Professional Training Needs for Using Augmentative and Alternative Communication in Inclusive Classrooms: Voices From Saudi Arabia

Abstract

Research reveals that augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) can improve the communication competency of students who have complex communication needs. However, special educators often lack the competencies to effectively implement AAC strategies in the classroom. The present study aimed to explore the special educators’ level of need for professional training in AAC. Furthermore, it explored whether certain educator, student, and classroom characteristics were associated with the level of professional need for AAC training. In this descriptive study, 869 special educators in Saudi Arabia responded to a survey. The findings show that there is a high level of need for a wide variety of training areas in AAC. The findings indicate that participants differed significantly in their levels of need for professional AAC training depending on the participants’ previous training and experience, as well as the category of students taught, level of education, and grade level. Implications for how AAC training programs can be customized to effectively meet the diverse needs of educators and their students are discussed.

Keywords

assistive technology competencies special education teacher self-efficacy severe disabilities

Individuals who have been diagnosed with severe disabilities (SDs), including autism spectrum disorder (ASD), traumatic brain injury, multiple disabilities (MDs), and intellectual disability (ID), often have complex communication needs (CCNs; Da Fonte & Boesch, 2016). Approximately 65% of children with ID lack the capacity for intelligible speech, and 30% of children with ASD have few expressive language skills once they reach school age (Sigafoos, 2016). While most researchers who study CCNs take as their premise that all individuals communicate, research demonstrates that increasing communication competency—the ability to communicate in a manner that is efficient and easily understood by others—facilitates the educational and social inclusion of students with disabilities (Chung & Douglas, 2014; De Bortoli et al., 2014). Thus, increasing the communication competency for students with CCNs is a priority in these individuals’ learning environments (Andzik et al., 2019; Da Fonte & Boesch, 2016; Sigafoos, 2016).

To better meet the CCNs of learners and to build communication competence, systems of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) have emerged, addressing the tools, strategies, and skills needed to further develop the skills of AAC users and their communication partners. AAC strategies are defined as “methods” and assistive “technology” (AT) “used to compensate for an individual’s reduced communicative competence” (Branson & Demchak, 2009, p. 274). The two distinct types of AAC intervention are aided and unaided (Branson & Demchak, 2009). Unaided AAC strategies involve use of the person’s own body to communicate, including sign language and gestures (Branson & Demchak, 2009). Conversely, aided AAC involves the use of external communication tools, including picture communication systems (PCSs) and speech-generating devices (SGDs) (Andzik et al., 2019; Branson & Demchak, 2009; Da Fonte & Boesch, 2016). Aided and unaided AAC may be used individually or in various combinations with each other in a multimodal communication strategy (Branson & Demchak, 2009). Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of a variety of AAC interventions for improving communication competence among individuals with CCNs (Branson & Demchak, 2009; Da Fonte & Boesch, 2016; Logan et al., 2017; Morin et al., 2018).

In addition to teaching roles, educators of students with AAC needs have more roles and responsibilities to AAC implementation which requires unique competencies (Locke & Mirenda, 1992; Soto, 1997). According to Locke and Mirenda (1992), such responsibilities include creating adaptive devices, evaluating symbolic representation, training others in use of such devices, as well as accessing the curriculum and monitoring the progress of such students. Da Fonte and Boesch (2016) outline four competencies necessary for special educators to successfully deliver AAC in classrooms: 1) knowledge of the role and functions of AAC; 2) communication development and communicative competencies; 3) teamwork and collaborative practices; and 4) AAC assessment and instructional strategies. Other researchers have also emphasized the need for educators to develop inclusive classroom management skills, sensitivity to linguistic and cultural issues, and a sense of self-efficacy (Calculator, 2009; Chung & Douglas, 2014; Kent-Walsh & Light, 2003; Patel & Khamis-Dakwa, 2005; Soto, 1997; Soto et al., 2001).

Research indicates that to assist students with AAC needs, educators should have in-depth knowledge of the roles and functions of “high” and “low” tech AAC (Costigan & Light, 2010; Da Fonte & Boesch, 2016; Soto, 1997). Effective use of AAC requires implementation of innovative teaching strategies and the systematic application of an intervention plan (Soto, 1997). Andzik et al. (2019) found that many special educators were responsible for choosing appropriate AAC. In some cases, these educators received support from different professionals in assessing AAC needs and monitoring AAC progress, such as Speech-language pathologists (SLPs; Andzik et al., 2019).

Although the benefits of using AAC are supported by empirical evidence, educators often lack clear guidelines on how to implement AAC strategies in the classroom (Da Fonte & Boesch, 2016; Locke & Mirenda, 1992; Peckham-Hardin et al., 2018). This skills deficit may be attributed to the inadequacies of many pre-service training programs in AAC strategies, especially for special educators (Costigan & Light, 2010; Da Fonte & Boesch, 2016). While in some of the United States, pre-service training programs require AAC knowledge and training as part of their credential structures, in other nations, even entry-level knowledge of AAC is absent from such programs (Costigan & Light, 2010). The literature suggests that many special educators are unprepared for the demands of accommodating students who use AAC in the classroom (e.g., Andzik et al., 2019; Chung & Douglas, 2014; Soto et al., 2001).

Previous research generally confirms that the CCNs of students and the training needs of their educators are global issues. Regardless of where they reside, individuals with disabilities deserve to have as high a quality of life as others (Marshall et al., 2009). A range of social, legal, and political dynamics affect individuals with disabilities around the world, particularly different cultural beliefs, social interactions, and legislation. In terms of education reforms, there are growing movements in numerous countries to make schools more accessible and appropriate for students with disabilities (Da Fonte & Boesch, 2016; Hadidi & Al Khateeb, 2015), as well as more sensitive to multicultural issues and needs of such students (Bridges, 2004). There is awareness, knowledge, implementation, and using various approaches of AAC for students with CCNs by educators, SLPs, and parents around the world. Apart from the United States, there are examples of AAC implementation in Western countries include Canada (Blockberger & Haaf, 1995), Australia (De Bortoli et al., 2014), and various parts of Europe such as the United Kingdom (Wallis et al., 2017) and Italy (Radici et al., 2019).

Special Education in the Arab Region

Progress is also being made regarding the rights of individuals with disabilities in the Arab world countries which share culture, language, and religious beliefs. These commonalities shape the experiences and opportunities of individuals with disabilities both positively and negatively (Al Khateeb et al., 2015; Al Thani, 2006; Gharaibeh, 2009; Peters, 2009). However, many challenges and barriers persist in the region, even in the study of disability (Gharaibeh, 2009). Social, political, and geographical differences impact how disabilities are considered, and how individuals with disabilities are served (Al Thani, 2006; Hadidi & Al Khateeb, 2015). Historically, individuals with disabilities had been stigmatized in Arab countries (Hadidi & Al Khateeb, 2015) as they were in other parts of the world, depending on the nature of the disability and who bears it (Gharaibeh, 2009). ID and congenital malformations meet greater rejection than do the disabilities of physical and sensory disabilities (Gharaibeh, 2009). Gender also matters as females with disabilities are more stigmatized than are males (Al Thani, 2006; Gharaibeh, 2009; Marshall et al., 2009; Peters, 2009).

Special education in the Arab region has gradually improved over the past 3 decades (Hadidi & Al Khateeb, 2015). Particularly since the early 1990s, a majority of countries (e.g., Saudi Arabia and Jordan) in the region have adopted legislation for rehabilitating and educating individuals with disabilities by opening special education programs with a wide range of practices, from segregation and integration, to inclusive education (Hadidi & Al Khateeb, 2015). This lack of common strategy is particularly evident in the implementation of AT and AAC in inclusive classrooms.

Across the region, significant challenges have hindered the successful implementation of AAC systems, adversely affecting AAC users (Hock & Lafi, 2011; Patel & Khamis-Dakwar, 2005). Such challenges are convoluted, including social, cultural, economic, educational, and government policy dimensions of AAC implementation with nuanced differences across sub-regions (Hock & Lafi, 2011). AT devices which support communication such as AAC have not been available in the Arabic language; they are primarily only available in English or Spanish (Alquraini, 2011). A number of initiatives also have made headway on this issue, including the development of an Arabic language based AAC application, representing an important linguistic and technological breakthrough for AAC users in the Arab region, increasing AAC access for Arabic speakers (Al-Arifi et al., 2013).

Special Education in Saudi Arabia

Over the years, the Saudi government has enacted several laws and policies in support of the right to free and appropriate education for people with disabilities. These include the Legislation of Disability in 1987, the Disability Code in 2000, and the Regulations of Special Education Programs and Institutes in 2001, the latter of which was modeled after U.S. education policies, namely the 1975 Education for all Handicapped Children Act and the 1990 Individual with Disabilities Education Act (Aldabas, 2015; Alquraini, 2011). Implementation of these policies has been inconsistent in responsibilities and services, which resulted in providing weak educational services for some of students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia (Alquraini, 2011). Recently, the Saudi government has taken great strides to make education more inclusive (Aldabas, 2015; Murry & Alqahtani, 2015). Despite the government’s recent emphasis on inclusive education, almost all students with MDs and SDs attended segregated schools in which they could not interact with typically developing peers (Aldabas, 2015; Alquraini, 2011).

In Saudi Arabia, inclusive education is on the rise (ALMedlij & Rubinstein-Ávila, 2019; Alquraini, 2011; Haimour, 2013), however, students with SDs, who have CCNs, might not be able to interact with their typically developing peers due to their needs, resulting in the segregating of those students (Alquraini, 2011, 2014; Aldabas, 2015). In fact, Saudi Arabia is one of the first Arab countries to integrate students with mild and moderate disabilities in public schools (Aldabas, 2015). For example, Saudi universities offer undergraduate programs to prepare special educators in various categories of disabilities such as ASD, ID and MDs (Aldabas, 2015, Alquraini & Rao, 2018). The programs offer general courses covering principles of special and inclusive education. In addition, a minor with courses each addressing a specific category of such disabilities focuses on teaching students with a specific disability of ASD, ID or MDs (Aldabas, 2015, Murry & Alqahtani, 2015; Subihi, 2013). AT and AAC content is inserted into different courses, but no course specifically addresses AT and AAC as a subject.

Given the existing research that demonstrates the training needs among special educators in Saudi Arabia around inclusive education including implementation of AT and AAC, there is a need to improve the professional training needs for them. Several researchers have evaluated the quality of Saudi special educators training by assessing pre-service educators’ performances on course material and key professional standards. For example, Murry and Alqahtani (2015) found that pre-service special educators were not well-informed about special education laws or education rights for such students. Further, Dimitrov and Alsadaawi (2018) also assessed pre-service special educators’ performance on key professional standards, finding variation by gender and level of professional training, as females received training separately from males. Alquraini and Rao (2018) also surveyed special education faculty in Saudi universities for studying how pre-service special educators training programs addressing the necessary skills and knowledge for inclusive education and found that those programs covered those knowledge and skills. Based on previously mentioned studies, most special educators’ preparation programs had addressed the competencies to enhancing inclusive education; however, there is no specific study addressing preparation programs for educators of students with CCNs.

Besides, a few studies have examined the extent to which training programs are adequately preparing special educators to implement AT and AAC particularly. Subihi (2013) found that pre-service educators who were specializing in communication disorders, ASD, and ID exhibited very limited knowledge of AAC, suggesting a high training need. Furthermore, there are approximately 4,075 students with a variety of disabilities (i.e., ASD, ID, MDs) who might be in need of AAC in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Along with an increase in inclusive education, the growth in implementation of AT and AAC for students with CCNs resulted in barriers to use AT. For example, Alquraini (2014) found that educators of students with MDs perceived lack of knowledge of and training on AT as main factors affecting AT usage. Conversely, implementation of AAC is not yet widespread, and special educators still face a variety of challenges in using AAC within inclusive education successfully (Aldabas, 2019). The challenges were related to lack of knowledge and skills addressing AAC, school environment, and students' needs (Aldabas, 2019).

The existing studies also demonstrate that more research is needed to better understand the training needs and other forms of support needed by pre-service and in-service service special educators regarding the successful implementation of AAC in their classrooms. Likewise, there is still much to be learned from in-service special educators regarding their skills, knowledge, and perceptions of AAC. To date, no studies have focused on perceptions of AAC training needs among in-service special educators of students with CCNs in inclusive educational settings in Saudi Arabia.

Purpose of the Study

This study sought to identify specific professional training needs relating to using AAC by special educators of students with CCNs. It aimed also to identify variables related to previous AAC familiarity, personal characteristics, and classroom characteristics that may impact educators’ perceptions of their training needs and thus contribute to the variation of perceived training needs among educators. A further purpose of this study was to offer recommendations based on empirical evidence to policy makers, especially in the Saudi context, regarding the curricula of training programs for pre- and in-service special educators in order to ensure successful implementation of inclusive education for the students who use AAC. Hence, the following research questions were addressed in this study:

How do in-service special educators who teach students with CCNs perceive their professional training needs on augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)?

How does previous familiarity with AAC, including previous use of AAC or attendance of an AAC training program, impact in-service special educators’ perceptions of their professional training needs on AAC?

How do various personal characteristics, including gender, level of education, and previous teaching experience, impact in-service special educators’ perceptions of their professional training needs on AAC?

How do various classroom characteristics, including categories of students and grade level taught, impact in-service special educators’ perceptions of their professional training needs on AAC?

Method

Research Design

A quantitative method non-experimental survey research design was employed in this study (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). This design was chosen for gathering descriptive data from participants representing a large population to identify and resolve a problem under investigation (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009).

Participants and Setting

The study included all institutions, schools, and centers that offer educational services for students with CCNs, including students with ID, ASD, and MDs, within Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A total of 100 different organizations participated in this study. Participants included special educators. At the time of the study, these educators were employed at one of these 100 special education organizations. The participants also have taught students with CCNs, including students with ID, ASD, and MDs. The study focused on Riyadh because it is the largest city in Saudi Arabia with the country’s largest number of students with CCNs enrolled in educational programs as well as largest number of special educators (Riyadh Department of Education, 2019).

To recruit participants, a convenience sampling was used. A total of 1,000 hard-copy invitations, including informed consent forms, the questionnaire and information on how to return the questionnaire, were sent to 100 organizations where the potential participants were employed. The completed questionnaires were to be returned to the address on the invitation letter. The invitations were indicated that participation in the study was completely voluntary, optional and no material incentives would be provided to participants. Participants also had the right to withdraw from participation at any time. Of the 1,000 questionnaires, 869 (86.7%) questionnaires were completed and returned by participants.

The 869 participating special educators included 491 males and 378 females. Of the total, 536 (62%) were educators of students with ID, 222 (25%) were educators of students with ASD, and 111 (13%) were educators of students with MDs. In terms of education, 83% of the participants held a BA degree, while 17% held a master’s degree. Only 40% of the participants indicated that they had previous experience using AAC. The majority (74%) had not attended any AAC training programs and 77% of them had more than 5 years of teaching experience. About 49% of the participants had taught at the elementary school level, while 11% taught at the pre-school level (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographic Information (N = 869).

Variable	n	%
Gender
Male	491	56.5
Female	378	43.5
Education degree
Baccalaureate	722	83
Master’s	147	17
Previous AAC use
Yes	344	40
No	525	60
Attendant AAC training program
Yes	222	26
No	647	74
Previous teaching experience
Less than 5 years	199	23
5–10 years	347	40
More than 10 years	323	37
Type of students taught
Students with ASD	222	25
Students with ID	536	62
Students with MDs	111	13
Type of students taught
Students with ASD	93	11
Elementary	427	49
Middle school	229	26
High school	120	14

Instrument

Given the limited existing research on special educators training needs in Saudi Arabia and there were no existing studies on in-service special educators’ perceptions of training needs regarding AAC, there was no existing instrument appropriate for this study. Thus, a questionnaire was developed for this study based on the review of the literature. Many of the survey items were drawn from the study conducted by Peckham-Hardin et al. (2018) which provided evidence of the critical skills that special educators need for working with students with CCNs. Items addressing how to assess communication skills and selecting appropriate interventions were drawn from Brady et al. (2016) whose study provided recommendations for such assessments and interventions.

Items addressing how to support using AAC, plan activities for using AAC in schools, and behavioral assessments were drawn from studies conducted by Ogletree et al. (2011). Items addressing the importance of collaboration between professionals and family in AAC use were drawn from Soto (1997). Calculator and Black’s (2009) study was used for items addressing the importance of supporting AAC use in general classrooms and helping students with CCNs access the general education curriculum. Items addressing the importance of understanding the types of AAC and collaboration with Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams were drawn from the Council of Exceptional Children (2012).

The developed questionnaire was divided into two sections. The first section collected demographic information about the participants (gender, level of education, previous use of AAC strategies, attendance at an AAC training program, previous teaching experience, type of students taught, and school grade level taught). The second section consisted of 20 items asking the participants about their perceived training needs with regard to AAC knowledge and skills. The participants responded to the 20 items using a 5-point Likert Scale ranging from 1 (very low need) to 5 (very high need).

Validity of instrument

Validity of the instrument was determined by conducting an expert review (Lynn, 1986). Six Saudi university professors who have expertise on SDs, individuals with CCNs, and/or AT reviewed the questionnaire. They suggested deleting some items and editing or rewording others with a 90% agreement rate. Based on their suggestions, the first draft of the questionnaire was revised, producing a final version with 20 items.

To pilot test the instrument, 13 special educators (six females and seven males) who did not participate in this study, were asked to complete the questionnaire. All pilot participants have taught students with CCNs. Six of the pilot participants have used AAC while the other seven have not. Upon completion of the questionnaire, which took approximately 15 minutes, the pilot participants had no questions nor identified any problems with understanding or interpreting questionnaire items.

Reliability of instrument

The instrument’s reliability was measured after the data were collected. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was assessed by conducting a computation of Pearson’s Product correlations for each item and for the total score (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). It indicated that all the items on the questionnaire were statistically correlated with the total score (p < .01). Furthermore, to assess the internal consistency of the instrument, Cronbach’s coefficient α was computed and was found to be α = 0.98, indicating high reliability (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009).

Procedures

Data collection and analysis

After approval was obtained from the University Institutional Review Board and the Riyadh Department of Education, the invitation envelops including objectives of the study, instructions on how to participate, and an informed-conset form were included with the questionnaire and directions to return the completed questionnaires in the self-addressed, stamped envelope, were mailed to special educators as potential participants in the study. The completed questionnaires were returned in the provided envelopes. Participants’ responses on the completed questionnaires were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Science. Descriptive statistics, including the frequencies, means (M), and standard deviations (SD), were calculated to answer the first research questions. Statistical tests including independent t-tests, three analyses of variances (ANOVAs), and Scheffe’s test were used to address the last three research questions.

Results

Table 2 shows the M and SD for the 20 items that comprised the AAC professional training needs of special educators. Across all 20 items, most participants expressed a high level of need for training in AAC-relevant skills (M = 3.57, SD = 0.95). Participants ranked the following skills: choosing AACs appropriate and available for their students, identifying students who may need a referral for an evaluation of communication needs to determine appropriate AAC strategies, supporting the use of AAC strategies within different settings, modifying curriculum and instructional materials to support AAC, communicating with other professionals to support AAC use, how to use AAC, evaluating the effectiveness of using AAC, and how to deal with software and electronic issues associated with high tech AAC as the highest training needs respectively.

As Table 2 illustrates, most of the participants placed the knowledge and skills numbered 9–18 as the second training needs on AAC respectively. These knowledge and skills addressed the different types of high-tech and low-tech AAC, using AAC for facilitating access to the general curriculum, planning IEP goals for improving communication skills, collaborating with families, terminology related to AAC, assessing different needs of students with CCNs, planning classroom or non-classroom activities supporting effective use of AAC, creating behavior goals, and arranging the classroom to support using AAC. Table 2 shows that participants ranked as lowest the knowledge and skills that address the philosophy and objectives of using AAC and how to collaborate with the IEP team for training students to use AAC.

Table 2.

Frequency, Mean, and Standard Deviations of Participants’ Responses.

#	Items (Knowledge and skills)	n	M	SD
1	Choosing appropriate AACs which are available for the needs of students with CCNs	869	3.64	1.13
2	Identifying students who may need referral for an evaluation of communication needs to determine appropriate AAC	869	3.64	1.12
3	How to support the use of AAC within different settings (in and out of school)	869	3.64	1.17
4	Modifying curriculum, instructional materials for supporting AAC use with students with CCNs	869	3.63	1.11
5	Communicating with other professionals for supporting AAC use with students with CCNs	869	3.62	1.06
6	Implementing AAC	869	3.61	1.09
7	Evaluating the effectiveness of AAC	869	3.61	1.03
8	Dealing with software and electronic issues of high tech AAC	869	3.61	1.18
9	The different types of high tech AAC (i.e., electronic boards, computers) available	869	3.59	1.17
10	About the different types of low tech AAC (i.e., PECS, pictures, sign language) available	869	3.58	1.17
11	Using AAC for facilitating access to the general curriculum for students with CCNs	869	3.58	1.15
12	Planning IEP goals concentrating on improving communication skills of students with CCNs	869	3.57	1.18
13	collaborating with families to support AAC use	869	3.56	1.14
14	The terminologies related to AAC	869	3.54	1.08
15	Assessing the communication, behavioral, sensory and health needs of students with CCNs	869	3.54	1.10
16	Planning classroom or non-classroom activities that effectively support use of AAC with students with CCNs	869	3.52	1.14
17	Using AAC to create educational and behavior goals that support students with CCNs	869	3.52	1.17
18	Preparing and arranging the classroom to be appropriate and supportive of using AAC	869	3.52	1.21
19	About the philosophy and objectives of using AAC	869	3.48	1.13
20	Collaborating with the IEP team to train students with CCNs to use AAC.	869	3.43	1.20
	Total	869	3.57	0.95

Note. CCNs = complex communication needs.

Overall Effects

Effects of gender, level of education, previous use of AAC and attended AAC training

The results of independent t-tests showed there were no statistically significant differences in AAC professional training needs among the participants based on gender (p = 0.67) and previous use of AAC (p = 0.23). Conversely, the results indicated a statistically significant difference for the variables of level of education and attended an AAC training among the participants. The participants with baccalaureate degrees stated they needed less professional training (M = 3.52, SD = 0.93) compared to those with master’s degrees (M = 3.83, SD = 0.98), t (867) = −3.63, p < .001. The participants who had attended an AAC training program had fewer training needs (M = 3.32, SD = 0.98) than those who had not attended such a program (M = 3.65, SD = 0.93), t(865) = −4.57, p < .001.

Effects of student category, previous teaching experience and grade level taught

The results of ANOVAs indicated a statistically significant effect on AAC professional training needs based on the category of students taught, F (2, 866) = 10.92, p < .001, η² = .02. Thus, the post-hoc comparisons were conducted using the Scheffe’s test. Participants who taught students with ASD had fewer AAC professional training needs (M = 3.33, SD = 0.99) compared to educators of students with ID (M = 3.68, SD = 0.90). There was no difference in AAC professional training needs between educators who taught students with ASD (M = 3.33, SD = 0.99), and others who taught students with MDs (M = 3.53, SD = 1.01). Additionally, there was no difference in AAC professional training needs between educators who taught students with ID (M = 3.68, SD = 0.90) and others who taught students with MDs (M = 3.53, SD = 1.01).

The results of ANOVAs revealed that previous teaching experience had a statistically significant effect on AAC professional training needs, F (2, 866) = 5.90, p = .003, η² = .013. The post-hoc comparisons along with the Scheffe’s test indicated there was no difference in professional training needs between participants with less than 5 years of experience (M = 3.49, SD = 1.00) and those with 5–10 years of experience (M = 3.48, SD = 0.96). There was no difference in AAC professional training needs between participants with less than 5 years of experience (M = 3.49, SD = 1.00) and those with more than 10 years of experience (M = 3.71, SD = 0.88). Participants with 5–10 years of experience had a lower need for training (M = 3.48, SD = 0.96) than participants with more than 10 years of experience (M = 3.71, SD = 0.88).

The results of ANOVAs indicated there were statistically significant differences among the participants based on the grade level taught, F (2, 866) = 6.45, p < .001, η² = 0.02. The post-hoc comparisons were conducted using the Scheffe’s test. Participants who taught at the pre-school level expressed less need for AAC professional training (M = 3.17, SD = 0.93) compared to those in elementary school (M = 3.63, SD = 0.92), middle school (M = 3.57, SD = 1.02), and high school (M = 3,67, SD = 0.87). There were no other differences among these groups.

Discussion

The main focus of this study was to investigate the perceptions of special educators regarding their specific professional training needs on AAC for teaching students with CCNs in inclusive classrooms. Furthermore, this investigation attempted to understand which factors related to educators' characteristics (i.e., gender, previous teaching experience, previous use of AAC, previous AAC training and level of education), and/or student and classroom characteristics (i.e., disability category, grade level) could influence the educators’ perceptions of their AAC training needs.

AAC Competencies among Special Educators

Most participants expressed a high level of need for training across most of the 20 items. This demonstrates that educators perceive inadequacies in their AAC training in a range of skills and competencies. Among the seven core competencies for educators using AAC strategies outlined earlier, the participants reported deficiencies in all areas. When AAC training is inadequate, or lacking altogether, it is expected that educators would report limitations in their knowledge of the role and functions of AAC in a variety of areas (Soto, 1997; Soto et al., 2001). However, it is important to note that the study only captures the perceptions of current educators about their skills and knowledge and does not measure the educators’ degree of training needs in other ways, such as performances on competency evaluations or classroom observations. The mismatch between the confidence of educators about their skills and their actual implementation of evidence based AAC practices may be more evident among some educators than others.

Using educators’ perceptions of their training needs as an indicator of actual training needs suggests that there is much work to be done to address the shortcomings of existing training. These findings echo those of other researchers, who have also cited shortcomings in AAC instruction during pre-service training (Costigan & Light, 2010; Da Fonte & Boesch, 2016; Tönsing & Dada, 2016), insufficient time devoted to AAC during training, insufficient interdisciplinary training, and insufficient hands-on training (Costigan & Light, 2010).

Divergent Training Needs by Educators Characteristics

Based on the current findings, gender had no impact on how the educators perceived their training needs for AAC. This finding indicates that male and female educators received similar professional training addressing AAC even if it was provided within gender-separated institutions (Dimitrov & Alsadaawi, 2018). However, this finding is inconsistent with Dimitrov and Alsadaawi, (2018) who found that male special educators had performed lower on certification testing compared to females. This may be explained by how educators perceive their AAC training needs compared to their perceptions about training needs addressing other areas.

Furthermore, it is possible that years of teaching experience operate similarly to level of education, that educators may develop greater awareness over time of the challenges. The statistically significant correlation observed between teaching experience and the need for AAC training was found only between educators with 5–10 years of experience and educators with more than 10 years of experience, suggesting a non-linear relationship. It shows that educators who have 5–10 years of experience have reached a certain level of confidence in their competency and expertise as special educators that makes them assess their training needs more generously (i.e. need less training) than their counterparts with more or fewer years of experience. This also might be due to updating the special educator preparation programs to include contents related to CCNs or/and AAC. Therefore, educators with less teaching experience felt more confidence in their AAC competency.

The finding indicates that previous AAC training also had a significant effect on participants’ level of training needs demonstrates that the participants’ prior training reduced those needs. This suggests that previous training had a beneficial effect on educators’ AAC skills and competencies, offering encouraging, if limited, evidence for the effectiveness of current AAC training.

Divergent Training Needs by Student and Classroom Characteristics

The finding that educators who taught students with ASD expressed fewer training needs than educators of other categories of students may suggest that educators who teach students with ASD may require less AAC training than their counterparts who teach students with ID or MDs. Conversely, the finding may suggest that educators do not recognize a need for AAC training when working with children with ASD. This may also be explained by the content and type of in-service professional training provided to the educators of students with ASD as well as the type of preparation program targeted specifically toward teaching such students. Similarly, pre-K educators may have fewer training needs than those teaching higher grades. This divergence may signal important differences in pre-school student needs compared to those in higher grades. This would, in turn, lead to differences in how they and their educators use AAC, and the training needs of their educators. However, this indicates that pre-K educators may simply perceive that they have fewer training needs because they do not recognize a need for AAC training when teaching pre-K students. This might indicate that the content and type of pre- and in-service professional training provided to the educators of students with CCNs are targeted more specifically toward teaching pre-K and elementary students compared to older students.

The significant differences found in participants’ level of training needs based on these student- and classroom-related factors suggest the potential fruitfulness of tailoring AAC training sessions to the category of student that educators teach. The diversity of student needs for AAC, shaped in part by their disability, should shape how their educators are trained. For example, AAC training programs designed for in-service educators could include general sessions for all educators as well as specialized break-out sessions which are designed for educators of students with different categories of disabilities or for educators of different grade levels, such as pre-K, primary, and secondary grade levels.

Clinical Implications

AAC training: core competencies and accessibility

The present study, in line with numerous other studies, has revealed significant professional AAC training needs among special educators (Aldabas, 2019; Andzik et al., 2019; Chung & Douglas, 2014; Costigan & Light, 2010; Subihi, 2013). Furthermore, this finding suggests that there is tremendous variation in terms of amount and type of AAC training offered to both pre- and post-qualification professionals (Wallis et al., 2017). Numerous researchers have noted the limited pre-service AAC training offered to special educators in multiple countries (Costigan & Light, 2010, Da Fonte & Boesch, 2016; Subihi, 2013). When special educators training is lacking, the entire AAC system is hindered. The findings suggest that AAC training ought to be improved dramatically in terms of the quality, practical relevance, delivery, and opportunities for hands-on practice. It should also be improved in the direction of strengthening educators’ core AAC competencies.

One way to address this training gap would be to encourage and facilitate greater collaboration between personnel from universities and school administrations so that necessary information about AAC appear in university curricula and that pre-service educators are trained properly on the subject (Alquraini, 2014; Alquraini & Rao, 2018; Murry & Alqahtani, 2015). This would be reached by designing a courses specifically with AAC content that covers the knowledge and skills related to access and implement AAC (Costigan & Light, 2010; Subihi, 2013). Likewise, greater collaboration among special educators and between special and general educators could improve implementation of AAC in general education settings and thus improve inclusion of students who use AAC (Aldabas, 2019). Given that the findings of this study suggest that in-service special educators have varying levels of familiarity with AAC and AAC training needs, greater collaboration among them could facilitate knowledge and skills transfer within schools. Such collaboration could take also place through pre-service educator training courses in which pre-service educators learn about various collaboration models, such as co-teaching, that can be used in inclusive schools (Alquraini & Rao, 2018; Aldabas, 2015).

It would be fruitful to build on existing AAC training models that offer an inclusive and holistic approach to training that may effectively address areas of weakness, such as the participation model (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2005; Patel & Khamis-Dakwar, 2005). A training model which emphasizes effective implementation of AAC strategies through individually tailored, hands-on supervision (Patel & Khamis-Dakwar, 2005) may address educators’ expressed needs for more hands-on practice and greater self-efficacy. To address the challenge of incorporating more AAC content into existing pre-service curricula, pre-service training programs could be redesigned to be tailored to the various specializations or majors within special education. More intensive AAC training could be offered to those specializations which include students with CCNs. To address the challenge of securing sufficient AAC experts for tailored training, universities and governments should invest more resources into training individuals to become AAC training instructors so that more instructors are available for smaller class sizes and one-on-one instruction.

Importance of category of disability

The differences in the level of AAC training needs among educators may be explained by the specialized AAC training received by educators of students with ASD whether during their pre-service or their in-service preparation. Additional research is needed to better understand why educators of students with ASD would report lower levels of training needs compared to those who teach students with ID. As suggested earlier, the data may point to overconfidence by educators of their training needs, or lack thereof, or a lack of recognition of a need for AAC training when working with children with ASD. However, this variation may suggest that, based on further empirical investigation of this association, AAC systems and corresponding training could be adapted toward the category of student with more AAC training provided for educators of students who have CCNs (Aldabas, 2019; Costigan & Light, 2010, Da Fonte & Boesch, 2016; Subihi, 2013).

There are certainly limits to how much specialized training can be offered to pre-service educators, given that students in pre-service programs often do not know which types of students they will teach. Furthermore, not all educators remain working in the same position with the same types of students throughout their careers. However, more extensive AAC training can be offered, or even required, within special education majors that do focus on students with CCNs, including students with ASD, ID or MDs. Moreover, AAC training programs ought to be more readily available for in-service educators, like those who participated in this study, who are already working with students with CCNs. As suggested earlier, AAC training programs designed for in-service educators could include specialized break-out sessions which are designed for educators of students with different categories of disabilities.

Importance of grade level

The observed differences in training needs by grade level taught provide further evidence of the need for customized AAC systems and training by type of student and grade level. The educators who have taught at the pre-school level reported less need for training which suggests that pre-school students have unique needs compared to older students, necessitating unique training needs for their educators. Further research could generate greater insight into this association.

