The Australian Curriculum provides teachers, parents, students, and the community with resources and clear instructions for what all Australian students should be taught, regardless of their geographic location or educational setting (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority; https://www.acara.edu.au/). To enable teachers to provide students on the autism spectrum in mainstream settings with an inclusive education, timely access to evidence-based resources and relevant support is essential. In this study, we investigated professional development (PD) delivery options of a model of practice (MoP) in a range of educational settings. The MoP is an evidence-based educational resource containing universally designed practice briefs that detail strategies and resources for supporting teachers to make informed choices on educational adjustments and implementation sequences (Falconer, Finlay, & Fincher, Reference Falconer, Finlay and Fincher2011; Falconer & Littlejohn, Reference Falconer, Littlejohn, Lockyer, Bennett, Agostinho and Harper2009).
Inclusive educational settings offer equal learning opportunities for all students (Armstrong & Armstrong, Reference Armstrong, Armstrong, Schuelka, Johnstone, Thomas and Artiles2019). Inclusive teaching practices provide students on the autism spectrum with individualised support that respects their learning style (Carrington et al., Reference Carrington, Saggers, Adie, Zhu, Gu, Hu and Mu2015) through the use of tailored adjustments, such as different technology delivery (Stone, Mills, & Saggers, Reference Stone, Mills and Saggers2019). Educators, parents, and allied health practitioner collaborations can support the provision of relevant and sustainable classroom adjustment options (Roberts et al., Reference Roberts, Adams, Heussler, Keen, Paynter, Trembath and Williams2018; Saggers et al., Reference Saggers, Tones, Dunne, Trembath, Bruck, Webster and Wang2019). However, accommodating these adjustments for students on the autism spectrum is reported to be a challenge (Roberts & Simpson, Reference Roberts and Simpson2016; Soto-Chodiman, Pooley, Cohen, & Taylor, Reference Soto-Chodiman, Pooley, Cohen and Taylor2012).
Background
Roberts and Simpson (Reference Roberts and Simpson2016) conducted a comprehensive literature search of peer-reviewed journal articles on the inclusion of students on the autism spectrum and found that school education and specialist staff including allied health professionals and psychologists reported a limited understanding of autism, were often unable to access relevant resources, and were unsure of how to individualise academic adjustments for students on the autism spectrum. Reports from students and their parents have detailed the barriers they encounter accessing inclusive learning settings (Saggers et al., Reference Saggers, Klug, Harper-Hill, Ashburner, Costley, Clark and Carrington2018). A need for accessible, autism-focused resources on curriculum adjustments and differentiation, regulating emotions and behaviours, identifying, and appropriately supporting sensory and communication requirements, and preparing students for a range of transitions through their school life has been identified (Saggers et al., Reference Saggers, Klug, Harper-Hill, Ashburner, Costley, Clark and Carrington2018).
Mainstream teachers of students on the autism spectrum are reported to be concerned about their limited understanding of the needs of the child or the family, and parents of students on the autism spectrum recognise the need for autism-specific training for teachers and call for appropriate PD (Roberts & Simpson, Reference Roberts and Simpson2016; Saggers et al., Reference Saggers, Klug, Harper-Hill, Ashburner, Costley, Clark and Carrington2018). PD can support teachers to understand autism and increase their confidence when introducing educational adjustments and engaging with parents (Murray, Munger, Colwell, & Claussen, Reference Murray, Munger, Colwell and Claussen2018). However, accessing PD opportunities and appropriate resources can be challenging for geographically isolated teachers (Johnsson, Lincoln, Bundy, & Costley, Reference Johnsson, Lincoln, Bundy and Costley2016). Online technologies have the potential to provide PD and support for teachers living in regional areas (Johnsson, Kerslake, & Crook, Reference Johnsson, Kerslake and Crook2019; Kovalchuck & Vorotnykova, Reference Kovalchuck and Vorotnykova2017) as they can reduce travel time and costs, when robust internet services are available (Ashburner, Vickerstaff, Beetge, & Copley, Reference Ashburner, Vickerstaff, Beetge and Copley2016).
Confident teachers are more likely to provide a positive learning environment and improve education outcomes of students on the autism spectrum (Love, Findley, Ruble, & McGrew, Reference Love, Findley, Ruble and McGrew2020; Oakes et al., Reference Oakes, Schellman, Lane, Common, Powers, Diebold and Gaskill2018). A teacher’s self-efficacy, their confidence in their skills and knowledge to impact student outcomes, can influence their choice of teaching strategies (Bandura, Freeman, & Lightsey, Reference Bandura, Freeman and Lightsey1999; Ruble, Usher, & McGrew, Reference Ruble, Usher and McGrew2011). However, acquiring knowledge is not a linear process.
Social cognitive theory (Wood & Bandura, Reference Wood and Bandura1989) illustrates a teacher’s perception of their ability to teach, and it is influenced by external factors, such as school policies and legislative requirements. These influences can affect the teacher’s motivation and efficacy (Anglim, Prendeville, & Kinsella, Reference Anglim, Prendeville and Kinsella2018). Improving teaching practices requires the accumulation of knowledge and experience over time. This accumulation of learned experiences is explained in the learning curve theory (Argote, Reference Argote1996) by a dynamic process whereby knowledge is gained in varying rates in response to the environment. Morrison (Reference Morrison2008) explains that new skills can lead to improved practice; however, without ongoing support, these achievements can be difficult to maintain. When support is available, and learnings are monitored for effectiveness, skills can be consolidated through a continuous improvement cycle (Cornelius, Rosenberg, & Sandmel, Reference Cornelius, Rosenberg and Sandmel2020; Zangwill & Kantor, Reference Zangwill and Kantor1998).
Description of the study
The study was conducted in two parts: Part 1 of the study evaluated the Middle Years MoP resources with Year 7 and Year 8 mainstream school teachers with three PD delivery options. The findings from Part 1 of the study informed Part 2. Part 2 trialled a hybrid delivery of the MoP with teachers in regional schools (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Stages of the Study.
In 2018, a multistage study was undertaken in Australia to develop and trial the Early Years (EY) – MoP for kindergarten/Year 1 (aged 5–7 years) and the Middle Years (MY) – MoP for Year 7/Year 8 (aged 11–13 years). Each MoP contains education practice briefs that describe evidence-based strategies and resources for implementing support for students on the autism spectrum. The Stage 1 development of the MY-MoP is described in detail elsewhere (Taylor, Beamish, Tucker, Paynter, & Walker, Reference Taylor, Beamish, Tucker, Paynter and Walker2021).
Stage 2 of the study evaluated the trial of the MoP. This paper outlines the trial of the MY-MoP and is referred to as Part 1. The EY-MoP trial is reported by Beamish and colleagues (Reference Beamish, Macdonald, Hay, Taylor, Paynter and Tucker2020). In Part 2 of the study, a hybrid delivery of the MoP (EY and MY) was trialled in regional schools.
PART 1
The MY-MoP developed in the first stage of this project (Costley, Bruck, Robinson, & Gallagher, under review) is a validated, autism-specific collection of evidence-based strategies and resources for teachers of students on the autism spectrum. Details of the process of content validity (Polit, Beck, & Owen, Reference Polit, Beck and Owen2007) and social validity (Wolery & Bredekamp, Reference Wolery and Bredekamp1994) are outlined in a previous article (Costley et al., under review).
The 3Rs framework was chosen as a way of organising the MY-MoP teaching practices (Test, Smith, & Carter, Reference Test, Smith and Carter2014). The 3Rs framework promotes rigorous learning opportunities, encourages the delivery of relevant lessons pertinent for post-school life, and inspires students to engage in relationships with key members of their school and community by encouraging connectedness, often through special interests (Carter, Draper, McNaughton, & Beukelman, Reference Carter, Draper, McNaughton, Beukelman, McNaughton and Beukelman2010; Test et al., Reference Test, Smith and Carter2014).
Coaching
PD ensures that teacher practices are relevant, but the new knowledge in isolation is unlikely to sustainably change the educational practices (Bradshaw, Pellicano, van Driel, & Urbanowicz, Reference Bradshaw, Pellicano, van Driel and Urbanowicz2019). Access to expert mentors who address the challenges facing teachers can improve the competency and capability of teachers (Cornelius et al., Reference Cornelius, Rosenberg and Sandmel2020). New online technologies are available that can enable teachers to participate in remote PD options (Kovalchuck & Vorotnykova, Reference Kovalchuck and Vorotnykova2017).
The MY-MoP Briefs
Practice briefs contain validated evidence-based strategies and resources (Costley et al., under review). The MY-MoP comprises 36 practice briefs (see Table 1) that are mainstream class focused and include instructions for single-step classroom adjustments under the 3Rs framework: rigour (13), relevance (12), and relationships (11; see example in the Appendix). Each practice brief contains a description of the practice, how it helps the student, how the practice works, instructions on implementation, downloadable resources, and links to relevant information.
Table 1. Practice Brief Titles
This aim of the study was to trial the MY-MoP in mainstream schools using face-to-face support, online support, and website access only across metropolitan, regional, and remote schools, and answer the following research questions:
-
1. Did access to the MY-MoP improve teachers’ confidence in relation to teaching students on the autism spectrum?
-
2. Did the participating educator’s perceived knowledge in relation to teaching students on the autism spectrum improve after using the MY-MoP?
-
3. Is there a relationship between the implementation condition (face-to-face support, online support, website only) and changes in knowledge and confidence?
-
4. Which practices are most frequently utilised by teachers?
-
5. What are teacher perceptions of the MY-MoP?
Ethics approval was granted through Griffith University’s Human Research Ethics Committee (2016/851).
Recruitment
School principals of mainstream government, Catholic, and independent secondary schools (Year 7–Year 12) in Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria were invited by email to participate in the study. School principals who agreed to participate were emailed participant information packs, and they promoted the study to Year 7 and Year 8 teachers through the regular school communication lines such as weekly staff newsletters. To be eligible to participate, teachers needed a student with a formal diagnosis of autism spectrum in their class and to have a minimum of 6 months classroom teaching experience. Participating principals and teachers emailed signed informed consent forms to the recruitment officer.
Schools that had more than one teacher participating in the study nominated one teacher to be the autism instructional leader (AIL). The AIL was necessary in Year 7/Year 8 classes, as students usually have more than one teacher across different subject areas. The AIL delivered the MY-MoP training to all participating teachers to ensure there was consistent implementation of the practices between subject teachers. AILs received support and training in the use of the MY-MoP from a trained coach.
Coaches
Nine speech pathology, occupational therapy, psychology, or education professionals from Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect) and Autism Queensland who had a minimum of 5 years of experience in their discipline working with individuals on the autism spectrum accepted an invitation (15 invited) to train as a coach and then to deliver PD and support teachers in this study.
Coaches attended two 2-day coaching workshops. The coaching sessions provided the coaches with skills for delivering the PD on implementing the practices in the MY-MoP and an online training session with the project team to (a) familiarise them with each of the practices within the MY-MoP and its respective content and (b) introduce guidelines for the delivery of support to the AILs.
Procedure
The 8-week school implementation trial of the MY-MoP took place between September and November 2017. Participating teachers and AILs were emailed instructions on accessing the MY-MoP website, a link to introductory videos, and information on the support condition their school had been allocated. AILs conducted the teacher pre-implementation sessions on the MY-MoP.
Project sequence
-
1. Pre-implementation session
-
(a) Introductory video on navigating the MY-MoP website, information on finding relevant information and strategies, and an explanation of each section of the practice brief. The introductory video explained the 3Rs framework of the MY-MoP: rigour, relevance, and relationships (Test et al., Reference Test, Smith and Carter2014).
