language development
nadoshah
FineFurtakCultResScienceAsmt.pdf
Science Education. 2020;104:393–420. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sce © 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 393
Received: 8 February 2019 | Revised: 13 December 2019 | Accepted: 2 January 2020 DOI: 10.1002/sce.21565
I S S U E S A N D T R E N D S
A framework for science classroom assessment task design for emergent bilingual learners
Caitlin G. McC. Fine1 | Erin M. Furtak2
1Equity, Bilingualism and Biliteracy, School of
Education, University of Colorado Boulder,
Boulder, Colorado
2STEM Education, School of Education,
University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder,
Colorado
Correspondence
Caitlin Fine, Equity, Bilingualism and
Biliteracy, School of Education, University of
Colorado Boulder, UCB 249, Boulder,
CO 80309.
Email: [email protected]
Funding information
National Science Foundation,
Grant/Award Numbers: 1505527, 1561751
Abstract
The Framework for K–12 Science Education (NRC; 2012) placed
renewed emphasis on creating equitable science learning
opportunities for all learners by engaging in three‐dimensional learning experiences: disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting
concepts, and science and engineering practices. Additionally,
the Framework calls for a more inclusive approach to science
learning that builds upon learners' linguistic practices and funds
of knowledge and integrates open‐ended, multimodal ap- proaches to documenting learning throughout the assessment
process. To support assessment developers in designing
expansive Framework‐aligned classroom‐assessment approaches for emergent bilingual learners—learners developing two or
more languages—tools are needed to guide design of assess-
ments from their inception. This paper presents a literature‐ based framework for science assessment design for emergent
bilingual learners that includes components critical to support
these learners. We then operationalize the framework into five
categories and analyze nine publicly available Next Generation
Science Standards sample classroom assessments. The sample
tasks allow us to illustrate how those engaged in classroom
assessment design might create more expansive Framework‐ based science classroom assessments appropriate for emergent
bilingual learners.
K E Y W O R D S
assessment design, classroom assessment, emergent bilingual,
English learner, science
1 | INTRODUCTION
Emergent bilingual learners from a variety of cultural and linguistic backgrounds increasingly populate United
States (US) classrooms. This heterogeneous group includes learners with intersectional identities born in the US
who have grown up listening to and speaking two or more langauges, as well as refugees and immigrant learners
born outside the US. As enrollment of these learners has increased in US schools, the National Research Council
[NRC] (2012) set forth a new vision for science learning in the Framework for K–12 Science Education. This vision,
comprised of scientific practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts, created the occasion to rethink
science learning in K–12 science classrooms in the US.
The Framework argued for broader participation in science for emergent bilingual learners who have historically
been marginalized in school science (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2018;
NRC, 2012) by building on the community‐based assets and cultural and linguistic resources that learners bring to the classroom (NRC, 2012). The Framework has also expanded ways learning can be assessed through
multicomponent tasks that capture the ways learners engage in scientific practices and apply crosscutting
concepts as they learn disciplinary core ideas (NRC, 2014).
Within this context, the mechanisms and structures of assessment have and continue to carry social
consequences for emergent bilingual learners, including the reproduction of social inequality (Menken, 2008). For
example, English‐language content‐area and English proficiency assessments can act as gatekeepers for college‐ preparation and career‐readiness courses in high school and, in some states, the ability to obtain a high school diploma. Interrogating taken‐for‐granted assessment practices and collaborating with communities impacted by testing can begin to address inequalities for emergent bilingual learners (Schissel, 2019).
To fully realize the vision of the Framework, classroom assessment tasks need to equitably capture the performance
of emergent bilingual learners in their design (NASEM, 2018). We must move beyond adapting existing assessments
prepared with European‐American middle‐class English speakers in mind. Instead, we need to design assessment tasks in ways that also validate and sustain the multiple linguistic and cultural ways of knowing that emergent bilingual
learners bring to the classroom; in effect, taking these learners into account from the initial conceptualization of the
assessment. We work from a “raciolinguistic perspective” which understands the need for broader structural reform
beyond additive measures or resource‐based approaches (Flores & Rosa, 2015). Part of this broader reform includes the need for White, European‐American, English‐speaking monolingual individuals at all levels of the education system (including assessment designers and education researchers) to critically gaze inward. We must continually reflect upon
and confront the ways in which our own socialization within the US education system has influenced how we frame and
design for learners who do not share our identities and the inequalities doing so continues to perpetuate. This includes
reflecting on how the terms “diverse” (non‐White, non‐English‐speaking) and “inclusion” maintain certain structural and ideological frameworks that marginalize students (Paris, 2019).
In this paper, we draw on previous literature to develop a new framework for designing classroom assessments
that equitably reflect what emergent bilingual learners know and are able to do and apply the framework to
exemplar tasks. We identify areas in which these exemplar tasks excel in creating expansive learning opportunities
for all learners, and also ways the tasks could be further improved to better access, affirm and sustain the science
understanding of emergent bilingual learners. We close with suggestions for researchers developing three‐ dimensional science assessments to broaden access for and build on the multiple ways of knowing that emergent
bilingual learners bring to the classroom.
2 | BACKGROUND
We situate our work within the larger body of research on classroom assessment in general, as well as classroom
assessment that aligns with the Framework's three‐dimensional science learning vision (NRC, 2012). We discuss the
394 | FINE AND FURTAK
importance of considering the strengths that emergent bilingual learners bring to assessment tasks and the need for
assessment designers to create tasks that specifically draw upon these strengths. Finally, we review and synthesize the
literature that informs our proposed framework for science assessment design for emergent bilingual learners.
2.1 | Classroom assessment and the Framework
For the purposes of this paper, we define classroom assessment following Brookhart (2003) as assessment activities
conducted within a classroom context for the purpose of informing grades assigned by the teacher (summative classroom
assessment), or informing ongoing classroom instruction (formative assessment). This distinction between summative and
formative assessment is one that primarily refers to the context of use, not necessarily to a task itself (Wiliam, 2007).
Summative use of assessment usually involves a consequential decision—such as an end‐of‐unit grade—made on the basis of learner performance on a task. In contrast, formative use of assessment involves teachers and learners providing
feedback that both forms and informs subsequent learning. Assessment can also be placed on a continuum between
formal assessment, which is conducted at particular points in time or during key junctures in learning experiences, and
informal assessment, which is conducted on‐the‐fly, every day as teachers attend to what learners know and are able to do (e.g., Shavelson et al., 2008). Both forms of assessment are critical to quality instruction.
Tasks are a particular form of formal assessment. Teachers may design tasks themselves, create them in
collaboration with others, or find them online or in curriculum materials. These tasks then serve as the basis for
organizing teacher and student interactions (Cowie, Jones, & Otrel‐Cass, 2011). For example, drawings and pictures may be used to surface learner thinking, or to encourage learners to apply ideas learned in a science activity as they analyze
data. Teacher practice around these tasks can vary considerably (e.g., Furtak et al., 2008; Kang, Thompson, & Windschitl,
2014; Sezen‐Barrie & Kelly, 2017). Twenty years ago, Shepard (2000) noted that classroom assessment often reflected cognitive and behaviorist
theories of learning and measured the “amount of” knowledge stored up in learners' minds through multiple‐choice and fill‐in‐the‐blank style assessments. More recent surveys indicate that this trend persists (Banilower et al., 2013). The Framework vision of science learning challenges these forms of assessments, arguing student learning should consist of
disciplinary core ideas, or the big ideas in science, scientific practices, or the ways in which scientists conduct their work;
and crosscutting concepts, or the unifying threads that cut across all sciences (NRC, 2012). This three‐dimensional approach changed the assessment landscape in the field of science education (NRC, 2014). In two separate volumes, one
for policymakers and researchers (NRC, 2014) and one for practitioners (NRC, 2017), the NRC articulated guidelines for
how new classroom assessments—both formative and summative—might be constructed, including mixed item formats
(such as multiple‐choice and written response items), portfolios, and performance events. In addition to selecting, adapting, creating, and using new forms of assessment tasks, teachers also must ensure
they support all learners to engage in—and receive subsequent instructional support on the basis of—new forms of
assessment. Teachers should not be left to adapt assessments that were written with monolingual English‐speaking learners in mind. Instead, the educational system needs to provide expansive opportunities for learners from all
linguistic backgrounds to demonstrate their science understandings when engaging in science learning experiences,
and design fair and valid assessments of this learning (NASEM, 2018).
2.2 | Emergent bilingual learners
The Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) identifies 10% of K–12 learners enrolled in US public schools as
“English Learners” (EL) (OELA, 2018). This number includes learners identified as either limited English proficient or
non‐English proficient through state‐designated metrics, such as scores on language proficiency assessments, results of home‐language surveys, teacher evaluations, and standardized tests.
FINE AND FURTAK | 395
EL learners are a heterogeneous group. They live throughout the United States, including states that have not
traditionally had large percentages of EL learners, such as Mississippi, West Virginia, and Wyoming (OELA, 2018).
While the majority of these learners (around 75%) are Spanish speakers, EL learners in US public schools speak
over 400 languages and dialects (OELA, 2018). Although EL learners tend to live and attend schools in fairly
segregated urban areas (García, Kleifgen, & Falchi, 2008) percentages of EL learners living in rural areas have
recently increased. Most ELs are elementary‐school‐aged, but due to economic, political, and social unrest in parts of the world, there has been an increase in the number of foreign‐born ELs attending high school in the United States. Many of these learners have experienced interrupted schooling and are considered undocumented youth
(Garcia et al., 2008). However, despite common views, most learners classified as EL were born in the United States,
including children of refugee and immigrant parents, US Latinos, and Indigenous peoples. In addition, one‐fourth of ELs are considered long‐term ELs, meaning they have been educated in US schools for longer than 7 years but have not tested out of EL status (Flores, Kleyn, & Menken, 2015).
Increasingly, the label “English learners” has been criticized for its focus on what these learners are perceived to
lack. Repositioning these learners as “emergent bilinguals” broadens traditional descriptions of ELs, explicitly
naming their linguistic resources as assets (García & Kleifgen, 2010). This stance builds on perspectives from
holistic bilingualism, which argue that languages influence and mediate the development of each other (Dworin,
2003). Theories of holistic bilingualism are rooted in the belief that bilingual speakers are more than two
monolinguals in one body, and their language structures and functions do not develop along two isolated paths
(Grosjean, 1989). Viewing learners as emergent bilinguals places value on the linguistic resources that together
help them express their lived experiences (García, Johnson, & Seltzer, 2017).
