[Home-on-the-range] Simulation as a Learning Method to Facilitate Disability Awareness

Susan Tabor souljourner at sbcglobal.net
Sat Jul 21 02:51:38 UTC 2012


Hi, Dave:

Thanks for bringing that to our attention! I skimmed the references and
missed that, I'm sorry to say. I did notice references to the Wrights'
research (also from KU) in the body of the article. Thanks again!
Cheers!
Susan

-----Original Message-----
From: home-on-the-range-bounces at nfbnet.org
[mailto:home-on-the-range-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David Andrews
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 3:16 PM
To: NFB of Kansas Internet Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Home-on-the-range] Simulation as a Learning Method to
Facilitate Disability Awareness

Did you guys notice one of the references in the article was "Hallenbeck
1984," presume it was Chuck.

Dave


On 7/20/2012 6:40 AM, Stanzel, Susan - FSA, Kansas City, MO wrote:
> Thank you for sending this to us. I don't have time to subscribe to all
the lists I might be interested in.
>
> Susie
>
> From: home-on-the-range-bounces at nfbnet.org 
> [mailto:home-on-the-range-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Dianne 
> Hemphill
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 7:15 AM
> To: NFB of Kansas Internet Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Home-on-the-range] Simulation as a Learning Method to 
> Facilitate Disability Awareness
>
> Thanks for this - this really helps define the problems and most likely
negative  impacts of poorly designed and carried out simulation training.
The recent resolution of condemning dining in the dark simulated trainings,,
is well explained here. It is so easy to have the results of such
simulations result in just the opposite impact as what is intended-  if the
intent is to increase understanding of   the disability ...  most
participants are thoroughly frightened and  more ready  to  pull out their
check books. ..  this which may be the intent anyway.. which may be the
intent anyway... Dianne
> On Jul 18, 2012, at 9:07 PM, Susan Tabor wrote:
>
>
> Hi, listers!
>
> The article that I've pasted below was posted on the NFB human services
list-serve a few weeks ago, just after the national Convention.  This is a
scholarly and very well-presented article on the simulations issue.  It's a
bit lengthy but worth the read.
> All the Best,
> Susan
>
> Subject: [humanser] Simulation as a Learning Method to Facilitate 
> DisabilityAwareness
>
>
> Simulation as a Learning Method to Facilitate Disability Awareness
>
> by James T. Herbert
>
> Within the traditional classroom and other learning settings, educators
have often used disability simulation as a method to develop awareness and
promote positive attitudes toward persons with disabilities.
> As a general teaching strategy, simulations have been used because 
> they are reported to: (a) facilitate interaction among participants,
> (b) provide opportunities to practice decision-making skills and resulting
behavioral consequences, (c) convey important social messages, (d)
facilitate exploration of personal values, and (e) foster empathy and
insight regarding events and issues being simulated (Hyman, 1978). As
applied to acquiring greater sensitivity to disability issues, simulations
allow learners to duplicate particular roles so that better awareness and
insight result regarding the problems, strengths, weaknesses, and lifestyles
of persons with disabilities (Patterson, 1980). For example, an individual
without a disability may use a wheelchair to simulate paraplegia, place
cotton balls in both ears to approximate a hearing impairment , use
light-filtered glasses that block the center of a visual field to fabricate
blindness, or remain silent for an extended period of time to create the
experience of mental illness. As opposed to passive learning activities such
as watching a movie or reading a book about disability, simulations allow
learners to bridge the gap between passive learning and direct personal
experience (Patterson, 1980).
> Effectiveness of Using Disability Simulations Despite reported 
> benefits of using disability simulation (e.g., Chard, 1997), empirical 
> evidence that supports its utility as a learning method to facilitate 
> positive attitudes toward persons with disabilities is weak. For 
> example, Wilson and Alcorn
> (1969) reported
> no attitudinal differences among college students who simulated blindness,
deafness, or orthopedic disability. Most of the new insights acquired by
persons who simulated a disability were negative reactions such as
displeasure with self, embarrassment, frustration, and reliance on others.
