Aim and Objectives
This study investigates the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of shadow teachers regarding Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) in inclusive classrooms across Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. The key objectives were to:
* Assess shadow teachers’ knowledge of AAC strategies, including both low-tech and high-tech tools.
* Examine their attitudes toward AAC use in inclusive education contexts.
* Evaluate their current AAC implementation practices and identify perceived barriers.
Methods
A cross-sectional mixed-methods approach was employed using a convergent parallel design. In Phase I, a 30-item KAP questionnaire was developed, divided equally among Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices. Each section comprised five quantitative and five qualitative items. The tool was validated by five experts in AAC and inclusive education, achieving a Content Validity Index (CVI) of 1.00.
In Phase II, 100 shadow teachers were selected from all eight private inclusive schools in Chennai that met the inclusion criteria. These schools represent the total population of structured shadow teacher support in this LMIC context. Participants were selected via purposive total population sampling. Data were collected through in-person structured interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS version 26, applying descriptive statistics and linear regression to assess domain relationships. Qualitative responses were evaluated using Hsieh and Shannon’s three-stage summative content analysis, supported by dual coding for enhanced credibility.
Data saturation was monitored for thematic redundancy, though not used as a sampling criterion due to the census-like sample.
Results
Quantitatively, 74% of shadow teachers were familiar with low-tech AAC tools such as visual schedules and picture boards, while only 29% had experience using high-tech tools like speech-generating devices. Although 82% expressed positive attitudes toward AAC, just 35% consistently implemented it. Linear regression revealed a significant correlation between knowledge and practice domains (p < 0.01), indicating that better knowledge predicted higher implementation.
Qualitative findings revealed systemic challenges such as insufficient collaboration with speech-language pathologists and lack of structured training. Teachers often acquired AAC knowledge informally—via peers, YouTube, or personal experimentation—highlighting institutional training gaps.
These results are interpreted through the lens of the KAP model and implementation science, contextualized within LMIC realities. They echo previous calls for culturally responsive AAC practices (Rix et al., 2009; Sharma et al., 2013).
Discussion
The findings emphasize the need for formal, context-sensitive AAC training to bridge the gap between positive attitudes and actual classroom use. Barriers like limited resources, culturally inappropriate AAC tools, and weak interprofessional collaboration hinder effective implementation. Interdisciplinary efforts, particularly involving speech-language pathologists, are critical for successful AAC integration. These insights contribute to the design of future policies and training programs targeting paraeducators in under-resourced inclusive education systems.
