Week 12 discussion post - CLDE 5030
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Colorado, Denver *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
5030
Subject
Communications
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by marisol321
Week 11 Discussion Post
Both Hopewell and Escamilla and Butvilofsky, Escamilla, Gumina, & Silva Diaz challenge the labeling of emerging bilinguals as “at risk” based on their standardized assessments scores for literacy. The problem being that standardized testing only measures students’ literacy skills in one language instead of all of their literacy skills across both languages. Which standardized tests have “cultural and linguistic biases inherent in the instruments as well as the methodological flaws in the studies” (Hakuta, 1986; Dennis, 1995; Zoref & Williams, 1980 as cited by Hopewell & Escamilla, 2013, p. 69). The reading determination not only determines if a student needs an ILP, but also predicts a student’s future success or trajectory in reading through future grade levels based on the presumption that failing to meet cut scores in third grade is indicative of future lagging, difficulty, or lack of acquiring reading skills. Both Hopewell and Escamilla as well as Butvilofsky, Escamilla, Gumina, & Silva
Diaz pose that these standardized assessments are invalid because they assume that “both monolingual English and emerging bilingual, learn literacy along the same continuum, and therefore, instruction must follow an identified sequence so students will learn and be able to demonstrate these skills with automaticity” (Butvilofsky, Escamilla, Gumina, & Silva Diaz, 2020, p. 54). This is especially devastating since students labeled with the low reading who get placed on an ILP tend to stay on an ILP for a long period of their academic careers, and then will
likely struggle to make academic gains since students on ILP standards tend to get low, shallow instruction focused on basic reading skills, meaning while the educational goal of improving literacy is a focal point students fall behind in deep-thinking skills. Butvilofsky, Escamilla, Gumina, & Silva Diaz argue that “DIBELS has been criticized for contributing to the implementation of reading programs with limited reading curriculum in low-income schools. Furthermore, DIBELS is also responsible for students not having access to high-quality tests (Teal, Paciga, & Hoffman, 2007 as cited by Butvilofsky, Escamilla, Gumina, & Silva Diaz, 2020, p. 54). This is not helpful or productive for students who are do not have delays actual literacy skills if literacy skills are considered across both languages, because many of these emerging bilinguals are just delayed in their English skills. I am sure our literacy teachers and our staff working with students on ILPs would strongly disagree with this assessment of their instructional goals, but it seems that “DIBELS-dictated outcomes and subsequent inverventions relegated students to rote learning of the smallest and most esoteric aspects of text and denied them important opportunities to develop oracy, metalanguage, and writing” (Butvilofsky, Escamilla, Gumina, & Silva Diaz, 2020, p. 67). I like the idea of measuring students across all of the languages they know and speak to measure their cumulative literacy, but this is not standard procedure, so I guess the number one focus of this paper and anyone who sees the validity of this research and the test scores would have to make this alternative method of testing standard practice. I don’t know much about testing this age group (elementary students, specifically third grade students). Apparently there are Spanish versions of traditionally used to test reading skills but “the only assessments that may be used to make this determination are the Developmental Reading Assessment, 2
nd
edition (DRA2), the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and/or the Phonological Awareness for Literacy (PAL)” (Hopewell & Escamilla, 2013, p. 71). While the goal seems to be to measure the “five foundational components of reading (phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension)” Hopewell & Escamilla, 2013, p. 71), it is an incomplete assessment if it doesn’t measure student’s literacy because it only
measures students’ English literacy. This means comparing emerging bilinguals to monolinguals
in education should “establish, use, and normalize criteria that recognize that the bilingual is not two monolinguals in one and […] should not be compared with the trajectories of those who are learning to read and write in only one language (Escamilla & Hopewell, 2010 as cited by Escamilla & Hopewell, 2013, p. 72). The overall goal being to “capitalize on students’ multiple linguistic resources within the bilingual instruction [which begins with the understanding that literacies and languages develop cohesively in reciprocal and mutually supportive ways, and is founded on the idea that Spanish language literacy and English literacy contribute to a broad and unified conceptualization of literacy” (Escamilla & Hopewell, 2013, p. 73) not only for instructional practices, but also for testing practices. If both Hopewell and Escamilla and Butvilofsky, Escamilla, Gumina, & Silva Diaz’s assessment of the DIBELS and other testing used to assess literacy in elementary is flawed, this is not only results in negative outcomes for emerging bilinguals as well as for monolinguals who have literacy struggles because “”these assessments often underestimate what emerging bilingual
learners know about reading, thereby resulting in reduced opportunities to learn” (Butvilofsky, Escamilla, Gumina, & Silva Diaz, 2020, p. 54) thus giving requiring the ascription of expensive literacy resources to emerging bilinguals who aren’t in need of literacy support, and take those supports and resources away from monolinguals who do need them. “In fact, some of the skills most often ‘remediated,’ such as phonemic awareness, or ability to decode words and connect words and ideas in meaningful ways, were readily apparent in students’ Spanish and English writing samples” (Butvilofsky, Escamilla, Gumina, & Silva Diaz, 2020, p. 67). While it is clear that teachers need to know and be able to assess the difference between a struggling reader, and a
emerging bilingual whose literacy skills transgress delineations of languages. The efficacy of testing and the availability of alternative standardized testing that utilizes writing and not just reading assessment, such as a “the Literacy Squared Biliterate Writing Assessment [which] has several advantages. It can capture emerging bilingual literacy behaviors and can contrast them to
monolingual assumptions about struggling readers” (Butvilofsky, Escamilla, Gumina, & Silva Diaz, 2020, p. 68). Because this assessment is cost-effective and con be used in groups and effectively measures students’ literacy skills by assessing trans-lingual literacy proficiencies. It also allows for teachers to use their observations and assessments and can be used alongside traditional Tier 1 supports and fewer interventions, allowing for a more holistic view of emerging biliteracy.
Because I am a high school English teacher and DIBELS is an elementary standardized test that I am not familiar with, my question is for my peers in elementary education, whose students have been the focus of much of our readings: When designing ILP’s how much weight is placed in standardized scores and how much weight is given to formative assessment and students’ performance and abilities in the classroom in an instructional setting? Do you think the
more holisitic assessment of students’ literacy skills, utilizing writing as well as reading skills is a valuable assessment of all students, or just emerging bilinguals? What does that look like in a first-, second-, or third-grade classroom?
References
Butvilofsky, S.A., Escamilla, K., Gumina, D., Silva Diaz, E. (2020). Beyond Monolingual Reading Assessments for Emerging Bilingual Learners: Expanding the Understanding of
Biliteracy Assessment Through Writing. Reading Research Quarterly
, 56(1) pp. 53–70. doi:10.1002/rrq.292. International Literacy Association
Hopewell, S., & Escamilla, K. (2013). Struggling Reader or Emerging Biliterate Student? Reevaluating the Criteria for Labeling Emerging Bilingual Students as Low Achieving. Journal of Literacy Research
, 46(1), 68–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296x13504869.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help