Evaluating Teacher Language Within General and Special Education Classrooms Serving Elementary Students with Autism

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-05115-4 ORIGINAL PAPER Evaluating Teacher Language Within General and Special Education Classrooms Serving Elementary Students with Autism Nicole Sparapani1,3 Amy M. Wetherby3 · Vanessa P. Reinhardt2,3 · Jessica L. Hooker3 · Lindee Morgan3,4 · Christopher Schatschneider5 · Accepted: 27 May 2021 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract This study examined how teachers and paraprofessionals in 126 kindergarten-second grade general and special education classrooms talked with their 194 students with autism, and further, how individual student characteristics in language, autism symptoms, and social abilities influenced this talk. Using systematic observational methods and factor analysis, we identified a unidimensional model of teacher language for general and special education classrooms yet observed differences between the settings, with more language observed in special education classrooms—much of which included directives and closeended questions. Students’ receptive vocabulary explained a significant amount of variance in teacher language beyond its shared covariance with social impairment and problem behavior in general education classrooms but was non-significant within special education classrooms. Research implications are discussed. Keywords Autism spectrum disorder · Autism · Teacher language · Measurement invariance · Student characteristics Introduction Teacher language is considered a unique and powerful resource for classroom learning, because interactive patterns directly impact student outcomes (Downer et al., 2010; Pianta, 2016). Studies have documented predictive associations between teacher language and student outcomes (e.g., Connor et al., 2020; Howes et al., 2008; Mashburn et al., 2008), with high quality interactions linked to academic growth (Curby et al., 2009; Hamre & Pianta, 2005), social * Nicole Sparapani Vanessa P. Reinhardt Jessica L. Hooker Lindee Morgan competence (Mashburn et al., 2008; Wilson et al., 2007), and fewer problem behaviors (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network, 2003). Specific features of talk, including teachers’ use of open-ended questions, have also been associated with academic achievement and communication and language development (e.g., Burchinal et al., 2008; Milburn et al., 2014; Walsh, 2002). However, there has yet to be a thorough investigation of teacher language in elementary classrooms serving students with autism spectrum disorder (autism). 1 Present Address: School of Education and the MIND Institute, University of California, Davis, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA 2 Present Address: Ontario, Canada 3 Autism Institute, College of Medicine, Florida State University, 2312 Killearn Center Boulevard, Building A, Tallahassee, FL 32309‑3524, USA 4 Present Address: Marcus Autism Center, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Department of Pediatrics, Emory University, 1920 Briarcliff Road, Atlanta, GA 30329‑4010, USA 5 Department of Psychology, Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, 2010 Levy Avenue, Suite 100, Tallahassee, FL 32320, USA Christopher Schatschneider Amy M. Wetherby 13 Vol.:(0123456789) Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders With a growing prevalence (1 in 54; Maenner et al., 2020), complexity of learning needs (Fleury et al., 2014; Jones, 2015; Lindsay et al., 2013), and the push for inclusion (U.S. Department of Education, 2018), the need for understanding and evaluating effective educational practices for learners with autism is at a peak. We begin to address this need by examining the language environment, and the student characteristics that impact it, within general and special education classrooms serving students with autism. We posit that a thorough analysis of the language that students with autism experience in the classroom will provide a promising method for identifying and evaluating salient features of talk that can be woven into curricula to support student engagement and learning—an initiative that could offer insight into effective school-based practices and, at large, improve educational outcomes for learners with autism. Conceptualizing the Teacher Language Construct Examining the language that teachers use with their students with autism is complicated by differences in the operationalization of teacher language as a construct across educational settings and populations. Hence, we draw from the early childhood, general education, and special education literature to guide our conceptualization of teacher language in relation to students with autism. To begin, many studies evaluating teacher language have been carried out in early childhood general education classrooms, with investigations conceptualizing and measuring teacher language as an aspect of broader interaction quality as outlined on the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS; Pianta et al., 2008). The CLASS is a widely-used observation scale for quantifying teacher-student interactions in the classroom by measuring the quality of teachers’ feedback, content, and questions to students. High quality teacher-student interactions, in which teachers provide explicit and genuine feedback to students, model academically rich vocabulary, and ask openended questions to encourage critical thinking have been associated with positive student outcomes such as academic achievement and social emotional development (Burchinal et al., 2008; Hamre & Pianta, 2005, 2007). This literature base, although broad, is rigorous as it utilizes large samples, quantitative and consistent measures of interaction quality, and a range of student outcome measures (O’Connor, 2010; Pianta et al., 2008). Other studies examining teacher language have also used observational methods to capture the amount and type of language that teachers direct to their students. This method for measuring teacher language quantifies specific features of talk, such as the frequency of open-ended questions, close-ended questions, language models, and directives. However, conceptualization of and tools for measuring teacher language in this manner have varied across studies 13 and environments. In a few studies within early childhood settings, teacher language has been categorized by pragmatic function, such as language used to encourage continued interaction (open- and close-ended questions), to provide information (language models), and to direct behavior (directives; DeWitt & Hohenstein, 2010; Gast et al., 2010; Walsh & Rose, 2013). Studies that have categorized teacher language by pragmatic function have been descriptive in nature, documenting differences in the talk that teachers use across educational contexts. For example, Gast et al. (2010) found that teachers most frequently provided information during unstructured activities, such as snack and free-play, and encouraged interaction (...truncated)