Feb/March 2020 Closing The Gap Resource Directory

Feb/March 2020 Closing The Gap Resource Directory Volume 38, Number 6

Closing The Gap Assistive Technology Resources for Children and Adults with Disabilities February / March, 2020 Volume 38 - Number 6 Solutions ANNUAL RESOURCE DIRECTORY 2020 Edi t ion

A guide to the latest assistive technology products for children and adults with disabilities. It is the culmination of an extensive search for the latest software, hardware and other assistive technology products that are on the market today, as well as their producers.

EDITOR’S NOTE: There is no charge for inclusion in the Resource Directory. Listings are based on editorial questionnaires, phone interviews and materials provided by producers. Listings are not advertisements nor is their inclusion in the Directory an endorsement or guarantee by Closing The Gap. Descriptions are edited materials submitted by producers. They are not product reviews. Information provided is as current as possible at publication time.

STAFF

contents volume 38 | number 6

february / march, 2020

Megan Turek ......................................... PRESIDENT Marc Hagen ........................................... VICE PRESIDENT MANAGING EDITOR Becky Hagen.......................................... MEMBERSHIP MANAGER REGISTRATION MANAGER Mary Jo Barry......................................... MEMBERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

Classroom-based Communication

30 Part III – Providing Emergent Literacy

Instruction: The Project Core Implementation Model Lori Geist

Instruction for Students with Significant Disabilities, Including Cortical Vision Impairment: Setting the Stage for Augmentative Communication By Deanna Wagner, Gretchen Hanser, and Caroline Musselwhite

Callie Boelter.......................................... SALES MANAGER

10 The Evolution of

Technology in Speech Language Pathology & Related Professions By Keri Jones

INDIVIDUAL SOLUTIONS MEMBERSHIP Standard Membership 1-yr. $140; 2-yr. $210; Parent $85 Premium Membership 1-yr. $440; 2-yr. $648; Parent $274 GROUP SOLUTIONS MEMBERSHIP Standard and Premium Group options available. SUPPLEMENTAL COLLEGE CURRICULUM – ELECTRONIC TEXTBOOK Instructors receive a complimentary one-year premium membership. Student Membership 1-yr. $85 Standard; 1-yr. $274 Premium Visit www.closingthegap.com/membership for complete details and pricing. PUBLICATION INFORMATION Closing The Gap (ISSN: 0886-1935) is published bi monthly in February, April, June, August, October and December. CONTACT INFORMATION Please address all correspondence to Closing The Gap, P.O. Box 68, Henderson, MN 56044. Telephone 507-248-3294; Fax 507-248-3810. Email <info@closingthegap.com>; Website <www.closingthegap.com>. COPYRIGHT Entire content is copyright 2020 by Closing The Gap, Inc., all rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is strictly prohibited. EDITOR’S NOTE The information provided by Closing The Gap, Inc. in no way serves as an endorsement or guarantee by Closing The Gap, Inc.

44 Upcoming Live Webinars

16 Call for Participation

46 Product Spotlight

18 Diskoveries

A guide to nearly 2,000 Assistive Technology Products!

23 Making Secondary Literacy Accessible for All By Christy Palmquist and Heather Prenevost

51 RESOURCE DIRECTORY 52 Producers 64 Hardware Product Matrix 72 Hardware Product Listings 93 Software Product Matrix 104 Software Product Listings 141 Other AT Product Matrix 149 Other AT Product Listings 174 Membership Information

@ATClosingTheGap

www.facebook.com/ ATClosingTheGap www.instagram.com/ atclosingthegap

augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)

Classroom-based Communication Instruction: The Project Core Implementation Model

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks to the Project Core research team including: Karen Erickson (PI), Claire Greer, Penny Hatch, Skip Ryan, Kathryn Dorney & Sofia Benson-Goldberg. This article was produced, in part, under U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs Grants No. H327S140017 and No. H327S190005. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or polices of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred. As an assistive technology community, we believe in the basic right for all to communicate. We understand the inherent power this right affords. Yet many students who are considered to have significant cognitive disabilities do not have access to personal augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) solutions or evidence-based communication instruction to help them learn to communicate in flexible ways across partners, purposes, and environments. The term significant cognitive disabilities is used by the United States Department of Education (2005) to describe students who have a disability or multiple disabilities that signifi- cantly impact intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior. These students require extensive, repeated, individualized instruction, substantially adapted and modified materials and

individualized methods of accessing information in alternate ways to acquire, maintain, generalize, demonstrate and transfer skills across settings (Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium, 2016). Students who fall within this group are eligible for special education services under a variety of categories such as autism, multiple disabilities, intellectual disability and deaf-blindness. Many students with significant cognitive disabilities are at early levels of communication ability, with between 18 (Towles- Reeves et al., 2012) to 35 percent (Browder, Flowers, & Wakeman, 2008) not yet using speech, sign language or symbols to express themselves. For students who are reported to use symbols, their use is often quite limited. Results of one survey found that 70% of the 7,699 students with significant cognitive disabili- ties used only single symbols for a limited range of commu- nication purposes during their school day (Erickson & Geist, 2016). Students with limited speech and significant disabilities need consistent access to AAC systems that go beyond single symbols, and they require targeted instruction aimed at their continued communication growth. This has been the focus of an effort called Project Core. Project Core is a Stepping-Up Technology Implementation project funded by the United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (#H327S140017). Project Core aims to provide teachers, teaching assistants and related classroom staff with the training, tools and resources needed to teach symbolic communication. The approach includes

LORI GEIST , PhD, CCC-SLP, is an assistant professor at the Center for Literacy and Disability Studies in the Department of Allied Health Sciences at the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill. Prior to joining the research faculty at UNC, Lori worked in direct service, consultation and product development, with her efforts concentrated on intervention approaches that target communication, language and literacy outcomes for individuals with complex communication needs. Her research interests center on leveraging technology in the delivery of effective intervention. She is the project director for Project Core and co-PI for Building Bridges from Emergent to Conventional Literacy, two federally-funded research initiatives.

BACK TO CONTENTS

ensuring access to personal AAC systems with a prioritized set of core vocabulary and embedding communication instruction into the daily activities and academic routines of the school day. Previous work has supported the important role teachers and other classroom staff can play in the delivery of evidence-based AAC instruction in the classroom (see Clendon & Anderson, 2016; Kent-Walsh, Murza, Malani, & Binger, 2015). TEACHING PRACTICES The evidence-based teaching practices central to the Project Core implementation model include: (a) access to personal AAC systems for all; (b) identification and attribution of meaning to early communication acts; (c) use of aided language input strate- gies; (d) use of a prioritized core vocabulary and (e) application of naturalistic teaching principles and techniques. Each of these practices are discussed briefly here and an annotated collection of articles summarizing research on these practices is available at: project-core.com/annotated-bibliography/. Access to personal AAC systems for all. AAC is an evidence- based practice supported by meta-analyses (Ganz et al., 2012; Schlosser & Lee, 2000) and systematic reviews (Douglas, Light, & McNaughton., 2012; Ganz et al., 2012; Holyfield, Drager, Kremkow, & Light, 2017; Romski, Sevcik, Barton-Hulsey, & Whitmore, 2015). In fact, the body of evidence suggests that all students who cannot use speech to meet their communica- tion needs can benefit from AAC intervention regardless of the severity of their intellectual or cognitive disability (Snell et al., 2010). For example, a meta-analysis of 50 single-case experi- mental studies, more than half of which focused on students with significant cognitive disabilities, supports the effectiveness of AAC intervention, generalization and maintenance (Schlosser & Lee, 2000). A second meta-analysis of 24 single-case studies of students with autism spectrum disorders who could not use speech to meet their communication needs revealed large effect sizes for the use of AAC to support expressive communi- cation, social skills, academics and the reduction of challenging behaviors (Ganz et al., 2012). Across the interventions included in these studies, students were taught to use various forms of graphic symbols to meet a variety of communication needs using different approaches to intervention. Identification and attribution of meaning to early communication acts. Before children use speech, signs or symbols to communicate, they rely on non-symbolic forms of communication like body movements (e.g., turning away), facial expressions (e.g., smile), gestures (e.g., pointing) and vocalizations (e.g., laughter) (Rowland, 2011). Caregivers who are responsive to early non-symbolic forms of communication support later language acquisition (Yoder, McCathren, Warren, & Watson, 2001). Similarly, beginning communicators of all ages benefit from responsive partners who honor the intent of these early behaviors and demonstrate symbolic forms of communi-

cation. This honoring of non-symbolic forms of communication helps students build an initial understanding that they can influ- ence others. Demonstrating the use of symbolic alternatives to non-symbolic behaviors helps students learn that symbols carry meaning and can be used to communicate. These are important first steps to learning to use AAC (Beukleman & Mirenda, 2013). Teachers and classroom staff can watch for these early forms of communication, interpret and honor them and demonstrate more conventional, symbolic forms that offer another way to express the same idea. One tool that can be helpful in learning to recognize and build on these early forms of non-symbolic communication is called the Communication Matrix (Rowand, 2011). The Commu- nication Matrix is a teacher and parent-friendly assessment that is organized by behaviors at seven levels of communication ability across four basic reasons to communicate, including: (a) refusing things that are not wanted; (b) obtaining things that are wanted; (c) engaging in social interactions and (d) providing or seeking information. For each of these reasons to communicate, all of the behaviors a student uses are observed and reported. Behaviors become increasingly intentional and symbolic across levels, with the earliest levels requiring interpretation of behav- iors that are not yet used with communicative intent and the highest level reflecting a student’s ability to put two or more symbols together to construct messages. The Communication Matrix is a valid and reliable measure that is available free of charge from: communicationmatrix.org. Use of aided language input strategies. Aided language input is a teaching strategy that can be used across the school day. There is a strong and growing evidence base supporting the benefits of providing aided language input during natural communication interactions (e.g., Brady, Thiemann-Bourque, Fleming & Mathews, 2013; O’Neill, Light & Pope, 2018; Romski & Sevcik, 1996; Sennott, Light & McNaughton, 2016). Spoken models alone do not help students learn to use symbols on an AAC system to communicate. Instead, students need others to demonstrate the use of symbols and AAC (Shire & Jones, 2015). In its simplest form, aided language input involves pointing to symbols on an AAC system while speaking to students, using succinct language and holding the point long enough for students to see it and have a chance to make a meaningful connection between the symbol and the context in which the spoken word is used. It is not necessary to point to a symbol for every spoken word. Nor is it necessary to limit the words spoken to only the symbols that are available. Adults can say anything they want, but should try to include one or two words that provide an opportunity to demonstrate use of the available symbols. When students see adults using symbols to communi- cate, they get to see the power of the words they have available to them.

BACK TO CONTENTS

Use of a prioritized core vocabulary. Selecting the vocabu- lary to display via symbols on a student’s AAC system is chal- lenging. Students who use speech to communicate choose their own words from those in their expressive vocabulary. By contrast, students who are learning to use AAC must choose from the limited set of words others have selected for them. For some beginning communicators, cognitive, sensory and phys- ical challenges place constraints on the number of symbols that can be included on an AAC system, the pace at which additional symbols can be added and the ways they can be represented and accessed (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2013; Erickson & Geist, 2016). Historically, decisions about which symbols to use have focused on preferred items or activities (Beukelman, McGinnis, & Morrow, 1991; Schlosser & Sigafoos, 2002; Snell, Chen, & Hoover, 2006) in order to promote requesting (Frost & Bondy, 2002) and functional communication (Adamson, Romski, Deffebach, & Sevcik 1992). This process often results in concrete symbols that potentially increase student interest and joint attention and allow communication partners to reinforce successful communication through contingent reinforcement (Tomasello, 2003). The context-specific nature of these concrete symbols limit opportunities for teaching and learning and restrict the purposes for communication primarily to the pragmatic func- tion of requesting (Dodd & Gorey, 2013). Furthermore, these symbols are of little use in the context of academic instruction. Core vocabulary provides an alternative approach to selecting symbols to include on AAC systems for beginning communicators (Deckers, Van Zaalen, Van Balkom & Verhoeven, 2017; Van Tilborg & Deckers, 2016). Core vocabulary refers to a relatively small set of highly useful words, such as more, go, you and like. Core words are among the first words typically devel- oping children learn to say (e.g., Banajee, DiCarlo, & Stricklin, 2003), they overlap with the first words they are explicitly taught to read (e.g., Dolch, 1955) and are predominant in children’s early writing (Clendon & Erickson, 2008). One of the primary advan- tages of core vocabulary for beginning communicators who use AAC is that the words can be taught across a variety of contexts throughout the day. Core vocabulary is conceptual. As a result, the symbols repre- senting core vocabulary words are abstract and may be more difficult to learn than concrete symbols. However, in comparison to concrete vocabulary, there are dramatically more opportuni- ties to teach and learn core vocabulary across a typical school day because the words can be used across contexts, purposes and partners (Adamson et al., 1992; Deckers et al., 2017). Addi- tionally, core vocabulary can support the kind of initiating, responding and interacting that is required to successfully access grade-level standards. This usefulness is realized when adults take advantage of the flexibility of core vocabulary and teach its use across the entire school day.

Application of naturalistic teaching principles and tech- niques. Project Core is aimed at promoting spontaneity in communication and generalization across contexts and part- ners (Cowan & Allen, 2007; Pindiprolu, 2012; Prizant & Wetherby, 1998). The implementation resources are intended to support teachers and classroom staff in: (a) leveraging typical daily activi- ties and common academic routines; (b) building on students’ interests and preferences; (c) following student-initiated inter- actions and (d) developing intrinsic motivation through the natural consequences of interaction (Pindiprolu, 2012). TARGET AUDIENCE In Project Core, teachers, teaching assistants, related service providers and other personnel who interact with students in the classroom deliver the instruction and take a primary role in helping students learn to use AAC. No prior training or expe- rience with AAC is required to get started. However, effective implementation is based on: (a) a belief that all students can learn to communicate in increasingly complex ways and (b) a commitment to engage in ongoing professional development (PD) that includes self-reflection and peer and coach support. Through the series of PD modules, teachers learn to identify all of the ways their students communicate, build on these early forms and make meaningful connections as they teach students to use symbols on personal AAC systems. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and related AAC specialists provide addi- tional focused support and guidance, as schedules and case- loads permit. It is important to note that many students with significant cognitive disabilities have limited access to SLPs with expertise in addressing their specific communication needs (American Speech-Language Hearing Association [ASHA], 2012), and when they do, their time is often limited to small group, 20 to 30 minute sessions, two times each week (Brandel & Loeb, 2011). The Project Core implementation model aims to empower teachers to deliver foundational communication supports and instruction for all in need, and thus contribute positively to the time specialists like SLPs have available to focus on individual- ized solutions and intervention plans for students. UNIVERSAL CORE VOCABULARY Project Core features a prioritized set of core vocabulary words called the Universal Core (see Erickson, Geist, Hatch & Quick, 2019). The words that make up the Universal Core can be used alone or in combination to communicate for a range of purposes on countless topics with many different partners. Several formats are available to support student access through direct pointing or touch, eye gaze selection and partner-assisted scanning. Versions with symbols with reduced complexity and high color saturation are available to address the needs of some students with visual impairments. Three dimensional (3D) symbols are available for students who are blind. Additionally,

