Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Volume 42 Issue 2 Article 6

2017

Children with Speech Sound Disorders at School: Challenges for

Children, Parents and Teachers
Graham R. Daniel
Charles Sturt University

Sharynne McLeod
Charles Sturt University

Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte

Part of the Accessibility Commons, Elementary Education and Teaching Commons, and the Special Education
and Teaching Commons

Recommended Citation
Daniel, G. R., & McLeod, S. (2017). Children with Speech Sound Disorders at School: Challenges for
Children, Parents and Teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2).
http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2017v42n2.6

This Journal Article is posted at Research Online.

https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol42/iss2/6
 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Children with Speech Sound Disorders at School:

Challenges for Children, Parents and Teachers

Graham R. Daniel
Sharynne McLeod
Charles Sturt University

Abstract: Teachers play a major role in supporting children’s

educational, social, and emotional development although may be
unprepared for supporting children with speech sound disorders.
Interviews with 34 participants including six focus children, their
parents, siblings, friends, teachers and other significant adults in their
lives highlighted challenges for these children in school, and
challenges for their parents and teachers in meeting these children’s
developmental and educational needs. These challenges were centred
on the need for specific expertise in the school setting, and access to
additional classroom and professional services to support these
students’ engagement in the learning and social environments of
school. This research identifies frustrations that impact these families
and teachers as they attempt to navigate the bureaucracies to which
they are beholden.

Introduction

The early years of schooling are a significant time in children’s development, with
implications for their educational achievement, future lives, and society (Grunewald &
Rolnick, 2007). According to Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1994),
children experience the world within a series of nested spheres of influence, or systems, that
provide the contexts in which the child develops. These systems extend outward from the
immediate relationships the child experiences with family and friends (microsystem), to their
relationship with others in their neighbourhood and community (exosystem), and their
experiences in broader society (macrosystem). The systems interrelate with each other, and
the child experiences bidirectional relationships of influence within each sphere. The
mesosystem represents the network of relationships between those in the microsystem who
work to meet the needs of the developing child, and provide support for families in this
endeavour. Along with other professionals, teachers form part of this mesosystem, providing
a resource and source of support in meeting the child’s educational and developmental needs.
While most children are competent communicators by school-age, some do not have
speech and language skills that are equivalent to their peers (McLeod & McKinnon, 2007).
For these children, their speech and language competence can limit their engagement with
others in social and learning environments (Botting & Conti-Ramsden, 2000; McCormack,
McLeod, McAllister & Harrison, 2009; McCormack, Harrison, McLeod, & McAllister, 2011;
McLeod, Daniel & Barr, 2013). Article 29 of the United Nations (UN) statement on The
Aims of Education, originally adopted in 2001, identifies that the goal of schooling is to
“empower the child by developing his or her skills, learning and other capacities, human
dignity, self-esteem and self-confidence” (UN, 2001). The provision of high quality

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 81

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

education that promotes the holistic development of the individual, then, is an important
function of schools. In achieving the goals of these conventions, the UN identifies that
educational programs need to “...ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and
promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” (UNESCO, 2015, n.p.). That is, teachers need
to be prepared with the understandings and skills required to provide learners with relevant
learning experiences, in an educational environment that supports the development of all
children’s “...personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential”
(UN, 2001, n.p.).
In meeting the aims of education and the principles of inclusion underpinning the
United Nations and UNESCO statements, school systems need to ensure the availability of
resources required to support children’s learning needs, and teachers need to be aware of the
educational needs of students. Teachers from a range of countries including the United
Kingdom and Australia have reported that meeting the needs of children with speech and
language difficulties is particularly challenging (Dockrell & Lindsay, 2001; Marshall, Ralph
& Palmer, 2002; McLeod & McKinnon, 2010). For example, teachers of 14,533 Australian
students indicated that of “the nine areas of additional learning need, presence of a
communication disorder was the most important predictive factor of teachers’
recommendation that primary or secondary students required a high level of support at
school” (McLeod & McKinnon, 2010, p. 123). Teachers have indicated that they require
additional professional development to close gaps in their knowledge, and additional support
to meet the needs children of children with speech and language disorders (Dockrell &
Lindsay, 2001).
The research reported here applied qualitative research methods to investigate the
learning and schooling experiences of a sample of children with speech sound disorders in
order to better inform parents, teachers and other professionals who may be involved in
supporting their education and development. The research was conducted in an Australian
state where speech-language pathology services were not provided within schools, and many
of the children’s needs were not deemed to be severe enough to access other educational
funding or support services.

Children with Speech Sound Disorders

Children with speech sound disorders have difficulties with the production of
intelligible speech and “can have any combination of difficulties with perception, …
production, and/or … representation of speech … that may impact speech intelligibility and
acceptability… of both known (e.g., Down syndrome, cleft lip and palate) and presently
unknown origin” (International Expert Panel on Multilingual Children’s Speech, 2012, p. 1).
The term speech sound disorders is used widely, and encompasses the terms
speech/articulation/phonology delay/disorder/impairment as well as childhood apraxia of
speech (McLeod & Baker, 2017). An international meta-analysis has identified “speech
delay” as affecting between 2.3% and 24.6% of children (Law, Boyle, Harris, Harkness &
Nye, 2000). In the US 74.7% of 6,624 Pre-K students across 25 states enrolled in education-
based programs were receiving speech-language pathology services for
“articulation/intelligibility” (Mullen & Schooling, 2010). In Australia 12.0% of 4- to 5-year-
old children were identified with speech that was “not clear to others” (McLeod & Harrison,
2009) and 3.4% of 4-year-olds were clinically identified as having speech sound disorders
(Eadie et al., 2015). A community study of Australian preschool children found 51.4% of
children with clinically identified speech sound disorders had not received specialist targeted
services (McLeod, Harrison, McAllister & McCormack, 2013).

