Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

Early communication strategies:
using video analysis to support teachers working with preverbal pupils

Carolyn Anderson
University Of Strathclyde, 76 Southbrae Drive, Glasgow
carolyn.anderson@strath.ac.uk

Introduction

Children with complex learning difficulties (CLD) are recognized to have special educational needs, which require effective provision in identification of needs, assessment, curriculum planning and learning goals. This research will examine the communication programmes for pupils at the earliest stages of communication development, functioning at or below the ‘two-words together’ level of language. At present, attainment for educational targets is measured by pupil-based criteria (Maskell et al, 2001). For this early stage of interaction, it is postulated that an additional method of measuring progress may be to consider the strategies teachers use to support communication.

Some of the challenges in communicating with pupils who are preverbal have been outlined by Bradley (1998) as

• Communication can be brief or overlooked
• Communication signals may be specific to an individual and difficult to interpret
• Some behaviours may appear random and it is difficult to identify which behaviours have communicative value

In a recent literature review of teaching strategies for pupils with special educational needs, Davis and Florian (2004) identified gaps in the literature. One of these gaps was measuring existing approaches in schools in terms of their timing and intensity. In daily communication, every interaction constitutes a potential teaching situation. The communication strategies of teachers working with children with complex needs have been highlighted in the past (Beveridge & Hurrell, 1980) but strategies currently tend to be associated with specific approaches such as the behaviourist methods of Lovaas (1987) or the presentation of multi-sensory exploration. More recently the recognition that strategies may be useful in focusing joint attention has been outlined by Clibbens et al (2002). McConkey et al (1999) have also used videotaped interactions to recommend changes to communication strategies to staff working with adults with learning disabilities.

Aims and Objectives

How do teachers communicate with children who are using minimal verbal communication? Are some teachers more successful in keeping the ‘conversation’ going and if so, how do they do it? If this is child-centre communication, what does it look like? The aim of the study, undertaken as part of a PhD thesis, was to develop a taxonomy that describes the communication between teachers and pupils by examining teacher-pupil interactions by video recording sessions. For the purposes of this paper, the coding would enable teachers to identify the cues and strategies they use in interaction with pupils who are communicating mainly non-verbally or with single words.

Methodology

Permission to work with teachers and pupils was obtained from two schools for children with moderate and complex learning difficulties. Eight teachers agreed to participate and chose which pupils and lessons they wished to be video taped. The teachers had a range of experience in working with pupils with learning difficulties from less than a year to more than 18 years experience. Ten pupils took part in the project. They ranged in age from 5 to 16 years old and all communicated mainly by non-verbal means and using less than 2 words together. Teachers were asked to show teacher-pupil interaction where language and communication targets were the focus of the session. Twenty-one video taped sessions were sampled purposively to identify strategies (Ghesquière et al 2004). Qualitative analysis was used to generate coding for strategies.

The video recorded interactions were transcribed for both verbal and non-verbal behaviours. Samples were between 2 and 5 minutes in length. The researcher then coded the transcripts for initiations and responses of teachers and pupils. The researcher was aware that a potential difficulty was researcher bias and monitored flexibility and openness in the analysis of material. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability was essential in refining the coding system. Some of the teachers coded their own videos to ensure confidentiality. In addition the author’s research supervisor re-coded some of the videos so that forty percent of the total sample was reviewed to ensure reliability. This was established following resolution of discrepancies by discussion and modification of categories. Teachers viewed their own video segments after analysis and had feedback from the researcher within 3 weeks of video taping to inform their teaching styles. Feedback focused on the types of strategies, initiations and responses for teachers and pupils.

A word count was completed for each sample. The number of words teachers used per utterance was counted and divided by the number of utterances to obtain an average number of words used per utterance. This is one indication of complexity but is insufficient to draw conclusions about the appropriateness of this strategy without considering amount of information in utterances. For the purposes of this study, the pupils’ level of understanding was based on number of information carrying words (ICW) understood (Masidlover & Knowles, 1982). The levels of pupil comprehension ranged from less than 1 ICW to 3 ICW. Teachers’ utterances were analysed for number of information carrying words used per sentence (see Appendix for examples). The average and range were calculated to ensure that information about more complex sentences was not lost in the mean score.

