Figure 3. Sequence Screen, “Drink”
ciency barriers. It is also not to say that we completely negated morphology and syntax in our teachings. We continued to use correct grammar when we spoke and provided accurate spoken language models. Additionally, I am also not suggesting that one must give up morphology and syntax for generative language, but simply that we needed to weigh it against the efficiency cost. We decided to forgo having various verb tenses, superlatives, and plural nouns readily available in Douglas’ language system, as it would have increased the amount of hits required for him to say a single word or taken up valuable real-estate. We instead went with the base forms of all words with the acceptance that his expressions may not always look pretty, but certainly still got his point across. When combined with partner assisted auditory scan- ning, we have been able to clarify and communicate with Douglas when his messages may have multiple meanings depending on context, or work with him to add additional words for more specif- ic meaning and understanding. We did not completely take away the option to conjugate verbs, create superlatives, or plurals, but moved these function buttons into a page that was not compet- ing for prime real estate. The system we created for Douglas, with further customization, could also have morphological features in a similar way that CoreScanner™ has added them to their most complex user area. Douglas’ language system provides an example of another
way that creating and arranging language systems could be suc- cessful. We are growing as a field in the products we are putting out for auditory scanners, however, I would argue a single one still is not ideal for all users. When I am working with auditory scan- ners I continue to take the characteristics of Douglas’ language system in mind to more adequately fit the auditory and motor planning needs of persons using auditory scanning. I continue to use Douglas’ system as an option for other users. Just like choos- ing between Unity®, LAMP™, Word Power™, Snap+Core, or other language systems on the market, I continue to make the same feature matching decisions when considering Douglas’ system, an out-of-the box system and/or customizing them. References Sementelli, C., Bishop, M., Duvall, H., & Alverson, A. (2012, Octo- ber). Give Me a C(L)UE: Reworking our Beliefs about What Individ- uals who Use Auditory Scanning Need in a Communication and Language Set. Presented at 30th Annual Closing the Gap Confer- ence, Minnapolis, MN. Van Tatenhove, G. (n.d.). Core Vocabulary with Generative-In- dependent Communicators in Inclusive Classrooms. Retrieved from http://www.vantatenhove.com/files/handouts
7
June / July, 2019 | www.closingthegap.com/membership Closing The Gap © 2019 Closing The Gap, Inc. All rights reserved.
BACK TO CONTENTS
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator