Total views : 1387

Computer-based Signing Accommodations: Comparing a Recorded Human with an Avatar

Affiliations

  • Lynch School of Education, Boston College
  • Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative, Boston College
  • Nimble Assessment Systems

Abstract


Many students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing are eligible for a signing accommodation for state and other standardized tests. The signing accommodation, however, presents several challenges for testing programs that attempt to administer tests under standardized conditions. One potential solution for many of these challenges is the use of computer-based test delivery that integrates recordings of signed presentation of test content into the test. In addition to standardizing conditions, computer-based delivery holds potential to decrease the cost of developing recordings of signed presentation by using avatars rather than humans. However, because avatars are relatively new and are not as expressive or lifelike as humans, they may not be as affective as humans in presenting content in a clear and interpretable manner. The study presented here employed a randomized trial to compare the effect that a computer-based provision of the signed accommodation using a recorded human versus a signing avatar had on students' attitudes about performing a mathematics test and on their actual test performance. This study found that students generally reported that it was easy to perform a mathematics test on computer, and that both the recorded human and the signing avatar tools were easy to use and to understand. Students also reported a strong preference for performing future tests on computer, and generally preferred using the recorded human and the avatar for future tests rather than a DVD. While students also reported that they preferred the recorded human rather than the signing avatar, this preference did not affect test performance. The use of the recorded human and the avatar did not have affects on either the amount of time required to complete the test items or on students' performance on the test items. Implications for future research are discussed in light of these findings and the shortcomings of this study.

Keywords

Computer-based Testing, Test Accommodations, Deaf And Hard-of-hearing

References


  • Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C., Baker, E., & Lord, C. (2001). NAEP math performance and test accommodations: interactions with student language background. CSE technical report No. CSETR536). U.S.; California: University of California.
  • Bielinski, J., Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., & Fieidebach, M. (2001). Read-aloud accommodations: Effects on multiple-choice reading and math items. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
  • Cawthon, S. & the Online Research Lab (2006). National Survey of Accommodations and Alternate Assessments for Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(3), 337-359.
  • Clapper, A. T., Morse, A. B., Thompson, S. J., Thurlow, M. L. (2005a). Access assistants for state assessments: A study of state guidelines for scribes, readers, and sign language interpreters (Synthesis Report 58). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis58.html.
  • Clapper, A. T., Morse, A. B., Lazarus, S. S., Thompson, S. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2005b). 2003 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 56). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
  • Dalton, B., Kennedy, M., Lutz, M. & Schleper. (2003). Shared Reading Project: Chapter by Chapter, a presentation to the Board of Trustees at Gallaudet University.
  • DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  • Driscoll, D. P. (2007). Requirements for the participation of students with disabilities in MCAS. Malden, MA: Massachusetts Department of Education.
  • Elliot S.N., Kratochwill, T.R. & Schulte, A.G. (1999). Assessment accommodations checklist. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw Hill.
  • Horvath, Leah S., Kampfer-Bohach, S. & Farmer-Kearns, J. (2005). The use of accommodations among students with deafblindness in large-scale assessment systems. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 16(3), 177-187.
  • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
  • Johnson, E., Kimball, K., & Brown, S.O. (2001). American sign language as an accommodation during standards-based assessments. Assessment For Effective Intervention, 26(2), 39-47.
  • Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., Lail, K. E., Eisenbraun, K. D., & Kato, K. (2006). 2005 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 64). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved December 8, 2008, from: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis64/.
  • No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
  • Russell, M., Higgins, J., & Hoffmann, T. (2009). Meeting the Needs of All Students: A Universal Design Approach to Computer-Based Testing. Innovate, 5(4). Retrieved May 15, 2008 from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=676&action=synopsis.
  • Sireci, S.G., Li, S., & Scarpati, S. (2003). The effects of test accommodations on test performance: A review of the literature (Research Report 485). Amherst, MA: Center for Educational Assessment.
  • Thompson, S. & Thurlow, M. (2001) State Special Education Outcomes: A report on state activities at the beginning of a new decade. http://education.umn.edu/nceo/onlinepubs/2001statereports html.
  • Tindal, G., Heath, B., Hollenbeck, K., Almond, P., & Harniss, M. (1998). Accommodating students with disabilities on large-scale tests: an empirical study of student response and test administration demands. Exceptional children, 64(4), 439-450.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.