![]() ![]() ![]() In psychology, these three classifications closely resemble the three classifications that have long been utilized in development and refinement of the Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2013), which relied not only on empirically-derived differences in subtest performance between English learners (EL) and English speakers (ES) in the available literature, but also on research that sought to examine differences in subtest performance between ELs and other ELs. In this way, along with other features of the test, the BESA provides a comprehensive examination of the overall and integrated language ability of pre-school/transition students (i.e., ages 4:0 to 6:11), as that is the age range of the test. If one excludes the monolingual categories (which are much like existing test norm samples, albeit none include both English and the heritage language as the BESA does), what is left is a classification of language development that is composed of three general levels of language development and proficiency-from more English than Spanish, to equal English and Spanish, to more Spanish than English. Perhaps the most unique and innovative aspect of the BESA is the use of five categories to accommodate differences in language development for both English and Spanish, which range from functional English monolingual, to bilingual: English-dominant, balanced bilingual, bilingual: Spanish-dominant, functional Spanish monolingual. Publication of the Bilingual English-Spanish Assessment (BESA Pena et al., 2018) represents the only formal effort to bind these variables and construct a norm sample that accounts for differences among bilinguals. Of note, however, are advancements in the field of speech-language pathology where the topic has received considerably more attention. For these and other reasons, including the idea that native-language testing might prove a viable solution despite the same developmental variability problem in the first language, research on the relationship between language development and test performance is exceedingly scarce. ELs are often characterized in terms of racial or ethnic categories (e.g., Hispanics, Asian, etc.), by age groupings, or simply as a function of non-native English speaking status in a binary manner regardless of actual development (e.g., limited English proficient vs. have invariably treated ELs as a rather monolithic group, particularly with respect to English and attempts to deal with it have been largely unsuccessful. Issues that bear upon test score validity in the U.S. Differential language development and test performance Failure to account for such potentially vast differences in development has long been and remains the Achille’s heel in the valid use of tests with ELs. For ELs, age no longer controls for differences in language development in EL (or multilingual) populations in the way that it does for monolinguals. Thus, differences in the amount of time two 10-year-old ELs have been learning the same new or second language can vary from as little as one day to more than nine years. Whereas age is a reliable indicator of development for individuals who have learned, or been exposed to, only one language, by definition, an EL began learning a second language at some point after having begun development in a different language presumably since birth. Standardized, norm-referenced tests are problematic for ELs primarily because of the disconnect between age and language development. In a previous publication in The Score, Ortiz (2017) highlighted a series of difficulties that characterize assessment of English learners (EL) which are largely rooted in the concept of validity, particularly test score validity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |