Applying UX Design Concepts to the field of Speech-Language Pathology.
Role
UX Researcher, UX Designer, UI Designer
Tools
SIRAS Documenting System, Google Drive, GoogleSheets
Methods
User Research, Secondary Research, UI Design, Visual Design, Usability Testing, Prototyping
Timeline
4 weeks
Project Overview
As I have started to move away from the Speech-Language Pathologist (SLP) World and delve deeper into the UX Design world, I have learned that there are many overlapping similarities. One of the most obvious connections was that UX Design is also a field focused on empathy and understanding a client with needs, or in this case, a user. We are going to take a deeper look in the application of SLP work in UX Design! I am going to take you through one of 45 case studies I have worked with as an SLP in one of my school year experiences.
The Problem
The Special Education Team are the problem solvers support team on school campuses. What’s the problem? There is a population of individuals in the educational setting who have difficulty accessing their curriculum in class. And part of this may be due to issues with their communication, specifically their speech production and/or language production. SLPs are here to help unlock communication challenges and support these individuals in accessing their education through communication. Let’s take a look at a specific individual’s case.
This 23-24 school year I received several referrals for speech concerns. Among the several referrals was a referral for a young individual in one of the tk classrooms. It was very difficult for people to understand what this student was trying to communicate as this student’s speech production was highly unintelligible (how well an individual can be understood). This student, in turn, grew increasingly frustrated because people were constantly asking them to repeat what they said. Communication was hindered. But, how and why? Was it their language? Was it their speech sounds? What sounds, if so? Were they just shy?
The Solution
Identifying the disability or disorder (if any), understanding the impact on education, and providing appropriate strategies and supports to the student and teacher to improve communication within the classroom.
Go from this speech production:
“Then, dey wat to de man wif the fwoddy. And, they det the fwoddy bat.”
To this:
“Then, they walk to the man with the froggy. And, they get the froggy back.”
Research
Secondary Research, User Research
Define
Secondary Research
Ideate
Customer Journey Map, User Flow, Concept Map
Design
Sketching, Low-Fidelity Wireframes, High-Fidelity Wireframes, Interactive Prototype
Test
Usability Tests, Prioritizing Revisions, Iterations
Research
Research Goal
We want to know what challenges the young tk student is encountering in their communication that is impacting their access to education.
Research Objectives
Understand the challenges that the individual encounters in communication.
Identify what the need/deficit is, if any.
Determine what supports to put in place to help this student be successful in the education setting.
Research: the Need
Surveys, User Interviews, Standardized Assessments, Naturalistic Observations
I started with a survey (referral form) that gets sent to the teacher where she answers closed and open ended questions regarding her concerns for the student’s progress and performance.
After receiving input from the survey, I met with the teacher to review her concern. Then, I completed a Ethnographic Observation, where I unobtrusively gathered information by looking and listening in the classroom. This allowed me to observe the “target” student among other students and their performance/interactions within the classroom. Questions that I thought about while observing:
How was this student communicating? Verbalizing? Gestures? No engagement?
How did the student respond to the teacher when asked questions? Talkative and engaged? Or was this student covering their mouth and looking down? Did they avoid engaging in conversation?
How was this student engaging, socially? Did they have friends or were they alone majority of the time? (looking at social impact in education)
What did this student’s verbal communication tell me? Were there sounds produced in error? Could I understand what they were saying to others?
From this observation walking around the classroom listening to various students including this one, I could see the following:
The student covered their mouth when answering questions to the teacher or looked down and spoke more softly.
There were several sounds in error and the speech intelligibility (how well an individual is understood by their listener) was noticeably lower than their peers.
The student was less engaged with others.
From this information, I needed to know more. Why was this student less engaged? Is it because of their speech production? Why are they covering their mouth when talking? This referral warranted an evaluation to gather more information. I contacted the parent to sign an assessment plan. Once it was signed, I began standardized assessments, engaged in interviews, provided questionnaires and completed a ethnographic observation for the individual.
