# data[].attributes.headline
Find out the background of your students

# data[].attributes.subject
Find out the background of your students

# data[].attributes.body
What is their cultural background?

What is their family background?

Any relevant medical history?

All of these questions help give an idea of what goes on outside of the classroom that may help point out what the problem could be.

# data[].attributes.headline
Consult with the school's administration and guardians of the students 

# data[].attributes.subject
Consult with the school's administration and guardians of the students 

# data[].attributes.body
Students can come with many different forms of learning disabilities and it's important for us to determine what they are.

# data[].attributes.body
The student will be assessed using the standard ELL (English Language Learners) assessment to determine where they stand

# data[].attributes.body
As time goes by, see whether the student improves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In "Strengths and Limitations of Current ELL Assessment Measures and Assessment Strategies: Reliability, Validity, and Utility," Linda Espinosa explores the current trends and implications in assessment for young ELLs. This excerpt originally was published in Young English Language Learners: Current Research and Emerging Directions for Practice and Policy (Teachers College Press, 2010).

In order for ELL children's outcomes to be fairly and appropriately assessed, it is important to understand some of the major limitations to many of the currently available measures for young children. A more detailed review of the technical characteristics of common ELL assessment measures (e.g., how the measure was developed, nature of normative sample, intended use of measure, validity, reliability, predictive ability, relationship to other more in-depth assessments, prior use with similar populations, etc.) can be found in a recently compiled compendium of ELL assessment measures (Barrueco, López, Ong, & Lozano, 2007).

Similarly, it is critical that users pay particular attention to the background information on standardization procedures contained in the respective assessment manuals for each measure. This is important both to guide the initial selection of the most appropriate assessment measure or measures, and to better understand any key concerns or limitations related to the interpretation of the results derived from individual assessments.

Discussion Points

Not intended to be an exhaustive summary of considerations or limitations, the following discussion highlights some of the issues and general limitations across assessment measures and procedures for ELLs:

1. Despite the tremendous recent growth in the population of young ELL children, the corresponding development of a range of different types of appropriate measures for ELL children has lagged far behind. The limitations relate both to the overall number of available measures, and to the domains of skills and abilities covered by such measures.

2. Many of the currently available measures for ELL children have been developed essentially as basic translations or adaptations of existing English language versions of measures, with varying levels of attention to ensuring comparability in the conceptual, linguistic or semantic content and/or level of diffi culty of the translated items across languages. As such, the content validity and construct validity may not be the same for the Spanish as for the English version of the same measure.

3. Unless a test were specifically normed with a sample of similar ELL children, the tests are still less accurate and valid for dual language learners who have been judged suffi ciently fluent in English to be assessed in English. Often, the reliability coefficients for many standardized tests are lower for ELL children, even if they have been designated as fully proficient in English (Abedi, Leon, & Mirocha, 2001) meaning that the score for an individual child may not be an accurate measure of that specific child's abilities. The concurrent validity scores for some assessments have also been shown to be substantially lower for ELL students, again making the accuracy less dependable.

4. The actual developmental construct that is being assessed by a measure may vary from one language to the next. On several common measures assessing different aspects of phonemic awareness, a child may be asked either to add to or take away parts of words to form new words. On English versions of such tasks, compound words are often used. For example, a child may be asked to say a word such as mailbox and then say it without mail (box), or blend the words mail and box together to form a new word (mailbox). However, since compound words occur much less frequently in Spanish, this particular type of task is much more complex for Spanish-speaking children to understand and to be as engaged in. Thus, unless items for a given task have been simultaneously developed in both English and the other language (or the measurement equivalence has been examined with the Spanish version), as is done with some measures like the Preschool Language Scale-4, there is a much greater risk that the translation process may result in an unintended change in the content, meaning, or linguistic complexity of the desired skill or ability that is being assessed.

5. Many standardized assessment measures (both in English and other languages) contain a very small pool of test items to assess a given skill or ability of interest. Since many existing assessments are designed to assess a number of different skills and abilities, the developers often choose to keep the number of items for any given task to a small number, so as not to end up with an assessment that will be too lengthy and/or frustrating for the shorter attention span of many preschool-age children. However, given the abovenoted variability in young children's performance on many such assessments, the inclusion of a greater number of items would be one way to help to offset this inherent variability and improve the precision of the measures.

6. It is not uncommon to see the inclusion of a fairly small number of young children in the normative samples used to develop the standardized assessment measures. Given the expected, normal level of variability in performance for these preschool-age children, one might expect to see the inclusion of larger numbers of children at the younger age levels, even as compared with the number of children included at the older ages for the normative sample. This is especially true with ELLs considering the great within-group variability.

7. 7Many normative samples have a smaller-than-expected representation of low-income and culturally or linguistically diverse population subgroups, as compared with the composition of the total population of young children. However, information on the specific demographic composition of the normative sample used to develop a given measure may not always be readily available in the published assessment manuals. If the normative sample for a given measure does not match the demographic characteristics of those children who are being assessed, then the resulting norms may not be appropriate for use with such a different group of children.

8. For assessments targeted toward ELL populations, there also is the consideration as to whether the normative samples used were monolingual Spanish-speaking or bilingual children, or some combination of the two. The desirability of different types of normative samples depends upon the nature of the question the user is interested in examining. On the one hand, some users may be most interested in examining a child's performance on a Spanish measure against the performance of monolingual Spanish speakers to assess the child's development against a normative group of children who primarily speak one language, Spanish. However, other users may be interested in examining how a child being raised in a bilingual environment performs in comparison to other, similar bilingual children.

Conclusion

In summary, these are just a few of the considerations that users should understand in order to be better informed when deciding which assessment measure or measures to select from among the different available assessment options, and for what purpose. While some assessments contain adequate descriptions of how the measure was developed, the composition of the normative sample, and the detailed information on the psychometric properties of the measure (e.g., reliability and validity), others provide much less information and, in some cases, contain misleading psychometric information.

For example, some assessment manuals present psychometric data, including information on the validity and reliability of the test for the English version of the measure, but don't present similar psychometric information on the specific non-English version. Caution should be exercised by potential users if any assessment does not provide detailed information on all aspects of the test. Despite the many limitations and/or concerns noted above, currently there are some available assessment measures that can be carefully utilized to gain a better understanding of the language development ELL children. Nevertheless there is still need for the continued development of newer and better ELL assessment measures and measurement strategies.

Acknowledgements

Our policy section is made possible by a generous grant from the Carnegie Corporation. The statements and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors.

Citations

Espinosa, L. Young English Language Learners: Current Research and Emerging Directions for Practice and Policy (Eds. García, E. and Frede, E.). Excerpts from Chapter 7, "Assessment for Young English Language Learners." Pps. 123-126. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. 2010. Reprinted with permission.

References

Abedi, J., Leon, S., & Mirocha, J. (2001). Examining ELL and non-ELL student performance differences and their relationship to background factors: Continued analyses of extant data. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

Barrueco, S., López, M., Ong, C., & Lozano, P. (2007). A compendium of measures for the assessment of young English language learners. Washington, DC: Pew Task Force on Early Childhood Accountability.

Reprints

For any reprint requests, please contact the author or publisher listed.

More by this author

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Assessment for Young ELLs: Strengths and Limitations in Current Practices

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In "Strengths and Limitations of Current ELL Assessment Measures and Assessment Strategies: Reliability, Validity, and Utility," Linda Espinosa explores the current trends and implications in assessment for young ELLs. This excerpt originally was published in Young English Language Learners: Current Research and Emerging Directions for Practice and Policy (Teachers College Press, 2010).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Individualised Education Plan (IEP) - Learning Disability and ADHD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Students with learning and attention difficulties benefit from having an Individualised Education Plan (IEP). An ndividualised Education Plan is a documented plan describing specific services required by a particular student.

# data[].attributes.headline
Continue with the ELL structure to facilitate more improvement with the language

# data[].attributes.subject
Continue with the ELL structure to facilitate more improvement with the language

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
English Language Learners

Teachers of any subject can use these tips to help English language learners be more engaged and at ease in class.

While we bring the mental health needs of our students into laser focus this year, it's still crucial that we keep the social and emotional world of our English language learners (ELLs) front and center. Just like their peers, ELL students come to our classrooms with the burning need to be seen and acknowledged for their unique personalities, life experiences, and talents. But language challenges can obstruct all these amazing facets of their personalities. Additionally, the social pressures of suddenly being in person again and needing to communicate may make them feel anxious, isolated, and embarrassed.

Because of the often-obvious communication difficulties, grade-level and subject-area teachers understandably often rely on ESL (English as a Second Language) teachers to step in and help these students. However, even if you aren't an ESL teacher, there's a plethora of strategies you can use to help these incredible students feel comfortable sharing their strengths and unique perspectives on the world.

Helping ELL Students Across All Subjects

1. Closed captioning isn't just for the hearing impaired. If you're showing video content, turning on closed captioning supports ELL students' comprehension as well as everyone's literacy skills. According to a 2017 study, the simple act of using closed captioning improves learning, even for students without learning challenges.

2. Voice typing in Google Docs (under the Tools menu) provides students with a voice-to-text option that can help learners who have some oral language but struggle with spelling and writing. By clicking the arrow next to the language, students can even dictate a text in their native language, if need be, and then use Google Translate to translate it.

For older students, or for those who are somewhat more advanced in English but need material translated immediately, the Google Translate app also lets you hold your camera (on a smartphone/iPad, etc.) up to a document and instantly see it in another language, no typing required.

3. Offer choices of what students can say if they're called on and aren't sure how to respond. This helpful anchor chart, for example, offers students options other than the ubiquitous "I don't know."

4. Add gestures to reinforce communication.Remember that in order to communicate, we need to ensure that the sounds coming out of our mouth create a mental image or concept in our listener's mind. You can increase comprehensible input (the amount of language that's understood) by using good, old-fashioned gestures. If you want to take it a step further, TPR (Total Physical Response) is a method of teaching vocabulary that uses physical movements to react to verbal input, similar to how young children naturally learn language at home.

5. Draw or write key words frequently as they come up during instruction to help students further decode what you're saying. You can also use Google Image search to help students visualize what your words refer to and share the images.

6. Utilize a chart: A PECS (Pictorial Exchange Communication System) chart can help individuals with communication challenges to express themselves. By pointing to an image on a classroom-themed PECS chart, students can let you know, for example, that they need to go to the bathroom by pointing to an image of a lavatory or that they are thirsty, sad, or confused, need a pencil, and so on. You can give them a laminated copy to tuck into their desk or hang one up on the wall for little learners. You may want to encourage students to say the words aloud as they point to the images to decrease their dependence on the chart. Try searching Google for "PECS chart for classroom" to find a chart that fits your needs.

7. Add images: A picture is truly worth a thousand words, but for ELLs, images are worth exponentially more. Document cameras provide ELL students with much-needed visual input of texts, worksheets, books, and other printed materials or realia. Project pages from a novel or picture book as the students follow along, display handouts and student writing samples, or use math manipulatives to solve a problem together. Document cameras make a world of difference in showing ELL students exactly what you're talking about rather than trying to explain it.

8. Pair up: If you want to pair an ELL newcomer with a bilingual student to help them, ask the ELL student to choose a student or two whom they'd prefer to work with, if possible. This prevents you from inadvertently pairing them up with someone they don't feel comfortable asking for help or with whom they really don't get along.

9. Give students a "language toolbox," a notebook full of pages of illustrated vocabulary words organized by theme that students can use as a reference. This is like a simplified version of an illustrated dictionary that younger ELLs can look through by theme to see vocabulary related to the colors, days of the week, classroom items, family members, and so on. In my classroom, I put these pages in plastic page protectors inside a binder for each student to flip through quickly. They can pull it out to help them fill in missing vocabulary when they write or as an easy reference whenever they need it.

10. Use a microphone or voice amplification system, which can help ELL students hear the nuances of your voice more clearly and understand you better. Record the lesson (if permitted), and digitally share the resulting video or audio with ELL students who might benefit from hearing/watching a replay. Similarly, ELLs have a hard time producing sounds correctly when the speaker's mouth is covered by a mask. Consider sharing posters of mouth formations or videos of you unmasked, creating some of these sounds.

Think about trying these strategies to help alleviate the communication difficulties that can prevent ELL students from becoming fully engaged in their learning and sharing who they are and what they can bring to the classroom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Strategies That Support English Language Learners Across All Subjects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teachers of any subject can use these tips to help English language learners be more engaged and at ease in class.

# data[].attributes.headline
Assess the degree in which the student's disabilities affect them

# data[].attributes.subject
Assess the degree in which the student's disabilities affect them

# data[].attributes.body
Whether the disability effects just the learning aspect, or other aspects outside of the classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities

The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) believes that inappropriate diagnostic practices and procedures have contributed to misclassification of individuals and questionable incidence rates of learning disabilities. Such practices and procedures result in erroneously including individuals whose learning and behavioral problems are not attributable to learning disabilities and excluding individuals whose deficits are manifestations of specific learning disabilities.

The NJCLD views the following issues as important to an understanding of current concerns:

lack of adherence to a consistent definition of learning disabilities that emphasizes the intrinsic and life-long nature of the condition;

lack of understanding, acceptance, and willingness to accommodate normal variations in learning and behavior;

lack of sufficient competent personnel and appropriate programs to support the efforts of teachers to accommodate the needs of children who do not have learning disabilities but who require alternative instructional methods;

insufficient supply of competently prepared professionals to diagnose and manage exceptional individuals;

the false belief that underachievement is synonymous with specific learning disability;

the incorrect assumption that quantitative formulas alone can be used to diagnose learning disabilities;

failure of multidisciplinary teams to consider and integrate findings related to the presenting problem(s);

lack of comprehensive assessment practices, procedures, and instruments necessary to differentiate learning disabilities from other types of learning problems; and

general preference for the label "learning disability" over "mental retardation" or "emotional disturbance," which leads to the misclassification of some individuals.

The NJCLD addresses these concerns in this statement and emphasizes the importance of integrating assessment, diagnosis, and procedures that lead to a diagnosis of learning disability and eligibility for services. Policymakers, educational administrators, regular and special educators, related services personnel, parents, advocates, and others who identify, assess, diagnose, and provide services to people with learning disabilities should find it relevant.

1. Learning Disabilities Are Manifested Differently Over Time, in Severity and in Various Settings.

1. Learning disabilities, like other handicapping conditions, vary in their manifestations and are mild, moderate, or severe.

2. Appropriate procedures must be used from early childhood through adulthood to assess and identify individuals suspected of having learning disabilities. Procedures vary with different age groups.

3. Problems associated with learning disabilities may be observed in both academic and non-academic settings. Consequently, procedures used to diagnose individuals should include data collected from all relevant settings.

4. Individuals who manifest specific symptoms of-or who are considered at risk for-learning disabilities should be monitored by qualified personnel to determine if assessment or other special services are needed. This is especially true for children under the age of 9.

2. Differential Diagnosis Is Necessary to Distinguish Between and Among Other Disorders, Syndromes, and Factors That Can Interfere with the Acquisition and Use of Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing, Reasoning, or Mathematical Abilities.

1. Differential diagnosis is a process and requires the formulation of hypotheses regarding the etiology and nature of the presenting problem. When one of several factors may be the cause of learning problems, low achievement, underachievement, or maladaptive behavior, all possible etiological alternatives must be considered.

2. Intellectual limitations, sensory impairments, and adverse emotional, social, and environmental conditions may be the primary cause of low achievement and should not be confused with learning disabilities.

3. Documentation of underachievement in one or more areas is a necessary but insufficient criterion for the diagnosis of learning disabilities.

4. Diagnosis of learning disabilities must be based on an analysis of the individual's strengths as well as weaknesses.

5. Linguistic and cultural differences, inadequate instruction, and/or social-emotional deprivation do not preclude the possibility that an individual also has a learning disability. Similarly, individuals with other handicapping conditions, such as mental retardation, sensory impairments, autism, or severe emotional or behavioral disturbances may have concomitant learning disabilities.

6. Diagnostic judgments must not depend solely on test results. Such a practice can cause over-reliance on test scores, inadequate consideration of individual behavioral and social characteristics, and insufficient integration of other assessment information.

7. Discrepancy formulas must not be used as the only criterion for the diagnosis of learning disabilities.

8. Scores on intelligence tests (IQs) are not the only reflection of intellectual ability. Diagnostic criteria based exclusively on IQ disregard intra-individual differences in skills and performance.

9. Manifestations of learning disabilities, such as language impairment, can reduce performance on intelligence tests. Therefore, selection of tests and interpretation of results must acknowledge the influence of specific disabilities on intelligence measures.

3. A Comprehensive Assessment Is Needed for Diagnosis and for Planning an Appropriate Intervention Program.

1. Assessment includes a variety of activities and procedures intended to ensure a comprehensive set of data for determining an individual's status and needs.

2. The procedures used to assess learning disabilities should address the presenting problems.

3. A comprehensive assessment must include procedures to determine levels of performance in the following domains: motor, sensory, cognitive, communication, and behavior. When a learning disability is suspected, the following areas should be assessed: listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, mathematics, and social skills. However, the assessment must focus on the presenting problem(s) and possible correlate(s).

4. Data from case history, interviews, and direct observations are important sources of information especially when provided by parents, educators, and the individual with the suspected learning disability. The information helps to evaluate signs, symptoms, and behaviors in a historical perspective.

5. Standardized tests must be reliable, valid, and have current normative data. Strict adherence to procedures for administering, scoring, and interpreting tests must be maintained. Performance should be expressed in scores that have the highest degree of comparability across measures, i.e., standard scores should be used rather than grade or age equivalents. Formulas must include a correction for regression if used to calculate a discrepancy between aptitude and achievement.

6. Curriculum based assessment, task and error pattern analysis, diagnostic teaching, and other nonstandardized approaches are viable sources of additional information, especially when data are not available through standardized testing.

7. Information and data collected during the assessment must be used to formulate the intervention plan. That plan must address the entire range and all degrees of severity of the problem identified.

8. Intervention and services should be based on a determination of the individual's present level of performance and functional needs. Program planning should include appropriate provisions for social, personal, vocational, and independent living needs.

4. A Multidisciplinary Team Is Necessary for Assessing, Diagnosing, and Determining Provision of Services.

1. A multidisciplinary team is essential for making a diagnosis of learning disabilities. Members of the team must possess the range of competencies necessary to assess and make diagnostic decisions.

2. Assessment data for determining the individual's status and needs are derived from multiple sources. The multidisciplinary team reviews, integrates, and interprets results from these sources, and formulates service options as well.

3. Individuals who have conducted the assessments must be present when the diagnostic decisions are made. As plans for specific programs and services are developed, parents and those professionals involved in providing direct services should be included on the team. The individual with a learning disability also should be included when appropriate.

5. A Clear Distinction Must Be Made Between "Diagnosis of Learning Disability" and "Eligibility for Specific Services."

1. Diagnosis of learning disabilities should never be denied to an individual because the specific eligibility criteria for a given program have not been met.

2. When a diagnosis of learning disabilities is made, appropriate services must be provided.

3. Programs for individuals with learning disabilities should not be used as placement alternatives for those with other learning and behavioral problems.

4. The availability of funding must not influence the determination of eligibility for services.

5. It is improper to deliberately diagnose an individual as learning disabled to generate funds.

The NJCLD recommends that all agencies and individuals concerned with the assessment and diagnosis of learning disabilities carefully consider the issues presented in this paper. The committee believes strongly that adherence to the principles and practices included in this statement will result in appropriate assessment and diagnosis of individuals with learning disabilities.

The committee is comprised of cooperating organizations concerned about individuals with learning disabilities. Organizations represented and representatives who participated in the development of this statement include: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association: Anthony Bashir, Stan Dublinske, Rhonda Work; Association for Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities: Lynne Cannon, Ann Fleming, Doris Johnson; Council for Learning Disabilities: Donald Crump, Don Hamill, Anne Netick; Division for Children with Communication Disorders, Council for Exceptional Children: Candice Bray, Katharine Butler, Mary T. Fitzgerald, Thomas O'Toole, Elisabeth Wiig; Division for Learning Disabilities, Council for Exceptional Children: Jeannette Fleischner, Sister Marie Grant; International Reading Association: Jules Abrams, Roselmina (Lee) Indrisano, Peggy Ransom; National Association for School Psychologists: Kevin Dwyer, Bob Germain, Howie Knoff; The Orton Dyslexia Society: Drake Duane, Mary Lee Enfield, Sylvia Richardson.

For a copy of this paper, address requests, with the title of the paper to:

NJCLD

The Orton Dyslexia Society

724 York Road

Baltimore, Maryland 21204.

Return to Top

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1982). Learning disabilities: Issues on definition. Asha, 24(11), 945-947.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1983). In-service programs in learning disabilities. Asha, 25(11), 47-49.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1985a). Adults with learning disabilities: A call for action. Asha, 27(12), 39-41.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1985b). Learning disabilities: Issues in the preparation of professional personnel. Asha, 27(9), 49-51.

Return to Top

Index terms: learning disabilities, assessment

Reference this material as: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1994). Issues in learning disabilities: assessment and diagnosis [Technical Report]. Available from www.asha.org/policy.

© Copyright 1994 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer: The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association disclaims any liability to any party for the accuracy, completeness, or availability of these documents, or for any damages arising out of the use of the documents and any information they contain.

doi:10.1044/policy.TR1994-00140

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Issues in Learning Disabilities: Assessment and Diagnosis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) believes that inappropriate diagnostic practices and procedures have contributed to misclassification of individuals and questionable incidence rates of learning disabilities. Such practices and procedures result in erroneously including individuals whose learning and behavioral problems are not attributable to learning disabilities and excluding individuals whose deficits are manifestations of specific learning disabilities.