This report introduces university-teacher-union-school district research collaboration in two Vancouver elementary schools. This project examines how the use of Picture Communication Symbols contained within a computer software product (Boardmaker), can contribute to developing children's understanding and expression. As educators, we have found picture communication symbols to have broad application in our teaching practices. We want to reflect on our current use of picture communication symbols and to further our understanding about how their use helps students with a range of abilities to learn across the curriculum and to develop communication and literacy skills.
This first section of the report describes a range of contexts where we have used picture communication symbols in our teaching. Subsequent sections will share information about how we are collecting data (through observation, video filming and reflection in research group discussions) and reflecting on our use of picture communication symbols. We will also explore the power of visual/symbol representation, and how we understand learning and teaching in the elementary classroom.
Language is a key medium with which we create and express meaning. Verbal language and printed text are both commonly used symbolic representations of that meaning. Photographs and line drawing such as those found in cartoons and children's books are also a form of symbolic representation of meaning. Likewise, picture communication symbols are a form of symbolic representation.
Like "Blisssymbols" and other visual symbol systems, picture communication symbols were initially developed to support expressive communication for individuals who were unable to use verbal language or printed text to create and express meaning (i.e. augmentative communication). In more recent years, their application has been extended to support language processing and comprehension. Such support is generally targeted at those individuals who struggle with attending to, understanding and remembering transitory verbal language and who are not able to read.
Picture communication symbols are images, intended to represent specific language concepts, which include concrete and abstract vocabulary as well as grammatical forms. While commercially available picture sets (e.g. Clip Art) provide pictures, they are not intended to represent a range of specific language concepts for communication. Picture communication symbols are being used in and beyond the classroom context. Abbott (2002) has considered picture communication symbols in terms of their evolution, the many applications in which they are used, and their potential. He describes their initial use in support of students with special needs, but he also explores their use in aerospace and web design, arguing that far from being augmentative, such symbols are at the cutting edge of new literacies which are essentially visual. Thus, there has been a significant expansion and evolution in the use of picture communication symbols, which is in part why we believe this study fits within the parameters of Multiliteracies. We will return to this in greater detail in the"Discussion" section of the report.
Boardmaker, developed by Mayer-Johnson Co. is a software system that contains a library of picture communication symbols. The Boardmaker software allows the educators to easily access pre-made symbols, to clarify or develop concepts through picture manipulation and to develop an individualized picture bank with personalized symbols or digital photographs. It also provides the ability to create templates, worksheets and other teaching materials.
Along with Boardmaker, Writing With Symbols is another picture communication symbols software program developed by Mayer-Johnson that is a word processing program which can be used by students.
See Appendix 3 for system requirements necessary to house the Boardmaker program.
Picture communication symbols can be used to support a wide ranger of learners in all areas of the curriculum. They can be used for individual students, small group or whole class instruction. They can be used to teach vocabulary, sort and classify vocabulary concepts or subjects, make story maps, develop narratives, focus on components of stories, or create mini books. One of the common applications of picture communication symbols in the schools involves the teaching of concepts to children using visual symbols. When a child cannot comprehend any or few traditional language forms (e.g. verbal and text) then how can they begin to understand or express their learning? For some individuals picture communication symbols may be a bridge into learning language, whether spoken or written.
The following examples illustrate how picture communication symbols can support more traditional language forms to enhance an individual's understanding and expression.
Consider the classroom where there are children who speak English as a Second language or perhaps who have delayed language skills. Their teachers recognize that these students will have difficulty with class discussions in English and are not ready for expressing meaning in written English. Some of the students with delayed language skills may also have difficulty expressing the depth of their understanding when asked to draw their own pictures, but I have not really found this to be so with ESL students. Thus, Karen's statement (below) provides some support for the claim that picture communication symbols can be used to enhance both comprehension and expression for students with delayed language skills
"Some children do not have a language base and they are not ready for writing yet. So I can get them to cut out pictures and fit them into a sentence pattern. They're showing concept comprehension, and they are participating rather than attempting things they cannot do." (Karen, resource teacher)
It is important to distinguish between ESL students and those students with delayed language skills. While some ESL students may also have delayed language skills, most do have a language base in a language other than English, and are therefore developmentally as ready to write as any English-speaking child. While we are using picture symbols with both ESL and language-delayed students, one focus is more connected to concept comprehension (students with delayed language) while the other focus (ESL) is more connected to English language acquisition.
Consider now the specific case of a Kindergarten student with delayed language acquisition. For this student, expressing that he wanted a change of activity was a struggle. He had no means to verbally communicate the concept of "I am finished and want to do something else". Because he could not verbally communicate, we could not teach him to use words and needed an alternative. In one collaborative planning session involving a teacher and the Speech Language Pathologist (SLP), the two educators considered whether the child could communicate that he had finished by using a visual symbol. The symbol was designed, and the student was instructed on its meaning and use in context. He very quickly learned to use the symbol each time he had completed a task.
These examples clearly speak to engaging a range of students with special needs in the learning process in developmentally appropriate ways so that each child is encouraged to take steps in learning, making progress and building confidence. Yet picture communication symbols can be used with students with special needs, with ESL students, and with students who are not in either of the above categories. It is because the use of picture communication symbols can support all learners and can be used in all areas of the curriculum, that we believe it is part of supporting inclusive education. It is not an 'add-on used with some members of the class and not with others, but with everybody in the same room at the same time.
Located in the Mount Pleasant area on the east side of Vancouver, the school has (at the time of writing) a population of 310 students in Grades K-7. With 30 languages used by students, approximately 25% of the students speak English as a first language, the other most commonly spoken first languages being Mandarin/Cantonese (20%), Tagalog (19%), Vietnamese (8%), Spanish (5%). 180 students, 58% of the school's population, receive
ESL support, and 17 (5.5%) are identified as students with special needs. Mt. Pleasant is a designated inner-city school, with both breakfast and hot lunch programs. Although the school clearly services one of the poorer areas of the city, the atmosphere in the school is upbeat and welcoming. Diversity here is clearly viewed as an asset, not only in the wall displays, but in the respectful way that students are treated in the course of each day.
The school's design is open-plan, so there are no walls around classrooms. There is some evidence that this design may have encouraged the dissemination and sharing of ideas regarding the use of picture communication symbols. Over time various teachers saw the picture communication symbols on the open-plan walls, and often asked questions about them. Ensuing discussions then resulted in teachers deciding to use the picture communication symbols or adapting an existing approach to a different need in their classes. But the open-plan design also facilitates informal and regular movement of staff and students in the school, making contact and conversations somewhat easier than may be the case in schools where each teacher has an enclosed classroom space.
Design may help, but it is people that collaborate, not buildings, so that while building design may be a supporting factor, both the introduction of the program by the Speech Language Pathologists (Jean and Sydney), and Karen's capacity and skill as a Resource teacher, were also prime factors. The SLPs are regular visitors and collaborators, and Karen promoted the appropriate use of Boardmaker throughout the school, offering resources and strategies as appropriate to student needs. When the organizer"Shape of the Day" became more commonly used by teachers in the school, Karen created a standardized schedule for the whole school so there was consistency, and so that students could recognize the organizers as they moved around the school, or into new classes.
Exemplifying the school's welcoming approach is its affable Principal, John Hall, who greets every passing student by name as he sits and discusses the research project with visiting researchers. But he is also clearly focused on students'learning, and how he can support both the staff and students in the school. On another occasion, when interviewing John, he shared his views on two themes: the students and community that the school serves, and his role as Principal.
Three words exemplify John's approach to being a Principal: passion, vision and effort. Guiding each is a question around all ideas and actions: what does this (idea/action) do to support students'learning? A guiding theme is respect for the children, the staff and the community. His passion is clear as he discusses teachers' work, or the progress of individual students. His vision is reflected when he spoke of the "flattened hierarchy" in the school, and how he learns, from teachers, from students, from community. He sees his role as facilitative of teacher initiatives, such as Karen's work with picture communication symbols, with the outcome due to a "ripple" effect when initiatives take hold and are shared among staff. He spoke of "providing the oil" to keep things moving, of trying to see things in different ways, using the metaphor of "taking the glasses off" and seeing how things looked. "Oil" in some cases involved finding resources needed by teachers, whether actual funds or release time, some provided by his covering classes for teachers. In his discussions with teachers, the conversations include both explorations and challenges of ideas. Such challenges are a way of making sure that ideas are sound enough to withstand the challenge, and are not just accepted at face value. Will proposals work? What's the benefit for students? Why adopt a particular approach? Such debates ensure ideas are tested, sifted, seriously considered before being used with students.
John exemplifies effective and collaborative administrative support, a statement not only generated from one interview but also from observation and in many comments of teachers. His role, encouraging, supportive, challenging, friendly, is not one generally offered by systems structures outside the school. He observed that while district staff were supportive they too were stretched to meet needs and to offer any substantive support to the school. When asked about Ministry of Education support, he was more critical of a Ministry stance he believes is stressing their expectations of schools rather than ever asking if support could be offered.
Such comments suggest that this school is increasingly left to manage with limited systemic support offered by either its school board or the Ministry of Education.
John spoke of the strength of the Mt. Pleasant community, with many parents supporting their children's schooling. The school staff stresses courtesy, consideration and care, themes which guide their work and which they attempt to instill in the students they teach. John stressed that many students in Mt. Pleasant Elementary are very talented, and the school aims to maximize all students' potential. So the school has a dual focus: academic and social, but he left little doubt that the school was a site of learning, not a social centre, so that while recognizing the reality of the community context there was a determined optimism to provide a sound, safe, and stable educational environment.
John also discussed the fact that the school is highly diverse, which he viewed positively, and that it is located in an area where there is considerable poverty. But his comments were not labeling the area or the community as negative or problematic - there were many very supportive families, and much rich diversity. But there were also some real problems:
"While many Vancouver schools are multicultural, the 30 language groups in this school reflect mostly students who originally lived in other countries, so are recent immigrants to Canada and recent residents in Vancouver. The school serves an area where poverty is common. There are high numbers of single-parent families. Some parents are in low-paying jobs, often with hours that limit the time they can spend with their children - shift work, or cleaning offices in the evenings. Some parents are on welfare or are unemployed. The net effect is a number of vulnerable children, some cared for by siblings, or "latchkey' children, supported at school by several staff including a neighbourhood worker, a Youth and family worker, a project teacher and a Staff Assistant. There is a high level of transcience in the area (one student had been in 12 schools by Grade 4), with some housing being provided by Social Services. There are numbers of custody orders, usually associated with children who have suffered some form of abuse. Some of the formerly rental accommodation is now being sold, which may change some of the school population demographics in time."
The school is part of the Renfrew-Collingwood community on the slopes of east Vancouver. It is located in an area that is both residential and commercial. Renfrew Community Centre, Renfrew Public Library, and Falaise Park are situated nearby. Most students live within walking distance of the school. Renfrew Elementary is a designated neighbourhood school and was built in 1928. It has a main building with self-contained classrooms in a three storey structure. A new two storey primary wing was built and added to the main building in 2003.
One of the larger Vancouver elementary schools, Renfrew has a student population of 549 students. There are 22 first languages spoken in the school, the most common being Cantonese/Mandarin (50%), English (21%), Vietnamese (12%), and Punjabi (4%). 50% of the students receive ESL support. A Heritage Cantonese class and a Greek class are held in the school once a week. There are after school programs, such as Windermere Community Programs that students from the school and the community can attend.
Renfrew has a significant number of students with special needs (7%) enrolled in both regular and district classes. While most students with special needs are integrated into regular classes, there are a few District classes designed primarily for students with special needs. There are 23 divisions of students ranging from Kindergarten to Grade Seven, three of which are district classes (Primary Special Remedial, Intermediate Special Remedial, and Life Skills).
Renfrew Elementary has a motto of "Renfrew Cares" . One way that Renfrew Elementary builds a sense of community within the school and promotes the motto is at the weekly Friday assemblies. At each assembly, there are performances by different classes, school singing, music, and awards for students to celebrate, appreciate, and congratulate the achievements and displays of citizenship by the students.
Given that Renfrew is a large school with a diverse community of learners, and has had changes in school administration (the current principal is Ross Cassie), the development of new projects, such as picture communication symbols has received ongoing support. The administrator at Renfrew is aware of the importance of facilitating collaboration among teachers. Therefore collaboration time is available for teachers where classes will be supervised to allow teachers to work together. As stated, creating time for the collaborative process is new to Renfrew and it will be interesting to examine the extent that collaboration time will be utilized and the impact of developing programs and literacy. This collaboration time is ideal for teachers to meet together to share ideas, discuss the needs of classes, review curriculum, and determine how picture communication symbols can be used to enhance programs in various classes.
Picture communication symbols were initially introduced by three people at the school: Deborah Little (the classroom teacher who is a member of the research team); the school-based Resource teacher (who supports the work of the school's classroom teachers to effectively include students with special needs); and a teacher assistant (called School Student Support Workers in the Vancouver School District) to assist two students, with severe communication challenges, in Deborah's Kindergarten class. With the initial support of the Speech Language Pathologists (Jean Fowler and Sydney Hook), the three staff members enthusiastically embraced the notion and importance of using visuals to facilitate the learning of these students. Subsequently, the three staff members began using picture communication symbols to assist the learning of all students in the class and worked collaboratively to develop materials, programs, and procedures.
As the school-based Resource teacher and the teacher assistant work with different classes, they continue to implement picture communication symbols for students with special needs and have implemented some class-wide procedures, such as Shape of the Day. Deborah continues to use picture communication symbols with all students to complement her Kindergarten program.
How have educators facilitated the use of Picture Communication Symbols within a broad school population and in regular classes?
