Margaret E. Bausch

Assistive Technology: Are the Necessary Skills and Knowledge Being Developed at the Preservice and Inservice Levels?.

Assistive Technology (AT) devices and services have been legally mandated for several years. However, the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments P.L. 105–17 (IDEA1997), which states that every student with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) must be considered for AT, had enormous implications impacting approximately six million school-aged students identified with a disability. As a result, states have written assistive technology policies, procedures, guidelines, and technical assistance manuals to reflect the change in federal laws. In order to comply with state policies, school districts are in need of qualified personnel to plan, develop, and implement assistive devices and services. However, because of the lack of AT degree and certification programs at the preservice level, it is often problematic for districts to find AT trained personnel, thus, directly impacting the services that can be provided for students with disabilities.

Who Is Using Assistive Technology in Schools

All students receiving special education services are entitled to the consideration of assistive technology (AT) devices and services; however, little research is available on who uses AT in schools. This study analyzed data from the National Assistive Technology Research Institutes (NATRI) Status of AT Use Survey to provide descriptive information related to students using AT. NATRI employed multi-stage, nonprobability purposive and convenience sampling, collecting usable data for 682 student AT users. The sample spanned all grades, preK-12, with the largest percentage of students receiving services in a self-contained setting (40.47%). The most common disability was multiple disabilities (27.71%). The results indicate a need for additional research to ensure that students who need AT receive access to it in a variety of educational environments.

Using a Simultaneous Prompting Procedure with an iPad to Teach the Pythagorean Theorem to Adolescents with Moderate Intellectual Disability

Providing standards-based instruction in core content areas for individuals with moderate and severe disabilities is a hot topic in the field of special education, and teachers struggle to find the best methods for providing high-quality standards-based instruction in core content areas that also has personal relevance for the students. This investigation evaluated the effectiveness of a simultaneous prompting procedure to teach four adolescents with moderate intellectual disabilities to use the Pythagorean theorem to solve real-life scenarios (i.e., sewing, using a ladder, finding dimensions of a screen) shown on a short video on an iPad. A multiple probe design across participants evaluated the effectiveness of the procedure. Results indicate the participants acquired the skill of using the Pythagorean theorem and generalized it to additional real-life, novel problems. Social validity, limitations, and implications for practitioners are also discussed.

National Assistive Technology Research Institute.

The Office of Special Education Programs, U. S. Department of Education, provided four years of funding to establish a National Assistive Technology Research Institute (NATRI) at the University of Kentucky. The primary goals of NATRI are to examine factors related to the planning, development, implementation, and evaluation of assistive technology (AT) services in schools, and to disseminate the findings in ways that will assist school personnel to develop or improve AT policies and practices for students with disabilities. Seven areas of research will be addressed: (a) status of AT use in schools, (b) policies, procedures, and resources that school districts use, (c) AT decisions made by individualized education programs (IEP) teams, (d) training and technical support needed by service providers, (e) integration of AT into learning environments, (f) effectiveness of AT on the academic, social, and functional performance of students, and (g) preparation of professionals in AT. The primary research questions and methodologies being used to conduct research in the seven areas are described. An overview of dissemination procedures also is provided and ways that people can, participate in NATRI research activities are explained.

Going Beyond AT Devices: Are AT Services Being Considered?.

While efforts have been made in the last two decades to educate professionals about the nature of assistive technology (AT) devices, successful implementation of technology is impossible without the support and provision of appropriate AT services. The current investigation, designed and conducted by the National Assistive Technology Research Institute, examined the status of AT services delivery for students with disabilities across the nation. Professionals serving students who use AT were asked to report the AT services received by their students. Survey responses from 14 states and 60 school districts revealed three themes: federally defined AT services (40.2%), unclassifiable AT services (19.6%), and services that were not AT services (40.2%). Data were also gathered on the professionals providing AT services, the top three services provided by each professional, and the degree to which school systems were seeking AT services from contracted professionals outside the school system. Findings suggest the need for training and increased awareness of AT services among teachers and other professionals working with students with disabilities.

