1

ACCESS for ELLs

Heather Geer

James Madison University

TESL 428: Assessment for Curriculum Development in English as a Second Language

Dr. Katya Koubek

Dec. 3, 2020
 2

Abstract

According to Patty Baer’s presentation of ACCESS for ELLs, a criterion-referenced standardized

test is a secure, large-scale test (available online or paper-based) that is rooted in the WIDA ELD

Standards, assessing academic language, like discourse, sentence structures, and vocabulary

usage, and indicates student’s ability to perform on state content test. The purposes of ACCESS

for ELLs includes monitoring English language proficiency, determining exits from services/EL

label, informing classroom instruction/assessment, and providing valid/reliable decision-making

and accountability (Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, 2019). As for

features of academic language, it’s assessed through linguistic complexity, referring to quantity

and variety, language forms/conventions, including types, array, and use of language structures,

and additionally, the specificity of word or phrase choice.

Furthermore, there are four individually assessed domains, listening, speaking, reading, and

writing that are scored based on raw (number of correct items), scale (maintains

reliability/validity and progress over time), and proficiency level (the interpretation of grade

specific scale scores for the domains). These proficiency levels are interpretative scores in the

presence of six WIDA English language levels: Level 1 Entering, Level 2 Emerging, Level 3

Developing, Level 4 Expanding, Level 5 Bridging, and Level 6 Reaching. They are grade-

specific and domain specific, so a ninth-grader at a proficiency level of 3.8 in Speaking might

have a scale score of 350, but they might have a lower scale score in Reading or if the same scale

was applied to a fifth-grade, it might translate to a proficiency level of 5.1. Although the four

domains are not always assessed all together, they can be integrated with one another. For

instance, “item formats for assessing writing rely on a written or oral prompt of some sort,”

(Brown, 2019) so test-takers would need to use their reading or listening skills to respond
 3

effectively. Regarding the scale score, these scores will be utilized to determine ELL level, make

instructional decisions regarding support, provide information to guardians about student

progress, and target professional development. The students are placed on a K-12 scale,

comparing student performance across grades and within each domain. However, they are not

considered raw scores but “a single point within a confidence band that shows the Standard Error

of Measurement” (Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, 2019), meaning the

scale score shows a range of scores that the student may receive. The scale reflects the fact that a

student who correctly answers a certain amount of more difficult questions has a higher

proficiency level than a student who correctly answers easier questions, but a scale score of 400

in Listening is not the same as a 400 in Speaking. Their proficiency levels are not the same and

different methods are used to score the domain tests like, “multiple-choice items of Listening and

Reading are machine scored” (Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, 2019).

The confidence bands refer to the fact that the scale is a range of potential student performance

and exists for the expected score variation.

For the composite scores of Oral Language, Literacy, Comprehension, and Overall, it is the

various combinations of a student’s proficiency level score and their scale score for the language

domains. Since the composite scores require all four domains to be completed, if a student does

not complete one domain, the composite scores will not be provided on the score report. The

Overall scores summarize a student’s performance, but students with identical scores would not

have the same individual profile because the proficiency levels and scale scores of each domain

differ, so “the individual performance would be more informative than a single composite score”

(Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, 2019). The Literacy scores are based

on the Reading and Writing proficiency levels and scale scores, but it is not an average of the
 4

proficiency levels in the individual domains. The Literacy proficiency level is based on its scale

score. For Oral Language, the scores are based on Listening and Speaking proficiency levels and

scale scores, compared to the Literacy scores. Essentially, the levels and scores provide a

predictor for student growth throughout the years, allowing for appropriate language pace and

effective evaluation.

Keywords: Proficiency levels, scale scores, WIDA Levels, language domains, composite

scores, confidence bands, assessment

 5

Student 1:

Language Domain Proficiency Level Scale Score Can Do Descriptors (2016)

