Issues in Equitable Assessment for English Language Learners: A Book Review Essay 

Chiu-Hui Wu, Ji Young Kim, and Candace Harper

University of Florida

Gainesville, Florida

Abstract

The authors review four recent teacher resource publications focused on the assessment of K-12 English language learners (ELLs) and particularly on test-related issues. Three key concepts run throughout the review essay: washback (test consequences), test accommodations, and performance assessment. The authors argue that validity and connections between teaching, learning, and formal assessment should be basic expectations of all tests. They adopt the stance that any test in English is a test of English and conclude that understanding the limitations of tests and the options for test accommodations for ELLs can help to compensate for linguistic and cultural bias. Performance assessment is proposed as a more valid counterpart to the regimen of tests that ELLs are required to take on a regular basis as measures of their academic achievement, reading, and English language development. These classroom-based measures seem to be the “last, best hope” in the authentic assessment of ELLs.

Recent state and federal educational policies in the United States have established accountability requirements for standards-based learning goals measured primarily through large-scale, standardized tests (FDOE, 1999; NCLB, 2002). Although the reported intent of these reforms is to increase educational equity for all students, the assessment of academic achievement through standardized tests in English inevitably results in inequitable opportunities and outcomes for English language learners (ELLs). The fact that standardized test scores for ELLs fall consistently below those of their English-proficient non-minority peers suggests that language is indeed a confounding variable in the assessment of their content area learning. In addition to the language barrier, cultural bias threatens the validity (accuracy) of standardized tests in assessing the academic achievement of ELLs. Ongoing concerns with validity and the increasing influence of high-states tests on curriculum and instruction have provoked Leung and Lewkowicz (2006) to call for a reexamination of test validity and a reconsideration of the ethics and consequences of large-scale assessment. The classic achievement test validity question “To what extent can a test represent a learner’s achievement?” must be expanded to ask, “To what extent can a test support educational equity?”

As ESL teachers and teacher educators, we believe that the issue of assessment is central in providing equal access to learning for ELLs. For this review essay, we have selected four recent teacher resource texts that deal with testing and assessment of ELLs and address ways in which assessment promotes or limits their educational access. Two of the books focus on the use of tests. In Assessment Accommodations for Diverse Learners (2004), Goh provides an in-depth analysis of the types of test accommodations appropriate for learners with special needs, including ELLs. In Washback in Language Testing: Research Contexts and Methods (2004), Cheng, Watanabe, and Curtis discuss the complex connections between teaching, learning, and formal assessment. Two other texts look beyond tests in assessing ELLs. In Assessing English Language Learners: Bridges From Language Proficiency to Academic Achievement (2006) and in Assessing Young Language Learners (2006), Gottlieb and McKay respectively advocate performance-based assessment as a primary means of closing the achievement gap through equitable assessment for ELLs.

We have structured this review essay around three key concepts in language testing and educational assessment for ELLs: test washback, test accommodations, and performance assessment. We briefly discuss the major contributions of each text and draw implications for teachers of ELLs.
 

Test Washback

In Washback in Language Testing, Cheng, Watanabe, and Curtis (2004) invite educators to consider the impact of testing on teaching, learning, and curriculum., a phenomenon referred to as washback (Wright & Choi, 2006) or earlier as backwash (Hughes, 1989).  Cheng at al state that it is not uncommon, particularly with high-stakes tests such as the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT), for such tests to “drive the curriculum.” While many teachers assume that assessment is essentially a top-down process and that their curriculum and instruction are determined by standardized tests, Cheng et al argue that teachers play an important role through decisions on if and how they integrate assessment with their curriculum and classroom practices. In their research on washback in adult and K-12 settings, Cheng et al note that some teachers are more resistant to this process than others, depending on how they interpret the relationship between curriculum and assessment. Further research on the role of teachers’ beliefs and their responses to high stakes tests can help us to understand the critical role of the teacher in implementing educational reform.

Although this book focuses on washback as reflected in teachers’ voices and choices of instructional content, methods, and materials, we must also consider washback with respect to a variety of learner characteristics such as motivation, attitude, and learning style. Social and cultural differences among individuals, as well as the social contexts of test use, also affect learners’ interpretations of tests and must be considered in understanding the effects of washback on learners both at the classroom level as well as within the larger society.

Test Accommodations

The second concept related to formal tests addressed in this review essay is the use of test accommodations. In Accommodations for Diverse Learners, Goh (2004) examines the use of test accommodations for a variety of learners, including ELLs, and suggests specific accommodations for students with different needs. However, the most commonly used accommodations are extended time, separate testing location, use of a bilingual dictionary, and various combinations of the above. Goh reports that these accommodations tend to be used with all students, regardless of language differences or special needs.

Few studies have addressed the effectiveness of test accommodations, although Abedi, Hofstetter, and Lord (2004) and Abedi (this issue) are a notable exceptions. They conclude that modifying the language of test items and using a customized dictionary can help ELLs without decreasing test validity. However, selecting appropriate accommodations for ELLs is especially complex and can be affected by a student’s level of English language proficiency, their length of time in the U.S., and the medium of instruction. For example, allowing extended time on a test may not be beneficial for those who have very limited English language proficiency; and ELLs in programs where English is the language of instruction are less likely to benefit from a content area test in the native language than students in a bilingual program (Abedi et al, 2004).

Goh notes several problems associated with the use of test accommodations, such as the feasibility of accommodations (additional time, space, and native language resources), which tends to be a concern for school administrators. It is difficult to determine the relative validity and effectiveness of various types of accommodations used in formal assessment, and they are perceived by some general educators as conferring an unfair advantage to ELLs. The most serious problem, however, is the fact that test accommodations do not eliminate educational inequity for students and can further compromise test reliability and validity. As a result, teachers of ELLs continue to face the challenge of trying to assess ELLs’ content knowledge through formal tests in English in spite of students’ limited English proficiency, and in spite of the fact that any test in English is also a test of English.
 

Performance-Based Assessment

            Although McKay (2006) supports the use of accommodations with standardized tests, she questions the validity and equity of such tests with ELLs. In her new book Assessing Young Language Learners, McKay describes characteristics of the rapidly growing population of young ELLs from a sociolinguistic perspective and explains the disabling consequences when formal tests fail to reflect ELLs’ linguistic and cultural diversity and their socioeconomic status. She argues for the restructuring of large-scale tests into school-based, performance assessment. In contrast to the multiple-choice format of many standardized tests, performance assessment refers to tasks and projects that simulate classroom activities and real-life situations.

In her recent book, Assessing English language learners (2006), Gottlieb claims that performance assessment provides alternative ways to assess language proficiency and content area achievement. She uses a bridge metaphor to show how performance assessment links the classroom with the real world and connects ELLs’ language and content area learning. Performance assessment is valuable for ELLs in that it provides multiple measures in tracking students’ performance (O’Malley & Pierce, 1996). Thus, by systematically collecting evidence from a variety of sources, teachers have a more valid and reliable measure of ELLs’ language and content learning.

Although performance assessment can provide teachers and students with feedback that can inform teaching and learning, one of the greatest challenges to its use has been the question of reliability. Gottlieb assumes that teachers of ELLs are prepared and free to choose from a variety of appropriate assessment tools, including self-and peer-assessment by students. However, such an assumption may be unwarranted, and teachers’ choices can be restricted by external factors such as school and district administration policy (Jia, Eslami, & Burlaw, 2006). Indeed, local educational policy and administrators are the major external factors in limiting a teachers’ autonomy in decisions regarding materials and time allocation.

Implications

As the population of school-age ELLs increases in the U.S., the need for valid and equitable assessment of these learners is urgent. Accountability for academic achievement is a critical component of our current educational system, and it is essential for teachers to understand both the limitations and the potential of assessment in promoting language development and educational equity. Teachers must be able to recognize linguistic and cultural bias in standardized tests and be able to articulate how such bias limits equity for ELLs. Teachers must be informed and prepared to use appropriate accommodations in formal testing of ELLs as well as a variety of systematic, classroom-based performance assessments of ELLs.

As our understanding of test validity expands from a traditional definition of accuracy to include sociopolitical consequences regarding ELLs’ right to learn, the larger meanings of test validity and educational equity are intertwined. The actions of teachers of ELLs regarding assessment are ultimately political, serving to facilitate or reduce inequities in educational access, power, and privilege. Rather than serving the accountability agenda of assessment solely through standardized tests, teachers of ELLs should advocate for the measurement of academic achievement and the monitoring of student progress through classroom based assessments. This shift would position them and their students at the core of the assessment process, with assessment decisions linked to the curriculum, the content, the learners, and the learning process.
 

References 

Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C. H., & Lord, C. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 1-28.

Cheng, L., Watanabe, Y., & Curtis, A. (Eds.). (2004). Washback in Language Testing:

Research Contexts and Methods. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Goh, D. S. (2004). Assessment Accommodations for Diverse Learners Boston, MA: Pearson.

Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English Language Learners: Bridges from Language

Proficiency to Academic Achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jia, Y., Eslami, Z. R., & Burlbaw, L. M. (2006). ESL Teachers’ Perceptions and Factors Influencing Their Use of Classroom-Based Reading Assessment. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 407-430.

Leung, C., & Lewkowicz, J. (2006). Expanding horizons and unresolved conundrums: Language testing and assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 211-234.

McKay, P. (2006). Assessing Young Language Learners. Cambridge University Press.

O'Malley, J. M., & Pierce, L. V. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical approaches for teachers. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Wright, W. E., & Choi, D. (2006). The impact of language and high-stakes testing policies on elementary school English language learners in Arizona. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(13), 1-75.

Author Bios

Chiu-hui Wu and Ji Young Kim are doctoral students in the ESOL/Bilingual Education program in the College of Education at the University of Florida in Gainesville. 

Dr. Candace Harper is the faculty Coordinator of this program.