Teaching Communication Skills for Students With Autism

Teaching Communication Skills for Students With Autism

The conditions for diagnosis for autism that are presently prevalent within the U.S. are those mentioned in the American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistic Manual for Mental Disorders," Fourth Edition, which is generally pinpointed as 'DSM-IV." Autism is taken into account by the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual (4th Ed, DSM-IV, American Psychiatric Association, 1994) as an existent development disorder (PDD) that is impacted by abnormal or impaired development in social cooperation and speech combined with a constrained array of actions and individual wishes. (Gresham et el, 1999).

Autism is termed as an impotent syndrome marked chiefly by important difficulty in the evolution of speech and social functioning. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) envisages a vast definition of autism that is comprehensive of associated impotencies like Asperger Syndrome, Rett's Syndrome, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder. Autism and ASD are identifications portraying students with a vast array of capabilities and impotencies, comprehensive of separate entities with acute intellectual difficulties as also students who are strong in the intellectual aspect. (Dunlap; Lise, 1999) Autism is a life time influence usually portrayed as impacting social, understanding and creative abilities. For innumerous years, parents and some officials have watched in context with the attitudinal and psychological signs of the condition, there are innumerous physiological and biochemical association, which may also be comprehensive of the syndrome. (Vojdani; Campbell; Anyanwu; Kashanian; Bock; Vojdani, 2002, p.170) Imparity in social association, speech and creative credentials mark autistic signs. (Hadjivassiliou; Boscolo; Davies-Jones; Grunewald; Not; Sanders; Simpson; Tongiorgi; Williamson; Woodroofe, 2002, p.1223)

Students incurring autism have observable difficulties in cognition and applying language for communication. Few students with autism may demonstrate redundant indifference, while other demonstration patterns of disengaging or even intimidating attitude. Several years before, the general reply to these attitudes was reprimand, time-out, or cutting off from social life to terminate or subdue the attitudinal difficulties. Children incurring autism demonstrate an intimidating set of attitudinal shortages in concentration, understanding, communication, language, and influencing social performance, combined with attitudinal redundancies in a range of non-compliance to undue aggression and self-destructive Attitude (Freeman, 1997, Yeung Courchesne & Courschensne 1997). Autism influences three important vicinities of evolution namely Verbal and nonverbal interaction, social association, and recreational play. (Dawson & Osterling, 1997)

Children incurring autism and other acute impotencies recurrently have prominent problems with gaining and applying communication skills. Although students incurring autism have idea of communication as do students devoid of impotencies they recurrently cannot discover relevant means to communicate. Frequently, their idea of communications gives rise to attitudinal problems like oppressiveness, self-destruction, wealth destruction, and frequent quarrels. For this particular reason imbibing communication assets is the most significant one for students incurring autism to boost their social cooperation skills and mitigate attitudinal difficulties. Devoid of concise communication system, preference opportunities are hugely mitigated. Constrained preference creating opportunities also bear a semblance in more happenings of difficulties in behavior (Kern et al., 1998). In sure ways, to abandon a child devoid of communicative resources is to place the child at prominent danger for enhancing difficulty in attitude. For this particular reason, a basic aim of imbibing children with autism is enhanced communication, the most convenient and socially open attire of which turns out to be speech. (Bondy and Frost, 1994). Anyhow, when children incurring autism are imbibed the communication skills directly, their proportion of speech attainment is generally retarded, and even when the attempt does not reap any results, a vast chunk of deliberation is needed of children and staff (Carr, 1982) Apart from speech, another section of imbibing functional communication credentials has been comprehensive of viable or gaining communication entities (Reichle, York & Sigafoos, 1991).

Functional communication needs that children are capable of generalizing communication skills from imbibing circumstances to other backgrounds and occurrences that are undergone in daily basis. Horner and Budd, (1985), make a suggestion to come up to this condition, children require to apply communication credentials not only beyond circumstances, but fast and up to the context in the required period and in an array of backgrounds (Carr & Kologinsky, 1983, Halle, 1987). So as to display functional communication credentials, few children with acute impotencies require considerable communicative functions due to the fact that they have not possessed verbal communication credential or due to the fact that their verbal credentials are short of the required level. Such considerable communications systems can be applied individually or in context with spoken language.

Such systems are comprehensive of sign language, electronic systems, and symbol systems (Schwatz & Garfinkle, 1998). In the recent times, teachers and therapists have applied the two dimensional symbol-based Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) (Bondy & Frost, 1994) to donate children with a communication system that is functional. The picture exchange Communications system (PECS) is a considerable communication system that is recurrently applied with children with autism. (Bondy & Frost, 1994, Siegel, 2000, Yamall, 2000). PECS is a prominent system due to the fact that it does not need any already required attitude, is associatively simple and cheap, and may enable speech (Bondy & Frost, 1994). The two functional communication plans are PECS and Facilitated communications, which will be analyzed in this paper.

Review of Literature

One chief aspect of children with autism is tangential or delayed speech and language credentials (Charlop and Haymes, 1994). Attitudinal intrusions like discrete trial procedures (Lovaas, 1987), incidental teaching (Hart & Risley, 1980), delay procedures (Charlop, Schreibman, & Thibodeau, 1985; Halle, Marshall & Spradlin, 1979), and pivotal response training (Koegel, Koegel & Schreibman, 1991) have been applied to boost speech, but more than half of children with autism still stay devoid of speech (Charlop & Haymes 1994). Other intrusions have been enhanced to hold in a focal point viable communication plans for children who do not evolve speech. These programs are comprehensive of non-vocal resorts of communication (Mustonen, Locke, Reichle, Solbrack & Lindgren, 1991) and are comprehensive of sign language, picture point systems, electronic gadgets, and other picture communication systems (Carr & Kologinsky, 1983; Mirenda & Schuler, 1988, Reichle & Sigafoos, 1991).

The ability for applying functional communication training (FCT) as a viability of evading minor difficulty in attitude from increasing to more serious entities was examined. Eight children who showed minor difficulty in attitude at home or at school took part in small learning sections holding as a focal point the imbibing language skills. Four among these children took part in section in which the teacher implemented FCT (i.e., functional communication skills to acquire concentration were imbibed and reinstated). The yet other children took part in a control section that was in reception of expressive language training (ELT i.e., children were imbibed lessons to reply why questions).

Children in the ELT section were as a follow up changed over to FCT section did not demonstrate shooting up in either the strength or recurrence of problem behavior which is time worn. The extent of their difficulty remained mitigated. Anyhow, children in the ELT section demonstrated shoot ups in both strengths and recurrence of problem attitude. Their difficulty attitude remained mitigated after they were changed over to FCT. As a whole, FCT gave an appearance as though it evaded minor problem attitudes from shooting up to more grave entities. Important variants in generating these answers are debated, as is the part of compulsion processes. Heuristic suggestions are given for extensiveness of the analysis of FCT as an evading plan. (Schepis; Ownbey; Parsons and Reid, 2000)

Of the many techniques employed to assist autistic children pick up functional communication skills, the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) technique is very unique in many ways. Developed 12 years ago, the primary aim of PECS is to function as an additional alternative training method for children and adults with autism and similar problems to start picking up the basics of communication. Bondy and Frost in Delaware, USA, perfected the PECS, which basically use pictures as tools. The system is effectively used in individuals who are totally helpless or having minimal ability to use speech for communicating with others. (Frost & Bondy, 1994). After the inaugural use of it in the Delaware Autistic Program PECS has gained worldwide approval especially for its effectiveness in initiating the communication process in children with autism.

An added advantage of the system is that it does not need any expensive or complex tools. The needs of the teachers, resident care providers and family members were taken into account while developing the system so that it can be used anywhere like in the school or at home. To start with, the student is taught to exchange the picture of a commonly seen item with a trainer who readily accedes to the request. Since the student is not verbally prompted here, the initiation process will be quick and the chances of dependence are eliminated. After first teaching the student to differentiate between the various symbols comes the making of simple sentences to describe the difference. The students are also encouraged to ask direct questions and make comments regarding this. A large number of pre-school children has benefited from this by learning to speak. It has also been successfully tried with adolescents and adults having speech problems of various kinds. The use of PECS is found to be more effective if the behavioral analysis of the student is also taken into account.

