Meeting the communication needs of students on the autism spectrum in Australian classrooms: Adjustments reported by educators and specialists

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine educators' and specialists' provision of communication adjustments for students on the autism spectrum in mainstream and supported education settings.

METHOD

Secondary analysis of data collected from educators and specialists in the Australian Autism Educational Needs Analysis was undertaken. Thematic analysis of adjustment descriptions identified 11 categories. The use of the 11 specific adjustment categories with reference to (a) participant group (educator versus specialists), and (b) setting (mainstream versus supported) were described and associations investigated using Chi-square analyses.

RESULT

Only 32% of the 381 educators and specialists reported using adjustments. Of the adjustments reported, those categorised as "Multimodal Communication", "Structured Teaching", and "Assistive Technology" were frequently included by both groups. Significant associations were apparent between groups and the use of specific adjustments including naturalistic communication strategies. Significant differences were evident in the proportion of specific adjustments used by participants in supported as opposed to mainstream settings.

CONCLUSION

Possible reasons for the differences in the adjustments reported by educators and specialists and the role that setting may play in these are discussed. These include resourcing, the choice of adjustment being driven by school setting rather than student need, and possible differences between professionals in describing the adjustments made.

Research note: attitudes of teachers and undergraduate students regarding three augmentative and alternative communication modalities

The social validity of different communication modalities is a potentially important variable to consider when designing augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) interventions. To assess the social validity of three AAC modes (i.e., manual signing, picture exchange, and an iPad^®-based speech-generating device), we asked 59 undergraduate students (pre-service teachers) and 43 teachers to watch a video explaining each mode. They were then asked to nominate the mode they perceived to be easiest to learn as well as the most intelligible, effective, and preferred. Participants were also asked to list the main reasons for their nominations and report on their experience with each modality. Most participants (68-86%) nominated the iPad-based speech-generating device (SGD) as easiest to learn, as well as the most intelligible, effective, and preferred. This device was perceived to be easy to understand and use and to have familiar and socially acceptable technology. Results suggest that iPad-based SGDs were perceived as more socially valid among this sample of teachers and undergraduate students. Information of this type may have some relevance to designing AAC supports for people who use AAC and their current and future potential communication partners.