Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE 4 Correlation Between Behaviors of Teachers and Students Discussion Teacher Behaviors This study describes the repair behaviors used by nonverbal students with developmental disabilities for the communication breakdowns occurring in their interaction with their teachers during free play activities. The percentage of repaired initiations ranged from 20% to 100% with a mean of 65.57%. This is consistent with earlier research demonstrating that students with developmental disabilities have the ability to repair communication in response to their teachers’ communication breakdowns (Brady et al., 1995; Keen, 2005). Another finding consistent with earlier studies is that nonverbal students with developmental disabilities use repetition the most and recast the least as communication breakdown strategies (Alexander et al., 1997; Calculator & Delaney, 1986; Golinkoff, 1986). However, Brady et al. (1995) reported more recasts than repetitions in their sample of nonverbal students with developmental disabilities; which indicates a difference between their findings and those of this study. That the students do not have a variety of communication behaviors in their inventories may be a reason for repetition to be the mostly-utilized strategy instead of recast. The students cannot judge if their message is understood by their teachers or not, and this may account for the higher frequency of repetition and no response over other strategies. It is widely known that individuals with developmental delays suffer from inadequacies of speech and language skills (Scudder & Tremain, 1992). Constrained by speech and language problems, these individuals face dif- Student Behaviors No Response Repetition Recast Addition Requesting Clarification .620 ** .629 ** No indication of Communication Breakdown .576 ** .420 * Topic Shift .538 ** Ignoring * p .05, ** p .01 .645 ** .636 ** ficulties in conveying, assessing, and repairing their messages (Scudder & Tremain). In terms of the relationships between communication repair strategies used by the students and the behaviors displayed by their teachers to indicate communication breakdowns, several moderate positive relations were observed. For example, moderate positive relations between requesting clarification by teachers and recasting by the students and between again requesting clarification by the teachers and addition by students, and finally once again between requesting clarification by the teachers and repetition by the students were found. From this, it is possible to conclude that the use of recast, addition, and repetition increases as the teachers require clarification from their students. Moderate positive relation between no indication of communication breakdown by the teachers and no response and repetition by the students were also observed. So, it will not be naive to state that no indication of communication breakdown increases the use of both no response and repetition. As the teachers displayed topic shift, the students used both recast and addition. This leads to the interpretation that topic shift by the teachers may cause frequent use of recast and addition strategies by the students. Furthermore, no relation was established between the ignoring behavior of teachers and any of the repair strategies. The overall interpretation of the correlation analysis might set forth that the teachers working with nonverbal students who are developmentally disabled should always indicate that the message is not understood and there is a communication Communication Breakdown / 407
eakdown whenever it is the case. Hence, the students may use one of the repair strategies in his/her inventory to make his/her message clearer. Although findings of the study are very encouraging, still there exist some limitations. The limitation of the study is that all the data were collected during free play; teachers employed a wide range of free play activities. For example, in one activity, a student just draws something at a desk, and another student looks at the pictures in a book with his/her teacher. Considering the density of interaction between the student and the teacher, we can say that there was little communicative interaction during the drawing activity. On the contrary, the student looking at a book with his/her teacher was given many more opportunities to communicate. Another limitation was the lack of student descriptions. In other words, individuals who are nonverbal may differ markedly one from another; so, it is critical to account for this variability. Therefore, the students with disabilities were described in as much in detail as possible to make it clear to readers that the students were chosen based on their teachers’ and speech and language pathologists’ observations. However, we did not provide results of standardized language and cognitive tests; because, there are no standardized language and cognitive tests in Turkey. In summary, the present results contributed to the literature in two ways. First, communication breakdowns and repairs were measured during real communication exchanged at school. Previous research focused on student responses to scripted communication breakdowns. Secondly, the study extends research to nonverbal students with developmental disabilities living in a different culture and learning a language other than English. Also, there are two implications, which should be helpful to teachers and parents. First, results provide information about effectiveness of different listener feedbacks or breakdowns to evoke participant’s repair behaviors. If people in the students’ environment are aware of them and use them, they will not fail to display repair behaviors. Therefore, they would successfully engage in communicative interactions. Second, parents and teachers should also remember that students with disabilities might not possess the skills to respond appropriately to the listener feedback in a communication situation, which is not motivating for the student. In planning intervention programs for communication problems, the teacher should prepare various motivating situations to evoke and encourage students’ communication and repair behaviors. References Alexander, D., Wetherby, A., & Prizant, B. (1997). The emergence of repair strategies in infants and toddlers. Seminars in Speech and Language, 18, 197– 212. Brady, N. C., & Halle, J. W. (2002). Breakdowns and repairs in conversations between beginning AAC users and their partners. In J. Reichle, D. R. Beukelman, J. C. Light (Eds.), Exemplary practices for beginning communicators implications for AAC, (pp.323–353). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co. Brady, N. C., McLean, L. K., & Johnston, S. (1995). Initiation and repair of intentional communication behaviors by adults with severe to profound cognitive disabilities. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 1334–1348. Brinton, B., & Fujiki, M. (1991). Reponses to requests for conversational repair by adults with mental retardation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 1087–1095. Calculator, S. N., & Delaney, D. (1986). Comparison of nonspeaking and speaking mentally retarded adults’ clarification strategies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 51, 252–259. Coggins, T. E., & Soel-Gammon, C. (1982). Clarification strategies used by four Down’s syndrome student for maintaining normal conversational interaction. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 17, 65–67. Geller, E. (1998). An investigation of communication breakdowns and repairs in verbal autistic student. The British Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 44, 71–85. Golinkoff, R. M. (1986). ‘I beg your pardon?’The preverbal negotiation of failed messages. Journal of Child Language, 13, 455–476. Halle, J. W., Brady, N., & Drasgow, E. (2004). Enhancing socially adaptive communicative repairs of beginning communicators with disabilities. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13, 43–54. Keen, D. (2005). The use of non-verbal repair strategies by children with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 243–254. McLean, J. E., McLean, L. K., Brady, N. C., & Etter, 408 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-September 2010
Page 1 and 2:
Education and Training in Autism an
Page 3 and 4:
Education and Training in Autism an
Page 5 and 6:
Manuscripts Accepted for Future Pub
Page 7 and 8:
dents in classes that included stud
Page 9 and 10:
TABLE 1 Summary Descriptors of Meli
Page 11 and 12:
tions were conducted at their work
Page 13 and 14:
her function more independently wit
Page 15 and 16:
eluctant to engage in interactions.
Page 17 and 18:
ehaviors were consistent with Phill
Page 19 and 20:
disabilities. Second, it has promot
Page 21 and 22:
youth with severe disabilities. Min
Page 23 and 24:
parents of students with intellectu
Page 25 and 26:
tributed to such PSE program compon
Page 27 and 28:
TABLE 2 Mean Scores of the 7 PSE Pr
Page 29 and 30:
that educators’ and parents’ po
Page 31 and 32:
gan, 1997). Despite the challenges
Page 33 and 34:
ing the total score of the Family A
Page 35 and 36:
with the identified factors being r
Page 37 and 38:
of a positive outlook has been docu
Page 39 and 40: Education and Training in Autism an
Page 41 and 42: TABLE 1 Demographic Characteristics
Page 43 and 44: ways in the same interviews where s
Page 45 and 46: In a number of comments, respondent
Page 47 and 48: practitioners assigned both issues
Page 51 and 52: eliability (r .92) and good inter-
Page 53 and 54: TABLE 2 EQCA Adaptive Behaviors: Me
Page 55 and 56: TABLE 5 ERDCP: Means, SDs, and t Te
Page 57 and 58: teen of these studies (90%) reveale
Page 59 and 60: practice may have had an influence
Page 63 and 64: ing to questions, (c) the learner f
Page 65 and 66: around a small instructional table
Page 67 and 68: TABLE 2 (Continued) 9. Guide studen
Page 69 and 70: TABLE 3 (Continued) Student Steps B
Page 71 and 72: TABLE 3 (Continued) Student Steps D
Page 73 and 74: esponding to errors by interrupting
Page 75 and 76: Figure 1. Teacher’s number of ste
Page 77 and 78: Figure 2. Number of inquiry skills
Page 79 and 80: TABLE 4 Results of Parent Survey It
Page 81 and 82: data was not simply an artifact of
Page 85 and 86: TABLE 1 Students’ Description Sub
Page 87 and 88: served a communicative function. In
Page 89: Descriptive Analysis The first rese
Page 95 and 96: stood attribution when two consecut
Page 97 and 98: within easy reach. The instructiona
Page 99 and 100: and provided Takao a pen with thin
Page 101 and 102: Figure 3. Percentages of correct re
Page 103 and 104: teacher whether we should fully hon
Page 107 and 108: components to be effective promptin
Page 109 and 110: ability (IQ 44, Stanford-Binet Inte
Page 111 and 112: TABLE 1 Task Analysis for Cooking R
Page 113 and 114: pographic); and (c) no response, ch
Page 115 and 116: Figure 2. Percentage of steps perfo
Page 117 and 118: Figure 4. Percentage of steps perfo
Page 119 and 120: ture audio feature of the PDA, but
Page 121 and 122: M. (1992). The effects of self oper
Page 125 and 126: TABLE 1 Stages of The Halliwick’s
Page 127 and 128: plete other steps (Tekin & Kɹrcaal
Page 129 and 130: Figure 1. Percentage of correct res
Page 131 and 132: Martin, J. (1981). The Halliwick Me
Page 133 and 134: systematic instruction to teach fou
Page 135 and 136: also extremely low with a standard
Page 137 and 138: Procedural reliability probes measu
Page 139 and 140: Discussion The purpose of this stud
Page 141 and 142:
(1986). Stanford-Binet Intelligence
Page 143 and 144:
focus on the important adults in th
Page 145 and 146:
cording to the current environment
Page 147 and 148:
that “she felt very inadequate in
Page 149:
tive research. (2 nd Ed.). New Jers
Page 152:
Search the entire archives of Educa
show all

Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?