The purpose of this study is to validate theoretical framework using empirical analysis on the second language assessment, ACCESS 2.0 (Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners; wida.us).  

ACCESS 2.0 was built on theoretical foundation of 1) functional framework that language is one of many systems of meaning-making used in everyday life. Language is not learned absent of context. Rather, individuals learn the kinds of language needed for participation in the situations encountered. A functional approach to language, with its emphasis on communicative purpose, focuses attention on the language features relevant to a particular instructional activity (Halliday and Hasan,1985). , and 2) Within a learner’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978), language is acquired and mediated in interaction with opportunities for meaningful practice, e.g. comprehensible input and output (Long, 1996; Mackey, 1999). Learners’ evolving language proficiency is captured by the notion of interlanguage; as learners build on prior knowledge (schema) they acquire more complex features of language which they refine over time (Smith & Kellerman, 1989; Huebner, 1983).

A synthesis of research in language development, content learning, and sociocultural theory is implicit in the ACCESS standards framework and is made explicit in the principles of language development in the English Language Development (ELD) Standards in the assessment.  

The ELD Standards is represented in a series of scaffolded steps within a linguistic progression across five levels of language proficiency. The model performance indicators (MPIs) provide exemplars of language processing and use as students gain proficiency and can be readily utilized and adapted by educators to support instruction and curriculum development.

At the core of the ACCESS’s standards framework are the Performance Definitions along with the language development standards and their representative matrices. The

Performance Definitions delineate what the various levels of language proficiency look like, informed by the features of academic language. The standards matrices help educators envision what language development might look like in K–12 classrooms, with linguistic scaffolds across the five standards. These matrices are used in conjunction with the Performance Definitions to fully describe possible student trajectories for academic language development.

The ACCESS’s standards framework reflects evolving theoretical insights and a principled approach to language teaching and learning. The focus of this work has been on describing meaning-making during the process of language development required for students to engage in language use in academic contexts. With major theories of language and language development as a point of departure, the standards framework elaborates the relationships between language and student interaction that lead to success in academic tasks.

Research Questions:

1. How does the content validity of ACCESS assessment be assessed? How does ACCESS be validated to achieve English language acquisition?
2. How is mastery of linguistic knowledge of ACCESS extracted in each five proficiency development levels?

Brennan, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. New York: Springer-Verlag. Gierl, M., Leighton, J. P., & Hunka, S. M. (2000). Exploring the logic of Tatsuoka’s rule- space model for test develop- ment and analysis. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 19(3), 34–44. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R., (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press. Huebner, T. (1983). Linguistic system and linguistic change in an interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 33–53. Lee, W. (2008). Classification consistency and accuracy for complex assessments using item response theory (CASMA Research Report No. 27). Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557– 587. Rupp, A. A. (2007, April). Unique characteristics of cognitive diagnosis models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago. Smith, M. S., & Kellerman, E. (1989). The interpretation of second language output. Transfer in language production, 217-36. Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 345–354. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.