ACQ Vol 11 no 2 2009

Literacy

The big picture of literacy Regina Walsh

Despite the relevance of the speech pathologist’s professional skills to literacy learning and remediation, it is argued that the speech pathologist’s limited knowledge of the “big picture” of literacy can be a significant barrier to promoting their role. Varying definitions, perspectives, and beliefs related to literacy may all impact on effectively conveying the role of speech pathologists in this area. This article provides information related to the big picture of literacy which may assist speech pathologists to better promote their own role in literacy. L iteracy education is an extremely complex and politically charged area and speech pathologists (SPs) risk being ignored if they attempt to promote their role without knowledge of how they fit within the “big picture” of literacy. SPs need to know about (ASHA, 2002): • the nature of literacy, including spoken-written language relationships and reading and writing as acts of communication and tools of learning; • normal development of reading and writing in the context of the general education curriculum; • clinical tools and methods for targeting reciprocal spoken and written language growth; and • disorders of language and literacy and their relationships to each other and to other communication disorders. However, clinical skills alone are not sufficient. This article proposes that SPs also need to know about: • the differing content of pre-service training in literacy for SPs and teachers; • the various definitions of literacy; • the range of perspectives on literacy in recent history; and • the influence of opinion and ideology in literacy policy and practice. Pre-service training in literacy Significant differences in professionals’ knowledge and approach to literacy instruction result from teachers’ educational-based training and speech pathologists’ medical-based training (McCartney & van der Gaag, 1996). Pre-service SPs tend not to be exposed to the literacy research literature outside their area (Snow, Scarborough & Burns, 1999; Westby, 2004). So, as graduates, SPs have

specialist knowledge in specific aspects of literacy, but limited understanding of how their knowledge connects with that of others’, or the context within which they will use it (Richardson & Wallach, 2005). This lack of broad pre-service literacy training leaves SPs to make these connections once they are in a work context (Richardson & Wallach, 2005). Conversely, there are recognised shortcomings in teacher pre-service training and an acknowledged need to change the focus of pre-service training related to literacy (American Federation of Teachers, 1999; Education Queensland, 2006; Torgesen, 2004). For example, New Zealand and UK research with pre-service and practising teachers found that very few could phonemically segment words accurately (Carroll, 2006; Scarborough, Ehri, Olson & Fowler, 1998). Additionally, Richardson and Wallach (2005) suggested that the lack of study in phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics in US pre-service teaching courses is an obstacle in the successful preparation of literacy teachers. Since literacy came to encompass all language arts in the 1970s, spoken language has been neglected in comparison to the teaching of reading and writing (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). The Australian government’s National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy included a survey of all 4-year Bachelor of Education courses around Australia. It found that while many students undertaking these courses themselves lack knowledge of such concepts of phonemic awareness, phonics and the alphabetic principle, less that 10 per cent of course time was devoted to preparing student teachers to teach reading (Department of Education, Science and Training, 2005). Coltheart and Prior (2007, p. 7) stated that regarding the teaching of literacy “the situation in teacher training courses in Australia is grave”. Language is increasingly recognised as central to literacy (Ehren & Nelson, 2005). SPs are well aware of how spoken language underpins the development of literacy and how aspects of spoken language skills can indicate possible future literacy difficulties (Speech Pathology Australia, 2005). SPs use various images to promote the importance of the relationship between spoken and written language, typically “stepping stones” or “bridges” (Paul, 2007). However, such images may suggest that children “move on” from spoken language to the more important area of written language, inadvertently implying that once a child is about 7, spoken language can be “demoted” while the focus changes to literacy. These images fail to highlight the common language (symbolic representation) system that underlies both spoken and written language. In this writer’s opinion, some

This article has been peer- reviewed Keywords history literacy professional role speech pathology

Regina Walsh

67

ACQ Volume 11, Number 2 2009

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au