AAC Team Perceptions: Augmentative and Alternative Communication Device Use

This study provided an in-depth view of augmentative and alternative (AAC) team member’s perceptions of AAC device use with older students. Six special education teachers and one speech-language pathologist (SLP) who worked as members of an AAC team were interviewed to determine their perceptions of AAC use in junior high and high school settings. Results of qualitative analysis yielded a variety of common themes which were classified into four primary response categories: Student Communicative Competence, Barriers of AAC Use, Instructional Benefits of AAC Use, and Facilitators of AAC Use. Results may help professionals establish effective AAC teaming practices. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997 [P. L. 105-17] requires that assistive technology (AT) be considered for each child with a disability during Individualized Education Program (IEP) planning processes [29 U.S.C. 2201, §3(1)]. Of the more than 26,000 AT devices currently available for such consideration by IEP teams (Abledata, n.d.), one category of devices having particular importance is augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems. An AAC system is an “integrated group of components, including the symbols, aids, strategies, and techniques used by individuals to enhance communication” (American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association, 1991, p. 10). AAC systems commonly considered in IEP planning include both low-tech (e.g., communication boards and notebooks) and hightech (electronic) devices. Of particular importance are a range of electronic AAC devices that use synthetic or digitized speech output, allowing children with disabilities to communicate with their families with individuals in school and community settings. In the past decade, and especially since the reauthorization of IDEA and its AT ‘consideration mandate,’ AAC has become an important and pressing issue for education professionals who serve children with disabilities and their families (Foley, 2001). Team collaboration is widely acknowledged as best practice and mandated by IDEA to most effectively identify, secure, and implement AAC (Beigel, 2000; Downing, 1999; Lahm & Nickels, 1999; Locke & Mirenda, 1992). Teachers and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are typically important members of decision-making teams who consider and implementing AAC systems and individual devices (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998; Parette, Huer, & Brotherson, 2001; Prelock, 2000; Soto, Muller, Hunt, & Goetz, 2001). Team constituency also includes other education professionals who have responsibility for making adaptations for children as they access the general education curricula using AAC or implement their AAC device in classroom settings (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 19972004; Parette & Marr, 1997). Unfortunately, the realities related to lack of funding availability for AAC, time constraints on the part of personnel (and families), logistical issues inherent in being sensitive to family and cultural nuances (Parette, Brotherson, & Huer, 2000), and other planning issues, schools may have a tendency to more effectively ‘economize’ by employing smaller numbers of team members (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998). Smaller teams might Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rita L. Bailey, Illinois State University, Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Campus Box 4720, Normal, IL 61790-4710. Email: rlbaile@ilstu.edu Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 2006, 41(2), 139–154 © Division on Developmental Disabilities AAC Team Perceptions / 139 consist of a special education teacher, SLP, general education teacher, the potential AAC device user, and the user’s family members. Responsibilities of AAC Teams Conducting thorough AAC assessments of students with disabilities is of paramount importance in planning processes. Many student factors must be taken into consideration including motor, cognitive, language, sensory, and perceptual abilities (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998; Bryant & Bryant, 2003). However, teams must also consider a range of family, cultural, and environmental factors prior to selection of appropriate AAC devices (Huer, 1997b; Parette et al., 2001; Biervliet & Parette, 1999). To assist teams in making appropriate decisions, various decision-making frameworks have been described that have applicability to effective AAC planning and implementation processes (cf. Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998; Costello & Shane, 1994; Glennen & DeCoste, 1997; Institute for Matching Person and Technology, 2004; Reed & Bowser, 1998; Williams, Stemach, Wolf, & Stanger, 1995; Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative, 1998; Yorkston & Karlan, 1986; Zabala, 1998). Each of these approaches provides AAC teams with information necessary to identify appropriate AAC systems and devices for children with disabilities. Once an AAC device has been acquired for a child, team members may assume diverse roles and responsibilities (American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association, 1999; Ehren, 2000; Locke & Mirenda, 1992; Parette & Marr, 1997; Prelock, 2000). Huer (1997a) discussed four professional roles often observed in the practice of AAC: trainer/educator; expert/ prescriptive; negotiator; and collaborator. These responsibilities apply both to SLPs and to teachers serving children who need and/or use AAC devices. Typically, the professional literature has focused on team participation during the assessment process (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998; Tanchak & Sawyer, 1995) while fewer researchers have focused on implementation of AAC use in middle and secondary education settings (e.g., Gray, 1995). Given the complexity of AAC implementation, it is important for all team members, especially teachers who are typically the primary daily managers of AAC systems and devices at the middle and secondary education levels, to have the necessary knowledge and skills to facilitate AAC use across education environments and activities. Special education teachers often support and facilitate student use of AAC devices that enable them to meet the academic and social demands of school (Calculator, 1998; Calculator & Jorgensen, 1991; Kraat, 1987; Locke & Mirenda, 1992) and collaborate with SLPs to make primary decisions about messages contained in AAC devices (Soto, Muller, Hunt, & Goetz, 2001). AAC Participation: A Challenge to Teachers Unfortunately, some teachers regard AAC as a treatment for students with disabilities rather than as an accommodation (Woodward & Cuban, 2001). That is, it may be perceived as a panacea, or cure-all for the communication challenges demonstrated by children with disabilities (Angelo, 1996; Parette, 1998; Biervliet & Parette, 1999). Such perceptions evolve from a Western European value system that views disability as something that can be fixed or treated (Hanson, 1997). Following this logic, then, both teachers and family members may sometimes believe that acquisition of an AAC system will make it possible for a child with communication disabilities to immediately and effectively communicate (Parette & McMahan, 2002; Biervliet & Parette, 1999). However, this is seldom the case. Effective and efficient use of AAC systems rarely occurs without educated, coordinated effort that typically equates with considerable time investment for AAC system users and for people communicating with them (Downing, 1999; Soto et al., 2001). Training Challenge for Education Professionals Today’s school systems place many demands on education professionals at the middle and secondary levels. Training and education regarding AAC decision-making and classroom integration may not have been part of preservice university special education curricula for many professionals who must later play pivotal roles in AAC processes. Often, teachers and/or SLPs report inadequate knowledge and training for providing optimal AAC inter140 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-June 2006 ventions after assessment has taken place (Locke & Mirenda, 1992; Parette & VanBiervliet, 1990). While special education teachers and SLPs are often expected to serve as case managers or members of educational teams, effective processes for maximized participation and/or leadership within these teams has not always been clear. Special education teachers and SLPs are the ones who experience first-hand the barriers to AAC use. They are also the ones who can best identify facilitators of AAC use. Special education teachers’ and SLPs’ perspectives on facilitators and barriers of AAC device use are vital to improving practices related to effective implementation of AAC devices in the schools. While much has been written about teaming issues in AAC service delivery and, more specifically about decision-making regarding specific skills to be taught to middle and high school students (Apel, 1999; Apel & Swank, 1999; Reed, McLeod, & McAllister, 1999), relatively little has been written about teacher perceptions of AAC implementation in middle and high school settings (Apel). Such understanding of teacher perspectives regarding AAC implementation issues seems warranted if all team members are to participate in effective AAC decision-making and value the perspectives of others involved in such decision-making. This study was designed to elicit and examine perceptions of special education teachers regarding management and use of AAC devices for students in junior high and high school classrooms. Additionally, characteristics of professional and family collaborations that might potentially facilitate or act as barriers to the use of AAC devices in school settings were investigated. Interviews were used to determine perceptions of special educators regarding the primary role of AAC device use, implementation across settings, device management, perceived barriers and facilitators of AAC device use, and characteristics of successful and unsuccessful collaborations.