ACCESS for ELLs Interpreting the Results

1
ACCESS for ELLsInterpreting the Results
Developed by the WIDA Consortium
2
Overview

• Description of ACCESS for ELL Scores-2007
• Changes to Reporting for the 2007 Administration
• Use of Grade Level Cut Scores
• Score Reports Description and Uses
• QA

3
ACCESS for ELLs Overview

• Secure, large-scale test
• Anchored in WIDAs ELP Standards
• Assesses academic language
• Three overlapping tiers for each grade level
  cluster
• Tier A Proficiency levels 1-3
• Tier B Proficiency levels 2-4
• Tier C Proficiency levels 3-5
• One third of test items replaced annually
• Administered once per year as required by No
  Child Left Behind
• Indicator of students ability to perform on
  state content test

4
Tier Structure of ACCESS for ELLs
1
2
3
4
5
ENTERING
BEGINNING
DEVELOPING
EXPANDING
BRIDGING
Tier A
Tier B
Tier C
5
Structure of ACCESS for ELLs

• Grade Levels
• and Tiers

K 1-2 3-5 6-8 9-12
Adaptive (no tiers) A B C A B C A B C A B C
Listening group administered, machine
scored Reading group administered, machine
scored Speaking individual administered, TA
scored Writing group administered, rater
scored
Domains
101 (roll-out Winter 2006) 102 (roll-out Winter
2007) 103 (roll-out Winter 2008)
Series
6
ACCESS for ELLs Types of Scores
7
ACCESS for ELLs Scores
8
Composite Scores
Listening (50)
Speaking (50)
Oral Score


Reading (50)
Writing (50)
Literacy Score


Listening (30)
Reading (70)
Comprehension Score


Listening (15)
Speaking (15)
Overall Composite Score


Reading (35)
Writing (35)
9
Important Changes to Reporting for 2007
Administration
10
Scoring Caps

• Kindergarten form of ACCESS for ELLs maximum
  overall English language proficiency level that a
  student taking the can receive is 3.7
• Tier A or Tier B scores for the language domains
  of Listening and Reading (and the Comprehension
  composite) are capped. Students cannot receive an
  ELP level above 4.0 for Tier A and above 5.0 for
  Tier B.

11
Teacher Report Format

• Writing raw scores are presented by standard next
  to the maximum number of points for the given
  standard(s) and scoring category reported

12
Proficiency Grade Level Cut Scores

• Scale scores have not changed
• Cut scores have been adjusted to show progress by
  grade level rather than by cluster level for each
  language domain
• Changes in proficiency level cut scores from year
  to year now account for both maturational and
  language proficiency growth of English language
  learners

13
Composite Scores interpreted using Grade Vs
Cluster Cut Scores
14
Use of Grade Level Cut Scores

• Provides a more precise measurement of ELLs
  annual progress in English language proficiency
• Eases the creation of a trajectory of estimated
  student growth, in any one or combination of
  language domains, from year to year
• Facilitates articulation from grade to grade, and
  teacher to teacher, of the status of ELLs
• Helps in the calculation of Annual Measurable
  Achievement Objectives (AMAOs). States with at
  least three consecutive years of data have trend
  data.

15
ACCESS for ELLs Reports- 2007
16
Considerations on the use of ACCESS for ELLs
Reports

• Target certain reports to specific stakeholders
• Offer Professional Development on how to
  understand and use the information on the reports
• Consider summarizing or consolidating the
  suggestions for using the information from each
  score report according to target audience
• Look at different configurations of data in the
  reports for individual and group placement or to
  develop a plan for organizing services for
  English Language Learners for the coming school
  year
• Archive copies of the interpretive guide along
  with copies of the score reports so that new
  personnel for the 2007-08 academic year can
  become acclimated with data from ACCESS for ELLs

17
Score Reports Available
18
Parent Report

• Students parent or guardian gets the report
• Provided in English and 18 additional languages
  (visit www.wida.us)
• A letter to accompany the report in parents
  primary language is suggested
• Other stakeholders student, teachers, school
  teams

19
Demographic Information About the Student
Comprehension Score
Students ELP Level by Domain
Overall Score
Description of the ELP Levels
20
Teacher Report

• Teachers and other stakeholders, such as
  administrators, have access to this report
• The Overall Score summarizes students global
  language proficiency and allows examination of
  strengths and weakness by domain
• Individual report components offer a starting
  point for informing the areas of curriculum,
  instruction and assessment of ELLs. Suggestions
  for the differentiation across levels of language
  proficiency can be found in the strands of the
  model performance indicators
• Rubrics in Interpretative Guide Writing and
  Speaking scaffold across levels of language
  proficiency and may be used in classroom
  instruction and assessment throughout the year

21
Demographic Information About the Student
Students Scale Score by Domain
Students ELP Level by Domain
Students Composite Scores
Students Scale Composite Scores
Students Speaking Performance by Standard
Students Comprehension by Standard
Students Writing Performance by Standard
Description of the ELP Levels
22
Communication of Data from the Report

• No single score or language proficiency level
  should be used as the sole criteria for making
  decisions regarding a students English language
  proficiency.
• Sharing student information from score reports is
  encouraged for all educators who work with
  English language learners.
• Data in the reports need to be contextualized to
  be meaningful include both historical and
  demographic information on the students when
  presenting the results.
• When disseminating information on the students
  productive language, refer to criteria in the
  speaking and writing rubrics.
• CAN DO Descriptors may help further explain
  student expectations at each level of English
  language proficiency.

23

• Each language domain has its own scale one
  cannot compare scale scores across Listening,
  Speaking, Reading, and Writing. Proficiency
  Levels (as scale score interpretations) may be
  used to make comparisons between independent or
  combinations of language domains.
• Scale scores for Oral Language, Literacy,
  Comprehension, and the Overall Score are
  weighted. Reading and Writing (Literacy) are
  emphasized over Listening and Speaking (Oral
  Language) to reflect the stress of these domains
  stressed in instruction and assessment.
• Comprehension Tasks, Speaking Tasks, and Writing
  Tasks is based on a small number of tasks and the
  results should not be generalized. Model
  performance indicators associated with the ELP
  standards of the specific grade level cluster as
  well as additional student work samples may be
  helpful in targeting instruction and classroom
  assessment.
• A students progress or growth in English
  language proficiency can only be determined when
  two consecutive years of data are available.
  Three years of data can help project a trend.

24
Student Roster Report

• Audience includes Teachers, Program Coordinators,
  and Administrators
• District administrators may examine scores from
  each language domain within a Tier and grade
  level cluster to detect any patterns. To what
  extent are there differences in student
  performance between the language domains and are
  these differences attributed to second language
  development or delivery of instructional
  services?
• Development of school and district improvement
  plans for ELLs
• A starting point for grouping students for
  support services according to their Overall Score
  or by their profiles according to language
  domains (ex homogeneous groupings for reading in
  elementary schools).

25
Student Roster Report
Tier
Scale Score and ELP Level by Domain
Scale Score and ELP Level by Composite Oral
Language, Literacy, Comprehension and Overall
Cluster
26
School Frequency Report

• Indicates number of students and percent of total
  tested for language domains (including range of
  scaled scores). Comprehension, Oral Language, and
  Literacy by proficiency levels for grade levels
  within a school
• Results should not be generalized and needs to be
  contextualized in order to provide meaningful
  information on curricular, instructional or
  assessment decisions
• School Frequency Reports for two consecutive
  years provide cross-sectional data
• In communicating results of this report, use both
  the numbers and their corresponding percents. If
  numbers are low, the percent may appear distorted
  if shown in isolation
• Use the information contained in the report to
  gain a sense of the school-wide effort in
  educating English language learners

27
of Total Students Tested who scored at each ELP
level by Domain and Composite
Number of Students Tested who scored at each ELP
level by Domain and Composite
Highest Lowest Scores
Total Tested
28
District Frequency Report

• Audience includes Program Coordinators, Boards of
  Education, and Administrators
• Indicates number of students and percent of total
  tested for language domains (including the range
  of scale scores), Comprehension, Oral Language,
  and Literacy by proficiency levels for grade
  levels within a district.
• Data can be graphically displayed in various
  forms Information will be useful in planning,
  designing, or restructuring program services.
• Based on an individual states criteria for
  attainment of English language proficiency and
  its definition of cohort groups this report may
  serve as a districts estimate of the number
  and/or percent of students who have met that
  criterion for Annual Measurable Achievement
  Objectives (AMAOs).

29
of Total Students Tested who scored at each ELP
level by Domain and Composite
Number of Students Tested who scored at each ELP
level by Domain and Composite
Highest Lowest Scores
Total Tested
30
Questions or Comments?
For more information, please contact the WIDA
Hotline[phone] or www.wida.us/helpform
World Class Instructional Design and Assessment,
www.wida.us
Center for Applied Linguistics, www.cal.org
Metritech, Inc., www.metritech.com