making informed assistive technology decisions for ...comp-exam.wikispaces.com/file/view/making...

Using Technology

Making Informed AssistiveTechnology Decisions

for Students With HighIncidence Disahilities

Matthew T. Marino • Elizabeth C. Marino • Stan F. Shaw

Special education teachers andindividualized education program(IEP) team members throughoutthe country are struggling to makeappropriate decisions regardingassistive technology (AT) for stu-dents with high incidence disabili-ties. Although numerous authorsand organizations have developedtools to assist IEP teams when con-sidering AT, the task can be over-wbelming. Successful AT programsutilize preassessment, collabora-tive problem-solving, effectiveimplementation, and systemicevaluation. Each of tbese issues presentdifferent challenges to special educationteachers.

This article is designed to simplifyAT consideration for students with highincidence disabilities by highlightingseveral comprehensive resources thatIEP teams can use to inform their deci-sion-making process. Prior to our dis-cussion of each resource, we identifybarriers the IEP team may face whenmaking AT decisions. It is our intentionthat the tools and resources presentedherein should be used collectively byIEP teams to ensure that the AT needs of

students with high incidence disabilitiesare addressed.

The Individuals With DisabilitiesEducation Improvement Act of 2004[Pub. L. No. 108-446. Part A, Sec 602,pp. 11-12) defines an AT device as "anyitem, piece of equipment, or productsystem, whether acquired commerciallyoff the shelf, modified, or customized,that is used to increase, maintain orimprove the functional capabilities of achild with a disability." Federal lawmandates the consideration of AT whenwriting a student's IEP. This means thatit is a special education team's respon-

sibility to ensure that AT is consid-ered for all students, includingthose with high incidence disabili-ties. This task can be overwhelm-ing due, in large part, to a criticalshortage of AT specialists whohelp IEP teams make decisionsregarding assistive technology forstudents with disabilities (Edy-burn, 2004). Research indicatesthat members of IEP teams oftenhave limited expertise regardingthe types of AT that are availableto students because of a lack ofadequate training for preservice

teachers entering the field (Cavanaugh,2002). Despite this, there has been littleto no increase by school districts in hir-ing AT professionals who can plan andsupervise the effective implementationof AT (Edyburn, 2004J.

In some cases, experienced specialeducation teachers have limited knowl-edge of basic types of AT (Pucketl,2004). Even special educators whostrive to stay current in the AT fieldhave difficulty ascertaining current,appropriate information from thediverse resources that are available. Forexample, a special educator conducting

18 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

an Internet search for AT using Googlewill receive more than 12 million Websites. Among these are a number ofhighly regarded instruments that pres-ent special education teachers witb aframework for (a) AT assessment priorto the IEP meeting, (b) discussion dur-ing the development of an AT plan, and(c) establishing efficacy of the AT inter-vention. However, in order to effectivelyguide IEP teams during the AT consid-eration process, special education teach-ers must possess both a thoroughunderstanding of AT resources and thelegislation governing their implementa-tion.

Successful AT programs

utilize preassessment,

collaborative problem-

solving, effective

implementation, and

systemic evaluation.

Assistive TechnologyLegislation: A Brief HistoryAT legislation has improved the legalrights of individuals with disabilities toaccess information throughout the past2 decades. The Technology RelatedAssistance for Individuals With Dis-abilities Act of 1988 (commonly referredto as the "Tecb Act'") was the first sub-stantive federal legislation dedicatedsolely to AT. This law provided funda-mental definitions for AT devices andservices, promoted the avaiiabihty andquaiity of AT, and required states todevelop technology-related services forindividuals with disabilities. In 1990,The Individuals With DisabilitiesEducation Act (IDEA) expanded on thepremise of the Tech Act by mandatingtbat IEP teams provide AT if it was"required" for a student to receive afree, appropriate public education(FAPE). It states, in part, that "Eachpublic agency shall insure tbat assistivetechnology devices or assistive tech-nology services, or both . . . are madeavailable to a child with a disability if

required as part of the child's specialeducation . . . related services . . . orsupplementary aids and services." (P. L.No. 101-476, § 300.308).

Amendments to IDEA in 1997included several important mandatestbat further extended individuals' withdisabilities rights including: (a) studentsshould be educated in general educationclassrooms to the maximum extent pos-sible, [b) IEP teams must consider ATfor every student during the develop-ment of an IEP, and (c) AT may contin-ue to enhance students' access to FAPEoutside of the school (e.g., in tbe stu-dent's home). This legislation bolsteredstudent access to the general educationcurriculum and placed increasedresponsibility on special educationteachers and IEP team members tomake informed AT decisions.

Three additional legislative initia-tives have significantly impacted ATconsideration in the United States.These are;

• The Americans With DisabilitiesAct of 1990 (ADA). This Act stipu-lated that individuals with disabili-ties be given equal access to publiceducation, employment, transporta-tion, recreation, and health care.Title IV of this Act specificallyaddresses AT, requiring telephonecompanies to provide telecommuni-cation services for individuals withhearing impairments.

• The 1998 Amendment to Section508 of the Rehabilitation Act. ThisAct required that all electronic orinformation technology that is devel-oped, procured, maintained, or usedby the federal government be acces-sible to individuals with disabilities,unless an undue burden would beimposed on tbe agency.

• The Assistive Technology Act of1998. This Act stipulated that furtherdevelopment and use of AT has pro-found implications for improving thelives of individuals with disabilitiesthroughout the United States. It pro-vided states with additional fundingto develop comprehensive AT pro-grams and advocacy services forindividuals with disabilities. The leg-islation also recognized the potential

benefits of incorporating AT duringthe production phase of new prod-ucts using the principles of tJniversalDesign.

In conjunction, these laws expandAT considerations beyond the scope ofIDEA. What does this mean for specialeducators? First, special educationteachers should understand, and havethe ability to explain, legal issues asso-ciated with current AT legislation whendeveloping transition plans for individu-als with disabilities. This will enablestudents and their parents to use thelaw when advocating for services.Second, the Assistive Technology Act of1998 provides insights into developinginstructional units that incorporate ATutilizing the principles of UniversalDesign. Special educators who under-stand these principles can makeinformed recommendations to contentarea teachers and other members of theIEP team. Third, knowledge of the typesof AT that are recognized in laws per-taining to federal and private employ-ment agencies will enable a special edu-cator to evaluate the longitudinal viabil-ity of any AT that is recommended forschool use.

Even special educators who

strive to stay current in the

AT field have difficulty

ascertaining current,

appropriate information

from the diverse resources

that are available.

Consider the following examplewhere establishing the longitudinal via-bility of an AT intervention could have aprofound impact on a student's currentperformance and transition plan. A jun-ior in high school struggles witb writ-ing. One of the student's content areateachers is advocating for AT in theform of an outlining program duringessay exams to help the student organ-ize his thoughts. This seems like anappropriate accommodation. However,

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN • JUL/AUC 2006 • 19

the student's parent points out that herson might not be ahle to use this AT incollege courses and asks whether itwould be more beneficial to teach theprewriting skills necessary to organizethe paper without the AT. In this currentcase, both remedial and compensatorystrategies might be appropriate, alongwith clear documentation in the stu-dent's transition plan as to the types,contexts, and effectiveness of specificAT. This documentation will allow thestudent's postsecondary disability serv-ice provider to make an informed deci-sion regarding the types of accommoda*tions he is eligible for. This decision istypically determined on a case-by-casebasis.

A Special Educator's ExperienceAs we have noted, IEP teams across thecountry are struggling to make appro-priate AT decisions for students withhigh incidence disabilities for a numberof reasons. As a result, students withthese disabilities may not be providedwith resources that foster access to thegeneral education curriculum. A centralbarrier special education teachers facewhen helping an IEP team consider ATis the definition. Consider the followingvignette.

Monique Hendrickson, a seventh-grade student with a learning disability,had recently moved to a new schoolfrom a neighboring state. Monique wasplaced in a fully inclusive setting withsupport room services during studyhall, at her parents' request, while theschool waited for her IEP. WhenMonique's file arrived, the special edu-cator found that the IEP was poorlywritten. It would need to he rewritten toaddress state and district standards.

Kathy Stevens, a veteran special edu-cation teacher at the middle school,glanced at her IEP meeting agenda. Itwas 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and theteam had heen writing Monique's newIEP for more than an hour. Everyonewas tired and ready to go home for theday, but Kathy needed to be sure theyaddressed one more item.

"The next question we need toanswer is . . . Does Monique need assis-tive technology to be successful, and ifso, what should it look like?" Monique's

math teacher spoke up. "Monique does-n't need a computer to function in myclass." Her language arts teacher inter-jected, "I don't think a computer is theonly form of assistive technology weshould consider . . . I think assistivetechnology can be just about anythingwe want it to be." Monique's fatherlooked at Kathy. "What exactly is assis-tive technology?"

Defining AssisHve TechnologyA first step in improving AT services forstudents with high incidence disabilitiesis understanding the salient factors thathamper IEP teams' abilities to makeappropriate decisions. As this vignetteillustrates, the definition of AT isambiguous. Recall the federal definitionof AT as "any item, piece of equipment,or product system, whether acquiredcommercially off the shelf, modified, orcustomized, that is used to increase,maintain, or improve functional capa-bilities of a child with a disability" (P. L.No. 108-446). There are several terms inthis definition that are open to interpre-tation.

First, an item is considered AT if itincreases, maintains, or improves thefunctional capabilities of children. Whatis a functional capability? What didMonique's math teacher mean when hesaid that Monique did not need a com-puter to function in his class?Traditionally, a functional capabilitywas thought of as applying to studentswith low incidence disabilities. AT forthese students included items such ashearing aids, FM systems, or communi-cation devices allowing them to "func-tion" by communicating [Bryant &Bryant, 2003). However, when appliedto students with high incidence disabil-ities, AT includes a continuum rangingfrom no tech devices (e.g., pencil gripsand slant boards for writing) to hightech devices [e.g., spell checkers, calcu-lators, portable keyboards, and text-to-speech systems). These devices providestudents with the assistance needed to"function" by reading, writing, andcompleting mathematical computationsmore independently.

Biackhurst and Edyburn {2000} cate-gorize functional abilities using sevendomains. These include functions that

sustain life, protect the person frombodily injury, promote communication,increase mobility, improve interactionwith the environment, and allow theindividual to participate in recreationalor fitness related activities. Specific tothe learning process, they identify "edu-cation and transition problems" (p. 34).This functional domain is particularlyuseful to special education teachers andIEP teams because it relates to the stu-dents' access, participation, and assess-ment in the general education curricu-lum. For example, the special educationteacher might ask, "Would a calculatorallow Monique to function more inde-pendently in math class?" To addressthis educational domain, Biackhurstand Edyburn suggest examining com-pensatory strategies such as adaptedcurricular materials, AT, and education-al software. Special education teams canuse these domains during the preassess-ment process (i.e., prior to the IEP meet-ing) to guide data collection, evaluation,and viability considerations. The datasolicited during this period will providebaseline evidence for evaluating the effi-cacy of proposed interventions.

Special educators can provide mem-bers of an IEP team with informationabout the nuances of the term function-al capabilities using the University ofKentucky Assistive Technology (UKAT)toolkit [Lahm et al., 2002). This toolkitincludes a 12-page preassessment pro-file template that defines students' func-tional capabilities in terms of communi-cation skills, academic abilities, cogni-tive abilities, vocational skills, andsocial/emotional level. The templateprovides IEP teams with specific criteriathat can be used to ascertain the currentfunctional capabilities and needs of stu-dents, prior to the development of theIEP. For example, under the readingsubsection, the template requires teammembers to identify whether specificskills such as decoding, oral reading,letter identification, and comprehensionare relative strengths or weaknesses forthe student. The team must thendescribe concerns resulting from thediscussion. This tool provides teammembers with the opportunity to docu-ment evidence on the students' currentlevel of AT use and the observable out-


comes. This is a comprehensive docu-ment. From a practical standpoint, aspecial educator should plan a meetingjust to complete this form, or provide acopy to team members well in advanceof the meeting. The UKAT toolkit can bedownloaded free of charge athttp://edsrc.coe.uky. edu/www/ukatii.

As Monique's language arts teachernoted, many people believe that the def-inition of AT is open to interpretation.Although AT ranges from low-techdevices such as pencil grips to high-techdevices such as electronic books, theword "any" opens limitless possibilitiesthat extend beyond the scope of FAPE.To address this issue and to provideconcrete examples for IEP teams regard-ing what is and what is not AT, theTechnology and Media Division (TAM)of the Council for Exceptional Children(CEC) and the Wisconsin AssistiveTechnology Initiative (WATI) havedeveloped an Assistive TechnologyQuick Wheel (AT Quick WheelJ. Thistool provides a continuum of items,organized by the level of technologythey incorporate, that are considered AT.Examples include nonslip surfaces forchairs, talking word processors, andslant boards for writing. It is importantto note that what is considered AT forone student may not be AT for another.In Moniqne's case, when a studentmoves from one district to another,what was considered AT in District Amay not be considered AT in District Bbecause in District B the technology isutilized by all students as part of thegeneral curriculum. Appropriately, theAT Quick Wheel excludes examples ofitems that should not be considered AT.These items will vary based on stu-dents' individual needs. The AT QuickWheel is useful when special educationteachers must explain to other teammembers that AT does not equate tocomputer use. In the preceding vignette,Kathy could reference the AT QuickWheel when discussing the types ofitems that may benefit Monique. The ATQuick Wheel is available in documemformat at: http://www.cec.sped.org/law_res/doc/resources/tam/index.html.

