xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001681051
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 051221s2004 flu sbm s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001071
Harris, Karen Patricia.
Speech-language pathologists' professional efficacy beliefs about assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students
h [electronic resource] /
by Karen Patricia Harris.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b University of South Florida,
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 228 pages.
ABSTRACT: Like educators, speech-language pathologists can anticipate working with culturally and linguistically diverse students and their families. Data reported from the Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE), 1999-2000, revealed that during the years 1999-2000 speech-language pathologists caseloads included students from various culturally and linguistically diverse groups (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, 2001). Furthermore, on average, more than one-fourth of students seen by speech-language pathologists were from a culturally and/or linguistically diverse group than their own and 8.8% were English language learners (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Thus, guaranteeing a highly qualified pool of speech-language pathologists to meet these students needs is essential.This study examined speech-language pathologists (a) beliefs about the language assessment of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students, (b) professional efficacy beliefs (both personal and general) as they relate to assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students, and (c) reported supports and barriers to assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students.It involved a mixed method research design (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998, 2002) and was organized into three central components that included a quantitative phase and a qualitative phase: (a) survey administration, (b) reflective analysis of the researchers experience as a speech-language pathologist, and (c) follow-up semi-structured interviews.Quantitative analyses of speech-language pathologists professional efficacy beliefs revealed that most speech-language pathologists believed they personally, and the field in general, were somewhat competent in assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students. While none of the predictor variables were significantly related to personal efficacy, one of the predictor variables (Hispanic/Latino) was significantly related to general efficacy. Qualitative analysis of speech-language pathologists professional efficacy beliefs varied as a function of race/ethnicity.
Adviser: Ann Cranston-Gingras, Ph.D.
Culturally and linguistically diverse.
English language learners.
Asha focused initiative.
x Special Education
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Speech-Language Pathologists Professional Efficacy Beliefs about Assessing the Language Skills of Bili ngual/Bicultural/Bidialectal Students by Karen Patricia Harris A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Special Education College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: Ann Cr anston-Gingras, Ph.D. Deirdre Cobb-Roberts, Ph.D. Arthur M. Guilford, Ph.D. Patricia Alvarez McHatton, Ph.D. Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Ph.D. Date of Approval: December 16, 2004 Keywords: culturally and linguistically divers e, cultural competence, assessment, English language learners, diversity, interpreters, ASHA focused initiative Copyright 2005 Karen Patricia Harris
Dedication To my parents, Clarence Sr. and Cynthia Harris, thank you for your unconditional love and endless encouragement. To the late Reverend Paul Matthews, you plante d the seed and God yi elded the increase. I dedicate this dissertation in honor of your memory.
Acknowledgements I would like to give honor to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Chri st, for His strength throughout this journey. Ann Cranston-Gingras: Thank you for your pati ence with me and your confidence in my abilities. You put up with my idiosyncrasi es without passing judgment. Your calming personality helped me to see the bi gger picture. I am grateful to you. Deirdre Cobb-Roberts: Thank you for fueli ng my passion for research centered on a social justice agenda. Arthur M. Guilford: Thank you for the insight you brought to the dissertation as a fellow speech-language pathologist. Patricia Alvarez McHatton: You have encour aged me when I felt hopeless and assured me when my self-confiden ce needed boosting. I have learned much from you. Anthony Onwuegbuzie: I am grateful to you for agreeing to commit yourself to my dissertation in the middle of the process. Without you, I doubt that I would have defended the proposal when I did. Carolyn Laveley, Jack and Alice Richards on, and Brenda L. Townsend: Your funding assistance was instrumental in getting me to this point. Thank you. Robert Dedrick: Thank you for your commit ment to a quality product. You are truly appreciated. John Niles: Thank you for your contribution.
Thank you to my cheerleaders: Brenda Curtwright, Gwendolyn Smith and Michael Smith. I am blessed to have friends like you. You made time for me in the midst of your own commitments.
i Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures v Abstract vi Chapter One Introduction 1 Research Questions 15 Hypothesis 15 Significance of Study 16 Participants and Procedures 17 Definition of Terms 17 Delimitations 19 Limitations 20 Chapter Two Literature Review 22 Demographics of Speech-Language Pathologists 22 Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality in Special Education 25 Teacher/Practitioner Percep tions and Expectations 33 Culturally Responsive Practice 41 Self-Efficacy 51 Teaching Efficacy 52 Promising Implications 54 Personal and General Efficacy 58 Teacher Efficacy Concerns 61 Chapter Three Methods 65 Rationale 66 Participants 67 Target Population 67 Instruments 67 Procedures 76 Administration and Data Collection 77 Survey 77 Semi-structured Interviews 80 Data Analyses 84 Quantitative Analyses 84
ii Qualitative Analysis 88 Interviews 88 Self-Reflection 90 Research Questions 94 Delimitations 94 Limitations 95 Chapter Four Results 98 Research Questions 99 Frequency Counts and De scriptive Statistics 99 Participant Demographics 100 Linguistic Background of Participants 107 Preservice and Inservice Training 113 Research Question One 115 Quantitative Results 115 Qualitative Results 116 Research Question Two 120 Research Question Three 129 Quantitative Results 129 Qualitative Results 130 Research Question Four 139 Quantitative Results 139 Qualitative Results 141 Reflective Analysis 145 Chapter Five Discussion 157 Quantitative Analyses 157 Qualitative Analysis 158 Limitations 163 Implications for Graduate Preparatory Programs 164 Implications for ASHA 167 Implications for School District Level Speech-Language Supervisors 170 Implications for Future Research 171 References 175 Appendices 201 Appendix A: Cover Letter 202 Appendix B: Speech-Language Survey 204 Appendix C: Demographic Data Sheet 214 Appendix D Interview Questions 215 About the Author End Page
iii List of Tables Table 1 Alignment of Research Questions with Survey and Interview Questions 83 Table 2 Illustration of Research Questi ons and Proposed Statistical Procedures For Answering Each Question 97 Table 3 Summary of Years of Experience, Educational Level, Certification and Licensure Status, Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Setting Responses of Speech-Language Pathologists 102 Table 4 Summary of Estimates of Sp eech-Language Pathologists: Age of Students, Percentage, Frequency of Times, and Years of Experience with Bilingual/B icultural/Bidialectal Students 105 Table 5 Languages Other Than English Spoken by Speech-Language Pathologists Students 106 Table 6 Dialects Other Than English Spoken by Speech-Language Pathologists Students 106 Table 7 Summary of Linguistic Background of Speech-Language Pathologists 110 Table 8 Languages Other Than English and Dialects Most Commonly Spoken And/or Understood by Speech-Language Pathologists Proficiency Responses 112 Table 9 Summary of Speech-Language Path ologists Preservice and Inservice Training 114 Table 10 Summary of Speech-Language Pathologists Personal and General Efficacy Responses 116 Table 11 Summary of Interview Participants Personal and General Efficacy Beliefs 120 Table 12 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations 125 Table 13 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations 126
iv Table 14 Beta Weights and Uniqueness Indices Obtained in Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Personal Efficacy 127 Table 15 Beta Weights and Uniqueness Indices Obtained in Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Personal Efficacy 128 Table 16 Solutions for Improving the Field 130 Table 17 Summary of Raw Intensity Eff ect Sizes for Themes Associated with Perceived Supports 139 Table 18 Problems Encountered by Speech-Language Pathologists 140 Table 19 Summary of Responsibility Responses 141 Table 20 Summary of Raw Intensity Eff ect Sizes for Themes Associated with Perceived Barriers 144
v List of Figures Figure 1. Establishing Reliability 92 Figure 2. Composite Analysis 93
vi Speech-Language Pathologists Professional Efficacy Beliefs about Assessing the Language Skills of Bilingual/Bicultural/Bidialectal Students Karen Patricia Harris ABSTRACT Like educators, speech-language pat hologists can anticipate working with culturally and linguistically diverse students a nd their families. Data reported from the Study of Personnel Needs in Special Edu cation (SPeNSE), 1999-2000, revealed that during the years 1999-2000 speech-language pa thologists caseloads included students from various culturally and linguistically diverse groups (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, 2001). Furthermore, on average, more than onefourth of students seen by speech-language pathologists were from a culturally and/or linguistically diverse group than their own and 8.8% were English language learners (U.S. Department of Educa tion, 2001). Thus, guaranteeing a highly qualified pool of speech-language pathologists to meet th ese students needs is essential. This study examined speech-language pathologists (a) beliefs about the language assessment of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students, (b) professional efficacy beliefs (both personal and general) as they relate to assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students, a nd (c) reported supports and barriers to assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicul tural/bidialectal students. It involved a mixed method research design (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998, 2002) and was organized into three central components that included a quantitative phase and a qualitative phase:
vii (a) survey administration, (b) reflective anal ysis of the researchers experience as a speech-language pathologist, and (c) fo llow-up semi-structured interviews. Quantitative analyses of speech-languag e pathologists professional efficacy beliefs revealed that most speech-language pa thologists believed they personally, and the field in general, were somewhat compet ent in assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultura l/bidialectal students. While none of the predictor variables were significantly related to personal efficacy, one of the predictor variab les (Hispanic/Latino) was significantly relate d to general efficacy. Qualitative analysis of speech-language pa thologists professional efficacy beliefs varied as a function of race/ ethnicity. Higher beliefs of pe rsonal efficacy existed among speech-language pathologists of color. Perc eived supports and barriers as well as the demographics of survey respondents, whic h highlight low numbers of speech-language pathologists from bilingual/b icultural/bidialectal backgr ounds, confirmed the need to address assessment and interven tion practices of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students.
1 CHAPTER I Introduction The demographics of American society are rapidly changing. Approximately one million immigrants settle in the United St ates every year (Martin & Midgley, 1999). Further, greater than 7.5 million registered or documented immigrants made the United States their home between 1991 and 1998 (Ric he, 2000). In 1998, the U.S. Bureau of the Census correctly predicted the inordinate incr ease in its number of citizens from diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. Two y ears later, the U.S. Bureau of the Census report (2000) confirmed this previous predic tion when it projected that people of color will comprise 28% of the American population by 2000. Moreover, this report foretold of a continuance towards this trend when it stat ed that people of color would comprise 38% of the American population by 2025 and 47% by 2050. The public school system has increasingly reflected the diversity of our national population. The students in our classrooms are representative of th e vast variety of cultures now present in the American soci ety (Blair, 2003). From 1940 to 1960, students of color represented only 12% of the student population. In 1996, their numbers tripled to 36% of the student popul ation. Since 1968, Hispanic/Latino enrollment has increased by 218% and African American enrollment by more than 20% (Johnson, Dupuis, Musial, Hall, & Gollnick, 2002). Students of color repr esent at least half of the public school students in some of our natio ns largest cities and metropolitan areas, such as Chicago,
2 Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., New York, Seattle, and San Francisco (Irvine, 2003). According to Irvine (2003), 40% of the U.S. student population in 2001 was representative of students of co lor. This statistic has primarily resulted from the growth of Latino students (Martinez & Curry, 1999). Moreover, nearly one-f ifth of school age children in the United States speak a language other than English at home (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). According to the Co llege Board and the Western Commission for Higher Education as cited by Garcia (1995), by 2026 the United States will witness a reverse in the demographic br eakdown of students as we kn ew it in 1990: Hispanic and non-White students will make up 70% of the enrolled K-12 population. Further, Garcia (1995) states that in the decades to come it will be virtually impossible for a professional educator to se rve in a public school setting, and probably any private school context, in which his or her students are not consequentially diverseracially, culturally, and/or li nguistically (p. 373). Irvine (2003) concurs that most preservice and inservice educators will more than likely have students from diverse racial, ethnic, linguistic, a nd religious backgrounds in their classrooms during their careers. However, this issue is not solely isolated to educators. Like educators, speech-language pat hologists can anticipate working with increasing numbers of culturally and linguisti cally diverse students and their families. School-based speech-language pathologists share the responsibility of ensuring an adequate education for students with disabilities and those pl aced at risk in the least restrictive environment. Specifically, these pr actitioners are respons ible for identifying, assessing, and providing therapeutic intervention strategies to students with disabilities. Data reported from the Study of Personne l Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE),
3 1999-2000, revealed that speech-language pathol ogists primarily served students with speech or language impairments, learning disa bilities, mental reta rdation, and autism (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), 2001). During the years 1999-2000, 1,089,964 students were diagnosed as having speech or language impairments as their primary di sability. This accounted for 19.2% of all students, aged 6-21 years with disabilities se rved under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, 2001). Many other students were diagnosed with speech and language impairments as secondary and tertiary disabilities. Additionally, ample evidence verifies the frequent occurrence of communication diso rders with adolescents in the juvenile justice system (Sanger, Creswell, Dwora k, & Schultz, 2000; Sanger, Hux, & Belau, 1997; Sanger, Moore-Brown, Magnuson, & Svoboda, 2001; Sanger, Moore-Brown, Montgomery, Rezac, & Keller, 2003). Lars on and McKinley (1995) conducted a literature review. They found that as many as 5% of youth in the general population demonstrates a need for services. Further, 14% to 22% of adoles cents in correctional facilities exhibit a la nguage disorder (Sanger et al., 2000, 1997, 2001), as compared to the 5% to which Larson and McKinley (1995) ma de reference. This substantiates a high incidence of speech and language impairments. SPeNSE data further revealed that sp eech-language pathologists caseloads included students from various culturally and linguistically diverse groups. On average, more than one-fourth of students seen by speech-language pathologists were from a culturally or linguistically diverse group than their own and 8.8% were English-language learners (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, 2001).
4 Thus, guaranteeing a highly qualified pool of sp eech-language pathologists to meet these students needs is essential. However, the above statistics sugges t a mismatch between these students and the professionals res ponsible for their academic growth. In addition to the above demographics of the student population, the academic, social, and economic conditions of culturally and linguistically diverse students are a vital concern (Irvine, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1999). Data reveal the social, economic, and academic hardships under which many stude nts of color live. For example, a young African American male has a better chance of serving time in a state prison (Irvine, 2003), where African American men now make up 50% of the prison population (McWhorter, 2000), than attending a college or university. Moreover, children who experience poor economic and social hardships face daymares -from the effects of poverty, violence, hunger, poor health, drug addi ction, inferior schools, and insensitive policies (Irvine, 2003). In large measures, culturally and linguistically diverse students have not fared well in our nations classrooms. Schools with high concentrations of Black and Hispanic students are typically taught by teachers with the least experience and the least qualifications for the subject they teach (Darling-Hamm ond, 1998). Additionally, enormous differences exist between their ou tcomes and those experienced by their White counterparts (Townsend, 2002a). Disparate outco mes between certain groups of students of color and White student learners exist in the areas of grade-level retention, suspensions and expulsions, and drop out rates (Townsend, 2000). Nationwide, the high school dropout rate is approximately 28%; however, cities with particularly high numbers of African Americans and Latinos, such as Ne w York and Chicago, demonstrate dropout
5 rates more than 40 % (Wilson, 1998). Most achievement indicators reveal African American and Latino students are performing below their White and Asian peers (Jencks & Phillips, 1998). The gap in achievement between Blacks and Whites, specifically, is not a new issue. In 1910, one of the earliest reports on this issue documented the disparity in reading achievement between African American and their White counterparts (Fishback and Baskin, 1991 as cited in Harris, Kamhi, & Pollock, 2001). As part of a report to the general assembly in the state of Georgia, it gave details of a literacy gap between African American and White children. Specificall y, this report descri bed the difficulty of African American students in learning to read as well as their overall underachievement (Fishback & Baskin, 1991 as cited in Harris et al., 2001). While the gap has lessened somewhat over the past 8 decades, it remains a critical issue among educators (Harris et al., 2001). Gains made by African American students on standardized test scores have been moderately small and not consistent over time (Irvine, 2003). At one point, the Black-White achieveme nt gap tapered in the 1970s and African American students even surpassed their White counterparts in the 1980s (Harris et al., 2001). However, this would not remain c onstant. The reason for the short-lived achievement in reading performance and improved standardized test scores among African American students is unclear (Harris et al., 2001). Since 1988, the Black-White achievement gap has once again widened, to the detriment of Black students. Specifically, Black students sc ores in reading and math ha ve declined (Nettles, 1997). According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2000), the achievement gap between Whites and students of color, namely, African Americans and Latinos, has
6 widened from 1988 to 2000. Only 10% of African American and 13% of Latino students in the fourth grade demonstrate the ability to read at the proficient level. Remarkably, the overall average reading and math scores fo r 17-year old African American students are equivalent to the averages for 13-year old White students (Hoff, 2000). The most frequently cited indicator of inequitable outcomes experienced by African American and Hispanic students is the disproportionate ra te at which these lear ners are referred and placed in special and remedial classes (Artiles & Trent, 1994; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Harry & Anderson, 1994; Osher, Woodruff, & Sims, 2002; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002; Townsend, 2000). In contrast to the changing demographi cs of the student population, the U.S. Department of Education (2001) reported th at 86% of all elementary and secondary teachers are White. The percentage of African -American teachers has declined from 12% in 1970 to 7% in 1998. Hispanic and Asian/Paci fic Islander Americans represent 5% and 1% of the teaching force, respectively. Nativ e Americans represent less than 1% of the teaching population. This is not solely a teacher-isolated issue. Similar to teachers, the diversity seen in the American population is by no means refl ected among speech-language practitioners, graduate students, or faculty members (Whi tmire & Eger, 2003). Despite the increase in culturally and linguistically diverse speech -language pathologists and the rapidly expanding diverse multicultural population w ithin the United States, there remains a gross disparity between the ethnic backgrounds of speech-language pathologists and the students they serve. More specifically, an underrepresentation of speech-language pathologists of color exists in comparison w ith the number of cultura lly and linguistically
7 diverse people diagnosed with a communicati on disorder. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000), 77.5% of the Ameri can population is White while membership counts reflect that 93% (n = 70,024) of American Speech, Language, and Hearing Association (ASHA) members are White (American Speech Language Hearing Association, 2004). Only 2.8% of ASHA members identified their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino, compared to 12.5% of the U.S. population. Furt her, 0.3% of ASHA members identified their ethnicity as American Indian or Alaskan Native, 1.6% identified as Asian, 2.3% identified as African Am erican or Black, 0.1% identified as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 2.8% identified as Multi-racial. Data from the Council of Academic Programs in Communication Scienc es and Disorders re veal that 93% of faculty in communication scienc es and disorders and 89% of students at the masters level are White, respectively (Whitmire & Eg er, 2003). Additionall y, anecdotal reports reveal that many graduate students of colo r do not remain in these programs long enough to graduate (Deal-Williams, 2002). As the student population is becoming in creasingly diverse, the teaching and speech-language pathology workforce are becoming increasingly homogenous, monocultural, and monolingual. As urban school s increasingly serve more culturally and linguistically diverse student learners, the need becomes greater to accommodate these differences in the current monocultural classroom s. The implication is that in order for teachers to be successful, they will need to be prepared to teach children who are not White (Ladson-Billings, 1994). The same is assumed to be true for speech-language pathologists. According to Banks (1991):
8 Even if we are successful in increasing th e percentage of teachers of color from the projected 5% in [the year] 2000 to 15% 85% of the nations teachers will still be white, mainstream, and largely female working with students who differ from them racially, culturally, and in social class status. Thus, an effective teacher education policy for the 21 century must include as a major focus the education of all teachers, including teachers of color, in ways that will help them receive knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to work effectively with students from diverse racial, ethnic, and soci al class groups. (pp. 135 -136) With the contrast in demographics betw een educators and their students comes a fear by researchers that children of other cult ures will lose their cu ltural identities in the majority culture classroom (Irvine, 2003; Ne lson, 1995). Further, several authors agree that a cultural conflict exists between some students and the typica l learning experiences in schools (Anderson, 1988; Anyon, 1997; Irvine, 2003; Kea & Utley, 1998; McIntyre, 1996a; 1996b; Vasquez, 1990). Research has docu mented that usual classroom practices favor one cultural group at the expense of others (Anderson, 1988; Irvine, 2003; McIntyre, 1996a; 1996b; Vasquez, 1990). Traditionally, the primary focus of res earch has been on preservice teacher education and inservice teacher practices, with limited focus on related professionals such as speech-language pathologists. Consequent ly, research focused on speech-language pathologists preservice educat ion and inservice practices in the K-12 educational system is minimal. The latest research studies have placed an emphasis on strategies utilized by school districts to recruit and retain qua lified personnel, namely classroom teachers (Bergeson, Douglas, & Griffin, 2000; Darling-Hammond, 2001; Urban Teacher
9 Collaborative Report, 2000). Anyon (1997) studied a large urban school district. As a participant observer for four years, she di scovered an infrequent use of stories that featured characters of color. Further, textbooks used were a microcosm of White middleclass interests and situations. Of the 24 teachers questioned at one particular school, none supplemented the written curriculum with Black studies in a systematic way. Exceptions to this occurred during Black History Month and varied across clas srooms. Additionally, textbook authors write these texts in Standard American English (SAE) (Anyon, 1997). In some instances the vocabulary in which some users of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) think, are the opposite of wh at they read in textbooks (Anyon, 1997). Dialect differences can affect the acade mic and social quality of education received by some students (Labov, 1995). Sole ly using Standard English in written materials interferes with reading achie vement (Baratz, 1970; Labov, 1969; Wiener & Cromer, 1967). Dialectal differences may interfere with the acquisition of information and with various educational skills such as reading (Christian, 1997). A group of African-American parents sued the local Ann Arbor (MI) school system on behalf of their chil dren in 1979. In this lawsuit, these parents claimed that students were being denied equal educatio nal opportunity because of their language background (Chambers & Bond, 1983; Farr White man, 1980). Specifically, these parents asserted that the schools were failing to provide their ch ildren with ade quate reading instruction because the language differences represented by their children's vernacular dialect were not taken into account. The pare nts won their lawsuit, and the schools were subsequently ordered to provi de staff training specifically related to dialects and the teaching of reading (Chambers & Bond, 1983; Farr Whiteman, 1980).
10 Teachers, related professionals, other school personnel, and other students attitudes toward speakers of a different dialect group can have a remarkable impact on the education process (Christian, 1997). People often make erroneous assumptions about the intelligence, motivation, and even morality of individuals who speak a vernacular dialect (Christian, 1997). If an educator has low exp ectations of a student's ability because of dialect differences, the student will perform less well in school. Perhaps, this is a direct result of the negative expecta tions (Christian, 1997). In some cases, students vernacular speech patterns result in them being "tracked" with lower achievers or even placed in special education clas ses (Christian, 1997). Negative views about speech begin with th e belief that vernacular dialects are linguistically inferior to st andard versions of the language. While language systems of various groups of speakers may differ, no one system is inherently better than any other (Christian, 1997). Research undoubtedly supports the position that variety in language is a natural manifestation of cultural and co mmunity differences (Labov, 1972). Baratz (1970) argued that the conti nued perception of nonstandard dialects as inferior to Standard American English (SAE) is an insu lt to students who do not speak the Standard English dialect. Similar to reading, a student who speaks Ebonics or African American Vernacular English (AAVE) can exhibit difficulty with mathematical thinking in educational contexts. Further, SAE and forms of thought rule mathematical thinking in textbooks (Orr, 1987). The grammar between SAE and AAVE is distinct, the lexicons overlap, and the unconscious rules that govern AAVE often conflict with the rules that govern SAE (Orr, 1987).
11 There has been a great focus on the im portance of implementing culturally responsive teaching practices in K-12 classroom s, particularly in urban school settings. Further, there has been an equal focus on teacher perceptions and their influence on teacher behaviors. Educational researchers ha ve been interested in teacher beliefs about their own work, their students, and themse lves for a long time (Soto & Goetz, 1998). These researchers have suggested a st rong link between teachers educational philosophies and their planning, decision-maki ng, and classroom practices (e.g., Aldridge & Clayton, 1987; Eisenhart, Shrum, Hardi ng, & Cuthbert, 1988; Johnson, 1992; Jones, 1984; Melograno & Loovis, 1991). Research on teachers perceived sense of efficacy has contributed significantly to our understandi ng of the relationship between teachers beliefs and practices (Soto & Goetz, 1998). A ccording to Bandura (1977), an individuals beliefs about his/her self-efficacy (i.e., judgments about ones ability to complete a certain task) are the strongest indicators of human motivation and subsequent practices. According to Sleeter (2001), a significan t proportion of White preservice teacher candidates anticipate working with students w ho are of a diverse cultural and linguistic background than their own. However, these pr e-professionals bring with them modest cross-cultural backgrounds, knowledge bases, and experiences (Bar ry & Lechner, 1995; Gilbert, 1995; Larke, 1990; Law & Lane, 1987; McIntyre, 1997; Schultz, Neyhart & Reck, 1996; Smith, Moallem, & Sherrill, 1997; Su, 1996, 1997; Valli, 1995). Schultz et al. (1996) found that preservice teacher candidates lack knowledge of and possess stereotypic beliefs about ur ban and high poverty children. Fu rther, most of these preprofessionals demonstrate little awaren ess or understanding of discrimination, particularly racism (Sleeter, 2001; Su, 1996, 1997). Many perceive programs to reduce
12 discriminatory practices, like Affirmative Action, as biased against Whites (Su, 1996, 1997). Apparently, this dilemma is not isolat ed at the level of the teacher education program. It carries over into their teachi ng practices. Goodwin (1994) states that preservice teachers hold limited thoughts of cu lturally responsive teaching practices as a methodological issue. Rather, they view a cu lturally responsive curriculum primarily as an additive to the status quo curriculum (Vavrus, 1994). As a whole, predominantly White teacher preparation institutions have not responded very well to the rapidly growi ng cultural gap between teachers and their students (Sleeter, 2001). A survey of 19 Midwest Holmes Group teacher preparation programs revealed that 94% of their faculty and students were White (Fuller, 1992 as cited in Sleeter, 2001). Only 56% of thes e institutions include the completion of a multicultural education course as a requirement for their elementary education preservice teacher candidates (Fuller, 1992 as cited in Sleeter, 2001). The percentages shared earlier regard ing graduate preparation programs in speech-language pathology clearly document that these programs have responded in like manner as teacher preparation programs. They too have not taken the necessary steps to address the cultural gap betw een speech-language pathologists and their rapidly increasing culturally and linguisti cally diverse clientele. Mi ssing from this research are studies that include and/or focus on the re cruitment and retention of speech-language pathologists prepared to provi de culturally responsive be st practices to the diverse students and families they serve. Demonstrating the ability to communicat e ones ideas, needs, and desires is necessary in human communica tion. Specifically, communicating to parents, teachers,
13 and other significant people is critical to a young childs development and a prerequisite to academic growth and development (Brice, 2001). Many children have trouble communicating because of communication diso rders. They may exhibit many symptoms, ranging from speech to language disorders. Symptoms of communication difficulty may include difficulty following directives, engaging in conversational dialogue, pronouncing words/unintelligible speec h, stuttering, understanding information given, expressing ones self in a clear and coherent manner, recalling information, poor vocabulary, reading difficulty, and voice problems. As a result, they qualify for speech and language therapy. Students proficiency in language and co mmunication depends on their ability to match their communications to the learning-teaching style of the classroom (Brice, 2001). Students with communication disorders have the potential for high academic success. However, this success is dependent on them learning the classrooms social, language, and learning patterns (Brice, 2001). In additi on to teachers, speech-language pathologists must center their attention on classroom inte ractions that include the language and communications utilized. This will assist students with successfully communicating in the school environment (Brice, 2001). Despite the educational implications a nd incidence of communication disorders, researchers have placed primary emphasi s on teacher preparation programs. As previously stated, research studies only focus on the perceptions, expectations, efficacy, and practices of classroom teachers concerning issues related to dive rse student learners. Related professions, such as speech-language pathology, have been left out of the dialogue. Consequently, there is limited research on the relations hip between speechlanguage pathologists percep tions toward cultural and linguistic diversity and their
14 professional practices. Speech-language pathologists play a major role in the identification, assessment, and intervention of students with communicative disabilities. Like educators, they bring with them their values, beliefs, and assumptions to every screening, assessment, and inte rvention situation. They must determine whether a student is exhibiting a disability or merely a cultural difference. With this power comes a threat of misidentification and misdiagnosis, especial ly if the speech-language pathologist is not familiar with a students cultural background. Jefferies (2000) addresses the following v ital points that demonstrate the need to examine preservice teachers cultural understand ing of self and others. The same points apply to speech-language pathologists, prof essionals also responsible for the academic growth and development of children. 1. Fewer individuals from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are entering the teaching fi eld; fewer individuals from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are ente ring the speech-language profession. 2. Human development and socialization occur in cultural contexts that dictate an individuals attitudes, pe rceptions, beliefs, values, and actions; 3. An individuals cultural va lues and knowledge influence how she/he establishes or sets expectat ions for others; and 4. Very little empirically based research on culturally responsive pedagogy has been conducted to date. Of particular significance, this study ex amined (a) speech-language pathologists beliefs about the language assessment of bili ngual/bicultural/bidialectal students, (b) speech-language pathologists professional efficacy beliefs (both personal and general) as
15 they relate to assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidi alectal students, and (c) reported supports and barriers to assessing the langua ge skills of bilingual/bicultura l/bidialectal students. A form of sequential mixed-methods design was used to accomplish the goals of this study. Su rvey and interview research methods were employed. The following research questions were used to address the above inquiry. Questions 1, 3, and 4 are qualitative in natu re. Question 2 is quantitative in nature. Research Questions This study addressed the following research questions: 1. What are the professional efficacy beliefs of speech-language pathologists about assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidia lectal students? 2. Do speech-language pathologists profession al efficacy beliefs about assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidi alectal students vary as a function of demographic variables (i.e. race/ethnicity, years of experience, levels of professional efficacy, frequency of times with bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal children, proficiency in a language other than English, and proficiency in a dialect)? 3. What do speech-language pathologists perceive as the supports needed to assess competently the language skills of bilingual/bicultural students? 4. What do speech-language pathologists pe rceive as barriers to assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students? Hypothesis. The researcher hypothesized that speech -language pathologists professional efficacy beliefs about assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students would vary as a function of:
16 1. Speech-language pathologists race/ethnicity; 2. Years of experience as a speech-language pathologist; 3. Years provided services to children and youth; 4. Percentage of students from homes where a language other than English is spoken; 5. Percentage of students from home s where a dialect is spoken; 6. Frequency of time spent with bilingu al/bicultural/bidi alectal students; 7. Years of experience with bilingual/bicultural/bi dialectal students; 8. Proficiency in a language ot her than English; and 9. Proficiency in a dialect Significance of the Study This study is occurring at a critical time in the history of the American educational system. The rapidly changing demographics of the American society, contrasting demographics of speech-language pathologists, widening achievement gap, and continued disproportionality of students of color in special education programs make it imperative that graduate communication sciences and disorders programs prepare culturally competent speech-language patholog ists to be responsive to the needs of all students. A Masters degree is a minimu m American Speech Language and Hearing Association (ASHA) requirement for practic ing speech-language pathologists. Graduate programs in communication sciences and di sorders are responsible for preparing competent speech-language pathologists to work with all children, including those from culturally and linguistically diverse b ackgrounds; backgrounds different from the dominant mainstream culture (White, middleclass, Protestant, and heterosexual). Thus, the results of this study will be shared with institutions of higher learning and school
17 districts. Participants and Procedures Speech-language pathologists within the state of Florida were selected to participate in this study. Of particular interest to the re searcher were speech-language pathologists who provide pr eschool and school-based services to young children and adolescents with special needs. Participati ng speech-language pathol ogists included those who provided services to preschool to hi gh school children, aged 3 to 17 years. A cover letter with details of the study and a request for participation was given to speech-language pathologists. The letter wa s accompanied by a survey developed for speech-language pathologists. Participants were asked to complete anonymously the Speech-Language Services to Bilingual/B icultural Individuals (SLSBBI) survey Candidates for participation in follow-up semi-s tructured interviews were selected using purposeful sampling. Definition of Terms The focal point of this section is on key terms used throughout this research project. Definitions fo r each term follow. Bicultural defined as individuals who are soci alized to attain specific values, beliefs, behavior styles, communication styles and traditions in more than one culture (Kritikos, 2003). Bidialectal. Defined as someone wh o possesses the ability to speak two different dialects (Seymour & N ober, 1998; Taylor, 1976). Bilingual Defined as individuals who regularly use two (or more) languages (Grosjean, 1992, as cited in Isaac, 2002). Taylor (1976, p.26) defines a bilingual person
18 as an individual who uses two or more languages, dialects, or styles of speech that involves a variation in sound, vocabulary, and syntax. Defi nitions of bilingualism vary and tend to focus on bilingualism as a uni-d imensional concept (language proficiency only), while failing to acknowledge the nonlinguistic and cult ural aspects of communication competence (Hamers & Blanc, 1989 as cited in Isaac, 2002). Culture. The process by which individuals are so cialized to attain specific values, beliefs, behavior styles, communication styl es, and traditions that are common to a particular group of people. Culturally Responsive Practices Practices that include th e customs and values of culturally and linguistically diverse student s in addition to those of the dominant mainstream culture. Culturally Diverse Refers to individuals or a gr oup that is exposed to, and/or engaged in more than one set of cultural beliefs, values, and attitudes (Crowley, 2003). Dialect. Refers to a variety of a language shared by a group of speakers and are rule-governed (Crowley, 2003; Seymour & N ober, 1998; Vafadar & Utt, 1993). Dialects can be characteristic of ethnic, regi onal, socioeconomic, or gender groups. Dominant Mainstream Culture In the U.S., refers to White middle-class individuals. General Efficacy Ones beliefs about the fields ability to change individuals learning and behavior (Allinder, 1994). Linguistically Diverse. Refers to individuals or a group that is exposed to, and/or engaged in more than one language or dialect (C rowley, 2003). Mixed Method Research Involves the systematic use of a quantitative and
19 qualitative phase in the research stud y as a whole (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2004). Mixed Research Involves the combined use of quantitative and qualitative techniques in a single research study (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2004). Personal Efficacy Involves beliefs about ones own ability to change individuals learning and behavior (Dembo & Gibson, 1985). Pidgin Defined as a language that is com posed of two or mo re languages created to facilitate communicati on between people who do not speak a common language. Pidgin is not an individuals primary language. Speech Community Refers to a group of people who have at least one speech variety in common (Seymour & Nober, 1998). Therapeutic intervention As used in this study, refers to the delivery of clinical services to individuals experiencing speech and/or language difficulty. The following section will focus on factors that pose potential threats to the reliability and validity of the results. Delimitations One delimitation is the restriction of part icipants to speech-language pathologists employed by two central Florida public school districts. Inferences from this study are restricted to these two sc hool districts. A second delimitation is the focus on spoken languages to the exclusion of sign language. Language can be communicated via oral expression (speech), written expression (r eading and writing), and manual expression (sign language) (Seymour & Nober, 1998). Ma nual communication systems such as American Sign Language, Seeing Essential E nglish (SEE1), and Signing Exact English (SEE2) are considered valid and rule-governed languages (S eymour & Nober, 1998).
