About 6% of all students have speech and language disorders and some of them need augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) to augment understanding and to replace speech. AAC is a combination of tools (e.g., images arranged in paper boards or in speech generating devices), embodied resources (e.g., gaze, pointing, gestures and sign language) and scaffolding practices (e.g., responsive interaction style and time delay). Yet, despite the large effect of AAC (Brittlebank, Light, and Pope 2024) teacher programs, all over the world lack AAC-topics and there are few AAC-topic related courses at university for in-service training (Loi, Mohd Rashid, and Toran 2023). Without pre- or in-service training, teachers experience challenges to include students who need AAC in their classrooms (Leatherman and Wegner 2022).

AAC-mediated interaction is demanding for all involved. For example, if the student is not literate, someone else has to choose a vocabulary and arrange it in a comprehensive and accessible way for the student. However, predicting a just-in-time vocabulary is difficult, which means that students often lack helpful words. Another challenge is the prolonged production time. While typically 5-year-old children produce in average 139 words/minute (Hustad et al. 2019) aided-speaking students produce a handful of symbols/minute (Tegler and Melander Bowden 2024). This mismatch enhances the risk that students’ AAC-mediated contributions are heard out of topics, which aggravates understanding (Tegler and Melander Bowden 2024). What is more, the majority of AAC contributions are linguistically less advanced than the student could produce. Hence, most AAC-contributions are single-image contributions, which most commonly are interpreted as comments or requests (Tegler and Melander Bowden 2024). The fact that few contributions are interpreted as questions is problematic since the practice of asking questions is important for learning and socialization (Chin and Osborne 2008).

To the best of knowledge, there are only a few evidence-based AAC in-service training courses for teachers (Wallin et al. 2024; Kammet et al. 2024). One of them, the AKKtiv ComPal (Wallin et al. 2024), focuses on teachers’ use of augmented input (i.e., the partner uses AAC alongside speech to model use and meaning of the symbols) through preparatory instructor education and feedback on participants’ video recordings. However, since teacher communication skills training has been found to benefit from conversation analysis (CA)-based findings (Kunitz, Markee, and Sert 2021), the intervention in the current study was underpinned by two CA-based papers (Tegler and Melander Bowden 2024; Tegler and Pilesjö 2023) and designed as a Conversation Analytic Role-Play Method (CARM) (Stokoe, 2014).

The current study examined the effect of a CARM workshop about aided-speaking students’ questions assessed on two outcome measures: (1) self-efficacy(i.e., beliefs to create pedagogical settings that can promote students’ learning and social development) (Bandura 1993) and (2) interactional awareness (i.e., consciousness-raising process on how own behaviour affects the interaction).

The analysis showed significant changes on self-efficacy on group level but not on interactional awareness. The result is discussed in relation to information of sources for self-efficacy (Bandura 1993) and conditions for self-efficacy on a school team level i.e., collective teacher efficacy (CTE) (Donohoo, O'Leary, and Hattie 2020).

Design: An ABA-design (pre-post-test between-group experimental design) was used to investigate the effect of the CARM workshop. The chosen outcome measures were participants’ self-reported self-efficacy and interactional awareness. Participants: Eighty-two Swedish teachers and classroom assistants working with students using augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) participated. Classroom assistants were included because in Swedish, students with intellectual disability have their education in special schools for students with intellectual disability, which includes classroom assistants (i.e., school staff without pedagogical education requirements) working under the supervision of teachers. The role of classroom assistants varies from providing general classroom support to aiding individual students in their learning processes. By assisting students during and between lessons, classroom assistants help create a secure and calm study environment, allowing teachers more time for lesson planning and instruction. Intervention: The intervention consisted of a 4 four communication skills workshop designed as a CARM workshop. It was based on detailed analysis of 18 hours of naturally occurring classroom interaction. So called trainables (i.e., communication skills) were identified and presented in animated video clips with transcripts. The researcher took the participants through the video clips line-by-line and stopped where there as something at stake in the interaction. The participants were then invited to discuss what they would do next to handle the situation before they see what did happen and then discuss the choice that was made by the practitioner. Data collection: Data was collected using a study-specific questionnaire including three statements on self-efficacy and three statements of interactional awareness. The statements were responded to on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1= “Not at all” to 7= “To a very large extent”. In addition, data collection included audio recordings of the discussions during the workshops. Data analysis: The statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS version 28.01. The data were examined to assess the reported self-efficacy and interactional awareness of teachers and classroom assistants before and after a four-hour CARM workshop. Descriptive statistics, specifically the mean and standard deviation (SD), were used to present the results. An independent samples t-test was selected because the pre- and post-test data could not be paired. The independent samples t-test was performed to evaluate the impact of the intervention on each outcome. Additionally, the relationships between self-efficacy, interactional awareness, education, and work experience were analyzed using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

