UNIVERSIDAD TÉCNICA PARTICULAR DE LOJA
La Universidad Católica de Loja
NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
MAESTRIA EN ENSEÑANZA DEL INGLÉS COMO LENGUA
EXTRANJERA
An EFL student case study of English as a foreign language in the
Writing skill
–
TEFL program portfolio
Degree thesis
Autor :
Aguirre Aguirre, María Alejandra. Lcda.
Advisor:
Vargas Saritama, Alba Bitalina. Mgs.
II
Mgs. Alba Bitalina Vargas Saritama
THESIS DIRECTOR
CERTIFIES THAT:
The following research work developed by Maria Alejandra Aguirre Aguirre has been thoroughly revised. Therefore, authorizes the presentation of the thesis, which complies with all the norms and internal requirements of the Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja. Consequently, I authorize this presentation for the corresponding legal purposes.
Loja, September, 2012
……….………
III
AUTORSHIP
The thoughts, ideas, opinions and the information obtained through this research are the only responsibility of the author.
Loja, September, 2012
………..
María Alejandra Aguirre Aguirre I.D. 1103391627
IV
CESIÓN DE DERECHOS
Yo María Alejandra Aguirre Aguirre, declaro ser autora del presente trabajo y eximo expresamente a la universidad Técnica Particular de Loja y a sus representantes legales de posibles reclamos o acciones legales.
Adicionalmente declaro conocer y aceptar la disposición del Art.67 del Estatuto Orgánico de la Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja que en su parte pertinente textualmente dice: “Forman parte del patrimonio de la Universidad la propiedad
intelectual de investigaciones, trabajos científicos o técnicos y tesis de grado que se realicen a través o con el apoyo financiero, académico o institucional (operativo) de
la Universidad”.
Loja, September, 2012
………..
V
ACKNOLEDGNMENTS
VI
DEDICATION
VII
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION II
AUTHORSHIP III
CESIÓN DE LOS DERECHOS IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS V
DEDICATION VI
ABSTRACT X
INTRODUCTION XI
METHODOLOGY XIII
LITERATURE REVIEW 1
CHAPTER I: EFL STUDENT CASE STUDY 1.1 Description of the Student and Settings 32
1.2 Pre-Test 34 1.3 Samples of Student Works Description of a country 35
Descriptive writing 36
Non Fiction writing, my birthday 37
Writing dialogs 38
Short stories with dialogues 39
Characters in a fiction story 41
Essay writing 42
1.4. Student self-evaluation 50
CHAPTER II: TEFL PROGRAM PORTFOLIO TEFL PROGRAM PORTFOLIO 52
2.1 Domain 1 Language 2.1.a Language as a System 53
VIII
2.2 Domain 2 Culture
2. 2.a Culture as It Affects Student Learning 62
2.3 Domain 3 Planning, implementing and managing instruction 2.3.a Planning for Standards‐Based ESL and Content
Instruction 74 2.3. b Implementing and Managing Standards‐Based
ESL and Content Instruction 91 2.3.c Resources and Technology Effectively in 136
ESL and Content Instruction
2.4. Domain 4 Assessment 2. 4.a Issues of Assessment for English Language 148
Learners
2. 4.b Language Proficiency Assessment 169 2 4.c Classroom‐Based Assessment for ESL 170
2.5 Domain 5 Professionalism
2.5.a ESL Research and History 171
2 5.b Professional Development, Partnerships, 198
and Advocacy
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 203
IX
ABSTRACT
Portfolio assessment is a learner-centered assessment that focuses on enhancing multiple dimensions of learning. The present thesis shows the development and implementation of two major portfolio assessments. The first one aims to reflect the achievement and improvement of a Korean student in an English-as-a -Foreign-Language (EFL) writing classroom, and includes different samples that indicate how
the students’ writing performance was assessed. The second one, a “Standards Based Positioning Paper”, is a compilation of the author’s entire learning experiences whilst attending a Masters’ TELF program, one which was strongly
linked to TESOL standards (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Standards). The collection of artifacts, and their critiques, highlights the most relevant experiences drawn from the program. In closing, these two major folio components have been supported by widely researched bibliographic and scientific information about assessment and portfolio construction; observing the importance of assessment and its methods, as well as the role of constructivism in assessment and portfolio development.
X
INTRODUCTION
One of the greatest benefits of using portfolios as an assessment instrument is the collection and actual documentation of the growth and improvement of a student. Portfolios have become a major element of the assessment reform; they provide stakeholders an authentic assessment view of the student learning process and promote a fair and direct learning evaluation.
In the assessment of second language teaching, formative and summative evaluations are always part of the evaluation process. The whole experience about compiling portfolios has showed the author the importance of implementing this assessing tool. This thesis has become an interesting opportunity to understand different kinds of assessment and to think critically about how portfolios are great assessment determiners and how constructivism theory plays a great role in the assessment approach.
This paper reported on a descriptive methodology, focuses on the assessment of the writing skill in second language teaching and a professional portfolio assessment in
a Master’s in Teaching as a Second Language Learning program. Chapter one has been based on a collection of seven different writing samples of a Korean student. It includes a deep analysis on her growth and achievement of the writing skill and has
been assessed from a teacher’s point of view. This portfolio contrasts features of English and Korean language and clearly shows some mistake patterns found in the
student’s writing samples as well as her impressive growth into the language and the writing skill.
On the other hand the second chapter is a compilation of different assignments that were chosen based on the TESOL standards (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Standards). This portfolio has indeed contributed to assess the
XI
METHODOLOGY
The EFL Student Case of Study is the result of a collection of writing assignments in a five month period based on a total English language immersion. The research begins with a description of a student setting where the cultural and educational background had been analyzed in detail. Then a pre-test that in this case represents
the student’s first formal writing assignment, has been included and analyzed. After that a collection of seven artifacts or writing samples described and focused on a representation of the student’s weakness and straights, shows the progress of the student throughout the research. Finally a self-evaluation section is presented which represents a self-review on the assessment.