20 Limitations Limitations of this study are categorized into two gr oups: threats to internal validity and threats to external validity. Re garding the quantitative portion of the study, the survey instrument is a single item measuri ng a complex construct. This is a threat to internal validity and poses a limitation to the study. A second threat to internal validity included the following: Information receive d was based on self-report through surveys and interviews. Participants may have provi ded responses they regarded as socially acceptable. This threat is known as in strumentation (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Onwuegbuzie, 2003). A third threat to internal validity involved passive and active researcher bias (Onwuegbuzie, 2003). The rese archers ethnicity, statements made, and background as a speech-language pathologist may have provided an indication of the researchers preferences. This may have influenced participant responses as well. While surveys alone can yield significant information, in-depth interviews added a deeper understanding to the data collected. Utilizing both quantita tive and qualitative research methods is a more complete way to learn about phenomena we are interested in. (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2004, p.409) Threats to external validity incl uded population and ecological validity (McMillan, 2000; Onwuegbuzie, 2003). The samp le may not parallel other geographic regions across the country. Inferences from th is study are restricted to select districts within the state of Florida. Fu rther, the percentage of female participants substantially outnumbered their male counterparts. As a result, the multiple regression analysis did not compare responses by gender. Only female spee ch-language pathologists were selected to participate in the follow-up interviews. Thus, information gathered from this study may
21 be only applicable to female speech-language pathologists in these two central Florida school districts.
22 CHAPTER II Literature Review The chapter begins with a focus on the demographics regarding speech-language pathologists, and their preparation to work with culturally and linguistically diverse students. Cultural and linguistic diversity and professional efficacy are used as the theoretical background of this inquiry; thus, they will shape the focus of subsequent sections of the literature review. Terminol ogy such as race, ethnicity, culture, class, beliefs, and perceptions are vital recurrent themes used throughout this chapter. An overview of trends and issues related to th e marginalization and disenfranchisement of culturally and linguistically di verse students is followed by the origin and history of multicultural education. Due to the limited presence of research on speech-language pathologists beliefs and pract ices, subsequent sections address teacher perception and expectation research, self-efficacy, pers onal and general efficacy, and culturally responsive pedagogy as it relates to teachers. The chapter concludes with implications for professionals who work with children. Demographics of Speec h-Language Pathologists On an annual or biannual basis, the American Speech, Language, and Hearing Association (ASHA) conducts th e Omnibus Survey via mail to gain information related to issues of concern and interests of its members and associates. In the spring of 2003, ASHA mailed a survey to constituents with questions a bout their caseloads (ASHA,
23 2003). Using a probability (non-replacement) sampling, employing a stratified systematic technique, ASHA selected 7,500 constituents in the United States (ASHA, 2003). The response rate was 58% ( n = 4,387). More than 70% of sp eech-language pathologists in the schools reported that they served st udents with autism/pervasive development disorder (77%), learning di sabilities (72%), and mental retardation/developmental disability (71%). Approximately 90% of speech -language pathologists reported that they served individuals with articulation or phonological disorders (ASHA, 2003). Approximately 99.6% of school-based speech-language pathologists reported serving students with language disorders (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Nearly all speech-language pathologis ts (99.2%) rate their overall job performance as good, very good, or exceptional (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Furthermore, speech-language pathologists rated themselves most skillful in the areas of interpreting results of standardized tests, planning effective services, using appropriate clinical skills, and monitori ng student progress and adjust ing instruction accordingly (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). ASHAs Legislative Council used the in formation obtained from the surveys to identify issues of concern. ASHAs Execu tive Board subsequently identified related Focus Initiatives and associated outcomes (ASHA, 2003). One identified issue of concern is accommodating culturally and lingu istically diverse stude nts learning needs (ASHA, 2003). This issue of concern is critical in that it di rectly influences all of the above areas in which speech-language pat hologists report feeling skillful in. Approximately 98% of ASHA members repo rt that they do not speak a language other than English (Whitmire & Eger, 2003). As cited previously, ne arly one-fifth of
24 school age children in the United States sp eak a language other than English at home (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). Specifi cally, 10.5% of the U.S. population speaks Spanish in the home. Despite this fact only 0.6% of ASHA members report speaking Spanish (Deal-Williams, 2002). Similar to the plight of teacher preparation programs, the lack of diversity in the student body and teaching body in communication sciences and disorders graduate programs raises critical i ssues about the adequate preparation of all students to work with cultura lly and linguistically diverse populations (Whitmire & Eger, 2003). These data confirm a conti nuation of the current crit ical shortage of speechlanguage pathologists prepared to provide services to students from diverse racial, ethnic, linguistic, and religious backgr ounds. Further, the critical shortage of culturally and linguistically diverse speech-language pathol ogists, graduate students, and faculty members has implications for curricula, clin ical training and prof essional development, research initiatives, and the knowledge and skills of practitioners (Whitmire & Eger, 2003). The field of speech-language pathology is lacking in the areas of: (a) exposure to culturally and linguistically diverse populat ions, (b) curricula a nd clinical training regarding diversity, and (c) research on cultu rally and linguistically diverse populations (Whitmire & Eger, 2003). Because a significa nt number of students with disabilities require speech-language services, ensuring a qualified pool of speech-language pathologists is crucial to the successful outcomes of th ese students served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] (U.S Department of Education, 2001).
25 Racial/Ethnic Disproportional ity in Special Education African American students, particularly African American males, are overrepresented in special education program s (Osher et al., 2002; Skiba et al., 2002; Townsend, 2000). Reducing overrepresentation of culturally and lingu istically diverse students (CLD) students in sp ecial education is hardly a new concern. Since the beginning of public schooling in the United Stat es, African American children have been labeled, misclassified, and tracked relative to educational standing (Townsend, 2000). This is largely due to a combined result of inequitable resour ce allocations, the application of inadequately developed and normed intelligence and achievement tests, disproportionately inappropriate placements in special education classrooms and settings, and insufficient attention to the learning styles evidenced by many of the children (Epps, 1992; Hale-Benson, 1986, 1987; Hilliard, 1976; Myrdal, 1944; Townsend, 2002b). African American and Hispanic children and adolescents have historically been overrepresented in classes for children with em otional and behavioral disorders and more so in classes for children with educable mental retardation (Townsend, 2000). Each decade has witnessed overrepresent ation of culturally and linguistically diverse and lower socioeconomic status ch ildren in these classes (Townsend, 2002a). African American students c ontinue to be grossly overre presented in these programs (Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999; U.S. De partment of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), 1983, 1990), with one study indicati ng their representati on in classes for the severely emotionally disturbed at leas t doubling their actual re presentation in the student population (Grossman, 1999). In the OCRs 1992 survey of elementary and secondary schools, results revealed that Af rican American males accounted for 8.23% of
26 the total school enrollment nationally, but acc ounted for more than twice that percentage in the categories of educable mentally re tarded (EMR), trainable mentally retarded (TMR), and severely emoti onally disturbed (SED). According to data from the 20002001 school year, African Americans comprise approximately 15% of the public school population, yet are approximately 20% of those identified as having a disability (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Sp ecial Education Programs (OSEP, 2001). Specifically, African Americans comprise near ly 34% of those identified with mental retardation and 27% of those identified with an emotional disturbance (U.S. Department of Education, OSEP, 2001). Researchers and pr actitioners have debated this issue for quite some time with varying results. The issue of overrepresentation or dispr oportionality of students of color in special education first received nationa l attention in the 1960s. In 1968, Dunn documented disproportionate numbers of African American, American Indian, Mexican American, and Puerto Rican students in classes for the mildly retarded in California. Assessments used inaccurately identified a disproportionate number of minority students as students in need of special education or unnecessarily segregated minority students in special education classes (Harry and Ande rson, 1994). Several landmark court cases of the 1970s such as Diana vs. the California State Board of Educa tion (1970), Johnson vs. the San Francisco Unified School District ( 1971), and the Larry P. vs. Riles case (1979) found many of the public schools assessment pr actices to be discriminatory (Daugherty, 2001). Assessing students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds has become one of the major issues in special education (Burnette, 2000). Similarly,
27 assessing these students also is a critical issue in speech and language pathology. The assessment process, which includes referrals to practitioners such as speech-language pathologists, has been under intense scruti ny. Flores, Lopez, and DeLeon (2000) note the shortage of personnel qualified to assess cu lturally and linguistical ly diverse students. They assert that the tools used to as sess these students are insufficient. In addition to the issue of disproportionality in special education, a second issue involves the 1997 amendments to IDEAs require ment to involve parents and/or someone familiar with the students cultural and linguistic background as part of the assessment team (Burnette, 2000). Parents are vital memb ers of the assessment team. They provide valuable information about the student that includes her or his cultural background and her or his funds of knowledge how she or he functions in the home environment and community (Burnette, 2000). Involving parent s and cultural brokers in the assessment process will ensure diagnoses that are mo re accurate and decrease the occurrence of misidentification. A third issue centers on assessing studen ts who are limited English proficient (LEP). Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 necessitates a language assessment of any student who may be limited English profic ient. This includes assessing the students proficiency in both the English language and hi s/her native language. Doing so will assist the assessor with determining which language th e child is most proficient in and whether a disability exists. Further, utilizing an interpreter in this process requires making sure that the interpreter understands the context and idea of the di alogues in order to translate the meaning of what was said in a correct manner (Burnette, 2000). A fourth issue relates to the selection and use of tests and other assessment
28 materials. IDEA mandates that tests and other assessment materials (a) are not selected based on a racial or cultural ba sis, making it discriminatory; and (b) are administered in the childs native language or other means of communication, unless doing this is clearly not feasible Burnette (2000) states that as sessors should be careful to examine all formal tests used in the assessmen t process for cultural bias by a person from the cultural group. Moreover, only a person w ho is knowledgeable of a childs cultural and linguistic background and who speaks th at childs language or dialect should administer the test (McLean, 2000). Testing situ ations that require modifications should be used only for descriptive information (rather than scores) because making modifications may invalidate the scoring of the test (Burnette, 2000). Incorporating informal tests, such as curriculumbased assessments, observations, interviews, and playbased assessments will yield vital informati on. The nature and cultural specificity of standardized tests prevent th em from being the sole s ource of providing information. Thus, they should be used only as part of the assessment process (Burnette, 2000). The misidentification of ch ildren of color as having a disability, such as a language disorder, is not the only dilemma that educators and relate d professionals face. In contrast to placing children without a disability into special education programs, many children with disabilities go unserved because of the difficulty of differentiating a disability from a cultural and linguistic di fference (Burnette, 2000). Underidentification can occur when an evaluator makes the assumption that a child who belongs to a specific racial/ethnic group speaks the dialect connect ed with that group (Ortiz, 1997; Wilson, Wilson, & Coleman, 2000). Thus, differences revealed in the assessment may be attributed to dialect rather than errors (Laing & Kamhi, 2003).
29 In the context of the rapidly growing cu lturally and linguistica lly diverse student populations, Congress has called for greater e fforts to ensure that these students are accurately classified and appropriately place d. IDEA was reauthorized, in part, to address race-based disproportionality in special education programs. The IDEA amendments include specific provisions that require states to provide for the collection and examination of data to determine if significant disproportionality based on race is occurring in the state with respect to the identification of children as children with disabilities and the placement in particular educational settings of these children. Although federal law mandates data collection and examination to determine race-based disproportionality, no specific remedies are suggested to correct disparities (Paolino, 2002). In the 25 years since the passage of Public Law 94-142, largely, the problem of disproportionality remains (Daugherty, 2001). In fact, African Ameri can students are two to four times more likely than their White counterparts to be identified for special education services (U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 1998). The current multicultural education moveme nt, led primarily by people of color, surfaced primarily in the 1960s and was a resp onse to cultural deprivation theory (Ogbu, 1992). Bullock (1970) and Ogbu (1978) further st ate that prior to th e emergence of this movement, African Americans objected to a di fferential and inferior curriculum; they desired a curriculum similar to what was available to Whites. Currently, multicultural education is associated with cultural dive rsity (Yee, 1991 as cite d in Ogbu, 1992). Both terms are frequently used in terchangeably. The demand for mu lticultural education is not only for ethnic minorities who are experienci ng school failure, but also for those who are experiencing success (Ogbu, 1992). Although vari ous models of multicultural education
30 exist (Ogbu, 1992), multicultural education as a whole cultivates pride in ethnic minority cultures, helps culturally and linguistically diverse student learne rs to develop new insights into their cultures, diminishes prejudice and typecasting, and encourages intercultural understandings (Rubalcava, 1991). Thus, multicultural education is beneficial for the majority culture as well. The vital question, is, does multicultural education make a positive impact on the academic performance of culturally and lingui stically diverse student learners (Ogbu, 1992)? According to Ogbu (1992), rarely do current models of multicultural education address this important question. However, Gibson (1976 as cited in Ogbu, 1992) suggests two exceptions, bicultural education and cu lturally responsive inst ruction. The objective of bicultural education is to generate student learners who have the knowledge and skills necessary to operate successf ully in two different cultures (Gibson, 1976). According to Gibson (1976, p. 7), the goal of education of the culturally different or benevolent multiculturalism is to ensure equal e ducational opportunities for students who are culturally different. Some researchers believe that many cultu rally and linguistica lly diverse students may be unsuccessful in school because the differences that they bring--cultural, social, and/or linguistic--are unr ecognized, devalued, or mis understood (Kea & Utley, 1998). Wilson-Oyelaran (1996) states that the way cultural differences are handled is discouraging and the determining factors for those differences result from the way power is distributed in this country. Gender, soci oeconomic status, race, and language used in the home affect how we perceive differences. These factors classify differences into two categories, those that are valued, and those that are not.
31 The prevailing philosophy of schooling uses traditional methodology and support in adopting White middle-class ways (H ollins & Spencer, 1990; Irvine, 2003). Traditionally, the standard language, standard American history, and the voices and lives of White men are solely visi ble in the curriculum. This hegemonic approach further disenfranchises culturally and linguistically diverse students who have historically been disenfranchised through life experiences pr ior to entering school (Banks, 1989, 1994). Culturally and linguistically diverse student learners demonstrate a variety of levels of functioning within the context of the school culture; ma ny are acculturating to the U.S. public school system while simultane ously learning the English language (Brice, 2001). Often, differentiating between a disabili ty or difficulty because of acculturation and language learning is complex for teachers (Brice, 2001). Similarly, school-based speech-language pathologists have the challenging responsibility of providing services to English language learners; particularly when they are monolingual and only speak English (Brice, 2001). The act of code switchi ng (i.e., mixing two languages in the same sentence or paragraph; Br ice, 2001) is a natural sec ond language phenomenon and does not constitute a language disorder (Brice, 2001). Traditionally, the term language minority has often been used to refer to individuals who speak languages other than En glish. However, there is justification to apply this designation to populations who speak vernacular vari eties of English as well, including African American Vernacular Engl ish (AAVE) (Adger, Wolfram, Detwyler, & Harry, 1993). Similar to other language minority students, speakers of AAVE often find their indigenous language systems in c onflict with the schools language ideals. According to Adger et al. (1993), there is a fundamental education and sociopolitical
32 parallel in the conflicts that can take place between the indigenous language of the community and the mainstream language used as the standard of instruction in schools. An assumption of language disorder rather than language difference results in the propelling of these students in disproportiona te numbers toward special education and related services (Adger et al., 1993; Christian, 1997). Delpit (1995) contends that culturally and linguistically di verse student learners in the American educational system endure a s econd-culture that of ten appears foreign and dominating to them. These bicultural and bilingual students must leave their dialects and native languages outside of the classroom or therapeutic environment. Teachers often teach second-culture skills and knowledge in the classroom from a moral standpoint rather than as pragmatic skills for survival and success within the dominant mainstream society (Banks, 1989). Culturally conventiona l ways of acting, speaking, and writing represent a language of cultu re and power that students of color should achieve to ensure success within the mainstream so ciety (Delpit, 1995, p. 24). Children who are socialized in ways that differ from school expe ctations and patterns have the difficult task of making daily adjustments to the school cult ure and her/his teachers (Meyers, Torres, & Walker, 2000). More specifically, Hale-Bens on (1986) calls attenti on to the additional burden these adjustments place on Black student learners: Black children must possess the ability to imitate the acceptable behaviors of the culture in which they live and at the same time acquire those behaviors that are deemed necessary to be upwardly mobile. Teachers as well as speech-language pathologists must place an emphasis on classroom interactions, inclusive of the la nguage and communications used, to ensure that students will learn to co mmunicate effectively within th e school environment (Brice,
33 2001). Schools can teach students of color thei r culture of language and power through the process of code switching. Students can learn the pragma tically appropriate way to act in certain situations such as job inte rviews, public speaking, formal writing activities, and college entrance interviews while still receiving affirmation of their own cultural mores and language use with family and peers. Teacher/practitioner perceptions and expectations. Research has demonstrated a direct link between the way that teachers view their students in the classroom, the way students view themselves, and the way they perform (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968, 1992). Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) conducted this wellknown experiment that took place at an elementa ry school. Certain students were selected and placed at random into either the contro l group or the experimental group. Teachers were led to believe that the students in the experimental group had the potential of showing signs of a spurt in intellectual growth and development as opposed to the students in the control group. Results revealed that the first-grade students in the control group demonstrated a gain of 12 IQ points, wh ereas their peers in the experimental group showed a gain of 27.4 IQ points. By and large, students in the experimental group (representing grades first through sixth) de monstrated a 12.22 point gain, whereas the control group exhibited an 8.42 gain. It is apparent that the group expected to perform better did so. Thus, what teachers (and rela ted professionals) believe, perceive, say, and do can positively or negatively affect a student. Research centered on self-fulfilling proph ecies is not new to education. The phrase self-fulfilling prophecy wa s first introduced by sociol ogist Robert K. Merton (1948). When developing this term, Merton (1948) borrowed from the theorem If men
34 define situations as real, they are real in their consequences (Thomas, 1928, p. 257). Tauber (1998) provides a brief expl anation of self-fulfilling prophecy: The teacher develops expectations. The teacher behaves in a certain ma nner based upon these expectations. The teachers behavior towards each st udent tells each student the teachers expectati ons/achievement for that student. The consistent patterns of the teachers behavior will mold the students behavior, achievement, and expectations for his or herself. As time passes, the students behavior and achievement will align more closely with the teach ers expectations of him or her. Rosenthal conducted his first studie s in the late 1950s. In the book, The Pygmalion Effect Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) illustrate many convincing studies that propose our expectations dire ctly influence those around us Also known as the selffulfilling prophecy, the Pygmalion effect is the idea that a persons expectations about an individual can ultimately lead that individual to act and achieve in a manner that confirms those expectations (Brehm & Kassin, 1996). These expectations may range from the members on our bowling team to the students in our classrooms (Rhe m, 1999) (or on our caseloads). Studies of this type are not limited to the field of education. Studies conducted outside of education document the Py gmalion effect in laboratory animals as well. Researchers with the preconceived noti on that one group of white rats is more capable than another group end up with result s that match these beliefs to a degree that defies random chance (Rhem, 1999, p. 4). As noted by Rhem (1999, p. 4), Indeed, it would appear that we communi cate something vital and undis guisable about our attitudes
35 toward students and teaching in ways that transcend ordinary language. Rosenthal and Jacobsons (1968) book did receive criticism from educational psychologists when it first appeared. This may be the result of peoples unwillingness to face disturbing facts that reveal a problem but does little in providi ng a solution (Rhem, 1999). Rosenthal candidly admits to not knowing how to handle the rese arch findings. However, one point is for certain, the moral implication in his data is clea r: If a teacher is absolutely certain about a students inability to learn, then that teach er should leave the classroom. According to Rhem (1999, p. 4), Superb teachers can teach the unteachable. Research further suggests that teacher perc eptions and expectations differ with the race and socioeconomic status of studen ts. Winfield (1986) conducted a study that included a sample of five i nner-city elementary schools in a major metropolitan school district. All of the schools with in this district served pre dominantly children of color and low-SES children from the nearby neighborhoods Forty elementary teachers, eight per school, were selected to be interviewed ut ilizing a semi-structu red interview guide. Initially, teachers were select ed to signify potentially diffe rent perspectives within the school organization (i.e., eff ective and non-effective teache rs). Teachers were referred by their respective principals, reading specia lists, or union representatives, new to the school, and veteran teachers who had been in the school setting. All teachers interviewed taught in classrooms where Afri can American students represented the majority (98% 100%). The participating elementary schools were examined over the period of one year utilizing case study methodology. Case study narr atives on each school were developed from data collected. Narratives reported on the schools historical and community
36 context, the orientation of the principal, re ading teachers, and teachers in general, and a study of the schoolwide instruc tional organization for reading. Case study narratives also included data based on teacher beliefs. Data collected from teachers verbal responses were obtained in interviews and analyzed us ing a cross-classification analysis (Patton, 1980). Teachers interviewed varied according to race, average length of service, and grade level taught; however, these characterist ics were not salient in the analysis. The cross-classification analysis uncovere d four diverse type s of teachers: (a) tutors, (b) general contractors, (c) custodi ans, and (d) referral agents. Tutors and custodians were found to assume the responsibility for improving instruction while general contractors and referral agents tended to shift the responsibility to others. Teachers labeled tutors specifi ed the responsibility was theirs to provide instruction to the bottom reading group in order to improve reading achiev ement (e.g., I work with the low group approximately 20 minutes daily to re inforce skills). Teachers labeled general contractors believed that remedial instruc tion was essential, but not necessarily their responsibility (e.g., I send my bottom group to the Title (Chapter I) aide or We have a district-funded supplementary remedial progr am for low achievers). Teachers labeled custodians indicated there was not much, if anything, th at could be undertaken to improve the academic proficiency of at-risk students (e.g., A few will be on grade level, but the other students will just ge t passed on). Their primary focus was the maintenance of low-performing students. The difference between the custodian teachers and those labeled referral agents is that custodians assume responsibility while referral agents believe the responsibility of maintena nce belongs to someone else. Further, unlike general c ontractors who also shift responsibilit y, referral agents
37 believe at-risk students were unable to le arn in the general classroom and frequently referred students for psychological testing or special education. Overall, Winfield (1986) found that teach ers expectations are conveyed using specific classroom behaviors and practices that vary significantly for high versus lowexpectation students. Further, teachers expectations are formed by their personal belief systems, which are influenced by prior experi ence with and exposure to diverse students, teachers role definition, awareness of a ppropriate techniques, and available support services. They often see Af rican American students from working class or lower socioeconomic families as unable to perform high quality academic work (Winfield, 1986). Teachers typically expect more from th eir White students than from their African American students. They expect more from middle-class students than they do from students whose families represent working cla ss or lower socioeconomic status (Farkas, 1996; Roscigno & Ainsworth-Darnell, 1999; Winfield, 1986). Additionally, teachers have a tendency to react mo re positively to higher-achievi ng students, to females, to attractive children, to conforming children, to higher SES children, to those who sit closest to him/her in proximity, and to those who are not members of ethnic minority groups (Good, 1981; Proctor, 1984). The most salient characteristics th at tend to create negative expectations are those conne cted to race and social class. Consequently, these negative expectations apparently may result in preferential treatment against poor and ethnic minority stude nt learners (Solomon, Battistich, & Hom, 1996; Casteel, 1998; Rist, 1970; Leacock, 1969). Casteel (1998) examined the treatment of African American and White students in middle schools by White female teachers during 32 hours of instruction in integrated classrooms. Results revealed that African
38 American students as a whole were not tr eated as favorably by their White female teachers as were their White peers. According to almost all 16 dependent variables of an adapted form of the BrophyGood Dyadic C oding system, teachers interacted more positively with the White students than they did with the African American students. Solomon et al., (1996) used questionnaire s to assess the attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and classroom practices of 24 teachers employed in urban and suburban elementary schools throughout the U.S. Th e study was conducted over an entire school year. Results revealed that teachers in urba n schools working with children from lowerSES families place more emphasis on teacher authority and control and less emphasis on student autonomy and constructivist than unde rtaken in other schools. Further, these same teachers of students from lower-SES families were less trusting of students and more doubtful of their skills. Teachers beliefs consistently aligned with their practices, although school poverty and stude nts mean achievement levels were statistically controlled. Such negative perceptions toward cu lturally and linguistically diverse students lower expectations for achievement, whic h subsequently lower achievement (King & Ladson-Billings, 1990). King and Ladson-Billin gs (1990) relate the following story: Our student teachers complete two assignments in schools serving different populations. One of our st udents (whom well call Cindy) encountered a sad example of a resident teachers lack of multicultural competence last year in an exemplary elementary school in a pr edominantly White, affluent community. (The US Secretary of Educa tion identified this school as one of the finest in the nation and the resident teacher was recomm ended as an excellent teacher.) The resident teacher, Ms. Barker, (not her r eal name) told Cindy there were two kinds
39 of Black students in the class: bl ack-Blacks and the white-Blacks. She explained that the black-Blacks were behavior problems and were less capable intellectua lly than the white-Blacks because they dont have White values. The students Ms. Ba rker called white-Black s came from middle-income professional homes and their appearance a nd demeanor closely resembled that of middle-class White students. (p. 17) According to Diamond, Randolph, and Sp illane (2004), teacher expectation research seldom examines teachers assessmen ts of students in organizational contexts. The literature is replete with evidence that indicates the impact of school contexts on school and classroom reproductive pr actices (Anyon, 1981a, 1981b, 1981c; Bankston & Caldas, 1996; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Roscigno, 2000, 1998; Roscigno & AinsworthDarnell, 1999). However, the literature on teacher expectations usually stresses the interactions between a teacher and his or her students (Diamond, et al., 2004). Studying teachers expectations also can be accomplished by exploring teachers sense of responsibility for student sc holarship (Lee & Smith, 2001). Diamond et al., (2004) conducted a study focused on teachers expectations and sense of responsibility for student lear ning. These researchers conducted ethnographic research in five urban elementary schools. The research included participant observation and semi-structured interviews. Utilizi ng the Non-numerical, Unstructured Data Indexing, Searching and Theo rising (NU*DIST) (Fieldi ng & Lee, 1993) computer program for qualitative data analysis a nd theorizing, the researchers documented instances when teachers and administrators expressed beliefs about students. They coded these beliefs as assets, deficits, or neut ral statements. Responses that emphasized
40 students strengths were code d as asset oriented. The researchers borrowed from the earlier work of Farkas, Grobe, Sheeh an, and Shaun (1990) by emphasizing cognitive and noncognitive assessments of students. Asset-oriented cognitive assessments highlighted behavioral characteristics such as maturity, responsibility, high work ethic, and the ability to work well with other students (Diam ond et al., 2004). Asset-or iented noncognitive assessments emphasized students reading and co mputation ability at high levels, higherorder thinking skills, master coursework, and perform well on standardized tests. Responses that were coded as deficit-orient ed usually suggested that these students did not exhibit the above characteristic s and skills (Diamond, et al., 2004). Diamond et al., (2004) subsequently looked at patterns at each school. They were particularly interested in the demogr aphic makeup of the student population. Once themes for each school were identified, categories were established based on the nature of responses for each teacher/administrator. Data were aggregated and compared across individuals and the schools. Data revealed that the race and class co mposition of the schools that were studied is related to the general belie fs that teachers and administrators have of their students (Diamond et al, 2004). Asset-oriented beliefs were stressed over deficits in White majority and Chinese majority schools. Deficit-oriented beliefs were emphasized in schools where the student population was majority African American and from low-SES families. Data further established that teachers sense of responsibility for student learning was higher with the stud ents they perceived to have a surplus of learning capital. When teachers demonstrated a lower sense of re sponsibility, they believed that students lack of motivation, family background, and limite d skills hindered their teaching abilities.
41 Remarkably, there is a limited number of studies on the beliefs and decisionmaking of speech-language pathologists (Kriti kos, 2003). Like teachers, speech-language pathologists make numerous and quick deci sions during the servic e delivery process (Kritikos, 2003). Two studies confirm that sp eech-language pathologist s consider beliefs to be a significant factor re lated to clinical expertise. Kamhi (1994) asked speechlanguage pathologists to descri be factors they believed to be important to conducting effective therapy. Respondents described four aspects: knowledge, technical skills, interpersonal skills, and clin ical philosophies (i.e., belief s). In a similar study, Kamhi (1995) found that speech-language pathologists rated interp ersonal/attitudinal factors (e.g., rapport, confidence, and interest) as more vital than te chnical factors (e.g., diagnosis, treatment). The socialization process helps to shap e professionals beli efs, values, and behaviors (Rios, 1996). Professionals pe rsonal and professional experiences and membership in microcultural groups (e.g., cl ass characteristics, religious beliefs) influence their customs, decision-maki ng, and knowledge and beliefs regarding assessment and therapeutic intervention (Kriti kos, 2003). These beliefs influence service practices, which in turn, influence client be havior and client outcomes (Kritikos, 2003; Porter & Brophy, 1998). Culturally Responsive Practice The power that educators possess can disable or empower culturally and linguistically diverse students with and without disabilities (Kea & Utley, 1998). Culturally responsive instructi on draws on students cultures as essential sources of their education (Kea & Utley, 1998). If Afri can American and other culturally and
42 linguistically diverse students are to experience academic achie vement at a rate that is comparable to their White counterparts, th e schooling process must be reorganized in ways that promote and support cultural incl usion (Hollins & Spencer, 1990). A culturally responsive teaching force may decrease the incidence of mislabeling that can lead to the overrepresentation of culturally and linguistica lly diverse students in special education programs (Ewing, 1995) and their underrepresen tation in programs for the gifted and talented (Ford, 1996). Similarly, culturally re sponsive speech-language pathologists may decrease the incidence of misidentification as a result of therapist-centered practices. The identification process may vary across school districts. However, general similarities exist. Once a referral is made, speech-language pathologists informally screen the student in question. If the screen results in recommendations for a formal evaluation, parental permission is obtained. The speech-lan guage pathologist then proceeds with a full battery of tests to asse ss the students articulation, la nguage, reading, and overall communication skills. Often, speech-language pa thologists have the responsibility of screening all incoming kindergarteners without any referrals. Historical ly, tests used have not been representative of the student population. While considerable strides have been made in recent years to develop a number of alternative assessment procedures that reduc e some of the biases inherent in normreferenced standardized te sts, problems persist (Laing & Kamhi, 2003). These problems have been well documented (Brice, 2002; Washington & Craig, 1992; Wilson, Wilson, & Coleman, 2000). The three most familiar prob lems are content bias, linguistic bias, and disproportionate representati on in normative samples. Content bias takes place when test stimuli, methods, or procedures used result in
43 the assumption that all children have been e xposed to identical c oncepts and vocabulary or have had comparable life experiences (Laing & Kamhi, 2003). Children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds may not do as well on standardized measures in comparison to their mainstream peers because of differences in life experiences, socialization pr actices, and early literacy experiences (Stockman, 2000). Linguistic bias refers to one or all of the following: (a) the discrepancy between the language or dialect used by the examiner (b) the discrepancy between the language or dialect used by the child, and (c) the langua ge or dialect that is anticipated in the childs responses (Laing & Kamhi, 2003). Fo r example, if an examiner who uses Standard American English (SAE) assesse s a child who uses African American Vernacular English (AAVE), the examiner may a rrive at inaccurate results because of a mismatch between the childs dialect and the dialect of the testi ng instrument (Laing & Kamhi, 2003). Overidentification of culturall y and linguistically diverse children has been the most prevailing problem, ascr ibing errors to dialect differences. Underidentification also can occur when a test examiner makes the assumption that a child who belongs to a specific racial/ethnic group will speak the dialect associated with that group (Wilson et al., 2000). Traditionally, norm-referenced standardized tests have not included culturally and linguistically diverse populations in thei r normative samples. More recently, test developers have included propor tions that are more represen tative of diverse populations in the normative sample (Laing & Kamhi, 2003). However, includi ng these children in the normative sample does not automatically solve the issue of overor underidentification of culturally and lingui stically diverse ch ildren with language
44 disorders (Laing & Kamhi, 2003). Simply maki ng adjustments to the normative sample to represent culturally and linguistically diverse children co rrectly may do nothing more than reduce the mean distribution of the normative sample. These children will still demonstrate language skills below the mean, but within normal age limits (Laing & Kamhi, 2003). Laing and Kamhi (2003) suggest th e only way to ensure that bias does not occur may be to design an instrument specifi cally for culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Furthermore, speech-language pathologists beliefs about the assessment process may differ based on different personal and professional experiences. The degree of experiences with and knowledge of other language and culture also is a major factor in assessment beliefs (Kritikos, 2003). For example, these experiences may influence a speech-language pathologists beliefs about how to interpret and gather assessment data (Kritikos, 2003). More specifically, speech-language pathologists may vary in their beliefs about (a) the clinical significance they place on a child who has bilingual input (on language acquisition) at home and (b) the value they place on using interpreters (Kritikos, 2003). These beliefs may in tu rn lead to the overidentification and underidentification of language disorders. Fo r example, bilingual children with normal language ability, but limited English prof iciency (LEP) are sometimes referred for speech-language intervention, whereas those whos e language skills are interpreted to be resultant of a limited English proficiency are sometimes overlooked for justifiable speech-language intervention (Kritikos, 2003). E rrors in the identific ation and assessment process may do severe injustice to bilingua l children (Bogatz, Hisama, Manni, & Wurtz, 1986).
