Abstract
Achievement gaps between students with low and high language proficiency appear for word problems, but is this due to their text format or their conceptual challenges? A test with percent problems of different types and in pure, text and visual format was conducted with N=308 seventh graders. Students’ scores were analyzed statistically by a cognitive diagnosis model. Unlike expected, the probability for students with low language proficiency to solve items in text format is not lower than in pure format. These results are interpreted as indication that conceptual challenges might impact stronger than reading challenges.
Highlights
Large-scale assessment studies have repeatedly documented achievement gaps for language minority students (Martiniello, 2008; Abedi, 2006; Haag et al, 2013) or socially disadvantaged students with low language proficiency, even if speaking the majority language (Prediger et al, 2013; Walzebug, 2014)
Items, which posed high difficulties to students with low LP could not be characterized by reading challenges, but rather by conceptual or process-oriented challenges, which was confirmed in interview studies. These findings suggest investigating the role of the text format in comparison to other formats but the same conceptual challenges
The overall average performance of students on the Percent-Cross-Test clearly indicates that students, both with high and low language proficiency, lack conceptual understanding to solve items involving percentages, but with differences
Summary
Large-scale assessment studies have repeatedly documented achievement gaps for language minority students (Martiniello, 2008; Abedi, 2006; Haag et al, 2013) or socially disadvantaged students with low language proficiency, even if speaking the majority language (Prediger et al, 2013; Walzebug, 2014). It seems likely to trace these language gaps back to word problems and their language demands (Duarte et al, 2011), little is known whether it is really the text format of an item which disadvantages the language learners or its inherent. As most studies disentangling obstacles for language learners investigate complete assessments with innermathematical procedural as well as context items, there is a risk of confounding language demands and conceptual demands (e.g. in Martiniello, 2008; Wolf & Leon, 2009). That is why the study presented constructed a test with items of comparable conceptual demands, but in different formats. If test items with similar conceptual demands are posed in pure format, text format or visual format, do students of low language proficiency really have more difficulties with the text format?.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