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 82

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Children with speech sound disorders are more likely to have reduced social and
educational outcomes than typically developing children (Felsenfeld, Broen & McGue, 1992;
1994; McCormack et al., 2009). For example, these children are at increased risk for
difficulties with reading (Anthony, Aghara, Dunkelberger, Anthony, Williams & Zhang,
2011; Leitão & Fletcher, 2004; McLeod et al., 2017) and are more likely to require additional
support at school (Felsenfeld et al., 1994). Children with speech sound disorders experience
frustration (McCormack, McLeod, McAllister & Harrison, 2010) and are more likely to be
bullied (Sweeting & West, 2001). They have been reported as experiencing the world in two
significantly different ways, being at ease when at the home or when with those close to
them, while being more reserved and withdrawn when in public spaces (McLeod, Daniel &
Barr, 2013).
Children with speech sound disorders benefit from targeted interventions to increase
their ability to produce speech sounds, resulting in increased intelligibility and acceptability
within social situations. Over 40 interventions have been demonstrated to be effective in
ameliorating speech sound disorders (Baker & McLeod, 2011). Most focus on children’s
production and classification of speech sounds and most require ongoing specialist
intervention from a speech-language pathologist. Speech-language pathology services are
integrated into children’s educational programs in countries such as the US (Giangreco,
Prelock & Turnbull, 2010) and the UK (Department for Education, 2008). However, there are
limited speech-language pathology services in many Australian schools (Commonwealth of
Australia, 2014; McLeod, Press & Phelan, 2010) and parents have indicated difficulties
accessing specialist support their children in education and health settings (McAllister,
McCormack, McLeod, & Harrison, 2011; Ruggero, McCabe, Ballard & Munro, 2012). Even
within the UK, where specialist services are available in schools, access to appropriate
services can be difficult. For example, Paradice and Adewusi (2002) interviewed 51 parents
in the UK about support provided by teachers and speech-language pathologists within the
educational context and summarized their findings by saying “the education provided for
their children depended not so much on ‘need’ as on luck and how hard they could fight for
their children” (p. 257).
Children’s frustrations with communication in public settings, strategies children
adopt to assist in communicating with others, and avoidant behaviours including withdrawal
in public environments have been reported previously (McLeod, Daniel & Barr, 2013). In
that study, parents reported that in public contexts, they needed to be protective of their
children in response to the reactions of others, particularly in relation to their children’s social
and emotional wellbeing. The paper also reported the frustrations experienced by parents in
accessing speech-language services in the Australian health context. Parents reported a lack
of accessible publicly funded services and long waiting lists for both public and private
speech pathology. The impacts on families and siblings of children with speech sound
disorders have also been reported in papers by Daniel and McLeod (2011), and Barr,
McLeod, and Daniel (2008). In the current paper we focus specifically on education and
schooling related experiences of these children and their families, and the implications for
teachers and teacher educators.

Learning in Contemporary Classrooms

Learning in contemporary western education systems emphasises constructivist

learning principles which mobilise student interaction, predominantly through spoken
communication, as a central tool for learning. Based on the works of Lev Vygotsky
(1934/1986), constructivist learning is described as “...being embedded within social events,

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 83

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

and occurring as a child interacts with people, objects, and events in the environment” (p.
287). Exploratory talk between students, and students and teacher, is acknowledged for “...its
capacity to promote intellectual development and educational attainment has gathered
momentum in recent years as various studies have demonstrated the key role social
collaboration plays in the joint construction of knowledge, understanding and learning”
(Gillies, 2014, p. 63). Implemented in group-learning processes, such as cooperative learning
pedagogies, contemporary classrooms engage these constructivist principles in the learning
environment, with classroom talk forming a crucial role in these interactions (Johnson,
Johnson & Holubec, 2008; Slavin, 2011).
Language, including an emphasis on oral language, then, is privileged in
constructivist learning and teaching (Gillies, 2014; Mercer, 2008), and central to learning in
contemporary classrooms (Eke & Lee, 2008). The engagement of spoken language in a
central pedagogical role in the learning environment means that children with speech sound
disorders may face particular challenges. An understanding of these challenges is therefore
important for those supporting learning engagement and educational outcomes of children
with speech sound disorders in contemporary classrooms.

Aims

Current research in the area of speech sound disorders is mainly focused on the
efficacy of intervention strategies for use by speech-language pathologists (Baker & McLeod,
2011). Research in the school context is necessary for informing the development of
classroom practices that promote a positive learning environment and provide learning
experiences that enable inclusion of children with these needs. This research aimed to
investigate the learning and schooling experiences of children with speech sound disorders in
order to identify ways in which parents, teachers and other professionals might support these
children’s functioning and learning in schools in a context where speech-language pathology
services are not integrated within the educational system. Specifically, what can educators
learn about the schooling experiences of children with speech sound disorders?

Methodology and Methods

Participant Recruitment

Following approval from the Charles Sturt University Human Research Ethics
Committee, potential focus children were identified using purposive sampling. Purposive
sampling provides the researchers with participants who have a deep knowledge or
experience of the focus of study (Oliver, 2006; Patton, 1990). Potential participants were
selected to provide “the most relevant and plentiful” data that could only be attained from
individuals with first-hand experience (Yin, 2011, p. 88). In this research, parents of the focus
children self-identified as being suitable participants by contacting the researchers following
media publicity. Additionally, potential participants were identified through contact with
families who were already known to the researchers.

Participants

The participants in this research were six focus children with speech sound disorders
(5 males and 1 female), along with their parents (n = 8), siblings (n = 6), friends (n = 6), one
of the children’s cousins, and a significant adult in the focus children’s lives (2 grandparents

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 84

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

and one family friend), all nominated by the focus children’s parents (see Table 1). Three of
the children’s teachers agreed to be interviewed for this research following consent from the
child’s parents. Thus, a total of 34 participants (six focus children and 28 family, friends and
teachers) took part in the research (see McLeod, Daniel & Barr, 2013). The sample is
reflective of children with speech sound disorders; the predominance of boys in our sample is
reflective of the significantly higher proportion of boys compared with girls diagnosed with
speech sound disorders (McLeod et al., 2017). In this paper we draw on interviews with the
children, parents and the three teachers to focus specifically on the schooling related
experiences of the six focus children.
The six focus children were all in the early years of formal schooling, aged between 5
and 9 years of age. All of the focus children were identified by their parents and verified by a
speech-language pathologist as having speech sound disorders of unknown origin, and of
varying severity from mild to severe. Three also had mild hearing loss or language
impairments. None were identified as having a cognitive disability. Pseudonyms are used to
protect their identity (see Tab. 1).

Children Sex Age Area(s) of difficulty Interests Significant others

James Male 6- Mild speech sound Playing computer Mother, Brother
years- disorder (particular games, playing with (aged 8), Brother
old difficulty producing friends, construction and (aged 2), Friend
multisyllabic words) and sport (aged 6), Teacher
moderate expressive
language impairment

Paul Male 6- Moderate speech sound Construction, art, Mother , Father,

years- disorder and a mild playing computer games, Brother (aged 11),
old expressive language playing with his friends, Friend (aged 6),
impairment imaginative play, and Family friend (adult)
maths
Lucie Female 9- Mild speech sound Art/drawing, playing Mother, Friend
years- disorder particularly with with friends, playing (aged 9), Friend
old /s/ consonant clusters (e.g., computer games, (aged 8)
spider) imaginative play and
sport
Luke Male 8- Severely unintelligible Drawing, shopping, Mother, Sister (aged
years- speech (suspected construction, playing 14), Grandmother,
old childhood apraxia of with his friend and sport Cousin, Friend ,
speech) Teacher
Joshua Male 5- Moderate speech sound Computer games, sport Mother, Father,
years- disorder, severe receptive and imaginative play Sister (twin),
old language delay, moderate Grandmother, Friend
expressive language delay, (aged 8), Teacher
and mild stutter
Victor Male 8- Moderately unintelligible Playing with his brothers Mother, Brother
years- speech (suspected and friends, (aged 12), Brother
old childhood apraxia of construction, and (aged 9)
speech) playing computer games,
handwriting, math and
sport
Table 1: Children with speech sound disorder and their significant others.

Instruments

Qualitative research uses semi-structured interviews to gather rich descriptions of

participants’ experiences and the meanings they make of these experiences to develop an

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 85

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

understanding of the phenomenon as a human experience (Seidman, 2013). The role of the
interviewer is to encourage a detailed description of the participants’ experiences and their
reflections on these experiences by remaining neutral and non-directive, listening attentively
to what is being said, and asking open ended questions that prompt richer responses from
research participants (Seidman, 2013).
Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with participants who had
lived experience in relation to children with speech sound disorders. Semi-structured
interviews use questions to stimulate free-flowing conversation, encouraging participants to
discuss experiences and observations relating to the area of research focus (McMillan, 2008).
Interview questions for this research were based on questions provided in the Speech
Participation and Activity Assessment of Children (SPAA-C) (McLeod, 2004). The SPAA-C
provides a series of questions for researchers and other professionals to use in interviews to
better understand the experiences of children who have difficulty speaking, “and the contexts
in which they live” (McLeod, 2004, p. 79). Different questions are provided within the
SPAA-C for children, siblings, friends, parents, teachers, and others. For example, the
questions to friends includes “What do you like doing together?” and “Is there anything your
friend has trouble with?” The SPAA-C questions are based around the World Health
Organization’s concept of Activities and Participation (WHO, 2001), and the SPAA-C has
previously been applied for use by speech-language pathologists in understanding the impact
of children’s speech and language difficulties on their lives (McCormack et al., 2011).
In addition to the interviews, the focus children completed a pictorial Likert scale
questionnaire, also drawn from the SPAA-C, to rate their feelings and perceptions in relation
to the impact of speech sound disorders in different aspects of their lives, for example: “How
do you feel about your talking?     ?” To avoid altering their existing relationships,
interviews with other child participants focused on the strengths and interests of the children,
with only one stimulus question asking in general terms if there was anything with which
their friend/sibling had difficulty (Daniel & McLeod, 2011). The parents of each child were
also asked to provide recent speech-language pathology assessment reports in order to assist
the researchers’ understanding of the children’s speech and language status.

Procedure

On contact with potential participants, an introductory letter and summary of the

research aims and procedures, samples of the questions to be answered, and copies of the
consent documents were provided for their consideration. Families were provided with copies
of these invitation packages addressed to each participant category (e.g., teacher or friend) to
use in identifying other participants relating to the child for interview. Once the family had
gained consent from these additional participants, all signed documents were returned to the
researchers and arrangements were made for the interviews.
Interviews with the focus children and their parents were conducted in the family
home where they were comfortable and not in a public space. Interviews with other
participants were conducted at a place of their convenience, such as their school, work office
or home. At the beginning of the interview process, participants were asked to confirm their
consent as participants in the research. For child participants, signed parental consent was
gained, and the children co-signed a child-friendly version of the consent form to indicate
their assent (Harcourt & Conroy, 2005) following a child-friendly explanation of the
expectations of their participation. At least one parent was present during all interviews with
child participants. The interviews took between 20 and 40 minutes, and recordings were later
transcribed for analysis.

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 86

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Positioning the Researchers

The research was cross-disciplinary with the first author being an Australian academic
with a background teaching in the early years of school and the second author being an
Australian academic with a background in speech-language pathology and early childhood.
With these professional backgrounds, both researchers brought a strong child and family-
centred focus to this research, and a dedication to the promotion of achieving the best
outcomes for all children.

Analysis

The aim of analysis in qualitative research is to develop an understanding of the

complexities of the participants’ experiences from the participants’ perspective (Yin, 2011).
Analysis of the data was carried out using an interpretivist approach that involved a
“systematic search for meaning” (Hatch, 2002, p. 148) whereby “patterns, themes and
categories …emerge out of the data” (Patton, 1990, p. 390). Yin (2011) suggests that high
quality qualitative data analysis involves a “five phased cycle”: compiling the data,
disassembling, reassembling, interpreting, and concluding to move beyond a descriptive
analysis of the data to identify the meanings behind these experiences.
Following transcription the interview data were compiled for each focus child. These
data were analysed for individual pieces of text containing information pertinent to or
providing significant insights into the children’s experiences (disassembly), or what Johnson
and Christensen (2010) refer to as “meaning statements” (p. 387). In the reassembly phase,
categories were developed by identifying “recurring regularities” (Guba, 1978, p. 53) across
the meaning statements representing common experiences, as well as identifying categories
to represent individual experiences that provided unique insights into the phenomenon (van
Manen, 1990; Yin, 2011). Connections within and between categories were then considered
in order to develop an in-depth description (interpretive phase), where the researchers sought
to identify “causal events contributing to the phenomenon; descriptive details of the
phenomenon itself; and the ramifications of the phenomenon under study” (Hoepfl, 1997,
n.p.). Constant reference to the original data, to ensure the inclusion of all meaning
statements and to enable the exploration of alternative explanations provided credibility,
“accuracy and robustness” to the analysis (Yin, 2011, p. 199). The implications of these
findings formed the basis for the research conclusions and recommendations.

Results

Communication in the school environment presented particular challenges for

children with speech sound disorders, and for their parents and teachers in meeting the
children’s learning needs. The children’s speech sound disorders affected their confidence
and participation in classroom learning experiences. Additionally, there were indications of
the impact of the children’s speech sound disorders on their educational progress. The
children’s educational experiences also concerned their parents as they endeavoured to
support and promote their children’s learning outcomes, and concerned their teachers in
meeting the needs of these children and their families. The voices of these parents, teachers,
children, and others in their lives tells a story of uncertainty, agency, and mostly failed
advocacy. These difficulties and concerns are presented below with a focus on challenges for

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 87

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

the children, challenges for parents, and challenges for teachers, and are discussed in relation
to the main challenges identified for or by each participant group.

Challenges for Children

The schooling environment presented the children with a range of challenges. The
children were reported by their parents and teachers as having lowered self-confidence in
school and reduced engagement in learning activities, particularly those involving spoken
language. Class presentations were particularly difficult for many of the children.

Self-Confidence

All of the participants were reported to experience reduced self-confidence in the

school context in general, or in particular learning activities within the classroom. This was
mostly reported by parents, although Joshua’s teacher also identified that she was working
“to build his self-confidence”. Paul’s parents noted that he was less confident when speaking
with others, stating that compared to his friends, he spoke: “A lot less. A lot less. And [with]
a lot less confidence in what he’s actually saying”. Paul’s mother and father identified the
effect of his lowered self-confidence on his self esteem as being the biggest impact of having
a speech sound disorder on Paul’s life. When asked about their aims for their children,
Joshua’s parents identified that their hope was to increase Joshua’s self confidence. To
promote this, they had enrolled him in martial arts. Victor’s mother identified her aims for
him “…to be confident in his speech, but more [confident in his] reading”. Luke’s mother
related his learning and social difficulties at school to his lack of self-confidence: “It’s a
confidence thing at school. It’s a big confidence thing at school … he isn’t confident at
school”.

