Supporting Social Inclusion for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders

Insights from Research and Practice

Cathy Little

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9781138189966
• eBook ISBN:
  9781317279723
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Drawing together contributions from experts at the forefront of research in the field, Supporting Social Inclusion for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders demonstrates that social inclusion is a defining feature of successful education of students with a spectrum disorder.

Divided into three parts, this book begins by proposing a contemporary and operational definition of social inclusion that will help facilitate active engagement by all stakeholders involved in supporting social inclusion within educational settings. The relationship between well-developed social skills and positive social outcomes is also explored, and subsequent chapters explicate and contextualize social inclusion across a range of educational settings. The final chapters present case studies and viewpoints from stakeholders central to the successful social inclusion of students with the disorder. Through discussion of its findings, this book provides the reader with a deep understanding of social inclusion and confirms its importance in facilitating positive educational outcomes for students with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

A unique contribution to the field, this book will be of key interest to postgraduates, researchers and academics in the area of inclusive education and Autism Spectrum Disorder. It will also appeal to those who research, study and work in the areas of special and inclusive education, and developmental psychology.

PART I

An introduction to social inclusion for students with Autism Spectrum Disorder

1

SOCIAL INCLUSION AND AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER

Cathy Little

The term social inclusion can take on a distinct meaning dependent on the context in which it is being used. When asked to define social inclusion, one’s answer is very much determined by the situation to which they are applying the term. The concept term ‘social inclusion’ appears primarily when discussing the representation of marginalized groups and individuals who have been pushed toward or kept to the sidelines of society as a result of their exclusion from the typical activities of the wider community (Bottrell and Goodwin, 2011). Marginalization impacts society’s most vulnerable: the elderly, the infirm, people from low socio-economic locales, the cultural minority, individuals with mental health concerns and persons with a disability. Within the context of marginalization, social inclusion is often-times defined by the concept of social exclusion, that is, exclusion from all aspects of the broader community as a result of poverty or disadvantage. Social inclusion, by definition, is the opposite of social exclusion. Thus, attempts at reframing social inclusion for marginalized persons simply requires focus on remediation of those areas where persons are excluded.

The context of social inclusion pertinent to this chapter, and to the majority of this book however, is the context of education: the community of school and education service provision, from early childhood centres to tertiary institutions and post-school employments placements. The participants who form part of this educational community include, but are not limited to, students, teachers, school administrators, sector level decision makers and families. Social inclusion in the educational context refers to the inclusion of and active participation by all students in the school’s social agenda. It relies on teacher’s active preparation for, and facilitation of, socially inclusive opportunities for students who, for a range of reasons, may be unable to perform the social behaviours expected of the setting and which will support their functional inclusion in social activities of education. One such group of students who require targeted support for their social inclusion are students with an Autism Spectrum Disorder.

This chapter will introduce the reader to the characteristics of a student with an Autism Spectrum Disorder, highlighting the pervasive social difficulties inherent to the disorder which can often inhibit social interactions and generate opportunity for misunderstanding and social segregation. When discussing social inclusion for students with an Autism Spectrum Disorder, one must consider the philosophy of inclusion and how this practice affords students with an Autism Spectrum Disorder equal opportunity for social engagement and participation. Discussion then centres on the emergence of social inclusion as a distinct theoretical construct rather than simply an element of the broader philosophy of inclusion. Framed within the literature, a current, contemporary definition of social inclusion is provided to conclude the chapter.

Autism Spectrum Disorder

Autism Spectrum Disorder is an umbrella term used to describe a spectrum of disorders characterised by impairments to social development, language and communication, and rigidity in both thought and behaviour (APA, 2013). Researchers and medical professionals agree that the main features displayed by a person diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder include difficulties in relating to or understanding other people and social situations, difficulties in communication, and a lack of imaginative ability, often substituted by obsessive, repetitive behaviour and a strong resistance to change. The very nature of Autism as a spectrum of disorders poses a number of issues around its variability and apparent erraticism. Solomon (2012) states that as a society we don’t know what Autism is. He argues “The syndrome [Autism] encompasses a highly variable group of symptoms and behaviours, and we have little understanding of where it is located in the brain, why it occurs, or what triggers it” (p. 221).

The release of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V) (APA, 2013) saw revisions to the ASD diagnostic domain, resulting in a reduction of the diagnostic criteria, restricting the previous three impairments into two categories: persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction, and restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour, interests or activities. Both diagnostic categories are ranked in terms of severity level – level 3 requiring very substantial support, level 2 requiring substantial support, and level 1 requiring support. These changes have seen the previous categories of the disorder merge into one broad spectrum of Autism Spectrum Disorder, thus eliminating Asperger Syndrome and other disorders from the diagnostic criteria.

Yet, despite its variability in presentation, there are several aspects of the disorder that hold true for all persons diagnosed. Firstly, Autism is a pervasive disorder, in that it affects almost every aspect of behaviour, sensory experiences, motor functioning, balance, and inner consciousness Secondly, the etiology of Autism is unknown. Over the years, several theories have been put forward as possible causes of Autism in children. In 1967, Bruno Bettelheim, an Austrian-born child psychologist, declared that Autism was the result of mothers withholding appropriate affection from their children and failing to make a good connection with them (Bettelheim, 1967). In 1998, British former surgeon and medical researcher Andrew Wakefield published, in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, a paper in support of the claim that there existed a link between administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the onset of Autism. Following his claim, numerous large-scale studies were undertaken in an attempt to validate his findings. None were able to reproduce his findings or confirm his hypothesis. Claims were made that Wakefield had manipulated evidence and his paper was retracted in 2010. A number of studies have ruled out any link between vaccines and Autism (e.g., DeStefano, Price and Weintraub, 2013; Price et al., 2010) but doubt remains, with skeptic groups maintaining there is a link between Autism and vaccination. Research continues to search for a cause.

Thirdly, Autism is a lifelong, pervasive developmental disorder with no cure. Since Kanner’s original description, society has learnt a great deal about Autism. Dodd (2005) acknowledges, “In the past twenty years in particular, there have been remarkable developments in our knowledge of what Autism is, why it happens, and how it should be treated” (p. vii). Education for all is therefore central to understanding Autism and for supporting the individual diagnosed with this disorder.

The prevalence of persons diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder continues to rise. In the United States, figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that in 2009, “an average of 10 in 1000 children aged 3 to 17 years were diagnosed with Autism, and in 2012, 1 in 88 children were estimated to be diagnosed with ASDs” (Graff, Berkeley, Evmenova, and Park, 2014, p. 158). In Australia, the 2012 Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers (SDAC) “showed an estimated 115,400 Australians (0.5 per cent) had Autism. This was a 79 per cent increase on the 64,400 people estimated to have the condition in 2009” (ABS, 2014, p. 2). Consistent with overseas estimates, the prevalence rate was four times higher for males than for females, with prevalence peaking in the five to nine year age group.

Inclusion in education

In the past, students with Autism Spectrum Disorder tended to be segregated from their peers. The trend in education now appears to be an increasing movement towards educating all students with disabilities in regular education settings and/or classrooms. The term ‘regular education’ can be interchanged with ‘mainstream’ in the discussion of class placement options for students.

The literature surrounding inclusion describes the challenges faced by schools, teachers and students when implementing inclusive practice (Greenstein, 2014; Malinen, Savolainene and Xu, 2012). Teachers continue to have limited belief in their preparedness to support students with special education needs both generally (Swain, Nordness and Leader-Janssen, 2012), and for students with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (Humphrey and Symes, 2013; Lindsay, Proulx, Thomson and Scott, 2013).

Inclusive practice can occur in any number of settings: leisure activities, community participation, employment, personal care routines and in education. Dybvik (2004) stated, “the idea behind inclusion [in education] is that every child should be an equally valued member of the school culture” (p. 45). This quote reinforces a prominent theme in the inclusion debate, that inclusion is not simply being a part of a place or setting, rather it is a concept grounded in access and active participation for all students with a diverse array of needs (Swain et al., 2012). Distinguishing between inclusive pedagogy, inclusive practice and inclusive education within the specific context of a school and its community is problematic because the term inclusion is so broadly defined (Florian and Black-Hawkins, 2011). Humphrey (2008) proposed the use of a four-pronged definition of inclusion, that of “presence [of all pupils], participation, acceptance and achievement” (p. 42). He argued that this definition gave opportunity to consider inclusion as an ongoing process rather than “the rudimentary ‘inclusion as the placement of pupils with special education needs (SEN) in mainstream schools’ definition” (p. 42).

The increasing numbers of students with an Autism Spectrum Disorder in mainstream classes has posed several challenges for educators. The most common challenges involve knowledge of effective and appropriate teaching approaches (Frederickson, Jones and Lang, 2010; Odom, Cox and Brock, 2013), adjustments to and accommodation of the curriculum (Shaddock, Giorcelli and Smith, 2007), specific knowledge of the disorder (Swain et al. 2012), up-skilling and professional development of teachers (Boud and Hager, 2012), and availability of appropriate support and resources (Lindsay et al., 2014).

In recent years there has been more emphasis on the notion of social inclusion, referring to a student being included beyond academic and classroom activities. This emphasis has emerged as a result of the increased numbers of students with disabilities accessing mainstream, or regular education classrooms. “As the practice of ‘mainstreaming’ students with disabilities in the general education environment gained momentum, it became apparent that simply moving children with disabilities from segregated special schools and classrooms to the regular education environment did not ensure their social integration” (Siperstein and Parker, 2008, p. 120). The concern for students with an Autism Spectrum Disorder is that due to the very nature of their disability, placement in a regular class may result in ‘exclusion’ because the teacher, the classroom and the school are not meeting the student’s individual social needs.

White, Scahill, Klin, Koenig and Volkmar (2007) highlight the lack of consideration afforded to students’ social abilities when considering class placement, with Segall and Campbell (2014) asserting, “Consistently, researchers have found that cognitive ability is highly associated with regular class placement for students with ASD” (p. 32). If teachers are to actively support the social engagement of students in their classes, then the consideration of students’ social needs as part of the placement process must become a reality.

Social inclusion

Yet, the term social inclusion is a nebulous one. Many studies use similar terms to describe the same idea. ‘Social integration’, ‘social participation’ and ‘social inclusion’ are often used interchangeably to describe the same concept. In 2009, Koster, Nakken, Jan Pijl and van Houten undertook a review of the literature published between 2000 and 2005 that focused on the social dimension of inclusion in education. Implementation of selection criteria (i.e. empirical research or literature review, published in international journals, aimed at pupils with special needs in elementary or preschool and focused on the social dimension of inclusion) returned 62 studies for examination. Following analysis, the authors found three distinct terminologies, or umbrella terms used to describe the social dimension of inclusion: social integration, social inclusion and social participation. Their review addressed these three concepts in turn, detailing the explicit and implicit definitions that emerged from the literature.

Of the 62 articles included in their examination, only six studies used the term social inclusion. Yet, no explicit definition of the term was stated in any study; only implicit definitions were alluded to. In the absence of an explicit definition of social inclusion, Koster et al. (2009) described several common aspects reported across these six studies: friendship, acceptance, interaction, relationships, social status and bullying. The authors determined “the concept of social integration and its related concepts, social inclusion and social participation, hardly seem to differ in practice with respect to content, if at all” (p. 131). They claimed these three terms were used interchangeably within the literature and were ascribed similar meanings. Thus, they concluded that social participation should be used to refer to the social dimension of inclusion. Social inclusion was rejected as a concept term as “inclusion is an extensive concept which logically embraces the social dimension” (p. 134).

Bossaert, Coplin, Jan Pijl and Petry (2013) closely replicated the Koster et al. (2009) study, using literature from 2000–2008, with the intent of clarifying the three concept terms describing the social dimension of inclusion in the secondary education setting. Bossaert et al. sought to ascertain any parallels or differences between their study and the previous review. Using the same sources and selection criteria, Bossaert et al. selected 19 articles for use in their examination.

Once again results found social integration was the term most frequently used in the research literature. Unlike Koster et al. (2009), Bossaert and colleagues (2013) reported five of the seven articles that used the term social inclusion provided an explicit definition of the term. Using narrative description Bossaert et al. identified key themes central to each study’s definition. These themes closely mirrored those of the previous study and included: peer acceptance, bullying, friendships and social isolation. The authors concluded their findings closely paralleled those obtained by Koster et al., thus confirming that terms such as social integration, social inclusion and social participation are used interchangeably in the research literature and assigned similar meanings.

Within the literature, ‘social inclusion’ is described either as a counter term to the process of ‘social exclusion’ (Raffo and Gunter, 2008) or simply alluded to as a general term in the discussion of the social aspects of the larger, more general philosophy of inclusion (Jones and Frederickson, 2010; Marks, 2013). However, there exists a dearth of literature worldwide that presents evidence of inclusion as much more than simply sharing the same space or environment as others (Armstrong, Armstrong and Spandagou, 2011; Swain et al., 2012). Further, much has been written of how the unique social impairments of students with an Autism Spectrum Disorder require targeted interventions to support their a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• List of contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• PART I: An introduction to social inclusion for students with Autism Spectrum Disorder
• PART II: Social inclusion across the educational environment
• PART III: Key stakeholders in the support of social inclusion
• Index