Content area
The general education classroom is filled with academic vocabulary, and individuals with developmental disabilities benefit from explicit vocabulary instruction (Browder et al., 2008; Marzano, 2020; Smith et al., 2013). Picture-based alternative and augmentative communication (AAC) can encourage academic skills development (Ahlgrim-Dehzel et al., 2016; Boruta & Bidstrup, 2012; Geist & Erickson, 2021; Yorke et al., 2018). However, the corpus of picture vocabulary used in AAC devices is limited and requires educators to customize each device so that the individual can communicate effectively (Geist & Erickson, 2021). When students require extensive modifications and support in academic environments, they are, unfortunately, more likely to be segregated (Agran et al., 2020; Kleinert, 2020). Potentially, AAC device use could be more effectively implemented if the academic vocabulary available on the software aligned with the vocabulary used in the general education classroom. In this study, we compared the corpus of picture vocabulary from two commercially available and commonly used publishers. Specifically, we compared the availability of Marzano's (2020) core academic vocabulary to the symbols found in Boardmaker®7.0 and SymbolStix PrimeTM. Results showed 90% alignment with kindergarten vocabulary decreasing in all subjects beginning in Grade 2. We noted that vocabulary alignment was most significant in the mathematics and science classes, with approximately 60 to 70% of the words available by Grade 5. We also noted that the availability of vocabulary decreased to less than 50% by Grade 5 for both English language arts and social science.
Abstract : The general education classroom is filled with academic vocabulary, and individuals with developmental disabilities benefit from explicit vocabulary instruction (Browder et al., 2008; Marzano, 2020; Smith et al., 2013). Picture-based alternative and augmentative communication (AAC) can encourage academic skills development (Ahlgrim-Dehzel et al., 2016; Boruta & Bidstrup, 2012; Geist & Erickson, 2021; Yorke et al., 2018). However, the corpus of picture vocabulary used in AAC devices is limited and requires educators to customize each device so that the individual can communicate effectively (Geist & Erickson, 2021). When students require extensive modifications and support in academic environments, they are, unfortunately, more likely to be segregated (Agran et al., 2020; Kleinert, 2020). Potentially, AAC device use could be more effectively implemented if the academic vocabulary available on the software aligned with the vocabulary used in the general education classroom. In this study, we compared the corpus of picture vocabulary from two commercially available and commonly used publishers. Specifically, we compared the availability of Marzano's (2020) core academic vocabulary to the symbols found in Boardmaker®7.0 and SymbolStix PrimeTM. Results showed 90% alignment with kindergarten vocabulary decreasing in all subjects beginning in Grade 2. We noted that vocabulary alignment was most significant in the mathematics and science classes, with approximately 60 to 70% of the words available by Grade 5. We also noted that the availability of vocabulary decreased to less than 50% by Grade 5 for both English language arts and social science.
Some students with disabilities require communication support to access a free and appropriate public education to benefit from their individual education program (IEP), and alternate and augmentative communication (AAC)
Preliminary findings of this were presented as a poster at the January 2023, Annual Conference for the CEC-DADD in Clearwater, Florida. However, we would like to acknowledge that both Tobii Dynavox LLC and n2y LLC provided the team with evaluation copies of the software. Additionally, n2y LLC provided us with permission to reprint an example of a communication symbol. Additionally, we would like to thank Dr. Liz Alteri of Radford University, Emily Kuntz of the University of Oklahoma, and Dr. Alex Szatmary of Hexagon. Correspondence related to this article should be addressed to Andrew Wojcik, Education Department, King's College, O'Hara Hall 132, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711. E-mail: andrewwojcik@ kings.edu
can promote communication (Light et al., 2019; Norrie et al., 2021). Low-tech AAC tools integrate symbols (photos or drawings). Figure 1 displays an example of a symbol from a commercial symbol library. Standardized formatting is used with the text and symbol displayed to gather. Symbol tiles utilize a standard format. The symbols can be hand drawn or printed individually or in a matrix. The printed symbols can also be affixed to a single high-tech microswitch, or a matrix of symbols can be integrated into a matrix of microswitches. When activated, the microswitches will play a recording that matches the symbol. More advanced digital matrices integrate the matrices of symbols into a touchscreen device. The picture symbols can be created from photographs, internet images, or obtained from commercial communication symbol libraries.