At the group level, the analysis revealed a significant effect on self-efficacy, but not on interactional awareness. A more detailed examination indicated that the combination of education level and firsthand contact with students significantly impacted interactional awareness, with special education teachers showing notable improvement. However, the strong correlation between self-efficacy and interactional awareness suggests that these two factors are interdependent. Therefore, an increase in self-efficacy is associated with an increase in interactional awareness. The study highlights how AAC can be included in teacher education and communication skills training for professionals. In addition, the significantly increased self-efficacy is discussed in relation to the five conditions for self-efficacy on a school team level i.e., collective teacher efficacy (CTE) (Donohoo, O'Leary, and Hattie 2020) were fulfilled.

Bandura, A. (1993). "Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning." Educational psychologist 28 (2):117-148. Brittlebank, S., Light, J., & Pope, L. (2024). "A scoping review of AAC interventions for children and young adults with simultaneous visual and motor impairments: Clinical and research Implications." Augmentative and alternative communication 40 (3):219-237. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). "Students' questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science." Studies in science education 44 (1):1-39. Donohoo, J., O'Leary, T., & Hattie, J. (2020). "The design and validation of the enabling conditions for collective teacher efficacy scale (EC-CTES)." Journal of professional capital and community 5 (2):147-166. Hustad, K., Sakash, A., Broman, A., & Rathouz, P. (2019). "Differentiating Typical From Atypical Speech Production in 5-Year-Old Children With Cerebral Palsy: A Comparative Analysis." American journal of speech-language pathology 28 (2S):807-817 Kammet, H., Darling, S., Dukes, C., & Ramasamy, R. (2024). "Increasing pre-service teacher knowledge of AAC systems and supports in the classroom setting." Teacher development 28 (5):678-691 Kunitz, S., Markee, N., & Sert, O. (2021). Classroom-based conversation analytic research : theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy, Educational linguistics ; Volume 46. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Leatherman, E., & Wegner, J. (2022). "Augmentative and Alternative Communication in the Classroom: Teacher Practices and Experiences." Language, speech & hearing services in schools 53 (3):874-893 Loi, S., Mohd Rashid, S., & Toran, H. (2023). "Teacher Training’s Content and Delivery Method Related to Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC): A Systematic Literature Review (SLR)." International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research 22 (10):152-173 Stokoe, E. (2014). "The Conversation Analytic Role-play Method (CARM): A Method for Training Communication Skills as an Alternative to Simulated Role-play." Research on Language and Social Interaction 47(3): 255-265. Tegler, H., & Melander Bowden, H. (2024). "Aided-speaking students’ unsolicited questions in teacher-fronted classroom talk: the use of speech-generating devices to ask questions." Classroom discourse 15 (4): 374-397 Tegler, H., & Sigurd Pilesjö, M. (2023). "A comparison between the use of two speech-generating devices: A non-speaking student’s displayed communicative competence and agency in morning meetings in a compulsory school for children with severe learning disabilities." Child Language Teaching and Therpy 39 (2):1-20 Wallin, S., Thunberg, G., Hemmingsson, H., & Wilder, J. (2024). "Teachers' use of augmented input and responsive strategies in schools for students with intellectual disability: A multiple case study of a communication partner intervention." Autism & developmental language impairments 9:1-18