Dr Holly Foss, Associate Professor in the School of Engineering at the University of Birmingham, reflects on the value of engaging with the EPC neuroinclusion maturity framework.
You can support the framework’s development by engaging with and garnerning feedback from your staff and students. More information here.
Recently I had the pleasure of joining colleagues across the UK to explore the newly developed EPC Neuroinclusion Maturity Framework in an online workshop. The framework has been developed collaboratively via a Delphi co-design process encompassing stakeholders from a neurodiverse range of students, academics, and professional services colleagues. It is a self-reflective tool that enables an institution or department to assess their progress towards neuroinclusion across the seven areas of: leadership & capability; funding & impact; transitions & progress; learning & teaching; assessment; learning environments; and student experience.
The evolving conversation around neurodivergence over the past five years has highlighted the prevalence of different ways of processing and communicating information. It is estimated that some 15-20% of the population experience one or more neurodivergent conditions, such as autism, dyslexia, ADHD, dyspraxia, and more. However, diagnosis can be a lengthy and challenging process and statistical data vary significantly, particularly impacted by negative bias and non-disclosure. Dyslexia and experiences of autism are thought to be more prevalent in engineering, nevertheless, higher education data suggests that engineering students present lower occurrences of neurodivergence than other subject areas. Meanwhile, increasing student numbers and adjustments can put pressure on traditional pedagogies.
Engineering is different
The workshop highlighted the importance of specifically considering neuroinclusion within engineering education. Degrees in engineering differ substantially to some more traditional disciplines in the arts and humanities. As well as facing much higher student numbers, degrees can have more contact hours, with a greater variety of session types and locations. This can see students spending lots of time in large-group in-person settings. Physical infrastructure can pose inclusion difficulties including bright lights, noise, busy areas, and lack of adjustable or flexible spaces, which can be difficult. Working in laboratory and computer-based settings also introduces different infrastructure and equipment that often come with strict rules around access and shared use. Busy timetables can increase overstimulation and overwhelm, whilst frequently moving between locations requires quick transitions between activity types, all areas of challenge for some experiences of neurodivergence. Further, inevitable timetable changes and last-minute adjustments might pose additional difficulties.
Engineering learning and assessment activities can exacerbate matters. Frequent use of groupwork offers particular difficulties for neuroinclusion, whereby social interaction and teamwork can be impacted. A high propensity of examinations can increase stress for students and staff, as well as often requiring many different adjustments making running exams enormously challenging logistically. By contrast, coursework can be open-ended and feature high levels of ambiguity, rendering tasks challenging for some neurodivergent experiences. Perceptions of accreditation requirements, stretched systems and infrastructures, and staff managing high numbers can all introduce more hurdles for neuroinclusion.
The workshop highlighted the iterative process of generating the framework. Particular attention had been paid to clarity of expression. Language was carefully edited for upmost transparency and the avoidance of doubt. Thus the framework itself represents the sort of practice it seeks to support.
Barriers
In discussing trialling the framework, our webinar centred upon the barriers to implementing change.
Perception was an important theme in the discussion. One key idea that came up multiple times was the negative perception towards adjustments, with the common misconception of overdiagnosis highlighted. Additionally, poor attitudes towards students were highlighted with anecdotes citing student blame and limited compassion amongst some.
By contrast, colleagues underscored the lack of diagnoses for both staff and students as an important barrier. Conversation also noted increasing levels of poor mental health amongst younger generations.
The need to build in development and support for staff stood out. However, it was felt that some lack motivation to change, whilst others may not be supported in their development. Barriers toward professional progression for neurodivergent staff, and minoritised staff more broadly, also highlight how privilege can negatively impact contributions and collaboration.
Silo’d working and the fragmented structure of both degrees and university systems also emerged as an important barrier. These mean students can fall through the gaps and be missed. Additionally, gaps between educational stages and locations, as well as between and within staff and digital systems further fail to capture student difficulties. Missing data or data sharing challenge navigation, and lacking accountability and responsibilities mean that change never comes.
Similarly, the practice of bolt-on adjustments can create a proliferation of requirements, making processes and practice unnecessarily complicated and inaccessible. Inclusive design by default was felt to be a better approach, with shared practice and examples championed to support staff in making developments.
Systems thinking, too, can often be forgotten in supporting learners. Students are complex individuals and development must be fostered holistically for the most impact and inclusion. However, staffing, time, systemic, and workload pressures can all serve to eradicate the human. Additionally, the limitations of individual impact and empowerment to instigate change against a larger system can make action obsolete.
Reflecting on points discussed, it seems clear that a human-centred approach is necessary. Of course, this is not easy. But I hope we might begin with a collective valuing of difference that champions both the individual and the whole as greater than the sum of its parts. As professionals working in engineering, we share a commitment to making better things and making things better. Let’s take the time and the permission to apply this to our teaching in collaboration so we really can raise the next generation of engineers.
And join student engagement activities or review the framework here.
If you are an EPC member and need to reset your password to access the pages, please contact us.
