The Higher Education (HE) landscape has changed over the years with the key agenda of widening participation and diversification. Students with diverse needs, varied educational backgrounds, learning styles, identities are participating in HE. The diversity of students attracted to HE is leading to increased research focussing on transitions for diverse students focussed on both participation and retention of underrepresented student population in HE.

Studies indicate that the term transition in education is often used to gloss over system difficulties in education (Downes, 2019). According to Downes (2019), the term transitions include four different meanings-

According to Scott et al. (2014), in higher education there are four transition processes for students- from a pure to an applied disciplinary context, from an international to a British national context, from full-time work to full-time work and part-time study, and from an historically under-represented background in higher education to an academic setting. In the Open University, on Access modules many students are coming back to education after a gap, often having had negative experiences of education, resulting in lower academic skills. They may also present a matrix of complex social and mental health issues. This Open University study fits in the third category of transition and calls for more commitment, time, effort, and energy from all students. Transitions are nonlinear and in higher education should be conceived as, ‘entangled, nonlinear, iterative, and recursive process, in which students travel in irregular ways through the various landscapes of their experience (university, family, work, social life) and bring those landscapes into relation with each other’ (Taylor et al., 2018). For neuro divergent students, this nonlinear recursive process may be problematic and difficult to navigate.

The term neurodiversity has been in existence for two decades (Singer, 1999). It is an umbrella term that covers a range of conditions including dyspraxia, dyslexia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyscalculia, autistic spectrum, and Tourette syndrome (Singer, 1999). Neurodiversity has often been used inappropriately to refer to a single individual rather than a group or community. Diversity refers to a group and not to a specific individual. In this paper, we adopt the position of Fletcher-Watson (2022), who argue that each individual should be described as “neurodivergent” and the specific groups of neurodivergent individuals make neurodiversity in HE settings, highlighting that: “neuro diversity captures the individual differences between us all (sources of neurodiversity) and recognise category boundaries (sources of neurodivergence) in one unified framework” (Fletcher-Watson, 2022).

Previous studies argue that neurodiversity simply means being wired differently rather than wrongly wired (Armstrong, 2012). Therefore, this paper does not seek to position any of these students as in deficit but explores how they might be better supported to succeed within a system that is often not fully developed to meet their needs. Whilst anti-discrimination legislation such as the DDA (1995), since superseded by The Equality Act (2010), has led to many students applying for Higher Education Institutions in the UK (Griffin and Pollak, 2009). These students often face challenges in success after entering HEIs. Historically, these challenges have been termed “Learning Difficulties”, however in recent years, this has been changed to the more acceptable and often used “learning differences” to identify neuro diversity amongst students (BDA, 2006). This is also aligned with the positive focus on the term neurodiversity, which focuses upon identifying differences among the leaners rather than deficits (Kaplan et al., 2001).

Prior research highlights the impact of neurodivergence upon student’s experiences. Griffin and Pollak (2009) highlight the complexity neurodivergence adds to the experiences of students. From their study of 27 current and previous HE students, they found that neurodivergent students are likely to come with prior negative experiences of formal education, which can shape their engagement with academic and support services. In contrast, their participants also displayed high levels of ambition and determination to succeed. Their experiences demonstrated a heterogenous range of unequal experiences of support from both academic and support staff. Whilst much progress had been made in HE since 2009, the recurrence of issues in more recent research suggests some of what they found is enduring (Kapp et al., 2013; Fletcher-Watson and Happé, 2019; Rosqvist et al., 2020). Griffin and Pollak (2009) also highlighted how HE has become increasingly aware and accommodating of neurodiversity but that there are gaps in communication between academic and support services.

The label of neurodiversity can be controversial, and some individuals’ express unhappiness of being labelled in this way (Griffin and Pollak, 2009). However, this term is commonly used to act as an umbrella for a range of differences that impact learning. Griffin and Pollak (2009) found a lot of similarities in the experiences of individuals with differing specific needs that fall under this banner. Furthermore, a recent narrative synthesis of the literature on neurodiversity in higher education was carried out (Clouder et al., 2020). This study suggests that dyslexia, dyspraxia, ADHD, and ASD can be co-morbid, but more importantly may go undiagnosed in some cases, due to having a formal diagnosis for another condition. Therefore, this paper adopts the term as an umbrella to explore the varied but often shared experiences of groups of students with different diagnoses in higher education.

