Co-creating course material and teaching practices with students is essential in courses such as social work. How can a student social worker understand equity and inclusion if they experience discriminatory approaches to the subject and teaching practices?
“As courses transitioned to online learning, it became clear that course syllabi are not neutral documents; rigid policies, deficit-based language, and unconscious biases disproportionately impacted students from historically marginalized backgrounds.”
Four approaches for re-designing course material are explored as a means of achieving student engagement: universal design, human-centered design, the liquid syllabus, and anti-racist pedagogy materials. We also offer examples from our own anti-oppressive teaching practices. We conclude with our shared experiences and a reflection from a former student.
From the abstract
The social work profession continues to prioritize diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility within curricula and the classroom. Consequently, instructors must consider the syllabus as a foundational element. Often overlooked in discussions of power and oppression, the syllabus not only sets the tone for the course but also establishes the policies and practices that influence student engagement with both instructors and course content.
This article explores the approaches to teaching and co-creating course material and design. It focuses on the importance of language and tone, and the process of cocreating course content, assignments, and grading schemas with students. We conclude by sharing lessons learned and implications for both instructors and students. We hope to encourage ongoing dialogue on fostering classroom inclusion through syllabus redesign and a reflexive examination of the power dynamics that exist within the classroom.
An “age-inclusive” approach – such as accessible public transport, diversified housing options, and telemedicine – has immediate benefits. It enhances wellbeing and economic growth and generates long lasting benefits for creating inclusive cities. A new OECD report considers these factors and the economic and social costs of inaction. Cities for all ages should mean children to older age, but the report focuses on older age.
The report provides a checklist of nine key actions that governments can take to create age-inclusive cities. The 80 page document covers the rationale for action based on changing demographics. The second section explores policies for age-inclusive cities including housing. The checklist is in section 3.
The checklist is based on:
Strategy setting for a structured policy approach
Resource development and increasing capacity
Stakeholder co-ordination to involve local citizens to help solve problems
Checklist for creating cities for all ages
The report provides a checklist of concrete actions for governments. It builds on the initiatives from the previous chapters which review existing guidance and standards.
As this is an OECD document it necessarily includes the actions and ideas from across the globe – both developed and developed nations. Consequently, some of the actions listed are well known in Australia. However there is always more to learn from others especially as there is no one-size-fits-all in urban development even in the one city.
The title of the OECD urban studies report is, Cities for All Ages. Potentially if cities are good for older people they will automatically be good for everyone regardless of age.
Governments are expanding cycling infrastructure for health, climate and congestion reasons. An active transport network creates connections between significant destinations and transport nodes. Done well, they connect schools, community buildings, shops and recreational areas. But this is not all good news.
Cycling networks are often based on shared paths. For people with disability shared paths are a big problem. So, the way they are designed is critical for both cyclists and pedestrians. Image George Xinos
People with vision, hearing and/or mobility disabilities have particular difficulty with shared paths, even where there are few cyclists. Many see shared paths as discriminatory because they avoid them due to safety concerns. The answer is segregated paths, but what is the best way to design them? George Xinos offers some suggestions.
Visual cues help active transport
A separated path is divided into two separate sections, one for cyclists and the other for the exclusive use of pedestrians. The Austroads Guide to Road Design lists colour and texture contrasting finishes, signage, line marking and footpath symbols. However, a distinct separation is better from an accessibility perspective.
Physical separation is much better for people who are blind or have low vision. Providing a semi-mountable kerb or dividing strip or turf or similar allows them to shoreline along the path. It prevents them from wandering onto the cycle lane.
In a survey of 607 people in Victoria with vision impairment, 8% had a collision, and 20% a near collision in the previous five years. 24% of those were with bicycles. A survey by Guide Dogs Australia found 50% of respondents with low vision reported difficulty in using shared paths. Note that most people with low vision are over the age of 65 years. Consequently, this group experiences the risk of loss of both vision and agility.
Floating bus stops
In 2024, six local residents lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding ‘floating bus stops’ in the City of Sydney. This is where bus passengers have to cross a bike lane to get on and off the bus.
They claimed the bicycle lane is unsafe for the community and especially for older people and people with disability. They were concerned that cyclists often travel at high speeds and many ignore traffic lights and pedestrians. People with hearing and vision impairments may not realise that cyclist could be coming at them from either direction.
How many people have a vision impairment?
According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, more than 13 million Australians have one or more chronic eye conditions. Some lead to more vision loss than others. The prevalence of colour blindness reminds designers that colour contrast is more than colour choice. For example, both red and green can be seen as the same colour grey depending on colour density.
The Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 has been updated rom 2009 to 2021 version. Andrew Heaton explains the changes and the issues for Development Assessment Panels.
Surveys don’t capture everyone
A literature review of surveys for accessible transport shows that minority groups are underrepresented. Also, surveys use questions and measures that show a lack of understanding of mobility inequities and challenges. The literature review concludes with a “standardised measure of mobility justice”.
The most extensively researched groups are older people and women. disadvantaged socio-economic groups in mobility justice-related surveys.
Therefore it’s important to expand research to gain a better understanding of mobility justice across diverse socioeconomic groups. An intersectional lens is essential for understanding how these ‘layers’ shape and influence human life and experiences.
Surveys offer an opportunity to capture individual beliefs and extract subjective evaluations of justice. However no standard approach exists for measuring mobility justice through surveys. This scoping review examines 56 studies that use surveys to understand perceptions of mobility justice.
We distinguish between direct justice measures, where individuals are directly asked about the perceived fairness, and indirect justice measures, which ask individual opinions on assumed fair concepts.
Minority groups are underrepresented in mobility justice surveys. This means we need an additional focus on these target groups. Also, surveys use justice measures that fail to capture the experiences of disadvantaged groups.
We have developed a conceptual framework for the future design of mobility surveys. It aims to advance the development of a standardised measure of mobility justice.
Action-based research and participatory methods are long-standing academic research practices. These methods are now more widespread and more usually known as co-design and co-creation. The same principles apply to both: ask the people, listen, and work together. Nevertheless, university researchers bring their particular skill-set to co-designing inclusive communities.
“By exploring perspectives on inclusive and accessible public and private spaces, this work builds on a multi-year effort to foster community led change.” Image of the front cover of the report.
The University of Technology Sydney (UTS) focused on inner suburbs of Sydney for their research project. It was carried out in partnership with local community members who shared their time and stories. The resulting report highlights the best experiences of inclusive and accessible spaces. These stories provide a strong basis for building on what already exists to create even more of these places.
Co-designing places and spaces expands the skills of individuals and builds on the strengths within the community. It is so much more than creating a “nice” building or park.
Key points for policy and practice
The project found that loneliness and isolation was a community priority and that programs and initiatives should have this as a focus. A sense of belonging for all citizens is therefore the main aim. Briefly the key take-aways from the project are:
increased investment in free and low-cost community spaces and events
prioritising social infrastructure in urban planning; improving public transport and walkability
embedding co-design and participatory decision making in policy development
strengthening social inclusion policies for diverse and marginalised group
prioritising funding for safe and livable housing
funding for place-based organisations
Co-designing inclusion
The project was grounded in an asset-based framework which explores the strengths held in the community. These are the skills, knowledge, and community networks and organisations.
By embedding community leadership throughout the process participants gain a significant sense of ownership and long-term commitment that is often missing from both academic and professional initiatives. Image from the report.
By focusing on community strengths, an asset-based approach captures people’s visions of ‘the best of what is’. It also mobilises existing networks and resources to create opportunities for social change.
The report explains the underpinning concepts for the co-design method which covered nine-month’s of work. The iterative cycle included finding out what is good now and upskilling community members to make change. Co-designing real-world community driven projects was another essential element of the process.
The UTS media team provide an overview of the project and some of the outcomes. Local developers, building managers and community organisations are using the findings to advocate for the community.
The UTS Centre for Social Justice and Inclusion is focused on suburbs surrounding UTS.
Olav Rand Bringa is credited with bringing a universal design approach to Norwegian planning regulations back in 1999. The result was a forward thinking document, Norway Universally Designed 2025. Bringa has followed the evolution of universal design thinking for 25 years until his retirement last year.
Bringa has given a lot of thought to the evolution of the universal design concept, the language we use, and it’s application. He was part of the early movement and wrote about the processes in, Universal Design and Visitability: from Accessibility to Zoning (page 97). Although it began with the built environment it soon included the digital world.
Here are past posts that refer to Bringa’s work and the landmark document Norway Universally Designed 2025.
Norway universally designed by 2025
The Norwegian Government took the principles of universal design and applied them across all policies to create maximum inclusion. This made everyone responsible for inclusion at every level – in the built environment, outdoor areas, transport, and ICT.
In 2008, Norway launched its first Action Plan 2009-2013 with the goal of a universally designed Norway by 2025.
The focus on was on people with disability, accessible built environments and minimising discrimination. The plan covered the actions of the public service and all ministries. “The Government’s work is based on universal design. Universal design is an expression of a value put on equality by society.“
In 2010, Norway amended its Planning and Building Act, among others, to include universal design. The plan was to take a staged approach to upgrading public buildings and spaces.
The Delta Centre took responsibility to coordinate the actions in Norway’s 2015-2019 plan in 2016. This plan covers ICT and communications to a more detailed level.
He outlines the remaining barriers to implementation along with the successes. This paper draws together Bringa’s extensive experience in the field of universal design.
A guide for universal design is not enough
Guides give guidance, but you need to know the point of universal design. Knowing the point is a key success factor in taking a universal design approach. That’s why a guide is not enough – you need to know the point of it.
The point is inclusion – it’s about society, not just design. The focus on compliance with standards does not tell you the reason, only what to do. An article in Citylab provides some examples of how Norwegian designers are embracing the principles of universal design.
St Olav’s Hospital in Trondheim is a good example of implementing universal design across the whole hospital setting. That’s from the outdoor and external features through to the internal design. The Chief Architect says, “Guidelines are not enough, you need clear intentions. You have to know what’s the point of this”.
“It looks like a nice urban environment,” said Onny Eikhaug, Program Leader at the Norway Design Council. “It doesn’t look like a hospital, it doesn’t smell like a hospital.” DOGA, The Innovation Award for Universal Design.
Accessibility by another name – does it work?
Norway uses the term “accessible” to signify solutions specifically for people with disability when not required generally in the population. An interesting distinction by Olav Rand Bringa using his 20 years of experience working in the field of universal design.
Bringa says succinctly, “The term accessibility for people with disabilities does not broadcast an understanding of qualities beyond the targeted user group”. Consequently other terms try to compensate for this. The image is of the Olso Opera House with a universally graded access.
However, it is difficult to move away from “accessibility” because it is perpetuated in legal and other statutory documents. Bringa writes thoughtfully about the issues of getting language right to get inclusion right. An important contribution to the quest for inclusive societies. The title of the article is, Universal Design as a Technical Norm and Juridical Term – A Factor of Development or Recession? it’s open access.
From the abstract
Norway introduced universal design as an ideological and technical concept in Norway in 1996. Since then universal design has replaced accessibility for people with disabilities in national policies, laws, regulations, standards, projects and everyday language.
“Accessibility” characterises solutions made more exclusively for people with disabilities. Few countries have made extensive use of the concept of universal design with challenges from lawmakers, architects, economists, user organizations, and entrepreneurs.
This paper reflects on more than 20 years of extensive use of the concept of universal design. It asks the question: Is universal design an academic invention with little extra positive impact compared to accessibility for people with disability? Or does the concept defend its supposed role as a step towards a society with equal opportunities for all?
Legal documents favour visible disabilities
Previous papers have highlighted successes and where there is room for improvement. A 2024 Norwegian study looks at universal design through a legislative lens and finds legal documents favour visible disabilities.
In more recent years, people with invisible disabilities have raised their voices in the disability rights movement. However, their voices are yet to be incorporated into legislative documents.
Historically, people with mobility and vision impairments led the way in disability rights. Consequently, legilsation was formed with their needs in mind.
The Norwegian researchers wanted to find out if there is a “disability prestige” at play. This is where some disabilities count more than others. Or is it something as basic as just having your disability visible to others? The researchers concluded that visibility was more important to explain discrimination between groups.
The context of the study was transport. They discuss the wording of documents and how terms such as “reduced mobility” are interpreted. It can mean a person with a physical and/or a cognitive impairment. In legislation, it is most often linked to bodily movement.
Prestige versus visibility
Mobility impairments are mentioned more frequently than other disabilities in Norwegian documents. Vision impairments, also frequently mentioned, come in second. The conclusion is that discrimination between disability types is mostly explained by the visibility of a disability.
Why does this matter? When provision for other disabilities and long term health conditions are absent in legal documents, businesses and services don’t consider them.
In the age of climate change Australians are reassessing the risk of floods, fires and severe storms on their homes. But what about assessing the risk of capabilities in later age in home design? Perhaps they should be assessing both. Any proposed renovations should consider both climate and later age to ensure a safe and secure home into the future.
Geoff Penrose makes the point very well in the April 2025 edition of the Lifemark Universal Design Newsletter. Lifemark promotes universal design principles for homes with a focus on health and wellbeing for all occupants. Their design standards provide the necessary information for that 100% probability factor – later age.
“Universal design helps everyone feel at home.”
“A Lifemark® rated home is easy to live in for anyone at any stage and can be life-changing for people living with an impairment, age-related illness or injury.”
The Lifemark standards reflect those in the Australian National Construction Code’s Livable Housing Design Standard. That’s because they are underpinned by a universal design approach. Unfortunately, while the National Construction Code is supposed to be national, not all states have adopted it. That means, many new homes will still have steps to the entry and be unsuited to an ageing population.
In a LinkedIn post, David Chandler wrote about the reaction of powerful voices to the NSW Building Reforms. He said that the development industry “predictably recoils” whenever a new regulation that raises building standards is presented. This is one of the reasons the housing industry has fought the Livable Housing Standard. It would require the building certifier to pay closer attention to the design and construction.
Get it right first time
Chandler goes on to say that rather than costing more, it pays to get it right first time and to resist cutting corners. This is exactly what universal design advocates have been saying for years. Get it right first time – it’s cost effective. Chandler, the former NSW Building Commissioner, addresses this topic in a Radio National broadcast.
People with low vision cannot correct their eyesight with glasses, contact lenses, medication or surgery. While low vison can begin at any age, the likelihood increases once people reach 65 years. The Australian Institute of Architects has a web resource about designing for low vision.
The resource explains the different types of low vision caused by various conditions such as cataracts, macular degeneration, and glaucoma. Other conditions can be caused by a stroke or diabetes. Total blindness with absolutely no detection of light is rare. Pictures highlight the differences between the conditions.
Images by Francesca Davenport with graphics by Ria Davenport from the Australian Institute of Architects.
Design compliance for low vision
Sometimes photographs show visual complexities in the environment more clearly. The image below shows how the shadow of tree branches affects the visual design of the footpath.
The Australian Disability Discrimination Act mirrors part of the National Construction Code and Australian Standards requirements. But these regulations are not a guarantee against a discrimination claim.
The resource lists all the Australian Standards that apply to designs, including luminance contrast.
Luminance contrast
Luminance contrast means the comparison between light reflected from one surface with the adjoining surface. Text is a good example. Light grey text against a white background will likely be invisible to someone with low vision. However, measuring luminance contrast is complex. This is due to different light conditions between day and night and even sunny or rainy days outside. The type of materials used is another factor plus wear and tear.
Glass doors that are not automatic or large glazed windows are often a concern because they are not easily detected – even by people with good vision. Full length windows can also be mistaken for a doorway or opening. This is why contrasting strips across doors and windows are essential for everyone – a universal feature. The building code and standards provide guidance.
Images from the article by Penny Galbraith
Tactile ground surface indicators (TGSI)
This is one area that people with low vision complain about all the time. Mostly because of the inconsistent and non-compliant application across the built environment. TGSIs warn people with low vision they are approaching a hazard.
TGSIs also require luminance contrast with the adjacent feature such as the footpath or stairway.
The article also discusses lighting, handrails, stair risers, shorelining and layout, as well as signage and Braille.
Best practice design solutions
Best practice does not have to mean more cost if it is considered at the outset of the design. However, these features are too often left until last when the overall design cannot be changed. The resource covers layout, finishes, fixtures and fittings and provided additional advise on elements such as luminance contrast, lighting and glare.
Visual clarity and confusion
The effect of highly patterned surfaces are difficult for people with low vision, and for people with sensory processing difficulties.
Confusion occurs when surfaces with a high luminance contrast are interpreted as barriers or a step. Some patterns can look like holes in the floor, and shiny surface can look wet or slippery. This image looks like you are stepping on cubes.
Continuous footways and bus stop bypasses are of particular concern to people with reduced mobility and vision. Living Streets and Transport for All in the UK ran a two year project on the issues. The research uncovered the issues and found ways to improve the impact of these features on streetscape accessibility. Streets for people with disability means safer and better streets for all pedestrians.
The first stage of the project involved interviewing representatives from organisations representing disability and cycling.
Image from NSW Government Movement and Place website. It shows a continuous footpath.
Bus stop bypasses (or floating bus stops) involve a cycle track being placed between a footpath and an island with a bus stop. Bus passengers must cross the cycle track to access the bus stop. Continuous footways are described as an uninterrupted footway that extends across a side road. Usually the footway is raised to the same level as the footpath.
Continuous footways may be unsafe for people who are blind or partially sighted due to the lack of tactile paving. They may also be at risk when crossing cycle tracks to reach a bus stop as they don’t always hear cyclists coming. The noise of busy roads also makes the sound difficult to detect.
People with mobility issues need more time to cross the cycle track. This can put them at risk if cyclists do not allow them to pass. Also, wheelchair users have to navigate narrow islands to get on and off a bus.
Not safe? Find another route
People who are blind or have low vision usually get the expertise of a mobility trainer to help them navigate their local environment. Mobility trainers find different ways to ensure their clients are as safe as possible. Interestingly, all mobility trainers in the study teach their clients to indent into side roads because it gives them more time and a quieter space to hear what is coming.
Mobility trainers considered cycle tracks at bus stop bypasses generally risky and potentially they would teach a different route with a controlled crossing.
Potential solutions?
The study involved site visits with observations by people with disability. The key issues were raised in the discussions following the site visits. For the bus stops, descriptive markings for pedestrians to look both ways on two-way cycle paths would make them safer. Bus stop islands need more circulation space for wheelchairs and mobility scooters.
General lighting at bus stop bypasses should be improved, and that lighting should be used to indicate the presence of zebra crossings. Further solutions included adding rumble strips on cycle lanes, introducing speed bumps to slow down cyclists, and signage to indicate the presence of a cycle path.
For continuous footways, there should be steep ramps at continuous footways to ensure that cars slow down for pedestrians. It was also mentioned that there should be tactile paving at continuous footways to inform blind and partially sighted people of the potential presence of cars.
High contrast paving to alert people who have low vision was another suggestion. Also, implementing road markings to alert drivers to slow down, and improving the condition of pavements.
Would the solutions work?
While some solutions were feasible, they might not have the desired effect, or might have an adverse effect. For example, high contrast between the footpath and the continuous footway is feasible, but might lead to people driving over it as though they have priority. Other solutions will depend on maintenance, such as painted ground markings which have a maintenance cost. Indeed, this is a complex space to work in, and each design is context specific.
The main Living Streets webpageon inclusive design provides an overview of the whole project which was divided into two parts: bus stops and footways.
Is it harder for older people to create and track passwords than younger people? Maybe not. But there could be a difference in the way the two groups deal with the issues. A research study comparing a group of older people with a group of younger people provided surprising results. Older people had no problem creating and remembering passwords because they devised their own memory strategies.
The most reported concerns were the same for both age groups. They were remembering passwords, the security of passwords and systems, making strong passwords, and requirements being too complex. Older people were more concerned about being locked out of their accounts due to forgetting the password.
Some of the simple strategies for password creation by younger people resulted in less secure passwords. But older people had more difficulty in creating strong passwords.
Length and strength
The first surprising result was that on password length, older participants reported having little difficulty with this aspect of password creation, while young participants had considerable difficulty. However, on a follow-up opened ended question, many more older people elaborated on their difficulties, which included the use of special symbols and difficult making strong passwords.
On the other hand, young participants most often expressed difficulty in re-using previous passwords. These findings are generally in line with results from others that older people were using familiar words and phrases for passwords. Perhaps this avoided the complexity of combinations of characters, numbers and symbols.
Many online services require a secure account, usually password protected. Creating and tracking these accounts and passwords is difficult for everyone. This is a vitally important issue as online accounts now give access to many healthcare, financial and support services.
This study used an online questionnaire to investigate the behaviours, problems, and strategies for creating and using password-protected online accounts with a sample of 75 older UK participants (aged 65 to 89). They were compared with a similar sample of young UK participants (aged 18 to 30).
The results were surprising with unexpected differences between the groups, but many similarities. For example, older participants had no difficulties creating passwords of the right length, whereas young participants had difficulties in that task.
Older participants had many more complex strategies for creating and remembering passwords. Young participants relied more on re-using old passwords with small changes which then probably caused difficulties remembering them. These results suggest we need to rethink the approach to better supporting older people in password creation and use, taking a more universal design approach, supporting all users with a range of options.
Most research on all types of transportation focuses on urban areas. Rural communities often receive less attention but their needs are the same. However, urban solutions are not always the answer. For people with disability, especially those who don’t drive, the issues are magnified. A study in Nova Scotia used the Photovoice method to look at active transport in a rural community.
Photovoice is a method of gathering data using pictures and words. It facilitates reflection and community-based discussion. It enables people with disability to explain their diverse needs to policy makers. Image of Queen Street, Bridgetown, courtesy PNI Atlantic News
Twelve people with different disabilities were recruited in a rural community in Nova Scotia. A camera was given to each participant to photograph whatever they chose. Participants also provided statements to go with each photograph as a way to share their experiences and perspectives.
The article explains the method of recruitment and the way participants were supported through the process. The authors include some of the informative photos with captions provided by participants. They are grouped by theme: Accessibility of the built environment, Feelings of safety, Wayfinding, Community spaces, and Beautification. Of course these themes are not mutually exclusive.
Footpaths are an issue for all
As with many previous studies, uneven and cracked footpaths rated highly as a barrier to accessibility for people with physical and intellectual disabilities. Poorly maintained footpaths also compromised feelings of safety. Sandwich boards on footpaths were unpopular too. Also, one bad experience impacts one’s feelings and can restrict future activities.
Individuals with disabilities residing in rural regions face greater barriers to accessibility causing reduced access to essential services, transportation, and spaces. This study employed a qualitative, guided photovoice approach with 12 people to understand the perceived barriers and facilitators to active transport.
Five themes emerged through 144 photographs and related comments. They were: 1. Accessibility and Usability of the Built Environment 2. Feelings of Safety, 3. Wayfinding, 4. Inclusive Community Spaces, and 5. Beautification. The findings reinforced the need to include the voice of people with disability in designs.
