Download - Assistive Technology for Students with Mild … Technology for Students with Mild Disabilities: What’s Cool ... see it as a means to remain connected to the ... duce computer generated

Assistive Technology for Students with Mild Disabilities:What’s Cool and What’s Not

Howard P. Parette, Brian W. Wojcikand George Peterson-Karlan

Illinois State University

Jack J. HourcadeBoise State University

Abstract: Professionals on IEP teams increasingly are considering the potential contributions of assistivetechnology as they develop programs for students with disabilities. However, a significant technological“generational gap” may exist between the members of these teams and the young people they seek to serve, as thequality and quantity of student interactions with technology may differ dramatically from those of IEP teammembers. This gap may manifest itself in the selections of technology that may impair social acceptance ofstudents with disabilities by their peers, or that students will not use. In this paper we suggest a variety of bothlow-tech and high-tech tools that hold unique dual promise to (a) facilitate successful access to the generaleducation curriculum, and (b) enhance social acceptance by nondisabled peers.

The reauthorization of the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA, P. L.105-17) mandated that education profession-als consider assistive technology (AT) when de-veloping individualized education programs(IEPs) for all students with disabilities[§1414(d)(3)(B)(iv)]. This mandate pre-sented substantive challenges to the educa-tional community, given that (a) more than3.8 million children with mild disabilities hadnot been afforded such consideration whentheir IEPs were initially developed (Edyburn,2004); and (b) teacher preparation in assistivetechnology best practice service delivery re-mains less than effective (Lahm, 2003; Wojcik,Peterson-Karlan, Watts, & Parette, 2004).

Compounding this scenario is the fact thattoday’s students with mild disabilities are partof the Millennial generation (Howe & Strauss,2000) whose exposure to technology, andpreferences for technology applications, maybe very different from the education profes-sionals who may be making decisions abouttheir IEPs. Millennials, or those children bornbetween 1978 and 1982, have been describedhave having many characteristics that make

them strikingly different from teachers work-ing with them who may be from differentgenerations (e.g., Gen Xers, Baby Boomers;Raines, 2001; Tapscott, 1998). A particularlynoticeable difference between Millennial chil-dren and persons from preceding genera-tions, is their perceptions of and experienceswith technology across the developmental pe-riod. Exposure to and use of technology bythese students is deeply embedded in the be-havior and cultural values of these children.Whereas, many current education profession-als have had to accommodate to technology,that is, learning in later life how it works andhow it may be effectively used, Millennial chil-dren have grown up with technology, assimi-lating its use (Tapscott), and learning to use itfar more quickly than people from precedinggenerations. This disparity between familiaritywith and adeptness in using technology hasbeen noted: “As with people without disabili-ties, there is certainly a generational gap re-lated to technology use, particularly computeruse, with younger generations adopting andusing the technology more rapidly” (MikeWehmeyer, personal communication, April 2,2004). Millennial children, including studentswith mild disabilities, have grown up in worldsurrounded by varying technologies (e.g.,computers; multimedia; cell phones; videogames) and such exposure has shaped their

Correspondence concerning this article shouldbe addressed to Howard P. Parette, Department ofSpecial Education, Illinois State University, CampusBox 5910, Normal, IL 61790-5910.

Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 2005, 40(3), 320–331© Division on Developmental Disabilities

320 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-September 2005

preferences and expectations markedly. Theyare comfortable with using technology, andsee it as a means to remain connected to theworld around them (Raines).

Unfortunately, little is known about thetechnology use patterns and preferences ofstudents with mild disabilities (Parette, 2004;Peterson-Karlan & Parette, 2005). Longitudi-nal analyses of technology use patterns of Mil-lennials have revealed differential and grow-ing usage of an array of technology on a dailybasis (Miller & Norton, 2003; Tapscott, 1998).Similarly, studies have shown higher technol-ogy abandonment rates for school devices(that may be outmoded, such as tape record-ers) among older students with disabilities(Riemer-Reiss & Wacker, 1999), along withdisparate rates of computer and Internet usewhen comparing typical peers and personswith disabilities (cf., DeBell & Chapman,2001; Kaye, 2000). More generally, however,technology use is deeply embedded in thelives of Millennial children on a regular basis,and in ways that are not completely under-stood by today’s education professionals (Pa-rette).

Lack of understanding regarding technol-ogy use patterns and preferences of studentswith disabilities is further complicated by thelack of wide-scale application of universal de-sign for learning (UDL) principles (Centerfor Applied Special Technology, 1999-2004;Rose & Meyer, 2000). The focus of UDL is oncreating learning environments where stu-dents “have access to the learning itself, thatthey experience changes in their knowledgeand skills and that they grow in their capacityto learn” (Rose & Meyer, p. 68).

If, in fact, education professionals are insen-sitive to the preferred technologies that stu-dents with disabilities may currently demon-strate that can facilitate their learning andincrease their access to the general educationcurriculum, they may inadvertently be inhib-iting optimal learning experiences for thesestudents. One recent approach to addressingsuch concerns has been development of atechnology ‘toolkit’, i.e., compilations of anarray of technology devices having broad ap-plicability to many students with mild disabil-ities in a particular classroom (Edyburn, 2000;Parette & Wojcik, 2004; Puckett, 2004; Watts,Thompson, & Wojcik, 2004). For example,

Parette and Wojcik described specific catego-ries in which technology held potential utilityto increase access to the general educationcurriculum and facilitate learning for studentswith mental retardation. Puckett described anapproach to identifying software, equipment,and strategies to support students with milddisabilities in general education standards inmath and language arts. Other studies havebeen conducted to develop toolkits for stu-dents with severe disabilities (Heart of IllinoisLow Incidence Association Resource Acad-emy, 2004), develop skills in literacy (Fonner& Marfilius, 2005), and create broad toolkitshaving applicability to a diverse range of stu-dents (George, Fulcher, & Nichols, 2001;Lahm, Bell, & Blackhurst, 2002). Such effortsreflect a movement toward better understand-ing the relationship between specific technol-ogy applications and positive classroom out-comes among students with disabilities.

Based on experiences of the authors of thisarticle with regard to toolkit development andits applications in classroom settings, a rangeof technology devices have been identifiedthat hold particular promise both from a UDLperspective, as well as a cultural perspective(i.e., sensitivity to Millennial children andpreferences they may have for devices). Wehave termed these devices ‘cool’, or havingappeal to current school-age students withmild disabilities given both their design andappearance, but their potential to facilitatelearning and acceptance by typical peers whoalso use an array of technology solutions intheir daily lives.

What’s Cool

In making decisions about the preferences ofstudents with mild disabilities for specifictypes of technologies, multiple perspectivesmust be given consideration. First, the stu-dent’s perceptions of particular devices andtheir utility have to be considered. While re-search has yet to systematically examine stu-dent-perceived success in classrooms as a func-tion of particular technology use, inferenceshave typically been drawn based on decisionsmade by education professionals and familiesin developing IEPs.

What’s Cool and What’s Not / 321

Cool Tools that May Assist in Writing

Students with mild disabilities often experi-ence difficulty with one or more aspects of thewriting process (Behrmann & Jerome, 2002).Conveying ideas using written language oftenpresents challenges to students with mild dis-abilities (Johnson & Myklebust, 1967; Mykle-bust, 1973; Poplin, Gray, Larsen, Banikowski,& Mehring, 1980). Overall production mayalso be impeded. Students are frequently un-able to write their thoughts quickly enough(De La Paz & Graham, 1995) which may limitthe amount of ideas the student is actuallyable to commit to print. Graham, (1990) alsonoted that some students with mild disabilitiesexperienced difficulty with text productionskills as the mechanic of writing interferedwith both the quantity and quality of theirwriting. “For individuals with learning disabil-ities, composing orally may allow them to cir-cumvent transcription or text productionproblems (e.g., handwriting, spelling, andpunctuation), which in turn may allow greaterfocus on higher-order concerns such as plan-ning and content generation” (De La Paz,1999, p. 173). All of these factors interferewith the writing process.

Low-Tech Solutions

There are a number of currently availabletechnology-based tools that hold promise forassisting students with mild disabilities in thewriting process. When looking at students whohave difficulty with the mechanical process ofwriting, many low-tech solutions are available.Generally, low-tech solutions include devicesthat are easy to use, inexpensive, are widelyavailable, and require little training to useeffectively (Parette, 2005; Parette & Brother-son, 2004). Examples of low-tech solutionsthat can assist students with writing includepencil grips, raised line paper, and lineguides, such as those available from OnionMountain Technology, Inc (http://www.onionmountaintech.com/).

Portable Word Processors

Many students with mild disabilities tend tofind it easier to type than to write using long-hand. One tool that has tremendous power to

assist in this process is a portable word proces-sor, also known as a portable keyboarding de-vice. Russell, Bebell, Cowan, and Corbelli,(2002) found that when students used porta-ble word processors in the classroom, thequantity and quality of their writing signifi-cantly increased. Portable word processors of-fer many of the same features included intypical word processing programs, e.g., spellcheck; editing tools (cut, copy and paste); andsaving drafts for later revision. Compared to alaptop, which is typically quite expensive andoften heavy to transport across environmentalsettings, portable word processors are rela-tively inexpensive and usually are poweredwith common battery types, although someare rechargeable. Many portable word proces-sors allow content to be saved and filed withinthe unit and later printed directly to a printeror transferred to a computer for further edit-ing. Some portable word processors, such asthose marketed by Alphasmart® (e.g., Alpha-smart 3000 and Neo, http://www.alphasmart.com) allow add-on applications that can beinstalled and provide additional assistance thestudent. Some of these applications allow thestudent to download worksheets directly intothe unit so that the student may type his or heranswers. Other portable word processors, likethe Alphasmart® Dana operate using the PalmOperating System® allowing for increasedfunctionality incorporating many different ap-plications beyond word processing, e.g., datebook management, calculators, and contactlists.

Talking Word Processors

Talking word processors are also useful toolsto assist students with mild disabilities in thewriting process. Talking word processors pro-duce computer generated speech that corre-sponds to the text entered by the student.Speech may be generated after each letter,word, sentence or paragraph that is entered.This speech feedback has been proven helpfulin assisting students to produce less spellingerrors in their final products (Schlosser, Blis-chak, Belfiore, Bartley, & Barnett, 1998) aswell as assisting in the revision and editingprocess (MacArthur, 1996).

Many talking word processors also providetalking spell checkers. When conducting a


spell check, a student is typically presentedwith a list of words that are possible correc-tions to an incorrectly spelled word. Talkingspell checkers allow the student to hear eachof the words presented in the correction list,thus increasing the chance that the studentwill choose the correct word from the list byreducing the demand of decoding each of thewords presented (Lewis, 1998).

