Two studies were conducted to examine characteristics of teacher communications to students who have severe and profound disabilities. Of particular interest was the influence of various factors on the methods of communication teachers used when they were conveying information to students who lacked language abilities. It appeared that the forms of communication teachers selected were less related to the student's communicative ability or responsiveness to particular forms than they were to the teacher's intention in communicating. Implications of the results for enhancing communicative interactions between teachers and students with severe and profound disabilities are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Chadsey-Rusch, J., Drasgow, E., Reinoehl, B., Halle, J., & Collet-Klingenberg, L. (1993). Using general-case instruction to teach spontaneous and generalized requests for assistance to learners with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18, 177–187.
2.
Halle, J. W. (1987). Teaching language in the natural environment: An analysis of spontaneity. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12(1), 28–37.
3.
Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (1988). Teaching spontaneous communication in natural settings through interrupted behavior chains. Topics in Language Disorders, 9(1), 58–71.
4.
Kaiser, A. P., Ostrosky, M. M., & Alpert, C. L. (1993). Training teachers to use environmental arrangement and milieu teaching with nonvocal preschool children. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18, 188–199.
5.
Mirenda, P., Iacono, T., & Williams, R. (1990). Communication options for persons with severe and profound disabilities: State of the art and future directions. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15(1), 3–12.
6.
Murray-Branch, J., Udvari-Solner, A., & Bailey, B. (1991). Textured communication systems for individuals with severe intellectual and dual sensory impairments. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 260–268.
7.
Rowland, C., & Schweigert, P. (1989). Tangible symbols: Symbolic communication for individuals with multisensory impairments. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 226–234.
8.
Rowland, C., & Stremel-Campbell, K. (1987). Share and share alike: Conventional gestures to emergent language for learners with sensory impairments. In L. Goetz, D. Guess, & K. Stremel-Campbell (Eds.), Innovative program design for individuals with dual sensory impairments (pp. 49–75). Baltimore: Brookes.
9.
Siegel-Causey, E., Battle, C., & Ernst, B. (1989). Procedures for enhancing nonsymbolic communication. In E. Siegel-Causey & D. Guess (Eds.), Enhancing nonsymbolic communication interactions among learners with severe disabilities (pp. 55–196). Baltimore: Brookes.
10.
Siegel-Causey, E., & Ernst, B. (1989). Theoretical orientation and research in nonsymbolic development. In E. Siegel-Causey & D. Guess (Eds.), Enhancing nonsymbolic communication interactions among learners with severe disabilities (pp. 15–51). Baltimore: Brookes.
11.
Siegel-Causey, E., & Guess, D. (Eds.). (1989). Enhancing nonsymbolic communication interactions among learners with severe disabilities. Baltimore: Brookes.
12.
Siegel-Causey, E., & Wetherby, A. (1993). Nonsymbolic communication. In M. E. Snell (Ed.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (pp. 290–318). New York: Macmillan.
13.
Snyder-McLean, L. K., Solomonson, B., McLean, J. E., & Sack, S. (1984). Structuring joint action routines: A strategy for facilitating communication and language in the classroom. Seminars in Speech and Language, 5, 213–228.
14.
Stillman, R. D., & Battle, C. W. (1984). Developing prelanguage communication in the severely handicapped: An interpretation of the Van Dijk method. Seminars in Speech and Language, 5, 159–170.
15.
Stillman, R., & Battle, C. W. (1986). Callier-Azusa Scale-H: Cognition and communication. Dallas: University of Texas at Dallas.
16.
Stillman, R. D., Snow, R., & Warren, K. (in press). “I used to be good with kids.” Encounters between speech—language pathology students and children with pervasive developmental disorders (PDD). In D. Kovarsky, J. Duchan, & M. Maxwell (Eds.), The social construction of communicative incompetence.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17.
Stillman, R., & Williams, C. (1990). Assessing forms and intentions of teacher communications. Dallas: University of Texas at Dallas.
18.
Van Dijk, J. (1986). An educational curriculum for deaf-blind multi-handicapped persons. In D. Ellis (Ed.), Sensory impairments in mentally handicapped people (pp. 374–382). San Diego: College-Hill.
19.
Writer, J. (1987). A movement-based approach to the education of students who are sensory impaired/multihandicapped. In L. Goetz, D. Guess, & K. Stremel-Campbell (Eds.), Innovative program design for individuals with dual sensory impairments (pp. 191–223). Baltimore: Brookes.