Results

Preliminary results have been analysed for three aspects of interaction. The first behaviour noted was the number of turns between teacher and pupil. The number for each participant is shown as a percentage of the total interaction turns. These have been further divided into initiations and responses in figure 2 below.

Figure 1 shows the percentages of teacher-pupil turns.

Figure 1: Percentages of teacher-pupil turns in intera ctions

The lowest number of teacher turns is shown where the teacher used intensive interaction principles. The highest number of teacher turns was for interactions where the teaching style could be described as ‘traditional’ with the teacher taking a dominant role in the conversation. This pattern it may be argued could be due to pupils’ passivity or because pupils required redirecting to tasks where their attention was fleeting. However, in Figure 2, a comparison of 2 pupils working with different teachers shows that at least in these cases, the teachers’ interaction styles determine how much of the conversation is shared.

Figure 2: (i) P9 interacting with T5

(ii) P9 interacting with T 8

A second aspect of interaction that has been evaluated was to identify the three most common strategies used by teachers and pupils in initiating and responding in interactions. Some examples of these are listed below in Figures 3 - 6.

Figure 3: Initiation strategies used by teachers

This figure shows that the highest occurrence of strategies to initiate an interaction for these teachers was by commenting or questioning, followed by gaining the pupil’s attention.

Figure 4: Response strategies used by teachers

This figure shows that the teachers used adding information, gaining attention, imitating a pupil’s behaviour or repeating/simplifying most frequently to respond in an interaction.

The three most common strategies used by pupils are shown in Figure 5. These pupils used showing interest, commenting and vocalising most frequently to initiate new topics in interactions.

Figure 5: Initiation strategies used by pupils

Figure 6 shows a range of pupil responses in interactions. The most frequently occurring strategies were showing interest, making an affective response and vocalising.

Figure 6: Response strategies used by pupils

Word Counts

The third aspect of interaction measured was the number of words teachers used when talking to pupils. This information is shown in relation to the pupils’ understanding of number of information carrying words in Figure 7. The range was from 0 words, for a teacher using intensive interaction techniques, to an average of 4 words with a teacher talking to a pupil who understood at a 2 ICW level. This data was further analysed for number of information carrying words teachers used, as average word counts may be appropriate if information is at 1-2 ICW levels. Even in the longer word average samples, teachers used 1-2 ICW levels.

Figure 7: Word counts showing average number of words used (range 0-13 words)

Discussion

The aim of the study was to identify the cues and strategies that teachers use in early intervention practice. Although further analysis is ongoing, preliminary findings have identified some strategies used by this sample of teachers in interaction with pupils who have CLD. From this data, commenting, questioning and gaining pupils’ attention were the three most common strategies used to initiate conversational interaction. Adding information, gaining attention, imitating a pupil’s verbal or non-verbal communication, and repeating/simplifying request were the most frequent behaviours when these teachers responded to pupils in interactions. The pupils in the sample initiated interactions by showing interest, commenting, and vocalising. Their most frequent responses were by showing interest, making an affective response, or by vocalising. Pupils’ behaviours were often subtle although teachers usually responded to them. Some teachers commented on behaviours they had not noticed during the interaction, but became aware of when viewing the video tapes of sessions. Using video analysis would be useful as a record of how pupils are communicating when a teacher is new to interacting with a pupil.  

A second finding from the data concerned the percentages of teacher-pupil turns in conversations. The range of percentages showed that ‘traditional’ teaching styles tended to dominate conversations, while teachers using intensive interaction techniques routinely used less than 50% of conversational turns as they followed pupils’ leads in interaction. Conversational analysis also showed the number of initiations and responses of teachers and pupils. This information could highlight those pupils who are mainly passive communicators, where teachers may target more active roles by modifying their own interaction styles. Similarly teachers may aim to extend the functions of communication if pupils are restricted in the types of communication they normally use.

