No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Assistive Technology and Educational Practice
Abstract
Assistive technology (AT) includes an array of devices and services designed to provide compensatory supports for students with disabilities. Education professionals are required to consider AT when developing individual program plans for all students with disabilities in public school settings. This article describes the compensatory nature of AT, with particular emphasis on key elements of AT consideration. This process focuses on understanding the physical, cognitive, and social-linguistic demands on students with disabilities within the contexts of tasks embedded within activities and features of tools. The importance of AT outcomes is also addressed.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Single-subject research plays an important role in the development of evidence-based practice in special education. The defining features of single-subject research are presented, the contributions of single-subject research for special education are reviewed, and a specific proposal is offered for using single-subject research to document evidence-based practice. This article allows readers to determine if a specific study is a credible example of single-subject research and if a specific practice or procedure has been validated as "evidence-based" via single-subject research.
Over the past decade, evolving technologies have revolutionized the way we do business, communicate, make war, farm, and provide medical treatment. New technologies are also transforming education, and in no domain more dramatically or successfully than in the education of students with disabilities. Although the existing benefits of technol-ogy for students with disabilities are already widely recognized (e.g., Edyburn, 2003; Hasselbring & Glaser, 2000; Raskind & Higgins 1995; Rose & Meyer, 2002), the potential ben-efits are likely to be even more profound and pervasive than present practices would sug-gest. To ensure full realization of technology's potential for students with disabilities, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has funded two national centers that have a strong focus on technology: the National Assistive Technology Research Institute (NATRI) at the University of Kentucky and The National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum (NCAC) at CAST. While both centers focus on the role of technology, their work is neither duplicative nor competitive. Rather, each is researching a distinct role for technology in improving edu-cation for students with disabilities, assistive technology (AT) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL), respectively. The question of how these two approaches can enhance and even support one another for the further benefit of students with disabilities is funda-mentally important. We have engaged in early discussion of this issue with the National Center for Technology Innovation (NCTI) at the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and Pip Campbell and Suzanne Milbourne at Tho-mas Jefferson University, organizations whose OSEP-supported work is also at the forefront of technology in special education. In this article we provide a framework for further discussion of this significant issue by articulat-ing the points of commonality and difference between AT and UDL. Some individuals may see AT and UDL as identical, or conversely, antithetical. We be-lieve that neither view is accurate but instead that AT and UDL, while different, are com-pletely complementary—much like two sides of the same coin. We believe that advances in one approach prompt advances in the other and that this reciprocity will evolve in ways that will maximize their mutual benefits, mak-ing it essential that both approaches are pur-sued vigorously and distinctively. Through a better understanding and melding of AT and UDL, we believe that the lives of individuals with disabilities will ultimately be improved.
Survey research was used to conduct a formative evaluation of Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Services (QIAT) by 120 leaders in the field of assistive technology. Survey respondents represented five different types of assistive technology interest and responsibilities: consumers of assistive technology services and family members, district and regional assistive technology leaders, state and national assistive technology leaders, assistive technology leaders in higher education, and assistive technology policy leaders. Respondents reviewed QIAT and completed either print or online electronic versions of a survey in which they provided their perspectives on the need for quality indicators, the importance of each quality indicator contained in QIAT, the clarity of each accompanying intent statement, and the usefulness of QIAT to people with assistive technology interests and responsibilities similar to their own. Results of this investigation suggested that quality indicators are needed to guide the development and delivery of assistive technology services, that the 39 quality indicators contained in QIAT are important, and that QIAT would be useful to people with varied interests and responsibilities in assistive technology. The perceptions of the majority of the participants about QIAT were positive. Analysis of the rankings indicated that every quality indicator contained in QIAT was considered important by greater than 92% of the participants and every intent statement was considered clear by greater than 82% of the participants. Results also indicated that participants believed that some revisions in the wording and reordering of the items contained in QIAT would increase clarity and that the identification and development of training and products aligned to QIAT could aid in the development and delivery of effective assistive technology services. Proposed revisions were made in QIAT as a result of respondent recommendations. Implications for practice, future development, and additional research also were proposed.
r: This article sets the context for the developrhent of research quality indicators and guidelines for evidence of effective practices provided by different methodologies. The current con- ceptualization of scientific research in education and the complexity of conducting research in spe- cial education settings underlie the development of quality indicators. Programs of research in special education may be viewed as occurring in stages: moving fiom initial descriptive research, to experimental causal research, to finally research that examines the processes that might affect wide- scale adoption and use of a practice. At each stage, different research questions are relevant, and different research methodologies to address the research questions are needed.
T his article presents a set of quality indicators for experimental and quasi-experimental studies for the field of special education. We believe there is a critical need for such a set of indicators, given the current focus on the need for an increase in rigorous, scientific research in education. Recently, the National Re-search Council (NRC, 2002), in a report on sci-entific research in education, noted that they saw ABSTRACT: This article presents quality indicators for experimental and quasi-experimental studies for special education. These indicators are intended not only to evaluate the merits of a completed research report or article but also to serve as an organizer of critical issues for consideration in re-search. We believe these indicators can be used widely, from assisting in the development of research plans to evaluating proposals. In this article, the framework and rationale is explained by provid-ing brief descriptions of each indicator. Finally, we suggest a standard for determining whether a practice may be considered evidence-based. It is our intent that this standard for evidenced-based practice and the indicators be reviewed, revised as needed, and adopted by the field of special edu-cation.
The consideration of assistive technology devices and services is required during the development of every Individualized Educational Program (IEP) according to the Individuals with Disabilities Act, Amendments of 1997 (IDEA'97). Assistive technology devices and services, which the IEP team determines are required by a student in order to benefit from a free appropriate public education (FAPE), must be written into the IEP. Despite this requirement, mere has been no agreed upon description of high quality assistive technology services. This article describes the activities of a national group of assistive technology professionals known as the Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Services (QIAT) Consortium. The QIAT Consortium was formed to initiate a nationwide dialogue regarding quality indicators for a variety of assistive technology service areas. The work of the Consortium to date is discussed and the current set of indicators is included. Processes used in the development of the indicators are described. Implications for future use of the indicators and future development activities are discussed.
Prairie School District believes in integrating technology into classroom learning for all students. However, for some schools "all students" does not include the special education population. Rolando was a 7 year old autistic boy additionally labeled with mental retardation. Pretend you were Rolando's teacher. Would you have done differently?
IDEA states that assistive technology must be a part of a student's special education, related services and/or supplementary aids and services if it is required for the student to benefit from the educational program. While the law is clear in this respect, school districts across the nation are struggling with questions regarding the best ways to determine the need for assistive technology and to ensure appropriate levels of service. This article describes the Education TECH Point system which can be used by school districts as a tool to develop effective assistive technology delivery systems for all students with disabilities.
While the culture of typical Millennial students, those born after 1978–82, is increasingly recognized as being different from previous generations, particularly with regard to how technology is perceived and used, relatively little is known regarding whether these same characteristics are exhibited by students with mild disabilities. This article explores three cultural dimensions of technology-use patterns by Millennial students having particular relevance to students with mild disabilities: (a) comfort with technology, (b) connectivity to the world, and (c) technology as a tool for learning. An argument is presented that current education professionals who must now consider assistive technology (AT) for these students, know little about their preferences for, choices among, and usage of common non-school technologies that may have substantive implications for AT service delivery.
In this book, leading experts explore ways psychologists and other helping professionals can collaborate with users of assistive technology to help them get the most out of these devices. Thanks in large part to the past century's advances in technology, people with disabilities can live independent lives, contribute to their communities, attend regular schools, and work in professional careers. This technological evolution has fomented a shift from a medical to a social model of technology delivery, an approach that puts as much emphasis on users' community reintegration as it does on their physical capabilities. This change means that those in the field can no longer focus on the delivery of technology as an end in itself, but must go one step further and partner with consumers and communities to ensure that assistive devices are put to their best possible use. This interdisciplinary book provides research-based guidance for finding the perfect match between device and consumer, including key information on personality assessment, the influence of pain, coping skills, and the power of new technology and social programs. This volume will be of interest to rehabilitation psychologists, researchers, and anyone working with or using assistive technology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
While assistive technology (AT) consideration is required by the IDEA in developing IEPs for all students with disabilities, little guidance has been offered to date regarding the role of data in the consideration process. This article presents a series of data graphs that may assist teachers in making decisions about AT both prior to acquisition and following implementation of solutions considered by teams.
Assistive Technology. Access for All Students
- L Johnston
- L A Beard
- L B Carpenter
Johnston, L., Beard, L. A., and Carpenter, L. B. (2007). Assistive
Technology. Access for All Students. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Tools for Living. A Guide for Aging Arkansans
- H P Parette
- A Vanbiervliet
- K M Hughes
Parette, H. P., VanBiervliet, A., and Hughes, K. M. (1991). Tools for
Living. A Guide for Aging Arkansans. Little Rock, AR: University of
Arkansas at Little Rock. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED333 266.)
Assistive Technology in the Classroom. Enhancing the Experiences of Students with Disabilities
- A G Dell
- D A Newton
- J G Petroff
Dell, A. G., Newton, D. A., and Petroff, J. G. (2008). Assistive
Technology in the Classroom. Enhancing the Experiences of
Students with Disabilities. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Handbook of Assistive Technology Research and Practice
- D Edyburn
- K Higgins
- Boone
Edyburn, D., Higgins, K., and Boone, R. (eds.) (2005). Handbook of
Assistive Technology Research and Practice. Whitefish Bay, WI:
Knowledge by Design.
Assistive Technology and Disabilities. A Guide for Parents and Students
- H P Parette
- A Vanbiervliet
Parette, H. P. and VanBiervliet, A. (1990). Assistive Technology and
Disabilities. A Guide for Parents and Students. Little Rock, AR:
University of Arkansas at Little Rock. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED364 026.)
Evidence-based practice and the consideration of assistive technology effectiveness and outcomes
- G R Peterson-Karlan
- H P Parette
Peterson-Karlan, G. R. and Parette, H. P. (2007). Evidence-based
practice and the consideration of assistive technology effectiveness
and outcomes. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 4,
130-139.
Assistive Technology for People with Disabilities
- D P Bryant
- B R Bryant
Bryant, D. P. and Bryant, B. R. (2003). Assistive Technology for People
with Disabilities. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
and Technology and Media Division (TAM) of the Council for Considering the Need for Assistive Technology within the Individualized Education Program
Center for Technology in Education, Johns Hopkins University, and
Technology and Media Division (TAM) of the Council for Exceptional
Children (2005). Considering the Need for Assistive Technology
within the Individualized Education Program. Columbia, MD: Author.
Integrating Technology. A Practical Guide
- J G Lengel
- K M Lengel
Lengel, J. G. and Lengel, K. M. (2006). Integrating Technology.
A Practical Guide. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Integrating Technology for Meaningful Learning
- M Grabe
- C Grabe
Grabe, M. and Grabe, C. (2007). Integrating Technology for Meaningful
Learning, 5th edn. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Assistive Technology Curriculum: A Module of Inservice for Professionals (and) Instructor's Supplement
- H P Parette
- A Vanbiervliet
Parette, H. P. and VanBiervliet, A. (1991a). Assistive Technology
Curriculum: A Module of Inservice for Professionals (and) Instructor's
Supplement. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED324 887.)
Instructional Technology and Media for Learning, 8th edn
- S E Smaldino
- J D Russell
- R Heinrich
- M Molenda
Smaldino, S. E., Russell, J. D., Heinrich, R., and Molenda, M. (2005).
Instructional Technology and Media for Learning, 8th edn. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Preparing Teachers to Use Technology
International Society for Technology in Education (2005b). Preparing
Teachers to Use Technology. http://www.cnets.iste.org/teachers/
t_book.html (accessed Jun. 2009).
The SETT Framework: Critical Issues to Consider when Choosing and Using Assistive Technology
- J Zabala
Zabala, J. (1993). The SETT Framework: Critical Issues to Consider
when Choosing and Using Assistive Technology. Paper presented at
the Closing the Gap Conference, Minneapolis, MN.
Research on AT outcomes and large scale assessments
- M Thurlow
- G Tindal
- R Powers
Thurlow, M., Tindal, G., Powers, R., et al. (2007). Research on AT
outcomes and large scale assessments. Assistive Technology
Outcomes and Benefits 4, 11-27.
Research-Based Practices in Developmental Disabilities
- G R Peterson-Karlan
- H P Parette
Peterson-Karlan, G. R. and Parette, H. P. (2008). Integrating assistive
technology into the curriculum. In Parette, H. P. and Peterson-Karlan,
G. R. (eds.) Research-Based Practices in Developmental Disabilities,
2nd edn., pp 183-214. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Has Technology Been Considered: A Guide for IEP Teams
- A C Chambers
Chambers, A. C. (1997). Has Technology Been Considered: A Guide for
IEP Teams. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Assistive Technology Curriculum: A Module of Instruction for Students in Arkansas Colleges and Universities (and) Instructor's Supplement
- H P Parette
- A Vanbiervliet
Parette, H. P. and VanBiervliet, A. (1991b). Assistive Technology
Curriculum: A Module of Instruction for Students in Arkansas
Colleges and Universities (and) Instructor's Supplement. Little Rock,
AR: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED324 884.)
Assistive Technology Curriculum for Arkansans with Disabilities
- H P Parette
- A Vanbiervliet
Parette, H. P. and VanBiervliet, A. (1991c). Assistive Technology
Curriculum for Arkansans with Disabilities. Little Rock, AR: University
of Arkansas at Little Rock. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED324 886.)
Assistive Technology Curriculum for Parents of Arkansans with Disabilities
- H P Parette
- A Vanbiervliet
Parette, H. P. and VanBiervliet, A. (1991d). Assistive Technology
Curriculum for Parents of Arkansans with Disabilities. Little Rock, AR:
University of Arkansas at Little Rock. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED324 885.)
Assistive Technology Guide for Young Children with Disabilities
- H P Parette
- A Vanbiervliet
Parette, H. P. and VanBiervliet, A. (1991e). Assistive Technology Guide
for Young Children with Disabilities. Little Rock, AR: University of
Arkansas at Little Rock. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED324 888.)
20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq
No Child Left Behind Act (2001). 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.
Assistive Technology Outcomes Summit
- Seat
- Center
SEAT Center, National Center for Technology Innovation, and
University of Kansas (2006). Assistive Technology Outcomes
Summit. Assistive Technology and Educational Progress... Charting
a New Direction. Executive Summary. http://www.
nationaltechcenter.org/documents/ExecutiveSummaryFinal.pdf
(accessed Jun. 2009).