| dc.description |
The proportion of pupils with English as an Additional Language (EAL) has
steadily risen in recent years in the UK. The figures for 2021 show that 1.56
million EAL pupils are attending schools, which constitutes just under one in five
of all pupils aged 5-16, speaking a total of over 365 languages (Department for
Education [DfE], 2021a).
Despite Educational Psychologists’ (EPs) practice being concerned with the
removal of barriers for allowing children to fully access education (Cameron,
2007), a review of the Educational Psychology literature offers a limited account
of EPs’ response to the linguistic diversity increasingly presented by their client
group. According to Cline (2011), this is also reflected in a lack of national policy
guidelines on the competencies EPs need for their work with these students and
families. The accepted professional codes of standards and ethics specify the
need for EPs to demonstrate certain competencies, specific knowledge and
understanding, pertinent to communicating with different ethnic, socio-cultural
and faith groups (British Psychological Society [BPS], 2009, 2015; Health and
Care Professions Council [HCPC], 2015, 2016). However, there is no clear and
shared understanding of precisely what these competencies are, especially in
the development of psychological advices for children with Special Educational
Needs who also have EAL. Therefore, it becomes important to explore and
define the competencies required by EPs to address the language needs of this
population (Athanasopoulos, 2016; Johnson et al., 2012).
In an attempt to address this knowledge gap, I used a three-round Delphi method
to identify competencies required by EPs when working with linguistically diverse
populations. Round 1 consisted of one open-ended e-questionnaire presented
to a panel of experts or ‘informed individuals’ in the field of language diversity.
The panel was asked to advise on competencies needed for effective practice
when supporting the language needs of EAL children and empowering them and
their families within their practice. The responses from Round 1 were analysed
through content analysis and the competencies operationalised in terms of
knowledge, skills, and personal qualities (McAllister et al., 2010). These
statements were presented to EPs (N=20) in Round 2, asking them to rate their
v
Information Classification: CONFIDENTIAL
perceived relevance for their practice, as well as inviting EPs to provide
additional relevant competencies and comment on the possible applicability of
the framework. In Round 3, EPs (N=19) evaluated their response to statements
that had not met consensus after Round 2, considering the group’s opinion
overall, and also rated additional competencies collated from participants in the
previous round (Round 2).
At the end of Round 3, out of a possible 103 statements, 90 statements were
deemed as key features for EP practice with EAL students and families, which is
presented as a guiding framework for practice. Statements that did/did not meet
consensus were considered, and implications for EP practice were discussed. |
|