Fifteen Fundamentals of AAC

Fundamentals of AAC

Fifteen Fundamentals of AAC

“Nothing is so simple that it cannot be misunderstood.” Freeman Teague Jr.

This page covers fundamental issues in AAC and Special Education of which Talksense believes that you should be aware, You might believe that there are other fundamentals or that some of these are not fundamental at all; if so, why not contact us and tell us what you think - if we agree then your suggestion(s) will be added to this page for the benefit of all.

Please note that:

some of the cartoon images on this webpage will expand to a larger size if you click them. If you wish to use any of them in another presentation, please contact Talksense for permission.
while this page is basically complete, it may be updated from time to time.
The Videos may be found on YouTube unless otherwise stated.

References and a Bibliography are provided at the end of each section, as appropriate, in the 'See Also' section. The bibliographies do not claim to be comprehensive. If you know of additional material which would be of benefit to other readers of this webpage why not contact Talksense and let us know using the form provided at the bottom of the page.

One: Communication Problems May Create Communication Problems

“Two monologues do not make a dialogue.” Jeff Daly

The problem with a communication problem is that it can be self fulfilling. That is, the very nature of the problem can cause others (we will refer to the 'others' as 'Communication Partners') to alter their standard communicative behaviour. This alteration of behaviour by the Learner's Communication Partners can itself reinforce the problem. For example, communication may be so slow that it is seen as painful by some potential partners and they seek to avoid the situation altogether. With a lack of Communication Partners, the Learner has no-one with whom to practice skills in the real world and, as such, a failure to make significant progress is possible. The Learner may thus reject the augmentative communication methodology altogether believing it to be of no use.

Typically, communication rates in everyday conversation vary between 140 to 180 words per minute (wpm)(Wingfield, A. & Grossman, M. 2006. Language and the Aging Brain: Patterns of Neural Compensation Revealed by Functional Brain Imaging, Journal Of Neuro-Physiology, Volume 96(6), pp. 2830 - 2839 ) (see also Dlugan). However, when one partner's rate falls to less than 50% of the lower level then the other partner's communicative behaviour may alter significantly. As Learners of AAC normally operate at much lower levels than this (See for example: University of Washington, Rate Enhancement. Augmentative and Alternative Communication at the University of Washington, Seattle.) there can be problems in the communicative behaviour of both others and Significant Others.

The short video excerpt below, from the American Comedians Bob Elliot and Ray Goulding entitled 'The Slow Talkers of America' , is a great example of the things that might happen if one communication partner's rate falls much below that which is the expected norm. While you are watching it, try to list all the ways that you believe a communication partner's behaviour may be altered by another's slow rate of speech.

Slow speech is typically viewed as a lack of command of a language or of intellect:

"And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue." (King James Bible, Exodus 4:10)

As communication rates tend towards zero so communication partner behaviours deviate from the norm. We can see this depicted in an amusing way in the video clip above: As communication rates tend towards zero, the potential Communication Partner may:

adjust his/her behaviour to compensate for the slower rates of interchange;
begin to fidget and show signs of impatience;
make predictions of words or remaining sections of sentences in order to speed the communicative flow;
make an excuse to cut short the conversation;
cut short the conversation (no excuse);
take greater control of the communication by speaking more and allowing the Learner to speak less;
ask and then answer his/her own questions;
move to a closed (yes/no) question format with the Learner;
adopt a compensatory communicative strategy (for example, asking the Learner to build a sentence while s/he does something else);
avoid initiating any further conversation so as to keep the interchange as short as possible;
limit the conversation to social greetings only;
begin to play with the learner's communication system without permission;
adopt a non-communication-friendly position (for example towering over the Learner or moving to rear of the Learner to 'watch what they are doing')
move into 'didactic mode' - start to teach the learner how to say x and y (if they know);
begin to talk to the Learner as though s/he was at an earlier stage of development;
begin to patronize the Learner;
belittle the Learner's communication system (especially if older partner to younger Learner);
ignore the Learner;
ask another to deal with the communication interchange on their behalf;
terminate the conversation abruptly;
seek to avoid any communication interchange altogether.

This list does not claim to be exhaustive; you may have thought of or experienced other behaviours that are seemingly consequential of slow rates of Learner communication. While some of these behaviours may be expected of the 'uninitiated other' (person in the street), they should not be present in educational establishments that seek to support and progress Learners requiring the use of an AAC system.

While Communication Rate is one problem of the use of AAC, another issue is intelligibility. There are, at least two facets to this area. The first is the voice quality itself. When I first entered this field the Text To Speech systems (TTS) available sounded like a dalek with a sore throat on a bad day! For example, a student I taught was asked to welcome the then Head of the Manpower Services Team in the UK, a certain Mr Carter, during a visit to the college in which I was working. While the student performed brilliantly all that was almost intelligible was the person's name which pronounced as 'Mr. Farter' with much hilarity among the audience!! Needless to say, the intelligibility of TTS systems has progressed a very long way in the past thirty years and undoubtedly will continue to make even greater strides in the future until a TTS voice is indistinguishable from a natural voice. While the original Star Trek computer could speak but they could not know how much voice reproduction by computers would progress and the Star Trek voice sounds quite quaint these days!

There are many commercial TTS systems on the market; some can cost quite a lot of money. Generally speaking, the more you pay the better quality you get with better control over the voice parameters. It would be foolhardy to single any one out as worthy of attention because, like all other technology, it is moving at such a pace that any recommendation would probably be out of date by the time you are reading this! A search on the internet usually

reveals several companies offering TTS systems and, typically, most allow the customer to select a voice form a range (nationality, sex, etc), type in a phrase, and listen to the resultant sound quality.

However, A Learner's communication system will normally have it's own TTS system and may not be able to work with any other (A quick call to your supplier should reveal if the system is capable to operating with another TTS system).

Most TTS systems are confused by some words especially proper nouns such as people's names (Aoife, Siobhan) and place names (Glodwick, Greenwich, Southall, etc) and thus have a mechanism by which you are allowed to override the system and tell it how to pronounce a particular form while retaining the correct spelling.

Microsoft have their own TTS system supplied freely with Windows. It is a little strange because the latest version (Windows Seven as I write this) only comes with one voice (Anna) whereas earlier versions had a choice of several voices. However, the latest voice is of a better quality than those previously available.

TTS makes any word accessible no matter how esoteric or infrequently required for example, the longest word in the OED (at 45 letters):

                                                          ‘Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis’

I have never (until now!) had the need to use or to say this word, let alone program it into a Speech Generating Device (SGD). However, TTS would allow me to say it if I did.

While a recorded voice is always someone else’s voice, which the Learner may not want, especially as it is probably the voice of a sibling or a Significant Other (parent, teacher, therapist)(and, therefore may not even be sex or age appropriate), a TTS voice can (usually) be personalized to suit an individual providing a person’s ‘own’ voice. Such a voice does not rely (in the same way as does a recorded voice) on another person always being there to record new messages and, if the Learner is literate, s/he can input their own words!

Here are a list of websites for the different TTS systems of which I am aware in alpha order:

Acapela                http://www.acapela-group.com/text-to-speech-interactive-demo.html
AT&T                    http://www2.research.att.com/~ttsweb/tts/demo.php
Babel                    See Acapela
Cepstral                http://cepstral.com/demos/
Cereproc   http://www.cereproc.com/
DecTalk http://www.fonixspeech.com/dectalk_legacy.php
Dhvani                  http://dhvani.sourceforge.net/
Elan                      See Acapela
Espeak   http://espeak.sourceforge.net/
Festival   http://www.cstr.ed.ac.uk/projects/festival/onlinedemo.html
Flite http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/flite/
iSpeech                http://www.ispeech.org/text.to.speech.demo.php
Ivona http://www.ivona.com/
Infovox                 See Acapela
Loquendo             http://www.loquendo.com/en/demo-center/tts-demo/
Lumenvox   http://www.lumenvox.com/products/tts/
Model Talker https://www.modeltalker.org/
Nemours See Model Talker
NeoSpeech          http://www.neospeech.com/?gclid=CLCpwYOTvqkCFQXybwodTERLfA
OpenSource       http://sourceforge.net/search/?q=tts
Orpheus               http://www.meridian-one.co.uk/orpheus.html
Realspeak http://www.nuance.co.uk/realspeak/
Svox   http://www.svox.com/?page_id=138
Truvoice http://www.v3mail.com/download/ttsengines.htm
Vivotext   http://www.vivotext.com/

The above list may not be comprehensive and some links may no longer be current. Talksense apologizes if this is the case.

While Talksense does not currently endorse one speech engine above any other, we found the video below on YouTube which is quite interesting. Remember, it is dated 2009 and technology moves very fast these days so it is well out of date!:

While the voice quality continues to improve, intelligibility is now governed more by what is said rather than how it is said. If a Learner has poor syntactic skills and builds sentences with deviant word ordering, it may be more difficult for others to process. While requests for clarification are common among Significant Others who know the Learner well, others might be embarrassed by asking and simply nod in agreement when in fact they have not understood what was spoken.

Our reaction to not understanding must not infringe one of the other fundamentals - that of positive staff attitudes. For a response that evidences less than good practice is likely to demoralize a Learner and may lead to a rejection of the AAC system itself. If you do not understand what a Learner is trying to say then there is no harm in simply saying so in a pleasant manner. Such statements should be accompanied by a request for clarification:

"I'm sorry Susie, my brain is not working well today. I do not understand what you are trying to tell me. Could you try to tell
me again using different words?"

It may be that this strategy fails too. Again, try and alleviate the situation and provide a simpler path for the the Learner to follow:

"I must be stupid today Susie. I still do not understand what you mean. I know what we can try. Can you try and tell me using
just one word what it is about? And we will figure it out together."

It is important that all conversations do not turn into 'teaching opportunities' (see item 10 below) as teaching is best left for specific areas and specific times. While it would appear there is no harm in helping the Learner to produce an intended message that you have just worked out with them, it so often becomes much more than that and can have the effect of alienating the Learner from the system. I have too often witness staff telling a Learner what they 'should have been saying' and then actually rejecting the request! Be careful, sometimes what staff think is helpful is actually quite the reverse!

If you do understand what has been said, even though it may have been said in a rather strange way, do NOT enter 'teacher mode'! Simply respond to the statement as though it had been in perfect English. You have understood and that is fantastic. Celebrate the Learner's achievement is creating a statement from words which was comprehensible, even if not perfect English syntax. Do no tell the Learner the 'correct way to say it' and then make them go through it all again until they have spoken it aloud without a mistake. Worse still, do not do that and then reject the request as well! If you simply must enter 'teacher mode', add the correct form of the the Learner statement to your response without any hint of sarcasm, criticism or belittlement:

LEARNER - Greenhouse now go want
LISTENER - Hi Sally. Oh you want to go to the greenhouse now? That's fine. I guess you need a key.
Would you like me to help you get it?

It is in such interactions that communicative skills are practiced, honed and reinforced. Sadly, sometimes, such interactions only serve to alienate the Learner from the AAC system. Don't let that happen to your Learners.

Communication is important, too important to be made problematic by the actions of others:

"Speech is power in our society. Hence, it should surprise no one that freedom of speech is the first right guaranteed to all Americans in the Bill of Rights. Deprived of speech or another means of effective communication, individuals become invisible. They are simply not heard. They are silenced. And, when people are silenced, others quickly lose sight of their right to be a part of humanity!" (Bryen, D. 1993)

"In the English speaking culture ......, a high value is placed on talking. Indeed, the more one talks, the more one is viewed as a desirable and an active conversational partner. In contrast, individuals who talk very little are often viewed as withdrawn and less competent, making their partners feel uncomfortable." (Hoag, L., Bedrosian, J., Johnson, D., Molineux, B. 1994)

"The goal of any communication system is to increase an individual’s ability to communicate more effectively and efficiently. Typically those who rely on augmentative communication systems communicate at slower rates and with restrictive vocabulary sets. The response by their speaking communication partners is to dominate the conversation by initiating, setting the topic, asking yes/no questions, not pausing long enough to allow the augmentative communicator to respond and closing the conversation. The augmentative communicator then may assume a very passive role in the conversation with reduced social experiences and reduced motivation to use the communication system." (Morris, K. & Newman, K. 1993 page 85)

"Typically, aided speakers have been found to be passive responders who contribute significantly less to the conversational exchange. They exhibit a limited range of communicative functions and rely to a greater extent than do their speaking partners on non-verbal communicative behaviour. They produce a high proportion of yes/no responses and other brief, low-information responses. In their interactions with aided speakers, speaking partners tend to dominate the conversation. They initiate topics more frequently, ask a high proportion of yes/no and forced choice questions, and occupy more of the conversational space." (Buzolich, M. & Lunger, J. 1995)

It is therefore important that we:

make time to communicate with those Learners using AAC.
provide opportunity and the time for Learners to respond.
take turns with Learners.
respond appropriately in as positive a manner as circumstances allow.
don't predict what the Learner is going to say or use any other 'speeding-up' strategy unless instructed to do so by the Learner.
don't show signs of impatience and behaviours we would consider rude in others.
don't belittle or berate or otherwise devalue the communicative attempt of a Learner.
don't make fun of a Learner's attempts to communicate. Don't laugh unless they are telling you a joke.
don't always enter 'teacher mode' on communication by a Learner outside of a didactic environment.
make a mental note of any concerns we may have about Learner communication and report them to the appropriate staff member concerned out of sight and earshot of the Learner.
celebrate all Learner communication even if it is not yet at a polished level.
encourage further Learner communication where possible.
create an environment in which Learner communication is likely to flourish.

Suppose I wanted to help you speak Mandarin Chinese. Suppose I wanted to encourage you to practise the Chinese taught thus far in the establishment. What factors would encourage you to talk to staff in Chinese outside of the classroom? What would put you off? What would make you want to give up entirely?

Please don't let communication problems cause further communication problems.

See Also:

Speech Rate

Anson, D., Moist, P., Przywars, M., Wells, H., Saylor, H., & H. Maxime. (2004).The effects of word completion and word prediction on typing rates using on-screen keyboards. Assistive Technology, Volume 18

Arons, B. (1992) Techniques, perception, and application of time-compressed speech. American Voice I/O Society, pp. 169 – 177

Beukelman, D.R. & P. Mirenda, P. (2005) Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Supporting Children and Adults with Complex Communication Needs. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company, Baltimore, MD.

Beukelman, D.R. & P. Mirenda, P. (1998). Augmentative and alternative communication: Management of severe communication disorders in children and adults. P.H. Brookes Pub. Co.

Bryen, D. (1993). Augmentative Communication Mastery:One approach and some preliminary outcomes. The First Annual Pittsburgh
Employment Conference for Augmented Communicators Proceedings, August 20-22:   Shout Press: Pittsburgh

Buzolich, M. & Lunger, J. (1995). Empowering system users in peer training, Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 11(1), March 1995, pp 37 - 48

Demasco, P.W., McCoy, K.F., Gong,Y., Pennington, C.A. & Rowe, C. (1989). Towards more intelligent AAC interfaces: The use of natural language processing. RESNA, New Orleans, Louisiana, June 1989.

Demasco, P.W. & McCoy, K.F. (1992). Generating text from compressed input: An intelligent interface for people with severe motor impairments. Communications of the ACM, Volume 35(5), pp. 68 – 78, May

Hoag, L., Bedrosian, J., Johnson, D., Molineux, B. (1994). Variables affecting perceptions of social aspects of the communicative competence of an adult AAC user, Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 10 (3), September 1994, pp. 129 - 137.

Higginbotham, D. J., Shane, H., Russell, S. & Caves, K. (2007). Access to AAC: Present, past, and future. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 23 (3), pp. 243 – 257

Hill, K. (2001). The development of a model for automated performance measurement and the establishment of performance indices for augmented communicators under two sampling conditions. Unpublished dissertation. University of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh, PA.

Hill, K., & Romich, B. (2001). AAC Clinical summary measures for characterizing performance. CSUN Conference Proceedings, Los Angeles, CA.

Hill, K., Romich, B., & Holko, R. (2001). AAC performance: The elements of communication rate. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), Convention ‘01, New Orleans, LA.

Hill, K., & Romich, B. (2002). A Rate Index for Augmentative and Alternative Communication. International Journal of Speech Technology Volume 5, pp. 57 - 64

Koester, H.H., & Levine, S.P. (1994). Modeling the speed of text entry with a word prediction interface. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, Volume 2(3), pp. 177 - 187.

Koester, H.H., & Levine, S.P. (1996). Effect of a Word Prediction feature on User Performance. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 12, pp. 155 - 168.

Koester, H.H. & Levine, S.P. (1997). Keystroke-level models for user performance with word prediction. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 13, pp. 239 – 257, December.

Lesher, G.W. & Higginbotham, D.J. (2005). Using web content to enhance augmentative communication. Proceedings of CSUN 2005

Light, J. (1989), Toward a definition of communicative competence for individuals using augmentative and alternative communication systems, Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 5(2) , pp. 137 - 144

Light, J. & Binger, C. (1998). Building communicative competence with individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Morris, K. & Newman, K. (1993). Vocabulary to promote social interaction using augmentative communication devices, 14th Southeast Annual Augmentative Communication Conference Proceedings, pp. 85 - 92, Birmingham, Alabama: SEAC

Romich, B.A., & Hill, K.J. (2000). AAC communication rate measurement: Tools and methods for clinical use. RESNA '00 Proceedings, pp. 58 - 60. Arlington, VA: RESNA Press.

Romich, B.A., Hill, K.J., & Spaeth, D.M. (2000). AAC selection rate measurement: Tools and methods for clinical use. RESNA '00 Proceedings, pp. 61 - 63. Arlington, VA: RESNA Press

Romich, B.A., Hill, K.J., & Spaeth, D.M. (2001). AAC selection rate measurement: A method for clinical use based on spelling. RESNA '01 Proceedings, pp. 52 - 54. Arlington, VA: RESNA Press.

Smith, L.E., Higginbotham, D.J., Lesher, G.W., Moulton, B., & Mathy, P. (2006). The development of an automated method for analyzing communication rate in augmentative and alternative communication.  Assistive Technology, Volume 18 (1). pp.107 - 121.

Trnka, K., Yarrington, D., McCaw, J., McCoy, K.F., & Pennington, C.A. (2007). The effects of word prediction on communication rate for aac. NAACL, pp. 173 – 176.

Trnka, K., Yarrington, D., McCoy, K.F., & Pennington, C.A. (2006). Topic modeling in fringe word prediction for aac. IUI ’06, pp. 276 – 278

Venkatagiri, H.S. (1993). Efficiency of lexical prediction as a communication acceleration technique. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 9, pp. 161 - 167.

Venkatagiri, H.S. (1995). Techniques for Enhancing Communication Productivity in AAC: A Review of Research. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, Volume 4, pp. 36 – 45.

Wisenburn B. & Higginbotham, D.J. (2009). Participant Evaluations of Rate and Communication Efficacy of an AAC Application Using Natural Language Processing,  Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 25(2) , pp. 78 - 89

Intelligibility

Drager, K.D.R. & Reichle, J.E. (2001). Effects of Discourse Context on the Intelligibility of Synthesized Speech for Young Adult and Older Adult Listeners, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, Volume 44, pp. 1052 - 1057, October 2001.

Drager, K.D.R., Clark-Serpentine, E.A., Johnson, K.E. & Roeser, J.L. (2006), Accuracy of Repetition of Digitized and Synthesized Speech for Young Children in Background Noise, American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, Volume 15(2), pp. 155 - 164

Drager, K.D.R., & Finke, E.H. (2012). Intelligibility of Children’s Speech in Digitized Speech, Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 28(3), pp. 181 - 189

Hardee, J.B. & Mayhorn, C.B. (2007). Reexamining Synthetic Speech: Intelligibility and the Effects of Age, Task, and Speech Type on Recall, Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, Volume 51(18): pp. 1143 - 1147.

Koul, R. & Hester, K. (2006), Effects of repeated listening experiences on the recognition of synthetic speech by individuals with severe intellectual disabilities. Journal of Speech Language Hearing Research, Volume 49(1), pp. 47 - 57.

Mirenda, P. & Beukelman, D. (1987). A comparison of speech synthesis intelligibility with listeners from three age groups, Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 3(3), pp. 120 - 128

Papadopoulos, K., Katemidou, E., Koutsoklenis, A., & Mouratidou, E. (2010). Differences Among Sighted Individuals and Individuals with Visual Impairments in Word Intelligibility Presented via Synthetic and Natural Speech, Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 26 (4), pp. 278 - 288

Roring, R.W., Hines, F.G., & Charness, N. (2007). Age Differences in Identifying Words in Synthetic Speech, Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Volume 49(1), pp. 25 - 31.

Vitevitch M.S. (2002), Naturalistic and Experimental Analyses of Word Frequency and Neighborhood Density Effects in Slips of the Ear, Language and Speech, Volume 45(4), pp. 407 - 434.

Von Berg, S., Panorska A.,, Uken, D., & Qeadan, F. (2009). DECtalk™ and VeriVox™: Intelligibility, Likeability, and Rate Preference Differences for Four Listener Groups, Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 25(1), pp. 7 - 18

TWO: The BEST POLEs

BEST = Best Ever Stimulating Thing
What is it the the Learner loves? Is it sweets/candy, is it a particular game, a TV programme, a particular person? In other words what is the Best Ever Stimulating Thing for a particular individual? Let's start with this as the motivator.

POLE = Person Object Location Event
The BEST thing will be a POLE. POLE is an acronym for Person Object Location or Event. All AAC addresses one of these things and sometimes more than one in the same statement. If we can place a tangible POLE at the end of an AAC action (in other words: provide the Learner with a POLE as a result of a request using an AAC system) then we have a way of moving forward. Not just any sort of POLE! What sort of POLE? Well, a BEST POLE of course.

In order to tempt a reluctant Learner to use symbols, work with AAC, or AAC on an SGD (Speech Generating Device), even one that is very simple, may require the Facilitator to make BEST POLEs available. For example, in order that a Learner may come to understand that the use of an SGD results in the ability to obtain a desired reward then the BEST is a great place to start! Some uses of a simple AAC system do not result in a tangible reward: for example, if I were to store 'What time is it please?' on a SSS then the system User is not obtaining a reward from its use (unless the User likes people talking to him/her a lot or is excited by knowing the current time). Beginning Learners of simple AAC systems are more likely to be motivated by concrete POLEs (Persons Objects Locations or Events) than abstract notions. However, a POLE that is motivating to one Learner may not be very motivating to another; one Learner may really love chocolate (object) while another may really like walking in the garden (location) and yet another may really love working with Mary, the Support Assistant (Person). If we can put a BEST POLE at the end of a simple AAC system (in other words, make the receiving of something really motivating to the Learner contingent on the use of a cell on a simple AAC system) then we have a chance of motivating the reluctant User.