Word Prediction Programs

Another useful category of tools that can assistin the writing process is word prediction pro-grams. These programs apply complex algo-rithms including variables such as spellingrules, phonic rules, and/or grammar rules topredict what the student may write. Based ontext entered by the student, word predictionprograms provide a list of most probablewords that the student may need next in his orher writing. Word prediction programs havebeen found to assist the student in generatingtext with less spelling errors (Minas, Biros, &Burenstein, 1995; Lewis, 1998; MacArthur,1996, 1998a, 1998b). It is important to notethat the algorithms used in various word pro-cessing programs are not identical (Marfilius& Fonner, 2003). In other words, some wordprediction programs employ algorithms thatdepend solely on spelling rules while otherstake a more comprehensive approach incor-porating multiple rules sets related to writing.

Computer Based Organizational Tools

Adding to our toolkit on writing, there are anumber of tools that can assist students withthe organization of their writing (Behrmann& Jerome, 2002). These tools employ re-search-driven practices, such as semantic web-bing, to allow the student to visually plan andmanipulate the content of his or her writing.Some tools, such as Inspiration and Kidspira-tion software distributed by Inspiration® Soft-ware, Inc., (http://www.inspiration.com) pro-vide supports using visual semantic webswhich can also be viewed as an outline. Othertools like Draft:Builder® marketed by DonJohnston, Inc. (http://www.donjohnston.com) and Writer’s Companion™ (http://www.writerscomp.com), provide additional scaf-folding leading the student from the planning

phases to a completed draft of his or herwriting.

Speech Recognition

Speech recognition technology has improvedgreatly over the last decade and has becomemore accessible as well. Speech recognitionprograms allow a student to directly dictateinto a word processing application. As thestudent dictates, his or her speech is con-verted into editable text. Some research sug-gests that speech recognition programs mayallow students to better convey their thoughtsby reducing the physical writing demands oftraditional handwriting (De La Paz, 1999).Other studies have shown that overall writtenproduct tends to be of higher quality usingspeech recognition when compared to othermethods of writing (Higgins & Raskind, 1995)and may even have added benefits in the areasof spelling skills and reading (Higgins &Raskind, 2000). Speech recognition pro-grams may be (a) add-on programs workingjointly with a standard word processor; or(b) included with the word processing soft-ware itself, e.g., Microsoft® Office Word XP andMicrosoft® Office Word 2003 (http://www.microsoft.com).

Cool Tools that May Assist in Reading

A majority of students identified with milddisabilities have their primary academic diffi-culties in the area of reading (Bender, 2004;Katims, 2000; Lerner, 2003). Many of the dif-ficulties associated with reading include per-ceptual difficulties, decoding problems, andcomprehension difficulties. Fortunately, thereare a number of tools that can be added to atoolkit that can assist students with mild dis-abilities in the reading process. These include(a) low-tech reading tools, (b) audible text,(c) text-to-speech, and (d) symbol-supportedtext.

Low-Tech Reading Tools

A number of low-tech tools are available toassist students with mild disabilities with read-ing. For example, students who experiencedifficulties with tracking may benefit from aline guide provided by a simple index card or


a commercially made reading ruler. Magnifi-cation devices enable print size to be in-creased, thus facilitating the reading processfor those students requiring larger print. Fi-nally, tools such as color acetate overlays mayadjust the contrast in which the text is pre-sented allowing students to better access theprint.

Audible Text

Audible text conveys printed text in an audi-tory form. Audible text supports reading bysupplementing the text with the opportunityto ‘read along’ or by supplanting the printedversion completely, thereby allowing the stu-dent to capitalize on existing auditory com-prehension strengths. In either case, audibletext has been found to increase overall com-prehension of text (Sudzina & Foreman,1990). Books on tape can be accessed fromRecordings for the Blind and Dyslexic®

(RFB&D, http://www.rfbd.org/) and the Na-tional Library Service for the Blind and Phys-ically Handicapped (NLS, http://www.loc.gov/nls/) in the Library of Congress.Taped textbooks are available from RFB&D,while taped leisure-reading books and maga-zines can be obtained from NLS. Taped booksfrom these sources are available on loan andmust be played on specially designed tape-recorders that also can be borrowed. Manytrade books and school publications are nowalso being published in an auditory formateither on tape or CD. Furthermore, serviceslike Audible.com® (http://www.audible.com)provides entire books in auditory form thatcan be downloaded from the Internet andthen played on a computer, transferred to anMP3 player, or even burned to CD and playedon any radio having a CD player.

Text-to-Speech

Text-to-speech (TTS) may be considered asubcategory of audible text. These applica-tions are computer software programs thatgenerate synthesized speech based on digitaltext that may (a) assist students in better at-tending to the text presented (Hecker, Burns,Elkind, Elkind, & Katz, 2002), and (b) have apositive impact on comprehension (Scrase,1997). The features associated with TTS appli-

cations are widely varied. One example of TTSis ReadPlease (http://www.readplease.com), afree application that will read any text that ispasted into the application by the student.Font size, the rate at which the text is read,and the voice that is used to read the text is alluser-controlled.

Other TTS applications allow a student toscan printed text and then have the text dis-played on the computer screen accompaniedwith synthesized speech output from the com-puter. The process by which this conversionfrom printed text to digital text occurs iscalled Optical Character Recognition (OCR).Examples of TTS applications that integrateOCR into their system include (a) WYNN™(http://www.freedomscientific.com/WYNN/index.asp), (b) Kurzweil, 3000 for Windows®

(http://www.kurzweiledu.com/products_k3000win.asp), and (c) Text Help! Read andWrite Gold (http://www.texthelp.com).

Other TTS applications, such as Text Aloud(www.nextup.com) allow a student to convertdigital text into a portable MP3 file that readsthe text using synthesized speech. Finally,some TTS applications can be found on ded-icated devices, or those designed for a specificpurpose. Such is the case of the Reading PenII and Quicktionary Pen marketed by Wiz-com Technologies Ltd. (http://www.wizcom.com). Both of these devices are hand-heldscanners that will read back one or morewords scanned into them. The Quicktionarypen also has the added feature of accessingdictionary definitions that may also be readback to the student.

Symbol-Supported Text

Use of pictures to support the decoding oftext has been applied to assist students in thereading process. A few technologies on themarket support this process for students withmild disabilities. For example, BoardMaker(http://www.mayer-johnson.com) is a soft-ware program having an extensive searchablelibrary of symbols paired with text. Symbol-text pairs can be positioned together to createsentences. Writing with Symbols 2000™ (http://www.mayer-johnson.com) is a symbol wordprocessor that allows a person to type andautomatically have symbols appear eitherabove or below the words that are typed.


Finally, Slater Software, Inc. distributesPixWriter (http://www.slatersoftware.com)that allows text to be parsed with symbolscreating strings of symbol-supported text.

Cool Tools that May Assist in Math

Tools to support students with mild disabili-ties in the area of mathematics may be themost underdeveloped set of toolkit technolo-gies that have been given consideration byspecial education professionals (Wojcik,2004). However, experiences of the authorshave shown that there are several tools thatmay support students with mild disabilities ef-fectively in the areas of (a) electronic work-sheets, (b) electronic measuring tools, and (c)calculators. Each of these is described in thefollowing section.

Electronic Worksheets

Electronic worksheets allow students to en-gage in mathematical processes in a computerbased virtual environment. For example, In-tellitools® distributes Mathpad™ (http://www.intellitools.com), a software programthat allows students to set up and solve variousmathematical algorithms (e.g., addition andsubtraction) within a computer-based work-space. This workspace promotes alignment ofcolumns appropriately, as well as making no-tations for operations like ‘carrying over’ and‘regrouping’.

Inspiration® Software, Inc., markets Inspira-tion® and Kidspiration® (http://www.inspiration.com) that allow students to use a virtual en-vironment to manipulate objects on screento solve math problems. Finally, softwareapplications like Intellimathics® (http://www.intellitools.com) also allow students to movemanipulate virtual objects, but also allow thevirtual environment to provide feedback, e.g.,summation and feedback on various attributesof the manipulatives.

Electronic Measuring Tools

Some students with mild disabilities may havedifficulty using traditional measuring tools be-cause of the way the measuring tools are read.Small measuring marks and small numbersmay be difficult to perceive and/or interpret

correctly. Within the past decade, a number oftools have been developed, many availablethrough local hardware stores, to assist in thisprocess. For example, tape measures with dig-ital read outs allow students to measure itemsjust as they would with a typical tape measure.However, instead of reading the measurementon the actual tape part of the device, a digitalread out provides the measurement. The dis-play can often be toggled to show differentunits (inches vs. feet) or different measure-ment systems (British vs. Metric). Some mea-suring devices employ a laser to gauge thedistance between the device and a specificobject or location. In addition, there are num-ber of these devices that have speech output aswell as digital output.

Calculators

Calculators are perhaps the most commonmathematical technology tools used in theclassroom. However, a range of calculator op-tions must be considered before choosing anappropriate calculator for a student with milddisabilities. Standard calculators offer supportin mathematical computation, and vary bothin shape and size while offering a variety ofdisplay options.

Talking calculators provide speech feed-back with relation to the keys pressed and thefinal answer provided. Some talking calcula-tors provide answers as they would be read.For example, the number ‘101’ would be readas ‘one hundred one.’ Other calculators readanswers as a string of individual digits where‘101’ would be read as ‘one zero one.’ Somestudents with mild disabilities may benefitmore from one of these styles over the other.

Specialized calculators have limited scopeof performance but are designed to assist withparticular mathematical tasks. For example,the Attainment Company, Inc. (http://www.attainmentcompany.com/) has developed theCoin-u-Lator that is designed with realisticlooking buttons corresponding to quarters,dimes, nickels, and pennies. By sliding aswitch and pressing the appropriate buttons,students are able to either add or subtractmonetary values.

Finally, there are a number of software-based calculators having other unique fea-tures that would be helpful for students


with mild disabilities. The calculator col-lection from Edmark software (http://www.riverdeep.com) has features that allow stu-dents to retrieve information about numberssuch as whether a number is prime or com-posite, odd or even, and its factors and multi-ples. It also allows for graphic displays of frac-tions and currency. The algebra calculator,also from Edmark software, allows students to(a) enter an algebraic expression with a singlevariable, (b) enter a value for the variable, and(c) evaluate the expression using the enteredvalue. The algebra calculator also shows all ofthe steps necessary to evaluate the expression.

