Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

There has been longstanding interest in active learning and its potential benefits for supporting higher education students to direct their own learning and participation. However, little is known about if and how the existing active learning literature applies to autistic learners. In this paper, we examine the interplay of factors impacting the accessibility of active learning for autistic students, reflecting on how autism and autistic students themselves are perceived and positioned within active learning frameworks. We underscore the importance of engaging with what it means to be an autistic active learner and the hurdles they may face when navigating active learning environments, including inaccessible spaces, communication differences and institutional structures. Our analysis identifies three key areas that shape autistic access to active learning: (1) Agency and identity; (2) Communication styles and learning environments; and (3) Neuro-normative systems and structures. We conclude by calling for greater development of, and continued support for, empowered autistic learner identities and neuro-affirming, student-led learning environments. We also highlight the importance of meaningfully involving autistic people in co-designing alternative (or adapted) approaches to active learning, so that autistic students are better able to guide their own learning and participation in higher education.

Keywords

higher education disability neurodiversity effective learning environments co-design inclusive education

Introduction

There is currently limited discourse on how autistic students are positioned within an active learning framework or the extent to which autistic students can meaningfully direct their own learning and participation. In this paper, we critically examine how active learning may enable or disable autistic learners. We suggest that meaningful access to and participation in active learning can mean different things for autistic and non-autistic learners, with autistic students facing unique hurdles that shape how they perceive and experience active learning. Our focus on empowerment and meeting individual learning needs is also applicable to, and can benefit, non-autistic learners – emphasising the value of recognising and respecting all types of learning (Barrera Ciurana & Moliner García, 2024). We begin by introducing key concepts and definitions.

Overview of Key Concepts and Definitions

Definitions of both autism and active learning are very broad and have yet to be explored in depth together. We therefore begin by outlining these two central concepts, their significance, and the measures we have taken to mitigate potential harm and power imbalances.

Autism

Autism is medically defined as a deficit in social communication and interaction, alongside atypicalities in behaviour, interests and activities (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Accordingly, much autism research is grounded in a deficit-focussed framework (Pellicano & den Houting, 2022), in which autistic students are framed as in need of intervention, correction or normalisation. We oppose such frameworks, choosing instead to view autism through the neurodiversity paradigm. Developed collectively by the autistic community (Botha et al., 2024), the neurodiversity paradigm embraces and accepts different ways of being, which are understood as part of natural human variation (Kapp et al., 2013). That said, we acknowledge that ‘autistic people are, very often, disabled’ (den Houting, 2019, p. 271), and that aspects of autism can be disabling in any context that privileges neuro-normative ways of learning (e.g. in higher education).

To avoid contributing to deficit-narratives, we use identity-first language (i.e. autistic person) versus person-first language (i.e. person with autism), which reflects the general preferences of the autistic community in many Western countries (although see Schuck et al., 2025). Our neurodiverse team recognise the historical harm that research practices and knowledge production have caused to the autistic community, alongside the persistent power imbalances between non-autistic scholars and autistic learners (Poulsen et al., 2022). Against this backdrop, we acknowledge how non-autistic patterns of behaviour, interpretation and meaning-making continue to shape autistic students’ experiences of active learning.

When discussing the relationship between autism and active learning, we recognise that no two autistic people are the same, nor are their experiences, preferences or approaches to learning. In our analysis, we use the term autistic learners to refer to those who can access higher education, which typically excludes those with intellectual disabilities; an often-overlooked subsection of the autistic population (Russell et al., 2019). It does, however, encompass a variety of other realities such as autistic individuals who have a medical diagnosis, are late diagnosed, who self-identify as autistic, or are unaware that they are autistic. Our reflections around active learning are not dependent on disclosure and we recognise that autistic students may choose not to disclose their identity for a variety of reasons, including lack of support (Clouder et al., 2020), stereotypes or assumptions about autism (MacLeod et al., 2018) and a fear of stigma and rejection (Frost et al., 2019).

Active Learning

Active learning is not a single pedagogical approach but a broad family of practices including flipped classrooms, inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, peer instruction, studio teaching and hackathon-style intensive collaboration. Each practice redistributes responsibility for communication, timing and social coordination differently. Our analysis considers not only active learning in principle, but also how particular practices influence participation and interaction.

