This document summarizes a treatment approach called Social Thinking for students with social learning and pragmatic challenges. It describes how social skills develop in neurotypical children and introduces the ILAUGH model and Social Thinking vocabulary to teach social concepts. The ILAUGH model covers initiation, listening, abstract thinking, perspective-taking, big picture thinking, humor, and human relationships. Teaching social concepts makes the abstract concrete and provides a framework for intervention.

1. Copyright © 2009 Michelle Garcia Winner and Pamela Crooke. All Rights Reserved. 1
Social Thinking®: A Developmental Treatment Approach for Students with
Social Learning/Social Pragmatic Challenges
Michelle Garcia Winner, MS, CCC-SLP
Pamela J. Crooke, PhD., CCC-SLP
Journal Title: Perspectives on Language Learning and Education
Journal Volume: 16
Issue: (2)
Pages: 62-69
Month/Year: July 2009
Abstract: Teaching students with social learning/pragmatic challenges what neurotypical
children learn intuitively is an act that blends art and science. This article will describe the
development of social learning and social communication and their relationship to social skills.
A training and treatment framework referred to as “Social Thinking” will be introduced. The
training aspect of Social Thinking is referred to as the ILAUGH Model, an acronym representing
how different aspects of the school and home day require core social knowledge and then how
we use this knowledge to produce our social skills as well as participate successfully in specific
academic tasks. This article will also introduce one aspect of Social Thinking treatment called
the Social Thinking Vocabulary which creates concrete ways to explore and teach abstract
lessons related to our social skills production.
Social Communicative Development
Social development appears to begin prior to birth and emerges in the early days of life as babies
actively pursue social learning through their daily experiences (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 2003).
Marshall and Fox (2006) describe early social developmental milestones, identifying that babies
as young as 36 hours of life distinguish between facial expressions while babies at seven months
match vocal expressions of emotion to facial expression. By the end of the first year of life,
infants are also developing pre-linguistic communication skills such as declarative/imperative
points (Carpenter, Pennington & Rogers, 2002). Toddlers are actively developing social learning,
which includes responding to the ideas of others, even before they can verbally express these
ideas (Meltzoff, 1995). For example, the more a child engages in verbal communicative
exchanges, the more he or she learns about what other people are thinking.
This early social thought ignites the development of perspective taking which encourages
abstract language to communicate increasingly complex feelings and thoughts (Flavell, 2004).
By four years of age, neurotypical children emerge in their use of mental state verbs (e.g., think,
know, guess, decide, etc.) to express information about what they think others are thinking (De
Villiers, 2000). By six years old they can understand the basic concept that people can lie, cheat
and steal (Baron-Cohen, 2000). As children begin to realize they can manipulate other people,
their language emerges into increasingly sophisticated linguistic trickery. It is not uncommon to
see a third grade child trick someone into looking in a certain direction and then state, “made you
look.”

2. Copyright © 2009 Michelle Garcia Winner and Pamela Crooke. All Rights Reserved. 2
Social manipulation and the ability to think socially appear to be critical not only for social
participation but also for understanding aspects of play, problem solving, understanding
communicative intentions, written expression and reading comprehension (Booth, Hall, Robison
& Kim, 1997; Norbury & Bishop, 2002; Westby, 1985). Not coincidentally, abstract social
language and communicative interpretation become heavily coded in academic curricula, as
students are asked early in their educational journey to interpret the intentions of a character in a
story to understand the motives for the actor’s actions. Children with typical development
acquire this social communication foundation with ease; however, those with social learning
challenges (autism spectrum, ADHD, etc.) do not intuitively understand and use these concepts
without great effort and direct teaching.
Given these developmental progressions of social learning, it is clear that early development of
neurotypical children involves actively learning social information which includes the awareness
that we all think about each other’s different thoughts and feelings. It appears that this core
conceptual information is required for even pre-school children to “act appropriately” with
others, hence producing “good social skills.” Thus, it is expected that social awareness of
socially related concepts (you feel and think differently from me) are critical for students to
produce expected social behavior (social skills).
