A Challenge for Remote Assistive Technology Services: A Case Study in Arranging Accessible Environments for Students with Disabilities

Introduction: 

Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, the needs of online learning have grown. Students typically access online studies with a PC, tablet, smartphone, or similar device. Students with disabilities need to arrange accessible environments that suit them. Hence, assistive technology services (ATS) are essential for the provision, selection, acquisition, or use of required services by students with disabilities. However, COVID-19-enforced “social distancing” has inhibited this crucial process. As a result, methods to conduct ATS are required. 

This study reports cases where ATS were conducted remotely using online meeting software for two students with physical disabilities in the DO-IT Japan 2020 summer program (https://doit-japan.org/).

Methods: 

Before performing remote interviews, the students’ documentation allowed for an identification and assessment of their needs and daily activities. Subsequently, some assistive devices (that would be necessary for the skill assessment and trials) were sent to them. The remote interview was performed using ZOOM. A physical therapist (PT), an assistive technology (AT) specialist, and a rehabilitation engineer managed the interview; on the students’ side, supporters participated to operate a handheld camera.

Results:

Case 1: The student was a college student with upper extremity disabilities from a neurogenic disease. Since her needs involved finding more suitable methods for using a PC, she received some pointing devices. Her supporter was a speech therapist who was familiar with computer accessibility. In the remote interview, after her skill assessment, on-screen keyboard operation with a trackball was tried as an alternative; furthermore, she was advised on aspects of her posture for working at a PC, along with the relative position of the PC and its input devices.

Case 2: The student was a high school student with physical disabilities from a neuromuscular disease. She primarily required an enabling environment for using a PC to learn while lying in bed. She received some pointing devices and positioning cushions. Her supporters were a PT and a coordinator for students with disabilities unfamiliar with assistive devices. In the remote interview and trial of the assistive devices, accessibility features available with Windows were recommended; however, mainly postural adjustment using electric adjustable bed and some cushions were conducted.

Discussion and conclusion:

Supporters involved in remote ATS need to share common skills in AT products and accessibility features concerning information technology, regardless of profession, and should assume a translator’s role for bridging the interviewer–student gap. In remote ATS through an online meeting software, interviewers cannot step back and observe the student or interpret their non-verbal cues (as they would in person). Therefore, the application of motion capture technology using a 360-degree camera, or a remote camcorder (by interviewers’ instructions), in addition to handheld camera, may be needed. For the reason, ATS experts’ perspectives need to be revealed in the process of providing ATS.

    In the future, we will aim to create an ATS model which combines remote processing using a case study approach. It hopes to provide community-based ATS as reasonable accommodations to contribute online learning.