Citation
Pragmatic skills in limited English proficient/non-English speaking students, speech and language students, and regular education students

Material Information

Title:
Pragmatic skills in limited English proficient/non-English speaking students, speech and language students, and regular education students
Creator:
Brice, Alexander Emris
Copyright Date:
1990
Language:
English

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Alexander Emris Brice. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
23445749 ( OCLC )
AHN5369 ( LTUF )
0024202618 ( ALEPH )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
PRAGMATIC SKILLS IN LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT/NONENGLISH SPEAKING STUDENTS, SPEECH AND LANGUAGE
STUDENTS, AND REGULAR EDUCATION STUDENTS
By
ALEXANDER E. BRICE

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1990

Uhl VL.A ~uni Li 1ARIES




Copyright 1990
by
Alexander E. Brice




ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to a
number of persons for the preparation of this study and manuscript. For his patience, guidance, and support, I offer my sincerest gratitude to Dr. Clemens Hallman. For his faith and help in pulling things together, my many thanks go to Dr. Doyle Casteel. I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Linda Lombardino for her support in the development of the Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale and for her belief in the project. My appreciation goes to Dr. Paul Jensen for his thoroughness, knowledge of pragmatics, and willingness to serve on my committee. I would like to graciously thank Dr. David Miller for always being of assistance, for his help in the design of the study, and for his help in the data analysis.
I would like to thank all of the teachers who helped in the data gathering. Their work made this study possible. Many thanks go to Mr. Conn, Ms. Coomer-Rothman, Ms. Hough, Dr. Kushner, Ms. Luther, Ms. Niederkohr, Ms. Paulson, Mr. Poston, Ms. Reiter, and Ms. Shille.

iii




My thanks also go to Ms. Weismantel for her continuing guidance, advice, and support in the organization of this study.
I wish also to thank my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Arthur
Brice, Sr., for their continuing faith and love. My thanks also go to my father- and mother-in-law, Dr. and Mrs. Colum Boyland, for their love and support.
Finally, I wish to thank my wife and children, Caroline, Aaron, and Jacqueline, without whose love, support, emotional assistance, and belief in my abilities this study would not have been possible.

iv




TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................. iii
ABSTRACT .......................................... viii
CHAPTERS
ONE INTRODUCTION .............................. 1
Purpose ................................... 2
Definition of Terms ....................... 2
Rationale for the Study ................... 5
Problem Statement ......................... 10
An Overview of the Study .................. 11
Hypotheses and Research Questions ........... 11
Hypothesis One ......................... 11
Hypothesis Two ............................... 11
Limitations of This Study ..................... 12
Summary ....... ................................... 12
TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................. 15
Pragmatics ................................ 15
The Need for Better Understanding of
Pragmatics ............................ 24
Topics and Behaviors of Pragmatics ........ 30
Affects Listener's Behavior Through
Language ............................ 31
Expresses Self ......................... 35
Establishes Appropriate Greetings ...... 37 Initiates and Maintains Conversations .. 38 Listens Actively ....................... 40
Cues the Listener Regarding Topic
Shifts .............................. 42
Summary ................................... 43
THREE METHODOLOGY ............................... 45
Development of an Instrument ................. 45
Intended Use of the APSS ..................... 46
Preparing to Use the APSS ................. 46

v




Rating the Behaviors ...................... 47
Scoring ...... ............................. 48
Indication of Scores ...................... 49
Test Development ............................. 49
Identification of the Primary Purpose(s)
for the Test Scores .................... 50
Identification of Behaviors that Define
the Domain .......................... 50
Preparing of Test Specifications ....... 52
Construction of the Initial Pool of
Items ...............................53
Reviewing and Refining Items as
Necessary and Conducting Preliminary
Item Tryouts ........................... 54
Item-to-Topic Matching .................... 56
Population ................................... 57
Field-testing of the Items on a Large
Representative Sample ............... 57
Analyzing the Statistical Properties of
the Item Scores ..................... 58
Development of the Guidelines .......... 61 Analysis of Variance ...................... 61
Overview of the Remaining Chapters ........ 61
FOUR RESULTS ..... ................................... 62
Total Score .................................. 62
Topic Scores ................................. 62
Topic One (Affects Listener's Behavior
Through Language) .................... 62
Topic Two (Expresses Self) .............. .... 64
Topic Three (Establishes Appropriate
Greetings) ...... ....................... 66
Topic Four (Initiates and Maintains
Conversation) ........................... 67
Topic Five (Listens Actively) .......... 68
Topic Six (Cues the Listener Regarding
Topic Shifts) ..... ...................... 70
Hypotheses and Research Questions ......... 70
Hypothesis One ............................. 70
Hypothesis Two .......................... 71
Overview of the Final Chapter ................ 71
FIVE DISCUSSION ................................... 72
Background and Discussion of This Study ... 72
Purpose of the Study ...................... 75
Summary of the Procedures .............. .... 75
Summary of the Findings and Interpretations 76 Total Score .................................. 76
Topic Scores .................................. 76

vi




Affects Listener's Behavior Through
Language ............................
Expresses Self .........................
Establishes Appropriate Greetings ......
Initiates and Maintains Conversation ...
Listens Actively .......................
Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts Implications ..............................
Implications for the Classroom .........
Research Implications ..................

APPENDICES

A THE ADOLESCENT PRAGMATICS SCREENING SCALE
(APSS) ....................................
B GUIDELINES FOR USING THE ADOLESCENT
PRAGMATICS SCREENING SCALE (APSS) .......... C LETTER TO REVIEWERS .......................
D ITEM-TO-TOPIC MATCHING FORM ...............
E PARENTAL CONSENT LETTER .....................
F TABLE OF RAW DATA .........................

REFERENCES .........................................
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ....................................

vii

76 79 80 81 82
84 85 85 90
95
100 107 109 118
120 123 129




Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate
School of the University of Florida in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
PRAGMATIC SKILLS IN LIMITED ENGLISH
PROFICIENT/NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING STUDENTS,
SPEECH AND LANGUAGE STUDENTS, AND
REGULAR EDUCATION STUDENTS By
Alexander E. Brice
August 1990
Chairperson: Clemens Hallman Major Department: Instruction and Curriculum
Pragmatics, the ability to use language socially and
appropriately in a given situation, is a topic relevant to the needs of students enrolled in United States schools. As more students enrolled in schools come from a background where English is not spoken as the first language, there exists a need to appropriately place these students and meet their educational needs. Language needs become more complex as students are enrolled in middle school. The language needs can be met by a better teacher understanding of pragmatics and of the cultural and linguistic differences of students including limited English proficient students.
The purpose of this study was to compare pragmatics performance of students from three adolescent groups: bilingual/Hispanic students, speech and language students, viii




and regular education students. A pragmatics screening scale (i.e., Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale) was developed to measure pragmatics performance. All students were enrolled in middle school in Alachua County.
Statistical analyses revealed that no differences
existed between group means for the total score measure. However, significant differences were found between group means on five of six topic score measures. Those topics where differences were found were affects listener's behavior through language, expresses self, establishes appropriate greetings, initiates and maintains conversation, and active listening. No significant differences for group means were found for the topic of Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts.
The findings of this study indicated that
bilingual/Hispanic students had difficulties in ordering other persons and listening to a speaker. These difficulties may place Hispanic students at risk for cooperative learning situations in the classroom. Speech and language students displayed difficulties in expressing themselves, establishing greetings, initiating and maintaining conversations, and listening to a speaker. These difficulties may place them at risk for following and completing classroom lessons and participating in the classroom. Implications of this study for the classroom and for future research studies are given.

ix




CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The ability to use language socially and appropriately in a given situation is an issue especially relevant to educators working with students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Hymes, 1972). Language use is concerned with knowledge of and experience in the social setting in which the language is spoken. Students from a cultural background that differs from that of the mainstream culture of the school may not be aware of the social, linguistic, and other demands of the setting in which language is being used. Consequently, such students may be limited in proficiency in this aspect of language. The present study was an investigation of how different student groups (speech and language, bilingual/English as a second language, and regular education students) compared on pragmatics of language behaviors as assessed by teachers in classroom situations.
Researchers have agreed as to the importance of
pragmatics but have not always defined the term in the same way (Bates, 1976; Brice-Heath, 1986; Collier, 1988; Damico, Oller, & Storey, 1983; Garcia & Ortiz, 1988; Halliday, 1978; Hymes, 1972; Lund & Duchan, 1988; Prutting, 1982;
1




2
Simon, 1985). Pragmatics in this study is defined as the use of language that encompasses cognitive, social, and linguistic features. It is the study of behaviors in contexts. It is also concerned with how language is used and interpreted. Pragmatics cannot be isolated from what is happening with the speaker and listener. Therefore, pragmatics is also the study of speaker-listener interactions.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to compare three groups of adolescent students (speech and language students, bilingual students, and regular education students) in terms of their pragmatic behaviors. The study was specifically designed to test whether students who were formally classified as having different instructional needs in language would display different patterns of pragmatic behaviors that could be detected by their classroom teachers.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined as they are used in the study. The terms are grouped according to shared attributes.
Acculturation refers to a student's learning of the mainstream culture. Culture can be said to be made up of overt patterned ways of acting, feeling, and behaving. These behaviors are learned, passed from one generation to




3

another, and are related to a specific society. These are the ideal ways of behaving within given contexts. Culture conditions individuals but is also conditioned by them. Culture and language may be thought of existing in a constant state of interaction; therefore, acculturation is the learning of these overt patterned ways of behaving (Kroeber & Kluckholn, 1952).
Adolescents are students who are in middle school,
i.e., grades 5 through 8 or approximately ages 11 through 15.
Bilingual/bicultural students possess some degree of fluency in more than one language (from minimum ability to complete fluency) and are knowledgeable of other cultural modes of interaction (Baca & Cervantes, 1984).
Limited English proficiency (LEP)/non-English speaking (NES) students are non-native speakers of English who are experiencing spoken language, academic language, and/or cultural problems primarily due to an acculturation lag and to lack of exposure to the target language and culture (Baca & Cervantes, 1984).
Limited English proficient students are adolescents currently enrolled in a English as a second language (ESL) class, English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) class, or bilingual class for English speaking and academic language.




4

Pragmatics refers to the use of language that
encompasses cognitive, social, and linguistic features. Pragmatics is the study of behaviors in contexts. It is also concerned with how language is used and interpreted. The assessment of pragmatics cannot be isolated from what is happening with the speaker and listener. Therefore, pragmatics is also the study of speaker-listenerinteractions (Lund & Duchan, 1988; Simon, 1985).
Speech and language students are adolescents currently enrolled in speech and language classes due to language problems.
Screening refers to the use of a systematic procedure to provisionally identify those students in need of special education or speech-language pathology services. This procedure provides at least three elements: (a) a goal for outlining what is to be screened, (b) a screening procedure and criteria for passing or failing, and (c) a charted intervention plan with a minimum of two interventions against which the effectiveness of the screening can be measured (Larson & McKinley, 1987).
Individual behaviors are the individual foundational
behaviors which make up The Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale (APSS), i.e., the 38 separate behaviors listed under the.general topics.
Topic behaviors refer to the general topics of the
Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale (APSS) which make up




5
the categories into which the individual behaviors fit (the six topic areas on the Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale). The topics consist of (a) affects listener's behavior through language, (b) expresses self, (c) establishes appropriate greetings, (d) initiates and maintains conversation, (e) listens actively, and (f) cues the listener regarding topic shifts.
Rationale for the Study
Schools in the United States now enroll large numbers of students of diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Baca & Harris, 1988; Cole & Deal, 1989; DBS Corporation, 1987; National Coalition of Advocates for Students, 1988). Culturally and linguistically different students exhibit various levels of functioning within contexts in the culture of the United States; specifically, they are acculturating to the mainstream culture of the school system. Some students from recently arrived immigrant families may have had little experience with the values, activities, and other components of life in the United States; some may be natives of the United States, but from a family and community background of another cultural heritage.
When students from culturally and linguistically
different backgrounds enter the nations' public schools, they enter a system designed to meet the needs of mainstream English speaking students, but the system may




6

not meet their needs. Administrators and teachers generally have a mainstream United States cultural background and may have little or no training in meeting the needs of culturally and linguistically different students (National Coalition of Advocates for Students, 1988; Perlman & Chamberlain, 1988). The frame of reference or schema for using language and interacting with the teacher in United States public schools is that of the mainstream culture. According to Neisser (1976), a schema is a construct that may be modified by experience and interaction with others. Frames of reference, according to Goffman (1974), deal with prescribed modes of interaction that are defined by the context of the environment in which they occur. In these situations LEP students are at risk for educational failure because they have not fully adopted the schema or frames of reference of the mainstream culture. These differences of schema and frames are reflected in the students' pragmatics. The high dropout rate of minority students (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1987) is evidence of their lack of school success.
Communication is a major problem for LEP students. For LEP middle school students, the problems with communication are acute due to the high linguistic and contextual demands placed upon them. By the time adolescents from the mainstream English speaking culture backgrounds are in middle school, they exhibit a wide range




7

of linguistic abilities. LEP students may lack the necessary interaction skills, including use of idioms, words for hobbies, and words for school subjects. Knowledgeable adolescents in the mainstream are aware of the need to shift speech as they move from conversing with peers to speaking with adults (Simon, 1989). The necessary pragmatic features for functioning in the middle school environment include taking the perspective of the listener and moving from the one-dimensional world of the concrete referent to the multidimensional world of the abstract description, including use of creative and metalinguistic language. The ability to negotiate with the world of abstract descriptions using creative and metalinguistic language is a requirement for middle school students (Brice-Heath, 1986; Damico, 1985; Owens, 1988; Stephens, 1978; Vejleskov, 1988).
In school, students possessing pragmatic skills can choose language for appropriate interaction with teachers in classroom situations. Hymes (1972) stated that
Children may be "linguistically deprived" if the
language of their natural competence is not of
the school; if the contexts that elicit or permit
use of competence are absent in the school; if
the purposes to which they put language, and the
ways in which they do so, are absent or
prohibited in the school. (p. xx)
Awareness of what pragmatic skills are, how they are evidenced, and how they are acquired should be an aspect of teacher education. Identifying specific difficulties with




8

pragmatics may help school personnel provide a secondary school environment that is more accessible to all students and more comprehensible to students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
In this study the issue of how speech and language students, bilingual/ESL students, and regular education students differed in their use of pragmatics in the classroom was addressed. Regular education students generally are able to meet the mainstream standard. They display the expected cultural, linguistic, and pragmatic behaviors. Therefore, regular education students in this study served as the control group. It was expected that these students would display adequate pragmatic skills in the classroom.
Speech and language disordered students display language behaviors that are not deemed adequate for classroom participation or for interpersonal communication. Since pragmatics is one aspect of language, it was expected that these students would display pragmatic deficits as well. In this study, speech and language students come from a English speaking background similar to the regular education students. Their inclusion into this study was essential in order to serve as a comparison group.
Bilingual/ESL students come from a varied non-English speaking background. School personnel who have not received information about acculturation and pragmatics for




9

second language learners may misinterpret behaviors and performances in class from LEP/NES students. School personnel may misinterpret behaviors which would be appropriate for the LEP/NES students in the native language and culture but may be inappropriate for the English language and culture of the United States (Damico et al., 1983; Garcia & Ortiz, 1988; New York State Education Department Bureau of Bilingual Education, 1985; Ortiz, 1985). If the behaviors are misinterpreted, the teacher may believe that these behaviors are problematic due to a language disorder and refer the student for special education testing. Over-referral to special education handicapped classes, including speech and language classes, may result if many teachers act upon the assumption that differences in pragmatic behaviors are due to disorders (Damico et al., 1983; Garcia & Ortiz, 1985; Ortiz, 1985; Ortiz & Maldonado-Colon, 1986). However, some of these LEP/NES students may actually have pragmatic handicaps and be in need of assistance. Knowledge of the differences in pragmatic skills among the bilingual group, the speech and language group, and the regular education groups should be known by teachers. The bilingual group was chosen because of their diverse educational needs. It was expected that the -behaviors of the bilingual group would vary from the speech and language group and the regular education group. Most bilingual/ESL students were expected to be more like




10

the regular education students in pragmatic skills. Most ESL adolescents would have already been familiar with one set of pragmatic skills (in their native language) and would need time in school to have acquired the second set of skills.
A comparison of three groups on pragmatics would yield valuable information in meeting the educational needs of all groups through appropriate assessment. Thus, in this study, one aspect of assessment, i.e., pragmatics assessment through use of a rating scale, was addressed.
Problem Statement
Pragmatics differences among adolescents resulting
from limited English proficiency and lack of knowledge of the United States North American culture may be perceived as language disorders by school personnel. On the other hand, language disorders may exist among LEP students but be attributed to language differences. School personnel's misassessment of student language difficulties can result in misreferral to special education/speech and language classes. Appropriate referral occurs when LEP students with true pragmatic disorders are referred for special education testing. Appropriate referral also occurs with native English speakers with true pragmatic disorders. It would be extremely useful for teachers to screen for pragmatics with knowledge of various established group performances (speech and language students, bilingual/ESL




11

students, and mainstream regular education students). Providing such a distinction to teachers would help teachers in making appropriate special education referrals.
An Overview of the Study
Student groups were tested for differences in
pragmatics. An analysis of variance was used to determine if any significant differences occurred on the dependent variables between speech and language students, bilingual/ESL students, and regular education students. The dependent variables consisted of the mean topic score or subscale score and total score, while the independent variables consisted of the subject groups (speech and language students, bilingual/ESL students, and regular education students).
Hypotheses and Research Questions Hypothesis One
It was hypothesized that there would be a significant difference among groups (speech and language, bilingual/ ESL, and regular education) on the dependent variable of total score. The research question addressed was: Were there any significant total score differences between group means as measured by the APSS? Hypothesis Two
It was hypothesized that there would be a significant difference between groups (speech and language, bilingual/ESL, and regular education) on topic scores or




12

subscales of the APSS. The research question addressed was: Were there any significant topic score differences between group means as measured by the APSS?
Limitations of This Study
This study was limited to speech and language
students, bilingual/ESL students, and regular education students enrolled in the Alachua County middle schools. The bilingual/ESL student participants were limited to those students who had spent one year or more in the United States public schools. This study was also limited to adolescents located in the Alachua County School District.
The study was limited to one method of data
collection, i.e., teacher recollection and rating of student behaviors. Because the collection of data was limited to those teachers willing to participate and observe their students, the data collection was not random and was limited to a sample of convenience. Therefore, generalizability of results to other populations and regions will be limited. This study was also limited to one measure of pragmatics, i.e., the APSS.
Summary
Pragmatics, the ability to use language in specific contexts and for specific purposes, was the focus of this study. Schools in the United States now enroll large numbers of students with varying cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Florida as a state is heavily affected by LEP




13

students from varying cultural backgrounds. Thus, school personnel in Florida as in the nation are faced with the task of meeting the educational needs of these students.
Language usage problems become more marked when the student is enrolled in the secondary school system. As a result of the language burdens placed on students at the secondary school level, many limited English proficient students may face difficulties with academic courses. The LEP students are at risk of academic failure and referral to special education. Many of the behaviors that they may exhibit are similar to behaviors exhibited by language disordered students.
Regular education students served as the standard by which other students were judged, specifically speech and language students and bilingual/ESL students. Speech and language students differed from regular education students in that they did not possess adequate language skills for academic functioning or interpersonal communication. They, however, did possess an English speaking background similar to the regular education students. Bilingual/ESL students came from non-English speaking backgrounds different from the mainstream. They were at risk for educational failure due to this background difference. The educational system geared to students from mainstream backgrounds is not always equipped to deal with the needs of LEP students.




14

The focus of this study was to test for differences among three student groups (speech and language, bilingual/ESL, and regular education) on a measure of pragmatics. The information gained from this study may assist teachers in making more appropriate educational placement decisions.
In the following four chapters of the study, a review of the relevant literature and methodology for the research is presented along with a discussion of the results. Conclusions and implications are presented in the last chapter.




CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter provides a review of the literature
relevant to this study. Studies addressed in this review are included in four sections: pragmatics, the need for better understanding of pragmatics, the literature and research bases for pragmatics, and implications of the literature and research on pragmatics.
Pragmatics
This section covers three aspects of pragmatics. The first aspect discussed is how knowledge of pragmatics has emerged and evolved. How development of pragmatics parallels development of socialization and acculturation is described next. The relationship of pragmatic skills to academic achievement is the final issue discussed.
There has been an overall trend in the literature
toward recognizing the importance of pragmatics. Although the term pragmatics has not been used by researchers across disciplines, many researchers in different areas of study have each added to the field of knowledge and expanded the notion of pragmatics (Bates, 1976; Brice-Heath, 1986; Collier, 1988; Damico, Oller, & Storey, 1983; Garcia &

15




16

Ortiz, 1988; Halliday, 1978; Hymes, 1972; Lund & Duchan, 1988; Prutting, 1982; Simon, 1985).
Hymes (1972) stated that there exists "a structure of language that goes beyond the aspect of structure dealt with in grammars" (p. xxii). This structure is commonly referred to as pragmatics. Pragmatics is context specific; that is, contextual environments are capable of influencing linguistic interactions. The linguistic interaction is also capable of influencing the contextual environment in which it occurs. Hymes (1972) stated that
Those brought together in classrooms, even though
having the language of the classroom in common,
may not be wholly members of the same speech
community. They may share a speech situation but bring to it different modes of using its language
and of interpreting the speech that goes on
there. (p. xxxviii)
Bates (1976) stated that pragmatics occupies the interface between linguistic, cognitive, and social development. She further stated that pragmatics is dominant over semantics and syntax. Others have supported this view and expanded upon its meaning.
Simon (1985) suggested that cognitive and linguistic domains of pragmatics include coding communication intentions in the most direct manner, using language with appropriate politeness, extracting the real meaning out of a communicative interchange, responding appropriately to the other person, and showing appropriate respect for the other person. Simon (1985) also suggested that pragmatics




17

is influenced by many connecting factors such as knowing what to say to whom, how it was to be said, why it was said, when, and in what situations the expression was said. In her review of the literature, she included other pragmatic domains such as shifting communication styles when addressing different persons, expressing and eliciting opinions, using role taking behaviors, using request behaviors, and using clarifying questions.
Brice-Heath (1986) stated that the school environment influences behaviors and affects outcomes of pragmatics. Simon (1989) stated that the demands of the classroom could produce developments in communication skills for some students while at the same time producing communication deficits in other students who could not cope with the extra demands of the secondary school.
Collier (1987) mentioned acculturation as an important aspect of pragmatics. To Collier, the students' cultural, linguistic, and ethnic background must be considered. Garcia and Ortiz (1988) expanded on Collier's concept of acculturation in their discussion of the learning styles of culturally different students. The learning styles of these students may be misinterpreted by teachers as indicating language problems or disorders.
According to Garcia and Ortiz, language is used
differentially in different contexts (how people speak to each other); for example, there is an accepted use of




18

language in the specific context of the classroom, i.e., the teacher-student interaction. Simon (1985) discussed pragmatic skills such as students' ability to move from everyday language to academic language for proper interaction with teachers. The students' ability to use academic language would allow teachers to engage in inferencing tasks such as interpreting paralinguistic cues (intonation, stress, context) and allow students to draw on language for use in various academic content areas (mathematics, science, social studies, and so forth).
Teacher-student interactions may separate limited English proficient/non-English speaking students and language disordered students from the mainstream students. The interaction influences a teacher's perspective of the student (Damico et al., 1983; Garcia & Ortiz, 1988; Hymes, 1972; New York Education State Department Bureau of Bilingual Education, 1985; Ortiz, 1985).
Teacher-student interactions involve many aspects in which the students' degree of proficiency in pragmatics is important. According to Prutting (1982), communicative competence has evolved into social competence; thus, learning social competence in order to be proficient in the second language is in essence acculturation and socialization. A literature review of acculturation for culturally different students is, in large part, a review of pragmatics for second language learners. Schumann's




19
(1986) model was chosen because of its direct relevance to acculturation. What follows is a description of Schumann's acculturation model. This model predicts the degree to which the second-language learning group acculturates to the target language group and the variables involved that can either enhance or diminish acculturation.
Schumann's model describes seven social factors and four affective variables that affect a student's acculturation into the learning of the mainstream culture. The seven social factors include (a) dominance; (b) integration (assimilation, adaptation, preservation); (c) enclosure; (d) cohesiveness; (e) congruence; (f) attitude; and (g) length of intended stay of the second language group. The social variables refer to the group, but affective variables refer to the individual. Affective variables relate to language learning by the individual as opposed to language learning by the group. The affective variables include language shock, cultural shock, motivation, and ego-permeability. The first of the seven social variables deals with social dominance. Social dominance patterns refer to the political, cultural, technical, and economic values and patterns that each group possesses. If the second-language-and-culture learning group perceives itself to be politically, culturally, technically, and economically superior to the mainstream




20

group, then it will not acquire the pragmatic patterns of the mainstream group.
Assimilation, adaptation, and preservation are levels of integration that the second-language-and-culture group may experience with the target group. Assimilation refers to when the second-language-and-culture group gives up its own lifestyles and values completely and adopts those of the target group. Adaptation refers to when the second-language group adapts to the lifestyle and values of the target group, yet maintains its own values and lifestyles for intragroup use. Preservation refers to when the second-language group rejects the values of the target group and completely maintains its own lifestyles and values. Therefore, assimilation, adaptation, and preservation lie on a continuum of integration to the target group's culture, value, lifestyle, and pragmatics.
Enclosure refers to the degree to which the
second-language learning group and the target group share many of the social constructs, such as the same church, school, recreational facilities, crafts, professions, and trades. If the two groups share many of these constructs, then enclosure is low and contact between the two groups is enhanced. If the opposite is true, then social enclosure is high and opportunities for acquisition of the target language and culture are reduced.




21

According to Schumann (1986), cohesiveness refers to the degree the second-language group remains together as a group. Different groups may display differing levels of cohesion depending upon their internal nature. Attitude refers to the stance that each group has for each other. If a positive attitude prevails between both groups, then language learning is enhanced.
Congruence refers to the degree of similarity between the second-cultural group and the target group. If the two cultures are similar, then social contact is likely and second-language learning may be facilitated. Length of stay refers to the amount of time that the second-language-and-culture learning group plans to be in the target-language group's country.
Language shock, the first of the affective variables discussed by Schumann (1986), refers to the reluctance or eagerness that an individual displays in learning and producing the second language. Eagerness refers to wanting to communicate and participate in the second language. Cultural shock refers to the degree of orientation or disorientation an individual experiences upon entering the target culture. Motivation refers to the degree of willingness to learn the target language and culture. Ego-permeability refers to an individual's ability to transcend inhibition and be open to acquiring language while maintaining a positive self-concept.




22
According to Schumann (1986), the social variables of dominance, assimilation, adaptation, preservation, enclosure, cohesiveness, congruence, attitude, and length of intended stay (how long the group plans to stay in the United States) of the second-language group are external to the individual and are intrinsic to the cultural group. The affective variables of language shock, cultural shock, motivation, and ego-permeability are intrinsic to the individual and not highly influenced by the second-language group.
The assumption of various writers describing
pragmatics in academic settings is that some relationship exists between language proficiency and academic achievement (Cazden, 1988; Cummins, 1984; Hymes, 1972; Moll, 1986; Oller & Perkins, 1980; Simon, 1989). There is, however, variation in the writers' views of the strength of the relationship. Oller and Perkins (1980) stated that a weak relationship exists between language proficiency and academic achievement. Moll (1986), supporting Oller and Perkins, stated that all learning does not take place in social contexts; therefore, pragmatic proficiency does not heavily influence academic outcome. According to Moll, academic success relies more on the student's intelligence than on other factors. Thus, Moll reported a weak relationship between language and academics.




23

Hymes (1972) discussed two issues: that schools
should concern themselves with social relationships and that social relationships can effect change in the classroom. Cummins (1984) stated that students must achieve a certain threshold level of language proficiency (including pragmatics) before they are capable of attaining cognitive growth and hence academic achievement. In essence, he stated that a stronger relationship exists between pragmatics and academic achievement, with language proficiency being a prerequisite to academic proficiency. Cazden (1988) said that teachers should make the medium of classroom discourse the object of their focal attention. She also pointed out that language is important to the schools' planning. Therefore, explicit language planning as well as nondeliberate language use (e.g., unconscious choice of language) are important aspects of the school environment. Simon (1989) reported that language proficiency and academic success are dependent on the degree to which the student is capable of matching the learning-teaching style incorporated in the classroom. The student is capable of high academic success if he or she learns the social language and learning patterns in the classroom. Hymes, Cummins, Cazden, and Simon have agreed that a strong relationship exists between language proficiency (including pragmatics) and academic achievement. All researchers agreed that pragmatic




24
proficiency encompassing social, linguistic, cultural, and cognitive features plays some role in academic achievement. Therefore, pragmatic deficiency in any group of students should not be ignored. Students who may display a high degree of pragmatic difficulties include native speakers who are language disordered and LEP/NES students. Considering the increasing number of LEP students, educators will find it valuable to assess pragmatic proficiency.
The Need for Better Understanding of Pragmatics
A better understanding of pragmatics for teachers will occur as a result of teacher education in this area. This will be evidenced by a more appropriate referral rate of students to special education classes, development of more appropriate assessment procedures, and knowledge of pragmatics as an important variable in academic achievement for all students.
For some years researchers have reported a high incidence of LEP/NES students in special education programs. Ortiz and Yates (1983) reported that in the 1980-1981 school year, 74% of all Hispanic students in Texas special education classes were seen in either learning disabilities or communication disorders classes. Baca and Harris (1988) reported that approximately 1% of all immigrant students were enrolled for special education services. Cole and Deal (1989) reported that between 5.0%




25

and 11.2% of all speech and language clients served by speech-language pathologists in the United States do not speak English as their native language.
Mowder (1979) stated that "many bilingual children have been misclassified as handicapped" (p. 43). Collier (1987) reported that linguistically and culturally different students continue to be disproportionately referred to and placed in special education programs. In addition, she also argued that the dynamics of acculturation are clearly determining factors in the referral and placement process. School personnel must consider acculturation factors before evaluating LEP/NES students. Garcia and Ortiz (1988) reported that data gathered as part of the referral and evaluation process for LEP/NES students were not reflected in decisions made by school personnel. School personnel did not adequately understand the concepts of limited English proficiency, second language acquisition, and cultural differences that mediate the students' learning.
Algozzine, Christenson, and Ysseldyke (1982) reported that, for the years 1977-1980, approximately 92% of all students referred for special education were subsequently evaluated. Of the evaluated group, 73% were subsequently placed into special education programs. Their data show that if a student is referred to special education, a high




26

chance exists (73%) that the student will subsequently be placed into a special education program.
Collier (1988) compared four groups of Hispanic
students (N = 95). She compared students not referred to special education (51), all students referred to special education (44), students referred to special education but not placed (27), and students referred to and placed in special education (17). She found differences between students referred but not placed and students referred and placed on the variables of language and acculturation. Collier also found differences between students not referred to special education and students referred to and placed in special education on these same variables.
Metz (1988) had seven school diagnosticians evaluate
64 hypothetical cases of Hispanic students across five cues of English proficiency, Spanish proficiency, home culture, home Spanish, and home English. Six of the seven school diagnosticians claimed to possess near native or native Spanish proficiency. Metz found that home language and home culture were not equally considered for all decisions. His conclusion was that the clinician's decision-making policies were not concerned with any language proficiency being evaluated. The clinician's concern was whether English proficiency was demonstrated by the students or not. Implications from the Collier (1988) and Metz (1988) studies are that consideration of language proficiency and




27

culture, including pragmatics, be included in the assessment of limited English proficient students.
Larson and McKinley (1987) noted that the research
addressing communication disorders in adolescents remains sparse compared with the wealth of information that has been generated pertaining primarily to preschool and elementary-aged students. They found evidence that students who were language impaired during their preadolescent years later experienced degrees of educational failure as they matured into adolescence. According to Larson and McKinley, one important need is testing instruments appropriate to use with adolescents. In a review of procedures and methods for evaluating racial minorities, Larson and McKinley (1987) suggested that an alternative to the use of standardized tests is to develop new tests that are valid and reliable with nonmainstream speakers.
In a review of currently available tests and
procedures for use with minority and immigrant students, Cummins (1984) stated that criterion-referenced tests appear more straightforward in the interpretation of students' academic performance, insofar as students either possess the criterion knowledge or they do not possess it. Cummins also pointed out that language assessment must place "more emphasis on sensitive and informed interpretation of students' behaviour in nonstandardized




28
communication situations" (p. 206). Cummins also mentioned that "an emerging consensus among investigators concerned with language disorders points to the importance of assessing minority students' functional [emphasis added] language proficiency in a naturalistic context, taking account of patterns of normal language use in the students' community" (p. 207).
A similar argument is developed by Damico et al. (1983). They reported that criteria for measuring pragmatics were more effective than the traditional surface language criteria of morphological and syntactic structures in identifying language disorders in their bilingual sample. They also reported that the traditional criteria did not differentiate between bilingual language disorders and normal second language acquisition differences. The Damico et al. pragmatic categories consisted of nonfluencies, revisions, inordinate delays, nonspecific referential terms, inappropriate responses, poor topic maintenance, and need for multiple repetitions. These categories were applied to language samples gathered in both English and Spanish by speech-language pathologists. The language samples were then analyzed using traditional surface oriented methods such as morphology, and then by using the pragmatic criteria. Results indicated that the pragmatic criteria were more effective in identifying students with language disorders in the bilingual sample.




29

Furthermore, the students identified as having language disorders by the pragmatic criteria failed to make substantial academic gains seven months later. Some of the students identified by the traditional criteria made normal gains in school achievement. This would indicate that the traditional criteria are more likely to misidentify students as having language disorders when, in fact, the students have none. Nippold and Fey (1983) found that the metaphor task was a more sensitive measure of continuing language deficits in a group of students identified as having language problems prior to adolescence than were various standardized measures that focused on the literal aspects of language. The experimental group (the identified language disordered group) was also deficient in a task involving combinatorial reasoning. Nippold and Fey (1983) and Damico et al. (1983) found alternative pragmatic measures that were superior in identifying language disorders.
From this review of the literature it can be stated that no adequate instrument of pragmatics for use with adolescents exists, as researchers only mentioned suggested methods and practices and did not reference any specific instruments (Cummins, 1984; Damico et al., 1983; Larson & McKinley, 1987; Nippold & Fey, 1983). Since no specific instruments were available for teachers to assess their students' pragmatics skills, a misunderstanding of their




30

pragmatics proficiency may occur. Cummins (1984) simply stated that language assessment of students (including minority students) must occur in a naturalistic context taking into account language use in the students' community. No specific procedures were given. The Damico et al. (1983) method of pragmatic analysis involved obtaining a language sample and then using the pragmatic criteria to examine the possibility of a language disorder. Larson and McKinley (1987) described some pragmatic behaviors where the examiner compares his or her perception of the student's functioning with the listed behavior. Nippold and Fey's (1983) method requires the student to explain 16 different metaphoric expressions read by the examiner.
Topics and Behaviors of Pracgmatics
Given the importance of pragmatics for LEP/NES
students, it was necessary to summarize the pragmatics literature. The pragmatics review was classified according to general topics and specific behaviors which matched those topics. This method of grouping was utilized in order to aid a better understanding of the literature and research.
The earlier pragmatics literature provided most of the basis for the development of six topics as reported here (Dore, 1979; Halliday, 1978; Searle, 1976; Stephens, 1978). The topics are umbrella terms under which the behaviors are




31

listed. The more recent literature provided a basis for the development of 38 individual behaviors that corresponded to these topics (Brice-Heath, 1986; Damico, 1985; Damico & Oller, 1983; Damico et al., 1983; Nezer, Nezer, & Siperstein, 1985; Nippold & Fey, 1983; Stephens, 1978). The topics and behaviors were arranged for the purpose of this research according to a best fit classification.
Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language
This topic deals with the speaker effecting a response from the listener. It is derived from Searle's (1976) behavior of directive, i.e., getting the speaker to do some act. Searle developed his list of behaviors from a critique of Austin's work in 1962. This behavior also has reference in Halliday's (1978) regulatory topic, i.e., ordering people about. He developed his pragmatic functions after observing his son over a period of time. Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language is also similar to the category proposed by Brice-Heath (1986) for using language to obtain information. She developed her behaviors from a review of the historical literature on language policies in Mexico and the United States and from collaborative research with teachers of language minority students. The difference between Brice-Heath's behavior and this behavior is that in this study obtaining information is only one form of effecting some response




32
from the listener. Eleven behaviors are categorized under this topic.
1. Asks for Help. Nezer, Nezer, and Siperstein
(1985) developed their list of behaviors through directive teaching, which involves three steps: to define the behavior in observable terms, to assess the behaviors with students, and to prescribe teaching strategies to fit the students' needs. All behaviors were subject to change and modification throughout the process. Nezer et al. (1985) asked whether students are able to decide that they need help and ask for it in a pleasant manner. Simon (1989) also noted that adolescents rarely ask for help in the classroom.
2. Asks Questions. Damico (1985) obtained his list of behaviors from previous research studies (Damico & Oller, 1980; Damico et al., 1983). These studies involved comparison of speech and language placement criteria for the public schools. The criteria examined involved traditional surface language criteria and pragmatics criteria. They reported that their pragmatics criteria were more effective than the traditional surface language criteria of morphological and syntactic structures. The pragmatics criteria categories consisted of nonfluencies, revisions, inordinate delays, nonspecific referential terms, inappropriate responses, poor topic maintenance, and need for multiple repetitions. Results in the studies




33
indicated that the pragmatics criteria were more effective in identifying students with language disorders. Both studies involved small samples. Results may not be highly generalizable.
3. Attempts to Persuade Others. This behavior is
similar to the Nezer et al. (1985) behavior of negotiating to reach a compromise. Vejleskov (1988) developed a list of behaviors through an approach similar to directive teaching. First, the behaviors were defined. Secondly, Vejleskov observed 70 different students where he gathered 17,000 utterances. Utterances were categorized according to function, i.e., on the basis of the utterance as well as on the whole situational context. Vejleskov found that it was possible to code all the behaviors according to the intellectual and social functions. Attempts to Persuade Others is also similar to Vejleskov's (1988) behavior of examining the listener, to control his or her knowledge.
4. Informs Another of Important Information. This behavior deals with informing the listener of some important information. It has some basis in Halliday's (1978) informative function or expressing information.
5. Asks for a Favor of a Friend/Classmate. This
behavior is similar to the Nezer et al. (1985) behavior of simply asking for a favor. They did not distinguish between who is being asked the favor and the possible outcome of the favor. Asking for a favor is also similar




34

to Vejleskov's (1988) behavior of asking for support or acceptance. Support can be viewed as a favor in some circumstances.
6. Asks for a Favor of the Teacher. This behavior is based on the Nezer et al. (1985) behavior of asking a favor. Nezer et al. did not distinguish who is being asked or the outcome of the favor. Asks for a Favor of the Teacher is more formal and the listener is only likely to perform expected, less personal favors.
7. Asks for Teacher's and/or Adult's Permission. This behavior is similar to the Nezer et al. (1985) behavior of asking for permission, where the student knows when and how to ask for something from another.
8. Asks for Other Student's Permission. This is
again similar to the Nezer et al. (1985) behavior of asking for permission.
9. Able to Negotiate, Give and Take in Order to Reach an Agreement. This is similar to the Nezer et al. (1985) category of negotiating. The student compromises and negotiates with another student and/or adult in hopes of reaching a satisfactory agreement.
10. Is Able to Give Simple Directions. This behavior is drawn from Stephen's (1978) behavior of giving directions to peers.
11. Rephrases a Statement. This is similar to Roth and Spekman's (1984a) idea of repair strategies for




35

conversational breakdowns, in particular the notion of elaborating and asking appropriate questions to repair the breakdown. Roth and Spekman (1984a) compiled the works of various researchers in an attempt to present a more elaborate list of observable topics and behaviors. Rephrases a Statement is the ability to ask for clarification by repeating the initial statement or by saying it slightly differently. Expresses Self
Expresses Self was taken from Searle's (1976) expressive act of expressing a psychological state. Halliday's (1978) personal function, used to express one's uniqueness, is also very pertinent. Expresses self is similar to Damico's (1985) behavior of structuring discourse and Vejleskov's (1988) behavior of expressing one's feelings positively and expressing one's feelings negatively. Seven behaviors are categorized under this topic.
1. Describes Personal Feelings in an Acceptable Manner. This behavior is similar to Stephens' (1978) behavior of expressing feelings. Stephens described this behavior as being able to describe one's feelings or moods in a verbal manner. Nezer et al. (1985) included the behavior of expressing feelings.
2. Shows Feelings in an Acceptable Manner. Nezer et al. (1985) identified expressing feelings, knowing




36

feelings, expressing concern, dealing with anger, expressing anger, expressing affection, and dealing with fear. This behavior differs from Describing Personal Feelings in an Acceptable Manner in that the behaviors here may be nonverbal (just showing the emotions) while the behaviors in the former have to be verbal.
3. Offers a Contrary Opinion in Class Discussions.
This behavior is derived from Stephens' (1978) behavior of discussing opposite or contrary opinions in class discussions. It also has a basis in the Nezer et al. (1985) behavior of knowing how to make a complaint, that is, that the student is able to disagree in acceptable ways.
4. Gives Logical Reasons for Opinions. This deals with the ability to offer a reason for an expressed opinion. It is similar to Stephens' (1978) behavior of providing reasons for opinions.
5. Says That They Disagree in a Conversation.
Stephens (1978) also developed his list of behaviors from the directive teaching process. Behaviors must specify the movements which make up the behavior and conditions in which the behavior is to occur (i.e., context of the behavior). Stephens surveyed the ability to discuss contrary opinions in class discussions. This behavior consists of verbal disagreement.




37

6. Stays on Topic for an Appropriate Amount of Time. This is similar to Damico's (1985) and Oller's (1983) behavior of topic management. It is the ability to stay on a conversational topic until both parties (in dyadic conversation) are satisfied or until almost all parties are satisfied in a group discussion.
7. Switches Response to Another Style of Speaking to Suit the Listener. This behavior is essentially the same behavior described by Simon (1989) as "difficulty shifting communication style depending on the communication partner" (p. 90). It is the ability to change speaking manners when addressing different groups or individuals. Establishes Appropriate Greetings
This sequence of behaviors deals with the ability to
establish appropriate greetings with others. It is derived directly from Dore's (1979) behavior of greetings. Four behaviors are categorized under this topic.
1. Establishes Eye Contact. This is somewhat similar to Stephens' (1978) task of greeting others by looking them in the eye and resembles Damico's (1985) task of being able or not able to establish gaze efficiency with others.
2. Smiles When Meeting Friends. This is similar to Stephens' (1978) behavior of smiling when encountering friends.
3. Responds to an Introduction by Saying "Hello, How are You Doing" or Other Similar Greeting. This is the




38
ability to greet others verbally. This parallels Stephens' (1978) greeting task of saying how do you do or shaking hands.
4. Introduces Self to Others. This is the ability to introduce oneself to others as the title implies. It is similar to Stephens' (1978) category of greeting others and specifically to his behavior of introducing oneself to others.
Initiates and Maintains Conversations
Initiates and maintains conversation is taken from Halliday's interactional function or language used to interact with others. It is also similar to Brice-Heath's (1986) behavior of using language to sustain and maintain the social and linguistic interactions of the group. Vejleskov's (1988) behavior of carrying on the conversation to be polite is also comparable. Six behaviors are categorized under this topic.
1. Displays Appropriate Response Time. This behavior is similar to that which Damico (1985) stated in the negative, i.e., delay before responding. This behavior deals with a listener responding to a speaker's request or statement requiring some response. Waiting too long before responding would seem to indicate a loss of interest in the topic or a topic shift to the other party or parties involved.




39
2. Asks for More Time. This is partially taken from Damico's (1985) and Oller's (1983) behavior of topic maintenance. The listener indicates that more time is needed before responding.
3. Notes that the Listener is Not Following the
Conversation and Needs Clarification or More Information.
Roth and Spekman (1984) mentioned the conversational strategy of repair attempt during a communication breakdown.
4. Talks to Others with Appropriate Pitch and
Loudness Levels of Voice. This behavior is similar to those proposed by Damico (1985) and Stephens (1978). Damico referred to inappropriate intonational contours that students may exhibit, while Stephens stated using a satisfactory tone of voice deemed appropriate for the situation.
5. Answers Ouestions Relevantly. Damico (1985) posed a negative form that is similar, that is, answering with an inappropriate response.
6. Waits for Appropriate Pauses in Conversation
Before Speaking. This is one of many behaviors that Damico (1985) labeled as difficulties in taking turns. It is more specifically related to Stephens' (1978) behavior of making conversation or waiting for appropriate pauses in conversation before speaking.




40

Listens Actively
Listens Actively is the ability to take active
participation as a listener in a conversation. It has its basis in Dore' 7-9-)--behavior of acknowledgments, i.e. recognizing and evaluating responses and requests. This is also similar to Stephens' (1978) category of attending behaviors. Nine behaviors are categorized under this topic.
1. Asks to Repeat What Has Been Said for Better
Understanding. This is a combination of Stephens' (1978) behavior of asking appropriate questions and Roth and Spekman's (1984a) idea of repair strategies for communication breakdowns. Asks to Repeat What Has Been Said for Better Understanding is similar to Rephrases a Statement except that in this case clarification for better understanding is more active, whereas, in the former category the assumption is that the listener will understand that a communication breakdown has occurred when the listener repeats a statement.
2. Looks at Teacher When Addressed. This is drawn from Stephens' (1978) behavior of looking at the teacher when instructed. Addressed means the teacher engages the student in some activity, instruction, or conversation. The-student may exhibit this behavior through occasional glances or through maintained eye contact.




41
3. Listens to Others in Class. This behavior is the capacity to follow other conversations in class and maintain interest. This is very similar to Stephens' (1978) behavior of listening to class speakers. However, in Listens to Others in Class, participation is more than just having good hearing. It is the active processing of what has been said.
4. Changes Activities When Asked by the Teacher. This is the ability to follow directions upon direct request and maintain on task listening behaviors. This is drawn from Stephens' (1978) behavior of changing activities upon the teachers' request to the class.
5. Acknowledges the Speaker Verbally. This is
similar to Stephens' (1978) behavior of paying attention to the person speaking in a conversation. Acknowledges the Speaker is a verbal display of following the conversation.
6. Acknowledges the Speaker Nonverbally. This is the nonverbal counterpart to the preceding behavior. It is taken from Stephens' (1978) behavior of listening to others. It may include such behaviors as looking at the speaker through occasional glances, through maintained eye contact, or nodding.
9. Differentiates Between Literal and Figurative
Language. This behavior is outlined by Simon (1989) who noted that adolescents enrolled in preschool language therapy had significant difficulties with figurative




42

language. Nippold and Fey (1983) noted that idiom and metaphor use and analysis is a tool for detecting linguistic deficits in adolescents. Figurative language includes expressions that have a different meaning from what is actually said, while literal language refers to exactly what is said.
Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts
Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts is the
capacity to tell the listener verbally or nonverbally that a change in conversation is about to occur. It is taken from Roth and Spekman's (1984a) behaviors of regulating interpersonal communication and monitoring the conversation. It has some basis in Halliday's (1978) informative function or expressing information. However, the information to be expressed in this topic deals specifically with conversation. Three behaviors are tested under this topic.
1. Waits for a Pause in the Conversation Before Speaking About Something Else. Nezer et al. (1985) included a behavior of participating in discussions in accordance with classroom rules. Stephens (1978) also mentioned the behavior of waiting quietly for recognition before speaking out in class. Waits for a Pause in the Conversation Before Speaking About Something Else is thus taken from these behaviors. It is the capacity to pause approximately three to five seconds at the end of a thought




43

or sentence before embarking on a new topic. This is similar to Displays Appropriate Response Time in that both behaviors require appropriate timing in the student. This behavior differs from Displays Appropriate Response Time; in the former, the listener is being asked to give some sort of response to a question or statement, while in Waits for a Pause in the Conversation Before Speaking About Something Else the listener is waiting to embark on a new topic of conversation and is waiting for the right moment.
2. Looks Away to Indicate Loss of Interest in
Conversation. This gesture indicates a desire for a topic shift. It has some basis in the Nezer et al. (1985) behavior of appropriately ending a conversation. It consists of looking away of once or twice and maintaining that look for approximately three to five seconds.
3. Makes Easy Transitions Between Topics was
discussed by Oller (1983), and Damico (1985). Both Oller and Damico referred to this behavior as topic maintenance. Oller stated that the student should be able to provide transitional cues to the listener; otherwise conversation is not maintained because of the breakdown. In an easy transition the listener does not question internally or verbally what the conversation is about.
Summary
Pragmatics has been shown to have evolved through the work of various researchers. Some researchers stated that




44

pragmatics has a strong influence on a student's academic success. Others have simply reported a relationship of some sort between pragmatics proficiency and academic success. Pragmatic skills are particularly important for limited English proficient students at the adolescent level who are culturally and linguistically different. School personnel utilizing their knowledge of pragmatics with different student groups could better identify those students who may have communication disorders. Possibly, school personnel could help the students to achieve academic success without referral. The methods employed in this study are discussed in the next chapter. Results of this study are discussed in the fourth chapter, while conclusions and implications are set forth in chapter five.




CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
In this chapter the methodology that had been employed in the development of an instrument (the Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale) is reported. Also, the methodology that was employed in the examination of groups utilizing the APSS is discussed.
Development of an Instrument
The Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale was
developed as a rating measure of students' pragmatic skills. It was developed to fill the need for an assessment instrument measuring pragmatics with adolescent mainstream students, speech and language students, and bilingual/ESL students. The APSS consists of a rating scale that includes six pragmatic categories (i.e., the topics) derived from the literature, covering the spectrum of pragmatics for adolescents. These topics consist of (a) affects listener's behavior through language, (b) expresses self, (c) establishes appropriate greetings, (d) initiates and maintains conversation, (e) listens actively, and (f) cues the listener regarding topic shifts. Under each category, the individual behaviors are listed. A total of 38 different behaviors are sampled.
45




46

Intended Use of the APSS
All sections of this screening scale were filled out by a teaching professional working with adolescents. The scale was used and is intended to be used by speech-language pathologists, bilingual/ESL teachers, and/or regular education teachers. Results of different ratings by various teachers may be shared and a whole description of how the student is functioning in different classrooms and environments may be presented. Measurement errors can be reduced by using more than one rater per student. The various teachers may use the APSS as a prereferral or screening for special education evaluation for those students who may possess a pragmatics problem. Those behaviors identified as being problematic, that is, receiving a four or five rating (the behavior is exhibited at a moderately or highly inappropriate level), may be targeted during a noted intervention plan involving charting of results. The APSS was used in observation. The purpose of the observation as employed with the APSS is to study a person in action and later to record those actions with the use of checklists or rating scales. The behaviors noted by observers were observed, not elicited. Preparing to Use the APSS
. The teachers who used the APSS followed a two-step procedure before any data were collected. The procedure follows:




47

1. The teacher read through the APSS guidelines
(Appendix B) thoroughly, noting the examples given. The examples were not to be taken verbatim but were to serve as general examples. The teacher familiarized himself or herself thoroughly with the APSS.
2. If the teacher was familiar with the student's
behaviors and interactions in the school environment, then the teacher rated the student's performance utilizing past observations of the student. If the teacher had questions that could not be answered or lacked information about the student's capabilities, it was suggested that the teacher spend additional time observing the student. There were no set number of observations that the teacher should have performed. This observation period was to last approximately two weeks.
Rating the Behaviors
The teacher rater utilized a 5-point scale, with 1
indicating a highly appropriate level of performance on the behavior and 5 indicating a highly inappropriate level of performance. The scale consisted of a continuous level of performance. Highly appropriate in this context meant that the behavior was acceptable and was easily conveyed given the surroundings in the public school culture of the United States. Moderately appropriate in the context of the scale meant that the behavior was conveyed with no great difficulties. A behavior exhibited at the borderline level




48

of appropriateness indicated that the behavior could have been displayed in a better manner; however, the message was conveyed. Behaviors displayed at the moderately inappropriate level conveyed the message, yet placed a great burden upon listener. A behavior exhibited at the highly inappropriate level placed an extreme burden on the other involved party, and the message or intent was vague and unclear. The teacher did not take the examples given on the APSS as being the only indicators of the behavior. Any behaviors that the teacher was unable to judge were rated as zero indicating no score. Scoring
Scoring of the APSS yielded three types of scores,
individual behavior scores, topic scores, and total score. Each individual behavior received a rating score from 1 to 5, which yielded an individual behavior score. Each topic (e.g., Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language) thus received a mean score by adding up all the individual behavior scores and dividing by the total number of behaviors. What resulted was a topic score.
A total score for the APSS was also possible. This
was obtained by summing all the individual behavior scores and dividing by the total number of behaviors. The total score was a mean rating for the entire scale. The teacher was instructed to score as many of the behaviors as possible.




49

Indication of Scores
The APSS was based on a 5 point Likert-type rating scale. A rating higher than a 3.0 was indicative of an unacceptable rating for the topic scores or for the total score. Also, because of the wording used in describing the ratings, a rating of 3.0 indicated a borderline level of appropriateness. Anything greater than borderline was also indicative of an inappropriate rating. A score greater than a 3.0 was indicative of possible problems in pragmatics.
Test Development
The APSS was constructed using the guidelines set
forth by Crocker and Algina (1986). This process consisted of a modified eight-step procedure (varying slightly from Crocker and Algina) performed to assure that the test scores had the proper technical qualities to serve as useful measurements. Steps one through eight were followed in the development of the APSS. Crocker and Algina's step nine procedure, involving an analysis of subject performance across student groups, was selected to serve as the primary purpose for this study, therefore it was addressed in a separate section under group comparisons. The eight-step process used in this study for development of the APSS follows:
1. identifying of the primary purpose(s) for the test scores;




50

2. identifying behaviors that defined the domain;
3. preparing of test specifications, delineating the proportion of items that focused on each behavior as identified in step two;
4. constructing the initial pool of items;
5. reviewing and refining items as necessary and conducting preliminary item tryouts;
6. field-testing of the items on a large representative sample;
7. analyzing the statistical properties of the item scores with an elimination of items that did not meet the established criteria; and
8. developing the guidelines for administration, scoring, and interpretation of the APSS scores. Identification of the Primary Purpose(s) for the Test
Scores
The purpose of the scale was to give information about pragmatics in screening students. If the student receives a total score beyond the suggested cutoff score, then the student should be considered for special education evaluation. The APSS could also yield valuable qualitative information to the teacher about how a student may have been functioning pragmatically. Identification of Behaviors that Define the Domain
The behaviors that are compiled in the APSS were drawn from sources in the literature (Brice-Heath, 1986; Damico, 1985; Dore, 1979; Halliday, 1978; Nezer, Nezer, &




51

Siperstein, 1985; Oller, 1983; Searle, 1976; Stephens, 1978; Vejleskov, 1988). They were submitted and reviewed by a panel of expert professionals who are knowledgeable about bilingual education, assessment practices with other cultures, or with the construct of pragmatics (refer to Appendix C). A review of the literature along with submission of the APSS to experts in the field added to the content validity of the instrument. A third step in yielding content validity information was obtained through a preliminary field testing of the APSS with teachers. The final step in assuring content validity involved appropriate matching of items to their respective topics (Appendix D). An item-to-topic matching session was conducted with informed participants. These sections are later discussed in further detail. The expert professionals who reviewed the APSS were six speech-language pathologists, five special educators, two bilingual educators, and one educational psychologist. Of the six speech-language pathologists, two were University of Florida professors in speech and language pathology with expertise in the area of child language. The other speech-language pathologists included an associate professor/assistant dean at San Diego State University with expertise in bilingual speech-language pathology; a program director of the multicultural training program in communicative disorders at the University of New Mexico; an




52

associate professor/department chair of speech-languagehearing sciences at Temple University; and one school clinician working with middle and high school adolescents in the Alachua County School District. The five special educators included two professors at the University of Florida Department of Special Education, one bilingual special education research and grant director, one special educator with school experience working also as a researcher, and one professor at the University of Texas. The two bilingual educators were a professor in the Department of Instruction and Curriculum at the University of Florida and a middle school teacher working in an English as a second language (ESL) classroom in the Alachua County School District. The educational psychologist was a professor at the University of Florida in the Foundations of Education Department.
Changes made to the APSS included deletion of certain behaviors, rewording of the topics, behaviors, and examples, and addition of new behaviors and examples. The basic format of the APSS was retained. Most of the topics, behaviors, and examples remained intact. Preparing of Test Specifications
A criterion in the development of the APSS was that
each individual behavior should possess the same weight of importance. The scale was developed on the premise that no one language behavior in itself would yield a normal or




53
disordered classification. The total score of the APSS or the Topic Scores would make this distinction possible. Construction of the Initial Pool of Items
The item format chosen for use with the APSS consisted of a rating scale similar to a Likert scale in that a 5point rating continuum was used. This method was chosen because of its flexibility in gathering information with various teaching professionals and because of the nature of the pragmatics construct. According to Cronbach (1949), rating scales can serve as devices "for obtaining descriptions of the subject who has been familiar with his typical behavior in the past. . Ratings are popular because they can be treated numerically and are superficially uniform from judge to judge" (p. 397). A 5to 7-point scale is recommended by Cronbach as serving adequately. The APSS employed a 5-point scale. The item format was verified as being acceptable by verbally interviewing five teaching professionals in the fall 1987 school semester in the Alachua County School District. This step also added to the content validity of the APSS. The five professionals included one speech-language pathologist, and four special educators all working with middle and high school students. All agreed that this type of format would be acceptable.
The initial pool of items and preceding items were compiled by the author following guidelines set forth by




54

Evans and Algozzine (1988). A guideline in writing the items was that the individual behaviors be objective and observable in school settings. Concrete examples were provided on the APSS for each item to clarify the individual behaviors. The earlier pragmatics literature provided the basis for the development of the six topics (Dore, 1979; Halliday, 1978; Searle, 1976; Stephens, 1978). The more recent literature provided a basis for the development of 38 individual behaviors that corresponded to these topics (Brice-heath, 1986; Damico, 1985; Damico & Oller, 1983; Damico, Oller, & Storey, 1983; Nezer, Nezer, & Siperstein, 1985; Nippold & Fey, 1983; Stephens, 1978). The topics and behaviors were arranged according to a best fit classification and verified by an item-to-topic matching procedure (discussed later in this chapter). Reviewing and Refining Items as Necessary and Conducting
Preliminary Item Tryouts
All items were reviewed by a panel of expert
professionals knowledgeable about pragmatics and teachers working in the field. The teaching professionals were a speech-language pathologist, a special education teacher, and a guidance counselor. Professional experience ranged from 2 years to 15 years teaching experience. These teachers came from the Alachua County School District. All participants were approached via a telephone call, followed by a personal visit. They were asked to give their recommendations concerning the format and item




55
specification of the APSS. All participants then responded by providing the author with written recommendation or verbal comments regarding (a) appropriateness of the test for use with the intended populations, (b) appropriateness of the test format, (c) applicability of the general topics, (d) applicability of the specific behaviors, (e) scoring of the items, (f) wording of the items, (g) applicability of the examples, and (h) appropriateness of item matching to the topics (i.e., do the items fit the topics?). Items were revised according to comments made by the various professionals.
Preliminary item tryouts were conducted on 15 students by three school professionals. Adolescents from middle and high school populations were utilized. The school personnel were trained to use the instrument by this author during a training session lasting approximately 45 minutes. The session covered the intent of the APSS, how to use the APSS, how to rate the behaviors, how to score the APSS, what the scores mean, and specifically what the individual behaviors and topics mean. Positive and negative examples of the behaviors were verbally discussed in defining the behaviors. The school personnel held preliminary tryouts of the APSS after two weeks of observation and then made recommendations concerning each of the eight segments of the APSS. A final revision of the APSS was made, taking into consideration the comments of school personnel.




Item-to-Topic Matching
The 38 Item Behaviors and the 6 Topic Behaviors were matched for goodness of fit (how well the 38 individual items matched and corresponded to the 6 topics they were assigned to by the test developer) utilizing a structured matching process involving the course instructor and graduate level speech-language pathology students enrolled in a language course at the University of Florida. They were briefed about the purpose of the study and the development of the Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale. They were provided with a description of the 38 individual items and the seven general topic areas (one topic was dropped for the final form of the APSS). They then received a form (Appendix D) on which to record their judgement of which items matched which topics.
Black and Dockrell (1984) stated that a review of test items should include training the reviewers, conducting a structured review, and adequately describing the domain definition. Results of this review assigned the items to the topics (for goodness of fit) according to the information given by the informed group of speech-language pathology students and course instructor. Changes made to the APSS were based on a median average of matching. Changes made included moving 13 behaviors to other topics for a better fit. The five behaviors under the topic of Contracts with Others were identified as having a better




57

fit with the topic of Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language. Therefore, Contracts with Others was deleted because of redundancy with the topic of Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language. Six topics were used on the final form of the APSS.
Population
In this study the Alachua County School District
defined the student population. This school district had bilingual/ESL students, speech-language students, and normal student populations from which to draw. Adolescents from grades 5 through 8 were selected as the age group. Thirty-five students from the speech and language and regular education groups and 25 students from the bilingual/NES group were selected for scoring on the APSS, i.e., for a total of 95 students. Field-testing of the Items on a Large Representative
Sample
The APSS needed some large scale field testing to
establish the reliability of the instrument. As part of this study, the data collected were also used to establish internal consistency. The APSS was used to rate 97 students for the purpose of item analysis (Crocker & Algina, 1986). Thirty-five students were gathered from the regular education group and the speech and language group, while 27 students were gathered from the bilingual/ESL group. Teacher training was the same as that provided in the preliminary item tryout. Nine teachers participated. Each




58

teacher rated from 5 to 27 students from his or her class. The participating group consisted of speech-language pathologists, bilingual/ESL teachers, and regular education teachers. Teachers followed the guidelines for using the APSS as suggested in the written guidelines packet. They then rated the selected students after reading the packet and the teacher training. Teachers were selected upon availability from the school district, that is, who was able to participate, and who was able to attend the training session and follow through with the data collection.
Analyzing the Statistical Properties of the Item Scores
A classical item analysis model was utilized for the APSS items. The internal criteria used for the item-test correlation consisted of the total score and the topic scores. The item-to-test correlation involved comparisons between individual behavior scores and total scores and between topic scores and total scores. The reliability index was achieved by calculating a Cronbach's Alpha coefficient (Table 1). Coefficients ranged from .66 for topic six (Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts) to .91 for topic one (Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language). Topic six contained the least items (3) while topic one contained the most items (11). The expected strength of the reliability was based on the number of items with comparable items, statistically. Topics with




59

more items were, in fact, more reliable indicators of pragmatics performance with no one individual behavior possessing more strength than the other items. Coefficients are listed for topics and total in Table 1. The total score reliability coefficient was reported to be .93. The coefficients as reported in Table 1 indicate strong internal consistency of the topics and total instrument.

Table Index

1
of Reliability Coefficients Utilizing a Cronbach's

Alpha Measure for Items

under Topics and Total

Topic Number of Items Descriptor Cronbach's Alpha
1 11 Effects Listener's .91 Behavior Through
Language
2 7 Expresses Self .79 3 4 Establishes Appropriate .80 Greetings
4 6 Initiates and Maintains .73 Conversation
5 7 Actively Listens .79 6 3 Cues the Listener .66 Regarding Topic Shifts
Total 38 Total Score .93
Intercorrelations for the topics and total were computed and are listed in Table 2. Intertopic




60

correlations ranged from .37 to .75 indicating moderate relationships. Thus, separate topics or subscales seemed to be justified. However, the relationship between the topics and the total score was stronger. As expected those topics with more items generally showed a stronger correlation. Topic one with eleven behaviors (Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language) yielded a topic to total correlation of .91, topic three (Establishes Appropriate Greetings) with four behaviors yielded a topic to total correlation of .80. Topic six with only three behaviors (Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts) yielded a topic to total correlation of .67. All items were retained for the final form of the APSS. Table 2
Intercorrelations of Topics and Total
Topics 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
1 1.00 .91 2 .71 1.00 .83 3 .41 .67 1.00 .72 4 .64 .71 .49 1.00 .82 5 .67 .62 .59 .75 1.00 .86 6 .57 .47 .37 .71 .73 1.00 .67




61

Development of the Guidelines
The guidelines for administration and scoring of the APSS are contained in Appendix B. Guidelines for interpretation of the scores are discussed in the final chapter of this study.
Analysis of Variance
A oneway analysis of variance was conducted. The independent variables consisted of the subject groups (speech and language students, bilingual/Hispanic students, and regular education students), while the dependent variables consisted of the topic score and the total score. A total of 95 students was utilized with 35 students from the regular education and speech and language groups, and 25 students from the bilingual/Hispanic group. Two students were dropped from the bilingual/ESL group (previously utilized in the item analysis portion of this study) in order to maintain a homogeneous bilingual/ Hispanic group. Hispanic students were chosen for this study because of their predominance in Florida public schools.
Overview of the Remaining Chapters
Chapter four contains a discussion of the specific findings from the data collected with regard to the hypotheses. These findings along with implications for further research will be the focus of the final chapter. Some followups to this study will be recommended.




CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
This study compared performance on a scale of pragmatics across various student groups of regular education, speech and language, and Hispanic bilingual students. An analysis of variance comparing topic scores and total scores for the groups indicated significant differences were five of the seven variables.
Total Score
There was no significant difference across groups on the total score (F=2.09; df=2, 60; p>.05). A summary of results is given in Table 3. The mean for total score was 72.14 and the standard deviation was 18.48. There are no overall differences in pragmatics for means of the three groups of students.
Topic Scores
Results of an analyses of variance for each topic of the topics is presented next. Topic One (Affects Listener's Behavior Through Lanuage)
A significant difference for the three groups was found on topic one, Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language, (F=5.74; df=2, 70; p<.05). The summary of the analysis of variance is recorded in Table 4. Tukey's 62




63

Table 3
Summary Table of Analysis of Variance for Total
Source SS df MS F Groups 1377.83 2 688.91 2.09 Error 19803.88 60 330.06 Total 21181.71 62
Table 4
Summary Table of Analysis of Variance for Topic One (Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language)
Source SS df MS F Groups 548.12 2 274.06 5.74 Error 3344.92 70 47.78 Total 3893.04 72
* Significant at p<.05
HSD follow-up showed a significant difference between the means of the bilingual/Hispanic students (Mean = 25.96) and regular education students (Mean = 19.40). With Tukey's HSD test a mean difference of 4.74 or larger is significant at p<.05. The means, standard deviations, and Tukey's HSD test for topic one according to group (regular




64

education students, speech and language students, and bilingual students) are recorded in Table 5.
Table 5
Tukey's HSD Test for Significant Differences on Topic One (Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language)
Group Mean SD Difference From Speech and Bilingual/
Language ESL
Regular 19.40 7.06 2.05 6.56* Speech and 21.45 7.09 4.51 Language
Bilingual/ 25.96 6.56 ESL
* Significant at p<.05 with Tukey's HSD Test
Topic Two (Expresses Self)
A significant difference for the three groups of students was found for the topic of Expresses Self (F=4.08; df=2, 66; p<.05). The summary of the analysis of variance is listed in Table 6. Tukey's HSD follow-up showed a significant difference between the means of the speech and language (Mean =16.63) and regular education students (Mean = 12.89). With Tukey's HSD test a mean difference of 3.40 or larger is significant at p<.05. The means, standard deviations, and Tukey's HSD test for topic two according to group (regular education students, speech




65

and language students, and bilingual students) are recorded in Table 7. Table 6
Summary Table of Analysis of Variance for Tonic Two

Source SS df MS F Groups 189.02 2 94.60 4.08 Error 1528.56 66 23.16 Total 1717.76 68
* Significant at p<.05
Table 7
Tukey's HSD Test for Significant Differences on Tonic Two

(Expresses Self)

Group Mean SD Difference From Speech and Bilingual Language ESL
Regular 12.89 4.55 3.74* 1.71 Speech and 16.63 5.34 2.03 Language
Bilingual/ 14.60 4.22 ESL
* Significant at p<.05 with Tukey's HSD Test

(Exr-prese qPlf)




66

Topic Three (Establishes Appropriate Greetings)
A significant difference between the means of the three student groups was found for the topic of Establishes Appropriate Greetings (F=7.76; df=2, 78; p<.05). The summary of the analysis of variance is found in Table 8. Tukey's HSD follow-up showed a significant difference between the means of the speech and language group (Mean = 7.87) and the Hispanic bilingual group (Mean = 5.46). Also, a significant difference between the means of the speech and language students (Mean = 7.87) and the regular education students (Mean = 6.30) was found. With Tukey's HSD test a mean difference of 1.49 or larger is significant at p<.05. The means, standard deviations, and Tukey's HSD test for topic three according to group (regular education students, speech and language students, and bilingual students) are listed in Table 9.
Table 8
Summary Table of Analysis of Variance for Topic Three (Establishes Appropriate Greetings)
Source SS df MS F Groups 81.83 2 40.92 7.76 Error 411.05 78 5.27 Total 492.88 80

* Significant at p<.05




67

Table 9
Tukey's HSD Test for Significant Differences on Topic Three (Establishes Appropriate Greetings)
Group Mean SD Difference From Speech and Bilingual\
Language ESL
Regular 6.30 1.92 1.57* 0.84 Speech and 7.87 2.96 2.41* Language
Bilingual/ 5.46 1.64 ESL
* Significant at p<.05 with Tukey's HSD Test
Topic Four (Initiates and Maintains Conversation)
A significant difference was found for the three
student groups (F=5.90; df=2, 76; p<.05). Refer to Table 10 for the analysis of variance results. Tukey's HSD follow-up showed significant difference between the means of the the speech and language students (Mean = 13.21) and the regular education students (Mean = 9.92). With Tukey's HSD test a mean difference of 2.34 or larger is significant at p<.05. See Table 11 for the Tukey HSD test, the means, and standard deviations for variable four (Topic of Initiates and Maintains Conversation).




68

Table 10
Summary Table of Analysis of Variance for Topic Four (Initiates and Maintains Conversation)
Source SS df MS F Groups 148.70 2 74.35 5.90 Error 957.70 76 12.60 Total 1106.60 78

* Significant at p<.05
Table 11
Tukey's HSD Test for Significant Differences on Topic Four

(Initiates and Maintains Conversations)

Group Mean SD Difference From Speech and Bilingual\ Language ESL
Regular 9.92 3.38 3.29* 1.75 Speech and 13.21 4.21 1.54 Language
Bilingual/ 11.67 2.80 ESL
* Significant at p<.05 with Tukey's HSD Test
Topic Five (Listens Actively)
A significant difference was found for the three
groups of students (F=5.08; df=2, 90; p<.05). Results of the analysis of variance are listed in Table 12. Tukey's

(Initiates and Maintains Conversations)




69

Table 12
Summary Table of Analysis of Variance for Topic Five (Listens Actively)
Source SS df MS F Groups 153.42 2 76.71 5.08* Error 1360.27 90 15.11 Total 1513.69 92
* Significant at p<.05
HSD follow-up showed a significant difference between the means of the speech and language group (Mean =13.85) and the regular education group (Mean = 11.23). A significant difference between the means of the Hispanic bilingual students (Mean = 13.92) and the regular education students (Mean = 11.23) was also found No difference between the means of the bilingual students and the speech and language students was indicated. With Tukey's HSD test a mean difference of 2.33 or larger is significant at p<.05. The means, standard deviations, and Tukey's HSD test for this topic are recorded in Table 13.




70

Table 13
Tukey's HSD Test for Significant Differences on Topic Five (Listens Actively)
Group Mean SD Difference From Speech and Bilinguaal\
Language ESL
Regular 11.23 3.46 2.62* 2.69* Speech and 13.85 4.47 0.07 Language
Bilingual/ 13.92 3.57 ESL
* Significant at p<.05 with Tukey's HSD Test.
Topic Six (Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts)
No significant differences were found between the
means of the three student groups (F=.53; df=2;p>.05) for Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts. The mean for this topic was 5.98, while the standard deviation was
2.01. See Table 14 for the analysis of variance results.
Hypotheses and Research Questions Hypothesis One
The first hypothesis asserted that there would be a significant difference between group means (speech and language, bilingual/ESL, and regular education) on the dependent variable of total score. This hypothesis was rejected since no significant differences for group means were found on the total score variable.




71

Table 14
Summary Table of Analysis of Variance for Topic Six (Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts)
Source SS df MS F
Groups 4.31 2 2.15 .53 ERROR 341.64 84 4.06 Total 345.95 86
Hypothesis Two
The second hypothesis asserted that there would a significant difference between group means (speech and language, bilingual/Hispanic, and regular education) on topic scores of the APSS. This hypothesis was retained for five of the six variables or topic scores (Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language, Expresses Self, Establishes Appropriate Greetings, Initiates and Maintains Conversation, and Listens Actively).
Overview of the Final Chapter
In the final chapter of this study the reported findings will be discussed in terms of possible interpretations. The findings will also be discussed with regard to the current pragmatics and multicultural literature and theory. Follow-ups to this study will be proposed.




CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
The background of this study will be reviewed along with a discussion of the purpose, and procedures. A summary of the findings will include interpretations of the results. Implications of this study will be discussed.
Background and Discussion of This Study
It has been noted in the literature and research that different groups of students in United States schools display varying levels of pragmatics competence. Regular education students, coming from an English speaking background, are expected to function within the mainstream level of language usage including pragmatics. Speech and language, students coming from an English speaking background, do not display adequate academic or oral language usage. Oral language refers to language that is used in interpersonal and social communication, while academic language refers to language that is cognitive and scholastically oriented. Some of the language deficits displayed by the speech and language students may be attributed to pragmatics problems. Bilingual/ESL students, coming from a non-English speaking 72




73

background, may or may not possess language problems in pragmatics.
The ability to use language appropriately becomes more complex for adolescent LEP students. Classroom demands increase when students enter the middle school environment (Brice-Heath, 1986; Larson & McKinley, 1987; Simon, 1985). When limited English proficient students are quickly mainstreamed into regular education classrooms after approximately two years of bilingual instruction, teachers and administrators with mainstream backgrounds may expect LEP students to perform well in all aspects of language including pragmatics at this time (Cummins, 1984). This period of bilingual instruction may not be sufficient for the bilingual students to acquire all the necessary language skills (Collier, 1987, Cummins, 1984). Pragmatics skills are linked to a student's knowledge of the mainstream United States culture. Certain minority students may experience more cultural difficulties than other minorities in acquiring pragmatics.
Hispanics form a large population from varied national and socioeconomic backgrounds. Therefore, Hispanic students may exhibit a wide range of pragmatics behavior as do members of other minority groups. For example, a cultural group that possesses low dominance (accepts the target culture with regard to technological, economic, and cultural values), low enclosure (high




74

contact between the cultural and target group), low cohesiveness ( low desire to remain to the cultural group), and minimal language and culture shock to the target group will transfer to the mainstream classroom much easier than a cultural group with the opposite characteristics. Also, a cultural group with high assimilation, high congruence (similarity between the cultural and target group), high motivation to adapt, and high ego-permeability (ability to transcend personal inhibition) will transfer to the mainstream classroom easier than an opposite group. These cultural characteristics may facilitate a smooth transition into the mainstream classroom (Schumann, 1986). Many teachers uninformed about pragmatics may misinterpret and perceive culturally different behaviors as being indicative of language disorders. This possible misunderstanding of pragmatics with culturally and linguistically different students may result in their inappropriate referral for special education testing. If teachers were better informed about pragmatics with regular education students, speech and language students, and bilingual students, then they may more properly refer students to special education testing. Teachers who are better informed about other cultures may also adapt their teaching styles to better match the learning styles of their students (Garcia & Ortiz, 1988, O'Malley, 1988).




75

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to compare pragmatics performance across student groups on a scale of pragmatics. This comparison yielded information about how regular education students, speech and language students, and Hispanic bilingual students differed on pragmatic skills.
Summary of the Procedures
Three student groups were compared on the Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale, a device specifically developed for the present study. These groups consisted of regular education students, speech and language students, and bilingual students. The study employed 95 students. In order to increase homogeneity of the bilingual group, only Hispanic students were utilized in the comparison study. All of the students were enrolled in middle school in Alachua County, Florida.
Nine teachers were trained to gather the student
data. All teachers were trained by the author in one or two sessions lasting approximately 30 to 45 minutes each. Training involved demonstration of the behaviors using exemplars and nonexemplars by the author.
Analysis of variance was used to compare the means of the-total score and topic scores across the student groups. The analysis of variance variables consisted of seven measures (a total score and six topic scores).




76

Summary of the Findings and Interpretations
The findings for the total score and the six topic scores are reported in this section. In addition, interpretations to these findings are suggested. Each measure analyzed is discussed separately.
Total Score
The total score is a mean rating for the entire APSS. No significant differences between the means of the student groups was found on total score (thus rejecting hypothesis one). This suggested that any differences in pragmatics that may exist among the three groups are not susceptible to detection by a global measure, such as total score.
Topic Scores
Discussion of hypothesis two as it relates to each
topic follows. Since hypothesis two related to a variety of six topic score measures, each topic score will be discussed separately.
Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language
A significant difference on the topic of Affects
Listener's Behavior Through Language was found between the means of the bilingual and regular education student groups. No difference, however, was found between the means of the speech and language group and the regular education group suggesting that the speech and language students were proficient at affecting others through




77

language. On the other hand, the bilingual students appeared significantly to be less efficient in getting the listener to perform an action for them and asking them for assistance. This may have some basis in the Hispanic culture; it may be impolite to make too many demands of another person, especially one who represents authority such as the teacher. Demands which included asking for assistance consisted of six behaviors under this topic, four of which dealt specifically with the teacher or an adult. They were Asks for Help, Asks Questions, Asks a Favor of a Friend/Classmate, Asks a Favor of the Teacher, Asks for Teacher's and/or Adult's Permission, and Asks for Other Student's Permission. These behaviors require proficiency in English language skills as affected by the student's level of syntactic and semantic abilities (i.e., sentence structure, inflectional morphology, and vocabulary). Thus, it may be that the limited grammatical skills in English unfavorably affected their pragmatics performance on some of the behaviors under this topic. Differences for the bilingual students could also be attributed to a lessened proficiency of academic language skills. Academic language is acquired significantly later than oral language (Collier, 1987; Cummins, 1984). Behaviors which may be related to an academic emphasis consisted of Asks for help, Asks Questions, Attempts to Persuade Others, Informs Another of




78

Important Information, and Rephrases a Statement. The Hispanic students in this study may not have acquired these behaviors sufficiently even after being in the school system for a period of one year or more.
Wong-Fillmore (1986) stated that LEP students need opportunities to practice English with English speaking peers and teachers and to verbally participate in instructional activities in order to enhance English language skills. The dynamics of a classroom and teacher with LEP students needs to be observed in order to determine if English language opportunities sufficiently present themselves. Regulatory behaviors, and the behaviors under this topic, are influential in the course of a lesson because they frame and structure the classroom interaction that is taking place (Wong-Fillmore, 1982). Therefore, it is imperative that teachers encourage the development of these behaviors by limited English proficient students, specifically Hispanic students, allowing them better control of classroom lessons. This encouragement may allow the bilingual/Hispanic students to develop better control of language.
The various learning styles and teaching styles of the classroom need to be observed in terms of pragmatic language opportunities. If the opportunities of affecting others through language are rare and do not exist, then it is imperative to know what may assist these learning




79

opportunities. Such issues need to be investigated in future research.
Expresses Self
A significant difference was found between the means of the speech and language group and the regular education student group. These findings suggest that the Hispanic bilingual group demonstrated adequate ability in expressing themselves, while the speech and language group exhibited difficulties. A possible inference is that acquired pragmatics in one language and culture are transferable to another for the bilingual group. Behaviors which may be demonstrative of oral language consisted of Describes Personal Feelings in an Acceptable Manner, Offers a Contrary Opinion in Class Discussions, and Says That They Disagree in a Conversation.
The speech and language group's difficulties in
expressing themselves might be attributable to inadequate grammatical control. Simon (1985) noted that a person's language system should possess flexibility, i.e., they should have a variety of forms available to them in order to carry out pragmatic functions. It may be that the speech and language students lack the syntactic and semantic devices to fulfill pragmatic functions. A follow-up to this speculation might have been to interview the- speech-language pathologists in determining if the speech and language students' poorer ratings were




80

influenced by their syntactic and semantic skills. Although a section for comments or observations was provided for on the APSS, the speech-language pathologists employed in this study did not utilize this section. Further research might address interviewing raters after observations in determining if linguistic proficiency might affect pragmatic ratings. Establishes Appropriate Greetings
Significant differences were found between the means of the speech and language group and the regular education group and also between the speech and language group and the Hispanic bilingual group. The bilingual/Hispanic students appeared to be the most accurate in the way things were said as indicated by the lowest group means reported in Table 9. This may have been due to the bilingual students' familiarity with the greeting structures in Spanish. The Hispanic culture also may place a greater emphasis on greetings. It would then seem that these students also placed a great emphasis on greetings in English. The bilingual/Hispanic students seem to be establishing a pattern of pragmatics proficiency in behaviors and topics which may be heavily influenced by oral language skills. Behaviors which seemed to be predominantly rely on oral language skills included Responds to an Introduction by Saying "Hello, How are You Doing" or Other Similar Greeting, and Introduces




81
Self to Others. The other two behaviors under this topic emphasized non-verbal capabilities. The results from behaviors under this topic suggest that a continuum of performance for groups may exist. Bilingual/Hispanic students may be found on the normal end along with the regular education students and with the speech and language students on the far end of the continuum away from the other groups. The speech and language students may possibly need instruction in these behaviors in the form of coaching and modeling. Initiates and Maintains Conversations
A significant difference was found between the means of the speech and language group and the regular education group. These results seemed to indicate that the speech and language students may have been incapable of starting a conversation and keeping that conversation going.
The behaviors under this topic may be influential in a teacher's perception of a student. Coaching speech and language students, on behaviors under this topic, may affect a teacher's perception more positively. Thus, speech-language pathologists are encouraged to review these behaviors with their students. Simon (1985) stated that proficient speakers must take into account a listener's informational needs. Maintaining a conversation requires this ability. Therefore, it may be that the speech and language students are not assessing




82

the needs of the listener and of the context. Such skills may involve metalinguistic competencies which the speech and language students may not possess. Metalinguistic competencies involve a student's awareness of strategies in sustaining conversations. Tough (1981) mentioned that all students, especially students with learning difficulties, need direct learning experiences to support their learning. It may be that metalinguistic awareness and skills, involving higher order linguistic capabilities, are not easily attainable through direct experiences. It needs to be determined if metalinguistic abilities may be taught through direct experiences. How and if these experiences may be taught is a matter for future research.
The bilingual group in showing no difference from the regular education group again supported the notion that they are capable of transferring pragmatic skills from one language and culture to another. Listens Actively
A significant difference was found between the means of the student groups of speech and language and regular education and also between the bilingual and regular education students. These results seemed to indicate that both the speech and language and bilingual students were experiencing difficulties with listening and attending to the speaker. For the speech and language group, this may




83

be a primary deficit since it was also exhibited in maintaining a conversation. Several behaviors under this topic involve some aspect of timing in conversation. These included Displays Appropriate Response Time, Asks for More Time, Waits for Appropriate Pauses in Conversation Before Speaking, Notes that the Listener is Not Following the Conversation and Needs Clarification or More Information, and Answers Questions Relevantly. Speech and language students may display weaknesses in metalinguistic awareness. For the bilingual students, their difference from the regular education students could have been a result of not having sufficient receptive language skills. Many of the behaviors under this topic may be considered to have an academic language emphasis. Such behaviors included Asks to Repeat What Has Been Said for Better Understanding, Looks at Teacher When Addressed, Listens to Others in Class, Changes Activities When Asked by the Teacher, and Differentiates Between literal and Figurative Language. The bilingual/Hispanic students seemed to be showing strengths in oral language and deficits in academic oriented language. This supports the literature and research by Collier (1987) and Cummins (1984). A rating of Hispanic students after one, three, and five years of instruction might indicate if academic language is acquired at a later time. This could be a further topic of research. Hence, a bilingual group with




84

more school years experience (greater than two years in the bilingual program) might have shown different results. Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts
No significant differences between the means of any group was found on this topic. Since this topic only exhibited three behaviors, there may not have been enough variance to show any differences. Since the behaviors found under this topic (Waits for a Pause in the Conversation Before Speaking About Something Else, Looks Away to Indicate loss of Interest, and Makes Easy Transitions Between Topics) seemed to contain metalinguistic aspects, it was expected that the speech and language students would differ from the regular education students. This did not happen. If the speech and language students were expected to perform poorly on this topic, and since all groups performed similarly, it may be that all three groups performed poorly on this topic. If this is the case, then these behaviors may be acquired at a later adolescent age. Testing of regular education students, speech and language students, and bilingual/Hispanic students who are older (e.g., high school students from grades 9 through 12) might yield valuable results. This could be the focus of still another study.




85

Implications
Implications of this study are numerous. At the
classroom level, there are implications for the teacher dealing with students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds and with possible language delays. There are implications for speech-language pathologists dealing with language impaired students with possible pragmatic cteficits. Implications for continuing pragmatics research is indicated.
Implications for the Classroom
Hispanic limited English proficient students were
found to have difficulties in regulatory behaviors (topic one of Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language) and in listening and attending to a speaker (topic five of Listens Actively). It may be that these topics incorporate more oral language skills (language used for interpersonal communication), where Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language and Listens Actively incorporate more academic language skills (language used for cognitive and scholastic purposes). Bilingual/ESL students acquire oral language proficiency skills more quickly than acquiring academic language proficiency skills (Collier, 1987; Cummins, 1984). The performance profile of the bilingual/Hispanic students may be attributed to this. The combined difficulties in affecting a listener through language and listening actively place LEP students at risk




86

for participating in cooperative learning groups with other (non-Hispanic) students. In cooperative learning situations, students must make demands of other students. They also have to pay attention to what others are saying in order to accomplish group tasks.
The behaviors that correspond to topics one and five (Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language and Actively Listens) may influence a teacher's perception of the student's academic abilities. Limited English proficient Hispanic students who have been mainstreamed into regular education need these pragmatic skills for functioning in the classroom. Poor performance of these skills, as demonstrated by the Hispanic students in this study, can portray a negative academic image of the students' abilities. This poor image of abilities may be a cause for referral to special education classes since most teachers may believe that the student's poor performance is not attributable to a language lag. The student having been mainstreamed into regular education should be portraying adequate academic language skills (Cummins, 1984). What may be the cause is that pragmatic skills are not acquirable in the time frame of one to two years bilingual/ESL instruction. The Hispanic students in this study after a period of one year in a bilingual/ESL classroom still showed difficulties with pragmatic language skills.




87

If a bilingual/Hispanic student cannot actively
listen, then it appears that he or she will be less likely to acquire the ability to affect a listener's behavior through language as a consequence of teacher modeling. It is recommended that the bilingual teacher coach, model, and possibly directly instruct the behaviors under the topics of Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language and Actively Listens. The teacher should focus on the behaviors under the topic of Actively Listens first so that this knowledge may assist in learning the behaviors under the topic of Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language. Since many of the behaviors may be affected by an inadequate control of English grammatical structures, it is recommended that the teacher also focus on syntactic, semantic, and morphological aspects of language in improving pragmatic skills. A summary of student groups on pragmatics was obtained, as shown in Table 15. From this a possible profile of student performance for groups may be attained. On three of the six variables the speech and language students performed differently from the regular education students, and differently from the bilingual students on one variable. Therefore, bilingual students who scored high (a higher score indicated less proficiency) on those variables on which speech and language students also scored high may be exhibiting a pragmatics problem due to a language disorder. These




88

variables were Expresses Self, Establishes Appropriate Greetings, and Initiates and Maintains Conversation. Thus, it is feasible to examine a student's performance by topic scores in differentiating cultural language differences versus language delays/disorders. Collier (1987) stated that adolescent bilingual students tend to acquire English at a slower rate than younger peers. This was possibly due to the increased demands of the middle school system and also possibly due to the limited time that bilingual students have in acquiring the necessary language skills. The time required for these adolescent students to master pragmatic skills in the classroom is time lost in acquiring the academic material of the various courses taught. Thus, it is recommended that bilingual teachers model pragmatic skills as part of their curriculum assignment whenever appropriate so that the LEP students may have more time devoted to acquiring academic knowledge. An implication of this study was, as other researchers have noted, that speech and language students enrolled in classes for language therapy may also exhibit pragmatic differences from mainstream students. They experienced difficulties with behaviors under the topics of Expresses Self, Establishes Appropriate Greetings, and Initiates and Maintains Conversations. Refer to Table 15 for a summary of student comparisons on the significant topic score measures. The speech and language students




89

may have been experiencing difficulties with grammatical and semantic aspects of language thereby affecting their pragmatic performance.
Speech-language pathologists are advised to coach and model pragmatic behaviors and to encourage instances in the classroom where they may be used and developed. They are also encouraged to continue teaching of syntactic, semantic, and morphological aspects of language in conjunction with the pragmatics skills. Table 16
Summary of Comparisons for Bilingual/ESL Students, Speech

and Language Students with Regular Education Students

Topic

Regular Versus
Bilingual/ESL Speech and Language

Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language
Expresses Self
Establishes Appropriate Greetings
Initiates and Maintains Conversation
Listens Actively
Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts

Different* Same

Same

Same Different

Same

Same Different

Different

Different Different

Same

* Note for all differences regular education students displayed a lower mean

1




90

Research Implications
An implication from this study is that bilingual/ Hispanic students are still in the process of acquiring pragmatics after a minimum of being enrolled in United States schools for one year. It needs to be known whether most pragmatics skills will be acquired by the Hispanic students in a successive manner and reasonable period of time. If this is not possible for the adolescent Hispanic students, then what type of instruction of pragmatic skills or in other language skills which will resolve this learning situation needs to be determined.
The speech and language students had difficulties with behaviors under the topics of Expresses Self, Establishes Appropriate Greetings, Initiates and Maintains Conversations, and Actively Listens, but did not have difficulties with the behaviors under the topic of Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language. Thus,it appears that they have special difficulties in attending to other speakers in actively listening and in maintaining a conversation. Behaviors that maintain a conversation and also involve aspects of listening included Notes that the Listener is not Following the Conversation and Needs Clarification or More Information, Answers Questions Relevantly, and Waits for Appropriate Pauses in Conversation Before Speaking. These skills place speech and language students at risk for following and




91
successfully completing classroom lessons. It seems that speech and language students may be at risk for tasks that involve metalinguistic components. For example, in the behavior of Notes that the Listener is Not Following the Conversation and Needs Clarification or More Information (topic of Initiates and Maintains Conversations), the speaker must be aware of a communication breakdown and also be aware of how to repair that breakdown almost immediately. The speaker has to consider the listener's perspective. It may be that speech and language students are incapable of complex language tasks until they have become more proficient in the syntactic and semantic abilities of language. Tough (1981) mentions that all students with learning difficulties need direct experiences to support their learning regardless of their age or grade level. For speech and language students, direct experiences may mean a concrete-referential form of language. Some aspects of pragmatics may not involve direct experiences. Therefore, learning of traditional aspects of language involving syntactic and semantic aspects may be an important feature in conjunction with learning the pragmatic aspects of language. These questions can serve as a focus for further studies.
A further implication of this study is the need to examine and compare the pragmatics of other ethnic students. For example, a comparison of Asian students




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EDU7IINDC_2GYHGD INGEST_TIME 2017-07-11T21:32:29Z PACKAGE UF00101003_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

PRAGMATIC SKILLS IN LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT/NONENGLISH SPEAKING STUDENTS, SPEECH AND LANGUAGE STUDENTS, AND REGULAR EDUCATION STUDENTS By ALEXANDER E. BRICE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1990 U '^A LIBRARIES.

PAGE 2

Copyright 1990 by Alexander E. Br ice

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to a number of persons for the preparation of this study and manuscript. For his patience, guidance, and support, I offer my sincerest gratitude to Dr. Clemens Hallman. For his faith and help in pulling things together, my many thanks go to Dr. Doyle Casteel. I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Linda Lombardino for her support in the development of the Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale and for her belief in the project. My appreciation goes to Dr. Paul Jensen for his thoroughness, knowledge of pragmatics, and willingness to serve on my committee. I would like to graciously thank Dr. David Miller for always being of assistance, for his help in the design of the study, and for his help in the data analysis. I would like to thank all of the teachers who helped in the data gathering. Their work made this study possible. Many thanks go to Mr. Conn, Ms. Coomer-Rothman, Ms. Hough, Dr. Kushner, Ms. Luther, Ms. Niederkohr, Ms. Paulson, Mr. Poston, Ms. Reiter, and Ms. Shille. 111

PAGE 4

My thanks also go to Ms. Weismantel for her continuing guidance, advice, and support in the organization of this study. I wish also to thank my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Brice, Sr., for their continuing faith and love. My thanks also go to my fatherand mother-in-law, Dr. and Mrs. Colum Boy land, for their love and support. Finally, I wish to thank my wife and children, Caroline, Aaron, and Jacgueline, without whose love, support, emotional assistance, and belief in my abilities this study would not have been possible.

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT CHAPTERS ONE INTRODUCTION Purpose Definition of Terms Rationale for the Study Problem Statement An Overview of the Study Hypotheses and Research Questions Hypothesis One Hypothesis Two Limitations of This Study Summary TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Pragmatics The Need for Better Understanding of Pragmatics Topics and Behaviors of Pragmatics Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language Expresses Self Establishes Appropriate Greetings Initiates and Maintains Conversations Listens Actively Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts Summary THREE METHODOLOGY Development of an Instrument Intended Use of the APSS Preparing to Use the APSS Page iii viii 2 2 5 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 15 15 24 30 31 35 37 38 40 42 43 45 45 46 46

PAGE 6

Rating the Behaviors 47 Scoring 48 Indication of Scores 49 Test Development 49 Identification of the Primary Purpose (s) for the Test Scores 50 Identification of Behaviors that Define the Domain 50 Preparing of Test Specifications 52 Construction of the Initial Pool of Items 53 Reviewing and Refining Items as Necessary and Conducting Preliminary Item Tryouts 54 Item-to-Topic Matching 56 Population 57 Field-testing of the Items on a Large Representative Sample 57 Analyzing the Statistical Properties of the Item Scores 58 Development of the Guidelines 61 Analysis of Variance 61 Overview of the Remaining Chapters 61 FOUR RESULTS 62 Total Score 62 Topic Scores 62 Topic One (Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language) 62 Topic Two (Expresses Self) 64 Topic Three (Establishes Appropriate Greetings) 66 Topic Four (Initiates and Maintains Conversation) 67 Topic Five (Listens Actively) 68 Topic Six (Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts) 70 Hypotheses and Research Questions 70 Hypothesis One 70 Hypothesis Two 71 Overview of the Final Chapter 71 FIVE DISCUSSION 72 Background and Discussion of This Study ... 72 Purpose of the Study 75 Summary of the Procedures 75 Summary of the Findings and Interpretations 76 Total Score 76 Topic Scores 76 VI

PAGE 7

Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language 76 Expresses Self 79 Establishes Appropriate Greetings 80 Initiates and Maintains Conversation ... 81 Listens Actively 82 Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts 84 Implications 85 Implications for the Classroom 85 Research Implications 90 APPENDICES A THE ADOLESCENT PRAGMATICS SCREENING SCALE (APSS) 95 B GUIDELINES FOR USING THE ADOLESCENT PRAGMATICS SCREENING SCALE (APSS) 100 C LETTER TO REVIEWERS 107 D ITEM-TO-TOPIC MATCHING FORM 109 E PARENTAL CONSENT LETTER 118 F TABLE OF RAW DATA 120 REFERENCES 123 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 129 Vll

PAGE 8

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy PRAGMATIC SKILLS IN LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT/NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING STUDENTS, SPEECH AND LANGUAGE STUDENTS, AND REGULAR EDUCATION STUDENTS By Alexander E. Br ice August 199 Chairperson: Clemens Hallman Major Department: Instruction and Curriculum Pragmatics, the ability to use language socially and appropriately in a given situation, is a topic relevant to the needs of students enrolled in United States schools. As more students enrolled in schools come from a background where English is not spoken as the first language, there exists a need to appropriately place these students and meet their educational needs. Language needs become more complex as students are enrolled in middle school. The language needs can be met by a better teacher understanding of pragmatics and of the cultural and linguistic differences of students including limited English proficient students. The purpose of this study was to compare pragmatics performance of students from three adolescent groups: bilingual/Hispanic students, speech and language students, viii

PAGE 9

and regular education students. A pragmatics screening scale (i.e., Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale) was developed to measure pragmatics performance. All students were enrolled in middle school in Alachua County. Statistical analyses revealed that no differences existed between group means for the total score measure. However, significant differences were found between group means on five of six topic score measures. Those topics where differences were found were_af f_e_ct_s listener's behavior through language, expresses self, establishes appropriate greetings, initiates and maintains conversation, and active listening. No significant differences for group means were found for the topic of Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts. The findings of this study indicated that bilingual/Hispanic students had difficulties in ordering other persons and listening to a speaker. These difficulties may place Hispanic students at risk for cooperative learning situations in the classroom. Speech and language students displayed difficulties in expressing themselves, establishing greetings, initiating and maintaining conversations, and listening to a speaker. These difficulties may place them at risk for following and completing classroom lessons and participating in the classroom. Implications of this study for the classroom and for future research studies are given. ix

PAGE 10

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The ability to use language socially and appropriately in a given situation is an issue especially relevant to educators working with students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Hymes, 1972). Language use is concerned with knowledge of and experience in the social setting in which the language is spoken. Students from a cultural background that differs from that of the mainstream culture of the school may not be aware of the social, linguistic, and other demands of the setting in which language is being used. Consequently, such students may be limited in proficiency in this aspect of language. The present study was an investigation of how different student groups (speech and language, bilingual/English as a second language, and regular education students) compared on is pragmatics of language behaviors as assessed by teachers in classroom situations. Researchers have agreed as to the importance of pragmatics but have not always defined the term in the same way (Bates, 1976; Brice-Heath, 1986; Collier, 1988; Damico, Oiler, & Storey, 1983; Garcia & Ortiz, 1988; Halliday, 1978; Hymes, 1972; Lund & Duchan, 1988; Prutting, 1982; 1

PAGE 11

2 Simon, 1985) Pragmatics in this study is defined as the use of language that encompasses cognitive, social, and linguistic features. It is the study of behaviors in contexts. It is also concerned with how language is used and interpreted. Pragmatics cannot be isolated from what is happening with the speaker and listener. Therefore, pragmatics is also the study of speaker-listener interactions. Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare three groups of adolescent students (speech and language students, bilingual students, and regular education students) in terms of their pragmatic behaviors. The study was specifically designed to test whether students who were formally classified as having different instructional needs in language would display different patterns of pragmatic behaviors that could be detected by their classroom teachers. Definition of Terms The following terms are defined as they are used in the study. The terms are grouped according to shared attributes. Acculturation refers to a student s learning of the mainstream culture. Culture can be said to be made up of overt patterned ways of acting, feeling, and behaving. These behaviors are learned, passed from one generation to

PAGE 12

3 another, and are related to a specific society. These are the ideal ways of behaving within given contexts. Culture conditions individuals but is also conditioned by them. Culture and language may be thought of existing in a constant state of interaction; therefore, acculturation is the learning of these overt patterned ways of behaving (Kroeber & Kluckholn, 1952) Adolescents are students who are in middle school, i.e., grades 5 through 8 or approximately ages 11 through 15. Bilingual /bicultural students possess some degree of fluency in more than one language (from minimum ability to complete fluency) and are knowledgeable of other cultural modes of interaction (Baca & Cervantes, 1984). Limited English proficiency (LEP) /non-English speaking (NES) students are non-native speakers of English who are experiencing spoken language, academic language, and/or cultural problems primarily due to an acculturation lag and to lack of exposure to the target language and culture (Baca & Cervantes, 1984) Limited English proficient students are adolescents currently enrolled in a English as a second language (ESL) class, English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) class, or bilingual class for English speaking and academic language.

PAGE 13

4 Pragmatics refers to the use of language that encompasses cognitive, social, and linguistic features. Pragmatics is the study of behaviors in contexts. It is also concerned with how language is used and interpreted. The assessment of pragmatics cannot be isolated from what is happening with the speaker and listener. Therefore, pragmatics is also the study of speaker-listenerinteractions (Lund & Duchan, 1988; Simon, 1985). Speech and language students are adolescents currently enrolled in speech and language classes due to language problems. Screening refers to the use of a systematic procedure to provisionally identify those students in need of special education or speech-language pathology services. This procedure provides at least three elements: (a) a goal for outlining what is to be screened, (b) a screening procedure and criteria for passing or failing, and (c) a charted intervention plan with a minimum of two interventions against which the effectiveness of the screening can be measured (Larson & McKinley, 1987) Individual behaviors are the individual foundational behaviors which make up The Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale (APSS) i.e., the 38 separate behaviors listed under the general topics. Topic behaviors refer to the general topics of the Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale (APSS) which make up

PAGE 14

5 the categories into which the individual behaviors fit (the six topic areas on the Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale). The topics consist of (a) affects listener's behavior through language, (b) expresses self, (c) establishes appropriate greetings, (d) initiates and maintains conversation, (e) listens actively, and (f) cues the listener regarding topic shifts. Rationale for the Study Schools in the United States now enroll large numbers of students of diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Baca & Harris, 1988; Cole & Deal, 1989; DBS Corporation, 1987; National Coalition of Advocates for Students, 1988). Culturally and linguistically different students exhibit various levels of functioning within contexts in the culture of the United States; specifically, they are acculturating to the mainstream culture of the school system. Some students from recently arrived immigrant families may have had little experience with the values, activities, and other components of life in the United States; some may be natives of the United States, but from a family and community background of another cultural heritage. When students from culturally and linguistically different backgrounds enter the nations' public schools, they enter a system designed to meet the needs of mainstream English speaking students, but the system may

PAGE 15

not meet their needs. Administrators and teachers generally have a mainstream United States cultural background and may have little or no training in meeting the needs of culturally and linguistically different students (National Coalition of Advocates for Students, 1988; Perlman & Chamberlain, 1988). The frame of reference or schema for using language and interacting with the teacher in United States public schools is that of the mainstream culture. According to Neisser (1976) a s che ma is a construct that may be modified by experience and interaction with others. Frames of reference, according to Goffman (1974) deal with prescribed modes of interaction that are defined by the context of the environment in which they occur. In these situations LEP students are at risk for educational failure because they have not fully adopted the schema or frames of reference of the mainstream culture. These differences of schema and frames are reflected in the students' pragmatics. The high dropout rate of minority students (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1987) is evidence of their lack of school success. Communication is a major problem for LEP students. For LEP middle school students, the problems with communication are acute due to the high linguistic and contextual demands placed upon them. By the time adolescents from the mainstream English speaking culture backgrounds are in middle school, they exhibit a wide range

PAGE 16

7 of linguistic abilities. LEP students may lack the necessary interaction skills, including use of idioms, words for hobbies, and words for school subjects. Knowledgeable adolescents in the mainstream are aware of the need to shift speech as they move from conversing with peers to speaking with adults (Simon, 1989) The necessary pragmatic features for functioning in the middle school environment include taking the perspective of the listener and moving from the one-dimensional world of the concrete referent to the multidimensional world of the abstract description, including use of creative and metalinguistic language. The ability to negotiate with the world of abstract descriptions using creative and metalinguistic language is a reguirement for middle school students (Brice-Heath, 1986; Damico, 1985; Owens, 1988; Stephens, 1978; Vejleskov, 1988). In school, students possessing pragmatic skills can choose language for appropriate interaction with teachers in classroom situations. Hymes (1972) stated that Children may be "linguistically deprived" if the language of their natural competence is not of the school; if the contexts that elicit or permit use of competence are absent in the school; if the purposes to which they put language, and the ways in which they do so, are absent or prohibited in the school, (p. xx) Awareness of what pragmatic skills are, how they are evidenced, and how they are acquired should be an aspect of teacher education. Identifying specific difficulties with

PAGE 17

8 pragmatics may help school personnel provide a secondary school environment that is more accessible to all students and more comprehensible to students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. In this study the issue of how speech and language students, bilingual/ESL students, and regular education students differed in their use of pragmatics in the classroom was addressed. Regular education students generally are able to meet the mainstream standard. They display the expected cultural, linguistic, and pragmatic behaviors. Therefore, regular education students in this study served as the control group. It was expected that these students would display adequate pragmatic skills in the classroom. Speech and language disordered students display language behaviors that are not deemed adequate for classroom participation or for interpersonal communication. Since pragmatics is one aspect of language, it was expected that these students would display pragmatic deficits as well. In this study, speech and language students come from a English speaking background similar to the regular education students. Their inclusion into this study was essential in order to serve as a comparison group. Bilingual/ESL students come from a varied non-English speaking background. School personnel who have not received information about acculturation and pragmatics for

PAGE 18

9 second language learners may misinterpret behaviors and performances in class from LEP/NES students. School personnel may misinterpret behaviors which would be appropriate for the LEP/NES students in the native language and culture but may be inappropriate for the English language and culture of the United States (Damico et al., 1983; Garcia & Ortiz, 1988; New York State Education Department Bureau of Bilingual Education, 1985; Ortiz, 198 5) If the behaviors are misinterpreted, the teacher may believe that these behaviors are problematic due to a language disorder and refer the student for special education testing. Over-referral to special education handicapped classes, including speech and language classes, may result if many teachers act upon the assumption that differences in pragmatic behaviors are due to disorders (Damico et al., 1983; Garcia & Ortiz, 1985; Ortiz, 1985; Ortiz & Maldonado-Colon, 1986) However, some of these LEP/NES students may actually have pragmatic handicaps and be in need of assistance. Knowledge of the differences in pragmatic skills among the bilingual group, the speech and language group, and the regular education groups should be known by teachers. The bilingual group was chosen because of their diverse educational needs. It was expected that the -behaviors of the bilingual group would vary from the speech and language group and the regular education group. Most bilingual/ESL students were expected to be more like

PAGE 19

10 the regular education students in pragmatic skills. Most ESL adolescents would have already been familiar with one set of pragmatic skills (in their native language) and would need time in school to have acquired the second set of skills. A comparison of three groups on pragmatics would yield valuable information in meeting the educational needs of all groups through appropriate assessment. Thus, in this study, one aspect of assessment, i.e., pragmatics assessment through use of a rating scale, was addressed. Problem Statement Pragmatics differences among adolescents resulting from limited English proficiency and lack of knowledge of the United States North American culture may be perceived as language disorders by school personnel. On the other hand, language disorders may exist among LEP students but be attributed to language differences. School personnel's misassessment of student language difficulties can result in misreferral to special education/ speech and language classes. Appropriate referral occurs when LEP students with true pragmatic disorders are referred for special education testing. Appropriate referral also occurs with native English speakers with true pragmatic disorders. It would be extremely useful for teachers to screen for pragmatics with knowledge of various established group performances (speech and language students, bilingual/ESL

PAGE 20

11 students, and mainstream regular education students) Providing such a distinction to teachers would help teachers in making appropriate special education referrals. An Overview of the Study Student groups were tested for differences in pragmatics. An analysis of variance was used to determine if any significant differences occurred on the dependent variables between speech and language students, bilingual/ESL students, and regular education students. The dependent variables consisted of the mean topic score or subscale score and total score, while the independent variables consisted of the subject groups (speech and language students, bilingual/ESL students, and regular education students) Hypotheses and Research Questions Hypothesis One It was hypothesized that there would be a significant difference among groups (speech and language, bilingual/ ESL, and regular education) on the dependent variable of total score. The research question addressed was: Were there any significant total score differences between group means as measured by the APSS? Hypothesis Two It was hypothesized that there would be a significant difference between groups (speech and language, bilingual/ESL, and regular education) on topic scores or

PAGE 21

12 subscales of the APSS. The research question addressed was: Were there any significant topic score differences between group means as measured by the APSS? Limitations of This Study This study was limited to speech and language students, bilingual/ESL students, and regular education students enrolled in the Alachua County middle schools. The bilingual/ESL student participants were limited to those students who had spent one year or more in the United States public schools. This study was also limited to adolescents located in the Alachua County School District. The study was limited to one method of data collection, i.e., teacher recollection and rating of student behaviors. Because the collection of data was limited to those teachers willing to participate and observe their students, the data collection was not random and was limited to a sample of convenience. Therefore, generalizability of results to other populations and regions will be limited. This study was also limited to one measure of pragmatics, i.e., the APSS. Summary Pragmatics, the ability to use language in specific contexts and for specific purposes, was the focus of this study. Schools in the United States now enroll large numbers of students with varying cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Florida as a state is heavily affected by LEP

PAGE 22

13 students from varying cultural backgrounds. Thus, school personnel in Florida as in the nation are faced with the task of meeting the educational needs of these students. Language usage problems become more marked when the student is enrolled in the secondary school system. As a result of the language burdens placed on students at the secondary school level, many limited English proficient students may face difficulties with academic courses. The LEP students are at risk of academic failure and referral to special education. Many of the behaviors that they may exhibit are similar to behaviors exhibited by language disordered students. Regular education students served as the standard by which other students were judged, specifically speech and language students and bilingual/ESL students. Speech and language students differed from regular education students in that they did not possess adeguate language skills for academic functioning or interpersonal communication. They, however, did possess an English speaking background similar to the regular education students. Bilingual/ESL students came from non-English speaking backgrounds different from the mainstream. They were at risk for educational failure due to this background difference. The educational system geared to students from mainstream backgrounds is not always eguipped to deal with the needs of LEP students.

PAGE 23

14 The focus of this study was to test for differences among three student groups (speech and language, bilingual/ESL, and regular education) on a measure of pragmatics. The information gained from this study may assist teachers in making more appropriate educational placement decisions. In the following four chapters of the study, a review of the relevant literature and methodology for the research is presented along with a discussion of the results. Conclusions and implications are presented in the last chapter.

PAGE 24

CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This chapter provides a review of the literature relevant to this study. Studies addressed in this review are included in four sections: pragmatics, the need for better understanding of pragmatics, the literature and research bases for pragmatics, and implications of the literature and research on pragmatics. Pragmatics This section covers three aspects of pragmatics. The first aspect discussed is how knowledge of pragmatics has emerged and evolved. How development of pragmatics parallels development of socialization and acculturation is described next. The relationship of pragmatic skills to academic achievement is the final issue discussed. There has been an overall trend in the literature toward recognizing the importance of pragmatics. Although the term pragmatics has not been used by researchers across disciplines, many researchers in different areas of study have each added to the field of knowledge and expanded the notion of pragmatics (Bates, 1976; Brice-Heath, 1986; Collier, 1988; Damico, Oiler, & Storey, 1983; Garcia & 15

PAGE 25

16 Ortiz, 1988; Halliday, 1978; Hymes, 1972; Lund & Duchan, 1988; Prutting, 1982; Simon, 1985). i Hymes (197 2) stated that there exists "a structure of [ language that goes beyond the aspect of structure dealt with in grammars" (p. xxii) This structure is commonly referred to as pragmatics. Pragmatics is context specific; that is, contextual environments are capable of influencing linguistic interactions. The linguistic interaction is also capable of influencing the contextual environment in which it occurs. Hymes (1972) stated that Those brought together in classrooms, even though having the language of the classroom in common, may not be wholly members of the same speech community. They may share a speech situation but bring to it different modes of using its language and of interpreting the speech that goes on there, (p. xxxviii) Bates (1976) stated that pragmatics occupies the interface between linguistic, cognitive, and social development. She further stated that pragmatics is dominant over semantics and syntax. Others have supported this view and expanded upon its meaning. A v Simon (1985) suggested that cognitive and linguistic domains of pragmatics include coding communication intentions in the most direct manner, using language with appropriate politeness, extracting the real meaning out of a communicative interchange, responding appropriately to the other person, and showing appropriate respect for the other person. Simon (1985) also suggested that pragmatics

PAGE 26

17 is influenced by many connecting factors such as knowing what to say to whom, how it was to be said, why it was said, when, and in what situations the expression was said. In her review of the literature, she included other pragmatic domains such as shifting communication styles when addressing different persons, expressing and eliciting opinions, using role taking behaviors, using request behaviors, and using clarifying questions. Brice-Heath (1986) stated that the school environment influences behaviors and affects outcomes of pragmatics. Simon (1989) stated that the demands of the classroom could produce developments in communication skills for some students while at the same time producing communication deficits in other students who could not cope with the extra demands of the secondary school. Collier (1987) mentioned acculturation as an important aspect of pragmatics. To Collier, the students' cultural, linguistic, and ethnic background must be considered. Garcia and Ortiz (1988) expanded on Collier's concept of acculturation in their discussion of the learning styles of culturally different students. The learning styles of these students may be misinterpreted by teachers as indicating language problems or disorders. According to Garcia and Ortiz, language is used differentially in different contexts (how people speak to each other) ; for example, there is an accepted use of

PAGE 27

18 language in the specific context of the classroom, i.e., the teacher-student interaction. Simon (1985) discussed pragmatic skills such as students' ability to move from everyday language to academic language for proper interaction with teachers. The students' ability to use academic language would allow teachers to engage in inferencing tasks such as interpreting paralinguistic cues (intonation, stress, context) and allow students to draw on language for use in various academic content areas (mathematics, science, social studies, and so forth). Teacher-student interactions may separate limited English proficient/non-English speaking students and language disordered students from the mainstream students. The interaction influences a teacher's perspective of the student (Damico et al., 1983; Garcia & Ortiz, 1988; Hymes, 1972; New York Education State Department Bureau of Bilingual Education, 1985; Ortiz, 1985). Teacher-student interactions involve many aspects in which the students' degree of proficiency in pragmatics is important. According to Prutting (1982) communicative competence has evolved into social competence; thus, learning social competence in order to be proficient in the second language is in essence acculturation and socialization. A literature review of acculturation for culturally different students is, in large part, a review of pragmatics for second language learners. Schumann's

PAGE 28

19 (1986) model was chosen because of its direct relevance to acculturation. What follows is a description of Schumann's acculturation model. This model predicts the degree to which the second-language learning group acculturates to the target language group and the variables involved that can either enhance or diminish acculturation. Schumann's model describes seven social factors and four affective variables that affect a student's acculturation into the learning of the mainstream culture. The seven social factors include (a) dominance; (b) integration (assimilation, adaptation, preservation) ; (c) enclosure; (d) cohesiveness; (e) congruence; (f) attitude; and (g) length of intended stay of the second language group. The social variables refer to the group, but affective variables refer to the individual. Affective variables relate to language learning by the individual as opposed to language learning by the group. The affective variables include language shock, cultural shock, motivation, and ego-permeability. The first of the seven social variables deals with social dominance. Social dominance patterns refer to the political, cultural, technical, and economic values and patterns that each group possesses. If the second-language-and-culture learning group perceives itself to be politically, culturally, & P technically, and economically superior to the mainstream 1 \ft"

PAGE 29

20 group, then it will not acquire the pragmatic patterns of the mainstream group. Assimilation, adaptation, and preservation are levels of integration that the secondlanguage-and-culture group may experience with the target group. Assimilation refers to when the second-language-and-culture group gives up its own lifestyles and values completely and adopts those of the target group. Adaptation refers to when the second-language group adapts to the lifestyle and values of the target group, yet maintains its own values and lifestyles for intragroup use. Preservation refers to when the second-language group rejects the values of the target group and completely maintains its own lifestyles and values. Therefore, assimilation, adaptation, and preservation lie on a continuum of integration to the target group's culture, value, lifestyle, and pragmatics. Enclosure refers to the degree to which the second-language learning group and the target group share many of the social constructs, such as the same church, school, recreational facilities, crafts, professions, and trades. If the two groups share many of these constructs, then enclosure is low and contact between the two groups is enhanced. If the opposite is true, then social enclosure is high and opportunities for acquisition of the target language and culture are reduced.

PAGE 30

21 According to Schumann (1986), cohesiveness refers to the degree the second-language group remains together as a group. Different groups may display differing levels of cohesion depending upon their internal nature. Attitude refers to the stance that each group has for each other. If a positive attitude prevails between both groups, then language learning is enhanced. Congruence refers to the degree of similarity between the second-cultural group and the target group. If the two cultures are similar, then social contact is likely and second-language learning may be facilitated. Length of stay refers to the amount of time that the second-language-and-culture learning group plans to be in the targetlanguage group's country. Language shock, the first of the affective variables discussed by Schumann (1986) refers to the reluctance or eagerness that an individual displays in learning and producing the second language. Eagerness refers to wanting to communicate and participate in the second language. Cultural shock refers to the degree of orientation or disorientation an individual experiences upon entering the target culture. Motivation refers to the degree of willingness to learn the target language and culture. Ego-permeability refers to an individual's ability to transcend inhibition and be open to acguiring language while maintaining a positive self -concept.

PAGE 31

22 According to Schumann (1986) the social variables of dominance, assimilation, adaptation, preservation, enclosure, cohesiveness, congruence, attitude, and length of intended stay (how long the group plans to stay in the United States) of the second-language group are external to the individual and are intrinsic to the cultural group. The affective variables of language shock, cultural shock, motivation, and ego-permeability are intrinsic to the individual and not highly influenced by the second-language group. The assumption of various writers describing pragmatics in academic settings is that some relationship exists between language proficiency and academic achievement (Cazden, 1988; Cummins, 1984; Hymes, 1972; Moll, 1986; Oiler & Perkins, 1980; Simon, 1989). There is, however, variation in the writers' views of the strength of the relationship. Oiler and Perkins (1980) stated that a weak relationship exists between language proficiency and academic achievement. Moll (1986) supporting Oiler and Perkins, stated that all learning does not take place in social contexts; therefore, pragmatic proficiency does not heavily influence academic outcome. According to Moll, academic success relies more on the student's intelligence than on other factors. Thus, Moll reported a weak relationship between language and academics.

PAGE 32

23 Hymes (1972) discussed two issues: that schools should concern themselves with social relationships and that social relationships can effect change in the classroom. Cummins (1984) stated that students must achieve a certain threshold level of language proficiency (including pragmatics) before they are capable of attaining cognitive growth and hence academic achievement. In essence, he stated that a stronger relationship exists between pragmatics and academic achievement, with language proficiency being a prerequisite to academic proficiency. Cazden (1988) said that teachers should make the medium of classroom discourse the object of their focal attention. She also pointed out that language is important to the schools' planning. Therefore, explicit language planning as well as nondeliberate language use (e.g., unconscious choice of language) are important aspects of the school environment. Simon (1989) reported that language proficiency and academic success are dependent on the degree to which the student is capable of matching the learning-teaching style incorporated in the classroom. The student is capable of high academic success if he or she learns the social language and learning patterns in the classroom. Hymes, Cummins, Cazden, and Simon have agreed that a strong relationship exists between language proficiency (including pragmatics) and academic achievement. All researchers agreed that pragmatic

PAGE 33

24 proficiency encompassing social, linguistic, cultural, and cognitive features plays some role in academic achievement. Therefore, pragmatic deficiency in any group of students should not be ignored. Students who may display a high degree of pragmatic difficulties include native speakers who are language disordered and LEP/NES students. Considering the increasing number of LEP students, educators will find it valuable to assess pragmatic proficiency. The Need for Better Understanding of Pragmatics A better understanding of pragmatics for teachers will occur as a result of teacher education in this area. This will be evidenced by a more appropriate referral rate of students to special education classes, development of more appropriate assessment procedures, and knowledge of pragmatics as an important variable in academic achievement for all students. For some years researchers have reported a high incidence of LEP/NES students in special education programs. Ortiz and Yates (1983) reported that in the 1980-1981 school year, 74% of all Hispanic students in Texas special education classes were seen in either learning disabilities or communication disorders classes. Baca and Harris (1988) reported that approximately 1% of all immigrant students were enrolled for special education services. Cole and Deal (1989) reported that between 5.0%

PAGE 34

25 and 11.2% of all speech and language clients served by speech-language pathologists in the United States do not speak English as their native language. Mowder (1979) stated that "many bilingual children have been misclassif ied as handicapped" (p. 43) Collier (1987) reported that linguistically and culturally different students continue to be disproportionately referred to and placed in special education programs. In addition, she also argued that the dynamics of acculturation are clearly determining factors in the referral and placement process. School personnel must consider acculturation factors before evaluating LEP/NES students. Garcia and Ortiz (1988) reported that data gathered as part of the referral and evaluation process for LEP/NES students were not reflected in decisions made by school personnel. School personnel did not adeguately understand the concepts of limited English proficiency, second language acquisition, and cultural differences that mediate the students' learning. Algozzine, Christenson, and Ysseldyke (1982) reported that, for the years 1977-1980, approximately 92% of all students referred for special education were subsequently evaluated. Of the evaluated group, 73% were subsequently placed into special education programs. Their data show that if a student is referred to special education, a high

PAGE 35

26 chance exists (73%) that the student will subsequently be placed into a special education program. Collier (1988) compared four groups of Hispanic students (N = 95) She compared students not referred to special education (51) all students referred to special education (44) students referred to special education but not placed (27) and students referred to and placed in special education (17) She found differences between students referred but not placed and students referred and placed on the variables of language and acculturation. Collier also found differences between students not referred to special education and students referred to and placed in special education on these same variables. Metz (1988) had seven school diagnosticians evaluate 64 hypothetical cases of Hispanic students across five cues of English proficiency, Spanish proficiency, home culture, home Spanish, and home English. Six of the seven school diagnosticians claimed to possess near native or native Spanish proficiency. Metz found that home language and home culture were not equally considered for all decisions. His conclusion was that the clinician's decision-making policies were not concerned with any language proficiency being evaluated. The clinician's concern was whether English proficiency was demonstrated by the students or not. Implications from the Collier (1988) and Metz (1988) studies are that consideration of language proficiency and

PAGE 36

27 culture, including pragmatics, be included in the assessment of limited English proficient students. Larson and McKinley (1987) noted that the research addressing communication disorders in adolescents remains sparse compared with the wealth of information that has been generated pertaining primarily to preschool and elementary-aged students. They found evidence that students who were language impaired during their preadolescent years later experienced degrees of educational failure as they matured into adolescence. According to Larson and McKinley, one important need is testing instruments appropriate to use with adolescents. In a review of procedures and methods for evaluating racial minorities, Larson and McKinley (1987) suggested that an alternative to the use of standardized tests is to develop new tests that are valid and reliable with nonmainstream speakers. In a review of currently available tests and procedures for use with minority and immigrant students, Cummins (1984) stated that criterion-referenced tests appear more straightforward in the interpretation of students' academic performance, insofar as students either possess the criterion knowledge or they do not possess it. Cummins also pointed out that language assessment must place "more emphasis on sensitive and informed interpretation of students' behaviour in nonstandardized

PAGE 37

28 communication situations" (p. 206) Cummins also mentioned that "an emerging consensus among investigators concerned with language disorders points to the importance of assessing minority students' functional [emphasis added] language proficiency in a naturalistic context, taking account of patterns of normal language use in the students' community" (p. 207) A similar argument is developed by Damico et al. (1983). They reported that criteria for measuring pragmatics were more effective than the traditional surface language criteria of morphological and syntactic structures in identifying language disorders in their bilingual sample. They also reported that the traditional criteria did not differentiate between bilingual language disorders and normal second language acquisition differences. The Damico et al. pragmatic categories consisted of nonf luencies, revisions, inordinate delays, nonspecific referential terms, inappropriate responses, poor topic maintenance, and need for multiple repetitions. These categories were applied to language samples gathered in both English and Spanish by speech-language pathologists. The language samples were then analyzed using traditional surface oriented methods such as morphology, and then by using the pragmatic criteria. Results indicated that the pragmatic criteria were more effective in identifying students with language disorders in the bilingual sample.

PAGE 38

29 Furthermore, the students identified as having language disorders by the pragmatic criteria failed to make substantial academic gains seven months later. Some of the students identified by the traditional criteria made normal gains in school achievement. This would indicate that the traditional criteria are more likely to misidentify students as having language disorders when, in fact, the students have none. Nippold and Fey (198 3) found that the metaphor task was a more sensitive measure of continuing language deficits in a group of students identified as having language problems prior to adolescence than were various standardized measures that focused on the literal aspects of language. The experimental group (the identified language disordered group) was also deficient in a task involving combinatorial reasoning. Nippold and Fey (1983) and Damico et al. (1983) found alternative pragmatic measures that were superior in identifying language disorders. From this review of the literature it can be stated that no adequate instrument of pragmatics for use with adolescents exists, as researchers only mentioned suggested methods and practices and did not reference any specific instruments (Cummins, 1984; Damico et al., 1983; Larson & McKinley, 1987; Nippold & Fey, 1983). Since no specific instruments were available for teachers to assess their students' pragmatics skills, a misunderstanding of their

PAGE 39

30 pragmatics proficiency may occur. Cummins (1984) simply stated that language assessment of students (including minority students) must occur in a naturalistic context taking into account language use in the students' community. No specific procedures were given. The Damico et al. (1983) method of pragmatic analysis involved obtaining a language sample and then using the pragmatic criteria to examine the possibility of a language disorder. Larson and McKinley (1987) described some pragmatic behaviors where the examiner compares his or her perception of the student's functioning with the listed behavior. Nippold and Fey's (1983) method requires the student to explain 16 different metaphoric expressions read by the examiner. Topics and Behaviors of Pragmatics Given the importance of pragmatics for LEP/NES students, it was necessary to summarize the pragmatics literature. The pragmatics review was classified according to general topics and specific behaviors which matched those topics. This method of grouping was utilized in order to aid a better understanding of the literature and research. The earlier pragmatics literature provided most of the basis for the development of six topics as reported here (Dore, 1979; Halliday, 1978; Searle, 1976; Stephens, 1978). The topics are umbrella terms under which the behaviors are

PAGE 40

31 listed. The more recent literature provided a basis for the development of 3 8 individual behaviors that corresponded to these topics (Brice-Heath, 1986; Damico, 1985; Damico & Oiler, 1983; Damico et al., 1983; Nezer, Nezer, & Siperstein, 1985; Nippold & Fey, 1983; Stephens, 1978) The topics and behaviors were arranged for the purpose of this research according to a best fit classification. Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language This topic deals with the speaker effecting a response from the listener. It is derived from Searle's (1976) behavior of directive, i.e., getting the speaker to do some act. Searle developed his list of behaviors from a critigue of Austin's work in 1962. This behavior also has reference in Halliday's (1978) regulatory topic, i.e., ordering people about. He developed his pragmatic functions after observing his son over a period of time. Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language is also similar to the category proposed by Brice-Heath (1986) for using language to obtain information. She developed her behaviors from a review of the historical literature on language policies in Mexico and the United States and from collaborative research with teachers of language minority students. The difference between Brice-Heath' s behavior and this behavior is that in this study obtaining information is only one form of effecting some response

PAGE 41

32 from the listener. Eleven behaviors are categorized under this topic. 1. Asks for Help Nezer, Nezer, and Siperstein (1985) developed their list of behaviors through directive teaching, which involves three steps: to define the behavior in observable terms, to assess the behaviors with students, and to prescribe teaching strategies to fit the students' needs. All behaviors were subject to change and modification throughout the process. Nezer et al. (1985) asked whether students are able to decide that they need help and ask for it in a pleasant manner. Simon (1989) also noted that adolescents rarely ask for help in the classroom. 2. Asks Questions Damico (1985) obtained his list of behaviors from previous research studies (Damico & Oiler, 1980; Damico et al., 1983). These studies involved comparison of speech and language placement criteria for the public schools. The criteria examined involved traditional surface language criteria and pragmatics criteria. They reported that their pragmatics criteria were more effective than the traditional surface language criteria of morphological and syntactic structures. The pragmatics criteria categories consisted of nonf luencies, revisions, inordinate delays, nonspecific referential terms, inappropriate responses, poor topic maintenance, and need for multiple repetitions. Results in the studies

PAGE 42

33 indicated that the pragmatics criteria were more effective in identifying students with language disorders. Both studies involved small samples. Results may not be highly generalizable. 3. Attempts to Persuade Others This behavior is similar to the Nezer et al. (1985) behavior of negotiating to reach a compromise. Vejleskov (1988) developed a list of behaviors through an approach similar to directive teaching. First, the behaviors were defined. Secondly, Vejleskov observed 70 different students where he gathered 17,000 utterances. Utterances were categorized according to function, i.e., on the basis of the utterance as well as on the whole situational context. Vejleskov found that it was possible to code all the behaviors according to the intellectual and social functions. Attempts to Persuade Others is also similar to Vejleskov' s (1988) behavior of examining the listener, to control his or her knowledge. 4. Informs Another of Important Information This behavior deals with informing the listener of some important information. It has some basis in Halliday's (1978) informative function or expressing information. 5. Asks for a Favor of a Friend/Classmate This behavior is similar to the Nezer et al. (1985) behavior of simply asking for a favor. They did not distinguish between who is being asked the favor and the possible outcome of the favor. Asking for a favor is also similar

PAGE 43

34 to Vejleskov's (1988) behavior of asking for support or acceptance. Support can be viewed as a favor in some circumstances 6. Asks for a Favor of the Teacher This behavior is based on the Nezer et al. (1985) behavior of asking a favor. Nezer et al. did not distinguish who is being asked or the outcome of the favor. Asks for a Favor of the Teacher is more formal and the listener is only likely to perform expected, less personal favors. 7 Asks for Teacher's and/or Adult's Permission This behavior is similar to the Nezer et al. (1985) behavior of asking for permission, where the student knows when and how to ask for something from another. 8. Asks for Other Student's Permission This is again similar to the Nezer et al. (1985) behavior of asking for permission. 9. Able to Negotiate. Give and Take in Order to Reach an Agreement This is similar to the Nezer et al. (1985) category of negotiating. The student compromises and negotiates with another student and/or adult in hopes of reaching a satisfactory agreement. 10. Is Able to Give Simple Directions This behavior is drawn from Stephen's (1978) behavior of giving directions to peers. 11. Rephrases a Statement This is similar to Roth and Spekman's (1984a) idea of repair strategies for

PAGE 44

35 conversational breakdowns, in particular the notion of elaborating and asking appropriate questions to repair the breakdown. Roth and Spekman (1984a) compiled the works of various researchers in an attempt to present a more elaborate list of observable topics and behaviors. Rephrases a Statement is the ability to ask for clarification by repeating the initial statement or by saying it slightly differently. Expresses Self Expresses Self was taken from Searle's (1976) expressive act of expressing a psychological state. Halliday's (1978) personal function, used to express one's uniqueness, is also very pertinent. Expresses self is similar to Damico's (1985) behavior of structuring discourse and Vejleskov's (1988) behavior of expressing one's feelings positively and expressing one's feelings negatively. Seven behaviors are categorized under this topic. 1. Describes Personal Feelings in an Acceptable Manner This behavior is similar to Stephens' (1978) behavior of expressing feelings. Stephens described this behavior as being able to describe one's feelings or moods in a verbal manner. Nezer et al. (1985) included the behavior of expressing feelings. 2. Shows Feelings in an Acceptable Manner Nezer et al. (1985) identified expressing feelings, knowing

PAGE 45

36 feelings, expressing concern, dealing with anger, expressing anger, expressing affection, and dealing with fear. This behavior differs from Describing Personal Feelings in an Acceptable Manner in that the behaviors here may be nonverbal (just showing the emotions) while the behaviors in the former have to be verbal. 3 Offers a Contrary Opinion in Class Discussions This behavior is derived from Stephens' (1978) behavior of discussing opposite or contrary opinions in class discussions. It also has a basis in the Nezer et al. (1985) behavior of knowing how to make a complaint, that is, that the student is able to disagree in acceptable ways. 4. Gives Logical Reasons for Opinions This deals with the ability to offer a reason for an expressed opinion. It is similar to Stephens' (1978) behavior of providing reasons for opinions. 5. Says That They Disagree in a Conversation Stephens (1978) also developed his list of behaviors from the directive teaching process. Behaviors must specify the movements which make up the behavior and conditions in which the behavior is to occur (i.e., context of the behavior) Stephens surveyed the ability to discuss contrary opinions in class discussions. This behavior consists of verbal disagreement.

PAGE 46

37 6. Stays on Topic for an Appropriate Amount of Time This is similar to Damico's (1985) and Oiler's (1983) behavior of topic management. It is the ability to stay on a conversational topic until both parties (in dyadic conversation) are satisfied or until almost all parties are satisfied in a group discussion. 7 Switches Response to Another Style of Speaking to Suit the Listener This behavior is essentially the same behavior described by Simon (1989) as "difficulty shifting communication style depending on the communication partner" (p. 90) It is the ability to change speaking manners when addressing different groups or individuals. Establishes Appropriate Greetings This sequence of behaviors deals with the ability to establish appropriate greetings with others. It is derived directly from Dore's (1979) behavior of greetings. Four behaviors are categorized under this topic. 1. Establishes Eye Contact This is somewhat similar to Stephens' (1978) task of greeting others by looking them in the eye and resembles Damico's (1985) task of being able or not able to establish gaze efficiency with others. 2. Smiles When Meeting Friends This is similar to Stephens' (1978) behavior of smiling when encountering friends. 3. Responds to an Introduction by Saying "Hello. How are You Doing" or Other Similar Greeting This is the

PAGE 47

38 ability to greet others verbally. This parallels Stephens' (1978) greeting task of saying how do you do or shaking hands. 4. Introduces Self to Others This is the ability to introduce oneself to others as the title implies. It is similar to Stephens' (1978) category of greeting others and specifically to his behavior of introducing oneself to others. Initiates and Maintains Conversations Initiates and maintains conversation is taken from Halliday's interactional function or language used to interact with others. It is also similar to Brice-Heath' s (1986) behavior of using language to sustain and maintain the social and linguistic interactions of the group. Vejleskov's (1988) behavior of carrying on the conversation to be polite is also comparable. Six behaviors are categorized under this topic. 1. Displays Appropriate Response Time This behavior is similar to that which Damico (1985) stated in the negative, i.e., delay before responding. This behavior deals with a listener responding to a speaker's reguest or statement reguiring some response. Waiting too long before responding would seem to indicate a loss of interest in the topic or a topic shift to the other party or parties involved.

PAGE 48

39 2. Asks for More Time This is partially taken from Damico's (1985) and Oiler's (1983) behavior of topic maintenance. The listener indicates that more time is needed before responding. 3 Notes that the Listener is Not Following the Conversation and Needs Clarification or More Information Roth and Spekman (1984) mentioned the conversational strategy of repair attempt during a communication breakdown. 4 Talks to Others with Appropriate Pitch and Loudness Levels of Voice This behavior is similar to those proposed by Damico (1985) and Stephens (1978) Damico referred to inappropriate intonational contours that students may exhibit, while Stephens stated using a satisfactory tone of voice deemed appropriate for the situation. 5. Answers Questions Relevantly Damico (1985) posed a negative form that is similar, that is, answering with an inappropriate response. 6. Waits for Appropriate Pauses in Conversation Before Speaking This is one of many behaviors that Damico (1985) labeled as difficulties in taking turns. It is more specifically related to Stephens' (1978) behavior of making conversation or waiting for appropriate pauses in conversation before speaking.

PAGE 49

40 Listens Actively Listens Actively is the ability to take active participation as a listener in a conversation. It has its basis in Po re s U -9.7-94— behav-ior of acknowledgments, i.e., recognizing and evaluating responses and reguests. This is also similar to Stephens' (1978) category of attending behaviors. Nine behaviors are categorized under this topic. 1. Asks to Repeat What Has Been Said for Better Understanding This is a combination of Stephens' (1978) behavior of asking appropriate questions and Roth and Spekman's (1984a) idea of repair strategies for communication breakdowns. Asks to Repeat What Has Been Said for Better Understanding is similar to Rephrases a Statement except that in this case clarification for better understanding is more active, whereas, in the former category the assumption is that the listener will understand that a communication breakdown has occurred when the listener repeats a statement. 2. Looks at Teacher When Addressed This is drawn from Stephens' (1978) behavior of looking at the teacher when instructed. Addressed means the teacher engages the student in some activity, instruction, or conversation. The student may exhibit this behavior through occasional glances or through maintained eye contact.

PAGE 50

41 3. Listens to Others in Class This behavior is the capacity to follow other conversations in class and maintain interest. This is very similar to Stephens' (1978) behavior of listening to class speakers. However, in Listens to Others in Class, participation is more than just having good hearing. It is the active processing of what has been said. 4 Changes Activities When Asked by the Teacher This is the ability to follow directions upon direct reguest and maintain on task listening behaviors. This is drawn from Stephens' (1978) behavior of changing activities upon the teachers' reguest to the class. 5. Acknowledges the Speaker Verbally This is similar to Stephens' (1978) behavior of paying attention to the person speaking in a conversation. Acknowledges the Speaker is a verbal display of following the conversation. 6. Acknowledges the Speaker Nonverbally This is the nonverbal counterpart to the preceding behavior. It is taken from Stephens' (1978) behavior of listening to others. It may include such behaviors as looking at the speaker through occasional glances, through maintained eye contact, or nodding. 9. Differentiates Between Literal and Figurative Language This behavior is outlined by Simon (1989) who noted that adolescents enrolled in preschool language therapy had significant difficulties with figurative

PAGE 51

42 language. Nippold and Fey (1983) noted that idiom and metaphor use and analysis is a tool for detecting linguistic deficits in adolescents. Figurative language includes expressions that have a different meaning from what is actually said, while literal language refers to exactly what is said. Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts is the capacity to tell the listener verbally or nonverbally that a change in conversation is about to occur. It is taken from Roth and Spekman's (1984a) behaviors of regulating interpersonal communication and monitoring the conversation. It has some basis in Halliday's (1978) informative function or expressing information. However, the information to be expressed in this topic deals specifically with conversation. Three behaviors are tested under this topic. 1. Waits for a Pause in the Conversation Before Speaking About Something Else Nezer et al. (1985) included a behavior of participating in discussions in accordance with classroom rules. Stephens (1978) also mentioned the behavior of waiting guietly for recognition before speaking out in class. Waits for a Pause in the Conversation Before Speaking About Something Else is thus taken from these behaviors. It is the capacity to pause approximately three to five seconds at the end of a thought

PAGE 52

43 or sentence before embarking on a new topic. This is similar to Displays Appropriate Response Time in that both behaviors require appropriate timing in the student. This behavior differs from Displays Appropriate Response Time; in the former, the listener is being asked to give some sort of response to a question or statement, while in Waits for a Pause in the Conversation Before Speaking About Something Else the listener is waiting to embark on a new topic of conversation and is waiting for the right moment. 2 Looks Away to Indicate Loss of Interest in Conversation This gesture indicates a desire for a topic shift. It has some basis in the Nezer et al. (1985) behavior of appropriately ending a conversation. It consists of looking away of once or twice and maintaining that look for approximately three to five seconds. 3 Makes Easy Transitions Between Topics was discussed by Oiler (1983), and Damico (1985). Both Oiler and Damico referred to this behavior as topic maintenance. Oiler stated that the student should be able to provide transitional cues to the listener; otherwise conversation is not maintained because of the breakdown. In an easy transition the listener does not question internally or verbally what the conversation is about. Summary Pragmatics has been shown to have evolved through the work of various researchers. Some researchers stated that

PAGE 53

44 pragmatics has a strong influence on a student's academic success. Others have simply reported a relationship of some sort between pragmatics proficiency and academic success. Pragmatic skills are particularly important for limited English proficient students at the adolescent level who are culturally and linguistically different. School personnel utilizing their knowledge of pragmatics with different student groups could better identify those students who may have communication disorders. Possibly, school personnel could help the students to achieve academic success without referral. The methods employed in this study are discussed in the next chapter. Results of this study are discussed in the fourth chapter, while conclusions and implications are set forth in chapter five.

PAGE 54

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY In this chapter the methodology that had been employed in the development of an instrument (the Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale) is reported. Also, the methodology that was employed in the examination of groups utilizing the APSS is discussed. Development of an Instrument The Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale was developed as a rating measure of students' pragmatic skills. It was developed to fill the need for an assessment instrument measuring pragmatics with adolescent mainstream students, speech and language students, and bilingual/ESL students. The APSS consists of a rating scale that includes six pragmatic categories (i.e., the topics) derived from the literature, covering the spectrum of pragmatics for adolescents. These topics consist of (a) affects listener's behavior through language, (b) expresses self, (c) establishes appropriate greetings, (d) initiates and maintains conversation, (e) listens actively, and (f) cues the listener regarding topic shifts. Under each category, the individual behaviors are listed. A total of 38 different behaviors are sampled. 45

PAGE 55

46 Intended Use of the APSS All sections of this screening scale were filled out by a teaching professional working with adolescents. The scale was used and is intended to be used by speech-language pathologists, bilingual/ESL teachers, and/or regular education teachers. Results of different ratings by various teachers may be shared and a whole description of how the student is functioning in different classrooms and environments may be presented. Measurement errors can be reduced by using more than one rater per student. The various teachers may use the APSS as a prereferral or screening for special education evaluation for those students who may possess a pragmatics problem. Those behaviors identified as being problematic, that is, receiving a four or five rating (the behavior is exhibited at a moderately or highly inappropriate level) may be targeted during a noted intervention plan involving charting of results. The APSS was used in observation. The purpose of the observation as employed with the APSS is to study a person in action and later to record those actions with the use of checklists or rating scales. The behaviors noted by observers were observed, not elicited. Preparing to Use the APSS The teachers who used the APSS followed a two-step procedure before any data were collected. The procedure follows:

PAGE 56

47 1. The teacher read through the APSS guidelines (Appendix B) thoroughly, noting the examples given. The examples were not to be taken verbatim but were to serve as general examples. The teacher familiarized himself or herself thoroughly with the APSS. 2. If the teacher was familiar with the student's behaviors and interactions in the school environment, then the teacher rated the student's performance utilizing past observations of the student. If the teacher had questions that could not be answered or lacked information about the student's capabilities, it was suggested that the teacher spend additional time observing the student. There were no set number of observations that the teacher should have performed. This observation period was to last approximately two weeks. Rating the Behaviors The teacher rater utilized a 5-point scale, with 1 indicating a highly appropriate level of performance on the behavior and 5 indicating a highly inappropriate level of performance. The scale consisted of a continuous level of performance. Highly appropriate in this context meant that the behavior was acceptable and was easily conveyed given the surroundings in the public school culture of the United States. Moderately appropriate in the context of the scale meant that the behavior was conveyed with no great difficulties. A behavior exhibited at the borderline level

PAGE 57

48 of appropriateness indicated that the behavior could have been displayed in a better manner; however, the message was conveyed. Behaviors displayed at the moderately inappropriate level conveyed the message, yet placed a great burden upon listener. A behavior exhibited at the highly inappropriate level placed an extreme burden on the other involved party, and the message or intent was vague and unclear. The teacher did not take the examples given on the APSS as being the only indicators of the behavior. Any behaviors that the teacher was unable to judge were rated as zero indicating no score. Scoring Scoring of the APSS yielded three types of scores, individual behavior scores, topic scores, and total score. Each individual behavior received a rating score from 1 to 5, which yielded an individual behavior score. Each topic (e.g., Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language) thus received a mean score by adding up all the individual behavior scores and dividing by the total number of behaviors. What resulted was a topic score. A total score for the APSS was also possible. This was obtained by summing all the individual behavior scores and dividing by the total number of behaviors. The total score was a mean rating for the entire scale. The teacher was instructed to score as many of the behaviors as possible.

PAGE 58

49 Indication of Scores The APSS was based on a 5 point Likert-type rating scale. A rating higher than a 3.0 was indicative of an unacceptable rating for the topic scores or for the total score. Also, because of the wording used in describing the ratings, a rating of 3.0 indicated a borderline level of appropriateness. Anything greater than borderline was also indicative of an inappropriate rating. A score greater than a 3.0 was indicative of possible problems in pragmatics. Test Development The APSS was constructed using the guidelines set forth by Crocker and Algina (1986) This process consisted of a modified eight-step procedure (varying slightly from Crocker and Algina) performed to assure that the test scores had the proper technical gualities to serve as useful measurements. Steps one through eight were followed in the development of the APSS. Crocker and Algina' s step nine procedure, involving an analysis of subject performance across student groups, was selected to serve as the primary purpose for this study, therefore it was addressed in a separate section under group comparisons. The eight-step process used in this study for development of the APSS follows: 1. identifying of the primary purpose (s) for the test scores;

PAGE 59

50 2. identifying behaviors that defined the domain; 3. preparing of test specifications, delineating the proportion of items that focused on each behavior as identified in step two; 4. constructing the initial pool of items; 5. reviewing and refining items as necessary and conducting preliminary item tryouts; 6. field-testing of the items on a large representative sample; 7. analyzing the statistical properties of the item scores with an elimination of items that did not meet the established criteria; and 8. developing the guidelines for administration, scoring, and interpretation of the APSS scores. Identification of the Primary Purpose (s) for the Test Scores The purpose of the scale was to give information about pragmatics in screening students. If the student receives a total score beyond the suggested cutoff score, then the student should be considered for special education evaluation. The APSS could also yield valuable qualitative information to the teacher about how a student may have been functioning pragmatically. Identification of Behaviors that Define the Domain The behaviors that are compiled in the APSS were drawn from sources in the literature (Brice-Heath, 1986; Damico, 1985; Dore, 1979; Halliday, 1978; Nezer, Nezer, &

PAGE 60

51 Siperstein, 1985; Oiler, 1983; Searle, 1976; Stephens, 1978; Vejleskov, 1988). They were submitted and reviewed by a panel of expert professionals who are knowledgeable about bilingual education, assessment practices with other cultures, or with the construct of pragmatics (refer to Appendix C) A review of the literature along with submission of the APSS to experts in the field added to the content validity of the instrument. A third step in yielding content validity information was obtained through a preliminary field testing of the APSS with teachers. The final step in assuring content validity involved appropriate matching of items to their respective topics (Appendix D) An item-to-topic matching session was conducted with informed participants. These sections are later discussed in further detail. The expert professionals who reviewed the APSS were six speechlanguage pathologists, five special educators, two bilingual educators, and one educational psychologist. Of the six speech-language pathologists, two were University of Florida professors in speech and language pathology with expertise in the area of child language. The other speechlanguage pathologists included an associate professor/assistant dean at San Diego State University with expertise in bilingual speech-language pathology; a program director of the multicultural training program in communicative disorders at the University of New Mexico; an

PAGE 61

52 associate professor/department chair of speech-languagehearing sciences at Temple University; and one school clinician working with middle and high school adolescents in the Alachua County School District. The five special educators included two professors at the University of Florida Department of Special Education, one bilingual special education research and grant director, one special educator with school experience working also as a researcher, and one professor at the University of Texas. The two bilingual educators were a professor in the Department of Instruction and Curriculum at the University of Florida and a middle school teacher working in an English as a second language (ESL) classroom in the Alachua County School District. The educational psychologist was a professor at the University of Florida in the Foundations of Education Department. Changes made to the APSS included deletion of certain behaviors, rewording of the topics, behaviors, and examples, and addition of new behaviors and examples. The basic format of the APSS was retained. Most of the topics, behaviors, and examples remained intact. Preparing of Test Specifications A criterion in the development of the APSS was that each individual behavior should possess the same weight of importance. The scale was developed on the premise that no one language behavior in itself would yield a normal or

PAGE 62

53 disordered classification. The total score of the APSS or the Topic Scores would make this distinction possible. Construction of the Initial Pool of Items The item format chosen for use with the APSS consisted of a rating scale similar to a Likert scale in that a 5point rating continuum was used. This method was chosen because of its flexibility in gathering information with various teaching professionals and because of the nature of the pragmatics construct. According to Cronbach (1949) rating scales can serve as devices "for obtaining descriptions of the subject who has been familiar with his typical behavior in the past. Ratings are popular because they can be treated numerically and are superficially uniform from judge to judge" (p. 397) A 5to 7-point scale is recommended by Cronbach as serving adeguately. The APSS employed a 5-point scale. The item format was verified as being acceptable by verbally interviewing five teaching professionals in the fall 1987 school semester in the Alachua County School District. This step also added to the content validity of the APSS. The five professionals included one speech-language pathologist, and four special educators all working with middle and high school students. All agreed that this type of format would be acceptable. The initial pool of items and preceding items were compiled by the author following guidelines set forth by

PAGE 63

54 Evans and Algozzine (1988) A guideline in writing the items was that the individual behaviors be objective and observable in school settings. Concrete examples were provided on the APSS for each item to clarify the individual behaviors. The earlier pragmatics literature provided the basis for the development of the six topics (Dore, 1979; Halliday, 1978; Searle, 1976; Stephens, 1978). The more recent literature provided a basis for the development of 3 8 individual behaviors that corresponded to these topics (Brice-heath, 1986; Damico, 1985; Damico & Oiler, 1983; Damico, Oiler, & Storey, 1983; Nezer, Nezer, & Siperstein, 1985; Nippold & Fey, 1983; Stephens, 1978). The topics and behaviors were arranged according to a best fit classification and verified by an item-to-topic matching procedure (discussed later in this chapter) Reviewing and Refining Items as Necessary and Conducting Preliminary Item Trvouts All items were reviewed by a panel of expert professionals knowledgeable about pragmatics and teachers working in the field. The teaching professionals were a speech-language pathologist, a special education teacher, and a guidance counselor. Professional experience ranged from 2 years to 15 years teaching experience. These teachers came from the Alachua County School District. All participants were approached via a telephone call, followed by a personal visit. They were asked to give their recommendations concerning the format and item

PAGE 64

55 specification of the APSS. All participants then responded by providing the author with written recommendation or verbal comments regarding (a) appropriateness of the test for use with the intended populations, (b) appropriateness of the test format, (c) applicability of the general topics, (d) applicability of the specific behaviors, (e) scoring of the items, (f) wording of the items, (g) applicability of the examples, and (h) appropriateness of item matching to the topics (i.e., do the items fit the topics?). Items were revised according to comments made by the various professionals. Preliminary item tryouts were conducted on 15 students by three school professionals. Adolescents from middle and high school populations were utilized. The school personnel were trained to use the instrument by this author during a training session lasting approximately 45 minutes. The session covered the intent of the APSS, how to use the APSS, how to rate the behaviors, how to score the APSS, what the scores mean, and specifically what the individual behaviors and topics mean. Positive and negative examples of the behaviors were verbally discussed in defining the behaviors. The school personnel held preliminary tryouts of the APSS after two weeks of observation and then made recommendations concerning each of the eight segments of the APSS. A final revision of the APSS was made, taking into consideration the comments of school personnel.

PAGE 65

^6 Item-to-Topic Matching The 3 8 Item Behaviors and the 6 Topic Behaviors were matched for goodness of fit (how well the 38 individual items matched and corresponded to the 6 topics they were assigned to by the test developer) utilizing a structured matching process involving the course instructor and graduate level speech-language pathology students enrolled in a language course at the University of Florida. They were briefed about the purpose of the study and the development of the Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale. They were provided with a description of the 38 individual items and the seven general topic areas (one topic was dropped for the final form of the APSS) They then received a form (Appendix D) on which to record their judgement of which items matched which topics. Black and Dockrell (1984) stated that a review of test items should include training the reviewers, conducting a structured review, and adequately describing the domain definition. Results of this review assigned the items to the topics (for goodness of fit) according to the information given by the informed group of speech-language pathology students and course instructor. Changes made to the APSS were based on a median average of matching. Changes made included moving 13 behaviors to other topics for a better fit. The five behaviors under the topic of Contracts with Others were identified as having a better

PAGE 66

57 fit with the topic of Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language. Therefore, Contracts with Others was deleted because of redundancy with the topic of Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language. Six topics were used on the final form of the APSS. Population In this study the Alachua County School District defined the student population. This school district had bilingual/ESL students, speechlanguage students, and normal student populations from which to draw. Adolescents from grades 5 through 8 were selected as the age group. Thirty-five students from the speech and language and regular education groups and 25 students from the bilingual/NES group were selected for scoring on the APSS, i.e., for a total of 95 students. Field-testing of the Items on a Large Representative Sample The APSS needed some large scale field testing to establish the reliability of the instrument. As part of this study, the data collected were also used to establish internal consistency. The APSS was used to rate 97 students for the purpose of item analysis (Crocker & Algina, 1986) Thirty-five students were gathered from the regular education group and the speech and language group, while 27 students were gathered from the bilingual/ESL group. Teacher training was the same as that provided in the preliminary item tryout. Nine teachers participated. Each

PAGE 67

58 teacher rated from 5 to 27 students from his or her class. The participating group consisted of speech-language pathologists, bilingual/ESL teachers, and regular education teachers. Teachers followed the guidelines for using the APSS as suggested in the written guidelines packet. They then rated the selected students after reading the packet and the teacher training. Teachers were selected upon availability from the school district, that is, who was able to participate, and who was able to attend the training session and follow through with the data collection. Analyzing the Statistical Properties of the Item Scores A classical item analysis model was utilized for the APSS items. The internal criteria used for the item-test correlation consisted of the total score and the topic scores. The item-to-test correlation involved comparisons between individual behavior scores and total scores and between topic scores and total scores. The reliability index was achieved by calculating a Cronbach's Alpha coefficient (Table 1). Coefficients ranged from .66 for topic six (Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts) to .91 for topic one (Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language). Topic six contained the least items (3) while topic one contained the most items (11) The expected strength of the reliability was based on the number of items with comparable items, statistically. Topics with

PAGE 68

59 more items were, in fact, more reliable indicators of pragmatics performance with no one individual behavior possessing more strength than the other items. Coefficients are listed for topics and total in Table 1. The total score reliability coefficient was reported to be .93. The coefficients as reported in Table 1 indicate strong internal consistency of the topics and total instrument. Table 1 Index of Reliability Coefficients Utilizing a Cronbach's Alpha Measure for Items under Topics and Total Topic Number of Items Descriptor Cronbach's Alpha 1 11 Effects Listener's .91 Behavior Through Language 2 7 Expresses Self .79 3 4 Establishes Appropriate .80 Greetings 4 6 Initiates and Maintains .73 Conversation 5 7 Actively Listens .79 6 3 Cues the Listener .66 Regarding Topic Shifts Total 38 Total Score .93 Intercorrelations for the topics and total were computed and are listed in Table 2. Intertopic

PAGE 69

60 correlations ranged from .37 to .75 indicating moderate relationships. Thus, separate topics or subscales seemed to be justified. However, the relationship between the topics and the total score was stronger. As expected those topics with more items generally showed a stronger correlation. Topic one with eleven behaviors (Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language) yielded a topic to total correlation of .91, topic three (Establishes Appropriate Greetings) with four behaviors yielded a topic to total correlation of .80. Topic six with only three behaviors (Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts) yielded a topic to total correlation of .67. All items were retained for the final form of the APSS. Table 2 Intercorrelations of Topics and Total Topics Total 1

PAGE 70

61 Development of the Guidelines The guidelines for administration and scoring of the APSS are contained in Appendix B. Guidelines for interpretation of the scores are discussed in the final chapter of this study. Analysis of Variance A oneway analysis of variance was conducted. The independent variables consisted of the subject groups (speech and language students, bilingual/Hispanic students, and regular education students) while the dependent variables consisted of the topic score and the total score. A total of 95 students was utilized with 35 students from the regular education and speech and language groups, and 2 5 students from the bilingual/Hispanic group. Two students were dropped from the bilingual/ESL group (previously utilized in the item analysis portion of this study) in order to maintain a homogeneous bilingual/ Hispanic group. Hispanic students were chosen for this study because of their predominance in Florida public schools. Overview of the Remaining Chapters Chapter four contains a discussion of the specific findings from the data collected with regard to the hypotheses. These findings along with implications for further research will be the focus of the final chapter. Some followups to this study will be recommended.

PAGE 71

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS This study compared performance on a scale of pragmatics across various student groups of regular education, speech and language, and Hispanic bilingual students. An analysis of variance comparing topic scores and total scores for the groups indicated significant differences were five of the seven variables. Total Score There was no significant difference across groups on the total score (F=2.09; df =2 60; p>.05). A summary of results is given in Table 3. The mean for total score was 72.14 and the standard deviation was 18.48. There are no overall differences in pragmatics for means of the three groups of students. Topic Scores Results of an analyses of variance for each topic of the topics is presented next. Topic O ne (Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language) A significant difference for the three groups was found on topic one, Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language, (F=5.74; df =2 70; p<.05). The summary of the analysis of variance is recorded in Table 4. Tukey's 62

PAGE 72

63 Table 3 Summary Table of Analysis of Variance for Total Source SS df MS F 2.09 Groups

PAGE 73

64 education students, speech and language students, and bilingual students) are recorded in Table 5. Table 5 Tukev's HSD Test for Significant Differences on Topic One (Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language) Group Mean SD Difference From Speech and Bilingual/ Language ESL Regular

PAGE 74

65 and language students, and bilingual students) are recorded in Table 7. Table 6

PAGE 75

66 Topic Three (Establishes Appropriate Greetings) A significant difference between the means of the three student groups was found for the topic of Establishes Appropriate Greetings (F=7.76; df=2, 78; p<.05). The summary of the analysis of variance is found in Table 8. Tukey's HSD follow-up showed a significant difference between the means of the speech and language group (Mean = 7.87) and the Hispanic bilingual group (Mean = 5.46). Also, a significant difference between the means of the speech and language students (Mean = 7.87) and the regular education students (Mean = 6.3 0) was found. With Tukey's HSD test a mean difference of 1.49 or larger is significant at p<.05. The means, standard deviations, and Tukey's HSD test for topic three according to group (regular education students, speech and language students, and bilingual students) are listed in Table 9. Table 8 Summary Table of Analysis of Variance for Topic Three (Establishes Appropriate Greetings) Source SS df MS F 7.76 Groups

PAGE 76

67 Table 9 Tukev's HSD Test for Significant Differences on Topic Three (Establishes Appropriate Greetings) Group Mean SD Difference From Speech and Bilingual\ Language ESL Regular Speech and Language Bilingual/ ESL 6.30 1.92 7.87 2.96 5.46 1.64 1.57* 0.84 2.41* Significant at p<.05 with Tukey's HSD Test Topic Four (Initiates and Maintains Conversation) A significant difference was found for the three student groups (F=5.90; df =2 76; p<.05). Refer to Table 10 for the analysis of variance results. Tukey's HSD follow-up showed significant difference between the means of the the speech and language students (Mean = 13.21) and the regular education students (Mean = 9.92). With Tukey's HSD test a mean difference of 2.34 or larger is significant at p<.05. See Table 11 for the Tukey HSD test, the means, and standard deviations for variable four (Topic of Initiates and Maintains Conversation)

PAGE 77

68 Table 10 Summary

PAGE 78

69 Table 12 Summary

PAGE 79

70 Table 13 Tukey's HSD Test for Significant Differences on Topic Five (Listens Actively ) Group Regular Speech and Language Bilingual/ ESL Mean SD Difference From Speech and Bilinguaal\ Language ESL 11.23 3.46 13.85 4.47 13.92 3.57 2.62* 2.69* 0.07 Significant at p<.05 with Tukey's HSD Test. Topic Six (Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts) No significant differences were found between the means of the three student groups (F=.53; df=2;p>.05) for Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts. The mean for this topic was 5.98, while the standard deviation was 2.01. See Table 14 for the analysis of variance results. Hypotheses and Research Questions Hypothesis One The first hypothesis asserted that there would be a significant difference between group means (speech and language, bilingual/ESL, and regular education) on the dependent variable of total score. This hypothesis was rejected since no significant differences for group means were found on the total score variable.

PAGE 80

71 Table 14 Summary Table of Analysis of Variance for Topic Six (Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts) Source SS df MS Groups

PAGE 81

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION The background of this study will be reviewed along with a discussion of the purpose, and procedures. A summary of the findings will include interpretations of the results. Implications of this study will be discussed. Background and Discussion of This Study It has been noted in the literature and research that different groups of students in United States schools display varying levels of pragmatics competence. Regular education students, coming from an English speaking background, are expected to function within the mainstream level of language usage including pragmatics. Speech and language, students coming from an English speaking background, do not display adequate academic or oral language usage. Oral language refers to language that is used in interpersonal and social communication, while academic language refers to language that is cognitive and scholastically oriented. Some of the language deficits displayed by the speech and language students may be attributed to pragmatics problems. Bilingual/ESL students, coming from a non-English speaking 72

PAGE 82

73 background, may or may not possess language problems in pragmatics. The ability to use language appropriately becomes more complex for adolescent LEP students. Classroom demands increase when students enter the middle school environment (Br ice-Heath, 198 6; Larson & McKinley, 1987; Simon, 1985) When limited English proficient students are guickly mainstreamed into regular education classrooms after approximately two years of bilingual instruction, teachers and administrators with mainstream backgrounds may expect LEP students to perform well in all aspects of language including pragmatics at this time (Cummins, 1984) This period of bilingual instruction may not be sufficient for the bilingual students to acquire all the necessary language skills (Collier, 1987, Cummins, 1984). Pragmatics skills are linked to a student's knowledge of the mainstream United States culture. Certain minority students may experience more cultural difficulties than other minorities in acquiring pragmatics. Hispanics form a large population from varied national and socioeconomic backgrounds. Therefore, Hispanic students may exhibit a wide range of pragmatics behavior as do members of other minority groups. For example, a cultural group that possesses low dominance (accepts the target culture with regard to technological, economic, and cultural values) low enclosure (high

PAGE 83

74 contact between the cultural and target group) low cohesiveness ( low desire to remain to the cultural group) and minimal language and culture shock to the target group will transfer to the mainstream classroom much easier than a cultural group with the opposite characteristics. Also, a cultural group with high assimilation, high congruence (similarity between the cultural and target group) high motivation to adapt, and high ego-permeability (ability to transcend personal inhibition) will transfer to the mainstream classroom easier than an opposite group. These cultural characteristics may facilitate a smooth transition into the mainstream classroom (Schumann, 1986) Many teachers uninformed about pragmatics may misinterpret and perceive culturally different behaviors as being indicative of language disorders. This possible misunderstanding of pragmatics with culturally and linguistically different students may result in their inappropriate referral for special education testing. If teachers were better informed about pragmatics with regular education students, speech and language students, and bilingual students, then they may more properly refer students to special education testing. Teachers who are better informed about other cultures may also adapt their teaching styles to better match the learning styles of their students (Garcia & Ortiz, 1988, O'Malley, 1988).

PAGE 84

75 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to compare pragmatics performance across student groups on a scale of pragmatics. This comparison yielded information about how regular education students, speech and language students, and Hispanic bilingual students differed on pragmatic skills. Summary of the Procedures Three student groups were compared on the Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale, a device specifically developed for the present study. These groups consisted of regular education students, speech and language students, and bilingual students. The study employed 95 students. In order to increase homogeneity of the bilingual group, only Hispanic students were utilized in the comparison study. All of the students were enrolled in middle school in Alachua County, Florida. Nine teachers were trained to gather the student data. All teachers were trained by the author in one or two sessions lasting approximately 3 to 45 minutes each. Training involved demonstration of the behaviors using exemplars and nonexemplars by the author. Analysis of variance was used to compare the means of the total score and topic scores across the student groups. The analysis of variance variables consisted of seven measures (a total score and six topic scores)

PAGE 85

76 Summary of the Findings and Interpretations The findings for the total score and the six topic scores are reported in this section. In addition, interpretations to these findings are suggested. Each measure analyzed is discussed separately. Total Score The total score is a mean rating for the entire APSS. No significant differences between the means of the student groups was found on total score (thus rejecting hypothesis one) This suggested that any differences in pragmatics that may exist among the three groups are not susceptible to detection by a global measure, such as total score. Topic Scores Discussion of hypothesis two as it relates to each topic follows. Since hypothesis two related to a variety of six topic score measures, each topic score will be discussed separately. Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language A significant difference on the topic of Affects Listener s Behavior Through Language was found between the means of the bilingual and regular education student groups. No difference, however, was found between the means of the speech and language group and the regular education group suggesting that the speech and language students were proficient at affecting others through

PAGE 86

77 language. On the other hand, the bilingual students appeared significantly to be less efficient in getting the listener to perform an action for them and asking them for assistance. This may have some basis in the Hispanic culture; it may be impolite to make too many demands of another person, especially one who represents authority such as the teacher. Demands which included asking for assistance consisted of six behaviors under this topic, four of which dealt specifically with the teacher or an adult. They were Asks for Help, Asks Questions, Asks a Favor of a Friend/Classmate, Asks a Favor of the Teacher, Asks for Teacher's and/or Adult's Permission, and Asks for Other Student's Permission. These behaviors require proficiency in English language skills as affected by the student's level of syntactic and semantic abilities (i.e., sentence structure, inflectional morphology, and vocabulary) Thus, it may be that the limited grammatical skills in English unfavorably affected their pragmatics performance on some of the behaviors under this topic. Differences for the bilingual students could also be attributed to a lessened proficiency of academic language skills. Academic language is acquired significantly later than oral language (Collier, 1987; Cummins, 1984) Behaviors which may be related to an academic emphasis consisted of Asks for help, Asks Questions, Attempts to Persuade Others, Informs Another of

PAGE 87

78 Important Information, and Rephrases a Statement. The Hispanic students in this study may not have acquired these behaviors sufficiently even after being in the school system for a period of one year or more. Wong-Fillmore (1986) stated that LEP students need opportunities to practice English with English speaking peers and teachers and to verbally participate in instructional activities in order to enhance English language skills. The dynamics of a classroom and teacher with LEP students needs to be observed in order to determine if English language opportunities sufficiently present themselves. Regulatory behaviors, and the behaviors under this topic, are influential in the course of a lesson because they frame and structure the classroom interaction that is taking place (Wong-Fillmore, 1982) Therefore, it is imperative that teachers encourage the development of these behaviors by limited English proficient students, specifically Hispanic students, allowing them better control of classroom lessons. This encouragement may allow the bilingual/Hispanic students to develop better control of language. The various learning styles and teaching styles of the classroom need to be observed in terms of pragmatic language opportunities. If the opportunities of affecting others through language are rare and do not exist, then it is imperative to know what may assist these learning

PAGE 88

79 opportunities. Such issues need to be investigated in future research. Expresses Self A significant difference was found between the means of the speech and language group and the regular education student group. These findings suggest that the Hispanic bilingual group demonstrated adequate ability in expressing themselves, while the speech and language group exhibited difficulties. A possible inference is that acquired pragmatics in one language and culture are transferable to another for the bilingual group. Behaviors which may be demonstrative of oral language consisted of Describes Personal Feelings in an Acceptable Manner, Offers a Contrary Opinion in Class Discussions, and Says That They Disagree in a Conversation. The speech and language group's difficulties in expressing themselves might be attributable to inadequate grammatical control. Simon (1985) noted that a person's language system should possess flexibility, i.e., they should have a variety of forms available to them in order to carry out pragmatic functions. It may be that the \ speech and language students lack the syntactic and semantic devices to fulfill pragmatic functions. A follow-up to this speculation might have been to interview the speechlanguage pathologists in determining if the speech and language students poorer ratings were

PAGE 89

80 influenced by their syntactic and semantic skills. Although a section for comments or observations was provided for on the APSS, the speechlanguage pathologists employed in this study did not utilize this section. Further research might address interviewing raters after observations in determining if linguistic proficiency might affect pragmatic ratings. Establishes Appropriate Greetings Significant differences were found between the means of the speech and language group and the regular education group and also between the speech and language group and the Hispanic bilingual group. The bilingual/Hispanic students appeared to be the most accurate in the way things were said as indicated by the lowest group means reported in Table 9. This may have been due to the bilingual students' familiarity with the greeting structures in Spanish. The Hispanic culture also may place a greater emphasis on greetings. It would then seem that these students also placed a great emphasis on greetings in English. The bilingual/Hispanic students seem to be establishing a pattern of pragmatics proficiency in behaviors and topics which may be heavily influenced by oral language skills. Behaviors which seemed to be predominantly rely on oral language skills included Responds to an Introduction by Saying "Hello, How are You Doing" or Other Similar Greeting, and Introduces

PAGE 90

81 Self to Others. The other two behaviors under this topic emphasized non-verbal capabilities. The results from behaviors under this topic suggest that a continuum of performance for groups may exist. Bilingual/Hispanic students may be found on the normal end along with the regular education students and with the speech and language students on the far end of the continuum away from the other groups. The speech and language students may possibly need instruction in these behaviors in the form of coaching and modeling. Initiates and Maintains Conversations A significant difference was found between the means of the speech and language group and the regular education group. These results seemed to indicate that the speech and language students may have been incapable of starting a conversation and keeping that conversation going. The behaviors under this topic may be influential in a teacher's perception of a student. Coaching speech and language students, on behaviors under this topic, may affect a teacher's perception more positively. Thus, speech-language pathologists are encouraged to review these behaviors with their students. Simon (1985) stated that proficient speakers must take into account a listener's informational needs. Maintaining a conversation requires this ability. Therefore, it may be that the speech and language students are not assessing

PAGE 91

82 the needs of the listener and of the context. Such skills may involve metalinguistic competencies which the speech and language students may not possess. Metalinguistic competencies involve a student's awareness of strategies in sustaining conversations. Tough (1981) mentioned that all students, especially students with learning difficulties, need direct learning experiences to support their learning. It may be that metalinguistic awareness and skills, involving higher order linguistic capabilities, are not easily attainable through direct experiences. It needs to be determined if metalinguistic abilities may be taught through direct experiences. How and if these experiences may be taught is a matter for future research. The bilingual group in showing no difference from the regular education group again supported the notion that they are capable of transferring pragmatic skills from one language and culture to another. Listens Actively A significant difference was found between the means of the student groups of speech and language and regular education and also between the bilingual and regular education students. These results seemed to indicate that both the speech and language and bilingual students were experiencing difficulties with listening and attending to the speaker. For the speech and language group, this may

PAGE 92

S3 be a primary deficit since it was also exhibited in maintaining a conversation. Several behaviors under this topic involve some aspect of timing in conversation. These included Displays Appropriate Response Time, Asks for More Time, Waits for Appropriate Pauses in Conversation Before Speaking, Notes that the Listener is Not Following the Conversation and Needs Clarification or More Information, and Answers Questions Relevantly. Speech and language students may display weaknesses in metalinguistic awareness. For the bilingual students, their difference from the regular education students could have been a result of not having sufficient receptive language skills. Many of the behaviors under this topic may be considered to have an academic language emphasis. Such behaviors included Asks to Repeat What Has Been Said for Better Understanding, Looks at Teacher When Addressed, Listens to Others in Class, Changes Activities When Asked by the Teacher, and Differentiates Between literal and Figurative Language. The bilingual/Hispanic students seemed to be showing strengths in oral language and deficits in academic oriented language. This supports the literature and research by Collier (1987) and Cummins (1984) A rating of Hispanic students after one, three, and five years of instruction might indicate if academic language is acguired at a later time. This could be a further topic of research. Hence, a bilingual group with

PAGE 93

84 more school years experience (greater than two years in the bilingual program) might have shown different results. Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts No significant differences between the means of any group was found on this topic. Since this topic only exhibited three behaviors, there may not have been enough variance to show any differences. Since the behaviors found under this topic (Waits for a Pause in the Conversation Before Speaking About Something Else, Looks Away to Indicate loss of Interest, and Makes Easy Transitions Between Topics) seemed to contain metalinguistic aspects, it was expected that the speech and language students would differ from the regular education students. This did not happen. If the speech and language students were expected to perform poorly on this topic, and since all groups performed similarly, it may be that all three groups performed poorly on this topic. If this is the case, then these behaviors may be acquired at a later adolescent age. Testing of regular education students, speech and language students, and bilingual/Hispanic students who are older (e.g., high school students from grades 9 through 12) might yield valuable results. This could be the focus of still another study.

PAGE 94

85 Implications Implications of this study are numerous. At the classroom level, there are implications for the teacher dealing with students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds and with possible language delays. There are implications for speech-language pathologists dealing with language impaired students with possible pragmatic deficits. Implications for continuing pragmatics research is indicated. Implications for the Classroom Hispanic limited English proficient students were found to have difficulties in regulatory behaviors (topic one of Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language) and in listening and attending to a speaker (topic five of Listens Actively) It may be that these topics incorporate more oral language skills (language used for interpersonal communication), where Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language and Listens Actively incorporate more academic language skills (language used for cognitive and scholastic purposes) Bilingual/ESL students acguire oral language proficiency skills more quickly than acquiring academic language proficiency skills (Collier, 1987; Cummins, 1984). The performance profile of the bilingual/Hispanic students may be attributed to this. The combined difficulties in affecting a listener through language and listening actively place LEP students at risk

PAGE 95

86 for participating in cooperative learning groups with other (non-Hispanic) students. In cooperative learning situations, students must make demands of other students. They also have to pay attention to what others are saying in order to accomplish group tasks. The behaviors that correspond to topics one and five (Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language and Actively Listens) may influence a teacher's perception of the student's academic abilities. Limited English proficient Hispanic students who have been mainstreamed into regular education need these pragmatic skills for functioning in the classroom. Poor performance of these skills, as demonstrated by the Hispanic students in this study, can portray a negative academic image of the students' abilities. This poor image of abilities may be a cause for referral to special education classes since most teachers may believe that the student's poor performance is not attributable to a language lag. The student having been mainstreamed into regular education should be portraying adequate academic language skills (Cummins, 1984) What may be the cause is that pragmatic skills are not acquirable in the time frame of one to two years bilingual/ESL instruction. The Hispanic students in this study after a period of one year in a bilingual/ESL classroom still showed difficulties with pragmatic language skills.

PAGE 96

87 If a bilingual/Hispanic student cannot actively listen, then it appears that he or she will be less likely to acquire the ability to affect a listener's behavior through language as a consequence of teacher modeling. It is recommended that the bilingual teacher coach, model, and possibly directly instruct the behaviors under the topics of Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language and Actively Listens. The teacher should focus on the behaviors under the topic of Actively Listens first so that this knowledge may assist in learning the behaviors under the topic of Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language. Since many of the behaviors may be affected by an inadequate control of English grammatical structures, it is recommended that the teacher also focus on syntactic, semantic, and morphological aspects of language in improving pragmatic skills. A summary of student groups on pragmatics was obtained, as shown in Table 15. From this a possible profile of student performance for groups may be attained. On three of the six variables the speech and language students performed differently from the regular education students, and differently from the bilingual students on one variable. Therefore, bilingual students who scored high (a higher score indicated less proficiency) on those variables on which speech and language students also scored high may be exhibiting a pragmatics problem due to a language disorder. These

PAGE 97

variables were Expresses Self, Establishes Appropriate Greetings, and Initiates and Maintains Conversation. Thus, it is feasible to examine a student's performance by topic scores in differentiating cultural language differences versus language delays/disorders. Collier (1987) stated that adolescent bilingual students tend to acguire English at a slower rate than younger peers. This was possibly due to the increased demands of the middle school system and also possibly due to the limited time that bilingual students have in acguiring the necessary language skills. The time required for these adolescent students to master pragmatic skills in the classroom is time lost in acquiring the academic material of the various courses taught. Thus, it is recommended that bilingual teachers model pragmatic skills as part of their curriculum assignment whenever appropriate so that the LEP students may have more time devoted to acquiring academic knowledge. An implication of this study was, as other researchers have noted, that speech and language students enrolled in classes for language therapy may also exhibit pragmatic differences from mainstream students. They experienced difficulties with behaviors under the topics of Expresses Self, Establishes Appropriate Greetings, and Initiates and Maintains Conversations. Refer to Table 15 for a summary of student comparisons on the significant topic score measures. The speech and language students

PAGE 98

89 may have been experiencing difficulties with grammatical and semantic aspects of language thereby affecting their pragmatic performance. Speechlanguage pathologists are advised to coach and model pragmatic behaviors and to encourage instances in the classroom where they may be used and developed. They are also encouraged to continue teaching of syntactic, semantic, and morphological aspects of language in conjunction with the pragmatics skills. Table 16 Summary of Comparisons for Bilingual /ESL Students. Speech and Language Students with Regular Education Students Topic Regular Versus Bilingual/ESL Speech and Language Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language Expresses Self Establishes Appropriate Greetings Initiates and Maintains Conversation Listens Actively Cues the Listener Regarding Topic Shifts Different* Same Same Same Different Same Same Different Different Different Different Same Note for all differences regular education students displayed a lower mean

PAGE 99

90 Research Implications An implication from this study is that bilingual/ Hispanic students are still in the process of acquiring pragmatics after a minimum of being enrolled in United States schools for one year. It needs to be known whether most pragmatics skills will be acquired by the Hispanic students in a successive manner and reasonable period of time. If this is not possible for the adolescent Hispanic students, then what type of instruction of pragmatic skills or in other language skills which will resolve this learning situation needs to be determined. The speech and language students had difficulties with behaviors under the topics of Expresses Self, Establishes Appropriate Greetings, Initiates and Maintains Conversations, and Actively Listens, but did not have difficulties with the behaviors under the topic of Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language. Thus, it appears that they have special difficulties in attending to other speakers in actively listening and in maintaining a conversation. Behaviors that maintain a conversation and also involve aspects of listening included Notes that the Listener is not Following the Conversation and Needs Clarification or More Information, Answers Questions Relevantly, and Waits for Appropriate Pauses in Conversation Before Speaking. These skills place speech and language students at risk for following and

PAGE 100

91 successfully completing classroom lessons. It seems that speech and language students may be at risk for tasks that involve metalinguistic components. For example, in the behavior of Notes that the Listener is Not Following the Conversation and Needs Clarification or More Information (topic of Initiates and Maintains Conversations) the speaker must be aware of a communication breakdown and also be aware of how to repair that breakdown almost immediately. The speaker has to consider the listener's perspective. It may be that speech and language students are incapable of complex language tasks until they have become more proficient in the syntactic and semantic abilities of language. Tough (1981) mentions that all students with learning difficulties need direct experiences to support their learning regardless of their age or grade level. For speech and language students, direct experiences may mean a concrete-referential form of language. Some aspects of pragmatics may not involve direct experiences. Therefore, learning of traditional aspects of language involving syntactic and semantic aspects may be an important feature in conjunction with learning the pragmatic aspects of language. These guestions can serve as a focus for further studies. A further implication of this study is the need to examine and compare the pragmatics of other ethnic students. For example, a comparison of Asian students

PAGE 101

92 could involve Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Korean students. A comparison involving other Hispanic groups could also be performed, for example, Mexican-Americans. The questions of whether bilingual students are capable of acquiring pragmatic skills in a successive manner and reasonable amount of time could be addressed in a longitudinal research study across groups or with the same group over a period of time. Bilingual student groups could also be compared on whether they receive a preintervention program of instruction in pragmatics versus no instruction program. This could determine effectiveness of such an instructional program. Bilingual/Hispanic students could also be rated by their various middle school teachers to determine if their pragmatic skills vary across different classroom settings. Speech and language students could also be rated by their various classroom teachers to determine if their pragmatic skills performance varies with different teachers and settings. In order to determine if speech and language students may possess some of the pragmatic skills not demonstrated in the school environment in other environments, a rating could be performed by non-school personnel such as parents or other relatives. Speech and language students could also be compared on whether they receive an preintervention program of pragmatics and

PAGE 102

93 traditional language instruction versus only a traditional language program involving syntactic, semantic, and morphological aspects. This could determine the effectiveness of a pre-intervention program. Pragmatics for students in middle school is an important aspect of their functioning within the classroom. Limited English proficient students and speech and language students may need instruction in pragmatics skills. It is important for teachers to be aware of pragmatics in order to assist LEP students and speech and language students in their education. Comparison across groups on pragmatic skills should assist school personnel in making proper educational decisions for their students. In turn, LEP students and speech and language students will have increased opportunities to acquire the skills they need to function as competent communicators in mainstream society. Awareness of and sensitive response to persons who differ in some ways, whether in culture, language, or ability, are important for today's students who will live and work in a society of diversity.

PAGE 103

APPENDIX A THE ADOLESCENT PRAGMATICS SCREENING SCALE (APSS)

PAGE 104

The Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale (APSS) Student Information : Name Age Grade School Date Indicate the student's first or home language background indicate student's English language proficiency level from 1 to 5 (1= limited. 5=native like) indicate the students cultural/racial background (e.g., White Black. Hispanic) indicate the number of years the student has been in schools in the United Slates Teacher/Rater Information : indicate your status (Speech-language Pathologist Bilingual/ESL teacher. Regular Education teacher) indicate your first language background Are you proficient in another language other than English (Yes/No)? If yes indicate what language Indicate your proficiency level from 1 to 5 (1 = limited, 5=native like) Are you culturally knowledgeable or aware about another culture? indicate your cultural knowledge/awareness level of other culture from 1 to 5 (1= limited. 5=native like) Test Score Information : Scoring : Topic Scores Topic 1 Sum of the individual behavior scores divided by 1 1 = No. 1 Topic Score Topic 2 Sum of the individual behavior scores divided by 7 = No. 2. Topic Score Topic 3 Sum of the individual behavior scores divided by 4 = No. 3. Topic Score Topic 4 Sum of the individual behavior scores divided by 6 = No. 4. Topic Score Topic 5 Sum of the individual behavior scores divided by 7 = No. 5. Topic Score Topic 6 Sum of the individual behavior scores divided by 3 = No. 6. Topic Score Sum of ALL the individual behavior scores Total Score Sum of ALL the individual behavior scores divided by 38 = Total Score Do you feel that the Topic Scores or the Total Score were influenced by the student" s cultural backgound? Yes No. If the answer is yes. please indicate which behaviors lead you to this conclusion by making a notation in the Observation section next to the corresponding behavior. 95

PAGE 105

96 Name The Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale (APSS) ^^ Page One A. Performance Rating Scale ___^_^^___ Please indicate ttie student's level of performance using the scale below. 1. Behavior is highly appropriate. 2. Behavior Is moderately appropriate. 3. Behavior is borderline appropriate. 4. Behavior is moderately inappropriate. 5. Behavior is highly inappropriate. B. Observations TEC section is reserved for observations that you feel are pertinent to your rating. 1 Affects listener's behavior through language — 1 Asks for help (e.g.. "I dom know how to do this problem", "Can you snow me how to look up a word In trie dictionary ?". How do you spell _?") — ZAsks questions (e.g., "How many times does 9 go into 72?" How does a President get elected?") — 3.Attempts to persuade others (e.g.. "I really think John Is the best candidate because_ u "I dont think I should have to do this be cause.._") —4. Informs another of Important information (e.g.. "Teacher, some one wrote some bad words on the wail outside", "I saw a snake in the boy's bathroom down the hall.") -S.Asks for a favor of a friend/classmate (e.g., "Can you give me a nde to school ?", "Will you ask Sally out for Friday night for me ?") — S.Asks for a favor of the teacher (e.g.. "Can I redo the homework assignment ?", "Can I get out of class fiveminutes early so I can catch the new bus?" — 7.Asks for teachers and/or adults' permission (e.g., going to the bathroom, asking to get a drtnk of water, asking to sharpen a pencil) — S.Asks for other students permission (e.g., "Can I Invite John to go with us?", "Can I ask your girlfriend for her phone number?" ) — 9.Able to negotiate, give and take, in order to reach an agreement ("I'll give you a ride to school if you pay me five dollars a week for gas.". "I'll help you with your Algebra homework If you help me paint the signs for homecoming.") — 1 0.ls able to give simple directions (e.g., telling how to find the Spanish teachers classroom or how to find the bathroom.) — 1 1. Rephrases a statement (e.g.. "You meant this, didn't you ?" "Did you mean this _?") — Topic 1. Sum of Scores

PAGE 106

97 Maine The Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scaie (APSS) Page Two A. Pertoneance Rating Scale BODservanons

PAGE 107

98 Name The Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale (APSS) Page Three A. Performance Rating Scale 3. Observations --5. Answers questions relevantly (e.g., Nine goes Into 72 8 times/. The President gets elected by the people. ") -6.WaJtB for appropriate pauses in conversation before speaking — Topic 4. Sun of Scores 5. Listens Actively 1 Asks to repeat what has been said for better understanding (e.g.. Could you say mat again ?". "What do you mean?") -2. Looks at teacher when addressed (e.g.. through occasional glances or maintained eye contact) -3. Listens to others in ciass (e.g., head Is up.leaning toward the speaker.eyes on the soeaxen —4 Changes activities when asked by the teacher (e.g., is able to put away nis or her paper and penal or close abook or pull out something different without having to be told personalty). -S.Acknowiedges the speaker verbally (e.g.. Says Uh-huh. yean, wnat else?") -^.Acknowledges the speaker nonvemalty (e.g.. looks at the speaker through occassional glances,maintalned eye contact or nod ding.) —/.Differentiates between literal and figurative language (e.g.. The student knows that the expression 'John is Sharp as a tack" actu airy it means that John is very smart or that If "Sally's leg is kill mg her' it does not mean that Sally will die.) — Topic 5. Sum of Scores 6. Cues the listener regarding topic shifts — 1 Watts for a pause in the conversation before speaking about something else (e.g.. waits tor a pause of approximately 3-5 seconds at the end of a thougnt or sentence) —2 Looks away to indicate loss of Interest in conversation (e.g., looks away and maintains this look for approximately 3-5 seconds) —3. Makes easy transitions between topics (e.g., the listener does not question wnat they are talking about) — Topic 6. Sum of Scores

PAGE 108

APPENDIX B GUIDELINES FOR USING THE ADOLESCENT PRAGMATICS SCREENING SCALE (APSS)

PAGE 109

What is Pragmatics? Pragmatics has been identified as an important variable in the education of students in the public schools (Hymes, 1972). Knowledge of pragmatics has evolved through the work of various researchers. Some examples of pragmatics include asking for help, being able to give simple directions, following directions, acknowledging a speaker verbally and nonverbally, and showing feelings in an acceptable manner. Pragmatics has been reported in the literature to be an important variable relating to a student's academic success. Pragmatics skills are particularly important for limited English proficient students at the adolescent level who are culturally and linguistically different. School personnel utilizing appropriate assessment tools and procedures for pragmatics could better identify those students who may have communication disorders. School personnel could help students achieve academic success without referral through a preintervention program (targeting problem behaviors for remediation) from behaviors previously identified. The development of a pragmatics screening scale would aid this effort. Why is Pragmatics Important? Brice-Heath (1986) argued that pragmatics proficiency is more important to language students than the grammatical (i.e. syntax, semantics and morphology) aspects of language 100

PAGE 110

101 in acquiring academic success. This point is reiterated by Nelson (1988) who stated that handicapped speakers' lack of social competence bodes ill for their successful reintegration into the mainstream class. Garcia and Ortiz (1988) argued that when teacher and student characteristics differ, including mismatches of cultural and linguistic needs, the potential for conflict and academic failure for the student increases dramatically. Johnston et al. (1984) stated that pragmatics difficulties may lead to failure at communication and/or lead to other consequences which may result in faulty diagnosis of more serious disorders such as mental retardation, emotional disturbances, speech and language disorders. Thus, when a pragmatics difficulty exists the student may experience academic failure or be improperly diagnosed. This applies to handicapped students and students who are culturally and linguistically different, i.e., minority students. Intended Use of the APSS All sections of this screening scale were filled out by a teaching professional working with adolescents. The scale was used and is intended to be used by speechlanguage pathologists, bilingual/ESL teachers, and/or regular education teachers. Results of different ratings by various teachers may be shared, and a whole description of how the student is functioning in different classrooms and environments may be presented. Teachers may

PAGE 111

102 use the APSS as a prereferral or screening for special education evaluation for those students who may possess a pragmatics problem. Those behaviors identified as being problematic, that is, receiving a four or five rating (the behavior is exhibited at a moderately or highly inappropriate level) may be targeted during a noted intervention plan involving charting of results. The APSS was and is to be used in observation (the attempt to study a person in action and recording of those actions with the use of checklists or rating scales at a later time) Measurement errors can be reduced by using more than one rater per student. The behaviors were and should be observed, not elicited. Preparing to use the APSS The teachers who used the APSS followed a two-step procedure before any data was collected. The procedure was as follows: 1. The teacher read through these guidelines thoroughly, noting the examples given on the APSS. The examples were not to be taken verbatim but served as general examples. The teacher familiarized himself or herself thoroughly with the APSS. 2. If the teacher was familiar with the student's behaviors and interactions in the school environment, then the teacher rated the student's performance utilizing past observations that the teacher had with the student. If the

PAGE 112

103 teacher had questions that could not be answered or lacked information about the student's capabilities, it was suggested that the teacher spend additional time observing the student. There were no set number of observations that the teacher should have performed. This observation period was to last approximately two weeks. Rating the Behaviors The teacher rater utilized a 5-point scale, with 1 indicating a highly appropriate level of performance on the behavior and 5 indicating a highly inappropriate level of performance. The scale consisted of a continuous level of performance. Highly appropriate in this context meant that the behavior was acceptable and was easily conveyed given the surroundings in the public school culture of the United States. Moderately appropriate in the context of the scale meant that the behavior was conveyed with no great difficulties. A behavior exhibited at the borderline level of appropriateness indicated that the behavior could have been displayed in a better manner; however, the message was conveyed. Behaviors displayed at the moderately inappropriate level conveyed the message yet placed a great burden upon listener. A behavior exhibited at the highly inappropriate level placed an extreme burden on the other involved party, and the message or intent was vague and unclear.

PAGE 113

104 The teacher did not take the examples given on the APSS as being the only indicators of the behavior. Any behaviors that the teacher was unable to judge were rated as zero, indicating no score. Scoring Scoring of the APSS yielded three types of scores, individual behavior scores, topic scores, and total score. Each individual behavior received a rating score from one to five, which yielded an individual behavior score (IBS) Each topic (e.g., Affects Listener's Behavior Through Language) thus received a mean score by adding up all the individual behavior scores and dividing by the total number of behaviors. What resulted was a topic score. A total score for the APSS was also possible. This was obtained by summing all the individual behavior scores and dividing by the total number of behaviors. The total score was a mean rating for the entire scale. The teacher was instructed to score all the behaviors. Indication of Scores The APSS was based on a 5-point Likert-type rating scale. A rating higher than a 3.0 was indicative of an unacceptable rating for the topic scores or for the total score. Also, because of the wording used in describing the ratings, a rating of 3 indicated a borderline level of appropriateness. Anything greater than borderline was also

PAGE 114

105 indicative of an inappropriate rating. A score greater than a 3.0 was indicative of possible problems in pragmatics. Observation Section The purpose of this section is to simply provide a section for notes to be jotted down where the rater might want to add further information or might want to describe the behavior observed. It is a section for providing additional information.

PAGE 115

APPENDIX C LETTER TO REVIEWERS

PAGE 116

Alexander Brice 301-13 Diamond Village Gainesville, Florida 32603 Dear Dr. As discussed during our telephone conversation, I would like you to participate in my dissertation research. I am developing a pragmatics rating scale for adolescents for comparison among groups. This scale, the Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale (APSS) is intended to be used by speechlanguage pathologists, bilingual/ESL teachers, and regular teachers in preliminary assessment of adolescent pragmatics. Enclosed you will find a copy of the scale, a written overview of the items, and a return envelope. I would like you to review the APSS and the items specifically pertaining to: (a) appropriateness of the test for use with the intended populations, (b) appropriateness of the test format, (c) applicability of the general topics, (d) applicability of the specific behaviors, (e) scoring of the items, (f) wording of the items, (g) applicability of the examples, (h) appropriateness of item matching to the topics, i.e., do the items fit the topics? Please note your thoughts on the pages provided or on separate paper. Your expert opinion will help develop content validity of the APSS and aid the overall development of this instrument. The APSS should aid teachers in their evaluation of adolescent students from regular, special, and multicultural backgrounds. I feel that this is greatly needed and fully appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, Alexander Brice 107

PAGE 117

APPENDIX D ITEM-TO-TOPIC MATCHING FORM

PAGE 118

item-to-Topic Matching for the APSS Match the following 38 behaviors (listed alphabetically) to the most appropriate topic (listed numerically and at the top of each page) 1. Affects listener's behavior through language 2. Contracts with others 3. Expresses self 4. Establishes appropriate greetings 5. Initiates and maintains conversation 6. Actively listens 7. Cues the listener regarding topic shifts a. Talks to others with appropriate pitch and loudness levels of voice (e.g., uses appropriate levels for the classroom, physical education, the lunchroom, or after school) b. Switches response to another mode to suit the listener (e.g., speaks differently when addressing the principal than when addressing a friend, speaks differently to a younger child of 2-3 years than peers of the same age) c. Asks to repeat what has been said for better understanding (e.g., Could you say that again?", "What do you mean?") 109

PAGE 119

110 1. Affects listener's behavior through language 2. Contracts with others 3. Expresses self 4. Establishes appropriate greetings 5. Initiates and maintains conversation 6. Actively listens 7. Cues the listener regarding topic shifts d. Notes that the listener is not following the conversation and needs clarification or more information (e.g., "There's a thing down there, down there, I mean there's a snake down in the boy's bathroom down the hall.") e. Looks at teacher when addressed (e.g., through occasional glances or maintained eye contact) f. Is able to differentiate between literal and figurative language (e.g., The student knows that the expression "John is Sharp as a tack" actually means that John is very smart, or that if "Sally's leg is killing her" it does not mean that Sally will die.) g. Asks for a favor of a friend/classmate (e.g., "Can you give me a ride to school?", "Will you ask Sally out for Friday night for me?")

PAGE 120

Ill 1. Affects listener's behavior through language 2 Contracts with others 3. Expresses self 4. Establishes appropriate greetings 5. Initiates and maintains conversation 6. Actively listens 7. Cues the listener regarding topic shifts h. Changes activities when asked by the teacher (e.g., is able to put away his or her paper and pencil or close a book or pull out something different without having to be told personally) i. Waits for a pause in the conversation before speaking about something else (e.g., waits for a pause of approximately 3-5 seconds at the end of a thought or sentence) j Looks away to indicate loss of interest in conversation (e.g. looking away and maintains this look for approximately 3-5 seconds) k. Asks for a favor of the teacher (e.g., "Can I redo the homework assignment?", "Can I get out of class five minutes early so I can catch the new bus?") 1. Listens to others in class (e.g., head is up, leaning toward the speaker, eyes on the speaker)

PAGE 121

112 1. Affects listener's behavior through language 2 Contracts with others 3. Expresses self A. Establishes appropriate greetings 5. Initiates and maintains conversation 6. Actively listens 7. Cues the listener regarding topic shifts m. Describes personal feelings in an acceptable manner (e.g., says, "I wish that this English class wasn't so boring", "I'm feeling really frustrated by all the setbacks on my homework") n. Attempts to persuade others (e.g., "I really think John is the best candidate because ", "I don't think I should have to do this because ")• o. Showing feelings in acceptable manner (e.g., taking audible breaths to contain one's anger or smiling with enthusiasm to show pleasure) p. Offers a contrary opinion in class discussions (e.g., "I don't believe that Columbus was the first to discover America, Leif Ericson was said to have reached Greenland and Nova Scotia before Columbus.", "I don't believe that the two party system really offers a choice to voters.").

PAGE 122

113 1. Affects listener's behavior through language 2. Contracts with others 3. Expresses self 4. Establishes appropriate greetings 5. Initiates and maintains conversation 6. Actively listens 7. Cues the listener regarding topic shifts q. Able to negotiate, give and take, in order to reach an agreement ("I'll give you a ride to school if you pay me five dollars a week for gas.", "I'll help you with your Algebra homework if you help me paint the signs for homecoming."). s. Is able to give simple directions (e.g., telling how to find the Spanish teacher's classroom or the bathroom) t. Establishes eye contact when saying hello or greeting. u. Introduces self to others ("Hi, I'm ", "My name is what's yours?). v. Smiles when meeting friends. w. Rephrases a statement (e.g., "You meant this, didn't you?", "Did you mean this ?") x. Acknowledges the speaker verbally (e.g. Says "Uh-huh, yeah, what else?").

PAGE 123

114 1. Affects listener's behavior through language 2. Contracts with others 3. Expresses self 4. Establishes appropriate greetings 5. Initiates and maintains conversation 6. Actively listens 7. Cues the listener regarding topic shifts y. Acknowledges the speaker non-verbally (e.g., looks at the speaker through occasional glances or maintained eye contact) z. Stays on topic for an appropriate amount of time. aa. Responds to an introduction by other similar greeting. bb. Answering questions relevantly (e.g., "Nine goes into 72 8 times.", "The President gets elected by the people.") cc. Displays appropriate response time dd. Asks for more time (e.g., "I'm still thinking", "Wait a second", "Give me some more time.") ee. Asks for help (e.g., "I don't know how to do this problem", "Can you show me how to look up a word in the dictionary?", "How do you spell ?") ff. Saying that they disagree in a conversation (e.g., "I don't agree with you.", "We can't agree on this one.")

PAGE 124

115 1. Affects listener's behavior through language 2 Contracts with others 3. Expresses self 4. Establishes appropriate greetings 5. Initiates and maintains conversation 6. Actively listens 7. Cues the listener regarding topic shifts gg. Gives logical reasons for opinions (e.g., I believe that the two party system offers a wider choice than the one party system.", "I think we should work on something else; we did something like this yesterday.") hh. Makes easy transitions between topics (e.g., the listener does not question what they are talking about) ii. Asks questions (e.g., "How many times does 9 go into 72?", "How does a President get elected?") jj. Waiting for appropriate pauses in conversation before speaking. kk. Informs another of important information (e.g., "Teacher, someone wrote some bad words on the wall outside", "I saw a snake in the boy's bathroom down the hall.") mm. Asks for teachers and/or adults' permission (e.g., going to the bathroom, asking to get a drink of water, asking to sharpen a pencil)

PAGE 125

116 1. Affects listener's behavior through language 2 Contracts with others 3. Expresses self 4. Establishes appropriate greetings 5. Initiates and maintains conversation 6. Actively listens 7. Cues the listener regarding topic shifts nn. Asks for other student's permission (e.g., "Can I invite John to go with us?", "Can I ask your girlfriend for her phone number?") oo. Introduces self to others (e.g., "Hi I'm or "My name is what's yours?")

PAGE 126

APPENDIX E PARENTAL CONSENT LETTER

PAGE 127

Dear Parent, My name is Alexander Brice a doctoral candidate at the University of Florida (Department of Instruction and Curriculum). This letter is to ask your permission for the inclusion of your son or daughter into a study being performed by the University of Florida for a doctoral dissertation. The purpose of this study is to compare students on a test that measures language as it is used socially by adolescents. Your son or daughter will be rated on a scale of language behaviors. This rating is to be conducted by his or her teacher and will yield information in how to assess social language. The teachers involved will observe your son or daughter's interaction with other students over a period of two weeks and then rate their performance. The results of this test will not be shared with school personnel and will not affect your son or daughter's school placement or grades in any way. It is merely being used to gather information and is experimental. You are free to withdraw your consent at any moment of this study without any prejudice. Since your son/daughter will not be directly involved, as the gathering of the information will be conducted by the mentioned teachers, there will be no monetary compensation. If you accept please return this form to the school to where your child attends and please sign where it is marked below. You may reach me at 392-0761 / 258 Norman Hall University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 if you have any questions. I have read and I understand the procedure described above. I agree to allow my child, participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Parent Signature Date Parent Signature Teacher Signature Date Principal Investigator Date 118

PAGE 128

APPENDIX F TABLE OF RAW DATA

PAGE 129

Individual Behavior (IB) Raw Data for Topics One. Two, Three, Four. Five, and Six Subject Group Topic 1

PAGE 130

121 Subj

PAGE 131

122 Subject Group

PAGE 132

REFERENCES Algozzine, B. Christenson, S., & Ysseldyke, J. (1982). Probabilities associated with referral to placement process. Teacher Education and Special Education 5, 19-23. Baca, L. & Cervantes, H. (1984). The bilingual special education interface Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. Baca, L. & Harris K. (1988). Teaching migrant exceptional children. Teaching Exceptional Children 20(4), 32-35. Bates, E. (1976) Language and context: The acquisition of pragmatics New York: Academic Press. Black, H., & Dockrell, W. (1984). Criterion-referenced assessment in the classroom Edinburgh, Great Britain: The Scottish Council for Research in Education. Brice-Heath, S. (1986) Sociocultural contexts of language development. In D. Holt (Ed.), Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students (pp. 142-186) Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning Portsmouth, NJ: Heineman. Cole, L. & Deal, V. (1989). New CCCs require multicultural literacy. Perspectives: The ASHA Office of Minority Concerns Newsletter (Available from Office of Minority Concerns, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 10801 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852) 123

PAGE 133

124 Collier, C. (1988) Comparison of acculturation and education characteristics of referred and non referred culturally and linguistically different children. In L. M. Malave (Ed.)/ Theory, research, and application: Selected papers fNABE 1987) (pp. 183-195) Fall River, MA : National Publishing. Collier, V. (1987) Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly 21(4), 617-641. Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (1986). Process of test construction. Introduction to classical and modern test theory (pp. 66-86) New York: CBS College Publishing. Cronbach, L. (1949) Essentials of psychological testing New York: Harper and Brothers. Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press. Cummins, J. (1989) A theoretical framework for bilingual special education. Exceptional Children 56(2) 111-120. Damico, J. (1985). Clinical discourse analysis: A functional approach to language assessment. In C. Simon (Ed.), Communication skills and classroom success: Assessment (pp. 165-206) San Diego: College-Hill Press. Damico, J., & Oiler, J., Jr. (1980). Pragmatic versus morphological/syntactic criteria for language referrals. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 11, 85-94. Damico, J., Oiler, J., Jr., & Storey, M. (1983). The diagnosis of language disorders in bilingual children: Surface-oriented and pragmatic criteria. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 48 385-394. DBS Corporation (1987) 1986 Elementary and secondary school civil rights survey national summaries (Contract No. 300-86-0062) Washington, DC: Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education. Dore, J. (1979) Conversation and preschool language development. In P. Fletcher & M. Garman (Eds.), Language acguisition (pp. 337-361) New York: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 134

125 Evans, C, & Algozzine, B. (1988). Ratings of behavior : What you get may not be what vou see Unpublished manuscript. Garcia, S., & Ortiz, A. (1988). Preventing inappropriate referrals of language minority students to special education (Focus, 5) Wheaton MD: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Goffman, E. (1974) Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Halliday, M. (1978) Language as social semiotic Baltimore, MD: Edward Arnold. Hymes, D. (1972). Preface. In C. Cazden, V. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. xi-ivii) New York: Teachers College Press. Johnston, E. Weinrich, B. & Johnson, A. (1984). A sourcebook of pragmatic language activities Tucson, AZ: Communication Skill Builders. Kroeber, A., & Kluckholn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions New York: Vintage Books. Larson, V., & McKinley, N. (1987). Communication assessment and intervention strategies for adolescents Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications. Lund, N. & Duchan, J. (1988). Assessing children's language in naturalistic contexts Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Management Information Services. (1989) Limited English proficiency students in membership in exceptional student programs, fall 1988 Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools. Mattes, L. (1986) Use of nonstandardized assessment instruments in the identification of bilingual children with communicative disorders [Summary]. In E. Bayardelle, C. E. Brummett, S. S. Curry, & P. A. Lancelot (Eds.), Collaboration: An approach to the assessment of exceptional limited English proficient students 2, 5.

PAGE 135

126 Metz, I. (1988). The relative importance of language and culture in making assessment decisions about Hispanic students referred to special education. National Association of Bilingual Education Journal 12 (3) 191-218. Moll, L. (1986) Writing as communication: Creating strategic learning environments for students. Theory Into Practice 2_5(2) 102-108. Mowder, B. (1979) Assessing the bilingual handicapped student. Psychology in the Schools 1(16), 43-50. National Coalition of Advocates for Students. (1988) New voices: Immigrant students in U.S. public schools (Research Report No. 88-60962) Boston, MA: Author. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Nelson, M. (1988) Social skills training for handicapped students. Teaching Exceptional Children 4(20) 19-23. New York State Education Department Bureau of Bilingual Education. (1985) Summary and recommendations [Summary]. Conference Proceedings: A New York Conference for Administrators of Limited English Proficient Students 1, 3-7. Nezer, H. Nezer, B. & Siperstein, G. (1985). Improving children's social skills: Techniques for teachers (Available from Center for the Study of Social Acceptance, University of Massachusetts/Boston, Downtown Center, Boston, MA 02125-3393) Nippold, M. & Fey, S. (1983). Metaphoric understanding in preadolescents having a history of language acquisition difficulties. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools 14.(3), 171-180. Oiler, J. W. Jr. (1983). Testing proficiencies and diagnosing language disorders in bilingual children. In D. R. Omark & J. G. Erickson (Eds.), The bilingual exceptional child (pp. 69-88) San Diego: College-Hill Press. Oiler, J. W. Jr., & Perkins, K. (1980). Research in language testing Rowley, MA: Newberry House.

PAGE 136

127 O'Malley, J. (1988). The cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA) Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Approach 9(1&2), 43-60. Ortiz, A. (1985). Preventing inappropriate referrals: Appropriate educational opportunities in the mainstream [Summary] Conference proceedings: A New York Conference for Administrators of Limited English Proficient Students 1, 18-19. Ortiz, A., & Maldonado-Colon, E. (1986). Recognizing learning disabilities in bilingual children. Journal of Reading. Writing, and Learning Disabilities International 2(1), 43-56. Ortiz, A., & Yates, J. (1983). Incidence of exceptionality among Hispanics: Implications for manpower planning. Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education 7, 41-54. Owens, R. Jr. (1988). Language development: An introduction (2nd Ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. Perlman, R. & Chamberlain, P. (1988). Interpreters and the assessment of language minority students for special education placement: Training implications. Counterpoint 9(1), 14. Prutting, C. (1982) Pragmatics as social competence. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 47 123-134. Roth, F. & Spekman, N. (1984a). Assessing pragmatic abilities of children: Part one — organizational framework and assessment parameters. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 49 2-11. Roth, F. & Spekman, N. (1984b). Assessing pragmatic abilities of children: Part two — guidelines, considerations, and specific evaluation procedures. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 49 12-17. Searle, J. (1976) A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5(11), 1-23. Schumann, J. (1986) Research acculturation model for second language acguisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 7(5), 379-392.

PAGE 137

128 Simon, C. (1985). Communication skills and classroom success: Therapy methodologies for language-learning disabled students San Diego, CA: College Hill Press. Simon, C. (1989) Classroom communication screening procedure for early adolescents (CCSPEA) : A handbook for assessment and intervention Tempe, AZ: Communi-Cogg Publications. Stephens, T. (1978) Social skills in the classroom Columbus, OH: Cedars Press. Tough, J. (1981) A place for talk London, England: School Council Publications. U.S. Department of Commerce. (1987). Current population Washington DC: Bureau of the Census. Vejleskov, H. (1988) Social and intellectual functions of language: A fruitful distinction? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9(1&2) 61-66. Wong-Fillmore, L. (1982). Minority students and school participation: What kind of English is needed? Journal of Education 164 143-156. Wong-Fillmore, L. (1986) Research currents: Equity or excellence? Language Arts 63.(5) 474-481.

PAGE 138

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Alexander Emris Br ice was born in Santiago, Cuba. He graduated from Northeast High School in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 1976 and received his Bachelor of Arts from the University of Florida in 1980. He received his Master of Arts from the University of Florida in 1984. In 1990 he will receive his Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in bilingual education, also from the University of Florida. Alexander Brice will be working at Northern Arizona University in bilingual speech-language pathology. 129

PAGE 139

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. (2&~Clemens L. Hallman, Chairman Professor of Instruction and Curriculum I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. stfLSA iL^t.f James D. Casteel Professor of Instruction and Curriculum I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. iJAfr Michael D. Miller Assistant Professor of Foundations of Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the^-degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 'QAX} Paul j.\Je/p'sen Prof essorW Communication Processes and Disorders

PAGE 140

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. --A Linda J. Lombardino Associate Professor of Communication Processes and Disorders This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. August, 1990 Dean, College of Education-" Dean, Graduate School