Brian W. Wojcik

Is There an App for that

Everyday technologies (e.g., iPods, iPads, and Smart Phones) offer applications (apps) that can serve as supports to students with intellectual and related developmental disabilities. The extent to which apps that are currently on the market are aligned with the support needs of children was evaluated using the subscale framework of the Childrens Supports Intensity Scale (Child-SIS). Recommendations for future research and app development are provided, and implications for how apps influence assistive technology (AT) consideration and the concept of technological abandonment are discussed.

Four Models of Assistive Technology Consideration: How Do They Compare to Recommended Educational Assessment Practices?.

Although models have been proposed to guide the important work of school teams as they implement the assistive technology consideration process, little understanding exists as to how these models relate to recommended practices for educational assessment. This article proposes a comparison between educational assessment practices and four selected models of the assistive technology consideration process that are documented in the literature. The strengths and limitations of the assistive technology consideration models are discussed and recommendations for future research and practices are presented.

Monitor that Progress! Interpreting Data Trends for Assistive Technology Decision Making.

Although IDEA requires consideration of assistive technology (AT) when developing individualized education programs (IEPs) for all students with disabilities, little guidance has been offered to date regarding the role of data in the AT decision-making process. How can IEP teams use classroom data to help them evaluate the effectiveness of AT solutions—both wheti considering implementation and assessing the usefulness of continuing AT use?

Creating a Technology Toolkit for Students with Mental Retardation: A Systematic Approach

Assistive technology consideration and implementation is often limited by the technology experience and knowledge of the education professionals involved in the process. The creation of a toolkit containing highly useful technologies may assist education professionals in this process. This article discusses a systematic method for creating a technology toolkit for use with students having mental retardation. Implications and future directions are discussed.

Implementing Assistive Technology through User Groups.

Schools increasingly use a wide array of assistive technology (AT) devices with students with disabilities. The Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004) defines AT devices as “any item, piece of equipment or product system, whether acquired commercially or off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities” (20 U.S.C. 1401 § 602(1)(A)). Most education professionals are familiar with the range of AT devices found in many classroom settings (e.g., electronic communication devices, visual schedules, adaptive feeding utensils, environmental control devices, mobility devices, and academic supports such as word prediction and spell-check software and text readers). IDEA 2004 requires AT to be “considered” by individualized education program (IEP) teams for all children with disabilities (20 U.S.C. § 1414(3)(B)(v)); numerous resources are available to assist education professionals in this process (see e.g., Assistive Technology Training Online Project, 2005; Center for Technology Education and Technology and Media Division, 2005; Edyburn, 2003; Reed & Lahm, 2004). IEP teams face a series of decisionmaking steps to determine appropriate AT support for a student (see Table 1). Teachers providing instruction to students with disabilities must, at a minimum, understand these basic steps, have a working knowledge of how to effectively use a cadre of AT devices in educational milieus, and understand and use strategies for determining AT outcomes. Effective participation in this process is one of the great challenges in special education, and there is a continuing need for a broad base of effectively prepared special education professionals who can consider and implement AT in classroom settings (Parette, PetersonKarlan, Smith, Gray, & Silver-Pacuilla, 2006; SEAT Center, 2004). Unfortunately, most teacher preparation programs in the United States do not effectively train teachers to use AT (Parette, Peterson-Karlan et al., 2006). As a result, most IEP teams still rely on “experts” (i.e., one or a few people with special skill sets regarding AT) who can provide recommendations and even assume primary responsibility for all AT decisions. Reliance on experts is also reflected in current approaches to AT professional development: For workshops and other professional development, schools bring in experts whose knowledge bases regarding certain products or technologies can be distilled or “funneled” to the target constituencies (Parette, 2006; SEAT Center).

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES FOR PERSONS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

Consideration can be defined as the process of giving careful thought to something. When an IEP team considers the instructional programming and related goals and objectives for a student identified eligible for special education services, the process gives careful attention to a multitude of factors from different perspectives that result in individualized instruction for that student. Similarly, when assistive technology is considered for students with certain learning characteristics, careful attention must be given to ensure that the recommended assistive technology is required for the student to be successful and reflects an appropriate match between him/her and the tools (Zabala, 1995, 1996). For example, given that prescription eyeglasses can be considered assistive technology, and that a certain degree of visual acuity is generally needed in order for an individual to visually access print, one can see the importance of ensuring that the prescription is indeed required for an individual to perform and is appropriately matched to the visual needs of the individual. If eyeglasses are arbitrarily assigned to an individual, they may serve as an obstacle for the individual to see properly, thus, hampering his/her overall performance.