Sunday, February 25, 2018

Presume Competence to What?!

“There is nothing in a caterpillar that tells you it’s going to be a butterfly.” ‐ Buckminster Fuller

This quote from Buckminster Fuller appears at the beginning of Hussman’s (2017) Autism Support manual entitled, “Presume Competence; Autism support 1.0.”

I’ve been hearing some backlash against presuming competence in our AAC users/ potential users recently.  The greatest number of students with autism I have worked with over the past 44 years have been nonverbal or minimally verbal. And at some point in every one of these children’s academic career has been the question, “Are we expecting too much? Or too little?”

Over the course of Special Education as it has existed both before PL94-142 and after, we have a miserable history of under-estimating the potential of many of these students and offering them far too little education and support.

Yet, with recently higher expectations we’ve seen these students succeed at tasks “we” thought they could not. We’ve discovered literacy skills in students who have, historically, not even been taught to read.  We’ve discovered communication skills in students we thought would never learn beyond, perhaps, some basic requesting.

I recently read a discussion about how those who eschew the “presume competence” construct are not actually presuming incompetence, but rather are avoiding putting too many eggs in a particular child’s basket. 
To me, this discussion smacks of cognitive referencing; a practice that ASHA has firmly denounced.  Unfortunately, the term is being used a lot by practitioners of Facilitated Communication, a practice that ASHA has also denounced.

Hussman’s manual lists the following constructs:

  • Presume competence
  • Follow the lead
  • Make communication the centerpiece
  • Offer positive behavior support
  • Include and adapt
  • Accommodate sensory and movement differences
  • Build relationships
  • Support autonomy

It strikes me that these are the very ideas that we need when working with students who need to use AAC to bee verbal.  They are, in fact, exactly what I, and others in the AAC arena have posited for many years.

Hussman goes on to say:

“What you will need is the awareness and patience to embrace people with autism as different, not less; the willingness to presume that people with autism are competent – even if evidence may be not be available at first; and the understanding that behavior is not random, but is instead motivated by necessity, frustration, sensory differences, or the need to communicate a request or thought. “

Hussman further says that what is needed is the kind of engagement and interaction that provide the student with models of language models that the students can then process, copy, and eventually use.
This sounds to me like the very process that our AAC users need; this aided input or modeling of the AAC system. And I very much worry about what will happen if we stop presuming competence in our students with the most complex communication needs.

I’d like to end this post with the stories of 2 young men and their AAC.
One, is shown in this short video created by MeloSpeech about one of my students. You can see it here:

The other is another amazing young man who could have continued to be locked in if his parents had not presumed his competence.  He has severe cerebral palsy; spastic quadriplegia.  His time in school was consistently characterized by sitting in his wheelchair in the back of the classroom, doing nothing.  Because they could not see a way to engage him or get a response from him, they ignored him.

His parents took him out of school at 16, and placed him in an adult day program, which happened to bee run buy an organization that understood communication strategies.  They made a picture communication book, and taught him to use Partner Assisted Scanning strategies.

Once an Assistive Technology Center opened in his area, his parents brought him to the center for an AAC assessment.  To get to the punchline, when the dynamic display speech generating device arrived and was mounted on his wheelchair, the first thing he did was to use the switch to navigate to the keyboard, which he used to say, “Thank you so much. Now I can talk like everyone else.” Nobody ever taught this young man to read.  They assumed he could not. He sat in the back of those classrooms and learned incidentally.  Where would he be if nobody presumed he was competent?

The bottom line: 

“All individuals, regardless of the severity of their disability, have the basic right to ongoing instruction that will help them develop versatile communication skills.”  (Geist, Erickson, et al, 2016)

Monday, February 19, 2018

You Have to Stop Listening to These!

It’s been more than a decade since Romski and Sevcik wrote their article about the myths of AAC. They wrote that “Despite the advances, the inclusion of AAc services and supports into early intervention service delivery for young children has been hampered primarily by myths about the specific types of roles AAC plays.”

Here we are more than 12 years later, and many of these myths still run rampant through our service delivery - or lack of it. Romski and Sevcik addressed the ways in which AAC can facilitate the development of children with communication disabilities.

Children need both comprehension skills and expressive skills. Routines create consistent language environments (did you read last week’s post about routines? Or this older one here?), and consistent opportunities for partners to create learning opportunities. Research by Hollich et all (2000) is cited in the article as indicating that children rely “…on comprehension to build a foundation for later productive word use.”

Romski and Sevcik list 6 myths of AAC:

1. AAC is a “last resort” in language intervention
Research has shown that it is actually important to introduce AAC before the child fails so that he has a communication mode before frustration sets in.

2. AAC hinders or stops further speech development
Research again has shown that use of AAC can actually help children develop speech.

3. Children must have a certain set of skills to be able to benefit from AAC
As the exact relationship between cognition and language is unknown, we do know that many children cannot demonstrate their abilities without a way to communicate.

