Compassionate pedagogy has gained international traction in recent educational discourse, advocating for empathy, understanding and flexibility in teaching practices and settings, particularly regarding neurodiverse students in higher education (HE) (Hamilton & Petty, 2023). Recent commentary draws attention to its association with mental vulnerability of students and ‘a political emphasis on diversity’ linked to the marketisation of HE (Williams, 2023). Despite several higher education institutions (HEIs) adopting compassionate pedagogy to support social justice, (see for example Canterbury Christ Church University, University of Manitoba, University of Hertfordshire), we should be mindful that lack of empirical evidence undermines its credibility. While a pedagogy of compassion can, in some ways, overcome Freirean conflicts inherent in a Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire in Vandeyar & Swart, 2016, p. 145), critical education must consider the dynamic interactions and constructions implicit within ‘given’ frameworks in educational contexts (ibid). To what extent do notions of compassion in HEIs empower students? The ideology of compassionate pedagogy’s rise to prominence may reflect broader cultural movements towards wellbeing, rather than critical pedagogical principles grounded in inclusive educational theory and research.

Hamilton & Petty (2023, p. 3) propose that ‘definitions of compassion share two key understandings: (1) the propensity to notice suffering in oneself and others (…) and (2) the motivation to act to prevent or alleviate suffering’. ‘Suffering’ is mainly conceptualised in compassionate pedagogy literature as an anxiety response. Students’ anxieties result from them being subject to marginalising, excluding educational practices which exacerbate the barriers they experience. Situating students as the ‘problem’ to be responded to compassionately has associations with a deficit, medical model of disability and categorisation, rather than examining structural institutional exclusion. It asks educators to facilitate learning in a way that is reactive to ‘distress and disadvantage’ (Gilbert, 2019), building emotional responses into teaching and learning. Compassionate pedagogy, therefore, risks sanitising pedagogic process through the application of a therapeutic ethos which might compromise educational quality and learning outcomes (Williams, 2023). More worryingly, an emphasis on ‘noticing’ discomfort seems to miss an important principle of effective inclusive education: anticipating barriers to learning at the planning stage.

 Courtesy of the Inclusive Higher Education Framework 

From their experience as teachers and teacher-educators, the authors propose an anticipatory, informed and strength-based model: adaptive critical pedagogy. HEIs could look to expertise from school practitioners, who perpetually address a range of barriers in their settings as part of a cyclical process of assess-plan-do-review (DfE, 2014). By countering deficit with dialogue, students can be empowered to identify, articulate, recognise and build on their existing skills and attributes in collaboration with HEI staff.

Adaptive pedagogy is informed by three main principles: pre-emptive consideration of barriers to learning at the planning stage; reasonable adjustments before and within sessions; and responsive, active adaptations in the learning instance. Its foundation is an understanding of the multiple and complex barriers experienced by students within HEI structures, processes, environments, curriculum and assessment procedures. The Inclusive Education Framework (Hull University 2023), provides tools for HEIs to audit these. Then, through robust pastoral procedures, and working closely with professional services, we talk with students to anticipate what barriers are and may be in the future. From this knowledge exchange, we can establish high-quality, adaptive teaching which recognises students’ strengths, while addressing barriers compromising access and success.

‘Adaptive pedagogy is informed by three main principles: pre-emptive consideration of barriers to learning at the planning stage; reasonable adjustments before and within sessions; and responsive, active adaptations in the learning instance. Its foundation is an understanding of the multiple and complex barriers experienced by students within HEI structures, processes, environments, curriculum and assessment procedures.’

‘Quality First’ practices to remove barriers will support all students. At the base level, this entails academics auditing materials and resources to consider accessibility and readability, making them available well in advance to support students’ learning needs (see Designing for diverse learners). Academics can reduce cognitive load to support working memory by creating a range of clear, interactive opportunities in sessions. Assessments can also be designed to speak to students’ strengths, enabling choice and ownership with built-in transparency. Adaptive pedagogy entails responding ‘in the moment’, using precision teaching methods to empower students to develop ownership of their learning. This necessitates ‘active noticing’ (Mason, 2002) of students’ engagement, responses, behaviour, enjoyment and performance within teaching and learning contexts.

Co-construction, based on participatory dialogue and reflection, challenges us to ‘think on our feet’ and to adjust teaching to respond best to students’ needs. This is an ongoing process, in which flexibility and a willingness to be corrected are prioritised to empower students in HE. The result is adaptive critical pedagogy which challenges, supports and channels compassion into meaningful inclusion.

References

Gilbert, P. (2019). Explorations into the nature and function of compassion. Current Opinion in Psychology, 28, 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.12.002

Hamilton, L. G., & Petty, S. (2023). Compassionate pedagogy for neurodiversity in higher education: A conceptual analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1093290

Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022107814447

Vandeyar, S., & Swart, R. (2016). Educational change: A case for a ‘pedagogy of compassion’. Education as Change, 20(3), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.17159/1947-9417/2016/1362

Williams, J. (2023). Compassionate pedagogy: The politicisation of emotion and the degradation of higher education. https://www.cieo.org.uk/research/compassionate-pedagogy/