Classroom Participation

Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 105 (2023) 102186
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rasd
Factors associated with classroom participation in preschool

through third grade learners on the autism spectrum
Nicole Sparapani a, b, *, Nancy Tseng a, Laurel Towers a, b, Sandy Birkeneder a, b,
Sana Karimi a, b, Cameron J. Alexander a, b, Johanna Vega Garcia a, b, Taffeta Wood b,
Amanda Dimachkie Nunnally b
a
School of Education, University of California, Davis, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA
b
UC Davis MIND Institute, 2825 50th St, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Background: Access to mathematics instruction that involves opportunities for critical thinking
Autism and procedural fluency promotes mathematics learning. Studies have outlined effective strategies
Instructional opportunities for teaching mathematics to children on the autism spectrum, however, the focus of these in
Mathematical tasks
terventions often represent a narrow set of mathematical skills and concepts centered on pro
Teacher language
Active engagement
cedural learning without linking ideas to underlying concepts.
Spontaneous communication Methods: This study utilized classroom video observations to evaluate the variability in and nature
of mathematical learning opportunities presented to 76 autistic students within 49 preschool–3rd
grade general and special education learning contexts. We examined teacher instructional prac
tices and student participation across 109 mathematical tasks within larger mathematics lessons.
Results: Students were most often presented with mathematical tasks that required low-level
cognitive demand, such as tasks focusing on rote memorization and practicing predetermined
steps to solve basic algorithms. Furthermore, the nature of the mathematical task was linked with
the language that teachers used, and this in turn, was associated with students’ participation
within the learning opportunity.
Conclusions: Our findings indicate that features of talk within specific types of mathematical tasks,
including math-related talk and responsive language, were associated with increased student
active engagement and spontaneous communication. The knowledge gained from this study
contributes to the development of optimized instructional practices for school-aged children on
the autism spectrum—information that could be used to prepare both preservice and in-service
teachers.
One specific area of instruction that remains a critical educational problem across the US is effective methods for teaching
mathematics to learners with and without disabilities. Recent reports from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) suggest
that 40% of students show proficiency in mathematics by the fourth grade (2019). Students with disabilities evidence significantly
lower levels of mathematics achievement, with only 10% of fourth-grade students with disabilities performing at or above proficiency
in mathematics. This achievement gap between learners with and without disabilities is evident by the third grade and does not narrow
* Correspondence to: School of Education and the UC Davis MIND Institute, University of California, Davis, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616,
USA.
E-mail address: njsparapani@ucdavis.edu (N. Sparapani).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2023.102186
Received 4 April 2022; Received in revised form 5 May 2023; Accepted 25 May 2023
Available online 31 May 2023
1750-9467/Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/4.0/).
N. Sparapani et al. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 105 (2023) 102186
over time despite research showing that students with disabilities make similar annual achievement gains in mathematics to their peers
without disabilities (National Center on Assessment and Accountability for Special Education [NCAASE]). Little progress in narrowing
this achievement gap has been made over the recent decades (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2019), and some argue
that this persists because children with disabilities often have limited access to “high-quality”, standards-based mathematics in
struction (Cox & Jimenez, 2020; Lambert et al., 2020).
These statistics point to the need for educational change in order to improve mathematics outcomes for learners with disabilities.
Within this study we focus on leaners on the autism spectrum (Bowman et al., 2019; Keen et al., 2016), who make up 11% of the
students receiving special education within public schools today (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEA],
2004; Irwin et al., 2021). Studies have documented vast differences in mathematics achievement of learners on the autism spectrum,
with 59% of students exhibiting average to above average skills within the early elementary grades (King et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2015).
This variability is not surprising, as autistic learners exhibit heterogeneity across development as well as notable differences in their
academic interests and characteristics overall.
Studies have outlined a number of factors that may be associated with difficulty in learning mathematics for autistic students, such
as underlying differences in attention, language, and/or executive functioning skills (Bull & Scerif, 2001; Cragg & Gilmore, 2014; Hart
Barnett & Cleary, 2015; Jitendra et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2015). However, the one factor that may influence mathematics learning
above and beyond individual differences across development is access to “high quality” and equitable opportunities to learn math
ematics (Cox & Jimenez, 2020). Studies have found that autistic learners have limited access to high-level mathematics instruction that
promotes conceptual understanding and procedural knowledge of mathematical content (Lambert & Tan, 2017). In addition, research
on mathematics instruction for students on the autism spectrum has typically focused on remediating the impact of cognitive deficits,
rather than considering how the natural differences in autistic learners’ processes can be supported and facilitated through effective
instruction (Bascom, 2012; Grandin, 2009; Truman, 2017). There continues to be a need for research that engages with the complex
and varied learning processes of autistic individuals (Lambert et al., 2020; Truman, 2017).
We begin to address this area of need by utilizing classroom video observations of mathematical learning opportunities for autistic
learners across general and special education contexts. In this study, we investigated the associations between instructional oppor
tunities (mathematical tasks and teacher language) and student participation (active engagement and spontaneous communication).
Specifically, we examined the mathematical tasks that teachers across educational settings presented to their autistic students in order
to identify variations in cognitive demand across tasks. We also examined the talk teachers used within mathematical tasks and the
degree to which students participated in these opportunities. We believe that teachers’ talk is central to student participation and
learning, hence, by observing features of instructional practices and the nuances between instruction and participation, we will better
understand how “opportunity” may serve as a valuable intervention target for autistic learners.
1. Theoretical framework
Lambert and colleagues (2020) highlight the link between the classroom environment and the experiences autistic students have
within mathematics contexts. We continue investigation through this lens by examining how teachers (with a range of knowledge,
skills, and practices) teach mathematics lessons, and how individual students engage in the learning opportunities that are created
within these lessons. Our theoretical framework is informed by dynamic systems theories, which place a core emphasis on the interplay
between children and their environment (Connor, 2016; Sameroff, 2009; Yoshikawa & Hsueh, 2001). This framework posits that
learning in the classroom is a dynamic and transactional process involving multiple sources of influence that shape child development
over time. We apply this framework to understand effective mathematics instruction by considering the influence of the learning
opportunity, and the interactions between teachers and their students, on student participation (Blazar & Pollard, 2022; Connor et al.,
2020; Franke et al., 2009). As Hiebert and Grouws (2007) note, teaching consists of “classroom interactions among teachers and
students around content directed toward facilitating students’ achievement of learning goals” (p. 372).
2. Mathematics instructional opportunities
2.1. Instructional practices and mathematical tasks
Mathematics education researchers have identified “good” mathematics practices that produce strong learning outcomes in the
context of general education classrooms (Blazar et al., 2022; Franke et al., 2007). Key factors involved in facilitating students’
mathematics learning are the instructional tasks teachers deliver and the mathematical materials that students engage with within
lessons (Hiebert & Grouws, 2007). The nature of a mathematical task, specifically the level of cognitive demand, can afford different
learning opportunities for students and influence the ways learners participate within a lesson (Agterberg et al., 2022; Arbaugh &
Brown, 2006; Stein & Lane, 1996; Stein et al., 2000). The literature is clear that engaging students in learning opportunities that
require high-level cognitive demand, such as problem solving, communication, and explanation can deepen their conceptual un
derstanding and increase participation within mathematical tasks (Boaler & Staples, 2008; Franke et al., 2007; Kessler et al., 2015; Tarr
et al., 2008). In other words, giving students opportunities to verbally and/or nonverbally express, communicate, and explain their
thinking, helps them make connections to underlying mathematical concepts and provides a foundation for broader mathematical
achievement (Veenman et al., 2005; Webb et al., 2014).
Stein and Lane (1996) developed a conceptual framework for describing and differentiating mathematical tasks based on four
levels of cognitive demand. This framework continues to be used to classify mathematics opportunities provided to students within
2
general education classrooms today (e.g. Agterberg et al., 2022; Kessler et al., 2015). The first two levels within the framework,
Memorization and Procedures without connections, are considered to be low in cognitive demand, as tasks focus on recalling pre
viously learned facts or following predetermined steps to solve algorithms without linking content to underlying mathematical con
cepts. The second two levels within the framework, Procedures with connections and Doing mathematics are considered to be high in
cognitive demand, as they provide opportunities for sense making. Tasks at these levels focus on helping students develop deeper
understanding of mathematics concepts. Doing mathematics requires the highest level of cognitive demand. Here, students are pre
sented with opportunities to explore, evaluate, and think critically about mathematical concepts using multiple representations to
demonstrate their understanding (Agterberg et al., 2021; Kessler et al., 2015, Stein et al., 2000).
Although there is general consensus regarding low versus high levels of cognitive demand within mathematics, there are some
misconceptions about needing to acquire lower-level skills before exposure to higher-level skills. The National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics [NCTM], 2000; 2014) recommends that all preschool through 12th grade students have exposure to “cognitively complex
mathematical opportunities in order to facilitate the development of skills that go beyond rote memorization and recalling steps of
basic algorithms.” Furthermore, studies have demonstrated the importance of providing students with both procedurally- and
conceptually-based instructional opportunities within lessons to help them become mathematics thinkers and doers (e.g., Hiebert,
2013; NCTM; 2000).
2.2. Mathematics opportunities for autistic learners
Studies have outlined strategies and practices for teaching mathematics to students on the autism spectrum, however, the focus of
these interventions have represented a narrow set of mathematical skills and concepts centered on procedurally-based learning op
portunities without connections to underlying concepts (Lambert et al., 2020). Of importance to note is an emerging tension within the
research literature centering on mathematics instruction for autistic learners. Many interventions designed for learners on the autism
spectrum are grounded in behavioral-based principles and include methods such as prompting and chaining to teach students how to
solve algorithms and word problems (Cox & Root, 2020; Root et al., 2017; Root et al., 2018). These approaches are intended to
explicitly teach mathematics to learners on the autism spectrum in a predetermined, systematic manner, which lowers the cognitive
demand of the mathematical task (Smith, 2000). Some suggest that learners on the autism spectrum require this degree of support
because of the cognitive and linguistic challenges associated with autism (Root et al., 2017). Others have raised concerns, emphasizing
that mathematics learning is a social, transactional process in which learners should have an opportunity to flexibly grapple with and
make sense of mathematical content (Lambert & Tan, 2017). Within the latter view, researchers believe that opportunities should
presume competence and promote agency, and further, that the diverse strengths and unique learning styles of autistic students can be
leveraged to facilitate meaningful and active participation in mathematics (Lambert et al., 2020; Tan & Alant, 2018; Truman, 2017).
These differences in views raise important questions regarding what equitable learning opportunities look like for autistic learners.
Is simplifying conceptually-based instruction (i.e., problem solving) necessary for autistic learners, or does this degree of support strip
opportunity for learners to engage in mathematics instruction that aligns with standards-based recommendations (Finke et al., 2009;
Zagona et al., 2017)? If given the opportunity, how do autistic learners engage in mathematical content that requires higher-level
cognitive demand, such as critical thinking (Kurz et al., 2014)? Our study begins to provide insight into these types of questions,
questions that center on equity and opportunity of mathematics instruction for autistic learners, by outlining features of mathematics
instructional practices that are associated with student active participation.
2.3. Teacher language
The quality of interactions between students and their teachers have been identified as a linchpin for classroom learning (e.g.,
Pianta, 2016). The language or talk teachers use within classrooms becomes the medium for teaching, which in turn, facilitates
learning (Connor et al., 2020; Dwyer et al., 2016; Franke et al., 2015; Kawalkar & Vijapurkar, 2013; Pianta, Downer et al., 2016).
Studies have consistently provided evidence for the benefits of instruction that is responsive to students’ mathematical sense-making
(Blazar et al., 2022; Franke et al., 2007), such as attending to student thinking, building on what they understand, taking up their ideas,
and scaffolding the learning process through questioning techniques. Teachers might frame their questions, comments, and requests in
a manner that builds on students’ contributions to extend their content knowledge. Through talk, teachers provide students with
opportunities to grapple with content, engage deeply in the learning process, think critically about concepts, and generate ideas and
representations to demonstrate their understanding of a concept (e.g., Franke et al., 2009; Hufferd-Ackles et al., 2004). They might also
ask prompting questions to encourage students to express their thinking (verbally or nonverbally) and embed scaffolding language as
needed to ensure students have access to the learning opportunity (Fuchs et al., 2021).
Studies have suggested that teachers’ talk facilitates students’ mathematical talk (Chapin et al., 2003), which in turn is predictive of
mathematics achievement (Veenman et al., 2005; Warner, 2008; Webb et al., 2014). Teachers’ use of responsive language and
open-ended questions are two specific features of talk that provide these types of opportunities. These features of talk have been linked
with academic, social, and behavioral outcomes within general education classrooms (Burchinal et al., 2008; Curby et al., 2009;
Mashburn et al., 2008; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2005; Wilson et al., 2007). Although limited, there is an emerging body of research
centered on teacher language and student participation within classrooms serving autistic students. Sparapani and colleagues (2021)
recently evaluated the language environment in kindergarten through second grade general and special education classrooms and
documented differences in talk between the two settings, noting that special education teachers used more language overall than
general education teachers. Teachers across both settings most frequently used close-ended questions and language to direct or
3
re-direct student behavior and attention; they rarely asked students open-ended questions. The authors concluded that the language
environment that autistic students experience within classrooms may be “less than optimal,” as the features of talk that were most
prevalent may limit (rather than support) student engagement within interactions and classroom activities.
Responsiveness, defined as adult language that follows the child’s lead (Girolametto & Weitzman, 2002), has been identified as a
key feature in communication and language development in young children on the autism spectrum (e.g., Haebig et al., 2013; Milburn
et al., 2014; Whittaker et al., 2018). Sparapani and colleagues (2020) highlighted responsiveness as a potential key element within
interactions in their study examining interactions with autistic school-age children within reading-based activities utilizing a scripted
language approach. They note, “Listening, flexibly shifting, adapting, and responding to students’ contributions may facilitate
extended interaction, composition, and generativity and encourage a richer exchange overall” (pg. 13). These studies, although outside
of mathematics contexts provide direction for conceptualizing and measuring teacher language within classroom contexts including
students on the autism spectrum. Taken together, we can draw from both the general education and autism literature to further
understand specific features of talk that may be important for engagement in school-age autistic children within mathematics contexts.
2.4. Classroom participation in students on the autism spectrum
Active participation within activities plays an important role within the classroom learning process. Studies have documented
direct links between student participation and classroom learning within general education classrooms (Connor et al., 2020; Green
wood et al., 2002; Ponitz et al., 2009) as well as mediating effects between teacher language and academic achievement (Guo et al.,
2011). Furthermore, active participation has been proposed as a key component in effective programming for students on the autism
spectrum (National Research Council [NRC], 2001). Conceptualization of active participation has frequently been limited to tracking
on-task student behavior (e.g., Greenwood et al., 2002), which provides limited information for how teachers might foster active
participation within classrooms.
The observational research tool, Classroom Measure of Active Engagement (CMAE; Sparapani et al., 2016), was developed to measure
active participation in autistic students across classroom activities. The CMAE measures behaviors that reflect the core and associated
features of autism, such as differences in emotion regulation, joint attention, and social communication. It was believed that tracking
the aforementioned areas would be key to helping teachers reduce instructional barriers that learners on the autism spectrum expe
rience in the classroom, and therefore enabling access to the learning opportunity. Three relevant components outlined on the CMAE
include: emotion regulation, classroom productivity, and initiating communication. Emotion regulation measures students’ capacity to
monitor and manage their physiological arousal and emotional states to meet the demands of an activity (Prizant et al., 2006;
Sparapani et al., 2016). Classroom productivity gauges students’ ability to appropriately use and manage classroom materials, and
initiating communication measures the frequency of students’ spontaneous initiations directed toward others to meet a specific
function (Wetherby & Prizant, 2002). Studies evaluating active participation using the CMAE within elementary-aged students on the
autism spectrum have documented limited participation overall, with students spending about half of the observed time well-regulated
and productive as well as infrequently initiating communication (Sparapani et al., 2016, 2020).
Table 1
Student Demographic Information & Standardized Measures.
Mean (SD)
Sex
Male 82%
Female 18%
Age 6.60 (2.05)
Hispanic Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latinx 35%
Non-Hispanic/Latinx 42%
Unspecified 23%
Race/Ethnicity
African American/ Black 6%
Asian/Pacific Islander 1%
White/Caucasian 32%
Native American 6%
Mixed Race 11%
Other 18%
Unspecified 27%
Standardized Measures Mean (SD) Skewness Kurtosis
Autism Features 7.76 (1.56) -1.35 -0.19
Receptive Language 39.99 1.41 1.14
Expressive Language 43.73 0.64 0.10
Adaptive Behavior 67.57 (13.11) -0.79 0.74
Note. N = 76. Autism features were measured using the ADOS-2. Receptive and expressive language abilities were measured using the
DAS-II age equivalent scores. Teacher rating measures of adaptive behavior were measured using the Vineland-2.
4
2.5. Purpose and research objectives
The purpose of this study was to describe mathematics learning opportunities presented to learners on the autism spectrum as well
as identify instructional mathematics opportunities that relate to student participation as measured with the CMAE. We used classroom
video observations to investigate the nature of and variability in mathematical tasks offered to students on the autism spectrum. We
were curious about opportunity; understanding what opportunities were provided to learners on the autism spectrum, and how these
opportunities were linked to student participation. Specifically, we sought to understand whether the identified instructional practices
and language features outlined in the general education literature functioned in same manner for autistic learners. We drew from Stein
and Lane’s (1996) cognitive demand framework as well as the general education mathematics literature and the autism research
literature to outline three primary research questions to ground our study. 1) How might we use video observations to characterize
mathematics learning opportunities for learners on the autism spectrum, evaluate teachers’ language use within varying mathematical
tasks, and examine the degree to which students participate within the mathematics learning opportunities presented to them? 2) What
is the effect of mathematical tasks and teacher language on students’ active engagement? 3) What is the effect of mathematical tasks
and teacher language on students’ spontaneous communication?
3. Methods
3.1. Participants
Participants for the present study included 76 preschool–3rd grade students on the autism spectrum (Mage = 6.60, SD = 2.05) and
their 49 teachers across 14 districts in California who were recruited for a larger, longitudinal project evaluating a classroom inter
vention for autistic children and their teachers and paraprofessionals. Participating students were recruited according to the pa
rameters of the original project. They varied with regard to sex, age, ethnic and racial background, and developmental profiles. See
Table 1. As part of the longitudinal project, students participated in a diagnostic battery at the beginning of each school year (4 years
total) to assess the presence and severity of autism features as well as students’ verbal and nonverbal cognitive abilities. Trained
clinicians confirmed autism diagnostic status using the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Second Edition, (ADOS-2; Lord et al.,
2012). Teachers also completed questionnaires to access students’ adaptive functioning. In addition, students and teachers were
video-recorded throughout the school year working together in a range of classroom activities (e.g., snack, literacy, play,
mathematics).
Data for the current study included assessment information and video-recorded observations of mathematics activities collected at
the beginning of each school year, during Years 1–4 of the longitudinal project (prior to the start of the intervention). Although some
students had several observations over the 4-year study, we only selected their first observation to be included in this study. We used
baseline (beginning of year) data only to limit the possibility of intervention effects on teachers’ practices and students’ participation.
This study was approved by the university Institutional Review Board prior to the start of the longitudinal study.
Participating students in the current study had a confirmed diagnosis of autism and participated in at least one video-recorded
mathematics activity with a lead teacher or paraprofessional. Participating teachers included teachers within inclusive general edu
cation classrooms (13%), resource specialist programs (7%), and a range of special education settings (80%). Sixty-nine percent (69%)
of the teachers held a teaching credential within special, general, and/or early childhood education. Four of the 49 participating
teachers included paraprofessionals who led the observed mathematical tasks. See Table 2 for teacher demographic information.
3.2. Standardized measures
The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Second Edition, (ADOS-2; Lord et al., 2012), is a semi-structured behavior observation
Table 2
Teacher Demographic Information.
Mean (SD)
Sex
Female 84%
Male 16%
Experience
Teaching (Years) 9.07 (5.57)
Teaching Credential 69%
Autism Specialization 71%
Classroom Setting
Inclusive Classroom 13%
Resource Program 7%
Special Education 80%
Mild/Moderate 27%
Moderate/Severe 33%
Autism 20%
Note. N = 49.
5
tool for measuring autism features and determining diagnostic classification. As part of the longitudinal project, students completed
either Module 1 (little to no verbal language), Module 2 (phrase speech), or Module 3 (fluent speech). Using the revised algorithms, the
ADOS-2 yields three scores: Social Affect (SA), Restricted and Repetitive Behavior (RRB), and a combined total score (Gotham et al.,
2007) and provides algorithm total cut-offs for the classifications of non-spectrum, autism spectrum, and autism. We used the com
bined total score within the current study. The ADOS-2 has strong psychometric properties, with reported high sensitivity (range =
0.89 – 0.92) and specificity (range = 0.81 – 0.85; Lebersfeld et al., 2021).
The Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II; Elliott et. al., 2007) is an individually administered, standardized tool to
measure cognitive functioning. The DAS-II is comprised of several subtests that yield three cluster scores: Verbal, Nonverbal, and
Spatial Reasoning. In the current study, we used age equivalent scores from the verbal comprehension and naming vocabulary subtests
of the Verbal cluster to gauge students’ receptive and expressive language abilities. Specifically, the verbal comprehension subtest
Table 3
Teacher Instructional Practices: Identifying Mathematical Tasks Based on Cognitive Demand.
Type of Mathematical Tasks Transcript from Observation
Memorization: Direct recall or reproducing information in a rote manner. T: 3 × 6 (holds up flashcard)

Tasks require low cognitive demand. S2: 16!
Example tasks include: T: (shakes head)
S2: Aww
• Practicing math facts with flashcard S1: 19?
• Repeating numbers or patterns T: (shakes head) Try again.
• Rote counting S1: 18?
S2: 12. 13. 14.
• Matching numbers or shapes
S1: 18.
T: 18 (gives S1 a reward token).
T: Here’s another one. It’s kind of easy. 3 × 5?
S1: 3 × 5. 15!
T: 15 (gives S1 a reward token).
Procedures without connections: Learning of standard algorithms and math T: Where is your line? There’s no line.
procedures. Following step-by-step instructions for math computation. S: (draws a line) There.
Procedural tasks require low cognitive demand. T: Alright, where do you start? What side?
Example tasks include: S: Start here!
T: Perfect.
• Practicing steps of a numerical operation, such as multi-digit division S: 9 take away 9… is 0.
or subtraction with regrouping T: Excellent.
• Using a touch math strategy to find the answer to an addition equation S: 8…?
T: You can’t do 8 with the 5 on top, buddy. You have to start there. Can you
take 5 from 8?
S: No!
T: What do you have to do? You have to go… (makes knocking gesture)
S: You have to go next door!
T: (knocks on desk) Knock on the door.
Procedures with connections. Building students’ understanding around a concept T: OK everybody gets a 10-frame. Are you ready (hands everyone a 10-frame)?
to help them understand how and why a procedure works. T: (takes out a bag of red plastic counters) How many counters do you need to fill
Tasks require high cognitive demand. your 10-frames?
Example tasks include: Ss: (no responses)
T: Lets count! How many do you need to fill it?
• Adding money to buy preferred items T: (directed toward S1) How many do you need to make 10 on here (points to
• Using math manipulatives and other objects, such as candy, pumpkin 10-frame)? How many do you need?
seeds, and fish to demonstrate understanding of a mathematical S1: 1!
T: You just need 1 (gives S1 1 counter)?
concept
S2: 2!
• Using blocks, playdoh, or drawings to represent a mathematics T: You just need 2 (gives S1 another counter)? How many do you need to FILL
equation your grid?
S1: 10!
T: Ah. There’s the magic number. How many do we need to fill our 10 grid?
S1: 10!
T: 10 (reaches into the bag of red counters). 1, 2, …(places counters on 10-frame)
S1: (takes and places 10 counters on 10-frame)
Doing mathematics: Analytical tasks that require problem-solving and T: So, you know how to use a model and you know how to use a number line.
mathematical reasoning. Let’s see what this one will help you do (points to problem)
Tasks require the highest cognitive demand. S: (reads word problem)
Example tasks include: T: Use words, models, and numbers to show your thinking (points to text).
Okay, so how are you going to do it?
• Solving word problems S: With the numbers?
• Providing verbal or nonverbal explanation, reasoning, or justification T: With the numbers? Okay.
• Demonstrating understanding about relationships among concepts S: Okay. Is it minus?
T: I don’t know. Why do you think it’s minus? Let’s find the words that tell us
(reads problem aloud and points to text). Is there anything really important in
that sentence?
6
measures students’ understanding of oral instructions involving basic language concepts, and the naming vocabulary subtest measures
students’ knowledge of names when shown objects and pictures. The DAS-II was standardized on a large, representative sample of
children between 2 and 17 years of age, including neurodivergent children. It has been widely used with autistic and non-autistic
children and has strong psychometric properties, with reliability coefficients ranging from 0.76 to 0.96 (Saulnier, 2013).
The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (Vineland-2; Sparrow et al., 2005) is a standardized, norm-referenced measure
of adaptive functioning. We used the teacher-report version of the Vineland-2. Teachers rate students’ skills across three domains
Communication, Daily Living Skills, and Socialization, which together yield an Adaptive Behavior Composite (ABC) standard score.
Scores can be interpreted as follows: high (130− 140), moderately high (115− 129), adequate (86− 114), moderately low (71− 85) and
low (below 71). The Vineland-2 has been used with autistic and non-autistic children, The measure has strong psychometric properties,
with good reliability on the ABC for autistic children (r = 0.83–94) and overall good validity (Sparrow et al., 2005).
3.3. Observational procedures and measures
We used Noldus Observer® Video-Pro Software (Noldus Information Technology XT 14 and 15, 2017) to code the video footage.
Table 4
Teacher Language and Student Participation: Definitions, Coding Specifications, and Examples.
Teacher Language: All the teacher language dimensions are marked in a manner to specify the amount of language that each student experiences, whether directed
toward an individual student or a group of students. The codes are all mutually exclusive.
Responsive language. Teacher’s immediate, affectively positive verbal responses that follow students’ communicative contributions (Sparapani et al., 2020). This
includes times when the teacher shapes or expands a students’ contribution, asks for clarification, expresses genuine enthusiasm and other feedback in response
to a students’ contribution. This code yields the number of instances that teachers respond to students’ verbal or nonverbal communication (initiations and
responses within interactions).
“Nice. So, 9 × 4 = 36. You did your model and you did your number sentence. Nice job.” (genuine enthusiasm)
S: “Tra Tra.”
T: “Tr…Triangle” (shapes and expands)
T: “So would you like to draw a picture?”
S: “No thank you”
T: “Ok. So how would you like to solve it? How are you going to show me?” (other feedback)
Math-Related Talk. Teacher’s use of math-related open-ended questions, directives, and scaffolds that facilitate the learning of mathematics content. This includes
language that requires students to perform math-related actions, break tasks down into manageable steps, check for students’ mathematical understanding, and
to demonstrate their understanding of a mathematical concept. This code yields the number of instances that teachers use language to create a math learning
opportunity.
“Let’s start at 5 and count up from there” (break tasks down into steps)
“Write down five for me” (directive that requires simple action)
“What should you do now?” “How did you do that?” (open-ended question)
“Show me again. Get 4 buttons and put them on your tree” (check for understanding)
Non-Task Directives. Teacher’s use of language to direct or redirect student behavior or attention to comply in a specific manner. Non-task related bids are not
related to the mathematics learning goals. This code yields the number of instances teachers use verbal and/or nonverbal language to direct or redirect student
behavior and attention.
“Can you look over here?” (indirect request to redirect attention)
“Put the pencil down and keep your hands on your lap” (direct behavior)
“Where should you be sitting?” (indirect request to redirect behavior)
“Sit down”; “Let’s have a quiet voice” (redirect behavior)
Student Participation. Three dimensions from the CMAE, emotion regulation, productivity, and orientation were combined to represent students’ “active
engagement” within mathematical tasks. Students’ frequency of communication initiations represent the “spontaneous communication” variable.
Emotion Regulation. The emotion regulation dimension captures students’ capacity to monitor and manage their physiological arousal, emotional states, and
behavior, to match the demands of an activity or the environment (Prizant et al., 2006; Sparapani et al., 2016). When students are well-regulated, they appear to
be in an active alert (awake, attentive, eager, etc.) or quiet alert state (settled but responsive), ready and available for learning. They may or may not be using
strategies to stay in an active or quiet alert state, such as lightly tapping their foot, gently swaying or rocking, or quietly using self-talk. Dysregulation interferes
with successful activity participation. When students are dysregulated, they may appear overaroused (agitated, hyperactive, overstimulated, etc.) or
underaroused (drowsy, understimulated, etc.).
The emotion regulation dimension yields the duration of time that students spend in well-regulated (with or without the use of self-regulatory strategies) and
dysregulated states within individual mathematical tasks.
Productivity. The productivity dimension captures the degree to which students are actively engaged with and appropriately using learning materials within
mathematical tasks. This dimension yields the duration of time students 1) do not have access to materials, 2) have access to materials but are not utilizing them,
and 3) have access to materials and are productively using them.
Counting math blocks; copying and solving an equation on a whiteboard (productive)
Has marker, problems to solve, and whiteboard but is not using them (access to materials)
Teacher takes counting cars away from student (no opportunity to materials)
Orientation. The orientation dimension captures the amount of time students orient their bodies toward the direction of the task materials and/or people involved
in the task. This code yields the duration of time that students orient themselves toward or away from relevant materials and/or people within mathematical
tasks.
Spontaneous Communication. Verbal and non-verbal spontaneous communication directed toward others to serve an intention or purpose. This code yields the
number of instances students initiate communication related to the task, such as making comments (showing, sharing, or talking about related experiences)
seeking information (asking questions, asking for clarification), and giving (giving compliments or sharing materials with another person).
“Look”; “I have 3”; “It’s over there”; ”Fish,”; “I like numbers” (making comments)
“Where’s 8 at?”; “Is it minus?” “What’s number like?” (seeking information)
“Your turn”; Gives block to a peer; “Here you go”; “You can go first” (giving/sharing)
7
Three trained undergraduate research assistants first coded the video-recorded observations in full to identify eight activities as
outlined in Sparapani et al. (2016) (mathematics, literacy, other academics, snack, jobs & chores, arts and crafts, recreation and
leisure, and transitions). Interrater agreement was calculated on 26% of the data and yielded an average total percent agreement score
of 97.64% and Cohen’s kappa coefficient score of 0.91. Once activities were identified, we next selected the observations that included
mathematics activities (activities incorporating numbers, patterns, and measurement) for further coding, totaling video footage from
76 students that averaged 16:58 min in length (SD = 8:53).
3.3.1. Instructional practices: identifying mathematical tasks