Earlier in this report we mentioned the evolution of picture communication symbols from being used primarily with students with special needs, to being used with a broad range of students in regular, integrated classrooms.
In order to answer the question it is important to look at three factors:
While the open-plan design of Mt. Pleasant was described in an earlier section of this report, it is important to consider that, in addition to the roles and service delivery models, each school's physical layout is a factor which influences the implementation of picture communication symbols in both schools.
Mt. Pleasant is an open area school with very few self contained classrooms. As a result, staff are able to easily see what other staff are working on and share casual conversations about students. When picture communication symbols were originally introduced at Mount Pleasant it was introduced on a student by student basis with low incidence special needs students who had various levels of communication delays. As the picture communication symbols were introduced in a classroom the teacher would recognize that the same picture communication symbols would also have value to the other students in the classroom. As other classroom teachers saw materials and strategies being implemented, casual conversations often led to class teachers being interested in developing approaches using the symbols. So the use of picture communication symbols was facilitated by the open area design at Mount Pleasant.
In contrast, Renfrew Elementary has self-contained classrooms in a main building and a primary wing which limits teachers from seeing what others are working on regarding picture communication symbols, and arguably increases teacher isolation. There is less dialogue within the school about the use and sharing of picture symbols than is the case at Mount Pleasant school, so the use of the symbols is less widespread here than at Mt. Pleasant Elementary.
In this section we consider the different roles within the contexts of the two schools involved in this study. The success of a program can be facilitated by staff who enthusiastically promote it, which is the case with both teachers involved in the project from Mount Pleasant and Renfrew Elementary schools. The most significant difference between the two teachers involved in the project is their teaching positions and how their jobs affect their ability to introduce, model and identify needs within the wider school context. We will consider the roles of the resource teacher (Mt. Pleasant) and the classroom teacher (Renfrew), as well as the roles of the Speech Language Pathologists who work with both teachers and in both schools.
Karen works with many different classes. Her role is a collaborative Resource Team teacher assigned to a number of classrooms in the school where her job is to support students who are ESL, and those who have special learning challenges such as those identified with learning disabilities, autism, developmental delays, behavioural concerns and physical disabilities. Collaborative planning and team teaching (whole class, small group and occasional one-to one) take place with the classroom teacher and teacher assistants. These discussions often lead to identifying broader class needs as well as specific student needs. Karen collaborates with other Resource Team teachers to support each other with the sharing of resources, ideas and some block scheduling to address school wide needs. She is also the coordinator of the School Based Team. Because of her role Karen has the opportunity to make suggestions and offer support for the implementation of picture communication symbols in and across all grade levels.
Deborah is a Kindergarten teacher in a self-contained classroom where she extensively uses picture communication symbols to support her program. Although some materials she uses in her Kindergarten class may seen as not be relevant to other grades, she feels that many of the materials could in fact be used in various grade levels. For example, Deborah uses visuals for developing awareness of story grammar and character, and believes that throughout the grades, students continue to deepen their understanding of story grammar, both in reading and writing. The visuals also enable students to focus their attention and thoughts around characters. The same visuals could be used throughout the grades to cue students on different aspects of story grammar even for those students who are acquiring traditional forms of literacy.
For Deborah, as a classroom teacher, sharing information about picture communication symbols with other teachers, especially those who teach different grades, can be difficult because she is classroom-based while Karen moves between classes in her role as a resource teacher.
Both schools have shared services from Jean Fowler and Sydney Hook, as Speech and Language Pathologists with the Vancouver School Board. They are largely responsible for the introduction of picture communication symbols and Boardmaker software in both schools. The administration of Mount Pleasant has had a long standing commitment to maximizing the amount of Speech Language therapy services that could be provided in the school with extra funds from inner-city school funding. There was a recognition on the part of the administration and with support of the staff to use some of the available funding to provide more Speech Language time in the school because of the significant number of low incidence students with communication difficulties, the number of language delays in high incidence students and the impact of ESL upon students' language development.
With Jean and Sydney's interest in using visual symbols both as a support for developing language, and for supporting the acquisition of English language, they initially engaged teams of educators from schools in conversations about how visual symbols might support both language and learning. Participants in conversations included classroom and resource teachers, Speech Language Pathologists, and teacher assistants. They then worked with educators to use the Boardmaker software to produce picture communication symbols for individual students, small group or whole class instruction. 3. Service Delivery Models
Another factor that contributes to the use of picture communication symbols in schools is how services are provided to students. Mount Pleasant Elementary School has a long standing history of an inclusive Resource Team model. Resource teachers are assigned to classrooms where in collaboration with the classroom teacher, they address learning for all students. The class teacher and resource teacher determine what the needs of the class are and how they are going to meet them, whether it is in small groups, co-teaching or some one-to-one support if needed. This model has been in place at Mount Pleasant for approximately ten years and as a result there is a long-standing practice of collaboration and sharing between all teachers. This affords an opportunity to not only have conversations about individual student needs but also to address broader issues in terms of the approach used in each class.
In contrast, Renfrew Elementary has a specialist model for delivering resource services, such as ESL, Learning Assistance, and Special Needs. For each of these resource areas, there are specialist teachers. The specialist teachers provide services to specifically assigned students by pullouts and in-class support. When systems and programs that use picture communication symbols are implemented for specific children, they usually are only tailored to meet the needs of those particular children. In addition, other students who do not receive additional support will be less likely to be exposed to picture communication symbols.
Because there are two different models for delivering services at Renfrew Elementary and Mount Pleasant Elementary, the difference in models has created variation in how children are exposed to picture communication symbols.
While physical layout may be one factor supporting the use of picture communication symbols, it is more important to consider roles and service models which involve collaborations. Both history and approach are central to an understanding of how the use of picture communication symbols has evolved in the two schools where this study takes place. It was the collaborative approach to planning and teaching that led to the extension of visual symbols to support communication and curriculum for a wide variety of students. In discussions with the research team, teachers spoke of such conversations "taking teaching to a different place" in which teachers interact, exchange ideas and approaches to support children's learning. This approach to teaching involves considerable collaboration in terms of planning, implementation, and reflection among teachers.
We feel that the conditions at Mount Pleasant have helped to facilitate a broader context for the use of Picture Communication symbols. Both schools have staff who are committed to using picture communication symbols with their students. We feel that the most significant difference has been the commitment on the part of the administration to provide additional funds and support for Speech Language initiatives at Mount Pleasant. This commitment has facilitated the professional development of the staff who have the taken the knowledge they have gained through consulting with SLPs and began to apply it within a broader classroom context, thereby building a collaborative professional culture but also using the inclusive approach of the resource teacher team.
This report also reflects the use of Boardmaker by educators in three different roles. Each of the educators within these roles holds particular forms of knowledge, often honed and developed in collaborative discussions about the use of picture communication symbols.
Teachers and Speech Language Pathologists (SLPs) in the two schools have been using picture communication symbols for some years, and strongly believe that the combination of words and images in picture communication symbols promotes literacy and learning. When the research group initially (two teachers, two SLPs and one teacher union researcher) met we considered how using picture communication symbols supported specific students with limited language. During our reflections, the teachers/SLPs were clear that the picture communication symbols incorporated in their teaching were useful with a broader range of students. This use was how they wanted to test some claims regarding their beliefs about the utility of picture communication symbols. Picture communication symbols they believe, has shifted from a tool to teach to exceptionality, to being used as a general pedagogical application. That is, we wanted to test the claim that picture communication symbols can be used in a range of classroom situations in the elementary school rather than focus exclusively on its use with students with exceptionalities, or with limited English proficiencies.
Picture Communication Symbols can be successfully used in elementary classrooms to develop literacy, and communicative capacity, in a wide range of students with diverse abilities.
We make a claim in this research not to prove what we, as a research team, believe in absolute terms to be true, but to consider what we think might be effective and of promise in the use of picture communication symbols. The claim is therefore tentative and exploratory, rather than definitive or comprehensive. We think there is some evidence of success and we wish to explore whether or not this is so by stating a claim and considering our evidence. The evidence is based on our collective and critical observations and reflections.
In order to test and reflect on this claim, the group decided on three areas where picture communication symbols are used with a whole class or group of students. The three areas to be addressed are:
For each area, members of the research team collaboratively planned examples to demonstrate the use of picture communication symbols. Next, the teachers decided which examples would be best suited to use at their schools. Finally, a reflection meeting was held where we all considered how the picture communication symbols were used, and how effective they were in promoting literacy and learning. The planning meetings, classroom teaching using picture communication symbols, and the reflection meetings, were videotaped in order to both demonstrate the use of picture communication symbols to other teachers, and to provide data for the research team
Thus, the research team identified the three areas listed above (comprehension, literacy, expressive communication), observed and filmed classroom lessons where picture symbols were used in the three areas. The research team viewed the video data in reflection meetings, and used data from the filmed sessions to consider the efficacy and utility of the approaches using picture symbols. As an example, the team looked for at the video data for situations where students might access picture symbols without the teacher's prompt, or where students were engaged in small group discussion using the picture symbols. More examples and reflections are reported below.
Both teachers use picture communication symbols to organize and manage time and activities in their classes. These can include:
"Shape of the Day" is a visual organizer that can be accessed by the whole class at any stage during the day. A bank of images with the corresponding words is made by the teacher and can be quickly placed on the wall or board each morning. If the schedule is not in place by 9.00 a.m., some students often ask the teacher where it is. During observations in the classes where "Shape of the Day" was being used, many students accessed the organizer whenever they needed to check the schedule. Such checks only took a few seconds, yet students, with this and other picture communication symbols organizers, used them individually and independently, checking or reinforcing their comprehension.
On first sight such application may appear mundane or limited, yet there are significant gains with individual, independent self-referenced student access. Organizers encourage students to initiate actions that provide answers to what they need to know. As an example, several students were observed going to the schedule to check times and activities, eliminating the need to ask the teacher for this information. Another example involved an ESL student checking the spelling of a particular word from the symbol posted on the wall. The organizer is a reference tool accessed as and when needed, omni-present, accessible yet unobtrusive. Other visual organizers allow for the same access and use, thereby encouraging a style of learning that encourages students to initiate action and to use appropriate tools. It helps students with routine and transitions that are critical for students in the classroom. A written schedule cannot facilitate the same level of independent functioning for those students who are not able to access print.
The picture communication symbols provide visual representations of what the behaviour should look like and can allow the teacher to simply point to a symbol versus repeatedly using their voice, for those students with limited capacity to understand verbal instructions. For ESL students, there may be a continued repetition of the words to support English language acquisition, but with the picture reference accessed when needed by the student. These are only two examples of classroom cueing systems. Teachers can develop visual representations of the classroom cueing systems they already use. At Mt. Pleasant the "Give Me Five" visuals are also standardized across all primary classes and a more advanced version is also used in intermediate classes.
In the image shown below, Deborah is using the picture communication symbols which have been used to produce the fire/earthquake drill sheet. It is a straightforward activity, with the whole class involved:
"We had a student who did not know what to do when there was a fire drill. He'd hear the bell and panic, and he couldn't follow the teacher's instructions, or the routine established, even after years of practice. So we looked at the steps in the fire drill and designed a "fire drill sheet" using Picture Communication Symbols. The same was done for earthquake drill, and we placed them in every classroom.
"The individual student for whom we designed the sheet became much more familiar with what he had to do as he could follow the five steps when they were visually represented. Now even students in Grade 7 refer to the drill sheets as needed."
(Judy Heyworth Resource teacher, Renfrew Elementary)
In the picture, the organizer using symbols is being used with the whole class. The exercise took only a minute; barely time as an observer to understand that the symbols could be quickly accessed and used as very quick units, and can be repeated occasionally if and when needed.
As with other organizers, it is visible at all times in the classroom, thereby also being available as a tool to be accessed by students independently.
Students using the symbols to self-monitor, and student-student communication
During observation in the classroom it also became clear that students were frequently using picture communication symbols to check schedules or details of work-in-progress. Such self-monitoring appeared a norm in the class, and reduced the need for constant student-teacher interaction on organizational issues, freeing the teacher's time for more purposeful teaching applications. Some students have symbols on their desks as a constant reference, others access the symbols around the classroom.
But students also used the symbols to engage in discussion and activities with other students, building both their understanding and their capacity to become self-directed learners. Thus, the use of picture symbols is used to generate and stimulate language for students, not to replace it. Picture symbols spur discussion and engagement with oral and written language because they are often used to introduce a topic for discussion in activities designed to build oral communication capacity, or in lessons where writing is developed. Picture symbols in these classrooms generated significant discussion which was observed in a range of small group and whole class activities, and facilitated students' writing. For ESL students, using picture symbols supported a rich linguistic environment where ESL students' English language development was facilitated and encouraged by the use of images. An additional advantage of using such symbols is not only that they are engaging a wide range of students in discussion and writing but that they also engage students for whom limited discussion is possible, and those for whom writing is not possible at all.
Literacy in a regular curriculum and classroom contextBC schools, like schools anywhere, teach a curriculum which is prescribed. For many teachers, the curriculum content focus is a constant in their teaching. How, then, are picture communication symbols used in the regular teaching of curriculum content in an elementary classroom?
In this section of the report we consider the use of picture communication symbols by Karen within a regular English Language Arts curriculum unit.
Using a story to build understanding and writing skills
In teaching this curriculum unit we observed a sequence of events, individual and collaborative roles, and explicit use of visuals and language used either with the whole class or individually. The unit was collaboratively planned and involved three staff members: the classroom teacher, the resource teacher and the teacher assistant. Each considered the content and sequence, and what role they would take during each stage of the unit being taught.
