Symbol Set Selection Criteria
By Pampoulou Eliada (2007)
One of the greatest challenges that speech and language therapists
face is the decision about which symbol set is the optimum for the person.
The literature supports that some of the factors that specialists should
take into account are:
- User’s Variables.
- Symbol set’s characteristics.
- Clinical and/or educational environment.
In the following paragraphs, the main factors will be explained with
some examples. However, it should be noted that the literature proposes
more factors from the ones that are written in the specific paper, and
in more depth paper will follow.
User’s variables
As regards to the user’s
variables, unfortunately the literature does not provide any depth information
about the variables. User’s
abilities and needs are some of the variables; the type and severity
of the impairment, the cognitive skills and the symbolic development
of the user should influence the specialist’s decision about the
symbol set. (Fuller et al, 1992; Lloyd et al. 1997; Glennen & DeCoste,
1997; Romski&Sevcik, 1988). For instance, a child with cognitive
challenges who finds it difficult to recognize symbols, a more illustrative
symbol set (i.e. Picture Communication Symbols - PCS) would be more beneficial
as the symbols are more pictographic. On the other hand, a child who
seems to have potentials to develop literacy skills, it will be advisable
to introduce him to a symbol set that has been created for literacy (i.e.
Widgit Literacy Symbols - WLS) and support him through his trip towards
text. Jans & Sherrit (2003) supports that long terms aims are strongly
connected with the cognitive level of the user thus and should influence
the decision about the symbol set that someone should use.
Moreover, the user’s preferences shouldn’t be ignored. As
Lloyd et al (1997) mention: “no matter how wonderful clinicians/educators
think a symbol is, or how well the symbol may meet the user’s needs,
if the user does not like or want the symbol, it may be useless” (Lloyd
ed al, 1997, p.215).
Symbol set’s characteristics
The symbol set’s characteristics are of paramount importance when
someone decides which is the optimum symbol set for the user. As it has
been mentioned earlier, symbol sets have been created for different purposes and they can be used in different methods (Abbott, 2002; Detheridge&Detheridge
2002; Lloyd et al. 1997). For example, PCS to access communication and
WLS to access curriculum. However, WLS can be also used to access the
environment in the school, express their ideas and thoughts with other
communicative partners as well as access the curriculum.
As each symbol set has its own purposes and has its own vocabulary bank,
the decision should be base on what we would like to teach or help the
person? For example, if someone needs to use symbols for history, then
WLS is the right symbol set. On the other hand, if someone needs more
pictorial symbols about feelings or for example about occupations then
PCS may be a better choice.
However, prior to the vocabulary bank that each symbol set may have,
it is important to distinguish the differences between symbol sets regards
to the symbolic representation they carry, or more specifically if they
are more pictographic or line-drawings. Madge Skelly (cited by Jans D&Sherrit
K. 2003), a speech and language therapist, has introduced the concept
of the “symbol ladder” in order to describe the level of
iconicity of the symbol. The iconicity of symbol set can help the specialists
to choose the appropriate symbol set for the user according to his needs.
My slightly modified version of the ladder consists:
- the real object
- representational object (a toy/part of the object/
associated object)
- colour photo or real object (digital technology)
- colour illustrative
symbols (i.e. PCS-Boardmaker)
- colour and black and white schematic symbols (i.e. WLS)
- Rule/language
based symbol set (i.e. Bliss)
- the word (written/spoken)
Moreover, iconicity is another factor that specialists should take into
consideration. However, iconicity does not influence the symbol set choice
when we refer to many nouns or for some verbs as it is easier to resemble
the concept in symbols. However, as Mirenda (2003) supports, iconicity
is on the eyes of the beholder and depends on AAC user’s experiences
and background. Within this context, I would like to emphasize the fact
that the decision of a symbol set includes a series of factors, and unfortunately
it is not a straightforward decision.
Moreover, it is now feasible for the specialist to first choose the
symbol set that is the optimum for the user and then to decide if its
better for the user to be in colour or in black and white. WLS (previous
known as Rebus) in Widgit 2000 used to be in black and white. The people
who designed the WLS thought that black and white symbols were more appropriate
for their users. However, anecdotal evidences suggest that colour symbols
can be more readable (always according to the user’s needs). Thus,
the WLS have now been designed as well in colour. Regarding the specific
issue, WLS symbols were tested in the VI project (2006) in a number of
schools in Warwickshire. The findings suggest that the readability of
the symbols is greater with colour. For example, for the symbol play,
when it was introduced to the children in black and white, some of the
children thought that the ball was sun as it was no colour to give meaning
to the ball. As soon as the colour was added, it was clear to the children
that it was a ball. In the same aspect, the symbol swim was firstly recognized
as someone who was sleeping. When colour was added, children realized
that it was someone swimming. However, the fact that the eyes were closed
in the specific symbol seemed to confuse the children.
However, in some instances it seems to be better to use black and white
symbols, especially for the children who find it difficult to generalize
what they learn. For example, a child with autism may find it difficult
to generalize that the symbol with the “red car” represents
any, not just red car. Communicate in Print (writing with symbols 2000
was the previous version) has an option to switch the symbols between
colour and black and white. In designing the colour set, care was taken
with the colour tones so when in printing in black and white, much of
the readability was maintained. For instance, in the play symbol, mentioned
above, the ball is darker and therefore more readable. Therefore, even
if there is no colour to confuse the user, the different tones still
apply the readability that we are looking for the user.
However, it is advisable that the specialist has the symbols in colour
in his/ her computer and in the printing options, to choose to print
them in black and white. This is due to the fact that by printing in
black and white coloured symbols the different tones of colours remain
in the printed page. So even if there is no colour to confuse the user,
the different tones still apply that readability that we are looking
for the user.
Barrow et al (2000) on their paper about the “effect of colour
on developmental picture-vocabulary naming of 4-, 6-, and 8- year-old
children” have conducted a study where they showed 108 line drawings
representing picture-vocabulary items to 30 normally developing children.
The authors in their paper advised interventionists that “introduction
of new concepts may be more readily understood and accepted if presented
in colour”. (Barrow et al., 2000. p.317). It seems that colour
help children to recognize the line drawings when the vocabulary level
that their introduced exceeds their chronological age level.
Additionally, Barrow et al (2000) in their paper have written about
a series of other studies that researchers undertook regarding this issue.
Regarding people with mental impairment, Mirenda& Locke (1989) found
that colour facilitated recognition in mentally impaired individuals
ranging in age from 3 years 11 months to 20 years 10 months (cited by
Barrow et al, 2000, p.311). Lastly, another interesting study on the
importance of colour is the one from Bornstein (1985) who claimed that
even if young children cannot name colours, they show to have awareness
about colour. Thus, the colour can be identified as a salient feature
for children (cited by Barrow et al, 2000, p.312).
Regarding the quotation from the special schools sent “that
the infants will be using colour as they are nicer but the children will
transfer to black and white in the juniors as more grown up”, anecdotal
evidences shows that users while they grown up they prefer to use WLS
than PCS. Specifically, one of the interviewees in the Symbol Inclusion
Project (SIP) said: “that was one of the big problems what anything
that was used in symbols was baby- and they are treating me like a baby,
whereas she doesn’t make this comment anymore (after was introduced
to WLS in colour)”. In my opinion, the specific attitude is not
relevant to the colour but perhaps to the previous situation that WLS
weren’t accessible in colour.
Clinical or educational environment
As symbols serve communication and literacy, it is important to be recognized
and used by other communicative partners. Thus, in a school setting it
seems to be important to have consistency of symbols. However, the specific
principle doesn’t imply that the user shouldn’t use another
set if its more applicable than the one that the school or the county
uses. The user should always be the centre of any assessment that practitioners
undertake. As Abbott (2000) mentions, “it is a challenge to find
the symbol set that mean the most for the child and balance it with local
communication systems” (Abbott, 2000, p.27). Unfortunately, there
are not any evidences about the specific issues. Hopefully, future research
will be able to answer the specific queries. Widgit Software and Mayer-Johnson
(developers of PCS) are working together to look at ways to make transition
from one set to another easier. Under this scope, hopefully children
who are exposed to these two sets will find it easier.
Combination of symbol sets
According to Millar (1998) it is not advisable to combine different
symbol sets as they carry their own characteristics and each symbol set
has an internal coherence where the user can visually decode it, learn
it and remember it. In case though that there are gaps in their vocabulary,
then choices should be made carefully to be sure te user understand the
different symbol.
Conclution
Concluding, we realize that the symbol set selection procedure includes
a variety of factors that specialists should be aware of. According
to the study that Pampoulou (2006) conducted, it seems that there
is a lack of research to support practitioners in their difficult task.
Thus, many of the practitioners base their decision on their knowledge
and experience. More research is warranted and hopefully the information
we have up to now will help the specialists in their work.
References
Abbott C (2000) Symbols now, Leamington Spa, Widgit Software Ltd
Barrow M., Holbert D., & Rastatter M., P. (2000) Effect of Color
on Developmental Picture-Vocabulary Naming of 4-, 6-, and 8-Year-Old
Children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 9 310-318
Bornstein M H (1985) On the development of color naming in young children:
Data and theory. Brain and Language 26 72-93
Detheridge T, & Detheridge M (2002) Literacy through symbols. London:
David Fulton Publisher
Fuller D R & Arvidson H H (1997) Augmentative and alternative
communication: A handbook of principles and practices (pp.48-79). Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon
Fuller D R, Lloyd L L & Schlosser R.W. (1992) Further development
of an augmentative and alternative communication symbol taxonomy. Augmentative
and alternative communication. 8 67-76
Glennen S L & DeCoste D C (1997) Handbook of augmentative and
alternative communication. San Diego, London: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
Jans D & Sherrit K (2003) Introduction to symbol selection. Augmentative
Communication in Practise: Scotland. CALL centre, The University of Edinburgh.
Pp. 9-13
Millar S (2003) Symbols in the Process of Documenting, Consulting and
Planning. Augmentative Communication in Practise: Scotland. CALL centre,
The University of Edinburgh. Pp. 57-66
Mirenda P (2003) Toward Functional Augmentative and Alternative Communication
for Students with Autism: Manual Signs, Graphic Symbols, and Voice Output
Communication Aids. Language, Speech and hearing Services in Schools
34 203-216
Mirenda P & Locke P A (1989) A comparison of symbol transparency
in nonspeaking persons with intellectual disabilities. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Disorders 52 131-140
A set of symbols for learners with visual impairment. Widgit Software.
http://www.widgit.com/products/vi/vi_booklet.pdf (accessed 09 August
2007).
|
