Dr. Veronica Fleury is an associate professor of Special Education at Florida State University dedicated to optimizing learning opportunities for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Her research delves into understanding how core behavioral characteristics of ASD influence learning to inform the development of effective instructional strategies. Dr. Fleury’s intervention work is grounded in applied behavioral analysis. She earned a doctorate from the University of Washington and has extensive experience in teaching, consultation, and research. She strives to bridge the gap between research and practice to improve outcomes for children with ASD.
Q. How has your special education training from the University of Washington shaped your approach to autism research and intervention?
My doctoral training equipped me with the foundational skills that I needed to design and conduct high-quality, methodologically rigorous studies. This was just the beginning of a lifelong learning journey; however, I attribute the rate of my scholarly growth over the past decade to the strong foundation that I received at the University of Washington. My doctoral training prepared me to think critically about educational research, identify gaps in our knowledge and areas for improvement, and ask—and answer—socially meaningful questions.
One could argue that most doctoral training programs at research-intensive institutions provide (or should provide) similar technical training; however, I think what distinguishes the training that I received at the University of Washington was the added value of “human-ness” combined with rigorous research. I believe my advisor, Dr. Ilene Schwartz, was influential in this regard. I vividly recall her stating in class that the most effective interventions are not useful if consumers are unwilling or unable to use them. (Note: I think this may have been during my master’s program in a teacher preparation course, which was well before I entered the doctoral program!). This was an epiphany for me, and careful consideration of social validity is integral in my current research. Developing educational interventions with strong social validity requires understanding current needs and an appreciation for the unique demands and constraints that educators and caregivers face in the “real world.” Strong research-practice partnerships are invaluable in this regard.
Healthy research-practice partnerships, however, must be curated. Social science research, for all its admirable traditions, has been at times an extractive industry, and social scientists have not always been good partners with their communities. I saw Dr. Ilene Schwartz and many other UW faculty actively work to create healthy and mutually beneficial relationships with community schools. When I was a preschool special education teacher in Bellevue Public Schools, Ilene regularly attended and provided her expertise in our meetings in which we discussed student progress for those in our autism extended day programs, even stating in one meeting that it was “her favorite part of the week.” I think her close ties to the local educational community allowed her to keep abreast of current educational needs, but perhaps more importantly, empowered us to provide better instruction to our students and feel valued. Though this was before my doctoral training, these early experiences instilled in me a professional and ethical obligation.
Q. What did you learn about how peer networks affect young children’s social and literacy skills from your work on the Peer Networks Project at UW?
My work as a graduate research assistant on the Peer Network Project was instrumental in my scholarly development—and ultimately influenced my career trajectory—in countless ways. Though my experience led to numerous insights about research and what it means to be a good researcher, I will highlight three insights.
Insight #1: Applied research is “messy.” Researchers who conduct studies in natural learning environments, such as classrooms, do not necessarily have overt control of all factors that may influence intervention outcomes. I began working on the Peer Networks project in its first year. Witnessing the launch of a large-scale, multi-site research project afforded me a unique opportunity to see how a well-crafted, meticulously designed research proposal came to life. Sometimes, even the best-laid plans do not work out as initially intended. Something good “on paper” may require adjustments or modifications when working with real humans and learning contexts.
Insight #2: Team science makes our work better, but it is not always easy! The Peer Networks Project was a collaborative effort amongst smart scholars who worked together to achieve a common goal. The research team comprised individuals who contributed uniquely to the conceptualization and realization of the study. As a multi-site project, its success relied upon strong leadership and collaboration across and within study sites. My experience as a research assistant on this project shed a different light on the “social” of social science. Effective project management involves “people management” (so select your people wisely!).
Insight #3: Most traditional learning activities rely heavily on social communication skills. The Peer Networks Project was built upon the premise that we learn by interacting with our environment and the people within our environment. This project made me think about the structure of learning activities in classrooms. Although academic difficulties are not a diagnostic characteristic of ASD, the core behavioral difficulties that define ASD—social-communication deficits and the presence of restricted, repetitive behaviors—often impede students’ ability to actively participate in, and learn from, traditional classroom activities. Many activities that we use to teach core content, such as reading, rely heavily on social interaction (e.g., asking and answering questions, engaging in discussion, observing teachers and peers demonstrate a skill). Peers can be a tremendous influence for learning new skills; however, we need to ensure that children with ASD have appropriate instructional and social support to reap the full benefits of peer-mediated instruction.
Q. What are some key findings or promising interventions from your research on instructional strategies for young children with ASD?
