Interventions promoting academic

engagement for children with ASD in

general education classrooms

A systematic literature review

Qi Meng

One year master thesis 15 credits Supervisor Karin Bertills

Interventions in Childhood

Examinator

Spring Semester 2017 Margareta Adolfsson

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

AND COMMUNICATION (HLK)

Jönköping University

Master Thesis 15 credits

Interventions in Childhood

Spring Semester 2017

ABSTRACT

Author: Meng Qi

Interventions promoting academic engagement for children with ASD in inclusive settings

A systematic literature review

Pages: 33

Facilitating the learning and participation of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in

inclusive settings has been poorly understood. Teachers often feel that they don’t have adequate

knowledge to help these children when they disengage in classroom activities. Lack of academic

engagement could impede children from achieving a positive academic outcome. The aim of this

study is to identify evidence-based interventions that promote academic engagement of children

with ASD in general education classrooms, so the educators could have an idea on what

interventions are effective and feasible in promoting academic engagement, what strategies could

be applied by teachers in general education classrooms. A systematic literature review was

performed, seven studies were included for final analysis and seven interventions were identified.

Results show that video self-modeling, video social stories™, self-monitoring, peer support,

antecedent physical activity, adult proximity and visual support interventions all can effectively

enhance academic engagement of children with ASD in general education classrooms. It was

found that academic engagement was promoted by increasing on-task behaviour in the classroom.

The feedback from the teachers and students who participated in the studies all reported

positively. Future research will be needed in exploring more interventions in inclusive settings, and

developing tools to accurately measure academic engagement.

Keywords: intervention, autism, ASD, children, academic engagement, inclusive, systematic literature

review

Postal address

Högskolan för lärande

och kommunikation (HLK)

Box 1026

551 11 JÖNKÖPING

Street address

Gjuterigatan 5

Telephone

036–101000

Fax

036162585

1

Table of Contents

1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Autism spectrum disorder .................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Inclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Academic engagement......................................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model .............................................................................................. 5

1.5 Rationale ............................................................................................................................................... 6

1.6 Aim........................................................................................................................................................ 6

1.7 Research questions .............................................................................................................................. 6

2 Method ............................................................................................................................................................ 7

2.1 Search strategy...................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Selection criteria ................................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Selection process .................................................................................................................................. 8

2.3.1 Title and abstract screening ........................................................................................................... 9

2.3.2 Full-text screening........................................................................................................................... 9

2.3.3 Quality assessment ........................................................................................................................ 11

2.4 Data extraction................................................................................................................................... 11

3 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Basic procedure of the intervention................................................................................................. 12

3.2 Outcome of the intervention ............................................................................................................ 14

3.3 Promotion of academic engagement ............................................................................................... 15

3.4 Acceptability of the intervention ...................................................................................................... 16

4 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 17

4.1 Reflections on findings ..................................................................................................................... 17

4.1.1 Academic engagement .................................................................................................................. 17

4.1.2 Application of the identified interventions ................................................................................ 18

4.1.3 Involvement of parents and professionals ................................................................................. 18

4.1.4 Ethical consideration .................................................................................................................... 19

2

4.2 Methodological issues and limitations ............................................................................................. 19

4.3 Implications for future research ....................................................................................................... 20

5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 21

References ............................................................................................................................................................. 22

Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix B............................................................................................................................................................ 29

Appendix C ........................................................................................................................................................... 30

Appendix D ........................................................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix E ........................................................................................................................................................... 33

3

1 Introduction

The inclusion of children with disabilities has been promoted for years since Salamanca statement

in 1994 (Falkmer, Oehlers, Granlund, & Falkmer, 2015). With the increased rate of diagnosis of Autism

spectrum disorder (ASD), more and more children with ASD are now included and educated in general

education classrooms. Many children with ASD often engage in repetitive, disruptive behaviours and they

tend to have high levels of inattention. These characteristics of children with ASD may hinder them from

being engaged in classroom activities and also decrease their learning opportunities, thus lead to poor

academic performance (Sterling-Turner, Robinson, & Wilczynski, 2001). Although general education

teachers are supportive to the principles of inclusive education, but they are not confident in teaching

these children, as they lack necessary training (Deris & Di Carlo, 2013). How to facilitate learning and

participation of children with ASD in general education classrooms is the key to help them achieving

academic success.

1.1 Autism spectrum disorder

Autism Spectrum Disorder is deemed as one of the most complex developmental disorders

(Bakken & Bock, 2001). It is characterized by core deficits in communication, social interaction, and

restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests or activities (American Psychiatric Association, 1994, as

cited in Hodgetts, Zwaigenbaum, & Nicholas, 2015). The diagnosis of ASD can be difficult to make since

there is no medical test. Doctors tend to make the diagnosis by observing the child’s behavior and

development (“Autism Spectrum Disorder: Screening and Diagnosis”, 2015). ASD is generally diagnosed

at the age of four on average. Most parents notice some symptoms before their children turning two years

old. These early signs mainly include avoiding eye contact, lack of response when name is called, failure to

show interests by pointing at things, and lack of language and social skills (Zwaigenbaum, 2001). The

cause of ASD is due to genetic reasons, and environmental factors are also found to play a role. The exact

cause is still unknown, and no medical cure has been found yet (Klein & Kemper, 2016).

The diagnosis of ASD include several disorders, such as Autistic Disorder, Asperger syndrome,

and Pervasive Developmental Disorders - Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) (American Psychiatric

Association, 1994, as cited in Kurth & Mastergeorge, 2010). The symptoms and features of every single

disorder can be demonstrated in a variety of combinations, and the degree of impairments vary from mild

to profound, this will affect individuals in very different ways (Ministry of Education, 2007). For example,

regarding the general level of intelligence, about 75%-80% of individuals with ASD have significant delays

in cognitive development. However, many individuals with Asperger Syndrome display average or even

above average intellectual ability (Perry & Condillac, 2003). ASD is not an illness, the focus should not be

put on how to change the child into a “normal” individual (Caruso, 2010). Instead, parents and

professionals should appreciate their perspectives, try to provide strategies or interventions to enable them

to function better and participate in their everyday life situation (Jordan, Jones & Murray, 1998).

4

1.2 Inclusion

Since the Salamanca Statement in 1994, inclusion has merged and been promoted in many

countries as a key educational policy (Gibb, Tunbridge, Chua & Frederickson, 2007). Inclusion is not

integration, and it is much more than mere placement (Malmqvist, n.d.). According to Ferguson (1995),

inclusion is “a unified system of public education that incorporates all children and youths as active, fully

participating members of the school community; that views diversity as the norm, and that ensures a high-

quality education for each student by providing meaningful curriculum, effective teaching, and necessary

support for each student” (p.14).

Educating children with ASD in inclusive settings is proved to be vital (Lindsay, Proulx, Scott &

Thomson, 2014). Improvement has been found in social development of children with ASD (Schreibman,

2005, as cited in Goodman & Williams, 2007). When children with ASD are placed in general education

classroom, it provides the opportunity for them to socialize, and learn how to function with different

people in different settings. When placing them in self-contained or special education classroom, they tend

to interact with instructors instead of developing relationships with peers (Goodman & Williams, 2007).

Besides the social benefit of inclusion, researchers have found academic gains of children with ASD in

inclusive settings. They demonstrate increased classroom engagement, more time spent on classroom

assignments, and positive academic outcomes (Lynch & Irvine, 2009). Inclusion is not only beneficial to

children in need of special support, but also helpful to typically developing children. They will gain a

better understanding of the diversity of society, a greater recognition of social justice and equality,

furthermore, a more caring attitude (Mitchell, 2008).

Though the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates that children with

disabilities be educated in general education classroom, it also allows to remove the child from inclusive

settings if school services cannot meet the needs of the child due to the nature and severity of the child’s

disability (Merrell, Ervin, & Peacock, 2011). When it comes to ASD, IQ and severity of autistic symptoms

often affect placement decisions (Eaves & Ho, 1997). Children with ASD who demonstrate problem

behaviour and frequently disengage in classroom activities put themselves at risk of being excluded from

inclusive settings (Strain, Wilson, & Dunlap, 2011). It seems children with ASD face many challenges to

get the opportunity of being educated in general education classroom. Even if they are included, the mere

placement is far from enough to help them achieving a successful education (Harrower & Dunlap, 2001).

1.3 Academic engagement

Academic engagement is a composite of specific classroom behaviours, which include attending

to the academic materials and the task, making appropriate motor responses, ask assistant from the

teacher in a proper manner (Walker, Severson, & Feil, 2010). When children are engaged, they will

actively follow the classroom instructions. This is apparent through making eye contact with the

instructor, directly answering questions from the teacher, and engaging in relevant academic materials

5

(Schatz, Peterson & Bellini, 2016). Academic engagement is the most visible engagement within the

classroom and teachers check on it constantly during instructional classes (Christenson et. al, 2008).

Years of researches have demonstrated that there is a positive correlation between academic

engagement and academic achievement. The prediction model of DiPerna, Volpe & Elliott (2002) also

illustrated that levels of engagement would have moderate to large effect on academic achievement.

Children who have high rates of engagement tend to have more opportunities to respond, practice,

interact with teachers and educational materials, and this may lead to increased learning and eventually a

positive academic outcome (DiPerna, Volpe & Elliott, 2002). Conversely, lack of engagement would put

children at risk for negative outcomes such as attending school unmotivated, developing disruptive

behaviour, and withdrawing from school (Appleton, Christenson & Furlong, 2008). In addition,

researchers have found that motivation, study skills, and communication techniques could all have

influences on academic engagement (Greenwood, Horton & Utley, 2002).

Active engagement in the surrounding environment is one of the major difficulties for children

with ASD. They easily lose their critical learning opportunities since they often go into their “own world”

(Leach & Duffy, 2009). Due to the significant social and communication deficits, children with ASD

present a unique set of learning difficulties, which would inhibit them from being actively engaged in

classroom activities (Leekam, Prior, & Uljarevic, 2011). Specifically, the emotion regulation deficit of

children with ASD would cause problems in maintaining psychological and emotion arousal for high

levels of classroom engagement, this deficit also creates challenges for filtering irrelevant information and

staying on task (Laurent & Rubin, 2004). With deficit in joint attention, children with ASD are less likely

to make eye contact or look at faces. Thus, they have less opportunity to respond or attend to classroom

instructions than their typically developing peers. Furthermore, deficits in verbal and nonverbal

communicative behaviours would impede children with ASD from participating in group discussions. In

addition, repetitive behaviours, restricted interests may also hinder their engagement in academic activities

(Sparapani, Morgan, Reinhardt, Schatschneider & Wetherby, 2016).

1.4 Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model

Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model shows that a child’s world consists of five systems of

interaction: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem (Bronfenbrenner,

1979). Microsystem consists of the child’s most direct environment such as home, school, peer and

religious groups (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000). Classroom is a primary setting of children’s

microsystem where academic engagement happens via interaction with elements within the classroom

environment. The interactions could occur between teacher and student, student and peers, student and

objects, etc. The quality of interactions would affect children’s engagement in learning and influence the

academic outcomes (Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, White, & Salovey, 2012).

6

1.5 Rationale

Children with ASD often present unique and challenging behaviors that impede them from

engaging in classroom activities. Those behaviors not only jeopardize the learning of the children with

ASD, but also interfere with the academic environment for other typically developing students (Goodman

& Williams, 2007). Teachers work with children with ASD in general education classrooms must be well

equipped with effective interventions or strategies, so they could facilitate learning and participation of

children with ASD (Harrower & Dunlap, 2001). Therefore, it is important to provide educators with

interventions that are evidence-based, and practical for use in general education classrooms.

1.6 Aim

The purpose of this study is to identify evidence-based interventions for promoting academic

engagement of children with ASD in general education classrooms.

1.7 Research questions

1. What interventions are reported to promote academic engagement of children with ASD in

general education classrooms?

2. How is academic engagement of children with ASD promoted?

3. What is the acceptability of the intervention to both teachers and participants?

7

2 Method

A systematic literature review was performed. Search strategy, selection criteria, selection process,

quality assessment and data extraction will be elaborated in this section. The whole process can be seen in

Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1. The methodological process.

2.1 Search strategy

The search was performed in March 2017 in the database of ERIC, PsycINFO, ScienceDirect and

Scopus. These databases integrate information from the field of Pedagogy and psychology. Each database

was tried out for several times by using different search terms in order to catch maximum relevant articles

in accordance with the aim of this study. Different search strategies were applied according to the feature

of each database. Truncations (*) were used to yield more results. The searches were limited in all four

databases for articles that were peer reviewed, written in English, published from 2000 to 2017. The

search procedure and search strings used in each database are presented in Appendix A.

In the database of ERIC and PsycINFO, the term “academic engagement” was not chosen since

it yielded very few results. When using Thesaurus, “learner engagement” was recommended for the term

“engagement” in ERIC; “student engagement” was recommended for the term “academic engagement” in

PsycINFO. Neither “academic performance” nor “academic achievement” was used in the search as

performance and achievement indicate the outcome, which is not the focus of this study.

This study originally intended to focus on children aged 6-12, but very limited articles were found.

Therefore, the age range was not set during the search, it was added as one of the inclusion and exclusion

criteria for article selection. “Inclusive classroom” or “mainstream school” or “general education

classroom” was not used as search terms in case related articles would be missed.

Database

search

Full text

screening

Title/abstract

screening

Quality

assessment

Data

extraction

Article

selection

8

2.2 Selection criteria

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for selection of articles at title/abstract and full-text level are

displayed in table 2.1. Age range from 6-18 and general education classroom as research setting will be

applied as inclusion criteria on the title/abstract and full-text level screening.

Table 2.1

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for selection of articles

Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria

Population

Children aged 6-18 with a diagnosis of ASD Adults, children aged 0-5 and older than 18.

