Educational Psychology: Autism, Theory, and School Practice

Introduction to Educational Psychology

The topic of educational psychology — psychology as it is practiced within a school system — has become increasingly important in recent years as the number of special education demands on school systems, and especially public school systems, has increased. While educational psychologists tend to work in universities and other research settings rather than in the school system per se, they are continually affected by what is happening in schools as they seek to respond to the changing needs of student bodies. Thus the needs of school psychologists tend to be reflected, at least in some measure, in the research of educational psychologists, who in turn affect the practice of school psychologists.

One area of research that is becoming increasingly important to educational psychologists is also among the most pressing demands made on school psychologists today: how to help autistic students benefit from the public education system without their needs diverting too many resources from general education classrooms and students. This paper examines current research on this topic while outlining a research methodology for a proposed future project in the area.

Educational psychology is an interdisciplinary field. In addition to interacting with the practical concerns of school psychology — a field now developed within and maintained by school certification programs, and therefore attuned to the needs of school districts rather than research — it is based primarily in psychology but also draws on research from education, neurology, counseling, and organizational studies, among others. The research that educational psychologists perform, in turn, influences the work of many disciplines that provide direct support services in the school system. It is used to help design curricula, especially for special education programs; to help create new educational technology, especially assistive technology for students with a range of disabilities; and even classroom management strategies.

Educational psychologists are primarily concerned with the development of young people from early childhood through adolescence, although some focus on adult education as well. They are generally concerned with stages of development, including social, emotional, and cognitive stages of maturation (Furth & Wachs, 1975). Educational psychologists also examine the ways in which moral development occurs as children age. All of these aspects of development are interrelated and iterative, so that no one aspect can be understood without attending to the others.

Before focusing on the specifics of this topic, it is important to outline the scope of the profession, which has expanded dramatically in recent years. A generation ago — and even a decade ago — the major task for the educational psychologist was to administer standard tests to schoolchildren and provide feedback on the results to administrators, teachers, and caregivers. This remains a central task for the school psychologist, but the scope of the job has changed because of the recent influx of a much larger special education student population. Of course, educational psychologists also work with general education students and address far more wide-ranging concerns than simply testing and placement.

It is important to note that while the job of the educational psychologist is in the process of adding new concerns and duties, it has also shed tasks that were once assigned to this office. For example, Kraft (1970) discusses how it was once considered vital that the educational psychologist help each student select a course of study and then follow up with that student to ensure the chosen path was the most suitable one.

It is hard to imagine any educational psychologist today being concerned with such a task. Not only do educational psychologists generally not interact with individual students today, but they are focused on more sophisticated areas of research rather than on practical concerns such as career counseling. This is not to say that the tasks previously performed by educational psychologists were not valuable; rather, it is merely to note that the role and function of the profession have shifted dramatically over time.

Just as educational psychologists have shed some of their previous foci, they have taken on others. For example, one area that educational psychologists have recently entered is that of social justice. This might seem far afield from traditional practice, but as Speight & Vera (2009) note, issues of access to appropriate education are in fact central to the concept of social justice, since education remains an essential aspect of long-term economic and emotional well-being in the United States, as well as the possibility of class mobility. Specific issues — such as the differential ways in which certain diagnoses are applied (for example, the fact that the cohort most frequently diagnosed with ADHD is African-American boys) — also touch on the core concepts of social justice. Consideration of such issues is an important aspect of educational practice.

Theoretical Models for Educational Psychology

There are a number of major theoretical schools within educational psychology. These are not unique to this field but are used throughout the social and human sciences. This paper examines three of the primary theoretical models most relevant to the present discussion. The first is applied behavior analysis. While this set of techniques is based on one of the earliest principles of psychology — the kind of behavioral conditioning developed well over a century ago — this particular version is an updated form that borrows significantly from cognitive behavioral therapy and the current emphasis on evidence-based interventions.

Applied behavioral analysis is favored by a number of school psychologists, teachers, and school administrators because it often promises — and sometimes delivers — relatively quick results. This form of analysis is really more a technique than a theory. It is based on the same kind of guidance that many teachers and parents already use consistently with children: good behavior is rewarded while problematic behavior is not rewarded (though not punished). The psychologists who developed models of operant conditioning were focused almost entirely on behavior. Modeling their work on the hard sciences of biology and chemistry, they avoided everything that could not be measured.

The result of such a model — whether conceived theoretically or in terms of practice — is that the focus must be on behavior. What goes on outside the realm of observable, measurable behavior (emotion, motivation, cognition) was deemed peripheral and even irrelevant. Such a model has real appeal for a teacher faced with a child whose behavior not only prevents him from benefiting from the classroom experience, but also prevents the other children from gaining an education.

Thus many school programs, based in part on the work of educational psychologists, use various forms of applied behavioral analysis. Among the areas in which such programs are highly prevalent are the special education programs in which children with autism are enrolled. Because autism is — for those around the person with autism — often defined primarily by difficult-to-manage behavior, a program that helps limit such behavior is highly attractive.

However, there are distinct limitations to this approach, and these derive from the same facet of applied behavioral analysis that makes its theoretical grounding so skeletal (Cameron, Pierce, Banko, & Gear, 2005). While human behavior is, of course, important — and especially so in the classroom environment — it is arguably much less important to understanding and redirecting human behavior than a deeper understanding of human cognition, motivation, and emotion. In other words, much of human life is subjective, and a method that focuses only on those aspects of human nature that can be easily objectified will be an extremely limited one. Notably, concerns about this limitation were already present in the earliest years of applied behavioral analysis's popularity, and some observers suggest such sensitivity may have been more prominent then than it is now (Alberto & Troutman, 2003, p. 29).

As Wolf (1978) observed:

It is clear that a number of the most important concepts of our culture are subjective, perhaps even the most important. Martin Luther, as the story goes, was severely criticized for setting Protestant hymns to the popular melodies of songs and dances of the time. He replied, "Why should we let the devil have all the best tunes?" Well, why should we let the others have all of the best human goals and social problems? (Wolf, 1978, p. 210)

One of the problems that Wolf (1978) identifies in both the theory and practice of applied behavioral analysis — a problem that has remained an issue in the intervening decades — is that because this technique is focused on the observable, there is no way for either a clinician or a researcher to make an accurate assessment of the internal state of a subject:

Behavioral researchers have reported many examples of a lack of correspondence between client-reported data and observer-obtained data. Patterson (personal communication, 1974), for example, described discrepancies between parental reports of improvements in the child's behavior, while objective data obtained by observers did not support these claims. Conrad and Wincze (1976) reported that clients undergoing orgasmic reconditioning verbally reported favorable results that were not substantiated by the objective data. (Wolf, 1978, p. 212)

How significant a problem this is depends upon a researcher's or clinician's overall theoretical perspective and goals. It is certainly true that teachers (or researchers in laboratory conditions) can significantly change the behavior of students to bring it more in line with what the teacher or researcher desires. However, without a continuous series of rewards, the desired behavior tends to extinguish. Critics of this approach point to this aspect as indicative of larger theoretical and even ethical issues: any approach based on operant conditioning risks denying the complexity and the drive toward self-determination of the individual (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973; Cameron, Pierce, Banko, & Gear, 2005).

Applied behavioral analysis techniques have been shown to reduce the intrinsic motivation of individuals when they lead teachers and researchers to provide tangible rewards (Pierce & Cameron, 2002). However, in other versions of such techniques — when rewards are given to children as they gradually and steadily increase their performance in a particular area — intrinsic motivation does not appear to be as adversely affected (Cameron, Pierce, Banko, & Gear, 2005; Pierce & Cameron, 2002).

Pivotal Response Therapy

Pivotal response therapy is one of the preferred methods for treating children with autism spectrum disorders. It is derived from applied behavioral analysis, but it has become sufficiently recognized as a distinct mode of treatment to warrant separate examination here. The key distinction of pivotal response therapy — in both theory and application — is that rather than focusing on a single behavior or type of behavior (such as screaming or hitting by an individual with autism), it focuses on a cluster of behaviors and motivations that educational psychologists believe are intrinsically linked. Because these behaviors are linked on an a priori basis, researchers believe that there is a kind of contagion effect that can travel among each bundle of behaviors and beyond to affect a wide range of other behaviors as well.

A physical analogue to this process can be seen in an obese individual's losing weight. Weight loss is likely to trigger improvements in blood pressure, blood sugar, arthritis, and kidney function. Improvement in a key area of cognition, emotional control, and behavior — according to the pivotal response model — will similarly benefit a range of other areas for the individual with autism.

As Koegel & Schreibman (n.d.) describe it:

Pivotal Response Training (PRT) is a naturalistic behavioral intervention developed to facilitate stimulus and response generalization, increase spontaneity, reduce prompt dependency, and increase motivation while still relying on the principles of applied behavior analysis. PRT was designed based on a series of studies identifying important "pivotal" treatment components that affect a wide range of behaviors. Pivotal behaviors are those behaviors that are central to wide areas of a child's functioning, and when promoted, they are believed to produce improvement in many non-targeted behaviors.

Koegel et al. (1999) found four pivotal behaviors: motivation, self-management, self-initiation of behavior, and responsivity to multiple cues. This theoretical model assesses bundles of behavior as the key level of assessment and treatment — a dramatic shift from other forms of behavioral analysis and treatment, which take a much more micro-level approach. Koegel et al. (1999) also found that when improvement is made in these areas, children and adolescents with autism experience improvement in overall functioning, including the ability to generalize new behaviors or thought patterns from specific to broader contexts and a greater degree of autonomy.

The educational psychologists who developed this model relied on an idea that is simple but was largely absent from preceding models of behavioral analysis and modification: interventions should be as naturalistic as possible. Rather than disrupting the behaviors of individuals with autism with cues that cut them off from their own subjective reality and understanding of their behaviors and motivations, PRT shifted the emphasis to a more intuitive approach. As Koegel & Schreibman (n.d.) explain:

PRT is a loosely structured, naturalistic intervention; in other words, it relies on naturally occurring teaching opportunities and naturally occurring consequences. Research has shown that naturalistic interventions are associated with more expressed positive affect on the part of the child as well as the parent implementing the treatment. PRT is child directed (as opposed to therapist or parent directed), giving children the opportunity to initiate learning events. PRT works to increase motivation by including components such as child choice, turn-taking, reinforcing attempts, and interspersing maintenance tasks. PRT has been used to target language skills, play skills, and social behaviors in children with autism. These strategies are also used by some other naturalistic behavioral strategies such as milieu teaching and incidental teaching.

The University of California at San Diego's Autism Intervention Research Program lists the following attributes of Pivotal Response Training:

1. The instruction should be clear, appropriate to the task, uninterrupted, and the child should be attending to the therapist or task.
2. The client can maintain previously mastered tasks.
3. Multiple cues should be presented as appropriate for the child's developmental level.
4. The child should be given a significant role in choosing the stimulus items.
5. Rewards should be immediate, contingent, uninterrupted, and effective.
6. Natural or direct reinforcers should be used the majority of the time.
7. Rewards should be contingent on response attempts. (Koegel & Schreibman, n.d.)

These criteria demonstrate that PRT represents a significant shift from applied behavioral analysis both in its focus on core bundles of behavior rather than individual behaviors and in its emphasis on the subjective needs and perspectives of the client.