A. I: :31.
a . 35th :44

man
— .

’45:...3

:. .5

.131“ .9 a
, 2

o

unit».
, maizfingxlu
.finis

.
vi. n .
iifirnfi
MK»: 3:
: I 4

V , , 212..
\mwurfimk
v: surf/,rfifl

in: .1

:
Kurtis“
1. 7 ‘ , . .7 4, .
. . J 1 V5.
. an: .. .{J .. ,._.w%.s_.
Artur. Elna“ “ v

1 n V WM»:
. . .3} ,
impamuua . . , . M ,
. . . Lt}.
.. . i3: .1

. w
(thunk;

3.. ant:
.. "Van?
.2:
{Iszan
.9...’. «:1:
{in s.
25.21

(2

.rl.5...¥.sv., .
\. LIE. .2.‘ a

y“ I - .‘gi’ :-

. .t‘épiA 4'

his!!! a... .
8“

 

.A‘ I
LI!

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

SOCIAL INTERACTIONS OF STUDENTS WITH AUTISM
IN GENERAL PHYSICAL EDUCATION

presented by

MARY MARTHA DOUGLAS

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph. D. degree in Kinesiolgqy

 

 

Major Professor’s Signature

749/0?

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE _ DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5108 K:IProj/Acc&Pres/CIRCIDaIeDue.indd

 

 

 

SOCIAL INTERACTIONS OF STUDENTS WITH AUTISM
IN GENERAL PHYSICAL EDUCATION

By

Mary Martha Douglas

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Kinesiology

2009

ABSTRACT

SOCIAL INTERACTIONS OF STUDENTS WITH AUTISM
IN GENERAL PHYSICAL EDUCATION

By
Mary Martha Douglas

The purpose of this study was to examine the nature and frequency of social
interactions among students with autism and other individuals (i.e., classmates, teachers,
and aides) during various tasks in general physical education (GPE), relative to social
interactions in other education settings. A multiple-case study approach was used to
investigate the research questions. This study used observational data supplemented by
qualitative field notes. Each of two cases were comprised of a student with autism, a
comparison classmate without disability, and a shared GPE and academic class. Each
case was observed for five class sessions in both GPE and an academic class (i.e., math
or social studies). Behavioral observations were coded using the Analysis of Inclusion
Practices in Physical Education, Form S-Revised (AIPE-SR, Hodge & Hersman, 2007),
the Academic Learning Time form'and its specific physical education adaptation (ALT-
PE, Siedentop et a1., 1982), and the Behaviors of Eating and Activity for Children’s
Health Evaluation System (BEACHES, McKenzie et a1., 1991). Data were analyzed
using basic descriptive statistics, chi-square analyses, and visual analyses.

Results of the study revealed that students with autism did not interact with
classmates at the same level as the comparison classmates. However, students with
autism did interact more with classmates during GPE than during the academic class.
Students with autism were observed interacting more with aides than with classmates in

all but one setting. Specifically, one participant with autism interacted more with

classmates than with the aide in GPE. The number of interactions of students with autism
with their teachers was very low. In fact, in certain class sessions students with autism
had no direct interactions with teachers.

Results indicated that the majority of interactions by students with autism were
appropriate or positive in nature. The highest number of positive interactions occurred
for both students with autism in GPE. Students with autism were observed having lower
levels of inappropriate and off-task behaviors than their classmates. The students with
autism and the comparison classmates had the highest number of interactions during the
ALT-PE activity category.

The individuals in the setting, the tasks in which they engage, and the nature of
the physical activity environment, should all be considered when evaluating social
interactions among students with autism in GPE and academic settings. When there is a
desire to foster social interactions, there must be time allowed for activity in the class.

On the basis of this study, it is difficult to say conclusively that GPE is an environment
which fosters social interactions for students with autism, but it does support the claim
that GPE may be a more social environment than academic classes. GPE was found to be
a unique educational setting in which appropriate and positive interactions with

classmates were fostered in all students, including students with autism.

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents for their never-failing love, support,

guidance, encouragement, humor, and friendship.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project would have not been possible without the help of several individuals.
I would like to sincerely thank my advisor, Dr. Gail Dummer, for her support throughout
my graduate student career and the completion of this dissertation. I greatly appreciate
her guidance of my professional development during the past four years.

I would also like to recognize the contributions of the members of my committee,
Dr. Deborah Feltz, Dr. Kelly Mix, and Dr. Summer Ferreri. This project would not have
been successful without their teachings and guidance.

I want to thank Marissa Siebel for her contributions and assistance with data
collection and analyses. This project could not have been completed without her help. In
addition, I would like to thank the participants, parents, and teachers for sharing their
time and classrooms with me. I am grateful for their generosity.

Most importantly, I want to thank my wonderful family for their love and support.
My parents, John and Mary Douglas, have always led me to believe that I could succeed
in anything I pursued. Their love and encouragement has been invaluable throughout my
entire life. My brother and his wife, Brian and Katia Douglas, have been a wonderful
support system to which I know I can always turn. I would also like to thank my best
friend, Kyle Hackney, for his love, patience, encouragement, and continuous support

through all parts of this journey.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

Overview of the Problem ..................................................................................... 1

Significance of the Problem ................................................................................. 8

Purpose of Study ............................................................................................... 12

Need for the Study ............................................................................................. 13

Research Questions ........................................................................................... 14

Definitions of Terms ........................................................................................ 15

Limitations ........................................................................................................ 16

Delimitations ..................................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................................ 18

People in the Setting .......................................................................................... 19

Students with Autism ............................................................................. 19

Classmates without Autism .................................................................... 27

Physical Education Teachers .................................................................. 29

Environment ...................................................................................................... 36

Tasks ................................................................................................................. 42

Interaction of People, Environment, and Tasks .................................................. 46

Environmental Considerations ............................................................... 46

Physical Activity Preferences ................................................................. 47

Physical Fitness ..................................................................................... 48

Physical Activity Skills .......................................................................... 48

Measurement Issues .......................................................................................... 50

Social Interactions ................................................................................. 51

Level of Engagement in Activity... ......................................................... 51

Summary ........................................................................................................... 53
CHAPTER 3

METHOD ..................................................................................................................... 54

Research Design ................................................................................................ 54

Participants ........................................................................................................ 55

Case Definition and Criteria ................................................................... 55

Case 1 — Kevin and Adam ...................................................................... 58

Case 2 — Lee and Zack ........................................................................... 61

lnstrurnentation ................................................................................................. 65

Demographic Survey ............................................................................. 65

vi

Field Notes ............................................................................................ 65

AIPE-SR ................................................................................................ 66
ALT—PE ................................................................................................. 69
BEACHES ............................................................................................. 71
Procedures ......................................................................................................... 74
Logistics ................................................................................................ 74
Data Collection ...................................................................................... 74
Key Personnel ........................................................................................ 76
Data Management .................................................................................. 78
Data Analyses ................................................................................................... 79
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 81
Frequency of Social Interactions ........................................................................ 81
Case 1 — Kevin and Adam ...................................................................... 82
Case 2 - Lee and Zack ........................................................................... 87
Cross-case Comparisons ........................................................................ 90
Nature of Social Interactions ............................................................................. 95
Case 1 — Kevin and Adam ...................................................................... 96
Case 2 — Lee and Zack ........................................................................... 98
Cross-case Comparisons ....................................................................... 101
Tasks and Social Interactions ............................................................................ 103
Case 1 — Kevin and Adam ..................................................................... 103
Case 2 — Lee and Zack .......................................................................... 109
Cross-case Comparisons ....................................................................... 111
Interactions of Nature and Tasks ....................................................................... 114
Case 1 — Kevin and Adam ..................................................................... 114
Case 2 — Lee and Zack .......................................................................... 117
Cross-case Comparisons ....................................................................... 119
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 120
Contributions to the Literature .......................................................................... 120
Environment ......................................................................................... 120
Frequency of Interactions ...................................................................... 122
Nature of Interactions ........................................................................... 124
Tasks and Social Interactions ................................................................ 126
Limitations ....................................................................................................... 128
Recommendations ............................................................................................ 131
Future Research .................................................................................... 131
Practitioners .......................................................................................... 132
Summary .......................................................................................................... 134
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 137
A: Definition of Autism .................................................................................... 138
B: MSU IRB Approval Letter ........................................................................... 140
C: Consent and Assent Documents ................................................................... 142

vii

 

D: Demographic Surveys .................................................................................. 157

E: Observation Field Notes ............................................................................... 161
F: Combined Observation Instrument ............................................................... 170
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 174

viii

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table 1 1

Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

Table 15

LIST OF TABLES

Individuals in Case 1 ................................................................................... 59
Individuals in Case 2 ................................................................................... 62

Case 1 — Frequency of Social Interactions
Across 5 GPE and Academic Sessions ......................................................... 82

Case 1 — Frequency of Social Interactions in GPE
as a Function of the Other Individual in the Interaction ................................ 83

Case 1 — Frequency of Social Interactions in Math
as a Function of the Other Individual in the Interaction ................................ 85

Case 2 — Frequency of Social Interactions in GPE
as a Function of the Other Individual in the Interaction ................................ 88

Case 2 — Frequency of Social Interactions in Social Studies
as a Function of the Other Individual in the Interaction ................................ 91

Chi-square Analysis of the
Total Frequency of Interactions .................................................................. 93

Chi-square Analysis of the Total Frequency
of Interactions with Classmates .................................................................... 94

Case 1 — Frequency of Social Interactions
in GPE as a Function of Type of Interaction ................................................ 97

Case 1 — Frequency of Social Interactions
in Math as a Function of Type of Interaction ................................................ 98

Case 2 — Frequency of Social Interactions
in GPE as a Function of Type of Interaction ................................................ 99

Case 2 — Frequency of Social Interactions
in Social Studies as a Function of Type of Interaction ................................. 101

Chi-square Analysis of the Nature of Interactions ....................................... 102

Case 1 — Frequency of Interactions in GPE
as a Function of ALT-PE Task Categories .................................................. 105

ix

 

Table 16

Table 17

Table 18

Table 19

Table 20

Table 21

Table 22

Table 23

Table 24

Table 25

Case 1 — Frequency of Interactions in GPE

as a Function of BEACHES Physical Activity Levels ................................. 106
Case 1 — Frequency of Interactions in Math

as a Function of ALT-PE Task Categories .................................................. 108
Case 1 - Frequency of Interactions in Math

as a Function of BEACHES Physical Activity Levels ................................. 109
Case 2 — Frequency of Interactions in GPE

as a Function of ALT-PE Task Categories .................................................. 110
Case 2 — Frequency of Interactions in Social Studies

as a Function of ALT-PE Task Categories .................................................. 112
Chi-square Analysis of the ALT-PE Tasks .................................................. 113

Case 1 - Frequency of Interactions in ALT-PE Categories
in GPE as a Factor of Nature of Interactions ............................................... 115

Case 1 - Frequency of Interactions in ALT-PE Categories
in Math as a Factor of Nature of Interactions .............................................. 116

Case 2 - Frequency of Interactions in ALT-PE Categories
in GPE as a Factor of Nature of Interactions ............................................... 117

Case 2 - Frequency of Interactions in ALT-PE Categories
in Social Studies as a Factor of Nature of Interactions ................................. 118

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

LIST OF FIGURES

A visual conceptualization of three
intertwining factors of social interaction ...................................................... 18

Case 1 — Total frequency of interactions with
various individuals across the five GPE class sessions ................................. 84

Case 1 — Total frequency of interactions with
various individuals across the five math class sessions ................................. 86

Case 2 — Total frequency of interactions with
various individuals across the five GPE class sessions ................................. 89

Case 2 — Total frequency of interactions with
various individuals across the five social studies class sessions .................... 92

xi

 

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Individuals with autism typically demonstrate deficits in both social skills and
physical activity. Difficulty with social skills is an extremely prominent feature of autism
and is most likely exacerbated by difficulties in communication. Due to unique
behavioral characteristics, individuals with autism are frequently excluded from physical
activity. As a result they may not acquire the physical skills necessary to perform at the
same levels as classmates, or peers, without disabilities. This lack of physical skill may
translate into isolation in physical activity settings, which could further impede social
skill development. Extant research suggests that both social skill problems and physical
activity problems can be addressed in general physical education (GPE).

Overview of Problem

McConnell (2002) states that “it is accepted as a logical truism and empirical fact
that children and adults with autism demonstrate some delays, deficits, or atypical
characteristics in the frequency, types, and quality of social interactions and social
relationships with other individuals” (p. 351). In fact, social difficulty is one of the most
defining characteristics of autism. Inadequate social skills are an essential feature of the
original description of autism (Kanner, 1943). This unique characteristic has been a
component of almost all diagnostic classification systems for autism (McConnell, 2002).
Obvious social difficulties have led researchers to focus on describing the developmental
path of social interactions, and caused considerable attention to be placed on creating

interventions to facilitate social skill development (McConnell, 2002; Rogers, 2000).

Individuals with autism present a heterogeneous set of behavioral characteristics,
which can cause significant problems in social interactions with others (Coyne &
Fullerton, 2004; Howlin, 1986; Reid & Collier, 2002). Often, the behavior of an
individual with autism “does not fit into others’ perceptions of what is ‘normal’” (Coyne
& Fullerton, 2004, p. 18). An individual with autism may have trouble initiating or
maintaining a conversation, repeat words or phrases, show preference to being alone,
throw tantrums, or make little to no eye contact (Autism Society of America, 2008).
Howlin (1986) noted that social interactions with an individual with autism may also be
limited due to his or her lack of reciprocity, lack of cooperative play, lack of empathy to
others’ feelings, or even spending a large amount of time engaged in stereotypic
behaviors. Social skills such as sharing or turn-taking are generally under-developed as
well (Coyne & Fullerton, 2004). It has been shown that the more severe the social skill
deficits, the less likely it is for an individual with autism to form peer relationships
(Orsmond, Krauss, & Seltzer, 2004).

Language and communication difficulties may limit or influence social
interactions among individuals with autism and others (Garfin & Lord, 1986). The A
production of verbal and nonverbal language can present problems for an individual with
autism (Garfin & Lord, 1986). Children with autism are less likely to engage in
spontaneous talking, and instead are likely to focus on specific topics of conversation
(Garfm & Lord, 1986), such as dinosaurs or cars. They may also be less successful than
youths without disabilities in using language to communicate their thoughts, feelings, or
needs (Tager-Flusberg, 1981). Approximately 40% of children with autism are

completely nonverbal and may communicate through grunts or gestures (Powers, 2000).

However, qualitative differences have even been found in the use of gestures by children
with autism (Hermelin & O'Connor, 1985). Children with Down syndrome and children
without disabilities have been found to use a far wider range of gestures than children
with autism. Children with autism often use gestures as attempts to stop the interaction
and convey the message “go away” or “be quiet” (Hermelin & O'Connor, 1985).

Along with language production deficits, comprehension difficulties of both
verbal and nonverbal language can impact social interactions for individuals with autism
(Garfin & Lord, 1986). Children with autism frequently have difficulty responding
appropriately to nonverbal communications, including facial expressions, tone of voice,
and gestures (Powers, 2000; Ricks & Wing, 1976). They may have trouble picking up
cues about the affect, attitude, and feelings of others. This may lead to difficulty with
empathy, which can inhibit social interactions (Garfin & Lord, 1986). Comprehension of
verbal language about abstract concepts such as space, time, and emotions are often
, difficult for individuals with autism. Garfin and Lord (1986) note that, “even higher-
functioning verbal children with autism may have a very difficult time interacting with
nonhandicapped [sic] peers due to subtle but significant comprehension deficits
involving the failure to understand colloquial expressions, humor, and more abstract
concepts and ideas” (p. 141).

These behavioral and communication characteristics often limit the amount of
appropriate social interaction an individual with autism experiences, especially with
others without disabilities (Fox, Dunlap, & Buschbacher, 2000). Challenging or
problematic social behaviors such as tantrums, standing too close to another when

speaking, or saying inappropriate things without knowing (Winnick, 2005), can pose

problems for parents, educators, therapists, and employers (Collier & Reid, 2003). Due
to such behaviors, individuals with autism are often excluded from general education
settings, community environments, and integrated work environments (Koegel, Koegel,
& Dunlap, 1996). This separation and isolation can result in decreased opportunities for
social interactions and development of friendships (Fox et al., 2000). Therefore an
individual with autism, who may already have social deficits, now has even less
opportunity to practice or learn from social interactions with others.

Social exclusion can further limit opportunities for physical activity and
recreation, especially outside of school (Collier & Reid, 2003; Coyne & Fullerton, 2004).
Most recreation or physical activities have social aspects (Coyne & Fullerton, 2004);
thus, special attention to programming may be required to accommodate the social
differences of an individual with autism (Coyne & Fullerton, 2004). Collier and Reid
(2003) note that “it is a sad reality that significant behavioral problems make it very
difficult to include students with ASD [autism spectrum disorder] in community
recreation programs” (p. 36). Also, the preference of individuals with autism to be alone
or work in isolated settings (Winnick, 2005) is not conducive to most physical activity or
team-oriented programs.

Physical activity and recreation provide valuable opportunities for individuals
with autism to engage in and learn from social interactions (Groft & Block, 2003).
Physical activities are natural settings for promoting positive social interaction (Kitson,
1993; O'Connor, French, & Henderson, 2000; Reid & O'Connor, 2003; Schleien, Heyne,
& Berken, 1988). Studies have found that game experiences help individuals with

disabilities become more capable of socially interacting (Collard, 1981; Jansma, 1982;

Wehman & Schleien, 1981). Physical activity settings can frequently create game
experiences. However, even though physical activities provide opportunities for social
interactions, individuals with autism may be excluded from such settings due to
behavioral or sensory issues.

Physical education in school may provide the bulk of physical activity for youths
with autism (Pan, 2008; Pan & Frey, 2006), and may present a valuable venue for social
interactions. In 2006, Pan and Frey conducted a study evaluating physical activity habits
of school-age youths with autism, and found only 40% of participants with autism were
involved in extra-curricular physical activity programs. Of the 40% of students with
autism involved in extra-curricular physical activity, only 10% were high school students
and 30% were elementary school students (Pan & Frey, 2006). In comparison, 37% of
high school students and 84% of elementary school students without disabilities
participate in at least one community-based physical activity (Kann, Warren, & Harris,
1999). Pan and Frey (2006) illustrated the lack of involvement by youths with autism,
whether limited by access or preference, in physical activity programs outside of school.
Since youths with autism are less involved in physical activity programs which could be
an ideal venue for gaining valuable social interactions, they could have less opportunity
to foster improved social skills.

As the number of students with autism continues to rise, inclusive physical
education will increasingly have students with autism present (Block, 2006). Autism is
one of the fastest growing disability groups in the United States of America (Block,
2006). The Autism Society of America (ASA) reports that 1 in 166 babies born today

will develop an autism spectrum disorder (ASA, 2008). Statistics from the US.

Department of Education show considerable increases in the number of children with
autism, ages 6-21, served by the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
between 1992 and 2000. Overall, the 50 states plus Puerto Rico and the District of
Columbia, reported a total of 12,222 children with autism in 1992-1993 and 65,396
children in 1999-2000, ages 6-21, served under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, a staggering increase of 435% (United States Department of Education,
2001). Block (2006) notes that these prevalence rate increases, along with now
commonly practiced inclusion in GPE (Block, 2007; DePauw & Doll-Tepper, 2000),
make it possible that physical educators will have many children with autism in their
classrooms. Therefore, youths with autism are likely to experience most of their physical
activity time alongside peers without disabilities during inclusive physical education
classes.

Proponents of the philosophy of inclusion claim that there are several social
benefits to be gained from inclusion practices in all aspects of education (Block, 2007;
Snell & Eichner, 1989; S. Stainback & Stainback, 1990). Block (2007) compiled a
succinct list of benefits of inclusion as originally proposed by Downing (2002), Snell and
Eichner (1990) and S. Stainback and Stainback (1990). Social benefits include: (a) the
opportunity to learn appropriate social skills in integrated, natural environments, (b) the
potential to develop new friendships with peers without disabilities, (c) the potential to
interact with age-appropriate role models with disabilities, and (d) the opportunity to
practice social skills in an integrated environment, which eliminates need to generalize to
other integrated environments. All of these benefits are tied with engaging in social

interactions with other students, specifically those without disabilities. Inclusive general

physical education, or GPE, may be an environment in which individuals are encouraged
to interact (Kitson, 1993; O'Connor et al., 2000; Reid & O'Connor, 2003; Schleien et al.,
1988) and may allow individuals to acquire the aforementioned social benefits. Due to
potential exclusion based on challenging behaviors, youths with autism may not have
opportunities for such interactions through venues such as extra-curricular physical
activities. Therefore, GPE may provide a unique and valuable opportunity to gain
important social interactions.

However, research has only just begun to investigate the actual social benefits,
effects, or outcomes of inclusion in GPE settings for youths with disabilities (Block,
2007). The extant literature mainly focuses on the social inclusion of youths with
physical disabilities (Blinde & McCallister, 1998; Goodwin & Watkinson, 2000; Hutzler,
Fliess, Chacham, & van den Auweele, 2002; Place & Hodge, 2001; Vogler, Koranda, &
Romance, 2000), and the results are not all positive. Students with physical disabilities
have reported negative feelings such as being left out, neglected, or teased in GPE
(Blinde & McCallister, 1998; Goodwin & Watkinson, 2000; Hutzler et al., 2002; Place &
Hodge, 2001). Only one prior study has investigated the interactions and social
acceptance of children with autism in physical education (Lisboa, 1997). Lisboa (1997)
found that youths with autism demonstrated interaction levels that “were much higher
with classroom aides than with teachers, and very low with peers” (p. 1). Therefore, it
appears that students with autism may not be obtaining the valuable social interactions

which the physical education environment may provide.

Significance of the Problem

Despite advances in knowledge, “quality of life for children with autism remains
poor, with a majority having little or no social support, meaningful relationships, future
employment opportunities or self-determination” (Burgess & Gutstein, 2007, p. 83).
Individuals with autism have been found to have low levels of peer relationships,
friendships, and participation in social and recreational activities (Orsmond et al., 2004).
The availability of a supportive social network, which social competence is necessary to
create, may have a significant outcome on the quality of life of an individual with autism
(Lord & Venter, 1992). Generally found domains of quality of life are interpersonal
relationships, social inclusion, personal development, physical well-being, rights,
environment, family, recreation and leisure, and safety/security (Verdugo, Schalock,
Keith, & Stancliffe, 2005). All of these domains require social skills.

Lacking social skills during childhood has been found to be the best single
predictor of significant adjustment problems during adulthood for children with
disabilities (Strain & Odom, 1986). Woods and Wetherby (2003) noted that
“communication competence may be the primary factor determining the extent to which
individuals with ASD develop relationships with others and participate in daily activities
and routines at school, at home, and in the community” (p. 180). Without social
competence individuals with autism may not be able to communicate their needs and
thoughts, or establish appropriate relationships with others. This creates risk that the
individual may not be accepted by others, may experience increased difficulties in school,
may acquire mental health problems, and perhaps be under or unemployed during

adulthood (L. K. Elksnin & Elksnin, 1995; N. Elksnin & Elksnin, 1998, 2001).

Renty and Roeyers (2006) conducted an empirical analysis of disability and
support characteristics associated with the quality of life of adults with autism spectrum
disorders. Only a minority of adults with high-functioning autism or Asperger syndrome
“had received a college or university education, lived semi/independently, had close,
spontaneous friendships, were married, or had a paid job” (Renty & Roeyers, 2006, p.
512). Using self-report measure, 58 adults with high-fimctioning autism or Asperger
syndrome reported information about the severity of their autism, perceived information
support, received formal and informal support, and demographics. Results indicate that
more than 75% of participants lived with parents or other caregivers, and only 50% were
employed: “half of them held a mainstreamed job, the others were engaged in sheltered
or supported employment or were in a day activity program” (Renty & Roeyers, 2006, p.
519). The findings also showed that perceived informal support was significantly related
to quality of life, while actual received informal support was not found significant This
study supported the notion that personal well-being is linked more strongly to the
perceptions of available support, rather than to actual support received (Kessler &
McLeod, 1985; Renty & Roeyers, 2006).

Social skill deficiencies are one of the main reasons students with disabilities are
unsuccessful in the transition from school to employment and independent living
(Chadsey-Rusch, Rusch, & O'Reilly, 1991; Edgar, 1987, 1988). Appropriate social skills
are critical to overcoming any possible stereotypes held in the workplace (Gaylord-Ross,
Stremel-Campbell, & Storey, 1986). For example, supervisors or coworkers may hold
negative stereotypes about individuals with autism. They may believe that individuals

with autism do not want to be social. If the employee with autism has developed

appropriate social skills, he or she could be able to combat this misconception.
Combating stereotypes through social competence may lead to a more successful
employment experience (Gaylord-Ross et al., 1986). Quality of life may also be
significantly improved if the individual is provided with the skills to share interests and
activities with others, and can access resources available in the community, such as
recreation programs or public transportation (Rusch, Chadsey-Rusch, & Johnson, 1991).
Social support has been found to be highly predictive of quality of life in
individuals without autism (Bramston, Chipuer, & Pretty, 2005; Brown & Brown, 2005;
Caron, Lecomte, Stip, & Renaud, 2005; Helgeson, 2003), and recent findings illustrate
the importance of perceived support for individuals with autism (Burgess & Gutstein,
2007; Kennedy & Shukla, 1995; Renty & Roeyers, 2006). Bauminger and Kasari (2000)
illustrated the importance of investigating both the structural and functional aspects of
social support for individuals with autism. It was not the number of friends which
mattered, but rather the quality of the friendship which predicted whether or not a child
with autism experienced feelings of loneliness (Bauminger & Kasari, 2000). When the
children with autism perceived their friendship to be lacking intimacy, emotional
enrichment, and reciprocity, there were significant feelings of loneliness. Therefore,
Burgess and Gutstein (2007) concluded that “even if a child with autism might have a
structural social network at school, the functional friendships — those resulting in
invitations to birthday parties, sleep-overs, or games — may impact QoL [quality of life]
more profoundly” (p. 82). Kennedy and Shukla (1995) reminded readers that, “social
relationships are as important to people with autism as they are to any other member of

society” (p. 21).

10

More mature levels of social competence can allow an individual to become an
effective member of the community, become more independent, experience increases in
social acceptability, and allow for increased quality of life (Bellack, 1983; Harris, 1998).
For example, an active member of the community must be able to greet other individuals,
make purchases in stores, use community resources such as buses, or participate
acceptably in leisure activities. Harris (1998) states, “countless social skills are necessary
to be a competent adult in an industrialized society” (p. 199). It appears that several
social skills can be developed and refined through peer interactions (Odom, McConnell,
& McEvoy, 1992). Odom and colleagues (1992) express that, “if a child can achieve a
level of social competence that allows participation in interactions with mutually
preferred playmates, such interactions have the potential for positive ramifications in
other areas of development” (p. 23). Social skills are connected with being accepted by
others, increases in academic success, and high levels of self-esteem and self-confidence
(L. K. Elksnin & Elksnin, 2003). Access to appropriate support provides individuals with
autism with more opportunities to develop social relationships (Howlin & Yates, 1999),
to find and hold suitable jobs (Hurlbutt & Chalmers, 2004), to live independently
(Tantam, 2003), and to decrease psychological distress (Tantam, 2003). When social
skills remain underdeveloped, individuals may face social rejection, experience
difficulties in school and employment, and suffer mental health problems (L. K. Elksnin
& Elksnin, 1995; N. Elksnin & Elksnin, 1998, 2001).

Social interactions, especially with peers, also offer numerous natural learning
opportunities for children (Odom et al., 1992). When the interactions are active and

positive they may influence the development of cognitive, language, and communication

11

skills (Odom et al., 1992). Cognitive psychologists have noted the importance of social
interaction for the development of more advanced types of cognition (Piaget, 1926;
Vygotsky, 1978). Social interactions can provide new ways of comprehending concepts
or situations, which may allow the child to develop new, potentially advanced
understandings (Piaget, 1926; Vygotsky, 1978). Social interactions can advance
communication skills by allowing children to learn to take turns during conversations
(Black, 1989), to engage in “salient conversations” with peers (J. G. Parker & Gottrnan,
1989), and to develop effective communication strategies between each other (Strayer,
1989). Research has shown that when social interactions were increased between
children with and without disabilities, significant changes occurred in the language
development of the children with disabilities (Jenkins, Odom, & Speltz, 1989).
Purpose of the Study

Social interactions are the building blocks of social competence (Odom et al.,
1992), and physical education presents a unique and potentially valuable setting in which
individuals with autism may engage in social interactions. Therefore, the purpose of this
study was to examine the nature and frequency of social interactions among students with
autism and other individuals (i.e., classmates, teachers, and aides), during various tasks in
multiple educational settings, including general physical education (GPE). To obtain
these data, a multiple-case study approach was used (Yin, 2003). Direct observation and
video-camera recordings were employed to allow for multiple sources of data collection.
Several observation instruments, the Analysis of Inclusion Practices in Physical
Education, Form S-Revised (AIPE-SR, Hodge & Hersman, 2007), the Academic

Learning Time-Physical Education (ALT-PE, Siedentop et al., 1982), and the Behaviors

12

of Eating and Activity for Children’s Health Evaluation System (BEACHES) (McKenzie
et al., 1991) were used to assess social interactions and tasks. Data analyses included
frequency and time spent in various social interactions and tasks during diverse
educational settings.

Need for the Study

This descriptive study allowed for further understanding of the occurrence and
nature of social interactions between youths with autism and others. Because social
competence and skills are often lacking in youths with autism (McConnell, 2002; Rogers,
2000), and physical education provides a possible beneficial environment for gaining
social interactions (Groft & Block, 2003), this study assessed any potential interactions
between these factors. If physical education does provide a social environment unique
from the typical classroom, then it becomes important to understand whether or not it is
actually fostering social interactions. Due to the high prevalence rates of youths with
autism and the common practice of inclusion in GPE, it is critical to learn what is
naturally occurring in the GPE setting. Are youths with autism interacting with other
individuals in GPE, and if so, what is the nature of these interactions?

These baseline data on interactions and tasks can be utilized to set the social goals
of an intervention or treatment (McGee, Feldman, & Morrier, 1997). Data on the
naturally occurring levels of social behavior are critical to setting appropriate intervention
goals (McGee et al., 1997). McGee and colleagues (1997) stated that a common
occurrence in social skill interventions has been to increase interaction rates to

unnaturally high levels, risking temporary and potentially bizarre interaction patterns that

13

cannot be sustained in natural environments (McConnell, Sisson, Cort, & Strain, 1990;
Mirenda, Donnellan, & Yoder, 1983).

Understanding the tasks during which social interactions do, or do not, occur may
help educators in designing lesson plans and classroom environments. This study could
lead to information about best instruction practices to foster social interactions. For
example, interactions may be seen when the student with autism is waiting in line with
peers. Therefore, teachers may want to ensure that students are not standing in an
isolated area while waiting, as it would not allow for interactions. If limited or negative
social interactions were found in this study, it might influence how physical educators
structure their learning environments. Physical educators may begin to understand the
necessary social interactions their classroom could afford a student with autism.