45 In a study conducted by Roseberry-McK ibbin and Eicholtz (1994), 82% of speech-language respondents stated that they used an interpreter with children and families who spoke a language other than English as their primary language. Results revealed that 39% of the respondents experien ced difficulty with the availability of an interpreter. Furthermore, 29% of the respondent s disclosed that they used the services of bilingual speech-language pathologists fo r languages the respondents did not speak. Respondents also acknowledged that the diffi culties they faced consequently affected therapeutic intervention. In 2001, Roseberry-McKibbin, Brice, and O Hanlon (in press), sent out a similar survey to K-12 public school speech-langua ge pathologists. Recognizing that the previous survey is now outdated, they modi fied it by adding a few new questions; it has mostly identical questions. Subsequently, these researchers anal yzed a total of 1,736 returned surveys and compared the results to the 1990 survey. In 2001, more speech-language pathologist s reported having English language learner (ELL) students on their caseloads In 1990, 49% of ELL students received services by survey respondents for langua ge disorders. Remarkably, 91% of ELL students received services by survey re spondents for language disorders in 2001. The ELL population demonstrates a growth of 105%, whereas the general population demonstrates a growth of only 12% since the 1990-91 school year. The results of both surveys revealed that the most commonly represented racial/ethni c group on respondents caseloads was Hispanic, followed by Asian. Respondents in both surveys were asked if they spoke a language other than English with adequate proficiency to provide clinical servic es to students who spoke that
46 language. In 1990, only 10% of respondents repo rted being proficient in speaking a language other than English. In 2001, this num ber rose to 12%. Despite national efforts by the American Speech, Language, and Hearing Association (ASHA) for more bilingual speech-language pathologists, not much had changed in 11 years (Roseberry-McKibbin et al., in press). Respondents in both surveys were asked to indicate what specific challenges they encountered the most in assessing and treating ELL students with communication disorders. In 1990 and 2001, respondents report ed that the foremost challenge was not being able to speak the language of the st udent. The second challenge reported on both surveys was lack of less biased assessment instruments, and the third challenge was lack of other professionals who speak stude nts languages. Remarkably, the challenges reported by respondents in both 1990 and 2001 were nearly identical in order of occurrence, indicating that not much had changed in 11 years in these specific areas (Roseberry-McKibbin et al., in press). One encouraging finding was the increase in respondents who i ndicated that they received coursework addressing service delivery to ELL students. In 1990, 76% had not received any coursework in this area. Ho wever, only 27% of respondents in 2001 had not received any coursework addressing servic e delivery to ELL students. This finding indicates that more universities are addressing part or all of a course to issues in service delivery to ELL students (Roseberry -McKibbin et al., in press). Respondents in both surveys were asked to rate a list of continuing education training/inservice topics th at addressed services to ELL students with communication disorders in the order of importance. On e newly added topic (not asked in the 1990
47 survey) was less biased methods and materi als for differentiating between a language difference and a language disorder. This was th e area of greatest (7 7%) interest for the 2001 respondents, reporting that they were qui te or extremely inte rested in this topic (Roseberry-McKibbin et al., in press). In both 1990 and 2001, respondents (81% and 77%, respectively) rated general assessmen t procedures and materials as very important. In 1990, 77% of respondents reported a great deal of interest in treatment procedures and materials. Responses in th e 2001 survey were similar (72%) regarding interest in this area (Roseberry-McKibbin et al., in press). In bot h surveys, effects of bilingualism on language learning was the next area of interest reported by respondents. This was followed by second language acqui sition and first/primary language developmental norms (Roseberry-McKibbin et al., in press). Respondents in both surveys were asked to rank order the importance of supports needed to prepare speech-language pat hologists to serve ELL students with communication disorders. Respondents (85% for both) in the 1990 and 2001 surveys reported that the most preferred service delivery format was more seminars and workshops offered by school districts. This was followed by more coursework at the university level, 82% and 76%, respectively (Roseberry-McKibbin et al., in press). In 1990, 63% of respondents reported that more continuing education opportunities should be provided at the state level and nationa l convention; in 2001 64% of respondents ranked presentations at the national conventi on as important (Roseberry-McKibbin et al., in press). Finally, 1990 (52%) and 2001(50%) respondents indicated that more journal articles in this area were important (Roseberry-McKibbin et al., in press). Vafadar and Utt (1993) surveyed 50 speech-language pathologists beliefs about,
48 self-perceived understanding of, and expertise in dealing with social dialects as they relate to language differences and language disorders. Utilizing a telephone survey, respondents were selected at random from a membership directory of a southern states speech-language-hearing association. Respondent s attitudes about providing therapeutic intervention to speakers of social dialects were in the low to average range. Further, they rated themselves as being av erage in the understa nding of and expertise in dealing with issues related to social dialects. The res pondents self-rating of their own understanding and expertise as average implies that a need for improvement exists in the area of social dialects, including culturally responsive assessment of and intervention for these individuals (Vafad ar & Utt, 1993). It is imperative that classroom teachers and related professionals affirm, embrace, and value the cultural backgrounds that each stud ent brings to the classroom. There is a critical need for these professionals to be responsive to the needs of all students. Speechlanguage pathologists must recognize the n eed to expose students to treatment and intervention strategies based on multicultural/di verse perspectives. Such instruction is not limited to a European-American perspect ive (Duff & Tongchinsub, 1990). Banks (1990) defines multicultural perspective instruction as comprising three different dimensions. These important dimensions are relate d to content integration, knowledge construction, and an equity pedagogy. Conten t Integration involves accurate, non-biased curricular content that represents various cultures a nd groups. Stated differently, the culturally responsive practitione r integrates examples and co ntent from various racial, ethnic, and cultural groups to demonstrate cu rricular concepts, principals, and theories (Banks, 1994).
49 Ladson-Billings (1994) illustrates this in the following two class scenarios. In a primary classroom, the teacher reads Cinderella, an American classic story, to the class. However, he/she reads several versions of the story. One is the familiar European tale as told by the Brothers Grimm, but the othe r versions are Chinese, Egyptian, and Zimbabwean. Speech-language pathologists often utilize the fo llowing higher-order thinking strategy of convergent and divergent classification. Like the classroom teacher, they would assist the students with comp aring and contrasting the similarities and differences among the different versions. Sim ilarities comprise the story construction, plot development, moral and ethical dilemmas, and the use of magic. Dissimilarities include varying standards of beauty, settings, use of language, and particular characters. In this way, the students take in the importa nce of understanding cult ural differences and similarities (Ladson-Billings, 1994). In an intermediate social studies clas s, students learn about the African slave trade. However, this lesson is not primarily from the perspective of European traders. The students also are engaged in reading a ra nge of primary documents such as the slave narrative called The Interesting Life of Olaudah This particular piece compares slavery in Africa with slavery in the Americas. A dditionally, the teacher introduces information about the European feudal system. Further, the students compare th e lives of enslaved people in Africa, the Americas, and medieval Europe. Finally, students create critical thinking and higher-order questions, such as, What is the relationship between slavery and racism? How could a nation firm on achie ving equality and justice permit slavery? Why did some people in Africa participate in the slave trade? In addition, how does the textbooks treatment of slavery co mpare to primary source material?
50 Knowledge Construction entails assisting students to view concepts, issues, and problems from diverse cultural perspectives as they construct knowledge about the content. Stated differently, the culturally responsive practitioner assists students with constructing knowledge and understanding the ex changes and contributions of diverse populations to U.S. culture and civilizati on (Banks, 1994). Unlike tr aditional trends, the mainstream-centric perspective is only one of several perspectives from which concepts, issues, or problems are viewed. The above cas e scenarios also are examples for this category. An Equity Pedagogy includes teacher-modified instruction to ensure equity for all students. Here, educators modify their teaching in ways that will facilitate the successful academic achievement of students from diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, gender, and social-class groups. The culturally responsive teacher (practiti oner) guarantees equity in pedagogy by utilizing instructi onal approaches that match with students cultures, behaviors, and cognitive styl es, and empowering school cultu res to ensure educational equity and advance social justice and e quality (Banks, 1994). Ladson-Billings (1994, p. 24) states that for some teachers, ensuring an equity pedagogy may be as simple as using more cooperative learning strategies in class because it was initially developed as a way to create more equitable classroom envi ronments (Cohen & Benton, 1988; Slavin 1987). Other teachers may have to use the language a nd understandings their students bring with them to school in order to bridge the ga p between school and home, what they know versus what they need to learn (Au & Jo rdan, 1981; Erickson & Mohatt, 1982; Jordan, 1985). Teachers may benefit from learning a students language and providing
51 instruction in both English and that fi rst language. Likewise, speech-language pathologists may benefit from providing therapeutic instruction in English and their students native languages. This can make the classroom/resource room a welcoming and psychologically safe environment for speak ers of other languages (Hornberger, 1988). The use of multicultural/diverse perspective instruction broadens students views, builds self-esteem, and improves academic pe rformance (Banks, 1989). When students are presented with various views of the world, they gain insight into their own behaviors (Banks, 1989). Curricular content that prepares students to live in a pluralistic society enhances the self-esteem of diverse students by assisting them with retaining and valuing their cultural identities (Grant 1974). When multicultural/div erse perspective instruction is incorporated into classrooms, students develop problem-solving, reasoning, and higherorder thinking skills. Culturally responsive practitioners perceive culture and its influence from multiple dimensions. They avoid the use of stereotypes and view all persons as individuals (McIntyre, 1996b). In these classrooms, students l earn there is more than one appropriate answer or correct way to perceive an event, mo re than one valid point of view, and more than one set of cultural mores. This classroom experience facilitates their evaluation and analytical skills. Self-Efficacy According to Bandura (1977), an individuals confidence in her/his own ability to perform a specific task successfully will dete rmine the degree or likelihood of her/him actually performing the task. In this seminal work, Bandura (1977) presents an integrative theoretical framework to clarify and de termine psychological changes achieved by
52 varying forms of treatment. According to this theory, psychologica l procedures modify the strength and degree of self-efficacy. In th is proposed paradigm, expectations of personal efficacy are drawn from four chie f sources of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verb al persuasion, and physiological states. Perseverance in activities that an indivi dual views as intimidating generates, through experiences of mastery, a greater enhancem ent of self-efficacy. Findings are reported from microanalyses of enactive, vivid, and a ffecting methods of treatment that sustains the hypothesized correlation between perceived self-efficacy and changes in behavior. Teaching Efficacy Teacher efficacy research initially grew out of two items that was developed by RAND researchers (Armor et al., 1976) when teacher efficacy research was still in its infancy stage (Henson, 2002). Supported by a lo cus of control theory, these RAND Items (Armor et al., 1976) stated the following: Item 1: A teacher is unable to do a great deal because the majority of a students motivation and achievement is dependent on that students home environment. Item 2: If I try hard enough, I can motivate even the most challenging or problematic student. The purpose of these items was to determine whether a teacher thought that he or she controlled student learning and motiva tion, which are inferred teacher reinforcers (Henson, 2002). During the late 1970s and early 1990s, these items were the guiding force of most teacher efficacy research (Henson, 2002). Gibson and Dembo (1984) responded to conc erns about construct definition and
53 score reliability of measurement with only two items (Henson, 2002). They developed an instrument to gauge teacher efficacy, provide construct-related validation support for the variable, and explore the relationship between teacher efficacy and observable teacher behaviors (Gibson & Dembo). They reas oned that the RAND Items each reflected dimensions of Banduras (1977) social c ognitive theory (Hen son, 2002). Specifically, RAND Item 1 was perceived to measure an outcome expectancy regarding a teachers belief about whether teaching in general has an effect on student learning regardless of external influences. RAND Item 2 was perc eived to measure self-efficacy (Henson, 2002). According to Henson (2002), outcome expectancy and self-efficacy are two theoretically independent constructs. These c onstructs were subsequently named general teaching efficacy (GTE) and personal teach ing efficacy (PTE), respectively (Henson, 2002). In their study, Gibson and Dembo (1984) elementary school teachers responded to a 30-item Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES). F actor analysis of these responses produced two significant factors that were consistent with Banduras two-fact or theoretical model of self-efficacy. Utilizing a multitraitmultimethod analysis that supported both convergent and discriminant validity, data we re analyzed from teachers on three traits: teacher efficacy, verbal ability, and flexib ility across two methods of measurement. Results identified differences between high a nd low efficacy teachers in time spent in whole class versus small group instruction, teach er use of criticism, and teacher lack of persistence in failure circumstances base d on classroom observation data related to academic focus and teacher feedback behaviors.
54 Promising Implications Individuals beliefs about th eir abilities and the result of their efforts strongly influence their behaviors (Guskey, 1988; So to & Goetz, 1998). Guskey (1988) designed an exploratory study to examine the relations hip between selected teacher perceptions that past research has shown to be shar ed by highly effective teachers and teacher attitudes toward the implemen tation of novel instru ctional practices. In this study, data were gathered utilizing a que stionnaire administered to 120 elementary and secondary school teachers. Participants received the su rvey directly following a one-day staff development program on mastery learning instru ctional strategies. Re sults revealed that measures of teacher efficacy, teaching aff ect, and teaching self-concept were notably related to teachers attitude s regarding the congruence, co mplexity, and significance of the recommended practices. Furthermore, these beliefs influence d ecisions and the way individuals proceed with these decisions. Individuals will perform those tasks they feel competent in doing and will avoid all others. Individuals efficacy beliefs also will influence how much effort they place on a particular ta sk and their persistence when confronted with adversity (Guskey, 1988; Pajares, 1996). High self-efficacy beliefs result in greater effort, perseverance, resilience, planning, and orga nization (Allinder, 1994; Guskey, 1988; Stein & Wang, 1988). Stein and Wang (1988) investigated the re lationship between teacher success in implementing innovative programs, teacher perceptions of self-efficacy, and teacherperceived value of the programs. They used behavioral observations, interviews, and questionnaires to measure teachers performance, self-perceptions, and attitudes.
55 Teachers performance, self-perceptions, and at titudes were measured at numerous time points during the first year that an innovative adaptive mainstreaming program was put into place. Considerable increases were obser ved in both teachers levels of success and self-perceptions of self-efficacy. Teachers who possess a stronger sense of self-efficacy are inclined to be more open to novel ideas (Guskey, 1988; Stein & Wa ng, 1988). They are more motivated to try out new methods to meet their students needs (Guskey, 1988; Stein & Wang, 1988). Furthermore, they are more likely to persev ere in their attempts to work with students who are struggling (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). They are less likely to refer a challenging student to special education serv ices (Meijer & Foster, 1988). Meijer and Foster (1988) investigat ed relationships between teacher characteristics and their ratings of problem behavior and likeli hood of referring students to special education services. The researcher s conducted two pilot studies prior to the main study to establish usability of prereferra l case materials and instruments. Pilot Study 1 involved 16 Dutch primary school teachers and focused on selecting appropriate cases with respect to both background informati on and case characteristics. Pilot Study 2 involved 25 Dutch second-grade primary sc hool teachers and focused on testing and revising case materials and a questionnaire on these participants. Complete data sets obtained from 230 Dutch primary teachers we re analyzed in the main study. Cases comprised a half-page (approximately 160 word s) typed description of a second-grade student. The authors identified each student in terms of th ree characteristics: problem type (behavior, learning, or both); gender; and social background (high, medium, low). Other information in the case included a brief report of experiences in preschool and first
56 grade and most up-to-date consultation with a remedial educator who suggested more individualized services to focus on current difficulty. The authors assessed teacher characteristics using direct questions centered on specific de mographic variables such as years of teaching experience, special edu cation experience, gender, highest degree attained, parenthood, and experience teaching mixed grade classes. Teacher self-efficacy was measured using a modified version of th e Dutch Teacher Self-Efficacy scales (Span, Abbring, & Meijer, 1985). Using the work of Gibson and Dembo (1984), 15 Likert-type items were constructed around teacher-repor ted ability to handle challenges in the classroom. The final scale, containing 11 items on a 4-point Likert-type scale, re presented the highest item-total correlations. Reducing the items from 15 to 11 resulted in an alpha coefficient of .63 for the total scale scores. Correlations between the independent variables, teacher and student characteristics, and the dependent variables (p roblem and referral chance) were computed. A multiple analysis of variance (MANCOVA) confirmed teacher selfefficacy to be a statistically significant pr edictor of both problem ratings and referral chances. Results revealed that only student problem type (learning, behavioral, or both) was statistically significantly correlated with problem and referral chance. Regarding SES, referral chance was the only dependent va riable to be statistically significant. Specifically, SES was negatively associated with referral chances Also, higher selfefficacy scores were associated with lower problem and referral chance. In contrast, individuals with low self-efficacy believe situations to be worse than they really are, often resu lting in stress and subsequent depression (Allinder, 1994; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Guskey, 1988; Pajares, 1996). Allinder (1994) randomly selected
57 200 special educators fro m four Midwest states. The focu s of this study was to explore the relationship between efficacy and selected instructional variables for two categories of special education teachers, direct and indirect service providers. A direct service provider was defined as an individual who is primarily responsible for providing instruction or behavioral intervention or behavioral interventions with students with special needs either by working with students individually or in a small group for part of the students school day p.88. An indirect service provider was defined as an indi vidual who does not work directly with individual students for the majority of their time (Allinder, 1994, p. 88). Rather, this individual works primarily in a collaborative or consultative relationship with general education teachers (Allinder, 1994). These special educators were asked to pr ovide relevant demographic information (i.e., years of general teaching experience, ye ars of experience teach ing special education, years in current position, hi ghest degree attained, the number of schools in which they worked, and number of students of varying disabilities whom they served). Teachers were additionally given the Teacher Efficacy S cale and the Teacher Characteristics Scale. The latter scale, developed by Fuchs, Fuchs, and Bishop (1992) is an 18-item questionnaire that asked teachers to respond to a 5-point Likert-Type scale (e.g., 1 = Strongly Disagree or Not at all to 5 = Strongly Agree or To A Very Great Extent ) (Allinder, 1994). In previous research, internal consistency of the subset scores of this scale ranged from .72 for teaching confidence to .92 for progressiveness and innovation (Fuchs et al., 1992). All teacher responses unde rwent factor analyses. Co rrelations between the two
58 dimensions of efficacy and the instructionally relevant variables were computed using responses from teachers who met the criteria for direct and indirect service provider. Finally, multiple regression analyses were performed using responses from this subset of respondents. Significant positive correlations were f ound between personal efficacy and (a) Instructional Experimentation (motivation to tr y an array of materials and approaches to teaching, (b) Business-Like Approach (teacher s degree of organization, ability to plan, and fairness), and (c) A ssuredness (effective instruc tional components such as enthusiasm and upholding high levels of clarity during lesson presentations). Scores were computed utilizing unweighted sums of teacher responses to the items for each type of efficacy. In order to have higher efficacy reflected by higher scores, items for teaching efficacy were invert ed. Cronbachs alpha coefficients were .76 for the personal efficacy scale scores and .56 for the teaching efficacy and scale scores. Cronbachs alpha coefficients were .87, .73, and .77 for Instructional Experimentation, Business-Like Approach, and Assuredness scal e scores, respectivel y. Because of these influences, beliefs of self-efficacy are strong determinants of the degree of accomplishments that individuals achieve (A shton & Webb, 1986; Soto & Goetz, 1998). Personal and General Efficacy A greater sense of efficacy assists teachers with the ability to be less disapproving of students when they make mistakes (A shton & Webb, 1986). Moreover, higher teacher efficacy appears to be associated with stude nt achievement and affective growth that includes improved student motivation, increased self-esteem, and added positive attitudes toward school (Ashton & Webb, 1986; So to & Goetz, 1998). Ashton and Webb (1986)
59 used Banduras (1977) cognitive theory of social learning to define teacher efficacy as the belief in ones ability to make hi s/her students academically successful. These theorists separate teacher efficacy into tw o dimensions: (a) personal teaching efficacy beliefs that ones abilities can positively affect students academic achievement and (b) general teaching efficacy beliefs that teaching can positively affect students achievement regardless of students environment or ability. Further, Ashton and Webb (1986) stated the importance of personal efficacy. Specifically, they reported the significant re lationship between high pe rsonal efficacy and high teacher success. In a ddition to personal efficacy, the literature reveals the importance of general efficacy. Guskey (1988) stated that a relati onship between high general efficacy and high motivation to modi fy practices exists. Furthermore, Hoy and Woolfolk (1993) stated that pe rsonal efficacy and general efficacy comprise professional efficacy. Kritikos (2003) conducted a study with the goal of comparing monolingual (M) and bilingual practicing speech-language pa thologists beliefs about efficacy and language assessment of bilingual/bicultural individuals. Bilingual speech-language pathologists were categorized into two gr oups based on the contexts in which they acquired their two languages: (a) those that learned a language other than English at home, abroad, or in a native culture and (b ) those that learned a language other than English through instruction in high school or college. The two groups were labeled cultural experience (CE) and academic study (AS) groups, respectively. Participants included speech-language pa thologists from states that had the highest proportion of individuals who spoke a language other than English in their
60 homes. The state of Florida, representing 17% of bilingual individuals at that time, was one of the six chosen states in this study. Only 101 speech-language pathologists who identified themselves as bilingual were av ailable from the state of Florida (Kritikos, 2003). Utilizing a questionnaire, participants we re asked to respond to questions about their beliefs as they relate to three domains of assessment: personal efficacy, general efficacy, and the role of bilingual input. Only 811 surveys out of the 1,024 questionnaires returned (44%) were used in the study. The remaining surveys were not used because they were not complete. Results for the three subgroups of speech-language pathologists were compared, including their reasons fo r believing they had high or low efficacy. Results revealed that many of the speech-language pathologists (85% M, 75% AS, and 72% CE) in the study believed themse lves to be not competent or somewhat competent in assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural individuals even with the assistance of an interpreter. A signif icant number of speech-language pathologists (93% M, 92% AS, and 96% CE) believed that most speech-language pathologists are not competent or only somewhat compet ent in assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural individuals even with the assistance of an interpreter. While many of their bilingual children spoke Spanish ( n = 452), just as many spoke languages other than Spanish or English ( n = 448). Furthermore, 16 of the languages spoken by their clients were not known by any of the speech-language pathologists in the sample (Kritikos, 2003). Th ese findings indicate a critical need to include preparation in unders tanding bilingualism/biculturali sm in preservice programs for all speech-language pat hologists (Kritikos, 2003).
61 Recommendations stressed the need for more research in the area of beliefs about the language assessment of bilingual/bicultura l individuals, differences in professional efficacy (both personal and general) based on the degree of bilingual proficiency, and examining more closely knowledge and experi ence with differing cultures in addition to language proficiency. Furthermore, Kritikos (2003) recommends that future studies should attempt to define more clearly th e relationship among knowledge, experience, professional beliefs, assessment practices, and decisions. Teacher Efficacy Concerns One would be remiss in overlooking recent scrutiny of the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES). Within the last decade, the TE S has been under question (Henson, 2002). Specifically, Coladardi and Fink (1995) c onducted a study of correlations among scores from the central instruments of teacher efficacy and related constructs. They found poor evidence for discriminant validity of pe rsonal teaching and general teaching efficacy scores (Coladarci & Fink, 1995). Additionally, Guskey and Passaro (1994) stated that the personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy factor s do not correspond to self-efficacy and outcome expectancy dimensions. Instead, pers onal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy relate to an internal versus extern al orientation, respectively (Guskey & Passaro, 1994). Rather than reflecting self-efficacy, this dichotomy reflects locus of control and Attributional theory orie ntations (Henson, 2002). What is important to note is that th e work of Coladarci and Fink (1995) and Guskey and Passaro (1994) called attention to probable theoretical confounds in the TES (Henson, 2002). We must remember its process of development (Henson, 2002).
62 While teacher efficacy research has unde rgone scrutiny and suffered from weak construct-related validity, several significant advances in this area have emerged (Henson, 2002). In summary, the literature reveals th at a significant number of children and adolescents in the United Stat es are diagnosed with speech and/or language impairments. A considerable amount of these adolescents who require speech a nd language services reside in correctional facili ties. Additionally, data revealed that speech-language pathologists serve a large nu mber of children from cultura lly and linguistically diverse backgrounds on their caseloads. Several of these children speak a language other than English in their homes. Data indicate that the American student population will continue to become increasingly diverse. However, te achers and related professionals such as speech-language pathologists remain primarily White, monolingual, and nonrepresentative of the di verse student population. Historically, the experiences of African American and Latino children in the American public school system have not been great. These students of color are underrepresented in gifted and talented programs. African American children, particularly, are overrepresented in classe s for the behaviorally disordered. Latino students represent the greatest percent of dropout rates. With the excep tion of a short stint in the 1970s and 1980s, an achievement gap exis ts between specific students of color and White students. The cultures, language, dialects, and f unds of knowledge that culturally and linguistically diverse students bring to school have been regarded as disordered by some teachers and related professionals. Instruction and assessment practices have been
63 primarily representative of the White middl e-class culture and values. American public schools have not taken into consideration more s, customs, and values different from the dominant culture. Stated differently, institu tions of public education have not been culturally responsive to the diverse gr oup of student learne rs they serve. The multicultural movement was and is an effort to make education more relevant for students of color than it ha s been in the past. The goal is to create curricula that go beyond heroes and holidays. A pervasive pedagogy, multicultural education is good for all not, just students of color. Proponents of multicultural education stress a culturally relevant educational environment that accommod ates a diverse group of student learners. This can only be accomplished with the assistance of culturally competent teachers and related professionals such as speech-language pathologists. Much emphasis has been placed on assis ting preservice and inservice teachers with providing culturally relevant practices to the exclusion of relate d professionals such as speech-language pathologists. This focu s has resulted in research on teacher perceptions, expectations, a nd self-efficacy. Teacher percep tions and expectations are closely associated to race and socioeconomic status. Teachers generally tend to expect more from White students than students of color. They expect more from middle-class students than students who are from a lower SES background. Teachers with a higher sense of teaching efficacy show a greater determination to work through challenging students and situations. Research reveals that teacher perceptions, ex pectations, and selfefficacy directly influence their practices. While teacher efficacy research has undergone intense scrutiny, recent theoretical advances and theoretically sound instruments are promising. While research on teacher perceptions and expectations, practices, and
64 efficacy has provided significant information to educational researchers, research focused on speech-language pathologists perceptio ns and expectations, practices, and professional efficacy is needed greatly.
65 CHAPTER III Methods The overall purpose of this study was to i nvestigate speech-la nguage pathologists (a) beliefs about the language assessment of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students, (b) professional efficacy beliefs (both personal and general) as they relate to assessing the language skills of bilingual/b icultural/bidialectal students, and (c) reported supports and barriers to assessing the language skills of bilingu al/bicultural/bidial ectal students. Of particular interest to the re searcher was to determine whether differences among speechlanguage pathologists beliefs existed based on such factors as race/ethnicity, years of experience as a speech-language pathologist, y ears of experience working with children and youth, percentage of students from homes where a langua ge other than English is spoken, percentage of students from homes where a dialect is spoken, frequency of time spent with bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students, years of experience with bilingual/bicultural/b idialectal students, bilingual profic iency, and bidialectal proficiency. This study utilized a questionnaire deve loped by Kritikos (2003) with minor modifications, including a reque st for more demographic information and the removal of items that were not related to the focus of this study. Furthermore, Kritikos (2003) included an open-ended question that allowed for comments on specific issues or issues that respondents felt importan t to discuss. However, there was no follow-up to seek clarification of comments or more in-depth information. In contrast, this study included
66 individual semi-structured interviews with sel ected participants as a follow-up to survey responses. This segment provides a description of the survey development process. A rationale for selecting this method wi ll precede the description. Following the presentation of the survey development, this chapter will provide a detailed description of the study and research questions that will coin cide with it. The chapter concludes with potential delimitations and limita tions to the proposed study. Rationale In Chapter 2, critical issues of concern regarding students of color were highlighted. Specifically, a review of the literature revealed the (a) contrasting demographics between the stude nt population and educational professionals, (b) resultant traditional monocultural curricul um and practices, (c) poor exp ectations towards students of color and students with low SES, and (d ) disparate outcomes between culturally and linguistically diverse and White student learners. Historically, assessment procedures that did not take into consideration a child s linguistic or cultural norms resulted in misidentification. After revi ewing the literature, concern was placed on speech-language pathologists beliefs and beha viors that influence assessmen t and intervention procedures. The push towards cultural competence has been offered as a fundamental need in the organization of this proposed research (Delpit, 1995; Irvine, 2003; Jefferies, 2000). Terms such as attitudes, beliefs, perceptions and barriers to compliance are often used to define categories of constructs rather than defining the constructs themselves. In this study, the focus was not on beliefs solel y, but on specific beliefs toward assessment to accommodate the needs of culturally and li nguistically diverse children with special
67 needs and their families. Participants The focus of this study was on cultural and linguistic diversity as it relates to the Pre-K 12 educational process. Thus, th e caseload of speech-l anguage pathologists (preschool, elementary school, middle school and high school) was used as the key requirement for selection. Licensure (ASH A certification, state licensure, and Florida Department of Education certification) and educational background (masters and Ph.D.) served as other selection requirements as well. Target Population Nationwide, more than two-thirds (7 1%) of the 1,127 ASHA-certified speechlanguage pathologists who satisfied the requirement of being employed full-time and of providing clinical services, worked in a sc hool setting (ASHA, 2003) Nearly all schoolbased speech-language pathol ogists (92%) serve individu als with articulation or phonological disorders. Approximately 77% of school-based speech-language pathologists provide services to students with autism/pervasive developmental disorder, 72% provide services to student s with learning disabilities, and 71% provide services to students with mental retardation/deve lopmental disability (ASHA, 2003). Instruments The instrument in this study, th e Speech-Language Services to Bilingual/Bicultural/Bidi alectal Students (SLSBBBS) survey, is a modified version of the Kritikos (2003) Speech-Language Services to Bilingual/Bicultural Individuals (SLSBBI) survey. The original version c onsists of 25 items. Participants were required to provide
68 yes/no, multiple-choice, and Likert-type respons es. Participants also had the opportunity to make additional written comments a bout the three major components: personal efficacy, general efficacy, and beliefs about the ro le of bilingual input. This allowed for a rich description of particip ants beliefs (Kritikos, 2003). The original version was piloted and revised more than 30 times based on feedback from faculty at the University of Illinois Chicago. Additionally, the Survey Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois Chicago provided assistance in revising several drafts of the survey. Moreove r, ASHAs Multicultural Issues Board (AQ) evaluated the instrument and provided the researcher with written feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the questionna ire as well as the above study (Kritikos, 2003). Finally, 100 of the 596 participants in the pilot study provided written feedback. This information was incorporated into the final draft of the SLS BBI (Kritikos, 2003). A detailed description of the SLSBBI, the or iginal version, and changes made by this researcher follows. Within the SLSBBI are five headings that precede a set of questions: learning about the population that you serve, learni ng about your linguistic background, learning about your academic training on bilingual issu es, learning about your opinions of how to improve the field, and learning about your general background. Demographic data The first 13 questions addressed speech-language pathologists demographic and professional background and experiences, as well as the demographic background of the children and adolescents they serve. Moreover, questions requested responses regarding the respondents ability to speak, read, and write in a language other than English.
69 Questions 1-5 fell under the Learning about the population that you serve heading. Question 1 asked, How often do you cu rrently work in each setting? Question 2 asked, How often do you currently work with each age group? Questions 1 and 2 were written in a 4-point Likert-type form at: never, not often, often, and very often. Question 3 asked, On average, which category best describes the income of the household of the majority of the clients that you serve? Nine choi ces were presented, with income ranges from less than $5,000 to $75,000 or more. This question was removed because it may be difficult for res pondents to know the income levels of their clients. Further, information gained from th is question did not align with the purpose of this study. Question 4 asked, What is your best estimate as to the percentage of your caseload of individuals who co me from homes where a langu age other than English is spoken? Five choices were pr esented: none, less than 25%, 25% to 50%, 51% to 75%, and more than 75%. In the modified version, the above question was repeated to include speakers of nonstandard dialects. It read, What is your best estimate as to the percentage of your caseload of individuals who come from homes where a dialect is spoken? Two questions were added here. The first ques tion asked, How often do you currently work with bilingual/bicultu ral/bidialectal indivi duals? Respondents had the following options from which to choose: occasionally (consulta tion only), 1-2 times per week, 3-5 times per week, >5 times per week, other, and never. The second question asked, How ma ny years have you worked with bilingual/bicultura l/bidialectal individuals ? Respondents had four options from which to choose: <1 year, 1-5 years, 6-10 years, a nd >10 years. Question 5 asks, What are the most common languages spoken among the bilingual individuals you serve?
70 Respondents were allowed to circle up to five choices from a list of 14. Space was provided for respondents to write in a langua ge not represented on the list. A question was added to identify the dialects spoken among the individuals the participants served. It asked, What are the most common dialects spoken among the bilingual/bicultural individuals you serve? A ques tion was added to identify the race and ethnicity of the clients they serve. It asked respondents to, Please identify the race/ethnicity of the clients you serve. Circle all that apply. Questions 6-11 fell under the Learning about your linguistic background heading. Question 6 asked, Do you speak and/or unde rstand a language other than English? Respondents circle yes or no. If the answer wa s no, respondents were directed to skip to the next section. Question 7 asked, Whic h language(s) do you understand and/or speak? Space was provided for respondents to write-in an answer. Question 8 asked, Was the first language that you learned? English, other than E nglish, simultaneously acquired English and another la nguage (requested to circle a ppropriate answer). Question 9 asked, At what age did you learn a language other than English? Five choices were provided: birth to 3 years, 4-7 years, 811 years, 12-18 years, and over 18 years. Subcomponents to this question were a dded. It asked, How long have you spoken a language other than English? Respondents had the opportunity to respond to four choices: <1 year, 1-5 years, 6-10 years, and >10 years. Respondents were asked to respond to the number of years they had s poken a dialect. This question asked, How long have you spoken a dialect? Respondents had the same four choices given in the previous question. Question 10 asked, Where did you learn a language other than English? Four choices were provided: schoo l, home, abroad, and other. Space was given
71 for respondents to provide a written answer in the space marked other. Question 11 asked respondents to Rate your profic iency in a language other than English for the following domains: listening, speaking, reading, and wr iting. Question 11 was written using a 4point Likert-type format: not proficient, so mewhat proficient, proficient, and very proficient. All other question types in this section provided response choices to each question. Two questions were added: Where did you learn a dial ect? and Rate your proficiency in a dialect for the following domains. Respondents had the same answer choices given above. Questions 12 and 13 fell under the Learning about your academic training on bilingual issues heading. Question 12 asked, Have you had any speech-language pathology course work that addressed the following? Respondents were given seven options from which to choose and were allowed to circle all options that apply to them. Options represented the following topics : second language acqui sition, communication patterns in cultures where a language othe r than English is spoken, differential assessment of bilingual versus monolingual i ndividuals, assessment tools for bilingual individuals, language disorder versus la nguage difference, laws involved in the assessment and treatment of bilingual clients, and how to utilize a language interpreter. Question 13 asked, Have you attended any inse rvice or workshops that addressed the following? The same topics and directions in Question 12 also were provided. Three topics were added. They incl uded the following: cultural fact ors that influence learning, communication patterns in cultures wh ere a dialect is spoken, multicultural issues/ethnically diverse populati ons, and working with families. Questions 19 24 also asked respondents to provide information on demographic
72 data. They fell under the Learning about your general background heading. Question 19 asks, Are you currentlyemp loyed full-time (30 hours per week or more), employed part-time (less than 30 hours per week), not employed, and retired? Respondents circled the statement that most appropriately descri bes their work hours. Respondents also were given the option to write-in work hours not listed among the options. For the purposes of this study, this question was removed. Qu estion 20 asked, In what state are you currently employed? Possible choices included: California, Florid a, New Mexico, New York, Texas, and other (with space availabl e to write-in a state not listed among the above choices). For the purposes of this st udy, respondents were asked to indicate which county within the state of Florida they ar e employed. Respondents had the opportunity to write-in the appropriate c ounty. Question 21 asked, How many years have you worked as a certified speech-language pathologist? Poss ible choices included: 5 years or fewer, 6 to 10 years, 11 to 20 years, and more than 20 years. Question 22 asked, What is the highest degree you have earned ? Possible choices included B achelors degree, Masters degree, Ph.D. or Ed.D, and other advanced degree (with space pr ovided for respondents to indicate any degree not listed among the choices). Question 23 asked about respondents gender. They indicated their ge nder by drawing a circle around the word female or male? Question 24 asked about ra ce/ethnicity. Possible choices included: African American, American Indian or Al askan Native, Asian American or Pacific Islander, Caucasian, not Latino, Latino, and other. Space was provided, allowing respondents the opportunity to i ndicate if they belonged to another race/ethnicity not included in the list. All questions requesti ng demographic information appeared first on the modified questionnaire.
73 Beliefs about Personal and General Efficacy: Questions 14-16 fell under the Learning about your experience assessing bilingual individuals heading. Question 14 was divided into two sections: Question 14a and Question 14b. Question 14a asked, With the help of an interpreter, how competent do you feel in assessing an individuals language development in a language that you do not understand or speak? Question 14b asked, With the help of an interp reter, how competent do you feel most speech-language pathologists are in assessi ng an individuals language development in a language that they do not understand or speak? These two qu estions were changed to read: With the help of an interpreter, how competent do you feel in assessing an individuals language development in a language and/or dialect that you do not understand or speak? and With the help of an interpreter, how competent do you feel most speech-language pathologists are in assessing an individuals language development in a language and/or dialect that they do not understand or speak? Both questio ns are written in a 4-point Likert-type format: not competent, somewhat competent, competent, and very competent. Question 15 asked, Which problem(s) do you encounter in assessing bilingual individuals with language disorders? Respondents were given 7 options from wh ich to choose: (a) lack of knowledge of clients culture, (b) lack of knowledge of the nature of second language acquisition, (c) difficult to di stinguish a language difference from a language disorder, (d) lack of availability of interpreters who speak the individuals language, (e) lack of availability of bilingual speech-language pathologists who speak the individuals language, (f) lack of developmental norms and standardized assessment tools in languages other than English, (g) time a llocated by your employer for assessment administration, scoring, and interpretation. Five issues were added to the modified form:
74 (a) lack of availability of interpreters w ho speak the individuals dialect, (b) lack of availability of bidialecta l speech-language pathologists who speak the individuals dialect, (c) lack of developmental norm s and standardized assessment tools in nonstandard dialects, (d) utilizing test scores of translated tests, and (e) language tests published in a language other than English with flawed normative samples. The final option gave respondents the opportunity to wr ite a problem/difficulty not included among the other options. This option was removed fr om the modified version and included as a topic in the follow-up interviews. Question 16 was a forced-choice question. It asked, Based on your experience, circle the statement you agree with the most Who should provide language assessment to bilingual individuals with language problems? Five options were given: (a) bilingual education specialists, (b) English as a second language (ESL) specialists, (c) speechlanguage pathologists, and (d) professionals s hould collaborate. The fifth option for this question gave respondents the opportunity to write a possible option not included in the above list. Questions 17 and 18 fell under the Learning about your opinions of how to improve the field heading. Question 17 asked, How can our field better prepare speechlanguage pathologists to carry out appropriate assessment of bilingual individuals? It consisted of two parts: pre-service and in-service and aske d respondents to please rate the following in terms of importance. Unde r the pre-service categ ory, respondents rated the degree of importance as it related to (a) mo re academic course work in this area, (b) more practicum experience with bilingual clients, and (c) more active recruitment of bilingual speech-language pathologists. Th e modified version included the terms
75 bicultural and bidialectal Under the inservice category, re spondents rated the degree of importance as it related to (a) more seminars and workshops on this topic, (b) more journal articles on this topic, and (c) easie r access to a bilingual speech-language pathologist (modified vers ion included the terms bicultural and bidialectal ) pool in your region. A 5-point Likert-type format was provide d: very important, unimportant, not sure, important, and very important. Beliefs about the Role of Bilingual Input: Question 18 asked respondents to circle the statement that they agreed with the most after reading a short case scenario: A fiveyear old child comes from a home where E nglish and a language other than English are spoken. His comprehensive language assessmen t places him in the borderline range for language problems. Compared to a monoli ngual child with the same language and cognitive skills, how likely would you be to recommend language therapy services for this child? A 3-point Likert-type format is pr ovided: more likely, less likely, and equally likely. This question was excluded from the vers ion that the participants in this study receive. Rather, this information was obtained from open-ended questions during indepth semi-structured interviews. Finally, Question 25 solicited respondents opinions regarding the following issues: their effectiveness in the language assessment of bilingual individuals, most speech-language pathologists effectivene ss in the language assessment of bilingual individuals, the effect of b ilingual input on the decision of whether or not to recommend language therapy, and concerns not covere d. This question was removed. Again, openended questions were added to the interv iew protocol instead. Although 16 questions were added to the original questionnaire, these questions were all of a demographic
76 nature and modifications were minor. Further, members of th e researchers dissertation committee reviewed the survey and provided some of the above modifications in order to meet the needs of this current study. Procedures This study involved a mixed method re search design (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998, 2003). It was organized into three central components that in cluded a quantitative phase and a qualitative phase in the over all research study (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998, 2003). The quantitative phase included the ad ministration of a survey. The qualitative phase incorporated a reflective analysis of the researchers personal experience as a speech-language pathologist and follow-up semi-structured interviews. Specifically, the researcher utilized a dominant-status se quential design (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2004). The qualitative phase dominated the study. Three out of four of the research questions were qualitative in nature and more qualitati ve data were collected (reflective analysis and in-depth interviews). Further, the quant itative phase was followed sequentially by the qualitative phase in the study (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2004). Subcomponents of this chapter include target population, da ta collection, and data analysis. The research study employed the Speech-Language Services to Bilingual/Bicultural/Bi dialectal Students(SLSBBBS) surv ey to explore and describe pediatric speech-language pathologists beliefs about (a) the assessment of bilingual/bicultural individuals, (b) their prof essional efficacy (pers onal and general), and (c) supports and barriers to professional e fficacy. The rationale for using a mixed method design was complementarity (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1997). That is, the researcher sought elaboration and clarification of the re sults from the quantit ative phase with the
77 results from the qualitative phase. The asso ciations among beliefs about efficacy and the language assessment of bilingual/bicultural/b idialectal students and differences in professional efficacy based on the degree of bi lingual and bidialectal proficiency were identified. Administration and Data Collection Survey. Sample size is the most robust means of attaining accurate and consistent estimates for policy decisions or scientif ic inquiry (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). The general rule for determining sample size in qu antitative studies is for the researcher to employ the largest sample size possible (Gall et al., 2003). What the researcher wants to achieve in data analysis shoul d guide the decision when determining sample size (Gall et al., 2003). Further, Jefferies ( 2000) offers some guiding que stions to facilitate the process: What are the relationships among variables to be explored? What statistical techniques will be used to analyze the data? Discussed in greater detail in the section labeled quant itative analysis, this study used a multiple regression analysis to address one of the research questions. Multiple regression is a procedure that requires a large sample (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1997; Pedhazur, 1997). Further, a sample with less than 100 participants may result in inaccurate findings. The larger the amount of predictor variables incorporated in the multiple regression equation, the larger the re quired amount of participants to ensure reliable results. Many experts recommend at l east 15-30 participants for every predictor variable (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1997). Researchers have the opportunity to c hoose various methods of data collection
78 when conducting mixed research designs. Data can be collected on the same sample or on different samples (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2004). Further, researchers may choose a combination of random sampling and nonrandom sampling in mixed research (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2004). The researcher used random sampling in th e quantitative phase of this study. Data were collected by administering the surv ey to a sample of 390 speech language pathologists who provide servic es to children and adolescent s, aged 3-22 years, in two school districts in central Florida. Sc hool District I employs 190 speech-language pathologists and School District II employs 200 speech-language pathologists. School Districts I and II were selected based on thei r similarity in demographics and student enrollment. Both are large school districts within the state of Florida and have generally similar percentages of White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian students. They both have a large representation of students of color and share like percentages of this population. Additionally, the districts sh are like percentages of exceptional student populations (Florida Department of Education, Florid a School Indicators Repor t, 2003-2004; Florida Department of Education, Funding for Florida School Districts Report, 2003-2004). The supervisor of speech and language services for School Dist rict I invited the researcher to participate in their end-of -the-school-year check-in process. Speechlanguage pathologists were given the surveys to complete over four days of check-in. The end-of-the-year check-in proce ss was different for School Distri ct II. Thus, the researcher was unable to administer the surveys direc tly. Rather, the supervisor of speech and language services for School District II allowe d the researcher to mail the 200 surveys via school mail to their speech-language pathologists at their a ssigned school sites.
79 Information about the Speech-Language Servi ces to Bilingual/Bic ultural/Bidialectal Students (SLSBBBS) survey and a description of the research study with the researchers contact information for clarification was pres ented in the form of a cover letter. Both supervisors placed the survey, cover letter, a nd contact information sheet on their speechlanguage websites. School District I grante d permission to the researcher to conduct research under the condition that data be a ggregated such that th e district cannot be identified Thus, limited information about School Districts I and II is provided. Speech-language pathologists in School District I primarily completed the surveys on the same day it was given to them and in a space designated for survey completion. Others took the survey with th em and mailed it to the speech-language supervisor. Speech-language pathologists in Sch ool District II were given two weeks to return completed surveys back to their supervisor. All surveys were completed anonymously The contact information sheet was provide d on a voluntary basis. In addition to requesting name, email address, and telephone number, this sheet asked speech-language pathologists if they were interested in part icipating in follow-up in-depth interviews in the form of a yes/no question. Contact inform ation sheets that were returned to the researcher in person were placed in a separate pile from the completed surveys and not in any particular order. Contact information sheets that were returned via school mail were received in separate envelopes from the co mpleted survey. Thus, there was no association between the completed survey and the person who completed it. This procedure ensured complete anonymity. Respondents also had the opportunity to indicate their willingness to participate in a follow-up via email or te lephone if this was th eir preference. Some
80 respondents utilized the email option. Speech-language pathologists who returned the contact information sheet were automatically entered into a drawing to win one of three prizes, each equivalent to a credit of $50 worth of speech-language ma terials from a well-known supplier. The researcher provided an extra incentive of a gi ft certificate for each the selected interview participants and one gue st to attend a movie theater of their choice. Semi-structured interviews. The researcher employed a phenomenological design (Moustakas, 1994) in the qualitative phase of this study. The long in terview is generally the method used to collect data in the phe nomenological investigation (Moustakas, 1994). This interview process is both informal and interactive. Information from phenomenological research comes from fi rst-person reports of life experiences (Moustakas, 1994). Further, it utilizes ope n-ended comments and questions (Moustakas, 1994). The primary researcher may have develo ped an interview protocol in advance to evoke a comprehensive set of responses ba sed on an individual s experience of the phenomenon. However, these pre-developed questions are modified or not used when the participant conveys a complete story of his or her experience of the phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994). In this study, the researcher developed a set of open-ended questions to guide the semi-structured interview with speech-la nguage pathologists. These questions were developed from a review of the research lite rature (Shealey, 2003) and as a follow-up to questions on the survey conducted in the quantitative phase of this study. Following a social conversation intended to create a re laxed and trusting atmosphere (Moustakas, 1994), each participant was asked to take a fe w minutes to reflect on the experience of
81 providing services to bilingual, bicultural, and bidialectal ch ildren, moments of particular awareness and impact, and then to provide a full description of that experience (Moustakas, 1994). This process allowed the rese archer the opportunity to gain a better understanding of each interview participant s experience (Moustakas, 1994). While each interview participant was asked identical questions, variability existed in the posing of additional questions to seek clarification of a point or statement made by respondents. The interview process lasted from 45 to 60 minutes per interview and was audio taped. Some researchers will make a case for an emerging research design in which a set number of participants in a study are not decided in advance (Seidman, 1998). Rather, new participants are subsequen tly added as new dimensions of the issues develop from previous interviews (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Rubin & Rubin, 1995). Other researchers make a claim for a snowballing method, when the selection of one participant leads to another (Bertaux, 1981). Dukes (1984) suggest studying 3 to 10 participants in a phenomenological study. Deciding how many participan ts are enough to interview is an interactive reflection of every step of the interview process and different for each study and each researcher (Seidman, 1998, p.48). A stratified purposeful sampling technique was used to gain maximum va riation (Seidman, 1998) Ten speech-language pathologists who have worked consistently with bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students and represent various races/ethnicities (Afri can American/Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino, and White) were identified. Copies of the cover letter, que stionnaire, contact information sheet, and interview questions are located in Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, and Appendix D, respectively. Table 1 depicts a summary of research questions and their alignment to th e survey and interview questions.
82 Table 1 Alignment of Research Questions with Survey and Interview Questions Research Question Survey Question Interview Question 1. What are the professional efficacy beliefs of speech-language pathologists about assessing the language skills of bilingu al/bicultural/bidialectal students? 35, 36 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 33 2. Do speech-language pathologists professional efficacy beli efs about assessing the language skills of bilingu al/bicultural/bidialectal students vary as a function of demographic variables (i.e. race/ethnic ity, years of experience, levels of professional efficacy, frequency of times with bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal children, proficiency in a language other than English, and proficiency in a dialect)? 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 N/A 3. What do speech-language pathologists perceive as the supports needed to assess competently the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students? 38, 39 9, 12, 13, 14. 15, 16, 18, 19, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38 4. What do speech-language pathologists perceive as barriers to competently assessing the language skills of bilingu al/bicultural/bidialectal students? 37 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39
83 Data Analyses Quantitative and qualitative data analyses assessed respondents beliefs about professional efficacy (personal and general), as measured by each subscale as they relate to the following variables: race/ethnicity, fluency in languages other than English, fluency in dialectal variati ons, professional development training, years of experience, and exposure to culturally and linguistically diverse student learners and their families. The analyses also assessed respondents belie fs about supports and barriers to assessing the language skills of bilingual/b icultural/bidialectal students. The following data analysis procedures were conducted to answer the re search questions: quantitative and qualitative analyses. Each procedure is explained in detail below. Quantitative Analyses Utilizing the SAS System (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1997) for univariate and multivariate statistics, quantitative analys es included calculating the frequency and percentage of responses and st atistical analyses of group diffe rences in responses using a multiple regression analysis (Hatcher & Step anski, 1997). This flexible method permits researchers to answer a variety of research que stions with several different types of data (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1997). According to Gall et al., (2003), the res earchers first step in conducting a multiple regression analysis is to calculate the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation coefficient, r This statistical technique is su itable for determining the extent to which a relationship exists between variables. Further, th e correlation coefficient is a summation of the linear relationship that ex ists between two variables that is not influenced by the variables scales (Gall et al., 2003). Educational researchers commonly use this statistical technique because it co ntains a small standard error on continuous
84 scores (Gall et al., 2003). The most familiar multiple regression analysis procedure entails a single continuous criterion variable measured on an interval or ratio scale, and multiple continuous predictor variables also assessed on an interval or ratio scale (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1997, p. 381). Multiple regression tec hniques were used to examine the role of the independent variables in predicting a lin ear relationship with th e dependent variable (Pedhazur, 1997; Jefferies, 2000). According to Hatcher and Stepanski (1997, p. 381), the multiple regression analysis also allows th e researcher to establish the following: Whether a notable relationship exists be tween the criterion variable and the several predictor variable s when taken as a group Whether the multiple regression coefficient for a particular predictor variable is statistically significant Whether a certain predictor variable provi des a rationale for a significant amount of variance in the criterion, apart from the variance accounted for by the other predictor variables. In this study, the criterion variable wa s professional efficacy (personal efficacy and general efficacy) for speech-language path ologists. The predictor variables were race/ethnicity (African American/Black, Hi spanic/Latino, and othe r race), years of experience as a speech-language pathologist, y ears of experience working with children and youth, percentage of students from homes where a langua ge other than English is spoken, percentage of students from homes where a dialect is spoken, frequency of time (exposure) spent with bilingual/bicultural/b idialectal students, years of experience working with bilingual/bicultu ral/bidialectal students, prof iciency levels in a language
85 other than English, and proficiency levels in a dialect. The criterion variable and predictor variables were all co ntinuous and were all measur ed on an interval or ratio scale. Consequently, multiple regression analysis was the suitable procedure for this study. The following assumptions (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1997, p. 446; Pedhazur, 1997) underlying multiple regression were considered: Level of measurement The criterion vari able and predictor variables should be assessed on an interval or ratio level of measurement. Random sampling Each participant in the sample will contribute one score on each predictor variable, and one score on the criterion variable. These sets of scores should represent a random sample of speech-language pathologists drawn from two school district s in central Florida. Normal distribution of the criterion variable For any combination of values of the predictor variables, the criterion va riable should be normally distributed. Homogeneity of variance For any comb ination of values of the predictor variables, the criterion variable should be normally distributed. Independent observations A given obser vation should not be affected by (or related to) any other obser vation in the sample. Violation of this assumption occurs if the various observations represented repeated measurements taken from a single case or if some cases contribute d more than one set of scores on the criterion variable and predictor variables. Linearity The relationship between the criterion variab le and predictor variables should be linear; the mean criterion scores at each value of a given predictor should fall on a straight line.
86 Errors of prediction The errors of pr ediction should be normally distributed and the distribution of errors should be cent ered at zero; the error of prediction associated with a given observation s hould not be correlate d with the errors associated with the other observations; th e errors of prediction should demonstrate a constant variance; the errors of predic tion should not be correlated with the predictor variables. Absence of measurement error The pred ictor variables should be measured without error. Violation of this assumption may lead to underestimation of the regression coefficient for the corresponding predictor. Absence of specification errors The model represented by the regression equation should be theoretically tenabl e. In multiple regression, specification errors most frequently result from omitting relevant predictor variables from the equation, or including irrele vant predictor variables in the equation. Specification errors also result when researchers pos it a linear relationship between variables that are actually involved in a curvilinear relationship. In addition to taking the above assumpti ons into consideration, the researcher inspected data sets for potential complications concerning out liers (an atypical observation that does not suitably fit the regre ssion model) or multicollinearity [when two or more predictor variables ex hibit a high degree of correlatio n with each other] (Freund & Littell, 1991). Multicollinearity can hinder regression coefficient estimates from exhibiting statistical significance, cause them to be biased, or display the wrong sign (Freund & Littell, 1991). Question 2 was answered utilizing the a bove statistical techniques. While the
87 major analysis for Questions 1, 3, and 4 is qualitative and thematic in nature, it was informative to use statistical analyses as we ll. In particular, descriptive statistics were utilized to count the prevalence of the themes that emerged. Qualitative Analysis Interviews The establishment of validity and ve rification procedures is vital in qualitative research (Sanger et al., 2003). The qualitative rese arch literature is replete with the significance of establishing trus t and collecting rich, thick, descriptions (Creswell, 1998; Creswell & Miller, 2000; Ma xwell, 1996; Zwiers & Morrissette, 1999). The researcher used the following verificati on procedures to ensure reliability and validity of results: member checks, interrater reliability, description of researcher bias, and rich, thick description (Creswell, 1998; Creswell & Miller, 2000). The researcher conducted individual interviews. From those interviews, the resear cher subsequently collected transcripts of res pondents comments utilizing the above method of analysis. The respondents comments were transcribed ve rbatim by a trained transcriptionist and coded by the researcher. In order to ensure accuracy of responses member checking took place. Interview participants were given a c opy of their individual transcripts and asked to provide clarification and/or modification of responses if appropria te. Participants were also given the opportunity to make modi fications and/or provide supplemental information. The above procedures took place prior to the analysis of respondents comments. The researcher used the Atlas.ti qualita tive software program to facilitate the process. Atlas.ti contains various tools that allow the research er to select, code, sort, and annotate data without difficulty (McHatton, 200 4). However, this software program does
88 not produce themes independently. The research er must interpret the data. Themes in respondents spontaneous comments were id entified and subsequen tly collapsed into smaller themes utilizing a modified method of the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Method of Analysis of Phenomenological data (Mous takas, 1994) and esta blishing interrater reliability to organize and analyze the ve rbatim transcripts of the participants experiences. Utilizing the modified method of the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Method of Analysis of Phenomenological data, the following steps were taken: Reviewed each statement for significance as they described the experience of assessing the language skills of bilingua l/bicultural/bidialectal children. Recorded all statements relevant to the phenomenon; included all statements that were relevant to Research Questions 1, 3, and 4. Listed each non-repetitive, non-overl apping statement; redundant and vague responses were omitted. These statements are the invariant horizons or meaning units of the experience of assessing bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal children. Associated and clustered the inva riant meaning units into themes. Provided frequency data on the descriptiv e statements/ideas according to the percentage of speech-language pathologists who commented about each theme that emerged. Synthesized the invariant mean ing units and themes into a description of the textures of the experience. Verbatim examples were included. Reflected on textural de scription and constructed a description of the structures of the experience through imaginative variation. Constructed a textural-structural description of the meanings and essences of the
89 experience; descriptions represented the participants views about their professional efficacy beliefs and perceived supports and barriers to assessing the language skills of bi lingual/bicultural/bi dialectal students. To establish interrater reliability, the following steps were taken: Identified themes in respondents spon taneous comments given to independent raters (doctoral students) trained in coding qualitative data Forty percent ( n = 4) of transcripts randomly sele cted from the 10 interviews and given to independent raters Independent raters given instructions to read the transcripts and code any comments that signified identified themes Reviewers and researcher subsequently met together and compared notes, giving reasons for each developed category Themes that emerged were established through a consensus approach (Sanger, Moore-Brown, Montgomery, Rezac, & Keller, 2003). The above analysis contributed to answering Questions 1, 3, and 4. Self-Reflection Recognizing that no researcher enters a research situa tion separate from her/his own biases, the researcher co mpleted a narrative of her cu ltural and lingu istic background as well as professional experiences as a speech-language pathologist. Using a phenomenological approach, she provides a co mplete description of her own experience of the phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994). Details of her own professional efficacy and perceived supports and barriers to assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students are discussed. Once again, the researcher utilized
90 a modified method of the Stevick-Co laizzi-Keen Method of Analysis of Phenomenological data (Moustakas, 1994) to organize and analyze the verbatim transcript of the researchers experien ce. The following steps were taken: Reviewed each statement for significance as they described the experience of assessing the language skills of bilingua l/bicultural/bidialectal children. Recorded all statements relevant to the phenomenon; included all statements that were relevant to Research Questions 1, 3, and 4. Listed each non-repetitive, non-overl apping statement; redundant and vague responses were omitted. These statements are the invariant horizons or meaning units of the experience of assessing bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal children. Associated and clustered the inva riant meaning units into themes. Synthesized the invariant mean ing units and themes into a description of the textures of the experience. Verbatim examples were included. Reflected on textural de scription and construct a description of the structures of the experience through imaginative variation. Constructed a textural-structural description of the meanings and essences of the experience; descriptions represented the researchers views a bout her professional efficacy beliefs and perceived supports a nd barriers to assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students.
Figure 1 Establishing Reliability Inte r -rater Reliability Established by Individual Themes Composite Themes Theme (1) Theme (2) Theme (1) Theme (3) 91 10 Interviews Theme (2) Theme (4) Theme (3) Theme (5) Theme (x) Theme (6) Theme (7) Theme (x) Two Doctoral Students
Figure 2 Composite Analysis 92 Surveys Efficacy Beliefs Cultural Factors Composite Analysis Demographic Information of Speech-Language Pathologists Assessment Experiences Professional Efficacy Beliefs Interviews Efficacy Beliefs -Facilitators & Barriers Demographic Information Assessment Experiences Professional Training Field Experiences Professional Training Caseload Characteristics
93 Research Questions This study addressed the following research questions: 1. What are the professional efficacy beliefs of speech-language pathologists about assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidia lectal students? 2. Do speech-language pathologists profession al efficacy beliefs about assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidi alectal students vary as a function of demographic variables (i.e. race/ethnicity, years of experien ce, levels of professional efficacy, frequency of times with bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal children, proficiency in a language other than English, and proficiency in a dialect)? 3. What do speech-language pathologists perceive as the supports needed to assess competently the language skills of bilingual/bicultural students? 4. What do speech-language pathologists pe rceive as barriers to assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students? Delimitations A delimitation is the restriction of participants to speech-language pathologists employed by two central Florida public school districts. Inferences from this study were restricted to these two school districts. Another delimita tion was the restriction of interview participants to female speech-language pathologists. The vast majority of speech-language pathologists within these two local school districts mirror the national demographics, namely, female. The limited number of male survey respondents resulted in the exclusion of gender comparisons in the multiple regression analysis. Without this information, the researcher was unable to make comparisons between quantitative and qualitative data regarding gender. For that reason, the researcher decided to interview
94 female speech-language pathologists. Once ag ain, inferences from this study were restricted to female speech-language patholog ists within two school districts in central Florida. Limitations Limitations of this study are categorized into two gr oups: threats to internal validity and threats to external validity. The survey instrument is a single item measuring a complex construct. This is a threat to internal validity and poses a limitation to the study. A second threat to intern al validity included the follo wing: Information received was based on self-report through surveys and interviews. While surveys alone can yield significant information, in-depth interviews added a deeper unders tanding to the data collected. This legitimizes the need to in corporate a qualitative portion to this study. However, participants may have provided resp onses they regarded as socially acceptable. Actual observations or focus groups would have added triang ulation to data collected. A third threat to internal valid ity involved passive and active researcher bias Onwuegbuzie, 2003). The researchers ethnicity and statements made may have provided an indication of the researchers preferences during the interview process. Threats to external validity included population validity and ecological validity (McMillan, 2000; Onwuegbuzie, 2003). The sample may not have represented adequately other geographic regions across the country. Further, inferences from this study were restricted to select districts within the state of Florida. The final stages of this study include results and implications for graduate communication sciences and disorders departments, educational researchers, and speechlanguage pathologists. The researcher will present interpretations of the findings and
95 recommendations for future research. This info rmation will be shared in Chapters IV and V, respectively.
96 Table 2 Illustration of Research Questions and Statistical Procedures for Answering Each Question Research Question Procedure Variables 1. What are the professional efficacy beliefs of speech-language pathologists about assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students? Semi-structured interviews Qualitative analysis of respondents comments Descriptive statistics DV = professional efficacy beliefs: (a) personal efficacy beliefs (b) general efficacy beliefs IV/Perceived Antecedents = assessing language skills of bilingual/bicultural individuals 2. Do speech-language pathologists professional efficacy beliefs about assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students vary as a function of demographic variables (i.e. race/ethnicity, years of experience, frequency of times with bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal children, proficiency in a language other than English, and proficiency in a dialect)? Multiple Regression Analysis Calculation of frequencies/percentage of responses Alpha level = .05 Criterion Variable = professional efficacy beliefs: (a) personal efficacy beliefs (b) general efficacy beliefs Predictor Variables = demographic variables 3. What do speech-language pathologists perceive as the supports needed to assess competently the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students? Semi-structured interviews Qualitative analysis of respondents comments Descriptive statistics DV = language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students IV/Perceived Antecedents = supports 4. What do speech-language pathologists perceive as barriers to competently assess the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students? Semi-structured interviews Qualitative analysis of respondents comments Descriptive statistics DV = language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students IV/Perceived Antecedents = barriers
97 CHAPTER IV Results The overall purpose of this study was to investigate speech-la nguage pathologists (a) beliefs about the language assessment of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students, (b) professional efficacy beliefs (both personal and general) as they relate to assessing the language skills of bilingual/b icultural/bidialectal students, and (c) reported supports and barriers to assessing the language skills of bilingu al/bicultural/bidial ectal students. Of particular interest to the re searcher was to determine whether differences among speechlanguage pathologists beliefs existed based on such factors as race/ethnicity, years of experience as a speech-language pathologist, y ears of experience working with children and youth, years of experience working with bilingual/bicultural/bid ialectal students, exposure to bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students, and the degree of bilingual and bidialectal proficiency. In this chapter, a linkage between the da ta collected and the research questions asked is provided. Both quantitative and quali tative methods were used in the study. This chapter is organized into three sections. Th e first section gives a summary of frequency counts. The second section presents results of survey responses regarding professional efficacy beliefs, a multiple regression analysis of survey data, and an analysis summary of interview participants experien ces of assessing the skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students. With the exception of Research Question 2, quantitative results will precede qualitative re sults for each research question. Section 3
98 provides a reflective analysis by the principal investigator. Research Questions Four research questions dire cted data collection and an alysis of speech-language pathologists professional efficacy beliefs about assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students. 1. What are the professional efficacy beliefs of speech-language pathologists about assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidia lectal students? 2. Do speech-language pathologists profession al efficacy beliefs about assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidi alectal students vary as a function of demographic variables (i.e. race/ethnicity, years of experien ce, levels of professional efficacy, frequency of times with bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal children, proficiency in a language other than English, and proficiency in a dialect)? 3. What do speech-language pathologists perceive as the supports needed to assess competently the language skills of bilingual/bicultural students? 4. What do speech-language pathologists perceive as barriers to assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students? Section 1 Frequency counts and de scriptive statistics The researcher gained access to 390 speech-language pathologists in two central Florida school districts. Of these, 230 (59.0%) participants volunteered to participate in the study. Four of these participants were actually speech-language assistants and di d not meet the participant requirement of the study (i.e., practicing presc hool and school-based speech-la nguage pathologists). This further reduced the speech-language pathol ogist population by four to 226. Of the 226
99 surveys returned (58%), five failed to meet the researchers criteria of not having any missing responses. These five surveys were omitted, leaving a remaining total of 221. The eventual response of 221 completed surv eys thus represents a 56% response rate, representing a greater response rate than Kritikos (2003) rate of 35%. Findings included participants report of speech-language pat hology (SLP) characteristics, estimates of client characteristics, and SLP belief characteristics about the tw o criterion/dependent variables (personal and general efficacy). Th e speech-language pathology characteristics included the general background and li nguistic background of participants. Participant Demographics The sample consisted of 214 females (97%) and 7 males (3%). Fifty-three respondents (24%) had worked as speech-langu age pathologists for 20 years or more. Novice speech-language pathologists (0-3 year s) and those with 4-7 years of experience both represented the next largest gro up with 23%, respectively. Speech-language pathologists provide services to children and youth as well as adults. As a result, the researcher was particularly interested in knowing how many years of experience, specifically, they had with children and youth. In terms of years of experience providing services to children and youth, 59 respondent s (26%) represented the category of 4-7 years, followed by 53 (23.4%) with more than 20 years, and 50 (22%) with 3 years or fewer. Regarding the distribution of particip ating speech-language pathologists by educational level, 80% ( n = 177) held masters degrees and 19% ( n = 43) held bachelors degrees. Speech-language pathol ogists are requ ired to possess a masters degree. Those with a bachelors degree only were grandfathe red and not required to obtain a masters
100 degree when this became a requirement. In terms of professional credentials, the majority of respondents held state cer tification by the Florida De partment of Education ( n = 184, 83%), the ASHA certificate of clinical competence ( n = 149, 67%), and Florida state licensure in speech-language pathology ( n = 122, 55%). In terms of gender, most ( n = 214, 97%) indicated that they were female. Fu rther, 184 (83%) indicated that they were White (not of Hispanic/Latino origin), re presenting the largest group of respondents. Thirty-seven respondents (17%) indicated that they represen ted a racial minority group. The distribution of participants of co lor was as follows: Hispanic/Latino ( n = 17), African American/Black not of Hispanic/Latino origin ( n = 15), and Asian American or Pacific Islander ( n = 5). None of the responden ts indicated that they were of American Indian or Alaskan origin. Of the 221 respondents, 220 (99 %) indicated that they very often worked in a school setting.
101 Table 3 Summary of Years of Experience, Educational Le vel, Certification and Licensure Status, Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Setting Responses of Speech-Language Pathologists Years Frequency % ___________________________________________________________________ 0-3 51 23 4-7 51 23 8-11 28 13 12-20 38 17 Over 20 53 24 ____________________________________________________________________ Years w/ Children and Youth 0-3 50 22 4-7 59 26 8-11 24 11 12-20 35 16 Over 20 53 24 _____________________________________________________________________ Educational Level Bachelors 43 19 Masters 177 80 Ph.D. or Ed.D. 1 1 ______________________________________________________________________ Certification/Licensure State Certification 184 83 ASHA 149 67 State License 122 55 _______________________________________________________________________ Gender Female 214 97 Male 7 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Race/Ethnicity African American/black 15 7 American Indian/Alaskan Native ------Asian American/Pacific Islander 5 2 Caucasian/white 184 83 Hispanic/Latino 17 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Setting School 220 99 _______________________________________________________________________ Note: n = 221
102 Table 4 is a summary of the following: clie nt characteristics, such as the age of the students the participants serve; the r ace(s) of the students that the participants primarily served; percentage of students who came from homes where a language other than English was spoken; percentage of st udents who came from homes where a dialect (i.e., African American Vernacular English) was spoken; fre quency of time spent with bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students; and years of experience with bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students. Re garding the frequency of time spent with particular age groups, the majority of responde nts very often worked with children aged 3-5 years ( n = 115, 52%) and 6-11 years ( n = 180, 81%). The majority of respondents reported that they primarily provided speech-language services to White children ( n = 191, 86%), Hispanic/Latino ( n = 170, 77%), and African American/Black children ( n = 165, 75%). Only 25 (11%) participants indicated that they provided services to Asian American or Pacific Islander children and 5 (2%) to American Indian or Alaskan Native children. Of the 221 respondents, 100 (45%) reporte d having less than 25% of students from homes where a language other than English is spoken. The next largest group ( n = 92, 42%) reported having 25%-50% of students from homes where a language other than English is spoken. Concerning dialec t speakers, most respondents ( n = 119, 54%) indicated having less than 25% of student s from homes where a dialect is spoken followed by 69 (31%) respondents who indica ted having 25%-50% of students from homes where a dialect is spoken. Furthe r, the largest gr oup of respondents ( n = 166, 75%) reported working with bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students 3-5 times per week, followed by 51 (23%) who reported working wi th these students 1-2 times per week.
103 Regarding years of experience working with bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students, 89 (40%) respondents indicated ha ving 1-5 years. This represented the largest group. This was followed by 72 (33%) of respondents who indicated having greater than 10 years of experience.
104 Table 4 Summary of Estimates of Speech-Language Pathologists: Age of Students, Percentage, Frequency of Times, and Years of Experience with Bilingual/Bicultural/Bidialectal Students Age of Clients Served Frequency % ___________________________________________________________________________ 0-2 10 5 3-5 115 52 6-11 180 81 12-18 56 25 19-22 13 6 _____________________________________________________________________________ Race/Ethnicity of Clients Served African American/black 165 75 American Indian/Alaskan Native 5 2 Asian/Pacific Islander 25 11 Caucasian 191 86 Hispanic 170 77 _____________________________________________________________________________ Bilingual/Bicultural Less than 25% 100 45 25-50% 92 42 51-75% 22 10 Greater than 75% 7 3 _____________________________________________________________________________ Bicultural/Bidialectal Less than 25% 119 54 25-50% 69 31 51-75% 22 10 Greater than 75% 11 5 ______________________________________________________________________________ Time Spent 1-2 times per week 51 23 3-5 times per week 166 75 Consultation Only 4 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ Years Spent Less than 1 year 13 6 1-5 years 89 40 6-10 years 47 21 Greater than 10 years 72 33 ________________________________________________________________________
105 Table 5 provides a summary of the most co mmon languages, other than English, spoken in the homes of the respondents students Of the 221 respondents 216 (97%) reported Spanish as a language spoken in their students homes. This represen ted the largest group of respondents in this category. The sec ond largest group of respondents, 62 (28%) reported Creole as a language spoken in th eir students homes. This was followed by 17 (8%) respondents who indicated having students from homes where Arabic was spoken and 14 (6%) who indicated having student s from homes where Tagalog was spoken. Table 6 presents a summary of the most comm on dialects spoken in the homes of the respondents students. Respondents reported African American Vernacular English ( n = 184, 83%), Hispanic English Vernacular ( n = 183, 82%), Southern Dialect ( n = 50, 23%), and Caribbean Dialect ( n = 42, 19%) as the dialects most often spoken in their students homes. Table 5 Languages Other Than English Spoken by Speech-Language Pathologists Students Languages Frequency % _____________________________________________________________________________ Arabic 17 8 Creole 62 28 Spanish 216 97 Tagalog 14 6 _____________________________________________________________________________ Table 6 Dialects Spoken by Speech-Language Pathologists Students _____________________________________________________________________________ Dialects African American Vernacular English 184 83 Caribbean 42 19 Hispanic English Vernacular 183 8 2 Southern 50 23 ______________________________________________________________________________
106 Linguistic Background of Participants Tables 7 and 8 depict the respondents linguistic bac kgrounds. Specifically, Table 7 provides summary results on whether respond ents spoke or understood a language other than English, spoke or understood a nonstandard dialect, which language they learned first, age at which they learned a language other than English and/ or nonstandard dialect, how long they had spoken a language other th an English and/or nonstandard dialect, and where they learned a language other than English and/or a nonstandard dialect. Table 8 provides information on which language(s) and/or dialects the respondents most commonly spoke and proficiency in a language other than English and/or nonstandard dialect (Items 20-32 on the survey). Twenty-five percent of the respondents i ndicated that they understood and/or spoke a language other than English. The most common language spoken among these participants was Spanish ( n = 40, 18%). The second larg est group of respondents ( n = 10, 5%) indicated that they spoke French. Italian and Creole represented the third largest group of respondents, ( n = 5, 2%), respectively. It is inte resting to note here that while a large percentage of respondent s indicated that they provide d services to children from homes where Spanish and Creole was spoken, a mismatch existed between these students and the number of speech-language patholog ists who reported understanding and/or speaking these languages. Ninety-three percent of the respondents reported that English was the first language they learned while only 5% reported that they first learned a language other than English. The remaining group (2%) in dicated that they simultaneously acquired English and another language. Of the res pondents who indicated that they understood
107 and/or spoke a language other than English, 20 (9%) learned this la nguage at between 12 and 18 years of age. This represented the la rgest group in this category. The majority ( n = 37, 17%) of these respondents indicated that they had spoken a language other than English for greater than 10 y ears. Further, 24 (11%) and 23 (10%) reported learning a language other than English at school and home, respectively. No tably, 176 (80%) of respondents indicated that they were not proficient in listen ing, 183 (83%) in speaking, 189 (86%) in reading, and 196 (89%) in wr iting a language ot her than English. Twenty-six percent of the respondents indicated understanding and/or speaking a dialect. The largest group of respondents ( n = 41, 19%) in this category reported that they understood/spoke African Amer ican Vernacular English. This was followed by 17 (8%) of respondents who reported that they understo od and/or spoke Southern Dialect, 12 (5%) who reported understanding and/or speaking Hispanic English Vernacular, and 8 (4%) who reported understanding and/or speaking a Caribbean dialect. Once again, a stark contrast existed between the linguistic va riations of students and the clinicians responsible for providing speech and language services to them. Of the respondents who indicated that they understood/spoke a dialect, 26 (12%) reported that they learned a dialect between bi rth to 3 years of age. This represented the largest group. The next largest group ( n = 14, 6%) indicated that they learned a dialect when they were more than 18 years of age. Regarding the length of time that they had spoken a dialect, the vast majority of respondents ( n = 40, 18%) indicate d greater than 10 years. Further, 30 (14%) indicated that they learned a dialect at home and 16 (7%) indicated that they learned a dialect at school. This repres ented the two largest groups of respondents in this subcategory. Of these res pondents, 166 (75%) report ed that they were
108 not proficient in listening, 179 (81%) in speaking and reading, respectively, and 192 (87%) in writing a nons tandard dialect.
109 Table 7 Summary of Linguistic Background of Speech-Language Pathologists Speak/Understand Frequency % ______________________________________________________________________________ Language Other Than English 56 25 Dialect 57 26 ______________________________________________________________________________ First Language Learned English 206 93 Language Other Than English 5 2 Simultaneously Learned 10 5 ______________________________________________________________________________ Age Learned Language Other Than English 0-3 Years 15 7 4-7 Years 4 2 8-11 Years 4 2 12-18 Years 20 9 Over 18 Years 14 6 ______________________________________________________________________________ Years Spoken Language Other Than English Less Than 1 year 4 2 1-5 Years 7 3 6-10 Years 8 4 Greater Than 10 Years 40 18 ______________________________________________________________________________ Location Learned School 24 11 Home 23 10 Abroad 7 3 Other 3 1 ______________________________________________________________________________ Age Learned Dialect 0-3 Years 26 12 4-7 Years 8 4 8-11 Years 4 2 12-18 Years 4 2 Over 18 Years 14 6 ______________________________________________________________________________ Years Spoken Less Than 1 Year 1 <1 1-5 Years 7 3 6-10 Years 3 1 Greater Than 10 Years 40 18 _______________________________________________________________________________
110 Table 7 Continued Summary of Linguistic Backgroun d of Speech-Languag e Pathologists Speak/Understand Frequency % ______________________________________________________________________________ Location Learned School 16 7 Home 30 14 Abroad 1 <1 Other 9 4 ______________________________________________________________________________
111 Table 8 Languages Other Than English and Dialects Most Commonly Spoken and/or Understood by Speech-Language Pathologists Proficiency Responses Languages Frequency % _________________________________________________________________________ Creole 5 2 French 10 5 Italian 5 2 Spanish 40 18 __________________________________________________________________________ Dialects African American Vernacular English 41 19 Caribbean Dialect 8 4 Hispanic English Vernacular 12 5 Southern 7 8 ___________________________________________________________________________ Listening Proficiency (Language) Not Proficient 176 80 Somewhat Proficient 21 10 Proficient 12 5 Very Proficient 12 5 ____________________________________________________________________________ Speaking Proficiency (Language) Not Proficient 183 83 Somewhat Proficient 22 10 Proficient 6 3 Very Proficient 10 5 _____________________________________________________________________________ Reading Proficiency Not Proficient 189 86 Somewhat Proficient 11 5 Proficient 11 5 Very Proficient 10 5 ______________________________________________________________________________ Writing Proficiency Not Proficient 196 89 Somewhat Proficient 10 5 Proficient 8 4 Very Proficient 7 3 _______________________________________________________________________________ Listening Proficiency (Dialect) Not Proficient 166 75 Somewhat Proficient 7 3 Proficient 23 10 Very Proficient 25 11 ________________________________________________________________________________
112 Table 8 Continued Languages Other Than English and Dialects Most Commonly Spoken and/or Understood by Speech-Language Path ologists Proficiency Responses Speaking Proficiency Frequency % _________________________________________________________________________ Not Proficient 179 81 Somewhat Proficient 17 8 Proficient 8 4 Very Proficient 17 8 ____________________________________________________________________________ Reading Proficiency Not Proficient 179 81 Somewhat Proficient 10 5 Proficient 16 7 Very Proficient 16 7 _____________________________________________________________________________ Writing Proficiency Not Proficient 192 87 Somewhat Proficient 12 5 Proficient 7 3 Very Proficient 10 5 Preservice and Inservice Training Table 9 is a summary of the data for pr eservice and inservice training. In Items 33 and 34 on the survey, participants reported whether they had taken courses and/or workshops in the following areas: (a) second language acquisition (48%, for both), (b) communication patterns in cult ures where a language other than English is spoken (49% and 45%, respectively), (c) comm unication patterns in cultures where a dialect is spoken (43% and 32%, respectively), (d) different ial assessment of bili ngual versus monolingual individuals (35% and 30%, resp ectively), (e) cultural factor s that influence learning (54% and 47%, respectively), (f) multicultural issu es/ethnically diverse populations (58% and 53%, respectively), (g) assessment tools for bi lingual/bidialectal st udents (30% and 26%, respectively), (h) language disorder ve rsus language difference (67% and 52%,
113 respectively), (i) laws involved in the assessment and treatment of bilingual/bidialectal students (27% and 24%, respectively), (j) working with families (33% and 26%, respectively), and (k) how to utilize a langua ge interpreter (24% and 18%, respectively). Remarkably, respondents reported they had th e least amount of pres ervice and inservice training in the areas of interpreters (24% and 18% of the respondent s, for preservice and inservice training, respectively) laws (27% and 24%, resp ectively), assessment tools (30% and 26%, respectively), working with families (33% and 26%, respectively), and differential assessment (35% and 30%, respectively). Table 9 Summary of Speech-Language Pathologists Preservice and Inservice Training Preservice Training (Course Work) Frequency % Second Language Acquisition 107 48 Communication Patterns (Language) 108 49 Communication Patterns (Dialect) 96 43 Differential Assessment 78 35 Cultural Factors 119 54 Multicultural Issues 129 58 Assessment Tools 66 30 Disorder vs. Difference 149 67 Laws 59 27 Working with Families 72 33 Utilizing an Interpreter 53 24 Inservice Training (Workshops) ______________________________________________________________________________ Second Language Acquisition 107 4 8 Communication Patterns (Language) 100 45 Communication Patterns (Dialect) 70 32 Differential Assessment 66 30 Cultural Factors 104 47 Multicultural Issues 118 53 Assessment Tools 58 26 Disorder vs. Difference 114 52 Laws 52 24 Working with Families 58 26 Utilizing an Interpreter 40 18 ________________________________________________________________________
114 Section Two Research Question 1 : What are the professional effi cacy beliefs of speech-language pathologists about assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students? Quantitative results. In Item 35 on the survey, each participant indicated her or his degree of personal efficacy (compete nce in assessing a students language development in a language and/or dialect th ey do not understand or speak). Item 36 on the survey requested each participant to i ndicate his or her degree of general efficacy (most speech-language pathologists compet ence in assessing a students language development in a language and/or dialect th ey do not understand or speak). These two items addressed Research Question 1. Regarding personal efficacy, the largest group of respondents ( n = 109, 49%) reported they felt somewhat competent in a ssessing a students language development in a language and/or dialect they did not understand or speak. This was followed by 53 respondents (24%) who reported they felt co mpetent. Regarding general efficacy, the largest group of respondents ( n = 140, 63%) reported that most speech-language pathologists were somewhat competent in assessing a students language development in a language and/or dialect they did not unde rstand or speak. The next largest group of respondents ( n = 46, 21%) in this subcategory re ported that most speech-language pathologists were not competent. Table 10 lists a summary of results.
115 Table 10 Summary of Speech-Language Pathologists Personal and General Efficacy Responses Personal Efficacy Frequency % _____________________________________________________________________________ Not Competent 48 22 Somewhat Competent 109 49 Competent 53 24 Very Competent 11 5 _____________________________________________________________________________ General Efficacy Not Competent 46 21 Somewhat Competent 140 63 Competent 34 15 Very Competent 1 <1 ________________________________________________________________________ Qualitative results Many mixed method researcher s advocate for quantitizing or converting qualitative data into numerical codes, such as a frequency distribution of participants responses or th e conceptualization of effect sizes (Becker, 1970; Becker, Geer, Hughes, & Strauss, 1977; Lazarfe ld & Barton, 1955; Onwuegbuzie, 2001; Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2004). In fact, Lazarf eld and Barton, (1955) coined the term quasi-statistics. Becker (1970) asserted that failing to arri ve at conclusions utilizing quasi-statistics in qualitative data was a majo r fault and demonstrated a lack of rigor. Thus, qualitative findings in this study also are accompanied by frequency distributions. Responses to professional efficacy beliefs about assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultura l/bidialectal students were similar among interview participants of color. Those from culturally and/or lingui stically diverse back grounds demonstrated greater personal efficacy beliefs than their White counterparts. This was particularly true of the bilingual speech-language pathologists who spoke languages such as Creole, Spanish, and Tagalog. Specifically, speech-l anguage pathologists of color (75%) primarily believed themselves to be very competent or competent. The following
116 statements are a description of the personal efficacy beliefs of the interview participants of color: I think Im very competent. (Latina speech-language pathologist) I feel very competent. I f eel that I do the best job th at I can and if I dont know the answers then I need to go out and find the answers or at least attempt to find the answers. (Latina spe ech-language pathologist) I feel like Im competent but I still have room to learn, I mean we should all keep learning, but I think that I am competent, Im sufficient for now. (Asian speechlanguage pathologist) I feel reasonably comfortable knowing what to do or what to say and when to hold and when to fold and when to walk away. I know really when to say I cant do it, I need an interp reter, I need another speech pa thologist involved. Outside of having a second language myself, I feel r easonably comfortable because that was my goal in figuring that out 12 credits ago. (African American speech-language pathologist) Im not one to sit back and go I really dont have any idea. And if I dont have an idea, Im gonna try and seek out the information in order to help the parents and the child in the best way that I know how. (Asian speech-language pathologist) In contrast, the White speech-language pat hologists believed that they were only somewhat competent (50%) or not competen t (50%) at all. The following statements are a description of the personal efficacy be liefs of the White interview participants: I wouldnt say I am 100% competent but I would say that if I were put in a situation where I had no interpreter and th e parents barely spoke English, then I would figure out what I needed to do to effectively serve that client because you cant leave a client with not having the proper trea tment and properly assessing them. So definitely, I would do what I needed to do as a professional and ethically to serve that client. (Haitian American speech-language pathologist) I would say Im not, I would give myself inco mpetent. I think I do my best based on the resources that I have and with th e caseloads that I am faced with. I dont feel like I was always the most qualifie d person to be providing these children services. (White speech-language pathologist)
117 Well I feel fairly adequate. Again, y ou know theres the problem with me not being absolutely 100% sure that the test is being interpreted correctly. (White speech-language pathologist) One speech-language pathologist believed that her personal efficacy depended on the student being assessed, that is, whether she was familiar with a pa rticular students language and culture. It all depends upon the student. If I am aw are of the intricacies of the culture and of the language, I feel highly competent. However, if I am not, for instance, the German student I have, I feel highly incompetent. I dont think I can adequately meet that childs needs because I am not aware of the German culture and the little intricacies that they have. (Haitian American speech-language pathologist) Many of the speech-language pathologists of color related personal experiences similar to those of their bilingual/bicultura l/bidialectal students, as exemplified by the following: I have always been able to relate to them more, especially since I didnt learn English until I was older and I was labe led as dumb because my old language wasnt as proficient as peers my age because of my second language so I have always been able to relate to culturally diverse students and have always had that knack of making them understand what they need to understand but not in a traditional way. When I went to school there was no such thing as testing in native languages. They wanted to retain both my brother and myself. And my father, being a college graduate, he refused. So if my father didnt refuse and wasnt an advocate for us, we would both be behind, we would have been retained in class but also we would have been put in a sp ecial class. We would have been labeled some form of ESE. However, even though my father was an advocate for us, he did listen to a lot of the t eachers and a lot of the professionals who, at that time, told my parents to stop speaking the othe r languages to us. They were told that they needed to speak only English to us cuz we were speaking two different languages at home, French and Creole. We werent even speaking English at home. Because of that, our native langua ges regressed as our English progressed and as of now my brother is not fluent in any language. I have tried very hard to maintain my fluency, but it is not as appr opriate and as correct as it should be. (Haitian-American speech-language pathologist) I identify. I have a lot of empathy for them and not only empathy. I just understand. For some reason, theres a conn ection. I grew up in a bilingual home. (Latina speech-langu age pathologist)
118 I dont have a problem with it, partic ularly with AAVE (African American Vernacular English), because thats my di alect. I was raised in Midwest Ohio but moved from Ohio to Maryland at a ve ry young age and went from a primarily Caucasian environment to predominantly African American and was picked on, made fun off, Black girl talking White, etc ., etc. So did what I had to do to learn to code switch. My parents knew enough to understand that in society we would be judged based upon how we spoke. It di dnt matter how much money we had, didnt matter what kind of clothes we wore what kind of house we lived in, when we went out in the real world to interv iew for that job, we just had to learn Standard English. They knew the challenges we would be up against if we didnt learn it. The hardest thing Ive found is trying to get the classroom teachers to understand that, look, this isnt wrong. Its just different. Wh at hes (student) saying is the same thing youre saying in standard English. So I try to impress upon them (teachers) not to make the child feel that the way youre teaching them is the right way. Its just a different way. Youre saying the same things, but this is a different way to say it, you know. (African American speech-language pathologists) Interview participants reported mixed beliefs of general efficacy for assessing students who were bilingual, bicultural, and/ or bidialectal. The largest group of interview respondents (40%) believed that the field of speech-language pathology was not competent. The next largest group of respondents (30%) believed that the field was competent. This was followed by the third gr oup (20%) who believed that the field was somewhat competent. Once again, one interview participant believed that the fields general efficacy relied on individual therapists and school districts. Most believed that the field of speech-language pathology was maki ng strides to meet the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse student learners. All interview participants believed that much more work is needed in this area. Table 11 presents a summary of interview participants personal and general efficacy beliefs. The fo llowing statements exemplify participants beliefs: I know we are trying but whether its effective or not, I cant say. Unless it directly affects you, most people wont go out there and find out the information. I know that ASHA has done, theyve done nu merous things to try to include the
119 assessment and treatment of culturally di verse populations. So for one to think that the information is not out there it would be inaccurate because it is out there. Its just a matter of one researching it and finding the information. (Haitian American speech-language pathologist) I think we are striving toward ideals for the children, but we still have a ways to go. (Asian speech-language pathologist) I dont think we are meeting th e needs at all. I mean not at all. There is just so much, at least here, its difficult to sa y because we dont have as many bilingual therapists as we should. (Asian speech-language pathologist) Table 11 Summary of Interview Participants Personal and General Efficacy Beliefs Personal Efficacy Frequency % _______________________________________________________________________ Not Competent 2 20 Somewhat Competent 1 10 Competent 3 3 0 Very Competent 3 30 Depends 1 10 ________________________________________________________________________ General Efficacy Not Competent 4 40 Somewhat Competent 2 20 Competent 3 30 Very Competent ----Depends 1 1 ____________________________________________________________________ Research Question 2 : Do speech-language pathologists professional efficacy beliefs about assessing the language skills of bilingua l/bicultural/bidialectal students vary as a function of demographic variables (i.e., race/ ethnicity, years of experience, levels of professional efficacy, frequency of times with bilingual/bicultural/b idialectal children, proficiency in a language other than E nglish, and proficiency in a dialect)? This question examined the possible rela tionship between the criterion variables (speech-language pathologists professional e fficacy personal and general efficacy) and the predictor variables (i.e., speech-language pathologists race/ethnicity, years of
120 experience, frequency of times with bilingua l/bicultural/bidialectal children, proficiency in a language other than English, and proficiency in a dialect). To gain a better understandi ng of the nature of the relationship between the criterion variable and the predictor variables, the data we re analyzed using two Statistical Application Software (SAS, version 9.1.3) System procedures. The SAS System is a modular, integrated, and hardware-independent computer software system (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1997). It allows the researcher to carry out the most sophisticated multivariate analyses while simultaneously conducting simp le analyses (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1997). The researcher can analyze data by submitting a short SAS program and retrieving a prewritten procedure from a library of pr ewritten statistical algorithms (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1997). Results were analyzed using both biva riate correlation and multiple regression. First, the researcher used PROC CORR to compute Pearson correlations among the variables. This procedure is useful for unde rstanding the simple bi variate relations among the variables (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1997) Means, standard deviations, Pearson correlations, and coefficient alpha reliability estimates for personal and general efficacy appear in Tables 12 and 13, respectively. The correlations in the personal efficacy column of Table 12 provide the reader with information about the pattern of simp le bivariate correlations between personal efficacy and the 11 predictor variables. The bivariate correlations revealed that none of the predictor variables were st atistically significant; none we re significantly related to personal efficacy. The p value associates with each predictor all were above the traditional significance level of .05. Based on th e above results, the researcher could not
121 reject the null hypotheses that personal efficacy and the 11 predictor variables are uncorrelated in the population. The correlations in the general efficacy column of Table 13 provide the reader with information about the pattern of simple bivariate correlations between general efficacy and the 11 predictor variables. The bivariate correlations revealed one predictor variable that was statistically significantly related to general efficacy: Hispanic/Latino ( r = -.18). This correlati on was significant at p < .05. Based on these results, the researcher could reject the null hypotheses that ge neral efficacy and Hispanic/Latino are uncorrelated in the population. The correlation between general efficacy and the remaining predic tor variables, in contrast, were not significant. The p value associates with each remaining predictor all were above the traditional si gnificant level of .05. Based on these results, the researcher could not reject the null hypotheses that genera l efficacy and these predictors variable are uncorrelated in the population. The bivariate correlations also rev ealed that the two criterion variables were significantly related to each other: personal efficacy and general efficacy ( r = .56). The correlation between personal efficacy and general efficacy was significant at p < .001. The researcher then used PROC REG to perform a multiple regression analysis in which professional efficacy was simultaneously regressed on the predictor variables (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1997, p. 417). This anal ysis determined whether a statistically significant relationship exists between profe ssional efficacy and the linear grouping of predictors (Hatcher & Stepansk i, 1997). Stated differently, th e researcher learns whether a statistically significant relationship exis ts between professional efficacy and the
122 predictor variables taken as a group (Hatch er & Stepanski, 1997). Additionally, the researcher reviewed the multiple regression co efficients for each of the predictors to determine which were statistically significant and which standardized coefficients were relatively large (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1997, p. 417). The observed R value specifies the percent of va riance in the criterion variable that is explained by the linear grouping of predic tor variables (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1997). Regarding personal efficacy, R = .08. This indicates that the linear combination of the 11 predictor variables accounted for 8% of the variance in personal efficacy, F ( 11, 195) = 1.48, p = .14, adjusted R = .03. In this case, the p value is greater than .05. Thus, the researcher cannot reject the null hypothesi s and conclude that the obtained value of R is statistically significant. Stated differ ently, the researcher cannot conclude that R is statistically greater than zero in the population. Concerning general efficacy, R = .09. This indicates that the linear combination of the 11 predictor variables accounted fo r 9% of the variance in general efficacy, F (11, 202) = 1.83, p = .051, adjusted R = .04. In this case, the p value is at the traditional significance level of .05. Thus, the researcher can reject the null hypot hesis and conclude that the obtained value of R is statistically significant. The researcher reviewed beta weights (standardized multiple regression coefficients) to assess the relative significance of the 11 variables in the prediction of personal efficacy and general efficacy. The beta weights are presented in Tables 14 and 15 for personal efficacy and general efficac y, respectively. Table 14 demonstrates that two of the 11 predictors displayed statistica lly significant beta weights: other race and years worked with bilingual/b icultural/bidialectal students. Both predictors demonstrated
123 small beta weights. Other race demonstrated a beta weight at -.16 ( p < .05), while the beta weight for years worked with bilingual/b icultural/bidialectal students was .22 ( p < .05). Table 15 demonstrates that two of the 11 predictors displayed stat istically significant beta weights: Hispanic and years worked with bilingual/bicultural/ bidialectal students. Once again, both predictors disp layed small beta weights. Hispanic demonstrated a beta weight at -.20 ( p <.05), while the beta weight for years worked with bilingual/bicultu ral/bidialectal students was .27 ( p < .05).
124 Table 12 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Involving Demographic and Personal Efficacy Variables ______________________________________________________________________________ Intercorrelations ______________________________________________________________________________ Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Personal Efficacy 2.15 .80 2. African American/Black .06 .24 .03 3. Hispanic/Latino .08 .27 -.01 -.08 4. Other race .03 .17 -.11 -.05 -.05 5. Years worked in field 2.96 1.51 -.03 -.06 -.06 -.15 6. Years provided services to children and youth 2.91 1.51 -.01 -.04 -.07 -.16 .97 7. Percentage of students from homes where 2.73 .80 .08 .01 .12 .17 -.14 -.14 language other English is spoken 8. Percentage of students from homes where a 2.65 .88 .08 .08 .16 .00 .10 -.08 .40 dialect is spoken 9. Frequency of time spent with 2.78 .48 .06 -.01 .02 .02 01 .01 .22 .07 bilingual/bicultu ral/bidialectal students 10.Years worked with bilingual/bicultural/bidi alectal 2.76 .99 .08 .00 -.04 -.13 .74 .75 -.14 -.10 .13 students 11. Proficiency in a language other than English .22 .41 .13 .01 .33 .12 -.06 -.06 .19 .12 -.05 -.05 12. Proficiency in a dialect .03 .18 .06 .06 .05 .29 .04 .05 .03 .01 -.03 .05 .36 Note. n = 207. No p values less than .05
125 Table 13 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Involving Demographic and General Efficacy Variables ______________________________________________________________________________ Intercorrelations ______________________________________________________________________________ Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. General Efficacy 1.96 .62 2. African American/Black .07 .25 .02 3. Hispanic/Latino .08 .27 -.18* -.08 4. Other race .03 .17 -.08 -.05 -.05 5. Years worked in field 2.97 1.50 -.02 -.06 -.07 -.15 6. Years provided services to children and youth 2.93 1.50 -.03 -.04 -.08 -.16 .96 7. Percentage of students from homes where 2.73 .80 -.01 .04 .12 .16 -.14 .14 language other English is spoken 8. Percentage of students from homes wh ere a dialect 2.64 .88 .03 .07 .16 .01 -.12 -.10 .40 is spoken 9. Frequency of time spent with 2.78 .48 -.03 .00 .03 .02 -.04 -.00 .21 .0 8 bilingual/bicultu ral/bidialectal studen ts 10. Years worked with bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal .77 .99 .09 -.02 -.05 -.13 .73 .74 .16 -.11 .11 students 11. Proficiency in a language other than English 21 .41 -.06 .00 .32 .12 -.07 -.06 .19 .12 -.05 .05 12. Proficiency in a dialect .03 .18 -.11 .06 .04. .29 .04 .04 .03 .02 -.03 .04 .36 Note. n = 214. *p < .05
126 Table 14 Beta Weights Obtained in Multiple Re gression Analyses Predicting Personal Efficacy Predictor Beta Weights African American/Black -.01 Hispanic/Latino -. 09 Other race -. 16* Years worked in the field of speech-language pathology -.27 Years provided speech-language services to children and youth .07 Percentage of students from homes where language o ther English .06 is spoken Percentage of students from homes where a dialect is spoken .05 Frequency of time spent with bilingual/bicultu ral/bidi alectal students .03 Years worked with bilingual/bicu ltural/bi dialectal students .22* Proficiency in a language other than English .14 Proficiency in a dialect .06 ______________________________________________________________________________ Note. n = 207 Beta weights are standardized multiple regressi on coefficients obtained when personal efficacy was regressed on all 11 predictors. p <.05
127 Table 15 Beta Weights Obtained in Multiple Re gression Analyses Predicting General Efficacy Predictor Beta Weights African American/Black -.00 Hispanic/Latino .2 0* Other race -.07 Years worked in the field of speech-language pathology .18 Years provided speech-language services to children and youth -.42 Percentage of students from homes where language o ther English .01 is spoken Percentage of students from homes where a dialect is spoken .07 Frequency of time spent with bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students -.07 Years worked with bilingual/bicu ltural/bi dialectal students .27* Proficiency in a language other than English .04 Proficiency in a dialect -.10 ______________________________________________________________________________ Note. n = 214 Beta weights are standardized multiple regressi on coefficients obtained when personal efficacy was regressed on all 11 predictors. *p < .05
128 Research Question 3: What do speech-language patholog ists perceive as the supports needed to assess competently the language skills of bilingual/bicultural students? Quantitative Results Item 39 on the survey asked respondents to rate items in terms of importance on a 5-point Likert scale (i.e., very unimportant, unimportant, not sure, important, and very important). The researcher divided these it ems into preservice and inservice solutions (i.e., more academic course work in this area, more practicum experience with bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students, more active recruitment of bilingual/bicultura l/bidialectal speech-language pa thologists, more seminars and workshops on this topic, more seminars and workshops on this topic, more journal articles on this topic, and easier access to a bilingual/bicultura l/bidialectal speechlanguage pathologist pool in their county). This item addressed Research Question 3. Regarding solutions at th e preservice level, 56% of respondents rated the provision of more academic course work in this area as important, 51% thought it was important to offer more practicum experi ence with bilingual/bi cultural/bidialectal students, and 44% rated more active recruitmen t of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal speech-language pathologists as very importa nt. Regarding solutions at the inservice level, 57% rated the provision of more seminars and workshops on this topic as important, 49% rated the offering of more jour nal articles on this topic as important, 53% rated easier access to a bilingual/bicultural/b idialectal speech-langua ge pathologist as very important, 56% rated more experience w ith bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students as important, and 45% rated more active recr uitment of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal speech-language pathologists as very importa nt. The above percentages represented the
129 most frequently chosen levels of importance for each solution. Ta ble 16 is a summary of respondents opinions of how to improve the field. Table 16 Solutions for Improving the Field (Rated as 5, very important or 4, important) Solutions (Preservice) Frequency n = 221 % _____________________________________________________________________________ More Course Work 179 81 More Practicum Experience 168 76 Active Recruitment 184 83 ______________________________________________________________________________ Solutions (Inservice) More Seminars 190 86 More Journal Articles 141 64 Access to Bilingual/Bidialectal SLPs 201 91 More Practicum Experience 155 7 0 Active Recruitment 185 84 ________________________________________________________________________ Qualitative Results An essential step in the analysis of qu alitative data involves the development of categories (Constas, 1992). According to Goet z and LeCompte (1984, as cited in Constas, 1992), the goal of qualitative research is to reconstruct the partic ular categories that research participants employe d to conceptualize their own worldviews. The researcher utilized a modified method of the Stevic k-Colaizzi-Keen Meth od of Analysis of Phenomenological data (Moustakas, 1994) to organize and analyze the verbatim transcript of the participants beliefs about assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students. The following steps were taken: Reviewed each statement for significance as they described the experience of assessing the language skills of bilingua l/bicultural/bidialectal children. Recorded all statements relevant to the phenomenon; included all statements that were relevant to Research Questions 1, 3, and 4.