Cool Tools that May Assist in Memoryand Organization

Memory and organization often pose difficul-ties for students with mild disabilities (Behr-mann & Jerome, 2002; Edyburn, 2000). Par-ticular problems encountered in this area maybe grouped in three main categories: (a) phys-ical organization, (b) procedural organiza-tion, and (c) temporal organization (Wojcik,2004). Physical organization refers to a system oforganization used by the student. This systemmay include such low-tech tools as manilafolders, binders, slotted pouches, and otherlike items. Procedural organization refers to ac-tually using one’s organization system. Thismight include such actions as immediatelyplacing homework assignments into folderscorresponding to relevant academic subjectareas so that it could easily be retrieved onreturning home. Temporal organization refersto organizing oneself in relation to time. Thiswould include being able to prioritize tasks insuch a way that each task is completed by thetime they are due.

In looking at technology tools for organiza-tion, there are many low-tech solutions, suchas materials commonly available at local officesupply stores (e.g., folders, binders, filing sys-tems, labeling systems, etc.). However, thereare also a variety of powerful higher technol-ogy tools that can assist students with milddisabilities, including (a) electronic organiza-tional tools, (b) Web organizational resources,and (c) hand-held tools. Each of these is dis-cussed in the following sections.

Electronic Organizational Tools

Electronic organizational tools include set ofdevices that assist in one or more aspects oforganization. Tools such as the StepPad(http://www.attainmentcompany.com/) orthe Step by Step (www.ablenet.com) allowvoiced messages to be recorded in a sequence.The voiced messages are played back in thesame sequence in which they were recorded.This can be very helpful for students who havedifficulty remembering a sequence of steps fora given task. Other devices like the TimePad(www.attainmentinc.com) allow voiced mes-sages to be recorded and delivered back at aspecific time which can be helpful for studentwho need reminders at specific times through-out the day. Simple tape recorders or digitalvoice recorders can aid a student by allowingrecording of reminders for an audio ‘to dolist’.

Web Organizational Resources

There are a number of personal informationmanagement systems on the World Wide Webthat can be assistance to students with milddisabilities (Edyburn, 2000). One such tool isMyYahoo!® (http://www.yahoo.com). Al-though not a unique service as similar servicesexist from MSN, there are features existent inthese services that may be very helpful. Forexample, MyYahoo!® provides an online cal-endar. This calendar can be accessed from anylocation with Internet access. It also generatesa daily event list that can be accessed on theweb and/or by email and may be printed foraccess away from the Internet. The calendarfunction may help students organize assign-ments and other events. MyYahoo!® also pro-vides a briefcase function that allows studentsto upload and store files. This feature providesa way for students to have a ‘virtual backpack’allowing them to access and download files onwhich they are working. Again, these files canbe accessed from any place in which internetaccess is available.

Handheld Devices

Handheld devices provide a portable way ofstoring and retrieving vast amounts of infor-mation. Most handheld devices, regardless of


operating system, automatically come outfit-ted with basic personal information manage-ment applications like a date book, contactlist, and note taker. These applications oftenrequire individuals to be able to input theinformation and then read it at a later timewhen the individual need to retrieve the in-formation. This can cause some issues forsome students who have difficulties for writtenexpression or reading. However, some compa-nies like AbleLink Technologies (http://www.ablelinktech.com) have developed appli-cations that can assist individuals by creatingpicture and speech-based reminders. Thesereminders may take the form of a step-by-steptask list, or may be a time delivered messagethat combines picture, text and speech cues.These applications have been found helpfulin assisting individuals with disabilities in com-pleting tasks and managing events in theirlives (Davies, Stock, & Wehmeyer, 2002a,2002b).

Cool Technologies That are Up and Coming

While many technologies already exist thatmay assist students with mild disabilities, thereare many new technologies being developeddaily. Not surprisingly, many of these technol-ogies involve the Internet or some other formof networking. Four technologies that are im-portant to note as holding great potential forstudents with mild disabilities include (a)blogs, (b) Wickis, (c) Webcollaborator, and(d) RSS Site Summary.

Blogs

Abbreviated from the term ‘web logs’, a blog isdefined as “a frequent, chronological publica-tion of personal thoughts and Web links”(Blog definition, 2004). Blogs allow studentsto post textual content to a public space, andare hosted by a number of services such asBloglines (http://www.bloglines.com) orBlogger (http://www.blogger.com). Any postto a blog by a student can have the option tohave comments posted related to the stu-dent’s post. This can be helpful in a numberof ways. A blog can serve as a (a) commonplace for questions and answers, (b) way to dodialogue journals, or (c) way to collect andaggregate information when doing research.

Since the blog is on the Web, it can be ac-cessed and modified from any location havingInternet access.

Wickis

Another powerful emerging technology thatholds great promise for students with milddisabilities are Wikis. A Wicki is “a piece ofserver software that allows users to freely cre-ate and edit Web page content using any Webbrowser” (What is Wicki, 2002). Since Wickisare collaboratively built live web pages (seee.g., Wikipedia, http://www.wikipedia.com,an online collaboratively built encyclopedia),they may be especially helpful in assisting stu-dents with mild disabilities complete a collab-orative writing project in which peers and theteacher can provide feedback.

