1. S.C.A.E.P. Social Competence And Enhancement Programme Sandy Burbach
Specialist Speech and Language Therapist
Shapwick School, Somerset, TA7 9NJ
SCAEP Programme 2011
Effective therapeutic interventions, in any discipline, have always depended on a careful identification of the factors comprising the presenting problem;
the systemic processes shaping, and shaped by, the child;
and the information and belief structures supporting the coping strategies developed as a result.
For the Speech and Language Therapist, difficulties in the acquisition of social communication skills frequently signals the presence of a wider range of language, emotional and educational issues, all of which could be impacting on the child`s potential for independence, integration in society, educational attainment and long- term mental health. As a result, social communication work is often an integral part of programme delivery, and much time and energy has been devoted to the development of the many excellent resources available to address social communication needs in a range of settings and client- groups. SLIDE
Shapwick School is a specialist day and boarding school for pupils (8yrs – 19yrs) with dyslexia, DCD, ADHD, developmental verbal dyspraxia, sensory processing difficulties and other related disorders. Approximately 70% of our pupils attend weekly individual and/or group Occupational and Speech and Language Therapy sessions and all new students are screened by both therapies on entry. The Therapies are seen as an integral part of the school`s multi-disciplinary approach to the educational process and are involved in all aspects of the school`s functioning. We take the view that, while language and sensory processing difficulties impact on every aspect of our students` lives, they can be remediated or compensated for most effectively when a unified approach is applied by the whole system- school/ college, parents, students and their peer group. Systemic thinking is by no means new in education or therapy, but its application often presents a thornier issue as daily life interferes with theory! We are trying to set up an intervention which follows the guidelines of the MRC (2008) which acknowledges the importance of the context and organizational culture within which an intervention takes place. Also, for a complex language intervention to be subject to clinical trials, it must have clearly defined principles and techniques (Carroll, 1997) especially if it is to be applied effectively and consistently by a range of practitioners. There is an excellent paper on this (Adams, Lockton, Gaile,Earl and Freed; 2012) in the current INT J COMMUN DISORD, May – June 2012)
I feel it is vital that we at least acknowledge that every decision or action we take, as teachers, clinicians or parents, will have a knock-on effect on every other aspect of our children’s provision, and ultimately the child’s decision- making. As social communication is about making decisions which affect oneself and others, the ability to recognise chains of reaction is a cornerstone of the SCAEP approach.
The Social Competence and Enhancement Programme (SCAEP) was formally introduced about 8 years ago as a weekly group session for students with identified social skills difficulties. It drew on a range of materials from published social skills, emotional literacy and pragmatics programmes and ran for two terms every year. Other forms of medium and short- term interventions (e.g. Circle of Friends; “Pitstop”) ) were also regularly used in the rest of the school in response to perceived need, but varied from year to year and were often driven by the needs of specific pupils or contexts.
However, over the last 5 years I have become increasingly aware of three important factors which seem to be impacting on the long- term carryover that our students achieve in real- life situations, when trying to apply the principles they have worked on in SCAEP group :
In many cases the severity of their sensory processing problems, literacy, working memory and language needs interferes with their access to language- based social skills interventions. Co-working between Occupational Therapy and Speech and Language is becoming increasingly vital in laying the sensory processing groundwork to support our social communication work across the school.
Our students have marked difficulties in connecting the ideas and concepts ,contained in social skills programmes ,with their own understanding of how the world works. Many of them have difficulties with theory of mind, but also with basic semantic issues such as categorisation, so that identifying social similarities and differences becomes a language test rather than a coping strategy. These difficulties appear to have a particular impact in Yrs 8/9, when the opinions of the peer group assume primary importance, and has resulted in the complete reworking of SCAEP delivery at Shapwick School.
At the same time, there is an increasingly alarming body of research emerging from different clinical, psychiatric, educational and criminological fields indicating a significantly high incidence of literacy, social communication and language difficulties amongst young people with severe mental health problems and in the justice system.( Clegg et al, 1999; Humber and Snow, 2001; Lanz, 2009); My concern is that if the sensory processing problems of our students have such a fundamental effect on the development of their cognitive constructs, and if many of our students cannot fully access remediation programmes on offer because of language difficulties, then they are also prevented from accessing the mainstream talking therapies on offer in the NHS. This raises the issue of where our students will go for support as adults.
The key features of the SCAEP programme are an attempt (in progress!) to design a multidisciplinary intervention which serves three purposes:
1) Taking students back through the sensory building blocks of basic social communication concepts, and shared attention to,key sensory characteristics;
2) The development of sensory and language correlates (shared code) needed to describe participants’ experiences of (mis)communication and to develop verbal problem- solving strategies, resilience, emotional intelligence and an understanding of chain reactions;
The Junior programme is set around CATEGORISATION and PROPRIOCEPTION as these are considered to be the 2 prime language and sensory processing building blocks of social communication development. The Yr7 and 8 programme introduces pupils to the 6 domains of social information processing, across 6 terms. All Yr 9 pupils have 1 term of SCAEP as part of the study skills programme, which helps them to integrate their knowledge (or acquire it, for new pupils) about the 6 domains and start to look at the social strategies necessary to achieve congruence in all 6 domains and develop new social communication strategies. Yr 9/10/ 11 involves the understanding of CHAINING RESPONSES, ASSERTIVENESS vs AGGRESSION, VERBAL REFLECTION and MIRRORING, METAPHOR for EMPATHY and changing habitual patterns of behaviour.
The SCAEP programme has been instituted on a school –wide basis from Juniors to Yr 11.
3) The core language and sensory building blocks to understand analogy and metaphor, allowing students to compare how a situation appears to them and someone else, and improving our students` potential use of talking therapies e.g. CBT, family therapy etc.
It is envisaged that an initial format will be fully developed within the next 2 years. SCAEP sessions are delivered by the Speech and Language Therapists at present, but other staff are involved in terms of using the vocabulary e.g. personal/ working/ thinking/ shared working space in classrooms and in the boarding houses. All staff have had an initial training day on the programme and materials are in the process of being produced for classroom and boarding use. Parents who have expressed an interest are carrying over strategies into their homes and other social environments. The PITSTOP system has been integrated into the SCAEP provision and all children with social communication needs also set up strategies to achieve their personal targets in their individual therapy sessions.

