Tangible symbols: symbolic communication for individuals with multisensory impairments

Rowland, Charity; Schweigert, Philip

doi:10.1080/07434618912331275276

Cited by 78 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of using PECS with children who have autism or developmental disabilities (e.g., Bondy and Frost 1994;Charlop-Christy et al 2002;Ganz and Simpson 2004;Schwartz et al 1998) as well as the effectiveness of using tactile symbols with individuals who have visual impairments (e.g., Murray-Branch et al 1991;Rowland and Schweigert 1989;Turnell and Carter 1994). The present study has provided some initial evidence that using tactile symbols with instructional strategies based on PECS may be an effective method of teaching individuals who are blind and have autism to make requests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…Later research has looked at more functional use of tactile symbols for communication by individuals with dual sensory impairments and multiple disabilities. Rowland and Schweigert (1989) reported two case histories in which they taught two children to use tactile symbols. Sybil was a 6-year-old girl with severe hearing and visual impairments and developmental delays who learned to use three-dimensional symbols to request leisure activities.…”

Section: Tactile Symbols and Visual Impairmentmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Teaching Young People who are Blind and have Autism to Make Requests Using a Variation on the Picture Exchange Communication System with Tactile Symbols: A Preliminary Investigation

Lund

Troha

2007

J Autism Dev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study used a single-subject multiple baseline across participants design to evaluate the effectiveness of a modified picture exchange communication system (PECS) teaching protocol with tactile symbols. Three students (two male, one female) aged 12-17 years who had autism and were blind participated in the study. The instructional program involved three phases. First, each participant learned to exchange a tactile symbol with his/her communication partner to request a preferred item/activity. Second, the distance between the communication partner and the participant was increased. Third, the participants were required to discriminate between two dissimilar tactile symbols. One out of three participants completed all phases of the instructional program. Although the other two participants did not complete the program, they demonstrated improvement from baseline responding rates. This study provided preliminary results that using tactile symbols with strategies from PECS may be an effective method to teach requesting to youth who are blind and have autism.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%

Section: Tactile Symbols and Visual Impairmentmentioning

confidence: 97%

Teaching Young People who are Blind and have Autism to Make Requests Using a Variation on the Picture Exchange Communication System with Tactile Symbols: A Preliminary Investigation

Lund

Troha

2007

J Autism Dev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These individuals may have to use three-dimensional symbols that offer the advantages of permanency, manipulability, and a clear perceptual relationship to a referent. The ECP dovetails nicely at this point with available materials that describe how individuals may use three-dimensional symbols to communicate (Rowland & Schweigert, 1989). …”

Section: Figure 1 Flowchart Illustrating the Early Communication Promentioning

confidence: 97%

Early communication and microtechnology: Instructional sequence and case studies of children with severe multiple disabilities

Schweigert

Rowland

1992

Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teachers and speech-language pathologists serving children who have dual sensory impairments combined with severe orthopedic impairments are often at a loss as to how to provide effective communication instruction. No systematic approach has been available to guide teachers through the intricacies of what is necessarily a difficult process. This paper describes the results of a 3-year investigation of the use of microtechnology to enable children with dual sensory impairments and severe orthopedic impairments to communicate. We present here an instructional sequence that applies across the wide variety of children who participated in the investigation. Some of these children initially appeared to have no voluntary behavior at all: others were able to produce some intentional motor behaviors, but these were not under any clear stimulus control; while others had some primitive but unreliable means of signalling, such as gross vocalizations. By the end of the project, all of these children had shown an ability to learn and had acquired new communication skills, ranging from signalling for attention to indicating a choice. Three case studies are provided to illustrate the use of the instructional sequence. KEY WORDS: aided communication, dual sensory impairment, instructional techniques, multiple disabilities, physical impairment, single subject design, technologyThis paper summarizes the major findings of a 3-year investigation into the use of microtechnology to allow children with severe and multiple disabilities to communicate. The population targeted by the investigation was children who had dual sensory impairments as well as severe orthopedic impairments and nonexistent or extremely limited intentional communication skills. Communication in children with such severe and multiple disabilities is an area of the utmost concern for educators. However, clear and comprehensive procedures have not been available to date at either the preservice or inservice level to address the communication needs of this population. This problem becomes even more acute in light of the progress that has been made recently in integrating low-incidence populations into general education settings. A teacher may not have the specialized instructional skills (e.g., how to collect unambiguous data, how to design an alternating treatment approach) necessary to probe and analyze the behavior of the target population, leaving the teacher uncertain whether a child has succeeded at an instructional objective. Once success has been achieved, the teacher may not know what to do next in order to bring the child closer to functional communication. The instructional sequence presented in this paper was designed to provide clear guidance for teachers. It is based on the establishment of social contingency awareness as a stepping stone to intentional communicative behavior. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR THE INSTRUCTIONAL SEQUENCE

show abstract

“…Over the years, there has been ample discussion and documentation of communication intervention approaches rooted in behavioral (Chadsey-Rusch, Drasgow, Reinoehl, Halle, & Collet-Klingenberg, 1993;Halle, 1987;Hunt & Goetz, 1988) and developmental theory (Rowland & Stremel-Campbell, 1987;SiegelCausey & Guess, 1989;Siegel-Causey & Wetherby, 1993;Snyder-McLean, Solomonson, McLean, & Sack, 1984;Stillman & Battle, 1984;Van Dijk, 1986), as well as numerous applications of assistive and augmentative technology (Kaiser, Ostrosky, & Alpert, 1993;Mirenda, Iacono, & Williams, 1990;MurrayBranch, Udvari-Solner, 8c Bailey, 1991;Rowland & Schweigert, 1989). In addition, to ensure that all students have the opportunity to communicate, there has been widespread interest in the application of methods to assist students in the acquisition of nonsymbolic as well as symbolic forms of communication (Rowland & Stremel-Campbell, 1987;SiegelCausey & Guess, 1989;Siegel-Causey & Wetherby, 1993;Stillman & Battle, 1984).…”

Section: Robert Stillman Christy Williams and Angela Linammentioning

confidence: 98%

Communications Directed to Students with Severe and Profound Disabilities

Stillman

Williams²,

Linam³

1997

Focus Autism Other Dev Disabl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies were conducted to examine characteristics of teacher communications to students who have severe and profound disabilities. Of particular interest was the influence of various factors on the methods of communication teachers used when they were conveying information to students who lacked language abilities. It appeared that the forms of communication teachers selected were less related to the student's communicative ability or responsiveness to particular forms than they were to the teacher's intention in communicating. Implications of the results for enhancing communicative interactions between teachers and students with severe and profound disabilities are discussed.

show abstract

Tangible symbols: symbolic communication for individuals with multisensory impairments

Cited by 78 publications

References 3 publications

Teaching Young People who are Blind and have Autism to Make Requests Using a Variation on the Picture Exchange Communication System with Tactile Symbols: A Preliminary Investigation

Teaching Young People who are Blind and have Autism to Make Requests Using a Variation on the Picture Exchange Communication System with Tactile Symbols: A Preliminary Investigation

Early communication and microtechnology: Instructional sequence and case studies of children with severe multiple disabilities

Communications Directed to Students with Severe and Profound Disabilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About