Abstract
Advances in AI, wearables, exoskeletons, and BCIs are driving human augmentation (HA) into everyday use, yet education lacks a design-focused definition, a practical positioning language, and awareness of ethics. This study asks: How should HA be defined for design, and how can a critical, inclusive approach be taught and validated? Based on systematic reviews, we propose a three-part toolkit: a Human–Machine–Environment paradigm that redefines objects and boundaries; a map of design possibilities (dimensions, categories, intervention levels); and ethical dimensions spanning the thing, the human, the environment, and society. We validated the toolkit through three 8–11 week speculative workshops (n=45). Four case results indicate improved placement of interventions, routine co-reasoning between values and functions, and shifts in concepts from physical replication towards sensory, cognitive, and social augmentation. Remaining gaps include uneven coverage and the limited scope of augmentation. We offer a transferable pedagogy and governance-by-design pathway for HA.
Keywords
Human Augmentation Design, Design Education, Design Methods, Speculative Design
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2026.1419
Citation
Zhang, K., Zhang, H., Tsang, K., Jiang, Y., Liu, S., and Siu, K. (2026) Educating Inclusive Human Augmentation by Design: A Triadic Definitional Framework and Pedagogical Validation, in Simeone, L., Gray, C. M., Verhoeven, A., de Götzen, A., Bakırlıoğlu, Y., Zohar, H., Stead, M., and Buwert, P. (eds.), DRS2026: Edinburgh, 8–12 June, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2026.1419
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Included in
Educating Inclusive Human Augmentation by Design: A Triadic Definitional Framework and Pedagogical Validation
Advances in AI, wearables, exoskeletons, and BCIs are driving human augmentation (HA) into everyday use, yet education lacks a design-focused definition, a practical positioning language, and awareness of ethics. This study asks: How should HA be defined for design, and how can a critical, inclusive approach be taught and validated? Based on systematic reviews, we propose a three-part toolkit: a Human–Machine–Environment paradigm that redefines objects and boundaries; a map of design possibilities (dimensions, categories, intervention levels); and ethical dimensions spanning the thing, the human, the environment, and society. We validated the toolkit through three 8–11 week speculative workshops (n=45). Four case results indicate improved placement of interventions, routine co-reasoning between values and functions, and shifts in concepts from physical replication towards sensory, cognitive, and social augmentation. Remaining gaps include uneven coverage and the limited scope of augmentation. We offer a transferable pedagogy and governance-by-design pathway for HA.