Maker Inclusivity = Maker Accessibility: Further Interrogations for Diverse Participation

• In Event: Making the Future: Addressing Critiques, Transitions, and New Challenges in Maker Education

Abstract

Objectives and Perspectives: This poster argues for the need for accessible maker and coding technologies and activities. Though scholars and educators have emphasized the need for accessible learning technologies (e.g., Authors, 2018; Brady, et al, 2014; Hollinworth, et al, 2014), the overall framing has concentrated on impairments over a social model of dis/ability (Beretan, 2012), which tends to leave diverse learners with dis/abilities out of the design process. Moreover, while at least 32% of the US population over 18 has a cognitive or physical disability (NCHS, 2017), like gender and cultural equity, designing for accessibility has not yet become a universal aim for makerspaces.
Modes of Inquiry: In order to illustrate the importance of centering diverse learners with dis/abilities as participatory design partners, we focus on cases of high school learners (grades 10-12) with a range of visual dis/abilities engaging in tangible coding activities. One researcher, trained by the authors, provided detailed action transcripts, and then the authors (one of whom is blind) coded the data using analytic induction (Jordan & Henderson, 1995).
Results and Significance: We focused on two learners in the workshop: Mary (who was completely blind and could read Braille) and Aaron (who had some visual acuity but could not read Braille). On the first day of the workshop, the learners engaged in learning about the KIBO robotics platform, a tactile system for early elementary school students. There were no accessible modifications, and learners were tasked with experimenting and then offering design suggestions to make the activities more accessible. Despite the lack of accessibility, Mary benefitted from the unique shapes of the robot and coding blocks to discern the functionality of the components. Aaron had less experience with electronics or technology but more visual acuity than many members of his group, and was asked to take on the role of scanning the physical blocks of code. However, in an effort to be helpful, he remained peripheral. After day 1, Braille became the primary accessibility feature added, in part based on the learners’ feedback. This greatly helped Mary, who was more actively engaged in the workshop compared to the first day. On the other hand, although Aaron took on a more central role, it was mainly due to the absence of more vocal members on the prior days. Another student observed his difficulty and helped him code the robot. In post interviews and surveys, he revealed that, though he couldn’t read Braille, “… as [he] started programming the robot, [he] started understanding what we were doing.”
Findings highlight the importance of participatory design that includes diverse learners with dis/abilities. While most participants benefitted from Braille modifications, several others did not. It challenged us to consider the ways we could better engage participants as design partners so that learners’ diverse prior experiences and abilities would be represented. We propose that, particularly as makerspaces and Computer Science for All efforts become more widespread in formal education, educators and researchers will need to center accessibility as a central aim.

Authors

• JooYoung Seo, The Pennsylvania State University

• Gabriela T. Richard, The Pennsylvania State University