Research

[Zemanski]

but surely the term 'inappropriate' allows for cultural bias, Lucas - what is appropriate for one culture is not appropriate for another - if the criteria said poor or no eye contact then yes, we would have a problem but inappropriate means you can compare people with their own cultural norms

 

Zemanski

[call me jaded]

This one was the first one I read Ze:

 

Greenspan, S.I. & Wieder, S. (1998). The Child with Special Needs: Intellectual and Emotional Growth. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman.

 

There's a fairly thorough overview here:

 

http://www.autcom.org/behaviorism.html

 

And you can hear his rather rambling but thought-provoking weekly radio presentations, complete with technical glitches, here:

 

http://www.floortime.org/radio/

[Kathryn]

but surely the term 'inappropriate' allows for cultural bias, Lucas - what is appropriate for one culture is not appropriate for another - if the criteria said poor or no eye contact then yes, we would have a problem but inappropriate means you can compare people with their own cultural norms

 

Zemanski

Interesting points raised here. "Inappropriate" is a very loaded word - who gets to be the judge and which particular cultural norms do they base their judgement of "appropriateness" on, particularly in such a diverse country as ours?

 

K

[Zemanski]

good point but at least it does allow for more than one culture to be considered - as Lucas points out it is the 'norm' in some cultures to look away, some cultures use lowered eyes as a mark of respect while white britain shouts 'look at me while I'm talking to you' at it's children.

 

Ideally a person should be assessed by someone from their own culture who understands eye contact, and obviously other behavioural characteristics, within that culture but I would think that doesn't happen in Britain much. I have met 2 asian specialists, I don't suppose there are very many who aren't white middle class.

why were they seeing us when there must be plenty of people from their own cultures to see and is it politically correct to limit consultants to seeing only people from their own cultures and anyway whose culture were they trained in and do they even know that the cultural differences in eye contact are significant .....?

 

Thanks for the link, Jaded

 

Zemanski

Edited September 23, 2005 by Zemanski

[Kathryn]

Yup, its a minefield! In our society no eye contact = shifty = something to hide. I used to travel a lot with my dad (suspected AS). Now I realise why we were always stopped at customs.

[Zemanski]

just had an odd thought - when I did my teacher training (20 years ago) I was taught about cultural differences in eye contact and specifically about the way muslim children are expected to lower their eyes when being told off (eye contact = disrespect) which would be considered rude in a white child because eye contact = attention

 

now, I worked quite recently in a very multicultural school which takes primarily overseas university student's kids, many of whom ae muslim and they arrive complete with the downcast eyes when disciplined.

 

But I have been observing the behaviour of kids from different cultures in Com's high school where most of the kids are british born and most of the muslim girls still do the lowered eye thing but most of the boys certainly do not. And I noticed that the teachers, most of whom are white, accept the eye contact as normal - are they actually encouraging the children to be insolent by accepting this rather than expecting the child to use the cultural sign of respect?

 

could get really tied up in that one

 

Zemanski

Edited September 24, 2005 by Zemanski

[nellie]

Primine,

 

I too agree with Alphazebra, you really seem to care about the children you work with.

 

I haven?t had time to read the whole of this thread but would just like to say that most of my understanding about autism has come from reading books written by people with autism, from members of my family who are autistic, and from the autistic community on this and other forums.

 

Regarding eye contact. I have been married 28 years today and only recently found out that my husband looks at my mouth, not my eyes and I never noticed!!

 

Nellie xx

[Kathryn]

Hmm - I suppose the children are just adapting their behaviour to match the teacher's expectations, and as long as they are indicating respect in other ways it doesn't count as insolence.

 

Off on another tangent - This eye contact thing actually cost my daughter some marks in her grade 5 singing exam. She sang very well but was penalised for not looking at the examiner and afterwards he remarked to her teacher that he found it difficult to engage her. At the time we were ASD newbies - in fact she was still undiagnosed - and we only found out later that there are official guidelines about ASD for music examiners.

[Alphazebra]

Its actually quite surprising how much NT's rely on eye contact to convince them that someone is paying attention. As if intelligent vocal responses or appropriate actions are not enough ;-). I have to say sometimes this whole eye contact thing does become quite stressful simply because I'm paranoid of offending people.

 

Its crazy isn't it. I'm so worried about offending other people that I actively and conciously do something which stresses me even more - attempt to maintain some degree of eye contact. Now if thats not perverse then nothing is.

