The role of school communities 125Case studies
In each of the five case studies, (CS1–CS5) interviews were conducted with the
target student, (S), their teacher (T), a nominated peer group (PG) and the school
Principal (P). Observations were made of teacher practice and student behaviour
in each of the five mainstream classroom settings. Data from the case studies were
broken down and examined in an attempt to provide answers to the research
questions. Using the systematic coding principles of grounded theory developed by
Strauss and Corbin (1998), the coding techniques used included open coding, axial
coding and selective coding. Analysis of findings associated with the social inclusion
construct disclosed an interplay between responses of the adult participant groups
(i.e., teachers and Principals) and the student participant groups (i.e., students and
peer groups) of this study. For the purposes of the following discussion, the focus
will centre on the teacher and Principal key players and draw out convergences and
disparities between their responses.
Both teachers and Principals drew from their previous experiences throughout
the interviews. This experience, combined with their knowledge of Autism Spectrum
Disorder, professional knowledge, and judgements and understandings of effective
instruction were shared with selective codes within the teacher effectiveness con-
struct. Social inclusion was a selective code reported by both teachers and Principals.
Examination of the open codes and categories that conceptualised this code, however,
found greater focus on the barriers to social inclusion and less to the way this con-
struct was facilitated in the mainstream environment.
In their interviews teachers from the case studies said they worked hard to
create an environment of acceptance in their classrooms by “Trying to encourage
everyone” (Case Study 4-Teacher, CS4-T) and “Teaching the class how to get
along and see things through other people’s eyes” (CS2-T). Limited evidence
was found through the observations, however, to support this claim. Observed
instances of positive encouragement directed toward any student in the class
were recorded as occurring less than 20 per cent of the entire observational
period. Further, analysis of the teacher dialogue in the classroom revealed it to be
directed toward academic content rather than social activity in each of the case
study classrooms, with the average percentage of academic directed talk between
the three cases calculated as approximately 78 per cent. Another finding contrary
to teachers’ provision of social opportunities for their students with an Autism
Spectrum Disorder was the seating allocation of their students. Three of the five
students sat alone while the rest of their class sat in small groups. Teachers’ active
support of their students’ preferred isolation appeared to do little to promote
their active social involvement in any way.
Despite reporting groupwork as a strategy for social engagement in their inter-
views, only one teacher, (CS4-T), used groupwork as a mode of instruction in
any of the observational sessions. Three teachers reported their target student was
allowed to disengage themselves from groupwork activities if they chose to, saying