An Exploration Of Irish Post-Primary School Teachers’ Misconceptions Of Autism Spectrum Disorders – Preliminary Findings and Analysis.

Author(s):

Keith Young(presenting / submitting)Patricia Mannix McNamara Barry Coughlan

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)

Format:

Paper

Session Information

ERG SES E 08, Special Education

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-22

15:30-17:00

Room:

OB-E0.01

Chair:

Javier Diez-Palomar

Contribution

This paper focuses on the misconceptions that Irish secondary school teachers have specific to students diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome. Due to data collection pre-dating the publication of the DSM-V (American Psychiatric Association 2013), the term Asperger’s syndrome (AS) is being used within this paper, though Autism Spectrum Disorder has now replaced it as a diagnostic classification. Despite this terminology change, the core challenges for teachers continue as the characteristics and traits of those previously diagnosed with AS remain unchanged, thus maintaining the relevancy of this present study for teachers in Europe and the wider global community.

The importance of teacher knowledge and understanding of AS has been widely acknowledged in the field and is necessitated in order to provide effective education for students diagnosed with AS (Tobias 2009; Attwood 2012; Parsons et al. 2009; Laushley 2008). The European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2014, p.12) acknowledge that “teachers need to be able to take responsibility for all learners” while also highlighting the importance of the development of positive teacher attitudes, knowledge and skills. Teachers who hold misconceptions on AS, defined as incorrect views based on faulty understanding, could potentially have an adverse effect not only on their attitudes towards students diagnosed with AS, but also in the pedagogies they adopt when working with them. Teachers have highlighted both nationally (Drudy and Kinsella 2009; McGillicuddy and O’Donnell 2014) and internationally (Avramidis and Norwich 2002; Hodge et al. 2009) a greater need for training as they feel unprepared to work with students on the spectrum or more broadly students with a special educational need. This is problematic due to the complex needs of those diagnosed with AS, particularly in the context of inclusive practice in Ireland (Department of Education & Skills (DES) 2007; DES 2011). For inclusive practice to be successful it can be argued that while there are many stakeholders involved (e.g. school leaders, parents, teachers), it is integral that teachers possess knowledge and skills to facilitate this process. Indeed a number of studies, both nationally and internationally have identified this significant gap (DES 2001; Nicol 2008; Cheevers 2010).

Examining teacher misconceptions facilitates identification of any particular trends in the types of misconceptions held, but also whether or not they are problematic in an immediate sense and will inform what is needed with regard to resources and training. As such the central questions explored in this paper include:

1) What misconceptions if any do Irish post-primary school teachers hold with regards students diagnosed with AS/ASD?

2) Are there any particular areas where these misconceptions are more common (i.e. general information based, intervention/skill based, diagnostically based?

3) Are these misconceptions potentially problematic in educating students diagnosed with AS?

It is intended to identify and evaluate common misconceptions in the context of their potential impact on student’s diagnosed with AS in the classroom. The identification of these misconceptions will inform current and future initial teacher education and professional development programmes on areas which may require greater focus.

Method

A quantitative research design was adopted in the form of a survey distributed nationally to a random sample of qualified post-primary school teachers, utilising a stratified random sampling process achieving 126 respondents. This was achieved by dividing the population into homogenous subgroups, in the form of school types and proportionately sampling from these subgroups using statistical data obtained from the DES website (2012). The research instrument was adapted from the Knowledge of Asperger’s Scale (KASP) Revised used to establish educators’ knowledge in the area by Cornelius (2010), who originally adapted it from Nicol (2008). The original scale sought participants to read a series of statements (33) regarding AS, responding with ‘True’, ‘False’ or ‘Don’t Know’. This was revised to a series of statements (34) being rated on a 10 point likert, with 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ and 10 = ‘strongly agree’. This was done in order to provide more reliable data (Dawes 2008), remove the middle ground for participants and measure a degree of certainty in their responses. The scale was broken into three distinct subscales: general information, interventions and diagnostics. A total of six items were removed from the scale, with seven items added in. Items were removed primarily due to similarity, but also in order add new items, reinforcing the areas of query previously mentioned. These items were developed from relevant literature (American Psychiatric Association 2000; Attwood 2008; Myles and Simpson 2003; Darretxe and Sepúlveda 2011; Ryan et al 2011). Three experts in the fields of psychology, education and special education reviewed the scale for validity purposes to ensure that the ‘instrument in fact measures what it purports to measure’ (Cohen et al. 2011). For reliability purposes eight participants formed part of a test/re-test group, being re-tested a week later. The instrument was deemed reliable, producing a statistically significant Pearson correlation value of ρ = .912*. Internal reliability tests produced weak Kuder Richardson Coefficient values in the three subscales. However, with validity and reliability established and the scale also acting as a test of knowledge, these values can be explained by the test being too difficult for participants who as a result were potentially guessing in their responses (Wells and Woolock 2003; Sattler 2008). Ethical approval was granted the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee at the University of Limerick. Descriptive and inferential data analysis is being conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 20.

