Neurodiverse inclusive social work education considered through a student partnership

ABSTRACT

To improve inclusion in one social work teaching department, a ‘Students-as-Partners’ project employed four social work students with lived experience of neurodiversity to work in partnership with staff on pedagogical design. The student partners’ role was to evaluate teaching and learning through neurodivergent lenses and co-design strategies to enhance provision. Higher education can often adopt an individualized, adaptive approach to difference , rather than a social approach to inclusion where whole courses and environments are designed with neurotypical and neurodivergent learners in mind. ‘Neurodiversity’ offers social work education a constructive new paradigm for understanding learning experiences and for considering individuals’ strengths alongside challenges . Using a reflective, critical storytelling approach , this article weaves published research findings with the experiences of three student partners and one staff partner, to reflect on and analyze a Students-as-Partners neurodiversity pilot. We conclude that educational designs which actively include the perspectives and ideas of neurodivergent students can deepen understanding of individual challenges and strengths and facilitate the co-creation of more inclusive teaching and assessment strategies.

KEYWORDS:

• Neurodiversity
• inclusion
• student partners
• pedagogical design
• coproduction

Introduction

This article reflects on a transformative collaboration between university educators and social work students with lived experience of neurodiversity. We make a novel and significant contribution to scholarship by centering diverse perspectives through collaborative research, furthering understandings of inclusive pedagogy and illustrating pathways to equitable and empowering co-learning in social work, and potentially beyond. Neurodiversity refers to perceived variations in cognitive and sensory functioning, which differ from the ‘neurotypical’ population (Rosqvist et al., 2020). These variations are often labeled as learning difficulties or disabilities, such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism (Rosqvist et al., 2020; Whitfield, 2019). ‘Neurodiversity’ is positive in orientation, focusing on society’s obligation to accommodate diversity, rather than constructing differences as dysfunctions to be cured (Grant, 2009). Understanding neurodiversity is therefore key to good social work, offering a tool to challenge deficit-driven discourses about human difference (Long, 2023; Muskat, 2017). For example, Schelbe et al. (2022) analyze dyslexia as a social justice issue, connected to the human right of literacy, given disproportionate missed diagnosis and adaptations for Black and Indigenous people and those who live in poverty. Understanding and addressing dyslexia promotes equity and can improve outcomes.

There are an increasing number of higher education students with learning difficulties associated with neurodiversity, which requires responsive action from teachers and institutions internationally (Clouder et al., 2020). An estimated one in seven adults in the UK is neurodivergent (Koutsounia, 2022) and dyslexia is the most common learning difference among social work students in the UK, accounting for 35% of those who declared a disability (Gant & Hewson, 2022). Social work may be an attractive career to neurodivergent thinkers, who are often skilled at seeing and making connections (Maclean & Bentley-Simon, 2023).

Historically, higher education has included barriers for neurodivergent people (Farrant et al., 2022). For example, misunderstandings of dyslexia have impacted student experiences and outcomes, and social work students with dyslexia have experienced anxiety, exhaustion or questioned their ability to study (Gant & Hewson, 2022). ADHD has also been associated with poorer educational outcomes (Sedgwick, 2018) as degree level students with ADHD often obtain significantly lower grades and report less use of study skills strategies (DuPaul et al., 2021). Students with autism often drop out of university prematurely having faced challenges related to socializing, time management and focus, or a loss of family support (Lambe et al., 2019). To participate fully in higher education, students with autism require unique, and in some cases, extensive supports, yet principles such as promoting socialization, allowing for unconventional behavior, and facilitating multiple ways of participating can be useful (Manett, 2022). In fact, the most useful inclusion strategies are often identified by those most impacted, and strengths can be identified through reflection on experiences to empower different thinkers to participate (Rentenbach et al., 2017). For example, learners with dyslexia highlighted how considerations such as accessible PowerPoint slides, verbal instructions, opportunities to be creative, reduced paperwork and a slower work pace can make a huge difference to learners who face challenges with concentration, memory retention and information processing (Gant & Hewson, 2022). Students with ADHD have identified helpful strategies such as setting reminders, finding someone to be accountable to, self-talk, and scheduling classes later (Meaux et al., 2009). However, the pathologising of neurodivergence has relegated people to the margins of knowledge production meaning neurodivergent people can struggle to have their voices heard (Rosqvist et al., 2020, pp. 2–3) and educators can frequently overlook their needs, talents, and skills (Rentenbach et al., 2017).

Higher education institutions in the UK are required to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate learning differences (The Equality Act 2010; The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001), although often institutions adopt a reactive approach to individual needs (Clouder et al., 2020), rather than a social approach to neurotypical and neurodiverse inclusion. The social model of disability posits that people are not disabled by impairments but by disabling barriers in society, which need to be removed (Oliver, 2013). Adopting a social model approach includes challenging the ‘ableism’ which permeates society and social work education (Kattari et al., 2020). Ableism includes, for example, physically inaccessible buildings, difficult to access (or underfunded) disability support services, having few, if any, faculty staff with disabilities, not including people with disabilities on decision making committees, designing classrooms and placements for able-bodied/neurotypical individuals and institutional valuing of certain learning styles above others (Kattari et al., 2020).

This article reflects on a Students-as-Partners project, underpinned by the social model of disability, which aimed to position students with lived experiences of neurodiversity as co-investigators and co-problem solvers, so that inclusive education could be developed in partnership (Coghill, 2019; Williams et al., 2019). In terms of structure, we will first introduce our partnership. Next, we will introduce the methods adopted to produce this reflective piece. Finally, we will share our reflections on the project and why these may be useful for future inclusion efforts in higher education and social work.

The students-as-partners project

There is a subtle, but extremely important, difference between an institution that ‘listens’ to students and responds accordingly, and an institution that gives students the opportunity to explore areas that they believe to be significant, to recommend solutions and to bring about the required changes (Dunne and Zandstra 2011: 4).

Although students are putatively empowered by the consumerist discourse of ‘the student voice’, ‘the student experience’ and are discursively positioned ‘at the heart of the system’ their research output remains un(der) funded and given few meaningful outlets, and their input into curricula content and strategic decision-making is negligible (Lambert, 2012: 222).

Mindful of the complexities in the quotes above, the pilot project we reflect upon set out to facilitate students’ meaningful and strategic decision making by reviewing and re-designing a social work module in partnership with four students who have lived experience of neurodiversity. The project positioned students as producers of knowledge, replacing the problematic role of ‘consumer’ which is increasingly assigned to students (Lambert, 2012). It was underpinned by principles of strengths based social work, which views individuals in the light of their capacities, talents, visions, and hopes, however dashed these have become through circumstance, oppression, and trauma (Saleebey, 1996), and by coproduction: a philosophy that citizens and communities are best placed to resolve certain problems themselves (Loeffler, 2021).

Students were recruited on paid contracts (for 50 hours each) to identify areas of learning and assessment that work well and to embed ideas for enhancement. Payment was important to acknowledge the value of lived experience contributors (McLean, 2021) and to level the power differential between students and academic staff. The initial job description included: Work as a group to co-review a (first year) module, including strategies of teaching, learning and assessment; Co-review literature and resources on neurodiversity inclusion whilst reflecting on lived experiences of learning (supported by lecturers); Co-produce suggested module adaptations; Present suggestions to social work teaching team; Work as partners throughout, feeding into the project design and focus.

The team started their work by looking together at the project aims and discussing their individual hopes. A ‘living’ partnership agreement (Harrington et al., 2014) was co-created to set out how people wanted to work together. Partner-led goals included: Co-create a presentation to share analysis with teaching team; Co-create a toolkit for staff to refer to (e.g. flashcards); Keep (written or audio) notes to later inform a coauthored journal article. The team then focused on one (first year) social work module that all partners had studied and considered the following questions: What did you like about this module? What did you not like? What would you change? What would you keep?

