Assessing communication accessibility in the university classroom: towards a goal of universal hearing accessibility

Measures of accessibility typically focus on the physical environment and aspects relating to getting into and out of spaces. The transient sound environment is less well characterized in typical accessibility measures. Hearing accessibility measures can be based upon physical indices or functional...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inWork (Reading, Mass.) Vol. 46; no. 2; p. 139
Main Authors Cheesman, Margaret F, Jennings, Mary Beth, Klinger, Lisa
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Netherlands 01.01.2013
Subjects
Acoustics
Communication Barriers
Facility Design and Construction
Goals
Humans
Persons With Hearing Impairments
Signal-To-Noise Ratio
Speech Perception - physiology
Universities
universal design
communication access
Hearing loss
university classrooms
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

More Information
Summary:Measures of accessibility typically focus on the physical environment and aspects relating to getting into and out of spaces. The transient sound environment is less well characterized in typical accessibility measures. Hearing accessibility measures can be based upon physical indices or functional assessment. The physical measures are indices that use signal-to-noise ratios to evaluate audibility while the functional assessment tool adopts universal design for hearing (UDH) principles derived from principles of universal design. The UDH principles include (1) Optimization of the hearing environment for all; (2) Optimization of interactions between persons and objects to promote better hearing in an environment; (3) Optimization of opportunities for people to have multiple choices of interactions with one another; (4) Optimization of opportunities for people to perform different activities in and across environments; (5) Optimization of opportunities for people to have safe, private, and secure use of the environment while minimizing distraction, interference, or cognitive loading; and (6) Optimization of opportunities for people to use the environment without extra steps for hearing access during preparatory, use and/or after use phases. This paper compares the two approaches using case examples from post-secondary classrooms in order to describe the potential advantages and limitations of each.
ISSN:1875-9270
DOI:10.3233/WOR-131742