The intersection of neurodiversity with many other factors has been well researched. Previous studies have highlighted key issues such as mental health issues (White et al., 2017), transitions, coping methods, and the importance of individualised support to neurodivergent students (Anderson et al., 2020). The Higher Education journey of any student in a distance learning university is a challenging one but this is more so for neurodivergent students. Neurodivergent students have been found to require both academic (Ness, 2013; Jackson et al., 2018) and non-academic support (Gelbar et al., 2015) around them to enable to achieve and reach their academic goals. Academic difficulties can lead to extreme stress and anxiety (Shmulsky et al., 2013). This can further progress into non achievement and non-completion of the modules or study for the neurodivergent students.

Due to possible barriers in communication and social interaction, most studies exclude neurodivergent students from their research design processes. This may then lead to lack of relevance for the research findings in facilitating comprehensive support around neurodivergent students. Participatory research designs and involvement of neurodivergent children and young adults provides a rich data. Multi modal participatory methods enable inclusivity in research design process and facilitate participation by neurodivergent students. Studies like those by Costley et al. (2022) highlight that the real inclusion of students with neuro diversity that can be achieved by comprehensively focussing on participatory autism research (PAUR). This means involving students with neuro diversity in research as an attempt to find the real solutions rather than tokenistic approaches support them. Ward et al. (2022) study highlights the importance of participatory research designs in allowing students agency and giving them a feeling of ownership of the research process and outcomes. In the present study, the use of photo elicitation technique was an attempt to enable students to exercise their agency and ownership in interview technique supported by photo elicitation.

The literature on neurodivergent students tells us that anxiety, self-efficacy and negative experience of prior education can impact them significantly (Clouder et al., 2020). For students on Access modules and courses, these might be compounded particularly by-stepping into education after a long gap, lack of academic skills and learning strategies, lack of confidence, work, and family commitments.

Although neurodiversity per se as a topic has been researched and evaluated by many studies (Hadley, 2007; Lindstrom, 2007; Seeman, 2010; Clinton et al., 2011), the link between neurodiversity and awarding gaps is an area of study that requires some more focus and detail. Research, studies, and practitioners have over the years assumed that the understanding neurodiversity and placing some relevant interventions is sufficient for Neurodivergent students to succeed academically (Gray, 1998; Sansosti et al., 2004; Kokina et al., 2010). The recent focus has been to evaluate the relevance of these studies to support Neurodivergent students (White et al., 2016; Ashbaugh et al., 2017; Jansen et al., 2017). Some recent researches have focussed on developing an understanding of the linguistic needs of individuals with autistic spectrum conditions while other studies have evaluated the relevance and validity of studies evaluating mentoring, transitions, academic skill development and social skills development in students with neuro diversity (Anderson et al., 2020). Research has identified lack of exploration of the role played by academic support in helping Neurodivergent students achieve and reach their goals (Anderson et al., 2020).

HEIs have been using the term “Attainment” which puts the onus on the individuals in achieving the degrees. However, the use of the word “Awarding gap” put the responsibility on the HEIs. The awarding gap challenges the deficit model of neurodivergent students. It brings the responsibility back to the HEIs to support neurodivergent students in successful achievement of modules. It may be useful to explore what is missing in the students support from the perspective of Neuro divergent students so that this awarding gap can be successfully bridged. Form a Neuro divergent student’s perspective it may be effective to capture “What I would like support on while studying? In understanding the relationship between the students experiences and awarding gaps, this project is likely to offer insights for exploration of other awarding gaps in a way which is currently limited through existing institutional datasets.

Studies of neurodivergent students indicate that HEIs should work to draw a fine balance of support from various angles- study advisers, recognising diversity, developing essential skills, and developing essential skills that link specifically to modules (Connor, 2012). Instead of a wide single, “umbrella support” that fits all neuro divergent students, support should be individually tailored to specific neurodiverse needs of each student.

Social interactions also play an important part in the relative success of this group of students. Lambe et al. (2019) who conducted research with 25 A-level students with a clinical diagnosis of autism transitioning to the University of Bath. Primarily the student concerns were focused upon social interactions and fitting in rather than the academic transitions or issues related to support. In many ways this is expected when focusing on a traditional residential university experience but is unlike the transitions in the context of distance learning study. In the context of this study, these issues are less relevant due to the distance learning nature of the Open University study. This section will therefore focus on the issues that translate into our specific context raised in other recent studies.

