Paper ID #21799

Visual signaling for CMM machines: a case study of Deaf gain in manufac-
turing engineering education
Ms. Wendy A. Dannels, Rochester Institute of Technology/National Technical Institute for the Deaf
Professor Wendy A. Dannels is a research associate professor in the Center on Access Technology at
the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID), one of the nine colleges of Rochester Institute of
Technology (RIT). Her primary goal is to generate more collaborative partnerships that will assist lifelong
learners in deaf education and the greater deaf and hard-of-hearing communities, particularly putting them
on an equal footing in term of accessibility issues in the workforce and their daily life. Her research
interest is on the latest evolving advancements in the STEM field. She is a subject matter expert in
product design/development and digital engineering/manufacturing especially from prototype or service
to marketplace. Prior to joining NTID in 2008, Dannels worked for several engineering corporations for
more than 17 years. Also, Ms. Dannels taught and tutored engineering-related courses for more than nine
years. She served as co-PI for RIT’s NSF TUES grant, ”Integration of experiential learning to develop
problem solving skills for deaf and hard of hearing STEM students.
Mr. Joseph Stanislow, National Technical Institute for the Deaf

Joseph Stanislow is a faculty in the Information and Computing Studies Department at the Rochester Insti-
tute of Technology/National Technical Institute for the Deaf. Joe has been teaching and tutoring computer
and information technology to AOS/AAS/AS/ BS students for over 18 years. He has a Bachelor’s degree
in Electrical Engineering Technology from the Rochester Institute of Technology and a Master of Science
in Computer Science from Stevens Institute of Technology. Before joining the NTID faculty he worked
for AT&T Bell Laboratories as an electrical engineer, a physical designer, and a computer programmer
for 20 years.
Mel Chua, Rochester Institute of Technology
Mel is an engineering education researcher with a focus on faculty development and postsecondary tech
curricular cultures, especially free and open source / hacker/maker culture. She is also an electrical and
computer engineer and an auditory low-pass filter.

American
c Society for Engineering Education, 2018
 Deaf gain in manufacturing engineering education:
using visual signals to improve learning outcomes
on a coordinate-measuring machine (CMM)

Abstract
Manufacturing engineers often work in noisy environments that impede access to auditory
signals and communication. Deaf culture, with its rich traditions of visual/tactile/non-auditory
communication, is uniquely positioned to contribute new perspectives to the field. For instance,
when Deaf engineers adapt devices to use visual signals, their innovations benefit not only users
with hearing loss, but also users with normal hearing in noisy environments. This paper explores
the notion of “Deaf Gain,” which frames deafness as a contribution to diversity rather than a
debilitating “disability.” We then explore Deaf Gain in the context of manufacturing engineering
education, which connects to a long history of Deaf workers in factory/machining environments
such as printing presses and machine shops. We illustrate these concepts with a case study of
Deaf engineers adapting a coordinate-measuring machine (CMM) for classroom instruction by
adding visual signalling (lights) in addition to the existing auditory signals (beeps). To examine
whether the design change affected student learning, Deaf and hard-of-hearing STEM students
were randomly assigned to learn how to operate the CMM machine either with or without the
visual signals. The visual signalling condition produced markedly better results for first-time
operators of the machine. After seeing the results of these tests, the device manufacturer decided
to adopt visual signals into their future device designs.

Introduction
Deafness and hearing loss are typically viewed as a negative medical conditions in American
culture. Being unable to hear is an impairment, a disability, and something to be avoided or fixed
[1]. American engineering culture is not exempt from this medicalized view of hearing loss. For
example, sign language translating gloves appear in the media every few years with feel-good
descriptions of how they will "help" Deaf people, despite the Deaf community's repeated
statements that such technologies do not benefit them [2]. Another paper by Krutz,
Malachowsky, Jones, & Kaplan is a typical example of how deafness is framed in engineering
education contexts [3]. It describes accommodating students with hearing loss in (primarily
hearing) software engineering college courses, and does so in largely remedial and negative
terms; for instance, students with hearing loss "are prone to losing a large amount of both verbal
and nonverbal communication,” and teaching them involves “significant hurdles" (p. 1). Even
papers by deaf and hard-of-hearing engineers on access technologies they have created for
themselves are framed as ways to compensate for marginalized ways of being [4].
Deaf studies proposes an alternative view; Deafness is not a disability, but rather a culture with
its own distinct history, language, and traditions of art, theatre, education, and so forth [5, 6, 7].
This cultural attitude towards Deafness is denoted by using an uppercase “D” (Deaf) rather than
a lowercase “d” (deaf), which signifies the medical condition of hearing loss [1, 8]. Just as
"being female" or "being Hispanic" are not seen as "impairments" (though female, Hispanic, etc.
persons may experience discrimination in majority male, White, etc. cultures) Capital-D cultural
Deafness is framed as difference rather than disability, with Deaf culture framed in contrast to
the unmarked norm of "hearing culture."

Seeing Deaf culture as distinct from hearing culture, rather than inherently disadvantaged in
respect to it, opens up interesting possibilities. What if, instead of focusing on the deficits of
"hearing loss," we focused on "Deaf Gain," or how Deaf ways of being could benefit the world?
Bauman and Murray, authors of one of the seminal works on Deaf Gain, conceptualize Deafness
as a different perspective through which the world can be imagined anew [9]. The English
translation of "Deaf Gain" can be represented in ASL three different ways: “Deaf-benefit”
(Deafness as a benefit or privilege), “Deaf-addition” (Deafness as something that adds, rather
than takes away), or “Deaf-gift” (Deafness as a valuable contribution to the world).

Manufacturing engineering environments include those with high levels of background noise,
where even workers without hearing loss have difficulty hearing each other. These kinds of
environments, where spoken communication is challenging regardless of hearing status, are
among the kinds of places where Deaf people have historically worked (manufacturing,
printmaking, and so forth). In the context of manufacturing and engineering education, a Deaf
Gain perspective in engineering education can lead to new insights that may not occur within a
predominantly hearing context. In particular, approaching equipment design from the context of
Deaf culture allows engineers and engineering educators to draw on rich traditions of
visual/tactile/non-auditory communication. The remainder of this paper explains adaptations to
machine shop equipment that were inspired by Deaf perspectives, then describes the effects of
those adaptations on student learning.

Adapting a CMM machine for visual signalling

The National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) has trained Deaf students in various
technical fields since 1968. In 2013, their Department of Engineering Studies acquired a new
coordinate measuring machine (CMM) and sent three faculty members to the manufacturer to be
trained on the new equipment. Two faculty members were hearing; one was Deaf. During the
training, the NTID faculty realized that the CMM was designed to signal operators with auditory
alerts; a beep at one particular frequency every time the machine carried out a probe operation,
and a beep at a different frequency when the machine was finished working. Since they were
doing the training in a quiet room, the hearing faculty could easily hear the beeps and tell when
the machine was done. However, the machine’s design was not effectively communicating the
same information to the Deaf faculty member.

When the faculty members returned from training with their new machine, they requested that
NTID’s Center on Access Technology design an adaptation so that the machine signals would be
visible to Deaf users. One professor working with the Center on Access Technology had
previously made visual signalling adaptations for another Deaf professor’s science lab
equipment, and quickly worked with students and colleagues to create a Deaf-friendly CMM.
The resulting design was simple; the existing CMM (Figure 1) had a microphone clasped over its
speaker (Figure 2), and the resulting signal was routed to a microprocessor (Figure 3). The
microprocessor analyzed incoming sound frequencies and blinked one of two colored LEDs
mounted over the CMM probe head, where they would be visible to Deaf engineers (Figure 4).
Notably, the design, implementation, and administration of the project was entirely carried out
by Deaf engineers.

Figure 1. ​ Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM)

 Figure 2. ​Audio hookup attached near the built-in speaker on the monitor

Figure 3. ​Right to left: the speaker signal (right) is processed by a small computer (center) and
translated into light notifications (left).
 Figure 4.​ Close-up of notification LEDs mounted above the CMM probe head

Test methodology
Once the CMM had been modified to utilize visual signaling, a pilot study was run to determine
whether the modifications had any beneficial effects on student learning. Fourteen undergraduate
students majoring in STEM fields who self-identified as Deaf or hard-of-hearing were recruited
for the study. IRB approval was obtained. As part of the inclusion criteria, none of the students
had previously used a CMM. Participation was voluntary and took place during finals week,
when students had few other commitments scheduled. Subjects were not compensated either
financially or with academic credit. All testing was conducted in a private room with only the
individual subject and the researcher present, and all data was recorded in a de-identified
manner. The researcher was fluent in both English and American Sign Language (ASL), and
briefly conversed with the subject at the start of the session to determine informed consent,
gather basic demographic information (Deaf/hard-of-hearing identity, language preferences,
degree and major), and verify their eligibility to participate.