-
(b) Pre-implementation survey was completed after watching the introductory video and exploring the MY-MoP briefs.
-
-
2. Implementation of the MY-MoP. Schools were randomly allocated into implementation conditions (C; see Table 2), The support sessions covered the website orientation and individualised advice on implementing MY-MoP practice brief strategies and resources in class. Teachers identified practice briefs they planned to use to support the students on the autism spectrum in their classes. All conditions had unlimited access to the MY-MoP website. Once the first support session was completed, the teacher could implement practices required in class. C3 was designed to act as a control group and did not include any support.
Table 2. Conditions
The trial ran for 8 weeks. Teachers implemented the practices from the MY-MoP as required. Participants in C1 and C2 received support (see Table 2) during the trial.
-
3. Post implementation. After 8 weeks, a post-implementation survey was distributed to the AILs and teachers for completion and return.
-
4. At the completion of the project, a $35 Coles-Myer e-Gift voucher was offered as a token of appreciation for project completion (ethics approved).
Materials
The Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, Reference Tschannen-Moran and Hoy2001) is a reliable and valid self-assessment instrument (Likert scale) for measuring teachers’ perceptions of teaching issues faced in the classroom (see Table 3). It was chosen for its ability to measure and compare a broad range of teacher capabilities across numerous subject areas, in high schools and primary schools located in three state jurisdictions with varied availability of teacher supports (Hoy & Spero, Reference Hoy and Spero2005; Zee & Koomen, Reference Zee and Koomen2016). The TSES is effective in measuring task-specific, instructional practices, classroom management, and student engagement (Zee & Koomen, Reference Zee and Koomen2016).
Table 3. Survey Content
The pre-implementation survey covered demographic questions, Likert scale (1–5) on the participant’s perceived knowledge of and confidence in working with students on the autism spectrum, the TSES, and the list of practices the educator planned to use. The post-implementation survey repeated the knowledge and confidence and TSES measures and included a box for comments on the participant’s experience using the MY-MoP. Demographics were not collected.
Results
Thirty teachers (20 teachers, 10 AILs) from nine Australian secondary schools across three states (see Table 4) participated. The participation rate was approximately 10% of the invited schools. Most of the participating schools (70%) were from regional including remote areas as determined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS). Metropolitan schools included cities as determined by the ASGS. More than half of the participating schools (58%) were government-funded schools. Other schools were from the independently funded school sector (32%) and Catholic education sector (10%). Six of the nine schools were in regional locations. Twenty-nine percent of teachers were aged under 30 years and 32% between 40–49 years (see Table 5).
Table 4. School Location
Table 5. Age of Participating Teachers
Thirty participants completed the pre-implementation survey and 15 completed the post-implementation survey across the seven schools (see Table 6). The substantial attrition is discussed in the limitations section of the article; however, it is worth noting here that the teachers reported they lacked the necessary time to commit to the study, and, as a result, the three experimental conditions were collapsed for analysis, thereby losing the ability to compare conditions against a control group (website only). Relationships between the implementation condition (face-to-face support, online support, website only) and changes in knowledge and confidence were also unable to be investigated.
Table 6. Recruitment
a All recruited participants completed. bSchool withdrew.
Two schools out of the four recruited in the face-to-face condition withdrew prior to the post-implementation survey. All participants in one school in the face-to-face condition and one school in the MY-MoP web access only condition completed both surveys. Six AIL and nine teachers completed the surveys.
The difference between the pre-implementation and post-implementation survey sample size meant that there was insufficient power in the sample to conduct a t-test. A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test is a nonparametric analysis and is a valid and reliable alternative to compare a pre-implementation with a post-implementation matched-pair measure. The general assumption that the data is a random sample was met (Pallant, Reference Pallant2013).
A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test indicated a statistically significant change in perceived knowledge of autism following implementation of the trial. Reported confidence also demonstrated a significant change at the post-implementation survey compared to the pre-implementation survey (see Table 7).
