Allocating Federal Funds for State Programs for English Language Learners (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 Quality and Comparability of State Tests of English Language Proficiency
3 Quality and Comparability of State Tests of English Language Proficiency
Pages 59-76
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 59... ...
content standards and to use a single ELP test to assess students' progress in and mastery of these standards in four domains: reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Results from the annual administration of ELP tests are used to report on students' progress in and attainment of English language proficiency.
|
From page 60... ...
. Many of these tests were not based on an operationally defined concept of ELP, had limited questions that measured academic language proficiency, were not based on explicitly articulated ELP content standards, and had psycho metric flaws and other shortcomings (Abedi, 2007, 2008; Bauman et al., 2007; Del Vecchio and Guerrero, 1995; Lara et al., 2007; Zehler et al., 1994)
|
From page 61... ...
language proficiency skills and comprehension.2 They also more explicitly link and assess skills related to English as a second language and academic language skills, required to be successful in school (for details on the academic language construct, see Anstrom et al., 2009; Bailey and Heritage, 2008, or Scarcella, 2008)
|
From page 62... ...
Under the grant competition, four different consortia of states were formed, and most of the states initially joined one of these groups. One consortium was led by the Council of Chief State School Officers with states in the Limited English Proficient State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (LEP-SCASS)
|
From page 63... ...
derived from the test item bank and scales of the ELDA (American Institutes for Research) .8 Other states -- including some states with the largest ELL enrollments -- developed their own unique ELP test: examples include the California English-Language Development Test, the New York English as a Second Language Achievement Test, Oregon's web-based English Language Proficiency Assessment, and the Texas English Language Proficiency As sessment System.
|
From page 64... ...
California, Florida, New York, and Texas -- the states with the highest numbers of ELL students -- each use their own state-developed tests. The other six states are either members of the WIDA Consortium that uses the ACCESS test, or they use an augmented version of the SELP or LAS Links.
|
From page 65... ...
Illinois ACCESS Indiana LAS Links Iowa ELDA Kansas Kansas English Language Proficiency Assessment (KELPA) Kentucky ACCESS Louisiana ELDA Maine ACCESS Maryland LAS Links Massachusetts Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment-Reading and Writing (MEPA-R/W)
|
From page 66... ...
Texas Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment Systems (TELPAS) Utah Utah Academic Language Proficiency Assessment (UALPA)
|
From page 67... ...
covered by the tests, the item types, the scores reported, the criteria used to determine ELP, the methods used to set cut scores, and the reliability and validity of the tests. English Language Proficiency Content Standards When NCLB was enacted, one requirement was that states develop and/or adopt a set of ELP content standards to define the knowledge and skills that ELL students would be expected to master.
|
From page 68... ...
The result of this process was that all the states using the ELDA adopted similar ELP standards. The WIDA Consortium used procedures similar to those used by ELDA for identifying the test standards, as did SELP and LAS Links.
|
From page 69... ...
Some tests (ACCESS, CELLA, LAS Links, and Arizona's version of the SELP) also report an oral language score, which is derived from performance on the listening and speaking tests.
|
From page 70... ...
. Weighting of language proficiency domains in ELP tests is important because it means that the skills represented by the overall scores differ from test to test.
|
From page 71... ...
The ELP tests differ in three important ways with regard to performance levels. First, the performance levels vary across the tests.
|
From page 72... ...
We describe these approaches later in the chapter. Methods to Set Cut Scores Empirically During our review, we learned that some states have conducted studies to empirically derive the level that they define as "English proficient." These states have explored methods for using performance on the content area achievement tests required by Title I of NCLB (the English language arts and mathematics achievement tests)
|
From page 73... ...
. In another study, analysts compared students' performance on ELDA with teachers' ratings of students' English language proficiency (Lara et al., 2007)
|
From page 74... ...
They all measure some operationalized conceptualization of academic language, in addition to social/conversational language, in four broad domains and report scores for each of these domains, as well as a comprehension score and one or more com posite scores. They all summarize performance using proficiency or performance levels, and states have established methods of looking at overall and domain scores in order to determine their respective definitions of English language proficiency.
|
From page 75... ...
It may be possible to link the results of different ELP tests using the two proce dures with less stringent assumptions, scale aligning and predicting. Scale aligning is conducted when the tests being linked measure different constructs, or they measure similar constructs but with different test specifications (Holland and Dorans, 2006, p.
|
From page 76... ...
To date, no qualitative crosswalk studies or statistical linking studies have been conducted for any of the ELP assessments we reviewed. "Bridging" studies have been done that predicted performance on the ACCESS from performance on other ELP tests (the studies by Kenyon, 2006a-2006d, mentioned earlier)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.