• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Assessment Accommodations: Helping Students With Exceptional Learning Needs

Posted on: Tuesday, 22 November 2005, 03:02 CST

By Rieck, William A; Wadsworth, Donna E Dugger

Accommodations in both instructional strategies and assessment procedures have long been required for students with special learning needs. Over the last 6 years the authors have worked with schools on fostering inclusion. It has been evident that some educators were not certain of the reasons for assessment accommodations, the range of assessment opportunities, and the nature of acceptable accommodations. This article clarifies, based on experience and the literature, those factors that seem to be problematic for many general educators as well as some special educators. Examples from field experiences are used to illustrate the concepts presented.

Assessment accommodations are essential for many students with exceptional learning needs if they are to succeed in the general education curriculum. Over the last 6 years we have worked with five different schools and have discovered two major misconceptions that general educators seem to have about such accommodations: (a) They think it lowers standards and (b) they inappropriately equate assessment with paper-and-pencil tests. Of course, neither assumption is valid, indicating the need to ensure that both general educators and special educators have a complete understanding of the reasons for accommodations, the scope of assessment, and the nature of appropriate accommodations.

Reasons for Accommodations

A major difference between previous statutes and the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA was that students with exceptional learning needs must have access to the general education curriculum. The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001 and the subsequent regulations issued in November 2002 make it clear that states and their school districts must do all that is possible to foster success for all students. If students with exceptional learning needs are to succeed within the general education curriculum, there will, in many cases, need to be changes in assessment procedures. Multiple assessments and multiple types seem to benefit all students (Venn, 2000).

Justification for accommodations goes far beyond the legislative imperative. Quality assessment determines whether objectives have been achieved, which is the most important factor. The achievement of objectives provides students with a feeling of success, which both motivates students (Hunter, 1982) and helps them develop a good self-concept. Indeed, Maslow (1968), in developing his hierarchy of needs, emphasized that self-esteem is a precursor to self- actualization, which should be the ultimate goal. With legal imperatives and psychological factors both suggesting the need for assessment accommodations, professionals must not get bogged down in how those results are achieved.

Scope of Assessment

Assessing student performance includes using paper-and-pencil tests. Such instruments are one way of sampling a relatively large body of knowledge at different levels of Bloom's Taxonomy (Bloom, Engelgart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwhol, 1956). Indeed, the high-stakes tests required by some states to pass from one educational division to another are paper-and-pencil tests. Districts also use standardized tests, such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills for elementary schools, the Iowa Test of Educational Development for secondary schools, and the California Achievement Test, all of which are paper-and-pencil tests. Add to this mix the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the Scholastic Aptitude Test, and the American College Testing Program, along with the testing requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, and it becomes obvious that paper-and-pencil tests will always be with us. That being said, however, it must be accepted that classroom assessment needs to be much broader than mere tests. Teachers should not get so involved with testing that they neglect other available forms of assessment that may provide alternate means of determining whether objectives have been achieved.

Trends in contemporary assessment include assessing students' full knowledge base and giving students multiple opportunities to demonstrate that knowledge (Regional Education Laboratories, 1998). This does not suggest elimination of traditional tests but, rather, asserts the need for other assessment strategies. One such strategy is imbedded within the instructional approach of cooperative learning.

Although educators normally think of cooperative learning as an instructional approach designed to maximize student learning, it is also an assessment strategy. Many may think of this as a relatively new strategy, but Johnson and Johnson (1992) suggested that it has been around in one form or another since Biblical times. There are many forms of cooperative learning, such as Jigsaw (Aaronson, Stephen, Sikes, Blaney, & Snapp, 1975) and Co-Op Co-Op (Kagen, 1985). One form, foreign exchange cooperative learning (Rieck & Dugger Wadsworth, 1999), is particularly appropriate for the inclusionary setting because it utilizes reciprocal teaching and maximizes student interaction. What all cooperative learning strategies have in common is the opportunity for a group grade as well as the possibility of individual grades. Of special interest with cooperative learning is that tasks assigned within the group can be based on individual special talents, so a student with exceptional learning needs, who may have, for example, an artistic talent, could illustrate the final product while other students do library research. Cognitive assessment of the topic could be conducted in the form of written reports, student presentations, projects, dioramas, or other products. If properly structured, these types of products can assess specific objectives and provide an additional source of data to supplement more traditional assessment procedures. The multiple types of outcomes from cooperative learning activities can also be accomplished using individual student effort. Whether individually or cooperatively accomplished, what is of crucial importance is how the various outcomes are assessed.