Table 7. Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test for Knowledge and Confidence Surveys
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank tests indicated no significant changes in any of the TSES (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, Reference Tschannen-Moran and Hoy2001) statements between the pre-implementation and post-implementation surveys. The 12-item TSES scale was used as it measures the underlying construct of efficacy. The total score is an appropriate gauge of efficacy. Subscale scores were not universally relevant to the range of teacher experiences, settings, and responsibilities so were not used (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, Reference Tschannen-Moran and Hoy2001).
The frequency of the implementation of each practice by the teachers was tabulated. Six teachers implemented instructional sequences, task analysis, and organised classroom. Four teachers implemented student organisational supports, and sensory needs. Three teachers implemented parent communication, homework, classroom rules, and reinforcing appropriate behaviour.
Participants were asked to comment on their experience of using the MY-MoP. Positive and negative aspects of the project identified by participating teachers are outlined in Table 8 and Table 9.
Table 8. Positive Aspects of the MY-MOP
Table 9. Difficulties Participating in the MY-MOP Study
PART 2
Rationale
Part 1 findings were based on a small sample of teachers’ responses that indicated that expert mentorship either online or face to face could encourage teachers to access resources and implement relevant and appropriate inclusive practices. To investigate these findings, a further study was conducted with teachers who were naïve to the MoP.
Part 1 findings suggested that teachers in regional schools were looking for support as 70% of the schools recruited were from these locations. To address this need, a hybrid approach that combined individualised face-to-face and online support plus access to the web-based MY-MoP was developed.
Recruitment
Invitation to participate was advertised through the Aspect Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn pages. Regional schools that had not participated in Part 1 of the study that had an enrolled student with an autism diagnosis were eligible to participate.
Six teachers participated from six New South Wales schools, even though the study was open to other state jurisdictions. Griffith University’s Human Research Ethics Committee approved the research (GU HREC 2019/154). Ethics approval was also granted by the NSW Department of Education (SERAP 2019/121 DOC 19/251902). The Catholic Diocese of Wilcannia-Forbes granted ethics approval in their region. Signed inform consent was received from each participating school principal and teacher. Ethics approval was granted by the school principal for the independent school.
Participants
Teachers from five regional and one remote school participated. Most of the teachers had 1 to 5 years teaching experience and two reported over 15 years. Three teachers taught kindergarten–Year 1 (K/Y1; 5–7 years), one teacher taught Year 7–Year 8 (12–14 years), and two teachers taught special support classes (5–7 years).
Materials
The MY-MoP Part 1 of the study was used for the senior school. The junior school used the K/Y1 EY-MoP, a comparable online resource, which has been reported elsewhere as part of the larger study (Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Beamish, Tucker, Paynter and Walker2021).
Personnel
One expert autism educator conducted all the face-to-face, online, and the autism awareness sessions. The project research assistant conducted the post-study interview.
Procedure
The hybrid approach consisted of:
-
1. 1-hour introductory webinar — individualised training with the expert autism educator on implementing the practice strategies and using the resources of the age-appropriate MoP.
-
2. practice briefs selected — teachers identify most relevant practices for their student.
-
3. one 2-hour face-to-face session — mentoring and monitoring with the expert autism educator.
-
4. two 1-hour online mentoring and monitoring session with the expert autism educator.
After the webinar, the teachers were asked to choose individual practices from the MoP. In the following week, the expert autism educator visited the school and conducted the face-to-face session. The teachers then had one school term (approximately 10 weeks) to use the MoP. During this time, the expert autism educator conducted the 1-hour online session at a time that suited the teacher. These mentoring sessions provided an opportunity for the expert autism educator to monitor the progress of the implementation of the practices and provide support for any challenges the teacher was experiencing.
Interview
Semistructured interviews were conducted by teleconference prior to teachers implementing practices in their classroom. The interviews consisted of the following questions:
-
1. Was the information provided in the practice briefs useful/practical? Do you have any suggestions about how the practice briefs could be improved?
-
2. Did you end up implementing any of the information from the practice briefs in the classroom? If yes, tell me about that; if no, tell me about that.
-
3. Were there any issues around your online professional development support sessions (e.g., any technology issues, difficulty getting release time)?
-
4. Do you have any suggestions about how these sessions could be run more effectively?
-
5. How did you find the face-to-face sessions? Were there any difficulties with attending these sessions or the way the sessions were conducted? Could they have been improved in any way?
-
6. How important were these face-to-face sessions for you? Do you think you could have implemented the practice briefs with online support only?
-
7. Overall, what were you hoping to get from the professional development support sessions? Was this delivered?
-
8. Would you recommend the website to another teacher? Why or why not?
-
9. Do you think the support is necessary to be able to implement the practice briefs? What about face to face? Is that necessary or is online sufficient?
As an acknowledgement of participation, the entire school teaching staff were invited to attend an onsite, ethics approved, 2-hour post-research autism awareness session conducted by the expert autism educator. This session was conducted after the research data collection was completed.
Results
Semistructured interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interview transcripts were then manually coded through an iterative process using codes collaboratively identified by the project research assistant and a researcher who was not involved in this project.
Deductive coding was established for three distinct categories: (a) the information available in the practice briefs, (b) the consultation process, and (c) the overall combined experience. These categories were predetermined to match the research questions. The subcodes within each category were then determined through identifying emerging themes using an inductive process (Thomas, Reference Thomas2006).
Three themes emerged from the interview data:
-
1. Hybrid delivery promotes the implementation of evidence-based strategies. The individualised hybrid delivery was described as a relevant and accessible method of support, PD, and resources. The anytime, anywhere access to the MoP was extremely useful for finding evidence-based strategies for the student on the autism spectrum as well as for the whole class when it was needed.
-
2. Expert autism educator motivated the teachers and enabled access to the MoP. Individualised support provided the opportunity to ‘bounce ideas’ and tailor the strategies in the MoP to the student’s needs.
-
3. Online follow-up sessions support and motivate teachers. Regional teachers reported that the follow-up sessions were motivating and supported consolidation of their understanding and the implementation of the MoP practice strategies and resources.
Discussion
Teachers report that access to evidence-based autism-specific PD and resources is often limited (Saggers et al., Reference Saggers, Klug, Harper-Hill, Ashburner, Costley, Clark and Carrington2018). This two-part study addressed the challenge of accessing relevant educational support by availing teachers with unlimited access to the MoP. The teachers reported that evidence-based strategies and practical resources contained in the MoP were easy to read and relevant for supporting teachers to have the confidence and the knowledge to implement the educational adjustments required for an inclusive educational setting for students on the autism spectrum (Armstrong & Armstrong, Reference Armstrong, Armstrong, Schuelka, Johnstone, Thomas and Artiles2019; Falconer et al., Reference Falconer, Finlay and Fincher2011; Falconer & Littlejohn, Reference Falconer, Littlejohn, Lockyer, Bennett, Agostinho and Harper2009). The introduction of a hybrid delivery option of the MoP that included face-to-face and online mentoring and monitoring of the teacher’s progress was reported to be a motivator for implementing inclusive educational adjustments and strategies and a practical PD option.
Part 1 of the study indicated that teachers who implemented the MY-MoP strategies reported that it is a well-organised, easy-to-read resource that provided relevant advice for teachers working with students on the autism spectrum. The MY-MoP was described by the teachers as a comprehensive and accessible resource. The comments from the post-implementation survey suggested that there was greater interest in learning about autism and more focus on inclusive learning when support and mentoring are available. These results support previous research that suggests that teachers are more competent in supporting students after participation in PD programs (Oakes et al., Reference Oakes, Schellman, Lane, Common, Powers, Diebold and Gaskill2018).
