










































Research Article 

Emily Patterson, Student, Winthrop University, Rock Hill, SC; email 
pattersone9@winthropalumni.com. 

Elke Schneider, Professor, Winthrop University, Rock Hill, SC; email schneidere@winthrop.edu   

Are WIDA Test Results 
Appropriately Reflecting 
Multilingual Learners’ Language 
Skills According to ESOL 
Teachers’ Experiences? Results of 
a Pilot Study

GATESOL Journal 2024, 
Vol. 33(1), pp. 3–17 

doi:10.52242/gatesol.184 
ISSN: 2331-6845 

Emily Patterson 
Elke Schneider 
Richard W. Riley College of Education, Winthrop University 

Abstract 
Within the field of multilingual learner (ML) education, ESOL teachers’ voices are often 
overlooked and underrepresented despite their integral role in developing productive and 
knowledgeable future citizens. This study sheds light on the experiences of ESOL teachers 
that administer the federally mandated annual standardized testing created by World-Class 
Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA). It uses focus-group interviews to gather 
qualitative data from two neighboring school districts in order to gain insight into the WIDA 
assessments’ reflection of language proficiency. WIDA testing evaluates English language 
development by measuring academic and social language skills within the four language 
domains: reading, writing, listening, and speaking. MLs without severe, classified disabilities 
in grades K-12 participate annually in the Assessing Comprehension and Communication of 
English State-to-State (ACCESS) assessment by WIDA. Results place students into 
proficiency categories ranging from entering (a student new to English) to bridging (a near-
fluent ML), as defined by the WIDA language proficiency standards. The interviews allowed 
the ESOL teachers to share their experiences with MLs’ classroom performances in the four 
testing domains compared to their performances on the online WIDA assessments. The 
interview data was analyzed and categorized into three main themes based on teacher 
responses: assessment preparation techniques, common perceptions of the assessment, and 
proposed changes to improve the assessment. Each of these themes, with their local and 
national implications, are discussed as they affect the nature of ESOL instruction and 
assessment. 

Keywords 
language proficiency assessment, multilingual learners, WIDA ACCESS, ESOL teacher 
perspectives 

Introduction 
Appropriate instruction and assessment of multilingual learners (MLs) within education has 
become an increasingly important field of study. As the percentage of MLs within public schools 
continues to rise, research within the field of ESOL, especially pertaining to the assessment of 

mailto:pattersone9@winthropalumni.com
mailto:schneidere@winthrop.edu


4 GATESOL Journal 33(1)  
 

English language development, remains limited. The purpose of this study is to explore the 
experiences of ESOL teachers from two local school districts in the east coast region of the U.S. 
regarding the nature and authenticity of WIDA ACCESS testing (Wisconsin Center for Education 
Research, 2023). WIDA ACCESS assessments provide data that indicate the development of 
English in students whose first language is not English to appropriately guide ensuing instruction. 
ESOL teachers share personal experiences through focus group interviews to shed light on the 
various perspectives of educators regarding the authenticity of the WIDA ACCESS test results in 
measuring English language development. Authenticity, in the context of this study, is defined by 
Varga and Guignon (2020) as “a reliable, accurate representation” of MLs’ English language 
proficiency (p. 1). 

This study is significant due to general ESOL teachers’ perceptions of, and anecdotal 
references to, the discrepancies between student performance on standardized WIDA tests and 
perceived English language development within the classroom. These anecdotal comments have 
alluded to challenges with WIDA testing as an adequate representation of MLs’ language 
development based on teachers’ daily interactions and continual monitoring of language 
acquisition in the classroom. These teachers share the seemingly common frustrations of 
perceiving the WIDA language proficiency assessments as an ineffective measure of language 
proficiency across grade levels, schools, and districts. Although most U.S. states measure English 
language proficiency using WIDA, limited independent research exists exploring teachers’ 
perceptions of the assessments as an accurate measure of language development (King & Bigelow, 
2018). Currently, the existing body of independent research into the authenticity of WIDA 
language proficiency assessments is limited to the quantitative findings of Coulter (2017) and the 
qualitative findings of Lopez and Garcia (2020) and Waters (2020). Coulter (2017) compared 
WIDA ACCESS proficiency ratings with previous alternative standardized testing. Lopez and 
Garcia (2020) interviewed ESOL teachers and found out that most teachers struggle to utilize 
standardized data for instruction. Moreover, Waters (2020) examined the variance in teacher 
perspectives of WIDA ACCESS testing based on demographics and teaching environments to 
determine the impact of test results on ESOL policy and decision-making. These findings support 
the inquiry into the authenticity of WIDA ACCESS testing.  

To the knowledge of the authors to this date, ESOL teachers’ experiences with the 
preparation for, administration of, and comparison of test results with in-class language 
performances of MLs have not been explored in the ESOL literature. Therefore, this study creates 
a unique forum to share teachers’ experiences through inquiry into pedagogical techniques and 
beliefs surrounding the standardized assessments. Moreover, the consistently growing number of 
MLs in public schools creates an increasing demand for appropriate and authentic testing to track 
language development (Ariza & Coady, 2018).  

The following sections provide readers with background information to better understand 
the relevance of this study in terms of (a) MLs’ language acquisition, (b) legal support for 
appropriate language performance assessment, and (c) the nature of WIDA ACCESS testing. 