We examined teachers’ instructional practices using Stein & Lane’s (1996) conceptual framework based on cognitive demand
(Franke et al., 2015; Stein et al., 2000; Van de Walle et al., 2019). Specifically, we categorized mathematics activities into four types of
mathematical tasks, ordered from lowest to highest cognitive demand: Memorization (tasks focused on recall and rote memorization),
Procedures without connections (“Procedures;” tasks highlighting the learning of standard algorithms without linking them to un
derlying concepts), Procedures with connections (“Connections;” tasks focused on solving problems while tapping into conceptual
knowledge and sense making), and Doing mathematics (“Doing;” analytical tasks that require problem-solving/mathematical
reasoning without a predetermined pathway). We identified the amount of time that teachers provided instruction across these
four types of mathematical tasks. See Table 3 for additional detail and examples of the mathematical tasks.
We then sampled five consecutive minutes, when possible, of the observations for further coding. If the mathematical tasks were
less than 5-minutes in length, we coded the total length of the task. This sampling method is similar to previous studies utilizing
observational data (Birkeneder & Sparapani, 2023; Sparapani et al., 2016). The first two authors on this paper, one of whom is a
mathematics education researcher and teacher educator, consensus coded 20 video observations (30% of the data). The first author
then coded the remaining 56 video observations, and interrater agreement was calculated on 13% of these data, yielding an average
total agreement score of 100%.
3.3.2. Teacher language

Extending on the coding constructs outlined in Sparapani et al. (2020, 2021), two trained research assistants coded the amount and
type of language teachers used with their autistic students across three broad categories: responsive language (immediate, affectively
positive verbal responses that follow students’ communicative contributions), math-related talk (open-ended questions and directives
used to facilitate the learning of math content), and non-task directives (language used to direct or redirect student behavior or
attention). We included non-task directives because Sparapani and colleagues (2021) documented high frequencies of this type of talk
within their observational study. Although the literature suggests that high amounts of directive language may hinder students’
participation within activities (e.g., de Kruif et al., 2000; Williford et al., 2017), we were interested in better understanding this link
within the context of mathematics instruction for autistic learners. A summary of the coding definitions and examples are listed in
Table 4. Full definitions are available from the corresponding author upon request.
3.3.3. Student participation (active engagement and spontaneous communication)

Next, six trained undergraduate research assistants examined students’ participation using a multiple pass procedure by coding one
student at a time rather than observing multiple students within classrooms simultaneously (Yoder et al., 2018). We adapted and
extended on the constructs outlined on the Classroom Measure of Active Engagement (CMAE; Sparapani et al., 2016). Within each
mathematical task, the observers identified the amount of time students spent well-regulated, in which their physiological arousal and
emotional states matched the demand of the task (emotion regulation) as well as the amount of time they had access to and spent
productively using materials (productivity). We also identified the amount of time that students oriented their bodies toward the
direction of the task materials and people involved in the task (orientation). We combined the amount of time that students simul
taneously spent within these three states—well-regulated, productive, and oriented—to measure their active engagement within the
mathematical tasks. In addition, we measured the frequency of students’ spontaneous communication initiations as outlined on the
CMAE by tracking the number of instances they initiated communication related to the task, such as making comments, seeking in
formation, and giving/sharing. See Birkeneder and Sparapani (2023) for preliminary evidence for the validity of the spontaneous
communication measure. See Table 4.
3.3.4. Interrater agreement

Interrater agreement was first established prior to coding all the observed constructs, with an agreement score at or above 80%
across 10 consecutive videos. We then calculated interrater agreement on 20% of the data (randomized sample). Agreement on each of
the teacher language categories was good, yielding an average percent agreement score of 81% (range = 79–84%). Interrater
agreement for the active participation constructs was very strong, with total agreement scores ranging between 92% and 95% and
kappa scores ranging between 0.67 and 0.87. Total percent agreement was calculated on 15% of the spontaneous communication data
and yielded an agreement score of 86% (range = 76–100%).
3.4. Analytic methods & data analysis
Preliminary analyses were conducted to test whether data meets the necessary model assumptions, and data was found to meet
necessary assumptions. All data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS version 27.0, and models were fit using the IBM SPSS
GENLINMIXED function.
8
A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) was conducted to examine the effect of mathematics instructional tasks and teachers’
language on students’ active engagement. Prior to running the model, data were analyzed to ensure that all necessary assumptions
were met. Data were found to meet the assumptions of linearity, homogeneity of variance and normality of residuals. Data were found
to approximate a normal distribution based on visual inspection of histograms as well as using the Shapiro-Wilkes test. Fixed effects for
this model included the type of task, teachers’ language variables (responsive language, math-related talk, and non-task directives), as
well as interactions between type of task and responsive language and math-related talk. We only included tasks that were at least 4-
minutes in length within the GLMM models. We did not include Doing tasks within the analyses because they were rarely observed;
“Other tasks” emerged from the data (we describe in detail below) but were also excluded from analysis because they did not have a
clear mathematics focus. The choice was made to not include the interaction between non-task directives and type of task because we
did not hypothesize that this interaction would differentially correlate with student participation. The model controlled for students’
chronological age, autism features, and receptive language abilities as well as interval duration. Based our theoretical framework,
teachers may adjust their language and the learning opportunity by individual student features (Connor, 2016), thus, holding these
variables constant allowed us to examine the relationship between teachers’ practices and language use with students’ participation
while controlling for the influence of individual students’ characteristics. Finally, expressive language and adaptive behavior scores
were not included in the model because they were highly correlated with receptive language (r = 0.77; 0.61). Subjects were entered
into the model as random effects (intercept).
A Mixed Effects Logistic Regression was conducted to examine the effect of mathematical tasks and teachers’ language on students’
spontaneous communication. For purposes of analysis, students’ spontaneous communication was transformed into a categorical
variable with three levels: high language, low language and no language. The categorical variable was found to approximate a normal
distribution with no outliers. Prior to running the model, data were analyzed and found to meet the assumptions of linearity and
multicollinearity. As in the previous model, fixed effects for this model included the type of task, teachers’ language (responsive
language, math-related talk, and non-task directives) as well as interactions between type of task and responsive language and math-
related talk. Random effects included intercept at the subject level. The model controlled for students’ individual characteristics
(chronological age, autism features, and receptive language) and interval duration.
4. Results
4.1. Classroom mathematics learning opportunities for students on the autism spectrum
4.1.1. Mathematical tasks

We sampled 5-minutes of instruction from 77 of the total 109 mathematical tasks across small group (58%), 1–1 (35%), and whole
class (7%) contexts. Thirteen tasks included at least 4-minutes, and 19 tasks fell below 4-minutes of instruction (1:21–3:40 min).
Teachers most frequently delivered Memorization (31%) and Procedures tasks (32%)—tasks that focused on rote memorization and
learning the steps of basic algorithms. We observed 19 Connections tasks (17%) and one (1%) Doing task. Twenty-six of the observed
tasks (24%) fell outside of the mathematics framework. These “Other tasks” did not have a clear mathematics focus, rather teachers
appeared to be targeting behavior management/compliance, or the tasks included multiple learning objectives (i.e., communication,
language, and social skills). During a “math” game, for example, the teacher targeted turn-taking, naming, and identifying pictures of
non-math related items (e.g., cat), and making complete sentences.
Table 5
Teacher Language & Student Participation Dimensions.
Mean SD Skew Kurt. Min Max Number of 0 s
Teacher Language Dimensions

Responsive Languagea 002.31 02.51 0.85 0.18 0 12 31
Math-Related Talka 006.11 05.81 1.21 1.36 0 26 19
Non-Task Related Directivesa 010.19 10.08 1.52 2.10 0 48 11
Active Participation Dimension
b
Well-Regulated 3:49 1:43 -0.85 -0.30 0 5:01 1
Productiveb 2:12 1:56 0.16 -1.16 0 4:98 17
b
Orientated 3:58 1:43 -1.07 0.25 0 5:01 6
Active Engagement Compositeb 1:82 1:45 0.34 -0.95 0 4:98 20
Spontaneous Communicationa 3.10 3.90 1.74 3.41 0 19 38
Memorization Procedures Connections Doing Other
Responsive Languagea 2.23 (2.63) 2.38 (1.81) 03.31 (1.81) 05.00 01.54 (2.52)
Math-Related Talka 6.13 (5.19) 6.00 (5.48) 08.95 (5.57) 17.00 03.73 (6.09)
a
Non-Task Related Directives 8.32 (8.84) 9.78 (9.60) 06.58 (4.74) 00.00 15.96 (12.71)
b
Active Engagement Composite 1:26 (1:27) 2:04 (1:55) 02:28 (1:12) 05:00 01:22 (1:16)
Spontaneous Communicationa 3.16 (3.83) 4.06 (4.75) 03.00 (3.28) 06.00 01.81 (4.06)
Note. N = 109. aMeasured as a frequency count. bMeasured in minutes. The active engagement composite is a measure of the total time students spent
well-regulated, productive, and oriented simultaneously within mathematical tasks.
9
4.1.2. Teacher language and student participation

Furthermore, teachers used more non-task directives relative to the other language categories (M = 10.19; SD = 10.08). Students
spent an average of 1:49 min actively engaged within the 5-minute tasks (37% of the task), and they initiated spontaneous commu
nication three times on average (SD = 3.91). We found that the amount and type of language teachers used and the degree to which
students participated appeared to vary by task. For example, students spent relatively more time actively engaged (M = 2:28 min; SD =
1:12), and teachers used relatively more math-related talk (M = 8.95; SD = 5.57), within Connections tasks. “Other tasks” were
characterized by a relatively higher frequency of non-task directives (M = 15.96; SD = 12.71) and fewer spontaneous communication
initiations (M = 1.81; SD = 3.03). See Table 5.
4.1.3. Correlations
Spearman correlations were used to estimate the associations among teacher language, student participation, and standardized
measures, since DAS-II age equivalent scores are considered to be ordinal in nature. We observed small to moderate, positive corre
lations among students’ receptive and expressive abilities with teachers’ use of responsive language (r = .382; r = .365); expressive
abilities were also correlated with student active engagement (r = .213). The association between students’ receptive and expressive
abilities and teachers’ use of non-task related directives was significant and negative (r = − .302; r = − .354). Furthermore, we observed
a small to moderate correlation between teachers’ use of responsive language and students’ spontaneous communication (r = .349),
and a moderate correlation between teachers’ use of math-talk and students’ active engagement (r = .408). See Table 6.
4.2. Mathematics instructional tasks and teacher language on active engagement
Results of a GLMM examining the effect of mathematics instructional tasks and teachers’ language on students’ active engagement
revealed significant main effects for teachers’ use of math-related talk (F(1,69) = 13.136; p = .001) and non-task directives (F(1,69) =
4.456; p = .038). Teachers’ use of math-related talk was associated with an increase in the duration of students’ active engagement (β
= 3.682; p = .013), while use of non-task directives was associated with a decrease in the duration of students’ active engagement (β =
− 1.839; p = .038). For full parameter estimates please see Table 7.
4.3. Mathematics instructional tasks and teacher language on spontaneous communication
Results of a Mixed Effects Multinomial Logistic Regression examining the effect of mathematical tasks and teachers’ language on
students’ spontaneous communication revealed significant main effects for the interaction between teachers’ use of responsive lan
guage and mathematical tasks (F(1,69) = 3.573; p = .018). Teachers’ use of responsive language in the context of Memorization (Exp
(β) = 1.983; p = .021) and Procedures tasks (Exp(β) = 2.342; p = .025) was associated with an increase in the likelihood of students’
spontaneous communication. For full parameter estimates please see Table 8.
5. Discussion
This study used video observations to identify instructional practices that teachers provided to their autistic students, specifically,
different types of mathematical tasks with varying levels of cognitive demand. We also examined the talk that teachers used with their
students across three broad categories drawn from the literature (responsive language, math-related talk, and non-task directives) as
well as the degree to which students actively engaged and initiated spontaneous communication within mathematical tasks. Our
findings make three primary contributions to the extant literature. These data provide a detailed, descriptive snapshot of mathematics
learning opportunities provided to preschool–3rd grade students on the autism spectrum across educational settings using a framework
drawn from the general education literature, which to our knowledge, is one of the first studies to do so. Our findings also suggest that
teachers’ language use varies across mathematical tasks and is associated with student active engagement and spontaneous
communication within mathematics learning opportunities. Finally, these data highlight teachers’ use of responsive language and
math-related talk as two important features of talk that could potentially serve as intervention targets within mathematics instructional
contexts for learners on the autism spectrum. We expand on these three contributions below.
Table 6
Spearman Correlation among Standardized Measures, Teacher Language, and Student Active Engagement.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Autism Features - –—
2. Receptive Language -.045 - -—
3. Expressive Language .089 0.831 * * —
4. Adaptive Behavior -.128 -.654 * * -.740 * * —
5. Responsive Language .013 -.382 * * -.365 * * 0.313* —
6. Math-Related Talk -.024 -.150 -.157 -.265* -.274 * * —
7. Non-Task Directives -.053 -.302 * * -.354 * * -.246* -.035 .027 —
8. Active Engagement -.107 -.171 -.213* -.196 -.210 .408 * * -.025 —
9. Spontaneous Comm. -.012 -.374 * * .414 * * -.365 * * -.349 * * .048 -.137 .025
*
p < .05. **p < .01.
10
Table 7
Parameter Estimates: GLMM Associations among Teachers’ Language and Type of with Task Students’ Active Engagement.
95% Confidence Interval
Parameter Estimate SE T p Lower Bound Upper Bound
Intercept -187.982 217.477 -.864 .390 -621.837 245.873

Task
Memorization (1) -22.877 33.874 -.675 .502 -90.453 44.699
Procedures (2) 25.636 31.564 .812 .419 -37.332 88.604
Connections (3) 22.858 32.690 .699 .487 -42.356 88.072
Other (4) 0a - - - - -
Interval Duration .780 .722 1.081 .283 -.659 2.220
Responsive Language 4.821 4.537 1.063 .292 -4.230 13.873
Demonstrating Understanding 3.628 * 1.428 2.540 .013 .779 6.476
Non-Task Directives -1.839 * .871 -2.111 .038 -3.577 -.101
Age -4.392 5.276 -.832 .227 -14.916 6.133
Autism Features 6.073 4.980 1.220 .408 -3.860 16.006
Receptive Language .789 .431 1.829 .072 -.071 1.649
Task * Responsive Language
1 -12.691 8.946 -1.419 .161 -30.538 5.156
2 -7.024 10.014 -.701 .485 -27.001 12.953
3 -5.660 7.208 -.785 .435 -20.039 8.718
4 0a - - - - -
Task * Demonstrating Understanding
1 4.840 3.110 1.556 .124 -1.364 11.044
2 .360 3.505 .103 .919 -6.633 7.352
3 .013 3.306 .004 .997 -6.582 6.608
4 0a - - - - -
Note: Procedural without connections (Procedural); Procedures with connections (Connections).
Table 8
Parameter Estimates: Mixed Effects Multinomial Logistic Regression Associations among Teachers’ Language and Type of Task with Students’
Communication.
95% Confidence Interval for Exp ( β)
Parameter β SE ( β) p Exp ( β) Lower Bound Upper Bound
Intercept
High Language 2.345 5.427 .667 10.430 .000 5.268e5
Some Language 6.223 5.303 .245 504.219 .013 1.998e7
No Language 0a - -
Task
Memorization (1) -1.770 1.256 .163 .170 .014 2.088
Procedures (2) .495 1.088 .651 .1641 .187 14.398
Connections (3) -1.421 1.697 .405 .242 .008 7.142
Other (4) 0a - - - - -
Interval Duration .032 .018 .080 1.033 .996 1.071
Responsive Language -.675 .178 .000 .509 .357 .726
Demonstrating Understanding .095 .079 .235 1.100 .939 1.288
Non-Task Directives -.006 .041 .881 .994 .917 1.078
Age .050 .137 .718 1.051 .799 1.382
Autism Features -.153 .175 .384 .858 .605 1.216
Receptive Language -.040 .015 .011 .961 .932 .990
Task * Responsive
Language
1
2
3
4
.685 *
-.220 .290 .021 1.983 1.111 3.540
.851 * .322 .497 .803 .422 1.526
0a .372 .025 2.342 1.115 4.917
- - - - -
Task * Demonstrating Understanding
1 -.101 .127 .430 .904 .702 1.165
2 -.102 .098 .300 .903 .742 1.098
3 -.124 .149 .410 .884 .656 1.190
4 - - - - - -
Note: Procedures without connections (Procedures); Procedures with connections (Connections).
11
5.1. Classroom mathematics instruction for learners on the autism spectrum
5.1.1. Mathematical learning opportunities

This research seeks to better understand the learning opportunities that students on the autism spectrum are presented. Previous
studies have suggested that students with disabilities often engage in “low rigor” mathematics that require low cognitive demand
despite evidence that they can acquire a range of mathematics skills (Bowman et al., 2019; Ehsan et al., 2018; Gevarter et al., 2016;
King et al., 2016; Lambert et al., 2018; McDonnell & Hunt, 2014). In alignment with previous studies, we found that teachers most
often presented students with less demanding mathematics opportunities. There were fewer opportunities for students to engage in
tasks that required higher cognitive demand, tapping into student sense making, thinking, and reasoning. This suggests that different
mathematical tasks afford different learning opportunities for students (Stein et al., 2000; Tan & Kastberg, 2017).
Mathematics education researchers have raised concerns regarding current mathematics approaches for learners with varying
disabilities, calling for the need to advance the conditions in which mathematics is taught (Lambert et al., 2018; Lambert, 2015; Tan &
Kastberg, 2017). They argue that the high levels of procedural mathematics currently provided to learners with disabilities is prob
lematic, as it stems from a deficit perspective, ableism, and is potentially dehumanizing. Rather, they encourage educators to view
disability through a lens of complexity, equity, and inclusion, and further, to understand the important role of the environment
(mathematics learning opportunity) and the impact it has on learning. The belief is to view individuals on the spectrum as competent
problem solvers and thinkers who can connect their own knowledge with mathematical content—conceptually-based learning op
portunities may provide the vehicle for this type of learning to occur.
Similarly, rather than modifying tasks and simplifying mathematical opportunities for autistic learners, teachers could maintain the
rigor of the learning opportunity and instead include accommodations, scaffolds, materials, and differentiated strategies to help
students access the mathematics content (Ehsan et al., 2017). Some teachers, however, might not feel equipped to move instruction
beyond numbers and operations, allowing opportunities for problem-solving and critical thinking, while also embedding strategies to
help students with varying needs access the learning opportunity (Bowman et al., 2019; Boyd & Bagerhuff, 2009; Moon et al., 2012;
Lambert 2020). Hence, our findings may highlight the need for interdisciplinary research and practice, in which practitioners, with
varying backgrounds and certifications, come together to understand, identify, and implement effective mathematics instruction to
learners on the autism spectrum across educational settings (Ehsan et al., 2018).
5.1.2. Linking teacher language with student participation

This study begins to bridge general education mathematics literature with autism literature, highlighting the importance of the
mathematical learning opportunities provided to learners on the autism spectrum. Perhaps our most important contribution, however,
relates to the role of teacher language within mathematical tasks. We found that features of teachers’ talk operate differently in terms
of how they relate to student outcomes. Math-related talk within Connections tasks, for example, was associated with student active
engagement. Whereas, teachers’ use of responsive language within Memorization and Procedures tasks was associated with an in
crease of spontaneous communication. Responsive language has been identified as an important feature of talk within general edu
cation classrooms (e.g., Curby et al., 2009) and a key component within interventions for autistic children (e.g., Shire et al., 2016).
Previous studies have also documented a link between adult responsiveness and child communication (e.g., Flippin & Watson, 2015).
Our findings align with and extend this literature. We argue that responsive language within mathematical tasks may be necessary but
not sufficient. That is, responsive language may be important for student communication outcomes, yet it does not relate to student
active engagement within mathematical tasks. Talk that aligns with teachers’ content knowledge (i.e., math-related talk), however,
does relate to student active engagement. Our findings suggest that both responsive language and math-related talk are important
features of talk within mathematics learning opportunities for students on the autism spectrum—this is consistent with the general
education literature (e.g., Burchinal et al., 2008; Downer et al., 2010).
5.2. Teacher language and student participation within mathematical tasks
5.2.1. “Other” mathematical tasks

We observed several tasks that fell outside our theoretical framework because they were either oversimplified to the point in which
students merely followed teachers’ directives to comply (“do this”), or the mathematics focus was not clear due to the number of
competing objectives within the task. These “Other tasks” did not afford students an opportunity to learn mathematical content, rather
the focus of the tasks appeared to be more behavioral-based, as they were characterized by high frequencies of talk to direct or redirect
student behavior and attention (non-task directives). As Gervater and colleagues (2016) outlined within their review of the literature,
behavior-based strategies within mathematics interventions for students on the autism spectrum, without incorporating mathematics-
specific components, are not effective for mathematical learning. Hence, two interesting interpretations emerge from these data.
Teachers who work with autistic students, who have behavioral-based goals outlined in their IEPs, might need additional support to
embed multiple objectives within mathematics learning opportunities without the expense of losing the mathematics learning goals. It
might be a misconception that students should “comply” before they are able to engage in mathematics learning opportunities. In
actuality, presenting students with academically rich learning opportunities may be what is needed to facilitate active participation
within the task. Future research is needed to further explore these findings and ideas.
5.2.2. Varying methods to demonstrate understanding and express ideas

In our study, teachers’ use of math-related talk was associated with student active engagement. This often included times in which
12
teachers asked students to demonstrate their understanding with mathematics materials (“show what you know”). Conversely, we
observed low active engagement when students did not have access to learning materials (45% of the time)—most frequently observed
in Memorization and “Other tasks.” Ensuring that students on the autism spectrum have access to learning materials (virtual or
concrete) or non-verbal ways to communicate their knowledge may provide them with alternative methods for demonstrating their
understanding and expressing their ideas, rather than solely relying on their receptive and expressive language abilities (Ehsan et al.,
2018). This may be a key ingredient to supporting active engagement in autistic students, given the differences in language and
communication skills that are characteristic of autism (APA, 2013; Charman et al., 2011). This concept aligns with principles of
universal design for learning that are currently required for teachers to embed within general education classrooms as well as the
neurodiversity movement that highlights developmental differences as a “natural and beneficial aspect” of human biology (CAST,
2018; Moon et al., 2012).
5.3. Strengths, limitations, and future directions
This study has several notable strengths. Most studies to date that have evaluated mathematics learning opportunities for learners
on the autism spectrum have included small sample sizes and the use of single case designs during targeted interventions within 1–1
settings (Gevarter et al., 2016; King et al., 2016). While such studies offer valuable insights into the behaviors and experiences of their
participants, they have notable limitations in terms of generalizability across students and contexts (Alnahdi, 2015). Few studies have
focused on the role of the environment in the learning of autistic individuals (Keen et al., 2016). This study extends the literature to
examine the varying mathematics instructional opportunities provided to students on the autism spectrum across general and special
education contexts. We included a large sample size of autistic students during early schooling, timing which is especially important in
regard to narrowing the achievement gap. We also used systematic observational methods to evaluate instructional practices, teacher
language, and student participation within the context of mathematics instruction. We utilized the ADOS-2 to determine autism
diagnostic status as well as widely used reliable and valid tools to help characterize the sample. Our observational data showed strong
interrater agreement among observers. Finally, we examined the relationship between teacher and student behaviors as well as the
interaction between the context and teacher language on student behaviors while controlling for the influence of language skills,
autism features, and chronological age. Our findings have both research and practical implications and raise important questions
regarding mathematics practices for learners on the autism spectrum.
Although our study has several strengths, there are a few notable limitations. Including a larger sample of autistic students within a
longitudinal design as they engage with their teachers in a range of mathematical tasks would provide additional insight into the
moderators, mediators, and predictors of student participation. Including more students from general education classrooms is needed
to understand whether differences exist by classroom setting. In addition, a larger sample of students would allow for analysis by age
and year group, to explore potential variability in instructional interactions by age. Future studies should also include additional
measures of student academic outcomes. This would provide insight into effective instructional practices that relate to mathematics
learning outcomes.
5.4. Summary and future research
5.4.1. Summary and future directions

Improving educational experiences for autistic learners in classrooms is a critical area of focus for research and practice (Tan &
Kastberg, 2017). Teachers have reported feeling unprepared to effectively support their autistic students in the classroom due to the
notable heterogeneity in students’ social, language, cognitive, and academic skills (Jones, 2015; Lindsay et al., 2013). The theoretical
framework used within this study may provide a way to identify and monitor varying mathematics learning opportunities presented to
students on the autism spectrum, while highlighting tangible practices that teachers can implement to promote active engagement and
spontaneous communication, and thus, theoretically, strengthen student mathematical understanding. We believe our findings also
have equitable implications and highlight the need to view autistic students as capable learners that bring strengths into the learning
opportunity.
These data raise further questions to be explored in future studies, such as investigating the dynamic and potential reciprocal
associations between mathematical tasks and student participation as well as whether and how these relationships change over time.
Future research is also needed to better understand the driving components that influence the decisions teachers make about their
instructional delivery (e.g., child characteristics, type of degree or certification, etc.), and further, whether these decisions tap into
potential biases centered around educating children on the autism spectrum. Future studies are also needed to identify additional
supports that can be embedded into mathematical learning opportunities to facilitate conceptual understanding of mathematical
content in learners on the autism spectrum. Finally, it is possible that the identified mathematics instruction as outlined within the
general education research literature is a necessary yet insufficient condition for the instruction and learning of students on the autism
spectrum. Likewise, key components outlined within autism interventions (i.e., responsiveness) within mathematics contexts may also
be necessary yet insufficient. Effective instructional practices for autistic learners might need to incorporate both general education
and autism-specific practices simultaneously (Gevarter et al., 2016). Our study highlights the need for continued interdisciplinary
work in order to improve the experiences and learning outcomes of individuals on the autism spectrum within mathematics
instructional contexts.
13
CRediT authorship contribution statement
All authors contributed sufficiently to the manuscript. The study used archival video observations that were collected as part of a
longitudinal project evaluating a classroom-based intervention for autistic children. NS and NT were responsible for the conceptu
alization and operationalization of the all the coding dimensions (instructional practices, teacher language, and student participation).
NS and CA were responsible for the training of the coding dimensions, and for collecting and calculating interrater agreement. NT, NS,
LT, and SK reviewed the literature. AND and NS were responsible for the data analyses, and NT, NS, and AND interpreted the research
findings as well as conceptualized and wrote the Discussion. All authors were involved in the writing and reviewing of the manuscript.
All authors read and approved the manuscript.
Declaration of Competing Interest
There are no conflicting interests.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by grant # R324A130350 from the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. The
opinions expressed are those of the authors, not of the funding agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred. We thank the
participating families, teachers, video observers, and the research team.
References
Agterberg, D. A., Oostdam, R. J., & Janssen, F. J. J. M. (2022). From speck to story: relating history of mathematics to the cognitive demand level of tasks. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 110(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10093-6
Alnahdi, G. H. (2015). Single-subject designs in special education: advantages and limitations. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 15(4), 257–265.
Arbaugh, F., & Brown, C. A. (2006). Analyzing mathematical tasks: A catalyst for change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(6), 499–536. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10857-006-6585-3
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc,. https://doi.org/
10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
Bascom, J. (2012). Loud Hands: Autistic People, Speaking. Washington, DC: Autistic Self Advocacy Network,.
Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. Teachers College Record, 110(3),
608–645.
Birkeneder, S. L., & Sparapani, N. (2023). Measurements of Spontaneous Communication Initiations in Children with Autism in Preschool through Third Grade
Classrooms. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 53(3), 1243–1254.
Blazar, D., Pollard, C., Callahan, P., Clark, B., & Anthony, M. (2022). Challenges and Tradeoffs of “Good” Teaching: The Pursuit of Multiple Educational Outcomes.
(EdWorkingPaper: 22-591). Retrieved from Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/ajht-4d94
Bowman, J. A., McDonnell, J., Ryan, J. H., & Fudge-Coleman, O. (2019). Effective mathematics instruction for students with moderate and severe disabilities: A
review of the literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 34(4), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357619827932
Boyd, B., & Bagerhuff, M. E. (2009). Mathematics education and special education: Searching for common ground and the implications for teacher education.
Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 11, 54–67. 〈https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ899365.pdf〉.
Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001). Executive functioning as a predictor of children’s mathematics ability: Inhibition, switching, and working memory. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 19(3), 273–293.
Burchinal, M., Howes, C., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Predicting child outcomes at the end of kindergarten from the quality of
pre-kindergarten teacher–child interactions and instruction. Applied Developmental Science, 12, 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888690802199418
CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version, 2, 2. 〈http://udlguidelines.cast.org〉.
Chapin, S. H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2003). Classroom discussions using math talk in elementary classrooms. Math Solutions, 11, 1–3.
Charman, T., Jones, C., Pickles, A., Simonoff, E., Baird, G., & Happé, F. (2011). Defining the cognitive phenotype of autism. Brain Research, 1380, 10–21. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.brainres.2010.10.075
Connor, C. M. (2016). A lattice model of the development of reading comprehension. Child Development Perspectives, 10(4), 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/
cdep.12200
Connor, C. M., Kelcey, B., Sparapani, N., Petscher, P., Siegal, S., Adams, A., Hwang, J., & Carlisle, J. (2020). Predicting second and third graders’ reading
comprehension gains: Observing students’ and classmates talk during literacy instruction using COLT. Scientific Studies of Reading. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10888438.2019.1698583
Cox, S. K., & Jimenez, B. A. (2020). Mathematical interventions for students with autism spectrum disorder: Recommendations for practitioners. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103744
Cox, S. K., & Root, J. R. (2020). Modified schema-based instruction to develop flexible mathematics problem-solving strategies for students with autism spectrum
disorder. Remedial and Special Education, 41(3), 139–151. https://doi.org/:10.1177/0741932518792660.
Curby, T. W., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Ponitz, C., & C. (2009). Teacher–child interactions and children’s achievement trajectories across kindergarten and first grade.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 912–925. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016647
de Kruif, R. E., McWilliam, R. A., Ridley, S. M., & Wakely, M. B. (2000). Classification of teachers’ interaction behaviors in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 15(2), 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(00)00051-X
Downer, J. T., Sabol, T., & Hamre, B. K. (2010). Teacher-child interactions in the classroom: toward a theory of within- and cross-domain links to children’s
developmental outcomes. Early Education and Development, 21, 699–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2010.497453
Dwyer, J., Kelcey, B., Berebitsky, D., & Carlisle, J. F. (2016). A study of teachers’ discourse moves that support text-based discussions. The Elementary School Journal,
117(2), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1086/688896
Elliott, C.D., Salerno, J.D., Dumont, R., & Willis, J.O. (2007). Differential ability scales (2nd edition). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
14
Ehsan, H., Rispoli, M., Lory, C., & Gregori, E. (2018). A systematic review of STEM instruction with students with autism spectrum disorders. Review Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 5(4), 327–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-018-0142-8
Finke, E. H., McNaughton, D. B., & Drager, K. D. R. (2009). “All children can and should have the opportunity to learn”: General education teachers’ perspectives on
including children with autism spectrum disorder who require AAC. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25(2), 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07434610902886206
Flippin, M., & Watson, L. R. (2015). Fathers’ and mothers’ verbal responsiveness and the language skills of young children with autism spectrum disorder. American
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 24(3), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_AJSLP-13-0138
Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Mathematics teaching and classroom practice. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics
Teaching and Learning (pp. 225–256). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Franke, M. L., Webb, N. M., Chan, A. G., Ing, M., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2009). Teacher questioning to elicit students’ mathematical thinking in elementary school
classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(4), 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109339906
Franke, M. L., Turrou, A. C., Webb, N. M., Ing, M., Wong, J., Shin, N., & Fernandez, C. (2015). Student engagement with others’ mathematical ideas: The role of
teacher invitation and support moves. Elementary School Journal, 116(1), 126–148. https://doi.org/10.1086/683174
Fuchs, L.S., Newman-Gonchar, R., Schumacher, R., Dougherty, B., Bucka, N., Karp, K.S., Woodward, J., Clarke, B., Jordan, N.C., Gersten, R., Jayanthi, M., Keating, B.,
& Morgan, S. (2021). Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Intervention in the Elementary Grades (WWC 2021006). Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
PracticeGuide/26.
Grandin, T. (2009). How does visual thinking work in the mind of a person with autism? A personal account. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
Series B: Biological Sciences, 364, 1437–1442. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0297
Gevarter, C., Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B., Watkins, L., Zamora, C., & Sammarco, N. (2016). Mathematics interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A
systematic review. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 3(3), 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-016-0078-9
Girolametto, L., & Weitzman, E. (2002). Responsiveness of childcare providers in interactions with toddlers and preschoolers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 33(4), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2002/022
Gotham, K., Risi, S., Pickles, A., & Lord, C. (2007). The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule: Revised algorithms for improved diagnostic validity. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(4), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0280-1
Greenwood, C. R., Horton, B. T., & Utley, C. A. (2002). Academic engagement: Current perspectives on research and practice. School Psychology Review, 31(3),
328–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2002.12086159
Guo, Y., Connor, C. M. D., Tompkins, V., & Morrison, F. J. (2011). Classroom quality and student engagement: Contributions to third-grade reading skills. Frontiers in
Psychology, 2, 157. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00157
Haebig, E., McDuffie, A., & Weismer, S. E. (2013). Brief report: Parent verbal responsiveness and language development in toddlers on the autism spectrum. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(9), 2218–2227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1763-5
Hart Barnett, J. E. H., & Cleary, S. (2015). Review of evidence-based mathematics interventions for students with autism spectrum disorders. Education and Training in
Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 172–185. 〈https://www.jstor.org/stable/24827533〉.
Hiebert, J. (2013). Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case of Mathematics. Routledge,.
Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on
Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 371–404). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K., & Sherin, M. (2004). Describing levels and components of a math-talk learning community. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 35, 81–116. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034933
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, H.R. 1350, 2004. https://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/idea/.
Irwin, V., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., York, C., A, Barmer, C., Barmer, A., Bullock Mann, F., Dilig, R., Parker, S., Nachazel, T., Megan, B.,
Purcell, S. (2021). Report on the Condition of Education 2021. NCES 2021144. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2021/2021144.
pdf.
Jitendra, A. K., Nelson, G., Pulles, S. M., Kiss, A. J., & Houseworth, J. (2016). Is mathematical representation of problems an evidence-based strategy for students with
mathematics difficulties? Exceptional Children, 83(1), 8–25. htttps://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915625062.
Jones, N. (2015). Teachers’ Perceptions of Autism Spectrum Disorder: An analysis of the relationship among teachers’ knowledge, exposure, and attitudes [Doctoral
dissertation] PCOM Psychology Dissertations. 350. http://digitalcommons.pcom.edu/psychology_dissertations/350.
Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar, J. (2013). Scaffolding science talk: The role of teachers’ questions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 35
(12), 2004–2027. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.604684
Keen, D., Webster, A., & Ridley, G. (2016). How well are children with autism spectrum disorder doing academically at school? An overview of the literature. Autism,
20(3), 276–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361315580962
Kessler, A. M., Stein, M. K., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Cognitive Demand of Model Tracing Tutor Tasks: Conceptualizing and Predicting How Deeply Students Engage.
Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20(3), 317–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-015-9248-6
King, S. A., Lemons, C. J., & Davidson, K. A. (2016). Math interventions for students with autism spectrum disorder: A best-evidence synthesis. Exceptional Children, 82
(4), 443–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915625066
Kurz, A., Elliott, S. N., Lemons, C. J., Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., & Kettler, R. J. (2014). Assessing opportunity-to-learn for students with disabilities in general and special
education classes. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 40, 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508414522685
Lambert, R., Sugita, T., Yeh, C., Hunt, J. H., & Brophy, S. (2020). Documenting increased participation of a student with autism in the standards for mathematical
practice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(3). https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000425
Lambert, R., Tan, P., Hunt, J., & Candela, A. G. (2018). Rehumanizing the mathematics education of students with disabilities; Critical perspectives on research and
practice. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 10(3), 129–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/19477503.2018.1463006
Lebersfeld, J. B., Swanson, M., Clesi, C. D., & O’Kelley, S. E. (2021). Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Clinical Utility of the ADOS-2 and the ADI-R in
Diagnosing Autism Spectrum Disorders in Children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51(11), 4101–4114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-
04839-z
Lindsay, S., Proulx, M., Thomson, N., & Scott, H. (2013). Educators’ challenges of including children with autism spectrum disorder in mainstream classrooms.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 60(4), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2013.846470
Lord, C., DiLavore, P.C., & Gotham, K. (2012). Autism diagnostic observation schedule. Torrance, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O., Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Early, D. M., & Howes, C. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in
prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development, 79, 732–749. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2008.01154.x
McDonnell, J., & Hunt, P. (2014). Inclusive education and meaningful school outcomes. In M. Agran, F. Brown, C. Hughes, C. Quirk, & D. L. Ryndak (Eds.), Equity and
full participation for individuals with severe disabilities: A vision for the future (pp. 155–176). Paul Brookes Publishing Company. 〈https://aera2017.syr.edu/
wpcontent/uploads/2017/10/McDonnell_2014_InclusiveEd.pdf〉.
Milburn, T. F., Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., & Greenberg, J. (2014). Enhancing preschool educators’ ability to facilitate conversations during shared book reading.
Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 14(1), 105–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798413478261
National Center for Education Statistics, 2019, National Assessment of Educational Progress. Nation’s report card. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/
mathematics/2019/.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000, Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2014, Principles to Actions: Executive Summary. Down- loaded June 19, 2014. http://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/
Standards_and_Focal_Points/Principles_to_ Action/PtAExecutiveSummary.pdf.
15
National Research Council[NRC]. (2001). Educating Children with Autism. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10017
Pianta, R. C. (2016). Teacher–student interactions. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 98–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215622457
Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., & Hamre, B. K. (2016). Quality in early education classrooms: definitions, gaps, and systems. The Future of Children, 28(2), 119–137.
https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2016.0015
Ponitz, C. C., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Grimm, K. J., & Curby, T. W. (2009). Kindergarten classroom quality, behavior engagement, and reading achievement. School
Psychology Review, 38, 102–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2009.12087852
Prizant, B.M., Wetherby, A.M., Rubin, E., Laurent, A, C., & Rydell, P.J. (2006). The SCERTS Model: Volume I Assessment; Volume II Program Planning and
Intervention. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., La Paro, K. M., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). The contribution of classroom setting and quality of instruction to children’s behavior in
kindergarten classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 105(4), 377–394. https://doi.org/10.1086/429948
Root, J. R., Browder, D. M., Saunders, A. F., & Lo, Y. Y. (2017). Schema-based instruction with concrete and virtual manipulatives to teach problem solving to students
with autism. Remedial and Special Education, 38(1), 42–52.
Root, J. R., Henning, B., & Boccumini, E. (2018). Teaching students with autism and intellectual disability to solve algebraic word problems. Education and Training in
Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 53(3), 325–338. 〈https://www.jstor.org/stable/26563472〉.
Sameroff, A. J. (2009). The transactional model of development: How children and contexts shape each other. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association,.
Saulnier, C. A. (2013). Differential Ability Scales (DAS and DAS-II). In F. R. Volkmar (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders. New York, NY: Springer. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1698-3_718.
Shire, S. Y., Gulsrud, A., & Kasari, C. (2016). Increasing responsive parent–child interactions and joint engagement: Comparing the influence of parent-mediated
intervention and parent psychoeducation. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(5), 1737–1747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2702-z
Smith, M. S. (2000). Balancing old and new: An experienced middle school teacher’s learning in the context of mathematics instructional reform. The Elementary
School Journal, 100(4), 351–375.
Sparapani, N., Morgan, L., Reinhardt, V. P., Schatschneider, C., & Wetherby, A. M. (2016). Evaluation of classroom active engagement in elementary students with
autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(3), 782–796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2615-2
Sparapani, N., Solari, E., Towers, L., McIntyre, N., Henry, A., & Zajic, M. (2020). Secondary analysis of reading-based activities utilizing a scripted language approach:
Evaluating interactions between students with autism and their interventionists. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 63(9), 3130–3154. https://doi.
org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00146
Sparapani, N., Reinhardt, V. P., Hooker, J. L., Morgan, L., Schatschneider, C., & Wetherby, A. M. (2021). Evaluating teacher language within general and special
education classrooms serving elementary students with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-
05115-4
Sparrow, S.S., Cicchetti, D., & Balla, D.A. (2005). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (Vineland-II) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/
10.1037/t15164–000.
Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and
learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50–80.
Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New
York: Columbia University,.
Tan, P., & Kastberg, S. (2017). Calling for research collaborations and the use of dis/ability studies in mathematics education. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education,
10(2), 25–38. 〈https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1166794〉.
Tan, P., & Alant, E., 2018, Using peer-mediated instruction to support communication involving a student with autism during mathematics.
Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chávez, Ó., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning
environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(3), 247–280. 〈https://www.jstor.org/stable/30034970〉.
Truman, J.V. (2017). Mathematical reasoning among adults on the autism spectrum: Case studies with mathematically experienced participants (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from http://summit.sfu.ca/item/17501 -.
Veenman, S., Denessen, E., van den Akker, A., & Van Der Rijt, J. (2005). Effects of a cooperative learning program on the elaborations of students during help seeking
and help giving. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 115–151. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042001115
Warner, L. B. (2008). How do students’ behaviors relate to the growth of their mathematical ideas? The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27, 206–227. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2008.07.002
Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Wong, J., Fernandez, C. H., Shin, N., & Turrou, A. C. (2014). Engaging with others’ mathematical ideas: Interrelationships among
student participation, teachers’ instructional practices, and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijer.2013.02.001
Wei, X., Christiano, E. R., Yu, J. W., Wagner, M., & Spiker, D. (2015). Reading and math achievement profiles and longitudinal growth trajectories of children with
an. Autism Spectrum Disorder Autism, 19, 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361313516549
Wetherby, A., & Prizant, B. (2002). Communication and symbolic behavior scales-developmental profile. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Wilson, H. K., Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. (2007). Typical classroom experiences in first grade: The role of classroom climate and functional risk in the development
of social competencies. The Elementary School Journal, 108(2), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1086/525548
Williford, A. P., LoCasale-Crouch, J., Whittaker, J. V., DeCoster, J., Hartz, K. A., Carter, L. M., Sanger Wolcott, C., & Hatfield, B. E. (2017). Changing teacher–child
dyadic interactions to improve preschool children’s externalizing behaviors. Child Development, 88(5), 1544–1553. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12703
Whittaker, J. E. V., Williford, A. P., Carter, L. M., Vitiello, V. E., & Hatfield, B. E. (2018). Using a standardized task to assess the quality of teacher–child dyadic
interactions in preschool. Early Education and Development, 29(2), 266–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1387960
Yoder, P. J., Symons, F. J., & Lloyd, B. (2018). Observational Measurement of Behavior (Second Edition). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing C., Inc.
Yoshikawa, H., & Hsueh, J. (2001). Child development and public policy: Toward a dynamic systems perspective. Child Development, 72(6), 1887–1903. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1467-8624.00384
Zagona, A. L., Kurth, J. A., & MacFarland, S. Z. C. (2017). Teachers’ views of their preparation for inclusive education and collaboration. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 40(3), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417692969
16

Classroom Participation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Classroom Participation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 105 (2023) 102186

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders

Factors associated with classroom participation in preschool

2. Mathematics instructional opportunities

2.1. Instructional practices and mathematical tasks

2.2. Mathematics opportunities for autistic learners

2.3. Teacher language

2.4. Classroom participation in students on the autism spectrum

2.5. Purpose and research objectives

3.2. Standardized measures

Memorization: Direct recall or reproducing information in a rote manner. T: 3 × 6 (holds up flashcard)

3.3. Observational procedures and measures

3.3.1. Instructional practices: identifying mathematical tasks

3.3.2. Teacher language

3.3.3. Student participation (active engagement and spontaneous communication)

3.3.4. Interrater agreement

3.4. Analytic methods & data analysis

4.1.1. Mathematical tasks

Teacher Language Dimensions

4.1.2. Teacher language and student participation

4.2. Mathematics instructional tasks and teacher language on active engagement

4.3. Mathematics instructional tasks and teacher language on spontaneous communication

Parameter Estimate SE T p Lower Bound Upper Bound

Intercept -187.982 217.477 -.864 .390 -621.837 245.873

Note: Procedural without connections (Procedural); Procedures with connections (Connections).

Parameter β SE ( β) p Exp ( β) Lower Bound Upper Bound

Note: Procedures without connections (Procedures); Procedures with connections (Connections).

5.1. Classroom mathematics instruction for learners on the autism spectrum

5.1.1. Mathematical learning opportunities

5.1.2. Linking teacher language with student participation

5.2. Teacher language and student participation within mathematical tasks

5.2.1. “Other” mathematical tasks

5.2.2. Varying methods to demonstrate understanding and express ideas

5.3. Strengths, limitations, and future directions

5.4. Summary and future research

5.4.1. Summary and future directions

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Declaration of Competing Interest

There are no conflicting interests.

The authors do not have permission to share data.

You might also like