Starting simply with AAC work leading to a BEST POLE can not only motivate a reluctant communicator but also help to establish Cause and Effect awareness (see sections on cause and effect on this website) as well as the beginnings of symbolic awareness. While there is always a greater danger of fly-swatting (see fly-swatting later on this web page), this can be overcome (or, at least, highlighted) on movement to and use of more complex AAC systems at some future point.

Can we put a BEST POLE on an AAC system as simple as a one messaging device? Yes! Whatever it is that is motivating to a particular Learner we can surely provide on request at some point. However, there are some BEST POLES that may not be able to be supplied on demand in the classroom: for example, a Learner may love to go swimming, but the swimming pool is across the other side of town and is only available to the establishment on a particular day during a particular time slot.

Not all our pupils have favourites.
Please do not say that! Yes, they do. It is just that with some individuals the BEST may be very hard to discover. I remember a school that told me they had thought that a particular Learner was not motivated by anything until one day a group of musicians came to the school and this young man was sat near to the tuba player and, every time he played, the young man's face lit up. It was a certain frequency of sounds that was motivating. Talk to Significant Others first - they are likely to know things that may be motivating or, at least, suggest a possible avenue of investigation. I am always concerned when a Learner is self harming as a form of stimulation. Trying to discover something that is more motivating than poking your own eyes, or slapping your own face, or biting yourself (and other such behaviours) is difficult. I once worked with a young lady who would regularly poked herself in her eyes as a form of self stimulation. I found that a really strong fan placed close to her face was the only thing that appeared to be at least as motivating. Providing her with safe control of the fan through a single switch proved very successful and was a platform for further development.

What if a Learner's BEST is not age appropriate?
So what if it isn't? If it is a favourite it is a place to start and an entry into their world. It is not that everything in the school day will be age inappropriate or that you will be treating them in an age inappropriate way - it is possible to use age inappropriate items in an age appropriate manner. Furthermore, the goal is not to remain with this item, the goal is to use the item as a springboard for moving forward. For me, providing it's ethical and it's a platform for development then its an acceptable tool. However, when the inspectors are around - I wouldn't recommend the use age inappropriate things; they tend not to like them!

See also:

Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (1986). School Learning, Time and Learning Disabilities: The Disassociated Learner, Journal of Learning Disability, March 1986, Volume 19 (3), pp. 130 - 138.

Mirrett, P.L. & Roberts, J.E. (2003). Early intervention practices and communication intervention strategies for young males with fragile X syndrome, Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, Volume 34(4): pp. 320 - 331.

Tarver, S.G. & Hallahan, D.P. (1974), Attention Deficits In Children With Learning Disabilities; A Review, Journal of Learning Disability, November 1974, Volume 7(9), pp. 560 - 569.

THREE: Limiting Factors

Whilst a Learner's request for another mouthful of food (while being assisted with eating) is limited by the size of the meal, it is often not the case in other situations; a Learner may go on asking for more and more and cause a bit of a problem for the Significant Others involved. This is especially true if a BEST POLE is involved! (Person Object Location Event)

It is important therefore to set limits on the availability of the POLE rewards that are provided when requested via the use of a simple AAC system. Talksense will illustrate this with a particular example although the same thing can be achieved with any POLE. Let's assume that the particular Learner with whom we are working loves chocolate and the particular BEST for him/her are chocolate buttons.

The first task is to establish a motivational minimum. That is, what is the minimum amount of the POLE that the Learner still finds motivating? If the BEST POLE is a chocolate button, perhaps there is no need need to provide a whole button on request as a half or even a quarter may suffice. Sure that means cutting the buttons carefully into quarters, but the goal here is not to over-feed a Learner (and spoil their appetite for the main meals of the day) but, rather, to:

motivate the Learner into working with the simple AAC system;
assist the Learner's understanding that using the system is an effective means of controlling the environment.

Limiting the size of the BEST in this way also means that we are not wasting resources on providing complete buttons for a single activation of the system: the relationship is almost inversely proportional - the more limited the POLE the more activations of the system can occur in any one session.

Once a motivational minimum has been established for the BEST POLE, the second task is to set limits on the availability of the POLE in a manner that the Learner will be able to comprehend. This might involve a little subterfuge on the part of the Significant Others involved! For example, continuing with our buttons idea, it is found that the motivational minimum has to be a whole button and it is decided (by the professional team involved) that a limit of just 5 whole buttons in any one session is the maximum amount that can be allowed. A few packets of chocolate buttons are purchased and the contents are kept safely in a refrigerator in a Tupperware or similar container. However, the packets are NOT discarded: each session, the Significant Other concerned takes five buttons and puts them into an empty packet. The packet complete with its five button content is taken into the classroom for use as BEST POLE motivator for the Learner. The packet is emptied onto a plate in front of the Learner. The Significant Other should make a point of noting that there are ONLY five buttons left; "Oh dear! There is only one, two, three, four, five buttons left. Never mind, I'll get some more for tomorrow." The Learner should be clearly able to see the five buttons on the plate. The Learner can be given the packet to see that it is empty. Each time a reward is earned, the Learner is allowed to take a button from the plate. The Learner can see the buttons reducing in number. Each time the Significant Other counts down the remaining buttons such that the Learner is in no doubt as to the finite nature of the reward.

When the rewards are all used, the particular activity (using the simple AAC system) is complete and another activity should commence. The Learner should be shown the empty plate and informed that s/he has eaten all the buttons and there are no more available (the empty packet can be used to reinforce this notion).

What if the Learner continues to request the BEST POLE?
The Learner is shown the empty packet and the plate and is told that the staff member is sorry but there are no more available. However, the Significant Other promises that s/he will buy some more for the next session. Of course, in the next session, the packet will yet again only contain the five buttons!

What if the Learner gets very upset and angry at the lack of BEST POLE?
Hopefully, the above technique will help alleviate such an issue. However, the first time this procedure is attempted, it may be problematic (in this way). The Learner should be prepared for the next task even before the buttons have been eaten: "When all the buttons are gone, we will go and work on the computer." On completion, the Learner is quickly moved to the next task . After this procedure has been used (in various forms) with a Learner, s/he is more likely to come to accept (learn) that there is a finite amount of any pleasurable activity (BEST) to be had and be more accepting of that fact.

Well, it's OK with chocolate buttons you can put onto a plate but what if the BEST POLE is a walk in the school garden that it is not possible to restrict?
With such examples of BEST POLEs it is still important to introduce the concept of restrictions. You can link such POLEs to tokens or tickets that (again) just happen to be available in restricted numbers. For example you might produce five 'walk in the garden' tickets or tokens that the Learner can use at any point during a session by simply asking for it. Each time the Learner asks the ticket or token must be completely removed in a way that precludes its return or re-use (posting in a locked box for example to which the Significant Others involved do not have a key). The Learner can not only now see the tokens or tickets going down but is actively involved in posting them (as in the example) and, thus, can 'sense' the reduction in availability. The Learner may elect to use all the tokens one after another or spread them out to last during a session but, whatever, Significant Others must stick with the scheme and not simply provide more tokens when the set limit has been reached.

You have a swimming ticket above, we cannot possibly provide that on request!
Then do not provide the tickets for such a POLE and do not set up the AAC system so that such a request can be repeated. Only give access to what can be provided.

Some days we might be able to provide staff to go for walks in the school garden but there will be equally other days on which we cannot.
As above, only provide access and tickets for the things that can be provided or, if there is only staff availability for two walks only provide two tickets. Also remember to use the Motivational Minimum in all situations so that a walk around the school garden can be limited to just a few minutes and not an hour or more.

What about other school work?
Repeat requests for POLEs cannot be consecutive; that is, a Learner may not ask for a walk in the garden and then, immediately on returning to class, request the same thing again. The rule is POLE - WORK - POLE - WORK which may be reinforced by a picture or object schedule (See Picture Schedules this page). Indeed, the tickets are best provided as a reward for completion of a set piece of work. If the Learner knows that he will be able to request a particular BEST POLE if s/he completes a (less favoured) task then s/he is more likely to do the task with demonstrating any behaviours that staff may find challenging. Staff should maintain this position consistently so that the Learner is not given mixed messages. If one specific staff member just allows a repetition of a BEST POLE over and over it will effectively dismantle any work that others have achieved. See the section on 'Requesting a Favourite' on this web site.

If access to a BEST POLE is provided through a simple AAC system then it should not be surprising if a Learner begins to ask for it! If a Learner asks then the POLE should be provided. It is counter productive to say such things as, "Oh I haven't time for that now John" or "We have run out of that Jane" or "Jim's playing with that toy now Jack so you can't have it."

If you know in advance that a particular POLE is not going to be available in a particular session then hide or mask or remove that option from the simple AAC system temporarily. See the section on hiding and masking on this web site for more detailed information.

You must decide in advance how much time is allowed per request per POLE! For example, if a Learner requests chocolate and you have found the motivational minimum (the least amount of a POLE which will still satisfy a particular Learner) then simply eating the POLE draws the activity to a close and another request has to be made. If the POLE is a 'walk in the garden' then the motivational minimum may be out of the class, once around the garden and back to class. However, if the POLE is to play with a specific toy how are we to impose a motivational minimum? It has to be something to which the Learner can relate and is outside staff or Learner control. For example, an electronic timer which buzzes or rings when the time is up. There is no one set time which is applicable to all such POLEs, it will vary with the POLE and the Learner and the views of the staff. If you are intending using a ticketing system to limit the amount of requests for a specific POLE then a shorter motivational minimum can mean you can make more tickets available (which means more Learner requests in any one period using the simple AAC system).

Repeat requests for POLEs cannot be consecutive; that is, a Learner may not ask for a walk in the garden and then, immediately on returning to class, request the same thing again. The rule is POLE - WORK - POLE - WORK which may be reinforced by a picture or object schedule (See Picture Schedules this web site). Indeed, the tickets are best provided as a reward for completion of the set piece of work. If the Learner knows that he will be able to request a particular BEST POLE if s/he completes a less favoured task then s/he is more likely to do the task with demonstrating any behaviours that staff may find challenging.

You cannot ticket the playing with a toy, can you? Surely if it is available, it is available!

Well, if the Learner can see it that may be problematic but if it is put away and the staff member ensures that the Learner understand s that s/he will only go and get it out of the cupboard <TICKET> number of times because 's/he is very busy' and Learner can only have it for T time that is measured by D device (Learner should be encouraged to set timer him/herself. The Learner has to understand that playing with the toy is conditional on doing a specific piece of work and that he cannot simple do the work quickly and then play with the toy for the rest of the session. I now apply something like this to my own work routine: if I work for T (time) then I can have M (Minutes) doing something I really like. It works! The trick is too find the Motivational Minimum and the Mission Maximum! The Mission Maximum refers to the maximum amount of work that you can reasonably expect a particular Learner to complete before obtaining a reward. It is directly liked to a Learner's Attention Span and should not exceed this time. However, over an extended period, the goal should be to increase the Maximum while reducing the Minimum! The Mission Maximum should probably not exceed a twenty minute time slot on any one activity. For many Learners it will be significantly less than this period.

What if the Learner refuses to go for work and wants the POLE immediately?

First, the reasons for this should be ascertained. For example, if on entering a classroom the Learner can see the POLE, this may cause an overwhelming desire that is too much for the Learner to overcome. Thus, whenever possible POLEs should be kept out of view until requested. Of course, during the tuition phase it may be necessary to use the POLE as the motivator for the interaction with the simple AAC system. However, during the operational phase, following tuition, the POLEs presence may simply serve as a Learner distractor.

On entering the classroom, the Learner should be shown (indeed be involved in if possible) setting up a picture schedule for the sessions activities. If POLE periods are a part of this schedule then they can be represented by a 'favourites' symbol to indicate that the Learner can make a choice of what s/he wants to do next for a specifically allotted time. It should be clear to the Learner that B is contingent upon A: that is, access to a favourite is contingent upon completion of task A and the issuing of a POLE token or ticket. If a Learner can see that B will follow work on A, s/he will be more likely to comply with A especially if this is enforced across the curriculum by all staff such that the Learner comes to understand that s/he will not have access to a BEST POLE (B) if 'A' is not completed.

Thus, there are ten RULES which may be involved in governing the request for a favourite:

RULE ONE: Investigate BEST POLEs for individual Learners
RULE TWO:   Do not provide access to request a favourite item on a simple AAC system if it cannot be supplied.
RULE THREE:    Determine the Motivational Minimum (MM) for any POLE. Learner cognizance of MM is important.
RULE FOUR:   Set Limits and stick to them.
RULE FIVE:    If a Learner makes a request for a favourite POLE then provide it!
RULE SIX:   If a POLE cannot be provided on a particular day (or in a particular session) hide or mask the Learner's ability to request it
RULE SEVEN: POLEs are not consecutive: Learner undertakes set work before POLE provision is available.
RULE EIGHT: Determine the Mission Maximum. Learner agreement to (and ability for) Mission Maximum is important.
RULE NINE:   During Operational phases, POLEs should be kept out of view (if possible) to avoid Learner Distraction.
RULE TEN: Yes! Rules are meant to be broken but, please, break them with care!

Four: Talking with Dinosaurs on Inclusion and Integration

"If a lion could talk, we could not understand him."
Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations, first published in 1953,page 223)

What?! That's crazy! If a lion could speak English then surely we would be able to understand what he was saying. Even if it could only speak lionese, if we had a translator then we would comprehend his message: wouldn't we? Wittgenstein was not specifically talking about lions of course, he could just as easily be talking about dinosaurs or any animal and many humans. I entitled this section 'Talking with Dinosaurs' as a pun of the BBC TV series 'Walking with Dinosaurs' (BBC TV, 1999) even though the Wittgenstein quote concerns lions.

So what did Wittgenstein mean and how does it relate to a fundamental issue in AAC? Wittgenstein is often rather difficult to understand but I take him to mean that if a lion could speak, the language games he would use would be very unfamiliar to us because a lion's experience of the world and a human's experience are alien entities. In order to understand a lion we would have to approach the lion from a lion's perspective. Had we walked a mile in the lion's (metaphorical) shoes then we might begin something resembling a dialogue.

How does this apply to Learners experiencing severe communication difficulties? Well, if we approach using just our language, there might be an issue because Learners with such difficulties may, by definition, have significant problems with language. We cannot just expect such a Learner to comprehend all that we are saying via the medium of speech alone: we have to approach at the 'lion's level of experience and understanding'. In other words, we have to approach the Learner from the current experience and level of the Learner. That is, we need to be inclusive!
"If children don’t learn the way we teach,
We must strive to teach the way they learn."
Ignacio Estrada

In 2001, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act changed the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act to be inclusive of schools and colleges. Thus, it became unlawful to discriminate against a Learner experiencing a disability in all aspects of school life without proper justification. Thus, the potential for real inclusion took a step forward. However, it should be understood that Inclusiveness is not the same thing as integration:

“We seem to use integration and inclusion as synonymous. This
is not helpful and it would be useful is we could agree what we
mean by each of these.”
(http://www.diseed.org.uk)

Indeed, integration can mean further segregation: the child integrated into a place where s/he is not accepted or included can feel more segregated than the child who was not integrated. While we might be integrated into a whole series of lectures by Stephen Hawking, the authors would undoubted feel lost with the level of knowledge required to participate; therefore, we would be integrated but not included. To be included, the tutor, and the rest of the class would have to change their practice. Simply providing an additional (part-time) member of staff to work alongside the authors in the series of lectures and ‘translate’ Stephen’s language into the ‘English’ that we might understand is insufficient and not inclusion.

Integration + Translation ≠ Inclusion

Including a Learner (who has learning and communication difficulties) may be daunting for many staff. Even in ‘specialist’ establishments, the switch user may still be marginalised and under-tasked or over-tasked or segregated. Staff may find the Learner very challenging: they may find that s/he:

is at a completely different level to the rest of the class;
does not understand staff communication;
uses equipment with which they are unfamiliar;
requires additional help from other specialist staff which means that they miss significant parts of lessons;
is too slow and holds up the progression of the others in the class;
finds the level of work inappropriate and is constantly failing to achieve;
cannot use his/her simple communication system to answer class questions;
begins to behave in a challenging fashion after a short period in the group.

On the other hand, staff might naively claim that the Learner is understanding and following all that is happening within the class when in fact most it is flying over the Learner’s head at an incredible rate! The supporting member of staff (LSA) is the one who is, in fact, completing most of the work on the Learner’s part, for which the Learner is being credited.

All scenarios are clearly unacceptable and none is inclusive.

Generally speaking, educational staff at all levels are already fully tasked with work. Contrary to popular misconception (lots of holidays and short working day), educational staff work long hours and put in a great deal of effort during and beyond the school day to deliver the school curriculum. Therefore, the majority of the suggestions on this webpage and on this website generally obey the ‘30 Second Rule’ (Caroline Musselwhite); that is, they can be delivered in thirty seconds or less by almost any member of staff. While some may take a little longer to prepare, once preparation is complete – the implementation should be possible in 30 seconds or less and the prepared materials can be saved and used again and again. They can (and should) be used with the whole class such that the Learner is included as a part of the ‘system’ of the classroom and does not feel that ‘special’ measures are being adopted on his or her part (and only on his or her part). Such ‘special measures’ may, in fact, mark the Learner as different from the other children and set him/her apart in an alternative form of segregation.

Several studies show the benefit (for both those with and without disabilities) of the integration of Learners experiencing severe disabilities into general education settings particularly in relation to the social aspects of learning (acceptance, self-esteem, and social skills) (see for example - Kennedy, Shukla, & Fryxell, 1997; Mu, Siegel, & Allinder, 2000). Although some studies indicate academic gains, generally, teachers find the inclusion of Learners with severe disabilities in the ‘academic’ curriculum much more challenging (Heller, 2001). The authors’ classroom experience reinforces this notion. Staff are often unable to articulate why Learners are using switches in a particular way or why a Learner is performing a specific task with an SGD (Speech Generating Device) in a particular way (And you are doing this because...?). In some instances, Learners have been observed following what appear to be completely distinct activities to the rest of their peers in the class and, on many occasions, have been removed to a separate section of the school or college. Some staff may also avoid involving Learners using AAC equipment in question and answer sessions because their response is 'too slow' or 'they haven't got the necessary vocabulary' . Staff may also change their questioning style to the closed (yes/no) format for such Learners whilst using the open question format for others and claim it is an inclusive practice. Learners may spend an inappropriate amount of time on variations of a basic activity (making the toy dog walk or making the toy cat sing) because staff are unsure how to proceed.

See also:

Fisher, M., & Meyer, L.H. (2002). Development and social competence after two years for students enrolled in inclusive and self-contained educational programs. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, Volume 27(3), pp. 165 - 174.

Heller, K.W. (2001). Adaptations and instruction in science and social studies. In J.L. Bigge, S.J. Best, & K.W. Heller (Eds.), Teaching individuals with physical, health, or multiple disabilities (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Jackson, L., Ryndak, D.L., & Billingsley, F. (2000). Useful practices in inclusive education: A preliminary view of what experts in
moderate to severe disabilities are saying. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, Volume 25 (3), pp. 129 - 141.

Kennedy, C., Shukla, S., & Fryxell, D. (1997). Comparing the effects of educational placement on the social relationships of intermediate school students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, Volume 64(1), pp. 31 - 47.

McDonnell, J., Mathot-Buckner, C., Thorson, N., & Fister, S. (2001). Supporting the inclusion of student with moderate and severe disabilities in junior high school general education classes: The effects of class wide peer tutoring, multi-element curriculum and accommodations. Education and Treatment of Children, Volume 24(2), pp.141 - 160.

Mu, K., Siegel, E.B., & Allinder, R.M. (2000). Peer interactions and sociometric status of high school students with moderate or severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, Volume 25(3), pp. 142 - 152.

Ryndak, D.L., Jackson, L., & Billingsley, F. (2000). Defining school inclusion for students with moderate to severe disabilities. Exceptionality, Volume 8(2), 101 - 116.

Sailor, W., Gee, K., & Karasoff, P. (2000). Inclusion and school restructuring. In M. E. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (5th ed.), 31 - 66. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

FIVE: And you are doing this because?

"Ask an impertinent question, and you are on the way to a pertinent answer"
Jacob Bronowski (1973 The Ascent of Man.New York, Little,Brown and Company)

We would all do well to ask ourselves this phrase everyday; not just with simple AAC systems but in all we attempt to do with and for Learners. Talksense has often questioned the use of personal information on very simple AAC devices, for example. Such phrases as 'My name is Tony and I live in Mansfield' may on occasion be a legitimate use of the such a system but one wonders:

what the Learner understands from it;
how often it gets used;
is it taking up a cell that might be better occupied by other vocabulary;
whether the Learner is just fly-swatting on some prompt or other.

The same does not hold true of more advanced AAC systems in which a linked page can and should be dedicated to this area.

The same is (perhaps to a lesser extent) true of social greetings: such vocabulary as 'hello' and 'Good morning' are quite abstract for Learners experiencing PMLD. If a system is presented to each Learner in a group, one after another, that repeats such a message, isn't it likely that the Learner is simple fly-swatting in response to staff approaching, smiling, speaking and presenting such a system? What are they really learning? The correct use of social greetings?

If:

the entire session had other legitimate aims and objectives but;
included saying 'Good Morning' using a simple AAC system and;
the staff were able to state these further objectives,

then,

they would be answering the question "and you are doing this because?".
Talksense would consider this an example of good practice

When is the use of personal information on a simple AAC system legitimate?

A visitor is expected in class and Learners are encouraged to introduce themselves;
The Learner has to say the line as a part of a school production;
The Learner really does understand the concepts involved and needs to use then frequently;
Other (where staff can answer 'and you're doing this because?'.)

If the Learner really does understand the concepts involved then we should be questioning why s/he is working with a simple AAC system to provide Augmentative Communication and why s/he isn't working on a more advanced system with linked page output instead.

Of course, not everything we do with simple AAC has to have a sound educational motivation .... just the majority of the things! Having fun is a legitimate reason, although we can have fun AND have sound educational reasons underlying what we are attempting to do. Staff should avoid teaching fly-swatting and question what they think the Learner is understanding from the action; that is ... ask themselves 'and I am doing this because ...?'

For example: the use of the word 'please' on very simple AAC systems. Explain the meaning of the adverbial form of 'please' to me. You will probably say something like a polite addition to a sentence. Now explain it in concrete terms. It is not easy to do that! What does 'polite' actually mean?! 'Please' is a somewhat abstract term for a social convention. As our Learners are likely to be requiring 'concrete' forms in order to make sense of the world, an insistence on the use of 'please' seems rather illogical! However, that is not to say it should be avoided rather that its abstractness should be acknowledged and handled with care and we should ask, "and I am doing this because".

Parents have a very clever way of teaching their children the 'please' word. They use a phasing out approach that gradually, over quite a long period of time, reduces the cues and the prompts until their children quite naturally use the word without much need to think about it. They might start by simply pointing out the need for the word:

"Say please" or just an emphatic "please".

and then use a reminder:

"When you say please"

later, this might be modified to become a prompt:

"What's the P word?" or "What's the magic word?"

fading to:

"What do you say?" or "If you ask nicely" or "haven't you forgotten to say something?"

and eventually they might just give their child that certain look which may be enough to prompt for the word use. Likewise we can follow this example in an educational setting. At first, we can just indicate (with a laser pen or by pointing) the need for the polite 'please' addition. Then we can use the 'say please' direct prompt and follow our parents example! If this is true of 'please' it should hold true for 'thank you' too.

If we are working within any area in Special Education we should be asking 'and I am doing this because' and relating our response to the Primary Purpose (see lower on this web page) which is Independence. All staff should be able to answer these questions:

I am doing this because ...
It helps develops the Learner's Independence because ...

and the answer cannot be because 'I have been told to do it' or because 'the curriculum says I must do it'. Those are not answers they are excuses. Staff need to understand and be able to state the what, why, and how they are doing something. Staff also require a belief in what they are doing.

SIX: Avoid Flyswatting

What is flyswatting and what problems arise from it? Let us imagine a situation in a special education establishment: a staff member is moving around a group sitting in a classroom and offering a single BIGmack to each Learner in turn. The Learners are required to activate the BIGmack which then says some message or plays some sound. The staff member makes a comment and then moves away. The BIGmack does not carry a symbol. What do we make of such an activity? What is the Learner actually learning? If we were to ask "and you are doing that because?" What would be the response?

In such situations, the Learner is (most likely) presented with BIGmacks throughout the day; maybe an identical BIGmack (same colour) several times. Each time it is presented, the BIGmack says or does something different and, without even a symbol to give some cue as to what is happening, what is the Learner to make of it all (especially if that Learner is experiencing PMLD)? A Learner may learn to 'flyswat' the BIGmack as it is presented and views the staff member's response as a desirable reward to that behaviour. However, such 'flyswatting' activity is viewed entirely differently by the staff member concerned: Staff may assume the Learner's 'co-operation' equates with an understanding of their objective(s) for the session. This may be far from the truth. Of course, some Learners may understand the intent of the session but how do we sort those that do from those that don't as both activate the BIGmack when presented?

Flyswatting is a feature of passivity not activity, or incusion or involvement, although it may be proffered as evidence of such by some staff.
Flyswatting is therefore defined as a conditioned response to a stilmulus with minimum cognitive engagement. The Learner is simply conditioned, over a period of time, to respond in a certain way to the presence of a SGD (Speech Generating Device), switch, communication board and can do so with the very minimum of cognitive engagement. As such, evidence of fly-swatting is an indicator of passivity.

A Learner may have to go through some form of fly-swatting stage in the beginning to interact with any system. However, the difference here is, once the interaction is established, the Learner is tasked to move beyond simply the act of activation and to engage in a task which is cognitively challenging. Consider learning to ride a bike ... at first it is a difficult process but eventually it becomes automatic and we are not conscious of what we need to do to achieve this feat. If we were cycling along a straight road without any obstacles we would not now be cognitively engaged and, like driving a familiar route, suddenly realise that we have reached a point on the journey without being conscious of how we got there! Once the task has been mastered therefore and automaticity is acquired, we need to move on to a further objective. It is the cognitive engagement with the new objective that moves the Learner beyond the act of merely fly-swatting.

How can you tell if a Learner is just fly swatting? That is a difficult question to answer. However, if the Learner has been using a particular system for some time (T) which is greater than the time taken to Automaticity (A) then, unless there is cognitive engagement (C), there is a potential for fly-swatting (F):

If T > A & C = 0 then F

The question then becomes, 'How can I tell if the Learner is Cognitively Engaged'?

How can you avoid introducing fly swatting activities? Answer the following questions about the activity:

Could I achieve a result with my eyes closed? Yes 0 No 1
Does the action demonstrate a competence beyond that of the action itself? Yes 1 No 0
Could I continue to get a correct response by accident? Yes 0 No 1
Is it part of a progressive sequence towards a particular goal? Yes 1 No 0
Is it a didactic strategy designed to teach awareness of the activity? Yes 1 No 0

Let us take an actual example and work through the above questions: A child is presented with a communication board at break time and asked to choose a drink. The board has previously been presented many times. It is not just being introduced.

The child reaches out and touches the board. A drink has been chosen!

Could I achieve a result with my eyes closed?      YES (0)
Does it demonstrate a competence? NO   (0)
Could I get a correct repsonse by accident          YES (0)
Is it part of a progressive sequence NO    (0)
Is it part of a didactic strategy NO    (0)

What is the score tally? Zero! Not a single point has been gained. The nearer the score is to zero, the more likely the activity is fly-swatting.

In this situation, anything the child touches provides a correct answer to the staff member's question: there is no possibility of being wrong, especially if all are drinks the Learner likes. The Learner could be responding in a fully cognisant manner, of course, but how would we know? So often, staff assume cognisance rather than testing for understanding.

Even if the Learner and the board have previously been tested and it has been shown beyond any doubt that the Learner is aware of all the symbols, the activity might still be considered as fly-swatting because, in any educational establishment, the goal should continually be to move beyond what has been learned and to progress the Learner further. Admittedly, this is a lesser form of fly-swatting than the scenario in which it has NOT been shown that the Learner is fully cognisant of all the symbols on the board.

Cognitive Engagement therefore removes an activity from mere fly-swatting. Therefore, we must consider Cognitive Engagement. See the section on Cognitive Engagement on this website

The image right is from 'Involve Me: Practical guide. How to involve people with profound and multiple learning disabilities (PMLD) in decision-making and consultation' from a collaboration between MENCAP and BILD published in 2011.

www.bild.org.uk/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=3115

You will note that the BIGmack being presented is both hand-held and without any symbol. Indeed, all such images in the document appear to be without symbol although most are photographed facing away and so it is difficult to tell. The guide is a great piece of work overall and I recommend it to you. I have no wish to criticise either MENCAP or BILD as they are both excellent organisations, worthy of great praise, but such a guide should evidence excellent practice throughout and this small part of it appears to be less than that. Of course, I do not know the people in the image or the circumstances in which the photograph was taken and therefore the situation might have been appropriate educationally. However, it does not, in my opinion, send out a vision of good practice to all who see it. You may disagree! There is a form at the bottom of this page for such comments.

Fly-swatting, in Learners experiencing PMLD, is of concern if staff are assuming that the practice is inclusive and of benefit. It might be considered to be neither!

Take a look at the YouTube video below. It shows Wade with his mum reading the Brown Bear story by Eric Carle. During this video Wade activates the BIGmack on several occasions. How do we know that Wade not simply fly-swatting? There are several indicators of cognitive engagement:

Wade only activates the BIGmack at the appropriate time;
He prepares for the activation getting his arm ready, there is no waiting and pauses while Mum prompts. Mum does not need to prompt;
He cannot see Mum to gain 'prompts for activation' from her body language as she is behind him.

This is NOT fly-swatting; Wade is engaged and involved in the story. Almost perfect practice from Mum. I say 'almost' because there is no symbol on the BIGmack to indicate the repeated story line 'What do you see': I would have added such a symbol (perhaps a symbol for SEE) so that the BIGmack was labelled. See the sections on this website on the use of the BIGmack and also on symbols. However, that being said, "Great Work Mum!" and "Great Work Wade - well done!".

Almost every emergent switch (and some type of AAC Users will go through a brief period of Fly-Swatting as they learn to connect the switch and the POLE together. However, in a few cases, the fly-swatting will continue. If this is without staff awareness there could be problems. So How do you tell if a Learner is fly-swatting? Talksense has put together a table of Fly-Swatting vs cognitive engagement. We do not pretend it is comprehensive but will add to it over time as new ideas arise.

FLY-SWATTING

No cause and effect skills;
Repeated switch activation;
Staff member presents switch at 'required' time
No anticipation of POLE;
Learner continues to access switch after POLE activated;
Little or no focus on POLE. All focus on switch.

COGNITIVE ENGAGEMENT

Cause and effect skills;
Considered switch activation in isolation;
Switches are mounted;
Learner anticipates POLE and readies hand;
Learner does not try to access switch after POLE activated;
Learner's main focus is on the POLE and not the switch.

SEVEN: Assumptions of Understanding are Counter-Productive

'Assume makes an ASS out of U and ME' (attributed to Oscar Wilde)

It is easy to assume that there is a white triangle on top of three circles in the image left. In fact there is NO white triangle - it's an illusion; your brain tends to fill in the gaps and make you believe that you see a complete triangle when there is nothing there. Sometimes, it's the same in special education: we assume that something is there and we fill in the gaps and join the dots with only scant (if any) evidence). In doing so, we help no-one: not ourselves, not Significant Others and certainly not any Learner.

Throughout thirty plus years of teaching in special education, I have often asked staff how they know some fact they are claiming about the cognizance of a particular Learner to be true. More often than not they were assuming cognizance based on an interpretation of a particular situation that really did not support such a claim. As we move towards evidence based practice we should equally move towards evidence based assertions of Learner comprehension. However, this is often not the case. It is not just staff that make such claims of course, all Significant Others are capable of believing unsubstantiated claims of Learner understanding.

"He understands everything I say"
"She smiles at my jokes - I know she is intelligent"
"He understands French and German" (A claim made by a parent of teenager experiencing Profound & Multiple Learning Difficulties)
"She can answer 'yes' to my questions"
"He can eye point to a correct object"

I am often called to question when I dispute claims of Learner cognizance: it's not that I want to destroy peoples established beliefs, rather that, building on unsound foundations is not a good strategy for future progress - it helps no-one, least of all the Learner. Many claims of Learner understanding are based on events that can be explained another way. For example, smiling at jokes is not a proof of understanding, it may be that the Learner is smiling because others are smiling; smiles are infectious. Of Course, there is an equal chance that the Learner is smiling because s/he has understood the pun and finds it amusing but how are we to tell the difference? I once worked with a nineteen year old student experiencing severe physical disabilities of whom a high level of intelligence was claim by his support worker who was in the employ of the student's parents. Together they had been building on 'progress' until I questioned the student's cognitive abilities to cope with the level of work being given to him. I decided to demonstrate to the staff and the support worker what I meant. I asked the support worker to write down ten questions that the student would know immediately. Really simple things like "Is your father a plumber?". All the questions could be answered by a yes or a no response or by selecting from a choice of two answers. The support worker gave me the list of questions. I cut the paper into strips and mixed the strips up randomly such that the questions were presented in a random order. I sent the support worker out of the room so that she could not hear the question being put to the student. She was called back immediately after the question had been put to ascertain the answer. Out of ten questions set by the support worker for which I was assured that the student would have no problem in understanding, there were only two correct responses. Chance alone would have allowed for a greater number. The support worker was most defensive about the result to the staff who observed the process. She claimed that it was an off day because of illness coupled with family problems. She also claimed that the student was having a 'joke' with us and not taking the process seriously.

While such claims may be true (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence) it was difficult for me because I was the 'bad guy' making counter arguments against the beliefs of the majority of the staff about the level of understanding of a particular individual. While we can never prove an individual incapable (the opposite is not true) we can prove the individual capable. In this instance, we failed to prove the student capable but had he performed on the day and proved me to be wrong I would have been very happy about it. In such circumstances I would rather be proved incorrect.

When Significant Others are involved with the performance and assessment of understanding of Learners there is a chance there might be misguided claims of cognizance and ability. The whole continuing debate on the efficacy of 'Facilitated Communication' is mostly based on such a premise - however, there is a danger of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' here: while there is significant evidence to suggest that facilitators are doing all of the communicative work on the Learner's behalf, it does not follow that the technique itself is flawed. Providing that Facilitators are aware of such concerns and all strive to ensure that such things cannot happen then the technique may have value to some Learners.

I once worked with a young man who was experiencing Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties. His parents, who were both language teachers, claimed that he understood both French and German. Dad proceeded to speak in French to the Learner who smiled at the end. Dad claimed that he was smiling because he was talking in French about his grandfather of whom he was very fond. I found it very difficult to put an alternate explanation. Following that assessment, I created a cartoon which is shown right in which a parent is claiming intelligence based on silence! Of course, this is over the top but it makes a real point, we can all interpret events in a way that suits our beliefs but, when it comes to the education of people with Learning difficulties it is extremely important that assessments are based on evidence of real ability and not assumptions of ability.

Below is the error-less communication chart 'proof of understanding' scenario cartoon. In the cartoon, the cat Tiggles is using a communication board to communicate with her owner. What can we state about this situation?

A group visit McDonald's for a fast food meal. Johnny has a communication board or a device such as an iPad on which there are four options: coke, burger, fries, and apple pie. John is asked what he would like and he fist points with some effort to Coke. What can we assume?

1. John wants a coke
2. John understands the concept of 'coke'
3. John understands the word 'coke'
4. All the above
5. None of the above.

We can assume NONE OF THE ABOVE! Why not?

Let's start with the board itself - presumably when the board was created, staff chose things to put on it that they thought or knew John liked. They did not choose things he did not like. There are only four cells and so using up space with things that John does not want seems to be a complete waste of everybody's time. Thus, wherever John 'points' on this board, he will get something he likes and, providing he is hungry, will probably eat when provided. The board is error-less: wherever John activate is a correct response - he cannot make a mistake.

Suppose John has learned to fly-swat (see section on fly-swatting on this page); that is, He has learned to touch the board when it is presented (it seems to make the staff happy and they always reward him afterwards with nice things). Does that mean he has:

attended to the images on the board?
consciously related one of the images to an item he desired in the real world?
told his muscles to control his arm such that he can move his fist to a specific area?
targeted that specific area?
understood that doing so is a request for staff to provide him with what he has selected?

It does not mean any of those things: fly-swatting is a stimulus response behaviour, a learned response to a particular stimulus or stimuli; in this case- the board or iPad screen. After the fly-swatting John is rewarded:

the staff are happy;
the staff leave him alone;
the staff provide him with a reward of food or drink or something he likes

Is he going to keep on touching that board when it is presented by staff? You bet! It's rewarding! Does that mean that John is cognitively engaged in the process? No, it doesn't - not in the way that staff assume that he is.

What about John's physical condition? It takes a great deal of cognitive and physical effort to target the board. He does not have great control and was going for fries but ended up above on 'coke'. The staff accepted that it was a coke that he chose and went and got him a coke. John likes coke - so he drinks it. It would have been too much effort to try again for John. If the effort (E) required is greater than the motivation (M) to communicate for the POLE (see this page) then communication (C) is unlikely to take place (0).

IF E > M then C = 0

John knows that, from previous experience, staff will eventually get him everything anyway and so an initial effort is all that is required. The staff will ask him closed questions to which he will smile. John likes the staff and when they speak to him, he smiles. They reward him for smiling by giving him things he likes. After his coke request they ask him if he would like a burger with some fries.

John actually wanted a milkshake to drink but there was no milkshake on the board - no-one has ever asked him about milkshakes and so they do not know that he likes them. There are lots of things that John likes that are not on any of his boards.

John doesn't understand the concept of coke; to him it is just another sweet drink that he likes. Had a juice been provided in place of the requested coke he wouldn't have known any different.

John has lots of topic boards. They all looked fairly similar: colourful squiggles on then. There are four squares. these are presented to him every now and again throughout the day. When staff present such a board to John, they want him to hit it. He was taught this early in his school life: A staff member picked up his hand and guided it to the board. When that was done, she gave him something nice. After several times doing this, John learned to touch the board himself without staff assistance. the staff were very pleased, they went away and left him in peace and came back with a nice thing for him.

That's crazy! Our 'Johns' are not doing that. they understand what they are doing and make conscious choices.

That may be true, I do not know. Certainly, it is likely that some of your Johns are making conscious choices but how do you know which ones are and which ones are just fly-swatting? How have you assessed understanding? Have you assessed Learner comprehension in such a way that it eliminates staff assumptions of Learner understanding? There are, at least, six methodologies for doing this (and several variations on each theme):

Blind Assessment: John is shown one of the items on his board and asked to tell another member of staff what he has been chosen. You can make this task 'important' by making it seem real life: "John, I have to pop out for a minute and Sandra is out. When she comes back could you please tell her that I want a 'coke' (hold up am empty can of coke) to drink at break today. Will you do that for me? Thank you. remember, its a COKE that I want" Sandra has been sent out of the room. When John has been told the message, you leave the room and that is cue for Sandra to return and talk to John? Sandra asks him if he knows what you want to drink for break? Can John pick out the drink from four drinks on the same page? You must also be careful not to point to the position of the drink on John's board because he could just be remembering where you pointed and have no clue about the symbol/object relationship. As Sandra does not know which drink was chose, she cannot unintentionally assist John in any way.

After the Fact: John went out for a trip to town with staff but you did not go. You know he went to McDonald's while he was there. You ask John to tell you what he had to eat and drink in the fast food restaurant. You do not know what he had but you can check with staff later. Can he tell you and get it correct? Getting two out of three right and one wrong is not sufficient to prove comprehension - it's all or nothing! It could be that after break every day that a member of staff has to ask John what he had to drink. There must be a way for the staff member to check John's response quickly. It is also not a good strategy if John has the same drink every break!

Boxing Clever: A shoe box of something similar is turned on its side and placed in front of John. A staff member places an item in the shoe box but you are unaware of what it is and cannot see the open side of the box and what it contains. Only John can see. John task is to tell you what is in the shoe box using his board. After he has told you - it's very easy to check.

Face Card: If you have some good quality photographs of POLEs (see POLE this page) then a few can be selected which match the items on one of John's boards. Your Speech and Language Therapy Department is likely to have a comprehensive set of such large and clear photographic cards. Shuffle the cards face down such that you cannot tell in which order they will come. Present the cards to John one at a time so that John can see the face but you cannot. Ask John to tell you what he sees. You can make a little stand to display the card rather than holding it if you want. Once John has made a choice, you can check the card to see if he is correct.

Object to it: Choose a set of objects that are all contained within John's board. Line them up in front of John so that he can see them clearly. Select one. Tell John that he has to tell Sandra which one you selected. Cover the objects. Sandra is out of earshot at this time. Sandra then comes over and asks John "Which object did Mary choose?". She does not know which object was selected nor the set of objects that comprise the original group. All she has is John's response.

Attributes: Select a few objects from John's board and line them up in front of him. Select one of them at random but give John no cues as to which one you have picked. Tell John a unique attribute of one of the items (It is yellow, it is the tallest, it is round ...). Ask John to tell Sandra the item you have selected.

Two staff to one Learner. That is crazy. We haven't got that resource.

OK. Not all of the above require two staff. Most can be done with just one member but that is a little problematic as you will see below. Actually, it's not two staff to one Learner as while you are setting it up Sandra is working elsewhere and while Sandra is finding out John's response you can be away working elsewhere. Also, you would not spend all the session doing such things; just a small amount of time. If no staff member is available, is there another Learner in the group who can assist? In this way, Learners get to work with Learners.

Returning to the Tiggles cartoon we looked at earlier. Mum is claiming that her cat Tiggles is communicating using her Tiggy-Bliss-Board. How do we know that the cat isn't?

The board is both error-less and 'like-full': wherever Tiggles rests, she is bound to get something she likes and she cannot make a mistake.
We know that birds and animals (think of Skinner's pigeons for example) can be taught to make specific actions in response to a stimulus (Operant conditioning). In this instance, Tiggles is rewarded every time she moves onto the board and rests. She learns to do this but does not need to understand the symbols. It may be that she can learn a positional aspect for milk (if the board is always in the same orientation in the same position) for example.
Tiggles is communicating with her owner in a way but not in the way that is claimed. There need be no cognitive engagement with the symbols on the board.

While we are discussing animal intelligence and awareness it would be apt to mention the 'Clever Hans phenomenon'. Hans (see image left) was a horse at the beginning of the twentieth century whose owner (Wilhelm Von Osten) claimed was very intelligent. Hans could seemingly perform mathematical calculations for example. He would respond to questions put orally or in writing by tapping out the answer with his hoof. Hans was exhibited around Germany and drew large crowds. His amazing feats were even reported in the New York Times. However, the horse's fame came to the attention of a psychologist called Oskar Pfungst. who was able to show that the horse was not literate and could not do mathematical feats but rather was reading the reaction of its audience as it tapped his hoof to answer the question that had been put. The audience were merely assuming that the horse had super intelligence because they had not sought alternative explanations for its seeming abilities.

However, it dies not follow that proves all animals are unintelligent, just that we have to ensure they are doing what is claimed through their intelligence and not by some other means. The above video shows good practice in assessing a dog's ability to respond to a verbal cue. Assuming the footage was not doctored in some way, it would be hard to make any claim other than the dog does relate a particular sound to a particular action. However, does the dog have the concept 'sit'?

Are you saying that my Johnny is not as clever as a dog? Not at all. Humans have greater intellects than animals. We are the only species that can really manipulate language (in spite of all the work that has been undertaken to teach language to animals - particularly apes). What I am arguing is that it is possible to fool yourself into assuming an understanding when, in fact, the individual lacks comprehension. If this is the case, then is the 'Learner' helped? I would suggest that the Learner, far from being helped, is 'handicapped' (in the true sense of the word) by this process.

