EAL speakers in SLT caseloads
Process 3: Assessment
9. Are there factors operating within the primary settings that can inhibit or promote performance on the competencies assessed?
3.5 ROLES OF RAPT IN STUDY
Although the RAPT functions both as a kind of model and as an example of a data gathering instrument in this study, it is important to note that it is specifically used as a point of
departure in the study to illustrate the shortcomings in how it is used and interpreted, similarly
Comment [p35]: spacng Comment [p36]: commonly what?
to other English language tests. The study proposes guidelines for the more appropriate use of such instruments, thereby not undermining the test but equipping the SLT. The guidelines will allow the SLT to gain more linguistically and culturally relevant findings that can be more accurately attributed to the performance of the child.
3.5.1 Introducing the RAPT
As indicated in chapter 2, the RAPT is often both owned and used by SLTs due to its practicality and cost-effectiveness. The three key areas of language that are assessed are syntax, semantics and pragmatics ( Owens, et al., 2007) and the RAPT, as a screening test for language development, provides information on two of these areas, namely syntax and semantics i.e. ability to convey information and grammar (Renfrew 1997a). It provides an indication of whether there is a need for further comprehensive assessment while giving valuable information on the child’s semantic, syntactic and morphological English language competence in a short period before the child gets tired. The child being screened with this test will also be very young i.e. in the 3 to 8 year range.
3.5.2 Description of the RAPT
This age range includes the preschool and primary school child in South Africa. The primary school stage, usually with children between 6 and 9 years of age, is where most children are identified as being at risk or presenting with language or learning difficulties and therefore referred by teachers for assessment and intervention (Kathard, 2010). In the current South African education system, grades 1 to 3 are described as the Foundation Phase. The Government White Paper 6 on Special Needs Education, acknowledges that the current education system has produced many drop-outs due to the inability to appropriately respond to the different needs of the learners (Government 2001b, p.5). The age of early identification of children with special needs is quoted in White Paper 6as being before the age of nine, although in the SLP profession, the ages of 0-3 are associated with early identification and
Comment [p37]: Reference this correctly
intervention (Thordardottir, Rothenberg, Rivard, & Naves, 2006).White Paper 6 further discusses the significance of assessment and intervention during the early phase of preschool years (Government 2001b, p. 32).Unfortunately, the challenge of early identification, using linguistically and culturally valid assessment tests of this group, remains.
3.5.3 Current difficulties experienced in the use of the RAPT
The choice of RAPT for this study was strongly informed by the difficulties experienced by SLTs which were identified in the research survey in chapter 2, regarding the use of this and other tests. The SLTs raised concerns about the assessment of African EAL speakers from indigenous language and cultural backgrounds and the complexities of the South African diverse population compounded the problem. The mother-tongue, culture and experiences of the EAL speakers in South Africa differ from those of the children who were used in the standardization of the RAPT in the UK. It thus does not accommodate the indigenous language and culture of the African EAL speaker and acknowledges this in the test manual.
Despite this, it is widely used by SLTs in SA due to the paucity of appropriate and culturally relevant resources.
Taylor (1994; Taylor & Payne, 1983)would argue that the RAPT, as a test for language development and any other language assessment tool has to be linguistically and culturally valid. This point is also stressed by Landsberg (2005, p. 57) :
The only way in which contextual factors can be allowed some of its many and pivotal effects in your interpretation of the learner’s findings on a standardized test is by ensuring that the measure was standardized locally and recently and that it included sufficient data from the particular group to which the learner belongs.
The fact that there is a scarcity of assessment tools for the EAL speaker within the South African context (Penn, 1998; Roberts, 2000), does not mean that African EAL speakers from
Comment [p38]: ref
indigenous language and cultural backgrounds are not to be evaluated, but rather that it places a greater responsibility on the SLT working in this context to be more sensitive, thorough and collaborative in the assessment (Omark & Erickson, 1983; Westby, 2009). The clinician assessing an isiZulu mother-tongue speaker or any other African EAL speaker from an indigenous language and cultural background must have knowledge and understanding of the child‘s indigenous language and culture to accurately interpret the child’s responses to the test items, even when conducting an assessment using their secondary language i.e. English, as every assessment is a cultural event (Taylor, 1994).
Accommodating the needs of this group does not imply that the SLT has to speak the group’s language but that she must ensure that the linguistic and cultural differences are
accommodated in the administration and interpretation of the test. Although being a mother- tongue speaker is not a prerequisite to conduct language assessments on individuals of a different language group or culture, a mother–tongue speaker from the language and cultural group may have more insight into the language and culture of the group by virtue of being a member of the group. The professional body, the American Speech and Hearing Association (ASHA) endorses cultural diversity. However, their pool of professionals who are from diverse linguistic, racial and cultural groups who work in communication disorders, is extremely small ( Jordaan, 2008; Naidoo, 2003; Paradis, 2007a, 2007b)). The constitution of the South African Speech Language and Hearing Association (SASLHA) also reflects the adoption of the principle of respecting and accommodating cultural diversity.
This shortage of SLTs with knowledge of diverse linguistic and cultural groups is also related to the attitudes and beliefs of the SLTs, as demonstrated in research that was conducted by Kritikos (2003). A survey of the SLTs’ beliefs about language assessment of
bilingual/bicultural individuals was done in 5 states in the USA. The findings showed that
Comment [p39]: full stop Comment [p40]: However
most SLTs48 commented that they had low personal and general efficacy in bilingual
assessment (i.e. for their own skills and the field broadly). It was, however, very interesting to note the degrees of personal efficacy in the different groups of SLTs involved in the survey findings. The highest personal efficacy was reported by SLTs who learned a L2 in the context of cultural experience, followed by SLTs who learned an L2 academically. SLTs who reported the least efficacy were monolingual SLTs.
These findings above are consistent with the findings of Roberts (2000) and Moodley (2000) in research in South Africa that report that SLTs feel inadequate in working with culturally and linguistically diverse clients. In Roberts’s study, it was found that therapists mostly provided therapy to African EAL speakers from indigenous language and cultural background in English as it was more comfortable for the therapist, while Moodley found that there was an attitude of ’helplessness’ among SLTs with regard to the prevailing difficulty of assessing and providing therapy to EAL speakers.
In South Africa currently, most of the tests used for the assessment of language are predominantly normed on European or American populations (Jordaan, 2008; Landsberg, 2005; Maine, 2010) and were designed and standardized on these populations. The language used in these assessment tools is English. Even though the norms of the tests have not been standardized on South African English speaking children, they are used to evaluate the children in the South African context because alternatives are often unavailable (Naudé, et al., 2007). This is even more so for EAL speaking children in SA. These tests are thus used for practical reasons and not because they are the best tools to provide the most valid and accurate findings in assessing the child in the South African context. Mzimela (2002, p. 6) criticizes the use of these predominantly English tests: “The use of English normative data provides a false basis for identification and planning of treatment strategies and are
48Bilingual assessments, as used in this research, refers to EAL speakers
Comment [p41]: Delete comma
linguistically and culturally inappropriate.” This study responds to these concerns by providing the framework for the creation of a culturally and linguistically valid expressive language test for the South African context.
Although I have argued that the assessment of EAL speakers from indigenous linguistic and cultural backgrounds, using these language assessment tools which are predominantly normed on the UK or US populations,in their current form in South Africa may be unjust, it is a reality globally (Gopaul-McNicol & Armour-Thomas, 2002). South Africa’s language and cultural realities, however, present further challenges.