For language learners, understanding of language is facilitated if the teacher uses a language level that is slightly above the level the learner is able to understand (Snow, 1977).   At < 1ICW the teacher used intensive interaction and no words. This non-verbal communication seems appropriate for a pupil who does respond to sensory stimulation and recognises some familiar people and well-known routines. For pupils who understood 1 ICW, the range of average word counts was from 1.7 words to 3.5. At 2 ICW level, the range of average word counts was between 2.3 and 4 words. Teachers who used higher average word counts used 2-3 ICW and additional non-verbal cues to help pupils understand verbal information. At three ICW level, the range for word averages was between 2.2 and 3.2 words. However at this level, the teacher did not use non-verbal cues unless the pupil failed to understand verbal information. The teacher routinely used two to three ICW sentences in interaction with this child. Word counts show that teachers were adapting their language levels successfully to match the child’s level of understanding. At levels up to 2 ICW, teachers normally used non-verbal cues to draw pupils’ attention to objects referred to verbally.

The coding system could be used as a practical tool for reflecting on practice in relation to use of strategies. In this way it has the potential to highlight changes in the teachers’ own communication over time. This raises the question of how aware teachers are of the strategies they use. How far is it possible for them to apply these strategies in a conscious way, that is, to self-monitor their performance? With greater knowledge of possible strategies, would teachers use more strategies or perceive themselves to be using more? Are these two possible changes the same if measured; that is, are teachers’ perceptions about strategy use accurate?

Coding could also be used to evaluate changes in pupils’ communication and progress in achieving communication targets. Using detailed video analysis has provided a useful method of understanding the more subtle signs of communication that may be used in preverbal communication.

Summary

This project was designed to support teachers working with children who have severe and complex learning difficulties. Video recordings were made of teacher-pupil interaction to identify strategies teachers use to encourage language and communication. The aim was to help teachers recognise strategies from their own practice. These identified strategies could then be incorporated into the IEP target framework as an additional means of evaluating pupils’ progress in achieving communication targets.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank the teachers and pupils in the schools for their patience and co-operation. For reasons of confidentiality, the schools cannot be named. Special thanks are also due to Karen Moodie for her sensitive expertise in making the video recordings.  

Appendix

At two ICW level, the pupil needs to understand 2 key words in the sentence. For example; a pupil was shown a teddy and dolly alongside a hat and a bag. The teacher said ‘That’s teddy’s hat’ and the pupil picked the hat and put it on teddy. In this case, the pupil had to choose between teddy/dolly and hat/bag to follow the information. If the teacher had picked up the teddy and asked ‘Where is teddy’s hat?’ The pupil would only have to understand ‘hat’ to choose the correct item.

References

Beveridge, M. Hurrell, P (1980) Teachers’ responses to severely mentally handicapped children’s initiations in the classroom. Child Psychology   and Psychiatry. 21: 175-181.

Bradley H. Assessing and Developing Successful Communication. In Lacey, P, Ouvry, C. (Eds) (1998) People with Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities. London: David Fulton.

Clibbens, J; Powell, G.G; Atkinson, E. (2002) Strategies for achieving joint attention when signing to children with Down syndrome. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders. 37(3):309-323

Davis, P. & Florian, L. (2004) Teaching strategies and approaches for pupils with special educational needs: a scoping study. Nottingham: DfES Publications.

Ghesquiere P, Maes B, Vandenberghe, R (2004) The usefulness of qualitative case studies in Research on Special Needs Education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. 51: (2) 172-84.

Lovaas, O. (1987) Behavioural treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. J Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 55: 3-9.

McConkey R, Morris I, Purcell M (1999) Communications between staff and adults with intellectual disabilities in naturally occurring settings. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 43 (3): 194-205.

Masidlover, M. & Knowles, W. (1982). Derbyshire Language Scheme. Derbyshire: Psychology Dept.

Maskell, S., Watkins, F., Hayworth, E. & Brown, E. (2001). Baseline Assessment, Curriculum and Target Setting. London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd.

Snow, C. Mothers’ speech research: From input to interaction. In C. Snow, C. Ferguson (Eds) (1977) Talking to Children: Language Input and Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact