European Journal of Special Needs Education

ISSN: 0885-6257 (Print) 1469-591X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rejs20

Tensions experienced by teachers and their

views of support for pupils with autism spectrum
disorders in mainstream schools

Mahmoud M. Emam & Peter Farrell

To cite this article: Mahmoud M. Emam & Peter Farrell (2009) Tensions experienced by teachers
and their views of support for pupils with autism spectrum disorders in mainstream schools,
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24:4, 407-422, DOI: 10.1080/08856250903223070

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250903223070

Published online: 06 Oct 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 10554

View related articles

Citing articles: 59 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rejs20
European Journal of Special Needs Education
Vol. 24, No. 4, November 2009, 407–422

Tensions experienced by teachers and their views of support for

pupils with autism spectrum disorders in mainstream schools
Mahmoud M. Emam and Peter Farrell*

School of Education, University of Manchester, Ellen Wilkinson Building, Oxford Road,

Manchester M13 9PL, UK
(Received 27 January 2009; final version received 2 April 2009)
Taylor and Francis
REJS_A_422481.sgm

European
10.1080/08856250903223070
0885-6257
Original
Taylor
402009
24
Professor
peter.farrell@manchester.ac.uk
00000November
&Article
Francis
PeterFarrell
Journal
(print)/1469-591X
of
2009
Special Needs
(online)
Education

The number of pupils with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) who receive their
education in mainstream schools in the UK has increased considerably over the
last 10 years. Despite this increase, teachers and other support staff face a number
of challenges in order to ensure that these inclusive arrangements bring maximum
benefits to the children themselves, their parents and the school community as a
whole. In this study we explore some of the tensions that teachers in mainstream
schools may experience, many of which reflect the unique problems that the
inclusion of pupils with ASD can present. In addition, we explore how these
tensions may shape their views of support arrangements for those pupils. We
observed 17 pupils with ASD ranging from 7 to 16 years, all of whom were placed
in a regular class in one of eight mainstream schools on a full-time basis, and
carried out interviews with their teachers, teaching assistants (TAs) and special
educational needs coordinator. Findings suggest that tensions reported by school
staff are inherently shaped by the ASD-related manifestations, particularly those
pertaining to their difficulties in social and emotional understanding. These
tensions determine the quality of the transactions and interactions between the
teachers and the pupils with ASD. Based on these tensions, teachers form their
views of the type of support that is needed for those pupils. Evidence from the data
suggests that, in order for these tensions to be kept at manageable proportions,
teachers rely heavily on the TA, whose role in working closely with the pupil is
perceived as being indispensable. Building on the study’s findings, we suggest a
generic conceptualization for the successful inclusion of pupils with ASD, which
is grounded in the systems theory perspective of the relationship between the
teachers and these children.
Keywords: pupils with ASD; teacher–pupil relationship; support; systems theory

Introduction
Children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) who have average or high intellectual
and linguistic ability have increasingly joined mainstream schools in the UK. In a
survey conducted by the National Autistic Society (NAS) in England and Wales (NAS
2002, 2003) 1 in every 86 children had ASD-related difficulties, while 1 in every 152
received a formal diagnosis of autism. Despite their relatively high intellectual and
linguistic capabilities these children retain most of the ASD-related impairments,
including impairment in social interaction, deviant or bizarre communication, and

*Corresponding author. Email: peter.farrell@manchester.ac.uk

ISSN 0885-6257 print/ISSN 1469-591X online

© 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/08856250903223070
http://www.informaworld.com
408 M.M. Emam and P. Farrell

persistent patterns of restricted and stereotyped behaviour throughout their lives

(Jordan 1999).
These children, moreover, have difficulties in social understanding owing to
theory of mind (ToM) problems, i.e. the ability to attribute mental states such as
beliefs, feelings, and desires to oneself and others (Baron-Cohen 2000). They display
difficulties in emotional understanding (Downs and Smith 2004), which refers the
ability to identify the facial expressions as well as the expected emotions of others in
different social situations, which is considered a ToM component (Downs and Strand
2007). Such difficulties are assumed to restrict their opportunities for participation in
school activities (Odom et al. 2004) and affect their relationships with their teachers
and peers (NAS 2006; Barnard, Harvey et al. 2000).
Given the idiosyncratic difficulties in the social and emotional understanding of
pupils with ASD, teachers may face considerable difficulties in managing their needs,
thereby affecting the quality of the teachers’ relationship with these pupils. The
teacher–pupil relationship, which is placed at the heart of the educational process
(Pianta 2006), has been recently conceptualised from a developmental systems
perspective (Pianta 2001). This perspective is underpinned by the premise that the
study of development is in large part the study of living systems, and that the causes
of development lie in the relationships between the various systems (social, biological,
psychological, and other related systems) in a given context (e.g. school) (Pianta
1999). Building on this perspective, the teacher–pupil relationship is viewed as a
living system and a vehicle through which positive emotional experiences, concrete
help, information, and support can be organised and transmitted (Hamre and Pianta
2001). Such perspective, moreover, is argued (Pianta 1999) to serve as a conceptual
framework to study children at risk in school in terms of their dynamic exchanges with
their teachers, and other actors in their school ecosystem.
Contrary to teaching assistants (TAs) who tend to be more positive about pupils
with ASD as a kind of commitment to their job, teachers may experience several
tensions in their relationship with those pupils. Such tension may affect the quality
of their relationship as a living system, which may serve as a platform for altering
these pupils’ developmental trajectories in school. This is because they feel anxious
and uncertain about their ability to manage successfully a class containing these
pupils (Barnard, Broach et al. 2002; Barnard, Harvey et al. 2000). These tensions
may shape their views of what is needed to support pupils with ASD (Jordan
2005).

The current study

In his systems view-based conceptual model of the pupil–teacher relationship as a
living system, Pianta (1999) argued that three components comprise this system: (1)
features of the individual and their representation of the relationship; (2) processes by
which information is exchanged between the relational partners; and (3) external
influences of the systems in which the relationship is embedded. The representation
model, part of which is the focus of the study, includes the views of both actors in the
relationship (Pianta 2006). In this respect, the study examines the views of teachers.
Research reviews have regarded the views of teachers and the provision of support as
being two interwoven elements for the effective inclusion of pupils with special
educational needs (SEN) (Balshaw and Farrell 2002; Farrell and Ainscow 2002). A
number of studies (e.g. Croll and Moses 2001; Avramidis and Norwich 2002) have
 European Journal of Special Needs Education 409

drawn connections between the quality of support available in school and the willing-
ness of teachers to teach these pupils.
There have been a number of studies which explored the two elements of teachers’
views and their support for pupils with Down syndrome (Fox, Farrell, and Davis
2004), pupils with epilepsy (Parkinson 2002), pupils with profound learning
difficulties (Lacey 2001), deaf pupils (Lynas 1999), and pupils with a chronic health
conditions (Mukherjee, Lightfoot, and Sloper 2000). The research database on the two
elements with regard to pupils with ASD is still underdeveloped (Humphrey and
Lewis 2008).
The data utilised in this study are drawn from a larger research project carried out
during 2005–2008. This project adopted an ecological systems approach guided by
developmental systems theory to understand, and inform practice relating to, the
inclusion of pupils with ASD (Emam 2009). The project comprised 17 in-depth case
studies of pupils with ASD in primary and secondary schools in the north-west of
England. In this study, we aimed to answer the following research questions:

(1) What are the tensions which teachers in mainstream schools experience when
pupils with ASD are included in their class?
(2) To what extent do these tensions shape the views of teachers with regard to
support arrangements for pupils with ASD?

Research design and methodology

We adopted a multiple case study design (Yin 2003) which was realist in orientation
and aimed to improve ‘our understanding of what is going on’ in a particular context
(Willig 2001). The assumptions underlying case study research are idiographic and
shaped by the researcher’s interpretivist views of the phenomenon under investigation
(Yin 2003). As such, the present study relied on detailed descriptions of the cases (i.e.
pupils with ASD) in order to explore holistically the potential tension experienced by
teachers as a result of the inclusion of these pupils. Seventeen pupils with ASD who
were of average or above average intellectual and linguistic capabilities were selected
for the study. The participants, ranging from 7 to 16 years old, were drawn from three
primary schools and five secondary schools. Table 1 provides an overall description
of the 17 pupils who took part in the study.
The study draws on data collected by the first author from semi-structured inter-
views with teachers and TAs, special educational need coordinators (SENCOs) and
from non-participant observations inside and outside classrooms. In general, TAs
were not qualified teachers but received minimal training about how to deal with chil-
dren with ASD. The observations were recorded in the form of open field notes. We
focused on describing the interaction between the participants and their teachers, TAs,
and peers during academic and social activities inside and outside the classroom,
including our reflective comments on those observations (Silverman 2006). In analys-
ing the data we adopted a combination of case study analytic strategies (Yin 2003),
thematic analysis (Boyatzis 1998) and grounded theory analytic approach (Charmaz
2006). The analysis procedure was carried out in two phases. The first phase involved
the development of separate individual descriptions of the 17 participants (Yin 2003).
This was followed by coding the interview and observation data by initial, axial and
theoretical coding procedures (Charmaz 2006) using Atlas Ti 5.2 qualitative analysis
software. The theoretical codes were thematically anatomised within and across cases
 410

Table 1. An overview of the participants of the study.

Reading Time of receiving
Participant Grade CA MA age (Y:M) Type of support Hours of support SEN statement
Jonathan 2 7 GCA: average ability 7 TA 10 hours/week 2005
Sarah 4 8 GCA: average 7 Not supported NA Waiting list
Richard 6 10 GCA: average 9 Not supported NA In primary school
Alan 7 11 GCA: above average 11:3 TA 16 hours/week In primary school
John 7 12 GCA: average 11:2 Not supported NA 2005
M.M. Emam and P. Farrell

Andy 7 11 CAT: average score (95) 9:10 TA + Resource room 12 hours/week 2005
Anthony 7 12 CAT: average score (103) 10:9 TA + Resource room 12 hours/week 2005
Adrian 8 13 CAT: above average 12:6 TA + Resource room 12 hours/week In primary school
Andrew 8 12 GCA: average 10:4 TA 13 hours/week In primary school
Hannah 8 14 GCA: above average 13:5 Not supported NA In primary school
Jason 8 13 GCA: average 12:2 Not supported NA In primary school
Frank 9 14 BPVS II (96, 82, 100) 10:10 TA Half of timetable May 1999
Robert 9 14 GCA: standard score (102, 51); BPVS II: 100 11::9 TA Half of timetable March 2004
Brian 10 14 GCA: average 12:2 TA 20 hours/week During transition to
secondary school
Clark 10 16 GCA: between 83 and 95 on 15 TA One-third of May 2000
BAS II timetable
Michael 10 14 GCA: above average 13 TA 10 hours/week In primary school
Harry 11 16 GCA: average 14 TA 10 hours/week In primary school
Notes: CA, chronological age in years; MA, mental age; Y, years; M, months; SEN, special educational needs; GCA, general conceptual ability; CAT, Cognitive Abilities
Test; BPVS II, British Picture Vocabulary Scale (2nd ed.); BAS II, British Ability Scales (2nd ed.); TA, teaching assistant; NA, not applicable.
 European Journal of Special Needs Education 411

to form the final categories (Boyatzis 1998). The second phase of analysis examined
the commonalities and differences among the 17 cases with regard to the generated
categories. In this phase we utilised case study analytical strategies as described by
Yin (2003) including the use of explanation building and pattern matching. The aim
was to reach the final conceptual network to highlight the relationships between the
generated themes and categories.

