[humanser] Simulation as a Learning Method to Facilitate DisabilityAwareness

[Merry Schoch]

I appreciate this article; I am now processing it and how I may use it.  I 
will certainly share it with many individuals who use this practice for 
fundraising and educational purposes, as well as those I have a familial or 
personal relationship.    Thanks, Merry
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mary Ann Robinson" <brightsmile1953 at comcast.net>
To: "Human Services Mailing List" <humanser at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 7:44 PM
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
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+.
© 2000
Association for Experiential Education. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All Rights 
Reserved.
_______________________________________________
humanser mailing list
humanser at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/humanser_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
humanser:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/humanser_nfbnet.org/merrys%40verizon.net