BACK TO CONTENTS

the Universal Core vocabulary is offered on many commercial communication applications (apps) and speech generating devices (SGDs). Access to open-source formats can be found at: project-core.com/communication-systems. IMPLEMENTATION MODEL COMPONENTS Empowering teachers and classroom staff to successfully implement the Project Core teaching practices involves building background knowledge, creating meaningful opportunities to practice with support and constructive feedback from peer teachers and instructional coaches and ensuring fidelity of implementation by engaging in self-reflection and continued professional growth. A series of 12 professional development modules support this implementation. The modules are avail- able for both group and self-directed learning. The versions for group administration, the facilitated modules, provide detailed facilitator guides with scripted presenter notes, pre-recorded video content and structured activities that promote opportu- nities to practice the new skills and engage in group discussion. The on-demand, self-directed versions of the modules support independent study of the same content through pre-recorded videos and practice activities that are aimed at application of the targeted skills in individual classrooms. Each of the professional development modules, in both the facilitated and self-directed formats, are available at: project-core.com/professional-devel- opment-modules/. Instructional planning guides are provided to support the preparation of lessons that embed the Universal Core vocabu- lary and the evidence-based teaching practices into common academic and daily routines. The Weekly Literacy Academic Routines Planning Form guides teachers in planning lessons that effectively implement the Universal Core vocabulary and communication instruction during five common emergent literacy routines, including (a) shared reading, (b) predictable chart writing, (c) alphabet and phonological awareness activi- ties, (d) independent writing and (e) independent reading. In addition, the Daily Routines Planning Form guides teachers to use their daily schedule to identify opportunities to teach communication across the school day, outline how adults will demonstrate the use of the Universal Core vocabulary to supple- ment their own spoken language, and describe the focus for inviting and supporting students’ expressive use of the Universal Core vocabulary. Self-reflection and observation checklists help teachers, coaches and others interested in monitoring fidelity of imple- mentation. Teachers are directed to use the available checklists to engage in self-reflection, support collaborative discussion with peers and guide observations and feedback from instructional coaches as part of their professional development experience. The available checklists focus on general implementation of the Project Core evidence-based practices across literacy and daily

routines. Each of the instructional planning guides and self-reflec- tion and observation checklists are available for download at: project-core.com/instructional-planning-and-reflection/. DEVELOPMENT AND PILOT TESTING THE PROJECT CORE IMPLEMENTATION MODEL Iterative development of the Project Core implementation model was guided by the field of implementation science. Implementation science seeks to address research-to-practice gaps by leveraging researcher and practitioner collaborations to understand fully the context, potential barriers and neces- sary resources for effective delivery of targeted interventions (Fixsen, Blasé, Metz & VanDyke, 2013). The Project Core research and development team worked in collaboration with teachers across 28 initial classrooms to observe and understand their daily activities and academic routines, along with the challenges they face. The team subsequently engaged in iterative develop- ment and evaluation of an initial implementation model. This implementation model was evaluated through pilot testing in 57 additional classrooms across four school districts in four states. More than 400 classroom observations were completed to inform refinement of all components of the model and gather outcome data related to change in targeted teacher and student behaviors. Outcome data suggests that (a) teachers improved their knowledge, skill and practice, (b) students had dramatically increased personal access to AAC with useful vocabulary (Geist, Erickson, Greer & Dorney, 2018) and (c) students made gains in overall communication ability (Geist, Erickson, Hatch, Dorney, & Benson-Goldberg, 2019). BUILDING BRIDGES: EXTENDING THE PROJECT CORE MODEL Building Bridges from Emergent to Conventional Literacy is a new Stepping-Up Technology Implementation project funded by the United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (H327190005). Building Bridges will leverage the successful model in Project Core to help students with significant cognitive disabilities and complex communica- tion needs successfully bridge from emergent to conventional literacy and communication, with a specific emphasis on grades third through fifth. This new project will follow the same open- source, universally accessible model established in Project Core to provide effective professional development, implementation and intervention supports that allow classroom teachers to deliver comprehensive communication and literacy interven- tion to their students with significant cognitive disabilities and complex communication needs. The project will build upon the power of the existing Universal Core vocabulary and the bridges to more robust technologies that have been created by AAC device and app manufacturers and developers (e.g., AssistiveWare, CoughDrop, Crick, PRC/Saltillo, Smartbox, Speak

BACK TO CONTENTS

and Hearing Services in Schools , 42, 461-490. doi: 10.1044/0161- 1461(2011/10-0019 Brady, N. C., Thiemann-Bourque, K., Fleming K., & Mathews, K. (2013). Predicting language outcomes for children learning augmentative and alternative communication: Child and environ- mental factors. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 56, 1595-1612. doi:10.1044/1092-4388 Browder, D., Flowers, C., & Wakeman, S. (2008). Facilitating partici- pation in assessments and the general curriculum: Level of symbolic communication classification for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15, 137-151. doi:10.1080/09695940802164176 Clendon, S. A., & Anderson, K. (2016). Syntax and morphology in aided language development. In M. Smith, & J. Murray (Eds.) The silent partner? Language, interaction, and aided communication (pp. 119-140). Surrey, UK: J & R Press. Clendon, S. A., & Erickson, K. (2008). The vocabulary of begin- ning writers: Implications for children with complex communica- tion needs. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication , 24, 281-293. doi:0.1080/07434610802463999 Cowan, R., & Allen, K. (2007). Using naturalistic procedures to enhance learning in individuals with autism: A focus on generalized teaching within the school setting. Psychology in the Schools , 44. 701-715. Deckers, S., Van Zaalen, Y., Van Balkom, H., Verhoeven, L. (2017). Core vocabulary of young children with Down syndrome. Augmentative and Alternative Communication , 33, 77-86. doi: 10.1080/07434618.2017.1293730 Dolch, E. W. (1955). Methods in Reading . Champaign, IL: Garrard Press. Douglas, S., Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2012). Teaching para- educators to support the communication of young children with complex communication needs. Topics in Early Childhood Education , 33, 91-101. doi:10.1177/0271121712467074 Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium. (2016). 2014–2015 tech- nical manual-integrated model. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation. Retrieved from http:// dynamiclearningmaps.org/sites/default/files/documents/publica- tion/Technical_Manual_IM_2014-15.pdf Erickson, K. A., & Geist, L. A. (2016). The profiles of students with significant cognitive disabilities and complex communication needs, Augmentative and Alternative Communication , 32, 1-11.doi:10.1080/ 07434618.2016.1213312 Erickson, K., Geist, L., Hatch, P., & Quick, N. (2019). The Universal Core Vocabulary [Technical Report]. Chapel Hill, NC: Center for Literacy & Disability Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Fixen, D., Blasé, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs. Council for Exceptional Children , 79, 213-230. doi: 10.1177/001440291307900206

for Yourself, Tobii Dynavox). It will also build upon the evidence- based emergent literacy practices in Project Core and add a set of evidence-based conventional literacy instructional prac- tices that can be combined to provide comprehensive literacy instruction to students with significant cognitive disabilities and complex communication needs. Working with partner schools, researchers will create implementation and fidelity supports, as well as tools that help teachers make data-based decisions regarding the type and focus of literacy instruction for their students. With a focus on English language arts in grades third through fifth, the Building Bridges project will be aligned with grade level standards in Reading Literature and Information Text, Foundational Skills, Language, Listening/Speaking and Writing. FINAL THOUGHTS Teachers and classroom staff can deliver access to personal AAC systems and evidence-based communication and literacy instruction during naturally occurring interactions with students throughout the school day. Project Core provides professional development and planning resources to guide use of core vocabulary from the time students arrive at school to the time they leave, during common academic and daily routines. Professional development and supporting resources empha- size the importance of being attuned to all of the symbolic and non-symbolic ways that students communicate, along with the power of AAC with core vocabulary to support flexible commu- nication across environments, purposes, and communication partners. REFERENCES: Adamson, L., Romski, M. A., Deffebach, K., & Sevcik, R. (1992). Symbol vocabulary and the focus of conversations: Augmenting language development for youth with mental retardation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35 , 1333-1343. doi:10.1044/ jshr.3506.1333 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2012). 2012 Schools survey. Survey summary report: Number and type of responses, SLPs http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/Schools-2012-SLP- Frequencies.pdf. Banajee, M., DiCarlo, C., & Stricklin, S. (2003). Core vocabulary determination for toddlers. Augmentative and Alternative Communi- cation, 19 , 67-73. doi:10.1080/0743461031000112034 Beukelman, D. R., McGinnis, J., & Morrow, D. (1991). Vocabulary selection in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmen- tative and Alternative Communication, 7, 171-185. doi:10.1080/07434 619112331275883 Beukelman, D., & Mirenda, P. (2013). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children & adults with complex communi- cation Needs (4th Edition). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Brandel, J., & Loeb, D. (2011). Program intensity and service delivery models in schools: SLP survey results. Language, Speech,

BACK TO CONTENTS

Frost, L., & Bondy, A. (2002). PECS: The Picture Exchange Commu- nication System training manual. Newark, DE: Pyramid Educational Products Inc. Ganz, J., Earles-Vollrath, T., Heath, A., Parker, R., Rispoli, M., & Duran, J. (2012). A meta-analysis of single case research studies on aided augmentative and alternative communication systems with individ- uals with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism Developmental Disorder , 42, 60-74. doi:10.1007/s10803-011-1212-2 Geist, L., Erickson, K., Greer, C., & Dorney, K. (2018). Classroom-wide communication instruction for students with severe disabilities: Year 2. Paper presented at the ATIA 2018 Conference, Orlando, FL. Geist, L., Erickson, K., Hatch, P., Dorney, K., & Benson-Goldberg, S. (2019). Implementing classroom-based core vocabulary instruction for beginning communicators with significant cognitive disabili- ties: Year 4 results. Paper presented at the ASHA 2019 Convention, Orlando, FL. Holyfield, C., Drager, K., Kremkow, J., & Light, J. (2017). Systematic review of AAC intervention research for adolescents and adults with autism spectrum disorder, Augmentative and Alternative Communi- cation . doi:10.1080/07434618.2017.1370495 Kent-Walsh, J., Murza, K., Malani, M., & Binger, C. (2015). Effects of communication partner instruction on the communication of indi- viduals using AAC. A meta-analysis. Augmentative and Alternative Communication , 31, 271-284. doi: 10.3109/07434618.2015.1052153. O’Neill, T., Light, J., & Pope, L. (2018). Effects of interventions that include aided augmentative and alternative communication input on the communication of individuals with complex communica- tion needs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, Hearing Research , 16, 1743-1765. doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-17-0132. Pindiprolu, S. (2012). A review of naturalistic interventions with young children with autism. The Journal of International Association of Special Education , 12, 69-78. Prizant, B., & Wetherby, A. (1998). Understanding the continuum discrete-trial traditional behavioral to social-pragmatic develop- mental approaches in communication enhancement for young children with autism/PDD. Seminars in Speech and Language , 19, 329-352. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1064053 Romski, M. A., & Sevcik, R. A. (1996). Breaking the speech barrier: Language development through augmented means . Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Romski, M.A., Sevcik, R. A., Barton-Hulsey, A. & Whitmore, A. S. (2015). Early intervention and AAC: What a difference 30 years makes. Augmentative and Alternative Communication , 31, 181-202. doi:10.3109/07434618.2015.1064163 Rowland, C. (2011). Communication Matrix [Assessment Instru- ment]. Retrieved from http://communicationmatrix.org. Schlosser, R., & Lee, D. (2000). Promoting generalization and maintenance in augmentative and alternative communication: A meta-analysis of 20 years of effectiveness research. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 208–226. doi:10.1080/074346 10012331279074

Schlosser, R., & Sigafoos, J. (2002). Selecting graphic symbols for an initial request lexicon: Integrative review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 102–123. doi:10.1080/0743461021 2331281201 Sennott, S., Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2016). AAC modeling intervention research review. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities , 41,101-115. doi:10.1177/1540796916638822 Shire, S. & Jones, N. (2014). Communication partners supporting children with complex communication needs who use AAC: A systematic review. Communications Disorders Quarterly , 37, 3-15. doi:10.1177/1525740114558254 Snell, M. E., Brady, N., McLean, L., Ogletree, B. T., Siegel, E., Sylvester, L., Mineo, B., Paul, D., Romski, M. A., & Sevcik, R. (2010). Twenty years of communication intervention research with individuals who have severe intellectual and developmental disabilities. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities , 115(5), 364–380. doi:10.1352/1944-7558-115-5.364 Snell, M. E., Chen, L.-Y., & Hoover, K. (2006). Teaching augmen- tative and alternative communication to students with severe disabilities: A review of intervention research 1997-2003. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities , 31, 203–214. doi:10.1177/154079690603100301 Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Towles-Reeves, E., Kearns, J., Flowers, C., Hart, L., Kerbel, A., Kleinert, H., … Thurlow, M. (2012). Learner characteristics inventory project report (A product of the NCSC validity evaluation ). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www.ncscpartners. org/media/default/pdfs/lci-project-report-08-21-12.pdf United States Department of Education (2005). Alternate achieve- ment standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabili- ties: Non-regulatory guidance . Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/altguidance.doc Van Tilborg, A. & Deckers, S. (2016). Vocabulary selection in AAC: Application of core vocabulary in atypical populations. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups SIG 12, 1 , 125-138. doi:10.1044/ persp1.SIG12.125 Yoder, P., McCathren, R., Warren, S., & Watson, A. (2001). Important distinctions in measuring maternal responses to communication in prelinguistic children with disabilities. Communication Disorders Quarterly , 22 , 135-147. doi:10.1177/152574010102200303

BACK TO CONTENTS

A TOTAL SOLUTION for Special Education

With standards-aligned, differentiated instruction and assessment, seamlessly integrated behavior management and universal symbol support, n2y’s Total Solution addresses the whole child—and eases the day-to-day demands of teachers!

