Comparison of test directions for ability tests: impact on young English-language learner and non-ELL students

Ability tests play an important role in the assessment programs of many schools. However, the inferences about ability made from such tests presume that students understand the tasks they are attempting. Task familiarity can vary by student as well as by format. By design, nonverbal reasoning tests use formats that are intended to be novel. The popularity of nonverbal reasoning tests has increased substantially in recent years because of the increasing number of English-language learner (ELL) students in many U.S. school districts. Nonverbal tests are thought to eliminate the need for language in test items and to reduce cultural content. Formats on these tests are also assumed to be equally novel for all students. However, in at least one large study, researchers found substantial differences between the average performance of ELL and non-ELL Hispanic students on three of the most widely used nonverbal tests. Although these differences might reflect real variation in cognitive development, they may also reflect differences in knowledge of test formats and the testing practices used in U.S. schools. In this study, I hypothesized that the score gaps between ELL and non-ELL students might, in part, be due to differences in test familiarity and that providing directions that include more practice and feedback might attenuate these differences. I drew from the research on universal design, dynamic assessment, and cross-cultural testing to develop three different types of directions with practice items. I then compared the effects of these three types of test directions on students completing a nonverbal figure analogies test. Figure analogies tests are generally among the best measures of reasoning abilities and are known to be quite difficult for young students. All directions were provided using video with English and Spanish audio and minor animations to concretize the instructions. The three types of directions were nonverbal-dynamic directions, verbal-dynamic directions, and a control condition that used standard test directions. The nonverbal-dynamic directions presented four practice problems that sampled the range of items on the test. Oral instructions and feedback were minimal. The verbal-dynamic directions presented the same four practice problems with more in-depth description and feedback. These