Advertisement

Accessible Instruction and Testing Today

  • Ryan J. KettlerEmail author
  • Stephen N. Elliott
  • Peter A. Beddow
  • Alexander Kurz
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

The introductory chapter of the Handbook of Accessible Instruction and Testing Practices focuses on accessibility issues along the journey from an individual content standard or set of standards to the inferences that can be drawn from an item or test score about the performance of a student, teacher, and school. We highlight accessibility to instruction and testing, as well as the barriers that preclude this access, using the Interpretation of Achievement Test Scores (IATS) Paradigm. Accessibility in this context is defined as the extent to which a product, environment, or system eliminates barriers and permits equal use of components and services for a diverse population of individuals. The theoretical and empirical concepts addressed in this chapter are illustrated using a case example of a student who has difficulty with mathematics interacting with a multiple-choice item. In addition, the chapter provides a context of legal and policy issues around accessibility, along with methods of measuring relevant components. In closing, we introduce the sections and chapters of the handbook.

Keywords

Access skills Accessibility Accommodations Adaptations Assessment policy Content standards Modifications Opportunity to learn Target skills Universal design 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Assistive Technology Act, 29 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq. (1998).Google Scholar
  3. Beddow, P. A., Elliott, S. N., & Kettler, R. J. (2009). TAMI accessibility rating matrix. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Available at http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/tami.xml Google Scholar
  4. Beddow, P. A., Kettler, R. J., & Elliott, S. N. (2008). Test accessibility and modification inventory. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Available at http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/tami.xml Google Scholar
  5. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2000). Social foundations of children’s academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11, 306–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2013). Retrieved from www.corestandards.org on May 2, 2017.
  8. DiPerna, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (2002). Promoting academic enablers to improve student achievement. School Psychology Review, 31, 293–298. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/spr/sprmain.aspx Google Scholar
  9. DiPerna, J. C., Volpe, R., & Elliott, S. N. (2001). A model of academic enablers and elementary reading/language arts achievement. School Psychology Review, 31, 298–312.Google Scholar
  10. DiPerna, J. C., Volpe, R., & Elliott, S. N. (2005). A model of academic enablers and mathematics achievement in elementary grades. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 379–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elliott, S. N., Braden, J. P., & White, J. (2001). Assessing one and all: Educational accountability and students with disabilities. Alexandria, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
  12. Elliott, S. N., Kettler, R. J., Beddow, P. A., Kurz, A., Compton, E., McGrath, D., … Roach, A. T. (2010). Effects of using modified items to test students with persistent academic difficulties. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 475–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elliott, S. N., & Kettler, R. J. (2015). Item and test design considerations for students with special needs. In S. Lane, T. M. Haladyna, & M. Raymond (Eds.), Handbook of test development (2nd ed., pp. 374–391). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  14. Elliott, S. N., Kurz, A., & Schulte, A. (2015). Maximizing access to instruction and testing for students with disabilities: What we know and can do to improve achievement. Smarter balanced assessment consortium spotlight series for teachers supporting students with disabilities. UCLA: Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  15. Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015).Google Scholar
  16. Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  17. Heafner, T. L., & Fitchett, P. G. (2015). An opportunity to learn US history: What NAEP data suggest regarding the opportunity gap. High School Journal, 98(3), 226–249.  https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2015.0006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herman, J. L., Klein, D. C., & Abedi, J. (2000). Assessing students’ opportunity to learn: Teacher and student perspectives. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19(4), 16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. 20 U.S.C. § 1001 (2008).Google Scholar
  20. Hollenbeck, K. (2002). Determining when test alterations are valid accommodations or modifications for large-scale assessment. In G. Tindal & T. Haladyna (Eds.), Large scale assessment programs for all students (pp. 109–148). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  21. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (1975).Google Scholar
  22. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (1997).Google Scholar
  23. Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., & Jamgochian, E. M. (2011). Instructional adaptations: Accommodations and modifications that support accessible instruction. In S. N. Elliott, R. J. Kettler, P. A. Beddow, & A. Kurz (Eds.), Handbook of accessible achievement tests for all students: Bridging the gaps between research, practice, and policy (pp. 131–146). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kettler, R. J. (2012). Testing accommodations: Theory and research to inform practice. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 5(1), 53–66.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2012.654952 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kettler, R. J. (2015). Adaptations and access to assessment of common core content. Review of Research in Education, 39, 295–330.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x14556075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kettler, R. J., Elliott, S. N., & Beddow, P. A. (2009). Modifying achievement test items: A theory-guided and data-based approach for better measurement of what students with disabilities know. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 529–551.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560903240996 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kettler, R. J., Rodriguez, M. R., Bolt, D. M., Elliott, S. N., Beddow, P. A., & Kurz, A. (2011). Modified multiple-choice items for alternate assessments: Reliability, difficulty, and differential boost. Applied Measurement in Education, 24(3), 210–234.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2011.580620 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kurz, A. (2011). Access to what should be taught and will be tested: Students’ opportunity to learn the intended curriculum. In S. N. Elliott, R. J. Kettler, P. A. Beddow, & A. Kurz (Eds.), Handbook of accessible achievement tests for all students: Bridging the gaps between research, practice, and policy (pp. 99–129). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kurz, A., & Elliott, S. N. (2011). Overcoming barriers to access for students with disabilities: Testing accommodations and beyond. In M. Russell (Ed.), Assessing students in the margins: Challenges, strategies, and techniques. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Kurz, A., Elliott, S. N., & Shrago, J. S. (2009). MyiLOGS: My instructional learning opportunities guidance system. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
  31. Kurz, A., Elliott, S. N., Kettler, R. J., & Yel, N. (2014). Assessing students’ opportunity to learn the intended curriculum using an online teacher log: Initial validity evidence. Educational Assessment, 19(3), 159–184.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2014.934606 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kurz, A., Elliott, S. N., Lemons, C. J., Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., & Kettler, R. J. (2014). Assessing opportunity-to-learn for students with and without disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 40(1), 24–39.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508414522685 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kurz, A., Elliott, S. N., & Schulte, A. (2015). Opportunity to learn for all students: Enhancing access to what should be taught and will be tested. Smarter balanced assessment series for teachers supporting students with disabilities. UCLA: Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  34. Laitusis, C. C., Buzick, H. M., Stone, E., Hansen, E. G., & Hakkinen, M. T. (2012). Accommodations and accessibility tools. Commissioned Report for the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium.Google Scholar
  35. Malecki, C. K., & Elliott, S. N. (2002). Children’s social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.17.1.1.19902. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (2001).Google Scholar
  37. Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 (1973).Google Scholar
  38. Roach, A. T., Kurz, A., & Elliott, S. N. (2015). Using personalized instructional feedback data to facilitate opportunity to learn for students with disabilities. Preventing School Failure., 59, 168.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.901288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Available online at: http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/ Google Scholar
  40. Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (Eds.). (2005). The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies (pp. 13–35). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  41. Sireci, S. G., Scarpati, S. E., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 457–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2015). Usability, accessibility, and accommodations guidelines. Author.Google Scholar
  43. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2016). Smarter balanced assessment consortium: Usability, accessibility, and accommodations guidelines. July 1, 2016: Author.Google Scholar
  44. Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and academic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 357–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan J. Kettler
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stephen N. Elliott
    • 2
  • Peter A. Beddow
    • 3
  • Alexander Kurz
    • 2
  1. 1.Rutgers, The State University of New JerseyPiscatawayUSA
  2. 2.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  3. 3.Accessible Hope, LLCNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options