The Standard based paper includes the author’s TELF program portfolio which
presents the analysis of different assignments developed through two years of study over a Master’s program. The collected artifacts have been compared and classified
LITERATURE REVIEW
Assessment in education
Assessment is defined as a process for obtaining information about students’ continuous knowledge and is fundamental for making decisions about the student’s
progress and educational policies. Green and Johnson (2010 p. 388) define assessment very concisely as: “The variety of methods used to determine what students know and are able to do before, during and after instruction.” Walker, (2005 p. 1) asserts that assessment include any activity that assists to provide feedback to the teacher and student about the learning process, and adds that when the more variety of tools are used in the assessment process, the more complete will be the picture of what the student know and can do. This educational strategy can be useful to inform and guide instruction; using a variety of assessment tools, teachers can be able to determine effective instructional strategies and modify the non-effective ones.
In the educational process, assessment plays a crucial role since it determines much
of the student’s work and indicates the aspects of the course that have been valued
most highly. The main reasons to assess students are motivation, creating learning opportunities, to give feedback (both to students and teachers), to grade, and as a quality assurance mechanism. Dudley-Evans and St John (1998, p. 210), see
“assessment as an aid to learning encompasses benefits such as reinforcement,
confidence building, involvement and building of strength”.
Educational testing can be described as the practice of making objective and practical judgments regarding the planned goals to which the learner has meet, exceed or failed to achieve; generally assenting tools have an impact over the educational process; Hughes (1989) states the necessity of considering the effects that the use of some determinate tools produce not just over certain individuals but over teaching,
introducing the term backwash which has been defined as “the effect of testing on
teaching and learning”, and asserts that testing can have either a beneficial or a
1
explain that it is important that assessment procedures should give a clear indication of what learners are learning.
Assessment tends to be purposed by the teacher taking into account the classroom
outcomes and the school’s standards and have the objective to determine whether the student made a progress o what the different issues are concerning for not obtaining the wished results. Swanepoel and Venter (2004 p.233) consider that “assessment consists of a task or a series of tasks that are set by the teacher to learn more about a
learner’s knowledge, skills and attitudes, in order to determine whether the learner has satisfactorily achieved all the set outcomes or standards”.
Assessment and the constructivism theory
Constructivism is a theory that is based or learning and knowledge. Founded and proposed by Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky, this theory centers its attention on learning as active constructive process. Constructivists have stated that education should be learner-based and that “knowledge must develop and continue to change with the activity of the learner” Driscoll (2000, p. 379). Constructivism is based on human learning construction and how learners build ideas or concepts based on previous knowledge or experiences influencing the construction of learning.
“Constructivism is a theory of learning, and it is also a theory of knowing. It is an
epistemological concept that draws from a variety of fields, including philosophy,
psychology, and science” (Walker & Lambert, 1995 p. 1).
Traditional assessment makes reference to a formal manner of assessing by judging
the students’ results in a test score, measuring the student improvement based on a
correct answer, creating a risk to the student’s creative thinking when trying to answer an evaluation. On the other hand constructivism is founded into the idea of meaning and understanding construction under the reflection of our experiences. Because meaning requires understanding, the learning process should be focused on primary concepts rather that in remote facts. According to this model teachers must reinforce meaning construction taking into consideration the students’ mental models and how
2
Making reference to the traditional and cognitive assessment, Brooks and Brooks (1993 p. 87) states “the student is not assessed in isolation but in conjunction with the teacher and both learn as a result of the assessment”. This author considers that a constructivist teacher encourages initiative in the learning process using different kind of materials, creative learning opportunities where students could build relationships, dialogs, understanding and natural curiosity guiding students through appropriate processes in order to arrive to solid conclusions.
Constructivists believe that assessment should be used as an instrument to improve both the student's learning and the teacher's understanding of the student's current
understanding. O’Malley and Valdez (1996 p. 186) state that “students can play a role in the assessment process by evaluating their own language development, content knowledge and strategies for learning”.
Chang M, (n/d p. 1), mentions that the “constructivist approach encourages students to predict, explain, debate, defend their ideas, and uses student-centered interaction, and a conventional teacher-centered approach were designed to compare the student
learning”.
Assessment methods
In order to choose the best assessment methods, it is particularly useful to think about what qualities or abilities are expected to find in the learners and to offer variety of assessing tools, so they can develop their abilities in a broader manner. According to the Department of Education (1998), there are four assessment methods that can be used in classrooms: self-assessment, peer assessment, group assessment and teacher assessment.
Self-assessment takes place when the learners have the chance to assess their own work. Curtz (n/d, IE1) affirms that “Self-assessment encourages students to reflect on their learning and results in their consciously improving how they learn. Because self-assessment is new for most students, instructors can implement strategies to support
3
future understanding. According to Orlich et al ( 2010 p, 322) “ when learners reflect or stand back from the learning process to think about learning strategies and their progress as learners, they own and become responsible for their own learning”.
Peer assessment happens when peers assess each other in the classroom, giving helpful feedback for their peers work. According to the Department of Education (2010
p. 9), “one way in which learners internalize the characteristics of good quality work is by assessing the work of their peers”. This kind of assessment can provide constructive feedback by involving formative reviews and summative grading.
Group assessment is the kind of evaluation that happens when groups asses themselves in the classroom context. Van den Berg (2004:283) states that group assessment assists learners to be focused in the assignment and to drive their work through the assessment standards towards the achievement of the set outcomes.
Finally, teacher assessment which is the traditional method of assessment used in classrooms can be described in terms of results as one of the most effective ones. In
this method the teacher is in charge of assessing and evaluating the students’ growth
and the classroom outcomes. Van den Berg (2004) says this “is important so that the teacher can determine what learners know, what they can do and what their problem areas are”.
Assessment in the classroom does not have to be attached to a test format, furthermore the assessing options are wide and if they are chosen wisely based on the class objectives there are more opportunities of applying the validity and reliability principles.
4
One of the biggest problems in testing application and design for most teachers, is the lack of experience in constructing the necessary tools or strategies in order to fulfill the evaluating goal and furthermore some important elements would not be wisely chosen or purposed in the test, as a consequence the effect and the impact that the test would have on the students and the teaching process will end in a harmful or not successful experience.
Types of assessment
Formative and summative assessments are an integral part of the learner’s
information gathering. Classroom assessments can include different options based on the class objectives, starting from standardized tests to direct classroom observation. These options can be distributed into formative and summative assessment.
Black and William (1998, p. 870), define formative assessment as “all those activities
undertaken by teachers, and by the students in assessing themselves, which provide information to be used as feedback to modify the teaching and learning activities in
which they are engaged.” This kind of assessment is used in the improvement of
educational programs since it includes different strategies to determine the learners’
achievements in the purposed learning goals. The result can be useful to validate and modify instruction. Graves, (2000, p. 208), affirms that “formative assessment takes
place as the course is in progress and provides information about how well the students are doing what they have achieved, what they need to work on and how well
the course is meeting their needs”. According to Orlich, et al (2010 p. 323)” Under
normal circumstances, formative assessments would comprise daily quizzes, homework, and short assessment exercises. As evidenced in current research, timely and relevant feedback is one of the most important factors for improving learner
achievement”
Summative assessment on the other hand, is used to evaluate how effective an academic year program has been on a determinate time, or the results of an instructional program. Summative assessment is an “overview of previous learning”
(Black & William, 1998 p.28). The purpose of these kinds of evaluations is to
5
providing feedback to the different stakeholders about the quality of the program and it works as a great resource to determine if students have mastered specific learning competences. Some examples of this tests are final exams, standardized tests such as the TOEFL, SAT, MAP or GRE. As Orlich, et al (2010 p.323) argue, “summative assessments also have an important instructional dimension. They provide an overall
picture of learners’ progress at a given time, such as at the end of the term or year or
on transfer to another school”.
Reliability and validity
Some of the essential measurement concepts are related with reliability and validity. Validity and reliability are two important characteristics of a good test which need to be understood in order to produce accurate tests to be applied to our students since these principles are fundamental pillars over assessment. It must be ensured that the instrument to be designed will enclose validity and reliability because it will allow obtaining reliable and objective answers, contributing to give meaning and significance of the results allowing teachers to make correct generalizations about the students’
performance without measurement errors and have a high degree of confidence on the collected data.
The term reliability is concerned with the consistency of the actual measuring instrument or procedure, tested in a same group of candidates in the extent to which the results are similar over different forms of the same instrument or occasions of test administration. There are different factors that might affect reliability such as test length, group composition whether it is a homogenous or a heterogeneous; and local independence on the test items.
In order for tests to be more reliable Hughes (2008 p.36), suggests different ways of achieving consistent performances from candidates:
• take enough samples of behavior,
• exclude items which do not discriminate well between weaker and stronger students,
• do not allow candidates too much freedom,
6
• provide clear and explicit instructions,
• ensure that the tests are well laid out and perfectly legible,
• candidates should be familiar with format and testing techniques,
• provide uniform and non-distracting conditions of administration,
• use items that permit scoring which is as objective as possible,
• make comparisons between candidates as direct as possible,
• provide a detailed scoring key,
• train scorers , agree on acceptable responses an appropriate scores at outset of scoring.
• Identify candidates by number, not name, employ multiple, independent scoring.
Hughes (2003, p. 26) refers to the validity principle as “a test is said to be valid if it
measures accurately what it is intended to measure”. Additionally, content validity
makes reference to how well an instrument of evaluation measures what it is supposed to measure. According to Hughes (2008), tests have content validity if they reflect the language skills and structures with which it is meant to be concerned. Content validity, called logical or rational validity refers to the relevant domain of content to measure something specific (Shuttleworth, 2009).Tests which possess content validity are primary concerned with the accuracy with which the different test items and skills are adequately and representatively samples of the content area that is supposed to be measured. For example, if we want to test whether a class of beginners can produce examples of the present simple with the verb to be for introductions, we must make sure that the questions based on the simple present and language about introductions.
7
Hughes (2003) explains that it is necessary to follow some important criteria in order to produce a valid test. It consists on writing explicit specifications for the test taking into consideration the skills that are intended to be measured. In order to achieve the degree to which the assessment will serve its intended purpose, it is important to include information such as content, text structure, timing, medium-channel, and techniques to be used, criteria levels of performance, and scoring procedures. Another major aspect to be considered in this topic is the relevance of the contents purpose; the test items must represent a clear sample of the content area to be measured. In order words, the test must have content validity.
The second step for writing a valid test is to use direct testing as much as possible; this kind of testing provides teachers information about how well students have mastered learning outcomes and get a precise student performance in simple way; additionally, direct testing provides a constructive backwash effect since practice for the test provides students practice of the skills teachers intend to reach. Third, it is important to make sure that the scoring of the response relates directly to what is being tested; it is necessary to think on the purpose and objectives of the assessment in order to have a clear idea on which forms of evidence should be given consideration, and the final step is do everything possible to make the test reliable with consistency of assessment scores.
Portfolios
Nowadays teachers have followed different kinds of assessing methods such as teacher observation, projects, essays, and other creative ways of evaluating student achievement. Portfolios have recently become used as an effective tool in all curricular areas in order to use clear evidence of mastery in a subject learning matter and academic accomplishment. Dreyer (2000 p. 272) affirms that “a well designed portfolio
can motivate learners, show teachers and parents what learners know and can do, and can encourage learners to engage in self-reflection”.
8
to strengthen a particular skill and to use different kinds of intelligences to accomplish it. Portfolios are a collection of evidence that allow the teacher and the students to understand the learning process. Within this assessment strategy, students can self-evaluate their knowledge and teachers could be able to make decisions about the same process.
Portfolios are defined as systematic, purposeful and meaningful compilation of
students’ works; they are instructional approaches that highlights the student's role in
constructing understanding and as they same way the teacher's role in promoting understanding, they may include inputs from different stakeholders such as teachers, students, parents, school and National standards.
Venn, (2000, p. 530-531), describes a portfolio as a “systematic collection of the student work and related material that depicts a student's activities, accomplishments, and achievements in one or more school subjects. The collection should include evidence of student reflection and self-evaluation, guidelines for selecting the portfolio
contents, and criteria for judging the quality of the work”. Additionally Paulson, F.L. Paulson, P. (1991) denotes that portfolios should represent a collection of students' best work or best efforts, student-selected samples of work experiences related to outcomes being assessed, and documents according growth and development toward mastering identified outcomes.
Portfolios contain different pieces of a student’s work; they demonstrate the different stages on the student’s mastery of content and language. Portfolios can represent
useful tools for all areas such as math, geography, language arts or history combining projects and subject areas. For instance, writing portfolios in the language arts area may contain letters, fiction papers, poetry, drafts, research papers or any other content based instruction. Sometimes portfolios are used like as a showcase to demonstrate
exemplary pieces or the student’s performance over a period of time. As cited by Snowman and McCown, (200, p. 493), “ in its best and truest sense, the portfolio functions not just as housing for these performances but also as a means of self-expression, self-reflection, and self-analysis for an individual student” (Chang, 2009;
9
As it was said before, portfolios collect students’ works, it gives clear evidence on the mastery of skills, attitudes and applied knowledge. Collecting samples is part of a
metacognitive process; the samples included in a portfolio project are called “artifacts”
and these should try to be mostly student based. When compelling artifacts for this kind of assessment, there are some considerations to think about such as the purposes for collecting samples and the owner’s wishes. When a purpose has been set, it delineates criteria for judgment and when students make decisions about the selection and quality of the selected artifacts they begin to establish standards that can be evaluated easily later.
Grosvenor (1993) lists three basic models of portfolios; the showcase model, consisting of work samples chosen by the student, the descriptive model, consisting of representative work of the student, with no attempt at evaluation and finally the evaluative model, consisting of representative products that have been evaluated by criteria.
Artifacts in Portfolio
Writing assessment portfolios can include different kinds of items. Most of them are generated by the students like reports, essays, creative writing and short stories; they can work as illustrators of the range of the assignment; the goals, audience and project specifications. These often contain a short introduction to the reader explaining why each piece has been included. They may contain a brief explanation based on a checklist and purposed of the project. It also includes a self-assessment chart that
clearly shows the learner’s point of view about the project in order to establish
recommendations or other comments, it should contain a reflective element where the student can have the chance to analyze and test her or his own strengths and weaknesses as a learner.
Essays and reports
The inclusion of different kinds of essays in portfolios represents a great opportunity to
10
Creative writing
Creative writing artifacts serve to demonstrate the learner’s imagination, metaphorical,
figurative language and thinking and a vivid use of language.
Sequels
This kind of writing assignment demonstrates the student’s imagination,
comprehension on a story line, characterization understanding and the ability to make predictions or talk about a specific topic.
Problem statement and solution papers
This kind of paper will prove the student’s capacity and understanding over
formulating hypothesis and predicting solutions, it provides comprehension and reasoning abilities.
Response logs and reviews
This kind of artifacts usually written in a free style way are done in response to a reading assignment. It stimulates critical thinking and reflection about the test. It provides comprehension and appreciation for texts of different genre.
Collaborative works
Working with collaborative groups, provide an opportunity to develop knowledge interactively assessing interpersonal behaviors, discussions, task completion.
Self-assessment checklists
Self-assessment checklists are mayor components in portfolio programs. Finding the
students’ self-reflection and criteria helps to find a deep reflection about their work and the standards by each work is measured.
Portfolio assessment
Portfolios have been categorized as an assessment tool because it represents a classroom-based performance that can be fully integrated into the curriculum.
Traditionally, in order to assess the student’s achievements, teacher use standardized
11
them. However this kind of assessment alone does not represent or provide enough information about the individual student progress or achievement; furthermore traditional tests sometimes cannot be reliable and authentic. Educators and researchers believe that portfolio assessments are more effective than "old-style" tests for measuring academic skills and informing instructional decisions. Portfolios can represent and give the advantage to create a tendency to save artifacts and analyze how this work samples can improve their future work.
The portfolio assessment is a multi-faceted process characterized because it provides both formative and summative opportunities for monitoring students' progress toward achieving essential outcomes. It provides collaborative reflection in the student’s thinking process and it is multidimensional because it reflects the students’ learning
process.
In order to evaluate a portfolio, teachers need to define and set the purpose of the
project. Because artifacts demonstrates the students’ learned abilities in a period of time the examination of growth over an specific period should be part of the defined objectives. In this evaluation process teachers should be aware of developing a sense of progress, create criteria on self-evaluation, set individual goals, empower students developing a sense of ownership on their projects; teachers should also be aware of creating real life learning opportunities and to facilitate discussions about goals and means.
Although there is no single correct way to develop portfolio programs, in all of them students are expected to collect, select, and reflect. According to George, P. (1995), portfolios reinforce the following characteristics:
They clearly reflect stated learner outcomes identified in the core or essential curriculum that students are expected to study.
They focus upon students' performance-based learning experiences as well as their acquisition of key knowledge, skills, and attitudes.
They contain samples of work that stretch over an entire marking period, rather than single points in time.
12
They contain a variety of work samples and evaluations of that work by the student, peers, and teachers, possible even parents' reactions.
In the same way DeFina (1992 p.13) lists the following assumptions about portfolio assessment:
• Portfolios are systematic, purposeful, and meaningful collections of students' works in one or more subject areas.
• Students of any age or grade level can learn not only to select pieces to be placed into their portfolios but can also learn to establish criteria for their selections.
• Portfolio collections may include input by teachers, parents, peers, and school administrators.
• In all cases, portfolios should reflect the actual day-to-day learning activities of students.
• Portfolios should be ongoing so that they show the students' efforts, progress, and achievements over a period of time.
• Portfolios may contain several compartments, or subfolders.
• Selected works in portfolios may be in a variety of media and may be multidimensional."
Portfolios and authentic assessment
“A portfolio is a purposeful collection of student’s work that demonstrate to students and others their efforts, progress, and achievements in given areas. (Genesee & Upshur 1996, p. 99)
Paulson, Paulson & Meyer (1991, p. 60), agree that “a portfolio is a purposeful
collection of students work that exhibits the students’ efforts, progress, and achievements in one or more areas”. Assessment allows opportunities to observe students in a broader context likewise taking risks, developing creative solutions, and making judgments about their own performance.
13
traditional ones which gives the teacher a better perspective about the student learning. Portfolios are a student based material, it authenticates the learning process focused on the process and product of the project; Winsor and Ellefson (1995), in relation to the learning process and learning product, define that portfolio is a fusion of process and its product since portfolios presents a realistic and reliable performance of the learner, it gives the opportunity to improve the relationship of the involved stakeholders and develops a better learning environment and self-evaluation.
Portfolios can be described as an authentic assessment tool because students perform authentic tasks with a meaningful application of skills and knowledge. Since it
captures a collection of artifacts which describe compelling stories about the students’
talents and skills though authentic performances, students show reflection in their work in order to engage self-assessment and goal settings.
Benefits from Portfolio Assessment
“Portfolios are a collection of student work that allows assessment by providing evidence of effort and accomplishments in relation to specific instructional goals (Jardine, 1996, p. 252-253). There are many benefits when assessing knowledge using portfolios; since the project is emphasize on the entire learning process rather than just a one-time performance, students are able to show their advance and performance and at the same time to discover their weaknesses increasing their motivation and satisfaction.
Portfolio assessment can serve as an evidence of multiple benefits for learners and teachers; they document students’ growth and development and help the teacher to
determine the effectiveness of the program or the weak points of it. Portfolio
assessments provide an authentic manner of demonstrating the students’
14
Paulson, Paulson & Meyer (1991, 61), affirm that “portfolios have the potential to
reveal a lot about their creator. They can become a window into the students’ heads, a
means for both staff and students to understand the educational process at the level of the individual learning”.
TESOL STANDARDS
Standard 1.a. Language as a System
Candidates demonstrate understanding of language as a system, including phonology, morphology, syntax, pragmatics and semantics, and support ELLs as they acquire English language and literacy in order to achieve in the content areas.
Supporting Explanation
Candidates need a conscious knowledge of language as a system to be effective language teachers. Components of the language system include phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse varieties, aspects of social and academic language, rhetorical registers, and writing conventions. Teachers use
knowledge of these interrelated aspects of language as they support ELLs’ acquisition
of English.
Candidates understand the ways in which languages are similar and different. They identify linguistic structures that distinguish written and spoken language forms as well as those representing social and academic uses of language. Candidates understand
that one’s first language (L1) may affect learning English.
Programs and states identify languages commonly spoken by students in their communities. Candidates relate their knowledge of English to these languages, as well as others they may encounter. Candidates build on similarities between English
15
Candidates apply knowledge of language variation, including dialects and discourse varieties, to their instructional practice. Candidates serve as good models of spoken and written English.
1.a.1. Demonstrates knowledge of the components of language and language as an integrative system
1.a.2. Apply knowledge of phonology (the sound system), morphology (the structure of words), syntax (phrase and sentence structure), semantics (word/sentence meaning), and pragmatics (the effect of context on language) to help ELLs develop oral, reading, and writing skills (including mechanics) in English.
1.a.3. Demonstrate knowledge of rhetorical and discourse structures as applied to ESOL learning.
1.a.4. Demonstrate proficiency in English and serve as a good language model for ELLs.
Standard 1.b. Language Acquisition and Development
Candidates understand and apply theories and research in language acquisition and
development to support their ELLs’ English language and literacy learning and
content-area achievement.
Supporting Explanation.
Candidates understand that acquiring English for social and academic purposes takes a long time. ELLs often understand linguistic concepts intellectually while still needing time to fully comprehend all of the elements. On the other hand, candidates should expect students to have difficulty with the marked linguistic phenomena of the second language (L2) because these unusual forms often confound and confuse L2 learners. Candidates understand the communicative, social, and constructive nature of language and are able to use linguistic scaffolding to aid ELLs’ comprehension and
16
Candidates understand the role of personal and affective variables in language learning and establish secure, motivating classrooms in which ELLs are encouraged to take risks and use language productively, extending their conceptual knowledge as well as their language and literacy skills.
Candidates understand how different theories of language acquisition (for L1 and L2) have shaped views of how language is learned, ranging from nativist to cognitive and social interactionist perspectives. Candidates are familiar with key research in factors that influence the acquisition of English, such as the amount and quality of prior formal education in an English-dominant country, the age of arrival and length of residence in an English-dominant environment, developmental stages and sequences, the effects of instruction and feedback, the role of L1 transfer, L2 input, and communicative interaction. They are able to take pertinent issues in second language acquisition (SLA) into account when planning for instruction and apply these SLA findings in the classroom. Candidates also understand that individual learner variables such as age and cognitive development, literacy level in the L1, personality, motivation, and learning style can affect learning in the L1 and L2. Candidates understand the processes of language and literacy development, use this knowledge to provide optimal language input, and set appropriate goals and tasks for integrated oral and written language development. Candidates are familiar with developmental stages of language acquisition (including interlanguage) and understand that errors are often signs of language learning.
Candidates understand that language acquisition and development are affected by age, previous education, and personal experience. They are aware that linguistic structures are often acquired by implicit means rather than explicit direction, particularly with younger learners.
Candidates understand that aspects of ELLs’ L1 may be transferred to English and may affect an individual student’s learning.
17
literacy, it may be more difficult for ELLs to acquire L2 literacy. Candidates understand that ELLs come to class with previously developed language skills, and when
appropriate, they extend and use a student’s L1 as a resource for learning the new
language and for learning in other areas. Candidates understand that proficiency in an L2 (or subsequent language) does not have to come at the cost of the L1. They are aware of the possible negative effects of losing a home language and encourage the maintenance and development of students’ L1s, even when formal bilingual programs
are not available.
Candidates understand the sociolinguistic variables affecting the learning of an L2 and the maintenance of an L1. They understand the systematic nature of code switching and know that code switching is a rule-driven communication strategy used for participating in social interaction, building community, and expressing identity.
