Category Archives: Conferences

Dissemination, revision of the Symbol Manager System and the beginning of Dictionary building.

virginia creeper

Virginia Creeper in October

Summer has faded in the UK with autumn bringing in rain showers, wind and turning leaves. We have begun the task of telling people about the Arabic Symbol Dictionary at conferences with paper and poster presentations. At ICCHP 2014 the Project Possibility University of Southampton students presented Symbol Dragoman using the symbol and word lists already gathered for the symbol dictionary along with the Tatoeba lists.  This was followed up by Communication Matters 2014 where we had a poster and will be writing a paper. We have also just heard that we have been accepted for poster and paper presentations at TechShare Middle East, the Qatar Foundation Annual Research Conference (ARC’14) and RAATE 2014.

 

ict qatar

ICT Qatar

In Qatar, Nadine joined the research team with Mada as a speech and language therapist whilst also supporting AAC users at the Shafallah Center and Dana has come on board as a graphic designer just when we need to be thinking about logos, leaflets, updated posters and beginning the task of adapting or adding to the symbol set we wish to use. The ARASAAC team have kindly agreed to collaborate with us on the task of using their creative commons licensed symbols where appropriate for the dictionary. This was discussed as a result of the voting that took place in June and July.

During August and September Nadine and Tullah have been researching the issues around gathering core vocabularies in Arabic that are suitable for AAC users as well as considering the concerns around the enhancement of literacy skills which are challenged by the diglossic nature of Arabic.  Levin et al (2008) mention the fact that “research has shown that the linguistic distance between Standard Arabic, the language of print, and spoken Arabic vernacular, the oral language of children challenges the acquisition of reading in Arabic (Abu-Rabia, 2000; Saiegh-Haddad, 2003a, 2004, 2005, 2007a).”   It appears to affect all aspects including “lexicon, syntax, morphology and phonology”.  It is felt that by offering sound patterns of lexical entries (with the use of recorded and synthesised text to speech) this could support carers and teachers of speech impaired individuals when working on literacy skill acquisition.

modules of language

Reproduced under fair use Copyright © 1999 Stephen Pinker (Mark McConville and Henry S. Thompson, 2 February 2012)

So discussions have continued around phonemic segmentation and how this will be represented in the dictionary for both Arabic and English with the result of changes being made to the symbol manager system. It appears that in Arabic the phonemic segmentation can be generated almost automatically with the help of some clever computer coding as long as the diacritics are in place – that is according to Nawar!

Levin et al  have cited several researchers in their comment that the sub-syllabic level (Consonant Vowel level (CV)) in Arabic phonemic segmentation is more easily learnt compared to any other way of encouraging phonemic awareness.   A study with bilingual children by i Saiegh-Haddad & Geva  (2008) showed that being able to sound out parts of words when learning to read was equally important in Arabic as in English.  However, when it comes to deciding which section in a word forms a phonemic segment there is a rather more torturous route for English words which will require manual entry for consonant blends and digraphs etc.  Spaces between the segments will be used when adding words to the Symbol Manager.

symbol manager phonemic segmentationAs a result of the changes made to the system the team at Southampton university have been beta testing the latest version. Early trials have been completed and the system is ready for the addition of new lexical entries with definitions, sentences for context, categorise for browsing and searching, parts of speech and the extra field for phonemic segmentation. New symbols can be added with categories such as monochrome, colour and gender. All items will be distinguished by their language English, Modern Standard Arabic and Qatari. The latest version is faster and accesssible using mouse, keyboard only or touch screen. Nawar has worked hard to make it as flexible as possible and it is now ready for further testing using a simple check list – download MS Word doc Beta Testing Symbol Manager v1 .  We have also used  the SUS evaluation scale (Brooke, 1996).  Taking an iterative approach with the participation of as many interested parties as possible we have setup up logins for the Symbol Manager System and will be reacting to any feedback we receive from those involved with the project.

References

Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A.
Weerdmeester, & A. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability Evaluation in Industry. London: Taylor
and Francis.

Levin, I., Saiegh-Haddad, E., Hende, N., & Ziv, M. (2008). Early literacy in Arabic: An intervention study among Israeli Palestinian kindergartners. Applied Psycholinguistics. Accessed 12th October 2014, http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1899796

Saiegh-Haddad, E., & Geva, E. (2008). Morphological awareness, phonological awareness, and reading in English-Arabic bilingual children. Reading and Writing, 21(5), 481–504.  Accessed 12th October 2014  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11145-007-9074-x

Communication Matters Conference 2014

Chris Abbott at the poster

Chris Abbott discussing the poster

Communication Matters 2014 was a really interesting conference with many topics related to the work on the Arabic Symbol Dictionary and a chance to test some of our ideas related to phonic awareness and the lexical entries. There was also time to catch up with many of the experts in the field as can be seen from the list of presentations.