Experts in the field of autistic spectrum disorders today consider PECS as one of the most effective method to teach basic skills of verbal communication to the speech dispossessed. The system has today become a widely used and well-known augmentative method for imparting functional speech skills and thereby filling the gap in the process of speech acquisition (Schwartz & Garfinkle, 1998). This method of exchanging pictures and making choices have been found to help speech acquisition, along with the attempts to communicate more frequently during the daily routines. (Frea, Arnold, Vittimberga & Koegel). The basic principles of behavior coupled with the techniques of shaping, differential reinforcement and transfer of stimulus control via delay are used by the system to initiate speech in the children using pictures - both black and white and color - as the basic reference.

The children keep these pictures on a note attached with Velcro, which is known as the PCES board. The child learns to use the PECS board to make sentences like using various pictures and symbols and giving it to a learning partner asking for a needed item. For example the child can select the 'I want' picture and the 'juice picture'. PCES gives considerable importance in encouraging the child to make requests for both visible and invisible things, respond to common questions like 'what do you want' and make basic comments. There are several reasons for the popularity and wide use of PECS both in the country and outside (Siegel, 2000, Yamall, 200). The primary reason is that the system demands very little complex motor movements by the speaker and the speaker does not need to learn another language such as the sign language. (Bondy & Frost, 1994).

The second reason is the low cost and portability of the system. The third reason - as many reports prove - is the relative speed of the system. Bondy and Frost (1993) elaborately explains the methods used to train trainers in Peru to use the system in a period of five days. Though no official data is available, it was reported by the school that a majority of the 74 children that were inducted into the PECS program progressed into the second phase in a time span of three months. The last reason is the functional communicative responses that stimulate meaningful interactions between the child and the environment that is incorporated into the system (Frost and Bondy, 1994). The system stands out among the many other available options because it requires the learner to approach a listener and start interaction before initiating the communication (Bondy, 2001, Frost and Bondy, 1998).

The PECS is an immensely helpful training method for children with considerable defective communication skills to start communication. The child is taught to do a communicative act for a visible result in a social context (Bondy & Frost, 1994). Instead of following lengthy procedures arranged in artificial sequences as in other methods the PCES primarily caters to the needs of the child in the real world. Communication in a social setup is encouraged by the PECS and with the child beginning the interaction (Bondy & Frost. 1994).

International recognition has already been received by the technique of PECS. This does not require very high expenses for implementation because of materials or complex techniques. This can be easily organized by educators or the family members. The individual with the shortcoming in learning through communications is taught by a communicative partner and this system is based on that. The individual's use of the system is modified and improved through a lot of prompting, shaping and fading techniques. PECS first teaches the person through the exchange of a loved picture or an activity with another person. The other person is the partner in communication, and he accepts the request and grants it. There is no use of any verbal messages, and this builds up the introduction of the person while not making the individual dependant on him/her. (Frost & Bondy, 1994).

After this step is mastered, then one starts on the next step. This is the teaching of symbols and their differences. The next step is to put the symbols in the form of complete sentences. Then comes the last of the six phases and this is to answer the questions put to the persons. The system is so simple that it can be used with person as young as 2 years old. Some of the parents of the children who are introduced to this system worry that this new communication system will hinder the child's learning of speech. (Bondy and Frost, 1994).This has not been seen to be true in the experiments that have been carried out and the opposite is the general result. Language development of the individual is generally helped by the use of this technique.

There are other protocols from PECS but there are two important differences. The entire process of PECS is initiated by the child. Schwartz & Garfinkle (1998) have also highlighted two different studies regarding the use of PECS for small children who had serious difficulties. The first of these was for 31 pre-school children and analyzed their PECS acquisition data. They had severe communication disorders, and some of them even had autism, but were seen to learn to use PECS quite soon and correctly. Another study followed this one with 18 pre-school users of PECS for a year, but one is not certain whether these children had any child with autism. There language samples were taken at snack time and also during their free choice activities. These studies reflected that the use of PECS is carried on to the untrained settings and may thus affect the development of the language function, though in an untrained manner.

