BEST PRACTICES IN
BILINGUAL ASSESSMENT
Wilda Laija-Rodriguez, Ph.D., LEP
California State University, Northridge
California Association of School Psychologists Conference
March 5-7, 2003
THE ISSUES
Statistics: Why is it important to know
how to work with bilingual students?




By 2010, it is estimated that NY, TX, CA, and FL will have
about 1/3 of the nations minority youth (Hodginson &
Outz, 1992)
The Hispanic population in US has grown faster than the
rest of the population as a whole (Carrasquillo, 1999)
Hispanic children, including LEP students, make up a
significant percentage of the public school population in
US (Carrasquillo, 1999)
In 2002, the majority of newborns are Hispanic
Educational Issues with Minority
Children
 Minority
students lag academically behind
majority children (Carrasquillo, 1999;
Meier & Stewart, 1991)
 Hispanic students lag behind other minority
groups in various areas (Carrasquillo, 1999)
 As a result, there has been a significant
overrepresentation of Hispanic students in
special education and other remedial
programs (Figueroa & Artiles, 1999)
Issues with Minority/
Bilingual Students
1) Language Proficiency Issues (Cummins,
1984)
2) Low Academic Achievement (Carrasquillo,
1999)
3) Overrepresentation special education and
other remedial programs (Figueroa & Artiles,
1999; Stewart & Meier, 1991)
4) Lack of adequate programs for bilingual students in
public schools
SECOND LANGUAGE
DEVELOPMENT
Threshold Hypothesis
(Cummins, 1979)
BICS
BICS
CALP
L1
CUP
CALP
L2
BICS: Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (3yrs)
CALP: Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (5-7 years)
CUP: Common Underlying Proficiency
FACTORS INFLUENCING SECOND
LANGUAGE ACQUISTION
• AGE:
– young second language learners use same part of the brain for
both L1 and L2
– older learners use a different part of the brain for their L2 than
they used for their first (Kim, Relkin, Lee & Hirsch, 1997).
– Younger second language learners don’t necessarily develop
accent
– Older second language learners (ages 8-12) develop language
faster; possibly due to cognitive maturity and L1 competence
– Children older than 12 slow down, probably due to increased
academic demands
FACTORS INFLUENCING SECOND
LANGUAGE ACQUISTION
– Personality
– strong self-esteem outgoing vs. shy and withdrawn
– Social Factors
– language models
– motivation
The Acquisition-Learning Distinction
(Stephen Krashen) – Corresponding to
Natural Language Approach






Language acquisition = “picking up a language”
Language learning = learning language in formal manner
Affective filter = emotional barrier to language learning
Learning provides a monitor = allows learner to correct
language output based on previously learned language
rules.
In short run, older learners develop competence faster
than younger children.
Children outperform adults in L2 in the long run
Bilingual Education Programs
 Transitional
Bilingual Education
(transition into English by 3rd grade)
 Maintenance
Bilingual Education
(transition into English by 5th grade)
 Dual
Immersion Program (Acquiring both
L1 and L2 simultaneously)
Second Language Acquisition
Phases
Pre-production
•Few
oral skills (pointing,
gesturing, nodding)
Teachers should provide
opportunities for active
listening, utilize visuals,
and real objects
Early Production
Some understanding, can
produce some social
words/sentences
Teachers should ask yes/no
or either/or questions
Speech
Emergence
Can understand with
concrete contexts/ or range
of personal experience
Teachers should focus on
communication not
language form, and provide
meaningful contexts
Intermediate and
Advanced
Fluency
Demonstrate increased
levels of accuracy
Teachers should provide
opportunities to create oral
and written narratives and
continue ongoing language
development
The Connection Between L1
and L2 Literacy
 Literacy
in L1 has been found to be the
most stable predictor of English
literacy (Pardo & Tinajero, 1993)
 Students
with high literacy in L1 will
perform better in English than students
with low literacy in L1 (Pardo &
Tinajero, 1993)
LOW ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
Reading Proficiency
Among Hispanic Students
 Overall
academic achievement, especially
reading proficiency among Hispanic
students is far below the national average
(Carrasquillo, 1991).
Research in L2 Reading

There are differences in basic underlying cognitive
processes during first and second language reading
(Koda, 1994; Segalowitz, 1986)

Reduced automaticity of word recognition with
fluent bilinguals (Hernandez et al, 1996;
Segalowitz, 1986)

Repetition effects occur more readily within
languages than they do between languages, thus
L2 reading may be affected (Scarborough, 1984)
OVER REPRESENTATION
IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
Testing, the Law and LEP Students: Diana
v. State Board of Education (1970):

Spanish speaking students were being placed in
MR classes based on their scores from
intelligence tests administered in English

Important results from the case:
• 1) language competence should be assessed
• 2) tests should be administered in students’ L1
• 3) emphasis on nonverbal measures
• 4) students placed incorrectly should be reevaluated
Public Law 94-142 /IDEA ‘97:
Specific Issues with LEP Students
*Assessment should be conducted in students’

native language or mode of communication
 *Assessment procedures should be non-discriminatory
 *Assessment instruments …must measure disability,

not child’s English language skills
 *Tests should be valid for purposes used
 *Tests are administered by trained and

knowledgeable personnel
 *Single test should not be sole criterion for disability
 *Areas related to suspected disability should be
assessed.

ASSESSMENT ISSUES
REFERRALS TO SPECIAL
EDUCATION
 The
use of the SST
 Pre-referral Questions (LEP Questionnaire)
 Pre-referral Interventions
Intelligence Testing and Minorities

Lower correlations have been found between
Performance IQs (PIQ) and achievement

Low correlations have been found between
Nonverbal Intelligence Tests and achievement

Lack of English language proficiency
significantly and negatively influences test
results
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE USE OF
INTELLIGENCE TESTS IN ASSESSING ETHNIC
MINORITY CHILDREN (Sattler, 1992)

1) Intelligence tests have a cultural bias.

2) Norms are inappropriate for minorities.
3) Belief that Minorities are handicapped in test taking skills.

• a. Deficiencies in motivation, test practice, and reading
• b. Failure to appreciate the achievement aspects of the test situation
• c. Limited exposure to the U.S. culture


4) The fact that most examiners are white has the effect of depressing
the scores of ethnic minority children.
• a. Rapport
• b. Communication difficulties

5) Tests results lead to inadequate and inferior education.
• a. “Test results are the main reason why ethnic minority children are
segregated into special classes.”
• b. These classes may have inadequate curriculum and provide inferior
education
• c. Can create negative expectancies in teachers
ARGUMENTS FOR THE USE OF
INTELLIGENCE TESTS IN ASSESSING ETHNIC
MINORITY CHILDREN (Sattler, 1992)
1) Useful in evaluating present functioning.
• a. Cognitive strength and weaknesses
• b. Helpful in determining certain exceptionalities
• c. Helpful in testing for Brain damage
2) Useful in indicting future functioning.
3) Useful in evaluating programs.
4) Useful in revealing inequalities (i.e. needing special
education)
5) Useful in providing an objective standard.
Four Options for the Assessment of
Bilingual Students

1) Administer the usual diagnostic battery, but
take account students’ bilingual background in
interpreting the test profile.

2) Delay assessment in the hope that the student’s
poor academic performance is the result of normal
L2 development.

3) Administer only nonverbal measures.

4) Do assessment in L1and L2.

Adopted from Cummins, J. (2001) Assessment and Intervention with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Learners. In S. R. Hurley and J. V. Tinajero
Literacy Assessment of Second Language Learners. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Usual Diagnostic Battery While
Considering Student’s Bilingual
Background

Use of verbal and nonverbal measures in English,
but accounting for students’ bilingual background.

Dangers: Mis-interpreting results and overrepresentation of students in Special Education
(Ortiz & Yates, 1983; Mercer, 1973).

