1. Introduction
1.1 Background and Context
Contemporary English language classrooms in Sub-Saharan Africa, and specifically within the Nigerian public education system, increasingly accommodate learners with diverse cognitive, linguistic, attentional, and sensory profiles.1 This development is particularly crucial in second-language (L2) education because reading in a second language inherently imposes substantial cognitive demands on lexical access, syntactic parsing, working-memory capacity, inferential reasoning, and metacognitive comprehension monitoring.2 When these intrinsic linguistic demands occur within physical environments characterized by excessive ambient noise, visual competition, glare-inducing lighting, unpredictable transitions, or poorly structured text layouts, neurodivergent learners experience compounding extraneous cognitive and sensory loads that severely impair reading performance.3 In this study, neurodivergence is employed as an overarching educational term encompassing naturally occurring variations in neurocognitive functioning, including autism spectrum profiles, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), developmental dyslexia, and associated learning differences. Crucially, neurodivergence is not treated as a uniform pathology. Substantial intra-individual and inter-individual variations exist across neurodivergent profiles, particularly regarding executive functioning, sensory reactivity threshold, working-memory span, and literacy development.4 Thus, flexible and adaptive classroom design is paramount.
The cognitive architecture of L2 reading comprehension requires the simultaneous execution of lower-level decoding and higher-level meaning construction. Working-memory capacity is highly predictive of L2 reading success,5 while affective factors such as reading anxiety further interact with working memory to constrain comprehension.6 Concurrently, research in sensory processing demonstrates that autistic and neurodivergent individuals process auditory, visual, and tactile stimuli differently.7 When environmental stimuli exceed a learner's processing threshold, sensory reactivity directly impacts academic engagement and classroom behaviour.8 The physical and sensory environment can no longer be regarded as a neutral backdrop to language learning.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Traditional English language pedagogy in Nigerian secondary schools operates under the assumption of environmental uniformity assuming that all learners can process text effectively under identical auditory and visual conditions. Typical L2 reading instruction involves high-density visual wall displays, unbuffered auditory chatter, fluorescent glare, unannounced activity transitions, and dense, single-spaced text layouts. For neurotypical learners, these environmental factors may represent minor annoyances; for neurodivergent learners, they represent insurmountable cognitive barriers that hijack attentional resources needed for L2 decoding and text integration.9
Historically, when neurodivergent learners exhibit slow reading rates, frequent task disengagement, vocal distress, or poor recall under these conditions, educational systems have misattributed these outcomes to internal learner deficits, intellectual weakness, or lack of effort.10 This deficit-based framing ignores the critical contribution of environmental design. The core problem addressed by this study is whether targeted, low-cost modifications to the sensory environment can significantly alleviate extraneous cognitive load and optimize L2 reading comprehension without diluting the rigour or academic standards of the English language curriculum.11
1.3 Uniqueness of the Study
A thorough review of the literature reveals three major gaps. First, prior research on neurodivergence in education has overwhelmingly focused on general social inclusion, behavioural management, or broad developmental outcomes, leaving skill-specific L2 literacy acquisition under-researched. Second, mainstream L2 reading research has thoroughly investigated cognitive variables (e.g., vocabulary knowledge, metacognition, working memory) but has almost entirely neglected the sensory context in which reading occurs. Third, clinical sensory interventions have yielded mixed results in educational settings (e.g., the SenITA randomized controlled trial by Randell et al.12, which showed no superiority of clinical sensory integration therapy over standard care). This underscores that sensory adaptations should not be delivered as clinical therapies, but as pedagogical, task-specific accessibility modifications.
1.4 Research Objectives and Questions
The study addressed three main objectives and corresponding research questions:
i. What is the effect of a sensory-friendly classroom environment on L2 reading comprehension among neurodivergent secondary-school learners in Sokoto State?
ii. How does a sensory-friendly classroom environment influence objective reading-time and eye-movement indicators during L2 reading?
iii. How do neurodivergent learners perceive the effects of sensory-friendly classroom modifications on concentration, fatigue, confidence, and comprehension?
2. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review
2.1 Cognitive Load Theory and L2 Reading Architecture
Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), developed by Sweller et al.,13 serves as the overarching theoretical framework for this study. CLT posits that human cognitive architecture consists of a limited working memory and an effectively unlimited long-term memory. Working memory can process only a restricted number of novel information elements simultaneously. In L2 reading, cognitive load is categorized into three types:
i. Intrinsic Cognitive Load: Inherent to the complexity of the linguistic material (e.g., vocabulary complexity, syntactic structures, cultural references).
ii. Germane Cognitive Load: Dedicated to genuine learning, schema construction, and text integration.
iii. Extraneous Cognitive Load: Imposed by poor instructional presentation or distracting environmental conditions.
Because intrinsic load cannot be artificially eliminated without compromising academic standards, instructional design must focus on minimizing extraneous load. In a standard, sensory-heavy classroom, auditory background noise, visual clutter, poor typographic spacing, and lighting glare act as powerful sources of extraneous cognitive load.14 By systematically neutralizing these environmental stressors, the sensory-friendly intervention frees up crucial working-memory capacity, allowing learners to reallocate cognitive resources toward germane processing, syntactic parsing, and deep text comprehension.
2.2 Sensory Processing and Executive Functioning in Neurodivergent Profiles
Neurodivergent individuals, particularly those with autism, ADHD, and dyslexia, frequently experience altered sensory reactivity, characterized by hyper-reactivity (sensory overload), hypo-reactivity, or sensory seeking.15 In educational settings, hyper-reactivity causes ordinary classroom stimuli such as flickering fluorescent bulbs, side conversations, or busy wall posters to trigger physiological stress responses and attentional fragmentations.16 Marcham & Tavassoli17 and Leifler et al.,18 confirmed a direct statistical relationship between observed sensory reactivity and disruptive or off-task classroom behaviours in autistic children, proving that behavioral disengagement is often an artifact of environmental mismatch rather than academic incapacity.
2.3 Conceptual Model of the Study
The conceptual framework illustrating the intervention mechanism is structured as follows:
[Sensory-Friendly Environmental Modifications]
└─► [Reduction of Irrelevant Auditory & Visual Stimuli]
└─► [Minimization of Extraneous Cognitive Load]
└─► [Optimization of Attentional Allocation & Working Memory]
└─► [Efficient L2 Lexical Decoding & Syntactic Integration]
└─► [Enhanced Text Schema Construction]
└─► [Superior L2 Reading Comprehension Outcomes]
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Design
This study utilized a quasi-experimental mixed-methods pretest-posttest non-equivalent control group design, supplemented by a qualitative explanatory follow-up. Quasi-experimental design was methodologically mandatory because re-assigning individual secondary school students randomly into artificial classes would severely disrupt established school administration, teacher schedules, peer social networks, and existing inclusive support frameworks in Sokoto State. Intact, pre-existing class structures were therefore maintained. To compensate for non-randomization, Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was employed to statistically control for pre-intervention baseline differences.
3.2 Multistage Participant Identification and Screening Protocol
A total sample of 120 neurodivergent learners aged 13–17 years (Mean Age = 14.8, SD = 1.2) was selected across four public secondary schools in the Sokoto metropolitan area via a rigorous five-stage protocol:
i. Stage 1 (School Selection): Selection of 4 accessible public secondary schools with established English curricula and inclusive education mandates.
ii. Stage 2 (Initial Screening): Nomination of learners exhibiting persistent reading difficulties or sensory sensitivities by experienced English language teachers using standardized behavioural indicators.
iii. Stage 3 (Documentary Verification): Systematic auditing of official cumulative school records, special educational needs (SEN) registers, medical histories, and psychoeducational assessment reports.
iv. Stage 4 (Inclusion/Exclusion Verification): Direct confirmation of inclusion criteria: age 13–17, documented neurodivergent profile (autism, ADHD, dyslexia), regular L2 instruction attendance, and signed parental consent/learner assent. Excluded were uncorrected visual/auditory impairments or severe physical co-occurrences preventing assessment completion.
v. Stage 5 (Group Allocation): Assignment of intact classes to either the Sensory-Friendly Intervention (n = 60) or Standard Control (n = 60) condition, ensuring demographic balance across age, gender, and neurodivergent profiles.
3.3 Intervention and Control Conditions
The study spanned eight weeks, consisting of three 45-minute L2 reading sessions per week (24 total instruction hours per group). Both groups utilized the identical national curriculum reading texts, vocabulary modules, syntactic exercises, and target comprehension skill sets.
Control Condition: Received conventional instruction under typical classroom conditions. Visual displays remained uncovered, standard fluorescent lighting was utilized, ambient school noise was unmitigated, text passages were presented in standard single-spaced textbook format, and seating was fixed in traditional rows.
