Autistic Students’ Views on Meaningful Inclusion: A Canadian Perspective

Abstract

This study investigated the self-reported school experiences of autistic students in Canada using a critical disability framework and a phenomenological research lens. Student perception data were collected using a mixed-method convergent parallel research design. Quantitative survey data (n = 72) and qualitative data (n = 19 open-ended responses and n = 10 email interviews) were collected using asynchronous and synchronous methods. Students reported most favorably on their school experiences when they felt welcome, respected, and supported by teachers. This study’s unique finding is that over half of participants preferred to use non-speaking modes of communication because methods such as typing and drawing helped improve the clarity of their messages and minimize feelings of stress and anxiety.

Keywords

inclusive education autism speaking non-speaking Canada

Introduction

Destabilizing ableist practices in research and education requires professionals to continually examine their ontological and epistemological positions and how their beliefs become implicitly and explicitly actioned in their day-to-day practices. For example, belief systems are conveyed in the language we use, including describing “norms” and “averages” and when using instruments standardized on the “general population” (Tremain, 2015, p. 5). The purpose of this study is twofold; first, to explore the self-reported school experiences of Canadian autistic high school students using a critical disability theory framework and a phenomenological informed research lens; and second, to contrast the viewpoints of autistic students with current research on the inclusive characteristics of schools and thus, create provocations for teachers and school leaders to consider ways they can improve the equitable inclusion of autistic students. The research question that guided this study is: What are the self-reported inclusive education experiences of autistic high school students in Canada?

Inclusive Education

The right to appropriate and meaningful education for all students is backed by law, including The International Convention of the Rights of the Child (United Nations in Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989). Additional measures to protect the rights of students with disabilities are provided by The Convention on the Rights of the Person with Disability (United Nations in Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006). Guiding principles for countries to develop inclusive education policies are guided by the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994). While various international organizations have provided countries with definitions of inclusion (Thompson et al., 2015), “no country has yet succeeded in constructing a school system that lives up to the ideals and intentions of inclusion” (Haug, 2017, p. 206). This shortcoming is a dilemma between ideas and reality, where countries and educators philosophically agree with the concept of equal educational rights for persons with special education needs. However, they are uncertain about how to create inclusive learning environments to respond to diverse student populations (Haug, 2017; Messiou, 2019; Mitchell & Sutherland, 2020). Instead, jurisdictional definitions of inclusion have become “masterpiece[s] of rhetoric” (Haug, 2017, p. 207), leading to a “political oversell” (p. 207) that puts teachers in positions of unmanageability and failure. Researchers have identified several factors interfering with the union between theories and practices of inclusive education. For instance, inadequate teacher education and training (Domović et al., 2017; Lord, 2020, McCrimmon, 2015; Roberts & Webster, 2020), language used by governments that are based on the medical model of disability (Lord, 2020), and the increase in neo-liberal trends that value individualism (Haug, 2017). Further complicating discourse on inclusive education best practice is assertions from critical disability theorists that while the objective of integration may strive to create a more inclusive society, integration is a modern form of oppression because it aims to purify and normalize through assimilation (Paterson & Hughes, 1999).

While there are international laws to protect a child’s right to access free education, “Canada has no federal legislation protecting a child with a disability’s right to inclusive education because education comes under provincial and territorial jurisdiction” (Towle, 2015, p. 5). Provincial interpretation of inclusive education policy varies, and in some cases, is different between school jurisdictions within provinces and territories. Current research suggests that approximately 1.5% of Canadian school-aged children are autistic¹ (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2018).

Kluth (2003) identifies the following six key characteristics of inclusive schools: (a) committed leadership, (b) democratic classrooms, (c) reflective educators, (e) supportive culture, (f) engaging and relevant curricula, and (g) responsive instruction. Additional research suggests that the primary barriers impacting the inclusive experiences for both teachers and students are the quality of school leadership (Mitchell & Sutherland, 2020); a lack of teacher knowledge and training (Roberts & Webster, 2020); and the availability of resources to support the specific needs of students (Lindsay et al., 2013). Missing from these stakeholder perspectives are the self-reported viewpoints rooted in the lived experiences of autistic students; which are key if educators and policymakers seek to evaluate the integrity and effectiveness of current inclusive policy and practice.

Autistic Students’ Views on Their Inclusive School Experiences

In the last 20 years, approximately 23 single studies have been published internationally on the self-reported inclusive school experiences of autistic students. Six of these studies were exclusive to students attending secondary school settings (Danker et al., 2016; DePape & Lindsay, 2016; Williams et al., 2019. Since 2016, three meta-synthesis have been published on the self-reported inclusive school experiences of autistic students, and one single study published by Woodfield and Ashby (2016), where uniquely, participants were non-speaking and typed to communicate. A synthesis of these study findings indicates that based on self-reports, autistic high school students are primarily concerned with diagnostic labeling, depression, peer relationships, teacher qualities, access to professional support (Danker et al., 2016; DePape & Lindsay, 2016); and having “space and time” (Woodfield & Ashby, 2016, p. 441) to communicate.

The Current Study

Confronting Ableism: Critical Disability Theory and Phenomenology

Ableism is a form of discrimination that devalues persons with disabilities resulting in practices that aim to remediate or cure a person’s disability (Hehir, 2002). Critical disability theory has evolved from a social critique of disability to an inter/trans-sectionalist interpretation that examines disability from interconnected viewpoints, including postcolonial, political, queer, and feminist theories (Goodley, 2013). The inter/trans-sectionalist elements of critical disability theory allow researchers to consider how “conditions of dominance crisscross in ways that promote values and, simultaneously, justify forms of oppression such as disablism, racism, homophobia and orientalism that negate the existence of Others” (Goodley, 2013, p. 637).

Researchers use phenomenology as a theoretical framework and a research method (Eddles-Hirsch, 2015). This study’s application of phenomenology is to integrate elements of its theoretical and methodological strengths, and because each theoretical framework has its own unique biases, one framework’s strengths can be used to address the other’s limitations. For example, critical theorists have critiqued phenomenology for its over-reliance on “medicalised and individualised understandings of disability” (Paterson & Hughes, 1999, p. 597). Critical disability theory has been criticized by feminists and cultural studies scholars for its binary (medical-social) views of disability and impairment (Meekosha & Shuttleworth, 2009). Thus, to confront tenets of ableism found in phenomenology (Paterson & Hughes, 1999), critical disability theory is useful because it re-connects the disabled body back into the consciousness of the experiencer (Goodley, 2013). Phenomenology helps confront binary views of disability found in critical disability theory by seeking to understand the essence of the experience of disability and impairment and how people make sense of these experiences in their everyday world (Eddles-Hirch, 2015).

Methods

Student perception data was gathered through a mixed-method convergent parallel research design. Flexible opportunities for participants to self-select their preferred time and mode of engagement were supported through asynchronous (online survey) and synchronous (email interview) platforms (Friesen et al., 2019). Quantitative survey data (n = 72) were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and qualitative data (open-ended survey response n = 19 and email interview n = 10) were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were given equal priority (QUAN+QUAL), and upon completing separate initial analyses, quantitative and qualitative findings were merged using a joint display technique called the Pillar Integration Process [PIP] (Johnson et al., 2019).

Ethical Considerations

The selection of instruments and the design of quantitative and qualitative research methods were informed by recommendations from the Person-Oriented Autism Research Ethics (Cascio et al., 2020) task force, suggesting five domains be considered by researchers designing studies with autistic participants. The domains are (1) Individualization, (2) Acknowledgement of Lived World, (3) Respect for Holistic Personhood, (4) Empowerment in Decision-Making, and (5) Researcher-Participant Relationship (Cascio et al., 2020). According to the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (Government of Canada, 2018), participants between the ages of 14–17 years old may qualify as mature minors, and they should be provided with the adult/participant consent form if they possess decision-making capacity. Therefore, participants who met all eligibility requirements consented to participate in the research before beginning the survey and again before participating in the semi-structured email interview. Participant consent also included the publication of data, including student quotes.

Recruitment

A convenience sampling method, specifically snowball sampling (Johnson, 2014), was used in the first and second phases of recruitment. An email invitation was sent to publicly available contacts at provincial and territory autism stakeholder groups. Approximately six weeks following, the same information was emailed to publicly listed school superintendents and parent councils. Three attachments were included in introductory emails, including the following: a parent information letter, a student information booklet, and a social media image of the research invitation. The third phase of recruitment occurred via a posting on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk has been used in research since 2005 (Buhrmester et al., 2011) and is described as an effective method to recruit hard-to-reach populations, including those with disabilities (Anderson et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2015). Research has also shown that MTurk participants are more attentive, thus perform better than comparison groups on completing online surveys (Hauser & Schwarz, 2016), which has positive implications on the benefits of using MTurk samples in social science research (Chandler et al., 2014).

Eligible participants were Canadian citizens between the ages of 15 and 21 who had completed a minimum of one year of high school in a general education setting. Participants self-reported having a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Condition (ASC), Asperger’s Syndrome (AS) or Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS).

Research Setting

Participants responded to the online survey and email interview questions from their own space (Sinclair, 2010). Providing an opportunity for participants to share their experiences from their own space is empowering because it allows autistic participants to “gain visibility and invisibility simultaneously claiming a voice without having to claim a body” (Parsloe, 2015, p. 340). Additionally, participant access to individually owned spaces supports self-determination on when and how long they engage in the research (Tavassoli et al., 2014).

Asynchronous Online Survey

Slightly over half of the participants (56%) completed grade 10, identified as cisgender male (56%), and indicated that they preferred to use a non-speaking mode of communication, such as typing or drawing (57%). Nearly a quarter (24%) of participants indicated that they received support to complete the online survey; however, information on the type of support participants received was not requested. Table 1 summarizes participation from three recruitment phases and the participants’ profile, including location, grade, diagnostic identity, gender identity, communication preference, the reason for participating and if support was received.

Table 1.

Summary of Participant Demographics for the Online Survey.

	Target community	Phase 1	Phase 2	Phase 3	Total	%
		Autism agencies and self-advocacy groups	School superintendents and parent councils	Amazon’s Mechanical Turk	3	n/a
Recruitment	Emails sent	108	155	1 posting	264	n/a
	Survey’s completed	12	8	52	72	n/a
	Location of participants	BC, AB, ONT	BC, AB, ONT, NFLD, YKT	BC, AB, SK, MB, ONT, QC, NFLD, NS, NWT, YKT	8 provinces2 territories	n/a
Grade completed	Gr. 12	2	3	10	15	21%
	Gr. 11	3	3	11	17	24%
	Gr. 10	7	2	31	40	56%
Diagnostic identity	ASC	12	4	37	53	74%
	AS	3	3	9	15	21%
	PDD	1	1	6	8	11%
Gender	Cisfemale	3	2	21	26	36%
Identity	Cismale	7	3	30	40	56%
	Gender queer	1	0	0	1	1%
	Gender non-binary	1	1	1	3	4%
Comm. Preference	Speaking	7	4	20	31	43%
	Typing	3	2	32	37	51%
	Other	2	2	0	4	5%
Reason for participating	Gift card	12	2	20	34	47%
	Includes speaking and non-speaking	7	3	16	26	36%
	Share experiences	2	4	20	26	36%
Support received	Yes	5	2	10	17	24%
	No	7	6	42	55	77%

Synchronous Email Interview

Of the 10 participants who completed the semi-structured synchronous email interview, three participants shared that they preferred to speak to communicate, six participants preferred to type to communicate, and one participant shared that they preferred to draw to communicate. There was no variance in survey responses between participants who only completed the survey and participants who completed the survey and the interview. Only participants (n = 6) who identified typing or another non-speaking mode of communication (n = 1) as their preferred mode of communication were asked to expand on their preferences for using non-speaking communication. Participants from the email interview were randomly assigned pseudonyms at the start of data analysis. Participants’ assigned pseudonyms were not approved and may not reflect their cultural or gender identity. Table 2 provides a summary of participant demographics for the email interview.

Table 2.

Summary of Participant Demographics for the Email Interview.

	Charlie	Armani	Kai	Azariah	Frankie	Sam	Taylor	Alex	Zia	Lennon
Location of the participant	BC	BC	ONT	ONT	BC	BC	AB	BC	BC	BC
Grade completed	12	12	11	10	12	12	11	11	12	11
Diagnostic identity	ASC	ASC	AS	ASC	ASC	ASC	ASC	ASC	ASC	ASC
Communication preference	Speaking	Speaking	Speaking	Typing	Typing	Typing	Typing	Typing	Typing	Other

Materials

Quantitative Data Collection

The Panorama Survey (Gehlbach, 2014) is a free and open-source survey developed by the Harvard Graduate School of Education (Geiger et al., 2019). The Panorama Survey (Gehlbach, 2014) consists of two main categories of scales, the first category relates to classroom and teaching, and the second category relates to the school in general. Each category consists of 10 scales that school organizations can select from, depending on their needs and context. The Panorama Survey (Gehlbach, 2014) was chosen for its robust design to gather student perception data on their educational experiences and its explicitly stated customizable features (Geiger et al., 2019). The Likert style questions apply to students from various socio-economic backgrounds in grades 6–12 who attend public, independent or charter schools. Each of the 10 survey scales has strong coefficient alpha, with each scale being 0.70 or greater and good structural validity established through confirmatory factor analysis (Panorama Education, 2015). Finally, in both pilot tests, different forms of the survey were presented to random samples of students to test phraseology and comparisons to other well-known scales. Test results indicated strong discriminant and convergent validity (Gehlbach, 2014; Panorama Education, 2015).

