bs_bs_banner

AUTISM

A design model: the Autism Spectrum Disorder Classroom Design Kit

Keith McAllister and Barry Maguire

Introduction
Architects and designers have a responsibility to provide an inclusive built environment. However, for those with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the built environment can be a frightening and confusing place, difcult to negotiate and tolerate. The challenge of integrating more fully into society is denied by an alienating built environment. For ASD pupils in a poorly designed school, their environment can distance them from learning. Instead, if more at ease in their surroundings, in an ASD-friendly environment, the ASD pupil stands a greater chance of doing better. However, a difculty exists in that most architects are not knowledgeable in designing for those with ASD. Any available design guidelines for architects tend, because of the inherent difculties associated with a spectrum, to be general in their information. Therefore, in order to provide an ASD-friendly learning environment, there is a need to ensure that teachers, as the experts, can most clearly and effectively impart their knowledge and requirements to architects. This article, written by Keith McAllister and Barry Maguire, both from Queens University Belfast, sets out the challenges and difculties inherent in the design process when designing for those with ASD. It then sets out an alternative strategy to the usual method of drawing-centric dialogue between teacher and architect by using models instead as a basis for a more common language. An ASD Classroom Design Kit was designed and developed by architecture students at Queens University Belfast. It was then used by ASD teaching staff from the Southern Education and Library Board in Northern Ireland as a case study to trial its effectiveness. This article outlines how the study was carried out before concluding with reections by both teaching staff and architect on using the ASD Classroom Design Kit. It is hoped, rstly, that this article will highlight the need for better dialogue between expert and architect when considering ASD and the built environment and, secondly, that it may encourage others to consider using models to convey their ideas and knowledge when designing, not just for ASD, but for other special educational needs and disabilities. Keywords: architecture, autism, classroom design, school environment, special educational needs.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a term that covers the many subgroups within the spectrum of autism. Autism can be termed as a lifelong complex developmental disorder, characterised by a triad of qualitative impairments in social communication, social interaction and social imagination (Wing & Gould, 1979). The range of the spectrum is such that while some people with ASD may be able to live relatively independently, others will require lifelong continuous support. One of the many difculties encountered by people with ASD is the challenge of feeling at ease in their own environment. They often struggle with sensory sensitivity to visual, auditory, tactile, proprioceptive, gustatory and olfactory stimuli (Hinder, 2004). For such people, the built environment can become difcult, confusing and even threatening (Grandin, 1995; Harker & King, 2002; Lawson, 1998; Whitehurst, 2006a; Williams, 1996). What many of us take for granted can upset and frighten those with ASD. This is indeed a stark and harsh reality for architects who, as designers, have been entrusted with the challenge and responsibility of providing a truly inclusive environment for all. Being unable to relax or feel comfortable for those with ASD can be distressing in any environment. In a school environment, however, this can be especially troubling and damaging. If they are ill at ease in their surroundings, pupils with ASD are disadvantaged by being distanced from the learning that they so badly need. Despite this, ASD has so far been largely ignored by the architectural profession. In the UK there are no specic guidelines when considering ASD. Those guidelines that do make mention of ASD in an educational setting tend to do so only in general terms, and in less detail than other learning difculties and special needs. With regard to the school environment, the 2005 publication Evaluating Provision for Autistic Spectrum Disorders in Schools, co-authored by the Department of Education in Northern Ireland and the equivalent An Roinn Oideachais in the Republic of Ireland, outlines three performance indicators for consideration, as follows: 1. The learning environment is supportive of the child with autism: lighting, sound and colouring are sufcient to encourage the child to relax and settle to work.

2012 The Authors. British Journal of Special Education 2012 NASEN. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8578.12006

2.

3.

There is sufcient personal space for the child with autism to nd comfort and to de-stress when necessary. The learning environment contains areas of high interest to reect the particular interests of the child with autism.

