Exploring interpersonal and environmental factors of autistic adolescents’ peer engagement in integrated education

Abstract

Autistic students often struggle to engage with peers in integrated education; however, research has largely focused on individual characteristics rather than the interpersonal and environmental factors affecting peer engagement. This mixed-methods study examined longitudinal peer interactions over a school year among 17 adolescents (seven were autistic) in an inclusive school club. The quantitative phase investigated participants’ social behavior rates to identify sessions where each student demonstrated high and low peer engagement compared with their average participation levels. The qualitative phase compared social interactions and contexts between sessions of high and low peer engagement, revealing four themes regarding contextual supports and barriers to autistic peer engagement: (1) peer engagement is a participatory process where a student and their peer(s) navigate mutual understanding, shaped by both student and peer social characteristics, openness, and involvement; (2) student–peer synchronicity, such as shared interests or compatibility of social styles, was essential to autistic peer engagement; (3) peer engagement can be supported by activities facilitating joint engagement and exploration of mutual interests; (4) classroom interventions emphasizing strengths can support peer engagement, while normative behavioral standards without peer education on individual differences and diversity can perpetuate peers’ negative perceptions of autistic difficulties. Lay abstract Peer engagement is essential but often challenging for autistic students in integrated education, especially for adolescents. Although peer engagement is bidirectional and context-dependent, research has largely focused on individual characteristics rather than the interpersonal and environmental factors affecting peer engagement. This mixed-methods study examined peer interactions over a school year among 17 adolescents (seven were autistic) in an inclusive school club at a public middle school in the Northeastern United States. The study began with a quantitative phase identifying sessions in which each student was socially engaged with peers more or less often than usual for them. We then qualitatively compared the social interactions and contexts between sessions where each participant experienced high and low peer engagement. Thematic analysis revealed four themes regarding contextual supports and barriers to autistic peer engagement: (1) peer engagement is a participatory process where a student and their peer(s) navigate mutual understanding, shaped by both student and peer social characteristics, openness, and involvement; (2) student–peer synchronicity, such as shared interests or compatibility of social styles, was essential to autistic peer engagement; (3) peer engagement can be supported by activities facilitating joint engagement and exploration of mutual interests; (4) classroom interventions emphasizing strengths can support peer engagement, while normative behavioral standards without peer education on individual differences and diversity can perpetuate peers’ negative perceptions of autistic difficulties. The findings have implications for better inclusive practice to support autistic social participation by modifying the peer environments, activities, and classroom interventions.

The double empathy problem: A derivation chain analysis and cautionary note.

“…This includes but is not limited to research on theory of mind (e.g., Alkire et al, 2023), emotion recognition (e.g., Hand et al, 2023), "shared understanding" (e.g., Chapple et al, 2021;Heasman & Gillespie, 2019;G. L. Williams et al, 2021), perspective taking (e.g., DeNigris et al, 2018;Heasman & Gillespie, 2018), social perception (e.g., Jones et al, 2021;Morrison, DeBrabander, Jones, Faso, et al, 2020), and observable social behavior (e.g., Chen et al, 2021Chen et al, , 2022a. At the same time, a similar range of social cognitive constructs are being described in the very definition of the DEP theory (e.g., Chapman, 2019;Chown, 2014;Milton, 2012;Milton et al, 2022), thus incorrectly implying that all these terms are synonymous with the DEP.…”

“…The double empathy concept is rapidly growing in popularity (Figure 1A), with a sharp increase in studies claiming to support the phenomenon (e.g., Chen et al, 2022a; Crompton, Hallett, et al, 2020; Hand et al, 2023; Morrison, DeBrabander, Jones, Faso, et al, 2020). Researchers are also invoking the DEP to explain complex results on social cognition that are difficult to interpret, or when discussing null findings in studies comparing autistic and neurotypical people (see Gernsbacher & Yergeau, 2019).…”

“…Second, most studies on the DEP have involved directly studying social interactions between autistic and neurotypical people. These have either observed interaction in real-world settings (e.g., Chen et al, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Heasman & Gillespie, 2019) or the lab (e.g., Alkire et al, 2023; Crompton, Ropar, et al, 2020; Crompton, Sharp, et al, 2020; Jones et al, 2021; Morrison, DeBrabander, Jones, Ackerman, & Sasson, 2020; Morrison, DeBrabander, Jones, Faso, et al, 2020; G. L. Williams et al, 2021).…”

The State of the Science on Adverse Childhood Experiences

“…For their part, California ACEs Aware representatives say that, despite the concerns, screening for ACEs is still more advantageous than ignoring the possibility that young people are experiencing adversities that otherwise might go unaddressed until very serious behavioral problems or other consequences emerge (de Sá & Nittle, 2020). From an occupational therapy process vantage point, sensitivity to how a history of ACE history influences habits, roles, routines, and occupational engagement would be counterbalanced with identification of client positive experiences and strengths (Chen et al, 2021; Sargent & Valdes, 2021). Emerging literature suggests positive childhood experiences (PCEs) positively affect outcomes when ACEs are present.…”

Empowering Social Environment as Scaffolding for Students with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in Teaching Basic Communication

“…There are several characteristics of an effective classroom environment, such as supporting all students in the classroom in ways that are a "natural and unobtrusive environment, continuing to use supports that fit into their daily classroom routine, changing what happens in the classroom which maintains a successful inclusive environment so students with ASD can receive instruction within a supportive environment (McLeskey & Waldron, 2007in Denning & Moody, 2013. In an inclusive and supportive setting, students with ASD have opportunities to engage with their peers, learn from social cues, and practice communication in real-life situations (Chen et al, 2022;Silveira-Zaldivar et al, 2021). Socializing within a structured and encouraging environment helps bridge the gap in social communication difficulties often encountered by students with ASD.…”