Little is known about the types and amounts of social interactions that occur
between students with disabilities and their peers in GPE (Block & Obrusnikova, 2007;
Lisboa, 1997; Place & Hodge, 2001). Students with physical disabilities have been found
to experience social isolation and limited social interactions while in GPE (Blinde &
McCallister, 1998; Goodwin, 2001; Goodwin & Watkinson, 2000; Hutzler et al., 2002;
Place & Hodge, 2001). However, this literature has not been fully expanded to include
students with autism (Lisboa, 1997). Therefore, this study intended to further expand the
knowledge base to include youth with autism.

Research Questions

The following research questions aimed to understand how students with autism

socially interact in various ways with other individuals during different tasks in the GPE

setting.

14

1. How frequently do students with autism socially interact with other individuals
(e.g., classmates, teachers, aides) in GPE?
2. What is the nature (e.g., positive, appropriate, inappropriate) of the social
interactions that occur?
3. During which tasks (e. g., waiting, transition, activity) do the most social
interactions occur?
4. Are there associations among the nature of the interactions and the tasks during
which social interactions occur?
To further understand any unique contributions of GPE, these data were also collected in
one academic class to serve as comparison data.
Definition of Terms
General physical education (GPE). Sherrill (2004) provided direct quotations
from Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations to define physical education as: “the
development of: (a) physical and motor fitness; (b) fundamental motor skills and patterns;
and (c) skills in aquatics, dance, and individual and group games and sports (including
intramural and lifetime sports)” (p. 113). In this project, GPE referred to physical
education which includes students both with and without disabilities in the same space,
time, and basic curriculum.
Class. A class was defined as the entire group of individuals who make up and
are involved in the session.
Classmates. Classmates were defined as any other students involved in class

session alongside the participant with autism.

15

Class session. A class session was defined as a single meeting, which may vary
in time duration, of a class with the purpose of engaging in physical education or another
academic topic, such as math or social studies.

Social interactions. Social interactions were defined and coded as stated in the
Analysis of Inclusion Practices in Physical Education, F orm-S Revision (AIPE-SR)
(Hodge & Hersman, 2007). Hodge and Hersman (2007) include the following interaction
categories; appropriate, positive appropriate, inappropriate, off-task interactions. The
categories will be examined in detail in Chapter 3.

Tasks. Although tasks are usually defined as the physical activities, skills, or
games of a physical education, because of the emphasis on social interactions, the ALT-
PE and BEACHES categories were used to define the tasks. Select categories from ALT-
PE, including activity, waiting, transitions, management, and knowledge, were used in
this study. All five categories of the BEACHES physical activity scale (i.e., lying down,
sitting, standing, walking, very active) were used in this study. The ALT-PE and
BEACHES categories will be defined in detail in the method chapter.

Limitations
0 This study was limited by the number of participants, which may influence
generalizability. However, Yin (2003) states “that case studies, like experiments, are
generalizable to theoretical propositions and not to populations or universes” (p. 10).
From this viewpoint, the goal of a case study is to expand and generalize theories
(analytic generalization), not to add to frequencies (statistical generalization) (Yin,

2003)

16

 

This study may be limited by the potential subjective and fluctuating nature of direct
participant observation. When direct observation of behaviors is gathered by human
observers, there is always a chance that the observers may not record the behavior
consistently (Kazdin, 1982). The observers may have been reactive to reliability
assessments, experienced observer drift, had certain behavior expectancies, or had
trouble with the complexity of the observations (Kazdin, 1982).

Delimitations
The researchers analyzed results in order to expand knowledge within a paradigm,
rather than attempting to generalize across populations.
As in Hersman (2007), this study was delimited to measuring the social interactions
that occur between students only during physical education classes and one academic
class; it was not intended to measure the interactions that occurred between students
with and without disabilities outside these settings.
To combat observer reliability issues, observers were highly trained before and
throughout the data collection process, and the observation instruments were kept as
simple as possible.
To further ensure accurate and objective data, sessions in which data were being
collected were video-taped and audio-recorded when appropriate for further analyses

and reliability checks.

17

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter focuses on extant research literature related to the social interaction
behaviors of youth with autism in general physical education (GPE) settings. The nature
of these social interactions is conceptualized as an interaction of three factors, namely the
individuals in the setting, the tasks in which they engage, and the nature of the physical
activity environment (see Figure l). The first four sections of this chapter are devoted to
an exploration of those factors, as well as the interaction of those factors as related to
social interaction behaviors of students with autism in GPE. The fifth section of the
chapter focuses on measurement of (a) social interactions, (b) the task, specifically the
level of engagement in physical activity, and (c) the general physical education
environment. This chapter concludes with implications of the literature review for this

study.

People

Figure 1. A visual conceptualization of three intertwining factors of social interaction.

18

People in the Setting

Students with Autism

Autism is one of five Pervasive Developmental Disorders (PDD) according to the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV- TR) published by the
American Psychiatric Association (2000). The DSM-IV-TR manual defines all PDD by
severe and pervasive impairment in reciprocal social interaction, communication, and
stereotyped behavior, interests, and activities. These impairments are defined in
qualitative terms and must be “distinctly deviant relative to the individual’s
developmental level or mental age” (p. 69). Diagnostic criteria for autism must include
six impairments (see Appendix A); at least two impairments in social interaction, one in
communication, and one in restricted repetitive or stereotyped behavior. Within these
guidelines it is clear that a diagnosis of autism may generate from very different
behaviors. Therefore, individuals can share the diagnosis of autism, yet vary greatly
(Reid & Collier, 2002). The DSM-IV-TR lists associated characteristics of autism which
are frequently but not universally observed. These features include intellectual disability,
hyperactivity, impulsivity and aggression, self-injurious behaviors, sleep disturbances,
and temper tantrums particularly in young children (American Psychiatric Association,
2000). These features influence the heterogeneity of autism and provide challenges as
functional levels may vary greatly between youths (Reid & Collier, 2002).

Social interactions. McConnell (2002) states that “it is accepted as a logical
truism and empirical fact that children and adults with autism demonstrate some delays,
deficits, or atypical characteristics in the frequency, types, and quality of social

interactions and social relationships with other individuals” (p. 351). Social difficulty is

19

one of the most defining characteristics of autism, and is often the result of a rather
heterogeneous set of behavioral characteristics (Coyne & Fullerton, 2004; Howlin, 1986;
Reid & Collier, 2002). Often, the behavior of an individual with autism “does not fit into
others’ perceptions of what is ‘normal”’ (Coyne & Fullerton, 2004, p. 18). An individual
with autism may have trouble initiating or maintaining a conversation, repeat words or
phrases, show preference to being alone, throw tantrums, or make little to no eye contact
(Autism Society of America, 2008). Howlin (1986) notes that social interactions with an
individual with autism may also be socially limited due to his or her lack of reciprocity,
lack of cooperative play, lack of empathy to others’ feelings, or even spending a large
amount of time engaged in stereotypic behaviors. Social skills such as sharing or turn-
taking are generally under-developed as well (Coyne & Fullerton, 2004).

Descriptive and basic experimental research has demonstrated that children with
autism often score below peers without disabilities, and sometimes below children with
other disabilities, on formal social competence assessments (Lord, 1993; McConnell,
2002; Rogers, 2000). McConnell (2002) notes that, “social interaction deficits for young
children with autism may reflect deficits in essential social skills” (p. 354). In 1995, Lord
and Magill-Evans conducted naturalistic observations at a day camp. The campers were
between the ages of 5 and 16 years old. Observations were of children with autism,
children with behavior disorders, and children without disabilities. Results showed the
children with autism spent less time socially interacting with peers than children without
disabilities, and when the campers with autism did interact with peers, they were “lower-

quality” interactions. Children with autism also spent more time at greater physical

20

distances from peers, and they spent more time engaged in meaningless or no activity
than peers without disabilities (Lord & Magill—Evans, 1995).

McGee and colleagues (1997) aimed to determine any potential differences in
social behavior between children with and without autism in an attempt to help
researchers understand appropriate goals of social skill interventions for children with
autism. Participants in the study included 64 preschool children, of which half had the
diagnosis of autism from at least two independent sources (McGee et al., 1997).

Observations were conducted in regular classroom settings of three schools, “during free

play, tabletop art and game activities, snack/lunch, circle time, and outdoor recess, as well as
during transitions among these activities” (McGee et al., 1997, p. 357). Results indicated
that the students with autism did engage in play, social interaction, and social participation.
However, in comparison to the students without autism, those with autism spent less time in
close physical proximity to peers, produced fewer vocalizations to others, were less focused
on other children, and engaged in more atypical behavior (McGee et al., 1997).

Sigman and Ruskin (1999) conducted a longitudinal study, which assessed social

competence and language skills of children with autism, Down syndrome, other

developmental delays, and children without disabilities. The initial sample included “70
children with autism, 93 children with Down syndrome, 59 children with developmental
delays, and 108 typically developing children [sic ]” (Sigman & Ruskin, 1999, p. v),
between the ages of 2 and 6 years old. The follow-up sample included, “51 children with
autism, 71 children with Down syndrome, and 33 children with developmental delays”
(Sigman & Ruskin, 1999, p. v), between the ages of 10 and 13 years old. The researchers
gathered observation data in school settings, including structured classroom time, and

unstructured recess play. Overall, children with autism were found to be less socially

21

engaged with classmates than the other children with developmental disabilities, and

were less likely to respond to social initiations from peers (Sigman & Ruskin, 1999).
However, when children with autism responded to initiations from peers, they maintained
social interactions for as long as peers. Children with autism were also found to spend
more time engaged in solitary play, and therefore spent less time in direct social play with
other individuals. Sigman and Ruskin (1999) concluded that children with autism seem to
be socially isolated due to their personal behaviors, not due to avoidance or lack of
initiation from others. It is critical to note that, “for the children with autism, there were
links between cognitive and language abilities, social responsiveness, and peer
engagement” (Sigman & Ruskin, 1999, p. 100).

Children with autism engage in higher rates of repetitive or stereotypic behaviors,
higher rates of self-injurious behavior, and lower rates of proximity to peers compared to
children of similar ages without disabilities (Lord, 1993; McConnell, 2002). Engaging in
these behaviors may decrease opportunities for social learning, ultimately having the
potential to affect development of social skills (McConnell, 2002). Both experimental
(Koegel, Koegel, Hurley, & Frea, 1992; Lee & Odom, 1996; Schleien et al., 1988) and
descriptive research (Lord & Magill-Evans, 1995; Sigman & Ruskin, 1999) have
provided evidence of an inverse relationship between rates of stereotypic and self-
injurious behavior and social interaction or participation. It has even been proposed that
some children with autism may use stereotypic behaviors because they provide greater
reinforcement compared to social interaction, or may even use stereotypic behaviors as a

method to end or reduce social interaction (Warren & Reichle, 1992).

22

Communication skills. Engaging in social interactions requires a certain level of
communication between those involved, and individuals with autism present a unique set
of communication characteristics. About 40% of children with autism do not speak at all
and many others have echolalic speech (Powers, 2000). Many of the nonverbal children
may use grunting, pointing or instrumental touching to communicate needs, and a
minority may use a few words for similar purposes (Prior & Ozonoff, 1998). Children
with autism are “more likely to reverse the pronouns you and I, engage in echolalic
speech, and produce stereotyped or metaphorical language” than children without
disabilities (Garfm & Lord, 1986, p. 142). It is rare for a child with autism to gain
language skills if he or she has not done so by around six years of age (Prior & Ozonoff,
1998)

When children with autism are verbal, the communicative functions of language
are often impaired or limited in significant ways (Prior & Ozonoff, 1998). Tager-
Flusberg (1981) notes that these limiting abnormalities in speech have included
concreteness, literalness, inability to initiate or sustain a conversation, ritualistic or
inflexible language, and insensitivity to the listener’s response during a conversation.
The most universal deficit in the language of children with autism is associated with
pragmatics, mainly language used to communicate socially (Tager-Flusberg & Anderson,
1991). This difficulty seems to transcend all levels of language competence in children
with autism, as it can be seen in every child with autism to some degree (Prior &
Ozonoff, 1998). Children with autism also have difficulty understanding and responding

to complex questions (Prior & Ozonoff, 1998). Research literature that focuses surveys

23

or interviews towards youths with autism is minimal because of these communication
challenges.

Along with language production deficits, comprehension difficulties of both
verbal and nonverbal language can greatly impact social interactions for individuals with
autism (Garfin & Lord, 1986). Children with autism often have difficulty responding
appropriately to nonverbal communications, including facial expressions, tone of voice,
and gestures (Powers, 2000; Ricks & Wing, 1976). This leads to further difficulty with
social perspective taking, which can inhibit social interactions (Garfin & Lord, 1986;
Woods & Wetherby, 2003). Comprehension of verbal language about abstract concepts
such as space, time, and emotions are often difficult for individuals with autism. Garfin
and Lord (1986) note that, “even higher-functioning verbal children with autism may
have a very difficult time interacting with nonhandicapped [sic] peers due to subtle but
significant comprehension deficits involving the failure to understand colloquial
expressions, humor, and more abstract concepts and ideas” (p. 141).

Peer relationships. Peer relationships occur between same- or near-age cohorts,
and are characterized by a history of interactions between the individuals who are
familiar with each other (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998; Smith, 2007). Friendship, a
type of peer relationship, is conceptually bilateral in nature, and is dependent on people’s
perceptions of their relationship with another (Smith, 2007). Hartup (1996) discussed
three critical dimensions to be considered when assessing the developmental significance
of friendships. These dimensions include reciprocity and how one interacts with fiiends,
the characteristics of one’s friends, and the quality of friendships as seen through

intimacy, esteem enhancement, and degree of conflict (Hartup, 1996). Peer relationships

24

 

and friendships can be fostered through physical activity participation, especially being a
member of a team (Smith, 2007).

Without social competence, people cannot establish appropriate relationships with
others, and are at risk of being rejected by others (N. Elksnin & Elksnin, 1998, 2001).
Some research evidence suggests inclusive environments could increase the risk of social
isolation and rejection (Chamberlain, Kasari, & Rotheram-Fuller, 2007). Chamberlain
and colleagues (2007) asked 398 children in regular 2"d through 5th grade classes, which
included 17 children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), to report on “friendship
qualities, peer acceptance, loneliness, and classroom social networks” (p. 230). The 17
individuals with ASD had fewer reciprocal nominations than students without ASD.
Hence, individuals with ASD may have perceived a student without a disability to be
their best friend, but the feelings were not mutual. The children without disabilities also
reported that the relationships they had with the students with ASD were qualitatively
different than those with peers without disabilities (Chamberlain et al., 2007).

Research has indicated that children and adolescents with autism rarely develop
typical peer relationships or friendships (Konging & Magill-Evans, 2001; Le Couteur et
al., 1989; Marks, Schrader, Longaker, & Levine, 2000). However, longitudinal research
demonstrates that individuals with autism may show increased interest in developing
social relationships during adolescence (Mesibov, 1983; Mesibov & Handlan, 1997;
Rutter, 1970; Volkmar & Klin, 1995). This increase is sometimes accompanied by
further development of social skills; however, the majority of people continue to have
difficulty in the social aspects of life throughout adolescence and adulthood (Church,

Alinsanski, & Amanullah, 2000; DeMyer, Hingtgen, & Jackson, 1981; Seltzer et al.,

25

2003). Orsmond et al., (2004) found only 8.1% of their sample of adolescents and adults
with autism had at least one friend who was same-aged, mutually responsive, and with
whom they engaged in reciprocal activities outside of organized settings. Almost half
(46.4%) of the individuals with autism reported having no peer relationships that met all
of those conditions (Orsmond et al., 2004). Even when fiiendships are reported by
individuals with high-functioning autism, the friendships are often focused on cormnon
interests and involve limited social interaction (Bauminger & Kasari, 2000; Church et al.,
2000)

Youths with autism have reported increased feelings of loneliness as compared to
peers without disabilities (Bauminger & Kasari, 2000). Bauminger and Kasari (2000)
evaluated loneliness and quality of friendships in 22 high-functioning children with
autism and 19 peers without disabilities, ages 8 to 14, matched on intelligent quotient,
chronological age, gender, mother’s education and ethnicity. Data were collected
individually for each child in a laboratory setting. Results indicated that when “compared
to typically developing children, children with autism were both lonelier and had less
complete understandings of loneliness” (Bauminger & Kasari, 2000, p. 447). All of the
children with autism reported having a least one friend. However, when asked about
their best friend, children with autism rated the friend as lower in quality in
companionship, security/trust, and helpfulness than children without autism rated their
best friends. The findings also suggested that children with autism may have difficulty
understanding the emotional aspects of loneliness and friendship (Bauminger & Kasari,

2000)

26

Links have been found between self-perceptions and social relationships in
children with high-functioning autism (Bauminger, Shulman, & Agam, 2004).
Perceptions of fiiendship, along with the link between self-perceptions and social
relationships, were investigated in 16 children with high-functioning autism and 16
matched peers without disabilities (Bauminger et al., 2004). Data collection involved a
friendship picture recognition task, and three self-report measures about qualities of
friendships, loneliness, and self-perception. Results indicated that for children with
autism, “friendship correlated positively with cognitive competencies and general self-
worth and negatively with loneliness” (Bauminger et al., 2004, p. 193). Children with
autism also reported lower scores in perceptions of social competence than their peers
without disabilities. These findings further support the importance of positive social
interactions and friendships for individuals with autism.

Classmates without Autism

Classmates or peers without autism can be expected to demonstrate a wide range
of social and communication skills (Smith, 2007). These skills include, but are not
limited to, sharing, taking turns, helping other, listening, cooperation, being respectful,
and being a friend (L. K. Elksnin & Elksnin, 1995). Social skills also include problem-
solving, self-management, and decision making abilities that allow an individual to
initiate and sustain positive social relationships (N. Elksnin & Elksnin, 1998). However,
even when classmates without autism have developed these social skills, involving a
child with a disability in the interaction could alter the behavior of the classmates without

disabilities.

27

Several factors may influence the attitudes of classmates without disabilities
toward the participation of individuals with disabilities in physical activity. Researchers
have investigated the influence of gender of students without disabilities on their attitudes
towards peers with disabilities (Archie & Sherrill, 1989; Tripp, French, & Sherrill, 1995;
Verderber, Rizzo, & Sherrill, 2003). The results of such studies have been inconsistent.
Archie and Sherrill (1989) found gender did not relate to attitudes toward their peers with
disabilities. However, Tripp, French, and Sherrill (1995) found that females without.
disabilities had more favorable attitudes toward their peers with disabilities than did
males. In 2000, females were again found to have more favorable attitudes than males,
but the analysis showed that attitudes of males will improve with structured contact
experience of peers with disabilities (Slininger, Sherrill, & Jankowski, 2000).

Other factors, including disability type and having a family member or close
friend with a disability, have been shown to affect attitudes of peers without disabilities
toward peers with disabilities. Research has indicated that having a family member or a
close friend with a disability is related to more favorable attitudes toward peers with
disabilities (Block, 1995). Data collected with children ages 9 to 12 years old, using the
Peer Attitudes Toward the Handicapped Scale (PATHS) demonstrated that all groups
viewed peers with a physical disability more favorably than those with learning or
behavioral disabilities (Tripp et al., 1995). Peers with learning disabilities were preferred
for interactions second, and peers with behavior disabilities were preferred the least for
inclusion in physical education settings (Tripp et al., 1995). Children in inclusive
settings have shown significantly more positive attitudes toward peers with behavioral

disabilities than those in the segregated settings, but the reverse was true toward peers

28

with physical disabilities (Tripp et al., 1995). These counter-acting findings were
attributed to a student with a behavioral disability possibly being able to demonstrate
skills in physical activity settings, while peers with physical disabilities may be seen as a
disadvantage in any type of competitive activity of integrated physical education (Tripp
et al., 1995). Finally Tripp et a1. (1995) noted that it was possible the peers with
behavioral disabilities could have been seen as “entertaining in their various classroom
disruptions” (p. 330) in the integrated setting.

Physical Education Teachers

It is important to consider the influence of the physical education teacher on the
social environment in GPE. The inclusion movement was built upon several
assumptions, one of which was that general physical educators would be willing to take
on the challenges of working with children with disabilities (Stanton & Colvin, 1996).
While some general physical educators are prepared for these challenges, others have
shown reluctance (Block, 1999). General physical educators have expressed that they
feel untrained to work with and interact with children who have disabilities, or that
teaching children who have disabilities is not their job. These attitudes are especially
prominent when discussing working with children with more severe disabilities (Block &
Rizzo, 1995), and could influence the social environment.

Most attitude research has taken a theory of reasoned action or a theory of
planned behavior approach to evaluating physical educators’ attributes and attitudes
toward teaching students with disabilities, which allowed for analysis from multiple
perspectives. Researchers have investigated both student-related variables and teacher-

related variables of attitude (Kozub & Lienert, 2003). Student-related variables include

29

level of disability, type of disability, labels, and grade level (Kozub & Lienert, 2003).
There appears to be a general agreement that physical educators have more favorable
attitudes toward teaching students with mild disabilities than students with more severe
disabilities (Conatser, Block, & Gansneder, 2002; Downs & Williams, 1994; Kowalski &
Rizzo, 1996; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991). A more detailed analysis of general physical
educators’ attitudes found that favorable attitudes towards teaching students with severe
disabilities were associated with improved quality of teaching experiences and more
coursework in adapted physical education (Block & Rizzo, 1995).

The attitudes of physical educators appeared to differ based on the student’s type
of disability or disability label. Attitudes toward teaching students with learning
disabilities (LD) have been found to be significantly more receptive than attitudes toward
teaching students with mild mental retardation (MR) or behavior disorders (Rizzo &
Vispoel, 1991). Even without any coursework in physical education or adapted physical
education, physical education undergraduate students have demonstrated significantly
more positive attitudes towards teaching students labeled as mild MR and LD than
toward teaching students labeled as behavior disordered (Rizzo & Vispoel, 1992). Kozub
and Lienert (2003) reviewed research articles which investigated the link between student
grade level and attitude of the physical educator. Inclusion is shown to be viewed more
favorably with respect to younger learners (Rizzo, 1984).

Teacher-related variables such as age, gender, previous experience, academic
preparation, and perceived competence have been shown to influence attitudes of
physical educators toward teaching students with disabilities (Kozub & Lienert, 2003).

Teacher’s age has presented mixed results in attitude research. One study suggested

30

more advanced pre-service teachers seem to be less favorable toward inclusion than less
advanced teachers (DePauw & Goc Karp, 1990, as cited in Kozub & Lienert, 2003).
Younger in—service teachers were found to view integration significantly more favorably
than older counterparts (Schmidt-Gotz, Doll-Tepper, & Lienert, 1994). Rizzo and
Vispoel (1991) were not able to find any correlation between educator age and attitude.
Findings have also suggested a negative correlation between age and attitude toward
teaching students labeled as behaviorally impaired (Rizzo & Kirkendall, 1995). Younger
teachers approaching graduation professed more positive attitudes toward teaching
students with behavior disorders (Rizzo & Kirkendall, 1995). Rizzo and Kirkendall
(1995) found that age and year in school were the best predictors of favorable attitudes
toward teaching individuals with behavioral disorders. Women have been found to have
significantly more favorable attitudes toward teaching student with disabilities than men
(Downs & Williams, 1994; Schmidt-Gotz et al., 1994), but other studies have revealed no
main effect for gender (Kowalski & Rizzo, 1996; Rizzo & Kirkendall, 1995; Rizzo &
Vispoel, 1991). Rizzo and Vispoel (1991) noted that female physical educators had more
coursework in adapted physical activity than their male counterparts. This is just one
possible explanation of the differences in the influence of gender that has been observed
in research.

Physical educators more experienced at working with students with disabilities
seemed to have significantly more favorable attitudes toward working with these students
than teachers with less experience (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Rizzo & Kirkendall, 1995;
Schmidt-Gotz et al., 1994). Block and Rizzo (1995) determined that quality of teaching

experience and coursework in adapted physical education were most strongly related to

31

 

 

attitudes towards teaching students with severe disabilities. Advanced students have been
found to have had more favorable experiences with individuals with disabilities and these
favorable experiences were associated with increased perceived teaching competence
(Rizzo & Kirkendall, 1995). Rizzo and Vispoel (1991) found a negative correlation
between years of teaching experience in general and attitudes toward teaching students
with disabilities. However, Schmidt-Gotz et al., (1994) did not find a significant
correlation between general teaching experience and attitudes.

Downs and Williams (1994) reported ambiguous findings about the possible
connection between experience and attitude. Students with previous experience had less
positive attitudes than those without previous experience, which brings the nature of the
I experiences into question (Downs & Williams, 1994). The somewhat conflicting results
noted above demonstrate no single answer to the effects of experience as a predictor of
more positive attitudes (Kozub & Lienert, 2003). Tripp (1988) found results which
indicated that general and adapted physical education teachers did not differ significantly
in their slightly unfavorable attitudes. This raises questions about the role of experience
assuming that adapted physical educators have more experience teaching individuals with
disabilities (Tripp, 1988). These findings demonstrate the need to take the nature of
experiences into consideration, as they are clearly not all producing a positive effect
(Kozub & Lienert, 2003).

Research has demonstrated academic preparation to be a significant predictor of
positive attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities (Block & Rizzo, 1995;
Kowalski & Rizzo, 1996; Rizzo & Kirkendall, 1995). Teachers who received in-service

education on inclusion had more favorable attitudes; however, these attitudes may have

32

been present before the in-service education (Schmidt-Gotz et al., 1994). Academic
preparation regarding individuals with disabilities were found to be one of two of the best
predictors of favorable attitudes in general, and especially for teaching students with MR
and LD (Rizzo & Kirkendall, 1995). However, as with experience, there is research
indicating that perhaps academic preparation is not a significant correlate with attitudes
toward teaching individuals with disabilities. Tripp’s (198 8) results question the impact
of academic preparation, assuming that adapted physical educators have had more
academic preparation concerning teaching students with disabilities, yet their attitudes
were found comparable to general physical educators. Also, Schmidt-Gotz et a1. (1994)
found that students with academic majors other than physical education (e. g., elementary
education, special education) presented more positive attitudes than the physical
education majors. It has been found that students majoring in adapted physical education
had far more favorable attitudes than students majoring in general physical education
(Kudlacek, Valkova, Sherrill, Myers, & French, 2002).

The research literature does not currently provide conclusive findings on the
impact of academic preparation. However, academic preparation has been found to be
correlated with perceived competence (Rizzo & Kirkendall, 1995). Perceived
competence is the variable most examined when attempting to explain and predict
physical educators’ attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities (Kozub & Lienert,
2003). Several studies have indicated that attitudes are more likely to be favorable in
teachers who have higher perceived competence (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Kowalski &
Rizzo, 1996; Rizzo & Kirkendall, 1995; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991; Schmidt-Gotz et al.,

1994). Schmidt-Gotz et al. (1994) demonstrated positive correlations between perceived

33

competence in preservice physical educators and teaching students with disabilities,
inclusion experience, personal experience with individuals with disabilities, and inclusion
inservice education. Block and Rizzo (1995) also noted positive correlations between
perceived competence and teaching students with disabilities, coursework in adapted
physical education and special education, teacher experience, and quality of teaching
experience.

It is unclear at this time why some educators feel competent and others do not
(Schmidt-Gotz et al., 1994). Perceived competence along with academic preparation
were regarded as most strongly related to attitudes toward teaching students with MR and
LD (Rizzo & Kirkendall, 1995). Rizzo and Vispoel (1991) found significant correlations
between perceived competence and five other variables: age (negative), gender, number
of adaptive physical education courses, number of years of teaching students with
disabilities, and attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities. Kozub and Lienert
(2003) noted that it is important to consider the limitations in research design before
unanimously accepting the notion that perceived competence is the “strongest predictor”
of attitudes. More research is needed to explain why Downs and Williams (1994) found
that those with previous disability experience feel the most incompetent, or why Rizzo
and Vispoel (1991) identified a negative correlation between perceived competence and
age (Kozub & Lienert, 2003).

The extant research indicates several influences on physical educators. It is
important to find the link between these findings and the potential influence of these
teachers on the social interactions of youths with autism. With the inclusion movement

in full force, youths with autism are often finding themselves in GPE classrooms (Reid,

34

 

O'Connor, & Lloyd, 2003). Physical education settings may have extremely large
numbers of students participating at the same time. The high numbers can cause
classroom management to become a problem for general physical educators, and they
spend much of their time simply organizing the children, and not getting to focus
exclusively on teaching (Block, 1999). Placing a child with autism into such an
environment may set the child up for failure from the beginning (Block, 1999). This is
especially true when the physical educator does not have any other teachers or para-
professionals to help, as often they do not.

It is essential to look at the attitudes and competencies of the physical educator in
an attempt to understand the possible influences on social interactions of youths with
autism. Feelings of competence and attitudes toward students with disabilities can
greatly affect the learning environment created by the physical educator. If physical
educators do not want to or do not feel competent in teaching youths with autism, several
difficulties could occur. Youths with autism are often viewed as presenting extreme
behavior difficulties and past research demonstrated that children with behavior disorders
are often viewed more negatively than children with other disorders such as learning
disabilities (Downs & Williams, 1994; Rizzo & Kirkendall, 1995; Rizzo & Vispoel,
1991). And even more simply, both teachers and physical activity instructors have
demonstrated a preference to teach students with mild disabilities over students with
severe disabilities (Conatser et al., 2002). Therefore, a physical educator may view a
child with autism as moderately to severely disabled and a behavior problem, which
could lead to avoidance or feelings of incompetence in the physical educator. If the

teacher does not want to interact with or teach youths with autism, it might be logical to

35

 

believe that the youths with autism will not engage in positive social interactions with
that GPE teacher.
Environment

According to the national School Health Policies and Programs Study (SHPPS)
conducted in 2006, 69.3% of elementary, 83.9% of middle, and 95.2% of high schools
required physical education for all students (Lee, Burgeson, Fulton, & Spain, 2007).
SHPPS reported that 89.6% of states and 98.5% of school districts mainstreamed, or
included, students with disabilities into regular physical education. Among the 62.4% of
schools that reported having students with long-term physical, medical, or cognitive
disabilities, 77.2% of schools had these students in general physical education (Lee et al.,
2007). Therefore, it is clear that most students with autism will be placed in GPE classes
at some point in their academic careers.

GPE environments often consist of large spaces, varying time requirements, a
large number of students, and a high student to teacher ratio. GPE classes are most often
held in school gymnasiums; 77.4% of elementary, 90.8% of middle, and 97.0% of all
high schools had access to an indoor gymnasium for physical education (Lee et al.,
2007). The most frequently available outdoor resource was a “general use field”; with
93.2% of elementary, 89.6% of middle, and 90.0% of all high schools having access (Lee
et al., 2007). Other location resources, such as tennis courts and swimming pools, were
not as available to physical education classes in all levels of school. There is no specific
or consistent time requirement for physical education. For example of the elementary
schools that require physical education, the time required was anywhere from 30 to 150

minutes per week (Lee et al., 2007).