Typically developing children

Children with other health conditions

Focus

Children’s academic engagement Social engagement, peer engagement

Interventions or strategies Intervention in specific subject (e.g. art, music)

General education classroom Special school, self-contained classroom

Publication type

Article Books, abstracts, conference papers, other

Peer reviewed literatures

Published from 2000 to 2017

In English

Full text available for free

Design

Empirical study, Quantitative, qualitative or mixed

method

Systematic literature review

2.3 Selection process

234 articles were found in total and they were transferred to Zotero. 14 articles were excluded as

duplicates. Then, the left of 220 articles were exported to Covidence for screening. Covidence is a web-

based program to keep your references organized and is eligible for systematic reviews (Alving, n.d.). All

the articles were sorted with an inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria in Covidence. According to the

design, articles can be put in different categories labeled as “Yes”, “No” and “Maybe”. Articles which

partly met with the inclusion criteria (e.g. the age range is birth-12) were put as “Maybe” and moved into

9

full-text screening, just to make sure no relevant articles were missed. The entire search and extraction

procedure is presented in a flow chart (Figure 2.2).

2.3.1 Title and abstract screening

A protocol of inclusion criteria was used for title and abstract screening (see Appendix B). The

inclusion criteria comprised of article, abstract available, diagnosis of ASD, age from 6-18, academic

engagement, interventions, and general education classrooms. When in doubt, the article will be labelled as

“Maybe” and automatically included in the full-text screening. 207 out of 220 were excluded due to the

following reasons: duplicate (n=1), not an article (n=3), systematic reviews (n=3), not ASD (n=35), not

aged from 6-18 (n=26), not focused on academic engagement (n=57), not mentioned academic

engagement (n=34), not focused on intervention or strategy (n=27), not in inclusive classrooms (n=21).

2.3.2 Full-text screening

After the title and abstract screening, there was still not enough information about the articles that

have been included. Thus, 13 left articles were moved onto full-text screening by using a detailed protocol

(see Appendix C). It contained information about the chosen method, participants, research setting,

intervention procedure etc. If one of the participants fitted all the inclusion criteria, the analysis and the

results towards him was done separately from other participants, the article would be included. Five

articles were excluded due to: no full-text available (n=1), not ASD (n=1), not inclusive classrooms (n=4).

Hand search were done by checking the reference list of the remaining seven articles. They were firstly

selected by title and abstract screening, and only four articles went through full-text screening, but none of

them fitted the inclusion criteria completely. Therefore, seven articles in total were included for data

analysis.

10

Figure 2.2 Flow chart displaying the selection process.

11

2.3.3 Quality assessment

A quality assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of included studies. The tool was

adopted from Evaluative Tool for Mixed Method Studies (Long, 2005). With modification, the tool

consisted of 17 items and four major themes (see Appendix D). The scale was set from 0-25. The articles

were rated as low quality (0-8), medium (9-17), and high (18-25). The results showed that one study had

low quality, four studies were rated as medium and two studies were assessed as high quality. The

assessment result can be seen in table 2.2. The low-quality article was not excluded due to the very limited

number of included studies.

Table 2.2

Result of Quality assessment of the included articles

SIN Articles High Quality Medium Quality Low Quality

1 Schatz et al. (2016) x

2 Cihak et al. (2012) x

3 Clemons et al. (2016) x

4 McCurdy et al. (2014) x

5 Nicholson et al. (2011) x

6 Conroy et al. (2004) x

7 Brown et al. (2015) x

Note. SIN = Study Identification Number

2.4 Data extraction

Data was extracted and analyzed by using an extraction protocol (see Appendix E), which contains

the information about general introduction of the study, participants, description of the intervention, and

outcome of the intervention. Information about interventions was gathered in the section of what was the

intervention, what was the basic procedure of intervention, where did the intervention take place, how long

for each session of the intervention, how long did the intervention last, who implemented the intervention,

Is there an aide during the intervention, and any follow-ups after the intervention. Regarding the

implementation of intervention, ethical considerations like informed consent of the parents must be

obtained and appropriately documented (Burns, Jacob, & Wagner, 2008). Therefore, parental consent was

taken into account when doing the data extraction.

12

3 Results

Seven articles were included in final data analysis, and seven interventions were identified through

reviewing these articles. The outcome, and procedure of the interventions, promotion of academic

engagement, and the acceptability of intervention from teachers and participants will be presented in this

section. An overview of the included studies can be seen in table 3.1.

Table 3.1

Overview of the included studies

SIN Number of

participants

Age of

participants

Diagnosis Intervention Parental

consent

1 3 10.4/11.9/9.7 ASD & AS VSM Yes

2 4

13/14/12/11 AS & HFA Video Social Stories™ Not mentioned

3 1 17 ASD Self-Monitoring Yes

4 3 8/7/11 ASD Peer Support Not mentioned

5 1 9 HFA Antecedent physical

activity

Yes

6 3 6/6/7 ASD Adult Proximity Not mentioned

7 1 6 ASD Visual support Not mentioned

Note. SIN = Study Identification Number, see table 2.2. VSM = Video Self-Modeling, ASD = Autism

Spectrum Disorder, AS = Asperger Syndrome, HFA = High-Functioning Autism.

3.1 Basic procedure of the intervention

Video self-modeling was identified as an effective intervention in increasing task engagement for

Children with ASD. VSM is when a student watches himself or herself in the video with expected

behaviours. (Schatz, Peterson & Bellini, 2016). Participants’ behaviours were videotaped during the

baseline phase, the off-task behaviours were deleted and the on-task behaviours were edited into three

short different videos. The videos were presented to participants before the class three times a week in an

alternative fashion and teachers also reminded them of expected behaviour during the lesson.

Video Social StoriesTM

is an intervention which combined the use of video self-modeling and Social

StoriesTM

. Social StoriesTM

provided a “written, sometimes illustrated, vignette that a student can reference

as needed when encountering situations in which they feel uncertain” (Cihak, Kildare, Smith, McMahon &

Quinn-Brown, 2012). The intervention was introduced with a brief-FA (functional assessment) was

13

conducted through teacher interview, in order to identify the contextual factors that triggered and

maintained the off-task behaviour. Teachers created all materials including social stories. Participants were

videotaped when reading these stories and displaying appropriate on-task behaviours. Each participant

made two videos and each video lasted 30-35 seconds. Participants were prompted to watch the video

before the beginning of the class. They were provided with headphones so they wouldn’t distract other

students.

Self-monitoring used the I-Connect application to increase the on-task behaviour of the participants

(Clemons, Mason, Garrison-Kane & Wills, 2016). Baseline was set without using any behavioural support

in the classroom, and there was no modification of classroom environment. I-Connect training was

conducted after the baseline setting. The participants were trained for three days (total training time one

hour approximately) on how to use this application. During the intervention phase, participants

monitored their on-task behaviours by using the I-Connect application at one-minute intervals.

