1. 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

2. 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 - 3 rd Year of study Aims: to investigate the co-construction of personal and fictional narrative between pupils (aided speakers) and their teaching staff (natural speakers)

3. 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!

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. J Session 1: Birthday

8. J Session 2: Bus Story

9. Findings – Communication Modality

10. 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, co- construction required both partners to constantly be actively communicating

11. Clip 3 – Peter and the Cat

12. Findings – Linguistic Moves Frequency Distribution of Linguistic Moves in Fictional and Personal Narratives

13. Findings – Linguistic Moves The teacher takes more initiation moves than the AS AS shown to act more as respondent The NS takes a higher total number of moves under both fictional and personal narrative conditions Narrative being co-constructed by both partners FictionalPersonal ASNSASNS Total Preparation 0100 Total Initiation 251363150 Total Response 61583638 Total Moves 861956788

14. Clip 4 – School

15. Types of vocabulary used 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 PersonalFictional Sum Content Words132285 Sum Function Words410 Sum Total Words136295 Sum Different Words6798 TTR0.490.33

16. 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

17. P.Bailey@uea.ac.uk

18. References 1. 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. 2. Beukelman, D. & Mirenda, P. (2005): Augmentative and Alternative Communication Supporting Children and Adults with Complex Communication Needs. Baltimore, Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Encyclopaedia Britannica (2009): ‘Speech’ Retrieved 19/03/09, from http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9108588. http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9108588 6. Argyle, M. (1975): Bodily Communication. London, Methuen & Co. Ltd.

19. References Cont’d… 7. Tomasello, M. (1995): Joint Attention as Social Cognition. In: Moore, C. & Dunham, P. (Eds) Joint Attention. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 103 – 133. 8. Flewitt, R. (2006): Using video to investigate preschool classroom interaction: education research assumptions and methodological practices. Visual Communication 5(1), 25-50. 9. Harris, D. (1982): Communicative interaction processes involving non-vocal physically handicapped children. Topics in Language Disorders, 2 (2), 21-37. 10. 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. 11. 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.