Download Meaning-Making in AAC Intervention.pttx

MEANING-MAKING IN
AAC INTERVENTION
ERNA ALANT
INDIANA UNIVERSITY
BLOOMINGTON, IN
Disclosures
Employed by Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
Funded by Otting Chair Fund
Author of book to be published in 2017 by Plural Publishers:
Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Engagement and
Participation
Problem Statement
•
A large percentage of users of AAC have difficulties in
developing close friendships (Blackstone & Hunt-Berg, 2003;
D’Angelo, 2000l Light & McNaughton, 2014)
•
Most AAC users can participate in exchanging messages with
another, however, their ability to develop joint meaning with
another is limited. Scripted or recorded messages used do not
facilitate the development of social closeness with others
(Grove & Woll, 1996; Loncke, 2014).
•
There is a direct link between social closeness and the ability to
develop meaning with another. Short fleeing interactions (“small
talk”) are not sufficient in sharing ideas in a more personal and
creative way with another (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2015).
•
The challenge is how to move beyond exchanging messages
with another to engage in the development of meaning in
building relationships with others (Kent-Walsh & McNaughton,
2005).
What is a Meaning-Making
Approach to AAC Intervention?
•
An approach that focuses on the meaning
developed between communication partners –
rather than on the structure of the interaction or
individual competencies.
•
Uniqueness of interaction: Importance of New
Nuanced Meaning – the development of new
associated meaning between two people
•
The focus is on semiotic development rather than
conversational analysis
Communication Environments
Transmission
Environments
feedback
Sender/Encoder
endogenous
feedback
Rceiver/Decoder
Receiver/Decoder
Transmission/Sign
al Channels
Sender/Receiver
with endogenous
feedback
Communication Contexts
(taken from Lloyd et al., 1997, p. 7, Fig.
Meaning-making
Participation & Engagement
•
Participation refers to the ability to exchange messages and share
in activities with others. This is the process closely associated with
doing-with another and can have a task or goal-orientation.
•
Engagement, on the other hand refers to the ability to be attentive
to and respecting of others in interaction (Alant, 2005; Clarke,
1996). It includes the ability to be interested in others on a
cognitive (perspective-taking) but also on an emotive (emotional
resonance) level. It is the intersubjective component (Crossley,
1996) that enables communication partners to listen to and
observe each other as they develop meaning in interaction.
•
The creative synthesis between participation and engagement
therefore enables the process of meaning-making (Bruner, 1990)
between communication partners.
Level of Meaning
in Communication
Level 1:
Formalistic meaning
Level 2:
Literal meaning
Level 3:
Extended meaning
Level 4:
Versatile meaning
Description of
Communication
Structured meaning, use
of pre-determined
utterances, highly
predictable.
Here-and-now focused
exchanges primarily for
the purpose of
exchanging information.
Often focused on preprogrammed utterances.
More extensive
discourse, topic
development, coherence,
exchanges (dialogue)
characterized by
sensitivity to context and
adjustment to
uniqueness of the
interaction partners.
Semantic connectedness.
Intuitive use of language
and ability to infer
meaning with ease.
Dynamic flow between
levels of communication.
Participation
Engagement
Routinized, short, superficial, fleeting
contact.
Social greetings, “small talk.”
Minimal.
Few exchanges, with limited
opportunity for development of
meaning between partners.
Short periods of
involvement.
Longer exchanges.
More extensive involvement
Adjustment to the communication
in interaction.
partner (e.g., vocabulary, topic
adherence).
Ability to understand the perspective of
the other.
Manifestation of multiple meanings of
words and phrases as partners adjust to
interaction with each other.
Dynamic expression and use of
communication modes in interaction.
Skill in adjusting to partner
communication needs on different
levels.
Ease in moving from seemingly
superficial exchanges to more serious
exchanges.
Extensive involvement,
which allows for dynamic
levels of meaning in
interaction.
Level 1: Formalistic Meaning
Description of
Communication
Structured meaning,
use of pre-determined
utterances, highly
predictable.
Participation
Engagement
Routinized, short,
Minimal.
superficial, fleeting
contact.
Social greetings, “small
talk.”
Level 2: Literal Meaning
Description of
Communication
Here-and-now focused
exchanges primarily for
the purpose of
exchanging
information. Often
focused on preprogrammed
utterances.
Participation
Engagement
Few exchanges, with
Short periods of
limited opportunity for involvement.
development of
meaning between
partners.
Level 3: Extended Meaning
Description of
Communication
More extensive discourse,
topic development,
coherence, exchanges
(dialogue) characterized by
sensitivity to context and
adjustment to uniqueness
of the interaction
partners.
Semantic connectedness.
Participation
Engagement
Longer exchanges.
Adjustment to the
communication partner
(e.g., vocabulary, topic
adherence).
Ability to understand the
perspective of the other.
Manifestation of multiple
meanings of words and
phrases as partners adjust
to interaction with each
other.
More extensive
involvement in interaction.
Level 4: Versatile Meaning
Description of
Communication
Intuitive use of language
and ability to infer meaning
with ease. Dynamic flow
between levels of
communication.
Participation
Engagement
Dynamic expression
and use of
communication
modes in interaction.
Skill in adjusting to
partner
communication needs
on different levels.
Ease in moving from
seemingly superficial
exchanges to more
serious exchanges.
Extensive
involvement, which
allows for dynamic
levels of meaning in
interaction.
What does a Meaning-Making approach
add to existing AAC intervention efforts?
•
Move away from a focus on strategies to focus on how these
strategies facilitate meaning-making in interaction
•
Focus on inter-subjective process of meaning-making: Selfother awareness as part of engagement and participation
•
Importance of observation and listening to the other: being
present to the other
•
Importance of the Affective Dimension (emotional
resonance) not just the Cognitive Dimension (perspectivetaking)
Video 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=kiqYapgu69g
Video 1
• What is the pace of the interaction?
• Amount of verbalization
• Action
• Different activities
• Level of Engagement
• Level of Participation
• Level of Meaning developed in interaction
Video 2
Video 2
• What is the pace of the interaction?
• Amount of verbalization
• Action
• Different activities
• Level of Engagement
• Level of Participation
• Level of Meaning developed in interaction
Comparison
• Similarities and Differences between video 1 and 2?
• What is the therapist doing to facilitate
communication?
• Level of scripted interaction?
• Level of meaning developed between the two
individuals in each of the videos?
Guidelines for Intervention
1. Importance of experiencing communication as a meaningbased process
2. Understanding of and interest in communication partners
3. Awareness and understanding of own interest, actions and
feelings
4. Range of Exchanges: flexibility and relevance
5. Clarity of message production: AAC strategies
6. Training of communication partners
Thank you
Acknowledgement:
AAC-in-Action Project , Indiana
University, Bloomington.
Handout available : [email protected]
References
Alant, E (in press). Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Engagement and Participation. San Diego:
Plural Publishers
Alant, E. (2005). Intervention issues. In Alant, E & Lloyd (Eds). Augmentative and Alternative communication:
Beyond poverty. London: Whurr Publishers, 9-29.
Bruner, J (1990). Acts of Meaning. London: Harvard University Press.
Clark, H (1996) . Using language. NY:Cambridge University Press
Crossley, N. (1996). Intersubjectivity: The fabric of social becoming. London: Sage.
Light, J. (1989). Toward a definition of communicative competence for individuals using augmentative and
alternative communication systems. Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 4, 137-144.
Light, J & McNaughton, D (2014). Communicative Competence for Individuals who require
Augmentative and Alternative Communication: A New Definition for a New Era of Communication? AAC,
30(1): 1–18
Lloyd, L L; Fuller, D & Arvidson, H (1997). Augmentative and Alternative Communication: A Handbook of
Principles and Practices. Boston: Allyn Bacon