An exploratory study on collaborative modes of professional development and learning for teachers of students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD)

Abstract

This study aims to deliver a school-based mode of training for inservice teachers of students with ASD in Hong Kong. The training is delivered following the phases of implementation science, namely, exploration, installation, and implementation. The project team used the theory of mind approach, which enables teachers to engage with students with ASD and to focus on recognizing and reacting to emotions. Participants in this study included four educators from a teacher education institution, three expert teachers, and 19 in-service teacher trainees. The most salient responses came from trainees who were provided with the opportunity to apply learned skills in their own classrooms immediately and to share the knowledge and skills in dealing with students with ASD in the post-conference meetings.

Teachers’ collaborative professional development for inclusive education

“…Eight studies used a qualitative approach with interviews (Chan and Lo 2017;Kempen and Steyn 2016;Juma, Lehtomäki, and Naukkarinen 2017;Brownell et al 2006;Kennedy and Shiel 2010;Ho et al 2018;Bos et al 1999;Rinaldi, Averill, and Stuart 2011). In six studies (Katz 2015;Ho and Arthur-Kelly 2013;Ho et al 2018;Faraclas 2018;Bos et al 1999;Greenwood et al 2003), tests, surveys or questionnaires were used in quantitative analyses based on a large data sample. Four studies used observations (Brusca-Vega, Alexander, and Kamin 2014; Brownell et al 2006;Greenwood et al 2003;Thomas et al 2012).…”

“…Four categories were identified in the analysis of definitions used (Appendix 1). The first and largest category (n = 12 or 57% of the articles) was based on a definition of inclusion as the right for all students to be taught in the same classroom, regardless of the conditions (Brusca-Vega, Alexander, and Kamin 2014; Juma, Lehtomäki, and Naukkarinen 2017; Carrington, Deppeler, and Moss 2010;Brownell et al 2006;Leko et al 2015;Kennedy and Shiel 2010;Dynak, Whitten, and Dynak 1997;Wesson, Voltz, and Ridley 1994;Paul, Duchnowski, and Danforth 1993;Ho et al 2018;Faraclas 2018;Thomas et al 2012).…”

“…In total, the 21 articles represent 15 different theoretical perspectives, including two studies identified using two perspectives (Paul, Duchnowski, and Danforth 1993;Ho et al 2018). Most of the studies were based on a framework within a cultural historical perspective with 7 (33%) of the articles identified in this field (Chan and Lo 2017;Kempen and Steyn 2016;Juma, Lehtomäki, and Naukkarinen 2017;Ho and Arthur-Kelly 2013;Leko et al 2015;Simpson et al 2016;Paul, Duchnowski, and Danforth 1993).…”

“…The second largest focus in the studies was constructivism, including active learning (Kennedy and Shiel 2010;Faraclas 2018;Thomas et al 2012). Action research was used in two studies (Brusca-Vega, Alexander, and Kamin 2014;Ho et al 2018), which also applies to the universal design for learning (UDL) framework (Katz 2015;Thomas et al 2012).…”

“…Single articles that used the following frameworks were identified: critical social theory (Carrington, Deppeler, and Moss 2010), CBM (Greenwood et al 2003), equity framework (Nevárez-La Torre and Sanford-De Shields 1999), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Kennedy and Shiel 2010), phonological awareness (Bos et al 1999), pragmatism (Dynak, Whitten, and Dynak 1997), science of professional development (Brownell et al 2006), the model of change (Wesson, Voltz, and Ridley 1994), theory of mind (Ho et al 2018) and RTI (Rinaldi, Averill, and Stuart 2011).…”