Excerpted from Practically Speaking:
Language, Literacy, and Academic Development for Students with AAC Needs
Edited by Gloria Soto, Ph.D., & Carole Zangari, Ph.D.
Chapter 6: Academic Adaptations
for Students with AAC Needs
By Gloria Soto
©2009. Brookes Publishing. All rights reserved.
Special education legislation has gradually specified that the general education curriculum should
be the primary content of the education of students with disabilities and the instructional activities
used to implement it are the primary context for these students to receive instruction. The
need to develop appropriate adaptations has intensified as students who rely on augmentative and
alternative communication (AAC) are provided access to general curriculum activities. Educators and
related services professionals must be able to identify and develop the most appropriate instructional
adaptations to support the participation of these students in the general curriculum goals and activities.
It can be a daunting task. This chapter discusses current issues and effective practices central to
the development of adaptations for students with AAC needs. The chapter begins with a discussion
on the access to the general curriculum mandate and then moves to development of adaptations to
support the participation of these students in the general curriculum.
ACCESS TO THE GENERAL CURRICULUM: WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments (IDEA) of 1997 (PL 105-17) introduced
important changes in the provision of special education services for students with disabilities.
One of the most significant changes concerns the requirement that students with disabilities receive
access to the general curriculum. Specifically, the amendments require that students with disabilities
be involved in and make progress in the general curriculum to the maximum extent appropriate
(Wehmeyer, Lattin, Lapp-Rincker, & Agran, 2003). The requirement to maximize students’ involvement
in the general curriculum means that students receiving special education services have the right
to participate in the same instructional activities, with the same materials, and in the same progressmonitoring
activities used with typically developing students. These mandates were explicitly articulated
partly because special education had often been misunderstood as a parallel curriculum and
students with disabilities had, for the most part, been omitted from the general education curriculum
(Turnbull, Turnbull, Wehmeyer, & Park, 2003).
Spooner and Browder (2006) noted that access to the general curriculum is not synonymous
with inclusion. According to IDEA 1997, special education is specially designed instruction to support
the child’s participation in the general curriculum, regardless of the setting where the student is
being educated. Although general education settings may be easier and more likely to provide access
to the general curriculum, inclusion is neither a prerequisite nor synonymous with general curriculum
access (Wehmeyer et al., 2003). The focus of the access to the general curriculum mandate
is not on where students are to be educated but on what is the content of the students’ educational
program. Students in all types of education settings must have access to their state’s general curriculum
(Spooner & Browder, 2006).
IDEA 1997 and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (PL 107-110) further stipulated
that states include students with disabilities in large-scale state assessments and specified that
those assessments be linked to academic content standards, with accommodations when needed (see Chapter 1 for an extensive discussion of educational assessment). By requiring that all students
be included in large-scale assessments and specifying that those assessments be linked to academic
content standards, current policy implies the need to align instruction with academic content
standards and teach language arts, mathematics, and science to all children regardless of the extent
of their disabilities and the setting where they are being educated (Browder, Spooner, Wakeman,
Trela, & Baker, 2006).
States are allowed to design alternate performance assessments for students with the most significant
disabilities who are significantly below grade level and cannot participate in the statewide
assessment system. These assessments are linked directly to the state’s general content standards and
reflect the portions of the content standards from kindergarten through high school that are accessible
to students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (Browder et al., 2004). In addition
to being aligned with academic domains, alternate achievement standards must also address the
functional needs of these students (Browder et al., 2004; Browder, Wakeman, & Flowers, 2006). Yet,
the expectation for all students is to have access to the academic content for their assigned grade
level. For example, an 11-year-old student with disabilities who is in fifth grade will be exposed to
the history and literature typically taught for this grade level but with simplified content and outcomes
that differ from grade-level attainment. For instance, the student might use picture symbols
to indicate the main character, the setting, and the sequence of events of a story that is read to him.
WHAT IS THE GENERAL CURRICULUM?
The general curriculum is often referred to as the state’s academic content standards or the content
to be learned by typically developing students at each specific grade level (Browder, Spooner, et al.,
2006; Spooner & Browder, 2006; Wehmeyer, Lattin, & Agran, 2001). Content standards identify the
knowledge, skills, and understanding that students should demonstrate in academic areas (Turnbull
et al., 2003). Because there is no national curriculum, each state determines priorities for student
learning and has its own standards (Browder, Spooner, et al., 2006). Thus, it is critical that clinicians
and special educators become familiar with their own state standards and grade-level curriculum.
These can typically be found on each state’s educational agency web site.
The general curriculum is organized across academic domains, typically language arts, mathematics,
science, social science, and so forth. Some states also include a life skills curriculum. Within
each academic domain, the general curriculum includes the scope and sequence of skills students are
to meet within and across grade levels. The general curriculum also includes the instructional materials
used by teachers to work on the content standards, such as textbooks and worksheets adopted
by the school system, as well as the activities used to monitor student progress, such as large-scale
assessments to determine whether students are making progress in achieving state standards.
Although current policy involves the need for assessment of academic standards linked to gradelevel
content, it does not prevent the inclusion of instruction in functional skills that students with
disabilities need (Browder, Wakeman, et al., 2006). Although most people in the special education
community welcome the mandate for access to the general curriculum and the increase in expectations
for students with disabilities, many warn that an emphasis on academic content alone runs
counter to the ultimate intent of IDEA 1997, which is to prepare individuals with disabilities to live
productive and independent adult lives to the maximum extent possible (Ford, Davern, & Schnorr,
2001; Hunt, Quirk, Ryndak, Halvorsen, & Schwartz, 2007; Turnbull et al., 2003). Academic outcomes
are important, and measuring them is necessary, but not sufficient, to achieve the global outcome
of quality of life for students with disabilities and their families. The unique needs of each
individual requires educators to also address quality-of-life domains such as social-emotional adjustment,
independence and responsibility, physical health, and communication (Hunt et al., 2007). For
instance, for students with AAC needs, the curriculum needs to include both the general education
curriculum as set forth by each state as well as additional curricular domains addressing their specific needs. In addition to the academic curriculum, students with AAC needs will require a specialized
and intensive curriculum in other areas such as operational, strategic, linguistic, and social competence;
functional life skills; and vocational and community-based instruction.
HOW CAN STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
PARTICIPATE IN THE GENERAL CURRICULUM?
Involving students with disabilities in the general curriculum requires changes at multiple levels in
the way special education instruction has been traditionally delivered. In fact, Wehmeyer and Agran
(2006) have suggested changes at the district, school, and classroom level in a comprehensive reform.
Districtwide, comprehensive reform efforts are necessary to ensure that content areas important to
students with disabilities (e.g., functional or life skills) are well integrated into mandated areas such
as reading, science, and mathematics. At the school level, administrators and faculty need to articulate
a shared vision and a process to ensure that children with diverse abilities are successful and participate
in the general curriculum to the maximum extent possible. This may include schoolwide
implementation of positive behavior supports, disability awareness, flexible groupings, communitybuilding
activities, curriculum mapping, and Universal Design for Learning (UDL; Browder,
Spooner, et al., 2006; Browder et al., 2007).
Universally designed classrooms respond to and accommodate the needs of all learners by
addressing the barriers that can prevent student learning. Typically, educators and clinicians use a
UDL plan for adaptations at three levels: representation, expression, and engagement. Representation
often refers to how information is presented to students (i.e., input). Teachers incorporate UDL
principles when they present content to students in multiple formats such as oral statements, text,
digital text, graphic symbols, visual organizers, online resources, video-based materials, highlighters,
and peer or adult supports. Expression refers to the need for alternate methods for responding
(i.e., output) to the instructional content, which typically requires speaking, writing, manipulating,
or drawing. Teachers incorporate UDL principles when they allow students to respond to content
using multiple modalities such as speech-generating devices, adapted keyboards, customized software,
role play, simulations, presentations, and peer-assisted assignments. Third, engagement includes
a variety of strategies to support students’ participation in the learning process (Browder, Wakeman,
et al., 2006; Wehmeyer & Agran, 2006). Teachers who implement UDL principles provide students
with an array of options to remain engaged and motivated, such as giving students choices regarding
learning activities and materials, using multiple work locations, varying the length of activities,
varying feedback strategies, and using adapted vocabulary (Salend, 2008). The Center for Applied
Special Technology web site includes resources and tools to support clinicians and educators in the
implementation of UDL principles (see http://www.cast.org).
Differentiated instruction (DI) is another reform that can be incorporated at the classroom
level. DI is premised on the idea that all learners do not learn in the same way and refers to the practice
of ensuring that each learner receives the methods and materials most suitable to his or her needs
and abilities. Teachers who use DI incorporate the principles of UDL by using strategies that address
students’ strengths, interests, skills, and abilities in flexible learning environments (Hoover &
Patton, 2004). During the course of a unit, a teacher who implements DI uses a wide range of
instructional materials in a variety of formats and complexities to enable all students in his or her
classroom to reach the objectives of the instructional unit (Broderick, Mehta-Parekh, & Reid, 2006).
Teachers who use DI acknowledge and prepare for the range of aptitudes, needs, and interests
that they find in their classrooms. The assumption underlying DI is that when a student (with or
without disabilities) appears unengaged or unmotivated, it is likely that the student is unable to
understand the nature of the task or finds the modality of the activity unattainable.
DI requires an analysis of the expectations of the instructional unit and the development
of modifications. For instance, most classroom activities require communication skills such as participating in classroom conversations, following teacher directions, answering questions, and
requesting clarifications, as well as understanding the teacher’s explanations and descriptions.
These expectations may be incompatible with the abilities and needs of students who use AAC.
Adaptations will be necessary to ensure student participation. The following sections of the chapter
describe specific tools, processes, and strategies for designing adaptations at the classroom and
the instructional activity level to ensure participation and achievement in the general curriculum for
students with AAC needs.
Due to the complex needs of students who rely on AAC, a comprehensive implementation of
adaptations to ensure access to the general curriculum requires the collaboration of general educators,
special educators, related services personnel, and family members. Indeed, many of this book’s
chapters identify a number of critical methods and strategies to support students’ participation in
curricular activities, such as communication strategies (Chapters 7 and 8), peer supports (Chapter
11), assistive technology (AT) integration (Chapter 12), and collaborative teaming (Chapter 13).
ADAPTATIONS TO PROMOTE THE
PARTICIPATION OF STUDENTS WHO RELY ON AAC
The changes mandating the use of the general curriculum as the content and context for instruction
and intervention for students with disabilities present the educational team with enormous opportunities
and significant challenges. First, educators, clinicians, and families have a greater opportunity
to reverse the trend of lowering standards for students with disabilities, which often reflects negative
stereotypes of disability and biases against their participation in general education (Ford et al., 2001;
Hoover & Patton, 2004; Turnbull et al., 2003). Instead of lowering standards or deriving parallel
standards, educational teams are now challenged to do what is necessary to help students achieve
proficiency within the state-mandated standards. Thus, educators must adapt specific instruction to
ensure that all students are provided with opportunities to acquire content and skills associated with
each standard. This requires a solid understanding of the curriculum and its components as well
as methods and strategies to individualize instruction without resorting to a parallel curriculum, separate
location, or special pull-aside activities (Ford et al., 2001; Hoover & Patton, 2004). There is an
emerging body of literature in the special education field addressing evidence-based strategies to provide
access to the general curriculum for students with a range of disabilities, many of whom use AAC
(see, e.g., Browder, Spooner, et al., 2006; Orelove, Sobsey, & Silberman, 2004; Rief & Heimburge,
2006; Salend, 2008). AAC professionals can also draw from validated models used to design curricular
adaptations for students with significant disabilities (e.g., Best, Heller, & Bigge, 2005; Giangreco
& Doyle, 2000; Janney & Snell, 2004; Salend, 2008; Snell & Brown, 2005; Udvari-Solner, Causton-
Theoharis, & York-Barr, 2004; Wehmeyer et al., 2001). Despite differences, all models use the
general education activities as the referent (Wehmeyer & Agran, 2006; Wehmeyer et al., 2001).
Adaptations at the Classroom Level
The environmental conditions of the classroom affect students’ ability to acquire information and
demonstrate what they have learned (Wehmeyer & Agran, 2006). Adapting environmental conditions
will be necessary for students with AAC needs to attend to and cope with the multiple demands
that characterize classroom instruction. The type of adaptation will depend on the nature and extent
of a student’s disability. The most obvious adaptation is that of the physical environment to meet
the mobility, sensory, and technology requirements of students with AAC needs. Environmental
modifications range from the most obvious changes to facilitate accessibility, such as adding ramps
to entryways, rearranging furniture to allow wheelchair maneuvering, and modifying transportation
vehicles, to modifying conditions, such as lighting, noise level, visual and auditory input, and location
of materials (Udvari-Solner et al., 2004). Elements of the environment need to be carefully engineered for students who experience sensory impairments and information processing and communication
difficulties.
Classroom Layout The literature supports the importance of physical space in creating
positive learning environments. Research on classroom environments indicates that different environmental
layouts seem to influence a child’s learning (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2006; Rief & Heimburge,
2006). Classroom layout refers to the spatial arrangement of the classroom (i.e., how and where students
are seated in relation to the teacher and to one another, how classroom members move around
the room, the overall sense of atmosphere and order). Existing research on classroom environments
indicates that effective classrooms are organized to accommodate a variety of different activities,
instructional groupings, and arrangements throughout the day. These may include group instruction,
computer-assisted instruction, cross-age peer tutoring, instructional assistants, group instruction, and
direct systematic instruction. Effective classrooms are those that minimize student distractions so that
students are able to actively engage in classroom activities (Savage, 1999; Weinstein, 1992). Despite
the role of classroom structure on student outcomes, there is very limited research specifically addressing
how classroom layout may affect the engagement and communication opportunities available to
and the learning outcomes of students with AAC needs (Hunt, Soto, Maier, Müller, & Goetz, 2002).
