IAED 501 Graduate Studio – Commentary Bibliography Series –   January 2004

TEACHING STRATEGIES FOR INTEGRATING UNIVERSAL DESIGN INTO THE DESIGN CURRICULUM

A Commentary Bibliography

Yasemin Eren
yasemine@bilkent.edu.tr

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 incorporating universal design values into school curricula for the education of future design professionals.

This commentary bibliography examines the major studies and design ideas of teaching strategies for universal design. It is organized into four sections. First, universal design is 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 suggesting a new concept that is much broader and more universal (Welch, 1995a; The Center for Universal Design, 1997; Story, Mueller and Mace, 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 design’ and ‘design for all’ from European perspective (Coleman, Bendixen and Tahkokallio, 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 understandable for everyone (Preiser, 2001). With reference to this definition, what is intended with the universal design is not only the accessibility of the built environment but also its understandability and usability by all people. Sandhu (2001) who also highlighted the inclusiveness of universal design described it as a concept that aims to respond to the broad diversity of users. Fundamentally, for Weisman (2001) it is an approach celebrating and valuing human diversity. Furthermore, The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (2001) mentioned the significance of universal design and defined it as a design strategy to design products and environments without the need for any specialized design solutions. Imrie and Hall (2001) focused also on the design issues for developing accessible environments and defined universal design as a social movement dealing with the usability of products, environments and communication systems for all people.

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 environments 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 concepts 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 and 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 curriculum by a studio course called ‘Architectural Design with the Physically Disabled User in Mind’ (Lifchez, 1987). 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 products and environments for a diverse range of human abilities and needs through a studio work.

Later, in 1991, the initial efforts have continued with the Universal Design Education Project (UDEP) in the USA with the initial funding of Adaptive Environments. In 1995, Welch documented these teaching strategies of 22 schools in his book titled Strategies for Teaching Universal Design. 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” (p. 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” (p. 337).

Teaching universal design was also mentioned by the European Commission (Kenning and 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 (2002) stated that “there is an increasing interest in as well as understanding of the importance of universal design teaching with many numbers and types of teaching models” (p. 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 certificate 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” (p. 3).

It is also possible to categorize these teaching strategies under the term of “infusion strategies”, which are developed at a local, regional, national and international level according to the types of curricular responses (Welch and Jones, 2001, p. 51.14). Welch and Jones (2001) explained the term ‘infusion’ stating that “infusion diminishes the potentially marginal status of the course content and introduces new discourse by challenging ableist, gendered, classist, Euro-centric course content” (p. 51.15). 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 infusing it into a studio problem and finally third is infusing it into the entire curriculum. In this context, it should be noted that this paper aims to examine and categorize 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 commentary bibliography, a variety of strategies for teaching universal design is analyzed and compared with each other according to their approach to teach universal 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.

1. 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 and 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 and Jones, 2001). These two courses were important in terms of including users in the design process in the evaluation of aesthetics and technological needs (Mullick, 1999).

Another teaching strategy from the UDEP is the proposal of Norwich University, Department of Architecture titled ‘Experiential Exercises for Teaching Universal Design’ (Church, 1995). “Awareness on human diversity, anticipation of a variety of needs and an international approach to design environments” (Scott, McGuire and Shaw, 2003, p. 371) were important concepts while infusing universal design into the course of ‘Human Issues’ and 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 (Church, 1995). The teaching exercise of Norwich University was important in terms of “understanding the differences between the specific needs of human groups” (Wijk, 2001, p. 28.13).

An interesting strategy for teaching universal design was offered form Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Department of Landscape Architecture has utilized multimedia tutorials for infusing universal design through a computer based instruction into the existing courses (Bork, Parrish and Mahon, 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 and 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.

Integrating universal design into the design curriculum of Virginia Polytechnic University tutorials as a source of information had significant role as Schon highlighted in the discovery-based design education (Bork, et al., 1995). Rose and Meyer (2002) also stated that “we believe that Universal Design for Learning can help educators harness the power of new media and technologies to remove barriers to learning for all students, including students with disabilities” (p. 180).

It is also necessary to look the issue of infusing universal design into an existing course from a European perspective. At this point, a glance into the essay, A European Perspective by Coleman, et al. (2003) will clarify to the European approach to universal design teaching. “The European approach has been to think of in terms of ‘design for all’ and ‘inclusive design’, which reflect concerns to integrate diverse groups of people without enforcing conformity, and suggest a degree of flexibility in how that goal is achieved” (Coleman, et al., 2003, p. 290). In this respect, in France, the I’Ecole d’Architecture de Paris La Villette offered one education course emphasizing the needs of disabled people (Kenning and Ryhl, 2002). One of the important aspects of this French example is the issue of disability as “a commonplace issue so that people with disabilities are entitled to control their environment” (Grosbois, 2001, p. 27.21).

In the UK, there are three education strategies: a certificate course, an undergraduate program and a students’ awards program (Ostroff 2001, 2003; Kenning and Ryhl, 2002; The Special Interest Group in Inclusive Design, 2002). Infusing 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, p. 5). He offered a multidisciplinary graduate course which aims to bring together the professions of planning and design and enables the users’ involvement (Ostroff 2001, 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, p. 101). In this respect, Loughborough University offered a course titled ‘Inclusive Design as a Third Year Option’ to both final year and MSc students (Nicolle, et al., 2003). The university also evaluates this course as an initial 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’, ‘context’ and ‘sustainability’ were 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 and Ryhl, 2002, p. 17). Manley (2001) as the joint leader of the course explained that “the aim is to ensure that students will constantly be reminded of the importance of the issue of designing to meet the needs of a wide range of clients and users by infusion of the theme throughout the course” (p. 2).

2. Infusing universal design into a design studio problem

Within the design curricula, the integrative potential of the design studio is related to the students’ internalized knowledge gained in the previous courses (Welch and Jones, 2001). Design studios are the essential part of the architectural education. Lyndon (cited in Lifchez, 1987) 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 cornerstone of architectural education” (p. xiv). 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, Hagan and Grossen, 1998).

In this respect, State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo developed a teaching strategy called ‘studio education through universal design’ to embed universal design into a studio design problem (Steinfeld, et al., 1995; Welch and Jones, 2001; Kenning and 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 studio with fifteen students (Steinfeld, et al., 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, et al., 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 and Jones, 2001, p. 51.16). Spencer (1995) from Louisiana State University also stated that “good design is universal design in studio solutions” (p. 69).

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). “Observing and listening to people is also an obvious method that imparts greater knowledge of user needs” (The Special Interest Group in Inclusive Design, 2002, p. 18). In this respect, the teaching activity in Kansas State University emphasized that “design solutions that exclude segments of the population are being rejected as unacceptable. Universal design is the basic premise for all design decisions” (Jones, 2001, p. 52.16).

There are also other efforts in the USA independent from the UDEP. The Department of Design and Merchandising at Colorado State University proposed a teaching strategy in which “the six week long design project was incorporated into the curriculum as a design competition” (Chang, Tremblay and Dunbar, 2000, p. 154) and students were asked to redesign an 11-room motel for students with disabilities. In this teaching strategy, with a studio-based project, students were enabled to engage with diverse user groups and to experience the physical environment (Lifchez, 1987; Jones, 2001). Chang, et al. (2000) discussed the importance of such an experimental approach for teaching universal design and stated that “studio based projects have been recognized by design educators as a valuable teaching approach” (p. 158).

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 a collaboration between NEC, Japanese Electronics Company, and Tama Art University to establish a product design process which takes universal design principles into account (Ikeda and Takayanagi, 2001; The Special Interest Group in Inclusive Design, 2002; Kenning and 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 profit’ and ‘product design education’ in the course of four years and accomplished significant outcomes in order to achieve both aims” (Ikeda and Takayanagi, 2001, p. 55.2).

The project began in 1996 with six workshops in which older and disabled people were actively participated (The Special Interest Group in Inclusive Design, 2002). Once again the observation as well as involvement with the users was an essential part of the project (Kose, 2003). Design themes were changed from year to year. In 1996, the design subject was ‘supporting people’ with a target user of random people; in 1997, students were asked to design ‘senior-user-friendly information equipment’ with a target user of elderly people; in 1998, the design topic was ‘a new PC for senior citizens and first time users’ and ‘easy-to-use public information terminals’ and in 1999, students dealt with the design of ‘universally designed public terminals’ (Ikeda and Takayanagi, 2001, p. 55.3)

Moreover, the university introduced six workshops, which aimed to inform the students about the diverse users’ needs (Kenning and Ryhl, 2002). Throughout these four years different collaboration projects were carried out within the design studios depending on the level of students and educational purposes; beginning from the introductory courses on material for first year students, to the more complete and demanding projects for fourth year students (Ikeda and Takayanagi, 2001). In this respect, the Japanese teaching strategy for infusing universal design into the design studio courses “was considered as extremely successful and the visible results are that a new curriculum for teaching universal design was prepared and has now been fully integrated in Tama Art University teaching programme” (Kenning and Ryhl, 2002, p. 30). Lebbon (2003) from the UK put also emphasis on such teaching strategies which develop business and design management models putting inclusive design into the practice.

It is also important to look the studio based teaching strategies from the perspective of the United Kingdom. Stewart and Page (2003) discussed “how does practice inform teaching and vice versa” and looked the third year design studio at Mackintosh School of Architecture in detail (p. 129). 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 and 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 and Page, 2003, p. 133).

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 and Ryhl, 2002; Ostroff, 2003). The Center under the Royal Institute of Art (RCA) develops design projects 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, p. 347). HHRC also encourages young designers to participate into forums with users and to explore the practical design implications.

3. 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 and Jones, 2001, p. 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 and Ryhl, 2002). 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, p. 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, studio review and critiques by staff and members of the community, design courses and opportunities for individual work (Duncan, 2002; Kenning and 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 values (Chidister, et al., 1995; Welch and Jones, 2001). The faculty offered ‘awareness modules’ through which they can infuse universal design concepts into the entire curriculum (Welch and Jones, 2001). The modules were formulated into four levels: consciousness level for real issues, engagement level for experiencing disability in the physical environment, accountability level for conscious application of universal design principles and finally integration level for automatic application 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 highest level for universal design education” (Chidister, et al., 1995, p. 56).

Another important issue considering the integration of universal design into the entire school curriculum is the establishment of a strong existence of universal design values within the university and community as well. At this point, the Program in the Department of Design and Industry (DAI) at San Francisco University has developed “universal design symposiums and workshops, design for the environment product application; user friendly packaging seminars, design for community projects and global design and cultural identity” since 1990 (Ostroff, 2003, pp. 352-353). Moreover, the interior design education programme at Eastern Michigan University is another important teaching strategy in the USA. “The university has infused universal design throughout its undergraduate programs” (Ostroff, 2003, p. 350). The most infused programs are in the interior design programs, especially at Eastern Michigan University. “Students in this program came to understand that ‘good design’ requires much more than compliance with the minimum requirements of laws that mandate a few special features to create barrier-free environments for individuals with disabilities” (The Special Interest Group in Inclusive Design, 2002, p. 49).

The European approach gives also emphasis on infusing the universal design values 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, p. 118). In this respect, The Draware project from the School of Architecture at University College in Dublin was a significant two year project (1998-2000) aiming universal design teaching through environmental lectures, history and theory seminars, workshops, design and technology studios (Morrow, 2001a; 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, 2001b, p. 54.2). The project used real-life problems in relation with individuals and organizations in the community.

The University of Diepenbeek in Belgium infused the universal design approach into its entire curriculum in the academic year of 2001-2002 (The Special Interest Group in Inclusive Design, 2002). The faculty members of the university stated that universal design should not be infused into a single course or a design studio because it would be then opposed to its inclusive and holistic principles (Kenning and Ryhl, 2002). In this respect, beginning from the second year of the 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 curriculum. In 1997, there was a four-year pilot programme to integrate universal design approach into the departments of architecture, industrial design, engineering 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, p. 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 and Jones, 2001, p. 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).

At this point, Welch (1995b) 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” (p. 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, p. 289) 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 innovative design solutions within the entire curriculum and developing inclusive communication and representation methods (The Special Interest Group in Inclusive 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, p. 337). Each of the infusion strategy both in the USA and in European countries including 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 and Jones, 2001, p. 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, p. 353).

Cited Works

Barr, I.M. (2002). Curricular Material. Retrieved November 20, 2004 from http://www.scottisharchitecture.com/education-archschool3.html

Bork, R. D., Parrish, R. and Mahon, D. (1995). Teaching universal design with multimedia tutorials. In P. Welch, (Ed.) Strategies for teaching universal design (pp. 237- 250). Boston, Massachusetts: Adaptive Environment Center Press.

Brynn, R. (2003). Easy Access- a city for all. International Conference: Presentation of EuCAN by Maarten van Ditmarsch, Kristiansand. Norway. Retrieved December 1, 2003 from http://www.eca.lu/frame.html.

Burke, M.D., Hagan, S.L., and Grossen, B. (1998). What curricular designs and strategies accommodate diverse learners? Teaching Exceptional Children, 31, 34-38.

The Center for Universal Design. (1997). Universal Design. NC State University. Retrieved September 23, 2003 from www.design.ncsu.edu./cud/univ_design/udprinciples.htm

Chang, B. V., Tremblay R. K., and Dunbar, H. B. (2000). An experimental approach to teaching universal design. Education, 121, 153-158.

Chidister, M., Rutledge, A., Osterberg, A., Harvey, R., Malven, F. and Groe, H. (1995). Using awareness levels across design disciplines. In P. Welch, (Ed.) Strategies for teaching universal design (pp. 41- 56). Boston, Massachusetts: Adaptive Environment Center Press.

Church, P. E. (1995). Experiential exercises for teaching universal design. In P. Welch, (Ed.) Strategies for teaching universal design (pp. 109- 112). Boston, Massachusetts: Adaptive Environment Center Press.

Coleman, R., Bendixen, K., and Tahkokallio, P. (2003). A European perspective. In J. Clarkson, R. Coleman, S. Keates, and C. Lebbon, (Eds.) Inclusive design: Design for the whole population (pp. 289-307). London: Springer-Verlag.

The Council of Europe Comiteee of Ministers (2001). Resolution ResAP 1. Retrieved September 10, 2003 from 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 from http://avc.ucd.ie/DraWare/

Duncan, R. (2002). Universal Design Education at the College of Design, North Carolina State University. Retrieved November 17, 2004 from Universal Design Education Online web site: http://www.udeducation.org/teach/program_overview/program_infused/duncan.asp

Eren, Y. (June 2004). Exploring the potential of mat-building for the creation of universally designed built environments. M. Arch Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

Grosbois, L.P. (2001). The evolution of design for all in public buildings and transportation in France. In W. F. E. Preiser and E. Ostroff, (Eds.) Universal design handbook (pp. 27.1- 27.23). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., and Jackson, R. (2002). Providing access to the general education curriculum: Universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35, 8-17.

Ikeda, C. and Takayanagi, N. (2001). Universal design research collabration between industry and a university in Japan. In W. F. E. Preiser and E. Ostroff, (Eds.) Universal design handbook (pp. 55.1- 55.17). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Imrie, R. and Hall, P. (2001). Inclusive design: Designing and developing accessible environments. London and New York: Spon Press.

Jones, L. (2001). Integrating universal design into the interior design curriculum. In W. F. E. Preiser and E. Ostroff, (Eds.) Universal design handbook (pp. 52.1- 52.18). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kenning B. and Ryhl, C. (2002). AaOutils: Teaching universal design. Retrieved January 20, 2003 from http://anlh.be/aaoutils.htm

Kose, S. (2003). The Japanese experience. In J. Clarkson, R. Coleman, S. Keates, and C. Lebbon, (Eds.) Inclusive design: Design for the whole population (pp. 309-316). London: Springer-Verlag.

Lebbon, C. (2003). i~design – building a toolkit for inclusive designers. Education and evaluation –resources and methods at student level, proceedings of include 2003, Royal College of Art, London.

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

Manley, S. (2001). Putting People First: Designing an Inclusive Curriculum. Retrieved October 30, 2004 from Universal Design Education Online web site: http://www.udeducation.org/teach/program_overview/program_infused/manley.asp

Morrow, R. (2001a). The Draware Project ©. Retrieved October 11, 2004 from http://www.udeducation.org/teach/program_overview/program_infused/morrow.asp

Morrow, R. (2001b). Universal design as a critical tool in design education. In W. F. E. Preiser and E. Ostroff, (Eds.) Universal design handbook (pp. 54.1- 54.16). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mueller, J. (2003). Universal products in the US. In J. Clarkson, R. Coleman, S. Keates, and C. Lebbon, (Eds.) Inclusive design: Design for the whole population (pp. 319-335). London: Springer-Verlag.

Mullick, A. (1999). Universal design: Strategies for teaching. Proceedings of international seminar on environmental accessibility, Beirut. Retrieved October 7, 2004 from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/disisea7.htm

Nicolle, C., Rundle, C. and Graupp, H. (2003).Towards curricula in design for all for information and communication products, systems and services. Education and evaluation –resources and methods at student level, proceedings of include 2003, Royal College of Art, London.

Ostroff, E. (2001). Preparing and recruiting designers for an inclusive society, Proceedings of Inclusion by Design, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved October 7, 2004 from http://www.adaptivenvironments.com.htm

Ostroff, E. (2003). International educational strategies. In J. Clarkson, R. Coleman, S. Keates, and C. Lebbon, (Eds.) Inclusive design: Design for the whole population (pp. 337-355). London: Springer-Verlag.

Preiser, W. (2001). Toward universal design evaluation. In W. F. E. Preiser and E. Ostroff, (Eds.) Universal design handbook (pp. 9.1- 9.18). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Preiser, W. (2003). Inclusiveness through universal design feedback and evaluation. Education and evaluation –resources and methods at student level, proceedings of include 2003, Royal College of Art, London.

Rose, D. and Meyer A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Sandhu, J. (2001). An integrated approach to universal design: Toward the inclusion of all ages, cultures and diversity. In W. F. E. Preiser and E. Ostroff, (Eds.) Universal design handbook (pp. 3.1- 3.13). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M. and Shaw, S. (2003). Universal design for instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 369-370.

Simon, M. (1995). Breaking the myth of modernism. In P. Welch, (Ed.) Strategies for teaching universal design (pp. 57- 66). Boston, Massachusetts: Adaptive Environment Center Press.

The Special Interest Group in Inclusive Design. (2002). Building and sustaining a learning environment for inclusive design: A framework for teaching inclusive design within built environment courses in the UK. Retrieved October 7, 2004 from http://www.cebe.ltsn.ac.uk/learning/sig/inclusive/full_report.pdf

Spencer, J. N. (1995). Raising awareness through a universal design symposium. In P. Welch, (Ed.) Strategies for teaching universal design (pp. 67- 70). Boston, Massachusetts: Adaptive Environment Center Press.

Steinfeld, E., Hagin, J., Day, G., Lowne, T., Marsh, T., Mouritsen, O., and Mullick, A. (1995). Studio education through universal design. In P. Welch, (Ed.) Strategies for teaching universal design (pp. 141- 163). Boston, Massachusetts: Adaptive Environment Center Press.

Stewart, S. and Page, A. (2003). Making universal design the new sustainability. Education and evaluation –resources and methods at student level, proceedings of include 2003, Royal College of Art, London.

Story, M.F., Mueller, J.L. and Mace, R.L. (1998). The Universal Design File: Designing for People of All Ages and Abilities. North Carolina: North Carolina State University Press.

Tepfer, F. (2001). Educational environments: From compliance to inclusion. In W. F. E. Preiser and E. Ostroff, (Ed.) Universal design handbook (pp. 46.1- 46.9). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Weisman, L. K. (2001). Creating the universally designed city: Prospects for the new century. In W. F. E. Preiser and E. Ostroff, (Eds.) Universal design handbook (pp. 69.1-69.19). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Welch, P. (1995a). What is universal design? In P. Welch, (Ed.) Strategies for teaching universal design (pp. 1- 4). Boston, Massachusetts: Adaptive Environment Center Press.

Welch, P. (1995b). Precedents for a more inclusive curriculum. In P. Welch, (Ed.) Strategies for teaching universal design (pp. 13- 18). Boston, Massachusetts: Adaptive Environment Center Press.

Welch, P. and Jones, S. (2001). Advances in universal design education in the United States. In W. F. E. Preiser and E. Ostroff, (Ed.) Universal design handbook (pp. 51.1- 51.24). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wijk, M. (2001). The Dutch struggle for accessibility awareness. In W. F. E. Preiser and E. Ostroff, (Ed.) Universal design handbook (pp. 28.1- 28.17). New York: McGraw-Hill.