JCPSLP Vol 14 No 2 2012

Method Participants

was easier for them to learn and remember, and hence considered the learning process as manageable. • Making our message loud and clear Posters with the slogan “Sign with me – say it with signs” were also put up around along corridors of the school to promote the initiative, and highlight the benefits of key word signing to facilitate better language and communication skills with the students. Results Pre-pilot study questionnaire results Prior to the commencement of the pilot study, parents and teachers were asked to fill out a questionnaire where they described their experiences when communicating with their child/students. Common themes emerged from both parent and teacher groups: • They tended to use an eclectic communication approach (i.e., using words and gestures) when interacting with the individual child/student. • There was an apparent concern about their child/ student exhibiting limited communication. • There was uncertainty with regard to comprehension – whether the child could understand others and/or the parent/teacher could not understand the child’s communication. • Frustrations were noted in interactions between the child and communication partner(s). When asked what additional tools/forms of AAC were used in the interaction between parent/teacher and child, common responses that were listed include Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS; Bondy & Frost, 1994), picture cards, gestures, and signing. Other responses included facial expressions, simplified speech, print, and high-technology devices (e.g., computer). Interestingly, parents reported the use of signing as a predominant mode of communication with their child, in contrast to teachers who reported high use of pictures as an AAC tool within school. This difference could be attributed to parents having had previous exposure in signing when their child was in a different school in earlier years, as also reported on the questionnaire. Although a high proportion of parents and teachers reported instances of using signing with their child, the type of signing used appeared to differ between teachers and parents. Various types of signing which parents/teachers reported include: (a) signing (origin unknown) taught previously at a school, (b) conventional gestures, (c) KWS&G (Australia), and (d) American Sign Language. Parents, also tended to report on using other strategies (e.g., by asking close-ended questions, using slow speaking rate) to facilitate interaction with their child. While one-third of the teachers’ responses reported “no particular reason” for not using signing with the student, the common reason cited across both parent and teacher groups for not using signing with their student was the lack of training and knowledge-skills in this area. With proper training to be provided, a high proportion of parents and teachers ticked the options on the pre-pilot study questionnaires that they would use signing with their child/ student. Other types of support that both parents and teachers selected on the pre-pilot study questionnaires that they would require included: (a) access to resources, (b) support from the speech therapist (modelling use of key word signing, direct intervention with child), (c) support from an occupational therapist, and (d) a signing environment (at both home and school).

Thirteen students (aged from 7 to 13) with limited speech and/or unintelligible speech were involved in the study, together with 18 parents, and 15 teachers from Lee Kong Chian Gardens School. All 13 students were assessed to be intentional communicators (Bloomberg, West, Johnson, & Iacono, 2009). A prerequisite for the student’s involvement in the project was that at least one parent of the child attended the training sessions as scheduled. It was hoped that parents’ involvement in the training would allow for follow-up and support to the child in the use of KWS&G at home. Research design and data collection Pre- and post-pilot study questionnaires were disseminated in January and October 2011, respectively, to parents and teachers who were in the pilot study. The pre- and post-pilot study questionnaires consisted of closed and open-ended questions, eliciting information on teachers’ and parents’ attitudes, knowledge, skills, and experiences with regard to using KWS&G, as well as the types of support that they would like to receive.

In order to do the pilot study, we engaged in a number of initiatives to create a signing environment, which are described here. • Train the trainer A key component of the project’s pilot study was training adult communication partners – in order to equip them with the fundamental knowledge and skills to be able to use Basic KWS&G effectively and efficiently. Specifically, the pilot study involved comprehensive and systematic in-service KWS&G workshops, targeted at teachers as well as parents of involved students. Both parent and teacher groups attended the training at separate sessions/timings. Training was conducted in three phases over a 5-month period, planned and led by the KWS&G presenter. • In-service training made available to other staff Apart from the 15 teachers who were involved in the KWS&G Project, the Basic KWS&G Training Workshop was also made available as an in-service to other staff at the school. Attendance for the training was purely voluntary. In addition to the teachers involved in the pilot study, an estimated 70% of staff at Lee Kong Chian Gardens School received training on KWS&G. • Introducing Key Word Sign and Gesture at assembly One or two key word signs were introduced to students and staff each week (Spragale & Micucci, 1990) during the assembly, and signs that were previously taught were practised during that period. Staff also verbally reported that the introduction of one or two new sign(s)

81

JCPSLP Volume 14, Number 2 2012

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au