Another useful tool when identifyingthe types of AT that are available to stu-dents is WATI's Assistive Technology

Checklist. This two-page checklist pro-vides examples of AT devices that sup-port students during reading, writing,math, studying, and communicationactivities. For example, under the writ-ing header, 30 AT devices in three sub-headings [writing mechanics, comput-er access, and written composition) areidentified. The checklist providesexamples of environmental supportsthat can be utilized by students withmore severe disabilities as well [Reed &Walser, 2000). The checklist is avail-able at: http://wati.org/loanlibrary/techchecklist.html.

AT Assessment Prior to tlie IEPRaskind and Bryant (2002) point outthat there are a myriad of factors thatinfluence students' performance whenusing AT over time. These include (a)the individual's abilities, (bj the natureof the tasks a student completes, (c) thecomext in which the task will be per-formed, and (dj the type of AT devicethe student is using. Given this dynam-ic interplay, IEP teams must collect pre-liminary data using a systematic, multi-dimensional approach, prior to ATimplementation, in order to establishthe viability and efficacy of any ATintervention. Without data to drive thedecision-making process, teams may beunable to have an effective conversationregarding AT. Consider the followingvignette.

Kathy glanced at the clock, realizingshe had spent valuable time facilitatinga discussion about the definition of ATThe team needed to move forward anddetermine what AT Monique needed tobe successful. She spoke up. "We needto decide if Monique needs assistivetechnology." Monique's language artsteacher chimed, "She has Cs and Ds inmy class. I want her to perform better,but I've tried everything. She just can'tdo it." Her math teacher spoke up. "Inmath, she needs to do complicatedequations. I don't know what else I cando for her. Maybe she needs to leave theroom for my class." Monique's fatherexploded, "I want her in the classroom.You must not be teaching her right!"This was not what Kathy had in mindwhen she asked the question.

Kathy needed a way to begin theconversation in a constructive mannerthat would keep team members focusedon Monique. "Let's slow down andfocus on some questions." She began."What are Monique's needs and whattools does she require to be successful?"The room fell silent. Kathy realized theyhad some work to do before decidingwhether Monique needed AT.

IEP learns must collect

preliminary data using

a systematic, multi-

dimensional approacli,

prior to AT implementation,

in order to establish the

viahility and efficacy of

any AT intervention.

Qften in an IEP meeting, teachersfeel defensive if it is determined that astudent is not making appropriateprogress in their class. Parents mayreact in an accusatory manner Utilizingspecific questions about the studentthroughout the discussion allows IEPteam members to keep the conversationpositive and focused on the student.Zabala [1995] outlines several questionsto ask when considering the Student,Environment, Tasks, and assistiveTechnology tools [SETT). The SETTframework is constructed to help teams[a) consider a student's need for AT, [b)develop a system of tools for studentsthat address those needs, and (c) con-nect AT assessment with the proposedintervention. Zabala [1996) proposedexamining the student, the learningenvironment [s), and the tasks the stu-dent must complete before making ATrecommendations. Examples of SETTquestions that address these concernscan be accessed at: www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/technology/zabalaSETT2.

The SETT framework provides broadquestions that allow IEP teams to focuson individual student needs in multipleenvironments. For example, AT may benecessary across classrooms [e.g., in

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN • JUL/AUG 2006 • 21

Table 1 . AT Questions That Focus the Conversation

• What are the student's needs and abilities?

• What materials are available to support the student?

• Is the physical arrangement of the learning environment conducive to stu-dent success?

• How will the environment need to change for the student to be successful?

• What activities must the student complete as an active member of thelearning community?

• How do these activities relate to the curricular goals?

• Would assistive technology improve the student's ability to participate in thegenera] education curriculum?

• What types of technology should be considered?

math and science but not in languagearts) and/or across contexts (e.g., in theclassroom, in the after school program,and at home). Each individual hasunique needs that must be identifiedprior to and during AT consideration.Zabala (1996) points out that a studentwith a disability may not have the samegoals during specific learning tasks as astudent without disabilities. The teamshould ask, "How is assistive technolo-gy going to help this student participateand make progress toward his or hergoals?"

