Abstract
This paper investigates the relative merits of card game making and card game play as a part of teaching Universal Design (UD) theory. The hypothesis was that game approaches could be used to explain and impart the theory of Universal Design in a class room setting. The study involved comparing students´ graphic representations of the design process before and after a lecture and a) UD game making or b) UD game playing activity. Comparison of the graphic representations showed that incidence of design tools (all classes of tool) increased and incidence use of user-centered design tools increased. Game-players were slightly more likely than game-makers to cite more user-orientated design tools. The study also indicated a need for emphasis on justification for the selection and use of tools as the game play/making did not produce significant changes in the understanding of this aspect. The potential implications of gameplay, game design, and game creation in Universal Design education are that game play and game-making can be deployed as pedagogical tools. Game play suits shorter periods while game making suits longer periods and requires tuition on game principles.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/drslxd.2025.036
Citation
Herriott, R.,and Jackson, A.R.(2025) How playing or making card games can support Universal Design teaching, in Clemente, V., Gomes, G., Reis, M., Félix, S., Ala, S., Jones, D. (eds.), Learn X Design 2025, 22-24 September 2025, Aveiro, Portugal. https://doi.org/10.21606/drslxd.2025.036
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Conference Track
Full Paper
How playing or making card games can support Universal Design teaching
This paper investigates the relative merits of card game making and card game play as a part of teaching Universal Design (UD) theory. The hypothesis was that game approaches could be used to explain and impart the theory of Universal Design in a class room setting. The study involved comparing students´ graphic representations of the design process before and after a lecture and a) UD game making or b) UD game playing activity. Comparison of the graphic representations showed that incidence of design tools (all classes of tool) increased and incidence use of user-centered design tools increased. Game-players were slightly more likely than game-makers to cite more user-orientated design tools. The study also indicated a need for emphasis on justification for the selection and use of tools as the game play/making did not produce significant changes in the understanding of this aspect. The potential implications of gameplay, game design, and game creation in Universal Design education are that game play and game-making can be deployed as pedagogical tools. Game play suits shorter periods while game making suits longer periods and requires tuition on game principles.