IResearch Report. The Importance of Shared Communication Forms

Transcription

1 IResearch Report The Importance of Shared Communication Forms Susan M. Bruce Children who are deaf-blind and express themselves at the presymbolic to early symbolic levels of communication reqluire responsive adults who are able to recognize their communicative attempts and converse in a range of communication forms, inchliding concrete forms like body language. Conversation at this or any level necessitates access to the communication partner's expressive forn and a sharing of mutual forms of communication. The communicative attempts of children who express themselves at the presymiibolic to early symbolic level of communication may be difficult to recognize (Butterfield & Arthur. 1995). Houghton, Bronicki, and Guess (1987) found that school staff responded to only 7%- 15%/o of students' initiations of communicationi. In addition to recognition is the need to respond in a form that is accessible to the child. Stilhlman and Battle (1987) studied the communication of classroom personnel with 30 students with severe disabilities, including 14 who were deafblind. They found that more than 50% of the staff's communications were verbal, although almost half the children could not hear. This study provided evidence of the severe mismatch that often exists between adults' and students' forms of coinmunication. Another concern is that classroom personnel sometimes insist that a child communicate in sign language or another abstract lormii even when they understand the child's message. expressed in a more concrete form (Ferguson, 1994). This insistence violates the principle that the individual's use of a variety of communication forms should be respected (Calculator, 1988). METHODS The study reported here addressed the following questions related to form: What forms of communication will teachers and students use? How frequently will each form be expressed'? Will teachers' expressions be accessible to children'? Will teachers demand that the students express the same message in a more abstract form? Settings and participants The participants represented a nonrandom sample. The student participants were congenitally deaf-blind and intentional communicators who expressed themselves at the presymbolic to early symbolic level of communication. Intenlioadl was defined as having an impact on the commiiunication partner. Early symbolic was detined as utterances of no more than two-word combinations in any form. The teacher participants were university prepared in an area other than deaf-blindness. Neither the teachers nor the studenits were familiar with the author. Site I included two students, Ron, aged eight, and Susie, aged seven. The etiologies of both Ron's and Susie's deaf-blindness were unknowni. Ron had no functional vision or light perception and a profound, sensorineural hearing loss. Susie was legally blind due to suspected cortical blindness, with a moderate sensor-ineural hearing loss, and was not wearing hearinig aids. The teacher, Marty, was certified in general education and mental disability and had five years' experience in special education teaching and 15 months' experience with the participant children. Marty's classroom consisted of nine children with visual impairments and additional disabilities. The student in Site 2, Calvin, was 12 years old and congenitally deaf-blind because of neonatal adrenoleukodystrophy. He had no lunctional vision or light perception and had a severe-to-profound unaided hearing loss. Calvin was augmented with a body aid that enabled him to hear speech, although his hearing fluctuated. His teacher, Karen, was certified in general 106 Jouralorlf vimaol Io1wairme1oi & lblindness, February 20(13 (02(003 AFB, All Rights Reserved

2 education and deaf education and had six years' teaching experience in deaf education. She had worked with two children who were deaf-blind, although only three months with Calvin. Karen was responsible for the instruction of five deaf students, who frequently left the room for inclusive classes, and a paraprofessional was responsible for most of Calvin's instruction. Procedure Interaction in both sites was observed and videotaped on four occasions, for two hours each, with dates and times selected by the teacher. All interactions with the participant children were videotaped and transcribed in their entirety. The videos were transcribed, leaving a space for every 15-second pause to indicate the termination of an interaction. Expressive forms were coded according to a priori categories, such as body language, signs, verbalization, and vocalization. Combined categories emerged as they were expressed by the participants. The coding "body language" denoted all communication expressed on the body, including facial expression. The total number of teachers' and students' messages were counted. Expressions were also rated as being accessible or inaccessible to the intended communication partner. Transcripts were examined for examples of teachers' demands for repeated expression in a more abstract form. Interventions The four observation periods included one preintervention session and three sessions that followed a four-hour in-service series on communication intervention. In-service goals related to form included the selection of appropriate expressive and receptive forms of communication; recognizing a child's expressive attempts across forms; the role of adults as models and in creating opportunities for communication; and the application of forms, such as name symbols and daily schedules. The participants were given an in-service information packet that emphasized the same ideas. In addition, on-site coaching was provided for three two-hour sessions. The researcher selected intervention strategies that were relevant to each s:te, such as the modeling of name symbol use. Teachers also requested modeling of strategies presented in the inservice series. A more complete description of the interventions is available from the author. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Questions I and 2 What forms of communication will teachers and students with deaf-blindness use? How frequently will each form be expressed? Table I reports the total number of messages expressed by each participant. Note that Marty's name appears twice. The first column depicts her communication with Ron, and the second depicts her communication with Susie. Ron's primary expressive and receptive form was body language. He was observed using the form of gesture, specifically, a head shake for no twice, and eight vocalizations. He also verbalized "mama" as a call for attention on one occasion. Ron was dependent on others to initiate conversation with him because he could not hear their presence. Body language alone and verbalizations alone were Marty's most frequent forms of expressive communication when interazting with Ron, although she was likely to express them in single, rather than combined, forms. Marty's level of interaction was higher with Ron because she identified herself as his preferred person and the program had been designed so that she delivered most of Ron's insiruction. Marty introduced tangible symbols in follow-up Session 2 but had not yet made the transition to thinking about accessibility. She held up the tactile display, but gave only several children the opportunity to touch the symbols, including Ron. Susie's most frequently used expressive form was vocalization, which she often used in an at AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal sf Visual Impairment & Blindness, February

3 Table I Expressive forms across all four sessions. Ron Marty Susie Marty Calvin Karen (with Ron) (with Susie) Bodylanguage Body language, coactive Vocalization Body language and vocalization Body language and verbalization Gesture Object Object and verbal Verbal-AAC Verbalization Coactive sign Coactive sign and verbal Total expressive communications tempt to draw others into her physical space. Most of Susie's verbalizations were expressed while using two augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices. In addition, she verbalized "ma" once. She also exhibited a meaningful nod on two occasions (in response to questions from the staff), although she did not consistently respond to yes-and-no questions. Marty's most common expressive form when interacting with Susie was verbalization. Most of her verbalizations were accessible to Susie, although background noise occasionally interfered. Hearing aids would increase accessibility. Most of Calvin's expressions were in the forms of body language or verbalization, although the verbalizations represente(d frequent repetitions of a few intelligible words, such as "OK" and "yeah." Calvin was observed to shake his head no, but he did not nod his head yes. He sometimes imitated the number of syllables that others verbalized by expressing in vocalizations. Some of Calvin's vocalizations were used for specific functions and may have been content specific. For example, Calvin consistently used the vocalization "Ahh" to call for attention. Before the in-service sessions and coaching, Karen's expressions were limited to the verbal form only. In fact, across the sessions, 96 of her 103 expressions were in the verbal form only, although she increased the frequency and length of interactions during the study. Karen was more likely to initiate conversations with Calvin. which was not surprising because Calvin was accustomed to interacting most often with his paraeducator of nine years. Question 3 Will teachers' expressions be accessible to childreni? Whereas Marty reported using total coimimiunication, she actually used multiple forms but was I ikely to use them in isolation, rather than in combination. Of all her communications, 40%, were verbalizations and were inaccessible to Ron. an(d 57% of her communications with Susie were verbalizations. Similarly, 93% of Karen's messages were expressed in verbal form. These tindings replicated Stillman and Battle's (1987) finding that more than 50% of teachers' communications were inaccessible and that teachers' use of forms was inconsistent. Question 4 Will teachers demand that the students express the same message in a more abstract form? 108 Journal of Wstal Impairmnent & Blindtiess. February 2003 (02003 AFB, All Rights Reserved

4 The teachers in this study did not demand that the students should repeat a message in a more abstract form. Their requests for repetition were entirely due to a need for clarification, and they most often achieved this end by verbalizing a question or by reoffering a choice through body language. In addition, Karen posed verbal choices of syllables of different lengths, giving Calvin an opportunity to imitate the same number of syllables through vocalization. CONCLUSION The teachers in this study were highly responsive to the students, although physical preoccupation with other students occasionally prevented them from being able to provide responses in accessible forms. They struggled with expressing themselves in forms that were accessible to the children. Future research is needed to identify contextual features that interfere with teachers' recognition of and response to students' initiations. Future research is also needed to examine variables that interfere with teachers' use of accessible forms. IREFERENCES Butterfield, N., & Arthur, M. (1995). Shifting the focus: Emerging priorities in communication programming for students with a severe intellectual disability. Communication Programming, 30, Calculator, S. (1988). Promoting the acquisition and generalization of conversational skills by individuals with severe disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, Ferguson, D. (1994). Is communication really the point? Some thoughts on intervention and membership. Mental Retardation, 32, floughton, J., Bronicki, B., & Guess, D. (1987). Opportunities to express preferences and make choices among students with severe disabilities in classroom settings. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, Stillman, R., & Battle, C. (1987). Characteristics of teacher communicative expressions directed to students having multiple disabilities. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Speech- Language-Hearing Association. ED Susan M. Bruce, Ph.D., assistant professor, Lynch College of Education, Boston College, 120 Campion Hall, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA (02467; <susan.bruce@bc.edu> AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, February

5 COPYRIGHT INFORMATION TITLE: The Importance of Shared Communication Forms SOURCE: Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness 97 no2 F 2003 PAGE(S): WN: The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher: Copyright The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.