Abstract
This study examined differences in child engagement between inclusive and self-contained classroom models for preschool-aged children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The two models examined within the study—TEACCH (Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communication handicapped Children) and LEAP (Learning Experiences: An Alternative Program for Preschoolers and parents)—are highly-regarded classroom models for preschoolers with ASD. TEACCH classrooms are often highly structured, self-contained classrooms, whereas LEAP is a naturalistic and fully inclusive model. Past research that compared these models did not show differences with regards to child outcomes (Boyd et al., in press). This study examined differences in engagement across the two classroom types. According to Adamson and Bakeman (1984), the environment that maximizes joint engagement and minimizes time spent unengaged sets the stage for optimal learning. Videos of preschool students with autism in TEACCH and LEAP classrooms were coded for states of joint engagement and unengagement, and percentage of time spent in these states were compared. Results of this study showed that TEACCH and LEAP had similar levels for joint engagement, so complex learning opportunities were comparable between the two models. However, LEAP had significantly lower levels of unengagement than TEACCH did, meaning that children in LEAP classrooms are engaging in learning opportunities more often than children in TEACCH classrooms. The findings of this study support inclusive, naturalistic classroom settings for preschoolers with autism to maximize learning opportunities.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
As I wrap up my undergraduate career through this thesis, I’m thinking about how much I have grown through the last four years. I am so grateful to all of the people who have made this experience possible. I have no clue where I would be without the guidance and support of so many.
First of all, Dr. Patricia Parker, my advisor, has been instrumental to my success. Dr. Parker always pushed me to delve deeper into my topic, making my research more cohesive. I cannot even estimate how many times Dr. Parker read through my drafts, always reading carefully and providing me with thoughtful revisions. She encouraged me to position myself in the research, which led me to a greater understanding of my own values and a direction for my future. I am so impressed by the commitment Dr. Parker has shown to me and her countless other students. She is truly a remarkable teacher, and I am so grateful for her presence through this process.
This research never would have been possible without my mentor, Dr. Jessica Dykstra. I do not know where I would be without her guidance and ideas. She challenged me to think critically about my topic and to think about all of the possible reasons for my findings. She led me through the coding process, providing sound advice through every obstacle with which I was faced. She was a voice of reason when I needed some encouragement during the hard times. Thank you for all you did to help me through this process!
encouraging me to think critically about issues of autism and inclusion. I am so thankful for the time she put into assisting me with my research. Dr. Brian Boyd was instrumental in my
understanding of the TEACCH-LEAP project. The countless conversations we had helped me develop a direction for my study. He was more than willing to answer any question I had, and I am so grateful for the effort he put into making this a valuable experience for me. Though she was not on my committee, I would like to thank Dr. Kara Hume for her contributions as well. She was always quick to answer any questions I had, and her attentiveness to my development as a researcher was amazing. I am so thankful for all of the assistance and support you all have given me.
I’d also like to thank Chris Wiesen at the Odom Institute. His assistance in my statistical
analysis was much needed. He worked tirelessly to make sense of my findings, and to find a way to explain them to me. The amount of time he gave to me to help me understand the statistics of my results was humbling. Thank you, Chris.
I am so grateful to Dana Blohm for her hard work in helping me with the coding for this project. She was such a dedicated research assistant, and she worked tirelessly to make sure we could stay on the timeline I had set. The work she put into this project was so important. I am also so grateful for the Tim and Elizabeth Long Excellence Fund for Honors, administered by Honors Carolina, which allowed me to pay Dana for all of her hard work!
support. You always share your words of reason with me, and I don’t know what I would have
done without you. I am so appreciative of Nicole, and Katie for always offering me
encouragement and for our late study dates—and for celebrating with me as soon as I found out I had been awarded highest honors. You two are such good friends! I have been so blessed to have my friend Anna in my life this semester. She was also working on a similar thesis, and she was the greatest source of solidarity I could have ever asked for. She helped me with a mock defense to be sure I was prepared. I am so thankful for all of her help through this process. I want to thank to talented ladies of Cadence. Their understanding and inspiration were instrumental in achieving all I did, and the opportunity to lead them is one of the most rewarding experiences I have ever had.
ENGAGEMENT AS LEARNING: A Comparison Study of TEACCH and LEAP Educational Models for Preschoolers with Autism Spectrum Disorders
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a disability that affects individuals’ social and communicative abilities, influencing their academic performance, independence, and career skills. Educational interventions focus on best preparing children with ASD to overcome their challenges to build a fulfilling life in which they can integrate best into their societies. One major debate in the field of special education has been whether inclusion is an effective educational approach. Educational techniques that utilize inclusive practice place children with special needs in classrooms with their typically-developing peers. Although laws have promoted inclusion of individuals with disabilities as much as possible, research has been inconclusive with regards to the effectiveness of inclusive methods for children with autism. Two particular models for educating preschoolers with ASD, TEACCH and LEAP, differ in their views of inclusion and have both been found to have positive outcomes for their students. Engagement and joint engagement have been found to reflect general and complex learning opportunities through active participation in the classroom environment. This study examines learning opportunities in TEACCH and LEAP classrooms by comparing students’ levels of unengagement and joint engagement during naturally occurring, center-based activities. In doing so, this investigation provides insights about the potential effects of inclusive classroom environments for preschool-aged children with ASD.
Perspective of the Researcher
practice full inclusion. Giving people with disabilities an identity beyond their diagnosis was an invaluable skill I acquired early on. Outside the classroom, children with disabilities, particularly those with ASD who struggle with initiating new social relationships, need inclusive activities to give them a sense of identity. I, along with my other typically-developing peers, served as an ally for my classmates with ASD and other developmental disabilities. Unified Theater changed their lives by bringing them friends and a sense of empowerment by focusing on their abilities instead of their disabilities. As an individual who is typically developing, I benefited from inclusion as well, learning values of compassion, diversity, and respect. However, the ongoing debate in the field of education is whether and how children with special needs may benefit from being in a classroom with their typically-developing peers. As more and more children are being diagnosed with ASD, their parents and educators struggle to determine the best education plan for them. There is limited evidence in favor of inclusive or self-contained environments and their effect on social and academic learning for children with ASD. This study attempts to answer the question that encompasses both social and academic learning—how overall learning can be maximized by certain educational methods.
This thesis will provide background of the problem, summarizing past research on the history and causes of ASD, and the role of inclusion as an educational intervention. Two highly-regarded educational models for preschoolers with autism, TEACCH and LEAP, and their major educational goals, will be presented. The literature on assessing and measuring learning
Background
Autism Spectrum Disorders
In 1943, Leo Kanner, a U.S. psychiatrist, was the first to study autism. He claimed the three major impairments in autism to be: social difficulties, communication problems, and repetitive and restricted activities. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 defines autism as: “a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal
communication and social interaction, generally evident before age 3, that affects a child’s educational performance” (Hall, 2009, p. 5). The major focus of past research on autism has been
related to social and communication deficits and not the impact that these deficits have on educational performance. IDEA’s definition highlights the connection between engagement and
achievement of learning outcomes, indicating that social and communication deficits lead to educational deficits. Previous research on inclusive education has focused on the level of social and communication deficits (Reszka, 2012; Guaralnick, 1978; Odom & McEvoy, 1988, 1990; Simpson & Souris, 1988), but this study extends this line of research to explore joint
engagement, a type of engagement that encompasses some of the social-communication deficits and their relation to learning.
with two or three steps, a child with ASD would often need verbal instruction for each step separately. Since children with ASD have unique learning needs compared to their typically developing peers, yet also have needs related to social interaction, the decision about educational programming (e.g., inclusive versus separate classrooms) has been an area of controversy.
Rights-Based Discourse Supporting Inclusive Methods for Children with Special Needs
Federal law requires that public school systems provide all children, including those with ASD or other special needs, with a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE). Educational intervention is needed to help children build skills and overcome ASD-related challenges. Whatever program is chosen for the child, it is necessary that it be individualized to the child’s
specific strengths and deficits. The most appropriate education for children with special needs is determined by Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), which are legally required documents that describe the child’s abilities, needs, and educational goals (Hall, 2009). IEPs are reassessed and rewritten regularly throughout the child’s schooling, beginning in preschool and ending when he
U.S.-based and international laws represent a “rights-based” rationale for promoting inclusion as an educational intervention. However, despite the rights-based support, there is inconclusive research on the benefits of inclusion for children with ASD. This study explores engagement in two classroom types that differently value inclusion as an educational
intervention.
Inclusion: Theory and Debates
Inclusive education methods include placing a child with special needs in a general education classroom with his/her typically developing peers, usually with additional support. This fits with the LRE requirements in children’s IEPs. Children who receive one-to-one therapy or services in a controlled environment struggle to generalize new skills because they may become dependent on prompts and have difficulty with generalizing to other skills, locations, or with other
communicative partners (Mesibov, 2005). Theories of social development include the modeling of socially appropriate behavior (Hall, 2009). In most cases, this would be in the form of
imitating typically developing peers, whose social behavior is more appropriate than their peers with ASD. There are extensive arguments for and against inclusive education as best practice.
ASD in inclusive settings to learn skills and appropriate behaviors from their peers who are typically developing. Inclusive settings attempt to tap into the benefits of social learning.
In their assessment of various studies based on inclusive education methods, Mesibov and Shea (1996) found that previously-indicated benefits of inclusion to children with special needs (e.g., increased expectations by teachers, modeling by typically-developing peers, higher self-esteem levels, more tolerant peers, and a lowered stigma associated with disability) may be more limited for children with ASD than for those with other special needs, although children with ASD may still benefit in these ways. Children with ASD do not tend to engage with others or imitate naturally, so these benefits may not occur incidentally, and may require more intentional or direct instruction. Therefore, inclusive classrooms may need to utilize specific techniques to enhance interaction between students with ASD and their peers in order to achieve social skills improvement goals.
they accommodated them and often instructed them. Therefore, adequate preparation of peers may also affect the level of success of inclusive intervention.
Myles and Simpson (1993) found that children with ASD did not tend to interact with teachers or peers, regardless of whether their typically-developing peers were present or not. This indicates that social interactions may need to be enhanced through the structure of the educational program in order to occur more regularly. Three methods were found effective for teaching children with ASD social skills: direct skill-instruction (in which typically-developing peers are used for modeling, practice, and generalization throughout the time the teacher trains the child with ASD in the specific skill), antecedent prompting methods (teacher provides prompting and cuing while the child is either in a one-on-one setting with a typically-developing peer or in a group of children with mixed abilities), or peer-initiation programs (in which
typically-developing children are trained in initiating social interaction with their classmates with ASD and are then placed in a natural setting with said peers). Teachers of children with ASD should use one or more of these methods to make their inclusive settings the most beneficial. The LEAP model uses practices such as these to maximize the benefits of inclusion. It is also
important to keep in mind that successful inclusion still requires individualized services for the children with special needs (Skokut, Openden, & Jimerson, 2008).
Events are less predictable, so students with ASD will often turn to their teachers for cues on how to respond. Additionally, teachers in inclusive settings often supervise their students with ASD more closely to assist their development of social bond, which ultimately could foster further dependence as well (Mesibov & Shea, 1996). Children may benefit from being taught skills in a more comfortable environment, such as a self-contained classroom, before practicing them with their typically developing peers. However, some may debate that children would not be able to generalize new skills as effectively if they are being taught in a highly controlled setting, such as a self-contained classroom (Strain, 1983).
Since children with ASD do not process information in the same manner as their typically developing peers, educational programs specifically aimed to make sense to students with ASD in separate classrooms may be beneficial to learning. Struggling to communicate with their typically developing peers and teachers, these children may benefit from more independent work that is designed specifically for children with ASD and their unique learning strengths and needs. However, it is possible that if they can learn to adapt to typical cultural demands, these children may benefit from placements in inclusive settings to expose them to the society that will be waiting for them upon graduation from school.
learning overall, inclusive settings have a better chance of bringing about greater academic improvement.