1.b.1. Demonstrate understanding of current and historical theories and research in language acquisition as applied to ELLs.
1.b.2 Candidates understand theories and research that explain how L1 literacy development differs from L2 literacy development.
1.b.3. Recognize the importance of ELLs’ L1s and language varieties and build on
these skills as a foundation for learning English.
1.b.4. Understand and apply knowledge of sociocultural, psychological, and political variables to facilitate the process of learning English.
1.b.5. Understand and apply knowledge of the role of individual learner variables in the process of learning English.
Domain 2. Culture
Candidates know, understand, and use major concepts, principles, theories, and research related to the nature and role of culture and cultural groups to construct supportive learning environments for ELLs.
18
Candidates know, understand, and use major theories and research related to the nature and role of culture in their instruction. They demonstrate understanding of how cultural groups and individual cultural identities affect language learning and school achievement.
Supporting Explanation.
Candidates recognize that language and culture interact in the formation of students’ cultural identities. They further recognize that students’ identities are tied closely to
their sense of self-worth, which is correlated to their academic achievement. Candidates know that all students can learn more readily when cultural factors are recognized, respected, and accommodated, and they demonstrate that knowledge in
their practice. They further understand that students’ academic achievement can suffer if classroom instruction does not respect students’ cultural identities.
Candidates address cross-cultural conflicts, such as stereotyping and bullying, using a combination of cultural appreciation techniques and conflict resolution strategies.
Candidates use information about their students’ backgrounds to choose appropriate
and effective teaching techniques. They use their knowledge of cultural diversity to foster critical thinking and improve student achievement.
The nature and role of culture encompasses such factors as cultural relativism, cultural universalism, the additive nature of culture, intra‐ and intergroup differences, the interrelationship between language and culture, and the effect of this relationship on learning. It also recognizes the various stages of acculturation and assimilation. Taking these and other factors into account, candidates design lessons that embed instruction in the appropriate cultural context.
19
Candidates understand the importance of the home culture and involve ESOL families
and community members in students’ learning. They understand that multicultural
inquiries and interactions among students and colleagues foster critical discourse, systemic discovery, and multiplicity in approaches to academics.
2.a. Understand and apply knowledge about cultural values and beliefs in the context of teaching and learning.
2.b. Understand and apply knowledge about the effects of racism, stereotyping, and discrimination to teaching and learning.
2.c. Understand and apply knowledge about cultural conflicts and home events that
can have an impact on ELLs’ learning.
2.d. Understand and apply knowledge about communication between home and school to enhance ESL teaching and build partnerships with ESOL families.
2.e. Understand and apply concepts about the interrelationship between language and culture.
2.f. Use a range of resources, including the Internet, to learn about world cultures and specifically the cultures of students in their classrooms and apply that learning to instruction.
2.g. Understand and apply concepts of cultural competency, particularly knowledge about how an individual’s cultural identity affects their learning and academic progress
and how levels of cultural identity will vary widely among students.
Domain 3. Planning, Implementing, and Managing Instruction
20
technology as well as choose and adapt classroom resources appropriate for their ELLs.
Standard 3.a. Planning for Standards-Based ESL and Content Instruction
Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts, research, and best practices to plan classroom instruction in a supportive learning environment for ELLs. They plan for multilevel classrooms with learners from diverse backgrounds using standards-based ESL and content curriculum.
Supporting Explanation
Candidates assess students’ knowledge using multiple measures (see Domain 4) and
address their students’ diverse backgrounds, developmental needs, and English
proficiency as they plan their instruction. They plan toward specific standards-based ESL and content-based objectives but include multiple ways of presenting material. They collaborate with general education and content-area teachers to ensure that ELLs access the whole curriculum while learning English.
Candidates design their classrooms as supportive, positive climates for learning. They model positive attitudes and interactions and respect for the perspectives of others. Language-building activities are student centered, incorporating cooperative learning and flexible grouping.
Candidates recognize the needs of students with interrupted formal education (SIFE) in acclimating to the school environment. They plan for a broad spectrum of instructional techniques in a variety of settings in which students interact, use their first language whenever possible, and learn reading strategies that emphasize comprehension and writing strategies that emphasize communication.
3.a.1. Plan standards-based ESL and content instruction
21
3.a.3. Plan differentiated learning experiences based on assessment of students’
English and L1 proficiency, learning styles, and prior formal educational experiences and knowledge.
3.a.4. Provide for particular needs of students with interrupted formal education (SIFE).
3.a.5 Plan for instruction that embeds assessment, includes scaffolding, and provides re-teaching when necessary for students to successfully meet learning objectives.
Standard 3.b. Implementing and Managing Standards-Based ESL and Content
Instruction
Candidates know, manage, and implement a variety of standards-based teaching strategies and techniques for developing and integrating English listening, speaking,
reading, and writing. Candidates support ELLs’ access to the core curriculum by
teaching language through academic content. Supporting Explanation
Candidates provide ESL and content instruction and assessment that are standards based and that integrate listening, speaking, reading, and writing for purposes that are relevant and meaningful to students. Candidates provide a wide variety of activities for students to develop and practice their listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills in social and academic environments. Candidates base activities on student interests, texts, and themes, a range of genres, and personal experiences to enhance students’
comprehension and communication.
Candidates view language and content learning as joint means to achieve ELLs’
22
3.b.1. Organize learning around standards-based subject matter and language learning objectives.
3.b.2. Incorporate activities, tasks, and assignments that develop authentic uses of language as students learn academic vocabulary and content-area material.
3.b.3. Provide activities and materials that integrate listening, speaking, reading, and writing.
3.b.4. Develop students’ listening skills for a variety of academic and social purposes.
3.b.5. Develop students’ speaking skills for a variety of academic and social purposes.
3.b.6. Provide standards-based instruction that builds on students’ oral English to
support learning to read and write.
3.b.7. Provide standards-based reading instruction adapted to ELLs.
3.b.8. Provide standards-based writing instruction adapted to ELLs. Develop students’ writing through a range of activities, from sentence formation to expository writing.
