音声ブラウザご使用の方向け: SKIP NAVI GOTO NAVI

LEARNING AND USING LANGUAGE WITH UNITY(TM) AND BUILLD(TM) FOR THE ALPHATALKER(TM)

Linda S. Valot, M.A., CCC-SLP
Arlene L. Badman, M.A., CCC-SLP
Russell T. Cross, MRCSLT

Prentke Romich Company
1022 Heyl Road
Wooster, Ohio 44691

Web Posted on: November 22, 1997


Unity(TM) is a unified Minspeak(R) Application Program(TM) (MAP(TM)) series with a consistent set of icons, icon arrangement, and architecture (Badman and Baker, 1995). Unity/128 (Badman, Baker, Banajee, Cross, Lehr, Maro and Zucco, 1995) is the first of the series and Unity/AT (Cross, Badman, Baker, Jones, Lehr and Zucco, 1996) is the second. The plan is to continue developing additional vocabulary programs that will complement the system as a whole, but allow for change to other varieties. Consistent features will help to develop automaticity, minimize relearning, and make therapeutic intervention easier.

While MAPs have proven to be very successful in providing vocabulary for people who use Augmentative Communication (AC), therapeutic intervention in the past has been left up to the support team (e.g., parents, teachers, therapists) of the person using AC. Although some teams have easily incorporated the use of a communication device into their typical learning environments, others have found this task to be overwhelming. For this reason, BUILLD(TM), Bringing Unity into Language and Learning Development (Valot, 1995) was created. BUILLD is a collection of therapy materials being developed to teach the Unity series and enhance language development. BUILLD for Unity/128 (Valot, 1995) and BUILLD for Unity/AT (Valot, 1996) are the first and second in this collection.


UNITY/AT AND VOCABULARY

Since the standard memory of the AlphaTalker(TM) is limited to two-and-a-half minutes of speech, it was critical to provide a workable vocabulary. First, a number of published studies were examined to gather data for this vocabulary (cf. Cross, Badman and Valot, 1996). Second, the choice of words for the Unity/AT program was facilitated by the concepts of "core" versus "fringe" vocabulary.


CORE WORDS

For the purpose of this presentation, "core vocabulary" can be defined as frequently used words. The value of core words has been pointed out by a number of researchers. Bloom and Lahey (1978), for example, used a developmental approach to vocabulary selection. They said that an important consideration is:

"...the efficiency of a lexical item. Certain words, such as 'no' or 'more,' have broader application to objects and events than other words, such as 'cookie' or 'car,' and thus may be heard more often and will serve the child more frequently in his or her efforts to communicate...the more often a child is able to use a word in daily life the more opportunity the child will have for practice and reinforcement" (p.583).

If core words such as "no" or "more" are important for speaking children, then the presence of core vocabulary in AC systems may be a significant consideration for those using augmented communication as well. For instance, Adamson, Romski, Deffebach and Sevcik (1992) argued that when researchers design an augmentative system, "...they choose nouns such as names for foods and objects as first symbols because they are thought to be the easiest to acquire and to assess, and to be of considerable functional use to the individual" (p.1334). However, other high-frequency words such as "please," "want," "help" and "more" were omitted. In their work, such words were included on the communication boards of young males with moderate to severe mental retardation and frequency of use over a 2 year period was measured. It was found that initially, the individuals used non-nominals only 2% of the time; by the end of the first year, it was 23%, and by the end of the second year, it was 41% (against 46% nominals).

In a more recent article, Wilkinson, Romski and Sevcik (1994) looked at how youth with moderate to severe mental retardation were able to sequence symbols using "pivot" words (e.g., "more," "no," and "big"). Their subjects produced two- word sentences such as "want more," "want eat," and "more please." They argue that this may have implications:

"...for vocabulary selection when youth learn language through augmented means... If one goal of intervention includes advanced linguistic skills such as combinations, consideration must be accorded to the vocabulary that forms pivots for these combinations"(p.894).

FRINGE WORDS

In general, the vast majority of fringe words are nouns, which are highly variable. The challenge with nouns is that they are potentially infinite in number and tend to be situation-specific. It would be impossible to provide a set of nouns for a heterogeneous population using a device with memory limitations. Since individuals tend to have different noun needs, it was envisaged that these could be customized and that the main focus for Unity/AT needed be on core words.

In the absence of a noun, individuals can use other communication modes. This approach has been encouraged for individuals using augmentative communication (Vanderheiden and Lloyd, 1986). In a recent article, Blischak and Lloyd (1996) presented a single case study of an individual who used her VOCA for 21% of her communication needs, with gestures, pointing and facial expression accounting for 64%. These researches emphasize the point that to be an effective communicator, an individual has to have access to as many communication modalities as possible.

The team that designed Unity/AT suggests a similar approach. Since Unity/AT contains a core vocabulary, along with some basic nouns, it can be supplemented by other communication modes (e.g., manual boards, gestures, vocalizations). Given this approach, one might ask how to teach individuals using Unity/AT to learn and use language.


LEARNING AND USING LANGUAGE

BUILLD for Unity/AT shows how to use the core vocabulary in Unity/AT in combination with other communication modes. The curriculum provides a variety of activities for children to practice using core words. Since, by definition, core vocabulary consists of frequently used words, children using Unity/AT will have the opportunity to use these words again and again within and across each curriculum activity!

BUILLD for Unity/AT includes functional and motivating activities such as cooking, art, science experiments, reading, writing, and playing games. While these activities may include the use of specific vocabulary, they will also include the use of frequently-occurring core vocabulary. During these activities, clinicians can also encourage the use of a variety of pragmatic functions such as requesting, commenting, affirming/negating and protesting.

Listed below are sample activities, as well as example core words, fringe words and phrases that can be used to practice and reinforce language. Clinicians can also use such activity-based learning in combination with other therapy approaches (e.g., whole language, word retrieval) to help clients learn and use language (e.g., Elder, P. and Goosens', C., 1995; Leugers, K. and Staugler, K., 1995; Valot, L., 1995).

ACTIVITY CORE WORDS IN UNITY/AT FRINGE WORDS USING OTHER MODES PRACTICING LANGUAGE USING CORE AND FRINGE WORDS
Cooking want, need, turn, help, can, do, get, more, that, it, I, you, my, your bowl, spoon, knife, napkin, apple, banana turn it, I turn it, you turn it, turn it on, my turn, your turn, I can do it, I need help, I need bowl, I want banana, I want more
Art want, need, turn, help, more, that, it, I, you, my, your paper, crayon, green, purple get paper, turn it, I do it, you do it, my turn, your turn, I can do it, I need help, I need paper, I want green, I want more
Science want, need, like, turn, help, can, do, get, more, that, it, I, you, my, your water, paper, fishbowl, color, rainbow turn it, turn it more, I do it, you do it, my turn, your turn, I can do it, I need help, get water, I like rainbow, I want more
Reading want, need, turn, help, can, do, get, more, that, it, I, you, my, your book, page, read get book, turn it, turn it more, turn page, read it, read book, I do it, you do it, my turn, your turn, I need help, I want more
Writing want, need, turn, help, can, do, get, more, that, it, more, that, it, I, you, my, your paper, pen, crayon I need pen, get, that, get paper, turn it, I can do it, my turn, your turn, I need help, I want crayon, I want more
Playing want, need, can, do, go, get, more, that, it, I, you, my, your play, game, card I want play, play game, get that, turn it, my turn, your turn, get card, go get it, I need help, play more

Regardless of the exact combination of approaches a clinician chooses to use, providing clients with the opportunity to practice a core vocabulary across activities, in combination with specific vocabulary within activities, will help them experience the power of communication and build a foundation for further language growth.


REFERENCES

Adamson, L.B., Romski, M.A., Deffebach, K. and Sevcik, R.A. (1992). Symbol vocabulary and the focus of conversations: Augmenting language development for Youth with mental retardation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 1333-1343.

Badman, A.L. and Baker, B.R. (1995). A Unified Approach to Transition in Language Instruction. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Minspeak Conference, Wooster, Ohio: Prentke Romich.

Badman, A.L., Baker, B.R., Banajee, M., Cross, R.T., Lehr, J.S., Maro, J. and Zucco, M. (1995). Unity: A Minspeak Application Program. Wooster, OH: Prentke Romich.

Blischak, D.M. and Lloyd, L.L. (1996). Multimodal Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Case Study. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 12, 1, 37-46.

Bloom, L. and Lahey, M. (1978). Language development and language disorders. John Wiley and Sons: New York.

Cross, R.T., Badman, A.L., Baker, B.R., Jones, A.P., Lehr, J.S. and Zucco, M. (1996). Unity/AT: A Minspeak Application Program. Wooster, OH: Prentke Romich.

Cross, R.T., Badman, A.L. and Valot, L.S. (1996). BUILLDing on Unity: The next step. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Minspeak Conference, Wooster, Ohio: Prentke Romich.

Elder, P.S. and Goosens', C. (1994). Engineering Training Environments for Interactive Communications. Southeast Augmentative Communication Conference Publications. Clinician Series. 2430 11th Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35234

Leugers, K. and Staugler, K. (1995). LIFE: Learning Independence through Functional Experiences. Mayer-Johnson Co.

Valot, L.S. (1995). BUILLD for Unity/128: Curriculum Guide. Wooster, OH: Prentke Romich.

Valot, L. S., (1996). BUILLD for Unity/AT: Curriculum Guide. Wooster, OH: Prentke Romich.

Vanderheiden, G.C. and Lloyd, L.L. (1986). Communication systems and their components. In S.W. Blackstone (Ed.), Augmentative and Alternative Communication: An introduction, 49-161. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.

Wilkinson, K.M., Romski, M.A. and Sevcik, R.A. (1994). Emergence of visual-graphic symbol combinations by Youth with moderate or severe mental retardation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 883-895.