Cited by 79Disability Education and EmploymentInclusion and Disability in Education and SportCareer Development and Diversity

“Nothing about us without us:” The perspectives of autistic geoscientists on inclusive instructional practices in geoscience education

Kingsbury, Cole G., Sibert, Elizabeth C., Killingback, Zachary, Atchison, Christopher L.·2020·Journal of Geoscience Education

Abstract

Increasingly more students with disabilities, including autistic or otherwise neurodiverse students, are studying for degrees in STEM field subjects. In recent years, there has been an increased effort from the geoscience education community to make teaching more accessible and inclusive to these students. However, much of the literature on this topic lacks the voice of the individuals these practices aim to serve. This, combined with the medical, deficit-based understanding of autism typically presented in the literature, has resulted in the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes, along with recommendations that may not actually serve as best practice. Here we present a more accurate and holistic explanation of what autism actually is, using our lived experiences as autistic geoscientists. We then outline a comprehensive framework for best supporting autistic and neurodiverse geoscience students, with a focus on field-based learning. This framework includes three pillars: (a) develop effective communication pathways with autistic students, (b) presume competence and include autistic students in the planning of their own accommodations, and (c) employ strategies for expectation management. We also touch on the importance of recognizing the sensory processing aspects of autism spectrum conditions and suggest strategies for minimizing these difficulties in a field environment. By centering autistic voices in the discussion of how to support autistic geoscience students, we hope to change the narrative of inclusion for this diverse, but significant population.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10899995.2020.1768017

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Discipline-specific research calls for appropriate communication, involving neurodivergent students in the actual planning of adjustments, and managing transparent expectations.

    “Discipline-speci fi c research speaks to this and makes the call for appropriate communication, involving ND students in the actual planning of any adjustments and managing transparent expectations (Kingsbury et al., 2020).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kingsbury, C. G., Sibert, E. C., Killingback, Z., & Atchison, C. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Pretoria (ZA)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Durham University (GB)
  • University of Cincinnati (US)
Corresponding author
Kingsbury, Cole G.
Venue
Journal of Geoscience Education
Published
2020-06-05
Volume
68
Issue
4
Pages
302-310
ISSN
  • 1089-9995 (ISSN-L)
  • 2158-1428
OpenAlex
W3034069929
Cited by
79
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 1
FWCI
18.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Geoscience Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Education and Employment
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Inclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, neurodiversity, inclusive education, geoscience education, students with autism, field-based learning, disability accommodation, sensory processing, expectation management, student perceptions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review