DOCUMENT RESUME ED 359 702 AUTHOR TITLE Enhancing … · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 359 702 EC 302 262 AUTHOR Mirenda, Pat; Calculator, Stephen TITLE Enhancing Curricular Designs. PUB DATE

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 359 702 EC 302 262

AUTHOR Mirenda, Pat; Calculator, StephenTITLE Enhancing Curricular Designs.PUB DATE May 93NOTE 29p.; In: Kupper, Lisa, Ed. The National Symposium on

Effective Communication for Children and Youth withSevere Disabilities (2nd, McLean, Virginia, July10-12, 1992): Topic Papers, Reader's Guide &Videotape. p253-280. See EC 302 252.

PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) -- Viewpoints(Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.) (120)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Communication Aids (for Disabled); *Communication

Disorders; Communication Skills; *Curriculum;*Delivery Systems; Educational Needs; ElementarySecondary Education; Eligibility; Mainstreaming;*Severe Disabilities; Social Integration; StudentDevelopment; *Student Educational Objectives

IDENTIFIERS *Augmentative Alternative Communication

ABSTRACTThis paper addresses the involvement of students with

severe communication disorders in school curricula. First, currentbest practices regarding eligibility for augmentative and alternativecommunication (AAC) services are addressed. This is followed by adiscussion of whether students who use AAC systems should be educatedin regular or special classrooms and the types of curricula thatshould be used with them. Finally, delivery issues and strategies forenhancing student involvement in regular curricula are detailed.Eight major recommendations are made which address the followingareas: (1) eligibility of all students with severe communicationdisorders for AAC intervention; (2) full integration in the regularclassroom as a constant goal; (3) use of the regular educationcurriculum for goal setting and longitudinal planning; (4)

individualization of communication goals based on functionalassessment; (5) systematic efforts to increase opportunities for thechild to interact with nondisabled people; (6) provision ofcommunication instruction by a variety of personnel in classroom andcommunity settings; (7) determination of communication goals byconsensus of parents, student, and professionals; and (8) developmentof innovative and individualized interventions when students fall toparticipate in and benefit from the regular curriculum. (Includeslists of 36 references and 56 additional resources.) (Author/DB)

********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

tn.

Enhancing Curricular Designs

by

US. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATIONORR* of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

1Thus document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it

0 Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction Quality

Points of view or opinions stated in this loco-men! do not necessarily represent OfficialOEM position or policy

Pat Mirenda, Ph.D. Stephen Calculator, Ph.D.University of Nebraska-Lincoln University of New Hampshire

This paper addresses a number of issues related to the involvement of students with severecommunication disorders in school curricula.1 First, current best practices regarding eligibility foraugmentative and alternative communication (AAC) services are addressed. This is followed bydiscussions concerning where students who use AAC systems should be educated and the types ofcurricula that should be used with them. Finally, service delivery issues and strategies for enhancingstudent involvement in curricula are detailed. Suggestions are provided throughout the paper regardingfuture research and practice needs.

Education is a specialized formof communication... Humanbeings have developed particu-lar times and places in whichthe scripts of their cultures areto be communicated from onegeneration to the next. Wehave come to call the set ofpractices by which this commu-nication of cultural scripts isaccomplished "education." Thecommunication that occurs ineducational contexts happens inoral, written, verbal, and non-verbal modes... [Our] role is tofacilitate the communication,thus the education, that occursin the classroom. (Hoskins,1990, p. 29)

Any discussion of the relationshipbetween augmentative and alternativecommunication (AAC) services and schoolcurricula must address a number of keyissues. These include at least: (a) Whoare the students for whom AAC servicesshould be available in schools? (b) Whereshould these students be taught? (c) Whattype of curriculum should be used? (d)What are considered to he current "bestpractices" in the delivery of AAC servicesand curricula? and, finally, (e) How cancurricular involvement be enhanced forstudents receiving AAC services? Thesequestions will serve as the main topicheadings for this paper.

1 This paper was prepared for and presented at the Second National Symposium on EffectiveCommunication for Children and Youth with Severe Disabilities, held July 10-12, 1992 in McLean,Virginia. The Symposium was supported through Grant No. H086B10002, a Cooperative Agreementbetween Interstate Research Associates, Inc., and the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)of the U.S. Department of Education. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect theposition or policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and no official endorsement should beinferred.

253

2 CEP COPY AVAILABLE

Pat Mirenda and Stephen Calculator

Who Should Receive AAC Servicesin Schools?

A review of the history of the AACfield reveals that a variety of decision-making trends has occurred regardingwhich students are appropriate candidatesfor AAC services. Initially, AAC assis-tance was provided primarily to thosechildren who demonstrated chronicexpressive communication disorders in theface of relatively strong cognitive andlinguistic capabilities. For example,children and adolescents with severespeech disorders due to cerebral palsywere considered to be appropriate candi-dates for AAC services during this time, ifthey demonstrated relatively intactcognitive and language skills.

On the other hand, there was atendency during the early years not toprovide AAC systems to persons for whomspeech remained a viable option. Forexample, children with developmentalapraxia of speech or children with autismwere often excluded from services,because of the hope that their phonologicabilities might eventually improve throughmaturation and/or direct instruction.There was the assumption (or fear) that ifthese children were given AAC systems,they might not exert the effort required tobecome natural speakers (see Silverman,

This paper appears in L. Kiipper (Ed.),The Second National Symposium on Ef fec -tive Communication for Children and Youthwith Severe Disabilities: Topic papers,reader's guide & videotape. McLean, VA:Interstate Research Associates.

254

1989, for a summary of these concerns andof anecdotal studies that refute them).There was also a strong bias againstproviding AAC services to persons withcognitive limitations that were develop-mental in nature. Many of these individ-uals had severe expressive communicationproblems secondary to mental retardation,autism, congenital dual sensory impair-ments, or multiple handicaps; theircognitive and linguistic limitations weretaken as evidence that they were notappropriate candidates for AAC services.For a period of time, this thinking was sopredominant that the service deliveryguidelines adopted by local educationalagencies often required specific criteriarelated to cognitive or linguistic perfor-mance to be met (e.g., evidence of func-tioning commensurate with Piaget's sen-sorimotor stage 5 or beyond) before anindividual was considered an appropriateAAC candidate (see Chapman & Miller,1980; Owens & House, 1984; Shane &Bashir, 1980). Alternatively, manyagencies adopted various "discrepancyformulae" to determine whether or not asufficiently significant discrepancy existedbetween a student's language abilities andeither chronological age or an index ofgeneral potential, such as mental age.These eligibility criteria and discrepancyformulae effectively excluded most individ-uals with severe and profound intellectualdisabilities from receiving AAC services.

In 1989, a report issued by the Com-mittee on Language Learning Disorders ofthe American Speech-Language-HearingAssociation summarized the existingresearch evidence regarding the use ofdiscrepancy formulae and other practices


commonly used to determine eligibility forcommunication services in general. Thisreport concluded that these practices"should not dictate whether or not...speech-language services are warranted"(p. 115) and stated that "eligibilitydecisions should be based on the individ-ual needs of the child" (p. 118).

Still, these practices persist in manyparts of the country, perpetuated in partby continuing endorsements (e.g., Love,1992) which state that they constitutewell-conceived protocols to facilitatedecision-making. However, numerousauthors in recent years have summarizedthe literature with regard to various cri-

teria that have been used to determineAAC candidacy in the past and haveconcluded that there is no empiricalevidence in support of these criteria (e.g.,Kangas & Lloyd, 1988; Mirenda, Iacono,& Williams, 1990; Reich le & Karlan,1985;Romski & Sevcik, 1988). Thus, it is fair tosay that the use of exclusionary criteria forthe delivery of communication services isa practice that is outdated and indefen-sible, based on the available literature.

Given the practices described above,the following recommendation can beoffered concerning who should receiveAAC services:

Recommendation #1:

All students with severe communication disorders that prevent them from meeting theirdaily communication needs through natural speech or writing techniques should beconsidered candidates who might benefit from AAC intervention. This includesstudents with physical, sensory, and/or intellectual disabilities, such as those withautism, dual sensory impairments, and severe/profound mental retardation.

Where Should Students Who ReceiveAAC Services Be Taught?

In response to both legal and socialpressures, the educational environmentsthat are considered to be appropriate forchildren with severe communication dis-orders have changed rather dramatically inthe past 10 years. Increasingly, the "leastrestrictive environment" for these studentshas come to mean the regular classroomsetting, for at least a substantial portion ofeach school day. In addition, for studentswho have difficulty generalizing new skills

across environments or activities, variouscommunity environments may be appropri-ate settings for instruction (Calculator,1988; Calculator & Jorgensen, 1991).Since participation in regular classroomand community settings requires extensivecommunication of many kinds, effectiveAAC systems that are age- and context-appropriate are critical tools for schoolsuccess. This applies to students acrossthe ability range, regardless of the severityof their communication disorders.

Beukelman and Mirenda (1992) iden-tified two levels of regular classroom inte-

255

4


gration that can be considered for studentswith AAC needs. The term integration isused in this context to refer to the physicalpresence of a student in a regular class-room attended by similar-aged peers. Insome cases, physical integration is all thatis needed for social and curricular advan-tages to accrue; howevei-, in most cases,the mere physical presence of studentswith AAC needs in regular classrooms isquite insufficient to ensure classroomparticipation. Thus, integration as definedby Beukelman and Mirenda (1992) isnecessary but not sufficient for regularclassroom participation.

Calculator and Jorgensen (1992)have delineated various obstacles andpossible strategies for resolving commonproblems that can arise when schoolpersonnel attempt to include students withsevere disabilities in regular classrooms.Their technical assistance model offerssuggestions for teacher training, changes inservice delivery, and so forth. Somestudents are fully integrated into regularclassroom settings. This means that theyare physically present in the same class-room(s) attended by their same-age peersduring the entire school day. Thus, they,

their classmates, and the regular classteacher all consider them to be "part ofthe class." Selective integration into regularclassrooms is another option that may beappropriate in some situations, dependingon a student's individual academic orsocial needs. For example, we know ofhigh school students with severe disabili-ties who choose to spend one or twoperiods of their school day receiving reme-dial literacy instruction in a resource roomsetting, rather than attending study hall,music, art, or other "regular" electiveclasses. Alternatively, many students withsevere intellectual disabilities spendconsiderable amounts of school time incommunity settings in which they receivevocational, recreation/leisure, or otherinstruction appropriate to their long-termneeds. During the remainder of theschool day, these selectively integratedstudents participate at various levels in theregular school curriculum. Finally,another option for selectively integratedstudents is to spend some time engaged inphysical therapy or other types of specificskill training outside of the regular class-room for a small portion of the schoolday. Thus:

Recommendation #2:

The point of departure of all discussions related to educational placement of studentswith severe disabilities should be a regular classroom within the student's neighborhoodschool. Full integration in the regular classroom should be the goal, unless specificeducational priorities make selective integration an appropriate alternative. Relatedservices (e.g., speech-language therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy,therapeutic recreation, and so forth) should be conceptualized as supports for studentsin these settings and, thus, should be integrated within classrooms to the greatest extentpossible (Calculator & Jorgensen, 1992).

256

5


What Type of CurriculumShould Be Used?

One of the primary reasons forincluding students with severe communi-cation disorders in regular classrooms is tomake available to them the educationaland social benefits of involvement in theschool curriculum. In its broadest applica-tion, the curriculum encompasses expecta-tions of students at a given grade level.As such, it not only refers to academicgoals but also to classroom demeanor,compliance with both overt and covertsocial rules that exist in various settingsaround the school, selection of textbooksand other instructional materials, teachingtechniques, world knowledge, and so forth.

In this paper, the term curriculum isused to refer to the "subjects, specificsubject matter, and the processes that areboth planned and used to implement in-struction of the content" (Choate, Enright,Miller, Poteet, & Rakes, 1992, p. 23).Generally, school curricula are codified incurriculum guides developed by state orregional departments of education or bylocal school systems. These guides usuallycontain statements of philosophy, objec-tives for each grade level, the scope andsequence of concepts to be taught annual-ly in each subject area, and suggestions forinstruction. In general, curriculum guidesare used by teachers to ensure that theskills and concepts they teach build uponthose taught in previous grades. Inaddition, curriculum guides are meant toensure that, by the time students graduate,they will have learned the skills deemednecessary for success in adulthood.Similarly, curricula for students with

severe communication and other impair-ments are usually designed with theintention of preparing students to partici-pate in a variety of integrated communityenvironments upon graduation (York &Vandercook, 1991).

Several negative consequences arelikely to accrue if students with severecommunication disorders are not involvedin some way in the curriculum of theschool through inclusion in regularclassrooms (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1992).First, when students "fall cut of the curric-ulum," teachers (often, special educators)are required to develop personalizedcurricula to meet their needs. Thecontent of these curricula is oftendelivered either in segregated settings(e.g., resource rooms or special educationclassrooms) o! in regular classroomsduring activities that are parallel to butnot the same as those experienced byother students. Early failure to beinvolved in the regular curriculum oftenresults in students receiving totally person-alized curricula for the duration of theirpublic school experiences. While this maynot be problematic in theory, the reality isthat a personalized curriculum often lackscontinuity, because its content may dependon the preferences and philosophies ofindividual educational staff. Therefore,the curriculum may change dramaticallywith the arrival of each new teacher orspeech-language pathologist. Further-more, inadequate longitudinal manage-ment of a personalized curriculum overthe years usually results in a splinterededucational program that is replete withgaps, redundancies, and oversights.Goldstein (1986) referred to this as a

257

6


"patchwork quilt of learnings" (p. 221) inwhich students are exposed to instructionthat is neither systematic nor cumulativefrom year to year. In contrast, the regularcurriculum provides an overall programstructure for educational staff, which, at aminimum, encourages an orderly scopeand sequence of instruction.

Second, failure to be involved in theregular curriculum appears to reduceavailable peer pressure and support. Whenchildren with disabilities are in regularclassroom environments, they are subjectto this pressure as much as their non-disabled classmates and often respondwith a desire to learn what their peers arelearning. They are also encouraged toparticipate in activities in a mannersimilar to that of the other students, sothat they don't "stand out" from theirpeers. On the other hand, when a studentis involved in a personalized curriculum inwhich no other students participate, suchopportunities for peer pressure andsupport may be compromised. When achild is "out or the curriculum," it isessential that teachers and classmates beaware of their expectations for this studentin the context of everyday instruction.Encouragement should come from multi-ple sources so that teacher and classmateexpectations match the student's abilities.In addition, when the goals of thesestudents diverge from classmates, theyshould be perceived as different ratherthan deficient. Successes should be evalu-ated relative to individualized expecta-tions, rather than classroom norms.

Third, failure to be involved in aregular curriculum diminishes opportuni-ties for peer interaction and instruction.

258

Even if a student with disabilities isphysically located in a regular classroom,the number of opportunities for social andacademic involvement with other studentsmay be reduced if he or she is continuous-ly involved in a personalized curriculum.In addition, opportunities for peer instruc-tion in either direction (i.e., disabledtutor-regular peer or regular tutor-disabledpeer) are virtually eliminated.

Fourth, lack of participation in theregular curriculum may shape students'negative perceptions of themselves, inaddition to those of their classmates,teachers, and/or family members. On theother hand, when students are involvedsuccessfully in regular classroom curricularexperiences, they begin to see themselvesas able and active in the same arena asthe nondisabled peers. For example,Olivia is a teenager with multiple disabil-ities who was labelled profoundly disabledand placed in an educational program forother students with similar labels until thispast school year. She rarely interactedwith others, slept during most of theschool day, and had no consistent commu-nication signals exce,It crying to indicatedistress. During the past year, she hasbeen included in a number of regularclasses with her nondisabled high schoolpeers. She now stays alert and awakeduring the majority of the school day,frequently smiles and vocalizes to greether friends, uses a microswitch to operatekitchen and sewing appliances duringhome economics class, and enjoys partici-pating in various sensory and movementactivities during music, pottery, andphysical education classes. As her inter-actions with her peers have increased in


]both quality and quantity, Olivia's level ofalertness, nonsymbolic communicationabilities, and enjoyment of daily activitieshave also changed dramatically.

Thus, in regards to the type ofcurriculum that should be used:

Recommendation #3:

The regular education curriculum should serve as the basis for educational goal-settingand longitudinal planning for all students.

