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,
7
February / March, 2020 | www.closingthegap.com/membership Closing The Gap © 2020 Closing The Gap, Inc. All rights reserved.
BACK TO CONTENTS
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator