In the Laboratory
Effective Laboratory Experiences for Students with Disabilities: The Role of a Student Laboratory Assistant Laura E. Pence,* Harry J. Workman, and Pauline Riecke Department of Chemistry, University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT 06117; *
[email protected] Since most chemists are by nature experimentalists, many faculty members have successfully experimented with adapting the teaching laboratory environment to accommodate students possessing a wide range of disabilities. New experiments have been created (1, 2), apparatus has been built (3– 5), and general strategies (6–9) have been suggested to enable students with disabilities to encounter a complete laboratory experience. Unfortunately, most individual faculty encounter specific disabilities so rarely that they have little opportunity to build an experience base. We recently had the opportunity to accommodate two successive students with different types of disabilities: one student had a physical disability that restricted the student to a wheelchair and significantly limited the student’s manual dexterity, and the second student was blind. When working with students with disabilities, one of the principal goals is to allow each student to carry out as many of the laboratory activities as possible considering the specific disability. In our cases, both of the students had disabilities that would significantly restrict the number of tasks that the student could practically and safely carry out. To enable the students to enjoy the most complete laboratory experience possible, we elected to employ a personal student laboratory assistant to carry out only those tasks that each disabled student was unable to accomplish. By having these two experiences in the same year, we have been able to generalize strategies for using a laboratory assistant to accommodate students with disabilities effectively in the chemistry laboratory. Our general approach as well as case studies of our experiences are described. Advance Preparation Although it is not an issue in the lecture classroom, one of the most important requirements for creating a positive learning experience for a disabled student in a laboratory is ensuring that the faculty receive the maximum amount of advance notice that a student with a disability is enrolled in the class and that the faculty have an idea of what type of disability needs to be accommodated. Smaller schools inevitably encounter fewer students whose disabilities require significant accommodations in the laboratory, and advance notice allows the faculty to research possible options for creating an effective laboratory experience. It also gives time for discussing options with the student, purchasing special supplies or equipment, and arranging for a special laboratory assistant. It is important for the faculty to discover potential options before meeting with the disabled student since, particularly in freshman-level science laboratories, students with disabilities may not have the experience to suggest specialized equipment such as tables of a different height from the lab bench or to request a personal laboratory assistant. Disabilities are as individual as students themselves, so the disabled student should be consulted directly to establish which of the accommodation options will be most effective
for his or her specific situation. Accomplishing both the initial research and the discussion with the student prior to the start of the first laboratory ensures that the student will begin the semester in a comfortable environment. One unexpected discovery in our project was learning that it is possible faculty will not receive notification that a student with a disability will be enrolled in a laboratory class. We strongly encourage faculty to check their school policies to be alert for such situations and to consider general strategies before the issue arises. Our Student Affairs Office did not notify us of the upcoming need to accommodate a student with a disability because it is their policy to encourage students to be their own advocates. This is a policy that probably works best for courses without laboratories since advance notification is the key to maximizing the opportunities for relaxed dialogue about specific accommodation details such as equipment or furniture that must be ordered. In general, many students entering college are not accustomed to acting as their own advocates and require some personal adjustment to this new role in which they are responsible for adjusting class schedules, negotiating with faculty, or requesting accommodations for a learning disability or physical disability. As a result, a policy requiring students with physical disabilities to contact instructors independently does not work flawlessly to give faculty crucial planning time (10). The sophomore student with limited mobility never contacted us about enrollment in general chemistry; we learned of his enrollment through other sources. By contrast, the senior student who was blind was a particularly good advocate on her own behalf, since she actively sought out advice on the best laboratory course to take to fulfill her general education requirement. She followed up her initial inquiries with phone calls to gain an understanding of what was required in the laboratory and to give the faculty an idea of how best to compensate for her disability. One of our first considerations was the selection of a laboratory work space for each disabled student that would be optimum for all the students in the class (10). Different disabilities require different considerations, so a single designated handicapped student station was not necessarily an appropriate general solution. With the student possessing limited mobility, we needed to allow for the spatial consideration of both the student’s wheelchair and the collapsible 28 inch high table that we purchased to be a working surface of the appropriate height for a seated individual. We rejected the idea of placing the table and the student by the door, which would create excessive traffic congestion in that area. We also rejected allowing the student to work at the front table since that arrangement would eliminate needed demonstration and supply space. We instead chose to position the table at the end of a bench containing other student work stations away from the congested area around the common equipment and supplies. This location minimized the dis-
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 3 March 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education
295
In the Laboratory