Similarly, the recently published 2009 UK Government Building Bulletin 102 (BB102), Designing for Disabled Children and Children with Special Educational Needs, lists the design issues for children with ASD as follows: Simple layout: calm, ordered, low stimulus spaces, no confusing large spaces; indirect lighting, no glare, subdued colours; good acoustics, avoiding sudden/ background noise; robust materials, tamper-proof elements and concealed services; possibly H&S [health and safety] risk assessments; safe indoor and outdoor places for withdrawal and to calm down. (DfEE, 2009, p. 199) The fact that these design considerations are often excluded from guidelines, and the fact that they are of such a general nature on the rare occasions when they are included, are undoubtedly due to the difculties and challenges presented when dealing with a spectrum of disorders (Khare & Mullick, 2008; Mostafa, 2008; Young, 2004). Not only may those with ASD exhibit different sensitivities and personal difculties, the severity of these too can vary. In effect, the design parameters are uid and variable. Also, there is the very real danger when dealing with autism that prescriptive design guidelines or single rules will not take into account variations among individuals and their different levels of ability. Therefore, the challenge is both complex and difcult. Nevertheless, there is a great need to confront these difculties. This, it could be argued, is particularly necessary in a school setting. For children, a school is in many ways their world within the world a micro-city within the greater urban fabric (Hertzberger, 2008). If we accept this analogy, the classroom has special signicance for any child with special educational needs. It is the home for the pupil among the piazzas, agora and streets that are the playgrounds, assembly halls and circulation spaces of the school. The classroom therefore needs to be a place of calm, respite and safety within the micro-city; a place where children can feel most comfortable and then can prepare for the different challenges inherent in dealing with the large scale and the incidental elsewhere in the school. Therefore, feeling ill at ease in the classroom environment can hamper both learning and dealing with the challenges beyond the classroom. This then can unfortunately further alienate those with special educational needs, including those with ASD, in society. The design challenge Having access to the most comprehensive background information is vitally important to any architect or designer before undertaking design work. This is especially true when
202

the information is specialised, as in the case of designing for special needs. This certainly applies in the context of the ASD-friendly learning environment. There, it is the teaching staff and classroom assistants who have the rst-hand experience and knowledge of ASD in relation to the school environment. Recognising and understanding the relevance of this knowledge is essential for an architect. This important fact was stressed in the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) publication Designing for Special Needs when advocating that a good understanding of autism is essential when considering the physical environment for those with autism (Harker & King, 2002). However, while architects may be skilled in construction, place making and graphic representation, they are not specialists in ASD or other special educational needs. They are instead reliant upon experts for gaining an understanding of the needs of the pupils. With regard to ASD, this need is acute, with only a small number of available and general design guidelines. Moreover, this is especially important, as is the case with other special educational needs, because a truly ASD-friendly environment needs to be supportive not only of the ASD pupil, but also of their teachers, carers and support staff (Beaver, 2010; Whitehurst, 2006b). The architect therefore needs to liaise and converse with teaching and educational staff to gain a true understanding of what is required in any special needs learning environment. Through consultation between architect and client, a conversation develops. This is a vital component of any design process. While this dialogue seems initially straightforward, it is made inherently more difcult by the differences in language used by both teacher and architect. Very simply, the language of the architect is drawing. This is as a result of studio-based teaching where, as stated by Robbins (1994), drawings are the most common currency of the student teacher exchange.Years are spent in architectural education honing and rening this most important skill. With time and practice, architectural students become more comfortable with considerations such as scale, drawing conventions and transposing two-dimensional drawings into threedimensional entities. As with any language, such skills develop over time and frequency of usage. However, as a form of communication shared primarily by their fellow professionals and other consultants in similar design elds, architects can become immune to the fact that others may nd their language difcult and sometimes even impenetrable. Conversely for the teacher, having to describe and outline their thoughts and design ideas by using only words can result in misunderstanding or misinterpretation by the architect. Important instructions and key personal experiences may be relegated to a simple checklist of points. These then can be ticked off by the designer without any understanding of the importance of or qualitative feel for the advice from the teacher; in effect diluting the specialised knowledge of the teacher and hampering the architect from being truly informed when designing for special educational
2012 The Authors. British Journal of Special Education 2012 NASEN

British Journal of Special Education Volume 39 Number 4 2012

needs. This is potentially detrimental and can greatly undermine the effectiveness of any design intervention in the classroom. In simple terms, the design procedure between client and designer is a three-stage process. First is the development of the design brief when the client informs their architect of what is required. This involves outlining the parameters, needs and restrictions of the design. This is then followed by a second stage when the architect, armed with the design brief and details of the commission, develops and renes the design, sometimes with additional input from the client. After renement, the nal stage occurs. At this point the design is accepted by the client and effectively signed off. Although broken down here into different stages, any design is an ongoing process requiring a two-way conversation between client and architect. Recognition of the need for this dialogue is made explicit in BB102, which states: As the design evolves, the brief is developed through discussion between the client, the project team, various specialists and stakeholders (DfEE, 2009). However, it is the initial stage, when the design brief is rst being agreed, when the experience and knowledge of the client needs to be best imparted to the architect. This is a vital and essential stage and necessitates clarity in communication. It is the expertise and knowledge of experts, such as both client and end-user, that is so valuable to the architect. When dealing with special educational needs it is the teaching and support staff that constitute the clients, endusers and specialists. Only when being made fully aware of the problems or the questions that need to be answered can an architect or designer use his or her skill to formulate suitable design solutions. The noted and award-winning Czech architect Eva Jiricna stresses the importance of identifying the design questions for the architect: The design process is nding the questions: there is always an answer to every question. You have to nd the questions and not the answers; then it is only a matter of time to nd the answers, but the question is the difcult part. (Lawson, 1994, p. 48) Put simply, the architect will be trying to answer the questions posed by the design problem. It is therefore the initial period of conversation and brief development that is arguably the most important in ensuring a good design by highlighting the design problems within the design brief. This fact is recognised in BB102: A carefully constructed brief, based on detailed discussion and consultation, helps to ensure good quality accommodation that is t for purpose, meeting childrens learning and social needs and supporting their health and well-being. (DfEE, 2009, p. 18) However, what might appear straightforward and simple is complicated by the difference in language between client
2012 The Authors. British Journal of Special Education 2012 NASEN

Figure 1: Students designing the kit

and architect. Regardless of how well-intentioned the architect might be, they are being handicapped because it is the special needs teacher, impeded in communicating freely, who has the expertise and knowledge needed to ensure the best possible learning environment for pupils with special educational needs. The study To try and help overcome this problem, with specic regard to ASD, architecture students from Queens University Belfast helped devise and fabricate an ASD Classroom Design Kit. This was aimed at allowing teachers to communicate and express their ideas on an ASD-friendly learning environment more fully and clearly to architects (see Figure 1). It was hoped that the more common language of models would allow a more fruitful dialogue between both parties and, in this case focusing on ASD, help generate a greater understanding for architects of the ASD classroom environment. There is widespread consensus that an appropriate classroom environment will aid the performance of pupils with ASD (Khare & Mullick, 2008; Mostafa, 2008). Moreover, well-considered and well-designed ASD classroom spaces can be creative and genuine environments for learning (Scott, 2009; Vogel, 2008). Therefore, this study sought to identify considerations and methods by which teachers and educational staff could freely and meaningfully impart their knowledge and ideas to architects. The ASD Classroom Design Kit was developed after initial background research. This involved undertaking a literature review, visiting a variety of ASD-friendly classrooms and interviewing teaching staff, to discover what elements might need to be included in the kit. It was decided from an early stage that the kit had to be both legible and easy to use. The resultant kit therefore consists of a series of internal classroom furniture elements and exible components at a scale of 1:20. Furniture used in different classroom zones was colour-coded to facilitate analysis and legibility. Free-standing adjustable wall junctions were made from clear Perspex. These allowed wall elements of different lengths to be slotted into them at different angles to form
203

British Journal of Special Education Volume 39 Number 4 2012

Figure 2: Computer workstation

Figure 3: Sequence demonstration

wall and classroom divisions. A base board was constructed with raised squares on a metre grid, allowing card to be dropped into the recesses and slid into the required position. White card wall elements were coated in clear plastic to allow window and door openings to be marked on or rubbed off as required. The fact that many items of classroom furniture are often fairly standard, such as the workstations, desks and shelving storage units, aided in increasing the legibility and understanding of the kit by the teacher (see Figure 2). To test the usefulness of the ASD Classroom Design Kit, individual visits were carried out to nine ASD-friendly classrooms in the Southern Education and Library Board (SELB) in Northern Ireland. In each classroom, teachers were asked to design their ideal ASD-friendly classroom for eight pupils, two classroom assistants and one teacher by using the ASD Classroom Design Kit. The SELB is currently one of ve Education and Library Boards covering Northern Ireland. It spans 1,450 square miles and is responsible for providing education for 75,000 pupils in an overall population of 322,000 residents in its area. In 2005, as a response to the report Evaluating Provision for Autistic Spectrum Disorders in Schools (Department of Education & An Roinn Oideachais, 2005), the far-sighted SELB implemented a scheme where existing school accommodation in ten different schools was converted and refurbished into ten ASD-friendly classrooms. Refurbishment and conversion of the classrooms took place in 2005 and 2006. Nine of the classrooms were for Key Stage 1 pupils (aged ve to eight) and one was for Key Stage 3 pupils (aged 1116). The schools at Key Stage 1 level operate with eight pupils supported by one teacher and two classroom assistants. The hope is that after early intervention at Key Stage 1 level, the pupils may then progress into the mainstream classroom. An advantage of the study was that the staff visited had all had four years operating in adapted and refurbished accommodation. In all cases the classrooms had been modied from existing accommodation. The staff had therefore developed a good understanding of what elements worked in a classroom setting and what might be done better.
204

In visiting the nine classrooms, the same criteria of introduction and operating were always followed. Visits were held in the classroom when the children were not there, usually at the end of the day. Visits lasted on average for two hours. The teachers were rst shown a series of photographs illustrating the kit in use by Queens University postgraduate architecture students (see Figure 3). This was to help introduce the process and objective of the visit. Then a collection of photographs of different classrooms from a number of international schools was shown to help generate ideas, after which the teaching staff were invited to use the model. In doing so, the teachers were asked not to necessarily consider geographic orientation or the classroom position in relation to the rest of the school. This was to concentrate attention specically on the classroom elements and curtail the design parameters to a manageable level in the available time. Observation of the teachers using the Classroom Design Kit showed that two different methodologies of working developed. One was where the teacher would rst, using the models, compose all the individual component parts and zones to go into the classroom. When assembled the teacher would then position the different components and zones in relation to one another, giving attention to junction, threshold, privacy, access and exterior. Different permutations and variations were tried by the teacher in the knowledge that, by rst composing the ingredient parts, everything was going to be included. This process was informative for the architects in that it clearly outlined the constituent parts required in the classroom and also the inter-relationships between different classroom zones. The need for structured identiable areas in effect, rooms within a room where individual activities could take place became clear. Also, a better understanding of many qualitative considerations, such as quiet, informality and openness, was obtained. The second method of working was where the teacher would start at the entrance to the classroom and then progress through the classroom as if a pupil. Therefore a sequence would be initiated where not only event and threshold were considered but also the sequence of views on the promenade. This helped illustrate the importance of clarity and
2012 The Authors. British Journal of Special Education 2012 NASEN

British Journal of Special Education Volume 39 Number 4 2012

structure in the classroom to the architects. When completed, the teachers were then again able to appraise the inter-relationships of the different classroom zones. Because the design exercises were carried out in the existing classrooms, teachers were able to highlight and explain some of their decisions by illustrating examples in the room at that time. Importantly, once the model was constructed, the teachers were able to imagine both themselves and children using the room. As with any design, there are always compromises and conicts. But because the model was inter-changeable, different permutations and variations could be quickly constructed there and then before being evaluated against one another. During the design process, two architects were present. One recorded the process and any comments made by the teacher. These were especially informative and helpful for the architects in gaining an understanding of the ASDfriendly learning environment. The second architect aided by providing model parts as required by the teacher while constructing the model. This help was especially needed with regard to wall position and size; occasionally a specic length of card would need to be adapted or found in the kit parts. Use of the model had the further advantage of allowing discussions to take place on the positioning of doors and windows, room heights and roof proles. Rather than being dependent upon separate drawings of plan, section and elevation to communicate ideas, the inherent threedimensionality of the model meant that different roof proles and window positions could be tested in situ on the model (see Figure 4). Moreover, the discussions generated also extended beyond the classroom into the playground and school at large, allowing further insight into the school environment for the architects. When analysed, three main typologies became apparent in the course of comparing the models. These all related to the teaching zone in the classroom. The teaching zone consisted of a group teaching table, commonly focused on a whiteboard, two or three desks and one-to-one workstations. In all cases it was the teaching zone that became the major design generator in the overall design of the classroom. The three main typologies were as follows: 1. The teaching zone running as a spine from the corridor side of the classroom to the exterior. Other dedicated areas were located to each side of the teaching area which had a dominant position in the classroom. Part or all of the teaching zone had a raised roof prole in comparison to the other classroom elements (see Figure 5). The teaching zone running parallel to the exterior, distancing it from the corridor by placing the other classroom elements as a buffer between the two (see Figure 6). The teaching zone running as a spine through the classroom anked by other areas, including to either

Figure 4: Armagh Christian Brothers Primary School model interior

Figure 5: Coalisland Primary School classroom design

2.

side on the exterior wall, a quiet room and a separate kitchen. This made the teaching zone less dominant within the overall classroom (see Figure 7). Subsequent further analysis and appraisal of all the models made by the teaching staff, carried out by the authors, then
205

3.

2012 The Authors. British Journal of Special Education 2012 NASEN

British Journal of Special Education Volume 39 Number 4 2012

Figure 6: Banbridge Primary School classroom design

Figure 8: Cookstown Primary School interior CAD perspective

Figure 7: Cookstown Primary School classroom design teacher-designed classrooms were recorded and analysed by the architects. Key elements were recorded and a number of the designs were modelled in 3D Computer Aided Design (CAD) programmes to provide an accurate 3D representation of the proposed classroom. The 3D CAD model, while being generated from drawings, has the advantage that it is a three-dimensional entity that allows a perspective view as if visiting the classroom. It is therefore a much more accessible element to talk about between architect and client; especially if the client, as with the teacher in this case, has already contributed to its design (see Figure 8). Once the designs had been modelled in 3D CAD, a return visit to the participating schools was organised. Then a discussion about the 3D model took place, with amendments being made to the 3D model. This was in effect the second stage of the design process. The use of the 3D model had the advantage of allowing a greater level of discussion about the classroom design, often about elements not considered by the architect at that stage, such as colour or nishes. It was noticeable that the teachers not only felt that they could actually understand the design but, most importantly, because they had had direct input into the model, they were both able to contribute meaningfully to the design brief, and felt a sense of belonging and ownership in relation to the subsequent design. Secondly, a focus group session was organised with the teachers, at which the key elements and 3D CAD perspective classroom images, after analysis, were presented to the teachers. This was organised primarily to get feedback from the teachers on the effectiveness of the use of the ASD Classroom Design Kit. Feedback was obtained by means of discussion and a short questionnaire which asked the teachers to record their thoughts on the disadvantages, advantages, difculties and benets of using the Classroom Design Kit as a design aid. Happily most of the comments were favourable. However, there were of course some negative ones. Using the kit in the
2012 The Authors. British Journal of Special Education 2012 NASEN

helped identify 16 ASD-specic classroom considerations for architects when designing a Key Stage 1 age group ASD-friendly classroom (McAllister & Maguire, 2012). Discussion There were of course limitations to using the Classroom Design Kit. Because the base board was designed on a metre grid, most divisions within the classroom were designed to this module. Therefore, walls and designated areas tended to be of full metre lengths. Also, despite impromptu modelling, the contents of the kit could have limited what the teachers were able to design. Curiously teachers would often say during the model making process that they felt restricted by being inuenced by their personal experiences in their own classrooms. However, that is true of any client and was actually seen as a strength rather than a limitation by the researchers when dealing with such dedicated and knowledgeable staff. It was exactly that rst-hand viewpoint that was being sought and was so valuable to the architects. To get feedback on the effectiveness of the ASD Classroom Design Kit, two further processes took place. Firstly, all the
206

British Journal of Special Education Volume 39 Number 4 2012

given timescale was for many of the teachers difcult. One teacher made this point concisely, stating: Working on the spot in the time constraints was difcult. I would have preferred more time (up to a week) to allow reection and consultation with other staff. Also, having to take in how the kit worked, what they were being asked to do and then carry out the classroom design, was, in retrospect, a lot to undertake in a short space of time. This was especially the case considering that the teachers were giving up their own time at the end of their working day. It would therefore have been sensible to show the teachers beforehand how the kit worked, a point made clear by a teacher who commented: Perhaps having a group get together beforehand to show us how the kit was going to be used would have helped us prepare better. It was also clear that while it was a more common form of language between architect and teacher, the use of the model was still not without its difculties. Some of the teachers agreed with a colleague who stated that It can still be difcult to really understand scale but who also went on to make the comment that it is denitely better than just using drawings. The teachers comments regarding the advantages of using the Classroom Design Kit fall broadly into two groups. The rst was the hoped-for outcome, that the teachers found the kit a useful tool in communicating their ideas. This was expressed by different teachers who stated: The exibility of the model and being able to improvise as you went along meant that I didnt feel constrained when designing. Working with the model allowed you to think of what you could do and what you would do. The second advantage was in many ways further conrmation of the importance of the need for meaningful dialogue between special needs teacher and architect and that the use of models as a basis of communication might well be benecial in helping teachers, irrespective of their individual eld, buy into any prospective design. Simple statements such as You knew your input was being valued and It [the kit] helped me put my ideas across were afrmation that the teachers, as with any client or expert, must feel included and appreciated by architects if detailed discussion and consultation, as advocated in BB102, is actually to take place. Conclusion Facilitating a client to take ownership of a design is a major goal for any architect. It is in many ways a basic and elemental requirement of any meaningful design. This is especially so when, as in this case, it is the client who has the knowledge and experience which they cannot impart to architects.
2012 The Authors. British Journal of Special Education 2012 NASEN

In effect, the use of modelling with the ASD Classroom Design Kit at an initial design phase encouraged the teachers to buy into the design process. This might well be the case for a wider range of applications and conditions rather than just for ASD. Perhaps greater use of physical models in other situations at an early design stage may further aid and foster this view. The process has also helped provide a rich ongoing catalogue of design criteria and considerations for future use and reference. It should be stressed that architects and designers alone should not make the decisions for ASD-friendly or any other special needs learning environments. Instead they should listen to teachers, educational psychologists, therapists, parents and, if possible, the pupils themselves. Using models at an early design stage can facilitate this dialogue. The built environment needs to be more inclusive, particularly when considering the needs of those with special needs. Similarly, as would be the case for other special educational needs, the ASD-friendly classroom is only one component in promoting integration of the ASD pupil into the mainstream school. The relationship of the ASD-friendly classroom to the overall school is one that needs careful consideration. It should also be pointed out that the successful use of the ASD Classroom Design Kit may be partially because the nature of ASD lends itself to working in this way. The need for structured identiable different areas that is so important to those with ASD, as noted by Mostafa (2010), means that when teachers were using the ASD Classroom Design Kit, the classroom can be easily broken down into identiable and manageable component parts. However, it should be noted importantly that the ASD Classroom Design Kit and its components were developed after a period of preliminary study and investigation. Therefore, if one were to consider using a similar model kit when designing for other special educational needs, it would be essential that a similar period of study and investigation be carried out before constructing the kit and its components. The inherent difculties and challenges of providing a supportive environment for children at different stages on the autistic spectrum and with separate and individual needs can result in resorting to generalisations. While undeniably wellintentioned, there is the resultant risk in such dilution, that opportunities can be missed that could make a meaningful difference in the lives of pupils with ASD. This is indeed a challenge for the architect and designer. However, an important rst stage in confronting these challenges and taking advantage of any opportunities would be for architects, and any other designers, to be made more aware of the needs of the individual with ASD. Recognising the need for meaningful dialogue between architect and client is vital. So too is facilitating this dialogue, perhaps by increased use of models and model kits, whereby clients and even those with ASD can impart their knowledge to others. The real benet resulting from this project, with use of models in the Classroom Design Kit, was that the dialogue
207