36

The National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE)
recommends that the size of physical education class be consistent with those of other
subject areas (e.g., maximum 1 teacher:25 students for elementary, 1:30 for middle, 1:35
for high school) for safe and effective instruction (Mosston & Ashworth, 2002).
However, many physical education teachers today have class sizes much larger, with over
40 students per class not uncommon. These large class sizes could reduce the amount of
individualized instruction, especially for students with disabilities (Mosston & Ashworth,
2002). For this reason, proponents of inclusion have long recognized the need for other
support personnel, such as volunteers, teacher assistants or aides, and education
specialists (Block, 2007). Altering these challenging environmental conditions is not
always an easy option for'schools and physical educators.

The major components of physical education include physical and motor fitness,
skill-related fitness, fundamental motor skills and patterns, aquatics, rhythm and dance,
individual sports, and team sports (Block, 2007). Physical educators have students
engage in these components, and attempt to meet the six national physical education
course standards developed by NASPE. The standards state that as a result of physical
education the student:

1. Demonstrates competency in motor skills and movement patterns needed to

perform a variety of physical activities

2. Demonstrates understanding of movement concepts, principles, strategies, and

tactics as they apply to the learning and performance of physical activities

3. Participates regularly in physical activity

4. Achieves and maintains a health-enhancing level of physical fitness

37

5. Exhibits responsible personal and social behaviors that respects self and others

in physical activity settings

6. Values physical activity for health, enjoyment, challenge, and/or social

interaction (Block, 2007, p. 2)
Several GPE curriculums are based upon these standards (Block, 2007). The NASPE
(2004) standards recognize that physical education is an environment in which social
skills and interactions can be fostered. GPE provides an educational environment in
which values such as uniqueness, empowerment, belonging, security, and purpose should
be upheld (Sherrill, 2004). Sherrill (2004) stated that a well-developed inclusive physical
education program should develop skills for social interactions.

Inclusion reflects the philosophy that all children, regardless of abilities or
disabilities, should be educated within the same environment, in which each child’s
individual needs are met (Block, 2007; Downing, 2002; S. Stainback & Stainback, 1990;
W. Stainback, Stainback, & Bunch, 1989). S. Stainback and Stainback (1990) state that,
“an inclusive school is a place where everyone belongs, is accepted, supports, and is
supported by his/her peers and other members of the school community in the course of
having his/her educational needs met” (p. 3). Inclusion is no longer a philosophical
concept, but rather it is highly practiced throughout the United States. The US.
Department of Education reports that approximately 96% of students with disabilities are
educated in general education schools. Almost half of these students spend the majority
of the school day in general education classrooms. It is important to note that inclusion
does not mean placing a student in general education without support or without adapting

the curriculum (Block, 2007). Children with disabilities should be the responsibility of

38

both general and special education staff, not simply restricted to receiving services from
special education staff (Downing, 2002; S. Stainback & Stainback, 1990).

Supporters of inclusion have proposed several benefits for merging general and
special education, which are not created in segregated educational settings (Block, 2007;
Downing, 2002; Snell & Eichner, 1989; S. Stainback & Stainback, 1990). Downing
(2002), Snell and Eichner (1989), and Stainback and Stainback (1990) outlined several
social benefits of inclusion for students with disabilities, including: (a) opportunities to
learn appropriate social skills; (b) opportunities to learn social skills in an integrated,
natural environment; (c) potential for new friendships with peers without disabilities; ((1)
working with parents, special education teachers and other staff, which provides new
experiences and relationship; and (e) providing age-appropriate role models. Inclusion in
educational programs, “also may provide an important environmental context for the
development of social skills, the formation of peer relationships, and engagement in
varied social activities” (Orsmond et al., 2004, p. 247). Research in adapted physical
activity illustrates that social acceptance and interaction with peers is one of the most
frequently cited benefits of inclusion in GPE class for students with disabilities (Block,
2007; Sherrill, 2004).

However, the research literature clearly illustrates that not all interactions in GPE
are viewed as positive by individuals with disabilities. This led researchers to investigate
how often and what type of social interactions are occurring in GPE. Ellis and colleagues
(1996) found very limited social contact between students with and without disabilities
during PE. The study used direct observation with ten elementary-aged students with

moderate to severe mental retardation. Both activity types and social responses were

39

coded during observations of integrated physical education, which averaged 6.13 total
hours per participant (Ellis, Wright, & Cronis, 1996). Social interactions were analyzed
in reference to (a) with whom the interactions occurred and (b) during what type of
activity interaction occurred with teachers and students with and without disabilities. The
participants interacted most frequently with peers with and without disabilities in small
group or free play situations, while teacher interactions occurred most frequently during
independent activities (Ellis et al., 1996). The authors note several limitations and state
that it “should be viewed only as a first attempt to describe physical education settings in
which students with moderate to profound mental retardation are served” (p. 241). They
suggest more specific definitions of social interactions as well as a more precise
measurement system for future investigations.

Place and Hodge (2001) reported their participants with physical disabilities had
very low percentages of GPE time spent in social interactions. Regardless of what was
occurring in the GPE, social contact almost never occurred between students with and
without disabilities. Using the Analysis of Inclusion Practices in Physical Education,
Form S, the mean percentage of time the participants spent interacting with peers without
disabilities was calculated at 4.0% (Place & Hodge, 2001). The limited interactions of
the participants seemed to occur amongst themselves. These findings suggest that even
when physically present in GPE, students with disabilities are rarely interacting with their
classmates without disabilities.

Researchers have also attempted to determine different factors which could have
positive or negative influences on the social experiences of students with disabilities in

GPE (Suomi, Collier, & Brown, 2003). Suomi et al., (2003) purposefully sampled from

40

kindergarten and fourth grade classes, due to the inclusion of students with intellectual
disabilities and students with learning disabilities. From each grade, six students were
chosen and placed into one of three categories based on their performance in physical
education: (a) thriving — including the students who tended to be more popular and
successful in physical education; (b) struggling - including students who were less skilled
and had a hard time with social skills; and (c) students with disabilities. Data collection
methods included observations, student interviews, focus group interviews, and
interviews with the physical education teacher.

Four major factors which affected the social experiences were identified,
including (a) teachers, (b) social nature of the tasks, (c) classroom cultures, and (d) social
skills of the students (Suomi et al., 2003). Teachers influenced social experiences
through the way activities were structured, modifications made to activities, and through
the caring nature of the classroom. The social nature of the task ranged from positive
(e. g., when positive interactions occurred because the teacher praised students for
positive social interaction) to negative (e.g., when students with disabilities were
excluded from games and the teacher did not notice). The classroom cultures had a
significant influence on the social influences of the students. Students with disabilities
tended to work within their own comfort zones, and they typically did not have partners
(Suomi et al., 2003). On occasion, no other students wanted to work with the students
with disabilities. Finally, social skills of the students were evident when students without
disabilities assisted students with disabilities (Suomi et al., 2003). However, there were
times when the social skills of students without disabilities were not as well-developed,

and they were mean spirited towards or excluded students with disabilities.

41

Only one researcher has investigated the social interactions of students with
autism in physical education settings (Lisboa, 1997). Lisboa (1997) conducted a pilot
study with three male students diagnosed with autism, ages 11, 13, and 17 years. All
participants were observed during five consecutive physical education classes. During
observations, the researcher used a modified version of the Interaction Checklist Form
(Graham, Holt/Hale, & Parker, 2007), which recorded four interaction patterns: (a) smile
at, (b) talk to, (c) touch, and (d) assistance (Lisboa, 1997). Results indicated “that
interaction levels were much higher with classroom aides than with teachers, and very
low with peers” (Lisboa, 1997, p. 1). The author also reported that despite low levels of
interaction, both teachers and students without disabilities appeared open to having the
students with disabilities in GPE.

Tasks

Though tasks are usually defined as the physical activities, skills, or games of
physical education, because of the emphasis on social interactions, the ALT-PE and
BEACHES categories will be used to define the tasks. The purpose of the Academic
Learning Time-Physical Education (ALT-PE) instrument is “to measure the portion of
time in a physical education lesson that a student is involved in motor activity at an
appropriate success rate” (M. Parker, 1989, p. 195). The type of motor activity and the
context, or task, of the entire class can be measured by ALT-PE (M. Parker, 1989). The
ALT-PE instrument has been used to assess teaching effectiveness in physical education
for several years (see Block & Vogler, 1994 for review).

ALT-PE ranges of time spent in motor activity at an appropriate success rate, for

youths without disabilities, have been found to vary from setting to setting and activity to

42

activity (M. Parker, 1989). ALT-PE levels, including several categories along with the
motor appropriate category, has been found to range from 14% to 22% (Godbout,
Brunelle, & Tousignant, 1983; Metzler, 1979). When all categories except motor
appropriate have been removed, ALT-PE percentages have ranged from 2 to 30% in
public school environments (Placek & Randall, 1986; Shute, Dodds, Placek, Rife, &
Silverman, 1982). However, research has also found time spent engaged in appropriate
motor activity to be as high as 50% of time (Vogler et al., 2000). The average ALT-PE
percentage for public school classes seems to fall between 15% and 25% (M. Parker,
1989). Reliability has been kept in check through high required levels of inter-observer
agreement (Godbout et al., 1983; Placek & Randall, 1986; Shute et al., 1982; Vogler et
al., 2000). Overall, the ALT-PE is a valid and reliable data collection system (Metzler,
1989), which has been well documented in physical education research for two decades
(see reviews by Block & Vogler, 1994; Metzler, 1989).

Past research is conflicting on the potentially varying levels of ALT-PE between
students with and without disabilities. Vogler (2000) used a case study approach, and
found a student with severe cerebral palsy did not experience different levels of ALT-PE
compared to classmates without disabilities. However, it is important to note that this
study was conducted from a human or people resources model. Therefore during all
physical education classes, both a general physical educator and an adapted physical
educator were present. This particular arrangement could easily have influenced the time
spent in the various ALT-PE categories by the student with cerebral palsy. Qualitative
interview data revealed several opinions on the situation by the students, GPE teacher,

and the adapted physical educator (Vogler et al., 2000). Both the GPE teacher and

43

adapted physical educator recognized the great need for accommodations, recognizing
the child may not have been able to participate without the extra assistance (Vogler et al.,
2000). So, even though ALT-PE was found similar, this particular case included extra
assistance which may not be available to all GPE instructors and their students with
disabilities.

Place and Hodge (2001) sought to gather information about the tasks using ALT-
PE in an attempt to better understand the social behaviors that occurred. The ALT-PE
was utilized by researchers to determine that the students with disabilities spent 36% of
their time in motor activity, “29% of their time waiting; 12% in transitions; 10% in
knowledge content (i.e., listening to information about technique, rules of game, strategy,
or background); 8% in management; and 2% off-task” (Place & Hodge, 2001, p. 401).
Students without disabilities spent 31% of their time in motor activity; 13% waiting; 24%
i in transitions; 21% in knowledge content; 6% in management; and 5% off-task (Place &
Hodge, 2001). The authors noted that students without disabilities were more likely to
engage in off-task behavior and took longer with transitions. Place and Hodge (2001)
found that the GPE teacher provided more instruction to the students without disabilities
than to the student with disabilities. The students with disabilities spent more time
waiting in line for activities than students without disabilities (Place & Hodge, 2001).

Temple and Walkley (1999) found contrasting data which demonstrated that
youths with mild intellectual disabilities (MID) may experience limited ALT-PE. The
participants included 24 students with MID, 48 students without disabilities, and 24
teachers who were the participants’ regular physical education teachers. The researchers

modified the ALT-PE coding system slightly and gathered data that demonstrated how

44

the students spent their physical education time, “specifically, measuring the amount of
time students spent successfully engaged in motor activity related to lesson objectives”
(p. 67). Even though students with and without disabilities spent similar amounts of time
in the context of motor or knowledge activity, students with MID spent considerably less
time appropriately motor engaged (Temple & Walkley, 1999). The authors reported that
students with MID were often asked to engage in motor tasks which were too diflicult,
thereby demonstrating a lack of accommodation for the abilities of the students with
MID.

However, it is important to consider that all ALT-PE categories may not lend to,
or be appropriate for social interactions. For example, the knowledge category has a
primary focus on teaching and learning knowledge related to physical education content.
If a physical education teacher is lecturing to his or her class about proper execution of a
skill, social interactions should not be occurring. Interactions during this time would
most likely be considered inappropriate, unless the student is responding to a question or
prompt from the teacher.

To further define the GPE tasks, the Behaviors of Eating and Activity for
Children’s Health Evaluation System (BEACHES) (McKenzie et al., 1991) was used to
code physical activity levels. BEACHES is a comprehensive direct observation system
which was designed to gather data on children’s physical activity, eating behaviors, and
related environmental events (McKenzie et al., 1991). For the purpose of this study, only
the physical activity portion of the observation instrument was utilized. The physical
activity portion of BEACHES measures the amount of time a participant spends in

various levels of physical activity, which are linked to various levels of energy

45

expenditure. BEACHES has not been used in previous research on social interactions in
GPE; however, it may help to further illustrate “what happens” in GPE that either fosters
or discourages social interaction (Place & Hodge, 2001).
Interaction of People, Environment, and Tasks

Individuals with autism face a number of challenges in GPE that can affect social
interactions, learning, and performance of physical activities. This section will illustrate
several of the factors that may influence socialization by students with autism in GPE.
Environmental Considerations

Youths with autism often present unique behaviors in the physical activity
environments. New settings present a variety of challenging auditory, visual, and tactile
stimuli in large open spaces (O'Connor et al., 2000). Initially these youths may
experience difficulties due to a limited ability to cope with new surroundings. This
inability to cope comes from a difficulty in screening out irrelevant information within
the environment (Winnick, 2005). Various behaviors may demonstrate this inability to
cope, such as outbursts, pacing, hand flapping, or toe walking (O'Connor et al., 2000).
All of these behaviors could be disruptive, especially in an inclusive physical education
setting. These coping skills could also be made worse if the physical education programs
are not adequately designed to include youths with autism. It is difficult to engage in
social interaction if the child is having an outburst or is hand flapping.

Due to unique sensory needs (Reid et al., 2003), the environment may be more
influential on physical activity behavior of children with autism than it is on children
without disabilities. Some youths with autism overreact to sensory stimuli, but others

under-react to, or apparently do not register sensory stimuli (Fisher, Murray, & Bundy,

46

1991). Some youths with autism may even present vacillating sensitivity to certain
stimuli. A child with autism may be deterred from engaging in physical activity in
settings that are too loud or too visually chaotic (Reid et al., 2003). When a youth with
autism is avoiding physical activity, it may not be a result of attitudes about the activity,
but rather sensory issues within the environment. This may not be a typical response for
youths without disabilities. This withdrawal could easily influence the amount of social
interaction the child gains during a physical education class.
Physical Activity Preferences

According to O’Connor et al. (2000) individuals with autism also tend to
demonstrate lower levels of interest in participation in games, which are often the main
components of physical education and physical activity programs. Team sports, such as
soccer or basketball, can present a complexity or environment of overwhelming sensory
input for youths with autism. With respect to specific sports, one study concluded that
children with autism enjoy swimming and water activities (Can et al., 2004). Pan and
Frey (2006) found “most participants [with autism] indicated a lack of enjoyment for
team sports and preferred individual activities such as martial arts and swimming” (p.
604). Logic dictates that children with autism are likely to be more successful with
“closed” motor skills which emphasize similar tasks, equipment, and environments on
every occasion, than with “open” motor skills where these characteristics change
frequently. This may be due to the fact that children with autism frequently have strong
desires to avoid change in routines and have a “need for sameness” (O'Connor et al.,
2000; Ozonoff, Dawson, & McPartland, 2002). “Closed” skills are usually more solitary

in nature, therefore potentially lirrriting social interactions with others.

47

Orsmond and colleagues (2004) evaluated the frequencies of participation in
social and recreational activities by adolescents and adults with autism. A sub-sample of
235 adolescents and adults with autism were included in the study, and mothers of the
individuals with autism were asked to report on how often their child engaged in certain
social and recreational activities. Answers were divided into activities which the
individual with autism did at least once a week, once or twice a month, several times a
year, and less than yearly. The most common activity in the at least once a week
category (74.5%) was going for a walk or getting exercise, and the second most common
activity (41.3%) was engaging in a hobby. Interestingly, both of these activities can be
pursued independently, without friends or companions (Orsmond et al., 2004).

Physical Fitness

Individuals with disabilities have been found to participate in physical activities
less frequently than persons without disabilities (Kosma, Cardinal, & Rintala, 2002);
however, statistics specific to persons with autism are not available. Pan and Frey (2006)
noted that elementary school children with autism are more active than middle and high
school aged students. Other researchers (Auxter, nyer, & Huettig, 1997; Ho, Eaves, &
Peabody, 1997) have concluded that children with autism often possess low levels of
physical fitness, which tend to include excess body fat. If a child with autism has low
physical fitness, he or she may be deterred from participating during GPE, which in turn
could limit opportunities for social interactions.

Physical Activity Skills
Early research supported the views that motor development and movement skills

followed a typical developmental pattern; however, more recent research has revealed

48

possible motor delays and difficulties (Reid & Collier, 2002). Six children and six
adolescents with autism were compared to the norms of typically developing individuals
and those with intellectual disabilities on several movement tasks (Reid, Collier, &
Morin, 1983). Both children and adolescents with autism had scores that were below
those of their peers without disabilities and their peers with intellectual disabilities.
Morin and Reid ( 1985) gathered quantitative and qualitative data on balance, throwing,
catching, jumping, and running tests for eight youths with autism and eight youths with
intellectual disabilities. While there was a trend toward lower qualitative scores by the
youths with autism, no significant quantitative differences were found between the
groups (Morin & Reid, 1985). The authors concluded “that the selected test items
generally represented reliable indices of the motor performance of autistic persons [sic]
and that performance during formal testing essentially mirrored that of guided play”
(Morin & Ried, 1985, p. 43). However, the authors also note that some of the difficulties
may have been a factor of the participants mental retardation, rather than a factor of the
autism alone. It is interesting to note that youths with high-functioning autism have self-
reported lower perceptions of athletic competencies than peers without disabilities
(Bauminger et al., 2004).

More recently, data have suggested that there is a difference of motor skills and
development in youths with autism. Berkeley and colleagues (2001) assessed 15 children
with autism, ages 6-8 years old, on the locomotor and object control tasks of the Test of
Gross Motor Development (TGMD). Seventy-three percent of the children fell into the
poor or very poor TGMD categories, and all were below average to very poor in

locomotor skills. Only three boys scored average or above average in object control

49

(Berkeley, Zittel, Pitney, & Nichols, 2001). Jansiewicz et a1. (2006) found significant
impairment on several motor control measures in a group of 40 boys with autism, ages 6
to 17. The boys with autism demonstrated increased difficulty with balance and gait,
slower speed and more dysrhythmia with timed movements of hands and feet (Jansiewicz
et al., 2006). Reid and Collier (2002) recognize that there are children with autism who
possess very refined motor skills and agility. However, based on the available empirical
data, they concluded “that movement skills are often poorly developed and/or delayed in
autism, individual exceptions notwithstanding” (Reid & Collier, 2002, p. 26).

Movement skill delays and unique sensory needs may possibly lead youths with
autism to avoid more complex, team sport situations (O'Connor et al., 2000). If youths
with autism do not want to engage in team sports, which are a major component in
physical education settings, then it is not logical to believe they will develop the physical
skills associated with that sport. This fact, in turn, would place the child at a
disadvantage if the child ever wanted to attempt to join the group or inclusion was forced
(Reid & Collier, 2002). For example, a youth with autism may prefer to shoot baskets
alone on the playground. This solitary activity will not develop or foster any of the skills,
other than shooting, that would be involved in the game of basketball, such as passing or
defending. And, as with physical fitness, this motor skill deficit may limit social
interactions by way of exclusion from the activity.

Measurement Issues

As data on social interactions of youths with autism in GPE are very limited,

some of the research considered in this review was conducted with individuals having

other disabilities besides autism.

50

Social Interactions

Social interactions among students with disabilities in GPE have been examined
mostly through case study research design (Lisboa, 1997; Place & Hodge, 2001; Vogler
et al., 2000). This has been attributed to small sample sizes, as well as a way in which to
gather in-depth data about the situation (Place & Hodge, 2001; Vogler et al., 2000).
Instrumentation for measuring social interactions has not been consistent throughout the
extant literature. Vogler and colleagues (2000) used interviews to gain insight into the
social inclusion of a child with cerebral palsy. However, interviews are not thought to be
prudent for this study, due to the communication challenges presented by youths with
autism. Lisboa (1997) used a modified version of the Interaction Checklist Form
(Graham et al., 2007), which recorded four interaction patterns: (a) smile at, (b) talk to,
(c) touch, and (d) assistance (Lisboa, 1997). These categories fail to include whether or
not the interactions were appropriate, inappropriate, positive, or negative in nature. The
AIPE-S and AIPE-SR have been validated and re-validated, and have been used in two
studies measuring social interactions of individuals with disabilities (Hersman, 2007;
Hodge, Ammah, Casebolt, LaMaster, & O'Sullivan, 2000; Hodge & Hersman, 2007;
Place & Hodge, 2001). It allows researchers to code when interactions occur, whether or
not the interaction was appropriate, and whether or not the interaction was positive.
Level of Engagement in Activity

ALT-PE was utilized by both Place and Hodge (2001) and Vogler et a1. (2000) to
further understand what was occurring in the GPE class sessions. Both studies required a
high level of inter-observer agreement (IOA), at least 90%, when using ALT-PE. The

ALT-PE possesses some limitations including: (a) it is limited by the nature of interval-

51

recording techniques (Siedentop, 1983), (b) it is not sensitive to differences among types
of motor performances, (c) it may provide a picture of a small portion of what occurs in
physical education, ((1) it is not sensitive to the goals of a given lesson, and (e) it does not
indicate the quality of the practice of skills (M. Parker, 1989). However, the ALT-PE has
also been found to be a valid and reliable data collection system (Metzler, 1989). It is
frequently used to analyze videotape data (e.g., Vogler et al., 2000) for the categories of
student behaviors of students with and without disabilities, including activity, waiting,
transition, off-task, management, and knowledge (Place & Hodge, 2001). Therefore,
ALT-PE should provide a valid and reliable picture of what is occurring for students with
autism, when a high level of inter-observer agreement is maintained.

Although the BEACHES system has never been employed in research on social
interactions among students with disabilities in GPE, it may provide a more detailed
understanding of the situation than the ALT-PE alone. GPE is a physical activity
environment, and therefore the levels of physical activity occurring are a large
component of the situation. The BEACHES activity coding levels have been validated
through heart rate monitoring (McKenzie et al., 1991; Rowe, Schuldheisz, & van der
Mars, 1997) and CALTRAC accelerometers (McKenzie, Sallis, & Armstrong, 1994). As
“direct observation is the most practical and appropriate criterion measure of physical
activity and patterns of physical activity” (Sirard & Pate, 2001, p. 441) in children and
adolescents, the BEACHES scale should provide another valid and reliable instrument for

investigating the tasks in GPE.

52

Summary

This review of literature illustrates the importance of people, environment, and
tasks, and the possible interactions of the three, in the social interactions of students with
autism in GPE. Students with autism bring unique social and communication skills to the
situation. In addition, classmates and teachers may hold preconceived attitudes and/or
biases towards interacting with youths with disabilities. The typical GPE environment
has a large number of students and often a high student to teacher ratio, which can further
impact social interactions among individuals. The tasks, as defined by ALT-PE, have
been found to be both similar and different between students with and without
disabilities. These differences often appeared to be the result of different environments,
namely the student who had additional resources (e.g., teacher aide) experienced ALT-PE
similar to the classmates without disabilities (Vogler et al., 2000). Other interactions may
be seen for students with autism, as they may present unique environmental
considerations, physical activity preferences, and physical fitness and skill levels.

As in past research on social interactions among students with disabilities in GPE,
a case study approach with direct observations may allow this study to add to the
relatively sparse research literature. As in Place and Hodge (2001), this study benefited
from the use of video-camera recordings. These recordings not only allowed for multiple
observers, and therefore assessment of inter-observer agreement, but also allowed
researchers to evaluate the data with different data collection instruments. The AIPE-SR
and ALT-PE instruments provided valid and reliable data regarding social interactions

and GPE tasks. This range of data allowed for multiple results and conclusions.

53

 

 

CHAPTER 3
METHOD

The purpose of this study was to examine the nature and frequency of social
interactions among students with autism and other individuals during various tasks in
GPE, relative to social interactions in other education settings. A descriptive multiple-
case study design was employed. To achieve the purpose, social interactions were
observed for two cases in both GPE and an academic class environment. Each case
consisted of a student with autism, a comparison classmate without disability, other
classmates with and without disabilities, and the teachers and aides who worked in those
classes. Social interactions were analyzed as a function of the individuals involved in the
interactions, nature, and context of the interactions.

Research Design

The research method used a multiple-case study design (Berg, 2007; Patton, 1997;
Yin, 2003). Patton (1997) states that, “case studies. . .become particularly useful when
intended users need to understand a problem, situation, or program in great depth, and
they can identify cases rich in needed information-rich in the sense that a great deal can
be learned from a few exemplars of the phenomenon of interest” (p. 288). Yin (2003)
notes that a case study approach provides an advantage when “a ‘how’ or ‘why’ question
is being asked about a contemporary set of events, over which the investigator has little
or no control” (p. 9). Being comprehensive strategies, case studies may use a mix of
quantitative and qualitative data (Yin, 2003). Also, case study design is appropriate when

there is a limited number of participants (Yin, 2003).

54

Data were gathered on one participant with autism and one classmate without
disability (hereinafter referred to as the comparison classmate), per case, who had
returned signed parental consent and child assent forms. Observation data were obtained
on each of the students with autism and comparison classmate in the same GPE and
academic class. This made two pairs (one student with autism, one comparison
classmate) who were observed for at least five class sessions in each of two educational
settings (GPE and a shared academic class). The comparison classmates provided a
comparison group for data analyses.

Participants
Case Definition and Criteria

In case study research, a case can either be defined as an individual or as some
event or entity that is less well defined than a single individual (Yin, 2003). Yin (2003)
recommends basing the definition of a case on the primary research questions. As this
study focused on social interactions among multiple individuals in a setting, a case was
defined more broadly than a single individual.

Case criteria. A case was defined as a physical education and academic (i.e.,
math, social studies) class which meets the following criteria: (a) an upper elementary or
middle school (i.e., 5m, 6th grade) level class; (b) under the guidance of a teacher who is
certified to teach students at the given educational level; and (c) is an inclusive class
having both students without disabilities and one or more students diagnosed with autism.
The study involved two such cases; therefore, it included two participants with autism
currently enrolled in 5th and 6th grade, participating in an inclusive GPE and academic

class setting, and their classmates. The 5th grade classes occurred at an elementary

55

school, while the 6th grade classes occurred at a middle school in the same school district.
This study utilized data gathered in an inclusive academic class (i.e., math, social studies)
on the participants with autism and their comparison classmates in order to determine any
unique attributes of GPE in fostering social interactions.

Participant selection methods and criteria. Informational flyers were sent out
using a university listserv which included parents of students with special needs. From
this flyer, a total of three parents of students with autism contacted the student researcher
with interest in participation. One child did not meet inclusion criteria. The student
researcher met with the other two sets of parents to discuss the requirements of
participation and to review the protocol. Parents were asked to report diagnosis
information at this meeting. Diagnosis information was requested using the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV-TR definition of autism (APA, 2000, see
Appendix A). The student researcher also asked parents for permission to view the
school documents on record, pending principal approval to observe in the school, namely
the child’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) which included diagnosis information.

After confirmation of diagnosis and completion of written parental consent and
child assent for the student with autism, the student researcher contacted the principals of
each school. Meetings occurred with each principal in which all details of the study were
discussed. After principal approval was granted, the student researcher met with the
specific teachers designated by the principal to discuss the project. Teachers were asked
for permission to observe in their classrooms, and to complete informed consent

documents for themselves as participants. Following teacher consent, a date and time

56

was set for the researcher to discuss the project with the students and distribute consent
and assent documents to them.

At the set date and time, the student researcher attended class and discussed the
project with all of the classmates. Classmates were given as much time as needed to ask
questions and were then provided parental consent and child assent forms to discuss with
their parents. In the first school where consent and assent documents were distributed,
adequate numbers of consent and assent documents were not returned. During the 3
weeks following distribution, only three parental consent and child assent forms were
returned. Due to time constraints, this participant and school were dropped from this
project. In the second school, all parental consent and child assent documents were
returned within 2 weeks. As 100% of the forms were returned, this class was selected as
the first case for this study.

The principal of the first case school offered to distribute project information to
the parents of past students with autism. From this flyer distribution, only one other
parent contacted the student researcher with interest in participation. The same protocol
was followed in a third school. The student researcher met with the parents of the
students with autism, principal, teachers, and students and explained the project and
distributed consent and assent documents. In the third school, 66.67% of the consent and
assent documents were returned in the academic class and 64.29% were returned in GPE.
With the relatively high return rate of parental consent and child assent forms, this third
school was selected as the second case for this study.

The specific comparison classmates were selected based on gender and age

matching. The researcher first sorted the returned parental consent and child assent forms

57

by gender. Then the gender-matched or male forms were searched for students who were
the same age as the participant with autism. From these gender and age matched
potential students, one form was randomly selected to serve as the comparison classmate.

Consent and assent procedures. Institutional review board (IRB) approval was
obtained from Michigan State University (MSU) prior to the start of the study (see
Appendix B). IRB approval was also obtained from the school of each participant,
according to the school’s particular procedures. The researchers fulfilled any needed
requirements prior to entering the classroom. Approval was acquired from the principals
of the elementary and middle schools in which data were collected.

First, parents of the students with autism gave written consent and the students
with autism gave written assent. Next permission was granted from school principals and
teachers and aides gave written consent to participate in the study. Finally, the
classmates gave written assent to participate in the study, and their parents provided
written informed consent. Parental consent, child assent, and teacher consent documents
are located in Appendix C. Pseudonyms were used to protect the privacy of the
participating students, teachers, and aides.

Case I — Kevin and Adam

School and class characteristics. Case 1 occurred in a suburban elementary
school. The school housed Grades 3 through 5 and had 412 students enrolled. The ratio
of students per full-time equivalent teachers was 18: 1. The student body was
predominately Caucasian (94%), with the next highest ethnicity being Hispanic (3%).

GPE was offered two times per week for 35 minutes per session. The GPE

curriculum during the time of the observations included learning about the muscles and

58

motor skills related to rollerblading, tee-ball, kick-ball, golf putting, and track and field.

The GPE class structure was the same each session. First, the students walked around the

 

gym and stretched. Next the teacher reviewed the muscles and motor skill components of
the day’s activity. Lastly the students participated in the physical activity of the day.
Math occurred each day of the week, but was observed twice a week when it followed
GPE. Math sessions lasted 35 minutes each. During the time of the observations, the
students were predominately working on fractions. Students learned fractions by
completing several worksheets and doing problems together with the teacher on the
whiteboard.

Table 1

Individuals in Case I

 

 

Pseudonym Role Age Gender
Kevin Student with autism 11 Male
Adam Comparison classmate ‘ 11 Male
Classmates Classmates without disabilities M=10.44(0.58) Female (n=15)

Range=10-12 Male (n=10)
Mrs. Davis Math teacher 36 Female
Mr. Patton GPE teacher 35 Male
Ms. Elliot Aide 28 Female

 

Kevin. At the time of data collection, Kevin was an 11 year old male in the 5th
grade at elementary school. Kevin was diagnosed as having autism by a medical
professional at a major state university. The diagnosis of autism was confirmed on

Kevin’s school IEP. To further confirm diagnosis, his parents were asked to answer

59

 

questions related to the DSM-IV—TR definition of autism. His mother reported that he
had difficulty with social interactions. She reported that Kevin had difficulties with noise
tolerance and “too many people overwhelms him.” Kevin was predominately non-verbal
and used an electronic communication board to interact during school hours. When
asked about repetitive or stereotyped behaviors, Kevin’s mother reported that he “rewinds
and fast forwards movies; day dreams; lines things up.” These behaviors were not seen
from Kevin before 3 years old. Kevin did not have any physical disabilities.

Adam. At the time of data collection, Adam was an 11 year old male in 5th grade
at elementary school. Adam was a classmate of Kevin in both GPE and math Adam
provided consent and assent, and did not have any reported disabilities. Adam was
observed as the comparison student to Kevin.

Classmates. The 5th grade class (both math and GPE) of Kevin and Adam had 26
students, 15 females and 11 males including Kevin and Adam. IRB parental consent and
child assent forms were returned by all 26 students, with 1 parent of a male not granting
parental consent. The age range of assenting students was 10 to 12 years old (M=10.44,
SD=0.58). To the knowledge of the researcher, there were no other classmates besides
Kevin with a disability.

Mrs. Davis. Mrs. Davis was Kevin and Adam’s math teacher. She was 36 years
old and had been a certified teacher for 13.0 years. Mrs. Davis had been at the current
school for 10 years and was Kevin’s general education teacher for the current school
year. The only training she had received regarding teaching students with disabilities and

autism came from college coursework. No other training or conferences were reported.

60

Mr. Patton. Mr. Patton was Kevin and Adam’s GPE teacher. He was 35 years
old and had been a certified GPE teacher for 11.5 years. Mr. Patton had been at the
current school for 10.5 years and has been Kevin’s GPE teacher for 2 years. Mr. Patton
reported training to teach students with disabilities through multiple college courses,
conference sessions, and past hands-on instruction. Mr. Patton also reported receiving
training from the school district autism professionals.

Ms. Elliot. Ms. Elliot was Kevin’s paraprofessional aide, hereinafter referred to
as an aide. Ms. Elliot was 28 years old and she was not a certified teacher. She had been
working at the current school for four months and had been aiding Kevin for four months.
Ms. Elliot had a Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) training certification, and had
several past hands-on teaching experiences with students with autism.

Case 2 — Lee and Zack

School and class characteristics. Case 2 occurred in a suburban middle school in
the same school district as Case 1. The school housed Grades 6 through 8 and had 457
students enrolled. The ratio of students per firll-time equivalent teachers was 16:1. The
student body was predominately Caucasian (94%), with the next highest ethnic groups
being Hispanic (2%) and African American (2%).

At the time of observations GPE was offered every day of the week for 60
minutes per session. The GPE curriculum during the time of the observations included
learning about the sports skills related to floor hockey, basketball, and tennis. The GPE
class structure was the same each session. First, the students jogged around the gym for
approximately 5 minutes and stretched. Next the teacher reviewed sports skill

components of the day’s activity. Lastly the students participated in the physical activity

61

of the day. Social studies occurred each day of the week for 60 minutes per session.
During the time of the observations, the students were predominately learning about Asia,
specifically China and the Silk Road. Students learned through teacher lecture,
completing textbook readings, several workbook pages, and through activities such as
making posters.

Table 2

Individuals in Case 2

 

 

Pseudonjm Role Age Gender
Lee Student with autism 12 Male
Zack Comparison classmate 12 Male

GPE Classmates Classmates without disabilities M=12.64(0.50) Female (n=8)
Range=12-13 Male (n=7)

Social Studies Classmates without disabilities M=1 1 .80(0.5 8) Female (n=11)

Classmates Range=1 1-13 Male (n=3)
Mrs. Simon Social studies teacher 56 Female
Mr. Carlson GPE teacher 35 Male
Mrs. Shepard Aide 35 Female

 

Lee. At the time of data collection, Lee was a 12 year old male in the 6'h grade at
middle school. Lee was diagnosed as having autism by medical professionals at two
separate major state universities. The diagnosis of autism was confirmed on Lee’s school
IEP. To further confirm diagnosis, his parents were asked to answer questions related to
the DSM-IV-TR definition of autism. When asked about social interactions, Lee’s

mother stated that Lee “does not make eye contact with people he does not know, and

62

must be repeatedly prompted to talk to them.” In reference to communication, Lee’s
mother reported his receptive language skills are much better than his expressive
language skills. When asked about repetitive or stereotyped behaviors, his mother said
“when [Lee] becomes excited he flaps his arms and jumps.” His mother reported that he
“developed normally until 18 months of age when he began to lose his communication
skills slowly and not want [sic] to gaze into my eyes anymore.” Lee did not have any
physical disabilities.

Zack. Zack was a 12 year old male in 6th grade at middle school. Zack was a
classmate of Lee in both GPE and social studies. Zack provided consent and assent, and
did not have any reported disabilities. Zack was observed as the comparison student to
Lee.

Classmates. The GPE and social studies classes were not comprised entirely of
the same students. The social studies class was a 6th grade class of 24 students. Sixteen
of the students returned parental consent and child assent documents, with two returned
forms not granting consent. The age range of assenting students was 11 to 13 years old
(M=11.79, SD=0.58). Of the classmates granting assent there were 11 females and 3
males. To the knowledge of the researcher, there was only one other classmate with a
disability besides Lee who submitted signed parental consent and child assent in social
studies. This student was Lee’s twin brother. The parents informed the researcher that
Lee’s brother was diagnosed as having Asperger’s syndrome.

The GPE class of Lee and Zack was comprised of 28 students who were a
combination of 6th and 7th graders. Eighteen students returned consent and assent

documents, with three returned forms not granting consent. The age range of consenting

63

students was 12 to 13 years old (M=12.64, SD=0.50). Of the classmates granting consent
there were 8 females and 7 males. To the knowledge of the researcher, Lee’s brother was
the only other classmate with a disability in GPE besides Lee who submitted a signed
parental consent and child assent form.

Mrs. Simon. Mrs. Simon was Lee and Zack’s social studies teacher. She was 56
years old and had been a certified teacher for 30 years. Mrs. Simon had been at the
current school for 22 years and had been Lee’s social studies and language arts teacher
for the current school year. Mrs. Simon had her K-12 special education certification and
had taught special education in the past. She reported participation in workshops on the
topic of teaching students with autism.

Mr. Carlson. Mr. Carlson was Lee and Zack’s GPE teacher. He was 35 years old
and had been a certified teacher for 4 years. Mr. Carlson had been at the current school
for 2 years and had been Lee’s GPE teacher for the current school year. The only training
he had received regarding teaching students with disabilities and autism came from
“classes that were mandatory for a teacher certificate.” No other training or conferences
were reported.

Mrs. Shepard. Mrs. Shepard was Lee’s paraprofessional aide. She was 35 years
old and was not a certified teacher. Mrs. Shepard had been an aide for 16.5 years and had
been working with Lee for 4 years. Mrs. Shepard had a Crisis Prevention Intervention
(CPI) training certification, and had several past trainings, hands-on teaching

experiences, and conference sessions about students with autism.

64

Instrumentation

Instrumentation included written demographic surveys, field notes, and three
observation forms, the AIPE-SR, ALT-PE, and BEACHES. The field notes and
observation instruments aimed to provide data on social interactions and the tasks
engaged in during GPE and academic classes.

Demographic Survey

The independent variables of this study included the participants’ diagnosis of
autism, age, and grade level. The diagnosis of autism was determined based on the
definition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV- TR)
published by the American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnosis information was
requested from parents or guardians in a written survey prior to the start of the study. In
order to further validate the diagnosis, the researchers asked the parents for permission to
view documentation of the child’s permanent school record, which would include the
participant’s Individual Education Plan (IEP). Parents were also asked to report age, and
grade level of their child on a demographic survey (see Appendix D ).

Due to the possible influences of teachers on the social environment of the
classroom, teachers were also asked to provide background information in a written
survey. Teachers completed a survey containing age, gender, years of teaching
experience, years in current position, amount of time which teacher has taught the
participant with autism, and previous in-service education about disability.

Field Notes
Field notes were used to gather supplemental qualitative data, and assisted in

providing a detailed explanation of what occurred in each class session (see Appendix E).

65

Observation notes were focused on the participant and paired classmate in the class.
These notes detailed the setting, activities, and behaviors of the participants including
social interactions. Teacher and peer actions and behaviors were recorded, as well as any
other comments deemed necessary by the observers.

AIPE-SR

Social interactions were defined and coded based on the Analysis of Inclusion
Practices in Physical Education, F orrn-S Revision (AIPE-SR) (Hodge & Hersman, 2007).
The APIE-S instrument was originally “designed to determine occurrence and duration of
specific student interaction behaviors during physical education classes” (Place & Hodge,
2001, p. 393). It allowed for occurrence to be determined through frequency counts of
eight different student behaviors (Hodge et al., 2000). However, in 2007 AIPE-S was
modified slightly to strengthen the instrument (Hodge & Hersman, 2007).

The AIPE-SR uses an interval recording system to record the occurrence of four
social interaction categories appropriate, positive appropriate, inappropriate, and off task
interactions (Hodge & Hersman, 2007). Hodge and Hersman (2007) provide basic
definitions for each interaction type, and Hersman (2007) expands to give examples,
which are summarized below.

0 Appropriate interactions. “These behaviors can be verbal or non-verbal in nature
and include behaviors that are not positive in nature, but are neutral in affect”
(Hodge & Hersman, 2007, p. 3). Hersman (2007) stated that verbal examples of
appropriate interactions occur when the student with or without a disability initiates
an exchange with a peer with or without a disability, such as giving specific

feedback, asking something politely of the student, using peer's first name, asking a

66

peer to model or demonstrate for her/him (Hodge et al., 2000), or talking with the
student in normal conversation. Non-verbal examples of appropriate interactions
occur when the student models or demonstrates an activity for a peer (Hodge et al.,
2000) or initiates hands on contact to guide a peer through an activity. (p. 126)

0 Positive appropriate interactions. “These behaviors can be verbal or non-verbal in
nature, and are positive in affect” (Hodge & Hersman, 2007, p. 3). Verbal
examples include students with or without a disability offering positive praise or
encouragement, such as “Good job!”. Non-verbal examples include actions such as
high-fives, clapping for others, thumbs up, pats on the back, or hugs between
students with and without disabilities (Hersman, 2007). Hereinafter, these
behaviors will be referred to as positive interactions.

° Inappropriate interactions. “Inappropriate behaviors consist of verbal or non-
verbal incidents where a student with or without a disability exhibits negative
behavior toward a peer” (Hodge & Hersman, 2007, p. 3). Verbal examples include
when a student uses “a put-down toward or unjustly criticizes a peer” (Hersman,
2007, p. 127). Other examples include sarcasm toward or mocking other students.
Non-verbal examples include mimicking, pushing, hitting, or making rude gestures
toward peers (Hersman, 2007).

° 017 task interactions. Off task interactions consist of “any verbal or non-verbal
interactions that occur between students when the students are not supposed to be
interacting [e.g., when the teacher is talking], or when the interactions are not
related to the activity” (Hodge & Hersman, 2007, p. 3). Verbal examples include

talking when the teaching is speaking or talking when the student is supposed to be

67

engaged in another activity. Non-verbal examples include making gestures or
pointing while the teacher is speaking, when students should be listening (Hersman,
2007)

The AIPE-S utilized a straight frequency count of each type of interaction. This
study used this frequency count procedure, as the research questions focused on the
number of interactions which occurred. The lead researcher and second observer
recorded social interaction behaviors real-time and from video-recordings. From these
data, researchers were able to assess how frequently a student with autism and classmate
engaged in the multiple types of social interaction with others in the environment.

Content validity for the original AIPE-S was established by “a panel of four
nationally prominent teacher educators in adapted and general physical education” (Place
& Hodge, 2001, p. 393). The panel members were selected based on their reputations as
experts on inclusion and/or behavioral research in physical education (Place & Hodge,
2001). The panelists were asked to rank the scale on representativeness, completeness
and accuracy, appropriateness and suitability, and utility. The AIPE-S was determined to
have content validity and was then utilized by Place and Hodge (2001) to investigate
social inclusion of three participants with physical disabilities.

The AIPE-S was later modified in two ways to strengthen the instrument (Hodge
& Hersman, 2007). The length of the observation periods was decreased, and a
frequency within interval recording system was applied for calculating inter-observer
agreement (IOA). Also, to decrease the complexity of coding, a simpler coding system

was developed. The revisions were pilot tested by Hersman (2007) in an investigation of

social interactions and adventure education. Following the pilot study, the revised

68

instrument was evaluated by the lead author of the original AIPE-S to establish face
validity. Then the revised instrument was sent to two university faculty members, with
expertise in adapted physical education, for feedback and to reassess the content validity
(Yun & Ulrich, 2002).

Observer reliability of the AIPE-S has been calculated by both intra-observer
agreement (Place & Hodge, 2001), and by inter-observer agreement (Hersman, 2007) in
past research. When observing three students with physical disabilities, intra-observer
agreement was determined to be 98% (Place & Hodge, 2001). Hersman (2007) trained
observers until at least 90% inter-observer agreement was obtained, while observing
approximately 21 students, some of whom had learning and/or emotional disabilities. For
reliability, this study will uphold at least an 85% inter-observer agreement, which is
considered acceptable (Kazdin, 1982).

AL T-PE

The tasks of the GPE and academic class were assessed using the Academic
Learning Time for Physical Education (ALT-PE) instrument (Siedentop, Tousignant, &
Parker, 1982). Academic learning time (ALT) is the portion of time when a student is
engaged in activity appropriate to his or her abilities, which results in high success and
low error rates (Block & Vogler, 1994; M. Parker, 1989; Siedentop et al., 1982). The
purpose of the Academic Learning Time-Physical Education (ALT-PE) instrument is “to
measure the portion of time in a physical education lesson that a student is involved in
motor activity at an appropriate success rate” (M. Parker, 1989, p. 195). The type of
motor activity and the context of the entire class can be measured by ALT-PE (M. Parker,

1989). The ALT-PE instrument uses an interval-recording procedure, and has been used

69

to assess teaching effectiveness in physical education for several years (see review by
Block & Vogler, 1994).

As in Place and Hodge (2001), it is important to assess “what happened”
contextually at times of various social interactions. Therefore, the instructional context
was based on several classroom context categories (Place & Hodge, 2001). Classroom
context categories included: activity, waiting, transitions, management, and knowledge.

' Activity. Activity was defined as any time in which the students are appropriately
motor engaged, whether it be individual or group tasks (Place & Hodge, 2001). For
this study, activity will include any time when students are engaged in class
activities or assignments in which the teacher instructed them. In an academic class
this could include working independently or with a partner on a worksheet, creating
a poster or project, reading as instructed, completing a workbook page, etc. In GPE
this could include running laps, playing a game, completing physical activity
stations, etc.

° Waiting. Waiting was defined as when “the student has completed a task and is
waiting for the next instructions or opportunity to respon ” (M. Parker, 1989, p.
198). This is anytime a student is waiting between other events. This could
include waiting to be assigned partners or teams, waiting to begin class, waiting in
line, etc.

° Transitions. Transitions were defined as time during which managerial or
organizational activities related to instruction are occurring (M. Parker, 1989).

This includes transitioning from one activity to the next, transitioning to groups

after the teacher has made assignments, walking from one piece of exercise

70

equipment to another, moving to another station as the teacher sets up the materials,
etc.

' Management. Management was defined as class time in which class business is
occurring unrelated to the instructional activities (Parker, 1989). Management in
class includes taking attendance, giving grades, organizing paperwork, reading
school announcements, etc.

° Knowledge. Knowledge was defined as “class time when the primary focus is
intended to be on knowledge related to physical education content” (Parker, 1989,
p.197). This includes lecture time in which the teacher is presenting knowledge to
the students. This also includes any review of knowledge material presented in the
past and any questions or answers related to the cognitive material.

The GPE and academic classes were analyzed using the ALT-PE instrument to obtain a
more complete view of “what occurred” in each class (Place & Hodge, 2001). The
original ALT-PE utilized an interval recoding system with a 5 s observe, 5 3 record
period. However, as this study was concerned with the context in which social
interactions occur, ALT-PE was coded as a frequency count corresponding with the
occurrence of social interactions. For example, when an interaction occurred the
observer recorded the classroom context at the moment of interaction.
BEACHES

The Behaviors of Eating and Activity for Children’s Health Evaluation System
(BEACHES) (McKenzie et al., 1991) was used to code physical activity levels in order to
add information about the tasks in GPE and the academic class. BEACHES is a

comprehensive direct observation system that was designed to gather data on children’s

71

physical activity, eating behaviors, and related environmental events (McKenzie et al.,
1991; Sirard & Pate, 2001). For the purpose of this study, only the physical activity
portion of the observation instrument was used. The activity level scale was designed to
provide “an estimate of the intensity of the child’s physical activity” (McKenzie et al.,
1991, p. 144). McKenzie and colleagues (1991) provided the following explanation of
the activity coding levels:

' Lying down. Refers to the body position of the participant, lying down with little to
no movement (McKenzie et al., 1991). A participant must have his or her entire
back, stomach, or side in full contact with the floor, with legs and arms resting
quietly on the body or floor. The head must also be in contact with the floor.

' Sitting. Refers to the body position of the participant, sitting with little to no
movement (McKenzie et al., 1991). This includes when a participant is seated on
his or her bottom or knees. Arms and legs must be resting quietly and no
extraneous head movements.

' Standing. Refers to the body position of the participant, standing with little to no
movement (McKenzie et al., 1991). A participant must have one or two feet in
contact with the floor, with arms not in contact with the floor. During standing, no
extraneous leg, arm, or head movements can be occurring.

' Walking. Refers to the body position of the participant, walking at a normal pace
without excessive movement such as jumping or skipping (McKenzie et al., 1991).
A participant must move alternating the foot that is in contact with the ground,
moving at a normal pace for the individual. During walking, both of the

participant’s feet are never off of the ground at the same time.

72

0 Very active. Very active “describes when the child is expending more energy than
he or she would during ordinary walking. For example, Code 5 (very active) would
be used to indicate the child is wrestling with a peer (even though he is lying on his
back) or pedaling a moving tricycle or stationary bike (even though sitting)”
(McKenzie et al., 1991, p. 144). Very active includes jogging, running, using
exercise equipment at a brisk pace, rollerblading at a brisk pace, riding a bike or
trike, or swimming laps in a pool.

The entire BEACHES system employs an interval recording procedure with a 25 s
observe and 35 5 record rate (McKenzie et al., 1991). This study employed an interval
procedure as well. However, as the data were video taped in Case 1 making reviews
possible, the intervals were shortened to a 15 s observe, 15 5 record rate. BEACHES
levels were also coded as a frequency count corresponding with the occurrence of social
interactions in Case 1. Video tape was not used in Case 2 because only 66.67% (GPE)
and 64.29% (social studies) of the parental consent and child assent forms were returned.
Real-time data collection was used in place of video taping. Due to this real-time data
collection, the observers were unable to collect BEACHES data in Case 2. The
BEACHES results provided a frequency of occurrence for each activity category, and
provided information about which activity levels had interactions. These procedures
provided specific information on how active students were during GPE time and during
which activity levels interactions occurred.

Extensive field testing has illustrated the feasibility of the BEACHES system and
the reliability of the coding categories (McKenzie et al., 1991). The activity coding

levels have been validated through heart rate monitoring (McKenzie et al., 1991; Rowe et

73

 

 

al., 1997) and CALTRAC accelerometers (McKenzie et al., 1994). McKenzie and
colleagues (1991) found that heart rates in 19 children, ages 4 to 9 years, increased with
each activity code increment. The mean heart rate of the Code 1 (lying down) was 99
beats per minute, and 153 beats per minutes for Code 5 (very active), with increases
occurring at each coding level (McKenzie et al., 1991). These data were collected with
94% to 99% agreement among observers (McKenzie et al., 1991).

Combining data collection instruments. In order to increase ease and feasibility
of data collection, all instrumentation was combined into a comprehensive observation
instrument (see Appendix F).

Procedures
Logistics

Data were collected during the spring term of 2009. Initially, observers were
present during at least two class sessions to acclimate the students, teacher, and aide to
the presence of the observer. Two initial acclimation classes is comparable to past
research protocols (Lisboa, 1997; Odom & Ogawa, 1992; Place & Hodge, 2001). During
this initial period all equipment was prepared as if collecting data, however, no data were
gathered. After the initial observation period, each participant was observed during GPE
and an academic class (math in Case 1, social studies in Case 2) sessions each week until
at least five class sessions of data were collected in each setting.

Data Collection

Case 1. During each GPE and math class sessions a trained observer was present

and used video- and audio-recording equipment. The observer arrived prior to the start of

class and left after its completion so there was no disruption to the class. Prior to the start

74

of class, the observer set up a video camera in the gymnasium or classroom in an
unobtrusive location which provided a full view of the area. The observer stood next to
the camera and took field notes, while minimally operating the camera to make sure the
participants stayed in view. Entire class sessions were video-recorded to allow for data
coding and inter-observer reliability checks. Data collection for Case 1 took 5 weeks due
to class scheduling and participant absences.

After video-taping was complete, the observers coded the video-taped behavior
data using the combined data collection sheet. The student whose parents did not provide
consent and who did not provide assent was avoided during video-taping as much as
possible and was ignored when the student did appear in the tape. Social interaction
behavior was coded using a frequency count. For example, when an interaction occurred
it was immediately recorded using the AIPE-SR and ALT-PE instrument categories. The
observers recorded the nature of the interactions, with whom the interaction occurred, and
the classroom context during the interaction. Physical activity level data was coded using
the BEACHES scale and an interval recording system.

Case 2. In Case 2, video-taping did not occur because 41.67% of the social
studies and 35.71% of the GPE classmates did not return parental consent and child
assent documents. Therefore, data in Case 2 were collected during class real-time. Both
the primary student researcher and a trained second observer attended social studies and
GPE class sessions. (For information on observer training see the key personnel section
below). During each class session, one observer recorded data on the student with

autism, while the other recorded data on the comparison classmate. Therefore each

75

observer could give full attention to one student. The observers alternated who they
observed each day of data collection.

Exactly as in Case 1, social interaction behaviors were coded using a frequency
count. Immediately following an interaction, the observers entered the data on the
combined data sheet. Due to the real-time frequency count collection of AIPE-SR and
ALT-PE data, observers were unable to gather interval BEACHES physical activity level
data in Case 2. During initial practice, it was found to be too complex to record both
frequency count and interval data concurrently. And due to the unique behaviors of the
student with autism, it was impossible to bring more observers into the setting without
causing significant distraction. As the focus of the study is social interaction, it was
deemed critical to gather accurate interaction data which meant that collection of
BEACHES data were not plausible. Data collection for Case 2 took 4 weeks due to class
scheduling and participant absences.

Key Personnel

Key personnel for this project were the student researcher, a second observer, the
dissertation committee, and the dissertation director. The dissertation committee assisted
in developing and approving the protocol and mentoring the student researcher about data
analyses and interpretation. The dissertation director advised the student investigator on
a frequent basis on all issues relating to the study and assisted in editing manuscripts
produced from this study.

The student researcher served as one of the observers. There was also one other
observer who coded behavior data of the class sessions. The second observer was

selected on a volunteer basis, had research experience, and knowledge about individuals

76

with disabilities. The second observer attended class sessions in Case 2 to assist the lead
researcher with real-tirne data collection.

Inter-observer agreement (IOA). The observers took part in two primary training
sessions. First, the observers read and became familiar with the coding procedures of the
observation systems. Observers trained by watching and coding three separate 15-minute
video segments of individuals engaged in physical activity. The target IOA measure was
85% or greater in all IOA calculations; however, many researchers use 80% IOA as an
acceptable level of agreement (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 1987). A frequency ratio was
used to calculate IOA for social interaction (AIPE-SR, ALT-PE) data (Kazdin, 1982). A
frequency ratio is often used for frequency count data and is calculated by dividing the
smaller total by the larger total and multiplying by 100 (Kazdin, 1982). By the
completion of training, the mean percentage of agreement across the two observers for
three different 15-minute video segments was 93.35% (SD=1.48).

To calculate IOA for physical activity level (BEACHES) data, a point-by-point
agreement was used (Kazdin, 1982). Kazdin (1982) states that in a point-by-point
agreement calculation, “agreements of the observers on the specific trials are divided by
the number of agreement plus disagreement and multiplied by 100 to form a percentage”
(p. 54). By the completion of training, the mean percentage of agreement on three
different 15-minute video segments was 91.11% (SD=5.09).

To minimize observer drift, after three weeks of data collection, re-training
occurred, and IOA was reassessed between the observers. The observers reviewed the
behavior categories and clarified any questions. Then the observers watched videotapes

of the participants and discussed the codes together. Finally, the observers independently

77

coded random 15—minute segments of videotape. The mean percentage of agreement on
social interaction frequency data during this training was 94.74% (SD=0.98). The mean
percentage of agreement on physical activity level interval data was 90.00% (SD=3.33).
Data Management

Data management included several procedures to ensure the security of all data
collected. The various procedures included:

' Lab notebook The lead student researcher maintained an electronic lab notebook
which included information about all significant decisions made throughout the
study, including planning, data collection, data analyses, participant information,
and unforeseen challenges. The lab notebook was updated, at a minimum, each
day of data collection or data analysis. It was saved on a password protected
computer, and any electronic backups were stored in a locked file cabinet in a
locked office during the project. The student emailed the lab notebook to the
dissertation director on a regular basis during planning, data collection, and data
analyses.

' Data access. All parental consent, child assent, and teacher consent documents
were stored per the IRB protocol. The data, including all observation instrument
score sheets and videos, were maintained by the student investigator. Data sheets
were collected and placed in a binder, which was placed in a locked file cabinet in a
locked office. The video recordings were downloaded onto a password protected
computer. The research team, which includes the student researcher, second
observer, dissertation director, and dissertation committee, were the only

individuals with access to the protected data. Video- and audio-recorded data will

78

be destroyed pending the completion of data analysis to protect the rights and
anonymity of the participants. However, all other data will be stored for three
years under locked and secure conditions. After this time all data will be
confidentially recycled by the university at which the research was conducted. All
documents will remain property of the university at which the research was
conducted.
Data Analyses
Descriptive statistics (e.g., frequencies, central tendency, variation) were used to
summarize demographic data. These data were used to create profiles of each of the
participants when reporting results.
Frequency of Social Interactions
To evaluate the frequency of social interactions, AIPE-SR data was used. It was
analyzed using a frequency count of social interactions. The data were analyzed by
calculating frequency and percentages based on sub-groups (e.g., interactions with
teachers, with classmates, with aides). For instance, students with autism may socially
interact more frequently with GPE teachers than with classmates. No current decision
rule exists for this instrument, but the use of comparison classmates was used to illustrate
similarities and differences in social behaviors. Chi-square analyses were conducted to
investigate the group differences in total interactions and interactions with classmates.
Nature of Social Interactions
The AIPE-SR also provided data from which information about the nature of
social interactions was obtained. Each type of social interaction (e.g., appropriate,

positive appropriate) can be categorized by frequency during class sessions. The various

79

natures of social interactions were further analyzed by determining which types of
interactions occurred with which individuals. Cross-case comparisons were made using
chi-square analysis of the nature of the interactions.
Tasks and Social Interactions

The coding categories of the ALT-PE and BEACHES were tallied into frequency
counts. The ALT-PE and BEACHES data combined with the interaction frequency
counts provided information about during which tasks social interactions occurred in
Case 1. No BEACHES data were available for Case 2. The task data were further
investigated through chi-square analysis to understand any cross-case comparisons.
Interaction of Nature and Context of Social Interactions

The AIPE-SR, ALT-PE, and BEACHES were combined to examine the
correspondence of the nature of social interactions and the tasks. To determine
connections, the data from these instruments were evaluated simultaneously. For
example, time coded as transitional time may have corresponded with codes of
appropriate interactions, therefore illustrating a possible connection. All observation data
were charted and graphed in order to detect trends or patterns in the results. Field notes
were used as qualitative supplementation to gain insight into the research questions.

All data were compared across: (a) participants with autism and classmates
without disabilities; (b) educational settings (i.e., GPE versus academic classes); and (c)
cases. These comparisons allowed for understanding any unique characteristics of the

students with autism and of GPE.

80

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

In this study, students with autism had fewer social interactions in GPE and
academic classes than did the comparison students who do not have disabilities.
However, students with autism were more likely to interact with classmates during GPE
than during an academic class. The majority of all interactions of the students with
autism were appropriate or positive in nature. The ALT-PE activity category not only
accounted for the most interactions for both students with autism and the comparison
classmates, but also had the highest number of appropriate and positive interactions for
all students. Further detail is provided in the remaining sections of this chapter. In the
narrative of this section the term ‘classmate’ refers to all classmates without disabilities
of the student with autism, and the term ‘comparison classmate’ refers to the classmate
without disability on which specific data were collected, namely Adam and Zack.

Frequency of Social Interactions

In response to the first research question regarding frequency of interactions, the
students with autism had fewer total interactions in GPE and academic classes than the
comparison classmates (see Table 3). Kevin consistently interacted about half as
frequently in GPE and math as Adam; however, both students interacted at least 59%
more in GPE than in math class session. Lee and Zack were similar in total interactions

in social studies, but Zack interacted 119% more than Lee in GPE.

81

Table 3

Frequency of Social Interactions
Across Five GPE and Academic Sessions

 

 

Kevin Adam Lee Zack
(autism) (comparison) (autism) (comparison)
GPE
Frequency across 5 sessions1 86 174 118 259
Average (SD) per session I7.20(2.68) 34.80(5.89) 23.60(8.99) 51 .80(1 1.48)
Math (Kevin/Adam) or
Social Studies (Lee/Zack)
Frequency across 5 sessions2 54 93 179 189
Average (SD) per session 10.80(l .79) 18.60(3.21) 35.80(14.69) 37.80(8.61)

 

I The duration of GPE classes was 35 minutes for Kevin and Adam and 60 minutes for Lee and
Zack.

2 The duration of math classes was 35 minutes for Kevin and Adam and the duration of social
studies classes was 60 minutes for Lee and Zack.

Case 1 — Kevin and Adam

GPE. In GPE the majority, or 56%, of Kevin’s interactions occurred with his
aide, while 86% of Adam’s interactions occurred with classmates (refer to Table 4 and
Figure 2). Field notes revealed that in GPE classmates were willing to help direct Kevin
through stations or activities. Ms. Elliot remained on the side of the gym, away from
Kevin, as much as possible during GPE class. Classmates would often help Kevin stretch
and do the class warm-up routine. Adam was mostly quiet during the warm-up routine as
instructed by Mr. Patton. Adam would also raise his hand to answer questions posed by
Mr. Patton during warm-up. Kevin never attempted to participate in the teacher led
discussions during warm-up. Kevin interacted about half as much with Mr. Patton as

Adam.

82

Table 4

Case I — Frequency of Social Interactions in GPE
as a Function of the Other Individual in the Interaction

 

Class Session

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 M SD
Kevin (autism)
Classmate w/o disability 5 3 5 7 8 5.60 1.95
Teacher 1 3 1 2 3 2.00 1 .00
Aide 7 11 11 11 8 9.60 1.95
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Total 13 17 17 20 19 17.20 2.68
Adam (comparison)
Classmate w/o disability 21 34 30 37 27 29.80 6.22
Classmate w/ disability 0 0 0 0 1 0.20 0.45
Teacher 5 4 4 5 4 4.40 0.55
Aide 0 0 0 0 O 0.00 0.00
Other 1 1 0 0 0 0.40 0.55
Total 27 39 34 42 32 34.80 5.89

 

83

160 -

 

140 -
IKevin
120 ‘ jAdam
100 -
80 -

60-

Number of Interactions

404

 

204

Classmates Teacher Aide

Other Individual

 

 

   

 

 

Figure 2. Case 1 —— Total frequency of interactions with various individuals across the
five GPE class sessions.

Math. In math Kevin overwhelmingly interacted with his aide, with 74% of all
his interactions occurring with Ms. Elliot, while 81% of Adam’s interactions occurred
with his classmates (refer to Table 5 and Figure 3). Most of Kevin’s activities in math
were directed by Ms. Elliot. Kevin was working on the same general math topic (e.g.,-
fractions, story problems, etc.) as the class, but on some days was completing a different
task or worksheet than his classmates. Even when Kevin’s work was the same, Ms. Elliot
sat next to him to help guide and keep him on task. With Ms. Elliot’s presence the

teacher, Mrs. Davis, rarely needed to guide Kevin in his work. Adam interacted with

84

Mrs. Davis 17 times over the five class sessions, while Kevin had only 1 interaction with
her.

Table 5

Case I — Frequency of Social Interactions in Math
as a Function of the Other Individual in the Interaction

 

Class Session

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 M SD
Kevin (autism)
Classmate w/o disability 2 3 2 4 2 2.60 0.89
Teacher 0 0 0 1 0 0.20 0.45
Aide 6 8 9 8 9 8.00 1.22
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Total 8 11 11 13 11 10.80 1.79
Adam (comparison)
Classmate w/o disability 15 13 18 16 13 15.00 2.12
Classmate w/ disability 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Teacher 2 3 4 5 3 3 .40 1 . 14
Aide 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Other 0 0 1 0 0 0.20 0.45
Total 17 16 23 21 16 18.60 3.21

 

85

80-

 

70 ‘ I Kevin

60« lAdam

50‘

 

Number of Interactions
‘5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30 a
20 a
‘° J
0 - . .
Classmates Teacher Aide

Other Individual

Figure 3. Case 1 — Total frequency of interactions with various individuals across the

five math class sessions.

86

Case 2 — Lee and Zack

GPE. In GPE, 82% of Lee’s interactions occurred with his classmates and only
14% of the interactions occurred with his aide, Mrs. Shepard (see Table 6 and Figure 4).
Mrs. Shepard spent almost all GPE class time sitting off to the side. She rarely directed
Lee through the activity. Lee’s overall percentage of interactions with classmates was
comparable to Zack who had 87% of all interactions with classmates. Although these
numbers are similar, Zack still had 145% more interactions with classmates in GPE than
Lee. Classmates were often observed giving Lee ‘high fives’ and other forms of praise
during GPE. These interactions increased on the day the class played basketball. During
basketball Lee had 36 interactions with classmates, with the next highest number of
interactions with classmates during a session being 18.

In GPE Zack interacted with several different classmates. He also interacted with
Lee predominately during warm-up. Zack had 16 total interactions with classmates with
disabilities over the five sessions. All 16 of these interactions were with Lee. Without
being assigned to do so, Zack often volunteered to have Lee in his group or helped make
sure Lee was in the right place during class. Though Zack was not constantly interacting
with Lee, he was observed helping Lee on multiple occasions.

Both Lee and Zack had low numbers of interactions with their GPE teacher, Mr.
Carlson. Lee had 3% of his total interactions with Mr. Carlson, while only 7% of Zack’s
interactions were with Mr. Carlson. Mr. Carlson had a large number of students in half
of a large gym. The other half of the gym was occupied by another GPE class at the
same time. For this reason, space was often limited and students were sometimes divided

between the gym and the fitness room. The fitness room had four stationary bikes, three

87

stair climbers, two pull-up machines, and multiple jump ropes. When students were in

the fitness room they were not in contact with Mr. Carlson. Even when in the gym with

Mr. Carlson, he was working to direct a large group and was not able to give large

amounts of individual attention.

Table 6

Case 2 — Frequency of Social Interactions in GPE
as a Function of the Other Individual in the Interaction

 

Class Session

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 M SD
Lee (autism)
Classmate w/o disability 12 36 8 18 18 17.00 , 11.22
Classmate w/ disability 0 0 l l 0 0.40 0.55
Teacher 0 1 0 1 2 0.80 0.84
Aide 2 1 7 3 4 3.40 2.30
Other 2 0 0 1 0 0.60 0.89
Total 16 38 16 24 24 23.60 8.99
Zack (comparison)
Classmate w/o disability 50 60 52 34 29 45.00 13.00
Classmate w/ disability 3 5 0 4 4 3.20 1.92
Teacher 4 1 4 3 5 3 .40 l .52
Aide 0 0 0 0 1 0.20 0.45
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Total 57 66 56 41 39 51.80 11.48

 

88

250 -

 

 

 

200 . ILee
rn LZack
:

.2
E 150 -
O
E
Q—
o
l—
g 100 -
E
5
Z
50 -
0 . L__l:l_L_-_L
Classmates Teacher Aide
Other Individual

Figure 4. Case 2 — Total frequency of interactions with various individuals across the

five GPE class sessions.

89

Social studies. In social studies Lee had 108 of the total 179 (60%) interactions
with his aide across the five sessions, while Zack had 139 of the total 189 (74%) of his
interactions with classmates (see Table 7 and Figure 5). In the first two social studies
class sessions, Lee had no interactions with classmates. On the third observation session,
the students were allowed to pick new seats in the classroom. Lee voluntarily moved
from his seat alone in the front of the classroom to a seat between classmates in the third
row of tables. After this move, more interactions with classmates were observed for Lee.
Students who now sat around Lee often volunteered to help him with assignments at the
request of the teacher, Mrs. Simon.

Mrs. Simon had several interactions with both Lee and Zack during social studies.
Of Lee’s total interactions in social studies, 17% occurred with Mrs. Simon, and 25% of
Zack’s interactions were with Mrs. Simon. Mrs. Simon often walked throughout the
classroom checking on each of the students and their work. Mrs. Simon and the aide,
Mrs. Shepard, worked together to keep Lee’s assignments as similar to his classmates’ as
possible. This allowed Lee to interact with Mrs. Simon when she was asking questions
of the entire class.

Cross-case Comparisons

Students with autism interacted less frequently than their comparison classmates
in both GPE and academic class. Data were combined across cases to conduct a chi-
square analysis of total interactions across settings (refer to Table 8). The comparison
classmates had more total interactions in GPE than the students with autism. The
students with autism had more total interactions in academic classes than in GPE.

Students with autism had 47% of their interactions in GPE and 53% in academic classes.

90

 

Table 7

Case 2 — Frequency of Social Interactions in Social Studies
as a Function of the Other Individual in the Interaction

 

Class Session

 

 

l 2 3 4 5 M SD
Lee (autism)
Classmate w/o disability 0 0 8 15 2 4.80 6.10
Classmate w/ disability 1 9 l 1 0 2.40 3.71
Teacher 1 1 8 7 4 1 6.20 3 .83
Aide 9 35 25 23 16 22.00 9.17
Other 1 l 0 1 0 0.60 0.55
Total 22 53 41 44 19 35.80 14.69
Zack (comparison)
Classmate w/o disability 22 34 26 30 27 27.60 4.83
Classmate w/ disability 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Teacher 16 16 5 7 3 9.20 5.93
Aide 0 2 1 0 0 0.60 0.89
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Total 38 52 32 37 30 37.80 8.61

 

91

160 -

 

140 ~

120 -

100 -

80-

604

Number of Interactions

ILee
,Zack

 

404

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 ‘_I
0-

Classmates Teacher

Aide

Other Individual

Figure 5. Case 2 — Total frequency of interactions with various individuals across the

five social studies class sessions.

92

Table 8

Chi-square Analysis of the
Total Frequency of Interactions

 

 

GPE Academic Total
Classes
Students with Autism 204 233 437
(Kevin and Lee)
Comparison Classmates 433 282 715
(Adam and Zack)
Total 637 515 1152

 

x‘(1,N=1152) = 21.13,p < .001

Kevin interacted approximately half as frequently in both settings than Adam, and
Lee interacted about half as fi'equently as Zack in GPE. The only situation in which
interaction frequencies were comparable between the students with autism and the
comparison classmate was in Lee and Zack’s social studies classroom. In the five social
studies sessions combined Lee had 179 total interactions while Zack had a comparable
189 interactions. However, the data were also compared based upon the other individual
involved in the interaction.

The students with autism interacted more frequently with classmates in GPE
(76%) than in academic settings (24%). Students with autism were also more likely
(76%) than comparison classmates (64%) to interact with classmates in GPE (x2(1,

=746) = 8.45, p < .01; refer to Table 9). Kevin interacted with classmates 115% more

in GPE than math, and Lee interacted with classmates 268% more in GPE than social
studies. In Kevin’s GPE, classmates had more opportunity to help Kevin with activities

than in math. In GPE Kevin was always participating in exactly the same activity as

93

classmates, therefore they were able to assist and interact with him about the activity. In
math class Kevin was sometimes completing different assignments than his classmates
and as a result they were unable to help him. Lee’s classmates in social studies were
willing to help and interact with him upon the teacher’s request and when talking was
allowed during an activity. However, in GPE the students were often allowed to talk
during the game or activity, so classmates were able to interact with Lee. Classmates
who were on teams with Lee during GPE were also likely to interact with Lee as part of
the game.

Table 9

Chi-square Analysis of the Total Frequency
of Interactions with Classmates

 

 

GPE Academic Total
Classes
Students with Autism 120 38 158
(Kevin and Lee)
Comparison Classmates 374 214 588
(Adam and Zack)
Total 494 252 746

 

x2(1,N=746) = 8.45, p < .01

Interactions among students with autism and their aides were observed at high
rates for both Kevin and Lee in all but one setting. Kevin had 56% of all interactions in
GPE and 74% of all interactions in math with his aide. Lee had 61% of all interactions in
social studies with his aide, however, only 14% with his aide in GPE. Lee was able to
participate in GPE without constant guidance from his aide. Kevin, however, needed

almost continuous guidance from his aide to participate. Kevin’s aide would stand to the

94

side during warm-up, which had been the same for the students all year, but had to direct
him through the new activities of the sessions.

In all but one setting, the students with autism interacted less than half as often
with teachers than the comparison classmates. In GPE Kevin had 10 interactions and
Adam had 22 interactions with Mr. Patton during the five sessions. Mr. Patton worked to
help include Kevin with his classmates. Mr. Patton would make sure he got a turn to bat
in kickball and helped him move through activity stations. However, Kevin’s math
teacher was often occupied helping classmates with their assignment, while Kevin’s aide
helped him with his assignment. With the aide present, the teacher did not help Kevin;
therefore, Kevin only had one interaction with his math teacher during all five sessions.
Lee’s physical education teacher, Mr. Carlson, had very few interactions with Lee, while
his social studies teacher, Mrs. Simon had 31 interactions with Lee. In comparison, Zack
had 325% more interactions with Mr. Carlson and 52% more interactions with Mrs.
Simon.

Nature of Social Interactions

The second research question focused on the nature of social interactions, and
results indicated that the students with autism predominately engaged in appropriate or
positive interactions. The students with autism also engaged in lower numbers of
inappropriate and off-task interactions than the comparison classmates. Students With
autism had more positive interactions than the comparison classmates in all settings.
Even though students with autism often engaged in fewer interactions than comparison

classmates, results indicated that these interactions were generally appropriate in nature.

95

-_—=|

Case I — Kevin and Adam

GPE. In GPE both Kevin and Adam had several appropriate interactions, with
62% of Kevin’s and 73% of Adam’s interactions being appropriate in nature (refer to
Table 10). However, Kevin had 50% more positive interactions than Adam. These
positive interactions included ‘high fives’ and praise from the teacher, aide, and
classmates. When Kevin completed a task or followed directions, he was almost
immediately offered praise. Adam also received praise but not for smaller
accomplishments such as completing the warm-up, for which Kevin often received
praise. Adam engaged in 5 total inappropriate and 20 off-task interactions combined
during all five GPE sessions. Kevin did not engage in any inappropriate or off-task
behaviors. In GPE Kevin never initiated any interactions. All interactions occurred
because another individual approached Kevin to help or involve him in the task.

Math. During all five math sessions, 100% of Kevin’s interactions and 73% of
Adam’s interactions were appropriate or positive in nature (refer to Table 11). However,
Kevin engaged in three times as many positive interactions than Adam. These positive
interactions were usually praise for accomplishment of math problems or worksheets, and
came from the classmates, teacher, and aide. Kevin often received a ‘high five’ after
each set of math problems were completed. Upon seeing this praise given by the aide,
classmates at the table which Kevin sat often would join in and praise Kevin as well.

In math, Kevin did not have any inappropriate or off-task interactions, and Adam
had no inappropriate and 25 off-task interactions. Adam’s off-task interactions were
frequently the result of the classmates sitting at his table. If the surrounding classmates

would begin an off-task discussion, Adam would often join in. Adam also initiated some

96

of the off-task interactions after Mrs. Davis had asked them to work quietly on math
worksheets. The majority of math class time was spent completing worksheets or doing
math problems together on the whiteboard.

Table 10

Case I — Frequency of Social Interactions
in GPE as a Function of Type of Interaction

 

Class Session

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 M SD
Kevin (autism)
Appropriate 10 1 l 12 10 10 10.60 0.89
Positive 3 6 5 10 9 6.60 2. 88
Inappropriate 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Off-task 0 0 0 0 O 0.00 0.00
Total 13 17 17 20 19 17.20 2.68
Adam (comparison)
Appropriate 21 33 25 29 19 25.40 5.73
Positive 1 3 5 7 6 4.40 2.41
Inappropriate 2 1 0 1 l 1 .00 0.71
Off-task 3 2 4 5 6 4.00 1 .58
Total 27 39 34 42 32 34.80 5.89

 

97

Table 11

Case I — Frequency of Social Interactions
in Math as a Function of Type of Interaction

 

Class Session

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 M SD
Kevin (autism)
Appropriate 5 9 7 9 6 7.20 l .79
Positive 3 2 4 4 5 3.60 l . 14
Inappropriate 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Off-task 0 O 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Total 8 11 11 13 11 10.80 1.79
Adam (comparison)
Appropriate 12 1 1 14 14 1 1 12.40 1.52
Positive 1 2 1 1 1 1.20 0.45
Inappropriate 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Off-task 4 3 8 6 4 5.00 2.00
Total 17 16 23 21 16 18.60 3.21

 

Case 2 — Lee and Zack

GPE. In GPE, 58% of Lee’s and 68% of Zack’s total interactions across the five
class sessions were appropriate in nature (refer to Table 12). Both Lee and Zack
responded appropriately to teacher questions and individual instructions. Lee engaged in
147% more positive interactions than Zack. These interactions were predominately

praise given from the classmates, teacher, and aide. On the second observation day, the

98

 

class played basketball and 39% of Lee’s interactions were positive because he received
praise each time he made a basket or successful pass to a teammate.

Zack clearly had more inappropriate and off-task interactions than Lee during
GPE. Zack engaged in 133% more inappropriate interactions than Lee. The majority of
inappropriate interactions included negative talk and insults to classmates. However, Lee
did have some inappropriate interactions in which classmates were teasing him or
encouraging him to continue inappropriate behaviors. Zack also had a total of 46 off-task
interactions and Lee had total of 4 off-task interactions during GPE.
Table 12

Case 2 — Frequency of Social Interactions
in GPE as a Function of Type of Interaction

 

Class Session

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 M SD
Lee (autism)
Appropriate 10 1 8 1 1 12 17 13.60 3 .65
Positive 4 14 5 8 6 7.40 3 .97
Inappropriate 1 5 0 2 1 1 .80 1 .92
Off-task 1 1 0 2 0 0. 80 O. 84
Total 16 38 16 24 24 23.60 8.99
Zack (comparison)
Appropriate 34 34 44 28 37 3 5.40 5.81
Positive 2 5 1 5 2 2.80 2.05
Inappropriate 4 10 5 2 O 4.20 3 .77
Off-task 17 17 6 6 0 9.20 7.53
Total 57 66 56 41 39 51.80 11.48

 

99

Social studies. In all five social studies sessions combined, at least 68% of all
interactions for both Lee and Zack were appropriate in nature (refer to Table 13). For
Lee, another 16% of the interactions were positive in nature. Each time Lee completed a
task given by his aide he was praised, not only by the aide but also by the classmates
around him. Lee was praised so often he would sometimes shout out “I did it!” at the
completion of a task. Lee’s teacher was effective at praising Lee when he was on-task
and completing assigned materials. Zack only experienced three positive interactions
throughout social studies. Zack kept up with the assigned work and often read quietly
after completing the assigned task and did not draw any attention to himself. Zack did
not seem to need constant praise to continue completing the class assignments.
Classmates did not outwardly praise Zack, but were often asking for his help or asking
what he wrote for particular assignment answers.

The second most prevalent type of interaction for Zack was off-task, which was
22% of all interactions. In social studies students were given assignments on which they
were allowed to work in pairs or small groups. Zack always worked with the classmate
seated next to him, but often Lee would work independently on a related project.
Working with a classmate allowed Zack more opportunity to engage in off-task
interactions. Lee engaged in a total 22 off-task interactions during the observation
sessions. Most often Lee would have off-task interactions about extra personal reading
materials. For example, Lee enjoyed looking at magazines and often went to the basket
of magazines at the front of the class to read when he should have been doing a task

related to social studies.

100

Table 13

Case 2 - Frequency of Social Interactions
in Social Studies as a Function of Type of Interaction

 

Class Session

 

 

l 2 3 4 5 M SD
Lee (autism)
Appropriate 13 35 30 30 14 24.40 10.16
Positive 7 3 4 1 1 3 5 .60 3 .44
Inappropriate 0 5 1 1 0 1 .40 2.07
Off-task 2 10 6 2 2 4.40 3.58
Total 22 53 41 44 19 35.80 14.69
Zack (comparison)
Appropriate 29 3 5 29 28 20 28.20 5 .36
Positive 0 2 0 1 0 0.60 0.89
Inappropriate 2 0 0 0 2 0. 80 1 . 10
Off-task 7 15 3 8 8 8.20 4.32
Total 38 52 32 37 30 37.80 8.61

 

Cross-case Comparisons

The majority of interactions of the students with autism (90%) were appropriate
or positive in nature. Students with autism were more likely (90%) than comparison
classmates (77%) to have appropriate and positive interactions across all settings (x20 ,
N=1152) = 31.68, p < .001; refer to Table 14). However, both students with autism
(10%) and comparison classmates (23%) had low percentages of total inappropriate and

off-task interactions across settings.

101

Table 14

Chi-square Analysis of the Nature of Interactions

 

Appropriate Inappropriate Total
and Positive and Off-task

Students with Autism 395 42 437
(Kevin and Lee)

Comparison Classmates 553 162 715
(Adam and Zack)

Total 948 204 1152

 

X2(1,N=1152)= 31.68,p < .001

Both Kevin and Lee had more positive interactions than Adam and Zack,
respectively. The students with autism were engaged in at least 50% more positive
interactions than comparison classmates in all settings. Total positive interactions
thrOughout the observations were as low as three interactions for comparison classmates.
Classmates, teachers, and aides were observed praising the students with autism more
frequently and for smaller accomplishments than comparison classmates. For example,
Lee was praised after every basket he made during the basketball game even when he had
committed a foul, such as traveling. When Zack would commit a foul, several classmates
would begin to yell and take the ball away.

Both of the comparison classmates had more inappropriate and off-task
interactions than the students with autism. In fact, it was rare that a student with autism
had an inappropriate interaction. Kevin had no inappropriate interactions and Lee had
only 9 inappropriate interactions in GPE, and 7 inappropriate interactions in social
studies. Kevin had no off-task interactions, while Lee had 4 off-task interactions in GPE

and 22 off-task interactions in social studies. Kevin did not initiate any interactions with

102

others, therefore did not initiate any inappropriate or off-task interactions. Lee was more
likely to initiate interactions than Kevin and engaged in some inappropriate and off-task
interactions.
Tasks and Social Interactions

The third research question focused on the tasks during which social interactions
occurred, and the results indicated that the majority of interactions for all students
happened during the ALT-PE activity category. In both GPE and the academic classes,
the comparison students had more interactions during the ALT-PE knowledge category
than the students with autism. The ALT-PE waiting category also contained interactions
for all students in GPE, especially Lee and Zack. These results indicate that during
certain tasks more interactions occurred for all students, including those with autism.
Case I — Kevin and Adam

GPE. In the five GPE class sessions combined, 94% of Kevin’s interactions and
84% of Adam’s interactions happened during the ALT-PE activity category (refer to
Table 15). Activities in GPE included rollerblading, kickball, tee-ball, track and field,
and athletic video games such as Nintendo Wii and Dance Dance Revolution. The
students began each session by walking around the gym then taking a seat at their
designated spot on the floor. At this time Mr. Patton gave announcements to the class
and reviewed the knowledge content of the day (e.g., muscle location, kidney facts, etc.).
After announcements the students had a stretching and warm-up routine, which was the
same each day. At that point the activities of the day were explained and the students

participated in these activities.

103

The classroom and content was very well organized and therefore students did not
spend much time in the ALT-PE waiting or management categories. In fact, Kevin only
had one interaction during waiting and three interactions during management over all five
sessions. Adam had five interactions during waiting and two interactions during
management. Field notes revealed that talking was not allowed during warm-up and
announcements in Mr.Patton’s class. Therefore high numbers of interactions were not
expected throughout the entire class. Students were allowed to interact during all
activities, but were asked to leave the gym if too many inappropriate interactions
occurred. For example, the entire class had to sit down quietly during a game of kickball
because too many negative comments were occurring amongst teammates.

BEACHES physical activity level data were collected for Case 1. These data
indicated that the majority of interactions for both students occurred while standing or
walking (refer to Table 16). Kevin had 42% and Adam had 37% of the total interactions
during walking. This included walking as an activity as well as walking between
activities or stations. Only 26% of Kevin’s and 13% of Adam’s total interactions
occurring during the BEACHES very active category. Students were not regularly
engaged in the very active category, and when engaged in the very active category they
were often unable to converse. For example, when sprinting over small hurdles in the
track and field stations, students were unable to speak with each other due to high

physical exertion.

104

Table 15

Case I — Frequency of Interactions in GPE
as a Function of AL T-PE Task Categories

 

Class Session

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 M SD
Kevin (autism)
Activity 12 16 16 19 18 16.20 2.68
Waiting 0 0 0 1 0 0.20 0.45
Transition 0 0 0 0 1 0.20 0.45
Management 1 1 1 0 0 0.60 0.55
Knowledge 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Total 13 17 17 20 19 17.20 2.68
Adam (comparison)
Activity 19 34 26 37 29 29.00 7.04
Waiting 1 1 2 1 0 1.00 0.71
Transition 3 1 4 2 3 2.40 1 . 14
Management 1 l O 0 0 0.40 0.55
Knowledge 3 2 2 2 0 1.80 1.10
Total 27 39 34 42 32 34.80 5.89

 

105

Table 16

Case 1 — Frequency of Interactions in GPE
as a Function of BEA CHES Physical Activity Levels

 

Class Session

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 M SD
Kevin (autism)
Lying Down 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Sitting 0 1 0 2 0 0.60 0.89
Standing 5 4 7 3 6 5 .00 1 .58
Walking 4 7 6 9 10 7.20 2.39
Very Active 4 5 4 6 3 4.40 1.14
Adam (comparison)
Lying Down 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Sitting 4 6 3 7 3 4.60 1.82
Standing 9 17 12 13 12 12.60 2.88
Walking 11 10 11 17 16 13.00 3.24
Vet)I Active 3 6 8 5 1 4.60 2.70

 

106

Math. During the ALT-PE activity category, 93% of Kevin’s and 80% of Adam’s
total interactions occurred during the five math class sessions (refer to Table 17).
Activity in math class predominately involved the student’s completing math worksheets
or working as a class to solve a problem on the whiteboard. Though Kevin was always
working on the same math topic, he was not always doing the exact same assignment as
the classmates. For example, when working on fractions the classmates did worksheets
with fractions represented by numbers while Kevin did sheet using pictorial
representations of fractions. Kevin was guided through his math work by his aide and
rarely by classmates who were trying to help.

No interactions were observed during the ALT-PE waiting or management
categories for either student. Mrs. Davis always had work ready for the students to
complete, so there was rarely any waiting or management time in the class. Also, Kevin
did not interact during the knowledge category. Most interactions during knowledge for
Adam occurred when he answered a question posed by Mrs. Davis. Kevin never
attempted to engage in full class conversations or knowledge discussions.

During all observed math class sessions, both students spent the largest amount of
time in the BEACHES sitting category. Students were expected to remain in their seats
while working on the math assigmnents. Therefore, 94% of Kevin’s and 88% 'of Adam’s
total interactions occurred in the BEACHES sitting category (refer to Table 18). Kevin
had a total of three interactions while standing, all of which occurred just before sitting in
his chair. Adam had seven interactions while standing and four interactions while
walking. Adam sometimes left his seat and walked around the room to sharpen his

pencil, get paper, or get a drink of water.

107

Table 17

Case I — Frequency of Interactions in Math
as a Function of AL T -PE Task Categories

 

Class Session

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 M SD
Kevin (autism)
Activity 8 11 10 10 11 10.00 1.22
Waiting 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Transition 0 0 1 3 0 0. 80 1 .30
Management 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Knowledge 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Total 8 11 11 13 11 10.80 1.79
Adam (comparison)
Activity 16 15 17 12 14 14.80 1.92
Waiting 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Transition 1 0 2 2 2 1 .40 0. 89
Management 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Knowledge 0 1 4 7 0 2.40 3.05
Total 17 16 23 21 16 18.60 3.21

 

108

Table 18

Case I — Frequency of Interactions in Math
as a Function of BEA CHES Physical Activity Levels

 

Class Session

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 M SD
Kevin (autism)
Lying Down 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Sitting 8 11 10 12 10 10.40 1.52
Standing 0 0 l 2 0 0.60 0.89
Walking 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Very Active 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Adam (comparison)
Lying Down 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
Sitting 12 14 23 18 15 16.40 4.28
Standing 2 2 0 1 2 1.20 0.84
Walking 2 O 0 2 0 0.80 1.10
Very Active 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

 

Case 2 — Lee and Zack

GPE. More than 60% of all interactions for both Lee and Zack occurred during
the ALT-PE activity category in GPE (refer to Table 19). Activities in GPE included
floor hockey, basketball, kickball, temris, and the fitness room. All classes began with
the same stretching and warm-up routine, which included sit-ups and push-ups followed
by a three to five minute jog. After warm-up Mr. Carlson divided the class into teams if

needed, or jogged with the students to the tennis courts. Due to the large class size,

109

certain activities involved waiting. For example, when the class went to the tennis courts,
students had to wait in line to hit the ball during drills. This time in the ALT-PE waiting
category fostered 18 total interactions for Lee and 55 total interactions for Zack.
Interactions also occurred during transition for both students as they rotated among
spaces and activities.

Table 19

Case 2 — Frequency of Interactions in GPE
as a Function of AL T -PE Task Categories

 

Class Session

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 M SD
Lee (autism)
Activity 8 30 12 7 20 15.40 9.63
Waiting 2 0 1 13 2 3.60 5.32
Transition 6 5 1 3 2 3.80 2.59
Management 0 3 0 0 0 0.60 1 .34
Knowledge 0 0 2 1 0 0.60 0.89
Total 16 38 16 24 24 23.60 8.99
Zack (comparison)
Activity 40 52 27 9 32 32.00 15.95
Waiting ll 0 15 26 3 1 1.00 10.44
Transition 6 7 12 5 4 6. 80 3. 1 1
Management 0 7 1 0 0 1 .60 3 .05
Knowledge 0 0 1 1 0 0.40 0.55
Total 56 66 57 41 39 51.80 11.48

 

110

Social studies. In social studies, 81% of Lee’s and 79% of Zack’s total
interactions occurred during the ALT-PE activity category (refer to Table 20). Mrs.
Simon had the students engaged in several activities including poster making, completing
workbook pages, writing letters, and reading the textbook in groups. Field notes revealed
that these activities were almost entirely partner or small group tasks. Rarely were
students required to complete tasks alone except when taking quizzes. Mrs. Simon
encouraged students to help each other learn the information and complete assignments.
For example, once students completed their own posters they were asked to help a
classmate finish his or her poster.

Both Lee and Zack had the second highest number of interactions during the
ALT-PE management category. These interactions mostly occurred during morning
announcements and organization. Though students were supposed to be quietly listening
to the announcements, they often talked quietly right through them. Mrs. Simon did not
explicitly forbid talking, but did state that if a student was not listening he or she would
not hear the announcements.

Cross-case Comparisons

Students with autism (81%) and the comparison classmates (74%) engaged in the
most interactions during the ALT-PE activity category in all educational settings (x2(1 ,
N=1152) = 7.24, p < .01; refer to Table 21). Students with autism interacted at similar
rates in each ALT-PE category as comparison classmates. Students with autism did not
require any different task settings than the comparison classmates to engage in social

interactions.

111

Table 20

Case 2 — Frequency of Interactions in Social Studies
as a Function of AL T-PE Task Categories

 

Class Session

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 M SD
Lee (autism)
Activity 20 44 29 36 16 28.80 11.30
Waiting 1 0 1 0 0 0.40 0.55
Transition 1 6 0 2 1 2.00 2.35
Management 0 2 7 6 2 3.80 2.49
Knowledge 0 1 4 0 0 1 .00 1.73
Total 22 53 41 44 19 35 .80 14.69
Zack (comparison)
Activity 32 42 24 26 25 29.80 7.50
Waiting 2 0 0 0 1 0.60 0.89
Transition 0 4 1 4 3 2.40 1 .82
Management 0 4 6 7 1 3.60 3.05
Knowledge 4 2 1 0 0 1 .40 1 .67
Total 38 52 32 37 30 37.80 8.61

 

112

Table 21

Chi-square Analysis of the ALT -PE Tasks

 

 

Activity Other ALT-PE Total
Categories Combined
Students with Autism 353 84 437
(Kevin and Lee)
Comparison Classmates 528 187 715
(Adam and Zack)
Total 948 204 1 1 52

 

X2(1,N=1152) = 7.24, p < .01

For both students with autism and comparison classmates, more interactions
during the ALT-PE knowledge category occurred in the academic classes than during
GPE. Kevin and Adam only had GPE for 35 minutes per session, thereby limiting the
amount of time Mr. Patton had to spend on the ALT-PE knowledge category if the
students were to have time to engage in any physical activity. Also, field notes revealed
that in Lee’s GPE class the students sat on the same place around the gym floor at the
start of each session. While on these spots, the students were several feet apart. This
distance made it difficult for Mr. Carlson to have knowledge discussions. Therefore it
was seen that more knowledge interactions occurred during academic classes. The math
and social studies classes were physically and content designed to include knowledge
time.

In GPE, interactions for students with autism and comparison classmates occurred
in the ALT-PE waiting category, especially in Case 2. Certain activities in GPE caused
more waiting time for students (e.g., standing in line to bat, standing in line to hit a tennis

ball, etc.). During one day of tennis, Zack had 26 interactions while waiting and only 9

113

 

during activity, because a large portion of time was spent in line waiting to hit the ball.
On the same day Lee had 13 interactions while waiting and only 7 interactions during
activity. Mr. Carlson hit tennis balls to one student at a time so waiting in lines occurred.
Case 1 had fewer students; therefore, waiting for activities was minimized. The majority
of waiting occurred when Kevin and Adam were in line to bat in tee-ball or kickball.
Therefore, Kevin only had 1 interaction and Adam only had 5 interactions while waiting.
Interactions of Nature and Tasks

The fourth research question focused on the interactions between the nature and
context of social interactions. The results indicated that students with autism have the
highest number of appropriate interactions during the ALT-PE activity category. The
comparison students also had the highest number of appropriate interactions during
activity. In Case 1, all types of interactions were rarely observed during the waiting and
management categories in both GPE and math. In Case 2, multiple types of interactions
were observed during waiting in GPE. Overall, the results indicate that activity was
associated with the most appropriate and positive interactions for students with autism.
Case I — Kevin and Adam

GPE. In GPE the majority of all Kevin’s interactions occurred in the ALT-PE
activity category, this included the highest number of appropriate and positive
interactions (refer to Table 22). During activity Kevin had a total of 50 appropriate and
31 positive interactions when all 5 sessions were combined. Adam, during activity, had
107 appropriate, 21 positive, 5 inappropriate, 12 off-task interactions. The high number
of appropriate and positive interactions during activity are logical as the highest total

number of interactions occurred in activity for both students. For Kevin, the next highest

114

ALT-PE category was management with 2 appropriate and 1 positive interaction. For
Adam, the next highest ALT-PE category was transition with 10 appropriate and 3 off-
task interactions.

Table 22

Case I - Frequency of Interactions in ALT -PE Categories
in GPE as a Factor of Nature of Interactions

 

ALT-PE Category

 

 

Activity WaitinL Transition Management Knowledi

Kevin (autism)

Appropriate 50 1 0 2 0

Positive 3 1 0 V l 1 0

Inappropriate 0 0 0 0 0

Off-task 0 0 O 0 0
Adam (comparison)

Appropriate 107 1 10 2 7

Positive 2 1 0 0 0 1

Inappropriate 5 0 0 0 0

Off-task 12 4 3 0 1

 

Math. 1n math, Kevin had 35 out of 36 of his total appropriate interactions during
the ALT-PE activity category (refer to Table 23). Also during activity, Kevin had a total
of 15 positive interactions. Therefore, 93% of all types of Kevin’s interactions occurred
during activity. Positive interactions for Kevin were also seen during the ALT-PE
transition category. These interactions were praise that occurred for Kevin while
transitioning into the start of the math activity. The aide and classmates praised Kevin

for getting his math materials ready on his desk.

115

During the ALT-PE activity category, Adam had 51 appropriate, 5 positive, and

18 off-task total interactions during all five math class sessions. The ALT-PE knowledge

category included 7 appropriate and 1 positive interaction for Adam. Adam was

generally attentive in math class and frequently answered or asked questions. However,

Adam did have 4 off-task interactions during knowledge tasks. These interactions often

included off-task conversations by the students who shared a table with Adam.

Table 23

Case I - Frequency of Interactions in ALT-PE Categories
in Math as a Factor of Nature of Interactions

 

ALT-PE Category

 

 

Activity Waiting Transition Mmament Knowledge_

Kevin (autism)

Appropriate 35 O 1 0 0

Positive 1 5 0 3 0 0

Inappropriate 0 O 0 O 0

Off-task 0 0 0 0 0
Adam (comparison)

Appropriate 5 1 0 4 0 7

Positive 5 0 0 0 l

Inappropriate 0 0 0 0 0

Off-task 1 8 O 3 0 4

 

116

Case 2 — Lee and Zack

GPE. In GPE both Lee and Zack had the highest percentage of appropriate
interactions during the ALT-PE activity category. Lee had 60% and Zack had 63% of
their total appropriate interactions in the activity category (refer to Table 24). The ALT-
PE categories of activity and waiting both contained all four types of interactions from
Lee and Zack. Lee had 18% of all total appropriate interactions during the transition
category, while Zack’s next highest percentage of appropriate interactions occurred in the
waiting category. For Zack, the activity category not only had the most appropriate
interactions but also the most inappropriate and off-task behaviors. This could be a
function of the fact that the overall majority of all types of interactions occurred during
activity.
Table 24

Case 2 - Frequency of Interactions in ALT-PE Categories
in GPE as a Factor of Nature of Interactions

 

ALT-PE Category

 

 

Activity Waiting Transition Management Knowledge
Lee (autism)
Appropriate 4 1 9 1 2 3 3
Positive 28 5 4 0 0
Inappropriate 6 2 l 0 0
Off-task 2 2 0 0 0
Zack (comparison)
Appropriate 1 12 36 25 4 0
Positive 1 0 4 1 0 0
Inappropriate 14 3 4 O 0
Off-task 24 1 2 4 4 2

 

117

Social studies. Both Lee and Zack had the highest total frequency of appropriate

interactions during the ALT-PE activity category in the five social studies class sessions

(refer to Table 25). Lee had 99 of his 122 appropriate interactions during the activity

category, and Zack had 114 of his 141 appropriate interactions during activity.

Transition included all four types of interactions for Lee while Zack only had appropriate

and off-task interactions. Both Lee and Zack had the fewest number of all types of

interactions during the waiting category. Lee had one appropriate and one off-task and

Zack had two appropriate and one off-task interaction during waiting. Mrs. Simon kept

the students busy with assignments and therefore may have limited the time students

spent in the waiting category.

Table 25

Case 2 - Frequency of Interactions in ALT-PE Categories
in Social Studies as a Factor of Nature of Interactions

 

ALT-PE Category

 

 

Activity WaitinL Transition Mafigement Knowledg§_

Lee (autism)

Appropriate 99 1 1 5 2

Positive 25 0 2 0

Inappropriate 4 0 0 1

Off-task 17 1 0 2
Zack (comparison)

Appropriate 114 2 11 6

Positive 2 O 1 0

Inappropriate 4 0 0 0

Off-task 29 1 6 l

 

118

Cross-case Comparisons

Students with autism and comparison classmates consistently had the highest
frequencies of appropriate and positive social interactions during the ALT-PE activity
category. Overall, students with autism did not vary greatly from comparison classmates
in the way the various types of interactions were distributed among the ALT-PE
categories. Also, differences were not observed in this distribution for all students
between GPE and academic classes. GPE had more types of interactions within more
ALT-PE categories, however, the numbers were often small when compared to the
number of interactions in the activity category. For example, Lee had 9 appropriate, 5
positive, 2 inappropriate, and 2 off-task interactions during waiting in GPE, but these
numbers are smaller compared to the 41 appropriate, 28 positive, 6 inappropriate, and 2
off-task interactions in the activity category.

The fewest numbers of all types of interactions for all students occurred in the
ALT-PE management category. The highest number of types of interactions occurred
during management for Zack in social studies; he had 11 appropriate, 1 positive, and 6
off-task interactions. Management activities were often times in which students were not
allowed to talk. Though this did not discourage all interactions, it certainly did not foster
them as activity did. Interactions were not permitted by teachers during all class contexts
and perhaps management was a time in which interactions should not have been

occurring.

119

 

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this study was to examine the nature and frequency of social
interactions among students with autism and other individuals (i.e., classmates, teachers,
and aides) during various tasks in general physical education (GPE), relative to social
interactions in other education settings. Results are discussed relative to contributions to
the research literature and methodological limitations. This chapter concludes with a
summary of this research and recommendations for further study.

Contributions to the Literature

In this study all three factors identified in the review of literature, namely the
nature of the educational environment, the individuals in the setting, and the tasks in
which students engage, influenced social interactions for the students with autism.
Environment

Physical activities have been proposed as natural settings for promoting positive
social interactions for individuals with autism (Kitson, 1993; O'Connor et al., 2000; Reid
& O'Connor, 2003; Schleien et al., 1988). Physical education in school may provide the
bulk of physical activity for youths with autism (Pan, 2008; Pan & Frey, 2006); therefore,
GPE may provide a good educational environment for social interactions. The results of
this study found that students with autism had more interactions with classmates in GPE
than in academic classes. Students with autism interacted more frequently with
classmates in GPE than in academic classes (refer to Tables 4, 5, 6, 7).

In past research, students with physical disabilities have reported negative

feelings such as being left out, neglected, or teased in GPE (Blinde & McCallister, 1998;

120

Goodwin & Watkinson, 2000; Hutzler et al., 2002; Place & Hodge, 2001). However, in
the current study, students with autism engaged in social interactions in GPE and
generally did not appear socially isolated. Kevin engaged in more social interactions in
GPE than in math, thereby indicating the possibility that GPE may provide an
environment conducive to facilitating interactions. Kevin did not interact as often as
Adam, but Kevin did interact more in GPE than in math. It may not be imperative that a
student with autism engages in equal numbers of interactions as his classmates, but it
would seem to be important to understand which environments foster increased
interactions.

Ellis and colleagues (1996) found that students with disabilities (i.e., mental
retardation) interacted most frequently with peers in small group or free play situations,
while teacher interactions occurred most frequently during independent activities. Lee
and Kevin were both more engaged with classmates when the activities were small or
large group in nature. For example, Lee engaged with classmates while playing floor
hockey, but kept to himself when in the fitness room with a group. Kevin interacted with
his partners when playing active video games, but completed golf putts with assistance
from only his aide and teacher. This may have occurred because the partner or group
activities forced interactions, while the individual activities may have required more
effort from the students with autism to interact with others.

Individuals with autism may have difficulties with certain environmental stimuli
(O'Connor et al., 2000; Reid et al., 2003). Kevin did have difficulties interacting during
loud, chaotic GPE activities. For example, his lowest levels of interactions were

observed on the day the class played kickball. While waiting to bat, Kevin stood in line

121

next to his aide with his fingers in his ears, and when in the field he stood near the corner
and gazed about the room. During the game, classmates appeared too engaged to make
extra effort to include Kevin.

Frequency of Interactions

In the only past study about social interactions of students with autism in GPE,
results have indicated “that interaction levels were much higher with classroom aides
than with teachers, and very low with peers” (Lisboa, 1997, p. 1). Kevin’s results are
fairly consistent with these findings. Although Kevin interacted more in GPE, these
interactions occurred more frequently with his aide than with his classmates. Contrary to
the findings of Lisboa (1997), Lee did not interact more with his aide than his classmates
in GPE. However, in social studies Lee did interact far more with his aide than with
classmates. These findings indicate that interactions may be influenced not only by the
student with autism, but by the environment as well.

Even though Lee did not engage in more total interactions in GPE than social
studies, there was a large difference in the individuals with whom he interacted. In social
studies, the majority of interactions occurred with his aide, but in GPE he was more
likely to interact with classmates. Lee was as physically skilled as most of his
classmates, and therefore was able to play and interact well with his classmates. This is
contrary to past research which has concluded that children with autism often possess low
levels of physical fitness (Auxter et al., 1997; Ho et al., 1997). In this case, Lee’s
physical fitness and skills in certain activities generated more interactions with his

classmates. Specifically, there was one GPE class session in which Lee had several more

122

interactions with classmates than he did in the other four sessions. During this session
the class was playing basketball which was .a sport Lee was skilled at and enjoyed.

Lee may have also had more interactions with peers than Kevin due to his age and
the middle school setting. Children and adolescents with autism rarely develop typical
peer friendships (Konging & Magill-Evans, 2001; Le Couteur et al., 1989; Marks,
Schrader, Longaker, & Levine, 2000). However, there is an increase of interest in
developing social relationships during adolescence (Mesibov, 1983; Mesibov & Handlan,
1997; Rutter, 1970; Volkmar & Klin, 1995). Therefore, Lee may have had more interest
in developing friendship which influence interaction levels. In attempt to gain
acceptance and friendships with his peers, Lee could have been interacting more than
Kevin.

Varying numbers of interactions were observed between the four teachers and the
two students with autism during the study. In past studies, physical educators who had
more experience working with students with disabilities had significantly more favorable
attitudes toward working with these students than teachers who had less experience
(Block & Rizzo, 1995; Rizzo & Kirkendall, 1995; Schmidt-Gotz et al., 1994). Physical
educators often feel untrained to teach children with disabilities (Block & Rizzo, 1995),
the less experienced teachers in this study may have been more hesitant to interact with
Lee and Kevin. The highest number of interactions in this study occurred between Mrs.
Simon (social studies) and Lee. Mrs. Simon had the most overall experience teaching
and she also had more experience working with students with disabilities than the other

teachers in this study. Whether it was the added experience on a general basis or the

123

knowledge of characteristics of autism, it appeared that teacher experience affected the
social interactions in this study.

Gender is another consideration when evaluating social interactions among
students with autism and their classmates. Past research has been inconsistent on the
influence of gender in the attitudes of students without disabilities toward peers with
disabilities; however, females have been found to have more favorable attitudes toward
peers with disabilities (Slininger et al., 2000; Tripp et al., 1995). This was consistent

with the current study for Kevin in math and GPE and for Lee in social studies. In GPE

Lee interacted almost entirely with males in the class. This may have been due to the
characteristics of the specific male classmates or perhaps due to Lee’s desires to seek out
males as friends or teammates. Lee was a fan of several professional sports and was
aware that these sports are gender segregated. This knowledge may have influenced his
interactions in GPE.
Nature of Interactions

There is little information in the research literature about the nature of social
interactions of students with autism in educational settings. This study was one of the
first to investigate the nature of interactions and found the majority of the interactions of
the students with autism were appropriate or positive in nature. Students with autism are
often perceived as presenting behavior problems, especially in physical activity settings
(Coyne & Fullerton, 2004). However, this study found that students with autism do not
present more inappropriate or off-task interactions than comparison classmates (refer to
Tables 8, 9, 10, 11). Though students with autism may not present behavior problems

when interacting, they may have other challenging behaviors that require consideration.

124

The nature of Kevin’s social interactions appeared to be greatly influenced by his
communication skills. Past research has shown that about 40% of children with autism
do not speak at all (Powers, 2000). Kevin mostly fit this description. He used an
electronic communication board for most of his interactions. This different mode of
communication greatly impaired Kevin’s ability to interact. Kevin was not observed
initiating an interaction, though he would interact when a classmate or his aide
approached him to help or praise him. This may be why Kevin was not observed
engaging in any inappropriate or off-task interactions. When he was interacting, it was
because another had approached him to help or praise. No one approached him to engage
in an inappropriate or off-task interactions. Classmates have known Kevin for multiple
years and during observation did not tease, taunt, or make fun of him in any way. This
was apparent when Kevin would have loud vocal outbursts, to which the classmates did
not react. Classmates appeared to only want positive interactions with Kevin.

Lee was sometimes encouraged in his inappropriate or off-task interactions by
classmates. At times when Lee would say or do something inappropriate other boys in
the class would encourage him to do it again and again. They appeared to think it was
funny to see if they could get Lee to continue. Students with autism have been shown to
have increased interest in developing social relationships during adolescence (Mesibov,
1983; Mesibov & Handlan, 1997; Rutter, 1970; Volkmar & Klin, 1995). Therefore, Lee
may have continued these inappropriate behaviors because the laughter of classmates
served as positive reinforcement. Although the classmates may have been teasing Lee, it

appeared his behavior was intended to impress his classmates. The researcher believes

125

that Lee’s behaviors may have been due in part to the middle school setting which is a
challenging social time for all students.

Also, both Kevin and Lee engaged in more positive interactions than Adam and
Zack, respectively (refer to Tables 8, 9, 10, 11). This indicates the possibility that
students with autism are being praised at higher levels than classmates. For example, in
social studies class Lee and two classmates took turns reading parts of the textbook
chapter aloud to each other. When the classmates finished their sections, there was no
praise; however, each time Lee finished a section both students praised him. The praise
appeared to be the result of good intentions though the praise for Lee was more
enthusiastic than the classmates were observed giving to others. This extra praise was
not deemed to be good or bad, but was clearly observed. Perhaps Kevin and Lee were
students who needed high amounts of praise to stay on task, therefore making praise a
valuable educational tool.
Tasks and Social Interactions

Past research has not investigated the types of tasks during which social
interactions occur for students with autism. Often researchers have compared the total
amount of time spent in different tasks by students. with and without disabilities (Lisboa,
Butterfield, Reif, & McIntire, 1995; Temple & Walkley, 1999). However, this study
used the ALT-PE categories as a way to understand classroom tasks during which social
interactions occm'red.

The highest number of interactions for all students observed occurred during the
ALT-PE activity category. This is logical due to the fact that often during the other ALT-

PE categories interactions are discouraged or forbidden. For example, in Kevin’s GPE

126

 

class the students were expected to sit quietly as the teacher organized the space and took
attendance. It is obvious that if the expectation is to sit quietly no interactions will or
should occur. Therefore, it should be remembered that at certain times in a class of any
type, interactions may not be occurring. For example, during knowledge tasks a teacher
may be lecturing to a class and they are expected to quietly listen. Some interactions may
occur if a student asks or answers a question, but in general knowledge time is not
conducive to large numbers of interactions.

Also certain task settings may not have occurred as often in each class or for each
student. Place and Hodge (2001) determined that the students with disabilities spent 36%
of their time in motor activity, “29% of their time waiting; 12% in transitions; 10% in
knowledge content (i.e., listening to information about technique, rules of game, strategy,
or background); 8% in management; and 2% off-task” (Place & Hodge, 2001, p. 401).
Students without disabilities spent 31% of their time in motor activity; 13% waiting; 24%
in transitions; 21% in knowledge content; 6% in management; and 5% off-task (Place &
Hodge, 2001). In this study, both the students with autism and comparison classmates
demonstrated limited numbers of interactions in the transitions, management, and
knowledge ALT-PE categories. This may be consistent with past research because of
different time spent in each category. If Kevin and Lee only spent approximately 10% of
their time in knowledge activities, as in Place and Hodge (2001), then it is logical that
there may not have been as many opportunities to interact during that category.

Lee and Zack had different numbers of interactions while waiting in various GPE
class sessions. The content of two GPE sessions was tennis. Students often spent time in

line waiting to hit the ball. This waiting time allowed for several interactions, as talking

127

in line was permitted by the GPE teacher. During the wait Lee received several positive
interactions with classmates for his performance during his turn hitting. The praise
seemed to make Lee happy and he appeared eager to get another turn so he could
possibly receive more praise. So, waiting time may be undesirable when the goal is to
maintain a high physical activity level, but in this study it may have provided valuable
social interaction time.

Limitations

Sample size. The primary limitation of this study was sample size. A small
multiple-case study does not lend to generalizability. However, this study was
exploratory and descriptive in nature and did not aim to produce wide-spread
generalizable findings.

Representative sample of students with autism. A second limitation was the
differences between the personal characteristics of the students with autism in each case.
Kevin and Lee were only one year apart in age. Though this was only one chronological
year difference, Kevin was in elementary school and Lee was in middle school. These
separate environments may have influenced the social climate of the classes. Kevin
predominately used an electronic communication board for interactions, while Lee was
fully verbal. Difference in communication style may have limited Kevin’s ability to
socially interact.

A limitation inherent to research with students with autism is the heterogeneity of
children placed under the diagnosis of autism. Parents of students with autism in this
study did answer questions relating to the DSM-IV-TR diagnosis, however, two

individuals both diagnosed with autism can be quite different. Both Kevin and Lee were

128

 

similar in their physical ability and had the motor skills needed to participate in GPE
alongside their classmates.

The difference in class environments may have also presented limitations to the
study. The students with autism were not in the same GPE and academic classes,
therefore the nature of the curricula were different. Case 1 occurred with all of the same
students in math and GPE, but Case 2 had a mixture of overall students in social studies
and GPE. The comparison classmate remained the same, but the difference in classmates
may have influenced the number of social interactions in the setting.

In Case 2 there were also more students in the GPE class than the social studies
class, which increased the student to teacher ratio in GPE. This increased ratio may have
limited the GPE teacher’s opportunity to interact with students on an individual basis. In
addition, the comparison academic classes varied between cases. The differences
between math and social studies may have influenced the results.

The different levels of experience of the teachers may have also presented
limitations. For example, Mrs. Davis and Mrs. Simon were separated in number of years
of experience and in experience with individuals with disabilities. This may have
contributed to the interaction between the teachers and the students with autism. The
aides in this study had spent different lengths of time working with the participants with
autism. This may have altered how they interacted with the participants.

Limitations may have also occurred due to the special education schedule and
staffing. Kevin missed multiple days during data collection due to scheduling and
staffing conflicts in his special education classroom. Though research data were simply

collected on another day, these absences may have disrupted socialization for Kevin.

129

These scheduling conflicts are a limitation, but the difficulties are inherent to special
education.

Research methodology. In reference to instrumentation, the ALT-PE categories
may have presented a limitation. Though there were five separate ALT-PE categories,
several interactions fell under the activity category. Further divisions of the activity
category may have provided more insight to understanding during which types of
activities social interactions occur. One possibility could be to divide activity into
independent, small group, or large group work.

In regards to data collection, a limitation was the fact that not all consent
documents were returned in Case 2 which deterred video-taping. Therefore, data were
collected in real-time which resulted in no videotape to review. In addition, the students
with autism would not tolerate wearing a wireless microphone, as it was too distracting.
Therefore all audio data were acquired from the videotape. The videotape provided
ample sound, but may have missed some details when the participants were far from the
camera.

Reactivity to the presence of the observers or to the video-camera may have also
been a limitation during this study. Although initial sessions occurred to acclimate the
students to the presence of the observers and camera, the students or teachers may still
have altered their behavior during observation. The multiple class session observations
were designed to minimize this limitation, however, the possibility of reactivity still
existed. The most observers present in any situation was two, which was rather

distracting to the students with autism. Having more than two or bringing an entirely

130

new person to observe would have been very disruptive to the routine of the students with
autism.
Recommendations
There is ample room for more research in the area of social interactions of
individuals with autism. Based on the results of the present study, several
recommendations for future research and practitioners are presented here.
Future Research

° Future research should aim to replicate or expand on these findings using larger
sample sizes. Larger sample size may allow for more generalizability.
However, it is critical to remember that individuals with autism are a
heterogeneous population. Therefore, results and findings should not be over-
expanded.

' Future research should aim to accumulate more observation times, perhaps
spread throughout the school year. The current study had only five observed
class sessions for each setting per case. Increased observation time could
provide a more detailed picture of the social interactions. Observations across
an entire school year or across multiple school years might show development of
or loss of social skills.

° Future research should analyze social interactions of students with autism in
regards to which individual initiates the interactions. Research could show not
only who initiates interactions, but also what types of interactions are initiated
by the different individuals. This could help illustrate any social challenges of

students with autism more specifically.

131

 

° Future research should attempt to compare GPE to other non-academic classes
such as music or art. This could help to further understand any unique
contributions of GPE, or other non-academic classes, toward fostering social
interactions.

° Future research should focus on acquiring more detailed information about
classroom context. The ALT-PE categories used in this study were general,
with the majority of interactions being seen in the activity category. Perhaps
researchers could investigate more specific types of activity to examine social
interactions.

' Future research should more closely consider the experience and background of
the teachers and aides in reference to interactions. Simple demographic forms
were completed in this study; however, detailed interviews or surveys could
shed more light on the potential influences of the attitudes of educators.

' Future research should focus on these findings in reference to planning effective
social interventions. For example, this study found an increase in social
interactions of students with autism with classmates during GPE. Therefore,
GPE may be a valuable time to employ interventions such as peer tutoring. Peer
tutoring may allow increased numbers of interactions as students may be more
able to interact during GPE. If GPE is a uniquely social setting, then it is
important to utilize the setting as much as possible.

Practitioners
' Practitioners should be provided with training about working with individuals

with disabilities, including autism. The current study observed that the teacher

132

 

 

 

with the most special education training interacted with the student with autism
at the highest rate. Training and education will hopefully prepare educators to
comfortably teach students with autism in their classrooms.

Practitioners should be aware of the potentially unique social setting created in
GPE. Therefore, if appropriate, educators should work to allow students with
autism to participate in GPE with classmates without disabilities. This inclusion
may provide valuable social interactions for all individuals involved.
Practitioners should understand the importance of activity class time in fostering
social interactions. Though all class time cannot be activity time, it may be
important to provide activity to allow for interactions. The cm'rent study found a
relatively low rate of inappropriate and off-task interactions for students with
autism, therefore, students with autism should be allowed to interact during
appropriate activities.

Practitioners, especially physical education teachers, should consider the use of
peer tutors for students with autism. The current study observed classmates as
very willing to interact with students with autism when asked to do so by
teachers. However, assigning a peer tutor to only the student with autism could
draw unnecessary attention to the student with autism. Therefore, it may be
appropriate to assign all students to small groups to encourage interactions.
Practitioners should be aware of the importance of social skill development in
all students, including those with autism. Understanding this developmental
need may lead to increased attempts to provide opportunities to develop these

skills for all students.

133

Summary

Difficulty with social skills is an extremely prominent feature of autism.
Individuals with autism have been found to have low levels of peer relationships,
friendships, and participation in social and recreational activities (Orsmond et al., 2004).
As social competence and skills are often lacking in youths with autism (McConnell,
2002; Rogers, 2000), and physical education provides a potential beneficial environment
for gaining social interactions (Groft & Block, 2003), it is critical to understand any
connections between social interactions and the physical activity environment.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the nature and frequency of social
interactions among students with autism and other individuals (i.e., classmates, teachers,
and aides) during various tasks in general physical education (GPE), relative to social
interactions in other education settings.

A multiple-case study approach was used to investigate the research questions
(Yin, 2003). This study primarily used observational data, supplemented by qualitative
field notes and demographic data. Each of two cases were comprised of a student with
autism, a comparison classmate without disability, and a shared GPE and one other
academic class. Each case was observed for at least five class sessions in both GPE and
another academic class (i.e., math, social studies). Behavioral observations were coded
using the AIPE-SR (Hodge & Hersman, 2007), ALT-PE (Siedentop et al., 1982), and in
Case 1 the BEACHES (McKenzie et al., 1991). Data were analyzed using basic
descriptive statistics, chi-square analyses and visual analyses.

Results of the study revealed that students with autism did not interact with

classmates at the same level as age-matched classmates without disabilities. However,

134

students with autism did interact more with classmates during GPE than during the
academic class. Students with autism were observed interacting with aides more than
with classmates in all but one instance. Specifically, one participant with autism
interacted more with classmates than with aides in GPE. The number of interactions of
students with autism with their teachers was very low. In fact, in certain class sessions
students with autism had no direct interactions with teachers.

Results indicated that the majority of interactions by students with autism were
appropriate or positive in nature. The highest number of positive interactions occurred
for both students with autism in GPE. All four students had the highest number of
interactions during the ALT-PE activity category. The highest numbers of positive
interactions across participants and settings occurred during activity time. Students with
autism were observed having lower levels of inappropriate and off-task behaviors than
their classmates.

The individuals in the setting, the tasks in which they engage, and the nature of
the physical activity environment, should all be considered when evaluating social
interactions among students with autism in GPE and academic settings. Suomi and
colleagues (2003) listed four major factors which affect social experience of students,
including (a) teachers, (b) social nature of the tasks, (0) classroom cultures, and ((1) social
skills of the students. This study investigated similar constructs in relation to students
with autism. When there is a desire to foster social interactions, there must be time
allowed for activity in the class. On the basis of this study, it is difficult to say
conclusively that GPE is an environment which fosters social interactions for students

with autism, but it does support the claim that GPE may be a more social environment

135

than academic classes. GPE was found to be a unique educational setting in which
appropriate and positive interactions with classmates were fostered in all students,

including students with autism.

136

 

APPENDICES

137

APPENDIX A:
DSM-IV-TR DEFINITION OF AUTISM

138

 

Diagnostic Criteria for 299.00 Autistic Disorder

A. A total of six (or more) items from (1), (2), and (3), with at least two from (1), and
one each from (2) and (3)

(1) Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of
the following:

(a) marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as
eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to
regulate social interaction

(b) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental
level

(c) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or
achievements with other people (e. g., by a lack of showing, bringing,
or pointing out objects of interest)

(d) lack of social or emotional reciprocity

(2) Quantitative impairments in commrmication as manifested by at least one of
the following:

(a) delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not
accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes
of communication such as gesture or mime)

(b) in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability
to initiate or sustain a conversation with others

(c) stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language

(d) lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play
appropriate to developmental level

(3) Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and
activities, as manifested by at least two of the following:

(a) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and ‘
restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or
focus

(b) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or
rituals

(c) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger
flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)

(d) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

B. Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset
prior to age 3 years: (1) social interaction, (2) language as used in social
communication, or (3) symbolic or imaginative play

C. The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett’s Disorder or Childhood
Disintegrative Disorder

 

139

APPENDIX B:
MSU IRB APPROVAL LETTER

140

Initial IRB

MICHIGAN STATE Application
UNIVERSITY Approval

December 10, 2008

To: Gail DUMMER
138 IM Sports Circle
MSU

Re: IRB# 08-1 103 Category: EXPEDITED 2-7
Approval Date: December 8, 2008
Expiration Date: December 7, 2009

Title: Social Interactions of Students with Autism in General Physical Education

The Institutional Review Board has completed their review of your project. I am pleased to advise you that
your project has been approved.

This project has been bumped to Expedited status, category 2-7. Be sure to provide the BIRB with
copies of the letters of permission from the elementary school(s).

The committee has found that your research project is appropriate in design, protects the rights and welfare
of the human subjects, and meets the requirements of MSU’s Federal Wide Assurance and the Federal
Guidelines (45 CFR 46) and 21 CFR Part 50). The protection of human subjects in research is a
partnership between the IRB and the investigators. We look forward to working with you as we both fulfill
our responsibilities.

Renewals: IRB approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. If you are continuing your project,
you must submit an Application for Renewal application at least on month before expiration. If the project
is completed, please submit an Application for Permanent Closure.

Revisions: The IRB must review any changes in the project, prior to initiation of the change. Please
submit an Application for Revision to have your changes reviewed. If changes are made at the time of
renewal, please include an Application for Revision with the renewal application.