> Glazzard (1979), in a report containing excerpts of students' comments
regarding hearing, orthopedic (wheelchair), and visual simulation
impairments, concluded that this method promoted increased understanding of
disability. Yet images of frustration, isolation, humiliation, insecurity,
and apprehension were the major themes expressed. Pfeiffer (1989) reported
that although being perceived as a useful learning activity, persons
simulating someone who used a wheelchair felt "demeaned" during the
experience. Wurst and Wolford (1994) found that college students who
simulated auditory and visual disabilities for one day perceived other
people without disabilities as being "distant, judgmental, [and] not as
friendly" (p. 234). It was noted that several participants reported how
"fortunate" they were not to have a disability. Wurst and Wolford viewed
these outcomes as supporting one of the major goals of the simulation, which
was "not to take their [students'] senses for granted" (p. 234). Grayson and
Marini (1996) found that as a result of completing a disability simulation,
students without disabilities were more likely to report stronger agreement
to several counterproductive beliefs.
> In particular, reports that persons with physical disabilities have a
harder time in society, become more frustrated because of their
disabilities, and are often preoccupied with physical accessibility were
noted.
> To a great extent, the lack of strong empirical support for the use of
disability simulation is a function of problems associated with research
methodology, sampling, instrumentation, and statistical power. These
research problems are ones often expressed in the general rehabilitation
literature (Kosciulek & Szymanski, 1993).
> Consequently,
> despite anecdotal reports (e.g., Clark, Foos, & Faucher, 1995; 
> Orlansky,
> 1979) and,
> to a lesser extent, experimental studies (e.g., Chard, 1997; Thatcher &
Robinson, 1990; Wiener, 1986), it is often the case that methodological
problems compromise the veracity of disability simulation as a method to
promote favorable attitudes.
> Beyond the perceived advantages cited earlier by Hyman (1978) and
Patterson (1980), it appears that its popularity is predicated on learner
enjoyment as well as a neglect by educators to question its effectiveness.
As an indication of the enjoyment factor, Twelker (1976) related a story
about a noted simulation expert who was asked to comment on the research to
support simulation as a general learning method.
> Reportedly, the
> educator responded, "As it stands now, all of us are admitting that we
don't know exactly what we are doing, but it sure is a lot of fun" (p. 96).
This characterization noted almost 25 years ago is applicable today. Within
the context of disability simulation, Kiger (1992) noted that most educators
simply do not question the effectiveness when using disability simulations.
> Given the apparent discordance between effectiveness and use, educators
employing disability simulation as a learning method may be in a dilemma as
to how to best proceed. An analysis of the disability simulation literature
provides an opportunity for educators to make an informed decision on
whether and how this learning method could be used effectively.
> Considerations When Using Simulations
> As noted in the earlier literature review, relying on a simulation as the
only learning method to facilitate awareness and promote positive attitudes
toward persons with disabilities must be questioned as an educational
practice. When simulation is combined with other learning methods, however,
there is clear support that positive perceptions toward persons with
disabilities occur (e.g., Barrett & Pullo, 1993; Jones, Sowell, Jones, &
Butler, 1981; Pernice & Lys, 1996; Pfeiffer, 1989; Schwartzwald, 1981; Wurst
& Wolford, 1994). Examples of other learning methods include: (a) direct
social interaction with people with disabilities through recreational
pursuits, 03) reading material and/or viewing and listening to audiovisual
materials (films, videotapes) about disability issues, (c) attending support
group meetings that are open to the general public (e.g.,
Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous), (d) listening to panel discussions
conducted by persons with disabilities, and/or (e) taking formal coursework
in academic disciplines that address various disability aspects (e.g.,
rehabilitation counseling, special education, and therapeutic recreation).
> As evident in these learning methods, the level and type of contact
between persons with and without disabilities varies considerably.
> For this reason, applying several learning methods rather than relying on
disability simulation alone is more effective in producing positive
attitudes, awareness, and behavior toward persons with disabilities.
