This publication shares the proceedings of a capacity building institute (CBI) entitled Universally Designed Learning and Learning about Universal Design that took place in Seattle, Washington in April of 2016. The content may be useful for people who
AccessEngineering works to increase the participation of people with disabilities in education and careers in engineering and improve engineering fields with their perspectives and expertise. Central to this work is a leadership team of faculty members from colleges and universities across the country. AccessEngineering is led by the College of Engineering and the DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology) Center at the University of Washington (UW) and is funded by the National Science Foundation (Grant #EEC-1444961).
AccessEngineering builds on theory, research, and practice to address immediate challenges facing engineering education today, including: increasing the size of the engineering workforce, diversifying engineering fields, and meeting institutional obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and its 2008 amendments. The project focuses on two objectives:
The second objective is an opportunity to improve engineering education as a whole, which may lead to the development of more accessible technology by the next generation of professional engineers, while including information in the engineering curriculum that may be of particular interest to potential engineering students, including students with disabilities.
Universally Designed Learning and Learning about Universal Design in Engineering, sponsored by AccessEngineering, was held in Seattle, WA on April 5–8, 2016. Its purpose was to encourage efforts to make engineering more welcoming and accessible to students with disabilities and enhance engineering curricula with disability-related and universal design topics. Attendees included engineering students and professionals with disabilities, postsecondary faculty and administrators, disability experts, and professional organization representatives.
This CBI featured the following:
The CBI provided a forum for discussing recruitment and access challenges, sharing expertise and successful practices, developing collaborations, creating resources, and identifying systemic change initiatives relevant to the meeting goals.
Topics discussed include
The agenda for the CBI and summaries of the presentations, panels, and working group discussions are provided on the following pages.
7 – 9 pm
Networking Reception
8 – 9 am
Breakfast and Networking
9 – 10:20 am
Welcome, Overview, and Introductions
Sheryl Burgstahler, PI, and Katherine Steele and Maya Cakmak, Co-PIs, AccessEngineering, University of Washington (UW)
Video Drafts & Discussion of Possible Improvements
Broadening Participation in Engineering to Include People with Disabilities Including Accessibility and Universal Design in Engineering Curriculum
10:20 – 11 am
Accommodations and Universal (or Inclusive/Accessible) Design
Sheryl Burgstahler
11:15 am – 12:15pm
Panel of Engineering Students and Professionals with Disabilities
Panelists: Nicholas DiChiara, Auburn University, Marie Erickson, North Carolina State University, Kathryn Woodcock, Ryerson University, Daniel Stewart, University of Florida, Cynthia Bennett, UW
Moderator: Brianna Blaser, UW
12:15 – 1:15 pm
Working Lunch
Challenge: List specific examples of applications of universal design that could be integrated into engineering courses.
1:15 – 1:45 pm
Report Out
1:45 – 2:45 pm
Keynote: Universal Design in Project-Based Design Courses
Kimberly Bigelow, University of Dayton
3 – 3:30 pm
Small Group Discussion
How can you encourage instructors on your campus to consider integrating accessibility/universal design into their courses?
3:30 – 3:45 pm
Report Out
3:45 – 4:45 pm
Short Presentations – Human-Centered and Universal Design
Students’ Understanding of Human-Centered Design
Carla Zoltowski, Purdue University
Mentoring Engineering Students to Consider the Needs of Individuals who are Blind or Visually Impaired
Cris Schwartz, Iowa State University
EPICS: A Service-Learning Design Program
Andrew Pierce, Purdue University
Accessible Makerspaces
Katherine Steele and Maya Cakmak, UW
4:45 – 5:00 pm
Preview of Dinner Tonight and Tomorrow’s Topics
6 – 8 pm
Dinner
Discussion: How could engineering labs and makerspaces on your campus be made more accessible?
8 – 9 am
Breakfast and Networking
9 – 9:15 am
Daily Overview, Discussion
9:15 – 10:15am
Keynote: Accessible Hands-on Learning
Bradley Duerstock, Purdue University
10:30 am – 12pm
Accessible Design Challenges
Cynthia Bennett and Andrew Davidson, UW
12 – 12:15pm
Introduction of Working Groups
Individually or in groups, draft promising practices, Q&A’s, or case studies for our knowledge base or replication packages; provide input on draft publications; or engage in discussions of key topics.
