You are on page 1of 17

Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

AAC Team Perceptions: Augmentative and Alternative Communication Device Use


Author(s): Rita L. Bailey, Julie B. Stoner, Howard P. Parette, Jr. and Maureen E. Angell
Source: Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 41, No. 2 (June 2006), pp.
139-154
Published by: Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23880176 .
Accessed: 09/12/2014 23:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:25:10 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

P. Parette, Jr., and

Maureen

E. Angell

University

This

an in-depth view of augmentative


and alternative
team member's
(AAC)
study provided
teachers and one speech-language
of AAC device use with older students. Six special education
who worked as members of an AAC team were interviewed to determine their perceptions of
(SLP)

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

this article should


Correspondence
concerning
....
. ..
,
,,
,
n.
to Rita L. Bailey, Illinois State Univerbe addressed

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,

and other plan


2000),
.
,
may' have a tendency ' to

'economize'
of team
1998).

by

employing

members

(Beukel

Smaller

AAC Team

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:25:10 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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,

HowBryant & Bryant, 2003).


must also consider
a range of fam
factors prior
and environmental

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

mary daily managers


vices at the middle

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

systems rarely occurs with


out educated,
coordinated
effort that typically
with considerable
time investment
for
equates
AAC
eating

use

of AAC

system users and for people


with them (Downing,
1999;

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

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:25:10 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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,

lively little has been


ticms of AAC

&

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

switches with recorded


voice
message
in their
Other
students
output
capabilities.
used
devices
classrooms
high-tech
primarily
touch
a Windows
that utilized
type format,
or recorded
voice
and digitized
screen
access,
multiple

OUtpUt'

Method
Research

in this study were six special


edu
Participants
and
one
SLP
who work
to
cation
teachers

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

setting within an Illi


The
district is lo
district.

school

AAC Team

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:25:10 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:25:10 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

_
^
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

or visit to the classroom

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

of the study. Howpurpose


of a semi-structured
format gave in
to probe

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-

tions were chosen


because
with
they aligned
the foci of this investigation:
of
(a) the process
AAC device
selection
and training,
(b) expectations
and
of AAC
device
use
perceptions

(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

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:25:10 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

of major findwith the graphic


representation
of
input as to the accuracy
ings and requesting
the find
validated
All participants
findings.
was
Member
checking
ings.
to findings.
add confirmability
of providing
ing is the process
opportunity
In
2000).

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

that a first step to increased


with AAC begins
competence

Disabilities-June

2006

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:25:10 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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,

first pair of glasses.


ever going to keep
how

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

was tolking to another


student
me and he couldn't
find what

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]?'

their own message


ship by initiating
changes
on their device (s) according
to changes
in
communication
For example,
Patti
partners.
reported,
the room

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

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:25:10 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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.

script well enough


what the answers

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

forget, you have


just can't
put a
and

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

I wait for them

communicators-it's
And

tures,

an

So,

participants.
15
taken

that

in front

to do

the joy that she experienced


AAC
use generalized
outside
serving
classroom.
She
credited
the team's

[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

fell off the bus seat

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,

up and asks quesYou ask a question;


them
to
you teach

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

kid using AAC, asking


that interaction.

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

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:25:10 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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 want, but


for them to find

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

that in, put


,
,
quick
So, it s nice to have other
?
,Kpraiicp
hnrun
rrtt*7
In
nrnrrrom
because
know how to program,

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

with other professionals


either
relationship
to have them as a resource
to better serve
students'

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

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:25:10 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

... Why do I have


their way of communicating
, ...
r
j
. .
lc
tor
out to say Spaghettios
to get my device
if I can go 'I, E, O' and she says, 'oh,
dinner
d like

their

children

without

the aid

stand
tion
use

of the devices

of their AAC

members
were

find it very consuming


parents
is those
devices
Qf
(jje
part
problem
were not put into effect at a younger
age
have made
ancj at an older age the parents
Most

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

for this student

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

that in her experience,


the teachers
suggested
often expected
more from the child than the
parents

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

with their students

proximity
moye

team

by

which
was
teaching,
increased
communicative

with

competent
identified

them,

Benefits

instmctional

primaiy
identified

use

it may be true that parents


the potential
of AAC
devices,

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

felt that some

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

but they understand

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

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:25:10 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

them or right in front of them


right behind
as they try to communicate
with me.
Teachers

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

they would just have


the communication

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

effectively plan appropriate,


around
tivities that revolved

communication.
communica-

valued
for her

have

know

matter

what?

if that

it's not going to


Ultimately,
kid knows
the number
five,

a comment

to someone

..

. that's

goeffect

ing to have a much more life-altering


five.
than identifying
the number
to

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

. . . you can't just


put
book in front of somebody

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

to give me the answers.


And we start
pected
when
I just sit at a table and look at them
and the first thing I do then: I model
raising
And a teacher
a hand
a hand.
may prompt
raise,

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

for the general

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.

at the level I'm teaching


at, but if
especially
to go
I can teach that kid to make a request,
or to
to someone
and request
something,
make

them

discussed

intervention

them to do it. So there s that big


expect
. ,
, ,
.
,
,
,
that still needs
to be addressed,

and

As
You

to remember

make

don't

they

and

recognized

they are taught


communication

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

in front of the room

stand

kids,

of how
we

they
want
not

feel

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:25:10 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

tell his Mom

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

his day was like. So before


he leaves
at the end of the day we program
Had
a great day at
things like "Hi, Mom.

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

for the student.


.
...
Effective
time,
teaming required
^
_ ,
,
value
of the importance
of building
.
.
nication
skills, administrative
support
...
and equipment
and
needs,
meetings
.
,,
,
from all staff involved
with students.

, .
.....
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

times when I am running


a week
at the high school.
And I will say
to the teacher,
"he needs
that in, put it in,
real quick."
And
in
they'll
put something
end

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

a ring. You know, so


home-school
communica

with

was

the

me

As Kathy

here

during

there

between

like

does

on increasing
the communi
skills of their students
with AAC systems

they feel." The


informal
team

,
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

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:25:10 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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-

for the Com


by the National
Joint Committee
municative
Needs
of Persons
with Severe
Dis
abilities

worked

These

inparent/guardian
that they operated
and
goals,
make
their
function

(1992):

issues

ness

reflect the renewed


aware
practices
that teaching
communication
does not

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,

specific AAC device


with paren/
in agreement

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

imity to the student


to

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

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:25:10 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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,

K., & Swank,

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,

at the 9th International


presented
on Cognitive Disabilities/Mental
Re
Las
Autism, and Related
Disabilities,

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

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:25:10 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

on best practices. Augmentative


Expounding
Alternative Communication, 1, 204-214.
J., & Shane, H.
mentative communication

Costello,

and

(1994, November).
Aug
assessment and the feature

New Orleans, LA.


Association,
guage-Hearing
Downing, J. E. (1999).
Teaching communication skills
to students with severe disabilities.
Baltimore:
Brookes.
a therapeutic focus
B.J. (2000). Maintaining
and sharing responsibility
for student success:
services.
Keys to in-classroom
speech-language
and
Services
in
Schools,
Language,
Speech,
Hearing

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

augmentative and alternative


San Diego: Singular.
547-597).
M. J. (1997).
Families
Hanson,

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

ments for children

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

tween aided and natural


report (2nd ed.). Madison,
University of Wisconsin.
Lahm,

E., & Nickels,

Assistive technology

interaction be

speakers: A state of the art


WI: Trace R&D Center,

B. (1999).

Children, 32(1),

56

P. A., & Mirenda, P. (1992).


Rules and re
of special education
teachers serv
sponsibilities
ing on teams delivering AAC services. Augmenta
tive and Alternative Communication, 8, 200-214.

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

for the Communicative


Joint Committee
of Persons with Severe Disabilities.
(1992).

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.

What do you know?


for special ed
competencies

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.

M. J., & Huer, M. B.


a voice in augmentative
communication
decision-making.

P., Brotherson,

(2000).
Giving
and alternative

families

Education and Training in Mental Retardation and


Developmental Disabilities, 35, 177-190.
M. J.
Parette, H. P., Huer, M. B., & Brotherson,
Related service personnel
of
(2001).
perceptions
team AAC
cation and

across cultures. Edu


decision-making
in Mental Retardation and De

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

Schools, 34, 337-346.


Parette, H. P., & VanBiervliet,

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,

and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 213-218.


Education
P., & Bowser, G. (1998, November).
tech points: A framework for assistive technology plan

Reed,

ning and systems change in schools. Paper presented


and Per
on Technology
at the CSUN Conference
sons with Disabilities,
Reed,

V. A., McLeod,

Los Angeles, CA.


K., & McAllister, L. (1999).

AAC Team

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:25:10 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Perceptions

153

of selected communication
skills for
Importance
Adolescents'
talking with peers and teachers:
opinions.

Language,

Speech, and Hearing Services in

Schools, 30, 32-49.


Soto, G., Muller E., Hunt,
Professional
AAC

Wisconsin

Assistive Technology
Initiative.
(1998).
Assessing students' needs for assistive technology: A
resource manual for school district teams. Amherst,
WI: Author.

P., & Goetz,

L. (2001).
students who use

skills for serving


education
classrooms:

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

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research


Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
(pp. 435-454).
T. L., & Sawyer, C. (1995). Augmentative
Tanchak,
communication.
In K. F. Flippo, K.J. Inge, &J. M.
Barcus

Assistive technology. A resource for


(Eds.),
Balti
school, work, and community (pp. 57-79).

more:

Brookes.

VanBiervliet,
Southeast

H.

AAC

(CD-ROM).
Missouri State University

Education

Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.


Assessment pro
K., & Karlan, G. (1986).
cedures. In S. Blackstone
(Ed.), Augmentative com
munication: An introduction (pp. 163-196).
Rock

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

Go! Online workshop.


from

http://www2.

edc.org/NCIP/Workshops/sett3/index.html

sity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.


Williams, W. B., Stemach, G., Wolfe, S., & Stanger,
C. (1995).
Lifespace access profile: Assistive technology

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,

A., & Parette,

cultures, and

assessment and planning for individuals with severe or


multiple disabilities (rev. ed.). Irvine, CA: Lifespace
Access Assistive Technology
Systems.

Received:
Initial
Final

2 February

Acceptance:
Acceptance:

Disabilities-June

2005

1 April 2005
25 May 2005

2006

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:25:10 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions