Inclusive education and the associated classroom challenges: The teachers’ perspective with a focus on ASD 2570908 Georgina Egberink Educational Psychology Department University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 1 ABSTRACT Inclusive education is implemented in South Africa through inclusive policies such as Education White Paper 6, as well as the Screening, Assessment, Identification and Support Policy, which were used to guide the aims and questions of this research, as well as defining its scope. Inclusive education encompasses the inclusion of learners with Autism Spectrum Disorder characteristics, which is widely misunderstood and unidentified or unaccommodated. The current research set out to underline challenges faced by teachers when including learners with Autism Spectrum Disorder characteristics in the classroom in order to highlight gaps in the education system that these learners may fall through. Online questionnaires were dispersed to gather both qualitative and quantitative data. The gathered data were analysed using Chi- squared tests to highlight trends, which was followed by a thematic analysis to underline arising themes. It was determined that challenges such as the disconnect between theoretical awareness and practical application in the classroom environment, gaps in training and minimal support, inconsistent support from school-based support teams, a lack of knowledge of Autism Spectrum Disorder, and a lack of access to special schools and a rigorous placement process were outlined as possible reasons for learners with Autism Spectrum Disorder characteristics falling through the gaps. Focus areas were identified that need to be addressed in order to minimise learners with Autism Spectrum Disorder characteristics falling through the gaps, thereby maximising the inclusion of these learners in the education system. 2 Table of Contents ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Introduction to research............................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction and background .................................................................................. 1 1.2 Aim and objectives .................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Rationale .................................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Research questions .................................................................................................. 10 1.4.1 Primary research question .................................................................................... 10 1.4.2 Secondary research questions .............................................................................. 10 Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 11 2.2 Education in a South African context .................................................................... 11 2.3 Defining Autism Spectrum Disorder ..................................................................... 14 2.4 Autism Spectrum Disorder and inclusive education ............................................ 16 2.4.1 Development in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.................................. 20 2.5 Challenges faced by teachers when accommodating learners with Autism Spectrum Disorder ............................................................................................................. 22 2.6 Theoretical framework ........................................................................................... 29 2.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 31 Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology ....................................................................... 32 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 32 3.2 Research design ....................................................................................................... 32 3.3 Sample and sampling .............................................................................................. 33 3.4 Instruments .............................................................................................................. 36 3.5 Data analysis ............................................................................................................ 38 3.6 Procedures ................................................................................................................ 39 3 3.7 Ethical considerations ............................................................................................. 41 3.8 Reflexivity ................................................................................................................ 42 3.9 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 43 Chapter 4: Findings, results and interpretations ...................................................................... 43 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 43 4.2 Participant overview: Descriptive statistics .......................................................... 44 4.3 Research findings .................................................................................................... 48 4.3.1 Statistical analysis ............................................................................................ 48 4.3.3 Thematic analysis................................................................................................. 71 4.4 Concluding summary .............................................................................................. 81 Chapter 5: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 83 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 83 5.2 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 83 5.3 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 92 Chapter 6: Potential limitations and recommendations ..................................................... 92 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 92 6.2 Potential Limitations and recommendations ............................................................. 93 6.3 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 94 Appendix A: Online Questionnaire ....................................................................................... 105 Appendix B: Gauteng DOE Permission to Conduct Research .............................................. 111 Appendix C: KwaZulu- Natal DOE Permission to Conduct Research .................................. 120 Appendix D: Permission to Conduct Research at School Form ............................................ 125 Appendix E: Ethical Clearance (Non-Medical) ..................................................................... 127 4 LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1: Number of participants (teachers) by school location with different levels of support ................................................................................................................... 46 Table 4.2: Reported years’ experience and class size according to the different school locations ................................................................................................................ 47 Table 4.3: Summary of survey questions used to collect quantitative data ........................... 49 Table 4.4: Awareness of Education White Paper 6 and familiarity with the SIAS Policy according to different school locations ................................................................. 53 Table 4.5: Whether the participant has taught a learner with ASD characteristics, whether they are able to facilitate learners with ASD in their classroom, and whether they have attended training for ASD specifically according to School Location ................. 54 Table 4.6: Whether the school has an SBST by school location (crosstabulation) ................ 58 Table 4.7: Familiar with a school-based support team by two levels of support (crosstabulation) .................................................................................................... 60 Table 4.8: Levels of support and whether the participants’ school has a school-based support team (crosstabulation) ........................................................................................... 62 Table 4.11: Participants’ familiarity with individual support plans in mainstream and full- service schools ...................................................................................................... 68 Chapter 1: Introduction to research 1.1 Introduction and background The research explores the experiences of South African (SA) teachers with regards to the inclusion of learners with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) characteristics. In doing this, it highlights the challenges teachers face when identifying, supporting and accommodating these learners within the classroom environment. Accordingly, how and why learners with ASD characteristics might “fall through the gaps” of the education system were investigated. This research focused on SA schools in the categories of public, full-service and mainstream schools in both categories of no-fee and fee-paying schools, and included schools from suburban, township, urban and rural areas (Department of Education [DOE], 2014). For the purpose of this research, learners with ASD characteristics will be referred to, which encompasses both those diagnosed with ASD and those not diagnosed with ASD but presenting with ASD characteristics. Prior to democracy, SA’s educational system was based on marginalisation, segregation, and unequal access to resources (Van Dyk & White, 2019). According to Van Dyk and White (2019) this disadvantaged people of certain races, abilities and socioeconomic status (SES), and led to some communities experiencing restricted access to educational resources, skills and training, which reduced the quality of education. In 1996, the Amended National Norms and Standards for School Funding (ANNSSF) was introduced and a funding system which focused on schools in impoverished area was implemented. This system allowed all SA public schools to received funding based on quintile ranking, and ranks schools from 1 to 5 based on their poverty score, which is determined by the community literacy and unemployment rates (Van Dyk & White, 2019). 