Cultural Awareness and Bias in Assessments
1. Linguistic Bias and Language Evaluations
Linguistic Bias and Language Evaluations
Linguistic bias toward speakers of other languages and dialects, or toward bilingual speakers, can take 
many forms, and are most subtle when they emerge in assessments. This bias results in evaluation inaccuracy, misidentification of students, and non-valid assessment results that get applied to student speakers of other languages (IDEA, 2004).
Examination and Examiner
Bias isn't always overt or evident on the surface, but can be present in both the examiner and in the materials used to evaluate with. When bias is present in the examiner, it is typically due to a lack of knowledge of speech and language acquisition, and the nature of speech and language acquisition among students from culturally or linguistically diverse backgrounds (AHSA, 2004). For instance, assessment examiners working with speakers of other languages may not be familiar with expectations for a child of another culture, or of the dialects spoken with mistaking word construction for a language disorder. In African American English (AAE) the ending of “s” used in English to delineate present tense as in, “he walks to school” is deleted in typical speech, and spoken as "he walk to school." This is not the result of a language disorder; rather, it is a dialect specific to the student’s first language (Ariza, 2013).
Most standardized tests were not normed on a population inclusive of multiple linguistic backgrounds, and were typically translated from the English version. The New York State Department of Education is one state entity that has prohibited scores obtained from translated tests stating, “Scores obtained from tests translated, but not standardized, on the student’s cultural group or translated by the examiner during the assessment processes may not be used as representative of the students’ present performance. The information collected and reported should be of a descriptive nature" (NYSED, 1990, pp 8-9). Most standardized tests were written in Standard American English. As a result, it influences the comprehension of dialect speakers not familiar enough with standard English. Examiners are usually instructed not to mark dialectical notations as incorrect. If they are not aware of this variation however, it could affect an examiner’s understanding or misinterpretation of an error.
Consider the following prompt assigned to a fourth-grade student on the writing portion of a state exam:
Write a three-paragraph essay responding to the following prompt: If you were going out west in a Conestoga wagon, what would your life be like? (Ariza, p. 298).
If the student is not familiar with the historical and cultural nature of a Conestoga wagon and all that it 
implies about a journey, the students’ abilities in written expression would not be measured; rather, their knowledge of American history would. If a student had been exposed to this history, he or she would likely respond fluently, and a fair evaluation of writing abilities could ensue. If not, the writing would stagger, words would be lost, and an invalid assessment would result.
Many assessments create obstacles to our ability to fully, fairly, and validly evaluate an English language learner’s understanding and skills in creating meaningful authentic ways.
Field Independence and Field Dependence
As previously discussed, students from other, non-mainstream cultures often come to the U.S. with their own set of values, which can lead to misunderstanding or misinterpretation of their behavior. Along with this, a misalignment of expectations for them, and misunderstanding of their learning styles (Banks & Banks, 1993; Garcia & Malkin, 1993).
Field-independent and field-dependent learners differ by how they learn, how they interact with one another, and how they problem solve. Field-independent learners are motivated by impersonal, analytical activities with competition involved, seek out individual recognition, and have an intrinsic desire to complete their work. They learn best with an understanding first of history or theory before attempting a task (Anderson, 1988; Banks & Banks, 1993; Diaz, 1989). Speakers of other languages and students from other cultural backgrounds are not field-dependent learners. They avoid and aren't comfortable with competition, need to make cognitive connections before grappling with the big picture. Thus, the approaches we would take in meeting their needs should differ (Baruth & Manning, 1992; Vogt, Jordan, & Tharp, 1987) through techniques that involve differentiation, grouping, acknowledging and teaching to learning styles. To the contrary, U.S. schools typically apply an Anglo-European educational style, reflective of mainstream learners who are accustomed to articulating their perceptions without a great deal of priority placed on, or acknowledgement of, social clues, making learning less personal and more formal - typically a field-dependent style. A move toward differentiated instruction, grouping, and peer collaboration (discussed in successive modules in this course) can and should make a difference (McIntyre, 1993).
To the contrary, field-dependent learners, often from minority, non-mainstream cultures, work well in groups and with peers. When working toward a common goal, they often interact with the teacher, are sensitive to opinions and ideas of others (Ramirez & Castaneda, 1974). Students from other cultures such as Asian, Hispanic, Native American, African American tend to be field dependent learners. These learning behaviors, heavily influenced by the teacher, can also lead to the use of more social clues which manifest in louder work, more talk, and far less about silence than is typically expected of the mainstream classroom – consequently, they’re noisier. Thus more room yet again for misinterpretation of behaviors. Arab or African American students for instance, may be more contributory, vocal, or responsive behaviors and thereby leading to a misconstruing of the importance of remaining on task, time consciousness, and punctuality (McIntyre, 1995; Nydell, 1987; Ogbu, 1988).
Where does this leave us in terms of teaching? Bias in assessments? How can we overcome this when we are not the creators, but merely those who implement? Beginning with awareness, alternative forms of assessment create less opportunities for bias, and more opportunities for meeting unique needs of students culturally, linguistically, and from a learning styles perspective. We will become introduced to a range of authentic, formative assessments and their direct application to K-12 classrooms as we pursue the modules of this course.
References
Ariza, E. N. (2010). What every classroom teacher needs to know about the linguistically, culturally, and ethnically diverse student. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1983). Social dialects [ Position Statement]. Available from http://www.asha.org/policy/PS1983-00115.htm
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Knowledge and skills
needed by speech-language pathologists and audiologists to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services [Knowledge and Skills]. Available from http://www.asha.org/policy/KS2004-00215/
Anderson, J. A. (1988). Cognitive styles and multicultural populations. Journal of Teacher Education, 24 (1), 2–9.
Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. (1993). Multicultural education: Issues and perspective (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Baruth, L. G., & Manning, M. L. (1992). Multicultural education of children and adolescents. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Diaz, C. (1989). Hispanic cultures and cognitive styles: Implications for teachers. Multicultural Leader, 2(4), 1–4.
Harry, B. & Klingner, J., (2006). Why are so many minority students in special education?: Understanding race and disability in schools. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, H.R.1350,108th Congress (2004).
McIntyre, T. (1993). Reflections on the impact of the proposed definition for emotional and behavioral disorders: Who will still fall through the cracks and why. Behavioral Disorders, 18 (2), 148–160.
Nydell, M. (1987). Understanding Arabs. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Ogbu, J. (1988). Class stratification, racial stratification, and schooling. In L. Weiss (Ed.), Class, race, and gender in American education (p. 163). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Paradis, J. (2005). Grammatical morphology in children learning English as a second language: Implications of similarities with specific language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 172-187.
Ramirez, M., & Castaneda, A. (1974). Cultural democracy, bicognitive development, and education. New York: Academic Press.
Vogt, L. A., Jordan, C., & Tharp, R.G. (1987). Explaining school failure: Producing school success: Two cases. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18, 276–286.
Wei, T. (1980). Vietnamese refugee students: A handbook for school personnel. Cambridge, MA: Lesley College (EDAC).
Woo, J. (1985). The Chinese-speaking student: A composite profile. New York: Bilingual Education Multifunctional Support Center at Hunter College.