Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

PeterPan

Narrative language in autism

Recommended Posts

         Is That a Fact?: Teaching Nonfiction Writing, K-3       Maybe this would interest you? Can't remember if I shared it here or not. I just got it after reading an article where someone mentioned it. There's a lot out there on narrative elements and some on how to parallel that with expository writing. I was hoping this book might flesh that out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With thinking about it, it’s not exactly reading comprehension, but more language processing.

Reading/listening is working out wonderfully for his language processing.  He can listen much more.  He can connect things with a larger amount of things to keep track of.  I am not seeing him tune out language like he used to.  

Language processing is definitely a worthwhile high priority for him.  

So it is definitely beneficial and worthwhile, but it might not be accurate to say reading comprehension.  It’s more listening and being able to handle hearing a lot of words, and being able to organize them, and being able to have some thoughts about them.  

I think he does think with words now, but I don’t think he has been doing it for a very long time, and it is a way to slow down and let him have a chance to think.  

There’s also a part of it where if it’s hard, then he has to want to make the effort.  He will make the effort when he is sitting with me and he likes the book.  

It is more natural now for him to automatically listen and attend when there is talking.  It’s a lot better.  But it’s still a little like “maybe he will listen, maybe he will tune it out.”  

I think it does really help to build a habit of listening.  I want it to be automatic for him to listen.  It’s not yet, but it is so much better.  I think it is a key thing for how engaged he is.  

I do think ————— there is a problem for others who work for him..... if they do too much that is listening, maybe a lot of kids are tuning out the language or just not attending to it.  Maybe my son is here and there.  That is definitely not a productive way to spend time.  

I have a lot more ability to be aware and adjust to how he is attending.  

When there is an obvious response, it’s a lot easier to tell if kids are engaged in learning, or if they are just sitting there.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fortunate to have good coordination between the special education teacher and ABA.  

Those are the main people working with him.  That is just the way it is.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My big issue with FC is — they seem to think kids are always attending.  They don’t seem to think there is that attending step.  

I think they put kids into environments where they just aren’t attending very much, and assume they are attending.

I have seen too much of a lack of attending to think it is good to universally say “just assume your kid is attending.”  

Like — how is my son supposed to soak up language just by being there, if he isn’t attending to the language that is being used?  It just doesn’t make sense.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for ds, listening and attending came before actual comprehension and wasn't a guarantee of comprehension. For him it meant he was taking it all in and memorizing. Then they take those goals (ABA, SLP) and connect all those scattered, memorized bits and turn them into something explicit and organized that has meaning. 

The most beautiful part of RPM (aside from the issues) is the high amount of interaction the kids get. I think that's really strong. There's joint attention and the dc is getting interaction and feels the love, and I really think that counts for a lot. When people are enthusiastic, I think that's why, that it gave them a way to interact meaningful with someone who was really hard to connect with. I'm on a rabbit trail here, but I'm just saying that's what I see in the videos of it, a lot of love. And if the person isn't going to have original language (like say RPM is FC and it doesn't pass double-blind tests), STILL the kid is getting a lot of love. I think that part really shows and is strong, because people need to be interacted with and loved.

Our OT, the one we just started back with, had done things like having a session where they had to WRITE everything. It was really fun and pushed ds in a good way. And I'm just thinking out loud here about how we could use that.

Ds had a nice day today. He got a new kind of playing cards in his stocking, and he's getting really good at shuffling. He had been a little stressed, so he invited people to play Rummy with him for a break, which gave him a chance to show of his shuffling skills too! It was really good. That's a case where the intentional skill we taught him (playing cards) is paying off. They were really surprised how good he was, but I'm like hey he's probably played 300-500 hands with me, lol. I haven't counted, but we've played Rummy a LOT working on that skill. My dad plays penny poker, but I'm holding off on that, lol.

And that ties back to LA, because there's a thing I have in the back of my mind but haven't thought about a lot, that I think we will want to focus our skills on what gets him somewhere. Like probably writing research papers ISN'T gonna be a high priority for us. But there are narrative and expository writing skills that are applicable to life or that reflect conversation skills we want him to have. It goes back to your point that we're not going to get it ALL. That's what I'm thinking about. Like if we're working on narrative structures, we're improving his ability to tell an entertaining tale about where he went or what he did, which enriches his life. So there's a lot of real life application there and enrichment value in doing some of the tasks. Some of it is safety, but there's also quality of life.

I also have this side thought that ds could get into military history, haha. That would be a STRETCH, but you never know! He inhales Teaching Company (Great Courses) lectures on history and has a lot of opinions about them, lol. Maybe I could milk that more, hmm.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2018 at 9:39 AM, Lecka said:

It’s more listening and being able to handle hearing a lot of words, and being able to organize them, and being able to have some thoughts about them.  

I think he does think with words now, but I don’t think he has been doing it for a very long time, and it is a way to slow down and let him have a chance to think.  

There’s also a part of it where if it’s hard, then he has to want to make the effort.  He will make the effort when he is sitting with me and he likes the book.  

It is more natural now for him to automatically listen and attend when there is talking.  It’s a lot better.  But it’s still a little like “maybe he will listen, maybe he will tune it out.”  

I think it does really help to build a habit of listening.  I want it to be automatic for him to listen.  It’s not yet, but it is so much better.  I think it is a key thing for how engaged he is.  

I do think ————— there is a problem for others who work for him..... if they do too much that is listening, maybe a lot of kids are tuning out the language or just not attending to it.  Maybe my son is here and there.  That is definitely not a productive way to spend time.  

I have a lot more ability to be aware and adjust to how he is attending.  

When there is an obvious response, it’s a lot easier to tell if kids are engaged in learning, or if they are just sitting there.  

Have you had updated auditory processing testing with him? Or do you remember which areas of auditory processing were difficult for him? This is very much like my kid with CAPD in many ways. If someone speaks at about 75% of the normal rate of speech, he processes just fine.

OTOH, my kiddo with ASD doesn't organize language enough, but he had no issues taking it in. He can hear a lot of words as long as he's not multi-tasking. 

Both of my kids have issues with working memory, which can affect this too--it's several standard deviations below their other cognitive scores. But the "too many words" and needing time specifically to process is really very CAPD-like.

I think that if your son is doing well with the language work he's done, but it's still hard to attend when it's "too much," it could be the CAPD piece creeping up. Maybe your various therapists would have some ideas for how to help that out. At the very least, when he's doing his most challenging work, you might ask them to reduce their speaking rate to see if that helps. That's a very common accommodation for CAPD.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have scores for TAPS-3 (test of auditory processing skills).  But I’m looking at it and I’m pretty sure it’s not possible to tell from it what is processing or what is comprehension.  It makes it hard to know.  

