Teaching Accessible Space in Architectural Education: Comparison of the Effectiveness of Simulated Disability Training and Expert-Led Methods
In recent years, architectural education in Europe has focused on teaching future architects to design accessible spaces for people with disabilities. One popular teaching method is simulated disability training (SDT). This approach allows students to experience the challenges faced by disabled indi...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-03-01
|
| Series: | Education Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/15/3/391 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | In recent years, architectural education in Europe has focused on teaching future architects to design accessible spaces for people with disabilities. One popular teaching method is simulated disability training (SDT). This approach allows students to experience the challenges faced by disabled individuals in order to build empathy and understanding. However, SDT has sparked debate. Critics, including disability activists, argue that it may oversimplify the experiences of disabled people. They worry that it could reinforce stereotypes instead of promoting real understanding. These critics prefer expert-led training, where students learn directly from professionals and individuals with lived disability experiences. They believe that this method is more ethical and respectful. To explore this debate, the authors of this study compared the two teaching methods. They examined how well the students remembered accessibility information and how sensitive they became to disability issues. The participants, all without physical disabilities, experienced simulated disabilities such as using crutches, wheelchairs, or navigating blindfolded with a white cane. The results showed that the students who underwent the SDT retained the information better and were more sensitive to accessibility needs than those in expert-led sessions. Although SDT shows promise, the authors stress that teaching accessibility should 1 balance effectiveness with ethical concerns, ensuring dignity and respect for disabled individuals. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2227-7102 |