Akullian 2011; Haring, 1987). For example, individuals with autism were not able to generalize purchasing skills to three different community stores after learning the skills in a single store. However, the individuals were able to generalize the skills after watching a video of the skills being performed in all three stores. This proved far more cost effective than providing the transportation and staff to teach each skill at all of the different types of settings an individual could encounter (Haring et al., 1987). Likewise, a building with prototypical settings may not be beneficial enough to justify the costs.
Conclusion There are considerable costs and/or risks associated with both the sensory-sensitive architectural design approach and “neuro-typical” architectural design approach. Without studies comparing the life outcomes of students attending these different types of schools to each other and to a control, the benefits will remain highly conjectural. The “neuro-typical” approach does not appear any less viable than the sensory sensitive approach, but due to flaws in the sensory research, financial costs, and plausibility concerns, neither approach currently appears to be an evidence based intervention or conducive to large-scale implementation.
Perhaps parts of each
approach could be implemented on a small scale and then monitored for effectiveness. Perhaps the more conservative approach favors using the teachers and staff as the design default. This would result in autism schools that follow the best building practices of mainstream schools. Designing schools according to the current mainstream best practice standards requires neither extra funding than what would be Design for All Institute of India, Special Issue, December 2015, Vol. 10, No. 13
61