Standard 3.c. Using Resources and Technology Effectively in ESL and Content
Instruction
Candidates are familiar with a wide range of standards-based materials, resources, and technologies, and choose, adapt, and use them in effective ESL and content teaching.
Supporting Explanation
23
stages of learning. They can also determine how and when it is appropriate to use L1 resources to support learning.
Candidates are capable of finding, creating, adapting, and using a wide range of print and non-print resources, including ESL curricula, trade books, audiovisual materials, and online multimedia. They also are knowledgeable regarding the selection and use of technology, such as computer software and Internet resources, to enhance language and content instruction.
3.c.1. Select, adapt, and use culturally responsive, age-appropriate, and linguistically accessible materials.
3.c.2. Select materials and other resources that are appropriate to students’
developing language and content-area abilities, including appropriate use of L1.
3.c.3. Employ a variety of materials for language learning, including books, visual aids, props, and realia.
3.c.4. Use technological resources (e.g., Web, software, computers, and related devices) to enhance language and content-area instruction for ELLs.
Domain 4. Assessment
Candidates demonstrate understanding of issues and concepts of assessment and use standards-based procedures with ELLs.
Standard 4.a. Issues of Assessment for English Language Learners
Candidates demonstrate understanding of various assessment issues as they affect ELLs, such as accountability, bias, special education testing, language proficiency, and accommodations in formal testing situations.
Supporting Explanation
24
so that they are prepared to assess ELLs. For example, measures of knowledge or ability (including language) that are standards based should be equitable (fair), accurate (valid), consistent (reliable), and practical (easy) to administer. Authentic or performance-based assessment measures often best meet these criteria while addressing students as individuals. These measures should be both formative (ongoing) and summative (proficiency testing) and include both languages where possible. The more closely assessment tasks resemble instructional activities,
particularly those relevant to English learners’ lives, the more likely the tasks are to accurately assess what has been taught and learned and to inform further instruction. Candidates also demonstrate understanding of issues around accountability such as implications of norm-referenced standardized assessment and other high‐ stakes testing. They understand the differences between these kinds of assessment and alternative assessments and also understand issues of accommodation for ELLs in formal testing situations.
Candidates understand how assessments for native English speakers and English learners differ and the variety of ways in which assessments of English learners may be biased and therefore invalid measures of what they know and can do. Such assessments may contain cultural bias (e.g., images or references that are unfamiliar to ELLs). Assessments may also contain linguistic bias (e.g., items overtly or implicitly favoring speakers of standard dialects or items that are more difficult for ELLs because of complex language). ELLs may also be challenged in formal testing situations if they are unfamiliar with item types (e.g., multiple choice) or response formats (e.g., bubble sheets), or if they are unfamiliar with timed, competitive, high-stakes testing. Candidates should be able to identify such biasing elements in assessment situations and work to help ELLs become familiar with the content and conditions of tests in school.
Candidates work with other professionals (e.g., speech pathologists, psychologists, special educators) who assess ELLs in order to distinguish the differences among normal language development, language differences, and learning problems. They understand that learning problems, as well as factors identifying gifted and talented students, should be verified in the student’s native language, if possible. Candidates
25
contacts, other teachers, other learners from the same cultural group, teaching style, the curriculum) to make appropriate adjustments before concluding the problem resides within the learner and making a referral for special education.
4.a.1. Demonstrate an understanding of the purposes of assessment as they relate to ELLs and use results appropriately.
4.a.2 Knowledgeable about and able to use a variety of assessment procedures for ELLs.
4.a.3. Demonstrate an understanding of key indicators of good assessment instruments.
4.a.4. Demonstrate understanding of the advantages and limitations of assessments, including accommodations for ELLs.
4.a.5. Distinguish among ELLs’ language differences, giftedness, and special
education needs.
Standard 4.b. Language Proficiency Assessment
Candidates know and can use a variety of standards-based language proficiency instruments to show language growth and to inform their instruction. They demonstrate understanding of their uses for identification, placement, and reclassification of ELLs.
Supporting Explanation
Candidates are familiar with national and state requirements, procedures, and instruments for ELL identification, reclassification, and exit from language support
programs. They use available language proficiency test results to identify ELLs’
language skills. They also use criterion and norm-referenced language proficiency instruments, both formative and summative, as appropriate. Candidates design
assessment tasks that measure students’ discrete and integrated language skills and
26
Candidates are aware that the term language proficiency assessment may be used synonymously with language achievement assessment and, hence, is usually summative in nature. Candidates know that these assessments are designed to show language growth over time and to identify areas that need more work. Candidates know how to interpret the results of language proficiency assessments and how to apply the results in classroom instruction.
4.b.1. Understand and implement national and state requirements for identification, reclassification, and exit of ELLs from language support programs
4.b.2. Understand the appropriate use of norm-referenced assessments with ELLs.
4.b.3. Assess ELLs’ language skills and communicative competence using multiple
sources of information.
Standard 4.c. Classroom-Based Assessment for ESL
Candidates know and can use a variety of performance‐ based assessment tools and techniques to inform instruction for in the classroom.
Supporting Explanation
Candidates understand the interdependent relationship between teaching and assessment and can develop instructional tasks and assessment tools that promote and measure student learning. They are familiar with assessment goals, tools, and
tasks appropriate for ELLs that correspond with the program’s philosophy, the unit’s
conceptual framework, as well as state and national standards in ESOL. Candidates
can assess learners’ content-area achievement independently from their language ability and should be able to adapt classroom tests and tasks for ELLs at varying stages of English language and literacy development. They also understand the importance of assessing language skills in an integrative way.
27
home assignments. Using authentic examples is a characteristic of unbiased performance assessment. Performance assessments help candidates evaluate
students’ complex thinking (the ability to write a summary is demonstrated through a written summary; the ability to orally debate an issue is demonstrated through an oral debate). Candidates are familiar with and can use a variety of rubrics to assess portfolios and their individual contents. They also understand that self-assessment and peer-assessment techniques can be used regularly to encourage students to monitor and take control of their own learning.
Candidates develop classroom assessments using a variety of item types and elicitation and response formats to assess students’ receptive and productive language skills. Candidates assess their ELLs’ English literacy skills appropriately. They understand the implication of assessing language and literacy skills in students’
native languages. They also know how to interpret test results and plan instruction based on those results.
Candidates understand that some classroom reading assessments designed for native speakers, such as independent oral reading, may be uninformative or misleading as assessment tools for ELLs who may be overly concerned with the pronunciation demands of the task and pay less attention to comprehension.
4.c.1. Use performance-based assessment tools and tasks that measure ELLs’ progress.
4.c.2. Understand and use criterion-referenced assessments appropriately with ELLs.
4.c.3. Use various instruments and techniques to assess content-area learning (e.g., math, science, social studies) for ELLs at varying levels of language and literacy development.
4.c.4. Prepare ELLs to use self and peerassessment techniques when appropriate.
4.c.5. Use a variety of rubrics to assess ELLs’ language development in classroom
28
Domain 5. Professionalism
Candidates keep current with new instructional techniques, research results, advances in the ESL field, and education policy issues and demonstrate knowledge of the history of ESL teaching. They use such information to reflect on and improve their instruction and assessment practices. Candidates work collaboratively with school staff and the community to improve the learning environment, provide support, and advocate for ELLs and their families
.
Standard 5.a. ESL Research and History
Candidates demonstrate knowledge of history, research, educational public policy, and current practice in the field of ESL teaching and apply this knowledge to inform teaching and learning.
Supporting Explanation
Candidates are familiar with the history of ESL teaching and stay current with recent research, methodologies, and strategies in the field. They use this knowledge to design effective instruction for ELLs.
Candidates understand legal processes, mandates, and policies that have had an impact on the development of the field of ESL. They are knowledgeable about the history of legal decisions (e.g., Lau v. Nichols) and national legislation (e.g., No Child Left Behind) and their subsequent application to the instruction of ELLs. They can explain the impact of state and federal legislation on their classrooms and the school’s
community.
5.a.1. Demonstrate knowledge of language teaching methods in their historical contexts.
5.a.2. Demonstrate knowledge of the evolution of laws and policy in the ESL profession.
29
Standard 5.b. Professional Development, Partnerships, and Advocacy
Candidates take advantage of professional growth opportunities and demonstrate the ability to build partnerships with colleagues and students’ families, serve as
community resources, and advocate for ELLs.
Supporting Explanation
Candidates actively participate in professional growth opportunities, including those offered by appropriate organizations, and they can articulate their own philosophy of education.
Candidates view ESOL families as vital resources that inform their classrooms and
schools. They promote the important roles that families play in their children’s
linguistic, academic, and personal development. Candidates are aware of resources in the community to assist ELLs and their families and share this information with students, families, and professional colleagues.
Candidates know and understand public issues that affect the education of ELLs, and they support ELLs and their families socially and politically.
Candidates promote a school environment that values diverse student populations and provides equitable access to resources for ELLs. They collaborate with school staff to provide educational opportunities for ELLs with diverse learning needs at all English proficiency levels.
Candidates advocate for appropriate instruction and assessment by sharing their knowledge of ELLs with their general-education and content-area colleagues and the community. They also advocate for equal access to educational resources for ELLs, including technology.
5.b.1. Participate in professional growth opportunities.
30
5.b.3. Work with other teachers and staff to provide comprehensive, challenging educational opportunities for ELLs in the school.
5.b.4. Engage in collaborative teaching in general education, content-area, special education, and gifted classrooms.
5.b.5. Advocate for ELLs’ access to academic classes, resources, and instructional
technology.
5.b.6 Support ELL families.
31
CHAPTER I
EFL Student Case Study
One of the main reasons for analyzing this particular student’s set of writing pieces is
because I find interesting to understand and compare the language model that English and Korean language have. In this portfolio the writing skills of an Asian girl writing who comes from a Korean background with a weak English instruction that has been immersed in a total English education program will be analyzed. I consider this opportunity a really interesting one in order to analyze her mistakes patterns and analyzing her writing process in about five months of English formal instruction, and including the fifth grade content that is required for her educational process. This portfolio would imply an ample resource of information which involves many components of linguistics and sociolinguistics features.
Without any doubt there are significant differences between Korean and English language particularly in sentence structure and the morphology of the language. Some of the most visible differences start from the alphabet set which consists in only fourteen consonants and six vowels in contrast to English. Secondly grammar is as well different; contrary to English, Korean has a sentence structure where the verb and its tense are added to the end of the verb in a Subject-Object-verb structure where the speaker addresses the action to be done at the end of the sentence, which is different from English, since it uses auxiliaries and has a Subject-Verb-Object structure. Articles, plurals and prepositions imply another set of differences between
the two languages. Articles such as “the, an or a” are not used, the plural of nouns are not required or stated in a different way and articles such as “with” are commonly
used at the after the pronoun. Finally, Korean pays special attention in politeness and social norms, Korean pronouns change based on the honorifics, the degree of familiarity between the person speaking and the one that is described by the pronoun.
1.1 Description of the Student and Setting
32
school. This private nonprofit international center has been accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). This program provides English language instruction from Nursery to K12; additionally all courses have been designed to meet U.S diploma standards. Approximately a 60% of the students’ population is native English; the other percentage is divided between Spanish, Korean, Afrikaans, Indian and German speakers. The school has set an ELL support program which is in charge of students who have not met the level of English language proficiency they
should, according to the school’s standards. In this department, academic a co-teaching support is offered to teachers and students.
The ELL department, works under the SIOP® model and assesses ESL students with the WIDA® Measure of Developing English Language program. This assessing program has been divided in three stages of grade level clusters: one to five, six to eight, and nine to twelve. Each stage has several descriptors which are differentiated according to the four skills: reading, writing, speaking and listening. Each score on the
test is a holistic score reflection of an overall assessment of the student’s performance
in regard evaluation criteria of each skill; they are based on three principles: linguistic complexity, vocabulary usage and language control. The language proficiency levels delineate expected performance and describe what ELLs can do with each language domain for the standards for the designated grade level clusters.
