Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...
Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...
Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
ity being <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> communicati<strong>on</strong> partner without<br />
disabilities (Ratcliff & Cress, 1998). Individuals<br />
with disabilities have also been<br />
reported to experience more frequent communicati<strong>on</strong><br />
breakdowns <strong>and</strong> greater difficulty<br />
in using communicati<strong>on</strong> repair strategies than<br />
peers without disabilities (Fishman, Timler, &<br />
Yoder, 1985; Kraat, 1985). These social <strong>and</strong><br />
pragmatic language difficulties can be detrimental<br />
to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> social success of students with<br />
communicati<strong>on</strong> impairments.<br />
During school days, a greater number of<br />
opportunities for naturalistic social interacti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
often occur during traditi<strong>on</strong>ally n<strong>on</strong>academic<br />
times such as recess <strong>and</strong> lunch. School<br />
lunchtimes are typically social times, when students<br />
typically interact while c<strong>on</strong>suming <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir<br />
meals. Unstructured, naturalistic communicati<strong>on</strong><br />
times may pose a greater challenge for<br />
students with impaired social <strong>and</strong> pragmatic<br />
language skills than more structured academic<br />
settings (Beukelman, & Mirenda,<br />
1998). Yet, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se naturalistic social times may<br />
also provide w<strong>on</strong>derful opportunities for<br />
learning <strong>and</strong> generalizing social <strong>and</strong> pragmatic<br />
language skills.<br />
Often, students with impaired social <strong>and</strong><br />
pragmatic skills require additi<strong>on</strong>al support to<br />
develop <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se important language skills. Interacti<strong>on</strong><br />
patterns between students with disabilities<br />
<strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir peers in inclusive settings have<br />
been well-researched (e.g., Chadsey-Rusch,<br />
1990; Evans, Salisbury, Palombaro, Berryman,<br />
& Hollowood; 1992; Hanline, 1993; Hughes,<br />
1999; Mu, Siegel, & Allinder, 2000). Collectively,<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> research has dem<strong>on</strong>strated that although<br />
students with disabilities <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir<br />
peers may be in physical proximity to <strong>on</strong>e<br />
ano<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r, limited social interacti<strong>on</strong> occurs between<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>m without direct programming or<br />
supports by interventi<strong>on</strong>ists.<br />
Many students with disabilities exhibit inappropriate<br />
pragmatic behaviors that may prevent<br />
social interacti<strong>on</strong>. There is evidence that<br />
social interacti<strong>on</strong> between students with disabilities<br />
<strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir peers benefit from structured<br />
facilitati<strong>on</strong> techniques that enhance<br />
communicati<strong>on</strong> interacti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>and</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>ships.<br />
In additi<strong>on</strong> to promoting social gains,<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> research suggests that interventi<strong>on</strong> strategies<br />
can also have academic benefits for students<br />
with disabilities (e.g., Brown & Holvoet,<br />
1982; Haring, Breen, Pitts-C<strong>on</strong>way, Lee, &<br />
Gaylord-Ross, 1987; Kamps, Locke, Delquadri,<br />
& Hall, 1989; McD<strong>on</strong>nell, Mathot-Buckner, &<br />
Thors<strong>on</strong>, 2001; Strain, Kerr, & Ragl<strong>and</strong>,<br />
1979). McGee, Almeida, Sulzer-Azaroff, <strong>and</strong><br />
Feldman (1992) evaluated <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects of peer<br />
incidental teaching as a strategy for increasing<br />
reciprocal peer interacti<strong>on</strong>s in students with<br />
disabilities that adversely affected <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir pragmatic<br />
communicati<strong>on</strong> skills. While gains were<br />
made in number <strong>and</strong> quality of communicati<strong>on</strong><br />
interacti<strong>on</strong>s in an academic setting in this<br />
study, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se gains did not generalize to school<br />
mealtimes.<br />
Use of systematic instructi<strong>on</strong> has been<br />
shown to be effective in facilitating skills acquisiti<strong>on</strong><br />
for students with disabilities. One<br />
such program (Light & Binger, 1998) was designed<br />
specifically to enhance communicative<br />
competence for youths with disabilities across<br />
multiple pragmatic-social communicati<strong>on</strong> areas.<br />
This program describes systematic instructi<strong>on</strong>al<br />
procedures for teaching students who<br />
use AAC systems how to use introducti<strong>on</strong> strategies,<br />
improve communicati<strong>on</strong> turn-taking,<br />
<strong>and</strong> increase <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir use of partner-focused<br />
questi<strong>on</strong>s. The program also includes a descripti<strong>on</strong><br />
of how instructi<strong>on</strong>al procedures can<br />
be adapted to specifically teach specific communicati<strong>on</strong><br />
skills.<br />
Light’s <strong>and</strong> Binger’s (1998) program has<br />
been used effectively with multiple groups of<br />
individuals who use AAC systems (e.g., Light,<br />
Binger, Agate, et al., 1999; Light, Binger, Dilg,<br />
et al., 1996). This program has been used<br />
successfully across several academic settings.<br />
However, generalizati<strong>on</strong> of classroom-based<br />
systematic instructi<strong>on</strong>al programs in specific<br />
pragmatic language <strong>and</strong> social skills development<br />
have not been evaluated in less structured<br />
school social settings such as school<br />
lunchrooms.<br />
The purpose of this investigati<strong>on</strong> was to<br />
evaluate <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> applicati<strong>on</strong> of a classroom-based<br />
systematic instructi<strong>on</strong>al program <strong>on</strong> five identified<br />
social <strong>and</strong> pragmatic language skills in a<br />
high school lunchroom envir<strong>on</strong>ment. Specifically,<br />
we adapted Light’s <strong>and</strong> Binger’s (1998)<br />
classroom-based systematic instructi<strong>on</strong> program<br />
to increase our participants’ use of partner-focused<br />
questi<strong>on</strong>s, obligatory turn-taking,<br />
n<strong>on</strong>-obligatory turn-taking, appropriate eye<br />
c<strong>on</strong>tact, <strong>and</strong> appropriate t<strong>on</strong>e of voice.<br />
Social-Pragmatic Language Skills Instructi<strong>on</strong> / 343