Creating a response space in multiparty classroom settings for students using eye-gaze accessed speech-generating devices

References

• Åhlund, A., & Aronsson, K. (2015). Stylizations and alignments in a L2 classroom: Multiparty work in forming a community of practice. Language & Communication, 43, 11–26. doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2015.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andzik, N. R., Chung, Y. C., & Kranak, M. P. (2016). Communication opportunities for elementary school students who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication (Baltimore, MD: 1985)), 32(4), 272–281. doi:10.1080/07434618.2016.1241299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D. R., & Mirenda, P. (2013). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, M., & Wilkinson, R. (2009). Communication aid use in children’s conversation: Time, timing and speaker transfer. In H. Gardner & F. Michael (Eds.), Analysing interaction in childhood: Insights from conversation analysis (pp. 249–266). Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, M., & Wilkinson, R. (2007). Interaction between children with cerebral palsy and their peers 1: Organizing and understanding VOCA use. Augmentative and Alternative Communication (Baltimore, MD: 1985)), 23(4), 336–348. doi:10.1080/07434610701390350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, M., & Wilkinson, R. (2008). Interaction between children with cerebral palsy and their peers 2: Understanding initiated VOCA-mediated turns. Augmentative and Alternative Communication (Baltimore, MD: 1985)), 24(1), 3–15. doi:10.1080/07434610701390400
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, K. M., Haney, B., Krieg, A., & Brownell, S. E. (2017). What's in a name? The importance of students perceiving that an instructor knows their names in a high-enrollment biology classroom. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(1), 8–13. doi:10.1187/cbe.16-08-0265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egbert, M. M. (1997). Schisming: The collaborative transformation from a single conversation to multiple conversations. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 30(1), 1–51. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3001_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eliasson, A.-C., Krumlinde-Sundholm, L., Rösblad, B., Beckung, E., Arner, M., Ohrvall, A.-M., & Rosenbaum, P. and (2006). The Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) for children with cerebral palsy: Scale development and evidence of validity and reliability. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 48(7), 549–554. doi:10.1017/S0012162206001162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelke, C. R., & Higginbotham, D. J. (2013). Looking to speak: On the temporality of misalignment in interaction involving an augmented communicator using eye-gaze technology. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 4(1), 95–122. doi:10.1558/jircd.v4i1.95
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1980). Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of multual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 272–302. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Dimensions of institutional talk. In J. Heritage & S. Clayman (Eds.), Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions (pp. 43–51). Chichester; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Higginbotham, D. J., & Engelke, C. R. (2013). A primer for doing talk-in-interaction research in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication (Baltimore, MD: 1985)), 29(1), 3–19. doi:10.3109/07434618.2013.767556
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higginbotham, D. J., & Wilkins, D. P. (1999). Slipping through the timestream. In D. Kovarsky (Ed.), Constructing (in)competence: Disabling evaluations in clinical and social interaction (pp. 49–82). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Howery, K. L. (2018). Out of time: The experience of speech-generating device users. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 40(1), 40–49. doi:10.1177/1525740118766480
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hörmeyer, I., & Renner, G. (2013). Confirming and denying in co-construction processes: A case study of an adult with cerebral palsy and two familiar partners. Augmentative and Alternative Communication (Baltimore, MD: 1985)), 29(3), 259–271. doi:10.3109/07434618.2013.813968
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In D. N. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 294–338). New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Kathard, H., Daisy, P., & Mer4shen, P. (2015). A study of teacher–learner interactions: A continuum between monologic and dialogic interactions. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 46(3), 222–241. doi:10.1044/2015_LSHSS-14-0022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26(1), 22–63. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(67)90005-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koole, T., & Elbers, E. (2014). Responsiveness in teacher explanations: A conversation analytical perspective on scaffolding. Linguistics and Education, 26(1), 57–69. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2014.02.001
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Y.-A. (2006). Respecifying display questions: Interactional resources for language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 691–713. doi:10.2307/40264304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y.-A. (2008). Yes-no questions in the third-turn position: Pedagogical discourse processes. Discourse Processes, 45(3), 237–262. doi:10.1080/01638530701739215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32(2), 177–201. doi:10.1017/S004740450332202X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macbeth, D. (2000). Classrooms as Installations Direct instruction in the early grades. In S. K. Hester, & D. Francis (Ed.), Local educational order: Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action (pp. 21–71). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
   Google Scholar
• Mehan, H. (1979). What time is it, Denise?": Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 18(4), 285–294. doi:10.1080/00405847909542846
   Google Scholar
• Norén, N., & Sigurd Pilesjö, M. (2016). Supporting a child with multiple disabilities to participate in social interaction: The case of asking a question. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 30(10), 790–811. doi:10.1080/02699206.2016.1213883
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ottesjö, C., &., & LindströM, J., (2005). Så. som diskursmarkör [Så. as a discourse marker]. Språk Och Stil, 15, 85–128.
   Google Scholar
• Palisano, R., Rosenbaum, P., Walter, S., Russell, D., Wood, E., & Galuppi, B. (1997). Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 39(4), 214–223. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.1997.tb07414.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, L., Virella, D., Mjoen, T., da Graca Andrada, M., Murray, J., Colver, A., … de la Cruz, J. (2013). Development of The Viking Speech Scale to classify the speech of children with cerebral palsy. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(10), 3202–3210. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.06.035
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perfect, E., Hoskin, E., Noyek, S., & Davies, T. C. (2020). A systematic review investigating outcome measures and uptake barriers when children and youth with complex disabilities use eye gaze assistive technology. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 23(3), 145–159. doi:10.1080/17518423.2019.1600066
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radford, J., Bosanquet, P., Webster, R., & Blatchford, P. (2015). Scaffolding learning for independence: Clarifying teacher and teaching assistant roles for children with special educational needs. Learning and Instruction, 36, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossano, F., Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Gaze, questioning, and culture. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis. Comparative perspectives (pp. 187–249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rytterström, P., Borgestig, M., & Hemmingsson, H. (2016). Teachers’ experiences of using eye-gaze-controlled computers for pupils with severe motor impairments and without speech. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(4), 506–519. doi:10.1080/08856257.2016.1187878
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. doi:10.2307/412243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sahlström, F. (1999). Up the hill backwards: On interactional constraints and affordances for equity-constitution in the Classrooms of the Swedish Comprehensive School (Doctoral Thesis). Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Uppsala University.
   Google Scholar
• Savolainen, I., Klippi, A., Tykkyläinen, T., Higginbotham, J., & Launonen, K. (2020). The structure of participants' turn-transition practices in aided conversations that use speech-output technologies. Augmentative and Alternative Communication (Baltimore, MD: 1985)), 36(1), 18–30. doi:10.1080/07434618.2019.1698654
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. doi:10.1353/lan.1977.0041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sikveland, R., & Ogden, R. (2012). Holding gestures across turns. Gesture, 12(2), 166–199. doi:10.1075/gest.12.2.03sik
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tegler, H., Pless, M., Blom Johansson, M., & Sonnander, K. (2019). Caregivers', teachers', and assistants' use and learning of partner strategies in communication using high-tech speech-generating devices with children with severe cerebral palsy. Assistive Technology, 1–9. doi:10.1080/10400435.2019.1581303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 (Baltimore, Md. : 1985), 32(4), 282–223. doi:10.1080/07434618.2016.1246609
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations Human Rights. (1989). Convention of the rights of the child. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
   Google Scholar
• UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. World conference on special needs education. Access and quality, Salamanca, Spain, 7–10 June 1994. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427
   Google Scholar
• van Niekerk, K., & Tönsing, K. (2015). Eye gaze technology: A South African perspective. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 10(4), 340–346. doi:10.3109/17483107.2014.974222
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von Tetzchner, S., & Basil, C. (2011). Terminology and notation in written representations of conversations with augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication (Baltimore, MD: 1985)), 27(3), 141–149. doi:10.3109/07434618.2011.610356
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar