Education logo

Assessment Supports and Accessibility for English Language Learners

Linguistic Modification Approaches

By Kayla BloomPublished 5 years ago Updated 3 years ago 17 min read
Like

Abstract

In this research study, the author reviews current elementary academic assessment research for English Language Leaners, and affirms the importance of linguistically accessible, valid, and reliable accommodations. Four main articles were used in the research of this study: Hauck, Wolf, and Mislevy (2016), Kopriva, Thurlow, Perie, Lazarus, and Clark (2016), Shim and Shur (2018), and Lin and Zhang (2013). This research study is based on the following hypotheses. First, that allowing student voice and perspective in the classroom is a prerequisite for student-centered learning. Second, ELLs are most commonly behind their native-English peers in academic achievement and assessment scores, thus, their perspective is crucial for their academic development. Through the framework of theories in George Yule’s (2006) The Study of Language, this research study found that although there are current initiatives in place that attempt to provide valid assessments for English Language Learners (ELL), there are modifications that are not utilized that may facilitate greater achievement. This includes focusing on the learner, engaging in a communicative approach, and understanding cultural competency.

Introduction

Currently, English Language Learners (ELLs) are being administered academic tests with which many teachers and administrators are aware they would find especially difficult to succeed. As explained by the article Finding New Solutions for ELL Assessments (2010), “ELL students aren’t given adequate time to become fluent in English before they are being assessed…we are subjecting them to failure unnecessarily,” (p. 16). Shim and Shur (2018) affirm that ELLs in US schools are quickly becoming one of the fastest growing subpopulations of students. One projection estimates that one in four students nationally in grades K–12 will be an ELL by the year 2025 (p. 22). Moreover, the rate of enrollment for ELLs is roughly to be increasing at two and a half times the rate of the general student population (NCELA, 2007). According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the percentage of ELLs in public school in the United States was “higher in fall 2016 (9.6%, or 4.9 million students) than in fall 2000 (8.1%, or 3.8 million students),” (NCES, 2016). The most common languages other than English in the United States continues to be Spanish, Arabic, and Chinese, among others. Teachers are coming from increasingly middle-class, white backgrounds, widening the gap between teacher and student linguistic experiences. Because of these demographic changes, a major point of concern is that educational attainment for ELLs lags considerably behind that of native English speakers. NCES (2018) research finds that in 2017, the average reading score for 4th-grade ELL students (189) was 37 points lower than the average score for their non-ELL peers (226). The average mathematics score for 4th-grade ELL students (217) was 26 points lower than the average score for their non-ELL peers (243). Since 2009, the average science scores for English language learner (ELL) 4th- and 8th-grade students were lower than their non-ELL peers (NCES, 2018). This can have crucial implications for their careers and socioeconomic status. ELL students fall behind in classrooms, and lack the attention given to English speaking students. Only 63% of ELLs graduate from high school, compared with the overall national rate of 82% (NCES, 2018). Lower academic achievement can affect students’ self-efficacy, motivation, and their future academic career.

There are several hindrances in diverse students receiving valid and reliable academic assessments: current educational legislation, school funds and resources, and teacher education. Signed into law in 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) changed the landscape of EL education in two important ways. Through further emphasis on annual testing, annual academic progress, report cards, and teacher qualifications, it expanded the federal role in public education as well as made significant changes in funding. Research by Hauck, Wolf, and Mislevy (2016) further examines the role of NCLB:

It required the inclusion of ELs in standards-based assessments of all students for accountability purposes (i.e., NCLB Title I, which requires the assessment of students in mathematics and English language arts in Grades 3–8 plus one year of high school), and it created, in NCLB Title III, a requirement that each state establish new English language proficiency (ELP) standards, which must correspond to the state’s Title I content standards, and institute a standards-based ELP assessment to be administered annually to all students classified as Els. (p. 1)

There was an emphasis on accountability, with the implementation of assessments to support teaching language development lacking. While ELP assessments may measure independent listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills, there is a disconnect with students’ ability to integrate the use of language skills in everyday settings (p. 2). With the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) since 2010, the central focus has changed to how to better equip Els with the proficiency in English necessary to meet the rigorous college– and career–readiness standards (p. 3). Specific states, namely California and New York, have started the process of rewriting state ELD standards, highlighting meaningful and interactive language use in the classroom. However, these new initiatives, much like Stanford professor Kenji Hakuta’s Understanding Language, outline the challenges of political will and systemic capacity on bilingual education. In NCES’s 2015 research, public school expenditures reached $12,330 per student, up from only $12,183 during the previous five years. Expenditures per student in both 2010–11 and 2015–16 ($1,155 in each year) were 17% lower than in 2000–01 ($1,383) (NCES, 2019). In order to fund bilingual education, the federal government provides state funding through Title III, part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA). However, officials and district administrators believe these to be inefficient for ELL services. The resources available to teachers, and thus students, is systematically related to student educational achievement. Nearly half of the funding for public schools in the United States is provided through local taxes, creating considerable funding discrepancies between wealthy and impoverished communities (NCES, 2000).

However, there are a few initiatives promoting the valid and reliable assessment of English Language Learners: World-class Instructional Design and Assessment Consortium (WIDA), and Understanding Language. According to Lin and Zhang (2013), the “WIDA ELP standards are organized by five grade-level clusters with five subareas. Each subarea spans five language proficiency levels and covers four language domains: listening, speaking, reading, and writing,” (p. 401). It strives to support students, families, educators and administrators with high-quality, research-based tools and resources, dedicated to language development for multilingual learners. Another effort outlined in Hauk, Wolf, and Mislevy (2016) is Understanding Language, created by Stanford professor Kenji Hakuta. This initiative has “instantiated new approaches to defining the characteristics of language needed to instruct EL students in ways that will support their access to the CCSS,” (p. 3). With more demanding standards, the initiative asserts that ELLs are particularly vulnerable. A change in expectations for content teachers implies a change in expectations for ESL/ELD teachers. Although the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) state that 40% of teachers have ELLs in their classrooms, less than 13% have formal preparation to teach them (2008). Resources provided by the initiative attempts to ameliorate this issue.

Research Questions

This research study is based on the following hypotheses. First, that allowing student voice and perspective in the classroom is a prerequisite for student-centered learning. Second, ELLs are most commonly behind their native-English peers in academic achievement and assessment scores, thus, their perspective is crucial for their academic development. Based on these hypotheses, the research questions for this study are: (1) Are current elementary academic assessments linguistically accessible to English Language Learners? (2) Are these assessments valid? and (3) What accommodations provide English Language Learners with valid testing scores?

Review of the Literature

Four main articles were used in the research of this study: Hauck, Wolf, and Mislevy (2016), Kopriva, Thurlow, Perie, Lazarus, and Clark (2016), Shim and Shur (2018), and Lin and Zhang (2013).

In Hauck, Wolf, and Mislevy’s (2016) research article Creating a Next-Generation System of K-12 English Learner Language Proficiency Assessments, their goal is to present research-based ideas, principles, and recommendations for consideration by those who are conceptualizing, developing, and implementing English language proficiency (ELP) assessments for K–12 ELs. In contributing to the current discussion, they hope to improve the field of instruction and assessment of EL students as well as contribute to bringing these ideas into practice. Several educational reforms were discussed to provide evidence and support, such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), as well as current ELP assessments. They found three qualities of assessment that should be implemented in the generation of K-12 EL classrooms: Assessments must be conceptualized and designed as an assessment system, rather than as a single assessment (or even a series of assessments), the system must be based on an overarching, well-defined conceptual framework, and the system must contain key supporting elements designed to support effective use of the information gathered by the assessments (p. 3). This article is important to the topic because of its emphasis on assessment development and implementation in the English Language Learner classroom.

Kopriva, Thurlow, Perie, Lazarus, and Clark’s (2016) article Test Takers and the Validity of Score Interpretations attempted to briefly introduce the person dimension of test taking and then exemplify three novel approaches to test making that consider individual differences in designing assessments and validating the score interpretations. The authors used ONPAR, Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM), and the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) to demonstrate where and how developers might handle diverse test take needs and learning characteristics. They found the methodologies to be effective for most students in establishing validity in “content coherence, comparability, accessibility and fairness,” (p. 125). The findings were instrumental in my research in understanding the person dimension of test taking, focusing on the role of the test takers themselves. This has corresponded to my own beliefs in student-centered teaching and meeting the needs of all of the students in the classroom.

Another study, Shim and Shur’s (2018) Learning From ELLs’ Perspectives: Mismatch Between ELL and Teacher Perspectives on ELL Learning Experiences, investigates how ELL students make meaning of their learning circumstances and compared that to teachers’ perspectives on their students’ learning in order to evaluate the correlation. This study was conducted in a western United States town, home to primarily rural, English-speaking communities. Two middle school students and two high school students volunteered to participate in this study, all of whom lived in the US for three to four years. All participants self-identified Chihuahua, Mexico, as their place of origin. The teachers who participated in this study are two female elementary school ESL teachers, one female middle school teacher, and a male and a female high school ESL teacher. All participating teachers are ESL endorsed, White Americans and are all monolingual speakers of English. The authors used demographic data and interviews to conduct their analysis. They found that students’ success is influenced by the perspectives of teachers, and that “learning for teachers should extend beyond knowledge in content areas to paying closer attention to students’ views and perspectives. We contend that educators must pay attention to the ELLs’ perspectives like the ones in this study, as they are instructive and even theoretically sound,” (p. 30).

The last study, Lin and Zhang ‘s (2013) Enhancing Standard-Based Validity For ELL Population: A Perspective From Correspondence Between Standards, sought to study the association between English Language Proficiency (ELP) standards and academic content standards, and create recommendations for future studies. Prior to the study, the reviewers attended a workshop and received training on the overall objectives and procedures of the correspondence study. Forty-seven reviewers participated in the study, consisting of content teachers and ESL teachers from 18 WIDA member states. The reviewers were asked to individually determine the cognitive complexity of each content standard (i.e., the CCSS) using the four Depth of Knowledge1 (DOK) levels. The reviewers were then asked to rate the cognitive demand of each model performance indicators (MPIs) using the same DOK scale, and then to identify the content standard(s) most closely associated with the MPI. To indicate the degree of consistency among panels of reviewers in their DOK ratings, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used. The study found that “reviewers were more consistent with their judgments about the MPIs than about the content standards” (p. 406). A familiarity effect of target standards highlights the importance of careful planning of ELP standards. This study is important because it emphasizes the idea that a strong association between the two sets of standards can ensure that ELLs are sufficiently exposed to academic language that complements their content learning.

Discussion

It’s a common belief that designing instruction that directly builds knowledge and skills found on the assessment facilitates successful students. Within teaching ELLs, there are a few techniques that specifically foster language learning and are especially important to keep in mind for testing. One of the most important techniques, for every child, is that with a learner focus. Giving students a voice in their classroom and education is vital to academic achievement. As Shim and Shur, (2018) explain, “student voice can serve as a catalyst for change in schools and teacher-student relationships, which leads to positive changes in teaching, curriculum, and assessment,” (p. 29). The student is the most important factor in language learning, and thus in assessment development. A students’ characteristics have been shown to influence their scores, and this was examined in determining the validity of current ELL assessments. One study, Kopriva, Thurlow, Perie, Lazarus, and Clark (2016), researched expanding current measurement theory, arguing that “test takers are as integral to determining validity of test scores as defining target content and conditioning inferences on test use,” (p. 108). One method Kopriva outlined was ONPAR, an online mathematics and science assessment tool which uses multiple communication methods and testing items. It focuses on the belief that ELLs at varying proficiency levels “can and are learning challenging content, albeit often within restricted learning opportunities,” (p. 114). An incorporation of technology can be beneficial for all students, but especially those learning a second language. Hauck, Wolf, and Mislevy’s (2016) study discusses the role of digital technology and it implications for the classroom: “[it] can deliver tasks in authentic, enriched contexts…create greater engagement for students…reflect the changing nature of language proficiency…[and] have the potential to provide enhanced implementation of techniques informed by an ‘assessment as learning’ approach,” (p. 6). This concept is acknowledged as well in Yule (2006). But many schools are not prepared to provide the scale of technology needed to administer these assessments. We currently lack the systemic capacity to ensure equitable access to technology.

One way to address the challenge of systemic capacity is by preparing teachers to provide language-rich environments that ensure academic and interpersonal competencies in both languages, and by providing instructional materials aligned to the Common Core that are in the native language. Comprehensive assessment resources also need to be developed in multiple languages. Language competency can best be facilitated through task-based learning and communication. Yule (2006) cites that “one solution has been to create different types of tasks and activities in which learners have to interact with each other… to solve problems,” (p. 216). This is called tasked-based learning, in which students learn through language activities that have social meaning. Individual student assessments do not provide these opportunities for students to freely interact with native speakers in a natural setting, thus we may not be able to accurately measure a students’ proficiency without this context. There is “overwhelming evidence of more and better L2 use by more learners with tasked-based learning,” (p. 216). Communication in a second language is vital for language acquisition, just as in our first language. We know through research that “human infants, growing up in isolation, produce no ‘instinctive’ language” (p. 15). While we are born with a predisposition to acquire language, we lose the ability if we are not exposed culturally to language, spoken or not. Competency grows with time, and by changing the context in which students use the language, we reduce the reliability of assessment tools.

The communicative approach has shifted an assessment-oriented model of classrooms to student-oriented. Yule’s study asserts that “a feature of most communicative approaches is the toleration of ‘errors’ produced by students,” (p. 213). Rather than viewing errors as a failure on the part of students, we should shift our perspective to appreciate the second language learning in progress. Just as young children make over-generalizations and other errors when learning their first language, second language learners also need to try out, or play with, the language. Learning occurs through making these mistakes. Turning to an English-only, deficit model of language learning has proven detrimental to acquisition. As discussed by Shim and Shur (2018), “the approach in which English-only is imposed, according to empirical evidence, contributes negatively to ELLs’ academic, social, and emotional development,” (p. 29). Teaching is certainly “impacted by teachers’ judgments against ELLs’ English proficiency levels and the legitimization of their beliefs,” (p. 29). In order to remedy this influence, removing assumptions and connecting learning to prior knowledge is imperative on assessment instruments. In understanding students’ prior knowledge and language proficiency, we can develop assessment instruments at the appropriate level and improve validity. Students acquire, rather than learn, when they are exposed to language input slightly more advanced than their current level. Yule calls this the input hypothesize.