> Beyond the literature to support the efficacy of using multiple 
> learning methods, there are additional reasons that have been cited as 
> well. First, many rehabilitation educators (e.g., Chard, 1997; 
> Hallenbeck, 1984; Wright,
> 1978) believe that individuals who participate in simulations tend to
experience only negative aspects of disability such as problems with
architectural accessibility, physical fatigue, and learning how to perform
tasks in a different way. This criticism seems particularly applicable when
simulations are of short duration, such as a few hours (e.g., Kelley, 1993;
Margo, 1983). Second, educators sometimes ask learners to focus on
particular frustrations and barriers that occur during the simulation (e.g.,
Thatcher & Robinson, 1990; Wilson & Alcorn, 1969). By doing so, disability
simulations have effects opposite to those for which the learning
intervention was intended (French, 1992). Third, other interventions, such
as interviewing persons with disabilities or listening to speakers who have
direct personal experience, provide learners with a broader perspective
about disability.
> In order to be effective, however, the contact between persons with and
without disabilities must be characterized by an equal status relationship
(e.g., similar in educational, social, and vocational status) (Donaldson,
1980). Furthermore, Wright (1980) contended that interpersonal contact
between persons with and without disabilities that evokes aversion, fear, or
guilt is not likely to result in any constructive views regarding
disability.
> Although there is consensus in the use of multiple modalities to increase
disability awareness and facilitate positive attitudes, there is no guidance
from the empirical literature as to what sequence may be most effective. To
my knowledge, there have been no experimental studies that have investigated
whether certain sequential learning methods are more effective than others.
> On a practical level, prior instruction that reviews stigma issues and
stereotypes about persons with disabilities provides a useful framework for
a subsequent simulation experience. Other less directive learning
strategies, such as conducting structured interviews with persons with
disabilities or attending support group meetings that are open to the
general public, may provide learners with personal experiences that may be
augmented or challenged in an experiential activity such as disability
simulation.
> Orienting Learners
> A second consideration when using disability simulation is that learners
must be properly oriented to the experience (Grayson & Marini, 1996; Wright,
1980).
> Prior
> to practical matters such as the nature, length, and setting(s), and how
and when learners document the impact of the experience (e.g., keeping a
written diary or using a tape recorder), the purpose for using disability
simulation must be considered.
> Chard (1997) asked educators to think about whether the purpose of the
disability simulation was to examine attitudes and feelings about
disability, raise consciousness about environmental and societal
restrictions imposed on persons with disabilities, or accomplish both goals.
> As part of postsecondary training, the use of simulation may evolve from
previous learning that examines individual differences, stigma and
prejudice, and attitudes toward persons with disabilities. For some
educators (e.g., Patterson, 1980), simulations that have little relationship
to formal coursework objectives should be avoided. Other educators (e.g.,
Jones, 1995) seem less concerned about identifying specific learning
objectives prior to the simulation and place greater emphasis on providing
learners with sufficient time to reflect upon the experience.
> Regardless which pedagogic philosophy one follows, disability simulation
can result in a powerful emotional experience (e.g., Glazzard, 1979;
Pfeiffer, 1989).
> As a result,
> it is important that educators consider the emotional, social, and
physical experiences that learners may encounter (Patterson, 1980). In
particular, participants should be told during orientation to consider
solutions they might use in overcoming perceived barriers associated with
the physical, mental, and/or social roles they take on.
> Recognizing the solution-focused approach that Wright (1980) advocated,
educators should instruct learners to identify what attitudes, behaviors,
and thoughts were useful in overcoming perceived barriers as part of the
simulation experience. Sensitizing participants to barriers that are self--
versus other-imposed may be helpful for later debriefing, providing an
opportunity to discuss attitudes toward persons with disabilities. According
to Wright (1980), it is often the case that people without disabilities use
their life experience in determining what social, personal, and vocational
roles are possible for persons with disabilities. For instance, a sighted
person may not perceive how a person who is blind could enjoy going to a
movie as that other person cannot "see the movie."
> Although
> the sighted person acknowledges that the experience is different, it is
also devalued.
> To demonstrate this central point, there are three preliminary activities
that I provide during the orientation process.
> The first activity involves asking learners to write down all of the
images that come to mind that they associate with the word "disability." I
ask learners to record as many words as they can within one minute and,
after doing so, I invite them to share whatever images they wish. Often,
this experience results in several themes that reflect ability, challenge,
courage, devaluation, discrimination, and stigma.
> I ask learners to consider the positive and negative qualities as noted in
the list.
