A Lurian-Piagetian Approach to Assessment of Historically Disadvantaged Black Scholars in English Medium Schools

Abstract

Piagetian and Lurian assessment procedures were employed to evaluate the neurocognitive processes of seven-year-old historically disadvantaged children (n=27), residents of traditionally Black areas who were identified as experiencing learning problems (LP group) in English medium schools. Comparisons were made with a reference group of Black children in the same schools (n=23) currently not experiencing learning problems (NLP). No significant differences were found between factors such as maternal education, occupational status, Home Screening Questionnaire or the amount of English spoken in the homes of the two groups. On Piagetian tasks of conservation and seriation, it was observed that the performances of the NLP group were age appropriate, while the LP children showed a developmental lag, despite the fact that no significant difference was observed on classification tasks. Using Majovski et als (1978) adaptation of Luria's tests, significant differences were noted on all tasks with the exception of Acoustic-Motor organisation and Higher Visual Functions. The results of the Lurian tasks indicated difficulties with basic skills but especially with the regulatory and directional aspects of language which manifested in lower level dysfunctions regarded as prerequisites for gaining higher level skills. The occurrence of different maturation rates and skills for the two groups as shown by Piagetian and Lurian tasks, was also supported by differences obtained on Goodenough's (1929) DAP test (p<.001). Significant correlations were found between conservation and seriation tasks with Lurian functions of motor, acoustic-motor, expressive language, arithmetic and reading /writing skills. The possibility is raised that Piagetian and Lurian approaches can offer greater insight into children's cognitive levels and task performance.

Intelligence Instruments Applied to South African School Learners: A Critical Review

“…It was evident from all the studies that intelligence assessment instruments administered to South African school learners from diverse, demographic populations need to be applicable to that particular population subgroup, in order to be valid, reliable, and fair (Levert and Jansen, 2001;Reid et al, 2002;Jinabhai et al, 2004;De Beer, 2005;Jansen and Greenop, 2008;Ferrett, 2011;Teixeira, 2011;Mawila, 2012;Van Wyhe, 2012;Shuttleworth-Edwards et al, 2013;August, 2017;Mitchell et al, 2018). When administering imported western-developed intelligence instruments to South African school learners, appropriate and updated norms need to be applied, based on continuous normative studies conducted on an equivalent population group and within a similar context as the testees (Ferrett, 2011;Van Wyhe, 2012;Shuttleworth-Edwards et al, 2013;August, 2017).…”

“…Some reviewed studies noted significant differences on intelligence assessment results among various South African school learner subgroups, and related performance differences to contextual and demographic influences (Levert and Jansen, 2001;Jinabhai et al, 2004;De Beer, 2005;Ferrett, 2011;Van Wyhe, 2012;Shuttleworth-Edwards et al, 2013;August, 2017;Mitchell et al, 2018). Some studies found that English school learners from an advantaged educational background performed at the highest level of all the subgroups tested (Ferrett, 2011;Van Wyhe, 2012;Shuttleworth-Edwards et al, 2013).…”

“…Findings of CAS as a valid and fair intelligence instrument when applied to South African school learners seemed promising but was not confirmed in this research study by Reid et al (2002); nevertheless, the findings provided pivotal insight into understanding the school learners' cognitive processes involved during intelligence assessment which were directly linked to the success or failure of their reading performance (a required scholastic skill) as well as school performance. Levert and Jansen (2001) introduced Piagetian tasks (measuring developmental cognitive levels) and Lurian tasks of reading and writing, arithmetic, language, visual, mnestic, intelligence, and motor functioning (similar to required formal scholastic skilled tasks) to assess the intelligence of two subgroups, a Learning Problems (LP) group and a No Learning Problems (NLP) group. The LP group was found to perform at Piaget's Preoperational stage of cognitive development (with non-attained scores on tasks of conservation and seriation, but intermediate level mean scores on classification tasks) which related significantly to their performance on Lurian tasks (Levert and Jansen, 2001).…”

“…Levert and Jansen (2001) introduced Piagetian tasks (measuring developmental cognitive levels) and Lurian tasks of reading and writing, arithmetic, language, visual, mnestic, intelligence, and motor functioning (similar to required formal scholastic skilled tasks) to assess the intelligence of two subgroups, a Learning Problems (LP) group and a No Learning Problems (NLP) group. The LP group was found to perform at Piaget's Preoperational stage of cognitive development (with non-attained scores on tasks of conservation and seriation, but intermediate level mean scores on classification tasks) which related significantly to their performance on Lurian tasks (Levert and Jansen, 2001). Levert and Jansen (2001) found the NLP functioning at higher maturation levels compared to the LP group, namely within the beginning stages of the Piagetian Concrete Operational stage (with intermediate level mean scores for tasks of seriation, classification, and conservation), which linked to the mastery of most Lucian tasks (except for presenting slight difficulties in expressive language, mnestic processes, and intelligence tasks).…”

Factor Analyses of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children Assessed Longitudinally at 5 and 10 Years

“…Proficiency is encouraged in 'at least two languages' but the ability to converse or communicate in the other languages is also 'desirable ' (p. 14). Children in South Africa who come from disadvantaged backgrounds frequently attend schools where the language of learning and teaching medium differs from the home language (Levert & Jansen, 2000). Research findings suggest that such children are often at risk of school failure but the absence ofvalid assessment indicators can either prevent practitioners from making meaningful intervention or result in mislabelling or stigmatising outcomes (Jansen, 1998;Skuy, Taylor, O'Carroll, Fridjhon, & Rosenthal, 2000).…”