Embracing neurodiversity in education: Designing for inclusion and celebrating differences
The concept of neurodiversity has gained recognition and appreciation in recent decades, especially in higher education institutions and the workplace. The number of neurodivergent students entering higher education internationally is on the rise (Clouder, 2020), and yet research shows that this group of individuals has considerably lower levels of wellbeing and employment outcomes compared with their neurotypical peers (Hamilton and Petty, 2023). It is, therefore, a critical moment to address the challenges faced by neurodivergent students within our current education systems.
The term was coined by Australian sociologist Judy Singer in 1998; it refers to the natural variations in human brain functions, including sociability, learning, attention, and mood.
One of the fundamental principles of neurodiversity is the emphasis that neurological differences, such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and others, should be embraced rather than pathologised (Chapman, 2021). Neurodiversity encompasses a wide range of conditions, including autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and more. Each condition represents a different wiring of the brain and a unique way of perceiving and interacting with the world. Being neurodivergent is not a deficit or a disorder that needs to be treated, and yet, many neurodivergent individuals feel as though their differences prevent them from contributing to the world.
Neurodivergent individuals possess unique strengths and perspectives that can contribute to the richness of our society.
It is not the neurodivergent who need to change, it is our social structures.
It is essential to recognise that ‘those that are neurodivergent are not suffering from disorders but encounter disability due to a society constructed for neurotypical people’ (Potts, 2022, p. S27). Instead of viewing neurodivergence as a deficit and trying to force neurodivergent individuals into “normal” ways of being, we should instead focus on dismantling the entrenched normativity within higher education systems. If there is no '“normal”, then there is no “abnormal”.
Normativity in education
Neurodivergent students often face specific challenges in traditional educational settings because of established normative expectations associated with institutions. For instance, individuals with autism may struggle with verbal and non-verbal communication and be oversensitive to change; the normative expectation that students should be able to work with peers, communicate, and adapt can work to exclude these individuals from feeling as though they are ‘good’ students. ADHD can lead to difficulties in maintaining focus, time management, and emotional regulation; the normative expectation that students should be able to manage their own learning, hit deadlines, and deal with setbacks can lead to these individuals being labeled as ‘lazy’, ‘unmotivated’, or even ‘disruptive’. Dyslexia affects reading, writing, and organisational skills while also impacting self-esteem and causing anxiety in academic situations; the normativity of students being able to express themselves through the written word, manage a high reading load, and deal with workload pressure can work to make these individuals feel ‘stupid’ in comparison to their peers.
These normative behaviours are entrenched by what has been called the ‘hidden curriculum’, which refers to the unwritten expectations and social norms within educational institutions (Hamilton and Petty, 2023). These unspoken rules can create challenges for neurodivergent students, who may struggle to understand and adapt to them. In one study, neurodivergent individuals often referred to themselves as outsiders, with one commenting: ‘I wonder if I’m an alien who’s been dispatched to earth and missed my mission briefing’ (Vincent et al., 2017, p. 308). Another student argued that ‘autism is like running on Windows while everyone else is a Mac. This leads to information being lost in social situations’ (Vincent et al., 2017, p. 308). Trying to “fit in” to the normal ways of being a student can be incredibly challenging for neurodivergent individuals, placing unnecessary extra stress on top of the stress they are already facing from their studies.
Inclusive education aims to challenge these norms and recognise that what is considered "normal" or "desirable" may be distorted by ableist social structures (Chapman, 2021).
Aiming for Inclusivity
Inclusivity is a buzzword in education; it’s thrown about a lot without a real understanding of what inclusivity actually means and what it entails for educational systems. One definition of inclusivity is:
“The practice or policy of providing equal access to opportunities and resources for people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized, such as those having physical or intellectual disabilities or belonging to other minority groups” (Oxford Languages).
In my opinion, creating an inclusive environment necessitates dismantling the environment that has led to exclusion. Currently, most institutions have separate policies or departments that help neurodivergent students succeed in higher education. But the mere existence of an additional support system emphasises that these students are different and need different structures in place. What if, instead of adding on to our current structures, we reconsidered the current structure holistically. As I’ve said, the normativity that runs throughout higher education institutions is well established; these expectations are ‘unwritten’. We expect students and teachers to behave in a certain way; when they don’t, we assume that something is wrong. Of course, this emphasises the pathological perspective of neurodivergence, whereby students display a deficit or disordered way of being.
If we look at it from another perspective, perhaps it is the normativity that is wrong. Perhaps the unwritten expectations attached to students and teachers are what need to be evaluated and changed. In this way, it doesn’t matter if a student is ‘neurotypical’ or ‘neurodivergent’ because their behaviour is not judged against a subconscious set of behavioural expectations; it is judged against their strengths and weaknesses as individuals.
In higher education, there is often a desire to fix a problem with some sort of fixed formula. Universal Design for Learning (UDL), for instance, has become a popular approach to curriculum design that aims to make learning accessible to all students (Coffman, 2022; Espada-Chavarria, et al., 2023; Leung et al., 2023). The argument is that by embedding flexibility and choice into the curriculum, UDL enables students to engage with information in multiple modalities and express their knowledge in alternative ways. This approach claims to foster autonomy, support self-regulation, and create a safe learning environment. Applying UDL principles in higher education, it is claimed, will help create an inclusive environment where all students can thrive, minimising the need for neurodivergent students to disclose their conditions or seek adaptations. There is controversy surrounding UDL, though, most notably the fact that there is little empirical evidence to support the claim that it leads to improved attainment for students (Boysen, 2021). With only one meta-analysis on learning achievement with UDL-based instruction suggesting a moderately positive effect (King-Sears et al., 2023), more research is needed before we can argue that it is the answer to our problems.
Whilst UDL offers a potential benefit to creating inclusive learning environments that help all students succeed, I would argue that the entrenched normativity within higher education institutions (and educational systems more broadly) can still present significant barriers to inclusivity. Without understanding these barriers, and working to dismantle them, UDL or any other pedagogical approach, can only take us so far. Instead of trying to plaster over the cracks in our system, is it not time that we think about rebuilding it? There are, after all, only so many times you can paper over an imperfection. Eventually, you have to tear down the structure and start again, with more knowledge about how to build it for endurance.
REFERENCES
Boysen, G. (2021). Lessons (Not) Learned: The troubling similarities between learning styles and universal design for learning. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1-34.
Chapman, R. (2021). Neurodiversity and the Social Ecology of Mental Functions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1360-1372.
Clouder, L., Karakus, M., Cinotti, A., Ferreyra, M. V., Fierros, G. A. and Rojo, P. (2020). Neurodiversity in higher education: a narrative synthesis. Higher Education, 80, 757-778.
Coffman, S. (2022). Universal design for learning in higher education: a concept analysis. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 17, 36-41.
Espada-Chavarria, R. et al. (2023). Universal design for learning and instruction: effective strategies for inclusive higher education. Education Sciences, 13(62).
Hamilton, L. and Petty, S. (2023). Compassionate pedagogy for neurodiversity in higher education: A conceptual analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1-9.
King-Sears, M. E., Stefanidis, A., Evmenova, A., Rao, K., Mergen, R., Owen, L. and Strimel, M. (2023). Achievement of learners receiving UDL instruction: A meta-analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1-15.
Leung, A., Moldovan, L. and Ata, M. (2023). Teaching economics in higher education with universal design for learning. International Review of Economics Education, 1-11.
Potts, B. (2022). How can we support those we know nothing about? Leading on and advocating for more research to support neurodivergent student Radiographers in the UK. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, 53, S27-S31
Vincent, J., Potts, M., Fletcher, D., Hodges, S., Howells, J., Mitchell, A., Mallon, B. and Ledger, T. (2017). ‘I think autism is like running on Windows while everyone else is a Mac’: using a participatory action research approach with students on the autistic spectrum to rearticulate autism and the lived experience of university. Educational Action Research, 25(2), 300-315.
