2014
DOI: 10.1002/tesq.177
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Sociocognitive Perspective on Assessing EL Students in the Age of Common Core and Next Generation Science Standards

Abstract: Subject-area standards such as Common Core State Standards for Language Arts and Mathematics and Next Generation Science Standards offer deeper, richer views of subject-area proficiency. In science, they underscore doing things with facts and concepts, such as explaining, planning, and investigating-activities that are intertwined with language, with specialized structures and functions of academic English. This article explores the implications of a sociocognitive view of learning for assessment based on thes… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There are also problems of test validity and (mis)use related to extremely high‐stakes content tests across the United States. The reality is that, even when intended to assess academic content knowledge, any English‐medium test is actually a language proficiency exam for an English learner, because proficiency mediates test performance (Menken, ; Mislevy & Durán, ). While certain accommodations appear more effective than others, language proficiency level is still correlated to content test performance (see Cook, Linquanti, Chinen, & Jung, ); overall research on the effectiveness of accommodations for emergent bilinguals remains inconclusive (Schissel, ; Solórzano, ).…”
Section: Standards‐based Language Assessment In the United States: A mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…There are also problems of test validity and (mis)use related to extremely high‐stakes content tests across the United States. The reality is that, even when intended to assess academic content knowledge, any English‐medium test is actually a language proficiency exam for an English learner, because proficiency mediates test performance (Menken, ; Mislevy & Durán, ). While certain accommodations appear more effective than others, language proficiency level is still correlated to content test performance (see Cook, Linquanti, Chinen, & Jung, ); overall research on the effectiveness of accommodations for emergent bilinguals remains inconclusive (Schissel, ; Solórzano, ).…”
Section: Standards‐based Language Assessment In the United States: A mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This contrasts with the situation in the United States, where, as Menken describes, the focus is on high‐stakes standardized testing for accountability. A common thread between the countries is how issues of validity arise when emergent bilinguals are included into assessments intended for English monolinguals without appropriate differentiation, and when assessments are used for purposes beyond their design (see also Mislevy & Durán, ).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the development of these truly heteroglossic ideological and implementation spaces within the context of the CCSS are threatened by the potential development of assessments based on monoglossic language ideologies that will be used to measure student mastery of the standards (see also Mislevy &Durán, 2014, andMenken et al, 2014). Two testing consortia have formed to create standards-based tests that are aligned with the CCSS: the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers (PARCC).…”
Section: The Common Core State Standardsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, skepticism about the value of learning progressions has been expressed (e.g., Mislevy & Durán, ; Shavelson & Kurpius, ). The skepticism arises from the difficulty of modeling cognition, of representing and taking account of the multitude of differences among individuals (Steedle & Shavelson, ), and from the under‐researched nature of learning progressions (Shavelson & Kurpius, ).…”
Section: Learning Progressionsmentioning
confidence: 99%