Teaching Accessible Space in Architectural Education: Comparison of the Effectiveness of Simulated Disability Training and Expert-Led Methods

Abstract

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.

1. Introduction

The adaptation of spaces to meet the needs of people with disabilities has become a focal point in architectural and interior design education, particularly as societies increasingly recognize the importance of inclusivity (Liebermann, 2019; Soyupak, 2021). Academic programs in these fields aim to equip future professionals with the necessary ergonomic knowledge to design accessible environments (Watchorn et al., 2013). However, beyond technical expertise, there is a growing emphasis on fostering empathy among designers—a quality that is essential for creating spaces that genuinely accommodate the diverse needs of users, especially those with disabilities (Hitch et al., 2016). One of the most popular teaching methods is simulated disability training. This approach not only educates students about the physical and spatial challenges faced by people with disabilities but also immerses them in experiences that evoke some emotional understanding (Burgstahler & Doe, 2004). Such training aligns with the belief that design decisions should be driven not only by legal requirements but also by a sincere commitment to accessibility (Medola et al., 2018). Simulated disability training allows students to experience firsthand the difficulties encountered by individuals with disabilities. By temporarily stepping into the shoes of a person with a physical limitation, students can gain insights that are difficult to obtain through traditional lectures or readings alone and confront the real-world challenges that come with navigating spaces that are not adequately designed for accessibility. When designers can connect with the experiences of individuals with disabilities, they are more likely to create solutions that address the specific needs of these users (Altay & Demirkan, 2013). This personal experience helps ensure that the design process is not just a technical exercise, but a thoughtful and compassionate endeavor aimed at improving the quality of life for all users (Leo & Goodwin, 2014).

One of the advantages of simulated disability training is its ability to promote active learning. Unlike passive forms of education, simulations require students to engage directly with the task (Herbert, 2000). This active participation helps reinforce learning, as students are not merely absorbing information but also applying it in real-time scenarios (McIntosh et al., 2020). Furthermore, simulations provide an opportunity for students to explore their values and attitudes toward disability, facilitating a deeper understanding of the social and ethical implications of their design choices (Lucchini et al., 2023). Research has shown that experiences that evoke strong emotions are more likely to be remembered in the context of design education, which means that the lessons learned during simulations are likely to have a lasting effect on students. The emotional engagement triggered by these exercises helps reinforce the retention of critical information, such as spatial dimensions, accessibility requirements, and ergonomic considerations. Moreover, the emotional experience of simulated disability often motivates students to pursue further learning.

The effectiveness of simulated disability training in changing attitudes toward disability has been well documented in the literature (Ma & Mak, 2022; Mulligan et al., 2018; Lean et al., 2006). Studies have shown that participants who undergo such training often exhibit more positive attitudes toward individuals with disabilities, with these changes persisting over time. For instance, research conducted by Grayson and Marini (1996) demonstrated that simulated disability training could lead to stable, long-term improvements in attitudes toward disability. This capacity to effect lasting change is particularly important in the context of design education, where students’ attitudes can significantly influence their professional practices. By cultivating a mindset that values accessibility and inclusivity, simulated disability training helps prepare students to become designers who are not only skilled but also socially responsible. The advantages of simulated disability training are not limited to adult learners. Studies have shown that this method is effective across different age groups, including children and teenagers. For example, research by Reina et al. (2011) found that awareness interventions involving simulated disability could positively influence children’s attitudes toward peers with visual impairments. The study also indicated that longer exposure to the simulation experience resulted in better sensitization outcomes.

