NeuroVersity is unique in several ways: It provides a student-centered, interest-based approach (Shernoff 2012; Wright et al. 2011; Diener et al. 2014b), involves family members, focuses on strengths rather than deficits, and provides vocational support during middle childhood and adolescence. These dimensions are discussed in greater detail below.

NeuroVersity provides a student-centered learning approach. Although structure is provided in terms of the activities that occur during each session, students have a great deal of autonomy to work on a project of their own design and creation. They choose what to design, what tools to use, whether and how to collaborate on the project, and receive individualized instruction from the mentor based on their skills and knowledge. The mentor and facilitator frame feedback positively and rely on the students’ internal motivation to create a design based on the students’ own interests (Dunn et al. 2014). For example, one student was fascinated with sustainability and created a 3D home that had a pond, garden, solar panels, a cistern for water catchment, and other elements that contributed to sustainability. This student was able to share knowledge and visual strengths through his creation in SketchUp. The mentor uses humor and creates an emotionally supportive atmosphere by modeling mistakes and creating an environment in which mistakes are expected and are viewed as opportunities to learn, by providing specific, positive feedback and by accepting all abilities and designs (Mahoney et al. 2005; Ramey and Rose-Krasnor 2012; Shernoff 2012). Students are expected to learn at their own rate and have the freedom to be creative in their designs. The mentor adjusts his teaching for each student based on the student’s skill level with SketchUp (Csikzentmihalyi et al. 1993; Diener et al. 2014b; Dunn et al. 2014).

Unlike interventions that focus on remediating deficits, the strengths-based approach in the program emphasizes what the students are able to learn and do (Baron-Cohen et al. 2011; Grandin 2009, 2011; Mottron 2011). The mentor provides scaffolding when students present their designs to the group so that each student is able to demonstrate their skills and knowledge. The models are a catalyst for sharing SketchUp tools and techniques that each student learns. The presentations accommodate varying levels of verbal skills because of the visual model that can be shared. The mentor also points out the students’ successes during the presentations. For example, during a workshop in Salt Lake City, the mentor complimented, “I just want to point out that Kevin (name changed) learned a new tool… Kevin found a new tool, and I am really proud of him. That is really cool.” The mentor’s ability to highlight and frame the students’ skills positively enables the focus to be on what the student is able to achieve, rather than on remediating deficits in skills.

The third component of the program that makes the program special is the central role that families play in the program and the use of a community-based research approach (Wright et al. 2011, 2014). The community-based participatory research model involves parents and community members in the research process and integrates feedback from parents, students, and other family members. They act as co-advisors, as parents have helped determine the structure of the workshops and the research questions addressed and provided input on the data analysis and results. They have helped shape the direction in which the program has gone by providing input on the importance of vocational readiness at earlier ages. Parents and family members are also encouraged to attend the program each day when the students are presenting their designs. By attending the program, they are able to see their student’s design, ask supportive questions, and are often surprised by their child’s competence with the program and with presentation skills (Wright et al. 2011). The program focuses on cultivating strengths and special interests as a foundation of vocational exploration prior to the transition to adulthood.

The funding of this program has also been quite innovative. The Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Development (2014) founded the pilot project for the NeuroVersity students to work on creating 3D designs for a real business, as a transition to real employment. Trimble funded the replication of the workshop program in Boulder, CO, in 2014, and a Google Community Grant funded the replication of the program in The Dalles, Oregon. The University of Central Florida funded the program in Orlando, FL. The Utah Autism Foundation funded the development of the NeuroVersity Curriculum manual, as well as other manuals. Foundation funding (from the McCarthey Foundation) funded laptops for a mobile computer laboratory, and the Utah Autism Council funded video equipment for the program. Internal grants through the University of Utah provided funding for research evaluation of the workshops. Important community partners have included the Columbus Community Center (CCC), Salt Lake School District, and The Dalles School District. The Lassonde Entrepreneur Center at the University of Utah has been instrumental in helping develop a sustainable business model for the program.

The program began in 2010 and has been replicated in seven summer workshop series in several cities, including Salt Lake City, UT; Boulder, CO; Orlando, FL; and The Dalles, OR. It has served over 60 students ranging from 8 to 23 years of age. Plans are currently under way to expand the program internationally to Cape Town, South Africa.

Data evaluating the program have come from multiple sources, including focus groups, individual interviews, participant video documentaries, surveys, observations, and student video evaluations. The results of these evaluations are described here.

Personal Development. A major finding from the evaluation of the NeuroVersity program is the way in which the program enabled individuals to reframe expectations toward a sense of greater competence. The participants in the program are given an opportunity to develop a sense of accomplishment based on the competence that they develop with SketchUp Make (Wright et al. 2011, 2012). Focus groups, parent interviews, and student reports indicate that students gain confidence and reframe their expectations about what they are able to do by participating in this skill- and strength-based program. For example, one mother described her child’s feelings as, “I’m good at this, and this is cool that I am good at something! Wahoo! I am finally good at something! Am I like the coolest guy in the whole world?” Parents reported that their children had previously experienced failures in a range of extracurricular activities, yet this program was intrinsically motivating, and thus promoted greater success, leading to true skills and competence over time (Wright et al. 2011). With that competence came a sense of self-efficacy that the youth themselves were able to problem solve, be creative, and learn specific skills. Furthermore, because the program involved family members, who witnessed the development of competence, parents and siblings were also able to change their perceptions of the student with ASD (Diener et al. 2014a; Wright et al. 2011). Grandparents perceived that the program gave them hope for future educational and employment opportunities for their grandchildren (D’Astous et al. 2014; Wright et al. 2012).

The program encourages the development and expression of creativity in that there is not a specific design that the students are required to produce as they are learning the SketchUp program. The students are encouraged to create a design of their own invention. Our Google collaborators provided feedback on the creativity of the models and helped with the development of a creativity assessment for the program (Diener et al. 2014c). This type of creativity is real world and capitalizes on the strengths and interests of youth with ASD. Software development, medical equipment, and engineering advancements are just a few examples that rely on creative applications of technology.

Social Engagement. Although the initial focus of the program was vocational in nature, parents were struck by the spontaneous social engagement that occurred in the program (Wright et al. 2011). Despite parents’ fears to the contrary, students rarely sat at their computers without engaging other students. Videotaped observational data indicate that social engagement was non-prompted and unscripted, and occurred with peer and mentor support around common interests (Diener et al. 2014b). Student and parent reports also corroborate the observational findings. For example, a student in Boulder, CO, during the summer of 2014 indicated that his favorite part of the workshops was “the social aspect of it. I enjoy talking with people who see the world like I do.” These results extend research from adults with ASD to the way that social supports can be provided to promote social engagement (Muller et al. 2008). Importantly, the most common external support identified in previous research by those with ASD is the opportunity to participate in activities involving shared interests and joint focus. These type of activities, especially when structured in small groups and dyads, create opportunities for membership in a group and provide a sense of belonging (Muller et al. 2008).

The components of the program that may have made it successful in terms of promoting social engagement include purposeful action that provided a challenge to learn real-world skills, and an activity that was intrinsically motivating and enabled the youth to have control over their projects as well as over the timing, extent, and initiation of social engagement (Larson 2000; Ramey and Rose-Krasnor 2012). The components of the program also fit well with most of the components of Lerner’s definition of positive youth development, which involves five Cs: competence, caring, connection, character, and confidence (Lerner et al. 2000). The present program involved the development of competence through skills and problem solving as youth work on their 3D designs; caring was modeled and promoted by the adult mentor and facilitators; connection or relationships were developed and supported with peers, mentors, and family members. The program promoted confidence, as described above. Although the program did not include character or morality explicitly, the program did promote the value of treating everyone with respect. Lerner (2004) proposed that ideal youth programs emphasize life skills; provide opportunities for participation and leadership in family, school, and community; and support positive adult–youth relationships. The youth in the present study were motivated to learn software skills that enabled them to impress their peers in the workshops during the presentations. They also used humor to engage their peers during their presentations (Diener et al. 2014b). The students in the program shared common interests in the SketchUp program and used these interests as the foci for social engagement with their peers and with the adult mentor. One student in Boulder, CO, explained it this way: “I like to explain to people how I design things, so that they can learn to do it.”

Siblings have also attended the program to watch the presentations with other family members. Interviews with mothers and siblings who observed their brothers’ presentations indicate that seeing their brother demonstrating SketchUp skills provided an opportunity for siblings to view their brother positively (Diener et al. 2014a). Sisters reported pride in their brothers’ skills, and mothers reported that the sibling pairs engaged one another around SketchUp outside of the workshops. Thus, strength-based programs that include siblings may benefit not only the student with ASD, but also the extended family (Gardiner and Iarocci 2012; Turnbull et al. 2011). A family systems approach suggests that strength-based programming can be most effective if it involves family members.

The program facilitated communication with other grandparents, with their adult children, and with their grandchildren with ASD (Wright et al. 2012). The program gave them a common ground around which to engage other grandparents who also had a grandchild on the spectrum, an opportunity to engage their grandchildren positively, and in some cases strengthened their relationship with their adult children.

Despite these successes, the program has faced a number of challenges. As with any community partnership, it has taken substantial time and effort to identify key players, build relationships, and build a team in the community, rather than relying on a single primary community contact. This approach requires additional persistence and energy as well as strong coordination among team members to ensure communication and relationship building. Some potential community partners have left their positions or had insufficient time to devote to the partnership, resulting in dead ends and time invested that did not result in a workshop or partnership. Moreover, despite the innovative funding strategies, it is challenging to obtain funding for sustaining the program. Another challenge has been developing a team of student-centered instructors, because SketchUp experts may not have training or skills in working with youth or working with individuals on the autism spectrum. Thus, training support and ongoing evaluation is critical, and maintaining fidelity and quality controls are essential. We are currently developing a curriculum manual and checklists to ensure high-quality programs at replication sites. Furthermore, small groups of students are necessary to ensure success of the program. Thus, although many parents and students want to participate in the program, demand exceeds capacity and fewer students can be served by the program at this time than desire to participate. Another challenge has been to help parents understand how they can be supportive without being directive. As a result, we are also in the process of creating a parent manual to help guide and inform the parents of youth who participate in the program. Finally, transportation of youth to the program is an issue. Because the program is a half day during the summer, and an after-school program during the fall and spring, it is necessary for youth to have transportation to and from the program during typical business hours. This can prohibit some families from having their student participate in the program. We have had grandparents and other support individuals provide transportation and participate in the family component.

We have a number of directions to pursue in future research. We are interested in the better understanding of individual differences in program effects. For example, what characteristics predict differences in the youths’ abilities to complete independent projects on their own for a job site, and what structures and supports need to be provided for success at a job site? Our research indicates that these students are often motivated by the social dimensions of the program, and we need to explore how to incorporate these social dimensions into a job or internship program. We are also interested in better understanding the relative balance between peer and adult led activities as a critical dimension of the program.

Future research will also examine whether authentic language measures during the course of the program demonstrate greater language skills than students demonstrate on standardized language assessments. Preliminary evidence suggests that the interest-based nature of the program may elicit greater language production than students provide in contexts in which they are less engaged or interested. For example, a parent from the Orlando, FL site during Summer 2013 described how her daughter’s excitement over learning the SketchUp program motivated her daughter to talk more to family members than she typically did around everyday events: “She was on Skype last night doing crosswords with her twin brother—who is right now overseas—and she told him all about the house she was ‘designing with walls, ceiling, kitchen, living room and dining room…’ It is rare for her to say several phrases in one conversation!” The student’s interest in the program provided an opportunity to engage verbally with her family members.

In summary, technology is an avenue not only for interventions, but also for supporting positive youth development by building on interests and strengths. NeuroVersity is an interest-focused, strength-based, and family-centered technology education program that values neurodiversity and provides youth with opportunities to realize their full potential across the course of life. Our program is unique because it focuses on cultivating and building on strengths and special interests for youth with ASD, not as young children, but as part of their transition to adulthood. Our research demonstrates that the NeuroVersity program impacts (1) Personal Mastery—the program increases participants’ self-confidence and self-efficacy as a result of demonstrating 3D technology talents and skills; (2) Social Engagement—program participants engage with peers, family members, and the community by sharing interests and technology talents; (3) Vocational–Technical Training—students develop technology-related job skills associated with Trimble SketchUp. The long-term goal is to build a foundation of computer skills in youth with ASD that match the employment sector that is seeking skilled workers in the technology industry in internships and jobs.