Following the facilitation of two focus group workshops (10th and 17th November 2025), I hosted individual semi-structured interviews on 24th November 2025. This post examines how students engaged with different pedagogical methods by analysing multiple data sources: audio recordings and transcripts of discussions, students’ written reflections and drawings, facilitator field notes taken during the workshops, and keyword analysis of interview transcripts. Drawing on document analysis methods (Bowen, 2009), I compare student responses across activities to trace shifts in understanding and identify pedagogically significant moments.
Free Writing: Tracing Conceptual Evolution
Comparing students’ free writing between workshops revealed notable shifts. Student 1 moved from highlighting “my personal experience” with no elaboration, to questioning “Is it possible to be fully inclusive for every individual or is it about the majority?” demonstrating emerging critical thinking. Student 2 initially defined inclusive design through compliance (textured pathways, braille), they later identified systemic barriers: “architectural planning is often self-centred on one’s own ideas and experiences or the ‘average’ users.” Student 6 shifted from idealistic statements to practice-oriented critiques, introducing “intersectionality” terminology. Free writing revealed complex thinking from quieter students that was less present in some of the open dialogue during the workshops. Therefore, as a researcher, it was a valuable tool, and I would argue it would continue to be beneficial even if students are not immediately confronted with what it provides.
Self-Reflection: Struggling Toward Connection
The spatial memory exercise proved challenging. Students hesitated, uncertain whether their experiences were “genuinely inclusive or not.” Yet drawings revealed rich spatial thinking: exclusion depicted through narrow spaces, sensory overload, isolation; belonging through connection, vibrancy, safety.
When discussing these reflections with the group, Student 5 reflected on primary school canteens, “everything is just really high or just like kind of out of sight or out of reach”, connecting embodied experience to design consequences. Student 4 described a pier creating safety, “even though it was completely open,” challenging assumptions that “four walls and the bed” define a safe space. This exercise demonstrated students’ capacity to ground abstract concepts in lived experience, though requiring more scaffolding than anticipated.
(Also featured in my final presentation, uploaded in ARP Blog 8)
Video Discussion: Awakening to Injustice
Student responses to Disordinary Architecture case studies revealed intellectual and emotional engagement. Student 1 questioned why inclusive design remains “disordinary”: “It should just be in the design in general.” Student 2 acknowledged: “I really didn’t know even the surface of it… I didn’t realise that inclusive design wasn’t just about the necessities, it’s more about making people feel like they’re being just as thought about.”
Crucially, students articulated emotional responses. Student 4 described education gaps as “devastating… very selfish in a certain way to only think of oneself,” whilst Student 6 found it “sobering almost to realise what we consider architecture… shuts a lot of people out.” Student 5’s observation that wheelchair users “disappear” in tube stations, “everything is kind of behind the scenes”, illustrated how architectural decisions render disabled people invisible.
These affective responses suggest learning exceeded intellectual comprehension, touching questions of justice and professional responsibility (Hooks, 1994).
Debates and Role Play: From Agreement to Interrogation
The two debate formats produced qualitatively different discourse. In the park scenario, students conversed collaboratively, challenging false binaries whilst maintaining a collegial tone. The role play transformed this entirely. Student 6 reflected afterwards on the role-play’s pedagogical impact: “It just forces you to really consider another person’s perspective. You would maybe straight off the bat be like, oh no. But it really makes you think. And I think that’s probably a very necessary thing in our current world… I think a lot of times people don’t want to really try and understand where people are coming from or trying to get into their head. It definitely challenged the way I was thinking about it.” This recognition, that perspective-taking requires deliberate, even uncomfortable effort, captures why role-play proved more transformative than open debate. When Student 4 (Planning Officer) suggested removing affordable workspaces to meet budget constraints, Student 3 (Disabled Resident) challenged the assumption of authority: “But if the design was community-led and the community wants affordable workspaces, why do you think you know better than the community?” This exchange revealed power dynamics in design decision-making, questioning who holds legitimacy to modify community-led proposals.
Most pedagogically significant: students who advocated universal inclusion in debate were required to defend exclusionary positions when assigned specific roles. They later explored this in the group conversation, explaining how they began to understand their character’s reasoning, whilst different to their own. This revelation by the students demonstrated how structural constraints shape perspectives, regardless of individual values, precisely the systems-level thinking that critical pedagogy seeks to develop (Stevens, 2015).
Initial Patterns
Analysing the data suggests that students moved from a compliance-based understanding toward a recognition of inclusive design as ethical, political, and relational. The data also revealed tensions: complexity overwhelmed some students, such as Student 4, who expressed “It’s just a bit overwhelming”, whilst others questioned whether their experiences were valid data sources. Blog 7 will explore these themes through semi-structured interview data, examining students’ own reflections on their learning journey.
focus group participants, and initial indicators from analysis.
References
Bowen, G. A. (2009) ‘Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method’, Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), pp. 27–40.
Hooks, B. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.
Stevens, R. (2015) ‘Role-Play and Student Engagement: Reflections from the Classroom’, Teaching in Higher Education, 20(5), pp. 481–492.