> Following this activity, I ask learners to list various social,
recreational, and vocational activities that they engage in. Participants
will usually list activities such as drive a car, go to a movie, get a job,
raise a family, prepare a meal, and/or go water skiing. Next, I list several
disability categories such as blindness, deafness, epilepsy, mental
retardation, severe mental illness, and spinal cord injury (quadriplegia).
> After writing all the activities in a column and disability categories in
a row I ask learners, "In which of the following activities could members of
any or all of these disability groups not participate?" I provide no other
information.
> After several
> minutes, learners are asked to volunteer their responses. Usually, there
is a mixed response whether members of specific disability groups can
participate in a particular activity. For example, although preparing a meal
is perceived as an activity that most persons with a disability can perform,
there is less agreement about other activities, such as driving a car or
raising a family. During the learning activity, I ask people who did not
respond similarly to explain why they elected to include or exclude a group
with a particular disability. After this discussion, I ask learners to
consider the possibility that all identified groups could participate in
each identified activity.
> Usually, this response is met with various levels of doubt among
participants because the word "participate" is perceived as being analogous
to engaging in an activity in the same way as someone without a disability
would. This comparative framework by persons without disabilities often
results in restrictive roles as perceived by persons without the disability.
> Recognizing this framework serves as an important context when disability
simulation is used as a subsequent learning method.
> The final preliminary activity that I provide involves making a list of
various disability categories that are arranged alphabetically. This list
includes alcohol/drug addiction, blindness/visual impairment ,
deafness/hardness-of-hearing, HIV/AIDS, learning disability, mental illness,
mental retardation, multiple disabilities, paraplegia/quadriplegia, and
traumatic brain injury. I ask learners to rank-order their preferences as to
whom they would most prefer to work with. I further indicate that there
cannot be any categories with the same ranking. Learners are asked to make
two copies of their rankings, one that they submit anonymously and one they
keep for themselves. After completing rankings, learners are invited to
share their responses. Rankings are recorded on poster board or blackboard,
or in some other way displayed for participants to view.
> After rankings
> are tallied, I ask participants to consider what factors influenced their
rankings.
> One theme that frequently emerges is that people's preferences are
dictated by previous experience with a particular disability. This result is
consistent with research studies that indicate that increased contact is
likely to yield more favorable attitudes (e.g., Biordi & Oermann, 1993;
Stewart, 1988), particularly when the person with a disability is perceived
as coping successfully (Strohmer, Grand, & Purcell, 1984; Weiner, Perry, &
Magnusson, 1988). Using this final preliminary activity as part of the
orientation process usually results in persons having different responses
toward disabilities that they perceive as "controllable." For example,
persons with alcohol/drug addiction , mental illness, and/or HIV/AIDS may be
valued more negatively than other disabilities that might occur
congenitally. This perception is consistent with several research studies
(e.g., Alston, Wilkins, & Holbert, 1995; Furnham & Pendred, 1983; Home &
Ricciardo, 1988). In other instances, preferences can be a function of the
perceived extent of accommodations needed to engage in a specific activity
or social role and, therefore, the requirement of greater assistance on the
part of persons without disabilities.
> Within the professional community of therapeutic adventure providers, this
issue seems particularly applicable (Herbert, in press).
> These preliminary activities help clarify the importance of perceptual
sets that many persons without disabilities have toward persons with
disabilities. As an educator who often criticized the single use of
disability simulation, Wright (1980) contended that if this experiential
method was used, then learners must understand the distinction between
succumbing and coping frameworks prior to conducting any simulation
experience.
> According to Wright, a succumbing framework emphasizes what an individual
cannot do; it does not address what types of adaptations are needed to meet
everyday challenges.
> Persons who subscribe to this framework believe that disability remains
the central focus of one's life and any individual personality
characteristics are superceded by disability. In contrast, persons who
subscribe to a coping framework hold a "constructive view of life with a
disability" (p. 275).
> People with disabilities are not passive victims who are devastated by
life challenges. Rather, persons holding a coping framework recognize that
in order to manage life challenges, persons with disabilities must change
their environment. A coping framework embodies a solutionfocused approach to
solving architectural and social barriers. In short, disability is only one
aspect of a person's life that presents both challenge and gratification.
> Wright recommended that if simulations were used, participants should
consider how it might be possible to live with a particular functional
limitation (i.e., use a coping framework). When confronted with
architectural barriers (e.g., no curb cuts for someone using a wheelchair),
learners should think about ways to reduce or eliminate them. Wherever
possible, participants should interact with environments having varying
levels of accessibility (e.g., drinking fountains that accommodate
wheelchairs versus those that do not).
> According to Wright, simulations should "find solutions to problems, not
to remain stuck with them" (p. 275).
> Viewed from this perspective, simulations provide opportunities for
learners to gain a better understanding of environmental barriers and how
they may be overcome. This understanding is not likely to evolve using
"one-time"
> simulations of short duration.
> For this reason, Grayson and Marini (1996) recommended that educators
remind learners of longitudinal studies (e.g., Crewe & Krause, 1990; Marini,
Rogers, Slate, & Vines, 1995; Tate, Kewman, & Maynard, 1990) that indicate
that persons with physical disabilities experience fulfilling and satisfying
lives and report few long-term problems. As reported in these studies,
adjustment to disability changes over time as persons learn to deal with and
overcome obstacles. For this reason, the experience of understanding and
overcoming the challenges that disability sometimes presents is not always
available within one short-term disability simulation.
> Ethical and Safety Concerns
> A third important, yet largely excluded, area in the literature involves
ethical and safety concerns for learners who participate in disability
simulations.
> Because
> of the experience that is simulated for brief periods, disability
simulations have no relevance for persons without disabilities to gain
useful insight in what it means to incorporate disability as part of one's
overall identity. The experience that results from years of living with a
disability cannot be condensed within a brief time period. Attempts to
approximate this experience raise an important ethical question:
> If persons who participate in a simulation come away from the experience
and view people with disabilities as being unfortunate, pitied, or devalued,
is it ethical to use this learning method? Perhaps, as Scullion (1996)
noted, this ethical dilemma may be avoided if educators pay greater
attention to learning objectives, orientation concerns, and debriefing of
the experience.
> Within the latter area, Kiger
> (1992)
> contended that disability simulations pose potential emotional risks for
participants.
> These risks are heightened in cases where participation is not voluntary.
> Should
> debriefing occur as part of the learning process, Kiger warned that if
participants shared personal reactions indicative of prejudice during the
debriefing, then sharing such reactions could prove detrimental in other
situations outside of the debriefing experience. For this reason, educators
must provide a safe debriefing environment where "participants respect one
another's privacy" (p. 73).
> Paralleling potential emotional risks are those that involve physical 
> safety. When simulating a functional physical limitation, persons 
> without disabilities are often required to use props or other 
> materials that restrict physical mobility, vision, and/or hearing. 
> Because of the unfamiliarity with sensory loss or physical mobility 
> restrictions, participants may place themselves in physical jeopardy. 
> Kappan
> (1994)
> contended that simulation participants who had no training in blindness
skills should avoid environments that contain narrow passageways,
overhanging objects, unstable walking surfaces, and stairways. These
situations represent potential dangers. The decision as to which
environments represent perceived and/or actual risk is one that each
educator must consider carefully. Although it is impossible to totally
eliminate any chance of injury, no participant should be placed in a
situation where serious injury may occur. For this reason, educators must
indicate during orientation the potential risks that exist and remind
participants to exercise caution when simulating particular disabilities.
> One way to reduce potential risks is to ask participants to work in pairs.
> The person not participating in the simulation serves as a "spotter"
> in the event of potential risk that is not evident to the person with the
"disability,"
> or if this person requests assistance. Although there may be concern that
the spotter may have a diminished role in the simulation, this role can be
enhanced if the "unimpaired"
> partner observes the behavior of the person simulating the disability as
well as the reactions of others. These observations can prove useful during
subsequent debriefing.
> After a period of time, roles can be reversed so that the spotter
simulates the disability.
> This procedure in switching roles has been found to facilitate learning
(e.g., Grayson & Marini, 1996).
> Given safety concerns as well as other learning constraints, it may be 
> prudent to use a learning method other than disability simulation. For 
> example, Kappan
> (1994)
> believed it was better for students to engage in a classroom discussion
with individuals who are blind or have other sight impairments, rather than
to participate in a simulation.
> Recognizing
> that simulations vary across learning environments, refraining from or
modifying the simulation may or may not be prudent given learning
objectives.
