Navigating student questions about UDL and class participation
A follow-up to "Group Work, Participation, and Neurodiversity"
Last week, I shared some reflections from an experimental workshop I facilitated on “Group work, participation, and neurodiversity”. The links to the slides and handout are available on my website if you would like to check those out.
This week, I wanted to share one additional case study which is a bit more specific to the issues of “class participation” and neurodiversity. I originally developed this case study for a guest presentation, but it generated enough conversation and ideas that I have now included it in my asynchronous short course on neurodiversity as well. This particular case relates to the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) idea of creating multiple options for action & expression. One of the reasons I think this part of the UDL framework is particularly connected to neurodiversity is that neurodiversity advocates have long fought for greater access to communication in multiple modes, especially for non- or minimally-speaking people. I presented about this history and its relationship to UDL back in June, and you can check out the slides to learn more. This case study involves an instructor, Elissa, who endeavors to support multiple options for action and expression but receives some push back from students.
Elissa teaches a 10-person women’s and gender studies seminar. When she first started teaching this class, she used a modified Socratic method, modeling the course after one of her graduate school courses that she really enjoyed. After seeing how some students talked a lot in class and others spoke only very rarely, Elissa reached out to a teaching consultant for support about the design of the class sessions, and also attended a workshop on equitable participation opportunities for disabled and neurodivergent students. Elissa now works with the assumption that providing multiple ways to participate in class (including speaking, non-speaking, and asynchronous options) and providing additional structure to the discussions can help support neurodivergent students. She does require that students participate in at least one way per class session.
This semester, Elissa explained some of the format of the class discussions on the first day of class, including that for each discussion question there would be free writing time followed by a structured discussion where students could either contribute verbally or using a google doc. One of the 9 students, Jane, raises their hand and asks if the class can just use a “regular” discussion structure (i.e. more similar to their other seminars where students discuss more organically). Jane says that they understand why Elissa’s method might be helpful for neurodivergent students, but it feels overly prescriptive to them. Another student, Harriet, asks if it would be possible to do an anonymous survey of the students to see what students prefer in terms of discussion style.
Based on a real anecdote from an instructor, this case study represents one of the most interesting teaching challenges (to my mind): What should we do when we work to implement teaching recommendations from experts and colleagues or published literature, but encounter new challenges (be they logistical or relational)? Here are a few questions that I like to ask folks who are interacting with this case study, plus some of my own analysis:
What are Jane and Harriet's concerns?
Jane might feel concerned that the way Elissa is going to structure the class sessions is unfamiliar or alternative (they mention that they would prefer a “regular” discussion).
Jane and Harriet might have a preference for a certain type of discussion, and thus are concerned that Elissa is structuring the class based on student needs that don’t actually exist. They are open to certain inclusive practices, but want to know how they relate to the actual students in the class. This is a good impulse!
Jane mentions that the discussion structure feels “prescriptive,” possibly indicating that they feel that their autonomy or expression is constrained by the class design.
How might Jane and Harriet be overlooking needs or preferences that might exist in this learning community?
Jane and Harriet might be assuming that all students who have a particular need in terms of class participation will know about that need, have a diagnosis of a specific disability, and or will share that information with the learning community.
Jane and Harriet may also be assuming that students will be willing and or able to identify their needs and preferences on a beginning of semester survey. Elissa might be assuming that offering options rather than asking students to establish a consensus right up front will be the most inclusive approach.
How might Elissa respond to Jane and Harriet?
Elissa might try to learn more about Harriet and Jane's concerns or needs, and validate these. She could recognize that a different format from other courses may take some time to get used to, and she could highlight the reasons for this format.
She could say something like, “I’m glad to hear you are open to helping create an inclusive environment for neurodivergent students. One thing I was thinking about when I planned the course is that not all neurodivergent students may have a diagnosis or choose to disclose. I think we can all benefit from some different options being available, especially as we are just getting to know each other at the beginning of the course.”
Elissa might note that having options available doesn't require any student to use any particular one. Harriet and Jane are free to use whatever communication or expression methods work best for them. She could add that part of the learning community she hope to create is one that provides students autonomy and also emphasizes respect for different choices or learning preferences.
Elissa might also establish a check-in point part-way through the term to check in with students about how the format of the class is working - perhaps that would be a good time for the anonymous survey that Harriet suggested, as students have had more time with one another, the instructor, and the various options for class participation.
Your own thoughts about this case study may be different than mine, a possibility which I embrace. Overall, I think one of the benefits of this case study is that it shows instructors how they may engage in some neurodiversity advocacy even when (and maybe especially when) they are not actively engaging with students who identify as neurodivergent. You do not necessarily need to design your course the way Elissa does, or agree with my reactions to this case. But, if you are interested in becoming a neurodiversity-affirming instructor, you may think about how you would respond if a student challenges one of your inclusive decisions with the counterpoint that there aren’t necessarily any neurodivergent students in the class at all!
Neurodiversity is a helpful framework for recognizing that people vary in how they think, behave and communicate, an idea paralleled with respect to learning in the UDL framework. Personally, and as I touch on in my responses above, the framework of neurodiversity has helped me to guide students towards being curious about other students’ choices for expression, even if they are initially confused or even a little threatened. If I were Elissa, I might even employ some strategic disclosure about my own neurodivergence, and how various options help me as an instructor and a learner.
As always, I welcome your feedback as well as alternative responses to this case study! 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.
Photo by Yolanda Djajakesukma on Unsplash