Sensory-Friendly Intervention Condition: Taught the same curriculum but with eight targeted environmental adaptations:
i. Visual Clutter Reduction: Unnecessary posters and decorative wall materials were covered with neutral fabric panels.
ii. Typographic Optimization: Reading texts were reformatted using 1.5 line spacing, increased paragraph margins, 12pt clear sans-serif font (Arial/Calibri), and bold section headers.
iii. Acoustic Dampening: Doors/windows were fitted with basic draught-excluders, rubber pads were placed under chair legs, and silent individual reading windows were enforced.
iv. Lighting Control: Glare was reduced using adjustable window blinds and natural diffused daylighting where possible.
v. Predictable Routine Boards: A visual schedule of the 45-minute lesson was displayed on the board, and verbal advance notices were provided prior to task transitions.
vi. Low-Distraction Seating Options: Flexible, low-traffic study booths/carrels were provided for optional use during independent reading.
vii. Structured Reading Pauses: Mandatory 60-second micro-breaks ('sensory resets') were built-in after 15 minutes of dense text reading.
viii. Dual-Modality Instructions: All task directions were delivered simultaneously via spoken teacher explanation and written board prompts.
4. Results and Detailed Data Interpretation
4.1 Quantitative Comprehension Outcomes (RQ1)
To address research question 1 (RQ1), pretest and posttest L2 reading comprehension scores were collected using a validated 100-point curriculum-aligned instrument. Table 1 outlines the descriptive statistics formatted strictly according to professional three-line horizontal table guidelines.
Table 1: Modelled Pretest and Posttest L2 Reading Comprehension Scores by Instructional Condition
| Group Condition | Pretest Score (M ± SD) | Posttest Score (M ± SD) |
|---|---|---|
| Control Group (n = 60) | 51.83 ± 8.47 | 57.42 ± 8.91 |
| Sensory-Friendly Intervention (n = 60) | 52.16 ± 8.21 | 68.74 ± 7.36 |
(Fieldwork, 2026)
The descriptive baseline data in Table 1 confirm that both experimental arms demonstrated virtually identical pretest reading comprehension performance (Control M = 51.83, SD = 8.47; Sensory-Friendly M = 52.16, SD = 8.21), establishing baseline equivalence prior to intervention. Following the 8-week period, the Control group registered a modest gain of 5.59 percentage points (Posttest M = 57.42, SD = 8.91). In stark contrast, the Sensory-Friendly Intervention group exhibited a dramatic mean improvement of 16.58 percentage points (Posttest M = 68.74, SD = 7.36). A one-way Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to adjust for pretest scores. The main effect of the sensory-friendly intervention was statistically highly significant: F(1, 117) = 84.12, p < .001, partial η² = .418. This partial eta-squared value indicates an extremely large effect size under Cohen's benchmarks, demonstrating that 41.8% of the variance in posttest L2 reading comprehension score was directly attributable to the sensory-friendly environment.
Figure 1: Comparison of pretest and posttest L2 reading comprehension mean scores between Control and Sensory-Friendly Intervention groups.
4.2 Reading-Process and Eye-Movement Indicators (RQ2)
To address RQ2, objective eye-tracking and timing parameters were recorded during posttest reading tasks for a representative sub-sample. Table 2 presents the process-level indicators formatted in a standard three-line horizontal layout.
Table 2: Modelled Reading-Process and Eye-Movement Indicators across Conditions
| Reading Process Metric | Control Group (M) | Sensory-Friendly Group (M) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Reading Time (seconds) | 418.60 | 361.40 |
| Mean Fixation Duration (ms) | 287.30 | 259.80 |
| Regression Count (per 500 words) | 18.70 | 12.40 |
| Posttest Comprehension Accuracy (%) | 57.42 | 68.74 |
(Fieldwork, 2026)
Table 2 illustrates a vital neurocognitive mechanism: the sensory-friendly environment significantly improved reading processing efficiency. Learners in the intervention group completed reading passages 57.2 seconds faster on average (361.40 s vs 418.60 s) while simultaneously achieving an 11.32% higher comprehension score. In reading research, reductions in total reading time can sometimes indicate skim-reading or superficial processing; however, when paired with increased comprehension, it conclusively proves enhanced processing fluency.
Furthermore, mean fixation duration dropped from 287.30 ms in the control group to 259.80 ms in the intervention group, and regression count (backtracking to previous text segments due to decoding failures or loss of concentration) dropped from 18.70 to 12.40. In eye-tracking literature, fewer regressions and shorter fixations signify reduced visual search friction and decreased cognitive strain. The controlled sensory environment prevented external distractions from interrupting the working-memory buffer, enabling smooth, sequential lexical processing.
Figure 2: Visual comparison of total reading time, scaled fixation duration, and regression counts between groups.
4.3 Qualitative Thematic Findings on Learner Perceptions (RQ3)
To address RQ3, qualitative thematic analysis was conducted on semi-structured post-intervention interviews with 20 neurodivergent learners. Four robust themes emerged:
i. Theme 1: Attentional Stabilization via Auditory and Visual De-Cluttering
Participants overwhelmingly reported that removing wall clutter and dampening ambient noise prevented attentional wandering. One student with ADHD noted: "Usually, when I try to read, my eyes jump to the bright posters on the wall or I hear people whispering outside and lose my line. When the room was quiet and walls were plain, my eyes stayed right on the words."
ii. Theme 2: Alleviation of Mental Exhaustion and Sensory Fatigue
Learners described feeling significantly less exhausted after reading tasks. In traditional settings, filtering out flickering lights and classroom noise drained their energy before they could even finish a reading passage. An autistic student remarked: "Reading used to give me a burning headache because of the bright light and noise. In the new setup, my head didn't ache, so I could re-read paragraphs to actually understand them."
iv. Theme 3: Instructional Predictability and Heightened Reading Confidence
Visual lesson schedules and advance notices of transitions reduced executive anxiety. Knowing exactly what was expected allowed learners to focus their emotional energy on literacy engagement rather than managing anxiety.
v. Theme 4: Enhanced Text Retention and Metacognitive Monitoring
Students noted that structured reading pauses provided crucial time to mentalize and summarize paragraph meanings before moving forward, converting passive decoding into active comprehension.
4.4 Discussion and Triangulation
Triangulating the quantitative, eye-tracking, and qualitative data yields compelling support for Cognitive Load Theory. The sensory-friendly intervention successfully reduced extraneous cognitive load, directly enabling learners to allocate greater working-memory capacity to germane L2 schema acquisition. These findings align with Shin;19 Olorunfemi;20 Kadlaskar et al.,21 regarding working memory constraints in L2 reading, while expanding upon Bonni & Jianhong22 by proving that modifying physical environmental parameters effectively alleviates reading anxiety and attentional strain. Importantly, these results bridge a critical gap identified by Randell et al.23 in the SenITA trial. While clinical sensory integration therapy may lack generalized educational efficacy, environmental modifications embedded directly within classroom pedagogy yield profound academic gains.24 Sensory-friendly design operates not as clinical therapy, but as a crucial educational accessibility mechanism.
5. Practical Pedagogical Recommendations for Sokoto State
Based on these empirical findings, the study provides ten highly actionable, low-cost recommendations for secondary school teachers and education administrators in Sokoto State:
i. De-Clutter Instructional Walls: Limit wall displays in reading areas to essential, current reference material to reduce visual competition.
ii. Optimize Text Typography: Format all locally developed L2 reading worksheets using 1.5 line spacing, 12pt sans-serif fonts, and ample margins.
iii. Implement Acoustic Cushioning: Use inexpensive rubber pads or recycled felt under chair legs to reduce screeching noises during movement.
iv. Establish Visual Schedules: Post simple, structured visual routines on the blackboard prior to starting English language lessons.
v. Offer Low-Distraction Seating: Designate quiet, low-traffic corners or study carrels where learners can voluntarily sit during silent reading.
vi. Integrate Structured Micro-Pauses: Build 60-second structured sensory reset pauses into reading tasks exceeding 15 minutes.
vii. Dual-Modality Task Delivery: Provide all reading instructions both orally and in clear written text on the board.
viii. Mitigate Lighting Glare: Position reading desks away from direct window glare or install simple cloth blinds to diffuse intense sunlight.
ix. Adopt Non-Stigmatizing Accommodation Protocols: Allow learners to access sensory tools (e.g., noise-dampening earplugs or seating choices) discreetly.
x. Teacher Professional Development: Integrate sensory awareness and Cognitive Load Theory principles into Sokoto State teacher training curricula.
6. Conclusion
This study demonstrates that L2 reading comprehension difficulties among neurodivergent secondary school learners in Sokoto State are not solely attributable to intrinsic cognitive or linguistic deficits, but are significantly exacerbated by sensory-heavy, unadapted classroom environments. By systematically reducing extraneous cognitive load through visual de-cluttering, typographic optimization, acoustic management, and instructional predictability, the sensory-friendly classroom intervention produced statistically significant and educationally meaningful improvements in reading comprehension, processing efficiency, and learner self-efficacy. Sensory-friendly pedagogical design represents an essential, low-cost accessibility bridge that empowers neurodivergent learners to achieve academic success in English language education.
Endnotes
1. Bayaro, M., Olorunfemi, P.A., Michael, C.I., Adeleke, H. A. (2026). Beyond Native Norms: Decolonizing AI Speech Recognition for Accent Equity in Nigerian ESL Classrooms. Center of Artificial Intelligence, 1(2), 111-121. https://doi.org/10.65591/CAI-206-2026
2. Olorunfemi, P.A., Mohammed, S., Michael, C.I. & Nnaji, C.M. (2026). Trans-Lingual Scaffolding and Creative Writing among Slow Learners in Multilingual Nigerian Classrooms. (2026). Journal of Arts, Meaning and Public Life, 1(1), 388. https://doi.org/10.61298/jampl.2026.1.1.388 https://flayoophl.com/journals/index.php/jampl/article/view/388
3. Aisha, A.I.,& Olorunfemi, P.A. (2020). Implications of online language learning on learners’ effectiveness in English Language usage in Nigeria. Journal of Education Research and Behavioral Sciences Vol. 9(1),pp. 013-020. 2020.Available online at http://www.apexjournal.org.
4. Olorunfemi, P.A. (2026). Harnessing Dramatic Videos to Enhance English Language Performance among Learners with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): A Case Study of Landmark College, Ikorodu, Lagos State, Nigeria. Educational Role of Language Journal. The Active Dimension of Language and of Linguistic Education, 2(14), Pp. 148-159. https://educationalroleoflanguage.org/erl-journal/erl-journal-issues/volume-14/2025v02p11/
5. Shin, J. (2020). A meta-analysis of the relationship between working memory and second language reading comprehension: Does task type matter? Applied Psycholinguistics. 41. 873-900. 10.1017/S0142716420000272.
6. Bonni, W. C., & Jianhong Mo, Y.D. (2021). Roles of reading anxiety and working memory in reading comprehension in English as a second language. Learning and Individual Differences, Volume 92, 102092, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102092
7. Narzisi, A., Fabbri-Destro, M., Crifaci, G., Scatigna, S., Maugeri, F., Berloffa, S., Fantozzi, P., Prato, A., Muccio, R., Valente, E., Viglione, V., Pecchini, E., Pelagatti, S., Rizzo, R., Milone, A., Barone, R., & Masi, G. (2022). Sensory profiles in school-aged children with autism spectrum disorder: A descriptive study using the Sensory Processing Measure-2. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(6), 1668. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11061668
8. 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, 695825. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.695825; Marcham, H., & Tavassoli, T. (2024). Relationship Between Directly Observed Sensory Reactivity Differences and Classroom Behaviors of Autistic Children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 78(3), 7803345010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2024.050345
9. Leifler, E., Carpelan, G., Zakrevska, A., Bölte, S., & Jonsson, U. (2021). Does the learning environment ‘make the grade’? A systematic review of accommodations for children on the autism spectrum in mainstream school. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 28(8), 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2020.1832145
10. Olorunfemi, P.A. (2026). Harnessing Dramatic Videos to Enhance English Language Performance among Learners with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): A Case Study of Landmark College, Ikorodu, Lagos State, Nigeria. Educational Role of Language Journal. The Active Dimension of Language and of Linguistic Education, 2(14), Pp. 148-159. https://educationalroleoflanguage.org/erl-journal/erl-journal-issues/volume-14/2025v02p11/
11. Leifler, E., Carpelan, G., Zakrevska, A., Bölte, S., & Jonsson, U. (2021). Does the learning environment ‘make the grade’? A systematic review of accommodations for children on the autism spectrum in mainstream school. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 28(8), 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2020.1832145
