Teachers' and speech-language pathologists' perceptions about a tangible symbols intervention: Efficacy, generalization, and recommendations

AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 172-182

  Bruce, Susan M ^a   Trief, Ellen ^b   Cascella, Paul W ^b  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Communication intervention; Generalization; Multiple disabilities; Tangible symbols; Visual impairment

Indexed keywords

DAILY SCHEDULE; GENERALIZATION; MULTIPLE DISABILITIES; SPECIAL EDUCATION; STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS; STUDENT LEARNING; TANGIBLE SYMBOLS; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT;

OPHTHALMOLOGY; STUDENTS;

SPEECH COMMUNICATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY REHABILITATION; CHILD; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; EDUCATION; EDUCATION OF INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED; FEMALE; HANDICAPPED CHILD; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT; SPEECH DISORDER; SYMBOLISM; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADOLESCENT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COMMUNICATION METHODS, TOTAL; DISABLED CHILDREN; EDUCATION OF INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED; EDUCATION, SPECIAL; FEMALE; GENERALIZATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; MALE; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT; SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY; SYMBOLISM; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80054865252     PISSN: 07434618     EISSN: 14773848     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/07434618.2011.610354     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Ali, E. (2009). The effectiveness of combining tangible symbols with the picture exchange communication system to teach requesting skills to children with multiple disabilities including visual impairment (Doctoral dissertation). Tucson:. University of Arizona. Available from UMI Proquest Dissertation and Theses, No. 3365774.
2. Ault, M. M., Guy, B., Guess, D., Bashinski, S., & Roberts, S. (1995). Analyzing behavior state and learning environments: Application in instructional settings. Mental Retardation, 35, 304-316.
3. Bloom, Y. (1990). Object symbols: A communication option. North Rocks, New South Wales: North Rocks Press.
4. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
5. Downing, J. (2005). Teaching communication skills to students with severe disabilities (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
6. Downing, J. (2008). Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical classrooms: Practical strategies for teachers (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
7. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
8. Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2000). Word learning: Icon, index, or symbol? In R. M. Golinkoff, K. Hirsh-Pasek, L. Bloom, L. B., Smith, A. L. Woodward, N. Akhton, et al. (Eds.), Becoming a word learner: A debate on lexical acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
9. Graczyk, P. A., Atkins, M. S., Jackson, M. M., Letendre, J. A., Kim-Cohen, J., Baumann, B. L., & McCoy, J. (2005). Urban educators' perceptions of interventions for students with attention defcit hyperactivity disorder: A preliminary investigation. Behavioral Disorders, 30, 95-104. (Pubitemid 41230310)
10. Guess, D., & Siegel-Causey, D. (1995). Attractor dimensions of behavior state changes among individuals with profound disabilities. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 99, 642-663.
11. Heller, K. W. (2009). Learning and behavioral characteristics of students with physical, health, or multiple disabilities. In K. W. Heller, P. E. Forney, P. A. Alberto, S. J. Best, & M. N. Schwartzman (Eds.), Understanding physical, health, and multiple disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 18-34). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
12. Joffee, E., & Rikhye, C. H. (1991). Orientation and mobility for students with severe visual and multiple impairments: A new perspective. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 85, 211-216.
13. Kemp, C., & Carter, M. (2005). Identifying skills for promoting successful inclusion in kindergarten. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 30, 31-44. (Pubitemid 40593540)
14. Lancioni, G. E., O'Reilly, M. F., & Oliva, D. (2002). Engagement in cooperative and individual tasks: Assessing the performance and preference of persons with severe disabilities. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 50-53. (Pubitemid 34072773)
15. Lund, S. K., & Troha, J. M. (2008). Teaching young people who are blind and have autism to make requests using a variation on the picture exchange communication system with tactile symbols: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 38, 719-730. (Pubitemid 351421886)
16. McMillan, J. M. (2008). Teachers make it happen: From professional development to integration of augmentative and alternative communication technologies in the classroom. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 32, 199-211.
17. Ostrosky, M. M, Jung, E. Y., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2002). Helping children make transitions between activities. What works briefs. Washington, DC: Administration for Children, Youth, and Families, Head Start Bureau.
18. Park, K. (1997). How do objects become objects of reference: A review of the literature on objects of reference and a proposed model for the use of objects in communication. British Journal of Special Education, 24(3), 108-114.
19. Parker, A. T. , Banda, D. R., Davidson, R., & Liu-Gitz, L. (2010). Adapting the picture exchange communication system (PECS) for a student with visual impairment and autism: A case study. AER Journal: Research and Practice in Visual Impairment, 3(1), 2-11.
20. Rosenfeld, M., & Rosenfeld, S. (2008). Developing effective teacher beliefs about learners: The role of sensitizing teachers to individual learning differences. Educational Psychology, 28(3), 245-272.
21. Rowland, C., & Schweigert, P. (1989). Tangible symbols: Symbolic communication for individuals with multisensory impairment. AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 226-234.
22. Rowland, C., & Schweigert, P. (2000). Tangible symbols, tangible outcomes. AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 61-76.
23. Savasci-Acikalin, F. (2009). Teacher beliefs and practice in science education. Asia-Pacifc Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 10, Article 12.
24. Sevcik, R., Romski, M., & Wilkinson, K. (1991). Roles of graphic symbols in the language acquisition process for persons with severe cognitive disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7, 161-170.
25. Sterling-Turner, H. E., & Jordan, S. S. (2007). Interventions addressing transition difficulties for individuals with autism. Psychology in Schools, 44, 681-690.
26. Trief, E. (2007). The use of tangible cues for children with multiple disabilities and visual impairment. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 101, 613-619.
27. Turnell, R., & Carter, M. (1994). Establishing a repertoire of requesting for a student with severe and multiple disabilities using tangible symbols and naturalistic time delay. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 19(3), 193-207. (Pubitemid 24335948)
28. Vicker, B. (1996). Using tangible symbols for communication purposes: An optional step in building two-way communication. ED 405712.
29. Werner, H., & Kaplan, B. (1988). On developmental changes in the symbolic process. In M. Franklin & S. Barten (Eds.), Child language: A reader (pp. 7-9). New York: Oxford University Press.
30. Wetherby, A., Reichle, J., & Pierce, P. (1998). The transition to symbol communication. In A. Wetherby, S. Warren, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Transitions in prelinguistic communication (Vol. 7, pp. 82-83, 155-156, 171-191). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
31. Westling, D. L., & Fox, L. (2004). Teaching students with severe disabilities (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson.