Enhancing Classroom-Based Communication Instruction for Students with Signifificant Disabilities and Limited Language

Abstract

Many students with significant disabilities have complex communication needs and are not yet able to express themselves using speech, sign language, or other symbolic forms. These students rely on nonsymbolic forms of communication like facial expressions, body movements, and vocalizations. They benefit from responsive partners who interpret and honour these forms and teach symbolic alternatives. The purpose of this article is to describe ways in which classroom teachers and other classroom staff can be responsive partners using three targeted teaching practices: (a) attributing meaning and honouring early communication behaviours, (b) giving students personal access to aided augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems with a core vocabulary, and (c) using aided language input strategies to show students what is possible and how to use graphic symbols on aided AAC systems. These teaching practices are discussed using scenarios to illustrate how each can be integrated into typical academic and non-academic classroom activities.

Expressive Communication Over Time: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Project Core Implementation Model

“…Fortunately, there is substantial evidence that students with extensive support needs including complex communication needs can develop symbolic communication, despite the present levels of communication documented in the population. Interventions with a strong empirical base for supporting communication development include (1) ensuring access to aided AAC (Ganz et al., 2014; Romski & Sevcik, 1996), (2) attributing meaning to student’s pre-symbolic communication (Yoder et al., 2001), (3) providing aided language input (O’Neill et al., 2018), (4) leveraging core vocabulary (Cross et al., in press; Erickson et al., 2021; Geist et al., 2020), and (5) teaching in naturalistic contexts (Pindiprolu, 2012; Woods et al., 2004). Although there is a growing body of evidence to support the impact of these interventions alone and in combination, their use requires educators and therapists who can support their implementation over time, especially for students with extensive support needs (Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium, 2016; Taub et al., 2017).…”

“…The current project was built on earlier work (Erickson et al., 2021; Geist et al., 2020, 2021) and investigates the impact of an implementation model designed to help teachers and other classroom staff learn to (a) increase students’ access to aided AAC (Ganz et al., 2014) with high frequency core vocabulary (Cross et al., in press; Erickson et al., 2021), (b) honor and attribute meaning to early communication attempts (Dorney & Erickson, 2019); and (c) provide instruction on AAC use through aided language input (O’Neill et al., 2018) in naturally occurring teaching contexts (Pindiprolu, 2012) and instructional routines (Erickson, 2017). This was done by creating professional development resources and instructional supports to help teachers and other classroom staff develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required to deliver these well-defined, research-based communication interventions.…”

Robust Receptive Vocabulary Instruction for Students With Significant Cognitive Disabilities Who Use AAC

“…Students like Vanessa can successfully use their AAC systems to actively engage across activities like these by using the repertoire of vocabulary they have readily available. Although their talk using AAC is likely to be less complex compared with that of their naturally speaking peers, one-, two- and three-word utterances can be used to contribute to group discussions and demonstrate understanding of new vocabulary and associated concepts (Cross et al, in press; Erickson et al, 2021; Geist et al, 2014, 2020). A reliance on one- and two-word utterances is common for many students who use AAC (Beukelman & Light, 2020).…”