Developing Preservice Teachers’ Expertise in Equitable Assessment for English Learners

Developing Preservice Teachers’ Expertise in EquitableAssessment for English Learners

Marcelle A. Siegel

Published online: 12 October 2013

� The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2013

Abstract This study illustrated a pathway of growth that a preservice teacher might

traverse when learning to use and develop equitable assessments (EA). The study is rare

in that it looks at the development of preservice teachers’ understanding and ability to

design EA. I examined the understanding and implementation of EA of 23 secondary

preservice teachers within two classes. The methods classes focused on the academic

content area of science. Participants’ journals, teaching philosophies, and inquiry-based

science units served as data sources. Participants progressed from a simple view of EA

as ‘‘fairness’’ to a more sophisticated view of EA, including: ways to increase fairness,

the importance of challenging students, and using assessments for learning. Results also

showed changes in preservice teachers’ views of learners and the purpose of assess-

ment. While understanding developed robustly, teachers’ assessment plans in their

units were not as strong. Teacher education programs need to place more emphasis on

developing critical understanding of EA practices to meet the needs of diverse learners.

Keywords Assessment � English language learner � Preservice secondary

education

Introduction

The population of English language learners is steadily increasing in English-speaking

schools worldwide (NCES, 2010; Wiley & Wright, 2004). This increase brings with it

a challenge to teachers: to discover what English language learner (ELL or EL)

students understand, to assess this understanding in an equitable manner, and to

employ assessment formatively to communicate about and foster learning.

M. A. Siegel (&)

Department of Learning, Teaching, & Curriculum, Department of Biochemistry, MU Science

Education Center, 303 Townsend Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Sci Teacher Educ (2014) 25:289–308

DOI 10.1007/s10972-013-9365-9

In order to uncover understanding, new teachers need to learn many forms of

assessment, including equitable assessment (EA) (Siegel, 2007; Siegel, Wissehr, &

Halverson, 2008). Assessments that are equitable provide equal opportunities for

students to demonstrate what they know using procedures most appropriate to the

individual learner based upon factors such as their language ability and culture (Hazel,

Logan, & Gallagher, 1997; Suskie, 2000). In other words, students are assessed using

methods most appropriate to their unique situation. For example, if a scenario is used in

an assessment task that is specific to one culture, it could be unfamiliar to certain students

and thus more difficult to interpret and answer. This represents a bias—privileging one

group of students over another—that should be reduced as much as possible. The

concept of equity goes beyond that, however, as explained later in the article.

Formative assessment is critical for teachers to communicate about and foster

learning. Using assessment data to provide feedback to students and adapt

instruction provides substantial effects in student learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998;

Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2003).

Using EA can allow teachers to make more informed decisions about each of

their student’s learning progress and to make adjustments to teaching agendas and

methods based on assessment results (Suskie, 2000). Not only can EA facilitate

learning, but it also acts as a unique tool in the classroom because it can uncover

whether inequitable conditions exist (Lyon, 2013a). The use of appropriate

instruments to assess learning and plan future instruction is particularly essential

for students whose first language is not English, because without special planning,

the opportunity to learn might be absent (LaCelle-Peterson & Rivera, 1994).

As teachers begin to implement the Next Generation Science Standards (NRC,

2013), preparation to effectively design and use EA will be an asset. The new

standards provide a focus on literacy and authentic science and engineering

practices. When students are supported to employ language as a tool, both science

learning and language learning are promoted (Lee, Quinn, & Valdes, 2013).

Offering challenging, language rich science assessments will be important to

addressing the new standards. The many language demands and opportunities for

ELs within the standards (Lee et al., 2013) will require extensive professional

development efforts (e.g., Buxton et al., 2013; Mamlok-Naaman, Hofstein, &

Penick, 2007), as will using assessments that meet these standards.

Preservice teachers need to understand how to design and implement assessments

that are equitable to all types of learners regardless of their language ability or cultural

background. This study examines the development of preservice secondary science

teachers’ understanding about EA as a result of instruction during a methods course

and their subsequent use of EA, while planning a science unit without prompting.

Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge of EA

As Linda Darling-Hammond has described, ‘‘teachers need a much deeper

knowledge base about teaching for diverse learners than ever before and more

highly developed diagnostic abilities to guide their decisions’’ (2006, p. 300). We

know that both primary and secondary teachers are not well equipped for teaching

or assessing EL students (Johnson, 2006; Lee, Luykx, Buxton, & Shaver, 2007;

290 M. A. Siegel

123

NCES, 2010). Students’ limited English proficiency is especially challenging in

secondary science classes, where abstract ideas often rely on specialized vocab-

ulary. When teachers use assessments that rely on traditional written forms (e.g.,

tests, reports, etc.), it can create a mismatch between what the EL student knows and

her ability to express that understanding (Cox-Petersen & Olson, 2007).

Limited previous studies have examined preservice teachers’ preparedness for

effective assessment practices with ELs. Lyon (2013a) recently studied 11

secondary science preservice teachers’ skills to design EA and consider equity in

assessment using quantitative and qualitative analyses. Based on a subset of students

from the same teacher education program, he also conducted case studies of three

preservice science teachers and found that while they gained knowledge about the

role of language while assessing science, they struggled with issues of reducing or

scaffolding language demands and whether to assess language use (Lyon, 2013b). I

next discuss three critical domains of teacher knowledge: (1) knowledge and beliefs

about diverse learners, (2) knowledge and beliefs about EA strategies, (3) skills in

modifying assessments for ELs, and (4) tools for combatting policies and pressures

that are in conflict with equitable practices.

First, teachers’ knowledge of and beliefs about diverse learners is essential for

achieving equity. In order to effectively assess ELs, teachers need to develop not

only knowledge of assessment, but also of the students’ cultures (Lee, 2001; Lee &

Fradd, 1998). Teachers’ beliefs about student diversity impact their practice (Castro,

2010; Hazel et al., 1997; Lee et al., 2007). Research indicates that many teachers

hold deficit views of ELs and do not believe that addressing language, culture, and

opportunity to learn is their responsibility (Bryan & Atwater, 2002; Lee et al.,

2007). Studies also show that teachers’ beliefs about learning and students influence

their assessment decisions. Taiwanese teachers’ beliefs when teaching English as a

foreign language using oral assessments, for example, were linked to a reduction in

cognitively challenging assessment tasks in order to preserve grades (Chang, 2006).

Second, teachers’ knowledge of and commitment to EA strategies is essential.

Programs and professional development have focused on enhancing teachers’

beliefs and strategies to meet the needs of ELs, yet assessment is typically a minor

component rather than the main focus. For example, projects focus on integrating

science and language development (Stoddart et al. 2002) and incorporating home

language and cultural elements for elementary students in urban school districts

(Lee et al., 2007). These efforts have met with varying degrees of success (e.g., Lee

et al., 2007). Some of the problems associated with implementing EA include a lack

of culturally relevant curriculum materials (LaCelle-Peterson & Rivera, 1994; Lee

et al., 2007) and a limited number of teachers willing to commit to implementing EA

in their classrooms (Lee et al., 2007). Studies have found that preservice teachers also

conceptualize assessment differently due to lack of experience in classrooms (Brown

& Remesal, 2012). Decisions involving a choice of accommodations, who requires

the accommodations, and under what conditions are difficult for many teachers to

ascertain (Abedi, Hofstetter, & Lord, 2004).

Third, teachers must possess knowledge and skills for adapting assessments for

EL students. Knowledge of science content as well as an understanding and

sensitivity to language and cultural differences are necessary to design and

Preservice Teachers’ Expertise in Equitable Assessment 291

123

implement EA. Flexibility in selecting and administering a variety of assessment

instruments and making time adjustments for students to complete the assessment

are important aspects (Darling-Hammond, 1994; LaCelle-Peterson & Rivera, 1994).

Written changes might include simplifying text and grammar and adding graphic

organizers and pictures. Many methods of modifying assessments for EL students

produce positive results for native English speaking students also (e.g., Siegel,

2007). Further, simplifying the language used on assessments for ELs can

significantly reduce the performance gap between native and non-native English

speaking students (Abedi et al., 2004; Hazel et al., 1997).

Fourth, teachers require tools for confronting policies and pressures that hinder

equitable practices. For example, states and school districts adopt an ‘‘English-

only’’ policy in the classroom that is not supportive of language learners (Lee et al.,

2007; Wiley & Wright, 2004). Pressure from high-stakes testing also limits

teachers’ time and resources for EA (Hazel et al., 1997; Lee et al., 2007). Another

impeding factor for teachers to implement EA is a lack of clear testing policies

(Hazel et al., 1997). While research has identified factors that impede equitable

teaching, studies are just beginning to explore how to support teachers, particularly

preservice science teachers, to resist dominant paradigms.

EA Framework

To organize learning of EA, I relied on a research-based instructional framework

called ‘‘McCes.’’ The McCes framework provides principles for designing

classroom assessments for ELs, with a focus on the use of assessments to boost

learning and not only measure performance. The framework was designed to

address written assessments in secondary science classrooms and the literature base

supporting it includes research on standardized testing. However, assessments,

especially for ELs, should certainly include a broader range of assessment formats.

The framework (described in Siegel, 2007; Siegel et al., 2008) states that classroom

assessments for ELs should be comprehensible, challenging, and supportive. The

five research-based principles are summarized in Table 5.

Given this framework for equitable assessment, as not merely ‘‘fair,’’ but also

challenging and supportive to learning, the research questions for this study were:

1. How do preservice teachers conceptualize equitable assessment (EA) prior to

instruction?

2. How do conceptualizations of EA develop during instruction?

3. How do preservice teachers plan for EA when designing science units?

Methods

Structure of the Course

Problems of practice served as an organizing approach for the course, with an emphasis

on teaching science as inquiry, assessment, and curriculum planning. The course was the

292 M. A. Siegel

123

third and final methods course, and students had already taken a multicultural course.

The course addressed six of the state standards for teacher education: (1) nature of

science, (2) philosophy of science teaching and learning, (3) instruction, (4) curriculum

planning, (5) professionalism, and (6) assessment practices.

A primary goal of the course is to help students enhance their understanding of

assessment through a variety of activities in the classroom as well as through their

field experience. The course aims to increase students’ abilities to choose and design

effective forms of assessment not only for different science topics, but also for

students with a variety of social, economic, and cultural backgrounds. A majority of

time is devoted to assessment topics and readings (citations and the sequence of

instruction are detailed in Siegel & Wissehr, 2011, Table 1). The course is

organized around a framework of assessment for learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998;

Stiggins, 2002). This philosophy is the ‘‘big idea’’ students learn about assessment.

Stemming from this framework are three principles: (1) assessment informs

teaching, (2) assessment is for all students, (3) a variety of tools should be used,

based on purposes. For the second principle, students learn the equitable assessment

framework and principles for developing and using assessments for ELs (described

in previous section).

In the course, students enhance their understanding of assessment through a

variety of activities, and they develop and critique multiple types of assessments.

Students are first introduced to assessment after an activity creates the need to

assess. The course emphasizes learning when discussing scoring practices, use of

rubrics, rubric design, and grading. The course includes readings, activities,

critiques of assessments, field observations, and development of more effective

assessments for diverse learners. All of the major course projects include an

assessment component, as shown in Table 1 (Siegel & Wissehr, 2011).

Participants

Twenty-three preservice teachers participated in this study over the course of 2

semesters. The majority of participants were white and included 11 female, 12 male,

and 0 ELs. They represented a variety of science majors, mostly biology. Because

the researcher was also the course instructor, ethical guidelines were followed to

Table 1 Four major course projects each had an assessment component (Siegel & Wissehr, 2011)

Project Assessment component

Teaching philosophy Write a section of this essay on assessment

Unit project Develop three assessments and a rubric

Journal Reflect on many assessment prompts, for example: ‘‘What type of assessment

environment would you like to create for your class?’’ ‘‘Equitable assessment:

What do you know? What do you want to know?’’ ‘‘Reflect on our discussion.’’