12:15 – 1:15pm
Lunch
Discuss with your working group what you hope to accomplish by the end of the meeting tomorrow.
1:15 – 1:45 pm
Report Out
1:45 – 3:15 pm
Continue Working in Working Groups
3:15 – 4 pm
Short Presentations – Outreach & Community Involvement
Providing Opportunities for K-12 Students with Disabilities to Engage in Engineering Activities
Leyf Starling, NCSU
Managing an Open Prototyping Facility
Davin Huston, Purdue University
Building a Cross-Campus Coalition Related to Disability
Jonathan Lazar
4 – 5 pm
Film: Fixed: The Science/Fiction of Human Enhancement
5 – 5:30 pm
Discussion
How do the viewpoints of the individuals in the documentary Fixed affect how you would teach about topics related to disability and universal design in the engineering curriculum?
8 – 9 am
Breakfast and Networking
9 – 9:15 am
Daily Overview
9:15 – 10:00 am
Panel: Supporting Students with Disabilities
Panelists: Brianna Blaser, UW; Jonathan Santeliz, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities; Dan Standage, Student Veterans of America; Cris Schwartz, Iowa State University
Moderator: Sheryl Burgstahler
10:00 – 11:15 am
Short Presentations: Disability-Related Issues in the Classroom
Preparing Individuals with Disabilities for Education and Work
Randy Williams, University of Pittsburgh
Lessons Learned from Teaching about Assistive Technology
Jeff Dusek, Harvard University
Examples of Student Projects related to Disability
Dave Chesney, University of Michigan
Creative Potential and Challenges of Students with ADHD in Engineering Programs
Arash Esmaili Zaghi, University of Connecticut
AT Hackathons
William Li, MIT
11:15 am – 12 pm
Working Groups
12 – 12:15 pm
Report Out from Working Groups
AccessEngineering Resources and Continuing Activities
Evaluation
12:15 – 1 pm
Lunch, Networking and Discussion
How can we continue to work together to promote universally designed engineering education and to encourage learning about universal design?
Presenter: Sheryl Burgstahler
Ability exists on a continuum, where all individuals are more or less able to see, hear, walk, read print, communicate verbally, tune out distractions, learn, or manage their health. In K-12 education in the United States, every child is ensured a free, appropriate education in as integrated of a setting as possible. However, in postsecondary education, students must meet whatever course or program requirements apply and are offered reasonable accommodations as needed.
Accommodations and universal design (UD) are two approaches to access for people with disabilities. Both approaches contribute to the success of students with disabilities in engineering classes. Accommodations are a reactive process, providing access for a specific student and arise from a medical model of disability. Students might be provided with extra time on tests, books in alternate formats, note taker, sign language interpreters, or other adjustments.
In contrast, UD is a proactive process rooted in a social justice approach to disability and is beneficial to all students. UD is designing products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. A UD approach can benefit people who face challenges related to socioeconomic status, race, culture, gender, age, language, or ability.
UD of instruction is an attitude that values diversity, equity, and inclusion. It can be implemented incrementally, focuses on benefits to all students, promotes good teaching practice, does not lower academic standards, and minimizes the need for accommodations. UD can be applied to all aspects of instruction, including class climate, interactions, physical environments and products, delivery methods, information resources and technology, feedback, and assessment. Examples include the following:
Educators who effectively apply UD and accommodations level the playing field for students with disabilities and make instruction welcoming to, accessible to, and usable by all students. They minimize, but do not eliminate, the need for accommodations.
Presenter: Kimberly Bigelow, University of Dayton
The presenter established the value of incorporating universal design into the engineering curriculum through the 7 guiding principles of universal design. These principles include Equitable Use, Flexibility in Use, Simple and Intuitive Use, Perceptible Information, Tolerance for Error, Low Physical Effort, and Size and Space for Approach and Use. Universal design is meant to make products, services, and environments more appropriate for the entire spectrum of abilities and preferences of users and should be considered in all engineering projects.
