Teaching Reusable Vocabulary In Academic Settings
Baker, B.
Abstract. One of the most significant ways people connect with their
communities is through the education process. However, one of the most
baffling problems in the use of augmentative communication technology
results from this education process. This presentation discusses ways to
use
core
vocabulary
for
academic
purposes
with
augmented
communicators. The populations of augmented communicators include
children and adults with cognitive impairments as well as students who
use their systems in inclusionary settings. The emphasis will be on how
speech clinicians, special educators, and technologists can collaborate to
combine meaningful language based on core vocabulary with a
participation model for the classroom. Currently, subject matter words are
added on a daily or weekly basis often totaling hundreds of words annually
to the vocabularies of communication aid users. Many of these words are
not used again after a particular classroom assignment or test is
completed.
1 Introduction: Supporting Teachers of Augmented
Communicators
Augmentative communication technology is an important means of connecting
people with their community education systems. In various countries and districts,
funding for augmentative communication is provided by school systems. Much
student/clinician/faculty contact time is devoted to inputting academic vocabulary that
is only temporarily useful. This presentation discusses ways of using core/reusable
vocabulary in academic settings to save time and promote language development.
Teachers hold the keys to augmentative communication success in the schools.
Clinicians—speech language pathologists (SLP), occupational therapists (OT),
physical therapists (PT), etc.—teacher’s aids, tech aids, personal assistants are there
to support the educational process, which is essentially driven by the teaching staff.
2 The Problem: Referential Questions and Answers
Teachers need to have a fluid, up-to-date knowledge of what students have
learned. It is very difficult to teach without knowing where students are in the learning
process. Do they have cognitive charity about what they are supposed to be
learning? Are they engaged in the process?
Teachers monitor cognitive clarity, engagement, and student progress through
asking questions. For efficiency, questions are phrased to elicit short answers.
“Name three animals we saw on our walk.” “What’s this?” “Name the largest planet.”
Referential, often one word, response-oriented structures are used for testing.
Such referential-style questions are efficient and elicit targeted responses that give
teachers a profile of student progress. Question and answer sessions refresh student
memory as well as provide another teaching of the original information.
While referential style questions are a natural and often effective method for
monitoring the class and individual learning status, they are not necessarily helpful
linguistically or academically for augmented communicators. Referential style
questions force augmented communicators to have specialized vocabularies. These
vocabularies change frequently on a daily, weekly or monthly basis and can feature
hundreds of words each year.
Putting in single word or brief sentence responses in a referential context takes a
significant amount of time. Below is a selection from ACOLUG—Augmentative
Communication Online Users Group—a listserv at Temple University in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. This listserv is open to augmentative communicators, their families,
their teachers, and other professionals. The quotation below is several years old and
all identifying material has been removed.
Subject: Who programs the speech-generating device (SGD)?
I am fairly new to this chat organization. I read with concern about
the problems that arise with programming…[SGDs]. As an SLP with
two students who have the older versions of [an SGD], I have spent
hours upon hours programming the devices at home. The IEP states
specified time periods which are devoted to student contact time with
the devices. The devices are also used in the classrooms when I am
not present. My concern last school year, as it is now, is how much time
can I spend programming devices at home without alienating my family.
Last year I kept track of the hours I worked at home and it totaled well
over 300 hours which was more than 12 work weeks. I, too, am
frustrated. I spoke with the principal at my school and together we
agreed that it was necessary for me to incorporate some non-student
contact time into my schedule so that I could do some programming on
the job. This year I have scheduled Friday afternoons to program
devices and work on other AAC needs within the school building. So far
this year, I have had 5 Friday afternoons to do this work. Many Fridays
there was no school or else other specials were in place. The biggest
problem with programming is time. Therapists would probably be more
than happy to program devices if time was available but typically the
caseloads are quite large and it almost seems impossible to schedule
all the students at the beginning of the year. It really is a dilemma.
Hundreds of hours are used in programming context specific, academic
vocabulary. The load is enormous and leads to the perception that augmentative
communication is not worth the burden it places on staff and family. The amount of
time consumed in such activities also takes away from language learning and
teaching. Rather than learning how to communicate, a student and his/her team
invests their time together in selecting, adding, and learning new words. These words
may never be used again by the student.
However, if such amounts of programming time were successful and this SLT’s
students were making progress and communicating independently, such sacrifices
would be understandable. Yet the next letter in this thread reveals the true situation.
Subject: Who programs the speech generating device (SGD)?
With the [SDGs], there is a large chance that the programming will
take on a life of its own…However, here are a couple of thoughts to add
to the mix. To set the stage, I am speaking about a young man, J., age
20 with CP and other disabilities, who uses [an SGD]. He was attending
an integrated high school program last year with an individual
paraprofessional, B., who was with him most of the time. I am an SLPAAC consultant, and am at their high school one afternoon each week.
J. has since graduated. J., B., and I met weekly. I would provide
direction/feedback and offer ideas, and give examples. I would also
troubleshoot problems and try to resolve anything that needed
resolution.
B. would program with J., who would give lots of non-verbal input
into things like vocabulary choices, icon selection, icon location
and wording. J. and B. would sit together for at least one study
hall per day. They would do…programming…
Is there a way to calculate the number of hours [spent
programming], …and have the school commit to providing the
programming services as a “related service” in [the] IEP? It is not like
you are asking them to keep up with what…is [needed] to say at home.
The bulk of the programming time is relating to school subjects and
activities, right?
Here again, we see that an enormous amount of time is spent programming new
vocabulary. Notice in bold print that “J. has since graduated.” Who is doing his
programming now? Is he communicating independently? Apparently not—J. gives
lots of “non-verbal input into things like vocabulary choices, icon selection, icon
location and wording.
3 The Failure of the Referential Language Model
The perceived burden of AAC and its regular failure to provide students with
independent communication abilities can, in this author’s opinion, be attributed to the
referential language model for AAC students in school settings. Referential
responses imply an unending set of special pages for words that support class and
activity participation.
Most referential words on the special pages are useful in classrooms or activities
for a limited period of time (one day - one week). Hundreds of hours per year may be
devoted to configuring academic and activity-based pages. Years of school require
the programming of thousands of “temporary words.” These words are designated
“temporary,” because they quickly become expressively unavailable.
Although referential vocabulary is currently used in most educational settings, its
labor-intensive nature and massive inefficiency mark it as a target for a simpler, more
efficient approach. Rather than targeting specific “temporary words,” students could
be asked to show their knowledge by giving information about the target or referential
word. A teacher can phrase the question with the referential word and ask for
information about the word, named object, name, or concept.
“Informational” or “descriptive” responses can replace referential responses in
many school setting. The student can provide information using vocabulary from his
or her “permanent words”—core vocabulary.
4 The Descriptive Method
In the descriptive method, core vocabulary words—300 to 400 most commonly
occurring lexemes—are used instead of specific names. The command “Name three
animals we saw on our walk” is replaced by “Tell me something about a squirrel.”
Descriptive responses might be “They run around,” “They are fast,” “We saw one on
our walk,” or “They eat things that fall down.”
The student learns to use his or her permanent vocabulary words in meaningful
and rewarding ways. The role of the speech therapist is two fold. First, assist the
teacher in phrasing questions for descriptive rather than referential responses. The
second would be teaching the student the reusable core words he or she will need to
make responses. Thus, the speech therapist’s role is transformed from one of
constant system design to expressive language teaching.
The descriptive method is less labor intensive for teachers and clinicians because
students use their permanent vocabularies. The programming of new words can be
kept to a minimum, while learning to use common words independently in variety of
situations is stressed. New pages do not have to be programmed for each activity.
Activity-based learning in school and other teaching settings includes bed making,
cooking, cleaning up, art, decorating for a holiday, playing a game, reading a book,
etc. It is possible to use simple, frequently used words—core vocabulary—as a basis
for interaction during learning and independent-living activities at all levels.
For example, ‘pull,’ ‘take,’ ‘push,’ ‘turn,’ ‘clean ‘get,’ ‘in,’ ‘out,’ ‘off,’ ‘on,’ ‘back,’ ‘up,’
‘down,’ ‘it,’ ‘them,’ ‘that,’ ‘this,’ ‘those,’ ‘these’ are useful words across many activities
and environments. In a bed-making activity, ‘Take it off,’ ‘Put it on,’ ‘Pull it down,’ can
replace ‘mattress,’ ‘sheet,’ ‘pillow case,’ and ‘mattress pad,’.
In a kitchen-based activity, participation words like ‘skillet,’ ‘spatula,’ ‘cooker,’
‘mix,’ ‘pour,’ ‘stir’ can be replaced by subject-verb-object language like ‘Turn it on,’
‘Take it off, ‘Turn it up,’ ‘Turn it down,’ and ‘Clean it off.’
The role of the augmented communicator can be to describe simple actions and
describe what to do next without using referential, “temporary” vocabulary. While it is
important for special education students to learn the meanings of referential
vocabulary, it is not necessary for them to be burdened by storing and learning how
to access these words. A revolving referential vocabulary is difficult to learn for many
special education students. Referential words regularly become hidden after the
specific activity has stopped and are unavailable for the student to use
spontaneously in his or her daily life. It is simpler and more consistent for the staff to
teach students to make short combinations of words they already know: ‘Clean it up,’
‘Turn it over,’ ‘Turn it up,’ ‘Turn it down,’ etc.
The descriptive method is less labor intensive for teachers and clinicians because
students use their permanent vocabularies. A descriptive answer often provides the
teacher with better feedback concerning a student’s progress than a one word or preprogrammed reply. The descriptive method satisfies conventional teaching goals
better, because it allows students to communicate comprehension. A short phrase,
independently constructed, demonstrates understanding and can reveal studentlearning strategies. It allows students to make connection and raise questions.
Conceptual understanding is more assessable through short, descriptive utterances.
Referential answers are typically pre-programmed by staff and may not represent the
students real learning and intentionality.