At this point he is able to repeat something that was said, in a way that shows he is listening and can remember what was said, without being able to respond in a way that shows he understands.  That makes it seem more like comprehension to me.

He does have fatigue at times, though this is much, much less than it used to be.  But I don’t know exactly why he is fatigued, if it’s too much mental strain or too many words.  I think this is not really an issue right now as far as what is expected of him.  Aka — he can listen to the children’s lesson in church fine, but not a 4th-grade-level social studies lesson.   But he’s not in 4th-grade-level social studies lessons, so that isn’t expected of him.  But by age — he is behind that way.  But I think it’s already accounted for.  He seems to be doing great with verbal directions in gymnastics too, this year, better than last year... but he is in a quieter class this year and other children are better-behaved, and both of those make a difference for him.  So it is still hard to know if that would go down again if the kids changed.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that when you dig in some of the tests are testing overlapping areas. 

The comprehension and language demands in SS and social studies are not the same. 

The repeating is interesting, because there's data correlating ability to repeat sentences and the person's language. So it's not only the working memory (which I realized) but also their language holding back their ability to repeat a phrase/sentence/verse. 

There's data on bilingual populations showing more difficulty processing the *2nd* less family language in noise than the 1st/more familiar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Especially since his Sunday School is mixed ages and he is one of the older kids.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PeterPan said:

There's data on bilingual populations showing more difficulty processing the *2nd* less family language in noise than the 1st/more familiar.

I have heard similar, but I heard it in regard to rate of speech--that they do best with hearing speech at about 75% the rate of normal speech. That might be for fairly fluent learners vs. bilingual speakers though. I have no link for it--it was part of a conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a new study on bilingual speaker comprehension in noise in L1 vs. L2. They were talking about it on one of the SLP lists. Found the link 07_1846_Borsetto.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2Hb8X6OZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just for your pleasure, another study looking at whether non-speech recognition in noise tests line up with results from speech in noise tests. It looks like it goes back to the point some of the SLPs are making, that it's a language disability, because they can't get the same results using non-speech. And I'm not saying nothing is happening or that's easy to figure out, because difficulty/fatigue with speech in noise is why dd is wearing her ABLEKids filter. I'm just saying we're being sold a line on what is happening. If it's only happening with language, not non-speech, then it's a language processing issue, not an auditory processing issue. In dd's case, she knows she has reflexes not integrated, and that's her problem to deal with. We also know that kids get language jumps when they get their reflexes integrated. Dd was struggling even to tolerate the exercises to do them because her system is so sensitive.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021992417301466?dgcid=author

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, PeterPan said:

And just for your pleasure, another study looking at whether non-speech recognition in noise tests line up with results from speech in noise tests. It looks like it goes back to the point some of the SLPs are making, that it's a language disability, because they can't get the same results using non-speech. And I'm not saying nothing is happening or that's easy to figure out, because difficulty/fatigue with speech in noise is why dd is wearing her ABLEKids filter. I'm just saying we're being sold a line on what is happening. If it's only happening with language, not non-speech, then it's a language processing issue, not an auditory processing issue. In dd's case, she knows she has reflexes not integrated, and that's her problem to deal with. We also know that kids get language jumps when they get their reflexes integrated. Dd was struggling even to tolerate the exercises to do them because her system is so sensitive.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021992417301466?dgcid=author

That's interesting. My son's speech in noise is MUCH better after VT, but I doubt we'll ever have complete reflex integration. He's a hot mess, and no one really cares to look much deeper than they have. I think the before and after VT with speech in noise change would show up on the SCAN 3 though. It was shocking how much it changed in terms of real-life impact. I don't think it's wishful thinking for us--we weren't expecting VT to do anything for his ability to hear speech in noise, so it's not like we were looking for that as a result. We just noticed it, quite dramatically. 

The article does mention that time compressed sentences do show a modest correlation, and that is what he has the most trouble with. The SCAN 3 results we have from my son's first set of testing does indicate that the screening is consistent with language issues--it doesn't say, "This means he has CAPD." It's a screening that means, "Dig here." (And my CAPD kiddo did finally get a dyslexia diagnosis in his last round of psych testing.) Lots of people think that auditory processing and dyslexia are two sides of the same coin. Dyslexia is an SLD...really it goes in circles, and I think there should be more cooperation in solving the problem at this point. I think if an FM system helps a child, even if the hearing test doesn't show a "need," perhaps they need to investigate why, lol! I feel like the experts are more interested in being right or precise than in helping the people who have issues. It shouldn't be an either/or. It should be a both/and. 

I would be interested in seeing if the CANS lesion information is relevant to language learning. The study seems to indicate that certain SCAN 3 deficits are directly related to lesions of the CANS. Are those CANS lesions directly related to language issues (broadly defined)?

I guess I like the idea that they are looking for answers, but in the meantime, how about some clarity on supporting learners while they are sorting this stuff out, lol! 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://comdde.usu.edu/services/research/schoolage-language/s-gillam-docs/TLD-D-15-00023.pdf

This might have already been posted, but I am reading it now.  Wow, really good stuff!  It describes the different parts of the SKILL program — the goals and how they work on them.  There are a lot of things my son has done, and they are all things I have thought were really good.

So — I would say, my son has a lot going for him when it comes to doing a narrative where there are picture supports, and he can narrate a wordless story (like — a picture book with no words).  I have not specifically paid attention to what story grammar he would include when doing that, but the last time I saw him do it I had a pretty good impression (he did it as part of some testing last year).  

He does not do as well without visuals, which makes sense.  

Anyway — I finally decided to order Mindwings autism books and “student grammar marker” manipulative.  

I don’t know yet if the “parallel story” ideas from the article will be included, but I would be interested in adding them in if they aren’t included.  That is where you make a few changes to the story, the example given was:  for a simple way, just change the character or setting.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the heading too, it says in their study, for autism they used it with ages 8-12.  That is nice to see because usually this stuff is talking about younger kids, and it makes it seem like it is the right age range and not “behind.”  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice find! If you're wanting to know if they're equivalent, no they're not. SKILL is discrete lessons on each thing because it's meant to be picked up and used in a clinical setting by anyone, even college students. With this standardization, they can then have data. It hits many of the goals that SGM sort of walks up to. Like if you look at the developmental stages in SGM, the skills it says to make sure you hit are then taught explicitly in SKILL. 

