Autism Simulation

Communication, Interpretation, and Hidden Classroom Barriers

The activities on this page are designed to explore how communication, interpretation, sensory demands, uncertainty, and classroom expectations can affect autistic students in mathematics classrooms. 

These activities are not meant to literally simulate autism. Autism is highly diverse (recall the idea of a spectrum), and now short activity can recreate the lived experiences of autistic individuals. 

Instead, these activities highlight how misunderstandings and barriers can emerge when:

• expectations are unclear,

• communication relies heavily on implied meaning,

• flexibility is assumed but not explained,

• sensory or social demands compete with thinking,

• or students are expected to interpret tasks in only one "correct" way.

Many autistic students are highly capable in mathematics. About 25% of autistic people have a co-occurring math learning disability (i.e., dyscalculia), however, they are also capable of learning mathematics with supports. Autistic students often perform well in early grades, where math is more procedural, but tend to fall behind as math becomes more abstract and relies more on language. 

Jump to a Section

Redesign Challenge

How Could the Question Be More Precise? 

Below is the original version of the question. 

Identifying Possible Barriers

Possible barriers include:

• ambiguous wording

• implied meanings

• multiple valid interpretations

• reliance on inference rather than precision

Although mathematics is generally quite objective, some questions still use phrases that requires students to "read between the lines." 

Mathematical communication is supposed to value precision and clarity, but when questions rely on unstated assumptions, students may be penalized for interpretations that are reasonable but different from what the teacher intended. 

Your Turn: Redesign the Question

Without lowering the expectations: 

• How could the wording become more precise?

• What interpretation should be clarified explicitly?

• How could the question reduce ambiguity while preserving the mathematics?

Try rewriting the question before viewing the example below.

One Possible Redesign

What Changed? 

The mathematics stayed the same. Redesigned questions can vary depending on which interpretation we wish to assess. 

In my redesign, I want students to use the binomial probability formula, so I edited the question to reflect this. 

Any redesigned version should:

• clarify the intended interpretation,

• reduce ambiguity,

• make expectations explicit,

• and lower uncertainty unrelated to probability itself

A Note Before the Activity

Collaborative learning is often presented as an inherently positive experience in classrooms. In many situations, collaborative learning is very meaningful and engaging for students. However, group work depends heavily on social communication abilities, interpretation, pacing, and unspoken expectations. 

For autistic students, group work can involve constant uncertainty:

• When should I speak?

• How direct is too direct?

• Was that correction helpful or rude?

• Am I participating enough?

• Am I participating too much?

• What exactly does the teacher expect?

This activity explores how communication differences and unclear expectations can create frustration during group work. 

Important Note:

This activity is not designed to portray autistic students as "bad at communication." 

Communication differences are relational. Misunderstandings often occur because different communication styles can be interpreted differently. 

The issue is not that one person communicates "correctly" while another communicates "incorrectly." The issue is often that communication styles mismatch with each other and cause misunderstandings even when neither party intended to. 

Reflection Questions

• Did it feel like every response was interpreted negatively?

• Which expectations felt unclear or contradictory?

• How did the feedback affect your willingness to continue participating?

• How might repeated experiences like this affect a student's willingness to participate?

Interactive Scenario: Which Student is "Participating"?

Before the Activity: Rethinking Participation

Participation in classrooms is often judged through visible behaviors: 

• talking frequently

• making eye contact

• responding quickly

• contributing verbally

• raising a hand

However, thinking is not always externally visible. 

Some students participate through observation, internal processing, careful listening, written reasoning, or delayed responses. When classrooms only recognize one style of participation, some students are unintentionally punished, especially when participation is included in a course grade. 

A Note Before the Activity

This activity is not meant to suggest that autistic students "cannot handle change." Many autistic people adapt constantly. 

Instead, the activity highlights how unexpected changes may require significant cognitive effort, especially when students have already developed a mental plan for approaching the task.

A Note Before the Activity

Classrooms are often sensory environments as much as academic environments. Fluorescent lights, overlapping conversations, scraping chairs, sudden interruptions, movement, and shifting attention demands can all compete with problem-solving. 

For many autistic students, sensory input cannot be easily tuned out as "background noise." It may require active effort to filter, manage, or tolerate while simultaneously trying to solve a problem.

This activity explores how environmental demands can interfere with focus during a task. It is not meant to be a literal simulation of autism or sensory processing differences. Instead, the activity is meant to show how frustrating it can be to try to solve a problem with many competing demands. 

Notice that the simulation included buttons for reducing and pausing the distractions. While classrooms cannot literally provide students with "pause" buttons, there are many ways teachers can reduce these unnecessary barriers.

Sensory needs vary from student to student, but some helpful supports may include headphones, quieter workspaces, minimizing unnecessary interruptions, predictable routines, and access to sensory tools or breaks when needed. 

• Which activity felt the most uncomfortable or frustrating?

• Did any instructions feel unclear or overly open-ended?

• How often do classrooms rely on implied expectations?

• What happens when students interpret a question differently than intended?

• How might uncertainty affect mathematical confidence?

• How often are students expected to manage social and sensory demands while also solving mathematics problems?

• Which redesigns improved clarity without reducing rigor?

• How can teachers create more explicit and predictable learning environments?

These activities are designed to highlight how classroom expectations, communication styles, sensory demands, and hidden social rules can unintentionally create barriers for autistic students.

Notice that the redesigned questions did not lower mathematical expectations. Instead, they made expectations more explicit and reduced ambiguity.

Autistic students are often capable of reasoning mathematicaly, solving complex problems, recognizing patterns, thinking deeply, and engaging meaningfully with mathematics. 

Helpful supports may include:

• explicit instructions,

• predictable routines,

• reduced ambiguity,

• clear expectations for participation,

• structured collaboration,

  • Ex. Providing sentence stems

  • Ex. Assigning group roles

• processing time before responding,

• flexible communication methods,

• advance notice before transitions,

• and sensory-aware classroom design.

  • Ex. Dimmed lights

  • Ex. Quiet spaces