Asperger Syndrome & Social Thinking Soup: What's Up With Educational Standards & Social Skills? Michelle Garcia Winner and Dr. Pamela Crooke

Asperger Syndrome & Social Thinking Soup: What's Up

With Educational Standards & Social Skills?

Michelle Garcia Winner and Dr. Pamela Crooke

www.socialthinking.com

www.socialthinking.comcopyright©2008MGWinner&PJCrooke

2

Today’s Message

1. Infant and preschool social development is key to academic success.

2. The infrastructure of the language arts goals are in social thinking.

3. Teaching social skills is different from teaching social thinking.

4. Social thinking vocabulary can be used across environments.

What is social thinking?

Thinking about what people think (yourself and/or others) even in the

absence of people in your immediate environment.


4

What is meant by having “good social skills”?

• Sharing space and adapting effectively to the different people in different contexts within the same environments and across environments.


5

Exploring Early Social Development

• First week of life babies start matching other’s facial expression.

• 9-12 months old: Joint attention• Along with joint attention babies start to read

other people’s plans (physical intentions)• Use gestural communication (pointing) as baby

moves towards the abstract. • Language then emerges to request, comment

and question.


6

Play concepts that emerge for typical toddlers in the preschool years which also help them learn

to problem solve: • Pretending and abstracting• Imitation• Synchronicity of body movement/body presence. • Making guesses about other people in play.• Sharing an imagination rather than a singular

imagination.• Listening to and expressing related ideas.• Cooperating and negotiating through actions and

language.


7

By 4 years old…

• Children are engaged in group imaginative, cooperative play. These play skills are critical for the later development of conversation, reading comprehension, class relations, personal problem solving, etc…


8

It is assumed all students enter elementary school with this “social

software”.


9

Social skill challenges oftencome

from poor social knowledge.

Social skills are the tipof the iceberg.

Social information is at thebase of the iceberg

supporting our demonstrationof appropriate social skills.

e.g. Eye contact

social skill production

Social knowledge supports our social skill behavior


10

Historically, teaching has been based on behavioral interventions

of shaping social skills.

• Disciplines of anthropology, linguistics and psychology are dedicated to exploring the complexity of social behavior.

• Social processing and responses are dynamic and synergistic. By teaching at the level of one skill at a time is counter to our understanding of social complexity.


11

Teaching for students with AS and HFA means exploring social

thinking as it leads to social skill development

• Eye contact


12

Social Thinking is the Infrastructure for many Educational standards

• Teaching social thinking and related skills is not an extra bonus to education IT INCLUDES the ESSENTIAL elements of education both for academics and life skills.


13

Select Reading Standards

• K.2.2 predictions with pictures and context.

• 4.3.5 Define figurative language and identify its use in literary works.

• 7.3.1 Identify events that advance the plot…and foreshadow future actions.


14

Standards in Writing:

• 2.1.1 Create graphic organizer or outline to practice pre-writing skills.

• 4.1.2 Create multiple paragraphs, support with topic sentence…and conclusion paragraph.

• 7.1.3 Strategies of note taking, outlining, summarizing to impose structure on composition drafts.


15

ILAUGH Model of Social Cognition

• I = Initiation of Language

• L= Listening with eyes and brain

• A= Abstract and Inferential communication

• U= Understanding Perspective

• G= Getting the Big Picture

• H= Humor and Human Relatedness


16

Theory: Provide lessons in social thinking to encourage social and

academic skills


17

Treatment: Cognitive Behavioral Strategies

Core concepts of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

1. Cognitive behavior affects activity2. Cognitive activity may be monitored and altered3. Desired behavior change may be effected through cognitive

changeDobson, K. & Dozois, D. (2001) Historical and philosophical

bases of the cognitive-behavioral therapies. In K. Dobson (Ed.) Handbook of Cognitive Behavioral Therapies (pp.3-39). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Excellent book: Gaus, V. (2007) Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Adult Asperger Syndrome. The Guilford Press


18

Cognitive behavioral therapies help to provide explanation to teach students to think about social information and

making choices in their social responses.

• Social stories• Comic strip conversations• Tony Attwood’s information• Social behavior mapping• SCERTS Model; Ziggurat Model• Relationship therapies• Incredible 5 point scale


19

Teaching with social thinking concepts and vocabulary


20

Sharing an Imagination

• Is the basis of shared play• Basis of reading comprehension and

conversations.• Teach:

– Shared imagination verses singular imagination.

– Activities to boost shared thinking of the mind– Discuss connection to reading

comprehension!


21

Social Thinking Vocabulary

Purpose is to make the explicit implicit.

We don’t have a vocabulary for talking about social information because it is too emotionally loaded.

Social information always begs an emotional response.


22

Core introductory social thinking vocabulary concepts:

• Expected / unexpected

• 3 parts of play

• Think with your eyes

• Is your body in the group or out of the group?

• Is your brain in the group or out of the group?

• “Add a thought”, etc…

Research and Social Thinking

Background & Motivation

Summary of JADD Study

Crooke, P, Hendrix, R, & Rachman, J. (2008) Journal of Autism and

Developmental Disorders, Vol. 38, No. 3


25

Larger Study

• Based on social Thinking Vocabulary

• Single Subject Multiple Baseline Design

• Social Skills Rating scale – Pre/post parents and subjects

• Double Interview Pre/Post

• One year follow-up for 4 of 6 subjects


26

Subjects

• 6 children with a current diagnosis of either High Functioning Autism (HFA) or Asperger Syndrome (AS)

• Aged 9 years to 11 years of age; • Verbal IQ within the average range (85-

115); • 4) No History of social “skill” intervention


27

Individual subject characteristics

Subject Diagnostic Diagnosing Academic Social (age) Dx Instrument(s) Professional Intervention Intervention

1 (9:6) AS ADOS/ADI *Psychologist None None2 (10:3) AS DSM-IV Psychiatrist None None3 (10:2) AS ADOS/ADI *Psychologist None None4 (11;1) HFA DSM-IV Psychiatrist Speech/Language None5 (11;2) AS ADOS/ADI *Psychologist None None6 (9:2) HFA ADOS/ADI *Psychologist Reading/Written Lang. None

*ADOS/ADI conducted by licensed psychologist and psychiatrist as part of an interdisciplinary diagnostic team.


28

Methods – Pre/Post study

• 2 settings– Treatment– Generalization

• Videotaped Samples

• Based on Social Thinking vocabulary

• 8 Weeks


29

Expected (expected verbal, listening with eyes/brain, initiation)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Expected-Verbal Initiation Listening with eyes

Behavior

Freq

uenc

y

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75


Behaviors

Fre

qu

ency

Pre

Post

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75


Behaviors

Freq

uenc

y

Pre

Post

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75


Behaviors

Freq

uenc

y

Pre

Post

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75


Behaviors

Fre

qu

ency

Pre

Post

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75


BehaviorsFr

eque

ncy

Pre

Post

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75


Behavior

Freq

uenc

y

1 2 3

4 5 6


30

Unexpected (verbal & nonverbal)

1 2 3

4 5 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Unexpected-Verbal Unexpected -Nonverbal

Behaviors

Fre

qu

en

cy

Pre

Post

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75


Behaviors

Freq

uenc

y

Pre

post

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75


Behaviors

Freq

uenc

y

Pre

Post

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75


Behaviors

Freq

uenc

y Pre

Post

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75


Behaviors

Freq

uenc

y

Pre

Post

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75


Behaviors

Freq

uenc

y Pre

Post


31

Results Cont.

• Statistically significant changes for the group from pre- post for expected

• Robust changes in unexpected

• **Not designed to be a pre/post study


32

Limitations

• Short time in the scheme of social thinking treatment

• Few subjects

• Results are for pre/post (not original design)

• Measured countable Behavior – (doing vs. thinking)


33

Preliminary Results – Big Study

• Baseline – 2 data points before 1 first lesson with social thinking vocabulary (expected/unexpected)

• Generalization Probe

• Baseline – 4 data points before lesson on initiation

• Generalization probe


34

Expected (Verbal & Nonverbal): #1,#2, #4Subject 1: Expected Verbal

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

B B Expect.Verbal

Probe T Probe T Probe T Probe 1 yr. Post

Sessions

Fre

qu

ency

Subject 2: Expected-Verbal

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

B B Expect.Verbal


Sessions

Fre

qu

ency

Subject 4: Expected-Verbal

-5

5

15

25

35

45

55

B B T Probe T Probe T Probe T Probe 1 yr. Post

Sessions

Fre

qu

ency


35

Listening/Thinking with eyes (#1,#2,#4)

Subject 1: Listening/Thinking with Eyes

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

B B L/ThinkEyes


Sessions

Fre

qu

ency


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

B B L/ThinkEyes


Sessions

Fre

qu

ency


-5

5

15

25

35

45

55

B B L/ThinkEyes

Probe T Probe T Probe T Probe 1 yr.Post

Sessions

Fre

qu

en

cy


36

Initiations (#1, #2, #4)Subject 1: Initiation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

B B B B Initiation Probe T 7-8 Probe 1 yr. Post

Sessions

Fre

qu

ency

Subject 2: Initiation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

B B B B Initiation Probe T 7-8 Probe 1 yr. Post

Sessions

Fre

qu

ency

Subject 4: Initatiations

-5

5

15

25

35

45

55

B B B B Initiation Probe T Probe 1 yr. Post

Sessions

Fre

qu

en

cy


37

Need for additional research

• Important to ask the questions differently (MGW - politically incorrect)

• Focus on the thinking as well as the doing

• Replication


38

Other research

• Hong Kong– Social Thinking Curriculum in the schools– Data over the course of 1 year– Significant Changes over time

• Autism Speaks– Social Thinking Grant


39

Allison Adams (2008), British Columbia

Other Research


40

Other projects based on Social Thinking

• Computer based “Eyes have thinking”

• Zeebu (video)

• Chapel Haven (transition to college for AS)


41

Where do we go from here?

• Accept that we are in our infancy of understanding how to concretely teach abstract social information.

• Take data to explore not only student behavioral responses, but caregiver/educator satisfaction as well as student’s ability to process the social world differently.

• Evidence based needs to be qualitative as much as quantitative; social relationships are emotional not quantitative.

Core Concepts for Teaching Social Thinking

www.socialthinking.comArticles, information, products..

Documents

Asperger Syndrome & Social Thinking Soup: What's Up With Educational Standards & Social Skills? Michelle Garcia Winner and Dr. Pamela Crooke