When is a sight translation appropriate as an accommodation?
There are three situations where sight translation is appropriate for an ELL: 1) the number of students who would benefit from a written translation is too small to justify the expense of creating it, 2) the student is not literate in his or her native language, and 3) the use of sight translation would not alter the construct being measured.
When the number of students is too small to justify the expense of creating a formal written translation, a sight translation can provide access to the test questions and some indication of the student’s overall level of mastery of state standards for the subject being assessed. A school district may have ELLs enrolled from dozens of different native language backgrounds. Providing a written translation of assessments for all grades and for all languages is not practical, due to the high cost involved and the few students who would benefit. Thus, sight translation is a more practical way to include ELLs in the assessment program.
Also, written translation assumes that the student is literate in his or her native language, which often is not the case. Thus, even when a written translation is available, sight translation may be a more appropriate accommodation for most students. However, when the numbers justify written translation, they usually justify the preparation of a recorded oral translation as well. (See Part III of this document.)
One should not use sight translation if it will alter the construct being measured. For example, it would be inappropriate to sight translate the English passages on a reading comprehension test. Instead of reading in English, the student would be listening in another language. This would radically alter the construct being tested.
Results (
Arabic) 1:
[Copy]Copied!
When is a sight translation appropriate as an accommodation?There are three situations where sight translation is appropriate for an ELL: 1) the number of students who would benefit from a written translation is too small to justify the expense of creating it, 2) the student is not literate in his or her native language, and 3) the use of sight translation would not alter the construct being measured.When the number of students is too small to justify the expense of creating a formal written translation, a sight translation can provide access to the test questions and some indication of the student’s overall level of mastery of state standards for the subject being assessed. A school district may have ELLs enrolled from dozens of different native language backgrounds. Providing a written translation of assessments for all grades and for all languages is not practical, due to the high cost involved and the few students who would benefit. Thus, sight translation is a more practical way to include ELLs in the assessment program.Also, written translation assumes that the student is literate in his or her native language, which often is not the case. Thus, even when a written translation is available, sight translation may be a more appropriate accommodation for most students. However, when the numbers justify written translation, they usually justify the preparation of a recorded oral translation as well. (See Part III of this document.)واحد يجب عدم استخدام الترجمة البصر إذا أنها ستغير في بناء يجري قياسه. على سبيل المثال، سيكون من غير المناسب للبصر ترجمة المقاطع الإنجليزية قراءة اختبار الفهم. بدلاً من القراءة باللغة الإنكليزية، سوف يستمع الطالب في لغة أخرى. هذا وسوف تغير تغييرا جذريا في بناء يجري اختبارها.
Being translated, please wait..
