Assessment accommodations for english language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research

Review of Educational Research

Volumn 74, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 1-28

  Abedi, Jamal ^a,d   Hofstetter, Carolyn Huie ^b,e   Lord, Carol ^c,f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Department of Technical Projects   (United States)

^e University of California Berkeley   (United States)

^f Department of Teacher Education ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Accommodations; Assessment; Bilingual; English language learner (ELL); Limited English proficient (LEP)

Indexed keywords

EID: 2442631498     PISSN: 00346543     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/00346543074001001     Document Type: Review

References (92)

1. Abedi, J. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometrics issues. Educational Assessment, 8(3), 231-257.
2. Abedi, J. (2004a). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4-14.
3. Abedi, J. (2004b). The validity of the classification system for students with limited English proficiency: A criterion-related approach. Manuscript submitted for publication.
4. Abedi, J., Courtney, M., & Leon, S. (2003). Research-supported accommodation for English language learners in NAEP (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 586). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
5. Abedi, J., Courtney, M., Mirocha, J., Leon, S., & Goldberg, J. (2001). Language accommodation for large-scale assessments in science. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
6. Abedi, J., Leon, S., & Mirocha, J. (2003). Impact of student language background on content-based performance: Analyses of extant data (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 603). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
7. Abedi, J., & Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(3), 219-234.
8. Abedi, J., Lord, C., & Hofstetter, C. (1998). Impact of selected background variables on students' NAEP math performance (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 478). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
9. Abedi, J., Lord, C., Hofstetter, C., & Baker, E. (2000). Impact of accommodation strategies on English language learners' test performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19(3), 16-26.
10. Abedi, J., Lord, C., Kim, C., & Miyoshi, J. (2000). The effects of accommodations on the assessment of LEP students in NAEP (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 537). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
11. Abedi, J., Lord, C., & Plummer, J. (1997). Language background as a variable in NAEP mathematics performance: NAEP TRP Task 3D: Language background study (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 429). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
12. Aiken, L. R. (1971). Verbal factors and mathematics learning: A review of research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 2, 304-313.
13. Aiken, L. R. (1972). Language factors in learning mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 42(3), 359-385.
14. Albus, D., Bielinski, J., Thurlow, M., & Liu, K. (2001). The effect of a simplified English language dictionary on a reading test (LEP Projects Rep. 1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
15. Allen, N. L., Carlson, J. E., & Zelenak, C. A. (1999). The NAEP 1996 Technical Report (NCES Publication No. 1999452). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
16. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
17. American Institutes for Research. (1999, February). Voluntary National Tests in reading and math: Background paper reviewing laws and regulations, current practice, and research relevant to inclusion and accommodations for students with limited English proficiency. Palo Alto, CA: Author.
18. Anderson, N. E., Jenkins, F. F., & Miller, K. E. (1996). NAEP inclusion criteria and testing accommodations: Findings from the NAEP 1995 field test in mathematics. Washington, DC: Educational Testing Service.
19. Anstrom, K. (1996). Defining the limited-English-proficient student population. Directions in Language and Education: National Clearinghouse of Bilingual Education, 1(9), 1-9.
20. August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21. August, D., Hakuta, K., & Pompa, D. (1994). For all students: Limited English proficient students and Goals 2000 (Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education Focus No. 10). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
22. Bailey, A. L., & Butler, F. A. (2003). An evidentiary framework for operationalizing academic language for broad application to K-12 education: A design document (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 611). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing
23. Baker, E. L., Linn, R. L., Herman, J. L., & Koretz, D. (2002). Standards for educational accountability systems (Policy Brief 5, Winter). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation/National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. (To appear in S. Fuhrman & R. Elmore, Eds., Redesigning accountability systems, Teachers College Press, New York.)
24. Baker, E. L., Linn, R. L., Herman, J. L., & Koretz, D. (2002). Standards for educational accountability systems (Policy Brief 5, Winter). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation/National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. (To appear in S. Fuhrman & R. Elmore, Eds., Redesigning accountability systems, Teachers College Press, New York.)
25. Brown, P. B. (1999). Findings of the 1999 Plain Language Field Test (Publication T-99-013.1). Newark, DE: Delaware Education Research and Development Center, Inclusive Comprehensive Assessment Systems Project.
26. Butler, F. A., & Stevens, R. (1997). Accommodation strategies for English language learners on large-scale assessments: Student characteristics and other considerations (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 448). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
27. California Department of Education. (2000). California demographics data. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/demographics/
28. Castenada v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981).
29. Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352 (1964).
30. Cocking, R. R., & Chipman, S. (1988). Conceptual issues related to mathematics achievement of language minority children. In R. R. Cocking & J. P. Mestre (Eds.), Linguistic and cultural influences on learning mathematics, pp. 17-46. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Cummins, D. D., Kintsch, W., Reusser, K., & Weimer, R. (1988). The role of understanding in solving word problems. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 405-438.
32. De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & De Win, L. (1985). Influence of rewording verbal problems on children's problem representations and solutions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 460-470.
33. Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1975, 20 USC Sec. 1703 (1975).
34. Erpenbach, W. J., Forte-Fast, E., & Potts, A. (2003). Statewide educational account-ability under NCLB (An Accountability Systems and Reporting State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards Paper). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
35. Garcia, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Assessment and diversity. Review of Research in Education, 20, 337-391.
36. Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Pub. L. No. 103-227 (1994).
37. Hafner, A. L. (2001, April). Evaluating the impact of test accommodations on test scores of LEP students and non-LEP students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.
38. Hakuta, K., & Beatty, A. (Eds.). (2000). Testing English-language learners in U.S. schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39. Hambleton, R. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10(3), 229-244.
40. Hambleton, R., & Patsula, L. (1998). Adapting tests for use in multiple languages and cultures. Social Indicators Research, 45, 153-171.
41. Hudson, T. (1983). Correspondences and numerical differences between disjoint sets. Child Development, 54, 84-90.
42. Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-382, 108 Stat. (1994).
43. Jerman, M., & Rees, R. (1972). Predicting the relative difficulty of verbal arithmetic problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 4, 306-323.
44. Kindler, A. L. (2002). Survey of the states' limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services, 2000-2001 summary report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs.
45. Kintsch, W., & Greeno, J. G. (1985). Understanding and solving word arithmetic problems. Psychological Review, 92(1), 109-129.
46. Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
47. Kopriva, R. (2000). Ensuring accuracy in testing for English language learners. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
48. Kopriva, R. J., & Lowrey, K. (1994, April). Investigation of language-sensitive modifications in a pilot study of CLAS, the California Learning Assessment System (Tech. Rep.). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans.
49. Koretz, D. (1997). The assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 431). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
50. LaCelle-Peterson, M. W., & Rivera, C. (1994). Is it real for all kids? A framework for equitable assessment policies for English language learners. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1), 55-75.
51. Larsen, S. C., Parker, R. M., & Trenholme, B. (1978). The effects of syntactic complexity upon arithmetic performance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 83-90.
52. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 94 S.Ct. 786 (1974).
53. Lepik, M. (1990). Algebraic word problems: Role of linguistic and structural variables. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 83-90.
54. Lewin, T. (2002, March 18). In testing, one size may not fit all. New York Times, p. A16.
55. Linn, R. L. (1995). Assessment-based reform: Challenges to educational measurement. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
56. Liu, K., Anderson, M., Swierzbin, B., & Thurlow, M. (1999). Bilingual accommodations for limited English proficient students on statewide reading tests: Phase 1 (Minnesota Rep. No. 20). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
57. Lotherington-Woloszyn, H. (1993). Do simplified texts simplify language comprehension for ESL learners? In Tickoo, M. L. (Ed.), Simplification: Theory and application (Anthology Series 31). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
58. Mazzeo, J., Carlson, J. E., Voelkl, K. E., & Lutkus, A. D. (2000). Increasing the participation of special needs students in NAEP: A report on 1996 NAEP research activities (NCES Publication No. 2000-473). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
59. McGinn, D., Rhodes, S., Foote, D., & Gesalman, A. (1999, September 6). The big score: High-stakes tests are rapidly becoming a rite of passage in districts around the country. But do they really improve learning? Newsweek, 46-51.
60. McNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
61. Mestre, J. P. (1988). The role of language comprehension in mathematics and problem solving. In R. R. Cocking & J. P. Mestre (Eds.), Linguistic and cultural influences on learning mathematics (pp. 200-220). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. Miller, E. R., Okum, I., Sinai, R., & Miller, K. S. (1999, April). A study of the English language readiness of limited English proficient students to participate in New Jersey's statewide assessment system. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal.
63. Munro, J. (1979). Language abilities and math performance. Reading Teacher, 32(8), 900-915.
64. Navarrette, C., & Gustke, C. (1996). A guide to performance assessment for linguistically diverse students. Albuquerque: New Mexico Highlands University.
65. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. (2002).
66. Noonan, J. (1990). Readability problems presented by mathematics text. Early Child Development and Care, 54, 57-81.
67. Olson, J. F., & Goldstein, A. A. (1997). The inclusion of students with disabilities and limited English proficiency students in large-scale assessments: A summary of recent progress. (NCES Publication No. 97-482). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
68. Orr, E. W. (1987). Twice as less: Black English and the performance of Black students in mathematics and science. New York: W. W. Norton.
69. Pedhazur, E. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
70. Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing: An educator's call to action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
71. Riley, M. S., Greeno, J. G., & Heller, J. I. (1983). Development of children's problem-solving ability in arithmetic. In H. P. Ginsburg (Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking (pp. 153-196). New York: Academic Press.
72. Rivera, C., & Stansfield, C. W. (2001, April). The effects of linguistic simplification of science test items on performance of limited English proficient and monolingual English-speaking students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
73. Rivera, C., Stansfield, C. W., Scialdone, L., & Sharkey, M. (2000). An analysis of state policies for the inclusion and accommodation of English language learners in state assessment programs during 1998-1999. Arlington, VA: George Washington University, Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.
74. Rivera, C., & Vincent, C. (1997). High school graduation testing: Policies and practices in the assessment of English language learners. Educational Assessment, 4(4), 335-355.
75. Rivera, C., Vincent, C., Hafner, A., & LaCelle-Peterson, M. (1997). Statewide assessment program policies and practices for the inclusion of limited English proficient students. Washington, DC: Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Rep. No. EDO-TM-97-02)
76. Rothman, R. W., & Cohen, J. (1989). The language of math needs to be taught. Academic Therapy, 25(2), 133-142.
77. Rothstein, R. (2001, May 30). Lessons: A rebellion is growing against required tests. New York Times, p. B9.
78. Sanchez, C. (Speaker). (2001, March 29). Testing backlash. All Things Considered [Radio broadcast]. Washington, DC: National Public Radio.
79. Sanchez, C. (Speaker). (2002a, February 14). Lost students. Morning Edition. [Radio broadcast]. Washington, DC: National Public Radio.
80. Sanchez, C. (Speaker). (2002b, March 21). Standardized tests: What are we trying to measure? Talk of the Nation. [Radio broadcast]. Washington, DC: National Public Radio.
81. Shepard, L., Taylor, G., & Betebenner, D. (1998). Inclusion of limited-English-proficient students in Rhode Island's Grade 4 Mathematics Performance Assessment (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 486). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
82. Sireci, S. G. (1997). Problems and issues in linking assessments across languages. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(1), 12-19.
83. Sireci, S. G., Li, S. & Scarpati, S. (2003). The effects of test accommodation on test performance: A review of the literature (Center for Educational Assessment Research Rep. No. 485). Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
84. Spanos, G., Rhodes, N. C., Dale, T. C., & Crandall, J. (1988). Linguistic features of mathematical problem solving: Insights and applications. In R. R. Cocking & J. P. Mestre (Eds.), Linguistic and cultural influences on learning mathematics (pp. 221-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
85. Thompson, S., Blount, A., Thurlow, M. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Tech. Rep. 34). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
86. Thurlow, M., Liu, K., Erickson, R., Spicuzza, R., & El Sawaf, H. (1996, August). Accommodations for students with limited English proficiency: Analyses of guidelines from states with graduation exams (Minnesota Rep. 6). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
87. Thurlow, M. L., McGrew, S., Tindal, G., Thompson, S. J., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Elliott, J. L. (2000). Assessment accommodations research: Considerations for design and analysis (NCEO Tech. Rep. 26). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
88. Tindal, G., Anderson, L., Helwig, R., Miller, S., & Glasgow, A. (2000). Accommodating students with learning disabilities on math tests using language simplification. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Behavioral Research and Teaching.
89. Tindal, G., & Fuchs, L. (2000). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for defining accommodations. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, Mid-South Regional Resource Center.
90. Wheeler, L. J., & McNutt, G. (1983). The effect of syntax on low-achieving students' abilities to solve mathematical word problems. Journal of Special Education, 17(3), 309-315.
91. Wong Fillmore, L. (1982). Language minority students and school participation: What kind of English is needed? Journal of Education, 164, 143-156.
92. Zehler, A. M., Hopstock, P. J., Fleischman, H. L., & Greniuk, C. (1994). An examination of assessment of limited English proficient students. Arlington, VA: Development Associates, Special Issues Analysis Center.