Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Education
Assessing the reading and writing of low literacy EAL students
Jenny Miller, Joel Windle & Anne Keary ACTA Conference, Cairns, 3-5 July, 2012
28th February 2011 Presentation title 2
3
ARC-DEECD Linkage Project: Designing a model of pedagogy for low literacy refugee-background students
AIMS
• Examine existing pedagogical frameworks for literacy, and their effectiveness for low literacy ESL students
• Develop model of content-based literacy learning that maximizes student engagement and literacy outcomes
PARTICIPANTS
3 schools; 7 teachers; 4 classes (Yr 9 maths, Yr 7-8 English/EAL; Yr 9 science; Yr 10 Sc)
Methodology Phase 1 (2010)
Teacher survey on literacy practices of high school mainstream and EAL teachers (N = 61)
Phase 2 (2011) Action research
3 schools; 7 teachers; 4 classes (Yr 9 maths, Yr 7/8 English/EAL; Yr 9 science, Yr 10 Sc)
Pretest of reading and writing of all students (N = 45)
Teacher workshops on content-based literacy strategies + planning meetings
Classroom observations weekly in each class for 2 terms
Teacher and student interviews
Development and teaching of content-based units of work
Post-test of comprehension and writing
4
Issues with Testing for ESL Students
Standardised tests not useful (normed on mainstream students)
Difficult to find appropriate texts
Cultural bias of some items
Vocabulary/tasks students have not yet experienced
Tests may not measure what they say they measure
28th February 2011 Presentation title 5
Aim of pretest Provide a snapshot of ability in reading and writing to use in planning units
of work
Reading N=49
Writing N=45
(45 ss did both R & W)
The work was assessed against the Victorian DEECD ESL Developmental Continuum P-10
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/studentlearning/teachingresources/esl/default.htm
28th February 2011 Presentation title 6
Tests Reading 1 – running record
TEXTS: S1 & S2 – short factual texts with pictures; S3 – short story; S4 – Yr 8 Science text
Writing 1 – choose image from 6 pictures to write about
Reading 2 – comprehension (WWWW; Q-A; cloze; vocab match)
Writing 2 – choice from four text types
(1. email [ based on comprehension text]; 2. letter; 3. narrative; 4. persuasive)
28th February 2011 Presentation title 7
Running record A. Helps to evaluate
Student strengths and needs
Evidence of self-monitoring
If reading material is appropriate level
Decoding strategies that students use
B. Assessment template based on ESL Course Advice DEECD, 1997.
Criteria – fluency; strategies/skills and use of contextual cues, error, accuracy and self-correction rates; comprehension & vocab.
28th February 2011 Presentation title 8
Example of S2 text
Assessment Criteria Comment Comprehension ‐ Understands main ideas 0 ‐ Detects implied meanings ‐ ‐ Understands vocabulary 0 Strategies/skills ‐ Reads aloud ;luently 2 ‐ Uses punctuation appropriately 3 ‐ Self‐Corrects 0 ‐Accurate pronunciation 2 Uses contextual cues to guess meanings:
‐ Semantic 2 ‐ Syntactic 0 ‐ Graphophonic 3
Error Rate: 1:11
Accuracy Rate: 91%
Self‐Correction Rate: 0
Performance against Assessment criteria (0‐5)
Test results
28th February 2011 Presentation title 11
ESL continuum READING WRITING S1 (early primary)
11 33
S2 (lower primary)
9 11
S3 (middle-upper primary)
11 1
S4 (lower-middle secondary)
14 0
Reading Test Results (N=50)
S1= 11 S2= 9 S3= 11 S4= 14 Over-reliance on visual letter-sound relationship
Pronunciation at times unclear
Comprehension didn’t always match reading level, even at instructional level of reading
Student may not have had oral language to answer comprehension questions
If student helped with a word (infrequent), they remembered for repeated use
28th February 2011 Presentation title 12
Writing Stimulus
28th February 2011 Presentation title 14
Writing criteria (0-5 on each criterion)
Approach to the task (e.g plan)
Expression & intelligibility (legibility, clarity, complexity)
Structure (e.g. format, coherence, cohesion, S-V agreement, tense, spelling, punctuation, revisions)
Purpose & audience (relevance, genre features)
Overall comment
28th February 2011 Presentation title 15
Reading and writing results N = 45
28th February 2011 Presentation title 16
28th February 2011 Presentation title 17
28th February 2011 Presentation title 18
Pedagogical challenge On the basis of this sample, it would be impossible
for teachers to predict the level at which to pitch their classes by the age of the students (ages in the sample ranged from 12 to 18), by whether the class is Year 7 or Year 10, or by whether students arrived two months ago or have been in Australia for six years (to take the full range in the sample).
Implications & observations Reading comprehension is much more than decoding and
needs explicit practice
Teach graphophonic, semantic + syntactic strategies
Assessment vital to inform differentiation
Need to activate and reinforce word knowledge and skills
No clear relationship between oracy and literacy
Spend more time on explicit written language practice and development
28th February 2011 Presentation title 19
28th February 2011 Presentation title 20
