A single case series of narrative interaction between
children who use speech generating devices and their
educational staff
Pippa Bailey*, Karen Bunning, Jan
McAllister & Zoe Butterfint
*P.Bailey@uea.ac.uk
Introduction
 Me
 Qualified Speech and Language Therapist
 PhD Student
 Long interest in Special Needs and AAC through work
opportunities
 The Telling Stories Project
 PhD Research Study - 3rd Year of study
 Aims: to investigate the co-construction of personal and
fictional narrative between pupils (aided speakers) and
their teaching staff (natural speakers)
Why Narrative?
 Expression of personal and fictional stories from
an early age
 Sharing of experience
 Central to the English Curriculum
 Language is integral to the educational process
 Fun!
Why Education?
 Personal experience
 Vital environment for development
 Use of AAC is as dependent on the
communication partner as it is on the user
 The teacher is a primary conversation partner
for children
Methodology
 Single case series design
 4 participants - 2 with cerebral palsy
- 1 with ASD
- 1 with congenital disorder
 Teaching staff who have worked with each participant
for over a term
 2 data collection phases with 2 sessions
 1 fictional and 1 personal narrative at each session
 Total of 4 fictional and 4 personal narratives per
participant
A Case Example
 Participants:
 J (AS) – 8 year old, diagnosis of ASD, had used a Tellus Mobi for 5
months (since Dec 2009)
 SLT Report (Dec 2009): J will use 1 key word, can sequence with
support and can categorise pictures 100% of the time
 Teacher (NS) – Worked with AS 5 days a week since September
2009
 Stimuli:
 Session 1: Fictional – The Squirrel Story (Black Sheep Press Ltd.);
Personal – A Birthday
 Session 2: Fictional – The Bus Story (Renfrew); Personal – A
Xmas
J Session 1: Birthday
J Session 2: Bus Story
Findings – Communication Modality
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Distribution of Communication Modalities in Personal and Fictional Narratives
Fictional
Personal
Findings – Communication Modality
 Narrative co-construction is multi-modal
 The AS uses 10 different communication modalities
during the narrative co-construction
 The NS makes use of 11 communication modalities
 Eye-gaze holds an important role in the interaction
 Quick way to check attention, understanding and
agreement
 Communication is constant
 At no point was there a neutral coding required, coconstruction required both partners to constantly be
actively communicating
Clip 3 – Peter and the Cat
Findings – Linguistic Moves
60
50
40
Frequency Distribution of Linguistic Moves in Fictional and Personal
Narratives
Fictional AS
Fictional NS
Personal AS
Personal NS
30
20
10
0
Findings – Linguistic Moves
Fictional Personal
 The teacher takes more
initiation moves than the
AS
 AS shown to act more as
respondent
AS
NS
AS
NS
Total
Preparation
0
1
0
0
Total Initiation
25
136
31
50
Total Response
61
58
36
38
Total Moves
86
195
67
88
 The NS takes a higher total number of moves under
both fictional and personal narrative conditions
 Narrative being co-constructed by both partners
Clip 4 – School
Types of vocabulary used
Personal Fictional
Sum Content Words
132
285
Sum Function Words
4
10
Sum Total Words
136
295
Sum Different Words
67
98
TTR
0.49
0.33
 Notable differences between use of content words (nouns)
and function words (verbs, conjunctions) were found
 Verbs and descriptions were available to participants
 Ease of use frequently led to high use of content words
 Grammar and syntax were sometimes added by the NS
Conclusions
 Total communication may be helpful in the co-construction of
narrative
 Far fewer function words are used than content words
 When programming vocabulary the balance of function and content
words must be considered
 Both fictional and personal narrative are co-constructed using
question and answers
 Possibly due to the complexity of creating narrative language either
naturally or on an AAC device
 Despite the complexity of narrative even individuals with lower
language ability can co-construct a basic narrative with support
 Throughout data collection it has come across that co-construction
of narrative is an enjoyable process for AS and NS
P.Bailey@uea.ac.uk
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Soto, G. & Hartmann, E. (2006): Analysis of narratives produced by
four children who use augmentative and alternative communication.
Journal of Communication Disorders, 39(6), 456-480.
Beukelman, D. & Mirenda, P. (2005): Augmentative and Alternative
Communication Supporting Children and Adults with Complex
Communication Needs. Baltimore, Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Light et al. (1985) Communicative interaction between young
nonspeaking physically disabled children and their primary caregivers:
Part III-modes of communication. Augmentative and Alternative
Communication 1(4), 125 - 133.
Brulle, A. & Repp, A.(1984): An investigation of the accuracy of
momentary time sampling procedures with time series data. British
Journal of Psychology 75(4), 481-488.
Encyclopaedia Britannica (2009): ‘Speech’ Retrieved 19/03/09, from
http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9108588.
Argyle, M. (1975): Bodily Communication. London, Methuen & Co.
Ltd.
References Cont’d…
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Tomasello, M. (1995): Joint Attention as Social Cognition. In:
Moore, C. & Dunham, P. (Eds) Joint Attention. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum, 103 – 133.
Flewitt, R. (2006): Using video to investigate preschool classroom
interaction: education research assumptions and methodological
practices. Visual Communication 5(1), 25-50.
Harris, D. (1982): Communicative interaction processes involving
non-vocal physically handicapped children. Topics in Language
Disorders, 2 (2), 21-37.
Pennington, L. & McConachie, H. (1999): Mother-child interaction
revisited: communication with non-speaking physically disabled
children. International Journal of Language & Communication
Disorders 34(4), 391 - 416.
Clarke, M. & Kirton, A. (2003): Patterns of interaction between
children with physical disabilities using augmentative and alternative
communication systems and their peers. Child Language Teaching &
Therapy 19(2), 135-151.