ABSTRACT
This paper aims to examine the major studies and design ideas of teaching strategies for universal design in a comparative context and categorize according to their teaching mod-els. The role of educational environments for fostering universal design combined with information technologies is important in order to integrate universal design into the main stream of design practice. The impacts of new technologies including appropriate assis-tive technology become significant to incorporate universal design values into school cur-ricula for the education of future design professionals. In this respect, developing teach-ing strategies that consider universal design approach as an integral part of the entire cur-riculum plays an important role in the architectural education. In the paper different per-spectives on a variety of techniques for teaching universal design, as well as of technolo-gy, are compared in terms of their curricular responses.
Keywords: Teaching Strategies, Universal Design, Architectural Design Education, Design Curriculum
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, inclusive design approaches that address the needs of a wide range of people with different abilities, sizes and ages, known as universal design, have become significant (Brynn, 2003). The role of educational environments for fostering universal design is important to integrate universal design into the main stream of design practice (Tepfer, 2001). Therefore, there are ways of incorporat-ing universal design values into school curricula for the education of future design professionals.
This paper examines the major studies and design ideas of teaching strategies for universal design. It is organized into four sections. First, universal design is Yasemin Afacan
Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture, Bilkent University, Turkey yasemine@bilkent.edu.tr
described. Then, the evolution of universal design teaching is examined. In the third section, some selected sources on universal design education projects of various schools in architecture, interior architecture, landscape architecture and urban design are introduced in a comparative context and categorized according to their teaching models. Different perspectives on a variety of techniques for teaching universal design are compared in terms of their curricular responses. The final section is the conclusion.
WHAT IS UNIVERSAL DESIGN?
The concept of universal design was first used in 1970s by Micheal Bednar sug-gesting a new concept that is much broader and more universal (Welch, 1995a; The Center for Universal Design, 1997; Story et al., 1998). Later, the approach of universal design was reinterpreted by the American Architect Ronald Mace in 1985. Since then, it has become a widely accepted design approach that is also known as inclusive designand design for allfrom European perspective (Cole-man et al., 2003). There are various definitions of the universal design approach. The common point of these definitions is their emphasis on an inclusive design process for creating products and built environments for all people regardless of their age, ability and size.
In 1988, Mace, who first used the term universal design, defined it as an approach for creating products and built environments accessible, usable and understand-able for everyone (Preiser, 2001). With reference to this definition, what is intended with the universal design is not only the accessibility of the built envi-ronment but also its understandability and usability by all people. Sandhu (2001) who also highlighted the inclusiveness of universal design described it as a con-cept that aims to respond to the broad diversity of users. Fundamentally, for Weis-man (2001) it is an approach celebrating and valuing huWeis-man diversity. Further-more, The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2001) mentioned the sig-nificance of universal design and defined it as a design strategy to design prod-ucts and environments without the need for any specialized design solutions. Imrie and Hall (2001) focused also on the design issues for developing accessi-ble environments and defined universal design as a social movement dealing with the usability of products, environments and communication systems for all peo-ple.
For the majority of the world, designing an environment that is accessible, adjustable and more inclusive is an important concern (Eren, 2004). In this respect, universal design is a worldwide design approach. Although its definitions and related terms differ from one country to another, Ostroff (2001) explains it as an integrated design approach to design products, buildings and urban
environ-ments for all people rather than creating special design solutions for people with disabilities, elderly people, children or pregnant women.
THE EVOLUTION OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN TEACHING
Over the past two decades, educators have begun to apply universal design con-cepts in schools and classrooms to ensure the instructional practices, materials and educational environments (Hitchcock et al, 2002). The history of universal design teaching began with the attention to users’ needs in design schools in 1960s and 1970s (Welch & Jones, 2001). In 1975, the Gerontological Society of America (GSA) undertook a two-year project to develop design strategies for design instructors’ research on aging and environments (Welch, 1995). In 1979, University of California at Berkeley incorporated users’ needs in the design cur-riculum by a studio course called Architectural Design with the Physically Dis-abled User in Mind(Lifchez, 1987), (Figure 1). Lifchez sought teaching methods through which the gap between specific user groups and designers could be bridge (Welch, 1995b). The studio became the meeting point between students and users. Ostroff (2003) stated that Lifchez from the USA in 1973 and Sandhu from the UK in 1972 were pioneers of the 1970s design examples creating prod-ucts and environments for a diverse range of human abilities and needs through a studio work.