Critical voices emerged in the scientific debate, arguing that training through simulated disability may not be effective. One such perspective is presented in Sally French’s article, “Simulation Exercises in Disability Awareness Training: A Critique” published in Disability, Handicap & Society (French, 1992). In this work, French argues that rather than using simulations to foster understanding of the disability experience, a more effective approach would be disability equality training led by experts or persons with disabilities themselves. This skepticism toward simulations is even more pronounced among disability activists and bloggers, who often express stronger opposition to the method. Disability activists argue that simulations promote harmful stereotypes and deepen fear and pity, for example, Nario-Redmond et al. (2017). They highlight concerns that the experience of simulation generates negative emotional impressions in participants, such as feelings of helplessness, fear, and confusion. As a result, it may evoke pity. Activists primarily focus on the issue of the image of people with disabilities. They emphasize that while simulations can raise awareness of others’ experiences, they do not address the root of discrimination. Instead, it is more likely to evoke empathy or pity rather than genuine acceptance as in Riccobono (2017) and Silverman (2015). The proposal from activists in this regard is alternative techniques: direct education along with the opportunity to meet competent disabled role models, which is an effective way to promote accurate understanding and positive attitudes. In the academic community, negative voices, though present, are more balanced, relying on the argument that short exercises do not reflect the long-term experience; simulation focuses on the initial difficulties rather than on the process and possibilities of effective adaptation. Researchers note the emotional impression that experiments leave on participants, but they express hope that direct instruction can be an effective way to promote accurate understanding and positive attitudes. The less critical response from university academics toward the simulation method probably stems from its effectiveness in imparting mandatory substantive information. In the article “Simulations and games. Use and barriers in higher education”, Moizer et al. (2009) unequivocally affirm the effectiveness of simulation-based learning.

However, despite the extensive research on the benefits and limitations of simulated disability training (SDT), there remains a significant gap in understanding the long-term retention of knowledge and the depth of empathetic responses it fosters compared to alternative educational methods, such as expert-led instruction. Existing studies primarily focus on short-term changes in attitudes or immediate emotional responses, often overlooking how these teaching methods impact the practical design skills of architecture students over time. Moreover, few studies directly compare the effectiveness of SDT with expert-led workshops in the context of architectural education, where the balance between technical knowledge and empathetic understanding is crucial. This study aims to address this gap by empirically evaluating the impact of simulated disability training versus expert-led instruction on students’ long-term knowledge retention regarding accessibility and their sensitivity to the needs of individuals with disabilities. By conducting this comparison within an academic setting, the research seeks to provide insights into the most effective strategies for fostering both technical competence and social responsibility among future architects and interior designers.

In light of this ongoing debate (Kiger, 1992; Medola et al., 2018), the authors of this article conducted a study to empirically evaluate the effectiveness of simulated disability training compared to expert-led training methods. The study focused on two primary outcomes: (1) the retention of information by students regarding accessibility, and (2) their sensitivity to the needs of people with disabilities. Participants in the study were young individuals without physical disabilities. The research was carried out within the context of an academic course, “Ergonomics and Designing Spaces for Elderly and Disabled Persons”, at the Faculty of Architecture, Poznan University of Technology. The results, as presented below, highlight the impact of simulated disability and expert-led instruction on students’ learning outcomes related to the ergonomics of spaces disabled individuals. The one-semester course, “Ergonomics and Designing Spaces for Elderly and Disabled Persons”, included both theoretical lectures and practical design classes. The course incorporated an experimental component where students were divided into two groups to compare different training methods. Half of the students (Group A) participated in sensitization training through simulated disability. This approach used personal experience and the identification of real difficulties in the surrounding environment as the foundation for the learning process. Students engaged in a series of structured tasks designed to simulate disabilities, such as navigating spaces, overcoming obstacles, using toilets, and interacting with furniture. Observations were systematically recorded using a checklist provided by the authors, which served as a learning tool. This hands-on experience, followed by discussions of the results, helped reinforce the understanding of spatial elements, the necessary requirements for accessibility, and specific measurements such as distances, dimensions, and sizes crucial for adapting spaces for people with disabilities. The other half of the students (Group B) participated in a workshop led by an expert with specialized knowledge in accessible design and experience of temporary disability. This session also emphasized self-learning and included practical elements such as taking building measurements and conducting surveys followed by discussion.

2. Methods

Given this background, the main goal of this study was to confirm the effectiveness of the two educational approaches. Specifically, it aimed to evaluate (1) the retention of information by students regarding accessibility, and (2) their sensitivity to the needs of people with disabilities. This study’s exploratory nature led to the decision to utilize qualitative data collection methods. The research focused on adults with physical and visual disabilities, without addressing specific age groups such as children, teenagers, or the elderly. The participants were university students aged 21–25, without physical or cognitive impairments. This demographic was chosen to ensure consistency in evaluating general accessibility needs in public spaces, particularly in academic environments. To achieve this, this study compared the results of knowledge tests on ergonomics between two groups of students:

• Group A, besides participating in theoretical lectures and design tasks, underwent simulated disability training;
• Group B, besides participating in theoretical lectures and design tasks, participated in expert-led workshops.

