永远在底层:新兴双语者评估中的意识形态

IF 1.4 2区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Laura Ascenzi-Moreno, K. Seltzer
{"title":"永远在底层:新兴双语者评估中的意识形态","authors":"Laura Ascenzi-Moreno, K. Seltzer","doi":"10.1177/1086296X211052255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent scholarship has identified how the reading assessment process can be improved by adapting to and accounting for emergent bilinguals’ multilingual resources. While this work provides guidance about how teachers can take this approach within their assessment practices, this article strengthens and builds on this scholarship by combining translanguaging and raciolinguistic lenses to examine the ideologies that circulate through assessment. By comparing interview data from English as a new language and dual-language bilingual teachers, we found that while reading assessments fail to capture the complexity of all emergent bilinguals’ reading abilities, they particularly marginalize emergent bilinguals of color. Thus, we expose the myths of neutrality and validity around reading assessment and demonstrate how they are linked to ideologies about race and language. We offer a critical translingual approach to professional learning that encourages teachers to grapple with these ideologies and shift toward a more critical implementation of reading assessments.","PeriodicalId":47294,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literacy Research","volume":"53 1","pages":"468 - 490"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Always at the Bottom: Ideologies in Assessment of Emergent Bilinguals\",\"authors\":\"Laura Ascenzi-Moreno, K. Seltzer\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1086296X211052255\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Recent scholarship has identified how the reading assessment process can be improved by adapting to and accounting for emergent bilinguals’ multilingual resources. While this work provides guidance about how teachers can take this approach within their assessment practices, this article strengthens and builds on this scholarship by combining translanguaging and raciolinguistic lenses to examine the ideologies that circulate through assessment. By comparing interview data from English as a new language and dual-language bilingual teachers, we found that while reading assessments fail to capture the complexity of all emergent bilinguals’ reading abilities, they particularly marginalize emergent bilinguals of color. Thus, we expose the myths of neutrality and validity around reading assessment and demonstrate how they are linked to ideologies about race and language. We offer a critical translingual approach to professional learning that encourages teachers to grapple with these ideologies and shift toward a more critical implementation of reading assessments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47294,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Literacy Research\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"468 - 490\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Literacy Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X211052255\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Literacy Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X211052255","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

最近的学术研究已经确定了如何通过适应和考虑双语者的多语言资源来改进阅读评估过程。虽然这项工作为教师如何在评估实践中采取这种方法提供了指导,但本文通过结合跨语言和种族歧视的视角来审视评估中流传的意识形态,加强并建立了这一学术成果。通过比较英语作为一种新语言和双语教师的访谈数据,我们发现,虽然阅读评估未能捕捉到所有新兴双语者阅读能力的复杂性,但它们特别边缘化了新兴有色人种双语者。因此,我们揭露了关于阅读评估的中立性和有效性的神话,并展示了它们是如何与种族和语言意识形态联系在一起的。我们为专业学习提供了一种批判性的跨语言方法,鼓励教师与这些意识形态作斗争,并转向更批判性的阅读评估实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Always at the Bottom: Ideologies in Assessment of Emergent Bilinguals
Recent scholarship has identified how the reading assessment process can be improved by adapting to and accounting for emergent bilinguals’ multilingual resources. While this work provides guidance about how teachers can take this approach within their assessment practices, this article strengthens and builds on this scholarship by combining translanguaging and raciolinguistic lenses to examine the ideologies that circulate through assessment. By comparing interview data from English as a new language and dual-language bilingual teachers, we found that while reading assessments fail to capture the complexity of all emergent bilinguals’ reading abilities, they particularly marginalize emergent bilinguals of color. Thus, we expose the myths of neutrality and validity around reading assessment and demonstrate how they are linked to ideologies about race and language. We offer a critical translingual approach to professional learning that encourages teachers to grapple with these ideologies and shift toward a more critical implementation of reading assessments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The Journal of Literacy Research (JLR) is a peer-reviewed journal contributes to the advancement research related to literacy and literacy education. Current focuses include, but are not limited to: -Literacies from preschool to adulthood -Evolving and expanding definitions of ‘literacy’ -Innovative applications of theory, pedagogy and instruction -Methodological developments in literacy and language research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信