Teachers' perspectives on the role and scope of practice of speech-language pathologists working to support literacy in the early years of school.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore the views of teachers in early year levels about the role and scope for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to work on literacy support in schools.Method: Sixty-one teachers from mainstream government schools across Victoria, Australia, completed an anonymous, online survey.Result: Although many respondents reported knowing that SLPs support the literacy learning of some students in their school, they had limited awareness of the scope of speech-language pathology practice in literacy instruction and intervention.Conclusion: Limited awareness of SLPs' expertise and scope of practice may be leading to missed opportunities for collaborative practices. In order to capitalise on SLPs' skill set for the benefit of students, the speech-language pathology profession should better promote and raise awareness of the various ways in which SLPs can collaborate within interprofessional literacy teams in schools.

Australian speech-language pathologists' self-rated confidence, knowledge, and skill on constructs essential to practising in literacy with children and adolescents.

PURPOSE: To investigate Australian speech-language pathologists' (SLPs') knowledge of language and literacy constructs, skills in linguistic manipulation, and self-rated ability and confidence. METHOD: Two hundred and thirty-one SLPs from across Australia completed an online knowledge and skill assessment survey. RESULT: There was substantial individual variability regarding performance on items measuring the knowledge and skills of essential literacy constructs. SLPs were most likely to rate their confidence in providing intervention for phonological and phonemic awareness as "very good" or "expert". They reported lower confidence providing intervention for all other aspects of literacy. The majority of SLPs reported what they described as inadequate preservice training to practise in literacy. There was variability between respondents in their self-reported alignment with approaches and beliefs that are unsupported by current research evidence on reading instruction and support. CONCLUSION: The level and consistency of SLPs' literacy knowledge and skills requires improvement. The perception of inadequate preparation to practise in literacy may mean that SLPs are reluctant to engage in this area of practice. Minimum accreditation requirements specifically for literacy are recommended, together with assurance of ongoing professional learning opportunities spanning all components of literacy.