In authoring this manuscript, we considered ongoing conversations about terminology within the field of
bilingual education. We acknowledge that the term emergent bilingual does not represent all bi/multilingual
learners in US schools. Many bi/multilingual learners without EL designations have grown up listening to and
speaking a non‐English language at home and are to some degree bilingual in that language and in English (Valdés, 2001). These learners possess knowledge of multiple linguistic practices associated with social and cultural ways of
knowing and doing science that are embedded within their families and communities. As such, a holistic view of
bilingualism acknowledges these learners' multiple linguistic resources and views them as a powerful resource to be
leveraged for learning rather than suppressed or criticized. Although all bi/multilingual learners should benefit from
classroom assessments designed according to the framework presented in this manuscript, the literature we review
focuses on classroom assessment design criteria for emergent bilingual learners.
2.3 | Design criteria for classroom assessments aligned with the Framework's equity vision
Given this purposeful framing of emergent bilingual learners, a number of questions emerge: Should classroom
assessments evaluate isolated science facts before allowing emergent bilingual learners to engage in Framework‐ based scientific practices or make sense with crosscutting concepts? How does task format influence the type and
amount of information emergent bilingual learners demonstrate? How can assessment designers create space for
emergent bilingual learners to demonstrate their strengths as knowers and allow them to use all their linguistic,
community, and cultural resources as they share science ideas?
The literature on supporting emergent bilingual learners has posited—through conceptual reviews, empirical
research, and practitioner‐oriented resources based upon that research—recommendations for best practices in assessing these learners. In the following sections, we summarize recommendations for designing science classroom
assessments that make space for emergent bilinguals to demonstrate what they know and are able to do, combined
with current descriptions of Framework‐aligned classroom assessment. Given the task‐focused nature of assessment, we reviewed literature on task design, rather than classroom discourse strategies. In so doing, we
396 | FINE AND FURTAK
draw across literature from classroom assessment, studies of emergent bilingual learners (often referred to in these
studies as EL or ELL learners), and science education. We use the term “emergent bilingual” in our description of
these studies for clarity and readability that also consistently reframes bilingualism as an asset.
We started with theoretical and empirical work published in major educational research journals related to
assessment of emergent bilingual learners in science, supplemented by practitioner‐focused literature centered on supporting emergent bilingual learners in general. We also included studies published in the field of science
education focused on formative assessment task design. We created the framework by reading the literature and
clustering concepts and suggestions into common categories. We then iteratively refined, reduced, and combined
categories as we examined samples of student work. We further refined these categories as we read additional
literature and received feedback from peers and reviewers. Taken together, the literature suggests specific design
criteria categories that will be fully elaborated on in subsequent sections: Culture and Language, Alignment and
Rigor, Task Components, Clear Objectives and Scoring Criteria, and Integration of scaffolds (These criteria are
summarized in Table 1). We argue these criteria not only support emergent bilinguals, but all learners in classrooms
aligned with the Framework vision. Ultimately, incorporating these design principles would shift away from
modifying existing tasks toward initial design that benefits more learners.
We approach this study as educators committed to broadening participation in science learning and assessment
for all learners, and in particular those historically marginalized in or excluded from science learning and
assessment. Caitlin identifies as a White, cisgender sequential English–Spanish bilingual female, and as a bilingual
educator with experience teaching elementary science in Spanish and English literacy at a Spanish–English dual‐ language public school. As a researcher, she explores how teachers create space for translanguaging on science
classroom assessment tasks, and how teachers' language ideologies influence and are influenced by codesign of
science classroom assessment tasks. Erin identifies as a White, cisgender female raised in a monolingual English
home who acquired German proficiency as a young adult, and who was a public high school science teacher. As a
researcher, she studies assessment codesign and enactment in partnership with teachers and school districts and
TABLE 1 Framework for science classroom assessments for emergent bilingual learners
Category Description
Culture and Language • Task includes questions that explicitly create space for learners to share their
own cultural understandings, lived experiences and scientific practices
• Task, task instructions, objectives and/or scoring tools are written in at least
one langauge in addition to English
• Instructions indicate that learners are able to translanguage to support sense‐ making and/or communicate their thinking
• Phenomena contain the opportunity to be place‐based in the local community
Alignment and Rigor • Three‐dimensional science content based on NGSS (Next Generation Science Standards)
• Grade‐level discipline‐specific academic vocabulary • Cognitively challenging tasks
Task Components • Open‐ended components • Multiple item types
• Multiple entry points
• Include use or creation of diagrams or models with written explanations as
evidence
Clear Objectives and Scoring
Criteria • Content and/or language objective(s) stated at beginning of the task
• Objective(s) not so detailed that it explains the scientific principles
• A scoring tool, such as a rubric or checklist
Integration of Scaffolds • Support contextualization, metacognition, and/or understanding of
purposefully challenging elements of the task
FINE AND FURTAK | 397
seeks to better understand the ways classroom assessment tasks are accessible to and surface the lived
experiences, resources, and cultural and linguistic practices of learners.
2.4 | Culture and Language
The Framework builds upon research indicating the importance of creating assessment opportunities that invite and
encourage learners to draw on their cultural and linguistic resources (NRC, 2012). This study base justifies a focus
on phenomena that embed learners' science learning in questions that are contiguous with and relevant to their
daily lives and lived experiences (NASEM, 2018). Emergent bilinguals face particular challenges as classroom
assessment practices tend to reflect and reproduce White and Western ways of understanding science, education,
and classroom assessment (Huges, 2010).
2.4.1 | Culturally sustaining assessment design
We understand culture as a dynamic, constantly transforming and shifting experience that represents the lived
practices and histories of communities (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003). Tapping into these funds of knowledge can help
learners connect their prior experiences with their current science learning (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992).
To foster and sustain multiple ways of knowing and doing in schools, we take up Alim and Paris' (2017, p. 14)
conception of culturally sustaining pedagogies that center “dynamic community languages, valued practices and
knowledge, learner and community agency and input, historicized content and instruction, a capacity to contend
with internalized oppressions, and an ability to curricularize all of this in learning settings.” This pluralistic vision
builds on culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson‐Billings, 1995) and culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2010). It recenters achievement beyond White middle‐class, monocultural/monolingual norms and does not adhere it align with longstanding, static notions of culture and language (Alim & Paris, 2017).
Solano‐Flores and Nelson‐Barber (2001) developed the concept of cultural validity, or the consideration of how the sociocultural context of learners' lives influences sense‐making, assessment practices, and the nature of their responses on assessments. They called for cultural validity to be considered at all stages of assessment design and
interpretation. For example, assessment designers must create space for the fact that, in responding to
assessments, emergent bilingual learners might use a variety of problem‐solving strategies, including some not commonly taught in schools in the United States, and they might represent their knowledge about a science
concept in ways that reflect how that concept is talked about at home or in their communities (Solano‐Flores & Nelson‐Barber, 2001).
Though these concepts have recently been written about extensively in the theoretical literature, less empirical
research has been conducted about the design principles guiding culturally sustaining science assessment tasks for
emergent bilinguals. Buxton (2010) found that emergent bilingual middle school learners were able to increase
their science content knowledge when engaged in the study of local place‐based environmental challenges with global health implications. The place‐based, locally contextualized aspect of the project allowed learners to access, relate to, and engage with the task through recognizable conditions (Buxton, 2010). Community‐based science programs have also been developed that support the ways that Indigenous peoples elevate multiple ways of
knowing, and which create space for science learning to build on the cultural values and knowledge that Indigenous
peoples bring to understanding the natural world (Bang & Medin, 2010; Bang, Medin, Washinawatok, &
Chapman, 2010).
Culturally sustaining pedagogies must cross over into the system of classroom assessment design to have an
emancipatory impact on the lives of emergent bilingual learners. A culturally sustaining approach to assessment would
ask us to think about culture in dynamic, living, constantly evolving ways that do not map culture onto well‐bounded
398 | FINE AND FURTAK
ethnoracial groups (Bang & Marin, 2015; Likely & Wright, 2019; Paris, 2019). Since the epistemologies of school science
largely reflect White and Western orientations, heterogeneous cultural practices and epistemologies learners bring to
assessment events have often historically been perceived as having lesser or no value. Assessments should thus create
space for learners to access and share expansive ways of knowing and experiences relevant to what they are learning
while also drawing in families and community members as part of the assessment design and interpretation process
(Bang, 2019). Tasks may include references to a variety of cultural norms and do so in ways that do not perpetuate harm
through essentializing, stereotypes or microaggressions. Design teams comprised of students, families, teachers, and
community members (Shultz et al., 2019) that reflect the heterogeneous cultural and linguistic norms of learners in the
United Staes can promote more inclusive design. Additionally, task design teams should conduct heterogeneous focus
groups with learners, including emergent bilinguals, as well as members of their families and communities, as they elicit
and identify task phenomena and seek feedback during task development. Culturally sustaining assessment tasks might
also provide explicit ways in which educators can tailor datasets to their geographic location.
2.4.2 | Translanguaging assessment design
There are slightly different, yet overlapping, approaches to supporting the ways emergent bilinguals use language in
science classrooms. One line of research describes that the science classroom can be a place where learners acquire
the disciplinary language of science (Schleppegrell, 2006, 2009). Building from a systemic functional linguistics
perspective (Halliday, 1978), Bunch (2013) stresses that content teachers should develop pedagogical language
knowledge; that is, knowledge of language explicitly related to disciplinary teaching and learning. Classroom
assessment design teams can thus contain members who bring knowledge of language acquisition to the design
process so that tasks can be designed from the beginning in ways that enable emergent bilingual learners to
demonstrate their knowledge about the disciplinary language of science.
A somewhat different line of research has focused on re‐imagining school science as a place for sense‐making using everyday knowledge and language. Lee, Quinn, and Valdés (2013) have argued that teachers should take up an asset‐ based sociocultural orientation toward language and science that stresses what emergent bilingual learners can do with
language, both socially and experientially, as they engage in the practices of science and of scientific discourse. Doing so
can yield important learning outcomes; for example, emergent bilingual learners develop more complex understandings
of scientific situations when they examine and interrogate scientific phenomena through everyday language (Rosebery,
Warren, Ballenger, & Ogonowski, 2005). Similarly, emergent bilingual learners who learned science content with
everyday language before learning scientific terms developed improved science understandings as compared to learners
taught content using mainly academic scientific language (Brown & Ryoo, 2008).
Another key approach to supporting emergent bilinguals in assessment includes translanguaging, or the
communicative norm of bi/multilingual communities where speakers might choose to deploy different linguistic resources
depending on context, but do not necessarily adhere to the socially and politically identified boundaries of named
languages (García, 2011; Otheguy, García, & Reid, 2015). A translanguaging stance toward assessment, similar to a
translanguaging stance toward pedagogy, draws upon learners' bi/multilingual repertoires to expand learning
opportunities. It also supports sense‐making by allowing learners to use their various linguistic resources, including languages and minoritized languaging practices not traditionally valued in school science (Garcia & Wei, 2014).
