Since my autism diagnosis, I have learned so much about myself
The way I learn, and why my recent university experience has been so mixed.
I make the statement that traditional university teaching is antithetical for gestalt learning, processing and thinking.
Now, that is the view of this autistic middle-aged woman. I’ve got VET qualifications, and my first experience with university was in 2022, where I turned 50 as a first-year undergraduate student. At that stage, I didn’t know I was autistic. In three chequered years, I enrolled in eight courses and passed half. The half I passed were linked to what I now know to be an autistic special interest – writing.
I tried completely online, through Open Universities. It wasn’t much better. Yes, I had accommodations in place for my depression and anxiety, and then for my autism. But I didn’t have accommodations in place for myself, if that makes sense.
Now, understanding my autism much better after 10 months of knowing I am autistic, after 10 months of deep diving into autism, I can see why university—both in person and online—was so problematic for me.
So here I am, self-designing my learning, in conjunction with ChatGPT.
I asked ChatGPT to argue for and against my statement that traditional university teaching is antithetical for gestalt learning and thinking. This is how it went.
—
The case for the argument
“Traditional university teaching is antithetical for gestalt learning and thinking.”
Supporting this argument involves highlighting the aspects of traditional university education that can limit holistic, integrative learning.
1. Fragmentation of Knowledge
Discipline Silos – Rigid departments compartmentalise knowledge and hinder interdisciplinary thinking.
Course Isolation – Subjects are rarely integrated, making complex topics harder to fully understand.
2. Linear Learning Approaches
Sequential Curriculum – Linear course structures don’t align with non-linear, gestalt thinking.
Focus on Memorisation – Rote learning and exams stifle integrative thinking.
3. Limited Experiential Learning
Lecture-Dominated Instruction – Passive lectures offer little hands-on learning.
Lack of Real-World Application – Students have limited chances to test learning in practical contexts.
4. Assessment Methods
Standardised Testing – Emphasises fragmented knowledge over synthesised understanding.
Few Creative Assessments – Rarely use projects or presentations that encourage cross-disciplinary thinking.
5. Lack of Flexibility
Rigid Course Requirements – Limits exploration and integration of diverse fields.
Structured Learning Paths – Constrains curiosity-led discovery and autonomy.
6. Institutional Constraints
Time & Credit Pressures – Depth is sacrificed to breadth.
Faculty Specialisation – Limits exposure to interdisciplinary perspectives.
7. Learning Environment
Large Class Sizes – Limits tailored feedback and personal connection.
Standardised Curriculum – Doesn’t cater to diverse learning styles or needs.
Supporting Evidence
Research Studies – On active learning, interdisciplinary and experiential education.
Student Feedback – Real-world struggles of gestalt thinkers.
Theorists – Educational philosophy supportive of holistic learning.
Alternative Models – Montessori, project-based learning, interdisciplinary degrees.
This builds a strong case for reforming traditional university models to allow more integrative, experiential, and flexible educational paths.
—
The case against the argument
“Traditional university teaching is not antithetical for gestalt learning and thinking.”
This view focuses on how universities are adapting and how gestalt learning can happen within traditional frameworks.
1. Diverse Teaching Methods
Interdisciplinary Courses – Growing offerings connect multiple fields.
Project-Based Learning – Becoming more common and aligns with real-world thinking.
Seminars & Discussions – Promote collaboration and synthesis.
2. Critical Thinking and Analysis
Curriculum Emphasis – On pattern recognition, logic, and reasoning.
Research Opportunities – Allow students to cross disciplines and methods.
3. Support for Learning Styles
Resources – Study support, tutoring, writing centres.
Flexible Delivery – Online and hybrid learning.
4. Curriculum Integration
Integrated Programs – Designed to span faculties.
Capstones – Encourage synthesis and application.
5. Mentorship and Expertise
Faculty Mentoring – Helps students connect knowledge across domains.
Guest Lecturers – Bring varied viewpoints and transdisciplinary ideas.
6. Extracurriculars
Clubs & Societies – Interdisciplinary collaboration and practical learning.
Workshops & Seminars – Enhance depth and integrative skills.
7. Assessment Variety
Alternative Assessment – Essays, creative projects, presentations, oral exams.
This case shows how some universities are increasingly supportive of gestalt learning—though with variability in quality and consistency.
—
Evaluation of Both Cases
Strengths of the Case Against the Argument
1. Demonstrates diversity and adaptability in current university teaching.
2. Strong emphasis on critical thinking and interdisciplinary methods.
3. Supports multiple learning styles with available resources.
4. Evidence of experiential, real-world learning emerging.
5. Flexible options are increasing.
Weaknesses:
Outcomes vary dramatically across institutions.
Possibly overstates the level of transformation in practice.
Strengths of the Case Supporting the Argument
1. Clearly highlights institutional barriers.
2. Rigid course structures shown to limit gestalt-style learning.
3. Points to systemic constraints (e.g. time, specialisation).
4. Uses student experience and real-world feedback as evidence.
Weaknesses:
May paint with too broad a brush.
Doesn’t fully acknowledge positive changes happening now.
—
Which is the stronger case?
If you are highlighting what’s working in academia, the case against the argument is stronger.
If you’re critiquing systemic rigidity and making a call for reform, the case supporting the argument has more weight.
Ultimately, it depends on your audience, purpose, and the institutional context.
—
My context
> My goal is to support my argument for myself, that self-directed learning following an organic learning path is better for me.
Take for example, the course you’ve developed with and for me, The Neurology of Smell and Taste: Perception, Genetics and Influence.
The natural progression, to me, would then be to a course on physiology, base metabolic rate and metabolism, and satiety, which might then lead to a course about hormones and epigenetics. This could then lead to a course on public health, the diabetes epidemic and sociological issues.
Those four courses dive across biology, neurology, psychology, sociology, marketing, communication, food chemistry, nutrition and possibly biomechanics.
—
ChatGPT’s tailored response
To support your argument that self-directed learning through an organic pathway suits you better:
1. Personalised and Flexible Learning Path
Aligned to your autistic interests and needs.
Allows freedom to follow conceptual threads across domains.
2. Holistic and Integrative Approach
Connects disciplines rather than keeping them siloed.
Supports gestalt thinking—seeing patterns and systems, not just data.
3. Pacing and Depth
Go deep where curiosity leads.
No pressure to move on before you’re ready.
4. Real-World Application
Build real-life relevance into the learning journey.
Project-based learning makes theory tangible and useful.
5. Motivation and Autonomy
Intrinsic interest drives engagement.
Strengthens confidence and self-efficacy.
6. Lifelong Learning Skills
Prepares you for a changing world.
Encourages continuous learning and adaptability.
Supporting evidence includes research on autodidactic learners, personal testimony (like yours), and clear comparisons with traditional models that often force linear, shallow progress.
—
So, thank you, ChatGPT.
I rest my (your) case.
The Auld Skald's Fudgel 