 
MLs and Language Acquisition 
When acquiring a second or additional language, MLs develop language in two domains: basic 
interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) 
(Cummins, 2016). Developed and defined by Cummins (2016), BICS encompasses oral 
conversational fluency that generally develops within one to three years of consistent social 
immersion in an additional language and culture. CALP includes spoken or written academic 



Patterson & Schneider 5 
 

language used in informational exchanges, typically within a formal academic setting. On average, 
MLs develop near-fluent CALP over the span of five to seven years with regular exposure in an 
academic setting and up to nine years with limited exposure (Cummins, 2008). However, 
Cummins’ theory of language acquisition receives criticism for “creating a binary view of 
language” that does not always adequately reflect language acquisition (Scarcella, 2003, p. 6). In 
her critique, Scarcella (2003) refers to Cummins’ model as a stagnant representation of language 
development encompassing fixed choices of language comprehension and production. However, 
she overlooks the progressivity of Cummins’ model, in which students continuously acquire new 
social and academic language skills simultaneously in diverse environments (Ariza & Coady, 
2018). Cummins’ theory of language acquisition remains pertinent to the assessment of language 
proficiency because, when measuring language development, language proficiency assessments 
should consider the disparity between social and academic language acquisition. 

MLs’ language acquisition is influenced by the learning environment (Makarova, 2019), 
where they can gain exposure to and authentic experiences with using social language to engage 
in social interactions that serve as the dominant language function within a positive setting. 
However, authentic experiences using academic vocabulary can be limited because the language 
is often decontextualized and used primarily in academic endeavors (Ariza & Coady, 2018). This 
decontextualization results from the expectation that students utilize academic vocabulary solely 
within content-specific settings, such as language unique to geometry during mathematics 
instruction, rather than integrating domain-specific vocabulary in a variety of authentic settings. 
Furthermore, language-level properties and child-level properties (Paradis, 2019) can affect MLs’ 
language acquisition rates. Language-level properties include features that impact language 
acquisition, such as the complexity and structural dynamics of the new language. Child-level 
properties are properties that relate to the individual learner to influence language acquisition, 
including input and output opportunities and cognitive capacity (Coulter, 2017; Paradis, 2019). 
Within these domains, MLs possess complex, higher-order thinking and executive functioning 
skills but struggle to verbalize their thoughts in a new language, resulting in a language gap 
(Coulter, 2017, p. 1) rather than an achievement gap (Kudo & Swanson, 2014). The educational 
environment also contributes to the language gap by limiting input and output opportunities on 
which language acquisition heavily relies. For example, classroom instruction that limits peer 
discussions prevents MLs from developing academic oral language during critical thinking tasks. 
The properties of language acquisition combined with knowledge of the complex capabilities of 
MLs create a foundation for effective ESOL pedagogy and assessment. 
 
Legal Support for Appropriate Performance Assessment 
The legal support for appropriate language proficiency tests in public schools is based on several 
legal developments starting in the early 1960s. These landmark court cases related to ML 
populations and ESOL education, including Lau v. Nichols (1974), Plyler v. Doe (1982), 
Castañeda v. Pickard (1981), and United States v. Texas (1970) (McEachern, 2022), impact the 
pedagogy and classroom experiences of MLs. The first federal acknowledgement of the needs of 
MLs within public education deemed segregation of schools unlawful and mandated federal grants 
to support programs for MLs (Bilingual Education Act, 1968). As ML populations rapidly 
expanded, claims arose that identical education did not present equal educational opportunities for 
MLs. The case ruled that schools must take affirmative actions to remove educational barriers for 
all students, including MLs (Lau v. Nichols, 1974). Subsequently, multiple court cases led to 
ESOL programs in public education by requiring education for undocumented immigrants (Plyler 



6 GATESOL Journal 33(1)  
 

v. Doe, 1982), research-based pedagogy (Castañeda v. Pickard, 1981), and progress monitoring 
through standardized testing (United States v. Texas, 1970). See Appendix A for a detailed 
overview of these court cases. 
 
Nature of WIDA ACCESS Testing 
MLs are federally mandated to complete a large-scale, norm-referenced, summative language 
proficiency assessment on an annual basis, as required by Castañeda v. Pickard (1978). WIDA 
currently provides assessments to 41 U.S. states and 2 U.S. territories. Originally funded by a U.S. 
Department of Education grant, WIDA was established in 2003 by the Wisconsin Department of 
Public Instruction to design language proficiency standards and assessments for MLs (Wisconsin 
Center for Education Research, 2023). To identify MLs’ home languages, new students in U.S. 
public education must complete a home language survey (Castañeda v. Pickard, 1978). MLs 
without classified disabilities in grades 1-12 take the online ACCESS test administered by a local 
ESOL teacher and scored by affiliates of the WIDA organization. The WIDA ACCESS test 
determines MLs’ English proficiency based on vocabulary usage, language forms and conventions, 
and linguistic complexity in the following content areas: social and instructional language, English 
language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies (Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 
2023). According to WIDA-based research, the ACCESS assessment aligns national Common 
Core State Standards (CCSS) with WIDA language standards (Cook, 2014; Wisconsin Center for 
Education Research, 2023) by assessing content knowledge and critical thinking skills (Coulter, 
2017).  