Conceptual change

project

Use assessment to develop instruction for a learner

Note that the fourth project assignment focused on conceptual change (a demanding topic for preservice

teachers in which there would be no opportunity or expectation to discuss ELs) and thus was not a data

source for the study


123

protect the interests of the preservice teachers. Participants signed detailed informed

consent forms, if they wished to join the study. All students in the course consented

to participate in this study (100 % response rate). After the course, the data was

deidentified and kept in a secure location. All names used are pseudonyms.

In addition to classroom instruction at the university, the methods course also

contained a field component in which the preservice teachers observed students and

conducted limited teaching (for example, grading or introducing a lab) in a public

high school. This school district included 32 % minority students, 39 % free/

reduced lunch (an indicator of poverty), and 10 % ELs.

Data Sources

The documents used as data sources were part of the methods course assignments

and consisted of: (1) teaching philosophies, (2) reflective journals, and (3) a science

unit consisting of five inquiry-based lessons. The personal teaching philosophy was

an essay posted on their web site at the end of the semester. Participants addressed

prompts that characterized main ideas of the teacher education program, including

the nature of science, learning, and instruction/assessment. A semester-long

reflective journal served as another data source. Participants explained their ideas,

beliefs, and attitudes about learning goals from the course, including equitable

assessment. Also, they designed a unit with a minimum of five lesson plans and

three assessments based on the 5E model of inquiry (e.g., Bybee, 1997). The

teaching philosophy and journal provided data about preservice teachers’ under-

standing of assessment and how it developed over time (RQ 1–2), and the unit

provided data about their planned use of assessment in the classroom (RQ 3).

Data Analysis

Data from the teaching philosophy and journal were analyzed for RQ 1–2, and the

unit was analyzed for RQ 3. All data were coded inductively and then using the EA

framework as a lens to help interpret patterns. With inductive coding, rather than

interpret the data with predetermined categories, the data led me to identify themes

(Hatch, 2002). Data from the documents were first analyzed using modified analytic

induction (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998) to develop categories and identify overarching

themes. Modified analytic induction emphasizes finding patterns of behavior to

describe hypotheses, rather than making claims about universality or causality. In

addition, I used the EA framework as a lens to examine patterns in the data based on

learning expectations for the course. To increase the reliability of interpretation of

data, I utilized ‘‘investigator triangulation’’ (Patton, 2002) in which more than one

researcher interprets a subset of the data. I organized our categories into overarching

themes indicating major patterns in preservice teachers’ thinking. When a category

or overarching theme emerged, I investigated the data closely for any evidence

refuting the emergent pattern. Categories were recorded on a spreadsheet using the

individual as the unit of analysis. Similar categories were collapsed together into

overarching themes. Numbers of participants per category were also noted.

294 M. A. Siegel

123

Results

How Do Preservice Teachers Conceptualize Equitable Assessment (EA) Prior

to Instruction? (RQ 1)

Fairness and Curiosity

EA was a new concept to the preservice teachers. Many of the participants reported

never having thought about EA and were not sure what it was. Half of the

participants (52 %) mentioned that EA incorporated a sense of ‘‘fairness’’ to the

assessment process. Participants also reported wanting to learn more about several

aspects of EA.

First, participants expressed vague understandings of EA as being about ‘‘fairness.’’

Several participants admitted that they either ‘‘never thought about making sure that

all my assessments are fair for all of my students’’ (Abby) or ‘‘don’t know much about

it’’ (Joe). These participants were able to draw connections between the notion of

equity and fairness implied in the title of EA. For example, Chris stated, ‘‘I don’t really

know exactly what it is, but I would guess it is assessment where every student has an

equal opportunity to succeed…As teachers we can try to make the classroom as

equitable as possible.’’ Likewise, James defined EA as ‘‘assessment that is fair to all

members of the class,’’ citing ELs, students with learning disabilities, or students with

life differences. Across the data, participants generally agreed that EA was about

fairness and equity in the classroom. Though expressing some uncertainty, partic-

ipants seemed to connect assessment to language ability and social background.

Second, participants indicated that they wanted to learn more about EA. Data

showed participants were most concerned with learning how to better assist students

through the learning process, how to actually implement EA, such as modifying

assignments, and how to incorporate EA with standardized testing. In assisting

students through the learning process, participants wanted to learn more about how

to recognize students who needed EA support, how to help those students who

struggle with various test formats, how to make students feel included in the

learning process, and how to recognize the growth and progress of those students,

who may no longer need EA support. Concerning the technical aspects of

implementing EA, preservice teachers mentioned wanting to learn how to modify

assignments and tests, how to transform non-equitable assessments into an EA

format, and how to evaluate assessments for bias. Finally, a small number of

participants (13 %) wanted to learn about how to incorporate EA with standardized

tests. Beth questioned the difficulty in making assessment equitable for a diverse

population of students by asking, ‘‘Who is the judge on what is fair for each student?

Is that the teacher or is it someone else?’’ Kaya expressed interest in learning, ‘‘how

standardized test creators create equitable assessment.’’ Such data demonstrated

participants’ curiosity about learning more about EA. The categories developed

included curiosity about interacting with students, technically implementing EA,

and limited interest in standardized testing and EA.

Thus at the beginning of instruction, participants expressed both inexperience

and curiosity surrounding EA. Comments by participants indicated that they were


123

concerned first with guiding each student on the individual level in the learning

process. Here, participants appeared to be more concerned with the teacher and

student interaction surrounding the process of EA. Participants also wanted to know

more of the technical aspects of EA. Typical for novice teachers, the questions of

‘‘what does this look like in practice?’’ and ‘‘how do I do this?’’ underlined most of

these comments. Finally, three participants expressed queries about EA and

standardized testing.

How Do Conceptualizations of EA Develop during Instruction? (RQ2)

Views of Assessment

As a result of instruction, preservice teachers saw EA as more than just a ‘‘fair’’

question; they began to see EA as a means of assessing student understanding and

not their language ability. I uncovered three categories in the data related to the

overarching theme of preservice teachers’ views of assessment: their understanding

of EA strategies, new vision of assessment, and metacognition. Learning seemed to

take place with awareness in that the participants not only gained new knowledge,

but were metacognitive about how their thinking changed over time.