It is important to incorporate universal design principles into student design projects. If universal design isn’t incorporated into a design prompt or explicitly taught to students, they are unlikely to incorporate it into their designs in the course or in their future careers. This suggests that universal design is not inherently known, considered, or easily recognized by students. However, when a project was introduced that focused specifically on universal design and included some guided discussion and activities, students demonstrated the ability to understand and apply universal design principles fairly easily. It should be noted, though, that wheelchair accessibility was still considered more often and with more importance than the other guiding principles of universal design. Placing universal design in the student design prompt encourages students to research universal design and find new and interesting ways to incorporate it into their projects.
Factors can also come into play for students understanding and appreciating universal design. This starts with faculty awareness, and includes teaching some of the following:
Because faculty may not be aware of universal design, practitioners of universal design are encouraged to reach out to assist engineering faculty members. Individuals knowledgeable in universal design can start by offering guidance, support, and mentorship to faculty in engineering departments.
For more information on this topic, consult Bigelow, K.E. (2012). Designing for success: Developing engineers who consider universal design principles. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(3), 212 – 231.
Presenter: Bradley Duerstock
“It is a question of whether Society can afford to support such an enormous number of non-producers no matter how just their claim.... The injured man must be made to feel that he is not an object of charity, but that he is a handicapped contestant in the world of active people.” - Gilbreth and Gilbreth, 1917
There are a variety of reasons that people with disabilities are excluded from hands-on learning. Social stigmatization and attitudinal barriers like a lack of encouragement to study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, a lack of role models, little institutional support mechanisms for STEM labs, and difficulty in disseminating information and resources to those who need it all present challenges. So do physical barriers including the inability to use lab facilities and equipment, the inability to directly engage in lab research, and difficulty trying and acquiring assistive technology. As a result, people with disabilities are less likely to study STEM in graduate school and receive a PhD as their non-disabled peers.
At the Institute for Accessible Science, our mission is to promote the inclusion and active participation of persons with disabilities in science and engineering through practical training and research experiences, lab assistive technology (AT) and accessible scientific equipment, and enrichment and support services for both students and educators. We believe any person with a disability can pursue science and engineering as a career and that independence and practical STEM experiences are essential to success.
In our Accessible Biomedical Immersion Laboratory (ABIL), we’ve built an accessible wet lab. The lab “work triangle” consists of an accessible lab sink, fume hood, and an adjustable height lab-bench and ensured that safety devices are accessible. Current research looks at the following:
In the future, 3-D printing can be used for customization and dissemination of STEM-specific AT. We need better methods for determining research accommodation solutions for students and federal funding is needed to promote the recruitment of students with disabilities in higher education.
For more on accessible hands-on learning, take a virtual tour of Ability360 (formerly ABIL).
Presenter: Carla Zoltowski
In our research, we were interested in looking at ways in which students experience and understand human-centered design. We wanted to understand how educators can help students develop an understanding of, and the skills needed for, human-centered design. We also wished to learn which experiences contribute most to students’ learning of human-centered design and development of an understanding of the user.
Using a phenomenological approach, our study interviewed students over 18 who have participated in design experiences where they are “designing for others.” This included curricular projects such as design classes as well as co-curricular activities such as Engineers Without Borders, research, internships, and other experiences.
Analysis of the interviews led to qualitatively different ways that students understood human-centered design. Five of these categories were hierarchical and included human-centered design as “user as information source input to linear process,” “keep users’ needs in mind,” “design in context,” “commitment,” and “empathic design.” There were two other categories with design viewed as “service” or “technology-centered.”
These results suggest a number of things:
For more information, consult Zoltowski, C., Oakes, W., & Cardella, M. (2012). ‘Students’ Ways of Experiencing Human-Centered Design. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1).
Presenter: Cris Schwartz
There is a substantial “opportunity cost” to our economy based on the fact that a large segment of our population has a disability, which impedes their ability to fully contribute their talents and aptitudes to our overall societal productivity. One major area where this cost is realized is in the challenges faced by blind and visually impaired (BVI) persons who have interests in studying and/or working in STEM fields. Because of the traditional reliance of STEM disciplines on visual information representation, the prospect of a STEM profession can often seem insurmountable by BVI students. The challenges in transcribing graphical information to a tactual format translates into large number of barriers to BVI students interested in STEM. From another perspective, sighted engineering students often are not aware of how this segment of society is unable to use the products of their design efforts due to accessibility obstacles. Even at the capstone design level, many engineering students have a difficult time incorporating accessibility considerations into their designing.
Efforts directed at addressing both pre-college BVI students, as well as university engineering students, has resulted in the development of the immersive engineering and design course ProblemBusters!, which is taught biennially at the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired. The course is a one-week summer enrichment course that engages middle and high-school BVI students in hands-on exploration of the engineering design process, team-based problem solving, mechanical and electrical engineering topics, assistive technology, and the practice of self-advocacy to request needed accommodations. Each offering of the course focuses on an overarching design theme and culminates in a product roll-out show to parents and the public on the last day of the class. A recent theme was the design and fabrication of engineered paper for use in a solar sail for an interplanetary spacecraft. Additionally, these students have also indicated unmet accessibility needs and proposed conceptual solutions. One particular concept was developed into a capstone design project for senior-level engineering students, which resulted in a working prototype that could scan book pages and convert graphics and text to a tactile display in such a way that text is recognized and converted to braille in near real-time.
ProblemBusters!, as well as continued work with university engineering students involving accessible design, has resulted in a meaningful two-way learning opportunity for both groups. It is anticipated that these experiences will help BVI students who are interested in STEM fields realize that when they get to college, they can be fully engaged in team-based projects alongside their sighted peers. Learn more about ProblemBusters!.
Presenter: Andrew Pierce
EPICS is a service-learning design program in which teams of students partner with local and global community organizations to address human, community, and environmental needs. Founded at Purdue University in 1995, EPICS integrates multidisciplinary, vertically-integrated, and student-led real design projects into the curriculum. Over the past twenty years, EPICS at Purdue has grown to over 500 students each semester. In addition, EPICS has expanded to more than 25 universities and over 100 K-12 schools. In EPICS, students apply material they are learning in other courses to enrich their design experience, while developing the broad set of technical and professional skills needed in today’s global economy—including teamwork, leadership, project management, and communication skills. The innovative curricular structure of EPICS allows students to participate for multiple semesters, which in turn provides support for long-term relationships with community partners. The Purdue EPICS projects are categorized into four areas of impact: access and abilities, education, environmental, and human services. These project teams employ a human-centered design approach to collaborate with their community partners in designing and building solutions to the challenges posed by their project partners and end users.
Some examples of the Purdue EPICS teams that are working in the area of access and abilities include the Indiana Schools for the Blind and Visually Impaired (ISBVI), Assistive Technology (AT), Camp Riley (CR), Global Design of Assistive Technology (GDAT), Mobility (MOBI), and Greater Lafayette Area Special Services (GLASS) teams. The ISBVI team is developing technology to assist sighted teachers in communicating with their blind students and constructing a magnifier to make a portable option for students with low vision. The AT team is evolving daily-living assistive technology for a three year old boy with Arthrogryposis Multiplex Congenita (AMC) and a mechanical horse to help transition children into hippotherapy with a living horse. The CR team has partnered with a camp for children with disabilities and is creating a sip-and-puff switch controlled sailboat rudder to make the camp’s water activities more inclusive. The GDAT team is in the early stages of writing an auditory-based navigation app to assist blind individuals with public transportation in Dublin, Ireland. The MOBI team has created a multi-line refreshable Braille e-reader and a prosthetic lower limb to help a young boy play baseball. The GLASS team has partnered with the local special education organization and is developing a ball-toss game with children with Cerebral Palsy and has created a suite of apps to assist students with learning disabilities in communication and education. Projects like these have benefitted tremendously from close working partnerships between the student teams, the community partner organizations, and the end users.
Learn more about EPICS.
Presenters: Katherine Steele and Maya Cakmak
Since a conversation at our spring 2015 CBI, AccessEngineering has been working to improve the accessibility of makerspaces. There are two reasons to focus on this issue: (1) many universities are building makerspaces, which allows us to to proactively address accessibility rather that retrofitting existing facilities and (2) the maker movement is interested in increasing access to making for all, which can make for a welcoming environment for people with disabilities. We have developed a list of recommendations based on (1) conversations during the previous CBI, (2) a tour of UW’s CoMotion makerspace and design challenge conducted with students with disabilities, and (3) feedback from a variety of stakeholders.