Students take this online test in four separate parts for a total of 265 testing minutes. Local 
ESOL teachers administer and supervise the test, following an administration model provided by 
WIDA. Assessed language domains include reading, writing, listening, and speaking (see 
Appendix B1). ESOL teachers then use the test scores to guide future instruction based on MLs’ 
strengths and areas for improvement. WIDA uses criterion-referenced scoring to place students at 
different levels of language proficiency, as described in Appendix B2 (Coulter, 2017). The six 
levels of language acquisition are associated with a number system (1-6) starting at entering (1) 
for students with minimal language proficiency, beginning (2), developing (3), expanding (4), 
bridging (5), and reaching (6) (Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 2023).  

The online nature of this test impacts MLs’ language performances in a variety of ways. 
According to Coulter (2017), teachers consider the negative effects of extended online testing on 
MLs’ performances when reviewing test scores. Also, having to record themselves speaking into 
a computer using a headset and microphone creates an unnatural language interaction for MLs that 
differs from speaking with others in person (Coulter, 2017). Additionally, the writing portion 
requires students to type constructed responses within a time limit and deviates from MLs’ writing 
tasks with a writing utensil and paper. Coulter’s (2017) WIDA-independent study also describes 
the disconnect in test scores and classroom performances because the assessment requires MLs to 
apply grade-level content knowledge and critical thinking skills in English without considering 
MLs’ deficits in both areas. According to Coulter (2017), only 20 percent of the testing material 
measures social language skills, which is evident in the updated WIDA English Language 
Standards Statements (2020). Only Standard 1 explicitly addresses the assessment of “language 
for social and instructional purposes” (Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 2023) while the 
remaining four language standards for language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies 
exclusively emphasize academic language and content knowledge (WIDA, 2020, pp. 24-25; 
Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 2023). 



Patterson & Schneider 7 
 

 
Research Methods 
This study delved into the WIDA ACCESS tests used to measure language proficiency to answer 
the research question: How do ESOL teachers perceive the WIDA ACCESS language proficiency 
assessment as an authentic representation of MLs’ English language proficiency? Discussions in 
focus-group interviews were chosen for data collection in order to allow participants to interact 
with each other and share their personal experiences with WIDA testing.   

Nine of 34 invited ESOL teachers from two local suburban school districts voluntarily 
participated in virtual focus group interviews.  Participants were identified using a sample of 
convenience by locating the names of local ESOL teachers on district websites and contacting 
them directly through email to request participation. Following university International Review 
Board (IRB) protocols, participation was voluntary, and participant identities remained 
anonymous. All participants were female, white, native speakers of English who had previous or 
current experiences as elementary ESOL teachers in two contiguous school districts. Three of the 
nine participants were employed in the largest school district in the county of interest, and, at the 
time of the study, 16.5% of the student population were classified as MLs according to the local 
school district website. The remaining six participants were employed in an adjacent school district 
with similar demographics. Three participants taught in both middle school and elementary ESOL 
classrooms but shared their experiences specifically pertaining to the administration of WIDA 
assessments in elementary settings to maintain consistency and specificity in the gathered data. 
Four participants requested individual interviews. One session consisted of two interviewees, and 
another session held three participants. 

During 30-minute individual and group interviews, six prepared questions were posed as 
follows. The researchers clarified any necessary wording, such as defining authenticity in the 
context of this study, to ensure participants fully understood each question and answered the 
questions to the best of their abilities. 

 
1. In what ways do you prepare your students for WIDA ACCESS testing, and can you 

provide examples of preparation techniques? 
2. Which of the four domains (reading, writing, listening, and speaking) is harder or easier 

to prepare students for? Why? 
3. In your personal experience as an ESOL teacher, how has the online nature of the 

assessment affected student performance when compared to your informal assessments 
and interactions with the students? 

4. To what degree does the WIDA test reflect MLs’ English proficiency in the four testing 
domains? 

5. What changes could be made to the WIDA assessment to ensure students demonstrate 
their English proficiency with more authenticity than the current assessment results? 

6. Based on your experiences, to what degree does WIDA testing require students to 
access cultural understandings, prior academic knowledge, and keyboarding skills? 

 
Findings 
The researchers analyzed the interview transcripts generated automatically by the virtual meeting 
platform. They independently coded the transcripts according to recurring themes, discussed 
commonalities in their theme-coding, and resolved coding differences through negotiated 
agreements (Belotto, 2018), ensuring interrater reliability. They then used the coded transcripts to 



8 GATESOL Journal 33(1)  
 

identify three common themes within the data: (a) teacher preparation techniques for the test, (b) 
teacher perceptions of the test, and (c) proposed changes to the test. 
 
Theme 1: Preparation Techniques 
The first theme, preparation techniques for the test, was separated into four categories: preparation 
for speaking, writing, reading, and listening. All interviewees commented on common 
preparations, such as conferencing with students to discuss the previous year’s test scores (7 out 
of the 9 participants), setting goals for the upcoming year (6/9), organizing students into ability-
based small groups (2/9), and practicing sample test questions (5/9) to “simulate the test as much 
as possible,” as one teacher stated. 
 

Speaking test preparations. The interviewees built a comprehensive list of preparation 
techniques to improve each skill required for a satisfactory test score. For instance, eight of the 
nine teachers discussed incorporating recording technology to allow students to practice physically 
speaking into a microphone with a headset as a means to simulate the test format. Five teachers 
mentioned practicing the mechanical functions of clicking the record button, speaking for a set 
time, and then ending the recording. To familiarize students with talking about a topic for an 
extended period, one teacher has students describe a displayed picture using details and academic 
vocabulary while timing responses with a running sand timer. All nine interviewees emphasized 
the importance of acclimating students to the test format rather than providing direct instruction to 
improve MLs’ oral responses. Lastly, four teachers have students identify relevant academic and 
content-specific vocabulary to track the vocabulary usage in their responses so students “use as 
much academic language as possible.” 

