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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 2008, 43(3), 342–359 © <strong>Division</strong> on Developmental Disabilities Systematic Instruction for Social-Pragmatic Language Skills in Lunchroom Settings Maureen E. Angell, Rita L. Bailey, and Laura Larson Illinois State University Abstract: This study involved <strong>the</strong> extension and adaptation of systematic instructional procedures suggested by Light and Binger (1998) to increase <strong>the</strong> social-pragmatic language skills of five high school students with moderate cognitive disabilities. Within a single-subject multiple probe research design, we also assessed intervention effects on two skills targeted by classroom teachers. The three primary target behaviors were taking obligatory turns, taking nonobligatory turns, and asking partner-focused questions. The two secondary target behaviors were conversing with appropriate eye contact and using appropriate tone of voice in conversational speech. Overall, results showed positive effects of <strong>the</strong> intervention on participants’ skills with some variability in student performance in generalization (lunchroom) settings. Fur<strong>the</strong>r research on <strong>the</strong> effects of various systematic instructional strategies on <strong>the</strong> social-pragmatic skills of individuals with various disabilities in multiple settings is recommended. Students with disabilities, particularly those requiring augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems, often have difficulty participating in social communication exhanges (Furick, 2003; Hatton, 1998). Successful communication exchanges in social environments involve competent use of language, or pragmatic language skills. Pragmatic language skills have been described as <strong>the</strong> use of communication to carry out communication interactions in a social environment (Levinson, 1983). Pragmatics has been defined as “rules for using language contextually for social purposes” (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998, p. 332). Knowledge and skills related to interpreting and sending appropriate nonverbal messages (i.e., eye contact, facial expressions, and body language) are also required for competent use of pragmatic language. Development and use of appropriate social and pragmatic language skills is important to maximizing <strong>the</strong> quality of life of students with intellectual disabilities. Appropriate communication interactions among peers with and Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Maureen E. Angell, Illinois State University, Department of Special Education, Campus Box 5910, Normal, IL 61790-5910. 342 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-September 2008 without disabilities are important for developing meaningful relationships. Unfortunately, students with intellectual disabilities often experience difficulties in interacting successfully with peers (DeGeorge, 1998). According to <strong>the</strong> National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (1998), people with intellectual disabilities often demonstrate problems in self-regulatory behaviors, social perceptions, and social and pragmatic interactions. The development of appropriate sociorelational skills plays a key role in <strong>the</strong> development of communicative competence (Light, Binger, Agate, & Ramsay, 1999). This may be a particularly important skill for school-age children, as behavior and communication patterns developed during <strong>the</strong> school years may impact students’ ability to form and maintain relationships and friendships for a lifetime. Making friends is a natural result of human interaction that involves many complex verbal and nonverbal transactions (DeGeorge, 1998). Impaired development of social and pragmatic language skills may negatively affect <strong>the</strong> forging of friendships between students with and without disabilities. Typical interactions between peers with and without disabilities have been reported as ‘asymmetrical’ with more of <strong>the</strong> communication responsibil-
ity being on <strong>the</strong> communication partner without disabilities (Ratcliff & Cress, 1998). Individuals with disabilities have also been reported to experience more frequent communication breakdowns and greater difficulty in using communication repair strategies than peers without disabilities (Fishman, Timler, & Yoder, 1985; Kraat, 1985). These social and pragmatic language difficulties can be detrimental to <strong>the</strong> social success of students with communication impairments. During school days, a greater number of opportunities for naturalistic social interactions often occur during traditionally nonacademic times such as recess and lunch. School lunchtimes are typically social times, when students typically interact while consuming <strong>the</strong>ir meals. Unstructured, naturalistic communication times may pose a greater challenge for students with impaired social and pragmatic language skills than more structured academic settings (Beukelman, & Mirenda, 1998). Yet, <strong>the</strong>se naturalistic social times may also provide wonderful opportunities for learning and generalizing social and pragmatic language skills. Often, students with impaired social and pragmatic skills require additional support to develop <strong>the</strong>se important language skills. Interaction patterns between students with disabilities and <strong>the</strong>ir peers in inclusive settings have been well-researched (e.g., Chadsey-Rusch, 1990; Evans, Salisbury, Palombaro, Berryman, & Hollowood; 1992; Hanline, 1993; Hughes, 1999; Mu, Siegel, & Allinder, 2000). Collectively, <strong>the</strong> research has demonstrated that although students with disabilities and <strong>the</strong>ir peers may be in physical proximity to one ano<strong>the</strong>r, limited social interaction occurs between <strong>the</strong>m without direct programming or supports by interventionists. Many students with disabilities exhibit inappropriate pragmatic behaviors that may prevent social interaction. There is evidence that social interaction between students with disabilities and <strong>the</strong>ir peers benefit from structured facilitation techniques that enhance communication interactions and relationships. In addition to promoting social gains, <strong>the</strong> research suggests that intervention strategies can also have academic benefits for students with disabilities (e.g., Brown & Holvoet, 1982; Haring, Breen, Pitts-Conway, Lee, & Gaylord-Ross, 1987; Kamps, Locke, Delquadri, & Hall, 1989; McDonnell, Mathot-Buckner, & Thorson, 2001; Strain, Kerr, & Ragland, 1979). McGee, Almeida, Sulzer-Azaroff, and Feldman (1992) evaluated <strong>the</strong> effects of peer incidental teaching as a strategy for increasing reciprocal peer interactions in students with disabilities that adversely affected <strong>the</strong>ir pragmatic communication skills. While gains were made in number and quality of communication interactions in an academic setting in this study, <strong>the</strong>se gains did not generalize to school mealtimes. Use of systematic instruction has been shown to be effective in facilitating skills acquisition for students with disabilities. One such program (Light & Binger, 1998) was designed specifically to enhance communicative competence for youths with disabilities across multiple pragmatic-social communication areas. This program describes systematic instructional procedures for teaching students who use AAC systems how to use introduction strategies, improve communication turn-taking, and increase <strong>the</strong>ir use of partner-focused questions. The program also includes a description of how instructional procedures can be adapted to specifically teach specific communication skills. Light’s and Binger’s (1998) program has been used effectively with multiple groups of individuals who use AAC systems (e.g., Light, Binger, Agate, et al., 1999; Light, Binger, Dilg, et al., 1996). This program has been used successfully across several academic settings. However, generalization of classroom-based systematic instructional programs in specific pragmatic language and social skills development have not been evaluated in less structured school social settings such as school lunchrooms. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate <strong>the</strong> application of a classroom-based systematic instructional program on five identified social and pragmatic language skills in a high school lunchroom environment. Specifically, we adapted Light’s and Binger’s (1998) classroom-based systematic instruction program to increase our participants’ use of partner-focused questions, obligatory turn-taking, non-obligatory turn-taking, appropriate eye contact, and appropriate tone of voice. Social-Pragmatic Language Skills Instruction / 343
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: Kapell, D., Nightingale, B., Rodrig
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 and 110: Figure 5. Frequency of unprompted s
Page 111 and 112: their children to
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 ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?