In my work, education is not limited to classrooms or formal training. It includes hybrid courses, immersive and XR learning, public programmes, workshops, and the digital systems through which knowledge is shared and experienced.

I approach education as a design practice. It is cultural, organisational, and technological at the same time. Every learning environment is shaped by choices: what is valued, who is expected to participate, how pace is set, and how difference is responded to in practice.

My teaching and learning design work focuses on making those choices visible and workable. Rather than asking people to adapt to fixed systems, I work with students, educators, and organisations to design learning environments that can hold a wider range of ways of thinking, sensing, and participating.

Education, in this sense, becomes a space for experimentation and growth: a way of moving beyond awareness towards shared practice, and of using neurodiversity not as a specialist topic, but as a resource for improving learning, culture, and access for everyone.

Much work on neurodiversity in education centres on individual needs. I start somewhere else: with how learning environments are designed.

I look at what I think of as the invisible curriculum, the unspoken structures that quietly shape who can take part and how. These are not abstract ideas. They are practical design decisions that affect everyday learning.

I pay attention to:

• How knowledge is framed — what is emphasised, sequenced, or treated as self-evident.

• How feedback moves — across people, roles, and platforms, and whether it supports learning or shuts it down.

• How effort is distributed — including pace, clarity, responsibility, and cognitive load.

• What participation looks like — who is expected to speak, respond quickly, take initiative, or adapt.

Education is never neutral. Every learning environment encodes assumptions about competence, behaviour, and value.

Neurodiversity often becomes visible through moments of mismatch: overload, withdrawal, conflict, or silence.

We treat these moments as signals about design, not deficits.

Rather than centring diagnosis, we ask:

• Where does the environment expect sameness?

• Which forms of participation are rewarded?

• Which cognitive, sensory, or communicative modes are privileged?

Digital and immersive learning environments are never neutral.

• Does a chatbot clarify, or quietly exclude?

• Does an immersive experience support learning, or create sensory overload?

• What kinds of attention do these systems assume, and whose do they privilege?

In my teaching and learning design work, I treat AI, XR, and immersive technologies not as products to be adopted, but as media for learning. Their value lies not in novelty, but in how they shape cognitive load, pacing, interaction, and feedback. Used with care, these tools can reduce friction and support understanding. Used without reflection, they can introduce new barriers while masking them behind efficiency.

Access too often relies on extraction: asking people to disclose difference or name a need before conditions are changed. I work with educators and organisations to reverse this logic. Together, we design learning spaces that invite reflection and feedback without placing the burden of explanation on those already marginalised.

Neurodistinct experience is treated as a source of insight, not exception. Those who navigate systems with greater effort often have the clearest sense of where design breaks down.

A core part of this work is designing learning environments that are accessible from the outset, not retrofitted later. This begins with onboarding. Thoughtful onboarding helps people orient themselves cognitively and sensorially by clarifying:

• what to expect

• how to participate

• where effort will be required

• how support is structured

When these questions are answered early, uncertainty drops, cognitive load is reduced, and learning feels navigable rather than overwhelming.

I also work on the accessibility of hybrid and onsite learning experiences in exhibitions, museums, festivals, and learning centres. This involves close attention to how information is encountered in space. Together, we examine the sensory narrative: pacing and transitions, signage and sound, moments of choice and moments of intensity.

Small design decisions in these environments often have a disproportionate impact on who feels able to stay, engage, and return.

Across all of this, my focus is not on compliance or accommodation, but on learning design. I collaborate with partners who want to create environments that are legible, flexible, and responsive, spaces that expect difference and use it to improve access to culture and learning for everyone.

I situate neurodiversity within the wider field of neurodiversity work (NDW): its histories, debates, tensions, and ethical responsibilities. The aim is not to simplify the field, but to make it navigable.

Many people arrive at this work through lived experience. That interest matters. I treat it as a beginning, not a destination.

Mentoring starts by acknowledging personal motivation, then gradually widening the frame from my story to the field: its language, assumptions, and points of friction.

The focus is on developing structural understanding. Mentoring supports the shift from individual insight to critical analysis: learning how experience becomes knowledge, how knowledge circulates, and how it is taken up or resisted in institutional and cultural settings.

Rather than offering answers, the work builds the capacity to read systems, ask better questions, and act with judgement in complex environments. The goal is confidence grounded in context: an ability to work thoughtfully across disciplines, roles, and expectations.

01 // Workshops and facilitation

The interaction lab

I design and facilitate learning in physical, digital, and hybrid environments.

The focus is on what actually happens when people work together: how silence forms, where friction appears, and how interaction norms quietly shape participation.

In practice, this means working with teams to move beyond polite silence towards productive friction. We examine how interaction is structured, then redesign it so that both digital and physical spaces can support a wider range of cognitive and sensory profiles.

02 // Mentoring and supervision

Critical practice

I offer mentoring and supervision for students and early-career practitioners who want to develop a contextual understanding of neurodiversity work.

The starting point is often personal motivation. The work itself is about widening the frame: situating that interest within the broader histories, debates, and ethical responsibilities of the field. Mentoring supports the shift from individual narrative to structural analysis, building the capacity to work thoughtfully across institutions and disciplines.

03 // Immersive and game-based design

The medium as message

I design and evaluate XR, simulation, and game-based learning formats.

Rather than treating emerging technologies as solutions, I approach them as sites of pedagogical inquiry. The focus is on how immersive environments shape attention, agency, and cognitive load.

In practice, this involves testing where these formats clarify learning and where they introduce new friction, ensuring that novelty does not obscure the assumptions embedded in the design.

04 // Public learning

The cultural forum

I work with museums, galleries, and educational institutions to design public learning strategies.

The central question here is simple: who is expected to be able to take part? Public programmes often communicate expectations long before any content is encountered.

My role is to help cultural spaces make those expectations legible, creating learning environments that are robust, sustainable, and accessible by design rather than by afterthought.