For this study, 18 survey items were selected from eight survey scales and were chosen based on their likeliness to gather student perception data from autistic students to answer the research question: What are the self-reported school experiences of autistic high school students in Canada? Cronbach’s alpha was used to test scale reliability. A value of 0.7 to 0.95 is considered acceptable (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). Chronbach’s alpha test in SPSS was used to identify the reliability of survey items. The survey items have relatively high internal consistency because the calculated alpha coefficient of the 18 survey items is 0.825. A summary of the 18 survey items is provided in Table 3.

Table 3.

Summary of Survey Items.

Description	Survey items
Student perceptions of the quality of teaching and learning.	1. How often do you receive feedback at school?
	2. How comfortable are you asking questions about what you are learning?
How much students feel that school is interesting, important, and useful.	3. How interesting is school?
How attentive and invested students are in school.	4. How excited are you to go to school?
How attentive and invested students are in school.	5. How eager are you to participate in your classes?
How much students feel that their teachers hold them to high expectations around effort, understanding, persistence, and performance in class.	6. How often do your teachers take the time to ensure you understand the material?
	7. How much do your teachers encourage you to do your best?
How strong the social connection is between teachers and students within and beyond school.	8. Overall, how high are your teachers’ expectations of you?
	9. How many of your teachers are respectful toward you?
	10. How many of your teachers would you be excited to see again in the future?
How much students feel that they are valued members of the school community.	11. Overall, how much do you feel like you belong at your school?
	12. How well do peers at your school understand you as a person?
Perceptions of student physical and psychological safety while at school.	13. How much respect do your peers in your school show you?
	14. How often do you worry about bullying at school?
	15. How often do you worry about online bullying?
Perceptions of the overall social and learning climate of the school.	16. How fair are the rules at school?
	17. How pleasant is the physical space at your school?
	18. How positive is the energy at school?

Qualitative Data Collection

An open-ended question was included at the end of the survey to invite participants to share additional information on their school experiences. Additionally, participants were invited to participate in a 30-minute synchronous email interview. Participants (n = 10) consented to participation by voluntarily providing their email addresses within Qualtrics. Once participants provided their email addresses, they were contacted by the author via email to review the semi-structured email interview format and to set up a mutually convenient time to complete the interview. Based on the first interviewee’s response, the author learned that beginning the interview with an open-ended question may have been too ambiguous and perhaps inadvertently placed pressure on the participant to lead the interview. For example, in response to the following opening question: “

First, is there anything that stands out for you that you would like to share about your school experiences that were not captured by completing the survey? This email interview is flexible, so we can talk about whatever may be important to you or I can start with a couple of questions based on the survey”

The participant replied, “I am not really sure. I’ve had a lot of school experiences so nothing jumps out at me immediately. Do you have any topic suggestions or questions?” Thus, the semi-structured email format was adapted to enhance student engagement in response to participant feedback. This adjustment is an example of how researcher reflexivity was used to guide the succeeding structure and style of the semi-structured email interview. Bryman and Cassell (2006) describe this type of researcher response as cultivated reflexivity. Researchers make responsive decisions to make interviews more meaningful to participants, which requires researchers to be both observers and participants during the interview process (Scott-Barrett et al., 2018). Henceforth, each subsequent interview began with a question or prompt based on a survey item and an openness toward student-led topics. Also, when required, interview questions were altered to support students’ comprehension of the question. For instance, when asked a question about peers, a participant replied, “Could u ask me the same question again but with using different words. I can’t really get the question.” To ensure ongoing assent, participants were informed of the time left in the interview and were asked if they wanted to continue the interview.

Participants’ survey responses were not reviewed before conducting the interview. However, participants’ communication preferences identified in the survey’s demographic portion were reviewed before conducting the semi-structured interview. The reason for reviewing a participant’s preferred mode of communication before the email interview was to ensure that researcher questions and the ensuing discussion were not structurally presumptive toward speaking communication and to provide an opportunity for participants to expand on their communicative preference should they wish. Based on survey items, four main questions or prompts guided the semi-structured email interview. The formulation of questions and prompts were based on significant themes identified by autistic students from previous research and were flexibly used to encourage dialogue between myself and the participant. The four main questions and prompts used are:

1. What school spaces are the most calming for you?

2. Describe a time when you felt respected by a peer.

3. In your opinion, what are the characteristics of a great teacher?

4. Can you tell me more about your preference for non-speaking communication?

Since the interview was conducted via email, which included markers of dates and times, no additional transcription was required. While the average time to complete the interview was 35 minutes, the most extended interview took two hours, where the participant apologized for being a “slow typer.” Participants received a $25 Amazon e-gift card immediately following the interview.

Procedures for Data Analysis

The mixed-method convergent parallel design of the study meant that while quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently in a single phase, data sets from the survey responses and semi-structured interviews were analyzed separately and then integrated for final analysis. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data sets were given equal priority and merged using a joint display technique called the Pillar Integration Process [PIP] (Johnson et al., 2019). The current author and supervisory committee conducted all data analysis to complete the author’s doctoral degree program at the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Quantitative Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics is the statistical description of the properties of a data set. Typical reports include the mean, median, mode, variance, and standard deviation (Creswell, 2014). Two analytical components of descriptive statistics, specifically mean and standard deviation of students’ survey responses, were used for quantitative data analysis because this study did not seek to test a hypothesis or compare within-subject experiences.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Open-ended survey data and email interview data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis, which offers a set of techniques to analyze texts and explain main or frequent ideas or themes within a data collection. Inductive thematic analysis was beneficial because it avoided a priori theory and generated themes from the “bottom-up” as opposed to the “top-down” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 12). This meant that qualitative themes remained strongly connected to students’ self-reports and were less influenced by researcher assumptions and interest in the phenomenon (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Additionally, interpretations of autistic students’ school experiences were not compared to “typical” students’ experiences, a problematic research practice because it perpetuates us-them type thinking (Krumer-Nevo & Sidi, 2012) and contributes to educator views that equate difference with a deficit.

Qualitative data were analyzed together by following six stages: (1) Familiarizing myself with data, (2) Generating initial codes, (3) Searching for themes, (4) Reviewing themes, (5) Naming themes, and (6) Writing themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The author read open-ended survey responses and email transcripts several times to become familiar with the qualitative data. In a separate word document, open-ended survey responses were combined with the email transcripts and two columns were added to the right of the transcripts. In the first column, initial codes from the line-by-line analysis were recorded, and in the second column, names of sub-themes were identified based upon line-by-line analysis.

Using the Pillar Integration Process (PIP) for Data Integration

The Pillar Integration Process (PIP) is a four-stage analytical technique used to integrate mixed-method data (Johnson et al., 2019). The four stages of PIP are listing, matching, checking and pillar building, which is completed after initial quantitative and qualitative analysis. Each stage used to integrate QUAN and QUAL data using PIP is described below:

1. Listing: Raw data (e.g., percentages and selected quotes) were listed in the QUAN Data and QUAL Quotes columns. Next, QUAN categories and QUAL sub-themes identified from the initial analysis were entered in the corresponding columns.

2. Matching: Once relevant data were listed in the QUAN and QUAL columns, entries between QUAN and QUAL columns were matched horizontally to align similar data, which helped refine and organize categories between the two data sets.

3. Checking: Matched data was checked for quality and accuracy, and any identified gaps were verified to improve the quality of data integration. This stage was of particular importance because it served as an additional checkpoint to pause and reflect on QUAN and QUAL data separately and in relation to each other to identify emerging patterns.

4. Pillar Building: Findings identified from the listing, matching, and checking stages were compared to build the pillar of integrated findings from QUAN and QUAL data collection. Each of the integrated themes listed in the pillar is constructed from each row of matched findings in the QUAN and QUAL columns. The findings in the pillar represent the weaved-together viewpoints of students and are used to build a narrative of students’ school experiences.

Using PIP is beneficial because it synthesizes different data sources using a multi-stage technique. Consequently, allowing researchers to convey each step of the data integration process thus promotes transparency and replicability. Additionally, the PIP enables researchers to identify instances of divergence, which are also beneficial in generating new insights on the phenomenon being investigated (Johnson et al., 2019).

Findings

Quantitative Findings

Student responses to 18 survey items are summarized in three categories. These categories are the scales each survey item belongs to in the Panorama Survey (Gehlbach, 2014). The three categories and summary of results for each category are as follows:

1. Pedagogical Effectiveness, Rigorous Expectations and Student-Teacher Relationships: Most students reported feeling respected (82%) and encouraged (77%) by their teachers. While nearly three-quarters (73%) of students felt teachers held high expectations of students, more than half of students (61%) felt teachers did not provide adequate feedback or take the time to ensure students understood the material (59%).

2. Valuing School and School Engagement: While slightly over two-thirds (65%) of students found school interesting, less than half (42%) of students felt eager to participate in class or ask questions (43%).

3. School Belonging, School Safety and School Climate: Nearly two-thirds (60%) of autistic students felt a sense of belonging, and over half (57%) of students felt the school rules were fair. However, half (49%) of autistic students felt respected by peers, and less than a quarter (21%) of students felt that their peers understood them as a person. One-third (33%) of students worried about in-school bullying, and a quarter of students (26%) worried about online bullying. Slightly more than half of the students (58%) were pleased with their school environment.

Table 4 summarizes the mean and standard deviation (SD) for the 14 survey items with four-point Likert-scales, and Table 5 summarizes the mean and SD for the four survey items with five-point Likert scales.

Table 4.

Mean and SD of Survey Responses with Four-Point Likert Scale.

Survey Questions	Almost Always, %	Often, %	Once in a while, %	Almost Never, %	Prefer not to Answer, %	M	SD	N
How often do you receive feedback at school?	15	46	28	10	1	2.64	0.87	72
How interesting is school?	29	36	27	7	1	2.82	0.97	72
How excited are you to go to school?	27	24	24	25	0	2.52	1.14	71
How eager are you to participate in your classes?	24	18	34	23	1	2.41	1.13	71
How often do your teachers take the time to ensure you understand the material?	19	40	26	14	1	2.60	1	70
How much do your teachers encourage you to do your best?	34	43	20	2	0	3.13	0.78	70
Overall, do your teachers have high expectations of you?	26	47	19	7	1	2.89	0.93	70
Overall, are your teachers respectful toward you?	39	43	15	3	1	3.14	0.87	70
Do you feel excited to see your teachers?	19	37	33	11	0	2.63	0.92	70
Overall, how much do you feel like you belong at your school?	29	31	21	19	0	2.70	1.08	70
How well do peers at your school understand you as a person?	20	29	30	21	0	2.47	1.05	70
How much respect do your peers in your school show you?	24	41	26	7	1	2.80	0.94	70
How often do you worry about bullying at school?	13	20	41	24	1	2.19	1	70
How often do you worry about online bullying?	9	17	45	26	3	2.03	0.95	70

Table 5.

Mean and SD of Survey Responses with Five-Point Likert Scale.

Survey Question	Extremely, %	Quite, %	Somewhat, %	Slightly, %	Not, %	Prefer Not to Answer, %	M	SD	N
How comfortable are you asking questions about what you are learning?	19	24	28	17	11	1	4.1	2.7	72
How fair are the rules at school?	26	31	22	13	8	0	4.60	2.78	72
How pleasant is the physical space at your school?	31	28	14	16	11	0	4.76	2.99	71
How positive is the energy at school?	31	27	14	23	4	1	4.92	2.97	71

Qualitative Findings

Upon completing inductive thematic analysis for the 19 open-ended survey responses and ten semi-structured interviews, 23 sub-themes were identified as relevant to autistic high school students’ school experiences. The presentation of themes and sub-themes are grouped based on their relatedness. The four main themes and 23 sub-themes are as follows:

1. Experiences with Teachers: At the core of students’ positive school experiences were the ordinary interactions they had with teachers. Students identified 13 teacher characteristics that they valued most, which consequently led to students feeling more welcomed and accepted in school. The most important teacher qualities students appreciated is understanding, caring, friendly, accepting, respectful, honest, patient, sense of humor, relatable, flexible, passionate about the subject matter, check-in, and personalizes learning. For example, Alex shared, “The ones that stand out to me are the ones who would loudly praise or compliment me for doing well on some assignment, were patient with me when I would ask them to explain some concept I had trouble understanding and would greet me with a smile if I happened to pass by them in the hallway.” Interestingly, of the 23 themes identified in qualitative analysis, over half (57%) relate to student’s experiences with teachers.

