Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:17:17.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Review of Naturalistic Communication Training Strategies for Persons with Severe Handicaps: Implications for the Development of Spontaneity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Mark Carter
Mark Carter*
Affiliation:
Special Education Centre, Macquarie University
*
Enquiries or correspondence relating to this article should be directed to Mark Carter, Special Education Centre, Macquarie University, SYDNEY NSW 2109, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper considers the nature of communicative spontaneity and examines current communication teaching strategies. Contemporary thinking on the nature of spontaneity is examined and its relation to stimulus control and generalisation is discussed. The possible mechanisms by which communication training strategies could induce transfer of stimulus control and assist in the development of spontaneous responding are then considered. Current naturalistic communication training strategies are briefly overviewed and examined in relation to efficacy research and their potential to induce transfer of stimulus control and communicative spontaneity. A taxonomy of communicative cues and prompts is then proposed. Areas for further research are identified

Type
Reviews
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 15 , Issue 1-2: Contemporary Behavioural Perspectives in Special Education , 1992 , pp. 17 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alberto, P.A., & Troutman, A.C. (1991). Applied behavior analysis f or teachers (3 ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Alwell, M., Hunt, P., Goetz, L., & Sailor, W. (1989). Teaching generalized communicative behaviors within interrupted behavior chain contexts. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 91–100.Google Scholar
Bennett, D.L., Gast, D.L., Wolery, M., & Schuster, J. (1986). Time delay and system of least prompts: A comparison in teaching manual sign production. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21, 117–129.Google Scholar
Billingsley, F.F., & Romer, L.T. (1983). Response prompting and the transfer of stimulus control: Methods, research, and a conceptual framework. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 8 (2), 3–12.Google Scholar
Browder, D.M., Morris, W.W., & Snell, M.E. (1981). Using time delay to teach manual signs lo a severely retarded student. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 16, 252–258.Google Scholar
Browder, D.M., & Snell, M.E. (1983). Daily living skills. In Snell, M.E., (Ed.) Systematic instruction of the moderately and severely handicapped. Columbus: Merrill.Google Scholar
Calculator, S., & Dollaghan, C. (1982). The use of communication boards in a residential setting: An evaluation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 281–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calculator, S.N. (1988). Promoting the acquisition and generalization of conversational skills by individuals with severe disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 94–103.Google Scholar
Caro, P., & Snell, M.E. (1989). Characteristics of teaching communication to people with moderate and severe disabilities. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 24, 63–77.Google Scholar
Carr, E.G., & Kologinsky, E. (1983). Acquisition of sign language by autistic children II: Spontaneity and generalization effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 297–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cavallaro, C.C., & Bambara, L.M. (1982). Two strategies for teaching language during free play. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 7(2), 80–92.Google Scholar
Charlop, M.H., Schreibman, L., & Thibodeau, M.G. (1985). Increasing spontaneous verbal responding in autustic (sic) children using a time delay procedure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 155–166.Google Scholar
Demchak, M. (1990). Response prompting and fading methods: A Review. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94, 603–615.Google ScholarPubMed
Dolley, D., & Wheldall, K. (1988). Developing functional language with young children from English-speaking and Punjabi-speaking home backgrounds: Incidental teaching and contingent access to materials. Educational Psychology, 8, 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnellan, A.M. (1990). Non-Aversive Perspectives on, and Strategies for, Serving People with Disabilities Whose Behaviours are Seriously Disturbing or Destructive Toward Themselves or Others. Seminar presented in Sydney, May.Google Scholar
Dyer, K. (1989). The effects of preference an spontaneous verbal requests in individuals with autism. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 184–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of Instruction: Principles and Applications. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Gee, K., Goetz, L., Graham, N., Oshima, G., & Yoshioka, K. (1990). Increasing initiative and improving indicatory requesting skills: An analysis of a study using interrupted social and supported routines. Unpublished manuscript, San Francisco State University.Google Scholar
Gee, K., Graham, N., Goetz, L., Oshima, G., & Yoshioka, K. (1991). Teachingstudents to request the continuation of routine activities by using time delay and decreasing physical assistance in the context of chain interruption. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16, 154–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, L., Gee, K., & Sailor, W. (1985). Using a behavior chain interruption strategy to teach communication skills to students with severe disabilities. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 10, 21–30.Google Scholar
Guess, D., Sailor, W., & Baer, D.M. (1978). Children with limited language. In Schiefelbusch, R.L., (Ed.) Language intervention strategies. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Halle, J.W. (1982). Teaching functional language to the handicapped: An integrative model for natural environment teaching techniques. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 7 (4), 29–37.Google Scholar
Halle, J.W. (1987). Teaching language in the natural environment: An analysis of spontaneily. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe, Handicaps, 12, 28–37.Google Scholar
Halle, J.W., Baer, D.M., & Spradlin, J.E. (1981). Teachers’ generalized use of delay as a stimulus control procedure to increase language use in handicapped children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 389–409.Google Scholar
Halle, J.W., Marshall, A.M., & Spradlin, J.E. (1979). Time delay: A technique to increase language use and facilitate generalization in retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 72, 431–439.Google Scholar
Haring, T.G., Neetz, J.A., Lovinger, L., Peck, C. & Semmel, M.I. (1987). Effects of four modified incidental teaching procedures to create opportunities for communication. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 218–226.Google Scholar
Harris, D. (1982). Communicative interaction processes involving nonvocal physically handicapped children. Topics in Language Disorders, 2 (2), 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, B.M., & Risley, T.R. (1968). Establishing use of descriptive adjectives in the spontaneous speech of disadvantaged preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 109–120.Google Scholar
Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1974). Using preschool materials to modify the language of disadvantaged children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 243–256.Google Scholar
Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1975). Incidental teaching of language in the preschool. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 411–420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1980). In vivo language interventions: Unanticipated general effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 407–432.Google Scholar
Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1982). How to use incidental teaching for elaborating language. Lawrence: H and H Enterprises.Google Scholar
Hubbell, R.D. (1977). On facilitating spontaneous talking in young children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 42, 216–231.Google Scholar
Hunt, P., Goetz, L., Al well, M., & Sailor, W. (1986). Using an interrupted behavior chain strategy to teach generalized communication responses. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11, 196–204.Google Scholar
Kaczmarek, L.A. (1990). Teaching spontaneous language to individuals with severe handicaps: A matrix model. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 160–169.Google Scholar
Kent, L.R., Klein, D., Falk, A., & Guenther, H. (1972). A language acquisition program for the retarded. In McLean, J.E., Yoder, D.E., & Schiefelbusch, R.L. (Eds.), Language Intervention with the Retarded: Developing Strategies. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Kleinert, M.L., & Gast, D.L. (1982). Teaching a multihandicapped adult manual signs using a constant time delay procedure. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 6 (4), 25–32.Google Scholar
Kozleski, E. (1991). Expectant delay procedure for leaching requests. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7, 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberty, K.A., Haring, N.G., & Martin, M.M. (1981). Teaching new skills to the severely handicapped. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 6 (1), 5–13 Google Scholar
Locke, P.A., & Miranda, P. (1988). A computer-supported communication approach for a child with severe communication, visual, and cognitive impairments: A case study. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matson, J.L., Sevin, J.A., Fridley, D., & Love, S.R. (1990). Increasing spontaneous language in three autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 227–233.Google Scholar
McGee, G.G., Krantz, P.J., Mason, D., & McClannahan, L.E. (1983). A modified incidental-teaching procedure for autistic youth: Acquisition and generalization of receptive object labels. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 329–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGee, G.G., Krantz, P.J., & McClannahan, L.E. (1985). The facilitative effects of incidental teaching on preposition use by autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mirenda, P., & Dattilo, J. (1987). Instructional techniques in alternative communication for students with severe intellectual handicaps. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3, 143–152.Google Scholar
Mirenda, P.L., & Donnellan, A.M. (1986). Effects of adult interaction style on conversational behavior in students with severe communication problems. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 17, 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirenda, P., & Santogrossi, J. (1985). A prompt-free strategy to teach pictorial communication system use. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3, 143–150.Google Scholar
Neef, N.A., Walters, J., & Egel, A.L. (1984). Establishing generative yes/no responses in developmentally disabled children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 453–460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Odem, S.L., & Strain, P.S. (1986). A comparison of peer-initiation and teacher antecedent interventions for promoting reciprocal social interaction of autistic preschoolers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 59–71.Google Scholar
Oliver, C.B., & Halle, J.W. (1982). Language training in the everyday environment: Teaching functional sign use to a retarded child. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 7(3), 50–62.Google Scholar
Peck, C.A. (1985). Increasing opportunities for social control by children with autism and severe handicaps: Effects on student behavior and perceived classroom climate. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 10, 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichle, J., & Kaiser, A. (1990). Introduction. In Reichle, J., & Kaiser, A. (Eds.). Communication (JASH Reprints on Communication) Seattle: The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps.Google Scholar
Reichle, J., & Sigafoos, J. (1991). Establishing spontaneity and generalization. In Reichle, J., York, J., & Sigafoos, J. (Eds.). Implementing augmentative and alternative communication: Strategies for learners with severe disabilities. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
Rogers-Warren, A., & Warren, S. (1980). Mands for verbalization: Facilitating the display of newly trained language in children. Behavior Modification, 4, 361–382.Google Scholar
Rowland, C. (1990). Communication in the classroom for children with dual sensory impairments: Studies of teacher and child behavior. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 6, 262–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, C. & Schweigert, P. (1989). Increasing Spontaneous Communication in Nonspeaking Individuals with Multiple Disabilities. Paper presented at the 1989 Annual TASH Conference, San Francisco, December.Google Scholar
Schwartz, I.S. Anderson, S.R., & Halle, J.W. (1989). Training teachers to use naturalistic time delay: Effects on teacher behavior and on the language use of students. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 48–57.Google Scholar
Snell, M.E. (1983). Implementing and monitoring the IEP: Intervention strategies. In Snell, M.E. (Ed.) Systematic instruction of the moderately and severely handicapped.. Columbus: Merrill.Google Scholar
Sousi, S.P. (1988). Teaching ecologically-based communication skills to persons who are developmentally delayed. In Baine, D., Sobsey, D., Wilgosh, L., & Kysela, G.M., (Eds.). Alternative futures for the education of students with severe disabilities. Alberta: University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Sternberg, L. (1991). The Sonoma research project: Discussion and conclusions. In Sternberg, L. (Ed.). Functional communication: Analyzing the nonlinguistic skills of individuals with severe or profound handicaps. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Stokes, T.F., & Baer, D.M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.Google Scholar
Warren, S.F., McQuarter, R.J., & Rogers-Warren, A.K. (1984). The effects of mands and models on the speech of unresponsive language-delayed preschool children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 43–52.Google Scholar
Warren, S.F., Rogers-Warren, A., Baer, D.M., & Guess, D. (1980). Assessment and facilitation of language generalization. In Sailor, W., Wilcox, B., & Brown, L. (Eds.), Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
Woods, T.S. (1984). Generality in the verbal tacting of autistic children as a function of “naturalness” in antecedent control. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 15, 27–32.Google Scholar