AĞIR VE ÇOKLU YETERSİZLİĞİ OLAN ÇOCUKLARA SEÇİM YAPMA BECERİSİNİN ÖĞRETİMİ

İnsanlar yaşamlarının her alanında ve her döneminde seçimler yapmak durumundadırlar. İnsan yaşamının her döneminde yer alan seçim yapma, ağır ve çoklu yetersizliği olan çocukların da hayatlarında her daim karşı karşıya oldukları bir beceridir. Seçim yapma becerisi, yaşam sorumluluğu kazanılması adına önemli bir beceri olmasına rağmen ağır ve çoklu yetersizliği olan çocuklara öğretimi ihmal edilmektedir. Dünyada alanyazında seçim yapma becerisinin ağır ve çoklu yetersizliği olan çocuklara öğretimine ilişkin çalışmalar olmasına rağmen, ülkemizde sınırlı sayıda çalışma seçim yapma öğretimine yöneliktir. Seçim yapma becerisi, yaşam sorumluluğu kazanılması adına önemli bir beceridir ve yaşam sorumluluğunu alma; toplum içerisinde bağımsız yaşama için seçim yapabilmek, seçim yapma olanaklarına sahip olmak çok önemlidir. Ancak ağır ve çoklu yetersizliği olan çocuklar konusunda seçim yapma becerisinin ayrı bir öneme sahip olduğu bilinmektedir. Çünkü ağır ve çoklu yetersizliği olan çocuklar yoğun iletişim problemleri yaşayabilmekte ve kendilerine seçme fırsatı tanınmadan ihtiyaçları etkileşimde bulundukları kişiler tarafından karşılanabilmektedir. Bu kişiler seçim yapma becerisinin öneminin ve nasıl öğretileceğinin de farkında olmayabilirler. Bu çalışmada seçim yapmanın öneminin farkındalığının sağlanması amaçlanmaktadır. Bu amaçla seçim becerisinin ağır ve çoklu yetersizliği olan çocuklar için yararı ve onların bağımsızlaşmasındaki önemi anlatılmaktadır. Aynı zamanda seçim ve tercih arasındaki fark, tercih değerlendirmesinin nasıl yapıldığı, seçim yapma becerisi ve bu becerinin ağır ve çoklu yetersizliği olan çocuklara yönelik öğretim stratejilerine yer verilmektedir

TEACHING CHOICE MAKING TO CHILDREN WITH SEVERE AND MULTIPLE DISABILITIES

Human beings maintain their lives in accordance with their small and large choices. Thus, they take the responsibility of their lives. The children, whom show normal progress, achieve choice making without teaching them anything as of early age. However, the children with severe and multiple disabilities, are in a disadvantageous situation in achieving this skill on their own. Due to the fact that the children with severe and multiple disabilities could show different communication and behavioral characteristics from each other according to the disability type and degree which they are affected from. The different and complex behaviors which the children show could prevent the adults from understanding the needs of the children or it could lead the adults to dullness. Consequently, the adults cannot provide the opportunity for the children to express and choose their needs. Hence, the children with severe and multiple disabilities to achieve choice making is being neglected (Stafford, 2005). Whereas it is known that every human has the right to freedom of expression and choice making. Therefore, in order to give the chance of choice making to the children with severe and multiple disabilities, this skill has to be taught to them. When the literature is analyzed, the fact that the interest for making a choice has increased in the world toward the 2000s is evidenced as the studies in this aspect have increased (Carter, 2001; Cole and Levinson, 2002; Newman et al., 2002; Peterson, Caniglia and Royster, 2001; Watanabe and Sturmey, 2003). The fact that the awareness towards this skill in Turkey is limited is realized as the studies are numbered. Hence, there are the studies of Ülke-Kürkçüoğlu (2007) and Eldeniz-Çetin’s (2013) regarding the choice making in Turkey. In this study, it is aimed that the awareness towards choice making in Turkey is increased and that the teaching method is explained due to the significance of the aforementioned skill. Choice making, the strategy envisaged by Stafford (2005) and its efficiency is supported by the results of various studies. (Carter, 2001; Cole and Levinson, 2002; Eldeniz-Çetin, 2013; Newman et al., 2002; Peterson, Caniglia and Royster, 2001; Watanabe and Sturmey, 2003). Therefore, the strategy put forward by Stafford (2005) is included in this study. According to the aforementioned strategy, choice making is given to children at two stages as preference assessment and teaching choice making. Their preferences are determined by presenting various elements to the children during the preference assessment which is the first stage of the teaching of choice making. At this stage, first of all it is necessary to determine the elements that are to be presented to the children. Due to the fact that this evaluation is carried out by asking questions to the children via elements and in the meantime the classification of the objects and activities to be used ensures that a systematic assessment is carried out in determining the preferences of the children (Stafford, 2005). Meeting with family and teachers, survey or observation in natural environment could be carried out in order to determine the elements. In the preference assessment, the object and activities that are thought as appealing to children with severe and multiple disabilities is used in accordance with the results of the observation and meeting. Each of the object and activities used perform a duty of a stimulus. These stimuli are presented to the children by classifying it as single, double or multiple choices (Reed et al., 2009). While carrying out the preference assessment, the reaction of the children against the presentation of the stimulus as choice is classified as “accept” and “refuse.” (Stafford, 2005). The elements tagged in the framework of accept and refuse concepts is classified as “has been preferred,” “neutral,” and “is unpreferred /disliked” by the adult. This classification is carried out in accordance with some criteria. According to the aforementioned criterias, if the child with severe and multiple disabilities gives reaction which shows that he/she accepts this stimulus in % 80 of all choices presented to himself/herself regarding the same element (for example; approaching, consuming the choice that could be eaten) It is thought that the stimulus presented is a choice “preferred” (Stafford, 2005). If the child refuses at least % 80 of the choices, or shows acceptance reactions at maximum %25, then this option is determined as “unpreferred/disliked” (Stafford, 2005). Also, if the child gives reactions showing that he/she has accepted the options presented at %40-60 level, then the stimulus presented is accepted as a “neutral” option (Stafford, 2005). The classified elements, is presented to the children as in order of pairs of “preferred- unpreferred/ disliked,” “preferred- neutral” and “preferred- preferred at the stage of choice teaching which is the second stage. At the stage of choice teaching, the application of processing time with constant waiting time is effective in the teaching and generalizing of the skill (Stafford, 2005). The processing time with constant waiting time is one of the errorless teaching methods. The processing time with constant waiting time comprises of two different processes. These processes are zero second waiting time and processing time with constant waiting times. In processing time of zero second waiting time, the main directive and clue is presented at the same time. After the processing time of zero second waiting time which lasts at a certain number, it is passed to the processing time with constant waiting period. The constant period between the main directive and clue that is to be given at the processing time with constant waiting time. This constant period determined, remains the same when the processing time with every constant period is repeated. This constant period could be determined by the adult or generally the period suggested (4 seconds) could be used. (Stafford, 2005; Tekin-iftar and Kırcaali-iftar, 2004; Varol, 2005). When the literature is analyzed, after the teaching choice making, it is seen that choice making could also be increased by providing choice opportunities in natural environment (such as school and home) and via rational results. In such increase practices, the children are permitted to make a choice and it is ensured that they put up with the results of their choices (Shevin and Klein, 2004). Thus, responsibility and freedom awareness is also created. Either various studies have proved that this strategy is effective in the teaching of choice making (Dyer, Dunlap and Winterling, 1990; Carter, 2001; Cole and Levinson, 2002; Eldeniz-Çetin, 2013; Newman et al., 2002; Peterson, Caniglia and Royster, 2001; Watanabe and Sturmey, 2003), or that its practicability has been proved in various disability types (Shogren et al., 2004) or either that it is known that choice making has increased the quality of life of the children with severe and multiple disabilities (Shevin and Klein, 2004; Stafford, 2005), reveals that the strategy of teaching choice making which is explained in this study, could be applied at Turkey as well.