MMy recent intervention work is focused on using shared book reading (i.e., adults reading aloud with children) as a context to develop early literacy and language skills in young children with autism. Reading aloud with children is a developmentally appropriate activity in many homes and early childhood classrooms that can build early skills that are foundational for reading success. Because it is inherently a social activity (e.g., shared focus on a book, engaging in conversation about the content), many children with ASD will need additional support to actively engage in the activity. We needed to understand what we were working with to guide our intervention effort, so we conducted an exploratory study of caregivers reading with their autistic children. We found great variability in how caregivers read with their children; however, caregivers who read with evocative techniques (i.e., asking questions, commenting on illustrations) corresponded with greater child engagement compared to caregivers who strictly read the text alone.
Fortunately, book reading style is a “malleable” factor. In other words, we can teach adults to read in a way that will support children’s active engagement. This is the premise for much of my recent intervention work. Dialogic Reading is a well-researched interactive shared reading technique that has repeatedly demonstrated improvements in children’s language development. However, much of the research traditionally focused on typically developing children and those who are at-risk for disability. We have conducted a series of studies in which we taught different adult groups—caregivers, paraeducators, teachers—to implement dialogic reading strategies when reading with preschoolers with autism. The results of these studies suggest that adults can change the way they read with children. And, in doing so, children with autism are more engaged with book reading and learn new vocabulary.
Q. How do your findings on educators’ views of evidence-based practices for ASD impact professional development and support for teachers?
My previous survey research suggests that while many educators are familiar with evidence-based practices, they are not necessarily using these practices consistently in their classrooms. Education is our best hope in improving outcomes for learners. Therefore, we need to create interventions and strategies that are socially valid and provide teachers with training and support to use them in their classrooms. Fortunately, we have a large—and growing—body of research on professional development (PD). We know that a one-time training is unlikely to be effective for everyone.
Most professionals benefit from ongoing support and coaching in implementing new practices that they are learning. The intensity and format of this support, however, will vary. There is no “one-size-fits-all-all” PD. The challenge is to develop a PD model that will meet the varying needs of educational professionals while being respectful of resources, including financial constraints, time, and burden imposed on educators. We are conducting a pilot study to develop and evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a tiered approach to training educators to implement an interactive shared book reading intervention.
The PD is designed to offer participants the least intrusive—and burdensome—training option initially. More intrusive, but potentially more effective training options will be offered for whom it is required. In this study, we are also exploring variables (e.g., attitudinal factors, work context) that may mediate educators’ uptake of the learned strategies.
Q: What strategies do you recommend for increasing the use of evidence-based practices for individuals with ASD in schools and communities?
Despite great advances in intervention research, ASD remains a “fad magnet.” Unsubstantiated techniques such as facilitated communication, weighted vests, massage/touch therapy, and special diets lack scientific support yet remain popular treatment options. They are not proven to be effective and can cause harm in some cases. A comprehensive approach to promoting the use of evidence-based practices should include “pre-bunking” against misinformation and “debunking” false beliefs about unsubstantiated practices.
Our strategy differs depending on the audience and context. The standard approach that we use in most of our professional development and teacher preparation programs is to “pre-bunk” or inoculate consumers against the allure of unsubstantiated practices by providing training and education on effective evidence-based practices. In doing so, consumers will (hopefully) be suspicious of strategies or treatments that are inconsistent with what they have been taught. Promoting the use of evidence-based practices, while essential, will not be effective in and of itself. We must also be prepared for situations when a well-intentioned caregiver or colleague believes that an unsubstantiated practice (e.g., rapid prompting method) is effective when it is indeed not. We must attempt to “debunk” the false beliefs in these situations. Merely telling them “Well, research says…” may not be the best strategy if they have firm beliefs about a treatment. Here, we must be prepared to listen and understand what might perpetuate this belief.
After all, people do not form beliefs out of thin air. We must understand what is at the root of the belief (e.g., overreliance on anecdotal evidence; misinterpretation of “data,” etc.). Effective debunking involves both explaining why the source of the misinformation is incorrect AND providing accurate information. In summary, most of our professional development efforts fall in the “pre-bunking” category. Though this is essential, this is only half of the equation. We must also prepare education professionals to engage in productive (and often difficult) conversations to debunk misconceptions about autism and effective treatments.
Q. What do you enjoy about your work?
There are so many enjoyable and rewarding aspects of my work. At a very young age (possibly beginning in 7th-grade general science), I developed a love of the scientific process — asking a question, developing a systematic method to answer a question, and reporting the results. This career allows me to combine my love of the scientific process and my passion for promoting equitable access to education for all learners.
As social scientists, we can apply the scientific process to answer socially significant questions and meaningfully impact the students and the community we serve. I also find great joy in mentoring graduate students. I feel privileged to have been mentored by scholars who are leaders in our field because they are excellent thinkers and, perhaps more importantly, are good citizens who care deeply about their professional and personal communities. It is rewarding—and humbling—to now be in a similar role to potentially shape our next generation of teachers and scholars.