Both groups were assessed through a final academic test conducted three months after their respective experiences. This test aimed to evaluate the students’ retention of knowledge in the context of long-term memory. Additionally, Group A completed a survey designed to capture their personal opinions about the simulated disability experience. The survey consisted of 11 closed-ended questions and 1 open-ended question, which probed participants on their feelings during the simulated disability experience and its implications for them both personally and professionally. The research scheme diagram has been presented in Figure 1.

The survey and study followed the ethical research guidelines established by [blinded]. The research sample included 68 individuals, all of whom were female students aged between 21 and 25 years. The group size was determined by the educational standards of the university. The inclusion of only female participants was not an intentional selection based on research design but rather a result of the existing student composition in the course, which at the time of the study was attended exclusively by female students. This demographic reflects the typical gender distribution within certain fields of architectural education, particularly in interior design programs, where female enrollment rates are often higher. Despite the single-gender sample, the study focused on evaluating cognitive outcomes and empathetic responses, which are not inherently gender-specific, thus maintaining the relevance and validity of the research findings. In Group A, the number of participants was limited to 38 due to safety considerations for conducting simulation-based classes, where two instructors supervised the participants, with half of them conducting the simulation simultaneously.

Data collection took place in 2023 and 2024.

This study was divided into the following phases:

• Phase 1: Organization and commencement of the Ergonomics and Designing Spaces for Elderly and Disabled Persons course, including interior design project and theoretical lectures conducted with an ex cathedra modality for two student groups: Group A and Group B;
• Phase 2: Conducting a simulated disability training session in student Group A following the checkup list and concluding with a personal opinion survey. Concluding expert-led workshop in Group B;
• Phase 3: Completion of an interior design project and theoretical lectures conducted with an ex cathedra modality for two student groups: Group A and Group B;
• Phase 4: Conducting an ergonomics knowledge test three months after the course ended in both student Group A and student Group B;
• Phase 5: Comparing the results of the ergonomics knowledge test between student Groups A and B to demonstrate whether sensitization training impacts long-term, three-month-scale learning outcomes.

In Phase 1, all students participating in this study were given a work assignment, which involved completing a residential interior design project. Throughout this phase, students attended regular lectures on universal design. The course spanned one semester, with a total of 60 h divided into 45 h of project work and 15 h of lectures. These lectures were designed to provide foundational knowledge in universal design principles and accessibility standards, preparing students for their practical assignments and subsequent experiential learning activities. In Phase 2, Group A participated in simulated disability training at the Poznań University of Technology Campus. This training was designed to comply with ergonomic and dimensional regulations, as outlined in the Law of 19 July 2019, on Ensuring Accessibility for Persons with Special Needs, Journal of Laws of 2020, item 1062, as amended (Law, 2019). The research focused on public spaces, specifically the campus of the Poznań University of Technology, as it provided an accessible and controlled environment for conducting the study. Public spaces are governed by clear legal regulations and accessibility standards, offering a structured framework for evaluating compliance and identifying existing barriers. Moreover, the campus setting enabled the inclusion of various functional areas—such as lecture halls, hallways, restrooms, and transportation routes—providing a comprehensive perspective on accessibility challenges. This choice ensured that the study was grounded in real-world conditions while maintaining logistical feasibility for the training sessions. The training was conducted as a workshop, where 38 students were divided into teams of two. Each team took turns experiencing various disabilities that limit mobility. The scenarios included the following:

• Persons moving in a manual wheelchair: Students were required to navigate spaces using a manual wheelchair, simulating the challenges faced by individuals with mobility impairments;
• Persons moving with the help of a crutch: Students experienced moving through different environments while using a crutch, highlighting the difficulties and limitations in mobility for those who require such assistance;
• Blindfolded persons (with blindfolded eyes) moving with the help of a white cane: This scenario involved students being blindfolded and navigating spaces using a white cane, simulating the experience of individuals with visual impairments.

As demonstrated in Figure 2, each person simulating a disability was accompanied by an able-bodied assistant to ensure their safety.

The students participating in this study had training in universal design, ergonomics, and architectural composition. The workshops were preceded by lectures on universal design and relevant legal regulations in this area. A tool in the form of a checkup list was employed to support the assessment of accessibility levels, consisting of 156 closed-ended questions using the Likert scale and 156 open-ended questions. Participants who moved using equipment for disabled persons were tasked with traversing sections of the designated route. The research concluded with a discussion with the participants about assessing opportunities for improving the accessibility of spaces. The route was divided into paths A-B, B, B-D, C, and D, which encompassed campus transportation sections, lecture hall toilets, and hallway spaces. After completing each subsequent section, participants answered a series of questions prepared with a checkup list. Participants evaluated the level of adaptation for the disabled participant as follows: 5 for “very good”, 4 for “good”, 3 for “average”, 2 for “poor”, and 1 for “bad or absent”.

In Phase 2, while Group A participated in simulated disability training, Group B attended an expert-led workshop, which focused on accessibility and universal design. The workshop was conducted by an expert with both personal and professional experience with disabilities. The expert, a designer with 10 years of specialization in accessibility and universal design, also had temporary mobility impairments, which provided a unique perspective and additional insights. The workshop was designed to be highly practical and was conducted using life-based examples, allowing students to understand the real-world application of accessibility principles. The workshop aimed to equip students with the knowledge and skills necessary to consider and implement accessibility features effectively in their future design projects. The results and the development of conclusions influenced design decisions in Phase 3, namely, the completion of an interior design project involving both Group A and Group B.

The discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the analyzed space in Group A, which took place after the workshops, identified directions for design improvements that students could apply to their projects. Students’ conclusions of the study had an applicative character, for example, not using slippery finishing materials on flat surfaces, both outside and inside the building, or uneven and often blinding lighting. Criticism addressed the visual identification of the space. A lack of clear information about directions of movement or room functions was emphasized in the results of open-ended questions, as respondents rightly noted that minimizing errors and thus minimizing physical effort is one of the main principles of universal design. The examined lecture hall was found to be improperly adapted for wheelchair users, as the entrance to the hall was on a different level than the lecture platform, separated by stairs without markings or handrails. The lavatory received a negative evaluation in terms of esthetics, but besides door collisions with other toilets, it was positively evaluated. Also noted was the haphazard placement of furniture and non-ergonomic solutions for equipment elements (including furniture). Hence, respondents had a negative perception of certain areas of the space. Furniture often acted as barriers, causing tripping hazards and collisions. Chaotically arranged in the lobby, they blocked passages, leading to frustration. In response to these experiences, students paid special attention to furniture solutions in their projects, proposing the following:

• Using a limited amount of furniture but integrating it in a visually seamless way;
• Dominance of fixed, mounted, or permanently placed furniture against walls, reducing visual chaos and layout changes;
• Introducing rounded, fluid shapes and low furniture adapted to wheelchair height;
• Introducing furniture that is easy to transfer to from a wheelchair or furniture elements that can serve as support (e.g., using a bed frame with suitable parameters for easier transfers from a wheelchair);
• Locating storage spaces at a low height, making them easily accessible and within sight;
• Strictly implementing tables and countertops that accommodate the wheelchair user’s knees;
• Introducing systems allowing the use of high-level storage spaces (wardrobe with modern storage systems with lowering rods; storage systems equipped with pantographs).

A separate group consisted of individuals navigating as visually impaired. They noted that a lack of changes in floor texture near walls, stairs, and elevators made tasks more difficult for them. This inspired students to design the following in apartments:

Maneuvering zones integrated into the open functional–spatial layout of the apartment and wide communication pathways, as well as spaces for wheelchair maneuvering.

8.

Elimination of all thresholds, and leveling floors in all rooms;

9.

Introducing flooring finishing materials with a high anti-slip class and varied textures;

10.

Contrasting color schemes to facilitate orientation for individuals with low vision.

Submissions of the interior design projects by student Groups A and B at the end of the semester concluded Phase 3. Three months afterward, in Phase 4, the test regarding ergonomics knowledge was performed. The test was completed in both Groups A and B. It was composed of questions regarding technical regulations, design theory, and capabilities to sense the dimensions and scale of space, for example, about the correct maneuvering space used for mobility with a wheelchair, the universal height of a light switch from the ground, the minimum universal width of a toilet door, or what the term “universal design” means in the context of architecture. A comparison of test results between the students in Groups A and B was conducted in Phase 5.

3. Results

The results were divided into two areas of interest: the results of the academic test for Groups A and B and the results of the survey, which was conducted for Group A exclusively. The first part was conducted for Group A, which contained 38 people, and Group B, containing 30 people, under equal conditions and time.

The primary focus of the study was the academic test, as it provided standardized and objective data to evaluate the effectiveness of the two teaching methods. This allowed for a direct comparison of knowledge retention and understanding of accessibility principles between both groups. The survey, conducted only in Group A, served as a supplementary tool to explore participants’ subjective experiences during the simulated disability training. While it offered valuable qualitative insights into emotional engagement and perceived challenges, the academic test remains the main source of data for assessing the study’s core objectives. The first results showed that students subjected to sensitization training through simulated disability retained 15% more information than those who participated in expert-led training. Group A after simulated disability training performed better in terms of academic results 3 months after the completion of the course, as presented in Figure 3. The long-term effect of the training has been confirmed.

The test questions were divided into the theory of universal design, ergonomic properties of space designed for the elderly and disabled persons, and space measurements required by legislation. Students’ responses to questions on ergonomics and theoretical issues on universal design yielded similarly high results in both groups. Differences between the groups emerged in questions on space measurements required by the legislation, for example, the height of light switches or door widths. In this topic, Group A performed better than their peers. The analysis of incorrect responses revealed that Group B often miscalculated minimum clearance dimensions and misinterpreted legal accessibility standards, indicating gaps in the practical application of theoretical knowledge. In contrast, Group A demonstrated a stronger ability to apply these standards correctly, suggesting that experiential learning methods significantly enhanced knowledge transfer.

The second part was the results of a survey conducted on Group A (38 people), who experienced simulated disability training. The survey included 10 closed-ended questions regarding this experience (Figure 4 and Figure 5). Its results revealed several insights; for example, despite some students finding the simulated disability experience challenging, the majority acknowledged its value as an integral part of their education in Ergonomics and Designing Spaces for Elderly and Disabled Persons, as well as its significance for their personal development, specifically the following:

• A total of 20% of respondents reported that the experience was challenging in terms of physical effort, indicating the physical demands of navigating spaces with a disability;
• A total of 30% of respondents found the experience to be psychologically difficult, describing it as emotionally uncomfortable. This discomfort likely stemmed from the frustration and limitations they felt while performing daily tasks under simulated disability conditions.

In response to the survey question, “Did you feel a sense of dependence (4) on other people while experiencing simulated disability?”, 95% of the students answered affirmatively. This high percentage suggests that the training effectively highlighted the reliance on others that many people with disabilities may experience in their daily lives. Furthermore, when asked if their perceptions had changed after experiencing simulated disability, 95% of the students stated that they now perceive people with disabilities and their needs differently. This finding indicates a significant shift in students’ awareness and empathy toward individuals with disabilities, suggesting a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by these individuals. Regarding readiness to design accessible spaces after their experience, 66% of the students felt more prepared to design spaces for people with disabilities. This suggests that the simulated disability experience effectively enhanced their confidence and readiness to incorporate accessibility into their future design projects. These findings underscore the importance of experiential learning in fostering empathy and practical understanding among interior design students, which is crucial for designing inclusive and accessible environments.

The results of the closed-ended questions unequivocally confirmed that the experience of simulated disability-supported learning processes helped in remembering and consolidating acquired knowledge. A clear correlation between the questionnaire responses and the academic test results is evident, as Group A, which underwent simulated disability training, achieved significantly higher test scores than Group B. This correlation is particularly reinforced by responses to questions 9 and 10, where 100% of participants indicated that the simulated disability experience directly supported their ability to recall specific information assessed in the academic test. These findings emphasize the impact of experiential learning on strengthening theoretical knowledge. The results for Group A illustrate that this experience was challenging for students in terms of physical effort, posed psychological challenges, and caused emotional discomfort. It can also be inferred that during simulated disability, respondents felt dependent on others.

The survey results for Group A unequivocally indicate that students favored this form of study: they considered it useful both professionally and personally.

In contrast to Group A, Group B did not participate in a survey. This decision was made because the expert-led workshop attended by Group B did not go beyond a standard academic learning experience. The workshop, while informative and based on real-life examples, did not involve the same level of personal or emotional engagement as the simulated disability training.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The discussion surrounding the effectiveness of simulated disability training versus expert-led methods in architectural education is a contentious one (Brown, 2013). In addition to scientific and measurable data, ethical arguments are also being brought to the forefront (Leo & Goodwin, 2013), as in the paper “Pedagogical Reflections on the Use of Disability Simulations in Higher Education”. The authors of this study believe that both perspectives should be considered. It is important to take into account both the academic and activist viewpoints, and methods should likely be applied differently depending on the context. The authors believe that in certain trainee groups and circumstances, the benefits of using simulations may outweigh the potential harm. It is essential to consider the advantages and disadvantages of both methods. By weighing the benefits and potential drawbacks of each approach, we can determine how best to apply them in different contexts.

In order to support the best decision, the authors have proposed a listing of advantages and disadvantages of simulated disability training and the disabled–expert-led method. This listing is based both on observations and comparisons of student groups A and B training and literature case studies (

Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of simulated disability training: listing based on observations and comparisons of student groups A and B training and literature case studies. (Authors).

Simulated Disability Training
Advantages	Disadvantages
1. Practical Learning Experience Simulated disability training provides a practical, hands-on learning experience that goes beyond theoretical knowledge. It allows participants to engage directly with the physical and emotional aspects of living with a disability; 2. Immediate Feedback Participants can receive immediate feedback on their behavior, decisions, and design choices, allowing them to learn quickly and adjust their approach to better accommodate individuals with disabilities; 3. Heightened Awareness of Accessibility Needs This training can help participants identify potential barriers in their environments that they may not have otherwise considered. By recognizing these barriers, they can work to eliminate or reduce them; 4. Team Building and Collaboration Simulated disability training often involves group activities, promoting teamwork and collaboration among participants as they work together to navigate challenges; 5. Increased Empathy and Awareness By experiencing simulated disabilities, participants can develop a deeper understanding and empathy for people with disabilities. This firsthand experience can help them better appreciate the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities in their daily lives.	1. Lack of Authentic Experience While simulations can offer insights into specific physical challenges, they fail to capture the broader, everyday lived experiences of people with disabilities, such as the psychological and social barriers they face. These short-term simulations may oversimplify or misrepresent the complexities of living with a disability; 2. Lack of Disability Representation and Input Simulated exercises, if not guided or co-facilitated by people with disabilities, may lack critical perspectives and insights that only those with lived experience can provide. The absence of this direct input can lead to misunderstandings or oversights in how accessibility and inclusivity are taught; 3. Reinforcing Stereotypes Critics contend that simulated disability training might inadvertently reinforce negative stereotypes about disability. By focusing primarily on the difficulties and limitations experienced during the simulation, students might come away with a perception of disability that is primarily deficit-based—seeing disability only as a series of challenges or problems to be solved, rather than as a valid form of human diversity; 4. Emotional and Ethical Concerns Some argue that simulated disability training can lead to emotional discomfort or distress, which, while intended to build empathy, may not always result in constructive learning outcomes.

). The table combines findings derived directly from the study with insights gathered from the existing literature, providing a broader perspective on the strengths and limitations of each method. This approach allows for a more comprehensive evaluation while maintaining a clear connection to the empirical data collected during the research. Simulated disability training fosters teamwork and empathy, helping participants better understand the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities. However, it may lack authenticity, oversimplifying the complexities of disability and missing critical insights from people with lived experience. Additionally, there is concern that it could reinforce negative stereotypes. The advantages and disadvantages of simulated disability training are presented in Table 1.

On the other hand, including an expert with a disability offers several benefits, such as providing a firsthand, authentic perspective that enhances empathy, breaks stereotypes, and delivers practical solutions grounded in lived experience (Micsinszki et al., 2023). This approach fosters deeper connections and raises awareness of less visible barriers. However, challenges include the risk of a narrow focus on disability-related issues, potential bias perceptions, and the emotional toll on the trainer. There may also be reliance on personal stories, which could overshadow objective data. The advantages and disadvantages of the expert-led method are presented in

Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of disabled–expert-led method: listing based on observations and comparisons of student Groups A and B training and literature case studies. (Authors).

Disabled–Expert-Led Method
Advantages	Disadvantages
1. Firsthand Perspective A trainer with a disability provides personal, lived experiences, offering participants authentic insight into the challenges, barriers, and triumphs faced by people with disabilities. This real-world perspective often resonates more deeply than theoretical knowledge; 2. Limited Scope of Experience: A disabled trainer may offer deep insights based on their own lived experiences, but those experiences will not represent the full diversity of disabilities. A trainer with a mobility impairment will have a different perspective from someone with a sensory or cognitive disability; 3. Empathy and Connection Hearing directly from someone with a disability helps break down stereotypes and misconceptions. It creates a human connection, fostering empathy; 4. Breaking Stereotypes When a disabled person leads the training, it challenges preconceived notions and stereotypes about disability. It helps shift the narrative from seeing disabilities as limitations to recognizing their capabilities and achievements; 5. Practical and Realistic Solutions Trainers with disabilities often provide practical, actionable advice based on their own experiences. They understand firsthand the most effective accommodations and tools, and their advice is grounded in lived reality; 6. Enhanced Authenticity The authenticity of a disabled trainer’s experience adds credibility to the training. Their personal accounts and challenges make the learning process more engaging; 7. Greater Awareness of Hidden Barriers Disabled trainers are often able to highlight less obvious barriers, such as social exclusion or challenges in communication. Their insights can help participants recognize the subtle ways that environments can be disabling and offer solutions that may not have been considered otherwise.	1. Perception of Bias Participants may perceive that a disabled trainer is biased or overly focused on their specific challenges, which could reduce the perceived objectivity of the training; 2. Pressure to Represent the Entire Disabled Community: Disabled trainers might feel pressured to speak on behalf of all people with disabilities, which is an unrealistic expectation; 3. Narrow Focus on Disability Issues: A trainer with a disability might, understandably, focus on disability-related issues, potentially leaving out broader diversity and inclusion topics; 4. Risk of Paternalism Some participants may view the disabled trainer in light of their disability rather than their expertise, treating them as “inspiring” for overcoming challenges. This can shift the focus away from the content of the training itself and turn the trainer into a subject of fascination, diminishing the educational value; 5. Overemphasis on Personal Stories While personal stories are powerful and impactful, too much reliance on them might cause the training to become anecdotal rather than research-based. The audience may need a balance between personal experience and objective data; 6. Physical and Logistical Challenges Depending on the nature of the trainer’s disability, there may be logistical issues in delivering the training, especially if it requires travel, certain accommodations, or a specific setup. These challenges could limit the trainer’s ability to offer in-person training; 7. Potential Discomfort for the Trainer: Sharing personal experiences related to disability can be emotionally taxing for the trainer. The trainer may encounter resistance, uncomfortable questions, or even discriminatory attitudes from participants.

. Similar to the approach used for Table 1, the following table presents a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the disabled expert-led method, drawing from both the study’s findings and relevant literature. This ensures a balanced perspective that combines direct observations from the research with broader insights from academic discourse.

To effectively combine teaching methods for specific purposes, it is crucial to consider the audience for which these methods are intended. The study described above took place in an academic setting, as a lot of other training methods were based on simulations. The research literature primarily focuses on training future experts, such as hospital staff, architects, and designers (Douglas et al., 2019; Rotenberg et al., 2022; Hillebrecht et al., 2023). This kind of training can take place in schools, community centers, and private companies of various types. The concern of disability activists is the creation of an inadequate societal image of persons with a disability, and this concern should be respected (Modell & Mak, 2008; F. Antonak & Livneh, 2000). On the other hand, one cannot ignore the fact that, as stated in the scientific literature in the chapter “Introduction Highlights”, a lot of researchers confirm the effectiveness of simulations. It should not be ignored that the results of the test confirmed that students subjected to sensitization training through simulated disability retained 15% more information than those who were not given this opportunity. Objectively, this is an effective way to teach about accessible space. Research results based on the questionnaire show that students themselves perceive disability simulation as beneficial both professionally and personally. To decide which teaching method will be more beneficial, the authors suggest considering answering key questions: Who are we training? What is our purpose? The authors propose that using simulations is an effective approach for training experts, while an expert-led method could be suitable for educating the general public. While simulated disability training can provide valuable insights into specific physical challenges, it should be carefully designed and supplemented with other educational strategies. Incorporating the voices and experiences of people with disabilities directly into the curriculum can lead to a more nuanced, respectful, and comprehensive understanding of accessibility and universal design in the education of future architects and interior designers.