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.