Christine Kramlich Prentke Romich Company Lawrenceville, GA. Abstract

Transcription

1 This article is the original, accepted version of the article as submitted by the author to The American Speech- Language- Hearing Association for publication. The citation for the final published version of this article is as follows: Kramlich, C. (2012). Perspectives from general education teachers, students and their parents: Including students with robust communication devices in general education classrooms. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21: The article is available at: Perspectives from General Education Teachers, Students and Their Parents: Including Students with Robust Communication Devices in General Education Classrooms Christine Kramlich Prentke Romich Company Lawrenceville, GA Abstract Teachers face a number of challenges in regards to including students, but especially when including those who have complex communication needs and use speech generating devices. Parents are interested in collaborating with teachers, but may find themselves with differing opinions than school and staff. Device users want to be part of the class, not just physically in the classroom. Finding ways to communicate and work together is critical to overcoming these challenges and facilitating inclusion. In this process, it is important to consider the perspectives of the general education teacher, the parent of the student using the AAC device, classmates, and, most important, the student using the device. Successful inclusion of students who use robust speech generating devices (SGDs) in general education requires a team approach and it is helpful when those who comprise the team have the same goals in mind regarding the outcome of inclusion. For some students with complex communication needs (CCN), the expected outcome is a general education diploma. Other students with CCN, however, may be included with the expected outcome that they be exposed to the general education curriculum, with a primary focus on understanding the main idea of what is being taught. For others, the curriculum may be secondary to the social aspects of the classroom and the team expects that the student with CCN will form relationships with other students while being exposed to the general education curriculum. All of these scenarios and many others can result in successful inclusive environments if the team is working together toward a mutual goal. The intent of this article is to present a variety of perspectives for including students using robust SGDs in general education classrooms. General Education Teacher Perspective 1

2 There are many obstacles that can hinder a successful inclusion experience, including perceptions and attitudes about students with disabilities, time challenges, limited resources, class size, and instructional style. Attitudinal barriers can be some of the most challenging and are often rooted in a general education teacher s lack of confidence in his/her instructional skills when presented with students who have disabilities. This may be accompanied by concerns about the quality of support staff, which in turn leads to a poor attitude by the teacher towards inclusion. However, according to Jung (2012), most teachers with negative inclusive perceptions express an interest in wanting to change their attitudes towards inclusion. Effective strategies for changing attitudes may include in- service training and mentoring relationships. One effective strategy for changing attitudes is to provide teachers (and SLPs) with more pre- service and in- service training opportunities that relate specifically to inclusion (Bennett, Deluca, & Bruns, 1997; Jung 2012). Most general education teachers and SLPs have little to no pre- service training in the area of augmentative and alternative communication; therefore, on- site in- service training is beneficial when a student using a robust SGD is included in the classroom. An AAC expert from within the school district or someone hired specifically for school personnel training may be needed to provide both general and student- specific AAC training. The role of the AAC expert might be to observe the student in the classroom, train on general AAC principles, provide specific AAC system or SGD training, offer suggestions for AAC implementation in the classroom, and guide development of standards- based IEP goals for the school- based SLP. Preparing general education teachers to included students using SGDs can also be accomplished through mentoring relationships, such as a teacher- to- teacher mentoring program. Teachers who feel confident in their ability to include all children, including students using SGDs, can share their experiences and teaching techniques with less experienced and often uncertain teachers. With the current technology available, a teacher could observe another classroom first hand via Skype or FaceTime, all without ever leaving their classroom (Holloway, 2001). Other types of mentoring relationships, such as using a competent adult who uses a SGD as a communication coach (George & Warren, 2012) provides additional benefits for the teacher to understand about AAC and what it takes to be included successfully within the classroom when using an SGD. A combination of either or both of these strategies is likely to increase the confidence of the general education teacher and his/her ability to include the student using a SGD. Successful inclusion, particularly of a student using a SGD, requires sufficient time for the inclusion team to collaborate. The size of the team may be very large, depending on the number of challenges that a student faces (e.g., physical, behavioral, visual, medical). Student collaboration teams for students with very complex needs might include ten or more team members (e.g., parents, parent advocate, general education teacher, special education teacher, classroom assistant, SLP, OT, PT, AAC expert, behavior specialist, vision specialist, inclusion specialist, school nurse, etc.). Organizing meeting times for all of these individuals to 2