2. RATIONALE
The key features of the SCAEP programme are an attempt (in progress!) to design a multidisciplinary intervention which serves three purposes:
1) Taking students back through the sensory building blocks of basic social communication concepts and shared attention to key sensory characteristics;
2) The development of sensory and language correlates (shared code) needed to describe participants’ experiences of (mis)communication and to develop verbal problem- solving strategies, resilience, emotional intelligence and an understanding of chain reactions;
3) The development of Internal Language for self- regulation, comparison, prediction, inference and extrapolation.
4) The core language and sensory building blocks to understand analogy and metaphor, allowing students to compare how a situation appears to them and someone else, and improving our students` potential use of talking therapies e.g. CBT, family therapy etc.
I feel it is vital that we at least acknowledge that every decision or action we take, as teachers, clinicians or parents, will have a knock-on effect on every other aspect of our children’s provision, and ultimately the child’s decision- making. As social communication is about making decisions which affect oneself and others, the ability to recognise chains of reaction is a cornerstone of the SCAEP approach
However, over the last 5 years I have become increasingly aware of three important factors which seem to be impacting on the long- term carryover that our students achieve in real- life situations, when trying to apply the principles they have worked on in SCAEP group :
In many cases the severity of their sensory processing problems, literacy, working memory and language needs interferes with their access to language- based social skills interventions. Co-working between Occupational Therapy and Speech and Language is becoming increasingly vital in laying the sensory processing groundwork to support our social communication work across the school.
Our students have marked difficulties in connecting the ideas and concepts ,contained in social skills programmes ,with their own understanding of how the world works. Many of them have difficulties with theory of mind, but also with basic semantic issues such as categorisation, so that identifying social similarities and differences becomes a language test rather than a coping strategy. These difficulties appear to have a particular impact in Yrs 8/9, when the opinions of the peer group assume primary importance, and has resulted in the complete reworking of SCAEP delivery at Shapwick School.
At the same time, there is an increasingly alarming body of research emerging from different clinical, psychiatric, educational and criminological fields indicating a significantly high incidence of literacy, social communication and language difficulties amongst young people with severe mental health problems and in the justice system.( Thompson, Bartholomeusz and Yung; 2011; Lanz, 2009;; Humber and Snow, 2001; Clegg et al, 1999); My concern is that if the sensory processing problems of our students have such a fundamental effect on the development of their cognitive constructs, and if many of our students cannot fully access remediation programmes on offer because of language difficulties, then they are also prevented from accessing the current mainstream talking therapies e.g. Cog. Behav. Ther. on offer in the NHS. This raises the issue of where our students will go for support as adults.
SCAEP structure
The SCAEP programme has been instituted on a school –wide basis from Juniors to Yr 11. All students in the groups have had comprehensive SpLTh, OT and Social Communication Assessments. They also set up individual social communication targets as part of their 1:1 therapy and carry out behavioural experiments with their SpLTH, OT, teachers, parents or boarding house parents.
The Junior programme is set around semantic categorisation, proprioception, sensory and motor awareness and early Internal Language, as we are proposing these to be the prime linguistic and sensory processing building blocks of social communication development. This is delivered as 1 x weekly group session.
The Yr 7 and 8 programme introduces pupils to 6 sensory, cognitive and behavioural domains of social information processing, mirroring, visualisation, building blocks of sensory empathy and related social codes / communicative intent.
Categorisation and Internal language continue through all levels of Yrs 7 – 11.
All Yr 9 pupils have 1 hour of SCAEP for half a term as part of the study skills programme, and additional weekly girls` and boys` groups are run for students from yrs 9 – 11 with higher levels of identified need. Yr 9 introduces integrating the 6 circles with reflective language, intentional communication, Assertive Defense of the Self (Padesky, 1997) , sensory and emotional empathy building blocks, high level categorisation skills, sensory- directed verbal reasoning, extrapolation, prediction and inference and judgement.
Yrs 10 – 11 concentrate on using categorisation as a self- help skill (cf. CBT strategies); verbalisation of belief and underlying assumptions; generating alternative explanations for perceptions of social situations, Knock-on effect, reflective language, prediction, extrapolation and inference.
Burbach 16/06/2012

3. SOCIAL COMPETENCE Is a LONG TERM GOAL.
As a result of continuous learning processes through all stages of life.
Measured as an individual`s ability to adapt their own responses and actions to achieve the best possible outcome in any social context.
Individual competence varies across contexts.
Dependent on INTRAPERSONAL and EXTRAPERSONAL factors.
Burbach 16/06/2012

4. Many influences on my thinking which has lead to the development of this approach – many academic fields reach the same conclusions via different routes seredipitously ! I have always tended to borrow thinking and concepts in an eclectic manner- the motto of most speech and language therapists seems to be “If it works, use it !”

5. DEVELOPING RELATIONSHIPS
PERSONAL IDENTITY
APPROPRIATE APPEARANCE
ACQUISITION OF SOCIAL SKILLS
CONFIDENCE
EXPRESSION OF FEELINGS
SELF- ESTEEM
GOOD AND BAD RELATIONSHIPS
DEALING WITH CONFLICT IN RELATIONSHIPS
BEING ASSERTIVE
BODY LANGUAGE
PERSONAL SPACE
GOOD AND BAD TOUCH Angelou, 2000;
4 COMPONENTS TO A GOOD RELATIONSHIP
MOTIVATION
SELF- CONFIDENCE
SOCIAL SKILLS
OPPORTUNITY Ritchie, 1989
Firth and Rapley, 1990
Burbach 16/06/2012

6. Social Communication Disorder “streams of origin “
SCHIZOPHRENIA
DEVELOPMENTAL COORDINATION
DISORDER
DYSLEXIA
SENSORY
INTEGRATION
DISORDERS
NON- VERBAL LEARNING
DIFFICULTIES
ASD
BIPOLAR
DISORDER
ATTACHMENT
DISORDER
EMOTIONAL
DIFFICULTIES
ADHD / ADD
DEVELOPMENTAL VERBAL
DYSPRAXIA
LANGUAGE DISORDER
Burbach 16/06/2012
Burbach, 2011

7. INTRAPERSONAL FACTORS
Consistent experience of sensorimotor gestalts (sets) to create identifiable concepts.
INTERNAL LANGUAGE
Sensory and Cognitive :
Nature of the PERCEPTUAL EXPERIENCE.
CONSISTENT experience of SENSORY- MOTOR GESTALTS (sets) to create identifiable concepts.
CATEGORISATION of gestalts into sources; like/ unlike; related/unrelated.
Development of:
INTERNAL LANGUAGE to encode sensory experiences as cognitive constructs.
Adequate WORKING MEMORY.
Ability to RECATEGORISE previous experiences in terms of new contextual cues.
VISUALISATION / IMAGING.
Ability to adapt or discard previously- learned responses as required (COGNITIVE SHIFT).
Burbach 16/06/2012

8. INTRAPERSONAL FACTORS
Linguistic:
CATEGORISATION processes e.g. Same/ different; self/ not self
INTERNAL LANGUAGE.
Understanding of relationships between concepts (SEMANTICS) as carried in grammatical forms (SYNTAX).
Receptive and expressive VOCABULARY for ACTIONS and FEELINGS.
CONGRUENCY of expressed and/or received information.
COMMUNICATIVE INTENT
Verbal and non-verbal REASONING
KNOWING and USING the socially appropriate “script” and SOCIAL CODES.
Understanding ANALOGY and METAPHOR.
Burbach 16/06/2012

9. INTRAPERSONAL FACTORS
Emotional :
CATEGORISATION of EXTERNAL and INTERNAL perceptual experiences in terms of generation of feeling (sensation) and feeling (emotion), resulting in:
Trust and attachment;
Impulse control;
“Filters “ created by beliefs and thinking styles;
Motivation;
Optimism and resilience;
Recognition and management of own feelings;
Recognition and understanding feelings of others;
Self- efficacy : Awareness of power to manage own sense of self, feelings and health effectively;
Empathy.
Burbach 16/06/2012

10. INTERPERSONAL FACTORS
(Own/Partners`) adherence to expected social rules.
beliefs and thinking styles.
awareness of, and ability to compensate for, communication difficulties.
Physical environment.
Emotional environment
Shared interest
Clarity of messages.
Complexity of messages.
Congruency of messages.
Rate of communication.
Number of participants.
Balance of authority.
Balance of dominance.
Mutual respect.
Burbach 16/06/2012

11. STOCK INGREDIENTS Feelings and beliefs Role of Selective Processing
Categorisation Processes
6 circles
Proprioception
Congruent information processing
Sensory Memory
Internal Language and SEE/SAY/DO triangle
Working Memory
Visualisation
Role of Selective Processing
(sensory/cognitive/ emotional)
Reflective Language
Sensory Empathy and Emotional Empathy
Feelings and beliefs
Figurative Language
Metaphor
Internal Language SEE/ SAY /DO triangle
Burbach 16/06/2012

12. Six Sensory Modes PROPRIO - CEPTION TOUCH VISION HEARING SMELL TASTE
Burbach 16/06/2012

13. Proprioception After Gallagher and Meltzoff ; 1996
BODY SENSE
(SCHEMA)
BODY MAP
(IMAGE)
PROPRIOCEPTIVE INFORMATION(PI)
PROPRIOCEPTIVE AWARENESS (PA)
Proprioceptive Awareness
2 – fold function 1
Non-conscious, physiological .
Updates body with respect to its posture and movement 2
Felt Experience of where all the parts of my body are
Body Awareness
It appears that an infant is born with a primitive perceptual element required for the formation of BODY MAP (IMAGE) – cf imitation of tongue protrusions and mouth opening, and memory and rehearsal effects of these, in Gallagher and Meltzoff,1996
BODY SENSE (SCHEMA)- a constantly updated feedback to the brain in terms of orientation, proximity to objects in environment, balance, movement (VESTIBULAR SYSTEM)
Translates to an awareness of where the body “FEELS” itself - a rudimentary sense of “THIS is a bit of me” which lays the foundation for BODY MAP (IMAGE). Finally, There appears to be an overarching sensory integrating process corollary involving linking VISUAL PROCESSING directly with sensation and movement (Proprioception) in the infant`s body, allowing an infant to copy facial expressions, even though he has never seen his own face. THE BASIS OF EMPATHY “I feel you in me “
Dev Coord Disorder / dyspraxia = disorganisation of motor and by extension sensorymotor signals to and from cortex : What effect on BODY SCHEMA and BODY IMAGE ? What effect on building blocks of early empathy ?
Meltzoff and Moore have proposed a SUPRAMODAL cross- modality perceptual system in which PROPRIOCEPTIVE INFORMATION (body schema and body image) communicates with VISION at the same time as communicating between sensory and motor aspects of behaviour.
Simultaneous CROSS- MODALITY communication between
VISION & PI + PA
and
sensory & motor aspects of BEHAVIOR
Burbach 16/06/2012

14. CATEGORISATION KEY CONCEPT (1) Burbach 16/06/2012
Categorisation = core sensory and linguistic cognitive function. It is the story that runs through all human interaction. Human beings evolved to make sense of our environment and ourselves in the environment. On biological level can only become adaptive organisms if we have a recognisable pattern of now-ness from which to change and can recognise the signals that indicate need to shift from our present status to a new state of being – true for moving your hand off a hot surface, but as true for changing a demand into a polite request.
Key is neurological system which is AWARE of sensory stimuli
sorts RELEVANT and IRRELEVANT competing stimuli (DISCRIMINATION)
and ignores the irrelevant (SELECTIVE ATTENTION)
REMEMBERS set of events for next time
Can hold characteristic features in mind while sorting through possible appropriate responses quickly (WORKING MEMORY):
COMPARES new stimuli with remembered pattern and spots similarities, differences and judges whether requires same, similar, or novel response.
SELECTS and REORGANISES previous responses into novel patterns to deal with novel situation (EXTRAPOLATION)
STORES new experience and its response in organised and easily accessed manner for ready comparison next time.
RECOGNISES when selected response is not working/ appropriate ( READING ENVIRONMENTAL FEEDBACK, PREDICTION) and repairs situation efficiently (INFERENCE)
Burbach 16/06/2012

15. CATEGORISATION (1) SELF ... NOT SELF INSIDE SELF... OUTSIDE SELF
Sensory
SELF ... NOT SELF INSIDE SELF... OUTSIDE SELF
Sensory/ Linguistic / emerging Emotional Schemas
Words for Feelings - ACTION- SENSATIONS
- 5 SENSES sensations
- EMOTION- SENSATION
- Hierarchies of intensity
FEELING (sensory/ emotional) IN CONTEXTS
Sensory/ Linguistic/ Emerging Emotional- Social Schemas
LIKE/ DISLIKE WANT/REJECT SEEK/ AVOID
SAME/ NOT THE SAME/ SIMILAR
Burbach 16/06/2012

16. CATEGORISATION (2) Linguistic/ Social – Emotional
SEMANTIC groups e.g food and characteristic features
Recognition of “edges” of groups
Subclasses e.g hot and cold
VOCABULARY for actions; relations between concepts; feelings
INTERGROUP reclassification e.g. antelope (animal) as prey/venison (food)
SOCIAL groups- identifying features
KEY FEATURES : Appearance, actions, words.
SOCIAL groups and “belonging” – characteristic feature identification
INTERGROUP reclassification e.g. self as friend + grandson
SOCIAL codes and “keeping in the group” rules
So we start with 6 topics and teach the children to think about them in specific ways, which will be familiar to any speech and language therapist. However, at the same time we refer back to the sensory information they are receiving and on which they base their judgements of same/ different; part- whole; derivation of action words etc.
1) animals, 2) people, 3) food 4) vehicles
5) information technology, 6) means of communication (verbal, tech., written etc.)
Burbach 16/06/2012

17. CATEGORISATION (3) Field Boundaries in Play/ Social Space
Physical / Sensory ( 6 senses + space)
Group identifying Features (mine/ not mine)
RULES of play + RULES of engagement
Cheating ; tactics; a cheat ; cheats
Field Boundaries in the Classroom
Operating rules requiring sensory processing
Operating rules requiring Communication congruency and coherence
Operating rules requiring a working knowledge of meaning relations
PLAYGROUND GAMES Group definitions of cheating; tactics; a cheat; cheats
List of wide games/ playground games from staff – effects of sensory difficulties and communication zone difficulties on play ( mins ?)
Analysis of classroom practise in terms of behavioural expectations and feedback
LEADS ON TO
Burbach 16/06/2012

18. Categorising Example “BITTER”
Auditory Discrimination “bitter” : “bitten” Semantic Fields TASTE BODY PARTS ANIMALS PEOPLE FOOD 6 CIRCLES PROPRIOCEPTION/ SPACES EYE CONTACT FACIAL EXPRESSION BODY LANGUAGE WORDS VOICE TUNE SENSORY- MOTOR EMPATHY Mirroring, same/ different, Prediction and Judgement ACTION and EMOTION HIERARCHIES INTERNAL LANGUAGE
Feelings and Beliefs prediction, inference, extrapolation, Communicative Intent RECIPROCITY, “knock- on effect” VISUALISATION Emotional EMPATHY IDIOMS, METAPHOR Verbal Reasoning and Problem-solving
ACTION and Emotional Hierarchies
ACTION ignore , spit out , refuse, reject, repulse, repel, avoid
EMOTION ignore, forgive, hurt, sadden, reflect, brood, ruminate, hold a grudge, seek revenge.
Burbach 16/06/2012

19. SEE
SAY
Internal Language DO
Burbach, 1998
Burbach 16/06/2012

20. SIX COMMUNICATION ZONES
BODY LANGUAGE
EYE
CONTACT
PERSONAL
SPACE
SIX COMMUNICATION ZONES
FACIAL
EXPRESSION
WORDS
VOICE
TUNE
INTONATION
Burbach 16/06/2012

21. CONGRUENCE
KEY CONCEPT (2)
Burbach 16/06/2012

22. SENSORY CONGRUENCE PROPRIO - CEPTION TOUCH VISION HEARING SMELL TASTE
CONSISTENT EXPERIENCES CREATE ACCURATE MEMORY AND RECALL
Burbach 16/06/2012

23. Message Congruency: Six Communication Zones
WORDS
VOICE TUNE
INTONATION
FACIAL EXPRESSION
EYE
CONTACT
BODY LANGUAGE
PERSONAL SPACE
6 Circles
Exercise 1
CONGRUENCE CREATES COHERENCE
Burbach 16/06/2012

24. HAVE WE MET BEFORE ? Spaces ADD; Disassociation
James (m) 10 yrs
ADD;
Developmental coordination disorder/ Dyspraxia
Spaces
Disassociation
body language, eye contact, facial expression
Sentence Recall 5th centile (CELF-4 UK)
James Leans on anyone standing next to him; spaces/ proprioception;
fiddles with peers` clothes, fingers, belongings ( in their hands or on the table) spaces; self and other; internal language SEE/ SAY/ DO - words don`t make an action happen.
BUT Can`t keep himself tied into the group TALKING IS NOT A BALL – You don`t ignore it if it doesn`t come directly to you in a group ALWAYS SCAN FROM SPEAKER TO SPEAKER
Disassociation Mirrors others` actions unwittingly in class and then gazes at himself in surprise, when stopped. Proprioception; SEE/DO internal Language; self/ not self
Walks across a conversation group/ pairs spaces; body language; facial expression
Wonders off mid- task/ conversation Spaces; words; body language; eye gaze
Forgets where he is, what he is doing, who he is with. Internal Language and task- script rehearsal; working memory; group space; visual key features/ recognition; scanning.
Randomly follows complete strangers in crowds and gets lost. Characteristic features; person and context cross- categorisation; sensory checking; social phrases eg. Name; “wait for me “
Burbach 16/06/2012

25. SENSORY – SOCIAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS
KEY CONCEPT (3)
Burbach 16/06/2012

26. Have We Met Before ? Madison (f) 13 yrs;
Emma (f) 14 yrs
average- above average auditory processing abilities
Morris (m) 15 yrs
ASD
Dyspraxia
Non- Verbal Learning Difficulty
GAD
Rigid thinking/ belief systems
Very slow visual processing : “have to close my eyes to understand”.
++ rigid beliefs
obsessive topic
“what you`ve got to understand about me is ...”
Multiple school placements
parent – child dyadic pattern maintenance
Madison CBT protocols to deal with GAD
Non-verbal aspects of 6 circles – related to her own sensations
Categorisation issues me/ not me; inside/ outside self e.g. Look/ be seen (active / passive)
Parts of body; think/ feel – sensation; think/ feel- emotion; emotion hierarchies (intensity)
“I wonder if...” (extrapolation) “I suspect/ think perhaps” (Inference) “I expect...” (Prediction) all working overtime but not focussing on relative perspectives of characteristic features = ALL ON HIGH VOLUME : all sensory information accorded same degree of importance means not able to screen for relative risk.
Emma : major impact on 6 circles functioning.
“blanks” visual (look but not see) if can`t close eyes, including text.
KEY FEATURE recognition and Internal Language (SAY) are main building blocks to integrating SEE/HEAR.
Morris: Other peoples` sensory experience “not real – it`s not my arm” so don`t have to attend to it/ believe it. Extends to obsessive view of self- in- world: “I am the most important; first I look after myself. Everybody else is not important except if I need them.” Working on shared sensory and category experience, shared interest, same and different INSIDE SELF/ OUTSIDE SELF; Can you tell why I might like/ not like that.
Burbach 16/06/2012

27. VISUALISATION KEY CONCEPT (4)
Cognitive shift “behaving differently” can only happen if someone can imagine what different would feel, look, sound like. Making the choice to be different requires a leap of faith and some sense of the pattern you are reaching for. The only way to formulate that pattern is to imitate what you see around you and IMAGINE yourself as “OTHER”. But what happens if you can`t SEE IT IN YOUR HEAD.
Learn to feel it in your body by copying someone else`s body- but to take ownership of that “someone else sensation”, you must have a rudimentary concept of RECIPROCITY: I do what you do SO I feel as you feel SO if I recall this sensation I will behave like you SO if you are copying me to show me what I look like You are also feeling me SO you understand me better. NOW I have to make a decision as to whether I can tolerate this feeling of different or if it is unbearable. APPROACH/ AVOID (MORRIS)
Visualisation is a safer way of doing this and is used a lot in the talking therapies to discuss “what would happen if…”
But you need to be able to extrapolate the distinctive features of a situation, imagine the sensory feedback, SEE and HEAR etc. what is not here now and then recall your visualisation in the real situation e.g. behavioural experiment, and compare the real experience to the imagined = VISUALISATION< WORKING MEMORY< CATEGORISATION>
Burbach 16/06/2012

28. VISUALISATION
Selective processing of sensory, linguistic and emotional aspects of experience
Able to be recalled consistently, at will,
Formulation of a coherent schema of meaning related to the content and context
modified and refined in response to new data
MADISON CBT Anxiety protocols to treat GENERALISED ANXIETY DISORDER
SENSORY + LINGUISTIC + EMOTIONAL
MEMORY encoded in “VISUAL” format
and described to another person, using a shared communication code.
Burbach 16/06/2012

29. VISUALISATION
Core Process = IMAGINING “Seeing it in my mind`s eye” Core Process = ADJUSTING THE IMAGE “Changing my mind” Core Process = IMAGINING MYSELF ACTING/ FEELING/ LOOKING/ SEEMING/ BEING DIFFERENT Core Process = CHANGING MY RESPONSE TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD
Burbach 16/06/2012

30. ACCESS TO CBT example
CBT protocol to deal with Generalised Anxiety Disorder (sees risks and dangers everywhere; constant focus on what if... catastrophes) (Padesky, 1986)
Main Treatment Strategy : Move from What if…? to Then What …?
Identify specific situations
Identify and rate mood (intensity 1- 10)
What is going on in your body ? What do you notice ?
What is going through your mind? Automatic Thoughts, Underlying Assumptions
Any images?
Describe sensory details of images
“Anxiety`s job” (to make you avoid danger) and “your job” (to manage in face of danger)
SCAEP Content
Same/ different; Dislike/ tolerate categorisation; semantic concepts; verbal reasoning; visualisation, prediction.
Distinctive feature categorisation;
Emotional Hierarchy
Proprioception; sensory awareness and vocabulary; 6 circles
Internal Language; visualisation; cause- effect categorisation; sensory and emotional hierarchies.
Visualisation; sensory awareness; sensory- motor integration; vocabulary; 6 circles; empathies; working memory; Internal language
METAPHOR
Burbach 16/06/2012

31. EMPATHY (1) Sensory Empathy “Do you see what I see ?
Can you hear what I hear ?”
depends on a SHARED ATTENTION, SHARED INTEREST , SHARED (sensory, environmental, linguistic) EXPERIENCE and SHARED KNOWLEDGE.
LANGUAGE is the way we REFLECT our sensory experiences and compare them with someone else`s. This requires a SHARED CODE.
EMPATHY game with sensory toys
FEELING vocab and FEELINGS vocab
Burbach 16/06/2012

32. EMPATHY (2) Emotional Empathy “I know how you feel !”
“I know where you`re coming from !”
“You must be feeling so fed- up !”
LANGUAGE reflects our perceptions of another`s experiences, using our own schemas to extrapolate from. We ASSUME shared experience , knowledge and schemas.
But we must be able to ANALYSE the information we are receiving to select the corresponding schemas in our own system accurately. We ASSUME we are focussing on the same distinctive features.
Walk a mile in another man`s shoes
Burbach 16/06/2012

33. EMPATHY BRIDGE
REFLECTIVE LANGUAGE
Verbalising own sensory perceptions, actions and feelings
In relation to student`s six communi-cation zones
Builds up a shared schema related to the student`s sensory processing and the context
MIRROR-
ING PERCEPT-IONS AND RESPON-SES
Burbach 16/06/2012

34. FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND METAPHOR
KEY CONCEPT (5)
Burbach 16/06/2012

35. Expressive Communi-cation
METAPHOR (1)
Visualisa- tion
Empathy
Categor-isation
Expressive Communi-cation
Reflective Language
Own metaphors for memorable students` characteristics
Own metaphors for personal problem- solving
Metaphors for difficulties
Metaphors for solutions
Metaphors for interactions e.g. Newton`s Cradle “knock on effect”
Mirror
Actions
Working
Memory
Burbach 16/06/2012

36. METAPHOR (2)
Help to conceptualise the components of a situation or context
Requires awareness of imagery
Integration of verbal and imaged
Holding and manipulating 2 mental concepts (WORKING MEMORY)
Awareness of commonalities despite superficial differences
Flexible use of multiple meanings
NARRATIVE METAPHORS – imply process, development, change and outcome. LEARNING !!
SIMILE - quick comparison “short hand” images which can be expanded and linked with others to develop a narrative “LIKE A ...”
ANALOGY- “AS IF ....” MATHS
IDIOM - simile/ analogy that bears analogous resemblance to literal (sensory - motor) meaning
Burbach 16/06/2012

37. WHAT`S COOKING ? PIZZA METAPHOR WHAT FLAVOUR DO YOU LEAVE ?
Sensory ingredients
Ingredient analogies
6 Slices correspond to 6 zones
Proportions and portions
Recipes for success
Adapting recipes according to contexts
Likes and Dislikes/ Same and Different
Chilli = dangerous but tasty (tolerances
for discomfort; inappropriacy etc )
Sharing (self/ trust)
Aftertaste and memory
Changing the recipe; changing tastes
Getting the balance right
YR 10 and 11 metaphor for SCAEP PROCESS ! They have asked if I would consider calling “our” programme “WHAT`S COOKING ?” ( and make and serve real pizzas on a regular basis !) That`s what I consider taking ownership of your own remediation!
PIZZA METAPHOR
WHAT FLAVOUR DO YOU LEAVE ?
WHAT`S COOKING ?
COMING BACK FOR MORE
I DON’T LIKE PIZZA.
Burbach 16/06/2012