The impact of language characteristics in mathematics test items on the performance of English language learners and students with disabilities

Educational Assessment

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 105-126

  Shaftel, Julia ^a   Belton Kocher, Evelyn ^b   Glasnapp, Douglas ^a   Poggio, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

^b St Paul s public schools   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745711608     PISSN: 10627197     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15326977ea1102_2     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33, 4-14.
2. 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.
3. Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C., Baker, E., & Lord, C. (2001). NAEP math performance and test accommodations: Interactions with student language background (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 536). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
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. (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.
6. Abedi, J., Lord, C., & Plummer, J. R. (1997). Final report of language background as a variable in NAEP mathematics performance (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 429). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
7. Brown, P. J. (1999). Findings of the 1999 plain language field test. Newark: University of Delaware, Delaware Education Research & Development Center.
8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
9. Cummins, D. D., Kintsch, W., Reusser, K., & Weimer, R. (1988). The role of understanding in solving word problems. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 405-438.
10. 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, 460-470.
11. Finn, C. E., & Petrilli, M. J. (Eds.). (2000). The state of state standards 2000. Retrieved January 6, 2005, from the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation Web site: http://www.edexcellence.net/ doc/Standards2000.pdf
12. Glasnapp, D., Poggio, J., & Omar, M. (2000). Technical report, Y2002 Kansas assessments in mathematics, reading, and writing. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation.
13. Hanson, M. R., Hayes, J. R., Schriver, K., LeMahieu, P. G., & Brown, P. J. (1998, April). A plain language approach to the revision of test items. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
14. Johnson, E., & Monroe, B. (2004). Simplified language as an accommodation on math tests. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29, 35-45.
15. Kiplinger, V. L., Haug, C. A., & Abedi, J. (2000, April). Measuring math - not reading - on a math assessment: A language accommodations study of English language learners and other special populations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
16. Kopriva, R. J. (1999). Ensuring accuracy in testing for English language learners: A practical guide for assessment development. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
17. Larsen, S. C., Parker, R. M., & Trenholme, B. (1978). The effects of syntactic complexity upon arithmetic performance. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 1, 80-85.
18. Lean, G. A., Clements, M. A., & Del Campo, G. (1990). Linguistic and pedagogical factors affecting children's understanding of arithmetic word problems: A comparative study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 165-191.
19. Lepik, M. (1990). Algebraic word problems: Role of linguistic and structural variables. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 83-90.
20. Lord, C., Abedi, J., & Poosuthasee, N. (2000). Language difficulty and assessment accommodations for English language learners. Dover: Delaware Department of Education. Retrieved February 1, 2006, from the Delaware Department of Education Web site: http://www.doe.state.de.us/aab/DSTP_research. html
21. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
22. O'Neil, T., Sireci, S. G., & Huff, K. L. (2003-2004). Evaluating the consistency of test content across two successive administrations of a state-mandated science assessment. Educational Assessment, 9, 129-151.
23. Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
24. Pitoniak, M. J., & Royer, J. M. (2001). Testing accommodations for examinees with disabilities: A review of psychometric, legal, and social policy issues. Review of Educational Research, 71, 53-104.
25. Rivera, C., & Stansfield, C. (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.
26. Shaftel, J., Belton-Kocher, E., Glasnapp, D. R., & Poggio, J. P. (2002). The differential impact of accommodations in statewide assessment. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation. Research summary retrieved January 30, 2005, from the National Center on Educational Outcomes Web site: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/ TopicAreas/Accommodations/Kansas.htm
27. 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 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
28. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
29. 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 Research, Consultation, and Teaching Program. Retrieved January 30, 2005, from the Behavioral Research and Teaching Web site at the University of Oregon: http://brt.uoregon.edu/files/ Accom_lang_simplfy.pdf
30. Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Rep. 44). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/ Synthesis44.html
31. Wheeler, L. J., & McNutt, G. (1983). The effects of syntax on low-achieving students' abilities to solve mathematics word problems. Journal of Special Education, 17, 309-315.
32. Yang, X., Shaftel, J., Glasnapp, D., & Poggio, J. (2005). Qualitative or quantitative differences? Latent class analysis of mathematical ability for special education students. Journal of Special Education, 38, 194-207.