See it in action at go.n2y.com/totsol-ctg

instruction, literacy & inclusion

The Evolution of Technology in Speech Language Pathology & Related Professions

The evolution of technology is daunting and exciting - fright- ening and empowering. In many ways, technology is what we allow it to be, and we can either embrace or reject its’ advance- ment within our lives. During my 20 years as a Speech Language Pathologist (SLP) I’ve born witness to an awe-inspiring techno- logical transformation. Various forms of technology have been integrated into my daily work in ways I never would have imag- ined when I graduated with my Master’s degree from Wash- ington State University in 2000. I have made the conscious decision to embrace the advance- ment of technology and stay current with its’ ever-changing landscape. Perhaps inspired by my grandpa, a 95-year-old who is active on Facebook and takes his iPad with him to doctor’s appointments, I realize it will do me no good to reject using technological tools and opportunities available to me within my practice, as well as my home life. To provide our younger readers with a little perspective, when I first began working, email was available, but hardly used to the extent that it is today. In fact, I recall that in its’ earliest stages (while I was pursuing my undergraduate degree) email was extremely cumbersome and could only be accessed at

KERI JONES is the creator of the Speech Sounds Visualized App and a Speech Language Patholo- gist at Pullman Regional Hospital, Summit Therapy & Health Services in Pullman, Washington. She received her B.A. in Speech & Hearing Sciences from Washington State University in 1998, and her M.A. in Speech & Hearing Sciences from Washington State University in 2000. Keri’s experience includes providing diagnostic and therapy services in the field of speech language pathology in the medical setting for 20 years. Through her hospital employment, she has also held contracts for rural schools, an early intervention program, a home health program, and a skilled nursing facility. She is well versed in working with people of all ages for speech, language, voice, accent modification, cognitive, and swal - lowing concerns. Keri also had the pleasure of teaching the Introduction to Speech & Hearing Sciences course at Washington State University for the past five years.

BACK TO CONTENTS

a computer lab on campus. When I started my first job at a rehabilitation hospital, I was given a beeper to wear when off campus so that I could be easily reached. My husband, who has always taken pride in being on the cusp of technology, owned one of the first cell-phones, a behemoth of a thing that came in a large leather case. He would unpack it, pull out the long antenna and power it up. It hardly worked! Like many, I’ve been awestruck by the staggering techno- logical developments within our field. Participants in this tech- nological revolution also included Special Education Teachers, Occupational and Physical Therapists, and certainly Assistive Technology Specialists. Whatever the advancements were outside of our field, many of us sought ways to integrate these into our teachings and therapies, in order to make access to this technology available for our patients, clients, and students. Could we even go so far as to say that we have functioned as technology activists? The SLP’s in particular are driven by an all-encompassing passion to help people access communica- tion, this being a human right for all to behold. Communication occurs in many forms other than verbal, and we have actively sought new and exciting options to provide our patients, clients, and students for decades. As a result, SLP’s and Assistive Technology Specialists have been at the helm of the techno- logical revolution for decades. Indeed, the need to be aware of the latest and greatest forms of Augmentative & Alternative Communication (AAC) has been the driving force behind staying atop the ever-changing tech- nological advancement. SLP’s and Assistive Technology Specialists were using small hand-held computers in the form of AAC devices decades before other consumers held iPhones, iPads, tablets and laptops. We’ve been prescribing and programming these hand-held computers since the 1980’s when Ed Prentke and Bill Romich created their first amazing AAC device. The stakeholders in AAC have long-recognized the distinc- tive voice of an AAC “talker” well before the voice of Siri became recognized by the masses. In fact, I vividly remember the first time I helped a patient obtain a Prentke-Romich device, and begin to use this voice, back in 2001. It was a tremendous piece of technology to behold! I marveled that this was essentially a hand-held portable computer with seemingly endless possibili- ties for programming and communication. As technology evolved, our communication devices became increasingly more sophisticated, as well as more portable and lightweight. Meanwhile, use of budding technology became much more relevant to treatment modalities apart from AAC. It was actually during this period of our technological revolution that many of us were forced to consider when it was appro- priate to use the burgeoning technology, versus when it was appropriate to stick to the “old school” techniques and strate- gies such as books and good-old fashioned picture/flash cards.

We’ve learned that the old adage, “everything in moderation” applies to our teaching and therapy strategies too. Remember when the word “application” simply meant the action of putting something to use? If we had heard that word prior to 2009, when the iPhone and the App Store was introduced, it would have held a much different meaning than it often does now. Then, in 2010 the iPad was released and changed everything within our field. It was nothing short of revolutionary! I’m sure I wasn’t the only SLP waiting in a long line outside the Apple Store to purchase my very first iPad. (I actually lined up the very day they went for sale!) Like many, I immediately recognized the therapeutic potential for the many applications (Apps) the iPad could hold. I knew that this would offer resources and tools that would change my therapy, for the better. I recall being particularly excited for the built- in stopwatch, data tracking, voice recording and of course the motivational Apps that could be used as reinforcement or conversation starters. Incidentally, tremendous credit should be given to Apple that my first iPad still works to this day! I actually use it in therapy on a regular basis. It is noticeably slower than my newer iPad, but certainly serves its’ purpose in a pinch. The invention of the iPad and the associated speech and language Apps offered unprecedented accessibility to people,

BACK TO CONTENTS

worldwide. Once again, the SLP’s, Assistive Technology Special- ists, Occupational Therapists and Special Education Teachers found themselves at the helm of this flourishing technology, frequently asked to make recommendations for others about which of these new Apps would be most beneficial for use. The iPad was for sale beginning in April of 2010 and by November of 2010 SLP’s were presenting a thorough review of popular Apps at the American Speech Language Hearing Asso- ciation convention. It’s really quite extraordinary how quickly all of this new technology was adopted and embraced for its’ accessibility and effectiveness in our therapy sessions! The developers of the early, high-quality Apps such as Tactus Therapies Apps, Virtual Speech Center Apps, Smarty Ears Apps and Super Duper Inc., were the pioneers in this new realm and ought to be given tremendous credit for their foresight and spirit of innovation! They must have known they had accom- plished something quite special because by 2012, at least half of SLPs reported using iPads in clinical practice (Bruno-Dowling, 2012) which is quite remarkable given that the App Store first debuted in just 2009. By 2015 we could find hundreds of valuable Apps for our professions with new ones being added to the App Store on a daily basis. Lists of “Top Apps” sorted neatly per therapy category were developed and updated frequently by various members of our profession. Many of us thought “I have an idea for an App” and some of us even asked “How does one go about making an App?”We could all identify ways that we could use various Apps in our therapy while also staying true to our roots of techniques and strategies that did not include the use of technology. We discovered that there would never be a “perfect” App, just as there will never be a “perfect” therapy tool or approach. Nonetheless, the quest to contribute to the profes- sion in this new and exciting way was alive and well amongst a growing number of SLP’s and other therapy professionals. Just as Apps offered greater accessibility to our patients, clients and students, Apps also offered accessibility to those wanted to feel as though they were contributing to the profession. My own journey into building an App began in about 2015 when I had an idea to visualize how speech sounds are formed through moving x-rays called video-fluoroscopy. After working with an Institutional Review Board and my hospital’s imaging department, we had attained a treasure trove of visually stun- ning videos depicting speech-sound formation. I am fortunate to work for a small but progressive critical access hospital that includes a Center for Learning & Innovation. Among other functions, the Center supports hospital employees who wish to act on ideas designed to positively impact healthcare and well-being. Using the imagery that we captured, I wrote a book that was intended to be used as an e-book for students of Speech Language Pathology. But as the rigors of publication became

more evident, the accessibility and appeal of the App Store called out. I proposed the development of an App to Pullman Regional Hospitals’ Center for Learning & Innovation. The Center accepted my proposal to create the App that would eventually become Speech Sounds Visualized. Speech Sounds Visualized is a unique App that allows users to see speech in action, among many other valuable features and benefits. Users select a sound to see how it is formed. Users then practice saying the selected sound in isolation, while recording themselves. Upon play-back the user can hear the difference between their production as opposed to that which is in the video/model. This is building self-monitoring and sound discrimination skills. On gaining success at the sound- in-isolation level, users progress to practicing that sound at the word level, and ultimately at the sentence level. Speech Sounds Visualized was created primarily for adoles- cents and adults. There are a plethora of Apps available for small children with speech impairments, but a noticeable gap in the market exists for older children and adults. This population seeks a clear path to learning, absent of unnecessary distrac-

BACK TO CONTENTS

tion. The Speech Sounds Visualized team sought to fill this gap in the market with a robust App that is designed to be straight- forward and efficient in helping its’ users to accomplish their speech goals. Many customers have recognized Speech Sounds Visual- ized as being particularly helpful for older children working on the challenging R sound. We have developed a special section within the App that is devoted to the R. Speech Sounds Visu- alized has also been particularly beneficial for adults who are seeking accent modification in order to be better understood by others. Still others have used our App as a teaching tool to help clients, patients, students and even those who are studying to be a Speech Language Pathologist better understanding of place, manner and voicing of speech sounds. While I certainly fully embrace and love technology, I am not an SLP-technology-wizard who is capable of treating people for communication disorders by day, and writing code for an App by night! As a result, we hired a programmer/coder through a global freelancing website called Upwork.com. This is yet another example of astounding development in the world of technology that I have witnessed in my career. The entire process of developing the App was managed through this plat- form. As I dove deeper and deeper into the behind-the-scenes world of App technology, I began to feel overwhelmed by how much there was to learn. During these times, I would think of my patients and their families, many of whom had no other

choice but to learn how to use a communication device and/ or iPad with an App as their primary means of communica- tion, often under very difficult circumstances. I would also think of my grandpa, who made the conscious decision as his life advanced that he would learn about, and embrace tech- nology to the best of his ability. He saw this as a cognitive chal- lenge to be accepted, as well as a way to stay connected with those who were younger than he. Finally, I would think of all the people who could potentially benefit from our App. There were nights during the process that I would imagine someone living far away in another country, using our App to help them reach their communication goals. These motivations drove me through those challenging months of App development. We released Speech Sounds Visualized in December of 2017. I am proud to say that our App has now been downloaded thousands of times around the world. It seems that perhaps having these images accessible in the form of an App was much more beneficial than they would have been in the form of an e-book, as was the original intention. While there are a number of free Apps available, the reality is that developing an App is extremely time-consuming and usually very expensive to build and maintain. Most devel- opers seek to at least recoup their initial investment, or ideally to make enough money to provide necessary upgrades and enhancements to the App. Unfortunately, few developers are able to generate enough income to justify building additional iterations from the original concepts included in the App.

BACK TO CONTENTS

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175

www.closingthegap.com

Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator