Fig 1. Still taken from Migeul Jirón's animated film, 'Sensory Overload' (2013)My thinking behind this intervention was primarily driven by a strong commitment to improve inclusivity, which I proposed by redesigning the traditional teaching space layout to create a more inclusive and support the physical learning environment for all, especially those students with invisible disabilities, such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), ADHD, anxiety, and sensory processing challenges. Drawing from existing research and lived student experiences, I aimed to create a space that supports autonomy and wellbeing, while aligning with contemporary industry practices that acknowledge the impact of space on participation and belonging.
In my practice, I teach Architecture and Spatial Design, and I also serve as an Academic Support tutor at the UAL Foundation. In the 24/25 Academic year, I witnessed (in both roles) a significant increase in students disclosing neurodivergence (often accompanied by physical disabilities). So, wearing the two teaching hats (although I felt like these were the six metaphorical hats, as described by Edward de Bono “a simple, effective parallel thinking process that helps people be more productive, focused, and mindfully involved” firmly in place, when deliberating the intervention I wanted to implement, I had to consider what could be done to improve the learning experience for students within the teaching space.
Within my professional background in Spatial Design, I worked for many years as a workplace designer, a sector I thoroughly enjoyed and learned a great deal about (spatial) ‘need and desire’ from the experience. Although I advocated the ‘redesigning’ of traditional classrooms (a term I find to understate their value to the level of education for FE and HE students) as a significant need for students, I was also aware the intervention would be considered as a radical proposal. Fortunately, I have found one potential opportunity to realise this idea. The UAL Foundation (UAL FAD) doubled its size by merging CSM and CCW foundation courses and relocated us to the LCF site at Lime Grove, beginning in September 2025. This, I felt, was a significant opportunity to see a practical rationale for spatial change to the teaching space.
As the discipline of Architecture and Spatial Design is my specialism, I aimed to examine the layout of the spaces to allow for more fluidity for those with invisible disabilities. This would incorporate more modular setups to encourage movement, choice and small group collaboration, thereby reducing stress and support self-regulation. Applying approaches that have been in use for some time in commercial workplace design is a good place to start reflecting on inclusive teaching spaces. Gail Napell, a sustainability and inclusive design strategist at Gensler, Interior Architecture firm, has answers. ‘Inclusive design makes spaces and places healthier, safer and more convenient for everyone. Inclusive design goes that extra step, to say, “Let’s look at all the aspects of a human being – not just our physical size and shape, but also mobility, age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, cognitive abilities or disabilities.”
Through further research, I became intrigued by the work of Dr Katie Gaudion, Senior Research Fellow at The Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design, Royal College of Art. Her research primarily focuses on how design can enhance the physical environment for individuals with autism. Gaudion has worked on several initiatives that develop tools to connect, communicate, and engage with neurodivergent/autistic people and their support networks, enabling them to be active participants in the design research. Putting Gaudion’s ideas into practice has resulted in a wide range of outcomes, including the utilisation of colour-coded designs with message cards to help neurodivergent individuals understand and interact with sensory environments in the built environment. In the recent webinar Designing for Neurodiversity, hosted by The RIBA Journal, Gaudion opened her talk with an animated short movie, ‘Sensory Overload‘, directed and animated by Miguel Jirón, that was created for Mark Jonathan Harris’ and Marhsa Kinder’s “Interacting with Autism”. Launched in. 2013, the animation ‘gives the viewer a glimpse into sensory overload, and how often our sensory experiences are stretched by everyday life’. Thought-provoking and direct, it acutely addressed issues and responses similar to those of students I witness in my practice. Gaudion advocates for greater guidance through practical aspects, such as lighting, wayfinding (including graphics and signage), materials, finishes, and spatial layouts, to create inclusive spaces.
In her contribution to the BSI’s PAS6463 Design for the Mind, she argues that her guidelines are insightful and shouldn’t be used as a tick-box exercise. Gaudion explored this further with research at the RCA, carrying out a project called Space in Mind, collaborating with neurodivergent staff and students to consider sensory, social and emotional experiences. Overall, the key theme was how to foster a sense of belonging in a spatial context. I agree with Gaudion that inclusive design doesn’t mean you are designing one thing for all, but you are designing a diversity for people to participate with.
Fig 2. Illustrative poster for 'Design for the Mind', and cover of the PAS 6463 (2022), contributed to by Dr Katie GaudionOne of the key influences on my decision-making process for this proposal was recognising that learning spaces are never neutral – what suits one student will inevitably not suit another. As highlighted in the feedback, spatial design can either facilitate inclusion or reinforce marginalisation. This understanding shaped my efforts to develop an environment that actively invites participation rather than unintentionally excluding neurodivergent learners. I found it particularly valuable to consider how design choices—such as lighting, acoustics, materials and layout—could help reduce sensory overload and foster a sense of safety and comfort.
Feedback from colleagues and peers confirmed that this is an often-overlooked but pivotal area of inclusive design. In the peer-to-peer presentation with Jess, Jade, and Daniel, they highlighted the potential for this intervention to support a wider range of learners than initially anticipated, prompting discussions about the potential for this to become a student-led activity and the need for more considered investigation of the proposal’s scale. My tutor Victor’s comment that the work aligns well with LO4 (Realisation) was reassuring, as it indicated that the intervention was moving beyond theory into thoughtful, practice-based implementation.
A significant challenge I encountered was the lack of a unified framework that combines neurodiversity and inclusive spatial design. While existing guidance from UAL and sector-wide frameworks like Advance HE, and their strategies provide a starting point, I had to synthesise insights from several sources and adapt them to fit and develop the specific needs of my initial thinking for the intervention. This required critical engagement with ongoing debates, around policies concerning, decolonisation of curricula, freedom of expression and EDI policies to ensure that the intervention doesn’t reproduce existing hierarchies or assumptions about access.
Another area of complexity emerged when reflecting on intersectionality. My tutor’s feedback prompted me to think more deeply about how race, gender, religion, or class may interact with sensory needs (Crenshaw). This was a significant moment, as it opened a richer, more nuanced understanding of spatial marginalisation and the potential for exclusion. I now view this as a key area for future development, where user co-design and inclusive consultation processes could help shape more reasonable and unbiased outcomes.
Ultimately, after receiving the feedback, I identified several potential risks. One is the possibility of unintentionally creating separation or division, or an overly controlled environment that could stigmatise some users. As with any proposal to spatial changes, especially within an educational lens, balancing safety and flexibility remains a core concern, and I will continue to iterate on the thinking around the design to maintain user interaction. How would this proposal be achievable? Reflecting and acting on peer feedback suggestions, I reconsidered my approach, and I believe that by offering students the opportunity to address inclusivity as a more challenging but applicable outcome. By generating a questionnaire that can be integrated into a workshop (an icebreaker task, potentially?), students could consider responses from an intersectional perspective to promote inclusivity, considering the types of questionnaires that students could engage with. To include questions such as ‘What space would help you learn and work in the optimum way, respecting everyone’s learning needs? Can you visualise any quick fixes you would want to change in this space? Asking students to record their thinking (activities similar to the IP workshop brainstorming sessions, see Fig. 3) and generate ideas in their sketchbooks, listing changes and making a visual mind-map in response. I would propose that this be done face-to-face in small groups, so that peer discussion can foster debate on inclusivity from their intersectional lens. Allowing students to consider adjustments to the studio space according, giving personal consideration to their comfort and activity needs, thereby granting them agency.
Fig 3. IP Brainstorming session, each of us giving ideas to set standards for Ways of Working This intervention has highlighted the importance of intentional, inclusive spatial design as a lever for equity in education. I think the feedback I have received has deepened my understanding and provided me with valuable direction for future refinement. In my view, this is fundamental to creating a diverse and inclusive approach that ensures all individual students feel valued, are able to participate fully, and achieve their full potential.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
De Bono, E. (1985). Six Thinking Hats. London: Penguin Books
Kucharek, J-C. (2025) Designing For Neurodiversity [Webinar]. RIBAJ & RIBAJ Spec in partnership with Crown Paints. Available at: https://www.ribaj.com/intelligence/designing-for-neurodiversity-webinar(Accessed: 15 July 2025)
Sensory Overload (2013). 1 January. Available at: https://cargocollective.com/mibaji/Sensory-Overload-Interacting-with-Autism (Accessed: 15 July 2025).
Neurodiversity & the Built Environment – PAS 6463:2022 (no date) BSI. Available at: https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/insights-and-media/insights/brochures/pas-6463-design-for-the-mind-neurodiversity-and-the-built-environment/ (Accessed: 15 July 2025).
Crenshaw, Kimberle’ Williams (1989) “Demarginalising the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989:139–67, p. 149