Review of the Literature: Assessing and Measuring Learning Outcomes
This section reviews the literature on two ASD education models, which differ on inclusion and level of structure, and findings about their efficacies. While this literature is instructive about how children with ASD should be taught particular skills in these classrooms, findings are inconclusive about conditions for optimal learning. This section makes the case that engagement and joint engagement are reliable measures of optimal learning opportunities and, as such, can provide new knowledge about the conditions for optimal learning.
LEAP Autism Education Model
Learning Experiences: An Alternative Program for Preschoolers and Parents (LEAP) is aimed at social development for young children with ASD. LEAP is an inclusive program that is comprehensive (interventions occur in various settings and focus on various skills), intensive (high levels of engagement for an appropriate period of time), practical (should be easily done with any child), and effective (should improve quality of life for students and families),
indicating its appropriateness as an educational model (Simpson et al., 2005, p.162). LEAP’s central tenets are inclusion, scaffolding, individualized and innovative curricula, and training of parents, teachers, and peers (Skokut et al., 2008). The ideal LEAP classroom has thirteen
students, three of whom have ASD. Typically developing peers are taught techniques for how to engage with their classmates with ASD (Simpson et al., 2005).
how to best interact with their classmates with ASD, and they are used as teachers of social skills in LEAP classrooms. The typical peers model social skills for their classmates with ASD and encourage them to imitate and interact. Play areas and activities are structured to allow for practice of these skills. The LEAP model also utilizes scaffolding techniques, in which adults in the classrooms promote social interactions between students with and without ASD by providing additional support. Gradually, the adult lessens support as children become more comfortable. This encourages the students with ASD to participate in the play environment with their
classmates (Schuler & Wolfberg, 2000). LEAP uses the presence of typically developing peers to influence positive behaviors of students with ASD. In addition to using peers and teaching
through natural routines, LEAP classrooms typically include a parent education program,
offering a series of classes to families on behavioral strategies and interacting with their children.
TEACCH Autism Education Model
The TEACCH approach to education for children views ASD as a culture because it produces characteristic and predictable patterns of thinking and behavior (Mesibov, 2005). The teacher becomes a cross-cultural interpreter, augmenting the environment to fit the student’s needs and also assisting the student with beginning to understand and adapt to the demands of the world (Hall, 2009, p.134). TEACCH, which originally stood for Treatment and Education of Autistic and Communications-Handicapped Children, developed a technique called structured teaching, in which an adult chooses activity, materials, and length of time to be spent in the specific activity. According to Skokut et al. (2008), the central tenets of the TEACCH approach include structured teaching, skill development, individualized treatment plans, and coordination with parents.
difficult to implement in inclusive settings, at least at the start of the intervention, since there are more opportunities for unexpected events to occur and it is more difficult to separate sections of the classroom for specific purposes. Like LEAP, TEACCH values partnership with parents, training them on behavioral techniques for working with their children.
TEACCH has been shown to have positive effects on behavior, cognitive, and motor skills performance, and has shown to improve independence in children with ASD. Ozonoff and Cathcart (1998) showed that although students in the TEACCH model showed little
improvement in social skills, their previous behavior problems were no longer hindering their education. Their cognitive performance improved, particularly with skills such as imitation and motor skills. However, the students did not score higher on perception and cognitive verbal tests after their participation in the TEACCH program. This approach has proven to maximize
students’ ability to function independently (Hall, 2009).
Comparison of TEACCH and LEAP Models
cognitive goals and elimination of problem behaviors, while LEAP focuses on achievement of social and communicative goals. For both TEACCH and LEAP, the marker of success would be successful inclusion in typical classrooms and society as a whole. However, the techniques to reach this end goal are quite different.
Measuring Educational Outcomes
TEACCH and LEAP have been studied to assess their efficacy and success through the ASD Treatment Comparison Study, titled “Comparison of Two Treatment Models for Preschool-aged Children with Autism and Their Families.” This study was supported through federal funding
(U.S. Department of Education Grant # R324B07021) and involved the following study sites: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at University of North Carolina, University of Miami’s Department of Psychology, the University of Minnesota, and the University of
Colorado at Denver’s School of Education and Human Development. The purpose of the study
was to examine the efficacy of the LEAP and TEACCH educational interventions and compare them to classrooms not using a specific educational intervention. The results of this study found that the TEACCH model was more structured than LEAP, but that both models used
A secondary data analysis was performed on the videos recorded in the study. In this
secondary analysis, the videos were coded for social interaction (Reszka et al., 2012). This study found that children only interacted with their peers for about 1.8% of the time, reporting notably lower levels for children with ASD than children with other disabilities, who spend
approximately 8-11% of their time in peer-directed social behaviors. Reszka et al. (2012) also found significant differences in peer social interaction depending on activity area, child behavior, and group arrangement. The most peer social engagement occurred in book, food/snack, large motor, and transition activity areas; books, games, and large group child behaviors; small group setting and large group with adult arrangements (Reszka et al., 2012). When it comes to
classroom type, more peer social engagement was found in LEAP classrooms than in TEACCH classrooms (a 0.018 vs. 0.008 proportion of total time), though both classrooms had strikingly low levels (Reszka et al., 2012). However, this study focused on interactions as a measure of social engagement, while the current study focuses on levels of joint engagement, which may be linked to learning opportunities.
Engagement and Joint-Engagement as Indicators of Learning Outcomes
Engagement has been defined in various ways by different researchers. McWilliam, Trivette, & Dunst (1995) define engagement as “the amount of time children spend interacting with the environment in a manner that is developmentally appropriate” (p. 60). If children are consistently attending to their environment, they are more likely to experience optimal learning.
suggested a hierarchy of engagement and developed a system called joint engagement coding. Joint engagement coding requires children’s behavior to be placed in one of six categories of engagement states, as shown in Table 1: unengaged, onlooking, object-only, person-only, supported joint engagement, and coordinated joint engagement.
Table 1
Engagement States
Level of Engagement Description
Unengagement (lowest level of learning)
The child appears uninvolved with any other person or object. The child may be scanning the room for something to do, but he/she is not looking at anyone or anything in particular. Unengaged states also include self-stimulating behaviors.
Onlooking The child is watching another’s activity, often quite intently, but the child is not taking part in that activity at all.
Object Engagement The child is solely focused on an object by him/herself. The child is not communicating with anyone else in any way.
Person Engagement The child is interacting with another person. The child is not focused on any toy or other object in any way.
Supported Joint Engagement
The child and another person are actively involved in the same object or toy, but the child is not aware of the other person’s involvement with the object.
Coordinated Joint
Engagement (highest level of learning)
The child is actively involved with both the other person and the object, and he/she is coordinating his/her attention between the object and the other person. This includes times when the child is communicating with another person about the object he/she is engaged with.
(Adapted from: Dykstra, et al. (2011) and Bakeman, R., & Adamson, L.B. (1984).)
Using engagement and joint engagement as measurements for learning. Engagement
outcomes (McWilliam, 1985; Greenwood, Carta, & Atwater, 1991; Logan, Bakeman, & Keefe, 1997). Adamson, Bakeman, and Deckner (2009) also found a link between levels of joint engagement and expressive and receptive language learning. There is a hierarchy of learning opportunities dependent on the extent of engagement, joint engagement indicating the highest level of complex learning opportunities and an unengaged state providing the lowest level of learning opportunities.
Significant research on the effectiveness of inclusive education for children with ASD has been performed, but conclusions have been mixed, and ultimately, inconclusive (Lindsay, 2007; Reed, Osborne, & Waddington, 2012; Odom & Diamond, 1998; Hornby, 1999). However, when inclusive educational structure is specifically aimed at further integrating students in social interactions, children’s social skills have been shown to improve (Strain, 1983). There is
Kishida and Kemp (2009) studied the effects on type of classroom (inclusive or self-contained) on engagement and interaction for twelve children with ASD, between the ages of 2 and 5. They chose to use engagement as an outcome measure of these classroom types because it is predictive of learning and their later skills (McWilliam, 1985; Greenwood, Carta, & Atwater, 1991; Logan, Bakeman, & Keefe, 1997). Kishida and Kemp (2009) found that children were more highly engaged in self-contained classrooms than inclusive settings (81.6% of the time in self-contained settings vs. 71.8% of the time in inclusive settings). However, results from this study did not find a statistically significant difference for various reasons. First, their sample size was small—only twelve students. In addition, instead of joint engagement coding, which
This study focused on child engagement, which has been related to language learning in other studies. This is an integral component of program assessment that had not yet been completed with TEACCH and LEAP. There exists conclusive evidence of distinctions in structure and social interaction between TEACCH and LEAP (Boyd et al., in press; Reszka, 2012), but we do not yet know the effect that these differences have for the joint engagement of children in the two types of classrooms.
Research Questions
The current study examined the differences in joint engagement and unengagement across two models for classrooms serving preschool students with ASD by addressing the following research questions:
RQ1: Is there a statistically significant difference in the amount of time spent in the state of joint engagement by children with ASD in LEAP versus TEACCH classrooms?
RQ2: Is there a statistically significant difference in the amount of time spent unengaged by children with ASD in LEAP versus TEACCH classrooms?
Methods Participants
across four states: North Carolina, Florida, Minnesota, and Colorado, at the beginning and end of the school year for each enrolled child. The current study used only children who received a Module 1 Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS; Lord et al., 1989), which is used for children who are preverbal or using single words, thus, students who likely had the greatest need for growth in language learning through joint engagement. The videos used were only post-test videos, collected at the end of the school year. Participants had thus been exposed to at least one full school year of either TEACCH- or LEAP-based treatment. Once the participants were narrowed to only children who had received Module 1 ADOS, the researcher randomly selected videos for forty children, twenty in each LEAP and TEACCH classrooms.
Table 2
Child Demographics
Demographic Mean/Frequency (%)
Chronological age 4.0 years
Gender
Male 75%
Female 25%
Ethnicity
White 72.5%
African American 12.5%
Asian 10%
Multi-racial 5%
Table 3
Child Subject ADOS 1 score findings
All Subjects (n=40) LEAP (n=20) TEACCH (n=20)
Mean 17.7 17.1 18.4
Standard Deviation 4.7 4.0 5.4
Minimum 9 11 9
Maximum 27 24 27
teachers held a degree above the level of master’s. The teachers had a range of 2 to 21 years of experience teaching with a mean of 10.2 years. This data is summarized in Table 4.
Table 4
Teacher Demographics
Frequency (%)/ Mean (SD)(Min-Max) Gender
Male 3.7%
Female 96.3%
Ethnicity
White 96.3%
African American 3.7%
Highest Degree Held
BA/BS 40.7%
Master’s 51.9%
PhD 7.4%
Years of Experience Teaching 10.2 (6.3)(2-21)
Collecting and Analyzing Behavioral Records
Adamson and Bakeman’s Joint Engagement Coding (1984) scheme was used to code all
exceeds 30 seconds, the film was instead coded from 8-13 minutes or 12-17 minutes for the first segment and 18-23 minutes or 22-27 minutes for the second segment, depending on when the uncodable section occurred within the 5 minute segment. This was rare, but it did happen with three of the participants. The percentage of coded time spent unengaged, and the percentage of coded time spent in either supported or coordinated joint-engagement were calculated and compared between the TEACCH students and the LEAP students, and t-tests were run to compare the two groups.
Settings, observation, and apparatus. The videos were watched through one time before being coded, screening for time spent off the camera or any technical difficulties. One video was screened out due to a temporal disconnect between the video and audio. Next, the states of engagement (as outlined by Adamson and Bakeman’s work in Joint Engagement) were
recorded using software called Snapshot, a program that was created by UNC Data Core
programmers. This software allowed coders to record a second-by-second account of the child’s joint engagement behavior.
Statistical analysis. Planned analysis included t-tests between TEACCH and LEAP
groups for levels of joint engagement and levels of unengagement. Previously collected data was examined before statistical analysis to determine if there was a difference in the students’ Mullen scores, which include tests of children’s development levels in visual reception, fine motor,
expressive language, and receptive language (Mullen, 1995). As developmental age (directly related to IQ score) has been linked to child engagement levels (de Kruif & McWilliam, 1999), it was deemed necessary to examine these scores, knowing they may have an effect on
participants’ engagement. If the scores were found to differ, the researcher planned to control for
Coding reliability. In order to guarantee that the results are meaningful and accurate, two coders established inter-observer agreement. Two coders, the principal investigator and an additional rater, were trained in the joint engagement coding scheme. The training process consisted of various steps using previously designated videos. Coders compared their results to ten practice videos, which they could code as many times as needed to reach 80% reliability. After reaching 80% reliability on the practice videos (with as many attempts as needed), the coders each were required to reach an average of 80% reliability on a set of two novel videos, followed by a set of two final videos. Once these tasks were accomplished, the coders were deemed trained and reliable for joint engagement coding and could move on to code the videos for the current study.
The principal investigator coded each video alone, and an additional rater coded 25% of the videos to make sure that engagement state coding was accurate and can therefore support the results and conclusions with correct evidence. A commonly used minimum standard for inter-rater reliability is 80%. The two coders were 82.2% reliable, with a range of 65.5% to 98.8% per participant, averaged across the two 5-minute segments.
Results
any state other than unengagement). The following section describes the results found in this study.The exploratory analysis findings are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5
Exploratory Analyses of Proportions of Engagement States in TEACCH and LEAP
TEACCH LEAP
State of
Engagement Mean S.D. Min. Max. Mean S.D. Min. Max. Unengagement 41.7 17.8 3.8 85.8 23.8 14.4 3.5 59.0
Onlooking 2.8 3.90 0.0 16.0 3.8 3.7 0.0 11.5
Passive
Engagement
44.5 27.6
Object 34.9 19.7 4.2 82.7 43.9 18.8 16.2 87.2
Person 3.2 4.99 0 17.5 3.3 5.5 0.0 22.2
Single
Engagement
38.1 47.2
SJE 4.4 6.3 0.0 16.3 1.2 2.5 0.0 9.2
CJE 13.1 8.3 0.0 40.0 24.1 18.4 0.0 64.2
Joint Engagement 17.4 25.3
Students in TEACCH and LEAP had quite similar levels for states of onlooking, object, person, and supported joint engagement states. The two states with the most noticeable
difference between the two classroom models were unengagement and coordinated joint
Between the LEAP and TEACCH classrooms, students were found to have quite different Mullen IQ scores. LEAP students had a mean score of 70.3, with a standard deviation of 23.9; whereas TEACCH students had a mean score of 57.2, with a standard deviation of 17.5. The Mullen test overall has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Since LEAP and TEACCH’s means differed by almost one full standard deviation, it was deemed necessary to
control for these differences. The Mullen findings are summarized in Table 6 below.
Table 6
Mullen IQ Score Findings for LEAP and TEACCH classrooms
Mean Standard Deviation
LEAP 70.3 23.9
TEACCH 57.2 17.5
Mullen Overall 100 15
Results for Research Question 1
A generalized linear model was used to obtain mean estimates adjusted for IQ given the unequal distribution of Mullen IQ scores between the two groups. Once the data was adjusted for the differences in Mullen scores, the estimated LEAP joint engagement percentage was lowered to 23.4%, while the estimated TEACCH joint engagement percentage was raised to 19.4%. The GLM regression model was used to determine that the difference between these values is not statistically significant (F(1,37)=0.90, p=0.3484). Between LEAP and TEACCH, the values are
too close together to determine which classroom type maximizes complex learning opportunities through joint engagement. These findings are summarized in Table 7 below.
Table 7
Statistical Analysis for Percentage of Time Spent in Joint Engagement
Classroom
Model Minimum Maximum Mean Adjusted mean
LEAP 1.8% 64.2% 25.3% 23.4%
TEACCH 0.0% 40.0% 17.4% 19.4%
Note: Means adjusted for differences in Mullen IQ scores
Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked which classroom had lower levels of time spent unengaged, LEAP or TEACCH. The less time spent in a state of unengagement, the higher the potential for learning, as unengagement predicts less opportunity for learning. Therefore, the classroom with a lower percentage of time spent in a state of unengagement had a higher proportion of time spent in a state where learning was possible. TEACCH was found to have higher levels of
range of 3.5% to 59.0%) and 41.7% in TEACCH classrooms (with a range of 38.3% to 85.8%). As with the levels for joint engagement, these values were redistributed using the generalized linear model procedure to account for the differences in Mullen IQ scores. The adjusted values were 25.5% of the time spent unengaged in LEAP and 40.0% of the time spent unengaged in TEACCH. These results were statistically significant (F(1,37)=7.95, p=0.0077). Students in
TEACCH classrooms spent less time in a state of learning than students in LEAP classrooms. These findings are summarized in Table 8.
Table 8
Statistical Analysis for Percentage of Time Spent in Unengagement
Classroom Model Minimum Maximum Mean Adjusted mean
LEAP 3.5% 59.0% 23.8% 25.5%
TEACCH 3.8% 85.8% 41.7% 40.0%
The overall findings are summarized in Figure 1, below.
Figure 1
Time Spent Jointly Engaged and Unengaged in LEAP and TEACCH
Note: Means adjusted for differences in Mullen IQ scores
Discussion
The findings of this study indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between unengagement levels in TEACCH and LEAP classrooms. Students in TEACCH classrooms spent more time unengaged than students in LEAP classrooms. These findings are indicative of learning potential in preschool classrooms for children with ASD. TEACCH students, on average, are spending significantly more time in a state where they cannot learn (unengagement) than are LEAP students. Joint engagement levels, which incorporate the social aspect of complex learning, were found not to be statistically significance, indicating that students in TEACCH and LEAP spend similar amounts of time in states of joint engagement. There are various ways to explain these differences in engagement levels. The following section will address the significance of the findings of this study and will then discuss limitations.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Adjusted % Time in JE Adjusted % Time in UE
LEAP
Significance of the Findings
The findings of this study are significant in advancing our understanding of inclusive and naturalistic teaching methods, social learning theory, social interaction, peer engagement
partners versus adult engagement partners, and the spectrum of autism.
