Neurodiversity and UDL: A Friendship worth fostering

I’m glad to be back to writing this blog after a short pause to work on my book. This post takes up an important “beyond the scope” question that I have been working through for a while. I’ll put it simply: Why is Universal Design for Learning, the inclusive teaching framework usually abbreviated UDL, often assumed to be a good pedagogical response to neurodiversity or a useful approach to supporting neurodivergent students? This is an idea you can find on any number of higher education teaching and learning center websites, and it is also a recommendation in books on the topic of supporting neurodivergent students.

The thing that first caught my attention when investigating this topic is that I routinely see UDL invoked in published literature about supporting neurodivergent students, but in a way that assumes the reader already knows about this connection or is convinced of it. For example, in a well-cited article offering recommendations to leaders in higher education for creating “neurodiversity-inclusive” campuses, the authors recommend Universal Design trainings for faculty for only one reason that is supported by a citation - that some research evidence suggests that UD trainings for faculty reduce stigma in faculty perceptions of neurodivergent students or encourage faculty to implement UD practices. However, there is no information about what the actual relationship between Universal Design and neurodivergence is. Another example is in an article that was published a few weeks ago, making recommendations for how colleges can coordinate campus efforts toward including Autistic students. The authors also recommend increased faculty training in UDL, with not much explanation of how it is related to supporting Autistic students except reference to the aforementioned study that UDL training reduces stigma in faculty attitudes toward neurodivergent students.

Beyond a casual and assumed connection between neurodiversity and UDL, it is not uncommon to hear or see people mistakenly claim that UDL as a concept is rooted in “neurodiversity.” Neurodiversity is a concept that came out of the Autistic community that initially formed online in the 1990s, which transitioned into the Autistic Self-Advocacy and neurodiversity movements. There are probably two reasons that some confusion exists between UDL and neurodiversity. The first is that the CAST guidelines emphasize learner variability, a concept that is similar to neurodiversity in some ways. Learner variability is a concept that appears in the earliest UDL texts, as a way of explaining why design for an “average learner” inevitably leads to the need for accommodations and retrofits. The second and related reason for the confusion is that the CAST guidelines for UDL also use the famous/infamous brain images that show the areas associated with the affective, recognition, and strategic brain networks. Without an in-depth understanding of the history of both neurodiversity and UDL, it is easy to read the “neuro” part of neurodiversity into the UDL guidelines. The actual word or concept of neurodiversity appears rarely if at all in official CAST UDL literature, despite the two concepts developing at similar times in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Even in light of a lack of formal connection between neurodiversity, neurodivergence, and UDL, I think there are a number of important conceptual links that deserve to be mentioned. This post is my attempt to answer the question, “Why is UDL a useful pedagogical response to neurodiversity in the classroom or to supporting neurodivergent students?” This is a question that I have been working on answering through conference and invited talks, social media posts, and posts on my own website for some time, and I thought it would be useful to summarize them here.

No to normal: UDL and Neurodiversity both represent paradigm shifts away from “normal” or “average”

UDL and Neurodiversity both reject the idea of normality. In neurodiversity theory, this distinction is captured by the shift from the pathology paradigm to the neurodiversity paradigm. UDL offers a shift from a paradigm of an average expected student to one of learner variability or diversity. This shared resistance to the idea that there is an obvious way to be “normal” or “average” offers an opportunity for partnership between UDL and neurodiversity. UDL’s focus on learner variability also provides a useful lens for considering the variability within neurodivergence itself. Neurodivergence is an umbrella concept that describes many different conditions and experiences of cognitive difference. Neurodivergent people as a group don’t have one particular set of characteristics or needs, even though there are some characteristics shared by different groups of neurodivergent people (such as executive functioning or sensory processing differences). Thus, even in a room comprised of only neurodivergent people, UDL would still be a useful teaching framework because there is still no “average” student to plan for.

UDL emphasizes learner agency; Neurodiversity has emphasized self-advocacy and the leadership of neurodivergent people

Both UDL and Neurodiversity have focused on agency. In the case of UDL, previous guidelines stated the goal of UDL as the development of “expert learners,” or learners who were goal directed, motivated, and resourceful. The newer 3.0 guidelines emphasize learner agency, and repeatedly suggest that instructors honor learners’ self-knowledge and choices about how to engage in learning. Neurodiversity advocates have long centered self-determination for neurodivergent people, and it is likely that neurodivergent students already have a good deal of knowledge of how they learn best. Even as choice can be overwhelming for some learners, UDL can provide a structured framework for students to take a more active role in their own learning.

UDL recognizes multiple means of expression, interaction, and communication; Neurodivergent people often have communication differences

Many neurodivergent people have communication differences, that might include differences in social style, processing of social information, preference for text-based communication over speech, or specific difficulties with one or more modes of communication. The neurodiversity movement has over time prioritized the perspectives of non- or minimally-speaking people, who are often Autistic. UDL, especially in the guidelines associated with action and expression, takes steps to make access to communication a right in the classroom. For example, “Vary and honor the methods for response, navigation, and movement” (consideration 4.1) and “Address biases related to modes of expression and communication” (consideration 5.4).

UDL recognizes multiple means of engagement and takes learners interest seriously; Neurodivergent people often have unique or intense interests

The UDL framework recognizes that interest and engagement are precursors to learning, and as part of the general UDL category of multiple means of engagement, we have the guideline to “design options for welcoming interests and identities”. This could potentially be a benefit to neurodivergent students as neurodivergent people often have unique or intense interests, sometimes called special interests. In an article based on interviews with Autistic people about their special interests, some study participants discussed their special interests as "points of access" to learning and social connection. Taking a strengths-based perspective, special interests can be viewed as intense areas of focus/interest that go beyond a "hobby," which contribute to the overall mental health of neurodivergent people and provide a platform for social connection (e.g. connecting with other fans of a specific TV show or sport, or even just using knowledge of these areas as a way to start a conversation). A simple application of this information to UDL and teaching would be to welcome students' use of a special interest as an access point to learning, including collaborative learning.

Hopefully, this is a good start in my attempt to flesh out how UDL can be a useful pedagogical response to neurodiversity. I am also very interested in the gaps between the UDL guidelines as presented by CAST and some known needs of neurodivergent students - particularly sensory differences, sensitivities and needs. In my next post, I will be delving more into this limitation and others!

As always, I am open to your feedback and comments. Please feel free to comment if you are logged into Substack or contact me privately.

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash