Enhancing Classroom Instruction

Assistive TechnologyImplementation Plan

A Tool foT Improving OutcomesMargaret E. Bausch and Melinda Jones Ault

The term assistive technology (AT)includes both devices and services.The Individuals With Disabilities Edu-cation Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA,2004) defines an AT device as "anyitem, piece of equipment, or productsystem, whether acquired commerciallyoff tbe sbelf. modified, or customized,that is used to increase, maintain, orimprove functional capabilities of achild with a disability" (20 U.S.C. §1401 (1) (A)). This does not includemedical devices that are surgicallyimplanted. An AT service is defined as"any service that directly assists a childwith a disability in the selection, acqui-sition, or use of an assistive technologydevice" (20 U.S.C. § 1401 (2)). ATservices listed by the law include (a)evaluating AT needs; (b) providing forAT devices through purchasing, leas-ing, or other means; (c) "selecting,designing, fitting, customizing, adapt-ing, applying, maintaining, repairing,or replacing . . . devices," (20 U.S.C. §1401 (2) (O); (d) coordinating the useof AT devices with other interventionsreceived by the student; (e) providingtraining and technical assistance to thestudent and tbeir family; and (0 pro-viding training and technical assistancefor professionals involved with thestudent. Since the Individuals WithDisabilities Education Act was re-authorized in 1997 (IDEA, 1997] and

6 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDRENJ

continuing with IDEA 2004, states havebeen mandated to consider AT for allstudents with an individualized educa-tion program (lEP) and to documentany AT needs in the student's lEP.Because of this legal mandate, a greatdeal of emphasis has been placed onthe consideration process which hasled to the development of many toolsand resources for IEP teams to usewhen considering AT. For example, aconsideration "quick wheel" (Tech-nology and Media Division of theCouncil for Exceptional Children andthe Wisconsin Assistive TechnologyInitiative, n.d.) and a "technology fan"(Mistrett et al., n.d.) are products thatwere specifically developed to assistteams in the consideration of AT forschool-aged students and young chil-dren, respectively.

Although the consideration processis vital to an effective AT program for astudent, implementing the AT properlyis also critical for effective outcomes.Unfortunately, the provision of qualityAT implementation services may nothave received the same amount ofattention as the consideration of AT,and IEP teams are struggling when itcomes to implementing AT. Many pro-fessionals are not trained in the provi-sion of quality AT services (Abner &Lahm, 1998; Hutinger & Johanson,2000). In fact, professionals are not

always aware of what the AT servicesare as defined in the law. In a surveyconducted by Bausch, Evmenova,Behrmann, and Ault (2007), when pro-fessionals who provided AT services intheir school districts were asked to listthe AT services received by their stu-dents, a large percentage (59.8%) ofthe services they reported were not ATservices as they are defined in the law,indicating a lack of awareness.

The Quality Indicators for AssistiveTechnology (The QIAT Consortium,2004) were developed by a nationwidegroup as overarching guidelines for dis-tricts and professionals in defining andproviding quality AT services (http://www.qiat.org). One indicator devel-oped by the consortium involves devel-oping a plan for AT implementationafter the AT has been considered andselected for a student in an IEP meet-ing. This indicator states, "assistivetechnology implementation proceedsaccording to a collaboratively devel-oped plan. Following IEP development,all those involved in implementationwork together to develop a writtenaction plan that provides detailed infor-mation about what will be done andwho will do it" (p. 9). Therefore, theNational Assistive Technology ResearchInstitute (NATRI), an institute fundedby the Office of Special EducationPrograms in 2000 (Lahm, Bausch,

Hasselbring, & Biackhurst, 2001),developed a product to guide IEPteams not only in the considerationprocess, but also through the imple-mentation of the AT with the studenttBausch, Ault, & Hasselbring, 2006).As a part of this product, NATRI devel-oped a form lo provide a guide forteams when designing proper ATimplementation for <i student once theIEP team had determined that ATdevices or services were needed. Animplementation form is not consideredpart of the IEP and, unlike an IEP, it isnot a legally binding document. Rather,the form is used to guide teamsthrough a planning process that willensure proper implementation of a stu-dent's AT and include elements thatare unique to AT. It is specificallydesigned to ensure that activities relat-ed to AT are completed, and isdesigned following the IEP meeting bya team of persons involved in theimplementation of a student's AT.These people may or may not be thesame as the members of the IEP team.