Assessing end products requires the use of a rubric. Use of such a device increases fairness and consistency of results. The strategy also allows for preestablishment of specific expectations and forces the teacher to adhere to the original plan. Rubrics will vary based on the goal of the final product and the instructional expectations. For an individual or group oral presentation, Rieck (1999) suggested using a rubric based on four major considerations:

1. Was the information supplied by the group sufficient?

2. Was the information supplied by the group appropriate?

3. Was the information supplied by the group accurate?

4. If there were student questions, was the individual or group able to respond appropriately?

The author noted that for this project, oratory skill was not a factor in scoring, unless the class had objectives relative to oratory skill. A rubric, such as the one shown in Table 1, should be restricted to course objectives and student achievement. A rubric for a model, PowerPoint product, or other types of outcomes could be different, reflecting the objectives the teacher has for the project.

Suppose a middle-school science teacher wants students to identify different types of energy sources. The teacher wants students to be aware of the processes, environmental implications, costs, and efficiency. A traditional teacher may go directly to the chalkboard for lecture, but one who takes a more constructivist approach may decide to use cooperative learning as both an instructional and assessment strategy. Groups are formed around various energy options, and the class is told that each group is expected to conduct a panel discussion on their particular energy source on a specific date. Suggested resources are provided, as are computers with access to the Internet. When the appointed day for presentation arrives, each group presents their panel discussion while the teacher places points on the board. How, though, does one assess the panel for a grade to determine if objectives have been achieved? Educational wisdom would suggest a rubric be used. Perhaps the rubric described earlier would be appropriate for the group grade. In the event that groups leave out important information, the teacher can provide the missing material by cither using probing questions or providing direct instruction. If the teacher also wanted an individual grade, each student could have been required to write (or record) something about the material he or she contributed to the final product. A second, and different, rubric would be applied to scoring the individual contributions. Of course, in this case, each group has an in-depth assessment on only one of the energy options, but that is not necessarily a problem. The traditional test will sample all approaches, so every student will be expected to have basic knowledge about all energy options.

Table 1. Possible Rubric

A traditional fourth-grade teacher who wants students to learn about the history of their state would most likely not just lecture and test. Again, we go to either individual or group projects for which a booklet, PowerPoint presentation, time line, or some other product/ document is produced. The assessment is base\d on accuracy and completeness and corresponds to the desired objectives. It is simply a different way of determining whether students have achieved objectives, and it gives the students the option of selecting how they demonstrate their mastery.

A high-school English teacher has a piece of literature that is required reading. Some teachers may have the students read at home, discuss the readings in class, or perhaps even place a plot diagram on the board. Eventually, there may be a test loaded with identifications and quotes. A more creative teacher may understand that there are other ways to assess the same objectives. Either individually or in groups, students could convert the literature selection into a script. If the selection is without illustrations, students could illustrate the selection. Perhaps a storyboard could be constructed, as if it were to be made into a film. Any or all of these assessment strategics could be used to complement or replace the traditional paper-and-pencil test.

Nature of Appropriate Accommodations

The key word in this section is "appropriate." In our work within inclusion settings, we have observed that some general educators think accommodations mean openbook tests, and that some special educators use body language or comments such as, "Are you sure?" to suggest appropriate responses or cues (DuggerWadsworth & Rieck, 2001). Naturally, these tactics are not appropriate. Today, with the special education population being included in high-stakes testing, accommodations must be appropriate without reducing the minimal objectives expected of all students. In a similar fashion, alternatives to paper-and-pencil tests must be provided, so that the academic preparation of special needs children will not be unduly impeded, but will be enhanced.

Appropriate accommodation strategies should be individualized to meet the exceptional learner's needs and not generically applied to all special education students (e.g., "Read tests aloud and provided extended time"). The appropriateness of the assessment accommodation should also address whether the emphasis is on content or proficiency or both. The latter may not be accomplished initially but addressed after content is mastered. Accommodation prescribed in the Individualized Education Program does not necessarily ensure academic success. The accommodations should also be practiced and applied during both instructional and assessment activities. Some examples of this practice are students' learning to clearly articulate answers orally or use time efficiently on shortened tests.

A frequent accommodation for many students with special needs relates to time. Spinelli (2002) suggested that, among other things, tests could be untuned, they could be split in half and given over 2 days, or only odd or even items could be required. There is merit in these strategies, but also a caveat. Untuned tests are fine because teachers should be interested in what students know and can do, not how fast they can do it. In physics, for example, work [force x distance] tells us what can be done, whereas power [work/time] is a measure of how quickly it is accomplished. Teachers are interested in the work of students, not the power. Now for the caveat: Shortening tests is appropriate only if all objectives are being assessed. When there are two or more items on a given objective, items may be eliminated without causing material harm to educational advancement. However, in cases where there is only one item related to an objective, eliminating that item is injurious to the student. If items are eliminated, it could mean objectives are not assessed, which would restrict true access to the general curriculum. It should also be recognized that reducing the number of items on an objective might reduce the reliability of the results.

