Conducting a Dynamic Assessment for Bilingual Children

Australia is one of the most linguistically diverse nations on earth, with more than 300 languages spoken in homes from Parramatta to Footscray, from Brisbane's outer suburbs to the streets of Liverpool. For speech-language pathologists working in early childhood centres, schools, and private clinics across the country, this diversity shapes daily caseloads. Many of the children seen in Australian services come from homes where Mandarin, Vietnamese, Arabic, Punjabi, or Greek is spoken alongside English, and a growing number arrive with limited exposure to the language used in standardised testing tools.

Standardised assessment tools were largely developed on monolingual English-speaking populations, and their norms rarely reflect the realities of bilingual development. A child who appears "delayed" on a static norm-referenced test may simply be demonstrating the natural trajectory of simultaneous or sequential bilingual acquisition. Relying on these tools alone risks misdiagnosis, inappropriate funding recommendations under the NDIS, and entry into speech therapy programs that do not match the child's actual learning potential.

Dynamic assessment offers an alternative framework grounded in Vygotsky's theories of mediated learning and the zone of proximal development. Rather than measuring what a child has already mastered in isolation, it evaluates how a child responds to teaching, their capacity to generalise new skills, and the amount of support required to achieve success. This makes it particularly valuable for differentiating a language difference from a genuine language disorder in bilingual populations.

The sections that follow walk through a practical, step-by-step framework for conducting a dynamic assessment with bilingual children. From preparation through to report writing, the approach is designed for clinicians working within Australian service contexts, including schools, community health settings, and private practice.

Preparing the Assessment Environment

Before the child arrives, thought goes into the physical space, the materials, and the languages involved. Clinicians in schools across Victoria and New South Wales often need to negotiate shared rooms with limited storage, so a portable kit is essential. Gather bilingual picture books, culturally familiar objects, toys, and puppets that reflect the child's background wherever possible. A small set of common items, such as a cup, spoon, ball, and doll, can support elicited production across many targets without relying on language-specific vocabulary.

Liaising with the family ahead of the appointment helps identify the languages spoken at home, the dominant language for the child, and any dialectal variations. Many Australian families speak a heritage language at home and English at school, so clarifying the exposure profile prevents assumptions. Booking an interpreter when required is a clinical and ethical responsibility, and using the Translating and Interpreting Service is standard practice in many public health settings.

Consent and cultural protocols matter too. Some families may wish to have an elder or community member present, particularly when decisions about assessment or therapy are being discussed. Acknowledging these preferences at the planning stage builds trust and signals respect for the family's cultural framework.

Building Rapport with the Child and Family

The opening minutes of any dynamic assessment carry disproportionate weight. A child who feels anxious will not show what they can learn, and a family who feels judged will not share the rich information needed for accurate interpretation. Starting with a relaxed conversation in the family's preferred language, supported by an interpreter if necessary, signals partnership rather than gatekeeping.

For the child, playful engagement using familiar objects establishes safety. Sitting on the floor at the child's level, following their lead with a toy, and naming objects in both languages can quickly shift the dynamic from testing to interaction. Many bilingual children code-switch naturally during play, and clinicians should mirror this rather than restrict the child to one language.

Observing how the child communicates during this rapport-building phase also provides informal baseline data. Watch for gestures, eye contact, turn-taking, and the use of both languages to convey meaning. These observations form part of the dynamic picture alongside the more structured phases that follow.

Establishing the Baseline Through a Pre-Test

The pre-test phase establishes a starting point against which later learning can be measured. Tasks should be carefully selected to target the specific skills under investigation, whether that be vocabulary, narrative structure, phonology, or morphosyntax. Because dynamic assessment is hypothesis-driven rather than standardised, clinicians choose tasks based on referral concerns and background information gathered from families and educators.

Keep the pre-test focused. Two or three well-chosen tasks provide enough information to plan the teaching phase without exhausting the child. In school settings, this often means working within a 45-minute session block, with the pre-test taking around 10 minutes. Document the child's responses accurately, noting not only whether an item was correct but how the child approached the task, including strategies, errors, and moments of hesitation.

A useful technique in Australian classrooms is to draw on familiar curriculum content. If the child is learning about farm animals in their mainstream classroom, a pre-test using farm vocabulary aligns with school learning and reduces cultural bias. The child's exposure to English through schooling can be considered when selecting targets, avoiding items that the child has simply not yet encountered.

Implementing the Mediated Teaching Phase

The teaching phase is the heart of dynamic assessment. The clinician introduces a focused strategy, scaffolds the child's attempt, and gradually reduces support as the child gains competence. This mirrors the graduated prompting approach used in much of Australian school-based intervention, where the gradual release of responsibility model guides instructional decisions.