2. School Spaces: Three sub-themes emerged from students’ narratives on their experiences related to school spaces and sensory input. Consistently students made connections between school spaces and feelings of stress, anxiety, and overall sense of school belonging. For example, Charlie shared, “I avoid as much as I can open spaces or busy spaces because there is so much going on that I can’t focus on anything. I get anxious that someone will come up and talk to me or ask me for something, and I won’t notice them. I enjoy/spend time in bathroom stalls. They aren’t too great-typically fluorescent lights and bad smells/sights but the good part is you can lock yourself in and no one will bother you if you need a break. I used to lock myself in and break down when I was having a hard time and then pull myself together and go back to being Totally Fine. It helps avoid a lot of the stigma associated with crying or having sensory overload at school because if no one knows, you don’t need to explain yourself.”

3. Experiences with Peers: Three themes emerged from participant accounts of their experiences with peers. Participants shared that peer recognition, peer acceptance, and peer support impacted their identity and sense of value. For instance, Sam shared, “A student I wasn’t very familiar with approached me and said, “Wow, I had no idea you were so smart. I appreciated them saying that to me,” and Jules shared, “There was one time in my school’s anxiety group where people were really nice to me cause I said I was on the spectrum, and I made lots of friends that day.”

4. Communication Experiences: Four sub-themes emerged from students’ self-reports on their communication experiences and preferences in school. Students shared that having access to both speaking and non-speaking methods provided additional time to process information, which improved the accuracy of their messages, and minimized feelings of stress and anxiety in social situations. Interestingly, more than half of students shared that they preferred to use non-speaking modes to communicate with their teachers, such as typing and drawing. For example, Alex shared, “I put typing as my preferred method of communication because I often have trouble coming up with words on the spot when I am talking in person. Like I am always stumbling over my words or stuttering. When I type, I can edit and review what I have to say until it is something that I feel is satisfactory.”

Data Integration Using the Pillar Integration Process

After completing the initial quantitative and qualitative data analysis, quantitative categories and qualitative sub-themes are merged using the Pillars of Integration Process (PIP) (Johnson et al., 2019). This study identified five key areas affecting autistic students’ school experiences. First, teacher characteristics, which include respect, understanding, caring, friendly, fun, relatable, and passionate about teaching, help autistic students feel like they belong in school. Second, autistic students value teachers who personalize learning using flexible pedagogical practices. Students also appreciate when teachers check-in to ensure they understand the material. Thirdly, autistic students seek school spaces that support their unique sensory preferences and having regular access to these spaces helps to reduce feelings of stress and anxiety. Fourth, autistic students desire peer recognition, acceptance, and support; and fifth autistic students use different speaking and non-speaking communication methods as a strategy to improve the clarity of their messages and minimize feelings of stress and anxiety. Table 6 illustrates the PIP process used to integrate quantitative and qualitative data sets and highlights the five main study findings in the center column, named Findings.

Table 6.

Integration of Quantitative Data and Qualitative Data Using Pillar Integration Process.

QUAN data	QUAN categories	Findings	QUAL sub-themes	QUAL quotes
72% of students feel respected by their teachers 73% of students feel teachers encouraged them to do their best60% of students feel like they belong at school	respected, encouraged, school belonging	Teacher characteristics	understanding, caring, friendly, accepting, respectful, honest, patient, sense of humor, passionate about subject matter, relatable	“I really appreciated understanding, caring and friendly characteristics. In addition, I felt welcomed being trusted by teachers.”
61% of students feel teachers provide feedback59% of students feel teachers ensure they understand the material73% of students feel teachers had high expectations of them42% of students feel eager to participate in class43% of students feel comfortable asking questions in class51% of students feel excited to attend school56% of students feel excited to see their teachers in the future65% of students feel school is interesting	teacher feedback, teacher check-ins, teacher expectations, eager to participate, comfortable asking questions, excited to go to school, school is interesting,	Pedagogical practises	flexible, personalized adaptions, checks for understanding	“I don’t really like to ask questions in class, but would ask after the class was over to go over somethings I wasn’t good at or clear on. The best teachers I had didn’t feel like I was bothering or annoying them.”
57% of students feel the school rules are fair59% of students feel that their school spaces are pleasant58% feel that the school energy is positive	fairness of school rules	School Environment	stress, anxiety, belonging	“I usually avoid the cafeteria. I prefer quiet, closed-off spaces. It is a very crowded and noisy environment.”
65% of students feel respected by their peers49% of students feel peers understand them as a person33% of students worry about in-school bullying26% of students worry about online bullying	school spaces, school energy	PeerRelationships	recognition, acceptance, support	“someone who doesn’t treat you differently but understands your weaknesses.”
43% of students preferred speaking communication51% of students preferred typing communication5% of students preferred other modes of communication (art, drawing)	peer respect, peer understanding, bullying (in-school and online)speaking and non-speaking modes of communication	Modes of communication	modes of communication, time to think, accuracy of messages, stress/anxiety	“I prefer to type because I find it easier to give thoughtful answers when I write them down. I have a bit of social anxiety, and it can be hard to think of quality responses on the spot over the phone or in-person”.7/10 interview participants indicated they preferred non-speaking modes of communication.

Discussion of Findings

Using synchronous and asynchronous methods, autistic secondary students residing in Canada were asked to share their views on inclusive education. Autistic students identified the following five main areas as positively or negatively impacting their school experiences: teacher characteristics, pedagogical practices, school environment, peer relationships, and classroom communication tools.

Teacher Characteristics, Student Wellbeing and Achievement

Research shows that teacher relationships with autistic students are marked by higher conflict and less closeness than teacher relationships with non-autistic students (Blacher et al., 2014). Strong student-teacher relationships (STRs) are a protective and predictive factor impacting autistic students’ sense of wellbeing and learning achievement (Caplan et al., 2016; Noble & McGrath, 2014). Aligning with student’s views presented in this study, general education teachers also report that simple actions like greeting students at the door, taking an interest in autistic students’ special interests, and consistently providing compliments and feedback deepens their relationships with autistic students, resulting in less conflict, increased engagement in learning, and greater peer acceptance (Bolourian et al., 2021). Teacher characteristics, including being patient, empathetic, collaborative, adaptive, and active listeners, are considered a universal approach that benefits all students. The recognition of these STR-building strategies by both teachers and autistic students indicates that they are a critical component of inclusive classrooms. While seemingly obvious, these naturalistic teaching approaches do not require specialized funding or training to implement.

