Students With Learning Disabilities and Computer-Based High-Stakes Testing

Abstract

As schools move into a new era of technology, assessment is evolving as well. With the introduction of high-stakes tests based on the Common Core State Standards, annual assessments are increasingly delivered via computer-based systems. This method of delivery could have a significant effect on students with learning disabilities. This column explores benefits and challenges of testing students with learning disabilities via computer-based systems. It examines accessing accommodations via computer-based systems, best practices in preparing students for computer-based tests, teacher training, and educators and test designers partnering in creating test platforms.

Keywords

high-stakes testing learning disabilities computer-based testing accommodations

Students with learning disabilities (LD) often do not enter the standardized testing arena on a level playing field with their typical peers (Thurlow, 2010). These students are frequently years behind in acquisition of academic skill, yet when it comes to high-stakes testing they are expected to perform on par with their peers. To address that discrepancy, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) allows certain accommodations to ensure that students with LD are not hindered in the test-taking process (Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004; Russell, Hoffman, & Higgins, 2009). Among the most common testing accommodations for students with LD are dictated response, extended time, speech-to-text, read-aloud, spell-checking devices, and the use of calculators (Bolt & Thurlow, 2004; Calhoon, Fuchs, & Hamlett, 2000; Elliott, Kratochwill, & McKevitt, 2001; Thurlow, 2010; Thurlow, Lazarus, Thompson, & Morse, 2005). Elliott et al. (2001) reinforced the need for testing accommodations for students with LD, stating students not receiving accommodations scored 1 standard deviation lower as a group than when those students took the assessment with accommodations. When this group did receive accommodations they scored the same as or slightly higher than students without LD.

The advent of computerized high-stakes testing has opened up the discussion of whether paper-and-pencil (PPT) or computer-based (CBT) testing platforms are more likely to benefit students with LD and provide them with valid testing accommodations in three tested areas: reading, writing, and math. In the past, students with LD have accessed their accommodations while taking high-stakes tests via a PPT system; however, there is a major shift in education to administer these tests using CBT systems. Tests administered on a computer provide more immediate feedback for students and educators that can in turn result in the implementation of more timely interventions (Choi & Tinkler, 2002). Computer based testing for students with LD also allows for a more individualized testing experience as systems can be customized to provide required accommodations (Flowers, Kim, Lewis, & Davis, 2011).

Research findings suggest that students with LD are more successful when accessing accommodations via a PPT test. This can be attributed to a lack of training for both students and teachers on how to access the accommodation features embedded in the CBT systems and not necessarily a function of the test design (Calhoon et al., 2000; Flowers et al., 2011). Students with LD do not universally have exposure to CBT learning environments that are designed to prepare them to take tests and access accommodations via CBT systems. Calhoon et al. (2000) noted although students may have computer exposure prior to testing, often the computer has been used for enjoyment rather than learning, and the student may struggle to generalize their skills to the testing environment. This paper explores the benefits of high-stakes testing for students with LD on CBT systems. It also examines best practices schools could utilize as they move forward in preparing students to perform successfully when testing on a CBT system to ensure students receive classroom instruction that adequately mirrors the unique environment of CBT testing. The need for explicit training is discussed for both classroom teachers and other test proctors on how students will access accommodation features built into the CBT systems. Test designers and educators should partner in the creation and implementation of CBT systems to ensure the needs of students with LD are met.

Computer Based Systems

Given that computers have become more common in most classrooms, schools should prepare to accept CBT testing as the new norm for high-stakes testing. There are several benefits to administering assessments via a CBT system including creation of customized testing environments, better test security, and the lessening of classroom disruptions during high-stakes testing. In addition, Russell et al. (2009) found that a test rooted in the principles of universal design allowed for better test validity.

Taking a test on a computer allows for a customized experience for each student. Tests can be adapted for font size, read-aloud capabilities, access to online calculators, ability to highlight text, speech-to-text capabilities, and spell-checking (Elliott et al., 2001; Thurlow et al., 2005). Calhoon et al. (2000) reported that 65% of students surveyed preferred the anonymity of CBT accommodations such as read-aloud. Students with LD also reported increased confidence in test performance when taking a CBT versus a PPT test, especially for writing assessments.

Computer based testing also allows for improved test security as its design eliminates the need to create multiple paper versions of tests to combat dishonesty (Russell et al., 2009). Because the accommodation features on a CBT system are generally preprogrammed, testing on a computer lessens the chance that a teacher would provide an incorrect accommodation to a student, thus affecting the validity of his or her score (Lai & Berkeley, 2012).

Classroom disruptions during testing can also be minimized when students are testing on a CBT system. Lovett and Leja (2013) found that in multiple studies, students reported read-aloud accommodations during a PPT test as being distracting. In many cases, students with LD are lumped together in testing environments based on their general need for accommodations instead of grouping focused on specific accommodations. Therefore a student who may use a calculator on a test may be placed in a read-aloud room out of convenience. This can be especially significant for students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder who may become distracted by the read-aloud. In a 2010 study, Lee, Osborne, and Carpenter reported students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder stressed the need for a quiet testing environment. With a CBT system, students requiring a read-aloud accommodation can simply put on a pair of headphones. Similarly, built in calculator functions can help minimize the perceived disparity between students who do receive this accommodation and students who do not.

