George R. Peterson-Karlan

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?

Millennial Students with Mild Disabilities and Emerging Assistive Technology Trends

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.

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).

Chapter 5 Using assistive technology to support the instructional process of students with disabilities

Although AT consideration has been mandated since 1997 (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997) and subsequently echoed in IDEIA 2004, there is no consensus in the field regarding how education professionals approach the task of making decisions about AT devices that can support the instructional process. Numerous models and frameworks have been proposed to provide guidance in the consideration of AT (e.g., Blackhurst, 2005; Bowser & Reed, 1995; Center for Technology in Education, Johns Hopkins University; and Technology & Media Division [TAM] of the Council for Exceptional Children, 2005; Chambers, 1997; Edyburn, 2000, 2005; Melichar & Blackhurst, 1993; Parette & VanBiervliet, 1990, 1991; Zabala, 1993). More recent clarifications of this process have been presented (Parette et al., 2007). However, at Illinois State University, we have developed an approach used in our undergraduate preparation program that has been effective in helping future teachers understand this process and more effectively make decisions about appropriate AT solutions for students with disabilities. The following sections present an overview of this process, preceded by an introduction to the role of tools in our society.