Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE 7 Unprompted and Prompted Responses by Element of a Story Participants Characters Setting Event Problem Solution Totals UP P UP P UP P UP P UP P UP P Cole 24 1 3 1 14 5 8 6 1 0 50 13 63 Cole’s P’s 11 3 11 2 20 5 4 4 2 0 48 14 62 Dean 4 1 5 0 18 8 6 5 0 1 33 15 48 Dean’s P’s 1 0 2 1 15 4 15 5 1 1 34 11 45 Nate 9 2 8 1 15 5 9 11 0 0 41 19 60 Nate’s P’s 5 0 3 1 18 5 14 1 6 1 48 6 54 and necessary for <strong>the</strong>ir child. Later, parents were shown a video of <strong>the</strong> first intervention session followed by a video of <strong>the</strong> last session, and were asked to describe any changes in <strong>the</strong>ir child’s reading and language skills. Children with ASD and <strong>the</strong>ir general education peers were interviewed separately. Questions pertained to usefulness of <strong>the</strong> reading intervention. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, children were asked about relationships established with <strong>the</strong>ir reading partners during intervention. All participants with ASD stated <strong>the</strong> intervention helped <strong>the</strong>m understand what <strong>the</strong>y read. Barry and Austin reported <strong>the</strong>y still ask questions when <strong>the</strong>y read. When asked what <strong>the</strong>y liked best about <strong>the</strong> intervention, Austin focused on <strong>the</strong> books and reading with peers, Barry reported a preference for working with one peer, and Chris enjoyed using <strong>the</strong> checklist. Austin described positive attributes of all three of his peers, and Barry favored one peer he thought of as “cool.” All general education peers indicated <strong>the</strong> intervention was helpful, and <strong>the</strong>y enjoyed participating. General education participants stated <strong>the</strong>y learned new words (n 3) and how to ask questions (n 3). Also, one participant noted she was able to take time to read, ano<strong>the</strong>r mentioned feeling encouraged to read more, and a third thought <strong>the</strong> book helped him learn. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, six participants reported <strong>the</strong>y continued to ask questions when reading and reported <strong>the</strong>y talked to <strong>the</strong> children with ASD more often. When asked what <strong>the</strong>y thought of <strong>the</strong>ir peers with ASD, all communicated differences in perception. For example, one of Austin’s peers stated that before intervention he found Austin “a little 382 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-September 2008 Total # Posed weird,” but after intervention he thought of Austin as “a good friend.” Similarly, one of Chris’s peers believed Chris was “a nice person” prior to intervention, and after she considered him “nice” and “smart.” In fact she stated: “. . . he didn’t really need my help at all because he was really smart.” Overall, six of <strong>the</strong> seven peers would participate in <strong>the</strong> reading intervention again, and one indicated he might. Parents of children with ASD were shown a video of <strong>the</strong> first intervention session followed by a video of <strong>the</strong> last session and were <strong>the</strong>n asked to describe any changes in her child’s reading and language skills from <strong>the</strong> first to last session. Austin’s mo<strong>the</strong>r reported improvement in Austin’s question formation and attention while reading. Barry’s parents and Chris’s mo<strong>the</strong>r acknowledged a positive gain in reading fluency including rate, accuracy and/or expression. Chris’s mo<strong>the</strong>r noted forming questions remained difficult for him and stated he had trouble “. . . coming up with words.” Austin’s mo<strong>the</strong>r and Barry’s parents observed a decrease in <strong>the</strong> level of prompting prior to and following intervention while Chris’s mo<strong>the</strong>r noticed less prompting related to initiation of a question. Overall, Austin and Chris’s mo<strong>the</strong>rs, as well as Barry’s parents, agreed that <strong>the</strong> intervention was valuable. Austin’s mo<strong>the</strong>r and Barry’s parents suggested <strong>the</strong> intervention was important for both reading and language. Moreover, Barry’s parents indicated it improved Barry’s “conversational skills.” Chris’s mo<strong>the</strong>r valued <strong>the</strong> intervention because Chris no longer responded to questions with “I don’t know.” Fur<strong>the</strong>r, all interviewees would like
<strong>the</strong>ir children to participate in a similar intervention again. Discussion The purpose of this study was to determine <strong>the</strong> effect of a reciprocal questioning comprehension strategy delivered in <strong>the</strong> context of cooperative pairs on <strong>the</strong> question generation and responding of three children with ASD. All children with ASD were able to learn and effectively utilize a question generation strategy and increased frequency of question generation and responding during reading. In addition, social validity data documented that both children with and without ASD enjoyed participating in <strong>the</strong> intervention and thought it beneficial. Parents of all three children with ASD also felt <strong>the</strong> intervention was important and had a positive effect on <strong>the</strong>ir child. Individual Variation in Question Generation Immediate and consistent gains experienced by Austin may be representative of his language ability. On descriptive receptive/expressive language measures, Austin scored higher than his peers with ASD. Yet, he demonstrated a discrepancy between scores, scoring higher on <strong>the</strong> expressive than receptive language measure, not uncommon for children with Asperger syndrome (Tantum, 2000). It is possible that Austin had less trouble forming questions initially, resulting in his ability to focus his attention on meaning, i.e., content related to <strong>the</strong> story ra<strong>the</strong>r than on <strong>the</strong> mechanics of question formation. In contrast to Austin, Barry and Chris scored at least one standard deviation below <strong>the</strong> mean on both expressive and receptive language measures given prior to intervention. During beginning intervention sessions, Barry and Chris had greater difficulty forming questions, attending more to <strong>the</strong> form and function of question generation. From <strong>the</strong> onset of intervention, Barry was able to generate ‘why’ questions effectively, but had greater difficulty posing questions with an alternate question word. For example, “Elements of a story, because Arthur is doing something in <strong>the</strong> story.” Similar to Barry, Chris also had trouble forming questions during beginning sessions, “I can ask an element. Setting is an element.” This is consistent with <strong>the</strong> research on language development of children with ASD, that is, many children with ASD have difficulty understanding how to use language to obtain a specific goal (We<strong>the</strong>rby, 1986). Over <strong>the</strong> course of intervention, Barry began forming questions using various question words, and Chris began generating content specific questions. Therefore, initial intervention effects may reflect an expansion in communicative function for Barry and Chris, specifically, <strong>the</strong> function of asking and responding to questions interactively during reading. Gestalt Learning Children with autism often begin using language by imitating vocalizations. As children with ASD use <strong>the</strong>se vocalizations in context, <strong>the</strong>y begin to understand <strong>the</strong>ir meaning and function. As a result, more inventive language emerges as imitative, rigid vocalizations decrease (Schuler, Prizant, & We<strong>the</strong>rby, 1997). This pattern of language development has been described as a Gestalt learning style (We<strong>the</strong>rby, Prizant, & Schuler, 2000). The Gestalt learning style has been explained as learning in chunks. When applied to language development, <strong>the</strong> child interprets a chunk of language as meaning associated with <strong>the</strong> context in which it was originally heard or learned. Initially, chunks of language are repeated with little comprehension of function, sometimes taking on unconventional forms of language. As <strong>the</strong> child begins to understand <strong>the</strong> function or intent to a greater extent, he/she begins personalizing vocalizations by modifying repeated phrases. Through experience using and modifying <strong>the</strong>se phrases, more spontaneous speech occurs (We<strong>the</strong>rby et al.). Both Austin and Chris used story cards to build questions during initial sessions, “What is <strong>the</strong> problem in <strong>the</strong> story?”; “What is <strong>the</strong> character doing in <strong>the</strong> story?” Later, both participants became more flexible with question generation. For example, Austin asked, “What is Mrs. McGrady, Fern and Binky doing?” and Chris, “Why did Muffy trip <strong>the</strong> brain?” The initial success of using <strong>the</strong> story card to form a question could be a reflection of <strong>the</strong> gestalt learning style associated with autism. That is, participants began using <strong>the</strong> direct model, Reciprocal Questioning / 383
Page 1 and 2:
Education and Training in Developme
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Self-Determination in Relation to H
Page 9 and 10:
ticipants (a) believed the<
Page 11 and 12:
Field notes were used to document <
Page 13 and 14:
ling information, medical history a
Page 15 and 16:
Home. Jack lived with his mo<strong
Page 17 and 18:
we felt strongly that we needed inf
Page 19 and 20:
literature, mostly to do with <stro
Page 21 and 22:
tion? The national consumer survey.