> For instance, wearing a blindfold to simulate visual loss or listening to
an audiotape of condescending statements via earphones to simulate mental
illness may be very troubling for some individuals. Although there are other
ways to simulate aspects of these disabling conditions (e.g., wearing dark
glasses that are coated with petroleum jelly, repeating nonsensical phrases
aloud), facilitators should indicate to potential participants that some
emotional discomfort may occur and, if necessary, learners may discontinue
the simulation at any time. In the event that learners do not wish to
directly experience any form of disability simulation, they may wish to
participate as observers or select one of the other learning methods
mentioned earlier.
> Facilitator Role
> Heyman (1975) contended that there was one fundamental rule when directing
a simulation, and that was, "Run the simulation, not the learners" (p. 21).
> His basic concern reminds educators that learners should have the
necessary information to complete the simulation and, once started, an
educator's role should be as an unobtrusive observer.
> Heyman's
> contention was that educators were not there to teach. Rather, it was the
simulation that provided the learning. Following this recommendation, the
initial role of educators during the simulation is to have minimal
interaction with learners. Although this recommendation seems obvious, it is
interesting to note that in some disability simulations (e.g., Thatcher,
1990), learners are "harassed and nagged" by "facilitators"
> in order
> to promote empathy about the disability experience. In an effort to
duplicate "real world" experiences, this type of intervention seems
counterproductive because, as noted earlier, participants learn a succumbing
rather than a positive coping framework.

> Facilitator interactions, comments, and/or interpretations about
participant behavior should be avoided while persons complete the
simulation. Once the simulation has concluded, educators perform an
important role as facilitators during the debriefing phase.
> There have been several descriptions regarding how to debrief an 
> experiential activity (e.g., Hammel, 1986; Knapp, 1993; Nadler & 
> Luckner, 1992). Certainly, suggestions contained in these descriptions 
> are applicable to processing a disability simulation experience as 
> well but, within the specific context of disability, Steinwachs (1992) 
> believed facilitators should address additional areas of inquiry. As a 
> guide, participants might be asked to examine: (a) their feelings when 
> the simulation was first introduced,
> (b) their greatest frustration and success during the simulation, (c)
whether the simulation raised any parallel real-life experiences, (d) what
aspects were missing from the simulation, and (e) who or what else must be
confronted regarding disability barriers that was not part of the simulation
experience. Such inquiry is useful because it requires learners to consider
both negative and positive challenges that the "disability"
> presented as well as how they were overcome. The insight gained as a
result of this inquiry also helps learners to reflect on what was learned
from the simulation that may generalize to their lives.
> Conclusion
> Disability simulation offers a promising intervention when used in
conjunction with other learning methods. Educators who use simulations to
develop awareness and facilitate positive attitudes toward persons with
disabilities should include orienting activities that increase awareness and
provide a proper context in which personal values and biases are examined.
> In particular, educators must address how persons without disabilities
often apply a comparative framework when evaluating the capabilities of
persons with disabilities. Providing opportunities for learners to
appreciate and value the diversity of challenges that may be experienced
through disability simulation may promote positive attitudinal changes. When
used in combination with other learning methods, simulations represent an
intervention to confront and reduce attitudinal barriers that often result
in persons being less valued simply because of disability.
> Acknowledgement: The author would like to thank Alan Baehr who provided
editorial comment to an earlier draft of the paper. Appreciation to the
anonymous reviewers and the Editor is also acknowledged.
> -1-
> Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning.
> www.questia.com<http://www.questia.com>
> Publication Information:
> Article Title: Simulation as a Learning Method to Facilitate Disability
Awareness.
> Contributors: James T. Herbert - author. Journal Title: The Journal of 
> Experiential Education. Volume: 23. Issue: 1. Publication Year: 2000. 
> Page
> Number: 5+.
> C 2000
> Association for Experiential Education. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All
Rights Reserved.
> _______________________________________________
>



_______________________________________________
Home-on-the-range mailing list
Home-on-the-range at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/home-on-the-range_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Home-on-the-range:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/home-on-the-range_nfbnet.org/souljourner%4
0sbcglobal.net





More information about the Home-on-the-Range mailing list