Use of Curriculum-based Dynamic
Assessment
Assessment as a process for
monitoring student progress
and instruction: The Case of
English Language Learners
Hypothesized Categories of English
Language Learners
Spanish-Speaking Seco nd L anguage L earners
Spanish D o m inant
L o w -achieving in English & Spanish
L o w -achieving in English
Inside and o utside o f special educatio n
N o rm ally achieving in Spanish
T ype 1 L earner
T ype 2 L earner
B ehind academ ically
B ehind academ ically
able to perfo rm tasks presented in
N O T able to perfo rm tasks presented in either
English and/o r Spanish
English o r Spanish
(In general education settings)
Characteristics of Learner
Types

Type 1 Learner




Low achievement
Limited or inadequate
exposure to curriculum
Limited literacy history
Responds to
ESL/Bilingual
instruction, but has
more to catch up

Type 2





Low achievement
May or may not have
had limited or
inadequate exposure to
curriculum
May or may not have
had limited literacy
history
Does not respond well
to ESL/Bilingual
Instruction
Typical ESL/Bilingual
approaches either do
not work or require
intense instruction.
Basic Approach to Assessment
(Ortiz, 1997)

Pre-referral



Ensure instruction is appropriate.
Ensure it is implemented appropriately.
Referral

Language Assessment
• Dominance
• Proficiency


Achievement
Attainment
Assessing the learning environment

Typical Assessments

Evaluate programs
and curricula.
• Are they appropriate
for this student?



Examine whether
students have
received appropriate
instruction.
Evince that child has
not learned what was
taught.
Has alternative
instruction been used?

Recommendations for
ELLs




Are ESL/Bilingual
programs in existence?
Are they being
administered
appropriately?
Has the student fared
well in these programs?
Are a variety of
language-learning
methods being used?
Assessing the Student
(Achievement/attainment)

Typical assessments



Determine if alternative
instruction worked
Initiate pre-referral
services
Identify specific sources
of student difficulty
• Oral language first,
then other literacy
skills
• Then specific subject
areas

Recommendations
for ELLs



Examine curriculumbased work samples
in ESL/Bilingual
instruction
Ensure additional
services have been
exhausted
Identify English/L1
sources of difficulty
Specific Tools for Identifying ELLs



Make appropriate comparisons
Examine language use in multiple
contexts for multiple reasons
Examine second language
difficulties in light of language
acquisition process

Are they developing English as
might be expected?
Characteristics of ELL Writing
Difficulties
Poor simultaneous processing
 Poor handwriting
 Writing verbatim
 Inability to coordinate learned skills
into learning outcomes

Promising Practices
Use of Curriculum-Based
Assessment/Measurement (Idol et
al., 1999, Deno, 1989; Shinn, 1989)
 Use of Dynamic Assessment
(Jitendra & Kame’enui, 1993;
Jitendra, et al., 1998)

Evaluation Factors: Use of CBA

As compared to other second language
learners






Structure and organization of work
Degree of English/L1 Dominance
Use of subject matter conventions
Knowledge of specific vocabulary/definitions
Accuracy and fluency of content
area/language
Identified consistency in accomplishing tasks
from beginning to end
Dynamic Assessment Process
(Jitendra, et al., 1998)







Determine learning tasks to teach the
student
Develop three alternate forms of the task
Use one form as a pre-test
Administer intervention with form 2
Administer a post test after intervention
(form 3)
Analyze results
Design instruction
Assessment of note taking

Organization
incorporates key facts
 systematic (chronological or by topic)


Fluent handwriting


a measure of simultaneous processing
Grouping of ideas
Assessment of Writing
Spelling
 Grammar/mechanics
 Sentence length
 Sentence number
 Sentence completeness according to
increasing level of difficulty
 Maintenance /consistency of topic

Mathematics Think-Aloud
Strategy

Teacher determines the standards-based mathematics
concept or skill to learn:


