126 Cathy Little
“If it gets too much then she can work by herself ” (CS1-T) and “He doesn’t like
to work with anyone so he can stop” (CS5-T). In Case Study 3, the target student’s
active refusal to participate in any type of group activity was not contested by his
teacher. With recent research citing the benefits of peer-mediated interventions
for students with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (Hart and Whalon, 2011; Locke,
Rotheram-Fuller, and Kasari 2012) the absence of groupwork as an instructional
strategy reinforces the purported limited knowledge base of the teachers in the case
studies regarding effective teaching strategies for students with an Autism Spectrum
Disorder.
In the interviews, all teacher participants reported using social skills programs
in their classes to promote social engagement. However, despite reporting use of
these programs, at no time during the observations was any social skills instruction
observed or alluded to by any teacher participant. This result is at odds with the
literature that reports students with an Autism Spectrum Disorder require direct
teaching of social skills and skills in effective social communication (McGillicuddy
and O’Donnell, 2014).
When asked what they believed social inclusion was for students with an
Autism Spectrum Disorder, responses were varied. Responses from the Teacher
Attitudes Survey saw participants respond, “included in all ways”, and “acceptance
by peers and self ”. Yet the responses from the case studies were less affirming.
When responding to questions investigating social inclusion, both teachers and
Principals predominantly reported perceived barriers to students’ social inclu-
sion, positing the students themselves as constituting a barrier. One teacher
described her student as “all consuming and manipulative”, reporting that her
behaviour “scared away other students”. Another teacher (CS4-T) placed the
onus for social inclusion squarely on the shoulders of the student, mentioning
numerous times how it was up to him to “fit in” and “know how to interpret
the other kids”.
Student factors, such as the behaviour of the student and their perceived abil-
ities, were used as a benchmark for inclusive attitudes. Student participants were
described by both teachers and Principals using labels, such as “that was ASD”, and
“she’s interesting”, as well as their interests, “he likes to play video games”, with the
onus placed on the student with an Autism Spectrum Disorder having to ‘fit in’ to
social situations. The concept of the student with an Autism Spectrum Disorder as
‘different’ when compared to typically developing peers was influential in shaping
attitude.
The role of peers in the social inclusion of students with an Autism Spectrum
Disorder was important. Peers’ knowledge of Autism Spectrum Disorder and the
acceptance of a student for whom he was saw one student from the case studies
socially included with his peers and his classmates. In the remaining case studies,
evidence from teachers, peers and the school Principal indicated that the target
student was shown little acceptance or understanding by peers and remained
socially isolated for the duration of the study.