This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wissick, C. A. Articles by Gardner, J. E. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Conducting Assessments in Technology Needs

From Assessment to Implementation

University of South Carolina, cwissick{at}sc.edu

J. Emmett Gardner

University of Oklahoma

Practitioners with an expertise in assistive technology and technology assessments are in demand to be full participants in the selection, planning, and implementation of instruction for students with mild disabilities. Frequently, practitioners with knowledge of assistive technology are assigned to evaluate students with sensory, physical, language, or severe disabilities. Our article highlights aspects of technology assessments and progress monitoring that can be used for students with mild disabilities. Given the impact that technology integration can have on the access that students with mild disabilities have to the general education classroom, we argue that all practitioners should be cognizant of protocols for assistive technology assessment and evaluation and that all evaluation teams should include an assistive technology specialist.

Key Words: assistive technology • assessment • evaluation

References

• Ashton, T.M. (2005). Students with learning disabilities using assistive technology in the inclusive classroom. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 229–238). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
• Assistive Technology Act of 1998, 29 U.S.C. 301 et seq (1998 ) Retrieved December 14, 2006, from http://www.section508.gov/docs/AT1998.html
• Assistive Technology Outcomes Measures (ATOMS). ( 2006). Informational database of assistive technology assessments. Milwaukee, WI: University of Milwaukee, Assistive Technology Outcomes Measurement System. Retrieved December 14, 2006, from http://www.r2d2.uwm.edu/atoms/idata
• Baker, B. (1986). Using images to generate speech. In IEEE Biomedical Conference Proceedings. Fort Worth, TX: IEEE.
• Ball, L.J., Bilyeu, D.V., Prentice, C., & Beukelman, D.R. (2005). Augmentative and alternative communication: Infusing communication in an academic setting. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 423–451). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
• Bausch, M. (2006, September 6). Integrating research to practice. [Definition] Message posted to http://www.fctd.info/webboard/archive.php.
• Beukelman, D.R., & Mirenda, P. (1998). Augmentative and alternative communication: Management of severe communication disorders in children and adults (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.
• Blackhurst, A.E. (2001). A functional approach to the delivery of assistive technology services. Lexington: University of Kentucky, National Assistive Technology Research Institute. Retrieved December 14, 2006, from http://natri.uky.edu/resources/reports/function.html
• Bowser, G., & Reed, P. (1998). Education tech points: A framework for assistive technology planning. Oshkosh: Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative. Retrieved December 14, 2006, from http://www.wati.org/AT_Services/edutech.html
• Bowser, G., & Reed, P. (2001). Hey, can I try that? A student handbook for choosing and using assistive technology. Oshkosh: Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative. Retrieved December 14, 2006, from http://www.wati.org/products/freematerials.html
• Cook, A.M., & Hussey, S.M. (2002). Assistive technology: Principles and practices (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
• Coughenour, K. (2005). Teacher perceptions and use of accommodations in assessment and instruction. Unpublished dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
• Edyburn, D.L. (2001). Models, theories, and frameworks: Contributions to understanding special education technology. Special Education Technology Practice. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://www.setp.net/pdf/4-2pp16-24.pdf
• Edyburn, D.L. (2004). 2003 in review: A synthesis of the special education technology literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(4), 57–80.
• Edyburn, D. (2005). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities: From consideration to outcome measurement. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 229–238). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
• Edyburn, D.L., & Smith, R.O. (2004). Creating an assistive technology outcome measurement system: Validating the components. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 1(1). Available at http://www.atia.org/atob/ATOBWeb/ATOBV1N1/index.htm
• George, C.L., Schaff, J.I., & Jeffs, T.L. (2005). Physical access in today's school: Empowerment through assistive technology. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 355–377). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
• Georgia Project for Assistive Technology (GPAT). (2006). Resources. Retrieved on December 14, 2006, from http://www.gpat.org/Resources%20Main.htm
• Harris, J. (1997). Mining the Internet wetware: Why use activity structure? Learning and Leading with Technology, 25(4), 13–17.
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq (1990) (amended 1997).
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq (2004) (reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990).
• Johnstone, C.J., Altman, J., Thurlow, M.J., & Thompson, S.J. (2006). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 2002 through 2004 (Tech. Rep. No. 45). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved December 14, 2006, from http://www.education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Tech45/default.html
• King, T.W. (1999). Assistive technology: Essential human factors. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Lahm, E.A., & Case, D. (2003). UKAT toolkit. Lexington: University of Kentucky, Assistive Technology Project. Retrieved on December 14, 2006, from http://edsrc.coe.uky.edu/www./ukatii
• Marino, M.T., Marino, E.C., & Shaw, S.F. (2006). Making informed assistive technology decisions for students with high incidence disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(6), 18–25.
• Meskill, C., & Hilliker, S. (2005). English language learners and technology. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 119–135). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
• National Assistive Technology Research Institute. (2006). Assistive technology planner. Lexington: University of Kentucky, Author.
• Okolo, C.M., Cavalier, A.R., Ferretti, R.P., & MacArthur, C.A. (2000). Technology literacy and disabilities: A review of the research. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 179–250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• O'Neill, R.E., Horner, R.H., Albin, R.W., Sprague, J.R., Story, K., & Newton, J.S. (1997). Functional assessment of problem behavior: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Parette, H.P., Huer, M.B., & VanBiervliet, A. (2005). Cultural research in special education technology. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 81–103). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
• Raskind, M.H., & Bryant, B.R. (2002). FEAT—Functional evaluation for assistive technology. Austin, TX: Psycho-Educational Services.
• Scherer, M.J. (1998). MPT assessments (1998 paper version). Webster, NY: The Institute for Matching Person and Technology, Inc. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://hometown.aol.com/IMPT97/MPT.html
• Scherer, M.J. (2005a). Assessing the benefits of using assistive technologies and other supports for thinking, remembering and learning. Disability and Rehabilitation, 27(13), 731–739.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Scherer, M.J. (2005b). MPT assessments: 2005 CD version. Webster, NY: The Institute for Matching Person and Technology, Inc. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://hometown.aol.com/IMPT97/MPT.html
• Smith, R.O. (2005). IMPACT2: Assistive technology outcomes measurement system. Milwaukee: University of Milwaukee. Retrieved December 14, 2006, from http://www.r2d2.uwm.edu/archive/impact2model.html
• Texas Assistive Technology Network (TATN). ( 2006). Training modules online. Retrieved December 14, 2006, from http://www.texasat.net/default.aspx?name=trainmod.home
• Wissick, C.A. (2005a). Web toolboxes for educators: Free tools. Columbia: University of South Carolina. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://www.ed.sc.edu/caw/toolboxfree.html
• Wissick, C.A. (2005b). Written language: When to consider technology. Technology in Action, Technology and Media Division, 1(6), 1–12.
• Wissick, C.A., & Schweder, W. (2006). Assistive technology centers: Getting technology into the hands of the users. Assistive Technology Associate Editor's Column. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21, 55–57.
• Zabala, J. (1995). About the SETT framework. Lake Jackson, TX: Assistive Technology and Leadership. Retrieved December 14, 2006, from http://sweb.uky.edu/~jszaba0/JoySETT.html
• Zabala, J. (2002). Update of the SETT framework. Lake Jackson, TX: Assistive Technology and Leadership. Retrieved December 14, 2006, from http://sweb.uky.edu/~jszaba0/SETTupdate2002.html
• Zabala, J.S., Bowser, G., Blunt, M., Carl, D.F., Davis, S., Deterding, C., et al. (2000). Quality indicators for assistive technology services. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4), 25–36.
• Zabala, J.S., & Korsten, J.E. (1999). Assistive technology implementation and evaluation plan. Making a measurable difference with assistive technology: Evaluating the effectiveness of assistive technology. Lake Jackson, TX: Assistive Technology and Leadership. Retrieved December 14, 2006, from http://sweb.uky.edu/~jszaba0/ZabalaImplePlan2001.PDF

CiteULike

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wissick, C. A. Articles by Gardner, J. E. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?