ruption to the student traffic patterns, did not isolate the disabled student, and still allowed the student easy access to the exit in case of emergency since the aisles in that room are wide and generally free of obstacles, such as stools or chairs (11). The student with a mobility disability operated his own motorized wheelchair, but the laboratory assistant would be responsible for ensuring that the student exited safely in an emergency. In the situation with the student who was blind, ease of egress was the only factor that needed to be addressed since she did not have a guide dog, so the optimum position for her work station was indeed at the position closest to the door where physical obstacles to her exit would be minimal. One of the most important considerations in the entire experience was the selection of the laboratory assistant. Our first student with a disability had muscular dystrophy and therefore had very limited manual dexterity. This student will be referred to as “John” (not his real name) for the remainder of the article. An effective laboratory experience for John would require him to have an assistant to perform those tasks that he was unable to carry out independently. John had a state-funded personal aide, but the aide’s responsibilities did not include assistance in class. Since the class was the first semester of general chemistry, we did not have previous experience with the other students enrolled in the class. We did not feel that we could rely on random pairing to select a student partner who would have the appropriate laboratory and interpersonal skills to provide a satisfactory situation for the student with a disability. We also wanted to maintain a maximum level of independence for John and ensure that his laboratory experiences and grades were a reflection of his own scientific abilities rather than a lack in a classmate’s. We therefore requested funds from the Dean of Students Office to hire a laboratory assistant who had been through the course previously and who could be assigned specifically to John. This issue of hiring a laboratory assistant had not arisen previously at our institution, so we had to create our own precedent for the procedure to select the assistant. We, the faculty, chose to take a very active role in the selection of the laboratory assistant rather than leaving the responsibility to John or the Student Affairs Office. During that semester, no qualified chemistry major was available to act as the laboratory assistant, and we ultimately felt that the qualifications of the individual, such as laboratory competence, self-confidence, and ability to take direction and not take charge, were more important than the major. As a result, we asked a student who was majoring in physical therapy–health professions to be the assistant since she had completed both semesters of the general chemistry laboratory and lecture. The competence of her previous performance in laboratory indicated that she had already mastered the requisite experimental techniques, and therefore her performance would not have a negative impact on the results obtained by the pair. This particular student was self-confident enough to take direction well and to allow John to direct the combined lab activities. We also felt that this experience would be particularly valuable for a student who was intending to pursue a handson career in the health professions. Inclusion of students with disabilities in our laboratory classes gave us the incentive to review our standard safety procedures. We expect all students to be generally responsible for their own safety, but we wanted to anticipate situations 296
in which a disability would make a student less able to react quickly in case of accident or emergency. These considerations were also important in our requirement that the laboratory assistant be an experienced student in the laboratory rather than a new student. With the students, we discussed potential problematic situations in which the laboratory assistant would need to aid the student with a disability to reach safety, and we expected the laboratory assistant generally to have a better awareness of safety issues than the students who were taking their first college chemistry laboratory. Handling specific safety issues should be discussed among the faculty, the student with a disability, and the laboratory assistant, but here again, disabled students in freshman chemistry labs are as inexperienced as their classmates. The faculty should present potential situations and suggested options so the student with the disability and the laboratory assistant can establish general procedures with each other and understand under what circumstances the disabled student might need aid. The student with a disability should also be given the opportunity to suggest any other safety issues or situations to be addressed. Case Study No.1: John, a Student with a Mobility Disability, and General Chemistry Our basic premise for employing a laboratory assistant was that the person should be essentially an auxiliary resource and should perform only the tasks that John was unable to perform for himself. The assistant was not to contribute to guiding the activities other than assessing safety issues, but was to be entirely directed by John. Since many students who are learning laboratory techniques may make unwise or unsafe decisions during an experiment, we wanted to give the laboratory assistant clear guidance about how she was expected to act. If John happened to give the laboratory assistant a direction that created a safety problem, the laboratory assistant was expected not to carry out the instruction and to explain why she was refusing. This situation never occurred during the semester, but the safeguards were still in place in advance. A second priority that we set was that the laboratory students and the laboratory instructor should be encouraged to interact with John, who was directing the experience, and not with the laboratory assistant who was carrying out certain tasks at John’s direction and was not being graded. We anticipated that since the laboratory assistant was more experienced than most of the students and was the person physically carrying out much of the experiment that the people in the lab would instinctively interact with her. We were determined that John would participate in all interactions. The laboratory instructor was coached separately to focus communications on John rather than the laboratory assistant. The laboratory assistant was responsible for deflecting all student interactions involving the laboratory material to focus on John. John contributed quite naturally to this goal as he rapidly established himself as an intelligent and valuable resource for his classmates, so communication eventually automatically focused on him without any further encouragement. Particularly in the experiments that were performed by pairs of students, his partner benefited enormously from John’s guidance and input. John and the laboratory assistant quickly developed the friendly rapport of teammates and established their own
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 3 March 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
In the Laboratory
methods for working through an experiment. After putting on their goggles, the laboratory assistant would find the procedure in the laboratory manual so that John could consult it to list the items that should be obtained from his equipment drawer. At each step, the laboratory assistant waited for specific instructions from John before weighing out a substance or making a solution, and John made all measurements by having the laboratory assistant hold the buret, graduated cylinder, or flask at eye level. Our strict rules about wearing goggles in lab minimized the hazards of bringing glassware and chemicals close to a student’s eyes. After the measurements were taken, the laboratory assistant entered numbers in the calculator and was responsible for writing in the lab notebook. The laboratory assistant also entered data into the computer programs that checked the students’ calculations. One of John’s prior adaptations was the ability to do quite a bit of math in his head, so that part of the process went relatively quickly. All students, regardless of their abilities, make mistakes at some point in their laboratory experiences, and we discussed in advance how the laboratory assistant should act in the event that John supplied her with faulty directions. The laboratory assistant was expected to carry out all of John’s instructions within reason; an incorrect instruction that did not jeopardize the safety of anyone in the room was to be carried out, but the laboratory assistant was required to constantly evaluate the instructions she was given for potential problems and safety issues. On only one occasion did John direct an incorrect procedure, and the laboratory assistant did indeed begin to carry out the directions. The laboratory instructor intervened to correct the problem as she would have with any other student, and the pair was immediately back on track. This type of error was extremely rare in the experience of the two students, and they usually finished the experiments in the same average working time as the rest of the students in the class. In an interview with the two students at the end of the semester, it was obvious that they had formed an excellent working relationship after the initial adjustment period. When asked to describe any difficulties they had or areas that needed improvement, they could only identify that their method of having the laboratory assistant hold the glassware at eye level for John to take the reading was imperfect because the apparatus was not necessarily perfectly stable or level. The laboratory assistant specifically mentioned that she had learned an enormous amount of patience from the experience. The two students agreed that the key to their success was taking their time and not trying to rush through the experiment. Case Study No. 2: Anne, a Student Who Was Blind, and Nonscience-Major Chemistry It was a very unusual coincidence that in the semester following our first experience with a student who had limited mobility we had a second situation that required a student laboratory assistant. The same student who assisted the previous semester was willing to assist again, so although our two disabled students had widely different personalities, talents, and requirements, the same laboratory assistant worked with both students. The student who was blind will be re-
ferred to as “Anne” (not her real name) for the rest of the article. Anne had done quite a bit of investigation during the registration period the previous semester to establish that “Chemistry for the Consumer”, the course for nonscience majors, had the laboratory that could be most readily adapted to her disability. This laboratory curriculum contained several experiments that included opportunities for tactile and audio analysis rather than relying exclusively on visual observation. None of the published experiments for visuallyimpaired students were appropriate for a student with no visual ability in a nonscience-majors class (1–3, 5, 12), so the accommodations relied on the regular group of experiments. The “Chemistry for the Consumer” laboratory involves exclusively partnered experiments, but this arrangement assumes that both students can independently carry out half of the required activities. Employing a laboratory assistant for Anne allowed her to accomplish activities independently from her partner and maintained a balanced contribution by both students to the experiment. On the first day of laboratory, the students were required to check in to their drawers, but they did not have any other scheduled activities. After the laboratory assistant gave Anne an opportunity to feel each piece of equipment and identify it, the laboratory assistant took the opportunity to orient Anne to the lab room so that Anne could find her way around and exit rapidly if necessary (10, 11). As with John, the laboratory assistant was counted on to serve as backup for Anne’s safety in an emergency, but Anne was expected to assume independent responsibility for her safety. We also established that Anne would follow all safety precautions including wearing eye protection (11). This accommodation experience amply demonstrated the importance of prior preparation for each experiment on the part of the students. The general chemistry laboratory curriculum includes weekly 15-point prelab assignments that force the students to read the experiment in advance of attending the lab. These assignments resulted in John’s always being extremely well-prepared to start the experiments promptly. In contrast, the “Chemistry for the Consumer” course does not employ prelaboratory assignments, which results in few if any students actually reading the experiment prior to lab. Anne was typical of other students in often not having read or reviewed the experiment in advance. The laboratory assistant found this situation somewhat frustrating since it did slow down the team. An opportunity to make the laboratory manual available in Braille or as an audio version might serve to reduce this issue in the future rather than making the student rely on her reader to help her with advance preparation for the experiments. Once the laboratory began, the trio of Anne, the laboratory assistant, and the partner quickly established a working routine. After putting on their goggles, the laboratory assistant began by reading the experimental instructions out loud, and then Anne would get out the glassware needed. Anne had an excellent memory, so the laboratory assistant could consult her for the instructions for each successive step of the experiment. Anne did as much of each experiment as she could, such as weighing out chemicals with the laboratory assistant reading numbers off the digital balance and taking turns with her partner to mix reagents. The ability of
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 3 March 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education
297
In the Laboratory
Anne and the laboratory assistant to accomplish tasks independent of the partner allowed the trio to complete each experiment within the allotted time. After the laboratory course ended, Anne indicated two specific aspects of the laboratory that were less than ideal. Although Anne was very proud of her newly acquired familiarity and competence in the laboratory, she was never comfortable anywhere near an open flame. The laboratory assistant learned to keep her away from lit Bunsen burners, which somewhat reduced the problem. The second comment, which was completely understandable, was that although taste, touch, and hearing were employed in several of the experiments, sight remained one of the most important methods of observation. This limitation frustrated the student. Her comment identifies a common characteristic of a chemical laboratory, which will be challenging to change. Given a similar situation in the future, we would make an effort to increase the number of tactile models that could be used.
