Roles of definitional and assessment models in the identification of new or second language learners of English for special education

1
Roles of definitional and assessment models in
the identification of new or second language
learners of English for special education

• Manuel BarreraMetropolitan State University

2
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

3
The Existence of Type 1 and Type 2 Students with
LEP in Special Education
4
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

5
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

6
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 individuals difficulty is unique

7
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)

8
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

9
Curriculum-Based Measurement

• Advantages
• Classroom-based
• Validated forms with standardized assessment
• Use of appropriate comparisons
• Challenges
• Outcomes-based results
• Preclude direct assessment of information-processi
  ng
• Potential dumping ground result

10
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.

11
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

12
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)

13
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

14
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

15
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

16
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

17
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 (N114, 38 each of NSL3D, LEP only,
  and Bilingual/normally achieving grades 9-12)

18
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)

19
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
  hierarchicallyB/NA first, LEP-only usually
  second, and NSL3D usually last

20
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 non-significant
  in group comparisons between LEP-only and NSL3D
  despite significant predictive relationships
  among the three groups

21
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.