In a world that’s ever changing, routine and structure provide great comfort to a child on the autism spectrum. Define routines clearly.
Activities are successful when they’re broken into small steps.
Make sure children know what to do if they finish ahead of time. Typically, children with autism do not use free time productively; therefore strive to have as little downtime between activities as possible.
Remember to keep explanations simple and short about each picture or concentration will wane. Give written instructions instead of verbal whenever you can. Highlight or underline any text for emphasis.
People with autism like order and detail. They feel in control and secure when they know what to expect
Picture schedules are even more powerful because they help a student visualize the actions.
Make sure you have this schedule in a very visible place in your classroom and direct the students’ attention to it frequently, particularly a few minutes before you begin the next activity.
Written schedules are very effective for good readers. These can also be typed up and placed on a student’s desk.
4. Reduce distractions
Many people with autism find it difficult to filter out background noise and visual information. Children with autism pay attention to detail. Wall charts and posters can be very distracting.
Try and seat children away from windows and doors.
5. Use concrete language
Always keep your language simple and concrete. Get your point across in as few words as possible.
Avoid using idioms.
Give very clear choices and try not to leave choices open ended. You’re bound to get a better result by asking “Do you want to read or draw?” than by asking “What do you want to do now?”
6. It’s not personal
Children with autism are not rude. They simply don’t understand social rules or how they’re supposed to behave.
NEVER, ever, speak about a child on the autism spectrum as if they weren’t present
Despite the lack of reaction they sometimes present, hearing you speak about them in a negative way will crush their self esteem.
7. Transitions
Children on the autism spectrum feel secure when things are constant. Changing an activity provides a fear of the unknown. This elevates stress which produces anxiety
Reduce the stress of transitions by giving ample warning
Using schedules helps with transitions too as students have time to “psyche themselves up” for the changes ahead.
People can be slow when they are learning a new skill until they become proficient
Encourage your students to ask each other for help and information
Making decisions is equally important and this begins by teaching students to make a choice. Offer two choices.
When giving a directive or asking a question, make sure you allow for extra processing time before offering guidance. Self help skills are essential to learn
Never underestimate the power of consistency.
Avoid this temptation and make sure you allow ample time before you abandon an idea. Remember that consistency is a key component of success. If you’re teaching a student to control aggression, the same plan should be implemented in all settings, at school and at home.
9. Rewards before consequences
We all love being rewarded and people with autism are no different. Rewards and positive reinforcement are a wonderful way to increase desired behavior
If possible, let your students pick their own reward so they can anticipate receiving it.
There are many reward systems which include negative responses and typically, these do not work as well.
Focusing on negative aspects can often lead to poor results and a de-motivated student. When used correctly, rewards are very powerful and irresistible
Every reward should be showered in praise. Even though people on the spectrum might not respond typically when praised, they enjoy it just as much as you!
10. Teach with lists
Teaching with lists sets clear expectations. It defines a beginning, middle and an end.
People on the autism spectrum respond well to order and lists are no exception. Almost anything can be taught in a list format.
While typical people often think in very abstract format, people on the spectrum have a very organized way of thought. Finding ways to work within these parameters can escalate the learning curve.
11. Creative teaching
It helps to be creative when you’re teaching students with autism. People on the spectrum think out of the box and if you do too, you will get great results.
It may even be painful for the student... There are research about this issue.
By correcting every action a person does, you’re sending a message that they’re not good enough the way they are. When making a decision about what to correct, always ask yourself first, “Will correcting this action help this person lead a productive and happy life?”
Two scientists, drawing on their own powers of observation and a creative reading of recent genetic findings, have published a sweeping theory of brain development that would change the way mental disorders like autism and schizophrenia are understood.
The
American Psychological Association has issued a
position paper on FC, stating that
"Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that facilitated communication is not a
scientifically valid technique for individuals with autism or mental retardation" and
describing FC as "a controversial and unproved communicative procedure with no
scientifically demonstrated support for its efficacy."
Here is the video about Facilitated Communication (FC). If you have something to do with FC, I think you should watch it.
Parents are grateful to discover that
their child is not hopelessly retarded but is either normal or above normal in
intelligence. FC allows their children to demonstrate their intelligence; it provides them
with a vehicle heretofore denied them.
Facilitated Communication therapy began in Australia with Rosemary Crossley. The center
for FC in the United States is Syracuse University, which houses the Facilitated Communication Institute (FCI)
in their School of Education.
A very damaging, detailed criticism was
presented on PBS's "Frontline", October 19, 1993. The program was repeated
December 17, 1996, and added that since the first showing, Syracuse University has claimed
to have done three studies which verify the reality and effectiveness of FC, while thirty
other studies done elsewhere have concluded just the opposite.
