Standard Description: Candidates demonstrate and apply knowledge of the impact of dynamic academic, personal, familial, cultural, social, and sociopolitical contexts on the education and language acquisition of ELLs as supported by research and theories. Candidates investigate the academic and personal characteristics of each ELL, as well as family circumstances and literacy practices, to develop individualized, effective instructional and assessment practices for their ELLs. Candidates recognize how educator identity, role, culture, and biases impact the interpretation of ELLs’ strengths and needs.
2.a: Candidates demonstrate knowledge of how dynamic academic, personal, familial, cultural, and social contexts, including sociopolitical factors, impact the education of ELLs.
TESOL PreK–12 English Language Proficiency Standards Addressed:
Standard 1: English language learners communicate for social, intercultural, and instructional purposes within the school setting.
Standard 2: English language learners communicate information, ideas, and concepts necessary for academic success in the area of language arts.
Rationale
I selected this artifact from TESOL 633 – Testing & Assessment, a course I took in Fall 2025. I chose this assignment because it required me to examine the assessments used in a seventh-grade English Language Arts classroom and decide how well those assessments matched the learning goals for those learners. The students at this grade level had different levels of English proficiency levels and came from different linguistic, cultural, and academic backgrounds. Because of these differences, I realized that one assessment may not fully show each student’s language abilities.
Using the classroom-assessment chart from Katz (2014, p. 336), I reviewed both required assessments and teacher-designed assessments. The required assessments included WIDA ACCESS and district ELA benchmarks, while the classroom assessments included literary analysis essays, Quick Writes, reading journals, collaborative discussions, and peer feedback. Comparing these assessments helped me think more carefully about the kind of information each one provides for teachers, students, families, and school staff. WIDA ACCESS provides information about students’ English proficiency in listening, speaking, reading, and writing, while classroom assignments can provide additional evidence about how students use English during regular academic work.
This comparison was important for me because one assessment does not always give a complete picture of a student’s language ablities or learning needs. For example, WIDA ACCESS can provide teachers with important information about a student’s English language development in listening, speaking, reading, and writing while an essay can show how well the student uses English to organize their ideas, support their argument (s) with textual evidence, and explain those ideas in writing. A classroom discussion, which can be used as an informal formative assessment helpsThis comparison was important for me because one assessment does not always give a complete picture of a student’s strengths or needs. For example, WIDA ACCESS can provide teachers with important information about a student’s English language development in listening, speaking, reading, and writing, while an essay can show how well the student uses English to their organize ideas, support an argument with textual evidence, and explain those ideas in writing. A classroom discussion, which can be used as an informal formative assessment can also help teachers see how well a student expresses his or her ideas orally, responds to their classmates, and uses academic language.
Moreover, Quick Writes and reading journals give teachers information about a student’s progress in reading and writing. By using information from these different sources, teachers can better understand a student’s language skills and determine where extra support may be needed. It also gives students different ways to show what they know and can do in the classroom. This artifact aligns with TESOL Professional Standard 2.a because I looked at students’ academic and cultural backgrounds when I reviewed the assessments used in the classroom. It also aligns with ELP Standard 1 because students use English during classroom discussions and peer interaction, and with ELP Standard 2 because the reading and writing tasks require students to analyze texts, support their ideas with evidence, and explain their thinking in English.
References
Katz, A. (2014). Assessment in second language classrooms. Posted in Perusall 8.1: Classroom Assessment [TESOL 633 course reading]. University of Southern Mississippi. https://app.perusall.com/courses/tsl-633-h001-testing-269589761/lg-490-assessment?assignmentId=ZYTqSk5tHgPxyRRQJ&part=1
Seattle Public Schools. (2025). Multilingual services. https://www.seattleschools.org/departments/multilingual/
Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (n.d.). English language proficiency assessments. https://ospi.k12.wa.us/student-success/testing/state-testing/english-language-proficiency-assessments
Standard Description:
Candidates demonstrate and apply knowledge of the impact of dynamic academic, personal, familial, cultural, social, and sociopolitical contexts on the education and language acquisition of ELLs as supported by research and theories. Candidates investigate the academic and personal characteristics of each ELL, as well as family circumstances and literacy practices, to develop individualized, effective instructional and assessment practices for their ELLs. Candidates recognize how educator identity, role, culture, and biases impact the interpretation of ELLs’ strengths and needs.
2.a: Candidates demonstrate knowledge of how dynamic academic, personal, familial, cultural, and social contexts, including sociopolitical factors, impact the education of ELLs.
2.e: Candidates identify and describe the impact of his/her identity, role, cultural understandings, and personal biases and conscious knowledge of U.S. culture on his/her interpretation of the educational strengths and needs of individual ELLs and ELLs in general.
Standard 1: English language learners communicate for social, intercultural, and instructional purposes within the school setting.
I selected this artifact from TESOL 633 as well – Testing & Assessment, which is course I took in Fall 2025. I chose the Module Two Priming assignment because it required me to select a language assessment context connected to my professional interests. Therefore, I designed a summative oral proficiency test for sixth-grade newcomer English learners at the CEFR A1 level. This assignment required me to describe the context in which the assessment would be used, including the learner population (age, proficiency level, linguistic/cultural background), the purpose of the assessment (formative, summative, diagnostic, placement) and to respond to the following reflection questions:
"Sociopolitical factors – How might educational policies, immigration laws, language ideologies, or funding affect your assessment choices?
Your cultural background – How might your beliefs, norms, or communication styles influence task design, rating, or feedback?
Your educational background – How might your training, preferred methodologies, or academic influences shape your decisions?
Mitigation strategies – What concrete steps will you take to minimize negative effects of these influences on fairness, validity, and reliability?'
For this oral assessment, I used Unit 1 from the Interchange Level 1 textbook by Richards et al. (2005).The book covers a variety of topics related to basic English communication for beginners, including greetings, introductions, spelling names, family and lifestyle. I chose these topics because newcomers can use them when they interact with their teachers and classmates at school. I also discussed several federal and state requirements that states and school districts must follow when identifying, assessing, and supporting English learners. For example, ESSA requires states and school districts to identify English learners and assess their English language development each year (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). In Washington, newly enrolled students who may qualify for English language services are screened with the WIDA Screener within ten school days, and students who receive those services take ACCESS for ELLs each year to measure their progress in listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction [OSPI], 2025). I also addressed Washington’s Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program, which requires school districts to provide language support to eligible English learners until they meet the state’s criteria for English proficiency (OSPI, 2023).
Along with meeting these requirements, I also had to think about whether the assessment itself would be fair for the students taking it. In Introducing Second Language Assessment, Ockey (2024) explains that fair assessments should take students’ linguistic and educational backgrounds into account (p. 41). I focused on whether students could communicate clearly and complete the speaking tasks rather than on whether they sounded like native English speakers. I also planned to model the tasks and include multiple speaking tasks.
The assignment also made me think about how my Somali cultural background could influence the way I score an oral assessment. Communication styles can vary across cultures, especially in tone, eye contact, and the way people speak to others. In Somali culture, for example, respect is often shown through a calm tone, polite greetings, and sometimes less direct eye contact when speaking with elders or people in positions of authority. Because students from other cultural backgrounds may follow their own cultural communication norms, I would make sure that those differences do not affect how I evaluate or score their oral assessment. To make my scoring more objective and consistent, I would use a clear rubric with specific criteria for the speaking skills being assessed and apply those same criteria to every student.
TESOL Professional Standards 2.a and 2.e connect because I considered requirements affecting English learners and how my cultural background could influence assessment. ELP Standard 1 connects to the speaking tasks students can use at school. InTASC Standard 2 connects to my consideration of students’ different language and cultural backgrounds when planning and scoring the assessment.
Ockey, G. J. (2024). Introducing second language assessment. Routledge.
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2023). Update: Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program (TBIP).
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2025). English language proficiency assessments.
Richards, J. C., Hull, J., & Proctor, S. (2005). Interchange level 1: Student’s book (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).