What Are Current "Best Practices"For Delivery Of AAC Services

And Curricula?

The shift from a "special curriculumfor each student" model to an "inclusivecurriculum for all students" model necessi-tates, among other things, a reconceptuali-zation of professional roles and practicesrelated to communication. As Stainback,Stainback, Courtnage, and Jaben (1985)note:

In order to foster change in regu-lar education, [professionals] needto reduce their current emphasison classifying, labeling, andoffering "special" programs forstudents who do not fit within thepresent regular education struc-ture. Instead, they should putmore emphasis on joining withregular educators to work for areorganization of or modificationsin the structure of regular educa-tion itself so that the needs of awider range of students can bemet within the mainstream ofregular education. (p. 148)

259

8

As a first step in guiding thisreconceptualization, Calculator (1991)assembled a preliminary list of 22practices, 14 of which were felt to reflectbest practices and 8 of which wereintended to contradict best practices.Items were based on a comprehensivereview of the empirical and values-basedliterature. Each practice was then ratedby an expert panel of 28 judges. Thirteenjudges were members of the Related Ser-vices Subcommittee of The Association forPersons with Severe Handicaps (TASH),and 15 judges were members of the edito-rial board of the Augmentative andAlternative Communication (AAC) journal.Respondents rated the extent to whichthey felt each item reflected best practicesin providing AAC instruction to elemen-tary school-aged children with severedisabilities who are in regular classrooms.A Likert-type scale, ranging from 1

(strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree),with an additional "don't know" category,was used by the raters. It was determineda priori that items receiving scores in the1.00-2.49 range (by each group of raters,as well as the mean of the two groups'ratings) would be validated as best prac-


tices, whereas those receiving scoresbetween 3.51-5.00 would suggest violationsof best practices. Results indicated thatall 14 preconceived best practices wereevaluated as such by the raters. Theactual means of the two groups' responsesto these items ranged from 1.00 to 1.57.Of the 8 principles conceived to violatebest practices, 4 were evaluated as such(by individual groups, as well as in theoverall mean of the two groups' ratings).Actual means of the two groups' responsesto these items ranged from 4.08-4.57.

In the sections that follow, the 18practices that were and were not deemedconsistent with best practices arediscussed. The remaining four statements,which were rated in the neutral range, arenot addressed further.

Assessment and Evaluation

Communication assessment involvesthose processes by which information isgathered and analyzed so that personswho use AAC systems and those whoassist them can make informed decisionsabout what and how to teach throughoutthe intervention process. Once theintervention has been implemented, sometype of evaluation process can be used tomeasure: (a) the extent to which specificcommunication goals have been met, and(b) the extent to which newly acquiredskills enhance students' inclusion inclassrooms and other settings. Here, it iscritical to remember that a primary pur-pose of communication instruction is toenhance students' interaction skills ineducational and educationally-relatedsettings. Evidence of changes in commu-

260

nication skills that have no impact oneveryday performance may be of question-able significance.

Basically, there are two types ofassessment and evaluation processes thatcan be used in this regard. One involvesthe use of formal or standardized mea-sures to determine both goals andprogress, while the other involves the useof informal or naturalistic measures forassessment and evaluation. In Calculator's(1991) survey, respondents stronglydisagreed with the following statementsrelated to the use of formal assessmentand evaluation measures:

Communication objectives[should be] based primarily onthe results of formal assessment(i.e., standardized tests of lan-guage). (Mean rating = 4.57)

The child's progress in commu-nication [should be] evaluatedby comparing the results offormal, standardized testingadministered at the end of theyear to that obtained earlier inthe year. (Mean rating = 4.40)

On the other hand, respondents stronglyagreed with a statement that referred tothe functional nature of assessment:

C. \

Communication goals [shouldbe] individualized for eachparticular child, based on anassessment of each child'sabilities to meet dailycommunication demands.(Mean rating = 1.16)


In terms of the "best practices" forAAC assessment and evaluation, this laststatement implies that several relatedcomponents should be considered. First,determinations regarding the "dailycommunication demands" made of thechild should be gathered through observa-tions, interviews, environmental invento-ries, and other strategies. This mightinvolve, for example, observing nondis-abled peers as they interact in a variety ofclassroom or community settings, andrecording what the communicative ex-pectations are in those settings (seeBeukelman & Mirenda, 1992; Calculator& Jorgensen, 1991; Halle, this volume;and Reich le, York, & Sigafoos, 1991).Second, decisions about how the child canbest meet the communication demands ofthe classroom should be made on an indi-vidual basis. This means that there is no

"best" AAC device, symbol set, accesstechnique, or approach that is appropriatefor all children; rather, a wide variety ofoptions must be considered, depending onthe unique characteristics and needs of thechild. Finally, the goals of communicationintervention should also be individualizedto suit the demands made by the class-room and/or community-referenced cur-riculum. In the broadest sense, this meansthat the overall goal of an AAC inter-vention is to assist individuals with severecommunication disorders to becomecommunicatively competent today, in or-der to meet their current communicationneeds, and to prepare them to be commu-nicatively competent tomorrow, in order tomeet their future communication needs.

Thus, the following recommenda-tion can be offered about assessment andevaluation practices:

Recommendation #4:

Communication goals should be individualized for each particular child, based on afunctional assessment of each child's abilities to meet the daily communicationdemands of home, school, and community settings.

Social Curricula andInstructional Practices

A number of "best practice" curricu-lar and instructional components relatedto communication for social interactionwere identified by the respondents toCalculator's (1991) survey. Respondentsagreed that:

2611

Communication goals [should]emphasize enhancing students'abilities to interact with theirnondisabled classmates. (Meanrating = 1.14)

Parents [should be] offeredassistance regarding methods ofenhancing interactions withtheir child at home. (Meanrating = 1.23)


It appears from these statements thatAAC "best practices" legitimately includeinterventions that are designed primarilyto increase students' ability to interact andconverse with their peers and familymembers. Inclusion of a primarily socialcomponent of communication program-ming acknowledges that school involvesmore than just academic learning and thatall curricular and extracurricular activitiesoccur within social contexts. The parentsof regular students show evidence of theirawareness of the dual purpose of schoolwhen they request that their child beassigned to the same classroom as a friendor to a specific teacher who encouragessocial development.

Beukelman and Mirenda (1992) iden-tified three levels of social participationthat can be considered when designingsocial curricula for students with AACneeds. One option is that students besocially competitive. This means that theyare active participants in a social group ofpeers. They are involved in the activitiesof the group, at least to the extent thatthey make choices about whether or not toengage in activities, and they exertinfluence over group decisions. Forexample, a socially competitive studentmight initiate activities such as backyardcamp-outs or birthday parties on occasionand, in turn, is invited by other groupmembers to similar types of activities.Typically, the student who is competitivein this area plays, visits, "hangs out," orotherwise interacts with his or her class-mates after school hours (e.g., onweekends or in the evening).

Not all regular students or studentswith disabilities are socially competitive in

262

all contexts. However, many are sociallyactive, in that they make choices aboutand are involved in social activities,although they may not exert much influ-ence over the social climate of a groupand/or its interaction patterns. (Somereaders will be able to apply this desig-nation to themselves when they werechildren, because they were "shy" or"studious" students who were not sociallyisolated but did not have a wide circle offriends.) Often, socially active studentsspend more time alone after school hoursthan do their competitive counterparts,though they may have some opportunitiesfor interaction with nondisabled peers.Students may be socially active in someareas and either competitive or involvedin others.

Another option that may be con-sidered for some students is socialinvolvement. Socially involved studentsattend class with their regular peers andmay be involved in some extracurricularactivities as well. However, they do notinfluence social situations and often areinvolved in social activities as passiveobservers. Rarely do students who aresocially involved in school maintaincontact with their peers after school hours.They may spend their evenings and week-ends engaged in activities primarily withfamily members rather than friends.

In addition to these options, somestudents, particularly those who havelimited access to their nondisabled peersduring school hours, have no socialinvolvement and no opportunities to formfriendships or make acquaintances. Interms of "best practices," this wasconsidered to be problematic by Calcula-


tor's (1991) respondents, as reflected intheir endorsement of the following state-ment:

The communication program[should] include specificprocedures by which teachersand others can increase thenumber of opportunities thechild has to interact withnondisabled people. (Meanrating= 1.11)

Calculator and Jorgensen (1992)discuss methods of engineering classroomenvironments to promote friendshipsamong students. They describe the Circleof Friends approach (Forest & Lusthaus,1989) by which existing relationshipsamong students cant be delineated, andthey present a rationale for incorporatingthe development of relationships into thecurricula of these students. A number ofother approaches have also been used tofacilitate friendships between persons withsevere disabilities and their peers, includ-

ing Personal Futures Planning (Mount,1987; Mount & Zwernik, 1988) and theMcGill Action Planning System (MAPS)(Vandercook, York, & Forest, 1989). Allof these models are based on the principlethat collaborative efforts by familymembers, friends, and service providersare necessary if meaningful social rela-tionships are to be available to individualswith disabilities (O'Brien & Lyle, 1987). Inaddition, the use of students as collabora-tors in the delivery of both social andacademic curricula in regular classrooms isbecoming increasingly acknowledged as acritical strategy for success (Villa &Thousand, 1992). For example, strategiessuch as "augmented language learning," inwhich communication partners incorporateAAC symbols and techniques into theirongoing social interactions with AACusers, can be readily taught to and used bynondisabled students in integrated settings(see Romski & Sevcik, 1992, 1993).

Thus, in regards to social curriculaand instructional practices, the followingrecommendation can be made:

Recommendation #5:

The communication program should include specific procedures by which teachers andothers can increase the number of opportunities the child has to interact withnondisabled people. Communication goals should emphasize enhaLcing the student'sability to interact with his or her nondisabled classmates. In addition, parents shouldbe offered assistance regarding methods of enhancing interactions with their child athome.

263

1 2


Academic Curricula andInstructional Practices

In the past, communication serviceswere delivered primarily by speech-language pathologists in separate instruc-tional sessions conducted in special"speech therapy" rooms on a scheduledbasis. Today, "best practice" requires thatsuch services be delivered primarily innatural contexts, such as regular classroomand community settings, by a variety ofprofessionals who have been taught(perhaps by the speech-language pathol-ogist) how to best support communicationthroughout the day. This philosophy wasreflected by the negative response ofCalculator's (1991) respondents to thefollowing two statements:

The weekly schedule [should]include units of time to workon communication (e.g., threeunits per week for a total of 1.5hours of direct service). (Meanrating = 4.08)

The majority of communicationgoals [should be] carried outdirectly by a speech-languagepathologist. (Mean rating =4.3).

In contrast, six of the "best practice"statements endorsed in Calculator's (1991)survey referred to the use of naturalcontexts and functional goals for commu-nication interventions. The respondentsagreed that:

,13264

Communication instruction[should be] provided in the con-text of naturally occurringactivities (e.g., art, music,reading, recess) and daily rou-tines (e.g., toileting, movingfrom one activity to another) inthe classroom and other com-munity settings. (Mean rating =1.00)

Communication objectives[should be] addressed system-atically throughout the day, bya variety of instructors, inconjunction with ongoing activi-ties such as snack, reading, art,music, and science. (Meanrating = 1.12)

Communication skills taught[should be] highly functional(i.e., the student's acquisition ofthe skill will permit partici-pation in, and access to, eventsand activities which otherwisewould require a partner's pro-viding for him/her). (Meanrating = 1.11)

Communication goals [should]often take the form of oppor-tunities for the student to makechoices or indicate preferences,in the context of everydayactivities and routines. (Meanrating = 1.57)


Teachers and other classroomstaff [should be] taught specificstrategies related to how to usenatural routines and activitiesto promote their child'scommunication development.(Mean rating = 1.05)

A primary purpose of adaptiveequipment (e.g., communicationboards, computers, electroniccommunication aids) [shouldbe] to provide a means bywhich the child can moreeffectively participate and beincluded in school activities.(Mean rating = 1.36)

These statements apply to commu-nication interventions across the age andability range. For some students, func-tional communication goals might berelated to the acquisition of age-appropriate curricular content (e.g.,reading, math, etc.). Functional goalsmight also involve learning to operate acommunication device efficiently orlearning to make choices, express pref-erences, initiate interactions, and ask forassistance. These determinations must bemade on an individual basis, and studentand family preferences regarding educa-tional priorities should be accommodatedto the maximum extent possible.

Many of the planning models men-tioned previously, such as the PersonalFutures Planning and MAPS processes,can be used by the educational team tomake decisions about students' academicparticipation. Beukelman and Mirenda(1992) defined three levels of academic

265

participation in the regular curriculumwhich can be considered for students withsevere communication disorders. The firstof these, academically competitive partici-pation, requires that a student with AACneeds meet the same academic standardsthat are expected of the regular peers.However, this does not necessarily meanthat all of the activities completed bypeers will be completed by the studentwith disabilities to the same degree. Forexample, students with AAC systems oftencannot write as rapidly as their peers;therefore, the amount of "seat-work" theyare expected to complete may be reduced,as long as the same academic standardsare met. Or some students may choose toreduce their overall academic workloadsin order to meet the requirements ofclasses in which they are competitive.

It is important to note that studentsmay be competitive in one, several, or allareas of the curriculum. Thus, an elemen-tary-aged child may be competitive inmath, reading, music, and art, whilemeeting somewhat lower expectations inother areas. The exact balance of academ-ic participation should be determined onan individual basis.

The expectation of competitive, aca-demic participation requires that families,teachers, and speech-language pathologistscoordinate their efforts so that the studentcan be maximally efficient. Sometimes,there is insufficient time to develop andmonitor an adapted or remedial curric-ulum in which educational specialistsintroduce content or requirements that aredifferent from those of the regularclassroom. Instead, when competitiveparticipation is expected, educational

14

Pat Mirenda and Stephen C/3:culator

specialists must, of necessity, act asconsultants to regular classroom teachers,so that all school activities contribute tothe overall educational goal. In short, thegoal of competitive participation is toexpect certain standards while modifyingactivities and workloads as appropriate,not to modify standards while expectingthe same quantity of work as produced bypeers.

Not all students with AAC systemscan be academically competitive in allareas. However, many students can beacademically active, in that they arecapable of participating in and learningfrom the regular curriculum, although theycannot meet the same academic standardsas their peers. Maintaining these studentsas active participants in regular classroomsallows them to experience many of thebenefits of integration, such as exposure toa structured educational sequence, peersocial contact, and peer support in instruc-tion. Meanwhile, agreements among edu-cational staff and parents regardingstudents' "active" status can reduce thepressures of competitive expectations andthe negative experiences that may accumu-late as a result.

As noted previously, many studentswith AAC systems will be competitive insome academic areas and active in others.Alternatively, some students may be activein all areas and competitive in none; yet,they are expected to participate in thecurriculum at some level, to be involvedwith and learn at least part of the sameacademic content as other students, and tobe evaluated according to their individualgoals. It is not uncommon that, in certainareas such as math or reading, an active

266

student may receive special supplementaryinstruction focused on the development ofparticular skills. In addition, dependingon the academic expectations, the focus ofthe curriculum may shift for some activestudents from an academic to a communi-ty- referenced orientation as they progressthrough school.

Together with their educationalteams and parents, some students maydecide that participation in certainacademic areas will be limited to academicinvolvement, rather than competitive oractive participation. In this case, thestudent attends the regular class activitiesalong with peer students but is less activeas a participant. For example, somestudents who are unable to speak or singmay enjoy being involved in the schoolchoir. Because of their disabilities, theyare not expected to be competitive oractive on a routine basis; yet, they likemusic, the music teacher is fun to bearound, the social atmosphere of the choiris very positive, and the students can bene-fit in a number of ways from the experi-ence.

It is important to emphasize thatinvolvement should not be limited to"elective" areas such as music and art. Inmany cases, perhaps because of the socialatmosphere of a classroom or a student'sinterest in a subject area, involvement isdesirable even though academic participa-tion is expected to be minimal. Forexample, we know of one selectively inte-grated junior high school student withautism who was involved in regular socialstudies, English, shop (e.g., woodworking),and health classes during one school year,in addition to receiving instruction in a


variety of community settings. Some ofthe regular classes were of special interestto him (e.g., woodworking and health),while others were offered because theteachers were known to be accepting ofstudents with special needs, regardless oftheir level of participation. It is importantto note, however, that in none of theseclasses was the student a passive observerwith no involvement whatsoever.

Achieving academic involvement inregular classrooms for students who expe-rience decreased levels of responsivenessor who require continuous nursing super-vision because of ventilator dependency,seizures, or other medical conditions canbe particularly challenging. Calculatorand Jorgensen's (1991) article "IntegratingAAC Instruction into Regular EducationSettings" provides teams with a mechanismby which specific learning objectives forsuch students can be extracted from class-room activities. Opportunities forexpanded participation can be identified,along with the types of support needed(staff, instruction modifications, and soforth). For example, the educational goalsfor Shameel, a first grader with profounddisabilities and numerous medical andphysical problems, included remaining

awake and alert while his friends read hima story during language arts, increasing hisability to grasp and release the objectsused for counting and sorting during mathlessons, and decreasing his tactilesensitivity through involvement withvarious media (clay, finger paints, etc.)during art class. When his peers inadver-tently blocked his ability to see an ongoingactivity, Shameel learned to vocalize forattention and then shake his body to say"move out of my way."

As educators, we must be account-able to students, their families, and thepublic at large that we are providingeducationally relevant instruction.Teachers should never find themselveswondering why a student is present in theclassroom at a particular time of the dayor why a student is involved in ways thatmay not contribute to positive learningoutcomes. Student., with disabilities, liketheir peers, require that expectations bemade of them and that "dead time" -- timeduring which opportunities for learningare absent -- is held to a minimum.

Thus, in regards to academic curric-ula and instructional practices, the fol-lowing recommendation can be made:

Recommendation #6:

Functional, systematic communication instruction should be provided by a variety ofinstructional and support staff in the context of regular curricular activities in classroomand other community settings. Communication devices and other adaptive equipmentshould be used as a means to achieve academic participation and communication goals,not as ends in themselves.

267 1


Professional Roles

The final area surveyed by Calculator(1991) referred to the roles of variousprofessional members of the team in-volved with a student with severe commu-nication disorders. These team membersoften include both regular and specialeducators, a speech-language pathologist,occupational and/or physical therapists,and classroom aides. In addition, parentsand the student in question should alwaysbe included on the team.

As noted previously, current "bestpractices" do not entail the delivery ofcommunication instruction solely byspeP ',-language pathologists. Rather, acool ..mated team approach is deemedmore acceptable, as reflected in respon-dents' agreement with these "best practice"statements:

Staff [should] have a clearunderstanding of their respec-tive roles in promoting thechild's communication develop-ment. (Mean rating = 1.29)

Possible communication objec-tives [should be] identified by avariety of team members (e.g.,speech-language pathologists,parents, teachers, and class-room aides). (Mean rating1.15)

The speech-language patholo-gist [should] provide others(e.g., parents, teachers,classroom aides, classmates)with information regarding how

268

to modify their style of commu-nication in order to enhancethe likelihood that the child willunderstand them (e.g., simplerand more redundant messages;the use of augmentative modesof communication such as ges-tures and pictures) in everydayinteractions. (Mean rating =1.47)

The speech-language pathol-ogist [should] assist the class-room teacher in integratingcommunication instruction intohis/her daily lessons. (Meanrating = 1.23)

Implicit in these statements is thenotion that students with severe communi-cation disorders who participate in regularcurricula be they competitive, active, orinvolved participants -- will often requiresome level of assistance in order to meetthe communication demands of the class-room. Beukelman and Mirenda (1992)defined three levels of independence thatmight be considered in this regard. Somestudents may be fully independent in atleast some activities, so that they are ableto participate without any human assis-tance at all. However, many students whouse AAC systems or devices may be inde-pendent with set-up assistance to organizetheir work environments, turn on or moveadaptive equipment, or change their posi-tions in the classroom. After these set-upactivities are completed, they can then beindependent. Finally, some students willneed to be fully assisted in order toparticipate in regular classrooms. It is

1P1

411

40


important to note that the teacher is notthe only available source of such assis-tance; indeed, perhaps the primary (andmost underutilized) source is the regularclassroom peer group. It is important toemphasize again that neither full indepen-

dence, nor academic competitiveness, norsocial competitiveness are appropriate"prerequisites" to regular classroomintegration for students with severecommunication disorders.

Thus, in regards to professional roles:

Recommendation #7

Communication goals should be identified by consensus of the entire team (parents,student, and professionals). The speech-language pathologist and other specialeducation staff should assist the regular classroom teacher and the student in achievingthe desired level of participation and independence in the classroom.

How Can Curricular InvolvementBe Enhanced?

In order to enhance the involvementof students with severe communicationdisorders in the curriculum of the school,the professionals involved in planning andexecuting their educational programs mayneed to institute adaptive strategies in anumber of areas (see, for example, Dutton& Dutton, 1990; Falvey, Coots, Bishop, &Grenot-Scheyer, 1989; and Stainback &Stainback, 1992). These include strategiesdesigned to adapt the classroom environ-ment, assist students to be active learners,and help students manage the academicworkload. These will be discussed brieflyin the sections that follow.

Adapting the Classroom Environment

In some instances, adjustments to thephysical environment may be necessary toenhance a student's curricular involvementwithin a classroom. For example, it is not

269

uncommon for students in wheelchairs tobe positioned off to the side or at theback of a room, because their chairs makeit difficult for others to get around them.However, creating wider aisles betweenstudent desks and other classroom furnish-ings is a preferable strategy for solving thisproblem, since it allows the AAC user tostay with the group instead of remainingon the periphery. Widened doors that areadapted with special "open" buttons or"electric eyes" allow for easy entrance intothe classroom and throughout other areasof the building, such as the music room,gymnasium, and cafeteria. Students'working surfaces should be positioned atappropriate heights for comfort and effi-ciency; this can be done through the useof adjustable desks and tables. Cut-outdesktops may also be necessary so thatthere is a suitable distance between stu-dents and their working surfaces. Chalk-boards located at lower levels than usualand extended slightly outward from wallsallow students in wheelchairs to position

is


themselves appropriately for writingactivities. Other items, such as doorknobs,pencil sharpeners, coat racks, and lightswitches can also be lowered to accessibleheights. Finally, classroom assignmentsshould be made after considerations of theaccessibility needs of students, since, inmost schools, some regular classroomsmay be more accessible than others.

Assisting Students to be Active Learners

Because the communication contentin regular classrooms changes so rapidly,it is often difficult to keep the vocabularyin the student's AAC system current.Because of this, there is a tendency toprovide students with communicationsystems that are solely designed to addresswants/needs and social interaction func-tions. However, the language of the class-room is not the same as the language ofhome or social settings. Children talk inschool primarily with relatively unfamiliaradults in order to build a theory of reality,share their understanding of actions andsituations, and acquire knowledge(Westby, 1985). While few investigationshave documented in detail the vocabularyuse patterns of children or adults at homeand in school, one exception is the workof Marvin, Beukelman, and Vanderhoof(1991). These authors recorded thevocabulary spoken by five preschool-agednondisabled children in these two settings.They reported that approximately one-third of the words produced by thesechildren were spoken only at school,one-third were spoken only at home, andone-third were spoken both at home andschool.

270

One would also expect that differ-ences across specific school environmentsmight also have dramatic effects on thewords communicated in classrooms. Forexample, the content of elementary andsecondary school curricula in varioussubject areas requires access to vocabularyitems that may change as often as daily orweekly, in some cases. As the topic in astudent's science unit shifts from plants, toplanets, to prehistoric animals, and torocks, the extent to which the student cancommunicate successfully in the classroomwill largely depend on the availability ofappropriate vocabulary. The vocabularyset designed to support a student's conver-sational interactions, which are relativelystable and predictable in most cases, isunlikely to be useful in meeting suchfrequently changing curricular communica-tion needs. When the vocabularyprovided for classroom participation isinadequate, students who use AAC sys-tems are often forced to rely on otherstrategies to avail them of alternate meansof participation (e.g., 20 questions, dozeprocedures, etc.). Otherwise, they will bepassive learners, unable to ask or answerquestions in class, deliver topical reports,or otherwise participate in subject-orienteddiscussions, because they do not have thevocabularies to do so. Thus, it is criticalthat the professional team be quite aggres-sive in attempting to translate the curricu-lum into communication units that willallow the AAC user to participate in theseclassroom interactions. This is particularlycritical during the early elementary years,before students are able to spell wellenough to compose their own messages.


Assisting Students to ManageTime Constraints

Students with severe communicationand/or motor impairments often find itdifficult to maintain the pace of a regulareducation classroom, because they havedifficulty manipulating educational mate-rials such as books, worksheets, and so on.Unless adjustments are made in responseto these difficulties, students may experi-ence academic failure because they cannotcomplete their work, even though theyhave mastered the content. Severalapproaches are often used to accommo-date the time constraints of students withdisabilities.

Advance preparation. In many cases,it will be necessary to work with regulareducation staff in order to "preview"upcoming assignments, topic areas, andclass projects, so that ample time isavailable to create related adaptations.For example, if the AAC support teamknows that science units over the next twomonths will include "planets," "rocks," and"dinosaurs," they can begin to constructrelated communication miniboards or planhow to program the needed vocabularywords into an electronic AAC device. Inaddition, students can be encouraged touse strategies such as preparing questionsin advance or composing answers toassigned questions overnight, in order tocompensate for their reduced communica-tion rates. For example, Jalisa, a studentwith multiple disabilities, was involved ina unit on "sex education" during a "teenliving" class. Although she was not able tograsp much of the class material, sheclearly understood at least some of the

2712

discussion related to "dating etiquette."She managed to convey to her specialeducation teacher that she had somequestions in this regard. Prior to class, theteacher recorded Jalisa's questions on acassette tape, which Jalisa then activatedin class, using a single switch. Thistechnique was also used when Jalisa wasassigned class reports in a cooperativelearning group; she worked with her class-mates after school to prepare the report,and they recorded it on tape. Jalisa wasthen responsible for playing the tapedreport the next day in class. Suchadvanced preparation strategies allowstudents with AAC systems to be activeparticipants in the regular curriculum,without requiring teachers and peers towait for lengthy periods of time while theycompose messages or questions.

Using peer instruction. The incorpo-ration of cooperative or peer instruction isbecoming increasingly common in regulareducation (Gartner & Lipsky, 1990;Sapon-Shevin, 1990; Villa & Thousand,1992). Applying these approaches tostudents who use AAC systems can bevery effective in helping them to meet thetime demands of the classroom. In addi-tion, when students with disabilities areincluded in small cooperative learning orinformal peer instructional groups, theyare often able to participate more effec-tively than they can in large classroomsituations. In junior and senior highschool, students can also be enlisted totake in-class notes for academicallycompetitive students with disabilities. Thiscan be managed by having their regularnotes photocopied or by having them usecarbon paper between the pages of their


notebooks so that two copies are madeautomatically.

Adapting academic testing. It isusually difficult for competitive or activestudents with disabilities to completeacademic tests in the same amount of timeas their nondisabled peers. If adjustmentsin time constraints are not made, thesestudents either end up being penalized fortheir disabilities or relying on the assis-tance of a classroom aide to completetests in the time allotted. The formerscenario is clearly unacceptable; the latteroften leaves the teacher wondering who isreally taking the test, the student or theclassroom aide.

One solution to this dilemma is toprovide an adapted environment in whichstudents can take tests under closesupervision. For example, some schoolsallow students to take tests in thecounseling office or in a resource roomsetting. All test-taking in these settings ismonitored to confirm that students havecompleted their own work. However, thetime requirements are removed; all teststhen become instruments for evaluatingcompetence rather than speed.

Reduced workloads. As we discussedin a previous section, even when studentsare expected to participate at a competi-tive level (i.e., when they are held to thesame standards as their nondisabledpeers), this does not necessarily mean thatthey must complete the same amount ofwork. If a teacher is willing to allow astudent to discontinue an assignment oncehe or she has demonstrated mastery of aconcept or a process, precious time can be

272

saved. In many cases, not to allow this tooccur can be frustrating for all involved.For example, it is not uncommon to hearparents report how upsetting it is to watchtheir child work long hours to completeseveral pages of math problems, when it isclear that he or she understands theconcepts by the end of the first page.When considering the amount of work, wemust never lose sight of the purpose of theactivity itself. Michael, an academicallycompetitive student in a kindergartenprogram, understood the task set forth byhis teacher. He was to cut out a series ofshapes and designs and then align them ina way that would confirm to the teacherhis understanding of one-to-one correspon-dence. However, as his classmatescompleted the assignment and moved onto another task, he continued to strugglewith a pair of scissors, unable to cut outthe first shape. If the purpose of this taskwas to enhance Michael's eye-hand coordi-nation, his use of scissors, and his abilityto cut on a line, we might not be overlyconcerned with the outcome. However,since the intention was to reinforce a mathconcept, the fine motor requirements ofthe task could have been revised (e.g., theshapes might have been precut), so thatMichael could concentrate on the relevantlearning goals. Such adaptations, thoughapparently minor, can make a major dif-ference in a student's ability to partici-pate actively in the classroom.

Thus, in regards to enhancing thecurricular involvement of students withsevere disabilities:


Recommendation #8:

A student's failure to participate in and benefit from the regular curriculum should beseen as an indication that adaptations are needed, rather than as an indication thatintegration per se is inappropriate. Team members should work together to developinnovative and individualized solutions to enhance academic and social participation.

Conclusion

A paper such as this, which isexplicitly intended to offer "best practice"guidelines in a specific area, can bedeceptive in at least two ways. First, onemight assume that, because a practice hasbeen deemed desirable, it occurs in themajority of situations. Second, one mightinfer that the practices deemed to be"best" are those for which there exists agreat deal of support from the researchliterature. In terms of the curricularissues discussed in this paper, bothassumptions would be erroneous. In 1992,most students with severe communicationdisorders who use AAC systems are notplaced in regular classrooms, are notintegrated in regular curricula, and are notprovided with opportunities for inter-actions with nondisabled peers. Sadly, itis not at all uncommon for these childrento enter school without access to eitherthe writing and drawing tools, the readingtools, or the conversational tools that areavailable to their fellow students. That is,although they cannot hold pencils orcrayons, they may not have access toaugmented writing systems. Although theycannot hold books, turn pages, or use theirvoices to practice phonics, they may notbe given adapted reading equipment or

273

computers. Finally, although they havedifficulty answering questions in class andparticipating in social conversations withpeers, they may not be provided withAAC systems for interaction. Thus, it isnot at all surprising that many of thesestudents fail to participate successfully inregular education classrooms, since theyare at a distinct disadvantage in terms ofboth academic and social learning. Unfor-tunately, when participation failure occurs,these students are often viewed as being"non-academically oriented" and are thenassigned to either segregated classroomsor to adapted curricula delivered inresource rooms or other separate settings.In time, they often find themselvesincreasingly isolated from the mainstream,"integrated" only during "non-academic"classes such as music, art, or physicaleducation. Until quite recently, it wasonly under exceptional circumstances thatany of these students were retained inregular classrooms and provided with theadaptive devices and supports necessaryfor them to be successful. Because of this,the research base investigating the impactof inclusionary education on students withsevere communication disorders is in itsinfancy.

Given these realities, the "bestpractices" discussed in this paper are


intended not to reflect the present but,rather, to provide a vision for the future.As the movement for educational reformin the United States becomes everstronger, it is critically important tounderstand that the "best practices" forstudents with severe communication disor-ders are no different from the "bestpractices" for all students. When studentswith severe communication disorders failto be included in regular classes, theirfailure should be jointly shared by class-

mates, teachers, and others. Conversely,their successful inclusion in regularclassrooms should be a triumph that isshared with and celebrated by thosearound them. Inclusion in regular schoolsand classrooms is possible, as is social andcurricular participation at whatever level.Collaborative team relationships amongprofessionals and family members shouldform the basis for excellence in educationfor all students in the 21st century.

References

Beukelman, D., & Mirenda, P. (1992). Aug-mentative and alternative communica-tion: Management of severe communica-tion disorders in children and adults.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Calculator, S. (1988). Promoting the acqui-sition and generalization of conversa-tional skills by individuals with severehandicaps. Augmentative and Alterna-tive Communication, 4, 94-103.

Calculator, S. (1991, November). Best practicesin providing AAC services to severelyhandicapped students in integrated schoolsettings. Paper presented at theAmerican Speech-Language-HearingAssociation Convention, Atlanta, GA.

Calculator, S., & Jorgensen, C. (1991). Inte-grating AAC instruction into regulareducation settings: Expounding on bestpractices. Augmentative and AlternativeCommunication, 7,204-214.

Calculator, S., & Jorgensen, C. (1992). Atechnical assistance model for promotingintegrated communication supports andservices for students with severedisabilities. Seminars in Speech andLanguage, 13(2), 99-110.

274

Chapman, R., & Miller, J. (1980). Analyzinglanguage and communication in thechild. In R. Schiefelbusch (Ed.),Nonspeech language and communication:Analysis and intervention (pp. 160-195).Baltimore: University Park Press.

Choate, J., Enright, B., Miller, L., Poteet, J.,& Rakes, T. (1992). Curriculum-basedassessment and programming. Boston:Allyn and Bacon.

Committee on Language Learning Disorders(1989, March). Issues in determiningeligibility for language intervention.Asha, 31, 113-118.

Dutton, D., & Dutton, D. (1990). Technologyto support diverse needs in regularclasses. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback(Eds.), Support networks for inclusiveschooling (pp. 167-186). Baltimore: PaulH. Brookes.

Falvey, M., Coots, J., Bishop, K., & Grenot-Scheyer, M. (1989). Educational andcurricular adaptations. la S. Stainback,W. Stainback, & M. Forest (Eds.),Educating all students in the mainstreamof regular education (pp. 143-158).Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.


Forest, M., & Lusthaus, E., (1989). Promotingeducational equity for all students:Circles and maps. In S. Stainback, W.Stainback, & M. Forest (Eds.), Educatingall students in the mainstream of regulareducation (pp. 43-58). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes.

Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. (1990). Students asinstructional agents. In W. Stainback &S. Stainback (Eds.), Support networks forinclusive schooling (pp. 81-94). Balti-more: Paul H. Brookes.

Goldstein, M. (1986). Curriculum: The key-stone for special education planning.Teaching Exceptional Children, 18,220-223.

Hoskins, B. (1990). Collaborative consulta-tion: Designing the role of the speech-language pathologist in a new educa-tional context. In W. Secord (Ed.), Bestpractices in school speech-languagepathology (pp. 29-38). Houston: ThePsychological Corporation.

Kangas, K., & Lloyd, L. (1988). Earlycognitive skills as prerequisites toaugmentative and alternative communi-cation use: What are we waiting for?Augmentative and Alternative Commu-nication, 4, 211-221.

Love R. (1992). Childhood motor speechdisability. New York: Macmillan.

Marvin, C., Beukelman, D., & Vanderhoof, D.(1991). Vocabulary use patterns bypreschool children in home and schoolcontexts. Manuscript submitted forpublication.

275

Mirenda, P., Iacono, T., & Williams, R. (1990).Communication options for persons withsevere and profound disabilities: State ofthe art and future directions. Journal ofthe Association for Persons with SevereHandicaps, 15, 3-21.

Mount, B. (1987). Personal futures planning:Finding directions for change. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, Universityof Georgia.

Mount, B., & Zwernik, K. (1988). It's nevertoo early, it's never too late (PublicationNo. 421-88-109). St. Paul, MN:Metropolitan Council.

O'Brien, J., & Lyle, C. (1987). Framework foraccomplishment. Decatur, GA: Respon-sive Systems Associates.

Owens, R., & House, L. (1984). Decisionmaking processes in augmentativecommunication. Journal of Speech andHearing Disorders, 49, 16-25.

Reichle, J., & Karlan, G. (1985). The selec-tion of an augmentative system ofcommunication intervention: A critiqueof decision rules. Journal of theAssociation for Persons with SevereHandicaps, 10, 146- 156.

Reichle, J., York, J., & Sigafoos, J. (1991).Implementing augmentative and alterna-tive communication: Strategies for learn-ers with severe disabilities. Baltimore:Paul H. Brookes.

Romski, M., & Sevcik, R. (1988). Augmenta-tive and alternative communicationsystems: Considerations for individualswith severe intellectual disabilities.Augmentative and Alternative Commu-nication, 4, 83-93.


Romski, M.A., & Sevcik, R. (1992). Devel-oping augmented language in childrenwith severe mental retardation. In S.Warren & J. Reich le (Eds.), Causes andeffects in communication intervention(pp. 113-130). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes.

Romski, M.A., & Sevcik, R. (1993). Languagelearning through augmented means: Theprocess and its products. In A. Kaiser &D. Gray (Eds.), Enhancing children'scommunication: Research foundations forintervention (pp. 85-104). Baltimore:Paul H. Brookes.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1990). Student supportthrough cooperative learning. In W.Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Supportnetworks for inclusive schooling (pp.65-80). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Shane, H., & Bashir, A. (1980). Electioncriteria for the adoption of an aug-mentative communication system: Pre-liminary considerations. Journal ofSpeech and Hearing Disorders, 45,408-414.

Silverman, F. (1989). Communication for thespeechless (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1992). Curric-ulum considerations in inclusive class-rooms. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Stainback, W., Stainback, S., Courtnage, L., &Jaben, T. (1985). Facilitating main-streaming by modifying the mainstream.Exceptional Children, 52, 144-152.

Vandercook, T., York, J., & Forest, M. (1989).The McGill Action Planning System(MAPS): A strategy for building thevision. Journal of the Association forPersons with Severe Handicaps, 14,202-215.

Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (1992). Studentcollaboration: An essential for curric-ulum delivery in the 21st century. In S.Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Cur-riculum considerations in inclusiveclassrooms (pp. 117-142). Baltimore:Paul H. Brookes.

Westby, C. (1985). Learning to talk - talkingto learn: Oral-literate language differ-ences. In C. Simons (Ed.), Communica-tion skills and classroom success:Therapy methodologies for language -learnifig disabled students (pp. 181-213).San Diego: College-Hill.

York, J., & Vandercook, T. (1991, Winter).Designing an integrated program forlearners with severe disabilities.Teaching Exceptional Children, 2-28.

Additional Resources

General AAC References

Augmentative and Alternative Communication.Decker Periodicals, Inc., One James StreetSouth, P. 0. Box 620, L.C.D. 1, Hamilton,Ontario L8N 3K7 CANADA.

276

International Society for Augmentative andAlternative Communication (ISAAC).Organization for professionals, parents,and consumers. P. 0. Box 1762, StationR, Toronto, Ontario M4G 4A3,CANADA.


AAC Assessment

Goossens, C., & Crain, S. (1986). Augmenta-tive communication assessment resource.Wauconda, IL: Don Johnston Develop-mental Equipment, Inc.

Johnson-Martin, N. (1987). Psychologicalassessment of the nonvocal, physicallyhandicapped child. Physical andOccupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 7(2),23-38.

Lee, K., & Thomas, D. (1990). Control ofcomputer-based technology for peoplewith physical disabilities: An assessmentmanual. Toronto: University of TorontoPress.

Mc Ewen, I., & Karlan, G. (1989). Assessmentof effects of position on communicationboard access by individuals with cerebralpalsy. Augmentative and AlternativeCommunication, 5, 235-242.

Mirenda, P., & Smith-Lewis, M. (1989).Communication skills. In A. Ford, R.Schnorr, L. Meyer, L. Davern, J. Black,& P. Dempsey (Eds)., The Syracusecommunity-referenced curriculum guide(pp. 189-209). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes.

Stowers, S., Altheide, M., & Shea, V. (1987).Motor assessment for aided and unaidedaugmentative communication. Physicaland Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics,7(2), 61-78.

York, J., Nietupski, J., & Hamre- ietupski, S.(1985). A decision-making process forusing microswitches. Journal of theAssociation for Persons with SevereHandicaps, 10, 214-223.

AAC Effectiveness Evaluation

Calculator, S. (1988). Evaluating theeffectiveness of AAC programs for per-sons with severe handicaps. Augmenta-tive and Alternative Communication, 4,177-179.

Culp, D. (1987). Outcome measurement: Theimpact of communication augmentation.Seminars in Speech and Language, 8(2),169-184.

AAC Interventions

Augmentative Communication News. One SurfWay, Suite #215, Monterey, CA 93940.

Baumgart, D., Johnson, J., & Helmstetter, E.(1990). Augmentative and alternativecommunication systems for persons withmoderate and severe disabilities.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

277

Beukelman, D., McGinnis, J., & Morrow, D.(1991). Vocabulary selection inaugmentative communication. Aug-mentative and Alternative Communi-cation, 7,171-185.

Beukelman, D.R., Yorkston, K.M., & Dowden,P.A. (1985). Communication augmenta-tion: A casebook of clinical management.San Diego: College-Hill.


Blackstone, S., Cassatt-James, E.L., &Bruskin, D. (Eds.) (1988). Augmentativecommunication: Implementation strate-gies. Rockville, MD: AmericanSpeech- Language-Hearing Association.

Brandenburg, S., & Vanderheiden, G. (1988).Communication board design and vocab-ulary selection. In L.E. Bernstein (Ed.),The vocally impaired: Clinical practiceand research (pp. 84-135). Philadelphia:Grune & Stratton. (Available from ThePsychological Corporation.)

Cress, P., Mathy-Laikko, P., & Angelo, J.(1988). Augmentative communication forchildren with deaf -blindness: Guidelinesfor decision-making. Monmouth, OR:Teaching Research Publications.

Culp, D., & Carlisle, M.A. (1988). PACT:Partners in augmentative communicationtraining. Tucson, AZ: CommunicationSkill Builders.

Downing, J.E., & Siegel- Causey, E. (1988).Enhancing the nonsymbolic communica-tive behavior of children with multipleimpairments. Language, Speech, andHearing Services in Schools, 19, 338 - 348.

Goetz, L., Guess, D., & Stremel- Campbell, K.(1987). Innovative program design forindividuals with dual sensory impair-ments. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Goossens, C., & Crain, S. (1986). Augmenta-tive communication intervention resource.Wauconda, IL: Don Johnston Develop-mental Equipment, Inc.

Goossens, C., & Crain, S. (1987). Overview ofnon-electronic eye-gaze communicationtechniques. Augmentative and Alterna-tive Communication, 3, 77-89.

278

Hunt, P., Alwell, M., & Goetz, L. (1990).Teaching conversation skills to individ-uals with severe disabilities with acommunication book adaptation [Manual].(Available from the first author for$7.00, San Francisco State University, 14Tapia Street, San Francisco, CA 94132.)

Langely, B., & Lombardino, L. (1991).Neurodevelopmental strategies formanaging communication disorders inchildren with severe motor dysfunction.Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

MacNeela, J. (1987). An overview of thera-peutic positioning for multiply handi-capped persons, including augmentativecommunication users. Physical andOccupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 7(2),39 -60.

Manolson, A. (1983). It takes two to talk: AHanen early language parent book.Toronto: Hanen Early LanguageResource Center.

McEwen, I., & Lloyd, L. (1990). Positioningstudents with cerebral palsy to useaugmentative and alternative communi-cation. Language, Speech, and HearingServices in Schools, 21, 15-21.

Mirenda, P. (1985). Designing pictorialcommunication systems for physicallyable-bodied students with severehandicaps. Augmentative and AlternativeCommunication, 1, 58-64.

Musselwhite, C.R. (1986). Adaptive play forspecial needs children: Strategies toenhance communication and learning.Boston: College-Hill.

Musselwhite, C.R., & St. Louis, K.W. (1988).Communication programming for personswith severe handicaps (2nd ed.). Boston:College-Hill.


Rowland, C., & Schweigert, P. (1991).Analyzing the communication environ-ment (A.C.E.): An inventory of ways toencourage communication in functionalactivities. Portland: Oregon ResearchInstitute.

Rowland, C., & Schweigert, P. (1991). TheEarly Communication Process usingmicroswitch technology. Portland:Oregon Research Institute.

Siegel- Causey, E., & Guess, D. (1989).Enhancing nonsymbolic communicationinteractions among students with severedisabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Warren, S., & Reichle, J. (1992). Causes andeffects in communication and languageintervention. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

AAC Technology

Berliss, J., Borden, P., & Vanderheiden, G.(1989). Trace Resource Book: Assistivetechnologies for communication, control,and computer access, 1989-90 edition.Madison, WI: Trace Research andDevelopment Center.

Burkhart, L.J. (1988). Using computers andspeech synthesis to facilitate commu-nicative interaction with young and / orseverely handicapped children.Wauconda, IL: Don Johnston Develop-mental Equipment, Inc.

Charlebois-Marois, C. (1985). Everybody'stechnology. Montreal, Quebec:Charlecoms enr. (Address: P.O. Box 419,Jean-Talon Station, Montreal, QuebecH1S 2Z3 CANADA.)

Church, G., & Glennen, S. (1992). Thehandbook of assistive technology. SanDiego: Singular Publishing Group.

Levin, J., & Scherfenberg, L. (1988).Selection and use of simple technology inhome, school, work, and communitysettings. Wauconda, IL: Don JohnstonDevelopmental Equipment, Inc.

Wright, C., & Nomura, M. (1985). From toysto computers: Access for the physicallydisabled child. Wauconda, IL: DonJohnston Developmental Equipment, Inc.

Collaborative Teaming

Locke, P., & Mirenda, P. (1992). Augmenta-tive and alternative communicationservice delivery in school settings:Review of the literature. Seminars inSpeech and Language, 13(2), 85-98.

279

Rainforth, B., & York, J. & Macdonald, C.(1992). Collaborative teams for studentswith severe disabilities: Integratingtherapy and educational services.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

n

*


Regular Class Inclusion

Biklen, D. (1985). Achieving the completeschool: Strategies for effective main-streaming. New York: Teacher's CollegePress.

Biklen, D. (Producer). (1988). Regular lives[Videotape]. Washington, DC: State ofthe Art.

Brown, L., Long, E., Udavari-Solner, A.,Davis, L., Van Deventer, P., Ahlgren, C.,Johnson, F., Gruenewald, L., &Jorgensen, J. (1989). The home school:Why learners with severe intellectualdisabilities must attend the schools oftheir brothers, sisters, friends, andneighbors. Journal of the Association forPersons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 1-7.

Brown, L., Long, E., Udavari-Solner, A.,Schwarz, P., Van Deventer, P., Ahlgren,C., Johnson, F., Gruenewald, L., &Jorgensen, J. (1989). Should learnerswith severe intellectual disabilities bebased in regular or in special educationclassrooms in home schools? Journal ofthe Association for Persons with SevereHandicaps, 14, 8-12.

California Research Institute. (1990). The wayto go [Videotape]. (Available from TheAssociation for Persons with SevereHandicaps.)

California Research Institute. (1992). Scnoolsare for all kids (Training module andmaterials]. (Cc ltact Dotty Kelly,Technical Assistan :e Coordinator, CAResearch Institute, San Francisco StateUniversity, San Francisco, CA 94132.)

Falvey, M. (1989). Community-bas -d curric-ulum: Instructional strategies forstudents with severe handicaps.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

280

Ford, A., Schnorr, R., Meyer, L., Davern, L.,Black, J., & Dempsey, P. (1989). TheSyracuse community-referenced curric-ulum guide for learners with moderate -severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes.

Fullwood, D. (1990). Chances and choices:Making integration work. Baltimore:Paul H. Brookes.

Giangreco, M., & Putnam, J. (1991). Support-ing the education of students with severedisabilities in regular educationenvironments. In L. Meyer, C. Peck, &L. Brown (Eds.), Critical issues in thelives of people with severe disabilities(pp. 245-270). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes.

O'Brien, J., Forest, M., Snow, J., & Hasbury,D. (1989). Action for inclusion: How toimprove schools by welcoming childrenwith special needs into regular class-rooms. Toronto, Ontario: FrontierCollege Press.

Sailor, W., Anderson, J., Halvorsen, A.,Doering, K., Filler, J., & Goetz, L.(1989). The comprehensive local school:Regular education for all learners withdisabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Schuler, A. (1992). Integrated play groups.(Available from the author for $25(videotape) an 4 $10 (manual), SanFrancisco State University, Dept. ofSpecial Education and CommunicationDisorders, San Francisco, CA 94132.)

Documents

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 359 702 AUTHOR TITLE Enhancing … · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 359 702 EC 302 262 AUTHOR Mirenda, Pat; Calculator, Stephen TITLE Enhancing Curricular Designs. PUB DATE