Inside Inclusive Elementary Music Classrooms: Teachers and Their Students With Autism Spectrum Disorder

Respondents and Procedure

In Fall 2018, following approvals from our respective institutional review boards and the National Association for Music Education (NAfME), NAfME sent a recruitment email to all 15,404 music teachers who selected elementary as their teaching level. The email included a description of the survey, a consent form, and a link to the survey to be conducted with Qualtrics software. A reminder email was sent 2 weeks later, and the survey closed within a month. We analyzed responses from 441 teachers who taught in the United States and who completed the entire first part of the survey (31 questions). From this sample, we also analyzed open-ended responses from 353 teachers, each of whom had completed at least one of the four open-ended questions at the end of the survey.

Survey Instrument

We consulted two of the most current survey studies of music teachers and students with disabilities in inclusive settings (Hicken et al., 2018; VanWeelden & Whipple, 2014) and developed questions that focused exclusively on the experiences, perceptions, and attitudes of elementary music teachers and students with ASD. We sent a pilot version of the survey to nine music education faculty and graduate students and revised the instrument based on their feedback. The final survey consisted of 35 questions in two parts, 31 with response choices using checklists and rating scales and four open-ended responses. The 31 questions were grouped in four broad categories: (a) demographic information (i.e., school size, years of teaching experience, number of students with ASD taught); (b) education related to special education and inclusion topics; (c) collaboration with other professionals; and (d) confidence teaching children with ASD. Four open-ended questions asked teachers to write about their strengths, concerns, strategies, and advice for new teachers. At the end of the survey, participants were given the option to open another link to indicate their willingness to be interviewed about their experiences at another time. The complete survey is presented as Online Supplementary Material (Appendix A).

Data Analysis

We analyzed and summarized the 441 teachers’ responses to the 31 questions in Part 1 using descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations. Among the 441 respondents, 353 answered at least one of the four open-ended questions, meeting our criterion for inclusion in the qualitative data set. After all open-ended responses were screened to remove non-responses and instances when responses included “none” or “n/a,” the totals for teachers who responded to each open-ended question were as follows: Strengths: n = 346; Concerns: n = 337; Strategies: n = 333; Advice: n = 329.

We relied on qualitative research sources (e.g., Creswell & Poth, 2018) to develop our analysis procedures for the open-ended responses. To begin, we developed preliminary codes by randomly selecting 5% (17) of the responses for each of the four questions (a total of 68 responses). Each of us independently read the 68 responses several times, independently developed and then discussed ideas for coding categories, and by consensus arrived at a list of categories and subcategories that were then used to prepare a research assistant for coding. Data from the training sessions were not included in the final data set.

From the remaining responses, we randomly selected 25% from each question (a total of 340 responses across four questions) to be analyzed in detail. A research assistant coded all statements from these responses, and one of us randomly selected and coded 25% of the responses for purposes of reliability. Reliability procedures (agreements divided by agreements plus disagreements) yielded the following reliability estimates for each response category: Strengths = 97%; Concerns = 95%; Strategies = 89%; Advice = 97%; and an overall reliability of 95%.

The Teachers

We received responses from teachers in 49 states. 52% (n = 285) taught at mid-sized schools with 465 to 1,500+ students. 95.26% (n = 522) were employed full-time, including 91.79% (n = 503) in public schools. There was a wide range of teaching experience: a range of 1 to 45 years and median of 15. When asked about the number of neurotypical children, children with disabilities, and children with ASD, we calculated the average class size reported was 78.8% neurotypical children and 14.8% children with disabilities, of which 6.4% were children with ASD. When asked about the total number of students with ASD in their classes and the total number of students with ASD who were accompanied by paraprofessionals, teachers reported working with an average of 12.2 students with ASD across all their classes (range 1–100; median 7), 36.5% of whom were accompanied in class by a paraprofessional.

Their Students

Inclusion in the Regular Curriculum

A major and continuing premise from the mandate of IDEA 1975 requires that children with disabilities are to be educated with children without disabilities to the maximum extent possible; the 1990 amendments require their access to the regular curriculum and participation in extra-curricular activities and nonacademic settings (with aides, services, and other supports to facilitate access). We assume that a majority of the music teachers in our survey support these requirements; they responded that the music education needs of students with ASD would be better met in regular music classes than in separate music classes, and that their presence does not hinder the progress of other students in the classroom. They also responded positively when asked about including students with ASD in the regular music curriculum, classroom activities, and school performances. We do not have information about the music behaviors of their students in these activities and performances, although 44.49% reported that students with ASD “always” or “often” demonstrated the same level of music achievement as their peers without ASD, and 47.26% “always” or “often” assessed students with ASD using the same musical standards as they used to assess other children in the class. It is possible that the percentages for music achievement and assessments for students with ASD are influenced by their need for support, and the teachers’ lack of knowledge of support options.

Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion for students with ASD affect students’ success in the classroom, although positive attitudes about inclusion are not necessarily related to teachers’ awareness or use of empirically supported interventions to bring about their success (Segall & Campbell, 2012). Many teachers in our study were concerned about the music learning of their students with ASD, and yet a majority focused almost exclusively on curricular modifications to bring about successful experiences for their students with ASD and reported limited use of adaptations for instruction, universal strategies, and other forms of support (e.g., collaboration with others; support from peers.) Some curricular and instructional adaptations may be necessary to meet individual learning needs, but there is the danger of overuse, thus limiting a student’s access to regular classroom goals and activities. A variety of strategies within the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework can be implemented to protect against overuse and overspecialization of adaptations; these strategies are applicable in music teaching and learning environments (Darrow, 2016).

UDL is considered a scientifically valid framework for guiding education practice and has been used widely for decades as an approach to address the learning needs of all students (Ballard & Dymond, 2017; Capp, 2017). We may learn more about the educational practices of music teachers and, importantly, the music goals and learning of their students with ASD through qualitative approaches such as interviews and classroom observations. What regular music goals do teachers make accessible for students with ASD; are goals appropriately challenging; when are curricular modification appropriate, and are students making progress?

The issue of high standards and progress in educational programs was taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court in Endrew F. v. Douglas County (2017) , a case concerning a child with autism. The Court stated that the child’s IEPs reflected his lack of progress and ruled that “every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives” with a program that is “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” (p. 991).

Confidence and Collaboration

As discussed previously, we found that teachers who were more confident teaching students with ASD were also those who had more undergraduate coursework in special education topics. More confident teachers also had more years of experience teaching students with ASD; findings similar to Hicken et al. (2018). It takes time, however, to gain experience. Something can be done for new teachers now—those who teach students with ASD, who may lack confidence, and who have had limited undergraduate coursework and experiences related to teaching students in inclusive classrooms.

With or without adequate preparation or experiences as undergraduates, all new teachers would benefit from collaboration with individuals who are knowledgeable about the students they teach. Special educators and parents can inform a new teacher of the student’s characteristics; interests; level of needed support; teaching strategies and adaptations; use of assistive technology; ways to facilitate communication and interactions with classmates, and so on. Teachers can learn much about a student through interactions with members of the student’s IEP team. Unfortunately, most teachers in our study did not participate in IEP meetings. Music teachers are often uninvolved in the IEP process and without adequate preparation may not have knowledge of this process or the potential support they could receive from members of the IEP team (McCord & Watts, 2010). Interactions with team members can be invaluable, particularly for those teachers who lack confidence and need support for students they find challenging to teach.

There was a positive relationship between confidence and collaboration, but we also found that more confident teachers talked with different kinds of collaborators. A majority collaborated with individuals from their school—the special education teacher, paraprofessionals, and regular classroom teachers, but unfortunately, we found low percentages for collaborations with parents. Percentages for collaboration with music therapists and medical/health professionals were the lowest, a finding that that may reflect the proximity and availability of these individuals to teachers and that these services may not have been required.

Relationships between confidence, collaboration, and different kinds of collaborators were similar to those found by Hicken et al. (2018), a study about students broadly defined as having a disability, with the exception of comparisons for collaboration with paraprofessionals. Specific to students with ASD, we found that more teachers collaborated with paraprofessional than teachers in Hicken et al. (2018). In a study of elementary music teachers’ perceptions of the role of paraprofessionals in inclusive classrooms (all disabilities), Majerus and Taylor (2020) found that only a few teachers collaborated with paraprofessionals outside of the classroom, but were positive about their support, particularly when the paraprofessionals provided behavioral and physical support and when they adapted music activities. We did not examine the role of paraprofessionals for students with ASD in our study.

We need more information about the role of paraprofessionals working with children with ASD, and specifically their actions regarding students’ participation and music learning. Paraprofessionals, however, are only one source of support. When needed supports are provided in regular classrooms, evidence shows that students with even extensive support needs outperform their counterparts educated in self-contained classrooms (Gee et al., 2020).

Students’ Attitudes and Interactions

Teachers’ reports about students’ positive attitudes toward each other are particularly heartening given that most students with ASD experience social difficulties in communication and interactions (APA, 2013). Did teachers nurture positive attitudes among their students, and if so, what were their strategies?

A substantive research base in special education supports the cognitive, social, and emotional benefits of positive interactions between seemingly disparate groups (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2014; Morningstar et al., 2015), and we have conducted research in inclusive music classrooms that shows increases in positive attitudes and prosocial behaviors among children with and without disabilities as a result of structured small-group interactions (E. A. Draper, 2017; E. A. Draper et al., 2019; Jellison et al., 1984). Teacher interviews and classroom observations could lead to important findings about the roles of students with ASD in small-group interactions and possible benefits for students’ levels of communication, social competence, and music learning.

Limitations

Most of the questions in the survey were designed to collect quantitative data; we are eager to explore some of the findings using qualitative approaches. Although we cannot generalize from our sample, we are enthusiastic about the contributions of this first study about music teaching and students with ASD and the many research questions that emerged from our work.

Closing

We approached the idea of a national survey on this topic with some trepidation knowing the possibility of a small return given our narrow focus on topics of inclusion and ASD. Our expectations were confirmed; however, the teachers who chose to respond have provided new information about relationships between experience, confidence, importance of inclusion, and collaboration. We are enthusiastic about the positive responses related to students’ access to the regular curriculum and classroom activities, but empirical research is needed to answer specific questions about the students’ levels of participation, the quality of their music learning experiences, their progress and musical development, and the strategies and supports teachers are using to bring all this about in inclusive classrooms.

The picture, however, is not entirely positive when considering the issues of collaboration, involvement in the IEP process, use of empirically verified interventions, and preparedness for including students with ASD. How can we ensure that music teachers have the knowledge and skills to design and deliver a quality music program that is accessible, equitable, and flexible and one that challenges and meets not only the needs of students with ASD, but all students? How can we increase the number of teacher education programs that provide relevant knowledge and skills about inclusion and present opportunities for teachers’ continued growth and support through creative post-graduate support systems?

From the results of this study and previous research, we know that attitudes, confidence, experience, and collaboration matter, although it will be new empirical research that will answer more specific questions about the complex issues surrounding teacher preparation and building collaborative support networks for all teachers. Our challenge is to prepare music teachers who are confident and competent teaching all students; who build support systems through collaboration; who create quality, inclusive programs; and who design accessible music learning environments where all students participate, experience personal success, and contribute to the success of their classmates.