Neurotypical pedagogy presumes able-bodiedness and able-mindedness, reinforcing neuronormative research methodologies. We subvert neurotypical pedagogy by co-designing neurodiverse pedagogy for computational thinking (CT), which demands a critically accountable, neurodivergent methodology that answers to representation, embodiment, and multiplicative understandings. Our study explores the experiences of middle-school teachers of autistic, neurodivergent students within the context of a research practitioner partnership. We introduce score analysis, a neuroqueer methodology that is inventive, accessible, and representational of cross-sensory neurodiversity. Findings indicate teachers’ productive struggle, discomfort as generative, and tension between neurotypical systemic pressures and desires for neuro-inclusive instruction. Discussion extends theorization of neurodiverse practices in CT education.
AngelidesP. (2001). The development of an efficient technique for collecting and analyzing qualitative data: The analysis of critical incidents. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(3), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390110029058
2.
BarabS. (2022). Design-based research: A methodological toolkit for engineering change. In SawyerR. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (3rd ed., pp. 177–195). Cambridge University Press.
3.
BarkvedK. H. (2022). Neuroqueer imaging: Drawing an autistic autoethnography. [Master’s thesis, The University of British Columbia]. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0406250
BaurhooN.AsgharA. (2014). Using universal design for learning to construct inclusive science classrooms for diverse learners. LEARNing Landscapes, 7(2), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.36510/learnland.v7i2.651
6.
BeghettoR. A. (2013). Killing ideas softly? The promise and perils of creativity in the classroom. Information Age Publishing.
BeghettoR. A.VasquezA. M. (2023). Creative learning: A pedagogical perspective. In BallL. J.Vallée-TourangeauF. (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of creative cognition (pp. 551–569). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003009351-35
9.
Bertilsdotter RosqvistH. (2019). Doing things together: Exploring meanings of different forms of sociality among autistic people in an autistic work space. Alter: European Journal of Disability Research, 13(3), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2019.03.003
10.
Bertilsdotter RosqvistH.BothaM.HensK.O’DonoghueS.PearsonA.StenningA. (2023). Cutting our own keys: New possibilities of neurodivergent storying in research. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 27(5), 1235–1244. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221132107
11.
Bertilsdotter RosqvistH.ChownN.StenningA. (Eds.), (2020). Neurodiversity studies: A new critical paradigm. Routledge.
12.
Bertilsdotter RosqvistH.Jackson-PerryD. (Eds.), (2024). The Palgrave handbook of research methods and ethics in neurodiversity studies. Palgrave Macmillan.
13.
BierdzB. (2024). Crip (non)pedagogies: Complementing and mutating anti-oppressive pedagogies. Journal of Disability Studies in Education, 4(2), 178–203. https://doi.org/10.1163/25888803-BJA10030
BoldsenS. (2021). Social interaction style in autism: An inquiry into phenomenological methodology. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 52(2), 157–192. https://doi.org/10.1163/15691624-12341389
16.
BothaM.HanlonJ.WilliamsG. 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
17.
Butler-KisberL. (2021). Poetic inquiry. In FitzpatrickE.FitzpatrickK. (Eds.), Poetry, method and education research: Doing critical, decolonising and political inquiry (pp. 21–40). Routledge.
ColebrookC. (2014) Sex after life: Essays on extinction (Vol. 2). Open Humanities Press.
20.
DavidsonJ.OrsiniM. (2013). Critical autism studies: Notes on an emerging field. In DavidsonJ.OrsiniM. (Eds.), Worlds of autism: Across the spectrum of neurological difference (pp. 1–28). University of Minnesota Press.
21.
DwyerP. (2022). The neurodiversity approach(es): What are they and what do they mean for researchers?Human Development, 66(2), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1159/000523723
22.
ErevellesN. (2000). Educating unruly bodies: Critical pedagogy, disability studies, and the politics of schooling. Educational Theory, 50(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2000.00025.x
FotheringhamF.CebulaK.Fletcher-WatsonS.FoleyS.CromptonC. J. (2023). Co-designing a neurodivergent student-led peer support programme for neurodivergent young people in mainstream high schools. Neurodiversity, 1, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330231205770
25.
FrickerM. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
26.
GoodleyD. (2007). Towards socially just pedagogies: Deleuzoguattarian critical disability studies. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11(3), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110701238769
27.
GraceE. I. (2013). Autistethnography. In SmithP. (Ed.), Both sides of the table: Autoethnographies of educators learning and teaching with/in [dis]ability (pp. 89–102). Peter Lang.
28.
GrasseniC. (2012). Community mapping as auto-ethno-cartography. In PinkS. (Ed.), Advances in visual methodology (pp. 97–112). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446250921
29.
GreenJ.ShaughnessyN. (2023). Autistic phenomenology: Past, present, and potential future. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1287209. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1287209
30.
HaoR. N. (2011). Rethinking critical pedagogy: Implications for silence and silent bodies. Text and Performance Quarterly, 31(3), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/10462937.2011.573185
31.
HuijgD. D. (2020). Neuronormativity in theorising agency: An argument for a critical neurodiversity approach. In Bertilsdotter RosqvistH.ChownN.StenningA. (Eds.), Neurodiversity studies: A new critical paradigm (pp. 213–217). Routledge.
HumeR. (2024). An inclusive methodology for research with multiply neurodivergent participants. In Bertilsdotter RosqvistH.Jackson-PerryD. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of research methods and ethics in neurodiversity studies (pp. 215–231). Palgrave Macmillan.
KvaleS. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Sage.
36.
Le CunffA.-L.Ellis LoganP.FordR.MartisB.-L.MoussetI.SekiboJ.DommettE.GiampietroV. (2023). Co-design for participatory neurodiversity research: Collaborating with a community advisory board to design a research study. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 4(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.66184
37.
Lenz TaguchiH. (2016). “The concept as method”: Tracing-and-mapping the problem of the Neuro(n) in the field of education. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 16(2), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708616634726
MacLeodA. (2019). Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) as a tool for participatory research within Critical Autism Studies: A systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 64, 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2019.04.005
40.
ManningE. (2016). The minor gesture. Duke University Press.
41.
McKinneyC. (2016). Cripping the classroom: Disability as a teaching method in the humanities. Transformations: The Journal of Inclusive Scholarship and Pedagogy,25(2), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.5325/trajincschped.25.2.0114
42.
McRuerR. (2006). Crip theory: Cultural signs of queerness and disability. New York University Press.
MeadowsA.WimpennyK. (2017). Core themes in music therapy clinical improvisation: An arts-informed qualitative research synthesis. Journal of Music Therapy, 54(2), 161–195. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/thx006
45.
MechtleyB.IngallsT.SteinJ.RawlsC.ShaX. W. (2019). SC: A modular software suite for composing continuously-evolving responsive environments. In BeesleyP.HastingsS.BonnemaisonS. (Eds.), Living architecture systems group white papers. Riverside Architectural Press.
46.
MehtaA. P.MehtaP. R.AndersonS. P.MacKinnonB. L. H.CompstonA. (2020). Etymology and the neuron(e). Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 143(1), 374–379. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awz367
MurrayD.MiltonD.GreenJ.BervoetsJ. (2023). The human spectrum: A phenomenological enquiry within neurodiversity. Psychopathology, 56(3), 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1159/000526213
49.
NicolaidisC.RaymakerD.KappS. K.BaggsA.AshkenazyE.McDonaldK.WeinerM.MaslakJ.HunterM.JoyceA. (2019). The AASPIRE practice-based guidelines for the inclusion of autistic adults in research as co-researchers and study participants. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 23(8), 2007–2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361319830523
50.
PellicanoE.den HoutingJ. (2022). Annual research review: Shifting from ‘normal science’ to neurodiversity in autism science. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 63(4), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13534
51.
PickardH.PellicanoE.den HoutingJ.CraneL. (2021). Participatory autism research: Early career and established researchers’ views and experiences. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 26(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211019594
52.
PriceM. (2024). Crip spacetime: Access, failure, and accountability in academic life. Duke University Press.
53.
RoseD. (2000). Universal design for learning: Associate editor column. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4), 67–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340001500108
54.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning. Harvard Education Press.
55.
RoseI. (2008). Autistic autobiography or autistic life narrative?Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 2(1), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.3828/jlcds.2.1.6
56.
SawyerK. (2019). The creative classroom: Innovative teaching for 21st-century learners. Teachers College Press.
57.
SchneidI.RazA. E. (2020). The mask of autism: Social camouflaging and impression management as coping/normalization from the perspectives of autistic adults. Social Science & Medicine, 248, 112826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112826
58.
ShaX. W. (2016). Theater without organs: Co-Articulating gesture and substrate in responsive environments. In BeesleyP.RoushanA. (Eds.), Living architecture systems group white papers (pp. 276–291). Riverside Architectural Press.
59.
ShannonD. B. (2020). Neuroqueer(ing) noise: Beyond ‘mere inclusion’ in a neurodiverse early childhood classroom. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 9(5), 489–514. https://doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v9i5.706
60.
ShaughnessyN. (2022). Learning with labyrinths: Neurodivergent journeying towards new concepts of care and creative pedagogy through participatory community autism research. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 10(spe), 127–250. https://doi.org/10.14426/cristal.v10iSI.546
61.
ShaughnessyN.GreenJ.WilliamsE.SmithJ. A.TzovarasB. G.AitkenheadG.MiltonD.JonesE.BuckleK. L. (2024). Developing a phenomenology of autism. In Bertilsdotter RosqvistH.Jackson-PerryD. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of research methods and ethics in neurodiversity studies (pp. 233–256). Palgrave Macmillan.
62.
SilbermanS. (2016). NeuroTribes: The legacy of autism and the future of neurodiversity. Avery Publishing.
63.
Sonuga-BarkeE. J. S.ChandlerS.LukitoS.KakoulidouM.MooreG.CooperN.MatejkoM.JacksonI.BalwaniB.BoyensT.PoultonD.Harvey-NguyenL.BakerS.PavlopoulouG.RE-STAR team*. (2024). Participatory translational science of neurodivergence: Model for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism research. The British Journal of Psychiatry: The Journal of Mental Science, 224(4), 127–131. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2023.151
TantiaJ. F. (2020). The body-focused interview: Explicating the implicit in embodied research. In TantiaJ. F. (Ed.), The art and science of embodied research design: Concepts, methods and cases (pp. 165–175). Routledge.
66.
ThornS.WillcoxH.ShaX. W. (2020). Processual and experiential design in wearable music workshopping. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Movement and Computing, Jersey City/Virtual, NJ, USA, 2020, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3401956.3404235
67.
TinkleT. (2022). Pedagogies of the mad. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture, 22(2), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-9576432
68.
TirriK.Koro-LjungbergM. (2002). Critical incidents in the lives of gifted female Finnish scientists. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13(4), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2002-379
69.
TownsendN. L. (2006). Framing a ceiling as a floor: The changing definition of learning disabilities and the conflicting trends in legislation affecting learning disabled students. Creighton Law Review, 40(2), 229–270. https://hdl.handle.net/10504/40582
70.
TrinterC. P.HughesH. E. (2021). Teachers as curriculum designers: Inviting teachers into the productive struggle. RMLE Online, 44(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2021.1878417
71.
Van GoidsenhovenL.De SchauwerE. (2020). Listening beyond words: Swinging together. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 22(1), 330–339. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.756
72.
VasquezA. M.CapriottiM.BeardsleyA. (2022). Multilogues with neurodiverse learning communities on intersectionality and educational equity. American Educational Research Association. [Conferencesession]. San Diego, CA, USA, 2022.
WellsM. B. (2022). Supporting higher education students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder through universal design for learning. College Teaching, 72(3), 227–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2022.2160959
