The effects of training a school team in the use of the Participation Assessment Framework and barrier-specific interventions (including but not limited to technology applications) on the participation of a student during literacy and math activities were evaluated using a multiple probe design across instructional formats. Participants included a multi-disciplinary school team, and a 10-year old student with cerebral palsy and no functional speech supported by this team. Training consisted of a combination of adult learning strategies including workshops, modeling, practice in simulated and real settings, feedback, and coaching during actual practice. The results of this preliminary study provide suggestive evidence that this systematic training was not only effective in increasing participation, but also is perceived as useful and effective by the training recipients. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for future research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeukelmanD. R., & MirendaP. (1998). Augmentative and alternative communication: Management of severe communication disorders in children and adults (2nd ed). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
2.
BoardMaker [Computer software]. (1987). Solana Beach, CA: Mayer-Johnson, Inc.
3.
BowserG. & ReedP. (1995). Educational TECH Points for assistive technology planning. Journal of Special Education Technology, XII, 325–338.
4.
BurdL.HammesK.BornhoeftD., & FisherW. (1988). A North Dakota prevalence study of nonverbal school-age children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 19, 371–383.
5.
ClickIt [Computer software]. (1994). Petaluma, CA: Intellitools, Inc.
6.
EdyburnD. (1996). The Technology and Media Division. CEC Today, 3, 15.
7.
FullanM.G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.
8.
GreenbaumT. L. (1993). The handbook for focus group research. New York: Lexington Books.
9.
HornerR. D., & BaerD. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple baseline design. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.
10.
JoyceB., & ShowersB. (1980). Improving inservice training: The messages of research. Educational Leadership, 37, 379–385.
KoppenhaverD., & YoderD. E. (1991). Literacy learning of children with severe speech and physical impairments in school settings. Seminars in Speech and Language, 12, 143–153.
13.
KorinekL.SchmidR., & McAdamsM. (1985). Inservice types and best practices. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 18, 33–38.
14.
KruegerR. A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Newbury: Sage Publications.
15.
LewisR. B. (1993). Special education technology: Classroom applications. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.
16.
LindsayP.CambriaR.McNaughtonS., & WarrickA. (1986, September). The educational needs of non-speaking students and their teachers. Paper presented at the fourth Biennial Conference of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Cardiff.
17.
LloydL. L.FullerD. R., & ArvidsonA. (1997). Augmentative and alternative communication: A handbook of principles and practices. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.
18.
MaleM. (1994). Technology for inclusion: Meeting the special needs of all students. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
19.
MatasJ.Mathy-LaikkoP.BeukelmanD. R., & LegresleyK. (1985). Identifying the nonspeaking population: A demographic study. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1, 17–31.
20.
Mayer-JohnsonR. (1992). The Picture Communication Symbols. Book III. Solana Beach, CA: Mayer-Johnson Company.
21.
McGhie-RichmondD., & McGinnisJ. (1996). A survey of current practices and perceived needs in teaching literacy to students who use augmentative and alternative communication systems. Unpublished manuscript, Bloorview MacMillan Centre.
22.
McGregorG., & PachuskiP. (1996). Assistive technology in schools: Are teachers ready, able, and supported?Journal of Special Education Technology, 13, 4–15.
23.
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (1992, March). Augmentative and alternative communication intervention consensus validation conference program and abstracts. Washington DC: NIDDR.
24.
Ontario Ministry of Health (1992). Consultation paper on the integration of exceptional students. Toronto: Ontario.
25.
OverlayMaker [Computer software]. (1992). Petaluma, CA: Intellitools, Inc.
26.
RosenbergS., & BeukelmanD. (1988). The participation model. In CostonC. A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the National Planners Conference on Assistive Device Service Delivery (pp. 159–161). Washington, D. C.: RESNA, Association for the Advancement of Rehabilitation Technology.
27.
SchlosserR. W., & RothschildN. (1999). Augmentative and alternative communication for persons with developmental disabilities. In BrownI. & PercyM. (Eds.), Developmental disabilities in Ontario (pp. 475–489). Toronto: Front Porch Publishing.
28.
SparksG. M. (1983). Synthesis of research on staff development for effective teaching. Educational Leadership, 41, 65–72.
29.
StevensD. D., & DriscollA. (1987). An intervention study of a staff development program on effective instruction strategies. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 22, 4–13.
30.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In DenzinN. K., & LincolnY. S. (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
31.
ToddisB., & WalkerH. (1993). User perspectives on assistive technology in educational settings. Focus on Exceptional Children, 26, 3.
32.
U.S. Department of Education (1998). Federal Register, 63, Number 156.
33.
Van HoutenR. (1979). Social validation: The evolution of standards of competency for target behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 581–591.
34.
Voice Pal Plus [Computer software]. (1996). Sioux Falls, SD: Adaptivation, Inc.
35.
WadeR. K. (1984-85). What makes a difference in inservice teacher education? A meta-analysis of research. Educational Leadership, 42, 48–54.
36.
WolfM. M. (1978). Social validity. The case for subjective measurement, or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.
37.
Write Away [Computer software]. (1996). Newton, MA: Assistive Technology, Inc.
38.
Write Outloud [Computer software]. (1990). Volo, IL: Don Johnston, Inc.
