What we found
Statistical findings
We asked staff to complete the ASK-Q (Autism Knowledge and Stigma Questionnaire) both before and after the training. We found no significant differences between pre- and post-training scores, meaning that there was no statistical impact of the training on staff knowledge about autism.
However, many of the staff already had high knowledge scores before they started the course, so these results might be due to ceiling effects (where people already score very highly on a questionnaire, so there is nowhere for them to go ‘up’ to).
After interviewing our trainees, we found that they had benefitted in lots of ways that weren’t captured by the statistical analysis.
What trainees thought
Five themes were identified in interviews and feedback questionnaires.
Theme 1: Value of lived experience
Staff appreciated the effort that students had put into creating content for the course and it helped put their learning into context. For many it was the first time they had undertaken training co-designed with students or autistic people, and they valued the different perspective this brought.
Sometimes training like this can be very abstract, so adding in those personal experiences and connections to the university was a nice touch.
[it was like I] was getting to know them and I felt quite a big responsibility to keep watching and keep learning from them, so that helped keep me motivated.
Theme 2: Developing nuanced, in-depth knowledge
They were able to break down their existing stereotypes and change their views on autism, as well as recognising students’ individuality. This included being more aware of things like:
- Different ways autism can present
- Masking
- The interaction between autism and mental health behaviours
I would consider myself relatively well-informed about a lot of educational issues, but I was challenged (in a good way) by what was in the course.
It’s not like all neurotypical people are the same and then all neurodivergent people are the same. It just sort of recognising those key differences but there’s a huge variation within that.
Theme 3: Links to professional practice
Staff were able to get a sense of accommodations and changes to their own approach that could help autistic students get the most out of interactions, such as:
- Communication differences
- Managing the sensory environment
- Being proactive in asking students about their needs
In providing a supportive, inclusive environment for the people that we work with and…for the students that access our facilities, actually we’re making it more inclusive for everybody.
Sometimes people have to go in and look beforehand and… check [a space] out and… walk through it and work out where… everything’s going to be.
Theme 4: Systematic barriers
Staff recognised that the structure of their universities could cause further barriers for autistic students. Areas of challenge they thought about included:
- Physical spaces and environments
- Administrative systems that students have to navigate
- The lack of connection between different services
- The impact this has on students
We’ve got lots of people going in potentially who are neurodiverse and our facilities… probably were designed… in a decade where we literally didn’t give a c*** about that sort of thing.
Something needs to be done because like autism doesn’t cause mental health conditions. Being autistic in this world causes mental health conditions.
Theme 5: Training as acceptable and feasible
While some staff felt overwhelmed by the number of resources on the course (which have now been adjusted), many staff found the course to be pitched and delivered well, and they were able to fit it around other commitments.
A lot of time, effort, expertise and thorough research and consultation with autistic people (which some autism training really lacks!) has clearly been utilised well to deliver a clear, interesting and informative training program that would be accessible for all staff.
It’s the best institutional training I’ve experienced.
Overall findings
Some key overall conclusions from our work include:
- Even staff with a high level of knowledge were still able to learn more from our course
- Multiple methods of evaluation are helpful
- We would have missed some of the benefits without qualitative data
- It is possible, and beneficial, to co-produce training alongside autistic people
This shows that this training had a positive impact on trainees, and hopefully on their long-term practice.
It also showed that our model of co-developing university training with the groups that the training is ‘about’, is effective and efficient for those involved in designing it, as well as being appreciated by those undertaking the course.