Group work, participation, and neurodiversity
Part one of a two-part series
Yesterday I tried out a new workshop idea called “Group work, Participation, and Neurodiversity” in which I presented some ways of thinking about these sometimes highly-social elements of learning and how they interact with neurodiversity. I am very grateful to those who were able to come and join me in this conversion - the slides and handout are available on my site if you would like to check them out.
Upon reflection, I actually mean two things by “neurodiversity” in this context. First, the literal neurodiversity of our classrooms, in which students and instructors vary in their ways of thinking, behaving, and communications. Second, I mean how our ideas about “group work” and “participation” interact with some ideas from neurodiversity theory. There are two big ideas from neurodiversity theory that help me think through group work and class participation from a neurodiversity perspective: the neurodiversity paradigm and the “double-empathy problem”
The neurodiversity paradigm
While neurodiversity is a basic fact about the human population (humans vary in their cognition), the neurodiversity paradigm is a philosophical idea. Nick Walker introduced the neurodiversity paradigm as an alternative to the “pathology paradigm,” the view that there exists a “pathological” brain and a “normal” one. The neurodiversity paradigm instead holds that neurocognitive variation in humans is natural, expected, and positive, and that there isn’t a normal brain “any more than there is a normal race, ethnicity, or gender.” Based on these ideas, I tend to think about neurodiversity as not just another way of thinking about experiences like Autism, ADHD, anxiety, depression, learning disabilities, etc. but as a challenge to the assumption that there even is a “normal” way to think, behave, or learn. I think a particularly important takeaway from the neurodiversity paradigm for educators is that neurodivergent people face barriers not inherently or only because of their neurological differences, but because of the norms that prevail in society and in educational spaces.
As I have discussed in a previous post, the expectations for participation and interaction in a classroom are governed by pretty strict but often unstated norms. There is growing understanding that learning situations in which expectations are not made explicit may be particularly challenging for neurodivergent students, students with disabilities, first-generation students, and a range of other students. One reason for this is simply that there is an additional and often unmanageable cognitive burden that comes with not understanding the norms of a learning space. Another reason is that students whose thinking, behavior, or communication differs from norms may be positioned as a burden by their peers, especially in group learning situations that feel sufficiently high-stakes. This is a common experience for neurodivergent students, but I am actually borrowing the phrase “positioned as a burden” from Jocelyn Rios’ excellent article of the same name about the experiences of multilingual students of color taking part in a STEM active learning class. Allowing time to create successful communication plans may not feel like a priority in an activity that is high-stakes, which may make it appealing to identify a person who is causing the “problem”.
The double empathy problem
This idea was introduced in 2012 by psychologist Damian Milton, as an alternative to a prevalent stereotype about Autistic people: that Autistic people struggle to understand other people’s thoughts and motivations, struggle to pick up on social cues, and thus struggle overall with communication and social interactions. Milton suggested that instead of thinking about Autistic people are being uniquely lacking in some of these areas, the issue was actually one of “double empathy”: Autistic people may have difficulty understanding the thoughts, motivations, and behaviors of non-autistic people but non-autistic people also struggle to understand the thoughts, motivations, and behaviors of autistic people. When we generalize this idea, especially for a teaching context, we can embrace that people have different ways of communicating, while acknowledging that it is not always immediately easy for two people to communicate with one another. Successful communication and collaboration will likely depend on learning more about how other people think, what their communication style is, and how to interpret their behavior. This process might involve some trial and error, and will definitely require humility and patience.
I thought I would use this post as an opportunity to show how I might apply these ideas, which I sometimes summarize as “teaching in the neurodiversity paradigm,” to a complex scenario involving neurodiversity in the classroom. This week I will walk through one case study that I wrote for a faculty audience that involves “group work” and neurodiversity, and in my next post I will present another that involves “class participation” and neurodiversity. Here is the first case study, which I call “the group project.” It occurs in two parts, as if we are following the linear progress of events in an actual learning situation. I will provide some analysis and commentary after “part 1” and then more after “part 2.”
Case Study: The group project
Part 1: Chris teaches a lower-level economics course with a mix of majors and non-majors. During the first week of class, he announces that there will be a major group assignment that makes up 30% of the grade, and instructs students to form groups based on their seating arrangement at the desks that day. In an effort for the students to get to know each other more, he offers a short discussion prompt. Scanning the room, he sees that most students look engaged in the activity, so he works on setting up his laptop so that he can display his lecture slides. Over the next several weeks Chris provides group meeting time during class, circulating around the room to see if groups have any questions. He isn’t totally sure how to gauge some of the more quiet groups’ progress, so he sends out a survey on the course platform, asking students to provide an update on their group’s project progress.
Chris received the following reply from a student named Melinda:
Hi Professor,
I am actually doing my project alone. When we formed groups during the first week of class I was part of a group but I wasn’t included on the text message thread to meet outside of class to work on the topic, and by the next week it seemed like they were going ahead without me. This is fine with me, since I am working by myself on a topic that I am passionate about: the pricing of textbooks for college students.
Chris is surprised by this email - he thought he had clearly communicated that this was a group project. In his mind, he had not presented working independently as a valid option, but this student had gone ahead and done so anyway. After a few emails back and forth, Melinda tells Chris the names of the students she was originally grouped with before she was left off the email chain. Before class starts one day, Chris casually asks one of them, named Henri, about the initial formation of the group. Henri says that he remembers Melinda talking with the group on the first day, but that her email address was accidentally recorded wrong and she was left off the communications. Henri mentioned that he and some of the other students felt that this was just as well because Melinda’s “vibe seemed off” and they found her difficult to talk to. Henri assumed that Melinda had found a different group to work with.
Analysis: Chris, the instructor in this story, is an engaged teacher who sees benefits of students working together, and provides class time for them to get to know each other. He is interested in their success in this group project, as seen by his checking in with groups in person and by email survey. It appears that he had not strongly considered the possibility that one challenge in this group project might be one student’s intentional or unintentional exclusion by the group. Melinda’s peers didn’t “click” with her at first, and found some element of her behavior or communication off-putting. The students in this situation seem to feel that Melinda working on her own is the best solution, but Chris intended the collaborative aspect of this project to be a part of the learning experience.
Part 2: Chris asks to meet with Melinda in office hours. When they meet, he explains that the project is a group project and that working independently is not allowed. He doesn’t mention the conversation with Henri, but offers to help her integrate into a different group of students who happen to also be doing a project on textbook pricing. He also apologizes for not checking in earlier to make sure all the students had a group. Chris expects Melinda to accept this plan, but instead she discloses that she is autistic and would like to work alone as an accommodation. According to Melinda, she struggles to connect with other students in these situations, and working in a group makes it harder for her to learn and complete her assignments.
Analysis: Chris seeks to clarify his own expectations (though, it is somewhat late in the game) about the requirement that the project be conducted in a group. It seems that Melinda feels that the group experience is not accessible to her, as designed, or that she had a bad enough experience with her first group that she needs an exemption. While there may be basis for an accommodation, this case shows how Melinda’s disclosure only came after she encountered several barriers to collaboration, including an experience of exclusion.
Responses
Readers will know I am hesitant to provide a checklist of strategies for inclusion, because of the importance of context. I thought to close out this post I would offer some general ideas for you to consider, each beginning with “What might happen if…”
What might happen if Chris reconsidered whether a collaborative project is important for the learning goals, and he offered group and individual options for this assignment? After all, the learning benefits offered by working in a group might not be so significant for all students - there isn’t one right or best way to learn something.
What might happen if Chris offered more introductory activities and structures for communication at the beginning of group assignments? This might help students think more about creating a successful communication strategy, rather than singling out a student or students whose communication style “doesn’t match” the norm. Perhaps with appropriate support, they could see this as a learning opportunity, rather than an obstacle to success.
What might happen if Chris offered a survey to determine student interests and work styles and assigned preliminary groups based on responses? Students might need some support to help articulate their strengths, interests, and needs before they form groups. Perhaps this exercise will help prepare them to share their own work styles and affirm other students’ needs.
What might happen if Chris met early and often with groups to reinforce the benefits and expectations around collaboration and establishing shared understanding between group members? Perhaps he could help reframe some unhelpful thought patterns like “I’m not immediately clicking with this person/group, I don’t think it is going to work out.”
What might happen if Chris told Melinda that he is willing to provide accommodations, and that he has reflected on the design of the assignment and realizes some of the barriers that it presented? Perhaps Melinda would not feel that her desire to work alone was abnormal, and she would be willing to share what types of group activities she would be interested in for the future.
How else could the ideas from “the neurodiversity paradigm” and the “double empathy problem” be applied here? If you have any thoughts about these questions, or any other feedback on this post, I’d love to hear from you. Feel free to comment if you are logged in to Substack, or contact me.
My posts are licensed under the Creative Commons BY-NC license. This means you are free to share and adapt this content as long as you credit me and don’t use this work for commercial purposes.