If the subject was eligible and chose to continue (none declined), they were randomly sorted into
one of two conditions. In the “sound version,” the unmodified CMM provided only auditory
signals. In the “light version,” the modified CMM provided both visual and auditory signals. In
both conditions, subjects viewed videos on how to operate the CMM; all videos were presented
in ASL with English captions and featured the same presenter (the researcher) signing from a
script. The only difference between the sound and light script versions was the explanation of
how the machine would signal them. In the sound condition, subjects were told the machine
would emit a high-pitched beep when it touched the part and a low-pitched beep on the last touch
when it was finished. In the light condition, subjects were told that the machine would blink a
red light when it touched the part and a green light on the last touch when it was finished. The
subjects were given a CMM configuration that matched their assigned condition (sound vs.
light).

Regardless of whether they were in the sound or light condition, each subject was allowed to
play with the CMM until they felt ready to operate it for the experiment. The subject then
proceeded to perform four increasingly difficult tasks with the machine: measuring a plane,
circle, line, and cylinder, in that order. While the subjects were operating the machine, the
researcher recorded how successful their attempts had been. Perfect attempts were scored as 1
point; imperfect but eventually successful attempts were scored as 2 points, and if the subject
stopped before succeeding at the task, this would have been assigned 3 points. In practice, all
scores consisted of 1’s and 2’s. Lower scores corresponded to better performance on learning the
new machine.

Student learning results

The pilot test results show that the modified CMM with visual signaling led to better
performance for first-time Deaf and hard-of-hearing student users as compared to the
auditory-only unmodified version. Test results are shown below (Tables 1 and 2), followed by
test subject demographics (Table 3).

Table 1. Sound condition test results (auditory-only signaling)

Subject # Plane Circle Line Cylinder Notes

1 1* 1 1 1 *asked for clarification of auditory signals

midway through first attempt

2 1 1 1 2 Unsure if machine was complete

3 1 2 1 2 Unsure if machine was complete

4 2 1 2 1 Looked at the monitor

5 1 2 1 1 Incorrect order

6 1 1 1 2 Incorrect order

7 1 1 1 1
Notice that subjects in the auditory-only condition tended to make errors related to
misunderstanding or missing the machine signals, or showed clear signs of searching for visual
input. Subject #1 identified as hard-of-hearing (see Table 3) and could hear the auditory signals,
but mixed up which signal had what meaning and paused midway through their first attempt to
ask for clarification. Subjects #2 and #3 hesitated toward the end of the operation because they
could not tell whether the machine had completed its task. Subject #4 (who identified as Deaf)
searched for other sources of information while the machine was operating and and ended up
looking at the monitor display; their facial expressions were confused and their body language
was hesitant and nervous, which we interpreted as a low level of confidence with the machine.

Table 2. Light condition test results (both visual and auditory signaling)

Subject # Plane Circle Line Cylinder Notes

8 1 1 1 1

9 1 1 1 1

10 1 1 1 1

11 1 1 1 1

12 1 1 1 1

13 2 2 2 1 Left-handed; CMM set up for

right-handers

14 2 2 2 1 Physical disability that affects motor skills

Note that the light condition (both visual and auditory signalling) had perfect scores for all but
two subjects, who happened to have other influencing conditions. Subject #13 was left-handed,
but as Fig. 1 shows, the CMM is set up for strongly right-handed operation. Subject #14 had an
additional physical disability that affected their motor skills and therefore their ability to finely
manipulate the CMM joystick. However, both individuals learned to adapt the machine to their
physical characteristics during the first few tasks, and both scored perfectly on the last and
hardest task (cylinder).
 Table 3. Subject demographics

Subject # Identifies as Language preference Degree Major

1 hard-of-hearing ASL/Spoken English 2-year Applied Mechanical Tech

2 hard-of-hearing ASL/Spoken English 2-year Applied Mechanical Tech

3 Deaf ASL 2-year Applied Mechanical Tech

4 Deaf ASL 2-year Applied Mechanical Tech

5 hard-of-hearing ASL/Spoken English 2-year Computer-Aided Drafting

6 Deaf ASL BS/MS Computer Science

7 Deaf ASL 2-year Computer-Aided Drafting

8 hard-of-hearing ASL/Spoken English 2-year Machining Tech

9 hard-of-hearing ASL/Spoken English 2-year Machining Tech

10 hard-of-hearing ASL/Spoken English 2-year Machining Tech

11 hard-of-hearing ASL/Spoken English 2-year Applied Mechanical Tech

12 hard-of-hearing ASL/Spoken English 2-year Applied Mechanical Tech

13 Deaf ASL/Spoken English MS HCI

14 hard-of-hearing Spoken English 4-year Computer Science

Discussion
The results of this experiment seem to indicate that visual notifications in addition to auditory
notifications work better than auditory-only notifications for new users with hearing loss learning
to operate a CMM. Note that subjects in the sound condition (auditory signaling only) had the
most errors​ on the hardest task, as might be expected; in contrast, subjects in the light condition
had the ​fewest​ errors (none) on the hardest task. This is likely due to the last two subjects
needing more time to adapt to the physical joystick placement; as noted above, Subject #13 was
left-handed and Subject #14 had motor control disabilities. Additionally, Subjects #13 and #14
were the only ones in the light condition who were majoring in computing-related rather than
machining-related disciplines. Computing disciplines do not require machine shop training at all,
whereas machining disciplines require significant amounts of it early in the undergraduate course
sequence. It is therefore possible that Subjects #13 and #14 were also considerably less
experienced with machine tools than the other subjects in the light condition.

Limitations

This study has several limitations, as all studies do. For instance, the sample size is small due to
the difficulty in recruiting eligible Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Deaf and hard-of-hearing
students are a minority population, and many such students on campus had already learned to use
the CMM, which rendered them ineligible to participate in the study. The test instrument was
simple (four tasks and a simple 3-point scoring system) and results may not be applicable to
machines other than the CMM. Additionally, there was no attempt to ascertain prior machining
experience (non-CMM) or whether students could detect the auditory notifications through a
combination of residual hearing and/or amplification (cochlear implants, hearing aids, etc.).
However, our experimental results still indicate that visual signals are beneficial to this student
population.

Future work

There are three kinds of future work that may occur related to this project. The first is related to
the pilot study. Extending the study to cover more subjects and devices would give a broader
view of the education impact visual signalling has on a Deaf and hard-of-hearing student
population. Another interesting extension would be conducting the same study with hearing
subjects under both quiet and noisy conditions. One contention of Deaf Gain is that hearing
people can also benefit from Deaf perspectives, and this would be a quantitative demonstration
of such an advantage.

The second kind of future work involves developments of the CMM itself. After the pilot study
had been collected, the NTID faculty contacted the original CMM manufacturer and presented
their results. The manufacturers immediately recognized visual signals as an advantageous
feature and arranged to incorporate them into the next design iterations of all their equipment.
This was relatively straightforward, as the designs already included a single-color (red) LED
near the probe tip. The manufacturer only needed to replace it with a tri-color LED and adjust the
device programming to control the color of the LED to use it for signalling. This eliminates the
need for a separate device for detecting and signalling the auditory notifications, as with the
prototype; visual access is built into the CMM itself, moving it closer to an example of universal
design [10].
Note that the prototype version was accessible to color-blind users because it used two separate
LEDs for signalling; even if a user could not see what color the light was (as with red-green
color-blindness), they could see if the light was flashing on the left or on the right. Since the
manufacturer plans to implement visual signaling via a single tri-color LED, some form of
non-color differentiation will be needed to keep it accessible to color-blind users. This is easily
done via (for instance) changing not only the color, but the number of light flashes or the rate at
which the light flashes. The LEDs selected were sufficiently bright as to be clearly visible under
even harsh shop lighting conditions.

The third kind of future work involves developing the prototype technology that was used to
detect and signal the auditory notifications. Tentatively titled the Programmable Sound Detector
(PSD), a generalized version of the device could be applied to many other devices that only have
auditory-based notifications. For instance, microwaves, ovens, and laundry machines that beep
when finished could have a PSD assigned to them that would flash a light, send a text message,
etc. when they detected the appropriate sound. The underlying technologies used to create the
PSD could also evolve; the prototype discussed was a dedicated standalone device, but a PSD
could be implemented in software using existing smart home devices (Alexa, Siri, etc.) as
listening microphones. More computational power would also allow for the addition of an
easy-setup mode whereby a PSD could be trained to listen for specific and more complex
sounds.

Conclusion

This paper has presented a case study of how Deaf perspectives led to a CMM device
modification that was measurably beneficial to Deaf and hard-of-hearing student learning, but
also potentially beneficial to hearing users as well. The device modification involved the addition
of visual signalling in addition to audio-based signals. This paper also notes challenges faced by
DHH students and employees using equipment in technical classes and workplaces, as many of
these devices and environments are built around the assumption that all people can hear.

The addition of visual signaling is an example of Deaf Gain in a manufacturing context, and was
recognized as such by the original CMM manufacturer. This company does not specialize in
devices for Deaf and hard-of-hearing users. However, in noisy environments such as machine
shops, visual notifications can be beneficial to Deaf and hearing workers alike. Regardless of
whatever background noise might be present, visual signals remain clear. Visual signals also
allow hearing workers to see machine notifications while using protective hearing equipment as
recommended by OHSA. As illustrated by the prototype design, visual and auditory notifications
are not mutually exclusive; the same machine can utilize both, and users can decide which ones
they want to attend to.

This project and efforts like it create a more inclusive and versatile workplace environment, as
well as a more accessible classroom environment. Students, whether they be Deaf or hearing, can
actively see machines on campus being modified for visual signalling. This is a subtle cue that
their environment is modifiable, and that as engineers, they have the power to change things,
and not only the things they have explicitly been assigned to change. Such cues may help
students think of ways to modify other equipment they encounter in the workplace in the future,
and to empower them to advocate for better designs from the start. Awareness that these kinds of
design modifications are possible may lead to the engagement of engineers, including disabled
and Deaf engineers, to help create technical solutions. In this way, Deaf engineering perspectives
will continue to spread in ways that benefit all of society.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Gary Behm, Director of the Center on Access Technology, for
initiating many of the connections that were crucial to the success of this work. Additionally,
Deaf culture values both storytelling and the naming of individuals in the story, as many people
know each other in the small and tight-knit Deaf community and this provides a way to tighten
personal connections in the network. The following are people in the CMM narrative, in the
order of their appearance.

● Wendy Dannels: Deaf NTID professor whose training experience inspired the visual
CMM adaptation, and the researcher responsible for experiment design and data
collection
● Edward Schwenzer: hearing NTID professor who advocated that the Center on Access
Technology take on the CMM adaptation as a project
● Gary Behm: Deaf administrator and professor who authorized the project as the head of
the Center on Access Technology
● Joseph Stanislow: Deaf NTID professor who led the design of the visual signaling device
● Raymond Merritt, Jr.: Deaf Gallaudet professor whose lab equipment adaptations (also
designed by Stanislow) were the technological base for the CMM visual signaling
adaptations
● Antonio Mondragon: hearing RIT professor who Prof. Stanislow consulted for hardware
advice
● Vasu Gupta and Matthew Ballerini: Deaf undergraduate students who helped Prof.
Stanislow build the device
References

[1] M. A. Jones, “Deafness as Culture: A Psychosocial Perspective,” ​Disability Studies

Quarterly​, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 51–60, Spring 2002.
[2] M. Erard, “Why Sign-Language Gloves Don’t Help Deaf People,” ​The Atlantic​,
09-Nov-2017.
[3] D. E. Krutz, S. A. Malachowsky, S. D. Jones, and J. A. Kaplan, “Enhancing the
educational experience for deaf and hard of hearing students in software engineering,” in
Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference​, El Paso, TX, 2015, pp. 1–9.
[4] R. S. Kushalnagar, G. W. Behm, A. W. Kelstone, and S. Ali, “Tracked Speech-To-Text
Display: Enhancing Accessibility and Readability of Real-Time Speech-To-Text,” presented
at the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference, 2015, pp. 223–230.
[5] H. Lane, “Ethnicity, Ethics, and the Deaf-World,” ​Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education​, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 291–310, May 2005.
[6] P. Ladd, ​Understanding deaf culture: in search of deafhood​. Clevedon, England ;
Buffalo: Multilingual Matters, 2003.
[7] C. Padden and T. Humphries, ​Inside deaf culture​. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 2005.
[8] E. Dolnick, “Deafness as culture,” ​The Atlantic​, vol. 272, no. 3, pp. 37–53, Sep-1993.
[9] H.-D. L. Bauman and J. J. Murray, Eds., ​Deaf gain: raising the stakes for human
diversity​. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2014.
[10] T. E. Hall, A. Meyer, and D. H. Rose, Eds., ​Universal Design for Learning in the
Classroom: Practical Applications​. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2012.