In recent years, schools and large-scale assessment developers across the United States have been providing English learners with language supports when they take tests to reduce construct-irrelevant variance, or errors in test scores due to factors that are extraneous to the construct being assessed (Thorndike et al., 1991). Some of these supports are linguistically related, such as word-to-word bilingual dictionaries and translated test directions, whereas other supports are linguistically unrelated, such as giving students extra time and testing them in a small group (Schissel, 2014). An appropriate support is one that reduces construct-irrelevant variance caused by limited language proficiency while producing comparable scores between English learners and non-ELs (Rios et al., 2020). Several studies have found that language supports are effective for improving English learners' test performance and reducing test score gaps between ELs and non-ELs (Kieffer et al., 2009; Li & Suen, 2012; Pennock-Roman & Rivera, 2011). Other studies have found that although some supports such as extra time could benefit both ELs and non-ELs, these supports tend to benefit students who are ELs to a greater extent (Sireci et al., 2003). In this report, ACT surveyed English learners who took the ACT® test on a National test date in February or April 2022 to learn about their experiences and perceptions when taking tests with language supports. The purposes of this survey were to (1) understand the types of supports English learners used when they took tests at school and when they took the ACT; (2) investigate how ELs felt about these supports, whether they thought the supports were useful or not; (3) explore whether using these supports when taking tests was associated with self-reported confidence on test performance or with test anxiety; and (4) learn why some ELs did not use supports when taking tests in school or when taking the ACT.
students classified as English Learners (ELs). The levers include bilingual education, counselor availability, teacher preparation, and extra instructional time. Each brief includes key take-aways based on analyses of student-level longitudinal data from the state of Oregon.