WebCollaborator

WebCollaborator (www.webcollaborator.com)is a free technology that uses a Wiki as its corethat (a) coordinates collaborations automati-cally, (b) keeps backups of every revision evermade to a project, (c) allows users to see whomade changes to a collaboratively cratedproject, and (d) allows users to privatize theircollaborative space by only letting permittedindividuals access the document. WebCollabo-rator automatically saves the changes in sepa-rate version files that can be accessed at anytime. Again, this provides a common space forstudents and teachers to discuss and revisewriting. This can also be an interactive placefor teachers and students to communicate fora dynamic ‘to do’ list. Literally, the possibili-ties for classroom applications are constrainedonly by one’s imagination.

RSS Site Summary

RSS (RDF Site Summary; formerly called RichSite Summary) is defined as a method of de-scribing news and other Web content that isavailable distribution or syndication from anonline publisher to Web users (RSS, 2001-2004). More generally, RSS stands for “reallysimple syndication,” and provides a means forWebsites desiring to ‘publish’ some of its con-tent (e.g., news headlines or stories, discussionforum excerpts, software announcements,


and any form of content retrievable with aURL) by simply creating a description of thecontent and specifically where the content ison its site in the form of an RSS document.The publishing site then registers its RSS doc-ument with one of several existing directoriesof RSS publishers. A user with a Web browseror a special program that can read RSS-distrib-uted content can read periodically-provideddistributions (RSS).

Many websites are now publishing RSS feedswhich are XML based information lists thatare updated as the website is updated. An RSSreader interprets and displays the RSS feedallowing the student to view a condensed listof topic specific information that is recent innature. Since the information is already com-piled in one place, this reduces the amount oftext a student would need to sift through on agiven topic. Since RSS feeds, by their nature,are updated as new content are added andare, therefore, always presenting new informa-tion. Some RSS feeders will aggregate newpostings over a period of a few days and otherswill only show the RSS feed that is current forthe website.

Conclusion

Advances in technology and decreases in gen-eral cost to consumers will insure that suchsupportive and cool technologies as discussedabove will continue to emerge. These will addto and change the potential of our ‘toolkit’ tobenefit students with learning and academicdisabilities. But potential will be realized onlyif certain key issues are addressed. First andforemost, research examining the educationaloutcomes of technology use is needed to con-firm the educational benefit suggested by theinitial studies. Designs which permit the directmeasurement of technology-enabled versusnon-technology enabled educational out-comes (Smith, 2000) on (a) curriculum-basedmeasures (Center for Applied Special Tech-nology, 2002; Hall & Mengel, 2003); (b) class-room performance (e.g., work completion,homework submission, quantity of work); (c)classroom-based evaluation (e.g., exams, writ-ing samples, reports, projects); and (d) per-formance on standards-based district and stateeducational progress assessments.

In parallel with educational outcomes, the

preferences of Millennial generation studentsfor these existing and emergent technologiesmust also be determined. At the elementaryschool level, it might be assumed that func-tionality and improved educational perfor-mance would trump cool and, further, that asstudents approach adolescence cool trumpsfunction, but it is unknown at this point whencosmesis, the self-perceived acceptability to oth-ers (King, 1999), actually influences the ac-ceptance, rejection or abandonment of bene-ficial technologies.

Interacting with students’ perceptions ofthe acceptability of using the technology maybe the visibility (King, 1999) of the technology,i.e., the obviousness of its use as a disability-related product. Audio text delivered via thesame MP3 player used by peers to listen totheir music would be virtually invisible; re-cordings for the blind accessed through vari-able speed tape recorders would be highlyvisible. The portable keyboarding device,while effective and efficient for reducing thedemands of handwriting may be rejected orabandoned by the pre- or early adolescentbecause it is visible and perceived to be unac-ceptable only to become acceptable againlater. Only longitudinal research into patternsof rejection and abandonment (and perhapslater ‘reinstatement’) can address these spec-ulative developmental concerns

To realize the potential of cool technology,the adults who educate these students mustalso embrace and use them. As a start, the useof such technologies as presented here mustbe permissible and acceptable to both specialeducation and general education teachers,and, it is already known that there are differ-ences in the way that adaptations and accom-modations are deemed permissible and ac-ceptable (Scott, Vitale, & Masten, 1998). Twofactors that may affect such decisions are thefamiliarity of the teacher with technology andthe perceived role of the technology. Re-search is needed that will clarify the rolefamiliarity and general competence with tech-nology has upon acceptance and permissibil-ity; such research, should examine the gener-ational influences among younger and olderteachers.

As the boundaries between assistive and ed-ucational technology become blurred, an-other permissibility issue that is emerging is


the role of technology. Instructional or reme-dial technologies are those that are used todevelop skills among students, while compen-satory technologies are those that produceenhancement of function possible over thelife span (Edyburn, 2002). While it might bespeculated that at the elementary grade levels,and possibly up into early middle school, thattechnologies for writing, reading and math,are acceptable and permissible because theyare seen as more clearly having an instruc-tional or remedial role, the status of suchtechnologies for compensatory use at the sec-ondary level are not yet known. Thus, thepotential for educational benefit may be lost ifthe use of the technology is discouraged orrejected in or outside of the resource room asbeing an “unfair advantage” to the studentwith learning or academic disabilities.

We feel that the cool technologies discussedherein hold great potential to contribute tothe optimal academic success for many stu-dents with mild disabilities in classroom set-tings nationwide. However, much remains tobe done by both practitioners and researchersto fully understand the roles of newly emerg-ing technologies in academic settings, as wellas the outcomes of their implementation.