Following these assertions, classroom assessments should be presented in both the language of instruction and
common home languages represented within the classroom, with attention to sociocultural factors and to learners'
linguistic profiles and histories (García et al., 2017). For example, if a teacher works in a predominantly Spanish‐speaking community with many recently arrived immigrants from Latin America, they might want their task to be presented in
both English and Spanish or in English, Spanish and Indigenous languages spoken by learners. In addition, classroom
assessments might explicitly allow emergent bilingual learners to use all of their linguistic resources to think about,
discuss with peers or teachers, and/or respond to assessment tasks (García & Sylvan, 2011; García et al., 2017).
FINE AND FURTAK | 399
Incorporation of technologies that allow learners to read and respond to discipline‐specific assessment events using bi/ multilingual practices can also enable learners to demonstrate what they know and can do (Garcia & Wei, 2014).
García et al. (2017) identified four principles to guide translanguaging assessment designs for emergent bilinguals.
First, assessment designs should consider many perspectives, including families, teachers, peers, and the learners
themselves. This creates space for assessment designers to reflect critically upon the historicity of instruction and
assessment within the community and to build from local cultural and linguistic norms. This principle seems to also
support the inclusion of multiple entry points on a given classroom assessment. Second, assessment tasks should include
opportunities for emergent bilinguals to use their interpersonal resources (peers and teachers), their intrapersonal
resources (their inner voice with its entire language repertoire), and external material resources. Assessment tasks
should indicate that learners are able to use all of their linguistic resources to help them make sense of the task and/or
communicate their thinking. This might include wording in content objectives or scoring criteria that lets learners know
they are able to use their interpersonal, intrapersonal and external material resources to think through and respond to
the task (García et al., 2017). Third, assessment tasks should be authentic and performance‐based. Such tasks create equitable space for students to express their science knowledge through multiple linguistic practices and build on the
translanguaging resources of students while maintaining rigor and alignment. Fourth, when assessing language, tasks for
emergent bilingual learners must differentiate between general linguistic and language‐specific performances. For example, learners should be able to access and use their entire linguistic repertoire when completing assessments
focused on science content to demonstrate what they know about science, but it is reasonable to expect that emergent
bilinguals only encode responses in English on an English‐language assessment. As such, assessment designers should consider explicitly allowing translanguaging when designing assessment content objectives. Assessments might even
incorporate translanguaging objectives in addition to content and language objectives.
Though little is written about what this might look like in science education, recent research in literacy education
has explored educator‐created translanguaging adaptations for classroom literacy assessments. Schissel, de Korne, and López‐Gopar (2018) found that some teachers reluctantly incorporated translanguaging into classroom‐based assessment tools, delegating it for clarification purposes or as a possible, but not necessarily useful, scaffold whereas
others incorporated it throughout the development of assessments and scoring rubrics, embracing it as a way for
emergent bilinguals to demonstrate their emerging literacy competencies. Similarly, Ascenzi‐Moreno (2018) highlighted translanguaging assessment adaptations teachers made during reading formative assessments. For example, when
teachers introduced the text, they used English and the learners' home language. Then, during the retell portion of the
assessment, teachers invited and accepted learner narrations in English or the home language or in combination
(Ascenzi‐Moreno, 2018). Ultimately, by centering emergent bilinguals' multiple linguistic resources as strengths and tools that can be used throughout classroom assessment tasks, teachers will gain a better understanding of what
emergent bilinguals know about disciplinary‐specific content (Celic & Seltzer, 2013). The Culture and Language category both informs and overlaps with the subsequent empirically based
categories. How we perceive and understand language in many ways informs how we understand Alignment and
Rigor, Task Components, Assessment Objectives and Scoring Criteria, and the Nature of Scaffolding in relation to
emergent bilingual learners. As such, we have integrated elements of translanguaging assessment design
throughout multiple subsequent framework categories.
2.5 | Alignment and Rigor
Classroom assessments should assess all three dimensions of a performance expectation—scientific practices,
crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas—in ways that align with the appropriate grade band (NRC, 2014).
From the perspective of equity, this means that assessments designed for all learners—including emergent bilingual
learners—should be aligned with the appropriate grade‐level expectation along trajectories of learning (NRC, 2012).
400 | FINE AND FURTAK
However, teachers who work with emergent bilingual learners often maintain views that reflect assumptions that
they are not capable of engaging in the same rigorous and challenging learning experiences as their monolingual English‐ speaking peers (Garcia & Guerra, 2004). Often, this manifests in the “basic‐skills conspiracy,” whereby learners are only provided access to lower‐cognitive demand tasks on the assumption they are necessary precursors to more challenging activities (Pearson & Cervetti, 2015). These views can limit learners' opportunities to learn. For example, science
teachers involved in a professional learning community who worked with lower‐track learners believed students' lower‐ track status to be a barrier to implementing critical thinking and inquiry‐based science investigations, thus limiting exposure to standards‐aligned science opportunities (Lewis, Baker, & Helding, 2015).
Multiple scholars, however, have argued that classroom assessments can maintain rigorous science content for all
learners. The content of classroom assessments, much like instruction, should not be “watered down” for emergent
bilingual learners (Walqui, 2006). Instead, teachers should incorporate temporary linguistic scaffolds to increase
learners' ability to access grade‐level discipline‐specific content. For example, discipline‐specific science vocabulary can be kept at or above grade‐level whereas teachers simultaneously incorporate multiple opportunities for learners to engage in the discourse practices of science, including during classroom assessment events (Lee et al., 2013). Similarly,
educators can reduce the complexity of sentence structures and minimize unfamiliar vocabulary without avoiding
technical language related to the content that is being measured (Abedi, 2010).
Several studies have found that all learners can succeed with cognitively challenging material when provided
rigorous curriculum, supportive conditions, material resources, and knowledgeable teachers (Alvarez, Ananda,
Walqui, Sato, & Rabinowitz, 2014; Banks et al., 2007). For example, Lee, Deaktor, Enders, and Lambert (2008) found
that elementary science teachers who learned how to incorporate home languages and cultures during inquiry‐ oriented lessons had learners who demonstrated statistically significant gains in science learning (Lee et al., 2008).
Similarly, through iterative classroom assessment improvement work with middle school science teachers, Siegel
(2007) found that emergent bilingual learners were able to engage meaningfully in rigorous, cognitively challenging
classroom assessment tasks. He did, however, identify that text‐heavy tasks can increase reading time for emergent bilingual learners and negatively impact their performance on assessments (Siegel, 2007).
2.6 | Task Components
Framework‐aligned assessment tasks are intended to be multicomponent; that is, consisting of tasks that comprise
multiple related questions. Specifically, the NRC (2014) stated that:
To adequately cover the three dimensions, assessment tasks will generally need to contain multiple
components (e.g., a set of interrelated questions). It may be useful to focus on individual practices, core
ideas, or crosscutting concepts in the various components of an assessment task, but, together, the
components need to support inferences about students' three‐dimensional science learning as described in a
given performance expectation. (p. 44)
Integrating multiple types of questions can provide educators a more nuanced understanding of what learners
know about a given science concept (Minstrell & van Zee, 2003). For example, certain types of questions allow
educators to elicit initial understanding about a topic, whereas other question types prompt learners to clarify or
elaborate on observations and inferences or to justify their answers using evidence (Minstrell & van Zee, 2003).
However, since language acquisition is an uneven process, integrating multiple question types has significant
implications when designing assessments for emergent bilingual learners. Emergent bilingual learners often have varying
levels of proficiency across different language components, such as syntactic and pragmatic knowledge or morphological
and phonological skills, and different registers, such as everyday versus academic discourses (Solano‐Flores, 2006). For this reason, assessment tasks should contain distinct components that, although focused on the same disciplinary
FINE AND FURTAK | 401
objectives, require different linguistic demands that allow learners multiple ways to demonstrate their science
knowledge using a variety of linguistic resources (Solano‐Flores & Soltero‐Gonzalez, 2011). Alvarez et al. (2014) explained that science classroom assessments with components that build consecutively
upon each other often limit the extent to which bilingual learners can successfully complete a task. Instead, tasks
should allow for multiple points of entry with questions that can be answered in any sequence. Classroom
assessment tasks for emergent bilingual learners should also include at least one open‐ended component that allows learners to demonstrate their emergent understandings about science content (Alvarez et al., 2014). For
example, strong science classroom assessments can encourage emergent bilingual learners to create and/or use
diagrams, graphics, or models and generate accompanying written explanations as evidence.
2.7 | Clear Objectives and Scoring Criteria
A major element of classroom assessment research has included supports for learners' metacognition (White &
Frederiksen, 1998), as well as making learning goals and grading criteria explicit to learners (e.g., Coffey, 2003).
Such inclusion can help to make expectations clear for learners, as well as to help them better understand the
criteria by which they will be evaluated (Kang et al., 2014). These supports have also been shown to be useful for
emergent bilingual learners.
As every content‐based assessment is also a language assessment, part of the process of designing tasks appropriate for bilingual learners involves deciding if a given assessment will assess content or language or both (Gottlieb, 2016).
Mahoney (2017, p. 91) urged assessment designers to understand that language is best assessed within an integrated,
natural and authentic environment where the language assessment purpose is “articulated, isolated, and clear.” Once
assessment designers have decided the purpose of the assessment, clearly written learner‐facing content and language task objectives should be drafted to guide the design process and give learners a sense of the learning goals as they
complete the task (Gottlieb, 2016). The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol encouraged the inclusion of learner‐ facing content and language objectives that are worded in such a way that they do not incorporate answers learners are
expected to induce during the assessment itself (Echevarria, Richards‐Tutor, Canges, & Francis, 2011). For example, a learner‐facing content objective for science might be “In this task, you will demonstrate an understanding of implications of variation within a population.” This objective lets emergent bilingual learners know what they will be expected to
demonstrate but does not outline the specific implications.
Clear scoring criteria such as content‐specific and language‐specific rubrics and checklists are another design feature found to support emergent bilingual learners (Gottlieb, 2016). An action research study with elementary
educators found that it was important for teachers to be clear about the objectives and scoring criteria of
classroom assessments (Torrance & Pryor, 2001). Objectives and scoring criteria need to be presented explicitly at
the beginning of the task, and revisited throughout, so learners know the academic purpose of the assessment,
what is expected, and how it will be scored (Torrance & Pryor, 2001). This perspective is consistent with arguments
presented in Lee et al. (2013) that language be developed in supportive and inclusive science learning contexts.
