Supporting students with complex communication needs requires collaboration within and beyond the school system. Through a state-wide survey, this quantitative descriptive study used social network analysis to examine the professional networks and collaboration patterns of 325 special education teachers and 189 speech-language pathologists who worked with students with complex communication needs. Findings revealed wide variability in network size and function across these educators. Information is reported about collaborative partners, frequency of communication, perceptions of trust, and exchange of supports across relationships (i.e., informational, tangible, emotional supports). Teachers and speech-language pathologists who worked with students with access to high-tech augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) had larger professional networks than those whose students only used unaided AAC (e.g., gestures, signs) or low-tech AAC such as picture symbols. This research provides an important first look at AAC-related professional networks and collaboration patterns within these networks to inform future research and practice.
AndzikN. R.ChungY. C.Doneski-NicolJ.DollarhideC. T. (2019). AAC services in schools: A special educator’s perspective. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 65(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2017.1368909
2.
BeukelmanD. R.LightJ. C. (2020). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (5th ed.). Brookes.
3.
BiggsE. E. (2022). Strengthening professional networks to serve students with autism who have communication needs. Intervention in School and Clinic. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F10534512221081250
4.
BiggsE. E.HackerR. E. (2021a). Ecological systems for students who use AAC: Stakeholders’ views on factors impacting intervention and outcomes. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 46(4), 259–277. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F15407969211052309
5.
BiggsE. E.HackerR. (2021b). Engaging stakeholders to improve social validity: Intervention priorities for students with complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 37, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2021.1881824
6.
BingerC.BallL.DietzA.Kent-WalshJ.LaskerJ.LundS.McKelveyM.QuachW. (2012). Personnel roles in the AAC assessment process. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28(4), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2012.71679
7.
BradyN. C.BruceS. S.GoldmanA.EricksonK.MineoB.OgletreeB.PaulD.RomskiM. A.SevcikR.SiegelE.SchoonoverJ.SnellM.SlyvesterL.WilkinsonK. (2016). Communication services and supports for individuals with severe disabilities: Guidance for assessment and intervention. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 121(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-121.2.121
8.
BumbleJ. L.CarterE. W.KuntzE. M. (2021). Examining the transition networks of secondary special educators: An explanatory sequential mixed methods study. Remedial and Special Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211063485
9.
CarolanB. V. (2013). Social network analysis and education: Theory, methods & applications. SAGE.
10.
Cole-LadeG. M.BaileyL. E. (2020). Examining the role of paraeducators when supporting children with complex communication needs: A multiple case study. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(2), 144–161. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0888406419852778
11.
DonatoC.SpencerE.Arthur-KellyM. (2018). A critical synthesis of barriers and facilitators to the use of AAC by children with autism spectrum disorder and their communication partners. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34(3), 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1493141
12.
GebhardtM.SchwabS.KrammerM.GegenfurtnerA. (2015). General and special education teachers’ perceptions of teamwork in inclusive classrooms at elementary and secondary schools. Journal for Educational Research Online, 7(2), 129–146.
13.
GeeK.GonzalezM.CooperC. (2020). Outcomes of inclusive versus separate placements: A matched pairs comparison study. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 45(4), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1540796920943469
14.
GriffithsT.AddisonA. (2017). Access to communication technology for children with cerebral palsy. Paediatrics and Child Health, 27(10), 470–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paed.2017.06.005
15.
HarrisP. A.TaylorR.ThielkeR.PayneJ.GonzalezN.CondeJ. G. (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42(2), 377–381.
16.
HeilmannJ.BertoneA. (2021). Identification of gaps in training, research, and school-based practice: A survey of school-based speech-language pathologists. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 52(4), 1061–1079. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_LSHSS-20-00151
17.
JohnsonJ. M.InglebretE.JonesC.RayJ. (2006). Perspectives of speech language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22(2), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610500483588
18.
KleinertH.Towles-ReevesE.QuenemoenR.ThurlowM.FlueggeL.WesemanL.KerbelA. (2015). Where students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are taught: Implications for general curriculum access. Exceptional Children, 81(3), 312–328. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0014402914563697
19.
KleinertH. L. (2020). Students with the most significant disabilities, communicative competence, and the full extent of their exclusion. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 45(1), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1540796919892740
20.
LightJ.McNaughtonD.CaronJ. (2019). New and emerging AAC technology supports for children with complex communication needs and their communication partners: State of the science and future research directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 35(1), 26–41.
LiouY. H.DalyA. J. (2018). Evolving relationships of pre-service teachers: A cohort-based model for growing instructional practice through networks. In YoonS.Baker-DoyleK. (Eds.), Networked by design (pp. 85–110). Routledge.
23.
MandakK.LightJ. (2018). Family-centered services for children with complex communication needs: The practices and beliefs of school-based speech-language pathologists. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34(2), 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1438513
24.
MarsdenP. V. (2011). Survey methods for network data. In ScottJ.CarringtonP. J. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 370–388). SAGE.
25.
McCluskeyA.LalkhenA. G. (2007). Statistics II: Central tendency and spread of data. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain, 7(4), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjaceaccp/mkm020
26.
MoolenaarN. M. (2012). A social network perspective on teacher collaboration in schools: Theory, methodology, and applications. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 7–39.
27.
MoolenaarN. M.Der-MartirosianC.LiouY. H.DalyA. (2014). Accessing capital resources: Investigating the effects of teacher human and social capital on student achievement. Teachers College Record, 116(7), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811411600702
28.
MoorcroftA.ScarinciN.MeyerC. (2019). A systematic review of the barriers and facilitators to the provision and use of low-tech and unaided AAC systems for people with complex communication needs and their families. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 14(7), 710–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2018.1499135
29.
MorinK. L.GanzJ. B.GregoriE. V.FosterM. J.GerowS. L.Genç-TosunD.HongE. R. (2018). A systematic quality review of high-tech AAC interventions as an evidence-based practice. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34(2), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1458900
30.
PerryB. L.PescosolidoB. A.BorgattiS. P. (2018). Egocentric network analysis: Foundations, methods, and models (Vol. 44). Cambridge University Press.
31.
SannenJ.De MaeyerS.StruyfE.De SchauwerE.PetryK. (2021). Connecting teacher collaboration to inclusive practices using a social network approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, 103182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103182
32.
SigafoosJ.RocheL.TaitK. (2021). Challenges in providing AAC intervention to people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. In SigafoosJ. (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: Challenges and solutions (pp. 229–252). Plural Publishing.
33.
Stehle WallaceE.SenterR.PetersonN.DunnK. T.ChowJ. (2022). How to establish a language-rich environment through a collaborative SLP–teacher partnership. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 54(3), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0040059921990690
34.
TestD. W.FowlerC. H. (2018). A look at the past, present, and future or rural secondary transition. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 37(2), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517751607
35.
Towles-ReevesE.KearnsJ.FlowersC.HartL.KerbelA.KleinertH.QuenemoenR.ThurlowM. (2012). Learner characteristics inventory project report. National Center and State Collaborative, University of Minnesota.
36.
Tschannen-MoranM. (2014). The interconnectivity of trust in schools. In Van MaeleD.ForsythP.Van HoutteM. (Eds.), Trust and school life (pp. 57–81). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8014-8_3
37.
UthoffS. A.ZinkevichA.BoenischJ.SachseS. K.BernasconiT.AnsmannL. (2021). Collaboration between stakeholders involved in augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) care of people without natural speech. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 35(6), 821–831. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2020.1860918
38.
YamamotoS. H.AlversonC. Y. (2022). Post-high school outcomes of students with autism spectrum disorder and students with intellectual disability: Utilizing predictive analytics and state data for decision making. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F17446295221100039
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
