東華大學圖書館 |

The Language Assessment Needs of Dual Language Educators: Assessing Biliteracy in Dual Language Programs.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	The Language Assessment Needs of Dual Language Educators: Assessing Biliteracy in Dual Language Programs./
Author:	Perez Belda, Antonio Alejandro.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2021,
Description:	310 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-02, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International83-02A.
Subject:	Bilingual education. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28491050
ISBN:	9798534661569

The Language Assessment Needs of Dual Language Educators: Assessing Biliteracy in Dual Language Programs.
Perez Belda, Antonio Alejandro.

The Language Assessment Needs of Dual Language Educators: Assessing Biliteracy in Dual Language Programs. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2021 - 310 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-02, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Iowa, 2021.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

The structure and culture of school organizations at local, state and federal levels influence the assessment of emergent and simultaneous bilingual students in Dual Language (DL) programs. Despite extensive studies on language policies, learning outcomes, and assessment instruments, there is still a gap in the field regarding language assessment literacy (LAL) needs and perceptions of the DL teachers and DL administrators within their organizations. To better understand DL educators' individual and collective needs, studies need to address their perception of biliteracy and assessment practices. Ultimately, teachers depend largely on their personal constructions of the role of the teacher as they engage with assessment practices to support the biliteracy learning process of their DL students. Using a mixed methods approach, composed by an online survey (N=57) and follow up individual interviews (N=17), this study investigated DL teachers' and administrators' perceptions of their knowledge, skills, and principles to efficiently plan, engage, and use assessment tasks and assessment instruments for biliteracy. It also explored teachers' and administrators' perceptions of their roles, responsibilities, expectations, and professional needs in language assessment. The study presented two interactive phases, beginning with the collection and analysis of quantitative data through a questionnaire, and followed by the collection and analysis of qualitative data from individual interviews. The questionnaire was administered online, and it was composed by open- and closed-ended questions. The individual interviews followed a semi-structured interview protocol. Findings suggested a tension between what DL educators believe are useful assessment practices and the assessment practices they prioritize. Teachers' attitudes, perceptions and beliefs were highly influenced by power dynamics established at social and institutional layers, such as language policies and administrative pressures. Specifically, participants frequently navigated a variety of conflicting messages: holistic approaches to bilingualism, assessments designed with a monoglossic lens, and monoglot institutional ideologies. Additionally, participants in this study reported less comfort with assessment practices closely related to standardized testing than with those related to the formative assessment of their DL students. Findings of this research study pointed to different directions for each actor in the overall structure of DL education. First, in-service DL teachers need the tools to develop language assessment expertise and recognize context-relevant variables. They also need to have access to evidence that supports the use of certain reading strategies depending on processing demands imposed by the orthographic structure of the language and the influence of top-down factors, such as readers' proficiency or the orthographic system. Likewise, teachers need more training opportunities focused on how to interpret scores, how to consider validity and reliability, how to advocate for ethical decision-making, how to understand consequences, and how to efficiently communicate results. Second, administrators should prioritize the identification of the LAL needs of their teachers and provide differentiated training opportunities for them according to their needs and/or instructional and linguistic backgrounds. Third, teacher education programs should include courses and curriculums that incorporate an understanding of LAL and language policy and planning (LPP), and stress the interpretation of standardized testing, the design of local formative assessment instruments, and the assessment of languages based on the reading developmental process of opaque orthographies in contrast with transparent orthographies.

ISBN: 9798534661569Subjects--Topical Terms:

2122778
Bilingual education.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Assessment

The Language Assessment Needs of Dual Language Educators: Assessing Biliteracy in Dual Language Programs.
LDR:05019nmm a2200373 4500 001 2345554
005 20230119160018.5
008 241004s2021 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798534661569
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI28491050
035 $a AAI28491050
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Perez Belda, Antonio Alejandro. $3 3684515
245 1 4 $a The Language Assessment Needs of Dual Language Educators: Assessing Biliteracy in Dual Language Programs.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2021
300 $a 310 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-02, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Wesely, Pamela M.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Iowa, 2021.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a The structure and culture of school organizations at local, state and federal levels influence the assessment of emergent and simultaneous bilingual students in Dual Language (DL) programs. Despite extensive studies on language policies, learning outcomes, and assessment instruments, there is still a gap in the field regarding language assessment literacy (LAL) needs and perceptions of the DL teachers and DL administrators within their organizations. To better understand DL educators' individual and collective needs, studies need to address their perception of biliteracy and assessment practices. Ultimately, teachers depend largely on their personal constructions of the role of the teacher as they engage with assessment practices to support the biliteracy learning process of their DL students. Using a mixed methods approach, composed by an online survey (N=57) and follow up individual interviews (N=17), this study investigated DL teachers' and administrators' perceptions of their knowledge, skills, and principles to efficiently plan, engage, and use assessment tasks and assessment instruments for biliteracy. It also explored teachers' and administrators' perceptions of their roles, responsibilities, expectations, and professional needs in language assessment. The study presented two interactive phases, beginning with the collection and analysis of quantitative data through a questionnaire, and followed by the collection and analysis of qualitative data from individual interviews. The questionnaire was administered online, and it was composed by open- and closed-ended questions. The individual interviews followed a semi-structured interview protocol. Findings suggested a tension between what DL educators believe are useful assessment practices and the assessment practices they prioritize. Teachers' attitudes, perceptions and beliefs were highly influenced by power dynamics established at social and institutional layers, such as language policies and administrative pressures. Specifically, participants frequently navigated a variety of conflicting messages: holistic approaches to bilingualism, assessments designed with a monoglossic lens, and monoglot institutional ideologies. Additionally, participants in this study reported less comfort with assessment practices closely related to standardized testing than with those related to the formative assessment of their DL students. Findings of this research study pointed to different directions for each actor in the overall structure of DL education. First, in-service DL teachers need the tools to develop language assessment expertise and recognize context-relevant variables. They also need to have access to evidence that supports the use of certain reading strategies depending on processing demands imposed by the orthographic structure of the language and the influence of top-down factors, such as readers' proficiency or the orthographic system. Likewise, teachers need more training opportunities focused on how to interpret scores, how to consider validity and reliability, how to advocate for ethical decision-making, how to understand consequences, and how to efficiently communicate results. Second, administrators should prioritize the identification of the LAL needs of their teachers and provide differentiated training opportunities for them according to their needs and/or instructional and linguistic backgrounds. Third, teacher education programs should include courses and curriculums that incorporate an understanding of LAL and language policy and planning (LPP), and stress the interpretation of standardized testing, the design of local formative assessment instruments, and the assessment of languages based on the reading developmental process of opaque orthographies in contrast with transparent orthographies.
590 $a School code: 0096.
650 4 $a Bilingual education. $3 2122778
650 4 $a Educational tests & measurements. $3 3168483
650 4 $a Educational administration. $3 2122799
650 4 $a Teaching. $3 517098
650 4 $a English as a second language. $3 516208
650 4 $a Perceptions. $3 3435328
650 4 $a Learning. $3 516521
650 4 $a Cultural heritage. $3 3321334
653 $a Assessment
653 $a Biliteracy
653 $a Language assessment literacy
653 $a Two-way immersion programs
690 $a 0282
690 $a 0441
690 $a 0288
690 $a 0514
710 2 $a The University of Iowa. $b Teaching & Learning. $3 1673400
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 83-02A.
790 $a 0096
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2021
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28491050