ERIC ED359686: Partnerships for Learning.

45 Pages·1993·1.4 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 359 686
EC 302 246
AUTHOR
Nathanson, Jeanne H., Ed.
TITLE
Partnerships for Learning.
INSTITUTION
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services (ED), Washington, DC.
PUB DATE
93
NOTE
45p.
AVAILABLE FROM
OSERS News in Print, Room 3129, Switzer Building,
330
C St., S.W., Washington, DC 20202-2524 (free).
PUB TYPE
Collected Works
Serials (022)
JOURNAL CIT
OSERS News in Print; v5 n4 Spr 1993
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
*Agency Cooperation; Ancillary School Services;
*Cooperative Programs; *Disabilities; Early
Childhood
Education; Educational Change; Grading; Homework;
Inservice Education; Mothers; National Surveys;
Parent Child Relationship; Parent Education; Parent
Participation; School Business Relationship;
State
Programs; Therapists; Vocational Rehabilitation
IDENTIFIERS
Medically Fragile
ABSTRACT
This journal issue focuses on cooperative
partnership
programs for the improvement of educational services to students with
disabilities. The eight articles are: (1) "Partner-Based
Prelinguistic Intervention: A Preliminary Report" by M.
Jeanne Wilcox
(which found the intervention procedures had
a strong effect on
mother-child dyads);
(2) "Helping Parents to Help Their Children"
by
Beth Dohrn, James Bryan and Tanis Bryan (which describes
two pilot
studies to increase the effectiveness of parent involvement
stressing
attribution training); (3) "Homework, Grading, and Testing:
National
Surveys of School District Policies" (Michael H. Epstein
et al.);
(4)
"A Green Mountain Challenge: Assessing the Impact of
School Reform on
Children with Disabilities" by Pam Kay et al.
(a Vermont effort at
systematic educational reform);
(5) "Partnerships Between Therapists,
Parents, and Children" by Mary C. Lawlor and Elizabeth
A. Cada
(describing a University of Illinois project);
(6) "Inservice
Programs for Related Services Teams Serving Medically Fragile
Children" by Forrest C. Bennett et al. (describing
a demonstration
project in Oregon and Washington);
(7) "From Vision to Reality: The
Opened Door" by Ruby Frazier (describing "Projects with
Industry" in
Lansing, Michigan) and (8) "Effective Consumer-Service Provider
Interactions in Vocational Rehabilitation" (Thomas Czerlinsky
and
Shirley K. Chandler). All articles include references.
(Dii)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that
can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
tvrt
4
4,
s:
,& ktr
s'111477117:7",rrr
,s
9R96qR(IR
-.0
4
?"-;
Renata Schlegel (1988)
Spring 1993
2
Partner-Based Pre linguistic Intervention:
4
A Preliminary Report
Partnerships
M. Jeanne Wilcox, Ph.D.
for
Learning
10
Children
Helping Parents To Help Their
Tanis Bryan
Beth Dohrn
Volume V, Number 4
James Bryan
Spring 1993
Homework, Grading, and Testing:
15
Richard W. Riley
Policies
National Surveys of School District
Secretary
William D. Bursuck
Michael H. Epstein
United States Department of
Carla Cumblad
Edward A. Polloway
Education
Madhavi Jayanthi
William L. Smith
Assessing the
A Green Mountain Challenge:
Acting Assistant Secretary
22
Children with Disabilities
Office of Special Education and
. .
.
Impact of School Reform on
Rehabilitative Services
Martha Fitzgerald
Pam Kay
Amy Mellencamp
Jeanne H. Nathanson
Editor
27
Parents, and Children
.
.
Partnerships Between Therapists,
Elizabeth A. Cada, M.S.
Mary C. Lawlor, Sc.D.
Deborah Rhode
Cover art
Services Teams
Inservice Programs for Related
31
Children
Serving Medically Fragile
Renata Schlegel (1988)
Patrick Haley, M.S.
Washington Very Special Arts
Forrest C. Bennett, M.D.
Janet Valluzzi, MBA
Inside cover art
Gerald Smith, Ed.D.
36
Opened Door
From Vision to Reality: The
OSERS News In Print is published
quarterly and is available free of
Ruby Frazier
charge. Contributors of articles for
this issue expressed their own points
Provider Interactions
Effective Consumer-Service
of view, which may not necessarily
39
in Vocational Rehabilitation
reflect the position or policy of the
Shirley K. Chandler, M.S.
U.S. Department of Education. The
Thomas Czerlinsky, Ph.D.
information in this publication may
be reproduced without further permis-
sion: a credit line would be appreciat-
ed. Please address comments to: Edi-
Room
tor, OSERS News In Print,
3129, Switzer Building, 330 C Street,
S.W. Washington, D.C. 20202-2524.
Spring 1993
3
4
()SERS News In Print
Partner-Based Pre linguistic Intervention:
A Preliminary Report
M. Jeanne Wilcox, Ph.D.
Infant Child Communication
Research Programs
Arizona State University
Aprimary area of concern for many
young children with developmen-
"'"
tal disabilities is initial communication
or prelinguistic skills. Often, these
young children demonstrate little or no
language use. Although facilitation of
language skills is an ultimate goal for
many children. the more immediate
intervention goal must focus on estab-
lishment of basic communication skills.
Nes
Prior to use of first words. children have
developed a rich system of nonsymbol-
ic communication abilities. Further, it is
apparent that these early communica-
tion skills (e.g.. intentionally conveying
a message to an interactive partner) for-
mulate a necessary basis for initial lan-
guage use. This is not to say that inten-
tional communication abilities by
"
themselves represent a sufficient condi-
tion of language acquisition. However.
it is clear that we cannot expect a child
to use language as a tool for communi-
cating it he or she has not first learned
..4.11.1V
to communicate. The first task facing
many early interventionists providing
acquisition of intentional communica-
interactive context. Central to interven-
services to young children with disabili-
tion is widely acknowledged, both for
tions designed to establish initial com-
ties is often facilitation of intentional
children developing typically and those
munication skills is consideration of
communication skills.
with developmental disabilities. Within
facilitative parameters within the inter-
Communication. as the process by
the last decade. it has been repeatedly
active context. The importance of the
which meaning is conveyed during
suggested that most developmental skill
interpersonal environment to children's
interpersonal interactions, is tied to the
5
OSERS N'eu s In Print
OAP
Tft
`
--te"
*--4-'mo
-
It?,
J
`II. /.0
this purposeful
ner. The emergence of
intent of transmitting a specific mean-
learning. including communication. can
communication is marked by a child's
ing (e.g.. request for something) to an
child/adult
be viewed as deriving from
deliberate attention to an interactive
the
interactive partner. but nonetheless
1982:
social interchanges (e.g., Ms.
partner. For example. a child may
behavior is often perceived as mean-
Bruner, 1977: Marfo, 1988; Snow.
"request assistance" by looking at an
ingful by a partner. For example. a
1990:
1981; Wilcox. Kouri. & Caswell,
interactive partner. shaking a box that
child may be unsuccessful at opening a
Wilcox, 1992). Of particular importance
he or she cannot open. and looking
container of small toys and an interac-
is expo-
to children's early development
toward the partner again. Children's
tive partner perceives this as a context
in which a
sure to social interchanges
initial intentional or purposeful com-
offered and
in which assistance can be
caregiver/adult responds to a child's
munications are conveyed through
though the
opens the container even
behavior in a responsive manner.
nonsymbolic modes and include a rela-
indi-
child has done nothing that would
Responsivity has been discussed by var-
tively restricted range of meanings
for assistance.
cate a specific request
Easter-
ious authors (e.g.. Lamb. &
for
(e.g., request for assistance, request
Thus, during the earliest phase of com-
brooks. 1981: Rosenberg & Robinson.
attention). Gradually, through exposure
munication development. children's
tendency
1988) and refers to an adult's
children expand
to responsive partners,
communications are not purposeful
behavioral cues
to recognize children's
the types of meanings they can convey
Commu-
from the child's perspective.
and provide contingent, appropriate.
modes
and also start using symbolic
nication that occurs is a result of a part-
and consistent responses to those cues.
of those
(e.g.. speech) for expression
attribute
ner's ability and tendency to
Responsive partners have an impor-
meanings.
and
meaning to a child's nonsymbolic
facilitating the
tant role to play in
The behavior of an interactive partner
frequently unconventional behavior.
initial com-
emergence of children's
ini-
is central to facilitation of children's
Children gradually acquire the abili-
munication skills. Children are born
key
tial communication abilities, and a
communica-
ty to produce intentional
that
with basic communication abilities
is sensitive
aspect of partner behavior
is pur-
tive behavior. i.e.. that which
partner-per-
can be characterized as
behavior. A part-
responses to a child's
posefully produced to transmit a
child's
ceived, which means that a
recognize a
ner must consistently
specific message to an interactive part-
the
behavior is not produced with
5
Sprinq 1993
nrif7"1"
111.7.!!1!
6
.
.
.
OSERS Nel,s In Print
Development was also administered to
with the task of learning basic commu-
child's communicative or potentially
all children, revealing delays in recep-
nication skills. may often be exposed to
communicative attempts and respond to
tive and expressive communication
situations in which they are receiving
those attempts in a contingent, appropri-
skills that ranged from 6 to 22 months.
inconsistent responses (across their typi-
ate. and consistent manner. In this way.
Review of the children's medical
cal interactive partners) to their poten-
a child comes to learn that his or her
records indicated auditory and visual
tially communicative behaviors. When
behavior has consistent and predictable
acuity within normal limits. Baseline
this is considered in conjunction with
environmental effects, a knowledge
the fact that young children with dis-
base that is regarded as essential to a
observations of the children while inter-
abilities are typically enrolled in early
acting in typical activities with each of
child's ability to purposefully commu-
intervention programs in which they
the targeted interactive partners con-
nicate (Snow, 1981; Wilcox et al.,
have contact with multiple interactive
firmed that, while some children pro-
1990). As the importance of children's
duced occasional behavior that was
partners (e.g., teachers and related ser-
interactive partners is increasingly rec-
judged as purposeful communication,
vices personnel), potential inconsisten-
ognized, especially for children who are
cies across these partners becomes a
their communicative interactions were
presymbolic, the behavior of partners of
matter of concern. Wilcox et al. sug-
predominantly preintentional in nature,
children with disabilities has served as
gested that a viable intervention strategy
i.e.. the majority of communication that
the focus of a variety of investigations
might be one in which training focused
occurred was partner-perceived. Thus.
and communication programming (e.g.,
on increasing the consistency of recog-
Brookes-Gunn & Lewis, 1984; Cun-
all children were determined to be can-
nition and responses to children's com-
ningham, Reuter, Blackwell. & Deck.
didates for intervention with a focus on
municative or potentially communica-
facilitating purposeful nonsymbolic
1981: Hanzlik & Stevenson. 1986:
tive behavior by a child's typical
Houghton, Bronicki. & Guess, 1987;
communication skills.
interactive partners. Therefore, the pur-
Tannock, 1988; Wilcox et al., 1990).
The children were enrolled in one of
pose of this research was to develop and
four different early intervention pro-
Numerous aspects of partner's interac-
test a partner-based intervention pro-
grams in which they received educa-
tive behavior have been examined with
gram of this nature and in the following
tional and therapeutic (e.g., speech/lan-
children with disabilities including gen-
sections of this article preliminary infer
eral measures of interaction such as
guage, physical therapy, occupational
mation regarding the procedures and
turn-taking and duration of joint atten-
'herapy) services. Two of the programs
outcomes is presented.
were designated as standard practice
tion as well as more specific measures
of partner behavior (e.g., positive
control sites, the remaining two pro-
Method
compliant behavior.
grams served as sites for initial imple-
responses
to
mentation of the experimental inter-
responses to child initiations) in relation
Participants
vention procedures. This report is
to child behavior. Although there has
Twenty-seven children, ranging in
based on thirteen children and their
been a fair amount of variation in results
age from 16 to 38 months and their
of such studies, an emerging concern is
interactive partners who participated in
familiar interactive partners (mothers
the fact that young children with dis-
the experimental intervention condition
and their early intervention personnel
abilities may often be exposed to less
and fourteen children and their partners
including early childhood special edu-
than optimal responses from their com-
who served as standard practice control
cators. speech-language pathologists.
municative partners. For example, in an
participants.
occupational therapists, and physical
earlier investigation of partner respon-
Intervention Procedures
therapists) were recruited for participa-
sivity to young children with develop-
In recognition of the fact that commu-
tion in this investigation. All children
mental disabilities (Wilcox et al.. 1990),
nication is a dynamic process, the inter-
had a medical diagnosis of a general
comparisons were made with respect to
vention procedures included a focus on
developmental delay and none were
the tendencies of children's mothers.
both child and partner behavior within
using language at the time of recruit-
early intervention teachers, and speech-
typical interactive contexts. Central to
ment for participation in the research.
language pathologists to recognize chil-
the design of the experimental program
Standardized testing included adminis-
dren's communicative or potentially
was the assumption that communication
tration of the Battelle Developmental
Results
behavior.
communicative
occurs during any interaction that may
Inventory and all children scored at least
revealed that the partners typically dis-
take place with a young child, irrespec-
1.5 standard deviations below the mean
agreed in the identification of children's
tive of the specific focus of the interac-
in all assessed developmental areas (i.e..
communicative behavior as well as their
tive effort. In other words, it is not nec-
motor, cognitive. communication, per-
interpretations of potential meanings. It
essary for there to be a specific
adaptive).
The
sonal-social.
and
was concluded that many young chil-
"communication" activity for a child to
Sequenced Inventory of Communication
dren with disabilities, who are faced
Spring /993
6
OSERS News In Print
complete. The training procedures
included a combination of individual
Program
Components of the Partner Training
and group meetings for the targeted
partners Table 1 provides an overview
Component One: Assessment
and brief description of the program
child's typical partners as
Focus: Identification of behavior perceived by a
components. As can be seen, the initial
component was designed to gather
communication.
videotaped segment
Method: Each partner individually watches the same
information regarding the partner's per-
from his or her perception,
of caregiver-child interaction and specifies,
ception of children's communicative
behavior and its asso-
when communication occurs as well as the child's
behavior. This information served as
ciated meaning.
the basis for determination of areas of
consistency and inconsistencies among
Component Two: Sensitivity Training
the partners and ultimately resulted in
communication behavior and
Focus: Increasing identification of targeted
the identification of specific child
identification of opportunities for communication.
behaviors) that would be targeted for
and one individual
Method: Three group meetings with the partners
facilitation efforts. The second compo-
engaged in typical activities
"coaching" sess;un with each partner while
nent had a primary focus on increasing
with the child.
the partners' abilities to recognize tar-
Component Three: Contingency Training
geted child behavior as well as strate-
seconds) and relatedness
gies for creating opportunities for com-
Focus: Increasing the timeliness (within five
munication. The third component
model appropriate behavior
(attribute meaning matched to opportunity;
child behavior.
focused on establishing contingent part-
and/or symbol) of responses to targeted
behav-
and two individual "coach-
ner responses to targeted child
Method: Two group meetings with the partners
typical activities with
ior. and the fourth component had a pri-
ing" sessions with each partner while engaged in
mary focus on consistency of partner
the child.
responses (both within and across part-
Component Four: Consistency Training
ners) as well as strategies for further
of children's skills.
Focus: Self-monitoring and further enhancement
enhancement of children's emerging
individual "coach-
Method: Two group meetings with the partners and two
communication skills.
in typical activities with
ing" sessions with each partner while engaged
Pre- and Post-Intervention Measures
the child.
Videotaped samples were obtained
immediately prior to and immediately
following partners completion of the
direct contact with the targeted children.
learn basic communication skills. For
intervention program for experimental
Rather, experimental efforts focused on
example, a mother may be Irving to get
and standard practice participants. These
training and monitoring of the children's
her child dressed. During this routine
samples at each measurement poir.t (i.e.,
typical interactive partners, defined as
caregiving activity, communication per
included two
pre- and post-intervention)
those who interacted with the children at
communi-
se is not the focus: however,
20-30 minute tapes of each child inter-
had
least three times per week and
cation between mother and child is cer-
acting with his or her participating part-
six
known the children for at least
tainly taking place. and even though
there were
ner in typical activities. Thus.
months prior to the research.
dressing is the primary goal. there are
observation
a total of 50-60 minutes of
The primary goal of the partner train-
still numerous opportunities for the child
for each child interacting with his or her
ing was to increase the sensitivity, con-
Similar
to learn about communication.
partner for each of the measurement
of partner
sistency. and contingency
child-
reasuning can be applied to early
points. Teacher-child samples were
and
responses to children's actual
hood education activities. Thus, the
obtained during a classroom activity of
potential communicative behavior
procedures
ex pen mental intervention
the educators' choice, and samples of
within the context of whatever caregiv-
those which
can he conceptualized as
children interacting with their physical.
ing, educational, or therapeutic activi-
were "overlaid" upon existing program-
occupational. and speech/language ther-
ties the partners would typically con-
ming efforts. No attempts were made to
apists were obtained by recording a
duct with the children. The intervention
alter any aspect of the children's ongo-
scheduled treatment session. Mother-
protocol consisted of four major partner
ing program plans. and the children con-
child samples were obtained in the chil-
training components that took approxi-
tinued to receive educational and thera-
dren's homes during a tree play activity,
mately six months for the partners to
peutic services. Research staff had no
Spring /993
7
8
These tapes were reviewed for the
Children's Purposeful Communcation with
purpose of obtaining information
Mothers & Professionals
regarding child and adult behavior.
Child behavior measures included
30
identification of all occurrences of pur-
C
poseful communication, defined as
25
0
those instances in which the child
20
looked at the interactive partner and
0.°
produced additional behavior (e.g.,
reach, vocalization, alternating looks)
for the purpose of requesting an object
or activity or for the purpose of direct-
0
Prof.-Post
Prof.-Pre
Mothers-Post
Mothers-Pre
ing the partner's attention to a particu-
lar event. In addition to purposeful
Maternal Enhancing and Limiting Behavior
communication, behavior that did not
meet criteria for purposeful communi-
cation but occurred in an "assistive
80
context" was also noted. Assistive con-
texts were defined as those instances in
60
which there was an opportunity for the
it
adult to interpret a child's behavior as
Ca
05 40
either a request for an activity. object.
or attention.
20
Measures of partner behavior focused
0
on descriptions of adult reponses to the
Limit-Post
Limit-Pre
Enhance-Post
Enhance-Pre
children's purposeful communication as
well as behavior that was not purposeful
Professional Enhancing and Limiting Behavior
but occurred in an assistive context.
Partner responses were categorized as
100
enhancing, limiting, or neutral. Enhanc-
ing responses included those regarded
80
as facilitating for children's communi-
a,
60
cation and were identified as instances
in which the partners demonstrated (a)
ct 40
compliance with purposeful requests.
20
(b) compliance with perceived child
requests, i.e., those behaviors produced
0
Limit-Post
Limit-Pre
Enhance-Post
Enhance-Pre
in assistive contexts, or (c) acknowl-
edgement (in the absence of compli-
ance) for both purposeful and perceived
NIP Experimental
Control
requests. Limiting responses were those
regarded as less than optimal with
Results And Conclusions
in which the partners attempted to redi-
respect to facilitation of children's com-
rect child behavior they regarded as
munication skills and included instances
displays the results to
Figure
1
inappropriate. Neutral behavior was
in which the partners (a) ignored chil-
changes in children's purposeful com-
regarded as neither facilitative nor limit-
dren's behavior. (b) attempted to redi-
munication for the experimental and
included
predominantly
and
ing
rect a child's attention to an activity or
standard practice control groups. Due
instances in which the partners could
object that was not consistent with the
to variances in observation, time and,
discern no clear child intent or opportu-
child's purposeful communication or
therefore, opportunities to communi-
nity for compliance and responded with
the assistive context, and (c ) verbal
cate, the frequency of the children's
requests for additional information (e.g.,
directives that were not related to the
purposeful communications was calcu-
"What do you want?", "Huh?", "Could
ongoing activity. Excluthd from the
lated per 10 minute observation units at
limiting category were those instances
you show me?")
8
Sri ins; 1 g93
OSERS Mews iii Print
tion programs are being evaluated for
partner training procedures for the
each measurement point. Data for the
all participating children. i
mother-child dyads.
children while interacting with the pro-
Unfortunately, similar trends were
fessionals was collapsed across disci-
References
not observed for the professional part-
pline groupings due to the fact that not
ner-child dyads. The results indicated
Ms. H. (1982). The unfolding of behavioral
all children had all categories of profes-
organization in the face of biological violation.
minimal changes in child or partner
sional partners. Statistical analyses
In E. Tronick (Ed.). Social interchange in infan-
behavior. Experimental partners demon-
indicated that while experimental and
cy: Affect. cognition. and communication (pp.
strated essentially equal amounts of
125-160). Baltimore: University Park Press.
control group participants demonstrated
Brooks-Gunn, J. &I-eviis, M. (1984). Mater-
enhancing and limiting behavior from
equal abilities during pre-intervention
nal responsivtty in interactions with handicapped
and the
pre- and post-intervention,
measures with their mothers, the exper-
infants. Child Development. 55. 782-793.
experimental children demonstrated
imental children demonstrated signifi-
Bruner, J. (1977). Early social interaction and
only a slight, nonsignificant increase in
language acquisition. In H. Schaffer (Ed.), Stud-
cantly greater amounts of purposeful
ies in mother-infant interaction (pp. 271-289).
their purposeful communications with
communication post - intervention. No
New York: Academic Press.
these partners. Standard practice control
significant changes were noted for
Cunningham. C.. Reuter, E., Balckwell. J.,
decrease
partners demonstrated a slight
either group of children while interact-
& Deck. J. (1981). Behavioral and linguistic
in enhancing behavior and a slight
developments in the interactions of normal and
ing with their professional partners.
retarded children with their mothers. Child
increase in limiting behavior but both
Figures 2 and 3 display information
Development. 52. 62-70.
changes were insignificant. Standard
the partner
reaarding changes in
Hanzlik. J. & Stevenson, M. (1986). Interac-
practice control children demonstrated
enhancing and limiting behavior.
tion of moaners with their infants who are men-
communi-
ially retard -d. retarded with cerebral palsy, or
no change in their purposeful
Aeain, data for the professional part-
nonretarded. American Journal of Mental Defi-
cations with their professional partners.
disciplines.
ners was collapsed across
ciency. 90. 513-520.
It would appear that the intervention
Houghton, J., Bronicki, G., & Guess, D.
Statistical analyses revealed significant
impact on
program had minimal to no
(1987). Opportunities to express preferences and
changes in the experimental mothers'
make choices among students with severe dis-
the professional partner-child dyads.
behavior, and as can be seen in Figure
abilities in classroom settings. Journal of the
At this point, it is unclear why the
2. demonstrated an increase in enhanc-
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps.
intervention procedures had such a
ing behavior and a decrease in limiting
12. 18-27.
minimal impact on the professional
Lamb, M. & Easterbrooks. M. (1981). Indi-
behavior. No significant changes were
idual differences in parental sensitivity: Origin,
the pro-
partners. One possibility is that
noted for the standard practice control
components. and consequences. In M. Lamb &
fessionals' levels of production of
mothers. Similarly. no significant dif-
R. Sherrod (Eds.). Infant social cognition:
enhancing behavior were high at the
Empirical and theoretical considerations (pp.
ferences or changes were noted in the
pre-intervention measurements. It may
127-153). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
behavior of experimental and standard
Marto, K. (Ed.) (1988). Parent-child infrrac.
be that there was little room for
practice professional partners.
non and developmental disabilities: Theory.
improvement. However, the children
When comparing pre- and post-
research, and intervention. New York: Praeger.
demonstrat-
were certainly capable of
Rosenberg, S. & Robinson. C. (1988). Inter-
intervention data across the experimen-
ing improvement and the patterns
actions of parents with their young handicapped
tal and standard practice mother-child
children. In S. Odom & M. Karnes (Eds.), Early
observed in changes in the maternal-
dyads, it is apparent that the interven-
with
intervention for infants and young children
child dyads suggest that the minimal
handicaps (pp. 159-178). Baltimore: Paul H.
tion procedures had a strong impact on
change observed in the children's com-
Brookes.
these experimental dyads. While the
Snow, C. (1981). Social interaction and lan-
munication abilities may be in part
standard practice dyads made essen-
Ingram
guage acquisition. In P. Dale & D.
attributable to the minimal changes
tially no change from pre- and post-
(Eds.). Child language: An international per-
made by the professionals in their
University
spective (pp. 195 -214). Baltimore:
intervention. dramatic changes were
responsivness to the children. Certainly
Park Press.
purposeful com-
seen in the children's
Tannock, R. (1988). Control and reciprocity in
these are issues that continue to serve
munication while interacting with their
mothers interactions with Down syndrome and
investigative
as a focus for ongoing
normal children. In K. Marto (Ed.). Parent-child
mothers. In turn, mothers demonstrated
efforts. Other ongoing efforts include
Theo-
interaction and developmental disabilities:
their enhanc-
a significant increase in
New
of
ry. research. and intervention (pp. 163-180).
further examination and validations
ing behavior and a significant decrease
York: Praeger.
the intervention protocol for young
This sug-
in their limiting behavior.
Wilcox, M., Kouri. T., & Caswell, S. (1990).
children and their mothers and further
relationship
Partner sensitivity to communication behavior of
important
gests
an
disabilities.
examination of potential impacts on
young children with developmental
between maternal enhancing behavior
Journal of Speech & Hearing Disorders.55. 679-693.
professional partners' behavior through
and children's emerging skills with
Wilcox, M.11992). Enhancing initial commu-
modifications of intervention proce-
nonsymbolic
respect to purposeful
nication skills in young children with develop-
dures. Additionally, the longer -term
mental disabilities through partner programming.
communication, and these preliminary
interven-
Seminars in Speech & Hearing, 13. 194-212.
outcomes of the prelinguistic
findings attest to the efficacy of the
9
Sprint; /993
1 0