Participation in Classroom Learning Activities.

The focus on engaging students in classroom discussion within contemporary learning

theory and practice was concerning for teachers and parents due to the observed withdrawal
from interactions with other students, as well as the limitations of their speech on their
engagement in discussions. Several of the parents in the study were concerned about the
educational implications of their child’s speech sound disorders. Teachers of two of the focus
children noted the children’s reduced participation in the classroom in activities that involved
verbal responses and student discussion. Joshua’s teacher reported that Joshua did not join in
classroom question and answer sessions, and did not raise his hand so that he was not called
on to respond, noting “he wouldn’t answer unless I call upon him ... so it limits his
participation in class”. Joshua’s teacher observed that he “would avoid situations where he
has to talk to somebody else”. James’ teacher reported that his lack of confidence limited his
participation in verbal conversations as well as contributing in class, but that he did
“occasionally but … very infrequently” contribute to class discussions. Luke’s teacher
observed that “as far as participation goes, his participation is at a different level to all the
others”. James’ mother also reported that it was: “hard for him to sit still and talk to someone
because it probably makes him feel uncomfortable”. James’ mother thought that his
withdrawal from interaction with others “... certainly is limiting him” in school, and thought
that along with shyness, “this was his biggest effect of the speech disorder”. When asked how

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 88

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

they felt about talking in class, the children too indicated their discomfort. Luke stated that he
didn’t like to speak in class as it made him “sad”  and “nervous”.
The children’s reluctance to speak in front of others was particularly difficult when
required to speak in front of the whole class. Lucie’s mother reported that she was currently
“trying to get out of” a presentation in class and stated that the more people in the audience,
“the less confidence” Lucie held, although she was confident in less formal social situations.
Paul’s parents reported that he found the idea of presenting to his classmates challenging.
Paul’s father said the he “could never see him getting up in front of a group and talking”.
Paul’s mother agreed. James’ teacher reported “there was an oral presentation and James just
didn’t want to do it”. His parents discussed this with his teacher, and they agreed not to push
him at this stage. Victor had refused to do a talk in his class and his mother reported: “He just
would not get up in front of the class” Victor also expressed this, explaining: “I[‘m] not good
at speaking at my class”. In contrast, Joshua, in his first year of school, did present news in
class on his news day. Luke, who had the most severe speech sound disorder of the focus
children, had also presented a talk for his class. His teacher reported that this was a successful
experience because they had practiced together:
“…he actually wanted to stay in at recess and finish it with her. Once he started.
He didn’t lose it, he practiced it and got up and did it in front of the class.”
A further challenge for teachers during class presentations was to ensure the other
children did not cause additional discomfort for the child presenting, inadvertently or
deliberately. Joshua’s presentations of news went well, though his teacher was careful
because “some of the more dominant type personalities have discovered that they can upset
him”. When Victor spoke to the class, his mother said the children had asked “why can’t you
speak properly?” and “we can’t understand you”. Similarly, Luke’s teacher gave an example
of these issues with classroom presentations:
“When he did his speech thing in front of the class, which I thought he did
really well, there were a couple of little sniggers so there were a few
dragged out and hauled across the coals.”

Learning Outcomes

Previous research has identified children with speech sound disorders have an
increased likelihood of experiencing reading difficulties (Anthony, Aghara, Dunkelberger,
Anthony, Williams & Zhang, 2011; Leitão & Fletcher, 2004; McLeod et al., 2017). Literacy
was the main area of concern for all participants, except Lucie, the child with the mildest
speech sound disorder, who was reported by her mother as being “well within her year level
or above”. Several of the children, their parents and teachers nominated aspects of literacy
when asked what they found hard at school, and a few linked this directly to the children’s
speech difficulties. Joshua and Paul, who were in their first year of school, were identified by
their parent or teacher as already having difficulty with reading. Joshua’s teacher stated “he’s
in my lowest reading group, which are the children that are just starting to put it together”.
Paul’s mother was concerned that he was “a little behind” his class in his reading progress, as
he was still having trouble learning the letters of the alphabet. Paul’s mother commented:
“… he hasn’t even got the foundations … I find it a little upsetting when they’re
doing … one letter for a week… and then he still can’t recognize it”.
The two older boys, Victor and Luke, were described by their parents as being
significantly below their grade level in their reading ability. Victor’s mother described his
reading as her “main worry” for him. Victor, himself, also nominated literacy and reading as
being particularly difficult. In response to the question “what’s hard at school?” was “Doin’

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 89

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

literacy, literacy… readin”. Luke’s teacher also commented that he was “...way below” in his
reading:
“...he knows [reading’s] difficult for him ... and it’s really an effort to coax him
up and get, get him to have a go at it… He’s way below [his peers] … he’d still
be in very, very early stage one [first year of school].”
Despite Paul’s problems with reading his father reported that Paul’s writing was
“...better than his pronunciation.” Luke, however, had trouble with both reading and in
written expression. Luke’s mother stated “Learning to read and write is so difficult. But his
handwriting is so neat.” James’s teacher identified his reading as being “a fraction above
average”; however, he was experiencing difficulties with his writing skills:
“One area where it really shows is his writing… not separating the words well.
He really tries hard”.
Parents expressed concern about the longer-term implications of these problems for
learning and achievement in other areas of the curriculum. Victor’s mother recognised that
his difficulties could be “limiting towards his education”. Joshua’s father, who worked in an
industry that brought him into contact with adults with poor literacy skills, was also
concerned about the “repercussions of not being able to have the basic skills…reading,
writing, to express yourself”.

Challenges for Parents

Supporting their children’s progress in the schooling environment in the Australian

state where this research was conducted was a challenge for most of these parents. The
perceived lack of targeted resources in schools to support their children, and the need to
identify and fund additional support outside the school was problematic for these families.
The children’s resistance to fully participate in activities in school, such as in class
presentations, also caused concern for parents.

Lack of Targeted Specialist Support

One of the challenges for parents was in maintaining and supporting the children’s
speech and language development. The absence of embedded speech-language pathology
services in schools meant that attendance at speech-language pathology sessions placed
additional time and financial demands on families in accessing this external support, and
involved the children in additional (outside of school) learning activities. These problems
were made worse by a lack of private speech-language pathology services within their
communities, and lengthy waiting lists for appointments in the community health system in
their local areas.
James’ parents had paid for some private speech-language pathology sessions, and at
the time of the interview his mother reported that he had “just got to the top of the waiting list
for the public system”. Paul’s parents had been able to get him into speech-language pathology
at the local community health centre, though they felt it was no longer helping him after a while
and so had ceased the visits. Victor, who was on a waiting list for publicly funded speech-
language pathology, had recently been offered a place as they had had a cancellation, even
though the community health service advised there were “28 ahead of you” according to
Victor’s mother. The service was, however, relying on the goodwill of a casual staff member
who volunteered some support, rather than as part of the standard service.

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 90

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

In Luke’s hometown, the local health service had contacted his mother to say that their
speech-language pathologist had moved, and they were waiting on another to be appointed. As
a single mother in a fixed income, Luke’s mother had limited funds to access private speech-
language pathology services.

Lack of Additional Learning Support in Schools

Beyond the lack of speech-language pathology services in children’s educational

programs in schools, additional resources to support learning for the participants were also
limited. Although international research has shown that children with speech sound disorders
are likely to need additional support in school (see for example Felsenfeld et al., 1994;
Mullen & Schooling, 2010), parents, as well as teachers, reported limited support in their
children’s schools and classrooms. This was a source of further demand on parents’
resources, and the cause of some frustration as they attempted to maintain the children’s
learning progress within the expectations of the curriculum.
Like the frustration expressed by parents in relation to the availability and
accessibility of speech language services within the community (see for example
McCormack, McAllister, McLeod, & Harrison, 2012; McLeod, Press, & Phelan, 2010;
Paradice & Adewusi, 2002; Ruggero, McCabe, Ballard, & Munro, 2012), parents and
teachers in the Australian context expressed frustration with the lack of available support
resources within the educational program. With funding allocation based on severity, and
limited funding allocations for additional support, funding may be allocated to children with
more urgent sport needs, reducing the availability of funds to support the needs of children
with speech sound disorders.
Joshua’s teacher had recommended he be tested to see if he could qualify for some
additional support from a specialist itinerant teacher, but had “just missed out” on qualifying
as he had been “borderline on his last test” according to Joshua’s mother. Reflecting Paradice
and Adewusi’s (2002) research in the United Kingdom, where access to speech-language
pathology services in schools was found to be related more to luck and the strength of
parent’s advocacy for their children than the children’s need, Joshua’s teacher likened access
to support services for his speech related learning needs as being like competitive selection
for a sports team, stating:
“…he’s never going to get a guernsey [get additional support] with that. They
need to be a lot more severe than he is”.
Victor’s mother too identified that although Victor was experiencing reading problems, the
school’s resourcing did not allow for additional support, apart from for “a little bit of time”
with the teacher’s aide. Victor’s mother was also frustrated with the lack of learning support
available in the educational environment, something the Principal at her school confirmed:
“The kids with the ADHD they’re all getting their medication and their funding
to get people, but Victor can’t read. It all impacts on everything else… and when
I’ve gone to … the principal…she said…I said we need to get so funding for Victor
to get an aide in and help him. Oh, we don’t fund, have any funding for language,
it all goes on the ADHD kids and everything”.
James’ teacher was also frustrated with the lack of available resources to support his
educational progress:
“If you look after the speech with James, there won’t be a problem with writing
and he’s only year one. His reading’s good now, but long term we can’t expect
this to be maintained.”

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 91

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Victor’s mother’s comments, also expressed in the comments of the teachers of James and
Joshua, indicate frustration with the limited access to resources that could support the
children’s educational development and outcomes, and express an experience of
powerlessness against policies that leave parents and schools struggling to meet the needs of
children with speech sound disorders.
The lack of additional learning support within the children’s educational program
caused additional time and financial burden on families. Victor’s mother reported that to
support his reading development, she was seeking outside support: “Well I’m trying to get
him into an early intervention thing for his literacy”. Paul’s parents’ concerns about his
literacy, and reading in particular, had also led them to look for an opportunity for him to
enroll in an early intervention program outside the school. The lack of support services
associated with children’s schooling had led Luke’s mother to seek out a more suitable school
in another state. With limited resources to access private speech-language pathology support,
and limited provision of support within schools in her state of residence, Luke’s mother was
moving interstate to access a school that had a good reputation for working with children
with communication disorders. That state also provided access to speech-language pathology
services as part of children’s educational programs.
“So that’s why…my family and everyone is going to help me move to [interstate
capital city] and I’ll just come home of a weekend” (Luke’s mother).
Luke’s mother’s agency is illustrative of the challenges of accessing resources
necessary to meet his speech and learning needs. During the research project, Luke’s
family did move, and were on the waiting list for entry into their desired school. Luke
continued to attend a local public school within the same state school system as
previously enrolled while they were waiting for his enrolment to be accepted.
Meanwhile, they were also waiting for a speech-language pathologist to be appointed
by the local health service in order to access services in their new local area.

Challenges for Teachers

Promoting and supporting the educational development of children with speech sound
disorders in schools also presented challenges for schools and teachers. In addition to meeting
the learning needs of the children, and difficulties in accessing classroom and professional
resources to support the children, teachers reported additional challenges in working with
children with speech sound disorders, and in supporting their parents.

Maintaining Awareness of the Children in the Classroom Environment

The children’s quietness and withdrawal in the classroom meant that the children
could be overlooked in the teaching context. Joshua’s teacher reported that his reluctance to
verbally participate in lessons meant that “… he would be an easy child to overlook”.
According to his teacher, there was a need to consciously maintain an awareness of his
engagement in learning activities. This awareness was necessary for Luke, though in his case
it was due to an emerging problem with his behaviour on the playground. Luke, who had the
most severe speech sound disorder of the participants, was reported by his teacher as
beginning to express his frustration physically, which meant he was also finding himself in
trouble at school. Luke’s teacher had established procedures for him to have ready access to
her during breaks, so that when problems arose he would be able to speak with her, since
other teachers had trouble understanding his speech. Despite these strategies, Luke was still

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 92

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

engaging in aggressive behaviour in the playground. His mother was also concerned about his
behaviour, and his mother related Luke’s behaviour issues to his speech:
“I know his behaviour problems are due to his speech frustration, they always
have been.”

Curriculum and Pedagogical Challenges

Teachers, parents and some of the children identified challenges for all but one of the
children around literacy. In line with other research (Anthony et al., 2011; Leitão & Fletcher,
2004), these concerns were particularly related to the children’s progress in reading
development, and the implications for learning progress. These delays present a challenge for
teachers in supporting learning for children with speech sound disorders when language-
based constructivist pedagogies are engaged. Developing an expanded awareness of the
particular challenges faced by children with speech sound disorders in relation to literacy in
teacher education and professional development courses, and developing an expanded
repertoire of alternative and complimentary strategies to support the engagement of these
students in learning and assessment activities, might support teachers’ endeavours to provide
equitable access for students with speech sound disorders to learning in the classroom. The
development of these strategies through further research recommended in this paper will
support development of more inclusive and differentiated pedagogies and practices.

Parental Reliance on Teachers’ Expertise

One area of demand for teachers, which emerged in interviews with several of the
children’s parents, was a reliance on the awareness and expertise of school staff to assist
parents in identifying the necessity for intervention. For three of the families, the children’s
teachers were significant in identifying the need for speech-language pathology assessments
and intervention. In the cases of Joshua and James, it was their teachers in preschool settings
that had identified their need for a speech-language pathology assessment, formal diagnosis
and intervention planning. Joshua’s parents had also relied on his kindergarten teacher to
identify the need for additional speech-language pathology services once he commenced
school. It was James’ kindergarten teacher who had picked up his need for speech-language
pathology:
“…she thought that he needed to be assessed because he wasn’t speaking
clearly” (James’ mother).
Joshua’s parents had not come to the realisation that his speech was a significant concern
until being alerted initially by his preschool teacher, and later his kindergarten teacher.
Joshua’s parents had noticed that his twin sister’s language was developing in advance of his,
but had “always just thought that he was quieter and shyer”. Although Joshua’s parents “had
an inkling” there may be a problem (Joshua’s father), the need for intervention “...was
pointed out to me when I went to preschool with him” (Joshua’s mother).
After some speech-language pathology services prior to school, Joshua’s family
travelled for a year. This meant that he did not have therapy in the six months before
commencing in his first year of formal schooling. On their return Joshua’s parents were
unsure of the need for additional therapy as they believed his speech had improved while they
were travelling. His parents again relied on the school to identify if there was a need for
further speech-language pathology services:

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 93

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

“I thought, well, I’ll leave it till school and see if they pick up again there’s a
problem” (Joshua’s mother).
Victor’s parents were also alerted by his teacher of the need for his speech to be assessed by
his kindergarten teacher. Victor had spoken to the class, and the children had commented that
they did not understand what he was saying. According to Victor’s mother:
“This is how we found out that he did have a problem with his speech. He just
would not get up in front of the class and they would say, you know, Victor, why
can’t you speak properly? And, we can’t understand you.”

Discussion

This research indicates that children with speech sound disorders face a number of
challenges in the school environment that impact on their development and education. While
there were many examples of parents’ and teachers’ agency and advocacy, their attempts
were not always successful and did not facilitate long-term benefits for (their own or other)
children with speech sound disorders.
These findings present a challenge in meeting the United Nations Article 29 Aims of
Education in society to “empower the child” through the development of children’s skills,
supporting their learning, and promoting their dignity, self-esteem and confidence (UN,
2001). These results indicate that rather than supporting these children’s learning needs,
schools, and the families of these children, experienced frustration in their endeavours to
access and provide “equitable quality educational” experiences in pursuing these goals (UN,
2001, n.p.).
These findings have implications for policy, pedagogy and teacher preparation, and
identify a need for coordinated advocacy on behalf of children with speech sound disorders,
and their families, in the current educational context. By providing current and future
teachers with the knowledge of the particular needs of children with speech sound disorders,
teachers can be better prepared to meet their educational needs, understand the needs of
families, and advocate for the necessary resources to support the achievement of more
equitable outcomes.

Implications for Policy

The findings of this research indicate that speech sound disorders are an educational
issue for children that require specific consideration in educational policy and practice. The
restricted support available for children with speech sound disorders within the community
and in schools, reported by the children’s parents and teachers, illustrates limitations within
current policy (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014; McLeod et al., 2010). In meeting
responsibilities, “to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human
rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities” (UN, 2006), there is a need
to afford these children the resources required in meeting their functional and educational
needs (UN, 2001). In particular in the context of this research, for increases in speech-
language pathology services to meet the needs of children with speech sound disorders, and
support in schools to assist them in maintaining their engagement in learning and other
classroom activities in order to support their academic, social and emotional development.

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 94

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Implications for Pedagogy

The indications of learning difficulties relating to the children’s speech sound

disorders emerging in the early years of education, particularly in the area of literacy, is
reflective of existing research indicating that children with speech sound disorders may be at
risk of lower literacy and educational achievement outcomes (Anthony et al., 2011; Leitão &
Fletcher, 2004; McCormack et al., 2011). Addressing these issues requires not only specific
resources, such as speech-language pathology, but pedagogical approaches that better meet
these children’s needs. The management of behaviours, such as withdrawal from interactions
within learning activities involving spoken language also presents a pedagogical challenge
for teachers where these interactions form the basis of teaching and learning practice.
Alternative practices to compliment the current emphasis on classroom-based talk in
learning that can more effectively engage children with speech sound disorders in the
learning process, and enable them to demonstrate their learning are necessary. Alternatives,
such as poster presentations, and the use of digital media, as well as written learning
products, may provide more accessible ways for these children to engage in these activities
while their intelligibility improves. Additional learning support in the classroom, and support
for parents in assisting at home also appear to be required to maintain the progress of these
students.

Implications for Teacher Education

These findings indicate the need for classroom teachers to be aware of the specific
needs children of with speech sound disorders, and to develop strategies to support their
learning and development within the learning and school environment. As well as
professional development for current teachers, teacher education courses need to build
practitioner skills in identifying children with speech sound disorders, their support needs and
strategies to build their skills and confidence in the educational environment. The findings of
this research in identify the need for strategies to support literacy development, but also in
particular around current pedagogies that emphasise the use of language in the learning
process.
Skills that enable children with speech sound disorders to engage in learning
activities, such as the inclusion of alternative communication and participatory activities
provide a broader range of options for these students to participate more fully in these
learning experiences. Building the skills of early identification and referral of children with
speech sound disorders and developing practices that enable their participation in learning
activities can prepare teachers in helping to address the apparent educational disadvantage
associated with speech sound disorders (Anthony et al., 2011; Felsenfeld et al., 1994; Leitão
& Fletcher, 2004; McCormack et al., 2011).
With current research indicating that teachers across the world are not well prepared
for working with children with speech, language and communication needs (e.g., Dockrell &
Lindsay, 2001; Forbes, 2008; Marshall et al., 2002; McLeod & McKinnon, 2010), and
practicing teachers reporting that children with speech and language difficulties are one of the
most challenging groups to work with (McLeod & McKinnon, 2010), it is important that
preservice and practicing teachers are upskilled to meet these children’s needs. As Florian
and Rouse (2009) state:
The task of initial teacher education is to prepare people to enter a profession
which accepts individual and collective responsibility for improving the learning
and participation of all children (p. 596).

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 95

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

The experiences of these children, families and teachers indicate there is a need for
ongoing professional development in schools. The findings that parents often look to the
teacher to identify the need for speech-language pathology services confirm similar findings
by McAllister et al. (2011). These findings also elaborate on Paradice and Adewusi’s (2002)
observations of parental reliance on the professional expertise of their child’s teacher in
identifying ways to support their children’s educational development. Professional learning in
preservice education programs, and ongoing professional learning in the particular needs of
children with speech sound disorders will enable school staff to provide meet these
expectations, and provide appropriate guidance for parents to support their child’s
educational experience and outcomes. These findings may also assist in explaining possible
educational and schooling challenges children with speech sound disorders might face.
The parent-teacher relationship is widely accepted as critical in supporting children’s
educational development (Avvisati, Gurgand, Guyon & Maurin 2014; Daniel, Wang, &
Berthelsen, 2016; Wilder 2014). The findings of this paper confirm the important role of this
relationship in supporting parents as they endeavor to support and advocate for their
children’s needs. As an area of preservice education, “involving parents/guardians in the
educative process” has been identified by early career teachers as an area where teachers do
not feel well prepared (McKenzie, Weldon, Rowley, Murphy, & McMillan, 2014). Our
findings reinforce the importance of these skills in supporting students with speech sound
disorders and their families in schools.

The Need for Advocacy

The experiences of children with speech sound disorders, their families and teachers
indicates a ‘blind spot’ in understanding their needs within the classroom, and provision of
adequate support for these children in the classroom learning environment. With parents and
teachers reporting that there are few resources available to support children with speech
sound disorders in schools, there were additional time requirements from the children and
parents in accessing this support outside the school. In addition, there were sometimes
extensive financial costs for families as they sought this support through private providers.
UNESCO has advocated that “All young people and adults have opportunities to acquire –
supported by safe, gender-responsive and inclusive learning environments – relevant
knowledge and skills to ensure their personal fulfilment and contribute to peace and the
creation of an equitable and sustainable world” (UNESCO, 2014, p. 8). The educational
implications for children with speech sound disorders indicate the need for coordinated
professional advocacy in meeting these children’s learning needs in the school setting, as part
of these children’s educational programs so that they can fulfil their potential.

Limitations

These findings are limited to the experiences relating to a small group of children with
speech sound disorders in a single geographic area, and within the policy context of
Australia. The repetition of this study in other contexts, or with a larger population is needed
to corroborate whether these findings reflect those of other children with similar
communication disabilities. These findings do, however, mirror comments of those who
made submissions to an Australian Government Senate Inquiry (Commonwealth of Australia,
2014). As such, this paper identifies a need for further investigations to examine the effects of

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 96

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

speech sound disorders on children’s educational and development and outcomes, and
establish effective ways of meeting these children’s learning needs.

Conclusion

Children with speech sound disorders face challenges to their learning in the early
years of schooling. The role of spoken language in the contemporary learning environment,
and difficulties in accessing speech-language pathology and learning support as part of their
school program, means that school presents challenges for these children, and parents and
teachers experience challenges in meeting their needs. This research has shown not only that
the children felt isolated, parents disempowered, and teachers frustrated, but it provides
poignant illustrations of how whole families are impacted and how much of their frustration
results from their inability to comprehend the bureaucracy to which they are beholden.
Increased awareness of the specific needs of children with speech sound disorders and of the
challenges their parents face is needed to enable the provision of greater support as children
and their families engage with school curriculum and learning experiences. There is therefore
a need for current and preservice teachers to develop their awareness of the needs of children
with speech sound disorders, and of strategies that might better meet these needs in the
educational environment.
In this we advocate a multidisciplinary approach that positions speech sound disorders
as both a health and educational responsibility, recognizing the educational implications of
speech sound disorders and the need for additional school-based learning support including
the provision of speech services as part of a holistic development program. Without
professional awareness, skills development and speech and learning support services,
schools, and society are not able to fully promote the development of children with speech
sound disorders towards their potential. In meeting their needs, educators, and society, move
towards achieving the aim of education to “empower the child by developing his or her skills,
learning and other capacities, human dignity, self-esteem and self-confidence” (UN, 2001,
n.p.).

References

Anthony, J. L., Aghara, R. G., Dunkelberger, M. J., Anthony, T. I., Williams, J. M., & Zhang,
Z. (2011). What factors place children with speech sound disorder at risk for reading
problems? American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20(2), 146–160.
https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0053)
Avvisati, F., Gurgand, M., Guyon, N., & Maurin, E. (2014). Getting parents involved: A field
experiment in deprived schools. The Review of Economic Studies, 81(1), 57-83.
https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdt027
Baker, E., & McLeod, S. (2011). Evidence-based practice for children with speech sound
disorders: Part 1 narrative review. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 42(2), 102–139. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2010/09-0075)
Barr, J., McLeod, S., & Daniel, G. (2008). Siblings of children with speech impairment:
Cavalry on the hill. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 21-32.
https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2008/003)
Botting, N., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2000). Social and behavioural difficulties in children with
language impairment. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 16(2), 105–120.
https://doi.org/10.1191/026565900668565128

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 97

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. Husen & T. N.

Postlewaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.) (Vol. 3, pp.
1643-1647. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Commonwealth of Australia (2014). Senate Community Affairs References Committee:
Prevalence of different types of speech, language and communication disorders and
speech pathology services in Australia. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of
Australia.
Daniel, G. R., & McLeod, S. (2011). “I can’t say words much”: Listening to school-aged
children’s experiences of speech impairment. In S. Roulstone & S. McLeod (Eds.),
Listening to children and young people with speech, language and communication
needs (pp. 195–202). London, UK: J&R Press.
Daniel, G. R., Wang, C., & Berthelsen, D. (2016). Early school-based parent involvement,
students’ self-regulated learning and academic achievement among Australian
primary school children: A longitudinal study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
36, 168-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.016
Department for Education. (2008). Every child a talker: Guidance for early language lead
practitioners. Nottingham, UK: Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Retrieved from
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.g
ov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DCSF-00854-2008.pdf.
Dockrell, J. E., & Lindsay, G. (2001). Children with specific speech and language
difficulties: The teachers’ perspectives. Oxford Review of Education, 27(3), 369–394.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980120067410
Eadie, P., Morgan, A., Ukoumunne, O. C., Ttofari Eecen, K., Wake, M., & Reilly, S. (2015).
Speech sound disorder at 4 years: Prevalence, comorbidities, and predictors in a
community cohort of children. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 57(6),
578–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12635
Eke, R., & Lee, J. (2008). Using talk effectively in the primary classroom. Milton Park, UK:
Routledge.
Felsenfeld, S., Broen, A., & McGue, M. (1992). A 28-year follow-up of adults with a history
of moderate phonological disorder: Linguistic and personality results. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, 35(5), 1114–1125.
https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3505.1114
Felsenfeld, S., Broen, A., & McGue, M. (1994). A 28-year follow-up of adults with a history
of moderate phonological disorder: Educational and occupational results. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, 37(6), 1341–1353.
https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3706.1341
Florian, L. & Rouse, M. (2009) The inclusive practice project in Scotland: Teacher education
for inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 594–601.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.003
Forbes, J. (2008). Knowledge transformations: Examining the knowledge needed in teacher
and speech and language therapist co-work. Educational Review, 60(2), 141–154.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910801933989
Giangreco, M. F., Prelock, A., & Turnbull, H. R. III. (2010). An issue hiding in plain sight:
When are speech-language pathologists special educators rather than related services
providers? Language, Speech, and Hearing Service in Schools, 41(4), 531–538.
https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0127)
Gillies, R. M. (2014). Developments in classroom-based talk. International Journal of
Educational Research, 63, 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.05.002

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 98

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Grunewald, R., & Rolnick, A. (2007). A productive investment: Early child development. In
M. E. Young & L. M. Richardson (Eds.), Early child development: From
measurement to action. A priority for growth and equity (pp. 17–32). Washington,
DC: World Bank.
Guba, E. G. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation.
Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation.
Harcourt, D., & Conroy, H. (2005). Informed assent: Ethics and processes when researching
with young children. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), 567–577.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430500131353
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State
University of New York.
Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education
researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9(1), 47–63.
https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v9i1.a.4
International Expert Panel on Multilingual Children’s Speech. (2012). Multilingual children
with speech sound disorders: Position paper. Bathurst, Australia: Research Institute
for Professional Practice, Learning and Education, Charles Sturt University. Retrieved
from http://www.csu.edu.au/research/multilingual-speech/position-paper
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2010). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (2008). Cooperation in the classroom (8th
ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.
Law, J., Boyle, J., Harris, F., Harkness, A., & Nye, C. (2000). Prevalence and natural history
of primary speech and language delay: Findings from a systematic review of the
literature. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 35(2),
165–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/136828200247133
Leitão, S., & Fletcher, J. (2004). Literacy outcomes for students with speech impairment:
Long-term follow-up. International Journal of Language and Communication
Disorders, 39(2), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820310001619478
Marshall, J., Ralph, S., & Palmer, S. (2002). ‘I wasn’t trained to work with them’:
Mainstream teachers’ attitudes to children with speech and language difficulties.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6(3), 199–215.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110110067208
McAllister, L., McCormack, J., McLeod, S., & Harrison, L. J. (2011). Expectations and
experiences of accessing and participating in services for childhood speech
impairment. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13(3), 251–267.
https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2011.535565
McCormack, J., Harrison, L. J., McLeod, S., & McAllister, L. (2011). A nationally representative
study of the association between communication impairment at 4-5 years and children’s life
activities at 7-9 years. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 54(5), 1328-
1348. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0155)
McCormack, J., McAllister, L., McLeod, S., & Harrison, L. (2012). Knowing, having, doing:
The battles of childhood speech impairment. Child Language Teaching and Therapy,
28(2), 141-157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659011417313
McCormack, J., McLeod, S., McAllister, L., & Harrison, L. J. (2009). A systematic review of
the association between childhood speech impairment and participation across the
lifespan. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(2), 155–170.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17549500802676859

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 99

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

McCormack, J., McLeod, S., McAllister, L., & Harrison, L. J. (2010). My speech problem,
your listening problem, and my frustration: The experience of living with childhood
speech impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(4), 379–
392. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0129)
McKenzie, P., Weldon, P., Rowley, G., Murphy, M., & McMillan, J. (2014). Staff in
Australia’s schools 2013: Main report on the survey. Canberra, Australia:
Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from
https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/sias_2013_main_report.pdf.
McLeod, S. (2004). Speech pathologists’ application of the ICF to children with speech
impairment. Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, 6(1), 75–81.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14417040410001669516
McLeod, S., & Baker, E. (2017). Children’s speech: An evidence-based approach to
assessment and intervention. Boston, MA: Pearson.
McLeod, S., Crowe, K., Masso, S., Baker, E., McCormack, J., Wren, Y., Roulstone, S., &
Howland, C. (2017, in press). Profile of Australian preschoolers with speech sound
disorders at risk for literacy difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2017.1287105
McLeod, S., Daniel, G. R., & Barr, J. (2013). When he’s around his brothers … he’s not so
quiet”: The private and public worlds of school-aged children with speech sound
disorder. Journal of Communication Disorders, 46(1), 70–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2012.08.006
McLeod, S., & Harrison, L. J.(2009). Epidemiology of speech and language impairment in a
nationally representative sample of 4- to 5-year-old children. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 52(5), 1213–1229. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-
4388(2009/08-0085)
McLeod, S., Harrison, L. J., McAllister, L., & McCormack, J. (2013). Speech sound
disorders in a community study of preschool children. American Journal of Speech-
Language Pathology, 22(3), 503–522. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-
0123)
McLeod, S., & McKinnon, D. H. (2007). The prevalence of communication disorders
compared with other learning needs in 14,500 primary and secondary school students.
International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 42(S1), 37-59.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820601173262
McLeod, S., & McKinnon, D. H. (2010). Required support for primary and secondary
students with communication disorders and/or other learning needs. Child Language
Teaching and Therapy, 26(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659010368754
McLeod, S., Press, F., & Phelan, C. (2010). The (in)visibility of children with communication
impairment in Australian health, education, and disability legislation and policies.
Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing, 13(1), 67–75.
https://doi.org/10.1179/136132810805335173
McMillan, J. H. (2008). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer. New York,
NY: Pearson.
Mercer, N. (2008). Talk and the development of reasoning and understanding. Human
Development, 51(1), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1159/000113158
Mullen, R., & Schooling, T. (2010). The National Outcomes Measurement System for
pediatric speech-language pathology. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 41, 44-60. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0051)
Oliver, P. (2006). Purposive sampling. In V. Judd (Ed.), The SAGE dictionary of social
research methods (pp. 244-245). London, UK: Sage.

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 100

 Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Paradice, R., & Adewusi, A. (2002). ‘It’s a continuous fight isn’t it?’: Parents’ views of the
educational provision for children with speech and language difficulties. Child
Language Teaching and Therapy, 18(3), 257–288.
https://doi.org/10.1191/0265659002ct238oA
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Ruggero, L., McCabe, P., Ballard, K. J., & Munro, N. (2012). Paediatric speech-language
pathology service delivery: An exploratory survey of Australian parents. International
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14(4), 338–350.
https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2011.650213
Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences (4th ed). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Slavin, R. (2011). Cooperative learning. In V.G. Aukrust (Ed.), Learning and cognition in
education (pp. 160–168). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Sweeting, H., & West, P. (2001). Being different: Correlates of the experience of teasing and
bullying at age 11. Research Papers in Education, 16(3), 225–246.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520110058679
United Nations (UN, 2001). Convention on the rights of the child, general comment 1 (2001)
The aims of education. Geneva, Switzerland: Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights. Retrieved from
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CRC.GC.2001.1.En?OpenDocument
United Nations (UN, 2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Geneva,
Switzerland: United Nations General Assembly. Retrieved from
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45f973632.html
UNESCO (2014). Position paper on education post-2015. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002273/227336E.pdf
UNESCO (2015). Education 2030. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-
agenda/education-for-all/education-2030/
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive
pedagogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1934/1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wilder, S. (2014). Effects of parental involvement on academic achievement: A meta-
synthesis. Educational Review, 66(3), 377-397.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.780009
World Health Organization (2001). ICF: International classification of functioning, disability
and health. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Acknowledgments

The researchers acknowledge support from a Charles Sturt University Competitive Grant and
the second author also acknowledges funding from Australian Research Council Discovery
Grant (DP130102545).

Vol 42, 2, February 2017 101