Cultural Awareness and Bias in Assessments

Language Factors

Multiple linguistic backgrounds: Second language learners have different linguistic backgrounds. Many come from Spanish-speaking backgrounds with upwards of 400 different languages spoken. This presents a challenge when attempting to develop testing accommodations that include the use of native languages in that it might not be possible to cover them all in a large district or multi-ethnic state.  

Varying degrees of language proficiency: English language learners also come to us with varying levels of English language proficiency. In addition, they often have as many varying levels of oral and written language proficiencies, further challenging our ability to provide them with fair and equal testing accommodations. Often their conversational abilities do not match their literacy skills in comprehension, often manifested by their inability to understand directions on a standardized test. Just because they may be able to converse in the English language, does not mean they can understand written directions on a test. Language used to access content area assessments differs greatly from conversational English, and academic vocabulary is often a challenge for ELLs. Studies have shown that level of language proficiency impacts processing speed, or reading fluency. Thus, second language learners typically need more time to complete tasks, read, and interpret directions than their English-speaking peers.  These are all important nuances to keep in mind when designing and scoring assessments for ELLs.

Varying degrees of proficiency in their native language: Many English language learners struggle in their native language, and this is often overlooked by teachers unfamiliar with the traits of struggling readers and writers of ELLs. This also presents a double challenge in their ability to understand test directions, whether they are in their native language or in English. This can sometimes be due to the fact that they did not have as much formal schooling (if any) in their native language prior to entry into the United States. 

Educational Background 

Educational background in native language: The educational background of ELLs can vary widely in the amount of previous schooling they had, and the degree of education received in their native language. This can have a great impact on their social and academic growth, depending upon how wide the gap is. For example, students from refugee camps may enter school with very little formal schooling in any language or in their native language. This creates a great demand to "catch them up" in learning English, content area knowledge, and other skills simultaneously. In addition, they must acclimate socially to become socialized into a foreign school culture. When students have had some background in a foreign language, sufficient instruction in their native language and are up to date in schooling received, they must still transfer this knowledge into English, as well as face the same social challenges as others.

Formal schooling in the English language: The number of years and amount of schooling of ELLs can also vary in their language instruction. Some study foreign languages in their home countries, and some as a second language only in the U.S. This makes for a multitude of interactions among peers and teachers, as well as a difference in their instruction. For instance, Bilingual or full English immersion for a transient student who may move from city to city across the country can result in inconsistencies in language acquisition and skills. Interruptions in education when acquisition to a new language can impact their language proficiency as well as content knowledge.

Degree of exposure to standardized testing: ELL students come to us with different experiences in standardized testing. Some students have exposure to multiple-choice, others constructed-response, and some none at all. None of this has any bearing on whether students have any socio-economic advantages or disadvantages either - both worlds could have some or no experience at all in standardized testing.

Cultural factors affecting English language proficiency: The wide wide range of cultural background and experiences among ELL students can also affect standardized testing performance. Factors such as knowledge of American history, mainstream American culture, assumptions about testing in general, behavior in testing and experiences within their overall educational environment have legitimate bearings on potential assessment progress. Students may respond to questions differently based on this background, or they may make assumptions that lead to wrong answers or misinterpretation of results. Cooperation for example, is valued higher in some cultures than competition, thus bearing resulting in a student working harder to make progress than to complete his or her best. Background knowledge resulting from low economic background can impact answers perceived as wrong by an examinee, or different from what was expected of the test developer on creation. 

Abedi, J. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometric issues. Educational Assessment, 8, 231-257.

Abedi, J. (2006). Language issues in item development. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 377-398). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Abedi, J., & Gandara, P. (2006). Performance of English language learners as a subgroup in large- scale assessment: Interaction of research and policy. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(4), 36-46.

Ariza, E. N. (2010). What every classroom teacher needs to know about the linguistically, culturally, and ethnically diverse student. 2^nd 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]. 

Anderson, J. A. (1988). Cognitive styles and multicultural populations. Journal of Teacher Education, 24 (1), 2–9. 

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Educational Testing Service. (2006). ETS guidelines for constructed-response and other performance assessments. Princeton, NJ: Author.

Educational Testing Service. (2007). ETS international principles for fairness review of assessments. Princeton, NJ: Author.

Hakuta, K., & Beatty, A. (Eds.). (2000). Testing English language learners in U. S. schools: Report and workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Martiniello, M. (2008). Language and the performance of English language learners in math word problems. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 333-368.

Rabinowitz, S. N., & Sato, E. (2006). The technical adequacy of assessments for alternate student populations: Guidelines for consumers and developers. San Francisco: WestEd.

Rivera, C., & Collum, E. (Eds.). (2008). State assessment policy and practice for English language learners: A national perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Thurlow, M. L., Thompson, S. J., & Lazarus, S. S. (2006). Considerations for the administration of tests to special needs students: Accommodations, modifications, and more. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 653-673). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Young, J. W., Cho, Y., Ling, G., Cline, F., Steinberg, J., & Stone, E. (2008). Validity and fairness of state standards-based assessments for English language learners. Educational Assessment, 13, 170-192.