[Zemanski]

luke Jackson said something in one of his early things, when Com was first diagnosed, about looking at ears or mouths, so I taught him to look at ears - he finds the movement of mouths off-putting.

I'm not sure if he still does it but his eye contact doesn't stand out so much unless he's under stress.

 

Just told my NT daughter, who deliberately posted the key to Com's money box into it - 'you put it in, getting it out is your responsibility, you know how to pick a lock, go and do it!'

 

what the hell have I been teaching her

 

Zemanski

[Lucas]

On Muslim boys:

 

Yes this will lead to a White British teacher being unable to accurately interprete the body langauge of Arab British student, they will think the eye-contact is politeness but the students may actually be being defiant. I don't really think being respectful in other ways changes this; Autism Society Canada seems to think it can demean Autistics all it wants just as long as it's respectful in (a few) other ways.

 

I'm not a rabid right-winger, but multiculturalism doesn't work! Interculturalism does, but relies on many people learning and understanding other cultures intergrated into one society. The Jewish community is a good example of a group which is intergrated but still has it's own culture.

[something vague]

I have read most of this thread, but not all. I just had to post to say how excited I am that people are mentioning Intensive Interaction in a positive light. I use II at the school that I work at. I find it a brilliant way to work with our autistic, teenage pupils with severe learning difficulties. It is a totally relaxed method which is liberating to the 'teacher' as well as the pupil. It is great to be in a position where everyday social rules are put on hold and the focus is on getting to know each other and having fun. If that includes hand flapping, shouting, spinning objects all the better.

 

On the subject of eye contact, I would never force or insist on eye contact. I think that everyone has their own comfort level and it is up to the individual to find their own. What is important is that we trust each other enough to know that even without eye contact people can attend to each other.

 

Lucus, I think that, when it comes to cultural differences, acceptance is the key. I've never heard the term 'interculturism' but I think it sounds more appropriate than multiculturism which sounds like we've all been thrown together and just need to get on with it.

[Zemanski]

hi Something Vague

 

(did you know we have another member called something else? - one of my very favourite books!)

 

we don't know a great deal about II, I think I'm the only one who's even come across it before and that was entirely by chance - I wanted to meet someone doing the workshop so I went along

 

so if you can expand our minds on the subject and put me right on any misconceptions, I would be very pleased to find out more

 

I like II both as a parent and as a professional, for once we appear to be approaching things from the same directon

 

because I see the behaviour problems in children with autism as largely stress induced it feels right to use therapies that reduce the stress rather than aim to manage the behaviour

[bid]

More on eye contact (poor Primine...bet you wish you'd never mentioned it! )

 

I work in a residential setting with students (16 to 19) who have severe epilepsy and related special needs, very many of them being autistic too.

 

I don't know about the school end, but in the home units we make no issue about eye contact at all. Our students are just accepted for who they are, and the same goes for stims (although we do gently comment if it's hand biting, etc).

 

I've never seen any mention of 'correcting' eye contact in any of the care plans or IEPs for the school end.

 

To be honest, I don't even notice the students eye contact or stims very much...we focus on them as individuals.

 

Bid

 

Mind you, I'm not saying we're always perfect in the way we do our job!

[bid]

Oh dear, I hope we haven't scared Primine away...

 

Bid

[Primine]

Hello and sorry all... I am still here and will do my best to reply and carry on the conversation, but like I said... it's me against the world and there is much to say! I don't have time to read it all right now, but I am planning on it tomorrow. Hope you all don't miss me too much...

[Zemanski]

we need you to keep us going, Primine

 

there are so many fascinating ideas floating around this thread - we love you dearly even when we're off on our hobby horses

 

 

 

Zemanski <'>

[something vague]

Hi Zamanski,

 

I think that your earlier post about Intensive Interaction was spot on. I tend to use it with non verbal pupils with severe learning dificulties, but in the past I have joined in with verbal pupils in the play ground. One particular boy had amazing ideas for stories which he liked to act out but found it difficult to find others who would pretend play with him. At the risk of looking foolish, I joined in his super hero games, his 'love shop' games (dont ask) and of course I was a brilliant witch when his thoughts turned to halloween. I think that this lad benefitted by becoming less stressed, more able to approach adults and his tone of voice changed. At first he used to croak and I had trouble understanding him.

 

Zamanski what misconceptions do you think you have. If anyone is interested, I'll describe the basics of II. I've just completed a module on it for my university course, got a prety good mark so I'm full of it

[something vague]

got to send my apologies, I've just realised I've spell Lucas and Zemanski wrong. Sorry.

[barefoot wend]

There is an article about II in the Sunday Telegraph.

 

I found it very interesting. For once it doesn't sound like a method offering a 'miracle' cure but a way to encourage communication.

 

Further it is not just for children and sounds pretty non-invasive.

 

Barefoot

[Zemanski]

SV, glad you think I've picked up the essence, I really did have just a two hour workshop for parents (must have been an excellent workshop) but perhaps my background understanding of autism gave me the insight I needed to see the bigger picture.

If I have misconceptions then I don't know what they would be because they are misconceptions

 

I really would love to learn more, I can cope with as much detail as you like - you could PM me if you want.

 

Years ago, I was given a class to work with because there was a child who nobody could cope with and I was willing to give it a try.

(The child - adult now - now has a diagnosis of HFA).

He was extremely bright but nobody had discovered how to get him to achieve on paper, his behaviour was erratic and puzzling, sometimes violent and he communicated with nobody but me.

 

I managed to figure out a lot about this boy, and found him very rewarding to teach (he could write at level 5 at 5 years old if the task was presented in the right way and he was fascinating)

 

but of all the things I did with him, looking back on it all, I am sure the time I spent in the playground with him was the most satisfying.

 

All I did was set up follow my leader, turn taking, when I was on playground duty.

We started one to one with me copying him until one day he looked at me and said, 'your turn'.

given that he didn't normally make eye contact or ask for anything at all, I recognised that this was a major turning point for him.

 

by the end of the year he could play follow my leader with another child and was beginning to build a relationship.

 

I suppose I was doing II with him!

 

Part of the reason I'm enjoying this thread is that it is getting me to think about my professional practice and the ethics behind it. I am just about to start a PGC in AS (that's a post graduate teaching certificate, Primine) after a couple of years out of education caring for Com and this is a really good toner for all the thinking I'm going to have to do!

 

it's the NAS accredited training based at Hallam university (the course is run at different venues around the country - this term is at Newcastle) - anyone else done it/ going to do it?

 

Oh, and before I forget, Bid, I've seen an IEP that included making eye contact, same kid I was just talking about. At the time I didn't know any better than to comply with it but I did notice very quickly that he couldn't talk if he was looking at me so I only asked for a glance to signify attention and never tried to push it further (seem to remember getting into trouble with the senco on that one as she said he had to be forced to maintain it).

Haven't seen one since and I wouldn't accept one now if I was given it - mind you, nobody would dare give me an IEP these days - I write them myself

 

Zemanski

[Zemanski]

nice article, backs up what I was saying about the video and so heartening that someone can put it into such effective practice with only a little training

 

as the article says - it seems too easy

 

but I think, in fact, it is just so natural that it is easy to understand once someone points out the concept

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...9/25/naut25.xml

 

 

Zemanski

Edited September 25, 2005 by Zemanski

[call me jaded]

That's another one to add to my reading list, then.

 

Finding You, Finding Me, by Phoebe Caldwell (Jessica Kingsley Publishers, �13.99)

[something vague]

That's a really nice article, not too over the top with 'miracle cure' type comments. I love II and it is so simple. Zamenski, I would say you were using the II method when playing with the boy in the playground. Some people a just naturals and it is in fact a very natural method of communication.

 

I think that the article describes II well but I think its really important to accept if a child wishes to stop and look for signs that he/she's had enough. I think that that is the essence of II. Only mirror the child if they show that they're open to it otherwise you just create confusion and frustration. We set up II sessions with our pupils but abandon them as soon as they show that they've had enough. The best II moments are the spontaneous ones where both parties are open to having some fun.

 

Some literature on II

 

By far the best, most straight forward guide to II:-

 

Nind, M. and Hewett, D. (2001) A Practical Guide to Intensive Interaction. Kidderminster: BILD.

 

 

A useful factsheet with basic info:-

Nind M and Hewett D. (2002) BILD factsheet, Intensive Interaction. www.bild.org.uk

 

A more indepth look at the history of II, its uses and some observations and data:-

 

Nind, M. and Hewett D. (2001a) Access to Communication. London: Fulton. p6, p18, p154.

 

 

Zemanski, I'll pm you a copy of my essay on II if you like. Its part of a portfollio which includes a case study but I'm a bit unsure of sending that without a parents permission (even though the child is not identified). I'm just a beginner at this academic stuff so it probably will seem a bit amatuerish to you. Just let me know if you think it will be useful.

SV

[Zemanski]

yes, please, SV

 

PS. Nemo's almost got sorted

 

Zemanski

[nightingales]

Hi all,

my 9-yr-old's IEP (supposed to be reviewed next week, but clashed with school trip to war museum, oh joy) has as its first target 'Make agreed and increasing number of eye contacts within given period (LSA to count these)'.

 

C's father goes on and on at him about it too ('Look at me... no, look at me,' generally followed by 'Don't stare at me like that, it's rude').

 

 

AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH!

L

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Zemanski]

hopefully, you've got some amunition from us to help you persuade them to change their focus now

 

Zemanski

[Zemanski]

bad pun

 

Zemanski

[nightingales]

Yep, let's see if we can see eye to eye on this... no, sorry, let's make that 'look at it from his point of view'!

Thanks!

L

[Zemanski]

by George, you did it, SV

 

come back, Primine, we're really losing the thread here

 

Z

[Primine]

Just when you thought the carnage was over... the thread returns from the dead. Sorry it took some time guys, but I?ve been doing this on my free time and it takes hours to read, comprehend and respond to all the posts! I am considering printing it all off and leaving it in my office so that my colleagues can comment (many have much more experience than I)

 

 

First some general points to clear up:

 

We don?t FORCE eye contact. We reward it, so that it happens more frequently. If the child performs and demonstrates they are learning the skill without eye contact that is just as good. We don?t require eye contact most of the time. We just need to know that they are involved with us. Eye contact is a key indicator of attention, but if we are sure the child is attending even without making eye contact that is just as acceptable. The fact of the matter is that time and time again the children learn more, retain more, and perform better if they are involved throughout the session. I am not saying that all children will indeed do better if they had been making eye contact, I am saying that every child I have come across has done better in each lesson if they had been making eye contact, looking at the task, sitting, or had hands ready. IBI is incredibly flexible however. If a child did not perform better under such conditions we really would have no trouble letting them do their own thing. If they are learning (and not disrupting the environment outside the tolerance level) then there is no problem. Eye contact is just one of many ways of getting the child to attend us again if they had stopped. It is not a requirement.

 

I never actually said that we should take away a child?s comforters. I was saying that as they grow older we should try to transition from one comforter to a more appropriate one, and most of you actually repeated this point. There is nothing wrong with comforters, and in fact often should be encouraged as a healthy outlet for all sorts of inner workings. But some comforters simply don?t work. For example a child who cannot release his mother?s hand for more than 30 seconds outside the house will have a wealth of troubles if something were to happen to the mother, or when the child needs to start going out on his own. The point I was trying to get at with my comment was that if an counter-productive stim is used as a comforter, then we need not remove it if it is possible to transition it to something more functional.

 

We start at the same point with all kids. We take them and assume they can do nothing and probe for a couple weeks a HUGE range of skills to find out exactly where they are developmentally speaking. We then pick up from there, using that data as the baseline.

 

With the cultural points on inappropriateness: I think you are all correct on the danger of the word, the connotation it is used, and the intent with which it is used. I believe that cultural differences should be embraced and understood by everyone, especially those in an educational position. �And I noticed that the teachers, most of whom are white, accept the eye contact as normal - are they actually encouraging the children to be insolent by accepting this rather than expecting the child to use the cultural sign of respect?� I think you would need to ask the children if they understand the cultural difference themselves, and what is going on with them.

 

From everything I am reading on II it seems to be VERY similar to IBI, more similar than I had initially thought. You out there who have researched and hate ABA, which parts of ABA do you disagree with and aren?t present in II?

 

ARTICLE MATERIAL

 

The article Jaded posted �Greenspan, S.I. & Wieder, S. (1998). The Child with Special Needs: Intellectual and Emotional Growth. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman� shows a very strong and solid opposing model to current early intervention. It coincides and diverts from our model at various parts. It cannot be used strictly to determine which model is better. Also the article mentions some of the problems with early intervention that I cannot explain because they don?t exist in our model (ie. The exclusion of parents)

There's a fairly thorough overview here:

http://www.autcom.org/behaviorism.html�

 

This is why we encourage peer play at least once a session:

�If the child is not helped to find manageable, rewarding interactions, he or she will begin to "shut down" the baffling environmental input and a form of self-imposed sensory deprivation will begin to set in.�

 

From the same article: �The typical newborn learns to regulate its sensory system and shows interest in the world.� This is what I was saying when I said �observe their environment in it's entirety�; it is important for children to be taking in their environment at an early age. They need to absorb what is out there.

 

Also: �For example, instead of signaling to Mommy that she wants to have the toy or cookie that's out of reach, the child may withdraw, become perseverative, or tantrum while the parent searches desperately for the unconveyed reason.� This is why we focus a great deal on teaching communicative skills (PECs, signing, verbal)

 

�Finally, if there is a discrepancy between what the parents say about the child and what the observer sees, this needs investigation. In order to intervene productively, parents and professionals must come to a shared view of the child.� This is why we encourage family involvement and to attend clinical meetings and the sessions we have with their children.

 

�Drawing on his vast clinical experience, Greenspan finds that as much as 50% of the group presenting with severe relationship, communication, motor, sensory and cognitive difficulties -- that group typically labeled with autism/PDD -- is actually "ready to take off." With appropriate relationship-based therapy this group will respond with surprising speed to play, will become joyful, and will learn to cue off their own affect rather than off artificial prompts or rewards.� Here is a major point of divergence. IBI uses a combination. We used relationship-based therapy with (at times) prompts and rewards.

 

Kathryn

 

I understand that his behaviour can be a distraction in the classroom but that's the teacher's problem - a classroom management issue - not my son's. I certainly don't view it as a problem to be eradicated.

 

I could not disagree more. A teacher?s problem is everybody?s problem. Problem behavior needs to be eradicated because it is a PROBLEM. If a NT child was disrupting a class in any number of ways should we let it continue because it?s the teacher?s problem, or should we try to change their behavior? It?s not an attack on who they are. It?s an effort to teach them the rules, norms and boundaries. If a stim is extremely disruptive to everyone else, because we are working on inclusion into the mainstream, we need to find out why they are stimming and then find other, less disturbing alternatives (perhaps if possible something more constructive?)

 

With your child being docked marks for looking while singing? that is a serious problem in my opinion. In a formal concert presentation you may be expected to look forward, just as in a marching band all members must step the same time, for the synchronization and appearance. That point should not be evaluated in a school setting; I firmly believe the knowledge is more important than presentation in schools.

 

Alphazebra

 

Thank you for your insight on the various reasons why you stim and what you think as you make eye contact. I think the difference is that these children, even if they are uncomfortable, learn more when they do make eye contact. We don?t demand it every instruction. In my experience if a child is getting the same instructions incorrect, especially if they have already been mastered, asking the child to make eye contact or �sit ready� that will suddenly provoke correct answers. If the child NEVER looks at us, or even what he is doing, and is learning all the same then that is just as good.

 

Zemanski

 

I think that is something I maybe haven?t made quite clear about IBI. It is EXTREMELY flexible. It does start with general guidelines and approaches but it does adapt to the children. That is one of the benefits of our ?one on one? approach. Autism, as you said, has its good and bad sides. We aren?t trying to �cure� autism and take away the good parts. We are simply trying to minimize the bad parts to make life more comfortable for the children. We aren?t trying to make them �look like everyone else� by taking away what makes them different or special, we are trying to help include them better with societies laws, rules, and general norms. I think this is where we agree. We need to teach children the skills to get along in society, but society should also demonstrate more flexibility and tolerance and acceptance. I think that was a marvelous way to deal with the comfort blanket, but what if the �comforter� is a vocal stim like screaming as loud as possible? I agree that we should look for a compromise where possible.

 

I don?t know why you would consider a problem with early intervention to be that it is used early. It is a system to be used if we were lucky enough for early diagnosis. If there is a late diagnosis (as I am noticing is quite common from the poll) then there needs to exist another system for that, not a reform to the system in place for another group.

 

 

bid

 

�Perhaps the reason eye contact is difficult for children being 'programmed', is because the 'programming' is intrinsically stressful?�

 

Of course this is possible. But it isn?t difficult to get the child to make eye contact. They just got distracted. They are children. They get distracted. We all do. Hell? I do more than any kid I have ever seen. Most often they are just temporarily distracted and needed a reminder of what is going on.

 

 

Lucas

 

You have made some very excellent points. Within your homosexuality analogy you expressed concern that behaviorists are targeting dysfunctional, maladaptive or inappropriate behaviors that they should not be. Could you tell me which ones?

 

And no, an Autistic can not be distracted by a stim, period. If it's a stress-related stim, they are being distracted by the irritant stimuli which they are trying to get relief by stimming?

 

I agree and disagree. I agree that it makes complete sense that they are not being distracted by the stim, the stim is a response to a distracter. I still disagree that an autistic person cannot be distracted by a stim. If their stim, while automatic, also requires their complete involvement (running back in forth the length of the room) they may not be able to concentrate on anything else or if the stim is more rewarding than paying attention (if the stimulation of the visual receptors from staring at a light is more exciting than looking at anything else) the child has no reason to stop so long as the light is there. (and while we established that a child can learn without making eye contact or directly at an item I don?t see how you can teach the child which animal is the cow if they won?t look at it at all). How would you teach a child to pick up food and eat if the sensation of air rushing over hands in hand-flapping is more rewarding than even eating?

 

There is a great deal of research done into the necessity of visual modeling, especially in birds. What would be done is a bird would be chirping near the newly hatched chicks, but the chicks would never see the bird making the sounds. The chicks would grow up and learn singsong, but they would sound completely different, and other birds would not respond to them. Similar research (although obviously not identical) research is conducted on adults. I will try to look through my resources on my spare time to find the exact references. I am not saying that a child will not learn to talk because he isn?t ever looking at who is talking to him, I am saying that visual models increase the rate of learning, which is what we are trying to do. Help children catch up in some skills they are a little behind in.

 

call me jaded

 

You are right. We cannot teach a four year old to understand their differences. But that child may not learn the same way a NT child might. We have many completely nonverbal and illiterate children in our service. Maybe we can?t teach them to understand everything, but we can teach them to read and write where the mainstream education failed.

[Primine]

Also we are now in the top 5 for most replied to threads... Hazzah! And I meet with my supervisors tomorrow to decide what my topic will be. I'm going to propose the one looking at stims (you all know what I mean), and the one looking at PECs vs Signing (developing initial criteria for when each is more likely to benefit the child, or skill checklist for existing requisite skills)

[Zemanski]

Hi Primine,

 

just typed you an essay and then some daft friend sent me an email full of pop ups and I lost it

 

Something you have to realise about me is that I'm an old fogey - far too old to be sat up all night doing this when I have an Elizabethan ruff to make for Dot's school trip, I haven't unknotted Com's tie yet and I have to get them both to school much much too early

 

Being an old fogey, I've been at this stuff for 20years and I remember ABA from my early placements in special schools (it wasn't used as such, the govenment wouldn't fund it, but similar, home-grown programmes were used and it was studied). It was very inflexible both for the child and the practitioner and to be honest, it was one of the main reasons I decided to stay in mainstream education, I really couldn't bear to work like that.

It is more flexible now but still not enough for me, although as I said before, many of us, both parents and professionals, do borrow strategies and techniques from ABA.

 

IBI sounds much more flexible and child centred than ABA, it has obviously evolved from it but there seems to be more emphasis on enjoyment and choices in approach.

 

The issue I have with early intervention is not with the intervention, or even that it is early (early is definitely the best time to start any intervention) but that it is just early, that it is not on-going (once you've had it that's it, tough luck if it didn't work, you're too old now) and that it cannot be applied generally across all age groups and at any point of the person's development.

 

In computer programming a powerful programme is one that can do everything you need it to do, a therapy is the same - a strong therapy is one that is equally useful for all those you need it to be useful for.

 

II and IBI are similar in some of the pratice perhaps but they are poles apart in rationale

 

IBI is behavioural. It focuses on managing 'problem' behaviours in order to allow the child to concentrate on learning. It does not set out to deal with the root causes of the behaviour even though the need to manage anxiety is acknowledged. It uses play, like II, but in a different way. It also uses reinforcement but of NT behaviour such as attention and eye contact where II values the child's own behaviour and the therapist deliberately joins the child in that behaviour.

 

II is developmental, aiming to tackle underlying developmental deficits which cause an autistic person stress and frustration thus allowing the person to progress along the developmental pathway in a way that is natural for him or her. In this therapy behaviour, is not the central issue because as a child's development progresses, their frustrations decrease and their anxiety is eased, the child's behaviour becomes less challenging. The child learns to communicate and learns to enjoy play and learns to relax in his or her environment and the behaviours and stims are modified naturally by the child as they learn how to be social, in just the same way that a baby learns.

 

For me it has to be the developmental model; it has a broader remit in that it can be used with any age group and can be adapted to suit a wider range of need, it is on-going for the length of time needed by the child, it is a gentler approach (I'm not saying your approach is not gentle, Primine), it is non-invasive in that the child is in control of the play and even the lengh of the session, rather than the therapist, it deals with the underlying problems rather than the surface symptoms, and it is always fun.

 

I also like the fact that parents can do it just as well as therapists with a little support.

 

I think II counts as a pretty strong therapy in my book

 

take care

 

Zemanski

 

(sorry, got cut off from the server last night - the company that used to be cable and wireless are updating the set top boxes and decided to go for a cheap batch - if you are having problems with them ask for a sony box, they work)

[barefoot wend]

Primine

 

First I am delighted you are here. Your comments really make me think about my son and what's best for him.

 

I think it is blindingly obvious that you really care about your work and I think it's not only great that you are communicating here but that you haven't let us frighten you off. I'm exceedingly impressed.

 

I can see your point of view but I still have problems with it. To my way of thinking it is still an attempt to make children with asd fit in. There's no particular problem with this per se but I'm still not comfortable with the idea of trying to change the child rather than the society.

 

However successful you may be the asd child will still not fit in and, to my mind, you've just made them feel negative about the fact that they should be someone else rather than focus on the positive of who they are.

 

I liked your example of the birds:

 

'The chicks would grow up and learn singsong, but they would sound completely different, and other birds would not respond to them'

 

This works both ways and to me is the crux of my point - it doesn't matter how much you make a person with asd act NT, they know, and those around them

know that they are not. All you've done is create negative feelings about who they really are.

 

My son is truly wonderful and I want both others and himself to appreciate his skills and talents BECAUSE he is different not feel inferior because of who he isn't.

 

I hope this rambling makes some sense - and thanks again for making me think about it.

 

Barefoot

[bid]

Hi again, Primine

 

First of all, I'd like to echo Barefoot's sentiments about your welcome involvement in our forum.

 

However...!

 

I think you have avoided the issue of how autistic people actually feel about eye contact.

 

None of us can say that we want to support or help autistic people, and then ignore what they are actually trying to tell us, just because it doesn't fit in with any of our preconceptions.

 

Sadly it's my experience that many people, including parents, ask autistic people for their insights or explanations of autistic 'behaviour'...and then when the response is not what they want to hear, they just dismiss the information

 

Just to confirm that where I work, certainly on the home units, we don't interfer with our students eye contact, or lack of it, at all

 

Bid

[nellie]

Well said Barefoot.

 

Primine,

 

I love this thread and I'm truly grateful for your input.

 

The one thing that comes across here, is the insight of the forum members. My knowledge of autism has come from many sources but my insight has come from autistic family members, autistic forum members, autistic authors, autistic speakers and the many members here who live with autism on a daily basis.

 

I do feel quite strongly about the issue of eye contact.

 

I read a leaflet last week from an ASD Service and the first strategy under the heading 'Developing Better Communication' was gain eye contact before speaking. Sadly this is not uncommon.

 

I hope this article helps in some way.

EYE CONTACT MAY TRIGGER THREATENING SIGNALS IN BRAINS OF AUSTISTIC CHILDREN

http://www.neuropsychiatryreviews.com/apr05/eyecontact.html

 

Nellie xx

[Lucas]

Lucas

 

You have made some very excellent points. Within your homosexuality analogy you expressed concern that behaviorists are targeting dysfunctional, maladaptive or inappropriate behaviors that they should not be. Could you tell me which ones?

 

Perhaps you've misunderstood me; I've never actually known there to be a behaviour unique or common among Homosexual which can be described as dysfunctional, maladaptive or inappropriate. My concern was that in Autism as once in Homosexuality, behaviourists are not facing reality and are instead developing projected and distorted of things. Behaviourists once assumed that Homosexuality was a condition which required supression, they are now doing the same thing with Autism; when they can't accurately identify a problem, they invent some.

 

I still disagree that an autistic person cannot be distracted by a stim. If their stim, while automatic, also requires their complete involvement (running back in forth the length of the room) they may not be able to concentrate on anything else or if the stim is more rewarding than paying attention (if the stimulation of the visual receptors from staring at a light is more exciting than looking at anything else) the child has no reason to stop so long as the light is there. (and while we established that a child can learn without making eye contact or directly at an item I don?t see how you can teach the child which animal is the cow if they won?t look at it at all). How would you teach a child to pick up food and eat if the sensation of air rushing over hands in hand-flapping is more rewarding than even eating?

 

I'm sorry but this contradicts your earlier statement that IBI is flexible and it needs to be repeated now that behaviourists do not study Autism, if they did then they wouldn't do half of what they do with Autistics. It basically once again assumes that all things, including Autistics are basically the same. Organism+Stimuli=Behaviour is applied to everything, it's not flexible at all; it barrs any doorway to understanding things in any other way. First of all the scientific basis of this assumption is contradictory: if a child finds a stim to be more rewarding than doing what you want, then there is no way you are going to stop them stimming. You cannot reduce a stim if the stim is preferable to not doing the stim, but the fact that behaviourists try and often do eliminate this vital means of functioning from many children(to their detriment later one, the behaviourists are never around to pick up the pieces; they only do the Early Intervention and then they're gone) contradicts the premise of your insistence that stims are distracting because they are more rewarding than what you are trying to get a kid to do. It reminds me of Ivor Lovaas and his "We need to teach them to learn how to learn", the circular logic of behaviourists is astounding; if they can't learn, they can't 'learn how to learn' either, the mere fact that they can be taught to 'learn how to learn' means that they CAN learn in the first place.

 

Your assumption about stims also means you can't possibly understand them in any way other than the behaviourist angle you put on them. Does it occur to you that for the child to do what you want, it may require for them to do the stim you think is distracting them? You've also assumed that a child that doesn't look directly is paying no attention, despite me refering to covert attention twice now. Perhaps your clinging to an ideology in a lab coat is distracting you from learning? Stims are not islands.

 

May I also reiterate that you do not even know when you are using adversives when working with Autistics, so you also can not know when you are forcing eye-contact. Assaulting or forcing an Autistic without touching them is so much easier than with other people.

[Kathryn]

Primine,

 

I'm enjoying this thread. Just want to pick up on the points you addressed to me:

A teacher?s problem is everybody?s problem. Problem behavior needs to be eradicated because it is a PROBLEM. If a NT child was disrupting a class in any number of ways should we let it continue because it?s the teacher?s problem, or should we try to change their behavior?

That depends. If a teacher happens to take a dislike to a particular behaviour which is not an indicator of stress, not causing the child any harm and may in fact be helping him learn, the onus is on the teacher to change her attitude or rearrange the environment so that it's causes less distraction. A stim which only gives cause for concern in the classroom environment needs to be dealt with in that environment only, not seen as a fault in the child which requires "fixing".

 

It?s not an attack on who they are.

Yes it is. My son's stims are as much a part of him as his sticking up hair, so much so that close friends and family don't even notice it. To attempt to eradicate them merely to force him to conform to one teacher's view of ideal classroom behaviour could be extremely detrimental to his confidence and learning. (Incidentally - he isn't autistic, neither is his dad who has very similar stims).

 

It?s an effort to teach them the rules, norms and boundaries.

In other words to conform a neurotypical environment which dictates that a child must be sitting quietly, facing the teacher and completely still before it can learn.

 

If a stim is extremely disruptive to everyone else, because we are working on inclusion into the mainstream, we need to find out why they are stimming and then find other, less disturbing alternatives (perhaps if possible something more constructive?)

 

Lucas has given a very good explaniation of the reason for stimming behaviour. I agree that it may be possible to encourage the child to replace the stimming behaviour with something less obvious, but not in a heavy handed way as it isn't a barrier to learning.

 

I won't even start on inclusion in the mainstream - now there's a whole new thread in there I think!

 

K

[Zemanski]

good article, Nellie.

 

certainly makes a good argument for eye contact causing anxiety - if children feel threatened by something then they naturally look away, forcing them to confront the fear may in fact be reinforcing that fear.

 

if a child is helped to relax and use eye contact because they want to then it is much more likely to promote the child's development.

When I watched those videos I was impressed by how much eye contact the children were giving, they obviously did not find the therapist threatening or they would not be making eye contact voluntarily.

Is this because the interaction at that very early level of development does not trigger the threat reaction so the child feels comfortable?

 

Zemanski

[something vague]

This thread just gets better and better!

 

I'm a great believer in the importance of acceptance and trust in a relationship. The people that we choose to have as friends are those who dont judge us. They are people who share the same interests as us and dont try to change who we are. They are our friends because they like us just as we are.

 

To develop a good relationship with ANYONE we need to respect and value them. How can someone feel valued if they are not being allowed to express themselves and be the person that they are because their behaviour is deemed inappropriate.

 

I am always saddened when i see young people with special needs who sit on there hands or walk with their hands behind their back. These behaviours have been programmed into them by people who appear to have had little imagination when they have attempted to tackle supposedly unwanted behaviour.

 

On the issue of eye contact, in my experience it isn't important to gain eye contact from an autistic person to gain attention. As others have said, eye contact can be very threatening and can interfere with the person's ability to concentrate. I would also say that I have met autistic children who seem to use their periphery vision or look with squinted eyes. I find this perfectly fine, is this acceptable in IBI?