This comprehensive investigation, involving 15 educational professionals and 8 students using AAC devices, uncovered several significant patterns:
Special Education Teachers (53.3% of participants) largely rely on self-directed learning for AAC implementation, highlighting a critical gap in formal training support (Downey et al., 2004)
Speech Language Therapists (26.7%) maintain structured, continuous professional development, demonstrating a stark contrast in professional support systems (ASHA, 2022)
Administrative staff (13.3%) lack formal AAC training but focus on broader educational outcomes, suggesting a systemic disconnect (Coleman, 2020)
A notable disparity exists between implementation responsibilities and training support (Schreiber & Valle, 2013)
Students with cross-environmental support (home and school) showed significantly better communication success (Diamnte, 2019)
Prompted communication consistently yielded higher success rates than independent communication, supporting previous findings (SpeechEase, 2021)
Experience duration with AAC devices didn't necessarily correlate with communication success, challenging traditional assumptions (ASHA, 2022)
The highest-performing students achieved 100% success in prompted interactions, demonstrating the potential of comprehensive support systems (Downey et al., 2004)
Limited formal training opportunities for primary implementers (Coleman, 2020)
Inconsistent professional development infrastructure (Schreiber & Valle, 2013)
Gap between theoretical approaches and practical application (Hourcade et al., 2004)
Need for more structured support systems (ASHA, 2022)
This study highlights the critical need for systematic changes in AAC implementation, particularly in professional development and support structures (Diamnte, 2019; SpeechEase, 2021). The findings suggest that successful AAC implementation requires a comprehensive approach involving both school and home environments (ASHA, 2022; Coleman, 2020).