Conference Agenda

This panel will address how active learning pedagogies impact neurodiverse students' self-efficacy in STEM higher education. As European and international universities increasingly adopt collaborative, student-centred teaching approaches, understanding their effects on students with autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and other cognitive differences becomes critical. Drawing on qualitative research from Imperial College London's Medical Biosciences and Genomic Medicine programmes, this panel will explore the paradoxical experiences of neurodiverse students who simultaneously value collaborative learning yet struggle with its sensory, social, and cognitive demands.

Research Questions

1. How can active learning environments in STEM disciplines be designed to foster self-efficacy among neurodiverse students while maintaining collaborative benefits?
2. How does team-based learning impact neurodiverse students' confidence and self-belief?
3. What factors enable or prevent neurodiverse students from thriving in collaborative environments?
4. How can European institutions adapt active learning frameworks to be neuroinclusive across diverse educational systems?
5. What are the implications for graduate employability and workplace readiness?

Theoretical Framework

The research integrates social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997, 2008) with cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988). Self-efficacy - belief in one's capacity to achieve goals - develops through mastery experiences, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and emotional states. For neurodiverse students, active learning offers opportunities for collective agency while potentially undermining individual confidence through social demands.

Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988) distinguishes intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Neurodiverse learners managing sensory sensitivities and social processing face heightened extraneous load, reducing resources available for learning. This explains why structure and predictability are crucial for these students. Additionally, increased cognitive demand can have a negative effect on self-efficacy, linking the two theories.

Further, the Universal Design for Learning (Hall et al., 2012) positions neurological differences as natural variation rather than deficit, echoed in the Māori concept 'takiwatanga' (in their own time and space).

This panel aims to:

1. Disseminate empirical evidence challenging assumptions that collaborative pedagogies suit only neurotypical learners
2. Provide evidence-based recommendations for neuroinclusive active learning design in STEM
3. Foster cross-European dialogue on implementing inclusive pedagogies across varied educational systems and disability support frameworks
4. Influence institutional policies by demonstrating the importance of proactive inclusive design over reactive accommodation
5. Advance the neurodiversity paradigm in higher education

This paper examines how neurodivergent students experience university life across diverse European and international contexts, and how these experiences should reshape teaching, assessment and student support. Drawing on two foundational studies conducted at Ulster University (United Kingdom) and Maynooth University (Ireland), and situating these within a wider international programme involving Ireland, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, the United States, Canada and Australia, the paper offers a comparative perspective on shared challenges and emerging inclusive practices. Together, the studies contribute to European debates on inclusion, equity and quality enhancement in HE.

Foundational Project 1: Ulster University (United Kingdom)

This project investigates the lived experiences of neurodivergent learners and examines how systemic, curricular and cultural factors shape student engagement, belonging and academic success. Findings are positioned alongside international studies across multiple participating countries to illuminate convergences and divergences in neurodivergent students’ experiences globally.

The guiding research question asks: What are the lived experiences of neurodiverse learners in higher education, and where do gaps in support and inclusion remain?

Theoretical Framework

The project draws on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as a system‑level approach to proactive inclusion, enabling educators to anticipate variability rather than respond reactively to individual needs. Andragogical and heutagogical perspectives (Friedman et. al. 2024) on adult learning further inform the study, emphasising autonomy, self‑direction and flexible pathways while recognising that appropriate structure remains essential for many learners (Clouder, et. al, 2020). A strengths‑based lens guides interpretation of student narratives and challenges deficit‑based constructions of neurodiversity, foregrounding capability, agency and self‑advocacy.

Methodological Approach

Semi‑structured interviews were used to gather rich accounts of coping strategies, academic engagement, sensory and cognitive barriers, disclosure decisions and interactions with support ecosystems. Descriptive analysis identified cohort-level patterns, while reflexive thematic analysis generated cross‑cutting themes and captured cultural and contextual nuances. Triangulation strengthened analytical robustness, and rigorous GDPR‑compliant data governance ensured ethical integrity. Replication of the study across multiple countries provided a comparative lens, facilitating examination of how policy regimes, language and institutional culture influence neurodivergent students’ experiences.

