The Task of Teaching Social Skills to Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Kelly Snell
EDUC 628
March 31, 2017
Liberty University
A common treatment method for adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is in social skills development. Unfortunately, there are few evidence-based interventions that exist to improve these social skills in adolescents with high-functioning autism and even fewer studies have examined the effectiveness of teaching social skills in the classroom (Laugeson, Ellingsen, Sanderson, Tucci, & Bates, 2014). A likely explanation for these weak outcomes may be that interventions often take place in outpatient clinics or community centers instead of in natural classroom environments and these studies are decontextualized, leading to poor maintenance and generalized effects (Gresham, Sugai, & Horner, 2001; as cited in Laugeson et al., 2014).
Summary
In the article, The ABC’s of Teaching Social Skills to Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder in the Classroom: The UCLA Peers Program, Laugeson et al., (2014) the research represents one of the few teacher-facilitated treatment intervention studies demonstrating effectiveness in improving social skills of adolescents with ASD in the classroom which is the most natural setting of all. Also, the interventions in schools practice and rehearse social skills with similar age peers (Laugeson et al., 2014). The focus of this meta-analysis was on being proactive rather than reactive, as the interventions aimed to reduce the number of students at risk for disciplinary problems and school failure (January et al., 2011; as cited in Laugeson, 2014). The conclusion of this analysis is that classroom-wide interventions targeting improvements in social behavior have a very small effect. However, interventions with more engaging, experimental approaches, such as those that include social activities and role-playing were more effective than interventions focused solely on discussion of instruction (January et al., 2011; as cited in Laugeson, 2014). Because of these findings, researchers are cautiously optimistic about future programs designed to work in schools with students who have high-functioning ASD in improving their social interactions.
This study included seventy-three adolescent participants along with their parents and teachers. All students attended a non-public middle school for students with ASD who did not have intellectual disabilities. The study continued for 14 weeks and was teacher-facilitated. Teachers were not trained before the study. However, those who were interested and wanted to continue the program were offered training after the study was complete (Laugeson et al., 2014). Students received 30 minutes of daily social skills instruction. Assessment of treatment outcome was measured by data collection from parents, teachers, and the adolescent self-reports (Laugeson et al., 2014). The study demonstrates the benefit of empirically supported treatment for teens with ASD in a school setting using teacher-facilitation (Laugeson et al., 2014).
Analysis/Critique
This analysis/critique addresses four components of social skills for children with autism and their families: 1) Relationship development and maintenance, 2) Non-verbal interaction, 3) Functional imitation, and 4) Emotional expression.
Relationship development and maintenance
Results show that the PEERS Curriculum for School-Based Professionals is effective in improving social functioning in middle school students with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (Constantino 2005, as cited in (Laugeson et al., 2014). Also, young adults showed long-term maintenance of treatment gains 1-5 years following this intervention (Madelberg et al 2014, as cited in Laugeson et al., 2014). “A close physical attachment to one or two primary caregivers sets the stage for all future personal relationships” (Kranowitz 2005, p. 99).
Non-verbal Interaction
Students were instructed on the use of electronic communication that included texting, emailing, and safety in online communication (Laugeson et al., 2014). Students were taught long-term strategies for combating a negative reputation as well as behavioral strategies for combating and minimizing the damage caused from gossip and rumors. Teens began to identify school activities based on their interests and were shown how to identify groups of students that they might fit in with (Laugeson et al., 2014).
Functional Imitation
Social skills learned and rehearsed in laboratories or clinical settings are not easily applied to the daily lives of students (Reichow and Volkmar 2010, as cited in (Laugeson et al., 2014) making it critical that research based social skills are such that can be easily implemented into the school setting. Also, those that involved social interaction and role playing were more effective than interventions based solely on instruction of discussion (January et al., 2011 as cited in Laugeson et al., 2014). Also, interventions done in early childhood were more effective than those done with older students (January et al., 2011 as cited in Laugeson et al., 2014).
Emotional Expression
Weekly lessons included how to handle teasing with appropriate emotional responses, how to handle a bully, and how to resolve an argument with a friend (Laugeson et al., 2014). Greater frequency of teen initiated social interaction was reported as well as reciprocal social interaction (Laugeson et al., 2014). There was also an improvement in social motivation, social awareness, social communication, and decreased autistic mannerisms (Laugeson et al., 2014).
Conclusion
Difficulties in social engagement are a known issue of children with ASD. Intervention have been tried in the past and most have not been successful because they took place in clinical settings and not in the context of the life of the student with ASD. The study using the UCLA PEER Program addressed this issue by providing interventions in a classroom setting using classroom teachers. Although there are questions such as, “Would the results have been different with more parental involvement?”, the results were positive and the outlook for this type of intervention is optimistic. Furthermore, students who have difficulty socializing may be able to interact more easily if the interaction occurs in relation to one of their favorite activities (Kluth, 2010). Christians have a responsibility to defend the cause of the need and we must optimize learning opportunities for these students so that they may be and feel like, an integral part of an inclusive classroom (Van Brummelen, 2009). Considering the interests of the the student with autism, planning interventions in school environments run by teachers, and attempting to involve parents in the process appear to have been very successful in the social interventions of children with high-functioning autism.
Resources
Constantino ,J. N. (2005). Social Responsiveness Scale. Los Angeles: Western Psychological
Services.
January, A. M., Casey, R. J., & Paulson, D. (2011). A Meta-analysis of Classroom-wide
Interventions to build social skills: Do they work?. School Psychology Review. 40.242-
256.
Gresham, F.M., Sugai, G., & Horner, R.H. (2001), Interpreting outcomes of social skills training
For students with high-incidence disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67. 331-344.
Kluth, Paula (2010). “You’re Going to Love This Kid!”: Teaching students with autism in the
Inclusive classroom. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Kranowitz, C. S. (2005). The Out-of-Sync Child: Recognizing and Coping with Sensory Processing Disorder. (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Perigee Trade. ISBN:9780399531651.
Laugeson, E. A., Ellingsen, R., Sanderson, J., Tucci, L., & Bates, S. (2014). The ABC's of
teaching social skills to adolescents with autism spectrum disorder in the classroom: the UCLA PEERS[R] program. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(9), 2244+. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=vic_liberty&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA383574933&sid=summon&asid=aeb44eadd83448901405594503671245
Madelberg, J., Laugeson, E. A.., Cunningham, T. D., Ellingsen, R., Bates, S. & Frankel, F.
(2014). Long-term treatment outcomes for parent-assisted social skills training for
Adolescents with autism spectrum disorders: The UCLA PEERS program. Journal of
Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 7(1)45-73. Doi10.1080/19315864.
2012.730600.
Reichow, B. & Volkmar, F. R. (2010). Social skills interventions for individuals with autism:
Evaluation for evidence-based practices within a best evidence synthesis framework
(2010). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 40. 149-166.
Van Brummelen, H. (2009) Walking with God in the Classroom: Christian Approaches to
Teaching and Learning, 3rd. ed. Colorado Springs, CO: Purposeful Design Publications.
"In teaching others we teach ourselves" - Proverb
Family Social Communication Intervention Strategies
Kelly Snell
EDUC 628
March 23, 2017
Liberty University
Teachers, coaches, classmates, and friends each influence the development of a child. However, only parents influence a child over a period of decades. Because of this, parental engagement influences communicative development and enhances childrens’ development, as well as their vocabulary. Children with autism demonstrate factors that make entering and maintaining a high quality of interaction difficult for parents (Shire, Goods, Shih, Distefano, Kaiser, Wright, Mathy, Landa, and Kasari,2014). Therefore, training parents to use intervention strategies is essential in programing children with autism spectrum disorder and providing consistent, daily support (National Research Council, 2001).
Summary
In the article, Parents’ Adoption of Social Communication Intervention Strategies: Families Including Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder Who are Minimally Verbal, Shire et al., (2015) examine the degree to which parents of school-age children who are minimally verbal can adopt and successfully implement targeted social communication intervention thereby positively impacting children’s development. To date, there is little literature from parenting programs targeting school-aged children with autism who have limited communication skills (Tager-Flusberg, & Kasari, 2013). This study included 61 children who were also enrolled in a larger, multisite intervention study where each site complied with standards set by the university’s Institutional Review Board. The families were screened by phone and invited for assessment. Included in the study were children: 5-8 years old, diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder by an outside party; who were not diagnosed with any other sensory or genetic disorder. The children were minimally verbal, had received early intervention, and were able to demonstrate a nonverbal developmental age of at least 24 months on 2 out of 3 standardized language and cognitive measures. The families were asked to select one caregiver who would participate in the coaching and additional caregivers were welcomed to observe the sessions and workshops, but they did not receive coaching to ensure that all target caregivers received the same amount of coaching. The caregivers included 51 mothers and 10 fathers. Most caregivers had completed some college. The caregivers completed a 10-minute videotaped interaction with a standard set of tops and the parents were instructed to play with their child as they usually would. An engagement state was defined as three or more consecutive seconds and characterized by one of seven states reflecting a hierarchy of attention to objects and the parent (Shire et al., 2015).
Analysis/Critique
This analysis/critique addresses four components of communication for children with autism and their families: 1) Relationship development and maintenance, 2) Play/recreation, 3) Non-verbal interaction and, 4) Functional imitation.
Relationship development and maintenance
Shire et al., study resulted in children’s mean time jointly engaged increased from study entry through exit. Also, unengaged times decreased over time. The parents who delivered more of the treatment strategies with fidelity were more successful in jointly engaging their children in interactions. This approach to parent training provided information about the timing of parents’ gains in knowledge of the intervention strategies that resulted in improved adoption and implementation of the intervention. Parents could successfully learn intervention strategies to support their school-age children with autism who are minimally verbal. Parents learned some of the intervention strategies from observing the sessions with therapist and child prior to educational workshops or hands-on coaching and this indicates that access to just observing their child in intervention can help parents to see what is and is not working. The opportunity to engage in a combination of explanation by the clinician and opportunity for parents to engage in guided practice using the strategy with immediate feedback led to rapid growth in treatment adoption and implementation. The six workshops covered the intervention content into a sequence of steps beginning with basic strategies and followed by imitation, establishing play routines, expanding language and play routines, joint attention and time delay strategies, and milieu episodes (Shire et al., 2015).
Play/recreation
A play expansion provides the child with an additional play act that the child may incorporate into the existing play routine. In addition to maintaining engagement, expansions are designed to increase play diversity and flexibility and to provide opportunities for the parent to model new vocabulary (Shire et al., 2015). Timing of the play expansion is critical. If a parent presents the expansion too early in the interaction, the act can disrupt the routine and break the state of joint engagement (Shire et al., 2015).
Non-verbal interaction
There are different engagement states. For example, the supported joint (SJ) is a state where the child and parent are actively engaged in a shared activity (Shire et al., 2015). The child is aware of the parent’s participation but does not repeatedly and overtly acknowledge the parents’ participation via eye contact. In the supported joint with symbols (SJS), the child and the parent are actively engaged and the child demonstrates an awareness of the parent’s participation (Shire et al., 2015). The child makes comments about the activity without making eye contact. In coordinated joint (CJ), the child actively and repeatedly acknowledges both the shared activity and the interaction partner through eye contact and gestures (Shire et al., 2015). Finally, in the coordinated joint with symbols (SJS), the child actively acknowledges both the shared activity and the interaction partner through eye contact and gestures. The child also responds to or uses language about the shared activity (Shire et al., 2015).
Functional imitation
Programs targeting parents’ ability to foster a state of joint engagement have demonstrated positive effects on children’s early social communication skills, language development, and augmented communication (Shire et al., 2015). Workshop two focused on imitation and modeling language and appropriate play actions. Parents were then introduced to the concept of play routines and talking at the child’s target level (Shire et al., 2015).
Conclusion
Children are exposed to numerous individuals throughout their childhood. These individuals include parents, teachers, coaches, and peers. As other individuals come and go, parents have a unique opportunity in the life of a child because they are present for several decades. Because of this, studies like the one by Shire et al.’ (2014) created interventions and training programs specifically for children with autism, specifically targeting the population of children with autism who demonstrate severe delays in communication and are minimally verbal. Training parents in the use of intervention strategies is essential in providing children with autism spectrum disorder consistent support.
Resources
Kranowitz, C. S. (2005). The Out-of-Sync Child: Recognizing and Coping with Sensory
Processing Disorder. (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Perigee Trade. ISBN:9780399531651.
National Research Council (2001). Educating Children with Autism. Committee on Educational
Interventions for Children with Autism.
Shire, S. Y., Goods, K., Shih, W., Distefano, C., Kaiser, A., Wright, C., ...Kasari, C. (2015).
Parents' Adoption of Social Communication Intervention Strategies: Families Including Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder Who are Minimally Verbal. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(6), 1712+. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=vic_liberty&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA435385401&sid=summon&asid=a11457d72cc4e7df743c27f953f71e72
Tager-Flusberg, H., & Kasari, C. (2013). Minimally verbal school-age children with autism: The
neglected end of the spectrum. Autism Research, 6, 468-478.
Article Review #5: Facilitating Spontaneous Communication in Children with Autism by Training Teaching Staff
Kelly Snell
EDUC 628
April 19, 2017
Liberty University
Previous interventions in teaching children with autism to initiate conversation may not have been successful because the focus of the intervention has been on changing the behavior of the child who has autism and not on changing the behavior of the adult who was teaching the child (Kossyvaki, Glenys, and Guldberg, 2016). Previous research has demonstrated that the ways adults interact with children who have autism have a significant impact on spontaneous communication (Kossyvaki et al., 2016), and since difficulties in spontaneous communication are a core feature of autism (Fujiki and Brinton, 2009; Jordan, 1999; Potter and Whittaker, 2001), having adults interact in the best manner when attempting to enhance this communication may be crucial (Prizant, Rubin, Laurent, & Rydell, (2006). To date, there is no research involving school staff in the process from the outset giving them the chance to work in collaboration with the research in developing an intervention together (Kossyvaki et al., 2016).
Summary
In the article, Training teaching staff to facilitate spontaneous communication in children with autism: Adult Interactive Style Intervention (AISI), (Kossyvaki et al., 2016), the research represents one of a study using all-age children at an autism specialist school in the UK. Six children with autism and learning difficulties took part. Five were boys and one was a girl. Their ages ranged from 45 to 62 months and all had autism stated as a diagnosis under their statements of special education needs. Three members of the school staff agreed to participate, one a teacher, and two were teachers’ aids. All children were rated as severely autistic on the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (Schopler, Reichler, and Rochen Renner 1988, as cited in Kossyvaki et al., 2016). Adults in the study were encouraged to follow the child’s lead and interpret all their communicative attempts as intentional (Ingersoll 2010, Ingersoll et al. 2005, as cited in Kossyvaki et al., 2016). All the children initiated communication either infrequently or communicated in ways which were considered challenging by the staff, such as crying, hitting, or throwing objects (Kossyvaki et al., 2016). Evidence regarding which activities elicit the most spontaneous communication are inconclusive (Kossyvaki et al., 2016). Evidence shows that academic activities are to produce the most spontaneous communication(e.g., Chiang, 2008, 2009; O’Reilly et al., 2005, as cited in Kossyvaki et al., 2016), and other evidence claims that unstructured activities are more likely to promote spontaneous communication (e.g., Potter and Whittaker, 2001; Stone et al., 1997, as cited in Kossyvaki et al., 2016), so the researcher video-recorded the six children naturally interacting and the six children in structured work ( Kossyvaki et al., 2016). Post-intervention, all six children increased the number of times they initiated communication (Kossyvaki et al., 2016).
Analysis/Critique
This analysis/critique addresses four components of communication for children with autism and their families: 1) Receptive/expressive language, 2) Cognitive communication, 3) Social aspects of communication, and 4) Communication modalities.
Receptive/expressive Language
In the AISI intervention, the adult gave the object the child asked for, took away the object they protested for, allowed them to start and end activities, and indicated steps for the completion of the task (modified from Prizant et al., 2006, as cited in Kossyvaki et al., 2016). Some of the staff were concerned about using imitation and about imitating the actions and sounds of the students for fear of reinforcing undesired behavior (Kossyvaki et al., 2016). However, what they saw was the seemingly non-communicative behaviors being decreased when they got a response after being introduced to AISI (Kossyvaki et al., 2016).
Cognitive Communication
In the AISI intervention, adults called or sang the child’s name before addressing them to gain the child’s attention (Kossyvaki et al., 2016). The changes in the childrens’ spontaneous communication continued after follow-up suggesting that the children were experiencing the benefits of communicating with adults (Kossyvaki et al., 2016).
Social Aspects of Communication
Developmental/relationship-based approaches stress the importance of adult style in developing social communication skills and behavioral/naturalistic interventions provide some advice on adult style, but it is of secondary importance, as the primary goal is to teach the child a specific skill. Whereas, with the developmental/relationship-based approaches, adults respond to all the children’s attempts to communicate even if they are unconventional (Manolson, 1992, Nind and Hewett 2001, as cited in Kossyvaki et al., 2016). In the social model of disability, with a child with autism, it is assumed that individuals have difficulty communicating spontaneously because of the way their physical, social, and educational environment is set up (Kassyvaki et al., 2016). It is also believed to be the educator’s job to make a learning environment more “communication friendly” (Bogdashina, 2005). The social model of disability examines the extent to which their problems are socially constructed and reside outside the individual (Rieser and Mason, 1990; Tregaskis 2002, as cited in Kassyvaki et al., 2016).
