Study of two graphic symbol-teaching methods for individuals with physical disabilities and additional learning difficulties

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study was to establish whether contrasting teaching methods had an effect on performance accuracy in the recall of graphic symbols. The secondary purpose was to establish whether the iconicity of symbols had an effect on performance accuracy. A direct symbol-teaching method and a contextual symbol-teaching method were investigated using a total of 72 Picture Communication Symbols (PCSs; Johnson, 1985). Fourteen children with physical disabilities and additional learning difficulties took part in the study. Ten participants had little or no functional speech. The results showed that, averaging across all other factors, the direct-teaching method produced better results than the contextual-teaching method and that performance accuracy was greater with transparent symbols. Results also showed a significant interaction between the direct-teaching method and translucent/opaque symbols. Further analysis of the descriptive data suggests that age, rather than educational or language ability, was a significant factor. Implications for augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) practices are discussed.

Keywords

augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)graphic symbols recall vocabulary

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbott C. and Lucey H. ( 2005) Symbol communication in special school in England: the current position and some key issues. British Journal of Special Education 32: 196-201.

Angelo D. and Goldstein H. ( 1990) Effects of a pragmatic teaching strategy for requesting information by communication board users. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 55: 231-43.

Bedrosian J. ( 2003) On the subject of subject selection in AAC. In: Schlosser R (ed.), The efficacy of augmentative and alternative communication: toward evidence-based practice. London: Academic Press, 57-83.

Beukelman D. , McGinnis J. , and Morrow D. ( 1991) Vocabulary selection in augmentative and alternative communication . Augmentative and Alternative Communication 7: 171-85.

Brady N. ( 2000) Improved comprehension of object names following voice output communication aid users: Two case studies. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 16: 197-204.

Cohen J. ( 1992) Quantitative methods in psychology. Psychological Bulletin 112: 155-59.

Crystal D. ( 2002) The English Language. Harmondsworth : Penguin.

Fuller D. and Lloyd L. ( 1991) Toward a common usage of iconicity terminology. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 7: 215-20.

Garfield L. ( 2001) Fair’s fair. London: Hodder Children’s Books.

10.

Harris M. and Reichle J. ( 2004) The impact of aided language stimulation on symbol comprehension and production in children with moderate cognitive disabilities. American Journal of Speech and Language Pathology 13: 155-67.

11.

Hartas D. ( 2004) Teacher and speech-language therapist collaboration: Being equal and achieving a common goal. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 20: 33-54.

12.

Johnson R. ( 1985) The picture communication symbols. Solana Beach, CA: Mayer-Johnson.

13.

Loncke F. and Lloyd L. ( 1999) Consideration for understanding the nature and use of graphic symbols. In: Loncke F , Clibbens J , Arvidson H , and Lloyd l (eds) Augmentative and alternative communication: new directions in research and practice. London: Whurr, 157-60.

14.

Luftig R. and Bersani H. ( 1985) An investigation of two variables influencing Blissymbol learnability with nonhandicapped adults. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 7: 32-37.

15.

Mirenda P. and Locke P. ( 1989) A comparison of symbol transparency in nonspeaking persons with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 54: 131-40.

16.

Mizuko M. ( 1987) Transparency and ease of learning of symbols represented by Blissymbols, PCS, and Picsyms. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 3: 129-36.

17.

Romski M. and Sevcik R. ( 1992) Developing augmented language in children with severe mental retardation. In: Warren S , and Reichle J (eds) Causes and effects in communication and language intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes, 113-30.

18.

Schlosser R. ( 2003) The efficacy of augmentative and alternative communication: toward evidence-based practice. London: Academic Press.

19.

Schlosser R. and Sigafoos J. ( 2002) Selecting graphic symbols for an initial request lexicon: integrative review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 18: 102-23.

20.

Schlosser R. , Wendt O. , Angerrmeier K. , and Shetti M. ( 2005) Searching for evidence in augmentative and alternative communication: navigating a scattered literature. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 21: 233-55.

21.

Sevcik R. , Romski M. , and Wilkinson K. ( 1991) Roles of graphic symbols in the language acquisition process for persons with severe cognitive disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 7: 161-70.