Analyzing language demands facing English learners on science performance assessments: The SALD framework

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 47, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 909-928

  Shaw, Jerome M ^a   Bunch, George C ^a   Geaney, Edward R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Analytical framework; English learners; Equity; Language and literacy; Performance assessment; Textual analysis

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; RESEARCH;

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK; ENGLISH LEARNERS; EQUITY; LANGUAGE AND LITERACY; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; TEXTUAL ANALYSIS;

FACINGS;

EID: 77957554721     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20364     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Abedi, J. (2003). Impact of student background on content-based performance: Analysis of extant data (Tech. Rep. No. 603). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
3. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
4. August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5. Bailey, A. L. (Ed.). (2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test. New Heaven, CT: Yale University Press.
6. Bazerman, C. (2006). Analyzing the multidimensionality of texts in education. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 77-94).
7. Bazerman, C., & Prior, P. (2004). What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Bell, B. (2007). Classroom assessment of science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 965-1006). New York: Routledge.
9. Bloome, D., Careter, S. P, Christian, B. M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2005). Discourse analysis & the study of classroom language and literacy events: A microethnographic perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Brecht, R. D., & Walton, A. R. (1994). National strategic planning in the less commonly taught languages. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 532, 190-212.
11. Brown, B. (2006). "Isn't no slang that can be said about this stuff": Language, identity, and appropriating science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 96-126.
12. Brown, B. A., Reveles, J. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 5(5), 779-802.
13. Bunch, G. C. (2009). "Going up there": Challenges and opportunities for language minority students during a mainstream classroom speech event. Linguistics and Education, 2(2), 81-108.
14. Bunch, G. C, Shaw, J. M., & Geaney, E. R. (in press). Documenting the language demands of mainstream content-area assessment for English learners: Participant structures, communicative modes and genre in science performance assessments. Language and Education.
15. Carley, K. (1993). Coding choices for textual analysis: A comparison of content analysis and map analysis. Sociological Methodology, 23, 75-126.
16. Cazden, C. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 432-463). New York: Macmillan.
17. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Heinemann.
18. Freedle, R. O., & Duran, R. P. (1987). Cognitive and linguistic analyses of test performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
19. Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
20. Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 2(2), 247-273.
21. Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English language learners: Bridges from language proficiency to academic achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
22. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
23. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 4(4), 431-473.
24. Hill, C. (1994). Testing and assessment: An applied linguistics perspective. Educational Assessment, 3(3), 179-212.
25. Hukin, T (2004). Content analysis: What texts talk about. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 13-32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. Hymes, D. (2003). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In C. B. Paulston & G. R. Tucker (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: The essential readings. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
27. Johnson, R. L., Penny, J. A., & Gordon, B. (2009). Assessing performance: Designing, scoring, and validating performance tasks. New York: The Guilford Press.
28. Klentschy, M. P. (2008). Using science notebooks in elementary classrooms. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
29. Kopriva, R. J. (2008). Improving testing for English language learners. New York: Routledge.
30. Kuerbis, P. J., & Mooney, L. B. (2008). Using assessment design as a model of professional development. In J. Coffey, R. Douglas, & C. Stearns (Eds.), Assessing science learning: Perspectives from research and practice (pp. 409-426). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
31. Lee, O. (2005). Science education with English language learners: Synthesis and research agenda. Review of Educational Research, 4(4), 491-530.
32. Lee, O., & Fradd, S. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 4(4), 12-21.
33. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
34. Martin, J. R. (1993). Literacy in science: Learning to handle text as technology. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 166-202). New York: Routledge.
35. Martin, K., & Miller, E. (1988). Storytelling and science. Language Arts, 3(3), 255-259.
36. Martiniello, M. (2008). Language and the performance of English-language learners in math word problems. Harvard Educational Review, 2(2), 333-368.
37. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College.
39. Moje, E. B., Collazo, T, Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W (2001). "Maestro, what is 'quality'?": Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4(4), 469-498.
40. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
41. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
42. National Research Council. (2001). Classroom assessment and the National Science Education Standards. Committee on Classroom Assessment and the National Science Education Standards. In J. Myron Atkin, P. Black, & J. Coffey (Eds.), Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
43. National Science Resources Center. (1991). Microworlds teacher's guide. Burlington, NC: Carolina Biological Supply.
44. National Science Resources Center. (1994). Food chemistry teacher's guide. Burlington, NC: Carolina Biological Supply.
45. National Science Resources Center. (1996). Ecosystem's teacher's guide. Burlington, NC: Carolina Biological Supply.
46. National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. (1996). Standards for foreign language learning: Preparing for the 21st century. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
47. O'Malley, J. M., & Valdez Pierce, L. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical approaches for teachers. Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley.
48. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
49. Perakyla, A. (2005). Analyzing text and talk. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 869-886). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50. Philips, S. U. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in the community and classroom. In C. B. Cazden, V. P John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 370-394). New York: Teachers College Press.
51. Pitoniak, M. J., Young, J. W., Martiniello, M., King, T. C., Buteux, A., & Ginsburgh, M. (2009). Guidelines for the assessment of English language learners. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
52. Porter, A. C. (2006). Curriculum assessment. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & PB. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 141-159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
53. Renshaw, P., & Brown, A. J. (2007). Formats of classroom talk for integrating everyday and scientific discourse: Replacement, interweaving, contextual privileging and pastiche. Language and Education, 6(6), 531-549.
54. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
55. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
56. Shaftel, J., Belton-Kocher, E., Glasnapp, D., & Poggio, J. (2006). The impact of language characteristics in mathematics test items on the performance of English language learners and students with disabilities. Educational Assessment, 2(2), 105-126.
57. Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Pine, J. (1992). Performance assessments: Political rhetoric and measurement reality. Educational Researcher, 4(4), 22-27.
58. Shaw, J. M. (1997). Threats to the validity of science performance assessments for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7(7), 721-743.
59. Shaw, J. M. (2009). Science performance assessment and English learners: An exploratory study. The Electronic Journal of Literacy Through Science, 8(3), http://ejlts.ucdavis.edu/volume/8.
60. Siegel, M. A. (2007). Striving for equitable classroom assessments for linguistic minorities: Strategies for and effects of revising life science items. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6(6), 864-881.
61. Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text, and interaction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
62. Sinclair, J. M. H., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
63. Solano-Flores, G. (2006). Language, dialect, and register: Sociolinguistics and the estimation of measurement error in the testing of English language learners. The Teachers College Record, 11(11), 2354-2379.
64. Solorzano, R. W. (2008). High stakes testing: Issues, implications, and remedies for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 2(2), 260-329.
65. Spurlin, Q. (1995). Making science comprehensible for language minority students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2(2), 71-78.
66. STEP-uP (Science Teacher Enhancement Program unifying the Pikes Peak Region). (2003). Embedded assessment package for ecosystems. Colorado Springs, CO: STEP-uP.
67. STEP-uP (Science Teacher Enhancement Program unifying the Pikes Peak Region). (2004). Embedded assessment package for food chemistry. Colorado Springs, CO: STEP-uP.
68. STEP-uP (Science Teacher Enhancement Program unifying the Pikes Peak Region). (2005). Embedded assessment package for microworlds. Colorado Springs, CO: STEP-uP.
69. Stiggins, R. J. (2005). Student-involved assessment FOR learning. Columbus, OH: Pearson.
70. Stoddart, T, Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and language development for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8(8), 664-687.
71. Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 4(4), 393-429.
72. Valdes, G., & Geoffrion-Vinci, M. (1998). Chicano Spanish: The problem of the "underdeveloped" code in bilingual repertoires. Modern Language Journal, 82 (iv), 473-501.
73. Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean-Scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 160-195). London: Cassell.
74. Warren, B., Ballenger, C, Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(5), 529-552.
75. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
76. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.