Conference Program

Cognitive fatigue affects learning. Loss of concentration and impulsivity are often interpreted by teachers as a lack of motivation, which can lead to stigmatization and educational inequality. Many studies rely on average data, making it difficult to distinguish how differently children react to cognitive load.

This methodological proposal for a doctoral project describes the design of a study aimed at identifying markers of cognitive fatigue. Using a sample of 250-300 schoolchildren (ages 9-13), we propose using reaction time variability and ex-Gaussian distribution parameters (specifically tau).

The analysis will take place in three stages. First, we will apply latent profile analysis to performance metrics from sustained attention tasks (specifically, the SART) to identify hidden behavioral patterns and compare them with teacher evaluations. Second, we will check whether these patterns persist after 6-9 months, while controlling for sleep and stress levels. In the third stage, we will evaluate executive functions specifically inhibitory control and working memory which may explain these differences.

The goal of this project is to shift the focus from correcting children's behavior to supporting the cognitive mechanisms that require attention.

The aim of this contribution is to establish the parameters for the systemic regeneration of the educational institution, with the objective of collaboratively creating neuro-affirmative educational and formative ecosystems. The aim is to move away from inflexible performance-based standards and towards an educational approach that acknowledges the diversity of neurocognitive abilities as an essential component of learning. Adopting an inclusive approach, educational and didactic practice avoids oversimplification, instead embracing profound complexity — one capable of harmonising the empirical evidence of inclusive habilitative strategies with an ethic of radical hospitality. Overcoming the limitations of a purely custodial or welfare-based model, this research elevates the habilitative dimension to the fulcrum of educational practice. Here, habilitation is not construed as mere functional correction, but as the proactive empowerment of autonomy and cognitive architecture through the regeneration of learning environments. The architecture of this systemic innovation is substantiated by the integration of proven-effective iconic-symbolic mediators. Firstly, Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) is examined within the framework proposed by David Beukelman and Pat Mirenda, which is elevated to a democratic infrastructure of thought in this study. This is manifested through practices such as adopting communication boards and environmental engineering (modelling), which are designed to transform the school setting into a 'speaking context' where forced silence gives way to self-expression. Simultaneously, the study analyses the heuristic value of Carol Gray’s Social Stories. These instruments decode human interactions using a hermeneutic approach, offering students narratives and visual scripts that provide a sense of direction in the face of relational uncertainty, thereby reducing the mental distress caused by social unpredictability. Video modelling, a technique refined by James Buggey's research, complements this apparatus by leveraging the prevalence of visual processing channels to facilitate the acquisition of functional practices and complex behavioural sequences. By observing filmic models, students learn to understand and carry out a range of actions, from managing school routines to making small decisions every day. This helps them avoid the burden of having to speak in front of others, which can feel overwhelming and cause anxiety. In this way, educational and didactic action is configured as a systemic process that empowers not only individuals, but also the entire educational community, promoting an epistemology of cognitive pluralism. Thus, inclusive education rejects a model of schooling that is limited to mere hospitality. Instead, it is a constantly regenerating, scientifically grounded and humanly dense sanctuary that guarantees every student on the autism spectrum the inalienable right to a life trajectory oriented towards self-actualisation.

Social skills training (SST) programmes have traditionally been delivered to autistic adolescents in clinical settings, framing social difficulties as individual deficits requiring remediation. The neurodiversity paradigm challenges this assumption, reframing cognitive differences as natural human variation and calling for a “coexistence of differences” rather than assimilation into normative standards (Singer, 1999; Acanfora, 2022). Drawing on Neurodiversity Pedagogy (Cadavero & Salerni, 2022) and Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2024), this paper asks what happens when a structured SST protocol designed for autistic adolescents is recontextualised as universal socio-emotional education for an entire school population — and what institutional conditions support or hinder this shift, now endorsed by Italian Law No. 22/2025 on non-cognitive and transversal skills in schools.

The project “Socio-Emotional Literacy at School” (Alfabetizzazione socio-emotiva a scuola), co-funded by Associazione Spazio Asperger ONLUS and Fondazione Varrone, applied the STARC protocol (Social Training and Affective Regulation Curriculum), developed by CuoreMenteLab and grounded in the PEERS programme (Laugeson & Frankel, 2010) and Cognitive Affective Education (Attwood, 2004), to the entire student body of a lower secondary school in central Italy. Following earlier Italian work transposing clinical autism protocols into mainstream education (Agrillo, Zappalà & Aiello, 2019), around 150 students (aged 10–14) from a heterogeneous, non-screened school cohort participated regardless of diagnostic status. The protocol comprised 32 weekly two-hour sessions on conversational skills, non-verbal communication, affective regulation, and bullying management. Teaching staff received concurrent training in cognitive-behavioural social coaching.

Methodologically, the study adopts an exploratory single-case design (Yin, 2018), treating the project as a bounded case of protocol transposition from clinical to educational setting. The case is analysed through triangulation of three data sources: (1) a quantitative baseline collected from 82 students and 68 parents using validated measures of social knowledge (TAASK-R), social self-statements (SISST), social responsiveness (SRS-2), emotional distress (DASS-21), and socialisation quality (QSQ); (2) practitioner field notes on implementation processes and barriers; and (3) institutional correspondence documenting the school–research relationship. Post-intervention data collection was largely prevented by the school’s failure to facilitate follow-up: no student post-test data and only 11 parent questionnaires were obtained. The paper, therefore, does not claim programme effectiveness but uses the case to analyse the conditions and limits of universalising a neurodiversity-informed protocol.

The case yields three analytic insights. First, the baseline offers a descriptive profile of socio-emotional functioning in a non-clinical school cohort through instruments usually confined to clinical research. Second, making the hidden curriculum of social interaction explicit for all students repositions socio-emotional learning as a universal educational entitlement rather than a compensatory service for a few, a matter of educational equity and de-stigmatisation. Third, implementation data reveal the institutional fragility of this shift: oversized groups, uneven teacher engagement, and the collapse of agreed research procedures constrained both pedagogical continuity and evaluative rigour. The paper argues that the value of neurodiversity-informed social learning lies not in normalising individual students but in transforming the peer environment, with implications for inclusive pedagogy, school–research partnerships, and socio-emotional literacy as a question of social justice.

This study mainly aims to investigate which methodology - between “Explicit Instruction” [1] and “Inquiry-Based-Science-Education” (IBSE) [2] is best suited for one neurodiverse physics student at the University of Palermo and whether the modern technology such as ChatGPT can support the execution of four laboratory activities selected by the researchers, namely the study of Ohm’s law, the study of the charging and discharging process of a capacitor, the study of the magnetic field generated by solenoid carrying direct current and the verification of the Faraday-Neumann-Lenz law. It is worth noting that the last experiment was conducted over 43 days to analyze whether the neurodivergent student maintained the ability to use the laboratory instruments and remembered the earlier laboratory activities, as the last aim of the research. To gain a better understanding of the learning processes implemented by the neurodivergent student, the researchers had him experience three different situations in the physics laboratory. One with only one of the researchers acting as a guide, one with a neurotypical group of students (a neurotypical person is an individual whose neurological, cognitive, and behavioral functioning aligns with what is considered typical or standard within the general population) and one where the neurodivergent student worked alone. In all these situations, ChatGPT was available to use as a lab-partner. In the study, qualitative data collection methods, such as participant observation [3] and semi-structured interviews [4], and Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) methods [5, 6, 7] were used to collect and analyze the answers and perceptions of the one neurodivergent student.

In a context marked by widening inequalities in access to scientific knowledge, ensuring equitable participation becomes a matter of democratic relevance. This contribution presents Cosmic Roots, a science communication project developed for people with mild intellectual disabilities and diverse cognitive profiles, exploring how astronomy-based non-formal learning can foster equitable and neurodiversity-informed practices that promote social justice. Rather than approaching disability through deficit-based or medicalized frameworks, the project adopts a neurodiversity perspective that recognizes variability in perception, cognition and expression not as a limitation but as an epistemic and relational resource.

Developed through a collaboration between the University of Bologna and Associazione Volhand, an organization supporting people with disabilities, the project engages participants as co-creators of meaning within multisensory and dialogical activities. Central to this approach is the physical and symbolic connection between Cosmos and Earth, so that astronomy becomes a narrative bridge linking stellar processes to ecological cycles. This process is mediated through personal reinterpretations of scientific concepts, including artistic and musical practices. Within this framework, cognitive and neurological variability becomes a collective resource that enriches interpretation, and expands the range of meanings.

