Virtual Worlds & Accessibility

[Mechelle De Craene]

More and more, we are seeing virtual worlds as a platform for learning. With that, K-12 teachers need to be thinking about accessibility issues. Indeed, as special educators in the US we and our school districts may (?) be held liable under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) if we choose a learning platform that is inaccessible for all of our students. Thus, I wanted to continue the conversation here. To start us off here are a couple questions:

How can educators collaborate with computer scientists to make virtual worlds more accessible for individuals with disabilities?

And a philosophical question: If we modify the game and/or virtual world so that it is more accessible, will that change the nature of the game itself? How can we keep the integrity of the game and/or virtual world (e.g. Second Life) while providing more accessibility?

[nlowell]

Great questions, Mechelle! I'll start a separate thread for each ...

How can educators collaborate with computer scientists to make virtual worlds more accessible for individuals with disabilities?

My answer to this is, "I'm not sure I want them to." Educators and the people designing these spaces are not talking the same language nor do they have the same goals. Organizations engaged in monetization of innovation need to focus on the largest market segments out there. The stark reality of that is that Education (with the Big E) isn't even close to being where these innovators need to be playing. I don't *want* the Linden Labs of the universe being hamstrung by the same rules, regulations, and ethical bindings that govern educators. I want them out there working to create new and exciting and engaging kinds of environments. I want EA out there making SimCity and what all because these might be really excellent tools for learning for some people.

On the other side of that, I don't want to see institutions adopting these technologies as "sole access" to courses. When the University of East Overshoe has a course that meets only in Second Life -- or only in Elluminate for that matter -- the the University of East Overshoe has a REALLY serious problem with the Federal government if they accept government funding. The argument that "we don't have any blind students" isn't going to help them if a student with visual impairment sues in Federal court because that student wants to attend but can't.

And it goes beyond games and environments. I don't want to see schools requiring students to download podcasts. I love podcasts. I have a podcast of my own and I don't have a text version. But it's entertainment. Not education. I'm not requiring a student to use that material in order to pass one of my courses and that's the difference.

So, the bottom line here is that I'm not sure I want them collaborating. What I'd *really* rather have happen is that educators learn more about what the technology can and cannot do. And maybe have the people who are promoting the new technologies to have a little more awareness of the issues. I don't know. This is a tough one.

[Mechelle De Craene]

There still is so much to do and learn with each new day. I recently read this article from IBM:

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/20172.wss

[nlowell]

If we modify the game and/or virtual world so that it is more accessible, will that change the nature of the game itself? How can we keep the integrity of the game and/or virtual world (e.g. Second Life) while providing more accessibility?

I think that depends entirely on the nature of the game or environment. There are some perfectly accessible, highly engaging environments that exist today but nobody's using them. They're text-based, and so not as sexy as the high-end stuff being touted, but all this multi-user experience actually started very shortly after the internet did and long before the web. From an educational potential standpoint, we haven't even looked at those environments at all and that seems to be the biggest problem. We've bypassed really intriguing, very accessible multiuser virtual spaces in favor of the new and shiny.

Second Life will never be accessible to people who are blind. The nature of the experience is just not translateable outside of the visible spectrum. Elluminate will never be accessible to people who are deaf or blind (well -- unless voice recognition and transcription gets a LOT better).

[Mechelle De Craene]

A friend recently sent me this Scientific American article on Haptic maps for the Blind. I thought it was really interesting:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=BDC29B20-E7F2-99DF-3C6EC...

http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/07/tactile-3d-maps-could-help-blind...

[Mechelle De Craene]

Florian, could haptic technology work within the CAVE? I remember you telling me about the glove at SC06. Would a cane work in a CAVE as well? Could we project virtual worlds (such as Second Life) within a CAVE and have an individual with a visually impairment through hepatic tech find their way? Theoretically wondering...

[Matthew Haas]

I think a very important viewpoint to take is that there simply cannot be one or an ultimate learning environment for everyone. And this would apply far beyond those who may have "diagnosed" disabilities.

It always seems like a tragedy to me when, both when going through school, and these days seeing others going through school, struggling or otherwise loathing various subjects because they are not understood, or taught too universally to be adequately accessible by everyone (I personally believe there can't be a win-win situation, short of breaking out everyone with similar learning styles into personalized groups to be taught in a way that is more meaningful to them).

Math is the one I usually pick on. I believe our current educational system is far too structured and rigid for its own good. We force all our students through all this math, and there are just some who don't get it. I've know more than a few people who come off as exceptionally bright, yet they lack any significant "formal" education due to being unable to handle what we may even consider to be the simplest of math (algebra, trig, geometry proofs-- although I'll even admit geometry proofs throw me for a loop at times.. I'll take Calc 3 any day). Yet, these people boggle my mind with what seems like a supernatural ability to still DO math (and incredible math) in their heads. Know any carpenters? It is these people in particular I'm basing this example off of. Never went to college, or failed out of college, yet they clearly have a far greater grasp on mathematical relationships with the things they're building that I feel I do on paper (there's sort of a natural fluency that puts me in awe).

I've always wondered what might happen if we accommodated more of these non-mainstream learning types. For example- my community college has been hosting a high school drop-out prevention program for a few years. The kids in this program have typically dropped out of school (or are clearly on their way to doing so). They've often failed many subjects, have lower self-esteem, and in some cases have other behavioral problems due to their perceived lack of success in the normal school system.

However, when they get into this environment, many times they start to shine, and brilliantly. I was first introduced to this program when one of their students (the age of a high school junior) took one of my Computer Science courses. I should qualify that I tend to run more conversational styles of courses- where discussion and everyone teaching each other is typically focused on more than me giving boring lectures and they sit patiently and listen. This individual outperformed nearly the entire class, and had a mental maturity that was not only refreshing (and hopefully inspirational to my regular college students) but was not what one might expect from someone who bombed out of the traditional high school system.

Anyway, I may be veering off topic... so let me try and steer it back on course:

I agree with nlowell regarding that collaborating with Computer Scientists would be preferable (yet at the same time, would be a good thing).

The problem is... I stressed it before and I'll do so again- Computer Science and High-Performance Computing are not necessarily about the technology. Heck, Computer Science really isn't about "Computers" (instead, it is more of a forked branch of mathematics dealing with algorithms, critical thinking, and logic). High-Performance Computing isn't purely about putting a whole bunch of computers together to solve problems (granted, that is a common and the popular perception), it is about thinking and understanding and realizing the use of concurrency in the solving of problems.

We've all been conditioned to think "sequentially". Do one thing at a time, think in terms of "I". We even joke at the thought of a group mind ("Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated" -- as those who watch Star Trek know from the Borg). We just are not used to intimately thinking in terms of "we". Plus, who knows, perhaps our brains are wired for this "single user" mode of operation. Sure we have the ability to multitask, but often at a cost. I've even read a few articles suggesting it may not be the healthiest mode of operation in the long term when we need to be concerned with depth and focus (perfect example: driving while using a cell phone is illegal in many states, due to so many accidents taking place).

So, I think we have a sort of cultural opposition going on here. We have not properly nurtured the culture necessary to utilize the benefits that Computer Science and HPC can offer us. Instead, we see this "technology" barrier, get scared, and turn heel and run the other way.

Going back to my first point (and perhaps trying to disprove it), if we focused more on things like logic and critical reasoning, we might be better off to utilize the technical applications of HPC in the classroom.

Not to say it isn't happening, but reflecting back on my own primary and secondary school experiences, along with talking with teachers in those positions, I never had that sort of experience. I was left to learn it on my own, only out of interest because I found computers particularly interesting. But you'd be amazed at the fear that gets invoked when I talk about logic in class, and show them how an AND, OR, and NOT work. And critical reasoning? One of the "filter" courses in the Computer programs at my institution is a course called "Structured Problem Solving", which is taught involving no programming language, or even really directly using the computer for the solving of problems. Instead, it focuses on developing the ability to write down how one would perform a task, step by step. What decisions have to be made? Am I repeating some task a number of times? Can I represent a piece of data in terms of variables (algebra) so that I can represent it in a number of different cases, but recognize that they would all apply to the same situation? This course tries to nurture many of the base foundation concepts one needs for Computer Science. Whether or not they know it, to ultimately be successful, they must "learn how to learn".

Looking now to using virtual environments in teaching... can and are they useful? Sure. But I don't think they'd be applicable to all situations for all individuals. We should have the flexibility to use them with groups of students to which they would most benefit. But also recognize they may not work for others, and not fall prey to "teaching" the virtual environment vs. teaching the subject matter.

I think video games can make great tools though. I personally would love it if everyone were able to play games like Tetris (or one of my favorites- Dr. Mario), Lemmings, Sim City, Carmen Sandiego, Soduko, do crossword puzzles, cryptograms, etc. Especially games like Dr. Mario and Lemmings-- all those puzzle games. Even if there isn't some immediate educational value being conveyed, it helps develop those associative skills, to get a mind thinking in ways to combine pieces to get the best possible outcome. And then when it becomes familiar, to see people start to experiment and start optimizing their methods. Wham! Computer Science is then starting to happen. Again, it is more of a culture that needs to be developed.

Another interesting thing I've noticed with some of my new "fresh out of high school" students is their "obsession" with games. Maybe it doesn't happen everywhere, but I had more than a handful of students (courteous and hardworking students, no less) let me know they'd either be missing class, wouldn't be working on homework (or asking there not be significant homework due) the day Guitar Hero II came out. Now, I'm only 27, but I'd never consider skipping class for the release of a video game, or giving it higher priority than my learning. But that shows a cultural difference. While I play and enjoy video games, I'm apparently not immersed as much as these people (I can understand how interesting and fun it can be, but there's also this other thing I like to do-- go outside and play. Hello cultural difference!) Some of the less arduous working but game-crazed students I've accidentally made inroads with by communicating to them in terms of video games (success story #52: I actually got a class of these students, very vocal advocates and players of World of Warcraft, to perform for me multi-step problems that involved math, logic, and other topics we covered in class because I wrote them "WoW" questions. Not only did they solve them, but apparently I earned me some +1 karma for being cool enough to do so.)

I've started to wonder, especially with this new generation of students, whether we need to take a different approach to having meaningful communications with them. I keep thinking about this Star Trek: Next Generation episode called "Darmok":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmok_(TNG_episode)

Where a race of aliens is encountered that communicates primarily in metaphors. By the way, I highly recommend to anyone in education to watch this episode, and to think about the thought processes involved in trying to convey an idea/concept, the way we think of it, in this alien form of communication (to us). And people thought Star Trek was just some science fiction show depicting explorers in space!

Hopefully I haven't muddied up the points I was trying to make, and actually somewhat responded around the original points of the parent post to the forum.