Constructing narratives to describe video events using aided communication

Abstract

Narratives are a pervasive form of discourse and a rich source for exploring a range of language and cognitive skills. The limited research base to date suggests that narratives generated using aided communication may be structurally simple, and that features of cohesion and reference may be lacking. This study reports on the analysis of narratives generated in interactions involving aided communication in response to short, silent, video vignettes depicting events with unintended or unexpected consequences. Two measures were applied to the data: the Narrative Scoring Scheme and the Narrative Analysis Profile. A total of 15 participants who used aided communication interacted with three different communication partners (peers, parents, professionals) relaying narratives about three video events. Their narratives were evaluated with reference to narratives of 15 peers with typical development in response to the same short videos and to the narratives that were interpreted by their communication partners. Overall, the narratives generated using aided communication were shorter and less complete than those of the speaking peers, but they incorporated many similar elements. Topic maintenance and inclusion of scene-setting elements were consistent strengths. Communication partners offered rich interpretations of aided narratives. Relative to the aided narratives, these interpreted narratives were typically structurally more complete and cohesive and many incorporated more elaborated semantic content. The data reinforce the robust value of narratives in interaction and their potential for showcasing language and communication achievements in aided communication.

Strategies in conveying information about unshared events using aided communication

“…close to the intended meaning), relying on the partner to make the connection between the elements expressed and the intended meaning (Falkum et al, 2017). Aided communicators may also offer graphic symbols and other expressions as clues to an intended meaning, relying on the communication partner to produce the final construction (Smith et al, 2018; von Tetzchner and Martinsen, 1996). However, giving more responsibility to the communication partners in inferring meaning only works if the partner understands the strategy and treats the elements as clues from which the meaning can be inferred.…”

“…Familiarity of the communication partners and mutual experience of aided interactions may have a decisive impact, allowing partners to utilize knowledge about strategies from earlier conversations. However, it may also limit the ability of aided communicators to relay content that is unknown to the partner when contextual support is limited (Savolainen et al, 2020; Smith et al, 2018). As a consequence, interactions may remain routinized and lack the sharing of truly novel information.…”

“…Co-construction of meaning typically happens over several turns as the communicator produces the aided utterance and the partner recasts and expands the construct producing a potential interpretation. Co-construction may enable rich and elaborate communicative interactions where the partners support the fluency of communication (Smith et al, 2018). However, aided communicators may also become accustomed to relying on their communication partners to translate and interpret the meaning of their aided output (Solomon-Rice and Soto, 2011), saving time and effort.…”

Comunicación en el aula: estudio de casos de valoración docente sobre implementación de sistemas de comunicación aumentativa y alternativa en educación especial en Uruguay

“…Se ha encontrado que las narrativas producidas por estos niños son menos completas y más simples (Smith et al, 2018). Por otro lado, aspectos de la comprensión y el vocabulario también se ven afectados (Deliberato et al, 2018).…”