Transcript Finding a Voice: Exploring Alternative Communication for

Different Voices: Exploring
Alternative Communication in
Higher Education
By: Danielle Lucchese
MA in Disability Studies – CUNY SPS
CUNY Accessibility Conference
May 6, 2016
Part 1: A Note on Multiple
Impairments
• Individuals can have multiple diagnoses
i.e. they can have both Cerebral Palsy and Nystagmus
• One diagnosis/condition can have multiple
impairing effects
i.e. Hydrocephalus can affects both speech and body
movement
• It is important to consider multiple impairments
and their disabling affects when talking with
students about accommodations
Voice vs. Speaking
• According to Ashby, there are four “issues” when
debating alternate forms of communication other
than speech (Ashby, 2011):
–
–
–
–
Competence
Hearing silence
Agency and voice
Broadening the concept of voice beyond speech
• Limited research exists about people who use
alternate forms of communication (Ashby, 2011)
Multiple Factors of Communication
Impairments
• Communication impairments can have
multiple factors (Cockerel et al, 2014)
• including the presence of other impairments
(Cockerel et al, 2014)
– Intellectual disabilities
– Hearing impairments
– Motor impairment
– Speech/tone difficulties
– Muscle weakness/coordination along vocal tract
Part 2: In this presentation…
I will explore three alternate
forms of communication:
–Facilitated Communication
(FC)
–Blackboard
–Tablets
Facilitated Communication (FC)
FC is a form of non-verbal communication that uses
movement (i.e. typing, pointing at images), usually
supported, and symbols to communicate needs or wants
to other people (Crossley, 1997, Stubblefield, 2011).
Support usually involves two people:
• A. FC User: person who types with support from
another person, (Crossley, 1997, Stubblefield, 2011).
• B. Facilitator: Person who provides physical support to
the FC user, (Crossley, 1997, Stubblefield, 2011).
FC Continued
• The facilitator assists the FC user by applying
support and/or resistance to the shoulder, elbow,
forearm, hand or wrist so that the FC user can
minimize extraneous movement and hit the key
they want and effectively communicate (Crossley,
1997, Stubblefield, 2011)
• Most FC users have Cerebral Palsy, Autism or
Down syndrome (Crossley, 1997, Stubblefield,
2011)
• Motor difficulties might occur or compound if the
individual is tired or stressed (Ashby, 2011)
FC Case Study: Sarah
(Crossley, 1997)
• Sarah was a graduate student at the University of
Georgia who had Autism and learning disabilities
who uses FC to communicate.
• Over time Sarah went from needing support on
her wrist or arm to someone lightly tapping her
shoulder to keep her focused.
• Eventually Sarah used a buzzing device to help
her keep focused while typing.
• Lastly, she used a screen that helped read,
process and understand words at her own pace.
• Sarah now types independently.
Case Study Continued
• In her first letter to Crossley, Sarah demonstrated the
difference in her writing with and without FC.
• Writing sample without FC:
• “Tis is a peregraf ritin without fc and, I rote it so you
cude dee hpw I spel and rite normily. Wile I was a grejit
studin at the unveresty of jorju a sikitrit asesd mre as
heving otism. My sokirterst here in Toromgto beleeves
I have pdd – this semes verey liilley, bsat on my lerning
and soshel skils and defsetes ares. I hpoe this letter has
bene of imtrest to you and that yoku wil rite to me,”
(Crossley, 1997, 63).
Case Study Continued
• Writing sample with FC:
• “This is a paragraph written without fc and, I
wrote it so you could see how I spell and wite
normally. Wile I was a graduate student at the
University of Georgia, a psychiatrist assessed me
as having autism. My psychiatrist here in Toronto
believes I have PDD – this semes very likely, based
on my learning and social skills and deficit areas. I
hope this letter has been of interest to you and
that you will write to me,” (Crossley, 1997, 63).
Blackboard
• In 1997, Blackboard is launched as a Learning
Management System (LMS) (Kent, 2015.)
• Online education has potential to be inclusive of
disabled people but the platforms that schools utilize
need to provide access to all students (Kent, 2015).
• Few studies have been done to explore the usability
and accessibility of Blackboard (Aturki et al, 2016).
• Currently blackboard is “accessible” and “useable” in
terms of organization, flexible structure and
customization ((Aturki et al, 2016).
• Blackboard and other LMS are constantly trying to
become more accessible (Johnson and Ruppert, 2002).
Blackboard Continued
(Oswal and Meloncon, 2014)
• ! In 10 students in higher education
experience disability on some level.
• Students who experience disability are
present in both in person and online courses
• Thus, it is important to design courses that are
accessible to students who experience
disability
Blackboard Continued
(Oswal and Meloncon, 2014)
• Suggested ways to make Blackboard more
Accessible:
• Preparing professors to accept and embrace
accessibility.
• Design classes with Universal Design (UD) in
mind.
• Use the most accessible LMS available
• Gather a group of individuals who also want
to make Blackboard more Accessible.
My Blackboard Observations
• As a disabled CUNY student, I decided to
see for myself what Blackboard has to
offer in terms of accessibility for
individuals who use alternate forms of
communication.
• The following slides discuss my findings.
Blackboard Accessibility Observation
• Blackboard could be helpful to students who use
alternate forms of communication such as typing
which makes online courses a great alternative to
in person classes.
• However, if the student types to communicate
and has another disability (i.e. visual impairment)
Blackboard is not fully accessible.
• There is not a settings/preferences menu that
allowed student users to customize their
Blackboard (i.e. font size, inverted colors,
captioning).
Blackboard Accessibility Observation
Continued
• Additionally, for students who have both speech
and body movement difficulties, typing answers
into a discussion board can also be difficult.
• There does not appear to be a way to program
typing shortcuts (i.e. typing the user’s initials and
having the computer spell out the full
name/word.
• Additionally, there does not appear to be a
dictation option.
Tablets
•
•
•
•
Two Tablets explored for accessibility
Ipad Air 2
Asus Zenpad
Both tablets had the variety of accessibility
features
• Appears to work well for a variety of disability
experiences
Ipad Air 2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Accessibility options include
Voiceover
Zoom
Larger/bolded font
Invert Colors
Settings that sync with hearing aides
Motion reduction
Subtitles/captions/video descriptions
Ipad Air 2
•
•
•
•
•
•
Speech settings:
Speak Selection
Speak Screen
A variety of voices and accents
Speaking rate
Speak Auto Text
Asus Zenpad
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Accessibility Options include:
Talkback
Switch Access
Captions
Magnification gestures
Large text
High contrast text
Asus Zenpad
• Auto-rotate screen
• Speak passwords
• Accessibility shortcut to quickly enable
accessibility features.
• Text to speech output.
• Touch and hold delay (short, medium, long)
• Color inversion
• Color correction
Conclusion
• Although higher education as been able to
accommodate some disabled students such as
myself, students with speech impairments and
non verbal students are still left out of the
loop.
• As the research and my findings on the
previous slides suggest, alternate forms of
communication and various technological
options need to be explored further.
References
Alturki, U, T, Aldraiweesh, A, Athabaska, K. (2016). Evaluating Usability and Accessibility of LMS
“Blackboard” at King Suad University. Contemporary Issues in Education Research. 9(1). 33 – 44.
Ashby, C. E. (2011). Whose ‘Voice’ Is It Anyway?: Giving Voice and Qualitative Research Involving
Individuals that Type to Communicate. Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(4).
Cockerel, H., D, & Elbourne, E, & Allen, D, & Scrutton, E, McNee, W, A, & Fairhurst, C, & Baird, G.
(2014). Speech, Communication and Use of Augmentative Communication in Young People with
Cerebral Palsy: The SH& PE Population Study. Child: Care, Health & Development. 40(2), 149–57.
doi:10.1111/cch.12066.
Crossley, R. (1997). Remediation of Communication Problems through Facilitated Communication
Training: A Case Study. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. 32(1), 61–
70. doi:10.3109/13682829709021456.
Johnson, A, Ruppert, S. (2002). An Evaluation of Accessibility in Online Learning Management Systems.
Library Hi Tech. 20(4), 441 – 451.
Kent, M. (2015). Disability and eLearning: Opportunities and Barriers. Disability Studies Quarterly 35(1).
Oswal, S, K, Meloncon, L. (2014). Paying Attention to Accessibility When Designing Online Courses in
Technical and Professional Communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication.
28(3). 271 – 300. doi: 10.1177/1050651914524780.
Stubblefield, A. (2011). Sound and Fury: When Opposition to Facilitated Communication Functions as
Hate Speech. Disability Studies Quarterly 31(4).