602 dis

431

Improving Meaningful Use of Accommodations by Multilingual Learners Lynn Shafer Willner, Kouider Mokhtari

Learn what educators need to know about recent changes in online test accommodations, and explore ideas for integrating accommodations and accessibility features into close reading instruction of digital texts.

For more than two decades, accommodations have served as the primary strategy for ensuring the valid participation of multilingual learners (MLLs) in high-stakes assessments (e.g., the National Assessment of Educational Progress) and in annual statewide assessments. MLLs’ participation in annu- al statewide testing continues to be required in the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015. A key factor in ensuring the validity of student test participation is each student’s ability to effectively use the accommodations and other allow- able supports that are provided with the test.

In this article, we examine what classroom educa- tors need to know about the recent transition away from an accommodations- only test participation strategy and how they might more effectively inte- grate accommodations into instruction, especially with digital texts. In particular, we recommend close reading and critical reading strategies that connect to and expand student assets. To maintain consistency with an assets- based philosophy, we refer to stu- dents identified in the Every Student Succeeds Act as English learners (ELs) as MLLs. We do this to empha- size that MLLs continue to draw on a wide range of so- ciocultural and native- language resources and reper- toires well past what many states call emergent (i.e., beginning) levels of English-language development (G. Valdés, personal communication, July 20, 2016).

How Useful Are Test Supports if MLLs Do Not Know How to Use Them? A one- time trip to the computer lab to run through the online test’s practice items may not provide stu- dents with enough practice to be effective. To ensure

that MLLs have an opportunity to learn to use test- ing accommodations and other tools available with online tests, these tools and accommodations should be an integral part of daily instruction.

To highlight this point, the sample professional development (PD) activities at the end of this article give educators an experience of using accessibility features to support deeper thinking during paper- based close reading activities (using the tools and approach shown in Figure 1), an experience of ap- plying the same type of close reading strategies to digital texts, and models to discuss as they consider how to refine their close reading instruction to help their MLLs connect with text.

How and Why Have Testing Accommodations Evolved? Over the past two and a half decades, large- scale assessments have moved away from sole reliance on accommodations as a strategy for supporting MLLs’ access to a strategy that embeds accommoda- tion use within broader issues of accessibility. This movement occurred in three waves: (1) an initial borrowing of ideas for accommodations for MLLs from the field of disabilities; (2) a gradual narrowing of accommodations for MLLs around support for students’ linguistic and cultural needs; and (3) the

FEATURE ARTICLE

The Reading Teacher Vol. 71 No. 4 pp. 431–439 doi:10.1002/trtr.1637 © 2017 International Literacy Association

Lynn Shafer Willner is an accessibility and language standards researcher at WIDA at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, USA; e-mail [email protected].

Kouider Mokhtari is the Anderson-Vukelja-Wright Endowed Professor of literacy education at The University of Texas at Tyler, USA; e-mail [email protected].

432

FEATURE ARTICLE

The Reading Teacher Vol. 71 No. 4 January/February 2018 literacyworldwide.org

use of accessibility principles, including universal design for learning (UDL), to improve the fundamen- tal design of tests, create more options for taking tests, and improve communication and coordination among general education teachers, language devel- opment specialists, and disabilities specialists.

First Wave of Changes Beginning in the 1990s, testing ac- commodations were provided as a way to allow students with dis- abilities and MLLs to participate in paper- based large- scale assess- ments. Testing accommodations were required because most test items in these assessments failed to adequately reduce specific ac- cess barriers for students with dis- abilities and MLLs; in effect, testing accommodat ions were imple- mented to provide work- arounds for items with basic designs that included barriers for MLLs , MLLs with disabilities, and/or other stu- dents with disabilities.

However, as detailed previous- ly in The Reading Teacher (Shafer Willner, Rivera, & Acosta, 2009), there were serious drawbacks in the

design of testing accommodations: They were being developed, implemented, and administered well af- ter the initial paper- based test items had been de- veloped (Russell, Hoffman, & Higgins, 2009; Shafer Willner & Rivera, 2011).

Moreover, during the 1990s and the early 2000s, there was little research and guidance on how best to design accommodations to meet MLLs’ lin-

guistic needs during testing. Developers of state guidelines for MLL test accommodations borrowed liberally from existing state accommodation guide- lines for students with cognitive and physical disabilities (Shafer Willner, Rivera, & Acosta, 2008).

Second Wave of Changes The second wave of changes to testing accommodations was initiated in 2006, when the U.S. Department of Education (2006) formed the LEP Partnership for states needing additional assis- tance in supporting MLLs (who, in the No Child Left Behind

Act of 2002, were referred to as limited English pro- ficient students) during annual, state- required sum- mative assessments. Using LEP Partnership project research (e.g., Acosta, Rivera, & Shafer Willner, 2008; Shafer Willner et al., 2008) as a catalyst, state test ac- commodation guidelines for MLLs were redesigned. States gradually began to more carefully guide the assignment of accommodations according to stu- dents’ proficiency levels in English, academic literacy in English and their native language, prior schooling, and content instruction in their native language, us- ing guidance from Acosta et al. (2008) and Kopriva, Emick, Hipolito- Delgado, and Cameron (2007). Indeed, Kopriva et al. found that when MLLs were assigned accommodations that matched their linguistic and cultural needs during testing, they were better able to show what they knew than MLLs who were assigned incomplete accommodations (i.e., assigned accom- modations without matching them to more linguis- tically responsive criteria) and MLLs who were not assigned any accommodations at all.

Gradually, the use of more linguistically responsive approaches in state test accommodation guidelines for MLLs resulted in the inclusion of a smaller set of more precisely selected linguistic accommodations.

Figure 1 Using Accessibility Features as Part of a Thinking Notes Strategy

Note. For more information, see Hanify (2012), MrReevesELA (2012), and Teaching Tolerance (2014) . The color figure can be viewed in the online version of this article at http://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com.

PAUSE AND PONDER

■ Are you aware of how and why testing accommodations for MLLs have evolved during the past 25 years?

■ What implications does the shift from accommodations to accessibility have on the supports available during online testing?

■ What type of classroom lessons might lead to more valid, meaningful use of embedded accessibility features and accommodations during online testing?

433

FEATURE ARTICLE

The Reading Teacher Vol. 71 No. 4 January/February 2018 literacyworldwide.org

A word- to- word dual- language dictionary, extended time, and in states that allowed it, test directions translated into the native language were the three most common accommodations for MLLs that re- mained in state test accommodation guidelines.

Over time, fewer and fewer states embedded disabilities- oriented accommodations into their ac- commodation guidelines for MLLs. Between 2000 and 2001 and between 2010 and 2011, the medi- an number of linguistic testing accommodations dropped from nine to two; many other adjustments were reclassified as administration considerations. The most common of these were individual or small- group administration; directions read, repeated, or clarified in English; and administration of the test in a separate room (Shafer Willner & Rivera, 2014).

Third Wave of Changes The third wave of changes to the concept of accom- modations was ushered in more broadly as tests moved online. Improvements in digital technologies made it possible for test item designers to more ef- fectively apply UDL principles, first to clearly iden- tify the targeted construct being assessed and then to devise adjustments and alternate pathways (e.g., those outlined in Figure 2) that minimized the im- pact of non- construct- related barriers (CAST, 2015).

These adjustments infused test items with great- er flexibility and individualization, improving test accessibility for a wider range of students (National Center on Educational Outcomes, 2011; Russell & Kavanaugh, 2011; Thurlow, Quenemoen, Thompson, & Lehr, 2001). Shafer Willner and Monroe (2016b) highlighted a paradox revealed by UDL: By focusing first on a smaller group of students with more inten- sive needs, educators can design multiple points of

access for more students. (By analogy, sidewalk curb cuts were originally designed for people who use wheelchairs, but also benefit bike riders and anyone pushing or pulling something across a street, such as a baby stroller or cart. But even so, there are trade- offs: Improved accessibility should not be interpreted as being automatically equivalent to universal ac- cess. For instance, curb cuts may present new bar- riers for those who are blind and rely on curbs to navigate.)

Fueled by the transition to technology- enhanced assessments and more accessible approaches to cur- ricular design and test development, test developers could expand the number of modalities available with a single test item and meet a greater variety of diverse learning needs and preferences. In contrast to traditional, paper- based test items, online test items might employ embedded audio, video, word- to- word translation glossaries, adjustment of text, magnification of the view on a computer screen, and screen readers, which can provide audio for al- ternate text descriptions.

Online test formats have the long- term potential to eliminate the development and provision of mul- tiple versions of test materials and the “provision of additional test proctors with specialized skills… such as the ability to speak the student’s first lan- guage” (Russell et al., 2009, pp. 2–3). The online test format might also reduce demands on school- based educators to develop and implement accommoda- tions during test administration.

As development of statewide online assessment progressed between 2009 and 2013, still more accom- modations—which on the paper tests had only been available to students with disabilities—were also reclassified as accessibility features, available to all students taking the assessment. Reclassified accessi- bility features included a highlighter, color overlays, line guides, color contrast, a screen magnifier, and a notepad. Technology- based formats might offer a way to address Meyer and Rose’s (2005) call to ad- dress unique student learning needs and preferences from the outset.

The recently updated Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing summarized the changes found in the third wave, noting that some testing “adap- tations” still function as accommodations, whereas others simply are not part of the target being mea- sured by the test; instead, they provide more stu- dents with a fairer chance “to respond to test tasks or test items” (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, &

Figure 2 What Are UDL Principles (CAST, 2015)? ■ Improve student engagement by stimulating interest

and motivation for learning. ■ Improve representation of learning by presenting

information and content in different ways. ■ Improve how students can act and express learning in

different ways.

Differentiated instruction approaches commonly draw inspiration from UDL principles. Shafer Willner and Monroe (2016b) provided a discussion of how to carefully ensure that differentiated instruction builds on MLLs’ strengths and assets.

434

FEATURE ARTICLE

The Reading Teacher Vol. 71 No. 4 January/February 2018 literacyworldwide.org

National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014, p. 52). Table 1 shows the reconfiguration of support now available with online assessments. Many states and assessment consortia have integrated these new categories into their test administration guidelines, both for online and paper- based assessments.

Why Integrate Online Test Preparation Into Classroom Instruction? Rather than limiting support only to students with disabilities or language- oriented labels, educators

can think beyond labels to provide strategies and supports that personalize learning for all students. By using an accessibility approach to instructional design, fewer students are left in the margins (Meyer & Rose, 2005), less able to access instruction and as- sessment (National Center on Educational Outcomes, 2011; Russell & Kavanaugh, 2011).

MLLs benefit when they participate in activities with similar expectations as their classmates rather than being tracked into activities with simplified or modified expectations. To that end, access to practi- cal tools and strategies to enable students to unpack

Table 1 Updated Categories of Supports Available During District and State Assessments

Term Examples To whom allowed Definition Accommodations On a mathematics

assessment: Word- to- word dual- language dictionary, extended time, test directions translated into students’ native language

Students with documented disabilities (i.e., having an Individualized Education Plan or 504 plan) and MLLs (refer to the test administration manual)

Allowable adjustments to the test presentation, response method, timing, and setting in which assessments are administered, reducing barriers that are the result of a documented need; accommodations do not change what the test measures (the construct) and provide comparable test results as from students who do not receive accommodations.

Accessibility features (also called universal tools)

Highlighter, color overlay, line guide, color contrast, screen magnifier, notepad

All students taking the assessment; assigned based on preference or need

Selectable embedded features or handheld instruments used to carry out a particular purpose; these may either be embedded in the online test or provided to students by test administrators for online or paper tests.

Administration considerations

Individual or small- group administration; directions read, repeated, or clarified in English; administration of the test in a separate room

Any student taking the test, as needed, at the discretion of the test coordinator (or principal or designee)

Adjustments to the standard test administration considerations that provide flexibility to schools and districts in determining the conditions under which the test can be administered most effectively, provided that all standardized testing and security requirements are met (Some of the items listed as test administration considerations still might be listed in a student’s Individualized Education Plan to support the provision of accommodations.)

Modifications Providing alternate, easier test items and reading aloud the reading test; may be seen as providing an unfair advantage

Not allowed to anyone during testing

Individualized adjustments to instruction and assessment that make the curriculum easier or lower learning expectations; although sometimes allowed during classroom instruction, these adjustments change the construct being measured, creating nonstandard test administrations and altering the interpretation of student test scores.

Note. Adapted from The WIDA Accessibility and Accommodations Framework: Considerations Influencing the Framework’s Development (p. 3), by L. Shafer Willner and M. Monroe, 2016, Madison, WI: WIDA. Copyright 2016 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, on behalf of WIDA. Adapted with permission.

435

FEATURE ARTICLE

The Reading Teacher Vol. 71 No. 4 January/February 2018 literacyworldwide.org

complex language, dense informational texts, and discourse structures is critically important (Wong- Fillmore & Fillmore, 2012).

How Else Might Close Reading Instruction Support and Connect With MLLs? How might teachers get started in providing close read- ing instruction that is more accessible to MLLs? There is more to do than merely providing them with vocab- ulary lists and sentence frames. MLLs can benefit from scaffolded opportunities that give them time to slow down and pay more attention as they participate in multiple explorations of a text. Two often- overlooked types of scaffolding focus on uncovering embedded cultural assumptions and supporting students as they position themselves in relation to the text.

Students from nondominant cultural groups ben- efit from explicit road maps of the cultural assump- tions embedded at the discourse level in texts (Rose & Martin, 2012). There are different organizational patterns and language features found in regularly occurring uses of academic language. In other words, because communication genres (e.g., recounts, ar- guments, explanations) are used for different pur- poses, they are shaped by distinct language choices (Gibbons, 2015). MLLs benefit from explicit instruc- tion on purpose- oriented language choices.

For example, while jointly deconstructing texts (Rothery, 1994), educators can move beyond decon- textualized instruction of language features and reveal for MLLs an explicit road map of cultural expectations and values found in the language of schooling. For example, with informational recounts (e.g., in a science report), a writer can take many dif- ferent types of information, use multiple ways to or- der this information, and still have it make sense. However, this cannot be done with an explanation. An explanation has to go in a particular order to make meaning (Shafer Willner, Lundgren, Monroe, & Cortada, 2017). (It should be noted that an exten- sive research background and additional techniques for enacting this approach, known as genre- based pedagogy, are beyond the scope of this article.)

Because MLLs are more likely to be members of nondominant racial and ethnic minorities, they are often subjected to deficit labeling and seen as needing “fixing.” To avoid treating MLLs as though they are ei- ther failed native speakers (May, 2014) or students with disabilities (Klingner & Artiles, 2006), it is important

to provide MLLs with different opportunities to learn how to use close reading and critical reading strate- gies and tools in a way that recognizes and promotes their own abilities not only to connect to and expand on their own sociocultural and linguistic assets (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & González, 2005) but also to critically position themselves in relation to texts (LaRusso et al., 2016). (Selections from the Teaching Tolerance, 2014, lessons for close and critical reading are suggested for educator PD at the end of this article.)

Meaningful practice opportunities with more complex text are especially important for students who have limited exposure to technology. They in- crease the chance that students remember and ap- propriately use their accommodations and accessi- bility features during testing.

Why Explore the Use of Close Reading Strategies in the Digital Environment? As students move between paper- based texts and digital texts, it is important for them to explore which paper- based strategies might work effectively in the online environment. Within this digital en- vironment, the act of close reading from a screen is shaped by particular rules and affordances.

For example, it can be more challenging to read text on a computer screen than on paper. Consequently, it is common for people to favor reading styles that ease the burden of reading printed text on a computer screen. Nielsen (2000) explained,

Because it is rather tedious to read text on a computer screen and because the online experience seems to foster some amount of impatience, users tend not to read the stream of text fully. Instead users scan text and pick out keywords, sentences, and paragraphs of interest while skipping over those parts of the text they care less about. (p. 104)

Similarly, Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, and Cammack (2010) argued that information communication technolo- gies such as the Internet have changed the way we teach and assess reading and writing. Leu et al. de- fined online research and reading comprehension around five major functions: identifying important questions, locating information, analyzing informa- tion, synthesizing information, and communicating information. An expanding research base has showed that MLLs benefit from explicit instruction on close and critical reading instruction that incorporates dig- ital reading comprehension strategies such as those identified (Daniel & Mokhtari, 2015; Mokhtari, 2016).

436

FEATURE ARTICLE

The Reading Teacher Vol. 71 No. 4 January/February 2018 literacyworldwide.org

Meaningful instruction around digital reading and listening strategies can transfer to online test- ing situations. Testing is tiring, and students tend to lose focus as the test progresses. As a basic test- taking strategy, educators can show students how to use two tools, embedded highlighters and line guides, to track text and focus their attention as they work through a test.

However, training on how to use digital tools can go deeper. As proposed earlier in this article, educa- tors can instruct MLLs on how to strategically unpack meaning as they navigate digital texts. In this sense, accommodations and accessibility features are not temporary crutches; rather, they function as power- ful mediating tools that expand student opportuni- ties to access and learn curricular concepts and skills.

A variety of options are now available to enhance close reading of text in the digital environment. For example, Garton (2013) showed a wide variety of tools that can be used to annotate different types of digital media using shared documents (Google Documents); screen captures (the Diigo browser ex- tension); highlighting, commenting, and freehand drawing (PDF Zen); and digital video annotations (Video Ant). When students need a break from tra- ditional close reading instruction, these strategies might be applied with digital microstories to reen- gage student interest and concisely demonstrate critical thinking (see Fisher, 2014).

Yet, more than print may be considered as text in the digital environment. The additional modalities available in the digital environment allow educators to take advantage of an expanded definition of text to include sound, visuals, and symbols (Kress, 2011). For example, combined listening/reading activities involving closed captioning of recorded video, links to oral translators, and alternate text descriptions can provide MLLs with multiple pathways for making meaning as the class explores more complex texts.

Educators might complement strategic close reading activities with listening skills. Both begin- ning and established readers can benefit from inter- active text deconstruction experiences that include listening carefully to authentic sound samples to help them slow down and focus on the text for par- ticular purposes.

Using close reading, close listening, and visual support strategies, MLLs with disabilities can also receive more intensive support when processing text. As shown in the case study in Figure 3, there are both accommodation and accessibility strategies for reducing visual processing demands. If combined

with effective close reading strategy instruction, their use can allow MLLs with visual disabilities to participate more fully in instruction and assessment.

In the end, just as learning an additional lan- guage is more than learning a list of words and phrases, the act of reading digital text is more than tracking and processing words on the screen. Students like Jose (see Figure 3) need authentic op- portunities using accommodations and accessibility features to explore text meaningfully.

Sample PD Activities This section provides sample PD activities designed to raise awareness of the different types of accom- modations and accessibility features allowed with online assessments. It also provides a window into the challenges that may arise when transferring

Figure 3 Case Study of Print- Based Accommodation/ Accessibility Feature Assignment Jose is a sixth- grade MLL who has an Individualized Education Plan for dyslexia. It is important to ensure that his assessment scores are more likely to reflect his knowledge of the test construct, not his disability. His school- based team developed an Individualized Education Plan that included documentation of the two types of accommodations and accessibility features that Jose is allowed to use during testing: One type provides read- aloud support (close listening), and the other type allows adjustments to text.

1. Read-aloud accommodation support during instruction and assessments: In his online mathematics assessment, Jose is allowed to use a text-to-speech reader. A slightly different accommodation is available with his annual summative English-language proficiency (ELP) assessment, which is also online: a recorded human voice as audio, which allows him to have the text on the page read and repeated to him.

2. Accessibility features and accommodations that might make online reading easier for students with vision impairments: Students like Jose who have print disabilities might benefit from accessibility features to adjust font size or the color contrast of the background. Additionally, some students with print disabilities (as well as students with certain physical disabilities) have difficulty with new online item designs that compress the text layout on the screen. Jose is assigned an accommodation that provides vertical alignment of text on the screen and adds extra spacing between lines of text.

437

FEATURE ARTICLE

The Reading Teacher Vol. 71 No. 4 January/February 2018 literacyworldwide.org

close reading strategies and use of accessibility features and accommodations from paper to digi- tal texts, and models of how to meaningfully foster deeper reading comprehension for MLLs.

The PD activities provided here might be inte- grated with other PD focused on customizing in- struction and assessment to better meet diverse student needs and strengths, such as through UDL or differentiated instruction. The following activi- ties and the sample procedure assume that par- ticipating educators have had previous exposure to and experience with close reading strategies.

1. Before the PD session, ask educators to bring a laptop or other device that has access to the Internet. They will be using it to read a text online.

2. Open the PD session by asking participants to respond to the following questions in a K-W-L chart. (This activity can take place as educa- tors gather in the room for the session begins.) Create two charts and ask participants to write their responses on sticky notes and place them on the charts at the front of the room. ■ K: What do you already know about accom-

modations available to MLLs? ■ W: What two questions do you have today

about accommodations for MLLs? 3. Provide an overview of the PD, including these

objectives: While attending this PD session, educators will do the following: ■ Develop a clearer understanding of how

views of accommodations have shifted to- ward accessibility

■ Build awareness of the importance of using accommodations and embedded accessibil- ity features during instruction, especially with digital reading

■ Build awareness of resources for teaching close reading to MLLs

4. Activity 1: How have testing accommodations changed during the past decade? ■ Distribute print copies of this article and

ask educators to read it. (Jigsaw option: Divide into three groups, with each group reading one section of the article, discuss- ing that section with their common group, and then sharing it back so each new group contains someone who read one of the three assigned sections.)

■ Remind educators to annotate as they read, using the directions shown in Figure  1. (Option: The presenter might share with participants the online resources created by Hanify, 2012, or MrReevesELA, 2012.)

■ Debrief on the reading using the close read- ing questions. Divide into small groups of three or four to work together for approxi- mately 15 minutes. (If doing a jigsaw, have each group consist of members who each read a different section.) Share the respons- es you made using the four annotations.

■ Have small groups share their summary thoughts with the whole group.

5. Activity 2: How might print reading be differ- ent from online reading? How might you ef- fectively use embedded accessibility features when reading? ■ Have participants use their laptops or

other devices to read “Self-Regulation and Technology: The Wave of the Future” (Tran & Mandal, 2013).

■ As they read the article, have participants use the accessibility features embedded in their browser (i.e., Chrome, Microsoft Edge/ Internet Explorer, Safari, Firefox). Ask them what accessibility features they might use to do the following: ■ Scan through text ■ Search for specific answers ■ Identify and analyze keywords and

phrases ■ Refocus their attention when they be-

come distracted ■ Have participants discuss and reflect on the

following questions with an elbow partner: ■ What worked well for you as you trans-

ferred reading strategies from print to online reading?

■ What types of explicit instruction might students need to help them trans- fer between paper and online reading activities?

6. Activity 3: How might MLLs use particular types of close reading strategies to support engagement and meaning making? ■ Jigsaw: Divide into four groups, with each

group examining one of the following les- sons from Teaching Tolerance (2014): “GIST,”

438

FEATURE ARTICLE

The Reading Teacher Vol. 71 No. 4 January/February 2018 literacyworldwide.org

“Window or Mirrors,” “Reading Against the Grain,” or “Agree/Disagree Statements.”

■ Have each group consider how their close reading/listening lessons might support students’ ability to position themselves in relation to the story and their cultural and linguistic histories. How might this type of close reading/listening support MLL en- gagement and access to meaning?

■ Form new groups so each new group con- tains someone who read one of the four assigned sections. Have each group share highlights from their discussions.

■ Debrief the activity as a whole group. 7. Draw some final conclusions and complete

the K-W-L chart: ■ L: What did you learn today about instruc-

tional activities and strategies that best prepare MLLs to use accommodations and accessibility features during online testing?

Concluding Thoughts Our main goals in this article were to help build edu- cator awareness of the ways in which testing accom- modations have evolved over the past 25 years and the instructional and assessment benefits of inte- grating them into instruction. Explicit instruction on how to use accommodations and accessibility fea- tures when reading and deconstructing text can be a key part of ensuring that MLLs receive meaningful practice opportunities with more complex text.

We encourage schools and districts to consider integrating these tools in their PD with the goal of providing MLLs and non- MLLs with long- lasting ac- cess to online instruction and assessment. We sug- gest that general educators should collaborate with other school personnel, including English as a sec- ond language educators, special educators, reading specialists, and curriculum and assessment coordi- nators, in taking some or all of the actions delineated in the Take Action! sidebar to benefit MLL academic achievement outcomes through improved teacher professional practice and schoolwide strategy.

R E F E R E N C E S Acosta, B., Rivera, C., & Shafer Willner, L. (2008). Best practices

in state assessment policies for accommodating English language learners: A Delphi study. Arlington, VA: The George Washing- ton University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

CAST. (2015). About universal design for learning. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/our-work/about-udl.html#.WW O7IYTyuUk

Daniel, M., & Mokhtari, K. (Eds.). (2015). Research-based instruc- tion that makes a difference in English learners’ success. Lan- ham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114–95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015–2016).

Fisher, M. (2014). Close reading relief: Re-engage students with digital microstories. Little Switzerland, NC: MiddleWeb. Retrieved from https://www.middleweb.com/14597/engage- students-digital-microstories/

Garton, J. (2013, December 10). Digital annotation tools for close reading [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://fusionfinds. wordpress.com/2013/12/10/digital-annotation-tools-for-close- reading/

Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hanify, T.J. (2012). Thinking notes: A strategy to encourage close reading [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.teachingchannel.org/ videos/student-annotated-reading-strategy

Klingner, J., & Artiles, A.J. (2006). English language learners struggling to learn to read: Emergent scholarship on linguistic differences and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 386–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 00222194060390050101

TAKE ACTION!

As a classroom educator interested in preparing MLLs to meaningfully participate in district and state assessment, consider taking the following actions: 1. Expand your working knowledge of new and evolving

changes in online test accommodations for your stu- dents by searching online, reading supporting docu- ments cited in this article, and using other resources provided (including those in the More to Explore sidebar).

2. Initiate a monthly teacher study group to discuss new and emerging advances in tools and strategies to help students more easily access complex language, texts, and discourse structures in digital texts.

3. Develop a plan or strategy for addressing how you individually, and your school in general, are preparing MLLs to meaningfully participate in district and state assessments.

4. Find out whether your school or district can offer PD activities aimed at customizing instruction and assessment to better meet diverse student strengths and needs.

5. Document the degree to which your participation in PD activities results in an enhancement of your instructional practices and your students’ academic achievement outcomes.

439

FEATURE ARTICLE

The Reading Teacher Vol. 71 No. 4 January/February 2018 literacyworldwide.org

Kopriva, R.J., Emick, J.E., Hipolito-Delgado, C.P., & Cameron, C.A. (2007). Do proper accommodation assignments make a difference? Examining the impact of improved decision making on scores for English language learners. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(3), 11–20. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00097.x

Kress, G. (2011). Discourse analysis and education: A multimodal social semiotic approach. In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 205–226). New York, NY: Routledge.

LaRusso, M., Kim, H.Y., Selman, R., Uccelli, P., Dawson, T., Jones, S., … Snow, C. (2016). Contributions of academic language, perspective taking, and complex reasoning to deep reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(2), 201–222. https://doi.org/10.10 80/19345747.2015.1116035

Leu, D.J., Jr., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2010). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1568–1611). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

May, S. (2014). Disciplinary divides, knowledge construction, and the multilingual turn. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education (pp. 7–31). New York, NY: Routledge.

Meyer, A., & Rose, D.H. (2005). The future is in the margins: The role of technology and disability in educational reform. In D.H. Rose, A. Meyer, & C. Hitchcock (Eds.), The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies (pp. 13–35). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Mokhtari, K. (Ed.). (2016). Improving reading comprehension through metacognitive reading instruction for first and second language readers. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (2005). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. In N. González, L.C. Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 71–88). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

MrReevesELA. (2012). Thinking notes [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAwjxIDC-DY

National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2011). Don’t forget accommodations! Five questions to ask when moving to technology- based assessments (NCEO Brief No. 1). Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota. Retrieved from https://ici.umn.edu/index.php?products/ view/386

Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing Web usability. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.

Rose, D., & Martin, J.R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Sheffield, UK: Equinox.

Rothery, J. (1994). Exploring literacy in school English. Erskineville, Australia: Disadvantaged Schools Program, Metropolitan East Region, NSW Department of School Education.

Russell, M., Hoffman, T., & Higgins, J. (2009). Meeting the needs of all students: A universal design approach to computer- based testing. Innovate, 5(4), 1–8.

Russell, M., & Kavanaugh, M. (2011). Assessing students in the margins: Challenges, strategies, and techniques. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Shafer Willner, L., Lundgren, C., Monroe, M., & Cortada, J. (2017, March). Providing ELLs with disabilities with access to complex language. WIDA Focus Bulletin. Retrieved from https://www.wida.us/get.aspx?id=2101

Shafer Willner, L., & Monroe, M. (2016a). The WIDA accessibility and accommodations framework: Considerations influencing the framework’s development. Madison, WI: WIDA.

Shafer Willner, L., & Monroe, M. (2016b). Using a “can do” ap- proach to ensure differentiated instruction intentionally supports the needs of language learners. Washington, DC: Colorín Colo- rado.

Shafer Willner, L., & Rivera, C. (2011). Are EL needs being defined appropriately for the next generation of computer- based tests? AccELLerate!, 3(2), 12–15.

Shafer Willner, L., & Rivera, C. (2014, April). Trends in state English language learner test accommodations guidelines: 2000–01 to 2011– 12. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.

Shafer Willner, L., Rivera, C., & Acosta, B. (2008). Descriptive analysis of state 2006–2007 content area accommodations policies for English language learners. Arlington, VA: The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.

Shafer Willner, L., Rivera, C., & Acosta, B.D. (2009). Ensuring accommodations used in content assessments are respon- sive to English language learners. The Reading Teacher, 62(8), 696–698. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.62.8.8

Teaching Tolerance. (2014). Close and critical reading. Mont- gomery, AL: Southern Policy Law Center. Retrieved from https://www.tolerance.org/classroom-resources/teaching- strategies/close-and-critical-reading

Thurlow, M., Quenemoen, R., Thompson, S., & Lehr, C. (2001). Principles and characteristics of inclusive assessment and accountability systems (NCEO Synthesis Report 40). Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota.

Tran, J., & Mandal, T. (2013). Self-regulation and technology: The wave of the future. Toronto, ON, Canada: Inclusion Design Research Centre. Retrieved from https://www.snow.idrc. ocad.ca/node/255

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). LEP Partnership. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/lep- partnership/index.html

Wong-Fillmore, L., & Fillmore, C. (2012). What does text complexity mean for English learners and language minority students? Stanford, CA: Understanding Language Initiative, Stanford University School of Education.

MORE TO EXPLORE

■ Cleaver, S. (2014). Strategies for close reading. Shelton, CT: We Are Educators. Retrieved from https://www. weareteachers.com/strategies-for-close-reading/ (This teacher-friendly website has various free resources to support student learning, including a list of 11 expert tips to strengthen students’ close reading skills.)