In the article Disabled Bodies, Able Minds: Giving Voice, Movement, and Independence to the Physically Challenged and the accompanying videos, Assistive Technology and Adaptive Technology are brought to the forefront of consideration in every classroom. Bearing in mind the specific needs of individual students, one must also consider and contrast this to our previous attention toward Universal Design. How do we consider designing classrooms and activities for the use of all possible, and when do we consider special adaptations?
It is inspiring to see inventiveness such as the adapted instruments that allow Loukas to participate in school band, and display a passion that others may have kept from him. It is disheartening to hear the tales of students from the Henry Viscardi High School who previously had not been able to participate in activities such as gym or school plays in their general education settings. But this also brings to the forefront of the conversation, the question why they are not receiving the educational opportunities they deserve? Is it simply that the school doesn't have the resources, the teachers don't have the extra time, the parents don't have the ability to advocate, the budget isn't big enough? Each of these factors plays a huge role in why students with disabilities are not getting what they need and deserve in many integrated settings. It is inexcusable, but it is the reality that we face every day in our public and private school systems.
In regard to the interview between Dr. Richard Keller and Dr. Christine Pawelski, I appreciated the vantage point given by Dr. Keller; noting his experience as a student without a disability, and as a student living with a disability. Dr. Keller's explanation of how the terms Assistive Technology and Adaptive Technology are not, in his view, interchangeable, shifted my viewpoint as well. As a person with a disability, my interpretation held that the term "assistive" conjures the idea of assisting a person with a disability to do a specific function, but this is held in contrast to Dr. Keller's view. In his regard, it is the term "adaptive" which holds more weight and truth. Technology should be used to "adapt" an approach, tailored for a specific individual's needs. It is the technology that adapts, and not the person who is assisted or helped. Though I agree with Dr. Keller's statements, I had not realized that I was still using terms that label the individual as the person in need, rather than the function, the aide, or the technology to be the adaptive element.
What I also appreciated most of the interview is Dr. Keller's pragmatic view of adaptive technology. That is is not one size fits all and that the more "high tech" and advanced a piece or device may be, does not necessarily make one's life easier. AT is highly individualized, and particular needs may be met by simple "low tech" devices such as the voice recorder he mentioned, the speaking calculator, or the color identifier. Simple devices that add to a particular function which he previously held before the loss of his vision. With this, I appreciate and will remember his analogy to the space races"
"Chris: No and we're seeing that over and over again, and I think we are missing the point of what we're trying to do or how to be of assistance.
Richard: The funniest story I remember is someone told me about the space races in the sixties. One of the problems they have to solve from an engineering point of view is how can astronauts write when there is zero gravity? So the United States spent about eight million dollars and they came up with a pen that would write in zero gravity. The Russians on the other hand used pencils. The point of the story is you know why spend eight million dollars on a pen if you really only need a pencil."
There is something very valuable in bearing in mind, how a simplistic mode of thinking, changing thinking to use what is convenient, exists, and suits the need at hand, rather than re-inventing or purchasing a costly device.
Using the example of the Henry Viscardi High School, one can see how the adaptability of the classroom environment and the lessons and activities themselves, allow for a Universal Design that is still open for individualization. It is the combination of designing as universally as possible, with the opportunity for adaptability that schools need to adopt to be truly "inclusive." To put it in a concrete way, schools, lessons, and activities themselves need to be designed the way that an adjustable desk is designed. The height and angle can be physically adjusted for each student. There should be space underneath to allow for a wheelchair to fit or adjustable seating. The desk should be designed for use for a student with or without disabilities. It's just good design. In this manner, we should look to those who design technology, physical environments, and products to ease and simplify tasks not just for the dominant culture, but for everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment