Classroom-based assessment strategies for science teachers
Martha Castañeda and Nazan Bautista
D
espite the burgeoning numbers of English language learners (ELLs) in our schools, many science teachers have little training in meeting their
specialized needs. During the 2007–2008 academic year,
4.7 million or 10% of students in U.S. schools were classified as ELLs (Boyle et al. 2010). By the year 2030, it is
estimated that 40% of K–12 classrooms in the United States
will contain nonnative English speakers with varying levels
of proficiency (Thomas and Collier 2002). Teaching this
growing number of ELLs poses a pressing new challenge
for educators.
40
The Science Teacher
Effective education of ELLs requires that teachers adapt
instruction to meet the needs of this unique population of
students (TESOL 2006). This is especially true for teachers
of subjects requiring specialized vocabulary, such as science.
Since the academic success of ELLs depends on effective
instruction and assessment in the mainstream classroom, it
is imperative that teachers have proven strategies for working with ELLs.
In this article, we provide four classroom-based assessment
strategies for science teachers. These strategies include tailoring assessment to ELLs’ language proficiency, making the
Teaching Science to ELLs, Part II
assessment tasks accessible, diversifying the ways in which
ELLs can demonstrate content knowledge, and documenting student growth.
Assessment
To properly assess science content knowledge, teachers
must learn how to evaluate ELLs based on their level of
language proficiency. Though standardized tests are used
to determine whether or not students have met state and
national standards, these tests do not detect incremental
growth in ELLs’ content learning; they cannot provide the
kind of day-to-day feedback teachers need.
Classroom-based assessment strategies help teachers
make instructional decisions on a daily basis. They diagnose
students’ strengths and weaknesses related to classroom instruction, and provide specific feedback to support students’
language and content learning. The following sections present four classroom-based assessment strategies for ELLs.
S t rat e g i e s
1. Tailor assessment to language proficiency
Prior to assessing content, science teachers must establish—or
re-establish—ELLs’ level of language proficiency. Teachers
should acquaint themselves with the English-language pro-
FIGURE 1
Differentiated science assessment: Lesson on the water cycle.
Listening
Reading
Speaking
Writing
Using a diagram depicting the water cycle, the English language learner (ELL)…
Level 1:
Starting
points out the location of a process (e.g.,
“Show where evaporation occurs”).
matches the word
(e.g., evaporation) to
the process on the
diagram.
uses key vocabulary
to describe the
process (e.g., liquid,
evaporation, gas).
labels the diagram.
Using definitions of each process in the water cycle, the ELL…
Level 2:
Emerging
listens to sentencelevel oral descriptions
and matches these
with the processes on
the diagram.
matches written sentences with the processes on the diagram.
voices a one-sentence
definition of the process.
writes a one-sentence
definition of the process.
Using a sequence of the processes involved in the water cycle, the ELL…
Level 3: Developing
listens to the paragraph and draws a
representation of what
he or she hears.
reads the paragraph
and demonstrates
understanding via a
visual representation
or a retelling.
summarizes the water
cycle using his or her
own words.
creates a poster of the
water cycle.
Using a case-study reading in which a water cycle problem, such as pollution, is presented, the ELL…
Level 4:
Expanding
listens to peers present
their arguments supporting their stand on
the water cycle debate.
reads the paragraphs,
answers comprehension questions, and
identifies the causes of
the problem and their
consequences in this
particular case study.
formulates arguments
to support his or her
stand on the water
cycle debate.
writes an action plan
that addresses all areas
of concern and presents this action plan to
peers.
formulates arguments
to support his or her
stand on the water
cycle debate.
writes a summary that
justifies his or her
stand on the water
cycle debate.
Using a debate format, the ELL…
Level 5:
Bridging
listens to peers’ arguments and responds
orally.
reads the problem
statement regarding
the water cycle to prepare for the debate.
March 2011
41
ficiency standards developed by the Teachers of English to
Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) organization. These
standards specify five levels in which ELLs can demonstrate
measurable language proficiency (TESOL 2006): starting,
emerging, developing, expanding, and bridging (Figure 1, p.
41; see also Figure 1 in Part I of this series, p. 36).
At the starting level, ELLs can react to language with frequently used words and memorized chunks of language; they
can also communicate minimally to meet their social needs.
At the emerging level of proficiency, they demonstrate
further understanding and production, including the use of
simple academic vocabulary.
At the developing level, ELLs understand more complex
speech and can comprehend some specialized academic
vocabulary.
The expanding level is evidenced by a well-developed
degree of understanding, coupled with some difficulty in
comprehending abstract academic content.
Finally, at the bridging level, students have moved
through the continuum but still need some language
support, guidance, and modification of instruction when
working with academic language and concepts. (Note:
See the complete PreK–12 English language proficiency
standards document for more detail [TESOL 2006].)
Although these five levels represent predictable patterns and identifiable stages of proficiency, teachers
cannot assume that all ELLs will progress through this
language continuum at the same rate (Harper and de Jong
2004). This variation demonstrates another reason why
classroom-based assessment—specific to ELLs—is a vital
skill for teachers.
