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

Development of Meaning Communication Environments Transmission Environments Development of Meaning between individuals feedback Sender/Encoder endogenous feedback Receiver/Decoder Sender/Receiver with endogenous feedback Transmission/Signal Channels Rceiver/Decoder Communication Contexts (taken from Lloyd et al., 1997, p. 7, Fig. 1.1)

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 Description of Communication Participation Engagement Level 1: Formalistic meaning Structured meaning, use of pre-determined utterances, highly predictable. Routinized, short, superficial, fleeting contact. Social greetings, “small talk.” Minimal. Level 2: Literal meaning Here-and-now focused exchanges primarily for the purpose of exchanging information. Often focused on pre-programmed utterances. Few exchanges, with limited opportunity for development of meaning between partners. Short periods of involvement. Level 3: Extended meaning More extensive discourse, topic development, coherence, exchanges (dialogue) characterized by sensitivity to context and adjustment to uniqueness of the interaction partners. Semantic connectedness. 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 Intuitive use of language and ability to infer meaning with ease. Dynamic flow between levels of communication. 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 Participation Engagement Structured meaning, use of pre-determined utterances, highly predictable. Routinized, short, superficial, fleeting contact. Social greetings, “small talk.” Minimal.

Level 2: Literal Meaning Description of Communication Participation Engagement Here-and-now focused exchanges primarily for the purpose of exchanging information. Often focused on pre-programmed utterances. Few exchanges, with limited opportunity for development of meaning between partners. Short periods of involvement.

Level 3: Extended Meaning Description of Communication Participation Engagement More extensive discourse, topic development, coherence, exchanges (dialogue) characterized by sensitivity to context and adjustment to uniqueness of the interaction partners. Semantic connectedness. 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 Participation Engagement Intuitive use of language and ability to infer meaning with ease. Dynamic flow between levels of communication. 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: Self- other 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 (perspective- taking)

Video 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=kiqYapgu69g

Video 1 What is the pace of the interaction? Amount of verbalization 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 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 Importance of experiencing communication as a meaning- based process Understanding of and interest in communication partners Awareness and understanding of own interest, actions and feelings Range of Exchanges: flexibility and relevance Clarity of message production: AAC strategies Training of communication partners

Thank you Acknowledgement: AAC-in-Action Project , Indiana University, Bloomington. Handout available : ealant@indiana.edu

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