Hi all in DSHHE-land and EASI-land,
As promised, here is a composite of the responses I received
from my inquiry earlier this week.
Jack Clevenger
Mesa Community College
1
Your question certainly does make sense.
I've never been an advocate for having policies to cover every decision we
make. With or without a policy, however, these students are making the same
mistake that the federal courts have been making and the same mistake that
civil-rights opponents have been making from the beginning of the movement:
that "disability" is first, last, and always a status for receipt of
benefits -- as in legally-sanctioned charity. Well it isn't. It is a
matter of reasonable accommodation to ensure nondiscrimination by modifying
policies, procedures, and practices and by providing auxiliary aids and
services for accessing programs, services, and activities. A run-on
sentence, perhaps, but nonetheless an summary.
Do these deaf students also want accessible parking? How about Braille math
books? If they don't need accessible computers, then they have no priority
to do so.
You don't need a policy, Jack. You can just say no, using these computers
is not a part of the reasonable accommodations to which these students are
entitled.
If our programs want to have computer labs intended for all students in our
programs, regardless of specific accommodation right, that's fine. We are
allowed to go beyond the level of accommodation required by the regulations.
And it may be arguable that deaf students need more time on computers tan do
other students and so they need tohave computers available to them in the
resource lab, or whatever you call it. But if it becomes a matter that
students with disabilities are receiving significantly better computer and
communications services than other students, you may have some political
fallout over it.
Good luck.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Clevenger [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 8:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [DSSHE-L] PRIORITY USE OF ADAPTIVE COMPUTER LAB
Hi all in DSSHE-land,
I have a rather peculiar question to ask from those of you that are experts
with this listserv and I really need your advice.
Our Adaptive Computer Lab has become a very popular place for our
students with disabilities to go to and use its many accessibility features
such as JAWS, ZoomText, large screen monitors, Dragon Naturally
Speaking and so on. It is located on the same floor of our library and
its computing commons area.
The situation is this.... we have a group of deaf students that feel that
the Adaptive Computer Lab is also for them to be in since they have a
"disability" even though they do not need any of the specialized
accessibility software and hardware that is meant for use by students
with disabilities who need the adaptive technology for their academic
work.
The question I have is this.....do any of you have guidelines or policies
as to the appropriate use of the adaptive technology in a dedicated
computer lab room students with disabilities in general? How have you
managed the use of the adaptive technology so that those students that
really do need the technology are in fact being able to use it as needed
and as intended?
Is this question making sense to the situation that I described?
Again, I really need some advice here and I would appreciate anyone
offering suggestions.
Thanks in advance.
Jack Clevenger, Coordinator
Disability Resources and Services
Mesa Community College
Mesa, AZ
2
Our Adaptive Tech lab is part of a general-use computer lab for all
students, and we, too, are located in the library. The machines dedicated
for use by our disabled students are inside this lab in sound-reduced glass
rooms. We allow any disabled student who needs the special software or
hardware in these rooms to use them. No other student is permitted to use
the computers or equipment. In the scenario you describe, deaf students
would NOT be permitted to use the specialized software and hardware; those
are reserved for the students who need them. We have had this same argument
from deaf students on this campus, and I simply explain to them that they do
not need that equipment as part of their documented accommodations, so
therefore they can't use them.
Hope this helps.
3
We allow any consumer (be they student, faculty, or staff) with a
qualifying disability to use the resources in our AT lab, without regard
to what their specific disability may be. This is a policy that I have
set -- which reflects my personal philosophy concerning what assistive
technology is really about (for me anyway). I consider assistive
technology to be a SERVICE rather than a place where special equipment
is located. We consider that training and support of our consumers in
the use of the AT resources is our primary mission; provision of the
equipment is ancillary to this primary mission. We have tremendous
equipment resources available in our lab and satellite station; however,
our focus is always on "people stuff" rather than the technology itself.
Sometimes our training and support with our consumers may have little to
do with the actual adaptive programs themselves, but rather, on using
more general kinds of computer applications--e.g., learning to do
searches on the Internet, using databases, word processors, accessing
distance learning resources, etc. For this reason, we allow any one
with any qualifying disability (qualifying = have been approved through
disability services offices to receive AT-based accommodations) to use
our AT stations and related resources. In the case of a consumer who is
deaf, granted, they would not need the typical adaptive features on our
AT stations. Still, that person might need help accessing web-based
course content on Blackboard, for example. An argument could be made
that students--with or without disabilities--should learn general
"mainstream" computer access skills in the "intro to computers course"
required of all freshmen. The reality is, in my experience anyway, is
that students with disabilities (any disability) do not get as much out
of the introductory computer courses as those without disabilities. At
least at SMSU, the introductory courses are taught to the masses on a
"one size fits all" scheme. So, we've taken on filling in those gaps as
part of our AT service mission. Then too, in spite of our campus being
very proactive about accessible online course content, the reality is
that there can always be some content in an online offering that will be
inaccessible for some students with some disabilities. When that
occurs, we offer support and assistance to try and make the inaccessible
content available to the involved student.
I know you didn't ask for a dissertation on this issue. However, you
have raised an important issue here that I think all AT programs in
higher education face at one point or another. I know different
institutions approach it differently -- and one approach or philosophy
is not necessarily better than the other. The above is what has just
seemed to work very well at our university. I hope this, plus any
additional input you receive from the listserv are helpful.
4
policing swd actions is always difficult. Not just computers, but chairs
and tables in classrooms also. We basicaly rely on the teachers and lab
folks to monitor usage. We also have signage on machines reserving them
for those who need the specific software that is loaded on it, It can be
difficult because we have open labs, and nothing special for swd except
DRAGON, which is located in a private room. I am not a big fan of "special
labs", seperate from the rest. But so far we have not had any problems
getting students to move to another computer. Our computer labs also have
a 2 hour maximum usage in a lot of cases. But I agree with Randy's take on
it, simply ask them to move along :-)
5
Right now, we have very limited resources. So, both to
track frequency of use and to ensure the equipment is
available for students who need it as an accommodation, we
put passwords on the machine and provide the password when
the student has requested access and it is approved.
6
I believe deaf students have a very definite place in AT labs. Read & Write,
Kurzweil 3000, and Inspiration (which some labs have) all offer some
profound benefits for the kinds of psycholinguistic challenges they face
in regard to reading and writing, vocabulary acquisition, discrimination
among homophones,idea generation and organization, etc. We even
have a student with a tiny amount of residual hearing using Kurzweil's
highest pitch voice to help with concentration during reading.
Keep in mind that AT is not solely a mode of alternative access, i.e. an
alternative window into the information technology domain for the blind,
it is also a cognitive prosthetic, supporting and enhancing cognitive and
linguistic functions. Research by Raskind and Marshall out of CSUN has
demonstrated that it can lead to greater phonetic awareness, comprehension
of grammatical structure, etc.
However, we HAVE had Deaf students abuse the lab for frivolous
web searching, solitaire, web games, etc. So I'd think policies
against that sort of utilization
would be justified. Subject:
7
I almost wish we had your problem! We struggle with getting students to
use our lab and the AT available. One way of establishing priorities
for your lab might be to make sure every DSS student knows of the lab's
availability, that they know which technology they have been encouraged
to learn and use (based on the impact of their disability), and that
they should relinquish use of a machine equipped with assistive
technology they don't need or use to someone who does during heavy use
times. I know that is much easier to say than to put in practice. We
would hope students would use courtesy. If they know they may be
keeping a student from the only, or just one of a few computers adapted
for their needs, my hope would be they would take their own work to
another computer just as accessible to them. Hope that helps a bit.
8
Great points, ____. If there is assistive-tech software that benefits deaf
students, then they surely should not be excluded. After all,
assistive-tech labs should be fore two purposes: one to access institutional
computing and information services and one to draw on the tremendous power
of computing to enhance capacities of students with disabilities in novel
and newly-effective ways -- many not yet discovered, no doubt.
REPLY TO:
I believe deaf students have a very definite place in AT labs. Read &
Write, Kurzweil 3000, and Inspiration (which some labs have) all offer some
profound benefits for the kinds of psycholinguistic challenges they face in
regard to reading and writing, vocabulary acquisition, discrimination among
homophones, idea generation and organization, etc. We even have a student
with a tiny amount of residual hearing using Kurzweil's highest pitch voice
to help with concentration during reading.
Keep in mind that AT is not solely a mode of alternative access, i.e. an
alternative window into the information technology domain for the blind, it
is also a cognitive prosthetic, supporting and enhancing cognitive and
linguistic functions. Research by Raskind and Marshall out of CSUN has
demonstrated that it can lead to greater phonetic awareness, comprehension
of grammatical structure, etc.
However, we HAVE had Deaf students abuse the lab for frivolous web
searching, solitaire, web games, etc. So I'd think policies against that
sort of utilization would be justified.
9.
"Keep in mind that AT is not solely a mode of alternative access, i.e. an
alternative window into the information technology domain for the blind, it
is also a cognitive prosthetic, supporting and enhancing cognitive and
linguistic functions. Research by Raskind and Marshall out of CSUN has
demonstrated that it can lead to greater phonetic awareness, comprehension
of grammatical structure, etc."
I disagree with Eric, while what he sez is very true, the same can then be
said and defended for "ANY" student. Most AT is indeed the only solely
method of alternative access for those that NEED it as an accommodation.
And it was purchased for just that reason, an effective and reasonable
accommodation to provide access where none exists, and only for those that
need it! The others with disabilities that don't warrant these
accommodations, can be just as easily served in the college writing center
if one exists. If a center doesn't exist, then even more policing and
priority needs to be in place. I don't think it a question of what is nice
to have, but what is really needed! The key word Jack was looking for is
PRIORITY!
-------------------------------------------------------------
See EASI Special October Bonus offer at http://easi.cc/clinic.htm
EASI November courses are:
Barrier-free E-learning, Accessible Internet Multimedia and Business Benefits of Accessible IT Design:
http://easi.cc/workshop.htm
EASI Home Page http://www.rit.edu/~easi
>>> Error in line 8 of EASI.MAILTPL: unknown formatting command <<<
-> ............. <-
|