Listening 4.5 394 Level 4 – Expanding
o Distinguish between
multiple meanings of
oral words or phrases
in social and academic
contexts
o Analyze content-
related tasks or
assignments based on
oral discourse
o Categorize examples
of genres read aloud
o Compare traits based
on visuals and oral
descriptions using
specific and some
technical language
Speaking 4.9 384 Level 4 – Expanding
(descriptors for Level 5
included)
o Take a stance and use
evidence to defend it
o Explain content-
related issues and
concepts
o Compare and contrast
points of view
o Analyze and share
pros and cons of
choices
o Use and respond to
gossip, slang, and
idiomatic expressions
o Use speaking
strategies
Level 5 – Bridging
o Give multimedia oral
presentations on
grade-level material
o Engage in debates on
content-related issues
using technical
 6

language
o Explain metacognitive
strategies for solving
problems
o Negotiate meaning in
pairs or group
discussions
Reading 6.0 414 Level 6 – Reaching
o Evaluate written
information from
various sources of
information
o Conduct research and
synthesizing
information from
multiple sources
o Distinguish various
processes based on
details in written texts
o Recognize different
ideas and claims and
evidence about variety
of issues
Writing 4.6 405 Level 4 – Expanding
o Summarize content-
related notes from
lectures or text
o Revise work based on
narrative or oral
feedback
o Compose narrative
and expository text for
a variety of purposes
o Justify or defend ideas
and opinions
o Produce content-
related reports
Oral Language 4.7 389
Literacy 5.5 410
Comprehension 5.9 408
Overall 5.2 403
Student 2:

Language Domain Proficiency Level Scale Score Can Do Descriptors (2016)

Listening 2.9 348 Level 2 – Beginning
 7

(descriptors for Level 3

included)
o Match or classify oral
descriptions to real-
life experiences or
visually represented,
content-related
examples
o Sort oral language
statements according
to time frames
o Sequence visuals
according to oral
directions
Level 3 – Developing
o Evaluate information
in social and
academic
conversations
o Distinguish main
ideas from supporting
points in oral,
content-related
discourse
o Use learning
strategies described
orally
o Categorize content-
based examples
described orally
Speaking 1.9 318 o Ask and answer
simple questions
about what, when, or
where something
happened
o Name familiar
objects, people,
pictures
o Show how to solve
problems using words
and gestures
o Express personal
preferences
Reading 1.9 323 Level 1 – Entering
(descriptors for Level 2
included)
 8

o Match visual
representations to
words/phrases
o Read everyday signs,
symbols, schedules,
and school-related
words/phrases
o Respond to WH-
questions related to
illustrated text
o Use references (e.g.,
picture dictionaries,
technology)
Level 2 – Beginning
o Match data or
information with its
source or genre
o Classify or organize
information presented
in visuals or graphs
o Follow multi-step
instructions supported
by visuals or data
o Match sentence-level
descriptions to visual
representations
o Compare content-
related features in
visuals and graphics
o Locate main ideas in
a series of related
sentences
Writing 2.9 355 Level 2 – Beginning
(descriptors for Level 3
included)
o Make content-related
lists of words,
phrases, or
expressions
o Take notes using
graphic organizers or
models
o Formulate yes/no,
choice and WH-
questions from
 9

models
o Correspond for social
purposes (e.g., e-
mails, memos)
Level 3 – Developing
o Complete reports
from templates
o Compose short
narrative and
expository pieces
o Outline ideas and
details using graphic
organizers
o Compare and reflect
on performance
against criteria (e.g.,
rubrics)
Oral Language 2.5 333
Literacy 2.3 339
Comprehension 2.1 331
Overall 2.3 337

ACCESS for ELLs

Speaking

Relating to speaking, Bayadi’s teachers should be using expectations for WIDA Levels 4

and 5. incorporating speaking activities into all content domain areas. Within the subject area of
 10

Language Arts, specific and “specialized academic language and a variety of sentence structures

of varying linguistic complexity should be utilized, especially with oral language” (Brown,

2019). 

Bayadi’s oral proficiency level is 4.9, indicating that summarizing examples from story

lines using visual representation or asking questions to clarify meaning could be beneficial in

assessing learning. In classroom discussion, this student should be stating opinions with

supported, detailed examples. For instance, using WIDA Level 5 and extensive speaking, the

instructors could assign a multimedia oral presentation about a medium length excerpt from a

classic novel and in pairs or groups, they would explain the main idea, introduction, theme,

supporting details, climax, and a restatement of the main idea. This would be graded by a

checklist through a numbering system and supporting criteria for each number.

In reference to Hayman, their score is considerably lower at 1.9. Although they wouldn’t

be able to engage in oral presentations because it would be inappropriate for the level, they can

ask/answer simple questions, explain how to solve problems utilizing words or gestures, express

personal opinions, and name familiar people/objects/pictures. Instructors should be using a

combination of WIDA Level 1 and WIDA Level 2 to assess the speaking domain. For example,

in responsive speaking, the teachers could ask a list of related questions about their interests and

the student could provide three identifying facts about themself while expressing pre-taught

vocabulary. For scaffolding the teachers could provide feedback or allow the student to ask them

questions.

Writing

For the writing domain, the instructors should be utilizing WIDA Level 4 expectations as

they have a writing proficiency of 4.6, meaning Bayadi can produce papers describing certain
 11

events or concepts. In reference to their writing, this student should be revising work based on

appropriately evaluated feedback and produce content-related reports or expository texts,

allowing for a better understanding of the material. For instance, for extensive writing, Bayadi

could compose a report about a short article, justifying their opinions based on the content and

the instructor could focus on providing adequate oral or narrative feedback in a descriptive

rubric.

In relevance to Hayman, their writing proficiency is 2.9, so they would be evaluated in

WIDA Levels 2 and 3, incorporating ideas or concepts using short sentences, labeling

illustrations, stating steps in processes, and expressing their opinions about particular events. For

example, using responsive writing, Hayman could take notes on the content using graphic

organizers or models and the instructor would formulate guided writing questions based on the

models. In small groups, they could answer the questions, but they can also provide explicit

information, outlining main ideas or more detailed responses and reflecting performance based

on specified criteria. The instructors will walk around the room and provide any constructive

feedback, while also answering any questions.

Listening

While providing recommendations, Bayadi has a listening comprehension proficiency of

4.5, so the instructor should be utilizing WIDA Level 4 descriptors with extensive listening. This

would include exchanging information and ideas with others, connecting people and events

based on oral information, applying key information about processes, and identifying positions

on issues in oral discussions, using a combination of the speaking and listening domains. I would

suggest applying oral descriptions that contain double meaning with a partner about a topic,

categorizing phrases from a classic novel that are described orally, for the listening domain. They
 12

could distinguish between different meanings of oral words or phrases in social and academic

contexts.

Furthermore, Hayman had a listening proficiency level of 1.9, so they would be evaluated

using the WIDA levels 1 and 2. This would include identifying main topics in discussions,

categorizing information presented orally using pictures or objects, following short oral

directions with visual representation, and sorting facts or opinions stated orally. For instance,

with intensive writing, the instructor could state oral information like a descriptive phrase and in

pairs, the students could match the information to provided images. Since the student is on the

cusp of the Beginning level, the orally stated phrases could be in a story format, meaning they

would match the phrases to the pictures and sequence the visuals based on the oral directions.

Reading

For the reading domain, Bayadi has a reading comprehension level of 6.0, so the

instructor would assess them with WIDA Level 6 criteria and extensive reading. This includes,

“evaluating written information from various sources, conducting research and synthesizing

information, distinguishing processes based on details from written texts, and recognizing

different ideas or claims about a variety of issues” (Brown, 2019). The instructor could provide

them with extensive reading like a journal article and the student would write a summary of the

text, including a one paragraph explanation targeting the main idea and supporting details. This

summary would be assessed through a holistic grading scale, strictly adhering to the criterion of

assessing reading comprehension. 

With Hayman, their reading comprehension level is 1.9, considerably lower than

Bayadi’s comprehension level, so the instructor would focus on WIDA levels 1 and 2 but also

perceptive reading. The student can interpret information from graphs, charts, and other visual
 13

entities, comprehend short texts with illustration, identify steps in processes presented with

visual representation, and identify words or phrases that express opinions/claims. For example,

the instructor could assess by providing sentence appropriate descriptions from a short story and

in small groups or pairs, they could match the information to provided images and the images

could be familiar objects or symbols like vocabulary/school-related content. 

 14

References

Virginia Department of Education. (2012). Virginia SOL Standards.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/ 

WIDA. (2012). Can Do Descriptors. WIDA. https://wida.wisc.edu/teach/can-do/descriptors. 

WIDA. (2010). English language development standards. WIDA.

https://wida.wisc.edu/teach/standards/eld 

Brown, H.D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and classroom

practices (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.