Which score is adequate: Approximation to the assessment rationale used in a Science through English CLIL written test

Miquel Àngel Fuentes

Abstract

Despite the surge of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) studies in many areas, assessment practices in CLIL contexts are considered to be much unaccounted for (Poisel, 2007; Hönig, 2009, Maggi, 2012). This paper intends to become a contribution to this area and addresses the issue by approaching to the case study of a Science through English CLIL unit implemented on a state-funded secondary school in Barcelona, Spain. The paper focuses on the written test of the unit and analyzes the students’ responses and degree of satisfaction of the teacher after implementing and correcting the test, which provides valuable insights in the light of teacher development and offers a snapshot of CLIL assessment practices and their effects. The results present a close look at the teacher’s attitude towards content and language errors and points out the lights and shadows of assessment in CLIL while highlighting the need of disclosing further assessment practices in similar contexts.

 

Keywords

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), Science assessment, CLIL assessment, assessment practices, teacher development

Full Text:

PDF

References

Barbero, T. (2012). Assessment tools and practices in CLIL. Franca Quartapelle, 38-56.

Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., Lubben, F., Campbell, B., & Robinson, A. (2010). Talking science: The research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 69-95.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming critical: education, knowledge and action research. Lewes, Falmer.

Council of Europe. (2001). Common european framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment.

Coyle D., Hood P., & Marsh D. (2010) CLIL, content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Departament d’Educació de la Generalitat de Catalunya. (2008). Curriculum Educació Secundària Obligatoria.

http://phobos.xtec.cat/cda-monestirs/web/media/curriculum_eso.pdf (accessed 18 October 2013).

Erickson, F. (2006). Studying side by side: Collaborative action ethnography in educational research. In G. Spindler & L. Hammond (Eds.), Innovations in educational ethnography: Theory methods and results (pp. 235-258). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Evnitskaya, N., & Morton, T. (2011). Knowledge construction, meaning-making and interaction in CLIL science classroom communities of practice. Language and Education, 25(2), 109-127.

Evnitskaya, N. (2012). ‘Talking science in a second language: The interactional coconstruction of dialogic explanations in the CLIL science classroom’. Doctoral Dissertation (unpublished). Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

Fuentes, M.A. (2011). Pathways to CLIL assessment: an approach to the idiosyncrasies of classroom-based evaluation practices in a Science in English CLIL classroom. Research in Language and Literature Teaching Official Master's Degree Dissertation. (unpublished). Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

Hofmannová, M., Novotná, J., & Pípalová, R. (2008). Assessment approaches to teaching mathematics in English as a foreign language (Czech Experience). In Depth, 3(4), 5.

Hönig, I. (2009). Assessment in CLIL –A case study. Current Research on CLIL, 3, 36.

Laplante, B. (1997). Teaching science to language minority students in elementary classrooms. NYSABE Journal, 12, 62-83.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, O., Maerten-Rievea, J., Buxton, C., Penfield, R., & Secada, W. (2009). Urban elementary teachers’ perspectives on teaching science to English language learners, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(3), 263-286.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.

Llinares A., Morton T., & Whittaker R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lyon, E. G., Bunch, G. C., & Shaw, J. M. (2012). Navigating the language demands of an inquiry-based science performance assessment: Classroom challenges and opportunities for English learners. Science Education, 96(4), 631-651.

Lyon, E. G. (2013). What about language while equitably assessing science? Case studies of preservice teachers’ evolving expertise. Teaching and Teacher Education, 32, 1-11.

Maggi, F. (2012). How things started and developed. Franca Quartapelle, 18-28.

Morton, T. (2012). Classroom talk, conceptual change and teacher reflection in bilingual science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(1), 101-110.

Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463-466.

Poisel, E. (2007). Assessment modes in CLIL to enhance language proficiency and interpersonal skills. VIEWZ, 16(3), 43-46.

Serragiotto G. (2006). La valutazione del prodotto CLIL. In F. Ricci Garotti (Ed.), Il futuro si chiama CLIL: una ricerca interregionale sull‟insegnamento veicolare (pp. 159-160). Trento: IPRASE del Trentino.

Smith, K. (2010). Talk it up! Developing students’ oral scientific literacy. Poster presented at the annual Capstone Project, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.

Solano-Flores, G., & Nelson-Barber, S. (2001). On the cultural validity of science assessments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 553-573.

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.

Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. New York, NY: Routledge.

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM
Copyright (c)