The use of a written form for imple-mentation of AT is needed for severalreasons:

1. IEP teams often rely heavily on ATspecialists to assist them with con-sideration, assessment, and imple-mentation of AT (Ault, 2006).Although AT specialists may be nec-essary and beneficial to teams, theyare not able to provide direct servic-es to all students on their caseload,and teams need to develop knowl-edge and skills in order to takeownership of AT implementation. Inaddition, many school districts donot have access to AT specialists.Having a written form for AT imple-mentation allows teams to create anAT plan with the help of an AT spe-cialist if necessary. It then givesguidelines for integration and use ofthe AT throughout a student's

schedule—thereby reducing the

reliance on the specialist.

2. The implementation form allows the

team to ensure that the unique fea-

tures associated with AT implemen-

tation are addressed. The proper

implementation of AT is associated

with unique features usually not

incorporated into an IEP. The imple-

mentation plan allows for the docu-mentation of these unique features.

3. The form provides a means foraccountability. Teams may often beunclear about which member isresponsible for a specific task andservice associated with AT imple-mentation. Because tasks areassigned to individuals during thedevelopment of the plan, each will

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | SEPT/OCT 2008 7

be carried out as specified or, if not,a particular individual can be heldaccountable for the lack of imple-mentation of the task.

4. The plan places an emphasis onimplementation. The plan ensuresthat when a student has been iden-tified as requiring AT devices andservices the entire implementationprocess is properly carried out—from the acquisition of the devicesto the implementation, monitoring,and adjustment of the technology-based on student progress data.

Steps for Using Hie AssisfiveTftchnology ImplemaiilulionFomiA completed sample AT Implemen-tation Form is shown in Figure 1. Thisform is divided into sections including(a) student information, (b) point ofcontact, (c) implementation team,(dj equipment, [e) equipment tasks,(f) training, (g) classroom implementa-tion, [h) home implementation, and(i) monitoring and evaluation. Thesample is designed for a hypotheticalstudent with a disability in writtenexpression. The following steps areused to complete the form.

Step 1 : Student Information

First, fill out the Student Informationsection as specified on the form. Mostimportant, fill in the AT plan reviewdate. The team decides when the planwill be reviewed and whether or not itwill coincide with the IEP meeting. Thereview may occur on a predeterminedschedule (e.g., every 3 months); whenthe student is not progressing asexpected; when a student has pro-gressed well; or when any member ofthe team requests a review. The pur-pose of the review is to make sure theresponsibilities assigned to members ofthe team have been fulfilled, to ensurethe student is progressing on IEP goalsinvolving AT, and to make adjustmentsto the plan as necessary to maintainstudent progress.

Step 2: Point of Contoct

Fill in the name of the member of theteam who will be the point of contactfor the plan. This person is chosen by

consensus of the team, and may ormay not be someone who is directlyinvolved in providing AT services.Because AT is integrated throughout astudent's school and home schedules,multiple professionals will be involvedin its implementation throughout thestudent's school career. A single pointof contact is necessary to coordinatethe plan and monitor its implementa-tion. The point of contact is the personresponsible for filling out the plan, call-ing the meetings, providing copies ofthe form to all team members, ensur-ing that the responsible persons havecompleted their assigned tasks, andstoring and maintaining the plan. Thisone person's name is always associatedwith that student's AT plan, therebyensuring that the plan will not get lost,will be maintained and updated, andwill be transferred appropriately if thestudent changes teachers, moves toanother school or district, or transitionsto a postsecondary or work setting.This consistent contact person helps toensure consistency, accountability, andfollow-through.

Step 3: Implementation Team

List the specific individuals who willbe involved in the implementation ofAT devices and services and specifythe role of each individual. The ATimplementation team may or may notbe made up of the same individualswho are on the student's IEP team;however, many will be the same. Themembers of this team should includethose persons who will be involved inthe direct implementation of ATdevices and services with the student.Potential professional members of theteam include the special educationteacher, general education teachers,administrators, funding specialist,speech/language pathologist, occupa-tional therapist, physical therapist, ATspecialist, paraprofessional, and cur-rent or future employers. In addition,the student and family are valuablemembers of the team. The student canprovide an opinion about the AT thatmay help decrease abandonment of thedevice (Phillips & Zhao, 1993) becausehe or she can speak to the acceptabili-ty of the AT and the procedures that

will be used. Participation of the familyas a team member is vital because thefamily members may be assigned cer-tain responsibilities on the implementa-tion plan such as assisting their childwith homework using AT and incorpo-rating the use of the AT into ongoingfamily routines and activities. The fam-ily's input also can help the teamdecide on appropriate roles to beassigned to the family as well as cul-tural factors that may influence theimplementation of the AT in the homeenvironment (Parette & Brotherson,2004; Parette, VanBiervIiet, & Hour-cade, 2000). Including everyoneinvolved in AT service delivery on theAT implementation plan team increasesthe chance of proper implementationbecause all persons will know theirresponsibilities and will be heldaccountable for fulfilling those respon-sibilities at the plan review.

Step 4: Equipment

List the specific equipment and soft-ware that the student will be using andthe status of that equipment. Often,during an IEP meeting the team deter-mines that a student requires certainequipment or software that possessesspecific features—but the team fails toidentify a specific piece of equipmentby name. On the AT implementationform, however, the name of the specif-ic equipment and software that is orwill be used is listed as well as the sta-tus of the equipment in terms of own-ership and acquisition. If the studentdoes not have the equipment, indicatehow it will be acquired (e.g., the dis-trict will borrow from a lending library,the district will purchase from the ven-dor, the vendor will send a trial versionfor 30 days, the district will purchasefrom student's previous district). Also,indicate the status if the studentalready has the equipment (e.g.. dis-trict owns, student owns personalcopy, equipment borrowed from stu-dent's previous school).

Step 5: Equipment Tasks

In this section, list the specific tasksrelated to equipment, the personresponsible for each task, and wheneach task will be completed. This step

8 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Figure 1. Sample Assistive Technelogy Impleinentafion Plan

NATRINational AssistiveT e c h n o l o g yResearch institute

ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

STUDENTStudent Name

School

POINT OF

INFORMATION

L U N 1 AC 1 (Individual assigned to keep the

Grade

D a « , ,

2/1/08

mplementation Plan updated)

i/tecuJier

D«eo(B«th 3^27/98

AT Plan Review Dale

5/15/08

IMPLEMENTATION TEAMUME (Lin aQ individual! who ' ill implement theAT with Ihe student.)

Jacio LU*natco

Mr. £r Mrii TCe+víoceíy

M£*iy KwcMv

ROLE (e.g.. idminlstraior, teacher, bmMy member. lervke provider, itudent. etc.)

SpeclciUedAÁcatUyrutecLcher

G&nercU/ e-ducatloyv tecLcher

Aiií4ití\v^techn<Ao^ ipecicdi^

Stud&rit

Pa^-entv

Techvxcdogy ^(Apport teacher

EQUIPMENTEQUIPMENT A SOFTWARE TO BE USED

Veiktop covyifjutër (claiirooyyv£r icCb-)

Veikuip computer (hoYne)

SOLO' (inL:louiùn^Co-:Writë4-, Vrafí:3iUlder;Kead^íOudohui^eT \Orite^:OuíXoud^)

STATUS (e^., owned by school, will purdwse, will borrow from dutiia Nbraryi etc)

Owned^hy fcLvnUy

Víitt^íctwí^huyUceyíAe^fyrhofne-er AC VOOÍ/

EQUIPMENT TASKSTASK (e.g.. Older/procure AT, bad software, adapl/customaedevices/software, setup

at honie/sthool. majntain/repair, «c )

Order },oft\uare-

Locid^yy^are'OY\/'home'6T joKooi/cowpufefj-

CtA^ConU^ yyftw(xre^fhr ^titcient aeeii*

PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE

AT ipeclcdC^- Sín^h'

Tech. iupport- JCwcwo/

Spedcü/eá/- Morale^

DATE DUE

2/2/08

3 dayy of delivery

3 dayy of delivery

continues

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | SEPT/OCT 2008 9

Figure 1 .

TRAININGTRAINING NEED

Learns iofCware^ ßaturei-

Learn^ iofCivare^ {eaXure^

Laartv iofCMfare/fe<:c04re^

TRAINEES

SpecícüediUk'MoraXey

Qeru edacatorfanUÀy

Student

TRAINER

Veixdor

SpedcU^eduo.'MorcUe^

SpedcU'educi

OATES« TIMES

2/8/08aU/day

2/12/083:30 5:30

VcUly

FOaOWUP/ALOttGPLAN

2/15 - Hcdf-day foUowup vi^itcMid'e^maÂ^

2/26. 3/l^CL¥\d'

Itv coníBíU' of w filing'

CLASSROOM IMPLEMENTATIONIEP GOAL

IderCtCfy/org'arU/^ key info-

Vrcuft <X/ 3 paragrap}v eaay

'RevUe' a- 3 para^'cxph- eaay

idU/Proofread' 3 para^fraph.eiiay

CURRICULUM/DOMAIN(e.g., msih, saence, PE, art, etc)

Writing úfv oU/curricídcif area^

^cieYLce^, iociaX/iCudie^, art,maXhi ynuiUy

PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE

<^e4\e4^cil/ipeoíaledttcoG^ry

<^e4\ercit/ipecialeduaUÂyry

^eneraX/ipectaX

aduccU^yry

AT NEEDED TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL(list specific AT and aistomized setting if appropriée.)

Vra^^Lúlder

Co^Writ&i'. VniftrBuüder;CuitonU^ed'dÁctíonarie^

CoiWrCC&r, VrojfC^iAXderCui^iomÁ/^edydicticrnarC&i'

CoiWrCCer, grtMnma^ check/

ipeU/che<:k-

HOME IMPLEMENTATIONIEP GOAL

Id&nti{y/org<^rU^ key Cfifo-

VrcufCa^S paragraph-e^ioy

'ReJviie'0u3 pcwvLgrcxpfveaay

EdiX/9troofre4xdy 3 f euay

CURRICULUM/DOMAINlE g., reading, daiiy living, Mcj

PERSON(S) RESPONSIBU

pcwBnt/A/atïwMi'

PcwT&ní/XícUlxíwi

par&nt/hJa^Ùuin

parefU/hJaÚian-

AT MEEDED TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL(Lia specific AT and ojsomized settings if appropriete.)

Siwne'ay ciawnwrn/

ScMne^ a^ dcLHrooriv

Same^ a^ da^iroxynv

Scune-ciy claiirooyn'

MONITORING/EVALUATIONGOAL

VmfC a'3 f Quay

KeA/Ue^ 0/3 f eaay

EdiC/Pi'xyofr&cid' eaay

INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY(How you will teach student to use equip-ment and/or how to achieve goals.)

hiodel^hiad/'tz^

Modei^le,ad^tëit

Modei^lcaä^t&it

Modet-laad^t&it

RECORDING SYSTEM & FREQUENa(e.g., task anatysis recording system, score" + " or ' -" onthedaarecordine sheer)

TcL^iMuxXytiC' (dcUly)

Ta^ cmcUytLo (dodXy)

Ta^ analytic' (daXly)

Ta^ analytic (doÁly)

PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FORIMPLEMENTATION/DATA COLLECTION

Qemral/ipeciaVedtiQ:

<iene4'vd/üpeciaX'Qd4A4k

(^eneral/ipedal/educí

Qenerou/^pecic^educ.

Note. From Assistive Technology Planner: From IEP Consideration to Classmom Implementation by M. E. Bausch, M. J. Ault,T. S, Hasselbring, Copyright 2006, National Assistive Technology Research Institute. Reprinted with permission of the author.

10 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

is important because these tasks areunique to AT and would ordinarily notbe included in a student's IEP. Thetasks the team lists here are those thatrelate to the AT services of designing.

to set up a piece of hardware or cus-tomize the preferences on a softwareprogram, teaching a peer how tointeract with a student using a pieceof technology, and so on.

Just as important, specifying the person responsibleand the deadline date ensures accountability for each task.

fitting, customizing, adapting, apply-itig. maintaining, repairing, and replac-ing AT devices. These are the AT serv-ices that are mandated by IDEA (1997,2004). Any task related to the stu-dent's AT equipment itself, rather thanthe actual implementation of the AT, isincluded here. Just as important, spec-ifying the person responsible and thedeadline date ensures accountabilityfor each task. A variety of tasksdepending on the individual needs ofthe student and the unique aspects ofthe AT may be listed here. Figure 2shows a list of some possible tasksthat may be included in this section,but the team has flexibility in individ-ualizing the tasks for the unique needsof the student and his or her AT. Taskslisted for individual students will bemore specific than those in Figure 2.

Step 6: Training

IDEA 2004 stipulates that AT training isa service that should be delivered tothe student, the student's family, pro-fessionals who provide services to thestudent, employees of the student, andany other persons who are involvedwith the student. The QIAT Consor-tium (2004) notes that training for thestudent, the family and all profession-als involved with the student is a vitalpart of effective implementation of AT.

