AAC Integrated into Academic Learning NOT a Compliance Tool…

2024 Feb/March Closing The Gap Resource Directory Solutions - AAC Integrated into Academic Learning NOT a Compliance Tool By Lindsay Markworth and Sarah Singleton

augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)

Summary: Readers will gain insight into the why, the how, and the outcomes of a multi-year building wide initiative to integrate AAC into academic learning. Within this discussion readers will learn about teaching strategies and other professional develop- ment that guide educators to place a focus on spontaneous novel utterance generation within academic learning. In conclu- sion, readers will recognize despite challenges we face our ultimate goal as professionals is once we know better that we do better. AAC Integrated into Academic Learning NOT a Compliance Tool

OUR WHY : Augmentative Alternative Communication (AAC) gives indi- viduals with complex communication needs the opportunity and access to say what they want to say when they want to say it. However, as with any tangible tool, it can be easily mis- used, turned into a compliance tool and ultimately limit the communicator. While it is important to be aware of how our instructional practices and classroom procedures impact the learning of any communication tool, in our setting, which serves the most complex communicators, increasing aware- ness of these risks was critical. When analyzing the current AAC systems being used by our students, we realized that not all

of our students had access to robust vocabulary systems, and many times the vocabulary they had access to was driven by academic demands. Rather than being a tool for spontane- ous communication, AAC devices were used as a compliance tool for classroom participation; this resulted in students be- ing heavily prompted to participate during classroom activities and repeat rote academic knowledge. Our students with com- plex communication needs became passive communicators, relying on staff to prompt them to speak. We saw a need to align our attitudes and beliefs with our instructional practices and positively impact our school culture.

SARAH SINGLETON is a Speech-Language Pathologist/AAC Specialist and the current Assistant Director of Special Education at Walworth County CDEB-Lakeland School in Elkhorn, Wisconsin. Over her 19 year career, Sarah has continually supported complex communicators across a variety of age-levels. Sarah has been an integral component in transforming Lakeland School’s approach to Speech-Language programming. Through her work with students, families, and staff members she has improved curriculum, implementation, and the home-school connection. LINDSAY MARKWORTH is a Speech-Language Pathologist/AAC Specialist at Walworth County CDEB- Lakeland School in Elkhorn, Wisconsin. She joined the Lakeland team in 2020 to start her career, and has supported emerging and complex communicators across a variety of age-levels. Lindsay has supported staff, students, and caregivers in the implementation and use of Augmentative Alternative Communication. She is also a LAMP (Language Acquisition through Motor Planning) Certified Professional through the Center for AAC and Autism. Through her work she has continued to build capacity within Lakeland School and the families it serves to improve the outcomes of students with complex communication needs.

BACK TO CONTENTS

OUR HOW: Establish shared values:

assessing and supporting individuals who use AAC as a com- munication mode.

We started by having conversations with our classroom teachers regarding four main beliefs/values. The first centered on presumed competence: the belief that all students were ca- pable of learning. As an educator you may think, “Well isn’t that obvious?”The reality is that sometimes we do get in the way of a student’s learning because we are human and have our own perceived ideas based on our own experiences. We took it to a deeper level and started to flip our mindset from “I don’t think they will understand” to “Let’s try it and find out”. In doing so, we stopped putting preconceived ideas in the way of our stu- dents learning and started providing opportunities for learning regardless of the outcome. The second value discussed was seeing communication as an intrinsic right. Individuals with complex communication needs have a right to say what they want to say when they want to say it. As educators, we have a responsibility to give students access to language, not just words related to our aca- demic subject. What was observed in our setting was that AAC devices were not readily accessible and were often put away. They were provided to students during classroom activities when responses or participation were expected; they were also often removed as a consequence when students were not compliant or had misbehaved. Seeing communication as an in- trinsic right meant changing this practice to one that ensures that devices are accessible and within arm’s reach at all times; it also meant that AAC devices would no longer be removed in disciplinary practices. The third value was to view AAC as a mode of communica- tion and not a participation tool. As verbal speakers, our lungs provide the air we need to produce voice, our oral articulators help us to make sounds, and our brain helps us develop the language to communicate our thoughts and ideas to others. For an AAC user, while they may “articulate” their thoughts dif- ferently (using their fingers, hands or body parts), the AAC de- vice becomes their voice. We reminded staff that we can’t ma- nipulate a verbal speaker’s mouth/lungs to say what we want them to say so we should not manipulate a student’s AAC de- vice just because it is more tangible. Lastly, many of our students are emergent communicators and needed to be better supported in learning how to use their AAC system to meet their communication needs. Without ro- bust systems, many of our students had to rely on unconven- tional or conventional behaviors to communicate their wants/ needs, thoughts and ideas. A quote by Beukelman (1991) puts it simply, “... AAC alone doesn’t make one a competent, profi- cient communicator.” Having a communication device doesn’t make you an effective communicator any more than having a piano makes you a musician.” These ideas helped our teach- ing staff to reframe their thinking when lesson planning and

Set priorities: To apply our values into practice, we developed a set of pri- orities. Our first was to provide all our students access to ro- bust vocabulary systems. A robust vocabulary system includes a large amount of core vocabulary with personally relevant fringe. Core words are those that are most frequently found in our verbal and written communication (i.e. verbs, articles, ad- jectives, etc.) and their meaning can apply to many topics and across environments. In contrast, fringe vocabulary consists mainly of nouns that are context specific. A robust vocabulary system also includes a dynamic display in order to provide ac- cess to thousands of words within a few activations. Ultimately, robust vocabulary systems allow for language growth and de- velopment by providing access to grammatical endings (i.e. plural -s, present progressive -ing, etc.), as well as the ability to combine individual words into phrases and sentences. Our second priority was to build staff capacity in supporting our users in learning how to use their AAC systems through tar- geted professional development, coaching, and in-class mod- eling/demonstration of support techniques. We also devel- oped visual supports and demonstrated how to embed them into lessons, the classroom environment, and how to use core boards and icons/icon sequences as modeling tools. By remov- ing the expectation that students should automatically under- stand the icons, organization, etc. of their device, we created context for specific AAC support during classroom activities to build core vocabulary and functional communication skills. Targeted professional development: Provision of professional development for staff was multi- faceted, taking place in both large and small group settings throughout the year, and involved teachers, paraprofession- als, therapists, and administrators. New staff were also pro- vided training as they were hired throughout the school year. Through structured presentations, coaching, and interactive practice activities, staff were supported in building their foun- dational knowledge related to AAC systems and implementa- tion. Professional development topics centered on building understanding of functional communication as well as Aided Language Input and how to create an aided language environ- ment for students. Oftentimes, functional communication is viewed too nar- rowly in schools, seeing it as pertaining to only meeting basic needs (i.e. toileting, food), making choices and requests, and answering academic related questions; however, while these functions are important, functional communication encom- passes so much more! It includes the many reasons that we communicate, such as to comment, greet, tell a story, argue,

BACK TO CONTENTS

joke, flirt, complain, ask questions, protest, etc. The list could go on and on! Functional communication is an important skill as it leads to self-determination, self-advocacy, increased social experiences, and improved vocational and independent living outcomes. If we were to only focus on meeting basic needs and answering academic questions, the future opportunities for our complex communicators would be limited. To support our AAC users in developing their functional communication skills, the following approaches were emphasized through targeted professional development: modeling (i.e. video, real-time, aid- ed language input, etc.), Descriptive Teaching, and tools, ideas and techniques to create an aided language environment. Modeling is a passive teaching approach widely used by any and every educator. We model practice math problems in front of the class to teach math concepts before we expect our stu- dents to complete work sheets and take exams. We model sight words before we expect our students to identify and express them when reading and answering comprehension questions. The same concept applies when we are teaching an AAC device. Research has shown that modeling related vocabulary using a passive approach allows the AAC user the time and reduced cognitive load needed to learn (Biederman et al., 1998). For our teachers, we emphasized the provision of Aided Language In-

put, or modeling without expectation. We provided coaching and examples of how staff could model using student systems (high and low tech) without expecting or demanding that the student imitate the models. We also had to provide staff with information on the nature of vocabulary that should be mod- eled. Previously, too much weight was put on fringe academic words by focusing on those nouns that only applied to that one academic lesson. We needed to pivot our mindset from mod- eling the content specific vocabulary and programming those words into a device for one lesson, to focusing on core vocabu- lary that is applicable across many concepts, curricular themes and academic subjects. The following guidance was helpful to our staff in approaching this change: 1) model functional core (i.e. sleep, ride, grow, big, etc.) that could be used instead of fringe/noun vocabulary (bed, bike, flower, bear, etc.); 2) model 1-2 words longer than what our students use independently; 3) model on a low tech core board, separate device, or with per- mission of the student, the student’s AAC device; 4) when mod- eling, use a complete verbal sentence but model core words on the AAC system; 5) avoid questions, as questions will place expectations on our learners; choose instead to use descriptive statements or comments. (See image 1)

Image 1: Aided language book insert targeting “same” and “different” using LAMP Words for Life symbols

BACK TO CONTENTS

Image 2: Lakeland School’s univerwsal core board (i.e. LAMP Words for Life) at the elementary playground

(Image 2) Creating an aided language environment was also critical in moving from a compliance framework and tru- ly supporting spontaneous language generation. Staff were

supported in embedding the symbols and core boards that mirror those used by our AAC users into their classroom en- vironment and throughout the school. This was done by em- bedding the symbols into worksheets, SMART board lessons, books, and onto school bulletin boards. Placing low tech core boards throughout the building and on the playground also supported both staff and students in having access to a core board for modeling or communication purposes throughout the school. We also utilized software to mirror student devices on the smartboard, which provided a fully functioning replica of the students vocabulary systems. (See image 3, image 4, and image 5) Our last building-wide professional development initiative was to build understanding of the Descriptive Teaching Model (Van Tatenhove, 2019) and the importance of using it when teaching students with complex communication needs, spe- cifically those who use AAC. Instructionally, most approaches being taken were referential in nature, focusing on memoriz- ing terms, definitions, labels in order to answer questions re- lated to content, providing little opportunity for open ended responses or the use of generative language. Transitioning to a descriptive teaching approach provided our AAC users with open-ended response formats and the ability to use generative

Image 3: Classroom bulletin board using LAMP Words for Life icon sequences

BACK TO CONTENTS

language to demonstrate what they know; it also strongly sup- ported both the modeling and use of core vocabulary through- out academic content areas. This supported generalization across environments, as well as improving outcomes related to functional communication. OUR OUTCOME: As we reflected on this multi-year project that helped our school, as a whole, redefine our core values and pivot our think- ing and teaching strategies, we recognized that we continued to have a problem with prompting. Our staff was excited and wanted our students to learn their robust vocabulary systems, but struggled with the balance of prompting and modeling without expectation. They believed that their students could learn, but had difficulty balancing that with the expectations of participating in academic learning. Ultimately, we had the tools, the environment to support their AAC systems, and a piv- ot in our teaching strategies, but our students continued to be prompt dependent to use their devices and would often wait for the teaching staff to initiate an opportunity for communica- tion. At times, we were losing sight of the fact that the tool (i.e. AAC device) does not make a proficient communicator. This led us to examine other factors we could change to better support our students and determined that building our skills as com- munication partners was that next step. Research has shown that the following characteristics are common in communication partners of those with complex communication needs: take most of the turns, ask mostly yes/ Image 5: LAMP Words for Life core board highlighting “core word of the week”

Image 4: Classroom schedule using LAMP Words for Life icon sequences

BACK TO CONTENTS

no questions, frequently interrupt, focus on the technology, and provide limited opportunities (Kent-Walsh & McKnaugh- ton, 2005). These characteristics are not conducive to providing natural opportunities for spontaneous communication, and in- hibit expressive communication for AAC users. We focused on building partner characteristics that were identified as having a positive impact on spontaneous communication, such as pro- viding wait time, incorporating expectant looks, asking open ended questions, providing active feedback, focusing on the person and not the AAC device, and as previously emphasized, providing opportunities for practice and modeling without ex- pectation. This helped us to remember that a communication device is a tool. The tool does not create opportunities, but in- stead people create the opportunities. No matter what tool our students have in front of them, we as educators have the power to create opportunities for practice and learning. The other idea we reflected on was that communication is about more than just academic learning and building language skills. Communication is about relationships! We as educators need to focus on the person first, think about their likes/dis- likes, and engage with them in a fun and exciting way. Commu- nication is about connection, talking about things that interest us or things that don’t, and providing limitless opportunities. It should be fun and intrinsically motivating, not task oriented or compliance driven. Along those lines, we supported teachers in incorporating motivating choice activities, materials, etc. that would spark communication and engage our students, as well as help them to develop their skills at expressing interests and preferences. We also realized that teachers needed more support in tar- geting core vocabulary across their day, as well as more ideas for how to create opportunities to practice core words to meet their regulation and social needs. As a result, we created a core communication curriculum. The scope and sequence for this curriculum maintained a core word focus throughout the year, as well as structured teaching and activities related to social language and behavioral regulation. Having a strong core vo- cabulary benefits all students, not just AAC users; as a result, this “Core Communication” class was implemented building wide from 6th grade to 12th grade. This class provided oppor- tunities for staff and students to build connections and engage in activities that promoted modeling without expectation, so- cial interactions, and opportunities to practice a variety of func- tional communication skills that could generalize throughout their day at school. IN CONCLUSION: Moving from a compliance based approach to AAC, espe- cially within the context of the classroom where so many aca- demic demands exist, was not an easy process. To truly address the issue, we had to approach things from a systems stand-

point, ensuring that both our students and staff had access to the tools, devices and support they needed to be successful, as well as providing targeted professional development to under- stand the reasoning behind the recommended changes. Our growth, as an organization, is apparent when you walk through our halls or sit in our classrooms; while we are still learning and growing professionally, it is clear that our staff are exemplifying presumed competence in the work they do with our early com- municators every single day. We continue to remain dedicated to ongoing learning and doing what is best for our students. As they say, when you know better - do better! And that’s what we strive to do everyday! REFERENCES: Biederman, G, Fairhall, Raven, and Davey, V. (1998) Teaching basic skills to children with Down Syndrome and develop- mental delays: The relative efficacy of interactive modeling with social rewards for benchmark achievements and pas- sive observation. Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 5(1), 26-33. doi:10.3104/reports.72 Van Tatenhove. G. (2009). Building Language Competence with Students Using AAC Devices: Six Challenges. Perspec- tives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18(2), 38-47 Kent-Walsh, J., & Mcnaughton, D. (2005). Communication Partner Instruction in AAC: Present Practices and Future Directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(3), 195-204. doi:10.1080/07434610400006646 Beukelman, D. (1991). Magic and cost of communicative com- petence. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7, 2-10. doi: 10.1080/07434619112331275633

BACK TO CONTENTS

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6

www.closingthegap.com

Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator