The Neuroscience of Learning and School-Family Communication in the Welcome of Atypical Children

Caroline Bonifácio de Andrade Agostinetto; Paula Farias Akkari

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602763

Article derived from a Final Course Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute for textual synthesis and organization.

Abstract

A study analyzed the role of communication between school and family, based on the neuroscience of learning and the paradigm of neurodiversity, in the reception and support of children with specific developmental needs in the school context. The objective was to understand how institutional communication and school management practices were related to the reception, pedagogical support, and participation of these students in school life. The research was characterized as qualitative, applied, and descriptive-exploratory, based on the reflective systematization of the professional practice of a director of an international and bilingual private school. Institutional records, reflective records, and professional memories produced in 2025 were analyzed, articulated with the specialized theoretical framework. The results indicated the recurrence of structured communication practices, based on descriptive, ethical, and non-blaming language, as well as strategies for pedagogical support and articulation with families and external professionals. In the analyzed records, it was observed that these practices were associated with greater clarity in the communication of school situations, the gradual construction of dialogue with some families, and greater consistency in student support. The findings also highlighted the importance of distinguishing pedagogical observations from clinical diagnoses and recognizing the limits of the school’s scope of action. It was concluded that transparent communication, articulated with inclusive pedagogical practices and collaboration between school, family, and external professionals, constitutes a relevant dimension for the reception and support of neurodivergent children in the educational context.

Keywords: Self-regulation; Inclusive education; School management; Neurodiversity; School participation.

1. Introduction

The contemporary school is a complex environment, marked by a wide range of cultural, familial, and behavioral differences that challenge the teaching and learning process. In this heterogeneous scenario, students with diverse sociocultural trajectories, contrasting motivational profiles, and equally plural cognitive-affective functioning modes coexist, including neurotypical and neuroatypical students. Such diversity, although not an obstacle in itself, becomes a pedagogical and organizational challenge when educational systems persist in homogeneous models of assessment, discipline, and curriculum, showing little responsiveness to variations in child development and the differentiated support needs in the daily classroom (Tsou et al., 2024).

Given this scenario, it becomes crucial to adopt the paradigm of neurodiversity, as problematized by Ortega (2008). This movement constitutes a critique of reductionist medicalization, arguing that certain neurocognitive conditions represent human differences, rather than mere deficits to be corrected. By articulating the concept of the “brainy subject” and the expansion of neuroculture, Ortega (2008) warns of the risk of reducing the person to their brain, but also highlights the political and identity potential of recognizing neurological difference as a legitimate basis for belonging and citizenship. This ethical and sociocultural framework is particularly fruitful for education, as it shifts the focus from normalization to the effective participation of students.

From the perspective of the neuroscience of learning, the literature on executive functions offers subsidies to understand the school’s accessibility to neuroatypic students. Diamond (2013) describes three core executive functions – inhibition/attentional control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility – as foundations for reasoning, self-regulation, and the ability to deal with new demands. Such functions are sensitive to stressors, such as sleep deprivation, anxiety, and emotional conditions, and can be trained with adequate practices (Diamond, 2013). Barkley (2015) systematizes evidence that executive deficits, such as those observed in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), directly impact organization, persistence, emotional self-regulation, and school performance, demanding multicomponent interventions. Furthermore, Virgolim (2021) points out that, even among students with high abilities/giftedness, peculiar executive and affective profiles can generate socioemotional vulnerabilities. Thus, the school is called upon to pedagogically orchestrate executive functions through predictable routines, visual supports, cognitive scaffolding, teaching metacognitive strategies, and regulation of the socioemotional climate, aiming to prevent overload and favor self-regulated learning (Diamond, 2013; Barkley, 2015; Virgolim, 2021).

In the microsystemic plan of relationships, the process of family acceptance in the face of the possibility or confirmation of a neuroatypical diagnosis directly impacts the child’s school engagement. The tradition initiated by Oppenheim and Koren-Karie shows, via the Reaction to Diagnosis Interview (RDI), that parents can remain in an “unresolved” state or reach a “resolved” state, with observable effects on parental sensitivity and the security of the bond with the child (Yirmiya et al., 2015). Di Renzo et al. (2020) broaden this perspective by showing that greater acceptance and the ability to see from the child’s point of view are associated with greater parent-child attunement in interactions, implying indirect benefits for daily school life. However, when the diagnostic journey is still ongoing, especially in contexts of family denial or interpretative disputes, tensions tend to emerge in schooling. Recent research on School Distress shows that many neurodivergent students experience intense distress related to school, and their caregivers report stigmatization and blame in dialogue with educational services, which weakens school-family alliances and delays necessary support (Mullally & Connolly, 2025). These findings help explain the escalation of disciplinary conflicts, recurrent absences, and the breakdown of trust between school and family actors, processes that could be mitigated by early pedagogical responses, empathetic communication, and clear agreements on support and adaptations (Mullally & Connolly, 2025; Tsou et al., 2024).

Given this panorama, effective inclusion demands that schools move from interventions centered solely on the individual to ecological and multi-scale strategies, involving students, peers, teachers, and the physical environment. Recent reviews indicate gains in accessibility and participation, but highlight the urgency of holistic approaches, pedagogical differentiation, and curricular flexibility, as well as continuous training that integrates principles of neurodiversity, executive function management, and universal design for learning (Tsou et al., 2024). Thus, this work aimed to understand how institutional communication and school management practices, based on the neuroscience of learning and the neurodiversity paradigm, were related to the welcoming, pedagogical support, and participation of children with evidence of specific development-related needs in school life, through systematic observation and reflective systematization of the author’s professional practice in the context of school management.

2. Material and Methods

This study was characterized as a qualitative research, of applied nature and descriptive-exploratory character. The investigation was developed from the reflexive systematization of the author’s professional practice, in the exercise of the role of director of an international and bilingual private school. The institution is located in the interior of the state of São Paulo. Data production occurred throughout the period from January to December 2025, corresponding to the first year of the school’s operation.

The research focused on understanding how institutional school-family communication practices and school management strategies were related to the reception, pedagogical support, and participation of children with evidence of specific developmental needs in school life. The investigation was conducted in the natural operational context of the institution, without experimental manipulation or planned intervention specifically for research purposes.

The investigated institution served 145 students, aged between 18 months and nine years, covering Early Childhood Education and the third year of Elementary School I. For the analysis, cases were considered in which, throughout the school monitoring, evidence of specific developmental needs was identified. This included situations with a previously informed or documented diagnosis, and those in which systematic pedagogical observations motivated investigation or referral for specialized evaluation.

The identification of needs occurred from the daily monitoring of students by the teachers, pedagogical coordination, and school administration. Aspects related to learning, communication, self-regulation, attention, behavior, participation, and adaptation to the demands of the school routine were considered. In cases where observations indicated the need for further investigation, the pedagogical team conducted a case study and subsequently established contact with the family to share observations and define possible referrals.

The data sources were constituted by institutional records and the researcher’s reflective records. Among the institutional records, meeting minutes, occurrence reports, messages sent to families through the institutional application, pedagogical monitoring records, and documents resulting from communication between the school, families, and external professionals, when they existed, were considered. The author’s reflective and professional memoirs, produced from the monitoring of situations experienced in the exercise of the management role, were used as a complementary source.

Initially, the records for the year 2025 were organized according to the cases monitored and the communication situations established between school and family. Subsequently, the data were grouped into thematic categories related to the research objectives. This organization allowed for a structured view of the collected material for the analysis stage.

The main categories of analysis were: (a) school-family communication; (b) identification and monitoring of specific needs; (c) pedagogical and management strategies; (d) family response and participation; (e) articulation between school, family, and therapeutic team; and (f) student participation in school activities. These categories guided the data exploration to identify patterns and recurrences.

Communication records were also analyzed, structured according to the logic of event, possible trigger, and school-led management, seeking to identify patterns in the observed situations and in the institutional responses adopted. The analysis was interpretive and reflective in nature, establishing a dialogue between the records of professional practice and the theoretical framework related to the neuroscience of learning, executive functions, neurodiversity, educational inclusion, and school-family communication. The aim was to interpret the meanings and recurrences present in the observed situations, avoiding the establishment of causal relationships.

Regarding the ethical aspects, the identity of the students, families, professionals, and the school institution was preserved. No names or information that would allow their identification were presented. The data were used exclusively for academic purposes and analyzed in an aggregated and anonymized manner, guaranteeing the confidentiality of those involved in the study.