 
Writing test preparations. Similar to the speaking preparation, seven teachers simulate 

the writing portion of the test in their preparation. To mirror test formats, students in grades 1-3 
write responses on paper while students in grades 4-5 type responses on the computer. Three 
teachers discussed their focus on developing the writing process with brainstorming, drafting, 
revising, and editing responses. These same three teachers also dedicate units of study to each of 
the writing functions, such as comparing and contrasting or cause-and-effect. One teacher uses a 
color-coding strategy to ensure students effectively organize their responses. Three participants 
also discussed a technique similar to the speaking preparation in which students describe a picture 
using details and academic vocabulary. The majority of described writing preparation emphasizes 
identifying and incorporating key vocabulary and academic language into the responses. Four 
teachers also push into general education classrooms with their MLs in a separate academic 
environment to connect academic content to their writing. 

 
Reading test preparations. Similar to speaking and writing, a common preparation 

technique used to familiarize MLs involves simulating the test format by using practice questions 
that require students to read and answer content-related questions. Four teachers found this crucial 
because they noticed MLs getting confused by unfamiliar academic content when answering the 
questions. For example, questions may provide students with a brief passage involving 
mathematics and U.S. currency. Although the answer to the question is provided in the given 
passage, MLs can become distracted by the mathematical nature of the question as well as a 
possible lack of prior knowledge surrounding U.S. monetary values. This distraction often affects 
MLs’ abilities to apply language skills to effectively answer the question. Therefore, eight of the 



Patterson & Schneider 9 
 

nine teachers pose discipline-specific questions repeatedly. Additionally, these eight teachers 
mentioned that the instruction provided within general education classrooms, combined with their 
direct support, strengthened MLs’ reading skills. Thus, all interviewees did not see a need to 
emphasize direct preparation for the reading portion of the test.  

Listening test preparations. All nine interviewees direct little attention to listening practices 
because both social and academic listening skills develop naturally within school environments, 
which provides MLs with daily listening practice in their classrooms. One teacher described 
having MLs listen to their own recordings from the speaking practice to discuss strengths and areas 
for improvement using student-friendly rubrics provided by WIDA. Another teacher records 
prompts for students to listen to and answer questions that mirror the test. Overall, the interviewed 
ESOL teachers prepare MLs for each of the four testing domains similarly by mirroring the test 
format and emphasizing the development of academic language. 
 
Theme 2: Teacher Perceptions of the Assessment 
The second theme encompasses teachers’ perceptions of the test and its ability to appropriately 
measure English proficiency. Two main categories arose from these perceptions: domain-specific 
difficulties and emphasis on academic content.  
 

Domain-specific difficulties. All nine participants agreed that the listening portion of the 
test poses the least difficulty for MLs, and they devote minimal direct instructional time to listening 
test preparations. One teacher credited the lack of difficulty to the natural academic and social 
listening practice occurring in general education classrooms. Six teachers observed consistently 
higher scores on the listening and reading domains’ multiple-choice format and partially attributed 
MLs’ success to the limited pool of answer choices and frequent exposure to multiple-choice 
questions. Also, seven participants attributed annual growth in reading scores to adequate practice 
in the general education classroom. Five interviewees consistently identified the reading portion 
as more difficult than the listening portion due to content-specific questions. They noticed that 
some MLs tend to use academic background knowledge rather than language skills to answer 
content-based questions. To illustrate, and referring to the aforementioned example of students 
encountering a question based on U.S. currency and mathematics, interviewees described MLs’ 
tendency to use knowledge of U.S. currency to answer the question rather than their reading skills 
to locate the answer provided in the passage. Despite these difficulties, all nine teachers found the 
reading and listening portions less difficult than the speaking and writing domains. 

In contrast, every teacher identified speaking and writing test sections as significantly more 
difficult than listening and reading tasks. All nine teachers attributed the difficulty of the speaking 
test first to the unnatural test format and repeatedly described MLs’ struggles with the process of 
recording their answers while speaking to a screen rather than a real person. They also pointed out 
that recording an oral response for an extended period without verbal or nonverbal feedback (i.e., 
prompting or nodding) creates, according to one teacher, an “intimidating” setting. Another teacher 
shared, “I have kids who speak perfect English who score very, very low on [speaking]” because 
of the students’ discomfort with the response format. Additionally, eight of the nine teachers 
mentioned that the speaking test sets higher expectations for language than commonly found in 
daily conversation by requiring students to use academic vocabulary not typically used in everyday 
speech. To combat this discrepancy, during class time two teachers rely heavily on having MLs 
speak in complete sentences using relevant academic vocabulary. All nine teachers described the 
writing portion of the test as comparably difficult to the speaking test because the writing format 



10 GATESOL Journal 33(1)  
 

differs from state-standardized tests in which students conduct prompted text-dependent analyses 
with an expected response length (Writing Component, 2022). Seven interviewees also pointed 
out that the writing tasks require writing stamina beyond developmentally appropriate levels. MLs 
respond to three prompts that each demand lengthy responses with academic language and relevant 
content. All teachers commented that questions often referenced academic content, and four 
participants found that the topics were often unfamiliar or unnatural to write about for MLs. In 
sum, teachers perceived the writing and speaking portions to be the most difficult because of their 
unnatural format and the high expectation of students’ command of academic language. 