Creating Positive Learning Communities Through Cooperative Activities
Cooperative learning (CL) is defined as an instructional strategy in which a small heterogeneous
group of students with equal status roles work together to achieve common learning goals (Jenkins,
Antil, Wayne, & Vadasy, 2003; McMaster & Fuchs, 2002). CL activities provide many opportunities
for peer communication as students help and support each other as they complete an
instructional activity (Merritt & Culatta, 1998). By definition, cooperative strategies are interactive,
language-based didactic structures that support the acquisition of conversational skills and social
skills in general, both for children who use speech and children using AAC (Soto & von Tetzchner,
2003). During cooperation, students may provide or request information; recount past events; comment
on or clarify some idea, event, or state of affair; resolve conflicts; and elaborate on others’ ideas.
As students acquire new competence in interacting with each other, they become partners within
instructional exchanges with the opportunity to learn from and teach each other (Rogoff, Goodman,
& Bartlett, 2001). A large body of literature documents the positive effects of CL on the academic
achievement of students with learning disabilities (see McMaster & Fuchs, 2002, for a synthesis of
empirical research), especially when CL is combined with other instructional supports such as computer-
assisted instruction, reciprocal teaching, cross-age peer tutoring, instructional assistants, and
direct instruction. The effects appear more robust in general education classrooms than in special
education classrooms. Advocates of CL as an inclusive strategy argue that in general education classrooms,
cooperative groups are more heterogeneous and hence provide more academic support to students
with disabilities. The effects of CL on the academic achievement of students with significant
disabilities are not well established. The majority of existing studies have highlighted social benefits
such as increased classroom participation and interaction with peers (see Jenkins et al., 2003).
In an empirical study comparing the effects of different instructional groupings on the social
acceptance of students with significant disabilities by their typically developing peers, Piercy, Wilton,
and Townsend (2002) concluded that CL strategies resulted in higher indices of social acceptance
than other types of groupings. In addition, the children in the CL group showed significant increases
in positive social interaction with peers without disabilities. These findings were explained by the
fact that in CL, the children had opportunities to learn about one another in multidimensional and
dynamic ways. Cooperation afforded opportunities for the students with disabilities to reveal their
areas of strength. They became individuals with likes, dislikes, fears, and joys, as opposed to stereotypical
images.
Introduction of conversation books, peer buddy systems, and interactive activities has been
found to be positively related to increases in communicative interaction between children who rely on AAC and their typically developing peers (see Chapter 11). Hunt and her colleagues (2002)
reported that the number of reciprocal communicative interactions between students who used
AAC and their typically developing peers in a general education classroom increased whenever
CL activities were used. The authors were able to conclude that the use of CL activities with adaptations
and support from peer partners promoted the students’ active participation.
Peer support intervention is a strategy that seems to be more effective for students with significant
disabilities than traditional CL (Carter & Kennedy, 2006). Peer support intervention uses one
or more chronologically matched typically developing peers to provide academic and social support
to a student with significant disabilities. In this type of approach, peers are trained to provide
support by adapting instructional activities, communicating with and providing feedback to the
student with disabilities, and, when appropriate, implementing positive behavior support strategies.
When compared with other support strategies, it appears that peer support interventions contribute
to improved academic performance, decreased levels of problem behavior, and increased levels of
social interaction between students with and without disabilities (Carter & Kennedy, 2006;
Spooner, Dymond, Smith, & Kennedy, 2006).
Adaptations at the Activity Level
At the activity level, the development of adaptations is determined by an analysis of the cognitive,
sensory, motor, cultural, and linguistic demands of the instructional activity in contrast with the
individual’s needs and abilities. Students with AAC needs can participate in a wide range of general
education activities when provided with appropriate curriculum adaptations and supports. Typically,
students with AAC needs will require adaptations for the way in which the curriculum is delivered
to them (i.e., presentation, input) and the way in which they are expected to engage in and respond
to the curricular activity (i.e., response, output). Responding to the curriculum usually refers to the
response demands, which may include writing, speaking, drawing, and manipulating.
Curriculum Presentation Students with AAC needs may have physical, cognitive, and/or
sensory impairments that can make access to instructional materials a challenge (Downing, 2005).
Students with AAC needs require modified access to content materials that are consistent with their
sensory and motor abilities and their learning preferences and needs. Adaptations in curriculum
presentation modify the way the curriculum is conveyed or imparted (Wehmeyer et al., 2001). In the
classroom, information is typically presented through written text or verbally. Yet, many students
with AAC needs may not have the hearing or auditory comprehension to benefit from materials being
spoken or read to them. For these students, alternative symbols such as pictures, photographs, objects,
or parts of objects along with print can be used instead. They may also benefit from multiple means
of representation that can be modified in size, shape, color, or format (e.g., from print to pictures;
Browder, Spooner, et al., 2006). Some students may have additional visual impairments that affect
their ability to process information presented to them through text or graphics. These students can
benefit from digitized audio, books on tape, or text-reader programs. Modifications of the sensory
characteristics of a learning environment are also necessary for students who have processing difficulties.
These may include changes in lighting, background color, glare, noise level, or movement
demands (see Blackstone, 1994, for in-depth information on the effects of vision problems on AAC
system design). Using peer supports (e.g., peer buddies, peer tutors, cross-age peer tutors), personalized
scaffolding, and options for repetition are ways to keep students engaged (Broderick et al., 2006).
Response Written or oral responses are the typical ways that students engage with the curriculum. Adaptations will be required for students with AAC needs who have little or no functional
speech and often have no functional handwriting. There are alternative ways to enable students to
express their ideas and demonstrate their knowledge, such as providing additional time for task
completion, allowing for alternatives to typical means of expression such as using a switch to select a picture, concept keyboards, word prediction programs, spell checkers, graphics and pictures, and
augmentative communication devices.
In addition, it will be necessary to provide more than one opportunity per activity to demonstrate
one’s knowledge. Students with AAC needs will require multiple opportunities to engage with
the curriculum and to practice assessment activities. Chapter 5 provides information on supportive
equipment and software for students who are unable to gain access to and respond to curricular
materials in conventional ways. It is also important for educators and clinicians to have a working
knowledge regarding availability of appropriate technology, how to obtain equipment, and how to
make effective use of technology within meaningful activities (Downing, 2006). The Wisconsin
Assistive Technology Initiative (WATI) AT Checklist provides a simple yet effective way to identify the
available range of low- to high-tech AT options that can be used to support student participation
(see http://www.wati.org).
Adaptations at the Content Level
The adaptations described previously provide alternative ways for students with AAC needs to take
in information or communicate their knowledge back to the teacher. The changes to the way the
curriculum is presented to the student and the means the student uses to respond do not necessarily
alter or lower the standards or expectations for a particular activity. When there is no difference
in curricular expectation, one may say the student is participating in an identical curriculum to sameage
peers, although adaptations are provided to ensure participation. These adaptations may include
providing physical assistance, adapting materials, augmenting modalities, and providing different
response requirements.
By contrast, a modified curriculum is when a student requires a substantial adaptation that results
in a fundamental alteration to the content of the curriculum. In a modified curriculum lesson, the
student with AAC needs participates in lessons targeting either modified grade-level standards or
alternate achievement standards that are aligned to academic standards (Courtade-Little & Browder,
2005; see Chapter 1). Alternate achievement standards may reflect a narrower range of academic content
(e.g., fewer objectives under a content standard) or learning less complex content at earlier grades
that is considered a prerequisite to attaining grade-level proficiency (Karvonen, Wakeman, Flowers,
& Browder, 2007). This shift to academic content represents a major challenge for professionals serving
students with significant disabilities because they need to plan the curriculum, develop and adapt
materials, and learn how to effectively teach academic skills to students with the most significant disabilities.
Further complicating this shift is the lack of research-based strategies to teach general curriculum
content to this population, a lack of understanding of the general curriculum among special
education professionals, and the need to combine academic instruction with individual priorities represented
in the student’s individualized education program (IEP; Karvonen et al., 2007).
Educators need to consider both the content and demands of the curriculum and the needs and
strengths of the student when making curriculum adaptations. Developing curriculum modifications
for students with AAC needs requires a deliberate analysis of the cognitive, linguistic, sensory,
and motor demands of the instructional activities at the content, presentation, and response levels.
This analysis will assist the team in determining where the student is most likely to have difficulties
and selecting appropriate adaptations. Deciding what modifications are necessary can be difficult
and requires the collaboration of the entire educational team. The role of the speech-language
pathologist (SLP) is critical in designing those adaptations.