Graduate
Division of Educational Research
Faculty
of Education
University
of Calgary
Individual
Project
Submitted
to:
Dr. Dianne
Dodsworth
Professor
EDER 681
Submitted
by:
Dawn Hayward
237521
June 25,
2001
Introduction
All individuals communicate. However, variances exist
in the manner and level to which they do so.
On a daily basis, teachers create, implement and evaluate learning
activities, which should concur with a student’s communication and
developmental level. The child’s ability in the area of communication will
affect their ability to master new skills and demonstrate their understanding
thus affecting achievement of the school curriculum and their grade level
requirements.
For
example, children who use an augmentative or alternative form of communication (AAC)
pose great challenges for teachers. Educators
must introduce an AAC system for the student, help that child function the best
of their ability, and evaluate the student’s capabilities. Where is the “all knowing” handbook that explains this
process step-by-step? In lieu
of such a resource, teachers must rely on the expertise and experience of
colleagues, special educators, and other professionals.
In addition to
communication differences for children with physical or other special needs, I
would like to address theories of multiple intelligences and how they affect
student communication. Through my
own research, I hope to understand how differences in communication should
factor into the planning of all aspects of the curriculum.
How are the classroom teacher, specialists, parents and administration
involved in key decisions necessary for the process? How do we determine if a child has a “communication
difference”? .
With today’s emphasis on inclusion and integration in our
schools, teachers can expect to see children with many disabilities, with
varying levels of severity. Those
students, who may also have communication problems, sometimes resulting in
severe intellectual disabilities, would need to be included in the school
population. Developing curriculum and evaluating their school achievement
involves a number of factors that is too often left to the discretion of the
individual teacher.
Often, classroom teachers feel the pressure to become special
needs experts when considering the students in their class.
Although support is provided in the form of specialist teachers,
classroom teachers may feel insecure as to their role in “inclusion curriculum
development” (Westling & Fox, 1995).
When considering students who have differences but still need to meet
mainstream objectives, how do teachers design their curriculum?
Curriculum Outcomes
The Department of Education has developed curriculum outcomes and objectives for each of the courses available at the primary, elementary, intermediate, and high school levels. It is important for teachers and other professionals to analyze these objectives when developing an individualized curriculum plan for students with disabilities. Their knowledge of the individual objectives will improve their ability to assess if the student has met the demands of the curriculum, and is able to continue to the next level in their school career.
Each of the province’s
courses is developed around meeting essential graduation learnings. All
graduates from the province’s public schools are expected to demonstrate
knowledge, skills, and attitudes in the following areas: aesthetic expression,
citizenship, communication, personal development, problem solving and
technological competence. These outcomes are cross curricular, and are the
foundation for all curriculum development (Govt. of NF. and Lab. English
Language Arts Curriculum Guide, 1998).
The essential graduation learnings set the framework for course development. From these learnings we get our general curriculum outcomes. These outcomes identify what students are expected to know and be able to do upon completion of study of any course. For example, English language art outcomes are organized in the following categories: speaking and listening, reading and viewing, writing and other ways of representing (Govt. of NF. and Lab. English Language Arts Curriculum Guide, 1998). A student who uses an augmentative or alternative communication system will experience challenges in achieving many of these outcomes if adaptations are not made. Problems may arise for a teacher designing activities to assist students in meeting these outcomes.
The next step is the
specific curriculum outcomes identifying what the students are expected to know
and do at a particular grade level. It is at this level that the teacher
conducts his/her daily lesson plans and evaluates the student’s achievement
over a period of time (Govt. of NF. and Lab. English Language Arts Curriculum
Guide, 1998). Teachers must take each of the objectives and develop a system of
assessing the AAC student’s achievement of the objective. For the student
using an AAC system, their success in school depends upon them meeting the
specific curriculum outcomes, and then the key-stage outcomes upward to the
essential graduation learnings.
Pathways to Graduation
In order for special educators, teachers and other
professionals on the programming team, to evaluate an AAC student’s
achievement of the curriculum objectives, we must have an understanding of the
province’s Pathways to Graduation. For students who have primary speech,
language, or motor impairments, the pathway, or curriculum program they follow
will depend on the severity of their disability. For those students who have a
communication disability as well as a severe intellectual disability, they would
normally follow an alternate curriculum rather than the provincially prescribed
curriculum. They would also be evaluated under alternate methods.
The Newfoundland Department of Education has developed five pathways to
programming or graduation that a student may follow throughout their school
career. These students may change from one pathway to the next, depending on the
student’s needs.
Pathway one involves students studying the provincially approved programs
and curriculum requirements. This would represent the majority of the students
in the school system; they do not have a need for any special services by their
schoolteachers. Pathway two describes students who can follow the approved
curriculum with additional supports and adaptations. These accommodations may
include adjustments to instructional or presentation techniques. Examples of
this may be providing tutorial classes, or allowing the student to complete a
task differently than that of their classmates (extended time for tests, or
role-play answers). Adjustments to the learning environment fall under pathway
two. This includes altering the class temperature, seating arrangements, or
providing color overlays while reading.
Pathway
two also includes adjustments to learning resources, motivational techniques,
organizational techniques, and evaluation procedures. Students may be evaluated
by a number of alternate methods. Test questions may be simplified, multiple
tests written as opposed to long answer, oral exams, or using the word
processor. These adaptations to the curriculum could ensure that the AAC student
meets the provincially prescribed requirements while receiving services to meet
their individual needs. Most learning-disabled students would be on pathway two.
If
an intervention is required for a period longer than sixteen weeks, an
Individual Support Services Plan should be developed (Govt. of NF. and Lab.,
Pathways to Graduation, 1998). This would involve the development of a program
planning team comprised of a number of individuals including the classroom
teacher, special education teacher, principal, parents, and related
professionals such as a speech-language pathologist for an AAC student. The
importance of an assessment-intervention team, which draws on the skills of
professionals from a range of disciplines, is experienced at this level (Light,
1989).
The
student would also move to pathway three, modifications to the prescribed
programs. This describes an individual for whom some of the prescribed program
outcomes are too challenging or not challenging enough. The ISSP team would
delete or add no more than 50% of the objectives from the curriculum
requirements to meet the needs of the individual student developed (Govt. of NF.
and Lab., Pathways to Graduation, 1998).
Pathway
four involves the development of an alternate program or course when more than
50% of the objectives have been changed so that the course no longer resembles
that of one developed by the province. Students under pathway four may complete
a course in social skills, or if the student is gifted, a course in marine
biology for example.
For
those students, as mentioned above how may have a severe cognitive delay, they
would not be able to meet the requirements of the regular curriculum. These
students would typically be on pathway five, or an alternative curriculum. The
ISSP team would be responsible for the development of the student’s curriculum
with some integration into the regular classroom (Govt. of NF. and Lab.,
Pathways to Graduation, 1998).
If
teachers have the knowledge of what options are available to meet the needs of
their students, they are better able to make the appropriate accommodations to
their instruction and evaluation procedures.
How
Do We Evaluate
In recent years, many clinicians and researchers have argued for more
constructive approaches to evaluating the communicative competence of
individuals using augmentative and alternative communication systems (Light,
1989, p.137). These students must be evaluated by alternative methods, rather
than automatically evaluating their performances against benchmarks or standards
of the normal communication population (Light, 1989). These statements have a
great effect on special education teachers.
Teachers are able to evaluate their students by a number of
methods. By using a variety of these methods, teachers can develop a full
comprehensive picture of the students strengths and needs. For students with
augmentative and alternative communication systems in particular, teachers must
alter assessment from strictly pen and paper written tests. Their ability to
communicate in written form may be impaired due to motor or visual impairments.
Not meeting this requirement would mean their failure of the educational
requirements.
Student generated work can vary from the traditional written exam. M. Canale has argued against evaluation based on student performances in nonfunctional contexts such as classroom tests, and has proposed instead that communication should be judged as successful or not based on actual outcomes in real life situations (Light, 1989, p.138). Students can present their thoughts and knowledge of the subject matter in the form of pictures, diagrams, or dioramas. Teachers can evaluate the student’s ability to express their thoughts clearly and concisely.
The
student’s ability to communicate and describe what has been invented may also
be evaluated. Portfolios are an excellent method of evaluating a student’s
progress over a period of time. Teachers collect student material and work
samples for a specified topic and evaluate the changes and progress made.
Student’s whose motor ability may be impaired would not be able to
complete assignments or tests through pictorial representation. If there were
little or no vocal disability, oral testing would be beneficial. Students could
be oral tested by the teacher or student assistant. Other forms of oral testing
would include presentations to the class or independently to the teacher.
Discussions or debates could also test the students understanding. These forms
of testing are valued in the Language Arts curriculum. Other forms of oral
testing for AAC students can include the teacher asking specific questions and
the student answering by selection either with a switch devise or even pointing
or eye movement.
The functionality of a student’s communication should be evaluated
based on actual outcomes in response to the demands of the daily environment
(Light, 1989). The student’s daily environments include the classroom, other
school areas such as the cafeteria, and the home. Information about the
student’s behavior in the classroom or social setting can also provide a great
deal of information about a student’s communication and language ability. This
information can be gained in a number of ways. Observation of a student’s
behavior is the key to understanding their strengths and needs. Teachers can
record the AAC student’s language use by antidotal records, rating scales, and
checklists. Information can also be gained by interviewing other teachers or the
parents about the student’s communication. This information can be used to
assess the student’s achievement of the curriculum goals.
Formal testing procedures may be needed to assess the language and
communication levels of AAC users. Because many of these tests are commercially
produced, they are often not developed around the communication needs of AAC
students. Assessment instruments such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test may
be used to assess nonrelational words (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1992). This test
is often preferred for AAC evaluations because it can be modified easily,
without sacrificing validity to meet the needs of individuals with motor
limitations (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1992, p.137).
As a team, various professionals collect all the necessary information
and work together to evaluate the AAC student’s progress and achievement with
the program goals. By using a variety of tools and methods to measure the
student’s abilities, the team can make sound choices and decisions about the
curriculum mastery. With these resources, teachers can gain a full picture of
the whole child, not just the disability.
Do
the Students Meet the Goals
A student’s achievement of the curriculum requirements depends on a
number of factors. This decision is often based on the information described
above. Teachers must identify, what is the severity of the student’s
disability? ; What objective or outcome am I asked to evaluate; what pathway is
this student on for this particular course; what accommodations have been made
to the learning environment or the evaluation procedure; what method of
evaluation would be best to use. All of these questions must be answered before
a decision can be made.
When analyzing a learning disabled student, these students often can meet
the requirements of the curriculum. Their difficulty may be experienced in the
Language Arts curriculum with expressive and or receptive language. Poor reading
is the major academic problem reported for 80% of learning disabled students
(Beukelman & Mirenda, 1992). These students augmentative systems can include
computer assistance for writing and spelling difficulties.
If accommodations were made to the students learning of the Language Arts
curriculum, that student would normally be on pathway two or three. Because
these accommodations do not impede successful learning, the learning disabled
individuals would achieve all key-stage outcomes and graduate from high school
on the normal pattern.
The needs and abilities of children with developmental apraxia of speech,
specific language impairments, and primary motor impairments differ greatly from
those of the learning disabled children. For this reason I will discuss the
three listed above in relation to meeting the curriculum requirements as a
group.
Developmental apraxia of speech (DAS), refers to children with congenital
articulation problems that are moderate to severe in nature (Beukelman &
Mirenda, 1992). Intensive work to improve natural speech production and to
support language learning is often the focus of intervention for these students.
Unaided and aided communication systems can be implemented to assist the
communication needs of these children. These include gestural and manual sign
interventions, as well as communication boards or wallets that may supply voice
output (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1992).