SLPs learn about social pragmatics to explore how we use social communication skills. Based on
the above information it can be argued that not only should we as SLPs focus on the
communication skill production itself but also on the knowledge students need to acquire in
order to understand why they should produce this skill. For example, we often focus on teaching
students the behavioral social skill of “eye-contact” by asking them to “look at me,” but in reality
many higher level students with ASD we have worked with lack development of the social
concept (e.g. Joint Attention) to know to follow the iris of people’s eyes to determine where they
are looking and then infer what they might be thinking about. Our treatment takes on new
meaning when we teach students the social concept that supports how we use the social skill we
call “eye-contact.” This type of teaching we refer to as teaching “Social Thinking and related
social skills.” This deeper study of how we learn socially and then develop related treatment
strategies for those who lack in social pragmatic development has only recently taken on new
urgency with the increasing presence of students on our caseload with reasonable verbal
cognition and language skills who have diagnoses such as Asperger Syndrome, PDD-NOS and
Nonverbal Learning Disability. Given their astute technical language skills and strong concrete
learning style, they are critical consumers of the information we teach them. They often ask
“why do I have to do it that way?” Teaching Social Thinking and related social skills appears to
provide a deeper answer as well as lessons to increase social pragmatic functioning. But, how do
we, as professionals, learn about the social thinking associated with production of social skills?
Below is one framework to explore this information.
The ILAUGH Model of Social Thinking
The ILAUGH Model of Social Thinking, developed by Winner (2000), is a theoretical model for
use by parents and professionals to explore some of the many variables that lend themselves to
what we call good “communication” or “problem solving” skills across the day. Winner created
this based on her observations of what her students with social learning challenges were
requiring to learn to help with their social skills and specific aspects of their curriculum. A

3. Copyright © 2009 Michelle Garcia Winner and Pamela Crooke. All Rights Reserved. 3
literature review also found that each aspect Winner had identified had already been researched
and demonstrated to be a relevant learning hurdle for students with ASD. Thus, the ILAUGH
Model represents an integrated summary of the evidence based research. It is designed to: 1) help
SLPs, educators and parents systematically organize and “make sense” of the challenges faced
by those with social learning challenges, and 2) provide a direction for therapists to build on the
student’s strengths and areas of need to tailor intervention . The ILAUGH Model also helps us
understand the relationship between social interaction, problem solving and the ability to
interpret and respond to aspects of the academic curricula to create more efficient treatment
programs.
This model incorporates concepts known to impact persons with ASD and related diagnoses,
namely executive functions (e.g. multitasking), (Hill, 2004; McEvoy, Rogers, & Pennington,
1993), theory of mind (e.g. perspective taking),(Baron-Cohen, Leslie, & Frith, 1985; Flavell,
2004), central coherence theory (e.g. gestalt processing), (Frith, 1989; van Lang, Bouma,
Sytema, Kraijer, & Minderaa, 2006) and social emotional processing (e.g. human relatedness),
(Prizant, Wetherby, Rubin, Laurent, & Rydell, 2006a & b). The six components of the model are
reviewed briefly below:
I = Initiation of Language (Krantz & McClannahan, 1993; MacDonald et al., 2006).
Initiation of communication and language refers to the ability to use one’s skills to seek
assistance or information. A student’s ability to talk about his own interests can be in sharp
contrast to how she communicates when she needs assistance. Many individuals with social
cognitive challenges have the ability to produce a great deal of language. Yet while these
students talk frequently about their own knowledge and ideas, they may not be proficient using
their sizeable language skills to communicate when unaware of what to do next or how to clarify
when they don’t understand.
L= Listening with Eyes and Brain (Baron-Cohen, 1995; Jones & Carr, 2004; Whalen,
Schreibman & Ingersoll, 2006). Many individuals on the autism spectrum, as well as others with
social learning challenges have technical visual processing strengths, but may struggle to
comprehend information presented via the dual challenges of social visual information (reading
nonverbal cues) and auditory processing. In fact, listening requires more than just taking in
auditory information. Listening requires the integration of information the student sees and hears
to understand the deeper concept, or to make an educated guess about what is being said when
the message cannot be interpreted literally. This is also referred to as “active listening” or “whole
body listening.”
A = Abstract and Inferential Language/Communication (Minshew, Goldstein, Muenz,
& Payton, 1992; Norbury & Bishop, 2002). Comprehension depends on one’s ability to
recognize that most language or communication is not intended for literal interpretation. Abstract
and inferential meaning occurs subtly through verbal and nonverbal communication and
analyzing the language in context. One must be flexible in interpreting the intended meaning of
a message by considering what they know about people within specific contexts (Simmons-
Mackie & Damico, 2003).
U = Understanding Perspective (Baron-Cohen, 2000; Baron-Cohen, Jolliffe, Mortimore,
& Robertson 1997; Flavell, 2004). The ability to interpret others’ perspectives or beliefs,
thoughts and feelings across contexts is a critical social learning skill. It is central to group
participation in the social, academic or vocational world. Individuals with social cognitive

4. Copyright © 2009 Michelle Garcia Winner and Pamela Crooke. All Rights Reserved. 4
challenges are often highly aware of their own perspective, but may struggle to see another’s
point of view.
G=Gestalt Processing/Getting the Big Picture (Fullerton, Stratton, Coyne & Gray, 1996;
McEvoy et al., 1993; Norbury & Bishop, 2002; Shah & Frith, 1993). Many students with social
learning issues are highly skilled at obtaining and retaining factual information related to their
particular area of interest. However, both written and conversational language is conveyed
through concepts, not just facts. For example, when having a conversation, participants
intuitively determine the underlying concept being discussed. When reading a book, the reader
must follow the overall meaning (gestalt) of the book rather than just collecting the details of the
story, especially if expected to compose a cohesive written description of what has been read that
others easily understand and interpret. Further, organizational skills fall within this area and are
critical for completing homework, preparing written assignments, cleaning a household and
finishing tasks at work. These skills require us to “see the big picture” and assess what needs to
be done systematically before plugging in the details to accomplish a goal.
H= Humor and Human Relatedness (Greenspan, 1990; Prizant, Wetherby, Rubin &
Laurent, 2003; Wolfberg, 2003). Many individuals with social challenges often exhibit an
excellent sense of humor, but feel anxious as they miss many of the subtle cues that would help
them understand ways to participate more successfully with others in a social context. Emotional
processing is also at the heart of human relatedness.
Social Thinking and Teaching Related Social Skills: From Social Knowledge to Social
Skills
Social skill interventions for persons with social challenges, especially those with Autism
Spectrum Disorder (ASD), require treatment which includes these fundamental tenants (Krasney,
Williams, Provencal & Ozonoff, 2003, p. 111):
a) make the abstract concrete
b) provide a scaffold of language support
c) foster self-awareness and self-esteem
d) program in a sequential and progressive manner
e) provide opportunities for programmed generalization and ongoing practice
The ILAUGH Model provides one of the frameworks upon which the principles of Social
Thinking intervention are built. Also fundamental to Winner’s work is the recognition that we all
have thoughts and feelings about each other’s social behavior (e.g. social skills) (Goleman,
2006). Winner, in her quest to create concrete lessons to teach these abstract social concepts
(2000, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2008), recognized the need for us to create specific language based
concepts that could be used consistently by teachers, parents, SLPs, etc. to describe and explain
our social expectations and related social thoughts and emotions.
These specific concepts are described as the Social Thinking Vocabulary which represents one
portion of the larger Social Thinking theoretical framework. However, for the purposes of this
article, these concepts are considered foundational and give the reader a broad overview.
Think with Your Eyes. This is a statement used in lieu of telling a student to “use good eye-
contact” or “look at me.” We have found that many students with social learning challenges
don’t know what they are supposed to think about when we simply tell them to “use good eye-

5. Copyright © 2009 Michelle Garcia Winner and Pamela Crooke. All Rights Reserved. 5
contact.” By explaining that they should “think with their eyes” we can begin to teach them that
eyes aren’t just for looking at another person during an interaction. The eyes are powerful tools
to be used for gaining information in almost any situation. For example, if a teacher is showing a
picture book to a small group, students are not expected to use “eye contact” with the teacher.
Instead, students are expected to show they are thinking about the book by looking at the book.
Often a teacher will pause to ask a question. She may not state the student’s name, but instead
signify that she is speaking to the student by just looking (e.g., “what would you do next?”). The
concept of “thinking with your eyes” is also relevant in problem solving and perspective taking.
For instance, children learn that they use their eyes to figure out other’s plans (e.g., I see him
reach for the blue one, that means he wants the blue one) and determine what to do next (e.g., I
see others lining up and know to line up too).
Expected/Unexpected Behavior. We teach that social and communicative expectations are
contextually sensitive. In fact, for every situation there are a set of expected and unexpected
behaviors that generate different types of thoughts. When a behavior is expected for a situation it
encourages us to have good or okay or normal thoughts and feelings; when a behavior is
unexpected we tend to have uncomfortable or weird thoughts* and related feelings. How we
think about someone over time affects our “social memory” of them.
*(Note: This is not the same as thinking a person is “weird.” Instead, we have a weird thought
based on the behavior within that situation.)
Smart Guess/Wacky Guess. This concept is addressed by teaching students to “read the
situation” and infer what actions to take based on the situation. Social inferencing is at the heart
of determining what to say or do and occurs at a rapid-fire pace in everyday social
communication as well as when comprehending text. We break down the process of inferencing
by teaching students to become aware of words and nonverbal cues to “take what you (think,
know, see and hear) to make a guess.”
Social Fake. This is a concept that explores how “genuinely” interested we feel as we engage in
a social dialogue with others. Most of us are interested in getting to know one another, even
though we aren’t always fascinated by exactly what they say. We teach that often we simply
tolerate other’s conversational topic in order to maintain the social-emotional connection. How
we make each other feel is more important than the exact words used to sustain the relationship.
In addition to this sampling of Social Thinking Vocabulary other key concepts related to Social
Thinking include constant infusion of the following:
What are “good social skills”? Social thinking precedes the use of good social skills. First we
have to be aware of the people and the situation before we select which sets of social behaviors
(social skills) to employ. While sharing space with others we are constantly aware of people
(social thinking) and then monitor and modify our behavior accordingly to encourage people to
think about us the way we want them to perceive us. Interestingly, the majority of time we are
socially thinking in the presence of others, we are not actually interacting with these people,
rather we are co-existing. For example, consider how students all are expected to work quietly
during tests to keep from distracting the thoughts of other students around them. In this example,
the students are demonstrating good social skills but none are engaged in a verbal interaction.

6. Copyright © 2009 Michelle Garcia Winner and Pamela Crooke. All Rights Reserved. 6
The social rules change with age. Teaching social thinking and related social skills is a bit like
shooting a bullet at a moving target. Although we may overtly teach a child to greet others with a
friendly “hi” when in the early elementary years, students in high school realize that a friendly
“hi” between two guys is no longer the norm (i.e., instead a grunt or “hey” is required). Social
rules change in nuance and sophistication across our lifetime. We not only expect 15-year-olds to
act differently than 10-year-olds, we also expect 20-year-olds to act differently than 30-year-
olds. Teaching children to be keen observers of situations within environments is one way to
learn the nuance of the social rules within their age and cultural group.
EBP and Social Skills/Social Thinking Therapy
Evidence-based practices (EBP), according to ASHA guidelines, are those which “recognize the
needs, abilities, values, preferences, and interests of individuals and families to whom they
provide clinical services, and integrate those factors along with best current research evidence
and their clinical expertise in making clinical decisions” (ASHA, 2005, p. 1). This definition
serves to help practitioners evaluate which new teachings are “best or promising practices” given
the infancy of our emerging fields of study as well as the complexity of treatment that involves
not only social communication but complex social emotional responses. Social thinking may, in
fact, be one of the promising practices that has recently been the focus of research.
Crooke, Hendrix, and Rachman (2008) examined the effectiveness of teaching Social Thinking
vocabulary to adolescents with Asperger Syndrome (AS) or High Functioning Autism (HFA).
The published pre-post-study was one piece of a larger single subject treatment study where
the authors measured verbal and nonverbal social behaviors in two separate settings (treatment
and generalization). In the treatment setting, subjects were taught Social Thinking vocabulary
such as “social files”, “thinking with eyes,” “filtering knowledge vs. opinions” and “expected”
and “unexpected” for the situation within an environment. Lessons were designed to encourage
students to think about the “why” underlying the actual production of the social skill. How to
use specific social skills (e.g., turn-taking, eye-contact, topic maintenance) was never directly
taught; rather the concepts of thinking socially were addressed by showing that others have
thoughts and emotions related to their behaviors, both positive and negative. Generalization
measures included the use of social skills such as initiations, looking at the speaker, on-topic
remarks that added to the topic, and one-word comments that served to sustain the interaction,
Results indicated statistically significant (p >= .03) changes from pre- to post- measures on both
verbal/nonverbal ‘‘expected’’ and ‘‘unexpected’’ social responses in the generalization setting.
Although not significant for the group (p >= .15, p <= .125), changes from pre- to post-treatment
in the category of “unexpected nonverbal” and “unexpected verbal” were robust.
An additional study was conducted by Adams (2008) who examined the effectiveness of a
mentoring program for social thinking intervention in the schools. Results of this study indicated
significant changes for the group based on the parent and teacher rankings using the Autism
Social Skills Profile (Bellini & Hopf , 2007).
Finally, a new group of investigators at the University of Hong Kong translated Winner’s
ILAUGH Model and Social Thinking Vocabulary into Chinese in 2006. The investigators (S.K.
Lee and colleagues, personal communication, July 20-23, 2008.) infused Social Thinking into

7. Copyright © 2009 Michelle Garcia Winner and Pamela Crooke. All Rights Reserved. 7
the school setting and measured teacher and parent perception of change over the course of a
school year and reported significant changes (ongoing analysis in process).
Social Thinking, when compared to other paradigms, is still in its infancy, but represents a
promising conceptual framework that can be utilized by SLPs and educators when developing
treatment plans for individuals with social learning issues. As with any treatment regime, a
multidimensional pattern of approaches must be considered. Ongoing and future research to
address this population must consider the synergistic nature of these students’ multiple learning
challenges and how their needs change across their lifespan.
References
Adams, Allison (2008). Mentoring “Social Thinking” ” Groups in Middle & Secondary
Schools. Talk presented at NASP, New Orleans.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2005). Evidence based practice in
communication disorders (position paper). Available at:
http://www.asha.org/members/deskreferjournals/deskref/default. (pp1)
Attwood, T. (2007). The complete guide to Asperger’s syndrome. London, England: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.
Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
Baron-Cohen, S. (2000). Theory of mind and autism: A fifteen-year review. In S. Baron-Cohen,
H. Tager-Flusberg. & D. Cohen (Eds.), Understanding other minds: Perspectives from
developmental cognitive neuroscience, 2nd
edition (pp.1-20). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A.M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a theory
of mind? Cognition, 21, 37-46.
Baron-Cohen, S., Jolliffe, T., Mortimore, C & Robertson, M. (1997). Another advanced test of
theory of mind: Evidence from very high functioning adults with Autism and Asperger
Syndrome. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology. 38(7), 813-822.
Bellini, S. & Hopf, A. (2007). The development of the autism social skills profile: A
preliminary analysis of psychometrics. Focus Autism Other Dev Disabl.2007; 22: 80-87
Booth, J., Hall, W., Robison, G., & Kim, S.Y. (1997). Acquisition of the mental state verb know
by 2- to 5- year-old children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26 (6), 581-603.
Carpenter, M., Pennington, B., & Rogers, S. (2002). Interrelations among social-cognitive skills
in young children with autism. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 32 (2) 91-
106.
Crooke, P., Hendrix, R., & Rachman, J. (2008). Measuring the effectiveness of teaching
social thinking to children with Autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism &
Developmental Disorders. 38(3):581-91.
DeVilliers, J. (2000). Language and theory of mind: What are the developmental relationships?
In S. Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Flusberg. & D. Cohen (Eds.), Understanding other minds:
Perspectives from developmental cognitive neuroscience (pp.83-123). New York: Oxford
University Press.

8. Copyright © 2009 Michelle Garcia Winner and Pamela Crooke. All Rights Reserved. 8
Flavell, J. (2004). Theory-of-mind development: Retrospect and prospect. Merrill Palmer
Quarterly, 50 (3), 274-290.
Fullerton, A., Stratton, J., Coyne, P., & Gray, C. (1996). Higher functioning adolescents and
young adults with autism. Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed, Inc.
Frith, U. (1989). Autism, explaining the enigma (pp 107-163). Worcester, England: Billing &
Sons Ltd.
Goleman, D. (1989). Social Intelligence; the new science of social relationships. New York, NY.
Bantum Books.
Greenspan, S. (1990). Floor time, tuning in to each child. NY: Scholastic, Inc., Early Childhood
Division.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, M. (2003). Einstein never used flashcards (p. 183). New York,
NY; Rodale Inc. Publishers.
Hill, E. (2004). Evaluating the theory of executive dysfunction in autism. Developmental
Review, 24 (2), 189-233.
Jones, E. & Carr, E.G. (2004). Joint attention in children with autism: Theory and intervention.
Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19(1), 13-26.
Krantz, P., & McClannahan, L. (1993). Teaching children with autism to initiate to peers:
Effects of a script-fading procedure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 121-132.
Krasney, L., Williams, B., Provencal, S., & Ozonoff, S. (2003). Social skills interventions for
the autism spectrum: Essential ingredients and a model curriculum. Child & Adolescent
Psychiatric Clinics, 12, 107-122.
MacDonald, R., Anderson, J., Dube, W., Geckeler, A., Green, G., Holcomb, W., Mansfield, R.,
& Sanchez, J. (2006). Behavioral assessment of joint attention: A methodological report.
Research in Developmental Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27 (2), 138-150.
Marshall, P., & Fox, N. (2006). Biological approaches to the study of social engagement. In P.
Marshall & N. Fox (Eds.), The development of social engagement. Neurobiological
Perspectives (pp. 3-18). NY: Oxford University Press.
McEvoy, R., Rogers, S., & Pennington, B. (1993). Executive function and social
communication deficits in young autistic children. Journal of Child Psychology &
Psychiatry, 32 (4), 563-578.
Meltzoff, A.N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactment of intended acts by
18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology, 31, 838-850.
Minshew, N., Goldstein, G., Muenz, L., & Payton, J. (1992). Neuropyschological functioning
in nonmentally retarded autistic individuals. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropyschology, 14, (5), 749-761.
Norbury, C.F., & Bishop, D. (2002). Inferential processing and story recall in children with
communication problems: a comparison of specific language impairment, pragmatic
language impairment and high functioning autism. International Journal of Language
& Communication Disorders, 27 (3) 227-251.
Paxton, K., & Estay, I. (2007). Counseling people on the autism spectrum: A practical manual.
Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishing.
Prizant, B., Wetherby, A., Rubin, E., & Laurent, A. (2003). The SCERTS model: A
transactional, family-centered approach to enhancing communication and social
emotional abilities of children with autism spectrum disorder. Infants & Young Children,
16 (4), 296-316.
Prizant, B., Wetherby, A., Rubin, E., Laurent, A., & Rydell, P. (2006a). The SCERTS model: A

9. Copyright © 2009 Michelle Garcia Winner and Pamela Crooke. All Rights Reserved. 9
comprehensive educational approach for children with autism spectrum disorders. Vo1 1,
Assessment. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Prizant, B., Wetherby, A., Rubin, E., Laurent, A., & Rydell, P. (2006b). The SCERTS model: A
comprehensive educational approach for children with autism spectrum disorders. Vo1
II, Program Planning & Intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Shah, A., & Frith, U. (1993). Why do autistic individuals show superior performance on the
block design task? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, ( 8), 1351-1364.
Simmons-Mackie, N., & Damico, J. (2003). Contributions of qualitative research to the
knowledge base of normal communication. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 12, 144-154.
Westby, C. (1985). Learning to talk-learning to learn: Oral literate language differences.
In C. Simon (Ed.), Communication skills and classroom success. San Diego, CA: College
Hill Press.
Whalen, C., Schreibman, L., & Ingersoll, B. (2006). The collateral effects of joint attention
training on social initiations, positive affect, imitation and spontaneous speech for young
children with autism. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 36 (5), 655-
664.
Winner, M. (2000). Inside out: What makes the person with social cognitive deficits tick?
San Jose, CA: Think Social Publishing, Inc.
Winner, M. (2002). Assessment of social skills for students with Asperger syndrome and high-
functioning autism. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 27, 73–80.
Winner, M (2005). Think social! A social thinking curriculum for school age students. San Jose,
CA: Think Social Publishing, Inc.
Winner, M. (2007). Thinking about you thinking about me, 2nd
edition. San Jose, CA: Think
Social Publishing, Inc.
Winner, M. & Crooke, P. (200). You Are A Social Detective. San Jose, CA: Think
Social Publishing, Inc.
Wolfberg, P. (2003). Peer play and the autism spectrum. Shawnee Mission, KS: Autism
Asperger Publishing Company.
van Lang, N., Bouma, A., Sytema, S., Kraijer, D., & Minderaa, R. (2006). A comparison of
central coherence skills between adolescents and an intellectual disability with and
without comorbid autism spectrum disorder. Research in Developmental Disabilities: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 27 (2), 217-266.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuing Education Questions
1. The difference between teaching Social Thinking and teaching social skills is best described
as:
a. A process oriented approach where students have to develop awareness of their own
and others’ social thought process before they can more fully understand how to
change their social behavior.
b. A process oriented approach where students have to monitor the social skills of
typical peers and produce those same skills across a range of environments.
c. A process oriented approach where students can learn about social behavior by being
immersed with typical peers in a mainstream classroom.

10. Copyright © 2009 Michelle Garcia Winner and Pamela Crooke. All Rights Reserved. 10
d. A process oriented approach that can easily be tracked with good data on social skill
production.
Answer: A
2. Social Thinking Vocabulary has been developed to:
a. Provide educators with a tool through which they can better describe the social world
and related expectations.
b. Provide students with a tool through which they can better observe the social world
and related expectations.
c. Provide teachers with a way to scold students when they have done things wrong.
d. Provide parents and professionals with language to better describe how they have
assessed the social pragmatic functioning of students.
e. A, B and C
f. A, B and D
Answer: F
3. Social Learning development:
a. Can best be measure with social language standardized tests.
b. Parallels social communication development.
c. Is strongly studied in the field of anthropology and has little to do with the practice of
speech language pathology.
d. Is taught behaviorally and through modeling.
Answer: B
4. Initiation of communication involves:
a. Talking a lot in the classroom environment and on the playground.
b. May be confusing because many students who talk a lot still struggle to ask for help.
c. May be confusing because classrooms are not places where students get to initiate
communication often.
d. The ability to communicate based on a traditional language sample.
Answer: B
5. The ILAUGH Model of Social Thinking:
a. Was developed as a method to incorporate humor in our SLP sessions.
b. Points out what a classroom teacher has to be aware of as she or he teaches a group,
and has little to do with the assessment of social pragmatics.
c. Is based on the notion that communication is the key to a person’s ability to produce
good social skills.
d. Explains how social cognition relates not only to our social skill development but also
our ability to participate in classroom academics that require social knowledge.
e. Provides a formalized tool for assessing students’ more complex social functioning in
the classroom and on the playground.

11. Copyright © 2009 Michelle Garcia Winner and Pamela Crooke. All Rights Reserved. 11
Answer: D
Author Background
Michelle Garcia Winner, MA, CCC-SLP, runs a private practice and consults internationally.
She is based in San Jose, California. She specializes in the treatment of students with social
learning disabilities.
Pamela J. Crooke, PhD, CCC-SLP is part of the clinical faculty at San Jose State University as
well as a practicing speech/language pathologist. Her area of interest is treatment efficacy for
persons with social cognitive challenges.