The type of questions outlined inSETT provide a starting point to focusconversations about AT with students,teachers, parents, and support person-nel. Numerous authors (e.g., Bowser &Reed, 1998; Edyburn, 2004; Pisano,2002; Zabala, 1995) have identifiedquestions that are pertinent to the ATdiscussion. Table 1 presents some exam-ples of general questions that specialeducators can use to facilitate a conver-sation about assessing students' ATneeds.

An additional resource for IEP teamsto gather information on students' ATneeds prior to the IEP is Raskind andBryant's (2002) Fmictional Evaluationfor Assistive Technology (FEAT). EEATprovides IEP teams with a systemic wayto conduct multidimensional evalua-tions of an individual's AT needs, expe-riences, and progress when using AT.This tool provides longitudinal data inmultiple contexts that can inform deci-sions regarding the viability and effica-

cy of AT interventions. There are fiveforms to complete. They include (a) the"contextual matching inventory" thatidentifies tasks the student is expectedto perform, (b) the "checklist ofstrengths and limitations" that exam-ines student performance across ninedomains (e.g.. listening, speaking, writ-ing, memory, and behavior}, (c) the"checklist of technology experiences"that details the types and level of AT astudent has used previously (note thatthis has implications for AT trainingprior to implementation), (d) the "tech-nology characteristics inventory" thatrates the reliabihty of any proposed ATintervention, and (e) the "individual-technology evaluation scale" that isused to evaluate the effectiveness of theimplemented AT.

The goal of EEAT is to make the eval-uation process comprehensive and sys-temic. Various team members includingteachers, family members, and the stu-dent complete each checklist. The"Summary and RecommendationsBooklet" is used to synthesize assess-ment information, provide recommen-dations, and document student progressover time. EEAT is a comprehensivepackage that includes a 75-page exam-iner's manual with 81 references. It canbe ordered online for approximately$130 at: www.psycho-educational.com/pages/804483/index.htm.

In the second vignette, Kathy couldhave used the SETT and EEAT frame-works to collect preliminary data priorto the IEP. This evidence would inform

the team's collaborative decision regard-ing whether AT was appropriate forMonique. It could also lead to anenhanced discussion regarding AT via-bility, training, implementation, evalua-tion, and efficacy.

Recommending EffectiveAssistive 1<echnologies

Once an assessment of the student's ATneeds within the context of the learningenvironment is complete, IEP teams canrecommend specific AT devices andservices. To facilitate this discussion,special educators may benefit from aframework for developing AT recom-mendations. WATI's Assistive Tech-nology Consideration Guide is a tablethat includes a list of tasks students maybe expected to complete in school. Teammembers fill in the table, describingwhether the student completes the taskswith special accommodations or ATdevices. The team then documents newassistive technology the student will try.This table is available by accessing theWeb site, scrolling to the bottom, andselecting "AT Consideration Guide." Itcan be found at: http://www.wati.org/bestpractices/consideration,html.Special educators who utilize this toolcan use a scope and sequence chart tomonitor the effectiveness and ensureevidence-based decisions are madewhen addressing future AT questions.

AT Tkvining andimplamentcrtionWhen a viable AT device has been iden-tified, it is the special educator's respon-sibility, unless otherwise noted, toensure fidelity of AT implementation.This means appropriate training for thestudent and others who will be usingthe technology. For example, if a stu-detit's teacher is responsible for usingvoice-to-text recognition software dur-ing lectures to help the student takenotes, the teacher must be familiar withthe software and have completed thepreliminary steps necessary so that therecognition software will function prop-erly. Conversely, the student mustunderstand how to access the lecturetext and options to convert the text tooutline form. Appropriate training wiildiminish the chances that the student or


others will abandon the AT interven-tion.

Once the training is complete, mean-ing those involved have demonstratedcompetency using the AT, the specialeducator should document progress,outcomes, reliability issues, and con-cerns. It may be helpful to ask the stu-dent and otbers involved with the AT tokeep a journal for the first few weeksthat documents their experiences. Thisshould include their perceptions of theAT and issues surrounding technicalsupport. After the efficacy of the AT hasbeen established, journal entries may bereduced to a weekly or biweekly entrydepending on the student's level ofprogress. This documentation servestwo purposes: [a] It provides longitudi-nal data regarding the viability and effi-cacy of the AT that can be used toinform future decisions and transitionplans, and (b) It provides evidenceregarding the AT's reliability and cus-tomer support that a special educatorcan use when considering the AT forother students.

Monitoring ProgressCollecting comprehensive longitudinaldata regarding the effectiveness of AT iscritical for ensuring student success.Bowser and Reed (1998) presentEducation Tech Points as a frameworkdesigned to focus IEP teams at six dif-ferent points in the special educationprocess. Tbis guide identifies the needto discuss questions about AT through-out the entire special education processfrom referral to assessment to imple-mentation and review. Education TechPoints include [a] initial referral, (bjevaluation, (c) extended assessment,(d) plan development, (e) implementa-tion, and (f) periodic review questions.This framework helps IEP teams contin-ue to discuss the efficacy of AT through-out the student's educational experi-ences, as opposed to reducing it to alimited conversation at the end of ameeting.

Another means of evaluating theeffectiveness of AT is the University ofKentucky Assistive Technology (UKAT)toolkit [Lahm et al., 2002). The UKATToolkit is comprised of seven toolsaddressing pre assessment, assessment.

and implementation of AT Tbis toolkitutilizes a comprehensive approach tolongitudinal assessment. For example,the assessment planning and data col-lection sheet includes a three-coiumnchart that provides spaces to recordwhat information teams need to know,whicb strategies are used, and whatinformation is gathered. This organizeris straightforward and easy to follow,making it a valuable resource for teamsduring the AT assessment process. TheUKAT toolkit is available at: http://edsrc.coe.uky.edu/www/ukatii/

Collecting comprehensive

longitudinal data regarding

the eflectiveness of AT

is critical for ensuring

student success.

District Level AT Policyand ResourcesLater tbat montb, Katby sat in herschool district's special educator meet-ing wondering bow her director wouldrespond to her concerns about AT. Shebad e-mailed questions regarding thedistrict's policy on how to address AT atIEP meetings after learning from col-leagues tbat other schools in the districtwere disregarding the validity of AT usefor students witb high incidence disabil-ities.

There is a lack of AT specialists whoassist schools and school districts withanswering questions related to AT(Edyburn, 2004). This leaves specialeducators in a position where they mustmake decisions in relative isolation. Tberesult can mean discontinuity in thelevel of AT special education services astudent receives. For example, a studentmay receive comprehensive documenta-tion and assessment of AT use in pri-mary scbool, followed by diminishedlevels of AT consideration as he or sheprogresses through secondary school.This may affect the student's progress inthe general education curriculumand/or transition planning. To circum-vent this, scbool districts can develop a

comprehensive approach to AT consid-eration that involves all stakeholders. Tobegin this process, special educatorsshould ask pertinent questions based onpersonal experiences with students, col-leagues, and parents. These questionsshould focus on the types of AT that areavailable at a district level, the typesand levels of support that are in placefor students and teachers, the procedurefor accessing available resources, andtbe protocol for assessing student out-comes.

Reed and Lahm (2005) present aguide that answers many of these ques-tions by addressing issues typicallyfound in today's schools. It includes thetypes of AT and AT resources that areavailable to districts. This documentalso addresses copyright issues and ATlaw. Reed and Labm ask and answercommon questions sucb as "Does tbeschool district need to buy assistivetechnology?" and "Does the districthave to send assistive technologyhome?" (p. 3). Also provided is a list ofAT Web sites, AT-related journal articlesand books, resource manuals, videos,and AT vendors.

Another useful resource when devel-oping a district level AT plan is theQuality Indicators for AssistiveTechnology (QIAT) Consortium Leader-ship Team (2005). This cohort devel-oped a series of matrixes to rate school'sinvolvement in AT use. These matrixesaddress issues of administrative sup-port, AT consideration, implementation,assessment, AT needs, AT in tbe IEP,and AT effectiveness. The tool providesa framework for scbool systems toassess their AT practices on a continu-um that ranges from unacceptable topromising practice. The QIAT matrixesare available by clicking on tbe"Printable Version-QIAT 2005 Self-Evaluation Matrix Variations" at: http://sweb.uky.edu/ f^ jszabaO/QlAT.html

Special educators can ensure thattheir AT practice meets the promisingpractice criteria by asking their adminis-trators the AT policy questions present-ed in Table 2.

Kcrihy RevisitedAfter her district meeting, Kathy reflect-ed on ber cbanging perceptions of AT.


Table 2 . Questions lo Ask Your District Level SpecialEducation Director

• Does our district have guidelines for documenting AT needs in an IEP?

• How should I ensure that all team members are aware of the guidelines?

• Is there a protocol for clearly documenting the types of AT devices andservices in the IEP?

• Is there a procedure for documenting how AT is used to help studentsachieve IEP goals and progress in the general education curriculum?

• How should the team document the data collection and assessment of ATdevices?

• How should the team document the services that are needed to implementthe AT?

She had acquired an understanding ofhow AT applied to students with highincidence disabilities. Her director hadprovided questions that would help herfacilitate a constructive dialogue aboutAT with other members of the IEP team.Kathy had a protocol for documentingAT use, outcomes, and assessment thatwould be consistent as her studentsmoved throughout the district. Butwould this equate to improvements instudent access to the general educationcurriculum? Certainly improving thefunctional capabilities of studentswould increase the Hkeiihood that theywould be successful. But, Kathy remind-ed herself, students with special needsare individuals. AT was an addition toher personal toolkit. She openedMonique's file and started taking noteson how she would improve the next IEPmeeting.

Conclusions

Federal law mandates the considerationof AT when writing a student's IEP. It isthe special educator's responsibility toinform members of IEP teams about ATin the absence of trained AT specialists.How can special educators completethis task effectively? First, they canexplain the definitional issues tbat sur-round AT and provide team memberswith concrete examples of AT that per-tain to the student. Second, they shouldexamine the student's current function-al level. Third, they must identify avail-able accommodations, modifications,and AT that promote access to the gen-eral education curriculum. Fourth, they

should oversee the documentation,implementation, and assessment of AT.Finally, tbey need to advocate for thetypes of AT tbat meet the students'needs while providing the greatestpotential for student success.

There are many resources availableto special education teachers and IEPteams who are struggling to make ATdecisions for students witb higb inci-dence disabilities. The articles, tools,and tables presented in this overvieware meant to serve as a starting point foreducators who wish to expand tbeirknowledge of AT as it applies to stu-dents with high incidence disabilities. Alist of Web sites referenced in this arti-cle, along with other resources, can befound in the box "Assistive TechnologyResources." Each of the tools discussedprovides benefits to an IEP team in tbeprocess of discussing and making deci-sions about the need for AT.

ReferencosAmericans With Disabilities Act of 1990,

Pub. L. No. 101-336, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 etseq.

Assistive Technology Act of 1998. Pub. L. No.105-394, 29 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.

Biackhurst. A. E.. & Edyhurii. D. L. (2000). Abrief history of special education technol-ogy [Electronic version]. Special Edu-cation Technology Practice, 2(1], 21-36.

Bowser. G.. & Reed. P. (1998). Education techpoints: A framework for assistive tech-nology planning. Retrieved October 24.2005. from http://www.edtechpoints.org/manual.htm

Bryant. D. P., & Bryant, B. R. (2003).Assistive technology for people with dis-abilities. Boston: Pearson Education.

Cavanaugh, T. [2002). The need for assistivetechnology in educational technology.Educational Technology Review, 10(1).Retrieved March 24, 2005, from http://www.aace.org/pubs/etr/issue2/cavanaug.cfm

Edyburn. D. L. (2000). Assistive technologyand students with mild disahilities,[Electronic version]. Eocus on ExceptionalChildren. 32{9), 1-24. Retrieved March 24,2005 from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3815/is_200005/ai_n8882618/print

Edyburn. D, L. (2004). Rethinking assistivetechnology. Special Education TechnologyPractice. 5[4). 16-23.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act(IDEA) of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-476.20U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

Individuals With Disabilities EducationImprovement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No.108-446, Part A - General Provisions, Sec602 - Definitions, pp. 11-12. (2004).Retrieved February 24, 2005. from http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/108th/educalion/idea/conferencereport/confrept.htm

Lahm, E. A., Bell. J. K., Biackhurst, A. E..Abner. G.. Bausch, M.. Gase, D. et. al.(2002). UKAT Toolkit. Retrieved June 5,2005. from http://edsrc.coe.uky.edu/www/ukatii

Pisano, L. V. (2002). What happens whenassistive technology doesn't work? Theneed for an integrated approach. LeatningDisabilities Online. Retrieved October 16,2005. from http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/technoiogy/assist ive_technology _whenjt_doesn't_work. html

PuckeU. K. S. (2004). Project ACCESS: Fieldtesting an assistive technology toolkit forstudents with mild disabilities. Journal ofSpecial Education Technology. J9(2), 5-17.

OiAT Consortium. (2005). The 01 AT self-eval-uation matrices. Retrieved March 24,2005. from http://sweb.uky.edu/"-jszabaO/OIAT.html

Raskind, M. H., & Bryant, B. R. (2002).Funclional evaluation for assistive technol-ogy: Examiners manual. Austin, TX:Psycho-Educational Services.

