Academic Standards and ELL Proficiency Standards

Order Custom Paper Only For $10 Per 250 Words

Academic Standards and ELL Proficiency Standards

            Federal law, as specified in NCLB or (The No Child Left Behind Act), needs states to contain ELL learners in state evaluations and assess learners’ language proficiency with valid, trustworthy evaluations in the areas of oral language and reading and writing expertise, more particularly command, speaking, listening, reading and writing (Davies, 2008). These evaluations must also help in learners’ achievement of the state’s academic attainment standards. Said in a different way, these evaluations are to be intended to evaluate “Academic English” (Davies, 2008). As a consequence, there needs to be a connection between English language proficiency standards and a state’s academic content standards.

            English language proficiency standards must, at a minimum, is connected to the State academic content and attainment standards. States are supported, but not needed, to align English language proficiency standards with academic content and attainment standards (Klingner, 2008). Annual assessable attainment objectives for English language proficiency work as targets for attainments of the English language proficiency standards. English language proficiency evaluations must be aligned with English language proficiency standards and give a means of illustrating progress towards encountering the English language proficiency annual measurable attainment goals.

            The alignment of evaluation systems to state standards has obtained importance in recent years. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) needs alignment of state evaluations to state standards (HSP, 2007). The idea of alignment is not new. Alignment sand has been a mechanism for promising a test’s content validity. In years past, nevertheless, alignment was often assessed in a very ad hoc fashion. Generally, alignment activity was carried out during a test’s item review. Content professionals reviewed evaluation items and decide if items matched test requirements, test framework documents, or standards. The major purpose in this kind of alignment was to make sure that a test item matched a requirement, framework or standard. Observers have argued that there is more to alignment then just identical (Davies, 2008).

Alignment refers not only to matching items to standards but also to ascertaining the breadth and the cognitive depth of items comparative to standards (Klingner, 2008). A number of alignment policies and methodologies exist. One of the most famous techniques used nowadays is that created by Dr. Norman Webb of the Wisconsin Center for Educational Research. The Webb approach to alignment assesses item match, cognitive difficulty or depth and breadth of coverage. Each alignment element (match, depth, breadth) has related statistics (Klingner, 2008).

To assess match, the statistic Categorical Concurrence issued. Categorical Concurrence refers to the standard number of items raters allocate to particular standards or curricular objectives. Raters select particular standards, objectives or aims that match every individual test item on rated tests (Lenski, 2010). The number of coded items is averaged across al raters and reported a Categorical Concurrence. Think of this statistic as a proxy for standard numbers of items raters believe address a particular standard or goals. With this method, items can address more than one standard, and raters are permitted to code accordingly (HSP, 2007).

To assess depth, raters evaluate the Depth of Knowledge of standards, objectives and/or goals and the Depth of Knowledge of test items. Depth of knowledge can be described in a number of methods. Webb argues that, Standards differ on the difficulty of what learners are anticipated to recognize and do (Lems and Miller, 2009). Some standards simply anticipate learners to reproduce a factor complete a series of steps while others anticipate learners to reason, extend their thinking, synthesize information from different sources, and make considerable work over time. Alignment on depth-of-knowledge is obtained when the evaluation and standards agree on the cognitive level learners are anticipated to illustrate and are asked to execute (Lenski, 2010).

The final element evaluated in a Webb alignment is breadth. Two statistics are related with breadth: Range and Balance. The Range “standard is met if a similar span of knowledge anticipated of learners by a standard is the same as, or corresponds to, the span of knowledge that learners need in order to correctly answer the evaluation items/activities” (Davies, 2008). If test items are recognized with most, if not al, pertinent goals in a standard, then it is said that there is good Range. In essence, Range evaluates whether all goals within an objective or standard are sufficiently covered. The second statistic evaluating breadth is Balance. Balance refers to the “degree to which one goal is given emphasis on the evaluation is similar to the emphasis given to the other goals within a standard” (Davies, 2008).

Webb alignments concentrate on state assessments and state academic content standards, generally in the areas of reading and math. Federal connecting or alignment guidance explained above varies. Instead of evaluating tests-to-standards (i.e., Webb’s approach), needs recommend conducting standards-to- standards investigations, be they connecting or alignment. A number of processes have been developed to align syllabus in education (HSP, 2007). A very famous instance is the Surveys of Enacted Curriculum. With this method, observers examine connections between standards, instructional practices, and evaluations. The authority of this method is to unveil how standards-based, evaluation assessed systems are realized in the classroom. This method is very comprehensive and informative. It does not solely concentrate on examining two sets of standards perse (HSP, 2007).

On the other hand, a number of statistics are generated as a consequence of the ELP alignment procedure. Four areas are assessed in this kind of alignment: coverage, linguistic complexity, breadth, and linkage to state academic standards. Each area has related statistics. As declared earlier, this alignment procedure is very alike to the Webb alignment model—although not matching and gives similar kinds of statistics. ELP alignment varies from academic content based alignments in a few significant ways (Lems and Miller, 2009). First, English language development standards cover skill-based content and language proficiency. That is, the standards integrate content and linguistic difficulty. To ascertain alignment, both components need to be examined. Therefore, statistics related with ELP alignment give measures of coverage, linguistic complexity, and breadth for skill-based content and for language proficiency standards. The subsequent paragraphs explain each area and the statistics used to assess that element of alignment (Lems and Miller, 2009).

No one statistic can decide the alignment of a test to a state’s standards. All statistics should be utilized in concert to get a complete image of alignment (Lenski¸ 2010). In some situations, a state may intentionally target particular standards on its evaluations, containing more items for some standards than for others. In this situation, the criteria for satisfactory alignment recommended above will not adequately depict the alignment. Nevertheless, criteria should be set before an alignment research is carried out and a justification for each standard should be expressed (Lenski, 2010).

The procedure explained above has been employed in three states with a number of evaluations and English language development standards with achievement. Experience recommends that careful planning and clear vision of the purpose and expected result of the alignment process leads to success.

 

Our Email: papersmaster@gmail.com

Order Custom Paper Only For $10 Per 250 Words

Search Tags: Academic Papers, Term Papers, Research Papers, Dissertations, Thesis, Essay, Editing Services, Proof Reading, A+ Level Essays, Top Papers, A+ Quality Papers, Custom Written Papers, Custom Papers, PHD, MBA, BBA, MSC, MA, History, Political Sciences, Management Sciences, Engineering, Health Issues, Current Issues, School Level Essays, Article Writing, Content Writing,

References

Lems, Kristin and Miller, Leah D. (2009). Teaching Reading to English Language Learners: Insights from Linguistics. New York: The Guilford Press.

Davies, Alan. (2008). Assessing Academic English: Testing English proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lenski, Susan. (2010). Writing Instruction and Assessment for English Language Learners K-8. New York: The Guilford Press.

HSP. (2007). Ell Proficiency Assessment. New York: Hmh School.

Klingner, Janette Kettmann. (2008). Why Do English Language Learners Struggle With Reading: Distinguishing Language Acquisition From Learning Disabilities. New York: Corwin Press.