One of the special educators observed in the authors' inclusion project accommodated students by changing the format of test items. The question becomes, Is this an appropriate accommodation? Perhaps, but perhaps not. If a multiple-choice item is changed to a free response, there is no problem, but otherwise, there may be a problem. For example, consider the original item and the accommodated items in Figure 1.

It is possible that the words in the multiple-choice item may cause difficulty for a student with an exceptional learning need, not in terms of content but in terms of reading. By simply asking the question, you are providing a different assessment modality, but it is clear that the student must know the correct answer. However, when the item is converted to a true-or-false item, there is a 50% chance of guessing correctly, even if the student does not know the answer. It is true that the original test item still provides a 25% chance of success without knowledge, but the distracters are there to suggest alternatives, and a student who selects the correct response is more likely to have known the answer.

Many students will need to have test items read to them. In some cases students may be sent to a separate room for this. In cases where they remain in the general education classroom, teachers have frequently elected to read the test to everyone. This may not be in the best interest of the general education student. A viable alternative is to place the test on tape. The student with the accommodation can either remain in the general education class or go elsewhere. Armed with a tape player and extended time, the probability of success should be improved. Another reason for change of setting might be to accommodate the needs of a student who is highly distractible.

What about short answer and/or essay items? What if a student has difficulty writing? Word processing is very appropriate. The teacher could also appoint another individual to take dictation of the answer. For that matter, the tape player used to ask questions can also be used to record answers. Teachers need to remember that it is the achievement of the objective that is being measured; in most cases, the modality of the answer is not of importance. Figure 2 shows one possible path of appropriate test accommodations as discussed in this article.

Figure 1. Appropriate accommodation.

Figure 2. Path of appropriate accommodations.

Accommodations can also be made on other forms of assessment without creating a negative effect on academic growth. A good rule of thumb is that almost any assignment requiring writing can be done orally. Conversely, almost any oral assignment can be done in writing. Assistive technology, such as word processing and PowerPoint, is always available. The use of artistic ability or tactile construction of models may also be options.

Examples of other accommodations in format are putting a test in large print, using answer sheets with larger bubbles, and providing color overlays to enhance the contrast. A template can also be used to reduce the visible print on a worksheet or test for the student who has difficulty focusing.

Summary

Students with exceptional learning needs are required to participate in the general curriculum and show performance in terms of grades and results on high-stakes testing programs. To accomplish this, a wide range of assessment approaches must be used, along with appropriate accommodations that enhance, not reduce, the chance of academic success. The intent of accommodations in assessment is not to give students with exceptional learning needs an advantage but rather to measure what they really know.

REFERENCES

Aaronson, K., Stephen, C, & Sikes, J. Blaney, N., & Snapp, M. (1975). The jigsaw route to learning. Psychology Today, 43-50.

Bloom, B. S., Enpclgart, .M. D., Furet, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwhol, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educational gpab. Handbook one: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

Hugger Wadsworth, D. K., & Rieck, W. A. (2001, October). Collaboration and creation of positive inclusion assessment experiences. Paper presented at the meeting of the International conference of the Council for Educational Diagnostic Services, New Orleans, LA.

Hunter, M. (1982). Mastery teaching. El Segundo, CA: TIP Publications.

Kagan, S. (1985). Co-op co-op: A flexible cooperative learning. In K. Slavin et ai. (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperate to leant. New York: Plenum Press.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992). Implementing cooperative learning. Contemporary Education, 3, 173-180.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.

Regional Education Laboratories. (1998). Improving classroom assessment: A toolkit for professional developers. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Education Laboratory.

Rieck, W. A. (1999). 'leaching in secondary schools (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Rieck, W. A., & Dugger Wadsworth, D. E. (1999). Foreign exchange: An inclusive strategy. Intervention in School and Clinic, 1, 22-28.

Spinelli, C. G. (2002). Classroom assessment for students with special needs in inclusive settings. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall.

Venn, J. J. (2000). Assessing students with special needs (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

William A. Rieck, EdD, is a professor and director of teacher practitioner and cadet corps programs at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Dr. Rieck is currently vice chair of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and secondary Education's Teacher Certification Appeals Council. IIis interests include inclusion, secondary teaching strategies, and learning styles. Donna E. Dugger Wadsworth, PhD, is an associate professor and coordinator of special education at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Dr. Dugger Wadsworth is past president of the Louisiana Federation of the Council for Exceptional Children and a member of the Louisiana Advisory Board on Special Education. Her interests include inclusion, early intervention, and ea\rly childhood education. Address: William A. Rieck, Box 42051, Lafayette, LA 70504; e-mail: wrieck@louisiana.edu

Copyright PRO-ED Journals Nov 2005

Source: Intervention in School and Clinic

More News in this Category