‘I just stopped pushing’
Change in a mother’s practices in aided conversations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.25794Keywords:
speech-generating device, video-based intervention, change study, conversation analysis, communication partnerAbstract
Background: Previous studies have demonstrated that communication partner training is an effective means to alter the use of communication aids. Partners use many types of facilitative strategies and practices during aided interaction. Despite the study findings, communication aids are often unused, and communication partners feel that using them is challenging.
Aim and method: This article describes the positive change that occurs in a mother’s practices during aided conversation with her son after a video-based intervention. The research method is conversation analysis.
Results: The analysis demonstrates how before the intervention, the mother pushed her son to use a speech-generating device, and how after the intervention she facilitated his use of the device by using it together with her son, and by positioning herself as an equal conversationalist who shared her thoughts.
Conclusion: The results of this study contribute to a deeper understanding of different communication partner practices and offer new ideas for updating the general recommendations for facilitating aided conversations.
References
Adair, B., Ullenhag, A., Keen, D., Granlund, M., and Imms, C. (2015). The effect of interventions aimed at improving participation outcomes for children with disabilities: A systematic review. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 57, 1093–1104. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12809
Andzik, N. R., Chung, Y.-C., and Kranak, M. P. (2016). Communication opportunities for elementary school students who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 32(4), 272–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2016.1241299
Beeke, S., Beckley, F., Best, W., Johnson, F., Edwards, S., and Maxim, J. (2013). Extended turn construction and test question sequences in the conversations of three speakers with agrammatic aphasia. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 27(10–11), 784–804. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2013.808267
Beukelman, D. R., and Mirenda, P. (2013). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Clarke, M. (2016). Co-construction, asymmetry, and multimodality in children’s conversations. In. M. Smith and J. Murray (Eds.), The silent partner? Language, interaction and aided communication (pp. 177–198). Guildford: J & R Press Limited.
Clarke, M., and Wilkinson, R. (2007). Interaction between children with cerebral palsy and their peers 1: Organizing and understanding VOCA use. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(4), 336–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610701390350
Cross, J., and Kennedy, H. (2013). Miten ja miksi videoavusteinen vuorovaikutuksen ohjaus toimii? [How and why does video-based guiding of interaction work?]. In N. Mellenius and N. Remsu (Eds.) Vuorovaikutus Kuvassa [Interaction in pictures] (pp. 122–145). Helsinki: Mannerheimin Lastensuojeluliiton Lasten ja Nuorten Kuntoutusäätiö.
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.
Grosse, G., and Tomasello, M. (2012). Two-year-old children differentiate test questions from genuine questions. Journal of Child Language, 39(1), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000910000760
Higginbotham, D. J., and Wilkins, D. P. (1999). Slipping through the timestream: Social issues of time and timing in augmented interactions. In D. Kovarsky, M. Maxwell, and J. F. Duchan (Eds.), Constructing (in)competence: disabling evaluations in clinical and social interaction (pp. 49–82). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219–248). New York: Academic Press.
Kent-Walsh, J., Murza, K. A., Malani, M. D., and Binger, C. (2015). Effects of communication partner instruction on the communication of individuals using AAC: A meta-analysis. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31(4), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2015.1052153
Lampenius, A. (2023). Puheterapeutin strategiat tukea kommunikoinnin apuvälineen käyttöä leikkivuorovaikutuksessa [Speech and language therapist’s strategies to support using an SGD in play interaction]. Master’s thesis, University of Helsinki.
Levinson, S. (1992). Activity types and language. In J. Heritage and P. Drew (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 66–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004
Moorcroft, A., Scarinci, N., and Meyer, C. (2020). ‘We were just kind of handed it and then it was smoke bombed by everyone’: How do external stakeholders contribute to parent rejection and the abandonment of AAC systems? International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 55(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12502
Savolainen, I. (2014). TAIKE 2.0. Käyttöopas [User’s guide]. Espoo: Kehitysvammaliitto.
Savolainen, I. (2020). Co-constructing structure and social action of aided turn in everyday conversations. Dissertation, University of Helsinki.
Savolainen, I., Klippi, A., Tykkyläinen, T., Higginbotham, J., and Launonen, K. (2020). The structure of participants’ turn-transition practices in aided conversations that use speech-output technologies. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 36(1), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2019.1698654
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208
Schlosser, R. W. (2004). Goal attainment scaling as a clinical measurement technique in communication disorders: A critical review. Journal of Communication Disorders, 37(3), 217–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2003.09.003
Sennott, S. C., Light, J. C., and McNaughton, D. (2016). AAC modeling intervention research review. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41(2), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916638822
Sigurd Pilesjö, M., and Norén, N. (2017). Teaching communication aid use in everyday conversation. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 33(3), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659017702204
Sigurd Pilesjö, M., and Norén, N. (2021). Facilitators’ use of a communication device following children’s aided turns in everyday interaction. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 10(1), 67–98. https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.19318
Sigurd Pilesjö, M. S., and Rasmussen, G. (2011). Exploring interaction between a non-speaking boy using aided AAC and his everyday communication partners: Features of turn organizing and turn design. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 2(2), 183–213. https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.v2i2.183
Smith, M. (2003). Environmental influences on aided language development: The role of partner adaptation. In. S. von Tetzchner and N. Grove (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: Developmental issues (pp. 155–175). London: Whurr.
Soto, G., Clarke, M. T., Nelson, K., Starowicz, R., and Savaldi-Harussi, G. (2020). Recast type, repair, and acquisition in AAC mediated interaction. Journal of Child Language, 47(s.1), 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000919000436
Stevanovic, M., and Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
Stivers, T., Mondada, L., and Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality, and affiliation in social interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, and J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 3–24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002
Tegler, H., Demmelmaier, I., Johansson, M. B., and Norén, N. (2021). Mobilizing device-mediated contributions in interaction involving beginner users of eye-gaze-accessed speech-generating devices. Research on Children and Social Interaction, 5,(2), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.19764
Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208895
TENK (2019). The ethical principles of research with human participants and ethical review in the human sciences in Finland. In I. Kohonen, A. Kuula-Luumi, and S.-K. Spoof (Eds.), Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK guidelines. Helsinki: TENK. Retrieved 28 April 2023 from https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2021-01/Ethical_review_in_human_sciences_2020.pdf
VISK – Auli Hakulinen, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho (Eds.) (2004). Iso suomen kielioppi [Big Finnish grammar]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Retrieved 25 February 2023 from http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk
Von Tetzchner, S., and Martinsen, H. (1996). Words and strategies: Conversations with young children who use aided language. In S. von Tetzchner and M. H. Jensen (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: European perspectives (pp. 65–88). London: Whurr.
