Teachers’ and Speech-Language Pathologists’ Perceptions about a Tangible Symbols Intervention: Efficacy, Generalization, and Recommendations

References

• Ali, E. (2009). The effectiveness of combining tangible symbols with the picture exchange communication system to teach requesting skills to children with multiple disabilities including visual impairment (Doctoral dissertation). Tucson:. University of Arizona. Available from UMI Proquest Dissertation and Theses, No. 3365774.
   Google Scholar
• Ault, M. M., Guy, B., Guess, D. Bashinski, S., & Roberts, S. (1995). Analyzing behavior state and learning environments: Application in instructional settings. Mental Retardation, 35, 304–316.
   Google Scholar
• Bloom, Y. (1990). Object symbols: A communication option. North Rocks, New South Wales: North Rocks Press.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Downing, J. (2005). Teaching communication skills to students with severe disabilities (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Downing, J. (2008). Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical classrooms: Practical strategies for teachers (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2000). Word learning: Icon, index, or symbol? In R. M.
   Google Scholar
• Golinkoff, K. Hirsh-Pasek, L. Bloom, L. B., Smith, A. L. Woodward,N. Akhton, et al. (Eds.), Becoming a word learner: A debate on lexical acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Graczyk, P. A., Atkins, M. S., Jackson, M. M., Letendre, J. A., Kim-Cohen, J., Baumann,B. L., & McCoy, J. (2005). Urban educators’ perceptions of interventions for students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A preliminary investigation. Behavioral Disorders, 30, 95–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guess, D., & Siegel-Causey, D. (1995). Attractor dimensions of behavior state changes among individuals with profound disabilities. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 99, 642–663.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Heller, K. W. (2009). Learning and behavioral characteristics of students with physical, health, or multiple disabilities. In K. W. Heller, P. E. Forney, P. A. Alberto, S. J. Best, & M. N. Schwartzman (Eds.), Understanding physical, health, and multiple disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 18–34). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Joffee, E., & Rikhye, C. H. (1991). Orientation and mobility for students with severe visual and multiple impairments: A new perspective. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 85, 211–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp, C., & Carter, M. (2005). Identifying skills for promoting successful inclusion in kindergarten. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 30, 31–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancioni, G. E., O’Reilly, M. F., & Oliva, D. (2002). Engagement in cooperative and individual tasks: Assessing the performance and preference of persons with severe disabilities. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 50–53.
   Google Scholar
• Lund, S. K., & Troha, J. M. (2008). Teaching young people who are blind and have autism to make requests using a variation on the picture exchange communication system with tactile symbols: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 38, 719–730.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMillan, J. M. (2008). Teachers make it happen: From professional development to integration of augmentative and alternative communication technologies in the classroom. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 32, 199–211.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrosky, M. M, Jung, E. Y., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2002). Helping children make transitions between activities. What works briefs. Washington, DC: Administration for Children, Youth, and Families, Head Start Bureau.
   Google Scholar
• Park, K. (1997). How do objects become objects of reference: A review of the literature on objects of reference and a proposed model for the use of objects in communication. British Journal of Special Education, 24 (3), 108–114.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, A. T., Banda, D. R., Davidson, R., & Liu-Gitz, L. (2010). Adapting the picture exchange communication system (PECS) for a student with visual impairment and autism: A case study. AER Journal: Research and Practice in Visual Impairment, 3 (1), 2–11.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenfeld, M., & Rosenfeld,S. (2008). Developing effective teacher beliefs about learners: The role of sensitizing teachers to individual learning differences. Educational Psychology, 28 (3), 245–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowland, C., & Schweigert, P. (1989). Tangible symbols: Symbolic communication for individuals with multisensory impairment. AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 226–234.
   Google Scholar
• Rowland, C., & Schweigert, P. (2000). Tangible symbols, tangible outcomes. AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 61–76.
   Google Scholar
• Savasci-Acikalin, F. (2009). Teacher beliefs and practice in science education. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 10, Article 12.
   Google Scholar
• Sevcik, R., Romski, M., & Wilkinson, K. (1991). Roles of graphic symbols in the language acquisition process for persons with severe cognitive disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7, 161–170.
   Google Scholar
• Sterling-Turner, H. E., & Jordan, S. S. (2007). Interventions addressing transition difficulties for individuals with autism. Psychology in Schools, 44, 681–690.
   Google Scholar
• Trief, E. (2007). The use of tangible cues for children with multiple disabilities and visual impairment. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 101, 613–619.
   Google Scholar
• Turnell, R., & Carter, M. (1994). Establishing a repertoire of requesting for a student with severe and multiple disabilities using tangible symbols and naturalistic time delay. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 19 (3), 193–207.
   Google Scholar
• Vicker, B. (1996). Using tangible symbols for communication purposes: An optional step in building two-way communication. ED 405712.
   Google Scholar
• Werner, H., & Kaplan, B. (1988). On developmental changes in the symbolic process. In M. Franklin & S. Barten (Eds.), Child language: A reader (pp. 7–9). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wetherby, A., Reichle, J., & Pierce, P. (1998). The transition to symbol communication. In A. Wetherby, S. Warren, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Transitions in prelinguistic communication (Vol. 7, pp. 82–83, 155–156, 171–191). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Westling, D. L., & Fox, L. (2004). Teaching students with severe disabilities (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson.
   Google Scholar