2 Currently, SA public schools are categorised into either no-fee or fee-paying, which is based on the quintile ranking system (Naicker et al., 2020). Quintiles 1, 2 and 3 are considered the lower quintiles and mostly rely on governmental financial support and, based on this, classified as no-fee schools. Quintiles 4 and 5 are considered the higher quintiles and rely on governmental financial support to a lesser extent, and are allowed to subsidise this support by charging school fees. They are, therefore, classified as fee-paying schools. For the purpose of this research, schools in both no-fee and fee-paying categories were considered when selecting the sample group for data collection. This was considered to ensure an accurate representation of the diversity of schools that exist in the SA context, as well as allowing for a comparison of challenges faced by teachers in these different categories of schools. Education White Paper 6 on inclusive education was used to guide the aims and questions, as well as defining the scope of this research. Education White paper 6 was published in 2001, and for the scope of this research, the focus was on the principles provided on the inclusion of learners with barriers to learning (DOE, 2001). These principles are aimed at increasing the inclusivity of learners with barriers to learning into the mainstream education system by increasing support, and considering provision, the availability of resources, and the skills for these learners. Barriers to learning are defined in the Policy on Screening, Identification, Assessment and Support (SIAS Policy) as difficulties faced by learners either externally (environmental) or internally (within the learner) in the educational setting (DOE, 2014, p. 7). Education White Paper 6 refers to previously termed “special needs learners” as learners with barriers to learning, but makes use of both terms interchangeably throughout the document (DOE, 2001, p. 36). The inclusive principles discussed in Education White Paper 6 (2001) include objectives on a structural level, such as specifying provision based on the “intensity of support” (2001, p. 10), obtaining sufficient support through full-service schools, providing training and skills for teachers, and providing accessibility to “additional resources” 3 (2001, p. 10). The policy further outlines the following objectives, which should be implemented in order to achieve inclusivity in the classroom, namely “maximising participation”, “multi-level class instruction”, “curriculum flexibility”, “teaching strategies” and “support systems available in the classroom” (2001, pp. 5-19). One of the most significant barriers to learning for learners in special and ‘ordinary’ schools is the curriculum. In this case, barriers to learning arise from different aspects of the curriculum, such as; the content (i.e. what is taught), the language or medium of instruction, how the classroom or lesson is organised and managed, the methods and processes used in teaching, the pace of teaching and the time available to complete the curriculum, the learning materials and equipment that is used and how learning is assessed. These barriers are clearly identified in the Education White Paper 6 (2001, p. 19). For the purpose of this research, barriers to learning, specific to learners with ASD characteristics, were taken into account. In 2014, a further policy, called the SIAS Policy, which was based on Education White Paper 6, was introduced to outline the procedures implemented to ensure the inclusion of learners with barriers to learning in the mainstream educational system. Principles of the SIAS Policy include: Inclusive education, standardized procedures, support for learning barriers, early intervention, and partnership between parents and schools. Inclusive education aims to provide equal access to education, additionally standardised procedures aim for a uniform approach to identifying, assessing, and supporting learners. Another principle of the SIAS Policy outlines addressing barriers to learning, while early intervention is optimal to improve learning outcomes. Lastly, the importance of the relationship between parents and schools is highlighted in order to address the child’s needs. The SIAS Policy addresses the importance of the early identification of barriers to learning, and outlines a plan for identifying and accommodating learners with barriers to learning to ensure optimal support, intervention and inclusion (DOE, 2014). School-based support teams (SBSTs) or institution-level support teams 4 (ILSTs) and district-based support teams (DBST) are outlined in the SIAS Policy as structures put in place to provide support and aid the identification, assessment, support and best placement for a child. The primary function of SBSTs or ILSTs is to provide support to schools, learners and teachers on a school level by managing inclusive learning and assisting in the identification of learners with possible barriers to learning (Motitswe, 2014). DBSTs are in place to lead training, curriculum development, and assist in the identification, assessment and support of learners with barriers to learning on a district level (DOE, 2014). However, the implementation of the above-outlined suggestions is hindered due to the resources being low and skilled professionals being spread thinly among SA schools (Erasmus et al., 2019; Makhalemele & Nel, 2021). There is also an identifiable gap in policy and literature when considering the role of SBSTs, specifically with regards to learners diagnosed with ASD, raising concern from a ground roots or policy level. If guidelines are not provided at the policy level, teachers cannot be expected to implement strategies in terms of the identification, support and accommodation of learners with ASD characteristics who have very unique learning and support needs. According to the SIAS Policy, full-service schools should aim to create an inclusive educational environment and should have access to appropriate resources in order to accommodate learners with a range of barriers to learning. Mainstream schools may not have the resources to accommodate learners with a range of barriers to learning or are not expected to provide the same level of support (DOE, 2014). This aligns with the SIAS Policy, which indicates that learners with low support needs should be placed in mainstream schools, and that learners with low to medium support needs should be placed in full-service schools and that those learners with high support needs should be placed in special or remedial schools (DOE, 2014). The SIAS Policy highlights government’s goals to transform/transition many mainstream schools in SA into full-service schools, thereby increasing capacity for the 5 accommodation of the majority of the low to medium support learners. However, these goals do not seem to have been implemented as currently most schools are still categorised as mainstream or specialised schools, and not many schools are categorised under full-service schools (Pillay, 2022b). Therefore, many learners with barriers to learning, undiagnosed or even diagnosed ASD, requiring medium to high support were still in mainstream schools as opposed to being accommodated in full-service or remedial schools at the time of Donohue & Bornman’s research (Donohue & Bornman, 2015). A more recent study conducted in 2021, states that learners with ASD characteristics are often placed in mainstream schools without considering their individual needs, further speaking to the persisting issue of inadequate placement of learners with ASD characteristics within the schooling system (Elliot, 2021). The present research was focused on understanding the challenges faced by teachers when identifying and accommodating leaners with barriers to learning, specifically learners with ASD characteristics. Furthermore, this research ascertained possible barriers to learners with ASD characteristics being identified, and appropriately placed and/or supported through accommodation in a classroom. This research was focused on ASD characteristics as barriers to learning. ASD is the “fastest growing neurodevelopmental disorder worldwide” (Nthibeli et al., 2022, p. 2). According to Statistics South Africa (2019), SA has an estimated population of 169 286 children under the age of 15 who have been diagnosed with ASD. This figure does not however account for undiagnosed cases that may have fallen through the gaps. Given the international trend, one might assume that this figure may have increased over the past 5 years and question whether this aligns with the level of available support. Current research indicates an increasing prevalence or recognition of children with ASD characteristics in SA; however, due to the limited number of available professionals in the field of ASD, the identification (and as such, the referral of these learner to the available professionals) often falls on the teacher (Nthibeli 6 et al., 2022; Statistics South Africa, 2019). To accommodate this, teachers should be equipped with the necessary tools and knowledge (have an understanding of ASD characteristics) to identify learners with ASD characteristics in their classrooms, which aligns with the protocol outlined in the SIAS Policy. ASD can be characterised by deficits in “socio-emotional reciprocity”, “non-verbal communicative behaviours”, and “developing and maintaining relationships” (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013, p. 50), among other challenges. Furthermore, comorbidities such as hyperactivity, impulsivity, aggression, anxiety and depression can possibly also be present (Sauer et al., 2021). These challenges, deficits or comorbidities are due to the impaired development of social, physical, and cognitive elements, which are discussed in more depth in Chapter 1 of this report. People with ASD fall on a spectrum, meaning that it can display itself in a multitude of ways, as Dr Stephan Shore states: “When you meet one person with autism, you’ve met one person with autism” (Shore & Rastelli, 2006, p. 130). ASD is categorised into three levels in the DSM-5, namely “requiring support”, “requiring substantial support”, and requiring “very substantial support” (APA, 2013, pp. 50- 51). Furthermore, in the classroom, these levels of support should be considered to ensure that the learner is placed in the necessary environment and provided with resources for optimal accommodation and support for the child’s needs. Owing to increasing prevalence, as discussed above, knowledge, skills and training around the inclusion of learners with ASD are imperative as the chances of teaching a child with ASD is increasing (Nthibeli et al., 2022). Typically, children with ASD face many barriers in school/classroom environments, yet ASD is not widely understood and accommodated for in SA educational settings, resulting in challenges that are discussed later in the study (Nthibeli et al., 2022). 7 1.2 Aim and objectives This research explored teachers’ lived experiences of processes and challenges around inclusion, specifically considering the identification and accommodation of learners with ASD characteristics within differently categorised SA schools. These challenges were explored to further understand whether teachers are equipped with the necessary skills to identify these learners, as well as the necessary skills and resources to accommodate them in the classroom or refer them to the necessary support. The Education White Paper 6 policy enforces inclusion; however, without implementation and action, inclusion is not attainable or realistic (Pillay et al., 2022). By exploring teachers’ lived experiences, this research was able to highlight the gap between the above-discussed inclusive principles (policy) and implementation, and how this may inhibit the identification and accommodation of learners with ASD characteristics. Many SA schools are faced with a multitude of everyday challenges, when considering classroom overcrowding, as well as a lack of skills, resources and infrastructure (Nthibeli et al., 2022; West & Meier, 2020). Further expectations are placed on teachers to implement inclusion, sometimes without sufficient resources and skills. The implementation of inclusive principles requires the teacher to have an understanding of barriers to learning and, for the purpose of this research, an understanding of the characteristics of ASD. Furthermore, it is required that teachers use this understanding and the necessary skills to identify “at risk learners” (DOE, 2014, p. 16) who are facing barriers to learning. Teachers are required to implement the SIAS Policy, which provides teachers with Support Needs Assessment (SNA) Form 1 and SNA Form 2. These forms are required to be completed, along with a learner profile (LP) when attempting to draft a support plan for learners who require low to medium support within a mainstream or full-service schooling environment. SNA Form 3 also needs to be completed if the learner requires high-level support or if the school needs additional support (DOE, 2014). According to the SIAS Policy, this process should be guided by the SBST, 8 enhancing the teachers’ understanding of and experience around SBST support. When taking the previously discussed challenges into account, as well as those associated with the implementation of inclusion policies, the challenges SA teachers are faced with are multifaceted and nuanced. This research, therefore, sheds light on these challenges that are faced by teachers in the classroom when implementing inclusion, specifically when identifying and accommodating learners with ASD characteristics. Objectives: 1. To determine SA teachers’ awareness of the Education White Paper 6 principles and whether these principles are implemented in the classroom. 2. To ascertain whether SA teachers acquire the skills, resources and training to be able to identify and accommodate learners with ASD characteristics. 3. To realistically determine the extent of the inclusivity of learners with ASD characteristics in an SA context by drawing contrasts and comparisons from the perspectives of teachers from a diversity of public schools, highlighting any possible contrasts between specific demographic circumstances. 4. To highlight the reasons for teachers and/or learners ‘falling through the gaps’. 1.3 Rationale This research explored teachers’ experiences and knowledge around inclusion in SA to determine their ability to identify and accommodate learners with ASD characteristics, as well as the possible gaps this may create for learners from schools of certain demographics. This was done by examining the applicability, practicality, and actual implementation of the inclusive principles and provisions expressed in Education White Paper 6 and the SIAS Policy. The realised numerical data were subjected to frequency analysis as an indicator of the levels at which policy was translated into action. Group differences across the sectors of educational 9 systems were calculated. Thereafter, a chi-squared test was conducted to examine where in the process learners with ASD characteristics might fall through the gaps, following which non- numerical data were subjected to thematic analysis. This research is important as it highlights instances and possible reasons for learners with ASD characteristics falling through the gaps, meaning that they have an increased chance of being unidentified or unaccommodated in the necessary educational environment, thereby inhibiting their learning potential. The present research allows for a comparison of the different perspectives around the challenges teachers face with regards to identification and inclusion within a diversity of educational settings/schools, yet within the same broader educational system of SA. The research is aimed at bridging the gap in research and knowledge of ASD with regards to learners with ASD characteristics who are not being identified or accommodated within the system. Although recent literature suggests that ASD is widely studied and researched in SA, the lack of knowledge for accommodation and support of learners with ASD characteristics is raised (Pillay et al., 2021; Shilubane & Mazibuko, 2020). This research addresses a gap in the current knowledge around ASD, which is due to the lack of an ASD-specific policy and knowledge specifically around ASD in SA. In another study conducted in 2020, the shortage of knowledge around ASD in SA amongst colleagues was noted by teachers (Manukwana, 2020). As discussed in Education White Paper 6, the education system needs to be focused on inclusivity (DOE, 2001). Learners with ASD characteristics are among the children who need specific learning programmes and teachers who have been trained with the necessary skills to teach and support them in their educational development. With such few schools equipped to accommodate learners with ASD, there are a lack of placements in schools, which could often lead to learners falling through the gaps in the system (Pillay, 2022b). By exploring the above- mentioned aspects, this research has further shed light on the challenges faced by teachers, 10 when specifically considering the placement of learners with ASD characteristics in the appropriate learning environment. This attempting to impact educational policymakers in SA, as well as adding to the knowledge on the inclusion of learners with ASD characteristics in SA. 1.4 Research questions 1.4.1 Primary research question Does the knowledge and understanding of policy reflect in the identification and support of learners with ASD characteristics in the classroom, and does this differ across different school demographic circumstances? 1.4.2 Secondary research questions • Are teachers equipped with the necessary skills, training, resources, and support structures to identify and accommodate learners with ASD characteristics specifically? What trends can be identified when looking at specific school demographic circumstances and training, resources and knowledge of policy 11 Chapter 2: Literature Review 2.1 Introduction This chapter is aimed at outlining the current and previous literature surrounding the topic of inclusive education and the associated classroom challenges from the teachers’ perspective with a focus on ASD. This is discussed under the headings of Education in an SA Context, Defining ASD, ASD and Inclusive Education, Development in Children with ASD, and Challenges Faced by Teachers when Accommodating Learners with ASD characteristics. Furthermore, a theoretical framework, namely the Dynamic Skill Theory by Kurt Fischer, is discussed to establish an imperative understanding and theoretical framework for this research. 2.2 Education in a South African context SA’s education system should be considered in relation to the historical context of SA. Pre-1994, SA’s education system was based on principles of exclusion and separation of learners in terms of ability and race under the control of the apartheid system (DOE, 2001). In the educational system, this meant that learners with barriers to learning, as well as learners of colour, were marginalised and denied access to resources and highly skilled teachers. In 1994, an international document called the Salamanca Statement was released, in which it was stated that all children have the right to quality education, which led to further policies around inclusion around the world (UNESCO, 1994). The South African Schools Act, 1996 (Act No. 84 of 1996) was passed in an attempt to implement the inclusion and amalgamation of learners of all races, disabilities and barriers to learning in schools. In Education White Paper 6, disabilities are referred to as fundamentally organically based barriers in development and learning (DOE, 2001, p. 12). Learners with barriers are further included when referring to disabilities; however, for the purpose of this research, barriers to learning are discussed, specifically referring to ASD characteristics. Education 12 White Paper 6 was introduced by the DOE in SA to further develop inclusive education (DOE, 2001). In Education White Paper 6, inclusion and mainstreaming or integration are defined and distinguished. Inclusion is defined as accepting and respecting differences, while “building on the similarities” and adjusting school support systems (2001, p. 17). However, mainstreaming is focused on supporting learners to “fit into” mainstream classrooms (2001, p. 17). Considering these definitions, inclusion is considered ideal as it allows for the equality and acceptance of all children, which is further structured on the basis that “all children and youth can learn and that all youth and children need support” (2001, p. 6). However, in Education White Paper 6, the lack of provision and support for those learners with barriers to learning in SA schools was noted, with “up to 70% of children” of school-going age with barriers to learning receiving “little or no educational support” (2001, p. 54). Considering the progression of inclusive education over the years, a more recent study conducted in 2022 can be considered, which highlights that “38% of school going aged children were reported to be at home and receiving no educational or other intervention while they waited for a school” (Pillay, 2022b). This research is focused on the challenges of placing children with ASD characteristics in the SA schooling system, indicating the persisting difficulties surrounding including learners with ASD characteristics, and a lack of provision for learners with ASD characteristics. Furthermore, there will be a focus on the significant extent of the problem in SA due to the lack of implementation of provisions made for the inclusion of learners with barriers to learning. Due consideration of the SA context should be pivotal in ensuring the effective implementation of the Education White Paper 6 principles (Pillay et al., 2022). Furthermore, understanding and informing teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion should also be considered imperative in the process of attaining inclusive education (Adewumi & Mosito, 2019). Teachers can be considered “key” in the process of implementing inclusive education (Adewumi & Mosito, 2019, p. 1). Nthibeli (2022) further highlights that positive attitudes 13 among educators is strongly associated with the successful implementation of inclusive policies. Teachers attitudes are influenced by many factors, for example, their exposure to learners with disabilities, and the nature of the disability, as well as the quality and level of support and training they receive (Donohue & Bornman, 2015). The lack of acceptance and integration of learners with barriers to learning in the education system may stem from many cultures in SA not accepting or understanding barriers to learning, and often not believing that these learners should attend school (Donohue & Bornman, 2015, p. 5). A study conducted by Erasmus et al. (2019) interrogated teachers’ views on inclusion of learners with barriers to learning in mainstream schooling. Perceptions of prejudice, uneasiness and a lack of acceptance emerged and were linked to the opinion that it would be preferable for learners with barriers to learning to attend special, rather than full-service or mainstream schools. It was suggested that the resistance to change and negative attitudes towards inclusion may reflect perpetuation of historical segregation reinforced by the individuality of special needs or remedial teaching modules and mainstream pedagogy in teacher training (Engelbrecht & Savolainen, 2017). This separation in training was based on the initial use of the medical model in education, when it was thought that learners with disabilities have a problem and should, therefore, be treated differently and taught in separate classrooms to prevent other mainstream learners from being hindered in their performance. Institutionally and socially, we are conditioned to believe learners with barriers to learning and typical learners should be segregated (Engelbrecht & Savolainen, 2017). However, in a study conducted by Donohue and Bornman (2015), contrasting views are highlighted, stating that many SA teachers in principle agree with inclusion and have a positive view of inclusivity, yet the common issue of implementation was emphasised. Furthermore, a more recent study by Hooijer et al. (2021) speaks to the issue of teachers accepting inclusion but not putting the necessary steps into practice. 14 Furthermore, when considering the current context of SA schools, overcrowding is a major challenge faced by teachers (West & Meier, 2020). Additionally, systemic challenges such as a lack of resources, skills and infrastructure are in many cases everyday challenges for teachers (Pillay et al., 2022). These systemic challenges are explored in more depth in the literature review section of this research. 