EdTech 541: Creating an Accessible Computer Lab

Image source: Wikimedia Commons

Offering computer labs with adaptive features to accommodate disabilities is not just the law (see sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design), but is an expectation for any educational institution that claims to offer equal opportunities for all staff and students.  Any user who has a visual, kinesthetic, or audio impairment should have access to the devices and peripherals that enhance their productivity and ability to participate in technology opportunities.  In some cases, the technology itself serves as the primary communication device or medium for instruction.  Another way to look at it is that by taking proactive measures for including principals of universal design, all products offered and environments created end up benefiting everyone (people with and without disabilities) (University of Washington).  Having the flexibility and choice created through universal design minimizes the need for accommodations for individuals in the future. Therefore, although budget concerns can sometimes stifle plans for improving universal access, the following suggestions serve as a launching point for any school that is looking to improve their computer lab design.  As much as possible, people with disabilities should be invited to take part in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of an accessibility initiative.

An automatic door should lead into the computer lab.  Inside the lab, the noise should be kept at a quiet level, and lighting be kept dim enough to improve the screen contrast.  There should be smooth floors with wide pathways to navigate to the various desks and workstations.  Around the room informative signs should be printed with high contrast using relatively large and simple fonts.  Universal symbols (such as international accessibility symbols) can support the messages.  If possible, the addition of Braille character should be included.  The signs should be at a height no taller than four feet to accommodate people in wheelchairs. 

Common Area Desks/Countertops

In their accessibility guidelines, Temple University recommends the use of counters that have at least one section that is at an acceptable height for wheelchair users (at most 36” from the floor and at least 36” wide).  They explain that if writing is required (such as a sign in/out log), then the height should be between 28” and 34” from the floor.  There also must be adequate knee and toe space under the counter. 

Accessible Workstations

Ideally there will be 1-3 specially designated “accessible” workstations throughout the room.  They should be labeled with the international handicapped symbol and a polite notice for all users to reserve their use.  The surface dimensions suggested by Temple University include:

• Top of the work surface is between 28" and 34" from floor
• Clearance of at least 27" beneath the top of the work surface to the floor
• The depth underneath the work surface to the floor must be between 17" and 25"
• Minimum width of 30" of knee space for seated individuals

They also suggest a 36” wide aisle width to maneuver a wheelchair or scooter with a space of 60" for turning into the work area.

From a wheelchair, all users should be able to access to controls, peripherals and ports; input/output bins for scanners/printers; and mice/trackballs.  However, the work surface should also be adjustable so that any user can access these items.  Ideally the surface should be able to be lowered and raised (even to standing height) with minimal pressure and fine motor control.  The peripherals should be mounted to the adjustable surface so they travel up and down as well.  However, smaller items (such as mice) should be able to be move to accommodate right- and left-handed users.

Santa Monica College also suggests the inclusion of a height adjustable tilting footrest and an ergonomic chair, which has adjustable height, back, and tilt. These options increase comfort and ensure ergonomic health by helping the user to work at the correct height and angle. 

Hardware Options

The following items should be included for use at the accessible workstations, or in some cases can be made available upon request.  Where possible, equipment should be marked with large print and/or Braille labels.

• Large monitor (with adjustable resolution) – this allows for a larger amount of screen to be viewed while magnified.  It should also be on monitor arm to allow the user to position it to suit viewing requirements
• Track ball or touchpad – this would assist users with manual impairments
• Alternative Keyboards – these could include high contrast keyboards with large text, one-handed keyboards, or keyboards with sensitive touch
• Noise cancelling headphones – to minimize distraction and/or assist those with hearing impairments
• Wrist rests and forearm rests – to provide comfort for students with limited mobility in the arms/wrists
• Document enlarger or document camera (CCTV) – to allow a user with vision impairments the option to zoom in or alter color contrast, etc.
• Scanner and optical character recognition (OCR) software
• Braille translation printer (and software)

Software Options

Ideally accessibility software could be downloaded for use on all machines in the computer lab, but should at least be available on the designated workstations. Lab staff and/or teachers should be comfortable using all of the software. Temple University recommends use of the following:

PC:

• Scanning/Reading Program: Kurzweill 1000
• Learning Systems Tool: Read and Write Gold (including Text-to-Speech)
• Screen reader software: JAWS
• Screen magnification: ZoomText (with speech)
• Voice-To-Text Software: Dragon Naturally Speaking Premium with MathTalk plugin
• Browser plug-in to enhance adaptability
• MindGenius or MindManager- concept-mapping planning tool (suggested by the University of Strathclyde Glasgow)

Mac:

• Learning Systems Tool: Read and Write Gold (including Text-to-Speech)
• Screen reader software: VoiceOver (built into OS)
• Screen magnification: Zoom (built into OS)
• Voice-To-Text Software: Dragon Dictate for Mac

The University of Washington also suggests the use of word prediction software. 

General Configurations

Temple University recommends all workstations include:

• Microsoft Office (with voice dictation options installed)
• Adobe Acrobat Reader (with accessibility options activated)
• Windows Media Player (with captioning turned on by default)
• Screen magnification software built into operating system is available for end users to activate
• Speech recognition software built into Windows is available for end users to activate
• Contrast settings for the operating system are available to the end users to adjust
• Text-to-speech software built into operating system is available for end users to activate
• Allow users to adjust keyboard settings (e.g. Key repeat rate, keystroke delay, Sticky keys)
• 
  

The University of Strathclyde Glasgow also recommends defaulting to a large pointer with the option to change it as needed by the user.

The following resources help inform both the computer lab instructor as well as potential users of the various accessibility options:

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/accessibility/ (general)
• http://www.microsoft.com/enable/training/default.aspx (Windows)
• http://www.apple.com/accessibility/osx/ (Mac)

Next Steps

Once the lab is established to accommodate a variety of users, it’s important to make sure that users know what hardware and software is available to them.  Posters and handouts should be prepared that include these assistive options. Users should expect that their instructors can help them set up and sue all of the software and hardware that is available to them.

Finally, it’s important that a school takes time to consider the electronic resources that it offers.  For example, the Technology Coordinator or IT Specialist should look at the school web page to ensure it is adhering to accessibility guidelines and standards.  After all, for consistency sake, we should preach what we practice and practice what we preach.

It would cost approximately $10,000 to equip a school computer lab with at least one fully accessible workstation.

* * * * * *

For technology integration ideas that support students with special needs, in or outside the computer lab, please visit my project here: http://ericafuhry-edtech541.weebly.com/assistive-technologies.html

Resources

Santa Monica College. (2007, November 15). Santa Monica College accessible computer lab standards. Retrieved from http://www.smc.edu/ACG/AcademicSenate/Documents/Information_Services/2007-2008/Documents/Accessible_Lab_Standards.pdf

Temple University. (2013, March 7). Computer lab accessibility guidelines. Retrieved from http://accessibility.temple.edu/sites/accessibility/files/documents/Computer%20Lab%20accessibility%20guidelines%20v2.2.docx

University of Strathclyde Glasgow. (n.d.) Accessible computers and labs. Retrieved from http://www.strath.ac.uk/is/informationmanagement/services/accessibility/accessiblecomputersandlabs

University of Washington. (2012). Checklist for making computer labs accessible to students with disabilities . Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/comp_lab_check.html

University of Washington. (2012). Equal Access: Universal Design of Computer Labs. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Technology/comp.access.html

EdTech 503: Instruction Design Project Planning

As we have been developing our instructional design project, specific attention has been placed on refining the "planning" process this week.  This includes:

• Rationale
• Learning objectives
• Matrix of objectives, Bloom's taxonomy, and assessment
• ARCS Table
• Instructor Guide
• Learning Content
• Technology Tools

Please view my VoiceThread presentation below to gain a better understanding of the design of the planning component of my instructional design project on Scratch digital storytelling.  Classmates have been invited to comment, and your are free to as well!


(This can alternatively be viewed at: voicethread.com/share/5683493/)

EdTech 541: Obstacles and Solutions to a Technology-Integrated Social Studies Classroom

There is no doubt that integrating technology in the social studies classroom allows us to virtually journey around the world and travel in a time machine.  We can communicate with others (through email, video chat, or shared online documents), take virtual field trips to remote destinations or museums, explore geography through GPS coordinates, and investigate primary sources.  Social studies is an thriving environment for these kinds of interactive and exploratory tools, particularly when we are concerned with creating students who are adept at collaboration, effective communication, global citizenship, and multicultural appreciation.  Nevertheless there are some obstacles to consider when integrating technology into the S.S. classroom.  These concerns or potential barriers include: Curricular priority, number of resources, reliability of sources, and the fear of decreasing the “social” aspect of social studies.  Nevertheless, these obstacles can be avoided with specific planning or instructional foresight.

One principle obstacle in technology integration is the issue that social studies is not considered as “essential” a subject as math or language arts. Because there are no high stakes tests in social studies, these classes and their needs can often be left behind in favor of maximizing student success in more “critical” disciplines (Boughan & Kerwin).  As a result, there is less time devoted to this coursework in the curriculum, fewer professional development opportunities catering to a social studies focus, and less budgetary allocations for social studies programs or subscriptions.  To move beyond the barrier of time, teachers must plan for home learning to extend their social studies lessons, allowing more time for investigation and problem-solving. Some of this home learning may involve students practicing new software or research skills, as there may not be enough time in the school day to introduce software, review supplemental skills, and teach course content.  If there are fewer opportunities for school-endorsed professional development, teachers must be proactive in their quest for new tech tools and strategies. They can join social studies teaching online forums and subscribe to RSS feeds from trusted teacher blogs.  With regard to smaller budgets, there are a plethora of free online resources (from government agencies, museums, or non-profits such as PBS or Smithsonian) that offer primary sources, virtual field trips, and teacher lesson plans. A bit of internet investigative work will lead to materials for almost any social studies theme or subtopic.  

When it comes to students using the internet for social studies materials, however, the task can sometimes be a bit too daunting!  There are just so many items to sift through. If students are tasked with researching a topic or finding support for their opinions, students can end up wasting valuable instruction time pouring over excessive numbers of websites. The solution to this, which is a tall but important order, is to explicitly teach student how to “refine” the information that comes to them. They must evaluate their sources. Basically, anyone can put anything on a website. There are no constraints of peer review or editorial oversight (Shaver, 1999, p. 17).  In addition, search engines are not refined in the results they provide. It's like “...walking into a library with over 320 million documents and no card (on line) catalog” (Shaver, 1999, p. 19).  In addition, many students use superficial criteria for assessing the quality of a message, such as its layout, color scheme, easy of access, and graphics. Students must be reminded to verify the information they find online, as our tendency is to uncritically trust information we find from whatever source (The Knight Commission).  A solution is to help students improve their online research skills, with the help of a school librarian. They must learn how to use keywords and filters effectively.  Another concern is that the information they encounter may not be appropriate for their developmental age or intellectual abilities.  Students, again, must be taught how to automatically assess these websites. They must also be taught how to summarize key information to avoid the perils of “cutting and pasting” when ideas appear too complex to synthesize.  Another solution is for teachers to pre-select the internet sources they would like the students to use.  This ensures they are reliable and compatible with the students' developmental levels.

In using internet resources in the social studies classroom, concerns are raised about the reliability and point-of-view of websites students use for culturally sensitive issues. Classroom materials should be void of propaganda, which can be difficult in the “wild west” internet landscape.  First of all, it’s difficult to know the source. “The Internet blurs the lines between amateur and professional, between entertainment and marketing, between information and persuasion. We experience a ‘context deficit,’ where information about authorship is often unavailable, masked or entirely missing” (The Knight Commission). Just as students need assistance in evaluating the quality and “user-readiness” of a website, they also need help in evaluating its contents for context and subtext. Students must learn how to recognize bias.   A solution is to spend time teaching media literacy and consumer skills.  They must practice thinking critically about the author/source and purpose of the materials they are accesses. Especially with “current events” materials, students should “recognize the constructed nature of the digital environment and how it shapes personal and social action” (The Knight Commission). They can be taught to be conscious consumers. As teachers, we must make it a priority to incorporate learning aids that are not overly commercial or politically polarized.  

Another obstacle in the use of technology in the social studies classroom is the perception that computer use is relatively isolating, taking the “social” out of social studies.  Critics fear that real field trips and live, lively discussion will be replaced by digital artifacts and televised reenactments.  A solution to this fear is to demonstrate how social learning communities can be established through internet use.  In many cases, these are more global in scope and interactive in nature than they would be confined to the four walls of the classroom.  (It is important to note that an obstacle to this goal may be restricted access to social media sites in school.  This would involve speaking to administration and technology teams to find ways to address or circumvent these barriers.) In addition, teachers can provide other learning experiences within the classroom that utilize tech tools to support (vs. replace) face-to-face interaction, such as debates and project based learning activities.  Computers should neither be replacing the role of teacher nor eliminating social interaction in any social studies program.

Overall, effective use of technology in social studies involves focusing on the development of content area knowledge and skills in conjunction with critical thinking and analytic behaviors about the media in use.  Technology tools should serve to supplement, enhance, and extend the lessons developed in alignment with required objectives.  In addition, creating a community of learners in the social studies classroom (with the help of social media tools) can serve as a model for societal interaction. “Engaging with people different from ourselves helps us clarify our own ideas, look at the world for different viewpoints, and in the process, deepen our own learning and develop a sense of connectedness to the people around us.” (The Knight Commission).  Obstacles in technology integration can be resolved with planning and a change in perspective.

Please view my example of social studies technology integration that helps tell the story of westward expansion in the United States through the use of primary documents and Google maps.

Resources

Boughan, K., and Kerwin, M. (2006). Technology in social studies. Retrieved from http://schoolcomputing.wikia.com/wiki/Technology_in_Social_Studies

Roblyer, M. D., and Doering, A. H. (2013). Integrating educational technology into teaching: Sixth edition. Boston: Pearson

Shaver, J. P. (1999). Electronic technology and the future of social studies in elementary and secondary schools. Boston University Journal of Education, 181(3). Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/journalofeducation/files/2010/12/BUJOE-181.3.shaver.pdf

The Knight Commission. (n.d.) Issues to consider when implementing digital and media literacy programs. Retrieved from http://www.knightcomm.org/digital-and-media-literacy/issues-to-consider-when-implementing-digital-and-media-literacy-programs

EdTech 503: Discussion #5

Below are some of my contributions to this week's discussion on Streamlined ID chapters 9-10-11 & The ID CaseBook case studies 01, 09 and 20.

Question 1: Considering the seven “…essential tasks common to almost all IDT projects” (Larson & Lockee, 2014, p. 223), what is the greatest challenge Scott's design team is facing on case #1? What challenges, if any, do you see in the makeup of the project teams?

Although the project management requirements will undoubtedly be difficult to fulfill, I feel there is a solid plan in place for their execution. Yes, it's logistically difficult for there to be three distinct teams working on this project, but the rationale is justified. With open lines of communication and patience with all of the inevitable iterations, there is no reason why this delegation can't work. I feel it is an efficient way to execute the design and development task. otherwise there may be too many cooks in the kitchen, which, in my opinion, is already proving to be a bit of an issue in this case. If Scott can gain consensus within his team and manage the development team (at least from the forefront), then there is hope for this SchoolsOnline project. Since the ball has already been passed from the writing team, it important that both remaining teams (design and development) agree to a "project scope document" (Larson & Lockee, p. 226) or another work-flow management tool that includes the budget, schedule, and a description of the deliverables. That way everyone is on the same page.

I believe the area with which Scott's team is having the most difficulty, and which is ultimately holding up the development process, is the identification of project tasks. As others have mentioned previously, this team is just not quite sure where to go in terms of deciding what the learners should be doing. They are having a difficult time agreeing on the best way to align objectives to learning tasks.

When Scott asked his team to "consider" Mission to Mars independently, he should have been more clear about what they were meant to consider. If he wanted to establish a starting point (which I think is fine, to get the ball rolling and to serve as a model conversation for other reviews of the briefs), he should have specified exactly what they were "considering" about the case. When they "put their heads together", they were thinking a little bit all over the place about context, learning objects, setting, pedagogy, level of interaction, feedback, age-group adaptability, and file-size constraints. There was little structure to the dialog, and with that many variables, I feel it's going to be nearly impossible to get consensus. They are a long way away from scripting or storyboarding, and they are only on the first of fifteen discussions!

If, within three months, they would like to have the learning tasks written, developed, produced, implemented, and evaluated, they need to either a) divide and conquer or b) streamline the initial decision-making process by developing a system for more objectively evaluating the 32 written drafts according to what they deem to be key priorities. For example, in evaluating the "Mission to Mars" suggestion, Scott could take the notes from the conversation and create a rubric or scale for assessing the viability of using each "Learning Object Design Brief". This could better guide the introductory question: "Do we think this concept is going to work?" Evaluating the alignment of strategies, technologies, and messages from the beginning (and in an organized and efficient way) will make the exchange with the development team much more effective. However, unless they soon change their strategy of offering designs to achieve the objectives, they will be struggling to stay within the boundaries of their time budget.

[Prof. Trespalacios: Erica, as it is mentioned in the "Implication for ID practice" section (at the end of the case), you summarized the "issues" in this case: Project management and the development process dealing with learning objects and constructivism. Focus on the second one; let me ask you the third question from that section. What do you think are the challenges involved in applying constructivist principles to this type of computer-based environment?]

I believe that the biggest challenge in applying constructivist principles to this type computer-based environment is the fact that the program they are creating requires deductive versus inductive reasoning. In other words, students are making selections from a concrete list of options; they are "deducing" the "correct" answer from a limited assortment of possibilities. The program is then "filling in the blanks" to determine if they have made the right choice.  As it currently stands, there is no room for student feedback: justification, evidence, or reflection.  The problem with this type of thinking is that it is not in alignment with real world problem-solving.  I understand that this activity, as "one off" reinforcement or enrichment opportunity, is not going to turn students into purely linear or binary thinkers.  In fact, it may be age and developmentally appropriate to have a deductive-reasoning task fulfill the objectives of distinguishing between needs and wants.

Nevertheless, SchoolsOnlines has articulated that they would like the pedagogical approach to be "more constructivist than prescriptive" (p.15). Even during the discussion of Mission to Mars, Tracey offers concerns about learners' choices being limited and the feedback being inauthentic. Later on, Penny suggests "including some way for learners to express their thinking about how the items they have chosen represent their needs or wants" (p. 20), implying that there might be different rationale from the students' perspective that is not accommodated by the computer program.  This idea was not popular, however, is it would increase the learning objects and the file size of the software.  Along the same lines, Jeff seemed to think the "discussion" aspect of the decision-making process could take place within the classroom.  Therefore, a big limitation to computer-based constructivist learning is the absence of students' voice surrounding the actions they take within the game or simulation.

All in all, the "needs vs. wants" activity they have in mind is in alignment with the stated objectives, but is not necessarily as open-ended or creative as SchoolsOnline may have wished it to be.  The fact that choices are limited, that there is no place for justification or discussion, and the fact that students aren't creating their own learning products keeps this project more prescriptive.  The students are not as pushed to engage in higher-order thinking skills because knowledge is coming from an external source.

* * * * * *

Question 2: a) Based on the concepts and theories discussed on chapter 10, how do you design and deliver an effective message?  b) Thinking in your ID project, what are the most important elements to develop an effective message presentation and flow? As you did in the previous discussion, introduce shortly your project at the beginning to understand better your instructional design decisions.

According to Larson and Lockee, message design "determines how information and activities are presented to learners, as well as whether and how they are able to interact with the learning environment" (p. 209).  Therefore, designing an effective message should be done alongside the design of both instructional strategies and technologies, which, as we know, should be working in conjunction with objectives and assessments. In other words, an effective message is embedded into all other components of instructional design.

Designing an effective message means creating media that communicates clearly and produces learning. These "media" could be high-tech or low-tech, and they could consist of aural, visual, or multisensory aspects. Good design strategies are related to learning theories such as Gestalt, Cognitive Load Theory, Dual-Coding Theory, and Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (as mentioned on pp. 206-207 in Streamlined ID).

First of all it's important that we make our message accessible to all learners "technically, physically, and cognitively" (p. 208). We must eliminate all barriers so the information can be both retrieved and perceived. Learners have to be able to make sense of what we're trying to communicate, so we must employ design strategies (such as chunking (spatially and temporally), highlighting essential information, using supportive multi-modal reinforcements, and making messages personalized when possible).  Using strategies of organization and repetition also helps ensure the message is cognitively digestible and memorable.

As mentioned from the beginning, Larson and Lockee also stress the importance of ensuring that the design and delivery of the message supports all other aspects of instructional design.  It accommodates learner styles, it speaks to targeted learning outcomes, it is aligned with assessments, and it supports the chosen instructional methods and delivery mediums.  In order to accommodate all of these components (not to mention time and budgetary constraints) creativity is key!

As I seek to plan the message of my ID project, I will aim to respond to the questions proposed by Larson and Lockee (p. 212):

1. What kind of information should I use in the presentation of the instructional message?

2. How should I organize and deliver the message?

3. What will the learner do with the instructional information?

My ID project is requiring 9-13 year old students to use kid-friendly Scratch programming software to convert a self-authored (previously storyboarded) short story into a short digitally animated scene.  The first part of the lesson is instructivist/supplantive in nature, helping them get accustomed to the interface of the program and learning all of the "bells and whistles".  I will offer several learning aid/reference hand-outs in conjunction with heavily guided practice.  The second part of the lesson will be more constructivist/generative in style, in that the students will explore and problem-solve "scripting" skills by manipulating the programming blocks (through trial and error, logical thinking, and with reference guides) to build simple animations for their characters.

Since I am working with novice learners who are unfamiliar with Scratch, I will ensure that my message is well-paced (erring on the side of slow and methodical at first), chunked as much as possible, void of extraneous information, and powerful in its highlighting/featuring of essential information.  I will use a combination of images and easy-to-read text in the reference guides I distribute.  The instructional strategy of modelling programming steps on the interactive whiteboard involves using a message that is inherently visual supported by strong and succinct auditory cues.

Unfortunately (or fortunately,depending how you look at it), the Scratch software does not have a flexible interface.  As instructional designer, there are already some "givens" or contraints considering the use of this technology. There is the possibility that the students may feel overwhelmed at first, because they are so many visually and aurally stimulating options to click on.  It is important that the instructor's message focuses on essential-to-know information.  The exploratory "wow factor" part can come later, as the students engage in the constructivist task of the lesson.  The first part of the lesson, however, must be clear to highlight common buttons, menu items, keystrokes, etc. that will be important to know to achieve the objective of making an interactive, animated story.  This helps learners understand the flow navigation and use of the interface.  The message is not meant to give them ALL the information they need to know, as part of the objective of the task is to problem-solve how to sequence programming blocks for desired animation effects.  It should, however, ensure they understand how to start, where to find the tools (scripting "blocks"), and what to do with them.

These demonstrations will be reinforced (repeated, in a way) through the associated reference sheets that present the same information with images and text. These sheets will include vocabulary (with pictures) and procedures (with diagrams or screen captures). Having this supporting resources means the message is permanently and independently accessible.

As I work to finalize my instructional design, I will be focused on ensuring my message is appropriate for my target audience in both design and delivery.  It should be initially adequate enough to provide a basic understanding of Scratch and propel learners towards independent work, but also be supportive of their problem-solving/exploratory efforts.