Figure 1.A View From A Studio Course With The Physically Disabled User (Lifchez, 1987)
Later, in 1991, the initial efforts have continued with the Universal Design Edu-cation Project (UDEP) in the USA with the initial funding of Adaptive Environ-ments. Welch (1995), documented these teaching strategies of 22 schools in his book titled Strategies for Teaching Universal Designin 1995. Welch and Jones (2001) claimed that the aim of the UDEP is “to challenge existing values in design education and to stimulate innovation in design curriculum that will lead the development of products and environments which incorporate universal design concepts” (Welch and Jones, 2001, 51.8).
There are also other design efforts in some European countries including the UK in order to enhance new curriculum materials integrating universal design values into the design courses of five disciplines, architecture, industrial design, interior design, landscape architecture and urban design (Preiser, 2003). Ostroff (2003) mentioned that “These international education strategies also exemplify the growing recognition of the importance of the environment on human potential and the changing concept of disability” (Ostroff, 2003, 337).
Teaching universal design was also mentioned by the European Commission (Kenning & Ryhl, 2002) with the emphasis on the global examples of projects and models for teaching universal design at schools of design and architecture. Kenning and Ryhl stated that “there is an increasing interest in as well as under-standing of the importance of universal design teaching with many numbers and types of teaching models” (Kenning & Ryhl, 2002, 3).
There are projects from Denmark, Norway, Belgium, France, England, Australia and Japan. Furthermore, DraWare Project from Ireland and UDEP from the USA are other significant teaching strategies for universal design. Each project with different teaching opportunities in these countries was developed taking the appropriateness of schools’ curriculums into consideration. Therefore, these projects varied in scale and ranged from a design course to a research or certifi-cate program with seminars. The important and common issue related to these various teaching strategies is their effort for developing a framework in order to identify the contents and context for teaching universal design in schools (Ostroff, 2003). Ostroff (2001) emphasized that each has developed creative ways to infuse human-centered design into the professional design curriculum. They each contribute to our understanding about the education of future design professionals.
It is also possible to categorize these teaching strategies under the term of “infu-sion strategies, which are developed at a local, regional, national and internation-al level according to the types of curricular responses” (Welch & Jones, 2001). Welch and Jones (2001) explained the term infusionstating that infusion dimin-ishes the potentially marginal status of the course content and introduces new
dis-course by challenging ableist, gendered, classist, Euro-centric dis-course content. In this context, Welch and Jones (2001) discussed the teaching strategies under three topics: first is infusing universal design into an existing course, second is infus-ing it into a studio problem and finally third is infusinfus-ing it into the entire curricu-lum. In this context, it should be noted that this paper aims to examine and cate-gorize the major studies on universal design teaching under three topics as it is proposed by Welch and Jones (2001). This paper also highlights that there is no one curriculum for teaching universal design (Mullick, 1999).
STRATEGIES FOR TEACHING UNIVERSAL DESIGN
It is possible to find a different motivation and different organizational affiliations and sponsors in each teaching strategy (Ostroff, 2001). In this section of the com-mentary bibliography, a variety of strategies for teaching universal design is ana-lyzed and compared with each other according to their approach to teach univer-sal design. These teaching strategies are grouped and presented below. First the efforts in the USA, then the European perspective and finally efforts in the UK are brought into the discussion under each category.
Infusing Universal Design Into An Existing Course
The University of Oregon’s strategy was one of the UDEP faculties incorporating universal design values into a technical course titled Land as Media and into a required course Human Context of Design(Kenning & Ryhl, 2002). According to Jones (2001), in the technical course, social factors were related to the technical issues while designing the built environments and in the required course students were asked to interview people to learn people-environment relationship (Welch & Jones, 2001). These two courses were important in terms of including users in the design process in the evaluation of aesthetics and technological needs (Mul-lick, 1999).
Another teaching strategy from the UDEP is the proposal of Norwich Universi-ty; Department of Architecture titled Experiential Exercises for Teaching Univer-sal Design(Church, 1995). Awareness on human diversity, anticipation of a vari-ety of needs and an international approach to design environments were impor-tant concepts while infusing universal design into the course of Human Issuesand into the design project Museum of the Senses in Norwich University. Students were informed on universal design with the slides and videos. They also became aware of the human diversity and the forms of the human dimension.
An interesting strategy for teaching universal design was offered form Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Department of Landscape Architecture has utilized multi-media tutorials for infusing universal design through a computer based instruc-tion into the existing courses (Bork et al, 1995). Unlike a printed book, digital
media can display content in many formats, text, still image, sound, moving which is important concern in universal design approach considering human diversity (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Thus, in the teaching project, tutorials were arranged to give information on universal design values and students were able to get the data from every lab in the school (Bork et al., 1995). At the end of the semester, the students were asked to focus on urban design and materials and details taking universal design into account.
In the UK, there are three education strategies: a certificate course, an undergrad-uate program and a students’ awards program (Ostroff, 2001; Ostroff, 2003; Ken-ning & Ryhl, 2002; The Special Interest Group in Inclusive Design, 2002). Infus-ing inclusive design into a course, Andrew Walker developed and directed [this] post-graduate course in Environmental Access at the Architectural Association in London (Ostroff, 2001). He offered a multidisciplinary graduate course which aims to bring together the professions of planning and design and enables the users’ involvement (Ostroff, 2003).
Another project example by Nicolle, Rundle and Graupp (2003) is a teaching strategy promoting inclusive design in the department of Design and Technology at Loughborough University. According to their survey results, design for all can be covered “as a part of a mainstream course, with often one or two lectures on design for all tending to be concentrated on awareness raising, demographics, requirements of older and disabled people, and guidelines or specialist courses” (Nicolle, et al., 2003, 101). In this respect, Loughborough University offered a course titled Inclusive Design as a Third Year Optionto both final year and MSc students (Nicolle et al., 2003). The university also evaluates this course as an ini-tial stage of integrating inclusive design to a wider curriculum.
Furthermore in the UK context, in the University of the West of England, the terms people, contextand sustainabilitywere used to adopt universal design into a modular course. “Instead of using universal design as an individual factor in the education, it is infused in relation to other factors” (Kenning & Ryhl, 2002, 17). Infusing Universal Design Into A Design Studio Problem
Within the design curricula, the integrative potential of the design studio is relat-ed to the students’ internalizrelat-ed knowlrelat-edge gainrelat-ed in the previous courses (Welch & Jones, 2001). Design studios are the essential part of the architectural educa-tion. Lyndon (cited in Lifchez, 1987, xiv) highlighted this significance stating that “the studio, in which a number of students work closely with an instructor several days a week, usually on an individual basis, is a well-established corner-stone of architectural education”. Therefore, it is important to introduce big ideas and focus on complex concepts, such as universal design, within the challenge of the design studios (Burke et al, 1998).
In this respect, State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo developed a teaching strategy called studio education through universal designto embed uni-versal design into a studio design problem (Steinfeld, 1995; Welch & Jones, 2001; Kenning & Ryhl, 2002; Ostroff, 2003). The faculty used the term of good design as a synonymous word for universal design and infused it into the second year architectural design studio with forty-eight students and interior design stu-dio with fifteen students (Steinfeld, 1995). There were four projects within the design challenge of the studio and workshops in order to gain understanding of universal design values from performing an activity (Steinfeld, 1995; Ostroff, 2003). The inclusive project of hotel design and the work produced by some of the most engaged students challenged faculty perspectives on universal design and demonstrated that an exploration of universal design values can produce design innovation (Welch & Jones, 2001).
Another teaching strategy from the UDEP faculty is Kansas State University’s approach. The Kansas State faculty selected the first-year design studio to be able to introduce the universal design values as early as possible to the students (Simon, 1995). The studio course included two design problems, chair design and pavilion design, both of which gave the students the opportunity to reevaluate their initial design decisions after getting contact with diverse type users and to redesign their proposals (Simon, 1995). In this respect, the teaching activity in Kansas State University emphasized that “Design solutions that exclude seg-ments of the population are being rejected as unacceptable. Universal design is the basic premise for all design decisions” (Jones, 2001, 52.16).
