Language and the performance of English-language learners in math word problems

Harvard Educational Review

Volumn 78, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 333-368

  Martiniello, Maria ^a  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 47749086272     PISSN: 00178055     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17763/haer.78.2.70783570r1111t32     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Abedi, J. (2004, April). Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analyses based on language background variables. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
2. Abedi, J. (2006). Language issues in item development. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Abedi, J., Bailey, A., Butler, F., Castellon-Wellington, M., Leon, S., & Mirocha, J. (2005). The validity of administering large-scale content assessments to English language learners: An investigation from three perspectives (CSE Technical Report 663). Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation/National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
4. Abedi, J., & Gándara, P. (2006). Performance of English language learners as a subgroup in large-scale assessment: Interaction of research and policy. Educational Measurement Issues and Practice, 25(4), 36-46.
5. Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C., Baker, E., & Lord, C. (2001). NAEP math performance and test accommodations: Interactions with student language background (CSE Technical Report 536). Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation/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 Technical Report 603). Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation/National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
7. Abedi, J., & Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 219-234.
8. Abedi, J., Lord, C., & Hofstetter, C. (1998). Impact of selected background variables on students' NAEP math performance (CSE Technical Report 478). Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation/National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
9. Abedi, J., Lord, C., & Plummer, J. (1997). Final report of language background as a variable in mathematics performance (CSE Technical Report 429). Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation/National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
10. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
12. Anderson-Koenig, J. (Ed.). (2002). Reporting test results for students with disabilities and English-language learners: Summary of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
13. Anhalt, C., Civil, M., Horak, V., Kitchen, R., & Kondek, L. (2007, January). Preparing teachers to work with English language learning students: Issues of research and practice. Presentation at the annual conference of the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators, Irvine, CA.
14. August, D. E., & Hakuta, K. E. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
15. Bailey, A. L. (2005). Language analysis of standardized achievement tests: Considerations in the assessment of English language learners. In J. Abedi, A. L. Bailey, F. Butler, M. Castellon-Wellington, S. Leon, & J. Mirocha, The validity of administering large-scale content assessments to English language learners: An investigation from three perspectives (CSE Technical Report 663, pp. 79-100). Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation/National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
16. Baranowski, R. (2006). Item editing and editorial review. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Bravo, M. A., Hiebert, E. H., & Pearson, P. D. (2007). Tapping the linguistic resources of Spanish-English bilinguals: The role of cognates in science. In R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.). Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 140-156). New York: Guilford Press.
18. Bunch, G., Aguirre, J., Telléz, K., Gutiérrez, R., & Wilson, J. (2007, April). Preservice elementary teachers' views about language and culture in mathematics teaching and learning for Latinos/as. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
19. Butler, F., Bailey, A., Stevens, R., Huang, B., & Lord, C. (2004). Academic English in fifth-grade mathematics, science, and social studies textbooks (CSE Report 642). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation/National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
20. Carver, R. P. (1994). Percentage of unknown vocabulary words in text as a function of the relative difficulty of the text: Implications for instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 413-437.
21. Chall, J., & Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
22. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Dale, E., & O'Rourke, J. (1979). The living word vocabulary: A national vocabulary inventory study. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
24. Dorans, N.J., & Holland, P. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardization. In P. W. Holland and H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential Item Functioning (pp. 35-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25. Dorans, N.J., & Kulick, E. (1986). Demonstrating the utility of the standardization approach to assessing unexpected differential item performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 355-368.
26. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1994). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for the use of accommodations in large-scale assessments. Houston: Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics at the University of Houston Center on Instruction.
28. Gándara, P., & Rumberger, R. W. (2003). The inequitable treatment of English learners in California's public schools. Santa Barbara: University of California, Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
29. Hakuta, K., & Beatty, A. (Eds.). (2000). Testing English-language learners in U.S. schools: Report and workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
30. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H.J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32. Kindler, A. L. (2002). Survey of the states' limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services: 2000-2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students,
33. Llabre, M. M., & Cuevas, G. (1983). The effects of test language and mathematical skills assessed on the scores of bilingual Hispanic students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 318-324.
34. Lord, C., Abedi, J., & Poosuthasee, N. (2000). Language difficulty and assessment accommodations for ELLs. Study commissioned by the Delaware Department of Education.
35. Martiniello, M. (2006, October). Sources of Differential Item Functioning for English learners in word math problems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association, New York.
36. Martiniello, M. (2007, April). Curricular content, language, and the differential performance of English learners and non-English learners in word math problems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
37. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2000). Mathematics curriculum frameworks. Retrieved September 4, 2004, from www.doe.mass.edu
38. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2003a). 2002 MCAS technical report. Retrieved September 9, 2004, from www.doe.mass.edu
39. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2003b). Release of spring 2003 test items. Retrieved September 4, 2004, from www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/2003/ release/testitems.pdf
40. McKeown, M., Beck, I., Omanson, R., & Pople, M. (1985). Some effects of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and use of words. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 522-535.
41. Mestre, J. (1988). The role of language comprehension in mathematics and problem solving. In R. Cocking & J. Mestre (Eds.), Linguistic and cultural influences on learning mathematics (pp. 201-220). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42. Moreno, R., Allred, C., Finch, B., & Pirritano, M. (2006, April). Linguistic simplification of math word problems: Does language load affect English language learners' performance, metacognition, and anxiety? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
43. Mosqueda, E. (2007, April). English proficiency, academic tracking and the school context: Understanding the mathematics achievement of Latino native and non-native English speakers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
44. Nagy, W., & Scott, J. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 269-284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45. National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the sub-groups. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
46. RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
47. Shaftel, J., Belton-Kocher, E., Glasnapp, D., & Poggio, J. (2006). The impact of language characteristics in mathematics test items on the performance of English language learners and students with disabilities. Educational Assessment, 11(2), 105-126.
48. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
49. Spanos, G., Rhodes, N. C., Dale, T. C., & Crandall, J. (1988). Linguistic features of mathematical problem solving: Insights and applications. In R. Cocking &J. Mestre (Eds.), Linguistic and cultural influences on learning mathematics (pp. 221-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 67-114). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization (The No Child Left Behind Act). Retrieved October 10, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/
52. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2007). NAEP data explorer. Retrieved December 5, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/criteria.asp
53. Valencia, R. R. (Ed.). (2002). Chicano school failure and success: Past, present, and future (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge/Falmer.
54. Wainer, H. (1993). Model-based standardized measurement of an item's differential impact. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 123-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
55. Walker, S., Schloss, P., Fletcher, C. R., Vogel, C. A., & Walker, R. C. (2005, May). Visualsyntactic text formatting: A new method to enhance online reading. Retrieved February 3, 2007, from http://www.readingonline. org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=r_walker/index.html
56. Wong-Fillmore, L., & Valadez, C. (1986). Teaching bilingual learners. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 648-685). New York: Macmillan.
57. Zenisky, A., Hambleton, R. K., & Robin, F. (2003). Detection of differential item functioning in large-scale state assessments: A study evaluating a two-stage approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(1), 51-64.