1. Determine what the training needsare and list them. Needs are basedon the individual student, but couldinclude such tasks as teaching a stu-dent how to operate a piece of hard-ware or software, teaching a studenta skill using AT, teaching a parenthow to program a communicationdevice, teaching a professional how

Determine who will require thetraining. This will most ofteninvolve the student, but can includeother professionals who implementthe AT with the student, the stu-dent's family members, the stu-dent's employer if appropriate, andanyone else who is involved withusing the AT with the student (e.g.,peers, siblings, and community

members). List the individualtrainees' names as well as theirroles so that if a particular personleaves a position, the replacementfilling that role will be able toacquire the training.

For each training need, specify theperson who will act as the trainer.For some AT, especially more high-tech devices, this may require bring-ing in a person who is not a part ofthe AT implementation team to pro-vide specialized training. For exam-ple, a person with expertise in AT ora vendor representative for a partic-ular device may provide training forstudents, professionals, or parents.Teams should ensure that if a ven-dor representative provides thetraining on the device itself, addi-tional training on proper implemen-tation of the device will be conduct-ed by a member or members of the

Figura 2 . Generic List of Possible Equipmont Tasks for ATImplententafion Pian

Obtain funds for the equipment

Place the order for the equipment

Locate the equipment at the lending library

Contact the vendor for equipment-related information

Check in the equipment, fill out warranty paperwork, inventory

Deliver equipment to student

Unpack equipment

Load software

Customize software

Prepare/Adapt the environment for the hardware (e.g., space, electrical out-lets, hghting, and storage)

Adapt and customize the equipment

Problem solve and troubleshoot equipment problems

Maintain equipment regularly according to manufacturer specifications

Repair equipment when needed

Replace the equipment if needed

Obtain funds for maintenance, repair, and replacement of equipment

Arrange for a back-up should equipment fail

Check periodically for updates on the equipment (e.g., remain current/updattequipment)

Obtain funds for updating of equipment

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SEPT/OCT 2008 11

team with expertise in using thedevice to provide access to the cur-riculum. Most often, however, amember of the AT implementationteam will be able to provide thenecessary training.

4. Schedule the specific dates andtimes of the trainings to ensureaccountability.

5. Possibly most important, specifyhow and when follow-up to thetraining will occur. The trainer mon-itors a trainee's progress on thetraining need on a periodic (follow-up) or continuous (follow-along)basis until the trainee demonstratescompetency on the training task.

Step 7: Classroom Implementation

In this section of the form, transferfrom the IEP an abbreviation of thespecific goals that include the use ofAT. The goals will include the task orskill that the student needs to learn(i.e., the behavior) and the AT that is

to be used (i.e., theconditions). For eachIEP goal, write the cur-ricular area or domain,the person(s) responsi-ble for teaching thegoal, and the AT thatwill be used to accom-plish the goal. Atiyspecific informationrelated to how the ATis used or customizedis included here aswell. In this way stu-dents who transfer tonew schools, havemultiple intervention-ists, obtain new teach-ers, or move to newdistricts have the need-ed AT information withthem so that servicescan be continuedseamlessly. Onceagain, the unique cus-tomizations for thetechnology are oftennot included in an IEP,and the AT implemen-tation plan ensuresthis information is

readily available to the team. Anygoals involving AT should be includedhere that are conducted primarily bythe school but not necessarily be inthe classroom. Examples include com-munity-based instructional goals orgoals related to a student's employ-ment on a transition plan.

Step 8: Home Implementation

Because the integration of AT acrossall environments is vital for successfulAT implementation, include goals herethat involve the use of AT primarily inthe home environment or other com-munity environments that involve thestudent or the family (e.g., sportingevents, homework). For example,include here a student who has an IEPgoal of correctly answering questionsusing a voice output device in a vari-ety of environments. This goal isincluded in the Home Implementationsection. The family concentrates onthe child answering questions at homein response to parents and siblings and

at a restaurant in response to the wait-ress. The home implementation exam-ple provided in Figure 1 is similar tothe classroom implementation infor-mation (Step 7) because the studentwill use the AT at home to completehomework assignments. The familywill monitor and assist the studentwhile he completes his assignments.

Step 9: Monitoring/Evaluation

Transfer the IEP goals from Steps 7 and8 to this section. Then, for each IEPgoal describe how the student will betaught the goal using the AT by speci-fying the instructional strategy ormethod. For each goal determine thedata recording system that will be usedto monitor the student's progress onthe goal and how frequently the datawill be collected. In Figure 1, the stu-dent's team identified a model-lead-testprocedure to teach the tasks. In model-lead-test, the teacher first models thetask for the student, then practices thetask with the student providing thenecessary prompts, and then removesthe prompts and tests the student'sprogress (Gersten & Baker, 1998;Peterson, McLaughlin, Weber, &Anderson, 2008). To record the stu-dent's progress, each task is analyzed,and the teacher records the student'sresponse on each step of the writingtask. These data should then be visual-ly represented (e.g., line graph, bargraph) so that the team can quickly seeif progress is being made and theteacher can make adjustments as nec-essary. Finally, record the person whois responsible for teaching the goalusing the methods specified, and whois responsible for collecting the data onthe goal. A sample data sheet forteaching a goal using the model-lead-test procedure and task analytic record-ing is shown in Figure 3.

Direct measurement of studentprogress is essential for the team to beable to make appropriate instructionaldecisions for the student. Curriculum-based measurement (Tindal &Marston, 1990) of a student's progresswith his or her AT involves directmeasurement of the IEP goals andrequires that the team use a variety ofrecording systems. For example.

12 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Figure 3. Sample Data Collodton Sheet for Task Analytic Recording of a Writing Objective

Student Instructor

Task Ide^itCfy ond/orgi^m^jcey ùnfi>rmatUyiv -

Instructional Procedure : HodehtridUr t&ucher modely ecu:}

: Lead/trCaly- teacher

each/jtep : Te^trLcdy- tectcher pr'ovLde&' no-prompty

Date/Session 2-15-08/1 2-16-08/2 2-17-08/3Start time 8:50 8:50 8:50Stop time 9:05 9:10 9:10

Total time 15 20 minuter 20Step Task Analysis Trial

type(circle)

StudentResponse

Trialtype

StudentResponse

TrialType

StudentResponse

Highlight: L T M(L)T M LÍT]

Outi&ud/Import mcU*v L T M M L(T

L T MfUT M LÍT]

Kio\fe^ topics £T L T M LÍT]

ne\uCreate^ notë^ fortópica

L T M(L)T M L(T]

L T M(L)T M LfT]topiez

L T Ml M LCTgraphie/format

#/% Correct model trial responses 7/100

#/% Correct lead trial responses 6/86

#/% Correct test trial responses 5/71

Key: M = model trial, L = lead/prompt trial, T = test trial+ = correct, - = incorrect, 0 = no response

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SEPT/OCT 2008 13

Direct measurement of student progress is essential for the team

to be able to make appropriate instructional decisions for the student.

recording systems such as frequency,duration, interval, time sampling, ortrials-to-criterion (i.e., task analytic,discrete trial) are used to carefullymonitor students" progress (Kerr &Nelson, 2002; Mercer & Mercer, 2005).This allows teachers to document cur-rent levels of performance, determinethe effectiveness of their instructionand adjust programs as needed, pro-vide feedback to others, documenttheir efforts, and be accountable toadministrators and families.

In Sunun^ry

The use of an implementation plan orsimilar form will help guide teamsthinking through and planning for theunique features that are associatedwith AT implementation. Too often,teams receive AT devices for their stu-dents, but proper implementation failsto occur—thereby preventing adequatestudent progress. The use of an imple-mentation form allows teams to docu-ment (a) the specific equipment to beused, (b) the specific tasks related toequipment that must be completed, [c)the training needs of all involved per-sons, (d) the specific goals in whichthe AT will be used both at home andat school, and (e) the procedures formonitoring student progress on goalsin which AT is used. Moreover, record-ing the person responsible and thedeadline for completion of each taskmakes specific persons accountable forthe tasks, which increases the like-lihood that they will he accomplishedas planned. This form can be relativelyeasy to use by teams and ensures thatemphasis is placed on the implementa-tion process. Focusing on qualityimplementation and documentationwiU ultimately improve the outcomesfor students who use AT devices andservices. The form is available for freedownload from the NATRl Web site athttp://natri.uky.edu.

Abner, G. II.. & Lahm. E. A. (1998). Imple-mentation of assislive technology withstudents who are visually impaired:Teachers' readiness. Journal of VisualImpairment & Blindness, 92(2), 98-105.

Aull, M. J. (2006. March 22). The NationalAssistiue Technology Research institute's"top ten" list of findings. Paper presentedat the 2006 California Sale University -Northridge Center on Disabilities Confer-ence. Retrieved January 5, 2008, fromhup://natri.uky.edu/[indings/presentations/presmenu.html

Bausch, M. E., AuU, M. J.. & Hasselbring, TS. (2006). Assistiue technology planner:From ¡EP consideration to classmomimplementation. Lexington, KY: NationalAssistive Technology Research Institute.

Bausch, M. E.. Evmenova, A., Behrmann,M., & Ault, M, J. (2007). Going beyondassistive technology devices: Are assistivetechnology services being considered?Manuscript submitted for publication.

Gersten, R.. & Baker, S. (1998). Real worlduse of scientific concepts: Integrating sit-uated cognition with explicit instruction.Exceptional Children, 65, 23-36.

Hutinger, P. L., & Johanson, J. (2000).Implementing and maintaining an effec-tive eariy childhood comprehensive tech-nology system. Topics in Early ChildhoodSpecial Education, 20(3), 159-173.

Individuals With Disabilities EducationImprovement Act of 2004. 118, Stat. 2647et seq., § 1401 (2004).

Kerr, M- M„ & Nelson. C. M. (2002). Sfraí-egies for addressing behavior problems inthe classroom (4th ed.). Upper SaddleRiver. NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

t>ahm, E. A.. Bausch, M. E., Hasselbring, T.S-, & Blackhurst, A. E. (2001). Nationalassistive technology research institute.Journal of Special Education Technology.}6(i), 19-26.

Mercer, C. D.. & Mercer, A. R. (2005). Teach-ing students with learning problems (7thed.). Upper Saddle River. NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Mistretl. S., Ruffino, A., Lane. S., Robinson.L., Reed, P., & Milbourne, S. (n.d.). TAMtechnology fan: Supports for young chil-dren Arlington, VA: Technology andMedia Division of the Council for Excep-tional Children.

Parette. H. P.. & Brotherson. M. J. (2004).Family-centered and culturally responsiveassistive technology decision-making.Infants and Young Children, 17, 355-367.

Parette. H. P.. VanBiervliet, A., & Hourcade,J. J. (2000). Family-centered decision-making in assistive technology. Journal

of Special Education Technology. /5(1),45-55.

Peterson, L., McLaughlin, X, Weber, K., &Anderson, H. (2008). The effects of

model, lead, and test technique withvisual prompts paired with a fading pro-

cedure to teach "where" to a 13-year-oldecholalic boy with autism. Journal of

Developmental and Physical Disabilities.

20. 31-39.

PhilUps, B., & Zhao, H. (1993). Predictors ofassistive technology abandonment.

Assistive Technology. 5(1), .^6-45.

The QIAT Consortium. (2004). Quality indi-

cators for assistive technology services:

Research-based revision, 2004. Retrieved

May 25. 2007, from http://sweb.uky.edu/-vjszabaO/QIAT.htnil

Technology and Media Division of theCouncil for Fjcceptional Children and the

Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initia-

tive, (n.d.). Assistive technology consider-

ation quick wheel. Arlington, VA: Author.

Tindal, G. A., & Marston, D. B. (1990).

Classroom-based assessment: Evaluating

instructional outcomes. Upper SaddleRiver. NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Margaret E. Bausch (CEC KY Federation),

Assistant Professor; and Melinda JonesAull (CEC KY Federation), Doctoral Student,

Department of Special Education and

Rehabilitation Counseling, University of

Kentucky, Lexington.

This article was supported by the National

Assistive Technology Research Institute and

the U.S. Department of Education, Grant

Number H327GO00O04. However, the opin-

ions expressed do not necessarily reflect the

policy of the U.S. Department of FAucation.

and no official endorsement of the U.S.

Department of Education should be inferred.

The authors are grateful for the assistance

provided by Ted S. Hasselbring. Vanderbilt

University: Michael M. Behrrrum, Geoige

Mason University: and Deborah Slaton,

Associate Dean. College of Education.

University of Kentucky.

Address correspondence to Margaret Bausch.

Department of Special Education and

Rehabilitation Counseling, University of

Kentucky. 229 Thylor Education Building,

Lexington, KY 40506 (e-mail: meb@uky.

edu).

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 41.

No. I, pp. 6-14.

Copyright 2œ8 CEC.

14 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN