Neurodiversity and Our Training

Training designed around different ways of learning, processing information and taking part.

People do not all learn, process information, communicate or take part in the same way. Our training is designed with that in mind.

Cyber Rebels delivers live, interactive cybersecurity training built around real work and the decisions people make within it. So we think about more than what we want people to learn. We also think about how information is presented, how people make sense of it and whether they feel able to ask questions and participate.

That matters because a training session can be technically accurate and still be difficult to learn from. If someone is spending most of their effort decoding dense slides, keeping up with unfamiliar terminology or wondering whether they are allowed to interrupt, they have less attention left for the cybersecurity idea itself.

For neurodivergent participants, small choices in the way training is designed and delivered can make a real difference. But this is not about creating a separate version of the training for a particular type of learner. It is about recognising from the outset that people may need different routes into the same idea.

That is why we see neuroinclusive practice as part of good training, not an extra layer added only when somebody declares a need.

Designed for different ways of learning

Clear explanations, practical examples and questions when they matter.

Good information can still be difficult to learn from.

Dense slides, unexplained terminology, too much information at once or an expectation that everybody should listen, process and respond in the same way can create barriers that have little to do with cybersecurity.

We take a different approach.

We use clear explanations, discussion, practical examples and realistic working situations to give people more than one way into an idea. If an explanation does not land, we can approach it differently. If a practical example makes more sense than a definition, we can use one. The session is there to help people understand the subject, not to make them adapt to the trainer.

That is also why interaction matters so much to us.

If something does not make sense in the first ten minutes, saving the question until the end is not particularly helpful. The session may have moved on for another two hours, with each new idea building on something that was never quite clear in the first place.

So questions are welcome when they happen.

A participant can stop us, ask for another example or challenge something we have said. We can spend a little longer on an idea when the room needs it rather than carrying on simply because the next slide is waiting.

That is not an interruption to the training. It is part of the training.

Participation does not have to look the same for everybody either. Some people are happy to answer immediately. Others want a moment to think. Someone may have a useful contribution but dislike being unexpectedly put on the spot. Another person may understand an idea much more easily once they can see how it connects with their own work.

None of those things tells us how capable somebody is. They tell us something about how they learn and participate

Removing barriers, not lowering expectations

The challenge should come from the subject, not from how the training is delivered.

This is closely connected to how Cyber Rebels thinks about cybersecurity itself.

When somebody struggles to follow a safer route at work, we do not automatically assume the problem sits with that person. We also look at the conditions around the decision. Was the process clear? Was there enough time? Did the system make the safer action unnecessarily difficult? Did the person have a realistic route they could actually use?

Training deserves the same scrutiny.

If somebody is spending their effort decoding complicated language, trying to keep up with an overloaded slide or wondering whether it is acceptable to interrupt, that is effort they are not spending on the cybersecurity idea in front of them.

Removing that friction does not mean removing the challenge.

Our training still asks people to think. There will be uncertainty, judgement and situations where the answer is not immediately obvious. We might explore why a request looked reasonable, what could be checked, when something deserves a second look or when uncertainty should be escalated.

The aim is not to make those decisions easier. It is to make the learning around them accessible.

Confidence speaking in front of a group is not the same as understanding cybersecurity. Neither is the ability to absorb a dense piece of information at the first attempt.

We are interested in whether people can make sense of the situation and develop the judgement to respond to it.

Why this matters to us

Neurodiversity is part of our lived experience, not an abstract consideration.

Neurodiversity is not an abstract consideration for Cyber Rebels.

Andy, our founder and lead trainer, is neurodivergent himself. That lived experience brings a very practical awareness that people can process information, organise thoughts, maintain attention, communicate and participate in different ways.

It also means we are conscious of how quickly training can become harder than it needs to be. A crowded slide, an unexplained instruction, too much information at once or an assumption that everyone will respond immediately can create friction that has nothing to do with whether someone understands cybersecurity.

That does not mean assuming every neurodivergent person needs the same thing. Quite the opposite. Neurodiversity covers a wide range of experiences, and two people with the same diagnosis may still learn, communicate and participate very differently.

For us, the important part is not trying to predict what somebody needs. It is creating a session that is flexible enough to respond to the people in the room, while making it easy for someone to say when a different explanation, a little more time or another way of engaging would help.

Cyber Rebels does not expect everyone in a training room to think like the trainer. We would rather design the training around the people who are actually there.

Tell us what helps

Tell us what would make the session easier to access, understand or take part in.

You do not need to disclose a diagnosis to benefit from the way we teach, and nobody should feel they have to explain something personal to a room full of colleagues just to take part.

We try to remove unnecessary barriers as part of the training itself.

There may still be something that would make a session work better for you or someone in your team. If there is, tell us.

You do not need to know the right educational terminology or arrive with a formal list of adjustments. You might simply know that somebody benefits from information being presented in a particular way, needs a little more processing time or would find one part of the session easier with a small change.

We can talk about that while the training is being planned and work out what is practical.

And many of the things that help neurodivergent participants make training better for other people too. Clear explanations help someone encountering cybersecurity for the first time. Practical examples help turn an unfamiliar concept into something recognisable. Time to think helps someone having a demanding day. Being able to ask a question immediately helps anyone who did not quite follow the first explanation.

That is why we see neuroinclusive practice as part of good training rather than something we switch on when somebody declares a need.

If there is something that would help your team learn, participate or get more from the session, tell us.

We can start there.

Have Any Questions?