Facilitated+Communication

Facilitated Communication

(Rohrer, 2009)

Definition:

Facilitated communication provides nonverbal individuals with a way to communicate with others. The non-communicative person points to letters or pictures using a product such as a word board or alphanumeric keyboard and the help of a professionally trained facilitator to communicate their thoughts (Oswald, 1994, p. 191).

Techniques for Adapting Instruction:
 * “Use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) when students have little or no oral language” (Ormrod, 2014, p. 139). These forms of AAC can range from a human facilitator to a laptop or computer that can “speak” to the student when they indicate an image or symbol. (Ormrod, 2014)
 * “Use assistive technology to facilitate learning and performance” (Ormrod, 2014, p. 149). A variety of technological devices are made for nonverbal students: word boards, augmentative communication devices, specially adapted joysticks, and voice recognition control systems (Ormrod, 2014). These technological devices address the concerns of critics of facilitated communication because an algorithm-driven machine replaces the potentially influential facilitator.

Criticism:

(Macleod, 2009)

A major criticism of facilitated communication is the bias of the facilitator. Critics doubt the degree to which the facilitator is creating the message, likening the use of word boards to an Ouija board. Often the person with the communication disorder becomes capable of “unexpected literacy and advanced communication skills when their efforts are ‘facilitated’.” At the same time, there is no indication that the facilitators are aware of their role in creating the message (Burgess, Kirsch, Shane, Niederauer, Graham, & Bacon, 1998). In a study published in //Psychological Science,// researchers studied forty college students trained as facilitators. They found that while the students attributed the messages to the person whose communications they were facilitating, the information the messages contained was known only to the facilitator, not the nonverbal person (Burgess, Kirsch, Shane, Niederauer, Graham, & Bacon, 1998). In an article for //Perspectives on Psychological Science,// Lillienfeld advocates emphasizing the potentially harmful effects of facilitated communication rather than empirical data because of it’s uncertainty (Lillienfeld, 2007).

References

MacLeod (2009). Facilitated Communication. //MacLeod Cartoons//. Web. http://macleodcartoons.blogspot.com/2009/11/facilitated-communication-miracle.html

Biklen, D. (1992). Autism orthodoxy versus free speech: A reply to Cummins and Prior. //Harvard Educational Review,// 62//,// 242-256.

Burgess, C. A., Kirsch,I., Shane, H., Niederauer, K. L., Graham, S. M., & Bacon, A. (1998). Facilitated communication as an ideomotor response. //Psychological Science//, 9 (1) p. 71-74.

Lillenfeld, S.O. (2007) Psychological treatments that cause harm [Abstract]. //Perpectives on Psychological Science//, 2 (1) p 53-70//.// doi: 0.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00029

Ormrod, J. E. (2014). //Educational Psychology// (8th edition). United States: Pearson.

Oswald, D.P. (1994). Facilitator influence in facilitated communication. //Journal of behavioral education,// 4 (2) p. 191-199.

Rohrer, F. (2009). How do people with cope with 'locked-in' syndrome? //BBC News.// Web. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8378262.stm

By Catherine Jacocks