EnglishClub ESL Forums

I am curious about the role of assessment in elementary school and how much it impacts student motivation and confidence. English language learners (ELLs) are currently expected to take standardized assessments in the United States, regardless of their knowledge in English. What are your thoughts or opinions on this matter? Should ELLs be required to take these exams? At what point is the exam testing their language abilities rather than their content knowledge? I have experienced firsthand the stress and anxiety that go into preparing for a standardized assessment. This makes me think of the anxiety it can cause to students who are new to the country or are new to learning English.

Honestly, I can't see how requiring these tests for ELLs is helpful for the students. It's hard enough to attempt to master a second language for many people, adding the stress of possibly not understanding the questions or how to answer them, would be a nightmare. The whole purpose of these tests is to determine aptitude, how can this be possible if the student may not understand the test itself? Personally, I think that the way schools perform these tests is largely archaic for everyone involved. In today's climate, with all the understanding we have of the many ways people learn, traditional standardized tests should no longer be in use. Educational benchmarks are important to keep in place; however, the way we evaluate students doesn't have to remain the same. Yes, it would take more work for educators to develop the tests and to mark them but, it would give a more accurate picture of how students really perform if they are given the opportunity to do their best in their own way.

Even as a native English speaker these test use to give me such anxiety as a child. I can't even begin to imagine what it would have been like had English not been first language. And I believe it's a mistake to use these test as a mark of aptitude in this particular situation. There should be an alternative, I feel.

Agreed! I feel that schools will always need their data points, but there is nothing wrong with bringing some type of required test into the 21st century. These exams should be overhauled to include multiple intelligences, multiple types of learners, and different types of skills. This will mean more work for the teachers, schools, or administrations, but there must be a way for everyone to benefit from the experience if this will remain a requirement. A more accurate exam, in a comfortable setting, or broken up into different sections showcasing different activities may be a better way to execute such an exam. Perhaps giving students a choice on how they would want to take their exam would allow them to feel like a standardized test is just like any other activity they would experience in their school. I know currently most schools are not set up for this type of change, but perhaps one day a best practice could be developed in which everyone benefits.

I think standardized tests do cause a great deal of stress and anxiety, which can impact results. Not to mention how testing location and availability of reliable computers play into testing outcomes. I think ELL's work best one on one with a teacher, and can really demonstrate their language proficiency outside of using a computer. Using a computer is already intimidating as it is, and in my experience, it has caused for students to rush through the test so that they can be done with it and move on with their day. Many times, students don't even read the questions to take time to formulate a response. I think certain level of ELL's should be required to take a test, in a controlled environment, to see what their strengths are. Higher level ELL's may have more command over using a computer, and may not feel as insecure about taking a test like that. Lower level ELL's,on the other hand, should not have to take a standardized test like ACCESS, for instance, because it is incredibly intimidating. It also makes them feel less confident that they have made any progress at all.

You know, I hadn't thought about it in my first post but you make a great point on the topic of using computers. On one hand, it can be difficult if you are not accustomed to technology or by the way it is set up, language is creating a barrier for its effective use. On the other hand, you have the very real possibility that technology is "helping" too much. Aspiring to mastery, it makes way more sense to build skills that reside in the mind instead of relying on search engines and translation tools to help complete assignments or to do research.

This, of course, has a much bigger impact as it is a concern for our youth in general; however, when you are out in the world and expecting to communicate face to face, it is the functional practice that would be relied upon. Students should not have the idea that they can get by during class and then rely on their smartphones for translation troubles, later on.

Thank you all for your feedback! I agree that standardized testing needs to be adapted or modified to fit the needs of all students. You all bring up valid points that standardized assessments are not adequately assessing aptitude and knowledge. That is also not to mention that there are multiple components of cultural bias in these types of tests. Some examples include using idioms (which are extremely challenging for ELLs), interpretation, confusing wording, communication styles, and more. Given that the population of ELLs is growing in the United States, there needs to be a more efficient way to tailor to cultural differences instead of expecting students to understand and assimilate to the Western culture. Any thoughts on how this would be implemented functionally - that is, to create a culturally unbiased assessment?

Going back to the assessment piece, as Sancheev stated, some ELLs will create designs on their Scantron without even reading the assessment as a way to get it over. The anxiety and stress levels that coincide with these assessments don't support building a child's confidence. A key contributor in second language acquisition is building confidence first to feel comfortable experimenting with language. Some students may arrive in the country or start school enrollment before state testing. However, they have little to no experience in the language, culture, or community. This serves as obvious challenges as teachers can only support learners in structured and specific ways following the proctoring rules.

If confidence is the key (to which, I agree), then giving learners opportunities for quick-wins is essential. Their journey will be started with success which paves the way for more triumphs. Even if the students don't do well on a test or, if they don't win a game or activity, they will be more apt to stay engaged rather than take the loss personally. If you start the journey with anxiety and failure how does one ever have the hope or confidence to continue?