Question: As we move into the 21st century, why are there still many challenges related to the use of assistive technology in helping students with disabilities succeed in the general education curriculum?
The challenges faced in implementing assistive technology in the general education classroom are multi-faceted and both unique to the Assistive Technology field while indicative of the broader difficulty in implementing any initiative in traditional classrooms. The grand irony is that the delineation between assistive technology and daily use technology has become blurred so that many of the innovative practices used in the past decade have become common place for all 21st century students, yet the field of education has not kept pace as a whole.
Many researchers cite teacher belief as the greatest barrier to advanced implementation of classroom technology. A 2003 Department of Education study showed 81% of schools have significant access to computers with no significant difference noted between school locales. That same report found 85% of teachers reported feeling prepared to use technology and the majority wanted to know about integration of technology into the classroom. Despite these improved trends, a 2002 Michigan Virtual University study found only one out of nine teachers (out of a 90,000 sample) stated they do advanced applications with technology in their classrooms. The vast majority noted they used technology for basic things such as word processing, checking e-mail, and web browsing. Of these activities, it was even fewer who employed these beyond their own personal use to assist students, and it was an extreme minority who incorporated advanced applications such as spreadsheets, databases, or presentation software in their instruction. For a more complete review of these statistics and the implications for teacher beliefs on technology, see Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39 and Hokanson, B., & Hooper, S. (2004). Integrating technology in classrooms: We have met the enemy and he is us. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Chicago, IL, October 19-23. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED485143)
These researchers note that the daily use of common societal technology applications falls short for all students, so why would we expect it to be any different for specialized applications like Assistive Technology?
The Oklahoma Disability Law Center cited resources as the greatest barrier to broad acceptance and support of classroom based Assistive Technology. For a full review, see
http://home.flash.net/~odlcokc/sept1598.html. With so many schools having access to technology and teachers self-reporting their feeling or preparedness, the resources that seems most culpable are time and money. Teachers do not have the time to a) fully understand the alternative technologies, b) they do not have the time to plan lessons that incorporate technology beyond a cursory manner, c) they do not have the time to learn complicated AT devices, and d) districts do not have the funding resources to provide adequate training and staffing to make using and understanding all school technologies efficient.
President Bush has just submitted his 2009 education budget, and for the fifth year in a row he has provided zero funding for the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program; in fact he has made very little increases in education spending at all and not enough to keep pace with inflation. (See the 2/5 article at eSchoolnews.com here:
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=52184;_hbguid=4b19a27d-ca7a-44c8-8017-708f16021d12). This of course creates a trickle down effect as the sluggish economy has already instilled panic among state legislatures. More than half of the states are projecting overall education cuts, and that puts funding for both professional development and supports to better utilize all technologies at risk. (See 2/14 eSchoolnews.com article on this topic here: http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/?i=52396;_hbguid=5be3e51b-4037-4454-a903-699796d56ebe.)
The field has already noted, repeatedly, the need for enhanced training, monitoring, and an infrastructure that promotes supported use and meaningful integration of all technology, including specialized Assistive Techs, in order to get beyond the current status quo of basic computer use. (See the work of David Houchins for more; especially 2001 Assistive Technology Barriers and Facilitators During Secondary and Post-Secondary Transitions.) These things of course require resource commitments, yet the evidence unfortunately suggests we will backslide as the proverbial belt gets tightened further and education falls back on their tried and true methods. And that is what brings us full-circle to the reason why there are still many challenges in using AT to support students in the general education classroom.
It has been demonstrated that teachers have facility with basic technology. Items such as word processing, basic web use, and e-mail repeatedly fall into the self-reported areas of comfort. The picture gets decidedly murkier when applications such as video or digital media are assessed, data and presentation software are examined, or specialized equipment like Alternative and Augmentative Communication devices are considered. That is why so often the same types of Assistive Technologies are the first choices by IEP teams - the Alphasmart, though a handy tool, is not the answer for every student! But that type of AT will be better supported because it fits into the common schema for educators. AT, like so many other initiatives in special education, falls prey to the failure to make individualized decisions at the student level and instead try to make the student's needs fit into the current structure. (See Franklin, C.A. (2007). Factors that influence elementary teachers' use of computers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 267-293 and Tobias, J. (2003). Information technology and universal design: An agenda for accessible technology. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, October, 592-601 for more information.)
Ray Schroeder, University of Illinois at Springfield Director of Technology-Enhanced Learning and renowned expert in the field of computer science, noted in his 2/16 blog (http://people.uis.edu/rschr1/et/blogger.html)that the Age of the Computer was coming to an end. He was specifically discussing the failed delivery of the One Laptop Per Child Program. Schroder noted the rise of new technologies, specifically the cell phone, as the heir apparent to technological supports and connections for students. He is right, but instead of educators being at the forefront of this movement, we will be trying to catch up as our students have already moved on to instantaneous media and information at the tips of their fingers through their iPods, Zunes, social networking sites, and mobile phones and we're still trying to teach them basic Word Perfect. The best hope for the future is that these new technologies that are becoming typical of daily life are being designed with a universal support perspective, so perhaps the need for Assistive Technology will be less as common technology encompasses more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Thanks Amy for the help with the post. I now have access to it! If anyone wrote a response to the copy posted on the ELC or e-mailed and would like me to copy it here, I'll gladly do that.
Thank you,
Chris
In an article concerning re-examining the role of assistive technology in learning (http://www.closingthegap.com/lib/pdf/2007/Dec-Jan/ATInDepth.pdf), Dr.Dave Edyburn suggests that we are still slow to consider AT when designing interventions for students. He compares the case of a child who has lost his right arm in a farming accident to the case of a child who has failed to learn to read for four years. While we would quickly find ways to help the child write and type in the first case, we often continue to expect the second child to read by using the same visual, perceptual, and cognitive functions as everyone else. Dr. Edyburn suggests that we are slow to intervene , for the second child, to bypass the decoding aspects of reading (that he cannot master) in order to engage in the higher-order processes of extracting meaning from text.
He goes on to say that AT theorists suggest that we have a critical decision to make: remediate or compensate. AT times, compensation will mean that we realize that remediation has failed and that compensatory approached are needed to produce the desired level of performance. Perhaps every IEP should have to answer the “remediation or compensation” question at every meeting. That question would bring the team right into the consideration of AT much more automatically.
Edyburn also says that if we want to understand whether technology will enhance a student’s performance, we must measure performance with and without the technology over time. Only then can we really assess response to intervention.
In an article concerning re-examining the role of assistive technology in learning (http://www.closingthegap.com/lib/pdf/2007/Dec-Jan/ATInDepth.pdf), Dr.Dave Edyburn suggests that we are still slow to consider AT when designing interventions for students. He compares the case of a child who has lost his right arm in a farming accident to the case of a child who has failed to learn to read for four years. While we would quickly find ways to help the child write and type in the first case, we often continue to expect the second child to read by using the same visual, perceptual, and cognitive functions as everyone else. Dr. Edyburn suggests that we are slow to intervene , for the second child, to bypass the decoding aspects of reading (that he cannot master) in order to engage in the higher-order processes of extracting meaning from text.
He goes on to say that AT theorists suggest that we have a critical decision to make: remediate or compensate. AT times, compensation will mean that we realize that remediation has failed and that compensatory approached are needed to produce the desired level of performance. Perhaps every IEP should have to answer the “remediation or compensation” question at every meeting. That question would bring the team right into the consideration of AT much more automatically.
Edyburn also says that if we want to understand whether technology will enhance a student’s performance, we must measure performance with and without the technology over time. Only then can we really assess response to intervention.
Assistive technology is an uncomfortable place for many of our master teachers in the field of education. The students come to school at early ages much more technology literate than their teachers. Students are able to keep up with the world at large technology for their personal use i.e. cell phone, iPods, my Space, and u tube yet education expect them to come to school and use paper and pencil to work and learn. Students with disabilities are the students that require an IEP with accommodations and modifications to level the instructional playing field. However, technology for this group of students is in the dark ages. Assistive technology generally consists of communication boards, alpha-smarts, a classroom computer, and noise reduction devices to name a few. Recent research reviews have not collated the studies across disability and technology applications (Okolo & Bouck, 2006). The research to practice has to involve multiple disabilities and 21st century technology. However, the research can be done but the challenge related to the implementation of assistive technology primarily stems from a funding issue. The fact that education funds primarily come from a tax base has and will continue to constrain the forward movement of assistive technology for education.