A large minority of the children here, 44%, developed spoken communication though it was unprompted and non-echolalic. Further, all the children also showed different types of communication in both the trained and untrained situations. Some children had been trained in only one type of communication, like requesting, but they also developed other methods of communication like commenting on their own (Schwartz & Garfinkle, 1998). The children succeeded in becoming communicators using PECS. The further development then took place from the classroom environment to which they had been exposed. This led to further growth and development in terms of communication. Some children were unable to develop verbal communication, but they still developed the range of their communication methods given sufficient time and encouragement (Schwartz & Garfinkle, 1998).

Even the parents of these children reported the development of the communication abilities of the children and thus got great joy from the interaction with their children who now understood and enjoyed. This was also noted by the class teachers who commented on the improved ability of the children to take part in group and other activities (Liddle & Kate, 2001). In another study by Dooley, Wilczenski and Torem done in (2001), it was shown that PECS helps to increase the functionally replacement behavior of the children rather than simply correcting erroneous behavior like using awkward sentences with need for re-wording. This however happens over the long-term. (Donnellan, Mirenda, Mesaros & Fassbender, 1984; Lohrmann-O'Rourke, Knoster & Llewllyn, 1999)

There are many other reports which have suggested that among the children who learn PECS a lot also start speaking. This was first mentioned as a positive outcome by Bondy and Frost, (1994) of 84 children taught with PECS. This was further supported by the report of Schwartz, Garfinkle and Bauer, (1998). PECS training among children who had some initial spontaneous vocal reaction led to further development in that ability, but children who did not have any reaction were unable to develop at all. Some other good effects have also been reported about PECS. One of these is a decrease in problem behavior and improvement in social behavior (Bondy & Frost, 1994; Peterson, Bondy, Vincent & Finnegan, 1995).

These are seen as potential advantages and pragmatic features of PECS, and this has led to its being accepted as a form of treatment for children affected by autism. The use has however become widespread even before there was sufficient empirically controlled investigation (Charlop-Christy, 2000; Yamall, 2000). The PECS training manual has been published in 1994, but after that there have been no controlled studies whose results have been published in support of the PECS procedures. The support has come only from some anecdotal reports of (Bondy & Frost, 1993; program evaluation data of Bondy & Frost, 1993 and 1995; and of Schwartz et al. Of 1998; and A-B design case studies of Peterson. (Peterson et al. Of 1995).

The other method of Facilitated communication or FC has got a lot of acclaim and controversy for the increasing of communication skills of persons affected by autism (Green, 1994). FC is the alternative method for communication by people who are unable to speak or whose speech is very limited due to echoes or only to one or few words. They are further affected by their inability to point clearly. For people with severe disabilities this method has been used as a method for communication. They include people with mental retardation, autism, Down syndrome and other developmental disabilities. The technique was originally developed for people with severe handicaps of a physical nature. Then it was found that the technique was useful for people with autism. Then it has become a part of the training program for many autistic children.

The technique was developed by Rosemary Crossley in the 1980s in Australia. (Crossley, 1994) Facilitated communication was first a method for people with cerebral palsy to use a pointing system like a communication board. Then the extension took place to non-speaking individuals with autism (Kerrin & Murdock, 1998). These individuals have shown very surprising levels of literacy, complex thinking and insights into their personal disability according to reports (Biklen, 1992a, 1992b, 1993). The technique of Facilitated Communication or FC is in helping the people who cannot speak to type out words through a typewriter, computer keyboard or something similar. The technique is in initially supporting the person's hand so that it becomes easier for the person to indicate the letters that the person has chosen. The letters to be chosen are decided sequentially.

The assistance given to the person is in the form of resistance so that the individual's choice can be clearly understood. The method has to be taught by a trained instructor and it can provide a method of communication to a lot of people, including those with mental disabilities or persons with autism. Some reports also say that this was first used to assist people with physical disabilities by Jacobson and others (Jacobson, Mulick & Schwartz, 1995), though it is also said that the technique was discovered by Rosemary Crossley. It is also said that the technique was originally brought to United States by Douglas Biklen in 1989. According to Biklen (1990), the technique often surprises the others with the literacy or normal or even superior intelligence shown by the persons.

This can be said to be outpouring of talent "trapped in a wordless person." There was also a study on this by Kerrin and Murdoch in (1998). The study was done in a class of students with autism. They assessed the pointing control during FC. Only two students participated in this study and they had been diagnosed with autism at an early age. They were also not capable of verbal communication. The study showed that the response of the subject was influenced by the ability of the facilitator to see the picture or the written stimuli. The study was conducted over different sessions and when the stimuli could not be seen in the alternate session, the occasional correct responses were probably only due to chance (Kerrin & Murdock, 1998)

For some people with acute communique turmoil, FC may be a sensible way of teaching for the improvement of communique when correctly used (Cardinal, 1994). The method by which persons who are using FC are tested considerably affects observed result, according to Don Cardinal and Doug Biklen who explained the initial results of their meta-analytic study of FC. Fourteen technical testing conditions were recognized by Cardinal and Biklen, which they felt were most expected to optimistically affect the achievement of FC users in proving their skill to convey self-governing messages. Based on Cardinal's knowledge in sprouting a large restricted assessment and Cardinal and Biklen's own wide knowledge with FC, resolution was made to incorporate the various technical conditions.

Cardinal and Biklen gave weights to each technical condition so that the comparative power of each condition on outcome could be measured and translated. The technical conditions recognized were: - Matter applicable to the FC user during the test; matter suitable to the age of the FC user during the test; details given to the FC user in the test is given in manifold modalities; to reduce word recovery jobs so that the user is not required to produce a particular work on demand; continuous advice to FC user during the test on presentation; unaffectedly controlled testing conditions (conditions similar to those used in normal communication); the extent to which the testing included the ability to build the users belief (typically, facilitators provide more structure when an FC user has difficulty, so that the FC user has limited opportunities to fail); acuity on the part of the FC user that the testing had no or low hazards (the user's communique system will not be taken away if he fails); checking for FC user method (so that individualized back ups can be given); degree of experience of the facilitators to the FC user; FC users look up on the plan of the test and format; user has chance to practice with the etiquette over multiple sessions; wide user experience with FC; and finally sufficient time for the FC user to reply to questions during the test. (Cardinal; Hanson; Wakeham, 1996) (Cardinal and Biklen inspected the previously existing reports to find out the level to which each used the technical conditions. The scores calculated for each study to reflect the level to which the study contained the preferred technical testing conditions were associated with the observed occurrence that the FC users in each of the studies conceded independent messages. An optimistic involvement was exposed signifying that the degree to which each study matched to the preferred testing conditions was connected to the victorious result on the part of the FC user. Hence the facts powerfully propose that the occurrence of these technical conditions in the testing etiquette raises the possibility that members will pass their own messages in blind tests. Cardinal; Hanson; Wakeham, 1996)

Some FC testing measures may be more exact measures than that of a person's skill to convey with FC according to an interpretation of Cardinal and Biklen's results. Cardinal and Biklen intend to develop their inspection of FC investigation to an extra 12 studies. This investigation will not only clarify the likely reasons for the equivocal results on FC studies, but also can evaluate the value of the technical conditions in predicting results, and provide a base for ascertaining rules for exact corroboration testing of FC. Researchers can be aided by Cardinal and Biklen's work to plan corroboration tests that most precisely measure FC user's result. This investigation may also help us to learn more about the kinds of back up those facilitators need to provide FC users every time they convey. (Cardinal; Hanson; Wakeham, 1996)

When you observe someone conveying this way, it is difficult to tell if it is the child who is conveying or if it is the facilitator, which has encountered with a lot of victory under the warning. Many suppositions about the aptitude of people with communique problems such as autism have been confronted by facilitated communication. They are not slowed down but are clever are the declarations often uttered by individual FC. But FC is an extremely contentious technique and may not bear the rigors of technological investigation when used in persons with autism.

Reviewers propose that facilitators are either falsifying it (but there are far too many otherwise credible educators who are successful facilitators to give this much credit) or in some way the autistic person picks up the facilitators insensible requests from tiny hand movements. Trials have confirmed that facilitation resulted in real communique and sometimes that it did not. The use of it to bring out charges of mistreatment is the outcome of the use of Facilitated Communication. The law and the courts have been forced to assess its efficiency in individual cases where the only proof of misuse is Facilitated Communication. This has encouraged or even imposed practitioners to start doing more intense testing of individuals to ensure that they actually are saying what they appear to be saying.