DOCUMENT RESUME FL 013 188 Rodriguez, Victor, Ed.
DOCUMENT RESUMEED 221 053AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCYPUB DATENOTEEDR PRICEDESCRIPTORSFL 013 188Rodriguez, Victor, Ed.Language Proficiency Assessment: What Does That Mean?A Report of the .NABE Pre-Conference Workshop (LosAlamitos, California, April 19, 1980). ProfessionalPapers.National Center for Bilingual Research, Los Alamitos,Calif.National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC.Apr 80112p.; Workshop conducted pursuant to cooperativeagreement 00-CA-80-0001.MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.*Bilingual Education; Bilingual Students; *English(Second Language); Korean; *Language Proficiency;*Language Tests; Oral Language; Reading Skills;Spanish; Testing Problems; Writing SkillsABSTRACTMaterials are presented from a workshop designed toprovide an opportunity for bilingual education researchers andpractitioners to share knowledge, experiences, and concerns relatedto assessing language proficiency. The sessions included: (1) "Formaland Informal Evaluation of Oral English Language Skills," by WilliamRussell; (2) "Assessing English Literacy Skills: Writing," by AnnHumes; (3) "Reading Assessment and the Bilingual Teacher," by LailaFiege-Kollman; (4) "Some Considerations in Constructing andAdministering Language Proficiency Tests," by Bonita Ford; and (5)"Adaptation of English Proficiency Instruments for Korean," byKenneth K. Kim. The workshop evaluation form, along with theparticipants evaluations are appended. **************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the "iginal document.******************************** **************************************
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY ASSESSMENT:WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?A REPORT OF THE NABE PRE-CONFERENCE WOKSHOPEdited by:Victor RodriguezApril, 1980R-1OF EDUCATIONU.S. DEPARTMENTOF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BYINFORMATIONEDUCATIONAL RESOURCESCENTER (ERIC)Ncgbeen reproduced asThis document hasreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.been made to improveMinor changes havereproduction quality.opinions stated in this docuPoints of view orrepresent official NIEment do not necessarityposition or policy.TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."notora renter for bilingual research, 4665 lompson avenue, los alarnitos, CA 90720, telephone (213) 598-0481Rfiofrm.,,,,,w,,,,h,pubbcatton wee prepared under CP0Perative agreemen1 00CA4110001 from the National Institut, Of Education. Department or Education Its contents oo not necessamy reflect the viewsof the Umtod States government. and no official endorsement snood be interredins NalOoai ,,31 awe of Eclucabon or of any other agency of the United States of Education or of any oily, agency2
WORKSHOP REPORTLanguage Proficiency Assessment:What Does That Mean?April19, 1980
FUNDING INFORMATIONPROJECT TITLE:National Center for Bilingual Research (NCBR)GRANT NUMBER:00-CA-80-000lSOURCE OF GRANT:National Institute of Educat"Washington, DCCONTRACTOR:PROJECT STAFF:DISCLAIMER:Southwest Regional Laboratory for EducationalResearch & Development (SWRL)Los Alamitos, CACgndido Antonio de Lein (Director), VictorRodriguez, Robert Berdan, Maryellen Garcia,Kenneth Kim, Bonita Ford, Angelina Veyna,David ThriftThe Workshop presented or reported herein wasconducted pursuant to a Cooperative Agreementfrom the National Institute of Education",However, the opinionsDepartment of Education.necessarilyreflect theexpressed herein do notNationalInstituteofposition or policy of theendorsementbytheEducation, and no officialNational Institute of Education should beinferred.National Center for Bilingual Research4665 lampson AvenueLos Alamitos, CA 90720
FOREWORDby theThe National Center for Bilingual Research was createdLaboratoryNational-Institute of Education (NIE) and Southwest RegionalThefor Educational Research and Development (SWRL) in November, 1979.research unitCenter, which represents the first federally funded majorconductsin bilingualism and bilingual schooling in the United States,and collaborativea range of activ.ities, including research, dissemination,activities in research, training, and technical assistance.pre-conferenceAs part of its activities, the Center conducted aof the Nationalworkshop in conjunction with the Ninth Annual ConferenceProficiencyAssociation for Bilingual Education. The workshop, "Languageheld at SWRL on April 19, 1980.Assessment: What Does That Mean?", wasof the experiencesThis report was developed in an effort to record someand knowledge that were shared during the half-day workshop.anticipates sponsoringThe National Center for Bilingual Researchopportunities forother workshops and conferences to provide moreknowledge,researchers and practitioners to communicate and share theirexperiences, and concerns.Victor E. RodriguezWorkshop Coordinatori i
INTRODUCTION"Language Proficiency Assessment:What Does That Mean?" was theDevelopment intitle of a workshop held at SWRL Educational Research andbyLos Alamitos, CA, on April 19, 1980. The workshop was co-sponsoredin conjunction withSWRL and by the National Center for Bilingual ResearchInternational Bilingualthe pre-conference activities of the Ninth Annualfor BilingualBicultural Education/Conference of the National AssociationEducation.for educationalThe workshop was designed to provide an opportunityexperiences, and concernsresearchers and practitioners to share knowledge,what languagerelated to one particular area of bilingual education:primary focusprofic,iency is and how one measures language proficiency.' Anon-English languages. Asof the workshop was to be the assessment ofalthough bilingualplanning progressed, however, it became apparent that,language proficiency,educators are primarily concerned with assessing oralassessing writing and readingthe implications of language proficiency inskills also had to be addressed.National Center forIn coordinating the conference presentations, theits staff andBilingual Research was fortunate in being able to draw upon13 years has distinguishedthe staff resources of SWRL, which over the pastand in developitself in conducting research in language skills assessmenting curriculum materials for bilingual students.overviewMembers of the SWRL staff were asked to provide a generalproficiency, and to discussof formal and informal assessment of languageThe staff of the Nationalthe assessment of reading and writing skills.of assessing non-EnglishCenter for Bilingual Research addressed the issuelanguages, focusing primarily on Spanish and on Korean.
William Russell, SWRL Member of the Professional Staff, preparedof Language Proficiency,"a presentation on "Formal and Informal AssessmentStudent Placementbased on his work with the SWRL project to develop aLaita Fiege-Kollmann, SWRL Member of theSystem for Bilingual Programs.Teacher"PrIfessional Staff, spoke on "Reading Assessment and the Bilingualreading componentand drew on her experience with the development of theAngeles Unifiedof the Survey of Essential Skills Project for the LosSkills:Ann Humes' topic was, "Assessing English Literacythe Professional Staff, has extensiveWriting." Ms. Humes, SWRL Member ofof her workexperience with the assessment of literacy skills as a resultof Essentialin the SWRL Proficiency Verification System, the LAUSD SurveyPlacement SystemSkills Project, and the Project to Develop a StudentSchool District.for Bilingual Programs.theBonita Ford, Member of the Center's Research Staff, worked onProficie.cy indevelopment of SWRL's Resources for Assc:ssing Language(DAS) for assessingSpanish (RALPS) and on the Diagnostic Assessment Systemjoining theboth English and Spanish language proficiencies prior toHer presentation wasstaff of the National Center for Bilingual Research.and Administering Larguageon "Some Considerations in ConstructingCenter's Research Staff,Proficiency Tests." Kenneth Kim, Member of thewhen attemptingchose to discuss the problems that one might encounterfor use with Asian andto adapt existing language assessment instrumentsHis consulting experience with Los Angelesnon-Indoeuropean languages.the CaliforniaUnified School District, ABC Unified School District, andthis practice isState Department of Education, has convinced him thatlinguistic principles andmore often based on expediency than on soundof scores and, subsequently, withcan cause problems with the interpretationthe classification of students.iv
Seventeen participants attended the half-day workshop.Ninestates were represented and participants included Bilingual ProgramCoordinators, Resource Aides, Teachers, and Teacher Trainers.agenda for the workshop is reproduced on the following page.TheThe reportof the workshop includes papers which were developed subsequent to theworkshop presentations and a workshop evaluation based on questionnairescompleted by the participants.
NCBR/SWRLNABE WorkshopApril 19, 1980AGENDANABE Pro-Conference Workshop"Language Proficiency Assessment--What Does That Mean?"9:30 - 9:45Coffee9:45 - 10:00Introduction:Dr. Victor RodriguezAssociate Director.National Center for Bilingual Research10:00 - 10:20Session #1:Assessing Oral English Language Use.Mr. William RussellMember of the Professional StaffSWRL Educational Research & Development"Formal and Informal Evaluation of OralEngZish Language Skills"10:30 - 11:30Session #2:Assessing English Literacy Skills.Ms. Ann HumesMember of the Professional StaffSWRL Educational Research & Development"Assessing English Writing Skills"Dr. Laiia Fiege-KollmannMember of the Professional StaffSWRL Educational Research & Development"Assessing EngZish Reading Skills"11:3011:45-11:45BREAK12:45Session #3.Assessing Non-English Language Skills.Dr. Bonita FordAssociate Member of the Research StaffNational Center for Bilingual Research"Assessing Spanish Language Proficiency"Dr. Kenneth Kong-On KimMember of the Research StaffNational Center for Bilingual Research"Adapting Language Assessment Instrumentsfor Testing Asian Students"12:45ADJOURN--Bus returns to Convention Centervi
2NCBR/SWRLNABE WorkshopApril 19, 1980IntroductionNABE Pre-Conference WorkshopI.ObjectivesA.B.Learn what language proficiency assessment is.1.Learn approaches which are used to assess language proficiency.2.Learn why approaches work or not,3.Learn about assessing non-English language proficiency.Plan to use the ideas.1.Apply them in your situation2.Seek materials and people to learn more about approaches toassessing language proficiency.3.C.II.Be willing and able to share with others what was learned.ReasonsA.B.C.III.Seek additional training in the use of approaches mentioned.Share the ideas available from various sources which are usuallynot sharsd.Speed up the process of dissemination of researchand ideas.informationGo beyond talking about ideas and being aware of approachesto trying to apply them.RolesA.Be inquisitive and willing to share your experience.B.Take responsibility to make your involvement worthwhile.use this information?Ask yourself: How canIviiiu
FORMAL AWINFORMAL EVALUATION OF ORAL NGLISH LANGUA4 SKILLSNABE Pre-Conference WorkshopWilliam RussellApril 19, 1980fir,ii
7FC),RMAL AND INFORMAL EVALUATION OF ORAL ENGLISH LANGUAGE SKILLSNABE Workshop PresentationWilliam RussellWe have a wide range of bilingual educators present.,A number ofyou ideniify yourselves as school level cobrdinators and resourceteachers, some are classroom teachers, a few are paraprofessionals andat least one is a district level coordinator.Iwill attempt to addressthis presentation to your various needs, especially to the needs ofthose persons who work directly with students.The title of this worICShop.is "Language Assessment:Mean"?What Does ThatSince language assessment measures language proficiency,be assessed.IIwillWhat Does Thatfirst address the question, "Language Proficiency:Mean"?, and thenIwill suggesx some ways that language proficiency canWill distinguish betWeen formal and informal assessmentbelieve both are important.of language proficiency and explain whyThroughout this presentation l'will emphasiie oral language assessmentIas contrasted with reading and writing.Here at SWRL, we recently completed a large scale analys'is ofEnglish proficiency to be used in developing an asessment system forlimited English proficiency (LFP) pupils.Figure1is a diagram ofthe English proficiency analysis produced by that project.The specific purpose of this analysis was to identify the Englishskills minimally necessary for functioning in an all-English languageclassroom.It was designed to be one of the tools that school districtsand others could use for selecting or constructing tests to be usedthe placement of LEP pupils.inThe analysis is-included in a set of docu-ments called Resources for Devejoping a Student Placement System forBilingual Programs, which will be mailed'to all school 4istricts in theUnited States that have Title VII bilingual programs.12
AM WM AIN1111NM MN I allochealca1SwaySkalaMammaPvotsAlsomalNaom,Figure 1.Organiiation of the SWRL English Proficiency Analysis by Cornponent, Area and Subarea.
3You see in Figure1that the first cut we made in the SWRL Englishproficiency analysis was to divide it into Reading, Writing and OralcomponeAts of English profidiency.These in turn were divided into areasand these areas further divided into subareas.Separate tree-graphs foreach of the three components are shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4.The principal sources forfthe Reading and Writing components wereactual textbook series used in classrooms across the country.Page bypage analyses of these texts, together with other information aboutclassroom practices, revealed the skills that children at particularlevels are expected to know.But oral proficiency is not determined byformal instruction as is,reading and writing.So,in place of instruc-tional materials", we consulted studies of actual classroom languagebehavior, psycholinguistic studies of school age native English development, and a SWRL study of vocabulary use.Now, let's look again at Figure 4, the diagram of the Oral component.At the lowest level of this figure, oral language proficiency is dividedinto twelve subareas.from the sourcesIThis analysis was derived from information extractedjust mentioned.Let's pursue the oral language proficiency analysis a step furtherthan Figure 4.Take, for example, the Complex Sentences subarea.further divided into Relative Clauses and Verb Complements.It wasBelow thislevel of analysis, every box on the oral language diagram branches intoactual pupil behaviors.These last two levels of analysis are not shownon Figure 4, but they are listed in the table shown as Figure 5.In reality there are an indefinite number of behaviors for everysubdivision of the analysis, but, for assessment purposes, we areinterested in only those few behaviors that are practically testable.Figure 5 shows the behaviors (skills) listed for the Complex Sentencessubarea of the Sentence Structure area of the Oral Language component.Figure 5 also shows the grade levels to which each of these skills isassigned.
MIS NMIMMNMIflINUM I MN MN I MIIMI 1 1mowREADINGDecodingWenn cturalAnalysis1Figure 2.luProficiency Analysis fur reading.16imm
INNION MI ME s.I11111niermesFigure 3.1 iProficiency Analysis for writing.13
\ORALLANGUAGEH91Language Us*Oral VocabularyClassroomMonossilabioWord1.Dime dossClassroomPrim*MNIn gure 4 Proficiency Analysis for oral language.SonioncosAmbiguousSonioncos2u
7Grade kvel for assessmentSENTENCE STRUCTURE (SS)12345Compkz Sentences (cs)Relative Clauses1100cComprehends relative clauses: relative pronounas subjectI l0OpProduces relative clauses: relative pronoun assubject1200cComprehends relative clauses: relative pronounas object1200pProduces relative clauses: relative pronoun asobject1300cComprehends relative clauses: relative pronounomittedI300pProduces relative clauses: relative pronounomitted1400cComprehends relative clauses: relative pronounwhose1500cComprehends relative clauses: relative pronounpreceded by a prepositionVerb Complements3200c3300c3400cComprehends the presupposed truth of factiveclausesComprehends the roles of the participants insentences with promise followed by an infinitivephraseComprehends the roles of the participants insentences with gigy, hard, fun followed by aninfinitive phrase.4?"FigureA Portion of the Oral Language Analysis at the Skills Level.6
8Each of the skills in the SWRL analysis is extensively specified.For example, let's look at just one of the skills from Figure 5, skillnumber 1200p, "Produces relative clauses:relative pronoun as object."The full specification of this skill is shown in Figure 6.to understand a skillin this analysis is to look at actual examples ofthe behavior in question.cation shown here.The best waySuch examples are given in the full specifi-Also, advice is given here about how to assess thisskill.Up to this point,1have briefly shown how the SWRL analysis ofEnglish proficiency progresses from a first cut into Reading, Writingand Oral Language until the actual skills level is reached. We havebeen looking at a small sample of the analysis of English proficiencywhich was done at SWRL for the Resources for Developing a Student PlaceThese Resources provide a substantialment System for Bilingual Programs,.basis for the selection or construction of tests to assess the EnglishSimilar analyses could be done for otherproficiency of LEP pupils.languages, but1do not know of