Are WIDA Test Results Appropriately Reflecting Multilingual Learners’ Language Skills According to ESOL Teachers’ Experiences?

Results of a Pilot Study

Authors

  • Emily Patterson Undergraduate student at Winthrop University
  • Elke Schneider Winthrop University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52242/gatesol.184

Keywords:

language proficiency assessment, multilingual learners, WIDA ACCESS, ESOL teacher perspectives

Abstract

Within the field of multilingual learner (ML) education, ESOL teachers’ voices are often overlooked and underrepresented despite their integral role in developing productive and knowledgeable future citizens. This study sheds light on the experiences of ESOL teachers that administer the federally mandated annual standardized testing created by World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA). It uses focus-group interviews to gather qualitative data from two neighboring school districts in order to gain insight into the WIDA assessments’ reflection of language proficiency. WIDA testing evaluates English language development by measuring academic and social language skills within the four language domains: reading, writing, listening, and speaking. MLs without severe, classified disabilities in grades K-12 participate annually in the Assessing Comprehension and Communication of English State-to-State (ACCESS) assessment by WIDA. Results place students into proficiency categories ranging from entering (a student new to English) to bridging (a near-fluent ML), as defined by the WIDA language proficiency standards. The interviews allowed the ESOL teachers to share their experiences with MLs’ classroom performances in the four testing domains compared to their performances on the online WIDA assessments. The interview data was analyzed and categorized into three main themes based on teacher responses: assessment preparation techniques, common perceptions of the assessment, and proposed changes to improve the assessment. Each of these themes, with their local and national implications, are discussed as they affect the nature of ESOL instruction and assessment.

References

Acheson, K., & Gall, M. D. (1997). Techniques in the clinical supervision of teachers: Preservice and inservice applications (4th ed.). Longman.

Ariza, E., & Coady, M. (2018). Why TESOL? Theories & issues in teaching English to speakers of other languages in K-12 classrooms (5th ed.). Kendall Hunt.

Belotto, M. (2018). Qualitative research: Managing the challenges of coding, interrater reliability and thematic analysis. Qualitative Report, 23(11), 2620-2633.

Bilingual Education Act, 90 US 247 (1968). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-81/pdf/STATUTE-81-Pg783.pdf#page=32.

Castañeda v Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (1978). https://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/www/LAU/IAPolicy/IA1bCastanedaFullText.htm

Center for Public Education (2014). Understanding the common core. Center for Public Education.

Cook, G. H. (2014). Examining relationships between alternative ACCESS and state alternative assessments: Exploring the notions of English language proficiency. University of Wisconsin. https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/Report-ExaminingRelationshipsBetweenAlternateAccessandStateAlternateAssessmentsAL.pdf

Coulter, K. (2017). Effectiveness of WIDA English language development standards meeting proficiency for English language learners (dissertation). ProQuest.

Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In N.H. Hornberger (Ed.) (2nd edition) (pp. 487-499). Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_36

Cummins, J. (2016). Reflections on Cummins (1980), “The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue.” TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 940–944. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44984725

King, K. & Bigelow, M. (2018). The language policy of placement tests of newcomer English learners. Educational Policy 32(7), 936–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904816681527.

Kudo, M., & Swanson, H. L. (2014). Are there advantages for additive bilinguals in working memory tasks? Learning and Individual Differences, 35, 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.07.019

Lau v Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/lau.html

Loose, J. (n.d.). Teaching language & content to ELLs. More than English. Retrieved January 30, 2022, from https://morethanenglish.edublogs.org/for-teachers/wida-english-language-development-standards/.

Lopez, A. & Garcia, G. (2020). Teachers’ perspectives on the use of summative English language proficiency assessments for instructional purposes. In M. Wolf (Ed). Assessing English Language Proficiency in U.S. K–12 Schools. (pp. 226–243). Taylor & Francis.

Makarova, E., Gilde, J., & Birman, D. (2019). Teachers as risk and resource factors in minority students’ school adjustment: An integrative review of qualitative research on acculturation. Intercultural Education, 30(5), 448–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2019.158621

McEachern, F.M. (2022). A history of bilingual education in the US: Examining the politics of language policymaking. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,25, (9), 3526-3530. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2022.2078653

Paradis, J. (2019). English second language acquisition from early childhood to adulthood: The role of age, first language, cognitive, and input factors. In Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 43, pp. 11-26).

Park, M., O'Toole, A., & Katsiaficas, C. (2017, October). Dual language learners: A demographic and policy profile of South Carolina. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/DLL-FactSheet-SC-FINAL.pdf

Plyler v Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/202/ f

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.

Scarcella, R. (2003, April). Academic English: A conceptual framework. https://escholarship.org/content/qt6pd082d4/qt6pd082d4.pdf

South Carolina Department of Education. (n.d.). Writing component. from https://ed.sc.gov/tests/middle/sc-ready/writing-component/

United States v Texas, 321 F. 1043 (5th Cir. 1970). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf

Varga, S., & Guignon, C. (2020, February 20). Authenticity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authenticity/

Waters, C. N. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions of the broad validity of a high stakes English language proficiency test (Dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University). Bilingual, Multilingual, Multicultural, and Education Commons. https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7262&context=etd.

WIDA. (2020). WIDA English language development standards framework, 2020 edition: Kindergarten–grade 12. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.

https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/WIDA-ELD-Standards-Framework-2020.pdf

WIDA (2023, April 28). South Carolina English language learner identification and placement guidance document. South Carolina Department of Education. https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/id-placement/SC-ID-Placement-Guidance.pdf

Wisconsin Center for Education Research. (2023). Access for ELLs. WIDA. Retrieved April 30, 2023, from https://wida.wisc.edu/assess/access

Downloads

Published

05/20/2024

How to Cite

Emily Patterson, & Elke Schneider. (2024). Are WIDA Test Results Appropriately Reflecting Multilingual Learners’ Language Skills According to ESOL Teachers’ Experiences? : Results of a Pilot Study. GATESOL Journal, 33(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.52242/gatesol.184

Issue

Section

Empirical Research or Literature Reviews