Date: Tuesday 5 September 2017

Time: 11.30-12.30pm

Paper number:3693739

Responding to autistic sociality in conversations with pupils about their learning

DrCarmel Conn

University of South Wales, Newport, UK

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Theory and practice in relation to autism education is dominated by a medicalisedconceptualization of teaching and learning as straightforwardly ‘knowledge transfer’ (Guldberg 2016). The focus has been fully on the autistic pupil and their impairment, with a deficit-development approach to learning most often promoted (Kasari and Smith 2013). Recent micro-level research of interaction, however, provides evidence of autistic children showing communication competences they were not thought to have, for example, echolalia used to convey meaning (Korkiakangas and Rae 2013, Tuononen et al. 2014). This contributes to the idea of a form of ‘autistic sociality’ (Ochs and Solomon 2010) and calls for a more complex pedagogical response.

AIMS AND ANALYSIS: This paper reports on the pilot study for a knowledge inquiry into practitioner engagement with autistic pupils’ learning that took place in two mainstream primary schools in the south Wales area. The study used a participatory design in which practitioners (teachers and support staff) were invited to be co-inquirers and contribute to the gathering and analysis of information about the ways in which autistic pupils engage in learning interactions.The pilot study had the following three specific aims:

  1. To explore actions needed to set up an inquiry group into the learning of autistic pupils, with mainstream practitioners acting as co-inquirers.
  2. To test methods for gathering information about learning conversations in an ordinary classroom setting.
  3. To explore conversation analysis (CA) as an approach to data analysis within a participatory framework.

Transcription conventionsdeveloped by Jefferson (Atkinson and Heritage1984) and used in conversation analysis were applied to moments of recorded interaction identified by co-inquirers. Key to analysis was reflection by practitioner participants, in their settings and in a follow up event, on recorded moments of interaction.

FINDINGS: Analysis indicted that practitioners showed a preference for interactions that reflected processes in dialogic teaching, that is,an ordinary element of teaching ing pupils are encouraged to reason and explain rather than simply prompted.Pupils showed capabilities in interaction at a structural level of cooperation, such as providing preferred responses and appropriate situational scenarios with minimal pauses.Practitioners used talk flexibly, to support topic learning in relation to lesson content, but also social-emotional learning as the need arose.

References
Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (1984)‘Transcript notation’. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studiesin Conversation Analysis, pp. ix – xvi. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Guldberg, K. (2016) ‘Evidence-based practice in autism educational research: can we bridge the research and practice gap?’, Oxford Review of Education, Nov 27:1-13.

Kasari, C. and Smith, T. (2013) ‘Interventions in schools for children with autism spectrum disorder: methods and recommendations’, Autism, 17: 254–67.

Korkiakangas, T. K. and Rae, J. P. (2013) ‘Gearing up to a new activity: how teachers use object adjustments to manage the attention of children with autism’, Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29: 83-103.

Ochs, E. and Solomon, O. (2010) ‘Autistic sociality’, Ethos, 38: 69-92.

Tuononen, K. J. S., Laitila, A. and Kärnä, E. (2014) ‘Context-situated communicative competence in a child with autism spectrum disorder’, International Journal of Special Education, 29: 4-17.