Choose a single target skill rather than attempting to teach everything at once. For example, if narrative skills are the concern, focus on teaching a specific structure such as character, setting, and problem. Model the skill clearly, then engage the child in a joint activity, slowly shifting the cognitive load back to them. Use the language that matches the child's instruction in their learning environment, often English for school-aged children, while acknowledging and inviting the home language.

Scaffolding strategies might include visual supports, gestures, prompts, recasts, or contrastive examples. The clinician notes which strategies work best for the individual child, an insight that is enormously useful for planning ongoing therapy and for working with teachers. School-based SLPs in New South Wales and Queensland often share these insights directly with classroom teachers through collaborative planning meetings.

Measuring Modifiability and Transfer

After the teaching phase, the post-test repeats tasks similar to those used in the pre-test, sometimes with novel items to assess generalisation. The clinician looks for change in performance, the speed of acquisition, the amount of support required, and whether the child can apply the strategy independently. A child who shows rapid, independent improvement is demonstrating strong learning potential, while a child who struggles to generalise despite support may require a different clinical pathway.

Scoring within dynamic assessment is qualitative as much as quantitative. Rather than a single correct-incorrect score, clinicians rate the child's responsiveness, the strategies they used, and their ability to transfer the new skill. Many clinicians use a five-point scale of modifiability, ranging from no response to teaching through to independent generalisation to novel contexts.

Documenting specific examples brings the report to life. Phrases such as "after three models, the child produced past tense forms with 80 per cent accuracy on novel verbs" provide concrete evidence of learning. This level of detail is especially valuable when writing reports for the NDIS or for school funding reviews, where decision-makers benefit from seeing the trajectory of change rather than a single test score.

Interpreting Results Within Cultural and Linguistic Context

Dynamic assessment does not produce a diagnosis in isolation. Results must be interpreted alongside information about language exposure, the quality of input in each language, developmental history, and observations from parents and educators. A child with strong modifiability is presenting with a language difference rather than a disorder, while a child who shows minimal response to mediated teaching may require further investigation for a language impairment.

Engaging with cultural liaisons, bilingual educators, or community organisations can enrich interpretation. Many speech pathologists working in Western Australia, for instance, collaborate with Aboriginal community-controlled organisations to ensure assessment practices align with local cultural values. Similarly, clinicians working with newly arrived families in Melbourne's inner west often consult with settlement services to understand resettlement stressors that may be influencing communication.

Referral pathways should be matched to the findings. Children presenting with a difference may benefit from monitoring, classroom-based supports, and parent education about bilingual development, while children with suspected impairment may need ongoing speech therapy, specialist referral, or NDIS-funded supports. Clear, respectful communication with families about the rationale behind these decisions is essential.

Writing Reports That Travel Well Across Services

Reports produced from dynamic assessment need to communicate clearly to families, teachers, paediatricians, and funding bodies. Avoid jargon where possible, and use plain English that can be translated accurately by interpreters when families require translated copies. Many Australian services now provide translated summaries alongside full reports, an approach that aligns with the inclusive practices promoted by Speech Pathology Australia.

A strong report outlines the assessment approach, the languages considered, the tasks used in each phase, and the child's responses. Recommendations should be specific, practical, and tied directly to the evidence gathered. Suggestions for families, such as shared reading in the home language, carry equal weight with suggestions for educators, such as visual supports for narrative tasks.

Include a section on strengths, not just areas of need. Bilingual children bring rich linguistic and cultural resources to their learning, and a balanced report acknowledges these alongside the difficulties observed.

The table below summarises the three core phases of a dynamic assessment and the clinical purpose of each.

Phase	Purpose	Typical Activities	Outcome Measured
Pre-test	Establish baseline performance	Elicit target skills using selected tasks; note strategies and errors	Starting point for measuring change
Teaching	Scaffold learning and observe responsiveness	Model new skill, provide graduated prompts, engage in joint activity	Modifiability, learning strategies used
Post-test	Assess transfer and generalisation	Repeat tasks with familiar and novel items	Independent use of skill, evidence of learning

Practical recommendations for clinicians undertaking dynamic assessment with bilingual children include:

• Plan the assessment around the child's languages and cultural background rather than around the test kit on the shelf
• Use interpreters proactively and engage them as cultural consultants, not just translators
• Keep tasks focused, choosing one or two targets per session to allow meaningful teaching
• Document both the quantity and the quality of change, including specific examples of scaffolding that worked
• Share findings with families in their preferred language and check that recommendations are understood and acceptable

Clinicians looking for ready-to-use materials, session planners, and family handouts to support dynamic assessment with bilingual learners will find practical resources, printables, and supervision reflections over at Let's Talk Speech Therapy.