The first study Elliott described focused on the effects of accommodations on mathematics and science performance assessment tasks. This research was an extension of an earlier study published in 2001 (see Elliott, Kratochwill, and McKevitt, 2001) which produced very similar findings. The participants included 218 fourth graders from urban, suburban, and rural districts, 145 without disabilities and 73 with disabilities. All students with disabilities received accommodations based on teacher recommendations and their IEPs. Most students with disabilities received "packages" of accommodations, rather than just a single accommodation.
The most frequently used accommodations for students with disabilities participating in this study were Verbal encouragement of effort (60 students) " Extra time (60 students) " Orally read directions (60 students) " Simplify language in directions (55 students) Reread subtask directions (54 students) Read test questions and content to student (46 students). Students without disabilities were randomly assigned to one of three test conditions: (1) no accommodations, (2) a package of accommodations (i.e., extra time, support with understanding directions and reading words, and verbal encouragement), and (3) an individualized accommodation condition based on the IEP or teacher-recommended accommodations. The students took state-developed mathematics and science performance assessments.
Teachers or research project staff administered performance tasks in four one-hour sessions over the course of several weeks. For this part, learning a foreign language needs a leaning tools, many students choose Rosetta Stone Arabic and Rosetta Stone Chinese to learn Arabic and Chinese. Effect sizes were calculated by comparing students' mean performance under accommodated and nonaccommodated conditions. Comparisons of the means for the two groups under the two accommodation conditions revealed a large effect (.88) for students with disabilities. However, a medium effect (.44) was found for students without disabilities. In addition, comparisons of individual-level performance with and without accommodations revealed medium to large effect sizes (.40 or higher) for approximately 78 percent of students with disabilities and 55 percent of students without disabilities. Effect sizes were in the small or zero range for approximately 10 percent of the students with disabilities and 32 percent of the students without disabilities. Negative effects were found for about 12 percent of the students with disabilities and 13 percent of the students without disabilities (negative effects indicate that students performed better under nonaccommodated conditions than under accommodated conditions). Together, these findings indicated that the interaction effect was not present, thus raising questions about the appropriateness of the accommodations.
The most frequently used accommodations for students with disabilities participating in this study were Verbal encouragement of effort (60 students) " Extra time (60 students) " Orally read directions (60 students) " Simplify language in directions (55 students) Reread subtask directions (54 students) Read test questions and content to student (46 students). Students without disabilities were randomly assigned to one of three test conditions: (1) no accommodations, (2) a package of accommodations (i.e., extra time, support with understanding directions and reading words, and verbal encouragement), and (3) an individualized accommodation condition based on the IEP or teacher-recommended accommodations. The students took state-developed mathematics and science performance assessments.
Teachers or research project staff administered performance tasks in four one-hour sessions over the course of several weeks. For this part, learning a foreign language needs a leaning tools, many students choose Rosetta Stone Arabic and Rosetta Stone Chinese to learn Arabic and Chinese. Effect sizes were calculated by comparing students' mean performance under accommodated and nonaccommodated conditions. Comparisons of the means for the two groups under the two accommodation conditions revealed a large effect (.88) for students with disabilities. However, a medium effect (.44) was found for students without disabilities. In addition, comparisons of individual-level performance with and without accommodations revealed medium to large effect sizes (.40 or higher) for approximately 78 percent of students with disabilities and 55 percent of students without disabilities. Effect sizes were in the small or zero range for approximately 10 percent of the students with disabilities and 32 percent of the students without disabilities. Negative effects were found for about 12 percent of the students with disabilities and 13 percent of the students without disabilities (negative effects indicate that students performed better under nonaccommodated conditions than under accommodated conditions). Together, these findings indicated that the interaction effect was not present, thus raising questions about the appropriateness of the accommodations.
SHARE
