Tegler, H., & Pilesjö, M. S. (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 Therapy, 39(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/02656590231174604
This ethnomethodological multi-modal conversation analysis study examined the communicative competence and agency of a 19-year-old student with cerebral palsy and intellectual disabilities during morning meetings at school in two conditions, using a single-message or a multi-message speech generating device (SGD). When provided a single-message device, progressivity was preserved in the student’s ability to respond in a timely manner but his agency was limited because there is only one option to produce on the SGD. When provided a multi-message device, progressivity was challenged because of prolonged composition time. While a multi-message device increased agency relative to a single-message device, the student’s agency was still restricted due to the fact that options were restricted due to his inability to access them with eye-gaze technology. When the student was assigned the role of “teacher”, he was provided more opportunities for taking a turn, displaying communicative competence, and exhibiting agency than when he was assigned the role of “student”. A variety of adult behaviors were attributed to be scaffolding practices: moving the SGD to signal it as the preferred response, making the next contribution relevant and well-timed by pointing to the preferred symbol, holding the response space for the aided speaker by dealing with interrupting peers in quiet side-sequences, providing deontic constructions for other-initiated self-repairs after identifying a contribution as problematic, and using meta-cognitive descriptions to hold space for the student’s turn (e.g., “difficult to choose”).