2.8 | Integration of Scaffolds
Scaffolds can be provided to support learners' engagement in three‐dimensional performance expectations, and these scaffolds can be faded depending on the point within a curriculum that the tasks are used (e.g., McNeill,
Lizotte, Krajcik, & Marx, 2006; NRC, 2014). Research on supporting emergent bilingual learners similarly values the
use of multiple scaffolds to provide learners support in demonstrating their scientific knowledge and engagement in
practice. Linguistic features, such as language load, complex linguistic structures, and length of assessments tend to
slow down readers and increase the chances of misinterpretation (Abedi, 2010). Abedi and colleagues have
402 | FINE AND FURTAK
demonstrated that reducing the complexity of sentence structures increases emergent bilingual learners' success
on assessments (Abedi & Lord, 2001). For example, passive voice phrases can be replaced with phrases that contain
actors identified by proper nouns and nonfocal vocabulary can be replaced with more common terms. (Abedi,
2006). Similarly, use of shorter sentences or bulleted items is an effective way to reduce the language load and
scaffold the assessment format without impacting the content of the assessment (Alvarez et al., 2014).
Several studies have found that all learners performed better when modifications and scaffolds were integrated
throughout classroom assessment tasks. Siegel (2007) found that linguistic, cognitive, and visual modifications
improved scores for both emergent bilingual speakers and English‐only speakers. Examples of integrated modifications include linguistic simplification of vocabulary and syntax, bulleted lists, reduction of words in item
stems, visual supports for item stems, reduction of nonessential information, use of bold type for emphasis, dividing
prompts into smaller units, and graphic organizers (Siegel, 2007). Similarly, Kang et al. (2014) identified five types of
science assessment scaffolds that allowed learners, including emergent bilinguals, to make their reasoning explicit:
using contextualized phenomena, rubrics, checklists, sentence frames, and encouraging learners to draw
explanatory models with written explanations. They found that strategic combinations were more effective than
individual scaffolds and that including contextualized phenomena had the largest impact on the quality of learners'
explanations.
Graphics can support emergent bilinguals as they respond to assessment tasks. However, graphics not directly
relevant to the task might confuse learners who rely on them to help make meaning (Gottlieb, 2016). For example,
Turkan and Liu (2012) found that emergent bilinguals in 7th and 8th grade performed better on a science task that
included a graphic representation in a familiar context. This same study found evidence that constructed response
questions may help emergent bilinguals express scientific reasoning in their own words. Similarly, targeted
linguistic modification of state science test items for emergent bilinguals—including graphical representations of
science phenomena in answer choices—increased the likelihood that emergent bilingual learners would perform
well on that task without changing the performance of English‐only learners (Noble, Rosebery, Kachchaf, & Suarez, 2016). At the same time, encouraging learners to create their own visual representations can provide multimodal
ways to demonstrate what learners know and can do (Cowie et al., 2011).
Practitioner‐facing literature also provides guidelines for scaffolding that supports emergent bilingual learners. Gottlieb (2016) identified four different types of assessment task scaffolds: linguistic, graphic, sensory, and
interactive. Linguistic scaffolds include defining key terms within sentences, allowing use of home language(s), and
modifying sentence patterns, including sentence starters and frames to help connect ideas. Graphic supports
include graphs, charts, tables, and graphic organizers. Sensory supports include manipulatives, models, multimedia,
and real objects to support contextualization. Interactive supports include the ability to work in pairs or small
groups or with technology or other language models to complete the assessment task.
In the previous sections, we reviewed relevant empirical, theoretical and practitioner‐facing literature related to designing science classroom assessments that allow bilingual learners to demonstrate what they know about
science. In the section that follows, we draw from this body of work to highlight design criteria for teachers and
assessment developers who design and evaluate classroom assessments aligned with the Framework's equity vision.
3 | DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF THE FRAMEWORK
We operationalized the categories of the framework illustrated in Table 1 above to facilitate our review of science
classroom assessment tasks. We applied versions of the operationalized framework categories to classroom
assessment tasks collected from middle and high school science classrooms as part of other projects (e.g., Briggs &
Furtak, 2019), rating the tasks first together and then separately, and coming together to both adjudicate our
disagreements and make further revisions. We also shared the framework categories with colleagues familiar with
classroom assessment design and practice, and further revised and refined categories and descriptions based on
FINE AND FURTAK | 403
their feedback, as well as the feedback of reviewers. The final framework with operationalized categories is
included in the appendix.
Several points of tension emerged through this process. Since scaffolds, such as sentence frames, are
generally considered temporary supports to be taken away, would supports typically considered modifications,
such as the linguistic modifications mentioned above, be located within the scaffolds category or comprise their
own category? Should elements related to translanguaging be integrated throughout or contained within their
own category? How can tenets of culturally sustaining pedagogies be represented as checklist items to guide
classroom assessment design for emergent bilingual learners without reproducing stereotypes or resorting to
microagressions? Should we include traditional opportunity to learn elements, such as making sure that
assessment tasks do not unfairly penalize some groups over others due to differential levels of access and
background knowledge?
Ultimately, grappling with these questions informed final framework categories as well as the elements within
each category. We included elements usually considered modifications within the scaffolds category because
they also represent temporary elements that should be considered from the initial assessment design phase. We
decided to both integrate translanguaging approaches throughout the framework and highlight a separate
category for translanguaging to emphasize the centrality of the ideas and create a space that serves to cross‐ check relevant elements within other categories. We have also grappled with identifying examples of culturally
sustaining science assessments. Culturally sustaining pedagogy is relatively new, and while promising and
emerging work is identifying new ways of thinking about cultural and community‐based task design and validity (e.g., Shultz et al., 2019), scholars are still discussing the ways in which science education needs to be “desettled”
to repair historical and systemic exclusion of the knowledge and practices of students from marginalized
communities.
We applied the framework categories to a set of widely available tasks aligned to the NGSS and released in
2014 by Achieve, Inc., an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit education reform organization dedicated to working
with states to raise academic standards and improve assessments. These nine tasks (see Table 2) were among the
first widely available exemplars of three‐dimensional NGSS classroom assessments and were designed for both formative or summative use. The tasks align with bundled sets of Common Core State Standards in Mathematics
(CCSS‐Mathematics) and Common Core State Standards in English language arts/literacy (CCSS‐ELA) standards (Achieve, Inc., 2014). Developed collaboratively and iteratively by teams of science, math, and engineering
education professionals, classroom teachers, and administrators, the tasks were reviewed by additional content
experts, as well as “experts in assessment, equity, and diverse student groups,” and they were revised before their
online publication (Achieve, Inc., 2014).
Each of the sample tasks includes information on the ways in which those tasks might be enacted with learners,
as well as descriptions of the use of the tasks for formative or summative purposes. In some cases, components are
described as performance tasks depending upon the timing in the school year. For example, A Tale of Four Cities
describes that several of its components could be used as a “series of performances within an instructional unit on
regional climate.” The instructions also note that two sections could be formative checks for learner understanding
before subsequent components of the task.
The nine sample tasks each include a standard accommodations paragraph on either page 3 or 4 in the
“Information for Classroom Use” section:
Accommodation for Instruction and Classroom Tasks: To accurately measure three‐dimensional learning of
the NGSS along with CCSS for mathematics, modifications and/or accommodations should be provided
during instruction and assessment for students with disabilities, English language learners, and students
who are speakers of social or regional varieties of English that are generally referred to as “non‐Standard
English.” (Colony Collapse Disorder, p. 4)
404 | FINE AND FURTAK
One exception is the middle school task Natural selection and the development of antibiotic resistance that provides
explicit ideas about how teachers can modify, scaffold and differentiate the assessment task for their emergent bilingual
learners:
Instructors may also find it useful to provide graphic organizers, word banks, translator tools, apps that
reproduce verbal language into written language, and opportunities for collaborative group work to aid
students as necessary. Worldwide or local information about the prevalence and effects of antibiotic
resistance may provide further relevance and context for students. (p. 4)
Our framework categories suggest a different approach: rather than suggesting that tasks might be modified by
teachers for particular subpopulations of learners, including emergent bilinguals, our framework suggests specific
category elements that should be used to generate tasks that serve the needs of emergent bilingual learners as part
of their original design. Literature echos our proposed approach, as teachers often request support to differentiate
tasks after they are written because their teacher preparation coursework usually dedicates small amounts of time
to the skills necessary to do so (de Jong, 2013; Lucas & Villegas, 2013).
The two authors of this manuscript independently applied the framework categories to each of the nine NGSS
sample assessment tasks. We met to discuss and adjudicate differences and then identified overall themes across
the tasks that illustrated each category. In the next section, we use these tasks to illustrate the ways in which three‐ dimensional classroom tasks can be designed to assess the science learning of emergent bilinguals.
4 | CATEGORY ANALYSIS: NGSS SAMPLE TASKS
We found that the NGSS sample tasks addressed rigorous Framework‐based science standards, had multiple entry points and component parts, and generally represented inclusive approaches to task design. At the same time, NGSS
sample tasks could better support emergent bilingual students by incorporating translanguaging and culturally
sustaining approaches, including explicit content and language objectives and student‐facing scoring criteria, and integrating scaffolds.
TABLE 2 NGSS (Next Generation Science Standards) classroom sample assessment tasks
Assessment title Grade band Category‐specific science topic
Solar Cookers High school Physical Sciences—Change in energy
Analyzing floods: Understanding Past Flood Events and
Considering Future Flood Events in a Changing Climate
High school Earth and Space Sciences—Climate
change
Subzero High school Physical Sciences—Chemical reactions
Colony Collapse Disorder and An Analysis of Honey Bee
Colony Numbers
High school Life Sciences—Complex interactions in
ecosystems
Unraveling Earth's Early History High school Earth and Space Sciences—Earth's
formation
Where Did the Water Go?: Watershed Study Middle school Earth and Space Sciences—Water cycle
The Energy of Ocean Waves Middle school Physical Sciences—Properties and
models of waves
Natural Selection and the Development of Antibiotic
Resistance
Middle school Life Sciences—Genetic variation and
natural selection
A Tale of Four Cities: Using data to model variations in
regional climate in the western United States
Middle school Earth and Space Sciences—Patterns of
atmospheric and oceanic circulation
FINE AND FURTAK | 405
4.1 | Culture and Language
The Culture and Language category examines whether tasks create space for learners to share their own cultural
understandings and lived experiences. Additionally, this category assesses whether task phenomena are placed‐based, or contextualized in the particular local community, creating the possibility that learners might access, relate to or
engage with the task through recognizable conditions. The language‐related components of this category focus on whether the task itself, learner‐facing instructions, objectives and/or scoring tools were presented in multiple languages and whether the task instructions indicate that learners can translanguage to support sense‐making.
A few of the NGSS tasks explicitly made space for learners to share their own understandings and lived
experiences relevant to the phenomena framing the tasks. For example, Ocean Waves encourages learners, in
Component G, to integrate any research they might do on their own into a list of criteria about what
community members might look for in a wave energy converter design. However, we more often observed
that tasks drew on learners' prior knowledge and experiences in school. Though tasks intended for formative
use early in a learning sequence might include more questions that elicit prior knowledge and lived
experiences, tasks used later in a learning sequence may use more questions that specifically reference
learning from school (or which encourage learners to make connections between school learning and
everyday experiences).
The NGSS sample tasks included various levels of place‐based phenomena. For example, while Energy of Ocean Waves might be considered place‐based for learners living in coastal areas, learners living inland are less likely to have everyday experiences to leverage when responding to the task. This task includes data about
sediment load and wave height from the coast of the Shandong Peninsula in the Yellow Sea in China. While this
task is place‐based to a specific local community, it also contains information from a location outside the United States. The extent to which this may or may not matter in terms of contexts being local, relevant, and
contextualized for learners is yet to be determined. Similarly, Where Did the Water Go? refers to data specific to
one particular watershed in southeast New York state and the Analyzing floods task is place‐based to a specific local community for learners living along the Mississippi River, but not for others. While many NGSS tasks
include datasets for learners to use, Attachments 1 and 2 of the sample task A Tale of Four Cities encourage
teachers to create place‐based components by leading them to National Weather Service and Weather Channel websites where they can search for and download daily and monthly temperature data for their city or
region. The use of place‐based data allows teachers to modify the task components so that they become more localized to their specific communities.
Overall, only one of the tasks, A Tale of Four Cities, either explicitly included or indicated the possibility to
include place‐based phenomena or data contextualized for the local school community. This raises questions about what “place‐based” means. That is, how specifically does a phenomenon or task need to be? Can it be specific to one region, or do examples need to be adapted to learners' specific regions to be counted? A key challenge in designing
assessment tasks for use around the country is to develop contexts that are familiar to learners and based on issues
or challenges that people encounter locally.
All components of the NGSS sample tasks were presented in English, and none explicitly indicated in the tasks
themselves, or in learner‐facing instructions, objectives or scoring tools that learners may use all of their linguistic resources to think through or communicate their answers. We look to the work of Garcia and colleagues, which
provides various examples of how translanguaging can be explicitly incorporated into classroom assessment tasks
(García et al., 2017). For example, task instructions and scoring tools, as well as the tasks themselves, can be
presented in more than one language. Additionally, tasks can include a simple statement at the beginning letting
learners know that they may use their full linguistic repertoire as well as outside resources—such as common
language, their peers, and bilingual dictionaries or websites—to access, interpret, and communicate their thinking
on classroom assessment tasks.
406 | FINE AND FURTAK
4.2 | Alignment and Rigor
The Alignment and Rigor category examines the extent to which sample tasks include three‐dimensional science content based on NGSS standards, grade‐level and discipline‐specific academic vocabulary, structured opportunities to engage in science discourse, and cognitively challenging tasks that prompt learners to think
critically, explain their thinking and propose and justify solutions. By design, all NGSS sample tasks are aligned with
grade‐level NGSS disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and scientific practices. Additionally, all sample tasks include multiple CCSS‐Mathematics standards and various CCSS‐ELA standards.
A representative example of this bundling can be found in the 10th–11th‐grade biology task Colony Collapse Disorder. This task bundles the practices of (a) using mathematics and computational thinking, (b) obtaining,
evaluating, and communicating information, and (c) engaging in argument from evidence. In addition, the task is
aligned with the crosscutting concepts of (a) scale, proportion, and quantity, (b) patterns, (c) cause and effect, (d)
stability and change, and (e) systems and system models. Finally, the task addresses disciplinary core ideas related
to three additional performance expectations from life sciences and engineering design.
This extensive bundling surfaces potential challenges. In some instances, learners may not have yet attained the
level of mathematics required by the task—a disturblingly common pattern among emergent bilingual middle and
high school learners or learners who have had interrupted schooling (Oakes, 1985). For example, in the high school
physics sample task Solar Cookers, learners systematically change one variable at a time within a solar oven to
observe how design can impact the extent to which a solar cooker transforms and transfers solar energy into
thermal energy. While a version of this task is popular in many elementary science and engineering curricula, the
mathematics required to complete the NGSS sample task includes creating scatter plots, fitting functions to the
data, representing constraints by equations or inequalities and by systems of equations and/or inequalities. These
skills are learned in Algebra 2 and Geometry, which is not the experience of most ninth and many 10th graders in
US schools.
We also found that all sample tasks employed grade‐level academic vocabulary related to the focal NGSS standards and included at least one cognitively challenging element. For example, the high school task Subzero
includes science‐related grade‐level academic vocabulary and associated concepts such as molecular models, electron states, periodic trends, bond energy, and thermal energy, external warming devices, dissolution,
calorimetry, patterns of chemical properties and evidence of thermal energy release. In Where Did the Water Go?,
learners are asked to develop a model or series of models of the Cascade Brook watershed (including labels and
arrows to indicate what is driving the movement of the water and any water transformations)—a cognitively
challenging task that requires understanding and illustrating the underlying scientific principles.
4.3 | Task Components
The Task Components category examines the extent to which tasks contain open‐ended and multiple components that tap into different types of knowledge and linguistic demands, the extent to which tasks allow for multiple
points of entry rather than require a strict linear response order, and the extent to which the tasks explicitly
encourage the use of diagrams, graphics, or models with written explanations. All of the NGSS tasks include
multiple components, including open‐ended questions, and explicitly encourage the use of graphs, models, and diagrams with written explanations. For example, the Energy of Ocean Waves task asks learners to create and test
out a physical beach and breakwater system (see Figure 1) and then use what they observe about the system to
create a description of how the breakwater affects the wave reflection, absorption, and/or transmission before
waves reach the beach. This combination of investigation and explanation taps into different knowledge and
linguistic demands. Most of the task components are tightly aligned with scientific practices—particularly
developing arguments from evidence and creating explanations. Lee et al. (2013) have highlighted these types of
FINE AND FURTAK | 407
scientific practices as critical opportunities for all learners, and particularly emergent bilinguals, to use language
during science.
However, only about half of the sample tasks allow multiple points of entry, whereas the remaining tasks
require learners to answer components in a specific order to be successful. For example, in the first component of
the Colony Collapse Disorder and an Analysis of Honey Bee Colony Numbers task, successive questions build on each
other. Learners first use data on honey bee populations to graph the change in US bee colony numbers over time.
They then choose a mathematical function to model change and write an equation before they describe changes
over time and make a prediction about future changes. Because learners use their answers from previous task
components, they cannot answer components out of order; furthermore, if they make a mistake early on, it is likely
to heavily influence the degree to which they will be successful later on in the task. The exclusive use of assessment
formats that build from one component to the next can be particularly challenging for emergent bilinguals who
might have the linguistic resources to answer certain components of a task over others.
This presents a challenge inherent in NGSS task design, which encourages multicomponent item clusters related
to the same phenomenon (NRC, 2014). It is possible that multiple entry points could still be provided even when
individual items are linked to the same phenomenon. For example, The Energy of Ocean Waves task contains
multiple components related to the positive and negative effects of ocean waves on human society. The multiple
task components do not build on each other and could stand alone or be completed in a different sequence than
they are presented.
4.4 | Clear Objectives and Scoring Criteria
The Clear Objectives and Scoring Criteria category examines whether tasks contain clearly stated learning objectives at
the beginning of the task, whether they provide content or language objectives, whether the objectives are so detailed
that they explain the scientific principles learners are inducing during the sample task, and whether the tasks include
scoring tools, such as rubrics or checklists, so learners know how they are being evaluated.
Most of the NGSS sample tasks included an explicitly stated content objective at the top of the task, along with
relevant background information for learners. The objectives are worded so as not to explain the scientific
principles highlighted in the task. Table 3 provides two examples of content objectives—one for the middle school
task Natural Selection and the Development of Antibiotic Resistance task and one for the high school task Subzero.
None of the NGSS sample tasks, however, included language objectives—a critically important component when
designing science tasks for emergent bilingual learners (Gottlieb, 2016). A possible language objective that could be
added to the Subzero task might be, “You will write a claim with supporting evidence as to whether the chemical process
you have identified is a viable and safe option to keep a fisherman's hands warm.” This objective could be combined with
sentence frames that support learners in using evidence from the task when making their claim as follows:
FIGURE 1 Diagram of beach and breakwater system to guide learner model creation (The Energy of Ocean Waves—Middle School Sample Classroom Task, Achieve, Inc., 2015, p. 6). Reproduced under Creative Commons
License and without modification. View Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License at http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
408 | FINE AND FURTAK
The chemical process I have identified is ________. It is/is not a viable and safe option to keep a fisherman's
hands warm because______. As a result, _______. At the molecular level, the patterns observed are _________.
This is further evidence for why _____ because _____.
This type of language objective along with sentence frames further cues and supports emergent bilingual
learners to engage in genre‐based writing approaches, such as explanations and arguments, typical within the discipline of science (Schleppegrell, 2009).
In addition, though evidence outcome statements were provided in teacher materials for the tasks, they were
not extended into scoring tools, such as rubrics or checklists, for teachers and learners. Scoring tools are important
for all learners, but especially important for emergent bilinguals, as they demystify the response expectations and
grading process for the assessment task. Schissel et al. (2018) offer an example of scoring rubrics and checklists
that incorporate a translanguaging lens. In the context of the NGSS tasks, a checklist could include language such as
“Students are welcome to use their full linguistic repertoire to preview, view and review the assignment in multiple
languages” and “Students are welcome to discuss with peers and write responses using their entire linguistic
repertoire.”
4.5 | Integration of Scaffolds
The Integration of Scaffolds category examines whether purposefully challenging elements of the task are
presented with multiple types of scaffolds that support contextualization, metacognition and/or understanding of
the text and whether the task includes linguistic structures or formatting that increase reading time without
affecting content. There are multiple forms of scaffolding that might be included in a task, such as contextualizing
the phenomenon, bullet points to chunk text into smaller sections, graphic organizers, or visual aids such as
pictures, graphs, histograms, and data tables.
All of the NGSS tasks used a variety of scaffolds. Many used bullet points to separate various parts of each task
component. For example, in the Tale of Four Cities task, Component E encouraged learners to compare
temperatures, consider differences, construct an explanation, and account for differences within the first
paragraph. The task then included bullet points to highlight different elements learners should include as they
identify regions where proximity to certain geographic features will affect the climate. Bullet points indicated that
learners should label areas on the map where differences in temperature occur, identify possible causes of
differences in climate, and draw arrows with labels showing the direction of energy movement.
TABLE 3 Examples of content objectives for NGSS sample classroom tasks
Task name Content objective
Natural Selection and the Development of
Antibiotic Resistance
In this task, you will explore how natural selection affects the
frequency of traits in a bacterial population, including what
conditions cause the increase in frequency of the trait for antibiotic
resistance in bacterial populations. You will also consider the criteria
and constraints to evaluate solutions for the problem of antibiotic
resistance in hospitals, where this problem is compounded by the
presence of vulnerable patient populations (elderly and sick
individuals) and a contained environment where bacteria can easily
spread among patients.
Subzero You will use what you know about electron states, chemical reactions,
periodic trends, and bond energy to plan a device that uses chemical
reactions to help keep a fisherman's hands warm.
FINE AND FURTAK | 409
All tasks also provided several visual aids (although usually as appendices rather than embedded in the task
instructions). These visual aids included maps, diagrams, graphs, histograms, and multiple forms of data tables and
representations. A Tale of Two Cities even encouraged teachers to make use of Google Earth and an online seasons
simulator to help learners further visualize the phenomenon at hand. In addition, the Energy of Ocean Waves and
Subzero tasks specified that physical materials be used as learners were completing the tasks, extending
participation beyond the paper‐based tasks alone. Graphic organizers were sometimes included within the sample tasks. Attachments 2 and 3 from Subzero clearly
outline and bound the space for learners to provide responses, along with a bulleted list of elements that learners
are expected to include in their models (see Figure 2). In the related task component, learners select one dissolution
and one chemical reaction to analyze for its ability to heat its surroundings. They create a drawing to represent the
molecular level of compounds before and after the chemical processes as well as create an explanation of why the
chemical reaction occurs or what chemical property leads to dissolution based on their knowledge of outer electron
states and patterns of chemical properties.
The sample task Energy of Ocean Waves offers another example of graphic organizers that support contextualization.
This task embedded schematics and graphic organizers within the components instead of attached at the end of the
document in appendices. It also includes schematic diagrams of the basic design of a power buoy and an Archimedes
wave system as two examples of wave energy converters introduced in Task Component E (see Figure 3). Both of these
schematic diagrams are extremely helpful for learners who might not be familiar with energy wave converters and
electromagnetic generators. Given the importance for all learners, and emergent bilingual learners in particular, to have
a clear context for the systems and phenomena they are reasoning about, these tasks with embedded graphics, tables,
and schematics were more ready‐for‐use than those with figures, graphics, and tables included as appendices.
FIGURE 2 Side‐by‐side comparison of high and low levels of scaffolding across two sample tasks (Data Sheet A for Subzero—High School Sample Classroom Task, Achieve, Inc., 2015, p. 15 and Instructions for Task Component F for Solar Cookers—High School Sample Classroom Task, Achieve, Inc., January, 2015, p. 9). Reproduced under
Creative Commons License and without modification. View Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
410 | FINE AND FURTAK
With respect to scaffolds that incorporate language‐specific support, all tasks provided definitions for some (but not all) technical language they included. For example, multiple tasks explained what was meant by “trendline,” and
Energy of Ocean Waves (p. 5) explains that “The wave height is measured from the bottom of a wave (trough) to the
top of a wave (crest).” All of the tasks also used primarily active voice, with some exceptions. In addition, A Tale of
Four Cities includes a statement to teachers in the “Instructions for classroom use” section that they might want to
provide supplemental translation materials for “diverse student groups.” The inclusion of this wording indicates
that emergent bilingual learners can use multiple language resources to make sense of and/or respond to the task
components; however, following Paris (2019) we also note that the term “diverse” erases the cultural, racial, and
linguistic heterogeneity of learners in ways that maintain “logics of White superiority.”
Though there were many examples of the preceding scaffolds in the sample tasks, we note several other scaffolds
that might support emergent bilingual learners were not included. These include sentence starters and sentence
frames, rubrics, checklists, and explicit instructions that create space for learners to use their home languages.
5 | DISCUSSION
As more sample tasks are released in alignment with the NGSS, it is critical to incorporate design features known to
support and sustain the science understandings that emergent bilingual learners bring to the classroom. These
should be embedded into the tasks themselves so they can represent true exemplars of the Framework's vision for
broadening participation for all learners that may inform the subsequent efforts of teachers, professional
development providers, and teacher educators.
FIGURE 3 Attachment 5 depicting schematic diagrams showing the basic design of the power buoy and Archimedes wave system energy converters. (The Energy of Ocean Waves—Middle School Sample Classroom Task,
Achieve, Inc. January 2015, p. 20). Reproduced under Creative Commons License and without modification. View Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
FINE AND FURTAK | 411
The strengths identified throughout the NGSS tasks examined in this manuscript offer useful examples for
the design of Framework‐aligned classroom assessment tasks for emergent bilingual learners. All of the NGSS
tasks are aligned with NGSS disciplinary core ideas, scientific principles, and crosscutting concepts, include
grade‐level science academic vocabulary, and at least one cognitively challenging element. They feature open‐ ended questions as well as multiple components that require various levels of scientific knowledge and
linguistic demands. All tasks explicitly encourage the use or creation of graphs, tables, models, and written
explanations. Content objectives are explicitly stated in learner‐friendly language that do not disclose the science content that learners are asked to induce during the task. All of these elements are important to
integrate into future classroom assessment tasks from the initial stages of design to make them both rigorous
and comprehensible for emergent bilingual learners.
Our intention in writing this paper was not to make an argument that the NGSS sample tasks, as they currently
exist, should be revised. These tasks were some of the first publicly available exemplars of NGSS‐aligned assessment and have provided fruitful foundations for critical discourse about the structure and intention of the
NGSS and their implications for assessment (see Gunckel & Tolbert, 2018 for a feminist critique of the Solar
Cookers task). Indeed, new sample tasks are being released as part of the “Task Annotation Project” linked to the
Achieve website (Achieve, Inc., 2018). As more NGSS exemplar tasks are created, additional design features would
even better support emergent bilingual learners. As suggested by Abedi (2010) and Alvarez et al. (2014), tasks
could include more pictorial representations and clearly defined outcome spaces so learners have a better idea of
what is being asked and how much is expected as a response. The development of future tasks should also contain
multiple points of entry so if a learner is unsure about how to approach one component, they can work on separate
components within the assessment in an undefined order (Solano‐Flores & Soltero‐Gonzalez, 2011). The design of the tasks would also be improved through some sort of scoring tool, such as a rubric or checklist, for learners to use
as they complete the tasks (Kang et al., 2014). Furthermore, scaffolds such as shorter sentences and bullet points
can make content more comprehensible (Abedi, 2010; Gottlieb, 2016; Kang et al., 2014; Siegel, 2007).
We emphasize that if the task is not assessing specific language functions, structures, or vocabulary, there
should be an explicit, written indication that learners may translanguage and use all of their linguistic resources
when thinking about and answering the task components (García et al., 2017). Finally, following Lyon (2013), tools
and resources to support the integration of local place‐based phenomena into all classroom assessment tasks is an important way to build on local community knowledge and enable learners to better relate to tasks. Though all of
the NGSS tasks are embedded within contextualized phenomena, it is not clear how well these phenomena will
resonate with or motivate learners across different contexts and communities. Information might be provided
about where teachers can look for more localized, relevant datasets for use in their classrooms.
5.1 | Implications for future Framework‐based classroom task design
Given the heterogeneity of the emergent bilingual learner population in the United States, there are various
affordances and potential constraints associated with implementing the framework outlined above. Most elements
within each category represent best practices for all learners. Some of the elements, such as the integration of
sentence starters, may seem more appropriate for emergent bilingual learners at the beginning stages of the
continuum of English language proficiency. There is no indication that including scaffolds or explicitly linking tasks
to learners' community cultural knowledge impacts learner outcomes in negative ways. In addition, research
consistently finds that integrating framework categories into assessments to explicitly support emergent bilingual
learners—that is, designing them in this manner from the start—increases the performance of all learners (Kang
et al., 2014; Siegel, 2007).
Developing and applying this literature‐based framework has led us to identify implications for future Framework‐based classroom task design for emergent bilingual learners. First, as Oakes (1985) warned, the
412 | FINE AND FURTAK
mathematics required to access, and complete science assessment tasks should not throttle learners' ability to
participate and succeed. In several sample tasks, the bundling of highly rigorous CCSS‐Mathematics standards risked functioning as a gatekeeper to the science content if learners are not familiar with the mathematics
necessary to access the science tasks. One possible design feature to maintain CCSS‐Mathematics and NGSS Framework alignment is to develop several versions of the same assessment tasks where rigorous three‐dimensional science content is bundled with CCSS‐Mathematics standards at different grade‐levels so teachers can select the assessment version that best aligns with their learners' mathematics background knowledge.
Second, we have surfaced design challenges inherent to creating tasks that are place‐based, linguistically and culturally sustaining, and inclusive. Given the increase in cultures, languages, and perspectives in US classrooms, it
is imperative that science assessment tasks, similar to science instructional design in general, include culturally
sustaining phenomena (Alim & Paris, 2017) and allow learners to translanguage as they make meaning of and
respond to the assessment tasks (García et al., 2017). To accomplish this goal, task designers could create
heterogenous design teams that reflect the cultures and languages present in US schools and conduct focus groups
with heterogeneous populations of learners, including emergent bilinguals.
Our examination of the NGSS Sample tasks also surfaced a tension about the place‐based nature of phenomena. When tasks are contextualized in a locale, such as a specific ocean, such a task has the potential to be personally
meaningful to students living in coastal areas, but the everyday experiences of students living in landlocked
locations may be different. This raises an important question—is it sufficient to have a task embedded in a
particular context, even if that context may not apply to all learners taking the task? What kinds of supports and
resources might be provided to teachers who want to design tasks more locally relevant to their learners? One
possibility is to design sample tasks that are specifically situated within a variety of rural, urban, and suburban
settings along with suggested resources for teachers to access datasets relevant to their physical location, so
learners have a greater chance of relating to task phenomena.
Learners' science knowledge can be assessed from a holistic bilingualism perspective with assessment designs
that explicitly allow learners to engage in translanguaging using a variety of resources (such as bilingual
dictionaries, online applications, peers who share linguistic resources, writing task responses in other languages,
etc.). Adopting a translanguaging stance in classroom assessments allows the possibility for emergent bilingual
learners to demonstrate the full extent of their science understanding using all of their linguistic resources (García
et al., 2017). Finally, this study supports work by Mahoney (2017) and the recent NASEM report (2018) that
highlight how design features that support and broaden participation for emergent bilingual learners should be
integrated into the original design of tasks, instead of leaving teachers to modify tasks with little guidance. As
several of the NGSS sample tasks illustrate, design features can make tasks more accessible and interpretable not
only to emergent bilingual learners but for all learners taking the assessments. Creating tasks with these design
features from the start reduces the demand on teachers to adapt tasks and also meets a higher standard of design.
5.2 | Benefits of “baked‐in” design features
In the intervening time since we began to develop and refine this framework, additional resources have been
released to support the design and adaptation of classroom assessment tasks aligned with the Framework. The first
such resource was the “Task Screener” intended to support conversations about task alignment and quality
(Achieve, Inc., 2018). The screener asks reviewers to examine tasks based on the quality of the phenomena and
scenarios they use, sense‐making required of the three dimensions, their fairness and equity, and that they support intended targets and purposes. Specifically, Criterion C of the screener helps task designers evaluate (a) how the
task provides ways for learners to make connections of local, global or universal relevance, (b) the multiple modes
learners can use to respond to the tasks, (c) scaffolds incorporated into the task, including respecting and
advantaging learners' cultural and linguistic backgrounds and using accessible language, (d) how the task cultivates
FINE AND FURTAK | 413
learners' interest in and confidence with science and engineering, (e) how learners' previous experiences set them
up for success on the task (opportunity to learn), and (f) the scientific accuracy of the information presented in the
task. In addition, the “Task Annotation Project in Science,” noted above, has released both the student‐facing documents as well as lengthy and well‐articulated analyses of sample tasks that attend to equity.
We find these resources important and useful and we hope that assessment designers may use the literature
review and resource we have presented here as an additional tool in designing tasks explicitly to support emergent
bilingual students. We also propose that future iterations of tools such as the Task Screener and initiatives like the
Task Annotation Project might further unpack and make explicit the design features that support emergent
bilingual students as they attend to equity in task design.
5.3 | The work ahead
Though this paper intends to push the field toward a more expansive vision of Framework‐based equitable classroom assessment task design for emergent bilingual learners, we acknowledge several limitations of the classroom assessment
design framework. Culturally sustaining pedagogies and Indigenous epistemologies challenge western ways of knowing
that underlie the current science standards and problematize the way we think about standards‐aligned assessment. As educational research, assessment, and curriculum development are largely conducted by White, English‐speaking individuals of Western‐European ancestry (Paris, 2019), we must look to broadening who is at the table when assessments are designed. Community‐based design teams are but one mechanism that has been explored to simultaneously sustain communities' cultures and connect with multiple ways of knowing science in both curriculum and assessment (Bang &
Medin, 2010). Assessments intended for broad use should be field‐tested in a wide range of cultural and linguistic settings. We also emphasize that the framework presented here is a first step based on previous theoretical and empirical work.
Our current efforts involve partnering with teachers, district curriculum coordinators, and state‐level science consultants to develop the framework into a checklist that can inform collaborative design of classroom assessments. In so doing,
through classroom observations and careful analyses of student work, we seek to better understand the ways in which
assessments designed in alignment with the framework support emergent bilingual learners.
As we conclude, we once again acknowledge that the assessment design framework we have proposed will not
be sufficient, on its own, to shift classroom practice. Teachers' language ideologies matter. Past studies suggest that
teachers—even when using well‐designed tasks—may enact those tasks with emergent bilingual learners in ways that contribute to linguistic minoritization. Teachers need to be encouraged to adopt ideologies that recognize and
elevate the multiple languages students bring to school (Lemmi, Brown, Wild, Zummo, & Sedlacek, 2019). Flores
and Rosa (2015) have argued that the concept of language as a resource still centers White monoglossic
perspectives on language that ultimately send emergent bilingual learners the message that their “other” language
(s) and multiple linguistic and cultural identities are liabilities that negatively influence school and career prospects.
The persistence and prevalence of raciolinguistic and racialized ideologies across education settings in the United
States means that even when emergent bilinguals perfectly use standard academic language or accurately display
their knowledge of standard academic content, they will still be evaluated through deficit lenses that view their
languaging and content knowledge as not good enough (Rosa & Flores, 2017).
Future studies, in addition to exploring the ways tasks may be better designed for emergent bilingual students,
should also explicitly engage teachers and assessment designers to identify and confront their own linguistic
ideologies as they manifest throughout the process of assessment development, enactment, reflection, and
planning (Fine, Strong, & Palmer, 2019). That is, we need to stop designing and interpreting assessments from a
deficit‐based gaze built around what educators and assessment developers believe emergent bilingual learners cannot do (Valencia, 2010). We must instead encourage educators and assessment designers to shift the focus
inward to examine their own active role in producing “competent” and “incompetent” language users and build on
those reflections to inform future classroom practice, including assessment practices (Flores & Rosa, 2015).
414 | FINE AND FURTAK
The Framework calls for “science and engineering learning for all” and explicitly highlights ways to equalize
opportunities to learn (NRC, 2012, p. 277). Classrooms throughout the United States continue to welcome learners with
multiple linguistic and cultural identities (OELA, 2018). Most of the states with the largest overall numbers as well as the
largest increases in emergent bilingual learner populations are also states that have either adopted the NGSS Framework
or have aligned their state standards with the NGSS Framework. Furthermore, given the central role of assessment in the
functioning of modern school systems, we must more deeply understand how to equitably assess emergent bilingual
learners within the Framework vision. The design framework outlined in this manuscript is intended to highlight
categories to keep in mind when designing rigorous science classroom assessments, not only for emergent bilingual
learners. As such, we hope to push the field forward as we collectively work toward creating three‐dimensional Framework‐aligned classroom assessments that truly surface and value the resources and experiences of learners in US schools.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We appreciate the feedback provided by the anonymous reviewers of this manuscript, as well as guidance provided by
Deborah Palmer and Kate Menken. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation
under grant nos. 1505527 and 1561751. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
ORCID
Caitlin G. McC. Fine http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8605-7264
Erin M. Furtak http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7675-8366
REFERENCES
Abedi, J. (2010). Research and recommendations for formative assessment with English language learners. In H. L. Andrade
& G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 181–197). New York, NY: Routledge.
Abedi, J., & Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 219–234.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1403_2
Abedi, J. (2006). Language issues in item development. In T. Haladyna & S. Downing (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp.
377–398). New York, NY: Routledge.
Achieve, Inc. (2014, November). NGSS/CCSS‐M sample classroom assessments tasks. Retreived from https://www. nextgenscience.org/classroom‐sample‐assessment‐tasks
Achieve, Inc. (2018, September) Science task screener. Retrieved from https://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/
resource/files/Achieve%20Task%20Screener_Final_9.21.18.pdf
Achieve, Inc. (2018) Task annotation project in science. Retrieved from https://www.achieve.org/our‐initiatives/equip/tools‐ subject/science/task‐annotation‐project‐science
Alim, H. S., & Paris, D. (2017). What is culturally sustaining pedagogy and why does it matter? In D. Paris & H. S. Alim (Eds.),
Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 1–21). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Alvarez, L., Ananda, S., Walqui, A., Sato, E., & Rabinowitz, S. (2014). Focusing formative assessment on the needs of English
language learners. San Francisco: WestEd.
Ascenzi‐Moreno, L. (2018). Translanguaging and responsive assessment adaptations: Emergent bilingual readers through the lens of possibility. Language Arts, 95(6), 355–369.
Bang, M. (2019, September). Making assessment responsive to culturally and linguistically diverse students, families, and
communities? Keynote presented at 3rd National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) Special Conference on
Classroom Assessment, Boulder, CO. Retrieved from https://www.colorado.edu/cadre/conference‐materials Bang, M., & Marin, A. (2015). Nature‐culture constructs in science learning: Human/non‐human agency and intentionality.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21204
FINE AND FURTAK | 415
Bang, M., & Medin, D. (2010). Cultural processes in science education: Supporting the navigation of multiple
epistemologies. Science Education, 94(6), 1008–1026. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20392
Bang, M., Medin, D., Washinawatok, K., & Chapman, S. (2010). Innovations in culturally‐based science education through partnerships and community. In M. Khine & I. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration
in education (pp. 569–592). New York, NY: Springer.
Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 National
Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
Banks, J. A., Au, K. H., Ball, A. F., Bell, P., Gordon, E. W., Gutierrez, K., … Zhou, M. (2007). Learning in and out of school in
diverse environments: Lifelong, life‐wide, life‐deep. Seattle, WA: Center for Multicultural Education, University of Washington.
Briggs, D. C., & Furtak, E. (2019). Learning progressions and embedded assessment. In S. Brookhart & J. McMillan (Eds.),
Classroom assessment and educational measurement. New York, NY: Routledge.
Brookhart, S. M. (2003). Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes and uses. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22, 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745‐3992.2003.tb00139.x Brown, B. A., & Ryoo, K. (2008). Teaching science as a language: A “content‐first” approach to science teaching. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 529–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20255
Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new
standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37, 298–341. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X12461772
Buxton, C. (2010). Social problem solving through science: An approach to critical, place‐based, science teaching and learning. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43, 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680903408932
Celic, C., & Seltzer, K. (2013). Translanguaging: A CUNY‐NYSIEB guide for educators. New York, NY: CUNY‐NYSIEB, The Graduate Center, The City University of New York.
Coffey, J. E. (2003). Involving students in assessment. In J. M. Atkin & J. E. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science
classroom (pp. 75–87). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Cowie, B., Jones, A., & Otrel‐Cass, K. (2011). Re‐engaging students in science: Issues of assessment, funds of knowledge and sites for learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10763‐010‐9229‐0 Dworin, J. (2003). Insights into biliteracy development: Toward a bidirectional theory of bilingual pedagogy. Journal of
Hispanic Higher Education, 2, 171–186.
Echevarria, J., Richards‐Tutor, C., Canges, R., & Francis, D. (2011). Using the SIOP model to promote the acquisition of language and science concepts with English learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 34, 334–351.
Fine, C. G., Strong, K., & Palmer, D. (2019). The impact of language ideologies in schools. Educational Leadership, 77(4),
58–65.
Flores, N., Kleyn, T., & Menken, K. (2015). Looking holistically in a climate of partiality: Identities of students labeled Long‐ Term English Language Learners. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 14(2), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15348458.2015.1019787
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education.
Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–172. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017‐8055.85.2.149 Furtak, E. M., Ruiz‐Primo, M. A., Shemwell, J. T., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P., Shavelson, R. J., & Yin, Y. (2008). On the fidelity of
implementing embedded formative assessments and its relation to student learning. Applied Measurement in Education,
21(4), 360–389.
Garcia, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism & education. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Garcia, S. B., & Guerra, P. L. (2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking working with educators to create more equitable
learning environments. Education and Urban Society, 36, 150–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124503261322
García, O. (2011). From language garden to sustainable languaging: Bilingual education in a global world. Perspectives, 34,
5–10.
García, O., Johnson, S., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning.
Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.
García, O., Kleifgen, J., & Falchi, L. (2008). From English language learners to emergent bilinguals. Equity Matters: Research
Review No. 1. New York, NY: A Research Initiative of the Campaign for Educational Equity. Retrieved from http://www.
tc.columbia.edu/i/a/document/6468_Ofelia_ELL__Final.pdf
García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2010). Educating emergent bilinguals. Policies, programs and practices for English language learners.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
García, O., & Sylvan, C. E. (2011). Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms: Singularities in pluralities. Modern
Language Journal, 95, 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐4781.2011.01208.x Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
416 | FINE AND FURTAK
Gottlieb, M. (2016). Assessing English language learners: Bridges from language proficiency to academic achievement. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36,
3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093‐934X(89)90048‐5 Gunckel, K. L., & Tolbert, S. (2018). The imperative to move toward a dimension of care in engineering education. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 938–961.
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational
Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore, MD:
University Park Press.
Huges, G. B. (2010). Formative assessment practices that maximize learning for students at risk. In H. L. Andrade & G. J.
Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 212–232). New York, NY: Routledge.
de Jong, E. (2013). Preparing mainstream teachers for multilingual classrooms. Association of Mexican‐American Educators Journal, 7, 40–49.
Kang, H., Thompson, J., & Windschitl, M. (2014). Creating opportunities for students to show what they know: The role of
scaffolding in assessment tasks. Science Education, 98, 674–704. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21123
Ladson‐Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
Lee, O., Deaktor, R., Enders, C., & Lambert, J. (2008). Impact of a multiyear professional development intervention on
science achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
45, 726–747. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20231
Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation
Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics.
Educational Researcher, 42, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13480524
Lemmi, C., Brown, B. A., Wild, A., Zummo, L., & Sedlacek, Q. (2019). Language ideologies in science education. Science
Education, 103(4), 854–874.
Lewis, E. B., Baker, D. R., & Helding, B. A. (2015). Science teaching reform through professional development: Teachers' use
of a scientific classroom discourse community model. Science Education, 99, 896–931. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.
21170
Likely, R., & Wright, C. (2019, October). Exploring NGSS‐aligned culturally sustaining assessments. Wondering presented at 2019 Science Educators for Equity, Diversity, and Social Justice conference, Norfolk, VA.
Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in preservice teacher
education. Theory into Practice, 52, 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.770327
Lyon, E. G. (2013). Conceptualizing and exemplifying science teachers' assessment expertise. International Journal of Science
Education, 35, 1208–1229. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.770180
Mahoney, K. (2017). The assessment of emergent bilinguals: Supporting English language learners. Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by
fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327809jls1502_1
Menken, K. (2008). English language learners Left Behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. (2003). Using questioning to assess and foster student thinking. In J. M. Atkin & J. E. Coffey (Eds.),
Everyday assessment in the science classroom. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to
connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). English learners in STEM subjects: Transforming
classrooms, schools, and lives. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25182
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K‐12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2014). Developing assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2017). Seeing students learn science: Integrating assessment and instruction in the classroom.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Noble, T., Rosebery, A., Kachchaf, R., & Suarez, C. (2016). A handbook for improving the validity of multiple‐choice science test items for English language learners. Boston, MA: TERC.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
FINE AND FURTAK | 417
Office of English Language Acquisition. (2018, April). Fast facts: Profiles of English learners (ELs). Retrieved from https://ncela.
ed.gov/files/fast_facts/Profiles_of_ELs_4.12.18_MM_Final_Edit.pdf
Office of English Language Acquisition (2018, August). Fast facts: Languages spoken by English learners (ELs). Retrieved from
https://ncela.ed.gov/files/fast_facts/FastFacts‐Languages‐Spoken‐by‐ELs‐2018.pdf Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective
from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6, 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev‐2015‐0014 Paris, D. (2019). Naming beyond the white settler colonial gaze in educational research. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 32(3), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1576943
Pearson, P. D., & Cervetti, G. N. (2015). Fifty years of reading comprehension theory and practice. In P. D. Pearson & E. H.
Hiebert (Eds.), Research‐based practices for teaching Common Core literacy (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Rosa, J., & Flores, N. (2017). Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society, 46,
621–647. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404517000562
Rosebery, A., Warren, B., Ballenger, C., & Ogonowski, M. (2005). The generative potential of students' everyday knowledge
in learning science. In T. Romberg, T. Carpenter & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters
(pp. 55–80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schissel, J. L. (2019). Social consequences of testing for language‐minoritized bilinguals in the United States. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Schissel, J. L., De Korne, H., & López‐Gopar, M. (2018). Grappling with translanguaging for teaching and assessment in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts: Teacher perspectives from Oaxaca, Mexico. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1463965
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2006). The challenges of academic language in school subjects. In I. Lindberg & K. Sandwall (Eds.),
Språket och kunskapen: Att lära på sitt andraspråk i skola och högskola (pp. 47–69). Göteborg, Sweden: Göteborgs
Universitet Institutet för Svenska som Andraspråk. Retrieved from tne.bc.edu/documents/Schleppegrell.pdf
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2009). Language in academic subject areas and classroom instruction: What is academic language and how
can we teach it? Washington, DC: The National Academies. Retrieved from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cfe/
Paper_Mary_Schleppegrell.pdf
Sezen‐Barrie, A., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). From the teacher's eyes: Facilitating teachers noticings on informal formative assessments (IFAs) and exploring the challenges to effective implementation. International Journal of Science Education,
39(2), 181–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1274921
Shavelson, R. J., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz‐Primo, M. A., … Yin, Y. (2008). On the impact of curriculum‐embedded formative assessment on learning: A collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/0895734080234764
Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0013189X029007004
Shultz, P.K., Englert, K., Krug, K., Ruth, K., Ching, L.M., & Franco, J.L. (2019). Context matters: The promise of cultural and
community validity in assessment. Presentation from the 3rd National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME)
Special Conference on Classroom Assessment, Boulder, CO. Retrieved from https://www.colorado.edu/cadre/
conference‐materials 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, 864–881. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20176
Solano‐Flores, G. (2006). Language, dialect, and register: Sociolinguistics and the estimation of measurement error in the testing of English language learners. Teachers College Record, 108, 2354–2379. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9620. 2006.00785.x
Solano‐Flores, G., & Nelson‐Barber, S. (2001). On the cultural validity of science assessments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 553–573. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1018
Solano‐Flores, G., & Soltero‐Gonzalez, L. (2011). Meaningful assessment in linguistically diverse classrooms. In B. B. Flores, R. H. Sheets & E. R. Clark (Eds.), Preparing teachers for bilingual student populations: Educar para Transformar
(pp. 146–163). New York, NY: Routledge.
Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (2001). Developing formative assessment in the classroom: Using action research to explore and
modify theory. British Educational Research Journal, 27, 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920120095780
Turkan, S., & Liu, O. L. (2012). Differential performance by English language learners on an inquiry‐based science assessment. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 2345–2369. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.705046
Valdés, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Valencia, R. R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
418 | FINE AND FURTAK
Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of
Bilingual Education & Bilingualism, 9, 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050608668639
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students.
Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.
Wiliam, D. (2007). Keeping learning on track: Classroom assessment and the regulation of learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second
handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1053–1098). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
How to cite this article: Fine CGMcC, Furtak EM. A framework for science classroom assessment task
design for emergent bilingual learners. Science Education. 2020;104:393–420.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21565
APPENDIX: SCIENCE CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT TASK DESIGN FRAMEWORK FOR EMERGENT BILINGUALS
Description Present/Not present Notes
Culture and Language
Task includes questions that explicitly create space for
students to share their own cultural understandings, lived
experiences, and practices.
□ Present □ Not present
Task phenomena create opportunities to be place‐based in the local community, opening the possibility that students
might access, relate to and/or engage with the task through
recognizable conditions.
□ Present □ Not present
Task, task instructions, objectives and/or scoring tools are
written in at least one language in addition to English.
□ Present □ Not present
Task instructions indicate that students are able to
translanguage (use all their linguistic resources) to help them
make sense of the task and/or communicate their thinking.
□ Present □ Not present
Alignment and Rigor
Assesses at least one grade‐level‐/course‐appropriate NGSS DCI (Pick the primary standard addressed).
□ Above grade‐level □ At grade‐level □ Below grade‐level
List DCI/s:
□ Not present
Assesses at least one grade‐level/course appropriate NGSS Cross‐Cutting Concept (Pick the primary standard addressed).
□ Explicit □ Implicit
List CCC/s:
□ Not present
Assesses at least one grade‐level‐/course‐appropriate NGSS Scientific Practice (Pick the primary standard addressed).
□ Explicit □ Implicit
List SEP/s:
□ Not present
Includes grade‐level academic vocabulary (Use NGSS standards to determine grade‐level academic vocabulary).
□ Above grade‐level □ At grade‐level
(Continues)
FINE AND FURTAK | 419
□ Below grade‐level □ Not present
Includes cognitively challenging component(s) (e.g., Students
are asked to propose & justify solutions; Students are asked
to explain their thinking; Components are not only
memorization/procedural/definitions).
□ Present □ Not present
Task Components
Contains open‐ended components (Not simply fill‐in‐the‐ blanks or one correct answer)
□ Present □ Not present
Contains multiple components—More than one type of
component that each tap into different knowledge and
linguistic demands (e.g., hands‐on, multiple‐choice, short‐ answer, diagram/model creation)
□ Present □ Not present
Allows for multiple points of entry; that is, students do not
need to answer questions in a set order in order to be
successful.
□ Present □ Not present
Task explicitly encourages students to create diagrams/
graphics/models with written explanations as evidence.
□ Present □ Not present
Clear Objectives and Scoring Criteria
The learning objective(s) of the task is clearly stated at the
beginning of the task. (e.g., Content objective—“In this task,
you will demonstrate an understanding of implications of
variation within a population”; Language objective—“In this
task, you will use transition phrases to connect ideas
together”)
□ Content goal □ Language goal □ Both content and language goals
Task content objective(s) do not explain the scientific
principles students will be inducing during the task.
□ Present □ Not present
Task includes a scoring tool, such as a rubric or checklist, so
students understand how the task will be scored. (if task
assesses language and content, different rubrics have been
created for each).
□ Present □ Not present
Integration of Scaffolds
Purposefully challenging elements of the task are presented
with scaffolds that support contextualization,
metacognition and/or understanding the text (includes at
least one).
□ Contextualized phenomena
□ Sentence starters
□ Sentence frames that
connect ideas
□ Graphic organizers
□ Ability to work with peers
□ Checklist □ Visuals
□ Shorter sentences
□ Bulleted items □ Active voice □ Rubrics □ Defining key
terms within
sentences
□ Use of home language
□ Manipulatives or multimedia
□ Not present
420 | FINE AND FURTAK