Furthermore, FC clients
routinely use a flat board or keyboard, over which the facilitator holds their pointing
finger. Even the most expert typist could not routinely hit correct letters without some
reference as a starting point.
Facilitators routinely look at
the keyboard; clients do not. The messages' basic coherence indicates that they most
probably are produced by someone who is looking at the keyboard.
Anyone familiar with Helen Keller,
Stephen Hawking or Christy Brown knows that blindness, deafness, cerebral palsy, multiple
sclerosis, amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis (ALS), or physical or neurological disorders, do not necessarily
affect the intellect. There is no necessary connection between a physical handicap and a
mental handicap. We also know that such people often require an assistant to facilitate
their communication. But what facilitators do to help the likes of a Hawking or a Brown is
a far cry from what those in the facilitated communication business are doing.
But
the vast majority of FC clients apparently are mentally retarded or autistic. Their facilitators appear to be reporting their own thoughts, not their
patient's thoughts. Interestingly, the facilitators are genuinely shocked when they
discover that they are not really communicating their patient's thoughts. Their reaction
is similar to that of dowsers and others with "special
powers" who, when tested under controlled conditions, find they don't have any
special powers at all.
It is interesting that the parents and other loved ones who have been bonding
with the patient for years are unable to be facilitators with their own children.
And when the kind strangers and their patients are put to the
test, they generally fail. We are told that is because the conditions made them nervous.
These ad hoc excuses sound familiar; they sound like the
complaints of parapsychologists.
Skeptics think the evidence is in and FC is a delusion for the most part. It is also a dangerous
delusion. Critics have noted a similarity between FC therapy and
repressed memory therapy: patients are accusing their parents and others of having
sexually abused them. Facilitators are taught that something like 13% of their clients
have been sexually abused. This information may unconsciously influence their work.
You find here a very about Important Video about Facilitated Communication (FC).
The American Psychological Association has issued a position paper on FC, stating that "Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that facilitated communication is not a scientifically valid technique for individuals with autism or mental retardation" and describing FC as "a controversial and unproved communicative procedure with no scientifically demonstrated support for its efficacy."
Facilitated Communication (FC) is a technique for allegedly aiding those with communication impairment, such as some people with autism, to communicate through typing or pointing at a letter board. The idea is that some children have greater cognitive ability than is apparent through their verbal skills, but they lack the motor skills to type or write. The facilitator in FC is trained to hold and support their client’s hand, to help stabilize it, so that they can type out their thoughts.
FC was enthusiastically embraced by the special education community in the late 1980s and early 1990s but problems quickly emerged, namely the question of authorship – who is doing the communicating, the client or the facilitator?
The scientific evidence came down clearly on one side of that debate – it is the facilitator who is the author of the communication, not the client.
A 2001 review by Mostert came to the same conclusion – that the evidence supports the conclusion that the facilitators are the authors of communication in FC.
The strategy here is obvious – studies that directly and objectively confront the key question, who is authoring the writing in FC, gave an answer proponents did not like. They therefore shifted to indirect inference which is more amenable to judgement and qualitative analysis so that the desired results can be manufactured.
FC continues to exist on the fringe of legitimate science, but continues to fool journalists, patient advocates, and even physicians.
It is sad that FC continues to survive despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that it is not a legitimate method of communication, but rather an elaborate exercise in self-deception. It is a useful example of how powerful and subtle self-deception can be, and also of the ways in which scientific evidence can be manipulated to generate a desired outcome.
Pervasive Developmental Disorders, including Autistic Disorder, Asperger Disorder, Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, and Childhood Disintegrative Disorder.
For autistic disorder, Fombonne says:
The correlation between prevalence and year of publication was statistically significant and studies with prevalenceover 7/10,000 were all published since 1987. These findings point towards an increase in prevalence estimates in the last 15-20 years.
recent autism surveys have consistently identified smaller numbers of children with AS than those with autism within the same survey.
We therefore used for subsequent calculations an estimate of 6/10,000 for AS, recognizing the strong limitations of available data on AS.
How much lower is difficult to establish from existing data, but a ratio of 3 or 4 to 1 would appear an acceptable,
Eight studies provided data on childhood disintegrative disorder (CDD). Prevalence estimates ranged from 0 to 9.2/100,000.
Current evidence does not strongly support the hypothesis of a secular increase in the incidence of autism but power todetect time trends is seriously limited in existing datasets.
The upper-bound limit of the associated confidence interval (4.0/100,000) indicates that CDD is a very rare condition, with about 1 case to occur for every 103 cases of autistic disorder.
Whilst it is clear that prevalence estimates have gone up over time, this increase most likely represents changes in the concepts, definitions, service availability and awareness of autistic-spectrum disorders in both the lay and professional public.
The possibility that a true change in the underlying incidence has contributed to higher prevalence figures remains, however, to be adequately tested.