The resource teacher introduces the unit to the students, explaining that during the story students will be drawing what they heard in terms of what the characters saw, felt, heard and tasted. Each student has a sheet produced by the resource teacher with boxes in which to draw their pictures
Then the classroom teacher reads the first part of the story, showing some images from the story book, telling a story of a young Inuit girl who wants to be a carver. The young girl undertakes a journey required before she can be accepted as a carver. It is the images evoked from this part of the story that the students then draw. There are different levels of comprehension, and different applications in the class. Each of the three staff circulates through the room, assisting and encouraging all the students. In the same way that the unit is taught to all students, all students receive individual help from one or all of the three staff.
Switching back to the whole class, the resource teacher asks the students to share some of the images. On chart paper at the front to the class, which all the students can see, there are the classifications of "see", "hear", "feel", "smell", represented both as words and symbols. The first image elicited from students in the class is "Ocean", which is fitted into the section on the chart paper. The resource teacher adds a visual image of "ocean" to the chart paper, then elicits an adjective ("blue") before adding that word on the chart paper, so that students start to see adjectives added to the noun (blue ocean), She does the same thing eliciting spoken words which become both symbol and written words with subsequent images. Each word is extended by the teacher after eliciting the words from students, so that the idea and language for a shelter is stated and drawn, as is the igloo as the form of shelter evoked from the story. As the teacher elicits images she redraws them on the sheet until each of the categories has a number of words and images to reflect the ideas generated by the students. Gradually, the chart paper has a range of images and words in each of the four categories. From the bank of images and words, students are encouraged to generate "powerful sentences". Thus the picture symbols are used to identify and label with language an object (fish), and build an understanding of where the fish swims (ocean) while extending the students' vocabulary and writing skills (the fish swam in the blue ocean). Just as the bank of words and images were developed in a way that involved the whole class, so too is the concept of "powerful sentences" (sentences with extended vocabulary and expression) developed incrementally and co-operatively, students adding words to a simple sentence until they are rich and evocative. "The seal swam" becomes, after several stages of student input "The happy seal swiftly swam through the dark blue ocean."
During this process the pictures and symbols are a constant source of referral and ideas. Constant also is the teacher encouragement in comments such as "That's a beautiful start to a powerful sentence. Let' see if we can stretch it more." The images engage students and encourage and provoke both comments and writing. As they build structure in writing they are also encouraged to edit:
"This is a really good way to edit your stories. Choose a word, say it, think if 'theres another word. This is a really good way to edit."
This unit, at first sight a straightforward storytelling exercise, is carefully designed to engage all students in hearing the same story. But from that point, each student progresses individually, some sketching, others cutting out images to reflect the concept they cannot draw. From the sketch some can say words, some can extend oral or written language. Some can write, some can build "powerful sentences". But others, who cannot work at this level, are still engaged in learning. They still access and build comprehension through the images. Every student can therefore work at an appropriate and challenging level, a key component of the approach using picture communication symbols and other visual images in the regular curriculum.
The activity described here may appear to be a lot of work but it only involved producing three separate work sheets that were used in different ways to achieve a variety of results. The "Listen and Sketch" sheet was used by students as they listened, a sheet of prepared visuals covering all senses was used by some students to circle the images as they heard them in the story instead of drawing. These students then used the"Listen and Sketch" sheet to classify the picture communication symbols into senses categories by cutting and gluing them in each appropriate box after the story was over. The sheet of picture communication symbols was enlarged on a photocopier and used during the whole class discussion identifying different senses in the story. Extra copies were made for students who needed the picture communication symbols sheet to expand the ideas they drew or for spelling. Most students then used a third sheet to generate one powerful sentence for each of the senses.
This unit demonstrates how picture communication symbols, along with other images and symbols, can be used to build comprehension of language, and can build communication strategies and competence, whether oral or written.
All students need strategies for developing and extending their communication with peers and with adults. An example of using picture communication symbols for developing expressive language is "sharing" in Deborah's kindergarten class. Each child is assigned a day in which he/she brings an object to share with other students. The purpose of this activity is to develop speaking skills in describing an object, asking and answering questions, giving directions, and engaging in meaningful conversations. The format of this activity is different from typical approaches where students stand in front of the class and share their object. Instead, Deborah has the students sit in four small groups, on the carpet and the children who are sharing rotate through the four groups. Therefore each child, while sharing, practices skills of expressive language, such as questioning and engaging in conversation, four different times with four different groups of students.
Picture communication symbols are introduced to support students' in their expressive language in two ways during these activities. A "Speaker Card" and a "Listener Card" are used to create conversational scripts. These cards with both symbols and words have scripts on what each student needs to do during sharing. For instance, on the speaker card, one of the scripts is to "Say 3 things." This is followed by prompts for students as to ideas that they can say about their object. On the listener card, there is a script of "Ask questions?" which is followed by prompts as to what questions students can ask. Students at various levels of expressive language can benefit from these cards. Students with limited expressive language have visual cues as to what to say in the activity. Students with greater skills of expressive language can use the visuals on the cards as examples of what information can be said and then expand the discussion by bringing in their own questions, ideas, or comments. Finally, the use of the cards and the structure of the sharing allow students to be in charge of an activity and to use expressive language to direct and instruct other students in the activity. Sharing is an activity that is meaningful to students that draws upon their prior knowledge and builds on their existing skills as they practice expressive language in a natural way.
Another interesting example is the use of picture communication symbols in scripts for developing social language scripts. The picture communication symbols representing language categories of clothes, food, games, places, transportation were created for two low incidence children in the form of conversational topic boards. These topic boards were made for the games "Go Fish" and "Memory" with expressive scripts such as "my turn, your turn, same, different, let's play again, finished etc. In the class were a number of reception level ESL students who could also benefit from vocabulary development and some social language scripts. The teacher assistant in the class introduced the cards and games to the low incidence students and gradually invited some of the ESL students to join in. Over time, it became common for all the students to want to play as well. They would use the expressive language learned from the topic boards verbally with each other and use the topic boards with the low incidence students without adult support. In this way the students were regulating their play and including all students regardless of language skills and abilities.
A claim was made earlier in this paper that picture communication symbols could be successfully used in elementary classrooms to develop the literacy and learning for a wide range of students with diverse abilities. This Case Study has explored, and, we believe, has provided evidence in support of that claim. From data collected in the three areas of focus, there was considerable evidence in film footage and observed many times by the group's active engagement through the use of picture symbols in learning, individually, in small groups, and with a whole class. This learning was in terms of concept development, oral communication, and written expression. From reflective discussions, the teachers involved in this research identified specific examples of students using picture symbols to advance conceptual understanding, communication skills and language acquisition. The school principal provided evidence of the successful use of picture symbols throughout the school, and stated his belief that the use of symbols promoted both engagement and learning. The research team carefully observed and reflected on the film data, and on our observations, and concluded that picture symbols supported learning for a wide range of learners in the three areas explored. The evidence for this claim was also provided in the earlier sections, where students self-referenced picture symbols, used them in small group discussions, or successfully used symbols to communicate information such as "finish" when the concept was difficult to communicate using language.
Yet we do not have external validation of such examples, nor can we directly link the use of picture symbols to measured outcomes of student learning. It could be argued that because of the limits of our inquiry, we should limit the claims being made. Yet as team, we are reluctant to do so.
What does constitute evidence in this example of research? Would examples of student work, or comments from students, provide adequate evidence to support this claim? Might some form of pre and post test offer validity? Perhaps, but they have not been a part of this research.
Instead, we make a case that five researchers, looking critically at a claim, filming examples of practices, and engaging in reflective discussions, have offered substantive evidence that the claim has merit. The practitioners involved in the research were focused on thinking about the application of picture symbols in their practice. They felt that the symbols supported learning and looked for evidence through observation and filming. The evidence of engagement for a diverse range of learners is strong, and demonstrated repeatedly, whether in one student self-accessing symbols, or during small group use. Consistent and sustained student engagement was also observed by the external researcher and the school principal.
The evidence that symbols support classroom organization, literacy and expressive communication is supported by examples: the child unable to communicate through words but who can understand and communicate the concept when it's shown in a symbol; a child unable to remember stages of a fire escape drill but who can reference them through symbols; students generating "powerful sentences" after being stimulated by the visual symbol linked to vocabulary development and extension. All of these examples are evidence, and all support the claim.
Picture Communication Symbols are one tool to use within a context of knowledge about teaching and learning. It is the collective knowledge and experience of this team of teachers and Speech Language Pathologists, working collaboratively, that makes their use effective. They teach using integrated, multi-layered and multi-modal approaches which combine visual and oral forms of communication. All students can process and respond to this form of teaching, albeit in very different ways. Some will explore and understand concepts, others will be able to demonstrate understanding in a variety of ways. While there is a wide range of student engagement, the common factor is that all students are engaged but at many different levels. For those students who are writing, the approach solidifies and validates their understanding, whether they refer to the visual image constantly, occasionally or minimally. For other students, the images are creating meaning and conceptual understanding in ways that verbal language or printed text cannot do. The process facilitates different kinds of learning, differentiated instructional practices and varied levels of student engagement, where students can show different ways of demonstrating they understand the concepts being taught. These might include writing at various levels, oral communication, drawing, or indicating visual images.
Another way that the use of symbols develops expressive language skills is that they facilitate conversation generated by the image or images during the course of a unit. The concept of images as a spur to conversation is one that has been explored more explicitly in qualitative research using photography (Walker, 1993) than in pedagogical approaches. In such work, researchers have considered images as spurs to memory, stimulating reflection and communication about events and instances in classes or interactions. In the classes at Mount Pleasant and Renfrew, the images engage students and generate considerable conversation, allowing students to build language skills. The development of literacy and improved oral communication is supported by conversation, and there are many conversations reflecting a wide range of development. What is different about the images, in contrast to verbal language, appears to be their capacity to immediately engage all students, however different the forms of engagement may be. Through such engagement, learning occurs and is reinforced by the teacher or by the students themselves when they decide to access the symbols without being directed.
The use of symbols is also fundamentally concerned with concept development - taking an experience and moving that experience into a more formalized cognitive understanding of the world so that connections are made with language, adding layers of comprehension. Consider the example of a student who had never seen snow: the image helped her comprehend the concept so that she could participate in conversations and in writing. Similarly, the student who was unable to communicate the concept of "finish", was able to do so with the use of and access to picture communication symbols.
In their book "Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning"
(David H. Rose & Anne Meyer ASCD, 2002) the authors speak of what they believe to be a fundamental breakthrough in their approach to teaching when they moved away from adapting some materials and practices for meeting exceptional needs to building new inclusive approaches that made the materials and approaches more flexible for use with regular classes:
"Suddenly, the light dawned! We realized that barriers to learning are not, in fact, inherent in the capacities of learners, but instead arise in learners' interactions with inflexible educational materials and methods. The flexibility we were able to build into digital "books" could be used to make all curriculum adjustable so that one electronic edition could meet the needs of extremely varied learners. Further, the benefits of customization would be available not only to students with disabilities, but to every student."(p vi)
While the educators in this study are not using digital books, the concept of an adjustable yet common approach, allowing for individual interaction and progression, is central to the use of picture communication symbols. But it must also be stressed that their use is purposeful, carefully planned and linked to building language and understanding, connecting with the regular curriculum and meeting a wide range of individual needs so that all students are engaged in learning. Thus it can be argued that this approach to learning is both a Multiliteracies and an inclusionary approach to education. The teachers are combining images and languages using technology while using the approach to reach and educate every student in an inclusive classroom.
Rose and Meyer also discuss brain research and learner differences, explaining why they believe it inappropriate to reducing learners to simple categories like "imple" or "bright". They make the case that:
"Learning is distributed across three interconnected networks: the recognition networks are specialized to receive and analyze information (the "what" of learning); the strategic networks are specialized to plan and execute actions (the "how" of learning); and the affective networks are specialized to evaluate and set priorities (the "why" of learning)."(p11)
We also argue that Picture Communication Symbols may allow for a form of customization that encourages the wide range of learners to recognize and to process information, and to generate understanding and language, in diverse ways that incorporate the effective use of the networks identified in the brain research. Linking this with the Rose and Meyer quote above, picture symbols may allow students to utilize recognition networks because they recognize the image whether or no they know the word, spoken or written. For ESL students, for example, such recognition would build English language acquisition by linking individual or multiple images to individual or multiple words. Such recognition then leads to the strategic network, where a student can use the word in conversation or writing, and the prioritization or progression of use in affective networks. This discussion does not reflect a definitive claim but identifies an area which may be worth further exploration in the future. It also opens a way of thinking about different learning styles, and how to teach to such differences without resorting to "deficit model" thinking, in which some students possess deficits that need to be remedied.
The use of symbols may prompt some students to articulate statements which may become or may already be "powerful sentences", to use the teachers' phrase. Or they may enable initial concept recognition, of an object, an activity or a concept.
Their use in purposeful teaching approaches utilizes what Rose and Meyer have considered necessary to "customize" for all learners by providing activities and approaches which recognizes different processing in learners. The shift away from thinking of picture communication symbols as solely an augmentative communication form is significant. As with many initiatives initially designed for use with students with special needs, the use of picture communication symbols has expanded far beyond its original purpose. Its original purpose was to support augmentative communication and in many cases, it facilitated inclusive practices. While this purpose still applies, it may be the concept of inclusion which appears to be shifting. The change, exemplified in the work of Rose and Meyer, is away from thinking in terms of "normal" and "exceptional" to a wide range of student learning needs and a range of pedagogical approaches to meet such needs. Picture Communication Symbols, therefore, are not applied in these two elementary schools, solely with exceptional students, but are an everyday norm for all students. They are used to manage classroom routines and schedules, to build conceptual understanding, to apply within regular curriculum units.They help students to develop oral communication skills, and to build written language competency. This might be in initial language acquisition, in second or additional language acquisition, developed through regular references linking images and words, oral and written. Examples include a session on fire drills, or earthquakes, or during the development and extension of writing skills in the construction of "powerful sentences". Their use can last a moment or an hour, they can be referenced or introduced by the teacher or self-referenced by students. Accessing the images does not identify any student as exceptional because all students access the images at different times and in different ways. They have become a tool to support student engagement and inclusion because they can be used to promote the engagement of all students in a class, and to maximize individual progress. If picture communication symbols have shifted in their use beyond support for augmentative communication, what is their potential? How does their use in these schools link to the concept of Multiliteracies?Abbott (2002) discussed picture communication symbols used with students with special needs, and the increasing use and prevalence of such symbols in sophisticated publishing in areas such as web sites, where in many instances he argues that pictorial images are replacing, not supplementing text. He outlines an evolution in forms of communication from total written text dominance, where illustrations (if used at all) were subservient to text to new forms of evolving literacies exemplified by the term "Multiliteracies" (New London Group, 1996). This term expands the notion of what constitutes literacy, and what forms of literacy are required for social and economic needs in societies which are multicultural and multilingual in a globalized and highly technological world. It also explores access to and use of technology by young people today, in a world where many children access computers, video games and other highly visual media with ease and sophistication, not only as readers/viewers but as creators of, for example, web sites and videos.
Abbott's comments illustrate that visual communication is rapidly changing from a subservient place below written language to a form of literacy in its own right. While at one time the dominant communication of meaning was through written or oral communication, there now exists considerable and increasing evidence that meaning can and increasingly is communicated through visual images. The case for the increasing dominance of visual images has also been made by Kress (2000): "Technology, multiculturalism, the new economies of information and services, in the context of globalization are making images more significant than writing in many domains of public communication." Such authors discuss rapid changes both in society and communications. In this context the evolving and expanding use of picture communication symbols suggests that there may be a much wider utilization than is occurring in schools now, and that this research may offer educators an opportunity to consider the various contexts and possibilities for the future use of such symbols. One extension currently feasible in the existing Boardmaker software is in multilingual use, though the languages available in the current software are limited and require expansion, particularly into Asian languages, in order to meet the needs of Canada's urban schools. Another feasible extension could occur with the addition to image banks of more sophisticated images which would require skills in interpretation and analysis, or in the creation of images by students and teachers, perhaps in the creation of multi-media units.
While it is possible to put your own images into the current Boardmaker software, we saw little evidence of this being done. Such extensions of the current uses of Boardmaker might allow educators to build on the concept of using picture communication symbols to meet diverse learning needs while adapting the images to widen the scope of their use in schools.
There is mixed evidence of systemic supports for teachers at both school sites. Both receive valuable support from the two Speech Language Pathologists who promoted the use of picture communication symbols in the school district. Yet in one school there is clearly a more collaborative and supportive approach and additional Speech Language services were provided over time. In Mt. Pleasant school, resource and classroom teachers work cohesively to use picture communication symbols effectively. This involves planning, team teaching, and reflective discussion as a norm of their practice. The school Principal is aware of the use of picture communication symbols and, to use his words, "provides the oil" when needed. In Renfrew the classroom teacher essentially works in isolation within the school, and receives limited support from either Resource or administrative sources. This is not a criticism of Renfrew's approach, as many schools may also have limited or non-existent support for classroom teachers developing innovations such as the use of picture communication symbols. Yet it appeared likely that the sense of isolation was not maximizing the utility of the approach for the individual teacher at Renfrew, or for the school. The best practices of using picture communication symbols appeared when there was collaboration of various kinds: Administrative Officer support in terms of time and discussion; Speech Language Pathologists' input and advice; planning and team teaching; resource teacher support and team teaching in the classroom. When some or all of these occurred, there was greater evidence of a wider use of the symbols in the school, making teacher and system "investment" more profitable. By this we mean that more cohesive, collaborative approaches appeared to be more productive by spreading the approach across a school. They also appeared to further promote development of pedagogy using symbols simply because the collaboration provided momentum and opportunities for reflection and discussion among the educators involved.
Picture communication symbols are being used effectively in both environments, with support from Speech Language Pathologists. Both teachers network and share ideas as part of this research project and independently. But based on interview data and observation, it appears that Mt. Pleasant is better able to support the school-wide use of picture communication symbols for two reasons. The first is that the Mt. Pleasant resource teacher's role has evolved to support both the classroom teachers and all students in a class, offering supports that classroom teachers can use, whether in terms of team teaching, supports for individual students, or simply the production of picture communication symbols resources. Having a resource teacher working across all areas and grades of a school appears more likely to build school-wide innovation, and offer a common set of resources for each teaching area or classroom.
The second is the support of the Principal, facilitative rather than directive, enabling the innovation to proceed, whether by finding resources, time, equipment, or by understanding the concept of using picture communication symbols and engaging in the process of implementation and evolution in the school. Such leadership is essentially collaborative, focusing on ideas and implementation rather than on status and hierarchy. This form of leadership has been discussed in the education literature but also by Linden (2003) in a genre of writing describing business collaborations. Linden discussed specific qualities of collaborative leaders, including being an effective convener, sharing credit widely, generating trust. All of these are exemplified in John Hall's approach to building collaboration in a non-hierarchical environment. Leadership in terms of ideas need not be hierarchical, but can be initiated by a teacher or an administrator. Many school communities recognize such leaders, and informally use their expertise. In these schools, Karen, Deborah and both Speech Language Pathologists all lead through their ideas and initiatives, demonstrating considerable skills in terms of understanding the use and potential of using visual images to support student learning. The Speech Language Pathologists also demonstrate many skills in terms of understanding teacher needs and system supports/constraints, and in terms of working across schools and within a school district administrative structure. The difference between the approaches in the two schools suggests that schools may decide their own way of teaching to a diverse population, and that there may be fundamental differences between the "resource" model where a teacher supports all students and all teachers, and a model where there is targeting of supports to identified students. We are not arguing that one model is better than the other, but suggest that the different models and approaches be considered and discussed. While the resource teacher and the Speech Language Pathologists engage in collaborative and supportive work at Mt. Pleasant, the classroom teacher's relative isolation at Renfrew suggests some loss of system capacity. While she networks outside of the school, there is little sharing within it. The evidence from this study indicates that collaborative approaches are more productive. Based on such evidence, how might school systems consider reducing teacher isolation and building collaboration? Perhaps the approach at Mt. Pleasant Elementary offers some ideas in terms of roles and approaches.
One other area of networking has occurred through educator participation in this research allowing teachers time to reflect on practice and to engage in professional conversation. Further networking is being developed as a result of participation in this research. This will connect teachers in these schools with teachers in a northern school district where a teacher research team will explore its use of picture communication symbols and Boardmaker. The teachers are also participating in knowledge dissemination with presentations at local, national and, potentially, international conferences. Such networking and knowledge dissemination not only promotes dialogue and sharing between teachers (arguably the most productive form of teacher professional development) but also encourages those participating to reflect on what is being done, to engage in dialogue within the internal group before they present or share information or ideas with others. Much of this expanded networking is being facilitated by staff from the BC Teachers' Federation, the BC teachers' union, which is a partner in this research project. Because the union's research staff are involved in the Multiliteracies research, and in projects to support inclusive education (both applicable to Picture Communication Symbols), they are able to provide contacts and to build networking. They also co-present with teachers at conferences and will be funding teachers' travel and release expenses for linking metropolitan and northern teachers with an interest in picture communication symbols. The roles of the union researchers are partly within the Multiliteracies research team, but partly providing "value-added" approaches which forge connections, offer professional development, knowledge dissemination and teacher networking beyond the life of the research project. This reflects another form of systemic support - a teacher union support for teachers' professional work.
This Case Study has described an inclusive approach to learning which combines the use of images and words in Picture Communication Symbols within Boardmaker software. While Boardmaker software has provided the basis for developing this approach, the educators using Boardmaker are exploring approaches to teaching and learning that go beyond the use of software. They are considering why images engage, and how they can be used to build comprehension, literacy and expressive communication skills. They are developing whole-class approaches which allow for individual student engagement and a wide range of outputs. They are also building more collaborative approaches to teaching and learning which demonstrate why teacher isolation should be reduced. Their work is in progress, evolving and changing as their understanding grows. Their networking is building understanding and community, exploring and sharing ideas rather than "showing and telling" how things should be done. There are some systemic supports with potential and some that might be developed, within schools, and using external organizations such as teacher unions. Participation in this research has promoted reflection and analysis of both approaches and supports, and allows some sharing of the journey to date.
Abbott, C. (2002). Writing the Visual: The use of graphic symbols in onscreen texts. In Silicone Literacies: Communication, Innovation and Education in an Electronic Age. London and New York. Routledge.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London. Routledge.<
Linden, R. (2003). The Discipline of Collaboration. Leader to Leader, No. 29 Summer. http://www.pfd.org/leaderbooks/121/summer2003/linden.html
Walker, R.(1993).Finding a Silent Voice for the Researcher: Using Photographs in Evaluation and Research, in Qualitative Voices in Educational Research, ed. Schratz, M.B. The research team
Karen Husak is a Resource Team teacher at Mount Pleasant Elementary School in Vancouver. She works collaboratively with classroom teachers in an inclusive environment to support a wide range of learners from special needs students with mental and physical disabilities to students with learning disabilities, E.S.L., language disorders, behaviour among others. Karen did her B.A and B.Ed at Queen's University in Kingston and her M.Ed in Special Education at U.B.C with a focus on bilingual special education. Karen has taught in public schools in Ontario and Vancouver in addition to American International schools in Ecuador and the DominicanRepublic as well as establishing the first Special Education program at the United Nations International School in Hanoi, Vietnam.
Deborah Little is a Kindergarten teacher with the Vancouver School Board. She attended The University of British Columbia where she received a Bachelor's Degree in Family Science, a Bachelor's Degree in Education (Elementary) and a Diploma in Special Education. She is participating in the Early Literacy Project at the Vancouver School Board and the Multiliteracies project at UBC. Deborah has had the opportunity to teach primary students in several schools throughout Yorkshire, England. She has particular interests in teaching students with special needs and children who are English as a Second Language. Deborah is also interested in using and developing visuals to facilitate learning for all students across the curriculum.
Jean Fowler is a Speech Language Pathologist with the Vancouver School Board. She has a Bachelor's of Science degree in Speech Language Pathology from the University of Alberta and a Master's of Clinical Science degree in Communication Disorders from the University of Western Ontario. Jean has worked as a Speech Language Pathologist in Ontario and British Columbia. She works with children, as well as, their families and educators, from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds who present with a variety of communication disorders. Her involvement in the Multiliteracies Project at UBC was a result of work with others to bring visual communication strategies to a wide range of children and their educators within the Vancouver School Board.
Sydney Hook is a Speech Language Pathologist and teacher. Her educational and professional qualifications include a B.A. in Psychology and Education and a MSc. in Speech Language Pathology and Audiology. Sydney has worked as a Speech language Pathologist in the Vancouver School District and most recently as a Speech Language Pathologist and Resource Teacher with the West Vancouver School District. Her involvement with the multiliteracies project comes from an interest in inclusive education practices for children with language differences, learning disabilities and those with severe communication needs. Charlie Naylor is a researcher with the BC Teachers' Federation in Vancouver, BC. He has an undergraduate Arts degree from the University of London (UK), an M.A. in Education from Simon Fraser University and is enrolled as a doctoral students at the University of British Columbia.
Charlie started teaching in a secondary comprehensive school in Sheffield, England, and has also taught in an Australian community college and at UBC. He works with teachers in the union's research projects, and with the Multiliteracies project at UBC. He has a strong interest in supporting teachers' Action Research. For any further information on this project, please contact Charlie Naylor at: cnaylor@bctf.ca
This is the section of the site which provides information regarding copyright requirements
Chris' Early Grades-Language and Cognitive Difficulties Classroom: Chris taught a class of 12 young primary school students. All had language processing delays and cognitive disabilities, and four had autistic tendencies. Chris emphasized literacy throughout the day, following the Balanced Early Literacy Program, which was a school-wide initiative. She frequently relied on several activities to build her students' ability to learn, e.g., using "Brain Gym" exercises, learning through song, working on listening skills, and creating a respectful learning community. Chris decided to explore, with help from the STAR Tech team, how she could integrate assistive technologies into her literacy program.
http://rose.iinf.polsl.gliwice.pl/~kwadrat/www.csun.edu/cod/conf2001/proceedings/0073williams.html
Using Communication Symbols to Encourage Language Learning for Augmented Communicators.
Stephanie Williams, MS CCC-SLP, DynaVox Systems Inc.
This paper highlights practical tips using visual-graphic communication symbols to encourage language learning for augmented communicators. Techniques to promote functional symbol use, grammatical structure of language, and vocabulary organization the key focus.
http://www.d.umn.edu/~mmizuko/5230/symbols.htm
This page, from the University of Minnesota, Duluth, provides an extensive Glossary of terms used in communication symbols, with some advice concerning appropriate use.
http://www.setbc.org/res/equip/boardmaker/files.html
This SET BC site offers a wide range of information about the use of Boardmaker and includes movie clips, sample files which can be downloaded, and a discussion group. http://www.setbc.org/projects/winram/default.html"> This site shows Pat Winram (Sooke School District) presenting "BoardMaker On Board", with a few examples of areas in which Boardmaker is used - part of the SET BC site.