130 Listed each non-repetitive, non-overl apping statement; redundant and vague responses were omitted. These statements are the invariant horizons or meaning units of the experience of assessing bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal children. Associated and clustered the inva riant meaning units into themes. Provided frequency data on the descriptiv e statements/ideas according to the percentage of speech-language pathologists who commented about each theme that emerged. Synthesized the invariant mean ing units and themes into a description of the textures of the experience. Verbatim examples were included. Reflected on textural de scription and constructed a description of the structures of the experience through imaginative variation. Constructed a textural-structural description of the meanings and essences of the experience; descriptions represented the participants views about their professional efficacy beliefs and perceived supports and barriers to assessing the language skills of bi lingual/bicultural/bidi alectal students. Perceived supports were evident throughout the interview transcripts. When asked what supports were needed, the following six themes emerged: Need for standardized tests in multiple languages and multicultural contexts Need more Bilingual speech-language pathologists Need more exposure to diverse students during clinical practicum experience Need more resources Need more research focus on multicultural speech-language issues Need ASHA requirement for certificati on in another language; Need required
131 continuing education units/credits specifically in multicultural issues Each of these themes is described in what follows. Table 17 contains the raw intensity effect sizes for the six categories (themes) associated with perceived supports. Raw intensity effect sizes are based on numbers of participants selecting numerous themes (Onwuegbuzie & Teddie, 2003; Witche r, Onwuegbuzie, & Minor, 2001). Need for standardized tests in multip le languages and in multicultural contexts Fifty percent of the interview participants ( n = 10) reported a need for standardized tests in multiple languages and multicultural contexts. Interview participants believed that having tests in multiple languages is of critical im portance to the bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students they assessed and the field of speech-language pathology as a whole. An ideal test would put into account the cultural differences and the language differences between cultures or among cu ltures, but we dont live in an ideal world. (Asian speech-language pathologist) Having the proper test, like if you know ahead of time that you are going to be assessing a child whos bilingual, having the proper test, even if its just a simple, you know, vocabulary testThat would be help ful just to have a vocabulary base to see how their vocabulary is. (Haitian American speech-language pathologist) Further, participants acknowledged that certain language tests existed in the Spanish language. While language tests exist in the Spanish language, most of the speechlanguage pathologists interviewed stated that tests in other languages were primarily nonexistent and desperately needed. This is evident in the following statement: To be honest with you, I think its unfair cuz there are no standardized assessments for bilingual students, especi ally when they speak a language other than Spanish. They finally have instrument s that are in Spanish dialects, not just standardized Spanish, but Spanish dialects where lets say Spanish from Venezuela is not the same as Spanish from Pu erto Rico. But they dont have any standardized testing for students who sp eak a language other than Spanish and considering I dont speak Sp anish, I dont assess those st udents. I assess the other students and its hard. Like for instance, th e language sample. There is one part of
132 the language sample where they [students] have to give directions and the example they give is how to make a pea nut butter and jelly sandwich. That is an American thing. I mean, growing up, I never had peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. I didnt have peanut butter a nd jelly sandwiches until I was in college cuz thats not something that as Haitians we do. We always do the traditional rice and beans stuck together with chicken or traditional Hait ian dishes. We dont have dishes like that. The closest we ha ve is like bread and butter and its not even the same way Americans do it. We do ours completely different. So a lot of the examples we have, if you are not really from this country, the child is at a disadvantage and being charged and grad ed incorrectly. (Haitian American speech-language pathologist) However, some of the interviewees stated that while tests exist in the Spanish language, they are limited. They do not take into considerat ion the variou s within-group differences in the Spanish language and cultu re. Differences in vocabulary, for example, exist where one word in San Salvador may mean something very different in Puerto Rico. Some of the tests are offered in Spanis h but we are also in a sense kind of limited as to what we can and cant use as well as availability of some measures and screeners and things like that. some tests, the biases in the test, for instance, the CELF (Clinical Evaluation of Language Functions) -Spanish. Depending on where the child is from depends on how I score it. For instance, I know for a fact that ch ildren from north Puerto Rico, theyll say nena instead of nina so that test will count that wrong. I would have to count that as wrong. Some participants acknowledged that more tests are now taking into consideration dialectal variations of the English language when testing an area such as syntax. I know that like the new PLS [Preschool Language Scale] and like right now the CELF-3, they have things that you k now, characteristics of the different languages, mostly Spanish, and dialectical variations so that way you are not scoring the child incorrectly. However, one participant spoke of a conflict be tween the allowances of such tests and the automatic assumption that all students of a r ace/ethnicity, particularly a student of color, use the same speech patterns. This is reflected in the following statements:
133 One thing I have a huge problem with and I dont know if this is relevant with African Americans a lot of the tests allo w like if they make a mistake, and say hisself its okay. I have a problem with that because especially if I know the class (SES) that person is from because one thing I like to do is try to get to know the parents, try to get to know the background of the childand if the childs socioeconomic status is a little bit higher and the family is not speaking the Ebonics, then Im going to count it wrongbut it has not been like that. Because hes African American its okay for him. (Latina speech-language pathologist) I assessed a White child who was comi ng from a low income (background). I knew the area he lived in and I heard his mother speak. I gave him the CELF-3 and I believe its one of the syntax portions, where the hisself herself that portion, I cant remember what it is offhand. Well, he said hisself and many people were telling me to mark it wrong but I said I heard his mom say it. How can I mark it wrong? Hes getting that at home, his community. Because, once I brought that up, then they didnt know what to do. Either I was going to mark it right or wrong. I marked it right b ecause its almost to me discriminatory in another way. Because hes White you ha ve to mark it wrong? (Latina speechlanguage pathologist) Need more bilingual sp eech-language pathologists A second theme that emerged was the need for more bilingual speech-langu age pathologists. Ninety percent of the interview participants belie ved that it was more appr opriate for a bilingual speechlanguage pathologist to assess bi lingual children. Many of the interviewees stated that a backlog of bilingual students, waiting to be assessed, was common because of the lack of accessible bilingual speech-language pathologists in their counties. Of the bilingual speech-language pathologists employed by the school districts, most of them were English/Spanish speakers only. This caused a dilemma for students who spoke a foreign language other than Spanish. I honestly just think, in summary, that I would prefer to use a speech pathologist. I mean, of course I know that this is in a perf ect world, but Im not really comfortable using interp reters. If you need an interp reter, its the next best thing probably to a speech pa thologist in the field. I think there are only four bilingual speech pathologists in ______________ County, speaking Spanish, from what Ive been told. (African American speech-language pathologist)
134 Since I am one of the few bilingual SLPs that speaks Creole, usually that list is long and its timely so its not done in th e most efficient manner. Unfortunately, I have to make an additional referral to one of the Spanish speaking SLPs in the county and test the student. I could be waiting about a month for a kid to be assessed. (Haitian American speech-language pathologist) If the child is completely bilingual speaking I really think that translators are great but a speech therapist that has been, I dont know how I should say this, but is qualified to test in both the Englis h and Spanish, a bilingual speech pathologist, should be the one to assess the child becau se they can maybe pull things out in Spanish versus English as well as know ing the test. (Latina speech-language pathologist) Sometimes we need to look beyon d standard scores and use our clinical judgment. Just because a psyc hological test says that the dominant language is English does not necessarily mean that you could only test them in English. I feel that even if you test them in English th ey should be referred to a bilingual therapist to be tested in Spanis h also and compare results for me to be more accurate. (Latina speech-language pathologist) Well I think that the ideal situation woul d be that a speech-language pathologist assess these children in their language. (White speech-language pathologist) Need more exposure to diverse student s during clinical practicum experience When asked about their graduate school experiences, 60% of the speech-language pathologists reported that they wanted their practica to incl ude more experiences with a wide variety of students, pa rticularly those from cultura lly and linguistically diverse backgrounds. They believed this experience would have better prepared them to provide speech and language services with this population, as characterized by the following: Just is not anywhere representative of wh ats in the general population, not at all, not enough diversity, at least not when I was in school. It may have changed now and maybe a better effort is being made towards that because maybe somebody is doing just what youre doing, talking about it rather than saying okay this is what you might see. No, put me in an environm ent where I can see this and I can see that and I can see because its out there. I am sure there are people who would be happy to allow the university to do a colla borative type of th ing with the school district even to say you know what, all right we are going to go to this particular area and look at this population or a school that is fully diverse just to get this exposure. It would be important because it really would prepare you then for what
135 youre going to face when you get out of school. I mean, not everybodys just a phonetically impaired child that needs a litt le articulation therapy. (African American speech-language pathologist) One thing that I regretted about my mast ers training was that I didnt have the opportunity to work with a lot of cu lturally diverse populations. (Haitian American speech-language pathologist) I think there should be, like for instance, youve got an internship usually in different settings. I say even with the settings, they should also have a certain amount of hours with multicultu ral people. We really need to be exposed and in a lot of places they dont do that. I me an you dont get a chance to anyway, you take what you can get, as far as hours. But I think also socioeconomic not just cultural but socioeconomic. (Latina speech-language pathologist) Need more resources. Another theme that emerged was the need for more resources such as an easily accessible staffed cleari nghouse. Sixty percent of the interview participants reported the need for more resources. Specifically, the interview participants stated that a cen ter, website with more than articles, or a cross-county network of resources and available cultura lly and/or linguistically diverse speechlanguage pathologists would be beneficial. The following statements provide a description: Well, I think they should appoint in ever y school district, Id take the top ten urban school districts, ther e should be an appointment of a person who deals with multicultural issues. For example, there should be a go to person in each urban school district, urban being a school district that had a majority of, 40% or more ethnic minority students at least. Then maybe there should be a region, like, you know if a school district like, for exam ple, in our case, ___________ is more of an urban school setting; perhaps ther e should be someone you could go to, a clinician. She could probably speak to the issues of multicultural issues in education and perhaps multi cultural issues in spe ech pathology. (African American speech-language pathologists) I think there needs to be a way to go and obs erve and talk to other therapists in the field that have more experience in this ar ea. I think there needs to be maybe even a website that people can go and ask que stions and get responses to, you know. Im having this case scenario and what ar e some things to do or options to go forth with. I know ASHA has a website that you can go to and ask questions but I think it also needs to, in some cases, it need to be a quicker response time than
136 plugging in your questions a nd waiting for a response. (Latina speech-language pathologist) At least to have a website where we can go to and just type in a region and type in an area and get an example of the dialectical differences. (Haitian American speech-language pathologist) Sometimes you dont have access to somebody th ats bilingual in your school that can translate. How do you go about finding assistance or programs out there? Are there resourceswhere do you go to look fo r this information?...because surfing the web is great but sometimes its very frustrating too when you cant find exactly what you are looking for in the first c ouple of attempts for somebody that has limited patience? (Latina speech-language pathologist) I think we need to network for one another. If were in the county, having an area where we have questions. I think there should be a criteria set up. I think the county in itself should have support, cont acts. We may not have someone who speaks Creole but, hey, there may be a speech therapist outside that can help give us ideas. (Latina speech-language pathologist) Need more research focus on multicultural speech-language issues Of the 10 interview participants, three (30%) felt that more research is needed in the areas of assessment and treatment of bilingual/bicultu ral/bidialectal student s. Further, these speech-language pathologists reported the need to develop more materials and researchbased practices in multicultural speech-language issues, as exemplified by the following: Its just based on what your knowledge is, somore people wanting to go get their doctorates to give therapists like me the materials they need [to provide effective speech-language services]. (Latina speech-language pathologist) In our field theres not enough research being done on it and maybe if ASHA probably made that a priority for them to receive those type of, develop those type of materials, it could be Even though its becoming more and more important and more prevalent, I just dont see it as something thatsI think we are now just beginning to address Spanish. We kind of have dealt somewhat with African American English. (African American speech-language pathologist) Need ASHA requirement for certification in a language other than English; Need continuing education units/credits specifically in multicultural issues Forty percent of
137 the interview participants believed that they were at a disadvantage because of their inability to speak another language. Further, 60 % of these professionals felt that requiring certification in a language other than Eng lish and a specific number of continuing education units in multicultu ral speech-language issues would increase the knowledge base of speech-language pathologists. Cu lturally responsive practices would increase while the misidentification of culturally a nd linguistically diverse students as language disordered would decrease. The followi ng statements provide a description of participants beliefs regarding this theme: I say require having the continuing educa tion. I would expect myself to go into more continuing education courses for bili ngual students. I dont have that much of a caseload when it comes to dialectal students, but I think I should have the requirement, for ASHA to have a requirem ent that we should have some kind of class of that sort or c ontinuing education courses. (Latina speech-language pathologist) I think, specifically, for speech pathologist s to become nationally certified, ASHA does not require you to have a language co mponent or that addresses cultural groups, not that I know of. I honestly thi nk they should have a requirement in their program. (African American speech-language pathologist) I think speech pathologists should be given the chance a nd also be aided by the county to receive certifications in other languages. Just as an example, I have never learned academically the way to write Creole. I took French in high school and college and I can read and write in Fr ench. I can read somewhat in Creole but I have never been able to write in it and I would have loved to have that opportunity to have someone instruct me. (Haitian American speech-language pathologist) I think, requiring us, just as if you have to have a medical record errors 2 hours, or HIV update. So, maybe we need that require ment so that we are forced to unite and to move forward with this and make su re that we are fair to the people we are serving. (White speech-language pathologist)
138 Table 17 Summary of Raw Intensity Effect Si zes for Themes Associated with Perceived Supports ________________________________________________________________________ Generic Category Raw Intensity Effect Sizes ( n = 10) ________________________________________________________________________ Standardized tests in multiple languages .5 Bilingual speech-language pathologists .9 Exposure to diverse students .6 More resources .6 Research focus on multicultural speech-language issues .3 ASHA requirement .6 ___________________________________________________________________ Research Question 4: What do speech-language pathologis ts perceive as barriers to assessing the language skills of bilingua l/bicultural/bidialectal students? Quantitative Results In Item 37 on the survey, respondents indi cated what problems they encountered in assessing bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students with language disorders. This item addressed Research Question 4. Table 18 contains a summary of the data for the following problems: (a) lack of knowledge of cl ients culture (b) l ack of knowledge of the nature of second language acquisition (c) difficult to distinguish a language difference from a language disorder), (d) lack of av ailability of interp reters who speak the individuals language, (e) lack of availability of interprete rs who speak the individuals dialect, (f) lack of availab ility of bilingual speech-language pathologists who speak the individuals language, (g) lack of availability of bidialectal speech-language pathologists who speak the individuals dialect, (h) lack of developmental norms and standardized assessment tools in languages other than Eng lish, (i) lack of developmental norms and standardized assessment tools in speakers of nonstandard di alects, (j) time allocated by your employer for assessment administration, scor ing, and interpretation, (k) utilizing test
139 scores of translated tests, and (l) language tests publis hed in a language other than English with flawed normative samples. In te rms of problems, lack of availability of bilingual speech-language pathologists, lack of developmental norms and standardized assessment tools in languages other than English, and lack of availabi lity of interpreters were the problems most fre quently reported by respondents. Table 19 is a summary of responsibilities. In terms of responsibility for assessment (Item 36 on the survey), partic ipants were asked who should provide language assessment to bilingual/bidialectal students with language problems. Respondents were to choose the statement th ey agreed with the most out of five possibilities: bilingual educa tion specialists, English as a second language specialists (ESL), speech-language patholog ists, professionals should coll aborate, and other. In the space provided for other, respondents prim arily specified bilingual speech-language pathologists as the professionals who should be responsible for a ssessment. Altogether, respondents most frequently c hose collaboration (58%). Table 18 Problems Encountered by Speech-Language Pathologists _____________________________________________________________________________ Problem Frequency % _____________________________________________________________________________ Cultural Knowledge 74 33 Second Language Acquisition 64 29 Distinguishing Disorder vs. Difference 89 40 Available Interpreters (Language) 123 56 Available Interpreters (Dialect) 75 34 Available Bilingual SLPs 147 67 Available Bidialectal SLPs 82 37 Standardized Assessment Language 133 60 Standardized Assessment Dialect 94 43 Allotted Assessment Time 67 30 Translated Test Scores 74 33 Flawed Normative Samples 58 2 6 (In tests published in other language)
140 Table 19 Summary of Responsibility Responses ______________________________________________________________________________ Responsible Professional Frequency % ______________________________________________________________________________ Bilingual Education Specialists 17 8 ESL Specialists 6 3 Speech-Language Pathologists 36 16 Professional Should Collaborate 128 58 Other 34 15 ______________________________________________________________________________ Qualitative Results The researcher utilized a modified method of the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Method of Analysis of Phenomenologi cal data (Moustakas, 1994), prev iously stated, to organize and analyze the verbatim transcript of the participants beliefs regarding barriers to assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicul tural/bidialectal students. Like supports, perceived barriers were evident throughout the interview transcripts. In addition to the above bulleted perceived supports the following five themes regarding barriers emerged: Limited coursework on multicultural speech-language issues at graduate level Existing coursework / professional development training must provide information that is more specific No protocol / systematic method in place Interpreters facilitate process in absence of a bilingual speech-language pathologist, but are not tr ained in test protocol Difficulty distinguishing a language di fference from a language disorder Table 20 is a summary of intens ity effect sizes for the five categories (themes) associated with interview participants perceived barriers.
141 Limited coursework on multicultural speech-language issues at graduate level ; Existing coursework / professional development training must provide information that is more specific Most (80%) interview participants reported that they received a minute number of graduate-level coursework in the area of multicultural speech-language issues. I think we need more than one course a nd I think we need it introduced earlier on than right at the end of your gra duate studies. (White speech-language pathologist) You know, I dont recall any specific coursework. Every class will touch on, oh you have to worry about cultural divers ity or environmental aspects about a specific culture and things like that, but there was never any type of definitive course that focused on all of these issues that can and do arise when working with (these children). (Latina speech-language pathologist) They primarily believed that the coursework and inservice training taken only glossed over topics. These speech-language patholog ists would have preferred information specific to various dialects languages, and cultures. Ive taken several courses and they might ha ve talked more about the general but, youre not really walking aw ay with anything and some of the people who have taught me have known less than me. (African American speech-language pathologist) I think we should have at least a reso urce. We should have our own books on the culture in terms of not only the langu age spoken but the cu lture, about how to approach different cultures, like the littl e girl I was talking to you about. Theyre from more of a Muslim background and you dont really speak to the woman as much. The man is the decision maker. (African American speech-language pathologist) When asked if there was a content area that they would have liked either to receive training in or additional information about, one speech-language pathologist responded: having a class on learning language devel opment and maybe the top five other languages that are spoken, like Asian, Spanish, Arabic, you know, other languages that are predominantly spoken in the United States, really looking through the language development of othe r languages and the linguistics of that too, a linguistic program. (Latina speech-language pathologist)
142 No protocol / systematic method in place Added to the above theme was participants belief that a specific prot ocol or systematic method on assessing bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students be developed and implemen ted. Specifically, half (50%) of these speech-language pathologists fe lt a step-by-step how to approach would be most beneficial and assist them with meeting the needs of the diverse student learners they serve. having even a rubric of some of the major diverse languages in the country and what to look for and what not to look for and what in these particular languages will let you know if its a disorder or notDefinitely something that I could reference if I needed to. (Haiti an American speech-language pathologist) Maybe creating something to be aware of, lik e a checklist or list of things for us to be aware of but also having considerat ion that maybe not ev erything is on that list. (Latina speech-language pathologist) More pertinent guidelines, from our employersfrom our county, to say if you have a bilingual child this is what you need to do because there is not a real clear road for us. A lot of it is left up to us to make that judgment call. (White speechlanguage pathologist) Interpreters facilitate process in absence of a bilingual speech-language pathologist, but are not tr ained in test protocol All of the interview participants reported that while bilingual speech-p athologists were the ideal professionals for assessing bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students, interpreters were often used because of the limited availability of bilingual speech-langua ge pathologists. Fu rther, the use of interpreters in the absence of a bilingual speech-language pathologist facilitated the assessment process, which included communi cating with students parents. However, these speech-language pathologists acknowledge d that they were limited to interpreters who were not trained in test protocol. Moreover, not bei ng proficient in a students particular language left them unsure as to whether the untrained in terpreter asked test
143 questions without providi ng contextual clues. I usually ask one of the bilingual aides to interpret for me and a lot of times they have difficulty coming up with the in terpretation, you know the words, and especially the sentence structure. But we do have some formal tests with the Spanish protocol and that makes it easier But I feel a lot of times like Im not sure if they are asking the questions corre ctly because I dont know what they are saying and I sometimes feel like they give too much support or too much information and again I wonder about the valid ity of the test at that point. (White speech-language pathologist) Difficulty distinguishing a language difference from a language disorder The final theme that emerged was participants difficulty with distinguishing a language difference from a language disorder in th e bilingual/bic ultural/bidialectal students referred to them. Four out of 10 of these sp eech-language pathologist s reported that this was a challenge for them. The major challenge is really making sure that your diagnosis is correct because you wouldnt want to say that its a langua ge difference when it really was a disorder. (Haitian American speech-language pathologists) I think a challenge is, again, I make sure that I am looking at the dialect so that I am not labeling a child as having a delay or disorder when it actually may just be a difference. (White speech-language pathologist) Table 20 Summary of Raw Intensity Effect Sizes for Themes Associated with Perceived Barriers ______________________________________________________________________________ Generic Category Raw Intensity Effect Sizes (n = 10) ______________________________________________________________________________ Limited coursework/ Non-specific Existing courses .7 No protocol / systematic method .5 Untrained Interpreters 1.0 Language difference vs. disorder .4 ________________________________________________________________________
144 Section Three Reflective analysis I would be remiss in carrying out this research study without acknowledging the personal biases that I br ing as one with insider knowledge. As an insider, I share in experiencing the phenomenon of asse ssing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students. I s ubsequently learned that I was not alone in considering myself an insider. My participants regarded me as an insider also. This was confirmed by such statements as Ill help youyoure one of us and You dont need to provide an incentive, Ill do it just b ecause of who you are (a speech-language pathologist). Those who agreed to particip ate were ecstatic that someone was actually conducting research on this very important topi c. They believed that the findings of this study would provide assistance with this challenging situation. Added to my personal experiences of this phenomenon ar e the cultural and linguistic experiences I bring as a bicultural and bidialectal indivi dual. Together, they influence my perceptions and practices as a researcher as well as a speech-language pathologist. Thus, this component focuses on my reflections of these experiences as well as the implications and possible e ffect on the results of the study. The purpose of this reflective analysis allo ws readers to delve into my experiences of assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidial ectal students. Further, it provides clarification of how these experiences intersect with my experiences as a bicultural/bidialectal individual. It also gives an account of what sparked my interest in this topic and what guided my inquiry. Acco rding to a fellow colleague, an experience led me into this inquiry, but who I am keeps me here. I was born on the island of Saint Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. However,
145 I spent my first few years of life in Brookl yn, New York. I subsequently moved back to Saint Thomas with my family the summer after I completed the fourth grade. Up until that point, I knew nothing about Saint Thomas ot her than the fact that it is an island in the Caribbean and my birthplace. Growing up in New York, I naturally demons trated a regional dialect and accent. I primarily spoke Standard American English (SAE). While I was aware that my parents and some friends of the family spoke with a different accent than I did, I never thought about it beyond that. I was a New Yorker from Brooklyn. When we returned to the Caribbean, I became aware of a new culture and a new way of living. Life in the fast lane now became life in the slow lane! City streets and skyscrapers were replaced with two lane roads and primarily single story buildings. They even drove on the left side of the road. Stories of Cinderella and Snow White were replaced with stories of Anansi and Cowfoot Woman. Codfish became saltfish. Sweet potato became yam. In addition to hot dogs hamburgers, and pizza, I grew to love calaloo, johnnycake and cheese, and conch. In addition to playing double-dutch, I played Chinese jump rope. Childhood fears of ghos ts hiding under the bed became jumbies. While I learned about Shakespeares Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet in English literature, math story problems and grammar exercises were also written in a Caribbean context. Additionally, I learned about Caribbean history in addition to United States history. I became increasingly aware of the differences between my speech patterns and that of my peers. I learned about the African slaves use of a pidgin language or tongue as a means of communication among themselves (many spoke different African languages) and their masters on plantations in the West Indies. Sl avery ended earlier in
146 the West Indies as a result of slave revolts and the tropical climate. Unable to cope with the climate and accompanying mosquitoes, many plantation owners abandoned their estates. The emancipated slaves maintain ed the language as well as some African traditions and passed it down to future generations in the islands. Today, patois is a natural Caribbean dialect spoken by most locals. I should note that within group variations of patwa exis t across the Caribbean. My classmates also were very aware that I spoke differently from them. Despite learning about my Caribbean heritage, they fr equently called me a yankee. Just about everyone who exhibited speech patterns from th e mainland (a term used by U.S. Virgin Islanders to refer to the States) were called yankees whether they were from New York or Alabama. I became the subject of teasing. De sperate to fit in, I embraced this new way of speaking. I must have mastered it well b ecause my father took notice. He was not pleased at all with the dial ect that I now used to communicate with and made it his business to let me know. I could not understand what the issue was. After all, I was now speaking like him. Why wa s he showing disdain for his own dialect? As I look back at that time and conv ersations that have since followed, I recognize that my father did not make those statements because he had disdain for his heritage. He did not correct me because he regarded Standard American English as a superior dialect of English. Rather, he was aware that social forces beyond his control would judge me based on my speech patterns. Speaking what was then (and continues to be) referred to as broken English would cat egorize me as ignorant and unlearned. My father knew that I would eventually return to the mainland one day. He was preparing me to be successful in a mainstream American society that regarded anything different as
147 deviant. I returned to the mainland to attend college. I met fellow classmates from New York and realized that I had not forgotten the speech patterns I previously learned. It felt natural returning to the same dialect as th ese classmates. We spoke a form of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) in addi tion to SAE. I spoke SAE by day in my classes and a form of AAVE by night among my friends. I also maintained my ability to speak my Caribbean dialect with family memb ers and individuals from other islands in the Caribbean. I learned to operate in duality. To this day, this is who I am. If there were such a word, one could say I operate in triality. I currently maneuver around the dominant mainstream culture as well as the African American and Caribbean subcultures. I took classes in public speaking and voice and diction at the undergraduate level. These classes naturally required students to give speeches and presentations on various topics. One assignment sticks out in my mind. Students were asked to choose a particular piece of literature and read aloud to the entire class. For this assignment, I chose to read a frequently cited passage from the New International Version of the Bible. I chose not to read this passage from the King James Vers ion because I wanted to ensure that my classmates understood what I was reading. My professor commented that it would have read better had I chosen to read from the King James Version instead. In my opinion, the beauty was in what was being conveyed. In c ontrast, she felt that it just wasnt the same. I remember receiving instruction on what I was told was the correct way to pronounce certain words. I remember receivi ng instruction on the one right way to deliver a presentation and feelings of inferi ority. None of the above took into account the influences that culture has on diction and presentation style. I am a story teller. I present
148 information in a round about way, much like my African and Caribbean ancestors. However, the use of circumlocution: expressing thoughts with unnecessary words (The New Merriam-Webster Dictionar y, 1989) was frowned upon. I needed to get to the point. In my opinion, the connection between langua ge and culture is undeniable. It is impossible to separate the two. They are intertwined and dependent upon each other. Why should I or any bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal individual be as ked to leave who we are outside of the classroom? I am a pr oud African Caribbean American (without the hyphen, please). All three are si gnificant to my existence. All three personify who I am. While working on my masters degree, I completed my school internship at an elementary school located in a middle-class neighborhood. A teacher made a referral of a White male student for articulation errors. I wi ll call him Charles to protect his privacy. According to his teacher, Charles did not pronounce the /th/ sound in words. Instead, he substituted the /t/ sound for /th/. During the sc reening process, I developed a rapport with him. Rather than focus solely on a screener I engaged Charles in conversation about his hobbies and family. I noticed that he demonstrated a similar speech pattern to my own when I communicated with a Caribbean dialect I subsequently learned that Charles father was previously employed by a company in Saint Thomas. Charles lived with his dad in Saint Thomas during this time. He ad apted to the culture of the islands, which included the use of a Caribbean dialect or p atois. Charles speech patterns were not characteristic of a disorder. Rather, they were characteristic of a difference. My internship supervisor was relieved that I was present during this referral. I was relieved as well. However, Charles teacher had to be reassured that substituting /t/ for /th/ was a normal feature of speaking patwa a nd that it was okay to speak this dialect.
149 This incident stayed in my mind throughout the years. What would have happened to Charles had I not been there? Worse, how many more children were misidentified as having a speech and/or language disorder when in fact they were exhibiting a speech and/or language difference? How many more bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students were propelled into special educa tion programs in the absence of a bilingual/bicultura l/bidialectal speech-language pathol ogist and/or cultu rally responsive practitioner? At the masters level I enrolled in a cl ass that focused on counseling individuals and families of individuals with communication disorders. Like the other classes, one of the assignments required me to prepare a presentation on a given topic. The written comment that I received on my evaluation asked me to refrain from saying ax rather than ask. Although this corre ction was undertaken in a private manner, I was so embarrassed. From that day on, I made a conscious effort to pronounce that word with the /sk/ blend and not the x. I was one of four African American gra duate students out of approximately 30 students in my program. Not one professor, instructor, or clinical s upervisor looked like me. At that time, differences versus diso rders were not discussed in a culturally responsive manner. There was a one-size fits all mentality in my program. Standard American English was the yardstick against which all other dialects were measured against. Standardized ar ticulation and language assessments did not make accommodations for cultural and linguistic differences. Classes with a focus on cultural diversity did not exist. My clinical practic um and internships provided me with limited experiences with culturally and linguistically diverse clients. These clients were primarily
150 White, from middle-class backgrounds, and able to pay out-of-pocket therapy expenses at the clinic. How was this supposed to help me once I entered the real world of large caseloads primarily made up of African Am erican and Latino children? Unfortunately, these experiences were not isolated to my gr aduate program. I subsequently learned of similar experiences shared by other speech-language pathologists. It is interesting to learn that scholars such as Delores Battle, Harry Seymour, and Orlando Taylor published articles on multicul tural speech-language issues before I entered my graduate program in 1991. Why wa s this information not covered in any of my classes? Was this the resu lt of willful disregard for cu ltural differences, hegemony, or resistance to a differing point of view? My presence and the pr esence of other students of color should have been enough to justify the need for deve loping a culturally responsive curriculum. Not surprisingly, this hegemonic thinking spilled over into other disciplines as well. Early on in my career as a speech-langu age pathologist, I remember ever so often pronouncing a couple of words characteristic of patois. One of my colleagues, who happened to be a physical therapist and a White male, commented that my use of a dialect was not appropriate for a speech-langua ge pathologist. A conflict existed in me. I became increasingly self-conscious. I was a speech-language pathologist who happened to speak patois and a form of AAVE in addi tion to SAE. Did I have to give up speaking patois in order to be a speech-language pathologist? Did this come with the territory? The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1998, p. 382) defines patois as a dialect other than the st andard dialect; uneducated or provincial speech ; jargon. It is no wonder to me that mainstream America views a ny deviationdeparture or variation from
151 Standard American English as ignorant or wrong This sort of thinking has been instilled in the minds of many Americans, including me The first word that came to my mind was deviation. My final reflection involves providing serv ices to bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students as a speech-language pathologist. In addition to speaking patois and a form of AAVE, I studied the Spanish language up to my sophomore year in college. My birthplace, Saint Thomas, is geographically loca ted near the island of Puerto Rico. I have had the opportunity to participate in the La tino Caribbean culture. Further, I lived in Miami for eight years. At that time, I was very fluent in reading, writing, and understanding Spanish but not as fluent in speaking it. During my 12 years of experience as a speech-language pathologist, I have had the opportunity to work with many students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, both in and out of the classr oom setting. One of my students was a young Latino boy from Peru. He was a student in a self-contained language impaired class. I will call him Javier to protect his privacy. When I first met Javier, he was still learning the English language. His younger brother rece ived instruction in a full-time ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) classroom and was not diagnosed with a language disorder. His mother did not speak E nglish with the exception of a few words. I felt comfortable providing therap eutic intervention based on the recommendations of his initial evaluation. I spoke to Javier in Spanish (using basic vocabulary) and English in th e classroom setting to the dismay of the classroom teacher with whom I partnered. She believed that Standard American English only should be spoken in the classroom. As a matter of fact, this teacher would often tell our African
152 American English and Hispanic English Vernacular speakers not to speak dumbonics in the classroom. She never acknowledged the be auty of their cultural speech patterns. I would provide damage control and explain to the students that there was nothing wrong with their dialects, but they needed to lear n how to code switch or use both in the appropriate settings; unfortuna tely, others were not as accepting of their dialects. I was relieved that Javier was originally evaluated by another speech-language pathologist. I am not sure if the evaluator was a bilingual Spanish/ English speaker. This was most certainly a luxury. Bilingual spee ch-language pathologists were few and far between. Consequently, English language learners (ELLs) are often placed on an evaluation waiting list and can remain on this list well into the school year. Despite my comfortableness with the Spanish language, I certainly did not feel competent to speak with his mother during pare nt conferences, not without the assistance of an interpreter. I was aw are of within-group differences that exist in the Spanish language. As a result, a bilingual aide assisted me as my translator when communicating with his mother. While the bilingual aide is not from Peru, she speaks Spanish fluently and is of Latino descent. I remember times when she expressed difficulty translating certain words and phrases from Spanish to English and vice-versa. She also commented, at times, that certain words she used in Span ish to express a certain feeling were different than the words Javiers mom used. While I could keep up with the conversational exchange between the bilingual aide and Javiers mom, I was never 100% certain that the aide relayed the information accurately. Furthe r, she was not trained in test protocol. I certainly did not feel confident in performi ng a reevaluation even with the use of an interpreter and hoped that it would never come to that.
153 Although I suspected it, I late r learned that Javier wa s subsequently diagnosed with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactive diso rder) and a behavior disorder. He was removed from the self-contained classroom and placed into another setting. I have always considered the self-contained language impaired classroom to be a dumping ground, but that is an entirely different issue. Returning to the issue at hand, I wonder how much of the ADHD contributed to his learning diffi culties rather than a so-called language disorder. While the availability of bilingual Spanish/English speech-la nguage pathologists has increased considerably, there remains a lim ited number (or absence) of professionals who speak any other languages. For example, I have had to work with a student who only spoke Portuguese. The availability of bilingual speech-language pathologists or aides, who were proficient in the Portuguese language, was nonexistent at that time. The director of a local Islamic school re ferred a student to me for communication difficulty. He had contacted th e local school district and wa s desperate for an evaluation by a speech-language pathologist. However, Ali (name changed to protect his privacy) was about to turn 22 years four months later. During this time, students with disabilities did not received services in the public schools after the age of 21. Ali spoke Arabic and some English. Once again, a bilingual speech-language pathologist who also spoke Ar abic was not available. I re quested an interpreter who spoke Arabic in addition to English. The direct or of this school pr ovided me with this assistance. Prior to initiati ng the evaluation, I was able to obtain a case history report written by a professor of neurology and psychiat ry as well as a faculty of medicine at a university in Cairo Egypt. It was written in E nglish. Alis mother has a history of difficult
154 labor. Ali developed severe jaundice immediat ely following labor and has a history of delayed developmental milestones. I used the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT), Frenchay Dysarthria (slurred speech) Assessment, Oral and Written Language Scales (OWLS), and informal assessments to measure receptive and expr essive language skills. It was the most frustrating of my experiences w ith assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students. There were no language tests available to assess accurately this individual. The tests that were used were not available in the Arabic language. Further, some of the words on the K-BIT did not exist in Alis language. While I did notice a motor speech disorder with noticeable facial asymmetry and difficulty following directives, I did not feel comfortable diagnosing a language disorder. This was largely due to the language barr ier and use of an interpreter who was not trained in test protocol. I was not sure if th e interpreter restated what I said verbatim, modified my words to his preference, or provided Ali with clues. I felt thoroughly incompetent. Perhaps, this was truly competence in th at I knew enough to seek assistance in a culturally responsive manner. While I did pr ovide my findings to the Islamic schools director, I made recommendations for a psychol ogical evaluation to be conducted prior to a speech-language diagnosis. I did not continue with this case. I have come to realize that these experi ences are not solely my experiences. Many other speech-language pathologists of color have experienced the struggle of navigating between two cultures. In addition, the chal lenge of assessing the language skills of students who speak a language or dialect that we do not understand or speak transcends all racial groups. It is an im portant issue that has serious implications for the American
155 Speech, Language, and Hearing Association (ASHA), graduate schools that prepare speech-language pathologists, and local school districts. These implications are presented in detail in Chapter 5.
156 CHAPTER V Discussion This study examined (a) speech-language pa thologists beliefs about the language assessment of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students, (b) speech-language pathologists professional efficacy beliefs (both personal and general) as related to assessing the language skills of bilingual/b icultural/bidialectal students, and (c) reported supports and barriers to assessing the language skills of bilingua l/bicultural/bidialectal students. The researcher utilized a dominant-status sequentia l mixed-method design to obtain responses from 221 survey participants and 10 interview participants This chapter includes a summary of the findings, recommendations for district-level speech-language programs, the American Speech, Language, and Hearing Association (ASHA) focused initiatives, and university preparation programs. Additiona lly, implications for future research and limitations of the study are provided. Quantitative Analyses Quantitative analyses of speech-languag e pathologists professional efficacy beliefs revealed that most speech-language pathologists believed they personally were somewhat competent to assess the language skills of students who spoke languages and dialects they did not understand and/or sp eak. Further, speech-language pathologists primarily believed that most speech-language pathologists are somewhat competent in assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicul tural/bidialectal students. These findings
157 corroborated the results of Kritikos (2003). Th e majority of speech-language pathologists in that study reported low levels of prof essional efficacy. Specifically, these speechlanguage pathologists reported that they and the field in genera l were not competent or somewhat competent to assess the la nguage skills of multicultural/multilingual individuals. In this study, it was hypothesized that speech-language pathologists professional efficacy beliefs about assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students would vary as a function of (a) spe ech-language pathologists race/ethnicity, (b) years of experience as a speech-language pa thologist, (c) years of experience with children and youth, (d) percentage of student s from homes where a language other than English is spoken, (e) percentage of student s from homes where a dialect is spoken, (f) frequency of time spent with bilingual/bicultu ral/bidialectal students and their families, (g) years worked with bilingual/bicultural/b idialectal students, (h) proficiency in a language other than English, a nd (i) proficiency in a dialect While none of the predictor variables were significantly related to pers onal efficacy, one of the predictor variables (Hispanic/Latino) was significantl y related to general efficacy. Qualitative Analysis The qualitative analysis yielded slightly di fferent results. Reported personal efficacy beliefs did not vary as a result of years of experience, exposure to bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students and th eir families, level of bilingual proficiency, or level of bidialectal proficiency. Howeve r, speech-language pa thologists personal efficacy beliefs did vary as a function of race/ethnicity. Higher beliefs of personal efficacy existed among speech-language pathologists of color. These professionals
158 primarily reported that they were v ery competent or competent. While meeting with the independent ra ters, the research er questioned the professional efficacy beliefs of the speech-language pathologists of color. How could they feel very competent or competent wh en assessing the language skills of students who spoke languages that these professionals did not understand or speak? However, the independent raters both believed that th e speech-language pathologists felt more competent because of their own diverse backgr ounds. One of the raters noted that while these professionals of color may not have b een familiar with a particular language, they knew their limitations and knowing your limitati ons and seeking out assistance is a type of competence. Although this idea was not the initial thought of the researcher, she easily identified with the reasoning behind it. These speech-language pathologists of color were more in tune and articulate about seeking family input and cultural brokers from students ethnic backgrounds unfamiliar to them. All agre ed that the speech-language pathologists of color appeared better able to relate because of thei r own diverse backgrounds. They possessed what the researcher termed insider knowledge. The reported higher belief s of personal efficacy among the speech-language pathologists of color, even for languages a nd/or dialects they do not understand or speak, might be an indication of their ability to re late to their bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students. In accordance with findings from previ ous literature, this ab ility to relate with individuals from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds results from personal experiences and a feeling of having some thing in common with the students. The socialization process assists in dete rmining professionals perceptions, values,
159 and actions (Rios, 1996). Further, their persona l and professional expe riences as well as membership in a microcultural group (e.g., religious beliefs, et hnicity) affect the decisions they make, their knowledge, and th eir beliefs about assessment and therapy intervention (Kritikos, 2003; Porter & Brophy, 1988). Many of these speech-language pathologists of color experien ced similar events in their childhood, incidences of being referred for language delays or recommendation for retention because of language differences and a lack of available bilingual educational professiona ls knowledgeable in multicultural issues. Many saw themselves as advocates for bilingual/bicultura l/bidialectal students. These experiences shaped their thinking, particularly in the area of assessment, and subsequent practices. Further, their reported practices identified with cultura lly responsive actions that ranged from collaborating with families in order to prevent assumptions and stereotyping to teaching their students how to maneuver between two cultures (i.e., code switching). General efficacy beliefs, in contrast, di d not vary as a function of the above demographic variables. Unlike the survey results, the majority of speech-language pathologists who were interviewed believed that the field was not competent with regard to assessing the language skills of b ilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students. This may be related to the fact that the majority (80%) of interviewees were speech-language pathologists of color, in cont rast to the majority (83%) of survey respondents who were not speech-language pathologists of color. All interview participants believed that the field needed improvement in this area. Perceived supports and barriers as we ll as the demographics of survey respondents, which highlight low numbers of speech-language pathologists from
160 bilingual/bicultura l/bidialectal backgrounds, confirmed the needs of the field to address assessment and intervention practices of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students. Regarding perceived supports, respondents he ld the highest regard for the provision of more academic course work in this area, more practicum experience with bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students, and active recruitment of bilingual/bicultura l/bidialectal speech-language pa thologists. Regarding perceived barriers, respondents overwhelmingly reported the following: lack of availability of bilingual speech-language pathologists who speak the individuals language, lack of developmental norms and standardized assessm ent tools in languages other than English, difficulty distinguishing a language differen ce from a language disorder, and lack of availability of interpreters who speak the individuals language. Reported supports and barriers to assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students also coincided with survey responses. Themes that emerged emulated the survey responses as well as the results of Roseberry-McKibbin and Eicholtz (1994) and Roseberry-McKibbin et al., (in press). Although 11 years passed between survey administrations, they both yiel ded comparable results. The results from both studies indicated the need for more bi lingual speech-language pathologists. Further, they acknowledged their inability to speak a la nguage other than English as a barrier to working with students whose native language was not English. Other reported challenges were the limited availability of nonbiased in struments and the accessibility of bilingual professionals. Respondents also reported a great interest in receiving continuing education in general assessmen t and intervention procedures that were less biased and provided clarity in distinguish ing language differences from language disorders. Other
161 topics of interest included second language acquisition and developmental norms for first and second languages. Similarly, speech-language pathologists in the present study overwhelmingly expressed the need for more speech-language pathologists of color, particularly those who were bilingual. Most of these professionals believed that bilingual speech-language pathologists, rather than inte rpreters, should have the respon sibility of assessing bilingual children. Further, they expresse d most interpreters were not trained in te st protocol, interfering with the reliability and validity of the test results. A critical shortage of bilingual/bicultura l/bidialectal speech-language pathol ogists exists. The few who exist, particularly bilingual speech-language pathologists, are inundated with heavy caseloads (Banotai, 2004). In several of the interviews, speech-la nguage pathologists spoke of the limited coursework that existed at the graduate school level. Most would have preferred coursework that focused on specific issues of language assessment and treatment intervention relative to particular languages and dialects. Further, these speech-language pathologists expressed the need for more research-based, systematic approaches to the assessment and treatment of bilingual/bidialectal/bicultural students. Many suggested that graduate preparation programs beco me more apt at bridging theory to practice. They articulated the neces sity for clinical practicum experiences to model a caseload that would be found in th e real world as much as possible. Specifically, these speech-language pathologists reported that it was essential for clinical practicum speech-language pathology students to work with a culturally and linguistically diverse clientele before completing their gr aduate programs.
162 Upon graduating, speech-language patholog ists expressed the importance of maintaining professional development in the area of multicultural speech-language issues. Specifically, many reported the n eed for a required amount of continuing education units/hours/credits particularly in this area. Further, they suggested a requirement for all speech-langua ge pathologists to be cer tified/proficient in another language other than English. Speech-language pathologists also expressed the importance of the field in general and school districts in particular, providing more resources in the form of multicultural speech-language specialists, websites with qui cker response rates and live personnel, and cross-county networks of bilingual/bicultura l/bidialectal speech-language pathologists. These responses have serious implications for graduate preparation programs in communication sciences and disorders, sc hool districts, and the American Speech, Language, and Heari ng Association. Limitations There are several limitations to this st udy. Self-reported data present limitations. Further, the researchers race/ethnicity as an African Caribbean American and background as a speech-language pathologist pr esents limitations as well. Participants may have provided responses they perceived to be the correct answer or socially acceptable. This threat is known as r eactive arrangements (Onwuegbuzie, 2003). Another limitation in this study was the threat to population validity and ecological validity (McMillan, 2000; Onwue gbuzie, 2003). Research participants were limited to speech-language pathologists employe d by two central Florida school districts. It is possible that speech-language pathologists who reside in other areas of the state or
163 elsewhere in the nation would report different levels of professional efficacy beliefs as well as supports and barriers to assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students. Further, the percentage of female participants substantially outnumbered their male counterparts. As a result, the multiple regression analysis did not compare responses by gender. Further, only female speech-language pathologists were selected to participate in the follow-up interviews. Thus, information gathered from this study may be only applic able to female speech-language pathologists in these two central Flor ida school districts. Missing from the data is the opportunity to observe particip ants practices in assessing bilingual/bicultural/b idialectal students. Actual observations of participants practices would have allowed the researcher either to corroborate or to refute the presence of the reported beliefs. Finally, the researcher utilized an independent transcriptionist. Although inst ructed to record verbatim, so me responses may have been lost in translation. This posed a threat to descriptive validity and interpretive validity (Maxwell, 1992, 1996). Implications for Graduate Preparatory Programs Based on the findings of this study, a ma jor goal for communication sciences departments should be to ensure that pros pective speech-language pathologists represent the diversity of the American population. These programs should focus on the following: Actively recruit individuals who repres ent a rich variety of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Having a culturally a nd linguistically diverse representation of speech-language patholog ists will increase the number of these professionals who are prepared to assess the language skills of a diverse group of
164 students; Prepare individuals to be proficient in at least one language other than English and dialectal variations by including a variety of l anguages and dialects as part of the course work requirements Individuals will choose to learn or improve proficiency in at least one language and dialect, there by increasing the number of bilingual and bidialectal professionals in the field; Prepare individuals to embrace and value th e cultural differences represented in our diverse society It is not enough simply to tolera te or be aware of cultural and linguistic differences. Individuals, with the assistance of graduate preparatory programs, must come to the reali zation that more than one way of knowing exists. Specifically, in order for graduate preparation programs to prepare future practitioners to be cultura lly responsive, they must al so be prepared to embrace and appreciate multiple perspectives and the cultural diversity that exist among the American population; Provide students with more substanti ve information about individual cultures, languages, and dialects with ample practical experiences. Curriculum should be relevant, providing detailed information, a nd not glossed-over, politically correct terminology. Student speech-language pa thologists should be given many opportunities to work with culturally and linguistically diverse students and their families while completing their clinical practicum and internship experiences. Graduate preparatory programs should form partnerships with local school districts and other educationa l agencies, particularly in areas representative of a large number of culturally and linguistic ally diverse student learners; and
165 Focus active recruitment efforts on incr easing the numbers of doctoral students and faculty researchers of color, and thos e who are interested in expanding the knowledge base in this area Preparing future speech-language pathologists to provide culturally responsive services to bilingual/bic ultural/bidialectal students only can be accomplished through faculty w ho are knowledgeable in the areas of linguistic diversity, second language ac quisition, and cultural variations in language development. Increasing the number of diverse schola rs of color and those interested in multicultural speech-language issues will expand the knowledge base and assist graduate prep aratory schools with this challenge. They must possess knowledge and skills in the above areas, derived from active research agendas. Currently, language tests written in languages other than Spanish are lacking. Most standardized tests ha ve not included bilingual populations in their normative sampling (Banotai, 2004). One test was rece ntly developed with African American Vernacular English speakers in mind. Ho wever, many others have only made accommodations for these dialectal variations. Lisa Bedore, assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin, cautioned that it is possible for a person to be linguistically competent without being cu lturally competent and vi ce versa (Banotai, 2004). Having the ability to speak and/or unders tand a language is not enough. It must be accompanied by cultural competence training. One must be knowledgeable of culture and its interconnection with language. Cultural knowledge is defined as an individuals familiarity with specific cultural and behavior characteristics, history, values, and belief systems of members of anot her ethnic group (Adams, 1995). This knowledge must be
166 accompanied with cultural awareness which is, cultivating se nsitivity and understanding of another ethnic group (Adams, 1995). An individual who demonstrates cultural awareness is flexible and open to cultural differences (Adams, 1995). An individual who demonstrates cultural sensitivity knows that cultural differences as well as similarities exist but does not judge (i.e., negatively or pos itively) those cultural differences (National Maternal and Child Health Resource Center on Cultural Competency, 1997). However, this knowledge does not solely make an individual culturally competent. Achieving cultural competence goes beyond knowledge, awareness, and sensitivity of cultural morays and characteristics of a select ethnic group. It is a set of corresponding behaviors, att itudes, and policies that co me together in a system, organization, or among professionals and enables that system, organization, or those professionals to operate effici ently in crosscultural situa tions (Cross, Bazron, Dennis, & Isaacs, 1989). Operationally defined, cultural competence is demonstrated when knowledge about individuals and groups of pe ople are integrated and transformed into specific standards, policies, practices and at titudes, and used in appropriate cultural settings to increase the quality of servi ces; thereby producing be tter outcomes (Davis, 1997). Implications for ASHA ASHA has shown a definite desire to expand the knowledge base through its Focused Initiatives. Currently, ASHA is in the process of updating its guidelines as they relate to the assessment and therapeutic intervention of individuals who are culturally and/or linguistically diverse. Recommendations to ASHA include: A stricter regulation of c ontinuing education units/hours. ASHA should lead state
167 certification and licensing boards in requi ring speech-language pathologists to dedicate a set number of hours towa rd assessment and treatment of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal individuals. As interview participants commented, speech-language pathologists have been required to enroll in continuing education courses/trainings for annual HIV/AIDS updates, biannual CPR renewal, and annual medical errors updates, regardless of their work setting (i.e. hospital or school). Many suggested that the multi cultural speech and language issues requirement would be more relevant; A requirement for speech-language pathologists to become proficient in a language other than English. ASHA should collaborate wi th graduate preparation programs to outline standards for establishing proficiency. Many pre-major undergraduate programs alrea dy have this requirement as part of the general liberal arts curriculum. This requirement for speech-language pathologists would involve greater detail than the mere conjugation of vocabulary words and would become a regular part of the graduate curriculum. In addition to becoming proficient in a language, speech-language pathologists should be immersed in a culture representative of the language they are learning through field experiences and practicum assignments. In addition to Spanish, speech-language pathologists should be given the opportunity and en couraged to learn other languages not traditionally taught, but often spoken by the students of color on their caseloads (e.g., Creole, Tagalog); Expand speech-language pathologists knowle dge in the area of dialectal variations. Expanding speech-language pathologists knowledge in the area of
168 dialectal variations must go beyond solely relying on a test that may include an addendum to a few grammatical structur es of a particular dialect. These professionals must be cautioned not to assume that every African American, for example, speaks African American Ve rnacular English. Cultural competence training will equip these professionals with knowledge necessary to provide appropriate services to children a nd youth who speak various dialects. The researcher is not suggesting that speech-language pathologists, who are regular speakers of standard American English (SAE), speak a dialect as their mode of communication. However, culturally compet ent speech-language pathologists embrace their students dialects as respected a nd viable means of communication. Further, information will be gained from a culturally responsive assessment process, one in which the clinician involves the family. Finally, some speech-language pathologists characterized ASHAs resource website as pinch hitting and providing no definitive answer, whereas others expressed the need for more easily accessible experts to be on-hand. This difficulty is enhanced when the ASHA representative is not knowledgeable of state mandates. Further, they expressed that t ypically there is only one design ated expert in a particular area to provide assistance. Consequently, this expert often is unava ilable, resulting in voicemails, multiple referrals to other in dividuals, and poor response rates (i.e., unreturned phone calls). Findings from this study support the need for ASHA to provide more experts, specialized in the area of multicultural/multilingual speech-language issues. Further, these experts must be more accessible and knowledgeable of state mandates related to speech-language pathology.
169 Implications for School District Level Speech-Language Supervisors As stated previously, the demographics of the American population are changing at a rapid rate (Martin & Mi dgley, 1999; Riche, 2000). America is becoming increasingly diverse and the public schools are experien cing this change as well (Blair, 2003). However, the number of bilingu al/bicultural/bidial ectal speech-language pathologists far outweighs the number of speech-language path ologists prepared to serve them (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000; U.S. Department of Education, 2001; U.S. Department of Education, 2001, Office of Special Edu cation Programs; Whitmire & Eger, 2003). In order to meet the needs of this divers e clientele, school districts must ensure that their speech-language pathologists are receiving the necessary resources to perform adequate services. Such resources must include: Actively recruiting (internati onally and nationally) of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal speech-l anguage pathologists to fill vacancy positions; Assisting immigrant speech-language pathologists with work visas; Providing more professional development workshops in this area that focus on specific issues of cultural divers ity with real-life examples; Utilizing local and national consultants w ho are experts in multicultural speechlanguage issues; Providing current employees with extensive tr aining to serve as lead clinicians in this area specifically; and Collaborating with nearby school districts to pool resources in this area (borrow bilingual/bicultura l/bidialectal speech-language pa thologists, share the cost of
170 bringing in consultants or inte rdistrict trainings). Implications for Future Research As stated previously, educational research ers have placed a larger focus on teacher perceptions, self-efficacy beliefs, and subseque nt practices when working with students of color. Related professionals, such as speech -language pathologists, have been left out of the dialogue. Consequently, limited studies with a focus on speech-language pathologists beliefs in providi ng services to culturally and li nguistically diverse students exist. In fact, this study is one of two st udies with a specific focus on speech-language pathologists professional efficacy beliefs. To some extent, the present data revealed findings that were consistent with the prev ious study (Kritikos, 2003). Future research might continue in the mixed method tradition or focus solely on either the quantitative or qualitative research traditions. The following recommendations for future research stem from the following findings: Develop cases of real-life examples Case studies with specific scenarios related to assessment and treatment of culturally and linguistically diverse students could be developed. Speech-language pathologists c ould provide responses to a series of cases that simulate the world in which th ese professionals work. This would serve to enhance data collection in the form of triangulation. The researcher could determine whether differences truly exist across groups of speech-language pathologists (i.e., race/ethni city, years of experience); Modify survey. The survey used in this study primarily grouped bilingual/bicultural bidialectal student s as a whole. Perhaps, a modified questionnaire would separate the above in to separate distinctions. This would
171 provide the researcher with any differen ces in professional efficacy beliefs that speech-language pathologists may have regarding bilingual and bidialectal students; Engage in participant observation or case studies Participant observation and case studies of speech-language pathologists would provide greater in-depth information concerning their professional efficacy beliefs. The researcher could ask questions that are more specific about beliefs as it relate s to race/ethnicity, culture, linguistic diversit y, and role of the parents. Although time consuming, the researcher would gain a voluminous amount of information obtained over time; and Replicate the study Replicating the study would c onfirm findings and add to a currently limited knowledge ba se in this area of rese arch. This study focused on participants employed by two large school districts. The researcher could include participants from other Florida counties accord ing to their district size (i.e., small, medium, large) to determine comparisons, across the state of Florida, or at a national level. While there is a wealth of information and studi es on teacher beliefs and practices, this is not the case for related professionals such as speech-language pathologists. Like educators, school-based speech-language pathol ogists provide services to culturally and linguistically diverse students and their fam ilies. Further, they share the responsibility with educators of ensuring an adequate educ ation for students with disabilities and those placed at risk in the least re strictive environment. Despite the educational implications, limited research in the area of speech-language pathologists beliefs and practices exist.
172 The limited presence of research focused on sp eech-language patholog ists in this area justifies the need for this present study. The purpose of this study was to examine speech-language pathologists (a) beliefs about the language assessment of bili ngual/bicultural/bidialectal students, (b) professional efficacy beliefs (both personal and general) as they relate to assessing the language skills of bilingual/b icultural/bidialectal students, and (c) reported supports and barriers to assessing the language skills of bilingu al/bicultural/bidial ectal students. The researcher was particularly interested in determining whether differences among speechlanguage pathologists beliefs existed based on the following factors: Race/ethnicity; Years of experience as a speech-language pathologist; Years of experience working with children and youth; Percentage of students fr om homes where a language other than English is spoken; Percentage of students from ho mes where a dialect is spoken; Frequency of time spent with bilingu al/bicultural/bidi alectal students; Years worked with bilingual/bic ultural/bidialectal students; Proficiency in a language ot her than English; and Proficiency in a dialect The findings from this study provide a rationale for the active recruitment of culturally and linguistically diverse speech-la nguage pathologists and researchers focused on multicultural speech-language issues, clea rer guidelines and protocol for providing services to bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal student learners, more practicum and internship
173 experiences with bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students, and preservice and inservice cultural competence training. Furt her, these findings support the need for further research in this area. Information gathered from subsequent studies will expand the current dialogue, adding to the knowledge base of speech-language pathologists professional efficacy beliefs as well as supports and ba rriers to assessing th e language skills of bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students.
174 References Adams, D. L. (Ed.). (1995). Health issues for women of color: A cultural diversity perspective Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Adger, C., Wolfram, W., Detw yler, J., & Harry, B. (1993). Confronting dialect minority issues in special education: Reactive and proactive perspectives In Proceedings of the Third National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues: Focus on Middle and High School Issues, 2, 737-762. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Educati on and Minority Languages Affairs. Aldridge, J. T., & Clayton, G. A. (1987). Elementary teachers cognitive and affective perceptions of exceptional children. Psychological Reports 61, 91-94. Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship betwee n efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education 17 86-95. American Speech Language Hearing Association. (2003). 2003 Omnibus survey caseload report : SLP. Rockville, MD: Author. American Speech Language Hearing Association. (2004). Highlights and Trends: ASHA Counts for 2004 Retrieved December 15, 2004, http://www.asha.org/about/membership-certification/member-counts.htm Anderson, J. A. (1988). Cognitive styles and multicultural populations. Journal of Teacher Education 24 (1), 2-9. New York: Longman.
175 Anyon, J. (1981a). Elementary schooling a nd distinctions of social class. Interchange 12(2-3), 118-132. Anyon, J. (1981b, April). Educational equity and school instruction. Social Education 45, 277-281. Anyon, J. (1981c). Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry 11(1), 3-42. Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political ec onomy of urban educational reform New York: Teachers College Press. Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., N ., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferre d reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools (Rep. No. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. (ERIC Document Repr oduction Service No. ED130243) Artiles, A., & Trent, S. C. (1994).Overrepres entation of minority students in special education: A continuing debate. Journal of Special Education 27(4), 410-437. Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teache rs sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman. Au, K. & Jordan, C. (1981). Teaching reading to Hawaiian children: Finding a culturally appropriate solution. In Culture and the Bilingual cl assroom: Studies in classroom ethnography H. Trueba, G. Guthrie, & K. Au (Eds.) (pp. 139-152). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a uni fying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84 (2), 191-215.
176 Banks, J. A. (1989). Integrating the curriculum w ith ethnic content, In J.A. Banks & C.A. McGee (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Banks, J. A. (1990). The dimensions of multicultural education. Multicultural Leader, 3, Edmonds, WA. Banks, J. A. (1991). Teaching multicultural literacy to teachers. Teaching Education 4, 135-144. Banks, J. A. (1994). An introduction to mu lticultural education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Bankston, C., & Caldas, S. J. (December, 1996) Majority African American schools and social justice: The influence of defacto segregation on academic achievement. Social Forces 75(2), 535-555. Banotai, A. (2004, October). Strategies for assessment when monolingual clinicians evaluate bilingual clients. Advance for Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists Baratz, J. (1970). Beginning readers for speak ers of divergent dialects, In J. Allen Figurel (Ed.), Reading goals for the disadvantaged (pp. 77-83) Newark: International Reading Association. Barry, N. H., & Lechner, J. V. (1995). Preser vice teachers attitudes about and awareness of multicultural teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education 11, 149161. Becker, H. S. (1970). Sociological work: Method and substance New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
177 Becker, H. S., Geer, B., Hughes, E. C., & Strauss, A. L. (1961). Boys in white: Student culture in medical school. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. (Original work published in 1961) Bergeson, T., Douglas, L., & Griffin, A. (2000). Educator supply and demand in Washington, 2000 executive summary Washington State Department of Education. Bertaux, D. (1981). Biography and society: The life hi story approach in the social sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Blair, T. R. (2003). New teachers performance-based guide to culturally diverse Classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Bogatz, B., Hisama, T., Manni, J., & Wurtz, R. (1986). Cognitive assessment of nonwhite children. In O. Taylor (Ed.). Treatment of communication disorders in culturally and linguistically diverse populations (pp. 67-115). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and contradictions of economi c life. New York: Basic Books. Brehm, S. S., & Kassin, S. M. (1996). Social psychology .(3rd Ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Brice, A. (2001). Children with communica tion disorders: Update 2001. ERIC EC Digest E617 Brice, A. (2002). The Hispanic child Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bullock, H. A. (1970). A history of Negro education in the south from 1619 to the present. New York: Praeger.
178 Burnette, J. (2000). Assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students for special education eligibility ERIC Clearinghouse on Disa bilities and Gifted Education Digest ED E604. Office of E ducational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education. Arlington, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research Chicago: Rand McNally. Casteel, C. A. (1998). Teacher-student interactions and race in integrated classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research 92 (2) 115-120. Chambers, J., & Bond, J. (Eds.). (1983). Black English: Educational equity and the law. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma. Christian, D. (1997). Vernacular dialects in U.S. schools. Center for Applied Linguistics. ERIC Digest ED406846 Cohen, E. & Benton, J. (1988). Making groupwork work. American Educator, 17, 45-46. Coladarci, T., & Fink, D. R. (April, 1995). Correlations among measures of teacher efficacy: Are they measuring the same thing? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Constas, M. A. (1992). Qualitative analysis as a p ublic event: The documentation of category development procedures. American Educational Research Journal 29(2), 253-266. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
179 Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Dete rmining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice 39, 124-130. Cross, T., Bazron, B., Dennis, K., & Isaacs, M. (1989). Towards a culturally competent system of care (Vol I) Washington, D.C: George town University Child Development Center, CASSP T echnical Assistance Center. Crowley, C. (2003). Diagnosing communica tion disorders in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse students. (EDO-EC-03-11) Digest E6 50. Arlington, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabiliti es and Gifted Education. Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). New standards, old inequalities: The current challenge for African American education. In L.A. Daniels (Ed.), The state of black America (pp. 109-171). Washington, DC: The National Urban League. Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The cha llenge of staffing our schools. Educational Leadership 58(8), 12-17. Daugherty, D. W. (2001). Overidentification. A Frami ng Paper for the National Summit on the Shared Implementation of IDEA Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. Davis, K. (1997). Exploring the intersection betw een cultural competency and managed behavioral health care policy: Im plications for state and county mental health agencies Alexandria, VA: National Technical Assistance Center for State Mental Health Planning.
180 Deal-Williams, V. (2002). Addressing and enhancing diversity in academic programs: Cultural, racial, and linguistic diversity. Paper Presented at the Council of Academic Programs in Communication Sc iences and Disorders Annual Meeting, Palm Springs, CA. Delpit, L. (1995). Other peoples children: Cultur al conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press. Dembo, M. H., & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers se nse of efficacy: An important factor in school improvement. The Elementary School Journal 86, 173-184. Diana v. California State Board of Education (1970). No. C-70, RFT, Dist. Ct. No. Diamond, J. B., Randolph, A., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). Teachers expectations and sense of responsibility for student learning: The importance of race, class, and organizational habitus. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 35(1), 75-98. Donovan, S. M., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special education National Research Council. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press. Duff, O. B., & Tongchinsub, H. J. (1990). Expanding the secondary lite rature curriculum: Annotated bibliographies of American Indian, Asian American, and Hispanic American literature. In English education Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh. Dukes, S. (1984). Phenomenological methodology in the human sciences. Journal of Religion and Health 23 (3), 197-203. Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mild ly retarded: Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional children 23, 5-21.
181 Eisenhart, M. A., Shrum, J. L., Harding, J. R ., & Cuthbert, A. M. (1988). Teacher belief: Definitions, findings and directions. Educational Policy 2, 51-70. Epps, E. G. (1992). Education of African Americans. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (pp. 49-60). New York: Macmillan. Erickson, F., & Mohatt, G. (1982). Cultural orga nization and participation structures in two classrooms of Indian stude nts. In G. Splindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Ewing, N. (1995). Restructured teacher education for inclusiv eness: A dream deferred for African American children. In B. A. Ford, F. E. Obiakor, & J. M. Patton (Eds.), Effective education for African Am erican learners: New perspectives (pp. 167188). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Farkas, G. (1996). Human capital or cultural capital? Ethnicity and poverty groups in an urban district New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Farkas, G., Grobe, R., Sheehan, D., & Shaun, Y. (1990). Cultural resources and school success: Gender, ethnicity, and poverty groups within an urban district. American Sociological Review, 55, 127-42. Farr Whiteman, M. (Ed.). (1980). Reactions to Ann Arbor: Ver nacular Black English and education. Eric Document ED197624Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Fielding, N., & Lee, R. (Eds.). (1993). Using computers in qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
182 Flores, J., Lopez, E., & DeLeon, J. (2000). Technical assistance document for assessment and evaluation of preschool children who are culturally and linguistically diverse. Santa Fe, NM: New Mexico State Department of Education, Special Education Office. Florida Department of Education. (n.d.). Florida school indicators report, 2003-2004. Retrieved November 1, 2004, from http://www.info.doe.state.fl.us/fsir/ Florida Department of Education. (n.d.). Funding for Florida Sc hool Districts Report 2003-2004. Retrieved November 1, 2004, from http://www.firn.edu/doe /fefp/pdf/fefpdist.pdf Ford, D.Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Promising practices and programs. New York: Teachers College Press. Freund, R. J. & Littell, R. C. (1991). SAS system for regression (2nd ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Teacher characteristics scale. Annual Continuation Application for Planning, Reviewing, and Ongoing Assessment Among Classroom Teachers Grant No. 0023E90020. U.S. Department of Education Programs. Garcia, E. (1995). Educating Mexican Ameri can students: past treatment and recent developments in theory, research, policy, and practice. In J. A. Banks and C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research in multicultural education (pp. 372-87). New York: Macmillan. Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2003). Educational Research: An introduction Seventh edition. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
183 Gibson, M. A. (1976).Approaches to multicultura l education in the United States: Some concepts and assumptions. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 7(4), 7-18. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teach er efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 7(4), 569-582. Gilbert, S. L. (1995). Perspectives of rural prospective teachers toward teaching in urban schools. Urban Education, 30 (3), 290-305. Good, T. L. (1981). Teacher expectations and st udent perceptions: A decade of research. Educational Leadership, 38 (5), 415-422. Goodwin, A. L. (1994). Making the transition fr om self to other: What do preservice teachers really think about multicultural education? Journal of Teacher Education, 45 (2), 119-131. Grant, G.W. (1974). Criteria for cult ural pluralism in the classroom. Educational Leadership 8-89. Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (Eds.). (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (Vol. 74). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Grossman, H. (1999). Special education in a diverse society Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, se lf-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education 4, 63-69. Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal 31, 627-643.
184 Hale-Benson, J. E. (1986). Black children: Their roots, culture, and learning styles. (Rev. Ed.) Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hale-Benson, J. E. (1987). Black children: Their roots, culture, and learning styles In J. B. McCracken (Ed.), Reducing stress in young childrens lives (pp. 122-129). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Harris, J. L., Kamhi, A. G., & Pollock, K. E. (Eds.). (2001). Literacy in African American communities Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Harry, B., & Anderson, M. G. (1994). The disproportionate placement of African American males in special education pr ograms: A critique of the process. Journal of Negro Education, 63 (4), 602-619. Hatcher, L., & Stepanski, E. J. (1997). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for univariate and multivariate statistics Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. Henson, R. K. (2002). From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy research. Educational Psychologist 37, 137-150. Hilliard, A. G. (1976). Alternatives to IQ testing: An appr oach to the assessment of gifted minority children (Final Report to the Special Education Support Unit). Sacramento: California State Dept. of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 147009) Hoff, D. J. (2000, September 9). Gap widens between Black and White students on the NAEP. Education Week, 6-7.
185 Hollins, E. R., & Spencer, K. (1990). Restructuring schools for cultural inclusion: Changing the schooling process for African American youngsters. Journal of Education 172 (2) 89-100. Hornberger, N. (1988). Iman chay?: Quecha childr en in Perus schools. In H. Trueba and C. Delgado-Gaitan (Eds.), School and society: Teaching content through culture. (pp. 99-117). New York: Praeger. Hoy, W. K. & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). T eachers sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. Elementary School Journal 93, 355-372. Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. James A. Banks (Ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Isaac, K. (2002). Speech pathology in cultural and linguistic diversity Philadelphia, PA: Whurr Publishers. Jefferies, P. T. (2000). Culture in the classroom: An explo ratory analysis of teachers attitudes, expectations, and instructional practices toward culturally diverse students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida. Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (1998). The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Johnson, K. E. (1992). The relationship between teachers beliefs a nd practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24 83-108. Johnson, J. A., Dupuis, V. L., Musial, D ., Hall, G.E., Gollnick, D. M. (2002). Introduction to the foundations of American education. (12th Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
186 Johnson v. San Francisco Unified School District (1971). 500 F. 2d 349 (9th Cir.1974). Jordan, C. (1985). Translating culture: From ethnographic information to educational program. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 16, 105-123. Jones, R. (1984). Attitudes and attitude change in special education: Theory and practice. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Kamhi, A. G. (1994). Paradigms of teach ing and learning: Is one view best? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 25, 194-198. Kamhi, A.G. (1995). Defining, developing, and maintaining clinical expertise. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 26, 353-356. Kea, C. D. & Utley, C.A. (1998). To teach me is to know me. The Journal of Special Education 32 (1), 44-47. King, J. & Ladson-Billings, G. (1990). The teache r education challenge in elite university settings: Developing critical perspectiv es for teaching in democratic and multicultural societies. European Journal of Intercultural Education 1, 15-20. Kritikos, E. P. (2003). Speech-language pathologists beliefs about language assessment of bilingual/bicultural individuals. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12 73-91. Labov, W. (1969). Some sources of reading prob lems for Negro speakers of non-standard English, In J. Baratz and R. Shuy (Eds.), Teaching Black children to read. (p. 37). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Labov, W. (1972). The logic of nonstandard English. In W. Labov, (Ed.), Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. (Eric Document Reproduction Services ED 082196)
187 Labov, W. (1995). Can reading failure be revers ed: A linguistic approach. In V. Gadsden & D. Wagner, Literacy among African-American y outh: Issues in learning, teaching, and schooling. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). What we can le arn from multicultural e ducation research. Educational Leadership, 51 (8), 22-26. Ladson-Billings, G. (1999). Preparing teachers for diversity: Historical perspectives, current trends, and future directio ns. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Laing, S. & Kamhi, A. (2003). Alternative a ssessment of language and literacy in culturally and linguistica lly diverse populations. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 34, 44-55. Lambert, Z. V., & Durand, R. M. (1975). Some precautions in using canonical analysis. Journal of Market Research XII 468-475. Larke, P. J. (1990). Cultural di versity awareness inventory: Assessing the sensitivity of preservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 12 (3), 23-30. Larry P. v. Riles 343 F. Supp. 1306 (N.D. Cal.(1972), affd, 502 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1974). Larson, V. L., & McKinley, N. (1995). Language disorders in older students: Preadolescents and adolescents Eau Claire, WI: Thinking. Law, S., & Lane, D. (1987). Multicultural acceptance by teacher educ ation students: A survey of attitudes. Journal of Teacher Instructional Psychology, 14 (1), 3-9. Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Barton, A. (1955). Some functions of qualitative data analysis in sociological research. Sociologica 1, 324-361. Leacock, E. B. (1969). Teaching and learning in city schools New York: Basic.
188 Lee, V., & Smith, J. B. (2001). High school restructuring and student achievement New York: Teachers College Press. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Martin, P., & Midgley, E. (1999). I mmigration to the United States. Population Bulletin, 54(2), 1-44. Washington, DC: P opulation Reference Bureau. Martinez, G. M., & Curry, A. E. (1999, September). Current population re ports: School enrollment-social and economic characteristics of students (update). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design : An interactive approach Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McHatton, P.A. (2004). Stigma and discrimination of Mexican and Puerto Rican single mothers of young children with disabilities: Interaction of culture and disability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Un iversity of South Florida. McIntyre, T. (1996a). Entering uncharted waters with tattered sails and a broken rudder. In B. Brooks & D. Sabatino (Eds.), Emotional and behavioral disorders: Personal perspectives from leaders in the field Austin, TX: PRO-ED. McIntyre, T. (1996b). Guidelines for providi ng appropriate servic es to culturally diverse students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 21 (2), 137-144. McIntyre, T. (1997). Making meaning of Whiteness. Albany: State University of New York Press.
189 McLean, M. (2000). Conducting child assessments (Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services Early Childhood Res earch Institute Technical Report #2). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. McMillan, J. H. (2000, April). Examining categories of riva l hypotheses for educational research Paper presented at the annual m eeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. McWhorter, J. H. (2000). Losing the race: Self-sabotage in Black America. New York: Free Press. Meijer, C. & Foster, S. (1988). The effect of teacher self-efficacy on referral chance. Journal of Special Education 22, 378-385. Melograno, V. J. & Loovis, M. (1991). Eff ects of field-based tr aining on teachers knowledge and attitudes and the moto r of their handicapped students. Perceptual and Motor Skills 72, 1211-1214. Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8 193-210. Meyers, L., Torres, G., & Walker, A. (2000). Untapping the potential of diverse learners: Teaching strategies for success. Presented at the Third Annual Full-Day Conference Exploring the Disproportional Representation of African American and Hispanic Students in Sp ecial Education in Maryland. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. California: Sage. Myrdal, G. (1944). An American dilemma: The Negro problem and modern democracy (Vols. 1 and 2 ). New York: Harper and Brothers. National Center for Edu cation Statistics. (2000). Editorial projects in education, 1998 Washington: GPO.
190 National Maternal and Child Health Resour ce Center on Cultural Competency. (1997). Journey towards cultural competency: Lessons learned. Vienna, VA: Maternal and Childrens Health Bureau Clearinghouse. Nelson, C. (1995). Language diversity and language arts ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication. (ERIC Digest ED103) Nettles, M. T. (1997). The African American data book: Preschool through high school. Fairfax, VA: Frederick Patte rson Research Institute. Ogbu, J.U. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in cross-cultural perspective. New York: Academic Press. Ogbu, J.U. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational Researcher 21 (8), 5-14, 24. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001, April). Effect sizes in qualitativ e research: A prolegomenon. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2003). Expanding the framewor k of internal and external validity in quantitative research. Research in the Schools 10(1), 71-89. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2004). Mixed method and mixed model research. In R. B. Johnson & L. B. Christensen, Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (pp. 408-431). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tash akkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351-383) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
191 Orr, E. W. (1987). Twice as less: Black English and the performance of Black students in mathematics and science. New York: W.W. Norton. Ortiz, A. A. (1997). Learning disabilities o ccurring concomitantly with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities 30(3), 321-332. Oswald, D. P., Coutinho, M. J., Best., A. M., & Singh, N. N. (1999). Ethnic representations in special education: The influence of sc hool-related economic and demographic variables. Journal of Special Education 32 (4), 194-206. Osher, D.; Woodruff, D.; & Sims, A. E. (2002). Schools make a difference. The overrepresentation of African American youth in special education and the juvenile justice system, in D. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education Harvard. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research 66 533-578. Paolino, A. (2002). Addressing disproportiona lity of minority students in special education programs. Information Cleari nghouse, Education Commission of the States. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, California: Sage. Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research. (3rd edition). New York: Thomson Learning, Inc. Porter, A. C., & Brophy, J. (1988). Synthesis of research on good teaching: Insights from the work of the Institute for Research on Teaching. Educational Leadership 45, 74-75.
192 Proctor, C. P. (1984). Teacher expect ations: A model for school improvement. The Elementary School Journal 84, 469-481. Rhem, J. (1999, February). Pygmalion in the classroom. The National Teaching & Learning Forum 8(2), 1-4. Riche, M. F. (2000). Americas diversity and growth: Signposts for the 21 century. Population Bulletin, 55(2), 1-43. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau. Rios, F. (1996). Teacher thinking in cultural contexts. Albany: State University of New York Press. Rist, R. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations : Self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review 40 411-451. Roscigno, V. J., & Ainsworth-Darnell, J. W. (1999). Race, cultural capital, and educational resources: Persistent in equalities and achievement returns. Sociology of Education 72(3), 158-178. Roseberry-McKibbin, C. A., & Eicholtz, G. E. (1994). Serving children with limited English proficiency in the schools: A national survey. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 25, 156-164. Roseberry-McKibbin, C. A., Brice, A., & OHanlon, L. (in press). Serving English language learners in public school settings Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom : Teacher expectation and pupils intellectual development New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1992). Pygmalion in the classroom : Teacher expectation and pupils intellectual development .(2nd ed.). New York: Irvington Publishers.
193 Rubalcava, M. (1991). Locating transformative teaching in multicultural education Unpublished manuscript. University of California-Berkeley, Department of Anthropology, Special Project. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sanger, D. D., Creswell, J. W., Dworak, J., & Schultz, L. (2000). Cultural analysis of communication behaviors among juveniles in a correctional facility. Journal of Communication Disorders 33, 31-57. Sanger, D. D., Hux, K., & Belau, D. (1997). Oral language skills of female juvenile delinquents. American Journal of Spe ech-Language-Pathology, 6 70-76. Sanger, D. D., Hux, K., & Ritzman, M. (1999). Female juvenile delinquents pragmatic awareness of conversa tional interactions. Journal of Communication Disorders, 32, 281-295. Sanger, D. D., Moore-Brown, B., Magnuson, G ., & Svoboda, N. (2001). Prevalence of language problems among adolescen t delinquents: A closer look. Communication Disorders Quarterly 23(1), 17-25. Sanger, D. D., Moore-Brown, B., Montgomer y, J., Rezac, C., & Keller, H. (2003). Female incarcerated adolescents with language problems talk about their own communication behaviors and learning. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 465-486. Schultz, E.L., Neyhart, K., & Reck, U.M. (1996) Swimming against the tide: A study of prospective teachers attitudes regardi ng cultural diversity and urban teaching. Western Journal of Black Studies 20 (1), 1-7.
194 Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. (2nd Ed.). New York, N. Y: Teachers College Press. Seymour, C. M., & Nober, E. H. (1998). Introduction to communication disorders: A multicultural approach Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Shealey, M. W. (2003). Qualitative inquiry of teachers abil ity to provide skill-based and culturally responsive instruction to multic ultural learners in the area of reading Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando. Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment, The Urban Review 34(4), 317-342. Slavin, R. (1987). Cooperative le arning and the cooperative school. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 7-13. Sleeter, C. (2001). Preparing teachers for cultu rally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of Whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education 52 (2), 94106. Smith, R., Moallem, M., & Sherill, D. ( 1997). How preservice teachers think about cultural diversity. Educational Foundations 11(2), 41-62. Solomon, D., Battistich, V., & Ho m, A. (1996, Summer). Teacher beliefs and practices in schools serving communities that differ in socioeconomic level. The Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 327-347.
195 Soto, G., & Goetz, L. (1998). Self-efficacy be liefs and the education of students with severe disabilities. The Journal of the Associatio n for Persons with Severe Handicaps 23(2), 134-43. Span, B., Abbring, I. M., & Meijer, C. J. W. (1985). De opvang van leerlingen met problemen in het regulier onderwijs (Pupil catchment in regular education). The Hague: SVO. Stein, M. K., & Wang, M. C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education 4(2), 171-187. Stockman, I. (2000). The new Peabody Pictur e Vocabulary Test-III: An illusion of unbiased assessment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 31, 340-353. Su, Z. (1996). Why teach: Profiles and entry perspectives of minority students as becoming teachers. Journal of Research and Development in Education 29 (3), 117-133. Su, Z. (1997). Teaching as a profession a nd as a career: Minority candidates perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education 13 325-340. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches Applied Social Research Methods Series (Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
196 Tauber, R. T. (1998). Good or bad, what teach ers expect from students they generally get! ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. Washington, DC: (ERIC Digest ED42698598) Taylor, I. (1976). Introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1989). Springfield, MA : Merriam-Webster. Thomas, W. I. (1928). The child in America. New York: Knopf. Townsend, B. L. (2000). The disproportionate di scipline of African American learners: Reducing school suspensions and expulsions. Exceptional Children 66, 381-391. Townsend, B. L. (2002a). Leave no teacher behind: A bold proposal for teacher education. International Journal of Qua litative Studies in Education 15 (6), 727738. Townsend, B. L. (2002b). Testing while black (TWB): Standards-based school reform and African American learners. Remedial and Special Education 23(4), 222-230. Urban Teacher Collaborative Report. (2000). The urban teacher challenge: Teacher demand and supply in the great city schools Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers, Incorporated. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1998). Current population reports series. Population Profiles of the U.S: 1990-2000 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). Current population reports series. Population Profiles of the U.S: 1990-2000 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
197 U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (1983). Elementary and secondary school survey: National summaries. Washington DC: DBS corporation. U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (1990). Elementary and secondary school survey: National summaries. Washington DC: DBS corporation. U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (1998). Elementary and secondary school survey: National summaries. Washington DC: DBS corporation. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the implementation of the In dividuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (2001), Data Analysis Systems (DANS), Table AA15. Vafadar, A. C., & Utt, H. A. (1993). A survey of speech-language pathologists attitudes about, self-perceived know ledge of, and competency in dealing with social dialects: Language differences versus language disorders. National Student Speech Language Hearing Association Journal, 20 65-72. Valli, L. (1995). The dilemma of race: Lear ning to be colorblind and color conscious. Journal of Teacher Education 46(2), 120-129. Vasquez, J.A. (1990). Teaching to the distin ctive traits of minority students. The Clearing House, 63(7), 299-304.
198 Vavrus, M. (1994). A critical analysis of mu lticultural education infusion during student teaching. Action in Teacher Education 16(3), 45-57. Washington, J., & Craig, H. (1992). Articulat ion test performances of low-income, African American preschoolers wi th communication impairments. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 23, 203-207. Whitmire, K.A., & Eger, D.L. (2003). Issue brief on personne l preparation and credentialing speech-language pathology (COPSSE Document No. IB-5E). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education. Wiener, M. & Cromer, W. (1967). Reading and reading difficulty: A conceptual analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 37, 620-643. Wilson, W.J. (1998). Jobless ghettos: the imp act of the disappearance of work in segregated neighborhoods. In L.A. Daniels (Ed.), The state of Black America. Washington, D.C.: The National Urban League. Wilson, W., Wilson, J., & Coleman, T. (2000). Culturally appropriate assessment: Issues and strategies. In T. Coleman (Ed.). Clinical management of communication disorders in culturally diverse children (pp. 101-128). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Wilson-Oyelaran, E. B. (1996, November). Different peoples differences Opening address at the Multicultural Conference, Brown Summit, NC. Winfield, L. (1986). Teacher beliefs toward at-risk students in inner-urban schools. The Urban Review, 18, 253-267. Witcher, A. E., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Minor, L. C. (2001). Characteristics of effective teachers: Perceptions of preservice teachers. Research in the Schools 8(2), 45-57.
199 Zwiers, M. L., & Morris sette, P. J. (1999). Effective interviewing of children: A comprehensive guide for counsel ors and human service workers Philadelphia, PA: Accelerated Development.
201 Appendix A: Cover Letter Dear Colleague: Please allow me to introduce myself. I am Karen Harris, a fellow speechlanguage pathologist and doctoral candidate at the University of South Floridas Department of Special Education. As part of my dissertation research, I am interested in your opinion about assessing the language skills of bilingual, bicu ltural, and bidialectal students with special needs, particularly when Standard American English is not the first or native language. As a speech-language pathologist, you are well aware of the various issues involved in assessing and providing therapeu tic intervention services to bilingual, bicultural, and bidialectal students. Enclosed is a short questionnaire that wa s designed to elicit responses about speech-language services prov ided to bilingual, bicultural, bidialectal individuals by monolingual and multilingu al speech-language pathologists. Your responses can provide me with a greater understandi ng of the supports, barriers, and confidence associated w ith assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural students with special need s. Your decision to participate in this research study is completely voluntary. You ar e free to participate in this research study or to withdraw at any time. Participation in this study is completely anonymous and will in no way affect your job status. There are no known risks associated with participation in this study. Speech-language pathologists who return the completed questionnaire within the time allotted will be automatically placed in a drawing to win one of three prizes. Each prize is a gift certificate/stor e credit at Super Duper Publi cations equivalent to $50 in speech-language therapeutic materials. All questions must be answered or labeled not applicable. Answering this questionnaire s hould take approximat ely 20-25 minutes of your time. To ensure complete anonymity, your c ontact information (i.e. name, number, email address) will be used to contact you if you are a recipient of one of the prize drawings or if you indicate inte rest in participatin g in subsequent follow-up interviews. If you are interested in participating in followup interviews, please indicate this on your contact information sheet or contact me directly at (813) 335-6100 or email@example.com While the survey will provide me with valuable information, knowledge gained from individual interviews with you will be more in-depth. I am interested in your perceptions as it relates to your experien ces with assessing the language skills of bilingual/bicultural students. I will meet w ith you on a mutually agreeable day and at a mutually agreeable place and time. Individua ls selected to participate in follow-up interviews will receive a gift cer tificate equivalent to 2 movie theatre tickets at the end of
202 the complete interview session. Interview sessions will be approximately 12 hours in length. In an effort to corr ectly record your responses, you may be contacted later for clarification of any responses made to in terview questions. Thus, you will have the opportunity to make modificati ons to any statements you make. While interviews will be audio taped, no information will be included in the final write-up to identify you. If you are completing this survey via a speech-language website in your school district Please follow the instructions at the website for submitting the completed survey. If you are co mpleting this survey in person please return the completed survey and contact information sheet to me or my designated representative. The documents will remain separate to ensure anonymit y. If you are completing this survey via school mail please return the completed questionnaire (a nd contact information sheet) in separate envelopes to your supervisor of speech-language services by Wednesday May 26, 2004 If you have any questions about this rese arch study, contact Karen Harris at the above number or email address. If you have questions about your rights as a person who is taking part in a research study, you may contact the Division of Research Compliance of the University of South Florida at (813) 974-5638. Thank you for your support in furthering the professional growth and development of our field. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Karen P. Harris, M.S. CCC-SLP
Appendix B: Speech-Language Survey SPEECH-LANGUAGE SERVICES TO BILINGUAL, BICULTURAL, AND BIDIALECTAL STUDENTS This survey is designed to identify speech-language pathologists self-perceived knowledge and competence to assess the language skills of bilingual, bicultural, and bidialectal children with special needs and their families. Your responses will inform and guide decisions related to recruitment, retention, and professional development needs. FORM DIRECTIONS: Do not write your name. This survey is anonymous. Please use a pencil and mark only one bubble for each question, answer, or statement. Make solid marks that fill the circle completely. Erase cleanl y an y marks y ou wish to chan g e. Reme m b er to com p lete both sides. Via the web:Place an x in Part One Demographic Data Learning About Your General Background 1. How many years (total) have you been working in the field of speech-language pathology? 3 years or fewer 4-7 years 8-11 years 12-20 years More than 20 years 2. How many years (total) have you provided speech-language services to children and youth? 3 years or fewer 4-7 years 8-11 years 12-20 years More than 20 years Not applicable 3. What is the highest degree you hold? Bachelors Masters Specialist Ph.D. or Ed.D. Other ____________(specify) 4. Do you hold state certification by the Department of Education in speech-language pathology? Yes No 203
204 5. Do you hold the ASHA certificate of clinical competence? Yes No 6. Do you hold a state license in speech-language pathology? Yes No 7. In which Florida county do you primarily provide services? 8. What type of services do you primarily provide? (Darken all that apply.) Consultative Direct Services Individual Services Group Services Other ___________________ (specify) 9. What is your gender? Female Male 10. What is your race/ethnicity? African American/black (not of Hispanic/Latino origin) American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian American or Pacific Islander Caucasian/White (not of Hispanic/Latino origin) Hispanic/Latino Other _________________ (specify) Demographic Data Continued Learning About the Population You Serve **Note** via the web: Place an x next to the appropriate number. 11. How often do you currently work in each setting? Never Not Often Often Very Often a. School 1 2 3 4 b. Hospital 1 2 3 4 c. Clinic 1 2 3 4 d. Home Health 1 2 3 4 e. Other ____________ 1 2 3 4
205 12. How often do you currently work with each age group? Never Not Often Often Very Often a. Ages 0-2 1 2 3 4 b. Ages 3-5 1 2 3 4 c. Ages 6-11 1 2 3 4 d. Ages 12-18 1 2 3 4 e. Ages 19-22 1 2 3 4 13. To whom do you primarily provide services? (Darken all that apply.) African American/black Asian/Pacific Islander Caucasian Hispanic Native American Other 14. What is your best estimate as to the percentage of your caseload of individuals who come from homes where a language other than English is spoken? None Less than 25% 25% to 50% 51% to 75% More than 75% 15. What is your best estimate as to the percentage of your caseload of individuals who come from homes where a dialect (i.e. African Am erican Vernacular English, Caribbean dialect) is spoken? None Less than 25% 25% to 50% 51% to 75% More than 75% 16. How often do you currently work with bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students? occasionally (consultation only) 1 to 2 times per week 3 to 5 times per week other _________________ (specify) Never 17. How many years have you worked with bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal students? Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years greater than 10 years
206 18. What are the most common languages spoken among the bilingual individuals you serve? (Darken up to five choices.) Arabic Chinese Creole French Gujarati Hebrew Hindi Italian Japanese Korean Polish Russian Spanish Tagalog Urdu Yiddish Other ___________________ 19. What are the most common dialects spoken among the bilingual individuals you serve? (Darken up to five choices.) African American Vernacular English Appalachian Dialect Caribbean Gullah Hispanic English Vernacular Mandarin Chinese Vernacular Southern Dialect Other ____________________ Demographic Data Continued Learning About Your Linguistic Background 20. Do you speak and/or understand a language other than English? Yes No (Skip to question 27) 21. Which languages do you understand and/or speak? __________________, _________________, __________________ 22. Was the first language that you learned? English Other than English Simultaneously acquired Eng lish and another language 23. At what age did you learn a language other than English? Birth to 3 years 4 7 years 8 11 years 12 18 years Over 18 years
207 24. How long have you spoken a language other than English? Less than 1 year 1 5 years 6 10 years Greater than 10 years 25. Where did you learn a language other than English? School Home Abroad Other ________________________ (specify) 26. Rate your proficiency in a language other than English for the following domains: Specify language you are referring to if you indicated more than one language above. Not Prof icient Somewhat Proficient Proficient Very Proficient Language(s) a. Listening ___________ 1 2 3 4 ___________ 1 2 3 4 b. Speaking ___________ 1 2 3 4 ___________ 1 2 3 4 c. Reading ____________ 1 2 3 4 ____________ 1 2 3 4 d. Writing ____________ 1 2 3 4 ____________ 1 2 3 4 27. Do you speak and/or understand a dialect? Yes No (Skip to question 33) 28. Which dialect(s) do you understand and/or speak? ____________________, __________________, ____________________, _____________________, 29. At what age did you learn a dialect? Birth to 3 years 4 7 years 8 11 years 12 18 years Over 18 years
208 30. How long have you spoken a dialect? Less than 1 year 1 5 years 6 10 years Greater than 10 years 31. Where did you learn a dialect? School Home Abroad Other ________________________ (specify) 32. Rate your proficiency in a dialect for the following domains: Specify dialect you are referring to if you indicated more than one dialect above. Not Prof icient Somewhat Proficient Proficient Very Proficient Dialect(s) a. Listening ___________ 1 2 3 4 ___________ 1 2 3 4 b. Speaking ___________ 1 2 3 4 ___________ 1 2 3 4 c. Reading ____________ 1 2 3 4 ____________ 1 2 3 4 d. Writing ____________ 1 2 3 4 ____________ 1 2 3 4 Demographic Data Continued Learning About Your Academic Training on Bilingual/Bicultural/Bidialectal Issues 33. Have you had any speech-language patholog y course work that addressed the following? ( Darken all that apply.) Second language acquisition Communication patterns in cultures where a language other than English is spoken Communication patterns in cultures where a dialect is spoken Differential assessment of bilingu al vs. monolingual individuals Cultural factors that influence learning Multicultural issues/ethnically diverse populations Assessment tools for bilingual/bidialectal individuals Language disorder vs. language difference Laws involved in the assessment and treatment of bilingual individuals Working with families How to utilize a language interpreter Other ________________ (specify)
209 34. Have you attended any inservices or wo rkshops that addressed the following? ( Darken all that apply.) Second language acquisition Communication patterns in cultures where a language other than English is spoken Communication patterns in cultures where a dialect is spoken Differential assessment of bilingu al vs. monolingual individuals Cultural factors that influence learning Multicultural issues/ethnically diverse populations Assessment tools for bilingual/bidialectal individuals Language disorder vs. language difference Laws involved in the assessment and treatment of bilingual individuals Working with families How to utilize a language interpreter Other ________________ (specify) Learning About Your Experience Assessing Bilingual/Bicultural/Bidialectal Individuals 35. With the help of an interpreter, how competent do you feel in assessing a students language development in a language and/or dialect you do not understand or speak? Not competent Somewhat competent Competent Very competent 36. With the help of an interpreter, how competent do you feel most speech-language pathologists are in assessing an indivi duals language development in a language and/or dialect that they do not understand or speak? Not competent Somewhat competent Competent Very competent
210 37. Which problem(s) do you encounter in assessing bilingua l/bicultural/bidialectal students with language disorders? (Darken all that apply.) Lack of knowledge of clients culture Lack of knowledge of the nature of second language acquisition Difficult to distinguish a language difference from a language disorder Lack of availability of interpreters who speak the individuals language Lack of availability of interpreters who speak the individuals dialect Lack of availability of bilingual speech-language pathologists who speak the individuals language Lack of availability of bidialectal speech-language pathologists who speak the individuals dialect Lack of developmental norms and standardized assessment tools in languages other than English Lack of developmental norms and standardized assessment tools in speakers of nonstandard dialects Time allocated by your employer for assessment administration, scoring, and interpretation Utilizing test scores of translated tests Language tests published in a language other than English with flawed normative samples 38. Based on your experience, circle the statement you agree with the most. Who should provide language assessment to bilingual/bidialectal students with language problems? Bilingual Education Specialists English as a Second Language (ESL) Specialists Speech-Language Pathologists Professionals should collaborate Other _______________________________ (specify) Learning About Your Opinions of How to Improve the Field 39. How can our field better prepare speech-language pathologists to carry out appropriate assessment of bilingual/bidialectal indivi duals? Please rate the following in terms of importance. Very unimportant Unimportant Not sure Important Very Important Pre-service a. More academic 1 2 3 4 5 course work in this area b. More practicum 1 2 3 4 5 experience with bilingual/ bicultural/bidialectal clients
211 c. More active recruitment 1 2 3 4 5 of bilingual/bicultural/ bidialectal speech-language pathologists Very unimportant Unimportant Not sure Important Very Important Inservice a. More seminars and 1 2 3 4 5 workshops on this topic b. More journal articles on 1 2 3 4 5 this topic c. Easier access to a bilingual/ 1 2 3 4 5 bidialectal speech-language pathologist pool in your county d. More experience with 1 2 3 4 5 bilingual/bicultural/bidialectal clients e. More active recruitment 1 2 3 4 5 of bilingual/bicultural/ bidialectal/speech-language pathologists THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE! Instructions for completion via speech-language website: Once completed, follow the instructions provided to submit the surveys. You may also print the survey and send it to your speech-la nguage supervisor via school mail. Email and/or call the researcher with your na me, address (school or home), and phone number with area code. Your name will be automatically entered in a raffle to win one of three $50 gift certificates redeemable at Super Duper Publications or Linguisystems. Instructions for completion in person: Give completed survey and data information sheet to the researcher. These documents will be kept separately in order to ensure complete anonymity. Your name will be automatically entered in a raffle to win one of three $50 gift certificat es redeemable at Super Duper Publications or Linguisystems.
212 Instructions for completion via school mail: Submit the completed survey and contact informa tion sheet with your name, number (including area code) to your supervisor in separate envelopes via school mail. You may also provide your contact information via email. This will ensure complete anonymity. Your name will be automatically entered in a raffle to win one of three $50 gift certificates to Super Duper Publications or Linguisystems.
213 Appendix C: Demographic Data Sheet Name: __________________________________________________ Phone Number: ( ) ____________________________ Email Address: _________________________________________ I am interested in participating in follow-up interviews. Please contact me. Please check one. Yes _________ No __________ Please complete below for my general information: Years of experience __________________________ Certification area (if applicable) ____________________________ Licensure (if applicable) _____________________________ Languages spoken __________________________ Gender _____________________________ Race/Ethnicity ________________________
214 Appendix D: Interview Questions 1. How do you think society in ge neral perceives disability? 2. Are you aware of any beliefs about disability that are associated with the _______________ culture? 3. How do you feel about those beliefs? 4. What are your thoughts about working with culturally and linguistically diverse students and their families? 5. In your opinion, what is the relations hip between culture and language? Focus on Bilingual/Bicultural Students 6. Have you ever assessed a bilingual student? 7. How often have you assesse d bilingual students? 8. What are your thoughts about assessing bilingual students? 9. Tell me about your experiences with assessing bilingual students. 10. What are some challenges regarding a ssessing students who are English language learners? 11. What things do you consider or keep in mind when assessing a bilingual student? 12. What prerequisites do you see as vital to assessing bilingual students? 13. What ethical issues should be c onsidered when assessing bilingual students? 14. What do you think contributes to the miside ntification and overre presentation of English language learners in special education programs? 15. Tell me about your experiences with using an interpreter. 16. What are the advantages to using an interpreter?
215 17. What are the disadvantages to using an interpreter? 18. Tell me about coursework or inservi ce training youve received regarding working with culturally and linguistically diverse studen ts and their families. 19. Is there a content area that you would have liked to re ceive training in or additional information about? 20. How well do you believe the field of speech-language pathology is doing in effectively meeting the needs of cultura lly and linguistically diverse st udents? 21. How competent do you feel you are in effectiv ely meeting the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students and their families? 22. How competent do you feel you are in assessing the language skills of bilingual students? 23. What supports do you see as necessary in assessing the language skills of bilingual students? 24. What barriers do you see in assessing the language skills of bilingual students? Focus on Speakers of Dialectal Variations 25. Have you ever assessed a student who speak s a dialect (i.e. African American Vernacular English, Gullah, Hi spanic English Vernacular, Appalachian English)? 26. How often have you assessed students who speak a dialect? 27. What are your thoughts about assess ing students who speak a dialect? 28. Tell me about your experiences with assess ing students who speak a dialect. 29. What are some challenges regarding a ssessing students who speak a dialect?
216 30. What things do you consider or keep in mind when assessing a student who speaks a dialect? 31. What prerequisites do you see as vital to assessing students who speak a dialect? 32. What ethical issues should be considered when assessing students who speak a dialect? 33. What do you think contributes to the miside ntification and overre presentation of speakers of di alects in special education programs? 34. Tell me about your experiences with using an interpreter. 35. What are the advantages to using an interpreter? 36. What are the disadvantages to using an interpreter? 37. Is there a content area that you would have liked to re ceive training in or additional information about? 38. What supports do you see as necessary in assessing the language skills of students who speak a dialect? 39. What barriers do you see in assessing the la nguage skills of st udents who speak a dialect?
About the Author Karen Patricia Harris received a Bach elor of Science De gree in Communication from the University of Miami in 1990 and a Master of Science Degree in Speech and Language Pathology from Nova Southeaste rn University in 1993. She holds the Certificate of Clinical Competence by the American Speech Language and Hearing Association (ASHA) and has 12 years of expe rience as a speech-language pathologist. Karen entered the Ph.D. program at the Univ ersity of South Florida in fall 2001. She is the recipient of the LASER Doctoral Fe llowship and Cathy Lynn Richardson Endowed Doctoral Scholarship. Her research interests are in the areas of cultural competence, as it relates to the assessment and intervention of bilingual, bicultural, a nd bidialectal students, and the sociocultural aspects of language and literacy deve lopment in African American children.