Communication Modalities
The staff interacted with the children by imitating them, using minimal speech responding to their communicative attempts, establishing appropriate proximity, assigning meaning to random actions or sounds, expanding on their communicative attempts, providing time, using exaggerated pitch, facial expressions, and body language, showing availability, and waiting for initiations.
Conclusion
In this study, the staff successfully changes their style using the principles of AISI whereas they focused on the behavior of the adult, instead of the behavior of the child, in addition to enhancing the development and the skills of the child. Using the AISI method, the spontaneous communication of the children showed an important increase. The advantages of this method are that it is cost and time effective, the training of the staff occurs within the classroom, and the method has been validated through school-based research.
Resources
Bogdashina, O. (2005). Communication issues in Autism and Asperger Syndrome.
Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN: 9781843102670.
Fujiki, M. & Brinton, B (2009) ‘Pragmatics and social communication in child language
disorders.’ In R. G. Schartz (ed.), Handbook in child language disorders. pp. 406-23.
New York: Psychology Press.
Ingersoll, B. (2010) ‘Teaching social communication: a comparison of naturalistic behavioral
and development, social pragmatic approach for children with autism spectrum disorders.’
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12 (1), pp. 33-43.
Kossyvaki, L., Jones, G. and Guldberg, K. (2016), Training teaching staff to facilitate
spontaneous communication in children with autism: Adult Interactive Style Intervention (AISI). Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16: 156–168. doi:10.1111/1471-3802.12068 Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/doi/10.1111/1471-3802.12068/abstract
Manolson, A. (1992) It Takes Two to Talk: A Parent’s Guide to Helping Children Communicate.
Toronto, Canada: The Hanen Centre.
Nind, M. & Hewett, S. (2001) A Practical Guide to Intensive Interaction. Kindderminster,
Worcestershire: BILD Publications.
Potter, C. & Whitaker, C. (2001) Enabling Communication in Children with Autism. London:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Prizant, B., Wetherby, A., Rubin, E., Laurent, A. & Rydell, P. (2006) The SCERTS Model: A
Comprehensive Educational Approach for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Volume I: Assessment Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Rieser, R. & Mason, M. (1990) Disability Equality in the Classroom: A Human Rights Issue.
London: Disability Equality in education.
Schopler, E., Reicher, R. & Rochen Renner, B. (1988) The Childhood Autism Rating Scale
(CARS). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Stone, W., Ousley, O., Yoder, P., Hogan, K. & Hepburn, S. (1997) ‘Nonverbal communication
In two- and three-year-old children with autism.’ Journal of Autism and Development
Disorders, 27 (6), pp. 677-96.
Tragaskis, C. (2002) ‘Social model theory: the story so far…’ Disability and society, 17(24), pp.
457-70.
Responses to Faces and Objects When Presented to Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Kelly Snell
EDUC 628
April 5, 2017
Liberty University
Many problem behaviors in children are thought to be related to their inability to communicate effectively using language (Gillespie-Smith, Riby, Hancock, & Sneddon, 2014). Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may need interventions for these difficulties. Picture communication symbols are one type of intervention. Examples include Boardmaker (BM), which uses picture images which depict actions or objects and the picture exchange communication system (PECS), which is aimed at improving a child’s ability to express their wants, needs, and feelings to others. The PECS differs in that it aims to teach spontaneous socio-communicative skills (Gillespie-Smith et al., 2014). Unfortunately, a minority of children are not able to use these picture systems and one potential reason may be an impaired comprehension of what the images represent (Gillespie-Smith et al., 2014).
Summary
In the article, Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) attend typically to faces and objects presented within their picture communication systems (Gillespie-Smith et al., 2014), the research represents one of a study using eye-tracking methodology to explore fixation duration and time taken to fixate on an object or a face within picture communication symbols. Twenty-one children with ASD were recruited from special units attached to three mainstream schools and were compared with typically developing matched groups of children. Their ages ranged between 9 years and 7 months and 16 years and 5 months. The children with ASD were matched to three typically developing comparison children using individual matching criteria (Gillespie-Smith et al., 2014). The object images showed one or several objects, and the face images showed cartoon like people completing actions such as brushing their teeth and words were presented along with the objects or faces (Gillespie-Smith et al., 2014). The children were tested individually at home or at school and the whole session lasted 10-12 minutes with each trial block being presented for 2-3 minutes. The time taken to focus was also examined to show which areas of the picture symbols were selected for attentional priority in children with and without autism. The results were that the children with ASD were shown to have similar fixation patterns on face and object areas compared with typically developing matched groups (Gillespie-Smith et al., 2014). Furthermore, both the children with and without ASD indicated a lack of image preference (Gillespie-Smith et al., 2014).
Analysis/Critique
This analysis/critique addresses four components of communication for children with autism and their families: 1) Receptive/expressive language, 2) Cognitive communication, 3) Social aspects of communication, and 4) Communication modalities.
Receptive/expressive Language
The results of this study indicate that the use of picture symbols offers hope for the future in aiding in the processing of information with children on the autism spectrum (Gillespie-Smith et al., 2014). It was found that children on the autism spectrum attend to the varying aspects of the images and they can process the information that they attend to (Gillespie-Smith et al., 2014). The findings suggested that they attended to the faces shown within their communicative systems long enough to encode the relevant information (Gillespie-Smith et al., 2014).
Cognitive Communication
The picture exchange communication system makes use of the communicative responses that promote interactions between a person and the environment as it requires that the person approach a listener and then initiate an interaction (Frost & Bondy 1994, as cited in Gillespie-Smith et al., 2014). Therefore, if children with ASD attend to images in the same manner as typically developing peers, then they have the same opportunity to encode the available information (Gillespie-Smith et al., 2014).
Social Aspects of Communication
Many problem behaviors are thought to be the result of an inability to communicate effectively using language and research has shown a link between improved communication and less disruptive behavior ( Carr & Durand 1985; Durand & Carr 1991, as cited in Gillespie-Smith et al., 2014). This study is encouraging as it was first believed that children with autism would prefer to attend to objects rather than people and this just was not the case. Children with severe autism may lack the motivation to attend to social stimuli such as faces so may instead fixate on an object. However, the current study suggests that children with autism are attending to faces long enough to encode the information and only prefer objects when these objects are of unique interest to specific individuals and when only one person presented, children with ASD may be able to attend to important information presented within the images (Gillespie-Smith et al., 2014).
Communication Modalities
The picture communication symbols (PCS) show cartoon-like images, which represent concepts that are important in everyday learning and living for children with ASD (Gillespie-Smith et al., 2014). The Board-maker (BM) uses visual images which depict actions or objects to convey information to children with ASD and is used to produce visual timetables and real reminders such as “wash hands when you go to the bathroom” (Gillespie-Smith et al., 2014). The picture exchange communication system (PECS) is a picture communication system that aims to improve ability in expressing wants, needs, and feelings to others (Gillespie-Smith et al., 2014). “It is important to find out what language the child speaks. If we use one system (for instance, PECS) for all children in the classroom, for some it might work, for others it might not” (Bogdashina, 2005, p. 221). “Build on students’ strengths! Enable them to understand and develop their gifts. Encourage them to do things they can do well. Thus, students may acquire and maintain a sense of worth (Van Brummelen, 2009, p.103).
Conclusion
It has long been held that children with ASD would attend to objects rather than faces. However, this study does not support that belief. The children in this study attended to faces in much the same way as their typically developing peers. The importance of this is that pictures may now be used along with verbal instruction and written instruction to communicate with a child with ASD. This is especially important for teachers as they may use symbols to capture the attention and to give directions in a class full of pupils of functioning on the spectrum (Gillespie-Smith et al., 2014).
Resources
Bogdashina, O. (2005). Communication issues in Autism and Asperger Syndrome.
Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN: 9781843102670.
Carr, E. G. & Durand, V.M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional
communication training. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis 18, 111-26.
Frost, L. A. & Bondy, A. S. (1994). The Picture Exchange Communication System Training
Manual. PECS, Inc., Cherry Hill, NJ.
Gillespie-Smith, K., Riby, D.M., Hancock, P.B., & Doherty-Sneddon,G. (2014). Children with
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) attend typically to faces and objects presented within
their picture communication systems. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research:
JIDR. 58(5). 459-470. Doi:10.1111/jir.12043.
Van Brummelen, H. (2009). Walking with God in the Classroom: Christian Approaches to
Teaching and Learning, 3rd. ed. Colorado Springs, CO: Purposeful Design Publications.