Although the debate about inclusive education has brought to light both negative and positive potential consequences, the results of this study support inclusive and naturalistic education practices, as LEAP classrooms had lower levels of unengagement than TEACCH classrooms. Questions about the effectiveness of inclusive classrooms for preschoolers with ASD have been previously raised (Lindsay, 2007; Reed, Osborne, & Waddington, 2012; Odom & Diamond, 1998; Hornby, 1999). Some believe that students with ASD need more predictable, structured environments to thrive academically (Mesibov, Shea, & Schopler, 2005). Others believe that students will not be able to generalize skills if they learn them in a too highly
regulated environment, and therefore they must be taught in a more naturalistic environment with peers who are typically developing (Strain, 1983). The results of this study showed that children were generally engaged for more time in LEAP classrooms, which are inclusive and naturalistic, than in TEACCH classrooms, which are self-contained and structured. This suggests that, in fact, students with ASD have the potential to learn more often in LEAP classrooms. These findings are in favor of an inclusive, naturalistic approach.
alternating their attention between objects and people. Although LEAP students spend less time unengaged, students in both LEAP and TEACCH spend similar amounts of time in joint
engagement. LEAP students spend more time participating in social learning behaviors generally, but TEACCH and LEAP students spend comparable amounts of time in complex social learning behaviors. This indicates that though the unengagement results favor inclusive and naturalistic approaches, complex learning can occur just as often in structured settings such as TEACCH, so inclusion may not impact complex learning as much.
The findings of this study may support social learning theory, which proposes that humans learn through social observation. According to Bandura (1977) and Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961), creating an environment conducive for learning would involve inclusion of peers exhibiting appropriate behaviors, so that children could imitate these behaviors. Social learning theory suggests that as students with ASD in inclusive settings, such as LEAP classrooms, observe their typically developing peers behaving appropriately, they imitate these peers, therefore increasing the amount of time spent engaged. This study aimed to determine the effect that two different combinations of ecological classroom features may have on learning
typically developing peers modeling and initiating ideal social and communicative behaviors is greater, especially since LEAP programs specifically train the students who are typically developing in ways to model social skills trainers for their classmates with ASD. Since engagement levels typically increase with age and developmental level, preschoolers who are typically developing likely spend more time in states of engagement. By having the opportunity to imitate these behaviors, students with ASD in LEAP classrooms would likely spend less time in an unengaged state than students in TEACCH classrooms.
A positive aspect of both models was that both TEACCH and LEAP had similarly high levels of joint engagement, the highest level of engagement. This indicates that students in both classrooms can benefit from social learning, as joint engagement requires students to alternate their attention between objects and people. Since joint engagement taps the benefits of social learning, the results of this study provide evidence that students in TEACCH and LEAP both have access to some social learning, in this case, complex learning.
Although this study found positive results of LEAP’s inclusive and naturalistic approach,
these results cannot be extrapolated to all inclusive and naturalistic classrooms. The results of this study indicate that caution should be exercised in attempting to generalize about all inclusive settings. Uniquely, the LEAP model focuses on the importance of training the typically
developing students in techniques to better socially engage their classmates with ASD. This enhances the benefit of inclusion, as research has previously found that simply putting children of varying abilities in a classroom together will not necessarily improve skills, and specialized techniques for teaching social and communication skills are essential (Ochs, et al., 2001; Miles & Simpson, 1993). The findings of this study show that the LEAP model is effective in
unique program that intentionally optimizes the benefits of inclusion, one cannot say that a typical inclusive classroom would have the same results. However, teachers of inclusive classrooms can focus on directly enhancing social relationships through direct skill-instruction, antecedent prompting methods, or peer-initiation programs (Myles & Simpson, 1993), which would enhance the effectiveness of their inclusive models.
Past comparison studies between TEACCH and LEAP classroom models had focused on level of structure and level of social interaction (Hume et al., 2011, Reszka, 2012). The current study hoped to extend the study of interaction into a discussion of learning through engagement with objects and/or people. Although Strain (1983) found that LEAP was effective in improving social skills of its students with ASD, past research has not shown the effect of LEAP
programming on engagement, and potentially therefore, learning, for students. Engagement coding highlights the connection between appropriate participation with the environment and its effect on learning outcomes (McWilliam, 1985; Greenwood, Carta, & Atwater, 1991; Logan, Bakeman, & Keefe, 1997), and joint engagement coding in particular focuses on the social aspects of learning. The amount of time spent unengaged was significantly higher in TEACCH classrooms, indicating that children spend more time in a state with learning opportunities in LEAP classrooms than in TEACCH. These findings indicate that although TEACCH is a highly structured model that focuses on decreasing problem behaviors and increasing independence, it does not have as high levels of social learning potential as does the LEAP model.
The levels of joint engagement compared did not isolate the potential positive effects of peer social interaction in education. In order to highlight the differences in social learning, a focus on peer joint engagement may have been more effective. Reszka’s (2012) study compared
significantly high, LEAP students interacted with their peers more than their TEACCH
counterparts. In addition to levels of peer interaction, Reszka (2012) recorded what proportion of time was spent socially interacting with adults, finding that while LEAP classrooms had higher proportions of peer social interactions than TEACCH classrooms, TEACCH had higher
proportions of social interaction with adults than LEAP. Although LEAP had slightly higher levels of joint engagement than TEACCH, the difference between the two groups was not
statistically significant. Since the coding system did not isolate peer-directed joint engagement, it is not possible to determine if the differences between LEAP and TEACCH levels would have been statistically significant. It is possible that if the comparison was only in terms of states of joint engagement with a peer, then the results would have been quite different and would, in fact, be more representative of the potential positive effects of social learning from peers.
Importantly, autism is a spectrum, meaning all affected individuals experience it differently. Although the recorded engagement levels favored LEAP classrooms, all students need to be assessed individually to determine the best education plan. LEAP was found to more effectively engage students with ASD, on average, but not all students with ASD can be
compared to the average. While many students may benefit from LEAP’s inclusive, naturalistic
programming, some may excel more in the structured teaching environment that TEACCH classrooms would offer. For each person affected by ASD, education and treatment must be individualized. Future studies could expand on the current study to explore how individual characteristics, like autism severity, language levels, cognitive levels, communication abilities, and social skills, affect joint engagement and unengagement as related to classroom types.
Though TEACCH and LEAP’s differences between joint engagement are not significant,
indicating effective education and a maximization of learning potentials. Wong and Kasari (2012) found that typical levels of joint engagement and unengagement for a preschooler with ASD in eclectic classroom types are about 15% and 37%, respectively. Both TEACCH and LEAP students spent, on average, more time in joint engagement than preschool students with ASD in that previous study. Additionally, while TEACCH students spent about the same time in unengagement as the average student with ASD in the Wong and Kasari study, LEAP students spent much less time unengaged. Though LEAP has significantly lower levels of unengagement than TEACCH, TEACCH students’ proportion of time spent unengaged is comparable to
preschoolers with ASD in the previously studied eclectic preschool classroom settings, indicating that this does not reflect poorly on TEACCH but rather reflects positively on LEAP.
Limitations of the Study
There were several limitations to this study which may have affected the results. These limitations include participant and environmental characteristics, including high quality classrooms and highly trained and experienced teachers. It is possible that not all inclusive or self-contained classrooms would yield such positive results. Additionally, there are possible methodological limitations, including classroom activities observed and a lack of differentiation between peer-directed and adult-directed joint engagement.
The high-quality nature of classrooms and teachers in this study may have increased engagement levels, which may not reflect average preschool classrooms. In both classrooms, students had higher-than-average levels of joint engagement compared to the participants in Wong and Kasari (2012)’s study. These high levels may be indicative of program effectiveness,
classrooms for their models (Hume, et al., 2011). The classrooms used may not represent typical TEACCH and LEAP classrooms, but, the resulting engagement levels represent the intended models’ effect on engagement. In addition, this study’s teachers have had more autism-specific
training compared to the average special education teacher, as their training in TEACCH or LEAP is focused on educating children with ASD. Therefore, the teachers’ high level of training may account for the relatively high levels of joint engagement for both groups, and low
unengagement levels for LEAP. Because of the high level of training and experience these teachers may have, and the high quality of the classrooms observed, the same results cannot be guaranteed in traditional self-contained or inclusive classrooms for preschoolers with ASD. The only videos available were of high-quality classrooms and teachers, so it would not have been possible to observe average TEACCH and LEAP classrooms. In addition, high-quality
instruction in these models indicates that these are the optimal outcomes.
or following directions. Although these are both joint engagement, peer engagement generally has more social aspect. Separately coding joint engagement with peer partners would more accurately depict the benefits of social learning. The activities observed differed between the classrooms, but if research methods had controlled for this variable, the study may not have accurately depicted the typical activities for these classrooms. Though specifying peer partners may have highlighted potential benefits of social learning, it also would limit examination of learning through joint engagement, as complex learning can happen with all partners.
The participant and methodological limitations of classroom quality, teacher experience, activities observed, and joint engagement partner may have had an effect on the engagement levels found. However, one may still have confidence in the results of this study, despite these limitations, because research methods were designed acknowledging the potential effects of these limitations, but adjusting the study to account for these limitations would not have been possible. The results of this study indicate a positive effect of inclusion and naturalistic teaching settings, particularly the LEAP model of education for preschoolers with ASD, on engagement levels of children with ASD. Levels of unengagement were significantly lower in LEAP
classrooms than in TEACCH classrooms, indicating that students in LEAP spend more time with general learning opportunities than TEACCH students. Joint engagement differences between TEACCH and LEAP models were not statistically significant, predicting an equality of complex learning opportunities.
Conclusion
engagement have been linked to learning opportunities, this study compared the levels of time spent unengaged and jointly engaged between two education models for preschoolers with ASD, TEACCH and LEAP. TEACCH, a self-contained, highly structured education environment for children with ASD, is a cognitive approach that focuses on increasing independence and the elimination of students’ behavioral problems. LEAP, an inclusive and naturalistic teaching
method, aims to teach through social interaction. Levels of complex learning through joint engagement were comparable between TEACCH and LEAP, but LEAP had significantly lower levels of unengagement than TEACCH. The findings of this study support an inclusive,
naturalistic teaching method for preschool-aged children with ASD in terms of social learning opportunities, particularly through the LEAP model of education.
Teachers of children with ASD should recognize the positive effects of social learning in inclusive environments when planning students’ IEPs. The findings of this study support theories
that students with ASD will spend more time on task and engaged with their environment if they are placed in high quality classrooms with their peers who are typically developing. Though the TEACCH program aims to make the teaching environment more predictable, and therefore easier for its students with ASD to handle, it ultimately has not shown higher levels of engagement compared to the LEAP model. Debates about inclusive programming have been widespread, but in comparing learning potential through engagement, inclusion has proven to have lower levels of unengagement, maximizing learning opportunities. It is important to note, however, that as both TEACCH and LEAP recognize, ASD is a spectrum disorder, affecting each and every individual differently. While LEAP has shown higher levels of learning
student’s unique needs, strengths, and interests must be taken into account in developing their
References
Adamson, L.B., Bakeman, R., Deckner, D.G., & Romski, M.A. (2009). Joint engagement and the emergence of language in children with autism and Down symdrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(1), 84-96.
Adamson, L.B., Bakeman, R., & Deckner, D.F. (2004). The development of symbol-infused joint engagement. Child Development, 75(4), 1171-1187.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S.A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 575-582.
Bakeman, R., & Adamson, L.B. (1984). Coordinating attention to people and objects in mother-infant and peer-mother-infant interaction. Child Development, 55(4), 1278-1289.
Boyd, B.A., Hume, K., McBee, M.T., Alessandri, M., Gutierrez, A., Johnson, L., Sperry, L., & Odom, S.L. (in press). Comparative efficacy of LEAP, TEACCH, and non-model-specific special education programs for preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.
Buysse, V., Goldman, B.D., & Skinner, M.L. (2002). Setting effects on friendship formation among young children with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68 (4), 503-517.
Dykstra, J., Broderick, K., Dragan, C., Boyd, B., & Watson, L. (2011). Engagement state coding manual. Chapel Hill, NC: Advancing Social-Communication and Play.
