[acb-hsp] Simulation as a learning Method ...

[J.Rayl]

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.

Next Page

Jessie Rayl
thedogmom63 at frontier.com
www.facebook.com/Eaglewings10
www.pathtogrowth.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.acb.org/pipermail/acb-hsp/attachments/20120608/19d4d30d/attachment-0001.html>