Participants were prompted by the question “Am I on-task?”, “yes” and “no” options were displayed with

the question as well. If the participants meet the dual criteria, they would be provided with reinforcement.

Peer support intervention involved typically developing peers as supporters for the children with

ASD. During the baseline phase, peer supporters were seated next to the children with ASD. Selected

seating was the only modification made in the typical classroom condition. Initially an interview was

conducted to map/conclude peer supporters’ perspectives of the children with ASD before the peer

training. Off-task behaviour was defined individually for each target student. Peers were informed about

the definition of off-task behaviours during class, and taught how to prompt the target students. During

the intervention when the class was about to begin, the peer supporters reminded the target students of

the desired behaviours and gave them verbal encouragement. When they displayed off-task behaviours,

peer supporters prompted them in accordance with previous training. When the target students stayed on

task, peers gave nonverbal positive feedback such as a smile, head nod or thumb up as an encouragement.

At the end of each session, peer supporters provided verbal feedback to the target student about how to

perform better in the next session.

Antecedent physical activity proved to be an effective intervention in promoting academic

engagement for children with ASD (Nicholson, Kehle, Bray & Heest, 2011). This intervention argued that

with the proof of physical activity results in increased transmission of monoamines in the brain which

affect the attention may increase academic engagement of Children with ASD. Before the intervention,

parental consent was obtained with a confirmation that they had the ability to participate in physical

education class. Multiple baselines were set by observing participant during both academic and physical

activities. Baseline data was collected over a period of two weeks. The intervention and classroom

observation were carried out three times each week. Physical activity sessions were conducted in the

gymnasium. These sessions contained 12 minutes of jogging followed by a five-minute walk and

14

stretching. A paraprofessional and/or a gym teacher was predisposed to jog with the participant if needed.

The data of running distance and engaged time was collected. The participant returned to the classroom

after the jogging session and behaviour was recorded for 15 minutes within one hour.

Adult proximity is simply how close an adult (teacher or paraprofessional) is physically to a child in

the classroom. This intervention was evaluated and demonstrated to have an effect on academic

engagement of children with ASD (Conroy, Asmus, Ladwig, Sellers & Valcante, 2004). Participants,

teachers and assistants were observed for 15-20 minutes every session over a period of five weeks. All the

sessions were videotaped during natural classroom activities, and target behaviours were identified

individually for each participant. In addition to problem behaviours, engagement was recorded for all

participants as well. Classroom adults used verbal communication or gestures to direct the target student

in performing a specific behaviour. Besides this, adult proximity and no adult proximity were recorded as

independent variables to see the changes in academic engagement.

Visual Support intervention proved to be effective in increasing academic engagement for children

with ASD who displayed circumscribed interests (CI). children with ASD usually have visuospatial

strengths. Visual cues help students stay focused, understand transition in activities and reduce repetitive

behaviours. Teachers designed visual cues and task cards according to the participant’s cognitive abilities

and personal interests. Teachers also discussed with the participant about when it is appropriate to talk

about her personal interest and when it is not. For example, if the participant’s CI was airplane, the

teacher developed visual cue and task cards of airplanes for every letter of the alphabet. For the sound of

the letter (e.g. letter “L”), teacher made a card showing an airplane landing with a letter “L” on its wing.

The visual cue and task cards allowed participant to review the letter and its corresponding sound

whenever she needed during school time.

3.2 Outcome of the intervention

Successful outcomes were reported for all seven interventions. They were evaluated by the

measurement of academic engagement and maintenance effects. Four studies measured and presented the

percentage of on-task behaviour and four studies had follow-up phases. six studies reported either

increased on-task behaviour or improved academic engagement. One study measured the off-task

behaviour and reported the increased work completion. Five interventions were proved to be effective to

all the participants, two interventions were tested effective to only part of the participants. Regarding the

acceptability of the interventions, four studies tested social validity, and both teachers and participants

reported positively, considered the intervention as acceptable, while three other studies didn’t mention

this. Detailed results are presented in table 3.2.

15

Table 3.2

Results of the interventions

SIN Intervention Measurement of

academic

engagement

Results Maintenance

effect

(After removal

of intervention)

Feedback

1 VSM On-task

engagement

Increased on-task

engagement on two

participants

Engagement

level maintained

Comfortable

to participate

2 Video Social

Stories™

Task engagement Improved task

engagement and task

completion

Engagement

level maintained

for two

participants

Comfortable

to participate

3 Self-

Monitoring

On-task behaviour Improved on-task

behaviour

Engagement

level maintained

Comfortable

to participate

4 Peer Support Off-task behaviour Decreased off-task

behaviour, increased

work completion

Not measured Comfortable

to participate

5 Antecedent

physical

activity

Academic engaged

time

Improved academic

engagement

Engagement

level maintained

Not

mentioned

6 Adult

Proximity

Academic

engagement

Increased rate of

academic

engagement

Not measured Not

mentioned

7 Visual

support

Not measured Increased attention Not measured Not

mentioned

Note. SIN = Study Identification Number, see table 2.2.

3.3 Promotion of academic engagement

Six out of seven interventions all aimed at increasing on-task behaviours to promote academic

engagement of children with ASD. Only one intervention focused on decreasing off-task behaviours to

improve academic engagement. VSM is a form of observational learning. Children with ASD tend to be

visual learners, they watched themselves perform expected behaviours in the video, and then they engaged

more in the academic activities by imitating the targeted behaviours. The combination of VSM and social

16

stories focused on decreasing off-task behaviour to promote on-task behaviours. Self-monitoring and peer

support intervention both worked in a way of prompting student to engage. Self-monitoring prompted

student with technical application while peer support used typically developing peers to remind the target

students to stay on task. Antecedent physical activity aimed at increasing transmission of monoamines in

the brain, so student could be more focused on the subsequent classroom activities. Intervention of adult

proximity believed that the presence of adult (either teacher or paraprofessional) would help decreasing

the problem behaviours or even prevent the occurrence of these behaviours. The visual support

intervention utilized unique visual strengths of children with ASD, integrated with their circumscribed

interests to elicit their attention to educational materials and instructions from teachers.

3.4 Acceptability of the intervention

Acceptability of an intervention to the participants is one of the standards of a successful

intervention. Thus, social validity should be tested to find out the feelings of participants towards the

intervention. Social validity was tested in four studies. Regarding video self-modeling intervention,

teachers were provided with a questionnaire after the intervention. They reported that participants enjoyed

watching the video, the intervention was easy to carry out, helpful to target students, and teachers enjoyed

being a part of the intervention. As to the intervention of video Social StoriesTM

, special education

teachers, general education teachers, as well as participants, were interviewed following completion of the

study. Both special and general education teachers reported that they liked the procedure and they agreed

it was an beneficial intervention that they would use in the classroom by themselves. Participating students

reported that the intervention increased their academic engagement and task completion. They indicated

that it was an appropriate intervention and they liked it. In respect of self-monitoring intervention, teacher

reported it was an effective intervention for the target student. Participant indicated that the intervention

helped him stay on focus. With regard to peer support intervention, questionnaires were sent to all

teachers, target students and peer supporters after the intervention. All of them reported the intervention

was appropriate and acceptable.

