Alexithymia and Autistic Student Behaviours
Understanding how classroom energy states affect autistic student behaviour
Quick note: this article has inspired a scoping study. The new study, Distinguishing Alexithymia and Autism: An Ecological-Enactive Model Perspective and Its Implications for Inclusive Classroom Environments, has been registered with the OSF and is underway (link).
Introduction
Normally, an article of this type would begin with a listing of academic references that seek to cement the central premise of the current work to that done previously. This one will not engage in such logical fallacies. Indeed, appeals to the authority of previous works are often placed in introductions when authors attempt to validate something outside of their expertise. Whilst appeals to authority are by no means always fallacious, they can quickly become dangerous when authors rely too heavily on opinions to centre narratives that seek to drive conversations into areas in which they don’t belong. Indeed, getting a famous person or institution to back one’s proposition can be a powerful addition to an existing argument. However, it becomes dishonest when the entire argument rests upon such false ground. It should go without saying that simply because someone in a position of power or prestige believes something to be true, doesn't make it true.
Thus, this article begins with a simple yet controversial premise – the autistic system as designed is not defective, disordered, or disabled as such. It is entirely fit for purpose. Our job as researchers, educators, and decent humans is to find and support that purpose.
In this article, we will ground ourselves in a theoretical construct that assumes that the autistic system has value and shows how it has existed for tens of thousands of years as found in the human genetic record. This construct, Reser’s (2011) Solitary Forager Hypothesis of autism, reviews the etiological and comparative evidence supporting the idea that many of the genes associated with traits within what we now call the autism spectrum were naturally selected (helping the organism thrive and reproduce) and represent the adaptive benefits necessary to support and sustain our species over many millennia.
If you’ve never heard of Jared Reser, you’re not alone. Over 90% of the “autism” researchers haven’t either. Collectively, this group (the +90%) posits that the autistic brain and system is a disordered “normal” human system, then work from there to commercialize some “cure” or “treatment.” Not so with Reser. He takes a dispassionate, non-commercial view of autism and dives deep into humanity’s genetic past to examine a rather simple premise – what evolutionary forces were at work in the creation of what we now call autism and how did it survive though Natural Selection across millennia (Hoerricks, 2021b), “… the cognitive disabilities associated with autism are clear and well documented; however, modern social, occupational, and mating practices may conceal the evolutionary or adaptive benefits. From an anthropological perspective, the society we live in is very different from the environment of human evolutionary adaptedness (Reser, 2011)”
To that end, this article will examine what are so-called autistic traits, and what aren’t. It will introduce the reader to alexithymia, the traits of which are often mistaken for autism by uninformed psychological practitioners and those attempting self-diagnosis of autism. This article will illustrate what autism and alexithymia have in common that allows for such confusion, hyper-empathy. A discussion of modern classroom management schemes will then follow with autism, alexithymia, and hyper-empathy in mind. Finally, these topics will combine frame what a supportive classroom ecology, as opposed to a rigid classroom management scheme, can look like in a modern educational setting. Here we will present a classroom ecology that not only accommodates the autistic / alexithymic student (or staff member) but creates an environment where all can thrive.
Alexithymia and Hyper-Empathy in Autistic Systems
Most of the literature on alexithymia notes that it concerns difficulties in describing and expressing feelings (Grabe, et. al., 2009). Modern psychiatry treats alexithymia as a disorder, something that can be fixed through intensive therapy. Engelbrecht (2022a) notes that traits that are often associated with autism are more correctly seen as manifestations of alexithymia, reinforcing the point that practitioners often don’t understand what they are “treating.” She also notes that alexithymia isn’t something to feared, corrected, or extinguished – favouring understanding and accommodation as well as looking for the potential benefits of an alexithymic orientation towards the world.
· Empathy: Alexithymia, not autism, may cause a reduction in affective empathy. As autistic people, however, our intrinsic empathic accuracy is superior. As we’ll see in a moment, many autistic people are hyper-empathic.
· Eye contact: Autistic people avoid eye contact when overstimulated, whilst alexithymic people often avoid eye contact due to the influx of uncontrolled emotional energy from those with whom they are engaging.
· Emotion recognition: Autism was unrelated to facial expression recognition ability, regardless of the extent of autistic traits. Problems with identifying facial expressions are seen only in alexithymia.
· Affect display: Reduced facial expressions in alexithymia constitute a defense mechanism against negative affect.
Thus, Engelbrecht’s work (2022a), and the associated references, remind us that to treat or manage an issue, one must first understand what one is observing. For example, this lack of understanding is often at the root of ABA’s failure to “extinguish” behaviours in autistic people. Remember, ABA and it’s supporters don’t assume that the autistic system is a normal variation of the human experience. They assume it’s a defective version of a normal human, that something’s “missing.” Thus, the ABA analyst doesn’t understand the root of the behaviour and, as such, will have no success in addressing it.
The same can be said for hyper-empathy (Evans-Williams &. Williams, 2016). It’s often wrongly assumed that autistic people are not capable of empathy. This view largely stems from the work of ‘commercial scholars’ (Brownlee, 2015) like Simon Baron-Cohen, the head of Cambridge University's Autism Research Centre. Unfortunately, corporate interests often drive research agendas away from questions that are the most relevant for public health. Baron-Cohen, for example, created the Empathy Quotient test to measure “empathy” but is not explicit in what he means by that term, obfuscating the issue as he attempts to steer the discussion of autism in a direction that is directly opposed to the wants and needs of the neurodivergent community. In his work, he considers all autistic people ‘zero positives,’ a legacy idea with roots in eugenics (Boon, 2022). According to Baron-Cohen, a ‘zero positive’ is a person who lacks both cognitive and emotional empathy but may contribute to society (Engelbrecht, 2022b). In terms of empathy, most autistic people, in fact, have too much. In Baron-Cohen’s view, however, a ‘level zero’ has no empathy at all (e.g., hurting someone means nothing to them). Thus, he feels fully justified in working to “cure” autism by working towards a day when autistic people aren’t born at all, whilst bemoaning the fact that in doing so, society might miss out on people with maths skills (see graphic below).
Yet, more objective tests offer a different view. According to current research, and tests like the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (Engelbrecht, 2022b), autistics have much higher empathy scores than most neurotypical people. Often, they show results at the top of the score sheet. This leads to the classification of autistics having hyper-empathy. Additionally, research shows that autistic cognitive empathy improves significantly with age (Spreng, 2009). As the autistic person grows into the knowledge of their system, and learns how to use it effectively, they become better at being able to put themself into someone else's place and see their perspective. Yet, in the west, the system (i.e., schools, doctors, etc.) tests autistic people at a young age and assumes that there will be no change to their results over time. Again, this view stems largely from the Baron-Cohen ‘zero-positive’ point of view.
When combined in the same human system, alexithymia and hyper-empathy complicate the difficulties in describing and expressing feelings. The empathic system absorbs the energies around them. Feelings enter the body and become indistinguishable from one’s own. The deeply feeling person now deeply feels the emotions of those around them, for good or ill. They lack the ability to discern the difference between these incoming “foreign” emotions and their own spontaneous emotions. This phenomenon, for example, is at the root of the failures of ABA practitioners to extinguish behaviours. The alexithymic person is not consciously aware of the behaviour they are manifesting, or it’s root, thus will not respond appropriately to behavioural conditioning. As the subject fails to respond, the treatments can become more intense. This can often lead to adverse long-term outcomes like Complex PTSD (Hoerricks, 2022; Kupferstein, 2018).
If we become aware that the “interventions” and “therapies” that we are providing to our students have a high potential to cause long term harm, do we not have an obligation to cease and desist from such practices? Shouldn’t we seek out another way of “managing behaviours?”
Inclusion and Modern Classroom Management Schemes
In most of the western world, autistic students are placed in school classrooms according to their ability to “function” alongside of their grade-level peers. Those with limited abilities will often be segregated into special classrooms or programs. Those with more typical abilities will be “included” in a general education setting. This practice, of including both abled, disabled, and differently abled students in the same classroom is typically known as Inclusion.
A survey of the literature shows that inclusion is a philosophy and practice that supports the rights of people, regardless of their abilities, to participate actively in everyday activities within their communities. Inclusion in special education refers to the type of classroom that a child is placed in. According to Swart, et. al. (2002), inclusive education is “the shared value accommodating all learners in a unified system of education, empowering them to become caring, competent, and contributing citizens in an inclusive, changing, diverse society.” Inclusion is thus a principle applied to accommodate or include all human beings within one system, in such a manner that all involved can be assured of successful, equal, and quality participation in real-life experiences. Lorenz (2002) and Ibiam (2020) expand upon this to define inclusion as celebrating the diversity, responding to the acceptance of individual differences, and building on their strengths to ensure full participation of all learners in the education system.
Thus, to accommodate all learners, an inclusive educational experience becomes necessary. The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) views ‘Inclusive Education’ as a dynamic process of addressing and responding to the diversity of needs of all learners and of seeing individual differences not as problems but as opportunities for enriching learning (UNESCO, 2005). Not necessarily a special education function, inclusion involves changes in content, approaches, structures, and strategies, with a common vision that covers all children of the appropriate age range. With these ideas in mind, inclusion embraces the conviction that it is the responsibility of the education system to educate all children (Ibiam, 2020).
When speaking of inclusion and classroom management, autism (as a “condition”) is often bundled with discussions of developmental delays in children. Researchers note that childhood developmental disorders range “from ‘mental retardation,’ learning disabilities, cerebral palsy, behaviour disorders, communication disorders, Down Syndrome, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders (ADHD) to Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) (Kirk, et. al., 1983).” When speaking of autism, the bulk of the legacy literature follows the medical model to note that autism covers a large spectrum of symptoms, skills, and levels of impairment. Researchers in that space note that autism ranges in ‘severity’ from a handicap that limits an otherwise normal life to a devastating disability that may require institutional care (Ibiam, 2020). According to Williams (2010), many people ‘with autism’ have problem learning due in part to cognitive impairments that, to some degree and for some unknown / unproven reason, are co-morbid with autism. In contrast to more typical cognitive impairment, which is characterized by relatively even skill development, Williams posits that people “with autism” show uneven skill development. Beginning from this standpoint, one can easily see why autistic students are not generally thriving in ‘regular’ educational settings. Consider that these authors have informed special education training programmes for decades and you will see why there is so much trauma and PTSD in the autistic community. Rather than including autistic / alexithymic students and adapting programs to accommodate their unique needs, the system has attempted to adapt the student (forcibly) to meet the system’s desires. Consider also that the search algorithms prioritise those papers, like Baron-Cohen’s, who have received a lot of attention in the form of citations in similar research. The more a paper is cited, the higher it is ranked in search results. This is yet another way in which discriminatory systems enforce the status quo by back-benching alternative theories, new ideas, and unpopular hypotheses (like Reser’s Solitary Forager Hypothesis).
In an attempt to counter this trend, and in contrast to the medical model of disability, some authors have transitioned to using the social model of disability to frame their discussions of neurodiversity. The problem with both models, however, is that they both overlook the person’s experience, their time in their lived body, and how that experience impacts their ability to thrive (Toro, 2020). There is, fortunately for us, another way.
In this article, we use what is known as the Ecological-Enactive (EE) model of disability (Toro et. al., 2020) as a theoretical framework. The EE-model, as it relates to autism, combines ideas from enactive cognitive science (McGee, 2005) and ecological psychology (Wicker, 1984) with the aim of doing justice simultaneously to the lived experience of being autistic, and the physiological dimensions of autism. More specifically, here we put the EE model to work to consider the facets of autism as a different way of being rather than treat autism as a specific pathology. Here, we attempt to locate the difference between the pathological and the normal forms of embodiment in the person’s capacity to adapt to changes in the environment. In other words, we treat the autistic system as normal, see how environments and situations impact that system (positive, neutral, or negative) and work from there. This is a key element in evaluating systems / structures and their relationships / impacts on the humans with which they engage. It’s also the key to being inclusive – taking people as they are and not as you wish them to be.
When considering how the people in the classroom interact with each other, there are several management styles that are taught in modern teacher preparation programmes. The curricula for these classes have been informed by several psychological studies going back decades. In general, the classroom management styles of teachers can be characterized along two dimensions (Baumrind, 1971): the type of control exercised over students, and the degree of involvement of teachers with students.
Wenning (1998) notes that control can run the gamut from high in which teachers explicitly "lay down the law" and very strictly enforce it, to low, in which the teachers have no rules and no expectations for their students. Involvement, likewise, can range from high to low. High involvement is characteristic of teachers who have high regard for students, genuinely like them, enjoy being around them, and want to see them do their best. On the other hand, low involvement shows a real lack of both regard and concern for students.
The classroom management styles of teachers can be readily identified based on both degree of control and level of involvement. The nature of each management style can be identified from the chart below.
According to the research in this area, the authoritative style encourages independence, is warm and nurturing, control occurs along with explanation, and adolescents are permitted to express their views (Walker, 2009). Researchers note that the authoritative approach is preferable because it is the one most closely associated with appropriate student behaviors, student growth, and fostering a love of learning in students.
· The authoritative style is characterized by behavioural principles, high expectations of appropriate behaviour, clear statements about why certain behaviours are acceptable and others not acceptable, and warm student-teacher relationships. The authoritative style helps to produce students who are socially competent and responsible (Wenning, 1998).
· The authoritarian style tends to be characterized by numerous behavioural regulations, is often seen as punitive and restrictive, and students have neither a say in their management, nor are they seen to need explanations; the teacher's character is sometimes perceived as being cold, even punishing. The authoritarian style helps to produce students who are ineffective at social interaction, and somewhat inactive in classroom activities (Adedigba, et. al., 2020).
· The permissive style is characterized by a lack of involvement, the environment is non-punitive, there are few demands on students, and there is a lot of freedom. The permissive style helps to produce students that are immature, show poor self-restraint, and who exhibit poor leadership skills (Walker, 2008).
· The indulgent style presents an environment where there are no demands on the student of any sort, and the students are actively supported in their efforts to seek their own ends using any reasonable means. Like the permissive style, the indulgent style helps to produce students that are lack maturity, have poor self-control, and who exhibit low self-efficacy (Walker, 2008).
