ABSTRACT
This chapter will provide specific information about three aspects of access-based item development. The first section will explain some overarching considerations associated with context, the second section will focus on language usage and support mechanisms, and the last section will address some issues surrounding the development of access-based rubrics. While the rest of the chapter will explain the particular aspects within each section, Table 6.1 briefly outlines the contextual and structural factors discussed in this chapter, and the tools and resources discussed in Chapter 7. Within the table are general descriptions of each type of intervention, and a list of the aspects within each intervention likely to be salient for English language learners (ELLs). Readers will note that the section categories are rather artificial. Context and culture are pervasive influences item writers need to be aware of in order to make informed choices about language, text and item supports for various students. Rubric considerations need to account for how students from different backgrounds might vary in their interpretations of items and tasks and must provide the ground for effective scoring of content in student responses. Rubrics have to be sensitive to the broad range of communication strategies the scorers will encounter. The task of writing accessible items involves the thoughtful consideration of barriers for students with many different needs, and an appreciation of how this diverse set of students might differentially compensate for shortcomings so the barriers can be minimized. Because of this, there is no easy checklist of solutions or a clear distinction between what item writers should and shouldn’t do and when. Given this caveat, the next several pages will attempt to illuminate the issue by highlighting some types of activities considered to be useful for students with different impediments. The goal will be to produce items with multiple opportunities and avenues of access. Summary table: contextual factors, structural factors, and tools and resources https://www.niso.org/standards/z39-96/ns/oasis-exchange/table">
General description of interventions
Types of interventions
Contextual factors
Culturally broad experiences
Cultural expectations seem to have an impact on how a student understands the requirements of an item. These cultural expectations become especially problematic when a student’s experiences or home culture values are distinctly diverse from those typically experienced by the mainstream population in the U.S. (Kopriva, 2000).
Prior knowledge that assumes mainstream U.S. experiences
Expectations that assume a common U.S. value system
Clear and explicit expectations
In classrooms, ELL experts know that it is not enough to assume that ELLs will understand test expectations and approaches familiar to those in the mainstream U.S. population. For large-scale tests that measure content over diverse types of students, clarity in expectations relative to all aspects of the items and tests need to be explicit and clearly stated (Farr and Trumbull, 1997).
Direct, explicit explanation of item requirements
Prior learning expectations
Two types of prior learning experiences are addressed (1) the prerequisite knowledge related to target content that is required for an examination of more complex skills, or prerequisite content knowledge and skills at older grade levels where knowledge builds on a foundation developed in the earlier grades, and (2) the use of non-targeted content as context in items, especially items that measure processes such as reading comprehension or science inquiry skills (Kopriva and Cameron, 2007).
Assumptions of prior learning required for complex skills
Use of non-target content as context in items
Structural factors
Simple language structures
The issue of language organization is particularly salient for ELLs, because text in their home language is almost assuredly structured differently than English text. The basic presentation of text for ELLs involves a conscious and complex re-appropriation of structural conventions explicitly or implicitly learned as part of their home language experiences (Abedi and Lord, 2001; Johnstone, 2003).
Use of simple sentences
Use of similar paragraph organization
Use of present tense and active voice
Minimizing use of rephrasing
Vocabulary
The vocabulary in all items, directions, and supplemental test materials of both academic and social English must be considered when developing access-based items (Farr and Trumbull, 1997; Kopriva, 2000).
Use of familiar language
Limit use of substitute words
Careful use of multimeaning words
Effective visuals
ELLs are both learning the language and learning to read at approximately the same time. Visual cues provide help for ELLs as they struggle to learn English and become literate. However, not all graphics are equally beneficial; thus care must be taken when using this type of support (Filippatou and Pumphrey, 1996; Winter et al., 2006).
Use of relevant visuals
Use of an effective format
Use of illustrations to mirror text
Use of illustrations to replace text
Use of first person visuals
Use of visuals to organize events in time
Use of visuals to clarify textual meaning
Effective item format
Formatting print material to focus the reader, clarify purpose, and otherwise effectively move the reader through the information is central to the work of print media professionals. Emerging work suggests that attending to and clarifying item formats does play a part in making items more accessible for this population (Kopriva and Mislevy, 2005; Winter et al., 2004).
Separating key ideas
Clearly identify item questions
Use of titles
Use of mixing symbols and text
Use of examples
Highlighting key words or phrases
Use of boxes or lines
Text amount
The guiding principle in making decisions about text amount is to retain the content complexity of the intended target while providing enough information in as non-textualized form as possible (Kopriva and Lowrey, 1994; Wong-Fillmore and Snow, 2000).
Retain complexity of target while using noninterfering contextual cues
Platform for demonstrated response
Limited language acquisition suggests the use of alternate platforms for how items are presented. One key reason for items to be computerized is to extend how students can demonstrate their solutions to the items.
Computerize items in order to present item context through simulation or to incorporate drag and drop options, manipulation of stimuli and other features
Impact of home language
Some item-drafting issues for ELLs reflect the influence of students’ native language. For more frequently spoken languages and for those particularly prevalent in certain areas, some actions can be taken to minimize misunderstandings (Kopriva and Cameron, 2007).
Use of cognates
Reduce use of linguistically confusing words
Using symbol icons consistently
Reviews of text by those familiar with the culture and language
Tools and resources
Tools
Content tools are objects which are item or content area specific and that can be used to aid the student in understanding the intent of a particular item, solve the problem or express their solution. For ELLs these tools provide interactive compensatory opportunities to cross over the minimum threshold for understanding key item elements or being able to navigate problems (Kopriva and Mislevy, 2005).
Concrete materials
Computer simulations with drag and drop options and/or graphic/drawing opportunities
Text support
Text supports are identified as text-based aids that occur over and above the item text and provides supplementary support (Abedi et al., 2001a, 2001b; Hipolito-Delgado and Kopriva, 2006).
Bilingual glossaries or dictionary
Monolingual glossaries
Picture-word dictionaries
Side-by-side forms (a.k.a. dual language test booklet)
Content-based resources
Resources that provide additional information during the testing experience to fill in gaps or provide a common referent that minimizes additional textual load (Monroe, 2003).
Providing prior learning experiences information or primary sources via:
Primary source documents
Prior experience information
Activities
Activities, such as a brief (15 minute) interactive discussion or an activity prior to the period of testing that provides context for all students and ELL experts suggest is another important compensatory support mechanism (Monroe, 2003).
Brief interactive discussion
Brief collection of data
