Language, dialect, and register: Sociolinguistics and the estimation of measurement error in the testing of English language learners

Teachers College Record

Volumn 108, Issue 11, 2006, Pages 2354-2379

  Solano Flores, Guillermo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33644922779     PISSN: 01614681     EISSN: 14679620     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00785.x     Document Type: Review

References (106)

1. Abedi, J. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometric issues. Educational Assessment, 8, 231-257.
2. Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4-14.
3. Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C., & Lord, C. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research, 74, 1-28.
4. Abedi, J., & Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 219-234.
5. 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.
6. Aguirre-Muñoz, Z., & Baker, E. L. (1997). Improving the equity and validity of assessment-based information systems (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 462). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation; National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing; Graduate School of Education and Information Studies.
7. 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, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education.
8. Allalouf, A. (2003). Revising translated differential item functioning items as a tool for improving cross-lingual assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 16, 55-73.
9. August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language minority students: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
10. Bachman, L. F., Lynch, B. K., & Mason, M. (1995). Investigating variability in tasks and rater judgments in a performance test of foreign language speaking. Language Testing, 12, 239-257.
11. Bialystok, E. (Ed.). (1991). Language processing in bilingual children. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12. Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition; Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13. Bolus, R. E., Hinofotis, F. B., & Bailey, K. M. (1982). An introduction to generalizability theory in second language research. Language Learning, 32, 245-258.
14. Bormuth, J. R. (1970). On the theory of achievement test items. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. Brennan, R. L. (1992). Elements of generalizability theory. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.
16. Brennan, R. L. (2001). Ganeralizability theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.
17. Briggs, D. C., & Wilson, M. R. (2004, June.). Generalizability in item response modeling. Presentation at the International Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Pacific Grove, CA.
18. Brisk, M. E. (1998). Bilingual education: From compensatory to quality schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Brown, J. D., & Bailey, K. M. (1984). A categorical instrument for scoring second language writing skills. Language Learning, 34, 21-42.
20. 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.
21. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Casanova, U., & Arias, B. (1993). Contextualizing bilingual education. In M. B. Arias & U. Casanova (Eds.), Bilingual education: Politics, practice, and research (pp. 1-35). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23. Cole, M. (1999). Culture-free versus culture-based measures of cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of cognition (pp. 645-664). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Cook, L. I., & Schimitt-Cascallar, A. P. (2005). Establishing score comparability for tests given in different languages. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 139-169). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Coulmas, F. (2005). Sociolinguistics: The study of speakers' choices. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26. Council of Chief State School Officers. (1992). Recommendations for improving the assessment and monitoring of students with limited English proficiency. Washington, DC: Author.
27. Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements. New York: Wiley.
28. nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
30. Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education.
31. Cummins, J. (1999). Alternative paradigms in bilingual education research: Does theory have a place? Educational Researcher, 28, 26-32, 41.
32. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
33. Cummins, J. (2003). BICS and CALP: Origins and rationale for the distinction. In C. B. Paulston & G. R. Tucker (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: The essential readings (pp. 322-328). London: Blackwell.
34. De Avila, E. (1990). Assessment of language minority students: Political, technical, practical and moral imperatives. Proceedings of the First Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues. Retrieved February 9, 2005, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/symposia/first/assessment.htm
35. Edelsky, C. (1990). With literacy and justice for all. Rethinking the social in language and education. London: Falmer Press.
36. Ercikan, K. (1998). Translation effects in international assessment. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 543-553.
37. Farr, M., & Ball, A. F. (1999). Standard English. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics (pp. 205-208). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
38. Ferguson, A. M., & Fairburn, J. (1985). Language experience for problem solving in mathematics. Reading 'Kacher, 38, 504-507.
39. Ferrara, S., Macmillan, J., & Nathan, A. (2004, January). Enhanced database on inclusion and accommodations: Variables and measures (NAEP State Analysis Project Report to the National Center for Education Statistics). Washington, DC: NCES.
40. Freedle, R. O. (2003). Correcting the SATs ethnic and social-class bias: A method for reestimating SAT scores. Harvard Educational Review, 73, 1-43.
41. Gandara, P. (1997). Review of research on instruction of limited English proficient students. Davis: University of California, Linguistic Minority Research Institute Education Policy Center.
42. Genesee, F. (1994). Introduction. In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole, curriculum, the whole community (pp. 1-11). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43. Greenfield, P. M. (1997). You can't take it with you: Why ability assessments don't cross cultures. American Psychologist, 52, 1115-1124.
44. Grisay, A. (2003). Translation procedures in OECD/PISA 2000 international assessment. Language Testing, 20, 225-240.
45. Guerrero, M. D. (1997). Spanish academic language proficiency: The case of bilingual education teachers in the U.S. Bilingual Research Journal, 21(1). Retrieved April 1, 2004, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/nabe/brj/v21.htm
46. Guttman, L. (1969). Integration of test design and analysis. In Proceedings of the 1969 invitational conference on testing problems (pp. 53-65). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
47. Hakuta, K., & Beatty, A. (Eds.). (2000). Testing English-language learners in U.S. schools: Report and workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
48. Hakuta, K., Goto Butler, Y., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? (Policy Report No. 2000-1). Davis: University of California, Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
49. Hakuta, K., & McLaughlin, B. (1996). Bilingualism and second language learning: Seven tensions that define the research. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 603-621). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
50. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
51. Hamayan, E., & Perlman, R. (1990). Helping language minority students after they exit from bilingual/ESL programs. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
52. Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10, 229-240.
53. Hambleton, R. K., & Jones, R. W. (1994). Comparison of empirical and judgmental procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Educational Research Quarterly, 18, 23-36.
54. Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F., & Spielberger, C. D. (Eds.). (2005). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
55. Hambleton, R., & Rodgers, J. (1995). Item bias review. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 4. Retrieved October 31, 2004, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=4&n =6
56. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
57. Haugen, E. (1966). Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist, 58, 922-935.
58. Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
59. Hively, W., Patterson, H. L., & Page, S. H. (1968). A "universe-defined" system of arithmetic achievement tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 5, 275-290.
60. Hofstetter, C. H. (2003). Contextual and mathematics accommodation test effects for English-language learners. Applied Measurement in Education, 16, 159-188.
61. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
62. Krashen, S. D. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates.
63. 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, 55-75.
64. Lee, O. (1999). Equity implications based on the conceptions of science achievement in major reform documents. Review of Educational Research, 69, 83-115.
65. Lee, O. (2002). Promoting scientific inquiry with elementary students from diverse cultures and languages. Review of Research in Education, 26, 23-69.
66. Lee, O. (2005). Science education with English language learners: Synthesis and research agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75, 491-530.
67. Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27, 12-21.
68. Lee, Y. W. (2005). Dependability of scores for a new ESL speaking test: Evaluating prototype tasks. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
69. MacSwan, J., & Rolstad, K. (2003). Linguistic diversity, schooling, and social class: Rethinking our conception of language proficiency in language minority education. In C. B. Paulston & G. R. Tucker (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: The essential readings (pp. 329-340). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
70. rd ed., pp. 13-103). Washington, DC: American Council on Education, and National Council on Measurement in Education.
71. Molloy, H., & Shimura, M. (2005). An examination of situational sensitivity in medium-scale interlanguage pragmatics research. In T. Newfields, Y. Ishida, M. Chapman, & M. Fujioka (Eds.), Proceedings of the May 22-23, 2004, JALT Pan-SIG Conference (pp. 16-32. Retrieved September 8, 2005, from www.jalt.org/pansig/2004/HTML/ShimMoll.htm.
72. Mullis, I. V. S., Kelly, D. L., & Haley, K. (1996). Translation verification procedures. In M. O. Martin & I. V. S. Mullis (Eds.), Third international mathematics and science study: Quality assurance in data collection. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
73. Muzzi, A. (2001). Challenges in localization. The ATA Chronicle, 30(11), 28-31.
74. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1996). Mathematics items public release. Washington, DC: Author.
75. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2000). Mathematics items public release. Washington, DC: Author.
76. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
77. Preston, D. R. (Ed.). (1993). American dialect research. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
78. Preston, D. R. (1999). Sociolinguistics. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics (pp. 65-70). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
79. Rickford, J. R., & Rickford, A. E. (1995). Dialect readers revisited. Linguiitics and Education, 7(2), 107-128.
80. Rivera, C. (1984). Language proficiency and academic achievement. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
81. Ruiz.-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Hamilton, L., & Klein, S. (2002). On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 369-393.
82. Sexton, U., & Solano-Flores, G. (2002, April). A comparative study of teachers' cultural perspectives across different cultures: Preliminary results. Poster presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
83. Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Newbury Park, CA; Sage.
84. Shepard, L., Taylor, G., & Betebenner, D. (1998). Inclusion of limited-English proficient students in Rhode Island's Grade 4 mathematics performance assessment (GSE Tech. Rep. No. 486). Los Angeles: University of California; Center for the Study of Evaluation; National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing; Graduate School of Education and Information Studies.
85. Sireci, S. G. (2005). Using bilinguals to evaluate the comparability of different language versions of a test. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and, psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 117-138). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaurn.
86. Solano-Flores, G., & Backhoff, E. (2003). Test translation in international comparisons: A preliminary study. Mexico City, Mexico: Mexican Department of Education, National Institute for Educational Evaluation.
87. Solano-Flores, G., Contreras-Niño, L. A., & Backhoff, E. (2005, April). The Mexican translation of TIMSS-95: Test translation lessons from a post-mortem study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
88. Solano-Flores, G., Lara, J., Sexton, U., & Navarrete, C. (2001). Testing English language learners: A sampler of student responses to science and mathematics test items, Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
89. Solano-Flores, G., & Li, M. (2006). The use of generalizability (G) theory in the testing of linguistic minorities. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25, 13-22.
90. Solano-Flores, G., Li, M., & Sexton, U. (2005). On the accuracy of teacher judgments of the linguistic and cultural adequacy of test items. Unpublished manuscript.
91. Solano-Flores, G., & Nelson-Barber, S. (2001). On the cultural validity of science assessments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 553-573.
92. Solano-Flores, G., Speroni, C., & Sexton, U. (2005, April). The process of test translation: Advantages and challenges of a socio-linguistic approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
93. Solano-Flores, G., & Trumbull, E. (2003). Examining language in context: The need for new research and practice paradigms in the testing of English-language learners. Educational Researcher, 52(2), 3-13.
94. Solano-Flores, G., Trumbull, E., & Kwon, M. (2003, April). The metrics of linguistic complexity and the metrics of student performance in the testing of English language learners. Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Research Association, Chicago, IL.
95. Solano-Flores, G., Trumbull, E., & Nelson-Barber, S. (2002). Concurrent development of dual language assessments: An alternative to translating tests for linguistic minorities. International Journal of Testing, 2, 107-129.
96. Stansfield, C. W., & Kenyon, D. M. (1992). Research of the comparability of the oral proficiency interview and the simulated oral proficiency interview. System, 20, 347-364.
97. Stevens, R. A., Butler, F. A., & Castellon-Wellington, M. (2000). Academic language and content assessment: Measuring the progress of English Language Learners (ELLs) (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 552). Los Angeles: University of California; National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing; Graduate School of Education and Information Studies.
98. Tanzer, N. K. (2005). Developing tests for use in multiple languages and cultures: A plea for simultaneous development. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 235-263). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
99. Tunick, L. (2003). Language translation, localization, and globalization. The ATA Chronicle, 32(2), 19-21.
100. Valdés, G., & Figueroa, R. A. (1994). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
101. van de Vijver, F., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1997). Towards an integrated analysis of bias in cross-cultural assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13, 29-37.
102. van de Vijver, F., & Tanzer, N. K. (1998). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47, 263-279.
103. th ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
104. Wolfram, W., Adger, C. T., & Christian, D. (1999). Dialects in schools and communities, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
105. WorldLingo. (2004). Localization. Glossary of terms. Retrieved May 24, 2004, from http://www.worldlingo.com/resources/glossary.html
106. Yoo, B., & Resnick, L. B. (1998). Instructional validity, opportunity to learn and equity: New standards examinations for the California Mathematics Renaissance (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 484). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.