Results and discussion

The two-phase analysis generated a conceptual network. The conceptual network
view (Figure 1) describes the key themes which determine the quality of the relation-
ships between the teachers and pupils with ASD, and the effect of this relationship on
teachers’ views of support-related aspects. In what follows we discuss these key
themes and link this to related literature. Key themes and sub-themes are given
numbered letters in Figure 1 as well as in the discussion.
Figure ToM,
Notes: 1. Key
theory
themes
of mind;
illustrating
ASD, the
autism
tensions
spectrum
in thedisorder.
relationships between the teachers and pupils with autism spectrum disorders and the relationship between these tensions and perceived support arrangements.

Relationships between teachers and pupils with ASD

The data reflected a pattern of tensions in the teacher–pupil relationships (A). These
tensions are either implicit or explicit. Implicit tensions refer to the dilemmas and
anxieties which teachers experience due to their self perceived inability to address the
pupils’ needs while at the same time maintaining their commitments to the remaining

Figure 1. Key themes illustrating the tensions in the relationships between the teachers and
pupils with autism spectrum disorders and the relationship between these tensions and
perceived support arrangements.
Notes: ToM, theory of mind; ASD, autism spectrum disorder.
412 M.M. Emam and P. Farrell

children. Explicit tensions refer to teachers’ frustration over what they perceived as
the enduring effect of the pupils’ ASD-related manifestations on their life in school.
These tensions determine the quality of the relationship. The data produced two major
themes under this category:

● Effect of the difficulties in social and emotional understanding

● Teachers’ discourse of frustration

Effect of social and emotional understanding-related impairments

Teachers reported that the pupils had difficulties in social understanding (as
manifested by their limited ToM capabilities), and in emotional understanding (as
manifested by struggling in their display and recognition of emotions). These difficul-
ties (A.1) determine the arising tensions in the relationship. Firstly, ToM (A.1.1)
capabilities apparently determine the most of the teachers’ induced tensions. The
pupils have ‘[their] views of everything’, they ‘do things’ from their own perspective
whether inside or outside the classroom without any consideration to how their acts
may affect others:

He grabs a seat, stands on it, and starts raising his hand to answer another question. The
teacher looks at him and does not respond… He finishes his design, and shows it to the
teacher who tells him that he needs to improve it; and that there is still some time remain-
ing. Anthony again says that his design is complete ‘that way’. (Recorded observation,
Anthony)

The pupils’ inability to take the perspective of teachers creates a gap between them.
The teacher–pupil relationship lacks the living experience of shared moments when
teachers ‘laugh’ or ‘make jokes’. As a result, teachers learn to ‘distance’ themselves
much in the same way as the pupils ‘do’. The pupils’ difficulty with ‘understanding
that what [they] say or do has impact on others’, i.e. ToM, increases their vulnerability
either in the classroom or within the broader school context:

He wants everything to be fair… and in that respect he is isolated by others… he does

not play the game socially in that respect… he does not identify with other pupils’
emotions at all. (Teacher interview, Brian)

This reflects similar results from recent research on pupils with ASD’s views about
their experiences in mainstream schools. Humphrey and Lewis (2008) highlighted the
pupils’ frustration because others can not understand how they perceive things. Iron-
ically, however, a number of teachers in our study viewed these pupils’ difficulty with
ToM pragmatically. Not knowing that they incurred trouble with their peers, the
pupils with ASD often reported mistakes made by other peers:

He is a very loyal boy… if he finds that there is somebody who is getting away with
something in the class he will tell me as a teacher… so he will be in my side. (Teacher
interview, Brian)

ToM difficulties, moreover, appeared in the pupils’ inabilities to associate between the
different aspects of school as a socially vibrant context full of, and contingent upon,
the reciprocal transactions in academic and non-academic activities:
 European Journal of Special Needs Education 413

…he would repeat the behaviour and response again and again… and in every time I
keep reminding him of what he could have done… he does not link the smaller context
to the bigger context of the school… if I do this in geography he does not take it to
science for example. (TA interview, Michael)

Secondly, difficulties in emotional recognition and expression (A.1.2) played a key

role in inducing teachers’ tensions. Teachers viewed emotions as a compensatory
strategy which served to maintain communication. They seemed to rely on pupils’
facial expression to evaluate the pace of their teaching performance and to probe the
pupils’ understanding. In addition, teachers’ emotions acted as signals which they
used consciously and unconsciously in their everyday interactions with pupils in class.
They conjectured that the understanding and expression of emotion played a vital role
in conveying different messages for interaction. The difficulties which the pupils with
ASD showed in emotional understanding, however, compelled the teachers to
verbalise their emotions.
In this regard, there is an extensive body of experimental research which
confirmed the ASD-related difficulties in emotional understanding (Rieffe, Terwogt,
and Stockmann 2000; Downs and Smith 2004). In a related vein of research, the role
of emotions in education and the importance of emotional literacy in schools have
been emphasised by a number of scholars (Meyer and Turner 2002; Pekrun, Goetz,
and Titz 2002; Goetz et al. 2006). Our results reflected these concerns.
Although the pupils were reported to be capable of ‘picking on’ basic emotions
such as happiness and sadness, teachers viewed this as insufficient in a vibrant social
context such as the mainstream school where emotions are often embedded or masked
in different situations:

if I was just feeling… you know, you come to your work when you feel just in the
middle… you are not happy, you are not sad… you are just in the middle. He did not
seem to understand those things. (Teacher interview, Clark)

Our study reflects what previous experimental research showed. Kasari,

Chamberlain and Bauminger (2001) argue that children with ASD struggle with
complex emotions, particularly in social situations where these emotions are embed-
ded and are not clearly expressed which is typical of situations in the mainstream
school context.
The difficulties in understanding emotions extend to academic activities. The
pupils were incapable of showing such emotions as excitement, enjoyment, pride or
shame which are an integral part of academic activities. These emotions, referred to
in literature on motivation research as academic emotions (Pekrun, Goetz, and Titz
2002), are indispensable for pupils’ participation in academic activities. Lack of
showing them established a barrier between the pupils and their teachers in our
study:

He really does not show sort of the excitement that some of other children might do.
(Teacher interview, John)

In general, our results for this theme relate to what previous research studies showed
(Frederickson et al. 2004). Furthermore several authors have prioritised the social and
emotional understanding-related aspects for pupils with ASD in mainstream schools
(Attwood 2000; Dunlop, MacKay, and Knott 2003)
414 M.M. Emam and P. Farrell

Discourse of frustration
Teachers’ discourse of frustration (A.2) is the second theme with regard to the
tensions felt by teachers when building relationships with their ASD pupils. The data
showed that teachers had a discourse of frustration which was associated with the
previously discussed theme of social and emotional understanding-related impair-
ments. A number of ASD-related manifestations (A.2.1) appeared to have a direct
association with teachers’ frustration. Firstly, the participants’ literal understanding
(A.2.1.1) of things seemed to place restrictions on teachers’ use of language as well
as on interaction with the pupils. As a result, the teachers became forced to ‘cage’ their
language:

She used to take things very literally so she had problems with idiomatic language… if
I say to somebody… ‘pull your socks up’… she would not understand that I meant ‘get
your things up together. (Teacher interview, Sarah)

Secondly, the pupils’ inability to ‘picked up’ on the teachers’ ‘tone of voice’/‘body
language’ and their difficulty with figurative or idiomatic language (A.2.1.2) intensi-
fied the tension in the relationship. This was because teachers found themselves
compelled to spend longer time on delivering the same message they gave to other
peers in a different way. The recurrence of this action consumed teachers’ time and
energy:

He will not pick up on my tone of voice or body language. If I am addressing the whole
class I know that I often make some facial expressions of displeasure or pleasure if I see
something going on and which the rest of the class will pick from me but for Robert… I
have to verbally tell him or demonstrate to him. (Teacher interview, Robert)

Not all teachers were prone to commit wholeheartedly to exerting extra efforts to meet
the needs of the pupils with ASD in their class. Some resented the fact that they often
had to make several additional requests of the type – ‘make sure…’ – while teaching
a class that included a pupil with ASD. One teacher expressed his dissatisfaction with
considering many reminders while teaching these pupils:

You have to remind yourself many times of the needs of the different pupils you have
within the class… because it is easy to forget when you are targeting 30 kids and one of
them has got a particular need… so you need to differentiate your lesson and things like
that. (Teacher interview, Hannah)

Thirdly, the variability of the pupils’ performance and their inability to transfer what
they learned across different situations in school represented a challenge to teachers.
These difficulties in transfer of learning (A.2.1.3) placed the teachers in a dilemma as
regards their responsibility towards the pupils amidst their commitments towards
other peers in class or towards fulfilling the requirements of the prescribed National
Curriculum:

To me the whole point of teaching and being a mentor of the classroom is trying to
unlock learning for kids and we are in a kind of corridor and we are completely trapped
by the constraints of the national curriculum and what we are trying to achieve in order
to match the SATS. We are not teaching the kids to read, or to engage with the text, we
are not able to focus on teaching kids how to enjoy writing. For students like Robert it
must be very alienating. (Teacher interview, Robert)
 European Journal of Special Needs Education 415

Our results in this regard are pertinent to recent research in the area of burnout (Sava
2002). Teachers of pupils with ASD in mainstream settings, it is argued, are vulnera-
ble to burnout due to the unique characteristics of these pupils (Jennett, Harris, and
Mesibov 2003) particularly if their training and preparation to support these pupils is
inadequate (Glashan, MacKay, and Grieve 2004; Batten 2005). Indeed Jennett, Harris,
and Mesibov (2003) showed that teachers who were trained to adopt an intervention
approach such as Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communication
Handicapped Children (TEACH) or Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) exhibited
adequate self-efficacy and low levels of burnout. Furthermore, Jordan (2005) high-
lights the importance of the role played by teachers in transforming the mainstream
school to ‘autism-friendly’ environments. Our results, however, show that in most
cases teachers are not always willing to exert such extra efforts or to fulfil the require-
ments of addressing the unique needs and characteristics of pupils with ASD.
An alternative approach to improving teachers’ relationships with their ASD
pupils is one where the teacher–pupil relationship is seen in the wider context of the
system, which is linked to the developmental trajectories and outcomes of the whole
school (Hamre and Pianta 2001; Pianta 2001, 2006). Pianta (2001, 35) argued that the
teacher–pupil relationship can work as the ‘developmental infrastructure’ on which
developmental outcomes for the pupil rest. Pianta (2006) posited that when ‘the focus
of teachers’ reports about children is relational’ long-term educational outcomes and
competencies can be prioritised (690; original italics). Hamre and Pianta (2001)
argued that adopting the relational perspective can be a better predictor than focusing
on the frequency and intensity of certain behaviours.

