Understanding The Self PDF

# Understanding The Self ## 8.1 Introduction ## 8.2 The Self ## 8.3 The ‘Self-as-I’ A child is born. Taking that first gasp of air, cleaned, checked over, bundled, then given to the mother to cuddle, the child has entered into the world for the start of their life’s journey. Over the first few w...

# Understanding The Self ## 8.1 Introduction ## 8.2 The Self ## 8.3 The ‘Self-as-I’ A child is born. Taking that first gasp of air, cleaned, checked over, bundled, then given to the mother to cuddle, the child has entered into the world for the start of their life’s journey. Over the first few weeks, the parents are asked the same questions continually: girl or boy, weight, whether he or she is keeping well, how the mother is keeping and, of course, the name. With the wonders of modern technology the parents may even be able to decide upon a name before the child is born if they know what sex the child is; alternatively it may take a couple of days before a name is provided. The name is recorded with the Registrar of Births and Deaths and the child freely enters into the world. The child now has a developing sense of identity by being given a name. There is, however, a growing body of research to indicate that the child’s sense of self starts to develop while in the womb, as previously discussed by several authors (Assagioli, 1968; Grof, 1985). Our name is perhaps the single most defining attribute of who we are. Of course, other people share our name, as a quick name search on the internet would reveal. (As a side note, the author Dave Gorman even tracked down all of the ‘Dave Gormans’ he could find on the internet, as recorded in the book, _Are You Dave Gorman?: Wallace and Gorman, 2001_.) ### Activity: What’s in a name? Consider your name. What does it say about you? What do you want it to say about you? What does your name actually mean? Look this up on many of the name websites available. Where does your surname come from? How many people on any of the social media networking sites share your name? Were you the first person to have your name? What makes you unique compared to others who share your name? Our name initially serves as a point of reference. However, as opposed to saying a somewhat clumsy sentence such as ‘Scott Buckler would like a cappuccino, please’, we replace our name with the personal pronoun ‘I’. Taking this further, the use of the word ‘I’ relates to our self-awareness, or the object of attention whereby we communicate our thoughts, feelings and desires (Damian and Robins, 2012). The self can also be seen as having an executive function. By this, the self is more than just being; it is also a ‘doer’, through responding to information, making choices and executing action (Baumeister, 2011). ### Activity: Use of ‘I’ A very simple task: for one day (or even one lesson) avoid using the word ‘I’. If you managed to complete this activity for even a couple of minutes, you have done extremely well. From a scientific perspective, there is no need for an ‘I’ as we are just a collection of cells and chemical processes. Such a position is proposed by Parfit (1984) who argues that people do not exist outside of their physical components of the brain and body, a position known as ‘reductionism’ or a ‘bundle theory’. Elaborating further, bundle theorists propose that our life is a bundle of experiences and sensations – a series of impressions tied together through memory. Accordingly, the self is an illusion; similarly life is an illusion perhaps in the same way a film appears real despite being just a series of static pictures streamed together (Bach, 1977/1998). A further argument forwarded by such bundle theorists or reductionists is that science has yet to detect the soul or spirit, the actual attribute that animates us. However, just because science has yet to determine the existence of a metaphysical ‘self’, it does not mean that the self does not exist. This is similar in nature to searching for the Higgs boson particle (the ‘God’ particle), which was proposed 50 years ago and which was discovered in 2012 using the Large Hadron Collider. (This is a collection of scientific equipment that cost approximately €7 billion, is claimed to be the fastest racetrack on the planet and can achieve temperatures a hundred thousand times hotter than the sun, while using the world’s most advanced supercomputer: (CERN, 2009).) Consequently with enough support and investment, science may one day prove the existence of the self, the thing that animates us. In contrast to the reductionist, bundle theorists are the anti-reductionist (or holism) ego theorists who assert that the sum of the whole is greater than the parts. As an analogy, a Monet painting from a reductionist perspective would be just paint and canvas; within the holistic approach, a Monet painting is so much more. Therefore ego theorists perceive the self as a single, continuous being; that the self is an enduring structure. In other words, something or someone has thoughts and makes decisions based on these - there is a consciousness (Blackmore, 2005; Lancaster, 2004). The psychology of consciousness is a complex area. As you may have gathered through reading to this point, there are times when psychology and philosophy tend to merge, and the area of consciousness is one such area. For example, we live in a world of quantitative phenomena in a space/time continuum: things have weight, size and shape. The laws of physics apply to everyone on this planet, we fall down and not up. Yet we also have our own personal thoughts and experiences that are subjective in nature. My experience of blue may be what another person sees as a shade of green. What is music to may be mere noise to another. The slurp of the coffee I am currently drinking may be different from your experience of the taste of coffee. Indeed, such experiences are indescribable to another person: I can attempt to describe my taste of coffee, yet words would not do justice to the experience (heck, it is a great cup of coffee after all!). This relates to what Chalmers (1996) calls the ‘hard problem of consciousness’, which simply defined asks why we have such a richness of experience from our sensory processes and how this operates. Indeed, how do we know that we are different from what Chalmers calls ‘philosophical zombies’: creatures identical to humans, who operate in a prescribed way to a given stimulus but do not actually experience the stimulus in the same way as humans. Such philosophical zombies may move their hand when they touch something hot and say ‘ouch’ but do not actually experience the sensation of pain. They may say ‘That’s a lovely cup of coffee’ as a given response to the stimulus of coffee, yet not subjectively experience the taste as being ‘lovely’. You could assess whether you are a zombie by adding salt to coffee and tasting it, yet perhaps you are just conditioned that, when certain taste buds are stimulated in a specific way, behaviourally you go ‘uugh’. The taste does not conjure up the same poetic, subjective experience of finely ground fresh coffee beans from Kenya when you have that first cup in the morning. Where things further separate from a psychological to a philosophical basis is through the assertion by James (1890), whereby we can never have exactly the same thought more than once. By this, James suggests that, as we live in a constantly changing world, our reactions will constantly change, although we may sustain the illusion that our thoughts are the same. Such an assertion in turn distances us from philosophical zombies. ## 8.4 The ‘Self-as-Me’ While the ‘self-as-I’ relates to our unique subjective experience, the ‘self-as-me’ relates to our interpersonal relationships with others. This is an aspect described by James (1890) whereby the ‘me’ is the object known to other people. According to Damian and Robins (2012), there are different levels on which the concept of ‘me’ operates (Figure 8.1). The first is similar to the ‘self-as-I,’ which is the personal or individual self. On this level, our beliefs and values about our private self are formed. This is influenced through the second level, the relational self. At this level, we perceive ourselves as having different personal relationships with others; for example, I may perceive that I am different with friends than I am with colleagues. The social self is where we perceive ourselves in relation to general interpersonal contexts, for example, our social role as teachers and our reputation. The final level is that of the collective self, where our personal identities are considered in relation to a variety of groups, for example, nationality, ethnicity or how we are perceived as teachers. There is a parallel between the sense of ‘me’ and ‘ecological systems theory’, whereby the child is affected through various environmental systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Such environments consist of the child’s direct experience with their friends, family, peers or school, known as the microsystem. This relates to Damian and Robins’ relational level. An indirect environment is the mesosystem, where two microsystems connect. An example of this is where the child’s parents may not hold school in high regard, with such attitudes in turn affecting the child’s attitude to school. The exosystem is similarly external to the child, yet may influence the child: such an exosystem is a parent’s workplace, whereby if the parent is stressed through their work such stress may manifest itself in the home environment. A parallel with the collective self is Bronfenbrenner’s macrosystem, or the culture in which the child lives. The culture can relate to nationality, ethnicity or socioeconomic status. Bronfenbrenner’s final level is the chronosystem, which is historical in nature and evolves over time: one example is the effect of childhood illness which, as time progresses, may improve. Other examples are the immediate effect of divorce on the child and how this improves as life becomes more settled. Taking Bronfenbrenner’s model further, an analogy could be made with how a drop ripples across a pond: one small change in one area can affect a completely different area. For example, consider how the economic crisis from 2008 is still rippling and affecting the economy today: the recession may in turn have led to a tightening of available funds for an individual, who in turn spends less money on materialistic items, such as internet purchases. If enough individuals are feeling the pressure on their money, the shops will have less business, which in turn may result in a business entering administration and closing. From this, an employer/employee may have been made redundant, which increases pressure on their finances, their stress level and in turn their family, one of which is a child. Yet in a classroom of 30, with the relative pressures of the curriculum and a range of associated factors, such ripples that have affected a child may be ignored. Consequently, from a teaching perspective, an awareness that a multitude of factors impact on the developing child and their sense