Lessons learned include the following:
More recommendations are available online.
Presenters: Cynthia Bennett and Andrew Davidson
Through this activity, we explored how to ideate accessibly since some methods that we teach students may not be accessible for everyone. Often, students are taught to sketch when they ideate or brainstorm. Students are also taught to brainstorm in groups, iterating on ideas, and a time constraint is often put in place to help students to get their ideas out without developing them too far.
We facilitated an hour and a half design activity where participants first brainstormed about a design challenge, reflected on access barriers encountered during that experience, and brainstormed solutions to these barriers. Teams had at least one participant with a disability who was willing to talk about their disability during the design activity.
First, participants were introduced to the user-centered design process—needs assessments, ideation, prototyping, and usability testing. We then defined ideation in more detail as we spent the remainder of the activity focusing on it. Teams participated in a design challenge to think about making smart classrooms more accessible. Following ideation on the design challenge, teams were asked to identify an access barrier they encountered during phase 1 and to ideate solutions to ease or eliminate it.
Teams identified many access barriers and potential solutions that could be helpful for ideation or other group activities. They included the following:
Presenter: Leyf Starling
In order to provide K-12 students with multiple opportunities to engage in engineering activities, we must have a common understanding of what engineering activities are and how we can adapt or modify them to make them accessible to all students. Additionally, we need a strategy for teaming with teachers to implement these activities as well as designing unique opportunities to students with disabilities to explore the world of engineering both inside and outside the classroom. This presentation provided a common definition for engineering in the K-12 world and what an engineering activity is as well as suggests promising practices on providing teacher professional development on how to incorporate engineering in the classroom and how to design experiences for students with disabilities to engage in engineering outside of the classroom.
Presenter: Davin Huston, Purdue University
The BoilerMAKER Lab at Purdue University (boilermakerlabs.org/) is a small prototyping facility with a high volume of projects (1300+ 3D print jobs every semester) and over 400 users. It is open to all Purdue students, faculty, and staff. It includesa variety of equipment, including a full woodshop with CNC routers, a laser cutter, metal mill, and hand tools; a printed circuit board mill; and a variety of 3-D printers.
Our client comes first. We adapt to our users when they present the need. When students need design assistance, we will help them face-to-face. We have a large group of volunteers to assist (who are given free printing) and three paid undergraduates who are trained on the repair, management, and safety of the large machine tools. We try to make all of the machines accessible to everyone. Lab monitors are trained on machine use and will help teach others. There’s an online queue system for all 3-D print jobs. There are no machine fees and students are given a small amount of materials for free each week.
Current research endeavors include an improved queue system, automated part removal for 3-D printing, automated material loading, prosthetics, curriculum for P-12 / higher education, and an accessible pinball machine.
Tips for Success
Setup a group messaging system so that all questions between volunteers, employees, and supervisors are visible to all.
Presenter: Jonathan Lazar
The Special Interest Group on Educational Accessibility serves the Towson University community as a hub for resources related to courses, programs, research, and events for people who benefit from cognitive, motor, communicative, or perceptual alternatives to support their participation in aspects of campus and community life. It is a collaborative project that brings together faculty and staff from all over the university who are interested in issues related to disability and accessibility to discuss, organize, and disseminate information.
Presenter: Randy Williams
The Human Engineering Research Laboratories (HERL) at the University of Pittsburgh takes great pride in our work with veterans. Our efforts are aimed at improving every aspect of their lives and the lives of their families—whether it is a program to assist with the transition from the military to enrollment in STEM-related fields of study, or research that will improve their level of satisfaction and participation in everyday life activities. To achieve these objectives, the HERL has established partnerships with local, state, and national non-profit organizations, along with colleges and universities across the country, in order to provide high-quality programs aimed at easing veterans’ transition to academic and career opportunities.
Specifically, the HERL has three offerings that are veteran-centered:
The HERL, in partnership with the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC), and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS), produces the State of the Science Symposia Series. These quarterly symposia address a wide array of subjects related to the care, medical rehabilitation, and well being of veterans.
Sports, and disabled veterans’ ability to participate in them, have long been a focus of the HERL. The Sport Participation Outcomes Research Tool and Comprehensive Uniform Survey (SPORTACUS) was developed by the HERL and provided empirical data that correlates sports and recreation as important elements of successful rehabilitation programs for people with disabilities. In addition, the HERL has developed multiple pieces of sports equipment, including the Racing SmartWheel for wheelchair racers and a throwing chair for use in in field events.
The HERL is proud to work with the following partners in improving the lives of disabled veterans:
Presenter: Jeff Dusek
This talk summarized the lessons learned while serving as a project mentor and course co-instructor for the MIT class Principles and Practice of Assistive Technology (PPAT). The goal of PPAT is for student teams to work collaboratively with a person with a disability from the community to develop customized assistive devices.
PPAT is a project-based course. The range of projects covers a wide swath of engineering disciplines including mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and computer science. To accommodate the wide range of disabilities and project types addressed by the course, a huge range of technical expertise is required from the course staff. This leads to lesson one: it takes a village. To run PPAT successfully the course staff includes several project mentors from MIT and local universities that bring their expertise in areas such as eye tracking and language processing to the course. Similarly, the class partners with community organizations to find projects and provide additional resources and expertise to the students.
After taking the course myself in 2013 I realized that it is particularly important to focus on lesson two: prototype early, iterate often, and fail quickly. Because the course focuses on individual design, the importance of gathering feedback from clients (our expert users) on prototypes of increasing fidelity cannot be overstated. Also, it is often the simple solution that is the most likely to be useful in the real world, a fact that is often ignored by MIT students!
Having been involved in PPAT for three years now, it has become very clear that students value challenging and socially relevant problems. The level of student engagement in PPAT has been excellent, and we have received very positive feedback each year at the conclusion of the course. With that said, I also needed to learn that not every project is right for the class. In general, I have found projects where students can interact directly with an engaged and invested client are best, and that institutional clients introduce bureaucratic challenges to the project that are often best avoided.
The curriculum for PPAT is in a continual state of development, and this year I was reminded aesthetics matter through a fantastic lecture on aesthetics in assistive technology, and that in the right setting it can be ok to ask the awkward questions through a very open and enlightening panel discussion on “uncomfortable questions” with community members with disabilities who volunteered their time and perspectives.
Assigning relevant deliverables was a key component of the course. A final documentary style video achieved the goal of chronicling projects while teaching the students effective use of the video medium—a highly desirable skill in many situations.
Learn more online at the class website.
Presenter: Dave Chesney
There is a common saying that “The devil is in the details.” This is often particularly true when building accessibility into hardware and software. In several class projects focused on assistive technology, the details meant the difference between success and failure and provided students with a true understanding of universal design and ‘subtlety’ when building user interfaces. Individual Design is the design of a product or environment to be usable by one person based upon her/his specific needs. Often, the understanding of an individual design can lead to a better understanding of universal design.
A case study of a young girl with cerebral palsy was discussed. Students in the presenter’s course worked directly with this young lady over an academic year. Very unique characteristics of her interaction with tablets and computers enabled the students to gain clarity related to human-computer interfaces. As an example, the touch interface of a tablet worked best when it reacted to her ‘release’ rather than initial contact.
Insight such as this informs the development of a tablet interface that might be user-specified as either touch-enabled or release-enabled. Thus, universal design of a tablet interface is informed by the individual design for this young lady.
Presenter: Arash Esmaili Zaghi
This presentation considered the preliminary findings of two NSF-funded projects focusing on engineering student with attention deficit, hyperactivity disorder (ADHD):
This work was motivated by my own experiences with ADHD as well as research that suggests that individuals with ADHD have strengths in divergent thinking and risk taking. It is important to consider this since students with ADHD are less likely to study engineering than other fields and because they are more likely to drop out of college.
Preliminary research results indicate these:
2015 was the first year of our REU and it will happen again in 2016. Students are surveyed to consider how the REU impacts the likelihood they’ll remain in their engineering program, their interest in graduate school, self-confidence, and ability to see themselves as an inventor.