These four styles represent polar extremes. Most teachers demonstrate a certain degree of inconsistency in their use of styles, mixing a bit of each as situations demand. Nevertheless, the research shows that authoritative teaching provides an optimal context for student engagement and learning through its demands for student autonomy, effective classroom management, and responsiveness (Walker, 2008). Given the EE-model of disability, Glasser’s (1998) Choice Theory, and the fact that autistic people generally score high in terms of the Basic Need of Power (Glasser, 1998; Hoerricks, 2018), teachers who wish to host an inclusive classroom will do best towards their autistic students (and all students for that matter) by primarily engaging in an authoritative style in creating their classroom’s ecology.
Classroom ecology? What is classroom ecology? Why is it important?
Classroom Ecology in the Special Education World
Numerous studies have examined physical spaces and their effect on mood and behavior (Uncapher, 2016; Counts, 2021). Factors such as comfort, security, calmness, and potential distractions all have an impact on how spaces make us feel and how we act in these spaces. In classrooms, the qualities of spaces not only influence mood and behavior, but also on educators’ ability to reach and teach students’ to assure their academic success. From the colour choices to wall hangings, to the furniture selected to outfit different spaces, each feature of a learning space influences the behaviour and wellbeing of those who use it.
Schools, for example, are filled with many spaces. But these areas lack significance until they are given form and develop a function. With form and function, specific “places” are created with their own purposes and distinct qualities that (hopefully) support the use of these places. These places should offer more than just being useful; they should provide an environment that positively impacts how students and teachers act, feel, and learn. For example, a traditional library is simply a room full of useful books and other resources. But adding a makerspace, a comfortable reading nook, or quiet study rooms, elevates a library space into an enriching and vibrant place. When the library becomes a place, students and teachers form attachments to the environment, which affects their emotions and behaviours and impacts academic success (Counts, 2021).
Now, consider the autistic / alexithymic student in such places. When the energy in these places is positive and calming, the student will be well supported in their behavioural self-management needs. However, when vibrancy turns into a high-energy, chaotic space, problems can occur. High-energy, dynamic, loud, chaotic, boisterous spaces can easily lead to melt downs / shutdowns when the autistic / alexithymic student isn’t able to find a calm, safe space in which to escape. From sounds, to echoes, to colours, to the design of the furniture pieces, the physical qualities of learning environments shape and channel the energy and harmony of the space. The students and teachers who use these spaces are unconsciously emotionally affected by these atmospheric qualities, making it crucial for learning environments to have physical features that align with positive wellbeing.
Some of the most important factors that impact wellbeing in learning environments, and lead to supportive classroom ecologies are (Counts, 2021):
· Comfort: educators believe that students must be alert to be learning, but alertness doesn’t always align with positive wellbeing. When students are provided with a comfortable learning environment (TSC, 2019), they experience significant benefits to their emotional and academic wellbeing. This not only includes the comfortability of furniture in the room, but also how comfortably students can navigate the space, both physically and visually.
· Security and Safety: In line with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, students cannot learn until their basic needs are met. Safety is one of the most critical of these needs. A space that feels secure and free from hazards allows students to relax and focus on their learning.
· Serenity and Ease: The serenity and ease of a space has a profound impact on students’ abilities to relax and engage with their learning. Serene spaces lack the distractions that can quickly overwhelm the autistic / alexithymic person, including loud noises, excessive movement, and visual clutter. Spaces that offer ease are naturally designed to smoothly accomplish their function, demanding fewer decisions or manual actions from the user. When designing specifically for people who have learning challenges or disabilities, serenity creates more mental space for focus, whilst ease enables independence and confidence.
Thus, if the goal of special education is to ensure that every eligible child receives a “Free and Appropriate Public Education” (FAPE) in the “Least Restrictive Environment” (LRE),” then why not focus on the last phrase of the goal in finding a solution to the problem of how best to educate the neurodiverse mind? Why not focus on the “unrestricting” of the environment by creating a classroom ecology that addresses all the above listed issues? Unfortunately, the solutions typically offered by school systems in achieving the least restrictions in the classroom environment focus on only one side of the equation. There’s no balance. Parents and schools are offered a few choices depending on where they live and the resources available to their local school district. The more affluent the district, the more options available. Students in the less affluent districts and schools will struggle to receive an appropriate education; with some being shipped across town – wasting everyone’s valuable time.
The balance, the solution, in our case can be found in our past, in our old one-room schoolhouses. It’s also a solution that’s been a feature of classes that teach English as a foreign language (TEFL). But the solution isn’t often found in the mainstream classroom.
The solution is known as differentiated instruction. Tomlinson and Imbeau (2010) have described it thus, “the core of the classroom practice of differentiation is the modification of four curriculum-related elements – content (what students learn), process (how do students make sense of the information and ideas), product (how they show what they’ve learned), and affect (the climate or tone in the learning environment) – which are based on three categories of student needs and variances – readiness, interest, and learning profile.” Bosker (2005) adopted a broader approach, defining differentiation as adapting “aspects” of education (such as student grouping, learning goals, teaching time, or instructional strategy) to “differences” between students (primarily regarding performance and readiness, but also, for example, regarding intelligence, personality, or motivation). Roy, Guay, and Valois (2013) described differentiated instruction as “an approach by which teaching is varied and adapted to match students’ abilities using systematic procedures for academic progress monitoring and data-based decision-making.” Each of these definitions stresses the adaptation of aspects of instruction to differences and tolerances of the individual students. The goals of instruction remain the same. The learning outcomes remain the same. The difference? The acknowledgement that there is no single path to the goal, that each student will arrive at the goal in a slightly different way – and that’s perfectly fine. How this looks in practice is both complex and simple – but it takes a bit of effort and planning on the teacher’s part. Again, we used to do this all the time in a one-room schoolhouse with a great deal of success.
In a harmonious differentiated environment, for every instruction activity the teacher authoritatively and deliberately provides instruction matching the students’ level of achievement, instructional needs, and current emotional tolerance. The instructional needs are determined when the lesson is designed and prepared. However, the teacher also uses the acquired insights about students’ prior knowledge (e.g., during the introduction of the lesson), the information they continuously acquire by monitoring student progress (e.g., by asking questions and observing student behavior), and the emotional energy of the room to specifically match instruction with students’ estimated levels of achievement, prior knowledge, level of understanding, and emotional stamina. Here, instruction is explicitly focused on reaching the lesson’s goal with the students at whom the instruction is aimed. Furthermore, lesson content, instruction material, and the applied strategies align with previous instruction to spiral the learning, anchoring the new materials by linking to previously mastered content. Although the teacher deliberately planned instruction, no battle plan survives the first encounter. As such teachers stimulate students’ self-regulation towards meeting the learning goals and provide them with options and opportunities to choose from, redirecting them when necessary. In this way, the teacher’s role is more akin to that of the shepherd than of the orator or conductor.
But … the obvious … to accomplish these goals, teachers must know their students and the materials / concepts they present. One cannot work authoritatively without such knowledge.
On the one hand, this knowledge of the students is about knowing their levels of achievement; the level at which they are and the problems they encounter when learning. On the other hand, such knowledge is about knowing the pedagogical needs of the students, their interests, peer relations, how to motivate each of them, and the kind of problem-solving strategies they will understand. In addition to analyzing student work, teachers can gain insight into these kinds of instructional needs by observing students during class and by guiding them through their inquiries. In knowing their students, they must also acknowledge the reference point for this assessment / observation – themselves. Thus, teachers must have a deep knowledge of themselves and how their own temperament and emotional energy affects the learning environment and their students.
Thus, a framework for a classroom ecology emerges. Self-aware teachers working cooperatively with empowered and supported learners. There is a harmony, a balance, a flow state (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) that occurs when teachers and students synchronize their energies in this way to accomplish a goal. And, as it turns out, working within flow states comes quite naturally to autistic people (Hoerricks, 2022b). With an awareness of energy states and how to work within the classroom ecology, neurotypical teachers and classroom staff can flow along with their students … accomplishing the incredible.
Conclusion
In this article we examined so-called autistic and alexithymic traits. In doing so, we had to first introduce the reader to alexithymia, the traits of which are often mistaken for autism by uninformed psychological practitioners and those attempting to diagnose themselves. We illustrated the link that is often found between autism and alexithymia, hyper-empathy. We discussed modern classroom management schemes, following up with how autism, alexithymia, and hyper-empathy are impacted by such schemes. Finally, we combined these ideas to frame what a supportive classroom ecology can look like in a modern educational setting. We presented a classroom ecology that not only accommodates the autistic / alexithymic student (or staff member) but creates an environment where all can thrive by introducing the concept of flow. It has been our aim in presenting this information to inform discussions about how best to educate a diverse range of humans in a supportive environment. We often hear of differentiation of instruction, but seldom do we hear about differentiating the environment in which that instruction takes place.
When educators begin to think of classroom ecologies, and especially the nurturing of energy states, learning and growth will necessarily skyrocket. Not just for special education students, but for all present. Not just for their classrooms, but for all contexts in which they share information with a population of learners. Yes, we can build ecologies for our classrooms, our professional development sessions, our conference presentations, and anywhere else where learning occurs.
Appendix
The following are the surveys mentioned in this article, a brief statement on how to interpret results, and their location on the internet. Many thanks to Embrace Autism for their work in operationalizing these scales and making them available to the world for free. Given the changes to the DSM (DSM-V-TR - 3-20-2022), more people will rely upon such surveys to help them discover their true selves as the system moves to protect itself by making autism diagnoses more difficult to obtain.
TAS-20 - Toronto Alexithymia Scale (Scores above 61 are indicative of alexithymia.) https://embrace-autism.com/toronto-alexithymia-scale/#Toronto_Alexithymia_Scale_TAS-20
OAQ - Online Alexithymia Questionnaire (Scores above 113 are indicative of alexithymia.) https://embrace-autism.com/online-alexithymia-questionnaire/
TEQ - Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (Scores above 45 are indicative of above average empathy levels.) https://embrace-autism.com/toronto-empathy-questionnaire/
EQ - The Empathy Quotient (Scores below 30 are indicative of subject likely being autistic.) https://embrace-autism.com/empathy-quotient/
CAT-Q - Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionnaire (Scores above 100 are indicative of greater camouflaging / masking.) https://embrace-autism.com/cat-q/#test
RAADS-R - Ritvo Autism Asperger Diagnostic Scale–Revised (Scores above 65 are indicative of subject likely being autistic.) https://embrace-autism.com/raads-r/
References
Adedigba, O., & Sulaiman, F. R. (2020). Influence of Teachers' Classroom Management Style on Pupils' Motivation for Learning and Academic Achievement in Kwara State. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 6(2), 471-480.
Allodi, M. W. (2007). Assessing the quality of learning environments in Swedish schools: Development and analysis of a theory-based instrument. Learning Environments Research, 10(3), 157-175.
Allodi, M. W. (2010a). Goals and values in school: A model developed for describing, evaluating, and changing the social climate of learning environments. Social Psychology of Education, 13(2), 207-235
Allodi, M. W. (2010b). The meaning of social climate of learning environments: Some reasons why we do not care enough about it. Learning Environments Research, 13(2), 89-104.
Allodi, M. W. (2013). Simple-minded accountability measures create failing schools in disadvantaged contexts: A case study of a Swedish junior high school. Policy Futures in Education, 11, 4: 331-363.
Annamma, S., & Morrison, D. (2018). DisCrit classroom ecology: Using praxis to dismantle dysfunctional education ecologies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 70-80.
Attwood, T. (2003). Understanding and managing circumscribed interests. In M. Prior (Ed.), Learning and behavior problems in Asperger Syndrome. New York: Guilford Press.
Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D., & Taylor, G. J. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale—I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of psychosomatic research, 38(1), 23-32.
Bailey, A., Phillips, W., & Rutter, M. (1996). Autism: towards an integration of clinical, genetic, neuro-psychological, and neurobiological perspectives. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 89–126.
Barrett, P., Zhang, Y., Barrett, L. (2011). A child’s eye view of primary school built environments. Intelligent Buildings International, 3, 107-123. doi: 10.1080/17508975.2011.582315
Barrett, P., Barrett, L., & Davies, F. (2013). Achieving a step change in the optimal sensory design of buildings for users at all life-stages. Building and Environment, 67, 97-104. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.05.011
Barrett, P., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Teachers’ views on the designs of their primary schools. Intelligent Buildings International, 4, 89-110. doi: 10.1080/17508975.2015.1087835
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4(1).
Boon, S. (2021). The Dangers of Spectrum 10K. Retrieved from: https://autisticallysarah.com/2021/08/24/the-dangers-of-spectrum-10k/
Boon, S. (2022). A Brief Overview Of Simon Baron-Cohen’s Autism Research. Retrieved from: https://autisticallysarah.com/2022/02/13/a-brief-overview-of-simon-baron-cohens-autism-research/
Bosker, R. J. (2005). De grenzen van gedifferentiëerd onderwijs. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Brownlee, J. (2015). The Corporate Corruption of Academic Research. Alternate routes: a journal of Critical Social Research, 26.
Bumiller, K. (2009). The geneticization of autism: From new reproductive technologies to the conception of genetic normalcy. Signs, 34(4), 875–899.
Cerutti, R., Spensieri, V., Presaghi, F., Renzi, A., Palumbo, N., Simone, A., ... & Di Trani, M. (2020). Alexithymic traits and somatic symptoms in children and adolescents: A screening approach to explore the mediation role of depression. Psychiatric Quarterly, 91(2), 521-532.
Counts, C. (2021). The Effect of Learning Environments on Behavior and Wellbeing. MiEN Company. Retrieved from https://miencompany.com/the-effect-of-learning-environments-on-behavior-and-wellbeing/
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikzentmihaly, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (Vol. 1990). New York: Harper & Row.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
Do, C. & Rickels, L. (2018). A three-step process to decreasing prompt dependency. Retrieved from https://www.identifor.com/blog/three-step-process-decreasing-prompt-dependency/
Dubin, N. (2007). Asperger syndrome and bullying: Strategies and solutions. Jessica: Kingsley Publishers.
Engelbrecht, N. (2022a). Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Embrace Autism. Retrieved from https://embrace-autism.com/toronto-alexithymia-scale/
Engelbrecht, N. (2022b). Empathy Quotient. Embrace Autism. Retrieved from https://embrace-autism.com/empathy-quotient/
Evans-Williams, C. V., & Williams, D. J. (2016). Diagnosing/recognising high functioning autism in adult females: Challenging stereotypes. Autism-Open Access.
Fisher, A.V., Godwin, K.E., & Seltman, H. (2014). Visual environment, attention allocation, and learning in young children. Psychological Science, 25, 1362-1370. doi: 10.1177/0956797614533801
Frith, U. (1991). Autism and Asperger syndrome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ginner Hau, H., Ferrer-Wreder, L., & Allodi, M. W. (2021). Capitalizing on classroom climate to promote positive development. In Handbook of Positive Youth Development (pp. 375-386). Springer, Cham.
Glasser, W. (1999). Choice theory: A new psychology of personal freedom. HarperPerennial.
Grabe, H. J., Frommer, J., Ankerhold, A., Ulrich, C., Gröger, R., Franke, G. H., ... & Spitzer, C. (2008). Alexithymia and outcome in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy and psychosomatics, 77(3), 189-194.
Griffin, C., Lombardo, M., Auyeung, B. (2016). Alexithymia in children with and without autism spectrum disorders. Autism Res. ;9:773–80.
Hippler, K., & Klicpera, C. (2005). Hans Asperger und ‘seine Kinder’ – eine retrospectives Untersuchung des spectrum der “Psychopathia autistischen” anhand von Wiener Krankenakten. Zeitschrift für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und Psychotherapie, 33(1), 35–47.
Hoerricks, K. J. (2018). Higher education support strategies: An evaluation of needs satisfaction on Autistic college student retention (Doctoral dissertation, Trident University International).
Hoerricks, K. J. (2021a). Differentiation: a sustainable accommodation strategy. Planet Neurodivergent. Retrieved from https://www.planetneurodivergent.com/differentiation-a-sustainable-accommodation-strategy/
Hoerricks, K. J. (2021b). Why do autistics wander off? Planet Neurodivergent. Retrieved from https://www.planetneurodivergent.com/why-do-autistics-wander-off/
Hoerricks, K. J. (2021c) Autism and Gastrointestinal Symptoms. Planet Neurodivergent. Retrieved from: https://www.planetneurodivergent.com/autism-and-gastrointestinal-symptoms/
Hoerricks, K. J. (2022). Where’s the evidence in evidence-based therapies, the long-term impacts of early childhood ABA on autistic people. The AutSide. https://autside.substack.com/publish/post/49961142
Hoerricks, K. J. (2022). Autism and flow states. The AutSide. Retrieved from https://autside.substack.com/publish/post/50614608
Ibiam, J. U. (2020). Managing children with autism in an inclusive classroom. Journal Of The Nigerian Academy Of Education, 15(1).
Kestner, K. M., Peterson, S. M., Eldridge, R. R., & Peterson, L. D. (2019). Considerations of baseline classroom conditions in conducting functional behavior assessments in school settings. Behavior analysis in practice, 12(2), 452-465
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2009). Reflections on character and leaderships. New York: Wiley.
Kingsland, S.E. (2005). The evolution of American ecology, 1890-2000. Baltimore: JHU Press.
Kirk, S. A., Gallagher, J., & Anastasiow, N. J. (1983). Educating Exceptional Children:(4th éd.).
Knight, G., & Noyes, J. (1999). Children’s behaviour and the design of school furniture. Ergonomics, 42, 747-760. doi: 10.1080/001401399185423
Kolpin, A. (2019). Understanding and Evaluating Classroom Ecology.
Kupferstein, H. (2018). Evidence of increased PTSD symptoms in autistics exposed to applied behavior analysis. Advances in Autism.
Långström, N. (2009). Schizofrenins samband med våldsbrott ifrågasatt (Schizophrenia associated with violent crime challenged). Läkartidningen (Swedish Medical Journal), prepubl. 14 July.
Långström, N., et al. (2009). Risk factors for violent offending in autism spectrum disorder. A national study of hospitalized individuals. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(8), 1358–1370.
Lawson, W. (2008). Concepts of normality – The autistic and typical spectrum. Jessica: Kingsley
Levant, R. F., & Richmond, K. (2007). A review of research on masculinity ideologies using the Male Role Norms Inventory. Journal of Men’s Studies, 15, 130–146.
Lorenz, S. (2002). First steps in inclusion: a handbook for parents, teachers, governors, and local education authorities. London: Fulton.
Mace, F.C., (1994). The significance of functional analysis beyond methodologies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1994;2(2):385–392.
McGee, K. (2005). Enactive cognitive science. Part 1: Background and research themes. Constructivist Foundations, 1(1), 19-34.
Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments: Procedures, measures, fi ndings and policy implications. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Moos, R. H., & Trickett, E. J. (1987). Classroom environment scale manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Morie, K. P., Jackson, S., Zhai, Z. W., Potenza, M. N., & Dritschel, B. (2019). Mood Disorders in High-Functioning Autism: The Importance of Alexithymia and Emotional Regulation. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 49(7), 2935–2945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04020-1.
Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2007). Effective Classroom Management: Teacher Preparation and Professional Development. TQ Connection Issue Paper. National comprehensive center for teacher quality. [PDF]
Prudham, S. (2009). ecology. In D. Gregory, The Dictionary of Human Geography (5th ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Raffagnato, A., Angelico, C., Valentini, P., Miscioscia, M., & Gatta, M. (2020). Using the body when there are No words for feelings: alexithymia and somatization in self-harming adolescents. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 262.
Reser J. E. (2011). Conceptualizing the autism spectrum in terms of natural selection and behavioral ecology: the solitary forager hypothesis. Evolutionary psychology: an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior, 9(2), 207–238.
Rivera, J. A. (2013). What is authoritative teaching. Retrieved from http://www.jadeannrivera.com/authoritative-teaching-and-gifted-children/
Roy, A., Guay, F., & Valois, P. (2013). Teaching to Address Diverse Learning Needs: Development and Validation if a Differentiated Instruction Scale. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17, 1186-1204. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.743604
Rutter, M. (1978). Diagnosis and definition of childhood autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 8(2), 139–161.
Rutter, M. (2011). Progress in understanding autism: 2007–2010. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41, 395–404.
Rutter, M., Bailey, A., Bolton, P., & Couteur, A. L. (1994). Autism and known medical conditions: Myth and substance. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 35(2), 311–322.
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
Sharma, S., Woolfson, L. M., & Hunter, S. C. (2011). Confusion and inconsistency in diagnosis of Asperger syndrome: A review of studies from 1981 to 2010. Autism, 2, 1–22.
Spreng, R., McKinnon, M., Mar, R., & Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. J. Pers. Assmt. ;91(1):62-71.
Stanfield, J. (2021). How to promote inclusion in the classroom. Retrieved from https://stanfield.com/11-strategies-promote-inclusion-in-the-classroom/
Strathern, L. (2009). The elusive etiology of autism: Nature and nurture? Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 3(11), 1–3.
Swart, E., Engelbrecht, P., Eloff, I. & Pettipher, R. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards Inclusive Education in South Africa. Acta Academia, 33(2), August 2001.
Tantam, D. (1988). Lifelong eccentricity and social isolation. I. Psychiatric, social, and forensic aspects. British Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 777–782.
Taylor, G. J., Bagby, R. M., & Parker, G. (1997). Disorders of affect regulation: Alexithymia in medical and psychiatric illness. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Taylor, G. J., & Bagby, R. M. (2013). Psychoanalysis and empirical research: The example of alexithymia. Journal of the American psychoanalytic association, 61(1), 99-133.
The Stable Company (TSC). (2019). Keep cool in class: how to create a comfortable classroom environment for learning. Retrieved from https://www.thestablecompany.com/blog/comfort-in-the-classroom-how-to-create-the-perfect-environment-for-student-learning
Tomlinson, C. A. & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and Managing a Differentiated Classroom. Alexandria: ASCD
Toro, J., Kiverstein, J., & Rietveld, E. (2020). The ecological-enactive model of disability: Why disability does not entail pathological embodiment. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1162.
Treffert, D. A. (2006). Dr Down and ‘developmental disorders’. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 965–966. doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0183-1.
Uncapher, M. (2016). The Science of Effective Learning Spaces: a neuroscientist explains how factors such as light and seating arrangements can affect students’ cognitive performance. Edutopia. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/article/science-of-effective-learning-spaces-melina-uncapher
UNESCO. (2005). Understanding and responding to children's needs in inclusive classrooms: A Guide for the Teachers. Paris: UNESCO.
van Geel, M., Keuning, T., Frèrejean, J., Dolmans, D., van Merriënboer, J., & Visscher, A. J. (2019). Capturing the complexity of differentiated instruction.
School effectiveness and school improvement, 30(1), 51-67.
Walker, J. M. (2008). Looking at teacher practices through the lens of parenting style. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(2), 218-240.
Walker, J. M. (2009). Authoritative classroom management: How control and nurturance work together. Theory into practice, 48(2), 122-129.
Wastell, C., & Booth, A. (2003). Machiavellianism: An alexithymic perspective. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22(6), 730–744.
Wenning, C. (1998). Classroom management Styles. ISU physics teacher education program coursework. Retrieved from http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/311content/classmgt/classmgt.html
Whitehouse, A. J. O., Hickey, M., & Ronald, A. (2011). Are autistic traits in the general population stable across development? PLoS One, 6(8), e23029. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023029.
Wicker, A. W. (1984). An introduction to ecological psychology (No. 1). CUP Archive.
Williams, S. C. (2010). Autism and education. Oxford Pergamon.
Zhang, C. H., Li, G., Fan, Z. Y., Tang, X. J., & Zhang, F. (2021). Mobile Phone Addiction Mediates the Relationship Between Alexithymia and Learning Burnout in Chinese Medical Students: A Structural Equation Model Analysis. Psychology research and behavior management, 14, 455–465. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S304635.