What challenges exist in the adoption of inclusive practices?

Overview

In this chapter, we’ll actually look at the barriers to the removal of barriers in education, including systemic racial inequity, ablism and misinterpretations in the use of technology designed to increase access itself. Considerations on how we can think through alternate viewpoints and how we may address these issues are also discussed.

Learning Outcomes

• Consider how existing frameworks for learning design and learning experience to ensure inclusion and access
• Consider how existing technologies and structures in education and society may present challenges in terms of empowering individuals with different abilities
• Consider how to address barriers in the implementation of access and inclusion

Why is this important?

Despite all the knowledge we have about how to support learners in their use of technology, including how to reduce non-technical barriers to their learning through the use of technology, there are still a number of factors that may present challenges for us in this in this work. By understanding the nuances of our well-intentioned interventions and how they may affect learners, we can be better prepared to make the appropriate decisions to ensure that more learners are supported.

Key Readings

Estes, M. D., Beverly, C. L., & Castillo, M. (2020). Designing for accessibility: the intersection of instructional design and disability. In Handbook of Research in Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 205-227). Springer, Cham.

Revisiting Models of Learning Design

If you’re familiar with models of learning design, such as Backwards Design, ADDIE, etc. (for more see What is Learning Experience Design (LxD)?), these models give us a structured approach to lesson planning and curriculum design. You’ll notice that most of these models consider student needs at some point, whether it be identifying student learning objectives, analysing the context of the learning environment and the learners. There is no specific focus, however, on issues of access, equity or inclusion. While it could be inferred that the ‘analysis’ or ‘learner needs’ aspects of these models can encompass concepts such as accessibility, UDL and others, it’s never clearly stated. In practice this work would happen in the design and development phases, but again, these are not clearly stated. Where do you think this work should be placed in terms of instructional design and / or learning design? As Estes et al. (2020) state, there is a “lack of reference to instructional design in the reviewed disability literature”, suggesting “that many educators and other carers either are unaware of instructional design as an area of study or lack understanding and use of it in their research and instruction/interventions” (p.221). What this tells us is that there is an increased need to understand the context in which we design learning experiences, as well as a need to blend these two areas of practice to ensure that when we are designing, we are designing with access and inclusion in mind.

Introduction

Sometimes, when we choose a technology that can help to support some learners, we may in fact present other barriers for different students. For example, the advent of online learning reduced so many barriers for students living in rural areas and for those who have other work and life responsibilities preventing them from attending on-campus classes. At the same time it also presents barriers in the form of requiring access to technology and an increased literacy in digital technologies. Additionally, systemic issues around access and inclusion may also get in the way of our work to support students – issues that we may have very little agency over and may seem out of our realm of influence.

Existing Systemic Structures

Structural and systemic racism exists in most parts of the world, in most countries and in most communities, and continue to present barriers to learners in every context.

To combat this, many organisations, government and otherwise have implemented anti-racism policies, which involve education for employees, more attention paid to incidents of racism and support for those who were the targets of such incidents. The NSW Department of Education has such a policy aimed to implement such interventions with the ultimate goal of eliminating racial bias in schools. Monash University, UNSW, Charles Sturt University, Macquarie University, and many other universities have either policies around anti-racism or intentional anti-racism initiatives.

So how does racism relate to technology? One good example is the case of facial recognition technology and online test proctoring software where racial bias has been found to exist, specifically for to people with darker skin. This has to do with how these systems are ‘trained’…which ties directly back to representation of historically underrepresented or marginalised people, which was discussed in the previous chapter. As the report by Leslie (2020) outlines, many systems are ‘trained’ based on dominant culture norms – in this case, the faces of caucasian individuals – and the underrepresentation of people of colour (PoC) lead to built-in inequalities for the same. How it works is that machine learning algorithms are fed images of people to look at and ‘learn’ from these images – in many instances the pictures they’re learning from are predominantly light-skinned simply due to lack of representation in the sample images – there’s just not enough images of non-white people. From here the systems learn to identify specific people and limit the identification of others.

Actions that we can take when confronting issues like this are many. As Lee outlines (2018), we can hire programmers to ensure that algorithms are trained with equity in mind. We can also increase representation as mentioned in the last chapter.

Underrepresentation and historical marginalisation of individuals an groups, therefore feed into the continued and amplified underrepresentation and marginalisation of the same, unless we actively work to stop this cycle. It’s important as learning designers and teachers that we’re ware of this, and do what we can in our own ways to end it.

Ableism

If you’ve never heard the term ‘Ableism’ before, it generally refers to the dehumanisation or bias towards those with different abilities, leading to their targeted marginalisation, much like the terms racism or sexism. Generally it refers to any conscious or unconscious bias towards people with different abilities based on our own experiences, upbringing and socialisation. In many instances, perceptions of people with different abilities differs over time, culture and environment. It’s important to recognise that ableism, just like racism and sexism, exists and affects our perceptions, decisions and relationships with people who are different than us.

This also relates to the concept of representation and the differences between representation in mainstream culture to that of the culture of those with different abilities. Thoreau’s study (2017) exploring the differences in disabled representation suggest that representations differ based on who is creating content, and how this relates to models of disability itself.

Moeller & Jung (2014) also make the case that online learning and perhaps academia itself is structured around a culture of mandating normalcy or normality, with anything outside of this being treated as a provided benefit or a ‘special treatment’. While this may not be the case in some educational settings, we must also acknowledge that this cultural aspect of how accomodations and accessibility efforts are perceived may present barriers to our work.

