UDL Week: Day 3 - Autism
Welcome to day 3 of our series on using UDL supporting students in an Inclusion setting. If you’re new here, or need to catch up, go to the first day’s (link) page for the links to the previous days’ articles. You’ll find a detailed view of the methods and processes we’ll be using today. Today, we’ll assume that you’ve got all that and keep the discussion focused.
Our classroom and curriculum
Remember that we’re in a high school geometry class with a fast-paced, challenging curriculum that features Productive Struggle. We’re working on a lesson about Angles and Steepness (link). Where we’ve previously explored how to support those with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) and Other Health Impairments (OHI), today we’re focusing on supporting autistic students in our class.
Autism and Productive Struggle
Productive Struggle can be especially challenging for autistic students who benefit from consistency, clear expectations, and scaffolds to stay regulated. However, the principles of UDL provide a framework for more equitable access to Productive Struggle opportunities for autistic learners. UDL recommends multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression. For example, to aid engagement, teachers could provide visual schedules, warnings before transitions, and sensory tools to help autistic students maintain focus during Productive Struggle sessions. To support representation, concrete manipulatives, graphics, or videos could be incorporated to demonstrate concepts in various ways during Struggle periods. To assist action and expression, autistic students could be offered alternatives to written work like oral responses, drawings, or digital presentations after Productive Struggle lessons. The key is flexibility in how students take in and demonstrate understanding whilst maintaining high challenge. With strategic UDL supports, autistic students can persist through difficulty, develop self-regulation, and attain rigorous standards-based learning goals. Careful UDL implementation allows appropriate struggle for all learners, including those on the autism spectrum.
The dreaded discussion on “functioning levels.”
In the diagnostic world, the “functioning levels” as they are known on social media serve to let the system and the family know how much support the autistic person will require. There are a few reasons why some autistic individuals, especially those who are self-diagnosed, often express frustration with the use of “functioning labels” like “high-functioning’ or '“low-functioning” autism in online discussions:
They feel these labels promote misconceptions that autistics fit neatly into set categories, when in reality autism is a broad spectrum and support needs vary greatly by individual.
They worry functioning labels minimize or ignore the struggles of so-called “high-functioning” autistics who still require substantial supports.
They feel functioning labels lead to assumptions about someone’s abilities or potential based solely on a diagnosis.
They are concerned functioning labels could impact access to services and accommodations for those deemed “high-functioning.”
Some view the labels as condescending, especially when applied by non-autistic people.
Self-advocates often prefer identity-first language like “autistic person” over descriptor-first language like “person with autism.”
Functioning labels were originally intended for evaluating service eligibility, not broadly describing individuals.
So you see, some autistics reject the use of the Levels as imprecise or dismissive of the diversity within autism. They emphasize that individual support needs should be addressed compassionately, not based on preconceived functioning perceptions. Unfortunately, we live in a world ruled by corporations and governed by their rules. The APA has built these levels into their system (the DSM). The levels are there, so we’ll deal with them.
Within the DSM’s diagnostic criteria, there are three support levels. If you’ve read my book, No Place for Autism?, you’ll know why the levels are important to know / have, and get a deeper explanation of their function. Here, I’ll be brief.
Level 1 indicates requiring support - This is considered the lowest level of support an autistic person may need. Individuals at this level generally have strong cognitive and verbal skills but struggle with social skills and social communication. They are able to function well with support and accommodations.
Level 2 indicates requiring substantial support - This level is characterized by significant challenges with verbal and nonverbal communication skills, socialization, flexibility, and independent functioning. Individuals at this level require more substantial supports and modifications to function adaptively. My significant struggles with language, and my being a gestalt language processor, put me here in my diagnosis.
Level 3 indicates requiring very substantial support - This level reflects the most significant challenges with communication, socialization, self-regulation, cognition, and living skills. Individuals at level 3 have very limited independence and require very substantial lifelong supports across settings.
Again, the diagnostic levels help characterize the varying degrees of support needed for autistic individuals. However, as the self-diagnosed often rightly stress, our strengths and challenges can vary widely within the levels, and across time. Individualized services and supports should be tailored to the unique needs of each autistic person, adjusting them as needed across the lifespan.
Supporting autistic learners with the lesson
Individuals at Level 1 often thrive in full inclusion general education settings with some supports and accommodations in place (and an IEP). Students at Level 2 commonly require placement in more restrictive special day class programs, but can work alongside typical peers in Inclusion with substantial supports. However, those at Level 3 generally demonstrate such significant challenges that inclusion in mainstream academic environments may not be possible even with very extensive supports. Whilst individual student needs drive educational placements, autistics’ support levels provide insight on the feasibility of Inclusion and the degree of accommodations / modifications required within inclusive settings.
