Mary Blake Huer

Examining perceptions of graphic symbols across cultures: Preliminary study of the impact of culture/ethnicity

Perceptions of three aided graphic symbol sets used in augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) (Blissymbols, DynaSyms®, and Picture Communication Symbols) were examined across four groups of adult participants with differing cultural histories and life experiences. One hundred and forty-seven individuals who identified themselves as African American, Chinese, European American, or Mexican and who ranged in age from 30 to 64 years participated in the investigation. Graphic symbols with translated referents (in English, Mexican Spanish, and Mandarin Chinese) from a 41-item lexicon were rated on a 7-point scale of iconicity. Results suggest that individuals from different cultural/ethnic groups perceive graphic symbols differently. Methodological issues related to the study of the impact of culture/ethnicity on graphic symbol recognition are described, and implications for the practice of AAC across cultures are discussed.Perceptions of three aided graphic symbol sets used in augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) (Blissymbols, DynaSyms®, and Picture Communication Symbols) were examined across four groups of adult participants with differing cultural histories and life experiences. One hundred and forty-seven individuals who identified themselves as African American, Chinese, European American, or Mexican and who ranged in age from 30 to 64 years participated in the investigation. Graphic symbols with translated referents (in English, Mexican Spanish, and Mandarin Chinese) from a 41-item lexicon were rated on a 7-point scale of iconicity. Results suggest that individuals from different cultural/ethnic groups perceive graphic symbols differently. Methodological issues related to the study of the impact of culture/ethnicity on graphic symbol recognition are described, and implications for the practice of AAC across cultures are discussed.

Conversations with Mexican Americans Regarding Children with Disabilities and Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Focus groups consisting of seven family members of children with disabilities provided information for identifying and understanding issues influencing augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) practices within a Mexican American community. The authors used a content analysis of the conversations to identify seven general perspectives: (a) Children understand the nonverbal communication of persons around them; (b) aided techniques are useful outside of the home; (c) families have great respect for professionals; (d) there is a need to focus on the human condition; (e) there is a preference for shared responsibility between the extended family members and professionals; (f) emphasis should be placed on the performance of simple tasks; and (g) devices in Spanish are needed. Emphasis is placed on qualitative research strategies that can provide cross-cultural awareness for practitioners providing AAC services.

Testing Strategies Involving Least Biased Language Assessment of Bilingual Children

Increased attention is being given to strategies for the least biased language assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse children for whom English is a second language. One main reason is the concern that the administration of language tests in English using current norms is inappropriate for students whose dominant language is other than English. This article discusses a variety of alternative assessment approaches, including renorming a test for the specific population being tested, using dynamic assessment techniques to assess a childs modifiability, using other nonstandardized measures, and modifying standardized tests. Each of these alternatives has advantages and disadvantages. In addition, results from a preliminary investigation using modifications of four subtests of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—Third Edition (CELF-3) are presented to further the dialogue about language assessment issues. Twenty-eight bilingual Latino children, ages 8 and 9 years, were administered the CELF-3 and the modified version of the test in counterbalanced order. Clinical implications for creating least biased language assessment strategies are included as the authors provide a tutorial on the broad topic of language assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse children for whom English is a second language.

Effects of Acculturation on Assistive Technology Service Delivery

This article offers a process for understanding the concept of acculturation within the context of assistive technology (AT) decision-making. Encouraging professionals to consider the influence from extent of acculturation on AT service delivery, the authors provide two types of information: academic discussions of topics such as the processes of assimilation, integration, separation, and/or marginalization, and personal stories from immigrant families and families within varying socioeconomic levels. Several different dimensions which may have a mediating influence on acculturation are integrated into the discussion of the necessity for more effective partnering with family members whose children have disabilities. Conclusions drawn should enable professionals to discover more appropriate solutions for and selection of AT devices from a broader culturally sensitive perspective.

Working with Asian American Families Whose Children Have Augmentative and Alternative Communication Needs.

The increase in students with disabilities from Asian backgrounds who receive special education and related services places greater responsibility on professionals providing augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) services to children and families. Numerous values that are deeply embedded in Asian American families may influence the success of family involvement in team decision-making processes as well as subsequent AAC interventions. Contrasting Euro-American and Asian values are examined with particular emphasis on differences exhibited by these families with regard to (a) perspectives on disability, health care, family life, and education/intervention; (b) communication styles; and (c) reactions to AAC. Specific suggestions are offered to practitioners who may be working with this growing minority population in contemporary society.