Problems: If issues should arise during the conduct of the research, such as unanticipated problems,
adverse events, or any problem that may increase the risk to the human subjects, notify the IRB office

promptly. Forms are available to report these issues.

Please use the IRB number listed above on any forms submitted which relate to this project, or on any
correspondence with the IRB office.

Good luck in your research. If we can be of firrther assistance, please contact us at 517-355-2180 or via
email at IRB’tf msuedu. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

fl/fl/IW

Ashir Kumar, M.D.
BIRB Chair

c: Mary Douglas
IM Circle Room 39

141

 

APPENDIX C:
CONSENT AND ASSENT DOCUMENTS

142

    

Research Participant Information and Consent Form

)J‘ML‘ Students with Autism

You are being asked to give consent for your child to participate in a research project.
Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the study, to convey that
participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to
make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researchers any questions you may
have.

Study Title: Social Interactions of Students with Autism in General Physical Education

Researchers: Mary Martha Douglas, Graduate Student
Dr. Gail M. Dummer, Professor

Department and Institution: Department of Kinesiology, Michigan State University

Address and Contact Information:

 

 

Mary Martha Douglas Gail M. Dummer
Department of Kinesiology Department of Kinesiology
39 IM Sports Circle 138 IM Sports Circle
Michigan State University Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824 East Lansing, MI 48824
Cell: (515) 554-9668 Work: (517) 355-4744
Fax: (517) 353-2944 Fax: (517) 353-2944
dougll 19’2'imsuedu dummer@msu.edu
Purpose

You are being asked to give your consent for your child to participate in a research study about
the nature and frequency of naturally occurring social interactions among students with autism
and other individuals (i.e., classmates, teachers, and aides), during various tasks in multiple
educational settings, including academic and general physical education (GPE) classes. Your
child was selected as a possible participant in this study because you have volunteered
information that your child has autism. From this study, the investigators hope to gain: (a) a
detailed picture of what is socially occurring for youth with autism in GPE in comparison to
classmates without disabilities, (b) baseline data from which appropriate social intervention goals
can be set for youth with autism, (c) data about tasks in GPE which elicit social interactions that
may be used for interventions or social skill training and (d) an understanding of whether or not
GPE provides a unique setting for social interactions during school. In the entire study,
approximately 40 people are being asked to participate. Your child’s participation in this study
will take about two months.

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board (BIRB)
at Michigan State University. Approved 12/8/08 — valid through 12/7/09. This version supersedes
all previous versions. IRB # 08-1103.

143

 

What You Will Do

You will first complete a short survey on which you will be asked to provide information about
your child’s age, gender, grade in school, and diagnosis of autism. Then Mary Douglas (or
another trained observer) will attend at least four hours of your child’s GPE class and another
academic class (such as math or social studies) to watch, take notes, and video- and audio-record
what occurs. Your child will be asked to wear a wireless microphone during class to better record
what occurs. Mary Douglas will sit off to the side of the gymnasium or classroom with a video-
camera and unobtrusively record what occurs. The environment and tasks of your child’s GPE or
academic class will not be altered by the researcher. This study aims to understand what is
naturally occurring, and therefore will not interfere with your child’s educational experience. The
recorded data will be analyzed using several observation instruments which evaluate social
interactions, classroom context, and physical activity. All video- and audio-data will be analyzed
in a private location so no one outside of the research team may see the data. Once the data have
been analyzed, all video- and audio-recordings will be destroyed. If you so desire, you will be
provided with written results of this study.

Potential Benefits

Your child will not directly benefit from participation in this study. However, your child’s
participation in this study may contribute to the understanding of what is socially occurring for
students with autism in GPE and other academic settings. Results may also help form more
appropriate social interaction goals and aid in understanding any unique attributes of GPE.

Potential Risks
The only known risk of participation is breach of confidentiality. All of the precautions below
will be taken to avoid this risk.

Privacy and Confidentiality

Information about your child will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Specific
confidentiality provisions include: (a) the use of pseudonyms in the data or any final publications
or presentations; (b) all data will be kept in a locked file cabinet in a locked office or on a
password protected computer; and ((1) only Mary Douglas, Gail Dummer, and the other IRB
trained observers will have access to the recorded data. The results of this study may be
published or presented at professional meetings, but the identities of research participants will
remain confidential.

Your Rights to Participate, Say No, or Withdraw

Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You and your child have the right
to say no. You and your child may change your mind at any time and withdraw. There will be
no consequences from withdrawal, simply inform the researchers that you wish to withdraw your
child from the study. You may choose to not answer specific questions on the demographic form
or stop participating at any time. You indicate your voluntary agreement for your child to
participate by completing the consent form. Your child will indicate voluntary agreement by
completing the assent form. You and your child’s participation in this study will be greatly
appreciated.

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board (BIRB)
at Michigan State University. Approved 12/8/08 — valid through 12/7/09. This version supersedes
all previous versions. IRB # 08-1103.

144

 

Costs and Compensation for Being in the Study
There are no costs for participating in this study. You will not receive money or any other form
of compensation for participating in this study.

Contact Information for Questions and Concerns
If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of
it, or to report an injury, please contact the researchers.

Mary Martha Douglas Gail M. Dummer
Department of Kinesiology Department of Kinesiology
39 IM Sports Circle 138 IM Sports Circle
Michigan State University Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824 East Lansing, MI 48824
Cell: (515) 554-9668 Work: (517) 355-4744
Fax: (517) 353-2944 Fax: (517) 353-2944
dougll l9@msu.edu dunnneflmsucdu

 

 

If you have questions or concerns about your child’s role and rights as a research participant,
would like to obtain. information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this
study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human
Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or
regular mail at 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, M148824.

 

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board (BIRB)
at Michigan State University. Approved 12/8/08 - valid through 12/7/09. This version supersedes
all previous versions. IRB # 08-1103.

145

Parent/Caregiver Consent Form - Students with Autism
Social Interactions of Students with Autism
in General Physical Education

 

Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to allow your child to participate in the
research study named above (including videotaping of classes at school), as well as your
agreement to complete the demographic survey for your child.

 

 

Child’s Name Child’s Age in Years

 

Child’s Relationship to Parent/Guardian Giving Permission

 

 

Your Printed Name Your Signature

 

Date

 

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to allow Mary Martha Douglas to
contact your child’s school in order to obtain access to your child’s most recent Individual

Education Program (IEP) in his or her permanent school record to verify the diagnosis of autism.

 

 

Your Printed Name Your Signature

 

 

Date Your Child’s Name

You will be given a copy of this form to keep.

Please provide contact information if you would like to receive the results of this study.

 

Address (Street, City, State, Zip)

 

Email

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board (BIRB)
at Michigan State University. Approved 12/8/08 — valid through 12/7/09. This version supersedes
all previous versions. IRB # 08-1103.

146

“MT!

 

Participant Assent Form
Social Interactions of Students with Autism
in General Physical Education

 

Hi! My name is Marty Douglas. 1 am a graduate student at Michigan State University. I am here
to ask you to help me with my school project. I would like to come to some of your classes at
school including physical education. I will sit off to the side with a video camera and watch you
and your class. You will wear a microphone during class, so I can hear what you say. I will
show you the microphone, and then you can tell me if you would like to help me or not.
Participant will be shown the microphone and will get a chance to feel what it is like to wear it.

Do you have any questions?

YES NO
O O
Can I come to your classes and watch what you do?
YES NO
69 ®

If answered yes and able: sign name below.

 

 

Your Printed Name Your Signature

 

Date

If participant cannot provide written assent, he or she must provide verbal assent. Both the
researcher and the parent/legal guardian must witness the assent.

Witness to the participant’s assent:

 

 

Parent/legal guardian Signature & Date Mary Douglas’ Signature & Date

 

 

Print Name Print Name

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board (BIRB)
at Michigan State University. Approved 12/8/08 — valid through 12/7/09. This version supersedes
all previous versions. IRB # 08-1103.

147

 

  

Research Participant Information and Consent Form
) . Classmates

 

You are being asked to give consent for your child to participate in a research project.
Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the study, to convey that
participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to
make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researchers any questions you may
have.

Study Title: Social Interactions of Students with Autism in General Physical Education

Researchers: Mary Martha Douglas, Graduate Student
Dr. Gail M. Dummer, Professor

Department and Institution: Department of Kinesiology, Michigan State University

Address and Contact Information:

 

 

Mary Martha Douglas Gail M. Dummer
Department of Kinesiology Department of Kinesiology
39 IM Sports Circle ' 138 IM Sports Circle
Michigan State University Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824 East Lansing, MI 48824
Cell: (515) 554-9668 Work: (517) 355-4744
Fax: (517) 353-2944 Fax: (517) 353-2944
dougll l9@msu.edu dummcr’d‘msucdu
Purpose

You are being asked to give consent for your child to participate in a research study about the
nature and frequency of naturally occurring social interactions among students with autism and
other individuals (i.e., classmates, teachers, and aides), during various tasks in multiple
educational settings, including academic and general physical education (GPE) classes. Your
child was selected as a possible participant in this study because your child has class with a
student who has autism. From this study, the investigators hope to gain: (a) a detailed picture of
what is socially occurring for youth with autism in GPE in comparison to classmates without
disabilities, (b) baseline data from which appropriate social intervention goals can be set for
youth with autism, (c) data about tasks in GPE which elicit social interactions that may be used
for interventions or social skill training and (d) an understanding of whether or not GPE provides
a unique setting for social interactions during school. In the entire study, approximately 40
people are being asked to participate. Your child’s participation in this study will take about two
months.

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board (BIRB)
at Michigan State University. Approved 12/8/08 — valid through 12/7/09. This version supersedes
all previous versions. IRB # 08-1103.

148

 

What You Will Do

You will first complete a short survey on which you will be asked to provide your child’s age,
gender, and grade in school. Then Mary Douglas (or another trained observer) will attend at least
four hours of your child’s GPE class and another academic class (such as math or social studies)
to watch, take notes, and video- and audio-record what occurs. Your child may be asked to wear
a wireless microphone during class to better record what occurs. Mary Douglas will sit off to the
side of the gymnasium or classroom with a video-camera and unobtrusively record what occurs.
The environment and tasks of your child’s GPE or academic class will not be altered by the
researcher. This study aims to understand what is naturally occurring, and therefore will not
interfere with your child’s educational experience. The recorded data will be analyzed using
several observation instruments which evaluate social interactions, classroom context, and
physical activity. All video- and audio-data will be analyzed in a private location so no one
outside of the research team may see the data. Once the data have been analyzed, all video- and
audio-recordings will be destroyed. If you so desire, you will be provided with written results of
this study.

Potential Benefits

Your child will not directly benefit from participation in this study. However, your child’s
participation in this study may contribute to the understanding of what is socially occurring for
students with autism in GPE and other academic settings. Results may also help form more
appropriate social interaction goals and aid in understanding any unique attributes of GPE.

Potential Risks
The only known risk of participation is breach of confidentiality. All of the precautions below
will be taken to avoid this risk.

Privacy and Confidentiality

Information about your child will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Specific
confidentiality provisions include: (a) the use of pseudonyms in the data or any final publications
or presentations; (b) all data will be kept in a locked file cabinet in a locked office or on a
password protected computer; and (d) only Mary Douglas, Gail Dummer, and the other IRB
trained observers will have access to the recorded data. The results of this study may be
published or presented at professional meetings, but the identities of research participants will
remain confidential.

Your Rights to Participate, Say No, or Withdraw

Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You and your child have the right
to say no. You and your child may change your mind at any time and withdraw. There will be
no consequences from withdrawal, simply inform the researchers that you wish to withdraw your
child from the study. You may choose to not answer specific questions on the demographic form
or stop participating at any time. You indicate your voluntary agreement for your child to
participate by completing the consent form. Your child will indicate voluntary agreement by
completing the assent form. You and your child’s participation in this study will be greatly
appreciated.

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board (BIRB)
at Michigan State University. Approved 12/8/08 — valid through 12/7/09. This version supersedes
all previous versions. IRB # 08-1103.

149

 

 

Costs and Compensation for Being in the Study
There are no costs for participating in this study. You will not receive money or any other form
of compensation for participating in this study.

Contact Information for Questions and Concerns
If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of
it, or to report an injury, please contact the researchers.

Mary Martha Douglas Gail M. Dummer
Department of Kinesiology Department of Kinesiology
39 IM Sports Circle 138 IM Sports Circle
Michigan State University Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824 East Lansing, MI 48824
Cell: (515) 554-9668 Work: (517)355-4744
Fax: (517) 353-2944 Fax: (517) 353-2944
dougll l9@msu.edu dummcrffmsucdu

 

 

If you have questions or concerns about your child’s role and rights as a research participant,
would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this
study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human
Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or
regular mail at 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

 

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board (BIRB)
at Michigan State University. Approved 12/8/08 — valid through 12/7/09. This version supersedes
all previous versions. IRB # 08-1103.

150

Parent/Caregiver Consent Form - Classmates
Social Interactions of Students with Autism
in General Physical Education

 

Are you willing to have your child participate in this study? Please check Yes or No.

Yes No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to allow your child to participate in the
research study named above (including videotaping of classes at school), as well as your
agreement to complete the demographic survey for your child.

 

 

Child’s Name Child’s Age in Years

 

Child’s Relationship to Parent/Guardian Giving Permission

 

 

Your Printed Name Your Signature

 

Date

You will be given a copy of this form to keep.

Please provide contact information if you would like to receive the results of this study.

 

Address (Street, City, State, Zip)

 

Email

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board (BIRB)
at Michigan State University. Approved 12/8/08 — valid through 12/7/09. This version supersedes
all previous versions. IRB # 08-1103.

151

 

Participant Assent Form - Classmates
Social Interactions of Students with Autism
in General Physical Education

 

Hi! My name is Marty Douglas. I am a graduate student at Michigan State University. I am
asking you to help me with my school project. I would like to come to some of your classes at
school. I will sit off to the side with a video camera and watch you and your classmates so that I
can understand what happens. Please ask me any questions that you have, my contact
information is in this packet.

Are you willing to help me with this project? Please check Yes or No.

Yes No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your Printed Name Your Signature

 

Date

You will be given a copy of this form to keep.

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board (BIRB)
at Michigan State University. Approved 12/8/08 — valid through 12/7/09. This version supersedes
all previous versions. IRB # 08-1103.

152

     
 

I
1

Research Participant Information and Consent Form
) Teachers and Aides

You are being asked to participate in a research project. Researchers are required to provide a
consent form to inform you about the study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain
risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You
should feel free to ask the researchers any questions you may have.

Study Title: Social Interactions of Students with Autism in General Physical Education

Researchers: Mary Martha Douglas, Graduate Student
Dr. Gail M. Dummer, Professor

Department and Institution: Department of Kinesiology, Michigan State University

Address and Contact Information:

 

 

Mary Martha Douglas Gail M. Dummer
Department of Kinesiology Department of Kinesiology
39 IM Sports Circle 138 IM Sports Circle
Michigan State University Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824 East Lansing, MI 48824
Cell: (515) 554-9668 Work: (517) 355-4744
Fax: (517) 353-2944 Fax: (517) 353-2944
dougll 19r;’f_i‘msu.cdu dummcr@msu.cdu
Purpose

You are being asked to participate in a research study of the nature and frequency of naturally
occurring social interactions among students with autism and other individuals (i.e., classmates,
teachers, and aides), during various tasks in multiple educational settings, including academic and
general physical education (GPE) classes. You have been selected as a possible participant in this
study because your class has a student with autism. From this study, the investigators hope to ’
gain: (a) a detailed picture of what is socially occurring for youth with autism in GPE in
comparison to classmates without disabilities, (b) baseline data from which appropriate social
intervention goals can be set for youth with autism, (c) data about tasks in GPE which elicit social
interactions that may be used for interventions or social skill training and (d) an understanding of
whether or not GPE provides a unique setting for social interactions during school. In the entire
study, approximately 40 people are being asked to participate. Your participation in this study
will take about two months.

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board (BIRB)
at Michigan State University. Approved 12/8/08 — valid through 12/7/09. This version supersedes
all previous versions. IRB # 08-1103.

153

 

 

What You Will Do

You will first complete a short survey on which you will be asked to provide your age, gender,
and information about your teaching experiences. Then Mary Douglas (or another trained
observer) will attend at least four hours of your class in which you have a student with autism to
watch, take notes, and video- and audio-record what occurs. She will sit off to the side of the
gymnasium or classroom with a video-camera and unobtrusively record what occurs. The
environment and tasks of the class will not be altered by the researcher. This study aims to
understand what is naturally occurring, and therefore will not interfere with your lesson plans or
activities. The recorded data will be analyzed using several observation instruments which
evaluate social interactions, classroom context, and physical activity. All video- and audio-data
will be analyzed in a private location so no one outside of the research team may see the data.
Once the data have been analyzed, all video- and audio-recordings will be destroyed. If you so
desire, you will be provided with written results of this study.

Potential Benefits

You will not directly benefit from your participation in this study. However, your participation in
this study may contribute to the understanding of what is socially occurring for students with
autism in GPE and other academic settings. Results may also help form more appropriate social
interaction goals and aid in understanding any unique attributes of GPE.

Potential Risks
The only known risk of participation is breach of confidentiality. All of the precautions below
will be taken to avoid this risk.

Privacy and Confidentiality

Information about you will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Specific
confidentiality provisions include: (a) the use of pseudonyms in the data or any final publications
or presentations; (b) all data will be kept in a locked file cabinet in a locked office or on a
password protected computer; and (d) only Mary Douglas, Gail Dummer, and the other IRB
trained observers will have access to the recorded data. The results of this study may be
published or presented at professional meetings, but the identities of research participants will
remain confidential.

Your Rights to Participate, Say No, or Withdraw

Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You have the right to say no. You
may change your mind at any time and withdraw. There will be no consequences from
withdrawal, simply inform the researchers that you wish to withdraw. You may choose to not
answer specific questions or stop participating at any time. You indicate your voluntary
agreement to participate by completing the consent form. Your participation in this study will be
greatly appreciated.

Costs and Compensation for Being in the Study
There are no costs for participating in this study. You will not receive money or any other form
of compensation for participating in this study.

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board (BIRB)
at Michigan State University. Approved 12/8/08 — valid through 12/7/09. This version supersedes
all previous versions. IRB # 08-1103.

154

 

Contact Information for Questions and Concerns
If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of
it, or to report an injury, please contact the researchers.

Mary Martha Douglas Gail M. Dummer
Department of Kinesiology Department of Kinesiology
39 1M Sports Circle 138 IM Sports Circle
Michigan State University Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824 East Lansing, MI 48824
Cell: (515) 554-9668 Work: (517) 355-4744
Fax: (517)353-2944 Fax: (517) 353-2944
dougll l9@msu.cdu dummer@msu.cdu

 

 

If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like
to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you
may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research
Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail
at 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board (BIRB)
at Michigan State University. Approved 12/8/08 — valid through 12/7/09. This version supersedes
all previous versions. IRB # 08-1103.

155

    

Teacher Consent Form
Social Interactions of Students with Autism
in General Physical Education

)JML'

Are you willing to participate in this study? Please check Yes or No.

Yes No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study
(including videotaping of your classes), and voluntarily agree to complete the demographic
survey.

 

 

 

Your Printed Name Your Signature

 

Date

You will be given a copy of this form to keep.

Please provide contact information if you would like to receive the results of this study.

 

Address (Street, City, State, Zip)

 

Email

 

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board (BIRB)
at Michigan State University. Approved 12/8/08 — valid through 12/7/09. This version supersedes
all previous versions. IRB # 08-1103.

156

 

APPENDIX D:
DEMOGRAPHIC FORMS

 

157

STUDENT WITH AUTISM DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
PARENTICAREGIVER INFORMATION

Name:

 

Relation to child: Mother Father Caregiver/Legal guardian

Phone Number:

 

Email Address:

 

YOUR CHILD’S INFORMATION

Child’s Name:

 

Age: Grade in School:

 

Gender:

 

Child’s Disability(s):

 

Who diagnosed your child?

 

Does your child have difficulty with social interactions? Yes
No
If yes, describe the nature of social interactions.

Does your child have difficulty with communication? Yes
No
If yes, describe the nature of communication.

Does your child do any repetitive or stereotyped behaviors? Yes
No
If yes, describe these behaviors.

Did your child have any of these difficulties before 3 years of age? Yes
No
If yes, what behaviors did you notice?

158

 

CLASSMATE DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
YOUR CHILD’S INFORMATION

Child’s Name:

 

Age: Grade in School:

 

Gender:

 

159

 

TEACHER DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
TEACHER INFORMATION

Name:

 

Phone Number:

 

Email Address:

 

Age:

 

Gender:

 

How long have you been a certified (e.g. K-12 physical education) teacher?

How long have you been a teacher at this school?

 

How long have you taught the participant with autism?

 

Please describe any past training you have received about teaching students
with disabilities?

 

 

 

Please describe any past training you have received about teaching students
with autism?

 

 

 

160

 

APPENDIX E:
OBSERVATION FIELD NOTES

161

 

Case 1 — Kevin and Adam
Observation 1

Physical Education

Rollerblading

 

 

 

 

 

Kevin Adam
' Had guidance of aide to get ' Quick to put on equipment
equipment on 0 Had conversations with surrounding
0 Did not interact with any classmates classmates while putting on equipment
while preparing 0 Played “tag” on skates with other male
° Wanted to skate as soon as classmates
protective equipment was in place
' Skated around gym while several
other students just stood around
Math
0 Fractions
Kevin Adam
0 Currently table made up of all ' Classmates engaging in quite a bit of
female classmates, including a off-task chatter during the math
student who the researcher was told worksheet assignment
has been his friend for multiple 0 Teacher lead short math discussion
years prior to start of worksheet
0 Friend tries to interact with him 0 Adam works on sheet when not
briefly at start of lesson but is taken distracted by table-mates
away as she has to keep up with her 0 Asks questions when stuck on
worksheet problems
° Aide leads him through entire
activity which is a bit different than
classmates’
Observation 2
Physical Education
0 Video-games and glf putting
Kevin Adam

Followed class stretches well —
stretches are same each class time
for all students

When the teacher asked students to
make pairs Kevin did nothing —
eventually two female classmates
said he could be part of their group
They left him after the first rotation
— then he was only with his aide for
the duration of class

Played Wii bowling and baseball,
and putted with help of aide

Rotated through all stations
Extremely enjoyed Dance Dance
Revolution game and became upset
when other students took multiple
turns before him

Golf putted and went into fitness room
where he played on the elipitical
machine

Had a partner who went through all
stations with him

 

162

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Math
0 Fractions
Kevin Adam
° Completed worksheet with help of - Sits quietly and works on math sheet
aide ° Moves on in packet when he
° Used special pen to write answer completes the initial sheet
and also picked answers from 0 Talks with classmate at another table
multiple small slips of paper and is reprimanded by the teacher for
0 Identifies fractions by pictures shouting across room
0 Most classmates are not quiet when
doing math work
0 They keep asking when it is time for
recess
Observation 3
Physical Education
0 Kickball
Kevin Adam
° Participated in warm-up activities 0 Was very competitive during kickball
without help from aide or classmates 0 Screamed at teammates and other
' Gazed around the room while team for various reasons
teacher gave beginning 0 Actually so vocal with other students
announcement and ‘lecture’ that teacher stopped game to lecture
' Needed help from aide to play the class on sportsmanship
running card game in which teams 0 Was on much better behavior after
had to run and pick up cards in the lecture
attempt to find the assigned suit
0 During kickball aide went up to bat
and out in the field with Kevin
0 Kevin batted once successfully and
was helped around the bases
' While in the outfield he stood to one
comer of the room and did not get
involved
0 So uninvolved that one ball was
actually kicked right near him, and it
hit his aide —- he made no attempt to
get it
Math
0 Fractions
Kevin Adam

Worked on finishing same task as
last observation - led mostly by aide
Classmates offered praise and high
fives when they saw aide giving it
Classmates showed interest in
Kevin’s task and even asked aide if
they could help

Not on particularly good behavior
Completed worksheet but was very
distracted

Did not really attend to teacher’s
instructions

 

163

 

 

Observation 4

Physical Education

 

 

 

 

 

' Tee-ball
Kevin Adam
° Completed stretch and warm-up 0 Was very excited upon entering the
independently gym and seeing the tee-ball
° Needed help of aide and teacher to equipment
hit ball off of tee and fetch it 0 Started talking about baseball teams
' Received high fives when he got and told other classmate he could hit
back to line after hitting the ball the ball better
' Gazed around room while in line - 0 Was very excited to get a turn to hit
did not show any interest in others and hit as hard as he could
or their hits off the tee ° Pushed to get to front of batting line
0 During the short tee-ball game he during game
stayed far out in the outfield and 0 Played first base in field and ran
needed help to take turn batting everywhere trying to get involved
° Seemed to enjoy running around
bases
Math
- Fractions
Kevin Adam
0 Had trouble focusing at the 0 Was very focused on recess — kept
beginning asking when recess would be
0 Aide works to get and keep his ' After teacher gave firm answer about
attention recess time he quieted down
° Completes same worksheet as 0 Helped another student with their
classmates but uses visual aides of assignment
fractions to help answer questions ° Tried to get the researcher to help
' A few outbursts to room, but no one him with his fraction sheet
takes notice
Observation 5
Physical Education
0 Track & Field Stations
Kevin Adam

0 Long time friend made sure he was
in her group during stations

0 Stations included small hurdles,
short high jump, and fitness room
equipment

0 Preferred running over hurdles and
did not want to leave that station

0 Aide had to step in to help when
classmates became distracted from
helping Kevin at stations —
distracted by competition

Loved the high jump station

Took multiple turns and did not want
to leave when told to change stations
Competed with classmates to see
who could jump the best

Talked at almost all times while in
line — joked around with other boys
in class

Was loud during line-up at the end of
class

 

164

 

 

Math

Kevin

Fractions and division

Adam

Aide sat next to him as always
Did same fractions worksheet, but
did not switch to division when
classmates did

Was very quiet and did not use
electronic communication board
during math

Took interest in what table mates
were working on when they
switched to a different task

Distracted — all students becoming
restless as it is nearing the end of the
school year

Did worksheets quickly and then
worked on coloring the cover of his
yearbook the class made

Talked with tablemates while
coloring

Asked researcher if she liked his
cover

 

 

Case 2 — Lee and Zack
Observation 1

Physical Education

Floor Hockgy

 

Lee

Zack

Completed stretching and warm-up
just as directed

When whole class was told to jog
around the gym for 5 minutes Lee
was one of the few who actually
jogged — others walked and talked
Was placed on a hockey team and
was excited to get a stick — raised it
above head and smiled

Although while play was happening
did not move out of position — only
tried to hit puck when play cam near
him

While in fitness room —- when not his
turn to play hockey — got right on
the pull-up machine and stationary
bike

Did not really talk to anyone in
fitness room - most other classmates
in there were not working and
mainly goofing off

Wanted to know when he would get
to go back to hockey

Would talk to others when they
approached him in fitness room, but
did not really initiate

Some stimming occurred when
bored in fitness room

Greeted teacher upon entering gym
after changing clothes

Talked during warm-up with those
around him

Did not jog, but mainly walked
during 5 minute jog and talked with
several classmates

Very involved in the hockey games -—
chased puck around the entire floor
Talked to others while playing —
some ‘smack talk’

In fitness room got on exercise bike
and rode it for duration of time
Talked with Lee while riding bike

 

165

 

Social Studies

 

 

 

0 Silk Road Posters
Lee Zack
° Sits at front of room, in first row 0 Worked on poster with help of
with only his twin brother — all other student sitting next to him
students in rows behind ° Zack sits next to one of the few
0 Did not turn around to speak with males in the class and they appear to
classmates be good friends
0 Worked independently on creating 0 Talk while working
his poster ° After poster was complete, sat and
° Enjoys drawing and coloring and his quietly read independent reading
aide made sure he was drawing the book — which followed teacher
correct things on his poster instructions
- Aide wrote the words for Lee to 0 Did not have many interactions while
copy onto the poster reading
' Tried to read magazine for awhile,
but was redirected to his poster
0 A few shouts to the room, but
nothing too distracting
Observation 2
Physical Education
° Basketball
Lee Zack

During warm-up game of Sharks
and Minnows no one will chase Lee
Eventually Lee runs straight at the
sharks — they pretend to be unable to
get him — then Lee pretty much
forces the sharks to tag him
Appears confused as to why they
will not chase him

Very involved during basketball —
can continually spin basketball on
finger as long as he wants to

Good at making baskets —
classmates pass to him often
Classmates praise Lee after every
made basket - even if a foul occurs
before (traveling)

Lee shouts “I did it!” and puts his
hand up several times after making
baskets

Appeared like several more
classmate interactions were
occurring compared to floor hockey
day last observation

Was so excited about basketball
even talked about it when the game
was over and the class was lining up

166

Happy to learn basketball was the
activity for the day

Said hello to Lee while sitting in pre-
class spots

‘Smack talked’ during game with
some other classmates

Was very engaged in game — played
hard

Talked with teacher during game
rotations

Three half-court games were going
on at the same time and students
rotated through playing each of the
other teams

 

 

Social Studies

Workbook activities

 

Lee

Zack
Class began with discussion about 0
China and the Silk Road — during
this discussion Lee colored on his 0
notebook
Aide wrote answers to workbook
questions for Lee to copy °

Quietly copied all responses and

reviewed them with his aide

Upon completion Lee was allowed 0
to look at magazines — he was very

excited about this

Magazines appear to be quite the
motivator/positive reward for Lee 0

Worked with classmate next to him
on workbook

Finished pages quickly and soon
other classmates were asking him for
answers or looking to copy his pages
Zack did not allow classmates to
simply copy his writing — but would
talk to them about what he wrote
After workbook pages were done,
started on reading assignment for
language arts class (teacher is same
for social studies and language arts)
After this was read, he switched to
his independent reading book

 

Observation 3

Physical Education

Tennis at Outdoor Courts

 

 

 

Lee Zack
0 Excited to play tennis — tells this to ' Not on very good behavior today
observer ° Dawdles to the tennis courts and
0 Runs to tennis courts by self and arrives after other students
does not talk to other classmates ° Talks with classmates throughout all
while jogging drills - especially while in line
' Does not interact when doing 0 For awhile jokes about hitting ball as
independent drills — such as far as he can — does it and it goes
practicing bouncing ball on racket over the fence — gets reprimand from
over and over teacher
0 Receives praise in line after hitting 0 After offers to help teacher collect
0 Hits hard as though he is playing tennis balls at the end of class - stays
baseball to put away tennis rackets in the
° At times classmates seem to be outdoor storage closet
teasing him on in line — Lee does not
seem to notice
0 Looks to aide for praise occasionally
after making a good hit
Social Studies
° Textbook Worksheets
Lee Zack
0 Important day — students told to ° Appears sleepy/tired this morning
switch seats and for the first time all 0 Attends to teacher while she is
year Lee picks a seat amongst his speaking
classmates — both aide and teacher ° Raises hand several times to answer
surprised at his pick teachers questions during ‘lecture’

Worked on copying aide given

167

about China

 

responses while classmates did same
worksheets

For first time in social studies,
interactions with classmates were
observed — mainly with females
Classmates next to him did offer
some help with sheets

