Making it clear: a review of language issues in testing with special reference to the National Curriculum mathematics tests at key stage 2

Shorrocks-Taylor, Diane; Hargreaves, Melanie

doi:10.1080/0013188990410201

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Test items tend to consist of relatively small amounts of text, use prose styles that are different from other reading materials, provide little contextual information, contain words with unusual meanings, and have scant continuity of ideas across sentences (see Ferguson & Fairburn, 1985; Noonan, 1990). These seemingly subtle differences can in fact affect the ways in which students read and understand items (De Corte, Verschaffel, & Pauwels, 1990; Shorrocks-Taylor, & Hargreaves, 1999; Solano-Flores & Nelson-Barber, 2001).…”

Section: The Process Of Ell Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Is Given Tests in What Language by Whom, When, and Where? The Need for Probabilistic Views of Language in the Testing of English Language Learners

Solano‐Flores

2008

Educational Researcher

114

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The testing of English language learners (ELLs) is, to a large extent, a random process because of poor implementation and factors that are uncertain or beyond control. Yet current testing practices and policies appear to be based on deterministic views of language and linguistic groups and erroneous assumptions about the capacity of assessment systems to serve ELLs. The question Who is given tests in what language by whom, when, and where? provides a conceptual framework for examining testing as a communication process between assessment systems and ELLs. Probabilistic approaches based on generalizability theory—a psychometric theory of measurement error—allow examination of the extent to which assessment systems’ inability to effectively communicate with ELLs affects the dependability of academic achievement measures.

show abstract

Section: The Process Of Ell Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Is Given Tests in What Language by Whom, When, and Where? The Need for Probabilistic Views of Language in the Testing of English Language Learners

Solano‐Flores

2008

Educational Researcher

114

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the Joint Council for the GCSE (1992) argues, 'Even at the highest tier the wording of questions should be straightforward so that no differentiation occurs on the basis of language.' Previous investigations of the 'readability' of examination p ap e rs have identified seve ral fa c t o rs that may affe c t 'access' to the question paper, such as question order, use of context for the question and question layout (Pollitt et al, 1985; Joint Council for the GCSE, 1992;Shorrocks-Taylor & Hargreaves, 1999). Intended as a 'pilot study' for more extensive research on the interactions between examination c a n d i d ates and ex a m i n ation pap e rs, Saw ye r, Fe rg u s o n , H ay wa rd and Cunningham (1991) examined ex p e ri m e n t a l ly the relationship between sentence length and word length, measured student reading age and student access to or c o m p rehension of text (see Saw ye r, 1994).…”

Section: Providing a Reader For Gcse Examination Candidates With Learmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deciding to provide a ‘reader’ in examinations for the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE): questions about validity and ‘inclusion’

Woods¹

2004

British J Special Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) was designed as an ‘inclusive’ qualification, access to which has been supported by providing a ‘reader’ to some candidates during examinations. A candidate reading age criterion of ten years has been employed by the GCSE awarding bodies to determine eligibility for this provision. In this paper, Kevin Woods, a member of the Educational Support and Inclusion Research and Teaching Group in the Faculty of Education at the University of Manchester, examines the rationale and evidence for adopting this criterion and describes an investigation of the reading needs of a cross‐sectional sample of 38 GCSE examination candidates in trial examinations. The investigation found a low level of candidate need for a reader, with candidate reading age and self‐prediction being unreliable indicators of this need. Kevin Woods highlights the implications for the assessment process used to determine eligibility for a reader in GCSE examinations and pays particular attention to the feasibility and validity of including all students as eligible.

show abstract

“…Overall, researchers agree that the usefulness of visual features depends on the student's reading abilities and learning styles (Filippatou & Pumfry, 1996;Shorrocks-Taylor & Hargreaves, 1999;Thompson et al, 2002).…”

Section: Visual Featuresmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Visual features include pictures, illustrations, tables, and graphs that accompany text; and the usefulness of these visual features should be considered when integrated in assessments. Pictures and illustrations, as summarized by Shorrocks-Taylor and Hargreaves (1999), can be categorized into three types: (1) decorative -not related to the question and serve no instructional purpose;…”

Section: Visual Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accessible Reading Assessments for Students with Disabilities: The Role of Cognitive, Grammatical, Lexical, and Textual/Visual Features

Abedi¹,

Leon²,

Kao³

et al. 2011

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to examine the characteristics of reading test items that may differentially impede the performance of students with disabilities. By examining the relationship between select item features and performance, the study seeks to inform strategies for increasing the accessibility of reading assessments for individuals from this group. Including students with disabilities in large-scale, statewide assessment and accountability systems, as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) and the "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) Act of 2001 (NCLB, 2002), can help identify issues and guide instruction to improve education for these students. Research on reading complexities for students has primarily focused on the role of vocabulary and sentence length, and has also touched upon issues of legibility such as format, typeface, and visuals. Although research reveals that readability measures are widely used and beneficial for matching students' reading levels with appropriate text, they do not identify the precise grammatical and cognitive components within sentences, paragraphs, or passages that may contribute to complexity for students with disabilities. While current research does address the critical need to accurately assess the reading performance of students with disabilities, a void in operationalizing reading complexity exists.

show abstract

Making it clear: a review of language issues in testing with special reference to the National Curriculum mathematics tests at key stage 2

Cited by 15 publications

References 13 publications

Who Is Given Tests in What Language by Whom, When, and Where? The Need for Probabilistic Views of Language in the Testing of English Language Learners

Who Is Given Tests in What Language by Whom, When, and Where? The Need for Probabilistic Views of Language in the Testing of English Language Learners

Deciding to provide a ‘reader’ in examinations for the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE): questions about validity and ‘inclusion’

Accessible Reading Assessments for Students with Disabilities: The Role of Cognitive, Grammatical, Lexical, and Textual/Visual Features

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About