International Review of Teaching Universal Design on Design Curricula
Introduction
This chapter comprises a review of national and international literature that directly or indirectly addresses the incorporation of Universal Design (or equivalent subjects) into design curricula. The focus is placed on architecture and engineering curricula, as Universal Design is most established in these fields. The key findings from the review of courses are depicted in Tables 1 through 3. Finally the findings on barriers to the uptake of Universal Design on design curricula are discussed in order to better inform future initiatives.
Design Education
Design is not new. It has been a way of fulfilling human needs throughout our history. Throughout the evolution of design education it has been important to understand people and their interaction with the environment. "The architect should be equipped with knowledge of many branches of study and varied kinds of learning.... For without these considerations, the healthiness of the dwelling cannot be assured." (Vitruvius, circa 100BC) This quote from Vitruvius suggests that successful design problem solving in the practice of architecture is dependent on the knowledge of, and integration with practices from a range of disciplines. Architects create the environments desired by the people of their time partly through the application of engineering practices and through the utilisation of engineered solutions. Examining design in the fields of architecture and engineering is expected to inform how more disciplines involved with design can also be further integrated with Universal Design.
Design in Architecture
Education for designers that are accredited to practice in Ireland in the built environment field begins with a degree from a recognised school of Architecture. At such time the individual is eligible to become an Associate member of the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland. (RIAI, 2009; UCD, 2009)
At this stage the architect must gain a minimum of two years of approved practical experience, at least one of which must be in an EU country. On achieving these minimum requirements, the architect is eligible to take their Examination in Professional Practice. Once passed, the architect can apply for Registered Membership of the RIAI. RIAI Registered Membership must be renewed on an annual basis, and renewal is dependent upon completion of a certain amount of Continuous Professional Development each year.
Early architectural training, across the globe, relies heavily upon studio-based teaching (Lawson 2004; Heylighen et al. 2007). The studio setting follows the master-apprentice model, where a group of students are assigned to an instructor (an architect) who provides mentorship. The mentor presents design problems to the students and guides them towards a solution. The studio provides a place for transition (Winnicot, 1971; Heylighen et al. 2007).
Design in Engineering
Engineering education offers a large number of areas in which an engineer can specialise: e.g. Aeronautical, Agricultural, Automobile, Building Services, Civil, Control, Design, Electronics/Electrical, Manufacturing Systems, Marine, Mechanical, Minerals/Mining, Municipal, Structural, Traffic, among others (Engineers Ireland, 2009; TCD, 2009; UCD, 2009). Engineers Ireland (2009) is the professional body that represents all engineering disciplines in Ireland. Membership is approved on a case by case basis. Individuals may join as an Ordinary Member (MIEI), Technician (Tech IEI) or Other (Affiliate, Companion or Student). Engineers Ireland also offer professional titles based on educational qualifications and competencies gained from experience in the workplace. The titles are Fellow CEng FIEI, Chartered Engineer CEng MIEI, Associate Engineer AEng MIEI and Engineering Technician EngTech IEI. These titles are recognised nationally and internationally.
Engineering training programmes typically begin within a third level qualification such as a degree, or in some cases a diploma or certificate. The early years of study in engineering are largely theoretical with a strong focus on mathematics and science (TCD, 2009; UCD, 2009). As the student progresses into the final years, group and individual design projects are carried out. Laboratory settings may be used, which mimic working on site or small scale structures may be built by the student or team.
Students are strongly encouraged to gain practical work experience in industry during summer months and some engineering firms maintain links with academic institutions to provide summer and graduate internships. Engineers may later specialise in a desired area of practice. This generally requires further study, work experience or both.
How Universal Design is Taught as Part of Other Courses
Examples from the international literature review on how topics associated with Universal Design concepts are being taught in related courses found similarities to how Architecture and Engineering use the combined approach of theoretical and practical training. Most course content was found to be predominantly theoretical at early stages (e.g. The first two years) and practical training becoming increasingly prominent in later years.
The following tables represent how theoretical, practical and combined teaching approaches have been used in teaching Universal Design, although this knowledge is primarily applied in other related areas of practice. The theoretical phase of teaching Universal Design has typically involved lecturing design students at the early stage of their education on design ethics and values, the social implications of design and issues of design exclusion. Content related to User - Designer Interaction and Understanding People were found as lecture content, including the Seven Principles of Universal Design (The Center for Universal Design, 1997), to be common on a range of Universal Design related modules for differing courses of study (see Table 1: Subject Areas Covered on Universal Design Related Courses).
The practical phase of Universal Design teaching has involved training students in particular design tools and techniques such as simulation, personas and direct interaction with users, experts, other stakeholders.
(see Table 2: Design Techniques Taught on Universal Design Related Courses). Further the study analysed whether the Universal Design education courses employed a range of hands-on teaching methods, such as design studios or workshops for Designer - User interaction, design development, apprenticeships, etc (see Table 3: Teaching Approach or Teaching Element Used on Universal Design Related Courses).
The universities listed in the tables with courses having Universal Design related subjects and techniques were identified from previous related research reviews. There was no one best set of subjects, techniques or approaches determined from the research. It was not determined whether the courses were still being taught or if they had resulted in successful preparation of the student. How the course content and methods were associated with accreditation or with certification outcomes was not explored.
The findings from the international literature review on subjects and techniques taught and approaches used, are depicted in Tables 1 through 3. In the third column of each table, under "Examples can be found at", all universities found in the research having courses with subjects, techniques and approaches of interest were listed. The total number listed, or frequency of universities that associated with subjects taught and methods employed were used by these authors to help inform the research report Recommendations, Conclusions and the design of the Outline Course Modules in Appendix D.
Subject Areas | Human Abilities | Example(s) can be found at | Reference(s) |
|---|---|---|---|
Human Diversity | Loughborough University, UK; Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, School of Architecture; Norwich University, UK; Oslo School of Architecture, Norway; University College Dublin, Ireland; University of Diepenbeek, Belgium; University of Oregon, USA; Faculty of Architecture, University of Manitoba, Canada; University of Salford, UK; | LU 2009 Ronnevig 2002 Afacan 2006 Ronnevig 2002 Morrow 2001 Kennig and Ryhl 2002 Afacan 2006 Ringaert 2002 University of Salford 2009 | |
Recognising multiple facets of identity (i.e. Appreciation that a person's interaction with an environment may be equally influenced by factors such as ethnicity, gender, race, physical size) | University of Oregon, USA; | Welch & Jones 2002 | |
Every day living design | Loughborough University, UK; University of Diepenbeek, Belgium; University College Dublin, Ireland; | LU 2009 Kennig and Ryhl 2002 Morrow 2001 | |
People-environment relationship | University of Diepenbeek, Belgium; University College Dublin, Ireland; University of Oregon, USA; | Kennig and Ryhl 2002 Morrow 2001 Afacan 2006 | |
Human Abilities | Sensory abilities | Norwich University, UK; University College Dublin, Ireland;University of Diepenbeek, Belgium; | Afacan 2006Morrow 2001a,b Kennig and Ryhl 2002 |
Human Abilities | Cognitive abilities | University College Dublin, Ireland;University of Diepenbeek, Belgium; | Morrow 2001a,bKennig and Ryhl 2002 |
Human Abilities | Psychomotor abilities (e.g. Fine motor skills, balance, reaction time) | University of Diepenbeek, Belgium; | Kennig and Ryhl 2002 |
Human dimensions and form; Ergonomics; Human Factors; Anthropometrics | Loughborough University, UK; Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, School of Architecture; Norwich University, UK; Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Copenhagen; | LU 2009 Ronnevig 2002 Afacan 2006 Kennig and Ryhl 2002 | |
Lifespan Design | University of Oregon, USA; | Welch and Jones 2002 |
| Design Techniques Taught | Specific Practice | Example(s) can be found at | Reference(s) |
|---|---|---|---|
Seven Principles of Universal Design | University of Diepenbeek, Belgium; North Carolina State University, USA; | Kennig and Ryhl 2002 NCSU 2009 | |
Design by Story Telling | University of Cambridge, UK | EDC 2009 | |
Lifespan Design (design that addresses the changing needs of people at all stages of their life cycle) | University of Oregon; USA | Welch and Jones 2002 | |
Persona | University of Cambridge, UK | EDC 2009 | |
Extreme users | Royal College of Art Helen Hamlyn Centre, UK | HHC 2009 | |
Simulations | University of Cambridge, UK University of Cincinnatti, College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning, USA; Faculty of Architecture, University of Manitoba, Canada; | EDC 2009 Preiser 2002 Ringaert 2002 | |
User pyramid design approach | University of Cambridge, UK | EDC 2009 | |
Design pattern analysis | University of Diepenbeek, Belgium; | Kennig and Ryhl 2002 | |
Evaluation checklists | North Carolina State University, USA; | NCSU 2009 | |
Post-design evaluation | Tama Art, Japan; Kansas State University, USA; North Carolina State University, USA; University of Diepenbeek, Belgium; | Kennig and Ryhl 2002 Afacan 2006 NCSU 2009 Kennig and Ryhl 2002 | |
User engagement | Interviews | Tama Art, Japan; | Kennig and Ryhl 2002 |
User engagement | Focus groups | Royal College of Art Helen Hamlyn Centre, UK | HHC 2009 |
User engagement | Observational studies | Tama Art, Japan; | Kennig and Ryhl 2002 |
User engagement | Video recordings of users | Tama Art, Japan; Royal College of Art Helen Hamlyn Centre, UK | Kennig and Ryhl 2002 HHC 2009 |
Rehabilitation Design - designing for specific barriers or impairments | University of Cambridge, UK | EDC 2009 |
| Teaching Approach | Specific Method | Example(s) can be found at | Reference(s) |
|---|---|---|---|
Lecture | Speaker | All | All |
Workshop | Multiple presenters with discussion | University of Western Australia, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane; Tama Art, Japan; University College Dublin, Ireland; North Carolina State University, USA; Technical University of Krakow, Poland; | Kennig and Ryhl 2002 Kennig and Ryhl 2002 Kennig and Ryhl 2002 Morrow 2001a,b NCSU 2009 Kennig and Ryhl 2002 |
Project | Directed student work | Tama Art, Japan; University College Dublin, Ireland; State University of New York at Buffalo, USA; University of Diepenbeek, Belgium; | Kennig and Ryhl 2002 Morrow 2001a,b Kennig and Ryhl 2002 Kennig and Ryhl 2002 |
Design studio | Student directed projects with dedicated support spaces and equipment. Includes formal student presentation. | Kansas State University, USA; Mackintosh State University of New York at Buffalo, USA; University College Dublin, Ireland; University of Diepenbeek, Belgium; University of Oregon, USA; | Afacan 2006 Afacan 2006 Kennig and Ryhl 2002 Morrow 2001a,b Kennig and Ryhl 2002 Welch and Jones 2002 |
External involvement | Community members (e.g. Children, older people, people with disabilities) | North Carolina State University, USA; State University of New York at Buffalo, USA;Tama Art, Japan; University College Dublin, Ireland; University of Cincinnatti, College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning, USA; University of Diepenbeek, Belgium; Faculty of Architecture, University of Manitoba, Canada; University of Western Australia, Perth; | NCSU 2009Kennig and Ryhl 2002 Kennig and Ryhl 2002 Morrow 2001a,b Preiser 2002 Kennig and Ryhl 2002 Ringaert 2002 Kennig and Ryhl 2002 |
External involvement | Professionals - external people brought in to appraise or advise on student projects | North Carolina State University, USA; Queensland University of Technology, Australia; State University of New York at Buffalo, USA;University of Cincinnatti, College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning, USA;University of Diepenbeek, Belgium; Faculty of Architecture, University of Manitoba, Canada; University of Oregon, USA; University of Western Australia, Australia; | NCSU 2009Kennig and Ryhl 2002 Kennig and Ryhl 2002 Preiser 2002 Kennig and Ryhl 2002 Ringaert 2002 Welch and Jones 2002 Kennig and Ryhl 2002 |
Miscellaneous | Professionals - design appraisals, conducted by students, of design professionals' work | Architectural Association, UK; | Walker 2002 |
Miscellaneous | Simulation | North Carolina State University, USA; University of Cambridge, UK; | NCSU 2009EDC 2009 |
Miscellaneous | Assistantships / Apprenticeships | North Carolina State University, USA; Tama Art, Japan; University College Dublin, Ireland; University of Diepenbeek, Belgium; | NCSU 2009Kennig and Ryhl 2002 Morrow 2001a,b Kennig and Ryhl 2002 |
Miscellaneous | Use of multi-media in classroom | Virginia Polytechnic Institute, USA; | Afacan 2006 |
(Tables 1, 2 and 3 include courses titled as Universal Design and courses titled as related to Universal Design topics)
Strategies for Integrating Universal Design into Design Curricula
In a review of global efforts to incorporate Universal Design into architecture and design curricula, Kennig and Ryhl (2002) divided initiatives under two categories:
- Initiatives to incorporate Universal Design into the
design curriculum that were led by an individual or group of teachers at the
faculty in question; and - Initiatives that were borne from a large-scale pilot or
research project.
In their review of Universal Design teaching strategies, Kennig and Ryhl (2002) concluded that the probability of successful long-term integration of Universal Design on the curriculum of an academic institution, once the teaching project has been completed, is higher when the initiative was part of a larger project (i.e. Category 2 listed above) and particularly when the project had been spread over several years.
The design and implementation of a "large-scale" initiative can be dependent on many variables related to the educational institution. The two following examples inform strategies on methods and frameworks for content and context when considering initiatives.
Whether part of a small-scale initiative or a larger project, three general methods of incorporating Universal Design into the design curriculum have been described (Welch and Jones, 2001; Morrow, 2001a,b; Afacan, 2006):
- Infusing Universal Design into an existing
course; - Infusing Universal Design into a studio
problem; - Infusing Universal Design into the entire curriculum.
Between 2001 and 2002, a Special Interest Group of Universal Design experts, built environment professionals and educators met to "develop a framework for teaching inclusive design within built environment courses in the UK" (CEBE, 2002). The Special Interest Group identified the following as "the key elements that lead to success" when teaching Universal Design, grouped under the headings of course content and course context:
Course Content
- The interrelationship between design quality, best
practice and inclusive design are drawn and emphasised. - Students come into direct contact with a varied range of
user groups. - Students are able to source and apply quantitative and
qualitative information regarding the fit between humans and the built
environment. - Students are encouraged to develop inclusive methods of
representation. - The pragmatics of inclusive design are supported by a
theoretical and critical framework. - Personal experience is valued and positive attitudes
towards all people in society are fostered. - Students are aware of both benefits and obstacles of
inclusive design. - The complexity of inclusive design is understood and
accepted.
Course Context
- Inclusive design principles are integrated from an early
stage and are a substantial part of the curriculum. - Courses adopt an interdisciplinary and multi-professional
approach. - Inclusive design is supported by alternative pedagogies
and explicitly valued by appropriate modes of assessment. - Continual Professional Development (CPD) is understood as
essential to sustaining inclusive design practice. - Courses are delivered by people who are fully aware of
inclusive design principles.
Understanding Why Universal Design Is Not Taught
A recent survey of built environment institutions (De Cauwer et al., 2009) aimed to understand why the design philosophy was not being taught, ultimately to inform future implementation and to maximise success. The following four issues were provided by interviewees as reasons for not teaching Universal Design:
- The concept is still viewed with scepticism. It is seen
as "rather unscientific" and "utopian". - Universal Design was perceived as getting in the way of
"the development of the necessary knowledge and
skills". - A lack of time to teach Universal Design on an already
full curriculum. It would "either overload the programme unnecessarily or
imply dropping other topics". - Universal Design was perceived as a small part of a
larger issue of "accessibility and other standards imposed by the
authorities".
Whereas Universal Design seeks to provide for universal accessibility by all users of an environment, the related discipline of Sustainable Design seeks to provide for long lasting design with the least environmental impact. Interestingly, similar attitude based barriers have been encountered (Leal Filho 2000; and see Thomas, 2004) during attempts to incorporate sustainability on design curricula:
- The subject is unclear and too broad.
- Lack of personnel with expertise on the
subject. - A lack of resources prevents it from being included on
the curriculum. - Sustainability lacks a scientific basis.
The general approaches for incorporating sustainability or sustainable design have been identified (Dyer, 1996; Woods, 1994; from Thomas, 2004) and are similar to those applied in Universal Design teaching:
- Introducing environmental or sustainability issues on an
existing course; - Development of a stand-alone course on the
subject; - Infusing environmental or sustainability issues into all
courses, so an understanding is developed in the context of the discipline, the
programme, and the course material.