•
Care should be taken to select a laboratory assistant who is patient, flexible, and adaptable (13). The student should have sufficient laboratory experience so that his or her experimental technique is well-developed, and the laboratory assistant should preferably be familiar with the specific laboratory class and experiments in which he or she is to participate. Students with disabilities should not be penalized for a novice’s potentially negative impact on both the time required to complete the experiments and on the accuracy of the results.
•
Safety issues should be reviewed prior to the start of the class. The disabled student and the laboratory assistant should specifically agree on their emergency procedures, and discuss situations in which the student with a disability might need assistance to reach safety. The disabled student should indicate what form of assistance would be most helpful.
Conclusions
•
When working in the laboratory, the laboratory assistant must critically evaluate the instructions she or he is given by the student with a disability. Only instructions that do not present safety hazards should be carried out, but those instructions should be carried out regardless of whether or not they are necessarily the correct next step.
•
The disabled student should never be depersonalized. Everyone involved, students, laboratory instructors, and faculty, should interact directly with the disabled student who is directing the experience. The laboratory assistant is expected only to carry out tasks under the direction of the disabled student and is not expected to help guide the activities; he or she should redirect interactions to focus on the disabled student.
•
The student with a disability should perform as much of the experiment as possible. The laboratory assistant should be directed to perform only tasks that the disabled student is unable to carry out (8, 10). Once the accommodations are in place, the student with a disability should be expected to participate and contribute to each class and should be given the same expectations as any other student.
Overall, both of our experiences were extremely positive and quite successful for the faculty and students involved. Our success was judged by the satisfaction of the students with the accommodations and by the ability of the students to obtain appropriate and accurate results in the experiments. The same standards were used to assess all of the students in a laboratory class, and once the accommodations were in place, the students with disabilities did not seem to be at a greater advantage or disadvantage compared to their classmates. We offer the following general strategies for approaching laboratory experiences for disabled students. •
•
•
•
•
298
Advance warning and preparation are critical to accommodating disabled students effectively in the laboratory. Faculty should know their institutional policy on notification that students with disabilities are enrolled in specific classes. When faculty receive advance notification that a student with a disability will be taking a laboratory class, they should carry out the initial research to understand what types of accommodations are possible and relevant. Faculty should be prepared to offer options and suggestions to the student, but the specific details should only be established upon consultation with the student to learn which accommodations would be useful and appropriate. Advance preparation for each laboratory experiment on the part of the students also significantly increases the effectiveness of the laboratory experience and reduces the frustrations for all students including those with disabilities.
Literature Cited 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Different students and different disabilities will need different accommodations. A single strategy will not be appropriate for all situations, neither will a single location in the laboratory be optimum for all situations.
7. 8. 9.
Faculty input into the process of selecting a laboratory assistant is extremely important since the faculty specifically know the skills required for each laboratory course and generally know the experimental abilities of the available students.
10. 11. 12. 13.
Hiemenz, P. C.; Pfeiffer, E. J. Chem. Educ. 1972, 49, 263. Flair, M. N.; Setzer, W. N. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67, 795. Tallman, D. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1978, 55, 605. Brindle, I. D.; Miller, J. M.; Richardson, M. F.; Balenovich, W.; Benkel, M.; Biernacki, T. J. Chem. Educ. 1981, 58, 232–233. Lunney, D.; Morrison, R. C. J. Chem. Educ. 1981, 58, 228–231. Blumenkopf, T. A.; Swanson, A. B.; Larsen, R. P. J. Chem. Educ. 1981, 58, 213. Tombaugh, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1981, 58, 222. Smith, D. J. Chem. Educ. 1981, 58, 226–227. Gavin, J. J.; Cain, B. E.; Menchel, R. S.; Rockwell, D. L.; Sharpless, N. S. J. Chem. Educ. 1981, 58, 209–212. Crosby, G. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1981, 58, 206. Swanson, A. B.; Steere, N. V. J. Chem. Educ. 1981, 58, 234. Anderson, J. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67, 795. Crosby, G. A. J. Chem. Educ. 1981, 58, 205.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 3 March 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