Considering various schools in architecture, interior architecture, landscape architecture and urban design, it is significant to discuss the Japanese approach for teaching universal design. There is collaboration between NEC, Japanese Electronics Company, and Tama Art University to establish a product design process which takes universal design principles into account (Ikeda & Takayana-gi, 2001; The Special Interest Group in Inclusive Design, 2002; Kenning & Ryhl, 2002; Ostroff, 2003). “The main significance of this research is that university and industry worked together to gradually fuse their two separate objectives, commercialization and profitand product design educationin the course of four years and accomplished significant outcomes in order to achieve both aims” (Ikeda & Takayanagi, 2001, 55.2).
It is also important to look the studio based teaching strategies from the perspec-tive of the United Kingdom. At Mackintosh School of Architecture, design studio courses are the main courses for both the undergraduate and graduate education where the students develop their skills and learn about practice (Barr, 2002). Therefore, the studio courses are seen as a vehicle to teach inclusive design and the third year design students were asked to design two projects, a factory and a
town hall, considering the inclusive design issues (Stewart & Page, 2003). The faculty has obtained successful results from the teaching project and considered how this approach can be spread to all years, and to post graduate courses where the background and experience of the students involved is more diverse (Stewart & Page, 2003).
Furthermore, considering the efforts in the UK, it is important to mention Helen Hamlyn Research Center (HHRC) and Roger Coleman’s teaching strategies for infusing inclusive design into the design issues (Kenning & Ryhl, 2002; Ostroff, 2003). The Center under the Royal Institute of Art (RCA) develops design proj-ects and design competitions in order to engage students with inclusive design so that “designing in an inclusive way will become mainstream and second nature to a new generation of designers” (Ostroff, 2003, 347).
Infusing Universal Design into The Entire Curriculum
Infusing entire curriculum requires all faculty members to examine their own courses for how they can reflect the values of universal design at a minimum, and ideally, civil rights and social justice as well. (Welch & Jones, 2001, 51.17) The College of Design at North Carolina State University and its Center for Universal Design teach universal design in different ways and at all levels of architectural education (Duncan, 2002; Kenning & Ryhl, 2002, Figure 2). The faculty gives students opportunities for undergraduate and graduate education by offering “Scheduled activities, e.g., freshman seminars, simulations, workshops, courses, and ongoing opportunities such as studio reviews and graduate research assistantships” (Duncan, 2002, 2).
Within the curriculum opportunities, students get into contact with diverse type of users with permanent and temporary disabilities, children and elderly people (Mueller, 2003). There are freshman seminars for first year students, simulation activities for all students, lectures by staff, human-centered design courses, stu-dio review and critiques by staff and members of the community, design courses and opportunities for individual work (Duncan, 2002; Kenning & Ryhl, 2002; Mueller, 2003).
Iowa State University proposed a teaching strategy in which all of one thousand students from the departments of landscape architecture, architecture, art and design and interior architecture are getting contact with the universal design val-ues (Chidister et al, 1995; Welch & Jones, 2001). The faculty offered awareness modulesthrough which they can infuse universal design concepts into the entire curriculum (Welch & Jones, 2001). The modules were formulated into four lev-els: consciousness level for real issues, engagement level for experiencing dis-ability in the physical environment, accountdis-ability level for conscious application of universal design principles and finally integration level for automatic
applica-tion of universal design principles (Chidister et al, 1995). All four levels were found useful and helpful by faculty members in order to “Achieve the next high-est level for universal design education” (Chidister et al, 1995, 56).
The European approach gives also emphasis on infusing the universal design val-ues into the entire curriculum rather than teaching them in the design studios, because “universal design should be reinforced through in-depth treatment of the subject matter by integrating universal design into the studio courses, as well as evaluation and programming projects” (Preiser, 2003, 118).
In this respect, The Draware project from the School of Architecture at Universi-ty College in Dublin was a significant two year project (1998-2000) aiming uni-versal design teaching through environmental lectures, history and theory semi-nars, workshops, design and technology studios (Morrow, 2001; Ostroff, 2003; DraWare: A Pedagogical Research Project in The School of Architecture, 2004). The main concern of those teaching universal design is how to ensure that its principles are imbedded and infused right across the architectural curriculum (Morrow, 2001). The project used real-life problems in relation with individuals and organizations in the community (Figure 3).
The University of Diepenbeek in Belgium infused the universal design approach into its entire curriculum in the academic year of 2001-2002 (The Special Inter-est Group in Inclusive Design, 2002). The faculty members of the university stat-ed that universal design should not be infusstat-ed into a single course or a design stu-dio because it would be then opposed to its inclusive and holistic principles (Ken-ning & Ryhl, 2002) architectural education to the fifth year, students were asked to answer universal design values in their assignments, lectures or studio works. Norway is another European country that infused universal design into its entire Figure 2. Universal design opportunities, which are available to all students as they progress through undergraduate and graduate programs (Duncan, 2002)
curriculum. In 1997, there was a four-year pilot programme to integrate univer-sal design approach into the departments of architecture, industrial design, engi-neering and planning (Ostroff, 2003). “Over the four years there was a strong shift in the approach from occasional lectures teaching about accessibility based on the difficulties experienced by people with disabilities. This changed to the use of universal design approach as the way that faculty taught about accessibility” (Ostroff, 2001, 9).
CONCLUSION
Having analyzed main pilot projects for teaching universal design under three categories, it is significant to state that “strategies and components of a universal design-based curriculum must vary from one place to the next, due to the inevitable variation in people, place, curricular focus, and in overall acceptance of a new idea such as universal design” (Welch & Jones, 2001, 51.22). In this respect, it is possible to summarize the analyzed projects throughout the study in terms of the continental differences, i.e. differences of the efforts in the USA, in Europe and in the UK (The Special Interest Group in Inclusive Design, 2002). Figure 3.Examples from The Real-Life Problems in The Draware Project
At this point, Welch explains the difference of the UDEP from other curriculum development efforts: “its focus is a value rather than a skill or specific subject matter; it looks at the issues across multiple design fields; and its premise is that faculty need to invent interventions that are appropriate to their own institutional context rather than teach a course from a packaged curriculum” (Welch, 1995b, 13).
Whereas in the European approach, the concept of the growing diversity in an historic context, that makes Europe distinct, and very different from the USA, (Coleman et al, 2003) becomes significant while developing universal design teaching strategies. The efforts of the UK are also different from the UDEP and the European efforts in terms of reconnecting real-life problem solving to inno-vative design solutions within the entire curriculum and developing inclusive communication and representation methods (The Special Interest Group in Inclu-sive Design, 2002; Nicolle et al., 2003; Morrow, 2001b).
However, the common point of the international education strategies is “Their development of creative ways to infuse human-centered design into professional design education” (Ostroff, 2003, 337).
Each of the infusion strategy both in the USA and in European countries includ-ing the UK “challenge students to recognize the power of designers to include and exclude a variety of people through their design decisions and encourage them to take a more critical view of how they will practice” (Welch & Jones, 2001, 51.22). In this context, Ostroff summarizes the impact of the knowledge of universal design around the world stating that “The knowledge continues to grow and is shared through publications, networking and promotional projects” (Ostroff, 2003, 353).
However, there is an important lacking issue in each of the infusion strategy that is not enough emphasis has given on the relationship between the roles of assis-tive technology in the universal design teaching in architecture its careful treat-ment in the curriculum. The subject is quite important and can reveal several opportunities for design research and education. Since advanced technology such as artificial intelligence and image processing offer environmental, social and economical benefits to the changing needs of diverse users (Computing Research Association, 2003), the students should be encouraged to develop designs and innovative solutions concerning assistive products and environments. Moreover, the design educators should also investigate new curriculum strategies to intro-duce assistive technology to universal design teaching. As well as the design of an assistive product, its usage should be also the concern of the universal design teaching and both the students and the faculty should have assisted to have a bet-ter understanding of how the advanced technology can become part of the educa-tion. The use of simulated environments in studio courses, where students create
their designs with computerized techniques, test their designed products or built environments with the real or virtual disabled/non-disabled users and later revise them according to the findings of these simulations, can be one suggestion to con-vey to students the essential value of the universal design teaching combined with the use of advanced technologies.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Assoc.Prof. Halime Demirkan and Assoc.Prof. Feyzan Erkip for introduc-ing me to this area of research and for their broad-minded comments.
REFERENCES
BURKE, M.D. et al, (1998), What Curricular Designs and Strategies Accommodate Diverse Learners?, Teaching Exceptional Children, (vol. 31) pp. 34-38.
CHIDISTER, M. et al, (1995), Using Awareness Levels Across Design Disciplines, chapter in
Strategies for Teaching Universal Design,Welch, P., (eds.), Massachusetts: Adaptive Environ-ment Center Press, Boston, pp. 41-56.
COLEMAN, R. et al, (2003). A European Perspective, chapter in Inclusive Design: Design for The Whole Population, Clarkson, J., Coleman, R., Keates, S. and Lebbon, C. (eds.), Springer-Verlag, London, pp. 289-307.
COMPUTING RESEARCH ASSOCIATION (2003), Grand Research Challenges in Informa-tion Systems, DC: CRA Press, Washington.
EREN, Y. (2004), Exploring The Potential of Mat-Building for The Creation of Universally Designed Built Environments, Applied Sciences Institute, (unpublished M. Arch Thesis), Mid-dle East Technical University, Ankara.
HITCHCOCK, C. et al, (2002), Providing Access to The General Education Curriculum: Universal Design For Learning, Teaching Exceptional Children, (vol. 35) pp. 8-17.
IKEDA, C., TAKAYANAGI, N. (2001). Universal Design Research Collaboration Between Industry and A University in Japan, chapter in Universal Design Handbook, W.F.E. Preiser and E. Ostroff, (eds), McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 55.1-55.17.
IMRIE, R., HALL, P, (2001), Inclusive Design: Designing and Developing Accessible Envi-ronments,Spon Press, London and New York.
JONES, L. (2001), Integrating Universal Design into The Interior Design Curriculum, chapter in Universal Design Handbook, Preiser, W.F.E. and Ostroff, E. (eds.), McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 52.1-52.18.
LIFCHEZ, R. (1987), Rethinking Architecture: Design Students and Physically Disabled Peo-ple, University of California Press, Berkeley.
MORROW, R. (2001b), Universal Design As A Critical Tool in Design Education, chapter in
Universal Design Handbook, Preiser, W.F.E. and Ostroff, E. (eds.), McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 54.1-54.16.
MUELLER, J. (2003), Universal Products in The US, chapter in Inclusive design: Design for The Whole Population,Clarkson, J., Coleman, R., Keates, S. and Lebbon, C. (eds.), Springer-Verlag, London, pp. 319-335.
NICOLLE, C. et al, (2003), Towards Curricula in Design for All For Information and Commu-nication Products, Systems and Services, Education and Evaluation - Resources and Methods at Student Level, Proceedings of Include 2003, Royal College of Art, London.
OSTROFF, E. (2003), International Educational Strategies, chapter in Inclusive Design: Design for The Whole Population,Clarkson, J., Coleman, R., Keates, S. and Lebbon, C. (eds.),
Springer-Verlag, London, pp. 337-355.
PREISER, W. (2001), Toward Universal Design Evaluation, chapter in Universal Design Handbook, Preiser, W.F.E. and Ostroff, E. (eds.), McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 9.1-9.18. PREISER, W. (2003), Inclusiveness Through Universal Design Feedback and Evaluation, Edu-cation and Evaluation — Resources and Methods at Student Level, Proceedings of Include 2003, Royal College of Art, London.
SANDHU, J. (2001), An Integrated Approach to Universal Design: Toward the Inclusion of All Ages, Cultures and Diversity, chapter in Universal design handbook, Preiser, F.E. and Ostroff, E. (eds.), McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 3.1- 3.13.
SCOTT, S.S. (2003), Universal Design for Instruction, Remedial and Special Education, (vol. 24) pp. 369-370.
SIMON, M. (1995), Breaking The Myth of Modernism, chapter in Strategies for Teaching Universal Design, Welch, P. (eds.), Massachusetts: Adaptive Environment Center Press, Bos-ton, pp. 57-66.
STEINFELD, E. (1995), Studio Education Through Universal Design, chapter in Strategies for Teaching Universal Design, Welch, P. (eds.), Massachusetts: Adaptive Environment Center Press, Boston, pp. 141-163
STEWART, S. and PAGE, A. (2003), Making Universal Design The New Sustainability, Edu-cation and Evaluation — Resources and Methods at Student Level, Proceedings of Include 2003, Royal College of Art, London.
STORY, M.F. (1998), The Universal Design File: Designing for People of All Ages and Abili-ties, North Carolina State University Press, North Carolina.
TEPFER, F. (2001), Educational Environments: From Compliance to Inclusion, chapter in
Universal Design Handbook, Preiser, W.F.E. and Ostroff, E. (eds.), McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 46.1- 46.9.
WEISMAN, L.K. (2001), Creating The Universally Designed City: Prospects for The New Century, chapter in Universal Design Handbook, Preiser, W.F.E. and Ostroff, E. (eds.), McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 69.1-69.19.
WELCH, P. (1995a), What is Universal Design?, chapter in Strategies for Teaching Universal Design,Welch, P. (Eds.), Massachusetts: Adaptive Environment Center Press, Boston, pp. 1-4. WELCH, P. (1995b), Precedents for A More Inclusive Curriculum, chapter in Strategies for Teaching Universal Design,Welch, P. (Eds.), Massachusetts: Adaptive Environment Center Press, Boston, pp. 13-18.
WELCH, P. and Jones, S. (2001), Advances in Universal Design Education in The United States, chapter in Universal Design Handbook,Preiser, W.F.E. and Ostroff, E. (eds.), McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 51.1- 51.24.
BARR, I.M. (2002), Curricular Material, (retrieved: November 20, 2004), Available: http://www.scottisharchitecture.com/education-archschool3.html.
BRYNN, R. (2003). Easy Access- A City For All, International Conference: Presentation of EuCAN by Maarten van Ditmarsch, Kristiansand, Norway, (retrieved December 1, 2003). Available: http://www.eca.lu/frame.html.
THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COMITEEE OF MINISTERS, (2001), Resolution ResAP 1, (Retrieved September 10, 2003), Available:
http://cm.coe.int/ta/res/resAP/2001/2001xp1.htm.
DraWare: A Pedagogical Research Project in the School of Architecture, University College Dublin, Ireland, (Retrieved: October 13, 2004), Available:
http://avc.ucd.ie/DraWare.
DUNCAN, R. (2002), Universal Design Education at The College of Design, North Carolina State University, (Retrieved November 17, 2004). Available:
http://www.udeducation.org/teach/program_overview/program_infused/duncan.asp.
THE CENTER for UNIVERSAL DESIGN, (1997), Universal Design, NC State University, Retrieved: September 23, 2003. Available:
www.design.ncsu.edu./cud/univ_design/udprinciples.htm
KENNING B., RYHL, C. (2002), AaOutils: Teaching Universal Design, (Retrieved January 20, 2003). Available: http://anlh.be/aaoutils.htm.
MORROW, R. (2001), The Draware Project, (retrieved: October 11, 2004).Available: http://www.udeducation.org/teach/program_overview/program_infused/morrow.asp.
MULLICK, A. (1999), Universal Design: Strategies for Teaching, Proceedings of Internation-al Seminar on EnvironmentInternation-al Accessibility, (retrieved: October 7, 2004). Available: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disisea7.htm.
OSTROFF, E. (2001), Preparing and Recruiting Designers for An Inclusive Society, Proceed-ings of Inclusion by Design, Montreal, (retrieved: October 7, 2004), Available: http://www.adaptivenvironments.com.htm.
THE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP in INCLUSIVE DESIGN, (2002), Building and Sustain-ing a LearnSustain-ing Environment for Inclusive Design: A Framework for TeachSustain-ing Inclusive Design within Built Environment Courses in The UK, (retrieved: October 7, 2004). Available: http://www.cebe.ltsn.ac.uk/learning/sig/inclusive/full_report.pdf
