Transcript (SGDs) (PPT 2MB) - Flinders University

Supporting school personnel: Impact on communication of
students using SGDs
Julie McMillan
Flinders University, SA
Parimala Raghavendra & Catherine Olsson
Novita Children’s Services
Margaret Lynch
Department of Education and Children’s Services
Project Significance
• Lack of service provider knowledge and training on AT
implementation is a contributing factor to
underutilization and abandonment; including SGDs
• Literature suggests onsite assistance is more likely to
lead to technology integration into classroom activities.
• Limited research on professional development and
communication outcomes for students with severe
disabilities using SGDs in schools (McMillan, 2008)
Project Significance
• Previous study (McMillan, 2008) focused on teacher
PD and found:
– PD focusing only on the technology had little to no effect
on student communication in school.
– Combined with use of PD on strategies to increase
opportunities for communication and embed SGD use
contributed to substantial increases in SGD initiations.
– Systematic instruction in an additional phase of PD led to
further increases in initiations for the 2 participants with
more significant intellectual disability and/or language
delay.
– PD was provided onsite, in classrooms, coaching teachers
using modeling and ongoing practise and feedback.
– Implications for service provision and PD for school
personnel.
Student 1
Frequency
baseline
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
device
env.
operation arrangmt
time
delay
maintenance
DI
DR
DI GP
DR GP
1
4
7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52
Frequency
Student 2
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
4
7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52
sessions
Figure 1. Frequency of student device use - SGD initiations and
responses per 30-minute session.
Frequency
Student 3
baseline
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
env.
device
operation arrangmt
time
delay
maintenance
DI
DR
DI GP
DR GP
1
4
7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52
Frequency
Student 4
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
4
7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52
sessions
Figure 1. (continued)
Findings from Teacher Project
• The type of professional development provided to
teachers has an impact on student outcomes.
• Training teachers to operate devices was not
sufficient for change in student performance.
• Teachers tended to use questioning as the
predominant strategy for creating opportunities.
• When teachers were taught to use effective strategies
(EA) with their students and increase opportunities
for communication, Device Initiations increased
substantially
Current Project
• Concerns with longitudinal support.
• Developed school teams: Teachers,
instructional assistants, SLPs, parents.
• 3 primary schools/teams and 3 students using
SGDs with complex needs (CP, autism and
intellectual disability).
– Special class/unit attached to a school
– Special school
– General education 4th grade classroom
Dependent Variables
• Teams (observations)
• Communication instruction (Time delay or pause)
• SGD use/communication monitoring
• Created communication instruction opportunities
– Number and type of environmental arrangement strategies
• Teams (interviews and surveys)
• Perceptions of ability to provide instruction, roles, responsibilities,
and positive and negative influences on student progress in
communication & SGD use (pre and post intervention).
• Student
•
•
•
•
•
Other communication initiations (any form except SGD)
Other communication responses (any form except SGD)
SGD initiations
SGD responses
SGD vocabulary (generalisation probes in home)
Intervention: 2 Phases
• Device operation training, Environment Arrangement
and Embedding (1)
–
–
–
–
Team meeting (problem solving and PD on EA strategies)
Training on programming SGDs
In classroom practice and coaching sessions (30 minutes)
Weekly follow-up by SLPs
• Communication Instruction & Recording (2)
– Team meeting (problem solving and PD on Time Delay &
recording)
– Create opportunities for instruction using EA strategies
then instruct using the time delay procedure and record
student communication performance.
– In classroom practice and coaching sessions (30 minutes)
– Weekly follow-up by SLPs
Table 1
Environmental Arrangement Strategies
Strategies
Description
Blocked access
Materials are placed within view of the child, but out of
reach, or access is blocked.
Assistance
Materials are provided with which the child needs
assistance.
Inadequate portions
Small portions are provided so that the child must
request additional materials.
Sabotage
Do not provide all the materials, hide/move materials
stored in a familiar place, or provide the wrong materials
that the child needs to follow an instruction or complete
an activity.
Protest
Have the child engage in an activity that they do not like
or do something that the child does not want you to do
(e.g., remove a preferred item or task, interfere with a
game).
Comment
Create a silly or ridiculous situation that defies the
child’s expectations of an activity or routine (e.g., wear
sunglasses while teaching, put your coat on backwards).
Other
Any other strategy used to evoke an unprompted
communicative response.
CR and Questions
Baseline Results
•
•
•
•
•
•
School staff reported low competency in SGD programming.
Limited to no training on current SGD system.
Reported a need for practical onsite training.
2 teams reported no training or support from agency.
2 teams reported difficulty with teaching release.
SLPs reported difficulty with time to provide adequate support
to school staff & some reluctance from school staff to followthrough on suggestions.
• Generally insufficient time to attend/participate in or provide
training & support was reported by the majority as a major
problem. Meeting as a team was most problematic.
• All school staff thought it important for students to use their
SGDs and agreed that they could better support their students.
• Generally good expectations for student but lower expectations
for staff capacity to make it a reality.
Team Data
Communication Opportunities: School 1
Com m unication Opportunities: School 2
40
50
35
45
40
Frequency (15 minutes)
30
Teacher
Created
20
15
Student
Initiated
10
Frequency
35
25
30
Teacher
Created
25
20
Student
Initiated
15
10
5
5
0
1
2
3
4
0
5
1
sessions
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
sessions
Communication Opportunities: School 3
Teacher Created :
40
35
Majority were questions
30
Frequency
25
Teacher created
20
Student Initiated
Minority were comments
(with response expectation)
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
sessions
5
6
7
Team Data
Types of Communication Opportunties: School 1
Types of Com m unication Opportunities: School 2
8
8
7
5
4
Types of Opportunities
3
2
1
Number of Different Types
Number of different types
7
6
6
5
4
Strategy types
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
0
5
1
sessions
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
sessions
Types of communication Opportunities: School 3
Number of strategies used per session:
8
Number of different Types
7
Ranged between 1 and 3
6
5
4
Strategy Types
1. Questions
3
2. Comments
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
sessions
5
6
7
8
3. Very minimally (protest or blocked
access)
Student Data
Independent SGD Initiations and Responses: School 1
Independent SGD Initiations and Responses: School 2
50
35
45
30
40
35
25
SGD Initiations
20
SGD Responses
15
Frequency
Frequency (15 minutes)
40
30
SGD Initiations
25
SGD Responses
20
10
15
5
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
sessions
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
sessions
Independent SGD use is very
low for S1 and S3.
Independent SGD Initiations and Responses: School 3
40
35
30
Frequency
25
SGD Initiations
20
SGD Responses
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
Sessions
6
7
8
S2 demonstrates typical SGD
initiations with the exception of
sessions 3 & 9 (variability may
be explained by changing team
members).
Student Data
Other Communication Forms: School 1
Other Communication Forms: School 2
50
40
45
35
40
Frequency (15 minutes)
30
35
Other Initiations
20
Other Responses
15
Frequency
25
30
Other Initations
25
Other Responses
20
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
1
sessions
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
sessions
Other Communication Forms: School 3
40
35
30
25
Frequency
2
Other Initiations
20
Other Responses
15
All 3 students are using
other forms of
communication to initiate
and respond to partners.
10
5
0
1
2
3
sessions
4
5
S1 using highest level of
other forms and S2 lowest.
Types of Strategies
Percentage per condition
Types of Strategies Used
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Blocked Access
Assistance
Inad. portions
Sabotage
Protest
Comment I
Questions
Comment R
baseline
phase 1
School 2 data: Percentage of strategies use
in baseline and phase 1 conditions
• Major strategy:
Questions.
• Followed by comment
for a response.
• Both strategies requiring
a response rather than
initiation.
• Very limited use of
initiation strategies.
• Why no change in phase
1 for school 2?
Challenges
• Scheduling/time
– Most challenging. Difficult to find times where all team
members are available at one time. Particularly when
multiple paraprofessionals and staff from agency involved.
– School teams find it difficult to collaborate & support each
other (limited time to meet as a group).
• Release time to participate
– SLPs and school staff (even with budgeted relief).
– School leadership involvement may be a factor.
• Participation
– Project needed to be flexible with parental involvement
– Individual parent interviews instead of focus group
Discussion
• Technology underutilization is likely to continue if
opportunities to practice skills in the classroom are not
provided. Will a team approach make a difference to long-term
effect?
• Implications for school district & agency service provision and
funding of AT devices and services.
– Team members’ perceptions of the project support model and their
ability to support the student.
– Integrated and cross-agency service collaboration
– School Leadership support
• Measurement of student outcomes is essential in determining
the effectiveness of professional development and training
programs.
• What level of support is necessary to achieve desired
outcomes? Our current practices are not effective for many
students with SGDs and severe disabilities.