Assistive and Emerging Technology for Students with

Sensory Disabilities

Andrew Cioffi/Kirsten Behling

Presented at PTI, June 2014

Introductions

• Andrew Cioffi– Assistant Director, Disability Services– Adjunct, Neag School of Education, Uconn

• Kirsten Behling– Director, Disability Services– Adjunct, Neag School of Education, UConn

Overview

• Day ONE– AT/ET for blindness and low vision

• Day TWO– AT/ET for deafness and hearing loss

• Day THREE– Current and coming access issues

Day THREE: Current and Coming Access Issues

• Part ONE: Overview– Overview, definition, and trends for Emerging

Technology– Emerging Tech trends

Emerging Technology, defined

Tools, innovations, and advancements utilized in diverse educational settings (including distance, face-to-face, and hybrid forms of education) to serve varied education-related purposes

- Veletsianos, 2008

ET Trends

• Now:– Hybrids– Supplemental digital content – MOOCs– Mobile apps– Tablet computing– Flipped classrooms

ET Trends

ET Trends

• 2-3 Years:– Augmented reality– Game-based learning– The Internet of Things– Learning Analytics

ET Trends

• 4-5 Years:– 3-D printing– Flexible displays– Next generation batteries– Wearable technology

How do DS providers handle ET?

Recognize who is using ET• Based on a 2013 Survey of Faculty in Inside

Higher Education, 30% of faculty are now teaching online or using some piece of ET.

• Of those: – 74% think flipped classrooms are effective– 69% liked the ability to serve as coaches, rather than

lecturers– 65% are excited about e-text and the corresponding text

packages– 73 % of faculty use LMS regularly

Why are faculty using ET? • Pressures from the institution

• Increased class sizes

• Diversified teaching strategies to correspond with diverse student body

• It’s “cool”

• Younger faculty are a product of technology themselves

Checking for accessibility

• Who is responsible?

– Legally, there is no answer and as a result no point person that we can all identify.

– Morally, DS personnel often do, as they are the first to hear about the situation from their students, often retroactively.

– Ideally, faculty should be checking this as they go, with the support of IT.

Checking for accessibility • Retroactively: Ask a student to demonstrate to you and to their

professor (in the same room if possible) areas of concern.

– Work as a team to identify how to get around it (more to come)

• Proactively: Purchase a decent screen reader (JAWS) and run through the ET when it is identified.

– This requires preliminary prep, contacting faculty as soon as a student with a sensory disability registers for their course.

– Sit down with the instructor ahead of time to highlight areas of concern, using JAWSs. The first hand experience is very powerful.

Checking for accessibility

Videos can highlight inadequacies. Example of MyMathLab and JAWS:

As a reminder…

• Once something is adopted, ADA applies.

• Publishers, inventors, developers, etc., have no obligation to make tech accessible for our students; we do.

• We are responsible for providing equal, meaningful, and independent access.

If it is not accessible…• Questions to consider:

– How will the student with the disability’s experience differ from his/ her classmates? • Consider the advantages and disadvantages.

– Is there another product that can be used instead? Ask faculty for ideas. • Consider other resources that you have already vetted

and found to be accessible. • Contact those resources to see if they might develop

something.

If it is not accessible…• Questions to consider (continued):

– If the faculty insists on using this technology, how can the faculty + the DS office reasonable accommodate this student? • Make sure your concerns are recorded in the

student’s file. • Make sure that the faculty and department chair

are aware of your concerns. • Put some of the onus back on the faculty to assist

with reasonable accommodations.

How do we educate faculty about ET accessibility?

• Targeted outreach: – Workshops– Departmental meetings – One-on-one consultations

• Demonstrate how their choice of technology presents barriers (particularly using their subject matter)

How do we educate faculty about ET accessibility?

• Understand their reasons for using a particular piece of ET– Avoid the gun’s blazing approach to telling them “no”

• Encourage them to fight the battle along side you– Connect with publishers/ developers, ask questions (you

may need to provide them with the wording for those questions)

• Connect with your higher administration to deal with disgruntled faculty – makes them the bad guy not you.

Who on your campus do you need to get involved?

• Faculty trainers • IT • Deans/ department chairs/ provosts • Individual faculty members• Faculty in computer science courses • Make sure your boss knows what you are doing/ time and

resource expenditure• Counsel

Use OCR complaints and settlements to your benefit

• If faculty and administrators won’t listen, bring in the law.

• DS policies and procedures are often developed in response to OCR complaints and the legal settlements.

• Work with your institution's counsel to identify relevant cases and use those corresponding guidelines to develop your own policies and procedures.

• Remember that much of the ET settlements are still forth coming, so if you don’t want to be one of those settlements, think best practices proactively, rather than reactively.

NFB vs. Arizona State (2009)• Required use of the Kindle in a

classroom.

• NFB said that the use of a kindle prohibits students with vision disabilities from actively participating in the class.

• The settlement involves no monetary damages, but ASU agreed to use devices that are more accessible to the blind if it chooses to deploy e-book.

NFB vs. Penn State University (2010)• Voluntary resolution agreement through OCR for Penn

State’s alleged failure to provide an appropriately accessible technology environment for students who are visually impaired.

• Key components of the agreement include:– Conduct a full accessibility audit of its complete technology – Establish an Electronic and Information Technology (EIT)

Policy Statement to guide the development of its accessibility strategy

– Implement institution-wide “training, instruction, and support” on the EIT Accessibility Policy and procedures

– Developing accessible purchasing procedures.

• “The National Federation of the Blind hopes and believes that the steps that Penn State is taking will set an example for colleges and universities throughout the nation.”

NFB vs. NYU and Northwestern (2011)

• NYU and Northwestern adopted Google apps (mail, calendar, docs, spreadsheets and sites) that are largely inaccessible to the blind.

• NFB encouraged Google’s Accessibility Lab to develop a solution before schools should consider adopting Google apps.

Students vs. Florida State University (2012)

• FSU settled with two students who are blind for $75,000 each due to inaccessible technology.

• The students argued that a math course relied on e-learning systems that were inaccessible  to people with disabilities.

• The students could not access software that was used for homework and tests.

• The course also relied on inaccessible “clickers,” remote-control-like devices that allow students to answer multiple-choice questions during lectures.

DOJ vs. Louisiana Tech University (2013)

• LTU violated the ADA by using an online learning product that was inaccessible to students with vision disabilities. The student’s lack of access to the course materials persisted to the point where the student had to withdraw because he was too far behind.  

• Under the settlement agreement: – LTU will adopt the requirement to deploy learning technology,

web pages and course content that is accessible in accordance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). 

– LTU will make existing web pages and materials created since 2010 accessible. 

– LTU must train its instructors and administrators on the requirements of the ADA.

Alliance for Disability and Students at the University of Montana vs. the UM (2012)

• Complaint detailed: – Inaccessible class assignments and materials, discussion

board on Moodle.– Inaccessible documents that are scanned images on

webpages and websites.– Inaccessible videos, and videos in Flash format, that are

not captioned.– Inaccessible library database materials.– Inaccessible course registration through a website, Cyber

Bear.– Inaccessible classroom clickers.

• UM must develop accessibility policies, train employees, develop a grievance procedure.

Questions, Comments, Discussion