Frequently I am asked by students or others about resources related to the iPad and apps. It’s increasingly becoming a bigger and bigger question. This is a series of information that I commonly extend:
>> Relative to the iPad as a platform (the hardware), I recently learned of a video that may support efforts when working with the iPad (or other iOS technologies). It’s just under a half-hour long, and reviews the settings and features of the system, not any particular app. For example, they review how to use Guided Access and other Accessibility settings (such as “Zoom”). It is more specifically directed for parents and teachers working with individuals who have autism spectrum disorders, but certainly the features may be appropriate for any variety of learners/communicators: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qQkyrdBcSc&feature=share.
>> The QIAT listserv community compiled a reference for the iPad which reviews its features — it considers demands ranging from required motor skills, implications for individuals with vision impairment, and cost. This can be found by searching the archives, and their website (http://indicators.knowbility.org/) generally has tons of useful information.
>> Penn State’s technology department has also pulled together a variety of resources at: http://www.hhd.psu.edu/iss/training/training.html#ipad
>> Two: using the iPad should have careful consideration about the implications for the interaction; and, specific to intervention, the teaching piece. Positioning the iPad (or other technology, such as a laptop running Powerpoint or Keynote), changes the dynamic between client(s) and clinician: there is now a third thing to direct and share attention between. Are the two persons now looking down at it instead of at each other, and how does this change the priorities of the SLP re: communication as an act inherently intended to connect between people? One strategy to preserve more natural face-to-face interaction may be to position the technology held by the clinician at about heart level facing the client; which requires some manual dexterity and stamina on the part of the clinician, likely occupies both hands (pointing? sign? data collection?), and means she/he will probably have to look at the materials upside down. Who controls the buttons? Are clients allowed to touch the screen, and what are the boundaries established regarding how hard buttons/screens may be touched? In terms of teaching, how does the SLP apply visual or gesture references, such as pointing with the iPad or other touch screen technologies without incidentally activating the screen. I had put forward one idea relative to Instructional Materials related to this challenge in the Resources (password, “m4ter14ls”), search under “iPad.” My primary point with all of these questions is I feel strongly that there are implications with using the iPad that need to be considered carefully.
>> “There’s no question that Apps have taken the field of Speech-Language Pathology by storm, but I have huge concerns about *how* they are being found/used. Two, the most important thing in my mind is that the app remains a *tool* not the whole point. For assessment/intervention, using an app should be a component of an interaction. It should matter whether or not another person is in the room (it’s not just an idle activity which has no social component); and if we’re using it, it should matter that that person is an SLP. It is *not* enough that apps are fun or convenient.
>> Apps for SLPs can be categorized in 4 groups: (1) specific to SLP use, targeting a communication skill; (2) re-purposed from some other area (e.g., literacy), and used in intervention for targeting a communication skill; (3) motivational only, having no particular relationship to communication; (4) for collecting and interpreting data.
>> Why an app is selected for an intervention should be based on Evidence Based Practice, or EBP. This is the intersection of available evidence/research/theory, the clinician’s personal expertise/experience, and the particulars of the client’s skills and needs. If there is an imbalance from these components, it will impact the effectiveness of the intervention. For example, if an app is being used because it’s the one the clinician is most familiar with and there is no research base which connects to the design/approach of the app, and it isn’t fit to the unique individual profile of the client, it *may* be something that client will learn from; HOWEVER, it will take much longer, and demonstrate less functional generalization. That is, it will not be as effective as it could be if there was better balance among the components of EBP.
>> Clinical instructors for practical experiences (aka, supervisors and mentors), may also find value in a great article about a protocol for clinical supervision which includes app decision-making that was published in the April Perspectives for Administration and Supervision –Technology: Project Using iPads for Clinical Supervision by Karen Brown, Akilah Heggs, and Katie Milican. Their tool for structuring and documenting the process of why an app is selected and how it will be used strikes me as hitting the key points without being overwhelming.
>> ASHA has a ton of information on their website, but I specifically want to call attention to an ASHA Leader article which talks about EBP for selecting apps is: http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2012/120731/APP-titude–Use-the-Evidence-to-Choose-a-Treatment-App.htm Unfortunately, this is just a bare-bones article, but it does give the basic structure of the author’s recommendation. The authors have also put together a two-part series of information on EBP app selection through www.speechpathology.com, both of which I found to be very helpful.
>> Specific to AAC issues, Dr. Light and Dr. McNaughton very recently published “The iPad and Mobile Technology Revolution: Benefits and Challenges for Individuals who require Augmentative and Alternative Communication Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07434618.2013.784930. The http://aac-rerc.psu.edu website also has the White Paper on these issues, and is worth knowing about.
>> I also strongly encourage folks to watch this free webcast on Mobile Devices and Communication Apps: Current Trends and Future Directions (http://aac.psu.edu/?p=841). There is also a link to Boston Children’s Hospital which has good information about this process, and a feature matching toolhttp://www.childrenshospital.org/clinicalservices/Site2016/mainpageS2016P19.html
>> Blog/article regarding communication and language apps: http://speechdudes.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/stop-with-the-little-words-grab-bag-in-aac/ It’s very much in keeping with what has been talked about at PSU & Colloquium for some time now relative to how *language* is represented and organized (although with a spunky hipster tone) and he makes a well-reasoned, succinct, and impassioned point.
>> http://www.speechtechie.com/ is one example of site that has considerable information about using mobile technologies. It is written by an SLP who works in the schools and his “FIVES” criteria may give some structure to deciding what apps may be worth an SLPs time. He also oversees a Google.docs collection of apps relevant to SLPs. Since the “F” in his acroynym refers to Free (or nearly free), these tend to be very cost effective. Of course, none of these apps replace effective, thoughtful, data-based intervention. Recently he had a thorough discussion on how to manage the iPad’s digital space.
>> As “review” lists go, I think this one has some positive aspects and is better than many I’ve seen http://www.spectronicsinoz.com/article/iphoneipad-apps-for-aac)
>> This is a slightly different perspective on Apps (originally developed for Elementary education): But I do find Harry Walker’s work in the Baltimore schools interesting and I think his rubric does a tremendous job for educational Apps (article at http://embedit.in/Wp28yIHnc2.swf, rubric itself at: http://iteachthererforeipod.blogspot.com/2011/11/evaluation-rubric-for-ipodipad-apps.html)
>> Finally, relative to out-standing or underdiscussed issues for me: I feel somewhat nervous about the notion of people using their personal technologies for assessment and intervention. I don’t know what the legal responsibilities are; for example, if an SLPs personal iPad gets damaged by a client/student, who pays for that? If an SLP in a school uses an iPad with a student, could the parents therefore have reasonable grounds to petition the school to buy the student one (clearly the SLP already places a value on it…); or, alternatively, if a client/student brings in a Mobile Technology of their own (which is increasingly common), whose responsiblity is it to program/maintain it? I have not found what I consider to be sufficient discussion on these kinds of issues to help guide SLPs to know how best to respond.
>> Hopefully that will give you a place to start! I know that this is a lot to take in, but be patient and strategic with yourself and your time.
>>Thanks,
j.
>> p.s. At less than a minute long, it’s definitely worthwhile to check out Sesame Street’s, “There’s an App for that”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhkxDIr0y2U
End blip.