References

Behrmann, M., & Jerome, M. K. (2002). Assistivetechnology for students with mild disabilities: Update2002. ERIC Digest E623. ERIC Document Repro-duction Service ED 463 595.

Bender, W. (2004). Learning disabilities: Characteris-tics, identification, and teaching strategies (5th ed.).Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Blog definition. (2004). Retrieved November 27,2004, from http://www.marketingterms.com/dictionary/blog/

Center for Applied Special Technology. (2002).CAST focuses on universally designed assessment. Re-trieved November 29, 2004, from http://www.cast.org/archive/index.cfm?i�2790

Center for Applied Special Technology. (1999-2004). Universal design for learning. Retrieved No-vember 12, 2004, from http://www.cast.org/udl/

Davies, D. K., Stock, S. E., & Wehmeyer, M. L.(2002a). Enhancing independent task perfor-mance for individuals with mental retardationthrough use of a handheld self-directed visualand audio prompting system. Education and Train-ing in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabil-ities, 37, 209–218.

Davies, D. K., Stock, S. E., & Wehmeyer, M. L.(2002b). Enhancing independent time-manage-ment skills of individuals with mental retardationusing a palmtop personal computer. Mental Retar-dation, 40, 358–365.

Debell, M., & Chapman, C. (2001). Computer andInternet use by children and adolescents in 2001.Education Statistics Quarterly, 5(1). RetrievedNovember 11, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_5/5_4/2_1.asp

De La Paz, S. (1999). Composing via dictation andspeech recognition systems: compensatory tech-nology for students with learning disabilities.Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 173–182.

De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1995). Dictation: Ap-plications to writing for students with learningdisabilities. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri(Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabili-ties (Vol. 9, pp. 227–247). Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Edyburn, D. L. (2000). Assistive technology andstudents with mild disabilities. Focus on ExceptionalChildren, 32(9), 1–24.

Edyburn, D. L. (2002). Remediation vs. compensa-tion: A critical decision point in assistive technol-ogy consideration. ConnSense Bulletin, 4(3). Re-trieved on November 29, 2004, from http://www.connsensebulletin.com/edyburnv4n3.html

Edyburn, D. L. (2004, January). Assistive and instruc-tional technology for students with mild disabilities.Presented at the Assistive Technology IndustryAssociation Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL.

Fonner, K., & Marfilius, S. (2005, January). A tech-nology toolkit for literacy instruction. Presented at theAssistive Technology Industry Association AnnualMeeting, Orlando, FL.

George, C. L., Fulcher, A., & Nichols, M. (2001,March). The AT toolkit: What every classroom shouldhave. Presented at the CSUN 16th Annual Inter-national Conference, Northridge, CA. RetrievedNovember 27, 2004, from http://rose.iinf.polsl.gliwice.pl/�kwadrat/www.csun.edu/cod/conf2001/proceedings/index.html

Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factorsin learning disabled students’ compositions. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781–791.

Hall, T., & Mengel, M. (2003). Curriculum-based eval-uations. Retrieved November 29, 2004, fromhttp://www.cast.org/ncac/index.cfm?i�2913

Heart of Illinois Low Incidence Association Re-source Academy. (2004). Assistive technology re-source toolkit. Normal, IL: Author.

Hecker, L., Burns, L., Elkind, J., Elkind, K., & Katz,L. (2002). Benefits of assistive reading softwarefor students with attention disorders. Annals ofDyslexia, 52, 243–272.

Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (1995). Compen-satory effectiveness of speech recognition on the


written composition performance of postsecond-ary students with learning disabilities. LearningDisability Quarterly, 18, 159–174.

Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (2000). Speaking toread: The effects of continuous vs. discretespeech recognition systems on the reading andspelling of children with learning disabilities. Jour-nal of Special Education Technology, 15, 19–30.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising.The next great generation. New York: Vintage Books,Random House.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amend-ments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq

Johnson, D., & Myklebust, H. (1967). Learning dis-abilities: Educational principles and practices. NewYork: Grune & Stratton.

Katims, D. (2000). Literacy instruction for peoplewith mental retardation: Historical highlights andcontemporary analysis. Education and Training inMental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,35, 3–15.

Kaye, H. S. (2000, March). Computer and internet useamong people with disabilities. (Disability StatisticsReport 13). San Francisco, CA: Disability StatisticsCenter, Institute for Health and Aging, Universityof California.

King, T. W. (1999). Assistive technology: Essential hu-man factors. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Lahm, E. A. (2003). Assistive technology specialists:Bringing knowledge of assistive technology toschool districts. Remedial and Special Education, 24,141–153.

Lahm, E. A., Bell, J. K., & Blackhurst, A. E(2002).University of Kentucky assistive technology (UKAT)toolkit. (Available from the University of Kentucky,Special Education and Rehabilitation Counsel-ing, 229 Taylor Education Building, Lexington,KY 40506).

Lerner, J. (2003). Learning disabilities (9th ed.). Bos-ton: Houghton Miflin.

Lewis, R. B. (1998). Enhancing the writing skills ofstudents with learning disabilities through technology:an investigation of the effects of text entry tools, editingtools, and speech synthesis. final report (Research/Technical No. H180G40073): San Diego StateUniv., CA. Dept. of Special Education.

MacArthur, C. A. (1996). Using technology to en-hance the writing processes of students withlearning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,29, 344–354.