Read more about these ideas in Zaghi, A. E., Reis, S. M., Renzulli, J. S., & Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Unique potential and challenges of students with ADHD in engineering programs. Proceedings from the ASEE’s 123rd Annual Conference and Exposition. asee.org/public/conferences/64/papers/17281/view
Presenter: William Li
At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), we have organized an annual assistive technology hackathon, called AT Hack, each year since 2014. In the hackathon, teams of three to four students work with a person with a disability to develop customized assistive technologies.
A hackathon is an opportunity for people to come together to engage in creative problem solving. In an assistive technology hackathon, the focus is on projects that target technologies improving access and independence for people with disabilities. In each of 2015 and 2016, there were approximately 85 students who worked with 15-20 assistive technology users. The hackathon was a powerful way to introduce a large number of students to disability, accessibility, and assistive technology.
The MIT AT Hack has used the following format: a dinner for project matching, then a full-day hackathon about two weeks later. In the two-week period in between the hackathon, many teams brainstormed ideas, ordered materials, and communicated with their target AT user about ideas.
The hackathon takes place in a makerspace on campus. It includes software, electronics, hardware, and mechanical design projects—the makerspace has a machine shop, electronics equipment (soldering irons, oscilloscopes, etc.), hand tools, and space for putting together projects. Depending on the space and equipment availability, it is possible to run hackathons without some of these other categories of projects, such as one with only software.
Examples of projects from this year include the following:
The ingredients of a successful AT hackathon include assistive technology users, students/makers, volunteers and organizers, sponsors/money for food and materials, and space. In particular, the MIT hackathon has been successful involving assistive technology users and people with disabilities as participants, designers, engineers, and organizers.
An assistive technology hackathon differs from many other hackathons. It involves end users (people with disabilities) as testers, judges, or sources of ideas. It also doesn’t always include prizes, but instead focuses the prize on helping the community or coming together. Sometimes the prize is continued funding for a particular project.
For more information visit MIT Assistive Technology Hackathon.
Panelists included Nicholas DiChiara, Auburn University; Marie Erickson, North Carolina State University; Kathryn Woodcock, Ryerson University; Daniel Stewart, University of Florida; and Cynthia Bennett, UW.
Panelists included Brianna Blaser, UW; Jonathan Santeliz, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities; Dan Standage, Student Veterans of America; and Cris Schwartz, Iowa State University.
Discussion points made during group collaboration are presented below.
Stakeholder groups represented in the CBI included
The following individuals participated in the CBI.
Admoni, Henny
Postdoctoral Fellow
Carnegie Mellon University, Robotics Institute
Anand, Ramona
Project Manager/ Adjunct faculty
Lorain County Community College
Anderson, Susan
Adjunct Faculty, Humanitarian Engineering Program
Colorado School of Mines
Bennett, Cindy
Graduate Student, Human Centered Design and Engineering
University of Washington
Bigelow, Kim
Associate Professor
University of Dayton
Blacklock, Jenifer
Assistant Department Head
Colorado School of Mines
Blaser, Brianna
Program Coordinator, AccessEngineering
University of Washington
Bowen, Anna
3D Printing Lab Manager
Purdue University
Burgstahler, Sheryl
Director, Accessible Technology Services (ATS);
PI, AccessEngineering
University of Washington
Cakmak, Maya
Assistant Professor, Computer Science and Engineering;
Co-PI, AccessEngineering
University of Washington
Cardona, Andres
Research Engineer
Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago
Chesney, David
Faculty
The University of Michigan
Choi, Young Mi
Assistant Professor
Georgia Institute of Technology
Crawford, Lyla
Program Coordinator
DO-IT, University of Washington
Crippen, Marvin
Senior IT Specialist, DO-IT
University of Washington
Dean, Jered
Teaching Associate Professor
Colorado School of Mines
DiChiara, Nic
Software Engineer
Auburn University
Duerstock, Brad
Associate Professor of Engineering
Purdue University
Dusek, Jeff
Postdoctoral Fellow
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University
Erickson, Marie
Undergraduate Student
North Carolina State University
Zaghi, Arash Esmaili
Assistant Professor
University of Connecticut
Fender, Meredith
Senior Manager, Component Collaboration and Resources
American Institute of Architects
Gibson, Ryan
Senior Design Engineer
Boeing
Goldschmid, Josh
Program Manager
Boeing
Gulamali, Faris
Research Assistant
Orthocare Innovations
Harkness, William
Enterprise Domain Engineer
Boeing
Hayman, Doug
IT Specialist, DO-IT
University of Washington
Huston, Davin
Clinical Assistant Professor
Purdue University
Jaramillo, Giselle
Research Engineer
RIC
Jose, Sharon
Neural Engineering Programmer
George Mason University
Krehbiel, Steve
IT Manager
URAC
Lan, Mei-Fang
Clinical Assistant Professor/Psychologist
University of Florida
Larsen, Kyle
Assistant Professor
Eastern Washington University
Lazar, Jonathan
Professor of Computer and Information Sciences
Towson University
Li, William
PhD Student
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Neff, Britt
Counselor Servies Coordinator
University of Washington
Perkins, Annuska
PhD Student
University of Washington
Pierce, Andrew
Laboratory Manager
Purdue University EPICS
Reissman, Timothy
Postdoctoral Fellow
Northwestern University / Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago
Santeliz, Jonathan
Executive Director, HACU National Internship Program (HNIP)
Hispanic Association of Colleges & Universities (HACU)
Schwartz, Cris
Associate Professor
Iowa State University
Sharma, Ritu
Professor
Bryant Stratton College
Shinohara, Kristen
PhD Candidate
University of Washington
Simmons, Chelsey
Assistant Professor
University of Florida
Smith, Michael
Deputy Exec. Director / Diversity Council Chair
The National GEM Consortium / DiscoverE
Standage, Dan
Director, Disability in Education
Student Veterans of America
Starling, Leyf
Program Coordinator
NC State University
Steele, Katherine
Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engineering
Co-PI, AccessEngineering
University of Washington
Stewart, Daniel
Graduate Student & Researcher
University of Florida
Taylor, Alyssa
Full-time Lecturer
University of Washington
Williams, Randy
Lead Education and Outreach Coordinator
University of Pittsburgh
Woodcock, Kathryn
Associate Professor
Ryerson University
Wu, Chang-Yu
Professor and Department Head
University of Florida
Ziegler, Mary
Program Manager for Online Accessibility
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Zoltowski, Carla
Co-director
Purdue University/EPICS
Zuo, Wei
Instructional Consultant
Center for Teaching and Learning
AccessEngineering staff and faculty leaders engage in an online community of practice (CoP) that includes key stakeholder groups that impact the success of students with disabilities in engineering programs (e.g., faculty, disability service units, online learning programs, veterans associations, career services, teaching and learning centers, diversity programs, professional organizations, employers) to share ideas and assist in the creation and dissemination of resources to encourage others to help a broader range of students pursue engineering fields and support them in their careers.
CoP members engage together:
Join AccessEngineering CoP by sending the following information to doit@uw.edu:
The AccessEngineering website at contains
AccessEngineering maintains a searchable database of frequently asked questions, case studies, and promising practices related to how educators can fully include students with disabilities in computing activities. The Knowledge Base can be accessed by following the “Search Knowledge Base” link on the AccessEngineering website.
The Knowledge Base is an excellent resource for ideas that can be implemented in engineering programs in order to better serve students with disabilities. In particular, the promising practices articles serve to spread the word about practices that show evidence of increasing the participation and success of people with disabilities in engineering.
Examples of Knowledge Base case studies, promising practices, and questions include
Individuals and organizations are encouraged to propose questions and answers, case studies, and promising practices. Contributions and suggestions can be sent to doit@uw.edu.
For more information on AccessEngineering, universal design, and accessible STEM education, review the following websites and brochures:
AccessEngineering is funded by the National Science Foundation (EEC-1444961). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the CBI presenters and project staff and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
DO-IT
University of Washington
Box 354842
Seattle, WA 98195-4842
doit@uw.edu
www.washington.edu/doit
206-685-DOIT (3648) (voice/TTY)
888-972-DOIT (3648) (toll free voice/TTY)
206-221-4171 (FAX)
509-328-9331 (voice/TTY) Spokane
AccessEngineering Principal Investigators:
Sheryl Burgstahler, PI
Maya Cakmak, Co-PI
Katherine Steele, Co-PI
Brianna Blaser, Project Coordinator
© 2016 University of Washington. Permission is granted to copy this publication for educational, noncommercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged.