Investigating the Relationship between Jar Size and Candle Burn Time

1. Assessment The role of context Asturias Feb, 2009 Keith Kelly www.factworld.info

2. Embedded context

3. BICS and CALP

4. Activity Description The teacher asked the pupils to investigate the relationship between the size of a jar in which a candle burns andthe length of time for which it burns. The pupils then analysed their results and explained them using scientificknowledge. They evaluated their methods and suggested improvements.

5. What language? • List the language features of the task you just discussed.

6. Assessment Level 5 … When the investigation involves a fair test, they identify key factors to be considered. Where appropriate, they make predictions based on their scientific knowledge and understanding. They select apparatus for a range of tasks and plan to use it effectively. They make a series of observations, comparisons or measurements with precision appropriate to the task. They begin to repeat observations and measurements and to offer simple explanations for any differences they encounter. They record observations and measurements systematically and, where appropriate, present data as line graphs. They draw conclusions that are consistent with the evidence and begin to relate these to scientific knowledge and understanding. They make practical suggestions about how their working methods could be improved. They use appropriate scientific language and conventions to communicate quantitative and qualitative data.

7. Assessment Level 5 … When the investigation involves a fair test, they identify key factors to be considered. Where appropriate, they make predictions based on their scientific knowledge and understanding. They select apparatus for a range of tasks and plan to use it effectively. They make a series of observations, comparisons or measurements with precision appropriate to the task. They begin to repeat observations and measurements and to offer simple explanations for any differences they encounter. They record observations and measurements systematically and, where appropriate, present data as line graphs. They draw conclusions that are consistent with the evidence and begin to relate these to scientific knowledge and understanding. They make practical suggestions about how their working methods could be improved. They use appropriate scientific language and conventions to communicate quantitative and qualitative data.

8. Sample Work 1

9. Sample Work 2

10. CLIL Assessment Approaches • Content and CEF (Example 1) • General content and language descriptors (Example 2) • Ongoing data collection (Example 3-5) • Peer evaluation (Example 6)

11. Content and CEF

12. General content and languagedescriptors

13. Ongoing data collection 1

14. Ongoing data collection 2

15. Ongoing data collection 3

16. Gibbons on assessment • Asking questions to guide assessment Scaffolding Language Scaffolding Learning, Heinemann, 2002

17. Peer assessment

18. CLIL Assessment Processes Assess what course aims to teach • Does the course teach mainly: • Subject knowledge? • Language ability? • Both? • Does the course teach mainly: • Listening / reading? • Speaking / writing

19. Assess the risk High risk: Speaking: long/short responses Medium risk Writing: long/short responses Medium low risk: Reading/listening: Multiple choice True/false Matching Sequencing etc Low risk: Visual/symbolic responses label a diagram/graph/map use mathematical symbols

20. Profiling • Assess several times over a period, formally or informally • Use a set of subject/language knowledge statements

21. Portfolio • Assess over a period of time using a collection of varied responses (e.g. test results, visuals, texts, oral responses, self-assessments, etc)

22. Self-assessment • Use a set of ‘know/can do’ statements (subject or language knowledge)

23. Band scales for grading • Assess using a scale showing degrees of subject/language knowledge

24. Snowflake Perfect and symmetrical

25. Diamond Perfect but asymmetrical

26. Asymmetrical development