Let's move on to something related but slightly different. Below is a short excerpt from the film 'Annie's coming out' (1984) the non-fiction book Annie's Coming Out by Rosemary Crossley and Anne McDonald (Note: in some countries the film was called 'A test of love')

As Annie is able to perform the task asked of her we might assume that Annie knows what a 'ball' is and some might even go as far as to say that Annie has the concept 'ball'. However, we need to to proceed with caution as assumptions of understanding can be counter productive. How else could Annie be selecting the 'correct' answer?

the ball is always placed on her right side and so, her active arm moves to the ball first;
the colour of the ball might be attracting her;
the shape of the ball might be attracting her;

Suppose we could eliminate these objections, would we then be able to state that Annie has the concept 'ball'? In thirty trials with different coloured balls place on her right and her left and even when we use a rugby (American football) shaped ball, Annie still reaches out and touches the 'ball' on request. Can we now say that Annie knows the word 'ball' and can match it to an object? The answer to that question is still 'NO'!! That response might surprise you. However, take a look at the video again and watch the teacher in the clip. When she asks the question, what does she also do?

You will note that the staff member looks at the requested object before Annie is asked to select - not once but twice. If you did not spot it, watch the video again. Annie is able to see at which of the items she is looking. All she has to do is select that particular item each time. Such unintentional cuing of Learners is common in special education.; we often give the game away by the way we formulate a question or our behaviour before or during the response. Learners experiencing special educational needs often have PhDs in reading and responding to contextual clues after a lifetime of experience.

Of course, it could be that the Learner does know the correct response to our question but we must be careful that we are not giving away unintentional cues. Thus, if you are asking a question make sure that you do not know the answer!

What? How can I ask a question if I don't know the answer?

Let's go back to the video clip and select two other objects. Now ask another member of staff (let's call her Susan) to show Annie one of the objects and then put them down on the table top for you to use. You neither saw or heard what this member of staff showed to Annie, so you are unaware of the answer but you can ask the question - 'Which object did Susan show you?' Now, if Annie selects correctly, in repeated trials, we can start to assume that she can 'Select an object from a choice of X (where X could be two or three or more):

after seeing the required object previously displayed and told its name;
after seeing the required object previously displayed;
when previously given its name only;
when previously given its 'sign' only.

What if the Learner may not be able to remember what Susan showed her?

If Annie fails at any of the above tasks then it may be that she finds retaining the initially shown object in memory something of a problem. To get around this issue find yourself an old shoe-box or something of that ilk. The idea is for Susan to place an object inside the box which is on its side such that Annie can see the object at all times but it is hidden from your view. The object placed inside the box is an identical match for one of a small set of objects outside of the box. Annie can be shown these objects one by one and asked to indicate when a match for what she can see arises. We are now assessing the concepts of 'same' and 'different'. However, we can vary the procedure slightly to:

state the name of each of the object set in turn and ask Annie if it is in her box;
show a photograph of a similar object to Annie;
sign the name choices in turn;
give a unique attribute of the each of the objects in turn;

You can see that we can vary the difficulty of the task as well as the nature of the assessment: in one we are assessing the concept of 'sameness' while in another we assessing aware of a name object correspondence.

That's all very well but I am often in the classroom on my own and don't have a Susan to assist me.

OK. Is there one of Annie's peers who could be taught to assist instead? If not then 'blind' presentations are still possible with a bit of care. For example, if you have a set of good quality object photo cards you might select a small range of perhaps four cards. Let's say these are all animals (a cat, a dog, a horse and a rabbit). The cards can be shuffled and presented face towards Annie such that you cannot see the card that Annie can see. Choose one of the animals at random (let's choose the dog). Ask Annie if the card she can see is a picture of a dog. If Annie has a yes/no response she will be able to let you know. If she says 'no' or make no indication, put that card to the back of the pack such that there is a new front card for Annie to view. Again ask if this is a dog. Repeat the process until Annie indicates in the affirmative. Now look at the card that Annie has chosen. Is it the dog? If it is that is good and further checks on comprehension can be made to ensure that Annie did not succeed by chance. If it is wrong then you may need to give Annie further cues about the card you want her select.

I haven't got the time to do that - what are the other members of the class doing while I am working with Annie?

OK - well, you could try putting the images into a PowerPoint presentation; one image per slide. PowerPoint can be made to advance to the next slide on the activation of a single switch (it is easy to do). Annie can now work on her own! You can ask Annie to find the image of the dog among the PowerPoint slides and then call you so you can check. How can Annie call you? Provide her with a BIGmack onto which you have recorded "I have found it. Please come and check". Annie can now call you and you can set another task.

What if Annie cannot remember the animal that I ask her to find?

OK, as before, make it easier for her. Put a photograph of a dog by the computer screen and ask her to call you when she finds that photo in PowerPoint.

7b) Contiguousness is not Synonymous with Causality.

"Contiguousness is not synonymous with causality" What does that mean?

Put simply, it states that because B follows A it does not mean that A is the cause of B.

I once entered the bathroom after one of my sons had come out. I needed to use the toilet. The toilet had not been flushed from it's previous use. I flushed it, went to the toilet, and flushed it again. After washing my hands, i went downstairs and sought out the son I had witnessed leaving the bathroom. When I found him, I berated him for not flushing the toilet after using it. He looked at me with a puzzled expression. He explained he had gone into the bathroom to brush his teeth and had not used the toilet. I had assumed that because I had witnessed him leaving the bathroom (A) and the toilet was un-flushed (B) that he was the cause. None of my children owned up to the misdeed so all got a little lecture on flushing!! I also came to understand that, simply because an event follows another that one is not necessarily the cause of the other.

A butterfly is sitting on a flower on a bush and Sam appears to be looking at it. The butterfly moves its wings and Sam seems to smile. We might naturally assume that Sam is cognizant of the butterfly and the motion of its wings and, it is this that is causing Sam's joy. However, that is not necessarily the case. Sam could be smiling at something else entirely, or at something that happens at the same time that the butterfly moves its wings. Sam could even be smiling in response to our smiles. Of course, Sam could be aware of the butterfly and be attracted to its movements but we cannot simply assume all of this. What evidence would be further proof of Sam's awareness?

every time that the butterfly moves its wings Sam smiles;
the staff with Sam are not standing such that Sam can see them;
when the butterfly flies away, Sam stops smiling;
if another butterfly lands subsequently and Sam begins to smile once again.

Does it matter? Yes, it does! If we assume a cause and effect relationship, and we build further learning on such 'knowledge', then Sam may be confused. Our task will be the greater and there is a risk that we may make further 'assumptions of understanding' which will only serve to compound matters even further. A causal chain in which event A causes event B to happen and event B causes event C to happen does NOT prove that event A causes event C because event C was in fact caused by event B which might have alternate causes than event A. To illustrate this let me provide a real life example:

A staff member makes a joke in the classroom (Event A), many staff and pupils begin to laugh (Event B), Jenny begins to smile (Event C). Can we now say that Event A (the joke) caused Event C (Jenny smile)? No! Jenny's smile was a reaction to Event B (The mirth of her classmates). It does not follow that Jenny got the joke and we cannot extrapolate further to say that because Jenny got the joke she has a good intelligence. However, this is not an uncommon claim. Event B can have many causes other than event A - staff and students can be happy and laughing for a number of reasons not simply because a member of staff made a funny. However even if event B had only one cause (Event A), it still would not follow that event C was caused by event A. It is a step too far. Of course, there is a possibility that Jenny got the joke and was smiling because of it but how can we be sure? Isn't it equally (if not more) likely that she is smiling because some of her peers are laughing?

A BIGmack is placed in the personal space of a Learner such that it controls a toy dog. The Learner activates the BIGmack. The dog moves and barks. Does the Learner understand that:

s/he is controlling the toy?
the BIGmack is the switch for the toy?
both the above?
none of the above?

None of the above! Cognition simply cannot be assumed on the basis of a single interpretation of a Learner's actions even if that action is repeated. There are other interpretations of the Learner's actions which produced the same results:

it was an accident. As the BIGmack is in the Learner's personal space, s/he is going to activate from time to time simply by chance alone.
the Learner is attracted to the shiny object in his/her personal space and is exploring it. The Learner likes the sounds it makes. The Learner makes no connection to the barking dog.
the Learner has learnt to fly-swat the BIGmack when it is placed in personal space.
the Learner does not like this thing in his/her space and is trying to push it away;
the Learner is being prompted by staff;
other.

BUT he always smiles at my jokes even when there are no other people around.

That indeed may be true but it does not follow that the young man in question understands the joke or indeed the concept of a joke. He may always smile when you talk to him in a certain way. When we tell jokes we have certain facial expressions and micro-expressions on which others can pick up. As it is difficult to hide micro-expression reactions unlike regular facial expression (Micro-expressions express the seven universal emotions: disgust, anger, fear, sadness, happiness, surprise, and contempt) it may be that this particular person was unconsciously picking up on them. However, you probably didn't try to hide your regular facial expressions and were smiling as you told the jokes - it may be that this Learner was just smiling back at you. It also may be that after the joke had been told you laughed and the Learner was responding to that (A causes B and B causes C BUT A does not cause C). It also maybe that this person likes you and smiles when you talk to him normally. You just are looking for evidence of understanding when you tell the jokes and therefore notice the smiles and attribute them to this cause.

In the clip (left) from YouTube there is a claim made for causality from Joey. He claims that Rachel's move into the apartment has caused the fridge freezer to break after many loyal years of service. We all know that this is a nonsense but event A was followed by event B and thus a causal link could be (falsely) claimed.

While such a claim is made for comic effect, it does illustrate the issue here; any causal claim must be backed by evidence'

See Also

Aird, R ( 2001 ) The Education and Care of Children with Severe, Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties London: David Fulton

Fitton, P. (1994) Listen to Me Communicating the Needs of People with Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities. London, Jessica Kingsley.

Jones, P. (2004) ‘They are not like us and neither should they be’: issues of teacher identity for teachers of pupils with profound and multiple learning disabilities. Disability in Society. Volume 19(2). pp.159 – 168.

Jones, P. (2004). Teachers’ understandings of pupils with profound and multiple learning disabilities and the possible impact on
assessment in the classroom, PMLD Link, Volume 16(3), pp. 19 - 22.

Koski, K., & Launonen, K. (2012). Assessing the communication skills of carers working with multiple learning disabilities: a case study,
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, Volume 47(6), pp. 685 – 695.

McNicholas, J. (2000): Assessment: The Assessment of Pupils with Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties, British Journal of Special Education, Volume 27(3), pp. 150 – 153.

Newby, W. (2008) Assessment for Real Learning, PMLD Link, Volume 60, pp.12 - 14.

Ouvry, C. (1987) Educating Children with Profound Handicaps. Worcs, BIMH.

Tilstone, C. (1991) Teaching Pupils with Severe Learning Difficulties Practical Approaches. London, David Fulton.

Ware, J. (1994) Educating Children with Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties. London, David Fulton.

Ware, J. & Donnelly, D. (2004), Assessment for Learning for Pupils with PMLD – the ACCAC Insight Project, PMLD Link, Volume 16(3), pp. 12 - 17.

EIGHT: Positively Assured

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Carl Sagan

What does this quote by Carl Sagan mean?

In the context of this web page, it is taken to mean that, simply because a Learner does not perform as expected, it does not follow that s/he cannot perform at all. In other words, if a Learner does not do something we ask of him/her even after we have taught him/her how to do it, it does not mean that the Learner:

cannot do the task
has not or does not understood the task
is cognitively incapable of coping with the task;

It may be that the Learner:

is not in a co-operative mood today;
is not feeling too well;
doesn't like the staff member involved;
is preoccupied with other matters;
thinks we mean something else ...

However, continuing absence of evidence tends to support evidence of absence but we can never really be certain of a Learner's inability.

While we can never be certain of a Learner's inability, the opposite is not true: if a Learner performs a task and can repeat that performance on request, we can be fairly positive about Learner ability. Why do I say 'fairly' positive and not 'really' positive? The answer to that question is that there may be an alternative explanation for the Learner's success. If we can rule out alternative explanations (such as staff assistance or Learner cheating) then we can be really positive.

Many people take this concept too far! They will assume and claim an inner intelligence for a person of which there is no evidence and continues to be no evidence. Yes, there are people trapped inside vegetative frames (see video below and also here) but it does not follow that all Learners who have been classified as experiencing Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties are in fact Ph.D. students struggling to escape. One doesn't need an MRI scanner to discover intelligence, you just need to use specific techniques and avoid assumptions (see section on assumptions of understanding).

We saw above that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is, simply because a Learner does not perform as expected or as required, it cannot be inferred that the Learner is incapable of undertaking the task. It maybe that the Learner is having and off day or has misunderstood the requirements of the task and is responding to a completely different set of demands. It may be that s/he just does not want to perform or any one of many other explanations. All we can legitimately state is that 'the Learner did not perform the task as we requested' but we should not make any assumptions based on that statement. However, if the Learner does perform as required and we have ensured that we are not cueing the Learner somehow unintentionally as to a correct response then we can state a positive position: this Learner understands that ...

For example: Suppose there are five choices of drink at mealtimes. After a specific meal each day for two weeks a staff member asks a Learner 'What did you have to drink with your meal today?' To enable the Learner to respond, five BIGmacks are set out in front of the Learner each containing a symbol for all the available drinks ...

So as to avoid the Learner picking on the basis of the colour of the BIGmacks they are all red. The only difference is the symbol displayed and what each says when accessed. The staff member asking the question does NOT know what the Learner had to drink with his/her meal but is able to find out later from a log that has been kept.

Scenario One: Each day bar one the Learner chooses a drink and, when the staff member checks, she finds that the drink selected was NOT the drink that the Learner had with lunch. On one day only, the Learner does say what s/he had to drink.

Scenario Two: Each day the Learner picks the cola drink. This is known to be the Learner's favourite.

Scenario Three: Each day the Learner picks the exact drink that s/he had for lunch without error

In Scenario One the Learner has NOT responded correctly but we cannot assume that s/he is incapable of responding correctly. It may be that the Learner thinks the staff member is asking what s/he would like to drink and not what s/he had to drink earlier. It maybe s/he is just playing a game with the staff member and does not want to cooperate...

In Scenario Two the Learner has responded correctly but it is still not possible to assume understanding as it could be that the Learner believes we are asking what s/he would like to drink and, as it's always coke, it is impossible to discriminate between the future and past responses.

In Scenario Three however different drinks were consumed each day and, when asked, the Learner was able to state the drink which was chosen to have with the meal. Can we explain this result by any other rationale other than 'the Learner understands the concept? It cannot be pure chance because it is correct every day for two weeks. It cannot be the staff member assisting the Learner because the staff member does not know the correct response.

In other words, if a Learner fails to perform we cannot assume anything (other than the Learner failed to perform). However, if a Learner does perform we can make a positive assertion. Thus, we can be positive but not negative - it's a no to negativity but a yes to positivity!

NINE: Teach Core Vocabulary and move to Descriptive Questioning

There is a gathering amount of evidence (see references below) that the language we use in everyday speech (and even in non-everyday speech) is composed of a high percentage of a CORE of words (Core Vocabulary). Core vocabulary accounts for around 75% of all that we say in daily conversation and yet (in English at least) comprises just 1,000 words (in Chinese, for example, it is much less). The remaining hundreds of thousands of words make up FRINGE vocabulary. Even in young children (see Banajee et al 2003, and Raban 1988), this Core listing remains essentially the same. Shouldn't we be (at the very least) teaching Learners some of the words that are in common use alongside the fringe words?

Core vocabulary is defined as:

The set of lemmas that make up the top 75% of speech when sampled across all environments, by all populations and, at all times (of day).

Research has shown that no matter what the age, occupation, time of day (or other parameter) that people tend to use the same words very frequently. Indeed, 25% of everything that we typically say is made up of just ten lemmas (the, a, and, be, I, in, of, to, that, have). A lemma is a root form; for example, ‘go’ is the lemma (root form) for the words ‘go’, ‘goes’, ‘going’, ‘gone’, ‘went’, and the colloquial forms ‘goer’ and ‘goner’.50% of what we say is made from 100 words and 75% from 1,000. This figure varies for different languages: for example, it has been suggested that Mandarin Chinese has a Core vocabulary of less than 200 words!

Our preliminary findings support the earlier attempts to identify Mandarin Chinese vocabulary using automated approaches or Mandarin Chinese databases. This early data analysis shows that a relatively small number of words (less than 200 words in this sample) will make up 80% of the spoken words used in conversation.These findings are similar to the vocabulary frequency studies in European languages and demonstrate that high frequency words or core vocabulary is consistent across different speakers and topics. (Chen, M.C., Hill, K.J., Yao. T. 2009)

If 75% of all the things we say in everyday speech is comprised of just 1,000 words then, surely, we should be aiming to include these words in any communication system worthy of that name? For listings of the frequencies of words in used in English go here:

http://www.ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/bncfreq/flists.html

However, it may also be reasonably argued that:

there isn't enough space for 1,000 entries within the communication system;
the Learner is not cognitively ready for such a large vocabulary;
the learner cannot physically access such a large vocabulary.

Even if we were to begin with the top 100 words we would be covering around 30% of everyday communication. With these words we
can create tens of thousands of unique sentences with a requirement only to Learn 100 things.

100 is still too many? A Learner has to begin somewhere and 100 may be a step too far. Could we use just the top ten lemmas?

                                           the, a, and, be, I, in, of, to, that, have

What can a Learner say with these? The answer is not very much! Even though they are very frequently used in conversation they do not produce many everyday sentences/phrases on their own:

I have to, I had to, I have been in that,  I had been in that, I have to be,

It is clear therefore that we cannot begin with just the first ten Core Vocabulary words. However if we could mix in a few of the higher frequency FRINGE vocabulary words then the possibilities expand dramatically.

Fringe Vocabulary is defined as that vocabulary which is NOT Core! That is the reminder of all the words in the large OED when the 1,000 Core Lemma forms are removed. The Second Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary contains full entries for 171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words. To this may be added around 9,500 derivative words included as subentries. In total 228,132 word headings. If 1,000 (core items) are removed from this, it leaves 227,132 Fringe lemmas! You can see that Fringe Vocabulary easily overwhelms Core.

How do we decide which items of Fringe vocabulary are added into the mix? We could refer to word frequency tables (a web address has been provided earlier). If we did we would find that the earliest noun entries (for example) tend to be those to do with TIME and with PEOPLE. Perhaps we should add these into the mix. If we added just the lemmas ‘time’ and ‘people’ to the earlier ten core words we can now say:

‘I have the time’, ‘a person has been in that’, ‘Am I in time?’ ‘I was in time’. ‘I wasn’t in time’, ‘Aren’t I in time?’, ‘Wasn’t I in time’, ‘Had I the time’, ‘I haven’t the time’, ‘That is the time’, ‘That is the person’, ‘That is a person’, ‘I am a person’, ‘The times are in’, ‘That person is in time’

There are, of course, other ways to decide on what Fringe words to add into the mix. Some suggested strategies for doing this will be covered later in these sections of the web pages

With the inclusion and use of Core Vocabulary we can begin to use ‘language’ almost from day one. If we start with just a page of nouns then that is not possible. Even if we were to begin with just a one-word communication system we could build in the language component. Let’s consider a fictitious young Learner; we will call him Jon. When we study Jon we find out he is really motivated by chocolate! We therefore decide to provide him with a means to ask for his favourite snack. We arrange it so that another member of the staff uses the symbol in front of Jon to request a piece of chocolate. Jon is ‘permitted’ to view the member of staff being rewarded for using the symbol with a small piece of his favourite snack. The member of staff may have to do this a few times before Jon gets the idea! It is hoped that Jon will be motivated to use the symbol to make the request himself. If he does, then he is rewarded with a small piece of chocolate. There are two provisos to this example:

we must use the smallest piece of chocolate that is still motivational to Jon (Half a chocolate button for example);
we must limit the amount of the above that is available within a specific time frame.

It is not our intention to make Jon sick after eating so much chocolate he can barely move! The chocolate is simply the motivator in teaching the use of the symbol as a means of communicating. Therefore, we need to establish the smallest amount possible we can give in response to a request that still remains a motivational force.

It is important that we set limits otherwise Jon will be asking for chocolate over and over again. Thus, we can prepare the scene and have a packet of chocolate buttons ready-opened that just contains (for example) six pieces. These are tipped onto a paper plate in Jon’s sight and the packet is shaken emphatically to demonstrate that is completely empty. Thus, Jon now can see (he still may not understand) that there are only six pieces of chocolate. As he uses the symbol he can see that a piece of chocolate is removed and the total amount available is reduced. Once he has made six requests the chocolate is gone. Hopefully, he will refrain from requesting any more chocolate! However, let’s assume that he makes another request. The staff member, working with Jon, should show him the empty plate and the empty packet and inform him that there is no more, ‘it has all gone’. However, the staff member can promise to buy/bring some more chocolate the next day (or whatever time period is considered appropriate). Again, during this next time period, the number of chocolate pieces available is as limited. Jon must see and be involved in this process for him to ever come to learn that there is a limit to his requests.

Once Jon has mastered the use of the chocolate symbol, we can step up the level! We can now add a second symbol ‘want’ and again, another member of staff can be used to model the desired behaviour (want chocolate). The process is then identical to that which was described earlier. However, Jon now is expected to combine two symbols to get to his favourite snack.

What if he gets the symbols in the wrong order? It does not really matter at this stage; he is combining two symbols! That is a big step forward. We can help him with the order later.

What if he continues to say just ‘chocolate’? We can ‘act stupid’ and pretend that we think he is just telling us that there is some chocolate “Yes, Jon, It’s chocolate” but then we can add “Do you WANT some CHOCOLATE Jon?” Indicating what he must do to now achieve his goal. If this still isn’t working, we can ask the modelling staff member to pop back and demonstrate the correct technique for Jon to view as many times as is necessary. Hand-under-hand prompting should be a last resort if all other avenues have failed. Always begin with the least intrusive prompts before proceeding to those that make actual physical contact UNLESS there is GOOD reason to do otherwise.

Once the two word/symbol level has been achieved, we can add a further symbol into the mix, We can now say ‘I want chocolate’ and, eventually, we hope that Jon will be able to say this too! However, you would be right in saying that Jon might be just following the example without any real understanding of the parts of speech involved. Of course he might! In fact, it is very likely! However, if he is using the symbols in the correct order (even
if they are sometimes mixed up) that might How do we go on to establish whether Jon has an understanding of the concepts being used and to provide that understanding if it is found that there is none? That is not the purpose of this section of the Sure Start Sheets: this will be covered in the teaching sections.

Early inclusion of Core vocabulary is recommended with additional group and personal (motivational) Fringe vocabulary added into the
mix. Even if we can are beginning with a very limited number of locations we can include core vocabulary.

Referential Vs Descriptive Questioning

Referential

Descriptive

Referential questions:

are typically answered by a 'reference book' type of memory. Learners learn lists by rote.
do not necessarily tell you much about the Learners knowledge of a subject, rather, if they have learnt and can recall specific facts.
are answered using FRINGE words (not everyday vocabulary). Charles Dickens is FRINGE vocabulary.
are suggestive of passive environments;

Descriptive questions:

are typically answered using a Learner 's knowledge 'around' a piece of information;
illustrate a Learner's understanding of a topic;
can be answered using everyday speech rather than vocabulary that is not commonly used (CORE vs FRINGE);
are symptomatic of active environments;

'Who wrote Oliver Twist?' is a referential type question. In order to answer it you need to know that it was 'Charles Dickens' but you do not need to have read the book or know anything about Mr Dickens, when the book was written or what it is about. You could simply memorise the answer to the question. Other referential type questions are:

'What is the name of the 5th planet from the sun?'
'Name a marsupial that lives in Australia?'
'What part of the body is used to pump blood?'

Such questions are beloved by teachers the world over but suggest that rote memory is valued over understanding.

If teachers were to turn the questions on their heads and ask descriptive type questions that typically might begin with "Tell me what you know about ..."

               ... Jupiter.
               ... a Kanagroo.
               ... the heart
               ...

then the Learner is challenged to communicate his/her knowledge about the topic and cannot give a single word answer unless the answer is 'nothing!'

To answer a referential type of question using a Speech Generating Device (SGD) requires that the answer has been programmed into the system at some prior point. Programming an SGD with all the potential answers to the millions of questions that could be asked during any school period is a particularly demanding task ... almost never ending and therefore very time consuming. The organisation of such vocabulary forces the addition of hundreds (if not thousands) of extra pages to any communication system for a set of words which will be used by the Learner extremely infrequently (they are fringe words). The things that we use infrequently are not readily remembered. Thus, the addition of Fringe Vocabulary (such as Charles Dickens) will be used very rarely and then forgotten.

However, if the teacher asks a descriptive type of question then the Learner has a chance of answering using everyday vocabulary from an SGD:

"Tell me what you know about Charles Dickens"
"He was man from old day who write books. One book about boy ..."

Which response ('Charles Dickens' vs 'He was man from old day who write books. One book about boy ...'):

tells us more about the Learner's understanding of a topic?
requires more use of language?
relies less on rote memory?
uses everyday language?
does not force the storage of masses of extra vocabulary into an SGD?
uses vocabulary that is likely to be repeated (used) often throughout a typical day (and therefore remembered)?

Many therapists, teachers and parents spend countless hours storing additional vocabulary into SGDs to cover aspects of the curriculum so that a Learner might be included. However, how often will that vocabulary ever be used/ required? By definition, fringe vocabulary is used rarely. Some fringe vocabulary is used very rarely indeed. However, there are around 1000 words in English that are used very frequently. It would almost be impossible to construct any sentence without using at least one, if not several of them. Therefore, there is no need to program lots of extra pages for specialist vocabulary which will get used extremely rarely. If staff/significant others were to work with the advancement of a Learner's knowledge and use of Core vocabulary there would be several benefits:

Less time spent programming new specialist vocabulary;
More time spent on the teaching of 'language';
Easier for the pupil/student to learn (there is less to learn);
Vocabulary is used repeatedly so better recall.
Repeated use leads to automaticity (the ability to physically access a system without having to think about it too much);
Greater inclusion for Learner;
Learner becomes a competent communicator;
Learner is included in society.

The Closed Question Format (Yes / No questions)

The use of the closed question format is commonplace in special education. Such techniques should be used with great caution as they can be very misleading.

"The writers have found culturally deprived children to be strangely indifferent to the content of verbal utterances while being acutely concerned with the effect that their utterances have on other people. A question that begins with ‘Can you tell’ - or ‘Do you know’ is invariably answered ‘Yes’, often before it is completed. These beginnings are evidently recognized as signals that ‘yes’ is the desired answer. Yes-No questions have to be used with great circumspection in the teaching of these children because the children are so adept at and intent upon ‘reading’ the teacher’s expressions and inflections for clues to the desired response. The children may even succeed in giving correct answers without fully understanding what yes and no mean."
(Bereiter, C. & Engelmann, S. 1966, p. 37)

"Several investigations (HARRIS D. 1978; LIGHT J., COLLIER B., & PARNES P. 1985) have demonstrated that speaking partners tend to engage in communicative exchanges that require the learner simply to confirm or deny the vocal mode user’s statements. This strategy speeds up an interaction, but provides the learner with very limited experience in learning to direct an exchange by steering the topic in a new direction. It also limits opportunities to teach symbol combinations that may be part of the graphic mode system. Furthermore, it limits the amount of time the graphic mode user can practice using his or her augmentative system" (REICHLE J. 1991 p. 152)

"For children who have grown up with answers to questions as their only communication strategy it is difficult to learn to use language in new ways" (Von Tetzchner, S. & Martinsen, H. 1992)

"Multiple factors influence the success of literacy and language learning in the classroom. These influences include ... teacher-student interactions that extend beyond yes/no questioning and encourage students to initiate and sustain interactions." (Erickson, K. & Staples, A. 1995 p. 4)

A closed question is one that may be answered by either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. An open question is open that requires a response other than ‘yes’ or ‘no’:

"Do you want tea?” CLOSED
"What do you want to drink?” OPEN
"Did you watch TV last night?” CLOSED
"What did you watch last night?” OPEN
"Did you go shopping at the weekend?” CLOSED
"What did you do at the weekend?” OPEN

"Among users of graphic mode systems, it has been well documented that when a learner’s partner produces an utterance to which the learner fails to respond, the partner will frequently alter his or her interactional style and ask a series of questions that can be answered "yes” or "no”... There is evidence to suggest that many users of augmentative systems tend to match specific classes of communicative opportunities with the response that is the least physically demanding to perform. Second, the learner may lack sufficient vocabulary to provide the flexibility required to generate an answer. When the conversational load begins to fall too heavily on the verbal mode participant, he or she may begin to shorten periods of interaction with the augmentative system user, or even avoid interactions (REICHLE J. 1988). The burden of carrying the interaction cannot be borne inordinately by one member of the dyad. If this happens, the quality, if not the quantity, of the interactions may be jeopardized." (Reichle, J. 1991, pp. 150-152)

This section of this web page therefore deals with the dangers of over-use of the closed question format and offers alternative suggestions. In some instances, the ability to provide a yes/no response is a positive step forward and should not be devalued or stopped (see for example Keenan, J. & Barnhart, K. 1993).

It may be assumed that the closed question format is faster and more effective than its open equivalent but this is not necessarily the case. A 'yes' response does not mean that there is comprehension and the tutor may be fooled into proceeding on this basis. We have all had experience of using ‘yes’ in response to a situation in which our understanding is compromised. For example - You are sitting next to a perfect stranger on a bus. He begins to talk. You do not understand his words because of his accent. You say "I’m sorry, I didn't quite catch that.” He repeats the message. Again, you find his accent and the message incomprehensible. What do you do? Many people will smile and nod their head and try to bluff it. If the stranger smiles everything is assumed to be OK. If he frowns we may change our response. Our ‘yes’ response here does not confirm understanding.

The closed question format is commonplace. Studies have suggested that classroom talk is dominated by teachers’ questions and these are often of the closed type whereas the open question format would have had many advantages (Nuthall, G. & Church, J. 1973; Blank, M., Rose, S., & Berlin, L. 1978; Redfield, D. & Rousseau, E. 1981;):

"Observations of teacher questions addressed to children of widely different ages and in a variety of disciplines have led to the conclusion that teacher questions are more often of the ‘closed’ type with known right answers. The responses to such questions by pupils are likely to be terse and simply correct or incorrect. When pupils answer a teacher’s questions, they usually say no more and stop talking. Consequently, where such specific, closed questions are frequent, children will say little. ... Frequent, specific questions tend to generate relatively silent children and to inhibit any discussion between them. Telling children things, giving an opinion, view, speculation or idea, stimulates more talk, questions and ideas from pupils and generates discussion between them. If all this sounds obvious, then explain why so many studies have found that classroom talk is dominated by teacher questions." (Wood, D. 1988 pp. 142 - 143)

Further, people who use AAC systems are asked many more yes or no questions than their vocal peers (Sutton, A. 1982; Harris, D. 1978; Light, J., Collier, B., & Parnes, P. 1985; Basil, C. 1986).

"For example, adults who interact with users of augmentative systems often over-use yes/no questions. These interactions are problematic for several reasons. First they place the learner in the role of a responder (Light, J., Collier, B., & Parnes, P. 1985). The learner is taught to wait until a specific question is asked before responding. As a result, users of augmentative or alternative systems tend to be poor initiators of interactions (LIGHT et al. 1985) Another adverse consequence of the over-use of yes/no questions is the limited vocabulary it demands". (Reichle, J. 1991a)

It may be assumed that there is a 50% chance of being correct when responding to a closed question such as ‘Is Paris the capital of France?’ My own experience in this area suggests that, if a person learns to respond to any closed question with "yes”, s/he will be correct a far greater proportion of the time. Approximately 90% of closed questions require a 'yes' response. That is, when people frame closed questions the response that is typically required is ‘yes’.

Children are eager to please. They soon learn to give the expected response to an adult who is asking them a question. Nodding the head is a very good strategy. It tends to please people. It does not follow, however, that the child understands the question or knows the answer. Be wary.

The closed question is not always faster or more efficient because an assumption of understanding based on a yes or no response may be misleading. Progression to higher levels of learning should always be based on a knowledge that all the important concepts previously taught have been understood. The closed question format does not guarantee this.

The person responding with the yes or no answer is not necessary being untruthful. The person may have ‘got hold of the wrong end of the stick’. Consider this example. I hold an empty glass in my hand. I tell you this is an example of the Senojian word ‘psarg’. You understand that ‘psarg’ is Senojian for glass. I pick up another glass and hold it firmly in my hand. I ask you if this is ‘psarg’ and you respond with a nod of the head. I smile. I am pleased you have understood. However, we are both wrong. ‘Psarg’ means ‘to hold tightly’. You were not trying to mislead me when you gave the positive response. I misled myself.

The closed question format does not encourage the use of an AAC system. The majority of people with a severe communication impairment have a positive yes or no response. There will be no need for them to use an AAC system if all communication interactions are framed as yes or no questions. The closed question format is typically used with people who are passive. It is unclear whether passivity promotes the use of the closed question format or the closed question format promotes passivity. Perhaps the relationship is mutually reinforcing and is a vicious circle.

Open questions should be used whenever possible because they:

demand an AAC response;
allow a greater certainty of understanding;
help promote an active rather than a passive communication style.

The closed question is faster when time is pressing and when we can be positive that a person understands. A person who is already a proficient AAC user and normally spontaneously requests tea (for example) to drink would not always need to be asked "What do you want to drink?” but simply "Would you like some tea?”

Communication Continuum
There is a communication continuum which is marked by a spontaneous remark at one end (You are walking through town and a person says "I fancy a cup of tea”) and parroting at the other (You are walking through town and you wonder if the person with you would like a cup of tea. You say "Say ‘I want a drink’ on your nice machine”). In between these extremes are two further elicited forms. The first is elicited contextually (You are walking past McDonald’s and say "I fancy a drink”) the second is elicited via a verbal prompt (You are walking through town and fancy a drink you turn to the user and ask "Would you like to take a break for a drink?”).

Parroting forms the least desirable technique:

"Speech is never an end in itself, it is always a means to an end. We use it to convey meaning, purpose and to bring results. To attempt to teach a child ‘parrot fashion’ would be to miss the point." (Jeffree, D. & McConkey, R. 1976)

While parroting forms the least desirable technique within the communication continuum, it should be noted that it is a technique used, in certain circumstances, by parents (and others) with children. For example, if a child asks for an item and forgets his or her manners parents will say:

"When you say please.”

Although initially the child is told to say the word itself, the direct prompts soon fade:

"What’s the ‘pl’ word?”
"Haven’t you forgotten to say something?”
"When you ask properly.”

Eventually, the child may be ignored until she or he asks in a socially acceptable manner.

Meal time with the Adams Family (From the feature film ‘The Adams Family’):
Wednesday Adams: "May I have the salt?”
Morticia Adams: "What do we say?”
Wednesday Adams: "NOW !!”

The verbal prompt can be sub-classified into seven categories:

The first is an open ended question:

"What would you like to do?” RESPONSE "Stop for a drink”
"What would you like to drink?” RESPONSE "Tea please”

The second is a multi choice format in which the AAC user is active:

"What would you like to drink - tea, coffee, or a milkshake?” RESPONSE "Milkshake please.”

The third is a variation on the second - the alternative:

"What do you want tea or coffee?” RESPONSE "Coffee please.”

Multi choice differs from the alternative option only in the number of choices presented. For a person with severe learning difficulties a smaller range of choices is more appropriate. The alternative option is a choice of two.

The fourth is a multi choice in which the questioner is active:

"What do you want to drink? There’s tea, coffee, or you could have milkshake."

"Do you want tea?” (Person shakes head)
"Coffee?” (Person shakes head)
"A milkshake then?” (Person nods head)

The fifth is an alternative choice in which the questioner is active:

"What do you want to drink? There’s tea or coffee?"

"Do you want tea?” (Shakes head)
"Coffee?” (Nods head)

The sixth is a closed question

"Do you want coffee?” (Nods head)

Finally there is Hobson’s choice. No choice at all.

"I’ve got you your tea just the way you like it!” No questions asked.

One of the goals of AAC is to give the user the skills and the confidence to chat spontaneously. However, if a verbal prompt is required (and initially it is likely that there will be many) then it should begin at the left (as shown on the chart illustrated below) of the elicited verbal prompt continuum:

"What would you like to drink?”

If there is no response, it may be repeated: Gaining eye contact

"Sam, what would you like to drink?”

If there is still no response, move one step down the continuum. List the options:

"Well there’s tea, there’s coffee, there’s milkshake, and there’s juice. Which would you like?”

(If this is an overload of choice consider the alternative option)

Still no response? Move one step down the continuum:

"There’s tea, coffee, or a milkshake. Would you like tea? Coffee? A milkshake then?”

No response? Oh dear! Then use the closed format:

"Jenny would you like a chocolate milkshake?”

No response! This is serious:

"Darn it Jenny, I’ll get you a glass of water.”

Note: the two strategies used to help promote a Learner response: the selective use of a person’s name to focus attention and gaining eye contact.

It is unlikely that you will need to move so far down the continuum. However, the option is there should any particular strategy fail. The idea is not to allow the Learner to fail but to provide the maximum amount of choice and opportunity for active communication skills. Of course, this assumes that the Learner knows about the drinks and has been taught where they are located on the AAC system.

While it is likely that, in the early stages of teaching, much use will be made of elicited verbal prompts, they should not be the only form of communication strategy used:

"... it is therefore important that the communication does not become responsive, i.e. that the individual answers only when spoken to by others or takes the ‘initiative’ after being urged to do so. Even though it is unintentional on the part of the person who plans the training, the teaching may reinforce a child’s dependence." (Von Tetzchner, S. & Martinsen, H. 1992)

The section above does not make reference to physical prompting. This was intentional. Verbal and physical prompts, however, may be used at any point within the communication continuum to help people to achieve a desired response. All prompts should be gradually faded (see section on prompting on this we page).

See also:

Adamson, L., Romski, M., Deffebach, K., & Sevcik, R. (1992). Symbol vocabulary and the focus of conversations: Augmenting language development for youth with mental retardation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, Volume 35, pp. 1333 - 1343.

Baker, B., Higgins, J. M., Costello, J., & Stump, R. T. (1986). Systematic approaches to vocabulary selection for communication aid users. A short course presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Detroit, Michigan.

Baker, B. & Chang, S. (2006), A Mandarin language system in augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). International Journal of Computer Processing of Oriental Languages, Volume 19, pp. 225 - 237.

Baker, B., Hill, K., Amato, J., & Menna, D. (2000) Do we liberate individuals by teaching wide context specific vocabulary? In Proceedings of the 9th International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication Biennial Conference(Washington, DC, August 1--3).ISAAC, Washington DC, 2000, pp. 727 - 729

Baker, B., Musselwhite, C., & Kwasniewski, K. (1999),  Literacy, language, and Minspeak: Core vocabulary is the key. Presentation for the Summer Seminar on Literacy and AAC, (Durham, NC), 1999.

Balandin, S. (1995), The topics and vocabulary of meal break conversations. Ph.D. Thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney.

Balandin, S. & Iacono, T. (1998), A few well-chosen words. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 14, pp. 147 - 161.

Balandin, S. & Iacono, T. (1998), Topics of meal-break conversations. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 14, pp. 131 - 146.

Balandin, S., & Iacono, T. (1999), Crews, wusses, and whoppas: Core and fringe vocabularies of Australian meal-break conversations in the workplace. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 15, pp. 95 - 109.

Banajee, M., DiCarlo, C., & Buras-Stricklin, S. (2003), Core Vocabulary Determination for Toddlers, Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 19 (2), pp. 67 - 73.

Barlow M. (1998), Corpus of spoken Professional American English, Athelstan and Rice Universty.

Bedrosian, J., Hoag, L., & McCoy, K. (2003), Relevance and speed of message delivery trade-offs in augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, Volume 46, pp. 800 - 817.

Bergen Corpus of London Teenage Language (1993), University of Bergen, Norway

Berger, K. (1967). The most common words used in conversation. Journal of Communication Disorders, Volume 1, pp. 201-214.

Beukelman, ‌D., Jones, R., & Rowan‌ M. (1989), Frequency of word usage by non-disabled peers in integrated preschool classrooms,
Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 5 (4), pp. 243 - 248

Beukelman D., McGinnis J., & Morrow, D. (1991), Vocabulary selection in augmentative and alternative communication, Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Vol. 7 (3) , pp. 171-185

Beukelman, D., & Mirenda, P. (1992). Augmentative and alternative communication management of severe communication disorders in children and adults. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Beukelman, D., Yorkston, K., Poblete, M., & Naranjo, C. (1984). Frequency of word occurrence in communication samples produced by adult communication aid users. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, Volume 49, pp. 360 – 367.

Burroughs, G.E.R. (1957). A study of the vocabulary of young children. Birmingham University Institute of Education (Educational Monographs No. 1). Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd

Cannon, B., & Edmond, G. (2009, April 14). A few good words: Using core vocabulary to support non-verbal students. The ASHA Leader, Volume 14 (5), pp. 20-22

Chang Liu & Sloane Z. (2006), Developing a Core Vocabulary for a Mandarin Chinese AAC System Using Word Frequency Data,International Journal of Computer Processing Of Languages,  Volume: 19 (4), pp. 285 - 300

Chen, M.C., Hill, K.J., Yao. T. (2009), Preliminary Vocabulary Frequency Findings for Mandarin Chinese AAC Treatments. Paper presented at the 2009 Clinical AAC Research Conference in Pittsburgh, PA.

Ching Y. Suen (1986), Computational Studies of the Most Frequent Chinese Words and Sounds, World Scientific Series in Computer Science, Volume 3

Chujoi, K. & Nishigaki, C. (2004 ), Creating E-Learning Material to Teach Essential Vocabulary for Young EFL Learners: An Interactive Workshop on Language e-Learning. pp. 35 -44

Clarke, C. (2006), Getting to the Core of It, AAC conference, Blacksburg VA, USA

Clendon, S.A., & Erickson, K.A. (2008) The Vocabulary of Beginning Writers: Implications for Children with Complex Communication Needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication Volume 24 (4), pp. 281-293

Crosbie, S, Holm, A & Dodd, B (2005). Intervention for children with severe speech disorder: A comparison of two approaches. International Journal of Language Communication Disorders, Oct – Dec 2005, 940) No 4, pp. 467 – 491

Crosbie, S., Pine, C., Holm, A., Dodd, B. (2006). Treating Jarrod: A core vocabulary approach. Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, September; Volume 8 (3), pp. 316 - 321

Dark, L. & Balandin S. (2007) Prediction and selection of vocabulary for two leisure activities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 23 (4), pp. 288 - 299

Davies M., & De Oliveira Preto-Bay, A.M. (2008), A Frequency Dictionary of Portuguese, Routledge

Davies M., & Gardner D. (2010), A Frequency Dictionary of Contemporary American English: word sketches, collocates, and thematic lists, Routledge

Dew, J. E. (1999), 6000 Chinese Words: A Vocabulary Frequency for Chinese Language Teachers and Students, SMC Publishing

Dodd, B., Holm, A., Crosbie, S., & McIntosh, B. (2006). A core vocabulary approach for management of inconsistent speech disorder.Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, Volume 8(3), pp. 220 - 230

Dodd, B., Holm, A., Crosbie, S., & McIntosh, B. (2010), Core vocabulary intervention for inconsistent speech disorder., In L. Williams, S. McLeod, & R. McCauley (Eds.), Interventions for speech sound disorders in children. Baltimore: Brookes. pp. 117-136

Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1967), Computational Analysis of Present-day American English. Providence: Brown University press

Fried-Oken, M. & More, L. (1992). An initial vocabulary for non-speaking preschool children based on developmental and environmental language sources. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 8 (), pp. 41 - 56.

Fristoe, M., & Lloyd, L.L. (1980). Planning an initial expressive sign lexicon for persons with severe communication impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, Volume 45, pp. 170-180.

Fullmer, D., & Kolson, C. (1961). A beginning reading vocabulary. Journal of Educational Research, Volume 54 (7), pp. 270 - 272.

Garside, R., Leech, G., & Varadi T. (1978), Lancaster Parsed Corpus, University of Lancaster

Griggs, R.A., Bujak-Johnson, A. & Proctor, D.L. (2004), Using Common Core Vocabulary in Text Selection and Teaching the Introductory Course, Teaching of Psychology, Volume 31 (4), pp. 265 -269

Green, E., & Peters, P. (1991), The Australian corpus project and Australian English. ICAME JOURNAL no.15, pp. 37 - 53.

Graham, K. & Hill, K. (2007), A Pilot Study Comparing AAC Vocabulary Usage Patterns Based on User Experience. Poster presented at the 2007 Clinical AAC Research Conference (Lexington, KY, September 27-29).

Haiman, J. (Ed.)(1985), Iconicity in Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hill, K. (2001),The development of a model for automated performance measurement and the establishment of performance indices for augmented communicators under two sampling conditions. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(05), 2293. (UMI No. 3013368).

Hopkins, C. (1979). The spontaneous oral vocabulary of children in grade 1. The Elementary School Journal, Volume 79 (4), pp. 240 - 249.

Hwang, M. Y., Lei, X., Ng, T., Bulyko, I., Ostendorf, M., Stolcke, A., et al., (2004, December). Progress on mandarin conversational telephone speech recognition. In Proceedings of the Fourth International symposium on Chinese spoken language processing. (pp. 1-4). Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Irwin, O. (1966). A comparison of the vocabulary of use and of understanding of cerebral palsied children. The Cerebral Palsy Journal, Volume 27 (3), pp.7 - 11.

Jones, A.P. (1993), A Communication Program for the Cerebral Palsied with Cognitive Problems: Vocabulary in use analysis.  Unpublished Masters Dissertation, Sheffield University.

Jones. A.P. (2010), Working with Core Vocabulary in the design of AAC boards, presentation at Taipei University, March, 2010

Jones R. & Tschirner, E. (2006). A Frequency Dictionary of German: Core Vocabulary for Learners, Routledge

Kennedy, G. (1998): Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.

King, J., Spoeneman, T., Stuart, S., & Beukelman, D. (1995). Small talk in adult conversations: Implications for AAC vocabulary selection. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 11 (4), pp. 260 - 264.

Lahey, M., & Bloom, L. (1977), Planning a first lexicon: Which words to teach first. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, Volume 42, pp. 340 – 349.

Lee, D.Y.W. (2001 ), Defining Core Vocabulary and Tracking Its Distribution across Spoken and Written Genres, Journal of English Linguistics, Volume 29 (3), September 2001, pp. 250-278

Light, J., Fallon, K., & Paige, T.K. (1999). Vocabulary selection tool for preschoolers who require AAC. American Speech-Language-Hearing (ASHA) Convention. San Francisco, CA.

Liu, C. & Zachary, S. (2006), Developing a core vocabulary for a mandarin Chinese AAC system using word frequency data. International Journal of Computer Processing of Oriental Languages. Volume 19, pp. 285 - 300.

Ma, W. Y., & Chen, K. J. (2003, July). Introduction to CKIP Chinese Word Segmentation; System for the First International Chinese Word Segmentation Bakeoff. Proceedings of ACL, Second SIGHAN Workshop on Chinese Language Processing (pp. 168-171). Sapporo, Japan.

Mair, C., (1996), Freiburg Brown Corpus of American English, University of Freiburg

Major, W.E. (2008), It’s Not the Size, It’s the Frequency: The Value of Using a Core Vocabulary in Beginning and Intermediate Greek. CPL Online

Marvin, C. A., Beukelman, D. R., & Bilyeu, D. (1994), Frequently Occurring Home and School Words from "Vocabulary-Use Patterns in Preschool Children: Effects of Context and Time Sampling, Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 10 (4), pp. 224 - 236

McGinnis, J.B. (1989). Vocabulary requirements for writing activities for the academically main-streamed student with disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 5 (3), pp. 183-191.

McIntosh, B. & Dodd, D. (2008) Evaluation of Core Vocabulary intervention for treatment of inconsistent phonological disorder: Three intervention case studies. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, Volume 24 (3), pp. 307-327

Mein, R. (1961), A list of words used in conversation by severely subnormal patients, Ph.D. Thesis. University of London

Mein R. and O’Connor N. (1960), A study of the oral vocabulary of severely subnormal patients’. Journal Mental Deficiency Research, 4, 2, 130-143

Meyer, C. (2002): English corpus linguistics: an introduction. Cambridge: CUP.

Morrow, D., Beukelman, D., Mirenda, P., & Yorkston, K. (1993). Vocabulary selection for augmentative communication systems: A comparison of three techniques. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, Volume 2, pp. 19 - 30 May 1993.

Murphy, H., et al. (1957). The spontaneous speaking vocabulary of children in primary grades. Journal of Education, 140 (2), pp. 1-105.

Nelson G. (1993), The International Corpus of English, University College London

Paul, R. (1997). Facilitating transitions in language development for children using AAC, AAC, Volume 13 (3), pp. 141 - 148

Peters, P. (1987), Towards a corpus of Australian English. International Computer Archive of Modern English Journal  No.11 , pp. 27 - 38.

Peters, P., Collins, P., & Blair, D. (1986), ACE: Australian Corpus of English, Macquarie University, Sydney

Peters, P., Purvis, H., Martin, C. & Jenkins, R. (1990) Word frequencies from the Macquarie corpus: the newspaper files. Working papers of the Speech, Hearing and Language Research Centre, pp. 13 - 92. Macquarie University

Peyawary, A. S. (1999). The Core Vocabulary of International English: A Corpus Approach. Bergen: HIT-senterets publikasjonsserie Nr. 2/99.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S. & Svartvik J. (1988), London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English, University College London & Lund University

Raban, B. (1988), The Spoken Vocabulary of Five-Year Old Children, University of Reading

Renouf, A. (1992). What Do You Think of That: A Pilot Study of the Phraseology of the Core Words of English. In New Directions in English Language Corpora, edited by Gerhard Leitner, pp. 301-17. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Sampson, G. (2000), Susanne Corpus (Release 5), University of Essex

Schlosser, R. W. (2003). Roles of speech output in augmentative and alternative communication: Narrative review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 19, pp. 5-28.

Simpson, R.C., Briggs, S.L., Ovens, J., & Swales, J. M. (1997) Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. English Language Institute, University of Michigan

Sinclair, J. (1980), Collins Birmingham University International Language Database, University of Birmingham

Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus Concordance Collocation. Oxford University Press

Sonesson, G. (2001). From semiosis to ecology: On the theory of iconicity and its consequences for the ontology of the Iife world.  VISIO: thematic issue: Cultural cognition and space cognition, Volume 6 (2): pp. 85 - 110.

Song Jiang (2004), Defining the So-Called ‘Core Vocabulary’ A Case Study of Chinese Textbooks, Journal of Chinese Language and Computing, Volume 16 (1), pp. 63-71

Souter, C. (1989). A Short Handbook to the Polytechnic of Wales Corpus. . International Computer Archive of Modern English, Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities, Bergen University, Norway.

Spurk, E., & Hill, K. (2004), Frequency of use of vocabulary for individuals using dynamic display systems. Presentation for the Rehabilitation Engineering & Assistive Technology Society of North America Annual Conference(Lexington, KY, June 15—19, 2004)

Stenström, A., Andersen, G. & Hasund I. K. (2001), Trends in Teenage Talk: Corpus compilation, analysis and findings. John Benjamins publishing

Stuart, S. (1991), Topic and vocabulary use patterns of elderly men and women in two age cohorts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Stuart S., Beukelman D., & King J. (1997). Vocabulary Use by Older Adults in Extended Conversations, Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 13 (1), March 1997

Stuart‌, S., Vanderhoof‌, D., & Beukelman‌ D. (1993), Topic and vocabulary use patterns of elderly women, Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 9 (2), pp. 95-110

Svartvik, J. (Ed.)(1990), The London Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research. Lund Studies in English 82. Lund University Press, 1990.

Trembath, D., Balandin, S., & Togher L. (2007) Vocabulary selection for Australian children who use augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, Volume 32 (4), 291-301

Trnka, K., Yarrington, D., McCoy, K., & Pennington, C. (2006), Topic modelling in fringe word prediction for AAC, International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. Sydney, Australia

Tseng, S. C. (2004), Spontaneous mandarin production: Results of a corpus-based study. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Chinese Spoken Language Processing (Hong Kong, December 15--18). Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, pp. 29 - 32.

Van Tatenhove, G. (1986). Vocabulary versatility for the person who is non-speaking. Communicating Together, Volume 4, pp. 19 - 20.

Van Tatenhove, G. (1989). Considering vocabulary versatility as a measure of effective use of a symbol set. In Augmentative Communication: Implementation Strategies. Blackstone, S., Cassatt James, E.L., &. Bruskin , D.M.  (pp. 3-113 -133).  American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

Van Tatenhove, G. (1989). Training caregivers and facilitators to select vocabulary. In Augmentative Communication: Implementation Strategies.  Blackstone, S., Cassatt James, E.L., &. Bruskin , D.M. (pp. 6-30-42). American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

Van Tatenhove, G. (2007). Normal Language Development, Generative Language & AAC, http://www.vantatenhove.com/files/NLDAAC.pdf

Venkatagiri, H. S. (1995). Techniques for enhancing communication productivity in AAC: A review of research. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, Volume 4, pp. 36 - 45.

Vernon P. E. (1948), A preliminary investigation of the vocabulary of Scottish children entering schools. Studies in reading, Volume 1, University of London press

Wei, M. (1973), A newspaper's vocabulary: A raw frequency count of the words in the South China morning post, Chinese University of Hong Kong

Wei-Yun Ma & Keh-Jiann Chen (2003), Introduction to CKIP Chinese word segmentation system for the first international Chinese Word Segmentation Bakeoff, Proceedings of the second SIGHAN workshop on Chinese language processing, pp.168-171, July 11-12, 2003, Sapporo, Japan

West, M. (1953). A General Service List of English Words with Semantic Frequencies and a Supplementary Word-List for the Writing of Popular Science and Technology. London: Longman, Green

Yong Ho (2001), Chinese-English Frequency Dictionary: A Study Guide to Mandarin Chinese's 500 Most Frequently Used Words, Hippocrene Books

Yorkston, K., Fried-Oken, M., & Beukelman, D. (1988), Single word vocabulary needs: Studies from various non-speaking populations.Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 4, pp. 149.

Yorkston, K., Dowden, P., Honsinger, M., Marriner, N. & Smith, K. (1988). A comparison of standard and user vocabulary lists. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 4, pp. 189 - 210.

Yorkston, K., Honsinger, M., Dowden, P. & Marriner, N. (1989). Vocabulary selection: A Case Report. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 5, pp. 101-108.

Yorkston, K. M., Beukelman, D. R., Smith, K., & Tice, R. (1990). Extended communication samples of augmented communicators II: Analysis of Multi-Word Sequences. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, Volume 55 (2), pp. 225 - 230.

Yorkston, K., Smith, K., & Beukelman, D. (1990), Extended communication samples of augmented communicators: I. A comparison of individualized versus standard vocabularies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, Volume 55, pp. 217 – 224.

To end this section of the web page, below is a lovely YouTube video entitled the Language Stealers which emphasizes the point made about teaching Core Vocabulary

TEN: Staff Attitudes

There is a need for staff to respond appropriately to Learner requests made with or without simple AAC systems. Ignoring or denying a Learner initiated requested is not an appropriate response as the Learner may come to understand that there is no point in using such a system as it brings no additional benefit into his/her life.

Staff may react in, at least one of eight ways (ABCDEFGH) to a Learner-initiated request or other communicative action:

Avoidance
Berate and Belittle and Blame
Compliance
Denial
Educate
Further
Go Off (at a tangent)
Hold

Avoidance means that staff simply ignore the request and carry on as if they hadn't heard it. Of course, the staff member may have been busy attending to some other matter and in the hurly-burly of some section of any session may indeed not hear a simple AAC system. However, simply to ignore a request is never good practice. I was once present when a young lady made a perfectly reasonable request to a member of staff. The member of staff ignored the request and turned to me and said, "When are these things going to get a decent British accent?". In so doing , the member of staff managed to avoid the request and belittle the device. A avoidance can also mean that the staff member:

seeks to avoid contact with the Learner as much as possible
might make an excuse not to engage in an interchange ("Can't talk now I have to ...)
pretend to be busy with something;
keep out of the Learner's way.
might try to speed up the interchange by taking over the conversation in some way, The staff member becomes the active partner and the Learner becomes passive. For example, the staff member might guess the remaining part of a Learner's sentence even after only a couple of initiating words. This should not happen without Learner permission and even with Learner permission and then only with Learners who are virtual fluent communicators with their AAC system.

Berate means to reprimand the Learner, the system or both. The Learner can be reprimanded for incorrect use of correct syntax, for asking for a particular POLE, or even for not seeing that the staff member is 'busy'. The system can be reprimanded for the quality or its voice, the symbols on its overlays, the inability to offer the correct words, ... The Learner and or his/her system is belittled. In a school I was visiting, a Learner made a request which even I as a non staff member easily understood. However, the staff member berated her use of grammar and told the Learner that she would get her request when she could ask for it 'properly'! Blame means to blame someone or something other than yourself or yourselves for Learner failure to make progress. Sorry, but it's rarely the communication system, it's normally something to do with working practices that cause Learner failure. A further form of belittlement is the act of patronizing the individual's communication. This combines both avoidance (you don't actually respond to the initiating remark) and belittlement (you patronize the Learner; "Oh what pretty pictures, you like pictures don't you?).

Compliance means to act upon a Learner request. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that common sense has to go out of the window! I once told my staff that if a Learner makes a request they should act upon it otherwise how is the Learner to know that communication empowers? A few days later I went into a room and there was Kevin really enjoying himself with about six cups of water in front of him. The staff were running back and forth bringing him more cups. I asked the staff what on earth they were doing. They replied, "You said if a Learner asks for something then she or he is to get it and Kevin keeps asking for water." If to confirm what the staff were saying, Kevin suddenly said, "Can I have" ..."a cup of" ... "water" ... "please". I realised that the staff's' extra activity was my fault! I told them, "Don't you think it would be a good idea if Kevin drank the first cup of water before he gets another?" Isn't that what you would say to any other person who asked for yet another drink when they had a full glass in front of them? However, the moral of this short story is, Kevin was having a great time controlling the staff and he never forgot how to ask for a drink of water and so the staff's actions were not so bad after all!

Denial means to deny a request: "No Danny, you cannot have that." There may be good reasons why a denial is given. The POLE item may just not be available. For example,a Learner might request to 'go swimming' in the middle of an art session. It may be that access to such a provision at that moment in time is simply impractical (I won't say impossible because if school had the resources and the will, it could theoretically take the Learner swimming). A request might be denied for pragmatic reasons: A Learner may have developed sufficient intellect and language skills such that his current goals focus on the 'use' of language. Thus staff might say. "Sorry Danny I can't get you that just now. I am rather busy. can you come back in ten minutes and ask again. I'll be able to help you then."

Educate means to take it upon yourself to use the request as a means to demonstrate to the Learner the 'correct' way of making such a request. This typically takes the form of a staff member saying, "No Danni, you do not say it like that. First you say ... can you say that?" and proceed to run through the 'correct' word structure item by item. Even after performing this feat, the Learner still might be denied the request! I once was called to investigate why a young Learner was a reluctant user of AAC. At the end of the school day, he returned to the therapy room before going to his bungalow on the school campus where he lived during the week. The Therapist thought it would be a good idea for the Learner to request what he wanted for his meal that evening. He eventually indicated beans on toast. So the Therapist went through how he could make such a request to the support staff working in his residence. The Learner left the Therapy room with me in tow. We went into his residence and the staff warmly greeted him. The Learner requested his meal not quite as he had been shown but it was understandable:
"toast beans please".
The staff looked at him. Then one member said, "That's not how you say it, is it? It's 'can I have some beans on toast for my dinner please?". She then sat down with him and made him go through the process of generating such a statement word by word. After several minutes of 'education' the learner finally said,
"Can I have some beans on toast for my dinner please?".
The staff member's response was, "But it's not time for dinner yet and besides it's jacket potatoes tonight." Is it any wonder that this Learner was reluctant to use his AAC system?!!

Further means to seek ways to extend the communicative interchange by asking clarifying questions for example ("Oh, you want a tube of glue, Sure I;ll get you one. What are you going to do with it?). This is good practice. Of course there will be times during our hectic schedules when we will not want to extend such communicative interchanges and move to some form of avoidance but, for emerging Learners of AAC especially, it is important that they get as much practice as possible and experience many positive interactions with others.

Go Off means that the staff member does not respond to the request but rather 'goes off' in his/her own direction. This is typically some irrelevant remark about the communication system:
"Can I have a cola please?"
"Wow, that's amazing. I have never seen one of those before. What pretty pictures. I bet you like using that don't you ..."

Hold means to take a hold of (control) the interchange and dominate the conversation such that the Learner becomes passive while they become active. In the worse case scenario, the Learner cannot get a word in edge-ways. The Other may ask and answer his/her own questions and move from topic to topic in an ongoing monologue until the 'conversation' is terminated.

It is appropriate that the Learner and his/her partner take turns in any conversation and not that either dominates the interchange for whatever reason. If the Learner is a reluctant communicator the use of the F (Furthering) technique (among others) is advised. The Other should also give the Learner time to prepare conversation and not try to fill 'gaps' with other dialogue and, perhaps worse still, additional questions!

There is sometimes a temptation to 'watch' the Learner at work and thus adopt a deviant communicative position (such as standing behind the Learner). With or without Learner permission so to do, do NOT do this!

Don't Avoid. Learners need opportunities to participate that provide experiences of quality in order to progress with AAC. Avoidance means that there are less Learner opportunities to practice newly learned skills and, as such, less chance for any staff member to note down (in memory) any short-comings that may need addressing during tuition. Note that such interchanges are not the right time for 'education' (E for Educate) and, as is suggested below, staff should respond appropriately if they understand what has been said (even if it is non-syntactical) as though it was perfect grammar.

Comply. Unless there is a good reason not to do so, Talksense recommends 'compliance' as a response to a Learner-initiated request so that the Learner understands that with communication comes empowerment, i.e. control over others and control over the environment. This is especially true if it is one of the very first times a Learner has made any request.

Don't Deny. Please go out of your way to respond to a Learner-initiated request, even if it means putting six glasses of water in front of a first time requester when s/he hasn't drunk the first glass! It is truly important. I realise there will be times when you just are unable to comply with a request but please take time to explain in a way that the Learner will understand why you are unable to comply and praise him or her for the great use of the AAC system (even if the words were in the wrong order). Don't berate or belittle or blame. Also don't try to educate at this time unless this is a really proficient AAC user who is working on pragmatic skills (in which case, apologize for being unable to comply at this moment in time and arrange a time for the Learner to return at your convenience to make the request)

Don't berate or educate! There is a time for AAC education and it is NOT when a Learner has initiated a social interaction or made a request. It doesn't matter if the Learner has put the words in the wrong order, as long as you understand the meaning of what was said, act upon it! If you genuinely do not understand the meaning of what the Learner is requesting, simply say in a very calm and friendly voice, "I am sorry Johnny. I do not understand what you are saying to me. Can you say it another way please?". Do not berate the Learner, or belittle his/her grammar or blame the system: it is counter-productive. You may note that the Learner has a particular problem with word order or some other aspect of syntax and report this to the speech professional involved in private (not in front of Johnny!). It may be that Johnny s not yet at sufficient a developmental stage linguistically to cope with such structures and for him to have even requested his request is a momentous moment and one deserving of celebration and no belittlement. If you really must do something then and there, you can repeat the sentence in its correct form as though you were thinking about it aloud:

Learner: Man soup TV last night like
Staff: Oh, you saw superman (soup man) on television last night and you really liked it. Yes, I have seen that film,
it is really good. My favourite part is when he flies around the world really fast to turn back time. What is your best bit?

Note that the staff clarifies the meaning and puts it into a correct syntactical structure. What's more she continues the interchange and attempts to draw more communication from the Learner. She also makes a mental note to inform the therapist (who is in charge of vocabulary in this particular instance) about the interchange and that the word 'Superman' is not stored or the Learner does not know where to find it if it is. What the Learner actually did represents an advanced state of language use:

he used two non-related words (man soup) to create a 'missing word (superman);
he creates a four word utterance (Superman TV last night) to tell another that Superman was on TV last night
he adds a second sentence (like) to indicate his feelings about the first sentence. (I really liked it)

Did I make all that up? No, it is based on a real event that happened in around 1986 at Portland College in Mansfield in an interchange between a young man called Kevin and a member of staff. Kevin just happened to love Superman and wanted to tell people. Suppose every member of staff had avoided or berated Kevin's communication attempts - what do you think would happen? My guess is that the would start to see his communication system in less than a positive fashion and stop using it.

It is important that every Learner sees both communication and the communication system in a positive light. It is our actions and our language that can cause Learners to become reluctant communicators who refuse to use their system. Don't let this happen to your Learners! The problem is that much of this is not an intentional action by staff members. they do not consciously intend to berate or belittle or even to avoid however that is how it is perceived by the Learner. The behavior of ALL significant Others in this respect is crucially important to the future progress and success of any AAC system.

Below are some cartoon images from the 'Incommunicado High' students. All persons are fictional. Any resemblance to real life characters and or places is entirely coincidental!

ELEVEN: Don't Wait Your Turn

Learner queuing refers to the still common practice, in special education classrooms, of rows or circles of Learners waiting their turn as the the focus progressively passes down the line.

In a Learner Queuing system the group of Learners are typically arranged in a row, a semi-circle or in a circle and an 'activity' is passed around the group one Learner at a time. For example, each member of the group is encouraged to say 'good morning' or interact with an SSS as a staff member moves along the line. The last member of the group has to wait until all the others have had their individual turn and the first group member (once the interaction with the activity is complete to the satisfaction of the controlling staff member) has to wait until all others have completed the task and the focus moves back to the group dynamic once again. All group members are on task for a short period of time but play the waiting game for a much longer period of time: the more group members the longer the period of waiting. In a Learner Queuing approach only one Learner is active at any one time:

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8

each Learner becomes active as the focus passes around the group. Even though:

staff may be very well intentioned;
and the the activity itself may be worthwhile;
and very well done...

Learner Queuing is poor practice because of the 'hidden curriculum' aspect; that is, in reality the individuals involved are actually being taught to ... wait. Individual Learners , especially those with special needs, simply cannot spend so much time off task. Some may go to sleep, some may withdraw into themselves, some may focus on other behaviours that they find personally more stimulating (though staff may find such behaviours challenging). Just how much time during a typical day an individual Learner spends waiting is somewhat difficult to ascertain unless there is a time and motion study within the establishment which, by definition, itself affects the outcome (staff may behave differently when they are being observed). If a Learner's IEP has a target that states '<Learner> will learn how to wait appropriately', I am always concerned! It is likely that <Learner> will already be spending a great deal of time waiting!!

The purpose of this website is not just to point out poor practice but to suggest practical alternatives. There are, at least, three possible alternatives to Learner Queuing. These are outlined below. The first is the preferred methodology by Talksense. You may know of others. If you are willing to share alternative methodologies, please get in touch so that I may add other approaches to this section of the C.A.N. page. You may also want to raise issues with the whole of this section. Again, please feel free to get in touch.

Alternative 1: The LAG Approach
The first alternative to Learner Queuing is what may be called the LAG approach where LAG stands for Learner And Group. In this classroom technique a staff member's interactions with a group of Learners (individually) is interspersed with a short whole group activity. Thus, instead of the L1, L2, L3, ... arrangement as seen above, what we now have is:

L1 G L2 G L3 G L4 G L5 G...

where G = Group

Here, as you can see, the focus passes from Learner to Learner as before but, in between, there is a short group-based dynamic which maintains cognitive engagement for all participants with the given task. For example, if the session in question was a morning greeting. Learner One would be enabled to say 'good morning' to the group. Following this, and before Learner two was enabled to say 'good morning', the whole group would be enabled/required to say 'good morning' to Learner One. This may be by signing (Makaton, Signalong or other) or through the use of SGDs or some other methodology (indeed, some members of the group may not require AAC). The session dynamic changes: no longer are individual Learners sitting awaiting their turn and, again, waiting after their turn but, rather, only inactive for the time it takes a single Learner to say 'Good Morning' to the group before they are called into action again to respond to each group member's greeting.

Alternative 2: One on One
In the second alternative, individual Learners have one-on-one staff support. The staff member's task is to maintain Learner cognitive engagement while the focus progresses. However, this is easier said than done: how is a staff member to cognitively engage a Learner during a good morning activity, for example, in a meaningful manner while awaiting the Learner's turn and, even if they can do it, how do they do it without disturbing/distracting any other member of the group?

If the Learners are getting on with individual work while the good morning greeting is progressing it is not really true to this alternative but creates a third alternative ...

Alternative 3: Individual work
In this alternative, Learners are actually working on some activity as a group or as individuals. While they are working, they are interrupted to allow a staff member to present a new focus to them one by one. While the Learners are not waiting, interrupting one period of cognitive engagement with another, only to expect the Learner to return to the first cognitive activity is probably not the best of practices!

However, if the shared activity in question is the use of a group Object Of Reference passed around the group then, as each individual is handed the OOR, s/he moves to the new POLE. Thus, there is no waiting post activity. While each Learner takes it in turn to receive the OOR, they can still be working with their one-on-one staff member until the OOR is presented. Personally, I do not favour this approach to the use of OOR.

The above Russian video is from YouTube. I assume they posted it because they were proud of their practice but for me it illustrates a deviance from at least three of the fundamentals cited on this page:

The Learners are spending a lot of the time waiting for involvement,
The Learners appear to be fly-swatting;
The use of technology here does not seem to be providing an optimal solution maybe because I believe it is being using in a less-than-good-practice way.

Of course, I have not seen the rest of the session, do not know the children or the circumstances and am therefore being a little unfair. However, watch the young man in red seated on the sofa: what is his involvement in the session so far? None. He is spending all the time waiting. This is not good practice.

TWELVE: Initiation Management

When their little boy didn't start to speak long after his young friends were talking all the time, mum and dad took him to see the doctor, who could find nothing wrong with him. Then, one day several months later the boy said,
"My soup is cold."
His parents were ecstatic.

"Why haven't you spoken to us up to now?"
"Because everything's been OK so far", came the reply.

This old (and rather feeble!) joke makes the point that sometimes the motivation has to come from other sources than the Learner him or herself. Sometimes it takes a little bit of psychology to motivate a reluctant communicator to speak. Initiation Management is a a set of techniques in which users are placed in a managed situation where the emphasis is on communication. Initiation Management fundamentally differs to scripting (see Glennen, S. 1986) because there is no prepared script for the Learner, although some variations of scripting may have many similar elements (see Elder, P. & Goossens, C. 1993).

Jerome Bruner (1983) referred to a technique which he called ‘scaffolding’. Scaffolding involves the selective modification of a person’s environment to promote the use of language and encourage participation in communication interactions which, without the use of such a technique, would probably fail to occur.

"According to Bruner, children acquire language through social interactions scaffolded by more expert communicators than themselves." (Letto, M., Bedrosian, J., & Skarakis-Doyle, E. 1994)

Letto, Bedrosian, and Skarakis-Doyle (1994) traced the roots of Bruner’s scaffolding theory to the Russian psychologist Vygotsky’s (Vygotsky, L.S. 1978) notion of the ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD):

"The ZPD involves the difference between the child’s actual level of development as determined by independent performance and the child’s potential level of development accomplished through collaborative interaction with the more skilled partner." (Letto, M., Bedrosian, J., & Skarakis-Doyle, E. 1994)

"One of Vygotsky’s main contributions to educational theory is a concept termed the ‘zone of proximal development’. This he used to refer to the ‘gap’ that exists for an individual between what he is able to do alone and what he can achieve with help from one more knowledgeable or skilled than himself." (Wood, D. 1988)

"The mother (Facilitator) must always be a step ahead, in what Vygotsky calls the 'zone of proximal development'; the infant (Learner)cannot move into, or conceive of, the next stage ahead except through its being occupied and communicated to him by his mother(Facilitator)." (Sacks, O. 1989)(My additions in brackets)

This idea is related to Wittgenstein’s notion of the ‘language game’ (Wittgenstein, L. 1953) and to De Saussure’s (1916) pioneering work (See also Pears, D. 1971, Kenny, A. 1973, Culler, J.. 1976, Harris, R. 1988, McGuinness, B. 1988). This section of this webpage thus concentrates on a specific idea related to Wittgenstein’s ‘language game’, Vygotsky’s ‘Zone of proximal development’, and Bruner’s ‘scaffolding’(BRUNER J. S. 1983). It is known as Initiation Management (IM). IM is not a single technique bit includes a range of techniques that are used to promote and manage communication in Learners who are either reluctant or emergent (and therefore not very confident). Included in Initiation Management are the following techniques (please note that this list is not intended to be completely comprehensive:

Creative Asininity

Creative Asininity is an Initiation Management technique that has proven to have good results. What is 'creative asininity'? It was a term first used by Ashworth and Jones (1989) in a paper on Initiation Management. It was used to describe an intervention strategy which employs deviant but purposeful staff behaviours to maximise communication. In other words, it is akin to acting stupid with a purpose:

"Creating natural opportunities for teaching learners spontaneously to request spoons is straightforward - apple sauce is provided without a spoon." (Reichle, J. & Sigafoos, J. 1991 p. 159)

Creative Asininity can be used to motivate a Learner's need to communicate. For example, the Facilitator (or other) might deliberately obstruct (though not directly physically) any easy unaided route to a Learner’s desired end and thus motivate the Learner's use of speech. Creative Asininity may also involve some aspects of Environmental Engineering (see below)

If the establishment has a small shop the Learner might be asked to purchase something:

"Sally, I'm very busy today. Could you help me please and go and get me a can of coke from the shop? Here’s the money.”

The shop keeper should have been primed so as to negate the possibility of Sally pointing at the desired item. The environment is engineered (see Environmental Engineering below) so the particular item is not on display. If Sally attempts to sign the word then the shop keeper can use Creative Asininity to negate this route:

"Err, I don’t sign. Sorry”
or:
"Sorry Sally, I've got a headache and my eyes are hurting. My signing is not too good today. What is it you want?”

And, if Sally were to use her communication board and not her simple AAC device (Please note that is not my intent to devalue or denigrate the use of communication boards but, in the instance where the goal is to get Sally to use her SGD) the shop keeper could again use Creative Asininity:

"I can’t see what you are pointing to from here but I can hear you. Can you tell me?”
or:
"I'm really too busy to stop and watch what you are doing right now Sally but, if you speak, I can continue with what I'm doing.”

Environmental Engineering

Environmental Engineering (EE) does NOT refer to costly building and structural alterations but, rather, to adjusting a Learner's environment is some little way to provide an opportunity for communication. The environment is carefully engineered to encourage spontaneous utterances of more than a single word. The Learner is not aware of being stage managed.

Examples of EE include such things as:

A BEST is placed in view of a Learner but out of reach. The Learner has previously been provided with (and taught how to use) a means to ask for the BEST. The Learner has a means to make a request of staff.

In a Learner's room, his TV set is turned on it's side such that when turned on the picture is not as it should be! This can also be achieved with a computer screen in a classroom. Assuming the Learner is physically unable to correct the situation him/herself, s/he has to inform a Significant Other. The Significant Other might use Creative Asininity to obstruct any other communicative path (such as pointing) to the faulty POLE such that the Learner is motivated to use a specific communicative methodology.

A Facilitator holds up a book and asks a Learner to go and get one from a nearby room:

"John, will you go to [Mrs. Accomplice] and get me one of these, please?” (POINTING TO BOOK)

The Facilitator is careful not to name the object nor to state its attributes. Mrs. Accomplice is, of course, primed. On a shelf in her room, out of reach, are several books of different colours and sizes. The Learner has to ask for the book. Mrs. Accomplice can be as helpful or unhelpful in this task as is required. If the Learner points to the book Mrs. Accomplice can make use of creative asininity to block this unaided strategy:

"Sorry, my eyes aren't too good today, and I've not got my glasses. Can you tell me what you want?”

(A better technique is not to have the books on view.) Mrs Accomplice may prompt the Learner on the choice of colour and size or alternatively allow an incorrect choice to be made. If the Learner returns with a book that is not the same colour as the book shown, the Facilitator can request a return visit clarifying the user’s mistake:

"No not quite John. Look at my book. Now look at the book you have brought. Do you think you can get me a book that is
the same colour?”

Sabotage Routines

Sabotage Routines, as their name implies, makes use of staff deliberately 'sabotaging' and everyday Learner event; something that the Learner would normally take for granted. For example, if the Learner normally requires the use of a straw to facilitate drinking from a cup, a staff member might deliberately 'forget' to include the straw

A member of staff provides a drink for a Learner but 'forgets' to put in the Learner's straw without which the Learner is unable to drink. The Learner has a means to ask for a straw. If after a couple of minutes the Learner still has not requested the straw, the staff member could subtly prompt:

"Jenny, come on, drink up. We haven't got all day!"

A little later the prompt might be more direct:

"Jenny, you are not drinking. Come on sweetie. Is there something wrong?"

If the prompts fail then the staff member can suddenly remember:

"Jenny come on girl. Oh dear! I forgot your straw! I am so stupid. Sorry Jenny. Hey, you could have told
me on your talker. All you had to say was straw. Look, it's here. You must remind me if I forgot in future, OK?"

The following day, the staff member forgets the straw again! This can happen until it is obvious that Jenny knows where the request for a straw can be made and has initiated on several occasions. To continue to do this every day after that is pointless. Change to a new sabotage routine but, once a blue moon, check the straw position once again!

In order to develop communication skills using an aided form of AAC (SGD, communication board, etc), sabotage routines may also include the inhibition, in a creative manner, of unaided forms of communication (such as pointing) as well as other aided forms (to focus on a particular aided methodology). Suppose you want a Learner to make his or her own request for a particular drink at break time. The Learner normally has tea and so staff typically have it all ready for the Learner and no communication is required. However, you ask them not to do this and to now ask the Learner what s/he would like to drink. However, the Learner fails to use his/her SGD (Speech Generating Device) and instead opts for the simpler 'I will point at the one I want' approach. How do we deal with this? Sabotage suggest that we prevent the pointing option by removing any things at which the Learner can point. If the drinks are not on display in the break area then the Learner cannot point at the choice and has to make use of another channel of communication.

"Forcing individuals to use a communication aid when it is not functional, in the belief that they will become better at communicating because they are pointing at a graphic sign instead of an object, has little purpose." (Von Tetzchner, S. & Martinsen, H. 1992)

The quote above may appear to suggest that individuals should not be encouraged to use an AAC system when they are able to point. The relevant words are ‘forcing’ and ‘not functional’. As in the cartoon, forcing the dog to point at the Bliss Bone is non-functional when the bone is in view and therefore ‘has little purpose’. However, it is useful for the dog to be able to talk about bones when bones are not present and a link has to be established between the sign or symbol for bone and the real thing. To practice the use of a symbol - object association it will be necessary creatively to engineer the environment to give the user a desire to talk about the object in question. The object must not be present in the environment so pointing is nullified.

Thus, while total communication may involve the use of aided (both high and low technology) and unaided systems, there may be occasions where some means of communication (that are available to the user) are creatively and temporarily negated.

CASE STUDY: Susan is a 15-year-old girl. She has an SGD. She is not using it spontaneously. Her school is a total signing environment. All the pupils sign, all the staff sign. Sign is the primary means of communication at the school. The STD was purchased because Susan is rapidly reaching an age when she will have to move out into the community. It was recognised that the signing system employed by everyone in the school is not used in society. The staff wished to give Susan the opportunity to partake as fully as possible with the provision of the aid. Although she knows how to use it, she is not.

To clarify this further:

Unaided communication is valuable. Negation does not imply that the unaided communication is less valuable;
Unaided communication should only be negated creatively;
The reason for the creative negation is to provide more choice and to empower the individual through active communication skills;
It is not necessary to negate every aspect of unaided communication at every instance throughout the day;
The negation is a temporary measure. Control is returned to the Learner;
For some individuals (notably those with severe cognitive impairments) it may be better to avoid replacing the already acquired (and perhaps idiosyncratic) signs and initially chose other ‘vocabulary units’ until the ‘new’ system is well-founded;
Where an individual is introduced to a further AAC system, such that she or he has both a high tech (new system) and a low tech (existing system) but continues to use the existing system, the above points may also apply. This is not to devalue or denigrate the existing system.

CASE STUDY:

A speech professional was attempting to teach signing to a young, married, head-injured male. He was being uncooperative and would do almost anything other than sign. She tried to teach him to use the sign ‘where’ so that he could ask for directions. Eventually she hit on the idea of asking his wife to hide items that he would need instead of putting them in the normal place. At first he was exasperated that his things just appeared to have gone missing but soon hit on the idea of asking his wife where they might be by signing.There was a eureka point in which the man realised the usefulness and value of the sign as a means of communication. From that point on things began to improve for the speech professional, for the man’s wife, and for the man.

For some individuals, communication is inextricably linked with the here and now. That is, they can communicate about what they can see and their communicative attempts are made decipherable by the immediacy of the context. However, a cognitively more demanding task, and one that facilitator’s should strive to help an individual achieve, is the ability to talk about an item or an event when it is out of sight, both prior and subsequent to the incident. In Piagetarian terms this is related to the concept of object permanence (PIAGET J. 1952) and in psycho-linguistic terms to one of Brown’s (BROWN R. 1974) key properties of language - the notion of ‘displacement’:

"Displacement is universal in human language. It allows us to make experience cumulative and to retrieve the lessons learned from earlier experience. When we retrieve or utter a message that is disengaged in time from its context, we must somehow reconstruct those structural elements and relationships - were the message not displaced- that would be immediately apprehensible to the listener." (Linden, E. 1976 page 53)

By creatively engineering the environment the facilitator provides an opportunity for an individual to engaged in displacement of communication. Direct pointing, although an effective means of communicating and an important part of an individual’s total communication system, is necessarily contextual. The creative negation of one channel of communication in favour of another may help an individual augmented communicator to:

take a cognitive step forward;
talk about an object which is spatially or temporally displaced;
see the practical relevance of one channel of communication with respect to another without the devaluation of any other channel:

CASE STUDY:

A good communication board user was provided with a voice output communication aid. He worked well with it in lessons but did not use it out of lesson. He would arrive in therapy after school and begin to chat using his board but never with his SGD. His therapist hit upon the idea of temporarily negating the communication board by always saying that she was very busy and could not spend the time sitting and watching what he was doing but, if he would ‘talk’ to her, she could carry on and do the two things at the same time. He then switched to his SGD and began to communicate. He is now beginning to use both systems interchangeably.

Errant Behaviour

This technique involves sending the Learner on an errand which requires some form of communicative behaviour (as suggested in cartoon above!). In some cases, additional Initiation Management techniques may also be employed at the terminus such that the errand is obfuscated and the Learner has to make repair. If the Learner returns empty handed or with the wrong thing then there is a chance for further communicative activity.

Aided Language Stimulation

Aided Language Stimulation is a technique that involves the Facilitator (Significant Other) indicating a particular symbol (or symbol sequence) for a word during actual conversation with a Learner or Learners. In other words, as the staff member is speaking, s/he is also pointing out the symbols for some of the salient words s/he is using. For example: "We've got to OPEN (pointing out the symbol for OPEN) the cupboard and PUT (Pointing out the symbol for PUT) the PLATE (pointing to the symbol for PLATE) away." Research (see bibliography below) has shown that this technique can be very effective when undertaken correctly.

Joint

Initiation Management techniques sometimes involve some aspects of all the above techniques. When Joint techniques are utilised the result can be something of a 'farce' (in the sense of a stage play):

This real life example from my past required three members of staff and a piece of cake! Member of staff 'A' keeps a Learner back after class on a pretence. 'A' has a piece of cake on a plate which s/he is about to eat. At that moment, staff member 'B' pops into the room and says there is an urgent phone call for 'A'. 'A' leaves the room with 'B' but asks the Learner to mind the cake. The Learner is thus left alone in charge of the cake. Then, member of staff 'C' comes into the room. 'C' sits down in front of the Learner and says "Ah! A piece of cake”, and picks it up pretending to be about to take a bite. However, 'C' holds back from actually biting into the cake, stopping just short of this act and engages the Learner in conversation, starting to tell the Learner about a busy day or some other irrelevance. 'C’s' job is to keep raising the cake as if to eat, but then stopping short, to carry on the conversation. Some predetermined time is set before 'C' actually eats the cake! If the Learner does not initiate conversation to stop 'C' eating the cake in this time then 'C' eats the cake and leaves the room. However, this is not the end of the matter. Staff member 'A' returns from the phone call at this point and blames the Learner for eating the cake! The Learner is expected to explain the situation!

Communication Continuum

This has already been detailed in the earlier section on Core Vocabulary and will not be repeated here other than to state that the continuum suggests a movement from one type of Initiation Management questioning down through a set of lesser possibilities as detailed in the table repeated below.

Initiation Management thus attempts to foster communication. The Learner is unaware that a situation has been engineered and responses are monitored for later review. Much useful insight into the minds of Learners can be gleaned. There are many situations that can be easily created. The number is limited only by the imagination.

There are some prerequisites for any person in an initiation management situation:

The Learner must be capable of using appropriate vocabulary;
The Learner must be able to comprehend your request;
Any accomplices must be primed;
Contingency plans covering all eventualities should be laid down in advance;
Results should be recorded and evaluated.

CASE STUDY:

Student Saul is 17 and loves swimming. It was decided that on the day he was to go swimming to modify the routine slightly! Instead of taking a right turn at a T-junction in the college corridor towards the swimming pool, the carer would make a left turn. The objective was for Saul to say that they were going away from swimming and not towards it. A list was made of the acceptable vocabulary which would be allowable as a remedy to this situation. The team made sure Saul knew this range of words. Contingency plans were laid down. If Saul did not make any sign of responding to the change in the routine, the carer would prompt at a certain point: (At the top of the college drive, just outside, in a puzzled tone) -

"Well, I'm completely lost now. I don’t know where I should have taken you. My mind is all confused today.”

If this did not bring about the desired response, then the next prompt would be:

"It’s no good, you’ll have to help me. Where should we be going. I think it should be either cooking, swimming, life skills,
or is it numeracy?”

In the event, no sooner had the carer turned in the wrong direct than Saul said clearly using his system "Swimming”

We can create anomaly. That is we do something that we know to be strange or incorrect in the hope that the Learner will point out our 'mistake' using simple AAC. What sort of things can we do? Here are a few ideas:

changing the way something is done;
changing the furniture around;
changing the order;
doing something strange to an item in the room (television upside-down);
doing something odd or amusing;
forgetting to do something;
giving something to the wrong person;
missing someone out;
Sending a Learner to retrieve something from another person who is primed to provide the wrong thing. Think of the Two Ronnies sketch 'Four candles' in which the words used can be taken to mean several things. If the Learner is sent for 'glasses' (spectacles) but is given glasses (drinking), or is sent for flour and is given a flower then anomaly is created which the Learner has to resolve.
making something that the augmented communicator normally finds easy to do hard to do - a door doesn't open, a TV won’t switch on. Reichle, Anderson, and Schermer (1986) fixed a twist tie on a bread bag so that it was really difficult to undo and Kouri (1988) placed items out of reach as well as screwing a jar lid on very tightly in order to increase the possibility of spontaneous requests for help.

"Items were placed out of subjects’ direct reach and routine activities interfered with (e.g. a lid was screwed on too tight for subject to open) in order to elicit spoken or gestural requests which were then reinforced by the clinician’s compliance." (Kouri, T. 1988)

"The environment can be arranged in ways that optimize the probability that the learner will make requests spontaneously. The learner’s propensity to make requests spontaneously may depend on the interaction between conditions imposed by the environment and the learner’s state at any particular point in time." (Reichle, J. & Sigafoos, J. 1991 p. 160)

"Adolescents and adults who are moderately or severely developmentally delayed and use AAC systems often do not readily recognize opportunities to communicate. the normally occurring environmental events may not be salient enough for individuals who have learned to be passive participants and passive communicators. For these individuals sabotage routines may prove beneficial. When the AAC user is already familiar with the action sequences of an activity, sabotage routines are powerful techniques to facilitate message generation." (Elder, P. & Goossens, C. 1993 page 41)

Initiation Management is the use of specific techniques to create a situation in which Learner communication is the more likely. It helps to motivate the reluctant communicator. Staff engineer the environment, act in a strange way on purpose, forget to do things, sabotage routines, etc.

It is important to note that with all Initiation Management techniques there must be pre-planning and preparation:

The Learner has to be able to tell us something is wrong or we are acting stupid. In other words, the Learner has to have:

- access to the necessary vocabulary;
- a knowledge of where the necessary vocabulary is stored (under what symbol);
- an understanding of the meaning of the necessary vocabulary;
- an ability to order the necessary vocabulary into a meaningful utterance;
- the motivation to act.

There must be a set time frame before staff take contingency actions (prepared in advance) such that, if the Learner does not communicate as expected in the allowed time frame then staff are instructed as to what to do;
There should be a set vocabulary listing of appropriate responses to any situation. It will be different for Learners at varying stages of development. It may be just a single word (or range of acceptable single words) such as 'straw' for example, in the situation where the staff member forgets to include a straw with a Learner;s drink.
A contingency plan for behaviours that differ from those expected should be set out. Expect the unexpected and think the plan through:

- what if the Learner does not react as expected?
- what are the the other possibilities in this situation?
- how should we proceed if any of these possibilities occur;

See Also:

Acheson, M.J. (2006). The effect of natural aided language stimulation on requesting desired objects or actions in children with autistic spectrum disorder. ED.D. Dissertation. University of Cincinnati, Ohio

Ashworth, S., & Jones, A.P. (1989). Towards an educational paradigm for Cerebral Palsy, Unpublished. Portland College, Mansfield

Beck, A. R., Stoner, J. B., & Dennis, M. L. (2009). An investigation of aided language stimulation: Does it increase AAC use with adults with developmental disabilities and complex communication needs? Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 25, pp. 42 - 54.

Binger, C., & Light, J. (2007). The effect of aided AAC modeling on the expression of multi-symbol messages by preschoolers who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 23, pp. 30 - 43.

Bruner, J. (1983). In search of mind.  New York: Harper & Row

Bruno, J., & Trembath, D. (2006). Use of aided language stimulation to improve syntactic performance during a week-long intervention program. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 22, pp. 300 - 313.

Calculator, S. & Jorgensen, C. (1991). Integrating AAC instruction into regular education settings: expounding on best practices, AAC, Volume 7 (3), pp. 204 - 214

Culler, J. (1976). Saussure. Fontana Modern Masters

Dada, S., & Alant, E. (2009). The effect of aided language stimulation on vocabulary acquisition in children with little or no functional speech. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, Volume 18, pp. 50 - 64.

Dexter, M. E. (1998). The effects of Aided Language Stimulation upon verbal output and augmentative communication during storybook reading for children with pervasive developmental disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International-A 56(07), 2636.

Drager, K. D. R., Postal, V. J., Carrolus, L., Castellano, M., Gagliano, C., & Glynn, J. (2006). The effect of aided language modeling on symbol comprehension and production in two preschoolers with autism. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, Volume 15, pp. 112 - 125.

Elder, P. & Goossens, C.  (1990). Engineering the work activity center for interactive symbolic communication, 11th Southeast Annual Augmentative Communication Conference Proceedings, pp. 34 - 42, Birmingham, Alabama: SEAC

Elder, P. & Goossens, C. (1993). Activity-based scripts with adolescents and adults who are moderately / severely developmentally
disabled. 14th Southeast Annual Augmentative Communication Conference Proceedings,  pp. 33 - 45, Birmingham, Alabama: SEAC

Elder, P. & Goossens, C. (1995). Engineering Training environments for interactive, Augmentative Communication. Southeast Augmentative Communication Publications

Glennen, S. (1986). Early language training using Minscript concepts,1st Annual Minspeak Conference Proceedings, Detroit, MI. 19th - 20th November, pp. 19 ‑ 26, PRC / Liberator

Glennen, S. & DeCoste, D.C. (1997). The Handbook of Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Cengage Learning

Goossens, C. (1989). Aided communication intervention before assessment: A case study of a child with cerebral palsy. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 5, pp. 14 - 26.

Goossens, C. (1997). Engineering circle time, 18th Annual Southeast Augmentative Communication Conference Proceedings
pp. 49 - 63, October 3rd - 4th, Wynfrey Hotel, Birmingham, Alabama

Goossens, C. (2010). Aided language stimulation update. Paper presented at the biennial conference of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Barcelona, Spain.

Goossens, C. & Crain, S.(1986a). Augmentative Communication assessment resource, Don Johnston Developmental Equipment, Inc.

Goossens, C. & Crain, S. (1986b). Augmentative Communication intervention resource, Don Johnston Developmental Equipment, Inc.

Goossens, C., Elder, P., & Crain, S. (1988). Engineering the preschool classroom environment for interactive symbol communication, Presentation at the Biennial International Conference on AAC: Animations of the mind: October, Disneyland Hotel, Anaheim, California

Goossens, C., Crain, S. & Elder, P.  (1992). Engineering the preschool environment for interactive, symbolic communication
Southeast Augmentative Communication Conference Clinician Series, Birmingham, Alabama, SEAC

Goossens, C., Crain, S. & Elder, P. (1993). Communication displays for engineered preschool environments, Books I and II
Southeast Augmentative Communications Publications.

Harris, M. D., & Reichle, J. (2004). The impact of aided language stimulation on symbol comprehension and production in children with moderate cognitive disabilities. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, Volume 13, pp. 155 - 167.

Harris, R. (1988). Language, Saussure and Wittgenstein: How to play games with words. Routledge

Jonsson, A., Kristoffersson, L., Ferm, U., & Thunberg, G. (2011). The ComAlong communication boards: Parents’ use and experiences of aided language stimulation. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Volume 27, pp. 103 - 116.

Kenny, A. (1973). Wittgenstein. Allen Lane : The Penguin Press

Kouri, T. (1988). Effects of simultaneous communication in a child-directed treatment approach with preschoolers with severe disabilities, AAC, Volume 4 (4), pp. 222 - 232

Letto, M., Bedrosian, J., & Skarakis-Doyle, E. (1994). Application of Vygotskian developmental theory to language acquisition in a young child with cerebral palsy, AAC, Volume 10, September 1994, pp. 151 - 160

Linden, E. (1976). Apes, men, and language, New York: Saturday Review Press (1975), Penguin Books (1976)

McGuinness, B. (1988). Wittgenstein: A life. Gerald Duckworth and Co. Ltd

Pears, D. (1971). Wittgenstein. Fontana Modern Masters

Reichle, J., Anderson, H., & Schermer, G. (1986). Establishing the discrimination between requesting objects, requesting assistance and "helping yourself”. Unpublished, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

Reichle, J. & Sigafoos, J. (1991). Establishing spontaneity and generalization. In - Implementing AAC: Strategies for learners
with severe disabilities, pp. 157 - 171. Reichle, J. York, J., & Sigafoos, J.(Eds.). Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Sacks, O. (1989). Seeing Voices, University of California press, Picador Edition (1991)

Von Tetzchner, S. & Martinsen, H. (1992). Introduction to symbolic and augmentative communication, San Diego: CA: Singular Publishing

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press

Wood, D. (1988). How  children think and learn. Blackwell Publishers

THIRTEEN: Temporarily Restricted Vocabularies (TRVs)

The second vocabulary and language barrier relates to ‘verbal’ classroom participation. All students, at all grade levels, are asked questions, ask questions of others, take oral examinations, and are called upon to recite information. In some classrooms, even shy
students who speak cannot get a word in edgewise. For augmented communicators, the possibilities of well timed speaking is even more remote. The pace of verbal exchanges is too fast to allow even the most efficient student using AAC to participate.
                                   (Van Tatenhove G. & Vertz S. 1993 page 129)

A TRV (Temporarily Restricted Vocabulary)(pronounced TREV) is a small subset of the vocabulary that may or may not be contained within any person’s AAC system. It allows a beginner to be involved in an activity on an equal footing with peers.

Trvs can be set up in a variety of ways: either with (typically) fringe words or, alternatively, with phrases:
                                     “That’s right!”
                                     “That’s wrong!”
                                     “I need to think about it”
                                     “I don’t know”

The class are told that they must use one of these phrases in response to the teacher’s questions in the session that will follow. For example, the maths teacher might say:

“If I am facing South and I turn two right angles clockwise. Am I now facing North?”

The pupil has to respond with one of the messages. People using an AAC system can usually access one of the responses in real time on a level footing with their verbal peers. There is a further benefit. In this instance, the  messages are a useful addition to the Learner’s vocabulary: they may be used in other lessons and other situations they may encounter:

“Jane you’re 14 now , aren't you?”         “That’s right”

However, it is unlikely that many standard TRVs would be added to or already be a part of the Learner's vocabulary. This is because TRVs are typically comprised of fringe vocabulary.

Other TRV’s might include:

      'Tudor'           'Jacobean'              'Stuart'

      'heart'                  'spleen'                    'neuron'                'liver'

'hydrogen'          'helium'                    'oxygen'                'nitrogen'

‘I agree’              ‘I don’t agree’         ‘I'm not sure’         ‘I don’t know’

‘True’                    ‘False                      ‘Sometimes’

As can be seen from above, TRV’s can be noun sets. For example, a set of materials:

     ‘cloth’, ‘wood’, ‘metal’, ‘glass’, ‘paper’, ‘plastic’

In this instance, a staff member would require a response from the Learner who would select one of the given materials:

      “Which material is transparent?”
      “Which material is used to make books?”
      “Which material is made from sand?”
      “Which material is not man-made?”
      "From which material is this desk made?"
      "Which one is iron?"
      "From which one are most clothes made?"

TRVs should always be contained on an overlay of, at least, two words or phrases. If a person is tested for comprehension, the larger the TRV the less opportunity of obtaining a right answer by chance alone. At the other extreme, there is a limit to the size of any TRV. Too big a set becomes a sub-vocabulary or a category in its own right and does not allow a user to interact with peers on an equal footing in a classroom interchange. Ideally, a TRV is more than one but less than seven.

A TRV could be set up to give directions to a staff member in a treasure trail game or a game of hide and seek. For example:

      ‘Right’, ‘Left’, ‘Forward’, ‘Backwards’, ‘Stop’
      ‘Up’, ‘Down’, ‘Right’, ‘Left’

TRVs are ideal for games:

Each player starts with one point. Using a pack of cards the user has to state whether the next card is ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ or‘red’ or ‘black’ for a doubling of  their points total - OR - ‘hearts’, ‘spades’, ‘clubs’, or ‘diamonds’ to treble their points total. The user may stop at any time by saying ‘stop’. The person with the highest points at the end is the winner.

The TRVs give control to the augmented communicator with minimum effort and without the need for many hours of vocabulary instruction. Temporarily Restricted Vocabularies:

allow augmented communicators to participate in lessons on an equal footing with peers;
answer the requirement of some teachers for access to special vocabulary;
are not necessarily a part of the Learner’s regular communication system but available for use as and when necessary;
may be easily spoken in real time; the class is not made to wait for long periods while a user generates a response;
focus Learner thinking on the answer rather than where a particular word is located in their communication system;
can ease the pressure felt when asked a question;
ensure users are not singled out as special - everyone is the same;
are easy to set up; vocabulary may be quickly added into some systems if generally useful;
involve subject tutors in the responsibility for the preparation and tuition of new vocabulary;
are created, kept and maintained by individual tutors. As such tutors understand them;
do not require many hours of vocabulary tuition before their use;
may be categorised or themed;
speed access to vocabulary for switch users;
allow symbols to be displayed at a larger size to ease selection. If appropriate to do so, these can be added to a Learner's symbol board at the standard size;
may be used to teach and test key concepts;
are best used with all pupils or students in a class or group;
should be stored into a Learner's communication system only if they are considered of general use;
should always use the same symbols as in a Learner's communication system (if they are present);
may be used to engineer the environment;
take fringe vocabularies out of personal communication systems (PCS); PCS becomes leaner, lighter and easier;
are always >1 but typically <7.

As suggested above, a TRV may be used to engineer the environment. In this instance, the TRV becomes a permanent or semi-permanent part of the surroundings. For example there are a set of things that may be need to be said while having a bath which are not really needed elsewhere. The TRV for these things could be on the wall by the bath. There are things which are said at meal times which may not be generally needed at other times of the day. These could be displayed on a menu board or on a table menu.

FOURTEEN: Independence is the Primary Purpose

July the Fourth, is America's national day of mourning. sadly recognizing their loss of sovereignty from Great Britain!! Not quite, I guess. It's their Independence Day of course. Independence is something desirable, for which nations fight, and something to be celebrated. A nation's ability to stand on its own two feet and say it has come of age.

This too should be the purpose of Special education. Indeed, for me it is the primary purpose. There is but one goal and that is independence.

"It was not that long ago when Americans with disabilities were often not given equal rights and opportunities. Whether the cause was ignorance or indifference, it was not acceptable."
George H.W. Bush on the Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act - July 24 2009

"When you have a disability, knowing that you are not defined by it is the sweetest feeling."
In My Dreams I Dance, Autobiography by Anne Wafula Strike (p. 79)

“The only disability in life is a bad attitude.” Scott Hamilton

"No pessimist ever discovered the secret of the stars, or sailed to an uncharted land, or opened a new doorway for the human spirit." Helen Keller

When we ask what independence (being in control of one's life: 'the goal is control') means we must sail the seven c's:

cognition;
communication;
coordination;
capability;
creativity;
confidence;
cheeriness (emotional states... having fun)

It is these things that we should be addressing in our curriculum. If I asked 'How does what I am doing progress this Learner's future independence' and if I cannot give, in truth, a good answer, I should not be doing it. They are not arranged in any order of merit; if they were, my bias would probably put communication at the very top but I still would strongly value the others. Being independent does not mean one can do everything for oneself: it means that one is in control of everything ('the goal is control'): that you can tell others what to do on your behalf. The road to independence is not the same for every individual: for some, it is a very long road indeed and, as they travel the road very very slowly, they may not reach that ultimate goal in their time in education or, indeed, in their lifetime. However, it should still remain the primary goal for it is a fundamental human right. To set lesser goals is not a decision anyone should be empowered to make for, in setting those goals, it is likely that they set the limits of individual achievement: the self fulfilling prophecy is a real handicap we must face and overcome.

"Having no expectations shows pity, which shows sadness, sorrow & regret. A child with a disability needs support. Stand behind him, champion and back him! Believe in him and have expectations! They inspire hope, excitement, eagerness and success! Which would you want others to give you?" - Joan Scanlon-Dise

There is a Primary Purpose, divided into goals and goals into targets,and targets into objectives. Using AAC should always be a tool utilised as a means to an end and not the end itself. Even if the Learner in question is experiencing Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (PMLD), it does not follow that his or her LTG should be anything less than Language and Communication. While 'Functional Communication' may indeed be a milestone on route to that end, and we might have very, very basic beginnings, we should not limit the Learner or ourselves by believing that s/he is NOT capable of such intellectual feats. If we believe that a Learner has specific limits then we are in a very real danger of making those limits a reality through our actions (the Self Fulfilling Prophecy). Having said that, it does not follow:

all Learners will become brilliant communicators;
we cannot start with very simple AAC tasks;
we have to meet milestones in specific amounts of time.
it's your job to take the Learner the whole journey.

Learning to communicate is a pathway; a road that must be travelled that is marked by specific milestones along the route. Some milestones are closer together than others! Some Learners are travelling on high speed trains and some Learners are walking slowly assisted by Significant others every now and again. Furthermore, some travellers board the train later on the journey! It is assumed that, as you are reading this page, your travellers are journeying from the beginning on foot and have poor walking skills as well! The end of the line must look very distal indeed but it is still the end of the line; do not be tempted to build a wall a few yards ahead and call that the terminus - the Learner has a ticket for the whole journey! Whist it may be a reasonable belief that a specific traveller will not travel to the end of the line, we cannot know that with 100% certainty and we should not plan that they will disembark at the very first stop.

See Also:

Brameld, T. (1972). "Education as self-fulfilling prophecy". Phi Beta Kappa, Volume 54 (1): pp. 8–11

Cotton, K. (2001). Expectations and student outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/4/cu7.html

Feldman, R.S. & Prohaska, T. (1979). "The student as Pygmalion: Effect of student expectation on the teacher". Journal of Educational Psychology, Volume 71 (4), pp. 485 – 493

Ferguson, R.F. (2003). Teachers‟ perceptions and expectations and the black-white test score gap. Urban Education, Volume 38 (4), pp. 460-507

Gozali, J., & Meyen, E.L. (1970). The influence of the teacher expectancy phenomenon on the academic performances of educable mentally retarded pupils in special classes. Journal of Special Education, Volume 4, pp. 417 - 424.

Jussim, L. & Harber, K.D. (2005). "Teacher Expectations and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: Knowns and Unknowns, Resolved and Unresolved Controversies". Personality and Social Psychology Review, Volume 9 (2), pp. 131–155

McGrew, K.S., & Evans, J. (2004). Expectations for Students with Cognitive Disabilities: Is the Cup Half Empty or Half Full? Can the Cup Flow Over? NCEO Synthesis Report 55, Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes

McGrew, K.M., Johnson, D., Cosio, A., & Evans, J. (2004). Increasing the chance of no child being left behind: Beyond cognitive and achievement abilities. Minneapolis, MN: Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota.

Miller, C.T., Clarke, R.T., Malcarne, V.L., & Lobato, D. (1991). Expectations and social interactions of children with and without mental retardation. Journal of Special Education, Volume 24 (4), pp. 454-472.

Rist, R. (2000). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, Volume 70 (3), pp. 257-301.

Rist, R., & Harrell, J.E. (1982). Labelling the learning disabled child: The social ecology of educational practice. American Journal of Othopsychiatry, Volume 52, pp. 146-160.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1966). Teachers’ expectancies: Determinants of pupils’ IQ gains. Psychological Reports, Volume 1, pp. 115 - 118.

Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1992). Pygmalion in the classroom (Expanded ed.). New York: Irvington.

Rosenthal, R. (2003). Covert communication in laboratories, classrooms, and the truly real world. Psychological Science, Volume 12, pp. 151-155.

Wilkins, W.E. (1976). "The Concept of a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy". Sociology of Education, Volume 49 (2): pp. 175 – 183.

Yeates, K.O., & Weisz, J.R. (1985). On being called “mentally retarded”: Do developmental and professional perspectives limit labelling effects? American Journal of Mental Deficiency, Volume 90 (3), pp. 349 - 352.

Ysseldyke, J.E., & Foster, G.G. (1978). Bias in teachers’ observations of emotionally disturbed and learning disabled children. Exceptional Children, Volume 44, pp. 613 - 615.

Zohar, A., Degani, A., & Vaaknin, E. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about low-achieving students and higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume 17, pp. 469 - 485.

FIFTEEN: Technology is not the only Solution

Those of you that know me well will know that I have worked with technology all my career: I have taught using it and taught others to use it, I have sold it when I worked as a Managing Director of a company and I have helped to develop it when working as a R&D manager at another company. You may therefore be surprised to hear me state a fundamental belief that technology is not always the solution. Give a child an iPad - job done? No it's not - it may only compound the problem for the staff. At the very least, it is a piece of the jigsaw to be utilised throughout the journey but a lot of other pieces of the puzzle have to be addressed in addition and many of these will require the involvement of people power!

Throwing money at a problem has never really been a solution to the problem, it generally changes the nature of the problem but a problem still remains. Likewise, throwing the latest technology (the iPad?) at a problem is equally not an answer. That is not to say technology is no help in providing a solution, just that it is not the only solution or, at least, the whole solution. It may be a great means to assist the development of a solution but is rarely the solution in itself. On a recent visit to a school in Hong Kong catering for children experiencing Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties, we witnessed iPads in front of children who were rocking back and forth in their wheelchairs. The staff reported that parents had insisted the systems be purchased for their children. Job done? Of course not. The staff were finding it difficult to know how to implement the technology with children experiencing such profound issues. While iPads and other technologies may help in some areas and some of the time, they are not a universal panacea. Hopefully , websites such as this from around the world will assist people in making the best use of technology in helping Learners to communicate.

We all know or have experienced technology that breaks down. In the majority of these cases in AAC, the technology has to go back to the manufacturer for repair and this can take time during which the Learner, unless there is a low-tech or no-tech alternative available, is left without a voice. It is therefore always advisable to provide a low-tech alternative to any high tech system. The two should ideally work together such that the Learner is not tasked to understand two completely different systems (although I know of some people who are working brilliantly with such disparate systems). As laptops and notebooks and pads become more capable, so more AAC solutions will be provided via everyday rather than specialist technology. This has both it's ups and downs. One down-side is that it becomes ever more difficult for specialist companies to survive in a world in which everyday technology (that is available relatively inexpensively) competes against high end specialist systems costing many times the price. The incredible rise in the number of AAC apps available for iPads and similar devices makes such technology very attractive as a solution. However, great as they undoubtedly are, let's not loose sight of simpler no-tech alternatives.

When I was a child (admittedly a very long time ago) I was in the Boy Scouts. Each year, it would be Bob-A-Job week which was something akin to slave labour for children (!) but I actually enjoyed it. We would knock on people's doors and say 'Bob-a-job' with the idea that they would give us a little job to do and then pay us a shilling (known as a bob which was 12 old pennies or five new pence) for the work and the money raised would go to the scouts. Generally speaking the tasks I was asked to do were worth more than a shilling even in those days but that is another story. After the job was complete and the money paid, we would give the person a sticker which was a green tick with the words 'Job Done' on it. The sticker could be displayed in the window so that the person wouldn't keep being bothered by lots of other little scouts all eager to get a bob for a job. Such stickers do not come with pieces of technology although some people believe that they do - the job is not done; it's not even begun, it may have even just become more complex!

If you disagree with anything on this page or think that there is something missing or something which should not be here, why not contact us and say so? Talksense does not claim it knows everything or believe that it has every solution - we just want to help whenever and wherever we can. If you can assist by making constructive suggestions then that is very welcome. Please use the form below or e-mail us at [email protected]

Download the PowerPoint Presentation for this Page and this Course

The PowerPoinrt presentation for this course if freely available to anyone who would like it.

Please note that:

- It is copyright Talksense and may not be used for any commercial purpose
whatsoever;
- It may not be disassembled for any commercial use;
- Talksense should be acknowledged in all use;
- the sounds and videos will NOT operate from the download as they are linked to
resources on Talksense computer systems. However, the videos are available
on this page.
- Talksense offers a complete day's training on these Fundamental issues.
Please contact Talksense for details
- Talksense reserves the right to update the PowerPoint at any time. The updated
show will be uploaded to replace the existing presentation.
- Explanations for each of the PowerPoint slides can probably be deduced from the relevant section of this webpage.

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

Click on the symbol left to return to the top of this page

Fundamentals of AAC