British Journal of Special Education Volume 39 Number 4 2012

was a genuinely two-way process. Not only were the teachers able to share their ideas with the architects, but the architects got a valuable insight into why those choices were being made. This helped immensely in tutoring the architects on the subject of ASD and the school classroom environment. This would suggest that a similar use of models might not only be appropriate when considering one-off individual designs, but also, as in this example, when focusing on a particular disorder or condition, in helping architects and designers gain a greater understanding of the challenges and requirements when designing for those with special needs.

Thus, hopefully, greater usage of models may very well aid in designing for other disorders and disabilities, not just for ASD. The need to facilitate meaningful dialogue between client and architect is always important. Encouraging any client to buy into a design is essential, especially when the client has expert knowledge that needs to be considered and included in the design. This would be the case surely throughout the range of special educational needs. Therefore, perhaps further use of models at an early design stage might help in improving the quality of the built environment, not just in a school setting for pupil and teacher, but in other settings as well.

References Beaver, C. (2010) Autism-friendly environments, Autism File, 34, 8285. Department of Education & An Roinn Oideachais (2005) Evaluating Provision for Autistic Spectrum Disorders in Schools. Belfast: DoE(NI). DfEE (Department for Education and Employment) (2009) Building Bulletin 102 (BB102) Designing for Disabled Children and Children with Special Educational Needs. London: DfEE. Harker, M. & King, N. (2002) Designing for Special Needs. London: RIBA Press. Hertzberger, H. (2008) Space and Learning. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers. Hinder, S. (2004) Keynote address to Good Autism Practice Conference, Oxford, 19 April. Grandin, T. (1995) Thinking in Pictures. New York: Vintage. Khare, R. & Mullick, A. (2008) Educational spaces for children with autism; design development process. Paper presented at the Building Comfortable and Liveable Environments for All International Meeting, Georgia Tech University, Atlanta, 1516 May [online at http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB8873.pdf]. Lawson, B. (1994) Design in Mind. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture. Lawson, W. (1998) Life behind Glass. London: Jessica Kingsley. McAllister, K. & Maguire, B. (2012) Design considerations for the autism spectrum disorder-friendly Key Stage 1 classroom, Support for Learning, 27 (3), 103112. Mostafa, M. (2008) An architecture for autism: concepts of design intervention for the autistic user, International Journal of Architectural Research iJAR, 2 (1), 189211. Mostafa, M. (2010) Housing adaption for adults with autistic spectrum disorder, Open House International, 35 (1), 3748. Robbins, E. (1994) Why Architects Draw. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Scott, I. (2009) Designing learning spaces for children on the autistic spectrum, Good Autism Practice, 10 (1), 3659. Vogel, C. (2008) Classroom design for living & learning with autism, Autism Aspergers Digest, MayJune [online at http://www.designshare.com/index.php/ archives/901]. Whitehurst, T. (2006a) Evaluation of Features Specic to an ASD Designed Living Accommodation. Suneld School: Suneld Research Institute. Whitehurst, T. (2006b) The Impact of Building Design on Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders. Suneld School: Suneld Research Institute. Williams, D. (1996) Autism An Insideout Approach. London: Jessica Kingsley. Wing, L. & Gould, J. (1979) Severe impairments of social interaction and associated abnormalities in children: epidemiology and classication, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 9, 1119. Young, E. (2004) Special deeds, RIBA Journal, July, 5860.

Address for correspondence: Keith McAllister Queens University Belfast School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering David Keir Building Stranmillis Road Belfast BT9 5AG E-mail: k.mcallister@qub.ac.uk (Further pictorial examples of designs produced in this research can be obtained from the author) Article submitted: August 2012 Accepted for publication: November 2012

208

British Journal of Special Education Volume 39 Number 4 2012

2012 The Authors. British Journal of Special Education 2012 NASEN

Copyright of British Journal of Special Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.