4. Speech Generating Devices are only for children whose cognition is intact
Advances in technology mean that advanced cognitive skills are not necessarily needed to use high tech systems and, as a wide range of options are available, there are many tools that children can bee taught to use effectively

5. Children have to be a certain age to benefit from AAC
Again, research shows that providing children a mode of communication early is beneficial and will not hinder speech development.

6. There is a representational hierarchy of symbols from objects to written words.
Romski and Sevcik site the research that shows that children do not actually learn less abstract symbols better or faster. To the child, all symbols work the same way. We just need to teach them consistently.
(Did you read my last post about the myths here?)

Romski and Sevcik go on to discuss the important role parents play as interventionists. Certainly, family is all-important in providing intervention when children are young. The article concludes with the reminder that it is never too early to begin using AAC for language and communication support, and that AAC is a tool; not the end goal. “AAC is not a last resort but rather a first line of intervention…” 
 The message of this article is as important in 2018 as it was in 2005.
 I, for one, am saddened that these myths still abound in our profession and in the minds of other educators. It is about time that we acknowledge that ALL children can communicate.
Please, keep on talking!

Sunday, February 11, 2018

Is This Routine? Why Not?

I’m trying not to sound like a broken record, but some strategies are so important that they need to be said over and over again:  We begin to build language with routines.

Research tells us that routines are at the heart of symbol and language development.  Routines are sequences of actions or events that are repeated over and over again.  
Every routine can be broken down into smaller and smaller components.  Each of these components is influenced by the responses and reactions of those involved.  The reactions and responses become symbols that are used in this interaction to signal to each other.  [Remember, symbols are signals that are interpreted the same way by at least 2 people.]  

When the routine always follows the same sequence, the signals between the two people involved become shared symbols.  Routines help us build symbolic awareness, and symbols become communicative when they come to have a more standardized or conventional meaning among a larger group.  

This helps us realize why it is important to develop routines in thinking about intervention for AAC (Lonke, 2014) and for understanding the impact of aided language stimulation.
Aided Language Stimulation is a strategy I have written and spoken about repeatedly, because it is the single most important strategy for getting AAC users started as communicators.

Once use of Aided Language Stimulation has been established to introduce word use to the individual, explicit teaching activities need to be implemented to teach the new words.  Facilitators need to teach explicitly, then elaborate on the meaning and use of the word through a variety of meaningful activities.  The AAC user needs to be exposed to the word repeatedly and consistently.

Von Tetzchner (1997) and Porter (2009) both refer to the differences in language environments between typically developing children and AAC users.  Children are typically surrounded by examples of others using the communication systems they are learning.  Typical 3 year olds in middle class families hear 6 million words per year.  Typical deaf children with deaf parents see 6 million signed words per year.  Typical AAC users see others using symbols to communicate effectively approximately 0 times per year.  
“The average 18 month old child has been exposed to 4,380 hours of oral language at the rate of 8 hours/day from birth.  A child who has a communication system and receives speech/language therapy two times per week for 20-30 minute sessions will reach this same amount of language exposure in 84 years.” (Jane Korsten).

Hart and Risely (1995) found that typical children in working class families hear approximately 1,250 words per hour and accumulate a listening vocabulary of 6 million words by the time they are 3 years old.  Miranda (2008) then posited that children with ASD who are using AAC need to be presented with, literally, hundreds of opportunities to have symbol use modeled throughout the day.

According to Von Tetzcher (1997) “the difference between their own expressive (and for some also receptive) language and the language used by significant people in their immediate surroundings” is a critical factor in the acquisition of language for AAC users.  There is an assumption in all major theories of language learning that the individual is surrounded by others in the environment using the same language system.    Even in second language learning the importance of immersion has been noted. Learners of second languages need to participate in an environment that exposes them - immerses them - in experiences with that language in order to become competent communicators. 

The opportunity to be immersed in an environment using aided language is very rare.  For AAC users and learners, there is little if any opportunity to even observe others using an AAC system, let alone be immersed in an environment of AAC users. But without this, children learning to use AAC systems constantly need to figure out how to use a language system they have rarely - or never - seen used to communicate.  Not having models of others using aided language results in the student not knowing how to use a language system they have never seen used.
Because this type of immersion environment is rarely provided (although beginning to find foothold) to learners of AAC, there is a great discrepancy for them between the language environment to which they are exposed, which uses verbal language, and the language system they are being asked to use, which is a picture-based language.
Whatever the environment you are in, you need to think about the activity you want to engage him with, think about the language skill you are targeting, and plan what support is needed for the student to achieve the target.

Language intervention techniques that increase early expressive communication skills include Aided AAC Modeling, Expectant Delay, Open-Ended Wh Questions, Brief Verbal Prompting, and Increased Responsivity.

The same strategies used for all students/children apply to your AAC user. In a read aloud activity, for example, you can reference the text (“Look at the boy running!”), a cloze procedure (“The boy is _”), expansion (“Yes, the boy is running”), binary choice (“Is the boy sitting or running?”), modeling (in this case posting to pictures in the AAC system rather than verbal only model), open-ended questions (“What is the boy doing?”).

The Bioecological Model of Human Development. Bronfenbrenner, Urie; Morris, Pamela A. Lerner, Richard M. (Ed); Damon, William (Ed), (2006). Handbook of child psychology (6th ed.): Vol 1, Theoretical models of human development. , (pp. 793-828). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1063 pp.

Bruno J, Trembath D. (2006)  Use of aided language stimulation to improve syntactic performance during a weeklong intervention program. Augment Altern Commun. Dec;22(4):300-13. 

Goosens, C., Crain, S., & Elder, P. (1992). Engineering the preschool environment of interactive, symbolic communication. Southeast Augmentative Communication Conference Publications. Birmingham, AL.

Hart, B. and Risely, T. (1995)  Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Brookes Publishing, 1995 

Henneberry, Solana, Jennifer Kelso, and Gloria Soto. "Using Standards-Based Instruction to Teach Language to Children Who Use AAC." ASHA, Perspectives.Web.

Kent-Walsh, Jennifer, Cathy Binger, and Zishan Hasham. "Effects of Parent Instruction on the Symbolic Communication of Children Using Augmentative and Alternative Communication During Storybook Reading." American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 19 (2010): 97-107.
Light, J. (1989). Toward a definition of communicative competence for individuals using augmentative and alternative communication systems. AAC. Vol. 5, No. 2 , Pages 137-144

Light JC, Beukelman DR, Reichle J (Eds.). 2003. Communicative competence for individuals who use AAC: From research to effective practice. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Lonke, F. Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Models and Applications for Educators, Speech-language Pathologists  Plural Publishing. 2014

Pragmatic Organization Dynamic Display Communication Books: Designing and Implementing PODD Books. Porter and Burkhart 2009. Seminar

Von Tetzchner, S. (1997) The use of graphic language intervention among young children in Norway. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
Volume 32, Issue S3, pages 217–234, December 1997

American Speech-Language-Hearing Assoc (2001a). Competencies for speech-language pathologists providing services in augmentative communication. Asha, 31(3), 107-110.

Banajee,M., DiCarlo, C., Striklin, S.B., (2003). Core vocabulary determination for toddlers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 67-73.

Binger,C. & Light, J. (2007). The effect of aided aac modeling on the expression of multisymbol messages by preschoolers who use aac. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(1), 30-43

Musselwhite,C.R., Erickson,K., Zoilkowski,R. (2002 ). The Beginning Literacy Framework. Don Johnston Inc.

Musselwhite,C.R. (2006).  R.A.P.S. Writing Tips!  Learning Magic Inc. ASHA’s site contains position documents, and documents outlining their stand on the knowledge and skills, roles and responsibilities of slp’s regarding aac

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Who Doesn't Love a Giveaway?

This terrific group of SLPs on TPT are giving away gift cards so you can fill your wishlists!  Check out their resources, wander through their Instagrams, and enter to win.
There will be 1 $100. gift card and two $50. gift cards.

Go to the Rafflecopter to win: a Rafflecopter giveaway

Sunday, February 4, 2018

Think Your AAC User Can't? Bet You He Can!

One old-time SLP staple in terms of therapy materials has been Barrier Games.  Barrier games are great for working on giving and following directions, using and understanding descriptive words and spatial concepts, and, if done in pairs or small groups, with working on cooperation.

Barrier games, for those who have not heard of them, are played with 2 people, usually, seated facing each other but with a barrier between them that keeps them from seeing each others’ desks or spaces.
Each student has an identical scene or flat mat/paper in front of him, and an identical selection of images.  

One student gives directions to the other one about where to place specific items.  At its simplest, barrier games are played with multiple colors of shapes, which students assemble according to the directions they are given.  For more fun and better engagement, use pictures that are fun and motivating.

Recently a SLP asked me how on Earth you could use barrier games with students who use AAC.  Actually, barrier games are perfect for those same skills for students who use picture-based or text-based communication systems.
And, they are perfect for focusing on core words.

Think about what words are needed in a barrier game activity. Aside from the words for the specific objects, which are those pesky nouns, players need descriptive words and locative words, action words for “put” and “move,” for example.
Students need to use and understand color words (the green one), prepositions (put it under), other adjectives (the big one, the striped one).  These are all in core. And descriptive words are all on the same page or at least within the same folder. Prepositions are going to bee on the same page.  And in some systems, rather than taking up space with opposite concepts, users are supposed to learn “not” + adjective; as in “Not big.”

When I first came across barrier games about 30 years ago, they were construction paper shapes in different sizes and colors.  SLPs these days are more inventive and decidedly better at finding thematic images to motive students more.

And don’t think you need to play with just 2 students.  One very popular activity I used to do with Middle School students with language disorders  called for one student to stand at the chalk board (yes, that long ago), while I showed the rest of the class a picture of an “alien.”  Students in the class had to provide descriptive details to the student at the board, so that he could draw an alien that looked just like the one I was showing the class.

Kids found the resulting drawings hilarious, and the student drawing never felt badly about not coming up with the “correct” drawing because it was all just plain funny.

So, enjoy barrier games with all of your students, and….. keep on talking!