Melinda Jones Ault

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.

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.

Teaching with the System of Least Prompts: An Easy Method for Monitoring Progress.

with significant disabilities often involves providing prompts that result in desired behavior, then fading those prompts until the student performs the behavior independently. One such instructional strategy, the system of least prompts (SLP) or least-to-most prompting procedure (Collins, 2012; Wolery, Ault, & Doyle, 1992), involves defining a hierarchy of prompts and then systematically delivering those prompts in order from the least amount of assistance required to the most amount of assistance until the student is able to perform the behavior independently. In a typical trial sequence, the teacher delivers a task direction and waits a specified response interval (e.g., 3–5 seconds) for the student to respond independently. If an error or no response occurs, the teacher delivers the first prompt and waits the specified response interval for the student to respond. If an error or no response occurs, the teacher delivers the next more intrusive prompt and waits the specified response interval. This sequence continues until the student responds correctly or until the teacher delivers all the prompts in the hierarchy. If the student responds correctly at any time in the sequence, either independently after the task direction or following a prompt, the teacher reinforces the response and records the independent response or the prompt level that resulted in the correct response by the student (Collins, 2012; Westling & Fox, 2009; Wolery et al., 1992). The SLP procedure has a long history and a strong research base in teaching individuals with a variety of disabilities and of various ages (Doyle, Wolery, Ault, & Gast, 1988; Snell & Brown, 2011). The range of recent research that has been conducted using this procedure in classroom settings includes teaching

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.

Guidelines for Becoming a Teacher Leader in Rural Special Education.

Special education teachers have a unique set of skills and opportunities to become leaders in the field of education. Some rural special education teachers, however, may not see themselves as potential leaders or believe they have opportunities to be leaders. This article provides guidelines for rural special education teachers to consider in becoming leaders at the school, community, and national levels.

Effects of an App Incorporating Systematic Instruction to Teach Spelling to Students With Developmental Delays

This study used a multiple probe (conditions) design across behaviors to investigate the effects of an app for the tablet computer to teach spelling of academic content words to four students with developmental disabilities. The app delivered instruction using a model-lead-test format and students typed on the on-screen keyboard. The study also evaluated the acquisition of nontarget information presented by the app in the form of identifying photos and definitions of the spelling words. The results indicated that all students learned their spelling words using the app and generalized the spelling to paper and pencil. They maintained most of their stimuli and learned the majority of the nontarget information to which they were exposed. Findings are discussed in the context of using technology-aided instruction and interventions that incorporate systematic instruction to teach academics and deliver nontarget information.

Assistive Technology in Schools: Lessons Learned from the National Assistive Technology Research Institute

Abstract nIn this chapter, we present the findings of the National Assistive Technology Research Institute (NATRI). The institute was funded in October 2000 as a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs to take a comprehensive look at the factors related to the planning, development, implementation, and evaluation of assistive technology (AT) services in schools. We present the data from seven research areas: (1) the status of AT use in schools, (2) policies and procedures in the development and delivery of AT services, (3) AT decision-making by IEP teams, (4) integration of AT use in learning environments (facilitate instruction, access to curriculum), (5) effects of AT use on academic, social, functional performance of students, (6) training and technical support needed by persons implementing AT, and (7) the extent to which institutions of higher education (IHEs) were developing AT knowledge and skills. In each area we summarize the lessons learned as a result of the research to assist policy-makers, researchers, and practitioners in improving AT services and delivery systems.