Specific language impairment (SLI) is considered to be a deficit in
language expression, comprehension, or both, in the absence of apparent
neurological damage or hearing impairment (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1992,
p.235). These children often demonstrate age level performance on nonverbal
tests or subtests of intelligence. Their development of language is uneven,
typically affecting the use of grammatical morphemes and function words
(Beukelman & Mirenda, 1992). This unfortunately has a great impact on the
student’s learning and achievement of the Language Arts curriculum.
A large number of students experience severe disorders in communication
due to primary motor impairments (PMI) that limit their ability to speak and
write. These individuals may include cerebral palsy and spinal cord injury. In
general these individuals do not experience significant sensory, intellectual,
or learning problems that can contribute to communication disabilities. Their
disability is experienced mostly with spoken and written language. Many
individuals with PMI are able to function as full participants in the regular
classroom if given appropriate assistive technology and instructional supports
(Beukelman & Mirenda, 1992).
Because the three categories of AAC students mentioned above require
adaptations to the learning and instructional environment, they would follow
pathway two to graduation. Depending on the individual needs of each student,
they may also be categorized in pathway three or four based on the intellectual
functioning of the student. Students with PMI could in most circumstances keep
up with the curriculum demands of the school. For those students in either
category who are unable to achieve the curriculum requirements of the
provincially approved programs, the programming team could develop a course
based on the interests and needs of the particular student. This would be
pathway four. Adaptations to the evaluation procedures would be necessary if the
student is unable to verbally or symbolically demonstrate what has been learned.
The
use of the word processor is an excellent tool to allow the student to produce
what is required in the written expression component of the Language Arts
curriculum. If used by students, this would allow them to meet many of the
curriculum objectives required. This augmentative system could be implemented
for PMI, DAS, and SLI students. A communication board can also be used to
produce and generate written language. However, such objectives as “the
student will show a commitment to drafting and redrafting texts” would have to
be altered or deleted to meet the student’s needs (Govt. of NF and Lab.,
English Language Arts Curriculum guide, 1998).
The
general curriculum outcomes for speaking and listening will vary depending on
the individual disability. According to the Department of Education, speaking
and listening outcomes can be understood to include all forms of verbal and
non-verbal communication including sign language and communicators needs (Govt.
of NF. and Lab., English Language Arts Curriculum guide, 1998). This would
enable those students with aided and unaided communication systems to meet the
objectives. Their success is again more dependent on the intellectual ability of
the student, not their barriers to verbal communication.
Reading and viewing
general outcomes involve the student’s ability to select, read, and view with
understanding a range of literature, information, media, and visual texts. The
student’s ability to read and comprehend the material depends on their
individual abilities. Primary motor impairments often do not interfere with the
student’s ability to read. However, the compression of the material depends on
the disability. Specific language impairments often do interfere with the
comprehension of the material read. This will affect the student’s ability to
meet the curriculum objectives for reading as well as many other subjects.
Many
factors contribute to an AAC student’s success and achievement in school, and
particularly Language arts. Within the field of language development, it is
generally recognized that effective communication requires both grammatical or
linguistic competence, as well as socialinguistic competence (Light, 1989). The
students must therefore master considerable language knowledge before entering
elementary school so that they can participate at a similar level as their peers
(Beukelman & Mirenda, 1992).
Reading forms the basis of the Language Arts
curriculum. Efficiency in reading can lead to greater control over language
structure; broaden experiences, and increased conceptual development (Smith,
1992). The student’s ability to read and write often determines their
long-term success (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1992). This is why it is important
that reading be an integral part of a student’s school, regardless of their
disability. If reading is valued in the student’s home, and reading is used as
a form of recreation and enjoyment, better language skills will develop.
Conclusion
The school environment can be a source of enjoyment as well as conflict for those students with augmentative and alternative communication systems. Their achievement of the curriculum demands and goals depends on a number of factors. These students overall success in school is not dependent on barriers placed on them due to their communication system, but the intellectual barriers they may have. AAC students are not a segregated population; normal aged peers experience the same limitations to their achievement of the schools curriculum goals.