Interviews/Questionnaire
I contacted the various stakeholders, including the general education teacher and parent for the interviews. In these interviews, I asked questions such as the following:
What are your concerns? Articulation, or speech production? Language Production? Speech fluency?
When did you start noticing the concern?
What errors in the production are you seeing?
When is this error being produced?
Teacher’s input included: She could not understand what the student was saying. There were sounds that seemed to be produced in error, but she did not know what sounds. The speech production has not improved, and the error is all the time. Additionally, the student is starting to shut down in the classroom and showing signs of frustration being asked to repeat.
Parent’s input included: Parent could hear errors but is not sure if it is age appropriate or if her child will grow out of the sound production errors.
Student’s input included: They get frustrated sometimes when talking and especially when asked to repeat. They have a hard time saying the right sounds.
A health and development questionnaire was also provided to the parent to gain further understanding of the individual’s medical history, developmental milestones, etc.
Standardized Assessment
A speech standardized assessment was also administered to the student.
The Clinical Assessment of Articulation and Phonology 2nd Edition was used to assess the student’s articulation in initial, medial, final positions of words. It also looks at their articulation and sound use at the sentence level. The student obtained a standard score of <55 and a percentile rank in the <1 percentile when compared to their same-age peers in the consonant inventory section. They scored a standard score of <55 and a percentile rank in the <1 percentile when compared to their same-age peers in the school-age sentences section. The student’s errors primarily consisted of the following:
· Sound substitution of /d/ for /g/, example: “pid” for “pig”
· Sound substitution of /f/, /v/, or /d/ for “th”, example: “teef” for “teeth”
· Sound substitution of /t/ for /k/, example: “tage” for “cage”
· Sound substitution of voiced “th” for “ʒ” or “dʒ”, example: “cathe” for “cage”
· Interdental lisp for /s, z/, “sh”, “ch”
· Sound substitution of /n/ for “ng”, example: “kin” for “king”
· Sound substitution of /w/ for /r/ (or /o/ in final /r/ words), example: “wing” for “ring”
· Sound substitution of /w/ for /l/, example: “weaf” for “leaf”
· Sound omission of /l/ or /r/ in cluster words
It should be noted that errors on the /r/ and “th” sound are developmentally age appropriate at this time.
Naturalistic Observation
I also completed an observation of this student, specifically in their interactions and analyzed their speech production in a more natural context (the classroom). They appeared to produce sound errors in their connected speech with the /k, g/ sounds, omission of the /l/ sound in /l/ blend words, as well as substitutions for the /l/ sound not in blends, interdental lisp, and more. They were also asked to repeat their response at least 2-3 times in the classroom by the teacher. This student frequently covered her mouth with her hand when talking and looked down.
All of this information contributed similarly to a Gap analysis.
Gap Analysis
From the research, I was able to further analyze and determine the need. By synthesizing information similarly to a gap analysis, I was able to better understand the gap between the user’s/student’s needs and the expected performance within the classroom.
Define: POVs and HMWs
From the research collected, I was then able to develop a Point-of-View statement and “How Might We”statement. These insights reflect the user needs.
Point-of-View Statement:
I would like to explore ways to help this transitional kindergarten student with communication hindrances to access their education appropriately because there is a decrease in their participation in the classroom, ultimately affecting their academic progress.
How Might We Statement:
How might we help this transitional kindergarten student with communication hindrances to access their education appropriately?
How might we increase this transitional kindergartener’s participation in the classroom, ultimately improving their academic progress?
Ideate: Developing the Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
Similar to a heuristic evaluation, there are a set of guidelines, known as the Education Code (or law in education), that students must meet to qualify for speech-language impairment eligibility under an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Speech Language Pathologists use this to determine eligibility and guidance in the direction of supports for the student. The guidelines, or criteria, is as follows:
In order for a student’s testing results to meet qualifying criteria for participation in Special Education as a student with a Speech Language Impairment for articulation, the following must be found (All 5 elements must be met to establish eligibility):
1) The student exhibits reduced intelligibility or an inability to use the speech mechanism.