2.3 Defining Autism Spectrum Disorder ASD is a nuanced neurodevelopmental disorder that is diagnosed in an estimated 1%- 2% of children worldwide, and being four times more common in boys than in girls. Individuals with ASD often display poor communication, inhibited social skills, and have an increased risk of comorbidities such as ADHD, anxiety, depression, epilepsy, sleep disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, eating challenges, bipolar disorder, and obesity (Sauer et. al., 2021). Figure 1 The insert below is taken from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) 5th edition Text Revision; and outlines the diagnostic criteria for ASD. 15 (American Psychiatric Association, 2022) 16 While considering the above diagnosis criteria for ASD, it should be noted that the presentation of ASD characteristics can vary largely between individuals and can, therefore, be difficult to identify and diagnose in some cases. The following characteristics are also commonly present in individuals with ASD, namely heightened sensitivity, rigidity/inflexibility, difficulty with language, and becoming fixated on specifics. Research suggests that the etiology of ASD has a genetic and/or environmental basis. It further suggests that ASD comes with neurological diversity and a significantly increased amount of perinatal and immune complications occurring in infants who are later diagnosed with autism (Ornoy et al. 2015; Sauer et. al., 2021). Several environmental and gene risk factors for ASD include; maternal factors (advance age, chronic hypertension, preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, overweight), being monozygotic twins (60-90% higher) or dizygotic twins (0-30%) (Qiu et al., 2022). With the heritability of ASD being approximately 50%, further emphasising genetic factors being a significant contributor to the eitology of ASD. Treatment for ASD is as diverse and individualised as ASD itself, with there not being a scientific cure or specific treatment method for all individuals with ASD. However, anti-psychotic, antidepressants and anti- anxiety medication can be taken in order to assist in the treatment of ASD symptoms. As outlined above, ASD comes with a diversity of communication and social difficulties, which requires individualised education and, therefore, a unique educational approach. 2.4 Autism Spectrum Disorder and inclusive education “Full-service/inclusive schools are first and foremost mainstream education institutions that provide quality education to all learners by supplying the full range of learning needs in an equitable manner. They should strive to achieve access, equity, quality and social justice in education.” (DBE, 2010, p. 7) Full-service schools are ordinary public schools and not a separate specialist category. These schools give access to all learners and promote an accepting environment for learning 17 barriers by providing a wide range of support to all learners and accommodating the diverse abundance of educational needs. The function of full-service schools is to provide school-based support for learning, offer support to neighbouring ordinary schools, and collaborate with special school resource centres. “A full-service school is a school with good leadership that sees itself as a beacon of the transformation process in education by developing cultures, policies and practices that celebrate diversity, respect difference and value innovation and problem-solving” (Guidelines for Full-Service Schools DBE, 2010, pp. 9). In an SA context, inclusive education has been an ongoing progression toward accommodating children with a diversity of abilities. Education White Paper 6 was introduced in 2001 in an attempt to remedy the segregated education system inherited from the apartheid government, including the exclusion of and lack of resource allocation to learners with barriers to learning. Principles outlined in Education White Paper 6 include resources and skills to ensure the accommodation and inclusion of all learners. The SIAS Policy, promulgated a significant 13 years after the publication of the Education White Paper 6, provided a framework aimed at standardising the process for identification, assessment and accommodation of learners requiring additional support to enhance their learning capacity. These policies were created to guide inclusive education in SA. “Reasonable accommodation” is described in the SIAS Policy as making necessary adaptions to ensure equal access for learners with barriers to learning (DOE, 2014, p. 9). Education White Paper 6 further indicates the imperative role of teachers in “achieving our goal of an inclusive education and training system” (DOE, 2001, p. 18). It further outlined special needs schools in the area and highlighted that SBSTs and DBSTs would provide support for mainstream and full-service schools. The main goals of these support teams include leading curriculum development, identifying institutional needs and learner barriers, and providing strategies to address these barriers and needs (DOE, 2014, pp. 18 38). Furthermore, White Education Paper 6 highlights that these teams should aid in providing learner support plans and extra resources and skills for the implementation of these plans on school and district levels (Adewumi & Mosito, 2019). According to literature, within the SBSTs, there is an overall good understanding of the requirements and roles of the team holistically, yet gaps are highlighted in regards to individual roles and responsibilities not being clearly understood. Furthermore, it was highlighted that the identification of strengths and weaknesses was a major challenge within the SBSTs and, therefore, responsibility cannot be distributed accurately (Motitswe, 2014; Makhalemele & Nel, 2021). According to research conducted by Nel et al., (2011), in Gauteng, it is indicated that the majority of learners with barriers to learning “not so often”, “seldom” or “never” received support from DBSTs (Nel et al., 2011, pp. 48-49). When considering a more recent study on SBSTs, on average, they do not provide sufficient support due to “experiencing more challenges than successes” (Makhalemele & Nel, 2021, p. 310). The constant lack of support received by teachers from the SBSTs and DBSTs over the past 15 years has created possible challenges for teachers to be able to accommodate learners with barriers to learning effectively. Six imperative modes of implementation of inclusivity are outlined in Education White Paper 6, namely the use of specialised schools as resource centres, the movement of some mainstream schools to becoming categorised as full-service schools, addressing and getting a large number of learners with barriers to learning who are out of school into the education system, upskilling the teachers to identify and support learners with barriers to learning, and addressing the imperative need for education and advocacy of learners with barriers within communities (DOE, 2001; Donohue & Bornman, 2015). The implementation of the above strategies, or a lack thereof, was investigated by Ramaahlo et al. (2018), who stated that the strategies were broad and that the policy lacked clarity. Other research further found that schools were not receiving any recognition or funding from the education department, often 19 leading to schools not implementing the strategies (Donohue & Bornman, 2015). Furthermore, according to research by Donohue and Bornman (2015), when exploring challenges around the implementation of the Education White Paper 6 principles, unclear planning about how to achieve inclusion, as well as ineffective implementation in the SA context are considered the two main challenges. When implementing inclusive principles in the SA context, one should consider the social and cultural context of the learners in the education system, for example, the beliefs and prejudices around learners with barriers to learning in an SA context (Donohue & Bornman, 2015). However, context does not seem to be appropriately considered, adding to the difficulty when implementing these principles in SA schools. Education White Paper 6 and the surrounding principles on inclusion in SA rely on research conducted in the UK and the US, which raises questions around it’s relevance and applicability in a SA context, and may be discussed as a possible cause of ineffective implementation (Roberts & Simpson, 2016). Therefore, for inclusion to be achieved effectively in an SA context, research around inclusion of learners with ASD characteristics in an SA context specifically should be conducted in order to achieve optimal implementation within our diverse context. In SA, there is a major gap in knowledge around ASD, with it not being widely understood, even among policy creators (Pillay et al., 2024). This is indicative of the lack of knowledge on ASD among the general public in SA, as well as the concerns around policy being able to accommodate learners with ASD effectively (Pillay, 2022a). Owing to the lack of implementation and inclusion in schools, documents, namely Guidelines for Full- Service Schools (DBE, 2010), were introduced in an attempt to provide further knowledge on inclusion. However, these documents provided a more theoretical basis rather than a relevant, more practical approach, which Nthibeli et al. (2022) suggest was needed to allow for more effective implementation. 20 2.4.1 Development in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder ASD is considered a neurodevelopmental disorder, meaning that children with ASD do not reach the age-appropriate neurodevelopmental milestones and face atypical development within several developmental areas (Hyman et al., 2020). These areas are a lack of understanding the intent of others, eye contact, non-verbal cues, social communication, social interaction, and symbolic play. Cognitive, sensory, motor and adaptive functioning are highlighted by Hyman et al. (2020) as areas that should be considered when identifying a child with ASD. Poor social development is a primary focus area which is impacted negatively in children with ASD (Bamicha & Drigas, 2022). In a recent study conducted by Özerk et al. (2021), social competence is emphasised as an area of difficulty for children with ASD, and is divided into “peer acceptance, social skills and adaptive abilities” (Özerk et al.,2021, p. 345). Özerk et al., 2021) discusses the effects of social skills on different aspects of a child’s life, which include “peer relations, self-management, assertion, compliance, and academics” (Özerk et al., 2021, p. 347). The above discussed skills involve some level of social interaction and/or the social ability to follow instructions or rules. It is indicative of the possible challenges or barriers children with ASD characteristics may face when confronting social aspects within classroom or educational settings. These barriers may negatively affect the learner’s ability to follow classroom instructions or rules, and their ability to interact with their peers and teachers. Therefore, it is imperative for teachers to have the necessary skills to be able to recognise and identify learners with these behaviours, provide the required support, and accommodate these learners in the classroom. Furthermore, cognitive development is highlighted as an area that does not often progress typically, leading to possible cognitive impairment in children with ASD (Bamicha & Drigas, 2022). The cognitive deficit can be seen in a lack of social understanding, deficit in 21 executive functioning skills, and delayed information processing, thereby indicating the type of daily challenges in a classroom setting where these learners are expected to ‘keep up’ academically with other typically developing learners. Additionally, physical development is an important aspect of a child’s development and can be divided into gross motor and fine motor development (Mohd Nordin et al., 2021). In children with ASD both fine and gross motor development are significantly slower to that of typically developing children. The development of senses and managing sensory input can also be affected, with children with ASD often experiencing “hyper-responsiveness or hypo- responsiveness” (Gentil-Gutiérrez et al., 2021). Hyper-responsiveness refers to being overstimulated by sensory stimuli, while hypo-responsiveness is the lack of stimulation by sensory stimuli. Sensory over- or under-stimulation can be auditory, olfactory, visually, vestibular, or tactile, according to Gentil-Gutiérrez,et al. (2021). This research found that 69% of the children who participated, with ASD, had sensory symptoms ( Gentil-Gutiérrez,et al., 2021). The symptoms described above often present around 2-3 years of age, with a regression in development or skills also typically being seen around this time (Sauer et al., 2021). Therefore, it has been determined that early support and intervention is required to accommodate children with ASD in the educational system (Matlou, 2021). Intervention strategies for ASD should be multidisciplinary to allow a child to reach their full potential; yet, in SA, it is often seen that this support is not available due to the lack of specialist and therapist support, as well as financial constraints (Matlou, 2021). 