Customizing training needs

AAC is a method for supporting the process of communication and information (Loncke, 2014). Therefore, the training needs of educators are ultimately driven by the communication needs of the student. The findings suggest that AAC training ought to be more customized toward the unique needs of educators, which reflect the unique needs of their students. Current research is lacking in this area; additional research is needed to clarify the unique needs of students and their educators’ corresponding unique needs for professional AAC training. The current findings indicate that special educators who teach students with CCNs differ significantly in their level of need of professional training in AAC, depending on the educators’ previous training and experience as well as the type of student and grade level. This suggests that AAC training programs ought to be developed with a diverse population of educators as a focus. Programs could thus be customized to effectively meet the unique needs of educators and their students. A “one-size-fits-all” approach to professional AAC educator training would be less appropriate than one which takes into consideration the characteristics of educators, students, and the classroom, the contexts in which AAC is taught, to ensure educators meet the communicative and educational needs of their students.

Limitations and Future Directions

The study has several limitations. This study was conducted with educators from one city in Saudi Arabia. Thus, the findings may not be generalizable to other parts of Saudi Arabia or to other countries. Since the participants were limited in demographics, future research should consider replicating this study with inclusion of other educational professionals (e.g. general educators, SLPs, administrators, etc.). This might provide more reliable and generalizable findings into inclusive education. Additionally, the study considered certain educator, student, and classroom characteristics; other relevant characteristics—age, number of students, and other training—may have been overlooked. Future research is necessary to better clarify educators’ AAC training needs as well as where and how current AAC instruction falls short.

As mentioned above, it is important to note that the study does not indicate the degree to which training is needed, but rather the perceptions of current educators about their skills. The mismatch between the confidence of educators and their implementation of evidence-based practices may be more evident among some groups than others. For example, although educators who teach students with ASD and pre-K educators report less need for training than some other groups, this might indicate a confidence with the availability of popular (but often misused) approaches such as the PECS among these populations. Since the current study did not examine specific AAC approaches, it is difficult to determine why some groups appear more confident serving AAC users than others. More research is necessary to further clarify the observed associations in this study and to determine the effective approaches to adapt and customize AAC training to effectively meet the diverse needs of educators and their students. This would help close the gap between research and actual practice. While this study used a descriptive method research for collecting the data, future research might apply qualitative- or mixed-method research. This could identify specific AAC training needs that should be provided.

Conclusion

Research indicates that most students with CCNs benefit from AAC strategies. Yet, partly due to inadequate pre-service and in-service training, many Saudi special educators working with such students lack core competencies in AAC, hindering their students’ learning and development. Overall, special educators who participated in the present study expressed a high level of need for training in the skills used with AAC, revealing their perceived inadequacies in AAC training across a range of skills and competencies in Saudi Arabia. These findings demonstrate that extensive effort needs to be provided to address the widespread shortcomings of training in Saudi Arabia.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University.

ORCID iD

Rashed Aldabas

References

Aldabas

R. A.

(2015). Special education in Saudi Arabia: History and areas for reform. Creative Education, 6(11), 1158–1167.

Aldabas

(2019). Barriers and facilitators of using augmentative and alternative communication with students with multiple disabilities in inclusive education: Special education teachers’ perspectives. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1597185

Al Khateeb

J. M.

Al Hadidi

M. S.

Al Khatib

A. J.

(2015). Addressing the unique needs of Arab American children with disabilities. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(8), 2432–2440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-0046-x

Al Thani

(2006). Disability in the Arab region: Current situation and prospects. Journal for Disability and International Development, 3, 4–9.

Al-Arifi

Al-Rubaian

Al-Ofisan

Al-Romi

Al-Wabil

(2013, July). Towards an Arabic language augmentative and alternative communication application for autism [Paper presentation]. International Conference of Design, User Experience, and Usability (pp. 333–341). Heidelberg.

ALMedlij

M. A.

Rubinstein-Ávila

E. B.

(2019). The development of LD education in Saudi Arabia: Services and implications for the future. International Journal of Modern Education Studies, 2(2), 83–96.

Alquraini

T. A.

(2011). Special education in Saudi Arabia: Challenges, perspective, future possibilities. International Journal of Special Education, 26(2), 149–159.

Alquraini

T. A.

(2014). Factors that affect the use of assistive technology with students with multiple disabilities in their institutions and the attitudes of teachers toward this use. Journal of Educational Sciences, 26(3), 559–582.

Alquraini

T. A.

Rao

S. M.

(2018). A study examining the extent of including competencies of inclusive education in the preparation of special education teachers in Saudi universities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 65(1), 108–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2017.1327651

10.

Andzik

N. R.

Chung

Y. C.

Doneski-Nicol

Dollarhide

C. T.

(2019). AAC services in schools: A special educator’s perspective. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 65(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2017.1368909

11.

Beukelman

D. R.

Mirenda

(2005). Augmentative & alternative communication: Supporting children & adults with complex communication needs (3rd ed.). Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

12.

Blockberger

Haaf

(1995). Professional preparation in augmentative and alternative communication in Canada speech-language pathology training programs. Journal of Speech Language Pathology and Audiology, 19(4), 241–249.

13.

Brady

Bruce

Goldman

Erickson

Mineo

Ogletree

B. T.

Paul

Romski

M. A.

Sevcik

Siegel

Schoonover

Snell

Sylvester

Wilkinson

(2016). Communication services and supports for individuals with severe disabilities: Guidance for assessment and intervention. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 121(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-121.2.121

14.

Branson

Demchak

(2009). The use of augmentative and alternative communication methods with infants and toddlers with disabilities: A research review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25(4), 274–286. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434610903384529

15.

Bridges

S. J.

(2004). Multicultural issues in augmentative and alternative communication and language: Research to practice. Topics in Language Disorders, 24(1), 62–75.

16.

Calculator

S. N.

(2009). Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) and inclusive education for students with the most severe disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(1), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110701284656

17.

Calculator

Black

(2009). Validation of an inventory of best practices in the provision of augmentative and alternative communication services to students with severe disabilities in general education classrooms. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 18(4), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2009/08-0065)

18.

Center for Education Statistics. (2019). General education data for the academic year 2017-2019. https://departments.moe.gov.sa/PlanningDevelopment/

19.

Chung

Y.-C.

Douglas

K. H.

(2014). Communicative competence inventory for students who use augmentative and alternative communication: A team approach. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914534620

20.

Costigan

F. A.

Light

(2010). A review of preservice training in augmentative and alternative communication for speech-language pathologists, special education teachers, and occupational therapists. Assistive Technology, 22(4), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2010.492774

21.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2012). CEC initial level special education preparation standards. https://bit.ly/2UguvoG

22.

Da Fonte

M. A.

Boesch

M. C.

(2016). Recommended augmentative and alternative communication competencies for special education teachers. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 19(2), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.9782/2159-4341-19.2.47

23.

De Bortoli

Arthur-Kelly

Mathisen

Balandin

(2014). Speech-language pathologists’ perceptions of implementing communication intervention with students with multiple and severe disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.881916

24.

Dimitrov

D. M.

Alsadaawi

(2018). Latent profiles of performance on certification testing: The case of special education teachers in Saudi Arabia. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(9), 2029–2035. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.060922

25.

Fraenkel

Wallen

(2009). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

26.

Gharaibeh

(2009). Disability in Arab societies. In Marshall

C. A.

Kendall

Banks

M. E.

Gover

R. M. S.

(Eds.), Disabilities: Insights from across fields and around the world (Vol. 1, pp. 63–80). Praeger.

27.

Hadidi

M. S.

Al Khateeb

J. M.

(2015). Special education in Arab countries: Current challenges. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 62(5), 518–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2015.1049127

28.

Haimour

A. I.

(2013). Evaluation of special education programs offered in inclusive schools in Saudi Arabia from teachers' perspectives. Life Science Journal, 10(3), 57–66.

29.

Hock

B. S.

Lafi

S. M.

(2011). Assistive communication technologies for augmentative communication in Arab countries: Research issues. UNITAR e-Journal, 7(1), 57–66.

30.

Kent-Walsh

Light

J. C.

(2003). General education teachers’ experiences with inclusion of students who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19(2), 104–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/0743461031000112043

31.

Locke

P. A.

Mirenda

(1992). Roles and responsibilities of special education teachers serving on teams delivering AAC services. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 8(3), 200–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434619212331276193

32.

Logan

Iacono

Trembath

(2017). A systematic review of research into aided AAC to increase social-communication functions in children with autism spectrum disorder. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 33(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2016.1267795

33.

Loncke

(2014). Augmentative and alternative communication: Models and applications for educators, speech-language pathologists, psychologists, caregivers, and users. Plural Publishing.

34.

Lynn

M. R.

(1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–386. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017

35.

Marshall

C. A.

Kendall

Banks

M. E.

Gover

R. M. S.

(Eds.). (2009). Disabilities: Insights from across fields and around the world (Vols. 1–3). Praeger.

36.

Morin

K. L.

Ganz

J. B.

Gregori

E. V.

Foster

M. J.

Gerow

S. L.

Genç-Tosun

Hong

E. R.

(2018). A systematic quality review of high-tech AAC interventions as an evidence-based practice. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34(2), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1458900

37.

Murry

Alqahtani

R. M. A.

(2015). Teaching special education law in Saudi Arabia: Improving pre-service teacher education and services to students with disabilities. World Journal of Education, 5(6), 57–64. https://dx.doi.org/10.5430/wje.v5n6p57

38.

Ogletree

B. T.

Bruce

S. M.

Finch

Fahey

McLean

(2011). Recommended communication-based interventions for individuals with severe intellectual disabilities. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 32(3), 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740109348791

39.

Patel

Khamis-Dakwar

(2005). An AAC training program for special education teachers: A case study of Palestinian Arab teachers in Israel. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610400011638

40.

Peckham-Hardin

K. D.

Hanreddy

Ogletree

B. T.

(2018). Preparing teachers to facilitate communication skills in students with severe disabilities (Document No. IC17). University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website. https://rb.gy/tnjkcr

41.

Peters

J. S.

(2009). Review of marginalization of people with disabilities in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010. UNESCO. https://bit.ly/3dyudRY

42.

Radici

Heboyan

Mantovani

De Leo

(2019). Teachers’ attitudes towards children who use AAC in Italian primary schools. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 66(3), 284–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2018.1495321

43.

Riyadh Department of Education. (2019). List of special education programs and institutes. https://rb.gy/dowfgk

44.

Sigafoos

(2016). Introduction to the special issue: Teaching AAC use to individuals with developmental and physical disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 28, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-015-9469-6

45.

Soto

(1997). Special education teacher attitudes toward AAC: Preliminary survey. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13(3), 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434619712331278008

46.

Soto

Müller

Hunt

Goetz

(2001). Critical issues in the inclusion of students who use augmentative and alternative communication: An educational team perspective. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 17(2), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/aac.17.2.62.72

47.

Subihi

A. S.

(2013). Special education student teachers’ knowledge of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). International Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 93–103.

48.

Tönsing

K. M.

Dada

(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

49.

Wallis

Bloch

Clarke

(2017). Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) training provision for professionals in England. Journal of Enabling Technologies, 11(3) 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1108/JET-10-2016-0023