1 / 18

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. Supporting school personnel: Impact on communication of students using SGDs.

crene
Download Presentation

Supporting school personnel: Impact on communication of students using SGDs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Julie McMillanFlinders University, SAParimala Raghavendra & Catherine OlssonNovita Children’s ServicesMargaret LynchDepartment of Education and Children’s Services Supporting school personnel: Impact on communication of students using SGDs

  2. 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

  3. 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. Project Significance

  4. Figure 1. Frequency of student device use - SGD initiations and responses per 30-minute session.

  5. Figure 1. (continued)

  6. 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 Findings from Teacher Project

  7. 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 Current Project

  8. 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) Dependent Variables

  9. 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 Intervention: 2 Phases

  10. CR and Questions

  11. 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 follow-through 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. Baseline Results

  12. Team Data Teacher Created : Majority were questions Minority were comments (with response expectation)

  13. Team Data • Number of strategies used per session: • Ranged between 1 and 3 • Questions • Comments • Very minimally (protest or blocked access)

  14. Student Data Independent SGD use is very low for S1 and S3. S2 demonstrates typical SGD initiations with the exception of sessions 3 & 9 (variability may be explained by changing team members).

  15. Student Data All 3 students are using other forms of communication to initiate and respond to partners. S1 using highest level of other forms and S2 lowest.

  16. Types of Strategies • 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? School 2 data: Percentage of strategies use in baseline and phase 1 conditions

  17. 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 Challenges

  18. 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. Discussion

More Related