Professional Documents
Culture Documents
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities.
http://www.jstor.org
Education
Team
AAC
and
Training
Perceptions:
in Developmental
139-154
Disabilities,
2006, 41(2),
Division
on Developmental
Disabilities
Communication
Rita L. Bailey, Julie
Abstract:
B. Stoner,
and
Augmentative
Howard
Illinois
State
Device
Alternative
Use
Maureen
E. Angell
University
This
perceptions
pathologist
AAC use in junior high and high school settings. Results of qualitative
analysis yielded a variety of common
themes which were classified
into four primary response categories:
Student
Communicative
Competence,
Barriers of AAC
Use. Results may help
Use, Instructional
Benefits of AAC Use, and Facilitators
of AAC
establish effective AAC teaming practices.
professionals
The
with
Individuals
Act
(IDEA)
that
assistive
for each
of
Disabilities
[P.
Education
for
such
(Abledata,
nents,
Education
ation
requires
considered
tant
during
3(1)].
devices
consideration
be
(IEP)
2201,
(AAC)
is an "integrated
group
the symbols,
aids,
including
and
used
techniques
hance
communication"
by
serve
planning
Of the
tion
is widely
and
mandated
availteams
systems.
havand
An
of compo-
strategies,
to enindividuals
(American
who
families
one
system
sionals
Speech-
Association,
1991,
Language-Hearing
p. 10).
in IEP
AAC
considered
systems
commonly
include
both low-tech
planning
(e.g., commur
.
,
\ .
nication
boards
and
and
notebooks)
high
__
.
. . ,
.
, . .
,
tech (electronic)
devices.
Of particular
impor. .
. . _ . \
.
tance
are a range
of electronic
AAC
devices
?
.
that use synthetic
or digitized
speech
output,
....
.........
with disabilities
to commuchildren
allowing
.i
r
.1 a- a
-fL their families
r
i in
with individuals
mcate
with
,
,
i
and community
school
settings.
Ii
i
, j
j
T .i
since the
In the past decade,
and especially
and its AT 'considerreauthorization
of IDEA
identify,
2000;
and
Mirenda,
speech-language
cally
who
and
systems
Mirenda,
1998;
Prelock
2001;
Goetz>
of Speech
Pathology
IL
Box 4720, Normal,
ogy, Campus
Email: rlbaile@ilstu.edu
Teachers
1999;
and
are
(SLPs)
typi
of decision-making
AAC
implementing
&
(eukelman
Huer,
& Brotherson,
Hunt
MuUer
constituency
also
&
includes
mher
who
have
re
education
professionals
_ r
ij
*
ri_ i
chil
tor
for
sponsibility
making
adaptations
,
,
,
,
,
the general
education
dren as they access
cur
..
A A^
>
i_
a a^
their AAC
ncula
AAC
or implement
using
.
..
.
.
.
,
in
classroom
device
settings
(Amencan
.
,
. .
, _
, _ _H
1997
Association,
Speech-Language-Hearing
_
n
Parette
8c
Marr, 1997).
2004;
;
to lack
related
Unfortunately, 7 the realities
time
con
of funding 0 availability 7 for AAC,
straints
on
the
Brotherson,
.
.
ning6 issues,
and Audiol-
more
61790-4710.
smaller
man
Huer,
schools
effectively
numbers
& Mirenda,
inherent
cultural
and
&
(and
fami
in being
sensi
of P^sonnel
Part
issues
tive to family
sity, Department
(Beigel,
1992).
SotQ
200Q.
Team
2001)
lies) , logistical
AAC
devices
Parette,
practice
effectively
& Nickels,
and
individual
best
Lahm
members
consider
and
collabora
most
pathologists
important
teams
to
implement
1999;
impor
profes
Team
as
IDEA
by
an
with disabilities
2001).
acknowledged
secure,
&
become
for education
children
(Foley,
Downing,
Locke
has
issue
pressing
their
currently
by IEP
AAC
mandate,'
and
Individ-
of devices
category
is augmentative
importance
n.d.),
ing particular
communication
alternative
AAC
105-17]
Program
U.S.C.
[29
processes
more
than 26,000
AT
able
L.
(AT)
technology
with a disability
child
ualized
1997
nuances
(Parette,
'economize'
of team
1998).
by
employing
members
(Beukel
Smaller
AAC Team
teams
Perceptions
might
139
education
of a special
teacher,
SLP,
AAC
the potential
education
teacher,
user, and the user's
family members.
consist
general
device
to have
levels,
skills
of AAC
Responsibilities
of stu-
use
of AAC
the
academic
AAC
tance
in planning
must
be
tors
taken
motor,
including
and
perceptual
Mirenda,
consideration
into
sensory,
&
(Beukelman
cognitive,
abilities
language,
1998;
teams
ever,
assessments
ily, cultural,
to selection
appropriate
et al.,
Parette
1997b;
(Huer,
Parette,
AAC
of
To
1999).
assist
&
Biervliet
2001;
teams
devices
in making
apvarious
decisions,
decision-making
propriate
have been described
that have apframeworks
to
AAC
and imeffective
plicability
planning
plementation
Mirenda,
nen
processes
Costello
1998;
& DeCoste,
Person
1998;
Stanger,
1995;
bala,
1998).
vides
AAC
Each
of
with
these
approaches
proinformation
necessary
AAC
systems and de-
to identify appropriate
with disabilities.
vices for children
an AAC
Once
a child,
roles
team
and
has
device
members
may
(American
responsibilities
Association,
Language-Hearing
& Mirenda,
2000; Locke
1992;
1997;
Prelock,
Huer
2000).
four
professional
of AAC;
practice
for
acquired
assume
diverse
been
roles
Ehren,
1999;
Parette
(1997a)
often
Speech& Marr,
discussed
observed
trainer/educator;
in the
expert/
collaborator.
and
prescriptive;
negotiator;
These
both to SLPs
responsibilities
apply
to teachers
use
AAC
literature
during
serving
devices.
who
need
and
and/or
the professional
Typically,
focused
on team
participation
the assessment
&
(Beukelman
process
has
Mirenda,
while
children
1998;
fewer
Tanchak
researchers
&
have
Sawyer,
focused
1995)
on
im-
of AAC
use in middle
and secplementation
education
ondary
settings
(e.g., Gray, 1995).
Given
the complexity
of AAC implementait is important
for all team
members,
teachers
who
are typically
the priespecially
tion,
140
Education
and Training
in Developmental
social
Kraat,
with
collaborate
about
decisions
devices
AAC
than
as
ban,
2001).
panacea,
an
&
to make
A Challenge
some
to Teachers
with
or
a Western
both
then,
sometimes
teachers
believe
will
with
system
communication
ately
and
McMahan,
However,
efficient
Cu
make
with dis
Biervliet
evolve
that
system
that can be fixed
value
European
as something
disability
treated
(Hanson,
1997).
may
AAC
&
(Woodward
as a
is, it may be perceived
cure-all
for the communication
That
demonstrated
challenges
by children
abilities
1996; Parette,
1998;
(Angelo,
8c Parette,
Such
1999).
perceptions
logic,
2001).
regard AAC as a
disabilities
rather
teachers
accommodation
1992)
primary
in AAC
& Goetz,
Hunt,
students
Jorgensen,
Mirenda,
contained
messages
Participation:
Unfortunately,
treatment for
&
SLPs
Muller,
(Soto,
of school
demands
Locke
or
Za-
1986;
and
1987;
views
& Karlan,
activities.
education
Special
and facilitate
student
support
devices
that enable
them to meet
1991;
&
Wolf,
and
Calculator
from
Technology
and
knowledge
across
education
necessary
AAC
use
1998;
and
systems and de
education
secondary
(Calculator,
for Matching
Reed
&
2004;
Assistive
Yorkston
teams
Glen-
1994;
Stemach,
Williams,
Wisconsin
1998;
&
Institute
Technology,
Bowser,
Initiative,
& Shane,
1997;
and
Beukelman
(cf.
and
often
teachers
is of paramount
imporfacprocesses.
Many student
Conducting
thorough
dents with disabilities
the
to facilitate
environments
Teams
of AAC
this
Following
members
and
family
that acquisition
of an
it possible
for a child
disabilities
to immedi
communicate
&
(Parette
effectively
Biervliet
& Parette,
2002;
1999).
this is seldom
the case.
Effective
and
use
of AAC
communi
Soto
et al.,
2001).
Training
Challenge
for Education
Professionals
school
Today's
systems place
many demands
on education
at the middle
and
professionals
levels.
secondary
and/or
and
special
professionals
in
AAC
roles
and
decision-making
may not have been
integration
vice university
many
Training
AAC
garding
SLPs
training
Disabilities-June
who
education
must
processes.
education
and
part of preser
curricula
for
later
Often,
report
inadequate
for providing
optimal
2006
re
classroom
play pivotal
teachers
knowledge
AAC inter
ventions
after
assessment
& Mirenda,
(Locke
liet,
1990).
and
SLPs
While
are
and/or
not
always
education
special
for
teachers
maximized
within
leadership
been
clear.
education
Special
ones who
teachers
teams,
participateams has
these
and
as case
SLPs
are the
first-hand
the barriers
to
experience
are
also
the
ones
who
can
best
They
use.
identify facilitators
tion teachers'
and
and
of AAC
has
in AAC
educa-
Special
on facilperspectives
of AAC device use are vital
practices
of AAC
plementation
While
much
use.
SLPs'
barriers
to improving
issues
place
& VanBierv-
often
processes
tion
itators
taken
to serve
expected
or members
of educational
managers
effective
AAC
has
Parette
1992;
been
related
to effective
devices
in the
written
service
about
cifically about
decision-making
regarding
cific skills to be taught
to middle
and
school
students
1999;
(Apel,
McLeod,
Reed,
&
1999;
spehigh
Swank,
Apel
& McAllister,
1999),
written
in
implementation
rela-
teacher percepmiddle
and
about
school
Such
understandsettings
(Apel).
teacher
AAC
perspectives
regarding
issues
seems
warranted
if
implementation
high
in effective
are to participate
and value the perspectives
AAC decision-making
of others involved
in such decision-making.
all team
This
members
was
study
perceptions
regarding
vices
for
school
designed
of special
to elicit
and
management
in junior
students
classrooms.
to the
use
use
high
fill and
unsuccessful
high
characteris-
or act
devices
as bar-
in school
across
agement,
perceived
AAC device
use, and
de-
and
collaborations
Interviews
tings were investigated.
of special
to determine
perceptions
the primary role of AAC
regarding
implementation
exam-
teachers
of AAC
Additionally,
of AAC
and
education
and family
ties of professional
facilitate
that might potentially
riers
school
secondary
Huberman
have
(1994)
Miles
students).
and
identified
of
strengths
research
as (a) occurring
in natural
qualitative
which
the possibility
of un
settings,
expands
nonobvious
issues;
(b)
derstanding
allowing
for holistic,
(c)
and
and
complex
findings;
lived experiences
of par
methodol
By employing
qualitative
rich,
on
focusing
the
ticipants.
and underlying
issues are
ogy, the complexity
often brought
to the forefront
of discussion.
The method
in this investigation
used
was
the collective
case
Collective
more
than
one
phenomenon,
tion"
(p. 437).
study as described
by Stake
case study involves
study of
case in order to "investigate
a
or
population,
This
approach
a number
investigating
better comprehension
Miles
and
of collective
the
"precision,
findings"
of cases
and
Huberman
use
(p.
will
lead
to
better
theorizing.
contended
that
(1994)
case
condi
general
assumes
that
study design
strengthens
and
of the
stability
validity,
29).
of
ing
ine
and
(2000).
teaming
more spe-
and,
delivery
im-
schools.
and examine
the perceptions
of class
explore
room AAC team members
the
man
regarding
and
use
of
AAC
devices
with
middle
agement
settings,
barriers
and
set-
were
used
educators
device
device
characteristics
use,
of
of success-
collaborations.
Qualitative
as an
gether
elusive
AAC
team
classrooms
district
in
multiple
the
in individual
within
Midwest.
students
All
with
large
in
and
school
had
participants
moderate-severe
disabilities
who were identi
multiple
in Table
1 are
fied as users of AAC. Presented
and/or
characteristics,
demographic
participant
users
in the participants'
classrooms
AAC
used
AAC
a variety of both high- and low-tech
used sin
and devices.
Some
routinely
and
visual
switches,
message
strategies,
gle
OUtpUt'
Method
Research
systems
man-
facilitators
_.
fartiavants
Setting
Design
methodology
investigation
the
meeting
because
purpose
was
selected
for this
of its appropriateness
of this study
(i.e.,
The
in
school
study
and
to
nois
public
was
completed
high
school
at
a junior
high
school
AAC Team
Perceptions
141
5/3
CO
v
J
'5b
'So
ey X!
U
<n'
3"
5
.g
"i
i
-Si
2S 20 23
CO
cu
Oh
x
A
*r*_
bC 3ij
< .SP
*t
3 X 0O
3
"/>
co
'S
5 c/
V
V
CJ
co" U 'O
V 3 >
S <U
2 -0
"O o
>
"5^e! fi
1bS3 3J
Q- <D
_ o
S
tl
15 3 u
co
u 0 A3
<u -G
u
JB .2 CJ
a
"be
be o fi
a
0
.sG 1> 2
"co
" C
c j;A3
OJ *J
fl
-0 H
<V
3 Si
S3
1S
o3 CJ
et
u co
co
jy U CU
CJ
Ho.-3'g
*2
'*3 <
2
s3co
"0
W)
33
S
1:
<3
co
1/3
v
S
'3d
'5b
^
^ "5
I '>
3
"co
__ (
"et
* CJ
2
fi
3 -p
cS
CO
?
"5 |<u
-0
c
c/T_
-C
<L>A3
A3
J! CJ
dJ
V
J
_ 2
*S A3
i
be
1is |d
_ A3
A
>g .
<U
^,H
CJ
u
Ji ?
V
"So
be UJ
bJ
T3
cC T5
"co
C 3
fi
TJ ^OJ Q a
C
e u
a ?fi
rt CJ
et
u 5
co 0
CJ OJ
3.
fi CJ
a.SS
2 3 '0o
fi
^V3> >
sS
Is
1/3 .. co
co
C/l
g
8
_y w
5 *G
"Sb fi
'3d
fi *'
oj 2"1
'I
G 5
^ fi
tt
15
H O
0 03
et
3
fi
^co <u 05- ~-><
id
_, aj
(,
CJ
=
"et
* -s 8 CL
'09
fi
3
m > ec f
CO
3
<u 5
'5 V
5
o
u S O
. -a U
r,
Cm
C W
-.
U
n
m "fi
co
2i_ U
u
D 0
ifl .<J
<
o 0
A3
^ CJ
u _->
O
_fi
"ft
U
CJ
dj
S
_ <D
u u >
'5^3-rj
1^
o|
'> r
1j '1
>^S-So
co
<U 1 s
u
CJ
c
jj
? U
s U
u
n CJ
bo <
"3d
u n
o
"O J,
G "fi
J:
's cC .2
'co
>2 1?
c
"rtbJ^N
"O u
C
e 2
-c :S
H ja
3
et
c^u^hc
u t :ge
co
u
"fi
aaui!
fi3
5
SB-SPe
co A3 et
fi
Gc/3-,C<C^
2
2
I|
51
I s ? s
fe
VJ _
co
&
1,3 ~ co
!>r
1,3
cn
co _
r*-l
~ co
CS>
C/)
w 12
~ 5
58
_o;
.2 <-*
.2
.2
.S *-T cO
.2
.2
.Sg'J
'G
'5b 3 *g
"5b G
'5b
3
'5b
5b 3 n
a
<u
u
aj o-1
;g
Gb
'G
.g2"
2 G
2
aS"-3
G lo
rt
r 3G 5
c3 fi
o3
et
n 3G 'hn
03
^o
S
15
'5b
u
et
O 03
0
td
0 ;G
AD
5
J O o3
Ort
2u O
3
C a
J
<"1uS-ji!u9-""ij~
^ G
~^<u-4J^<u-w^oj^
< 11 <j
fi ^ G
^ ^ <u
t) 03
^
u
U
<J
U 5.
3
.2 3
.2
.y
n* *S
"c3
n
^
-3
-S
CL
a G
g_
a G -s =a
r; g.
39cS"32c*^39c
<z >2 hj
c/3'i*b3c'3^'b3</1'>b
Sgcfggcgggc
G -<z> u
o G
3 -H
-p
<D
V
0
0
U
>>OJojfi**'OJojfi'>OJOj
'Sub"
"V
-\
U< <u
->
-. -\' ti
Sh u
o t.
-
.XI
">
c/T
CJ
cofi(j0JcOi_iej0Jcot.c)
"S c u T
(U 'w'
y Si
0
A3 r
UPA3 'O
'oO^ CJ u
Uj-O-C
-G 1 J3
U
CJ
<U A3
CJ > <J
_
o
_
2 CJ
fi "fi
G "fi
fi
"0 1
5^^T3"5W-^T3'5:^=3
T3 1
< 1co pC
V 1VD
<u
3 D
s 20 "O
i-SS^K'SSlK'SSS
*>r^'S1
'>
r- "2
g
g ID
U< <
A3 2
g:
A3
"J
ID ' r- S*
1j
1
'5
0 > co
0 >
S^o^'SoS^'SS
5
o
CJ
a
CJ
<3J
1)
8
uS "5
.2
Ji 8 '5 o
JU
1 st
? <u
<u
<U
t
u 1'?
U
o
u
b
5
CO Vm
t Cm
co
A*
JB '5> <U
^ '
V> OJ.y
jj
?
> (U
a;
8 U
S Im
OJ
u
u
U
W u
"So CU
*5b
"3d
beOJejobeOJejobeOJej
CJ 0 "3d
CJ 0 _
bCdJcjobiD'UcjQboiJw
"C " ^
T3
"
G
C -0
cC 73
^ '
sC -O '
^"fi
S
T3 .2
*G "co
g *
*co
'a
"g
<u "fi
<l)
a V3 C T3
<u
- "fi N "0
s- "fi OJ
" "0
N
w V
w .,
13
-aU~NT3t)~NTjU~U
"O
-fi
"fi ec 4J -C
'G
"fi sG
b
A3 G
C
Sjs?A3
CJ'3d
o '3d et 23?
CJ
ac;^:=cs.c:sc;j=-
03 S^J
O
U
f^ut-,hcc<JoUhrc^()(j;
'So et
]So
C/3
co
3 *3 Ji
2
3
QJ
OJ
(J -G *o JJ
u
"a
AZ-fi
'G A3
U-S A3
0.%
'fi
-a
t3 3.
T3 Sfi
bf) cfi
-BP
.SP
.BP^fi
e 3 3 _be
= 3 5 4
,P,
G
fi
2 395 le
et
Cfl
^G
A3
03
et
3
3rt3.firt29iC
3fi
3
Ss
2
S
S
1-sI 3i
Il'Ifils
"u^gls^gls's
3 3 f e 2 3 f c 2 f
o
3
O
III
III
fi
|<|
CO
^3--s
<3
^ 3Q
*-I
o is
fc CO
0
G O
o
fi 0
*G
(U 0
OJ
cG A3
G?
CJ
u
cn
'3
'S C/5
cC A3
0 X3
be
u
V
efi
2
3
13
C/5
C/!
<U 0
JG
be> G'32cG A3
U
u
cn
C/5
J
cG x:
_c
0
be
8 ">
V
CjH
1 SS3
3G
C/0
C/5
u.
fi
OJ
C
'3
fi
0 2
y c
cA
1
3
C/5
-o -c
ojbo
Cm
=
E e
aj 5,
^
u A
^
Se .2
=,
o"x
tibe
Cm
s
le
.2
Se
C/0
>
o h
C/0
.So
2^'5
slill
Ol
lil.il
lllgtl
lie
Iii5 -8 I'IIi _ a<5
.8
5
3c 1st
slQ.2 I;
ll-alss
Ss-S
ll-glll
X3
i0 -|1
sil E ja-|gs|lfl|^|
s O
Ifrlfii
n
5
ecu-o
llMli
8
5
e/2'33 f) t! Oh
a) ^ 2 1J h ^ fi ^3 A Ch fi
* 2
-SiioSBsO
S. 2
S
Is
C
O HM
1111
||||SS!SaI?i.
T
rt2"O
1
"JH& g
3
g
i u
8
ss
^I
h
HQS
s a o OJ
bo ^Ph o
Q
'5 <U
V
i H
S
.y
,g e2
-c
-2
2 8g|
^o
a .o
1"
" o
> <r>
C Ai
di
a;
< 3
O -L
A3
2
p
.be
f~l
lb3 |
S
"3 3
3
B
Characteristics
illil^lllliii
^rfujusiu.auiG^Ou
<S
E
T3 .
C o -= O
.2 .60 g
rt
!.&
-o 5 a
u 3,
8
1^1
"C --"
C
.S
= a;
2 ^c u
^ -s O &
!*
3 j= o .=f
3x81
g
j= tj
8S "D
T3 ,P
.5P-c
o<u .s se di ^
a.SIc^
e/0
3c3 OJ
dJ
fi
C .>>
.20 'fi
'Sco
3
^ C
'3d 'S
g
oj
z
fi 43
t+M C4M
0
3
u 0
c c
c
5 .2
E - _
? fi OJ
o ^0
OJ
3 rrt3o 'gOJ""fi*o
nga-CC^oU
fi. fi c >
X
S \p
CJ3
0 co
D
^fi
U h H ^2
<
jj U
s#i
Sil ^cs
ii
'Sis
bI8S1
-gli!t?| s
g 8 8.1J11
liiv
Is?
llJllail
0
^I^
Ct
s *c
-y
2 H
2
Si S.J
Si."O
- -a
&
c2o>'
x .a ^o)
< ni
u
5>-*
S
> *n
G D W
w
"C
e
i_
-C
x
S
i
-rt
^"
<i>12
v
bp
&p
^ ?2 *5
^s "fH
"E
CD
10
o
|H
CM
-g | S ^
be
fee 8
. S
-P '
^
I I"
*
" tj
fej
Demographic
S
(j
C
iq
CM
i>
cp
II
TABLE
Participant
142
Education
g
s
rt3
a
1
l\
i*
y g
I
A3
va
1)
g
03
et
O-i
a-
and Training
et
aJ
W
C3
r<
fi
Ct
hJ
J
in Developmental
03
Ct
(j
y
*C
'u
W
w
^
-*
M
.9
>J>
Disabilities-June
>.
3U
^A
S
2006
_
^
Oh
cated
within
a town
of approximately
ware
45,000
with
students
10,500
approximately
Of this
up the district's
population.
students
re1,500
approximately
people,
making
number,
ceived
education
special
All participants
room
were
and
related
interviewed
services.
made
room
settings. Follow-up
questions
of findings were completed
checking
interview
Data
and
Once
interviews
multiple
in their class-
Additional
observations
settings.
of all participants
within their school
Nvivo
offered
an
program.
of managing
the large amount
from the interviews,
resulting
coding
used
class-
members
of the research
of interviews
by phone
settings.
that
had
were
IEPs
and
observa-
interviews,
of documentation
communication
as a printout
sion,
deletion
refinement,
notebooks)
and messages
vocabulary
the high-tech
devices.
Sewere drawn from a
questions
into
interview
framework
of
used
in a previous
questions
and
modified
for use
in the
investigation
school
setting
(cf. Parette
et al.,
2000).
of each
across
(c)
settings,
fessionals
to AAC
stress
and
to AAC
device
of and
barriers
questions
to align
ever,
use
terviewers
by profamilies,
time management
issues related
benefits
use, and (e) perceived
to AAC
refined
were
with
supports
provided
device
users
and
device
by the
use.
team
emerging
team
members
reinterviews,
conducting
ceived
in skills related
to conducting
training
a thorough
and culturally
sensitive
qualitative
interview.
with watching
This training
a
began
that
demonstrated
techniques
that
had
viewing
been
interused
in
et al., 2001).
(Parette
previous
investigation
Next the research
team completed
inmock
terviews
verbal
and
shared
feedback
to one
another.
mock
were
When
were
all
interview/training
contacted
interviews
entered
and
were
into
meetings
add,
to
times
refine,
This
method
categories.
of
and
con
emergence
specific
the
common
to sets of cases. Use of
patterns
this method
a rich description
of the
yielded
of classroom
AAC team members
perceptions
who
worked
The
research
out
the course
ual
and
with children
team
AAC
using
devices,
met
consistently
through
of the study to confirm
individ
cross-case
of findings.
analysis
Major
are
categories
(see
display
in
represented
1). This
Figure
lead
to the
of categories
of meaning
that fit the
not the researchers'
ideas
preconceived
(Merriam,
1998).
Confirmability
refers to the determination
of
Confirmability
of the findings
or credibility
through
This study used several
specific
strategies.
ap
accuracy
(a)
proaches:
cally
review
triangulation
document
of AAC
devices,
process,
participants
All
interviews
scheduled.
research
team
had
records,
AAC
devices
transcribed,
audio-taped,
a qualitative
data
Nvivo,
data,
review,
ideas
or concepts.
and
sages,
and
some
soft-
tween
the
school
access
In
this
specifi
and
a
and
vocabulary,
validation;
(b)
sages;
respondent
member
checking.
Triangulation
of available
plished
by a review
confirm
with
of
observations,
the
satisfied
then developed
members.
Team
delete
and/or
allowed
interpreta
themes
to questions
(see Appenclarify responses
dix A for a list of interview
Prior to
questions).
of interviews
were
categories
team
by research
were
held
several
cases
data,
the
freedom
Thematic
across
set were
"encouraged
the researchers
1116).
(p.
graphic
creation
and
video
tions"
data
provided
for alternative
"opportunities
thematic
Interview
research
and
process
in expan
of codes.
crete
Ques-
(d)
with
resulted
and/or
thoroughness"
(e.g.,
as well
coded
previously
were
Discrepancies
until concordance
of AAC
programmed
lected
from
review
by
team member.
by another
discussed
at team meetings
was reached.
This process
elements
Consequently,
coded.
This
collected
and
of data
Specifically,
coded
sections
team
been
of data
line-by-line,
check
the
coding
multiply
tions,
to cross
and interpretation
strategies
researchers
(Barbour,
2001).
Collection
Data
coded
were
was
were
member
efficient
means
mes
and
was
artifacts
school
mes
prerecorded
of the written exchanges
AAC Team
to
the
study,
to students'
and
staff and
(c)
accom
be
family/guardians,
Perceptions
143
1. Key interview
Figure
was used
mation
arose
that
major themes
For example,
of interviews.
to confirm
from analysis
in
the
observations
teacher
reports
of
infor-
This
notebooks.
as communication
such
confirmed
classroom
of specific
device
usage,
imple-
intervention
procespecific
and duwith portability
dures, and difficulties
was
validation
Respondent
rability of devices.
the
by presenting
participants
accomplished
mentation
to
this
volved
offering
direct
quotations
the
manuscript
pant's
approval
review
study,
for
to further
Member
check
an
participants
materials
member
participants
used in the
and
used
of
intheir
copy
final version
144
Education
of
each
obtaining
particiindividual
use
of their
quotes.
and Training
in Developmental
Findings
A variet>'
1116 data'
of common
These
four
primary
Communicative
Use>
contains
tion
categories.
Barriers
Competence,
Benefits
Use.
subcategories.
of the four
is depicted
categories
Thgm 0ng.
Team
maJor
Studmt
members
communicative
of AAC
Each
visual
and
in Figure
1.
Communicative
that
into
Student
of AAC
Use,
of these
themes
suggested
from
emerSed
classified
were
response
of AAC
Facilitators
themes
themes
Instructional
dent
(Janesick,
checking
findings.
and
themes
representa
their sub~
Competence
increased
competence
students'
use
was
stu
demon
of the AAC
through
and systems in functional
communica
with multiple
communication
tion exchanges
Several
AAC
team
members
sug
partners.
strated
devices
gested
cative
Disabilities-June
2006
communi
with dem
onstration
Most
of value
team
or ownership
members
expressed
had
the effect
ownership
AAC users'
interest
in expanding
devices
with a greater
number
ers'
members
was
partners
creased
indicated
choice
AAC
us-
of increasing
use of AAC
as
to
reciprocal
with AAC device
competence
AAC
users
demonstrated
ten,
because
that
'can
device
"Like
the device
we went
to me and
owner-
menu
gesture
in here."
and
need
this
team
toward
gesture
towards
This
the
reflected
member's
device
AAC
sage
tion
the set up
...
I
person
both
the
to be flexible
due
partners.
In
driven
flexibility
to changes
this school
message
changes
led to increased
functional
and
This
a variety
with
partners.
team
member
user
seemed
of like,
I think,
see
can
they
a difference
such
don't
them
see
on
it just
makes
with
often
This
partners.
began
use as an
effective
students
device
experiencing
tool in functional
communication
uations.
The
reflected
feel
just
and
other
sitis
of this realization
importance
in Lana's
statement:
better
before
that
they
didn't."
they
"I think
now
have
Patti
the kids
a voice
provided
an-
example:
Connor
ever,
saying.
one
So
his
(real)
using
can understand
what
I tend
to do
voice.
a word
with
Howhe's
Connor,
are
so''
say,
himself
and
in
Crested
il ofFered
for them
he
to interact
more
Mth
it
(AAC
PPortu
Mex'
If he
or answering
he was trying
lean over and
to sa>' another
student
would
him'
the PubIic
and
the
tr? to helP
,And
I think people
are just inter
community
ested in devices.
m which
users
demonstrated
fek dm
[eachers
aaC
increaSed
[heir
in
competence
occurred
when
devices
they
care of
became
in the physical
independent
individual
devices.
team mem
Multiple
the
of
emphasized
importance
indepen
their
bers
in
dence
increased
scribed
device
care
kids
that
shows
wipe
and
then
to clean
Patti
are
de
taught:
his own
touch
out
screen
of calibra
sometimes,
users
on
ex
over there
flip book
to wipe it with a wet
it and
it. I m
charge
it goes
suggested
as the initiators
as
exchanges
communicative
commented
how
skills
to
leading
Lana
devices."
interviewees
of AAC
increased
ability
how
dry
to do
very quickly
Several
these
because
calibration
tance
own
a little
them
Mike
teaching
hon
how
have
device.
the students
of their
in detail
The
as
management
of the
ownership
"We teach
nication
loves
no
and
plained,
and take
in
team members
a change
Multiple
perceived
AAC
with
users'
communicative
competence
AAC
that influenced
future interactions
with
communication
students
nities
and
gets their
think they're
and when they
better,
bus
to im-
a kid who
You
I'll
a perfect example.
We had
assistant
this morning
when
studentsetting,
and
teacher/SLP
of AAC
he
does,
then
[device
your
And
always does.
out.
device)
in communica-
responsiveness
to use and
ability and desire
pact AAC users'
demonstrate
of the device.
Kathy
ownership
reflected '
It's kind
ther
of communication
combination
and
with
also
increased
communica
Vicky
suggested
hon opportunities
with peers and community
members:
for both
potential
communication
individualized
with
exchanges
he
me
pulled
up his page, and introduced
as Connor.
No prompt,
nothing,
told her where we were going,
willingness
and
content
and
the
programming
user's
role in the device's
meschanging
content
his voice
tell
here's
his
respect
he'll
answer
basically
voice.
So
And Connor,
instead
of trying
to say his name
with his voice, he knew that
she was not going
to understand.
So he
went
to his
[device
name],
immediately
Of-
if there's
a person
in
Danny,
not in the device,
he'll
take
that's
with
and
to
his
also
you
name]?'
want
use
like today,
a different
in-
use.
I
to
sometimes
of peers
and
at large. Increases
of communication
of the community
use with a variety
in device
of the device.
another
the
impor
of commu
indicator
competence.
the importance
of AAC
to independently
express
AAC Team
of
Lana
users'
themselves:
Perceptions
145
able
Being
it's so nice
to make
when
. . .
statements
protest
the kids
start
it is alright
that I say no.'
in conversa
to see kids start engaging
kid using
AAC
to antionsone
talking
'Oh,
that he could
partner
realizing,
And it's so
ask that.
to generalize
could
possibly
Team
also
He
knew
the
it; he knew
be.
neat
other
The
school
that
the
tion
must
in particular,
stressed
(Mary),
of the initiator
of communicain order
be taught
She
competence.
changes
not a teacher
and
that stands
they respond.
they respond.
become
active
Instead,
have
might
now
takes
probably
them initiate.
so my whole
has
munication
ate,
remember
me
that's
what
somebody
Along
with
cation,
Lana
cess
make
forget
these
[device
name]
them
them
they're
taught.
. . . people
things. You
people
to teach
expect
to initi-
of teaching
com...
to
you have
changed
device
doesn't
what
I sit and
25. Because
concept
the
activity
before
minutes
communicators-it's
And
tures,
an
So,
participants.
15
taken
that
in front
to do
[SLP
name]
tines
with
does
the
these
kids.
communication
weekends.
that,
she
teaches
the
use
other
of visual
haye
WQrked
Theme
Two:
Three
major
categories
of AAC
device
for
Team
their
to
Barriers
time
neatest
this
(setparticular
on the bus
sitting
he felt I was
146
a safe
Education
thing
when
he said
that.
to see
it click,
that
enough
and Training
communication
in Developmental
[dc.
k (Q sa>.
to AAC
Use
emerged
use. These
AAC
constraints,
and
Device
incongruence
as
primary
categories
device-specific
with parents,
members
that
time
con
suggested
AAC
device
use. Re
optimal
time constraints
were pri
sponses
involving
divided
into
two
distinct
areas:
time for
marily
collaboration
and time for programming
AAC
straints
getting
ready to go out to the community
and I'm sitting next to one of my students
with an AAC
device.
He
says, '[Teacher
what did you do last night?'
And I
name],
the
use
tried
limited
devices.
and/or
to his
overlay
actuaUy
tQ gQ Q the bathrooni(
Fm hung,7;
or
to go to the rocking
chak>.
and
that
for him
better
than
the others
we
j want
to generalize
It was
an
he WQuld
with
about
gave
user:
and
laboration
day,
she
device
S() we added
name]
limitations
One
cues
AAC
Qn book
mentioned
ting).
or verbal
a specifk
about
like
'what
did you do last
questions
what
did
who
were you with?'
night,
you eat,
and we really thought,
oh this is not going
past
we're
of pic
ring
to communicate,
ask
out
means
to be very aggressive
when express
or if he had to go to the
hungry
He wasn't
his communica
using
limitations,
kids
a communica
have
it's a device,
ing he was
bathroom.
included
about
exchanges
In
lhc
the
roureally scripted
of them
involves
One
than
an example
John used
of
SLP
who
the behavior
they
just really drops off because
finay haye a way t() tell us what they want
de
Erka>s
comments
that AAC
suggested
student
behavior
yice use improved
even more
barriers
in this example:
generalization
promoting
system,
or some
in ob-
and
students
of
it.
for teaching
communi
the generalization
pro-
strategies
discussed
that AAC
suggested
effect on AAC users
a positive
whether
tion
suggested,
had
that
found
com-
it
teacher
truly a communication
the whole
You're
way you teach.
If you're
make
to facilitate
members
use
tell
behavior.
When
Kathy noted,
they can't
you, 'I want a drink, I'm thirsty, I feel sick' . . .
... We have
that's what makes them frustrated
SLP
role
municative
tions
and
a question
seeing
device
Time
the
constraints.
families
value
Several
team
related
members
to time
other
school
of AAC
users.
for col
professionals
Patti discussed
of consistent
with team
meetings
stating, "We'll follow up
with parents
and have team meetings.
I have
and so the communication
really great parents
is good
between
home
and school.
The meet
members
ings
time
and
families
are
critical."
and
collaboration
needs
as a barrier
to AAC
planning
Disabilities-June
Lana
mentioned
2006
related
device
additional
to lesson
use:
But
then
you're
because
also
you
have
to
the device
putting
not going
for devices
they're
address
in the lesson
how
device
plan
and
to be used
if peoI'm
used.
to be
ple don't
plan
AAC regardwriting how I'm incorporating
less of the type of device.
It's always written
into
the lesson
You've
plan.
got to plan
that. . .1 think you have
to have
a closer
abilities,
their
setting obstacles.
with students
across
Team
ualized
AAC
users
AAC
devices
AAC
school
or
to make
sure
that
the AAC
when
(device)
they're
using
they
are seeing
the kids. . .So you've
got to have
So that
time to make
work.
relationships
is used
sure the device
reyou're
making
gardless
Lana
the
that
suggested
added
requirements
time
additional
to her stress
as a teacher.
,
stress because
that it increases
What
always thinking,
Did I miss something?
you
I program
could
re
in?
Is there
something
else that the child wants to say? Is this the
best vocabulary?
Is this the vocabulary
that I
be
should
in this
using
environ-
particular
ment?'
was
use.
an
that
something
mentioned
Often,
Mary
time
as a barrier
teacher
during
he
needs
,
when111 say,
'
it in
really
,
,
who
people
i
...
t
h
hp
I
cciiri
I
like
said,
this in real
to say, 'I need
just have
. r , .
,
,
, , .
, ., r,
.
And so they 11 do it while I m teachquick.
.
.
.
,
,
,
ing and I know I m going to get to that in a
ti. r
i
.
a
. . . We ve also taken it home
few minutes
.
.
,
,
,
home
a lot, especially
lot. I ve taken devices
1T
,
I took
Patti and
when
we first got them.
.
,
,
.
,
on end.
home
for hours
devices
you
device-specific
egory
included
of barriers
users,
and
problems
settings.
device
portability
and
quirements
with
worked
a variety of settings
in
and
self-contained
class
the
and
device
environments
in
which
were
used.
Lana
systems
that she
use
into
an
faced
integrating
inclusive
middle
setting:
s much
in an
easier
elementary
building.
to integrate.
Because
the classes
are different
at the secondary
level. They've
from a half-hour
to 47
gone
much
Much,
easier
format
and they're
mostly lecture
that is a variable
to how much
aug
is going
on (in
mentative
communication
specific
A second
limitations.
to AAC
ted.
So
that
type
use
to
that
AAC
devices,
opportunities
and variability
devices,
more
re-
training
in AAC
and
more
the student
more
understand
what
an
how
involved
makes
the device
because
they can
sometimes
a page
or
the
conver.
wam
to
and
then
they
say
lhen thads hard
sation
has passed
^
it takes
a while
what
Other
team
members
due
to portability
with
experienced
talked
and
about
limita
durability
prob
devices.
Mary
break
all the
"The
name's]
stated,
[device
.
'
.
,
i ,
,
I think they need
to
Ume.
Kathy suggested,
00
.
.
/,
,hinfr
,hol Tirol...
,
Tin
t
b
crrrYinf
f
rr
n
o
looc
icn
that weighs less, isn't t*
come up with something
to
not
as cumbersome.
They're
practical
carry
.
,
.....
, ,.
,
You know
those
around,
big Ldevice
name].
they weigh like 15 pounds."
,
...
,
,.
,
r
and lack ot oppor
Increased
needs
training
. .
. .
,
,
tumties for training for some of the high-tech
. . _
.
,.
as a barner
to AAC
was also suggested
devices
_
. , ,
.
,
members
with less expen
device
use. Team
. . _
,
, _
,
,
.
related
to AAC
ence
and formal
coursework
.
, r
,
need for
to express
device
use tended
greater
.
. ,
.
. .
some
team
certain
devices,
with
training
manuals
device
members
taking
reported
in order
Incongruence
to
from
difficulty
integration
angle
I see
home
emerged
specific
related
These
problems
and durability,
training
for
cat-
of setting).
discussed
Kathy
other
lems
AAC
and
difficulties
(ions
stated,
r .
It Jlust takes a lot of time. We program
.
,
,
s times when
ever we can . . . There
'Patti,
to
of de
programming
rather
than
activity,
ongoing
was finished
time.
planning
member
for programming
requirements
AAC
device
vices
team
every
Nearly
devices,
members
minutes
also
.......
I think
noted
individual
so problems
faced were often individ
to the unique
skills and
of
abilities
rooms,
the
needs
inclusive
eluding
users'
subcategory
by team
parent
to have
time
to read
with parents/guardians.
to AAC use
of barriers
was
members
summed
between
incongruence
parent/guardian
specific
goals
and
AAC Team
them.
A final
reported
as an ap
up
teacher
and
of
expectations
Perceptions
147
AAC
device
tioned
use
use.
Patti
often
effectively
in their
communication
"I
stated,
think
families
have
their
children
without
the aid
stand
tion
use
of the devices
of their AAC
members
were
guardians
AAC
devices
about
Patti
about
parents/
use of the
"They're
an
very tech
comfortable
and
they're
nology
proficient
with their lifestyle the way it is and how much
,
,
,, _,
Others
were perceived
technology
they use.
,
,
,
,.
r ,
ol the
an understanding
as simply
lacking
, r
...
..
AAC device
their potential
tor
or not realizing
.
,
,,
communication
abilities.
improving
Mary
the device
they've
has
for
_
....
,
n
are willing to get them. Parents
are
Parents
....
.
,
.11
but
aren
t
willto
them,
willing
buy
parents
. . . and I don't
at home
ing to use them
say more
actually
While
may not
the dif-
ference
in device
use may also be attributed
to
user
for the
device
differing
expectations
across
school
and
professionals
parents/
"I
mean
guardians.
Kathy explained,
they've
made
it this
communicate
derstand
the
long;
with
at home
them.
student,
so
the
They
why
can
parents
feel they un-
do
this?"
Erica
Qne
Three: Instructional
of the
did.
more
effective
resuk
ofthe
tence
of the
user
users
kss
users
ask
asked
Patti
them
to make
benefits
members
For
example,
more
became
the AAC
of
collld
for
a direct
compe
as the
communicatively
the teachers
device,
need
to
maintain
and
were
close
able
to
that
knowing
conversation
or sim.
intiate
the
how AAC
to
was
the dassTOOm,
throughout
^
j
proximity
moye
team
by
which
was
teaching,
increased
communicative
with
competent
identified
them,
Benefits
instmctional
primaiy
identified
use
realize
or when
.
things.
fifteen
when you're
not here
your home
'
;
,
to work that they' need
a
they' go
it outside
Theme
...
chil
,
be
,
,
they have other
...
,
their students
cause
they ve lived with them at least
_ . ,
;'
years so they feel they can understand
. , ,
/
/
to convince
So it s hard
sometimes
that this is essential
value
think it's maybe
that they don't
it,
the potential
of
realize
maybe
they don't
what could
be said and done.
could
They
it.
having
in agreement:
, . , ,
,
And it s busy' at home,
,
dren,
they understand
noted
and
because
without
were
comments
Kathy's
at home
a nuisanceas
communication
so long
gone
kids
as being
they've
got to do. So it's
to really give it the value
thing
for them
diat
views
not
just
added
harder
of fears
these
expressed
for the
accommodations
they see
to support
unwilling
in the home
because
technology.
one family:
of the
and
as necessary
also
plaine
in the home.
Team
they
members
device
the
devices,
not viewed
like
1116 devices
underparent/guardians
s forms of communica-
was
feel
don't
that implementing
suggested
^
at a >'ounger
aSe maylncrease
Lana
ex
in home
environments.
usage
Team
All interview-
tonight.
you
Spaghettios
ees felt that because
And
so they
gestures.
need
to use it at home,
men-
members
with AAC
non-symbolic
homes.
team
Several
that students
teacher's
use
attention.
has affected
When
her dassroom
stated.
It's dramatic,
My expectations
might be different for their
child
than they have
for their child.
So I
have higher
might
expectations.
see more independence.
I want
using
during
148
his
device
at home
dinnertime,
Education
I want
to see
to
him
to communicate
and Training
in Developmental
We used to have
just dramatic.
of paper
or little books
pieces
that they would
And I would
flip through.
to stand
have
there,
physically.
Proximity
these
was
little
a huge issue.
of another
front
his
desk
Disabilities-June
as
if hitting
Because
I'm
kid
that
and
picture
2006
over
here
in
the
(hitting
doesn't
icon)
mean
anything
we can
much
when
teach,
and
teach
to me.
So
in terms
cover,
how
much
I can
four
I can
tweak
know
whose
this
can
three
the
with devices,
on
pitch
is who and
those
I don't
so
to stand
also
used
the
AAC
devices
as
assume
decode
the
kids
can
read
those
understand
symbols,
are
. . .
[the
they
symbols]
meaning
I wanted
to know if the kids actually
symbols,
what
Well,
knew
those
the
words.
reading
from a symbol
level
them
We
that
came
for the
and
with
up
kids.
they would
were able
were
to do
never
Armed
with
communication
level?
and
the
that,
some
able
overlays
a picture
written word
device
to find
really
move
plans
show them
I would
have
to a word
lesson
on
can
So
and
so at least
we
that
we
assessment
to do
then
of their students'
knowledge
to
were
able
skills, teachers
how
Kathy explained
tion in her classroom
she
and
ac-
individualized
communication.
communica-
valued
for her
have
know
matter
what?
if that
a comment
to someone
..
. that's
goeffect
Teachers
day.
sion
the
Kathy
reflected
on
this
fre-
total
immer-
in communication:
their
of
use it in every aspect
to gym
even
take them
day. They
become
class. We want this thing to actually
a part of them in that they have a sense that
try to
school
its what
of the specific
methods
invoived
by the team
One
used
of intervention
environmentally
the classroom
and
engineering
using
script
was initiated
method
by
ing This intewentlon
and
the speech
and incor
language
therapist
the students'
by
daily routines
how she uses
Mary described
nto
porated
e
teachers.
scripting
I use
a lot of prompts
a lot of setting
I use
use
that have
I ask
been
faded,
the environment.
up
and
a lot of sabotaging
munication
for things
I
corn
requiring
to happen.
I do very
and they are ex
questions
the
and
from
that,
the
tence
I call
then
on
them
and
we fade
increased
such
tion
communicative
students'
compe
to observe
began
across
different
settings,
educa
sites and general
teachers'
increased,
AAC
use
as
community
As
classrooms.
within
tional
ucation
were
teachers.
the
and
noted
Lana
other
education
general
the student
can
them
occurred
generalization
education
classrooms,
general
benefits
instruc
stated,
the
especially
like it because
teachers,
teachers,
respond
back
to
a verbal
voice.
actually
it seems
like
is better than
from anything
ers saying
Oh, I don t understand
And
then
really
they don't
them because
they're
then
they are
fake it.
saying
and
ed
the teach
voice
is saying."
We
the device
chunk
I think
devices
attempted
the
them
throughout
incorporating
throughout
day and during activities
quently,
students'
the
use
that
too,
commUnicators,
students.
them
discussed
intervention
and
As
You
to remember
make
don't
they
and
recognized
little.
before.
that
of appropnate
importance
methods.
As Mary stated,
doesn>t
means
of assessing
communication
skills.
. . _ .
.
, .
, .
T
,
Lana
how she used
the AAL
device
reported
..
,
,
,
to assess her students
levels.
reading
You
members
and
it.
the
You
is them
to be without
Team
and
voices
have
machine
want
stand
kids,
of how
we
they
want
not
feel
he
bad.
So
to interact
with
sure
what
really
they don't
AAC Team
what
so
know
Perceptions
how
to
149
team
However,
member's
also
the need
noted
Max
uses
an AAC
device
and
that's
how
we
for consistency
of use across settings since generalization
was typically
a difficult
skill for
their students
with cognitive
disabilities.
Lana
stated,
school.
I ate
broccoli."
I guess
Well,
the
most
thing is
the class-
important
of usage
consistency
same
throughout
the kids are being
you know
it the same
to use
prompted
way consisthe day. And not just is a
tently throughout
room.
That
So
that
one's
The
has
an
effect
instructional
numerous
to make
it the same
using
every-
included
decreased
use
were
need
for
when
used
parents
when
and
home,
the
parents
device
parents
team
ronment.
well.
However,
and
when
school,
the
child
participated
of effective
tween
ing
150
the
team
members
as
home
to
and
communicate
school.
Erica
bemessages
the
followgave
example.
Education
modeling
and
groups,
in Developmental
use
a
developing
Her
primary
teachers.
that
also
I'll
in the
done
get a lot more
if they believe
in me and see
in it [AAC
device
But they
use].
to see the value in communication
...
have
, .
.....
Ease of
Additionally, ' if
J AAC use.
.
device
was easy; to use, ' durable,
and
it became
a facilitator
of use.
Team
,
shared
commu
for team
support
11
the
AAC
portable,
1
members
of the ease
of programming
that added
spoke
m
the
classroom.
flexibility '
Mary ' stated, '
There
are
sheet
that
we
these
haven't
other
had.
people
So
that
gram.
and Training
of device
providing
iong run
the value
in the
were
have
is afraid
language
them
at
parent/guardian
perspectives
of the strategies
increasing
parent/
involvement
with AAC
was to use
guardian
AAC
devices
AAC,
a great
to
nobody
say what
SLP (Mary)
to be the
appeared
teachers
leader,
encouraging
"We
stated,
I spend,
like a whole
teachers,
year,
with them because
trying to build a rapport
I figure if I could
build a better rapport
with
as
perceived
consistent
commu-
to
One
and
New
was
with
it
positive
rapport
teachers
to be effective
goal was to empower
*'
.
_
...
facilitators
of AAC, as noted
in her statement:
teamprocess.
Descriptions
factors such as good
communiing included
cation
between
team
members,
consistency
....
,
, ,
across
a willingness
to teach
and be
settings,
.
Y
,
.
,
, . .
and administrative
taught
by others,
support
.
.
r
for team meetings.
.
,
...
,.
,
n
,,
.
All the team
involvement.
Parent/guardian
. .
,
, .
,
members
a desire
for parental
inexpressed
,
,
T
.
vc
uvolvement.
Lanas
statement
this
exemplifies
.
, ,
,,T
c
.v
.1
r
desire.
I would, love for
them to play more of
.
,
, .
j
.j.
a role.
As discussed
under
7 heme Two: Bam
.
,
.
c
j
_
.j
desired
more
ers, most of the team members
.
.
..
j
,
,.
of
AAC
use
in
the
home
envigeneralization
sensitive
with
was
the
me
As Kathy
here
during
there
between
like
does
on increasing
the communi
skills of their students
with AAC systems
,
t, ...
^
r . , r. , .
facilitators
to the use of AAC
devices
were
j
,.
j
.,
,
.
r
identified
as parent/guardian
ef
involvement,
fective teaming,
and ease
of device
use. Par-
nication
to give
improves
devices.
team
Facilitators
involvement
I don't
she
all focused
to use
facilitative
then
has
and
to the student,
use of AAC
proximity
devices
for assessment,
increased
participation
in activities,
and increased
use across settings.
ent/guardian
but
and
she
cation
teacher
Theme Four:
well,
know,
out
were
of AAC
really
Effective
was a
Effective teaming.
teaming
of effective AAC device
use.
primary facilitator
of
team
members
functioned
These
groups
well together,
and
communicated
frequently,
way.
benefits
and
sure
You
so with
morning,
thing the following
that device
she has to write me a note>
really
don
to general
specific
activity so they're going
ize into the community,
to
they're
going
it with all difference
staff people.
generalize
what
Disabilities-June
2006
it is nice
know
how
to have
to pro
Facilitators
to AAC
device
as
were
itators
place
barriers.
to ensure
was
maximized,
as a team
with
common
had
the
systems
identified
effective
use.
If these
same
This
that
diligently
volvement
AAC
were
these
of device
in
not
became
quickly
use
involvement,
parent/guardian
and ease
teaming,
to
knowledge
and devices
team
facil-
worked
These
inparent/guardian
that they operated
and
goals,
make
their
function
(1992):
issues
ness
mean
that
they
students
teaching
as smoothly
communicative
forms
tions-with
the functions
discoverable
the interactive,
Discussion
by other
team
an in-depth
view of AAC
study provided
member
AAC
device
use
of
perceptions
1
r
in Jjunior
and high
school
students,
0
as deNumerous
settings.
findings
emerged
...
f .
,, .
,r,
,
in Figure
1. Yet, the m-depth
picted
visually
'
f
, ,
-,r
, .
,
from this study ' oners some
knowledge
gained
.
.
.
,
and raises
confirmaUons
to previous
literature
_
, ,_ .
for future
research
2000;
questions
(Beigel,
Beukelman
& Mirenda,
1998; Downing,
1999;
with older
Lahm
&
Nickels,
Locke
1999;
&
Mirenda,
1992).
Team
collaboration
to be the pivappeared
.
.
,
. ...
,
,
otal factor in successful
AAC use in these publie school
in
device
use resulted
. , ,
,
,
with both
and
peers
disTeam
members
settings. AAC
. .
..
interactions
increasing
members.
community
the
cussed
of using AAC
devices
importance
communication
This
exchanges.
users
mentioned
that AAC
consistently
in functional
team
in
their
were
able
programs
their ownership
of AAC devices
the vocabulary
and
messages
into
grammed
because
their devices.
it has
been
to demonstrate
by influencing
that were pro-
This
determined
is important,
that if the
in the device
is lacking,
vocabulary
will be reluctant
to use it (Murphy,
& Moodie,
Collins,
1996).
Multiple
of the team
team
role
nicative
implementing
This
belief
who
initiation
use
by AAC
device
users
by
strategies.
teaching
specific
with Downing
in agreement
the
that teaching
has suggested
spontaneous
of functional
role
initiator
use
of AAC
contexts
will
encourage
devices.
further
The
increases
of AAC device
for generalization
the potential
use. This is in line with guidelines
published
occur
and
only in
contexts
and
are
func
in which
to
responded
5).
(p.
people
means
Team
members
also found
that AAC deviCe
,,
...
rr .
A A^
had a posiuve
effect on AAC users
behav
,
T, .
.
, ,
tor. 1 his is in agreement
with Beukelman
and
.
. .
, .
...
, .
, ,
that a relationship
Mirenda
s (1998)
assertion
.
.
.
.
, ,
and challeng
exists between
communication
.
.
. ,
.
, ,
That
behaviors
is, challenging
ing behavior.
.
.
.
...
a form of communication,
are, in themselves,
use
if the
Therefore,
proves
follows
ability
im
to communicate
of an AAC
via use
device
that
or system,
behaviors
it
should
challenging
a concomitant
This was consis
decrease.
.
,
,,
,
in this nves
tently reported
by team members
.
.
tigation.
of barriers
to AAC
device
use
Categories
0
show
included
time
constraints,
problems,
and
guardians.
These
incongruence
barriers
AAC
with
prominent
man
& Mirenda,
were
literature
Beukel
(e.g.,
1999; Ehren,
Downing,
that
et aL> 1996) II is apparent
2000> MurPhy
teams
benefit
from
members
of AAC
would
1998;
for training,
time for
opportunities
with profession
and collaboration
planning,
a's ar"' parents/guardians,
as ef
benefits
were identified
Instructional
increased
fective
members
an
is
communication
more
that
user
important
suggested
AAC users'
commuin influencing
comwas in facilitating
competence
munication
(1999)
also
the
Markova,
socialized
functions
these
forms,
intervention
teaching
as possible.
This
communicative
just
communication
Rather,
settings.
increased
AAC
are
findings
literature
(e.g.,
previous
Mirenda,
1998;
significance
teachers
gated.
and
teaching
These
specific
has
themselves
in the
Reduction
flexibility
attend
to
tional,
and
ditionally,
not been
socially
the use
for
prox
more
students
while
the
in
the
the teachers
other
communicate
&
the
fully investi
for close
need
offering
simultaneously
chance
to
with
However,
advantages
offered
across
Beukelman
1999).
Downing,
of
use
consistent
the
student
func
natural,
manner.
Ad
appropriate
of environmental
engineer
AAC Team
Perceptions
151
to teach
ing
in
plored
not
use
Participants
of
had
been
This
study
is
were
device
use.
has
tor
in
The
use
parent/guardian
effective
AAC
and
use
in
not been
addressed
technique
initiated
parents
AAC
to be
the
parent/
has
This
research.
effective
with
to
devices,
when
the
and
the
communication
responded
to
device
home
increased
in previous
appeared
student
AAC
from
with
re
in this study.
the
essence
guardian
as a factor
personnel
of using
&
& Mc
Parette
it emerged
involvement
involve
as a fac
(Beukelman
1999;
communication
which
in
of AAC
ease
reported
Downing,
and
de
of
messages
their
own.
the
Additionally,
has
been
spectives
of
have
been
in
not
this
study
valued
the
informal
the
and
with
rapport
members
literature
has
the
team
members.
where
paradigm
riences.
any
teaming
is
that
other,
created
use
was
with AAC
Education
device
yet
of
with
a climate
expected
educational
paradigm,
which
1992),
intervention
part of students'
It
issues
in the
the significance
SLP
AAC
for SLPs
Mirenda,
for
The
training
Assessment
underscored
foundation
an integral
and
focus
&
es
model
teachers,
devices.
sev
including
new
most
Locke
(e.g.,
this study
laying
on
the
contained
techniques,
the
on
Interestingly,
SLP
perhaps
is central
or
to be
expe
more
to effective
use.
and Training
25,
American
from
Association.
and
Augmentative
ASHA,
Retrieved
http://www.abledata.
Speech-Language-Hearing
(1991).
Report:
communication.
5_?(Suppl.
American
alternative
5), 9-12.
Association.
Speech-Language-Hearing
Guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of
(1999).
the school-based speech-language pathologist. Rock
Author.
Association
Speech-Language-Hearing
Introduction to augmentative and alter
(1997-2004).
American
native communication.
Retrieved
ffomhttp://www.asha.org/
October
20, 2004,
public/speech/disorders/
Augmentative-and-Alternative.htm
Angelo, D. H. (1996). AAC in the family and home.
In S. Glennen
& D. Decoste
Handbook of
(Eds.),
augmentative and alternative communication
San Diego: Singular.
523-541).
to assessment
Apel, K. (1999). An introduction
with older
intervention
(pp.
and
students
with language
from research to
learning impairments:
Bridges
clinical practice. Language, Speech, and Hearing Ser
vices in Schools, 30, 228-230.
Apel,
L. K. (1999).
Second
chances:
skills in the older student.
decoding
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
Improving
Language,
30, 231-242.
R. S. (2001).
Checklists
for improving
research:
A case of the tail
rigor in qualitative
the dog? British Medical fournal 322,
wagging
Barbour,
1115-1117.
Assistive technology
assess
Beigel, A. R. (2000).
ment: More than the device. Intervention in School
and Clinic, 35, 237-243.
D. R., & Mirenda,
P. (1998). Augmenta
tive and alternative communication: Management of
severe communication disorders in children and adults
Brookes.
(2nd ed.). Baltimore:
S. J., Stoner, J. B., & Beck, A. R. (2004, Octo
ber). The Picture Exchange Communication System:
Validating intervention practices for nonverbal individ
Bock,
uals. Paper
Conference
tardation,
NV.
Vegas,
Assistive tech
Bryant, D. P., & Bryant, B. R. (2003).
nology for people with disabilities. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
S. N. (1998).
AAC and individuals with
severe to profound disabilities. In S. L. Glennen &
D. C. DeCoste
Handbook of augmentative
(Eds.),
and alternative communication (pp. 445-480).
San
Calculator,
Diego:
Calculator,
AAC
in Developmental
2005,
Beukelman,
members,
heavily
responsibilities,
intervention
received
team
SLP.
for the
per
themselves
Participants
relied
the
leader,
unofficial
team
152
effective
team,
have
than
were
of leader
tablishing
ing
team
teaming
Yet,
previously.
members
fully investigated.
team
role
eral
the
of
importance
documented
Welcome to ABLEDATA.
(n.d.).
January
com/
ville, MD:
of the AAC
Effective
technique
school,
Bock,
by
parent/guardian
consistently
increase
class
in this
reported
as
by the school
ported
the
within
teaming,
2002)
re
after students
effective
1998;
Mahan,
that
been
Mirenda,
effective
(2004).
identified
volvement,
that
participants
to increased
Facilitators
ment
to
Beck
Abledata.
mem
participants
use
by the
similar
team
an
settings,
AAC
report
and
vices
across
taught
room.
Stoner,
The
References
especially
indicated
was
engineering
use
fully ex
and
of AAC
intervention.
AAC
ported
been
not
in this study
environmental
form
has
research,
the perspectives
from
bers.
AAC
previous
Disabilities-June
Singular.
S., & Jorgensen,
instruction
C. (1991).
Integrating
education
settings:
into regular
2006
Costello,
and
(1994, November).
Aug
assessment and the feature
Ehren,
31, 219-229.
Foley, B. (2001). AAC: Looking back and to the future.
AAC in thepublic schools. Retrieved October 19, 2004,
http://www.ussaac.org/pages/presentation_
pt3.html#top
S. L., & DeCoste,
Glennen,
Handbook
S. L. Glennen
Sc D. C. DeCoste
setting. In
(Eds.), Handbook of
communication
(pp.
with Anglo-Euro
roots. In E. W. Lynch & M.J. Hanson
(Eds.),
Developing cross cultural competence. A guide for work
ing with children and their families (2nd ed.). Balti
pean
more:
Huer,
Brookes.
M. B. (1997a).
communication.
tions of counseling
audiolog)
Wilkins.
Huer,
M.
(pp.
B.
and alternative
Augmentative
In T. A. Crowe
(Ed.),
in speech-language
Baltimore:
Applica
pathology and
Williams
335-362).
(1997b).
Culturally
inclusive
using augmentative
native communication
&
assess
and alter
Journal of Children's
Communication Development, 19(1), 23-34.
Individuals
with Disabilities
Act Amend
Education
(AAC).
ments of 1997,
P. L. 105-17.
(June 4, 1997). 20
1400 et seq Institute for Matching Person
and Technology.
(2004). Matching person and tech
U.S.C.
October
nology assessment process. Retrieved
from http://members.aol.com/impt97/
2004,
20,
mptdesc.html.
of qualitative
Janesick, V. (2000). The choreography
research design. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 379
(Eds.),
Oaks, CA: Sage.
399). Thousand
Kraat,
A. W.
(1987).
Communication
Assistive technology
interaction be
B. (1999).
Children, 32(1),
56
Locke,
S. B. (1998).
Qualitative research and case
in education. San Francisco: Jos
Merriam,
study applications
sey-Bass.
Miles, M., & Huberman,
A. (1994).
Qualitative data
Oaks, CA: Sage.
E.
Murphy, J., Markova, I., Collins, S., & Moodie,
AAC systems: Obstacles
to effective use.
(1996).
European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 31,
Thousand
analysis.
31-44.
National
Needs
Guidelines
for
the communication
meeting
with severe disabilities.
ASHA,
needs
D. C. (Eds.).
(1997).
and alternative communi
of augmentative
cation. San Diego: Singular.
Gray, S. (1995). AAC in the educational
Teaching Exceptional
63.
at the
matching process. Mini seminar presented
Annual
Convention
of American
Speech-Lan
from
ucators.
of persons
34(March,
Supp.
Parette,
H. P. (1998).
7), 1-8.
Interactive CD-ROM
technology
for family-centered augmentative and alternative com
munication
across
cul
(AAC)
decision-making
tures. (ERIC
Document
Service
Reproduction
414 664).
No. ED
Parette,
H.
P., Brotherson,
(2000).
Giving
and alternative
families
Training
36, 69-82.
G. A. (2002).
Team sensi
of assis
tivity to family goals for and expectations
tive technology.
Children,
Teaching Exceptional
velopmental Disabilities,
P., & McMahan,
Parette,
35(1), 56-61.
Parette, H. P., & Marr, D. D. (1997).
Assisting chil
dren and families who use augmentative
and al
ternative
communication
devices:
Best
(AAC)
practices
for school
psychologists.
Psychology in the
A. (1990). A prospec
tive inquiry of the technology needs and practices
children with disabilities. Journal of
of school-age
Special Education Technology, 10, 198-206.
for de
P. A. (2000).
Multiple perspectives
patholo
termining the roles of speech-language
Language, Speech,
gists in inclusionary classrooms.
Prelock,
Reed,
V. A., McLeod,
AAC Team
Perceptions
153
of selected communication
skills for
Importance
Adolescents'
talking with peers and teachers:
opinions.
Language,
Wisconsin
Assistive Technology
Initiative.
(1998).
Assessing students' needs for assistive technology: A
resource manual for school district teams. Amherst,
WI: Author.
L. (2001).
students who use
in general
A team
perspective.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools, 3, 51-56.
Case studies. In N. K. Denzin
&
Stake, R. (2000).
Y. S. Lincoln
more:
Brookes.
VanBiervliet,
Southeast
H.
AAC
(CD-ROM).
Missouri State University
Education
Thousand
Yorkston,
ville, MD:
Association.
American
Speech-Language-Hearing
J. (1998).
Ready, SETT,
Retrieved January 7, 2003,
P. (1999).
Families,
Little Rock, AR:
and
and Training
Univer
in Developmental
http://www2.
edc.org/NCIP/Workshops/sett3/index.html
154
Technol
(2001).
J., 8c Cuban, L. (Eds.).
ogy, curriculum and professional development. Adapt
ing schools to meet the needs of students with disabilities.
Woodward,
Zabala,
cultures, and
Received:
Initial
Final
2 February
Acceptance:
Acceptance:
Disabilities-June
2005
1 April 2005
25 May 2005
2006