Still looked for praise from aide at
the completion of each question

Once worksheets were complete,
quietly read to himself

Quiet reading did not result in many
interactions — not necessarily a bad
thing

 

Observation 4

Physical Education

Tennis — Serving

 

 

 

Lee Zack
' Quiet during warm-up and jog over ' Almost all interactions happened
to courts while waiting in tennis lines
0 Talked with classmates while in line 0 Not all were appropriate — some were
to hit tennis ball — mostly male making fun of other students
0 Part way through class teacher ' Pretended racket was sword and
reviewed tennis serving fought with other students in line
0 Students spread out to practice serve until reprimanded by teacher
— Lee did not talk much with anyone 0 Enjoyed practicing serves and had
while practicing serve little competitions with classmates
around him while serving
° Most interactions occurred with
males, not females
Social Studies
' Textbook readings and worksheet
Lee Zack

Needed to complete reading a
chapter and aid suggested that some
classmates read with him — two girls
volunteered and went into the
hallway with him to read

Lee did not really listen to
classmates read — but turned pages
when they did

The girls tried to help him follow
along, then he took over and did not
take turns reading

Seemed distracted while the others
read

Classmates tried to help him but
treated him as though he was very
young or maybe even dumb — they
did seem to have very good
intentions in helping

Students had a long list of things they
could be working on, but were
supposed to be working quietly
Some classmates were finishing an
exam — Zack had already finished
and worked quietly while others took
exam

Zack then worked with classmate
next to him on a pen pal letter to a
student in England — went to
computer to type up letter

After finishing letter Zack read his
independent reading book quietly

 

168

 

Observation 5

Physical Education

 

 

 

0 German kickball
Lee Zack
° Class played German kickball - 0 Talked a lot during kickball
kickball but multiple people can be 0 However talking was allowed as long
on a base at the same time and one as the game was still being played
has to run around the bases twice to 0 Therefore talking was not deemed
score — five outs per side per inning inappropriate
0 Lee was observed cheering Zack on 0 Once dropped the ball on purpose
during the game because if he would have caught it
0 Lee could not understand the Lee would have been out at first base
running around the bases twice and ' Engaged in some ‘trash talk’ but no
always got back in batting line after more than most of the other
running around only once classmates
0 Received praise while batting
0 In the field Lee insisted on being the
pitcher — mimicked a baseball pitch
at first but then properly rolled the
ball
° Always had hands in air demanding
the ball back after the play had
ended
° Seemed to enjoy being pitcher
Social Studies
0 Quiz and worksheets
Lee Zack

Classmates were taking quiz while
Lee completed the quiz with his aide
Therefore he was talking with her as
the whole class was quiet

This appeared to make him stand out
very much as different

After quiz he worked quietly on
copying notes made for him by aide
Lee could use the copied notes
during his upcoming exam on Asia

Several classmates were asking Zack
for his answers on his worksheets

He quietly read until it was time for
the quiz as he had completed all other
necessary work

After the quiz began Zack was silent
— no interactions should have been
occurring

One classmate did try to speak with
Zack during quiz, but he ignored him
There was lots of quiet work today,
therefore interaction numbers may be
low

 

169

 

APPENDIX F:
COMBINED OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT

I70

Observation Cover Sheet

Observer Name:

 

Date:

 

Start Time:

 

End Time:

 

Total Observation Time:

 

Teacher:

 

Location:

 

Grade:

 

Participant Observed:

 

 

Codes:

Interactions (AIPE-SR)
A ...... Appropriate
P ....... Positive Appropriate

I ....... Inappropriate
0 ...... Off-task
With Whom
C ...... Classmate without a disability
D ...... Classmate with a disability
T ....... Teacher
A ...... Aide
O ...... Other

**Circle symbol if interaction was initiated by student with autism**

Activity (BEACHES)
1 ....... Lying Down

2 ....... Sitting
3 ....... Standing
4 ....... Walking

5 ....... Very Active

Tasks (ALT-PE)

A ...... Activity

W ...... Waiting

T ....... Transition

M ...... Management

K ...... Knowledge

171

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KKKKKKKKKKKK KKKKKKKKKKKK KKKKKKKKKKKK
SMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMM
.mTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTT
Twwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwww
AAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA
555555555555 555555555555 555555555555
W444444444444 444444444444 444444444444
W333333333333 333333333333 333333333333
M222222222222 222222222222 222222222222
111111111111 111111111111 111111111111
.mOOOOOOOOOOOO 000000000000 000000000000
MMAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA
e_WTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTT
%MDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDD
PWCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCC
WOOOOOOOOOOOO 000000000000 000000000000
wIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111 111111111111
mPPPPPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPPPPP
smAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA
..

w

mizssssyssmuu umwmnmwwnanm asymmmmusasa
..

n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

172

Observation Summary Sheet

Observer Name:

 

Date:

 

Participant Observed:

 

Total Intervals/# Observed:

 

4 5 Tota I 0/o

Interactions
A riate

P Positive riate
I Ina riate
O Off-task

With Whom
C Classmate w o D
D Classmate w D
Teacher
Aide
Other

L Down
Sitti

Sta ndi
Walki

V Active

Waiti
Transition
Ma ent
Knowl e

 

Notes:

173

 

REFERENCES

174

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders: DSM-I V-T R (4th ed.). Washington DC: American Psychiatric
Association.

Archie, V. W., & Sherrill, C. (1989). Attitudes toward handicapped peers of
mainstreamed and nonmainstreamed children in physical education. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 69, 319-322.

Autism Society of America. (2008). What is autism? Retrieved February 8th, 2008, from
http://www.autism-society.org

Auxter, D., nyer, J ., & Huettig, C. (1997). Principles and methods of adapted physical
education and recreation (8th ed.). St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Pub.

Bauminger, N., & Kasari, C. (2000). Loneliness and fiiendship in high-functioning
children with autism. Child Development, 71(2), 447-456.

Bauminger, N., Shulman, C., & Agam, G. (2004). The link between perceptions of self
and of social relationships in high-functioning children with autism. Journal of
Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 16(2), 193-214.

Bellack, A. S. (1983). Recurrent problems in the behavioral assessment of social skill.
Behavioral Research and Therapy, 21, 29-41.

Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Berkeley, S. L., Zittel, L. L., Pitney, L. V., & Nichols, S. E. (2001). Locomotor and
object control skills of children diagnosed with autism. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 18(4), 405-416.

Black, B. (1989). Interactive pretense: Social and symbolic skills in preschool play
groups. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 379-397.

Blinde, E. M., & McCallister, S. G. (1998). Listening to the voices of students with
physical disabilities. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 69, 64-
68.

Block, M. E. (1995). Development and validation of the children's attitudes towards

integrated physical education-revised (CAIPE-R) inventory. Adapted Physical
Activity Quarterly, 12, 60-77.

175

Block, M. E. (1999). Did we jump on the wrong bandwagon? Problems with inclusion in
physical education. Palaestra, 15(3), 30-36, 55-56.

Block, M. E. (2006). Introduction to the special feature on autism. Teaching Elementary
Physical Education, 1 7(6), 6.

Block, M. E. (2007). A teacher's guide to including children with disabilities in general
physical education (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Block, M. E., & Obrusnikova, I. (2007). Inclusion in physical education: A review of the
literature from 1995-2005. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24, 103-124.

Block, M. E., & Rizzo, T. L. (1995). Attitudes and attributes of physical education
teachers towards including students with severe and profound disabilities into

regular physical education. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps, 20, 80—87.

Block, M. E., & Vogler, E. W. (1994). Inclusion in regular physical education: The
research base. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 65(1), 40-44.

Bramston, P., Chipuer, H., & Pretty, G. (2005). Conceptual principles of quality of life:
An empirical exploration. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49, 728-
733.

Brown, R., & Brown, I. (2005). The application of quality of life. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 49, 718-727.

Burgess, A. F., & Gutstein, S. E. (2007). Quality of life for people with autism: Raising
the standard for evaluating successful outcomes. Child and Adolescent Mental
Health, 12(7), 80-86.

Can, F ., Yilmaz, I., Birken, B., Yanardag, M., Konukman, F., & Bumin, G. (2004).
Effects of Halliwick’s swimming education program on water orientation skills of
children with autism. Paper presented at the American Alliance of Health,
Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance.

Caron, J., Lecomte, Y., Stip, E., & Renaud, S. (2005). Predictors of quality of life in
schizophrenia. Community Mental Health Journal, 41, 399-417.

Chadsey-Rusch, J ., Rusch, F. R, & O'Reilly, M. F. (1991). Transition from school to
integrated communities. Remedial and Special Education, 12, 23-33.

Chamberlain, B., Kasari, C., & Rotheram-Fuller, E. (2007). Involvement or isolation?

The social networks of children with autism in regular classrooms. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 3 7, 230-242.

176

Church, C., Alinsanski, S., & Amanullah, S. (2000). The social, behavioral, and academic
experiences of children with Asperger syndrome. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 15, 12-20.

Collard, K. M. (1981). Leisure education in the schools: Why, who, and the need for
advocacy. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 15(4), 8-16.

Collier, D., & Reid, G. (2003). The autism spectrum disorders: Prevention and coping
with difficult behaviors - Part IV. Palaestra, 19(3), 36-45.

Conatser, R, Block, M., & Gansneder, B. (2002). Aquatic instructors' beliefs toward
inclusion: The theory of planned behavior. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
19, 1 72- 1 87.

Cooper, J. 0., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1987). Applied behavior analysis.
Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Coyne, P., & Fullerton, A. (2004). Supporting individuals with autism spectrum disorder
in recreation. United States: Sagamore Publishing.

DeMyer, M. K., Hingtgen, H., & Jackson, K. (1981). Infantile autism reviewed: A decade
of research. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 7(388-451).

DePauw, K. P., & Doll-Tepper, G. (2000). Toward progressive inclusion and acceptance:
Myth or reality? The inclusion debate and bandwagon discourse. Adapted
Physical Activity Quarterly, 17, 135-143.

Downing, J. E. (2002). Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical
classrooms: Practical strategies for teachers (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing Co.

Downs, P., & Williams, T. (1994). Student attitudes toward integration of people with
disabilities in activity settings: A European comparison. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 11, 32-43.

Edgar, E. (1987). Secondary programs in special education: Are many of them
justifiable? Exceptional Children, 53(6), 55-561.

Edgar, E. (1988). Transition from school to community: Promising programs. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 20(2), 73-75.

Elksnin, L. K., & Elksnin, N. (1995). Assessment and instruction of social skills. San
Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group.

Elksnin, L. K., & Elksnin, N. (2003). Fostering emotional learning in the classroom.
Education, 124, 63-75.

177

Elksnin, N., & Elksnin, L. K. (1998). Teaching occupational social skills. Austin, TX:
PRO-ED.

Elksnin, N., & Elksnin, L. K. (2001). Adolescents with disabilities: The need for
occupational skills training. Exceptionality, 9(1), 91-100.

Ellis, D. N., Wright, M., & Cronis, T. G. (1996). A description of the instructional and
social interactions of students with mental retardation in regular physical
education settings. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities, 31, 235-241.

Fisher, A. G., Murray, E. A., & Bundy, A. C. (1991). Sensory integration: Theory and
practice. Philadelphia, PA: PA. Davis Company.

Fox, L., Dunlap, G., & Buschbacher, P. (2000). Understanding and intervening with
young children's problem behavior. In A. M. Wetherby & B. M. Prizant (Eds),

Autism spectrum disorders: A transactional developmental perspective (pp. 307-
331). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Garfin, D. G., & Lord, C. (1986). Communication as a social problem in autism. In E.
Scholper & G. B. Mesibov (Eds), Social behavior in autism (pp. 133-151). New
York, NY: Plenum Press.

Gaylord-Ross, R., Stremel-Campbell, K., & Storey, K. (1986). Social skills training in
' natural contexts. In R. H. Homer, L. H. Meyer & H. D. B. Fredericks (Eds),
Education of learners with severe handicaps (pp. 161-187). Baltimore, MD:
Brookes.

Godbout, P., Brunelle, J., & Tousignant, M. (1983). Academic learning time in

elementary and secondary physical education class. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 54(1), 1 1-19.

Goodwin, D. L. (2001). The meaning of help in physical education: Perceptions of
students with physical disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 18, 289-
303.

Goodwin, D. L., & Watkinson, E. J. (2000). Inclusive physical education from the
perspective of students with physical disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 1 7, 144-160.

Graham, G., Holt/Hale, S. A., & Parker, M. (2007). Children moving: A reflective
approach to teaching physical education (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

178

Groft, M., & Block, M. E. (2003). Children with Asperger syndrome: Implications for
general physical education and youth sports. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation & Dance, 74(3), 38-43.

Harris, S. L. (1998). Behavioural and educational approaches to the pervasive
developmental disorders. In F. R. Volkmar (Ed.), Autism and pervasive
developmental disorders. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental
significance. Child Development, 67(1), 1-13.

Helgeson, V. (2003). Social support and quality of life. Quality of Life Research,
12(Suppl. 1), 25-31.

Hermelin, B., & O'Connor, N. (1985). Logico-affective states and nonverbal language. In
E. Scholper & G. B. Mesibov (Eds), Communication problems in autism (pp.
283-310). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Hersman, B. L. (2007). The effects of adventure education on the social interactions of
students with disabilities in general physical education. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. The Ohio State University.

Ho, H., Eaves, L. C., & Peabody, D. (1997). Nutrient intake and obesity in children with
autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 13, 187-192.

Hodge, S. R., Ammah, J. O. A., Casebolt, K., LaMaster, K., & O'Sullivan, M. (2000).
Analysis of inclusion practice in physical education. Unpublished observational
behavioral instrument. The Ohio State University.

Hodge, S. R., & Hersman, B. L. (2007). Analysis of inclusion practices in physical
education form S-Student version revised. Unpublished systematic observation
instrument. The Ohio State University.

Howlin, P. (1986). An overview of social behavior in autism. In E. Scholper & G. B.

Mesibov (Eds), Social behavior in autism (pp. 103-131). New York, NY: Plenum
Press.

Howlin, P., & Yates, P. (1999). The potential effectiveness of social skills groups for
adults with autism: Information update. Autism, 3(3), 299-307.

Hurlbutt, K., & Chalmers, L. (2004). Employment of adults with Asperger syndrome.
Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19(4), 215-222.

Hutzler, Y., F liess, I., Chacham, A., & van den Auweele, Y. (2002). Perspectives of

children with physical disabilities on inclusion and empowerment: Supporting and
limiting factors. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19, 300-317.

179

Jansiewicz, E. M., Goldberg, M. C., Newschaffer, C. J., Denckla, M. B., Landa, R., &
Mostofsky, S. H. (2006). Motor signs distinguish children with high functioning
autism and asperger's syndrome from controls. Journal of A utism and
Developmental Disorders, 36, 613-621.

Jansma, P. (1982). Physical education for the severely and profoundly handicapped.
Exceptional Education Quarterly, 15(1), 35-41.

Jenkins, J. R., Odom, S. L., & Speltz, M. L. (1989). Effects of social integration on
preschool children with handicaps. Exceptional Children, 55 , 420-428.

Kann, L., Warren, W., & Harris, W. A. (1999). Youth risk behavior surveillance-United
States, 1995. Journal of School Health, 66, 365-377.

Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous Child, 2, 217-250.

Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied
settings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kennedy, C. H., & Shukla, S. (1995). Social interaction research for people with autism

as a set of past, current, and emerging propositions. Behavioral Disorders, 21, 21-
35.

Kessler, R., & McLeod, J. (1985). Social support and psychological distress in
community surveys. In S. Cohen & S. Syme (Eds), Social support and health
(pp. 19-40). New York, NY: Academic.

Kitson, V. (1993). Providing opportunities for physical education for children with
autism. British Journal of Physical Education, 24(3), 15.

Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., & Dunlap, G. (1996). Positive behavioral support:
Including people with diflicult behavior in the community. Baltimore, MD: Paul
H. Brookes.

Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., Hurley, C., & Frea, W. D. (1992). Improving social skills
and disruptive behavior in children with autism through self-management.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 341-35 3.

Konging, C., & Magill-Evans, J. (2001). Social and language skills in adolescent boys
with Asperger syndrome. Autism, 5, 23-36.

Kosma, M., Cardinal, B. J ., & Rintala, P. (2002). Motivating individuals with disabilities
to be physically active. Quest, 54(2), 116-132.

180

 

 

 

Kowalski, E. M., & Rizzo, T. L. (1996). Factors influencing preservice student attitudes
toward individuals with disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 13, 180-
196.

Kozub, F. M., & Lienert, C. (2003). Attitudes toward teaching children with disabilities:
Review of literature and research paradigm. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
20, 323-346.

Kudlacek, M., Valkova, H., Sherrill, C., Myers, B., & French, R. (2002). An inclusion
instrument based on planned behavior theory for prospective physical educators.
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19, 280-299.

Le Couteur, A., Rutter, M., Lord, C., Rios, P., Robertson, S., Holdgrafer, M., et al.
(1989). Autism diagnostic interview: A standardized investigator-based
instrument. Journal of A utism and Developmental Disorders, 19, 363-387.

Lee, S. M., Burgeson, C. R, Fulton, J. E., & Spain, C. G. (2007). Physical education and
physical activity: Results from the school health policies and programs study
2006. Journal of School Health, 77(8), 43 5-463.

Lee, S. M., & Odom, S. L. (1996). The relationship between stereotypic behavior and
peer social interaction for children with severe disabilities. Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21, 88-95.

Lisboa, F. L. F. (1997). Interaction and social acceptance of children with autism in
physical education. Brazilian International Journal of Adapted Physical
Education Research, 4, 1-14.

Lisboa, F. L. F., Butterfield, S. A., Reif, G., & McIntire, W. (1995). ALT-PE by children
with autism placed in regular, reversed mainstreamed, and adapted physical

education classes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 553-554.

Lord, C. (1993). Early social development in autism. In E. Scholper & M. E. Van
Bourgondien (Eds), Preschool issues in autism: Current issues in autism (pp. 61-
94). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Lord, C., & Magill-Evans, J. (1995). Peer interactions of autistic children and
adolescents. Development & Psychopathology, 7, 611-626.

Lord, C., & Venter, A. (1992). Outcome and follow-up studies of high functioning

autistic individuals. In E. Scholper & G. B. Mesibov (Eds), High functioning
individuals with autism (pp. 187-200). New York, NY: Plenum

181

Marks, S., Schrader, C., Longaker, T., & Levine, M. (2000). Portraits of three adolescent
students with Asperger's syndrome: Personal stories and how they can inform

practice. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25 ,
3-17.

McConnell, S. R. (2002). Interventions to facilitate social interaction for young children
with autism: Review of available research and recommendations for educational

intervention and future research. Journal of A utism and Developmental Disorders,
32(5), 35 1-3 72.

McConnell, S. R., Sisson, L. A., Cort, C. A., & Strain, P. S. (1990). Effects of social
skills training and contingency management of reciprocal interaction of preschool
children with behavioral handicaps. Journal of Special Education, 24, 473-495.

McGee, G. G., Feldman, R S., & Morrier, M. J. (1997). Benchmarks of social treatment
for children with autism. Journal of A utism and Developmental Disorders, 27(4),
353-364.

McKenzie, T. L., Sallis, J. F., & Armstrong, C. A. (1994). Association between direct
observation and accelerometer measure of children's physical activity during

physical education and recess. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
26(5), Supplement, 143.

McKenzie, T. L., Sallis, J. F ., Nader, P. R., Patterson, T. L., Elder, J. P., Berry, C. C., et
al. (1991). BEACHES: An observational system for assessing children's eating
and physical activity behaviors and associated events. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 24, 141-151.

Mesibov, G. B. (1983). Current perspectives and issues in autism and adolescence. In E.
Scholper & G. B. Mesibov (Eds), Autism in adolescents and adults (pp. 37-53).
New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Mesibov, G. B., & Handlan, S. (1997). Adolescents and adults with autism. In D. J.
Cohen & F. R. Volkmar (Eds), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental
disorders (2nd ed., pp. 309-322). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Metzler, M. (1979). The measurement of academic learning time in physical education.
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University.

Metzler, M. (1989). A review of research on time in sport pedagogy. Journal of Teaching
in Physical Education, 8, 87-103.

Mirenda, P. L., Donnellan, A. M., & Yoder, D. E. (1983). Gaze behavior: A new look at
an old problem. Journal of A utism and Developmental Disorders, 13, 397-409.

182

Morin, B., & Reid, G. (1985). A quantitative and qualitative assessment of autistic
individuals on selected motor tasks. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 2(1),
43-55.

Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2002). Teaching physical education (5th ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings.

O'Connor, J ., French, R., & Henderson, H. (2000). Use of physical activity to improve
behavior of children with autism. Palaestra, 16(3).

Odom, S. L., McConnell, S. R, & McEvoy, M. A. (1992). Peer-related social
competence and its significance for young children with disabilities. In S. L.
Odom, S. R. McConnell & M. A. McEvoy (Eds), Social competence of young
children with disabilities (pp. 3-35). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes

Odom, S. L., & Ogawa, I. (1992). Direct observation of young children's social

interaction with peers: A review of methodology. Behavioral Assessment, 14,
407-441. -

Orsmond, G. 1., Krauss, M. W., & Seltzer, M. M. (2004). Peer relationships and social
and recreational activities among adolescents and adults with autism. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(3), 245-256.

Ozonoff, S., Dawson, G., & McPartland, J. (2002). A parent's guide to Asperger
syndrome and high-fimctioning autism: How to meet the challenges and help your
child thrive. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Pan, C. Y. (2008). School time physical activity of students with and without autism

spectrum disorders during PE and recess. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
25, 308-321.

Pan, C. Y., & Frey, G. C. (2006). Physical activity patterns in youth with autism
spectrum disorders. Journal of A utism and Developmental Disorders, 36(5), 597-
606.

Parker, J. G., & Gottman, J. M. (1989). Social and emotional development in a relational
context: Friendship interactions from early childhood to adolescence. In T. Berndt
& G. Ladd (Eds), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 95-131). New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons

Parker, M. (1989). Academic learning time-Physical education (ALT-PE), 1982
Revision. In P. W. Darst, D. B. Zakrajsek & V. H. Mancini (Eds), Analyzing
physical education and sport instruction (2nd ed., pp. 195-205). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.

183

Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Piaget, J. (1926). Language and thought of the child. London, England: Kegan & Paul.

Place, K., & Hodge, S. R. (2001). Social inclusion of students with physical disabilities in
general physical education: A behavioral analysis. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 18, 389-404.

Placek, J ., & Randall, L. (1986). Comparison of academic learning time in physical
education: Students with specialist and nonspecialists. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 5(3), 157-165.

Powers, M. D. (2000). Children with autism: A parents' guide. Bethesda, MD: Woodbine
House.

Prior, M., & Ozonoff, S. (1998). Psychological factors in autism. In F. R. Volkmar (Ed),
Autism and pervasive developmental disorders. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.

Reid, G., & Collier, D. (2002). Motor behavior and the autism spectrum disorders -
Introduction. Palaestra, 18(4), 20—27.

Reid, G., Collier, D., & Morin, B. (1983). The motor performance of autistic individuals.
In R. Eason, T. Smith & F. Caron (Eds), Adapted physical activity (pp. 201-218).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Reid, G., & O'Connor, J. (2003). The autism spectrum disorders: Activity selection,
assessment, and program organization - Part II. Palaestra, 19(1), 20-27.

Reid, G., O'Connor, J ., & Lloyd, M. (2003). The autism spectrum disorders: Physical
activity instruction - Part III. Palaestra, 19(2), 20-26.

Renty, J ., & Roeyers, H. (2006). Quality of life in high-functioning adults with autism
spectrum disorder: The predictive value of disability and support characteristics.
Autism, 10(5), 511-524.

Ricks, D. M., & Wing, L. (1976). Language, communication and use of symbols. In L.
Wing (Ed.), Early childhood autism (pp. 93-134). Oxford, England: Pergarnon

Press.

Rizzo, T. L. (1984). Attitudes of physical educators toward teaching handicapped pupils.
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 1, 267-274.

184

Rizzo, T. L., & Kirkendall, D. R (1995). Teaching students with mild disabilities: What
affects attitudes of future physical educators? Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 12, 205-216.

Rizzo, T. L., & Vispoel, W. P. (1991). Physical educators' attributes and attitudes toward
teaching students with handicaps. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 8, 4-11.

Rizzo, T. L., & Vispoel, W. P. (1992). Changing attitudes about teaching students with
handicaps. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 9, 54-63.

Rogers, S. J. (2000). Interventions that facilitate socialization in children with autism.
Journal of A utism and Developmental Disorders, 30(5), 399-409.

Rowe, P. J ., Schuldheisz, J. M., & van der Mars, H. (1997). Measuring physical activity
in physical education: Validation of the SOFIT direction observation instrument
for use with first to eighth grade students. Pediatric Exercise Science, 9(2), 136-
149.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and
groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3, pp.
619-700). New York, NY: Wiley.

Rusch, F. R., Chadsey-Rusch, J ., & Johnson, J. R. (1991). Supported employment:
Emerging opportunities for employment integration. In L. H. Meyer, C. A. Peek

& L. Brown (Eds), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities
(pp. 145-169). Baltimore, MI): Brookes.

Rutter, M. (1970). Autistic children: Infancy to adulthood. Seminars in Psychiatry, 2,
435-450.

Schleien, S. J ., Heyne, L. A., & Berken, S. B. (1988). Integrating physical education to
teach appropriate play skills to learners with autism: A pilot study. Adapted
Physical Activity Quarterly, 5, 182-192. '

Schmidt-Gotz, E., Doll-Tepper, G., & Lienert, C. (1994). Attitudes of university students
and teachers towards integrating students with disabilities in regular physical
education classes. Physical Education Review, 1 7, 43-57.

Seltzer, M. M., Krauss, M. W., Shattuck, P., Orsmond, G. I., Swe, A., & Lord, C. (2003).

Changes in symptoms of autism in adolescence and adulthood. Journal of A utism
and Developmental Disorders, 33, 565-581.

Sherrill, C. (2004). Adapted physical activity, recreation and sport: Crossdisciplinary
and lifespan (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill

185

Shute, S., Dodds, P., Placek, J., Rife, F., & Silverman, S. J. (1982). Academic learning
time in elementary school movement education: A descriptive analytic study.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 1(2), 3-14.

Siedentop, D. (1983). Academic learning time: Reflections and prospects. In P. Dodds &
F. Rife (Eds), Time to learn in physical education: History, completed research,
and potential future for academic learning time in physical education. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education (Summer Monograph I), 3- 7.

Siedentop, D., Tousignant, M., & Parker, M. (1982). Academic learning time-physical
education: 1982 revision coding manual. Unpublished manual, School of Health,
Physical Education and Recreation. The Ohio State University.

Sigman, M., & Ruskin, E. (1999). Continuity and change in the social competence of
children with autism, Down syndrome, and developmental delays. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, 64, 1-130.

Sirard, J. R, & Pate, R. R. (2001). Physical activity assessment in children and
adolescents. Sports Medicine, 31(6), 439-454.

Slininger, D., Sherrill, C., & Jankowski, K. (2000). Children's attitudes toward peers with
severe disabilities: Revising contact theory. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
1 7, 176-196.

Smith, A. L. (2007). Youth peer relationships in sport. In S. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds),
Social psychology in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Snell, M. E., & Eichner, S. J. (1989). Integration for students with profound disabilities.
In F. Brown & D. H. Lehr (Eds), Persons with profound disabilities: Issues and
practices @p. 109-138). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1990). Inclusive schooling. In S. Stainback & W.
Stainback (Eds), Support networks for inclusive schooling (pp. 3-24). Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Stainback, W., Stainback, S., & Bunch, G. (1989). A rationale for the merger of regular
and special education. In W. Stainback, S. Stainback & M. Forest (Eds),
Educating all students in the mainstream of regular education (pp. 15-28).
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Stanton, K., & Colvin, A. (1996). The physical educator's role in inclusion. Strategies,
9(4), 13-15.

Strain, P. S., & Odom, S. L. (1986). Peer social initiatives: Effective interventions for

social skill development of exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 52, 543-
552.

186

Strayer, F. F. (1989). Co-adaptation within the early peer group: A psychobiological
study of competence. In B. Schneider, G. Attili, J. Nadel & R. Weissberg (Eds),
Social competence in developmental perspective (pp. 145-174). Boston, MA:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Suomi, J ., Collier, D., & Brown, L. (2003). Factors affecting the social experiences of
students in elementary physical education classes. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 22, 186-202.

Tager-Flusberg, H. (1981). On the nature of linguistic functioning in early infantile
autism. Journal of A utism and Developmental Disorders, 11, 45-56.

Tager-Flusberg, H., & Anderson, M. (1991). The development of contingent discourse
ability in autistic children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 32, 1123-
1134.

Tantam, D. (2003). The challenge of adolescents and adults with Asperger syndrome.
Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12(1), 143-163.

Temple, V. A., & Walkley, J. W. (1999). Academic learning time-physical education
(ALT-PE) of students with mild intellectual disabilities in regular Victorian
schools. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 1 6, 64-74.

Tripp, A. (1988). Comparison of attitudes of regular and adapted physical educators
toward disabled individuals. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66, 425-426.

Tripp, A., French, R, & Sherrill, C. (1995). Contact theory and attitude of children in
physical education programs toward peers with disabilities. Adapted Physical
Activity Quarterly, 12, 323-332.

United States Department of Education. (2001). Statistics on autism. Retrieved August
15, 2008, from http://www.IDEAdata.org/tables/ar_aa2.htm

Verderber, J. M. S., Rizzo, T. L., & Sherrill, C. (2003). Assessing student intention to
participate in inclusive physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
20, 26-45.

Verdugo, M., Schalock, R, Keith, K., & Stancliffe, R. (2005). Quality of life and its
measurement: Important principles and guidelines. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 49, 707-717.

Vogler, E. W., Koranda, P., & Romance, T. (2000). Including a child with severe cerebral

palsy in physical education: A case study. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
1 7, 161-175.

187

Volkmar, F. R, & Klin, A. (1995). Social development in autism: Historical and clinical
perspectives. In S. Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Flusberg & D. J. Cohen (Eds),
Understanding other minds: Perspectives fiom autism (pp. 40-55). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Warren, S. F., & Reichle, J. E. (1992). Causes and eflects in communication and

language intervention: Communication and language intervention series (V 01. 1).
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Wehman, P., & Schleien, S. J. (1981). Leisure programs for handicapped persons:
Adaptations, techniques, and curriculum. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Winnick, J. P. (2005). Adapted physical education and sport (4th ed.). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.

Woods, J. J ., & Wetherby, A. M. (2003). Early identification of and intervention for
infants and toddler who are at risk for autism spectrum disorder. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in School, 34, 180-193.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

Yun, J ., & Ulrich, D. A. (2002). Estimating measurement validity: A tutorial Adapted
Physical Activity Quarterly, 19(1), 32-47.

188

HM

1111

62 89

lllllllll

”0
m3
“0
IlIIlIllIl3
A “9
‘2

ll

1

3

llllllllll