Assistive Technology Implementation Plan: A Tool for Improving Outcomes.

includes both devices and services. The Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004) defines an AT device as “any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of a child with a disability” (20 U.S.C. § 1401 (1) (A)). This does not include medical devices that are surgically implanted. An AT service is defined as “any service that directly assists a child with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technology device” (20 U.S.C. § 1401 (2)). AT services listed by the law include (a) evaluating AT needs; (b) providing for AT devices through purchasing, leasing, or other means; (c) “selecting, designing, fitting, customizing, adapting, applying, maintaining, repairing, or replacing . . . devices,” (20 U.S.C. § 1401 (2) (C)); (d) coordinating the use of AT devices with other interventions received by the student; (e) providing training and technical assistance to the student and their family; and (f) providing training and technical assistance for professionals involved with the student. Since the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act was reauthorized in 1997 (IDEA, 1997) and continuing with IDEA 2004, states have been mandated to consider AT for all students with an individualized education program (IEP) and to document any AT needs in the student’s IEP. Because of this legal mandate, a great deal of emphasis has been placed on the consideration process which has led to the development of many tools and resources for IEP teams to use when considering AT. For example, a consideration “quick wheel” (Technology and Media Division of the Council for Exceptional Children and the Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative, n.d.) and a “technology fan” (Mistrett et al., n.d.) are products that were specifically developed to assist teams in the consideration of AT for school-aged students and young children, respectively. Although the consideration process is vital to an effective AT program for a student, implementing the AT properly is also critical for effective outcomes. Unfortunately, the provision of quality AT implementation services may not have received the same amount of attention as the consideration of AT, and IEP teams are struggling when it comes to implementing AT. Many professionals are not trained in the provision of quality AT services (Abner & Lahm, 1998; Hutinger & Johanson, 2000). In fact, professionals are not always aware of what the AT services are as defined in the law. In a survey conducted by Bausch, Evmenova, Behrmann, and Ault (2007), when professionals who provided AT services in their school districts were asked to list the AT services received by their students, a large percentage (59.8%) of the services they reported were not AT services as they are defined in the law, indicating a lack of awareness. The Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology (The QIAT Consortium, 2004) were developed by a nationwide group as overarching guidelines for districts and professionals in defining and providing quality AT services (http:// www.qiat.org). One indicator developed by the consortium involves developing a plan for AT implementation after the AT has been considered and selected for a student in an IEP meeting. This indicator states, “assistive technology implementation proceeds according to a collaboratively developed plan. Following IEP development, all those involved in implementation work together to develop a written action plan that provides detailed information about what will be done and who will do it” (p. 9). Therefore, the National Assistive Technology Research Institute (NATRI), an institute funded by the Office of Special Education Programs in 2000 (Lahm, Bausch,

Collaboration Strategies Reported by Teachers Providing Assistive Technology Services

Collaboration between special educators and general education teachers is associated with academic and social success of students with disabilities who are included in the general education classroom. This study reports the findings from 96 interviews conducted with special and general education teachers regarding collaboration strategies to provide assistive technology services to students. Strategies such as collaborative consultation, problem solving, and teaming are discussed, and interview findings are provided. The results are presented as four themes that emerged during interview analysis: (a) current teacher collaboration practices, (b) teacher-reported barriers to collaboration, (c) teacher suggestions to improve collaboration, and (d) reasons why teachers do not practice collaboration.

Assistive Technology Service Delivery in Rural School Districts

Little is known about the implementation of assistive technology (AT) services for students in rural areas. This study investigated the AT service delivery in 10 rural districts across six states. The results indicated that students use AT across functional areas, but considerably fewer number of devices than do those not living in rural areas. AT experts attended a low percentage of IEP meetings, and the AT expertise of related service personnel is rated highly. Teachers reported that rural students have access to the technology they need; however, they also indicated they needed more training on available technology for their students.

21st Century Change Drivers: Considerations for Constructing Transformative Models of Special Education Teacher Development.

Contemporary challenges confronting special education teachers include, in part, workload, role ambiguity, evaluation, and shortages. Based on these and other challenges, the piece-meal fragmented approach to pre- and in-service training, which exists currently, needs to be replaced with 21st century models of special education teacher development that are seamless, technology enabled, comprehensive, cohesive, and career spanning. In this article, the authors briefly address persistent and unresolved challenges, identify contemporary change drivers, and discuss ways in which teacher education professionals could leverage the drivers to inform the development of 21st century models for special education teacher development aimed at improving outcomes for students with disabilities. Change drivers include the digital revolution, the diversity gap, the credibility factor, the demand for collective impact, and the culture of we. The authors conclude with a call to action.

Using a Constant Time Delay Procedure to Teach Support Personnel to Use a Simultaneous Prompting Procedure

Within the context of a multiple baseline design, the researchers in this investigation used a constant time delay (CTD) procedure to teach two classroom support personnel (i.e., paraprofessional, peer tutor) to use a simultaneous prompting (SP) procedure when teaching a high school student with a moderate intellectual disability to (a) identify words from science core content, (b) identify words from social studies core content, (c) make Kool-Aid, and (d) alphabetize last names by their first letters. The classroom teacher implemented the CTD procedure with a high degree of fidelity, the paraprofessional and the peer tutor implemented the SP procedure with high levels of fidelity, and the student increased his ability to perform the targeted skills.