MacArthur, C. A. (1998a). From illegible to under-standable: How word prediction and speech syn-thesis can help. Teaching Exceptional Children,30(6), 66–71.

MacArthur, C. A. (1998b). Word processing withspeech synthesis and word prediction: Effects onthe dialogue journal writing of students with

learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,21, 151–166.

Marfilius, S., & Fonner, K. (2003, October). Sortingthrough word prediction programs. Paper presentedat the Closing the Gap Annual Conference, Min-neapolis, MN.

Miller, C. K., & Norton, M. P. (2003). Making god realfor a new generation. Ministry with millennials bornfrom 1982 to 1999. Nashville, TN: Discipleship Re-sources.

Minas, J., Biros, J., & Burenstein, B. (1995). Givingvoice to student writing: Exploring the uses of speechrecognition and speech synthesis in a writing curricu-lum. Philadelphia: Drexel University LiteracyProject, Drexel University.

Myklebust, H. (1973). Development and disorders ofwritten language: Studies of normal and exceptionalchildren (Vol. 2). New York: Grune & Stratton.

Parette, H. P. (2004, April). Millennial children in adigital age: Assistive technology futures in special edu-cation. Paper presented to the Council for Excep-tional Children Annual Convention and Expo,New Orleans, LA.

Parette, H. P. (2005). Assistive technology (AT) de-vice. In J. T. Neisworth & P. S. Wolfe (Eds.), Theautism encyclopedia (p. 15). Baltimore: Brookes.

Parette, H. P., & Brotherson, M. J. (2004). Issues infamily-centered assistive technology decision-making. Infants and Young Children, 17, 355–367.

Parette, P., & Wojcik, B. (2004). Creating a technol-ogy toolkit for students with mental retardation: Asystematic approach. Journal of Special EducationTechnology, 19(4), 23–31.

Peterson-Karlan, G. R. & Parette, H. P. (2005, Jan-uary). Understanding technology use by adolescentswith and without disabilities. Paper presented to theATIA-TAM Conference and Exhibition, Orlando,FL.

Poplin, M., Gray, R., Larsen, S., Banikowski, A., &Mehring, T. (1980). A comparison of compo-nents of written expression abilities in learningdisabled and non-learning disabled children atthree grade levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3,46–53.

Puckett, K. S. (2004). Project ACCESS: Field testingan assistive technology toolkit for students withmild disabilities. Journal of Special Education Tech-nology, 19(2). Retrieved November 27, 2004, fromhttp://jset.unlv.edu/19.2/puckett/first.html

Raines, C. (2001). Managing millennials. Re-trieved September 1, 2004, from http://www.generationsatwork.com/articles/millenials.htm

Raines, C. (2003). Connecting generations: The source-book for a new workplace. Los Angeles, CA: Crisp.

Riemer-Reiss, M. L., & Wacker, R. R. (1999). Assis-tive technology use and abandonment among col-lege students with disabilities. International Elec-tronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 3(23).


Retrieved November 8, 2003, from http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/�iejll/volume3/reimer.htmlRSS. (2001-2004). Retrieved November 27, 2004,from http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid26_gci813358,00.html

Russell, M., Bebell, D., Cowan, J., & Corbelli, M.(2002). An AlphaSmart for each student: Does teach-ing and learning change with full access to word pro-cessors? Technology and Study Collaborative, Bos-ton College. Retrieved November 27, 2002, fromhttp://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/studies/AlphaSmartEachStudent/description.shtml.

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2000). Universal design forlearning. Journal of Special Education Technology,15, 67–70.

Schlosser, R. W., Blischak, D. M., Belfiore, P. J.,Bartley, C., & Barnett, N. (1998). Effects of syn-thetic speech output and orthographic feedbackon spelling in a student with autism: A prelimi-nary study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Dis-orders, 28, 309–319.

Scott, B. J., Vitale, M R., & Masten, W. G. (1998).Implementing instructional adaptations for stu-dents with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Re-medial and Special Education, 19, 106–119

Scrase, R. (1997). Using scanners linked to talking

computers as tools for teaching children to read.British Journal of Educational Technology, 28, 308–310.

Smith, R. O. (2000). Measuring assistive technologyoutcomes in education. Diagnostique, 25, 273–290.

Sudzina, M. R., & Foreman, P. A. (1990). The use ofrecorded books in a first grade classroom withchapter 1 children. Ohio Reading Teacher, 25(1),7–14.

Tapscott, D. (1998). The rise of the Net generation:Growing up digital. New York: McGraw Hill.

Watts, E. H., Thompson, J. R., & Wojcik, B. W.(2004, April). Tub O’Tools II. Paper presented atthe Council for Exceptional Children AnnualConference, New Orleans, LA.

What is Wicki. (2002). Retrieved November 27, 2004,from http://wiki.org/wiki.cgi?WhatIsWiki

Wojcik, B. W. (2004, March). Supporting studentlearning through technology. Paper presented at theIllinois Teachers of Deaf/Hard of Hearing Indi-viduals, Springfield, IL.

Wojcik, B., Peterson-Karlan, G., Watts, E., & Parette,P. (2004). Assistive technology outcomes in ateacher education curriculum. Assistive TechnologyOutcomes and Benefits, 1, 21–32.


Download - Assistive Technology for Students with Mild … Technology for Students with Mild Disabilities: What’s Cool ... see it as a means to remain connected to the ... duce computer generated

Top Related