The project is grounded in the principles of Universal Design for Learning [1], which provide guidelines for designing educational experiences that accommodate diverse perceptual, cognitive and expressive needs. It also dialogues with inclusive outreach experiences such as “Stelle per Tutti” of the Unione Astrofili Italiani, and responds to recent reviews that call for broadening inclusive practices towards cognitive diversity [2].

Over more than three years of activity, the project addressed the following research questions: (1) How can astronomy-based initiatives be designed to value neurocognitive diversity as a resource? (2) What forms of agency and collective identity emerge when participants are positioned as knowledge-makers? (3) In which ways can science act as a mediator of social cohesion and democratic participation?

Methodologically, the project combines: in-person discussion meetings; participatory workshops integrating science, ecology, music and the arts; public outreach events; and educational visits to observatories and cultural institutions. A distinctive feature is the creation of an experimental garden, where cultivating wheat varieties becomes an embodied exploration of solar energy transformation on Earth. This dimension reinforces the conceptual link between neurodiversity and biodiversity, situating human variability within a broader ecological framework.

Impact has been periodically assessed through questionnaires, focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Findings indicate increased perceived scientific competence, strengthened self-confidence, reinforced group cohesion, and a deepened sense of belonging [3, 4, 5]. Participants report feeling recognized and valued for their unique ways of thinking and expressing themselves. The project has recently expanded through the publication of an illustrated book [6], and new music laboratories that explore alternative narrative languages.

Overall, Cosmic Roots illustrates how astronomy-based non-formal learning can move from compensatory to transformative inclusion. The project demonstrates how neurodiversity can enrich the ways in which scientific phenomena are interpreted and understood, functioning as both an epistemic and democratic resource.

A widely endorsed principle in educational discourse holds that “students need Maslow before they can Bloom”: basic psychological needs must be satisfied before higher-order thinking becomes possible. Ellis, Kirby, and Osborne (2023/2025) appropriately question whether Maslow’s needs should be conceived as a hierarchy at all, and demonstrate that neurodivergent learners’ higher-order cognitive abilities can actually interfere with apparently simpler tasks, inverting Bloom’s taxonomy. These observations open a door that this contribution walks through: the Maslow–Bloom relationship is not merely non-hierarchical — it is circular, and the prevailing educational model systematically breaks the loop.

The mechanism proposed is Learned Epistemic Helplessness (LEH): a self-reinforcing condition, installed by chronic authority-dependent instruction, in which the expectation that one’s thinking is irrelevant, the behavioral extinction of initiative, and the affective association of independent thought with anxiety converge into stable epistemic passivity. The drives LEH suppresses — curiosity, exploratory play, effectance, the drive to explain (Panksepp, 1998; Gopnik, 1998; White, 1959; Ryan & Deci, 2017) — are not higher-order achievements atop Maslow’s pyramid. They are basic psychological needs whose frustration produces the very symptoms — anxiety, disengagement, loss of agency — that we interpret as evidence that the student “is not ready” for higher-order thinking. Suppressing Bloom damages Maslow.

For neurodivergent learners, the causal direction can be inverted entirely. The autistic child whose exceptional explanatory drive (Rutherford & Subiaul, 2016) is frustrated by conformity-rewarding environments does not first need “stabilizing”: systematizing is their regulatory mechanism. The child with ADHD, whose dopaminergic system is under-engaged (Volkow et al., 2009), does not need “calming down” before engaging in demanding cognition: intrinsic challenge activates the self-regulation the classroom demands. Twice-exceptional learners face the sharpest version: told to Maslow before they can Bloom, while Bloom is precisely how they Maslow. The system reads the resulting distress as confirmation these students were not ready — a self-fulfilling prophecy that LEH renders visible and falsifiable.

In response, Epistemic Initiative (EI) is proposed: a four-phase method that restores the Bloom–Maslow loop by inverting the traditional learning sequence. Crucially, EI does not reassert the primacy of doing over instruction (Dewey’s learning by doing), nor of instruction over doing (traditional pedagogy): it asserts the primacy of autonomous model construction before both — before experimenting and before receiving formal teaching. The student first builds their own explanatory model, however rudimentary, then compares it against epistemically diverse sources (Wineburg & McGrew, 2019), identifies where it fails, and reflects on the process itself. The empirical foundation draws on Productive Failure (Kapur, 2014), the self-explanation effect (Chi, 2000), and desirable difficulties (Bjork & Bjork, 2011). Within the “pedagogy of differences” framework advanced by Cadavero and Salerni (in Ellis et al., 2025), LEH and EI supply the cognitive-motivational mechanism that connects intersectional analysis to classroom transformation: understanding not only which differences are marginalized, but how authority-dependent instruction installs epistemic passivity, and what operative sequence can reverse it. Bloom is Maslow. The task is to stop breaking the loop.

Autistic students experience peer victimization at dramatically higher rates than neurotypical peers, with prevalence reaching 73% versus 10% (Fisher & Taylor, 2016). Yet this disparity conceals a further layer of invisibility shaped by the intersection of gender and neurodivergence: autistic girls, who engage in social camouflaging more extensively and at greater personal cost, are systematically overlooked by detection systems and anti-bullying interventions too often built upon neurotypical and androcentric norms.

Camouflaging is positively correlated with victimization (Trundle et al., 2023), producing a paradoxical cycle: autistic girls suppress neurodivergent traits precisely to avoid bullying (Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019), but the resulting appearance of competence leads educators to underestimate their vulnerability and withdraw support. Indeed, 65.9% of parents report that camouflaging directly reduced school assistance (Zhuang et al., 2023). Later diagnosis, more common among girls, is associated with both greater camouflaging and more severe costs (Goscicki et al., 2025). Online, autistic girls face elevated risks of sexual harassment, while cyberbullying prevention programs rarely address the unique online safety needs of autistic young people (Triantafyllopoulou et al., 2022).

This paper frames such dynamics as a form of what Fricker (2007) terms epistemic injustice, both testimonial, in that autistic girls’ accounts of suffering are discredited when their behavior appears “typical,” and hermeneutical, in that educational systems lack the interpretive resources to recognize camouflaging as distress rather than adaptation. As Fisher et al. (2025) argue, neuro-normative epistemic injustice operates systemically within education, so that struggling neurodivergent children are treated as pathological outliers rather than as indicators of environmental failure. Drawing on critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970), we argue that standard anti-bullying frameworks operate as what Freire would call a “banking” approach to safety: they deposit universal protocols (peer reporting, behavioral markers, social-emotional curricula) into contexts presumed to be neutral, ignoring the power asymmetries that shape whose vulnerability is legible and whose remains structurally erased. We further argue that gendered expectations of social conformity compound neurotypical ones, producing a double bind in which autistic girls must perform both femininity and neurotypicality to access belonging.

From the perspective of neurodiversity pedagogy (Cadavero & Salerni, 2022), which proposes to recognize neurological variability as a central variable for educational sciences alongside cross-cultural and gender pedagogies, camouflaging should be read not as evidence of successful inclusion but as a systemic signal of environmental failure. This requires a shift from remediation of individual deficits to what we term neurodiversity-informed critical prevention: anti-bullying approaches that move beyond universal programs, which, even with general populations, prove effective only when tailored to specific risk profiles (Formella & Cavalli, 2018), and incorporate multi-informant assessment not reliant on neurotypical expressions of distress; that involve neurodivergent voices in program design, following the participatory epistemology central to both Freirean and disability-rights traditions; and that integrate school-based identity support, such as group interventions fostering autistic identity construction among adolescent girls (Travaglione, Cavalli, & Vagni, 2021), aimed at reducing the perceived necessity of camouflaging by creating contexts where neurological difference constitutes a legitimate form of participation in democratic school life.

In recent decades, the concept of neurodiversity has increasingly challenged deficit-oriented perspectives on neurological difference, proposing instead that cognitive variability is a natural and valuable dimension of human diversity (Kapp, 2020; Dwyer, 2022). Within educational discourse, however, neurodiversity is still frequently framed in terms of accommodation, remediation, or support for students identified as having special educational needs. While these approaches have contributed to greater awareness and inclusion, they often leave unquestioned the epistemic norms that structure educational institutions and define what counts as legitimate knowledge, learning, and intelligence.

This paper argues that neurodiversity should be understood not only as an issue of inclusion but as a matter of epistemic justice (Fricker, 2007). From this perspective, educational systems can reproduce forms of testimonial injustice, in which neurodivergent individuals’ perspectives and experiences are dismissed or undervalued, as well as hermeneutical injustice, where dominant interpretive frameworks fail to adequately represent neurodivergent ways of understanding the world. Addressing these injustices requires moving beyond compensatory models toward a broader transformation of educational epistemologies.

The study draws on theoretical perspectives from epistemic justice, cognitive democracy, and decolonial education to develop a conceptual framework for interpreting neurodiversity as a resource for plural knowledge ecologies. Cognitive democracy theories emphasize that democratic societies depend on the coexistence of diverse forms of knowledge, perspectives, and problem-solving strategies (Santos, 2018). Similarly, decolonial scholarship highlights how dominant epistemologies often marginalize alternative ways of knowing (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018). When viewed through this lens, neurodiversity can be interpreted as a form of cognitive plurality that enriches collective intelligence and expands the boundaries of educational knowledge.

In this context, the paper explores three interconnected research questions: how neurodiversity can be interpreted as a matter of epistemic justice within contemporary educational systems, and consequently how prevailing educational norms and institutional practices produce epistemic exclusions that affect neurodivergent students. This ultimately leads to a further research and educational question: how educational environments might be reimagined as democratic ecologies of knowledge, capable of supporting diverse cognitive styles and ways of knowing. To address these questions, the paper develops a philosophical-pedagogical analysis that connects neurodiversity to broader debates on social justice, knowledge pluralism, and democratic participation in education. Particular attention is paid to the role of learning environments, pedagogical design, and knowledge representation in shaping the epistemic conditions in which diverse cognitive perspectives can be expressed and valued.

Recent research suggests that inclusion policies in higher education frequently remain limited to procedural accommodations rather than addressing deeper structural inequalities embedded in knowledge systems and curricula (Clouder et al., 2020; Botha & Gillespie-Lynch, 2022). By linking neurodiversity with epistemic justice and cognitive democracy, this paper proposes a shift from integration to epistemic transformation, where educational institutions become spaces for cultivating diverse cognitive perspectives and forms of understanding.

Ultimately, embracing neurodiversity as epistemic justice means recognizing that the plurality of minds is not merely a challenge for education but a fundamental condition for democratic knowledge societies capable of responding creatively to the complexity of contemporary global challenges.

Students with neurodivergent profiles and learning differences often struggle to find recognition and a sense of belonging within conventional educational systems (Fisher et al. 2025). Even as awareness of neurodiversity grows, many schools remain organized around implicit expectations about how students should behave, and learn (Zawidzki 2008, Lynch & Lodge, 2024). As a result, the experiences and perspectives of neurodivergent students are rarely taken seriously when educational pathways are designed. This can lead to forms of epistemic injustice, in which students’ own understandings of their learning, educational and personal needs are overlooked within public schooling contexts (Zembylas 2023).

This paper explores what an alternative educational environment looks like, by presenting a qualitative case study of democratic schools in the Netherlands that attempt to organize their educational practices around more just and inclusive principles (Bergman, van, and Meerbeek-Zwetsloot 2024). Rather than treating neurodivergence as a deviation from the norm or something that needs to be accommodated through special measures, the school approaches neurological variability as a natural and valuable aspect of human diversity (Chapman 2021). In this sense, neither neurodivergence nor neurotypicality functions as the standard against which students are measured. Instead, the school starts from the assumption that diversity of minds, interests, and ways of learning is the ordinary condition of any educational community, including teachers as well as students (Strijbos & de Bruin 2025).

The paper first describes some of the philosophical and organizational principles that shape the democratic structure of the school. Particular attention is given to its participatory governance, the emphasis placed on student agency, and the alternative ways in which evaluation and educational progress are understood (Angélique Del Rey 2018). These elements aim to create an environment where students are not primarily defined through diagnostic labels or perceived deficits, but are recognized as individuals capable of shaping their own learning paths.

The paper also reflects on how such an educational model relates to questions about future opportunities and participation in society. A common concern is that highly flexible and self-directed forms of education might make it more difficult for students to enter the labor market. However, the experience of this school suggests that when students are given meaningful agency and responsibility for their learning, they are able to develop trajectories that are both personally meaningful and compatible with later professional paths.

Students’ own accounts of their experiences at the school suggest noticeable improvements in well-being, self-confidence, and engagement with learning. These testimonies point to the possibility that educational environments grounded in democratic participation and recognition of neurocognitive diversity can foster forms of flourishing that are often difficult to achieve in more standardized systems.

The paper concludes by addressing a remaining challenge. While democratic and neurodiversity-affirming schools can offer promising alternatives to traditional education, they are often small and relatively difficult to access. An important question for future research and educational policy is therefore how similar educational principles might be implemented more broadly, and how such opportunities could become available to students from less economically privileged backgrounds.