Difference between revisions of "Dean-Adams-Kasari2013"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Michelle Dean; Gail Fox Adams; Connie Kasari |Title=How narrative difficulties build peer rejection: A discourse analysis of a girl with...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Michelle Dean; Gail Fox Adams; Connie Kasari | |Author(s)=Michelle Dean; Gail Fox Adams; Connie Kasari | ||
|Title=How narrative difficulties build peer rejection: A discourse analysis of a girl with autism and her female peers | |Title=How narrative difficulties build peer rejection: A discourse analysis of a girl with autism and her female peers | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Autism; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Autism; |
|Key=Dean-Adams-Kasari2013 | |Key=Dean-Adams-Kasari2013 | ||
|Year=2013 | |Year=2013 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=15 | |Volume=15 | ||
|Number=2 | |Number=2 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=147–166 |
| + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461445612471472 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1177/1461445612471472 | ||
| + | |Abstract=In this discourse analysis of a social-skills intervention, the narratives of a girl (‘Cindy’) with autism and her female peers were analyzed. Some 162 narratives were identified in 12 hours of video, which documented an eight-week program. Using conversation/talk-in-interaction analysis methods, we determined that over 60% of peers’ narratives were cooperatively completed by group members compared to less than 20% of Cindy’s. In contrast, a majority of Cindy’s narratives were cooperatively sanctioned. Analysis of these unsuccessful narratives revealed that: 1) peers often contest Cindy’s narratives if they are about a restricted interest; 2) Cindy often notices her peers’ resistance but persists with her storytelling activity; and 3) peers’ sanctioning becomes more intense over time. We claim that Cindy’s autism-related behaviors manifest themselves in inflexible interactions that systematically lead to her exclusion. This study emphasizes that storytelling is a fundamental tool that girls use to socialize with one another, which has implications for autism intervention practices. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 07:11, 5 December 2019
| Dean-Adams-Kasari2013 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Dean-Adams-Kasari2013 |
| Author(s) | Michelle Dean, Gail Fox Adams, Connie Kasari |
| Title | How narrative difficulties build peer rejection: A discourse analysis of a girl with autism and her female peers |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Autism |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2013 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 15 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 147–166 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445612471472 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In this discourse analysis of a social-skills intervention, the narratives of a girl (‘Cindy’) with autism and her female peers were analyzed. Some 162 narratives were identified in 12 hours of video, which documented an eight-week program. Using conversation/talk-in-interaction analysis methods, we determined that over 60% of peers’ narratives were cooperatively completed by group members compared to less than 20% of Cindy’s. In contrast, a majority of Cindy’s narratives were cooperatively sanctioned. Analysis of these unsuccessful narratives revealed that: 1) peers often contest Cindy’s narratives if they are about a restricted interest; 2) Cindy often notices her peers’ resistance but persists with her storytelling activity; and 3) peers’ sanctioning becomes more intense over time. We claim that Cindy’s autism-related behaviors manifest themselves in inflexible interactions that systematically lead to her exclusion. This study emphasizes that storytelling is a fundamental tool that girls use to socialize with one another, which has implications for autism intervention practices.
Notes