Commercial software often includes templates with matrixes aligned to microswitch or touchscreen-enabled devices, and caregivers within the United States commonly utilize three separate symbol libraries. Established as part of a low-tech picture communication system, Johnson and Watt (1981) created a library of Mayer-Johnson images in a software program called Boardmaker® 7.0 (Johnson, 2022); the library can be accessed online or with dedicated software installed on a computer. PRC-Saltillo (2022) owns Words for Life, a software program that is integrated into portable touchscreen devices. Finally, Unique Learning System maintains symbols matched to current events in a library entitled SymbolStix Prime™ (n2y LLC, 2022); the picture symbols are integrated into touchscreen devices as well as news stories.
Devices and their companion symbols have long promised to provide individuals with communication needs with greater freedom to interact with their environment ( Sennott & Bowker, 2009). Scholars have demonstrated that the use of AAC to build communication skills increases peer interactions, literacy skills, vocabulary development, and other academics (Ahlgrim-Delzell et al., 2016; Chung et al., 2012; Collette et al., 2019; Ganz et al., 2012; Sennott & Mason, 2016; Walker & Chung, 2022; Yorke et al., 2018). AAC use tends to diminish as youth age or move into new environments despite documented benefits across a lifespan (Moorcroft et al., 2020; Moorcroft et al., 2022).
The academic environment is relatively new for many AAC users (Agran et al., 2020; Kleinert, 2020). Effective inclusion with AAC may depend on the availability of vocabulary within the symbol libraries. In educational settings, AAC usage depends on educators or speech-language pathologists to match and organize vocabulary matrices to an environment. The process can be time intensive because the educators must select from the existing library; when symbols are unavailable, the educator must add or create a symbol using photographs, internet images or drawings (Taylor et al., 2022). The time a teacher spends on AAC activity development can be reduced if off-the-shelf symbol libraries contain symbols or already have files aligned to an environment (Andzik al., 2019; Taylor et al., 2022; Webb et al., 2019).
Scholars have noted limited symbol availability in some academic situations (McCarthy et al., 2017; Taub et al., 2020). Taub and colleagues (2020) found that AAC software had little alignment with the English language arts (ELA) curriculum standards with activities related to figurative language missing. Similarly, McCarthy and colleagues (2017) found that vocabulary symbol availability across all academic areas occurred less than 70% of the time. To date, the studies have been limited in scope, with some studies focusing on a single academic subject like English language arts (e.g., Taub et al., 2020) or studying a selected word list (McCarthy et al., 2017). A more systematic investigation is warranted; therefore, we were interested in comparing the AAC symbol libraries to content-specific vocabulary within the general education academic curriculum for elementary grades (K5). Specifically, we were interested in answering the following research questions.
1. Are picture symbol images equally available across content areas?
2. What are the correlations between the percentage of content-specific picture communication availability and grade-levels?
Method
Vocabulary Selection
We intended to compare the symbolic language library corpus used in AAC devices to the academic vocabulary found in general education classrooms. We selected the Marzano (2020) essential academic vocabulary as a source of academic vocabulary because the vocabulary list is promoted as a resource for the general education classroom. The list contains 2,273 words classified by grade-levels (K-5) and content areas (language arts, science, social science, and mathematics). We moved the words and associated classifications into an MS Excel spreadsheet. During the transfer, we noted that some words were repeated in multiple grade-levels. We kept the word with its earliest grade classification, and we removed subsequent repetitions of the words; 1,662 vocabulary words remained.
Symbolic Communication Libraries
After reviewing AAC devices located in a state assistive technology lending library, we noticed that only three symbol libraries were being utilized, and those libraries could be accessed with the following software: LAMP, Boardmakei®7.0, or SymbolStix Prime™ We reached out to three software companies and requested evaluation copies of the software. Only two publishers provided us with evaluation licenses, so we limited our scope to Boardmakeif®7.O and SymbolStix Prime? The licenses permitted the team to compare an outside list of grade-level Marzano (2020) vocabulary words to symbols built into the software libraries. Three undergraduate education students (the coders) were trained to create a static digital display matrix of symbols, and they were asked to fill in a matrix with symbols to match the words in the Marzano list.
Procedure
An Excel® sheet with the 1,662 words was provided to the coders, who were instructed to (1) sequentially select each Marzano (2020) vocabulary word; (2) type the word into the search box for the AAC software; (3) review the displayed results and if a symbol is not available, look for synonyms; and (4) enter one of the predetermined codes into the Excel® sheet. The following code options were utilized (a) available with a symbol using the search feature, a symbol was located that directly matched the text used for the search; (b) available using multiple symbols- a direct match was not located; however, two or more presented images could be combined into a new symbol (e.g., mountain man); (c) available using a synonym - could be created using the symbols that were located or a synonym was available(e.g., symbol for coordinates from mathematics could be used for the geography term) ; (d) unavailable due to a context issue (the search produced a symbol for a homonym that did not match the context of the topic; e.g., the world economics word capital is represented by a picture of congress) or (e) unavailable - a symbol was unavailable, and no images were produced related to the content conceptually. We calculated the interobserver reliability with the following formula: percent agreements... We had more than 97% agreement across observers. Each coder, searched for matches for all of the words on the list.
Analysis
All data from 1,662 vocabulary words was moved from a spreadsheet to SPSS v 28 for analysis. To simplify the analysis for the first question and to meet the minimal sample size required for each cell, the dependent variable was recoded from the initial five categorical variables to three ordinal variables ( 1 ) unavailable in both libraries; (2) available within one library; or (3) available in both libraries. We used the Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis test to determine if there were differences in the ranks across four categories (English language arts, mathematics, science, & social science). We assumed the null hypothesis Ho: ranks are the same for all content areas. For our second research question, we needed to calculate the percentage of symbols available for each subject area and grade-level. We counted a word as available if a symbol was in either library. The formula follows: Available Symbols = x 100%,
and we used Pearson Product-Moment correlations to calculate the correlations. For statistical testing, we assumed the null hypothesis Ho: r =0 no differences between our grade-level and subject groups.
Results
The study examined the alignment of vocabulary promoted for use in the general education classroom (Marzano, 2020) to the picture symbol vocabulary available in the SymbolStix Prim?M and Boardmaker®7.0 software. Overall symbols, compound symbols, or symbols for synonyms were located for 1,021 in Boardmaker® 7.0 (61.43%) and 1,214 in SymbolStix Prime™ (73.04%). Overlapping availability was not always present, with some words found exclusively in SymbolStix Prime1 (17.33%) or Boardmaker®7.0 {6.32%}.
Research Question 1: Are picture symbol images equally available across content areas ?
We displayed the categories with the frequency of symbol availability in one, both, or either software libraries in Table 1. Of the 1662 words examined, 943 words (56.74% were present in both libraries, and 293 words (23.65%) were in at least one library, meaning 1336 symbols were located in either library (80.39%). When each word was coded ordinally (1 = no availability, 2 = available in one library, and 3 = available in both), the mean ordinal availability was 1.37 {cr = 0.79). An overall statistical difference did exist between the content areas {n = 1,662; H {3} = 49.57; p < .01); therefore, we rejected the null hypothesis. Effect sizes were calculated using epsilon-squared, and the overall effect size was very small (s2 = .02). Post-hoc analysis showed the effects depended on the pairwise comparison. Symbols were available less frequently in English language arts compared to science (X2 = -139.30, p < .01, e2 = .08, small; see Figure 2) and mathematics (X2 = - 167.16; p < .001, 82 = .10, medium). Similarly, social studies symbols were less frequently available than in science (X2 = 138.64; p < .001, e2 = .08, small) or mathematics (X2 = 166.41; p < .01, e2 = .08, medium).
Research Question 2: What are the correlations between the percentage of content-specific picture communication availability and grade levels ?
Percentages of symbol availability for grades and content areas are displayed in Table 2. The coders were able to locate picture communication symbols for 80.39% of the content vocabulary (n = 1662), with more symbols found in the earlier grades (kindergarten: 95.59%, n = 295; 1st = 92.1%, n = 255; 2nd = 83.16%, n = 285) compared to the later elementary grades (3rd = 76.32%, n = 304; 4th = 68.87%, n = 302; 5th = 64.25%, n = 221). Statistical analysis showed a statistically significant and large negative correlation between symbol availability and grade level (see Figure 2). Statistical analysis also showed a similar pattern of decreasing symbol availability across grade levels for ELA (r =-0.89, ý < 0.05; г = 0.79, large), science (r=-0.96, r2 = 0.92, ý < 0.01; large), and social science (r = -0.98, r2 = 0.95, ý < 0.001, large). While there was a notable decline in symbol availability for science, the relationship was not statistically different (r = -0.705; p > 0.05); however, statistical power was low (1-/3 = 0.38). Figure 2 displays a line graph showing the percentage of vocabulary alignment for each picture communication symbol library across grades and subjects. A visual analysis confirms a decrease in symbol availability as grade levels increase, except for mathematics which displays a peak in symbol availability of 98% in third grade.
Discussion
The current study examined the availability of academic vocabulary symbols in two commercial software libraries often used for communication with AAC devices. Overall, more than 80% of the Marzano (2020) essential academic vocabulary was represented across two symbol systems, suggesting a marginal improvement over the 70% cited by McCarthy and colleagues (2017). When analyzed, the grade level and content areas showing higher symbol availability were kindergarten/firstgrade levels and mathematics, respectively. Furthermore, after second grade, non-mathematical symbol availability decreased below 75%.
Special education, as a field, is engaging in an ongoing conversation related to the inclusion of students with disabilities to meet the legal standard of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (see Agran et al., 2020; Kauffman et al., 2020; Kleinert et al., 2020). Given the Supreme Court's adoption of an appropriately ambitious effort to include students in the gradelevel curriculum (see Endrew F. v. Douglas County School System, 2017), educators and scholars should be aware that the individual's unique circumstances are influenced by the capacity and resources within a school. Anything less than 100% of the vocabulary available in general education hinders equal access to general education academic content.
Building capacity within the school can occur through the adoption of strategic integration of universal design for learning (UDL) principles (CAST, 2023а). The three principles of providing multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression guide educators to provide for an increasingly diverse community of learners across ages and settings. This study underscores the notion that to benefit fully from academic instruction, students who use alternative means of receiving and providing the information must have the tools to access the content equally. Moreover, UDL guidelines specifically reference providing options for language and symbols ".. .not only for accessibility but for clarity and comprehensibility across all learners" (CAST, 2023b). Similarly, the guidelines address the importance of providing learners with alternative ways of expressing themselves "to allow the learner to appropriately (or easily) express knowledge, ideas, and concepts in the learning environment" (CAST, 2023c). In summary, for AAC users to benefit fully from the general education curriculum, they must have access to the academic content represented in their language. Access allows individuals to both increase knowledge and demonstrate understanding of that content.
Educators, as gatekeepers to AAC usage in academic settings, are influenced by the availability of symbols (Moorcroft, 2020). When devices lack required grade-level builtin vocabulary, it takes time and effort for educators to build symbol-based communication supports (Chung & Stoner, 2016; Kauffman et al., 2020; Taylor et al., 2020) for AAC users to have equal access to the general education curriculum. The extra work required to support students with communication needs may reinforce educators' bias associated with exclusionary practices (Agran et al., 2020; Kleinert et ak, 2020). More importantly, if symbols are not readily available, it is less likely that students will be provided with natural and explicit instruction for academic vocabulary development (Marzano, 2020; Marzano & Sims, 2013). Recalling Nation (2006), a seminal study that showed that individuals need to be aware of 98% of the vocabulary for the receptive understanding of the written or spoken language, it concerns us that symbol availability would only be sufficient in a kindergarten setting.
Limitations
We acknowledge that we may have underestimated symbols more available in practice than in our study. First, we could not examine the LAMP Words for Life symbol library. Second, Marzano's (2020) vocabulary lists comprise recommended vocabulary words to introduce to students at each grade level. Therefore, the list is only a sample of words that may be required to learn in general education academic classes. Third, the software libraries that were studied may align better with other vocabulary sample sources. Finally, we assigned the Marzano words to the grade level where the vocabulary term was introduced, so the estimate of availability only applies to the grade level when the word could be initially introduced. Inversely, we may also be overestimating the availability of symbol availability. Only some educators will have access to multiple symbol libraries. We can only offer that our findings do align with previous works (McCarthy et al., 2017; Taub et al., 2020).
Recommendations
At a minimum, our results suggest that more symbols for academic environments are needed, and we recommend three changes in practice. First, commercial symbol library owners could build their libraries to match the demand. Second, policies could be developed to require publishers of textbooks and literature to create and include symbolic representations for the academic words used in their publications. Finally, educator preparation could be adjusted to stimulate symbol communication.
Commercial Symbol Libraries. Owners of commercial libraries should begin a concerted and systematic effort to add symbols aligned to vocabulary found in K-12 academic settings. We noted that SymbolStix PrimeVM had a greater frequency of social studies vocabulary; we suspect the results reflect the company's use of news stories as a source corpus. There are other sources for the corpus of vocabulary, including recommended academic vocabulary lists from researchers (e.g., Marzano), state standards of learning (Taub et al., 2020), and direct sampling of language used in grade-level and content-specific classrooms. Similarly, methods for gathering language samples could include academic classrooms (Bean et al., 2019; Mooney et al., 2021).
Scholars. For scholars, there are a few lines of research that need to be explored. A line of research should regularly compare the symbol libraries to more expansive source corpora (e.g., textbooks, grade-level work samples, and recordings from grade-level classrooms). Secondly, a line of research should examine the effectiveness of vocabulary instruction using methods proposed by Geiss and Erickson (2022) or Marzano and Sims (2013). Finally, scholars could document the impact of picture communication teacher preparation on their views of efficacy and inclusion.
Publishers. In cooperation with book publishers, symbols should be created for words used in content-specific textbooks and children's literature. Many sources exist within the public domain, but we suspect that for many textbooks and works of literature, copyright issues could arise. Publishers could begin to publish AAC-accessible versions of books directly, like audio or braille versions of texts. Laws already provide for flexible access for individuals with disabilities (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Act, 2013), but current regulations do not explicitly include symbols for AAC communicators as a form of accessibility. Policy adjustments may be required to bring these recommendations to fruition. Partnerships with scholars should also be encouraged. We envision computer science researchers building an artificial intelligence engine to create picture communication symbols that are missing from the existing libraries.
Educators. In many ways, our findings reflect how educators are utilizing AAC devices. The symbols present in the libraries are the symbols being used or what has been demonstrated. Existing literature already states that educators (both special educators and speech-language pathologists) should have more explicit training in AAC activity development (Briggs & Hacker, 2021; Douglas et al., 2020; Moorcroft et al., 2020; Senner & Baud, 2017; Soto et al., 2001). We suspect adding a few explicit skills to the training could yield a greater availability of the academic content symbols. First, educators could be taught to develop general education activities where student peers build communication tools for students with disabilities. Marzan o and Sims (2018) already describes the creation of symbolic representation for new vocabulary words as an essential step in learning new words for general education students. Alternatively, a classroom of peers could be organized systematically to request specific content symbols from the software company. However, it would prove more efficient if the AAC software companies and textbook publishers could expand their scope of academic symbols to include AAC symbols to minimize the effort that educators and peers must expend to make academic content accessible to all learners.
Conclusion
Our study shows there is a failure to symbolate the academic symbols found in the K-5 academic environment. Meaning, at present, educators are unable to provide students with the opportunity to speak in the grade-level academic setting. We believe that the lack of symbols presents a barrier to inclusion, and we call on the research community to examine the underlying reasons for this shortfall. It may be that the symbol libraries in their existing form reflect the current practices and priorities of educators, which contribute to exclusion (see Agran et al. 2020). Alternatively, the lack of symbol availability may influence the IEP teams or reinforce the biases held by some IEP team members. If academic symbols are unavailable, teams may conclude that academic grade-level inclusion is impractical or that the supports and modifications needed for inclusion exceed the practical limits of implementations (e.g., time to learn about new content and to create adaptive communication supports). In either case, we call on the community of educators, speech-language pathologists, and scholars to continue an exploration of academic symbol availability. More importantly, we ask our colleagues to reflect deeply on how symbol availability may influence our expectations for students.