Tendency to ignore or underestimate the influence
of language proficiency on individuals’
performance (Oller, 1997; as cited in Cummins,
2001)
Administering Only Nonverbal Measures

Nonverbal measures not good predictors of
academic achievement

Language competency needs to be assessed (Diana
vs. State Board of Ed, 1970)

Most learning disabilities are related to language

If there are visual perceptual difficulties,
nonverbal measures will not be valid.
Assessment in L1 and L2
 Few
Bilingual Psychologists/Speech
Pathologists
 Appropriate
use of interpreters
 Questionable
norms (monolingual norms in
Spanish or English)
 Caution
in interpreting languages separately
Bilingual Assessment Model
(Wilda’s model in progress)
LEP
Bilingual
*Has had instruction in L1
*Uses Spanish to a high
degree
Bilingual Assessment:
Assessment in L1 and L2
•Observations
•Interviews (parents and teachers)
•Appropriate Norm referenced tests consider language and standardization.
•Criterion based tests
•Curriculum Based Measurement
Bilingual
*Fluent in English
*No previous instruction in L1
Assessment in English
with consideration
regarding culture and L2
development
•Observations
•Interviews (parents and teachers)
•Appropriate Norm referenced tests
•Criterion based tests
•Curriculum Based Measurement
Wilda Laija, Ph.D. 2000
Assessment of LEP and Bilingual
Students in L1 and L2
Language Proficiency
•L1 and L2 language proficiency needs to be established
•Examine both expressive and receptive language in L1 and L2
•Consider BICS and CALP
LEP and/or
Limited in L1
INTELLIGENCE/COGNITVE ABILITY
(Must be done in L1 as much as possible)
•Bateria Woodcock-Munoz (limitations)
•UNIT
•Differential Abilities Scales (Non-verbal)
•KABC (old)
•Nonverbal tests (limitations)
Bilingual
Proficiency in L2
INTELLIGENCE/COGNITIVE ABILITY
(Can use both L1 and L2,m if needed)
•UNIT
•Differential Abilities Scales
•KABC
•Nonverbal tests (limitations)
Visual and Auditory Processing
in Dominant Language
Visual and Auditory Processing
In Dominant Language
LEP and/or
Limited in L1
Bilingual
Proficiency in L2
ACHIEVEMENT
Should be given in L1 and L2
Based on language of instruction
ACHIEVEMENT
Should Based on language of
instruction
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL
•In L1
•DAP, KSD, KFD
•Roberts
•TEMAS
•Rorschach
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL
•In Dominant Language
•DAP, KSD, KFD
•Roberts
•TEMAS
•Rorschach
Interpreting Results for Bilingual
Students
 Consider:
• Whether norms are from students country of
origin
• How long has student been learning English
• Degree of support for L1 conceptual
development at home and school
• Social and peer pressure to replace L1 with L2
• Bilingual students have different
language/cognitive/academic development than
monolingual students
Test Interpretation with
Bilingual Students

Consider:
•
•
•
•
Language Proficiency
L2 development
Instructional Programs
Reading Development
in L1 and L2
• Educational History
• Health and
Development
• Family History

Caution against:
• Distortion:
minimizing or
maximizing differences
due to stereotypes
• Pathologizing: using
inappropriate
diagnostic criteria
based on culture and
language
Writing the Report
 State:
•
•
•
•
Language used to test student
Examiner’s proficiency or use of interpreter
Student’s language factors
Tests used, validity and reliability with this
population
• Educational and family history
• Rule in or out exclusionary clause
Classroom Interventions for Promoting
L2 Competencies
Reading aloud to the students at their conceptual
level
 Providing experiences for listening comprehension
 Encouraging oral language development
 Sharing reading between the teacher and students
 Modeling and guiding oral language and reading
development
 Shared reading: dictating to the teacher and then
illustrating books
 Using materials that are socially sensitive and
culturally specific

Descargar

BEST PRACTICES IN BILINGUAL ASSESSMENT