Developing an Alternate English Language Proficiency Assessment System: A Theory of Action

Abstract

The purpose of this report is to propose a theory of action for the development of an alternate English language proficiency assessment (AELPA) system to support the integrated instruction and assessment for English learners with significant cognitive disabilities (ELSCDs). This theory of action examines the purposes of an ELP assessment system based on the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) regulations requiring the assessment of all ELSCDs. This report seeks to inform assessment considerations for the development of an AELPA system for state education agencies (SEAs) and test developers. This theory of action identifies assumptions, purposes, and goals for assessment development and includes a logic model to represent system claims. The report ends with a discussion of unintended consequences and ways to mitigate them, as well as future research recommendations.

Teacher Professional Development in Developing English Assessments Through TPACK

“…Some studies examined from a diverse perspective. Several studies examined several reasons in learning assessments development: development and assessment of the English grammar asynchronous online learning module before being applied in real lesson (Anthony & Satria, 2020), development of an English speaking skill assessment model for grade six (6) students by using portfolio (Daruwan et al, 2015), designing ICT competences-integrated assessment instruments of English language assessment and language assessment instrument development courses for English language education study program (Devitri & Sulistyaningrum, 2019), English as a lingua franca: implications for pedagogy and assessment (Fan, 2017), developing an alternate English language proficiency assessment system: a theory of action (Gholson & Guzman-Orth, 2019), a call for language assessment literacy in the Education and development of teachers of English as a foreign language (Herrera & Macias, 2015), the development of sustainable assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic: the case of the English language program in South Korea (Joo & Choi, 2021), identifying the areas for English language teacher development: a study of assessment literacy (Kağan, 2016), multilingual assessment of early child development: analyses from repeated observations of children in Kenya (Kanuer et. al., 2019), developing classroom language assessment benchmarks for Japanese teachers of English as a foreign language (Kimura et al, 2017), the assessment of successful emotion regulation skills use: development and validation of an English version of the emotion regulation skills questionnaire (Michaela, Salsman & Berking, 2018), assessment-for-learning teaching mode based on interactive teaching approach in college English (Sun et al, 2020), issues, challenges, and future directions for multilingual assessment (Yangting & Li, 2020), and analysis on the reliability and validity of teachers' self-designed English listening test (Zhencong, Li & Diao, 2020), Technological pedagogical and content knowledge in English and non-English Language Learning have been extensively studied, too.…”

Instructionally Embedded Assessment: Theory of Action for an Innovative System

“…Required for Race to the Top (2010) grant applicants, theories of action depict causal models that include posited claims and relationships between claims (National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), 2018). While their use originated in the program evaluation literature (e.g., Patton, 1989), programs have adopted theories of action for state accountability systems (Marion et al, 2016), educator development (Graziano et al, 2017), assessment systems (e.g., Bennett, 2010;Sireci, 2015), and assessment types (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2018;Gholson and Guzman-Orth, 2019). Theories of action are also used in assessment validation; claims in the theory of action are evaluated by collecting evidence to determine the extent to which they are supported and defensible (Chalhoub-Deville, 2016;Clark and Karvonen, 2020).…”