Investigating the Effects of Test Accommodations with Process Data for English Learners in a Mathematics Assessment

Wolf, Mikyung Kim; Yoo, Hanwook; Guzman‐Orth, Danielle; Abedi, Jamal

doi:10.1080/10627197.2021.1982693

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Crotts-Roohr and Sireci (2017) observed that only one third of ELs in their study made use of the available tools, and students’ reliance on them decreased as they progressed through the assessment. Wolf et al (2022) also documented that a small group of ELs took advantage of the glossary tool, and they spent more time on the assessment when they did so.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…In a randomized control design, Wolf et al (2022) assigned no support, linguistic modification, or English glossary to 518 ELs and non-ELs on a ninth-grade math test. Regression analysis results indicated that students' reading proficiency was a predictor of math performance, but not the universal tools.…”

Section: Previous Research On Universal Tools For Elsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Computer technology allows test developers to maintain and/or introduce various universal tools (e.g., note-taking, outlining, or other “scratch paper” tools; highlighters; and line guides) in ELP assessments that are related to processing skills and meaning-making. In addition, computer-based testing enables test developers to track the extent to which accessibility features are used and obtain data to explore cognitive processing (e.g., the response time) of test-takers (Crotts-Roohr & Sireci, 2017; Wolf et al, 2022). However, there is limited evidence regarding the activation and effectiveness of universal tools in ELP computer-based assessments, particularly in K–12 settings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Computer-based testing facilitates the possibility of incorporating built-in accessibility features (Abedi et al, 2020; Chia & Kachchaf, 2018; Thurlow et al, 2010; Wolf et al, 2022). Computer testing platforms are flexible to accommodate a variety of different features and their implementation can be more efficient (Chia & Kachchaf, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the features can be item specific, and they can be better matched to test-taker needs due to their interactive nature (e.g., needs-based use) (Solano-Flores, 2022). In addition, computer-based testing allows test-takers to use multiple features simultaneously, with the intention of improving accessibility (Abedi et al, 2020; Wolf et al, 2022). Accessibility features embedded in ELP assessments differ in nature from those in content assessments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Universal tools activation in English language proficiency assessments: A comparison of Grades 1–12 English learners with and without disabilities

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

English learners (ELs) comprise approximately 10% of kindergarten to Grade 12 students in US public schools, with about 15% of ELs identified as having disabilities. English language proficiency (ELP) assessments must adhere to universal design principles and incorporate universal tools, designed to increase accessibility for all ELs, including those with disabilities. This two-phase mixed methods study examined the extent Grades 1–12 ELs with and without disabilities activated universal tools during an online ELP assessment: Color Overlay, Color Contrast, Help Tools, Line Guide, Highlighter, Magnifier, and Sticky Notes. In Phase 1, analyses were conducted on 1.25 million students’ test and telemetry data (record of keystrokes and clicks). Phase 2 involved interviewing 55 ELs after test administration. Findings show that ELs activated the Line Guide, Highlighter, and Magnifier more frequently than others. The tool activation rate was higher in listening and reading domains than in speaking and writing. A significantly higher percentage of ELs with disabilities activated the tools than ELs without disabilities, but effect sizes were small; interview findings further revealed students’ rationale for tool use. Results indicate differences in ELs’ activation of universal tools depending on their disability category and language domain, providing evidence for the usefulness of these tools.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Previous Research On Universal Tools For Elsmentioning

confidence: 99%