JCPSLP Vol 14 No 1 2012

Cultural diversity

Letters to the editor

Conducting speech pathology assessments with Aboriginal children: What evidence are we seeking and why are we seeking it? While I concur with Pearce and Stockings’ (2011) assertion that, “there is a clear need for ongoing research to investigate the characteristics of oral narrative produced by Aboriginal children across many regions of Australia” (p. 127), the authors have designed a research methodology which cannot sufficiently address this research topic. Research is required that assists speech pathologists in understanding how to assess the communication development of Aboriginal children in a way that reflects who the children are as communicators in their own right. The research evidence currently indicates that by engaging with the child’s speech community, by working in close collaboration with Aboriginal co-workers, by designing assessment methodologies that reflect the home language and cultural environment of the child, and by using comparative data which also reflect the home language environment of the child, accurate descriptions of communicative competence for individual Aboriginal children are able to occur (cf Gould, 2009). Conversely, assessment methodologies which evaluate the communicative competency of Aboriginal children by utilising Standard English (SE) – based assessment, by comparing performance with SE normative data and by not examining the total communication system of the child fail to provide sufficiently valid and reliable assessment information (cf Gould, 1999). Pearce and Stockings (2011) do raise the importance of considering the ways Aboriginal English (AE) and Standard Australian English (SAE) differ in terms of grammatical features. It is important to expand this discussion and also consider how differences between AE and SAE may impact communication in a number of different ways within an assessment situation (cf Gould, 2009). Speech pathologists require research evidence that describes Aboriginal children as communicators in their own right in order to avoid the use of deficit language such as “lack of”, “reduced”, “omits” to describe what are in fact simply language features. We can avoid dealing with dilemmas with normative comparisons by not using SE data and assessment methodologies when assessing Aboriginal children. References Gould, J. (1999). An evaluation of assessment instruments in the measurement of the spoken communication skills of rural Aboriginal children (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Australian National University. Gould, J. (2009). The interaction between developmental assessment, deficit thinking and home language in the education of Aboriginal children (PhD thesis). University of South Australia.

Pearce, W., & Stockings, E. (2011). Oral narratives produced by Aboriginal Australian children: Dilemmas with normative comparisons. ACQuiring Knowledge in Speech, Language and Hearing , 13 (3), 126–131. Dr Judith Gould

Speech Pathologist APY Lands, DECD 20 Beatty Terrace, Murray Bridge, SA 5253 phone: +61 8 8532 0700 email: judy.gould@sa.gov.au

Promoting an evidence base supporting the linguistic competence of Indigenous children Thank you for the latest issue of ACQuiring Knowledge in Speech, Language and Hearing ( ACQ ) around Cultural diversity (Volume 13, Number 3, 2011) and highlighting the complexities of working with children of differing cultural and linguistic backgrounds to our own. As somebody who has worked in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities for a number of years, I read many of the articles with interest to see how our profession is progressing regarding assessment and intervention practices with Indigenous children. As Cori Williams rightly identifies, there is a need to progress our evidence base to support improved practice with Indigenous children. How we go about this is critical in upholding the rich linguistic environments of these children and Petrea Cahir’s literature review provides many examples of why this is important and what has not worked in the past. Pearce and Stockings attempt to expand our knowledge of the narrative skills of Indigenous children by comparing them with existing (American) normative data, which underestimates the children’s language proficiency. As they identify, there is the need to build on this study to “ensure optimum accommodation of cultural differences in communication style” (p. 130). Hence this would involve assessing children under conditions that enable them to demonstrate the true extent of their language skills in Aboriginal English, by providing culturally appropriate activities (e.g., purposeful activities rather than use of display questions) in culturally appropriate contexts (e.g., in a group of children facilitated by an AE-speaking adult). As a profession that promotes itself as “communication experts” it is essential that we step outside of the comfort zone of English standardised assessments and tools and begin relying on our skills and knowledge of language to explore children’s true communication competence and not only their ESL skills. We need to work in partnership with communities, local language experts, linguists, and interpreters to develop means of assessing children’s home language in ways that fit their cultural worldview. Instead of repeating our old ways of “near enough is good enough” we can look to our own colleagues who are developing other ways of assessing Indigenous children

55

JCPSLP Volume 14, Number 1 2012

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au