Page 23 and 24:
Figure 1. Proposed intersection of
Page 25 and 26:
teaching in each program for five y
Page 27 and 28:
also used to support and challenge
Page 29 and 30:
Despite Paula’s description of an
Page 31 and 32:
The paraprofessionals at Harborvill
Page 33 and 34:
Figure 2. Resultant intersection of
Page 35 and 36:
learning opportunities relevant to
Page 37 and 38:
Bouck, E. C. (2005). Service delive
Page 39 and 40:
Thirty Year Review of Safety Skill
Page 41 and 42:
TABLE 1 Safety Skill Studies Refere
Page 43 and 44:
TABLE 1—(Continued) Reference Par
Page 45 and 46:
found differences only in efficienc
Page 47 and 48:
skill for integrating persons with
Page 49 and 50:
treatment of a burn) may take sever
Page 51 and 52:
created video programs to teach stu
Page 53 and 54:
and on-schedule behavior and decrea
Page 55 and 56:
TABLE 1—(Continued) Author(s) Mor
Page 57 and 58:
trums, aggression) in a four-year-o
Page 59 and 60: (Quill, 1995). Furthe</stro
Page 61 and 62: following picture prompt training.
Page 63 and 64: medication, for example anticonvuls
Page 65 and 66: TABLE 1 Number of Facilities That U
Page 67 and 68: Snoezelen on a variety of behaviors
Page 69 and 70: Kapell, D., Nightingale, B., Rodrig
Page 71 and 72: ity being on the c
Page 73 and 74: communication turns (i.e., initiati
Page 75 and 76: Definitions of Target Behaviors and
Page 77 and 78: student gave the p
Page 79 and 80: Figure 2. Bob’s performance data.
Page 81 and 82: contact increased 41% from baseline
Page 83 and 84: Figure 5. Eric’s performance data
Page 85 and 86: Figure 6. Jen’s performance data.
Page 87 and 88: to students with severe disabilitie
Page 89 and 90: The use of arm splints has been suc
Page 91 and 92: Figure 1. Intervention results for
Page 93 and 94: sions, he engaged in hand mouthing
Page 95 and 96: Effects of a Reciprocal Questioning
Page 97 and 98: 4-45). Because the
Page 99 and 100: TABLE 2 Codes of Student Question G
Page 101 and 102: TABLE 3 Examples of Elements of a S
Page 103 and 104: Figure 2. Self-monitoring checklist
Page 105 and 106: TABLE 4 Example Question Words, Thi
Page 107 and 108: Figure 4. Frequency of prompted and
Page 109: Figure 5. Frequency of unprompted s
Page 113 and 114: and lack of random selection makes
Page 115 and 116: prehension-monitoring activities. C
Page 117 and 118: all three participants who passed b
Page 119 and 120: TABLE 2 Leisure Activities Used in
Page 121 and 122: papers were removed and the
Page 123 and 124: was 68% (range 42% to 83%). In <str
Page 125 and 126: Teaching Test-taking Strategies to
Page 127 and 128: ing experiences beginning at <stron
Page 129 and 130: short essay question. Items were ei
Page 131 and 132: plication of the t
Page 133 and 134: Figure 2. Percent correct on <stron
Page 135 and 136: aseline probes, data were highly va
show all

Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?