3 collaborate on a regular basis can be difficult. To ensure regular communication, institute a schedule at the beginning of the school year. It is necessary to have the support of school administration in facilitating this additional planning time. While coordinating planning times is challenging, staff members feel supported and valued when regular meeting times are allowed and expected outcomes can be revisited regularly and modified as needed (Kiltzing, 2002). Other strategies that can assist the general education teacher with the inclusion experience, especially of a student with a SGD, are smaller class sizes (Arico, 2011) and having resources readily available (Bennett, Deluca & Bruns, 1997). The research shows that smaller class size actually has a positive impact on the results of testing specifically related to inclusion of students with disabilities in general education. Additionally, teachers believe that smaller class size will have a positive impact on student performance (Arico, 2011). Likewise, having resources available for the general education teacher will impact the inclusion environment in a positive way. For the student using a robust SGD, the general educator teacher and the student s assistant generally do not know what words are in the SGD or how to retrieve them. Therefore, the teachers needs simple visual support materials and resources, such as wall charts or flip books, of the available vocabulary and the icon sequences and/or navigational paths for retrieving the vocabulary (Van Tatenhove, 2009). In addition, a student using a robust SGD may benefit from having a manual communication board (MCB) as an additional multi- modal tool for interacting in the classroom. The student s MCB should parallel the pictures and organizational structure, as closely as possible, of the student s SGD, to avoid unnecessary additional, new learning of pictures. Like all AAC tools, the MCB should be readily available in all classes. Other visual support resources, such as cards with the words of the week, spelling lists, vocabulary flashcards, and labels for engineering the classroom, should be printed with the pictures, icon sequences, or navigational paths from the student s SGD. Assign one person from the collaborative team to be in charge of creating these types of visual supports and adapting materials, as needed (Ten Tips, 2009). The regularly scheduled meeting is a great time to discuss materials that may be needed in the upcoming weeks. Awareness of teacher instructional styles is needed to promote participation of the student using an SGD in classroom lessons. According to Baker (2009) and Witkowski & Baker (2012), teachers ask their students two types of questions during teaching and testing tasks: referential ( Who ordered the Emancipation Proclamation? ) and open- ended or essay- style ( What do you know about the Emancipation Proclamation? ), also referred to as descriptive questions. Referential questions, which require a specific answer (e.g., Abraham Lincoln), are the most challenging for students using SGDs, particularly pre- literate students, because the words to answer these questions are not typically pre- stored in the vocabulary sets of SGDs. To answer them requires someone to program the words in the device, which often results in a time and resource consuming cycle of endless programming. However, descriptive questions are more easily answered with words already pre- stored in robust SGDs (e.g., people go, people not have to stay anymore, they free, etc.) These words are the ones the student needs to learn for talking both in class and throughout the remainder of his/her life. When teachers are reviewing and assessing student learning, the teacher should be encouraged to use, as much as possible, 3

4 open- ended, essay- style descriptive questions with the student using a SGD. According to Van Tatenhove (2010), it is a reasonable goal to ask teachers to adjust lessons, homework, and worksheets to encourage at least 30 40% of the questions to be open- ended or essay- style. The remaining questions could take the form of multiple choice, matching, fill- in- the- blanks (with simple core words), and T/F. It is recommended to avoid the use of referential questions that can only be answered after someone stores the new words (often only on the day of the lesson) into the student s SGD. During assessments, similar Fair Testing Practices (Proctor & Zangari, 2009) should be used. The inclusion experience can improve even a seasoned teacher s knowledge base and can broaden the experiences of all students. Regarding inclusion, one teacher said, The clearer I can be and the more I can bring the ideas into the realm of the concrete, the better. Another teacher said, I m always thinking about every student in my classroom who are the kids in my class and what do they need? Yet another teacher commented, The kids do benefit by having lots of different learners in a room. And I have to stretch as a teacher because of it too (King & Youngs, 2003). Ensuring Parent Involvement According to Whitbread and Eason (2006), the higher the level of parent involvement, the higher the level of student achievement. For the student using a SGD, to ensure parent involvement requires true parental participation with the team. If the team is comprised of only paid staff, then the parents may feel as though their input is not valued. In turn, they may withdraw from the process. Instead, parental input should be highly valued since they are truly the experts on their child. Parents, when they are asked about what makes inclusion successful, cite communication, collaboration, and cooperation (Bennett, Deluca, & Bruns, 1997). To promote communication, collaboration, and cooperation, parents should be an integral part of the regularly scheduled collaboration team meetings, with time allocated to addressing parental concerns. During such discussions, school personnel and the parents may have different perspectives on their child s strengths and weaknesses, classroom issues, and potential solutions. The key to team collaboration and cooperation is for the team to listen to all perspectives and look for any consensus of opinion between all parties. Too often, parents feel as though they need to advocate constantly for their child. As a result, the relationship with other team members tends to deteriorate. This places parents in the role of opponent rather than ally. If the team can focus on their common goal, it may be possible to avoid this outcome (Whitbread & Eason, 2006). Teaching and parenting are two of the most challenging and exhausting jobs in the world. Because of this, both parties must allow a little latitude with the other. Things are going to happen - MCBs are occasionally forgotten, SGDs some to school uncharged, or papers that need to be signed do not return the next day. Be slow to criticize and quick to praise if both parties are to enjoy a pleasant, positive working relationship. On the other hand, it is not productive if 4

5 people withhold their true feelings. In fact, Edwin Land, an American scientist and the inventor of the Polaroid camera, said, politeness is the poison of collaboration. One of the best ways to ensure advocacy without anger is to step back from the situation, then come back to the table at a later date ready to talk after allowing strong emotions to subside. True collaboration is more likely to happen and inclusion is far more likely to be successful if the teachers and parents can continue to work together despite any differences of opinion. Overall, the school environment should be welcoming to the parent (Sandifer, 2011). When parents feel as though they are welcome in the classroom and there is an open- door policy in place, the transparency of the school setting can put the parent at ease. For many students using SGDs, the parent may be the person who is the most knowledgeable about their child s use of the SGD, including the vocabulary in the device, the mounting of the device on the wheelchair, the student s access method, and interfacing the SGD to a computer. As such, the parent can be a valuable resource to help train school staff and problem- solve issues that arise throughout the school year. In addition, to be a better team collaborator, the parent may want to observe his/her child in the classroom to more fully understand the demands of the classroom, such as the pace of lessons and the needs of other students in the classroom. Parental assistance and observation times should be scheduled with the teacher in keeping with school policies, such as avoiding visits during testing and other critical times of the day. When in the classroom as an observer, the parent must remember that the time to discuss what was seen during the observation and to voice any praises or criticisms should happen during the regularly scheduled meeting or a meeting specifically called to discuss any questions or concerns. General Education Student Perspectives One of the most controversial aspects of including children with disabilities in a general education environment, including students using SGDs, is the impact on those students without disabilities. Generally, students are often unaware that there is a child with a disability in their classroom. However, with students who use SGDs, their use of technology to communicate is obvious and noticed by the general education students. This is good news because according to shows Bennett, Deluca and Bruns (1997), when students are aware of others in their class with disabilities, they have a more positive attitude towards inclusion. One can surmise that the reasoning for this might be that general education students have more tolerance for differences if they understand that there might be a reason for these differences. For instance, if a student takes a long time to respond because they have an auditory processing disorder, the general education student might just assume that this student is being difficult, acting as the class clown, or is not capable of learning at the same rate as him or her since the disability is not obvious. However, if the student takes a long time to respond because they are using an SGD to answer, the general education student might assume that it takes longer to answer when you have to compose your message by using an alternate means. A positive perspective from peers is critical to the success of a truly inclusive environment (Bennett, Deluca and Bruns, 1997). Providing AAC awareness opportunities and training with the students can support development of a positive peer perspective (George and Warren, 2012). 5

6 Device User Perspectives The most important perspective to consider is the student using the SGD. Bennett, Deluca, and Brun (1997) report that students included in general education have increased motivation to work hard. The included students appreciate being involved with the decision- making process and report positive experiences when expectations are appropriate. Overall, students with disabilities view inclusion as something positive and they want to continue to be included. Something that may be obvious regarding inclusion, but can be overlooked, is physical access to an environment. If the student using the SGD cannot physical maneuver through their school environment, there is little chance that they will feel like a welcome member of the school (Ansley, 2000). While public laws (e.g., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973), mandate that schools be physically accessible to students with mobility disabilities physical access to learning environments is more than disability parking, ramps, automatic doors, and elevators. Figure 1: Eye Gaze System For students using SGDs who are ambulatory, seating with peers and movement throughout the classroom is not as challenging as students using SGDs who are positioned in wheelchairs. Generally, SGD users need to be seated where they can see their device, the teacher, and the material being presented, with adequate space to accommodate the student s assistant, as necessary. For students seated in wheelchairs with large SGDs mounted in front of them, particularly eye gaze systems (see Figure 1), and backpacks attached to the back of the chair, the amount of space needed to navigate around the classroom is significant Plus, students do not sit in the same place throughout their school day. For example, in preschool and elementary school grades, students often sit on the floor for various activities (e.g., circle time, reading time). Figure 2: Alternative Seating with Accessible, Portable Desk Figure 3: Alternative Seating with Accessible, Portable Desk Students with physical disabilities may need alternative positioning that is moveable throughout the classroom (see Figure 2 and Figure 3) to allow the student using the SGD to be at a physical level with fellow students. In addition, visual support materials need to be accessible throughout the classroom, such as a portable chart of vocabulary on a PVC frame (see Figure 4) that is presented at the student s eye level. Physical and occupational therapists are often great resources for discussing appropriate seating in the classroom and access to visual support materials. Figure 4: Portable Vocabulary Chart 6

7 There are some inclusive practices that should be reconsidered. One of these is the practice of instructing an individual with a disability in the same classroom as his or her peers, but instructing on completely different topics. Inclusive environments are ones that work the student s IEP goals into the learning environment using standards- based instruction, aligning SLP goals with classroom lessons (Boruta & Bidstrup, 2012; Henneberry, Kelso, & Soto, 2012). The language used to mediate learning and peer interaction during lessons provides communication opportunities for students using SGDs when instructed with peers. For instance, if the student has an IEP goal to communicate their needs via their SGD, an opportunity to do this would be during a lab experiment where the student using the SGD is partnered with a non- disabled peer. This gives the student a chance to do the activity with peers and provides him/her with an opportunity to request a chance to look in the microscope or instruct the partner to pour the liquid into the beaker. In contrast, the less desirable option would be to pull the child aside during the lab activity and have him/her use flashcards to tell what item are needed if it were raining outside. The first situation is natural and conversational. The second situation is artificial. When participating in the same activity as his/her peers, the student is more likely to be successful, happier, and more engaged. According to Wigle (1994), this causes the neurons that promote learning to activate and helps learning to transfer from short- term to long- term memory. In addition, the student is reinforced by the positive interactions with peers, which can motivate the student to continue at high levels of engagement. There are other engagement practices that should be carried forward for students using SGDs. Teacher and student engagement is critical to a student s success and the student using the SGD needs to be engaged with the teacher. According to Wigle (1994), answering questions from the teacher and receiving feedback is linked with student achievement. If a student using a SGD has an assistant to help with physical needs in the classroom, the general education teacher may think it is the assistant s responsibility to educate the student. Lack of direct engagement with the teacher may result in less learning. Engagement in learning also involves being given opportunity to respond. When student are not given adequate opportunities, they start to disengage and learn less. Due to the pace of instruction in a general education classroom, students who use SGDs may get fewer opportunities to respond because of the longer time it takes them to compose responses. For students who use SGDs, the teacher may need to pose a specific, pre- determined question to the SGD user, giving him/her time to compose the answer. While the student is composing the answer, the teacher can continue the lesson, and then come back to the student for him/her to provide the answer. When using this approach, the advise of adults who used SGDs in general education classes (Van Tatenhove, 2010) is to select a question that is answerable with core vocabulary, isn t too involved, and, if there is a series of questions to be answered (e.g., 1 10), 7

