Research: Science and Education
Using Technology and Other Assistive Strategies To Aid Students with Disabilities in Performing Chemistry Lab Tasks Mary Bethé Neely Instructor of Chemistry, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO 80933;
[email protected] Science laboratory classes pose unique problems for students with physical, visual, and combinations of disabilities. These labs are a requirement both for science majors and for liberal arts students as a general education component, yet the project team for this study notes that methods for accommodating these students in a traditional science laboratory setting are often not considered until the student arrives for the first day of class. Some mention of adaptive situations is found in the literature, but generally on an individual case study basis (1–5). This study’s focus was to determine whether accommodations could be generalized to meet the needs of a larger number of students based on the type of their disabilities while still taking into consideration specific safety issues for each student (6). Physical access for students using wheelchairs addresses not only aisle width and lab bench height, but also eye-level height for reading instruments and glassware calibrations (7, 8). Reading measurement scales is a skill that most low-vision students find difficult, but are more successful with some type of adaptation. Blind students are able to complete some tasks using instruments with auditory sensors or tactile markings (9, 10). The manipulation of glassware and equipment is often a problem for students with limited dexterity of one or both hands. While the original design of the study was to focus on newly developed assistive technology, many of the successful results used non-technological adaptations that are similar to those cited in previous studies (11–15). The 1993 and 2001 publications by the ACS Committees on Teaching Chemistry to Students with Disabilities (16, 17) provide excellent coverage of the wide range of topics dealing with students with disabilities, both in laboratory situations, and also in the classroom. Design of the Study In order to explore methods for accommodating students with visual and physical impairments in introductory chemistry, biology, physics, and geology lab classes, an instructor from each discipline identified three–five general lab tasks. Tasks common to multiple disciplines were not duplicated. A rubric for each task, which broke the task into incremental skills that could be measured on a numerical scale, was developed and used. The example rubric in Textbox 1 was used for evaluating one of the skills in the boiling water task.
Study Subjects For this study, 15 students were recruited from two institutions of higher education, Pikes Peak Community College and the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. The schools’ Disabilities Services Offices posted information about the project and interested students filled out the necessary paperwork. All students who were able to meet the required time commitment were accepted into the research project. The subjects varied in disability type, severity of disability, and previous natural science lab experience. Disabilities included cerebral palsy, paralysis, low vision, total blindness, and injuries such as loss of mobility or hand function resulting from accidents.
Initial, Unmodified Tasks In the first round of testing, students attempted to perform the tasks without assistance or accommodation. Each student attempted tasks from biology, geology, physics, and chemistry, with a faculty supervisor using the designed rubric (Textbox 1) to assess the performance of each student for the tasks within that discipline. In some cases the faculty supervisor had a student assistant from the discipline or from the campus special education program aiding with the assessment. Upon completing each task, the students offered suggestions about changes that could improve their ability to accomplish the task. These suggestions prompted many of the accommodations that were introduced in the second round of testing.
Adapted Tasks Following the initial round of testing, representatives from several assistive technology companies gave product presentations to faculty members. These products ranged from Braille typewriters to enhanced visual magnification devices. The faculty members weighed the advantages and disadvantages of the devices in relationship to the tasks and disciplines being tested. An assemblage of new equipment, assistive technology devices, and adapted labware was then provided for use in the second round of testing. In the second round of testing, students repeated the earlier tasks using the new equipment with the type of accommodation reflecting the individual student’s disabilities.
Textbox 1. Scoring Rubric for Reading Temperatures with Required Accuracy (0.1 ºC) 0 ⫽ Temperature could not be read 1 ⫽ Temperature read with difficulty 3 ⫽ Temperature read, but not with required accuracy (>0.5 ºC)
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
4 ⫽ Volume read, but with marginal accuracy (0.5–0.1 ºC) 5 ⫽ Readings made with no difficulty (N.B: Unlike others, this task does not include a designation “2”.)
Vol. 84 No. 10 October 2007
•
Journal of Chemical Education
1697
Research: Science and Education
Figure 1. Laboratory equipment for the task of boiling water: Thermometer probe with digital readout; Flexible clamping system with base plate; Hot plate with large digital readout and hot surface indicator.
Three tasks were presented and evaluated specifically for chemistry experiments. Each task included putting on and removing safety goggles, taking measurements, and recording them with a stated degree of accuracy. The first task required the student to fill a beaker halfway with water, place the beaker on a hot plate, turn on the hot plate, heat the water to boiling, measure the temperature with a thermometer, and remove the beaker from the hot plate. (See Figure 1.) The second task used an electronic balance to weigh a solid chemical. The student was required to turn on the balance, tare a weighing dish, use a spatula to transfer the chemical from a screw-top reagent bottle to the dish, read and record the mass, remove the weighing dish from the balance and turn off the balance. (See Figure 2.) The third task required the student to pour liquid from a screw-top reagent bottle into a graduated cylinder, measure and record the volume, and dispose of the liquid in a sink. (See Figure 3.) The QUEST (Version 2.0) evaluation questionnaire (18) that is used to assess the utility of accommodations for people with disabilities was then administered to each student. Students rated their satisfaction with each accommodation using a scale of 1–5. Questions surveyed areas such as “How satisfied are you with the ease in adjusting the parts of your assistive device?” and “How satisfied are you with how safe and secure your assistive device is?” The results of the project were disseminated through a two-day summer workshop for science teachers from the middle school through the university level. Presentations were also made to science department faculties and at disciplinerelated conferences. Results
Figure 2. Laboratory equipment for the task of weighing solid chemicals: Electronic balance with detachable digital display; Widehandled spoon.
Figure 3. Laboratory equipment for the task of pouring liquid chemicals: High contrast yellow sticky mat; Glass and plastic graduated cylinders with raised lines and dots applied; Plastic-handled beaker with raised lines applied; Rubber gripper pad for opening bottle; Flexible clamping system with base plate.
1698
Journal of Chemical Education
•
Success in accomplishing laboratory tasks was improved through a variety of measures, including changes in the physical layout of a laboratory setup and the use of assistive devices. While some students were still unable to perform a specific task, most showed some improvement in skill level as well as a higher comfort level using laboratory equipment. In the following descriptions of modifications, the numbers listed after each device (T#) refer to item numbers in Table 1.
Physical Disability Modifications Observations made by the research team during the study showed that students in wheelchairs often have difficulty maneuvering in the aisles between lab benches, particularly if there are chairs or stools in the way. Lab benches may not have kneehole spaces and are frequently counter height rather than table height. One or more sections of lab bench space may be renovated to allow better access for a student who uses a wheelchair, but access to other equipment in the room and safety concerns involving easy exit from the lab for the disabled student and the other students must also be addressed. Faucets for sinks, gas hookups, power outlets, hoods, eye wash stations and other safety equipment will also be difficult for these students to access. A portable lab bench (T1) with paddle handles for sink faucets and easy to reach connections for power and gas is commercially available. An al-
Vol. 84 No. 10 October 2007
•
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
Research: Science and Education
ternative solution is to remodel an existing lab bench. Small portable hoods (T5) are available; they may take up extra lab bench space. With advance knowledge of enrollment of a student requiring modifications to the physical setup of the lab, time and resources for the modifications could be allotted. Students with upper body physical limitations have significantly different needs from students with lower body physical disabilities, and modifications should be developed with those differences in mind. Students with upper body mobility impairment were offered a variety of adaptations, with students’ success in completing the tasks improving proportionally to the degree of their impairment. Handling hot objects such a hot plates and beakers of boiling water was facilitated with hot pads or hot mitts. Beaker tongs are available in a number of styles in both right and left handed forms, and those with traction such as a rubber coating provided a better sense of security. Sticky mats (T19, T23) were provided to place on the bare lab bench top to help prevent slipping of equipment. These are available in several colors and degrees of stickiness depending upon the manufacturer; individual student preferences for these mats varied. Plastic beakers with handles (T10–T13) were available in a variety of sizes and made lifting and pouring easier. Graduated cylinders with handles were not used because they were only available in sizes of 1-L or larger. Spoons with wider handles were easier to use than scoopulas or spatulas. Opening bottles was easier with rubber gripper pads (T18). Replacing standard thumbscrews with larger-sized ones on clamps and rings for ring stands improved success for some students. A clamping system (T6, T7) that provided more multiple flexible positions than a standard ring stand apparatus was particularly helpful for students who had limited mobility in one hand. This system used a base plate or a clamp, a flexible support arm, and several different types of clamp attachments to hold glassware, thermometers, and other equipment. A simple device such as a wooden tray or a length of dimensional lumber (2 ⫻ 6 ⫻ 24 in.) drilled with indentations to hold beakers, test tubes, and other labware could be used by a student in a wheelchair to carry equipment and chemicals from one area of the lab to another, while freeing their hands to operate their chair.
Vision Disability Modifications The most useful assistive technology device for students with limited vision was a magnification camera device known as a Clarity (T2) that uses a computer monitor to display the magnified image captured by a camera mounted on a movable arm. For students with limited vision, this device proved particularly useful for reading small measurement markings on graduated cylinders and thermometers. Lab tasks such as pouring liquid from one container to another were also aided by the Clarity device. However, practice for these hand-eye coordination tasks is needed as the student is viewing their actions on the monitor. The device is somewhat awkward and takes up lab bench space, although it does afford a visually impaired student a much-improved accommodation for laboratory experiences. Concerns about corrosive chemicals affecting the electronics of the device could be addressed with protective coverings.
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
As lower-cost alternatives, lamps with magnification lenses mounted in the center of the light (T15) were tested. These have a relatively small field of vision, distorted the object being viewed and were not as effective as the Clarity. Students with visual impairments also benefited from simple adaptations made to ordinary lab containers and equipment. Textured paints (T16, T17, T22) were used to mark measurement lines on beakers and graduated cylinders.
Table 1. Student-Tested Adaptive Equipment, by Cost Item Number
Equipment Web Site or Vendor and Type of Device
Equipment Cost a
http://www.sciencekit.com 0T1
“Low Profile Mobile Lab Table: The Science Kit Mobile Lab 500”
>$1000
http://www.Adaptive-Technologies.com 0T2
“Clarity Long Arm Flex w/VGA Adapter”
>$1000
0T3
Other magnification systems: “Flipperport”, “Jordy”
>$1000
0T4
Balance 300 g ⫻ 0.01 g
$100–1000
0T5
Various styles of portable hoods
$100–1000 to >$1000
0T6
“Ult-Flex 18” w/base plate
$100–1000
http://www.daigger.com
0T7
“Ult-Flex 18” w/bench clamp
$100–1000
0T8
Hot Plate 7.25 ⫻ 7.25, 120 V
$100–1000
0T9
Temperature–Timer w/Flexi-Pro
$25–100
T10
50 mL pouring beaker