I'm not sure if the data is in that article you linked, but I had seen data on SKILL showing poor/mixed results in the autism community. I paired this with comments made about using SGM, saying their spectrum kids could label the parts but not actually GET IT OUT. So I decided I would use the developmental stages in SGM but the explicit lessons of MW and I would require each stage of development to occur before moving on to the next. I think it's one thing to say the other target populations (dyslexics, etc. with narrative language issues) can be taught everything upfront and then just go do complete narratives. It's another to take someone who is functioning years behind developmentally and who has significant DLD and say that age 10 narration is the goal. I don't think it is. I think it's better to go through the stages of development and master them, one at a time.

So with SGM/MW yes it's easy to make that happen. With SKILL it's a bit less obvious. I just like having the open and go instruction for the concepts, which SGM doesn't give me I need idiot-proof.

The thing they're describing with parallel writing is a common technique in the classical writing and progymnasta stuff. I did it years ago with my dd using Writing Tales, and it's also done a lot in Classical Writing, which I don't think people use much anymore. It's a strong technique that allows you basically to target anything. So if you want to work on descriptions or adding adjectives or using verbals or whatever, you can target that grammar. If you want to use it to bring out their creativity and engagement, you can do that. If you want it to work on more complex skills (adding a moral, character development, making predictions about what would have happened next, starting a story at the end (which has a fancy name I don't remember), etc., sky is the limit. At the most advanced level, you can use this type of retelling to teach essay writing. SGM goes into this with their Theme book, but in your classical programs based on the progym they take it a lot, lot farther.

So like with my ds, right now he's *not quite* at the point where I can put him into WT1. He's on the cusp, but I'm not doing it yet. I need to do a bit more with shorter fables, because the models in WT1 are long. But is there overlap, sure? It's all good stuff and the more you know from one field, the more you can bring to the next. So that's why I keep saying I've already taught these levels, I know where it can go, and I can see where materials are bringing me pieces and tools and how that will fit together to get him to the next step. Whether I can GET him to a particular step, can't say. I don't want to rush because I'm finding that basic language is always, always the issue. You have to be able to get your thoughts into words. You have to realize what is most important. Like we read our Little House this morning and I asked him what two major things were in the chapter (Uncle Tom came to visit and Laura went riding with her friends) and ds' answer? We learned that Mary Power wore a hairpiece. For real. He literally had no clue that THAT nifty tidbit was NOT driving the plot on how the pieces of the story connect. 

Another thing we're doing that I really like right now and am getting a lot of mileage with is describing picture cards. I picked up this game                                             Family Board Game of Telepaths - Matching Game of Crazy Connections and Logical Links - Includes 330 Cards (Ages 8+)                                       on the cheap at the mall this christmas, and we just use the cards. They have pictures on one side, words on the other. We take turns till we've each done three, and we try to describe them going through the V/V prompts (motion, category, shape, function, etc.). It's a really good challenge for him. Then we've been using the cards from a children's charades set, same gig, 3 cards each taking turns. For that, I've been really precise, asking him either to act out three things that describe the object or act out the steps. It has refined his thinking to talk through that aloud together and realize ok, if I want to show a campfire, do I want to describe it with my actions or show the steps, and if I'm showing steps what are the steps... 

To me that ties right into our narrative work. And the Telepaths game comes with pictures on one side, text on the other, so it can go more abstract. What I want to do this coming week, if I can make it happen, is add in some kind of picture study that has a seen. That way he can drive it farther, describing the setting, thinking through the plot, adding dialogue, making predictions, etc. I'm encouraged by his progress so I want to keep it moving forward. 

I can scan that link for the stats. The article I had read had really mixed results, so I didn't really find it sensible to go with straight SKILL. Their results with other populations were stronger. And I could be all wet and wrong about that, but there you go. I've seen just enough comments about kids not being able to do what they can label that I just was in no inclination to rush. But can it work? Who knows. I think roll with your gut on that. I don't think there's a wrong answer, because either way the kid is progressing. It's like when I was looking into swim lessons for ds and thought going with the better class that ran only 2 week sessions would help him learn faster. I was like dude they get it done in 2 weeks, why screw around with the 6 week class? Well sorry, but ds took a year and a half to do the equivalent of what other kids were doing in 6 weeks and he needed 1:1 from an expert. So I'm always skeptical at any suggestion that cognitive overrides language disability and that frontloading will give better results with him. He needs gentle incremental practice that nails each little step completely. That's how he has always been. He can do stuff, but it's tedious getting there. 

I'm also motivated by my end goal. I think my ds could probably write a basic, coherent 5 paragraph essay (or persuasive piece, or whatever) by the end of high school if we are careful enough. I think he has potential and no amount of rushing will make that come out. The language has to be nurtured. I'm looking for sentence complexity, the whole nine yards, so I have to nurture it and let it come together. But that's him. I'm not teaching anybody else. That's why I'm saying I think there could be lots of right answers on this. I just know what I am trying to make happen and why. So say you had a goal, a really reasonable goal, any goal. Like say you said you wanted him to be able to write a letter to his friends. I don't know, just making it up. Well what narrative skills are required for that, what level of language complexity, and how will you know when you're there? I think you will have that picture in your mind of what you're trying to make happen and you'll take steps to get there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lecka said:

I don’t know yet if the “parallel story” ideas from the article will be included, but I would be interested in adding them in if they aren’t included.  That is where you make a few changes to the story, the example given was:  for a simple way, just change the character or setting.  

I think this is fine at any time because it brings joy and engagement. If doing it helps him engage more, do it! It targets a lot of good skills, too, but Writing Tales had the kids do it for every story, after the basic retell, simply because it made the process more fun for them. 

I should go digging in my SKILL manual more, because it looks like they have a lesson on adverbs. I really want to bring in adverbs now, and I haven't found a way I really like to teach them. I was trying to stay very focused on SKILL, just taking one bite as a time, but I think that would be fine to bring down to phase 1 some phase 2 skills if the goal is to dawdle at phase 1 longer. It's not what they intended, but it's not a crime.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, I think there's something to that. Do your intervention with a goal in mind, where you'd like this to end up, what you'd like him to be able to do. Then you'll know you're working toward it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

It's like when I was looking into swim lessons for ds and thought going with the better class that ran only 2 week sessions would help him learn faster. I was like dude they get it done in 2 weeks, why screw around with the 6 week class? Well sorry, but ds took a year and a half to do the equivalent of what other kids were doing in 6 weeks and he needed 1:1 from an expert. So I'm always skeptical at any suggestion that cognitive overrides language disability and that frontloading will give better results with him.

Lol! I am totally on board with that statement in our house too! I've alternately railed at the idea, tried it, railed at it some more,...ugh.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kbutton said:

Lol! I am totally on board with that statement in our house too! I've alternately railed at the idea, tried it, railed at it some more,...ugh.

I know, and doesn't it blow your mind that all these professors and places are like oh just teach ALL THESE TERMS upfront and your kid will identify them in text and start using them!! Hahahahaha. I mean, for real. The only people who can say that with a straight face are people who don't take accountability for results. Either they have low expectations (this crummy, uninspired retelling had the elements so it's good enough) or they don't follow through long enough to realize.

Now SKILL does have rubrics and ways to score narratives, yes. But again the data I read showed DRAMATICALLY BETTER RESULTS with the SLD population than the ASD population. The ASD kids it was used with were a smaller pool, and they varied from no progress to some progress. 

I don't want stiff, robotic retellings going through a checklist of terms. He has to go through the steps of development and do WELL where he's at. If he can't do an excellent description of setting or characters (or an item on a picture card or whatever) now, then why would I go teaching lots of other skills? And it turns out, when you dig in, that actually doing and understanding those later skills (pieces of story grammar) REQUIRE SYNTAX he doesn't have!!! So think through that. Syntax drives meaning and they're saying teach meaning when my kid DOES NOT HAVE THE SYNTAX. I cannot put cart before horse there. They have to be paired.

The ASD kit from SGM has the pages (printables) that show each step of narrative development and what syntax is required. They don't call it that so explicitly, but that's what it is. So you have to toggle and teach the syntax to drive the ability to work with the concepts. That's why I'm looking for more stuff on adverbs, because I need them to develop our next level more fully. 

Honestly, we just have so many syntax pieces, my head spins. He's using pretty well some of the more complex ones and not nailing some of the easier. I also finally had this brilliant realization or click on how to use literature to teach stuff. I have him reading these lexile-driven books, and all I ask him to do is give me a specific piece of feedback. So one day it was who all the main characters were. (not less important, only main) So he's attending to be able to do that, but he's also getting his skill development. So yesterday I asked him to tell me something that surprised him, something he hadn't realized. Well tada, I just set him up to use relative clauses! Oh yeah baby. So I'm finally feeling like a pro (hahahahaha) on how to weave reading comprehension and skills into our work. 

I just started reading this                                             Disrupting Thinking: Why How We Read Matters                                       and they challenge what we do to reading with guides and things. I thought it was interesting, given that we had been talking about guides. Clearly he needs help to attend, engage, notice, etc. It's HARD WORK to overcome that hyperlexia and turn on the processing! But I think they're possibly right that an unnatural, joyless approach isn't going to result in a lifelong reader either. So that's why I came to my "think about this question while you read" thing. That seems reasonable to me. So now he's actually starting to argue it, like they said this but that's wrong, etc. But it's certainly not as fast. It just seems durable and healthy to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am looking for some balance of skills to go along with a reading level I/J/K kind of level, which is late 1st/early 2nd.  He is starting to read (making good progress right now) at this level and I think it is a good developmental kind of level for him.  

The study shows good results for autism.  They used it for ages 8-12 for autism, while using it for ages 5-11 for language-delayed.  The autism study looks like it is based on 5 kids.  

I think more that it is addressing things I want right now. 

I am looking for carryover to daily language, and reading comprehension, too.  Those are the things I’m looking for as the reason to do it.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He’s at a point where he is pretty engaged in some ways.  This morning he was reading a Bunnicula reader, and said he thought Harold was always the main character in Bunnicula. 

So there are definitely some things clicking.  He said that on his own (not in response to me asking) but I suspect he has just gone over it in school or something.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say for syntax, I know it is such a slog.  I don’t worry about more advanced syntax.  I want his syntax to match his developmental level, and I see it as okay for him if his syntax level is matching level I/J/K levels.  

I do want to expose (etc) stuff to higher than that, but I don’t see it as a current goal.  

But I want things he works on to transfer to daily speech, which is pretty involved, and also means that practically he needs to focus on fewer things for a longer time.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lecka said:

I want things he works on to transfer to daily speech

That's HUGE and such a good goal! Narrative is everywhere in speech. Even just chit chat is narratives really. When you look around you and describe the weather, that's the same as describing the setting. 

And yeah, I hadn't really quite put it that way, but I'm doing all this to bump his reading comprehension. He's still really imbalanced with his leisure. My only consolation is Zelda has constant reading, lol.

1 hour ago, Lecka said:

The autism study looks like it is based on 5 kids.

That's what I wasn't impressed by. So I'm 20% of their pool in a field where the mix of disabilities can be radically different. 

And there are people who would just teach it all upfront anyway and let the dust settle. There is that theory. Sometimes though what happens is they get jaded. I'm trying to keep it magical, something he can definitely do. 

Well I've rambled enough. I'm trying to make a list of fun. He says I'm not fun enough, so I'm trying to make a category list to do one thing each day, sigh.

-active games

-craft (I'm iffy on this)-->art!!

-holiday activity (I always feel guilty about not doing this enough and then guilt-trip myself with too many ideas, so one a week would be better than nothing)

-go somewhere (fun, not our usual)

-music fun (dancing to music ,etc.) 

That's as far as I got. I guess technically that's 5. Craft could include art, which would kill two birds, hmm.

So yeah, that's how bad I am, that I have to make a list to have fun.

Edited by PeterPan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m just re-reading a bit, but as far as frontloading, if that means teaching everything at once, I don’t think it seems like SKILL is that way because it mentions having an exit test at the end of each phase and repeating additional lessons for that phase until the exit test can be passed.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I read more.... I think if he’s passing the exit test for phase 1, and you are choosing to spend more time on it and review more, then go ahead and pull things from phase 2.

If he’s not passing the exit test, I wouldn’t.

That is based off of reading a description of the program only, though 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because I know it can go this way with my son — I suspect that if someone using it starts to see that “oh these certain students aren’t passing the exit test when we go through as written” that they will go ahead and add in the extra lessons as they go through it with the students they don’t think are going to pass the exit test (based on their experience).  

We get this a lot I think where it’s just automatic that they are going to slow down and build in review (or whatever) because they can tell that the usual amount of review or practice isn’t going to be enough.  

I think at the same time, if they have experience with other kids who do awesome with going straight through — they will want to go straight through with kids who seem that way.

I tend to look at everything and know to expect to add in review, stay on things longer, etc.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a fun idea — maybe cooking.  

I have been looking at some more websites — and I think I will just have to see some things when my order comes.

I am hoping that the printables can act like a “story comprehension” activity after reading, and then be consistent — I am hoping it will be easier than coming up with different questions.

I am also thinking I would like to use them instead of “reading companions” (the book companions from TPT).  I think it might just be easier and more consistent for us.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought.... it depends on other things, but Little House on the Prairie is 760 L for lexile level — basically it’s a 4th grade reading level.  There are a lot of options to read something easier.

My son started with multiple choice answers for “main idea” type questions, this is easier than coming up with an answer to an open-ended question.  

There are things like this:

https://m.superduperinc.com/productitem_sdm.aspx?pid=FD82

https://m.superduperinc.com/ProductItem_sdm.aspx?pid=BK323

My son has used this Fold and Say.  

Anyway — they give a multiple choice option.

I would also, for a wrong answer like “wearing a hairpiece” give a choice between the “right answer” and what the child said.  See if he changes his answer or not.  To me if my son wouldn’t change his answer — he’s really just phoning it in and not very engaged, and it’s probably too hard for him.  

I think if he is getting some questions right and some wrong, that is fine.

But at a certain point I go down to something easier where there can be some right answers.

It really is hard to answer an open-ended question like this, it’s harder than answering a multiple choice question, and it’s also harder than answering the same question from an easier book.

I was reading the first “How To Train Your Dragon” book to my son recently, and he couldn’t answer any comprehension questions.  He did still like the book.  He liked the pictures, and he would like certain parts, because there might be a joke or something, and he would think a certain part was funny.  

And I think that’s fine, but I think he does get more out of an easier book where he is able to answer some (or all) comprehension questions.

Another thing is, if you plan ahead you will ask that question, you could pause and emphasize it while you are reading.  Then see if he retains that much when you get to the end, if you have stopped to discuss a main point.  This can be really helpful I think. 

I think if there’s a wrong answer it can be a sign more support is needed, and an option is stopping to discuss while reading.  

You could also do a little sequence and ask what came first, middle, last, and just happen to have main events be the things part of the sequence.  This also shows what is important without having to ask an open-ended question.  

My daughter in 4th grade still really likes the Little House books, too.  She gets so mad at Nellie Olsen!  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of times it seems like, if an open-ended question is answered incorrectly, it can seem like “now what?”

But there are some ways to provide support or ask an easier question.

But still it is fun to get a glimpse into the child’s mind!  Maybe he has some reason he thinks the hairpiece is very interesting.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lecka said:

Little House on the Prairie is 760 L for lexile level — basically it’s a 4th grade reading level.

Well that's interesting. I haven't looked it up. He's able to summarize independently (with no prompt, with me just shutting up and letting him do it) about 70% of the time. I also use the summarizing to bring in sentence complexity work.

I like the idea of choice between things as a way to support, hmm. 

2 hours ago, Lecka said:

still it is fun to get a glimpse into the child’s mind!  Maybe he has some reason he thinks the hairpiece is very interesting.  

Yup, thats what it mainly was. It was so funny to him, with such great mental images, that everything else was irrelevant. He hasn't been doing that a lot, but I think it would increase if we increased the level of the material or changed material types, yes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Focusing on an interesting detail and missing the main meaning is exactly what DS14 would do. I remember some specific times that he has done this.

Lecka, I agree with your thoughts that stopping and discussing can improve comprehension. I actually made that very point at DS's IEP meeting last fall, when we reviewed and revised his reading comprehension goal. I wanted to be sure that they were measuring his ability to answer comprehension questions on material that he was reading for the first time, instead of materials that they had read and discussed already in class. Because those things improve his comprehension, and I wanted the goal to measure his comprehension minus those supports.

So personally, I think that the stop and discuss method is really helpful (at least it has been helpful for DS). It makes a significant difference for him.

DS does not like to do it, however. It's a strategy that may be hard to teach to independence.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am thinking about how I may use Mindwings....

do you think it would interrupt the flow of reading too much to have the manipulative or a paper with the story grammar element icons.... to pause while reading and say “now that seemed blah-blah to me, I bet that was a kick-off” or something, and then it’s right there with the same icons you have used for the story grammar elements.  

Or pause and ask the child to do the episode so far with the manipulative, and just happen to pause at the part you want ———— that is a kind of prompt, because you are basically giving the answer, but without directly giving the answer.  

I also feel like it is a little bit of a guess for me, that I am guessing a kick-off would be a “main thing.”  

I don’t know if you are using language of “the name of the story grammar element” or “main thing” when you teach the story grammar lessons.  Or if you are frequently saying “this story grammar element is like main thing.”

I think that could be confusing, possibly. 

I think depending how you are using the icons, also, it is a good chance to use them.

Personally I feel like — if I am going to take the time to teach the icons (for Mindwings for me), then I am definitely expecting to carry those same words over to talking about reading comprehension.

I think it will help with retention and carryover, and also, I just think that I want the icons to be really useful to me if I am going to commit the time to teaching them.

This is one of the reasons I’ve waited to buy anything, and at this point, I feel like I’ve made a level of commitment AND like it’s going to be worth it (because I am expecting it to help!).  

Basically at this point — I am planning to use the manipulative or a story grammar map of some kind, for almost all our reading and a lot of our tv/video viewing as well.  I would like to use it for “what we did today” sometimes.  

I think also, they seem to have a nice summary of phase 1,2,3 of SKILL in the study I have been looking at.  On page 5 it has a chart with parts of the different levels, and co-create a story from a single scene, and independently create a story from a single scene, are both on there (for phase 3).  

This is something that helps me — but the exit questions seem like they are the main goals for each phase.  The top of page 6 of the study tells the exit test questions for phase 1.  The exit questions for the end of phase 2 are on the top of page 7.  (I just realized those page numbers are from the pdf — not page numbers written on the document.)

Basically — for this program, they recommend already being able to make up a story with clear causal relationships and use sufficiently complex language (two or more feeling words plus one or more mental or linguistic words, one or more adverbs, and one or more elaborated noun phrases).  

I think that’s really helpful information for what this particular program thinks kids should be able to do before doing certain other things.  I’m planning to copy some of this down on a piece of paper and try to make sure my son has these skills, too, before working on things this program says are a higher level.

I do think the study with autism only had 5 kids, but still, it did show a really good outcome.  And I think even if one kid (which is what it looks like, because it lists scores for 5 different kids) didn’t make much progress, well, maybe that kid just needed more time and would still do good but take a longer time.  Or maybe there are some kids where it’s not going to be a good fit, but that is true of anything.

But I think the results look great.  I don’t see at all from this study that the results for autism were only mediocre.  

I can see people being frustrated if it takes longer than they expect, but I think that is just reality sometimes.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lecka said:

I am thinking about how I may use Mindwings....

do you think it would interrupt the flow of reading too much to have the manipulative or a paper with the story grammar element icons.... to pause while reading and say “now that seemed blah-blah to me, I bet that was a kick-off” or something, and then it’s right there with the same icons you have used for the story grammar elements.  

Or pause and ask the child to do the episode so far with the manipulative, and just happen to pause at the part you want ———— that is a kind of prompt, because you are basically giving the answer, but without directly giving the answer.  

I also feel like it is a little bit of a guess for me, that I am guessing a kick-off would be a “main thing.”  

I don’t know if you are using language of “the name of the story grammar element” or “main thing” when you teach the story grammar lessons.  Or if you are frequently saying “this story grammar element is like main thing.”

I think that could be confusing, possibly. 

I think depending how you are using the icons, also, it is a good chance to use them.

Personally I feel like — if I am going to take the time to teach the icons (for Mindwings for me), then I am definitely expecting to carry those same words over to talking about reading comprehension.

I think it will help with retention and carryover, and also, I just think that I want the icons to be really useful to me if I am going to commit the time to teaching them.

The SGM is designed so that you can be consistent about carrying the terminology to all kinds of things, including non-fiction.

I don't think that the pausing and talking about the icons would be disruptive if you already pause to talk about things while reading. I am trying to remember if one of the SGM videos I watched include that kind of pausing, but it's been too long since I've watched. Truly, I think it would be fine.

I know that the SLP uses the names of the story grammar elements. I think if you mapped them to terms your son has been using up to this point, by saying this element is like what we've been calling thus and such, you will be fine. 

Consistency across areas of learning is one big reason we opted to get the SGM stuff. Using a variety of graphic organizers that all used slightly different terms or had different numbers of elements was not a good thing for my son, and SGM has done the work to map it to expository language as well as the narrative stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lecka said:

I think also, they seem to have a nice summary of phase 1,2,3 of SKILL in the study I have been looking at.  On page 5 it has a chart with parts of the different levels, and co-create a story from a single scene, and independently create a story from a single scene, are both on there (for phase 3).  

Which study are you looking at? I sometimes bookmark things for later, but I would look this up with a link. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Storygirl said:

DS does not like to do it, however.

My dd hates being put on the spot, but it's her super low processing speed. It's in her accommodations to have the questions ahead of time. 

6 hours ago, Lecka said:

do you think it would interrupt the flow of reading too much to have the manipulative or a paper with the story grammar element icons.... to pause while reading and say “now that seemed blah-blah to me, I bet that was a kick-off” or something, and then it’s right there with the same icons you have used for the story grammar elements.  

I think you're going to find pretty natural ways to weave the concepts in. If he already has the skill (describing setting, whatever), then that's stuff you can do pretty naturally as you narrate the chapter before going on to the next. But if it's a new skill, then I weave it in very quietly. Like if we read something that is the PROBLEM (kick-off, setting event, whatever), I'm going to stop and SAY something about that and make sure he notices it. It's something he needs to go to the next level of narrative, so I want him to notice it! So I'm going to say "Wow, it sounds like they have a PROBLEM! What do you think their PROBLEM is?" and he's going to give some (hopefully reasonable) answer after some discussion. Whatever he gives I'll probably recast into a more complex sentence, because we're working on syntax as well. So I want him to realize his thoughts fit into that pattern and can be said that way, boom.

I think I would use your natural creativity and just roll with it. Like could you take the icons, print, laminate, and glue them on popsicle sticks for responses? Sure, it would be way fun. Would I do that ALL THE TIME, nah, probably not. I'm reading to him to help him fall asleep at night without tech, so making it ultra schooly isn't really appropriate. I would roll with whatever seems appropriate for your context. Like maybe sometimes, for some reading you do that. But also have time when you don't read and where the discussion is just natural. I need to keep it natural because this is bedtime reading for bonding. 

6 hours ago, Lecka said:

if I am going to take the time to teach the icons (for Mindwings for me), then I am definitely expecting to carry those same words over to talking about reading comprehension.

yes

6 hours ago, Lecka said:

I would like to use it for “what we did today” sometimes.  

Actually MW/ASD is going to have a graphic organizer you're going to LOVE for this!!! Check it out when your kit comes. 

6 hours ago, Lecka said:

Basically — for this program, they recommend already being able to make up a story with clear causal relationships and use sufficiently complex language (two or more feeling words plus one or more mental or linguistic words, one or more adverbs, and one or more elaborated noun phrases).  

I think that’s really helpful information for what this particular program thinks kids should be able to do before doing certain other things.  I’m planning to copy some of this down on a piece of paper and try to make sure my son has these skills, too, before working on things this program says are a higher level.

The grammar for each level of narrative development is going to be with the appendix/download pages you should have gotten with your MW/ASD set. Go see. It has rubrics for each level and says what grammar/syntax. And yes, that's pretty much it, complex sentences, adverbs, etc. Think about it. The meaning you want him to add is driven by the syntax. Someone has a problem so they do something BECAUSE of xyz. We want to show feels, so HOW (adverbs) did they do it? It's going to become very natural, because the language and the meaning go together. And then when you're teaching you'll realize ok he can't even get out that language so he can't get out that meaning, ie. going to the next stage of narrative. It's not like oh picky teacher. It's literally how do you express that meaning (this is a problem, etc.) without the syntax? You don't. They'll go hand in hand and you can push syntax and reinforce.

What I haven't wanted is a verbatim retelling (scripting) of the narrative by my ds. I have to make some effort or he literally recites the entire jolly thing. Like if he as 3-5 days off, he forgets enough that he doesn't script the whole thing. But right, with the length of the fables I'm giving him, yes he will script. So that's another thing I watch for that isn't in their little rubrics and checklists. When he gets it entirely into his own words or said another way, I point out to him that that's what we want. I don't trash his narrative if it has scripting, but I try to do better for the next time, setting him up not to have that happen.

6 hours ago, Lecka said:

even if one kid (which is what it looks like, because it lists scores for 5 different kids) didn’t make much progress,

Yup, that was the kid I was looking at. My ds would be that dc. He's not typical. His ability to memorize is SO HIGH that I have to be very careful that he actually has the skill and is actually getting it at every point, that he can actually get it out, in his own words. So there's a sense in which I'm trying to get him to PRUNE the material he's given, which is forcing him to reword it. So he's getting longer narratives, but I'm not letting him script the whole stupid thing. I'm saying no, only give me these things and put them into your own words.

Ok, so I went back to that published research and was looking for the data. I think it's really easy to talk past each other. Kids do not all have the same starting points and kids are not all getting to the same points, at least not any time soon. It's like when I used to have food allergies. I would talk on forums and people were like OH THIS IS CURE!! and I was like fine, tell me how your food life is now? And they're like oh, well I got back 3 of the 35 foods I lost!! And I'm like so??? I had one standard when I had food allergies: all the way gone. Sorry, but that was it. So let's not talk past each other or say that any progress is the same progress. 

So "Jon" in their sample, one of the 5 I assume (I was just skimming, looking for that data), had a 21 point increase in his TNL and his final score after intervention done their way with SKILL was 76. My ds' score a year ago (literally one calendar year ago) on the TNL was 78. That was before SKILL, before any narrative work at all. I'm sorry, but it's really easy to talk past each other. I'm not looking for some improvement. 

It's like what my dh says about construction. The final 10% doubles the cost. It costs you a lot to get the first 80-90%, and then you do it all over again, just as hard, maybe harder, to get the rest of the way, that last way. 

So I have those scores and haven't rerun the TNL. I'd definitely like to, and maybe our ps will for me this spring. They actually could. Right now we're not with the private place that had it, and the ps SLP bought it after seeing the results. She really might. And she might go my lands your results are so poor, try harder. It's true, like I'm not sitting here saying I'm doing so well that I'm like hire me out, I'm the woman, lol. I'm also sorta everything right now and going crazy, buying new materials, handling supplements, managing his growth spurt and the flare up of behaviors, etc. I honestly didn't have extreme goals for this year. We're back in church and I didn't have pneumonia this year, sue me. When behavior is good and things are calm, everything else goes better.

So I don't know if his TNL scores will go up, but I know that to get them up the rest of the way it's going to take meticulous, pain-staking work. That's what i'm doing.

Just for fun, you could see if someone will run the TNL for you or give you some baseline data. Then you could actually track your progress. You'll know, because you'll see it. But data is cool too. The Gillams are behind the TNL, hence their use of it. There's a brief narrative language assessment included in the TILLS, or there's a way to do a dynamic assessment. Personally, I like the data from the TNL. Maybe your school would then be like wow we should have goals for this...

Edited by PeterPan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://comdde.usu.edu/services/research/schoolage-language/s-gillam-docs/TLD-D-15-00023.pdf

It is a study about SKILL.

I think SKILL and Mindwings are targeting a lot of the same goals and use some of the same methods.  

As far as buying one, I like that Mindwings seems less scripted, it has a physical manipative, it has autism materials.  I also think it’s a good sign it seems like it’s used by parents.  

SKILL looks like it includes students making up their own stories, and story retells.  I can’t tell if Mindwings does, I haven’t got it yet.  It looks like Mindwings definitely has personal narratives and story retells.  I can’t tell if SKILL has personal narratives or not.  

Edit:  I think this study is very good, has a lot of information about narratives, has a lot of information about how to teach these skills, even without planning to get SKILL.  It has a lot of good ideas and it has their skill progression.  

 

Edited by Lecka
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lecka said:

I do think telling 70% is really good, too.

 

Thanks! He's coming along. I need to do more, but I always need to do more. If he's nailing a skill 70% of the time independently, that's progress for him. But see that's another reason why I feel so comfortable keeping that list tight of what I'm expecting, because I'm trying to move that percentage UP. See what I mean? But is that a smart therapy goal for everyone? I'm only teaching my ds. 

6 hours ago, Lecka said:

But I think the results look great.  I don’t see at all from this study that the results for autism were only mediocre.

So if you're the parent of Jon and his scores went from 55 on the TNL (failing) to 76 (failing), that was still such a HUGE IMPROVEMENT that you're elated. But that doesn't mean I can turn off my therapy brain to what it's going to take to get a kid from 78 to 98 with the same materials. I have to use my head. It's a different level of mastery. And that's essentially what I'm saying, that instead of trying to get lots of features included a bit, I'm teaching each thing to a high degree of mastery and proficiency.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think — SKILL seems set up more to teach a series of lessons and then adjust if more lessons are needed, with an exit test.  That seems more scripted.

Mindwings seems like it is more set up to have “progress monitoring/data collection” more built in and more like you stay in one place as you go through, until you meet mastery criteria.

That is — my impression from samples.

Knowing my son we will be better off having more step-by-step mastery criteria because he is always going to take more time than many kids.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me I am not so much looking at trying to go from (just for example from numbers in your post) 78 to 98 all at once.

I am looking more at trying to do things at 1st/2nd grade level, then a 3rd grade level, slowly moving up in reading levels, a little at a time.

I’m looking to be broad and get to mastery broadly, then go up to the next level and be broad and try to get to that master level broadly.  

This seems like more of a fit for my son.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lecka said:

it has a physical manipative,

SKILL includes icons also.

3 minutes ago, Lecka said:

it has autism materials.

Yes, MW goes farther in its attempt to integrate social thinking concepts explicitly. Actually I haven't read the later sections of SKILL. I have to be so careful to pace myself with things so I don't get bored and rush. I try only to read what I need and then put it away. It's just what I have to do or I combine too much and swamp him. It's sorta my own self-discipline, which isn't helpful when someone is like yeah but what about the rest of the book? lol

4 minutes ago, Lecka said:

SKILL looks like it includes students making up their own stories, and story retells.

SKILL includes a couple stories for the lessons (one earlier, one later) that tie directly to the icons and the lessons. The lessons are brief, discussing the story. You'll see people frustrated, trying to find lists of stories or books that "fit" the MW icons, so the provided stories in SKILL work around that. It's also pretty telling that it's so hard to find books that present a "complete narrative" as MW explains it. ;)  Actually it was a MW video that clued me into this problem, because I watched Marilyn's granddaughter telling a narrative, supposedly with Braidy, and constantly trying to bust out. I realized that it's a starting point for instruction but not necessarily how mature writers organize. At some point in the process, for kids who are going farther, we have to bridge this. I'm not trying to create stilted, artificial narratives. He has the potential to understand and not do that.

7 minutes ago, Lecka said:

 I can’t tell if SKILL has personal narratives or not.

If you had SKILL, you'd read it much more thoroughly than I, lol. I skimmed the section at the end of phase 1 and took from it what I wanted. It probably said something like apply across the curriculum. It's obvious you would. Yes, SKILL is more spartan, basically just the tight lessons, and MW is all about the custom application. It's why I own both and haven't sold my MW/ASD, lol. But as far as how to carry them over, obviously you're going to use the budding narrative skills anywhere you can! You could play something like that Telepaths came with any cards you have randomly around (memory game cards, pictures on Spot It, whatever). The narrative skills carry over to so many places, by all means apply them as much as you can, sure. And no, SKILL is not going to top MW/ASD on that. 

10 minutes ago, Lecka said:

 I think this study is very good, has a lot of information about narratives, has a lot of information about how to teach these skills, even without planning to get SKILL.  It has a lot of good ideas and it has their skill progression.  

It has been a while since I lined them up, but the cards for MW are identical (conceptually, not by name obviously) to the SKILL cards where they overlap. SKILL just goes a bit farther and has more potential for complexity. I liked that and wanted that door open because I want him to be able to do those later cards and later skills. But does it matter to the kid with the 50-70 TNL? Not a flying fig. Not at all. 

Go burn rubber, enjoy your materials, make progress. It's probably going to be AMAZING.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the example of Jon — I think to a extent there is a hope that — at that point he can be in many natural learning environments and benefit rom his environment, and not HAVE to be just staying with 1:1 therapy to see any progress.  There’s often a hope that kids can benefit from other kinds of instruction and then see a progression, after the intense therapy is completed.

There are reasons for that ranging from — it’s really considered what will be best overall, to — that’s all the intense therapy they could arrange because it’s being done over the summer.  

I think it depends a lot but frankly — this was for a fairly short intervention in the scheme of things, and he got a lot of progress. 

I don’t think it’s meant to mean “this is all the therapy he will ever need in this area” or “he won’t still need some additional help.”

For what it is I think it is very good.  But does it probably get to about a 2nd grade level or something?  I mean — it’s true it looks really good, but it’s also true it looks like it will only do what it does in the scope of the program. 

And autism is still going to be different from a language delay.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay — I can’t say if there are a lot of stories that are exactly one complete episode.

And certainly the manipulative seems set up for linear stories.

But if there is more than one episode and it can be flexible, and both of us will be working 1:1, I think we will be able to just be flexible about what we want the episodes to be if they could be more than one way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lecka said:

That seems more scripted.

Yes, SKILL has brief, scripted lessons, phases, exit tests. MW is concepts for a therapist to use in an on-going, customized way. You *can* customize and use SKILL that way, absolutely. But that's not the starting point of the materials. 

9 minutes ago, Lecka said:

Knowing my son we will be better off having more step-by-step mastery criteria because he is always going to take more time than many kids.  

Ok, now I hadn't pondered this, but it's kind of interesting. See we're going in circles here, with me saying that SKILL's weakness is presenting so much upfront and not teaching to mastery and people saying well why complain if it got results... But then when you think about it, it's MW that is saying teach to mastery!!!! That's MW and I really, really, really, really (did I say that enough?) really think that makes sense. That's your therapist brain kicking in going hello, find some balance between forward progress and mastery.

So yes, Marilyn of MW is the one who was like use those narrative levels, don't rush, really develop the language. I like how streamlined SKILL is. It's like this jet and you're like ooo please let me fly in you! Seriously I like SKILL a lot. I have total sympatico vibes with it and can't stomach the set-up of MW. My likelihood of ever reading the MW/ASD manual thoroughly? Ha, never. Not gonna. I used the appendices, watched videos, and scanned some pages. But I've actually read (and forgotten) most of what I'm doing in SKILL. All the intro, the chapters, every word. Not phase 2/3, because like I said I have to be very careful about that. 

That's a rabbit trail. So yes, I'm modifying how I use SKILL because I like the therapeutic mindset of Marilyn/MW. I'm using SKILL because I'm too whatever to work from MW. I literally printed out the appendices and put them in page protectors, inserting them between my SKILL pages. 

But yes, mastery makes sense to me. Is it ok to go faster one time through and then go through again more slowly? I wouldn't have a problem with that. It's a strong educational technique. In schools they expect to repeat year after year. There's totally an argument for that. Sometimes slow plod is not the only way to get there. Think about if a kid did Braidy and then MW/ASD. They would have been through it once and then they'd go back and see the material again, doing it afresh at a new level. It could really be smart. And will I have sort of a reboot at the end of this year and do that? I don't know, hadn't thought of that.

This is stuff that doesn't have a lot of data. I think we can innovate like that and have goals. I'm really just thinking out loud at this point, because I had not pondered it. I had this kind of all the way, right now, 100% kind of thought process, but in the trenches more I'm thinking it's gonna be more like move forward 1-2 levels this year, move forward 1-2 levels next year, that kind of thing. That implies some starting over or maybe a plan that is like frontload, work those 4 to mastery, frontload, work more to mastery. I don't know, just thinking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else I would say is — Jon is probably older.  I assume it’s this way with the testing..... but with some testing it gets harder and harder to get a decent score with age, because the expectations go up SO much.

I don’t think I would look at that as going from “failing” to “failing.”  In any way.  

If you are going to only be happy If scores get up to 100 (or pick your number) on an age-leveled test, well, that sounds pretty depressing to me.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lecka said:

There’s often a hope that kids can benefit from other kinds of instruction and then see a progression, after the intense therapy is completed.

Ok, so here's my pessimism. When I tried to find someone to work on syntax with my ds, the SLPs were horrified. Now maybe someone, somewhere in a 3 mile radius gets kicks out of syntax, but I haven't found the person. I'm also not finding materials. I'm having to make stuff up and the stuff I buy is really crunchy and not a natural fit. The things I see on SLP blogs imply the same thing, that there's a dearth, that this is not obvious.

In other words, if the kids are hitting walls where the SLPs aren't going higher with syntax, then the kids aren't going to have the language to take their narratives higher. They will go together. 

It means it's also not logical to think that a kid who was not acquiring the syntax naturally on his own will then acquire it and develop narrative structures using it. The interventions and progress will be paired.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 minutes ago, Lecka said:

I think it depends a lot but frankly — this was for a fairly short intervention in the scheme of things, and he got a lot of progress. 

I don’t think it’s meant to mean “this is all the therapy he will ever need in this area” or “he won’t still need some additional help.”

Yes. I think this is a really important point. And too, my ds had had that basic kind of intervention, because we had done tons with story sequencing for months and months before the TNL testing. So that's an interesting point that ds' scores probably actually were more in line with that other boy's before. But maybe not, because I think it's pretty common for kids to get sequencing intervention in school.

8 minutes ago, Lecka said:

Something else I would say is — Jon is probably older.  I assume it’s this way with the testing..... but with some testing it gets harder and harder to get a decent score with age, because the expectations go up SO much.

That's an interesting question. On the SPELT they capped it because basically after that scores plateaued and everyone had strong scores. I don't remember what the cap was on the TNL. Googlefu says 15. 

Ok, this is funny. I didn't see the TNL administered and didn't know how it was done. I'm looking at the product page here and it shows a flip book with picture prompts. So when I was saying it would be logical for me to move on to having him describe pictures, apparently there's going to be some overlap. That happened to us with another test too, where the intervention I was doing was LITERALLY what was on the test. So he could pass the test even though he still had problems, ugh. So I'll have to think through that carefully, mercy.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...