This document discusses second language acquisition theory and its application in classroom assessment practices without relying on English translations. It covers topics like comprehensible input, explicit vs implicit instruction, attention and memory, modeling the second language lexicon, and examples of on-the-spot assessment, systematic quizzing and writing assignments, testing, and conclusions about building proficiency through a communicative approach with minimal English.

1. Assessing Comprehension
without English
Sara-Elizabeth Cottrell
KWLA Fall Conference
September 26-27, 2008

2. 2
of 17
Overview
 Background
 Theory
 Putting theory to practice
– On-the-spot assessment
– Systematic assessment (quizzing)
– Writing
– Testing
 Examples
 Conclusion

3. 3
of 17
Background
 My journey: from textbook…
– Grammar-centered education
– Textbook-centered teaching
 …to linguistics…
 …to storytelling.
– How do children learn language?
– How can I mimic this process in the classroom?
– Does it really work?

4. 4
of 17
Background
 Terminology
– Second Language Acquisition (SLA)
– L1/L2
– Lexicon
 What is the field of SLA all about?
– The ‘black box’: What happens in the student’s
brain between input and output?
 Why look to SLA theory?

5. 5
of 17
Research areas:
Comprehensible input
Explicit vs. implicit instruction
 Explicit instruction
– Aware of learning (Krashen, DeKeyser)
– Aware of what’s being learned (Doughty)
– “Focus on forms”
 Implicit
– (Unconscious) acquisition (Krashen)
– Unaware of “learning” (DeKeyser)
– “Focus on form” (Doughty & Williams)

6. 6
of 17
Comprehensible input in your
classroom: Krashen’s I+1 in practice
 Students are working hard to understand, but
they can’t:
TOO HARD!
 Students understand without effort:
TOO EASY!
 Students have to try, but they
can understand:
JUST RIGHT!

7. 7
of 17
Research area:
Attention and memory
 “Noticing”
– Teacher calls attention to a particular feature.
– Examples:
asking questions to draw a specific answer
verbally pointing something out
bolding and colors
– caminaron
– trabajaron
 Especially effective for older students

8. 8
of 17
Modeling the L2 lexicon
 Returning to the ‘black box’: what’s going on
with the L2 in the brain?
L1 WORDS L2 WORDS
L1 CONCEPTS L2 CONCEPTS
UNIFIED CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE

9. 9
of 17
Modeling the L2 lexicon:
Implications for instruction
Concept:
developed by
experiencing
something
flower
L1 word associated with
concept– very strong bond
la flor
L2 word: goal is to develop a
strong bond with the
concept, not with the L1 word

10. 10
of 17
Theory to practice:
On-the-spot assessment
 Straightforward: “Do you understand?”
 Leading through serial questions
– Starting from the beginning
– Getting students involved
– Including possible answers to clarify question
words
 When English is necessary

11. 11
of 17
Theory to practice:
Systematic (short) assessment
 Writing quiz questions
– Focusing on target vocabulary
– Adding clarifying possible answers
 Assessing quiz answers
– Allowing variable answers to keep assessment valid
– Giving partial credit for understanding the question
– Using notes/dictionary

12. 12
of 17
Theory to practice:
Systematic writing assignments
 Why have them?
– Low-risk language production
– Readily apparent student-hypothesizing
– Collaborative learning/scaffolding
 How to grade them?
– Periodically in chunks of assignments (4 over 2
weeks, e.g.)
– Only over the target linguistic feature

13. 13
of 17
Theory to practice:
Testing
 Writing communicative tests
– Be creative: use high-interest/strange questions and
pictures.
– Make sure questions have been addressed before.
– Target specific features.
– Specify what points are assigned for what features.
 Grading tests
– Mark as appropriate, but deduct only as specified.
– Make point values mean something (may result in
<100 pt. tests).

14. 14
of 17
Theory to practice:
Examples
 Continual questions
 Class blog
 Quizzes
 Regular writing assignments
 Testing
 Projects
 Final exams

15. 15
of 17
Theory to practice:
Grading assessment
 Have specific expectations.
 Refuse to be distracted by errors unrelated to
current assessment (shortens grading time).
 Consider using point values less than 100.
 Consider adding quiz totals for a test grade at
regular intervals (i.e. once per quarter).
 If communicative competence is your goal,
evaluate that.

16. 16
of 17
Conclusions
 SLA research supports a communicative
approach that uses as little English
translation as possible in order to build true
proficiency.
 It is possible (and worth it) to almost
completely throw English translation out
from your assessment.
 As a last resort, asking for or providing
translation can be valuable if the alternative
would consume too much time.

17. 17
of 17
Thank you!
Any questions?
musicuentos.blogspot.com
secottrell@whitefield.org

18. References
18
of 17
DeKeyser, R. 2003: Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty and
M. Long (eds), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 313-348.
Doughty, C. 2003: Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and
enhancement. In C. Doughty and M. Long (eds), The Handbook of
Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 256-
310.
Doughty, C. and Williams, J. 1998: Issues and terminology. In C.
Doughty and J. Williams (eds), Focus on Form in Classroom
Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1-11.
Ellis, R. 2005: Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33,
209-224.
Gass, S. 2003: Input and interaction. In C. Doughty and M. Long
(eds), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing, 224-255.
Krashen, S. 2006: Carolina TESOL/SCFLTA conference, Columbia,
S.C., March 18.
Lightbown, P. 2000: Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research
and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21, 431-462.

19. 19
of 17
Modeling the L2 lexicon, cont.
 Inhibitory Control (IC)
– Green, D.W. (1998). “Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic
system.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1,
67-81.
– See also Kroll & Bialystok.
 Revised Hierarchical Model (RCM)
– Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in
translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric
connections between bilingual memory representations.
Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149-174.