Affordances of Computational Models for English Learners in Science Instruction: Conceptual Foundation and Initial Inquiry

Journal of Science Education and Technology - Computational models are increasingly being used in K-12 science classrooms to engage students in developing and testing explanations of phenomena....     

Building and Supporting a Validity Argument for a Standards‐Based Classroom Assessment of English Proficiency Based on Teacher Judgments

Using an argument‐based approach to validation, this study examines the quality of teacher judgments in the context of a standards‐based classroom assessment of English proficiency. Using Bachman's (2005) assessment use argument (AUA) as a framework for the investigation, this paper first articulates the claims, warrants, rebuttals, and backing needed to justify the link between teachers' scores on the English Language Development (ELD) Classroom Assessment and the interpretations made about students' language ability. Then the paper summarizes the findings of two studies—one quantitative and one qualitative—conducted to gather the necessary backing to support the warrants and, in particular, address the rebuttals about teacher judgments in the argument. The quantitative study examined the assessment in relation to another measure of the same ability—the California English Language Development Test—using confirmatory factor analysis of multitrait‐multimethod data and provided evidence in support of the warrant that states that the ELD Classroom Assessment measures English proficiency as defined by the California ELD Standards. The qualitative study examined the processes teachers engaged in while scoring the classroom assessment using verbal protocol analysis. The findings of this study serve to support the rebuttals in the validity argument that state that there are inconsistencies in teachers' scoring. The paper concludes by providing an explanation for these seemingly contradictory findings using the AUA as a framework and discusses the implications of the findings for the use of standards‐based classroom assessments based on teacher judgments.     

Criteria Teachers Use to Score Performance Items

This article addresses the issue of language-related construct-irrelevant variance on content area tests from the perspective of systemic functional linguistics. We propose that the construct relevance of language used in content area assessments, and consequent claims of construct-irrelevant variance and bias, should be determined according to the degree of correspondence between language use in the assessment and language use in the educational contexts in which the content is learned and used. This can be accomplished by matching the linguistic features of an assessment and the linguistic features of the domain in which the assessment is measuring achievement. This represents a departure from previous work on the assessment of English language learners’ content knowledge that has assumed complex linguistic features are a source of construct irrelevant variance by virtue of their complexity.     

School Resources in Teaching Science to Diverse Student Groups: An Intervention’s Effect on Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions

Elementary school teachers’ perceptions of school resources (i.e., material, human, and social) for teaching science to diverse student groups were examined across three school districts from one state. As part of a 3-year curricular and professional development intervention, we examined the effect on teachers’ perceptions after their first year of participation. The study involved 103 fifth-grade teachers from 33 schools participating in the intervention and 116 teachers from 33 control schools. The teachers completed a survey at the beginning and end of the school year. As a result of the intervention, teachers in the treatment group reported more positive perceptions of school resources than teachers in the control group.     

An investigation of academic writing in secondary schools to inform the development of diagnostic classroom assessments

Despite the high stakes attached to students’ performance on assessments of academic writing, we still know little about the challenges students face when composing in academic contexts. To begin to address this problem, two studies were designed with the following aims: to identify and describe the most prevalent types of academic writing at the secondary level, and to characterize the challenges that both English Language Learners (ELLs) and non-English-Language Learners (non-ELLs) experience with this type of writing. Findings from these studies reveal that (1) in the context of New York City schools, exposition/argument is the most prevalent genre assigned as a writing task in secondary classrooms, as well as the most valued; and that (2) while both Intermediate ELLs and non-ELLs articulated Translating (the process of articulating ideas in the conventions of written English) as the most frequent challenge, the two groups differed in the kinds of Translating challenges and in the types and range of other challenges they articulated: ELLs articulated fewer challenges specifically related to the genre of exposition than did non-ELLs. Based on these findings we suggest several new approaches to classroom diagnostic assessment of writing, and raise issues to be considered in these approaches.