Reframing Anthropometry and Ergonomics Beyond the Normative Body

An Active Learning Study in Interior Architecture Education

Forfattere

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.6430

Emneord (Nøkkelord):

interior architecture, design education, Human Factors and Ergonomics

Sammendrag

Within interior architecture education, anthropometry and ergonomics constitute foundational domains of knowledge for understanding the relationship between users and designed environments. Their pedagogical application often positions the user as a body to be measured, proportioned, and accommodated within space. This study recasts that initial framing by asking how these domains can be taught beyond the normative body and how they may support a relational understanding of user, action, object, and space. The study was conducted as part of an undergraduate course, Ergonomics in Interior Architecture, at Özyeğin University during the Fall 2024–2025 semester; through an active learning exercise structured around role-playing, a case study, and a poster session. The study was conducted in the Ergonomics in Interior Architecture course at Özyeğin University during the Fall 2024–2025 semester through an active learning exercise structured around role-playing, a case study, and a poster session. Students created fictional users with non-normative bodies, mapped their daily routines, and developed spatial and furniture proposals responsive to their abilities, limitations, and needs. The research material comprised the project posters and written reflections of 10 students who completed all stages of the exercise. The data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The findings indicate that the students moved beyond the procedural application of anthropometric and ergonomic standards, interpreting bodily difference as a generator of design reasoning. The study suggests that by centering a non-normative user in a design problem, anthropometry and ergonomics can move beyond their conventional role as instruments of fit and become pedagogical means through which students learn to understand interior space as a relational field.

Forfatterbiografier

Selin Üst, Özyeğin University

Associate Professor (PhD)
Faculty of Architecture and Design
Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design 

Hande Karabulut, Özyeğin University

Research Assistant (MSc.)
Faculty of Architecture and Design
Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design

Referanser

Attaianese, E. (2017). Ergonomics of built environment: How environmental design can improve human performance and well-being in a framework of sustainability. Ergonomics International Journal, 1(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.23880/EOIJ-16000S

Attaianese, E., & Duca, G. (2012). Human factors and ergonomic principles in building design for life and work activities: An applied methodology. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 13(2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2010.504286

Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180105

Biswas, S. (2022). Teaching ergonomics in the online studio. Journal of Design Studio, 4(2), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1183490

Biswas, S., Kundu, G., & Imam, C. A. (2021). Learning human factors/ergonomics (HFE) in architectural education: A study of studio approach in Bangladesh. Creative Space, 9(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.15415/cs.2021.91003

Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC higher education reports. ERIC.

Costa, A. P. L., Campos, F., & Villarouco, V. (2012). Overview of ergonomics built environment. Work, 41(Supplement 1), 4142–4148. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0710-4142

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.

Deshpande, A. (2023). Beyond user-centered design: Moving forward with responsible practice in and outside the classroom. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of the European Academy of Design (pp. 545–559). Blucher Design Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.5151/ead2023-3SON_Paper_11Aastha-Deshpande

Dewey, J. (1938). Education and experience. Simon and Schuster.

Dianat, I., Molenbroek, J., & Castellucci, H. (2018). A review of the methodology and applications of anthropometry in ergonomics and product design. Ergonomics, 61, 1696–1720. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2018.1502817

Dreyfuss, H. (1959). Designing for people. Design, 61(2), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00119253.1959.10744005

Eilouti, B. (2023). A framework for integrating ergonomics into architectural design. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 31(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1064804620983672

Enomoto, K., Warner, R., & Nygaard, C. (Eds.). (2022). Active learning in higher education: Student engagement and deeper learning outcomes. Libri Publishing.

Flynn, W. J., & Vredevoogd, J. (2010). The future of learning: 12 views on emerging trends in higher education. Planning for Higher Education, 38(2), 5.

Hernández-de-Menéndez, M., Vallejo Guevara, A., Tudón Martínez, J. C., Hernández Alcántara, D., & Morales-Menendez, R. (2019). Active learning in engineering education. A review of fundamentals, best practices and experiences. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 13(3), 909–922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00557-8

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. (n.d.). About HFES. https://www.hfes.org/

International Ergonomics Association. (2000). Definition of ergonomics (human factors). https://iea.cc/

Lupton, E., Carpentier, T., & Lambert, T. (2014). Beautiful users: Designing for people. Chronicle Books.

McDonagh-Philp, D., & Lebbon, C. (2000). The emotional domain in product design. The Design Journal, 3(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.2752/146069200789393562

Neufert, E. (1970). Architects’ data. Crosby Lockwood Staples.

Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday things. Doubleday.

Olguntürk, N., & Demirkan, H. (2009). Ergonomics and universal design in interior architecture education. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 26(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.4305/METU.JFA.2009.2.7

Panero, J., & Zelnik, M. (1979). Human dimension and interior space: A source book of design reference standards. Watson-Guptill.

Pheasant, S. (1991). Ergonomics, work and health. Red Globe Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21671-0

Pheasant, S., & Haslegrave, C. M. (2018). Bodyspace: Anthropometry, ergonomics and the design of work. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315375212

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education. 93(3), 223-231.

Safin, S., Pintus, P., & Elsen, C. (2020). Ergonomics in design and design in ergonomics: Issues and experience in education. Work, 66(4), 917–931. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-203237

Scott-Webber, L. (2012). Institutions, educators, and designers: Wake up!: Current teaching and learning places along with teaching strategies are obsolete-teaching styles and learning spaces must change for 21st-century needs. Planning for Higher Education, 41(1), 265.

Sgambi, L., Kubiak, L., Basso, N., & Garavaglia, E. (2019). Active learning for the promotion of students’ creativity and critical thinking: An experience in structural courses for architecture. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 13(2), 386–407. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-11-2018-0018

Silberman, M. (1996). Active learning: 101 strategies to teach any subject. Prentice Hall.

Sulaiman, M., Kosman, K., & Jaafar, N. (2016). An assessment of students’ understanding on anthropometry and ergonomic in shelter design execution. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 11, 40–52.

Conceptual diagram showing how three areas of design knowledge and practice inform five analytical categories used to examine the student projects.

Nedlastinger

Publisert

2026-10-28

Hvordan referere

Üst, S., & Karabulut, H. . (2026). Reframing Anthropometry and Ergonomics Beyond the Normative Body: An Active Learning Study in Interior Architecture Education. FormAkademisk, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.6430

Cited by