In most talks there was an assurance that the slides presented would be available on the Communication Matters website in the coming weeks.

Chris Abbott, as an Advisory Group member, took time out to discuss the poster as did Alasdair King from ClaroSoftware and many others who were passing.   I learnt more from the Barnsley Assistive Technology team and Marion Stanton – both giving very interesting talks.

links to development skillsAndrea Kirton and Simon Judge talked about their Phonic Screen ideas for “Using Phonemes to Construct Utterances for Aided Communication”. This was mentioned in the previous blog but here you can see from one of their slides that they see presenting phonemes with speech output as supporting many essential developmental skills.

Mindexpress phonics

Mindexpress with phonics

There is a useful booklet developed by Lancashire Primary Literacy team (download PDF) that highlights the complexities of gaining phonemic awareness in English and this was also debated in Marion Stanton’s very thought provoking presentation.  She stressed the need to think about presenting text instead of symbols in particular where there were abstract words that were often seen with totally unrelated images for the word such as ‘equals’ for ‘is’ or ‘are’.   Marion said input and output must achieve “Time, energy and effort efficiency”.  She discussed the idea of using  phonics on Grid 2 as a bridge to synthetic phonics with one student who is now taking A’levels.   This was also shown by TechCess in Mindexpress 4.

grid3Grid 3 developed by Sensory Software was also demonstrated by Barney Hawes with its new Windows 8 look that complements the free download of Grid Player   Grid 3 allows for editing on a tablet or other touch screen device and has the Microsoft Office type ribbon – it also possible remotely edit and update grids.

 

Jennifer Marden from Assistiveware who develop Prologquo2Go gave a helpful presentation which she has kindly shared called “Teaching with Core Words” (Download PDF) – she listed a number of references that can be found below.

Finally whilst following tweets from the Ace Centre I learnt about a very useful clinical guidance document from the Australian Speech Pathologists  which covers some of the ethical issues we have discussed such as consent forms.

 

References

Balandin, S., & Iacono, T. (1998). A few well-chosen words. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 14(September), 147–161.!

Balandin, S., & Iacono, T. (1999). Crews, Wusses, and Whoppas: Core and Fringe Vocabularies of Australian Meal-Break Conversations in
the Workplace. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 15(June), 95–109.!

Banajee, M., Dicarlo, C., & Buras Stricklin, S. (2003). Core Vocabulary Determination for Toddlers. Augmentative and Alternative
Communication, 19(2), 67–73.!

Beukelman, D., Jones, R., & Rowan, M. (1989). Frequency of word usage by nondisabled peers in integrated preschool classrooms.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5(4), 243–248.!
❖ Beukelman, D. R., Yorkston, K., Poblete, M., & Naranjo, C. (1984). Frequency of Word Occurrence in Communication Samples Produced
by Adult Communication Aid Users. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49(November), 360–367.!

Clendon, S., & Erickson, K. (2008). The vocabulary of beginning writers: implications for children with complex communication needs.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(4), 281–93.!

Fried-Oken, M., & More, L. (1992). An initial vocabulary for nonspeaking preschool children based on developmental and environmental
language sources. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 8(March).!

Lahey, M., & Bloom, L. (1975). Planning a First Lexicon: Which Words to Teach First. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 340–351.!

Marvin, C., Beukelman, D. R., & Bilyeu, D. (1994). Vocabulary-Use Patterns in Preschool Children: Effects of Context and Time Sampling.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10(December), 224–236.!

Van Tatenhove, G. M. (2009). Building Language Competence With Students Using AAC Devices: Six Challenges. Perspectives on
Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18(2), 38–47.!

Yorkston, K., Dowden, P., Honsinger, M., Marriner, N., & Smith, K. (1988). A comparison of standard and user vocabulary lists.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4(4), 189–210.!

Yorkston, K. M., Beukelman, D. R., Smith, K., & Tice, R. (1990). Extended communication samples of augmented communicators. II:
Analysis of multiword sequences. The Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55(2), 225–30.!

Yorkston, K. M., Smith, K., & Beukelman, D. (1990). Extended communication samples of augmented communicators. I: A comparison of
individualized versus standard single-word vocabularies. The Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55(2), 217–24.

 

Speech Pathology Australia (2012). Augmentative and Alternative Communication Clinical
Guideline. Melbourne: Speech Pathology Australia. Accessed 22/09/2014  http://www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au/library/Clinical_Guidelines/24072012%20FINAL%20Augmentative%20and%20Alternative%20Communication%20Cl.pdf