of self is of fundamental importance: any one of the areas from either Bronfenbrenner or Damian and Robins’ model can in turn affect a child’s sense of self. How can we in turn assure that a child’s sense of self is developed as best we can? ## 8.5 Integration of the ‘I’ and ‘Me’ From the preceding sections in this chapter, you may have appreciated that the sense of self is paramount to psychology, yet you may also appreciate it is an area with many depths. Indeed, Klein (2012: 363) comments that “There is no more widely used, yet less well-understood, term in psychology than the self.” How true. Part psychology, part philosophy, the concept of the self (or the self-concept) resonates across many branches of psychology. It is the interplay between these branches that can lead to the lack of clarity as they all have a certain perspective constrained by their field. Certain psychologists have attempted to develop integrated models of the self, notably Roberto Assagioli and Ken Wilber. A brief overview of their theories is provided below, as a point of reference should you wish to explore them in further depth at a later stage. ## 8.6 Roberto Assagioli and Psychosynthesis Assagioli (1888–1974) founded the movement of psychosynthesis, having studied under both Freud and Jung. Indeed, within Assagioli’s theory, the influences of Freud are apparent through the unconscious, and from Jung, the notion of archetypes. At the heart of psychosynthesis is self-realisation: understanding the true self through direct experience to develop one’s greatest potential (Firman and Russell, 1993). To this extent, the focus of psychosynthesis is on developing the ‘self-as-I’ to access our true individuality. In relation to Jung’s archetypes (alternating characters that make up our personality, or alter-egos), Assagioli viewed the self as composed of different parts, for example, the child, the parent, the critic. At different times, a different archetype comes to the fore: if our sense of self feels threatened, we can adopt one of these different roles, for example, the ‘wounded child’ who is defensive, or perhaps the ‘parent’ who ## 8.11 Self-Efficacy Previously self-esteem was defined as an evaluation of our self: this is subjective in nature and may be realistic or unrealistic given the evidence. Yet, what do we personally do about this subjective evaluation of our abilities? We are characterised by the way we respond to the environment; consequently the amount of effort we devote to an activity, our motivation to complete the task and our persistence are all affected by our subjective evaluation. Indeed, research has indicated how learners with a higher self-efficacy demonstrate greater persistence, motivation and interest in their education than learners with a lower self-efficacy (Zimmerman et al., 1992). According to Bandura (1986), there are two aspects related to self-efficacy: our actual competence (or skill) required for the task and our estimation of our competence, which is subjective in nature. Put another way, it is a balance between what the learner chooses to do and the amount of energy or effort they expend in completing a task (see Figure 8.4). From this, Bandura identifies four factors that can affect our self-efficacy: enactive, vicarious, persuasory and emotive. ### Enactive The enactive domain relates to whether a learner’s action achieves a result of success or failure (or somewhere in between). From a teacher’s perspective, has the challenge been made too easy or too hard for that particular learner? Similarly, is the learner equipped with the tools to utilise to achieve success? An analogy can be made with tools you can purchase from a hardware store. Have you purchased the right tool for the job at hand? Do you only have a screwdriver to hammer in a nail? Even if you have a hammer, is it a sledge-hammer, a mallet, a gavel (used by judges when passing sentence) or the more familiar claw hammer? If you have the right tool for the job, can you use it appropriately? Therefore, whether the learner achieves the desired result will depend on a careful balance between the challenge the teacher has set and their personal ‘toolkit’. It may be that the teacher needs to indicate or develop the learner’s use of the appropriate tool. Links can therefore be made to metacognition, equipping the learner to understand what tools and processes they need to engage with a task, and how to try another tool or process if they have not met with immediate success. Within this, an emotive element resides: if a learner continues to experience failure, how can we ensure that they persevere and meet with success? How can we help them to develop their emotive response to failure? This will be discussed slightly further on in the chapter in relation to self-attribution. ### Vicarious Within the vicarious domain, the learner compares their performance with others. Have you ever asked why you cannot do something that others find easy? Perhaps you are using the wrong tool from your toolkit as described within the enactive domain. There again, you may not see the relevance of the task and therefore have not engaged to the same extent. It may be that the person you are comparing yourself with is fantastic and naturally gifted at the specific task, yet you excel at something different. It may be due to a range of physiological aspects, such as lack of sleep or food. In comparing our efforts and their results to others, we may start to negatively affect our self-efficacy, or our emotive belief in our ability. Consider previous exams at school you may have studied for. Across the country, no doubt learners discuss how easy or difficult they found the exam after they are released from the examination room. Learners may similarly compare their grades on an assignment, focusing solely on the grade and not the feedback that informs the learner as to their strengths and areas for future development. Consequently, although the education system may encourage comparison through league tables, standardised tests and qualifications, should learners rather be comparing their abilities against their own benchmark and how they engage with tasks? This in turn relates to process goals as opposed to performance goals (as discussed in Chapter 14). As teachers, we can help learners appreciate their abilities as individuals while appreciating that the sense of self is constantly being refined through the reaction and interaction with others (Argyle and Henderson, 1984). ### Persuasory Related to the previous domain, how do the statements from others affect learners’ engagement? Are they encouraging? Are they discouraging and dispiriting? Such comments can be made by other learners, parents and even teachers. However, they only have an effect if they are internalised and believed to be true, or we ‘introject’ the information from others. Needless to say, as teachers, are we offering encouragement? Even if we are, does the learner internalise or use introjection for these words of support? Do we need to balance our guiding words with actions to help develop their enactive and vicarious domains? One significant factor seldom discussed is the way we use self-defeating patterns of behaviour, for example, saying how useless we are at something, or continually reprimanding ourselves through saying, ‘I must’ or ‘I shouldn’t’. Such internal cognitive dialogue is discussed further in Chapter 16, specifically in relation to cognitive restructuring. ### Emotive With the completion of any task, there is an emotional element ranging on a continuum from boredom to fear. Although I may have driven the same route to work over a thousand times, the task is never boring: every journey is different - from the music on the radio, the way the seasons evolve as indicated on the trees and the daylight, finding a parking space when at work and so on. However, at certain times, the task can turn to fear, especially if there is snow, ice or flooding on the road. Therefore how can we ensure that a task leads to optimal attention by a learner without leading to polar ends of the continuum? ## Activity: Self-efficacy Consider a learner you have previously worked with. Write down three points for each domain that you could implement to help develop that learner's self-efficacy: * Enactive * Vicarious * Persuasory * Emotive As a brief review, Bandura’s (1986) concept of self-efficacy is the way in which we subjectively evaluate our abilities, and this can be influenced through the enactive domain (success at a task), vicarious domain (comparison with others), persuasory domain (comments by others that we introject), and emotive domain (a continuum of boredom to fear). However, a further model can be considered that determines our reasoning for success or failure. This is known as self-attribution (Weiner, 1974). # Understanding Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) ## 9.1 Introduction ## 9.2 The Traditional Perspective on Individual Children What is ‘normal’? What is a ‘normal’ child? From the introduction, if you have read this far and thought, ‘Why are you asking me this?” then you will realise that there is no straightforward answer to this question. We can only develop a composite picture in our minds of a child from our sum total experience of children: those we used to play with as children, family relations, those we have taught. However, this composite picture is used to inform our perspectives to classify children, so that we can teach according to the set criteria for that group. Yet, before National Curriculum assessments in England and Wales, SATs in the USA or even IQ measures devised by Binet over a hundred years ago, humans have grouped other humans according to set criteria. Two-and-a-half thousand years ago, Plato discussed such classifications through his work on the aristocracy where men were classified as either ‘gold’ (philosopher-kings, the ruling class), ‘silver’ (the auxiliaries of the ruling class such as soldiers) and ‘bronze’ (everyone else) (Cahn, 2002; Plato, 2007). How does this apply in today’s society? Do we have a classless society? Needless to say, with such groupings, very few are considered to be in the top tier compared with those at the bottom. Such a taxonomy (a way of grouping) is hierarchical in nature, often represented as a triangle; however, in an attempt to humanise such classifications further, the average, normal or bell-shaped distribution curve is used (Figure 9.1). <br> ___ **Definitely less than others** **Same as others** **Probably more than others** <br> **-2 SD** **-1 SD** **+1 SD** **+2 SD** <br> **Probably less than others** **Same as others** **Probably more than others** <br> **Definitely less than others** **Same as others** **Definitely more than others** <br> **2%** **14%** **32%** **32%** <br> **14%** **2%** <br> ___ **Figure 9.1 The average distribution curve, or ‘Gaussian’ curve** <br> The correct name for the curve is a ‘Gaussian’ distribution curve – the curve being determined by ascertaining what the average is for a set of responses. From this, the standard deviation can be determined, in other