Teaching Graphic Symbol Combinations to Children with Limited Speech During Shared Story Reading

Tonsing, Kerstin Monika; Dada, Shakila; Alant, Erna

doi:10.3109/07434618.2014.965846

Cited by 21 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Intervention entailed the use of a prompting hierarchy to elicit two-symbol productions using either an iPad with the GoTalk Now application or a communication board. Results indicate that all participants increased their productions of twosymbol combinations after intervention commenced in both conditions, confirming results from previous studies where children with limited speech learned to produce symbol combinations with communication boards Nigam et al 2006, Tönsing et al 2014 or SGDs . found in most studies comparing the effect of SGD versus non-electronic AAC system-based interventions on requesting skills.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…The communication board or iPad was positioned within easily reachable distance 16 at an angle in front of the participant. Before each target combination, the researcher employed a prompting hierarchy similarto that described in Tönsing et al (2014). The researcher used the following prompts:…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the study where participants used either a communication board or an SGD ) participants making use of SGDs with graphic symbol overlays produced the combinations quicker than participants using non-electronic communication boards; however, the small sample and potential differences between participants precluded any definite conclusions. In each of the other studies, participants either all made use of communication boards (Nigam et al 2006;Tönsing et al 2014) or they all made use of SGDs (Binger et al 2010). From these studies it is therefore not clear whether use of SGDs rather than communication boards may encourage the production of graphic symbol combinations more effectively and efficiently.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…by participants in these studies included either communication boards Nigam et al 2006, Tönsing et al 2014 or SGDs . In the study where participants used either a communication board or an SGD ) participants making use of SGDs with graphic symbol overlays produced the combinations quicker than participants using non-electronic communication boards; however, the small sample and potential differences between participants precluded any definite conclusions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Supporting the Production of Graphic Symbol Combinations by Children with Limited Speech: A Comparison of Two AAC systems

Tonsing

2015

J Dev Phys Disabil

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy with which the use of a speech generating device (Apple iPad TM with GoTalk Now TM application) versus a communication board promoted the production of two-symbols combinations (agent-action and attribute-entity combinations) by children limited speech within a shared story reading context. Four children between the ages of 6;8 (years;months) and 11;4 with severe motor speech disorders and a variety of developmental 1 disabilities participated in the study. An adapted alternating treatment design was used. All four participants showed increased production of two-symbol combinations in both intervention conditions. The Wilcoxon ranked pairs test did not show differences between the conditions for any participant. The results suggest that symbol combination skills can effectively be taught using either AAC system. A preference assessment indicated that all participants preferred to use the speech generating device during shared story reading. all studies focussed on basic requesting skills requiring the use of only one symbol per response in all or at least one of the intervention conditions; and (b) most studies did not support consistent differences between electronic and non-electronic systems. One explanation for the lack of clear differences between the conditions may be that the acquisition of the requesting skills targeted in these interventions is strongly motivated by the reinforcer. Participants might be so motivated to obtain the reinforcer, that the method to obtain it loses particular relevance. The acquisition of communication functions that are not as tangibly motivated but that proceed for social and interactive reasons might be more prone to influence by the system used, as internal rather than external motivation may play a larger role (Light, Parsons and Drager 2002). Of the 31 participants that took part in the studies comparing SGDs to non-electronic AAC systems reviewed by Gevarter et al (2013), 17 had a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), autism or pervasive developmental disorder (PDD). Young children with these diagnoses typically are more likely to communicate in order to regulate the behavior of others (i.e., requesting or protesting), rather than for the purpose of social interaction (Wetherby, Watt, Morgan and Shumway 2007), which may explain the focus on requesting in these studies.The use of electronic versus non-electronic systems may differentially influence the production of multi-symbol combinations (Binger, Kent-Walsh, Berens, Del Campo and Rivera, 2008). An SGD provides auditory feedback to the person using it on his/her own productions, which may facilitate language learning (Romski and Sevcik 1988;1996;Romski, Sevcik and Adamson 1997). The digital or synthetic speech generated by the SGD may reinforce the learning of symbol sequences. This may be a benefit that is particularly relevant to children who have an understanding of spoken language, whereas the receptive (spoken) language skills of the 3 participants...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Supporting the Production of Graphic Symbol Combinations by Children with Limited Speech: A Comparison of Two AAC systems

Tonsing

2015

J Dev Phys Disabil

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The microsystem can be conceptualized as a synergy of different components as depicted in figure 1(adapted from [6]). This model is similar to the Human Activity Assistive Technology (HAAT) model [7], except that the prominence of the partner is highlighted in the former, due to the fact that participation in interactive rather than solitary activities is the focus of AAC intervention.…”

Section: Microsystemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eye gaze technology: a South African perspective

Niekerk

Tonsing

2014

Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Based on the bioecological model by Bronfenbrenner, this paper will provide a broad perspective on factors that need to be taken into account in order to facilitate communication and participation in preliterate children making use of electronic AAC systems accessed through eye gaze.Method: Two case studies of children who have been provided with the technology described are presented. The case studies were analysed using the four nested systems of the ecology as a framework to describe not only the environment, but also the processes and interactions between the persons and their context.Results: Risk and opportunity factors are evident at all levels of the ecology.Conclusions: While a good fit between the person and the technology is an essential starting point, additional factors pertaining to the partner, the immediate environment as well as meso-, exo-and macrosystemic issues (such as societal attitudes and funding sources) have a significant influence on benefits derived. In resource-limited environments, the lack of support at more distal levels of the ecology (meso-, exo and marosystemic levels) seems to be a factor that differentiates these environments from more resourced ones. Page 2 Eye gaze technology: A South African Perspective KeywordsAugmentative and alternative communication, children with severe physical disabilities, eye gaze access, graphic symbols, little or no functional speech. Implications for Rehabilitation: Within resource-limited environments lack of support from wider ecological systems pose a risk to the implementation of eye gaze technology. Attempts to improve collaboration between all role players could provide the opportunity for the establishment of an integrated plan for intervention and set the stage for information sharing and multiskilling between role players. Intervention should not only be aimed at addressing the needs of the individual client and their family, but also focus on building community capacity that could provide support to others.

show abstract

A systematic review of the matrix training literature

Kemmerer

Vladescu

Carrow

et al. 2021

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapid acquisition and generality of skills are important considerations when developing teaching techniques in various educational settings. Acquiring skills without direct teaching reduces instructional time, improves efficiency, and saves money. These desirable outcomes can be achieved through generative instruction such as matrix training. Numerous studies have evaluated the effectiveness of the matrix training strategy, but there are several procedural variations in developing a matrix training procedure. The current literature requires a comprehensive review to determine what strategies are effective when arranging a matrix training procedure and directions for future research. The purpose of this literature review was to identify all of the studies that have used a matrix training approach to teach a skill. A total of 35 articles (containing 40 experiments) were identified and included in this review. The articles were coded according to several parameters including participant characteristics, dependent and independent variables, outcomes, maintenance, and social validity. The results of this review indicate the variation in implementation strategies employed during matrix training. Limitations of the current literature as well as directions for future research are discussed.

show abstract

Teaching Graphic Symbol Combinations to Children with Limited Speech During Shared Story Reading

Cited by 21 publications

References 38 publications

Supporting the Production of Graphic Symbol Combinations by Children with Limited Speech: A Comparison of Two AAC systems

Supporting the Production of Graphic Symbol Combinations by Children with Limited Speech: A Comparison of Two AAC systems

Eye gaze technology: a South African perspective

A systematic review of the matrix training literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About