We adopt a broad and reflexive conceptualisation of active learning, defining active learning as any method used to enable students to direct their own learning and participation (Reilly & Reeves, 2024). This approach recognises how learning and meaningful participation can mean different things for autistic and non-autistic learners. Accordingly, we aim to avoid the privileging of non-autistic conceptualisations of active learning, in line with the neurodiversity paradigm.

We also distinguish between neuro-normative and neuro-affirming perspectives and approaches to active learning. Neuro-normative approaches refer to neurotypical traits, practices and assumptions being constructed as ideal, with neurodivergence (e.g. autism) framed as deficient or problematic (Fisher et al., 2025). In contrast, neuro-affirming approaches reject deficit-focussed models of autism in favour of amplifying neurodivergent voices and experiences (Johnston et al., 2024).

Active Learning as Enabling Versus Disabling

This section comprises three subsections, each considering an area of active learning that shapes autistic students’ capacity to direct their own learning and participation: (1) Agency and identity, which examines how learner agency is constructed and constrained; (2) Communication styles and learning environment, which addresses the social and communicative demands of active learning; and (3) Neuro-normative systems and structures, which considers institutional and historical forces that shape autistic students’ capacity for self-directed learning. In each subsection, we identify how these factors can be disabling in nature, before proposing a more enabling alternative. Our aim is to demonstrate the theoretical and practical shifts that can enable meaningful change.

Agency and Identity

Learner agency and identity shape how students experience active learning, how they see themselves as active learners and the extent to which they can direct their own learning. These experiences of active learning – and the emphasis on self-directed learning – can interact with autistic characteristics and preferences in ways that can be both enabling and disabling (Tan et al., 2025).

Neuro-Normative Understandings of Learner Agency and Identity as Disabling

Neuro-normative understandings of learner agency and the ideal active learner strongly shape the extent to which an autistic student feels able to self-direct their learning. There are also resulting implications on how autistic students view themselves and their value as a learner, if the staff supporting them prioritise the learning styles of non-autistic peers (Bottema-Beutel, 2025).

Milton’s (2012) double empathy problem provides a framework to consider the unintended consequences of neuro-normative approaches to self-directed learning and ideal active learner identities. The double empathy problem refers to situations where both parties – in this context, autistic and non-autistic learners – experience different outlooks and understandings when trying to communicate meaning. These differing perspectives (e.g. in the context of teaching or group work) can lead to a breakdown in mutual understanding, as well as the ongoing (and often implicit) prioritisation of non-autistic ways of communicating and learning. These neuro-normative understandings and expectations can significantly shape autistic students’ self-perceptions as learners.

Autistic students may also experience systemic barriers and hurdles that likely have little influence on non-disabled students (Tan et al., 2025). For example, autistic students may be unable to access the level of autonomy associated with being an ideal active learner due to their positioning within neuro-normative learning environments. These barriers to learner agency can be particularly disabling for autistic students at doctoral level, since postgraduate research study expectations are often implicit rather than structurally articulated; an area autistic students may find particularly challenging (Sandland et al., 2023).

Enabling Learner Agency Through Supporting the Development of Autistic Active Learner Identities

The aforementioned challenges demonstrate how neuro-normative understandings of agency and identity can limit autistic students’ ability to engage in learning that aligns with their preferences. To mitigate these challenges, we advocate supporting autistic students to develop active learning identities that better align with their preferred degree of autonomy and participation in learning. Such approaches enable autistic students to reaffirm their identities as valued self-directed learners and to frame their voices, experiences and preferences as of equal weight to their non-autistic counterparts.

Supporting the development of autistic active learner identities requires awareness of the lived realities of autistic students and respect for different ways of experiencing the learning environment. Greater recognition of the internal and external factors that shape how autistic students perceive themselves as learners can be especially valuable for students with a history of traumatic educational experiences. Intersectional identities and broader contextual factors should therefore also be considered in this process (Thunborg et al., 2012). Recognising and valuing the diverse perspectives and preferences that autistic students bring to the classroom supports their empowerment, safety and inclusion within active learning environments. It also deconstructs neuro-normative hurdles and distributions of power, creating greater spaces for the acceptance and empowerment of autistic active learners.

Communication Styles and Learning Environments

We now turn to the social dimensions of active learning, referring to the explicit, implicit and idealistic social rules, patterns and expectations that shape these environments. Active learning can be viewed (at least in part) as a social situation and a process of socialisation (Ulriksen, 2009), in which students are expected to define and maintain personal and interpersonal boundaries inside and outside of the classroom (Enomoto et al., 2022). The social dimensions play a significant role in autistic students’ feelings of belonging or non-belonging and their sense of membership and community (Minosky et al., 2024) .

The Disabling Effects of Neuro-Normative Communication Styles and Learning Environments

Autistic students are often disproportionately disabled by the social dimensions of active learning, especially when it is tailored to neurotypical perceptions of sociality, communication and behaviour. For example, non-autistic students may be more comfortable in having spontaneous and unstructured group discussions with peers or adapting to changes in instructions or expectations mid-way through teaching sessions. Without neuro-affirming adaptations, autistic students may be prevented from developing purposeful relationships with the peers, tutors and networks that support their learning (Redmond et al., 2018). This exclusion further reinforces what is valued, and what is not, in a learning environment.

Autistic students must also navigate social systems and structures that implicitly, and in some cases explicitly, communicate their otherness, with their sense of belonging being dependent on how well they conform to socio-communicative norms (Pérez et al., 2021). As highlighted by Milton’s (2012) double empathy problem, the social dimension of active learning can create learning environments that feel hostile for autistic students, especially when the autistic student is labelled as the one with the ‘problem’ rather than recognising the bi-directional nature of social communication.

Design and facilitation choices also shape the extent to which active learning is perceived as disabling for autistic students. For example, flipped classrooms rely heavily on collaboration, peer feedback and spontaneous discussion (Foldnes, 2016; Yoon et al., 2020). Without careful attention to accessibility, autistic students are at risk of alienation; both within the classroom and when learning extends outside of it. Similarly, inquiry-based learning expects students to negotiate ambiguous problems, collectively decide directions of investigation and rapidly align expectations with peers. For autistic students, the disabling element may not be in the inquiry itself but in the tacit negotiation of roles and expectations without explicit structure. Project-based learning may further intensify these dynamics because assessment is distributed across time and relationships rather than a single product.

Encouraging Neuro-Affirming Communication and Environments

To mitigate the disabling effects of neuro-normative communication expectations and learning environments, we encourage reflection on how active learning spaces can be made more neuro-affirming in nature. A neuro-affirming re-framing emphasises how social hurdles are bi-directional and the responsibility of both autistic and non-autistic students (Milton, 2012). This re-framing can help mitigate the isolation and marginalisation experienced by autistic students (Williams et al., 2019) and can encourage the development of learning spaces that are accommodating for diverse sensory, physical and communicative needs.

We argue that multimodal approaches to learning can balance the needs and preferences of autistic and non-autistic students and should be implemented alongside flexible pedagogical and communication options (Tan et al., 2025). As elements of active learning – such as participation, role play or group work - can induce anxiety for autistic students (Dart et al., 2024), staff should ensure clear communication and transparency surrounding delivery and assessment to demystify implicit expectations (Tan et al., 2025). This is particularly relevant for inquiry-based learning, where students may need to negotiate roles and expectations tacitly. Written role allocation, predictable turn-taking and asynchronous decision-making channels (e.g. shared documents or forums) can preserve inquiry while reducing unnecessary social negotiation. Transparency should be accompanied by accessible learning spaces (Tan et al., 2025) and support to help students manage social and sensory needs (Sarrett, 2018).

Diverse communication styles can also be accommodated by structuring learning in a way that values multiple forms of participation. Reducing the need for verbal exchanges (e.g. through post-it notes, digital tools such as Padlet or post-session reflections for those who require additional processing time) can be a meaningful area for change (Durgungoz & Durgungoz, 2025). We advocate that no one communication style or mode of participation should be privileged. Where feasible (e.g. with small groups), staff can elicit students’ communication preferences to better support individual needs.

Attending to the physical environment of the classroom, such as seat selection (Enomoto et al., 2022) and table layout, can further support participation. Accommodations may include sitting near the door to enable time outs, choosing spaces with softer lighting or allowing students to sit away from the sounds of projectors or monitors. An openness to understanding potential sources of anxiety or distress enables students to share what works for them and mitigate hurdles they may face. Supporting autistic students to learn in ways that suits them ensures they can meaningfully access their learning and that their presence and contribution is equal to that of their non-autistic peers.

Finally, the online component of flipped learning classrooms can also facilitate the inclusion of both autistic and non-autistic students, as they can engage with their learning at their own pace (McLean & Attardi, 2023). In-classroom accessibility can be enhanced by providing additional guidance around collaboration and group-based learning, encouraging modes of peer collaboration that foster neuro-affirming interactions, and promoting strategies to support and empower the learning of all students. Providing opportunities for learning outside of peer collaboration such as space for 1-1 interactions with academic staff can also help to prevent students feeling that they are unable to share their questions or ask for support. Finally, separating intellectual contribution from social performance (e.g. through documented contribution logs, independent research strands or parallel task ownership) can enable meaningful collaboration without requiring constant co-presence or rapid interpersonal signalling.

Broader Structures and Influences

We now turn to our final area: the influence of broader structures on autistic students’ ability to meaningfully self-direct their own learning. We consider sources of harm that operate outside of specific active learning frameworks, highlighting how students’ experiences of active learning intersect with their wider institutional and historical context. We further consider how these environments embed power dynamics that can prioritise non-autistic people (Botha et al., 2023).

Institutional and Historical Influences as Disabling Forces

Situating active learning within its wider context identifies patterns of exclusion, inequalities and harm that intersect to prevent autistic students from being empowered self-directed learners. Autistic students may have experienced longstanding harm throughout their educational journeys, caused by broader neuro-normative systems, institutional and physical barriers, stigmatisation and social and educational alienation (Urbaniak & D’Amico, 2025). These factors – external to active learning frameworks – exert significant influence over how students approach active learning environments and their sense of belonging.

Students draw upon their backgrounds to contextualise learning (Gebre & Polman, 2020), and their positioning within active learning frameworks reflects how they navigate power dynamics embedded within those environments (Gee, 2000). For autistic students, additional meaning-making processes may be required to make sense of prior harms. Imbalanced power structures and the ongoing privileging of non-autistic norms shape autistic students’ expectations of participation and autonomy, influencing how they see themselves as learners. These external harms highlight how autistic students can be exposed to disabling forces before even entering active learning spaces.

Broader privileging neurotypical ways of being also influences pedagogical approaches. For instance, project-based learning within live industry projects (Beacom, 2025) may expose students to inaccessible and neuro-normative workplace cultures. Likewise, hackathons, which provide opportunities for students to collaborate with community partners (Resch et al., 2025), extend the communicative and learning contexts that students must navigate. Learning outside of traditional classroom environments involves extra layers of complexity, requiring staff to take additional steps to ensure comfort, safety and accessibility. These formats often privilege speed, improvisation and sustained group immersion; all areas that may enact barriers for neurodivergent learners.

Mitigating Harm Through Positive Learning Experiences

Although historical and institutional sources of harm cannot be entirely removed from active learning frameworks, steps can be taken to support positive active learning experiences. A positive learning experience in this context refers to autistic students being treated equally and with respect, in contrast to experiences that alienate or other them (even unintentionally). Active learning frameworks can be used as a starting point for change, providing autistic students with the opportunity to develop their own neuro-affirming frameworks for learning. Having an openness to understand the autistic experience and potential sources of harm are key for ensuring that active learning frameworks are accessible and safe for autistic students.

Student-centred learning environments can be adapted to suit the specific needs of students (Elen et al., 2007) and can be designed for the diverse and unique needs of different learning communities (Enomoto et al., 2022). Clear signposting to disability services or autism-specific support can also aid autistic students to self-direct their learning. Adjustments such as advance briefing materials, optional quiet working zones and post-event contribution windows can preserve the authenticity of the experience without privileging rapid verbal processing or continuous social presence. Initiatives such as the ‘Autism Peer Network’ (Back et al., 2025) or ‘Mentoring, Organization and Social Support for Autism Inclusion on Campus (MOSSAIC) Programme’ (Locke et al., 2024) may help students identify different ways of learning and connecting with peers. These approaches recognise the broader historical and institutional cultures that active learning environments sit within, and seek to mitigate existing harms and power imbalances for autistic learners.

A Manifesto for Change

Our analysis of the barriers and enablers around active learning for autistic students indicates the need for deep and meaningful change in how active learning is conceptualised and practiced. In this section, we present our manifesto for change, comprising three overarching recommendations aimed at challenging entrenched neuro-normative expectations within higher education and advocating for structural, epistemic and relational change to support autistic students to flourish as active learners. The recommendations are: (1) the need to examine the foundations of active learning, (2) the importance of autistic involvement in active learning and (3) the need to work together for a flourishing-focussed discourse. Taken together, they signal a shift from merely accommodating autistic learners within existing norms to radically transforming the status quo.

The Need to Examine the Foundations of Active Learning

Examining the conceptual, practical and structural foundations of active learning enables us to examine the extent to which autistic voices are heard and included. We encourage reflections into the epistemological, theoretical and methodological foundations of active learning to identify implicit neuro-normative assumptions and influences (Francis & Afful, 2023) and the biases and assumptions that can be disabling for autistic learners (Slade & Cummins, 2025). Questioning these epistemic conventions can lead to the identification of implicit hurdles for autistic students – as highlighted in previous sections – and to identify how issues of power and identity may be present (Francis & Afful, 2023). The discussions can guide investigations into the alienation or exclusion of autistic students, and where urgent change is needed (Slade & Cummins, 2025). This process should be used to recognise the absence of autistic voices and experiences, and to highlight where their perspectives are essential for meaningful representation and inclusion. These reflections should be ongoing rather than static processes, and used to instigate change (Bolourian et al., 2018).

The Importance of Autistic Involvement in Active Learning

We emphasise the central importance of involving autistic voices and experiences to enact meaningful change. Autistic involvement enables recognition of the epistemic privilege associated with being an insider researcher (Vincent, 2019) and encourages change directly related to autistic needs and priorities (Pellicano et al., 2022). It also shifts power distributions, enabling autistic people to share in the power of decision-making in ways that they have previously been excluded from (McLennan et al., 2025). These processes enable the design and implementation of active learning principles to be seen as a collaborative process of discovery (Benz et al., 2024) and create opportunities to genuinely and authentically engage with autistic active learners (Pellicano et al., 2022). It also provides an opportunity to uncover existing needs, experiences and preferences that are not being met (Poulsen et al., 2022) and to establish the value and impact of active learning experiences from an autistic perspective (Sundermann et al., 2022).

The Need to Work Together for a Flourishing-Focussed Discourse

A focus on autistic flourishing versus autistic impairment (Pellicano & Heyworth, 2023) moves away from placing the onus on autistic students to change. The needs of many autistic people have not always been reflected, included or respected within autism scholarship and have shaped the subsequent suggestions and practices that emerge (Bottema-Beutel, 2025). Rather than framing autistic people as a problem, focussing on the problems that autistic people encounter enables a re-positioning of autistic people within narratives about them (Stenning & Rosqvist, 2021) and encourages a space to learn from each other’s ways of working, being and doing. Discourses are encouraged that take the needs of all learners into account and avoid preferencing neuro-normative constructions of the average or ideal student (Bottema-Beutel, 2025).

Within this framing, collaboration between autistic and non-autistic individuals is essential. It prioritises the perspectives of autistic people whilst advocating for changes that do not further inflict harm or stigma (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021). Collaboration also helps identify barriers imposed onto autistic people by non-autistic people and how distributions of power can benefit non-autistic groups (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021). Neuro-affirming approaches within active learning frameworks therefore encourage a reconsideration of autistic students in relation to active learning, an acknowledgement of the variety and depth of autistic experiences and learning preferences, and a re-framing of assumptions and approaches that may otherwise disable autistic learners.

Conclusion

In this paper, we emphasised the critical importance of including, empowering and enabling autistic learners within active learning spaces. We stress the importance of supporting autistic active learner identities, fostering neuro-affirming communication and environments, and mitigating harm through positive learning experiences. Autistic voices must play a central role in these conversations. Together, we hope that this enables a shift towards a neuro-affirming approach that empowers and supports autistic student to self-direct their learning and participation.

Our manifesto for change outlines three key recommendations: examining the foundations of active learning, prioritising autistic involvement in active learning and working together for a flourishing-focussed discourse. These recommendations challenge entrenched neuro-normative expectations and structures, highlighting the opportunity to make existing systems work for a broader range of learners. Central to this shift is ensuring that autistic learners are not seen as the problem and are instead seen as valued contributors in decision-making, research directions and the co-design of active learning practices and spaces.

Further work must explore the ways in which autistic students and academics can collaborate to refine neuro-affirming approaches to active learning and their implementation into classroom settings. This includes examination of specific pedagogies and approaches, such as flipped classrooms, inquiry-based learning, project-based learning and intensive collaborative formats, to ensure that suggestions and reflections are applicable and meaningful across different active learning practices.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Lucie Eadon

Francesca Peruzzo

Laura Crane

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Lucie Eadon is funded by a College of Social Sciences scholarship at the University of Birmingham, supervised by Laura Crane and Francesca Peruzzo.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Lucie Eadon is a doctoral student in the Autism Centre for Education and Research (ACER), based within the School of Education at the University of Birmingham. Her research explores the lived realities of autistic students and the inequalities they experience in higher education. Lucie’s interest in this area stems from her first-hand experiences of navigating higher education as a disabled student, and Lucie aims for her scholarship to lead to more enabling learning environments within which autistic students can flourish.

Francesca Peruzzo is a Research Fellow in Educational Equity and Policy at the University of Birmingham. Her work examines how inequities in higher education for disabled students are shaped at the intersection of disability, race, class, gender and other social markers, and how these emerge through the interplay of global policy dynamics and local institutional practices. She adopts co-produced research designs in partnership with disabled students, using these collaborations to inform her teaching, policy engagement and institutional change. She publishes in sociology of education, critical disability and inclusion studies, with a focus on ableism in higher education policy and governance.

Laura Crane is Professor of Autism Studies at the University of Birmingham, where she is Director of the Autism Centre for Education and Research (ACER). A leading authority on participatory autism research, Professor Crane champions approaches that involve autistic people and those who support them as active partners in research. Professor Crane is also committed to inclusive classroom practices, and strives to incorporate such approaches within all of her teaching.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5 (5th edn). American Psychiatric Publishing.

Back

Main

Schur

Manitsa

Clifford

Barlow-Brown

Parchment

Spurin

(2025). The benefits of an autism peer network in higher education. Neurodiversity, 3, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330251329558

Barrera Ciurana

Moliner García

. (2024). ‘How does universal design for learning help me to learn?’ Students with autism spectrum disorder voices in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 49(6), 899–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2259932

Beacom

(2025). Student-industry partnerships and project-based learning: Motivations, achievement and implications for teaching and learning. Active Learning in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874251365613

Benz

Scott-Jeffs

McKercher

K. A.

Welsh

Norman

Hendrie

Locantro

Robinson

(2024). Community-based participatory-research through co-design: Supporting collaboration from all sides of disability. Research Involvement and Engagement, 10(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00573-3

Bolourian

Zeedyk

S. M.

Blacher

(2018). Autism and the university experience: Narratives from students with neurodevelopmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(10), 3330–3343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3599-5

Botha

Chapman

Giwa Onaiwu

Kapp

S. K.

Stannard Ashley

Walker

(2024). The neurodiversity concept was developed collectively: An overdue correction on the origins of neurodiversity theory. Autism, 28(6), 1591–1594. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241237871

Botha

Hanlon

Williams

G. L.

(2023). Does language matter? Identity-first versus person-first language use in autism research: A response to Vivanti. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 53(2), 870–878. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04858-w

Bottema-Beutel

Kapp

S. K.

Lester

J. N.

Sasson

N. J.

Hand

B. N.

(2021). Avoiding ableist language: Suggestions for autism researchers. Autism in Adulthood, 3(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0014

10.

Bottema-Beutel

(2025). Methodological considerations for incorporating students with disabilities into educational psychology theory and practice. Educational Psychologist, 60(3), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2025.2481862

11.

Clouder

Karakus

Cinotti

Ferreyra

M. V.

Fierros

G. A.

Rojo

(2020). Neurodiversity in higher education: A narrative synthesis. Higher Education, 80(4), 757–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00513-6

12.

Dart

E. H.

Radley

K. C.

Helbig

K. A.

Salvatore

(2024). Reframing social skills practices for autistic students: A responsive framework for assessment and intervention. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 34(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2023.2221671

13.

den Houting

. (2019). Neurodiversity: An insider’s perspective. Autism, 23(2), 271–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361318820762

14.

Durgungoz

F. C.

Durgungoz

(2025). “Interactive lessons are great, but too much is too much”: Hearing out neurodivergent students, Universal design for learning and the case for integrating more anonymous technology in higher education. Higher Education. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01389-6

15.

Elen

Clarebout

Léonard

Lowyck

(2007). Student-centred and teacher-centred learning environments: What students think. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510601102339

16.

Enomoto

Warner

Nygaard

(2022). Active Learning in Higher Education: Student Engagement and Deeper Learning Outcomes. Libri Publishing Ltd.

17.

Fisher

MacLennan

Mullally

Rodgers

Tzemou

(2025). ‘I can’t go to school, it isn’t a won’t’: Lived experiences of neurodivergent children’s school anxiety within the UK’s systemic crisis. Neurodiversity, 3, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330251385325

18.

Foldnes

(2016). The flipped classroom and cooperative learning: Evidence from a randomised experiment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787415616726

19.

Francis

Afful

J. B. A.

(2023). Epistemological orientations of ideal pedagogical practices in higher education: Perspectives of lecturers. Cogent Education, 10(1), Article 2219951. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2219951

20.

Frost

K. M.

Bailey

K. M.

Ingersoll

B. R.

(2019). “I just want them to see me as. . .me”: Identity, Community, and disclosure practices among college students on the autism spectrum. Autism in Adulthood, 1(4), 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2018.0057

21.

Gebre

E. H.

Polman

J. L.

(2020). From “context” to “active contextualization”: Fostering learner agency in contextualizing learning through science news reporting. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 24, Article 100374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100374

22.

Gee

J. P.

(2000). Chapter 3: Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25(1), 99–125. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X025001099

23.

Johnston

Maciver

Rutherford

Gray

Curnow

Utley

(2024). A brief neuro-affirming resource to support school absences for autistic learners: Development and program description. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1358354. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1358354

24.

Kapp

S. K.

Gillespie-Lynch

Sherman

L. E.

Hutman

(2013). Deficit, difference, or both? Autism and neurodiversity. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028353

25.

Locke

Osuna

Myrvold

R. J.

Closson

J. S.

(2024). Supporting autistic college students: Examining the mentoring, organization and social support for autism inclusion on campus (MOSSAIC) program. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 54(6), 2094–2107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-023-05969-w

26.

MacLeod

Allan

Lewis

Robertson

(2018). ‘Her. come again’: The cost of success for higher education students diagnosed with autism. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(6), 683–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1396502

27.

McLean

Attardi

S. M.

(2023). Sage or guide? Student perceptions of the role of the instructor in a flipped classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education, 24(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418793725

28.

McLennan

Aberdein

Saggers

Gillett-Swan

(2025). Neurodiversity: A scoping review of empirical research. Neurodiversity, 3, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330251337874

29.

Milton

D. E. M.

(2012). On the ontological status of autism: The “double empathy problem.” Disability and Society, 27(6), 883–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008

30.

Minosky

S. A.

Wiechers

Landaverde-Umana

(2024). The impact of course format on student perceptions of the classroom learning environment and teamwork. Active Learning in Higher Education, 25(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874221128023

31.

Pellicano

den Houting

(2022). Annual research review: Shifting from ‘normal science’ to neurodiversity in autism science. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 63(4), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13534

32.

Pellicano

Heyworth

(2023). The Foundations of Autistic Flourishing. Current Psychiatry Reports, 25(9), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-023-01441-9

33.

Pellicano

Lawson

Hall

Mahony

Lilley

Heyworth

Clapham

Yudell

(2022). “I knew she’d get it, and get me”: Participants’ perspectives of a participatory autism research project. Autism in Adulthood, 4(2), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0039

34.

Pérez

J. F. C.

Roundtree

S. M.

Pérez

D. C.

(2021). Motivation and meaning in everyday resistance by minoritized faculty. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 16(2), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000269

35.

Poulsen

Brownlow

Lawson

Pellicano

(2022). Meaningful research for autistic people? Ask autistics! Autism, 26(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211064421

36.

Redmond

Abawi

L. A.

Brown

Henderson

Heffernan

(2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning Journal, 22(1), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175

37.

Reilly

Reeves

T. C.

(2024). Refining active learning design principles through design-based research. Active Learning in Higher Education, 25(1), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874221096140

38.

Resch

Freudhofmayer

Martínez-Usarralde

M. J.

(2025). A promising methodology. Assessing the pedagogical value of hackathons. Active Learning in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874251330793

39.

Russell

Mandy

Elliott

White

Pittwood

Ford

(2019). Selection bias on intellectual ability in autism research: A cross-sectional review and meta-analysis. Molecular Autism, 10, 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-019-0260-x

40.

Sandland

MacLeod

Hall

M. N.

Chown

(2023). Accommodation through personalisation: Ensuring the autistic student has an equal opportunity for success in the PhD viva voce. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 47(10), 1404–1419. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2023.2250740

41.

Sarrett

J. C.

(2018). Autism and accommodations in higher education: Insights from the autism community. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(3), 679–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3353-4

42.

Schuck

R. K.

Chetcuti

Dwyer

Milosavljevic

Bury

S. M.

Hedley

Begeer

Vivanti

Uljarevic

(2025). Preferences for identity-first and person-first language: A systematic review of research with autistic adults/adults with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-025-07174-3

43.

Slade

Cummings

(2025). From reflective practice to action research and positive change: Securing high levels of wellbeing among learners with autism spectrum condition in the mainstream setting. Educational Action Research, 33(4), 711–730. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2024.2355925

44.

Stenning

Rosqvist

H. B.

(2021). Neurodiversity studies: Mapping out possibilities of a new critical paradigm. Disability and Society, 36(9), 1532–1537. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1919503

45.

Sundermann

Weiser

Barth

(2022). Meaning-making in higher education for sustainable development: Undergraduates’ long-term processes of experiencing and learning. Environmental Education Research, 28(11), 1616–1634. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2069679

46.

Tan

D. W.

Edwards

Mewburn

Simpson

Webster

A. A.

Brownlow

(2025). Understanding the experiences of neurodivergent research students: A mixed methods systematic review. Studies in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2025.2573209

47.

Thunborg

Bron

Edstróm

(2012). Forming learning identities in higher education in Sweden. Studies for the Learning Society, 2(2–3), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10240-012-0002-5

48.

Ulriksen

(2009). The implied student. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 517–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802597135

49.

Urbaniak

D’Amico

(2025). Disability barriers autistic girls face in secondary education: A systematic review. Autism, 29(4), 1019–1033. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241294189

50.

Vincent

(2019). It’s the fear of the unknown: Transition from higher education for young autistic adults. Autism, 23(6), 1575–1585. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361318822498

51.

Williams

E. I.

Gleeson

Jones

B. E.

(2019). How pupils on the autism spectrum make sense of themselves in the context of their experiences in a mainstream school setting: A qualitative metasynthesis. Autism, 23(1), 8–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361317723836

52.

Yoon

Kim

Kang

(2020). Predictive power of grit, professor support for autonomy and learning engagement on perceived achievement within the context of a flipped classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education, 21(3), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418762463

Active Learning for Autistic Learners: Enabling or Disabling?

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Overview of Key Concepts and Definitions

Autism

Active Learning

Active Learning as Enabling Versus Disabling

Agency and Identity

Neuro-Normative Understandings of Learner Agency and Identity as Disabling

Enabling Learner Agency Through Supporting the Development of Autistic Active Learner Identities

Communication Styles and Learning Environments

The Disabling Effects of Neuro-Normative Communication Styles and Learning Environments

Encouraging Neuro-Affirming Communication and Environments

Broader Structures and Influences

Institutional and Historical Influences as Disabling Forces

Mitigating Harm Through Positive Learning Experiences

A Manifesto for Change

The Need to Examine the Foundations of Active Learning

The Importance of Autistic Involvement in Active Learning

The Need to Work Together for a Flourishing-Focussed Discourse

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Author Biographies

References