 
Emphasis on academic content. All nine participants commented on the test’s emphasis 

on academic language and content knowledge. Six teachers viewed the content-oriented questions 
as inaccurate measures of language proficiency because “language proficiencies come out much 
lower than where the child actually is,” as one teacher stated. Students receive daily scaffolding 
and academic support, such as visual aids, but the test provides minimal support when students 
use academic vocabulary. Teachers perceived the test as “very content-oriented” and “testing 
[MLs’] academic language” rather than measuring language proficiency. Five interviewees also 
noted that one challenge for MLs was that relevant grade-level standards have often not been 
taught at the time of testing. These circumstances create a disconnect between the test’s expected 
prior knowledge and the students’ actual knowledge, despite attempts by WIDA to align the 
assessment to national Common Core standards (Center for Public Education, 2014). One teacher 
commented, “Trying to get a student who already struggles with the language to write about 
something that they don’t have any background knowledge about makes zero sense.” Overall, the 
teachers perceived the test as content-driven rather than focused on language. 

 
Theme 3: Proposed Changes 
The final theme presents proposed changes to improve the testing experience for MLs and teachers. 
Suggested changes include: (a) comparison of MLs’ test results with those of native English 
speakers, (b) alterations to the test format, (c) consideration of multiple data points to measure 
language proficiency, and (d) administration of the test later in the school year.  

Comparing test results of MLs and native speakers of English. Each interviewee stressed 
the importance of defending the validity of the test by having native English speakers take an 
identical test to compare their results with those of the MLs and provide insights into where the 
test fails to accurately measure language proficiency. Eight teachers expressed their doubts that a 
native speaker would receive a passing score because of the length, format, and content of the test. 
One teacher cited an instance in which an ESOL teacher appealed to WIDA by asking for a native 
speaker to take the test, but WIDA representatives stated the results would be insufficient to 
disprove the accuracy of the test because of the discrepancy in language abilities between native 
speakers and MLs. Therefore, one teacher asked, “If a native English speaker can’t pass this test, 
how do you expect this [ML] to?” All nine interviewees agreed that comparing the test scores of 
native speakers and MLs could improve performance expectations. 

 
Altering test format. Interviewees provided multiple suggestions to maximize the 

authenticity of the test results, such as making the format developmentally appropriate by 
balancing the online and written portions of the test. While the kindergarten version of the 
ACCESS test is taken almost entirely on paper and involves developmentally appropriate skills, 
such as allowing for the use of manipulatives, the first-grade version of the test requires students 



Patterson & Schneider 11 
 

to complete three of the four testing domains online. This format requires developmentally 
inappropriate technology skills and testing stamina, as exemplified by one teacher who stated, “I 
hardly ever have any first-grade students that exit the ESOL program.” Existing research by Waters 
(2020) on teacher perceptions of the WIDA ACCESS assessment also supports the use of 
developmentally appropriate testing practices by arguing for a shift back to paper forms to center 
the focus on language proficiency rather than computer and keyboarding skills. Moreover, every 
teacher discussed the unnatural format of recording the speaking portion on a computer. Six of 
these teachers mentioned the benefits of administering the speaking test in person to create a more 
natural testing environment for MLs. Six participants described students tiring during the test and 
rushing as their concentration fades near the end, particularly in the constructed-response portions 
of the test, including speaking and writing. Overall, these teachers felt that by reducing the testing 
time spent online, young MLs were less likely to exceed their testing stamina. 

The final suggestion involves content-reliant questions. Five teachers proposed including 
more social language, and three of these teachers recommended utilizing academic content from 
the previous grade levels’ standards rather than those of the current grade. This would decrease 
students’ encounters with unfamiliar content and allow students to use higher-order thinking 
processes while measuring students’ daily language capabilities.  

Using multiple data points to determine language skills. All nine teachers recommended 
collecting and triangulating data to determine language proficiency with summative and formative 
assessments to “look at a child holistically,” as one teacher described. The court case United States 
v. Texas (1970) also supports the use of additional data points to measure language proficiency 
development by demanding appropriate progress monitoring of MLs’ language development. 
Unanimously, participants perceived the test as an inaccurate measure of language proficiency. 
The most common suggestions for improved measures of proficiency included using student 
portfolios and running records (7/9) and gathering various formative assessments throughout the 
school year (6/9).  

 
Altering ACCESS testing time. Four teachers proposed a later test administration time to 

a) provide teachers with more instructional time before assessing student growth, and b) provide 
students with more time to improve their language and content proficiencies. Currently, testing in 
this district occurs in February, leaving nearly three months of further instruction and possible 
proficiency growth unassessed. Additionally, ESOL teachers first gather data on MLs at the start 
of the school year and then begin working with them in early October, leaving students with only 
three to four months of instruction from ESOL teachers before taking the test. While four teachers 
also considered possible conflicts with annual state standardized testing taken near the end of the 
school year, they continued to stress the shortcomings of the current testing dates.  

 
Implications 
Despite the small scale of this study, many significant local and national implications became 
evident that are relevant to the ESOL field as a whole. Locally, one crucial implication arose based 
on the teachers’ perceptions of the varying difficulty of the test through consistent anecdotal 
comments about students feeling “stuck” in the program as student test scores did not align with 
their perceived language proficiency. A feasible solution to remedy this identified disconnect 
between test performance and perceived language proficiency would be to alter the state exit 
criteria. The state’s ESOL exit criteria is based solely on student performance on the WIDA 
ACCESS test, as students must receive a 4.4 composite score and 4.0 in each individual testing 



12 GATESOL Journal 33(1)  
 

domain (WIDA, 2023). This single test determines whether students “are just going to be MLs for 
life because they can’t pass the test,” as one teacher noted, despite appearing proficient in daily 
activities. Lowering the individual domain requirements while maintaining the composite score 
would relieve testing pressures to create a more authentic, and holistic, reflection of students’ 
abilities. 

Nationally, alterations to the exit criteria would also improve the authenticity of language 
proficiency measures. One change includes considering multiple data points to triangulate data, 
make educational decisions, and assess progress to allow ESOL educators to determine MLs’ 
language proficiency more accurately. Educators rely on the most effective assessment practices 
to measure and reflect language development and proficiency. A single test score, however, 
appears to not reflect MLs’ authentic language capabilities based on this study’s findings. Effective 
assessment methods integrate natural language measures and provide multiple opportunities for 
authentic expressions of language proficiency (Coulter, 2017). This study contributes to Coulter’s 
research on WIDA testing by providing a unique perspective with qualitative interview data from 
in-service ESOL teachers and further supports the use of multiple data points to measure language 
proficiency. Secondly, the WIDA Consortium could benefit from accepting input from ESOL 
teachers with experience implementing ACCESS testing and a multifaceted knowledge of their 
MLs. Valuable suggestions to consider include aligning testing situations with the classroom 
environment, integrating more social language while reducing the number of content-related 
questions, and providing testing later in the year so MLs can demonstrate growth with more 
authenticity. 

These implications provide insight into the challenges of the WIDA ACCESS test and 
possible solutions to improve the authenticity of the assessment. Moreover, these findings could 
be considered to improve aspects of standardized assessments within general and specialized 
educational fields. For example, holistic assessment approaches such as collecting multiple data 
points improve the quality of instruction and assessment throughout the field of education. 
Therefore, this research and its findings serve to benefit the entire educational community.  

  
Conclusion 
This study intended to shed light on elementary ESOL teachers’ experiences with WIDA ACCESS 
testing regarding its authenticity compared to MLs’ proficiency in the classroom. The passion with 
which the teachers shared their views encourages future research on this topic. In response to the 
drastically increasing number of MLs in the U.S. (Park et. al., 2017), further studies could help 
improve teacher and student experiences with WIDA ACCESS testing and the quality of language 
assessments.  

Our findings contribute to a small body of research related to WIDA ACCESS testing. 
While WIDA-affiliated studies identify WIDA ACCESS testing as effective for decision-making 
based on standardized test data, pedagogical approaches, and evaluation of teachers, independent 
studies like ours identify several challenges with the efficacy of WIDA ACCESS testing. These 
are validated by Coulter (2017), Waters (2020), and Lopez and Garcia (2020). These independent 
studies highlight the need for improved standardized language proficiency measures to combat the 
discrepancy between measured and perceived  language proficiencies of MLs  (Coulter, 2017; 
Lopez & Garcia, 2020; Waters, 2020). However, WIDA ACCESS tests currently serve as the sole 
consideration to determine ML’s language proficiency. 

Further studies are needed to appraise the authenticity of WIDA ACCESS testing from the 
perspective of ESOL teachers to expand upon this small-scale study. Such studies could include 



Patterson & Schneider 13 
 

geographic, socioeconomic, and ethnographic diversity with larger participation pools, including 
voices of early childhood, elementary, middle school, and high school ESOL experiences along 
with responses from rural, suburban, and urban schools. Additionally, it would be insightful to 
compare WIDA assessment practices and exit percentages with results from other standardized 
language testing used in states that do not implement WIDA ACCESS testing. Overall, the ESOL 
field and the educational community can benefit from the findings of this study and bring the 
improvement of ESOL education and assessment to the forefront of educational research. 
 
References 
 
Acheson, K., & Gall, M. D. (1997). Techniques in the clinical supervision of teachers: Preservice 

and inservice applications (4th ed.). Longman. 
Ariza, E., & Coady, M. (2018). Why TESOL? Theories & issues in teaching English to speakers 

of other languages in K–12 classrooms (5th ed.). Kendall Hunt.  
Belotto, M. (2018). Qualitative research: Managing the challenges of coding, interrater reliability 

and thematic analysis. Qualitative Report, 23(11), 2620–2633.  
Bilingual Education Act, 90 US 247 (1968). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-

81/pdf/STATUTE-81-Pg783.pdf#page=32.  
Castañeda v Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (1978). https://web.stanford.edu/~hakuta/www/LAUc

IAPolicy/IA1bCastanedaFullText.htm  
Center for Public Education (2014). Understanding the common core. Center for Public Education. 
Cook, G. H. (2014). Examining relationships between alternative ACCESS and state alternative 

assessments: Exploring the notions of English language proficiency. University of 
Wisconsin. https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/Report-Examining
RelationshipsBetweenAlternateAccessandStateAlternateAssessmentsAL.pdf  

Coulter, K. (2016). Effectiveness of WIDA English language development standards meeting 
proficiency for English language learners [Doctoral dissertation, Tennessee State 
University]. ProQuest. 

Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In N.H. 
Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2nd ed., pp. 487–499). 
Springer. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_36  

Cummins, J. (2016). Reflections on Cummins (1980), “The cross-lingual dimensions of language 
proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue.” TESOL 
Quarterly, 50(4), 940–944. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44984725  

King, K. & Bigelow, M. (2018). The language policy of placement tests of newcomer English 
learners. Educational Policy 32(7), 936–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904816681527. 

Kudo, M., & Swanson, H. L. (2014). Are there advantages for additive bilinguals in working 
memory tasks? Learning and Individual Differences, 35, 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.lindif.2014.07.019 

Lau v Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/lau.html  
Loose, J. (n.d.). Teaching language & content to ELLs. More than English. 

https://morethanenglish.edublogs.org/for-teachers/wida-english-language-development-
standards/. 

Lopez, A. & Garcia, G. (2020). Teachers’ perspectives on the use of summative English language 
proficiency assessments for instructional purposes. In M. Wolf (Ed). Assessing English 
Language Proficiency in U.S. K–12 Schools. (pp. 226–243). Taylor & Francis.  

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-81/pdf/STATUTE-81-Pg783.pdf#page=32
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-81/pdf/STATUTE-81-Pg783.pdf#page=32
https://web.stanford.edu/%7Ehakuta/www/LAUc%E2%80%8CIAPolicy/IA1bCastanedaFullText.htm
https://web.stanford.edu/%7Ehakuta/www/LAUc%E2%80%8CIAPolicy/IA1bCastanedaFullText.htm
https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/Report-ExaminingRelationshipsBetweenAlternateAccessandStateAlternateAssessmentsAL.pdf
https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/Report-ExaminingRelationshipsBetweenAlternateAccessandStateAlternateAssessmentsAL.pdf
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_36
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44984725
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0895904816681527
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.07.019
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.07.019
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/lau.html
https://morethanenglish.edublogs.org/for-teachers/wida-english-language-development-standards/
https://morethanenglish.edublogs.org/for-teachers/wida-english-language-development-standards/


14 GATESOL Journal 33(1)  
 

Makarova, E., Gilde, J., & Birman, D. (2019). Teachers as risk and resource factors in minority 
students’ school adjustment: An integrative review of qualitative research on acculturation. 
Intercultural Education, 30(5), 448–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2019.158621 

McEachern, F.M. (2022). A history of bilingual education in the US: Examining the politics of 
language policymaking. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,25, 
(9), 3526–3530. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2022.2078653 

Paradis, J. (2019). English second language acquisition from early childhood to adulthood: The 
role of age, first language, cognitive, and input factors. In Proceedings of the Boston 
University Conference on Language Development, 43, pp. 11–26). 

Park, M., O'Toole, A., & Katsiaficas, C. (2017). Dual language learners: A demographic and 
policy profile of South Carolina. Migration Policy Institute. 

Plyler v Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/202/  
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage. 
Scarcella, R. (2003, April). Academic English: A conceptual framework. https://escholarship.org/

content/qt6pd082d4/qt6pd082d4.pdf 
South Carolina Department of Education. (n.d.). Writing component. from https://ed.sc.gov/tests/

middle/sc-ready/writing-component/ 
United States v Texas, 321 F. 1043 (5th Cir. 1970). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/

22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf  
Varga, S., & Guignon, C. (2020, February 20). Authenticity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authenticity/  
Waters, C. N. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions of the broad validity of a high stakes English 

language proficiency test [Dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University]. Bilingual, 
Multilingual, Multicultural, and Education Commons. https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/
cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7262&context=etd.  

WIDA. (2020). WIDA English language development standards framework, 2020 edition: 
Kindergarten–grade 12. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. 
https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/WIDA-ELD-Standards-Framework-
2020.pdf 

WIDA (2023, April 28). South Carolina English language learner identification and placement 
guidance document. South Carolina Department of Education. https://wida.wisc.edu/
sites/default/files/id-placement/SC-ID-Placement-Guidance.pdf 

Wisconsin Center for Education Research. (2023). Access for ELLs. WIDA. https://wida.wisc.edu/
assess/access 

 
 

 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2019.158621
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2022.2078653
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/202/
https://escholarship.org/content/qt6pd082d4/qt6pd082d4.pdf
https://escholarship.org/content/qt6pd082d4/qt6pd082d4.pdf
https://ed.sc.gov/tests/%E2%80%8Cmiddle/sc-ready/writing-component/
https://ed.sc.gov/tests/%E2%80%8Cmiddle/sc-ready/writing-component/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authenticity/
https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/%E2%80%8Ccgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7262&context=etd
https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/%E2%80%8Ccgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7262&context=etd
https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/WIDA-ELD-Standards-Framework-2020.pdf
https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/WIDA-ELD-Standards-Framework-2020.pdf
https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/id-placement/SC-ID-Placement-Guidance.pdf
https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/id-placement/SC-ID-Placement-Guidance.pdf
https://wida.wisc.edu/%E2%80%8Cassess/access
https://wida.wisc.edu/%E2%80%8Cassess/access


Patterson & Schneider 15 
 

Appendix A 

Table 1 

Legal Developments in Support of ML Education 

Legal Development Court Ruling Implications for MLs 

Bilingual Education Act 
(1968) 

The segregation of non-native 
English speaking students in 
public general education 
classrooms is unlawful.  

This court ruling was the first federal 
acknowledgment of MLs in public education. The 
ruling in favor of ML education also established 
federal grants to support ML education programs. 

United States v Texas 
(1970) 

An annual review of school 
districts by measuring the 
growth of MLs’ language 
development is required in all 
public educational institutions. 

This ruling established progress monitoring 
standards to track English language development 
and resulted in the widespread use of annual 
standardized testing to measure language 
proficiency growth.  

Lau v Nichols (1974) Identical education does not 
present equal learning 
opportunities for all students. 

Public education must take affirmative action to 
remove educational barriers for all students and 
schools are to be held accountable for ensuring all 
students receive appropriate education.  

Casteñada v Pickard 
(1981) 

All instructional strategies must 
be based on legitimate 
educational theories and 
supported by existing research.  

Schools must implement instructional programs, 
resources, and personnel necessary to provide 
appropriate education to all students. Educators 
must also be appropriately qualified and 
knowledgeable.  

Plyler v Doe (1982) Public schools cannot deny 
education to undocumented 
immigrants.  

This ruling ensures education for all students 
despite background, culture, or home language. 
The passing of this ruling also resulted in steadily 
increasing ML student populations in public 
schools.  

(Table adapted from Ariza & Coady, 2018) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



16 GATESOL Journal 33(1)  
 

Appendix B 

WIDA Language Domains and Expectations 

Table B1 

 Language Domains 

Domains Time Allotted Expected Tasks Answer Format Scoring Type 

Reading 60 minutes -View a picture 
-Read a passage 
-Read the question 
-Click the correct answer 

Selected response 
answers 

Automatic Scoring 

Writing 90 minutes -View a picture 
-Read a short passage 
-Read the question 
-Write an appropriate 
response 

Constructed response 
-Grades 1-3 paper 
response 
-Grades 4-5 typed 
response 

Triangulated scoring 
by independent, 
trained test delivery 
partners 

Listening 65 minutes -View a picture 
-Listen to a voice talk 
-Listen to the question 
-Click or drag the answer 

Selected response 
answers 

Automatic Scoring 

Speaking 50 minutes -Listen to a brief exchange 
-Listen to the question 
-Record answer using a 
microphone 

Constructed oral 
response recorded on 
a computer 

Triangulated scoring 
by independent trained 
test delivery partners 

(Table adapted from Coulter, 2017; Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 2023) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Patterson & Schneider 17 
 

Table B2 

 Language domain expectations relating to English proficiency levels 

Proficiency Listening Speaking Reading Writing 

Entering Understand oral 
messages that include 
visuals and gestures 
and contain everyday 
words in English 

Communicate orally 
using gestures and 
language that may 
contain a few words 

Understand written 
texts that include 
visuals and may 
contain a few 
words or phrases 

Communicate in 
writing using visual 
sand symbols that 
may contain few 
words 

Beginning Understand oral 
language related to 
specific familiar topics 
and participate in class 
discussions 

Communicate ideas 
and information 
orally using short 
sentences and 
everyday words and 
phrases 

Understand written 
language related to 
specific familiar 
topics and 
participate in class 
discussions 

Communicate in 
writing using 
language related to 
familiar topics 

Developing Understand oral 
language related to 
specific common 
topics and participate 
in class discussions 

Communicate ideas 
and details orally 
using several 
connected sentences 
and participate in 
short conversations 
and discussions 

Understand written 
language related to 
common topics and 
participate in class 
discussions 

Communicate in 
writing using 
language related to 
common topics 

Expanding Understand oral 
language related to 
specific topics and 
participate in class 
discussions 

Communicate orally 
using language 
related to specific 
topics in school and 
participate in class 
discussions 

Understand written 
language related to 
specific topics 

Communicate in 
writing using 
language related to 
specific topics 

Bridging Understand oral 
language and 
participate in all 
academic classes to 
recall examples and 
expand on ideas 

Communicate orally 
and participate in all 
academic classes to 
discuss, summarize, 
present, and defend 
ideas 

Understand written 
language from all 
academic classes to 
compare and 
summarize ideas 
and information 

Communicate in 
writing using 
language from all 
academic classes 

Reaching Understand oral 
language and 
participate in all 
academic classes to 
synthesize information 
and recognize 
differing viewpoints 

Communicate orally 
and participate in all 
academic classes to 
react, respond, 
persuade, and clarify 
multiple viewpoints 

Understand written 
language from all 
academic classes to 
evaluate and 
synthesize ideas 
and information 

Communicate in 
writing using 
language from all 
academic classes to 
produce clearly 
organized writing 
pieces of varying 
functions 

Table adapted from WIDA (Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 2023) 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 

Received: December 28, 2022 | Accepted: September 24, 2023 | Published: May 24, 2024 | Updated: August 23, 2024 


	GATESOL Journal2024, Vol. 33(1), pp. 3–14
	Are WIDA Test Results Appropriately Reflecting Multilingual Learners’ Language Skills According to ESOL Teachers’ Experiences? Results of a Pilot Study
	doi:10.52242/gatesol.184
	ISSN: 2331-6845
	MLs and Language Acquisition
	Legal Support for Appropriate Performance Assessment
	Nature of WIDA ACCESS Testing
	Theme 2: Teacher Perceptions of the Assessment
	Theme 3: Proposed Changes

	Implications
	Conclusion