Expected Outcomes

The following results are preliminary as more detailed statistical analysis of the data is underway, factoring in a number of other variables included in the survey such as demographical information and experiential AS information. However, analysis completed to date has identified a number of misconceptions across each of the three subscales identified. While any incorrect responses to the scale items could be classed as a misconception held by that particular participant, only items where 25%+ of respondents answered incorrectly are being explored here as they represent a significant proportion of the sample. Some of these are listed below: • 42.1% believe that typically children with AS are delayed cognitively. • 45.2% believe that typically children with AS have no difficulty remaining focused. • 46% are unaware that most children with AS typically have other diagnosis/special educational needs. • 53.2% believe that children with AS should be allowed to perseverate on their topic of interest in the classroom. • 38.1% believe that individualised education plans that are similar are most beneficial for all children with AS. • 41% believe clumsiness is a criterion for diagnosis. • 53.2% are unaware that impaired social skills are a criterion for diagnosis. A number of these findings are problematic as they demonstrate a lack of understanding of the syndrome itself, but also in that it lies on a spectrum of disorders, as a result of which no two students may present with the same characteristics or behaviours. As analysis is on-going these findings will be refined, as they have yet to take into account the level of certainty participants had in their responses, which will give an indication of the magnitude of the results detailed above.

References

Attwood, T. (2008) The Complete Guide to Asperger’s Syndrome, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Attwood, T. (2012) Appropriate Educational Placements for Children with Asperger’s Syndrome [online], available: http://www.tonyattwood.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77:appropriate-educational-placements-for-children-with-aspergers-syndrome&catid=45:archived-resource-papers&Itemid=181 [accessed 1 Jul 2014]. Avramidis, E. & Norwich B. (2002) ‘Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature’, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129-147. Cheevers, C. (2010) Evaluating the Needs of Children with Asperger Syndrome and the Needs of their Parents, Ireland: Asperger Syndrome Association of Ireland. Darretxe, L. & Sepúlveda, L. (2011) ‘Educational Strategies to Address the Educational Needs of Students with Asperger Syndrome in the Mainstream Classroom’, Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(2), available: http://www.investigacion-psicopedagogica.org/revista/articulos/24/english/Art_24_576.pdf [accessed 1 Jul 2014]. Department of Education and Science (2001) The Report of the Task Force on Autism, Dublin: Stationery Office. Department of Education and Skills (2007) Inclusion of Students with Special Educational Needs – Post-Primary Guidelines, Dublin: Stationery Office. Drudy, S. & Kinsella, W. (2009) ‘Developing an inclusive system in a rapidly changing European society’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(6), 647-663. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2014) Organisation of Provision to Support Inclusive Education – Summary Report [online], available: https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/Organisation%20of%20Provision%20Summary%20Report.pdf [accessed 18 Nov 2015]. Hodge, S., Ammah, J.O.A., Casebolt, K.M, LaMaster, K., Hersman, B., Samalot-Rivera, A. & Sato, T. (2009) ‘A Diversity of Voices: Physical education teachers’ beliefs about inclusion and teaching students with disabilities’, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 56(4), 401-419. McGillicuddy, S. & O’Donnell, G.M. (2014) ‘Teaching students with autism spectrum disorder in mainstream post-primary schools in the Republic of Ireland’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(4), 323-344. Parsons, S., Guldberg, K., MacLeod, A., Jones, G., Prunty, A. & Balfe, T. (2009) International Review of the Literature of Evidence of Best Practice Provision in the Education of Person with Autistic Spectrum Disorders, Meath: National Council for Special Education. Ryan, J.B., Hughes, E.M., Katsiyannis, A., McDaniel, M. & Sprinkle, C. (2011) ‘Research-Based Educational Practices for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders’, Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(3), 56-64. Sattler, J.M. (2008) Assessment of Children: Cognitive Foundations, US: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Inc. Tobias, A. 2009. Supporting students with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) at secondary school: A parent and student perspective. Educational Psychology in Practice, 25(2), 151–65.

Author Information

Keith Young (presenting / submitting)

University of Limerick

Education and Professional Studies

Limerick

Patricia Mannix McNamara

University of Limerick, Ireland

Barry Coughlan