32448
Evidence-Based Practices and Classroom Strategies Reported By Teachers of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder
The recent rise in diagnostic rates (CDC, 2018), paired with changes in laws addressing educational services, has led to an increasing number of children with ASD in general and special education classrooms (Hart & Whalon, 2012). However, teachers’ training in and knowledge of ASD-specific evidence-based practices (EBPs) vary widely (Hendricks, 2011), and general education training programs often do not reflect adequate ASD-specific training when compared to special education training programs (Cameron & Cook, 2007).
Objectives:
The current study examines: 1) Teachers’ knowledge of ASD-specific EBPs; 2) The strategies teachers report using to teach students with ASD in their own classrooms, and the frequency in which they accurately or inaccurately define these strategies as an ASD-specific EBP.
Methods:
Participants included 303 preK-12 special and general education teachers with varying levels of ASD experience. Data were collected via an online survey, and a combined inductive and deductive approach was used to code and categorize open-ended responses. The Evidence-Based Practices for Children, Youth, and Young Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders (Wong et al., 2014) was used to classify EBPs (e.g., reinforcement, prompting, visual support). Other reported practices were assigned to one of four additional categories: insufficient empirical support (e.g., sensory diet, music therapy), IEP practices/enhanced support (e.g., modified instruction, speech therapy), good teaching practices (e.g., behavior intervention, clear/concise directions), and intervention programs (e.g., ABA, TEACCH). Responses that were left blank, indicated a lack of knowledge, or were too vague were categorized separately. Within each category, the following groups were examined: 1) strategy used only: teachers who reported using a strategy in the classroom, but did not identify it as an ASD-specific EBP in later survey responses; 2) reported EBP only: teachers who defined a strategy as an ASD-specific EBP, but did not report using the practice; 3) both: teachers who defined a strategy as an ASD-specific EBP and reported using it in their classroom.
Results:
Within the EBP category, 14.2% of teachers reported using an ASD-specific EBP without defining it as such (strategy used only); 6.3% appropriately identified one or more ASD-specific EBPs, but did not report using any ASD-specific EBPs in their classroom (reported EBP only); and 25.1% appropriately identified one or more ASD-specific EBPs, and reported using ASD-specific EBPs in their classroom (both). Furthermore, while only 31.4% of teachers accurately identified and categorized ASD-specific EBPs, 39.3% reported using at least one teaching strategy classified as an ASD-specific EBP. However, responses in other categories revealed that 52.8% of teachers incorrectly identified one or more teaching practices as an ASD-specific EBP, and 37% reported using these practices in the classroom. See Figure 1 for responses within each category.
Conclusions:
Overall, these results highlight gaps and discrepancies in teachers’ reported knowledge and application of ASD-specific EBPs. As teacher training programs adapt to the increasing number of children with ASD in all classrooms, these strengths and weaknesses in teachers’ knowledge and application of best practices should be considered, as appropriate implementation of EBPs is vital to the overall success of students with ASD.