References
Agran, M., Jackson, L., Kurth, J. A., Ryndak, D., Burnette, K, Jameson, M., Zagona, A., Fitzpatrick, H., & Wehmeyer, M. (2020). Why aren't students with severe disabilities being placed in general education classrooms: Examining the relations among classroom placement, learner outcomes, and other factors. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1), 4- 13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919878134
Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Browder, D. M., Wood, L., Stanger, C., Preston, A. I., & Kemp-Inman, A. (2016). Systematic instruction of phonics skills using an iPad for students with developmental disabilities who are AAC users. Journal of Special Education, 50(2), 86-97. https://doi.org/10.1177/00 22466915622140
Andzik, N. R., Chung, Y.-С., Doneski-Nicol, J., & Dollarhide, C. 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
Bean, A., Cargill, L. P., & Lyle, S. (2019). Framework for selecting vocabulary for preliterate children who use augmentative and alternative communication. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 28(3), 1000-1009. https://doi. org/10.1044/2019_AJSLP-18-0041
Biggs, E. E., & Hacker, R. E. (2021). 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/ 10.1177/15407969211052309
Boruta, M. C., & Bidstrup, К (2012). Making it a reality: Using standards-based general education science and math curriculum to teach vocabulary and language structures to students who use AAC. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(3), 99-104. https://doi.org/10.1044/aac2L3.99
Browder, D. M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G., Gibbs, S. L., & Flowers, C. (2008). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an early literacy program for students with significant developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75(1), 33-52. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0014402908075001
CAST. (2023a.) The UDE guidelines, https:// udlguidelines.cast.org/
CAST. (2023b). Language У symbols, https:// udlguidelines.cast.org/representation/languagesymbols
CAST. (2023c). Expression У communication, https:// udlguidelines.cast.org/ action-expression/expression -communication
Collette, D., Brix, A., Brennan, P., DeRoma, N., & Muir, В. C. (2019). Proloquo2go enhances classroom performance in children with autism spectrum disorder. OTJR: Occupation, Participation, and Health, 39(3), 143-150. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1539449218799451
Chung, Y.-С., Carter, E. W., & Sisco, L. G. (2012). Social interactions of students with disabilities who use augmentative and alternative Communication in inclusive classrooms. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 117(b), 349-367. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-117.5.349
Chung, Y.-С., & Stoner, J. B. (2016). A meta-synthesis of team members' voices: What we need and what we do to support students who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 32(3), 175-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2016.1213766
Douglas, S. N., West, P., & Kammes, R. (2020). The training experiences of augmentative and alternative communication practitioners in one midwestern state. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 5(1), 219-230. https://doi.org/ 10.1044/2019_PERS-19-00053
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. (2017). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/ 16pdf/15-827_0pml .pdf
Ganz, J. B., Earles-Vollrath, T. L., Heath, A. K, Parker, R. I., Rispoli, M. J., & Duran, J. B. (2012). A meta-analysis of single case research studies on aided augmentative and alternative communication systems with individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(1), 60-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/ si 0803-011-1212-2
Geist, L., & Erickson, K. (2022). Robust receptive vocabulary instruction for students with significant cognitive disabilities who use AAC. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 54(4) ,296-304. https:// doi.org/10.1177/00400599211018836
Johnson, R. (2022). Boardmaker v. 7.2.4. [Computer Software]. Author, https://goboardmaker.com/
Johnson, R. M., & Watt, S. M. (1981). The picture communication symbols: Book 1. Mayer-Johnson.
Kauffman, J. M., Travers, J. C., & Badar, J. (2020). Why some students with severe disabilities are not placed in general education. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1), 28-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919893053
Kleinert, H. 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/10.1177/1540796919892740
Light, J., McNaughton, D., & Caron, J. (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, 55(1), 26-41. https://doi. org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1557251
McCarthy, J. H., Schwarz, I., & Ashworth, M. (2017). The availability and accessibility of basic concept vocabulary in AAC software: A preliminary study. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 33(3), 131-138. https://doi. org/10.1080/07434618.2017.1332685
Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Act. Pub. L. No. 115-261 § 121 (2018) https://www.copyright.gov/ legislation / 2018_marrakesh_amendments.pdf
Marzano, R. J. (2020). Teaching basic, advanced, and academic vocabulary: A comprehensive framework for elementary instruction. Marzano Resources.
Marzano, R. J., & Sims, J. A. (2013) Vocabulary for the Comon Core. Marzano Resources.
Mooney, A., Bean, A., & Sonntag, A. M. (2021). Language sample collection and analysis in people who use augmentative and alternative communication: Overcoming obstacles. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 50(1), 47-62. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJSLP-19-00055
Moorcroft, A., Alium, J., & Scarinci, N. (2022). Speech-language pathologists' responses to the rejection or abandonment of AAC systems. Disability and Rehabilitation, 44(16), 4257-4265. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2019.1609577
Moorcroft, A., Scarinci, N., & Meyer, C. (2020). 'We were just kind of handed it and then it was smoke bombed by everyone': How do external stakeholders contribute to parent rejection and the abandonment of AAC systems? International Journal of Language У Communication Disorders, 55(1), 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12502
n2y LLC. (2022) Symbolstix Prime, https://www.n2y. com/symbolstix-prime/
Norrie, C. S., Waller, A., & Hannah, E. F. (2021). Establishing context: AAC device adoption and support in a special-education setting. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 28(2), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3446205
PRC-Saltillo. (2022) Words for Life. [iPad Application].
Senner, J. E., & Baud, M. R. (2017). The use of an eight-step instructional model to train school staff in partner-augmented input. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 38(2), 89-95. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1525740116651251
Sennott, S., & Bowker, A. (2009). Autism, AAC, and proloquo2go. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18(4), 137-145. https:// doi.org/10.1044/aacl8.4.137
Sennott, S. C., & Mason, L. H. (2016). AAC modeling with the iPad during shared storybook reading pilot study. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 37(4), 242-254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525 740115601643
Smith, В. R., Spooner, F., Jimenez, B. A., & Browder, D., (2013) Using an early science curriculum to teach science vocabulary and concepts to students with severe developmental disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 36(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2013.0002
Soto, G., Muller, E., Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (2001) Professional skills for serving students who use AAC in the general education classroom: A team perspective. Language, Speech, and Haring Services in School Exchange, 32(1), 51-56. https://doi. org/10.1044/0161-146(2001/005)
Taub, D., Apgar, J., Foster, M., Ryndak, D. L., Burdge, M. D., & Letson, S. (2020). Investigating the alignment between English language arts curricula developed for students with significant intellectual disability and the CCSS. Remedial and Special Education, 41(b), 284-295. https://doi. org/10.1177/0741932519843184
Taylor, M. S., Lohmann, M. J., & Kappel, A. (2022). Using assistive technology to support science instruction in the inclusive elementary classroom. Journal of Special Education Technology, 37(1), 143150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643420947826
Walker, V. L., & Chung, Y.-C. (2022). Augmentative and alternative communication in an elementary school setting: A case study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 53(1), 167-180. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_LSHSS-21-00052
Webb, E. J. D., Lynch, Y., Meads, D., Judge, S., Randall, N., Goldbart, J., Meredith, S., Moulam, L., Hess, S., & Murray, J. (2019). Finding the best fit: Examining the decision-making of augmentative and alternative communication professionals in the UK using a discrete choice experiment. British Medical Journal Open, 9( 11 ), e030274. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen2019-030274
Yorke, A. M., Light, J. C., Gosnell Caron, J., McNaughton, D. B., & Drager, K. D. R. (2018). The effects of explicit instruction in academic vocabulary during shared book reading on the receptive vocabulary of children with complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34(4), 288-300. https://doi. org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1506823
Copyright Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities Jun 2024