Abstract
Children with communication disabilities in South Africa experience many barriers to their inclusion in society. These barriers are varied and include attitudinal barriers toward inclusion of children with disabilities. This study aimed to compare special education teachers’ attitudes toward an unfamiliar student with little or no functional speech (LNFS) using two types of augmentative and alternative communication systems. An embedded mixed methods design was utilized. A quantitative crossover design was utilized and followed up with observations of teachers in implementing AAC for children with communication disabilities in their classroom. Half of the participants (Group 1) viewed Video 1 featuring an unfamiliar student with LNFS in a scripted communication interaction who used an iPad© with an AAC-specific application, followed by Video 2 of the same interaction where the student used a communication board. Group 2 viewed the same two videos, but in the reverse sequence. The Teacher Attitude Scale (TAS) was completed by both groups after having watched each video. The results indicate that there were no statistically significant differences in their attitudes on most of the subscales of the TAS. This was followed up by the authors’ reflections on implementing iPads with AAC software in a school in a low-income context. The qualitative ethnographic observation component revealed that despite positive attitude as toward both AAC devices, all the teachers preferred using communication boards as the first option for implementing AAC in their classrooms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The iPad and iPhone are devices available from Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA. http://www.apple.com.
- 2.
Proloquo2Go™ is a symbol-supported communication app available from Assistive Ware, Amsterdam, Netherlands. http://www.assistiveware.com/product/proloquo2go.
- 3.
Go Talk Now is a product of the Attainment Company Inc., Verona, WI. www.attainmentcompany.co.
References
Abbott, C., Brown, D., Evett, L., Standen, P., & Wright, J. (2011). Learning Difference and Digital Technologies: A Literature Review of Research Involving Children and Young People Using Assistive Technologies 2007–2010.http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/education/research/crestem/steg/recentproj/assistivetech.aspx.
Alant, E. (2007, August 14). Covering the World of Communication Sciences and Disorders: Training and Intervention in South Africa. The ASHA Leader. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2007/070814/f070814a1.htm.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2015). Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/public/speech/disorders/AAC/.
Beck, A. R., Bock, S., Thompson, J. R., & Kosuwan, K. (2002). Influence of Communicative Competence and Augmentative and Alternative Communication Technique on Children’s Attitudes Toward a Peer Who Uses AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication,18, 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610212331281301.
Beukelman, D. R., & Mirenda, P. (2013). Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Supporting Children and Adults with Complex Communication Needs (4th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing.
Binger, C., Ball, L., Dietz, A., Kent-Walsh, J., Lasker, J., Lund, S., et al. (2012). Personnel Roles in the AAC Assessment Process. Augmentative and Alternative Communication,28(4), 278–288.
Bornman, J., & Donohue, D. K. (2013). South African Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Learners with Barriers to Learning: Attention-Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and Little or No Functional Speech. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 60(2), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912x.2013.786554.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an Experimental Ecology of Human Development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced Mixed Methods Research Designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dada, S., & Alant, E. (2001). Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Learners with Little or No Functional Speech Using Augmentative/Alternative Communication Devices. South African Journal of Education,21, 99–103.
Dada, S., & Alant, E. (2002). A Comparative Study of the Attitudes of Teachers at Special and Educationally Inclusive Schools Towards Learners with Little or No Functional Speech Using Communication Devices. South African Journal of Education,22(3), 213–218.
Dada, S., Horn, T., Samuels, A., & Schlosser, R. W. (2016). Children’s Attitudes Toward Interaction with An Unfamiliar Peer with Complex Communication Needs: Comparing High- and Low-Technology Devices. Augmentative and Alternative Communication,32, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2016.1216597.
De Bortoli, T., Arthur-Kelly, M., Foreman, P., Balandin, S., & Mathisen, B. (2011). Complex Contextual Influences on the Communicative Interactions of Students with Multiple and Severe Disabilities. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,13, 422–435. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2011.550691.
Department of Education. (2007). Guidelines to Ensure Quality Education and Support in Special Schools and Special School Resource Centres. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.thutong.doe.gov.za/resourcedownload.aspx?id=37716&ei=NYaOVbjWOOKa7gbF1YP4DA&usg=AFQjCNGnk392PP1WTa_kzhnTQzQC-VJavA&sig2=0s0vUo9xbff2zgsIy7gs2Q.
Department of Education. (2010). Guidelines for Inclusive Teaching and Learning. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Education.
Department of Education. (2015). Report on the Implementation of Education White Paper 6 on Inclusive Education. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Education.
Flores, M., Musgrove, K., Renner, S., Hinton, V., Strozier, S., Franklin, S., et al. (2012). A Comparison of Communication Using the Apple iPad© and a Picture-Based System. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28, 74–84. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2011.644579.
Gorenflo, D. W., & Gorenflo, C. W. (1997). Effects of Synthetic Speech, Gender, and Perceived Similarity on Attitudes Towards The Augmented Communicator. AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication,13, 87–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434629712331277878.
Human Rights Watch. (2015). “Complicit in Exclusion”: South Africa’s Failure to Guarantee an Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/08/18/complicit-exclusion/south-africas-failure-guarantee-inclusive-education-children.
Jones, B., & Kenward, M. G. (1989). Design and Analysis of Cross-Over Trials: Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability. New Delhi, London: Thomson Press (India).
Kent-Walsh, J., & Light, J. (2003). General Education Teachers’ Experiences with Inclusion of Students Who Use Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication,19, 104–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/0743461031000112043.
Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2014). Communication Competence for Individuals Who Require Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication,30, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.885080.
Lilienfeld, M., & Alant, E. (2002). Attitudes of Children Toward an Unfamiliar Peer Using an AAC Device with and Without Voice Output. Augmentative and Alternative Communication,18, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610212331281191.
Lomofsky, L., & Lazarus, S. (2001). South Africa: First Steps in the Development of an Inclusive Education System. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(3), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640120086585.
McCarthy, J., & Light, J. (2005). Attitudes Toward Individuals Who Use Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Research Review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication,21, 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610410001699753.
McNaughton, D., & Light, J. (2013). The iPad and Mobile Technology Revolution: Benefits and Challenges for Individuals Who Require Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29, 107–116. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2013.784930.
Nunally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Popich, E., & Alant, E. (1997). Interaction Between a Teacher and the Non-speaking as Well as Speaking Children in the Classroom. Die Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Kommunikasie Afwykings,44, 31–40.
Soto, G. (1997). Special Education Teacher Attitudes Toward AAC: Preliminary Survey. Augmentative and Alternative Communication,13(3), 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434619712331278008.
South African Government. (1996). South African Education Policy Act (Act 27 of 1996).
Tönsing, K. M., & Dada, S. (2016). Teachers’ Perceptions of Implementation of Aided AAC to Support Expressive Communication in South African Special Schools: A Pilot Investigation. Augmentative and Alternative Communication,32(4), 282–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2016.1246609.
Van Niekerk, K., Dada, S., & Tönsing, K. (2017/in press). Influences on Provision of Assistive Technology to Young Children in South Africa: Perspectives from Rehabilitation Professionals. Disability and Rehabilitation.
Wang, D., & Bakhai, A. (2006). Clinical Trials: A Practical Guide to Design, Analysis, and Reporting. London: Remetica.
Watson Hyatt, G. (2011). The iPad: A Cool Communicator on the Go. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication,20, 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1044/aac20.1.24.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by National Research Foundation (NRF) (# 150708124127) and University of Pretoria Research and Development Program. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the funders. The author would like to acknowledge all the participants and graduate student who assisted with this project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix A: Teacher Attitude Scale (TAS)
Instructions
Thank you for watching the video attentively. Kindly complete this Teacher Attitude Scale placing a tick in only one of the options of strongly agree, agree, uncertain, agree, disagree. Please do not consult with the other teacher’s, as there are no right or wrong answers. Please do not hesitate to ask for further clarification.