8 either the 3rd or 4 th question in the series. This allows the student enough time to generate a response, but also listen to the answers and responses for the other questions in the lesson. If asked the 9 th or 10 th question in the series, some students are likely to take the entire time to compose a response and will miss out on the remainder of the Q & A time in the classroom. Finally, students using robust SGDs need to be academically engaged. If the material is too easy or very challenging, the student may choose not to participate in learning. This creates the need for differentiated instruction in all classrooms, but especially those that include students with disabilities (Wigle, 1994). People learn best when they know that they are valued and when people have high expectations of them. In 1984, Donnellan (1984) introduced the notion of the least dangerous assumption as it relates to individuals with disabilities. It requires assuming that people are competent and have the same ability to learn and grow as the rest of their peers. In addition, the assumption should be that if a student fails to learn something, it is the fault of the instruction rather than the student. Assuming that people are not competent means that they are provided with fewer opportunities for education, less access to literacy, and thus fewer options in adult life. It is essential to speak to people at an age appropriate level because talking down to them only makes them feel as though they are not smart. In this least dangerous assumption model, even if the assumption of cognitive ability is incorrect, at least the individual has been treated with the respect and dignity all people deserve. When a student starts using an SGD, he/she may speak in only one or two word utterances. However, their receptive language skills may be significantly higher. Additionally, people who use switches to access SGDs may choose to use only a few words to get their point across in order to save time. It should be presumed that these individuals, given more time and motivation, could and would create a lengthier sentence and one that is more grammatically correct. It is the least dangerous assumption to assume that people are capable (Jorgenson, 2005). Practices like the least dangerous assumption and inclusion can be positive for all students using SGDs if the right supports are in place. Teachers, parents, students and SGD users report positive inclusion experiences when the right supports and attitudes are in place. With communication, collaboration, and cooperation between parents and staff members, inclusion can help to ensure that students using robust SGDs are given every opportunity to grow and learn with their peers. Doing so will ensure that students will have more options for a positive future in their adult life. References Ansley, J. (2000). Creating accessible schools. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Arico, A. (2011). The effect of class size on inclusion student academic success. Walden University: College of Education. 8

9 Baker, B. (2009). AAC: Saving time in the classroom: Part I. Pittsburgh, PA: Semantic Compaction Systems. Bennett, T., Deluca, D., & Bruns, D. (1997). Putting inclusion into practice: Perspectives of teachers and parents. Exceptional Children, 64. Donnellan, A. (1984). The criterion of the least dangerous assumption. Behavioral Disorders, 9, 2, pp George, C., & Warren, F. (2012). Mentoring as a communication coach in a public school setting. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21: Holloway, J. (2001). The benefits of mentoring. Who is Teaching Our Children?, 58, Jorgenson, C. (2005). The least dangerous assumption: A challenge to create a new paradigm. Disability Solutions: A Publication of Creating Solutions: A Resource for Families and Others Interested in Down Syndrome and Developmental Disabilities, 6. Jung, W. S. (2012). Preservice teacher training for successful inclusion. Education. Retrieved from Kiltzing, S. W. (2002). The best practices for successful inclusion. Parks and Recreation. Retrieved from King, B. M. & Youngs, P. (2003). Classroom teachers views on inclusion. RISER, 7, Sandifer, S. (2011). How parent friendly are your schools? The School Administrator, 68, 34. Proctor, L.A., & Zangari, C. (2009). Language assessment for students who use AAC. In G. Soto & C. Zangari (Eds.), Practically speaking: language, literacy, and academic development for students with AAC needs (pp ). Baltimore: Brookes. Ten Tips and Tricks. (2011). Retrived April 28, 2012, from Van Tatenhove, G. (2009). Building language competence with students using AAC devices: Six challenges. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 2, Van Tatenhove, G. (2010). Supporting students using robust AAC devices in general education classrooms. Webinar presented by the Assistive Technology Education Association. Orlando, FL. 9

10 Whitbread, K. & Eason, A. (2006). Forming effective partnerships between families and school. In K. Whitbread and A. Eason (Eds.), IEP and inclusion tips for parents and teachers. (p. 69). Retrieved from Witkowski, D. & Baker, B. (2012). Addressing the content vocabulary with core: Theory and practice for non- literate or emerging literate students. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21: Wigle, S. E. & others. (1994). Full inclusion of exceptional students: Three perspectives. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Mid- Western Research Association. Chicago, IL. 10