Differential Item Functioning Among English Language Learners on a Large-Scale Mathematics Assessment.

Ruixue Liu,Kelly D Bradley

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.657335

Abstract

The current study research showed the nature and potential sources of the gaps in mathematics achievement between English language learners (ELLs) and non-English language learners (non-ELLs). The nature of achievement gap was examined using three DIF methodologies: including Mantel-Haenszel procedure, Rasch model, and Hierarchical Generalized Linear Model (HGLM). These were conducted at the item level in contrast to total test level. Results revealed that the three DIF approaches identified 10 common items. These 10 items demonstrated in favor of non-ELLs. Findings from this study will help educational researchers, administrators, and policymakers understand the nature of the achievement gap in mathematics at item level so that United States can be competitive in middle school mathematics education. This study also suggested that item writers and test developers should construct assessments where language is equally accessible for ELL students.

Highlights

IntroductionIn school classrooms across the United States, ELLs are learning English and the content material in their required academic subjects simultaneously
According to the U.S Department of Education, ELLs are defined as students “who are being served in appropriate programs of language assistance” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016)
The results discovered that ELLs generally perform lower than non-ELL students in mathematics

Summary

Introduction

In school classrooms across the United States, ELLs are learning English and the content material in their required academic subjects simultaneously. To this end, ELLs have been found to lag behind their non-ELL peers on large-scale, standardized assessments, largely due to the high language demand in content areas, such as mathematics, science, reading comprehension, writing, and social studies (Abedi and Lord, 2001; Abedi et al, 2001; Abedi, 2002; Johnson and Monroe, 2004; Ockey, 2007; Mahoney, 2008; Walker et al, 2008; Martiniello, 2009; Wolf and Leon, 2009)

Methods

Results

Conclusion