TESOL (2006) states that ELLs are expected to demonstrate their language-proficiency levels in four domains:
listening, reading, speaking, and writing. Listening and
reading are receptive skills that require the learners’ active
engagement. Speaking and writing are productive skills that
FIGURE 2
Sample portfolio rubric for an English language learner (ELL) at Level 3.
42
Does not meet criteria­—
needs further work (1 point)
Meets criteria—
minimal requirements (3 points)
Exceeds criteria—
excellent (5 points)
Portfolio
content and
artifacts
The number and variety of
artifacts included in the
portfolio provide little or no
evidence of student’s performance. Artifacts are of poor
quality.
The number and variety of artifacts included in the portfolio
provide some evidence of the
student’s overall performance.
Artifacts are of good quality.
The number and variety of
artifacts included in the
portfolio provide good
evidence of the student’s
performance. Artifacts are of
exceptional quality.
Content development
Artifacts provide little or no
evidence that target learning
objectives were achieved. The
student has little or no understanding of the content.
Artifacts provide evidence that
some of target learning objectives were achieved. The student
has some understanding of the
content.
Artifacts provide evidence
that target learning objectives
were achieved. The student
has a good understanding of
the content.
Organization of the
portfolio
Portfolio is disorganized and
lacks clarity. No connections are made between the
artifacts.
Portfolio is somewhat organized
and artifacts are presented in
a logical format. Connections
between artifacts are somewhat
clear.
Portfolio is detailed, well
organized, and creative.
Connections between artifacts are clear.
Language
development
(Level 3)
Content is barely comprehensible. Student lists a variety
of discrete sentences and
uses some cohesive devices.
Vocabulary use is inadequate,
inaccurate, or too basic for
this level.
Content is somewhat comprehensible and requires some interpretation on the part of the
audience. Students uses some
paragraph-length discourse, a
variety of cohesive devices, and
adequate vocabulary, including
academic vocabulary for this
level of proficiency.
Content is comprehensible and requires minimal
interpretation on the part of
the audience. Student uses
paragraph-length discourse,
a variety of cohesive devices, and vocabulary, including
academic vocabulary and
idiomatic expressions.
The Science Teacher
Teaching Science to ELLs, Part II
engage students in oral and written communication and
expression. Effective communication requires a concurrent
coordination of all four skills.
For fair assessment of ELLs, science teachers must
be aware of language proficiency. The manner in which
ELLs demonstrate content understanding should be
based on what they can do with the language. Figure 1
presents possible learning outcomes for a lesson on the
water cycle. The outcomes are differentiated based on
language-proficiency levels and organized based on the
four domains of language development.
uu
have questions read aloud in English or in their native language, depending on their proficiency level.
3. Diversify content knowledge demonstrations
Teachers can diversify the manner in which ELLs demonstrate their content knowledge through the use of
performance-based assessments. In these kinds of assessments, students demonstrate their understanding through
a performance (e.g., labeling the processes of the water
cycle) or by creating a product (e.g., drawing a concept
map for the water cycle).
For instance, to assess a Level 3 (i.e., developing) student’s
understanding
of the water cycle, a teacher may ask the stu2. Make the assessment task accessible
dent to draw a representation of it or to summarize what he
Teachers must understand that ELLs’ primary challenge
or she read or learned, using his or her own words.
in science classrooms is a lack of the language and vocabuMoreover, as ELLs move through the languagelary needed to understand and express the many nuances
proficiency levels, tasks should be adapted to continuof content. Unless otherwise identified, ELLs’ cognitive
ously foster language development. For
abilities are on par with those of their
example, students with low language
native-speaking peers. Modifying for Modifying for ELLs does
proficiency may be asked to demonstrate
ELLs does not mean compromising or
knowledge in less language-dependent
not
mean
compromising
lowering the content of the lesson or
ways through drawings, charts, and conthe difficulty of the assessment task; it
or lowering the
cept maps; students with high language
requires making the content or the task
proficiency may be asked to apply what
content
of
the
lesson
comprehensible and attainable.
they learned in new situations and to rely
To fairly assess the science knowl- or the difficulty of the
on increased language skills.
edge of ELLs, teachers need to modify
For instance, a Level 1 (i.e., startassessment task.
the assessment instrument so that stuing) student can participate in a debate
dents can first discern the task and then
about water pollution with appropriate planning and use
subsequently demonstrate knowledge—even when English
of technology resources. Prior to the debate, the learner
proficiency is limited. ELLs must understand the language
researches the topic online using her or his native language,
used in the assessment instrument; teachers should modify
uses emerging language to write statements that argue pros
this language to match their proficiency.
or cons of the issue, gathers images that represent or enhance
To accomplish this task, teachers can highlight key voeach statement, and creates a PowerPoint presentation that
cabulary; avoid reduced or embedded clauses and passive
combines the elements.
voice; and use shorter sentences, high-frequency words, and
In this manner, the Level 1 ELL can participate in the
questions rather than sentence completions (Flaitz 2009).
debate by presenting rather complex arguments with the asFurther, even when limited by language, ELLs need the
sistance of simple, level-appropriate statements and visuals. A
opportunity to demonstrate their content knowledge. This
Level 5 (i.e., bridging) student, on the other hand, can verbally
can be achieved by providing a word bank, allowing students
justify and defend his or her position on the same issue. In
to use pictures instead of words, converting true-or-false
both cases, students demonstrate their content understanding
questions to yes-or-no questions, limiting choices, providing
and simultaneously develop their language skills.
examples, and creating matching items (Flaitz 2009).
If constructed and used effectively, performance-based
It is important to understand that as ELLs develop lanassessments can provide teachers with a more complete
guage, they will make developmental errors. Consequently,
picture of student understanding and progress in the classit may be necessary to focus on content knowledge when
room. More important, having the opportunity to show
grading, rather than spelling and grammar.
their understanding in multiple ways helps build ELLs’
When possible, modifications should be allowed during
confidence in the science classroom.
assessments. ELLs should
uu
uu
uu
take tests in a comfortable and familiar setting,
be permitted to use a bilingual dictionary,
be allowed additional time to complete a test, and
4. Document student growth
Portfolio assessments are an effective way to monitor and
document an ELL’s content and language development
March 2011
43
Teaching Science to ELLs, Part II
themselves and view their input in the learning progress as
throughout the year. Teachers can systematically collect and
meaningful, learning outcomes improve (Heritage 2007).
preserve records of a variety of student work—such as the
It is important to note that teachers must first teach
examples presented in Figure 1 (p. 41)—that reflect growth
students what a self-assessment is and how it is conducted.
in content and language achievement. Portfolios should be
Teachers should provide clear criused to gather evidence of students’
best efforts, rather than store all of Closing the achievement gap teria that are differentiated based
their work.
between ELLs and native on the language-proficiency levels
of students. For instance, Level
By documenting student perforspeakers requires effective 5 (i.e., bridging) students can be
mance over time, portfolios provide
a more complete way to cross-check classroom-based assessment asked to write a reflection on their
science knowledge growth, based
student progress compared with
teachers using a one-time assess- strategies that help teachers on artifacts accumulated in their
portfolios. Students with lower
ment. Portfolios can include samples
and students monitor
language proficiency may be asked
of written student work (e.g., lab
reports), drawings representing stuELLs’ development in both to use visuals to share how they
think they have improved their
dent science knowledge and profilanguage and content.
knowledge, based on the artifacts
ciencies (e.g., a water cycle diagram),
in their portfolios.
and audio or video recordings of oral
work (e.g., presentations and debates). All of these provide
Closing the gap
evidence for student learning of content and language.
Closing the achievement gap between ELLs and native
Portfolios are a collection of student artifacts and do not
speakers requires effective classroom-based assessment
provide a specific answer to a particular question. Therestrategies that help teachers and students monitor ELLs’
fore, teachers should set clear criteria for evaluating this
development in both language and content. If implementtype of comprehensive performance, which demonstrates
ed effectively, the strategies presented here—and in Part
growth in both language and content. The criteria must
I of this series—can benefit both native and nonnative
clearly communicate the expectations and tasks to ELLs
speakers of English alike. n
and address both language and content development.
For instance, artifacts should demonstrate advanceMartha Castañeda ([email protected]) is an assistant
ment in the two productive skills—namely speaking
professor of foreign language education, and Nazan Bautista
and writing—and illustrate development in academic
([email protected]) is an assistant professor of science
language. Moreover, the teacher should consider ELLs’
education, both at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.
language-proficiency levels and set ambitious yet attainable language objectives.
References
Criteria can be presented in the form of a rubric. Teachers should consider students’ content knowledge and language proficiency among their expectations and use these
predetermined criteria to summarize students’ growth.
Although the criteria that focus on content gain and portfolio organization should be comparable for both mainstream
students and ELLs, criteria on language growth should
only be used to document and provide evidence for ELLs’
language development.
To be fair to ELLs, language growth should not be
included in their overall portfolio assessment scores; the
information should be used as a formative assessment to
inform both the teacher and the student on the language
progress. Figure 2 (p. 42) provides a sample portfolio rubric
with a supplementary section for evaluating a Level 3 (i.e.,
developing) ELL.
Portfolios also serve as a great self-assessment tool for
students. They help students learn how to monitor their own
learning and reflect on how well they are doing with regard to
their teacher’s goals. When students are expected to evaluate
44
The Science Teacher
Boyle, A., J. Taylor, S. Hurlburt, and K. Soga. 2010. Title III
accountability: Behind the numbers. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education. www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/titleiii/behind-numbers.pdf
Flaitz, J. 2009. Assessment and English language learners.
Workshop presented at Miami University, Oxford, OH.
Harper, C., and E. de Jong. 2004. Misconceptions about teaching English-language learners. Journal of Adolescent and
Adult Literacy 48 (2): 152–162.
Heritage, M. 2007. Formative assessment: What do teachers
need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan 89 (2): 140–145.
Teachers of English of Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). 2006. PreK–12 English language proficiency standards.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Thomas, W.P., and V.P. Collier. 2002. A national study of school
effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research
on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. http://repositories.
cdlib.org/crede/finalrpts/1_1_final