Ability and the Language we use

As the Australian People with Disabilities Association (PWDA) states: “Non-disabled people need to be led by, respect and affirm each individual person with disability’s choice of language they use about themselves.”

In the 1970s, a practicing psychologist in the US with Cerebral Palsy named Sondra Diamond coined the term ‘TAB’ or Temporarily-Able Bodied to contrast people with those who are ‘disabled’. She did this to highlight the fact that if someone lives long enough, their abilities will changed and they may become ‘disabled’ to some degree. While some may argue this phrasing seeks to unite us to a common cause of understanding diversity in ability, others may consider it a divisive way to think about who we are and our abilities.

Person First Language vs Ability First Language

How we refer to others is a good place to start, and debate around this has been ongoing.

• Person First (e.g., Person with Autism)
• Ability First (e.g., Autistic Person)

One talks about the trait of the person and the other talks about ability. See the difference? As Jamie Knight notes in the podcast below, “I don’t have Autism. I am Autistic”, and while the difference might be very subtle, its an important distinction, which is all about the culture and identity of a person, with the other being a description of of their ability / abilities.

Have a listen to Jamie Knight on the Accessibility Rules podcast, where he talks about use of language and identity.

Some advocates propose that person first language is simply a way for ‘TABs’ to feel more comfortable, and it separates a person from their abilities, as if their abilities should not be paid attention to, when in fact for many people of different abilities, its their ability that forms an integral part of their identity. As an example, this author is not a ‘person who is a man’, this author is a man.

Although the American Psychological Association (APA) historically advocated for the user of person first language, Dunn & Andrews (2015) advocated for the use of ability-first language, to ensure that the dignity and identity of those being served by the psychology community were considered as well. It should be noted, however that this comes down to individual and personal preference, so it is better to defer to the request of an individual as to their identity, instead of assuming, much like with pronouns.

Ableism and Technology

When it comes to technology, certain tools including software, hardware and other technologies are almost never intentionally ableist, but much like racism and sexism, ableism can also come from ignorance about users who will be using the technology.

Check out an example below and a response. For context, be aware these students’ project was not intended to catch as much attention as it did, and following the viral nature of this video, they were exposed to lots of positive as well as negative feedback online which garnered lots of conversation and have since acknowledged the challenge and misconceptions that may have arisen from their work.

Educational Data, Privacy and Bias

A new field related to the use of learning technology is that of Learning Analytics, and there are lots of discussions happening round that in terms of the ethical use of data that online systems can collect about our learners. Should students opt-in to these systems? Should they have a right to privacy so that instructors and educational administrators can’t see the details of their activity or their location? For more on this topic check out the chapter, What are the ethical issues?

Addressing these Challenges

So how to we ensure that we are not reinforcing systemic inequality, or presenting barriers for some learners as we attempt to reduce them for others? The easy answer is to learn as much as we an about the barriers affecting our students with the goal of ensuring that this increased awareness can inform our decision-making.

This can be done through learning about the history of marginalised populations through our own research, as well as through conversations with these populations. Finally we can also search for research on how to support learners of these populations, as there is no doubt a lot of information out there on how to address these issues.

In the user of learning technologies, a lot has been covered in this book already, and the research in this pace multiple decades, so chances are there has been research conducted exploring how specific technologies can support learners of different abilities and identities. Simply by using these as examples and acting to support all learners, we are contributing to the erasure of the challenges and barriers. Some even may argue, that to do nothing is a decision to reinforce them.

In other words, the more we learn about our students, their historical and contemporary experiences as well as how we can best support them using pedagogical approaches and technologies, the more we can take a a supportive stance as we work to reduce systemic and societal challenges.

Key Take-Aways

• Taking anti-racist approach to teaching and learning can reduce inequality in the short and long term
• Ableism and the language we use to talk about others can have different effects on individuals.
• Sometimes, even if our intentions are in the right place, technology use may miss the mark

Revisit Guiding Questions

Now that we know a little more about external challenges that may present themselves as endemic in our use of technology to support our learners, think about experiences you may have had where language, technology or even teaching practices were not appropriate for you as a learner. Consider the nature of your selection of technology and the factors you may not have considered previously.

References

Aaron, J. (2015, May 11). Forever crooked: How everyday language reflects negative attitudes about the physically disabled. The Conversation. 

Diamond, S. (1977). The Unmet Psychological Needs of Persons with Developmental Disabilities.

Dunn, D. S., & Andrews, E. E. (2015). Person-first and identity-first language: Developing psychologists’ cultural competence using disability language. American Psychologist, 70(3), 255.

Lee, N. T. (2018). Detecting racial bias in algorithms and machine learning. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society.

Leslie, D. (2020). Understanding bias in facial recognition technologies. Leslie, D.(2020). Understanding bias in facial recognition technologies: an explainer. The Alan Turing Institute. https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo, 4050457.

Moeller, M., & Jung, J. (2014). Sites of normalcy: Understanding online education as prosthetic technology. Disability Studies Quarterly, 34(4). 

Thoreau, E. (2006). Ouch!: An examination of the self-representation of disabled people on the Internet (Links to an external site.). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 1.

Sinclair, J. (2013). Why I dislike “person first” language. Autonomy, the Critical Journal of Interdisciplinary Autism Studies, 1(2).

Wilson, James C., and Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson. “Constructing a Third Space: Disability Studies, the Teaching of English, and Institutional Transformation.” Snyder, Brueggemann, and Garland-Thomson 296-307. Print.

Further Reading

Janz, H. L., & Stack, M. (2017, August 28). Think disability is a tragedy? We pity you. The Conversation.