17

4 Discussion

This systematic literature review aimed at identifying evidence-based interventions that promote

academic engagement of children with ASD in general education classrooms. Results showed that

academic engagement was measured through evaluating on-task behaviour. The goal of intervention was

to increase on-task behaviour to help students engaging more in academic classroom activities. Video self-

modeling, video social stories™, self-monitoring, peer support, antecedent physical activity, adult

proximity, and visual support were all effective interventions in increasing academic engagement of child

with ASD in general education classrooms. Out of 16 participants, there are two with Asperger syndrome

(AS), four with high-functioning autism (HFA), and ten with average intellectual abilities (IQ>70). All

interventions included in this study were effective on children with ASD who have average to high

intellectual ability.

4.1 Reflections on findings

4.1.1 Academic engagement

While analyzing the interventions, it seemed as though the interventions were more focused on

promoting on-task behaviour of children with ASD, and the measurement of academic engagement was

to observe and calculate how much time each participant stayed on task. On-task behaviour was defined

as the amount of time students actually engaged in a particular task such as writing assignment, reading

quietly, raise a hand to answer questions or ask for assistance (Berliner, 1990; Reeves, Umbreit, Ferro, &

Liaupsin, 2013). However, measuring academic engagement solely depend on observing on-task behaviour

may not precisely capture the engagement of children with ASD (Ruble & Robson, 2007).

Research found that participation in school helps fostering the development of children’s self-

confidence and self-esteem (John-Akinola & Nic-Gabhainn, 2014). Academic engagement would help

building strong motivation in learning, preventing school dropout, achieving positive student outcomes

(Keen, 2009). According to Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model, a child’s development occurs via

interactions with people and objects in the child’s surrounding environment, of which family, school, and

peer groups constitute the most important microsystem of the child (Adolfsson, 2011; Bronfenbrenner,

1979). The educational experience of a child occurs in the microsystem of school context. How students

interact with people (e.g. teachers and peers) and objects (e.g. educational materials, classroom activities)

in the school, would deeply influence the academic development of a child (Johnson, Crosnoe, & Elder,

2001). Academic engagement is a multidimensional concept and comprises of three components:

emotional, cognitive, and behavioural. Emotional engagement is related to the child’s interest to

participate in the activity; cognitive engagement incorporates child’s willingness to put effort in learning

different skills; behavioural engagement is closely related to on-task behaviour, it encompasses

participation and involvement in the child’s academic activities (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004).

The quality of how children interact with teachers, peers, and academics in emotional, cognitive and

18

behavioural components is the key for true academic engagement to happen. However, study shows that

research on academic engagement of school-aged children with ASD primarily quantified engagement by

focusing only on on-task behaviours (Steinbrenner & Watson, 2015). In order to provide high quality

interventions to children with ASD, to help them achieve a positive academic development, it is critical to

understand true academic engagement and measure it accurately.

4.1.2 Application of the identified interventions

All seven interventions were reported to have positive outcomes in promoting academic

engagement of children with ASD. It is important to understand the strength and the focus of each

intervention, so the educators and teachers could apply the intervention accordingly. Video self-modeling

is simple to implement by using smartphone or iPad or any kind of recording technology. Students tend to

be more motivated to attend class when applying this intervention (Clare, Jenson, Kehle, & Bray, 2000).

Video Social Stories™ provides students access to information regarding expected classroom behaviours

via a portable handheld device. Students could put the device in their pocket or on the desk, and review

the “dos and don’ts” whenever they need (Cihak et al., 2012). Self-monitoring has been proved to be

effective in bringing about positive behaviour change, motivating students, and helping to develop

independence (Wolfe, Heron, & Goddard, 2000). The use of the application (I-Connect) allows for

unobtrusive prompt such as flashing, rather than buzzing or tuning that are commonly used in other self-

monitoring interventions (Clemons et al., 2016; Rock & Thead, 2007). Peer support intervention is also

simple and easy to use. It promotes active engagement for students with and without disabilities, increases

social interactions between peers and targeted students, decreases problem behaviour and improve

academic performance (Carter, Cushing, Clark, & Kennedy, 2005). Antecedent physical activity could

decrease off-task behaviour, and increase on-task behaviour as well. Using physical activity before the

instructional class is feasible in most of the inclusive schools. It is critical for teachers and

paraprofessionals to monitor the engagement of targeted students to ensure the effectiveness of the

physical activity (Luke, Vail, & Ayres, 2014). Adult proximity focuses on decreasing challenging behaviour

and increasing academic engagement of children with ASD. It is suggested that the target child is more

likely to respond properly if provided with a specific directive instead of a general directive (Conroy et al.,

2004). Visual support aims at attracting the student’s attention, enabling the student to focus on the

message and reduce anxiety, improving positive behaviour (Rao & Gagie, 2006).

4.1.3 Involvement of parents and professionals

In all seven identified interventions in this study, there is no involvement of parents in any of

them. Involvement of the parents in the goal setting process of intervention has been proved to

contribute to the positive outcome for children with disabilities (Ylvén & Granlund, 2015). However,

research indicates that parents’ involvement in school-based interventions are often scarce (Spann,

Kohler, & Soenksen, 2003). It is important to include parents as competent members when planning an

intervention (Björck-Åckeson, 2015). Parents may have effective strategies work in other settings that

19

could be helpful for teacher in the classroom environment. Furthermore, children with ASD tend to need

behavioural, academic and social interventions, professionals like special education teacher, language

therapist, psychologist, occupational therapist, as well as parents, should all be included in the problem-

solving process in order to provide the best possible interventions for children with ASD (Leach & Duffy,

2009).

4.1.4 Ethical consideration

In all seven studies, three of them mentioned that parental consent and child assent were

obtained before the intervention (Clemons, Mason, Garrison-Kane & Wills, 2016; Nicholson, Kehle, Bray

& Heest, 2011; Schatz, Peterson & Bellini, 2016). Only one study stated that participants were given the

options to decline the participation (Schatz, Peterson & Bellini, 2016). The remaining four articles didn’t

mention any ethical consideration at all. If participants are research subjects in a study, there are critical

ethical issues in need of thorough consideration. Fundamental principles such as confidentiality,

anonymity, and especially informed consent can be very important (Long & Johnson, 2007). First,

participants have the right to be informed. Information about the aim and the procedure of the research,

how data will be collected, stored confidentially and applied in publication should be explained to the

parents (All participants were under 18 in this study). Second, participants have the right to withdraw.

They could choose not to do the interview or answer any kind of questions, and withdraw themselves

from the study. No explanation will be needed for such actions, and researchers have to make sure both

parents and participants are aware of this. Frequent observations took place in all seven studies, consents

from schools, teachers and students should be obtained. Since children with ASD are a vulnerable group,

the possible anxiety and stress that could be provoked in the research process should be seriously

considered.

4.2 Methodological issues and limitations

This study strictly followed every step of a systematic literature review, and the whole procedure

was well documented. The articles included were all published after the year of 2000. One of them

published in 2004, and the others published after 2010, this ensured the information of interventions are

up to date.

The search procedure was challenging for this systematic literature review. Articles were searched

in four databases. Different search strings were used in each database to yield relevant articles. Different

search procedures were tried many times to ensure a maximum number of articles, yet there might have

been more articles with other interventions. Second, there is a risk of bias since article selection process,

quality assessment, and analysis of results was performed by one researcher. A second reviewer would

have contributed to the validity of this study. Third, quality assessment was performed to increase

reliability of this study. However, the quality assessment tool was developed by the researcher, with a risk

of being subjective.

20

The age range of participants was expanded to 6-18 years old since very limited results were

found with the original age set (6-12). Interventions that work on children who are six years old may not

be effective on children who are 18. This made the result less generalizable. In addition, all seven studies

were from an American perspective, interventions may differ in another cultural context. Furthermore, all

the studies included had small sample size from one to four students, a bigger sample would increase the

generalization of the interventions.

4.3 Implications for future research

Research related to academic engagement of children with ASD in general education classrooms

seems very limited. During the screening process, it is noteworthy that the research settings of many

interventions were either in special education or self-contained classroom. This study only identified seven

interventions. Therefore, future studies are required to focus more on developing effective interventions

that enhance academic engagement of children with ASD in inclusive settings. By having more access to

typically developing peers, children with ASD would have more opportunities to achieve academic success

and develop positive health and well-being.

This study indicates that the effectiveness of the identified interventions may be limited to

children with HFA. Participants of all included studies were either diagnosed with Asperger syndrome or

high-functioning autism. Individuals with AS and HFA normally have an IQ of 70 or more, they

commonly have deficits in the area of social interaction and communication, and frequently engage in

repetitive and stereotypic patterns of behaviours (Chiang & Lin, 2007; Whitby & Mancil, 2009). Those

who are defined as having the lowest level of severity are more likely to be included in general education

classroom (Nicholson et al., 2011). Future research will be needed in interventions focusing on children

with ASD on different spectrum.

Seven different interventions were identified in this systematic literature review. This has very

practical implications for teachers who teach children with ASD in general education classrooms. To be

aware of what strategies or interventions are available, teacher could apply them to meet the needs of

children with ASD in their classrooms. However, there is no universal intervention for all children with

ASD. In order to come up with the most suitable intervention plan, teachers need to be trained, so they

could understand the characteristic of ASD, accurately interpret the behaviours of their students, provide

appropriate interventions or strategies to these targeted students.

21

5 Conclusion

With an increasing number of diagnosis in autism spectrum disorder, more and more children

with ASD are included and educated in general education classroom now. Children with ASD often have

deficits in emotion regulation, joint attention, verbal and nonverbal communication, repetitive behaviour

and restricted interests. All these characteristics could impede them from engaging in classroom activities.

Lack of academic engagement would increase the occurrence of disruptive behaviour, decrease the

motivation in learning, result in poor academic performance and lead to school withdrawn. Unfortunately,

how to improve their learning and participation is still poorly understood in the area of education. It is

necessary for educators to get the knowledge of effective interventions or strategies, in order to facilitate

the learning of children with ASD in general education classroom, so they could engage more to enhance

motivations, develop academic skills and achieve academic success eventually.

All seven interventions in this study were authenticated to be effective on promoting academic

engagement of children with ASD in general education classrooms. They worked in different mechanisms

such as observational learning, prompt, proximity, transmission of dopamine, and circumscribed interests.

It is noteworthy that most of the interventions targeted at increasing on-task behaviour to promote

academic engagement. Each of the interventions has its own strength and focus, educators should be

aware of it so they could apply the intervention accordingly. Knowledge about academic engagement

could be extended by focusing on the emotional, cognitive and behavioural components. Based on the

findings, future research is suggested to develop more effective interventions for children with ASD in

inclusive settings, and to serve not only children with high-functioning autism, but also children on other

spectrums of ASD. More importantly, equipping educators with the concept of collaborative problem

solving, including professionals and parents in the planning of interventions.

22

References

Adolfsson, M. (2011). Applying the ICF-CY to identify everyday life situations of children and youth with disabilities

(Doctoral dissertation). Jönköping University, Sweden.

Alving, E. B., (n.d.). Covidence - A tool for systematic reviews. Retrieved March 17, 2017, from

http://www.videncentret.dk/Forskerservice/~/media/sdusites/Videncentret/pdf-

files/Covidence%20english.pdf

Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical

conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369-386.

Autism Spectrum Disorder: Screening and Diagnosis. (2015). Retrieved March, 4, 2017, from Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention website: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/ASD/screening.html

Bakken, J. P. & Bock, S. J. (2001). Developing appropriate curriculum for students with autism spectrum

disorders. Autistic spectrum disorders: Educational and clinical interventions, 109-132.

Berliner, D. C. (1990). What’s all the fuss about instructional time. The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts,

practitioner perceptions, 3-35.

Betts, S. R. (2008). Individualized Instruction Strategies in Mainstream Classrooms: Including Students with Autistic

Spectrum Disorder (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from ERIC. (Accession No. ED501220)

Björck-Åkeson, E. (2015). The use of collaborative problem solving. [PingPong, Jönköping University]

Retrieved 12th, April, 2017 from

https://pingpong.hj.se/courseId/17356/courseDocsAndFiles.do?nodeTreeToggleFolder=1329926

2

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions,

theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings. Social development, 9(1), 115-125.

*Brown, T. S., & Stanton-Chapman, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching children with ASD who display or

demonstrate circumscribed interests. Young Exceptional Children, 18(4), 31-40.

Burns, M. K., Jacob, S., & Wagner, A. R. (2008). Ethical and legal issues associated with using response-to-

intervention to assess learning disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 46(3), 263-279.

23

Carter, E. W., Cushing, L. S., Clark, N. M., & Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Effects of peer support interventions

on students' access to the general curriculum and social interactions. Research and practice for persons with

severe disabilities, 30(1), 15-25.

Caruso, D. (2010). Autism in the US: Social movement and legal change. American journal of law & medicine,

36(4), 483-539.

Chiang, H. M., & Lin, Y. H. (2007). Mathematical ability of students with Asperger syndrome and high-

functioning autism a review of literature. Autism, 11(6), 547-556.

Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Appleton, J. J., Berman, S., Spanjers, D., & Varro, P. (2008). Best practices

in fostering student engagement. Best practices in school psychology, 5, 1099-1120.

*Cihak, D. F., Kildare, L. K., Smith, C. C., McMahon, D. D., & Quinn-Brown, L. (2012). Using video social

stories™ to increase task engagement for middle school students with autism spectrum disorders.

Behavior Modification, 36(3), 399-425.

Clare, S. K., Jenson, W. R., Kehle, T. J., & Bray, M. A. (2000). Self‐modeling as a treatment for increasing

on‐task behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 37(6), 517-522.

*Clemons, L. L., Mason, B. A., Garrison-Kane, L., & Wills, H. P. (2016). Self-Monitoring for High School

Students with Disabilities: A Cross-Categorical Investigation of I-Connect. Journal of Positive Behavior

Interventions, 18(3), 145-155.

*Conroy, M. A., Asmus, J. M., Ladwig, C. N., Sellers, J. A., & Valcante, G. (2004). The effects of proximity

on the classroom behaviors of students with ASD in general education settings. Behavioral Disorders,

119-129.

Deris, A. R., & Di Carlo, C. F. (2013). Back to basics: Working with young children with autism in inclusive

classrooms. Support for Learning, 28(2), 52-56.

DiPerna, J. C., Volpe, R. J., & Elliott, S. N. (2002). A model of academic enablers and elementary

reading/language arts achievement. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 298.

Eaves, L. C., & Ho, H. H. (1997). School placement and academic achievement in children with autistic

spectrum disorders. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 9(4), 277-291.

24

Falkmer, M., Oehlers, K., Granlund, M., & Falkmer, T. (2015). Can you see it too? Observed and self-rated

participation in mainstream schools in students with and without autism spectrum disorders.

Developmental neurorehabilitation, 18(6), 365-374.

Ferguson, D. L. (1995). The real challenge of inclusion: Confessions of a 'rabid inclusionist'. Phi Delta Kappan,

77(4), 281.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state

of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109.

Gibb, K., Tunbridge, D., Chua, A., & Frederickson, N. (2007). Pathways to inclusion: Moving from special

school to mainstream. Educational Psychology in Practice, 23(2), 109-127.

Goodman, G., & Williams, C. M. (2007). Interventions for increasing the academic engagement of students

with autism spectrum disorders in inclusive classrooms. Teaching exceptional children, 39(6), 53-61.

Greenwood, C. R., Horton, B. T., & Utley, C. A. (2002). Academic engagement: Current perspectives on

research and practice. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 328.

Harrower, J. K., & Dunlap, G. (2001). Including children with autism in general education classrooms a

review of effective strategies. Behavior Modification, 25(5), 762-784.

Hodgetts, S., Zwaigenbaum, L., & Nicholas, D. (2015). Profile and predictors of service needs for families

of children with autism spectrum disorders. Autism, 19(6), 673-683.

Humphrey, N., & Lewis, S. (2008). What does ‘inclusion’ mean for pupils on the autistic spectrum in

mainstream secondary schools? Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 8(3), 132-140.

Johnson, M. K., Crosnoe, R., & Elder Jr, G. H. (2001). Students' attachment and academic engagement:

The role of race and ethnicity. Sociology of Education, 318-340.

John-Akinola, Y. O., & Nic-Gabhainn, S. (2014). Children’s participation in school: a cross-sectional study

of the relationship between school environments, participation and health and well-being outcomes.

BMC public health, 14(1), 964.

Jordan, R., Jones, G., & Murray, D. (1998). Educational interventions for children with autism: A literature review of

recent and current research (Report No. 77). Norwich, UK: Crown Copyright.

Keen, D. (2009). Engagement of children with autism in learning. Australasian Journal of Special Education,

33(02), 130-140.

25

Klein, N., & Kemper, K. J. (2016). Integrative approaches to caring for children with autism. Current problems

in pediatric and adolescent health care, 46(6), 195-201.

Kurth, J. A., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2010). Academic and Cognitive Profiles of Students with Autism:

Implications for Classroom Practice and Placement. International Journal of Special Education, 25(2), 8-

14.

Laurent, A. C., & Rubin, E. (2004). Challenges in Emotional Regulation in Asperger Syndrome and High‐

Functioning Autism. Topics in Language Disorders, 24(4), 286-297.

Leach, D., & Duffy, M. L. (2009). Supporting students with autism spectrum disorders in inclusive settings.

Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(1), 31-37.

Leekam, S. R., Prior, M. R., & Uljarevic, M. (2011). Restricted and repetitive behaviors in autism spectrum

disorders: a review of research in the last decade. Psychological bulletin, 137(4), 562.

Lindsay, S., Proulx, M., Scott, H., & Thomson, N. (2014). Exploring teachers' strategies for including

children with autism spectrum disorder in mainstream classrooms. International Journal of Inclusive

Education, 18(2), 101-122.

Long, A. F. (2005), Evaluative Tool for Mixed Method Studies. Retrieved from

http://usir.salford.ac.uk/13070/1/Evaluative_Tool_for_Mixed_Method_Studies.pdf

Long, T., & Johnson, M. (2007). Research ethics in the real world: issues and solutions for health and social care .

Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.

Luke, S., Vail, C. O., & Ayres, K. M. (2014). Using antecedent physical activity to increase on-task behavior

in young children. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 489-503.

Lynch, S. L., & Irvine, A. N. (2009). Inclusive education and best practice for children with autism spectrum

disorder: An integrated approach. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(8), 845-859.

Malmqvist, J. (n.d.). Inclusion and participation of school aged children. [PingPong. Jönköping University].

Retrieved Dec. 05, 2016 from https://pingpong.hj.se/courseId/16677/content.do?id=12574186

*McCurdy, E. E., & Cole, C. L. (2014). Use of a peer support intervention for promoting academic

engagement of students with ASD in general education settings. Journal of autism and developmental

disorders, 44(4), 883-893.

26

Merrell, K. W., Ervin, R. A., & Peacock, G. G. (2011). School psychology for the 21st century: Foundations and

practices. New York: Guilford Press.

Ministry of Education. (2007). Effective educational practices for students with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Ontario,

CA: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Mitchell, D. (2008). What really works in special and inclusive education: Using evidence-based teaching strategies.

Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge

*Nicholson, H., Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., & Heest, J. V. (2011). The effects of antecedent physical activity

on the academic engagement of children with autism spectrum disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 48(2),

198-213.

Perry, A., & Condillac, R. (2003). Evidence-based practices for children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders:

Review of the literature and practice guide. Retrieved from

http://www.cmho.org/documents/EBP_autism.pdf.

Rao, S. M., & Gagie, B. (2006). Learning through seeing and doing: Visual supports for children with autism.

Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(6), 26-33.

Reeves, L. M., Umbreit, J., Ferro, J. B., & Liaupsin, C. J. (2013). Function-based intervention to support the

inclusion of students with autism. Education and Training in autism and Developmental Disabilities, 379-391.

Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate,

student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 104(3), 700.

Rock, M. L., & Thead, B. K. (2007). The effects of fading a strategic self-monitoring intervention on

students’ academic engagement, accuracy, and productivity. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16(4), 389-

412.

Ruble, L. A., & Robson, D. M. (2007). Individual and environmental determinants of engagement in autism.

Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 37(8), 1457-1468.

*Schatz, R. B., Peterson, R. K., & Bellini, S. (2016). The Use of Video Self-Modeling to Increase On-Task

Behavior in Children with High-Functioning autism. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 32(3), 234-253.

Spann, S. J., Kohler, F. W., & Soenksen, D. (2003). Examining parents' involvement in and perceptions of

special education services: An interview with families in a parent support group. Focus on autism and

other developmental disabilities, 18(4), 228-237.

27

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.

Steinbrenner, J. R. D., & Watson, L. R. (2015). Student engagement in the classroom: The impact of

classroom, teacher, and student factors. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 45(8), 2392-2410.

Sterling-Turner, H. E., Robinson, S. L., & Wilczynski, S. W. (2001). Functional assessment of distracting

and disruptive behaviors in the school setting. School Psychology Review, 30(2), 211.

Strain, P. S., Wilson, K., & Dunlap, G. (2011). Prevent-teach-reinforce: Addressing problem behaviors of

students with autism in general education classrooms. Behavioral Disorders, 160-171.

UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for action on special needs education.

Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education; Access and Quality. Salamanca,

Spain, 7-10 June 1994. UNESCO.

Walker, H. M., Severson, H. H., & Feil, E. G. (2010). Systematic screening for behavior disorders (SSBD). Longmont,

CO: Sopris West.

Whitby, P. J. S., & Mancil, G. R. (2009). Academic achievement profiles of children with high functioning

autism and Asperger syndrome: A review of the literature. Education and Training in Developmental

Disabilities, 551-560.

Wolfe, L. H., Heron, T. E., & Goddard, Y. L. (2000). Effects of self-monitoring on the on-task behavior

and written language performance of elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavioral

Education, 10(1), 49-73.

Ylvén, R., & Granlund, M. (2015). Collaborative problem solving in the context of early childhood

intervention–the link between problems and goals. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 17(3), 221-

239.

Zwaigenbaum, L. (2001). Autistic spectrum disorders in preschool children. Canadian Family

Physician, 47(10), 2037-2042.

Note. * indicates the included articles in this systematic literature review.

28

Appendix A

Appendix A. Search procedure and search strings

Database Search

technique

Search strings Number of

Articles

ERIC Combination of

both Thesaurus

and free text in

advanced search

SU.EXACT("Pervasive Developmental

Disorders") OR SU.EXACT("Asperger

Syndrome") OR SU.EXACT("ASD") AND

SU.EXACT("Student Participation") OR

SU.EXACT("Learner Engagement") AND

(intervention OR practice OR strateg* OR

method OR approach)

84

PsycINFO Combination of

both Thesaurus

and free text in

advanced search

SU.EXACT("ASD Spectrum Disorders")

AND SU.EXACT("Participation") OR

SU.EXACT("Student Engagement") AND

(intervention OR practice OR strateg* OR

method OR approach)

53

ScienceDirect Free text in expert

search

"ASD" AND intervention OR practice OR

strateg* OR method OR approach AND

"academic engagement"

28

Scopus Free text in

advanced search

"Pervasive Developmental Disorders" OR

"Asperger Syndrome" OR "ASD" AND

"academic engagement" OR "Student

Participation" OR "Learner Engagement"

AND intervention OR practice OR strategy

OR method OR approach AND inclusive

OR mainstream

69

29

Appendix B

Appendix B. Protocol for inclusion on title/abstract level

Questions Comments

An article Y / N / ?

Abstract of the article available Y / N / ?

Participants have a diagnosis of ASD Y / N / ?

Participants aged from 6-18 Y / N / ?

Focus on academic engagement Y / N / ?

Focus on interventions or strategies Y / N / ?

Research setting in inclusive classrooms Y / N / ?

Note: Yes=Y, No=N, Not clearly stated=?

30

Appendix C

Appendix C. Protocol for inclusion on full-text level

Questions Comments

Full-text available Yes No

Have ASD participants Yes No

Participants aged from 6-18 Yes No

Participants spend at least 50% of school day in general education classroom Yes No

Focus on academic engagement Yes No

Focus on interventions or strategies Yes No

Research setting in inclusive classrooms Yes No

Purpose of study clearly stated Yes No

Intervention procedure described Yes No

Limitation of the study stated Yes No

31

Appendix D

Appendix D. Quality assessment tool

Quality assessment tool

Study evaluative overview

Bibliographic

details

Does the article has clear information about the author, title, year and place of

publication?

(2) Yes

(1) Partly

(0) No

Purpose Are the aim and research questions stated clearly in the study?

(2) Both the aim and research questions were stated clearly.

(1) Only the aim was stated clearly and there are no research questions.

(0) There were no aim and research questions stated in the article.

Key findings Are the findings clearly described?

(2) Yes

(1) Partly

(0) No

Evaluative

summary

Are the strength, limitation of the study and future research discussed?

(2) Yes

(1) Partly

(0) No

Study and context

The study Does the article have sufficient information about the intervention? Was the

information enough to understand the intervention?

(2) The information about the intervention was sufficient and clear.

(1) The article had insufficient information about the intervention.

(0) The article didn’t have any information about the intervention.

What is the study design?

(2) Randomized controlled trial

(1) Case study

(0) No information was provided.

Setting

Is sufficient detail given about the setting?

(1) Yes

(0) No

Does the study have a follow-up phase to check for intervention maintenance?

(1) Yes

32

(0) No

Sample How was the participants selected?

(2) Random selection

(1) Non-random selection

(0) Not stated

Is the sample size sufficient for the study aims and to draw the conclusions?

(2) Yes

(1) Not entirely

(0) No

Outcome

measurement

Is there an instrument to measure the outcome?

(1) Yes

(0) No

Is there a description of the instrument?

(1) Yes

(0) No

Ethics

Is there informed consent before the intervention?

(1) Yes

(0) No

Data collection and analysis

Data collection Is the process of fieldwork adequately described? (For example, account of how

the data were elicited; type and range of questions; interview guide; length and

timing of observation work; note taking)

(1) Yes

(0) No

Is Interobserver agreement applied during data collection?

(1) Yes

(0) No

Data analysis Is the description of the data analysis adequate?

(1) Yes

(0) No

Is social validity tested?

(1) Yes

(0) No

Note. The tool is adapted from Evaluative Tool for Mixed Method Studies (2005)

33

Appendix E

Appendix E. Extraction protocol

Extraction protocol Comments

General information

Title of article Year of publication Authors Type of publication

Country Research aim Research questions Study design

Participants

Sample size Age Disability Time in general education

classrooms

Recruitment Informed consent

Description of the intervention

What was the intervention?

What was the basic procedure of intervention?

Where did the intervention take place?

How long for each session?

How long did the intervention last?

Who implemented the intervention?

Is there an aide during the intervention?

Any follow-ups?

Outcome of the intervention

What was the measurement tool for measuring effectiveness?

What was the result after intervention?

Was academic engagement measured?

How was the maintenance of the intervention?

What was the conclusion of the study?

What were the limitation and recommendation of the study?