NAIL-C: A Neurodiversity-Adaptive Framework for Inclusive Language Learning in the Age of AI

Gökçe Genç 1 Türkiye ROR , Emre Uygun 2 Türkiye ROR
1 Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University ROR
2 Bursa Uludağ Üni̇versi̇tesi̇ ROR
Link Copied!
Published 2026-10-23
Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026)
DOI
Views / Downloads 41 17

Theories of second language acquisition (SLA) have largely assumed that learners can access input and take part in interaction under broadly stable sensory, cognitive, and emotional conditions. Neurodiversity shows that these conditions vary within and across learners, while large language models (LLMs) now mediate much everyday language work. This conceptual article argues that the relationship between regulated access, communicative competence, and AI mediation remains under-theorized in SLA. Through a theoretical synthesis of SLA, neurodiversity scholarship, ecological and distributed cognition, multimodality, and research on AI-mediated communication, it proposes NAIL-C, a neurodiversity-adaptive framework with five interdependent components: Neurodiversity-Centered Design, Adaptive Regulation, Tolerable and Adaptive Input, Learning as Dynamic Alignment, and Multimodality-Adaptive Communicative Competence. The framework treats regulated access as a boundary condition on acquisition, defines communicative competence so that multimodal and variable participation can count as evidence, and positions AI as a potential regulatory scaffold that requires human oversight. NAIL-C complements Universal Design for Learning by offering an SLA-specific account of usable input and competence. The article specifies falsifiable predictions and outlines implications for assessment, pedagogy, and research.

Keywords:
accessibility artificial intelligence inclusive language education neurodiversity second language acquisition
NAIL-C: A Neurodiversity-Adaptive Framework for Inclusive Language Learning in the Age of AI. (2026). Journal of Inclusive Language Education, 1(1). https://journaloflpl.org/index.php/jile/article/view/6
Download data is not yet available.
  1. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.
  2. Basham, J. D., & Lowrey, K. A. (2026). (Re)considering universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 41(2), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434251361443
  3. Bell, R. R., Thomas, H. R., Saffran, J. R., & Eigsti, I.-M. (2026). A systematic review of statistical learning in autism spectrum disorder. Molecular Autism, 17, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-025-00697-7
  4. Ben-Sasson, A., Hen, L., Fluss, R., Cermak, S. A., Engel-Yeger, B., & Gal, E. (2009). A meta-analysis of sensory modulation symptoms in individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-008-0593-3
  5. Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56–64). Worth Publishers.
  6. Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., Brynjolfsson, E., Buch, S., Card, D., Castellon, R., Chatterji, N., Chen, A., Creel, K., Davis, J. Q., Demszky, D., . . . Liang, P. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models (arXiv:2108.07258). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.07258
  7. Brusilovsky, P. (2001). Adaptive hypermedia. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11(1–2), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011143116306
  8. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/1.1.1
  9. Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A meta-analysis of literature between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(8), 791–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1325074
  10. CAST. (2024). Universal design for learning guidelines version 3.0. https://udlguidelines.cast.org
  11. Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.5070/L462005216
  12. Choi, D., Lee, S., Kim, S.-I., Lee, K., Yoo, H. J., Lee, S., & Hong, H. (2024). Unlock life with a Chat(GPT): Integrating conversational AI with large language models into everyday lives of autistic individuals. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Article 72). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3641989
  13. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7
  14. Dai, Y., & Wu, Z. (2021). Developing multimodal communicative competence: Insights from “semantic gravity” and the Knowledge Process framework. System, 100, Article 102561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102561
  15. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002732
  16. D’Mello, S. K., & Graesser, A. C. (2012). Dynamics of affective states during complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.001
  17. Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch18
  18. Dwyer, P. (2022). The neurodiversity approach(es): What are they and what do they mean for researchers? Human Development, 66(2), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1159/000523723
  19. Eigsti, I.-M., de Marchena, A. B., Schuh, J. M., & Kelley, E. (2011). Language acquisition in autism spectrum disorders: A developmental review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(2), 681–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2010.09.001
  20. Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63–103). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch4
  21. Fernández-Herrero, J. (2024). Evaluating recent advances in affective intelligent tutoring systems: A scoping review of educational impacts and future prospects. Education Sciences, 14(8), Article 839. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080839
  22. Genç, L. G., & Atar, C. (2026). What do EFL teachers know about dyslexia? Evidence from Türkiye. ELT Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccag046
  23. Gerlich, M. (2025). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006
  24. Gregg, K. R. (1984). Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.2.79
  25. Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2017). Self-regulation, co-regulation, and shared regulation in collaborative learning environments. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed., pp. 83–106). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697048-6
  26. Hancock, J. T., Naaman, M., & Levy, K. (2020). AI-mediated communication: Definition, research agenda, and ethical considerations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz022
  27. Hull, L., Petrides, K. V., Allison, C., Smith, P., Baron-Cohen, S., Lai, M.-C., & Mandy, W. (2017). “Putting on my best normal”: Social camouflaging in adults with autism spectrum conditions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(8), 2519–2534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3166-5
  28. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001
  29. Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 241–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07310586
  30. Jones, E. K., Hanley, M., & Riby, D. M. (2020). Distraction, distress and diversity: Exploring the impact of sensory processing differences on learning and school life for pupils with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 72, Article 101515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2020.101515
  31. Kapp, S. K., Gillespie-Lynch, K., Sherman, L. E., & Hutman, T. (2013). Deficit, difference, or both? Autism and neurodiversity. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028353
  32. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., . . . Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, Article 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
  33. Keehn, B., Müller, R.-A., & Townsend, J. (2013). Atypical attentional networks and the emergence of autism. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(2), 164–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.11.014
  34. Kofler, M. J., Rapport, M. D., & Alderson, R. M. (2008). Quantifying ADHD classroom inattentiveness, its moderators, and variability: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01809.x
  35. Kormos, J., & Indrarathne, B. (2026). Specific learning differences in learning, teaching, and assessing additional languages. Language Teaching, 59(2), 139–163. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444825100803
  36. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon.
  37. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203970034
  38. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
  39. Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392
  40. Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2014). Communicative competence for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: A new definition for a new era of communication? Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.885080
  41. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3
  42. Mallory, C., & Keehn, B. (2021). Implications of sensory processing and attentional differences associated with autism in academic settings: An integrative review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, Article 695825. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.695825
  43. Mazefsky, C. A., Herrington, J., Siegel, M., Scarpa, A., Maddox, B. B., Scahill, L., & White, S. W. (2013). The role of emotion regulation in autism spectrum disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 52(7), 679–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2013.05.006
  44. McLaughlin, B. (1978). The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning, 28(2), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1978.tb00137.x
  45. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). American Council on Education; Macmillan.
  46. Metin, B., Roeyers, H., Wiersema, J. R., van der Meere, J., & Sonuga-Barke, E. (2012). A meta-analytic study of event rate effects on Go/No-Go performance in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 72(12), 990–996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.08.023
  47. Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.
  48. Milton, D. E. M. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The “double empathy problem”. Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008
  49. Morin, K. L., Ganz, J. B., Gregori, E. V., Foster, M. J., Gerow, S. L., Genç-Tosun, D., & Hong, E. R. (2018). A systematic quality review of high-tech AAC interventions as an evidence-based practice. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34(2), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1458900
  50. Murray, D., Lesser, M., & Lawson, W. (2005). Attention, monotropism and the diagnostic criteria for autism. Autism, 9(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361305051398
  51. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
  52. Obeid, R., Brooks, P. J., Powers, K. L., Gillespie-Lynch, K., & Lum, J. A. G. (2016). Statistical learning in specific language impairment and autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1245. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01245
  53. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
  54. Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
  55. Pellicano, E., & den Houting, J. (2022). Annual research review: Shifting from “normal science” to neurodiversity in autism science. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 63(4), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13534
  56. Pievsky, M. A., & McGrath, R. E. (2018). The neurocognitive profile of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A review of meta-analyses. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 33(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acx055
  57. Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-75775-9
  58. Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002
  59. Ritzman, M. J., & Subramanian, R. (2024). Voices from a pandemic: Understanding how young adults on the autism spectrum use computer-mediated communication. Autism, 28(2), 381–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613231170963
  60. Robertson, C. E., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2017). Sensory perception in autism. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(11), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2017.112
  61. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
  62. Silawi, R., Degani, T., & Prior, A. (2025). Additional language learning in ADHD: A call for research. Applied Psycholinguistics, 46, Article e47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716425100337
  63. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House.
  64. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
  65. Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012870
  66. Uygun, E. (2026). Clashing AIs: Artificial intelligence literacy and academic integrity in an EFL context. Journal of Academic Ethics, 24(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09676-2
  67. Uygun, E., & Demir, B. (2026). A PRISMA-based systematic review of artificial intelligence in English as a foreign and second language education (2023–2025). Discover Education, 5(1), Article 478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-026-01504-y
  68. Valencia, S., Cave, R., Kallarackal, K., Seaver, K., Terry, M., & Kane, S. K. (2023). “The less I type, the better”: How AI language models can enhance or impede communication for AAC users. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Article 830). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581560
  69. van der Aa, C., Pollmann, M. M. H., Plaat, A., & van der Gaag, R. J. (2016). Computer-mediated communication in adults with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders and controls. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 23, 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2015.11.007
  70. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  71. Walker, N. (2021). Neuroqueer heresies: Notes on the neurodiversity paradigm, autistic empowerment, and postnormal possibilities. Autonomous Press.
  72. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

Articles published in Journal of Inclusive Language Education are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) .

Dimension Badge

Downloads

Downloads
Crossmark Badge
Crossmark Badge
Section
Articles
Keywords
accessibility artificial intelligence inclusive language education neurodiversity second language acquisition

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.