Which score is adequate: Approximation to the assessment rationale used in a Science through English CLIL written test
Resum
Tot i la onada d’estudis sobre Aprenentatge Integrat de Continguts en Llengua Estrangera (AICLE) en varies àrees, les pràctiques d’avaluació en contexts AICLE continuen sent escasses (Poisel, 2007; Hönig, 2009, Maggi, 2012). Aquest estudi pretén contribuir a aquest apartat i tracta el problema apropant-se a un estudi de cas situat a una unitat de Ciències a través de l’Anglès AICLE implementada a una escola secundària pública a Barcelona, Espanya. L’estudi es focalitza en el test escrit de la unitat i analitza les respostes dels alumnes i el grau de satisfacció del professor després d’implementar el test, el qual ofereix una captura d’una pràctica d’avaluació AICLE i els seus efectes. Els resultats presenten un apropament a l’actitud del professor envers les errades de contingut i llengua i mostra les llums i ombres de l’avaluació AICLE, a la vegada que ressalta la necessitat de divulgar més pràctiques d’avaluació en contexts similars.Paraules clau
Aprenentatge Integrat de Continguts en Llengua Estrangera (AICLE), avaluació de ciències, avaluació AICLE, pràctiques d’avaluació, desenvolupament del professoratReferències
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.