Teacher self-efficacy, or self-confidence in their ability to teach, can influence the choice of strategies that the teacher implements in a classroom (Bandura et al., Reference Bandura, Freeman and Lightsey1999; Love et al., Reference Love, Findley, Ruble and McGrew2020; Ruble et al., Reference Ruble, Usher and McGrew2011). In Part 1 of this study, after 8 weeks of access to the MY-MoP and implementing the evidence-based strategies, there was a significant but negative change in the knowledge and confidence reported, and there was no change in the self-efficacy of the teachers. These results are incongruent with other studies (Love et al., Reference Love, Findley, Ruble and McGrew2020; Ruble et al., Reference Ruble, Usher and McGrew2011) but consistent with the K/Y1 EY-MoP study (Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Beamish, Tucker, Paynter and Walker2021).
The change in knowledge and confidence can be interpreted through the learning curve theory that states that the accumulation of experiences leads to improved performance (Argote, Reference Argote1996). The lower mean in the post-implementation survey suggests a phenomenon known as the ‘model of learning by doing under constraints’ (Morrison, Reference Morrison2008, p. 1183) where learning happens through the accumulation of experience. In the trial of the MoP, the limited time available to implement it appears to have been too short for teachers to accumulate sufficient experience (Argote, Reference Argote1996; Wood & Bandura, Reference Wood and Bandura1989) to realise the improvements in their knowledge and confidence in teaching students on the autism spectrum. By asking the teachers to reflect on their efficacy to deliver instructional practices, classroom management, and student engagement, we propose that the teachers became aware of gaps in their knowledge and therefore reported lower confidence in their abilities (Anglim et al., Reference Anglim, Prendeville and Kinsella2018; Cornelius et al., Reference Cornelius, Rosenberg and Sandmel2020; Morrison, Reference Morrison2008; Waterworth, Reference Waterworth2000; Zangwill & Kantor, Reference Zangwill and Kantor1998).
Furthermore, although expert autism educator support was offered in two conditions, the time constraints meant that the mentoring and monitoring, as part of the continuous improvement cycle, was unavailable. By missing this fundamental support along the learning curve, opportunities to be mentored on the implementation of the strategies were lost (Zangwill & Kantor, Reference Zangwill and Kantor1998). It is also feasible that the teachers who volunteered to participate had reasonable confidence in their knowledge of autism and that the TSES questions had limited relevance to them. A more relevant measure may better identify interactions between the variables of this study.
Despite the quantitative findings, the qualitative data provided a more positive report. The post-implementation survey comments that indicated that the MY-MoP is relevant and easy to use informed the development of Part 2 of the study. The focus of Part 2 was to develop accessible PD that would support regional school teachers (Saggers et al., Reference Saggers, Klug, Harper-Hill, Ashburner, Costley, Clark and Carrington2018). A hybrid delivery of the MoP offering unrestricted web-based MoP access, limited face-to-face and online expert autism educator mentoring and monitoring was trialled.
Teachers from geographically isolated schools, especially early career teachers with limited experience or training working with students on the autism spectrum, reported that the MoP is a useful toolbox of practices that is accessible when they need it and a useful option for PD. The teachers in regional locations stated that the expert autism educator support motivated them to investigate strategies from the MoP and implement them. The feedback suggests that the process of reflection, mentoring, and monitoring of practice implementation from the expert autism educator (Morrison, Reference Morrison2008) can initiate and sustain interest in learning new strategies. Currently, teacher education courses generally include limited autism-specific content, and this may explain the finding that fundamental practices such as instructional sequences, task analysis, and organised classroom were the most frequently utilised practices from the MY-MoP.
This hybrid delivery of PD appears to be a model worthy of further investigation as a method of improving teacher self-efficacy (Morrison, Reference Morrison2008; Waterworth, Reference Waterworth2000; Zangwill & Kantor, Reference Zangwill and Kantor1998) and empowering them to make educational adjustments to support the student’s learning style (Carrington et al., Reference Carrington, Saggers, Adie, Zhu, Gu, Hu and Mu2015). As one teacher stated, ‘It [the MY-MoP] allows the teacher to reflect on their own practices to ensure they cater for all students’. Moreover, having the MY-MoP located on a website that was available at anytime and anywhere was extremely valuable to the teachers, and was especially important to the teachers in regional schools who often find difficulty in accessing autism-specific resources and attending relevant PD (Saggers et al., Reference Saggers, Klug, Harper-Hill, Ashburner, Costley, Clark and Carrington2018). Another teacher commented, ‘[The MY-MoP is] a great PD exercise that is scaffolded for your personal use through your own goal setting if you do it correctly. A wonderful reflection tool for your own practices’.
PD and autism-specific support is already successfully delivered to remote communities by therapists using technology (Johnsson et al., Reference Johnsson, Kerslake and Crook2019; Johnsson et al., Reference Johnsson, Lincoln, Bundy and Costley2016). The hybrid delivery of technology-based, expert-supported PD may offer an option in the toolbox of teachers of students on the autism spectrum, especially for teachers who are geographically isolated. The findings are relevant to policymakers, as it presents evidence that teachers in all educational settings and especially regional schools, who often have limited access to PD, can benefit from a delivery of technology-based individualised mentoring, monitoring, and accessible evidence-based resources.
Limitations
There are several limitations in this study. After the Part 1 pre-implementation survey was conducted, 15 of the participants withdrew from the study citing a lack of time to investigate the MY-MoP and to implement the practices. It is possible that the remaining participants represented those teachers with the greatest need for access to evidence-based strategies and resources, and this could be a result of the higher number of regional schools that volunteered to participate in the study.
Notwithstanding that the conclusions about the confidence and knowledge were based on a single-item analysis, the feedback from the teachers in regional schools in Part 2 of the study supported the view that given additional time to use the MoP significant self-efficacy scores would be more likely. Subsequent research would benefit from considering a validated measure such as the TPACK that uses a Likert scale to capture a more detailed picture of the changes in perceived knowledge and confidence (Archambault & Barnett, Reference Archambault and Barnett2010; Dong, Chai, Sang, Koh, & Tsai, Reference Dong, Chai, Sang, Koh and Tsai2015; Pamuk, Reference Pamuk2012), with a larger cohort of teachers.
Personalised expert autism support was highly valued by the teachers who received mentoring from the coaches and viewed it as PD, as one teacher stated, ‘Face-to-face dialogue is the most effective way to learn and be guided’. The coaching of the autism experts in Part 1 of the study was intended to standardise the delivery and fidelity of the mentoring of the teachers; however, due to the limited time teachers were able to set aside, mentoring did not occur in all schools. In Part 2, fidelity of the mentoring was resolved as one expert autism specialist conducted all the teacher mentoring.
A constant barrier for the teachers was the lack of understanding by the school that teachers need school support to allocate time in their schedule to participate in the study. The additional time to read the information pack, watch the introductory video, become familiar with the content of the MY-MoP and complete the surveys, and meet with the expert educator and AIL (as required) was often not factored into the school’s understanding of the participation commitment. Compounding the time constraints was the issue of the project running the trial late in the school year when teachers were busy with end-of-year school commitments, which resulted in a significant number of participants failing to complete the post-implementation survey.
Conclusion
Bridging the gap from the research findings to a relevant and accessible resource has been achieved. The MoP contains accessible strategies and resources for inclusive learning practices that are relevant for teachers of students on the autism spectrum in mainstream schools. It can offer teachers, and in particular, isolated educators, a way of accessing PD whenever it is needed.
The MoP is available with the support of the Australian Government through the Autism Cooperative Research Centre (https://www.inclusioned.edu.au/search/all/mop).
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Cooperative Research Centre for Living with Autism (Autism CRC), established and supported under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program. The authors acknowledge all the members of the MY-MoP Team for their patience and support during the project. The authors gratefully acknowledge the important role of the school principals, teachers, and therapists who set aside the time to participate in this study.
APPENDIX. Practice Brief: Rigour 12: Visual Instructional Supports
