This article examines various forms of communication systems for their “partner friendliness” and presents a model of different types of communication partners and their communication needs. Case samples illustrate how the forms of communication of two students who are deaf-blind were expanded to promote greater communication with a variety of partners in different settings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaumgartD., JohnsonJ., and HelmstetterE. (1990). Augmentative and alternative communication systems for persons with moderate and severe disabilities.Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
2.
FalveyM. (1989). Community-based curriculum: Instructional strategies for students with severe handicaps.Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
3.
HuntP., AlwellM., and GoetzL. (1991). Interacting with peers through conversation turntaking with a communication book adaptation.Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7, 117–126.
4.
Mathy-LaikkoP., IaconoT., RatcliffA., VillarruelF., YoderD., and VanderheidenG. (1989). Training a child with multiple handicaps to use a tactile augmentative communication device. In BullisM. (Ed.), Research on the communication development of young children with deaf-blindness (pp. 87–104). Monmouth, OR: Teaching Research Publications.
5.
MirendaP., and IaconoT. (1990). Communication options for persons with severe and profound disabilities: State of the art and future directions.Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 3–21.
6.
MusselwhiteC., & St. LouisK. (1988). Communication programming for persons with severe handicaps: Vocal and augmentative strategies.Boston: College Hill Press.
7.
O'NeillJ. (1990). Handbook for instructional staff: A curricular approach to support the transition to adulthood of adolescents with visual and dual sensory impairments and cognitive disabilities.Albany: New York State Department of Education.
8.
OreloveF., and SobseyD. (1991). Educating children with multiple disabilities: A transdisciplinary approach.Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
9.
RomerL., and SchoenbergB. (1991). Communication between staff and deaf-blind people in the community residences.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 85, 81–85.
10.
RotholzD., BerdowitzS., and BurberryJ. (1989). Functionality of two modes of communication in the community by students with developmental disabilities: A comparison of signing and communication boards.Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 227–233.
11.
RowlandC., & Stremel-CampbellK. (1987). Share and share alike: Conventional gestures to emergent language for learners with sensory impairments. In GoetzL., GuessD., & Stremel-CampbellK. (Eds.), Innovative program design for individuals with dual sensory impairments (pp. 49–76). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
12.
Siegel-CauseyE., and DowningJ. (1987). Nonsymbolic communication development. Theoretical concepts and educational strategies. In GoetzL., GuessD., & Stremel-CampbellK. (Eds.), Innovative program design for individuals with dual sensory impairments (pp. 15–48). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
13.
SkellyM. (1979). Amer-Ind gestural code based on universal American Indian hand talk.New York: Elsevier.
