TYPE
Original Research
29 January 2024
10.3389/feduc.2024.1273757
PUBLISHED
DOI
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Farah El Zein,
Emirates College for Advanced Education,
United Arab Emirates
REVIEWED BY
Joseph Agbenyega,
Emirates College for Advanced Education,
United Arab Emirates
Evrim Erbilgin,
Emirates College for Advanced Education,
United Arab Emirates
*CORRESPONDENCE
Mohamad Hassan Fadi Hijab
mhhijab@hbku.edu.qa
The what, where, who, why,
which, and how of collaborative
play involving autistic children in
educational context: a contextual
inquiry
Mohamad Hassan Fadi Hijab 1*, Shaza Khattab 1,
Nahwan Al Aswadi 2, Joselia Neves 2, Marwa Qaraqe 1,
Achraf Othman 3, Noora Alsulaiti 4 and Dena Al-Thani 1
1
RECEIVED 07
August 2023
ACCEPTED 12 January 2024
PUBLISHED 29 January 2024
Information and Computing Technology Division, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin
Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar, 2 College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Hamad bin Khalifa
University, Doha, Qatar, 3 Mada Qatar Assistive Technology Center, Doha, Qatar, 4 Shafallah Center,
Doha, Qatar
CITATION
Hijab MHF, Khattab S, Al Aswadi N, Neves J,
Qaraqe M, Othman A, Alsulaiti N and
Al-Thani D (2024) The what, where, who,
why, which, and how of collaborative play
involving autistic children in educational
context: a contextual inquiry.
Front. Educ. 9:1273757.
doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1273757
COPYRIGHT
© 2024 Hijab, Khattab, Al Aswadi, Neves,
Qaraqe, Othman, Alsulaiti and Al-Thani. This
is an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
distribution or reproduction in other forums is
permitted, provided the original author(s) and
the copyright owner(s) are credited and that
the original publication in this journal is cited,
in accordance with accepted academic
practice. No use, distribution or reproduction
is permitted which does not comply with
these terms.
Introduction: In educational settings, autistic children often encounter barriers
to engaging in collaborative play. Notably, play is an important component of
a child’s development, and its pedagogical significance has been rigorously
researched. This study endeavored to understand the dynamics of collaborative
play among autistic children across various learning contexts, examining usual
methodologies, associated challenges, and potential technological constraints
influencing the collaborative play among autistic children.
Methods: The study was conducted in two diverse environments, an inclusive
international school and a center for children with disabilities, both located
in Qatar, and both with a significant population of autistic children. The data
was gathered through a series of 45 interviews with a diverse group of proxies,
including therapists, teachers, and parents. Furthermore, 48 observation sessions
were conducted with the autistic children in both settings. The data from the
interviews and observation sessions were analyzed using inductive reasoning to
perform a thematic analysis.
Results: The study elicited six key themes from the interviews, coined as ‘5 W-H’,
which encompassed the aspects of who (Actor), where (Location), what (Tool),
why (Purpose), which (Sense), and how (Process) in terms of how collaborative
play was conducted. From the observation sessions, another four themes were
derived, which centered on collaborative play, potential for collaboration,
coordinated activity, and collaborative activity.
Discussion: The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the practice
of collaborative play among autistic children, serving as a useful resource to
guide future research agenda and educational practices. Understanding these
dynamics can aid in developing more effective educational strategies and
technologies to enhance the collaborative learning experiences of autistic
children.
KEYWORDS
autism, autistic children, collaborative play, multisensory, collaboration, contextual
inquiry
Frontiers in Education
01
frontiersin.org
Hijab et al.
10.3389/feduc.2024.1273757
1 Introduction
all types of games with rules, such as mobile games, table games,
verbal play, and computer games.
There are numerous advantages to play. Children acquire
knowledge and learn to think critically, recall information, and solve
problems through play (Mabagala and Mabagala, 2007). Although
there is several types of play (Lai et al., 2018; Kuhaneck et al., 2020),
this paper focusses on social and collaborative play where both require
interaction between two or more children (Whitman, 2018). Social
play allows children to explore their physical and social environments
(Whitman, 2018). While collaborative play improves a child’s ability
to think before acting, empathize with other children’s perspectives,
and develop negotiation skills. Hence, children develop skills through
play, and adults have a significant role in supporting it by being
mediators (Smith and Roopnarine, 2018). During play, children are
exposed to alternative problem-solving and conflict-resolution
strategies, which enhance their ability to collaborate and develop their
role-taking skills (Whitman, 2018). Inclusive play follows the play
concept where players are diverse in profile, it involves the physical,
social, and emotional growth of the child who learns to play with
others. As a result, the child can develop social skills, confidence,
independence, and resilience during inclusive play by playing with
other children (Wenger et al., 2021). All children benefit from
inclusive play, especially autistic children, who often are unable to
participate in physical play like other children (Whitman, 2018).
During the play with autistic children, common instructional
prompts such as, “Try stacking the blocks this way,” are often utilized
with positive intentions. The aim is to direct the child towards what is
traditionally perceived as “appropriate play,” with the ultimate goal of
supporting and guiding the play. This approach is grounded in the
long-held belief that play is a central element in a child’s developmental
process, providing a conduit for acquiring essential skills and
knowledge. However, it is crucial to reassess this approach,
emphasizing the importance of autistic play, which can
be conceptualized as a phenomenon characterized by difficulties,
differences, and strengths (Gillespie-Lynch et al., 2017; Dwyer, 2022),
and the validation of unique play behaviors. By embracing the
strengths and interests of autistic children, an environment should
be created that enhances their intrinsic motivation to engage in play
(Dwyer, 2022). Traditional play paradigms often highlight
collaborative play as developmental benchmarks for neurotypical
children (González-Sala et al., 2021), yet it is important to recognize
and respect the diverse ways in which autistic children express
themselves through play. Therefore, the responsibility falls on
educators and clinicians to adopt an inclusive and affirming approach
to play interactions with autistic children. Engaging with them in
activities that resonate with their interests provides a foundation for
language development and social interaction. For instance, if a child
finds joy in spinning objects, practitioners should join in this activity
rather than redirecting them to more conventionally accepted play
behaviors. This approach not only fosters a supportive environment
but also encourages language and social development in alignment
with the child’s natural tendencies. The neurodiversity viewpoint on
autism acknowledges that autistic play has challenges and strengths
(Dwyer, 2022). To investigate autistic play from this perspective, it is
important to adopt a balanced approach and use neutral or positive
terminology (Gillespie-Lynch et al., 2017). This is crucial because
deficit-focused language used by professionals and researchers can
perpetuate stigma and marginalization of autistic individuals
The number of children diagnosed with autism has increased
significantly in recent years, with approximately one in every 54
children being diagnosed with autism in the United States, in 2020
(Maenner et al., 2021). In Qatar, where this study took place, one in
every 87 children is said to have been diagnosed with autism
(Alshaban et al., 2019), at a time when the definition of autism
continues to be up for debate (Kenny et al., 2016). According to the
American Psychiatric Association, autism is a neurodevelopmental
condition that causes difficulties with social interaction and
communication, as well as restricted and repetitive behaviors,
activities, and interests (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders: DSM-5™, 5th Ed., 2013). In this study, “autism” refers to
the clinical diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. Most of the autism
community often views the term “disorder” as stigmatizing as it
stresses the associated difficulties while deemphasizing its strengths
(Kenny et al., 2016). It is always difficult and nuanced to choose the
appropriate language representation and terms when speaking about
autistic individuals (Kenny et al., 2016). Many studies discussed the
different points of view of autism communities (Dunn and Andrews,
2015; Kenny et al., 2016; Bury et al., 2020). Yet, autism cannot
be described in a way that is universally accepted. Thus, to respect the
preferences of most autistic individuals, the identity-first language,
“autistic person,” is used throughout this paper (Kenny et al., 2016).
Given the considerable increase in autism diagnoses, it is
imperative to understand how this condition impacts various aspects
of a child’s life, including their play behavior and developmental
progress. Play is a crucial part of a child’s development, and its
educational importance has been extensively studied (Besio and
Carnesecchi, 2014; Weisberg et al., 2016; Gray, 2017; Besio, 2018).
However, it is difficult to agree on a single definition of play, due to its
complexity and significance (Sutton-Smith, 2009). As defined by
Weisberg et al. (2013), play refers to any activity that is spontaneous,
enjoyable, and does not have a specific purpose. Play can be considered
an activity, as it is defined as a child’s free and independent activity
(Smith and Roopnarine, 2018). Caillois (2001) views play as a
pleasurable, self-chosen activity. Ruckenstein (1991) emphasizes on the
play uniqueness, highlighting its separation from everyday life, its
voluntary nature, and its temporary character. Brown (2009) adds more
characteristics, describing play as seemingly purposeless, chosen freely,
inherently appealing, timeless, self-forgetful, open to improvisation,
and something people want to keep doing. Vygotsky (1967), who was
one of the first scholar to approach and investigate play, highlighted the
vital role of sociodramatic play, emphasizing its impact on children’s
cognitive development and higher mental functions, such as inhibition.
This occurs as children engage in play within the zone of proximal
development, as detailed in Bodrova and Leong (2015) review. In
contrast, Piaget (2013) viewed play as an inherently valuable activity, a
mechanism through which infants assimilate the external world into
their existing cognitive frameworks rather than a way to acquire new
knowledge. Also, several studies (Elkonin, 2005; Kravtsova and
Maximov, 2014; Polivanova, 2015) classified play according to three
stages: the preparatory stage, play as a leading activity, and play as an
activity. The first stage is when the child gets familiar with the concept
of play and starts to explore and imitate. The second stage is when the
child begins imaginative play, symbolic play, role play, play with rules,
and collaborative play. The third stage is when the child starts to play
Frontiers in Education
02
frontiersin.org
Hijab et al.