The university center for academic innovation facilitated an ‘ABC learning design’ workshop (Young & Perović, 2020) with staff and student partners. Current learning approaches were mapped, and inclusion enhancements were considered. The team identified that Acquisition (e.g. reading and listening) was the dominant learning strategy in the module, but a broader range would be helpful, including, for example: Collaboration (building knowledge together), Discussion (students talking through ideas with others), Investigation (exploring, comparing, and critiquing resources), Practice (activities and reflections), and Production (producing artifacts, documents, or digital materials). Following these facilitated reflection activities, student partners met in groups to suggest improvements and inclusive teaching strategies. These are discussed in detail in the findings section below.

Methods

In order to reflect critically on our partnership, we adopted a qualitative design, guided by an interpretivist philosophy (Pulla & Carter, 2018), to consider how the Students-as-Partners approach was meaningful to participants. We were guided by ‘participatory action research’ (PAR) methodology (Mertens, 2009), in which the agency of participants is emphasized, and researchers and communities work together for social transformation. We used collaborative co-authorship informed by PAR. PAR assumes that people impacted by a topic should be co-researchers (Valenzuela, 2016), blurring researcher/participant distinctions to create a democratic inquiry (Marshall & Rossman, 2011) so that practice can be improved (McCutcheon & Jung, 1990). This approach differs from traditional qualitative approaches in that it prioritizes collaboration between parties throughout the research process. Unlike traditional interviews where researchers typically hold the authority, participatory research pays attention to inequities and the potential for community leadership and makes deliberative attempts at power-sharing to co-create knowledge (Wallerstein et al., 2019). These principles aligned with the collaborative ethos of our Students-as-Partners project.

In practical terms, at the end of our funded partnership, we agreed to connect online or in person every other month and in between these meetings, to write (or voice record) personal reflections. The academic partner weaved these reflections into an article format (using journal guidelines) and returned drafts to all partners for comment and edits. For example, student partners’ suggestions to celebrate the strengths of neurodivergent thinkers; break down tasks into smaller, manageable steps; and integrate movement breaks and self-regulation strategies were connected (by the academic partner) to published evidence that such strategies can have positive impacts (p. 12).

A ‘purposive sampling method’ (Denscombe, 2014, p. 41) was adopted, meaning coauthors were ‘hand-picked’ based on their relevance to the issue being investigated. The inclusion criterion was participants who had worked on the students-as-partners project. Our authorship team is therefore comprised one member of teaching staff who coordinated the project and three of the four students who were employed as ‘student enhancement partners’. As detailed further below, all four student partners were invited to be coauthors and three made an informed decision to take part.

Our experiential ‘data’ result from partners’ written reflections. These are presented using a reflective storytelling approach (Beresford, 2016), which weaves published research findings with four individuals’ lived experiences of partnering to develop neurodiverse inclusive social work teaching. We are three women and one man who are all neurodivergent and/or provide care for neurodivergent young people. We all also study or teach social work at university. Data were gathered through three prompts from [name—blanked for peer review]: Experience of the student partners’ project; Barriers to inclusive social work teaching and Enablers of inclusive social work teaching. Our aim in using guiding prompts was to ‘develop a process for internal dialogue with ourselves’ so that ‘good data’ could be created (Tenni et al., 2003, p. 4). Loosely guided by these prompts, (names) reflected on their lived experiences of the student-as-partners project.

Our collaborative data analysis was informed by PAR (Ledwith, 2016) and autoethnography (Gant et al., 2019) to structure our co-creation of knowledge in cycles of action and reflection. Ledwith’s (2016) ‘cycle model’ of action research, provides a six-step template for critically considering social issues in partnership. We interpreted her model as follows: (i) ‘Being’: as staff and students we began by noticing the issue of neurodiversity, (ii) ‘Problematising’, we arranged group discussions about what is happening in university learning and why, (iii) ‘Conscientisation’: we considered the implications of poor experiences and outcomes amongst neurodivergent students and what should be done about these, (iv) ‘Action’: we engaged the broader teaching community, co-producing resources (e.g. inclusion flash cards) for tutors, (v) ‘Making sense’: we deepened our understanding through reading, discussing our progress and co-planning dissemination strategies, (vi) ‘Communication’: We translated our work to broader stakeholders (e.g. co-writing this article, presenting at team meetings and producing a ‘better assessment’ case study for the university).

