Ability Profiles: A Framework for Conceptualizing Dimensions of Ability

Abstract

Every person has abilities across a multidimensional spectrum; abilities can vary within a person across these dimensions as well as between people along the same dimensions. This paper introduces a preliminary framework for conceptualizing dimensions of ability which we call ability profiles. Our purpose in developing this framework is not to categorize other people, but rather to support research into existing structures that privilege those with strengths in particular dimensions or create a barrier for those with limitations in certain dimensions. Such an analysis is useful for developing inclusive and accessible curricular materials and practices. Through literature reviews, we have developed a framework that describes largegrain dimensions of ability: physical, visual, hearing, cognitive, health, and emotional-behavioral. This paper will introduce ability profiles and the dimensions of ability, describe the relationship between the framework and specific diagnoses, and demonstrate utility of the framework for the physics classroom.

Practicing physicists’ knowledge about disability: Development of the Disability and Physics Careers Survey (DPCS)

“…IIIB) and based on the representation of diagnoses in the STEM community [2]. The categories of impairment are a combination of categories from similar previous studies [13], literature about characterizing dimensions of ability [14], and categories used by the National Science Foundation (NSF) [2]. The most appropriate category of impairment for each diagnosis was defined by the literature base.…”

“…Participants list physics careers that would be viable and not viable for people with a variety of diagnoses (that were either provided by the participants or provided to the participants depending on the iteration of the survey). As we have previously discussed, disability is an incomplete description of ability that is steeped in ableist cultural norms [14]; however, it is difficult to describe what we mean by "normal ability" [15]. Thus, we used diagnoses to describe the range of abilities.…”

Physics instructors’ views about supporting learner variation: Modifying the Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory

“…The first and most substantial change we made was to add a third question asking participants to indicate the student group they had in mind while responding to the first 13 prompts. Specifically, the question is "I would do this for…" with four response choices (no students, only students with disabilities, students who need it, and all students; indicated with a dagger in Table I) 1 . Secondly, we removed questions that were now redundant due to the addition of "I would do this for…" (indicated with an asterisk in Table I) 1 .…”

“…Specifically, the question is "I would do this for…" with four response choices (no students, only students with disabilities, students who need it, and all students; indicated with a dagger in Table I) 1 . Secondly, we removed questions that were now redundant due to the addition of "I would do this for…" (indicated with an asterisk in Table I) 1 . Because our other changes had lengthened the survey, we removed questions that were about disability laws (e.g., "I am confident in my understanding of the legal definition of disability" with a response scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) and on-campus disability services (e.g., "I know a Disability Services office exists on this campus") to more specifically focus on inclusive teaching strategies.…”

“…All students vary in terms of their needs, abilities, and interests [1]. However, studies have shown that postsecondary faculty lack awareness of the legal requirements related to accommodations [2][3][4][5][6], lack knowledge of inclusive pedagogies [7], state that they do not feel prepared to teach students with disabilities [8][9], and want more training related to accessibility [10][11][12][13].…”