Foundational Project 2: Maynooth University (Ireland)

The Maynooth University project, Building a Neurodiverse Community in Higher Education, examined neurodiversity through a whole‑institution lens. Rather than focusing solely on individual student accounts, the project investigated how organisational culture, staff development and institutional norms shape experiences of inclusion or exclusion for neurodivergent learners. The guiding research question asks: How can higher education institutions develop neuroaffirmative cultures that move beyond deficit‑oriented and accommodation‑driven responses to support belonging, participation and success?

Theoretical Framework

The study adopts a neurodiversity‑affirming, strengths‑based perspective that challenges deficit framings of disability (Evans, et.al 2023). Universal Design for Learning again provides a system‑level blueprint for designing curricula, assessment and learning environments that reduce reliance on disclosure and anticipate learner variability from the outset.

Methodological Approach

A mixed‑methods design incorporated staff and student engagement activities, evaluation of professional learning initiatives and analysis of community‑building interventions. This approach enabled examination of how institutional practices and cultural norms influence neurodivergent students’ experiences at a systemic level. The findings align with contemporary calls for responsibility for inclusion to be situated at the institutional rather than individual level, reinforcing the need for sustainable, organisation‑wide approaches to neuroaffirmative practice.

European and International Dimension

By placing the two foundational projects in dialogue and situating them within a broader multinational research programme, the paper analyses how higher education systems across Europe, North America and Australia conceptualise and operationalise neurodiversity inclusion. Comparative analysis of policy architectures, support systems and pedagogical approaches identifies transferable models and context‑specific adaptations. This international perspective strengthens the paper’s contribution to ongoing European efforts to enhance equity, quality and inclusion in higher education.

This paper takes the entanglement of coloniality and neurodiversity as a conceptual starting point for rethinking the changing conditions of knowing and acting in education research. Rather than treating neurodiversity as a contemporary conceptual innovation detached from historical genealogies of power, the paper argues that the term as an epistemic concept carries a history that mirrors broader transformations within post/colonial knowledge and classification regimes.

The central guiding question is:

Neurodiversity as epistemic shift or colonial continuity? Rethinking disability and difference through post/colonial critique.

The term neurodiversity already implies plurality. Its very lexical structure presupposes that cognitive, sensory, and behavioral differences are heterogeneous and non-hierarchical. Historically, however, this pluralistic orientation emerged only gradually. Earlier terminology, such as ‘disorder’ reflected medicalized and deficit-oriented knowledge regimes rooted in colonial notions of rationality and developmental normality (Afeworki Abay & Soldatic, 2024; Quijano, 2007). Over time, neurodiversity evolved into an explicitly pluralizing and resource-oriented concept, while keeping its original structure as an everchanging epistemic concept (Singer 1999, 2022). This conceptual transformation parallels the broader shifts described in post/colonial theory: from classificatory systems that stabilized colonial hierarchies of mind and body towards approaches that foreground plurality, contextuality, and epistemic justice (Escobar & Frye, 2020; Mignolo, 2009; Santos et al., 2007).

When placed within post/colonial frameworks, neurodiversity reveals its entanglement. While it signals a shift towards pluralistic and inclusive epistemologies that are aligned with cognitive justice, its uptake in academia, clinical practice and education remains embedded in colonial epistemic infrastructures. These infrastructures include diagnostic norms, behavioral expectations and Eurocentric ideals of rationality and the 'ideal' learner (Mignolo, 2023; Mottron & Gagnon, 2023).

Understanding neurodiversity in coloniality as an interconnected formation offers a valuable analytical perspective. It reveals how neurodivergent modes of knowledge have been deemed illegitimate or inadequate through classification systems originating from colonial projects that sought to categorize populations. At the same time, it emphasizes the potential of neurodiversity to challenge these epistemic structures by reframing difference as an expression of epistemic plurality rather than a deficit. Especially since the Neurodiversity-Movement sees itself in the tradition of other civil-rights movements (Grummt, 2023), and claims social justice among other dimensions of human heterogeneity, such as Race, Class or Gender (Singer, 2022).

At the same time, the concept of neurodiversity itself is not epistemically neutral. Its emergence, circulation and global uptake are largely rooted in the knowledge contexts of Global North countries. Implicit understandings of cognition, difference and the self, risk to reproduce epistemic hierarchies between a knowing center and a marginalized periphery (Nair et al, 2024).

Here, the concept of epistemic positionality serves as a key analytical lens (Rose, 1997). It highlights how researchers, institutions and educational systems jointly create the conditions that make neurodiversity meaningful. This is particularly pertinent in European contexts, where education systems (still) rely heavily on diagnostic regimes and comparative frameworks that universalize epistemic assumptions with colonial genealogies (Knobloch & Drerup, 2022). Recognizing these entanglements requires a re-evaluation of how educational research understands, categorizes and acts upon cognitive differences.

The paper aims to:

- Conceptualize the entanglement of coloniality and neurodiversity as foundational to understanding contemporary educational knowledge production.

- Examine whether the pluralizing trajectory of the neurodiversity concept can be seen as a progressive shift towards post/colonial epistemologies.

- Explore methodological openings for educational research seeking to 'know and act otherwise', through plural, relational and critically reflexive epistemic practices.

By placing the historical and conceptual evolution of neurodiversity in direct dialogue with post/colonial analyses of knowledge and power, the paper will contribute to a rethink of the epistemic conditions and potential of education research in the context of global and European inequalities.

The educational gap between those who experience success at school and those who do not is growing. This is reflected in the current context of schooling in Australia. Australia is experiencing a decline in school attendance, a drop in the number of students completing school (Productivity Commission, 2025), and an increase in disciplinary absences (Down et al., 2024). Unsurprisingly, students from diverse backgrounds, such as First Nation’s students, students with a disability and students living in poverty, are overrepresented in these numbers (Savage, 2023). Alongside this, teachers and school leaders are reporting increased levels of work-related health issues and are leaving the profession in droves (Kidson et al., 2024). Research has identified increased student diversity as one of the factors leading to these concerning trends (Windle et al.,2022).

Decades of rhetoric, policy and reform have failed to deliver an inclusive and sustainable form of schooling that meets the learning needs of all students. In recent years, education systems globally have stagnated in their journeys to become more inclusive, and much of the blame for this is placed at the feet of schools (Boyle et al., 2024). This has led to many families seeking alternatives to regular forms of schooling. In the past decade Australia has seen a significant rise in the number of alternative education settings with an estimated 70,000 plus children and young people now attending these schools. Given the recentness of the phenomenon, there is a dearth of research that has interrogated the impact of this on the educational and post school outcomes of young people. In addition, much of the research globally that has been conducted into alternative education settings has been limited in scope, both in terms of the focus of the studies and the participants involved (for example see Kennedy et al., 2019; Mills et al., 2019).

An opportunity arose to undertake an in-depth study into one alternative educational setting, established to cater for neurodivergent students in one educational jurisdiction, from its inception. The study adopted a qualitative longitudinal case-study design to answer three research questions:

1. How has an alternative educational setting for neurodivergent students developed from its inception?
2. How do students, school staff and families understand and experience its purpose and practices?
3. What are the educational, social and health outcomes for students who attend the school?

The study is framed within an ecological paradigm. To improve practice in education, the contexts in which it occurs must be recognised and appreciated (Muller, 2015). The different systems, individual factors, and their relationships of influence with each other, need to be understood and the study is framed within an ecological paradigm. It is within this paradigm that the process of ‘constructing and strengthening interconnections between ecological systems’ can begin, one which Bronfenbrenner (1976) argues ‘offer[s] promise’ for policy makers; something that is desperately needed. The Ecology of inclusive education reimagined (Anderson, under review) acknowledges that schools ‘embody a complex array of understandings, beliefs, and values encoded in structures, cultures and everyday routines, all of which are usually legitimated and sanctioned by the surrounding social environment’ (Portela, 2013, p. 37). The framework offers a structure for research that eliminates the need to simplify or tidy things up, enabling complex phenomena to be understood in confluence, within the messiness that is the ‘school’, a necessary condition to answer the study’s research questions.

Deep understanding supports meaningful change. This study seeks to interrogate one alternative education settings over a period of four years, to better understand how schools can support the educational, social and health outcomes of students for whom current approaches to schooling are not working.