To co-create this article, all partners read each other’s reflective work and met monthly to discuss and analyze content (Gant et al., 2019). This contribution from four individuals in one university is not representative of neurodivergent inclusion work and we encourage others to develop this area, but we do offer a valuable case study of how student engagement can be harnessed to enhance inclusive social work teaching and learning.

Ethical considerations

To ensure ethical practice, the co-authorship study reflecting on our Students-as-Partners project was approved by the Health, Medicine and Society research committee at the university of [blanked for peer review] (approval number RESC1023-1185). Participation in co-authorship was voluntary. Participants were informed orally and in writing that they had the right to decline or withdraw, without giving a reason, and were assured that nonparticipation or withdrawal would not affect staff-student relationships or their studies in any way. All coauthors provided informed consent by taking time to read the project information and return a signed consent form to the project lead by a set date. We openly discussed potential risks and co-planned strategies in response. For example, data created by people reflecting on their disabilities in the workplace can cause discomfort, even a questioning of identity (Tenni et al., 2003). The scrutiny of this data by others can heighten anxiety, yet what can be helpful is talking with supervisors and learning to deal with new discoveries about the self. Talking to co-researchers can also help to overcome shared anxieties (Tenni et al., 2003, p. 6). This supports Whitfield’s (2021) analysis that through a dialogic engagement with oppression, space can be created where differing capabilities and vulnerabilities of all can be valued and the potential for a more egalitarian society can be explored. To facilitate talking (or dialogic engagement), our project included supervisory ‘drop-in’ sessions with the project lead and other student partners. The unequal power dynamic between lecturer and student partners was openly explored along with the possibility this could limit open reflections. All parties were encouraged to be as honest as possible to nurture improvements, and students formed a peer support group to give the opportunity to raise issues collectively rather than individually. Student partners were given signposts to personal tutors, central university student support services (including counseling) and a free national listener-line if needed. As our unusual project aimed to explicitly acknowledge students in knowledge production, all participants were given the option of being named as authors or participating under a pseudonym. To ensure collaborators fully considered potential risks of identification, we discussed the ‘hands-off our stories’ principles (Costa et al., 2012, p. 85), which were developed by a collective of people with experience of mental health services to guard against the extractive use of personal stories, or ‘disability tourism’. These principles position experts by experience as owners of their stories, highlighting the importance of non-coerced participation, consideration of pay and conditions, and consideration of how organizations may use their story in the short and long term. The principles formed part of written participant information and were reiterated verbally. Having considered all these factors, three of the four student partners made an informed decision to take part, and all decided to use their real names. To maintain some anonymity, student partners will be referred to in the findings section as SP1, SP2 and SP3.

Shared findings

The following reflections and analyses are structured around our initial writing prompts: Experience of the student partners’ project; Barriers to inclusive social work teaching; and Enablers of inclusive social work teaching.

Experience of the student partners’ project

This experience has strengthened peer relationships within my own cohort and connected me to a peer further into their social work degree, which is highly beneficial when looking for advice for the future. I feel during the partnership that being employed by the university vanished the power dynamic of student/lecturer. [If student partners were not employed], this could have made the experience more lecturer-led than student. I would be fully committed to changing teaching in the future not just in social work but also on a wider scale for people who struggle with learning difficulties like me (SP1).

For this partner, the project had multiple benefits. It created a peer support network made up of people facing similar challenges, which can be beneficial in terms of validating individual experiences and improving a sense of belonging and self-confidence (Crompton at al., 2023; Gillespie-Lynch et al., 2017). The inclusion of students in different year groups created an informal mentoring bond related to progression in social work learning. Importantly, the opportunity to work as a paid employee was empowering, flattening the power imbalance between student and lecturer. Traditional hierarchies between staff and students in higher education can require partnerships to wrestle with issues of power in relation to ownership and expertise (Cook-Sather, 2020), but the material shift in role from student to employee (if only temporarily) enabled a sense that working relationships were more equitable.

My experience of being a student enhancement partner was really positive. As the weeks went by, I not only increased my own self-confidence, but I found a passion for sharing my individual experiences with others about how neurodiversity can impact students. Prior to the role, I just thought that because the barriers were my ‘normal’, everyone else would be aware of how I was feeling, and the triggers I was experiencing. It was good to be able to have a voice and raise an awareness of the difficulties I face during lectures so that adaptations could be put in place to reduce some of the barriers that impact so many students (SP2).

This partner also reports numerous benefits of involvement from increased self-confidence and self-awareness to the opportunity to contribute knowledge for the benefit of others. Together these reflections indicate that the process of working on inclusion collaboratively can be as helpful to partners as the strategies or outputs that are produced.

Barriers to inclusive social work teaching

Student partners also reflected on some of the barriers that they had faced in education:

Barriers can include resources, long waiting times for assessments and a lack of training for lecturers. For example, quiet fidget toys and breakout spaces were found to be beneficial during this partnership, but these resources are not consistently available across all campuses. Specialist (individual) support is available for students with inclusion plans via the disabled student’s allowance, but this is only available via online companies rather than my preferred face-to-face support. (SP1)

This partner reflected on broader systemic barriers which can impact experiences. For example, community health providers (who undertake neurodiversity assessments) are experiencing huge demand and long backlogs: the UK’s services for adult ADHD are in crisis, with demand outstripping capacity and waiting times reaching unprecedented lengths (Smith et al., 2024). Within universities, specialist neurodiversity training is also not always available to all staff. Whilst our own institution had had some excellent input from the ADHD foundation¹ at an annual diversity festival, there are recommendations for university-wide training in neurodiversity to the same extent as other equality training (Hamilton & Petty, 2023). To provide some input from a student perspective, partners presented a ‘How we Learn’ training session to the social work lecturing team, the training shared personal accounts, neurodiversity psychoeducation, the lived experience of the learning environment and co-developed ‘tools for success’ (detailed further below). These tools were later picked up and shared as good practice by the wider university. However, it is important to note that partners’ practical suggestions may not always be resourced. For example, our team identified that sensory tools (e.g. fidget materials such as blue tack or pipe cleaners) and spaces (e.g. a quiet classroom space to break out to) could help students to self-regulate when feeling overloaded. Indeed, there have been some successes adopting such strategies in higher education environments (Boyer & El-Chidiac, 2023; Spaeth, 2019). However, it is not always clear within universities who should fund such provision, which can lead to delays in implementation (Clouder et al., 2020). Neoliberalism has proved a highly influential force in education in recent decades ushering in economic principles, such as increased efficiency and reduced costs, yet these market-based practices can exacerbate existing inequalities and may not address the needs of marginalized groups (Balan, 2023). We argue there is an anti-oppressive imperative to (collectively) challenge such delays, or gaps in implementation, given they facilitate the abandonment of ‘Others’ who fall outside of ‘neoliberal normativity’ (Springer, 2012, p. 136).

For me, aside from classroom noises, the biggest barrier is around terminology and processing information. I find that the way things are written for assignments are too complex. Learning outcomes can be long-winded and the amount of information on assignment briefs makes me feel very overloaded. Other barriers to inclusive social work teaching are the lack of resources, for example, not having a physical library to research the topic, and how compact lectures are. As I have a slower processing speed, it can be difficult to absorb, process and understand the information that is delivered, and I find myself getting information mixed up or my brain becomes overloaded, and I lose focus (SP2).

