Chapter 4

Methodology: No Longer a Sacred Cow

“Though this be madness yet there is method in it.”

—William Shakespeare, Hamlet

Despite the new language in IDEA 2004 that rejects the viewpoint that methodology is the exclusive domain of school districts, it is a position to which school districts adhere with a tenacity rivaling pit bulls. As a result, some refuse even to discuss methodology at the IEP meeting. Other, more accommodating districts will listen to parents' concerns as a courtesy but ultimately reserve their perceived right to determine instructional methods on their own. Yet, such a unilateral position on methodology is not only unwise but also incorrect. While there may be “wiggle room” on the question of whether to include information on instructional methodology in the IEP document, the new language in IDEA 2004 strongly favors doing so. In fact, Wayne Steedman (Fall/Winter, 2005), a special education attorney with Wrightslaw—arguably the most respected group of education-law attorneys in the nation—states that the law's “frequent reference to research-based instruction and interventions makes it clear that this is an area Congress considered vitally important” (p. 23). Moreover, Steedman (Fall/Winter, 2005) goes on to say that “the IEP must include ‘a statement of special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer reviewed research to the extent practicable to be provided to the child’ § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV)” (p. 23).

By requiring instructional methodology to be research-based, IDEA 2004 has left open the door for greater scrutiny of the extent to which specific methods fit this requirement. In addition, an off-limits approach to either discussing methodology or including it in the IEP document would seem not only to violate the spirit of IDEA 2004, which is to treat parents as equal partners in the IEP process, but also to undermine a collegial relationship between educators and parents. Finally, whereas methodology for some academic subjects is circumscribed by the particular reading or math program adopted by the school district, this is not the case for the “subjects” that fall into the categories of executive function, theory of mind, and others addressed in Part Two of the current volume. In fact, because skills that fall into these categories are not typically addressed in schools, collaboration on methodology to address specific areas of deficit seems not only appropriate but also wise.

Influences from the Past

The reason why some school districts consider methodology to be in their sole discretion is rooted in educational tradition: because schools were traditionally charged with the mission of educating students, they were also deemed to be the “keepers of the flame” when it came to methodology. This stance was consistent with the sentiments of parents of an earlier age, when they willingly left the business of education to the educators alone. But times have changed. Accordingly, the very idea of methodology being the sacred cow of the school district—or of any one party, for that matter—is antithetical to the collaborative spirit of IDEA 2004.

Because of the nature of the disabilities discussed in this book—especially ASD—specific instructional methods are often needed if the student is to receive an appropriate education. Why? Because the students with the conditions covered in this book often manifest difficulty in arcane areas of functioning that are not typically addressed in schools. For example, nondisabled students absorb theory of mind knowledge as if by osmosis, without need for the school to directly address it. The same is true for social information, several areas of critical thinking, and other aspects of cognitive and social-cognitive functioning. This is why we feel that discussion of, and collaboration on, decisions about instructional methodology that is usually outside of the standard curriculum is in the best educational interests of the student. Steedman (Fall/Winter, 2005) supports this position with the following statement: “Including methodology in the IEP is an advantage to parents and teachers alike…. It's a win-win situation for all—especially the child” (p. 23).

In Search of Clarity

Methodological issues are not always clear-cut. At the most basic level is the question of what exactly constitutes methodology. We've often found that methodology is in the “eye of the beholder” and sometimes mistaken for something else. One person's methodology may be another person's underlying condition, and with good reason, for as noted in Chapter Three, there is a good deal of overlap between the two concepts (a point that will be further elaborated elsewhere in this book).

To ensure that everyone is on the same page when it comes to this important but nebulous concept, a few definitions are in order. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (Cayne, 1989) defines method as “a way of doing something or a procedure for doing something” (p. 628). Similarly, it defines the closely related term technique as “the entire body of procedures and methods” (p. 1015). The more general term methodology is defined as “a system of methods” (p. 628). For our purposes here we use the terms methods, techniques, and procedures interchangeably as the discrete components that constitute what is known more generally as methodology.

A Means-Ends Proposition

Now that the terms have been defined, let's delve into the issue of why careful consideration of methodology is central to the concept of appropriate education, and why it is particularly crucial in the case of students with the conditions we address here. As for appropriate education, one can look to the landmark Supreme Court case known as Board of Education v. Rowley (1982). Specifically, the educational benefit standard set forth in that case not only has important implications for methodology but also ties it to the concept of an appropriate education. According to that Supreme Court decision, “Implicit in the congressional purpose of providing access to a ‘free appropriate public education’ is the requirement that the education to which access is provided be sufficient to confer some educational benefit [italics added] upon the handicapped child” (as cited in Wright and Wright, 1999, p. 311). It should be obvious that inappropriate methods and techniques would be inimical to the standard of educational benefit. Furthermore, it is impossible to envision how inappropriate means (methods) could result in appropriate ends (educational benefit).

Although we feel that collaborating on methodology is important for all of the students discussed in this book, it is especially important for students with ASD, given the enigmatic and unpredictable nature of autism spectrum conditions. Consequently, teaching methods and procedures that are appropriate for students with other disabilities—and even for some with ASD—are often distinctly inappropriate for particular students with ASD (Peeters and Gillberg, 1999). For example, traditional, hands-on preschool activities such as finger painting and working with glue would be off-putting, and hence unsuitable, for a child with ASD who has significant tactile defensiveness. Similarly, it is not uncommon to be blinded by the strengths in procedural knowledge and unmindful of the weaknesses in declarative knowledge in high-functioning students with ASD, and to unknowingly employ teaching methods that actually require them to perform at levels precluded by their disability. For example, a more able, hyperlexic, preschool child with ASD may decode words at a third- or fourth-grade level. Blinded by the child's strengths in decoding, and unmindful that hyperlexia, by definition, carries with it problems in reading comprehension, a teacher might assume normal or advanced ability in understanding where it does not exist. Under this misapprehension, educators could require the child to perform at a level beyond his or her capacity. Likewise, a lack of understanding of ASD in general, or of some of the more subtle symptoms in particular, could cause well-meaning but unaware school personnel to either use methods that are inimical to a student's best interests or fail to employ those that have been found to be successful with this population. It could also cause school staff to misjudge the student's efforts, and to label him or her as unmotivated, or worse, noncompliant.

It should be noted that although the needs of students with ASD are often more difficult to decipher than those of students with other disabilities, this does not insulate students with ADD/ADHD, NLD, S/LI, or ED from similar misunderstandings. The examples that follow draw attention to the deleterious effect that a lack of knowledge about the student's disability may have on methodology selection.

Examples from the Trenches

The following vignettes illustrate the important link between methodology and outcomes.

Vignette 1

Maureen is a sixth-grade student with high-functioning ASD. Although she is able to answer questions from her reading book that are concrete and factual, she has great difficulty in answering questions that require her to infer from the information given, that which is not immediately available in the text. Determining that the area of inference-making constitutes a priority educational need, Maureen's IEP team developed the following annual goal:

Given 10 grade-level reading passages, Maureen will answer inference-based questions with 90% accuracy.

Despite the clearly stated underlying condition, straightforward student outcome, and clear performance criterion, Maureen made virtually no progress on this objective in an entire year. She also experienced tremendous frustration with respect to it. An examination of the methods that the teacher was using with Maureen is instructive here. Instead of providing her with lower-level, more “concrete” inferences as a starting place (for example, “Why did John take the book out of the library?”) and then having her select the correct answer in a multiple-choice format, her teacher jumped straight to the top of the inference hierarchy by selecting those having to do with mental states (“How did Mary feel when her mother told her that she couldn't buy a new dress?”). She then required Maureen to answer the question as it was presented orally, without benefit of a less challenging multiple-choice format.

This example illustrates how student performance can be compromised by inappropriate methodology—in this case inappropriate vis-à-vis the complexity of the material. It also illustrates how a lack of knowledge about ASD can jeopardize educational outcomes. Here, the lack of knowledge was evident on two fronts. First, the underlying condition assumed that inference-making is related to grade level, and second, the choice of the particular inferential material (determining mental states) indicated a lack of understanding of the critical role of theory of mind deficits in ASD. It should be apparent from this vignette that a lack of knowledge of ASD can set up a kind of domino-like effect, in which the selection of inappropriate methods leads to unsuccessful outcomes.

Vignette 2

Lucy is a preschool child with moderate to severe autism who cannot tolerate morning circle for more than three to five minutes at a time without engaging in highly disruptive behavior.

The IEP team determined that a priority educational need for Lucy was to increase her ability to tolerate morning circle without disrupting the teacher or her classmates. Hence, it generated the following annual goal:

Lucy will be able to stay in morning circle for 10 minutes without disrupting her classmates or teacher.

The lack of an underlying condition should serve as a red flag, because there are a number of ways to accomplish something, not all of which may be appropriate. In this case, Lucy did accomplish the objective but her “achievement” came at a cost. In order to enable Lucy to remain in the circle activity for the length of time specified, her paraprofessional support assistant—with the blessing of the teacher—allowed Lucy to tune out the activity and engage in self-stimulatory behavior in the form of saliva play. The adage “At what price glory” comes to mind!

Vignette 3

Mark is a fourth-grade student with ADHD whose teachers describe him as irresponsible. As evidence, they cite his messy desk, his proclivity for losing things, his “blurting things out” even after several reminders to raise his hand, and his failure to complete and turn in his homework.

Based on this description, the IEP team generated the following annual goal:

Mark will keep track of his belongings, keep his desk neat, and turn in his homework assignments on time.

The description of Mark reveals a great deal about the IEP team's knowledge base (or lack thereof). Specifically, there is no acknowledgment that any of the behaviors they described are classic symptoms of EF difficulty in individuals with ADHD. Use of the term irresponsible to describe Mark underscores this point. By putting the entire onus for his organizational issues on Mark, the school relinquishes its responsibility for providing the EF props (such as checklists, homework support strategies, and the like) needed to accomplish its objective. Clearly, an appropriate underlying condition for this annual goal would be given organizational supports.

These examples illustrate the educational havoc wreaked by inappropriate methodology (and a whole lot more), not only in terms of student performance and progress but also in terms of student well-being. As for the latter, the unfortunate result of holding students to specific standards without providing the supports needed to reach them is increased stress and anxiety. It should also be apparent that the thread of commonality running through these three examples, and through those given previously, is that when there is a lack of knowledge or understanding of the students' disability, there is concomitant difficulty in selecting appropriate methods and procedures to teach them. The importance of this point cannot be overstated, particularly because many of the deficit areas in ASD, ADD/ADHD, NLD, S/LI, and ED require specialized knowledge and understanding—say, for example, in theory of mind and executive functioning—beyond that which many college special education programs typically provide. In addition, these deficit areas require specific and direct attention over and above that which is needed by typically developing students. Considering today's emphasis on inclusive education, both of these factors are particularly problematic for regular education teachers. Specifically, many do not understand, and hence are ill-equipped to deal with some of the cognitive and social-cognitive challenges manifested by students with these types of deficits. Absent such knowledge, they are likely to look upon impairment in theory of mind or executive functioning as a behavioral issue. One way that school districts have addressed this problem is by assigning special educators to team-teach classes alongside regular educators. Depending on the expertise of the special educator and the dynamics of the team members' relationship, this can either be highly successful or laborious and cumbersome.

To clarify our position on methodology, we recommend the following:

More Examples of Underlying Conditions

A few more examples of the similarities and differences between underlying conditions and methodology, in addition to those discussed in Chapter Three, may be helpful. Consider, for example, the following:

Given a joint activity snack routine, Michael will request desired items from a group of three food choices 90% of the time.

It should be obvious that the phrase given a joint activity snack routine is both a condition for performance (that is, the appearance of the skill—requesting—requires this context) and a social-pragmatic technique for teaching students to request. In contrast, consider this example:

Given a board game, Amy will take turns with one partner 90% of the time without verbal reminders.

Is the phrase beginning with the word given a condition or a statement of methodology? We would characterize it as a condition for performance rather than as a method for teaching the behavior (that Amy will take turns in a board game activity rather than in some other context.). Why? Although the goal specifies the context in which turn-taking will, one hopes, occur, it is silent on the issue of how the turn-taking behavior will be taught. The operative word here is how—that is, if the phrase beginning with the word given specifies information relating to how the skill will be taught, as opposed to simply articulating the conditions under which it will be performed, then it addresses methodology. The following example includes both the condition for performance and the method for teaching the turn-taking behavior:

Given a board game and the use of a turn marker, Amy will demonstrate the ability to take turns by passing the marker to her partner at the appropriate times with 90% accuracy.

Clearly, the board game serves as the underlying condition (the context) for performance, whereas the use of a turn marker (for example, a small circle with the words my turn written on it) serves as the method for concretizing and teaching the turn-taking behavior. It should also be apparent that the more specificity there is in the goal or objective, the greater the guidance to the educator or clinician carrying it out, and the more comprehensible it is for everyone involved.

Wrapping Up the Main Points