Autistic Students and Inclusive Pedagogies

Plenty of research underscores the positive outcomes of using personalized, strength-based approaches for all learners (Hattie & Clarke, 2019). Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is one such approach where educators are challenged to reframe traditional deficit-based thinking and teaching approaches and instead make learning more accessible to students by removing barriers (Meyer et al., 2014). The most reported barrier to learning expressed by autistic students in this study is that they did not feel comfortable participating in class or asking questions. Students shared that they appreciated when teachers understood the value of adapting classroom pedagogies to support their individual preferences and abilities to successfully participate in learning, including offering to talk one-to-one with students or corresponding via email after class. Previous research on the self-reported school experiences of autistic students confirms that when teachers provide flexible opportunities for autistic students to engage in learning, students feel less anxious and stressed at school and experience more academic success (DePape & Lindsay, 2016). However, the visibility of these accommodations and supports are equally important (Humphrey & Lewis, 2008; Saggers et al., 2011). While autistic students value personalized curricular adaptations and flexible pedagogical practices, they do not want accommodations and supports to negatively accentuate their differences, which is an important distinction for teachers to consider when evaluating the effectiveness of accommodations and supports. For example, does the strategy increase student access to learning or put an unnecessary spotlight on the student and their need for support?

School Spaces, Safety and Belonging

Students shared that school spaces significantly impact their engagement in learning, interactions with peers and teachers, feelings of wellbeing, and overall sense of school belonging. Most students stated that they tended to avoid noisy, crowded, and chaotic school spaces and consistently sought out school spaces that created feelings of safety, predictability, control, and ultimately personal success. For example, student accounts of feeling “distracted,” “trapped,” and “socially awkward” because of having to follow predetermined seating arrangements emphasize the importance of incorporating student voice to create alternative learning spaces that support student comfort and safety. Loud and busy school environments are known to overwhelm autistic students, often causing them to take alternate routes or avoid specific spaces altogether to minimize feelings of stress and anxiety (Humphrey & Lewis, 2008; Kopec, 2012; Saggers, 2015). The long-term adverse effects from repeated exposure to stressful and chaotic environments are highlighted in research from the UK that found approximately four in 10 autistic students were “being prescribed medication for anxiety as a result of not being able to cope with the school environment” (Marshall & Goodall, 2015, p. 3162). Research on design standards of classroom spaces is minimal compared to research on evidence-based practices to support autistic students in general education classrooms (Martin, 2016). More commonly, classroom organization is dependent on teacher preferences and the availability of school resources, which may inadvertently create restrictive and stressful learning environments for autistic students (Khare & Mullick, 2009).

Peer Relationships

Less than one-quarter of participants felt understood and respected by their peers. Consequently, these mistakes in recognition can lead to feelings of exclusion, self-doubt, loneliness, and depression (Rosa & Mountain, 2013). Research shows that autistic students experience higher levels of social anxiety and rejection when they attempt to conceal their autism from peers to be viewed as ‘normal’ (Humphrey & Lewis, 2008; Saggers, 2015). Efforts made by autistic students to camouflage their autistic traits result from prolonged exposure to external messages from non-autistic people and ableist practices telling them that it is not normal to be autistic. Similar to non-autistic peers, autistic students value peer recognition, acceptance, and support through friendships and shared activities (Daniel & Billingsley, 2010; Deckers et al., 2017; Petrina et al., 2014). Assigning autistic students school responsibilities to showcase interests and abilities is one of the most salient strategies teachers can use to promote bidirectional prosocial behaviors between autistic and non-autistic students (Bolourian et al., 2021). Positive peer relationships increase autistic students’ sense of in-school safety and belonging (Humphrey & Lewis, 2008; Poon et al., 2014; Saggers, 2015) and are the most effective way to reduce the frequency of bullying (Humphrey & Symes, 2010). While this research found lower reports of bullying than found in other studies, the discrepancy may be attributed to unexamined context factors such as the size of the school and student population, involvement with positive peer groups, teacher training, and jurisdictional commitments on the prevention of bullying. Furthermore, similar to general research on the lived experiences of autistic people, autistic self-reports on their experiences related to in-school and cyberbullying are minimal, thus restricting knowledge researchers and educators have to make solid comparisons.

Re-Thinking Communication

A novel finding in this study is that over half (56%) of the surveyed students shared that they preferred to communicate by typing or another mode of communication, and seven out of 10 students who completed the email interview stated that they preferred to type to communicate. Students shared that they preferred to type to communicate because it helped minimize their stress and anxiety when communicating with teachers in front of classmates and peers in social situations. This explanation is not surprising when anxiety is the most common co-occurring condition in autistic youth, with the highest prevalence (4 in 10) being social phobia (Vasa & Mazurek, 2015). Having “unreliable speech” (Sparrow, 2020; para 3) is also known to cause stress and anxiety when speaking communication is expected. Unreliable speech is when what is said does not match the intended message. Sparrow (2020) states he prefers typing communication over speaking communication when feeling stressed from sensory stimulation and unfamiliar situations. Informed by the self-reports of autistic students both within and beyond this study, school jurisdictions must consider the “‘humanness’ of conventionally accepted communication modes (Douglas et al., 2019, p. 10) used in their schools and the subsequent impact on autistic students’ learning and sense of school belonging. Teachers who provide additional space and time for students who type or draw to communicate improve authentic participation and help create a culture of respect in classrooms (Woodfield & Ashby, 2016).

Implications

Based on the perspectives of autistic students, which historically have been overlooked and undervalued, this study’s findings contribute to discourse and decision-making on inclusive best practices. The implications of these findings are that they offer jurisdictional leaders and teachers insider information to re-shape policies and pedagogical approaches to improve the inclusive landscape of school communities. Findings in this study strongly align with research on the essential characteristics of inclusive schools, as presented by Kluth (2003). For example, students reiterated the critical role welcoming classrooms, reflective educators, supportive school cultures, and responsive instruction has on their overall sense of school belonging and wellbeing. The following five recommendations offer practical suggestions for educators and policymakers to more ethically and successfully include autistic students:

1. Develop strong relationships with students by welcoming and accepting them as they are. School policies and practices that aim to remediate perceived deficiencies are rooted in ableist belief systems that have long-term adverse effects on autistic students’ identity formation, sense of wellbeing, and academic achievement.

2. Ensure multiple opportunities exist for autistic students to share their views and knowledge using speaking and non-speaking communication methods. Multiple representations of students’ voices should be included in the co-identification of supports and strategies to help students access the curriculum and participate in authentic assessment.

3. Provide flexible opportunities for autistic students to be members of school communities by including them in leadership positions to showcase their interests and abilities and to facilitate the development of positive peer networks.

4. To promote psychological and physical feelings of safety and wellbeing, provide autistic students frequent, non-contingent access to low arousal spaces and equipment. Ensure autistic students are included in decisions on locations of learning, including online and in-person learning and in-class seating arrangements.

5. Remove barriers to learning and self-advocacy, including policies that require autistic students to provide medical letters, psycho-educational assessments, speech-language assessments, and occupational therapy assessments to receive curricular adaptations, modifications, and access to assistive technologies.

Limitations

Participants’ financial compensation was variable; for example, only participants recruited through Amazon’s MTurk received payment for completing the online survey. Participants recruited through Amazon’s MTurk were required to be a minimum of 18 years of age to be registered users; thus, most participants of this study (n = 52 or 72%) were between 18 and 21 years of age. The study’s online format may have contributed to sampling bias, where respondents who preferred non-speaking modes of communication were more interested in participating. While most interview participants preferred non-speaking methods of communication, an option to participate in an interview via phone call or video call may have been beneficial. Additionally, participants who may not have had access to technology would have been excluded, potentially limiting the diverse representation of autistic perspectives. Participants who indicated that they received support were not asked to specify the type of support received, which would have been beneficial to strengthen the inclusive design of future studies. Lastly, the sample size was non-randomized, and there was an English-only version of the study.

Conclusion

Informed by the perspectives of Canadian autistic high school students, this study offers important insider information for educators and policymakers to consider as they pursue ways to improve their schools’ inclusive landscape structurally, professionally, and pedagogically. Although minimal in scope, previous research on the self-reported school experiences of high school autistic students supports many of this study’s findings, including the positive impact of building strong student-teacher relationships, using flexible pedagogical practices, offering choice in learning spaces, and positive peer networks have on autistic students’ feelings of acceptance and belonging in school. A unique finding of this study is that more than half of students preferred to use non-speaking modes of communication with their teachers because it helped reduce students’ feelings of stress and anxiety. While each of this study’s five findings highlight priority areas for educators to reflect and act on, viewing them from an intersectional lens will have the most meaningful impact on the wellbeing of autistic students and their everyday experiences at school.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Chandra Lebenhagen

Notes

References

Anderson

Everhart

Woods

(2019). Autism and online recruiting methods: A comparison of mechanical Turk and discussion forums. First Monday, 24(9). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i9.10105.

Blacher

Howell

Lauderdale-Littin

Reed

F. D. D.

Laugeson

E. A.

(2014). Autism spectrum disorder and the student teacher relationship: A comparison study with peers with intellectual disability and typical development. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorder, 8(3), 324–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2013.12.008

Bolourian

Losh

Hamsho

Eisenhower

Blacher

(2021). General education teachers’ perceptions of autism, inclusive practices, and relationship building strategies. J Autism Dev Disord. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-05266-4.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brown

(2011). The significance of semantics: Person first language: Why it matters. Autistic Hoya. https://www.autistichoya.com/2011/08/significance-of-semantics-person-first.html.

Bryman

Cassell

(2006). The researcher interview: A reflexive perspective. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 1(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465640610666633

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2011). Amazon’s mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980

Caplan

Feldman

Eisenhower

Blacher

(2016). Student teacher relationships for young children with autism spectrum disorder: Risk and protective factors. Journal of Autism Developmental Disorders, 46(12), 3653–3666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2915-1

Cascio

Weiss

Racine

(2020). Person-oriented ethics for autism research: Creating best practices through engagement with autism and autistic communities. Autism, 24(7), 1676–1690. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320918763.

10.

Chandler

Mueller

Paolacci

(2014). Nonnaïveté among amazon mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 112–130. https://doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7

11.

Creswell

(2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications

12.

Daniel

L. S.

Billingsley

B. S.

(2010). What boys with an autism spectrum disorder say about establishing and maintaining friendships. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25(4), 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357610378290

13.

Danker

Strnadova

Cumming

(2016). School experiences of students with Autism spectrum disorder within the context of student wellbeing: A review and analysis of the literature. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 40(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2016.1

14.

Deckers

Muris

Roelofs

(2017). Being on your own or feeling lonely?: Loneliness and other social variables in youths with autism spectrum disorders. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 48(5), 828–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-016-0707-7

15.

DePape

A-M.

Lindsay

(2016). Lived experiences from the perspective of individuals with Autism spectrum disorder: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Focus on Autism and Other Disabilities, 31(1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357615587504

16.

Domović

Vidović Vlasta

Bouillet

(2017). Student teachers’ beliefs about the teachers’ role in inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(2), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1194571

17.

Douglas

Rice

Runswick-Cole

Easton

Gibson

Grunion-Wood

Klar

Shields

(2019). Re-storying autism: A body becoming disability studies in education approach. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 605–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1563835.

18.

Eddles-Hirsch

(2015). Phenomenology and educational research. International Journal of Advanced Research, 3(8), 251–260. http://www.journalijar.com/article/5631/phenomenology-and-educational-research/

19.

Friesen

Creswell

Moore

Dueck

(2019). Pragmatism and the conduct of everyday life. Culture & Psychology, 25(2), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X18820674

20.

Gehlbach

(2014). Panorama student survey. Panorama Education. https://www.panoramaed.com/panorama-student-survey

21.

Geiger

Amrein-Beardsley

Chan

S.-J.

(2019). Student perception surveys for K-12 teacher evaluation in the United States: A survey of surveys. Education Policy, 6(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1602943

22.

Goodley

(2013). Dis/entangling critical disability studies. Disability & Society, 28(5), 631–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.717884

23.

Government of Canada (2018). Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans (TCPS 2): Consent. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/interpretations/consent-consentement/

24.

Hattie

Clarke

(2019). Visible learning: Feedback. Routledge.

25.

Haug

(2017). Understanding inclusive education: Ideals and reality. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 19(3), 206–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2016.1224778

26.

Hauser

D.J.

Schwarz

(2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 400–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z

27.

Hehir

(2002). Eliminating ableism in education. Harvard Educational Review, 72(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.1.03866528702g2105

28.

Humphrey

Lewis

(2008). What does “inclusion” mean for pupils on the autistic spectrum in mainstream secondary schools? Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 8(3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2008.00115.x

29.

Humphrey

Symes

(2010). Perceptions of social support and experience of bullying among pupils with autistic spectrum disorders in mainstream secondary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(1), 77-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250903450855.

30.

Johnson

(2014). Snowball Sampling: Introduction. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat05720.

31.

Johnson

R. E.

Grove

A. L.

Clarke

(2019). Pillar integration process: A joint display technique to integrate data in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817743108

32.

Khare

Mullick

(2009). Designing inclusive educational spaces with reference to Autism. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1, 517-520. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120905300807.

33.

Kluth

(2003). You’re going to love this kid! Teaching students with Autism in inclusive classrooms. Brookes

34.

Kopec

A. (2012). Environmental Psychology for Design. Fairchild Books.

35.

Krumer-Nevo

Sidi

(2012). Writing against othering. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(4), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800411433546

36.

Lindsay

Proulx

Thomson

Scott

(2013). Educators’ challenges of including children with Autism spectrum disorder in mainstream classrooms. International Journal of Disability Development and Education, 60(4), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912x.2013.846470

37.

Lord

(2020). Access to inclusive education for Canadian students with autism: An analysis of Canada's compliance with the United nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 9(5), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3111871

38.

Marshall

Goodall

(2015). The right to appropriate and meaningful education for children with ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(10), 3159–3167. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2475-9.

39.

Martin

C. S.

(2016). Exploring the impact of the design of the physical classroom environment on young children with Autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16(4), 280–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12092

40.

McCrimmon

(2015). Inclusive education in Canada. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50(4), 234–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451214546402

41.

Meekosha

Shuttleworth

(2009). What’s so ‘critical’ about critical disability studies? Australian Journal of Human Rights, 15(1), 47–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238x.2009.11910861

42.

Messiou

(2019). The missing voices: Students as a catalyst for promoting inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(7–8), 768–781. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1623326

43.

Meyer

Rose

D. H.

Gordon

(2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST

44.

Mitchell

Sutherland

(2020). What really works in special and inclusive education (3rd ed.). Routledge

45.

Noble

McGrath

(2014). Wellbeing and resilience in school settings. In Fava

G. A.

Ruini

(Eds.), Increasing psychological wellbeing in clinical and educational settings: Interventions and cultural contexts (pp. 135–152). Springer

46.

Panorama Education (2015). Validity brief: Panorama student survey. https://go.panoramaed.com/hubfs/Panorama_January2019/Docs/validity-brief.pdf

47.

Parsloe

(2015). Discourses of disability, narratives of community: Reclaiming an autistic identity online. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 43(3), 336–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2015.1052829

48.

Paterson

Hughes

(1999). Disability studies and phenomenology: The carnal politics of everyday life. Disability and Society, 14(5), 597–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599925966

49.

Petrina

Carter

Stephenson

(2014). The nature of friendship in children with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2013.10.016

50.

Poon

Soon

Wong

Kaur

Khaw

Tan

(2014). What is school like? Perspectives of Singaporean youth with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.693401.

51.

Public Health Agency of Canada (2018). Autism spectrum disorder among children and youth in Canada in 2018. A report of the national Autism Spectrum Disorder surveillance system. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/infographic-autism-spectrum-disorder-children-youth-canada-2018.html

52.

Roberts

Webster

(2020). Including students with autism in schools: a whole school approach to improve outcomes for students with autism. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(7), 701–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1712622.

53.

Rosa

Mountain

(2013). Psychoanalytic listening to socially excluded young people. Cultura e Scuola, 18, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1057/pcs.2012.2.

54.

Saggers

(2015). Student perceptions: Improving the educational experiences of high school students on the autism spectrum. Improving Schools, 35(2), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480214566213.

55.

Saggers

Hwang

Y. S.

Mercer

K.L.

(2011). Your voice counts: Listening to the voice of high school students with autism spectrum disorder. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 35(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajse.35.2.173

56.

Scott-Barrett

Cebula

Florian

(2018). Listening to young people with autism: Learning from researcher experiences. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 1–22(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2018.1462791

57.

Sinclair

(2010). Cultural community: Being autistic together. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v30i1.1075.

58.

Smith

N. A.

Sabat

I. E.

Martinez

L. R.

Weaver

(2015). A convenient solution: Using MTurk to sample from hard-to-reach populations. In: Industrial and organizational psychology. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.29

59.

Sparrow

(2020). Autistic in the pandemic: A call to action. Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism. http://www.thinkingautismguide.com/2020/03/autistic-in-pandemic-call-to-action.htm

60.

Tavakol

Dennick

(2011). Making sense of cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.

61.

Tavassoli

Miller

Schoen

Nielson

Baron-Cohen

(2014). Sensory over-responsivity in adults with autism spectrum conditions. Autism: the International Journal of Research and Practice, 18(4), 428–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361313477246

62.

Thompson

S. A.

Lyons

Timmons

(2015). Inclusive education policy: What the leadership of Canadian teacher associations has to say about it. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(2), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.908964

63.

Towle

(2015). Disability and inclusion in Canadian education: Policy, procedure and practice. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. National Office https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/NationalOffice/2015/07/Disability_and_Inclusion_in_Education.pdf

64.

Tremain

(Ed.). (2015). Foucault and the Government of Disability. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.8265343

65.

UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. http://www.csie.org.uk/inclusion/unesco-salamanca.shtml.Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality, Salamanca, Spain, 7–10 June 1994

66.

United Nations (1989). Convention on the rights of the child, office of the high commissioner. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx?fbclid=IwAR35cVUouzhmgWieqVBgZYcB2B0AxOmow0WCMu4zy7eIWfQD-VMAwGkORks.

67.

United Nations (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. http://www.refworld.org/docid/4680cd212.html

68.

Vasa

R. A.

Mazurek

M. O.

(2015). An update on anxiety in youth with autism spectrum disorders. Current opinion in psychiatry. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 28(2), 83–90, https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000133

69.

Williams

E. I.

Gleeson

Jones

B. E.

(2019). How pupils on the autism spectrum make sense of themselves in the context of their experiences in a mainstream school setting: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Autism: the International Journal of Research and Practice, 23(1), 8–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361317723836

70.

Woodfield

Ashby

(2016). ‘The right path of equality’: Supporting high school students with autism who type to communicate. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(4), 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1088581