22 2.5 Challenges faced by teachers when accommodating learners with Autism Spectrum Disorder Many systemic challenges, as well as those arising from barriers to learning, can be identified as common challenges faced by teachers in the classroom (Pillay et al., 2022). In many cases, teachers expressed incompetency with the inclusion of learners with socio- structural barriers (Motitswe, 2014). Socio-structural barriers include teachers not having sufficient resources and/or skills in order to allow for optimal accommodation and, therefore, inclusivity within the classroom. SA has a lack of context-specific research on ASD, the causation, how its displayed, how and why these learners are “falling through the gaps”, and how best to accommodate learners with ASD characteristics in an SA context (Nthibeli et al., 2022). This leads to teachers not having a general understanding of ASD and how it typically displays in a learner in the classroom, and not being equipped with the necessary practical skills to deal with the barriers to learning that often come with ASD. Not having the necessary skills inhibits teachers’ ability to accommodate these learners in a typical SA classroom. Some of these challenges are behavioural, social, and academic in nature (Manukwana, 2020). The behaviour of learners with ASD in the classroom is highlighted as the biggest challenge or the aspect teachers were most concerned about in a study conducted by Roberts and Simpson (2016). Rigidity and structure are behavioural characteristics that are commonly seen in children with ASD and, therefore everyday school requirements, such as learners having to move between classrooms and different teachers for different subjects, could cause feelings of being overwhelmed and create a sense of a lack of consistency and stability (Lindsay et al., 2013). Furthermore, unstructured activities in class or unstructured fun days at school might be challenging for learners with ASD characteristics due to the lack of consistency that it might create. Behavioural challenges can be closely linked to social deficits, which should be considered when accommodating learners with ASD characteristics. The teacher should 23 consider the emotional or mental health of the learner around socialising, and how negative social interactions, especially in a mainstream school, may affect their confidence and mental health negatively (Cored Bandrés et al, 2022). A study conducted by Mitchell et al. (2021) was focused on the difference in communication techniques of an autistic child and non-autistic child. The study concludes that more communication challenges are faced between a typical child and child with ASD compared to two autistic children (Mitchell et al., 2021). This is indicative of the challenges learners with ASD characteristics may face when socialising with typical learners in the classroom. Considering the findings of this research, a mainstream classroom environment may cause further difficulties and possibly barriers to learning for learners with ASD characteristics due to this difficulty with socialising with typical learners. Common challenges around the accommodation of learners with barriers to learning in schools were identified by Nthibeli et al. (2022), most of which are as a result of systemic failures, for example, a lack of resources, infrastructure, and training. According to Pillay et al. (2022), the accommodation of learners with ASD characteristics should be driven by policy in the educational system. Although policies such as Education White Paper 6 and the SIAS Policy outline inclusion, in SA, there are no policies specifically related to the inclusion of learners with ASD in the education system (Nthibeli et al., 2022). This lack of specific policy and management strategies could be due to the lack of contextually relevant research on ASD in SA (Pillay, 2022). Although Education White Paper 6 is aimed at shifting toward a more inclusive paradigm, the policy includes minimal detail of how to include learners with specific barriers to learning (Nthibeli et al., 2022). Learners with ASD characteristics in SA are accommodated within the education system in mainstream, full-service and ASD-specific schools. Expectations and guidelines for teachers are outlined in the SIAS Policy with regards to screening, identifying, assessing, and supporting learners with barriers to learning, in which 24 teachers require the necessary training. However, teacher training in SA is not aligned with the existing inclusive policies, affecting its attainability, as well as the scope of teachers’ skills (Nthibeli et al., 2022). This negatively affects the teachers’ ability to provide support and accommodate learners with ASD in the classroom (Donohue & Bornman, 2015). Teacher training around the inclusion of learners with barriers to learning is discussed in the SIAS Policy and, in some cases, is expected from the teacher. However, the training provided, in some cases, is not leaving teachers feeling competent (Motitswe, 2014; Pillay et al., 2022). As outlined in the SIAS Policy, SBSTs and DBSTs were allocated to provide the teachers with the support and skills to aid the support of learners (DOE, 2014). The professionals who make up the SBSTs and DBSTs are selected and trained to assist in the implementation of the SIAS Policy, which outlines the strategy of screening, identification, assessment, and support to achieve the inclusion of learners with barriers within the education system. According to the SIAS Policy, DBSTs should comprise psychologists, remedial teachers, health and welfare professionals, specialist support personnel, administrative personnel, management development support specialists, and curriculum specialists (DOE, 2014). DBSTs are responsible for the organisation of additional support programme training; managing the allocation and provision of support and resources to specific schools and learners; guiding, training and counselling teachers, parents and caregivers; and making use of the tools provided in the SIAS Policy (DOE, 2014; Motitswe, 2014). Furthermore, DBSTs are responsible for consolidating SBSTs in instances where a school does not have one. SBSTs comprise the principal, who is responsible for ensuring that there are members on the SBST, specialised teachers or teachers involved in the management of the school, as well as administrative staff or caretakers. SBSTs’ support are required in identifying learners at risk and providing the necessary support and accommodation for these barriers to learning by developing programmes and tracking how effective the support is. They further 25 mobilise available assets and primarily support the process of teaching and learning. The DBSTs and SBSTs should work collaboratively to ensure the best placement and support of learners according to their specific support needs if a child does not receive sufficient support according to their learning support needs, challenges and deficits that arise (Erasmus et al., 2019). However, as discussed by Motitswe (2014), the members who were allocated to be a part of the SBST often do not have the necessary skills and are, therefore, unable to provide sufficient support and implement required strategies in order to achieve inclusion. Furthermore, in some cases, SBSTs are lacking support from the DBST and are, therefore, unable to implement their knowledge and skills effectively. Considering research conducted in the Gauteng province, the fact that learners with barriers to learning “never” or “seldom” receive support from these support teams indicate the lack of implementation (Nel et al., 2011, p. 49). According to the SIAS Policy, SBSTs and DBSTs are expected to find the best placement for each learner, taking their support needs into account to address the child’s specific educational needs, which is an imperative step in the process (DOE, 2014; Weber, 2013). However, as discussed above, learners with medium to high support needs are still being placed in mainstream schools, and those with high support needs in ASD-specific schools, or otherwise not receiving placement owing to the magnitude of the support needed (Pillay, 2022; Weber, 2013). This places these learners at risk of possibly falling through the gaps of the education system. According to Pillay (2022b), SA schools lack the capacity to support ASD learners, which can be seen when considering that “744 children, with ASD or suspected ASD were reported to be waiting for special school placement” (2022b), and that most children with ASD are on a waiting list for public ASD-specific schools due to the lack of infrastructure and capacity (Erasmus et al., 2019). Capacity should be considered in private as well as public, mainstream, full-service and ASD-specific schools. In Gauteng, public ASD-specific schools 26 hold a larger capacity due to large class sizes and have a larger variety of therapy services compared to ASD-specific private schools (Erasmus et al., 2019). Yet, a study conducted by Erasmus et al. (2019) indicates that it may be opposite in terms of service delivery as learners in ASD-specific private schools have a younger average age of diagnosis and intervention, which can be considered imperative as it is highlighted that early intervention is predictive of successful intervention (Matlou, 2021). When considering the accommodation of a learner with ASD characteristics in the classroom, a teacher should consider the developmental impairments discussed above, which may lead to challenges in the classroom. Development is imperative for teachers/educators to consider when factoring in accommodation or providing the necessary support of a learner. Being aware of these differences in development should guide curriculum changes, classroom adaptions and teaching adaptions. Roberts & Simpson (2016) further discusses factors a teacher should consider when teaching learners with ASD, namely teaching style, classroom environment, curriculum, and social factors. Roberts & Simpson (2016) speaks to these factors not being considered or not being able to be considered due to constraints, and how his could result in challenges. A teacher should adopt a learner-centred teaching style to provide an individualised intervention based on their specific needs (Morsa et al., 2022). Interventions should be initiated as early as possible and should include a multidisciplinary approach, using specialists such as speech therapists, occupational therapists and psychologists (Pillay et al., 2022; Weber, 2013). However, there are instances in SA where these specialists are not available, thereby creating a lack of support (Matlou, 2021). Additionally, due to a lack of skill and training with regards to inclusion among teachers in SA, as well as the lack of support from SBSTs and DBSTs, identification and intervention are often not achieved (Motitswe, 2014; Weber, 2013). Additionally, resource constraints often lead to overcrowding, which is among the main challenges experienced by teachers in SA schools, as discussed above (West & Meier, 2020). 