Official Use
-
1.
Respondent Number: ______________________________________ ⎕ 16
-
2.
Video Number: ______________________________________ ⎕ 17
Example
No. | Statement | Strongly agree | Agree | Uncertain | Disagree | Strongly disagree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ||||||
2 |
Section A: Teacher’s Perceptions on Their Own Abilities
No. | Statement | Strongly agree | Agree | Uncertain | Disagree | Strongly disagree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | I will be able to teach this child | ⎕ 18 | |||||
2. | I am trained to teach this child | ⎕ 19 | |||||
3. | I would be able to cope with this child in my class without help | ⎕ 20 | |||||
4. | I will be able to teach this child to read | ⎕ 21 | |||||
5. | I will need extra training to teach this child | ⎕ 22 | |||||
6. | I would need an assistant, if this child were in my class | ⎕ 23 | |||||
7. | I would feel confident about teaching this child | ⎕ 24 |
Official Use
Section B: Teacher’s Expectations of the Child
No. | Statement | Strongly agree | Agree | Uncertain | Disagree | Strongly disagree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | This child wants to learn | ⎕ 25 | |||||
2. | This child is a quick learner | ⎕ 26 | |||||
3. | This child will need extra help to learn | ⎕ 27 | |||||
4. | This child will eventually learn to read | ⎕ 28 | |||||
5. | This child will eventually need a disability grant | ⎕ 29 | |||||
6. | This child will be able to go to a normal school | ⎕ 30 | |||||
7. | This child will find a job one day | ⎕ 31 |
Official Use
Section C: Teacher’s Perceptions on Classroom Interaction
No. | Statement | Strongly agree | Agree | Uncertain | Disagree | Strongly disagree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | This child would disturb others in the class | ⎕ 32 | |||||
2. | This child would be able to answer questions in the class | ⎕ 33 | |||||
3. | This child would be able to participate in class | ⎕ 34 | |||||
4. | This child would be able to ask questions in class | ⎕ 35 | |||||
5. | This child would be lonely in class | ⎕ 36 | |||||
6. | This child would be isolated from participating in class | ⎕ 37 | |||||
7. | This child would be able to tell a story | ⎕ 38 |
Official Use
Section D: Teacher’s Perceptions on the Device
No. | Statement | Strongly agree | Agree | Uncertain | Disagree | Strongly disagree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | The way this child ‘talks’ will prevent her from progressing at school | ⎕ 39 | |||||
2. | The way this child ‘talks’ can be used with other children in my class | ⎕ 40 | |||||
3. | The way this child ‘talks’ helps others to communicate with her | ⎕ 41 | |||||
4. | The way this child ‘talks’ is helping her progress at school | ⎕ 42 | |||||
5. | The way this child ‘talks’ is preventing her from speaking | ⎕ 43 | |||||
6. | The way this child ‘talks’ can only be used with trained teachers | ⎕ 44 | |||||
7. | This child takes too long to talk | ⎕ 45 | |||||
8. | The way this child ‘talks’ is easy to understand | ⎕ 46 |
Official Use
Section E: Teacher’s Perceptions on Communication Interactions
No. | Statement | Strongly agree | Agree | Uncertain | Disagree | Strongly disagree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | This child is able to ask for things she needs | ⎕ 47 | |||||
2. | This child can start a conversation | ⎕ 48 | |||||
3. | This child will have difficulties in developing personal relationships | ⎕ 49 | |||||
4. | This child is impolite | ⎕ 50 | |||||
5. | This child has difficulties in sharing information with others | ⎕ 51 | |||||
6. | This child is well mannered | ⎕ 52 |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dada, S. (2019). A Comparison of Special Education Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Various Augmentative and Alternative Communication Systems. In: Halder, S., Argyropoulos, V. (eds) Inclusion, Equity and Access for Individuals with Disabilities. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5962-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5962-0_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-5961-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-5962-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)