Author(s): Szu-Yin Chu, Sobedia Flores
Published: September, 2011 in The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas
URL to article
Research Focus Area: English Language Learners: instructional strategies, assessments, developing academic language
Abstract:
Identifying English language learners (ELLs) with learning disabilities has become very important in education settings so that appropriate educational services can be provided to this group of students. Linguistic diversity may increase the measurement error and reduce the reliability of assessments. This article discusses the issues with assessments used to identify ELLs and students with learning disabilities and the challenges in assessing ELLs suspected of having learning disabilities. These issues are presented to contribute to the discussion on how to improve the accuracy of the identification procedures and, further, to help distinguish between students who should be classified for special education services and those who struggle with achievement problems because they are in the process of acquiring English proficiency.
Research Question(s):
What are the assessment methods and practices used to identify English language learners (ELLs) with learning disabilities and distinguish those students from those who do not have a learning disability? Which approaches and interventions are effective? What challenges of language do teachers face in such assessment? How do teachers accommodate standardized assessments to prevent problems in evaluation and increase the accuracy and precision of their results?
Methods:
Literature Review
Key Findings:
The assessment of ELLs for the presence of learning disabilities in English is more complex than in native languages as it does not account for the sociocultural and economic backgrounds of learners.
- The conventional methods used to identify learning disabilities include lower IQ achievement discrepancies, dynamic assessments, low achievement, response to intervention, and intra-individual differences. Neither of these standardized tools consider specific learning differences and needs of ELLs.
- Apart from inaccuracy, the use of standardized measurements also implies the risk of both content and linguistic bias.
- Under federal laws, ELLs have the right to non-discriminatory and appropriate evaluation, which obligates teachers to accommodate their assessment strategies and evaluate ELLs in their normative samples to effectively determine whether they have learning disabilities.
- Inaccurate or biased assessment is considered to account for the overrepresentation of ELLs in special education as they are at a higher risk of being qualified as individuals with learning disabilities.
Implications:
The findings imply the following solutions to increase the accuracy of ELL assessments:
- Accommodating assessment through modification of the text content or text procedure (i.e. by giving extra time)
- Engaging families in the assessment process and adjusting assessment instruments to ELLs based on their linguistic, cultural, social, or economic backgrounds
- Building trustworthy, positive relationships between teachers, students and their families to ensure consideration of the learning needs of ELLs while helping teachers develop the necessary competencies to work with ELLs.
Limitations:
This qualitative secondary research is limited to a review of prior literature and relies primarily on secondary data. Utilizing first-hand knowledge, through primary data collection, could prove useful in modeling targeted solutions that are more effective and implementable. Further, the study does not provide a quantitative evaluation of the success of accommodations in assessment. Thus, a more in-depth, number-based evaluation is required to realize the effectiveness of the suggested interventions and approaches.