Reed, P. R., & Lahm. E. A. (2005). A resourceguide for teachers and administratorsabout assistiue technology (GeneralEdition). Retrieved September 4, 2005,from http://www.wati.org/materials.freematerials.btml

Reed, P., & Walser, P (2000), adapted fromLynch & Reed (1997). Wisconsin assistivetechnology initiative assistiue techtiologychecklist. Retrieved June 5, 2005, fromhttp:/ /www.wati .org/loanlibrary/techcbecklist. btml

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, Pub. L.No. 105-220. 29 U.S.C. § 794d (1998).

Technology and Media Division of tbeCouncil for Exceptional Children and TheWisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative.


Assistive Technology Resources

Tool Description Access On the Web At:

UKAT Assistive TechnologyToolkit

Assistive Technology QuickWheel

WATI Assistive TechnologyChecklist

SETT Framework

Assistive TechnologyConsideration Guide

Education Tech Points

Resource Guide forAdministrators

Quality Indicators for AT

Functional Evaluation forAssistive Technology (FEAT]

Defines functionalcapabilities

Assistive technologyexamples

Assistive technologydevices

Questions to ask about AT

List of tasks students areexpected to perform

When to ask questions

Addresses AT issues in theschools

Rates school involvementin AT use

Provides a framework formultidimensional evaluationsof an individual's AT needs,experiences, and progress

http://edsrc.coe.uky.edu/www/ukatii

www.cec.sped.org/law_res/doc/resources/tam/index, html

http://wati.org/loanlibrary/techchecklist,html

http://www.ldonline,org/ld_indepth/technology/zabalaSETT2

http://www.wati.org/bestpractices/consideration.html

www.edtechpoints.org/manual.htm

http://www.wati.org/materials/freematerials.html

http://sweb.uky.edu/ '̂ jszabaO/QIAT.htm!

www, psycho-educational.com/pages/804483/index.htm

Other Resources:

Castellani, J., Reed, P., Zabalo, J., Dwyer, J., McPherson, S., & Rein, J. (2005). Considering the need for assistive technologywithin the Individualized Education Program. Arlington, VA: Center for Technology in Education and Technology and MediaDivision of the Council for Exceptional Children.

Technology and media for accessing the curricalum. (2005]. Arlington, VA: Technology and Media Division of the Council forExceptional Children.

Bowser, G,, & Reed, P. (2004). A school administrator's desktop guide to assistive technology. Arlington, VA: Technology andMedia Division of the Council for Exceptional Children.

(n.d.). Assistive Technology Quick Wheel.(Document format]. Retrieved May 29,2005, from http://www.cec.sped.org/law_res/doc/resources/tam/index.htmt

Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative'sAssistive Technology ConsiderationGuide, [n.d.). Retrieved June 5, 2005,from hltp://www.wati.org/bestpractices/consideration.html

Zabala, J. (1998, October 1), Get SETT forthe successful inclusion and transition.Learning Disabilities Online. RetrievedApril 10, 2005, from http://wwvif.I donl ine .org/ ld_indepth/ technology/zabalaSETT2

Zabala, 1 (1995. October). The SETT frame-work: Critical areas to consider when mak-

ing informed assistive technology deci-sions. Paper presented at the Glosing theGap Conference on the Use of AssistiveTechnology in Special Education andRehabilitation, Minneapolis, MN.Retrieved June 5, 2005. from http://sweb.uky.edu/'-jszabaO/SETTimro.html

Zabala, J. (1996]. Setting the stage for suc-cess: Building success through effectiveselection of assistive technology systems.Learning Disabilities Online. RetrievedFebruary 22, 2006, from http://www,!donl ine,org/ ld_indepth/ technology/zabalaSETT2

Matthew T. Marino (CEC WA Federation).Assistant Professor, Depanmem of Teaching

and Learning. Washington State University,Pullman. Elizabeth C, Marino, ReadingSpecialist, Windsor Locks Connecticut PublicSchools. Stan F. Shaw (CEC CT Federation),Professor. Department of Special Education,University of Connecticut.

Address correspondence to Mattheiv Marino.Department of Teaching and Learning, P.O.Box 642132, Washington Stale University PuU-num. WA 99164-2! 32 (e-maib malthewrnarino®wsu.edu).

TEACHING Exceptional Ghildren. VoL 38.No. 6, pp. 18-25.

Copyright 2006 CEC.


making informed assistive technology decisions for ...comp-exam.wikispaces.com/file/view/making...

Documents