“Treatment”? Or Teaching?
October 23, 2008 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Health
Unraveling Autism: What’s Next in Treatment and How Do We Best Train Practitioners to Provide It? is the headline for a press release about a panel discussion offered by the Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles Campus.
I don’t know, I just prefer to talk about teaching—not “treatment.”
Indeed, I agree.
When I introduced the concept of day-therapy (instead of day-care) into a ward-style unit last year, it was with the intent of getting people to see everyday activities as having some therapeutic value, rather than just something to occupy the time.
However, since then, I’ve come to realise that treating everyday activities as ‘treatment’ can have two effects:
1. Everyday activities can be valued according to their therapeutic effects, rather than the meaning to the clients/students. Activities are provided by ‘what’s good for you’ rather than ‘what you’re good at’.
2. Everyday activities can become revalued as ‘therapy’ thus potentially changing the value attached to them by the student/client, (i.e. it’s no longer ‘funtime’, it’s ‘work’) in turn changing the motivation to engage and the subjective experience (if all you do is work, where’s the play?).
Basically, what I’m saying is teaching is the process of imparting skills to students, whether through proximal development, rote learning or other. Treatment is a word that should be avoided if ‘teaching’* does better in it’s place.
*not that teaching doesn;t have it’s own connotations, but that’s for another time.
I can see the point–treating deficits or teaching skills–half empty or half full. FWIW, I use “teaching”, and “tutors” vs. “therapists” for the same reason.
What I am really curious about is the content of the presentation. It’s only a couple of hours so a bit short for a trip to LA. I know some folks from The Chicago School of Professional Psychology so I’ll pick their brains on the “treatment” vs. “teaching” question when I see them.
I don’t think it’s a ‘treatment vs. teaching’ question, as something can be both, although some teaching can be seen as a sub-set of treatment as the overall mulitdisciplinary care plan (if there is one for that student) can include contempory ‘treatments’ such as medication, glasses and assistive devices.
The question for me is:
is it merely a different format/method/presentation of teaching that is best presented as being a form of teaching, regardless of the broader treatment context,
or is it so far removed from what we can contemporarily call teaching that its best for all concerned to label it as primarily therapy?
Oe more reason why the notion of “teaching” seems crucial to me is that one teaches a student, and treats a patient—-I see my son as a student, a learner, with a great need for individualized teaching and understanding of his learning style, so to speak, rather than as a “sick” or ill child in need of being treated. I know it’s semantics in part, but I think the words we choose to use might have more of an effect than we might think.
Semantics are important if they affect motivation, engagement and subjective experience.
All these things are important for the quality of the teaching. Get it wrong (as with any ‘intervention’) and you can have someone who refuses to engage, or is scared of engaging, or views it as worthless.
Present it in the right way (e.g. your son is ‘coming along in his learning’ is less stark and clinical than ‘he’s meeting his treatment targets) and it has the potential to become a positive thing, for the student, the instructor and the family.
Above all – his peers, family, friends and neighbours will be at school being taught. With all the things ‘we’ on the spectrum have to deal with, the last thing we need is to miss out being able to go to ’school*’ just like everyone else.
*even if it is a different one.
“Teaching” I agree. If you have a chance to brouse through wrongplanet.net or other blogs writen by adult autistics, you will find a great majority, resent the fact that Autism is being treated as a “desease” that needs to be treated.
My oldest son often says “how come no one explained that to me before”. He asks to be taught. He never asks for treatment for his Aspergers.
However if here was a little pill that helped me be able to follow and participate in a group conversation like most people, I would take it – lol.
well, i’ve been saying for years that autism is a developmental issue and needs an educational approach. seems like the clinicians are finally bloody getting it.
sadly, seven years after i wrote about it as my first academic paper for my M. Ed.
Jack receives both teaching and treatment. I am thankful for both.