I first learned about facilitated communication (FC) in 1991 when a colleague shared with me Professor Douglas Biklen’s 1990 article in the Harvard Educational Review, “Communication Unbound: Autism and Praxis.” This article was a qualitative research study on the method based on his observations of Rosemary Crossley’s work with non-speaking individuals at the DEAL Communication Centre in Melbourne, Australia. Later that year, I attended a conference on FC in Burlington, Vermont, where Syracuse University staff gave an overview of the method and shared examples of individuals from the Syracuse, New York area who used it. I came away from the conference excited about the possibilities of exploring the use of FC with individuals who I worked with.
I assumed that I knew enough about the method and that I would easily learn how to use it. That was hardly the case, as my first attempts at using the method were not successful. I reached out to someone who knew the individual I was working with at the time and had experience with the use of FC. He met with us and showed me how to provide the physical support that the person needed to communicate effectively. This hands-on learning experience was a critical step in my learning the skills needed to support this individual to use FC. Over the course of many years, I was fortunate to have many opportunities to learn more about the method. I was able to work with many different individuals, collaborate with other practitioners, and participate in doing trainings on the method.
My initial experiences with FC were probably not unlike those of many others in the early 1990s. At that time, people were learning about the method through presentations, videos, and writings about it. These experiences might have been enough to get people started but not enough to ensure that they were progressing with their skills and using good practice. There were no systems in place to provide ongoing training and support. Moreover, in the excitement over the communication that individuals using FC were now producing, the need for developing skills and using good practice was frequently overlooked.
It is perhaps not surprising, then, that in the debates surrounding FC over the last 30 years, little attention has been paid to the role of training in the use of FC. There is limited reference to training in research studies on the method. The overall impression given in these studies was that all facilitation was the same and that negative influence would inevitably occur. There was little weight given to the training and the skills of the facilitators participating in the research when those factors might have had an impact on the performance of the participants.
In media portrayals of the method, individuals were often shown typing with full support at the hand and not looking at the keyboard. Examples of FC practice where individuals were typing with minimal support with a hand on the shoulder and good visual attention to the keyboard were not shown. These examples would have demonstrated that it was possible to progress with skills and that access to good training could make a difference.
To get a fuller understanding of the role of training in the use of FC, it is important to look back at the history of the method starting with the work of the late Rosemary Crossley, who developed the method in the late 1970s. In her early work on FC, Crossley used the word “training” in reference to FC and often referred to the method as “facilitated communication training.” She wrote that, “Most of the time facilitated communication training (FCT) is a better term than facilitated communication (FC). FC isn’t an end in itself – it’s a stage that we hope people will pass through on their way to improved communication… The ultimate goal is for students to be able to use the communication aid(s) of their choice independently.”
In 1986, Crossley opened the DEAL Centre for Communication and established a training program for FC. Working in her program were occupational and physical therapists who developed strategies for helping people overcome the neuromotor problems that interfered with their ability to point effectively for communication. “The combination of facilitated communication and motor training was called facilitated communication training” (Crossley, 1994, pp. 5–6). One chapter in her book described in detail these common motor problems and strategies. Another chapter focused on independence. Her writings about FC suggested that the work of supporting individuals to use FC was individualized and required that their communication partners be highly skilled.
When Biklen visited DEAL in 1989, he observed several people typing with minimal support at the shoulder (Biklen, 1990). For him, this was compelling evidence about the effectiveness of FC as a method of communication for nonspeaking individuals. It was also evidence that the regular practice and instruction that they received from Crossley and her team at DEAL was an important factor in how people progressed with the method.
In late 1989, soon after his visits to DEAL, Biklen wanted to explore the possibilities of people using the method in the U.S. He started out by studying how it worked in practice with a group of 21 students in the Syracuse, NY area (Biklen, 1993, pp. 35–61). In his book, “Communication Unbound,” Biklen described in detail his research team’s observations of student progress with the use of FC. Included in the book was a section on “How To” training materials for training new facilitators (Biklen, pp. 191–206). With their work, Crossley and Biklen had developed a curriculum for learning the method. What was missing in the initial period of it being introduced in the U.S. were the training structures to teach the curriculum and have the learning be lasting.
In the mid-1990s, opportunities for training on FC dwindled greatly. It was a catch-22 situation in which the need for training was recognized but the controversies surrounding the method restricted the opportunities. There were not many professionals in the U.S. with sufficient experience and skill in FC to provide training. Most speech-language pathologists were not trained in the method and, with the controversies surrounding it, it was not an accepted practice for them to use. Schools and adult service providers would not fund training for it.
Even though access to training was limited in many parts of the country, the Facilitated Communication Institute at Syracuse University (renamed the Institute for Communication and Education in 2010) began sponsoring annual Summer Institutes focused on communication and inclusion in 2006. People from around the country attended these institutes, which continued for 10 years until 2016. They featured presentations and workshops on communication and inclusion by leaders in these fields and individuals who typed to communicate. A key part of them were the skill-building sessions for FC users and their facilitators. Both FC users and their facilitators participated in structured activities to work on a range of skills including getting started with the method to fading support. Participants received coaching from experienced facilitators and FC trainers during these sessions. They were able to improve their skills and learn about best practices in the use of FC. However, even though these sessions were beneficial to participants, access to follow-up coaching was limited for many once the institutes were over.
In 2014, the organization Wellspring Guild was formed with the purpose of expanding access to training around the country. Board members of the Wellspring Guild included practitioners and an FC user who had been active in training for many years. The goal of Wellspring Guild was to “develop a team of well-trained Facilitators, Coaches, and Trainers around every communicator who are skilled and follow best practices.” The training model that Wellspring Guild developed had two levels: Coach and Trainer. They defined a Coach as being “a person who has a good level of experience in using facilitated communication and can help others who are new and just learning about it. The Coach learns the tools of the ‘getting started’ process and applies them to meet the needs of the Communicator as well as the new Facilitator.” Coaches could work in their local areas to provide the hands-on training needed to maintain and improve the use of FC over time. A Trainer was defined as a person who has had extensive experience as a facilitator and coach and has the skills to do group trainings, both in-person and online, and formal assessments of candidacy for FC.
Over the past five years, Wellspring Guild has developed training programs for both the Coach and Trainer program with the goal of improving the quality and quantity of training around the country. Increased training resources have been developed in different areas including New York/Connecticut, Vermont, and Florida. These recent developments in training for FC have resulted in greater access to communication for nonspeaking individuals who can benefit from this method and more skilled facilitators to support their communication. They also point to the need for future research to consider the importance and impact of training on the practice of FC and other assisted methods of communication.
Pascal Cheng, MEd, is a Communication Consultant. He can be reached at Pascalcheng73@gmail.com or (802) 578-5972.
References
Biklen, D. (1990). Communication Unbound: Autism and Praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 60 (Fall 1990), 291–314.
Biklen, D. (1993). Communication Unbound: How Facilitated Communication Is Challenging Traditional Views of Autism and Ability/Disability. New York, NY: Teacher College Press.
Crossley, R. (1994). Facilitated Communication Training. New York, NY: Teachers College Press