any.Because of the need for suchproficiency frameworks for other languages, there may be a temptationto translate some of the assessment items that appear in the Resources,but this would be a serious mistake.You have seen the many levels ofanalysis that were used to organize-the skills of the Resources. Asimilar analytic framework for another language would be quite different,and the skills that it would subsume would only occasionally be similarto those for English.As an example of an assessment item in another language, let meshow you two relative clause skills in Spanish together with tasks forThese materialsassessing proficiency in penforming these two skills.are shown in Figure 7.For the Spanish examples,Ipurposely chose skills that are verysimilar to the English skills we just looked at, so that the Spanishexamples would be more understandable, but keep in mind the caveatregarding translating skills.Even these very similar skills relate22
1000'SSCs 12000 (continued)level, the relative clause isTo ease processing requirements at thismodifying either a directlocated at the end of the sentence; i.e.,object or a predicate noun; e.g.:that Jim threw.Direct object: Mary caught the ballJim threw.Predicate noun: This is the ball thatIn addition, at this level,off by pauses).the relative clause is restrictive (not setRelative pronouns that can be used with this type of relative clause arehowever, for the reasonsthat, which, who/whom. Not all are recommended,enumerated below.a)That is the most commonly used pronoun in this type ofThat can be used with either human or nonrelative clause.human nouns although use,with non-human nouns is more common.That:IIb)saw the ball that John hit.saw the boy that the dog bit.in the modifiedWhich: Which is used only with non-human nounsof its use inSomeauthoritiesdonotapprovenoun phrase.restrictive clauses.Isaw the ball which John hit.takes the whom formWho/whom: This type of relative clausesaw the boy whomIspeech;e.g.,in writing and ve4y formalespecially imHowever,whoiscommonlyused,the dog bit.discriminateSludentsshoul
"Assessing English Writing Skills" Dr. Laiia Fiege-Kollmann Member of the Professional Staff SWRL Educational Research & Development "Assessing EngZish Reading Skills" 11:30 11:45 BREAK 11:45-12:45 Session #3. Assessing Non-English Language Skills. Dr. Bonita Ford Associate Member of the Research Staff National Center for Bilingual Research
3. MIL-STDs in the 188 series (MIL-STD-188-XXX) address telecommunication design parameters based on proven technologies. These MIL-STDs are to be used in all new DoD systems and equipment, or major upgrades thereto, to ensure interoperability. The MIL-STD-188 series is subdivided into a MIL-STD-188-100 series, covering common standards for .
20 13.5059 188.05 S Connor 430 389 WW Wolf 21 13.5060 188.05 P Logan 425 244 BH Wolf 22 13.5091 188.00 M McKayla 423 467 WW Wolf 23 13.5095 188.00 R Zavier 426 207 GR Wolf 24 13.5561 187.35 C Bryce 407 110 GR Wolf 25 13.5757 187.08 S Mason 431 207 GR Wolf 26 13.5810 187.01 H Chase 4
Unethical Management Practices Final Employee Commitment Final Pearson Correlation Unethical Management Practices 1.000 0.443 Employee commitment final 0.443 1.000 Sig. (1-tailed) Unethical Management Practices. 0.00 0.000 Employee commitment final 0.000 0.0 N Unethical Management Practices 188 188 Employee Commitment final 188 188
ed 386 802. author. title. institution. report no pub date note available from. pub type. edrs price descriptors. abstract. document resume. ea 027 013. hallak .
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 403 013 PS 024 268 AUTHOR Glenn, Christopher M. TITLE The Longitudinal Assessment Study (LAS): Cycle 4 (Ten. Year)
DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 233 562 FL 013 652. AUTHOR Kennedy, Chris TITLE Language Planning. PUB DATE Oct 82 NOTE. 22p. PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070) -- Journal Articles (080)
DOCUMENT RESUME. HE 013 625. A Report on Health Sciences Education Planning for California: 1980-1982. California State Postsecondary Education Commission, Sacramento. . of nurse practitioners in geriatric health care is examined as the final
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 199 HH8 EA 013 389. AUTHOR. TITLE INSTITUTION PUB DATE. NOTE. EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS. IDENTIFIERS. Benedetto, H