27 Overcrowding is due to the lack of resources, such as the lack of infrastructure and teacher capacity (West & Meier, 2020). For typical learners, overcrowding causes an average decrease in academic performance due to noise and space restrictions, as well as less one-on-one time from the teacher (South African Democratic Teachers Union et al., 2019; West & Meier, 2020). When considering learners with barriers to learning, specifically ASD, overcrowding could be unhelpful for the learning process, as well as the provision of support, thereby inhibiting capacity for learning support (West & Meier, 2020). Teaching learners with barriers to learn requires a low teacher-to-learner ratio, considering that a learner with ASD is regarded as the same as teaching six neurotypical learners (Erasmus et al., 2019). Yet, one-on-one attention is limited in an overcrowded classroom, as discussed above, and could, therefore, affect learning and support negatively. Furthermore, high noise levels and limited space could potentially increase anxiety owing to the typical sensory sensitivity often displayed in children with ASD (West & Meier, 2020). Individualised educational development plans (IEDPs) or Individual Support Plans (ISPs) are learning plans created for a specific learner’s education and support needs, and are aimed at creating goals and effective stimulation for a specific learner (Siegel, 2020). Creating IEDPs requires skills and resources and is an imperative part of inclusion (DOE, 2014). Yet, when considering the lack of skills and resources discussed above, IEDPs are often not used in the classroom environment effectively or at all. The barriers to learning discussed above should be kept in mind when designing IEDPs, and it should be further recognised that these barriers to learning may result in challenges for teachers in the classroom environment (Manukwana, 2020). IEDPs should be created and updated to ensure consistent stimulation and development based on their individual needs and abilities, thereby achieving the inclusion of learners with barriers to learning. However, creating and implementing IEDPs require skills and resources, 28 which may, therefore, be a challenge for teachers who are not provided with the necessary training, skills and resources (Siegel, 2020). A further systemic challenge in an SA context, when including learners with ASD, is the lack of skills or teacher capacity for teachers to be able to implement inclusive principles sufficiently (Erasmus et al., 2019). Skills are an imperative part of being able to achieve an inclusive classroom or school, and can be attained through teacher training. Although some teachers receive training, they often feel as though it is not adequate, which possibly leaves them lacking proficiency and confidence in being able to apply inclusive principles and strategies in the classroom. This highlights the possible gap in skills and, therefore, confidence to implement these skills (Donohue & Bornman, 2015). Learners with ASD have a diverse range of characteristics and challenges, as discussed above, which could possibly lead to a variety of challenges in the classroom environment (Nthibeli et al., 2022). Some of these common challenges are highlighted by Nthibeli et al. (2022) and include challenges surrounding social interactions, non-verbal and verbal communication, sensory sensitivity, and rigidity (Nthibeli et al.,2022). In a study conducted by Pillay et al. (2022) in the Western Cape, existing services were explored by interviewing ASD service providers, and recommended improvements were outlined. In this research, resource, contextual, and competency constraints were also identified as gaps in existing ASD provision services in the Western Cape (Pillay et al., 2022). More specifically, curriculum adjustment was identified as a challenge due to the lack of competence and capacity among teachers to adjust the curriculum for individual learners’ learning and support needs effectively (Pillay et al., 2022; DOE, 2001). Yet, as outlined in Education White Paper 6, the curriculum should be adjusted by teachers to accommodate each learner’s barrier(s) to learning. However, this expectation is not realistic as it will be extremely time consuming to adjust the entire curriculum for each learner, especially when accommodating many learners with barriers to 29 learning (Chiwandire, 2019). Furthermore, overcrowding and a possible lack of resources and skills, as discussed above, could further add to the workload and unrealistic expectations placed on teachers around curriculum adjustment. Often when attempting to accommodate learners with barriers to learning, teachers focus more on psychosocial inclusion, rather than stimulating and optimising the learners’ academic learning (Donohue & Bornman, 2015). One of the main resources to consider to achieve optimal learning when accommodating learners with ASD is the use of visuals (Nthibeli et al., 2022). In many schools in SA, this will not be possible due to the lack of resources, skills and training in order to include this support in the classroom. Systemic barriers are highlighted as one of the main challenges when achieving inclusion. Additional challenges are faced in the classroom around specific or common barriers to learning associated with ASD. However, in many cases, systemic challenges do not allow for teachers to intervene and accommodate these learners effectively (Pillay et al., 2022). Workload will seemingly increase significantly for teachers when considering the added training and time it would take for teachers to make curriculum adjustments and other discussed classroom adjustments. Yet, these adjustments are necessary to accommodate learners with barriers to learning such as ASD, as well as creating and updating IEDPs for these learners (Donohue & Bornman, 2015). Furthermore, one needs to consider the support, identification, assessment and support duties assigned to teachers in the SIAS Policy to achieve early intervention and inclusion of learners with barriers to learning such as ASD (DOE, 2014). 2.6 Theoretical framework Early childhood is the period before a child enters formal schooling, but is a crucial period of development in a person’s life (Anderson et al., 2003). Children develop socially, physically, and cognitively during this period; however, in children with ASD, development is 30 impaired and takes place differently to that of a typically developing child. This may manifest in certain challenges or barriers to learning and specific learning support needs (Mohd Nordin et al., 2021; Özerk et al., 2021). Kurt Fischer established the Dynamic Skill Theory, which is focused on the differences in contexts and how the support or lack of support in a child’s environment can lead to the achievement of either optimal level skills or functional level skills (Fischer & Bidell, 2007). This theory suggests that high support level contexts stimulate and provide accurately for a child’s needs, thereby producing an optimal level of skills, meaning that the child has achieved the best possible level of skill for their cognitive capacity. However, attainment of functional level skills is due to a low support level environment that does not allow for the optimisation of their skills based on brain capacity. The child will, therefore, only be able to do enough to merely function in their environment, instead of attaining optimal achievement in their environment (Fischer & Bidell, 2007). Sufficient support of children with ASD characteristics is, therefore, imperative, as outlined by Fischer, who also highlights that one’s environment could determine a child’s skill ability for the rest of their lives. A supportive classroom environment, which supports and stimulates a child, could lead to optimised skill ability based on their cognitive capacity. Yet, the very same child, with the same cognitive capacity, without the support and stimulation in the classroom, could merely acquire functional level skills. Therefore, there is a focus on supportive environments and how influential an environment or context is when achieving optimal skills development. Learners with ASD characteristics in SA schools who face barriers to learning and are not stimulated due to not attending a school with the needed support (skills and resources), or are undiagnosed or lack early intervention, could end up not achieving optimal development. Challenges teachers face in the education system, as well as in specific circumstances when accommodating learners with ASD characteristics or barriers to learning, should be highlighted and addressed to ensure 31 that policymakers and the general public are aware of the challenges encountered in the educational system in SA. 2.7 Conclusion The current research topic was discussed in light of current and previous research under the headings of Education in an SA Context, Defining ASD, ASD and Inclusive Education, Development in Children with ASD, Challenges Faced by Teachers when Accommodating Learners with ASD. Furthermore, a theoretical framework, namely the Dynamic Skill Theory by Kurt Fischer, was discussed to establish an imperative understanding and approach for this research. 32 Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology 3.1 Introduction An overview of the research design, which was adopted for the purpose of this research, as well as an outline of the methodology adopted for the study, is provided in this chapter. The methodology discussed includes the sample and sampling techniques, instruments, data analysis, procedures, and ethical considerations. 3.2 Research design A convergent parallel mixed methods design was adopted to gain an understanding of whether the knowledge and understanding of policy reflects in the identification and support of learners with ASD characteristics in the classroom, and whether this differs across different school demographic circumstances. The research questions are, therefore, as follows: • Are teachers equipped with the necessary skills, training, resources, and support structures to identify and accommodate learners with ASD characteristics specifically? • What trends can be identified when considering specific school demographic circumstances and training, resources and knowledge of policy? This research adopted a non-experimental design, which does not use manipulation or control variables, but rather observes phenomena in their natural environment. The non- experimental design was used to highlight the relationships between variables by making use of a correlational design, or investigate a phenomenon through the use of a descriptive design, meaning that the data were used to identify the challenges faced by teachers when identifying and including learners with ASD characteristics in the classroom (Ivankova, 2006). This research adopted a convergent parallel mixed methods design, which collects both quantitative 33 and qualitative data concurrently. The strength of this design is that is combines the generalisability of quantitative data and the depth of information about the context gained by qualitative data. It, therefore, allows the research to achieve a more wholistic understanding of a topic or perspectives about a topic (Schoonenboom & Johnson, 2017). A structured questionnaire was distributed; thereafter the numerical quantitative data collected were analysed using inferential and descriptive statistical analyses, while the non-numerical, qualitative data collected were analysed using thematic analysis. This research used a positivist paradigm for the quantitative section, which relies on measurement and reason, with knowledge being revealed from a neutral and measurable (quantifiable) observation of activity, action or reaction. It was used in this research to identify trends between specific demographic circumstance schools, understanding policy, and their ability to identify and support learners with ASD. In this research, the interpretive paradigm was assumed to further explore and understand teachers’ lived experience of identifying and accommodating learners with barriers to learning, with a specific focus on learners with ASD characteristics (Rahi, 2017). These experiences were explored in the context of SA, specific schools’ demographic circumstances, and individual experience. Through the interpretation of these experiences, this research aimed to further whether teachers are equipped with the necessary skills, training, resources, and support structures in order to identify and accommodate learners with ASD characteristics specifically. 