Dykstra, J.R. (2012). Student engagement in self-contained classrooms serving students with autism spectrum disorders (Doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Greenwood, C.R., Carta, J.J., & Atwater, J. (1991). Ecobehavioral analysis in the classroom: review and implications. Journal of behavioral education 1(1), 59-77.
Guaralnick, M.J. (1978). Integrated preschools as educational and therapeutic environments: Concepts, design and analysis. In M.J. Guaralnick (Ed.), Early intervention and the integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped children (pp. 115-145). Baltimore: University Park Press.
Hall, L.J. (2009). Autism spectrum disorders: From theory to practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Handleman, J.S., & Harris, S.L. (2008). Introduction. In J.S. Handleman & S.L. Harris (Eds.), Preschool education programs for children with autism (3rd ed.) (pp. 1-14). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Hornby, G. (1999). Inclusion or delusion: Can one size fit all? Support for Learning, 14(4), 152-157.
Hume, K., Boyd, B., McBee, M., Coman, D., Gutierrez, A., Shaw, E… & Odom, S. (2011).
ASD: Reliabiilty and validity of two measures. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5, 1430-1440.
Hume, K., Loftin, R., & Lantz, J. Increasing independence in autism spectrum disorders: a review of three focused interventions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 1329-1338.
Hume, K., & Odom, S. (2007). Effects of an individual work system on the independent
functioning of students with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1166-1180.
IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) (1997) 20 US Congress: Chapter 33, Sections 1400-1491.
Kishida, Y., & Kemp, C. (2009). The engagement and interaction of children with autism spectrum disorder in segregated and inclusive early childhood center-based settings. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29(2), 105-118.
Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive
education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 1-24.
Logan, K.R., Bakeman, R., & Keefe, E.G. (1997). Effects of instructional variables of engaged behavior of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 63(4), 481-498.
communicative and social behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 19 (2), 185-212.
McWilliam, R.A., Trivette, C.M., & Dunst, C.J. (1985). Behavior engagement as a measure of the efficacy of early intervention. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental
Disabilities, 5, 59-71.
Mesibov, G.B., & Shea, V. (1996). Full inclusion and students with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 26(3), 337-346.
Mesibov, G.B., Shea, V., & Schopler, E. (2005). The TEACCH approach to autism spectrum disorders. New York, NY: Plenum Publishers.
Mesibov, G.B., & Shea, V. (2009). The TEACCH program in the era of evidence-based practice. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 570-579.
Mesibov, G.B., Shea, V., & McCaskill, S. (2012). Structured teaching and the TEACCH program. In Zager, D., Wehmeyer, M.L., & Simpson, R.L. (Eds.), Educating Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Research-based principles and practices (pp. 99-112). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mullen, E.M. (1995). Mullen Scales of Early Learning. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services Inc.
Myles, B.S., Simpson, R.L., & deBoer, S. (2008). Inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorders in general education settings. In R.L. Simpson & B.S. Myles (Eds.), Educating Children and Youth with Autism (2nd ed.) (pp. 357-381). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
National Research Council (2001). Educating Children with Autism. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Ochs, E., Kremer-Sadlik, T., Solomon, O., & Sirota, K.G. (2001). Inclusion as social practice: views of children with autism. Social Development, 10 (3), 399-419.
Odom, S.L., Boyd, B.A., Hall, L.J., & Hume, K. (2010). Evaluation of comprehensive treatment models for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 40, 425-436.
Odom, S.L., & Diamond, K.E. (1998). Inclusion of young children with special needs in early childhood education: The research base. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13 (1), 3-25.
Odom, S.L., & McEvoy, M.A. (1988). Integration of young children with handicaps and normally developing children. In S.L. Odom, & M.B. Karnes (Eds.), Early intervention for infants and children with handicaps (pp. 241-267). Baltimore: Brookes.
Odom, S.L., & McEvoy, M.A. (1990). Mainstreaming at the preschool level: Potential barriers and tasks for the field. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10(2), 48-61.
Reed, P., Osborne, L.A., & Waddington, E.M. (2012). A comparative study of the impact of mainstream and special school placement on the behaviour of children with autism spectrum disorders. British Educational Research Journal, 38(5), 749-763.
Reszka, S.S., Odom, S.L., & Hume, K.A. (2012). Ecological features of preschools and the social engagement of children with autism. Journal of Early Intervention, 34(1), 40-56.
Shuler, A.L., & Wolfberg, P.J. (2000). Promoting peer play and socialization: The art of scaffolding. In A.M. Wetherby & B.M. Prizant (Eds.), Autism spectrum disorders: A transactional developmental perspective (Vol. 9) (pp. 251-277). Baltimore: Brookes.
Simpson, R.L., de Boer-Ott, S., Griswod, D.E., Myles, B.S., Byrd, S.E., Ganz, J.B., … Adams, L.G. (2005). Autism Spectrum Disorders: Interventions and treatments for children and youth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Simpson, R.L., & Souris, L.A. (1988). Reciprocity in the pupil-teacher interactions of autistic and mildly handicapped preschool children. Behavioral Disorders, 13(3), 159-168.
Skokut, M. Robinson, S. Openden, D., & Jimerson, S.R. (2008). Promotion the social and cognitive competence of children with autism: interventions at school. The California School Psychologist, 13,93-108.
Strain, P.S. (1983). Generalization of autistic children’s social behavior change: effects of
developmentally integrated and segregated settings. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 3, 23-34.
Strain, P.S., & Bovey, E.H. (2011). Randomized, controlled trial of the LEAP model of early intervention for young children with autism spectrum disorders. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31(3), 133-154.
Strain, P.S., & Bovey, E.H. (2008). LEAP: Learning experiences, an alternative program for preschoolers and parents. In J.S. Handleman & S.L. Harris (Eds.), Preschool Education Programs for Children with Autism (3rd ed.) (pp. 249-281). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Strain, P.S., & Hoyson, M. (2000). The need for longitudinal, intensive social skill intervention: LEAP follow-up outcomes for children with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20, 116-122.
UNESCO (1994). The UNESCO Salamanca statement and framework for action on special educational needs (Paris, UNESCO).
