Engaging Multilingual Learners with Disabilities in Mathematical Discourse

Smith, Erin; Smith, R. Alex

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-95216-7_9

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Predominantly, concerns relate to assessments of language-based skills (reading, writing) which are influenced by L2 proficiency and past learning (Elbro et al, 2012a;Everatt et al, 2010;Gutiérrez-Clellen, 2002;Everatt et al, 2004). Consequently, L2 learners may be misidentified due to misinterpreted results or assessments may not be administered because of known biases (Antoniou & Padeliadu, 2013;de Abreu et al, 2013;Geva, 2000;Lindgrén & Laine, 2007;Schoorman, 2019;Smith, 2013). Critically, already scarce resources (funding, time, specialist teachers) may be misdirected away from those who most need them.…”

Section: Background To the Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, inadequate accuracy and floor effects (scores concentrated at or near the lower limit of a distribution) are obtained when administered early in literacy development (Catts et al, 2009). Furthermore, heterogeneous learner backgrounds prevent standardisation which is needed to establish norm-referenced criteria (Elbeheri & Everatt, 2016;Smith, 2013). Consequently, these assessments may be unreliable with L2 learners (Everatt et al, 2010(Everatt et al, , 2013Lindgrén & Laine, 2007) within basic adult literacy education.…”

Section: Screening Adult L2 Learnersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, later identification risks exacerbating literacy difficulties and reducing accuracy as literacy and cognitive skills develop reciprocally (Clayton et al, 2020). Everatt and Denston (2020), Guise et al (2016), andSmith (2013) support including L1 and L2 measures to reduce linguistic bias. Smith (2013) advises that this may increase learners' response accuracy and construct validity but scoring reliability may suffer without verifying responses.…”

Section: Screening Adult L2 Learnersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Everatt and Denston (2020), Guise et al (2016), andSmith (2013) support including L1 and L2 measures to reduce linguistic bias. Smith (2013) advises that this may increase learners' response accuracy and construct validity but scoring reliability may suffer without verifying responses. Although translation may help in some contexts, it may be difficult to implement within multilingual contexts and would not work for those with limited L1 literacy.…”

Section: Screening Adult L2 Learnersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, using L1 and L2 may require establishing criteria for every different L1-L2 combination (Elbro et al, 2012a;Lindgrén and Laine, 2007). Smith (2013) further suggests using artificial scripts (Windings font) to reduce L1 influence without an accuracy-reliability trade-off. Still, the aforementioned SA issues remain.…”

Section: Screening Adult L2 Learnersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Predicting adult second language literacy with dyslexia screening tools: A conceptual replication of Elbro et al. (2012a)

Pimentel Hellier

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A key issue in dyslexia screening assessments is ensuring that results can be identified early, accurately, and without undue influence from external factors (language proficiency and education background; Cline & Shamsi, 2000). Conventional static assessments (SA) involve observations of single-point-in-time measures of current literacy skills (Petersen et al., 2016). These assessments have been reported to have low screening accuracy with (adult) second language literacy learners (Lindgrén & Laine, 2007). In contrast, newly developed dynamic decoding assessments (DDA) include instruction and feedback into assessments to measure learning potential (Elbro et al., 2012a). Research has found that DDA may improve screening accuracy for language learners (Petersen & Gillam, 2015). However, Elbro et al. (2012a) has to date been the only study to compare SA and DDA accuracy with adult second language learners. The present small-scale study is a conceptual replication of Elbro et al. (2012a). Piloting an innovative approach, it aims to examine SA and DDA accuracy to predict the literacy gains and losses of low-proficiency adult second language learners in New Zealand. The following results are reported. SA is more influenced than DDA by confounds (language proficiency, education background). Additionally, DDA but not SA is sensitive to phonological skills associated with dyslexia. Regarding what these assessments predict, SA is more sensitive to literacy gains than losses, while the converse is true of DDA. Importantly, SA and DDA combined most accurately predict literacy development. Overall, the findings suggest the importance of DDA for reducing dyslexia misidentification for this population. This study may be of practical use for the New Zealand tertiary second language education sector.

show abstract