WHEN ROLE PLAYING IS NOT ENOUGH: IMPROVED UNIVERSAL DESIGN EDUCATION

Núbia Bernardi, Doris Kowaltowski

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v4i2/3.144

Abstract

In this paper the principles of Universal Design (UD) are discussed in the context of design education. The application of the concepts of UD to building and urban design has ensured a better quality of life for users with disabilities, however, to create an accessible environment the design profession needs to adopt new attitudes and the design process and its teaching strategies must change. Design education is discussed in relation to role-playing and participatory design activities. A teaching experience is presented, with the goal to develop student awareness of users with special needs. New design communication instruments were developed, such as tactile maps, to enable user participation of the visually impaired. Design is primarily based on visual communication and visually impaired users were included in the teaching experience in view of their inability to evaluate typical design documentation, such as drawings and models. Role-playing, as a means of bringing students closer to the issues of users with disabilities, was shown to be insufficient and the creation of a collaborative design process was important to increase student’s sensitivity. The active participation of users with disabilities ensured that future professionals gained a deeper understanding of user needs and were able to create appropriate and quality environment. The inclusion of visually impaired users in the design process is seen as original in design pedagogies. The use of tactile maps for design documentation was shown to be an important contribution to research in the area of design methods. Some research questions arose from the teaching experience, relating to technical details of tactile map production, as well as pedagogical and ethical issues involved in participatory design.


Keywords

Universal design; architectural design education; design process; spatial orientation; people with visual disabilities

Full Text:

PDF

References

Beaverford, K. (2006). Service learning in the global community. In J. Al-Qawasmi and G. V. de Velasco (Eds), Changing Trends in Architectural Design

Education (2001). Rabat, Morocco: The International Conference of the Center for the study of architecture in the Arab Region-CSAAR2006, 403-413.

Carsalade, F. D. L. (1997). Ensino de projeto de arquitetura: Uma visão construtiva. Unpublished Masters Dissertation. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.

Christophersen, J. (Ed.) (2002). Universal design: 17 ways of thinking and teaching. Oslo: Husbanken.

Coyne, R. (2005). Wicked problems revisited. Design Studies, 26(1), 5-17.

D’Souza, N. (2009). Revisiting a vitruvian preface: The value of multiple skills in contemporary architectural pedagogy. Education, 13(2), retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org

Duarte, C. R. de S., & Cohen, R. (2003). O Ensino da Arquitetura Inclusiva como Ferramenta para Melhoria da Qualidade de Vida para Todos. In PROJETAR 2003. (Org. Sonia Marques e Fernando Lara). Projetar: Desafios e Conquistas da Pesquisa e do Ensino de Projeto. Rio de Janeiro: Virtual Científica, 159-173.

Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Goldschmidt, G., & Tatsa, D. (2005). How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity. Design Studies, 26(6), 593-611. Gouviea, A. P., Harris de Camargo, A. L. N., &

Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K. (2001). Analogia e abstração no ensino do Projeto em Arquitetura. In Proceeding of Graphica 2001, São Paulo, Brazil, 1092 – 1101.

Hadjiyanni, T. (2008). Beyond concepts: A studio pedagogy for preparing tomorrow’s designers. Archnet IJAR-International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(2), 41-46.

Johnson, J. (1979). A plain man’s guide to participation. Design Studies, 1(1), 27-30.

Karusseit, C. (2005). The diversity that surrounds you: Teaching inclusive design at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. Retrieved from http://include09.kinetixevents.co.uk/rca/rca2009/paper_final/F2_1460.DOC.

Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., Pina, S. M. A. G., & Barros, R. M. P. (2006a). Architectural design analysis as a strategy for people environment studies: Finding spaces that work. In Proceedings of 19th IAPS

Conference, Alexandria, Egypt: International Association for People-Environment Studies.

Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., Pina, S.A.M.G., Celani, M.G., Monteiro, A.M.G., Pupo, R., & Monteiro, E.Z. (2006b). Triple “T”: In search of innovative design teaching methods. In Proceedings of CSAAR 2006.

Rabat, Morocco: The International Conference of the Center for the study of architecture in the Arab Region-CSAAR2006, 603-614.

Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., Pina, S.A.M.G., Celani, G. C., & Moreira, D. C. (2006c). Reflexão sobre metodologias de projeto arquitetônico. Ambiente Construído, 6(2), 7–19.

Lifchez, R. (1987). Rethinking architecture: Design students and physically disabled people. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Luck, R. (2007). Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations. Design Studies, 38(3), 217-242.

Morrow, R.(2001). Universal design as a critical tool in design education. In W.F.E. Preiser, & E. Ostroff, E. (Eds.), Universal Design Handbook, Boston, MA: McGraw Hill, 54.1 – 54.16.

Nicol, D., & Pilling, S. (2000). Changing architectural education: Towards a new professionalism. London: UK. E& FN Spon.

Oxman, R. (1999). Think-maps: Teaching design thinking in design education. Design Studies, 25(1), 63- 91.

Paulsson, J. (2005). Universal design education project, Sweden. Retrieved from http://www.hhc.rca.ac.uk/archive/hhrc/programmes/include/2005/proceedings/pdf/paulssonjan.pdf.

Quayle, M., & Paterson, D. (1989). Techniques for encouraging reflection in design. Journal of Architectural Education, 42(2), 30-42.

Radford, A. D., & Stevens, G. (1988). Role-play in education: A case study from architectural computing. Journal of Architectural Education, 42(1), 18-23.

Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.

Rufinoni, M. R. (2002). Novos e velhos desafios no ensino de projeto arquitetônico: Caminhos para a formação de uma consciência crítica. Sinergia (CEFETSP), 4, 11-15.

Salama, A. M. (1995). New Trends in Architectural Education: Designing the Design Studio, Raleigh, NC: Tailored Text and Unlimited Potential Publishing.

Salama, A. M. (2005). Skill-based/ knowledge-based architectural pedagogies: An argument for creating humane environment. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Humane Habitate ICHH, Rizvi College of Architecture, Mumbai, India: The International Association of Humane Habitat IAHH.

Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Snodgrass, A., & Coyne, R. (2006). Interpretation in architecture: Design as a way of thinking. London: Routledge.

Till, J. (2005). The negotiation of hope. In P. BlundellJones, D. Petrescu, & J. Till (Eds.), Architecture and participation. Oxford: Spon Press, 23-42.

UNESCO/UIA (2009). Charter for architectural education 2005. Retrieved on 26 April 2009 from http://www.uia-architectes.org/image/PDF/CHARTES/CHART_ANG.pdf.

Welch, P. (Ed.) (1995). Strategies for teaching universal design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2015 International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR



ABOUT US


- ISSN (Online) #1938 7806 - ArchNet-IJAR is covered by ArchNet@ MIT Libraries, Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, EBSCO, CNKI, Pro-Quest, Scopus-Elsevier, Web of Science.

- Published work in ArchNet-IJAR is licensed under Creative Commons: CC-BY--NC-ND license, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Copyrights © Archnet-IJAR 2007-2018

 
 

Hit Counter
Visitor Hits Since 15 Jan 2014