Download - Infusing a Teacher Preparation Program in Learning Disabilities with Assistive Technology

http://ldx.sagepub.com/Journal of Learning Disabilities

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/31/1/55The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/002221949803100106

1998 31: 55J Learn DisabilDiane Pedrotty Bryant, Jane Erin, Robin Lock, James M. Allan and Paul E. Resta

Infusing a Teacher Preparation Program in Learning Disabilities with Assistive Technology

Published by:

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Learning DisabilitiesAdditional services and information for

http://ldx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ldx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/31/1/55.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 1998Version of Record >>

at Abant Izzet Baysal University on May 13, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Abant Izzet Baysal University on May 13, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ldx.sagepub.com/

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/31/1/55

http://www.hammill-institute.org/

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://ldx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://ldx.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/31/1/55.refs.html

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/31/1/55.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Infusing a Teacher Preparation Program in Learning Disabilities with Assistive Technology Diane Pedrotty Bryant, Jane Erin, Robin Lock, James M. Allan, and Paul E. Resta

Abstract

A recent trend in the fields of special education, rehabilitation, and technology is the development and implementation of assistive technology (AT) devices and services to assist individuals in compensating for disabilities and/or utilizing functional capabilities to meet environmental demands. AT devices and services have major implications for individuals with learning disabilities (LD) regarding life span issues, environmental and curricular accessibility, and compensatory strategies. Faculty members in higher education who are responsible for designing teacher preparation programs in LD must explore ways to structure curricula, methodologies, and practica to better prepare teachers to work with students who use AT devices to compensate for their specific learning disabilities. The purpose of this article is to describe curriculum design steps and barriers to and solutions for infusing LD teacher preparation programs with assistive technology.

One of the goals of any teacher preparation program is to pro-vide an educational curricu-

lum that reflects research-based "best practice" and is compatible with pub-lic education trends and philosophies. A current trend in the fields of special education, rehabilitation, and technol-ogy is to train individuals with disabil-ities in the use of assistive technology (AT) devices and services to compen-sate for their disabilities and/or utilize their functional abilities to meet envi-ronmental demands. The impetus for this assistive technology training trend stems from the passage of federal leg-islation such as the 1992 Amendments of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabili-ties Act of 1990 (ADA), the Individ-uals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabil-ities Act Amendments of 1994 (known as the Tech Act), which mandate accessi-bility and accommodations for individ-uals with disabilities to promote inte-gration and full participation in society.

Probably one of the most influen-tial and potentially beneficial laws is the Tech Act, which supports the devel-opment of programs that will ensure access to appropriate assistive technol-ogy devices and services for individ-uals with disabilities and their families. The Tech Act defines assistive technol-ogy device as "any item, piece of equip-ment, or product system, whether ac-quired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve func-tional capabilities of individuals with disabilities," and services as "any ser-vice that directly assists an individual with a disability in the selection, acqui-sition, or use of an assistive technol-ogy service" (p. 102, Stat., 1046). "De-vices" encompass low technology (e.g., reachers, pencil grips, zipper pulls) and high technology (e.g., alternate computer keyboards, speech synthe-sizers, scanners); "services" include as-sessment, interagency coordination efforts, and training.

For individuals with learning dis-abilities (LD), who exhibit a variety

and range (i.e., mild to severe) of learn-ing and behavioral characteristics across the lifespan, of assistive tech-nologies look promising. Assistive technology devices and services have major implications regarding lifespan issues and environmental and curricu-lar accessibility. AT devices could be used to facilitate acquisition of aca-demic, vocational, and daily living skills, and instruction in computer technology and written communica-tion, to help students compensate for specific learning disabilities (Church & Glennen, 1992; Raskind, 1993). For example, most students with learning disabilities exhibit some type of read-ing problem. In some cases, scanning the text and using a voice synthesizer to read material may be quite appro-priate so students can access the read-ing material more easily and thus focus more on comprehending rather than decoding the material. Other students with LD may exhibit problems with fine-motor skills and thus have diffi-culties using standard keyboards to ac-cess word processing programs on the

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES VOLUME 31, NUMBER 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1998, PAGES 55-66

at Abant Izzet Baysal University on May 13, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from


56 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

classroom computer. For these young-sters, a variety of alternative keyboard options exist that offer different ways to create their stories.

Training individuals with LD and their families in assistive technology devices and services has ramifications for teacher preparation programs. As more students with LD in general and special education settings are identi-fied as needing assistive technology devices and services, teacher prepara-tion programs will have to address training issues and identify ways to infuse their curriculum with assistive technologies. Faculty members in higher education who are responsible for designing teacher preparation programs in LD must explore ways to structure curricula, methodolo-gies, and practica to better prepare teachers to work effectively with stu-dents who use AT devices. The pur-pose of this article is to describe (a) curriculum design steps and (b) barriers to and solutions for incor-porating assistive technology into learning disabilities teacher prepara-tion programs.

Curriculum Design Steps

Armstrong (1989) defined curricu-lum as a plan for the selection and organization of student experiences to change and develop behaviors. We have identified five steps for develop-ing a preservice teacher preparation assistive technology curriculum, based on Taba's (cited in Wiles & Bondi, 1993) curriculum design model. We chose this model because of its empha-sis on addressing rationales, compe-tencies, content development, creative learning experiences, and program evaluation. Following is a description of the five curriculum design steps: (a) determining the need, (b) estab-lishing teacher competencies and ob-jectives, (c) identifying the curriculum, (d) organizing the curriculum and learning experiences, and (e) eval-uating the effectiveness of the curric-ulum.

Determining the Need In determining the need for a new

curriculum, instructors should exam-ine current educational trends and research. Educational trends and re-search will be examined briefly to determine how they influence the deci-sion to implement an AT curriculum.

Educational Trends. The initiation of inclusive settings, whereby students with LD spend most, if not all, of their day in the general education setting, is certainly a controversial educational trend (Bateman, 1994; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; Hallahan & Kauffman, 1994), one consequence of which is that general and special education teachers will have to demonstrate competencies with various devices. For instance, general educators in inclusive settings may be challenged to broaden their knowledge of technology to accom-modate the special needs of learners in their classrooms, or learning dis-abilities teachers might be asked to assist the classroom teacher in help-ing a child who is using an AT device become part of an instructional group. Preservice general and special educa-tors should be trained in assistive tech-nology devices, particularly as more and more youngsters with disabilities are placed in general education set-tings for longer portions of the day.

A second trend is the pervasiveness of computers in classrooms. Educators are expected not only to set up the computer hardware but also to decide how to fit the technology into the in-structional program (Lewis, 1993). Educators must be prepared for (a) set-ting up hardware, (b) identifying the variety of roles computer technology can serve in the classroom, and (c) adapt-ing computer technology to make it accessible for students with LD.

A third trend is the increase in dif-ferent types of educational software and multimedia applications (e.g., hypermedia, CD-ROM) that exist in most schools. Educators must be able to evaluate the components, strengths, and weaknesses of software and multi-media, and to match student abilities

accordingly. For example, in some cases, a software requires reading skills even though the software purports to address another academic area, such as mathematics (Lewis, 1993). Other software may possess various stimuli that could be confusing and distract-ing to students with LD. Educators must be able to (a) identify prerequi-site academic skills in software pro-grams, and (b) make appropriate accom-modations, such as the utilization of recorded instructions or the use of peer tutoring.

Research. Results from research studies is another factor to examine in support of the development of an assistive technology curriculum for a teacher preparation program. Al-though research in this area is mostly anecdotal in nature and the number of controlled studies in AT and LD is limited, research findings are begin-ning to emerge that validate and dem-onstrate the benefits of assistive tech-nology as compensatory devices for students with LD. Specifically, re-search results have supported the use of a particular assistive technology (i.e., computerized speech feedback/speech synthesis) across school-age and post-secondary students in promoting proficiency in reading (Jones, Torge-sen, & Sexton, 1987; Roth & Beck, 1987) and writing (Raskind & Higgins, 1995). Although continued validation re-search is warranted, results from these studies support the notion of AT as part of a teacher preparation program.

Considerable technology research in learning disabilities has focused pri-marily on the use of computer tech-nology to remediate or supplement instruction (Raskind, 1993). Although in some cases research findings have been equivocal, some notable progress has been made in validating the effi-cacy of computer-based instruction and identifying software programs and applications as effective tools to supplement and reinforce instructional practices (Higgins & Boone, 1990; Mac Arthur, 1994; Olson, Foltz, & Wise, 1986; Torgesen, Waters, Cohen, & Tor-



VOLUME 31, NUMBER 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1998 57

gesen, 1988). Such research has pro-vided instructors with valuable infor-mation regarding word processing programs, hypermedia, and specific software packages; however, research studies examining the efficacy of vari-ous types of assistive technology de-vices to help students compensate for specific learning disabilities must con-tinue. Such research agenda must be developed in the field. The results of this research are important; they could provide continued evidence of the need to train preservice teachers in a variety of AT compensatory devices for students with learning disabilities. Additionally, findings from this re-search could further validate the AT curriculum as beneficial for students with LD.

In summary, educational trends and research results should be examined to determine the extent to which there is a need for an assistive technology curriculum. This information can be coupled with information about the benefits of the curriculum for students with learning disabilities and about the influences of key pieces of legisla-tion to determine whether or not a need exists for the new curriculum.

Establishing Teacher Competencies and Objectives

The second step in curriculum de-sign is to delineate the competencies and objectives in assistive technology that will be important for teachers of students with LD to achieve in a teacher preparation program. Instruc-tors can identify teacher competencies by conducting surveys of consumer groups of AT devices and services; col-laborating with professionals (e.g., re-habilitation counselors, physical ther-apists, occupational therapists) who work extensively in AT service de-livery; talking with public school, postsecondary, and vocational profes-sionals who provide services to indi-viduals with LD across the life span; talking with technology professionals in state departments of education; and reviewing published competency lists

(e.g., developed by professional orga-nizations). For example, in our spe-cial education teacher preparation program at The University of Texas, we examined competencies (a) stated on syllabi that were gathered from various professors who are teaching technology courses, (b) identified by technology personnel in the local school district, and (c) recommended by professional organizations. These competencies were reviewed and des-ignated for specific courses being taught or developed by faculty who were interested in assistive technol-ogy as a component of their curricu-lum. A sample list of teacher com-petencies is provided in Table 1. The competencies include the development of knowledge and skill in the areas of computer literacy; general technology (e.g., issues, barriers and solutions); laws; learner needs; devices and ser-vices; curricular integration; environ-ment; resources; partnerships; and evaluation. These competencies are based on recommendations by the Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children (Graves et al., 1992) and the Interna-tional Society for Technology in Edu-cation (1992) for teacher preparation programs' technology instruction.

Once the requisite teacher compe-tencies are identified, instructors can generate objectives that are used to construct course content and learning experiences. The objectives are linked directly to the teacher competencies and become the basis for the ensuing steps in the curriculum design model. The teacher competencies represent levels teachers should have attained by graduation from the teacher prepa-ration program, and the objectives are skills needed to reach or master those competencies. The following questions can be used to develop related objec-tives: What skills should teachers pos-sess to reach a competency level? What is the curriculum content for each skill? What learning experiences are neces-sary for teachers to reach particular competency levels? What skills should be taught that will still be relevant

upon graduation (an important ques-tion to consider with assistive tech-nology)? Table 2 provides a sample of one teacher competency, with related objectives.

Identifying the Curriculum

The third step of curriculum design involves identifying the curriculum, which is based on the competencies and objectives previously developed. The identification of an assistive technology curriculum for a teacher-training program in learning disabili-ties is based on the assumption that teachers should develop knowledge of and skill with various types of assistive technology devices and ser-vices that help students compensate for specific disabilities, and know where additional information, re-sources, and assistance can be ob-tained. Educators of students with LD should possess a broad knowledge base from which generalizations about the implementation of specific assistive technology devices can be made. Ele-ments of such a knowledge base would include assessment practices, ways in which assistive technology devices can help students compensate for specific learning disabilities, lifespan issues (e.g., funding sources for AT devices, use of AT in postsecondary settings, access to home computers), input and output devices that promote accessi-bility, collaborative efforts with fami-lies and other professionals, and incorporation of devices into the in-structional setting (i.e., the general or special education classroom). Table 3 lists areas and examples of curricula from which specific courses could be developed or content could be inte-grated into already existing learning disabilities courses.

Organizing the Curriculum and Learning Experiences

Once the curriculum is identified, step four involves organizing it and creating learning experiences by de-veloping new courses and/or integrat-




TABLE 1 Suggested Teacher Competencies in Assistive Technology

A. Computer literacy skills Capable of basic computer operations (e.g., running programs, formatting disks, copying files) Identify computer components, functions, and peripheral capabilities Possess state computer literacy competencies

B. General knowledge Knowledge of assistive technology devices and services and how they can be used to promote accessibility Knowledge of issues, barriers, and benefits of assistive technology Knowledge of IEP and AT

C. Laws Knowledge of federal legislation and state policies for identifying and using assistive technology devices with individuals who have

disabilities

D. Learner needs Knowledge of life span issues and the use of appropriate assistive technology devices and services to address those issues Ability to conduct functional analyses of learner needs and to select appropriate adaptive and augmentative technologies

E. Devices and services Knowledge of (a) types of high- and low-technology devices

(b) various input and output devices (c) assistive technology services for individuals with disabilities (d) telecommunications systems (e) multimedia applications

F. Curricular integration Knowledge and use of technological resources for instruction Ability to integrate hardware and software into curricula Ability to teach students to use input and output devices Ability to use multimedia applications to facilitate learning

G. Environment Ability to arrange the setting to facilitate the use of assistive technology

H. Resources Knowledge of funding to support the use of assistive technologies Knowledge of professionals who can support the use of assistive technologies Knowledge of school district resources to support implementation of assistive technologies

I. Partnerships Ability to work collaboratively with professionals to promote integration of assistive technologies into home and school use Ability to assist colleagues in using technology to meet teaching/learning objectives Ability to work with families to facilitate implementation of assistive technology devices in the home and school

J. Evaluation Ability to evaluate instructional progress and effectiveness of assistive technology devices

Note. From The OLD Competencies for Teachers of Students with Learning Disabilities, by A. Graves, M. F. Landers, J. Lokerson, J. Luchow, M. Horvath, and K. Garnett, 1992. Reston, VA: Division for Learning Disabilities Council for Exceptional Children. Copyright 1992 by CEC. Adapted with permission. Teacher Competencies by H. F. Thibodeaux III, In J. D. Lindsey (Ed.), Computers and exceptional individuals. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

ing the new curriculum into existing course structures. The availability of state certification or endorsement areas in assistive technology may influence the direction many instructors will pursue in organizing an AT curricu-lum for their current teacher-training program. Also, consideration must be given to providing training opportu-nities for preservice educators in gen-eral as well as special education. Two such organizational possibilities, and

the associated learning experiences, are now described.

Developing Courses. Instructors may choose to create new assistive technology courses that students who are majoring in special or general edu-cation could take to supplement other coursework. These courses could cor-respond to state endorsement require-ments in assistive technology, if such an option exists. Courses could provide

a comprehensive overview of assistive technology and a skill-building inter-active approach for teaching preservice educators ways in which assistive tech-nology can be used in classroom, vo-cational, and postsecondary settings. Depending on teacher competencies, objectives, and curricula, courses might include Introduction to Assistive Technology, Curricular Integration of Assistive Technology, and an Intern-ship in Assistive Technology.




A variety of learning experiences could be planned from which students would develop knowledge and skill in course objectives. The Introduction to Assistive Technology course and the Curricular Integration of Assistive Technology course could involve labo-ratory work, observations, and inter-agency partnerships. For example, site agreements could be arranged with various agencies that work with cli-ents who use AT devices (e.g., reha-bilitation centers, public schools, schools for individuals with sensory disabilities), allowing students oppor-tunities to observe and document uses of AT devices, interactions between agency personnel and clients, the inte-gration of AT devices into different settings, and client interactions with devices and the environment. If labo-ratory settings containing various assistive devices are available, then students could tour the facilities, observe demonstrations of hardware and software, interact with the devices and hardware, document their find-ings (such as purpose of the device, how it is used, how it promotes acces-sibility, cost), and share their infor-mation with other students in class. Another use of laboratory settings might involve using hardware and software to complete course assign-ments. Students could develop lessons demonstrating how they would teach youngsters to use AT devices, such as a word-prediction program or a speak-

and-spell instrument, and then design lessons that demonstrated an instruc-tional objective, a teaching activity, and use of the AT device. The purpose of these tasks would be to provide skill-building opportunities for students to interact with hardware and software.

An Internship in Assistive Technol-ogy could be another valuable oppor-tunity for students to learn firsthand about the many uses of assistive tech-nology and the services that are avail-able to link clients with devices and funding resources. Different settings might be identified to which students would be assigned for a designated time period, for instance, public school classrooms, university or community college offices for students with dis-abilities, rehabilitation centers, and schools for individuals with sensory disabilities. At these various sites, stu-dents might be assigned to serve in a variety of roles, such as working one-on-one with children or clients, teach-ing small-group activities, working in laboratory settings to assist adults with postsecondary assignments, working as assistants, and so forth.

Preservice teachers should have opportunities to work with master teachers who have demonstrated ef-fective practices of infusing classroom instruction with AT. Internships should include participation in staff-ing committees that make AT deci-sions, collaboration with other profes-sionals and families, and participation

TABLE 2 Development of Objectives

Teacher competency Knowledge of federal legislation and state policies for identifying and using assistive

technology devices with individuals who have disabilities

Objectives Students will explain pertinent federal legislation by stating the purpose and potential

benefits for individuals with disabilities. Students will explain state policies by stating the purpose and potential benefits for

individuals with disabilities. Students will describe how federal legislation and state policies are being

operationalized in their school districts. Students will describe the barriers and possible solutions to implementing federal

legislation and state policies.

in transition team meetings. These experiences could assist preservice teachers in developing a comprehen-sive understanding of how AT devices are used by students and how profes-sionals work effectively with young-sters to promote accessibility to in-struction.

The common thread is that, in each instance, students are actively engaged in natural settings with children or clients who use assistive technology devices and services to accomplish tasks. Although the logistics (e.g., iden-tifying sites; establishing roles for stu-dents, personnel at the sites, and uni-versity instructors; developing flexible scheduling options; dealing with lia-bility issues) of establishing intern-ships might be cumbersome at first, (a) these internships prove mutually beneficial for preservice teachers and agency personnel, (b) students learn about assistive technology from first-hand experiences in a variety of set-tings, and (c) agency personnel gain additional assistance at a time when extra staff and resources may be dwin-dling or limited.

Integrating Curricula Into Existing Courses. A second approach to as-sistive technology instruction focuses on integrating the AT curriculum into appropriate existing courses. The ad-vantage of this approach is that the connection between assistive technol-ogy devices and services and educa-tional programming for individuals with LD becomes apparent. The dis-advantage is that instructors will have to make decisions about content that must be excluded so the new AT cur-riculum can be incorporated. And, as Bruder (1989) noted, the time required to cover the scope of (assistive) tech-nology content can be a barrier to in-corporating technology curricula into current teacher training programs.

In most teacher preparation pro-grams that focus on developing com-petencies in learning disabilities, there are core courses that students must take and in which an assistive tech-nology curriculum could be integrated.




TABLE 3 Examples of Curricula

General knowledge • Laws associated with assistive technology: IDEA, ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

Act • Definition of assistive technology • Compensatory uses of assistive technology • Competencies or skills needed by students to use assistive technology • Life span focus of assistive technology

Assessment and identification • Assessing functional abilities of students and matching assistive technology devices

accordingly • Planning for assistive technology needs in staffing committees

Curricular integration and instruction • Incorporation of technology into existing instruction • Use of computer-assisted instruction and computer-managed instruction • Telecommunications and multimedia

Devices and services • Assistive technology for writing problems: spell checker, grammar checker, word

prediction, word processing, speech synthesis, speech recognition, outliners, promoted writing, speech input

• Assistive technology for reading problems: optical character recognition systems, books on tape, speech synthesis

• Assistive technology for math problems: calculators, tutorial software, graphing software • Assistive technology for reasoning problems: computer-assisted instruction • Assistive technology for organizational problems: calendar and scheduling software,

personal information manager, free-form databases • Decisions regarding selection of appropriate technology (transdisciplinary evaluation,

software and hardware, context of use, compatibility, ease of use, reliability, and cost are but a few)

• Keyboarding, touch typing, and the use of the mouse • Use of technology for access to information, including CD-ROMs, online encyclopedias,

newspapers, and other information • Life skills technology: bank teller machines, checkbook software, and address-book

software • Communicative devices: speech synthesizers, speech to print, print to computers,

scanners • Alternate keyboards: touch screen, switches, keyguard, voice-activated • Software: tutorial, drill-and-practice, simulation

Collaborative partnerships • Working with families • Working with school professionals • Working with agency professionals

Funding and resources • Information regarding funding of assistive technology • Sources of more information on specific pieces of technology: Trace Research and

Development Center, Hyper-Abledata CD-ROM, Closing the Gap Annual Resource Directory

For example, an introductory course covering legislation that affects indi-viduals with disabilities could include a discussion about the Tech Act, in addition to discussions about other laws, such as IDEA, the Rehabilita-tion Acts, and ADA. The inclusion of technology wording in the 1992 Reha-bilitation Act Amendments, the allu-sion to technology devices and services in ADA, and the passage of a law de-voted entirely to technology (the Tech Act) clearly signify the importance placed on the potential benefits of AT for individuals with disabilities, which warrants discussion as a part of any legislative curriculum in an introduc-tory course.

Assessment courses are another ex-ample of where an assistive technol-ogy curriculum might be included. Typically, in assessment courses, dis-cussions cover the roles of various professionals in the assessment pro-cess; the types of data collected on individual students and clients; the types of assessment instruments used; the ecological nature of assessment; issues pertaining to reliability and validity; the interpretation of test re-sults; and resultant IEP goals, objectives, and educational programming. Also, practical experiences with administer-ing and interpreting tests might be included in the course. Assessment procedures and issues pertaining to assistive technology could be easily integrated into this type of curricu-lum. For instance, discussions about the assessment roles of various pro-fessionals, such as the speech and lan-guage pathologist and occupational therapist, could be extended to include assessing clients' strengths and weak-nesses and potential matches to AT devices. As part of the assessment process, preservice teachers could learn about various factors that might affect assistive technology assessments and interventions. Church and Glen-nen (1992) discussed cognitive and motor factors that must be considered when making matches between in-dividual needs and AT devices. For instance, individuals with memory

deficits may have difficulties with re-membering directions, following multi-step operations, spelling, or comput-ing basic math facts. Other problems might include reading difficulties and fine-motor coordination. Preservice teachers would learn how profession-als who are engaged in a multidis-ciplinary assessment of an individual

ascertain not only appropriate edu-cational interventions, but also the role that assistive technology could play in helping the individual com-pensate for his or her specific disabili-ties.

Various professionals, or an assess-ment team, could be invited to class to discuss the types of data collected,




clinical observation techniques em-ployed, and instruments administered to develop a profile of a child or client who is a potential candidate for assistive technology devices. Addition-ally, this team might address some of the issues pertaining to reliability and validity when matching individual needs to devices, and to ways in which devices and services are addressed on Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSPs), Individualized Education Pro-grams (IEPs), and Individualized Tran-sition Plans (ITPs).

Methods courses are a third area in which an assistive technology curricu-lum could be integrated. Methods courses pertaining to learning disabili-ties usually are structured according to academic content areas and include elements of instructional and curricu-lar design. Because curricular and in-structional integration of assistive technology devices is such an impor-tant topic, infusing a methodology class with this information seems like a logical plan. The curricular elements listed under "Devices and Services'' in Table 3 could be easily integrated into a methodology class that ad-dresses interventions for specific aca-demic areas. For instance, as a part of reading methodology, instructors could discuss or demonstrate AT de-vices that could help students com-pensate for reading disabilities.

Another example might be the incor-poration of assistive technology de-vices into written expression methodol-ogy discussions. For example, the speak-and-spell instrument is a good example of a medium-tech device that corrects faulty spelling, is portable, and helps students with spelling problems move beyond this type of written lan-guage impediment. Students would learn not only about various remedial and strategic interventions for teach-ing written expression but also about AT devices that could be used to help children overcome spelling problems, for instance, and focus more on the substance of the written product.

Learning experiences in methods classes might include evaluating soft-

ware and multimedia (e.g., CD-ROMs) that purport to assist children with spe-cific problems; working with young-sters who use AT to compensate for various academic problems; and de-signing lessons in which the use of assistive technology is tailored to in-dividual learning needs. Case studies could be used to promote skill in ana-lyzing the functional abilities of the student involved, identifying AT de-vices that could be used to compen-sate for a learning disability, identi-fying environmental arrangements, and planning small-group lessons that integrate the devices. Videos of indi-viduals using AT devices in different settings (e.g., classroom, job site) could be presented, whereby students would be asked to describe how the devices help individuals compensate for dis-abilities, how they are integrated into various settings, and what barriers are overcome by using them.

Two examples of ways to incorpo-rate assistive technology into teacher preparation programs were presented. Certainly, other options exist, and their use will depend on each institution's teacher preparation program structure, certification areas, and intra- and in-terdepartmental collaboration. Train-ing should be available for special and general preservice educators in the form of specific courses on assistive technology and/or existing courses that integrate technologies into the curricu-lum. Finally, the curriculum should be evaluated to determine its effec-tiveness in developing teacher com-petencies in the application of assistive technologies with individuals who have learning (and other) disabilities.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Curriculum

The final step in curriculum design is determining the effectiveness of the curriculum and learning experiences in promoting mastery of objectives and teacher competencies in AT. The ma-jor questions in this step of curricu-lum design are as follows:

1. Are preservice teachers mastering teacher competencies in assistive tech-nology?

2. Is the AT curriculum affecting ways in which teachers work with students who use assistive technologies to compensate for learning disabilities?

3. Is the AT curriculum relevant and valid for achieving the desired out-come of students' being able to use assistive technologies to compensate for specific learning disabilities in various environmental settings?

Question 1 relates to the degree to which preservice teachers master assis-tive technology objectives and the com-petencies designated for AT courses or for courses in which AT content is integrated. Mastery of objectives can be measured in typical formats, such as course assignments, class discus-sion, examinations, and field-based experiences.

To evaluate the effectiveness of the assistive technology curriculum in a teacher preparation program, answers to Questions 2 and 3 must be sought. These answers can be obtained in sev-eral ways. First, instructors can col-laborate with public school personnel to determine the degree to which teachers are capable of assessing the need for AT, integrating AT, and evaluating the effects of AT. The de-velopment of university and public school partnerships in designing and evaluating assistive technology cur-ricula will go a long way toward estab-lishing a relevant and valid AT teacher preparation program. Second, instruc-tors can link with rehabilitation coun-selors or centers and colleagues to investigate current technological de-velopments and the ways in which those developments benefit individ-uals with learning disabilities, which should assist instructors in assessing the relevancy of their AT curriculum.

As assistive technology develop-ments take place and research find-ings on the effects of these technologies on one's ability to compensate for learn-ing disabilities emerge, teacher prepa-ration curricula will need to be reeval-




uated and modified. University and agency partnerships can help instruc-tors maintain an updated AT curricu-lum and include learning experiences that will promote mastery of teacher competencies.

Barriers and Solutions

If preservice teachers are to become competent in the use of assistive tech-nologies in instruction, (a) students and faculty must have access to the assistive technology hardware and software, (b) faculty should be com-fortable with use of the assistive technologies in their courses, and (c) adequate resources are available to support training endeavors. A num-ber of barriers may be encountered in the incorporation of assistive technol-ogy into a teacher preparation pro-gram; we now discuss barriers that we have encountered in our own ef-forts (Resta, 1993). Undoubtedly, there are many other barriers; we have cho-sen to discuss only those with which we are familiar, and to offer solutions based on our experiences. The follow-ing section discusses barriers and sug-gests some possible solutions.

Barriers

The development of an assistive technology component for a teacher preparation program involves time, commitment, and resources. Faculty members may be devoted to such an undertaking yet lack the resources and support necessary for achieving a com-prehensive teacher preparation compo-nent. Three barriers in particular im-pede faculty's ability to provide the types of training necessary to prepare teachers of students with LD to work effectively with assistive technologies: access to technology, limited faculty development opportunities, and lack of incentives.

Limited Access to Technology. Paradoxically, faculty and students in teacher preparation programs often

have less access to technology than is available to students in public schools. Contributing to this problem is the lim-ited equipment funding allocated to many colleges and departments of education. It is not unusual for col-leges of education to be at the bottom of the university equipment funding priority list—despite the fact that, in many instances, the college of educa-tion generates the largest student credit-hour production (and therefore funding) for the university. In addi-tion, the state formula for education professional development programs may be underfunded compared to other professional development pro-grams (e.g., business, nursing, law) and/or underbudgeted compared to other programs within the college or university (Resta, 1993).

Limited Faculty Development Op-portunities. Another challenge of in-tegrating assistive technologies in the preservice program is the lack of fac-ulty training and technical support within many colleges of education. Faculty need time and technical sup-port to explore the new assistive tech-nology devices and software pro-grams, and to develop competencies in infusing instruction with the de-vices and programs. Special depart-mental, college, or university-based resource and support centers are needed to help provide these services; in turn, the establishment of such cen-ters requires adequate funding.

Lack of Faculty Incentives. There are often few incentives for faculty to infuse assistive technologies into the preservice curriculum (U. S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 1995). Efforts by individual faculty members to integrate assistive tech-nology into courses typically are not valued or considered important by the college and university administration when making merit, promotion, and tenure decisions. Also, course release time may not be available for those who contribute significant amounts of time to the development of lab facili-

ties and new curricular development. Consequently, there is little reason for faculty members to make a major in-vestment of their time in attempting to infuse their teacher preparation courses with AT. It is clear that fac-ulty efforts in the infusion of assistive technologies must be recognized and rewarded by the system.

Solutions

Overcoming barriers to the incor-poration of assistive technologies into teacher preparation programs requires that the faculty use a number of strat-egies to increase levels of understand-ing and commitment by the college and university administration, as well as by the state commission for higher education and the legislature. In par-ticular, obtaining funding for assistive technologies is a challenging task dur-ing this time of increased demand and diminishing financial resources in higher education. Following are pos-sible strategies and solutions for over-coming the identified barriers.

Development of a Technology Plan. The development of a compre-hensive technology plan that docu-ments the need for assistive tech-nologies in the teacher preparation program is a good beginning. This plan should clearly define program objec-tives, identify the role that technol-ogy will play in the program, and iden-tify the specific hardware/software/ facility requirements for the program. The technology plan also should in-clude a description of the tasks and timelines for accomplishing the plan, including provisions for faculty train-ing and technical support. Whenever possible, the plan should be integrated into college-wide or university plan-ning efforts.

The first step in developing a plan is to identify strategies, goals, and objectives, and the second step is to develop a plan of action. An example of a technology plan is provided in Table 4, and the accompanying plan of action is shown in Table 5. This




particular plan is intended to address all program areas (e.g., general spe-cial education of which learning dis-abilities is a component, special edu-cation rehabilitation, developmental disabilities).

Field-Based Programs. The barrier of limited access to technology can be partially addressed via the establish-ment of field-based teacher education programs. Increasingly, a national trend is for colleges of education to implement field-based teacher educa-tion programs, commonly called Pro-

fessional Development Schools (PDSs), that are housed at off-campus school sites. These field-based programs pro-vide most of the professional develop-ment courses and clinical experiences at the off-campus site. The growing trend toward implementing PDSs pro-vides an opportunity to base some components of the teacher prepara-tion program at a school site where substantial assistive technology facili-ties are in place and staff have high levels of expertise. Potential sites in-clude schools in large, urban districts with extensive assistive technology

TABLE 4 Sample Technology Plan: Strategies and Goals

Assistive Technology Plan We will infuse undergraduate-level course curricula with assistive

technology. Increase knowledge and competency of assistive technology among all

special education undergraduate generic certification seekers Increase knowledge of assistive technology among all general education

elementary and secondary certification seekers

Strategy 1.0:

Goal (1.1):

Goal (1.2):

Strategy 2.0:

Goal (2.1):

Goal (2.2):

Goal (2.3):

Goal (2.4):

Strategy 3.0:

Goal (3.1): Goal (3.2):

Strategy 4.0:

Goal (4.1): Goal (4.2) Goal (4.3)

Strategy (5 0):

Goal (5.1):

Goal (5.2):

Strategy 6.0 Goal (6.1):

Goal (6.2):

We will incorporate assistive technology into graduate level-course curricula.

Develop assistive, informational, and instructional technology course competencies

Work collaboratively with special education (SED) faculty to implement a technology plan

Begin teaching a graduate-level course on assistive technology in the spring semester

Require prerequisite competencies (i.e., computer literacy self-paced/ nongraded module or comparable course) for enrollment into the assistive technology graduate course

We will establish, maintain, and integrate a Special Education Technology Lab into the College of Education.

Implement procedures to operate the lab Support undergraduate and graduate assistive technology instruction in

the College of Education (COE)

We will have SED faculty who are computer literate and knowledgeable in assistive, informational, and instructional technology.

Survey faculty to determine their interest in technology training Use technology to enhance instruction for persons with special needs Identify resources for faculty training and involvement in assistive

technology

We will provide assistive technology information and services to COE faculty as requested.

Provide information to faculty concerning technology adaptations and modifications for students with disabilities

Make available to COE faculty assistive technology instructional modules

We will secure funding to accomplish the strategies in this plan. Identify financial, personnel, and other resources within the department,

COE, and university to fund the technology plan Write grants

resources, facilities, and staff compe-tent in their use, and regional schools or centers established by a consortium of small school districts to provide educational services to students with special needs.

The development of the field-based programs requires college faculty to develop the courses and field experi-ences in partnership with the collabo-rating school staff. This cooperative planning should ensure that the pro-gram meets required standards and provides mutual benefits to preservice students and faculty and to students and teachers in the participating schools.

Faculty Development. The college or university needs to recognize the importance of providing staff devel-opment for faculty in the use of the new assistive technologies. This can be accomplished via workshops con-ducted by faculty who are using assistive technologies in their courses. Other resources and sources of exper-tise for faculty development work-shops are (a) teachers who effectively use assistive technologies with stu-dents who have learning and other disabilities, (b) experts from state and local agencies, and (c) vendors of assis-tive technology hardware and software.

In addition to staff development, there is also a need for one-on-one training and technical support to as-sist faculty in implementing the new technologies. This may be made avail-able at the college or departmental level by personnel knowledgeable in the application of the specific assistive technologies and who are allocated time to provide the needed assistance. For example, The University of Texas at Austin's College of Education estab-lished the Learning Technology Cen-ter to help address these needs. The center manages and supports the col-lege assistive technology laboratory, instructional computer labs, computer network system, and multimedia labo-ratory. It also provides group and one-on-one training and technical support for both faculty and students.




TABLE 5 Sample Technology Action Plan

Project Activity description Resources

Surveys

Report on survey results

Competencies

Courses

Modules

SED Technology Lab

SED faculty

COE faculty

Development of technological resources

Funding

University of Texas students, parents, teachers, public school students with disabilities, service center personnel, faculty, TATP advisory group, vocational/rehabilitation centers, Texas Education Agency

Faculty: opinions on technology plan, interest in integrating technology into coursework, interest in using technology, and interest in training

Develop report that documents results from various surveys, to be made available to SED faculty and others

Prepare list of competencies from survey results for course infusion or development:

Undergraduate competencies for AT: SED General education: secondary and elementary

Graduate competencies: AT/informational/instructional Prerequisite computer literacy competencies

Undergraduate: Add AT requirements to courses: ALD 322, ALD 326, SED 675, EDC 371

Graduate: Develop course: SED 393 (syllabus, curricula, etc.) Develop doctoral seminar

Topics Technology knowledge for general and special educators (Introduction/field experiences),

basic skills Low communicative competence Sensory and motor disabilities Basic skills Overview/knowledge

Evaluation

Purchase, operate, and maintain equipment

Procure ongoing technical support

Establish policies and procedures for use

Determine coordinator

Secure funding to continue lab

Hire personnel to staff lab

Use as field site for COE courses

Train faculty

Offer overview session/inform faculty of current resources, advances, etc.

Lobby for representative on committee for technology/students with disabilities

Participate in community, conferences, TAM

Provide information about technology adaptations and modifications

Make instructional modules available

Develop AT, instructional, and informational technology library

Purchase hardware, software, AT, videos, etc.

Become involved in Learning Technology Center (interactive media)

Become involved in software preview center

Become involved in telecomm./distance learning

Become involved in public schools (research)

Use agencies to establish field experiences

Identify financial resources to fund plan

Grant funding

Materials $




Faculty Incentives. Incentives are needed to encourage faculty to use the new technologies. Results from a re-cent survey of colleges of education underscore that incentives spur fac-ulty to invest time in integrating tech-nology into their instruction. Efforts should be made at the college and university levels to include as criteria for merit, promotion, and tenure the use of technology in instruction. In addition, the administration should recognize that it takes time for faculty to learn to use the hardware and soft-ware and to integrate assistive tech-nologies into their courses. Release time should be provided by the col-lege for faculty with well-defined plans for the redesign or development of new courses using assistive technol-ogy. Such incentives and resources can greatly accelerate the integration of assistive technologies into the pre-service program.

Funding Resources. Obtaining ade-quate funding is an obvious solution to the barriers presented in this ar-ticle. For example, appropriate fund-ing could be used to purchase needed hardware and software, establish cen-ters for faculty and support, and pro-vide training opportunities. Typically, university administrations have lim-ited funding available to address the many internal demands for resources. In order for the college or university administration to assign a higher pri-ority to funding assistive technologies, they must become aware of local, state, and national trends in the use of as-sistive technology to enhance learn-ing for individuals with disabilities. It is often useful to enlist the assistance of outside constituent organizations (e.g., parent groups, advocacy groups, public school technology personnel). It is also useful to initiate state-wide efforts to increase awareness by state education agency professionals, the commissioner of higher education, and legislators of the need for the integra-tion of assistive technologies into ex-isting preservice programs, and to take steps to increase support for such pro-

grams. Such efforts are best accom-plished through the leadership and advocacy of a state professional asso-ciation. Additionally, students express-ing the need to be better prepared in technology might serve as an influen-tial incentive for administrators to address funding issues more ade-quately (Resta, 1993).

Usually, the administration will give greater credence to a need if it is also expressed by influential organizations and agencies outside the institution. Thus, faculty may wish to enlist the assistance and advocacy of special education divisions of public schools, state rehabilitation departments, state or local professional associations, and state schools for individuals with disabilities. There are also external sources of funding that may be con-sidered for the acquisition of assistive technology resources. At the national level, federal support for technology in colleges of education has been lim-ited (U.S. Congress Office of Technol-ogy Assessment, 1995). However, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilita-tive Services has several grant pro-grams that include the acquisition of technology in support of the proposed project objectives. Examples of grant programs (pending funding) that might be considered include the fol-lowing:

• Special projects to develop and dem-onstrate new approaches for the pre-service and inservice teacher train-ing (U. S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, 1992);

• Technology, educational media, and materials to support projects to ad-vance the availability, quality, use, and effectiveness of technology and media in the education of children and youth with disabilities;

• Research in the education of in-dividuals with disabilities: field-initiated research grants that sup-port applied research in education;

• Short-term and long-term training in undergraduate education in reha-bilitative services;

• Experimental and innovative proj-ects to develop new types of train-ing programs and demonstrate their effectiveness, and to develop new methods of training rehabilitation personnel; and

• Programs to support the develop-ment, demonstration, evaluation, and dissemination of inservice train-ing models to prepare personnel to serve infants, toddlers, and pre-schoolers with disabilities.

The faculty also should explore other funding resources that may exist from the state education or rehabilitation agencies, as well as a number of pri-vate funding sources. A review of The Foundation Directory (Foundation Cen-ter, 1994) or other sources of informa-tion related to foundation funding priorities is available in most univer-sity libraries and can be used to help make initial contacts with foundations or funding agencies. Faculty should first contact the foundation's program officer to explore potential interest in the proposed project by the founda-tion. If there is sufficient interest in the concept, a proposal (based on for-mat requirements of the agency) may then be prepared and submitted to the funding agency. External funding can provide some of the resources needed for the acquisition of assistive tech-nologies and their incorporation into the preservice program.

Conclusions

The use of assistive technology to promote curricular and environmen-tal access for students with learning disabilities holds great promise. Re-search is emerging that demonstrates the effectiveness of various AT devices in helping individuals to compensate for specific learning disabilities and thus promote more curricular and in-structional access for these youngsters (Higgins & Raskind, 1995). Federal legislation mandates access to AT de-vices for students with disabilities, and school district personnel must deter-




mine students ' technology needs and address those needs in their IEPs. Cer-tainly, the pervasive use of some AT devices, such as spell checkers, calcu-lators, alternative keyboards , voice synthesizers, and scanners, necessitates the implementation of AT curricula in teacher preparat ion programs to develop the knowledge, skill, and ap-plication levels of teachers who work with students who would benefit from or already have access to devices and services. Although some barriers exist to infusing teacher preparation pro-grams with an AT curriculum, instruc-tors and administrators, if committed to this endeavor, can identify ways to overcome some of these barriers and secure the necessary funding and re-sources to accomplish the tasks.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Diane Pedrotty Bryant is an assistant pro-fessor in the Department of Special Education at The University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Bryant serves as the coordinator for the Assistive and Instructional Technology Lab. Her research interests include instructional interventions and technology-related instruc-tion for students with learning disabilities in general and special education settings. Jane Erin is an associate professor in the Depart-ment of Special Education and Rehabilitation at the University of Arizona. Her research fo-cuses on individuals with visual impairments, and she is the author of articles and book chap-ters in the field of vision. Robin Lock is an assistant professor in special education at Texas Tech University. Her research interests include instruction for children with learning disabili-ties, educating preservice teachers, and utiliz-ing technology to enhance instruction for students with special needs in general educa-tion classrooms. James M. Allan is the in-structional technology coordinator for the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired. He has worked with assistive technology for all disabilities for 15 years. Paul E. Resta is a professor of instructional technology and di-rector of the Learning Technology Center in the College of Education at The University of Texas at Austin. His research interests are in the areas of computer-supported collaborative

learning environments and the use of telecom-munications as a support system for teachers. Address: Diane Pedrotty Bryant, The Univer-sity of Texas, Department of Special Educa-tion, College of Education, Austin, TX 78712.

REFERENCES

Armstrong, D. G. (1989). Developing and documenting the curriculum. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bateman, B. (1994). Who, how and where: Special education's issues in perpetuity. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 509-520.

Bruder, I. (1989). Future teachers: Are they prepared? Electronic Learning, 8(A), 32-39.

Church, G., & Glennen, S. (1992). The hand-book of assistive technology. San Diego: Singular.

Foundation Center. (1994).The foundation directory. New York: Columbia Univer-sity Press.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309.

Graves, A., Landers, M. F., Lokerson, J., Luchow, J., Horvath, M, & Garnett, K. (1992). The DLD competencies for teachers of students with learning disabilities. Reston, VA: Division for Learning Disabilities Council for Exceptional Children.

Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (1994). Toward a culture of disability in the after-math of Deno and Dunn. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 496-508.

Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (1995). Compensatory effectiveness of speech recognition on the written composition performance of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Dis-ability Quarterly, 18, 159-174.

Higgins, K., & Boone, R. (1990). Hypertext computer study guides and the social studies achievement of students with learning disabilities, remedial students, and regular education students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 529-540.

International Society for Technology in Education. (1992). NCATE approved cur-riculum guidelines for educational comput-ing and technology. Eugene, OR: Author.

Jones, K. M., Torgesen, J. K., & Sexton, M. A. (1987). Using computer guided prac-

tice to increase decoding fluency in learn-ing disabled children: A study using the Hint and Hunt I program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 122-128.

Lewis, R. B. (1993). Special education technol-ogy: Classroom applications. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

MacArthur, C. (1994). Beyond word pro-cessing: Computer support for writing processes. LD Forum, 19(1), 22-27.

Olson, R., Foltz, G., & Wise, B. (1986). Read-ing instruction and remediation with the aid of computer speech. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 18(2), 93-99.

Raskind, M. (1993). Assistive technology and adults with LD: A blueprint for ex-ploration and advancement. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 185-196.

Raskind, M., & Higgins, E. (1995). Effects of speech synthesis on the proofreading efficiency of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 141-158.

Resta, P. E. (1993). Training: Preservice edu-cation. The Electronic School (special is-sue of the American School Board Journal).

Roth, S. F., & Beck, I. L. (1987). Theoretical and instructional implications of the as-sessment of two microcomputer word recognition programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 197-218.

Technology-Related Assistance for Indi-viduals with Disabilities Act of 1988, 29 U.S.C. section 2201.

Thibodeaux, H. F., III. (1993). Teacher competencies. In J. D. Lindsey (Ed.), Com-puters and exceptional individuals (pp. 369-374). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Torgesen, J. K., Waters, M. D., Cohen, A. L., & Torgesen, J. L. (1988). Improving sight-word recognition skills in LD children: An evaluation of three computer pro-gram variations. Learning Disability Quar-terly, 11, 125-132.

U.S. Congress Office of Technology As-sessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Office of Special Education and Reha-bilitative Services. (1992). Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Educa-tion Act: Fourteenth annual report to Con-gress. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education

Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (1993). Curriculum development (4th ed.). New York: Merrill.



Download - Infusing a Teacher Preparation Program in Learning Disabilities with Assistive Technology

Top Related