ELL-Language-based Accommodations for Content Area Assessments

The University of Central FloridaCocoa Campus

Jamal AbediUniversity of California, Davis

July 7, 2011

1

ELL Language-Based Accommodations

English dictionary

English glossary

Bilingual dictionary/glossary

Customized Dictionary

Native language testing

Read-aloud test items or directions

Linguistically modified test

Computer testing with pop-up glossaries

2

English Dictionary

Providing an English Dictionary is another commonly used accommodation for ELL students (Abedi, Courtney, & Leon, 2003; Abedi, Lord, Boscardin & Miyoshi, 2000).

The use of a dictionary and extra time affect the performance of all students (Abedi, Lord, Hofstetter & Baker, 2000; Hafner, 2001; Maihoff, 2002; Thurlow, 2001; Thurlow & Liu, 2001).

By gaining access to definition of content-related terms, recipients of a dictionary may be advantaged over those who did not have access to the dictionaries. This may compromise the validity of assessment (Abedi, Courtney, Mirocha, Leon & Goldberg, 2005).

The dictionary as a form of accommodation suffers from yet another major limitation, the feasibility issue (Abedi, Courtney, Mirocha, Leon & Goldberg, 2001).

Consequently, the results of accommodated and non-accommodated assessment may not be aggregated.

3

English Glossary English glossary with extra time raised performance of both

ELL and non-ELL students (Abedi, Hofstetter & Lord, 2000).

ELL students’ performance increased by 13% when they were tested under the glossary with extra time accommodation.

While this looks promising, it does not present the entire picture.

Non-ELL students also benefited from this accommodation, with an increase of 16% (Abedi, Hofstetter & Lord1998, 2000).

Thus, the results of the accommodated outcome cannot be aggregated with the non-accommodated outcome.

4

Customized DictionaryCustomized dictionary was introduced as a more valid

alternative to English/bilingual dictionaries (Abedi, Courtney, Mirocha, Leon & Goldberg, 2001).

It is a cut-and-paste of the actual dictionaries.

In only includes terms that are: (1) in the test and (2) non-content related.

Results of studies suggest that it is highly effective and valid accommodation for ELL students.

5

Linguistically Modified Test

There are, however, some accommodations that help ELL students with their English language needs without compromising the validity of assessment.

Studies suggested that the linguistically modified version of the tests items is an effective and valid accommodation for ELL students (Abedi, Hofstetter, Lord & Baker, 2000; Maihoff, 2002; Rivera & Stansfield, 2001).

This accommodation also helped students with learning disabilities.

Thus, an accommodation may have the potential to be effective and help provide valid assessment outcomes for ELL students.

6

Computer Testing

Research findings suggest computer testing as an effective and valid accommodation for ELL students (Abedi, Courtney, Mirocha, Leon, & Goldberg, 2001).

ELL students show higher levels of motivation on the assessments administered by computer.

Different types of accommodations that have been shown to be useful for ELL students may be incorporated into the computer testing system (Abedi, et al, 2011).

7

Native Language Testing Translating tests into students’ native language is an

accommodation used by many states across the country (Abedi, Lord, Hofstetter & Baker, 2000; Rivera, Stansfield, Scialdone & Sharkey, 2000).

Issues concerning translation and content coverage across the forms must be seriously considered.

Students’ background variables, particularly their level of proficiency in L1 and L2, must be studied before considering this accommodation.

Using native language assessment may not produce desirable results if the language of instruction and assessment are not aligned (Abedi, Hofstetter & Lord, 2004).

8

Examining Complex Linguistic Features in Content-Based Test Items

Unnecessary complex linguistic features slow down the reader, make misinterpretation more likely, and add to the reader’s cognitive load; thus interfering with concurrent tasks. These features include:

Concrete vs. abstract or impersonal presentationsItem lengthUnfamiliar VocabularyNominal heavinessRelative clauseConditional clausePassive voice Long noun phrasesSubordinate clauses

9

Impact of language factors on content assessments for ELLs

Continuum of Linguistic Complexity and Item Characteristics

1 Items with no linguistic complexity:

Familiar or frequently used words; word length generally shorter

Short sentences and limited prepositional phrases

Concrete item(s) and a narrative structure

No complex conditional or adverbial clauses

No passive voice or abstract or impersonal presentations

10

Impact of language factors on content assessments for ELLs

Continuum of Linguistic Complexity and Item Characteristics

2 Items with a minimal level of linguistic complexity:

Familiar or frequently used words; short word length

Moderate sentence length with a few prepositional phrases

Concrete item(s)