3.3 Sample and sampling The study sample group comprised teachers across Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal from public primary schools, in the categories of full-service and mainstream schools, including both full-service and mainstream schools in the categories of no-fee and fee-paying schools; suburban urban, suburban rural, and township urban mainstream schools; as well as township rural full-service schools. Mainstream schools are described in Education White Paper 6 as 34 accommodating learners requiring low or very low support. It further states that “500 out of 20,000” mainstream schools were planned to be converted into full-service schools (DOE, 2001, p. 8). Full-service schools are aimed at providing support for moderate support needs learners (DOE, 2001). For the purpose of this research and the categorisation of data, the assumption were made that suburban schools are either in rural or urban areas (suburban rural or suburban urban), and township schools (township rural or township urban) were either in rural or urban areas. Rural schools usually have less capacity for learners and occur in smaller towns rather than cities or more urbanised areas, urban schools are in larger cities and often have a larger capacity for learners, Suburban schools are often located in areas where there is a higher SES, and township schools are often in areas with a lower SES, thereby providing a diverse sample group from a diversity of demographic circumstances (Ramnarain, 2014). These different groups allowed for a greater diversity of participants and more representational data. The sample comprised teachers who teach primary school learners (Grades 1-7). As discussed above, this is a pivotal time for development and, therefore, for the identification and accommodation of learners with ASD characteristics. Teachers from public schools are the best sample group for this specific study owing to the expectations placed on them by the Department of Education to apply inclusive education, as well as expectations placed on them to identify and accommodate learners with barriers to learning, including learners with ASD characteristics. In Education White Paper 6 and the SIAS Policy, these expectations and goals are presented in order to achieve inclusion in SA schools. This, therefore, puts teachers at the forefront of experiencing the challenges that come with the inclusion of learners with ASD characteristics, as well as at the forefront of experiencing the challenges that may put learners at risk of falling through the gaps of the education system (DOE, 2001, 2014). The sample of teachers included a range from newly qualified teachers to experienced teachers. The G*Power application was used to compute the required sample size for this research. Using a 0.05 alpha 35 error of probability, 0.95 Power, and 2 degrees of freedom (Df), an ideal sample size is between 62 and 172 participants to achieve a medium to large effect size. According to this calculation, between 62 and 172 participants would be a large enough sample group to observe any significant comparisons or themes, and disparities in the data. However, due to teachers and schools being unwilling and/or overburdened with school-based workload to allow participation in research, a sample size of 37 participants completed the questionnaire. A posthoc power test was conducted using the G*Power Application to determine the sample power/effect. When making use of a large effect size (0.5), Df = 2, error of probability = 0.05, on a total sample size of 37, the power of sample size = 0.8, which is considered acceptable power. Non-probability, purposive sampling is defined by a group that is specifically chosen owing to a specific criterion that is necessary for the study to obtain certain information (Tongco, 2007). This research made use of purposive sampling in order to include teachers across a diversity of demographics, as mentioned above. This allowed comparison and contrasting of the experiences and a more accurate representation of the schools in SA, as well as more valid results being obtained. University ethical approval and permission from the relevant educational departments were granted and the principal of each school was approached to obtain their informed consent to approach teachers. The link to the online questionnaire was distributed. Snowballing is defined as a sampling technique that makes use of a smaller number of contacts who have experience in the scope of the study to make contact with a larger group of people who are relevant to the study (Rahi, 2017). For the purpose of this research, snowballing was used as teachers were given the opportunity to encourage other teachers to participate in the study. 36 3.4 Instruments Structured survey questionnaires (Appendix A) are a research instrument or data collection technique used in mixed methods studies and was adopted for this research instrument (Creswell & Tashakkori, 2007). The structured questionnaires included Likert rating scale questions to gather quantitative responses, as well as qualitative questions to gather more opinion, subjective-based responses. In this research, structured self-report questionnaires were used to collect data from teachers who teach at a range of public, full- service and mainstream schools in SA. This questionnaire took the participants approximately 30 minutes to complete. The questionnaires were made available digitally via a link to a Google document. The school principal emailed a link to the questionnaire to the teachers. The first section of the questionnaire contained questions in a forced choice categorical format to classify groups and attain categorical demographic data, which were used as the independent variables in the study. These independent variables were the category of school, how experienced the teachers are, the number of learners in the class, number of learners in the school, and what age group the teacher teaches. In following sections of the questionnaire, Likert scale formatted questions were used to collect numerical data about challenges that teachers face when identifying and accommodating learners with ASD characteristics in the classroom. This section of the questionnaire further explored the implementation of Education White Paper 6 and other inclusive policies. The Likert scale questions were included to gather numerical data, which highlighted comparisons and contrasts among schools of different demographics. Statistical significance among categorical groups highlighted group differences, which was achieved through the use of statistical tests, namely the Cramer’s V test of independence. The next section of the questionnaire was used to gather non-numerical data. Qualitative instruments are used to collect information about a topic of interest through the use of open-ended questions. The open-ended questions in the questionnaire allowed the collection 37 of in-depth information about the challenges teachers face when considering Education White Paper 6. This was achieved by exploring the identification and accommodation of learners with ASD characteristics. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the non-numerical data by highlighting reoccurring themes within the non-numerical responses. Validity is focused on the correctness of measurement or the study measuring what it is meant to measure, as well as ensuring an accurate representation of the population (Heale & Twycross, 2015). The questionnaire in this research was self-designed, with questions posed specifically directed at the purpose of the present research, thereby ensuring internal validity. Although the study aimed to include participants from a variety of school demographics, the lack of participation from schools in rural areas, as well as participants from full-service schools decreased the validity of this research. External validity refers to the generalisability of the instrument, which can be identified as a limitation in this research as the questionnaire was self-designed, indicating that the instrument has not been tested for reliability and/or validity. Although the research sample will ensure the inclusion of perspectives from a variety of different categories of schools, due to the small sample size of 37 participants, the study is not generalisable to the SA population. The questionnaires were self-report surveys, meaning that the questionnaire was completed in the absence of the researcher, thereby reducing the bias that may have been introduced if the researcher were collecting the data. However, this may have also introduced test bias due to the process of the participants making use of resources to help answer the questionnaire, thereby possibly introducing the possibility of the data not being a true reflection of the participants’ knowledge. The use of a mixed methods approach to collect data on the same topic, where both numerical and non-numerical data were adopted, enabled triangulation to increase the validity of the data. Although validity cannot be ensured in this research, it was considered when creating the survey and current literature was considered when creating the questionnaire, allowing for an increased validity. Content validity was also 38 considered by formulating clear, concise, and unambivalent questions in the questionnaire. Reliability is the precision and consistency of a research instrument, and cannot be ensured in this research owing to the use of self-designed surveys (Heale & Twycross, 2015). Trustworthiness in qualitative research ensures that the researcher’s biases have not influenced the data collection or results in any way (Connelly, 2016). Trustworthiness was considered in this research. 3.5 Data analysis A relational analysis was performed on the numerical data collected in the questionnaire, using the chi-square test of independence or test of association, more specifically the Cramer’s V test of independence. Cramer’s V is an effect size measurement for the chi- square test of independence, which measures the strength of association between two nominal variables (this varies from 0 to 1, where 0 indicated no association between the two variables and 1 indicated a perfect association between the two variables). Cramer’s V was calculated as follows: Cramer’s V = √(X2/n) / min(c-1, r-1) Where: X2: The chi-square statistic n: Total sample size r: Number of rows c: Number of columns The analysis of non-numerical or qualitative data collected was done using thematic analysis to identify themes in teachers’ experiences. Thematic analysis involved coding the data, reviewing the codes, and then organising the codes into groups and developing themes. 