JCPSLP Vol 14 No 2 2012

27 / 56

JCPSLP Volume 14, Number 2 2012 81
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).
Method
Participants
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)