words, where most of the other responses may be found. As an example, if you were to measure the shoe size of a class of children, most of the class will group round one of two different shoe sizes, a smaller or a larger size, and then there may be one or two who have a very small or a very large shoe size. Of course this can be extended to include height, weight, head circumference or indeed any measurable attribute where data appears continuous, or in other words, although within a more school-based context, this could apply to test scores: some will score higher, some lower and most will be average. Although there is nothing wrong with plotting data on a Gaussian curve, or indeed using the data to draw conclusions, what is actually done with the data is central to the themes of this book and this chapter. In other words, we can use the data to inform how we should teach the class as a whole, or perhaps as three or four groups (top, above average, below average, bottom). We can also use the data to inform how we approach each individual within the class. However, this data may have only been determined through mathematics, or English; can we say that where a child is on a chart for mathematics will allow us to make an equal assumption of where they are on a different chart? Needless to say, this would be very poor practice indeed. At either end of the continuum, two terms are frequently ascribed to specific children: ‘Special Educational Needs’, and ‘Gifted and Talented’. Both terms will be examined within this chapter, but it is vitally important to note that the practices discussed should be held as models of teaching for any specific child and that the themes within the entire book inform this approach. ## 9.3 SEND Code of Practice One of the most significant developments within the area has been the publication of the new SEND Code of Practice: 0 to 25 Years (Department for Education/Department for Health, 2015), which updated the original 2001 code. The core changes with the new Code of Practice (CoP) are that the age range it covers is extended; there is a clear focus on ascertaining the views of children and young people, and also parents, in decision-making; there is a stronger focus on raising aspirations; there is cooperation between education, health and social care services; and that there is a coordinated assessment process, which focuses on health and care as opposed to statements and learning difficulty assessments. While these areas were developed in a CoP that was released a year earlier, the 2015 version clarified the roles and responsibilities to support integrated working and record sharing between different organisations. Specifically, for schools, there is guidance on taking a graduated approach for identifying and supporting pupils with SEN to replace the existing School Action and School Action Plus from the previous code. Furthermore, within the new code, there is a greater focus on supporting a child’s successful transition into adulthood while keeping parents informed about their child’s development. In addition, there is a list of legal obligations to ensure that schools must not discriminate against a child under the Equality Act (2010). Most importantly for the teacher, as outlined in Paragraph 6.1, there is clarification that all children and young people are entitled to an education that is appropriate to their needs, and which promotes high standards while enabling them to fulfil their potential. A child with Special Educational Needs is defined as follows: ‘A child or young person has SEN if they have a learning difficulty or disability which calls for special educational provision to be made for him or her’ (Department for Education/Department for Health, 2015: 15). Specifically, a child of compulsory school age or young person is deemed to have a learning difficulty or disability if they have ‘a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of others of the same age, or a disability which prevents or hinders him or her from making use of facilities of a kind generally provided for others of the same age in mainstream schools or mainstream post-16 institutions’ (Department for Education/Department for Health, 2015: 16). It is important to note that the child is not deemed to have a learning difficulty solely based on whether their native language is different from English. From this definition, there are four different groups of SEND: communication and interaction; cognition and learning; behavioural, emotional and social development; and sensory and physical development. Within the primary school context, for children who receive a ‘Statement’ (an official entitlement to enable specific provision to enable their learning), the Department for Education (2011) provides a percentage breakdown of children with different needs: * 5.1 per cent Specific learning difficulties * 16.2 per cent Moderate learning difficulties * 12.1 per cent Behaviour, emotional and social difficulties * 22.5 per cent Speech, language and communication needs * 7.2 per cent Hearing, visual or multisensory impairment * 17.6 per cent Autistic spectrum disorder * 9.7 per cent Physical disability * 9.5 per cent Other (e.g. severe learning difficulty, or profound and multiple learning difficulty) What is important to note here is that the above percentages relate to those children who have a Statement, not the numbers of children within the full school population. Consequently, a child may have a learning need, but this does not necessarily equate to them receiving a Statement. Furthermore, two additional terms are detailed for consideration, whether the learning difficulty or is ‘global’ whether it is ‘specific’. Global learning difficulties affect all aspects of a child’s learning, while specific learning difficulties are deemed a specific learning difficulty. Yet, when does a specific learning difficulty become a global learning difficulty? For example, although a child may be diagnosed with a specific learning difficulty, for example, dyslexia is termed that only affect a particular domain, the child may experience low self-esteem, which may in turn impact on other domains of learning. However, due to the way education tends to classify learners, the different groups of SEND are detailed in the following sections. ## A Word of Warning on Classifications In May 2013, version five of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (or DSM-5), was published. This is the core handbook developed by the American Psychiatric Association used to define and categorise various disorders. It took 13 years to update the DSM-IV and a number of significant changes have been incorporated. For example, Asperger’s syndrome, which was defined in DSM-IV as a separate disorder, has been merged under autistic spectrum disorders. In relation to ADHD, the diagnostic criteria have been extended from symptoms being present under 7 years of age to symptoms being present at less than 12 years of age, or a minimum of four symptoms is aged 17 or over. A similar publication is the ICD-10 International Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders, which provides a set of internationally recognised defining criteria for specific conditions (World Health Organization, 1992/2010). (There is currently a revision being written, which is at phase two of development, so ICD-11 is expected for publication in 2018. We will therefore refer to ICD-11 from this point forward.) Although the DSM-5 is an American publication, it is used globally. As part of the consultation period, the authors of the DSM-5 invited responses: this in turn prompted 13,000 comments and 12,000 emails and letters (www.dsm5.org). One such response was a 26-page report written by the British Psychological Society (BPS), which has contributed to the debate regarding classification (Allen et al., 2011). We acknowledge this position and would ask teachers to ensure a balance between the dangers of classification and the benefits of the application of classification, in an adapted framework. ## 9.4 Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) ### What Is It? ‘Autism’ was a word originally used in 1943 by Leo Kanner; however, since the inception of the term, the more familiar phrase ‘autistic spectrum disorder’ has been used (Wing, 2003). ASD is deemed to be a complex neuro-developmental disorder, which affects an individual’s social and emotional interaction with others, for example, in understanding other people’s emotional state and providing what society may view as the appropriate response. To this extent, ASD affects social communication, both verbally and non-verbally. A further symptom can include social understanding, which is characterised through repetitive thoughts and behaviour, where an action or a word may be used repeatedly with the person unable to monitor their personal response to varying situations. The three symptoms are consequently referred to as the ‘triad of impairments’ (Terrell and Passenger, 2011). The emphasis of ASD, however, is on the middle word, ‘spectrum’, which means that the symptoms will vary between individuals: one or other of the symptoms may be more or less significant than the others. ### What Causes It? ASD was originally deemed to be a product of nurture, in other words, the child’s environment and the way they were brought up. However, recent research (Ronald et al., 2005; Silverman et al., 2002) indicates that ASD is more likely due to ‘nature’: in other words, the genetics of the child passed on through previous generations. From a historical perspective, in 1998, ASD was associated with a childhood vaccination, the MMR jab (measles, mumps, rubella). Research suggested that children who had the MMR jab had a higher chance of developing ASD. This was based on a sample of 12 children and the research methods were challenged by other scientists, yet the myth was perpetuated, which in turn has resulted in children not being vaccinated and an increasing prevalence of the three diseases. As recently as the spring of 2013, unprecedented numbers of people with measles were reported in South Wales, culminating in a national vaccination programme targeting over a million children in the UK. The original article was retracted by _The Lancet_ (2010) and the research has been deemed by some as the most damaging medical hoax in the last century (Flaherty, 2011). ### General Indicators A child with ASD tends to exhibit symptoms of the triad of impairments between the ages of two and three years. Unfortunately, however, it is very problematic to determine whether the symptoms are typical child development, or whether they are indicative of ASD (Terrell and Passenger, 2011). Repetitive play as evidenced through play schemas is part of normal childhood development, for example, putting cars or other objects in order, joining objects together or continually hiding objects. Such repetitive behaviour could in turn be deemed as one of the triads of impairment. Alternatively, the condition can go undetected for several years, especially in children who demonstrate more subtle signs of ASD. If we take the triad of impairments individually, other indicators become prevalent. For example, in relation to social interaction, a child may not respond well to other children in the class. This may be exhibited through social isolation by other children within the class, or the child not engaging in the same way as other children. A child with ASD may be able to mimic the social responses of other children, but these may be inappropriate to the situation, for example, not knowing when a conversation has finished, or what appropriate physical contact is warranted within a situation. The child may not be able to ‘read’ and respond to social interactions in the same way as others from the same culture. In relation to communication, a child with ASD may not be able to express their thoughts, feelings or ideas with others, or indeed empathise with others. The use of imagination can similarly be problematic in a child with ASD. This can be exhibited through a lack of engagement with fiction, for example, understanding a character’s motivation within a story or offering their perspective on a book or a film. The impairment of imagination can also result in a fixation on a certain form of play, for example, continually playing with the same toy or repeating the same action (for example, tapping, rocking, touching specific objects). This can manifest too in the form of an attachment to a specific object, arranging objects uniformly or collecting objects. Again, it is important to note that children (and adults) can and do have attachments to different objects; for example, philatelists collect stamps, numismatists collect coins, lepidopterists collect butterflies and moths, and tegestologists collect beermats. Consequently, can all stamp collectors or children who collect football stickers be deemed as having Asperger’s syndrome (a subtle form of ASD)? Coping with change is a further symptom that can be problematic. Indeed, according to Hritz (2008), only 20 per cent of people actually like change: does this mean that 80 per cent of the population are deemed to have ASD? Yet for the child in school, subtle changes can be significant, for example, where they sit, what pencil or pen they work with, who they work with and changes to the timetable. To some extent, this is explained through the fixation of the child with ASD on certain aspects and attributes. Other symptoms of ASD can include language disorders, difficulties with fine and gross motor coordination, extremes of mood (excitement, misery), through to psychiatric conditions such as anxiety or depression. It is important to note that, as a teacher, we are not clinicians, whether a medical doctor or psychologist; consequently, if we suspect a child is exhibiting signs of ASD and this has not been diagnosed previously, the first discussion, above all else, needs to be with the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) who will be able to make a more informed assessment and in turn contact the relevant professionals. ### Support Strategies It is important to note that ASD is lifelong: children with this condition grow into adults with this condition. It is fundamentally important, however, that the child is supported through appropriate intervention at an early stage and that this in turn enables the child to achieve their full potential. Consequently, as teachers, we can only offer support to ensure that we are enabling the child. Generally, children with ASD tend to be visual learners; therefore providing pictorial instructions and representations (such as Makaton, or the Picture Exchange Communication System, PECS) can be helpful with certain tasks to support oral information (see Figure 9.2). <br> ___ **Yes** **Soon** **No** <br> <br> ___ **Figure 9.2 Examples of pictorial representations for communication similar to systems such as Makaton or PECS** <br> For instance, it may be useful to make laminated lists to help the child understand what is required, where and when, so that they can understand the requirements of a specific activity. In addition, providing specific instructions to assist with group work would be beneficial: for example, indicating questions to ask others, providing written rules for working cooperatively, or through role-playing specific incidents (such as winning or losing a game), and similarly discussing appropriate conduct and the use of personal space. There are obvious overlaps between the previous support strategies to develop the child’s social understanding with communication. As a teacher, however, it is important to ensure that the child knows you are talking to them; consequently using their name before offering instructions is beneficial to ensure the child is aware that the instruction is for them specifically. Additionally, ensuring instructions are kept short and simple will enable the child to act accordingly, as opposed to inwardly digesting what could be deemed abstract information. It would be worth assessing the child’s understanding of the task by getting them to repeat back the instructions, allowing you to identify whether they have or have not fully comprehended them. Open questions can similarly be problematic for the child. As a result, despite the advocacy of open questions to promote thinking, offering some closed questions for the child with ASD would be appropriate. Furthermore, use of irony or figurative speech can also be problematic for the child to understand. ## Activity Review the points in the previous paragraph to support a child with ASD: * eye contact * use of the child’s name * short,