- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Special Needs
mommyof4boys
member
ABA vs. Floortime
mommyof4boys
member
We had a meeting today to talk about Christopher's transition into the preschool setting for September. They said they do not do floortime and do more ABA and discreet trials with kids. I do believe that this is needed with Christopher since he benefits from ABA for behavior and the repetative nature can aid in language development with labeling. I do think, however, that the floortime approach he gets during DI helps him with social skills. Those are also areas that he is really lacking in. How can we help with the social skills aspect if he isn't necessarily getting the teaching of it during the school day? And, do all public schools not do floortime in favor of ABA?
This discussion has been closed.
Re: ABA vs. Floortime
I don't have experience with our school system on this. But, I am thinking that there are two main reasons schools focus on ABA. 1. It is the only research based intervention for autism (even though I personally think what therapies you use should really are based on the individual child) and 2. ABA is more educational based in nature versus floortime, which schools obviously see more fitting.
You may have to fit floortime in on your own time, if you do want other children involved, talk to other parents in the school program, see if they can do some play dates per se.
Our pre-school does ABA, DS gets 22.5 hours a week. The gains he has made since Sept. are incredible. I can't even tell you how great it's been for him. His social skills have also been improved, although it's an area he still needs alot of work on.
This is where my issue is. I've seen more growth with language and social skills while using floortime rather than ABA. I think that ABA has it's place with Christopher educationally and behavioraly but I do see where floortime is necessary for him as well. Within a program that should be tailored to his needs, IMO, this should be taken into consideration.
Christopher is getting good at repeating the necessary words but not using them with meaning, picking up on emotion, etc.
I was avoiding chiming in on this because I get pretty passionate fast.
I 100% agree with everything the previous SLP said.
ABA doesn't address joint attention, theory of mind, empathy, taking on other perspectives, and other subtleties necessary for true communication because these aren't trainable skills. They are not simply observable behaviors to be reinforced or extinguished. Language is complex and intertwined with other areas and cannot be fully taught by separating it from the social and emotional components.
I too know that ABA has a place. I also know that people often see quicker "progress" with ABA, but part of that is based on the definition of progress.
I think for a child on the spectrum to have dynamic and creative language and fluid and adapting problem solving skills, ABA can not be the lone treatment for language disorders.
So are you referring to Greenspan's DIR/Floortime or naturalistic, play based language therapy on the floor? I am thinking now that it is the latter - right?
ABA varies greatly. I don't think Lovaas/discrete trial training is what is most commonly used these days. I think most people are using a more naturalistic and play based approach. I may be wrong. I hope I am not.
I wish a BCBA would jump in here because I don't want to inaccurately describe ABA.
There is a difference between learning words and understanding them. This is a made up example: An ABA program may teach a child that "the person who cuts hair is called a barber." And they may even have manipulatives and pictures to illustrate a barber. So, they target this "concept" heavily and over a few sessions, the child is able to ID the photo of the barber, label it "barber" and even answer "barber" if someone asks, "who cuts people's hair?" But after getting a trim from his mom, when out in public and asked, "you look super! who cut your hair!?" the child may rotely answer "barber" instead of "(my) mom"
So what is important? That the child responded to the person? That the child can label a single picture of a barber? or that the child was not able to answer a basic wh question based on a personal experience?
It would be much more educational if the child were able to visit a hair salon, watch a hair cut take place, talk to the hair dresser, see the sights, smell the smells, hear the noises, and feel the environment, etc.
I think I have digressed and I don't know how to get back on track.
what was the question? lol
i knew I shouldn't have joined this thread
The Developmental Thearapist said she does more of a "Floortime concept" with him. The ABA does a natural environment ABA approach. The school district said they do discreet trials with the children. She said it is a lot of sitting down, one on one or one on two and doing ABA. I thought that was "old school" approach and the "newer school" approach was mroe natural environment ABA.
Thank you. Your example was very appreciated. I am new to all this for younger children and I've been more removed from the educational aspect of things since I've not taught in about 3 years.
I just worry that he's gain in label and not concept. IMO, I want him to have more concept than label.
My ds does more of environmental/naturalistic ABA with a little table time intertwined too. My ds is one the kids, who last night, said, "daddy, your hands are rough and your nose is dirty." Which was completely accurate, as he had just come home from his dads farm. The utilization of rough and dirty were taught in ABA, and my ds used it in an appropriate manner. But, every child is different, my ds just happens to be very good at transferring his skills socially as well.
if you can find a floortime person to train you (or go to one of greenspan's conferences - i think there is one online soon www.icdl.com) then maybe you can use floortime as your approach to real life or do a few 30 minute "sessions" a day and then keep the ABA for other things.
Opposite from my other example, there are some things that can be knocked out in ABA - prepositions and adjective vocabulary come to mind.
I always think of ABA teaching things linearly (I picture a dot with a lot of rays coming from it) but it isn't so good at connecting those lines (picture turning the lines into more of a spider web picture) - is that making sense? There are a lot of things to teach and learn, but the complex and crucial part is how all of these things interconnect and work together, how the child thinks, analyzes, makes comparisons, inferences and draws conclusions. These are complex skills but they begin to develop typically at a very early age. A lot of intervention programs don't address these skills until later on (because mastery of these abilities isn't expected until a much older age), but really they need to be addressed at developmentally appropriate levels from the beginning.
i don't know enough about your child's level of functioning and current skill set to really argue one approach over the other. A combination may be best...would probably be best. GL!!