No subordinate, conditional, or adverbial clauses

No passive voice or abstract or impersonal presentations

11

Impact of language factors on content assessments for ELLs

Continuum of Linguistic Complexity and Item Characteristics

3 Items with a moderate level of linguistic complexity:

Unfamiliar or seldom used words

Long sentence (s)

Abstract concept (s)

Complex sentence/conditional tense/adverbial clause(s)

A few passive voice or abstract or impersonal presentations

12

Impact of language factors on content assessments for ELLs

Continuum of Linguistic Complexity and Item Characteristics

4 Items with a high level of linguistic complexity:

Relatively unfamiliar or seldom used words

Long or complex sentence(s)

Abstract concept(s)

Difficult subordinate, conditional, or adverbial clause(s)

Passive voice/ abstract or impersonal presentations

13

Impact of language factors on content assessments for ELLs

Continuum of Linguistic Complexity and Item Characteristics

5 Items with a maximum level of linguistic complexity:

Highly unfamiliar or seldom used words

Very Long or complex sentence(s)

Abstract concept(s)

Very difficult subordinate, conditional, or adverbial clause(s)

Many passive voice/ abstract or impersonal presentations

14

Sample Original and Revised Item

• Below is an example of a test items that deemed to be Below is an example of a test items that deemed to be linguistically complex and a linguistically modified version of linguistically complex and a linguistically modified version of the items. the items.

• Original: Original: If Y represents the number of newspapers that Lee If Y represents the number of newspapers that Lee delivers each day, which of the following represents the total delivers each day, which of the following represents the total number of newspapers that Lee delivers in 5 days?number of newspapers that Lee delivers in 5 days? – A) 5 + Y A) 5 + Y – B) 5 x Y B) 5 x Y – C) Y + 5 C) Y + 5 – D) (Y + Y) x 5D) (Y + Y) x 5

• Modified: Modified: Lee delivers Y newspapers each day. How many Lee delivers Y newspapers each day. How many newspapers does he deliver in 5 days?newspapers does he deliver in 5 days?

(Adopted from Abedi, Lord & Plummer, 1997, p. 21)(Adopted from Abedi, Lord & Plummer, 1997, p. 21)15

Linguistic Modifications made on the item

• Conditional clause changed to separate sentence• Two relative clauses removed and recast• Long nominals shortened• Question phrase changed from “which of the following

represents“ to “how many”• Item length changed from 26 to 13 words• Average sentence length changed from 26 to 6.5

words• Number of clauses changed from 4 to 2• Average number of clauses per sentence changed

from 4 to 1

16

Conclusions and Recommendation

Assessments and instructions for ELLs :Assessments and instructions for ELLs :

Must be based on a sound psychometric principlesMust be based on a sound psychometric principlesMust be controlled for all sources of nuisance or Must be controlled for all sources of nuisance or confounding variablesconfounding variablesMust be free of unnecessary linguistic complexitiesMust be free of unnecessary linguistic complexitiesMust include sufficient number of ELLs and SWDs in its Must include sufficient number of ELLs and SWDs in its development process (field testing, standard setting, development process (field testing, standard setting, etc.)etc.)Must be free of biases, such as cultural biasesMust be free of biases, such as cultural biasesMust be sensitive to students’ linguistics and cultural Must be sensitive to students’ linguistics and cultural needsneeds

17

Conclusions and Recommendations

Accommodations:

Must be relevant in addressing assessment issues for ELL students

Must be effective in making assessments more accessible to ELL students

Should not alter the construct being measured

Must provide results that can be aggregated with the assessment outcomes under standard conditions

Must be feasible in national and state assessments

18

Conclusions and Recommendations

Examples of research-supported accommodations:

Providing a customized dictionary is a viable alternative to providing traditional dictionaries.

The linguistic modification of test items that reduce unnecessary linguistic burdens on students is among the accommodations that help ELL students without affecting the validity of assessments.

Computer testing with added extra time and glossary was shown to be a very effective, yet valid accommodation (Abedi, Courtney, Leon and Goldberg, 2003)

19