39 The first step was coding the data, which involved “chunking” or grouping the answers and highlighting the commonly mentioned phrases or words. The second step is to organise these codes into groups, and then finally derive themes from the grouped codes. The primary research question was answered through the analysis and integration of both quantitative and qualitative data, which highlights trends and themes, and provides an understanding of how knowledge and understanding of policy reflect in the identification and support of learners with ASD characteristics in the classroom, and how this differs across different school demographic circumstances. To determine the knowledge and understanding teachers have of policy such as Education White Paper 6 and the SIAS Policy, the Likert scale questions based on the procedures and knowledge of these policies and procedures were analysed using the chi-square test of independence. This statistical technique was used to achieve a relational analysis, which highlighted the relational significance between different schools, as well as the procedures and knowledge of these policies and procedures. Relational significance was analysed between differently rated skills, training, resources and support structures, and the category of school. In order to compare teachers’ experiences in a diversity of schools in SA, a statistical analysis of the forced choice categorical questions and Likert questions was used to determine the strength of the relational significance. Furthermore, a thematic analysis of the non-numerical data allowed for a deeper understanding into how the participants’ knowledge and understanding of policy reflects in the implementation (identification and support) of learners with ASD characteristics in the classroom and how this differs across a diversity of school demographic circumstances. 3.6 Procedures i. Ethical clearance (Appendix E) was obtained from the University of the Witwatersrand Human Resource Ethics Committee Non-Medical (HREC) prior to gathering data from 40 teachers in public, full-service and mainstream schools in the categories of no-fee and fee-paying schools. ii. Permission to conduct the research involving the teachers in full-service and mainstream public schools in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal was obtained from the Gauteng Department of Education (Appendix B) and the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education (Appendix C). Furthermore, letters to request permission from each school principal (Appendix D) to conduct research in the respective schools was sent via email. iii. The questionnaires were piloted by the researcher as well as two professionals within the educational field, prior to being dispersed. Approximately 120 online structured, self-report questionnaires (Appendix A) were dispersed to school principals for further distribution to teachers and snowballing. The questionnaires were used to gather numerical and non-numerical data from teachers to examine the application of Education White Paper 6 by exploring the challenges teachers encounter around the identification and accommodation of ASD characteristics in SA classrooms. The aim and description of the study and ethical considerations regarding participation in the study were provided in the introduction to the digital questionnaire. iv. The questionnaire was made available electronically via a Google form. The principal provided all the teachers the link to complete the questionnaire, those who were willing completed it. v. No identifying information was required in the questionnaire. Owing to the anonymity of the completion of the questionnaire, once it had been submitted, the participant was not able to withdraw from the study. The completion and submission of the digital questionnaires were considered informed consent. vi. The data were stored on iCloud and protected by a password. 41 vii. When considering the numerical data that were collected, statistical analysis was performed using a chi-square test of independence, Cramer’s V, which was useful to test for significance relationships between categorical groups. viii. Analysis of the non-numerical data collected was done using thematic analysis to identify themes in teachers’ experiences. ix. The results are displayed in this research report. Direct quotes collected in the open questions are used anonymously and the final report does not provide any identifiable information about the school or participants. 3.7 Ethical considerations Ethical clearance was obtained through the University of the Witwatersrand Ethical Clearance for HREC Non-Medical prior to gathering data. Permission to conduct the research involving the teachers in primary full-service and mainstream public schools in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal was obtained from the Gauteng Department of Education and the KwaZulu- Natal Department of Education (Appendix B and Appendix C). Furthermore, letters to request permission from each school principal to conduct research in the respective schools were sent via email, and permission was obtained from several schools. The aim, description, and ethical procedures of the study were provided in the introduction to the digital questionnaire. If the participants were disturbed in any way by the content of the questionnaire, they were provided with the researcher’s email address. Thereafter, on contract, there was the option for referral to SA’s education, training, and skills development to give them the opportunity to broaden their capacity as a teacher or otherwise other relevant support services. The potential participants were advised that participation in this research was voluntary, and no consequences or benefits were linked to participation. The participants’ responses are discussed in this research report as anonymous and are kept confidential. Some direct quotes collected in the open questions are 42 used anonymously. This report does not provide any identifiable information about the school or participant. Submission of a complete questionnaire was considered consent, and consent to allow data collected in this research to be used for future studies. However, due to anonymous participation, the participants were not able to withdraw after having submitted their responses. Participant data is kept safely on the researcher’s iCloud with a security password. The research results are included in this research report and can be emailed to each participant on request. 3.8 Reflexivity Reflexivity is described as having a self-awareness through self-reflection and understanding your role as a researcher, and can be practised to ensure a more ethical research study (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004). Observation of one’s assumptions, thoughts, and beliefs should be recognised and thought about critically in terms of the study and how this may influence the study. By identifying this and being reflective, the researcher was constantly aware of personal assumptions which may be linked to schools or teachers from certain areas. For example, assuming that teachers or schools in more rural areas would not have resources or knowledge to complete the questionnaire; or that teachers or schools from more suburban areas would have the resources and knowledge to complete the questionnaire. Reflecting allowed the researcher to learn from the experiences, which allowed these experiences to be shared with an open mind. Owing to the instrument being digital and self-reporting, throughout gathering the data, the researcher’s thoughts and assumptions did not impact the participants in any way, neither did it impact their responses to the questions in the questionnaire. The analysis of the numerical responses was done through statistical analysis and was, therefore, not influenced by the researcher’s opinions or assumptions. When analysing the non-numerical data through the use of thematic analysis, the researcher was consistently aware of their thoughts and critically reflected on possible biases and assumptions linked to personal opinions of the outcome, ensuring that they did not impose on the analysis of results. For example, a 43 potential personal bias may have been that ASD learners are not accommodated for in SA schools, but throughout the process and particularly within the analysis section of the results I had to be aware or theses potential biases, by being reflective and open minded. The researcher was aware of their personal thoughts by writing them down in a diary and being reflective throughout the research process. This was further achieved by allowing the supervisor to supervise the analysis to ensure that personal assumptions neither influenced the analysis of the data, nor how they were presented in the research report. Although this research did not impose any identifiable harm onto the participants, the researcher was aware of possible negative feelings around failures in the system, or around inclusion of learners with ASD characteristics. 3.9 Conclusion This chapter provided an overview of the research design and methodology adopted for the study. Sample and sampling techniques, instruments, data analysis, procedures, and ethical considerations were all considered and outlined in this chapter. Chapter 4: Findings, results and interpretations 4.1 Introduction The previous section explained the research design and methodology used. This section provides the results of the study, highlighting the trends that arose from the data analysis. The trends highlighted in the chi-square test of independence analysis guided the thematic analysis, which provides evidence through the use of quotations from the qualitative responses. The objective of this research was to gain an understanding of the resources teachers are equipped with in order to identify, accommodate and support learners with ASD characteristics in the classroom, and accordingly allow for a greater understanding of the challenges faced by 44 teachers, which are resulting in learners with ASD characteristics ‘falling through the gaps of the education system’. The research was guided by the primary research question, along with the secondary research questions. Primary research question Does the knowledge and understanding of policy reflect in the identification and support of learners with ASD characteristics in the classroom, and does this differ across different school demographic circumstances? Secondary research questions • Are teachers equipped with the necessary skills, training, resources, and support structures in order to identify and accommodate learners with ASD characteristics specifically? • What trends can be identified when considering specific school demographic circumstances and training, resources and knowledge of policy? 4.2 Participant overview: Descriptive statistics Teachers participated and completed the questionnaire anonymously. A total of 37 participants completed the survey, namely teachers at public primary full-service or mainstream schools across the Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal provinces. A posthoc power test was conducted using the G*Power Application in order to determine the sample power/effect. When making use of a large effect size (0.5), Df = 2, error of probability = 0.05, on a total sample size of 37, the power of sample size = 0.8, which is considered acceptable power. The participants taught at schools across township urban, township rural, suburban urban and suburban rural areas, and the schools fell in the categories of either no-fee or fee-paying, as summarised in Table 4.1. 45 School location Suburban – Characterised by their small population size • Rural – A suburban rural area also has limited access to educational resources (books, stationary, computers, professionals) and technological resources (signal, data, computers) (are not central). • Urban – A suburban urban area also has access to educational resources (books, stationary, computers, professionals) and technological resources (signal, data, computers) (is central). Township – Characterised by their large population and being underdeveloped • Rural – A township rural area also has limited access to educational resources (books, stationary, computers, professionals) and technological resources (signal, data, computers) (are not central). • Urban – A township urban area also has access to educational resources (books, stationary, computers, professionals) and technological resources (signal, data, computers) (is central). Level of support (Intensity of support the school is able to offer) Mainstream – Able to accommodate learners with none, mild and moderate support needs • Fee-paying (also receive little financial support from the department) • No-fee (also receive sub