a single case series of narrative interaction between children who use speech generating devices and...
TRANSCRIPT
A single case series of narrative interaction between children who use speech generating devices and their educational staff
Pippa Bailey*, Karen Bunning, Jan McAllister & Zoe Butterfint
IntroductionMe
Qualified Speech and Language TherapistPhD StudentLong interest in Special Needs and AAC through
work opportunities
The Telling Stories ProjectPhD Research Study - 3rd Year of studyAims: to investigate the co-construction of personal
and fictional narrative between pupils (aided speakers) and their teaching staff (natural speakers)
Why Narrative?Why Narrative?
Expression of personal and fictional stories from an early age
Sharing of experience
Central to the English Curriculum
Language is integral to the educational process
Fun!
Why Education?Why Education?Personal experience
Vital environment for development
Use of AAC is as dependent on the communication partner as it is on the user
The teacher is a primary conversation partner for children
MethodologySingle case series design
4 participants - 2 with cerebral palsy - 1 with ASD - 1 with congenital disorder
Teaching staff who have worked with each participant for over a term
2 data collection phases with 2 sessions1 fictional and 1 personal narrative at each sessionTotal of 4 fictional and 4 personal narratives per
participant
A Case ExampleParticipants:
J (AS) – 8 year old, diagnosis of ASD, had used a Tellus Mobi for 5 months (since Dec 2009)
SLT Report (Dec 2009): J will use 1 key word, can sequence with support and can categorise pictures 100% of the time
Teacher (NS) – Worked with AS 5 days a week since September 2009
Stimuli:Session 1: Fictional – The Squirrel Story (Black Sheep
Press Ltd.); Personal – A BirthdaySession 2: Fictional – The Bus Story (Renfrew); Personal –
A Xmas
J Session 1: Birthday
J Session 2: Bus Story
Findings – Communication Modality
Findings – Communication ModalityNarrative co-construction is multi-modal
The AS uses 10 different communication modalities during the narrative co-construction
The NS makes use of 11 communication modalities
Eye-gaze holds an important role in the interactionQuick way to check attention, understanding and
agreement
Communication is constantAt no point was there a neutral coding required, co-
construction required both partners to constantly be actively communicating
Clip 3 – Peter and the Cat
Findings – Linguistic MovesFrequency Distribution of Linguistic Moves in Fictional and
Personal Narratives
Findings – Linguistic MovesThe teacher takes
more initiation moves than the AS
AS shown to act more as respondent
The NS takes a higher total number of moves under both fictional and personal narrative conditions
Narrative being co-constructed by both partners
Fictional
Personal
AS
NS AS
NS
Total Preparation
0 1 0 0
Total Initiation
25 136 31 50
Total Response
61 58 36 38
Total Moves 86 195 67 88
Clip 4 – School
Types of vocabulary used
Notable differences between use of content words (nouns) and function words (verbs, conjunctions) were found
Verbs and descriptions were available to participants Ease of use frequently led to high use of content wordsGrammar and syntax were sometimes added by the NS
Personal FictionalSum Content Words 132 285Sum Function Words 4 10Sum Total Words 136 295Sum Different Words 67 98TTR 0.49 0.33
ConclusionsTotal communication may be helpful in the co-construction of
narrative
Far fewer function words are used than content wordsWhen programming vocabulary the balance of function and content
words must be considered
Both fictional and personal narrative are co-constructed using question and answers Possibly due to the complexity of creating narrative language either
naturally or on an AAC device
Despite the complexity of narrative even individuals with lower language ability can co-construct a basic narrative with support
Throughout data collection it has come across that co-construction of narrative is an enjoyable process for AS and NS
ReferencesReferences1. Soto, G. & Hartmann, E. (2006): Analysis of narratives
produced by four children who use augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Communication Disorders, 39(6), 456-480.
2. Beukelman, D. & Mirenda, P. (2005): Augmentative and Alternative Communication Supporting Children and Adults with Complex Communication Needs. Baltimore, Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
3. Light et al. (1985) Communicative interaction between young nonspeaking physically disabled children and their primary caregivers: Part III-modes of communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1(4), 125 - 133.
4. Brulle, A. & Repp, A.(1984): An investigation of the accuracy of momentary time sampling procedures with time series data. British Journal of Psychology 75(4), 481-488.
5. Encyclopaedia Britannica (2009): ‘Speech’ Retrieved 19/03/09, from http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9108588.
6. Argyle, M. (1975): Bodily Communication. London, Methuen & Co. Ltd.
References Cont’d…References Cont’d…7. Tomasello, M. (1995): Joint Attention as Social Cognition. In:
Moore, C. & Dunham, P. (Eds) Joint Attention. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 103 – 133.
8. Flewitt, R. (2006): Using video to investigate preschool classroom interaction: education research assumptions and methodological practices. Visual Communication 5(1), 25-50.
9. Harris, D. (1982): Communicative interaction processes involving non-vocal physically handicapped children. Topics in Language Disorders, 2 (2), 21-37.
10. Pennington, L. & McConachie, H. (1999): Mother-child interaction revisited: communication with non-speaking physically disabled children. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 34(4), 391 - 416.
11. Clarke, M. & Kirton, A. (2003): Patterns of interaction between children with physical disabilities using augmentative and alternative communication systems and their peers. Child Language Teaching & Therapy 19(2), 135-151.