The organisation and impact of support arrangements

The data showed an association between the tensions in the teachers–pupils with ASD
relationship and two key themes related to the support process in school. These were:

● How the role of support is conceived (B.1); and

● Support mediators (B.2)

In general, the support provided to pupils in the eight schools where the data were
collected varied in terms of management type, number of hours and the support
mediator (see Table 1). One secondary school had a resource room in which the
participants were based alongside a number of TAs. The resource room represented a
focal node to which the participants were linked. The support for participants in the
remaining four secondary schools was moderated by the learning support unit which
is headed by the SENCO. The support offered to the three primary-school pupils
varied, with Sarah and Richard having no support, and Jonathan having a TA for
10 hours a week.

How the role of support is conceived

Glashan, MacKay and Grieve (2004) argued that judgement of the success of inclu-
sion is contingent upon the quality of support as perceived by teachers. Our study
shows that there was variation between teachers and TAs with regard to how they
perceived the role of support. TAs viewed their support role as that of removing
barriers to the learning of the pupils, increasing their involvement in academic
416 M.M. Emam and P. Farrell

activities and social interaction opportunities within school. These barriers were
defined as ‘when [the participants] make mistakes, misunderstand, get something
wrong, and become stressed’ (TA interview, Adrian). TAs, thus, conceptualised them-
selves as being moderators between the mainstream context and the pupils. However,
the TA’s role was stereotyped by teachers as providing an ‘element of security’ to the
pupils.
Observation data showed that TAs tended to position themselves in close proxim-
ity to the pupil in class, thereby minimising opportunities for teachers to communicate
with the pupils. If the pupil wanted to communicate with the teacher, he would do so
through the mediation of the TA. This indicates that the TA can act as a protective
shell. The pupils with ASD, moreover, tended to manipulate the presence of the TA.
They sometimes communicated the answer to questions to the TA rather than to the
class teacher. Instead of engaging with the teacher and the classroom discussion they
sometimes ‘play[ed] up’ because of the protection they enjoyed through having a TA.
This appeared to increase the risk of rejection by their peers’ and even bullying when
the TA was absent.
Previous research has shown that the duties of the TA are vast and multifaceted
(Farrell, Balshaw, and Polat 1999; Moran and Abbott 2002). The present study echoed
similar findings. TAs may support pupils on academic tasks, they may target the social
dynamics of the classroom, they may give one-to-one support. In our study the data
revealed a prioritisation for the academic side, which simultaneously helped to
decrease the pressure on the teacher. Their role inside the class seemed to centre on
attempting to keep the pupils ‘focused’ most of the time. They reminded the pupils of
classroom rules, and duties such as homework, particularly because the moment the
pupils enter school ‘school is switched on’ and the moment they leave school ‘school
is switched off’.
Unsurprisingly, therefore, the data showed an emphasis by teachers on the indis-
pensability of the TA’s role. Such emphasis appears to be underpinned by a pragmatic
stance. Teachers tended to prioritise their needs in terms of facilitating their
instructional role at the expense of the pupils’ needs. Hence, the decision to provide
or withdraw support appeared to be teacher-oriented rather than being based on accu-
rate individual needs assessment. In many cases, the TA was seen to have no role in
the class particularly in practical classes such as physical education and technology in
secondary school. However, the SENCOs reported that they tended to respond to the
teachers’ demands when they outlined the support plans and arrangements for the
participants. One teacher reflected: ‘I think if the support is removed I will be
disappointed… Andy is doing very well in the lesson but he does need support’
(Teacher interview, Andy).
Our results are discrepant with previous research which showed that teachers did
not welcome the direct role played by TAs (Glashan, MacKay, and Grieve 2004).
Teachers in our study, particularly in secondary schools, were inclined to rely on the
TA in ensuring the completion of academic tasks in the class, prompting the pupils
with ASD to take part in academic activities, and managing the displayed behavioural
problems. They viewed the TA as the person with expertise. They tended to consult
him/her on everything about the pupil’s education as well as life in the classroom.
Therefore, the existence of the TA implicitly meant to teachers that the pupil was not
within their range of responsibilities.
When the pupils were not provided with a TA, teachers in primary schools were
able to manage the pupils more effectively than teachers in secondary schools. The
 European Journal of Special Needs Education 417

primary school teacher may arrange to have the pupil sit in the front or close to him/
her. He/she may ask more a peer to model an answer so as to help the pupil engage in
the class activity. The teacher may also assign a couple of peers to the pupil. Second-
ary school teachers tended to absolve themselves from these activities, attributing this
to the need to devote their time to the teaching of the National Curriculum to other
peers.
We attributed this difference to the amount of time teachers in primary and
secondary schools spend with the pupils with ASD. Teachers in secondary schools
meet the pupil for a limited period of time during the class they deliver. By contrast,
in primary schools where one classroom teacher delivers the curriculum to the class,
the probability of establishing an enduring relationship increases.
Among the 17 participants, the two cases of John and Jason represent a type of
support which we termed as ‘pick as you go’ support. This type of support was
embraced by schools when parents of pupils with ASD complained of the stigmatisa-
tion which their children felt due to the existence of a TA beside them. However, the
data about Jason and John showed that this type of support did not seem to be
effective, nor did it seem to satisfy the needs of the pupils inside or outside the class.
Teachers reported that the two pupils experienced a high level of bullying. The school
response to those reports seemed to be inadequate:

I suggested to the head teacher that if he feels that he is being bullied at any time… he
can come to the learning support and talk to the staff… also he can come to our room if
he does not want to go to the yard and prefers to stay in a quiet room where he can play
a game or other things… but he has not done that… we have not sorted him out… but
he has not sorted us out either. (SENCO, Jason and John)

One case (Richard) represents a different and positive way of envisaging how the
pupils may be supported in school. When Richard first joined his primary school his
support needs were so diverse – including management of his problem behaviours,
social and emotional needs, in order to allow him to ‘get along’ with other peers as
well as with the teachers, and learning needs – that he was not participating in
academic activities. These needs could not be accommodated for through providing
Richard with a TA, whom Richard rejected very soon.
A decision was taken by the deputy head who was acting as SENCO to address the
needs of Richard through a multi-disciplinary approach, and by restructuring the
school and classroom contexts. The team included an educational psychologist, an
outreach intervention centre and the school teachers. The TA was withdrawn and
replaced with an extended support team, which included the class teacher, peers and
the school staff. In addition, Richard was given some training on an individual basis
on emotional literacy. The belief that peer-mediated support ‘works best’ coupled
with the teacher’s support on the academic side by adopting differentiated teaching
methods and strategies that matched his level and capabilities seemed to bring about
phenomenal results:

It is a lot harder for a child to learn in a different way than it is for me as a teacher to
teach in a different way… I can do that a lot easier and better than he can… so being
clear to him and being aware that he does not always get all the instructions at one time
are examples of what I mean by this. (Teacher interview, Richard)

The school seemed to have prioritised Richard’s independence by adopting this ‘web’
view of support even though it placed additional work on the school staff and the
418 M.M. Emam and P. Farrell

classroom teacher. These findings invite future research focusing on comparing

support strategies and mediators for pupils with ASD in primary and secondary stages.
The authors have not yet come across a study with this aim.

Support mediators
Support mediators (B.2) include TAs, teachers and peers, outreach support staff,
(Glashan, MacKay, and Grieve 2004; Moran and Abbott 2002; Lacey 2001).
Although the present study did not explore the role of all these professionals in detail,
the data showed that there was an overemphasis on adopting adult-mediated support,
represented in the sheer dependence on the TA, at the expense of peer-mediated
support. Five out of the 17 participants were not supported by TAs, while the rest
were. With exception to Richard, the teachers were not satisfied that these participants
did not have TAs. However, they had to accept the situation as the pupils and their
parents rejected the TA to avoid embarrassment. Involving peers in the support
process of pupils with ASD seemed to be more problematic, because of ‘the lack of
tolerance and understanding of differences by peers’. Additionally, teachers reported
that schools neither had the courage nor the resources to have them involved in such
a process which requires the existence of a strong support culture in school:

Supporting them through their classmates… I do not think this can work… I think it is
too much pressure to put on the pupils in the class to support children with ASD… in
fifty minutes pupils have got enough things to do. (Teacher interview, Andy)

Teachers did not appear to contribute to the support of the pupils by having a concrete
and definite role. Rather, they ‘cry for support’ and this was why the provision of a
TA was shown to relate in many cases to facilitating the teacher’s role in the class-
room rather than targeting the pupil’s participation:

I tend to let the TA deal with Alan… I would go and speak to him but I tend to depend
on the TA…when she is not there… he has to do it on his own. (Teacher interview, Alan)

Teachers’ preference for TA support for pupils with ASD was associated with a
positive attitude towards their inclusion in mainstream schools. This may be explained
by them feeling less responsible for the ASD child. However, this finding may explain
the negative impact of TA support on the teacher–pupil relationship, a finding
confirmed in other studies (Giangreco et al. 1997; Marks, Schrader, and Levine 1999)

Conclusion
Inevitably, in a study such as this, the findings are complex and sometimes discrepant.
However, evidence from the 17 cases suggests that the tensions which arise for
teachers due to the inclusion of pupils with ASD seem to be inherently shaped by the
ASD-related manifestations, particularly those pertaining to social and emotional
understanding. The mentalising difficulties of pupils with ASD and their struggle with
recognition of embedded emotions have an impact on their relationship with teachers.
This relationship further moulds the teachers’ view of support in terms of its
arrangement and mediators. Our results suggest that teachers tend to espouse support
with the existence of a TA who works closely with the pupil and emphasised the
 European Journal of Special Needs Education 419

indispensability of such role. This emphasis seems to be guided by their tensions; and
is grounded in a pragmatic stance which prioritises the facilitation of their instruc-
tional roles at the expense of the pupils’ needs for participation in school.
The observation data reflected a lack of rigorous evidence with regard to positive
outcomes of having a TA in the classroom. This invites future research to focus on the
outcomes of having a TA vs. other approaches of support (e.g. peers, teachers, inter-
disciplinary) and to compare between primary and secondary schools in this respect.
These findings echo the concern shown in the governmental report on the evaluation
of learning support units (LSUs) (Ofsted 2006) which attributed the difficulty of
pupils with SEN in coping with mainstream classes to the lack of collaboration
between teachers and LSUs. This is why Florian (2000) suggested that teachers’ roles
need to be differently re-conceptualised to match the diverse needs of pupils in
inclusive schools. Whitaker (2007) also found that the understanding of the needs of
pupils with ASD in mainstream schools, and empathy shown by school staff toward
those children, determined parents’ satisfaction with the inclusive provision.
The traditional models of including children with ASD have often addressed defi-
ciencies and difficulties in social and emotional understanding through providing
short-term, pull-out, add-on, or one-off interventions (Koegel et al. 2001; Jepsen and
Von Thaden 2002) which tended to be ‘too little too late’ (Didaskalou and Milward,
2007). Contrary to such models, and building on the foregoing discussion of the
developmental systems perspective of the teacher–pupil relationships, we suggest a
framework which may help us better to understand, and inform practice relating to,
the inclusion of pupils with ASD. This framework (Figure 2) conceptualises the
successful inclusion of pupils with ASD with regard to their participation through a

Figure 2. A conceptualisation of successful inclusion of pupils with autism spectrum disor-

ders based on teacher–pupil relationship and support arrangements.
Notes: ASD, autism spectrum disorder; TA, teaching assistant; IEP, individual education plan.
420 M.M. Emam and P. Farrell

three-level prism. At the top level we argue that participation reflects successful
inclusion of these pupils.
At the index level, we suggest that support may be a parameter which can
Figure ASD,
Notes: 2. Aautism
conceptualisation
spectrum disorder;
of successful
TA, teaching
inclusionassistant;
of pupilsIEP,
withindividual
autism spectrum
education
disorders
plan. based on teacher–pupil relationship and support arrangements.

facilitate/impede the participation of pupils with ASD in school. The interaction

between the unique characteristics of pupils with ASD and their peers, TAs, and
teachers, and the quality of such interaction can serve as an index of the functionality
of support. The relationship between teachers and pupils with ASD, and the teachers’
relational focus of this relationship, is conceptualised as the bridge which makes
effective the interaction between the support arrangement and support mediators. This
relational focus is the basis on which the successful inclusion is contingent. We
elevate this relationship as it plays a key role engendering developmental outcomes in
school. It is assumed that it will counteract the similarly negative effects of bullying
experiences, difficulty with social and emotional understanding, arising tensions, and
misunderstandings, which these pupils my either pose or face in mainstream schools.
At the fundamentals level, which is depicted as the base of the prism, lie the
motivation, skills, and attitudes of teachers, whose use relies on the extent to which
they accept these pupils in the first place. This can be determined by how the charac-
teristics of ASD are manifested in school and how the school responds to them based
on assessment of individual needs, and the use of individual education plans (IEPs).
The base reflects the training needs for teachers in general. We cannot claim, however,
that our conceptualisation is universal given the fact that our study was mainly
qualitative and on a small scale. Yet, it may serve as a basis to understand better how
the inclusive practices for pupils with ASD work on the real ground and to generate
future research and discussion in this regard.

References
Attwood, T. 2000. Strategies for improving the social integration of children with Asperger
syndrome. Autism 4: 85–100.
Avramidis, E., and B. Norwich. 2002. Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion:
A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education 17, no. 2:
129–49.
Balshaw, M., and P. Farrell. 2002. Teaching assistants: Practical strategies for effective
classroom support. London: Fulton.
Barnard, J., S. Broach, D. Potter, and A. Prior. 2002. Autism in schools: Crisis or challenge?
London: National Autistic Society.
Barnard, J., V. Harvey, A. Prior, and D. Potter. 2000. Inclusion and autism: Is it working?
London: National Autistic Society.
Baron-Cohen, S. 2000. Theory of mind and autism: A fifteen year review. In Understanding
other minds: Perspectives from developmental cognitive neuroscience, ed. S. Baron-
Cohen, H.-T. Fluseberg, and D. J. Cohen. Oxford, 3–20. UK: Oxford University Press.
Batten, A. 2005. Inclusion and the autism spectrum. Improving Schools 8, no. 1: 93–6.
Boyatzis, R. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. Introducing qualitative methods. London: Sage Publications.
Croll, P., and D. Moses. 2001. Ideologies and utopias: Education professionals’ views of
inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education 15, no. 1: 1–13.
Didaskaloua, E., and A. Millward. 2007. Rethinking assessment: Managing behaviour and
reducing disaffection. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 12, no. 3: 191–203.
Downs, A., and T. Smith. 2004. Emotional understanding, cooperation, and social behavior in
high-functioning children with autism. Journal of autism and developmental disorders 34,
no. 6: 625–35.
 European Journal of Special Needs Education 421

Downs, A., and P. Strand. 2007. Emotion understanding in English- and Spanish-speaking
preschoolers enrolled in Head Start. Social Development 16, no. 3: 410–38.
Dunlop, A.-W., T. MacKay, and F. Knott. 2003. Social interaction and understanding in
autism: Supporting success in mainstream education for pupils with autistic spectrum
disorders. Paper presented at the AARE International Educational Research Conference,
November 30–December 3, in Auckland, New Zealand. http://www.aare.edu.au/03pap/
dun03189.pdf.
Emam, M. 2009. Tensions arising from the inclusion of pupils with ASD in mainstream
schools: a developmental-systems perspective. PhD diss., University of Manchester.
Farrell, P., and M. Ainscow. 2002. Making special education inclusive. London: Fulton.
Farrell, P., M. Balshaw, and F. Polat. 1999. The management, role and training of learning
support assistants. London: DfEE.
Florian, L. 2000. Inclusive practice: What, why and how? In Promoting inclusive practice, ed.
C. Tilstone, L. Florian, and R. Rose. London: Routledge.
Fox, S., P. Farrell, and P. Davis. 2004. Factores associated with the effective inclusion of
primary-aged pupils with Down’s Syndrome. British journal of special education 31, no.
4: 184–90.
Frederickson, N., S. Dunsmuir, J. Lang, and J.J. Monsen. 2004. Mainstream–special school
inclusion partnerships: pupil, parent and teacher perspectives. International Journal of
Inclusive Education 8, no. 1: 37–57.
Giangreco, M., S. Edelman, T. Luiselli, and S. MacFarland. 1997. Helping or hovering?
Effects of instructional assistant proximity on students with disabilities. Exceptional
Children 64: 7–18.
Glashan, L., G. MacKay, and A. Grieve. 2004. Teachers’ experience of support in the
mainstream education of pupils with autism. Improving Schools 7, no. 1: 49–60.
Goetz, T., R. Pekrun, N. Hall, and A.L. Haag. 2006. Academic emotions from a social-
cognitive perspective: Antecedents and domain specificity of students’ affect in the
context of Latin instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology 76: 289–308.
Hamre, B., and R. Pianta. 2001. Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of
children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development 72, no. 2: 625–38.
Humphrey, N., and S. Lewis. 2008. ‘Make me normal’: The views and experiences of pupils
on the autistic spectrum in mainstream secondary schools. Autism 12, no. 1: 23–46.
Jennett, H.K., S.L. Harris, and G.B. Mesibov. 2003. Commitment to philosophy, teacher
efficacy, and burnout among teachers of children with autism. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders 33, no. 6: 583–93.
Jepsen, R.H., and K. Von Thaden. 2002. The effect of cognitive education on the
performance of students with neurological developmental disabilities. Neuro Rehabilita-
tion 17: 201–9.
Jordan, R. 1999. Autistic spectrum disorders: An introductory handbook for practitioners.
London: David Fulton.
Jordan. 2005. Managing autism and Asperger’s syndrome in current educational provision.
Pediatric Rehabilitation 8, no. 2: 104–12.
Kasari, C., B. Chamberlain, and N. Bauminger. 2001. Social emotions and social
relationships: Can children with autism compensate? In The development of autism:
Perspectives from theory and research, ed. J.A. Burack, T. Charman, N. Yirmiya, and
P.R. Zelazo, 309–23. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Knott, F., and A. Dunlop. 2003. Developing social interaction and understanding. A resource
for working with children and young people with autistic spectrum disorder. Glasgow,
UK: University of Strathclyde.
Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R.L., Frea, W.D., and Fredeen, R.M. 2001. Identifying early interven-
tion targets for children with autism in inclusive school settings. Behaviour Modification
25, no. 5: 745–61.
Lacey, P. 2001. The role of learning support assistants in the inclusive learning of pupils with
severe and profound learning difficulties. Educational Review 53, no. 2: 157–67.
Lynas, W. 1999. Supporting the deaf child in the mainstream school: Is there a best way?
Support for learning 14, no. 3: 113–21.
Marks, S., C. Schrader, and M. Levine. 1999. Paraeducator experiences in inclusive settings:
Helping, hovering, or holding their own? Exceptional Children 65: 315–28.
422 M.M. Emam and P. Farrell

Meyer, D., and J. Turner. 2002. Discovering emotion in classroom motivation research.
Educational Psychologist 37, no. 2: 107–14.
Moran, A., and L. Abbott. 2002. Developing inclusive schools: The pivotal role of teaching
assistants in promoting inclusion in special and mainstream schools in Northern Ireland.
European journal of Special Needs Education 17, no. 2: 161–73.
Mukherjee, S., J. Lightfoot, and P. Sloper. 2000. The inclusion of pupils with a chronic health
condition in mainstream school: What does it mean for teachers? Educational Research
42, no. 1: 59–72.
National Autistic Society. 2002. Autism in school, crisis or challenge? London: NAS.
National Autistic Society. 2003. How many people have autistic spectrum disorders? London:
National Autistic Society.
National Autistic Society. 2006. B is for bullied. London: National Autistic Society.
Odom, S.L., J. Vitztum, R. Wolery, J. Lieber, S. Sandall, M.J. Hanson, P. Beckman, I.
Schwartz, and E. Horn. 2004. Preschool inclusion in the United States: A review of
research from an ecological systems perspective. Journal of Research in Special Educa-
tional Needs 4, no. 1: 17–49.
Ofsted. 2006. Evaluation of the impact of learning support units. London: Ofsted. http://
www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Education/
Inclusion/Behaviour/Evaluation-of-the-impact-of-learning-support-units
Parkinson, G. 2002. Inter-disciplinary support for children with epilepsy in mainstream
schools. In Making special education inclusive, ed. P. Farrell and M. Ainscow, 175–85.
London: Fulton.
Pekrun, R., T. Goetz, and W. Titz. 2002. Academic emotions in students’ selfregulated learn-
ing and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational
Psychologist 37, no. 2: 91–105.
Pianta, R.C. 1999. Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Pianta, R.C. 2001. Implications of a developmental systems model for preventing and treating
behavioural disturbances in children and adolescents. In Handbook of psychological
services for children and adolescents, ed. J.A. Hughes, A.M. LaGreca, and J.C. Conoley,
23–42. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Pianta, R.C. 2006. Classroom management and relationships between children and teachers:
Implications for research and practice. In Handbook of classroom management: Research,
practice and contemporary issues, ed. C.M. Evertson and C.S. Weinstein, 685–709. USA:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rieffe, C., M.M. Terwogt, and L. Stockmann. 2000. Understanding atypical emotions
among children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 30, no. 3:
195–203.
Sava, F. 2002. Causes and effects of teacher conflict-inducing attitudes towards pupils: A path
analysis model. Teaching and Teacher Education 18: 1007–21.
Silverman, D. 2006. Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and
interaction. London: Sage.
Whitaker, P. 2007. Provision for youngsters with autistic spectrum disorders in mainstream
schools: what parents say – and what parents want. Support for learning 34, no. 3: 170–78.
Willig, C. 2001. Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and
method. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Yin, R.K. 2003. Applied social research methods series. Vol. 5, Case study research: Design
and methods. London: Sage.