Learning disability

The Effects of Extended Time on Algebra Test Scores for College Students With and Without Learning Disabilities Elaine H. Alster Abstract The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of extended time on the algebra test performance of community college students with and without learning disabilities. Forty-four students with learning disabilities and 44 students without learning disabilities attending five California community colleges participated in the study. The students each took an algebra test under timed conditions and a comparable test under extended-time conditions. The main results were that the students with learning disabilities scored significantly lower than the students without learning disabilities under timed conditions, the scores of the students with learning disabilities increased significantly with extended time, and the scores of the students with learning disabilities under extended-time conditions did not differ significantly from the timed or extended-time scores of the students without learning disabilities. I ncreasing numbers of students with learning disabilities (LD) are attending colleges and universities in California. In the community college system between the years 1987 and 1991, the number of new students who were found to be eligible to receive services for students with learning disabilities increased by 45% (California Postsecondary Education Commission [CPEC], 1992). The total number of students with learning disabilities who received services in all three segments of public higher education in California in the fall of 1993 was 27,984 (CPEC, personal communicatio VOLUME 30, NUMBER 2, MARCH/APRIL 1997 223 ability, practice effects, and errors of measurement were taken into account. The score gains increased as time spent taking the test increased, which led the researcher to conclude that the additional time reduced the effects of the students' disabilities, giving them time to respond to more items on the test. Another study examined reading rate and comprehension scores of students with learning disabilities and normally achieving students attending the University of California at Berkeley and a California community college (Runyan, 1991a, 1991b). Fifty-five students with learning disabilities and 52 normally achieving students took the Nelson-Denny Reading Test under timed and extended-time conditions. The groups were controlled for ethnicity, gender, age, and grade-point average. The students' reading rates were obtained after the first minute. Two reading comprehension scores were obtained, one at the end of the usual 20-minute time limit and the other upon test completion. The normally achieving students' reading rates were at the 60th percentile, whereas the rates of the students with learning disabilities were at the 10th percentile. The normally achieving students' timed reading comprehension scores were also significantly higher than the timed scores of the students with learning disabilities. The extra-time comprehension scores of the students with learning disabilities, however, were not significantly different from the timed scores of the normally achieving students. Runyan's (1991a, 1991b) research supported previous research indicating that most readers with learning disabilities demonstrate deficits in processing speed (Speece, 1987). Runyan (1991a, 1991b) demonstrated that adult students with learning disabilities seem to process and comprehend written information more slowly than normally achieving students; however, whether adult students with learning disabilities also process mathematical information and problems more slowly is a question that still requires study. Mathematical Processing An important factor underlying mathematical processing is automatic fact retrieval. As children acquire increasing skills in arithmetic, they go through a transition from effortful, relatively time-consuming strategies, such as counting, to automatic retrieval of math facts, which requires less effort and time (Kulak, 1993). One study of seventh and eighth graders with learning disabilities demonstrated that although their accuracy levels did not differ from those of a control group, their retrieval speed for addition, subtraction, and multiplication facts was significantly slower, even when IQ, reading ability, and previous math exposure were controlled (Zentall, 1990). That study supported previous studies demonstrating slower retrieval time and lack of automaticity for basic math facts (Ackerman, Anhalt, Holcomb, & Dykman, 1986; Hasselbring, Goin, & Bransford, 1988). A related study with adult participants examined a group of 24 college students with learning disabilities and 24 non-LD students to determine their speed on basic cognitive functioning tasks (Hayes, Hynd, & Wisenbaker, 1986). The performance of the students with learning disabilities was lower and more variable than that of the nonLD students, which led the researchers to conclude that failure to automatize basic subskills persists into adulthood. The purpose of the current study was to assess the effects of extended time on performance on algebra tests by community college students with and without learning disabilities. It was hypothesized that (a) students with learning disabilities would score significantly lower than students without learning disabilities under timedtest conditions, (b) the scores of students with learning disabilities would increase significantly with extended time, (c) the scores of students without learning disabilities would not increase significantly with extended time, (d) the scores of students with learning disabilities under extendedtime conditions would not differ significantly from the scores of the students without learning disabilities under timed or extended-time conditions, and (e) the order in which the students took the tests would not significantly affect their scores. Method Participants The 88 students who participated in this study were each attending one of five California suburban community colleges that ranged in size from 4,000 to 25,000 students. Forty-four of the students had verified learning disabilities, and the other 44 were normally achieving students. The two groups were matched for age, gender, ethnicity, language background, and math achievement (see Table 1). The ages of the students with learning disabilities ranged from 19 to 46, with a mean age of 26.7. The ages of the students who did not have learning disabilities ranged from 19 to 39, with a mean age of 25.3. Twentyseven (61 %) of the students with learning disabilities were female and 17 (39%) were male. The gender breakdown of the non-LD students was identical. The ethnic breakdown of each group was also identical: Twenty-five (57%) were Caucasian, 14 (32%) were Mexican American, 3 (7%) were Asian, 1 (2%) was African American, and 1 (2%) was Native American. Thirtyeight (86%) of the students with learning disabilities were native English speakers and 6 (14%) were English as second language (ESL) students. Thirtysix (82%) of the non-LD students were native English speakers and 8 (18%) were ESL students. All of the students had completed a beginning algebra course, either in high school or at their community college, with a grade of C 224 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES or better and had not completed any higher mathematics courses. The students with learning disabilities had all been assessed at community colleges in California and had all met the Learning Disability Eligibility Criteria set by the California Community College Chancellor's Office (1993). These criteria are (a) average to above-average intellectual ability demonstrated by a standard score greater than or equal to 80; (b) measured achievement in an instructional or employment setting demonstrated by a standard score greater than or equal to 80 or by verification of employment in a competitive setting; (c) a significant processing deficit, which is defined as a difference between two processing scores that would not occur by chance 95% of the time; and (d) a significant discrepancy between aptitude and achievement scores, which is set to correspond to the 7% of the underachievers with the greatest discrepancies. The assessment instruments used to determine whether these criteria had been met were the Woodcock-Johnson PsychoEducational Battery (Woodcock & Johnson, 1977), the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised (Woodcock & Johnson, 1989), the Wechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleRevised (Wechsler, 1981), the Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (Jastak & Wilkinson, 1984), and/or Degrees of Reading Power (Touchstone Applied Science Associates, 1989). The other 44 students were normally achieving students who were enrolled in algebra courses at the same community colleges as the students with learning disabilities. They were selected from those classes to match as closely as possible the age, gender, ethnicity, and language background of the students with learning disabilities. Instrument The ASSET Elementary Algebra Test (American College Testing Program [ACT], 1989) was used to assess the students' performance. The test assesses algebra skills that should be acquired in either first-year high school algebra or first-semester college algebra. Twenty percent of the test is prealgebra, 64% is elementary algebra, and 16% is intermediate algebra. Students who complete the test with a score of 11 correct out of the 25 problems are considered to have knowledge similar to students who completed an elementary algebra course with a grade of C. The test is moderately speeded, with a time limit of 1 minute per problem, and has a completion rate of .69 (ACT, 1989). For the present study, the test was divided by type of problem and level of difficulty into two comparable tests (Forms A and B), so students could take half of the test with the time limit and the other half with extended time. One of the problems was deleted so each of the forms would have 12 problems. The mean score of all the students in the study on Form A was 5.58, and the mean score on Form B was 5.99. The results of a two-sample t test on the two forms indicated that there was no significant difference between them, f(171) = -1.12, p = .26. Procedure The students with learning disabilities took the two tests either in small groups or in their regular algebra classes. The non-LD students took the tests in their regular classes. The examiner asked all students to complete a background information and consent form and told them that they would be taking two short algebra tests, one with a 12-minute time limit and the other without a time limit. The examiner told the students to do as well as possible on each test, to take as long as they needed on the extendedtime test, and to let the examiner know as soon as they were finished. The examiner kept a timer running during the extended-time test, so she was able to record the amount of time each student took on the test. Twenty-five of the students with learning disabilities and 25 of the non-LD students took the timed test first; the other 19 of each group took the extended-time test first. In each of these four groups, half of the students took Form A timed and Form B with extended time, and the other half took Form B timed and Form A with extended time, in order to negate any differences between the two forms. Results Table 2 displays the mean raw scores of the students with and without learning disabilities under timed and extended-time conditions. The twoTABLE 1 Demographics Characteristic Students with LD Nondisabled peers Average age Gender Male Female Ethnicity White Mexican American Asian African American Native American Language background English ESL 26.7 17 27 25 14 3 1 1 38 6 25.3 17 27 25 14 3 1 1 36 8 VOLUME 30, NUMBER 2, MARCH/APRIL 1997 225 TABLE 2 Comparison of Mean Raw Scores for Students With and Without Learning Disabilities Condition LD NLD t value df Probability All timed 3.89 6.20 -5.30 85 0.00 All extended time 6.16 6.89 -1.51 84 0.13 LD extended/NLD timed 6.16 6.20 0.10 85 0.92 Note. LD = with learning disabilities; NLD = without learning disabilities. TABLE 3 Comparison of Mean Differences in Scores Group n Mean difference SD t value Probability Timed test administered first LD 25 3.32 2.16 7.70 0.000 NLD 25 0.48 1.76 1.36 0.090 Extended-time test administered first LD 19 0.90 2.69 1.45 0.080 NLD 19 0.95 1.22 3.38 0.002 Note. LD = with learning disabilities; NLD = without learning disabilities. sample t tests indicate that, as hypothesized, students with learning disabilities did score significantly lower than students without learning disabilities under timed conditions, f(85) = -5.30, p = 0.0000. However, as hypothesized, there was no significant difference between the extended time scores of the two groups, f(84) = -1.51, p = 0.13. Also as hypothesized, no significant difference existed between the scores of the students with learning disabilities under the extended-time condition and the scores of the non-LD students under the timed condition, «85) = -0.10, p = 0.92. The results of the paired t tests indicate that, as hypothesized, the scores of students with learning disabilities increased significantly under the extended-time condition, t = 5.66, p = 0.0000. The scores of the students without learning disabilities were also significantly higher with extended time, t = 2.91, p = 0.0028. This refuted the hypothesis that non-LD students' scores would not increase significantly with extended time, but the increase in the non-LD students' scores was significantly smaller in magnitude than that of the students with learning disabilities, £(69) = 3.42, p = 0.0010. Table 3 displays the effects of the order of presentation of the tests on the scores. The scores refuted the hypothesis that the order of presentation would not affect the scores. For both groups, the increases in scores under the extended-time condition varied depending on whether the students took the timed test or the extended-time test first. When the students took the timed test first, the mean timed score of the students with learning disabilities was 3.04, and the mean extended-time score was 6.36. The increase in the extended-time score was significant, t = 7.70, p = 0.0000. The mean non-LD students' timed score was 6.04, and their extended-time score was 6.52. The increase in this score is not significant, f = 1.36, p = 0.09. When the students took the extended-time test first, the mean timed score of the students with learning disabilities was 5.00, and the mean extended time score was 5.90. The increase in the extended time score was not significant, t =1.45, p = 0.08. The non-LD students' mean timed score was 6.42 and their extended time score was 7.37. This increase was significant, t = 3.38, p = 0.002. The actual amount of time spent on the extended-time test varied for both groups and experimental conditions. Overall, when allowed extended time, students with learning disabilities spent more time on the test than students without learning disabilities. The range of time the students with learning disabilities spent on the test was 11 to 56 minutes, with an average of 25 minutes; the non-LD students spent an average of 20 minutes on the test, with a range of 11 to 31 minutes. The amounts of time varied, depending on whether the students took the extended-time test first or second. The students with learning disabilities spent more time—29 minutes—on the extended-time test when they took it second (compared to 20 minutes when they took it first). Students without learning disabilities spent more time (22 minutes) on the extended-time test when they took it first (compared to 18 minutes when they took it second). Discussion The results obtained in the study support the hypothesis that students with learning disabilities score significantly lower than non-LD students on algebra tests under timed conditions. The results also support the hypothesis that extended-time scores of students with learning disabilities do not differ significantly from timed or extendedtime scores of non-LD students. These results support and parallel Runyan's (1991a, 1991b) research on the effects of extra time on reading comprehension scores for college stu- 226 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES dents with and without learning disabilities. The findings support her theory that students with learning disabilities often cannot perform up to their potential under timed testing conditions, whereas students without learning disabilities are more able to achieve at levels equal to their potential under timed testing conditions. The present study also lends support to the studies that have demonstrated slower retrieval rates for math facts (Zentall, 1990) and slower and more variable performance on cognitive tasks (Hayes et al., 1986). When retrieval of math facts is not automatic, students must rely on more time-consuming and effortful strategies to retrieve these facts (Kulak, 1993). The results of this study support Centra's (1986) findings, which demonstrated that the scores of students with learning disabilities on the Scholastic Aptitude Test increased with extended time. As in Centra's study, the more time students in the present study spent on the extended-time test, the greater the increase in score. The amount of extra time used by the students with learning disabilities varied considerably, from no extra time to 44 minutes extra. Runyan (1991a) also found a large variation in the amount of extra time used by students with learning disabilities, which led her to question the appropriateness of a fixed rate of extra time for all students with learning disabilities. The average amount of time spent on the algebra test in the current study was double the allotted time, so perhaps double time could be used as a reasonable guideline. Order of Presentation The results of this study refute the hypothesis that the order in which the students took the tests would not affect their scores. When the students with learning disabilities took the timed test first, they scored significantly higher and spent more time on the extended time test, but when they took the extended-time test first, they did not score significantly higher because they scored lower on the extended-time test and higher on the timed test. Their mean score on the extended-time test was .5 points higher and they spent 9 minutes longer when they took it second compared to their score and time when they took it first. Perhaps their anxiety about the coming timed test interfered with their concentration and efforts on the extended-time test when it was administered first. Their mean timed score was 2 points higher when they took the timed test second compared to their score when they took this test first. This improvement could be due in part to the effects of the practice they had on the already completed extended-time test. It could also be due to an increase in their confidence that they could succeed, as they had already completed a similar test. The hypothesis that the order of presentation does not affect scores is also refuted by the non-LD students' scores. When the students without learning disabilities took the timed test first, their mean score on the extendedtime test was not significantly higher than their timed score, but when they took the extended-time test first, their score did increase significantly. Their mean extended-time score was .9 points higher and they spent an average of 4 minutes longer on the extendedtime test when they took it first. It seems that they are not as affected by practice as the students with learning disabilities. They also seem to be less affected by anxiety over the prospect of a timed test. Finally, they expended more time and effort on the extendedtime test when they took it first. Perhaps students without learning disabilities perform at their highest levels when they are fresh, at the start of a test period, whereas students with learning disabilities perform at their highest levels later in the test period, after they have had time to practice and increase their levels of self-confidence by completing some of the test items. This is a topic that would benefit from future research. Limitations and Implications This study has limitations. All of the participants were attending community colleges in suburban areas in central California, so the results may not be representative of college students with learning disabilities who live in other geographic or socioeconomic areas or attend other types of postsecondary institutions. In addition, the test used was an elementary algebra test, so the results may not apply to performance on either lower or higher mathematics tests. This study adds to the available research on the impact of exam time limits on the performance of students with and without learning disabilities. The test used was a moderately speeded one, so all of the students benefited from the extended time, but the students with learning disabilities clearly benefited more from extended time than the students without learning disabilities. Non-LD students are better able to demonstrate their mathematical knowledge and skills within time constraints, whereas students with learning disabilities are more able to fully demonstrate their knowledge and skills with extended time on tests. Hopefully, as this information becomes more widely known, more college instructors will be willing to offer the extended-time accommodation to students with learning disabilities. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Elaine H. Alster, MA, is a learning disabilities specialist at Gavilan College, a California community college. She completed the research for this article while on sabbatical. Address: Elaine H. Alster, Disabled Students' Programs and Services, Gavilan College, 5055 Santa Teresa Blvd., Gilroy, CA 95020. REFERENCES Ackerman, P. T., Anhalt, J. M., Holcomb, P. J., & Dykman, R. A. (1986). Presumably innate and acquired automatic processes in children with attention and /or reading disorders, journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 27, 513-529. VOLUME 30, NUMBER 2, MARCH/APRIL 1997 227 American College Testing Program. (1989). ASSET technical manual. Iowa City, IA: Author. California Community College Chancellor's Office. (1993). California community colleges' eligibility guidelines for learning disabilities services. Sacramento: Author. California Postsecondary Education Commission. (1992). Services for students with disabilities in California public higher education (Commission Report 92-21). Sacramento: Author. Centra, J. A. (1986). Handicapped student performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 324-327. Hasselbring, T. S., Goin, L. I., & Bransford, J. D. (1988). Developing math automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20, 1-7. Hayes, F. B., Hynd, G. W., & Wisenbaker, J. (1986). Learning disabled and normal college students' performance on reaction time and speeded classification tasks. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 39-43. Houck, C. K., Asselin, S. B., Troutman, G. C, & Arrington, J. M. (1992). Students with learning disabilities in the university environment: A study of faculty and student perceptions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 678-684. Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, G. (1984). Wide range achievement test-Revised. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Kulak, A. (1993). Parallels between math and reading disability: Common issues and approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 666-673. Mathews, P. R., Anderson, D. W., & Skolnick, B. D. (1987). Faculty attitude towards accommodations for college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Focus, 3, 46-52. Nelson, J., Dodd, J., & Smith, D. (1990). Faculty willingness to accommodate students with learning disabilities: A comparison among academic divisions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 185-189. Parks, A. W., Antonoff, S., Drake, C, Skiba, W. F., & Soberman, J. (1987). A survey of programs and services for learning disabled students in graduate and professional schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 181-187. Runyan, M. K. (1991a). The effect of extra time on reading comprehension scores for university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 104-108.