Transcript Definitional and Assesment Models in the Assessment of New

Roles of definitional and assessment models in the
identification of new or second language learners of
English for special education
Manuel Barrera
Metropolitan State University
Abstract



Model of New or Second Language
Learners with Learning Disabilities
(NSL3D)
Difficulties with Current
Perspectives in Assessment of
NSLLE with and without disabilities
Describe studies conducted
The Existence of Type 1 and Type 2
Students with LEP in Special Education
Assessment for Second Language Learners and the
Definitional Controversy in Learning Disabilities

NSLLE-LD exemplify the problem of LD
definitions



Hard to determine language-learning from
disability characteristics
Over-reliance on standardized assessment
presents problems
Problem of Language Development
assessment
Definitional Controversy


Work among NSLLE with and without
disabilities helps to inform the
controversy over definitions of LD
NSL3D do not match well with current
approaches to LD assessment


Their characteristics intersect with language
learning and disability-related factors and their
disabilities affect both learning and language
acquisition
Their learning needs pose problems for
traditional and authentic models of assessment
A Chaotic Theory of Learning Disability


NSL3D are but one example of the
difficulty of “singular” definitions for
individuals with LD
Rather, these students represent a
pattern of complexity


They all exhibit difficulties in
information processing
But each individual’s difficulty is unique
A Chaotic Theory of Learning Disability


This pattern of complexity is best
assessed without an a priori definition in
mind
Instead, assessment should focus on the
unique details of their learning needs


Determination whether or not individualized
programming is essential (special education as
LD)
Determination of alternatives within general
education (bilingual, ESL, or other gen. ed.
Alternatives-not LD/not special education)
Current Special Education Assessment
Alternatives

Curriculum-Based Measurement

Response to Treatment
 Dual Discrepancy model



Achievement based on classroom performance
Examine rates of growth
Dynamic Assessment
Curriculum-Based Measurement

Advantages




Classroom-based
Validated forms with standardized assessment
Use of appropriate comparisons
Challenges



Outcomes-based results
Preclude direct assessment of informationprocessing
Potential “dumping ground” result
Dynamic Assessment

Direct measures of information processing



Task apprehension
Examine rates of growth
Challenges




Untested
Not validated
Need to operationalize what constitutes
“information-processing” data and
Need to conceptualize the model to obtain
these data.
Combining CBM with Dynamic Assessment
as a Dual Discrepancy Model


CBM is a measure of learner outcomes in
a classroom setting
Dynamic assessment is a measure of
information processing
Research toward a Curriculum-based Dynamic
Assessment Process for Second Language
Learners

Three studies



pilot study with previous research data from an
earlier study (Barrera, 2003)
Intervention studies of curriculum-based
dynamic assessment using note taking as
vocabulary-building task (Barrera,
Chamberlain, & Jimenez, 2004)
Teacher assessments of student work samples
to determine whether practitioners could
differentiate learner groups (Barrera, 2004)
Study 1: A Pilot Study to Examine
Processing Deficits in Student Note taking



Notes of students with LEP/LD and
bilingual students were assessed by
teachers and assessment practitioners
Found support for differentiating Type 1
and 2 learners
Demonstrated promise for use of dynamic
assessment of learning tasks
Study 2: Combining Curriculum-based
Measurement with Dynamic Assessment

Note taking for Vocabulary Building

Three student groups
 NSL3D
NSLLE
 Bilingual/English Proficient normal to high
achievers


Each group learned a new task-use a
reflection/analysis journal to learn new
vocabulary in current classroom settings
Study 2: Combining Curriculum-based
Measurement with Dynamic Assessment



All groups took pre and post CBMs
for reading and writing
All groups took pre and post content
assessments of material learned
Time period: 2-week process to
simulate a potential pre-referral
assessment
Findings Study 2


Significant group differences in CBM
reading, writing, and spelling at Pre-test
Non-significant growth differences at
post-test

Increased reading and writing of NSL3D at
posttest primary factor for equalizing of growth
differences
Study 3: Teacher Assessments of
Student Work Samples

38 teachers (approximately equal groups
of general ed., special ed, and ESL
teachers in grades 5-12) conducted blind
reviews of student work samples (N=114,
38 each of NSL3D, LEP only, and
Bilingual/normally achieving grades 9-12)
Study 3: Teacher Assessments of
Student Work Samples


Work samples were grouped in 3s
representing each learner group
Teachers assessed students according to
4 variables by 17 measures




Procedural (3 measures)
Qualitative (7 measures)
Quantitative (4 measures)
Global (3 measures)
Findings Study 3

Nearly all measures demonstrated a
strong predictive relationship
between teacher ratings and
student group.

I.e., teacher ratings predicted
significantly a difference in the notes of
each group hierarchically—B/NA first,
LEP-only usually second, and NSL3D
usually last
Findings Study 3

However, results indicated some
erratic relationships


E.g., B/NA seemed less inclined to
complete procedures and more inclined
to write fewer notes
Many measures were statistically nonsignificant in group comparisons
between LEP-only and NSL3D despite
significant predictive relationships
among the three groups
Findings Study 3



Differentiation of predicted groups
according to hypothesis was most
discernible through quantitative measures
This general outcome seems to verify the
difficulties observed in the field for clearly
differentiating low-achieving learners
from those with learning disabilities and
Reinforces the views of researchers and
practitioners seeking more objective,
quantifiable methods for assessing these
learners.