This partner highlights local and practical factors for educators to consider including sound environments, libraries, and communication methods. Inadequate sound environments in universities can increase stress and negatively impact learning and well-being (Rosas-Pérez et al., 2023), campus planners should therefore work with course designers to consider noise when designing campuses and learning environments. This partner’s university center has recently moved to a predominantly digital library format, which they noted as a barrier, yet evidence does vary. For example, online learning methods can suit learners with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) who may function less well in spontaneous, face-to-face environments (Remy et al., 2014), yet students with ADHD can often prefer physically browsing library shelves for resources (Jones, 2021). Given individual differences, where possible, universities should provide access to digital and physical library spaces. In terms of communication methods, using clear terminology and arranging lectures in ways which are not over-crammed or ‘compact’ are things module leaders can address. The British Dyslexia Association (2020) highlight that the use of straightforward language and simple sentences are good, inclusive practices. Indeed, concise summaries and avoiding overly complex forms of communication assist all readers’ processing and understanding (Oppenheimer, 2006).

Enablers of inclusive social work teaching

A key driver for this project was how we could make learning experiences better for all students. Partners worked independently to build a ‘toolkit’ of strategies for students and staff to consider. These were drawn from reflections on learning experiences and supported by research. Partners shared these in a presentation to the social work teaching team and shared a laminated toolkit of illustrated flashcards, which advocated:

• Understand neurodiversity and celebrate the strengths that diverse thinkers bring to the classroom and social work practice (This aligns with Armstrong’s (2012) strengths-based schools which celebrate all types of diversities, rather than pathologising).

• Break down tasks into smaller, manageable steps. Clearly communicate expectations using written or visual instructions. Focus on one topic at a time and slow down to minimize overwhelm and facilitate processing (e.g. Combs, 2023, notes the importance of simple, logical steps to scaffold autism education).

• Breaks and self-regulation strategies: Offer short movement breaks after 30-40 mins to support processing time. Facilitate use of sensory tools (fidget materials or noise-canceling headphones). Facilitate small group working and breakout spaces (e.g. Weber et al., 2022 suggest private workspaces, fidget toys and noise-canceling headphones can improve concentration).

• Clear communication: Simple and concise language and explanations. Opportunities for students to ask questions. Check for understanding. Avoid metaphors or sarcasm that can be confusing to some students (e.g. McMullin & Walton, 2019, note clear language, and well-organized lesson plans benefit all students).

• Consider environment: physical layout, lighting, and noise levels to accommodate diverse sensory needs, provide ‘safe’, calm spaces for students to self-regulate in when feeling overloaded. Encourage breathing techniques, positive affirmations, or brown or white noise to quieten the mind (e.g. Weber et al. (2022) and Hope (2022) outline the importance of sensory-friendly environments, including attention to fabrics, lighting, color schemes and chair designs).

• Flexible seating suited to needs. e.g. Standing desks, bean bags, quiet corners for students who may benefit from a less stimulating environment (e.g. Hope (2022) and Mostafa (2021) emphasize how chair design and comfortable seating can promote focus and facilitate diverse sensory needs).

• Multiple modes of learning, including acquisition and interaction. Peer collaboration to promote social inclusion and learning. Group projects, pairs, or buddy systems (e.g. Kuder et al. (2023) recommend peer buddies for the academic success of students with autism).

• Use visual aids and clear instructions: write information on boards or flipcharts to reinforce and facilitate processing (e.g. Hewitt-Johns (2023) notes how flip charts and whiteboards provide a good visual foundation for neurotypical and neurodiverse learners).

• Support memory and recall: time for note taking and assimilation, use recaps and games, enable recording. Provide the option of handouts, enabling students to go over material after a lecture and grasp points afterward (McCrea, 2009).

• Provide structure, routines and advance notice of changes to reduce anxiety. Model visual schedules and stop clocks (e.g. the Pomodoro method can help reduce distraction using 25-minute study zones (Canu et al., 2023)).

• Consider Assessment: Do they allow for creativity and structure? Use non-complicated vocabulary in learning outcomes. Include priority reading lists to prevent overload. Incorporate choice and structured guidance of what is expected (e.g. Chicken et al. (2023) found students preferred assignments where they had some degree of choice).

• Proactively provide adaptations. e.g. extra time for assessments or assistive technologies. Collaborate with disability support services to ensure students receive assistance (Kattari et al. (2020) note ableism includes difficult to access (or underfunded) disability support services).

In their autoethnographic reflections, students reflected further on some of these areas:

Assessments for suspected learning differences and/or mental health should be available to be undertaken by the university from a qualified professional […] Lecturers should understand and take time to let it be known that people learn differently. Students should be able to contact lecturers about learning needs and be able to voice how many breaks are needed and for how long. This will enhance effective teaching. Standardised assessments do not allow for creativity, which is often a key advantage of learning differently. Content should be the same for each degree, but there should be flexibility to present material in the best way for the student, enabling students to fully invest themselves into their degree. (SP1)

Recognising the potential role of technology in enhancing accessibility, I advocated for the integration of a diverse range of tools. Artificial intelligence (AI), speech-to-text, virtual tours, and other assistive technologies can all be useful components. AI, with its adaptive learning capabilities, may provide unique and personalised support for ND [neurodivergent] students, while speech-to-text is aimed at reducing communication barriers. Virtual tours offer an immersive experience that would provide familiarity of any new environment, all of these I wanted to be able to highlight would cater to a variety of learning preferences. That said, we recognised that as AI is not regulated, there is potential for misuse (SP3).

These partners highlight how inclusion requires thought across the student journey, from identifying individual needs, to preparing for and facilitating the classroom learning experience, to the range of assistive technologies and assessments available. Their reflections resulted in a material change to modular assessment and a new resource collection: in terms of assessment, our university is now piloting summative assignment choice for the first time. The student partners report was used at a board of studies as a justification for this adaptation and has since been picked up as an example of good practice in a university-wide ‘better assessment’ initiative. Our ‘human growth and development’ module (which student partners reflected on) no longer has a single option of a written essay but offers students a choice of written reflection or spoken presentation. All students now submit a ‘portfolio’ of answers to the same set questions about the human life course but have a choice of how to present. The portfolio is built up throughout the module as a ‘patchwork’ in that students are invited to write a short, themed reflection (approximately 500 words or one spoken PowerPoint slide), each week for five weeks. The final ‘patch’ asks students to knit their learning together to inform their future anti-oppressive social work practice. This format ‘chunks’ complex tasks, which can assist neurodivergent learners, but also enables all students to have more autonomy and to work to their individual strengths.

In terms of artificial intelligence, one partner collated digital resources to signpost students and teaching staff to, and included short introductions to how these have been or could be helpful to people. These ranged from free functionality tips (e.g. pressing [CTRL+F] on a keyboard to create a ‘find word’ function when reading any document, or the speech to text and text to speech functions in, e.g. Google docs and Microsoft Word); to assistive technologies with free versions (e.g. Scribbr’s plagiarism checks, Grammarly’s writing assistant, Mindmodo and Mindmeister’s visual organizers and Scholarcy’s academic summary tool); and funded assistive technology (e.g. Dragon Professional, Read&Write Gold and Draft Coach), which offer different levels of support with writing and proofing. Whilst there is (understandably) much anxiety amongst educators regarding the potential misuses of digital technologies and artificial intelligence, there are also many benefits, not least that students have access to powerful educational aids, which can accelerate the learning process (Lerga et al., 2021; Malinka et al., 2023).

Our work together as educator and student partners enabled insight into the experiences of neurodivergent university students, the creation of useful, accessible tools, tips and signposts to more fully include different learners, and meaningful changes to teaching and assessment strategies. However, one partner reflected on the importance of our team make-up and project conditions for enabling this progress:

What was apparent from the outset, was the enthusiasm of the team […] The variety of suggestions were relevant and inspired given we were reflecting on what hadn’t worked within the course and how things could be improved, from the physical environment (potential break-out rooms/quiet areas) to movement breaks and information … the challenges involved arguably stemmed from individual participants and their personal situations, be that home commitments or health. There may be room to encourage the cohesion of the group, maybe in having a set day every week where the student partners come together in person (as opposed to online meetings), as I feel that allows for better relationship building and given peoples differences, those relationships within the group ought to be a priority … I felt that the support and accessibility offered by the coordinator and broader (university) team was excellent in balancing direction and structure and allowing partners to prioritise and communicate what was relevant for them. Also, the inclusion of additional training was excellent. (SP3)

This reflection illustrates the importance of centering student experiences when developing meaningful co-evaluations and improvements, but also the importance of careful facilitation for creating the conditions for such work. This may need to include flexibility around health and care commitments, opportunities for training and team relationship building, and a balance between structured tasks progressing to opportunities for student leadership.

Conclusion

There are an increasing number of higher education students with learning difficulties associated with neurodiversity, and dyslexia accounts for 35% of social work students’ declared disabilities. Many neurodivergent learners experience poorer educational outcomes than neurotypical colleagues. Whilst action is required to ensure responsive, inclusive educational practice, the pathologising of neurodivergence has limited opportunities for co-produced inclusion initiatives. Where universities do work to respond to diverse needs, they often focus on impairment and individualized adaptation, rather than a social approach, which proactively designs out disabling barriers.

Drawing on principles of strengths based social work and coproduction, we undertook a Students-as-Partners project, which positioned students with lived experiences of neurodiversity as co-investigators and problem solvers, so that inclusive education could be developed. Inspired by participatory action research and autoethnography, we then used reflective co-authorship to critically reflect on this project and its potential value for inclusive social work education.

Reflections revealed that working in partnership created a peer support network for people facing similar challenges, which validated experiences, improved self-confidence, and fostered a sense of belonging. The fact that partner positions were paid roles was empowering and created a generative opportunity for students to co-create knowledge for the benefit of others. Barriers to inclusive learning included neurodiversity assessment backlogs, a lack of training for all staff and a lack of funding for sensory-sensitive learning environments (including sensory rooms and access to digital and physical library spaces). Enablers of inclusive education included a range of environmental and interpersonal strategies from understanding diverse strengths, to considering the impact of noise, seating and self-regulation spaces, to communicating clearly and structuring sessions with frequent breaks and space for processing, to using different modes of learning and assessment. These enablers were developed into an accessible ‘toolkit’, including laminated, illustrated flashcards for educators.

Partners lived experiences highlighted how inclusion requires thought across the student journey, from identifying individual needs, to preparing for and facilitating the classroom learning experience, to the range of assistive technologies and assessments available. They not only signposted and explained a range of artificial intelligence and digital resources that could be useful for students and staff, but also influenced material changes, as our university is now piloting a choice of assessment for the first time. The conditions we fostered, which enabled this learning and impact included training, salaries and supervision for partners, flexibility around health and care needs, team relationship building and a balance of structured tasks and student leadership.

It is important to note that we are a small team of four individuals and whilst we occupy a range of different identities, we are all from a white ethnic background and are all based in the North of England. We did not reflect on our varied identity positions as part of this work nor our intersecting experiences of, for example, social class, or gender. Future research in this area could include global majority student perspectives and focus on how differences in e.g. gender, ethnicity, nationality, and socioeconomic status impact on experiences of education. Despite this limitation, our coproduced reflections offer valuable insight into some of the potentials of learning in partnership to improve inclusive social work education. We recommend that more social work schools and training settings create communities of partnership and research between educators and learners so that diverse resilience and learning strategies can be understood and harnessed, and the skills of all parties enhanced.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the following teams at the University of [blanked for peer review]. The Access and Participation team for funding and supporting this initiative, the Centre for Academic Innovation and Development who facilitated our design workshops and the Social Work team who supported us in our work.

Disclosure statement

All authors are (or were) employed by the University which hosted and funded the initiative that we reflect upon. We are therefore invested insiders. However, all authors volunteered to write this piece as a way of sharing our experiences of this collaborative, innovative venture.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the University of Chester [Access and Participation Students as Partners fund].

Notes

1. https://www.adhdfoundation.org.uk/