Diversity in Education Study (DivES): Investigating a neurodiversity module in higher education

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327379 July 21, 2025 8 / 12 For those who completed the CCCMII ableism critical consciousness scale in both the pre- and post-survey (n = 151), a paired-sample t-test was used to assess change from the start to the end of the term. The average CCCMII ableism scale score significantly decreased from the pre- to the post-survey, t(150) = 3.79, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .31. Instructor differences The ableism scale findings were unexpected and prompted further (post-hoc) evaluation of scores by instructor. For Professor Y, the mean change in scores was −.73 (i.e., stable from pre to post, t(48) =.73, p = .47, Cohen’s d = .10) and for Professor X, mean scores change was −3.01 (i.e., a notable change, t(94) = 4.11, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .41). In the case of the CCMII ableism scales, differences by instructor emerged. Differences by instructor were also investigated for the other research questions (see Table 3), but it did not influence the other results. Discussion Within this study, a week-long module increased neurodiversity awareness and comfort in self-disclosing neurodiver- gent status. However, it was inadequate at increasing one’s critical consciousness of ableism (or the ability to recognize systems of inequality that favor abled persons). Although connected, understanding a definition of neurodiversity is not the same as recognized systems of oppression. The neurodiversity module utilized in this study focused on understanding

neurodiversity, its development/history, and its real-world applications today. The training aimed to de-pathologize neuro- divergent identities and gave students interpersonal experiences with neurodivergent peers. One of the readings included in the neurodiversity module focused on ableism but with no in-person content. This likely contributed to the divergent findings across the outcomes of interest. When considering the pattern of findings within this study, the larger ‘parent’ project should be considered. The larger project, Diversity in Education Study (DivES), included educational modules on several systems of oppression, discrimi- nation, and prejudice with respect to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and several additional identities. Although systems of ableism were not explicitly taught it seemed reasonable, at the time of study design, that the consciousness of ableism could increase with the consciousness of other systems of oppression, discrimination, and prejudice. Findings from this study support more direct educational approaches, as the more indirect approach employed in DivES may not be suffi- cient to recognize patterns of ablism in HE. The rates of neurodivergent identities within this sample may initially appear high (12–28%). At Purdue University (PU), roughly 6–7% of the student body are registered with the Disability Resource Center (DRC). This is a required step in the process of receiving accommodations at PU. However, in Purdue’s Student Experience Survey roughly 36% of the incom-

ing student cohort endorsed a category that could be considered a neurodivergent identity (e.g., autism, ADHD, bipolar disorder, dyslexia, dyscalculia). Estimates from the National Center for Educational Statistics [30] document roughly 20% of HE students endorsed similar categories but only 12–15% reported this to their home institution [31]. Therefore, upon reflection of larger patterns, the neurodivergent identity endorsements within this study are not outside of expectations. However, they do draw attention to the large portion of students in HE classrooms who could be served by neurodiversity- affirming practices. Table 3. Breakdown of endorsement of a neurodivergent identify by gender, sexual orientation, race, and professor. Variable Female Heterosexual White/European Professor n (%) Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Neurodiverse 17 (11%) 37 (25%) 13 (9%) 30 (20%) 12 (8%) 35 (23%) 14 (9%) 27 (18%) Neurotypical 116 (78%) 96 (64%) 107 (70%) 90 (75%) 109 (71%) 87 (57%) 88 (60%) 76 (50%) Note. Reflects the most common group in terms of gender, sexual orientation, race, and professor. Each variable is coded in a binary manner. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327379.t003