Whilst our study sought to address neurodiversity as a wide umbrella, research often focuses more narrowly on one type of neurodivergence such as dyslexia or Autism. In terms of transitions for students with dyslexia, O’Byrne et al. (2019) focused on four undergraduates and a graduate student with dyslexia in Dublin, Ireland. In this study, several of their participants were close to school leaving age so many of their comparisons were with school experiences. Their participants raised concerns about the lack of one-to-one support they had experienced in relation to their expectations and prior educational experiences. One of the themes related directly to transition, focused upon learning techniques and how their participants had developed specific individual coping strategies. This research also highlighted the need for students to have courage to ask for support from support services and the barriers to accessing these services a lack of confidence creates. Rowan (2014) also examined the transition experiences of students with dyslexia, in New Zealand. This small-scale qualitative study focused on in-depth interviews with four students at school leaving age. They found that the students perceived they had to put longer hours in than other students to make the same progress. They also highlighted the challenges of accessing student support in terms of the lag between requesting services and gaining the required resources. Additionally, some of their participants highlighted not knowing where to seek the support they needed. Drawing upon other research such as Mortimore et al. (2006) and Pollak (2005) cited in Rowan (2014), Rowan argues this is a common issue amongst students with dyslexia who can be reluctant to seek support.

Similarly, to the studies focused upon students with dyslexia, many of these themes recurred in studies of students with ASD. Anderson et al. (2020) also conducted a qualitative study with 11former students in Australia and New Zealand to reflect on their experiences. When looking at their findings relating to student support, there was much more use of support related to academic areas as opposed to non-academic support. As with Rowan (2014), this study also found that students often did not engage with support service, or in some cases delayed their engagement with them because of a perceived lack of need or that they did not deserve them. Additionally, a lack of awareness of the supports available was raised as an issue.

Within the Open University, the issue of preparedness of Higher Education has been addressed through creating 30 credit modules at level 0 developed and run by the Access team. The Access curriculum offers flexible, accessible, affordable, preparatory study to students who face many obstacles – dispositional, situational, and institutional – which prevent them from accessing Higher Education (HE). The Programme has worked closely externally, with the Office for Students (OfS) (and before that the Office For Fair Access – OFFA), and internally, with the Access, Participation and Success (APS) team, to ensure student needs are met in terms of a supportive preparatory curriculum.

The Access Programme was developed in 2012/13 to offer students a coherent cross-disciplinary experience, intended to support tentative adult learners to engage with a range of cognate disciplines they may never have considered studying. This commitment was supported by locating management initially in the Centre for Inclusion and Collaborative Partnerships (CICP) rather than a single Faculty, or by spreading responsibility across all the faculties.

The Access Programme is a key element of Access, Open and Cross-curricular Innovation (AOCCI), sponsored by Pro-Vice-Chancellor Students (PVC-Students) which in turn is part of the PVC-Students office. The Access Programme has a clear mission, closely aligned to the University’s commitment to be ‘open to all’. The aims of Access are threefold:

Access modules are positioned at HE Level 0, explicitly acting as preparation for Level 1 study. The focus is on preparing students for HE delivered through distance learning, and as such the Programme is distinctive from Access to HE Diplomas (assessed at FHEQ Level 3 with routes into local, vocationally aligned HE) and Foundation Years (embedded in existing UG qualifications). The Access modules have a common pedagogic structure designed to remove barriers and build confidence.

The three modules in focus in this study are Level 0 entry level modules.

Access programmes in The Open University have a widening participation agenda and enrol many neurodivergent students. These students are supported by three-way support of an Associate lecturer, Student support teams and the Personal Learning Advisers (PLAS). As these student’s progress to level one study in the Open University, there is an increased expectation of independent learning and engaging with the communities of learning. Furthermore, many other students that have not yet been identified as needing additional support may also face study barriers due to undiagnosed neurodiversity. Therefore, understanding what works for this group could help ensure that the findings feed into the timely reviews of the new modules being shaped in Access like Y034 and Y035.

The study aimed to understand the varied needs of neurodivergent students in enabling the transition from Access to level 1 modules. It sought to capture the narratives of individual needs and to better understand what can be improved further to enable the effective achievement and transition for neurodivergent students. The methodology selected clearly addressed giving agency to neurodivergent students.

Research Questions- The study focused on the following three research questions in line with the key themes of the project.

A methodology was selected that provided space for neurodivergent students to share their own experiences. Through a combination of semi-structured interview questions and a photo elicitation task space was given to explore both issues raised by the students and through the issue highlighted by the research team.

For the present study the target population was comprised of neurodivergent students (ADHD, Asperger’s syndrome, dyslexia, dyspraxia, and dyscalculia) enrolled in 2019–2020 who had successfully moved from Access modules to Level 1 study. The three modules in focus in this study are Level 0 entry level modules-Arts and Languages Access module (Y031); People, Work and Society Access module (Y032) and Science, Technology and Maths Access module (Y033). Students from these modules moving to any level 1 module in all faculties were included in the sample. Initially the focus was to be upon student in one faculty (WELS), however the potential sample population was too small. Based on these criteria, Student and Data Analytics generated a sample of 18 students (5/10/21) and a further 14 students with a later generation (giving 32 possible participants) which could be recruited from for this phase of the study. These students were contacted initially by email with a project information sheet and then by follow up phone call. A second round of more personal emails were sent. In the responses we had several students opt out of being contacted further. This was often because of workload reasons, or in one case because they were pausing their studies.