PDF

___

BAMBARA L.M., AGER, C. & KOGER, F. (1994). The effects of choice and task preference on the performance of adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 555-556.
BEUKELMAN, D. R., & MIRENDA, P. (1998). Augmentative and alternative communication: Management of severe communication disorders in children and adults, (2. baskı). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
BROWN, F., BELZ, P., CORSI, L., & WENIG, B. (1993). Choice diversity for people with severe disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 28, 318-326.
CANELLA, H. İ., O’REILLY, M. F., & LANCIONI, G. E. (2005). Choice and preference assessment research with people with severe to profound developmental disabilities: a review of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities 26, 1–15.
CARTER, C. M. (2001). Using choice with game play to increase language skills and interactive behaviors in children with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3, 131-151.
CHICKIE-WOLFE, L. A. (1998). Effects of choice making on the adaptive behaviors of adolescents with emotional disturbance. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Vanderbilt Universitesi, Nashville, Tennessee, ABD.
CLARK, C. D. (2006). Teahing choice making to children with visual impairments and multiple disabilities in preschool and kindergarten classrooms. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
COLE, C. L., & LEVINSON, T. R. (2002). Effects of within-activity choices on the challenging behavior of children with severe developmental disabilities. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4, 29-37, 52.
DUKE, J. M. (2008). Teaching students with multiple disabilities to respond to choices using photographes. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
DUNLAP, G., DePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Wright, S., White, R., vd. (1994). Choice making to promote adaptive for students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 505-518.
DUNLAP, G., & LISO, D. (2004). Using choice and preference to promote improved behavior. Web site: http://csefel.vanderbilt.edu/briefs/wwb15.pdf adresinden 21 Temmuz 2013 tarihinde elde edinilmiştir.
DYER, K.,DUNLAP, G., & WINTERLING, V. (1990). Effects of choice making on the serious problem behaviors of students with severe handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 515-524.
ELDENIZ-ÇETIN, M. (2013). Ağır ve çoklu yetersizliği olan bireylerin tercihlerinin değerlendirilmesi ve seçim yapma becerisinin öğretimi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
GUESS, D., BENSON, H. A., & SIEGEL-CAUSEY, E. (2008). Concepts and issues related to choice making and autonomy among persons with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. 10, 79-86.
HARDING, J. W., WACKER, D. P., BERG, W. K., BARRETO, A., & RANKIN, B. (2002). Assessment and treatment of severe behavior problems using choice making procedures. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 26-46.
JOLIVETTE, K. (1999). Effects of choice making opportunities on the behaviors of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Vanderbilt Universitesi, Nashville, Tennessee.
JOLIVETTE, K.,STICHTER, J. P., SIBILSKY, S., SCOTT, T. M., & RIDGLEY, R. (2002). Naturally occurring opportunities for preschool children with or without disabilities to make choices. Education and Treatment of Children. 25, 395-414.
KATZ, I.., & ASSOR, A. (2007). When choice motivates and when it does not. Educational Psychology Review,19, 429-442.
KEARNEY, C. A., & MCKNIGHT, T. J. (1997). Preference, choice, and persons with disabilities: A synopsis of assessments, interventions, and future directions. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 217-238.
LOHRMANN-O’ROURKE, S., BROWDER, D. B., & BROWN, F. (2000). Guidelines for conducting socially valid systematic preference assessments. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 42-53.
MCCORMICK, K. M.,JULIVETTE, K., & RIDGLEY, R. (2003). Choice making: as an intervention strategy for young children. Young Exceptional Children, 6, 3.
NEWMAN, B., NEEDELMAN, M., REINECKE, D. R., & ROBEK, A. (2002). The effect of providing choices on skill acqusition and competing behavior of children with autism during discrete trial instruction. Behavioral Interventions,17, 31-41.
PARSONS, M. B.,REID, D. H., REYNOLDS, J., & BUMGARNER, M. (1990). Effects of chosen versus assigned jobs on the work performance of persons with severe handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 253-258.
PETERSON, S. M. P., CANIGLIA, C., & ROYSTER, A. J. (2001). Application of choice making intervention for a student with multiply maintained problem behavior. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 240-246.
REED. D. D., LUISELLI J. K., MAGNUSON J. D., FILLERS S., VIEIRA S., & RUE. H. C., (2009). A comparison between traditional economical and demand curve analyses of relative reinforcer efficacy in the validation of preference assessment predictions. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 12, 164–169.
ROMANIUK, C.,MILTENBERGER, R., CONYERS, C., JENNER, N., JURGENS, M., & RINGENBERG, C. (2002). The influence of activity choice on problem behaviors maintained by escape versus attention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 349-362.
SHEVIN, M., & KLEIN, N. K. (2004) The importance of choice-making skills for students with severe disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29, 161-168.
SHOGREN, K. A., FAGGELLE-LUBY, M. N., BAE, S. J., & WEHMEYER, M. L. (2004). The effect of choice-making as an intervention for problem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 228-237.
SHRINER, C. L. L. (2000). Comparing the effects of teacher- vs. child- sequenced tasks on the behavior of young children with developmental disabilities. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Minnesota Üniversitesi, Duluth, Minnesota.
SIEGEL-CAUSEY, E. & WETHERBY, A. (1993). Nonsymbolic communication. Instruction of students with severe disabilities. M. E. Snell (Ed), Instructionof students with severe disabilities (pp. 290-312). (4th Ed.) New York: Merrill/Macmillan.
SIGAFOOS, J., & DEMPSEY, R. (1992). Assessing choice making among children with multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 25, 747-755.
STAFFORD, A. M. (1999). Preference variability and the instruction of choice making with students with severe intellectual disabilities. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Georgia State Üniversitesi, Acworth, Georgia.
STAFFORD, A. M., ALBERTO, P. A. , FREDRICK, L. D., HEFLIN, J., & HELLER, K. W. (2002). Preference variability and the instruction of choice making with studets with severe intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities 37, 70-88.
STAFFORD, A. M. (2005). Choice making: a strategy for students with severe disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(6), 12-17.
ŞAFAK, P. (2012). Ağır ve çoklu yetersizliği olan çocukların eğitimi (1. Basım) Ankara: Vize Basın Yayın.
TEKIN-İFTAR, E. & KIRCAALI-İFTAR, G. (2004). Özel eğitimde yanlışsız öğretim yöntemleri (2. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
ÜLKE-KÜRKÇÜOĞLU, B. (2007). Otistik özellik gösteren çocuklara birebir öğretimde etkinlikler içi ve arası seçim fırsatları sunmanın etkilerinin karşılaştırılması. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
ÜLKE-KÜRKÇÜOĞLU, B. (2007). Otistik özellik gösteren çocuklara sunulan seçim fırsatları ve etkileri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi 8(2) 67-83.
WATANABE, M., & STURMEY, P. (2003). The effect of choice-making opportunities during activity schedules on task engagements of adults with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33, 535- 538.
WEHMEYER, M. L. (2003). Self-determination, vocational rehabilitation and workplace supports. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 19, 67-69.
WEHMEYER, M. L., (2007). Promoting Self-Determination in Students with Developmental Disabilities. New York: Guilford Press. Website: http://site.ebrary.com/id/10201015?ppg=43 adresinden 28 Nisan 2014 tarihinde elde edinilmiştir.
VAROL, N. (2005). Beceri öğretimi ve öz bakım becerilerinin kazandırılması. Ankara: Kök Yayıncılık.
YÜCEOL ÖZEZEN, M. (2009). Tercih et- ve yeğle- (yeğ tut-, yeğ bul-, yeğ gör-) fiillerinin söz dizimsel özellikleri. Turkish Studies International Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 4, 1730-1743.
YÜCESOY ÖZKAN, Ş. (2007). Zihin yetersizliği olan öğrencilere yönelik hazırlanan kendini yönetme stratejileri öğretim paketinin etkililiği. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.