Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:55:25.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teachers Make it Happen: From Professional Development to Integration of Augmentative and Alternative Communication Technologies in the Classroom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Julie M. McMillan
Julie M. McMillan*
Affiliation:
Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of a multiphase teacher professional development package on student use of speech-generating augmentative and alternative communication devices (SGDs). Teachers were taught (a) device operation and programming, (b) device integration and embedding using environmental arrangement strategies, and (c) systematic communication instruction using the time-delay milieu teaching procedure, within a multiple baseline design across student and teacher participants. All four teachers learned device programming and instructional procedures, and generalised as well as maintained their use. There was no effect on student SGD use during phase 1, device operation. However, all four students showed significant increases in SGD initiations during phase 2, environmental arrangement and embedding, and SGD initiations remained at high levels through phase 3, time-delay. For two students with significant disabilities, SGD initiations increased further during phase 3. All students generalized and maintained use of their SGDs for at least two months following termination of teacher professional development. This study has major implications for teacher professional development in assistive technology and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) integration in the classroom for students with severe disabilities. Without sufficient training and support, important student outcomes such as increased participation and communication initiations for device users are unlikely to be achieved. Furthermore, this study demonstrated that measurement of student outcomes is a critical component of evidence-based professional development practices.

Type
Conference Paper
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , September 2008 , pp. 199 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Derer, K., Polsgrove, L., & Rieth, H. (1996). A survey of assistive technology applications in schools and recommendations for practice. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13, 62–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiCarlo, C. F., & Banajee, M. (2000). Using voice output devices to increase initiations of young children with disabilities. Journal of Early Intervention, 23, 191–199.Google Scholar
DiCarlo, C., Banajee, M., & Stricklin, S. B. (2000). Embedding augmentative communication within early childhood classrooms. Young Exceptional Children, 3(3), 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downing, J. E. (2000). Augmentative communication devices: A critical aspect of assistive technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15, 35–38.Google Scholar
Edyburn, D. L. (2000). Technology integration strategies: Measuring the success of student and teacher technology training. Closing the Gap, 19(3), 18–19.Google Scholar
Edyburn, D. L. (2001). Technology integration strategies: Web resources that enhance technology integration. Closing the Gap, 20(2), 12–13.Google Scholar
Edyburn, D. L. (2002). Measuring assistive technology outcomes: Key concepts. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18, 53–55.Google Scholar
Erickson, K., Koppenhaver, D., Yoder, D., & Nance, J. (1997). Integrated communication and literacy instruction for a child with multiple disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 12, 142–150.Google Scholar
Hamilton, B. L., & Snell, M. E. (1993). Using the milieu approach to increase spontaneous communication book use across environments by an adolescent with autism. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 9, 259–272.Google Scholar
Huntinger, P., Johanson, J., & Stoneburner, R. (1996). Assistive technology applications in educational programs of children with multiple disabilities: A case study report on the state of the practice. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13, 16–35.Google Scholar
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Kaiser, A. P., Ostrosky, M. M., & Alpert, C. L. (1993). Training teachers to use environmental arrangement and milieu teaching with nonvocal preschool children. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18, 188–199.Google Scholar
Lahm, E. A., Bausch, M. E., Hasselbring, T. S., & Blackhurst, E. A. (2001). National assistive technology research institute. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(3), 19–26.Google Scholar
Lesar, S. (1998). Use of assistive technology with young children with disabilities: Current status and training needs. Journal of Early Intervention, 21, 146–159.Google Scholar
Lund, S. K., & Light, J. C. (2001). Fifteen years later: An investigation of the long-term outcomes of augmentative and alternative communication interventions. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
McGregor, G., & Pachuski, P. (1996). Assistive technology in schools: Are teachers ready, able, and supported? Journal of Special Education Technology, 13, 4–15.Google Scholar
Reichle, J. (1997). Communication intervention with persons who have severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 31, 110–134.Google Scholar
Reichle, J., & Sigafoos, J. (1991). Establishing an initial repertoire of requesting. In Reichle, J., York, J., & Sigafoos, J. (Eds.), Implementing augmentative and alternative communication: Strategies for learners with severe disabilities (pp. 89–114). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Reimer-Reiss, M. L., & Wacker, R. R. (2000). Factors associated with assistive technology discontinuance among individuals with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66, 44–50.Google Scholar
Rodi, M. S., & Hughes, C. (2000). Teaching communication book use to a high school student using a milieu approach. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 175–179.Google Scholar
Romski, M. A., & Sevcik, R. A. (1992). Developing augmented language in children with severe mental retardation. In Warren, S. F., & Reichle, J. (Eds.), Communication and language intervention series: Vol. 1. Causes and effects in communication and language intervention (pp. 113–130). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Romski, M. A., Sevcik, R. A., & Adamson, L. B. (1999). Communication patterns of youth with mental retardation with and without their speech-output communication devices. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 104, 239–259.Google Scholar
Rush, L., & Williams, G. (2003). Adapt, accommodate and integrate AAC into the curriculum. Closing The Gap, 22(2).Google Scholar
Schepis, M. M., Reid, D. H., Behrmann, M. M., & Sutton, K. A. (1998). Increasing communicative interactions of young children with autism using a voice output communication aid and naturalistic teaching. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 561–578.Google Scholar
Schlosser, R. W., McGhie-Richmond, D., Blackstein-Adler, S., Mirenda, P., Antonius, K., & Janzen, P. (2000). Training a school team to integrate technology meaningfully into the curriculum: Effects on student participation. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15, 31–44.Google Scholar
Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 83–90.Google Scholar
Sigafoos, J., Roberts, D., Kerr, M., Couzens, D., & Baglioni, A. J. (1994). Opportunities for communication in classrooms serving children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 259–279.Google ScholarPubMed
Sigafoos, J., Roberts, D., Kerr, M., & Couzens, D. (1994). Increasing opportunities for requesting in classrooms serving children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 631–645.Google Scholar
Soto, G., Muller, E., Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (2001). Professional skills for serving students who use AAC in general education classrooms: A team perspective. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 51–56.Google Scholar
Taylor Dyches, T. (1998). Effects of switch training on the communication of children with autism and severe disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 13, 151–162.Google Scholar
Todis, B. (1996). Tools for the task? Perspectives on assistive technology in educational settings. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13, 49–61.Google Scholar
Warren, S. F., & Yoder, P. J. (1996). Enhancing communication and language development in young children with developmental delays and disorders. Peabody Journal of Education, 71, 118–132.Google Scholar
Wehmeyer, M. L. (1998). National survey of the use of assistive technology by adults with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 36, 44–51.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilcox, M. J., & Norman-Murch, T. (2000). Assistive technology training for early childhood personnel. Final report (Contract No. HO29K40092). Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED449604.).Google Scholar