Preparing Students

Despite the benefits of CBT systems for students with LD who use accommodations during testing, schools should not assume that students are adequately prepared to access these accommodations. In their 2005 comparison between the two systems, Dolan, Hall, Banerjee, Chun, and Strangman explored student aptitude between CBT and PPT testing. Their findings indicated students with LD showed increased performance on CBT when provided with advanced training on accessing accommodations on the computer as well as practice using the computer hardware. It is best practice to ensure that a student’s testing environment mirrors that of his or her regular learning environment (Elliot et al., 2001). If the student does not have regular exposure to computerized learning models, it cannot be expected he or she will perform well on CBT platforms. Wiig, Jones, and Wiig (1996) found students with LD who did not like CBT testing stated they had not taken a CBT test prior to their study and/or voiced a dislike for change. They also stated that both students and teachers should have sufficient familiarity and comfort with computers for the test administration to be successful. Students and test proctors must have opportunities to practice with the CBT features such as screen and font size, text to speech, and resolution settings in advance (International Test Commission, 2006). Furthermore, CBT testing models for high-stakes tests are still in their infancy. The recent controversy surrounding the lack of reliability of high-stakes CBT delivery has also revealed an unpredictable testing environment (Ho, 2015; Nevada Department of Education, 2015). However, with the proliferation of computers and digital devices in society, there is justification to continue the call for CBT systems.

The push for further development and implementation of CBT testing is not without caution. Learning environments must adapt and make better use of technology in order to prepare students with LD for success in accessing accommodations on CBT testing. Computer labs should be made available for students who do not have Internet access at home and should be manned with teachers who have received training on the features of the test and practice tests. Practice sessions must also be built into classroom schedules to allow for ample time on task in navigating these new CBT systems. Whereas the need for additional student preparation creates a potential equipment challenge for many schools, this is especially critical in urban and rural areas that do not have reliable access to computers or Internet (Sundeen & Sundeen, 2013).

Professional Development for Teachers

Much as students cannot be expected to approach testing day without preparation, practitioners must have substantial training and practice on administering these tests. The International Test Commission (2006) detailed the role of teachers in preparing themselves to administer CBT testing; however, there is little research that explicitly addresses best practice for that training. The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (2014) issued a 91-page training document for teacher use, but there has been little done to prepare teachers to administer these tests with fidelity. In 2014, McLaughlin, Glaab, and Carrasco issued the report “Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A Report From the Field,” which addressed how little is being done to ensure that teachers and schools are prepared to administer CBT testing aligned with the Common Core State Standards. They found that

teachers were receiving no training on the test systems,

there was little to no support with the hardware, and

teachers were not integrating technology into the classrooms.

The lack of technology in classrooms is concerning as research has shown that students should be tested in a similar environment as they have been taught (Elliott et al., 2001). Further research should be done to explore methods for increasing practitioners’ “assessment literacy” (McLaughlin et al., 2014) to ensure that students and practitioners alike are prepared to integrate CBT testing as the new standard for testing. Teachers should be trained in both how to employ the testing software and how to troubleshoot hardware issues that may arise.

Educators should also embrace regular use of technology in classrooms; however, this cannot occur by happenstance. Technology training for teachers must be purposeful and relevant in preparing students to succeed in this new frontier of high-stakes testing. Test proctors should have the opportunity to explore practice versions of CBT tests so they have the background knowledge necessary to prepare students for the technical aspect of the test. This training could be part of a site-based or districtwide initiative.

Educators and Test Designers as Partners

To ensure that teachers are prepared to administer CBT testing plus anticipate and overcome technical problems, test designers and school districts can no longer rely on a manufacturer/client relationship. Instead these entities should act as partners in the creation and administration of testing systems. Meyen (2015) described four steps he recommends in developing relationships between educators and technology industry leaders in advancing learning communities exploring ubiquitous computer technology integration in classrooms. It could be suggested that these four steps can be applied to the high-stakes testing relationship as well.

Create partnerships between schools, teacher preparation programs, and technology industry experts (Meyen, 2015). When applied to the high-stakes test setting, each entity should not operate independently; rather they should work collaboratively to create CBT systems that ensure technical features are meaningful and accurately assess student knowledge across diverse student groups (International Test Commission, 2006). There should be a continuous cycle of feedback occurring among the groups to ensure any deficit areas are identified. These partnerships should also set guidelines to ensure students are equipped with adequate computer systems, staff is trained, and students with LD receive ample time to practice accessing accommodations on CBT testing (International Test Commission, 2006).

Collaborate to explore needs of the schools and how the designer’s expertise aligns with those needs (Meyen, 2015). Educators and administrators should have the opportunity to pilot systems prior to district purchase. This will put the power of purchase into the hands of the educators as they will be able to discover firsthand how these systems operate in accordance with their needs.

School districts, teacher preparation programs, and designers must work together in creating meaningful professional development opportunities for personnel administering the tests (Meyen, 2015). Educators require interactive, hands-on training opportunities that will allow them to explore new systems through the eyes of their students. Test designers should develop “learning institutes” comprising prepackaged face-to-face or online modules that could be presented for staff development. However, the burden of professional development rests not only with school districts and test designers. Teacher preparation programs should recognize the need for 21st-century instruction. Incentives should be offered to encourage teacher preparation programs to provide in-service opportunities (International Test Commission, 2006) based on current pedagogy related to online learning and testing systems (Meyen, 2015).

School districts that have been successful in their alliances with teacher preparation programs and test designers must be willing to share research findings and success stories (Meyen, 2015). Schools should partner with university researchers to document these accomplishments while outlining the steps it would take to re-create these alliances. They should also address any challenges encountered throughout the development, training, and implementation process. These findings could be distributed through academic journals, through conference presentations, or via online distribution.

In following these four steps, educators, test designers, and teacher preparation programs should be able to develop CBT systems that are rooted in current research and resulting in more positive outcomes for students with LD. Through partnerships that focus on test creation and training, CBT tests can be created to usher in a new era of testing systems that provide greater access to accommodations.

Conclusion

Although the research shows that many high-stakes testing accommodations can be better provided to students with LD through PPT rather than CBT systems (Calhoon et al., 2000; Flowers et al., 2011), schools should move forward to ensure that students are prepared for this new frontier of high-stakes testing. Students should have regular access to computers and technology, and CBT practice tests should be available for extensive classroom use. Given that technology is present in many classrooms, it is imperative that its use is meaningful and with purpose. Teachers should also receive appropriate training to use these systems with fidelity. It is essential that developers of testing systems partner with schools to help ensure that their product meets the needs of students, that students receive ample time to practice accessing their accommodations through these systems, that extensive professional development is in place to help ensure successful implementation of the testing systems, and that test design and professional development are based on current and relevant research.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bolt

S. E.

Thurlow

M. L.

(2004). Five of the most frequently allowed testing accommodations in state policy. Remedial and Special Education, 25(3), 141–152.

Calhoon

M. B.

Fuchs

L. S.

Hamlett

C. L.

(2000). Effects of computer-based test accommodations on mathematics performance assessments for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 271–282.

Choi

S.W.

Tinkler

(2002, April). Evaluating comparability of paper-and-pencil and computer-based assessment in a K-12 setting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.

Dolan

R. P.

Hall

T. E.

Banerjee

Chun

Strangman

(2005). Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read-aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(7). Retrieved from http://www.jtla.org

Elliott

S. N.

Kratochwill

T. R.

McKevitt

B. C.

(2001). Experimental analysis of the effects of testing accommodations on the scores of students with and without disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 3–24.

Flowers

Kim

D. H.

Lewis

Davis

V. C.

(2011). A comparison of computer-based testing and pencil-and-paper testing for students with a read-aloud accommodation. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26, 1–12.

(2015). Common core tests stopped in three states because of technical issues. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/16/common-core-server-issues_n_7080542.html

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

International Test Commission. (2006). International guidelines on computer-based and Internet-delivered testing. International Journal of Testing, 6, 143–171.

10.

Lai

S. A.

Berkeley

(2012). High-stakes test accommodations: Research and practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 158–169.

11.

Lee

K. S.

Osborne

R. E.

Carpenter

D. N.

(2010). Testing accommodations for university students with AD/HD: Computerized vs. paper-pencil/regular vs. extended time. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42, 443–458.

12.

Lovett

B. J.

Leja

A. M.

(2013). Students’ perceptions of testing accommodations: What we know, and why it matters. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 29, 72–89.

13.

McLaughlin

Glaab

Carrasco

I. H.

(2014). Implementing Common Core State Standards in California: A report from the field. Retrieved from http://www.edpolicyinca.org/sites/default/files/PACE%20CCSS%20McLaughlin.pdf

14.

Meyen

(2015). Significant advancements in technology to improve instruction for all students: Including those with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 67–71.

15.

Nevada Department of Education. (2015). Notice of suspension of Nevada Criterion Referenced Tests in grades 3 through 8. Carson City, NV: Author.

16.

Russell

Hoffman

Higgins

(2009). Meeting the needs of all students: A universal design approach to computer-based testing. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(4), Article 6. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol5/iss4/6

17.

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2014). Online field test administration manual. Retrieved from http://sbac.portal.airast.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Test-Administration-Manual-FT.pdf

18.

Sundeen

T. H.

Sundeen

D. M.

(2013). Instructional technology for rural schools: Access and acquisition. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 32, 8–14.

19.

Thurlow

M. L.

(2010). Steps toward creating fully accessible reading assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 23, 121–131.

20.

Thurlow

M. L.

Lazarus

S. S.

Thompson

S. J.

Morse

A. B.

(2005). State policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 38, 232–240.

21.

Wiig

E. H.

Jones

S. S.

Wiig

E. D.

(1996). Computer-based assessment of word knowledge in teens with learning disabilities. Learning, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 21–28.