The research did not perform clinical diagnosis of the students nor therapeutic intervention. Information regarding diagnoses or specialized follow-ups was considered only when previously informed or documented in the school context. Considering the reflexive nature of the study and the use of situations emerging from professional practice without identification of individuals or the institution, the work was framed within the hypotheses of exemption from ethical review provided for in CNS Resolution No. 510/2016, applicable to studies of theoretical and reflexive deepening of situations arising from professional practice.

3. Results and Discussion

The analysis of institutional and reflective records revealed significant patterns in school communication and management practices, providing insights into the reception and support of children with specific developmental needs. The study encompassed a universe of 145 students, aged between 18 months and 9 years, enrolled in Early Childhood Education and Elementary School I. Of this total, a group of 36 cases was identified, representing approximately 24.8% of the students, in whom evidence of specific needs was observed or who had a previously documented diagnosis and/or specialized support. These initial findings underscore the prevalence of neurodiversity in the school environment and the need for adapted pedagogical and communication approaches, according to the neurodiversity paradigm (Ortega, 2008).

The research showed that, of the 36 cases monitored, eight students had already entered school with a formal diagnosis and/or multidisciplinary follow-up reported by their families. This subgroup corresponded to 22.2% of the analyzed cases and 5.5% of the total enrolled students. The remaining cases were identified progressively throughout the 2025 academic year, through systematic pedagogical observations. The areas of observation included learning, communication, self-regulation, attention, behavior, participation, and adaptation to the demands of the school routine, reflecting the complexity of executive functions and their relationship with school performance (Diamond, 2013; Barkley, 2015).

It is fundamental to emphasize that the identification of specific needs by the school did not constitute a clinical diagnosis. The institution remained within its pedagogical scope, conducting systematic observations, case studies, and, when pertinent, establishing dialogue with families to share evidence and discuss possible referrals. This distinction is crucial to avoid undue medicalization and to recognize the school’s limits of action, promoting a collaborative and non-stigmatizing approach (Ortega, 2008; Mullally & Connolly, 2025).

The institution implemented welcoming procedures that included pre-enrollment meetings with the administration, where the school’s guidelines and communication methods were presented. After enrollment, families participated in a meeting with the pedagogical coordination to identify specific support needs. Students aged five and older also underwent an initial assessment with the classroom teacher. These initial contacts and the prior definition of communication channels contributed to establishing a context of greater predictability in school-family relations, although the study, qualitative and reflective in nature, does not allow for inferring direct causality between these procedures and the observed results.

Characterization of the cases followed up

Throughout the year 2025, the school served 145 students, aged from 18 months to 9 years, covering Early Childhood Education and the 3rd year of Elementary School I. Of this group, 36 cases were identified with evidence of specific developmental needs or with a previously reported diagnosis and/or specialized follow-up. This group represented 24.8% of the total enrolled students, highlighting the relevance of inclusive strategies and effective communication to meet this diversity (Tsou et al., 2024).

Of the 36 cases monitored, eight students had already arrived at school with a report and/or multidisciplinary support informed by the family, which corresponded to 22.2% of the analyzed cases and 5.5% of the total enrolled students. The remaining 28 cases were identified during school monitoring, through systematic observations made by teachers, pedagogical coordination, and school administration. The observations focused on aspects such as learning, communication, self-regulation, attention, behavior, participation, and adaptation to the demands of the school routine, in line with the understanding of executive functions as pillars of self-regulation (Diamond, 2013).

It is crucial to emphasize that the identification of evidence of specific needs in the school environment did not constitute a clinical diagnosis by the institution. The school, upon observing signs that justified a more in-depth investigation, organized student monitoring, systematized observations, and, when relevant, established a dialogue with the family to discuss the evidence and possible referrals. This approach reflects the commitment to the neurodiversity paradigm, which values difference and avoids reductionist medicalization (Ortega, 2008).

The institution adopted a welcoming protocol that included a pre-enrollment meeting with the administration, where the school’s guidelines and communication methods were presented. After enrollment, families participated in a meeting with the pedagogical coordination to identify any specific needs for support in the school routine. Additionally, students aged five and older underwent an initial assessment with the classroom teacher. These initial procedures contributed to establishing a context of greater predictability in school-family relations, although, due to the qualitative and reflective nature of the study, it is not possible to infer a direct causality between these procedures and the observed results.

Pedagogical monitoring and identification of specific needs

In cases where more targeted support was needed, the school implemented strategies for observation and individualized pedagogical support. The institution had a support teacher, specialized in bilingual literacy and with knowledge in neurodevelopment, who actively participated in the monitoring of some students. This practice demonstrates the appreciation of a specialized perspective for developmental specificities, aligning with the need for multicomponent interventions for executive deficits (Barkley, 2015).

The analyzed records revealed that this systematic follow-up allowed for the gathering of detailed information about recurring situations in the school routine. The observed difficulties were frequently related to attention, self-regulation, learning, communication, and participation, which are central aspects for effective school engagement. When observations indicated the need for further investigation, the involved teachers conducted an in-depth case study and subsequently requested a meeting with the family, involving the administration, the pedagogical coordination, and the teachers responsible for the student’s follow-up.

The receptiveness of families to the observations presented by the school varied considerably. Some parents showed readiness to understand the information and seek external support, while others presented initial resistance or attributed the observed situations to specific circumstances. There were also families who showed gradual acceptance of the school staff’s recommendations, which reflects the complexity of the family acceptance process in the face of the possibility of a neuroatypical diagnosis (Yirmiya et al., 2015).

The analysis of the records suggests that the initial resistance of some families did not manifest uniformly, presenting different forms and intensities. In several cases, gradual communication, based on the description of concrete situations observed in the school environment, was associated with a greater openness to dialogue and to the consideration of external referrals. This finding should be interpreted as an association observed in professional practice, and not as a demonstration that a specific communication model caused the change in family posture, recognizing the influence of multiple factors on family receptivity (Di Renzo et al., 2020).

Pedagogical practices of the school

The school investigated adopted pedagogical differentiation and the flexibility of forms of participation and demonstration of learning as its guideline, seeking to create an environment responsive to student diversity. Among the practices described in the records, active methodologies, guided inquiry, problem-solving, multisensory experiences, intentional use of movement, visual supports, and formative assessment strategies stood out. These approaches aim to pedagogically orchestrate executive functions and prevent overload, favoring self-regulated learning (Diamond, 2013; Barkley, 2015).

In the context of an international and bilingual school, aspects related to linguistic accessibility and curriculum integration were considered. In the cases observed, the pedagogical team used various pedagogical resources adapted to the perceived daily needs, including tiered instructions, visual support, reduction or reorganization of demands, strategic breaks, and co-regulation practices. Such strategies are essential for promoting the inclusion and participation of neurodivergent students, as pointed out by the literature (Tsou et al., 2024).

Records indicated that the use of different forms of pedagogical mediation allowed the team to make adjustments according to the characteristics and needs presented by the students. These practices are consistent with the literature on executive functions, self-regulation, and educational inclusion, which emphasizes the importance of differentiated pedagogical environments to recognize the “thorny profile” of skills and difficulties (Diamond, 2013; Barkley, 2015; Virgolim, 2021). Curricular flexibility and pedagogical differentiation are key elements for accessibility and effective participation.

However, it is important to note that, as no standardized quantitative instruments were used before and after the implementation of these strategies, nor a comparison group, it is not possible to state that the implemented practices directly produced an increase in engagement, an improvement in learning, or a reduction in specific behaviors. The records allow us to state that such strategies were part of the pedagogical management and that, in certain situations, the team perceived more favorable responses from students to school demands, which suggests a positive, but not causally proven, impact.

School-family communication routines and incident reports

The school used a standardized communication protocol for situations that required sharing with families. Records were kept by the teacher through the institutional application, which served as the official communication channel. The analyzed messages recurrently presented three essential elements: (i) an objective description of the event; (ii) an indication of a possible trigger, when identifiable; and (iii) a description of the management carried out by the school in that circumstance. Among the recorded strategies were support for self-regulation, environmental adjustments, peer mediation, breaks, visual support, scaled instructions, and the reduction or reorganization of demands, aligning with the support needs for executive functions (Diamond, 2013; Barkley, 2015).

The analysis of the records demonstrated a predominance of descriptive language, prioritizing observable information over moralizing interpretations of behavior. The records sought to contextualize the situation, considering aspects such as the activity performed, approximate duration, context, possible triggers, and strategies used by the team. This recording pattern converges with the literature on the importance of predictable environments and supports that reduce excessive demands on self-regulation, contributing to clearer and less stigmatizing communication (Mullally & Connolly, 2025).

In situations involving risk to physical integrity, prolonged deregulation, or significant impact on the class routine, the school employed a more structured communication flow. Initially, a face-to-face meeting and report were held with the family by the coordination or administration. Subsequently, minutes of the meeting were drafted, and when relevant, a complementary record was made in the institutional application. This combination of in-person communication and formal documentation was associated with greater clarity regarding the discussed situations and agreed-upon actions, strengthening the school-family alliance and mitigating potential conflicts (Mullally & Connolly, 2025; Tsou et al., 2024).

In the set of cases monitored, it was observed that the regularity of records and the use of descriptive language were associated, according to the professional perception registered by the author, with a greater openness of some families to dialogue. Situations were also identified in which gradual communication accompanied the acceptance of external referrals. However, it is not possible to establish a direct causal relationship between the format of the records and the change in the families’ posture, since family receptivity can be influenced by multiple factors, including individual characteristics, family history, previous experiences with educational institutions and health professionals, and the specific moment of the investigation or diagnosis process.

School-family-therapeutic team alignment

In cases where the family initiated specialized support and defined reference professionals, the school established, when authorized and deemed relevant, a formal communication channel involving the family, school, and external professionals. This channel proved crucial for sharing information related to pedagogical support, progress reports, relevant situations observed at school, and agreed-upon strategies for the following period. Among the discussed strategies were visual supports, task organization, sensory adaptations, social scripts, processing time adjustments, and co-regulation practices, aiming for consistency in interventions across different environments (Di Renzo et al., 2020).

The analysis of the records evidenced the existence of a continuous communication cycle, composed of information sharing, feedback from external professionals, agreement on strategies, and periodic review of the adopted practices. This process showed correspondence with the proposal for articulation between different development environments, as discussed in the literature (Di Renzo et al., 2020; Tsou et al., 2024). Collaboration among the different actors involved is fundamental to ensure the coherence and effectiveness of the support offered to neurodivergent students, minimizing the fragmentation of interventions and promoting a holistic approach.

In the accompanied cases, professional records indicated an association between this formalized communication and greater predictability regarding the strategies used by the different adults involved. Situations of greater consistency in management between the school and other support contexts were also reported, suggesting a benefit for student self-regulation and participation. Some records mentioned a reduction in dysregulation episodes, greater persistence in certain activities, and increased student participation. However, these indicators were obtained from daily observation and professional records, not through standardized measurement instruments.

Thus, the data allow us to describe perceived changes in the school routine, but they do not allow us to attribute exclusive causality to the articulation between school, family, and the therapeutic team. The literature used in the study offers theoretical support for interpreting these findings, especially regarding the importance of consistency in strategies and the articulation between different environments. However, the results of the present work should be understood as evidence from the analyzed professional experience, and not as experimental proof of the efficacy of these practices, acknowledging the limitations of generalization and the absence of a comparison group.

By the end of 2025, three student families belonging to the group of 36 monitored cases opted to transfer their children to another institution, citing, among other aspects, disagreements related to school management. These three cases correspond to 8.3% of the monitored cases and approximately 2.1% of the total 145 enrolled students. In the remaining cases, records indicated the continuation of school monitoring and, in different situations, coordination with external specialized professionals. Among the diagnoses reported or documented in the set of cases were language disorders, learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, global developmental disorder, and anxiety, highlighting the complexity and diversity of the needs addressed.

It is important to distinguish formally informed or documented diagnoses from the evidence observed by the school. The institution did not perform clinical diagnoses, but its actions consisted of observing daily school life, pedagogical monitoring, recording identified situations, and, when deemed necessary, dialogue with families and recommendation for specialized evaluation. Among the cases that had a diagnosis and specialized follow-up, the records indicated the recommendation of a combination of drug treatment in 25% of them. In three cases, corresponding to approximately 8.3% of the 36 cases analyzed, the need for a therapeutic assistant to be present in the classroom for at least part of the school period was recorded. This information is presented as data from the analyzed records, not as results of clinical evaluation performed by the school.

In general, the analyzed records revealed the recurrence of three central aspects in case monitoring: the need for systematic pedagogical observation, the importance of school-family communication based on concrete information, and the relevance of articulation with external professionals when demands exceeded the school’s scope of action. These findings dialogue with the literature discussing executive functions, neurodiversity, school inclusion, family acceptance, and School Distress (Diamond, 2013; Barkley, 2015; Di Renzo et al., 2020; Mullally & Connolly, 2025; Tsou et al., 2024), reinforcing the idea that transparent communication and collaboration are pillars for effective support.

The analyzed experience suggests that ethical, transparent, and evidence-based communication in the school environment can be an important tool for student management and support. The articulation between school, family, and external professionals also proved relevant, in the analyzed records, for building more consistent strategies and sharing information about students’ needs. The systematization of this school management experience highlights the possibility of organizing communication and support practices through objective records, non-stigmatizing language, pedagogical observation, and articulation with families, serving as a reference for other institutions facing similar challenges in supporting neurodivergent students.

4. Conclusion

This study sought to understand how institutional communication and school management practices, based on the neuroscience of learning and the paradigm of neurodiversity, were related to the welcoming, pedagogical support, and participation of children with specific developmental needs in school life. The recurrence of structured communication practices, based on descriptive, ethical, and non-blaming language, as well as the implementation of individualized pedagogical support strategies and articulation with families and external professionals, was verified. In the analyzed records, it was observed that these practices were associated with greater clarity in the communication of school situations, the gradual construction of dialogue with some families, and greater consistency in student support. The findings also highlighted the importance of distinguishing pedagogical observations from clinical diagnoses and recognizing the limits of the school’s scope of action. The main contribution of this work lies in the systematization of a school management experience that demonstrates the possibility of organizing communication and support practices based on objective records, non-stigmatizing language, systematic pedagogical observation, and collaboration with families, serving as a reference for other institutions.

However, it is essential to acknowledge the limitations of this study, which was characterized as qualitative and reflective, based on the author’s professional practice in a single institution. The absence of standardized quantitative instruments, a comparison group, and pre- and post-intervention longitudinal evaluations prevents the generalization of results and the attribution of direct causal relationships between the observed practices and student outcomes. It is recommended that future studies expand the investigation to different educational contexts, using specific instruments to assess aspects such as school participation, self-regulation, well-being, and School Distress. Such research could enable comparative and longitudinal analyses, deepening the understanding of the effectiveness and impacts of these practices. The experience systematized here, despite its methodological limitations, reinforces the importance of school-family communication being understood as a strategic and integral dimension of the welcoming process and the construction of inclusive educational practices.

Bibliographic References

Barkley, R.A. 2015. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Handbook for Diagnosis and Treatment. 4ed. Guilford Press, New York, NY, USA.

Di Renzo, M.; Guerriero, V.; Zavattini, G.C.; Petrillo, M.; Racinaro, L.; Bianchi Di Castelbianco, F. 2020. Parental attunement, insightfulness, and acceptance of child diagnosis in parents of children with autism: clinical implications. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 1849. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01849.

Diamond, A. 2013. Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology 64: 135-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750.

Mullally, S.L.; Connolly, S.E. 2025. “I felt shamed and blamed”: an exploration of the parental lived experience of School Distress. Frontiers in Psychiatry 16: 1489316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1489316.

Ortega, F. 2008. O sujeito cerebral e o movimento da neurodiversidade. Mana 14(2): 477–509. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-93132008000200008.

Resolução CNS n° 510/2016 [Referência completa não encontrada no documento original]

Tsou, Y.-T.; Kovács, L.V.; Louloumari, A.; Stockmann, L.; Blijdhoogewys, E.M.A.; Koutamanis, A.; Rieffe, C. 2024. School-based interventions for increasing autistic pupils’ social inclusion in mainstream schools: a systematic review. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Ahead of print. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-024-00429-2.

Virgolim, A. 2021. As vulnerabilidades das altas habilidades e superdotação: questões sociocognitivas e afetivas. Educar em Revista 37: e81543. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-4060.81543.

Yirmiya, N.; Seidman, I.; Koren-Karie, N.; Oppenheim, D.; Dolev, S. 2015. Stability and change in resolution of diagnosis among parents of children with autism spectrum disorder: child and parental contributions. Development and Psychopathology 27(4): 1045–1057. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457941500067X.

Article originating from a Final Course Work on Neuroscience and Learning in Education

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform