP) in meeting adequate yearly progress (AYP) under the NCLB. The issues are: inconsistency in classification, small LEP populations, classification of LEP isn’t stable, measurement is normed from first language English speakers, baseline scores vary, and varying cutoff points for LEP students.

What I got out of this article was that LEP students continue to be labeled as not meeting proficiency in language demanding assessments. The studies have found that LEP students score better in math calculations when it is not language demanding, and fail in reading, writing, science and social studies. The article stated, “items that are linguistically complex contribute largely to the measurement error variance observed for LEP students” (p. 7). LEP students are way behind their English First Language counterparts, and the way the assessments are measured are not fair for these students. The achievement tests need to be modified for these students to equal their content knowledge of the subject. It is unfair that the assessments cannot be taken in their native language.

After reading the article, it makes me question why cannot the states come up with a similar definition of an LEP student? What is defined, as LEP in Alaska is probably different in Florida, especially if a student is labeled as LEP from parent surveys? What if the parent didn’t answer the questions the truth of their language?

Many students in LKSD are labeled LEP. I wonder what accommodations do they do for them? All I know is that students are taught English Language Development classes through out the school district. How do they decide who will teach these classes? Do they have enough training to teach these classes? How often do they meet for training? Is the cut off of classification the same for every state?

LEP students defiantly need to be addressed by all the stakeholders of the assessment, especially of the policy makers. Although, the Secretary of Education visited Rural Alaska a few years ago, there are no changes to NCLB. This act continues to give an option to parents for failing schools, to move their child to another school. What other options do these parent’s have? I’m sure many parents do not have time for home schooling. Teachers in the school district have to teach out of their qualifications. What are the current options to be highly qualified for the High School teachers?

McNamara's Testing, Testing, Testing

Language testing is what we all have to take in our lifetime. There are language tests in school, employment, travel, business, and so on. This chapter covers what makes a language test. There are two methods of tests, and they are: paper and pencil (mostly multiple choice) and performance test. A multiple choice language test isn’t necessarily a language test. Students don’t have to speak and write about the test, where in performance tests, a speech and writing sample are taken in a form of speech.

There are different purposes of language test, which include the achievement and proficiency tests. Achievement tests do not relate the language to the outside of the classroom. Proficiency tests include alternative assessments where the goal aligns the curriculum and the teaching and learning of students. A self-assessment is an alternative assessment where the learners are encouraged to share responsibilities for assessments and it encourages real language. Criterion testing is a language test where a student is tested for ‘real’ life situations on language. What has to be considered is criterion tests are not what will actually be seen when the student experiences the real thing. It is only a test somewhat like a performance test.

About two weeks ago, my students took a multiple-choice test in math. I read it to them since the reading was not the same level to their proficiency. This assessment was on spatial positions using pictures. I was surprised with the number of students who didn’t pass the test, especially for the one whose first language is Yup’ik. Most of the students are very familiar to these terms, and can do the TPR activities without making a mistake. I was very disappointed with the results.

Ch 1: O'Malley & Valdez

This chapter is an introduction to authentic assessments (AA). AA is an alternative to standardized assessments. These types of assessments include performance assessments, portfolio, and self-assessments (all represent activities and real life settings). These came about from the concerns of educators especially for English Language Learners to meet their needs. The current assessments didn’t show higher order thinking skills, there were disagreement of scores based on the actual student performance in the classroom, teachers found the information difficult for instructional planning, they lacked in integrative language, and content knowledge. These are the reasons why teachers of other languages should implement authentic assessments.

In LKSD our math assessments contain performance assessments. I didn’t understand why it included these types of assessment; I thought it was something I had to teach my students to become familiar to the test. I find the wording of the test to be difficult for my students, and I often reword it to their zone of proximity. From reading this chapter, I have a slight understanding what performance assessments are used for.

Assessment by Pierce

This article covers assessment issues for English Language learners (ELL). It ranges from political influences, ways to help the students for assessments, issues in assessments (purpose, validity, reliability, and biases), language support programs for assessments, and identification of five fundamental assumptions and operations for fair and accurate testing of ELL’s.

The article writes, “language minority students need to have attained a level of literacy that allows them to show their understanding on a standardized test in English…students with no proficiency…will take from two to four years to reach readiness to take norm-referenced tests (p.314). In Ayaprun Elitnaurvik, our students begin taking state assessments in third grade. By that time, they’ve only been taught in English for 1/2 a day, and is their first year of instruction in English. How do we expect these students to be proficient when this is their first year of being taught in English? The NCLB act doesn’t take into consideration of how long the students were taught before they take the assessments. I am not familiar of the types of questions written in their assessments. I assume the students were taught test taking strategies before they take the assessments.
Our third graders score low in their assessments, but by sixth grade they show a huge improvement. For the last two years we’ve met AYP, but not the last year. Last year our school had teacher turn over and positions were not filled in the beginning of the year. This is one of the problems schools in Rural Alaska face. Teachers come into LKSD not being familiar to the socioculture of the area, and each year students would have different teachers. Many of the teachers teach subjects that are not part of their expertise, but LKSD offers Math through Polycoms to the other schools in the district.

Since NCLB has became a law, our immersion school began teaching English Language Development (ELD) starting in Kindergarten. Kindergarteners and first graders receive a half hour of ELD, but don’t involve teaching actual reading. The students are taught oral skills through songs and chants. This is probably the beginning where they are learning English comprehension, and to learn “standard” English.

In our school, the staffs are encouraged to peer coach and to meet weekly to review how we can better teach our students. At these meetings, we are encouraged to read and do a self-study in good teaching. In our teacher in-services, we review the data from the State assessment, and find where we can increase our instruction based on the data. This was also mentioned in the article in page 352 where teachers should be given time to work together on “how to use curriculum and assessments.

Maori Approaches to Assessments (2007)

This article reminded me of how we assess our children at home through our ways of knowing and being, as we are Yup’ik. The way the Maori assessed their children is through family and community. It is the family and the community to decide if the child learned the appropriate skills, knowledge, and attitude to bring out the good of their community, family, and themselves. They use authentic assessments like a mother would observe and decide if her daughter has become proficient in cutting up a fish, and be approved by an elder. The Maori way of assessments is about ways of knowing and being in their culture.

As I was growing up, I remember first observing my grandmother cutting up a seal. When I wanted to help, she didn’t discourage me. As I took the uluaq, she didn’t criticize the way I was cutting it. Her ways of knowing that I would become advanced with practice was impressive with her. When I made my first cut of the seal part, she told me to bring it to my other grandma, my grandmother’s sister. When I brought it to their house, I opened their door and stood in front of the door until I was acknowledged. This is something that was taught to me to respect when you enter another house. My parents and grandpa were so proud of me, and it was greatly valued by them. Each time my dad and uncle brought a seal home; I would continue to help my grandmother. I soon passed the assessment when I cut up a whole seal by myself.

The way we assess our students in school has changed because of the high stake tests that our students have to take. Parents and educators are worried about making AYP. Teachers are teaching to tests, and it falters the students from learning things that are meaningful to their surroundings. Schools are not assessing students on what is outside of the classroom. It is shameful that we don’t recognize the risks that the students take, and take into consideration the funds of knowledge the students bring to the school. School assessments causes students to feel like failures when they haven’t passed their tests, and it causes for discouragement.

I wonder how the children would be if they were assessed the way our elders assessed us as we were growing up?

Teacher Suspended for Refusing to Give State Test by The Associated Press

Yeah for Mr. Chew! He is very brave to refuse to administer the state testing of Washington when he saw the need to come up with better assessments. Many students are more knowledgably of their surroundings than the questions that the tests ask. People who “think” they know all about student funds of knowledge write assessments. Therefore the assessments students take are not part of their every day lives, and are something that they’ve only learned from school. Assessments need to be more meaningful to the students’ surroundings/ upbringing. It reminds me of when my students used to take the TERRA NOVA tests. These assessments were literally translated into Yugtun word per word, and it made the reading difficult for the students. As immersion students, and being first graders one of the tests reading assessments was equal to the 6th grade reading level. How could my students read proficiently and answer questions that are not up to their par? The result of tests in turn labels the students of being far below proficient.
I applaud Mr. Chew with his action. Students are tired of being assessed and being compared to other students nation wide. Something that teaching has become is to teach to the test, and I don’t like that.

DODGE!

Dodge, B. (2008). Some thought about webquests. Website: http://webquest.sdsu.edu/about webquests.html.

This article is a short paper that introduces and defines webquest and talks about what needs to be implemented in the sites. There are two types of webquests: long and short.

From doing a webquest in class, I had a better picture of what it involves. I can definetly see it being done for other languages. Since websites do not have Yup’ik only sites, I see this being impossible to implement into Yugtun schools, unless they reach the higher grades.

Triadic scaffolds

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

This article is about a study on teaching English to elementary second language learners, using the computer as the basis to teach the school language. The aim of the study is to examine the results of computer-supported language instruction, in particular to at risk English language learners using scaffolding and literacy learning through computers. Through the implementation of teaching English, the students were motivated, their attention was anchored to learning, and they were able to visually see and hear the meaning of what the teacher was talking about.

I was impressed with the teacher in the article. As I was reading this part of the article, I was picturing myself teaching my students in this context using the Powerpoint game I’ve made for this class. They’d be totally involved, especially since it’s electronic. Most of my students already interact with some form of media electronic in their homes. It’ll be an added boost to teach Yugtun in this context, and it seems to be a great way to focus on form that is fun for the students! It would be nice to see a video of this interaction between the students and the teacher.

Words as big...

McHenry, T. (2002). Words as big as the screen: Native American languages and the internet. Language Learning & Technology, 6. 102-115.

This article is about how most of the research of Native Americans is conducted by non-Natives in language studies, and emphasizes the need of Native Americans becoming the ones to do the research on the language of Native Americans. It ranges from language loss, language shift and language renewal. The article also pushes Native American Websites to be published. It would be a way for Native American languages to thrive with the technology modes, to promote their language authentically, and to move away from being stereotyped of being silent subjects. The article also examined a Native American language elementary school on how they designed their website in Lushootseed language which is located in the Puget Sound of Washington state.

When I read the article, it made me think about our school website on how its written Yup’ik, but has translations in English for non-Yup’ik speaking parents. This falls into the social factors of the community. Most of the parents in the school are non-literate in Yugtun. I was impressed on the elementary school of Tulalip on how the fourth grade students composed a website. I signed to the webpage, but it couldn’t find it. What would their webpage be?

The reality of Native Americans with Phd’s will become a reality for Alaska Natives, and thanks to the SLATE program. Having the Phd students to study languages of their own and to give some voice is what we need. Actually we’ll all become voices for our people.

Readings for Monday 7/21

Thorne, S. (2006). New Technologies and additional language learning. Calper, 7. 1-26.

This article discusses contexts and application of technologies in second language learning settings, which include the synchronous computer-mediated communication, internet-mediated intercultural second language education, and internet-supported communities. It also reviews new technology and trials it faces in language learning.

As a primary teacher of Yugtun second language learners, it is exciting and confusing on how I would implement technology for the learning enhancement for my students. It would be challenging especially since I am not computer literate, and the technology terms do not have translations in Yugtun. The world is becoming technical, and in schools we have to become part of the technical culture. In order to do this, as a new generation of Yup’ik’s we have to come into a consensus of inventing new words for this new culture. Young students are now literate in using the gaming system, and will benefit in their language learning.

I like the idea of implementing chat into the classroom. This way the students who are very quiet will voice their learning, and it will give me a chance to learn student weaknesses. It will also allow for negotiating and focusing on form.

McFarlane, S. (2008). The laptops are coming! The laptops are coming! Rethinking
Schools, 22. 22-26.

A teacher who contests laptop use in the classroom writes this journal. It discusses who has the power to access technology, and who gains and loses in the technology of learning. The teacher who wrote this article sees the disadvantages of learning through technology in second language learners.

This is exactly what I was thinking would cause for learning of language in the classroom. Teaching precisely with computers may impend the learning of a language, unless it is modeled where there is communication. I believe that students who come from a limited speaking families of a target language should receive spoken input before computers are implemented to their curriculum.

Garcia, A. (2008). Rethinking myspace. Rethinking schools, 22. 27-29.

This article is written on how a teacher uses Myspace with his students. In Myspace he posts assignments, answer student questions, and uses it to cross barriers in schooling. Through this, the author connected to students outside of school.

I do not see how Myspace can be used for learning. Yes, it’s good the teacher keeps in contact with his students, but what is really the educational purpose of using Myspace? It is banned in our school district, but many students have computers at home, and they spend a lot of time on the website. I’ve viewed my sons spaces, and I didn’t see real communication. Maybe if they had a purpose, they’d type more.

What are you taking away from week 1?

The main thing is that technology is an exciting way to have the learners become engaged in content. When planning a curriculum, you have to consider the needs of the content, stakeholders, and teachers have to be flexible. You have to consider what will work, the culture.

What questions have been emerging for you?

How will I implement technology into my classroom for my second language Yugtun learners?
There is only one student computer in the classroom, and I am not so knowledgable in technologies. I can picture using the power point to teach to engage communication.

Erben & Sarieva ch. 2-3

Sarieva, I., & Zoran, A. (2007). Guiding principles: second language acquisition, instructional technology, and the constructivist framework. In Erben, T., & Sarieva, I (Eds.). Calling all foreign language teachers: computer-assisted language learning in the classroom (pp. 7-12). Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.

This chapter mainly emphasizes how technology instruction entails the five C’s: communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities. Through communication it gives the learners a rich language environment. Through the internet the learning of another culture is more meaningful and promotes for connection with the aim of the content. Learners can make comparisons by interacting with peers, and have a sense of belonging in their tech community.

I am excited to learn how I can implement technology into the classroom, but I have questions how I can go about teaching my first grade students to become computer literate. Currently there is one student laptop computer in the classroom. I am looking forward to the other building so that I’ll have access to a greater amount of student computers.

Erben, T., Ban, R., Jin, L., Summers, R. & Eisenhower, K (2007). 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. 13-28). Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.

Chapter three covers how and when technology can be a teaching tool in classrooms. They range from authentic materials, cooperative learning, student centered learning, learner self-sufficiency and motivation. Technology becomes authentic when communication takes place with a target culture. There is cooperative learning through networking. Technology is student-centered where the learners are more active into their own learning, and allows for self-sufficiency where the student learns to take risks. This chapter also gives precautions of using technology in class.

As I think about my students, it seems difficult to begin using technology for teaching reading and writing. But I can picture my students doing a blog, and will give them motivation to write and read, and possibly will give them critical thinkers, and become aware of their writing errors.

Richards 8&9

Richards, J. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. The role and
design of instructional materials (pp. 251-285). New York: Cambridge
University Press.

This chapter covers the role, design, and use of teaching materials in language
instruction ranging from text books, authentic materials, teacher made materials,
various print materials, as well as electronic teaching resources. The chapter
defines the strengths and weaknesses of each design, and also lists what makes a
good material. This chapter explains in detail of authentic verses created
materials, textbooks, how to evaluate textbooks and their adaptations, preparation
of materials, management of writing materials, and what it takes to monitor the
use of materials.

The authentic materials reminded me of the class that we took last semester.
As I was reading through this section, it made me think about how meaningful
it would be for my students. I liked the ideas of teaching these types of materials
where it would bring about motivation. The only authentic material that I used
was using the student made books (language experience) to teach reading. The
students enjoy reading books that they’ve written on their own.

As I read through the textbook part of the chapter, it made me think about how
how many times the school has changed their textbooks in math. They must
evaluate each text book and change basing it on the needs of the students, their
relevance, quality, and now the GRE tests. I remember when I was in highschool
the text books were McGuinn, as I attended college, they changed to Math Their
Way, and when I completed college, they changed to Saxon Math, and today its
Harcourt.

Richards, J. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Approaches to
evaluation (pp. 286-309). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Once a curriculum is implemented, it has to be evaluated. This chapter covers
the evaluation process of the curriculum on whether the goal had been met, if its
working/what is not, and the problems it faces (Formative). It also covers where
its being implemented, how its implemented, and the reaction of the stakeholders
(Illuminative). Evaluations also seeks to find whether the planners did a
satisfactory job at the end of teaching the curriculum. This involves looking into
the workability of the tests, teaching methods, and the overall the effectiveness of
the program (Summative).

The evaluation of the curriculum is certainly an important process that needs
to be taken, especially since the creation of the curriculum takes time, money,
usefulness for the academic growth of the students, and the relevancy of the
language program. A curriculum that doesn’t meet the needs of all
stakeholders, is not effective. It places extra work for the teachers to
produce extra material, and ends up being a waste of money spend on the
curriculum.

In Ayaprun Elitnaurvik, I often find myself making up extra materials for the
students. Some of the curriculum is written for Yugtun first language teachers,
and the assessments are not compatible to their language proficiency. Before
the curriculum was published into many copies, they should have pilot tested
to see if teachers needed to add extra materials, revise the assessments, and
give training on how teachers can use the curriculum.

Richards Chapter 6

Richards, J. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Planning
goals and learning outcomes (pp. 145-197). New York: Cambridge University Press.

This chapter mainly goes over various processes that are entailed in planning and developing a language program of course development. It is based on the aims and objectives of instructional materials. These include the rationale, entry and exit levels, course content, sequence, syllabus and instructional blocks, and the preparation of the scope and sequence. They make not happen in order, and may require revision each time a course is taught.

I didn’t know that there are so many names for syllabus, and the procedures it takes to write one. I haven’t been part of a curriculum planning, and it gives me an insight of what Rachael must do in the district office. I also have a better understanding of the course content. The Yugtun Upingaurluta material implemented by the district office is not systematical to the immersion program from my understanding of the course content. The thematic units language proficiency levels seem to higher for the immersion students.

I believe the LKSD school district has a lexical syllabus. There are lists of sight words that the students have to read, know, and they increase as the student progress through the grades. There is one for math, reading, and writing. LKSD ladies, correct me if I’m wrong.

Richards Chapter 5

Richards, J. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Planning
goals and learning outcomes (pp. 112-144). New York: Cambridge University Press.

This chapter covers varies theories and debates about planning goals and
outcomes in educational curriculum literature. It states that that the goals,
aims, and objectives of a curriculum are what the educational planners
believe are essential for learner development. The chapter lists some
issues that range from academic rationalism, social and economic efficiency, learner-centeredness, social reconstructionism, and cultural pluralism.

From reading this section of the chapter, I have a clearer understanding of writing objectives. I agree with the criticism that objectives should included meaningful and worthwhile learning experiences. From taking the SIOP class last semester, I’ve learned that having language outcomes and nonlanguage outcomes are worthwhile to include in the objectives. Having these will help the teacher and the student from swaying away from the content objective, and it helps for the student to concentrate on the goal of the lesson.

After reading the chapter, it gave me an insight of what curriculum planning involve, and that it is complicated. There are so many issues to think about when planning a curriculum. It is not only what you want your students to learn. It involves the background of where your students are coming from, politics, government, standards, student engagement, and so many to list.

Test

Hi! This is my first time doing a blog. I'm in Fairbanks for the next four weeks. Currently it's raining outside. I miss my family back in Bethel!