2) The student’s reduced intelligibility or an inability to use the speech mechanism significantly interferes with communication (that is the student’s production of single or multiple speech sounds on a developmental scale of articulation competency is below that expected of his or her chronological age or developmental level).
3) The student’s reduced intelligibility or inability to use the speech mechanism attracts adverse attention.
4) The student’s reduced intelligibility or an inability to use the speech mechanism adversely affects educational performance.
5) By reason of the disability, the student needs special education and related services.
Note: The student does not meet criteria for articulation disorder if the sole assessed disability is an abnormal swallowing pattern.
Using this criteria and assessment results, a big question was:
Does the student require support to the extent of an Individualized Education Plan or may their needs be met through Response to Intervention (RTI)?
In synthesizing all the information from testing, this tk student’s speech met all elements of eligibility, which allowed the student to receive an Individualized Education Plan. I designed a plan of action of what the supports for this student would look like moving forward to help them be successful in the classroom. I brainstormed various ideas and thoughts:
What should support look like for this student?
Does this require direct support or consultative?
Group therapy or individual therapy?
Push-in service or pull-out service?
What goals would we target?
Are accommodations needed within the classroom?
“Prototype”: Developing the Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
With the results from testing and observations with this student, I was able to then gather solutions for next steps- the “prototyping”, where I created a “product”, or plan, of what this student’s supports would look like moving forward to help support their speech need. This was designed through a documentation system. In this system, I designed a program for this student that included speech goals, services and supports needed for this student to progress and support them in accessing their education.
Usability Testing
What better way to perform usability testing other than with that actual client? Once this IEP is created, a meeting is held to discuss assessment results, speech language impairment eligibility, and future supports. The team was in agreement with the contents of this IEP, and as a result, this initiated the plan. Services began.
As I began to work with this student, I noted where they were making success with sounds and where it was more challenging. I first focused therapy on where they were most successful. For example, I noticed the student was not stimulable for the /k, g/ sounds. I had to start with these sounds in isolation and with modeling. I was not about to start working to get these sounds produced at word level as this may cause increased frustration early on since the student was unable to produce them just at isolation level.
Once this student was able to master these sounds in isolation, I encouraged the production in syllables (i.e. “kah”, “kee”, “gah”, “goo”). This student was able to produce these syllables accurately pretty quickly. After about 2-3 sessions, we moved forward putting these sounds in complete words. It appeared that the speech support of 2 times per week and 30 minute sessions each in group pull-out were working and effective.
Fortunately, the IEP is a working document, so it may be iterated upon as many times as necessary or appropriate to best meet the student’s needs. With that in mind, every year there is an annual IEP meeting where goal updates are shared and new or updated goals/services are discussed. This is where the “product” may go through multiple iterations.
Iterations
Analyzing Results and Prioritizing Iterations
Ideally, if this student’s progress continues to advance this way, I would suggest some updates at the next annual IEP meeting around new goals to reflect their performance level. I would suggest typically prioritizing iterations around goals and service minutes. For this student specifically, I would update the goals and most likely maintain the service minutes as this student has multiple goals to focus on, and they are of younger age. This iteration may look like the following (depending on progress monitor input prior to their annual IEP date):
Key Takeaways
One significant highlight from this experience was realizing that design is truly in everything! It was eye-opening to see how much the world of speech-language pathology could transfer into UX design. For the past six plus years, I had already been applying UX design principles within the SLP field. The process of transitioning my SLP skills to UX design was incredibly insightful!
Next Steps
In the speech world, “iterations” do become “complete” when a student meets mastery level on all their goals, performs average in assessment, and is able to access their education adequately.
I would make adjustments to the goals and services at the next annual IEP meeting for this student as necessary.