First, participants appeared to gain understanding of EA strategies. Comments in

the reflections by the preservice teachers addressed the instructional setting and the

language and format of assessments. Participants discussed the setting for EA, for

instance allowing students additional time to complete assessments. They also

mentioned the use of ‘‘success centers’’ and other resources, such as the assistance

of an ‘‘aide who is specialized in working with EL students.’’ Jenny mentioned that

teachers should ‘‘allow the use of different tools in our classrooms (word banks,

dictionaries).’’ Another comment about setting that recurred in the data, was to pair

EL students of the same language to assist each other, or to pair ELs and non-ELs

during group work.

In addition, the majority (74 %) of participants commented on aspects of

designing EA, including language, scaffolding, and format. In terms of language,

participants realized that there were many ways to design the wording of assessment

items that were more equitable to EL students, such as reducing complex grammar,

avoiding culturally biased phrases, and matching the language of the instruction to

the assessment. Jenny stated it is essential ‘‘as science teachers that we…make

modifications to our materials and lessons to help accommodate different students.’’

Some (22 %) commented that they would be more aware of their biases and take

them into account when designing assessments. For example, Abby stated, ‘‘I need

to work to remove my biases from questions…and work to make the questions

clear.’’ The preservice teachers began to consider many specific components that

contribute to developing assessments that are equitable, from charts and diagrams to

pictures and sentence starters. Max stated, ‘‘we as teachers may not be able to help

them by speaking their language, but helping them by giving scaffolding, pictures

[etc.…].’’ Cody said his idea about visual scaffolds changed, ‘‘Now I understand

that including pictures (pictorial representations of instructions, for instance) could

actually assist my EL students within a classroom.’’ In summary, the participants’

296 M. A. Siegel

123

views of assessment developed, in terms of their understanding of EA strategies,

specifically: linguistic complexity; types of scaffolds; alignment between the

methods of instruction and assessment; cultural biases; and the need to incorporate a

variety of assessment strategies.

Second, participants’ views of EA shifted. Once the participants became aware of

various strategies that they could use to assess EL learners, they began to think

about assessment in a new light. Bart summarized, ‘‘I believe that equitable

assessment is testing a student’s knowledge of a concept in a way that they

understand.…’’ Similarly to many students, Bela explained, ‘‘you are testing what

they know, and not the language they know.’’ Participants did not just see EA as a

‘‘fair’’ assessment, but as a way to make sure content was being taught and ELs

were being challenged.

The participants also began to look at scaffolding differently. It seemed they began

to understand the difficulty that many EL students experience when taking quizzes and

tests written in English and presented without the benefit of scaffolds. Most of the

participants had not previously given much thought to the use of these types of

scaffolds to assist in uncovering students’ knowledge. Following instruction, they

began to see a different purpose to these strategies. Joe explained how scaffolding

provides ‘‘more of an opportunity to understand and comprehend what is going on.

Moreover, pictures or graphs are not a detriment to the rest of the class who may not

need them.’’ Cody described how he did not see a need for pictures previously, except

‘‘to appear more creative or make the sheet look more snazzy,’’ but now he understands

why pictures help EL students learn. There was a shift in how participants viewed EA

as not just ‘‘fair,’’ but as equitable, stimulating, and challenging.

Third, following instruction preservice teachers tended to express a deeper

understanding of EA, and moreover tended to be aware of the shift in their

understanding of EA. Cody, for example stated, ‘‘I believe that this stuff over

equitable assessment has really opened my eyes.’’ Many students discussed a

‘‘shift’’ or ‘‘change’’ in their thinking as they wrote their reflections. For example,

Charlie wrote:

I feel that one of the major shifts that has occurred is my understanding of

equitable assessment. I think that before entering this class I thought that this

would mean all questions should be fair. Now I understand what all goes into

that, such as how to accommodate EL students and how to make questions not

easier but more fitting for them.

Some participant comments (13 %) also indicated a heightened level of

confidence in their ability to design and implement EA in the classroom. Jenny

emphasized this, and Jess wrote, ‘‘I’m fairly confident in my abilities now to create

equitable assessments.’’ Preservice teachers discussed how much they knew about

EA and how they felt able to implement it, even mentioning it as a strength for job

interviews. Participants also seemed metacognitive about their knowledge of EA

because they discussed their awareness of their learning over time. For example,

Abby said, once we learned about EA, ‘‘it just made ‘sense’ to me,’’ and Beckett

stated, ‘‘I have learned a lot about…equitable assessments and how I will use those

in my classrooms.’’ Neve explained her development in thinking:


123

I think that a shift has occurred this semester in my understanding. I now

better understand how to design equitable assessments, help students who are

non-native English speakers, and how students store and recall information.

To explain this, I think I originally had a superficial understanding of these

concepts. Being able to go in-depth more in class and develop assessments (or

edit them) really helped me to come to a better understanding of these topics.

Overall, findings indicated that preservice teachers gained knowledge of EA,

shifted their views, and were self-aware of learning gains. Participants generally

acknowledged that EA takes into consideration a student’s cultural background,

socioeconomic status, religious views, personal experiences, and more while avoiding

an obvious social, cultural, or sociological bias. The preservice teachers appeared to

understand many strategies for accommodating the classroom setting and modifying

the language and formatting of assessments. They shifted from a view of EA as ‘‘fair’’

to a more sophisticated view of EA as fostering learning. Participants seemed to view

EA as a means to: (1) challenge students to think and (2) inform teachers about the

students’ prior conceptions or understanding of new material. Moreover, participants

seemed metacognitive, or self-aware, of their shifts in understanding.

Views of the Learner

For some participants, their initial view of ELs began to change as a result of class

discussions and activities as well as the participants’ experiences with EL students in

their field-based classrooms. Findings suggest that participants gained an understand-

ing of the characteristics, challenges, and successes of EL learners.

Participants discussed several aspects of learners in their reflections and

philosophy statements. Charlie wrote, ‘‘Some say that the EL students just aren’t

smart enough but this is not true, it’s just that they are ‘not challenged.’’’ They

realized that ELs might need to ask more questions or require extra time to process

and translate their spoken answers. They also noted that ELs might require greater

explanation in order to understand what is expected of them and might have

different background knowledge compared to native English speaking students.

