In the ever-evolving landscape of STEM education, group work has long been heralded as a critical component promoting collaboration, communication, and collective problem-solving skills. However, recent research published by Salvatore, White, and Podowitz-Thomas in the International Journal of STEM Education challenges the conventional one-size-fits-all approach to group assignments, focusing on the unique experiences of neurodivergent students navigating these collaborative environments. Their study illuminates the multifaceted challenges and nuanced realities faced by these learners, urging educators and institutions to rethink how group work can be structured to foster inclusion and harness diverse cognitive strengths.
Neurodivergence—a term encompassing a variety of neurological differences including autism spectrum disorders (ASD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyslexia, and others—introduces a range of perceptual and cognitive variations that impact how students engage with collaborative tasks. The researchers argue that despite the growing neurodiversity movement advocating for acceptance and accommodation, STEM classrooms often continue to operate under assumptions that overlook these differences, thus complicating the integration of neurodivergent students into team-based projects.
Fundamentally, the study reveals that group work is far from a “cookie cutter situation” for neurodivergent learners; it is instead a dynamic and complex experience shaped by intersecting factors such as communication style, sensory sensitivities, executive functioning, and social interaction preferences. Using qualitative data drawn from interviews and focus groups with neurodivergent students in varied STEM disciplines, the authors uncover how conventional group processes may inadvertently create barriers, sometimes exacerbating feelings of exclusion or stress.
One of the paramount findings highlights communication as a double-edged sword. While teamwork necessitates ongoing dialogue, neurodivergent students often find typical modes of interaction—rapid verbal exchanges, reliance on implicit social cues, and spontaneous brainstorming sessions—especially taxing. For individuals with ASD, for example, the ambiguity inherent in indirect communication can lead to misunderstandings, whereas those with ADHD may struggle to maintain focus within fluid and unpredictable conversation dynamics. This friction, the study notes, can hinder both participation and contribution, thereby lowering the academic and emotional rewards derived from group assignments.
Sensory processing differences also emerge as a critical lens for understanding these experiences. Many neurodivergent individuals report heightened or altered sensory sensitivities that can turn common classroom scenarios—such as noisy group meetings or brightly lit laboratories—into sources of discomfort or distraction. Salvatore and colleagues emphasize that when sensory needs are unacknowledged, the resulting strain can overshadow a student’s ability to engage fully, reducing efficacy and increasing fatigue. This insight calls for reimagining collaboration spaces to be more adaptable and accommodating to diverse sensory profiles.
Another significant dimension involves the executive functioning demands intrinsic to group work. Tasks like organizing meetings, delegating responsibilities, tracking deadlines, and synthesizing disparate inputs require a high degree of cognitive coordination. For students managing ADHD or other neurodivergent conditions affecting executive control, these hurdles can lead to organizational chaos or avoidant behaviors. The study underscores that conventional group work rarely accounts for such challenges, often expecting seamless coordination without providing scaffolding or explicit role negotiation mechanisms.
Navigating social dynamics constitutes an additional, and perhaps the most emotionally charged, element of these group experiences. Many neurodivergent students convey ambivalence toward peer interactions, oscillating between enthusiasm for connection and apprehension about social judgment or exclusion. The authors describe scenarios where neurodivergent learners faced microaggressions, unintentional dismissiveness, or were pigeonholed into stereotyped roles—such as the “quiet member” or the “technical expert”—thus limiting authentic engagement and growth. Such patterns highlight systemic gaps in training and awareness surrounding neurodiversity within STEM education.
The research also critiques the default pedagogical models that prioritize group homogeneity for efficiency’s sake. While grouping students based on similar academic levels or communication styles might streamline project flow, it risks marginalizing those who deviate from normative patterns. Instead, the authors advocate for “neuro-inclusive” frameworks that appreciate cognitive diversity as a source of innovation rather than an obstacle. These frameworks would intentionally design collaborative tasks with flexible expectations, varied interaction modes, and explicit recognition of individual strengths and challenges.
Importantly, Salvatore and colleagues suggest practical strategies to foster more supportive group work experiences. They call for transparent communication of group roles and goals to minimize ambiguity, utilization of asynchronous collaboration tools to accommodate varying processing speeds, and regular check-ins with instructors to monitor group dynamics. These interventions, grounded in Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles, seek to democratize participation and empower all students to contribute meaningfully.
The implications of this research extend beyond individual classrooms. Given that teamwork is a fundamental skill in STEM professions, inadequately addressing the learning needs of neurodivergent students risks perpetuating inequities into workforce participation. The authors argue that embracing neurodiversity in educational settings prepares a more resilient and innovative workforce by tapping into a spectrum of problem-solving approaches and cognitive perspectives.
Furthermore, the study calls on institutions to invest in professional development aimed at equipping educators with the knowledge and tools to recognize and support neurodivergent learners in collaborative contexts. This includes training on neurodiversity-informed communication techniques, adaptive assessment methods, and fostering classroom cultures that value empathy and inclusivity.
Technology also plays a pivotal role in enhancing group work accessibility. Digital platforms offering flexible communication formats—such as chat, video, and document collaboration—can help neurodivergent students engage in ways aligned with their preferences and strengths. The researchers note that when implemented thoughtfully, these tools can reduce social anxiety, support executive functioning, and facilitate clearer project management.
Ensuring that these reforms take root, however, requires a systemic shift in educational policy and cultural attitudes. The study stresses that well-intentioned accommodations must be paired with genuine structural changes rather than superficial adjustments. Institutional commitment to inclusivity, reflected in curriculum design, resource allocation, and assessment standards, is critical for creating STEM learning environments where every student can thrive.
The study’s findings contribute to an expanding dialogue about equity and diversity in STEM, intersecting with broader efforts to dismantle barriers for underrepresented groups. By centering neurodivergent experiences, Salvatore, White, and Podowitz-Thomas invite educators, researchers, and policymakers to reexamine dominant paradigms and embrace complexity rather than simplification.
In conclusion, this research challenges the STEM education community to move beyond reductive conceptions of group work and recognize the diverse tapestry of neurocognitive profiles shaping student experiences. By doing so, educators can transform group projects from potential minefields into rich opportunities for learning, collaboration, and innovation—honoring neurodiversity not as a hurdle but as a vital asset in the quest for scientific advancement.
Subject of Research: How neurodivergent students experience group work in STEM courses
Article Title: “Not a cookie cutter situation”: how neurodivergent students experience group work in their STEM courses
Article References:
Salvatore, S., White, C. & Podowitz-Thomas, S. “Not a cookie cutter situation”: how neurodivergent students experience group work in their STEM courses.
IJ STEM Ed 11, 47 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00508-0
Image Credits: AI Generated
