Download
1 / 48
480 likes | 634 Views
Culturally Sensitive Assessment Issues for At Risk Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Students Nancy Musica, ESL Consultant We need to stop “defining” students and instead, address their needs. Barrera (2006) Literature Review for LEAP.
E N D
Culturally Sensitive AssessmentIssues for At Risk Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Students Nancy Musica, ESL Consultant We need to stop “defining” students and instead, address their needs. Barrera (2006)Literature Review for LEAP
Complications • The most important tool for learning and for demonstrating learning is…language! • Most assessment tasks measure reading & writing skills in English as much as academic knowledge and skills. • Typically ELLs: -may not be able to express what they’ve learned in L2 -may not know what they’re asked to do -need more time to think/work in 2 languages • A pre-referral conversation…
Formal Testing • Be careful using criteria developed for native English speakers • Don’t make assumptions based on our culture’s expectations— e.g. other countries teach completely different conventions about how writing should be organized • Gather information about first language development: handwriting, continuous prose, editing skills, etc. • Gather information from the family • What interventions have been used and what has been the response to intervention?
Quality Instruction • “Culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students with and at risk for disabilities evidence the greatest need for quality instructional programs of all students in our schools because of disproportionate academic underachievement, special education referrals and disciplinary actions” Cartledge and Kourka, 2008
Considerations • Limited English proficiency (LEP) students have academic difficulties which are “pedagogically induced”--the instruction they have received has not met their unique needs as diverse learners. Cummins, 1984 • CLD students at risk for learning disabilities are least likely to be taught with the most effective evidence-based instruction. Cartledge and Kourka, 2008
Culturally Responsive Classrooms for Students at Risk –ESL Pedagogy • a strong, positive relationship with the child & family where the language & culture are valued. • attention to student interest and motivation • small group interventions: explicit, responsive to their needs, personalized, relevant to their daily experiences and not based on a deficit view. • “double-sheltering”--the need for effective language acquisition instruction & accommodations for learning deficiencies for ESL students with learning disabilities. Artiles & Oritz, 2002
Other Recommended ESL Teaching Practices Artiles and Oritz, 2002 • clear goals • high rates of academic responding • appropriate pacing & progressive monitoring • opportunities to develop oral language • awareness of aspects of the first language that can cause confusion • use of visuals • pre-teaching of key vocabulary • attention to content over form when checking comprehension • the use of books at the correct instructional level • meaningful practice and the provision of additional support when needed.
The “Matthew effect”: The rich get richer and the poor get poorer • Good intensive instruction can prevent or minimize disabilities for at risk students. • Research indicates that culturally and linguistically diverse students, including ELLs fall further and further behind as they move through the grades. Hart and Risley, 1995 • Becoming a proficient reader allows an individual to develop in other cognitive areas (intelligence). When reading skills are limited--less information, less learning occurs.
EPS Initiatives • Initial screening for English language proficiency • ESL consultants through Inclusive Learning working with psychologists and other specialists • A multicultural policy with associated regulations • A Culturally Sensitive Assessment Working Group • Creation of guidelines around when and how at-risk students are identified for formal assessment and identification for special needs programming
Who Identifies & When? • Low-incidence, high-severity disorders such as profound developmental disorders, severe hearing and visual impairments are often identified before children reach school age through a medical model. • High-incidence, low-severity disorders, including learning disabilities are not outwardly visible and are more likely to be identified by school personnel.
Reading Disabilities • Severe reading disabilities seem to represent around 5% of the population in all alphabetic languages • The specific orthography plays a role in the decoding strategies those readers of different languages use Wagner, Francis & Morris, 2005 • It makes sense that a percentage of our CLD students will have reading disabilities and educators must access effective and reliable identification and intervention methods
Issues… • There is a misconception among many educators that with increased English proficiency, skills will develop without a need for targeted intervention—often the gap widens! • Reading problems are often not identified until grade two or three because a learning disability requires a significant discrepancy to emerge on typical standardized tests, even when there is evidence that a student is struggling in the early years.
Over & Under Representation of Language Minority Students in Special Education—The Wait & See Approach • Samson and Lesaux (2009) found an under-representation of language minority students in kindergarten and grade one and an over-representation in grade three, across all disability categories. • They suggest a shift to early identification and intervention for all children.
Early Intervention • Samson and Lesaux (2009) cite research that indicates weaknesses developing mastery of sounds (phonology), noted as early as kindergarten, can predict later difficulties. • They contend that language minority students at risk for reading difficulties who are not identified early are at a major disadvantage in overcoming their disabilities through remediation. Why do we wait??
IQ Tests Evil???Siegel and Gunderson, 2001 • The discrepancy model using IQ tests does not actually differentiate students with reading disabilities & can lead to certain students not accessing the appropriate academic support and interventions they need. • Children can have reading disabilities with low, average & high IQ scores. • Instead teachers should administer individual achievement tests & analyze the results, focusing on the types of errors made. • The development of early instruction based on a thoughtful analysis of the student’s needs & abilities will make the difference. • Authors suggest staff need training, time and support in order to administer and interpret formal and informal measures.
But Remember... • In their formal assessments, school psychologists collect a wide variety of information about a student in order to make programming recommendations. • IQ measures provide only a portion of that information. • Edmonton Public school psychologists and other specialists can access intercultural consultants who can provide informal first language assessment, translate test items, meet with parents and provide valuable linguistic and cultural information as part of the formal assessment process.
Problems with IQ Tests • IQ tests consist of measures of factual knowledge, definitions of words, memory recall, fine-motor coordination and fluency of expressive language, but state they likely do not measure problem-solving skills. • They measure what an individual has learned and not their capacity to learn. • When IQ tests are used on individuals who do not speak English as their first language, then they must be considered measures of second (or nonprimary) language skills.
Content, Culture & Intelligence • “Memory, learning, perceiving and problem solving cannot be measured except through content. And content is always culturally related.” • Intelligence is not pure, but may be a measure of how an individual functions in North American culture. Siegel & Gunderson, 2001
What About Process Dependent Measures? • Testing bias could possibly be reduced if measures that emphasize processing abilities are employed rather than those dependent on prior knowledge and experience. • Examples include • memory tasks like digit span, working memory and nonword repetition • some perceptual tasks such as discrimination and sequencing of tones and competing stimuli tasks such as filtered or competing words. Laing and Kamhi, 2003
Process Dependent Measures • Campbell, Dollaghan, Needlemen & Janoski (1997) found that culturally & linguistically diverse students (CLD) obtained significantly lower scores than mainstream children on knowledge tasks, but there was no significant difference on the processing-dependent measures. • Further studies support this (cited by Laing and Kamhi, 2003), suggesting a correlation between children who perform poorly on processing-dependent measures & language learning difficulties.
More than the Historical Emphasis on Test Bias! • Over representation of minority students in special education—not just test bias. • Skiba, Nesting and Bush (2002) suggest “the pervasive influence of differential educational opportunity” as the root of the problem. • If this is true, then making adjustments in the assessment process will likely be ineffective.
Other areas to examine in developing culturally competent assessment: • assessing cultural competence of the examiner • educational opportunity for all students • the quality of remediation programs • previous academic experiences of students and related effects on motivation • the use of low inference assessment strategies. Skiba, Nesting and Bush (2002)
Cultural Sensitivity & Parental Involvement • Educators sometimes express frustration when working with families due to differing cultural perspectives. These differences can sometimes be perceived as resistance or apathy. • Rules and regulations around education and special needs are based on traditional middle class, western assumptions and ideals which may not match those of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Working together • Cultural dissonance between the home and school is a major contributor to poor educational outcomes. Cartledge and Kourka, 2008 • Special educators need to explore more flexible and culturally sensitive approaches in working with families. • It is important to enhance communication, build trusting relationships and to welcome family involvement. Dennis & Giangreco 1996
Culturally Sensitive Approaches • Exploring the deficit world views held by some educators when dealing with minority students & systemic deficit models have an effect on the instructional-referral-assessment process. Ochoa, 2005 • A family-centred approach based on listening and personal reflection where the family is allowed to articulate their priorities has been recommended. • Culturally diverse professionals could provide information on effective methods of conducting family interviews.
Recommendations Oritz, 1992 • collecting cultural & linguistic information on students • increasing collaboration between schools and minority communities • empowering minority students • adapting curriculum and assessment practices. NB! Culturally sensitive approaches should be in place before referrals for special learning needs are considered.
Dynamic Assessment • Curriculum-based Assessment (CBE) based on classroom based tasks & a standardized form • Curriculum-based Measures (CBM) where tasks have been normed & tested for reliability and validity. • Both follow the test-teach-test model: • the teacher collects baseline functioning on a targeted task or skill • determines an intervention to address the content or skill • conducts the intervention and retests to check progress. • Issues when using these forms of assessment with at-risk CLD students include interpreting the results and finding evidence to indicate a learning disability. Barerra, 2006
Graduated Prompting Laing and Kamhi, 2003 • has been found to differentiate weaker learners in various CLD populations • prompts are used to see if a child is stimulable in various areas (speech production, language forms & structures). • educator determines target skills to complete a task & a series of prompts from least to most supportive is developed. A scoring system can be used to chart the progress in attaining the teaching goal.
Advantages • prompting, assessment & interventions occur simultaneously. • has been used to predict early reading abilities. • not based on life experience, literacy knowledge or socialization practices • quick and easy to administer.
A Revised Framework • A treatment validity model combining response to intervention with a dual discrepancy model of assessment (lower performance & slower rate of learning compared to peers). • If students do not respond to increasingly intense forms of intervention (used as pre-referral information), then formal assessment could be considered. • This is providing other factors including socioeconomic, cultural and linguistic, lack of exposure to curriculum, or other types of disabilities have been ruled out. Barerra, 2006
Universal Screening and Response to Intervention • Perhaps the most promising research in culturally sensitive assessment and early identification of learning needs involves universal screening and response to intervention models. • Based on the study carried out in the North Vancouver School District, Lesaux and Siegel (2003) maintain that children as young as five years old can be identified for reading difficulties by teachers and school personnel.
The Study • All K children were included in the study and assessed prior to beginning reading instruction. • Through universal screening, 44% of English-speaking and 54% of ESL children were identified as at significant risk for reading difficulties. • These students received classroom remediation using a phonological awareness and vocabulary development program called Firm Foundations in grade one and a reading comprehension program called Reading 44 in grade two.
Positive Results • At the end of grade six, results showed 1.9% of the native English speakers & 2.3% of the ESL students were showing dyslexia. • Significant--usually 15% of students (without remediation) at that age show dyslexia. • Remediation can be effective at the classroom level in developing both reading decoding and comprehension skills. • This method is efficient and cost-effective. • Also--in year one, there was a strong connection between socioeconomic level & language, phonological awareness & letter identification. This dropped significantly when the students had been in school for one year and had been exposed to the reading remediation program
American Grade One At RiskESL Students Vaughn, et al (2006) • Universal screening was used in four schools across two districts and 22% of the Spanish/English students were found to be at risk (48 students). • Intervention groups: three to five at risk ESL students met daily for 50 minutes over seven months and were provided with systematic and explicit instruction in oral language and reading by trained bilingual reading intervention teachers. • The control group ESL at risk students received their schools’ existing reading interventions designed for struggling readers.
Results • The intervention students significantly outperformed the control group students on multiple measures of English letter-awareness, phonological awareness and other skills, as well as reading and academic achievement. • The intervention was designed on effective practices for beginning readers who are ESL. These include explicit teaching, promotion of English learning, phonemic awareness and decoding, vocabulary development, interactive teaching designed to engage students and instruction that creates opportunities for accurate responses and corrective feedback for struggling student. • This approach has now been mandated in California, Arizona and Massachusetts.
What Do We Know? • Gathering information and asking the right questions can lead to better informed decision-making. • Traditional approaches have been criticized, such as the use of IQ tests and the discrepancy model for the identification of learning disabilities. • While subtests designed for processing skills may be more culturally sensitive, careful consideration must be given when using IQ tests with culturally and linguistically diverse students.
Complicated, but Important! • Identifying learning disabilities among CLD students and planning and implementing appropriate programming is essential! • There’s a sense of urgency as it needs to be done as early as possible in a student’s education in order to remediate effectively. • Many of the strategies used to develop early reading skills for English speaking students also seem to work for CLD students. • Research supported ESL strategies that provide language support may also support these students in learning to read.
Promising Practices • Universal screening & early targeted remediation carried out by teachers have proven to be highly effective in identifying at risk students and mitigating significant reading problems before the gap widens. • The studies done in both Canada & the US have led to the use of universal screening and implementation of reading programs in many school districts.
Have a Plan • Current research provides effective & low cost alternatives that can be carried out in the classroom. • Failure to respond to that kind of remediation may serve to indicate when a more specialized tier of intervention is needed. • Most importantly in this process, the student information & data gathered from the family & the student and the subsequent intervention methods must lead to a course of action that is instructionally meaningful and beneficial to the student.
Applied! • A group of ten Edmonton Public Schools has taken part in using Linda Siegel’s teacher administered screening tool & Firm Foundations reading program based on the promising results of her study. • This practice could lead to fewer referrals for formal assessment. It could also help identify at risk learners in the early grades, which could reduce the representation of CLD students in special education programs in the older grades.
Final Thoughts • Making data-driven decision to inform instruction and remediation is critical & teachers may need more training in this area. • In the past, concerned teachers have looked to formal testing when they sense students are struggling. This led to formal assessment of many ESL students who had not had enough time to develop their English skills. • Alternatively, not programming for ESL students with true learning disabilities would be a disservice.
Culturally Sensitive Assessment: New Share Site from Edmonton Public Schools https://sites.google.com/a/share.epsb.ca/culturally-sensitive-assessment/
Acknowledgements • The Culturally Sensitive Assessment Committee has been at work for the past few years in Edmonton Public Schools • We thank Karen Bardy, Elisa Rawe, Donna Daniel, Lisa Najdziak, Jan Small-McGinley, Ingrid Tenkate, Habiba Shurie, Shelly Jobagy and all others who have contributed to this work
The Share Site… Research & information considering the inherent difficulties of identifying and assessing at-risk CLD students and the exploration of promising alternatives… A percentage of our CLD students will have reading or other disabilities and educators must access effective and reliable identification and intervention methods A “wait & see” method may not be in the best interests of our students
References • Artiles, A.J., Oritz, A.A. (Eds.). (2002). English language learners with special education needs: Identification, assessment and instruction. Washington, DC: Centre for Applied Linguistics. • Barrera, M. (2006). Roles of definitional and assessment models in the identification of new or second language learners of English for special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 142-156. • Blatchley, L. and Lau, M. (2010). Culturally competent screening and special education referral: a systematic approach. Communique Handout, National Association of School Psychologists, 38(7), 1-7. • Cartledge, G., & Kourea, L. (2008). Culturally responsive classrooms for culturally diverse students with and at risk for disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 351-371. • Collier, Katherine (2007). What every administrator should know. Separating difference from disability. www.crosscultured.com • Geva, E., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z. & Schuster, B. (2000). Understanding individual differences in word recognition skills of ESL children. Annals of Dyslexia, 50, 123-154. • Gunderson, L., & Linda, S. S. (2001). The evils of the use of IQ tests to define learning disabilities in first- and second-language learners. The Reading Teacher, 55(1), 48-55. • Hart, B., & Risley, R. T. (1995). The early catastrophe. the 30 million word gap by age three. American Educator, 27(1), 4-9. • Klinger, K.J., Hoover, J.J., & Baca. M.L. (2008). Why Do English Language Learners Struggle With Reading? California: Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. • The full text may take 40-60 seconds to translate; larger documents may take longer.Laing, S.P., & Kamhi, A. (2003). Alternative assessment of language and literacy in culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 44-55. • Lesaux, N.K. & Siegel, L.S. (2003). The development of reading in children who speak English as a second language. Developmental Psychology, 39, 1005-1019.
References • Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Prater, K. and Cirino, P. (2006). The response to intervention of English language learners at risk for reading problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5) 390-398. • Oritz, A.A> (1992). Assessing appropriate and inappropriate referral systems for LEP special education students. • Patrick, C. M. (2007). A framework for robust literacy instruction for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 61(2), 197-199. • Russell, J. S., Knesting, K., & Lakeisha, D. B. (2002). Culturally competent assessment: More than nonbiased tests. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11(1), 61-78. • Samson, J.F. & Lesaux, N.K. (2009). Language minority learners in special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 148-162. • Sandra, P. L., & Kamhi, A. (2003). Alternative assessment of language and literacy in culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 34(1), 44-44. • Skiba, R.J. Knesting, K., & Bush, L.D. (2002). Culturally Competent Assessment: More than Nonbiased Tests. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11(1), 61-78. • Thomas, W.P., & Collier, V.P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students' long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence, University of California-Santa Cruz. • Vaughn, S., Mathes, P., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P., Carlson, C., Pollard-Durodola, S., Cardenas-Hagan, E. & Francis, D. (2006). The Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 153-180. • Victoria, E. W. K., Karen, P. E., Andrea, D. R., & Stephanie, J. W. F. (2005). The DSM-IV-TR and culture: Considerations for counselors. Journal of Counseling and Development : JCD, 83(1), 97-104. • Wagner, R., Francis, D. & Morris, R. (2005). Identifying English language learners with learning disabilities: key challenges & possible approaches. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 6-15.