Autistic students who have an IEP eligibility of AUT or ASD (at Level 1) may struggle with this lesson in some of the following ways:
The social interaction required for the small group work and whole class discussions can be challenging for autistic students. This is especially true for those who are non-verbal or have limited communication skills.
The hands-on ramp design activity could be overwhelming sensory-wise for some autistic students.
The rapid pacing of the lesson and transitions between different activities could be difficult for students who benefit from more structure and consistency.
The mathematical reasoning and word problem solving involved throughout may be hard for autistic students who tend to think concretely.
Gestalt language processors (aka, non-verbal), limited vocal, selectively mute, or mute students may not be able to fully participate in the verbal discussions and cool-down without alternate communication modes.
Therefore, some supports could include:
Providing visual schedules, timers, and warnings before transitions.
Building in movement and sensory breaks during the lesson.
Using visual aids, diagrams, manipulatives, and examples during instruction.
Providing social scripts or sentence starters for group work and discussions.
Allowing alternate communication through device, pictures, writing, etc during discussions.
Reducing verbal information and simplifying instructions and materials.
Partnering students with peer buddies or paraprofessionals if needed.
Allowing alternate ways to demonstrate understanding.
Re-working math problems to be more concrete and structured.
Offering alternate quiet work spaces for students feeling overwhelmed.
Implementing visual and sensory supports, structured routines, and flexibility around communication and tasks can help autistic students fully engage with the content.
Moving up the levels, here are some ways Level 2 autistic students, including those who are non-verbal or use assistive technology, may struggle with this geometry lesson:
The hands-on measuring and model building involved in the ramp design could be very difficult for students with motor challenges. Providing adaptive equipment, allowing a computer-aided design, or working with a peer partner could help.
Following multi-step verbal instructions to complete the activities may not be possible for nonverbal students. Providing visual aids, picture sequences, checklists and video modeling can support understanding.
Participating in small group and whole class discussions to share ramp designs would be extremely difficult without a communication system in place. Allowing students to show models, use voice output devices, or have a peer helper share on their behalf facilitates participation.
Abstract concepts like ratios and angles may need to be presented much more concretely with manipulatives, simulations, and real-world examples.
A reduced workload, additional processing time, and regular sensory breaks will likely be necessary to maintain engagement and avoid cognitive overload.
Providing behaviour reinforcement systems, social narratives, and positive behaviour supports can aid with social-emotional regulation challenges.
The key here is knowing each student's unique needs, systematically teaching prerequisite skills, providing alternative communication methods, and implementing appropriate IEP accommodations and modifications. With strong supports, Level 2 autistic students can meaningfully access academic content in a general education setting.
Finally, it is highly unlikely that students at Level 3 could successfully engage with and meet the learning goals of this geometry lesson, even with significant modifications and supports in place. Some of the reasons include:
The abstract nature of the geometric concepts and multi-step mathematical reasoning involved are too advanced for those functioning at a presymbolic or concrete level.
The hands-on measuring, model construction, and drawing activities require motor skills, visual-spatial processing, and conceptual understanding exceedingly beyond their current abilities.
Following verbal, written, pictorial instructions to complete intricate tasks independently would be extremely difficult given cognitive and communication impairments.
Participating in peer discussions to explain mathematical thinking and reasoning is not reasonably achievable given profound challenges interacting even in highly supported environments.
Regulating behaviour, sustaining focus, and coping with frustration during prolonged academic tasks is typically very limited.
Generalizing skills outside narrowly defined parameters and performance with high accuracy is highly improbable.
Whilst trying to promote inclusion whenever possible, students this severely impacted need specialized instruction focused on functional life skills and social-communication at an appropriate developmental level, not grade-level academic content. Their programming is guided by alternate standards that reflect more realistic, achievable goals.
Conclusion
Whilst autistic learners have diverse skills and needs, implementing the Universal Design for Learning framework, providing alternative communication methods, using concrete representations of concepts, and building in appropriate supports and accommodations can make rigorous academic content more accessible. The ultimate goal is crafting an inclusive environment that allows autistic students to productively grapple with challenging curriculum, foster independence, and reach their full potential. With proper accommodations / modifications and scaffolding, autistic students can actively participate, gain confidence in using mathematics to solve problems, persist through difficulties, and achieve standards-aligned outcomes alongside peers - just as collaborative and flexible instruction intends for all learners.