Boyle, J.R. (2012).

Note-taking and secondary students with learning disabilities: Challenges

and solutions. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(2), 90-101. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00354.x

While inclusion undoubtedly has advantages for the students with learning disabilities (LD),

evidence indicates a large percentage are not as successful as they could be. 73% of middle

school students with LD scored Below Basic on the 2005 NAEP, while 50% of high school

students with LD received a D or an F in their core science class. 42% of instructional time in

inclusive/collaborative classes is spent in some type of lecture, but students with LD often

struggle to take complete notes. They have difficulty distinguishing between important and

unimportant information when taking notes even when the instructor offers some time of verbal

or physical cue. Compared with their non-LD peers, students with LD record fewer overall notes

and of inferior quality. In order to be successful in classes and the future, students with LD

should be directly taught formal note-taking skills and strategies.

There are two strategies the author recommends for students with LD: using guided

notes and strategic note-taking. These are the only two strategies with an experimental

research base specifically for LD. In guided (skeletal or cloze-type) notes students are provided

with a copy of the teachers lecture notes with key words or phrases omitted. The students task

is to fill in the blanks when cued by the rest of the sentence frame. Strategic note-taking

consists of a cyclic series of three writing prompts: students are tasked with writing three to six

main points or details, a brief summary of the main points, and finally a list of unfamiliar

vocabulary terms. This process repeats throughout the lecture. Students with LD who use

either guided notes or strategic note-taking show significant increases in their volume and

quality of written notes as well as on their overall knowledge retention and test scores.
Noble, T., Rosebery, A., Suarez, C., and Warren, B. (2014). Science assessments and English
language learners: Validity evidence based on response processes. Applied
Measurement in Education, 27, 248-260. doi: 10.1080/08957347.2014.944309

This journal article examines the validity of standardized test questions for English

Language Learners (ELL). Extensive research shows minority groups have difficulties with

wording on the exams as the language and cultural norms utilized in such tests are those of

middle- and upper-class white Americans. For non-native ELL this effect can be particularly

strong. Previous studies indicate much of the achievement gap for ELL on standardized

science and mathematics tests is due to question wording rather than a lack in subject-matter

knowledge.

The research used two modes of evaluating student knowledge, and the results showed

a measurable disparity. Twelve ELL and twenty-four non-ELL completed publicly-released

questions from the Science and Technology/Engineering Massachusetts Comprehensive

Assessment System, and then each student was interviewed about the questions and the

related science topic. The interview transcripts were reviewed by a panel of science educators

who evaluated the students content understanding. The authors then compared the test and

interview results looking for questions where the knowledge demonstrated on the standardized

test did not match the knowledge demonstrated in the interview. The overall inconsistency rate

was 32% for non-ELL and 39% for ELL.

Surprisingly, native English-speaking students primary inconsistency was marking the

correct answer on the standardized test and communication a misconception during the

interview, while the major inconsistency for ELL was demonstrating the target knowledge while

answering the test question incorrectly. This means the wording of the test questions had a

positive impact on the scores of non-ELL while having a negative impact on the scores of

ELL. The largest discrepancies were present on the two test questions written in atypical

perspective. The interview showed multiple ELL struggled to interpret critical phrases of the
questions such as taken away from. They focused on vocabulary terms such as enough

heat and answered correctly for the exact opposite questions (typical presentation). This

research clearly illustrates both the difficulties facing ELL during standardized tests and the

underlying bias in the wording of the test questions favoring white Americans.