Connect with PPM:
  Play Partners Maine
  • Home
  • About us
    • About the therapist
  • Services
    • Services for families
    • Services for schools, programs, and agencies
    • Goals
    • FAQS: Fees and scheduling
  • DIRFloortime®
    • DIRFloortime® overview
    • Developmental milestones
    • Research
    • Video library
    • Resources
  • Blog

Connection vs. Compliance

4/2/2014

2 Comments

 
When I think about differences in ways of interacting with children, one defining factor that stands out to me is whether adults attempt to engage the child by insisting on compliance or by genuinely connecting with the child. This I believe is one of the key defining differences between different approaches to parenting and educational and treatment philosophies. What exactly do I mean by this? I offer examples below.

In my work I often focus on engaging children who are initially difficult to engage (often as a result of biologically based challenges such as motor, sensory, visual, and/or auditory processing difficulties). The child may be self-absorbed or withdrawn or focused on a particular activity or object (watching a Barney video, running around the kitchen island, lining up objects, opening and closing doors, picking pieces of yarn in the carpet, etc.) to the exclusion of engagement with the people in his or her life. As a DIR®/Floortime™ practitioner, I (and others with a developmental philosophy) approach this by seeking ways to connect with the child that follow his lead and are in sync with his unique ways of hearing, seeing, touching, smelling, and/or moving and that will not cause him to underreact or overreact and be overwhelmed and pull away. A practitioner with a behavioral philosophy approaches this from a different perspective, gaining compliance, often referred to as “gaining instructional control”. The focus is on having the child associate the parent or practitioner as a provider of reinforcers in order to gain compliance with directions or requests. As I explain below I see a focus on compliance as limiting and often counter-productive in interactions with children.

Opposing philosophies or approaches are also played out in everyday interactions with children in families and in school settings. In schools teachers adopt different methods of engaging children in learning and in guiding their behavior that are influenced by educational philosophies (which may be their own or that of the educational program or school) and/or personal and professional history and experiences. Some teachers, schools, and programs focus on things like “running a tight ship”, children following the directions and completing the assigned work, checking off goals and objectives, or higher scores on standardized tests rather than deeply engaging learners in content, considering different points of view, posing questions, making sense of the ideas or concepts, problem-solving, divergent thinking and creativity, and a love of learning. The latter is often referred to as "engaged learning". The teacher whose focus is on engaging learners is also a teacher who values connection and forges genuine and joyful learning relationships with children. A narrow focus on compliance limits opportunities to genuinely connect with children and also limits children’s learning horizons.

When it comes to guiding children’s behavior in everyday situations like needing a child to brush their teeth; put on their coat, hat, and mittens to go outside; or follow the rules in the school lunchroom parents and teachers can choose between demanding compliance or supporting their child’s cooperation through connection. For example, a parent who connects with their child might engage with their child over choosing toys or different types of bubble bath for the bathtub instead of demanding compliance with the routine, using threats when the child refuses or fails to comply, or resorting to rewards or bribery. Not only is the connection approach likely to be more successful in facilitating the child’s cooperation, the very interactions between the parent and child to get ready for the bath, choose tub toys or bubble bath, run the bath, get dried and dressed for bed offer countless opportunities for learning. As parent and child connect and engage in this bath time routine the parent is supporting the child’s abilities to read and respond to the emotional cues of others, engage in long chains of back and forth interaction, modulate emotions, problem solve, engage in imaginative play, etc.! Likewise in a classroom the teacher whose focus is on connection rather than compliance, directly involves the children in discussions and formulation of classroom rules and uses problems that arise between children or between a child and adult as opportunities for supporting social problem-solving as well as social skills and higher levels of reasoning and thinking. These connection-focused interactions also build the foundations for self-regulation (involving the ability to plan, set goals, regulate emotions, inhibit impulses, delay gratification, independently problem-solve) a critical underlying foundation for development and learning.

Over-reliance on demanding compliance can be counter-productive in multiple ways. Over time, excessive, and especially, coercive demands for compliance are detrimental to the parent-child relationship. Often the result is exacerbation of a difficult temperament and problematic child behavior as well as negative interactions between parent and child. Demanding compliance can also undermine children’s formation of self-concept and self-identity, self-esteem, development of autonomy, and initiative taking. This is problematic for all children but even more so for children with developmental disabilities who are at much higher risk for developing learned helplessness and passivity. In the broader picture, as discussed above, emphasis on compliance instead of connection undermines the development of self-regulation and healthy foundations for relating, communicating, and thinking.

While I recognize the use of reinforcers, a schedule of reinforcement, or a reward system is an improvement over simply demanding compliance, making threats, using punishment, and coercive or negative interactions between children and adults and can see a limited place for this in some situations, support for a philosophy that embraces connection is a far better long-term alternative. A focus on reinforcers and simply changing a behavior in order to address problem behaviors such as aggression, non-compliance, tantrums, moodiness, impulsivity, etc. does not in and of itself build the foundations for self-regulation. Self-regulation enables children to manage their emotions, understand what’s appropriate and inappropriate, and respect the needs of others. Compliance-based philosophies when used in classroom settings can also undermine academic and pre-academic learning by limiting children’s potential for higher level, creative thinking and in-depth learning within a subject or topic. Parents, teachers, and therapists, who embrace connection over compliance, are best able to provide the vital opportunities for building healthy foundations for development, learning, and relationships.


 
2 Comments

Why DIR®/Floortime™?

10/11/2013

0 Comments

 
The goal of this post is to clarify the reasons I believe DIR®/Floortime™ should be at the core of an individualized program for all children with autism spectrum disorders and other developmental challenges.  This is not meant to rule out other intervention methods and techniques that can and should be incorporated when they are needed to address individual challenges and needs, but rather the focus here is on what should be at the heart of an individualized program for each child.  For me that should be Floortime and Floortime-like interactions throughout the child’s day as the essential component of a comprehensive program tailored to that child’s individual differences and challenges, gifts, interests, and passions. Through this blog posting I want to convey why I feel so strongly about this model and why I’m working to get it out there to parents and professionals.

To make a real difference for children and their development we must deeply and intensely engage their emotions.  Stanley Greenspan and John Dewey told us, and now an increasing chorus of brain researchers, psychologists, and educators are telling us that it is indeed emotions and affect that drive learning and development.  I contrast this deep engagement that’s the focus of Floortime with my observations of other strategies being used with children (including discrete trial training, although not exclusively) in which the child’s engagement is often superficial and fleeting (except in instances in which the child is in distress because the adult’s expectations are not at all in sync with the child’s current regulatory, processing, or communicative needs, a very counterproductive situation).

DIR®/Floortime™ focuses on fostering essential social, emotional, and intellectual capacities. These fundamental capacities are the key to meaningful and rewarding human relationships and are the building blocks of development.  They include sustaining attention and self-regulation, engaging in a continuous flow of back and forth interactions (called circles of communication), social problem solving, imaginative play, and logical and abstract thinking.  DIR® practitioners seek to support and enhance the child’s current capacities and abilities and facilitate growth, not through changing the child in a fundamental way, but through tapping into, respecting, and honoring their individual differences, interests, and passions.  This is an approach that is fully attuned with the concept of presuming competence and respecting neurodiversity.

Through this model parents and professionals are supported to deploy affect and challenge the child in ways that are attuned with the child’s interests and engagement but that also encourage growth and climbing the developmental ladder.  Coaching by a professional such as myself can significantly aid parents, teachers, and therapists to incorporate these strategies into their everyday interactions with children.  Over time as adults learn to incorporate these methods they become a very natural part of their interactions.  The very naturalness of these techniques adds to the powerfulness of the model.    
0 Comments

Supporting Social Play and Friendship: Part 2: Strategies for Helping Children Connect and Play

9/20/2013

1 Comment

 
During play adults should foster a playful, fun environment that is responsive to children’s interests and supportive of individual challenges while also assisting children to connect and play with each other. In addition to the suggestions posted in Part 1 for setting the stage for the group or activity period here are strategies that can be used to help child connect and play together during playtime.

Model high affect

A key strategy for adults supporting play and interaction is to model high affect (e.g., feelings, emotion, as shown in facial expression) and playfulness. This helps entice children toward a common activity and/or each other. Given high interest activities and a supportive environment that is in tune with each child’s individual differences, the adult’s affect/playfulness can help create a climate to encourage communication and back and forth interaction. In addition the adult should use heightened affect/emotional expression to reflect differing emotional contexts in the ongoing play such as a look of surprise when a child uncovers a bright red caboose in a treasure hunt game, a look of sadness when a character in a story has lost his beloved pet, or a look of concern when two children .

Observe for interests to help link children together

Observe for children’s common interests in play and activities and follow their leads to link them together in ways that have the potential to support back and forth interaction. Examples:
  • Two children are moving/dancing independently to recorded music—the adult suggests they dance in unison (“Look how gracefully you and Marie are dancing! Shall we dance together?”). 
  • An adult suggests to two children who are engaged in parallel play with pieces from a miniature playground that they take turns having their toy figures go down the toy sliding board. Further suggestions might include one toy figure pushing the other on the toy swing.
  • A child observing and appearing interested in the play of another child can be assisted to “break the ice” by suggesting a complementary activity such as sitting at the table and “eating” the pretend “eggs” being prepared by his peer. 
  • As suggested in Part 1 observe carefully for children’s interests (ask parents too) and offer opportunities to pursue these interests whether it’s spinning objects, space travel, Thomas the Train, or taking apart small appliances. Look for signs of interest by other children and opportunities for social exchange.

Focus on nonverbal signaling

In addition to observing for mutual interests, supporting children’s use and understanding nonverbal communication signals (e.g., sounds, gestures, facial expression) is critical for the development of functional communication skills and social and emotional capacities. These signals may indicate interest in another child or the child’s activity, a need for help, a desire to participate, wanting to take a turn, continue a shared activity, or get the attention of another child. 

Examples:
  • A child standing across from another child playing with a water pump at a water table shows interest in the other child’s activity. The adult alerts the child playing with the pump to the peer’s interest (“Look Janny, Sammy really likes what you’re doing!”) and makes a suggestion to either child to support interaction between the two (“Janny, Can you pump water into Sammy’s pail? Here Sammy, put your pail under the pump. Janny will pump water in it.”). 
  • Children have been building and knocking down tall towers of cardboard blocks. Jay, who has observed this play, starts to build his own tower and keeps looking over with apparent interest at the spectacle of the blocks falling over but hasn’t joined in. The adult might say in a silly, exaggerated, slightly provocative tone to another child “Oh no! Don’t knock Jay’s tower down! Don’t you dare knock it down!” The adult thus interprets Jay’s nonverbal cues of interest and alerts other children in a playful way of his desire to join in. 
  • Similarly alerting children to each other’s cues of needing help with something like a challenging puzzle or using a new app on an I-Pad is a great opportunity for supporting back and forth communication and emotional signaling.

Use “problems” as opportunities

Problems or disputes that occur among children should be viewed as golden opportunities for children to use negotiation or problem solving to resolve issues. Adults can guide children through steps for solving problems (e.g., cool down, ID the problem, brainstorm solutions, try out the solution, follow-up). Adults can also experiment with purposely creating “problems” for children to solve that require them to problem solve and work together to overcome the problem. The “problems” that are set up generally involve high interest activities or materials. For example, the adult tells children that painting (a very popular activity) will be available and as he goes to set up the painting activity “discovers” that there is no more red or blue paint in the room. There is paint (which is in gallon containers) in another room. This problem is posed to three of the children who are most interested in painting. They brainstorm various solutions eventually settling on using a small wagon to transport the paint. The heaviness of the containers means they also have to work together to lift it onto the wagon and lift it out when they return. “Problems” can include desirable materials or equipment placed on high shelves or the door to an outside play area blocked by large and heavy blocks such as hollow wooden blocks.

Focus on natural spontaneous interactions not mechanical or prompted behaviors

Examples of mechanical or prompted behaviors include prompting children to greet others or make eye contact. Interactive behavior taught in a rote or mechanical way tends to be disconnected from the emotions and affective experience so critical to genuine and enriching reciprocal interactions and relationships with peers and others.

1 Comment

    Sandy Doctoroff

    With 40 years in the field I bring a developmental and relationship-based perspective to my work with children, families, and providers.

    Categories

    All
    Autism
    Compliance
    Connection
    DIR/Floortime
    Peer Interaction
    Play
    Preschool
    Pretend Play
    Self-regulation
    Social Development
    Social Groups
    Social Play
    Young Children

    Archives

    July 2019
    April 2019
    September 2018
    April 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.