As there are challenges educating our classroom teachers with technology and its effective use, I would also say that there are challenges ahead with educating parents of children with disabilities. Just like our teachers many parents do possess the basic technology skills of our present society- communicating by e-mail and doing basic word processing all our expectations of today’s workplace. Yet, many parents do not perceive or understand how technology applications are relevant to the development and learning of their own children (Behrmann, Jones, & Wilds, 1989). Several technology researchers speculate that parents may lack awareness of the benefits of technology in building overall educational development (Derer, Polsgrove, & Reith, 1996; Todis, 1996; Wehmeyer, 1999). This is certainly the case when the technology use moves into applications of interactive multimedia and distance learning (Hannafin, 2001).
As Kim and Chris note in their opening for the blog, providers of services to children with learning disabilities fall far short of recommending assistive technology (AT) and AT services. There are many reasons for this lack of service integration of technology but its impact has had a significant impact on how well and how easily students are engaged in the classroom. Further research is needed to enable us to better understand the problems and to help recommend and design methods to increase awareness of both parents and professionals. Is there one type of research-based service model that could work for this technology? Clearly, a more thorough investigation of the role parents and professionals play in promoting AT in our schools should be defined and studied.
Extensive costs and a host of related issues are associated with the use of AT. First, many web-based tools that are school-wide require hardware, software, wireless capabilities, security, digital content, professional development, on-going support, direct labor costs of installation, and purchasing and renewing licensees. When considered in its totality, it becomes difficult to provide the technology infrastructure and the tools to support all students. However, creative solutions for addrssing the funding issue raise additional challenges. For example, in a school serving a severely economically depressed neighborhood, staff maximized their fund-raising capacity to provide smart boards and laptops available to all classrooms, computer labs, content area coaches, technology support staff and professional development resulting in a technology-rich environment. (Identifying challenges to technology integration in math instruction, CITEd Research Center, 2006.) Yet, Lynne Schrum (http://edtechnot.com/notarticle902.html) in her discussion of challenges to technology in our schools, points out that some groups have expressed concern about commercialization and the effects and ethics of 1)using captive public school audiences to advertise products in return for money or products (McCarthy, 1995)and 2)administrators becoming the raisers of funds to provide technology in their schools. She challenges educators to work towards ethical and equitable use of technology in pedagogically strong ways.
Lynne Schrum also discusses "digital equity" as an additional challenge to technology in schools. Consider this, taken from Two challenges to technology in our schools: Commercialization and digital equity (Schrum, 2002):
We also recognize that the gap is more significant for students, schools and communities that are minority, rural, physically or mentally challenged, culturally or linguistically different, low socioeconomic status, or female. McAdoo asked fundamental questions about the digital divide,
The issue of equity now centers not on equality of equipment but on quality of use. The computers are there, yes, but what is the real extent of access? What kind of software is available? How much computer training are teachers getting? And are schools able to raise not just students’ level of technical proficiency, but also their level of inquiry, as advanced use of technology demands? (2000, p. 143-44)
Additionally, if students only perform drill and practice or remediation activities with the computer, they miss the opportunity to explore the synthesis, analysis, hypothesis testing, and problem solving activities that lead to higher order thinking, or for creative and imaginative uses of technology. Herbert Kohl, a well-known educational researcher, visited many inner-city schools looking at how computers are used and believes that "covert" racism limits the types of activities that children of color can accomplish on the computer (Reid, 2001). He stated, "…students in schools with predominately minority enrollments are more likely to use their state of the art technology for drill, practice and test-taking skills. Meanwhile, white students in more affluent communities are creating Web sites and multimedia presentations" (Kohl, cited in Reid, 2001, p. 16).
It is equally important to consider the challenge for females in this technology-dominated world. One of the most popular ad campaigns in the last two years is by Dell Computer with the young lad who says, "Dude, you’re getting a Dell." But consider the role of girls or women in those ads – the main appearance was for one to sit in a car and look impressed. Is it any wonder that the College Board reported that only 15% of those taking the Advanced Placement exam for computer science were girls (Gehring, 2001), 0r that the U.S. Department of Education reported that women received 27% of the computer science undergraduate degrees, a downward trend from the 37% in 1984. This is also a serious problem facing technology implementation.
These are excellent points that are being raised.
Diane - you are right that the critical question is whether AT is being used to compensate or remediate as Edyburn suggests, and I agree that the IEP team needs to consider that question. Practice seems to suggest a favoring of a compensation model - a student is given a device - for example an Alphasmart - and there is no monitoring of whether or not gains are being made or attempts to scaffold the student to a less intensive support. That reality exists that people give a device and hope the student will embrace it. And when the student does not use the device or demonstrate progress on the IEP goal, too many practitioners fall into the trap of saying, "Johnny just wasn't motivated to use it."
The implementation model - from time, money, training, direct instruction, reinforcement, and evaluation - must be clearly designed and monitored to effectively promote Assistive Technologies. As Mark and Colleen noted, that systemic support needs to in place at the school-level because so many children do not get the buy-in from their parents. The technical divide, both in terms of gender and SES as Pam noted, but also in terms of age demographics is huge. Children are naturally more fluent with technology than their parents, which can be intimidating to the family member who is supposed to model and reinforce the use of this Assistive Technology.
Likewise, as Collen stated, there is a disconnect between the plethora of daily living technology that consumers are using and the types of devices commonly employed as Assistive Tech.
How can we expect students who are using PDAs, cell phones with video and audio playback capability and text messaging to embrace a bulky LiteWriter or Alphasmart? Districts do because of the cost - both in terms of the hardware but in terms of trying to train and educate their staff members both in using those devices but also in supporting them.
As a field, we need to move beyond the mindset of self-guided users with regards to AT. We need to reframe our approach to say we will utilize these supports - for both compensation and remediation - but we will follow a systematic approach to training, use, and evaluation. We would not give an individual with an amputation an orthopedic device without intensive therapy and expect they would immediately compensate for the lost limb, nor would we give a struggling reader a Basal book and think that alone would remediate the problem, so why do we take this approach with Assistive Technology?
Good evening Bloggers. I wanted to chime in on several of the comments and intergrate a key concept from our reading assignment from Web 2.0 New Tools, New Schools.
The balance between the more advanced technologies for AT and the daily technology used by our school-aged students, may again marginalize students with disabilites. I read with interest the statistics on the percentage of households with computers and high speed internet access and although data was not presented on students with disabilities and those students of poverty and at-risk, I'm wondering if they have less access to today's available technologies. It would be interesting to see data disaggregated for students with disabilities and poverty. I quickly scanned the web for studies and didn't come up with any that collected these data. I suspect that 'digital equity'(Schrum, 2002) continues to be a huge issue for the students and families we serve.
Pam mentioned that Gehring (2004) highlighted the low percentage of females taking AP exams in technology. My son is a computer engineering major at a large college in his junior year and there are only three females in his class at this time. This does not bode well for the future of increasing females in the field.
Like Diane, Colleen, and Pam, Chris and I have more questions than answers.
Post from Monique
There are several factors that are related to why there are still challenges in using assistive technology in helping students with disabilities succeed in the general education classroom. The factors are: lack of knowledge, teacher attitudes, time, and resources.
Technology is constantly evolving. According to Lannan (2001), students must be equipped with the academic knowledge and technological skills that will allow them to be successful when they enter the workforce. Efforts to incorporate technology into instruction have emphasized teachers’ ability to operate computers without taking into account pedagogical issues involved in teaching and learning (Okojie & Olinzock, 2006).
A lot of teachers don’t have a clear understanding of assistive technology. Most teacher preparation programs do not provide instruction designed to teach teachers how to incorporate technology in instruction. Often times technology in used as an appendage at the end of a lesson. The lack of knowledge, in terms of incorporating assistive technology in instruction, contributes to teachers feeling overwhelmed and resistant to using assistive technology. When teachers perceive that they need additional training to use assistive technology and only a small number of their students are using assistive technology, they become less enthusiastic about using assistive technology.
Lack of time also contributes to teachers not being receptive to using assistive technology. According to Richards (2000), to use technology effectively requires time. Along with the responsibilities of classroom management, lesson planning, and record keeping, teachers don’t have the time to learn assistive technology, set up equipment, and plan for the use of assistive technology in their classrooms (Lee et.al, 2005).
Lack of resources such as: limited computers, outdated computers, and lack of personnel in school systems who are aware of the appropriate types and uses of assistive technology for students with disabilities are other factors that contribute to teachers not being receptive to using assistive technology. Lack of funding is often the culprit for the lack of resources.
Pam, you raised a very interesting point in how computers are used in inner city schools. When I taught at an inner city school in DCPS,my students, who were special needs students, were not given equal access to the computers.
The regular education students were allowed to use the computers. They engaged in drill and basic word processing activites. When my students were finally granted computer access, they were directed by the administration to use the outdated computers. The regular education students used the newer models like the Mac's.
I am enjoying reading all your comments. I have attempted to post my Blog response to question # 1 several times. I have asked for assistance from Amy and hopefully it will be posted by tomorrow. However, I would like to weigh in on the wonderful responses you have posted.
Assistive technology is an enhancement for students who would not otherwise have have access to the regular curriculum. It is not a supplementary aid. Assistive technology (AT) devices are defined (IDEA'97/ADA): " any item, piece of equipment or product....whether acquired, commercially, something modified, or custom made...that is used to increase, maintain, and/or improve the functional capaility of individuals with disablilites.
AT devices used to be very expensive more expensive. However, today there uis more affordable, more improved low-tech assistive technologies.
Post from Matilde
The purpose of Assistive Technology (AT) is to design tools/products that give additional accessibility to individuals with physical or cognitive disabilities. When considering the purpose of AT, Lewis and Swanson make a valid point that NCLB does not make AT a critical priority (www.naset.org/resources4specialed). Although standards to control the quality of AT products are being developed by NIMAS, the reality is that many schools systems are still struggling with issues of funding.
Although funds are scared, schools need to be vigilant about how to parcel out the various funding resources available through alternative programs. Ten years ago, few schools had internet access; affluent districts were twice more likely to have it than those schools serving the low income schools, whether urban or rural. However, in 1997, Congress approved the E-Rate program as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Education and Library Networks Coalition (EdliNC, NEA, 2008) The E-Rate program was launched through collaboration between the U.S. Government and private companies’ sponsorship, such as Best Buy, Cox Communications, Verizon, and ENA (a leading Managed Internet Service Provider). Through E-Rate, companies have provided deep discounts on telecommunications services to schools and libraries according to the state’s income index. As a result, many schools in various states have taken advantage of E-Rate supported connectivity by installing state-of-the art technology. For example, Roane County School district (West Virginia) gets an 80% discount rate, allowing it to connect its entire classroom with T1 lines. The money that the school saves from E-Rates has made it possible for the district to save money and to lower its student-to-computer ratio five to one. As a result, Roane has made significant improvement in all of the state exams (reading, math, social studies and science). Over the past decade, this school district has received over $400,000 in E-Rate funds (www.edlinc.org/resources).
Although Assistive Technology is often synonymous to IDEA, funding is not guaranteed. School systems and parents need to develop skills in locating alternative funding sources, what to do when applying for funding, how to use it, places to contact for more information and locate software and equipment that is appropriate for the learning needs of children. In spite of the dismal funding from IDEA and NCLB to school systems, it is essential for educators to become sophisticated in their quest to make technology possible for children with disabilities. E-Rate is just one example of a funding source that could enable the presence of more hardware and software in schools, especially when attempting to educate students with disabilities so that they can develop effective competitive skills in the 21st Century job market (www.pluk.ortAT1).
Matilde,
You are right that accessibility is a major issue, and unfortunately there is not true support from the federal government to make meaningful connectivity available to all of society. (See http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/?i=52205;_hbguid=e6ea0855-a347-4029-84b4-0e9a8650bc89&d=top-news for a discussion on the claims of the Bush administration versus a report by Educause as to how many communities really have access to broadband). That being said, several reports have noted the increased access to basic computers (though as Pam and Monique pointed out - people don't guarantee the performance quality).
See DOE, 2003 study mentioned in the initial post &
Dunleavy, M., Dextert, S., & Heinecket, W.F. (2007). What added valued does a 1:1 student to laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching and learning? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 440-452. – This offers an interesting evaluation of the ideal scenario with 1:1 access, yet there are still many shortcomings.
As is discussed by Dunleavy and colleagues, computer access alone is not enough, and this holds true for all aspects of Assistive Technology. Simply granting access without initial and ongoing training for all stakeholders impacted by that equipment is critical, yet many times, for a variety of reasons, a student or teacher is simply handed a device and someone thinks that is sufficient because access was granted. We need to move beyond simple accessibility to purpose and meaningful benefit. As you and Angela point out, that’s the true intent of Assistive Technology.
There are so many cool and exciting things out there on the horizon (see below for examples), but without the proper commitment of time, money, and personnel to train, monitor, and evaluate its use, all this technology will continue to be under utilized and amount to expensive desk weights.
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/?i=52160;_hbguid=044e7fd3-4957-4ef9-a09f-da890d965c99 – Discussion of classroom technology applications at the Florida Educational Technology Conference
http://www.nationaltechcenter.org/index.php/funding/2008-rfp/ - Call for proposals through “Technology in the Works” centering on effective demonstrations of Assistive Technology
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/?i=52228;_hbguid=95c64d10-fea6-43b5-9aa8-fb5c99472112 – Using cell phones as text to speech readers
In the response to question #1, Kim and Chris indicated through source data 1) that many researchers and others cite teacher belief and resources as the greatest barriers to advancing the implementation of classroom technology. In addition, it was noted that teachers have demonstrated facility with basic technology (i.e. word processing, web use, e-mail, etc.). This writer states further that overall teachers have only a basic knowledge of using assistive technology as an inclusive practice that will allow students with disabilities to access the regular environment. This writer contends that classroom teachers may not have a working definition and knowledge of assistive technology and its purpose. Further, teachers do not have a clear understanding of assistive technology and the challenges. Often they confuse assistive technology with the broad term technology or interchange the terms instructional and educational technology.
According to Schleff, (August/September 2007), Inclusive school communities: Accessible learning environments for all, (www.closingthegap.com/ ), the challenges for today�s teachers is every classroom has increasing numbers of students needing support that is beyond what is available as �standard� in the general classroom. The impact is compounded by funding caps on federal programs, an increasing shortage of qualified staff to provide specialized assistance, and the escalating expectations for student outcomes and teacher accountability. Common individual challenges for participation and learning are cognitive, social/emotional and physical/medical areas that compromise access to learning, life routines, communication and interpersonal skills of students with disabilities.
The Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (AT Act), defines a formal, legal definition of assistive technology that has remained consistent since the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Act of 1988 (The Tech Act). Assistive technology can include mobility devices (e.g. wheelchairs, walkers), hardware, software and peripherals that assist students with disabilities in accessing computers or other information technology (http://www.washington.edu./access/articles?1109).
As noted by Mundl and Redepenning (February/March, 2008), in And Watch the words appear, using the voice recognition device requires specific criteria for the potential user, as well as computer requirements and proper usage. Both the user and the classroom teacher would require training and constant practice. This could be a challenge if the classroom teacher is uncomfortable and unable to understand the concept. The potential for enhancing instruction would not be realized for the user (www.closingthegap.com/). By current estimates more than 4,000 assistive technologies have been designed for students and teachers. As with other technologies, training is essential for successful use. If the teachers do not understand the devices students are using in the classroom, the device is not effective and is a waste of time and money (http://www.educationworld.com/a_tech/tech/tech080.shtml).
Hey, blogging can be fun!
I found a blog that presents a diffeent perspective from young computer savvy teachers assigned to a technology-rich high school in Alexandria, Virginia who feel as though they have hit the "tech wall". They believed that an excess of technology has the effect of alienating them from their students. They also felt they were "sacrificing the creativity of their craft for the novelty of the newest gizmos". One teacher commented that "it's technology for the sake of technology-not what works or helps kids learn..." (See http:blogs.edweek.org/teachers/webwatch/2008/02/too_much_tech_at_gizmo_high.html)
Everyone has provided great insight. The challenge in teaching diabled students within the includion model will be how to make UDL accessible in the general education classroom. Across the US, the percentage of special needs students in an inclusive setting is rising, it is critical to allow these students to have access to the technology they need in order to be successful (www.unf.edu/tcavanau/presentations). Most classrooms have one or two computers at best, so how can teachers make technology available to those that needed the most? (www.ncddr.org/)
A second factor that need consideration is how can school systems bring parents into the loop of UDL/technology? Many students do not have access to technology at home; even if they do, many parents do not have the training to support their children with computer/software problems. All of the issues already mention need to have a forum of discussion among all members, including the parents.
Post a Comment