04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Learning About Neurodiversity at School (LEANS): A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a New Programme to Facilitate Acceptance and Inclusive Actions
Alyssa Alcorn1, Sarah McGeown2, Dinah Aitken3, Fergus Murray4, William Mandy5, Sue Fletcher-Watson1
1Salvesen Mindroom Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom; 2Moray House School of Education and Sport, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom; 3Salvesen Mindroom Centre, Edinburgh, United Kingdom; 4Autistic Mutual Aid Society Edinburgh (AMASE); 5Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Alcorn, Alyssa
Neurodiversity means that we are all different in how we think, feel, and learn, because our brains process information differently. This paradigm provides a positive framework for talking about diagnosed conditions and other differences that impact learning, and for celebrating differences while still recognising needs [1]. It rejects categorisation of some needs as being “extra” or “special”, instead drawing attention to all people having cognitive, social, sensory, and support needs, which may be met to different degrees in a given environment--such as a classroom.
While neurodiversity is receiving increased attention in educational research and practice, it is starting from a low baseline of awareness. Training and classroom activities related to individual diagnoses or learning needs are still more common. It is extremely rare for neurodiversity to explicitly feature in curricula or policy, or to be included within broader conceptualisations of diversity or disability. Even where teachers or educational leaders wish to teach about this paradigm, there is an almost total lack of positive, age-appropriate educational materials.
The LEANS project (2020-2022) developed the first English-language programme to introduce neurodiversity and neurodivergence to children aged 8-11, focusing on UK and Irish mainstream primary school contexts (i.e. school provision not specialised for children with disabilities). It aims to increase pupil and teacher understanding of how differences in cognition, interaction, and sensory processing impact everyone’s school experiences, and to promote inclusive actions and attitudes. Unlike psychoeducation programmes focusing on neurodivergent children only [2] or teacher training about specific diagnoses, LEANS is not an intervention for perceived problems or deficits, but upskills all pupils and staff members through whole-class work focused on understanding and acceptance. It stresses that every classroom will be neurodiverse.
The LEANS programme was iteratively developed by a neurodiverse team of researchers (n=7) and a participatory design team of experienced educators with professional and lived experience of neurodiversity (n=8). LEANS was explicitly funded as a participatory project, and did not pre-commit to key definitions, factual content, or resource format/structure of the resources. The group developed these over multiple design and reflection cycles, in addition to completing more detailed planning around specific activities and delivery guidance for teachers [publication in preparation]. The final LEANS resource consists of 7 topics: introducing neurodiversity, classroom experiences, communication, needs and wants, fairness, friendship, and reflecting on our actions. It uses a mixture of hands-on activities, discussions, and storytelling about a neurodiverse class.
LEANS was evaluated in primary schools using mixed methods, as detailed in the methodology and conclusions/findings sections below.
An updated LEANS, incorporating pupil and teacher evaluation feedback, was publicly released June 2022 [3], with 4,300+ downloads worldwide across the following 11 months. Follow-up data collection is ongoing to systematically measure LEANS adoption and delivery during the 2022-23 school year, though educators have been anecdotally reporting adoption via social media and e-mail.
Given the practical relevance of the neurodiversity paradigm and general lack of resources (across languages), we propose that the methodologies of the LEANS project are a valuable proof-of-concept and template for other neurodiverse groups who wish to collaboratively develop teaching materials for their local contexts. In addition to a forthcoming design publication, we plan to release our design process materials as a free OSF project, to better enable use of LEANS-as-template. Alternately, the existing LEANS content could be licensed, translated and adapted into other languages. A Flemish-language translation is already in progress (projected release 2023).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedLEANS was evaluated using a mixed methods study. Its objectives were to assess the feasibility, acceptability, safety, and impacts of using teacher-led programme delivery in a real classroom.
The study included in four mainstream primary schools in mainland Scotland between August-December 2021 (two small rural schools, two larger urban schools). Eight P5-P7 classes across four schools opted into participation. Over 6-12 weeks, teachers delivered the 7 topics to their whole class, using stories and hands-on activities and administering the baseline and outcome measures. Due to Covid-19 disruption and absences, delivery timelines varied across classes. Parents were able to opt in to the evaluation study, which meant sharing their child’s measures with the researchers, providing demographic information, and completing a Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ [4]).
To evaluate the impacts of LEANS, we used bespoke, age-appropriate measures of knowledge of neurodiversity concepts, attitudes, and intended actions in the school context. Quantitative analyses and measures were pre-registered [5]. At baseline and outcome, children completed the Attitudes and Actions Questionnaire (AAQ), containing items about perceptions of or intended actions in school situations (e.g. “The person sitting next to you is having a really hard time doing a lesson. They look like they need some help. What do you think is the best thing to do?” followed by five response options). Children completed the Neurodiversity Knowledge Questionnaire (NDKQ) at outcome only, as topic and vocabulary knowledge was expected to be negligible at baseline.
Qualitative data collection focused primarily on feasibility and safety objectives, and eliciting concrete points for resource revision. Data included free-response quiz questions at post-test, asking children to share what they had learned or to share any feedback “for the people who made LEANS”, Teacher feedback was in the form of unit-by-unit diaries, reporting on the delivery experience, time estimates, and any perceived problems or positive impacts.. We also interviewed a selection of children after completion of LEANS, focusing on neurodivergent children (per parent report).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOne class withdrew prior to outcome measures, citing time pressure. In total, 139 children participated in LEANS, of which 62 had parent consent for participation in the evaluation (female=36, mean age 9.84 years). Of these, 17.74% of children had additional support for learning needs (parent-reported), including diagnoses such as ADHD, or undiagnosed but suspected challenges.
Missing scores were imputed from classmates’ scores. The percentage of children who identified the correct definition of neurodiversity increased from 17.7% at baseline (below chance) to 59.7% at outcome. Furthermore, more children endorsed actions or interpretations that aligned with the inclusive values of LEANS (per AAQ scores from baseline to outcome, p < .001). Children’s neurodiversity knowledge at outcome (per NDKQ) was significantly above chance (p < .001). There were no significant correlations between parent-reported difficulties on the SDQ and change scores, suggesting that all children similarly benefitted from LEANS, regardless of reported learning needs.
Qualitative data suggested that the resource was both acceptable and frequently enjoyed, and led to concrete, useful insights for some pupils, for example that it can be “fair” if classmates receive differential treatment due to differing support needs. We found no evidence harms across any data collected, or school communications.
These results are highly encouraging, especially given the disruption of Covid-19 during the evaluation period. Based on post-test scores and qualitative data, LEANS appears to be a successful tool for introducing neurodiversity concepts in primary schools, offering a basis for ongoing classroom discussion and facilitating longer-term change.
References[1] Milton, D., Ridout, S., Murray, D., Martin, N., & Mills, R., eds. (2020) The Neurodiversity Reader: exploring concepts, lived experiences and implications for practice. Pavilion, Hove, UK
[2] Gordon, K., Murin, M., Baykaner, O., Roughan, L., Livermore‐Hardy, V., Skuse, D., & Mandy, W. (2015). A randomised controlled trial of PEGASUS, a psychoeducational programme for young people with high‐functioning autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(4), 468-476.
[3] Alcorn, A.M., Fletcher-Watson, S., McGeown, S., Murray, F., Aitken, D., Peacock, L.J.J., & Mandy, W. (2022). Learning About Neurodiversity at School: A resource pack for primary school teachers and pupils. University of Edinburgh. https://salvesen-research.ed.ac.uk/leans
[4] Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 38(5), 581-586.
[5] Alcorn, A. M., McGeown, S. P., Mandy, W., & Fletcher-Watson, S. (2021, October 6). Learning About Neurodiversity at School (LEANS): Evaluation of the LEANS resource pack in mainstream primary schools. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/38JRH
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Learning Lessons from Autistic Teachers in Poland and the UK
Rebecca Wood1, Anna Gagat-Matula2, Kristen Bottema-Beutel3, Rabaha Arshad1
1University of Glasgow, United Kingdom; 2Pedagogical University of Krakow, Poland; 3Boston College, Massachusetts, USA
Presenting Author: Wood, Rebecca;
Gagat-Matula, Anna
Abstract
We report research findings from a unique tri-national project whose focus is the experiences, needs and strengths of autistic teachers in Poland, the UK and the US, with important implications for understanding how to facilitate inclusive school environments for both pupils and staff.
While it has long been established that school can be a difficult environment for autistic children and young people, and that their participation, overall inclusion and outcomes can be poor (Speaker 1, 2019), minimal attention has been paid to the perspectives of autistic educators. This is despite the existent research into autistic academics in the UK (Martin, 2020) and internationally (Jones, 2022), teachers with dyslexia in further and higher education settings in Finland and England (Burns and Bell, 2010), and schoolteachers with range of disabilities in the US (Valle et al., 2004), Israel (Tal-Alon and Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2019), Ireland (Keane et al., 2018), Poland (Bogusz, 2019) and countries beyond the global north (Singal and Ware, 2021). Indeed, while the focus of education research in the autism context has been almost uniquely on pupils, studies into autism and employment pay little attention to the school sector and the insights that could be derived from autistic teachers (Speaker 1 et al., 2022).
In this joint presentation with the Polish and UK study leads, we share research findings from in-depth semi-structured interviews with autistic teachers in Poland (n = 10) and the UK (n = 21). We also provide additional insights from the US context in relation to teacher education, and draw out some parallels with the experiences of autistic children and young people in schools.
In summary, we found that in both Poland and the UK, autistic teachers can experience a) severe sensory impacts in the school environment b) communication and social differences and difficulties with colleagues, senior leaders and parents c) a lack of support and understanding from managers d) anxiety about revealing an autism diagnosis at work, particularly if autistic pupils are discussed in a derogatory manner e) difficulties with the training and recruitment processes in the school sector and e) difficulties with change (which intersects with agency). In Poland, particular issues are experienced with a heavy administrative burden, that can constitute a further professional barrier for autistic teachers.
More positively, we found that in Poland, autistic teachers consider they a) have a unique method of working which is more structured than approaches used by their non-autistic colleagues and b) have particular skills in creative activities. We also found that in the UK, autistic teachers consider they can a) communicate well with pupils, especially those who are autistic or otherwise neurodivergent b) sometimes have positive experiences of sharing their autism diagnosis with colleagues, pupils and parents c) be a role-model for autistic pupils and d) facilitate inclusion in school.
We set out some of the unique differences between the national contexts in order to underscore the need for culturally specific understandings in this area. This applies in particular to teacher education, for which there are different systems in Poland, the UK and the US. In addition, we discuss the implications of our findings for autistic children and autistic teachers from Ukraine, given the particular role Poland plays in relation to the current conflict and the direct experiences of Speaker 2 in this area.
We argue that understanding better how to value and support autistic teachers will enable progress to be made in the inclusion of autistic children and young people in schools. We will therefore make specific recommendations for future improvements in this area, drawn from our research.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedDrawn from a qualitative, iterative project, in which one phase of study influences the next, this study is predicated on the understanding that autistic people are the best informants on issues that concern them (Crane et al., 2021), and is guided by principles of disability rights, social justice and inclusion (Della Fina and Cera, 2015). Informed by a neurodiversity and social model of disability framework, our study proceeds on the basis that autism is a natural part of human diversity (Kapp, 2020).
The findings in this paper are drawn from n = 21 participants in the UK and n = 10 participants in the Lubelskie, Podkarpackie, Lesser Poland and Silesian voivodships of Poland. Recruitment in the UK was via an online survey, co-developed with a committee of autistic teachers, which had preceded the current phase of the study, and via an autistic teacher network in Poland. In Poland, the same interview schedule was used as in the UK, translated into Polish. Ethical review was conducted via the Ethical Review Committees of the researchers’ universities. Data collection in the US is ongoing, therefore we share contextual findings only.
In the Polish sample, interviews were conducted remotely via Microsoft Teams (n = 4) or in-person (n = 6) at a specialist autism clinic. There were 3 females and 7 males, all with a clinical diagnosis of autism. Participants had worked in schools from 4 to 17 years, and were between 29 and 54 years old (median age = 34 years). They worked in both mainstream (n = 9) and special schools (n = 1).
In the UK sample, there were n = 11 one-to-one interviews and n = 10 by email, the former conducted by an autistic member of the research team. There were 19 females and 2 males. 17 had received a clinical diagnosis of autism, 1 self-identified as autistic, 3 were seeking or awaiting diagnosis. Participants had been working in schools from 1 to 28 years and ranged in age from 25 to 56 years (median age = 41 years). They worked in mainstream schools (n = 14), special schools (n = 2), both (n = 2) or mainstream schools with an autism or disability base (n = 3).
Data were analysed through thematic analysis (Ryan and Bernard 2003) and the overall analytical method was influenced by “values” coding, apposite for data that reflect participants’ “values, attitudes, and beliefs” (Saldaña, 2016, p.131). Thus, themes were “emic”; those derived from insiders, rather than outsiders.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAutistic people are subject to greater job insecurity and higher rates of unemployment and underemployment than the general population (Maslahati et al., 2021). However, notwithstanding various initiatives to tackle this circumstance, there has been a failure to address the specific nature of school environment as a work setting. Meanwhile, autistic children and young people can have poor experiences in and outcomes from school.
Our study suggests that autistic teachers in Poland and the UK can face multiple barriers across all stages of the lifecycle of a teacher, including training, recruitment and career-progression, as well as job satisfaction and well-being. The issues we describe, which also impact on autistic children in school, can result in exhaustion and burnout, mental health difficulties and multifarious forms of exclusion. As a consequence, autistic teachers might not seek career advancement or step back from senior roles, reduce their working hours, or indeed drop out of the profession altogether (Speaker 1 and x, 2021).
However, our study also suggests that when autistic teachers are suitably supported, their strengths and aptitudes are much more likely to be manifest, which in turn can provide benefits for the whole school community. A key factor is being able to be open about being autistic i.e. it must be safe for autistic teachers to do so.
Addressing the barriers faced by autistic teachers is not only an issue of disability rights, but of supporting diversity, equity and inclusion in schools. Valuable insights within a European context and beyond, which are contextually and culturally specific, can be provided by autistic teachers in how to support a diversity of learners and other marginalised groups, including those who have experienced trauma in Ukraine. Inclusion in school can only succeed if it operates across the whole school community.
ReferencesBogusz, H. (2019) ‘DISABLED or TEACHER? Disabled academic teachers in Poland.’ Disability Quarterly, 4(33), pp. 44-58.
Burns, E. and Bell, S. (2010) ‘Voices of teachers with dyslexia in Finnish and English further and higher educational settings.’ Teachers and Teaching, 16(5), pp: 529-543
Crane, L., Sesterka, A. and den Houting, J. (2021) ‘Inclusion and rigor in qualitative autism research: A response to van Schalkwyk and Dewinter (2020).’ Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51(5), pp: 1802-1804.
Della Fina, V. and Cera, R. (Eds.) (2015) Protecting the rights of people with autism in the fields of education and employment: International, European and national perspectives. Springer Open. Available at: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-13791-9
Jones, S. C. (2022) ‘Autistics working in academia: What are the barriers and facilitators?’ Autism, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221118158
Kapp, S. K. (Ed.) (2020) Autistic community and the neurodiversity movement: Stories from the frontline. Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-981-13-8437-0
Keane, E., Heinz, M. and Eaton, P. (2018) ‘Fit(ness) to teach? Disability and Initial Teacher education in the Republic of Ireland.’ International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(8), pp: 819-838.
Martin, N. (2020) ‘Perspectives on UK University Employment from Autistic Researchers and Lecturers.’ Disability & Society, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1802579
Maslahati, T., Bachmann, C.J., Höfer, J., Kupper, C., Stroth, S., and Wolff, N. et al. (2022) ‘How Do Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder Participate in the Labor Market? A German Multi-center Survey.’ Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52, pp: 1066–1076.
Ryan, G. W. and Bernard, H. R. (2003) ‘Techniques to Identify Themes.’ Field Methods, 15(1), pp: 85–109.
Saldaña, J. (2016) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (Third Edition). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Singal, N. and Ware, H. (2021). English language teachers with disabilities: an exploratory study across four countries. British Council ISBN 978-0-86355-997-6 Available at: https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/BC_English_language_teachers_and_disabilities_Screen_Reading.pdf (Date accessed: Jan 27, 2023)
Tal-Alon, N. and Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2019) ‘Ethical Dilemmas among Teachers with Disabilities: A Multifaceted Approach.’ Teaching and Teacher Education, 86,102881, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102881
Valle, J. W., Solis, S., Volpitta, D. and Connor, D. J. (2004) ‘The Disability Closet: Teachers with Learning Disabilities Evaluate the Risks and Benefits of ‘Coming Out.’, 37(1), pp: 4–17.
(Speaker 1, 2019) xxxxxxxxx
(Speaker 1 and x, 2021) xxxxxxxx
(Speaker 1 et al., 2022) xxxxxxxx
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
School and Autism – A Diagnostic Tool for Barriers in Inclusive Education for Autistic Students
Mark Benecke1, Stephanie Fuhrmann1, Lukas Gerhards2, Vera Moser2, Sabine Schwager3, Michel Knigge3
1White Unicorn Verein zur Entwicklung eines autistenfreundlichen Umfeldes e.V., Germany; 2Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main, Germany; 3Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Germany
Presenting Author: Benecke, Mark;
Gerhards, Lukas
The development of an inclusive environment in schools depends in its core on the identification and reduction of learning barriers . This results in ‘reasonable accomodation’ as UN-CRPD (Art. 24) demands.
According to recent findings in the field of autism research educational success and social participation of autistic students relies on the removal of barriers.
Our presentation will show the development of a diagnostic tool that is capable to highlight the subjective perception and potential individual affectedness by sensory and social barriers of students at school. We will also present statistical findings on the overall perception of barriers in inclusive education for autistic and non-autistic students. (We use the term ‘autistic’ with respect to its self chosen character in accordance to Walker (2015))
We follow a research approach that is based in the neurodiversity concept (Walker 2014). Autisic persons are recognized as a neuro-minority in a society that is adjusted to meet the needs of the neuro-majority (Singer 2022). For this matter we will not regard autism from clinical or pathological perspective. We much rather apply a social model of disability according to UN-CRPD. Consequently, we focus on diagnostics of barriers in the environment rather than of differences in individuals.
Furthermore, it is emphasized that the project originated as a participatory research project (Farin-Glattacker et al. 2014; Unger 2014). The project team consists of autistic and non-autistic researchers with different backgrounds. Thus the project is able to use the self-expertise of autistic scientists for a better understanding of barriers. Because of this collaboration we can benefit from a deeper understanding of the research topic, as barriers affect the everyday lives of the researchers involved in the project. Autistic expertise is used in all phases of the project, from planning, impelentation, up to publication.
For autistic persons around the world various barriers impair everyday participation. These barriers can be validly identified as will be shown in our presentation. For the project we develop questionnaires adjusted to students understanding to be used in inclusive education. To this point we were able to show differences in the individual perception between autistic and non-autistic students. More importantly we could see that all students are disturbed by barriers. However, the extent to which an individual was affected was higher for autistic, than for non-autistic students. We can derive, that autistic students have to cope with more individual barriers at school and as a result experience a higher cognitive workload for just being at school. This reduces their capabilities to participate in learning and social activities. The projects aim is to enable schools to identify and understand individual barriers. The questionnaire is intended to be a low-threshold and practical help.
This presentation will feature the development of this questionnaire from its original form of general barriers for autistic persons in society through multiple pre-tests until the validation in two phases with 19 schools and 1024 students from grades 1, 5 and 7. We will also highlight statistical findings on the overall experience of barriers in inclusive education especially for autistic students. Finally, we will reflect on our experiences with participatory research especially the benefits for a mixed methods approach like the one we conduct.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn the development of the questionnaire we used a mixed-methods design. The foundation of the project is based in a work on general barriers for autistic individuals in society (Enthinderungsselbsthilfe 2008). In this work 27 general barriers were differentiated.
As a first step in our project we asked for examples on where the 27 general barriers can be found at schools in an open question online survey (n=700). The answers were analyzed through content analysis (Mayring 2010), to identify the most mentioned barriers. Based on this data, 4 most frequently mentioned examples were formulated. In the course of the evaluation, 2 of the 27 barriers were deleted, as there were overlaps. In the next phase, a first version of the questionnaire with 100 items was tested (n=2400; 366 up to 20 years). 4 examples of each of the remaining 25 barriers were presented for evaluation. A bipolar scale with 5 levels was used to answer the question: "how would this be for you?" with the two endpoints: "I think it's great" and "it's so bad that I can't do anything anymore". An exploratory factor analysis (PCA) revealed 8 factors that could be used for grouping the items and reducing their number. For this purpose, items with too low loadings and cross-loadings were excluded. For the 8 groups, reliabilities were acceptable (Cronbach alpha between 0.7 and 0.92). Item analyses showed difficulties above 0.5, which means that hardly any positive evaluations had been made.
As a consequence, we shifted from a bipolar to a unipolar scale in the next survey (n=960) and "I don't mind at all" became the left endpoint. We adapted the leading question to "how much does it bother you?". Items with a discriminatory power above 0.4 were selected. For each original barrier (25), 2 items were chosen. 618 participants up to 20 years participated. Item difficulties were in a acceptable range now (0.3-0.83).
We than conducted two-phase testing of the final questionnaires in 19 schools (n=1024) within one year to validate the diagnostic tool.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAfter the pre-testing phase we conducted the regular testing phase one year apart with the same children from 19 schools. We used physical copies of the questionnaire with 25 pages, two barriers on each page. We also illustrated the items age-appropriate in two different versions. Between the two tests we changed the wording of 6 of the items to make them more understandable for children as a result from the data we collected during the first testing period. The content of the items stayed generally the same.
Through the collected data we could show an overall higher subjective barrier sensitivity for autistic students in comparison to nonautistic students. The group of students that were marked as ‘maybe autistic’ by their parents was in between. Thus we are confident that the questionnaire is capable to emphasize the subjective experience of autistic students. On the other hand all participants felt impaired by some barriers, making the questionnaire especially useful for inclusive settings, as everyone benefits from removal of specific barriers.
We also saw that the average rating on the barriers differed. Some barriers like ‘specific patterns’ or ‘colored markings’ were low on average, but have a high subjective impact on some individual (autistic) students. Other barriers like “humans as a potential threat” had a high average, but still we could see a higher subjective impact for autistic students in general. We will present these findings more detailed during our presentation.
ReferencesEnthinderungsselbsthilfe. (2008). Grundzüge der Kollision autistischer Eigenschaften mit nichtautistisch geprägter Umgebung. https://autisten.enthinderung.de/kollision/. Accessed: 30 January 2023.
Farin-Glattacker, E., Kirsching, S., Meyer, T., & Buschmann-Steinhage, R. (2014). Partizipation an der Forschung – eine Matrix zur Orientierung. http://dgrw-online.de/files/matrix_ef_1.pdf. Accessed: 31 July 2020.
Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken (11. Neuausgabe). Weinheim: Beltz.
Singer, J. (2022). What is Neurodiversity? https://neurodiversity2.blogspot.com/p/what.html. Accessed: 14 October 2022.
Unger, H. v. (2014). Partizipative Forschung. Einführung in die Forschungspraxis (Lehrbuch). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Walker, N. (2014). Neurodiversity: Some basic terms & definitions. https://neuroqueer.com/neurodiversity-terms-and-definitions/. Accessed: 17 August 2021.
Walker, N. (2015). What is Autism? In M. Sutton (Ed.), The real experts. Readings for parents of autistic children. Fort Worth, TX: Autonomous Press.
|