Abby stated about field, ‘‘It looked hard for many of the ELL students to stay up

with the non-ELL students.’’ As a result of these experiences, the participants

developed a greater understanding of the challenges EL students faced in the

classroom. Chris explained, ‘‘When I worked with these students, I used wait time a

lot. Most of the time the students knew the answer, they just needed time to think

about it and translate it.’’ They ‘‘just need some extra steps to jump the language

barrier,’’ stated Charlie. Almost every preservice teacher did not identify themselves

as a minority, or as an EL. While many referred to ELs as ‘‘other,’’ like Chris and

Charlie above, some also embraced the idea from class that teaching all learners is

paramount. Such participants, like Jenny, also discussed the potential of students: ‘‘I

also think it is important to continually challenge all learners….Just because they

struggle with the English language now does not mean that they do not have the

potential to be great scientists.’’

298 M. A. Siegel

123

Throughout the methods course, the participants apparently developed deeper

understanding of the characteristics of EL students and the challenges faced by EL

students in the classroom. Course readings, discussions, and field experiences

appeared to raise the preservice teachers’ awareness of issues and challenges related

to working with EL students. For a few students, this was a major turn of viewpoint.

Several participants also described a view of success for ELs after instruction.

Using Assessments as a Learning Tool

Prior to instruction, most of the participants had not considered using assessments as

tools for providing increased opportunities for student learning. After instruction on

EA, many began to think of ways that they could use assessments as a springboard

for learning. For example, in addition to designing questions to assess ELs’

understanding, the participants realized that assessment items could also be

designed to help ELs improve their written English language ability:

Our class discussions about English Language Learners and Native English

Speakers has reminded me how important it is to practice writing English on a

regular basis. I think I will use free writes, journaling, and minute papers on a

regular basis, since all students will benefit from practicing their writing skills.

(Leon)

Many of the participants felt that the use of rubrics would be helpful to ELs and

allow them to better understand the expectations associated with performance tasks

and other learning activities. James explained that rubrics ‘‘can really help assessment

move toward equity. Equitable assessment with a rubric allows each student to know

exactly what is expected.’’ Participants also wrote that rubrics might assist the teacher

to design assessments equitably. For example, Charlie stated, ‘‘By organizing rubrics

you can see what students will be putting on the assessment and here you can judge if

you need to make changes to help the EL students out. I think you can make changes to

the rubrics to accommodate their needs.’’

After instruction, participants’ writing revealed that they understood that assess-

ment is not merely a way to measure and grade students, but a tool to help them learn.

Participants discussed EA as a learning opportunity for ELs. Finally, data indicated

that they viewed rubrics as learning devices for both students and teachers.

Benefits and Drawbacks of EA

Another pattern was the perception of the benefits and drawbacks to designing and

implementing EA in the classroom. The most commonly stated benefit was that EA

is useful for all students, while the main disadvantage was that it would be difficult

for the teacher.

The primary benefit of designing EA was that it is fair to all students being

assessed, regardless of whether they are EL students or not (Table 2). Many

participants noted that other learners could benefit from EA, as indicated in the

comment made by Joe, ‘‘A lot of changes I make for ELs are beneficial for the rest


123

of the students as well.’’ A trend was also identified that EA helped to promote

student motivation by focusing on content knowledge rather than having to struggle

with the language of the assessment. This would provide a more accurate evaluation

of student learning and allow more students to feel a sense of success.

In addition to benefits, participants (57 %) commented on the challenges faced

by teachers when implementing EA in the classroom. The majority of these

comments (85 %) related to the difficulties that teachers encounter with designing

and implementing EA (Table 3).

The preservice teachers expressed concern over the time it would take to design

EA and were unsure about their ability to incorporate it in the classroom. Some of

them felt overwhelmed by the task; however, most were willing to take on the

challenge for the benefit of their students. For example, Abby wrote, ‘‘As is clearly

evident, there is a lot to consider when creating assessments that are culturally valid.

It is not an easy task to take on, but one that is necessary to ensure the success of all

students.’’ Two participants were concerned about how a separate assessment would

be perceived by the majority of the students in the class. Charlie, stated, ‘‘I feel that

some students would be upset if you changed the test to help some students out.’’ Data

analyses of journals and philosophies clearly showed that the majority of participants

(91 %) were enthusiastic overall about implementing EA in the classroom and saw

the advantages outweighing any drawbacks. Laura stated, ‘‘I think that all of the

Table 2 Participants’ comments about the benefits of EA

Benefits of EA Percent of

responses (%)

Fair to all students taking it 35

Promotes student motivation and class involvement 17

Focuses on content 17

Addresses different learning/testing styles 4

Students are more likely to succeed 4

Easy enough for all students to understand, but hard enough to

engage them in the content

4

Some forms of EA may help to develop English writing skills 4

Table 3 Participants’ comments on the drawbacks associated with EA

Challenges of EA Percent of

responses (%)

Challenging/time consuming to design and administer EA 54

Teachers need to learn to recognize cultural biases on existing tests 31

Teachers unfamiliar with how to incorporate EA into teaching/assessments 23

There is a lot to consider when designing EA questions 15

Difficult to know if assessment is fair to all learners/risk of leaving someone out 15

Questions about EA as preparation for the ‘‘real world’’/life is not equitable 8

Teacher really has to know the students 8

300 M. A. Siegel

123

strategies would be effective in a classroom, and would be fairly easy to implement.’’

Similarly, Leon wrote, ‘‘Doing my best to minimize problematic questions is

important to keeping assessment authentic and non-biased.’’

Thus, the study documented the perceptions of advantages and disadvantages of

using EA that preservice teachers had after instruction. These are listed in order of

most to least common in Tables 2 and 3. Almost all participants (91 %) thought that

the benefits of EA outweighed the drawbacks.

How Do Preservice Teachers Plan for EA when Designing Science Units?

(RQ3)

Informed, Lacking

When designing their science units, the participants were asked to develop or adapt

assessments. They were not prompted to use EA or consider ELs in their plans, in

order to see what they would do ‘‘on their own.’’ Results showed that, although the

participants’ understandings and beliefs about EA had grown, the implementation of

EA strategies in their assessments was not as strong. For example, if one lists all of

the EA strategies they incorporated in their units, and then count how many of these

appeared across the units, the numbers look quite low. No strategy was used by

more than 17 % of the participants (Table 4).

Only one participant stated that an assessment was specifically designed for EL

students. This assessment included a variety of scaffolds, including the following:

(1) diagrams, (2) bulleted points, (3) word bank, (4) simplified wording, and (5)

short, less complex sentences. Most of the other participants incorporated EA

strategies without explicitly stating the reason for the design.

Another sign that the preservice teachers were modestly planning for EA was in

how their assessments met the McCes framework for EA that they learned about in

class (Table 5). As a group, participants addressed all five of the principles in the

EA framework. In other words, the assessments they designed met the principles of

the framework with many examples for each principle. But only two participants’

units met all of the principles individually. As an example, Laura designed effective

Table 4 Participants’ use of EA in science unit assessments

EA strategy Percent of participants

implementing the strategy (%)

Simplified wording 17

Less complex sentences and passages 17

Illustrations, pictures 17

Graphic organizers 17

Word bank 17

Bulleted points 9

Assessment task broken down into specific steps 4

Diagrams 4

Dictionary/glossary of terms 4


123

EA assessments that matched her instruction well, were comprehensible, challeng-

ing, and allowed students to show their ideas in multiple ways. Two of these are

provided in ‘‘Appendix’’ section. Notice that while these assessments were not

necessarily specifically designed for EL students, they do abide by the principles.

In their units, one third of the participants (30 %) assessed students through lab

reports, presentations, or other performance events and included rubrics or scoring

guides to assist students in understanding the expectations for their assessment.

However, most of the rubrics consisted of long, detailed sentences that could prove

Table 5 Principles for equitable assessment (Siegel, 2007; Siegel et al., 2008)

M ? Match the learning goals and the language of instruction: Knowledge and skills that are

valued and taught in class should also be the ones that are targeted by the assessment. The kinds of

tasks that are performed in class, such as constructing arguments based on scientific evidence, should

be parallel to the tasks given on the assessment. The language and terminology used in assessment

should also be consistent with those used in class (CRESST, 2001). This is especially important for

ELs who may have difficulties interpreting changes in terminology (Abedi, Lord, Hofstetter, &

Baker, 2000; CRESST, 2001). Similarly, sociocultural influences should be taken into consideration

when designing assessment tasks (Fong & Siegel, 2005; Siegel et al., 2005; Solano-Flores & Nelson-

Barber, 2001)

c ? Be comprehensible for English learners, both linguistically and culturally: This means that in

terms of language, written assessments should be readable, not produce extra reading time for ELs

compared to native English speakers, and fit within the norms associated with the native culture

(Abedi et al., 2000; CRESST, 2001). In terms of culture, research has shown that a student’s personal

background and experience is very important in how he interprets science assessments (Solano-Flores

& Nelson-Barber, 2001). Teachers and researchers need to take the sociocultural influences that

shape student thinking into account while trying to reduce bias in assessment items (Fong & Siegel,

2005; Solano-Flores & Nelson-Barber, 2001)

C ? Challenge students to think about difficult ideas: classroom assessment tasks should be

cognitively challenging and require deep thinking rather than regurgitation of facts. Even though

researchers should strive to make assessment tasks non-intimidating and linguistically simple to be

understandable by ELs, they should not be cognitively simplified, because such assessments deny the

students the opportunity to learn (Walqui, 2003). Assessment tasks that use written and materials-

based performance are useful for maintaining a high level of complexity (Garcia & Pearson, 1994).

Assessment tasks should also provide students opportunities for evaluating their own work as such

reflection can help students build useful connections between ideas and enhance their learning (Cole,

Coffey, & Goldman, 1999)

E ? Elicit student understanding: assessment tasks should provide opportunities for students to

demonstrate knowledge in ways attuned with their backgrounds (Lee, 2001). Items that elicit off-

topic responses or those that are skipped by students should be modified to better elicit student

thinking. Items that elicit student understanding are often open-ended items that afford the student the

opportunity to express their ideas (White and Gunstone 1992). Just as the second principle is based on

providing students a comprehensible input, this fourth principle is based on expecting students to

provide an output in which students express their ideas through the writing process (or other process,

if going beyond written assessments that are the focus of this previously developed framework)

S ? Scaffold the use of language and support student learning: Scaffolds, which are often built into

quality instruction, enable a student to better understand the concepts. Scaffolds built into an assessment

task facilitate students to respond to a question that might be previously beyond their reach (Wood,

Bruner, & Ross, 1976). Scaffolds, such as sentence starters, graphic organizers, and additional prompts

are particularly helpful to ELs. Scaffolds that provide ELs better contextualization, metacognitive

support, and representing text can serve as useful learning tools (Walqui, 2003). As in instruction, it is

not desirable for scaffolds to be permanently in place. Rather, as a student progresses the scaffold can

gradually be ‘‘faded’’ out (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989)

302 M. A. Siegel

123

difficult for ELs to utilize effectively. This repeated the pattern for the assessments

in the units: students showed some understanding of EA, but could have done much

more to design assessments that would be most beneficial for ELs.

Discussion

This research examined the development of preservice teachers’ understanding of

EA and how they used it to plan science units. While the data included self-reports

of learning, data also included ways students reflected, conceptualized, and

recognized EA issues and strategies. The study uncovered a trend in development

that progressed in the following manner. Before instruction, participants held simple

preconceptions about EA. They were able to connect EA to a notion of ‘‘fairness’’

and were able to generate a variety of questions that they wished to learn more about

(‘‘Curious’’). Participants were reflective during instruction. They demonstrated

learning during the course in four categories generated from their own words. These

categories included their knowledge about assessment practices (‘‘Views of

Assessment’’), how they see ELs (‘‘Views of Learners’’), how they see the purpose

of assessment (‘‘Assessment as a Learning Tool’’), and their attitudes toward

assessment in terms of advantages and disadvantages (‘‘Benefits and Drawbacks of

EA’’). Although the preservice teachers had shown much self-reported learning

about EA in their journals and teaching philosophies, they had difficulty transferring

what they had learned to their units (‘‘Informed, Lacking’’).