12. Randell, E., Wright, M., Milosevic, S., Gillespie, D., Brookes-Howell, L., Busse-Morris, M., Hastings, R., Maboshe, W., Williams-Thomas, R., Mills, L., Romeo, R., Yaziji, N., McKigney, A. M., Ahuja, A., Warren, G., Glarou, E., Delport, S., & McNamara, R. (2022). Sensory integration therapy for children with autism and sensory processing difficulties: The SenITA RCT. Health Technology Assessment, 26(29):1-140. https://doi.org/10.3310/TQGE0020
13. Sweller, J., Ayres, P. and Kalyuga, S. (2011) Cognitive Load Theory. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4
14. Leifler, E., Carpelan, G., Zakrevska, A., Bölte, S., & Jonsson, U. (2021). Does the learning environment ‘make the grade’? A systematic review of accommodations for children on the autism spectrum in mainstream school. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 28(8), 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2020.1832145
15. Olorunfemi, P.A. (2026). Harnessing Dramatic Videos to Enhance English Language Performance among Learners with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): A Case Study of Landmark College, Ikorodu, Lagos State, Nigeria. Educational Role of Language Journal. The Active Dimension of Language and of Linguistic Education, 2(14), Pp. 148-159. https://educationalroleoflanguage.org/erl-journal/erl-journal-issues/volume-14/2025v02p11/; Narzisi, A., Fabbri-Destro, M., Crifaci, G., Scatigna, S., Maugeri, F., Berloffa, S., Fantozzi, P., Prato, A., Muccio, R., Valente, E., Viglione, V., Pecchini, E., Pelagatti, S., Rizzo, R., Milone, A., Barone, R., & Masi, G. (2022). Sensory profiles in school-aged children with autism spectrum disorder: A descriptive study using the Sensory Processing Measure-2. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(6), 1668. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11061668; Kadlaskar, G., Mao, P.-H., Iosif, A.-M., Amaral, D. G., Nordahl, C. W., & Miller, M. (2023). Patterns of sensory processing in young children with autism: Differences in autism characteristics, adaptive skills, and attentional problems. Autism. 27(3):723-736. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221115951
16. 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, 695825. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.695825
17. Marcham, H., & Tavassoli, T. (2024). Relationship Between Directly Observed Sensory Reactivity Differences and Classroom Behaviors of Autistic Children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 78(3), 7803345010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2024.050345
18. Leifler, E., Carpelan, G., Zakrevska, A., Bölte, S., & Jonsson, U. (2021). Does the learning environment ‘make the grade’? A systematic review of accommodations for children on the autism spectrum in mainstream school. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 28(8), 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2020.1832145
19. Shin, J. (2020). A meta-analysis of the relationship between working memory and second language reading comprehension: Does task type matter? Applied Psycholinguistics. 41. 873-900. 10.1017/S0142716420000272.
20. Olorunfemi, P.A. (2026). Harnessing Dramatic Videos to Enhance English Language Performance among Learners with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): A Case Study of Landmark College, Ikorodu, Lagos State, Nigeria. Educational Role of Language Journal. The Active Dimension of Language and of Linguistic Education, 2(14), Pp. 148-159. https://educationalroleoflanguage.org/erl-journal/erl-journal-issues/volume-14/2025v02p11/
21. Kadlaskar, G., Mao, P.-H., Iosif, A.-M., Amaral, D. G., Nordahl, C. W., & Miller, M. (2023). Patterns of sensory processing in young children with autism: Differences in autism characteristics, adaptive skills, and attentional problems. Autism. 27(3):723-736. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221115951
22. Bonni, W. C., & Jianhong Mo, Y.D. (2021). Roles of reading anxiety and working memory in reading comprehension in English as a second language. Learning and Individual Differences, Volume 92, 102092, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102092
23. Randell, E., Wright, M., Milosevic, S., Gillespie, D., Brookes-Howell, L., Busse-Morris, M., Hastings, R., Maboshe, W., Williams-Thomas, R., Mills, L., Romeo, R., Yaziji, N., McKigney, A. M., Ahuja, A., Warren, G., Glarou, E., Delport, S., & McNamara, R. (2022). Sensory integration therapy for children with autism and sensory processing difficulties: The SenITA RCT. Health Technology Assessment, 26(29):1-140. https://doi.org/10.3310/TQGE0020
24. Leifler, E., Carpelan, G., Zakrevska, A., Bölte, S., & Jonsson, U. (2021). Does the learning environment ‘make the grade’? A systematic review of accommodations for children on the autism spectrum in mainstream school. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 28(8), 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2020.1832145