Five students consented to participate in the full interviews. The pen portraits of the participants are presented in Figure 1. Four students opted for a telephone interview and one (Student 4) to use Microsoft TEAMS. Gaining agreement for audio recording of the interviews proved more challenging. Only students 4 and 5 agreed to a full audio recording. Therefore, the interviews with students 1–3 were not recorded but extensive field notes were made by the researcher which were then typed up and analyzed alongside the transcripts for students 4 and 5.

This project underwent all Open University ethical procedures in recruiting and contacting students, data collection. data storage and data protection. The ethical issues involving student participants in the Open University were addressed strictly and the researchers gained the Student Research Project Panel (SRPP) approval (SRP: 2021/1917) before the start of the data collection. Before receiving students contact details from the Open University systems SRPP was in place. The project went through a rigorous ethical approval through the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) and was registered on the Open University’s Information Asset Register (IAR. 3306147) for 2021/2022. Within the Open University, the project approval from HREC provides a mechanism for assuring the ethical integrity of research carried out by OU academic staff an ethics review by HREC is required for research projects which involve the collection of data or biological samples from human participants. Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) for this project was done through DPIA screening questions that intend to identify if how processing of personal data will result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of the data subjects. All participants were provided with a project information sheet covering details about the project, right to withdraw, confidentiality, risks involved, who have been invited to the participate in the study and why, how the findings of the study will be used. In the Informed consent sheet, given to all participants to seek their consent there was a clear indication of confidentially, right to withdraw, how interview data will be stored and voluntary participation without any prejudice or negative consequence was indicated.

The timeline of receiving ethical approvals and various critical steps in the project are outlined below.

The researchers followed semi structured interview questions covering the two areas (of five questions each, Appendix 1) – Study skills and support. We also included a photo elicitation technique task- where students were asked to provide a picture of something that they found particularly useful in level one study that was not there in Access study. The interviews were conducted by phone, on Skype or TEAMS and audio recorded where consent was given and lasted 30–45 minutes. All data was transcribed and stored on to OneDrive in line with DPIA guidance and protection of data. All data will be stored for about 6 months after the study (GDPR, 2018).

Thematic analysis (Braun et al., 2022) was used to analyse the resultant data. For the participants who consented to audio recording, these transcripts were read through multiple times before line-by-line coding was conducted to identify initial exploratory codes. A similar process was undertaken with the detailed field notes from the unrecorded interviews. These codes were then compared and grouped to develop themes; that is the key issues raised from the body of data by the two researchers collaboratively.

The discussions and findings in this study have been integrated to provide a coherent narrative. Whilst the questions within the interview schedule were focused on specific issues of support and transition, across the body of interview data, there were several key recurring issues. Whilst it is difficult to identify the extent to which these issues are the result of the participants neurodivergence, the narratives shared by the participants suggest that they felt that these issues were directly related to those issues, and this are worthy of further discussion.

One of the key implications of this study is the need for a more joined up approach to support through a concentrated, cohesive approach to support. We propose offering joined up three-way support for students. This is likely to involve Associate Lecturers, Student support Teams and disability Services along with the module teams working together. This project recommends the following ideas to be embedded in Access and level 1 modules across all faculties. For neurodivergent students-

The study concluded that there is no one fit for all neurodivergent students. Tailored support in SST, tutorials, and different points in the journey can support transitions. This study showed that even within a small sample, from their in-depth accounts of their experiences neurodivergent students have differing experiences of the transition from Access to level 1. Yet within this difference, there is also commonality. By getting to this level of study, many students have developed coping strategies and resilience. They also all seem to value high quality and effective tutor support, which they feel the Access modules provided them and see this as central to their success. However, there are parts of their experiences of transition they have found challenging. Some issues, such as referencing are common to many students. Others, more unique such as knowing where to go for additional support and what is on offer. Other key concerns for neurodivergent students are navigating the often-confusing world of systems, language and processes associated with Higher Education. As a result of this study, we have identified some keyways to address this such as developing a better understanding of these students’ experiences, thinking how to ensure they have clearer information to support them and a more structured transition to their level 1 study.

The data are not publicly available as that could compromise the privacy of research participants and due to the sensitive nature of issues discussed.

The additional file for this article can be found as follows: