Autism (Robertson, K.; Chamberlain, B. and Kasari, C., 2003)
Overview of study
This research investigated the relationship between general education teachers and students with autism in general education classrooms. General education teachers are equivalent to mainstream class teachers in the UK. The study examined teachers’ perceptions of their relationship with pupils with autism, how this perception was
affected by the presence of paraprofessionals (teaching assistants) and by behaviour problems presented by the child, and the pupils’ level of social inclusion. Teachers from 12 classes, each containing one pupil with autism, completed the Student-teacher
Relationship Scale, which rated their relationship in relation to conflict, closeness and dependence. They also completed the SNAP-IV scale, which rated behaviours of the pupil with autism in relation to inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity and
opposition/defiance. The researchers also examined social inclusion by asking the other children in the class to name pupils who associated together. They then allocated a point for every time a child was listed as belonging to the same group of peers and then rated the pupils between 0-3 on social inclusion, with 0 being socially isolated and 3 being the highest level of social inclusion. These scores (0-3) were developed by the researchers based on clusters of points scored for affiliation with peers. Finally, the researchers noted that half of the pupils with autism were supported by a paraprofessional (teaching
assistant).
The researchers then undertook correlational analyses both within and between these measures to look at the relationships between them.
Key findings
The researchers reported, through correlational analysis of the data, three main findings. Firstly, teachers reported generally positive relationships between them and the pupil with autism. Where they rated behavioural problems more highly this was associated with lesser quality of the teacher-student relationship. Secondly, the quality of the teacher- student relationship was associated with the level of social inclusion of the child and, finally, the presence of a paraprofessional (teaching assistant) did not affect the quality of the teacher-pupil relationship.
Critique of study
The stated aim of this study was to examine the perceived relationships between
mainstream class teachers and children with autism in their classes. In order to investigate the relationships the researchers used the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale, which is a 28-item scale and references the relationship in relation to conflict, closeness and
dependency. The researchers applied statistical, correlational analysis to this data and noted both positive and negative associations between theses three domains. However, they failed to include any reference in their results to an overall relationship score for the teachers and yet, in their discussion, they noted the first finding as being that teachers generally reported positive relationships with the pupils with autism. This was not
referenced in the data and it was unclear as to where they got their evidence from for this finding.
In relation to the finding that when teachers rated behavioural problems in the children more highly this was associated with a lesser quality student-teacher relationship, they arrived at this conclusion on the basis of a correlational analysis between rated scores on the SNAP-IV behavioural scale and scores on the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale. There are issues with this as the SNAP-IV is a behavioural rating scale that specifically looks at behaviours related to inattention, impulsivity, hyperactivity and oppositional- defiance. It is usually used to give information about pupils with potential attention deficit difficulties and so the parameters of the behaviours rated on this scale were limited and it is questionable as to the relevance of using this with pupils who have autism, as they were likely to present with additional behaviours to those used on the SNAP-IV. Therefore, to make a generalisation that scores on this scale relate to behaviour in general went beyond the scope of the data in the study.
The finding that the quality of the relationship was associated with social inclusion as measured by peer ratings was one that arose, again, from correlational analysis of scores generated on the Student-teacher Relationship Scale and scores generated from peer ratings of the children with autism. Firstly, there were ethical considerations about asking peers to rate their classmates in terms of social involvement with peers as it could have placed the children in the class in a difficult position when asked to talk about their peers and raised issues around possible coercion. Secondly, the researchers used their own points system to develop a three-point scale of social inclusion for the children with autism and the manner in which they did this is questionable in terms of its validity as it relied on peers’ ratings of which children associated together. This, therefore, seemed to be a contrived measure that was open to high variability in terms of scoring and
interpretation.
Overview of Critical Appraisal of the study in the context of the literature review question
This piece of research did look specifically at student-teacher relationships in the context of children with ASD and the study identified that the child's behaviour could impact on the relationship between the child and the teacher. Furthermore, the research noted that there was no difference in the student-teacher relationship when a paraprofessional was present and that the student-teacher relationship was associated with social inclusion. However, the flaws in the design and data analysis through generalising findings beyond the data evidence, as well as the questionable use of peer ratings of social inclusion and the use of a limited behaviour rating scale, meant that the study was limited in its relevance to my literature review question. Given that the goal of the research was to examine teachers’ perceptions of their relationship with pupils with autism, the use of rating scales seemed to limit the opportunity to explore the perceptions in depth and
limited the teachers to answering questions within specific parameters, such as conflict, closeness and dependence, rather than being able to explore the relationships in greater detail.
2.3.5 Training, Inclusion and Behaviour: Effect on Student-Teacher and Student- SEA Relationships for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (Brown, J.A. &
McIntosh, K., 2012)
Overview of research
This research investigated the student-teacher and student-special education assistant (SEA) relationships with students who had ASD. In particular, the study investigated problem behaviour and the quality of student-teacher/SEA relationship as well as whether the percentage of time receiving the general education curriculum had an impact on the student-teacher/SEA relationship. Finally, the study also looked at whether training in ASD had an impact on the student-teacher/SEA relationship. Special Education Assistants are equivalent to teaching assistants in the UK.
The study identified the participants as 15 boys aged 6-9 years who had ASD and were in mainstream classrooms, their teachers and their special support assistants. The pupil participants were recruited through district autism support teams and the criteria for selection onto the study was that they needed to have been in mainstream education on a full time basis and were diagnosed with ASD. Student-teacher relationships were
measured using the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS); problem behaviour was measured by the Behaviour Assessment System for Children 2 (BASC-2) using the Behavioural Symptoms Index of the Teacher Rating Scale; training in ASD was measured using questionnaires created by the researchers and percentage of time in the curriculum was the percentage of time the student participated in the same curriculum as
the rest of the class. The teachers and SEAs completed the STRS and BASC-2 and multiple regression analyses were conducted on the data to look for correlations.
Key findings
The study found that the level of problem behaviour and percentage of time receiving the general education curriculum significantly predicted the student-teacher relationship but not the student-SEA relationship and that training in ASD did not significantly predict either relationship. The researchers noted that, from statistical analysis, problem behaviour was the strongest predictor of the student-teacher relationship and that an increase in problem behaviour was associated with a decrease in the quality of the
student-teacher relationship at a statistically significant level (p<0.01) Problem behaviour did not predict student-SEA behaviour.
Critique of study
The researchers outlined the purpose of the study as being to identify key variables that were associated with student-teacher relationships ‘to determine which factors can be targeted to improve these relationships’ (p.80). Furthermore, the researchers wanted to determine whether the percentage of time the student received the general education curriculum and problem behaviour were related to the student-teacher and student-SEA relationship. This was clearly explained.
The researchers themselves noted limitations of the study and particularly noted the small sample size and exploratory nature of the study. They also noted the poor internal
consistency of the STRS total scale and the Behavioural Symptoms Index of the BASC-2. They further noted that the use of regressions analyses on such a small sample was a limitation of the study. It was also the case that there was questionable use of the STRS and BASC-2 use with the SEAs, as these items were standardised on teachers and not
SEAs. In both cases the teacher rating scales were used and this raised doubt, therefore, as to the validity of their use with SEAs.
In making associations about problem behaviour in pupils with ASD and student-teacher relationships there were other variables that needed to be considered and the researchers did note that the classroom environment and the nature of presenting behaviours in pupils with ASD could have had an impact. For example, the social interaction and
communication difficulties associated with ASD were likely to impact on the
development of social relationships. Information on the level of severity of ASD of the pupils and their social interaction communication skills was not something that was made available in the study. There was also the issue that, when making associations between behaviour and relationships, there needed to be a consideration as to which might cause which. The study firmly set out that problem behaviour predicted student-teacher
relationships but not student-SEA relationships but equally it might have been that that it was the relationship that predicted the behaviour. For example, a teacher or SEA who struggled in developing a relationship with a pupil with ASD might have impacted upon the pupils’ behaviour. This is a difficulty the study had when making generalisations from correlational analyses of the data when other variables could potentially have explained a link.
Overview of Critical Appraisal of the study in the context of the literature review question
This study was relevant to my literature review question in that it did look at the relationships between students with ASD and their teachers / SEAs and did identify certain associations that occurred in respect of problem behaviour. It was interesting that there was a relationship between the problem behaviour of the students and the student-
teacher relationship but not in the student-SEA relationship. The researchers discussed this difference and noted that, from analysis of their data, the student-SEA relationship was higher than that found between the students and their teachers and that the SEAs viewed their relationship with students as being more positive. However, the SEAs did also perceive more problem behaviours in the students and the researchers hypothesised that this might be because the SEAs worked with the students more intensively through 1:1 support.
However, whilst the study did relate to the literature review question in exploring the relationships between students with ASD and teachers / SEAs there were flaws in the design of the study, issues around the use of the standardised measures with SEAs as well as factors relating to the nature of ASD that needed to be considered in terms of social relationships with pupils who have ASD. Whist the statistical analyses were robust in the study the researchers themselves noted limitations of using regression analysis on such a small sample.
Overall, though, the study had relevance to the literature review question and did identify the need for further research that examines the relationships between pupils with ASD and teachers or SEAs.
2.3.6. Autism spectrum disorder and the student-teacher relationship: a comparison