Thinking about conducting culturally sensitive research in Augmentative and Alternative Communication

The augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) literature includes very little empirical data on cross-cultural research and AAC that can support current clinical and educational practices. This article offers an approach, proposed as the six requirements, through which researchers may begin to reflect on issues pertaining to culturally sensitive research. Specifically, it includes an open discussion regarding the right person asking the right people the right questions in the right way at the right time and place, which draws examples from three research projects that have evaluated various facets of AAC practices. In brief, this article is designed as an open dialogue with researchers who are interested in pursuing culturally sensitive research.The augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) literature includes very little empirical data on cross-cultural research and AAC that can support current clinical and educational practices. This article offers an approach, proposed as the six requirements, through which researchers may begin to reflect on issues pertaining to culturally sensitive research. Specifically, it includes an open discussion regarding the right person asking the right people the right questions in the right way at the right time and place, which draws examples from three research projects that have evaluated various facets of AAC practices. In brief, this article is designed as an open dialogue with researchers who are interested in pursuing culturally sensitive research.

Using Concept Maps for Educational Based Implementation of Assistive Technology: A Culturally Inclusive Model for Supervision in Special Education.

This article addresses three emerging problems in special education: (a) new learning environments with different teaching styles, (b) equity in access to assistive technology (AT), and (c) an on-going infusion of new AT opportunities within special educational environments. Instructions for designing and creating concept maps are presented as a solution to meet the immense needs currently for AT preservice and inservice personnel preparation. Three sets of teacher/learner questionnaires as well as a new Personal Planning Protocol are introduced for integrating collaborative strategies during AT decision-making, and advocating for a culturally-inclusive model for supervision in special education.

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Preschoolers' Verbal and Nonverbal Requests.

The purpose of this study was to identify the verbal and nonverbal strategies that preschoolers used to obtain objects from peers. Two Head Start classrooms of 41 Puerto Rican and African American preschoolers were observed and videotaped over 1 school year using qualitative methods. The preschoolers used three different strategies to obtain objects from peers during play, including movements toward objects, verbal intentions with movements toward objects, and verbal intentions. The students were able to obtain objects from classmates in 40% of their attempts and were most successful when they combined physical movements toward an object with a request, statement, or claim. The strategies used by the preschoolers and their rates of success varied between the sand, kitchen, and block areas in the two classrooms studied, with children obtaining the greatest success in the block area. The implications of this studys findings for intervention in the classroom by teachers or speech-language pathologists are discussed.

University students using augmentative and alternative communication in the USA: a demographic study

The purpose of this study was to collect demographic data reflecting the use of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) techniques by university students having disabilities relating to communication impairments who were enrolled in university programs in 1988-1989. Specifically, the objectives of the study were to: (1) identify the types of disabilities related to communication impairments reported on university campuses in 1988; (2) describe the professional services available to university students who are disabled; (3) tally the numbers of university students receiving speech-language pathology (SLP) services, in general, and AAC services in particular; and (4) summarize the AAC techniques used on university campuses. Through a self-administered, mail questionnaire 150 disabled student services programs across 42 states were surveyed. The response rate was 65 percent, with 98 programs within 38 states responding. Data summarizing types of disabilities related to communication impairment, prof...

Individuals from Diverse Cultural and Ethnic Backgrounds May Perceive Graphic Symbols Differently: Response to Nigam

The augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) literature includes little empirical data on cross-cultural research that can support current educational and clinical practices (Huer & Saenz 2002). One data-based study by Huer (2000) offered preliminary insight into perceptions of graphic symbols that may need to be addressed by researchers as well as service providers working with cross-cultural populations. Nigam challenged the results of the Huer (2000) study, and commented on the selection of lexical items and level of acculturation of the participants. Through this response, dialogue about the possible impact from culture on symbol research continues. Huer (2000) asked the question, ‘‘Will adults from African-American, Chinese, EuropeanAmerican, and Mexican cultural/ethnic communities assign similar translucency ratings to symbols from the three target symbol sets?’’ (p. 181). Based on a split-plot 4 (Ethnicity, the between subjects factor)6 3 (Symbol, the within-subjects factor) repeated measures analysis of variance, Huer reported significant main effects for Ethnicity, significant differences for Symbol set, and a non-significant Ethnicity6Symbol set interaction. Based on her preliminary findings, Huer concluded, ‘‘. . . culture/ethnicity had an impact on the translucency ratings assigned to symbols in three graphic symbols sets by participants in four groups. It appears from these data that individuals with different language and life experiences do not perceive graphic symbols in the same manner’’ (p. 183). In addition, Huer stated, ‘‘It is interesting to note the lack of an Ethnicity6 Symbol set interaction in the results, indicating a high degree of consistency across the ratings of the four participant groups’’ (p. 184). In summary, based on the significant main effects findings for ethnicity, Huer reported that ethnicity differences impacted perceptions of graphic symbols. She further reported the main effect finding that her participants’ ratings of the symbols were consistent; that is, ‘‘Overall, all four groups perceived PCS as the most translucent and Blissymbols as the least so’’ (p.183). Nigam, however, objected to Huer’s discussion of her findings, and noted that, ‘Since the result, however, indicated that there is no interaction between ethnicity and symbol set, this conclusion is not based on the data’ (p. 2). In essence, Nigam seemed to suggest that Huer should not have interpreted the main effect, either at all or as she did, because an interaction seemed implied by his view of the research. To check on possible interpretations of Nigam’s assessment of the relationship between Huer’s research question and the required statistical results, several experts who helped initially in refining the Huer analyses were again consulted (see author note). Despite attempts to identify any required interaction effect from the problem question, it seemed apparent that the problem statement only asserted a main effect. Though a creative reinterpretation of syntax might find an interaction implied in the project’s design, no interaction effect was necessarily the object of the explicitThe augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) literature includes little empirical data on cross-cultural research that can support current educational and clinical practices (Huer & Saenz 2002). One data-based study by Huer (2000) offered preliminary insight into perceptions of graphic symbols that may need to be addressed by researchers as well as service providers working with cross-cultural populations. Nigam challenged the results of the Huer (2000) study, and commented on the selection of lexical items and level of acculturation of the participants. Through this response, dialogue about the possible impact from culture on symbol research continues. Huer (2000) asked the question, ‘‘Will adults from African-American, Chinese, EuropeanAmerican, and Mexican cultural/ethnic communities assign similar translucency ratings to symbols from the three target symbol sets?’’ (p. 181). Based on a split-plot 4 (Ethnicity, the between subjects factor)6 3 (Symbol, the within-subjects factor) repeated measures analysis of variance, Huer reported significant main effects for Ethnicity, significant differences for Symbol set, and a non-significant Ethnicity6Symbol set interaction. Based on her preliminary findings, Huer concluded, ‘‘. . . culture/ethnicity had an impact on the translucency ratings assigned to symbols in three graphic symbols sets by participants in four groups. It appears from these data that individuals with different language and life experiences do not perceive graphic symbols in the same manner’’ (p. 183). In addition, Huer stated, ‘‘It is interesting to note the lack of an Ethnicity6 Symbol set interaction in the results, indicating a high degree of consistency across the ratings of the four participant groups’’ (p. 184). In summary, based on the significant main effects findings for ethnicity, Huer reported that ethnicity differences impacted perceptions of graphic symbols. She further reported the main effect finding that her participants’ ratings of the symbols were consistent; that is, ‘‘Overall, all four groups perceived PCS as the most translucent and Blissymbols as the least so’’ (p.183). Nigam, however, objected to Huer’s discussion of her findings, and noted that, ‘Since the result, however, indicated that there is no interaction between ethnicity and symbol set, this conclusion is not based on the data’ (p. 2). In essence, Nigam seemed to suggest that Huer should not have interpreted the main effect, either at all or as she did, because an interaction seemed implied by his view of the research. To check on possible interpretations of Nigam’s assessment of the relationship between Huer’s research question and the required statistical results, several experts who helped initially in refining the Huer analyses were again consulted (see author note). Despite attempts to identify any required interaction effect from the problem question, it seemed apparent that the problem statement only asserted a main effect. Though a creative reinterpretation of syntax might find an interaction implied in the project’s design, no interaction effect was necessarily the object of the explicit