The growth in preservice teachers’ understanding is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Learning to assess effectively to enhance student understanding in diverse linguistic

settings is a challenging prospect. Similar to the limited previous research in this

area, I found aspects in which the participants made larger and smaller strides

(Lyon, 2013a, b; Siegel & Wissehr, 2011). Data showed that after instruction,

participants: (a) knew specific strategies to reduce bias in assessments, (b) recog-

nized the need to challenge students to boost their learning, and not merely make

assessments easier, and (c) saw EA as a way to support learning and not just

measure students fairly. Lyon (2013a) likewise found that preservice teachers made

qualitative gains, although not statistically significant, in knowledge of EA

strategies, the importance of language and in realizing the formative purpose of

assessment. Further, this study was unique in demonstrating that preservice

teachers gained a new view of assessment, such as a more sophisticated notion of

‘‘fairness’’—beyond merely providing access, to challenging and supporting

learning. This study also distinctively showed that participants gained a more

equitable view of diverse learners and an appreciation of the benefits and

drawbacks of EA.

As teacher educators, we must provide our students with the knowledge and

attitudes necessary for effectively teaching and assessing ELs. Based on this study,

preservice teachers gained in the following domains of knowledge introduced

earlier: (1) knowledge and beliefs about diverse learners, (2) knowledge and beliefs

about EA strategies, and (3) skills in modifying assessments for ELs. These are

three essential aspects that teacher educators can address using the McCes


123

principles. The fourth, tools for overcoming policies and pressures was absent. This

could explain the modest implementation of EA. More than half of the participants

thought that EA would be difficult for a teacher to implement. They came up with

other drawbacks (Table 4) as well. While this study was not meant to identify

causes, it could provide a starting point for further research on the influences of

instruction on learning about EA. The study highlights for teacher educators that

even with strong knowledge and beliefs about assessment, it is not enough to

guarantee enactment of EA. As educators, we must not only inspire preservice

teachers to assess in ways that support all learners, but also provide them with tools

to survive and overcome pressures in the real world of the classroom.

To address this, Kennedy (1999) explains that teachers need to acquire ideas about

teaching, but also recognize situations to use the ideas. Perhaps, without prompting,

preservice teachers did not think they were planning instruction for ELs when

designing their five-day unit. In addition to a ‘‘frame of reference,’’ teachers need

situated knowledge so they know how to enact what specific situations require

(Kennedy, 1999). Preservice teachers in this study displayed relevant knowledge, but

did not enact it as well when it came to planning units. While not unusual, other

research points to further work that could be done to improve this. Bell, Horn, and

Roxas (2007), for example, found that participating in a tutoring project helped change

the attitudes of 30 preservice teachers about teaching in a culturally diverse school. We

know that seeing practices enacted in field classrooms makes an immense difference in

preservice teachers’ uptake of ideas, as well. Mentor teachers give concrete examples

of how assessment theory and practice work in the field classrooms (Graham, 2005).

Preservice teachers were not exposed to positive examples of EA in the field during

this course. Some students did mention their experiences with EL students in the field,

however, that seemed to impact their view of ELs as learners.

The field classrooms did not have a high percentage of ELs. While the unit

projects did not require students to create EAs (to examine unprompted actions for

Fig. 1 Areas of growth inpreservice teachers’understanding of EA

304 M. A. Siegel

123

research purposes), the course could instead require a description of the

demographics of a potential class for teaching the unit. This might prompt them

to consider their learners. It is also worthwhile to consider requiring the unit plans to

include EAs during the course. Future research could explore whether they need

more support for particular principles of the McCes framework. In science methods

classes, presenting EAs as another inquiry that students explore, find out about their

students, evaluate assessments, and refine them will be useful. Creating a

professional dialogue among students, teachers, mentor teachers, and professors

to inquire about EA (Graham, 2005) can be an effective strategy, while continuing

to develop a critical stance to interrogate cultural assumptions (Castro, 2010).

This research investigated the pathway of growth that a preservice teacher

traverses when developing equitable assessments. The study is rare in that it looks at

the development of preservice teachers’ understanding and abilities to design EA.

The study illustrates that preservice teachers are interested in learning ways to

implement EA into their instruction, but require guidance in order to succeed. This

trend of differences in the way preservice science teachers think about assessment in

the theoretical realm of their teaching philosophies and journals compared to their

practical experience of assessing students in the science units is common to research

on teacher education (e.g., Kennedy, 1999). We found a similar pattern in preservice

teachers’ understanding about assessment in general over time (Abell & Siegel,

2011; Siegel & Wissehr, 2011). Improving teachers’ preparation is essential;

without improved knowledge of EA, students would have reduced opportunities to

learn. The challenge is that preparing teachers to equitably assess might not ensure

enactment in classrooms. As teacher educators, we must help new teachers negotiate

the principles of EA with the realities of the school contexts they will encounter.

This study has contributed a detailed depiction of ways preservice teachers develop

as they learn to equitably assess in secondary science classrooms.

Acknowledgments Thanks to Antonio J. Castro for comments on an earlier draft of this article and

Cathy Wissehr for research assistance. This study was partially funded by a grant from the MU Research

Council.

Appendix

Excerpt of Laura’s Unit

1. Interactive Lecture Formal Assessment:

Explain an oxidation/reduction reaction that takes place around you (outside of a

battery cell). Include how you know that the reaction is oxidation/reduction, and

what is going on in the reaction on a molecular level. Use drawings if need be!

2. Student Presentations of Hybrid Energy Formal Assessment:

Objectives Students evaluate their own understanding and the understanding of

their peers. Students apply knowledge to new situations, and compare and contrast

two similar battery systems.


123

Materials Depends on how students wish to present. Possibilities include a smart

board, white board, powerpoint, poster, chalkboard, large post-it pad, and many

other options.

Student Assessment Directions:

1. Use the student WorkGuide to conduct the internet activity.

2. In your small group, compile all information, and decide on the most important

aspect(s) that you feel should be included in your presentation.

3. Discuss all positive and negative points of view, and come to a decision on a

group recommendation.

4. Create a multimedia presentation that presents: The evidence you have

collected, as well as objective reasoning for a final group decision and

recommendation.

Note: Scaffolding was provided in the ‘‘Student WorkGuide,’’ and the rubric

provided additional support for making the expectations clear.

References

Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C. H., & Lord, C. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English language

learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research, 74(1),

1–28.

Abedi, J., Lord, C., Hofstetter, C. H., & Baker, E. (2000). Impact of accommodation strategies on English

language learners’ test performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19, 16–26.

Abell, S. K., & Siegel, M. A. (2011). Assessment literacy: What science teachers need to know and be

able to do. In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The professional knowledge base of

science teaching (pp. 205–221). London, UK: Springer.

Bell, C. A., Horn, B. R., & Roxas, K. C. (2007). We know it’s service, but what are they learning?

Preservice teachers’ understandings of diversity. Equity and Excellence in Education, 40(2),

123–133.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it

into practice. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1),

7–74.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and

methods. Needham Heights, MA: Ally & Bacon.

Brown, G. T. L., & Remesal, A. (2012). Prospective teachers’ conceptions of assessment: A cross-cultural

comparison. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 75–89.

Bryan, L. A., & Atwater, M. M. (2002). Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge for science

teacher preparation programs. Science Education, 6, 821–839.

Buxton, C. A., Allexsaht-Snider, M., Suriel, R., Kayumova, S., Choi, Y.-J., Bouton, B., et al. (2013).

Using educative assessments to support science teaching for middle school English-language

learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(2), 347–366.

Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practice. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Castro, A. J. (2010). Themes in the research on preservice teachers’ views of cultural diversity:

Implications for researching millennial preservice teachers. Educational Researcher, 39(3),

198–210.

Chang, Ch.-W. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs towards oral language assessment in Taiwan collegiate EFL

classrooms. In Paper presented at the 2006 international conference on English instruction and

assessment, Taiwan.

306 M. A. Siegel

123

Cole, K., Coffey, J., & Goldman, S. (1999). Using assessments to improve equity in mathematics.

Educational Leadership, 56(6), 56–58.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of

reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction:

Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cox-Petersen, A., & Olson, J. K. (2007). Alternative assessments for English language learners: Using

drawings and interviews to measure student learning. Science and Children, 46–48.

CRESST. (2001). Policy brief no. 4. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and

Student Testing (CRESST).

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Performance-based assessment and educational equality. Harvard

Educational Review, 64(1), 5–30.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher

Education, 57(3), 300–314.

Fong, S. R., & Siegel, M. A. (2005). Teaching well: Science teachers’ investigation and use of student

sociocultural background. In D. M. McInerney & S. van Etten (Eds.), Research on sociocultural

influences on motivation and learning, Vol. 5, Focus on teaching (pp. 101–128). Greenwich, CT:

Information Age Publishing.

Garcia, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Assessment and diversity. Review of Research in Education, 20,

337–391.

Graham, P. (2005). Classroom-based assessment: Changing knowledge and practice through preservice

teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 607–621.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. NY: SUNY Press.

Hazel, E., Logan, P., & Gallagher, P. (1997). Equitable assessment of students in physics: Importance of

gender and language background. International Journal of Science Education, 19(4), 381–392.

Johnson, C. C. (2006). Enabling all students to learn science. The Science Teacher, 73(2), 32–37.

Kennedy, M. M. (1999). The role of preservice teacher education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes

(Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 54–88). San

Francisco: Jossey Bass.

LaCelle-Peterson, M. W., & Rivera, C. (1994). Is it real for all kids? A framework for equitable

assessment policies for English language learners. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1), 55–75.

Lee, O. (2001). Culture and language in science education: What do we know and what do we need to

know? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 499–501.

Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English language

backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(3), 12–21.

Lee, O., Luykx, A., Buxton, C., & Shaver, A. (2007). The challenge of altering elementary school

teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding linguistic and cultural diversity in science instruction.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1269–1291.

Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdes, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation

to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for common core standards for English

Language Arts and Mathematics. Educational Researcher, 20(10), 1–11.

Lyon, E. G. (2013a). Learning to assess science in linguistically diverse classrooms: Tracking growth in

secondary science preservice teachers’ assessment expertise. Science Education, 97, 442–467.

Lyon, E. G. (2013b). What about language while equitably assessing science? Case studies of preservice

teachers’ evolving expertise. Teaching and Teacher Education, 32, 1–11.

Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Penick, J. E. (2007). Involving science teachers in the development

and implementation of assessment tools for ‘‘Science for All’’ type curricula. Journal of Science

Teacher Education, 18, 497–524.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2010). The condition of education 2010. Washington,

DC: IES.

National Research Council (NRC) (Achieve, NSTA). (2013). Next generation science standards. NRC.

Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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, 44(6), 864–881.

Siegel, M. A., & Wissehr, C. (2011). Preparing for the plunge: Preservice teachers’ assessment literacy.

Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(4), 371–391.

Siegel, M. A., Markey, D., & Swann, S. (2005). Life science assessments for English learners: A teacher’s

resource. Berkeley, CA: University of California. http://www.lmri.ucsb.edu.


123

http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards

http://www.lmri.ucsb.edu

Siegel, M. A., Wissehr, C., & Halverson, K. (2008). Sounds like success: A framework for equitable

assessment. The Science Teacher, 75(3), 43–46.

Solano-Flores, G., & Nelson-Barber, S. (2001). On the cultural validity of science assessments. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 38, 553–573.

Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment FOR learning [Electronic version].

Kappan. http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0206sti.htm.

Suskie, L. (2000). Fair assessment practices: Giving students equitable opportunities to demonstrate

learning. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Walqui, A. (2003). Conceptual framework: Scaffolding instruction for English learners. San Francisco,

CA: WestEd.

Wiley, T. G., & Wright, W. E. (2004). Against the undertow: Language-minority policy and politics in

the ‘Age of Accountability’. Educational Policy, 18, 142–168.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.

308 M. A. Siegel

123

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0206sti.htm

Documents

Developing Preservice Teachers’ Expertise in Equitable Assessment for English Learners