Effects of paired-associate learning versus symbol explanations on Blissymbol learning and use

Schlosser, R. W., & Lloyd, L. L. (1997)

Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13, 226-238

Background

Blissymbolics consists of elements that may be combined to represent new meanings. For example, a Blissuser may combine the element "cloth" with the element "table" to communicate "table cloth." When it comes to teaching Blissymbols, the instructor may choose from a number of instructional methods (e.g., enhancements, paired-associate learning, symbol explanations, story-telling). Although instructional materials emphasize the importance of explaining the derivation of symbols (i.e., symbol explanations), these guidelines have not been based on research. In order provide some data-based guidelines for practitioners, we initiated this study to compare the effectiveness of three instructional methods.

How did we teach?

With the first method, paired-associate learning, a word was paired with the corresponding symbol for the learner and the learner is expected to point to the correct symbol when the word is presented by itself. For example, during teaching the instructor might say "This is the symbol for table cloth" while pointing to the symbol. During testing, the instructor would ask the learner to "point to table cloth" and the learner is expected to point to the correct symbol. With the second method, symbol explanations, we explained the derivation of the symbol to the learner. For example, we would provide a rationale why the symbol for "table" is the symbol for "table." In addition, we would make it clear that the compound "table cloth" is derived from the elements "table" and "cloth." With the third method, symbol explanations within a story-telling context, we also used symbol explanations. However, these explanations were embedded into a storytelling context.

The symbol explanations were validated by 12 certified Blissymbol instructors to ensure that they meet acceptable standards of practise. The story narratives were validated by experts in story grammar to ensure that they had all the necessary ingredients of a typical story.

Who were the participants?

Thirty-nine nondisabled preschoolers participated in the experiment. Thirteen children each were assigned to an instructional method. All children were first taught elements, and later compounds consisting of these elements.

What outcomes did we monitor for whom?

We monitored the children’s understanding of elements and compounds, as well as the expressive use of compounds in a structured communication task. We also tested the children whether they could understand novel combinations of taught elements, and whether they could remember taught compounds 3 Weeks after teaching had ended.

What did we find?

Results showed only one difference among the instructional methods. The children who were taught with symbol explanations within a story-telling context did much better in understanding novel combinations of taught elements than the children taught with paired-associate learning.

What does this mean for practise?

Although this study needs to be replicated with children who have disabilities, some preliminary conclusions for practise may be drawn.

The lack of differences among methods in terms of the children’s understanding of elements provides added flexibility in teaching. That is, elements may not always need to be explained when pretaught. Sometimes it may be alright to simply pair the word with the element. For teaching Blissymbols that are semantically more complex (i.e., compounds, novel compounds), instructors may be well advised if they use symbol explanations within a story-telling context. This method facilitates the understanding of novel combinations of elements.