It all sounds good, but……
There is solid advice in this
recent ELL brief that we read and there is little that I would disagree
with. In fact, many of the strategies suggested
are not only good ELL instruction tactics, but they are great methods to ensure
that every student grasps all language and content concepts, ELL student or not. Also, using multiple forms of differentiation
combined with well-defined and coherent instruction is probably the best
approach to education, as the brief suggests.
However, the most common issue I hear among current teachers is the
unfair methods of assessment in which ELL students are subjected to.
The brief claims that steps should
be taken in order to assure fair assessment of ELLs, but in reality it seems
little has happened. Until fair assessment
is arranged for ELLs, it does not seem logical to hold them to standards that
are unrealistic for them to meet. But an
even greater problem is establishing what a fair assessment might be. ELL students are entering schools with vast
discrepancies in English language abilities, which creates an almost impossible
task of establishing a standard assessment.
It is also argued among some educational leaders that there is not yet enough
research to refer to and establish any sort of norms for such a varied field. Therefore, ELL instructors are somewhat
limited to their best efforts through differentiated and high quality
instruction.
I have read other articles that address
the difficulties that ELL instruction faces and most of the articles seem to
ask more questions than they appear to answer.
Especially when one considers the many types of ELL instruction that
students can receive such as bilingual instruction, sheltered instruction, or
English emersion, it is difficult to set benchmarks for students with varied
abilities to reach. A particular method
of instruction might suit one student, while another student learns more
effectively through another. And there
is a high probability that students’ learning preferences and efficacy evolve
and adapt through improving language skills, with no clear indication of when
this process occurs. Therefore,
establishing a standardized method of assessment might never prove useful.
Here are some articles by Claude
Goldenberg. He is one of the leading
researchers in the field of ELL. I
suggest you read what he has to say.
Although most of his content elaborates the general message of the
ELL brief, he also offers further insight to instructional techniques and the
current state of ELL research. Check it
out….
You make many valid points. It is unfair to hold students accountable when the standards are unrealistic. However, is it the standards or the tests that are unrealistic?You state that "Until fair assessment is arranged for ELLs, it does not seem logical to hold them to standards that are unrealistic for them to meet." To me, the test would be more fair if it were done in the students' native language (at least until the student is more proficient in the new language). However, the standards the kids would be tested on could still be unrealistic, despite the use of the aforementioned fair test. The schools could still ask students to learn a language at the same time they learn content. So instead this more fair test would still have a disconnect with the standards being used. In my opinion, both the standards and the test need to change. Not just one.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the assessment may not show that the learner is improving, which is extremely frustrating. It is still helpful to know how best to teach these students. You can try and use some of the information to make the most impact you can despite the unfavorable extenuating circumstances.
I agree with your last comment that there may never be a fair way to assess ELLs. I imagine that when you are learning a new language as well as new material it doesn't have a chance to "sink in" the same way it would if you were learning in your native language. We know that your native language has a better chance of reaching your emotions. When people become passionately irritated, they don't speak their second language, they speak the one that gets to their emotions. We need to recognize too that learning English is important, but making sure that education is reaching the students wholeheartedly so that they are internalizing the information and learning to use it. Assessing that with students who are linguistically in limbo seems impossible. I don't feel qualified enough to really make any solid claims, but I have learned a second language. When I am reading things in that language I have to translate into my own language, some concepts. Not necessarily words, but translate the understanding of what is being said. This is a strange idea to grasp. I think that's why there are more questions than there are answers.
ReplyDeleteLast semester I attended a conference and the speaker was a woman from CF. She spoke about introducing more programs that allowed the students to learn in their native language. I think that sometimes learning English is given too high a priority. I do believe it is important and immersion is highly successful, but there is something to be said for making sure that students are given opportunities to learn subjects in their native language. Then they can be better assessed on core instruction in their native language. I know that this brings a new argument about money and who would create these and assess them, etc. We can leave hat for another day...:)