As previously discussed, there is an assumption that students who perform poorly on assessments do not understand the contents being tested, that they are poor students, and that they are not learning the language. These assumptions create a hostile environment for student learning that presents a barrier. These negative feelings and experiences are affective factors in language learning, as introduced by Yule (2006). Through incorporating student prior knowledge into assessments and removing cultural assumptions, we can facilitate academic achievement. This cyclical process promotes self-confidence, low anxiety, and a positive self-image for students, which creates a learning space in which difficulties are more easily overcome (p. 211). East Stroudsburg Area School District (2019) provided a list of specific recommendations, which has been included below. Not all of the recommendations listed will need to be used by all ELLs. Modifications should be based on student individual need.

Assessment Accommodations

  • Accept printing or cursive
  • Test key concepts or main ideas
  • Avoid test questions asking for discrete information
  • Make a simplified language version of the test
  • Provide word banks
  • Give students extra time to complete tests
  • Use fill-in-the-blank procedures rather than essays
  • For multiple choice items, eliminate one or two of the possible answers; avoid "a, b, and c" or “none of the above”
  • Avoid "pop" quizzes
  • Make all or part of the exam oral if applicable
  • Reduce the number of problems on a page
  • Use a highlighter or marker to identify key words, phrases, or sentences
  • Outline reading material for the student at his/her reading level, emphasizing main ideas
  • Tape record directions/tests/quizzes for the student
  • Tape record material for the student to listen to as he/she reads along
  • Provide manipulative objects for the student to use when solving math problems

Accommodations such as avoiding discrete answer questions, providing reading level material, allowing oral exams, eliminating ambiguous multiple-choice answers, and adding words banks may provide ELLs with an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge as their vocabulary is still developing. They may know other words or ways to describe their point. This also applies to testing key concepts, rather than specific details.

Conclusion

Throughout this research, many studies have shown that assessments have historically provided English Language Learners with invalid and unreliable assessments. This has caused a wide gap between ELL and non-ELL student achievement. Assessments developed for native-English students do not focus on all learners or possess the cultural competency to remain unbiased. As previously discussed, although ELL students may be learning advanced content, the language and protocols used in assessment may render their scores invalid. With new initiatives, there is a growing acknowledgment to increase academic achievement for all students. Specific assessment accommodations have been examined and listed.

References

Accommodation Vs. Modification. (2019). East Stroudsburg Area School District. Retrieved from https://www.esasd.net/Page/2252.

Finding New Solutions for ELL Assessments. (2010). District Administration, 46(10), 16.

Guzman-Orth, D., Laitusis, C., Thurlow, M., & Christensen, L. (2016). Conceptualizing accessibility for english language proficiency assessments. Research Report. ETS RR-16-07. ETS Research Report Series.

Hauck, M. C., Wolf, M. K., & Mislevy, R. (2016). Creating a next-generation system of K-12 english learner language proficiency assessments. Research Report. ETS RR-16-06. ETS Research Report Series.

Kopriva, R. J., Thurlow, M. L., Perie, M., Lazarus, S. S., & Clark, A. (2016). Test takers and the validity of score interpretations. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 108–128.

Koran, J., & Kopriva, R. J. (2017). Framing appropriate accommodations in terms of individual need: Examining the fit of four approaches to selecting test accommodations of english language learners. Applied Measurement in Education, 30(2), 71–81.

Lin, C., & Zhang, J. (2013). Enhancing standard-based validity for ell population: A perspective from correspondence between standards. TESOL Quarterly, 47(2), 399–410.

Shim, J. M., & Shur, A. M. (2018). Learning from ELLs’ perspectives: Mismatch between ELL and teacher perspectives on ELL learning experiences. English Language Teaching, 11(1), 21–32.

US Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

Young, J. W., King, T. C., Hauck, M. C., Ginsburgh, M., Kotloff, L., Cabrera, J., & Cavalie, C. (2014). Improving content assessment for english language learners: studies of the linguistic modification of test items. Research Report. ETS RR-14-23. ETS Research Report Series.

Yule, G. (2006). The Study of Language (6th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

If you enjoyed this article, please feel free to leave a tip. Anything can help as I try to deliver all kinds of interesting content to readers. Please consider reading some of my other works, and I thank you so much for the support!

how to
Like

About the Creator

Kayla Bloom

Just a writer, teacher, sister, and woman taking things one day at a time in a fast-paced world. Don’t forget to live your dreams.

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.