Determine Pre-requisite skills




Example: student recognizes part-to-whole relationships,
understands key vocabulary terms (numerator, denominator,
digit, single digit, two-digit) and symbols (=, /)
Conduct Pre-requisite skill assessment (CBM & CBA to verify PrS)
Teacher modeling of strategy (I do it)


Example: representing fractions and their equivalents
Example: “first, I need to [factor the numerator with the
denominator to the lowest number, next, I need to [verify that
both fractions are equal], finally, I need to [start the next
fraction and complete the steps]
Teacher and Student use the Mathematics Prompt Sheet to
teach/learn the strategy (we do it)
Student Guided and Independent Practice (You do it)
Monitor and Evaluate Strategy
Use, Progress, and Student
Check-in

Use of systematic teaching process








Explain what will be done and why
Determine and verify vocabulary needed
Describe strategy steps
Modeling and Prompting of steps
Provide exemplars & visuals
Collect strategy and achievement data during instruction &
practice
Provide student opportunities to verify comprehension of
strategy and process (student check-in)
See
http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/ELLsDis16/default.html
for published descriptions
Applications for ELLs with disabilities
in Group and ESL Settings

Evidence for use of think-alouds with ELLs in ESL settings
 Use in conjunction with the CALLA (Chamot, Dale, O’Malley,
& Spanos, 1992)
• For review of Chamot, et al., paper go to
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.
1.20.9610
 A think-aloud procedure was used as a step in preparing for
understanding the problem-solving steps, as a guide during
problem solving and as a reflective (“retrospective”) process
after solving the problem
 Students with language and mathematics ability challenges
(“low ability”) had more difficulty and could benefit from
procedures used in our study (cf. Liu, Barrera, & Thurlow,
2009)
Reading Strategies


Student-Developed Post-Reading Graphic
Organizer
Individualized Student Chunking and
Questioning Aloud
Student Chunking and Questioning Aloud

Identify Pre-requisite Skills


Determine Content


Able to read sentences at instructional level
(word attack and word recognition) for gradelevel content.
Identify and determine standards-based content
reading
Determine Instructional Objective

Given content area and standards-based reading
passages at grade level, the student will
complete content comprehension questions of
the reading passages verbally or in writing with
95% accuracy.
Student Chunking and Questioning Aloud

Provide Teacher-Directed Instruction
 Teacher divides standards-based content reading into
smaller sections before student begins to read.
 Teacher presents and models how to use chunking and
questioning with a sample text. Before reading a “chunk”
the teacher gives a verbal prompt to read for key items of
information in the text.
 Teacher leads student through several lessons in using
chunking and questioning
 Student reads a section of text and rehearses verbally in
the student’s own words what has just been read. Then
student goes on to next section and repeats until passage
is completed.
 Closes book and pretends to be teacher. Asks questions
relating to what they have read. After a while, the teacher
reverses the roles having student answer comprehension
questions (Bondaza, Kelly & Treewater, 1998).
Student Chunking and Questioning
Aloud

Constraints on Chunking
Excessive chunking (chunk’s chunks)
may hinder text comprehension. A
misapplied segmentation strategy
causes slower reading (Keenan, 1984).
 Extreme variability in line length may
slow reading by disrupting the rhythm
of eye movements (Keenan, 1984).

Student-Developed Post-Reading
Graphic Organizer

Teacher uses a semi-complete
graphic organizer to introduce and
teach the strategy to the student in
how to construct a self-generated
graphic organizer.
Determine Content and Type of GO
 Pre-requisite skills
 Determine Reading Comprehension
Obectives

GO Example:
Five interrelated phases:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Prewriting
Drafting
Revising
Editing
Publishing
22
•
•
•
•
Purpose
Generating and gathering ideas for writing
Preparing for writing
Identifying purpose and audience for writing
Identifying main ideas and supporting details
Strategies
•Verbal activities
•Brainstorming
•Clustering
•Questioning
•Reading
•Keeping journals
23
How Would You Describe
“Drafting”?