10.3389/feduc.2024.1273757
(Gibson et al., 2011). However, there is a limited amount of research
focusing on understanding autistic play from a neurodiversityinformed standpoint. Some studies have moved away from a deficitfocused approach emphasizing the need to understand the challenges
and distinctions of autistic play to better support it. For example,
Conn (2015) examined autistic autobiographies and identified
patterns of joyful early play experiences.
The presence of autistic children in inclusive educational
environments is on the rise (Lindsay et al., 2013) where these children
frequently engage with their neurotypical peers (O’Keeffe and
McNally, 2023). Even though inclusive education seeks to grant
autistic children sufficient opportunities to join with neurotypical
peers, studies indicate that mainstream educational environments
often struggle with these integrations (Humphrey and Symes, 2013;
Lindsay et al., 2013; Lai et al., 2020; Linimayr et al., 2023). Play
emerges as a natural mechanism to support social communication and
facilitate the inclusion of autistic children in regular educational
frameworks (O’Keeffe and McNally, 2023). Within the school setting,
peer interactions during play, shared interests, and the foundation of
friendships are helpful in learning. The benefits of positive peer
relationships during childhood enhanced academic outcomes,
enriched linguistic capabilities, and an improved life quality (Carter
et al., 2010; Rotheram-Fuller et al., 2010). Specific to classroom
contexts, research suggests that autistic children often experience
diminished friendship quality and increased social isolation when
compared with their neurotypical peers (Chamberlain et al., 2007).
Importantly, as these children progress to later elementary grades,
their participation in peer social engagements might disappear,
emphasizing the crucial nature of support during these developmental
stages (Rotheram-Fuller et al., 2010).
Generally, toys have been regarded as crucial tools to support play.
A toy is an artifact to facilitate play and its positive effects (Zagalo and
Branco, 2015). It is meant to stimulate children’s feelings and senses,
enrich their imagination, enhance their evaluation and application
skills, and support their physical, cognitive, social, and emotional
development (Hall et al., 2022). Recent studies have explored how
children play with toys (Møller, 2015; Trawick-Smith et al., 2015).
Interactive technologies, robotics, and mechatronic toys have recently
gained attention as potential tools for enhancing the social skills of
autistic children (Shaer and Hornecker, 2010). The effectiveness of
mechanical and technological devices in engaging children has been
identified as a critical factor. While technology can be difficult to
define, it generally includes elements of purpose, function, and
benefits (Brey, 2009; Carroll, 2017). Research shows that integrating
technology into teaching improves children’s learning (Khowaja et al.,
2020). Consequently, technology-based approaches have been
increasingly adopted to support autistic individuals during learning
and play (Hijab et al., 2022). Researchers and therapists should,
however, evaluate each approach case-by-case, since there is no
one-size-fits-all approach for autistic individuals.
Several studies have explored the context of play in autistic
children (Marwick et al., 2022), but only a few have examined
collaborative play (Nonnis and Bryan-Kinns, 2019, 2021). Accordingly,
this study aimed to understand the best practices, issues, and barriers
associated with collaborative play in autistic children. In pursuit of this
objective, a contextual inquiry was conducted at both a local center
for children with disabilities and an inclusive school in Qatar. The
subsequent sections of this paper are organized as follows: firstly,
Frontiers in Education
detailing the methodologies and materials employed in this inquiry,
then presenting the findings and analysis derived from semistructured interviews and observations. Toward reaching, the
conclusion of the paper by deliberating upon the outcomes of the
contextual inquiry.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Overview
This study is a component of a broader project aimed at
developing, co-designing, and evaluating a multisensory tool that
supports collaborative social play among autistic [Project ID:
NPRP13S-0108-200027] (Hijab and Al-Thani, 2022). This work
employed a human-centered methodology, leveraging the principles
of co-design (Druin et al., 1998; Sanders and Stappers, 2008). In order
to conduct the co-design, it is imperative to study the population, and
the action of play in educational settings. This paper presents the
findings of the project’s initial phase. Therefore, a contextual inquiry
technique is employed. Contextual inquiry is a qualitative method of
data collection that involves observing participants in environments
where they feel most comfortable, to acquire relevant data (Holtzblatt
and Beyer, 1997). In a contextual inquiry conducted in classrooms
(Holtzblatt and Beyer, 1997), tools and technologies used by autistic
children for collaborative play were examined. The study design
consists of conducting a contextual inquiry in a center and the school
(refer to Figure 1). In which,18 children were selected, interviews with
their surroundings were conducted, and children during their center
and school schedule were observed in which they mentioned to have
collaboration. Behavioral patterns were observed, and both challenges
and opportunities were identified. Semi-structured interviews and
observational sessions served as data collection methods. The
collected data were analyzed using thematic analysis (Clarke and
Braun, 2017). Authors 1 and 3 carried out 22 interviews with teachers
and therapists, and eight with parents, accumulating approximately
16 h, then conducted 22 observation sessions. Author 2 performed 15
interviews with teachers and parents spending over 4 h in total and
observed 26 sessions. Subsequent sections will present details about
participant recruitment, profiling, and the methods used for data
collection and analysis.
2.2 Study locations
The study of this work was held in two locations located in Qatar:
a center for children with disabilities and an inclusive school. The
center is for children with disabilities where 80% of the children were
diagnosed with Autism. The school is a mainstream institution
committed to fostering inclusivity. The school implements a tiered
system designed to accommodate diverse needs and ensure an
inclusive environment for all its students.
At the center, various specialists assessed children using distinct
tools. Psychologists used the Childhood Autism Rating Scale
(Schopler et al., 1980) to distinguish autistic children from those with
developmental delays and an observational assessment to identify
behavioral challenges. Teachers employed the Verbal Behavior
Milestones Assessment and Placement Program (VB-MAPP)
03
frontiersin.org
Hijab et al.
10.3389/feduc.2024.1273757
FIGURE 1
Study methodology flow.
(Sundberg, 2008) to establish language goals for autistic children.
Occupational therapists utilized the Functional Independence
Measure (Wong et al., 2010) to assess the necessary support for daily
motor and cognitive tasks, while Speech and Language Therapists
evaluated verbal ability and the use of Picture Exchange
Communication Symbols (PECS) (Klein and Zimbleman, 1990).
Contrastingly, the inclusive school, catering to autistic and
neurotypical children, relied on parental documents for diagnosis and
needs, avoiding in-school assessments. The school adopted a multitiered system, in line with Sansosti’s suggestion (Sansosti, 2010),
emphasizing evidence-based interventions for academic, behavioral,
and social/emotional needs. The study observed seven students from
tier 3, providing concentrated, personalized support, and one from
tier 1, offering broad instructional support. There were no students
from tier 2, which is meant for targeted aid to address skill gaps. The
school’s curriculum was customized according to individual students’
abilities and needs.
now, for the purpose of coding, “C” and “S” letters prior the
participant code refer to the center and school, respectively. To fulfill
the ethical requirements, the children were assigned codes ranging
from C1 to C18, such as C1 for child 1 and C2 for child 2. As shown
in the table, ten children in the center coded from C-C1 to C-C10 and
eight children in the school coded from S-C11 to S-C18. Similarly,
codes were assigned to all interviewees: SLT for speech and language
therapists, OT for occupational therapists, T for teachers, PS for
psychologists, PT for physiotherapists, and P for parents. In this
paper, C-SLT1 refers to the speech and language therapist from the
center and S-T9, refers to the teacher from the school. The center and
the school collected parental consent forms and confirmed the
parents’ availability for interviews. Table 1 summarizes the
demographic information of the 18 autistic children. For each child,
several interviews took place. This included interviewing the child’s
parent, teacher(s), and therapist(s) directly involved in providing
services to each child. Across the two institutions, interviewees were
16 parents, 12 teachers, six SLT, four PS, six OT, and one PT. Two
parents could not participate in the interview; hence, in total, 45
semi-structured interviews were conducted.
2.3 Participants and recruitment
Ten autistic children were recruited through the center and eight
through the school. After receiving ethical approval from the
Research Board of the Qatar Biomedical Research Institute, the
researchers independently presented the project’s aims and contextual
inquiry methodology to the center’s and the school’s therapists and
teachers. During the presentation, the researchers informed the
attendees to support the study by recruiting autistic children aged
between ages 7 and 12. The center ensured that all children who
participated in the study had been assessed similarly. The center and
the school handled the assessment files for the researchers. As from
Frontiers in Education
2.4 Data collection
2.4.1 Interview
The parents, teachers, and therapists were interviewed individually
to understand the current practices, challenges, and experiences of
engaging autistic children in collaborative play. Before conducting the
interviews, written consents were obtained through the center and the
school. Details on the interview duration for each interviewee group
are presented in Table 2. The interviews began with gathering
04
frontiersin.org
Hijab et al.
10.3389/feduc.2024.1273757
TABLE 1 Autistic children’s information.
Child
Gender
Age
Verbal/non-verbal
Challenges
C-C1
M
12
Verbal
None
C-C2
F
7
Verbal
None
C-C3
M
11
Non-verbal
None
C-C4
M
11
Verbal
None
C-C5
M
9
Verbal
Wheelchair user
C-C6
M
7
Non-verbal
None
C-C7
M
10
Verbal
None
C-C8
M
11
Verbal
None
Center - C
C-C9
M
11
Verbal
None
C-C10
M
10
Verbal
None
S-C11
M
7
Verbal
None
S-C12
M
12
Verbal
ADHD
S-C13
F
9
Verbal
Auditory Loss
S-C14
M
11
Verbal
None
School - S
S-C15
F
8
Verbal
None
S-C16
M
8
Verbal
None
S-C17
M
8
Verbal
None
S-C18
M
11
Verbal
ADHD
Min
7
Max
12
Average
9.61
TABLE 2 Total duration of the interviews.
Role
Number of Interviewees
Total
Average
Teacher
12
6:12:34
0:31:03
Psychologist
4
2:24:26
0:36:07
Occupational therapist
6
2:49:27
0:28:15
Speech and language therapist
6
3:38:00
0:36:20
Physiotherapists
1
0:28:54
0:28:54
Parents
16
5:43:11
0:21:27
Total
45
21:16:32
demographic information about the interviewees and general
information about collaborative play and the use of technology. Then
there were questions about tools and technologies used by the
children, and their collaborative play experiences. Moreover, excluding
the parents, the interviewees were asked about the therapy plans and
the pedagogical strategies they employ with the children.
Appendices A, B in Supplementary material provide demographic
information of specialists and parents, respectively.
sessions manifested in the form of educational classes, a collaborative
gathering, or scheduled breaks. The school sessions were noticeably
different from those at the center shown in Table 3.
Approximately three random sessions per child were selected and
observed. A total of 20 observation sessions conducted at the center
entailed sports, reading, art, music, lunch, and interactive floor
projection sessions. The sport session started with warming up,
followed by different physical activities. The reading session occurred
in the library, where teachers read stories about daily activities.
During the art session, the children sat at a U-shaped table and
painted under the guidance of the teacher. In the music session, a
song was played, followed by guided activities. In the interactive floor
projection session, a variety of games were projected on the ground,
2.4.2 Observation
Following the semi-structured interviews, observation sessions
were conducted at the center and school. The center and the school
were asked to select sessions that involved collaborative play. These
Frontiers in Education
05
frontiersin.org
Hijab et al.
10.3389/feduc.2024.1273757
TABLE 3 Total duration of the observation sessions.
Location
Session
Total recorded duration
Center
07:33:06
Music
00:40:12
Art
01:50:54
Sport
01:05:14
Interactive Floor Projector
00:47:46
Launch
01:55:39
Library
00:31:00
Free Play
00:42:21
School
10:07:03
IPC
1:44:33
Adventure Playground
00:57:32
Sensory Room
00:44:46
Trampoline Room
01:04:37
Break (Snack)
01:15:48
Lunch
02:24:06
PE
00:56:41
Music
00:59:00
and motion sensors detected the children’s movements and allowed
them to interact with the projections. The sessions were video
recorded, yielding a total of 7 h and 33 min that were carefully
analyzed. Table 2 presents the duration of recorded observations for
each session. Medical reasons kept C-C5 away from these sessions.
Toward the end of observing the selected sessions, the researchers
suggested adding two free play sessions to the study. These had not
been considered previously because the suggested classes did not
involve collaborative instances and were guided by mediators. The
free play sessions involved nine children divided into two groups. No
adult guidance was provided as the children were left to do as they
pleased in a room full of different toys. Throughout the study, two
cameras were used during the observation sessions, one was handheld
by one researcher, and one was mounted on a tripod. Two researchers
took notes.
As for the school, a total of 26 observation sessions were conducted.
Similarly, the school was asked to highlight collaborative play sessions
in the curriculum. The classroom was set up with rectangular desks so
children could sit next to each other, which naturally afforded
collaboration. The school recommended that the following sessions to
be observed: Physical Exercise (PE), Trampoline Room, Adventure
Playground, Sensory Room, Music, The International Primary
Curriculum (IPC), Break, and Lunch time. In the PE session children
were learning how to swim together, under the guidance of the coach.
The Trampoline Room session offered children the opportunity to
jump together. Adventure Playground session was a play area that
includes climbing frames and activity towers. During sensory sessions,
children interact with projected images on the floor in rooms equipped
with projectors. Every music session aimed to teach how to play an
instrument and try it out. The IPC sessions start from the early years
of school to enable the children to learn about the world, cultivate
personal qualities, and build an international mindset. Furthermore,
Frontiers in Education
two sessions were observed outside of the pre-scheduled sessions and
were not included in the analysis to better understand how sessions are
conducted in different ways and how children interact with different
sessions. Medical reasons prevented S-C14 from participating in the
observation sessions. The video recordings at the school, which
amounted to 7 h and 7 min, were collected as shown in Table 2.
2.4.3 Data processing and analysis
All the interviews were recorded using two voice recorders and
transcribed manually following the approved instructions (Poland
Blake, 1995; McNulty, 2012) shown in Table 3.
The transcripts were then revised for accuracy before being
uploaded into ATLAS.ti, a software used for qualitative data analysis
(Soratto et al., 2020). For the analysis of interview data, a
comprehensive thematic approach (Braun and Clarke, 2006) was
employed, which resulted in the formation of the 5 W-H model
themes. Researchers immersed themselves in the data, instituted
codes (sub-themes), and developed main themes and sub-themes
through inductive reasoning. Generation of preliminary codes
facilitated categorization of conceptually similar patterns across
multiple datasets (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Weekly meetings were
convened by the authors to continuously refine the coding system,
leading to the consolidation of sub-themes into main themes. The
codebook corresponding to this process is available in Appendix C in
Supplementary material.
Data derived from observation sessions were analyzed using
thematic analysis, resulting in distinct themes, as shown in Table 4.
Videos and notes from these sessions have been uploaded to ATLAS.
ti, and four main themes have guided the analysis: collaborative play,
coordinated activity, potential for collaboration, and collaborative
activity. The videos were diligently coded within these themes,
yielding a comprehensive analysis of what was observed (Table 5).
06
frontiersin.org
Hijab et al.
10.3389/feduc.2024.1273757
TABLE 4 Transcription instructions.
Situation
Instruction
Example
Missing Dialog
…
…And after this we had to give him the toy
Emphasis on a word or sentence
Underline
Child said I want this toy
Emotion (anger, humor, sadness…)
(Emotion)
(Laughing) You know
Shouting
CAPITAL LETTERS IN BOLD
… and the child said I WANT THIS TOY
Empty brackets indicate the inability to hear what
()
We use a tool () it is responsible for transcription
Elapsed time in silence in seconds
(#)
Yeah (2) it is a good question
Left brackets indicate the point at which another’s
[
A: quite a [while
was said
talk overlaps a current speaker’s talk
B: [yeah
TABLE 5 Observation session themes.
Collaborative play
Coordinated activity
Potential for
collaboration play
Collaborative activity
Awareness
Yes
No
No
Yes
Communication
Yes
No
Yes
No
Coordination
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2.4.3.1 Collaborative play
Collaborative Play requires a common aim between the players,
as well as awareness, coordination, and communication (Dillenbourg,
1999; Gutwin and Greenberg, 2002). Awareness encompasses
knowledge of others’ actions within a collaborative setting.
Coordination involves ensuring that activities are carried out in the
correct order, at the appropriate time, and in compliance with the
task’s constraints including division of labor. Communication is also
a significant pillar in collaborative play, as several types of joint
activities demand the concerted effort of two or more individuals
(Gutwin and Greenberg, 2002). While dialog and gestures play a
significant role in collaboration, conversations are the dominant mode
of communication in most groups (Gutwin and Greenberg, 2002).
2.4.3.4 Collaborative activity
Collaborative Activity encompasses the idea of collaboration,
emphasizing the importance of working together towards a common
goal. It involves fostering a sense of awareness among the individuals
involved, while excluding direct communication as a defining factor.
To improve group performance in an activity, it is often highlighted
that awareness of individual and group member activities is an
important aspect (Dourish and Bellotti, 1992). According to (Gaver
et al., 1992), “focused collaboration activity” demands heightened
awareness among users who closely collaborate. However, when labor
is distributed or collaborators do not share a common goal, the need
for mutual awareness becomes less significant. Nevertheless, Gaver
highlights that even in such scenarios, providing minimal awareness
information can enhance the performance of collaborators.
2.4.3.2 Coordinated activity
Instances of Coordinated Activity were coded during analysis
when coordination was the only feature in the recording. Typically,
specialists were coordinating structured activities, aimed at
benefiting autistic children. Their roles encompassed the design and
guidance of interactions to enhance educational experiences and
social growth.
3 Results
3.1 Semi-structured interviews
Interviews were held with 12 teachers, four PS, six OT, six SLT,
and one PT involved in the study. Only 16 parents were interviewed
as two parents, C-P4 and C-P10, were unable to participate due to
personal reasons. Due to the complexity of collaborative play, it was
critical to identify factors impacting its effectiveness. Initial analysis of
interview responses led to the creation of the 5 W-H model to examine
factors influencing collaborative play. Six main themes, shown in
Figure 2, were discerned, addressing the questions of who (actors),
where (location), why (purpose), what (type of technology), which
(senses), and how (process). Figure 2 displays these themes.
2.4.3.3 Potential for collaboration
The Potential for Collaboration theme refers to various individual
or coordinated activities that could be promoted as collaborative play.
If the same activity possibly included collaboration characteristics,
the action was coded as having the potential for collaboration. In
other words, if the children played with a teacher or professional
mediator. Yet, the children appear not to be aware of each other’s
actions as they are only following rules and the guidance of the
mediator who holds their hands while the children have no eye
contact with each other. Such activity was coded as having potential
for collaboration, even if the collaboration did not materialize in the
given context.
Frontiers in Education
3.1.1 Actors (who? – W1)
Actors’ themes answer “who” participated in the collaborative
play. Five sub-themes were explored: family, strangers, players,
07
frontiersin.org
Hijab et al.
10.3389/feduc.2024.1273757
FIGURE 2
5 W-H model for thematic analysis.
mediators, and friends. The school interviews revealed all sub-themes;
however, the center interviews did not reveal family members, friends,
or strangers. Each sub-theme is defined in the code book.
“Players” sub-theme (C-43, S-40 times) comprised children and
participants in the collaborative play activity. The psychologists
discussed a collaborative play held in class that focused on turn-taking
in which the players took turns:
“Family Member” (S-6 times) refers to a group of people united
by ties of marriage, blood, or adoption (Burgess, 1952). S-12 gives an
example of S-C12 playing engages with his sisters:
“When he is in a good mood, he plays with his sisters by engaging
with them.” - S-P12.
“Strangers” (S-3 times) refers to someone who does not have a
close relationship with someone and does not maintain membership
with one another (Harman, 2011). S-P16 discusses a collaborative play
with strangers in a public place held with S-C16:
“…Collaborative activities can happen in the classroom; for example,
you give the child a task to color a part of a picture, and then his
friends complete the same task. Another example is making a string
of beads where children cooperate to make a full string of beads…”
– C-PS4.
“At the moment, he would be fine if he plays with any other kids
around him.” - S-P16.
“Mediators” (C-6, S-11 times) refers to the people facilitating
interaction between children within a group (Smith and Roopnarine,
2018). For example, C-T2 describes his role in a collaborative activity
as follows:
3.1.2 Location (where? – W2)
According to the interviewees, collaborative play occurred in four
main places. “School” was mentioned by interviewees in both the
center and the school. However, home and public space were found
only in center and community space was found only in interviews of
the school. “School” (C-6, S-14 times) was mentioned by the teachers
and therapists. C-PS4 talked about the sessions where the collaborative
play occurred:
“…I guide him by telling him where to place the ball according to its
color, what number he should hold, and where to go …” – C-T2.
The sub-theme “friends” (S-2 times) refers to a person who is
drawn to people of the same age and is drawn to “ones in which people
visited, went out together, discussed shared past times, and
participated in an organization together (Policarpo, 2015). For
example, S-P16 discussed a collaborative activity previously held with
his autistic child S-C16 and his friends.
“… collaborative activities happen in sport session or maybe inside
the classroom …” – C-PS4.
However, “homes” and “public places” were highlighted by the
parents. The home-based (C-2 times) collaborative play took place
with family members either inside the house or in the backyard:
“…He is interested in Pokémon cards, and he is exchanging in with
his friends in school.” - S- P16.
Frontiers in Education
08
frontiersin.org
Hijab et al.
10.3389/feduc.2024.1273757
“…In the backyard, we have three trampolines that the children
jump on, so the children gather jump and laugh…” – C-P2.
manipulation (Caldwell and Woodward, 2012). The therapists and
teachers gave examples of tools used in activities. For instance:
“Public places” (C-3, S-2 times) mainly included the park,
swimming pools and community space too (MacQueen et al., 2001).
The parents discussed taking their children to a public place and
trying to get them engaged in collaborative activities with other
children or with family members:
“If I have a plate and a spoon, we pretend to eat and feed the doll.
We also act as we are drinking from the cup, covering the doll with
a cover if it sleeps, or letting the baby walk or run. All these are
functional aspects...” – C-SLT1.
However, in “digital media” (C-15, S-4 times), Human-Computer
Interaction is usually achieved through computer-aided software or
virtual reality tools. Thus, “digital media” refers to any interaction
mediated by a computing device (Caldwell and Woodward, 2012). The
teachers mentioned the use of iPads and smartboards:
“I’ve put him in a mixed playgroup in support group out of school.
S-C14 goes once a week to a life skills group that is
Neurodiverse...” - S-P14.
3.1.3 Purpose (why? – W3)
“…We use often iPads, we also use interactive whiteboards, so in
which again, they can play the games by turn taking...” - S-T12.
The interviewees explained why the children play collaboratively.
In an educational setting, play is often a means of practicing skills.
Interview analysis produced three skills: social, academic, and daily
living. During the interviews with the center, all skills were noted, but
the “academic skills” sub-theme did not appear in the school. The
“social skills” (C-37, S-18 times) included many skills such as social
initiations, social greetings, conversational rules and social
communication (Gillis and Butler, 2007). Mainly, the teachers and
therapists used collaborative play to enhance turn-taking and the
communication skills of autistic children:
3.1.5 Sense (which? – W5)
This theme has two main sub-themes: “distal” and “proximal”
senses. The “distal senses” included sight (C-5 times) and hearing (C-6
times) (Korsmeyer, 2019) that appeared in both locations. The
therapists and teachers frequently mentioned these two senses.
For example:
“… I use is visual sense the most, because visual communication is
important for them…” – C-SLT2.
“Collaborative play activities teach the children to wait for their
turns and to follow the rules; for example, they teach them to raise
their hands and not to answer without permission…” – C-T6.
Touch, smell, and taste are “proximal senses” (Korsmeyer, 2019).
Teachers and therapists in both locations mainly focused on touch
(C-9, S-2 times), and no interviewee mentioned any collaborative play
activity involving taste or smell. For example, teachers and parents
discussed the usage of tangible and sensory toys during collaborative
play activities:
“Academic skills” (C-14 times) are often part of the educational
curriculum (Jordan, 2013). Teachers use PECS in collaborative play to
enhance the academic skills of autistic children:
“…For example, matching pictures game, where we put the pictures
on a table or the floor, and the child has to match these pictures to
the other pictures placed on the wall. Or we can have a competition
between the children. Or matching colors, where we put colored balls
on the floor and group them according to their colors…” – C-T7.
“…During the sensory story, we give the children tools to interact
with; for example, we give them a rabbit and snake shape to touch
and feel how the rabbit is smooth and the snake is tall…” – C-T1.
3.1.6 Process (how – H)
Lastly, “daily living skills” (C-11, S-2 times), such as toileting and
other personal care activities that are required to support
independence (Bennett and Dukes, 2014). The teachers and therapists
mentioned the use of collaborative play to support the
children’s independence:
This theme highlighted the process of collaboration which
appeared in both locations. It included the “interaction” between the
players, the “challenges” the autistic children face during play, and
the “change in roles.” This role change often happens as an attempt
to address the challenges during collaborative play. While the
children are engaging in collaborative play activity, adults interact
(C-39, S-15 times) by guiding them through instructions that
include encouragement:
“…We teach them if they sneeze to do it in their arm when they
yawn to go like this; we teach them to throw their papers away in
the garbage after lunch…” – S-T11.
“...He engages with his younger sister until he gets fed up with her
because she’s loud, so he tells her to be quiet and walks away. Then
with encouragement, he gets back...” - S-P14.
3.1.4 Type of technology (what? – W4)
According to the literature, technology can be categorized into
“analog” and “digital media.” Both categories appeared in the analysis
of interviews in both locations. “Analog media” (C-102, S-20 times),
encompasses everything uninfluenced by computer-based media and
generally articulates design visualization by freehand or manual
Frontiers in Education
The “challenges” (C-16, S-3 times) that the interviewees
highlighted were related to the initiation and willingness to participate
and interact in play:
09
frontiersin.org
Hijab et al.
10.3389/feduc.2024.1273757
3.2 Observation
“…Their play is random and unstructured… Also, some autistic
children cannot make a specific collaborative activity due to their
skills restriction…” – C-PS3.
Observation sessions targeted children’s collaborative play,
to understand their social interactions and pinpoint any needed
support. These observations offer crucial insights into social
development and collaboration, informing the study’s potential
applications and implications. The observations were reported
separately for the center and school to represent session
diversity. During the observation sessions, C-C5 and S-C14
were absent due to medical reasons. Figures 3, 4 illustrate the
theme distribution for the center and school, respectively. The
The “change in role” (C-5, S-6 times) occurred when the teacher,
as a mediator, played with the child and constructed a collaborative
play environment:
“For example, they had to share the boat where they sat. I’m the
treasurer, or they say I am the sea Monster, and they take
turns.” - S-T13.
FIGURE 3
Distribution of the themes for the observation sessions in center.
FIGURE 4
Distribution of the themes for the observation sessions in school.
Frontiers in Education
10
frontiersin.org
Hijab et al.
10.3389/feduc.2024.1273757
figures display the proportion of time each theme was present
in the total observed duration of the session.
the task. During basketball and ball-collecting activities, the children
followed the teacher’s instructions. The interactive floor projection
sessions recorded had the lowest percentage (14%) of coordinated
activities. The activities projected onto the floor were mainly
conducted individually rather than collaboratively. Still, there were a
few instances where the teacher encouraged several children to join
and coordinate in an activity, such as the bubble popper game.
Ten hours were captured in total in the school, out of which only
(0.08%) corresponded to Coordinated Activity. Across all videos
categorized as Coordinated Activity, an average of two children per
teacher were observed. Notably, as per Figure 4, Coordinated Activity
occurred exclusively during IPC sessions, with a rate of occurrence of
0.45%. During these sessions, the teacher directed the students to hold
hands and dance together, resulting in a high degree of coordination
between the children as they moved in unison with the music.
3.2.1 Collaborative play
Collaborative Play occurs when awareness, coordination, and
communication are present. At the center, no instances of collaborative
play were observed; however, Collaborative Play was witnessed in the
school during trampoline, break, and lunch sessions. In the
Trampoline session (2.61%), S-C17 watched her peer jump around in
circles with her on the trampoline, and they coordinated and followed
each other’s rhythms. She seemed to be aware of the child on the
trampoline, as they both were running around in circles. In addition,
they were both not jumping, but when S- C17 started bouncing, the
other child also started jumping, and when one of them fell, the other
stopped jumping and fell as well, so here it shows that they are aware.
Finally, S- C17 continues to jump while making eye contact with
another child. During the break (1.32%), S- C16 and his friends were
laughing and playing as he attempted to pour juice into their mouths
without them touching the straw as a challenge play where they
laughed and collaborated to reach this goal. The Collaborative Play
occurred in lunch sessions (1.62%) when S- C16 exchanged and
discussed Pokémon cards with his friend, played in the football area
after that, and embraced and cheered whenever a goal was scored.
3.2.3 Potential for collaboration
After the planned 20 observation sessions at the center, the
researchers proposed two additional sessions called free play. These
sessions were outside of scheduled activities. Two such sessions were
carried out, wherein the 10 autistic children involved in the study were
divided into two equal groups and observed in a familiar room with
diverse toys they could interact with, without adult guidance. Each
session lasted 30 min and was held in a large room within the center,
including a ball pit, multisensory box, trampoline, puzzles, sensory
toys, slide, and big bouncing balls. Three staff members, an SLT, OT,
and the head of the speech and language department, were present to
ensure the children’s safety, but did not interfere with their play
activities. Potential for Collaboration refers to the recordings where
awareness seems to be missing with the presence of coordination and
communication. Among the recordings, 13.1% showed collaboration
potential at the center. C-C3 throws the ball to C-C9, but no response
is observed from C-C9, leading C-C3 to walk away. It is essential to
mention that C-C8 stood for 30 min without interacting with any toy
or other children. The multisensory box caught the attention of
multiple children, who approached it simultaneously but played
separately, each on a different task on the box.
At the school, the Potential for Collaboration was observed
(17.49%) in the Adventure Playground (7.04%), Sensory Room
(9.72%), Trampoline (0.07%), and Lunch (0.06%) sessions. In the
Adventure Playground, S-C13 displayed interest and communicated
by looking at her friend and She imitated her movements while sitting
in the backseat of a toy car with another child, but the friend was
unaware of her. Children in the same area attempted to engage
S-C11 in play with toy bricks but were ignored, and S-C11 did not
interact with them. A child tried to approach S-C11, but he became
afraid and ran away. Another child asked S-C11 to play, but he did
not respond.
3.2.2 Coordinated activity
The instances classified as coordinated activities in the videos
indicate that children were having coordination with each other only
in the absence of awareness and communication. At the center, only
14% of the total observed time was coded under coordinated activity.
There was no coordinated activity during lunch and reading sessions
as presented in Figure 3. During the lunch session, the children were
seated individually to have their meals, and there was no socialization
or interaction between the peers. Similarly, during the reading
sessions, the children sat quietly and only listened to the teacher, read
aloud, or watched a story on the projector. At the center, out of the
total recordings made over 7 h and 33 min, 14% were identified as
coordinated activities. These activities were typically characterized by
a teacher or mediator structuring a class activity for the students to
follow, with an average ratio of two children per teacher. During the
music session, specific rhythms were played by the teacher, and the
children were instructed to follow the rhythm by shaking a musical
instrument, namely the maracas. In addition, the children were
observed holding hands and stepping on music pads, with three
children participating in this activity for 17.1% of the entire music
recording sessions. In the art session, the objective was for the children
to work collaboratively on a painting, with each child assigned a turn
by the teacher, who would call out their names and give them the
paintbrush and colors. The turn-taking and painting activity was
recorded to have lasted for 24.3% of the total observed art sessions.
Sport sessions had the highest proportion of coordinated activities,
accounting for 35.1%. In these sessions, the teachers divide the
children into groups to participate in competitive activities using balls
and connect 4 games. Connect 4 is a classic strategy game in which
two opponents compete to line up four disks of their respective color.
As players drop the disks into the grid, they stack them vertically,
horizontally, or diagonally (Nasa et al., 2018). It appeared that the
children were unaware of the purpose and competition element of
the connect 4 game, but they coordinated with the teacher to complete
Frontiers in Education
3.2.4 Collaborative activity
The absence of Collaborative Activity was noted at the center, but
in contrast, the school exhibited 7.49% of Collaborative Activity.
During the Collaborative Activity, the teacher guided the students to
interact and collaborate in a learning-oriented manner. For example,
during an IPC session, the teacher instructed the students to take
turns sitting in a pirate ship to find and share treasures with their
peers. During another IPC session, S-C16 and his friend worked
together to create a newsletter. They collaborated by copying the name
11
frontiersin.org
Hijab et al.
10.3389/feduc.2024.1273757
of their school from his friend’s shirt and including it in the newsletter
report. In another music session, the teacher instructed the children
in the music session to sit next to each other and follow the notes she
played on the xylophone. In the PE session, the teacher assigned an
activity involving the baton to facilitate collaborative play, and S-C16
and his group of four friends worked together to achieve the goal of
passing the baton to each other while expressing joy and camaraderie.
Overall, the results suggest that Collaborative Activity is feasible in a
school setting, mainly when facilitated by a teacher who can guide and
support the students’ interactions.
The presence of free play sessions, such as a playground and
trampoline, allows children to engage in physical activities and
interact with their peers in a relaxed and enjoyable setting. As a result,
with appropriate preparation and support, autistic children can
effectively participate in collaborative play. Moreover, the insights
gleaned from the observations underscore the significant role played
by an encouraging, inclusive environment in fostering collaborative
play in autistic children. Therefore, to stimulate the evolution of
collaborative play skills in autistic children within an educational
context, it is strongly suggested that a comprehensive definition and a
uniform set of characteristics for collaborative play be formulated.
In the realm of child development, peer play has been recognized
as a pivotal element in cultivating communicative competencies
(Chapin et al., 2018) and in establishing substantive social relationship
and friendships (Wolfberg et al., 2015). Nevertheless, there has been a
deeper discussion concerning the role of play and peer play within the
context of inclusive education (Pyle and Alaca, 2018; Zosh et al.,
2018). The domain of play extends across a wide spectrum,
encapsulating facets such as free play, guided play, games, and playful
instruction such a diversified approach to play is particularly relevant
for autistic children, considering their distinctive play behaviors and
necessities. Notably, during interviews, one teacher posited the
concept of creating an environment for autistic children, that would
facilitate daily interactions with their peers and address real-world
challenges. The teacher contended that this model could enhance the
social and communication skills of autistic children, subsequently
amplifying their collaborative play. The development of peer play
holds potential in enhancing collaboration both among autistic
children and between them and their neurotypical peers. However,
while the value of peer play remains unquestioned in child
development, its nuances and application in inclusive settings,
especially for autistic children, necessitate further attention
and understanding.
4 Discussion
This study investigated collaborative play among autistic children
in two educational settings, a center for children with disabilities and
an inclusive school, evaluating the current application, practices, and
challenges in collaborative play. A total of 45 semi-structured
interviews, leading to the 5 W-H model themes: Actors (Who?),
Location (Where?), Purpose (Why?), Type of Technology (What?),
Senses (Which?), and Process (How?), were conducted. Additionally,
48 observation sessions with 18 autistic children revealed four themes:
Collaborative Play, Coordinated Activity, Potential for Collaboration,
and Collaborative Activity. These findings expose discrepancies
between reported and actual play behaviors, forming the basis for
subsequent discussions that will provide a deeper understanding and
yield recommendations to enhance collaborative play among autistic
children in educational setting.
4.1 Concept of collaboration
The term “collaboration” has been elusive to define; however, and
mentioned above, “collaborative play” is generally understood as a
type of play in which two or more individuals participate in a shared
space while working toward a common goal or purpose (Voida et al.,
2010). Existing literature has suggested that collaborative play is
associated with developing crucial skills, including social and
communication, problem-solving, negotiation, cooperation, shared
decision-making, and social interactions (Wenger et al., 2021).
Nevertheless, autistic children often face challenges with social
interactions, including collaborative play (Weitlauf et al., 2014).
During the interviews in the school and the center, it became clear that
participants employed the term “collaborative play” to denote
activities involving the participation of multiple children who share a
common objective. This practice in line with the definition of play
found previously in the literature (Weisberg et al., 2013; Smith and
Roopnarine, 2018). The results obtained from the observation sessions
in the center showed that there is an inconsistency between social and
collaborative play. Coordinated activities were mainly observed with
clear guidance from adults toward the play. Complete guidance seems
to affect children’s awareness of having a partner to play with and
following the adults’ directions. According to the findings, the center’s
VB-Mapp program emphasizes social play rather than collaborative
play. Observations in the school setting suggest that providing an
appropriate environment, such as a playground and trampoline, and
effective human factors that promote collaborative play can increase
the probability for collaboration to happen among autistic children.
Frontiers in Education
4.2 Self-initiated play
Self-initiation is crucial for autistic children since it can enhance
their social skills and peer relationships (Strain and Shores, 1977).
However, autistic children may frequently face difficulty beginning
play and social interactions (Ke and Im, 2013). Allowing autistic
children to play with toys of their choice might enhance their ability
to participate in collaborative play (Marti et al., 2009). Throughout the
interviews conducted at the center, parents and therapists consistently
emphasized that autistic children generally do not initiate collaborative
play or play by themselves, which can affect their social development.
It was observed that the flow of the session and the selection of a
particular toy were currently determined by the teacher and therapists,
resulting in the absence of children’s initiation. For instance, during a
free play session at the center, one child initiated the play with others,
but the play did not reach collaboration due to the lack of responses.
In the school, the opportunities for collaborative play among
autistic children were more likely to occur during sensory sessions.
There were some indications of potential collaborative play when a
child approached his peer but were ignored for unclear reasons. It
appeared the school was utilizing several strategies to encourage
autistic children’s social interaction and play, as evidenced by the
teachers’ efforts to facilitate play and promote independence. Hence,
12
frontiersin.org
Hijab et al.
10.3389/feduc.2024.1273757
the environment can promote self-initiated play since out-ofclassroom activities can improve social skills (Escobedo et al., 2012).,
preparing a conducive environment for autistic children by including
free play sessions in their regular schedule and supporting them more
in choosing their toys during sessions could enhance their selfinitiated play.
In diverse human cultures, it is commonly observed that children
have an inherent inclination to engage in play under normal
circumstances (Hyder, 2005). This study, however, focuses specifically
on the dynamics of play among autistic children, examining these
behaviors in the contrasting environments of a school and a center for
children with disabilities. In the school setting, more opportunities
were noted for collaborative play, especially during sensory sessions.
Instances were observed where a child would approach a peer for
potential collaborative play, though these attempts were occasionally
not reciprocated for reasons that were not immediately apparent. The
school appeared to actively employ strategies to encourage social
interaction and play among autistic children. Teachers played a crucial
role in this context, facilitating play and promoting independence,
thereby creating an environment conducive to self-initiated play,
which is known to enhance social skills (Escobedo et al., 2012). The
analysis highlighted a clear connection between play and broader
developmental outcomes, supporting the concept that play allows
children to learn about their community, explore their inner selves,
engage in abstract thinking, and develop communication skills (Yoon
and Lee, 2010). Therefore, findings of this study indicate that creating
a supportive environment for autistic children—including integrating
free play sessions into their regular schedule and supporting their
autonomy in choosing toys—can significantly improve their
engagement in self-initiated play.
As this study analysis delved deeper into the practices of these two
settings, the differences became more pronounced. Children who
began their education early in the inclusive school were immersed in
a curriculum that not only emphasized play as a crucial element for
developing peer relationships but also as a tool for enhancing
socialization skills. The inclusive atmosphere of the school was evident
in its classroom dynamics and strategic seating arrangements, which
facilitated a collaborative learning atmosphere. On the contrary, the
center exhibited a lack of structured play interventions, resulting in a
noticeable deficiency in peer collaboration. The disparities were
further highlighted during break times. In the school setting, children
actively engaged in outdoor activities and social interactions,
including during lunch and break experiences that fostered a sense of
friendship. In contrast, the center adopted a more isolated approach,
with children seated separately during lunch, which impeded
opportunities for social interaction and cooperative play. Therefore,
this study emphasizes the critical importance of early intervention and
inclusive practices in educational settings. Although the limitations of
this study were acknowledged and the possible influence of other
factors, the findings offer valuable insights into the fundamental role
of play in the social development of autistic children.
incidence of collaborative play among children in the school setting
compared to those in the center. This observation is in line with
existing research that underscores the significance of structured play
in early childhood education (Seach, 2007). Theodorou and Nind
(2010) further advocate for the role of teachers in leveraging play as a
vital tool for communication and education to foster inclusivity.
Guided play can help children to play while receiving adult
guidance in a structured environment, allowing them to develop their
social, physical, and cognitive skills through exploration (Weisberg
et al., 2016). While many studies have examined collaborative play for
autistic children with the help of a mediator, Theodorou and Nind
(2010) found that a mediator providing minimal guidance can
encourage autistic children to initiate collaborative play. Additionally,
autistic children tend to be more comfortable and collaborative in
familiar environments (Bontinck et al., 2018). Across sessions, it was
observed that children often seek guidance from adults during their
play. Therefore, collaborative play can be facilitated through guided
play, familiar environments, and social support. Building upon this,
the profound influence of adult guidance on children’s play becomes
evident, particularly when delivered with careful consideration.
Engaging in play under thoughtful adult supervision not only enriches
the social interactions within the activity but also imparts a positive
impact on the cognitive development of children, as emphasized by
Ward (1994).
This is exemplified in a school setting where effective teaching
methods are employed. When a teacher adeptly explains an activity,
breaking it down into manageable steps, the children not only
comprehend the instructions but also demonstrate a remarkable
ability to replicate the teacher’s actions. This instructional approach
cultivates a harmonious rhythm among the children, fostering
seamless coordination and collaboration. In essence, the symbiotic
relationship between well-structured adult guidance and children’s
play not only enhances the enjoyment of the activity but also
contributes significantly to the overall development of collaborative
and social skills. At the school, a tailored curriculum and designated
classes ensure that each child receives a personalized learning
experience and behavioral support. This approach, advocated by
Ward, emphasizes the importance of placing children in environments
where they can be seen, understood, and encouraged to reach their
maximum potential. In the realm of children’s play, daycare providers
and adults involved in children’s activities must recognize the nuanced
impact of various factors, including time, location, experiences, and
materials, on the outcomes of play. This understanding, as highlighted
by Ward (1994), becomes a crucial perspective for policymakers and
educators when considering the implementation of collaborative play
activities in educational settings.
Interviewees showed the pivotal role of mediators in preparing
children, especially those facing social challenges such as autistic
children, for collaboration with peers and family. Teachers and
therapists echoed this sentiment, acknowledging the need for
mediators to guide autistic children through activities. For instance,
at the center, teachers provided guidance during sports sessions for
autistic children, facilitating their engagement in activities like
handling disks, running to designated areas, and placing disks. Mundy
et al. (1986) have illuminated the challenges faced by autistic children
in joint-attention skills, reinforcing the importance of supportive
environments. Collocated mediated collaborative scenarios,
highlighted as an optimal strategy, demonstrate substantial benefits
4.3 Role of mediator
This study broadens the range of investigation to encompass not
only individual interactions but also the wider contexts of the school
and the center. The observations and collected data suggest a higher
Frontiers in Education
13
frontiersin.org
Hijab et al.
10.3389/feduc.2024.1273757
for individuals, particularly autistic children, in developing social
skills. These scenarios foster behaviors like assistance-seeking, turntaking, and knowledge sharing, addressing social communication
challenges (Crowell et al., 2019). This approach underscores the
inherent link between collaboration and social communication,
offering an effective avenue for enhancing social skills and promoting
initiatives in joint attention and communication.
peer groups and culture are important aspects to consider for
classroom dynamics and socialization (Wolfberg et al., 2015).
Cultural and socio-economical conditionings need to be considered,
as the study discussed pertain to circumstances of specific Qatari
educational environments.
This study is part of a more encompassing project addressing the
co-design of a collaborative play tool for autistic children (Hijab and
Al-Thani, 2022). While this paper only discusses collaborative play,
inclusive play is yet another important area that will be investigated in
the future, given the distinct difference between collaboration among
autistic children and that between them and their neurotypical peers.
Future studies could also investigate the interaction between autistic
children, the tools used in coordinated activities, and their potential
for collaboration.
4.4 Awareness in collaborative play
The importance of awareness in collaboration is highlighted by
Endsley (1995) assertion. However, the study reveals a notable lack of
awareness among autistic children when it comes to collaborative play
or activities, even with guidance and rules in place. This lack of
awareness is not uniform, as demonstrated by varying behaviors
observed in different sessions. For example, during sports sessions,
some children did not comprehend the purpose of the activity or the
presence of others, while in IPC and music sessions, some showed
interest and awareness, recognizing their name during play. Contrary
to the assumption that autistic children always need guidance, the
study suggests that fostering interest and awareness in play can
contribute to developing collaborative skills.
To support these observations, Battocchi et al. (2009) detail the
Collaborative Puzzle Game (CPG), a tabletop interactive activity
designed to promote collaboration among autistic children. The
game’s design, featuring digital pieces requiring simultaneous touch
and drag actions by two players, addresses the coordination needs
observed in autistic children during collaborative activities. The
positive impact of the Collaborative Puzzle Game on fostering
collaboration is evident in their findings, indicating that players need
to be consciously aware of the necessity for collaboration. This
awareness is vital for cooperative actions, as both participants must
press the button for collaborative actions to occur. Hence, the study
highlights the pivotal role of fostering awareness among autistic
children in developing their collaboration skills. Strategies such as
encouraging interest, stimulating awareness, and informing children
about ongoing collaboration during play are recommended for
enhancing their collaboration skills. Additionally, pairing children
with similar interests or self-directed tendencies can further encourage
awareness during collaborative play.
5 Conclusion
This study underscores the significance and complexities of
collaborative play among autistic children within two educational
environments, including a center for children with disabilities and an
inclusive school. The research brings to light the essential role of the
environmental setting, mediator guidance, and individual child’s
awareness in fostering successful collaborative play. Results showed
that within the two educational settings, collaborative play was used
mainly for educational purposes to reach an educational objective.
Furthermore, the concept of self-initiated play was emphasized,
suggesting that fostering autonomy in choosing play activities could
potentially enhance collaborative play among autistic children.
However, the study revealed a common lack of awareness among the
children regarding the collaborative nature of their play, indicating a
need for explicit instruction and encouragement to foster this
understanding. Despite the enlightening findings, the research
acknowledges the need for a more diverse observational environment
and the consideration of socio-cultural factors. As part of a larger
project designing a collaborative play tool for autistic children, future
directions include investigating the dynamic interaction between the
children and the tools used in coordinated activities, with an
emphasis on enhancing collaboration. This study contributes
significantly to the ongoing conversation about fostering essential
social and communication skills in autistic children, a cornerstone of
their holistic development.
4.5 Limitation and future work
Data availability statement
Although the present study provided valuable insights into the
current practices of collaborative play among autistic children, it is
still subject to several limitations. First, the observation sessions were
only held in the center and at the school during regular schedules
and settings. Thus, observing autistic children at their homes, or
social gathering spaces, such as parks, could lead to different results
since children may act more freely and spontaneously with their
families and friends, than with teachers and therapists. Secondly,
during the free play sessions in the center, some of the autistic
children were unfamiliar with the other participants, something
which suggests a lack of regularity in shared spaces and activities.
Thus, having a more coherent group of autistic children who meet
regularly and know each other could lead to a different result. Lastly,
Frontiers in Education
The original contributions presented in the study are included in
the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed
to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Research Board
of the Qatar Biomedical Research Institute. The studies were
conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional
requirements. Written informed consent for participation in this study
was provided by the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin. Written
14
frontiersin.org
Hijab et al.
10.3389/feduc.2024.1273757
informed consent was obtained from the individual(s), and minor(s)’
legal guardian/next of kin, for the publication of any potentially
identifiable images or data included in this article.
supported by the NPRP grant # NPRP13S-0108-200027 from the
Qatar National Research Fund (a member of Qatar Foundation).
Conflict of interest
Author contributions
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
MHFH: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing. SK: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing. NaA: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing. JN: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review &
editing. MQ: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review
& editing. AO: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review &
editing. NoA: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review &
editing. DA-T: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration,
Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations,
or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product
that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its
manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
Funding
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online
at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2024.1273757/
full#supplementary-material
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was
References
Alshaban, F., Aldosari, M., Al-Shammari, H., El-Hag, S., Ghazal, I., Tolefat, M., et al.
(2019). Prevalence and correlates of autism Spectrum disorder in Qatar: a National
Study. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 60, 1254–1268. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13066
Carroll, L. S. L. (2017). A comprehensive definition of technology from an ethological
perspective. Soc. Sci. 6:126. doi: 10.3390/socsci6040126
Carter, E. W., Sisco, L. G., Chung, Y.-C., and Stanton-Chapman, T. L. (2010). Peer
interactions of students with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: a map of the
intervention literature. Res. Pract. Pers. Severe Disabil. 35, 63–79. doi: 10.2511/
rpsd.35.3-4.63
Battocchi, A., Pianesi, F., Tomasini, D., Zancanaro, M., Esposito, G., Venuti, P., et al.
(2009). “Collaborative puzzle game: a tabletop interactive game for fostering
collaboration in children with autism Spectrum disorders (ASD).” In Proceedings of the
ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces. ITS 09. New
York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.
Chamberlain, B., Kasari, C., and Rotheram-Fuller, E. (2007). Involvement or isolation?
The social networks of children with autism in regular classrooms. J. Autism Dev. Disord.
37, 230–242. doi: 10.1007/s10803-006-0164-4
Bennett, K. D., and Dukes, C. (2014). A systematic review of teaching daily living skills
to adolescents and adults with autism Spectrum disorder. Rev. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 1,
2–10. doi: 10.1007/s40489-013-0004-3
Chapin, S., McNaughton, D., Boyle, S., and Babb, S. (2018). Effects of peer support
interventions on the communication of preschoolers with autism Spectrum disorder: a
systematic review. Semin. Speech Lang. 39, 443–457. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1670670
Besio, S. (2018). “What is play?” in guidelines for supporting children with disabilities’
play, 1–12. De Gruyter Open. doi: 10.1515/9783110613445-005
Clarke, V., and Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. J. Posit. Psychol. 12, 297–298. doi:
10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
Besio, S., and Carnesecchi, M. (2014). The challenge of a research network on play for
children with disabilities. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 146, 9–14. doi: 10.1016/j.
sbspro.2014.08.079
Conn, C. (2015). ‘Sensory highs’, ‘vivid Rememberings’ and ‘interactive stimming’:
Children’s play cultures and experiences of friendship in autistic autobiographies.
Disabil. Soc. 30, 1192–1206. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2015.1081094
Bodrova, E., and Leong, D. J. (2015). Vygotskian and post-Vygotskian views on
Children’s play. Am. J. Play 7, 371–388.
Crowell, C., Mora-Guiard, J., and Pares, N. (2019). Structuring collaboration: multiuser full-body interaction environments for children with autism Spectrum disorder.
Res. Autism Spectr. Disord. 58, 96–110. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2018.11.003
Bontinck, C., Warreyn, P., Van der Paelt, S., Demurie, E., and Roeyers, H. (2018). The early
development of infant siblings of children with autism Spectrum disorder: characteristics
of sibling interactions. PLoS One 13:e0193367. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193367
Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in Psychology. Qual. Res.
Psychol. 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5™, 5th Ed. (2013).
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5™, 5th Ed. Arlington, VA,
US: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.
Brey, P. (2009). Social constructivism for philosophers of technology: a Shopper’s
guide. Res. Philos. Technol. 2:98.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). “What do you mean by collaborative learning?” in
Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (Oxford: Elsevier)
Brown, S. L. (2009). Play: how it shapes the brain, opens the imagination, and
invigorates the soul. Avery.
Dourish, Paul, and Bellotti, Victoria. (1992). “Awareness and coordination in shared
workspaces.” In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported
Cooperative Work – CSCW’92, Toronto, Ontario, Canada: ACM Press.
Burgess, E. W. (1952). Family living in the later decades. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.
279, 106–114. doi: 10.1177/000271625227900115
Druin, A., Bederson, B., Boltman, A., Miura, A., Knotts-Callahan, D., and Platt, M.
(1998). “Children as our technology design partners.” The Design of
Children’s technology.
Bury, S. M., Jellett, R., Spoor, J. R., and Hedley, D. (2020). ‘It defines who I am’ or ‘It’s
something I have’: what language do [autistic] Australian adults [on the autism
Spectrum] prefer? J. Autism Dev. Disord. 53, 677–687. doi: 10.1007/s10803-020-04425-3
Dunn, D. S., and Andrews, E. E. (2015). Person-first and identity-first language:
developing psychologists’ cultural competence using disability language. Am. Psychol.
70, 255–264. doi: 10.1037/a0038636
Caillois, R. (2001). Man, play, and games. University of Illinois Press.
Caldwell, G. A., and Woodward, S. (2012). First year design ‘visualisation II’: the
hybridisation of analogue and digital tools. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 51, 989–994. doi:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.275
Frontiers in Education
Dwyer, P. (2022). The neurodiversity approach(Es): what are they and what do they
mean for researchers? Hum. Dev. 66, 73–92. doi: 10.1159/000523723
15
frontiersin.org
Hijab et al.
10.3389/feduc.2024.1273757
Elkonin, D. B. (2005). The psychology of play. J. Russ. East Euro. Psychol. 43, 11–21.
doi: 10.1080/10610405.2005.11059245
minimising barriers, and optimising the person–environment fit. Lancet Neurol. 19,
434–451. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30034-X
Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems.
Human Fact. J. Human Fact. Ergon. Soc. 37, 32–64. doi: 10.1518/001872095779049543
Lai, N. K., Ang, T. F., Por, L. Y., and Liew, C. S. (2018). The impact of play on child
development - a literature review. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 26, 625–643. doi:
10.1080/1350293X.2018.1522479
Escobedo, Lizbeth, Nguyen, David H., Boyd, LouAnne, Hirano, Sen, Rangel,
Alejandro, Garcia-Rosas, Daniel, et al. (2012). “MOSOCO: a Mobile assistive tool to
support children with autism practicing social skills in real-life situations.” In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
Austin Texas USA: ACM. 2589–2598.
Lindsay, S., Proulx, M., Thomson, N., and Scott, H. (2013). Educators’ challenges of
including children with autism Spectrum disorder in mainstream classrooms. Int. J.
Disabil. Dev. Educ. 60, 347–362. doi: 10.1080/1034912X.2013.846470
Linimayr, J., Lindahl-Jacobsen, L., and Farias, L. (2023). Teachers’ perceptions of
barriers and facilitators to peer play between children with autism spectrum disorder
and typically developing peers in early childhood education: a research circle study in
Austria. Int. J. Dev. Disabil. 1–9. doi: 10.1080/20473869.2023.2230410
Gaver, William, Moran, Thomas, MacLean, Allan, Lövstrand, Lennart, Dourish,
Paul, Carter, Kathleen, et al. (1992). “Realizing a video environment: EuroPARC’s
RAVE system.” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, 27–35. CHI ‘92. New York, NY, USA: Association for
Computing Machinery.
Mabagala, S., and Mabagala, D. L. (2007). The importance of play during childhood:
the lesson for care givers, parents and pre-schools in Tanzania. Huria – J. Open Univ.
Tanzania 11, 111–126.
Gibson, J., Hussain, J., Holsgrove, S., Adams, C., and Green, J. (2011). Quantifying
peer interactions for research and clinical use: the Manchester inventory for playground
observation. Res. Dev. Disabil. 32, 2458–2466. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.07.014
MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Metzger, D. S., Kegeles, S., Strauss, R. P., Scotti, R.,
et al. (2001). What is community? An evidence-based definition for participatory public
health. Am. J. Public Health 91, 1929–1938. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.91.12.1929
Gillespie-Lynch, K., Kapp, S. K., Brooks, P. J., Pickens, J., and Schwartzman, B. (2017).
Whose expertise is it? Evidence for autistic adults as critical autism experts. Front.
Psychol. 8:e00438. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00438
Maenner, M. J., Shaw, K. A., Bakian, A. V., Bilder, D. A., Durkin, M. S., Esler, A., et al.
(2021). Prevalence and characteristics of autism Spectrum disorder among children aged 8
years — autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States,
2018. MMWR Surveill. Summ. 70, 1–16. doi: 10.15585/MMWR.SS7011A1
Gillis, J. M., and Butler, R. C. (2007). Social skills interventions for preschoolers with
autism Spectrum disorder: a description of single-subject design studies. J. Early Intens.
Behav. Intervent. 4, 532–547. doi: 10.1037/h0100390
Marti, Patrizia, Pollini, Alessandro, Rullo, Alessia, Giusti, Leonardo, and Grönvall,
Erik. (2009). “Creative interactive play for disabled children.” In Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 313–316. New York, NY,
USA: ACM.
González-Sala, F., Gómez-Marí, I., Tárraga-Mínguez, R., Vicente-Carvajal, A., and
Pastor-Cerezuela, G. (2021). Symbolic play among children with autism Spectrum
disorder: a scoping review. Children 8:801. doi: 10.3390/children8090801
Gray, P. (2017). What exactly is play, and why is it such a powerful vehicle for learning?
Top. Lang. Disord. 37, 217–228. doi: 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000130
Marwick, H., Jarvie, K., Cowie, H., Johnston, L., Hammond-Evans, N., and
Cockayne, R. (2022). Developing pretend play in autistic children using the Playboxes
joint play approach as part of ongoing practice. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 52, 3050–3060.
doi: 10.1007/s10803-021-05156-9
Gutwin, C., and Greenberg, S. (2002). A descriptive framework of workspace
awareness for real-time groupware. Comp. Support. Cooperat. Work 11, 411–446. doi:
10.1023/A:1021271517844
McNulty, E. A. (2012). Transcription and analysis of qualitative data in a study of
women who sexually offended against children. Qual. Rep. 17, 1–18. doi:
10.46743/2160-3715/2012.1706
Hall, L., Paracha, S., Flint, T., MacFarlane, K., Stewart, F., Hagan-Green, G., et al.
(2022). Still looking for new ways to play and learn\ldots expert perspectives and
expectations for interactive toys. Int. J. Child-Comp. Interact. 31:100361. doi: 10.1016/j.
ijcci.2021.100361
Møller, S. J. (2015). Imagination and creativity in children’s play with different toys.
Am. J. Play 7, 322–346.
Harman, L. D. (2011). “The modern stranger: on language and membership” in The
Modern Stranger (Beijing: De Gruyter Mouton)
Mundy, P., Sigman, M., Ungerer, J., and Sherman, T. (1986). Defining the social deficits
of autism: the contribution of non-verbal communication measures. J. Child Psychol.
Psychiatry 27, 657–669. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1986.tb00190.x
Hijab, M. H., and Al-Thani, D. (2022). “En route to co-designing inclusive play with
and for autistic children.” In 2022 9th International Conference on Behavioural and
Social Computing (BESC), IEEE, 1–4.
Nasa, R., Didwania, R., Maji, S., and Kumar, V. (2018). Alpha-Beta pruning in Minimax algorithm –an optimized approach for a connect-4 game. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol.
5, 1637–1641.
Hijab, M. H. F., Banire, B., and Al-Thani, D. (2022). “Multisensory collaborative play:
online resources for parents of children with autism Spectrum disorder” in HCI in
games. ed. X. Fang (Gothenburg, Sweden: Springer, Cham)
Nonnis, Antonella, and Bryan-Kinns, Nick. (2019). “Mazi: a tangible toy for
collaborative play between children with autism.” Proceedings of the 18th ACM
International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, IDC 2019, 672–675.
Holtzblatt, K., and Beyer, H. (1997). Contextual design: defining customer-centered
systems. Elsevier.
Nonnis, A., and Bryan-Kinns, N. (2021). Olly: a tangible for togetherness. Int. J. Hum.Comput. Stud. 153:102647. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102647
Humphrey, N., and Symes, W. (2013). Inclusive education for pupils with autistic
Spectrum disorders in secondary mainstream schools: teacher attitudes, experience and
knowledge. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 17, 32–46. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2011.580462
O’Keeffe, C., and McNally, S. (2023). A systematic review of play-based interventions
targeting the social communication skills of children with autism Spectrum disorder in
educational contexts. Rev. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 10, 51–81. doi: 10.1007/
s40489-021-00286-3
Hyder, Tina. (2005). War, conflict and play. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Jordan, R. (2013). “Academic skills” in Encyclopedia of autism Spectrum disorders. ed.
F. R. Volkmar (New York, NY: Springer New York)
Piaget, J. (2013). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. Routledge. Vol. 25.
Poland Blake, D. (1995). Transcription quality as an aspect of rigor in qualitative
research. Qual. Inq. 1, 290–310. doi: 10.1177/107780049500100302
Ke, F., and Im, T. (2013). Virtual-reality-based social interaction training for
children with high-functioning autism. J. Educ. Res. 106, 441–461. doi:
10.1080/00220671.2013.832999
Policarpo, V. (2015). What is a friend? An exploratory typology of the meanings of
friendship. Soc. Sci. 4, 171–191. doi: 10.3390/socsci4010171
Kenny, L., Hattersley, C., Molins, B., Buckley, C., Povey, C., and Pellicano, E. (2016).
Which terms should be used to describe autism? Perspectives from the UK autism
community. Autism 20, 442–462. doi: 10.1177/1362361315588200
Polivanova, K. N. (2015). The Psychology of age-related crises. J. Russ. East Euro.
Psychol. 52, 14–30. doi: 10.1080/10610405.2015.1064734
Khowaja, K., Banire, B., Al-Thani, D., Sqalli, M. T., Aqle, A., Shah, A., et al. (2020).
Augmented reality for learning of children and adolescents with autism Spectrum
disorder (ASD): a systematic review. IEEE Access 8, 78779–78807. doi: 10.1109/
ACCESS.2020.2986608
Pyle, A., and Alaca, B. (2018). Kindergarten Children’s perspectives on play and
learning. Early Child Dev. Care 188, 1063–1075. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2016.1245190
Rotheram-Fuller, E., Kasari, C., Chamberlain, B., and Locke, J. (2010). Social involvement
of children with autism Spectrum disorders in elementary school classrooms. J. Child
Psychol. Psychiatry 51, 1227–1234. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02289.x
Klein, M. D., and Zimbleman, C. (1990). “Pre-scissor skills: skill starters for motor
development,” in Communication Skill Builders.
Ruckenstein, M. (1991). Homo ludens: a study of the play element in culture. leisure
ethic. 237.
Korsmeyer, C. (2019). A tour of the senses. Br. J. Aesthet. 59, 357–371. doi: 10.1093/
aesthj/ayz026
Sanders, E. B.-N., and Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of
design. CoDesign 4, 5–18. doi: 10.1080/15710880701875068
Kravtsova, E., and Maximov, A. (2014). Play in the non-classical Psychology of L.S.
Vygotsky, 21–30 doi: 10.4135/9781473907850.n3
Sansosti, F. J. (2010). Teaching social skills to children with autism Spectrum disorders
using tiers of support: a guide for school-based professionals. Psychol. Sch. 47, 257–281.
doi: 10.1002/pits.20469
Kuhaneck, H., Spitzer, S. L., and Bodison, S. C. (2020). A systematic review of
interventions to improve the occupation of play in children with autism. OTJR: Occup.
Ther. J. Res. 40, 83–98. doi: 10.1177/1539449219880531
Schopler, E., Reichler, R. J., DeVellis, R. F., and Daly, K. (1980). Toward objective
classification of childhood autism: childhood autism rating scale (CARS). J. Autism Dev.
Disord. 10, 91–103. doi: 10.1007/BF02408436
Lai, M.-C., Anagnostou, E., Wiznitzer, M., Allison, C., and Baron-Cohen, S. (2020).
Evidence-based support for autistic people across the lifespan: maximising potential,
Frontiers in Education
16
frontiersin.org
Hijab et al.
10.3389/feduc.2024.1273757
Seach, D. (2007). Interactive play for children with autism. London: Routledge.
org/paper/Adult-Intervention%3A-Appropriate-Strategies-for-the-Ward/00b693afaab1
2400434fd2aa27497a5065ac8529.
Shaer, O., and Hornecker, E. (2010). Tangible user interfaces: past, present, and future
directions. Found. Trends Human Comp. Interact. 3, 4–137. doi: 10.1561/1100000026
Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Kittredge, A. K., and Klahr, D.
(2016). Guided play: principles and practices. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 25, 177–182. doi:
10.1177/0963721416645512
Smith, P. K., and Roopnarine, J. L. (2018). The Cambridge handbook of play:
developmental and disciplinary perspectives. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.
Weisberg, D. S., Zosh, J. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., and Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Talking it
up: play, Langauge, and the role of adult support. Am. J. Play 6, 39–54.
Soratto, J., Elvira, D., de Pires, P., and Friese, S. (2020). Thematic content analysis using
ATLAS.Ti software: potentialities for Researchs in health. Rev. Bras. Enferm.
73:e20190250. doi: 10.1590/0034-7167-2019-0250
Weitlauf, A. S., Gotham, K. O., Vehorn, A. C., and Warren, Z. E. (2014). Brief report:
DSM-5 ‘levels of support:’ a comment on discrepant conceptualizations of severity in
ASD. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 44, 471–476. doi: 10.1007/s10803-013-1882-z
Strain, P. S., and Shores, R. E. (1977). Social interaction development among behaviorally
handicapped preschool children: research and educational implications. Psychol. Sch. 14,
493–502. doi: 10.1002/1520-6807(197710)14:4<493::AID-PITS2310140422>3.0.CO;2-W
Wenger, I., Schulze, C., Lundström, U., and Prellwitz, M. (2021). Children’s perceptions
of playing on inclusive playgrounds: a qualitative study. Scand. J. Occup. Ther. 28,
136–146. doi: 10.1080/11038128.2020.1810768
Sundberg, Mark L. (2008). VB-MAPP verbal behavior milestones assessment and
placement program: a language and social skills assessment program for children with
autism or other developmental disabilities: Guide. Mark Sundberg.
Whitman, E.C. (2018). “The impact of the social play on Young children.” Integrated
studies. PhD Thesis, Murray State University.
Sutton-Smith, B. (2009). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, Massachusetts, United
States: Harvard University Press.
Wolfberg, P., DeWitt, M., Young, G. S., and Nguyen, T. (2015). Integrated play groups:
promoting symbolic play and social engagement with typical peers in children with
ASD across settings. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 45, 830–845. doi: 10.1007/
s10803-014-2245-0
Theodorou, F., and Nind, M. (2010). Inclusion in play: a case study of a child with
autism in an inclusive nursery. J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs 10, 99–106. doi:
10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01152.x
Wong, V. C. N., Chen, W.-X., and Liu, W.-L. (2010). Randomized controlled trial of
electro-acupuncture for autism Spectrum disorder. Altern. Med. Rev. 15, 136–146.
Trawick-Smith, J., Wolff, J., Koschel, M., and Vallarelli, J. (2015). Effects of toys on the
play quality of preschool children: influence of gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic
status. Early Childhood Educ. J. 43, 249–256. doi: 10.1007/s10643-014-0644-7
Yoon, S. S.-J., and Lee, K.-H. (2010). Analysis of innovative/ self-initiated play spaces
within present community conditions understood by children - focused on the middle
childhood. Archit. Res. 12, 31–40. doi: 10.5659/AIKAR.2010.12.2.31
Voida, A., Carpendale, S., and Greenberg, S. (2010). The individual and the Group in
Console Gaming. Proc. ACM Conf. Comp. Supp. Coop. Work, 371–380. doi:
10.1145/1718918.1718983
Zagalo, N., and Branco, P. (2015). “The creative revolution that is changing the world”
in Creativity in the Digital Age. eds. N. Zagalo and P. Branco (London: Springer)
Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Sov.
Psychol. 5, 6–18. doi: 10.2753/RPO1061-040505036
Zosh, J. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Hopkins, E. J., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Dave Neale, S., et al.
(2018). Accessing the inaccessible: redefining play as a Spectrum. Front. Psychol.
9:e01124. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01124
Ward, Christina D. (1994). “Adult intervention: Appropriate strategies for enriching
the quality of Children’s play.” Young Children, Available at:https://www.semanticscholar.
Frontiers in Education
17
frontiersin.org