Assistive Technology Assessment Models
In this post I am trying to make sense of a bigger picture in the field
of assessment and implementation of assistive technology in the
education system. After reading articles and searching for a week, I
found so many interesting assistive technology models that are trying
to offer an effective procedure to IEP teams to implement AT into the
classrooms and curriculum and improve the learning curve of students
with disability. Morrison, 2007, introduces a very thorough framework to examine assistive technology assessment models.
Click
here to read a summary that I made of Morrison's paper. I tried to incorporate the relevant pieces of her paper into my findings (purple text).
The benefits of computer technology have transformed the academic experience for students with learning problems. The use of screen readers, voice recognition technology, optical character recognition, spell check and word prediction technologies provide students with independent access to the curriculum where access would otherwise have been difficult, if not impossible. The use of this technology is designed to establish equal access to learning opportunities and to support for those with learning problems (Morrison, 2007. P. 83).
While it is recognized that Assistive Computer Technology (ACT) can have a positive impact on learning for students with learning problems, the process for the integration of assistive technology into the curriculum is more complex. A well documented gap exits between the potential of ACT and the realities of the classroom (Edyburn, 2000, 2004; Zabala, 2006; Zabala et al., 2000). Educators need easy access to professionals with expertise in technology and pedagogy (Morrison, 2007. P. 83).
Lack of teacher time, limited training, access to support service, limited leadership and lack of a common vision or rationale for ACT use are commonly cited problems (Beigel, 2000; Edyburn 2000). One study noted that as problems such as these decreased, students’ use of ACT increased (Forgrave, 2002; Schlosser et al., 2000).
The following list are the models that came up in my research and the first three are the most cited ones. In this post, I apply her framework to analyze the following three models.
- Education Tech Points Model- Bowser and Reed
- Consideration Model - Chambers
- SETT Framework Model – Zambala
- TI Model - Edyburn
- Unifying Functional Model – Melichar and Blackhurst
- Assistive Technology Co-Planner Model – Haines and Robertson
- QIAT Model - Bowser, Korsten, Reed, & Zabala
- HAAT Model - Bailey
- RESNA Model
- To view the complete presentation about all the models please click
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education Tech Points:
Education Tech Points was created to facilitate decision-making regarding the utilization of assistive technology services and resources when planning educational programs for students with disabilities. Bowser and Reed argue that each Education Tech Point represents a critical juncture in the process of referral, evaluation, and development of the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP). The the six Education Tech Points are:
- Referral Evaluation
- Extended assessment
- Plan development
- Implementation
- Periodic review
Because of the compatibility of this model with the traditional special education referral and evaluation process, it has been widely adopted in special education.
Education Tech Point 1- Initial Referral Questions
What commonly available, simple technology would meet the student’s needs in the general education classroom, therefore avoiding a special education classification?
Education Tech Point 2- Evaluation Questions
Are assistive technology devices needed to support the assessment process that reflects the student’s abilities and needs? The team also considers what type of devices; modification or equipment is needed to improve the student’s educational performance.
Education Tech Point 3- Extended Assessment Questions
What additional data is needed? At this stage the team gathers data during student trial sessions with a variety of assistive technology devices.
Education Tech Point 4- Plan Development Questions
What technology is needed for success? The IEP team considers whether assistive technology is needed to ensure student success.
Education Tech Point 5- Implementation Questions
These questions center on whom, what, when, where and how of implementing the student’s plan.
Education Tech Point 6- Periodic Review Questions
This is the time when periodic review of the program occur.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chambers Consideration Model: Has technology been considered?
This model contains a series of open-ended questions arranged in a flowchart. Chambers looks at the student from a deficit viewpoint, initially asking the question “what can the student not do?” From this beginning question team members are expected to engage in periodic and on-going consideration of assistive technology needs. This process includes information gathering related to:
- The modifications, strategies and tools being used,
- The results of their use,
- The implementation timeframe,
- The process of implementation,
- The outcomes.
- Additionally, team members answer questions related to
their knowledge of assistive technology and available resources. This
questioning and reflecting process is repeated periodically and is
incorporated into the IEP process.
Click
here for a high quality copy of the chart
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student Environment Task Tool (SETT) Framework Model:
Zabala (1995,1996, 2002) developed a guide for considering assistive technology that focuses the attention of the IEP team on four explicit areas: The student, The environment, The task, and the The tools.
Information is gathered concerning the Student’s abilities and needs, the environment(s) in which the student navigates, the Tasks required for the student’s active participation in the activities within the environment, and finally, the Tools needed for completing the tasks.
Critical Elements of SETT that must be always included:
- Collaboration
- Communication
- Multiple Perspectives
- Pertinent information
- Shared Knowledge
- Flexibility
- On-going Processes
The SETT Framework was designed to aid the process of gathering, organizing, and analyzing data to inform collaborative problem solving and decision-making regarding assistive technology and appropriate educational programming for students with disabilities.
The Student:
What does the Student need to do?
What are the Student's special needs and current abilities?The Environment:
The Environment:
What are the instructional and physical arrangements?
What materials and equipment are currently available in the environment?
What supports are available to the student and the people working with the student on a daily basis?
How are the attitudes and expectations of the people in the environment likely to affect the students performance?The Tasks
The Task:
What activities occur in the student's natural environments which enable progress toward mastery of identified goals?
What is everyone else doing?
What are the critical elements of the activities?
How might the activities be modified to accommodate the student's special needs?The Tools
The Tools:
What no tech, low tech and high tech options should be considered for inclusion in an assistive technology system for a student with these needs and abilities doing these tasks in these environments?
Click here for an example of a SETT framework collection data sheet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watts, O’Brian, & Wojcik, (2004), have presented a comparative examination of Education Tech Points Model, Consideration Model, and SETT Framework. Here I incorporate Morrison's framework of an ideal model into this comparison (purple text) and also add a new characteristic to it.
Characteristic 1- Multiple Assessments
All models call for multiple assessments on-going assessments of student need, strategies and outcomes. This is consistent with educational assessment themes.
Initial and ongoing assessment is required to insure that the ACT use is effective or is continuing to be effective. An application which may support achievement for students with learning problems may become ineffective in time. Ongoing assessment of ACT effectiveness is needed to insure the maximum benefit from its use (Bryant & Bryant 1998; Bowser & Reed, 1995; Ebner, 2004).
Knowing the capabilities of the software is one step in identifying appropriate software related to student need. In addition, understanding student strengths, needs and preferences is vital information when making decisions about appropriate technology selection (Edyburn 2000; Forgrave, 2002; Lueck, 2001). A challenge for educators is finding personnel who are qualified to complete ACT assessment and make technology recommendations. The pace of developments in the ACT field is exponential so it is difficult for educators to keep up with the pace of developments. There is no formal course of study in Canada to educate personnel as ACT experts.
In Tech Point Model, there is an initial referral question which is a distinct step not mentioned in the other two models. The question is: what
commonly available, simple technology would meet the student’s needs in
the general education classroom, therefore avoiding a special education
classification?
Universal Design states that students with learning problems are increasingly being educated in regular classes. This poses an instructional challenge for educators who are being required to address the needs of a wide range of abilities in the classroom. . (Morrison, 2007. P. 88)
A universally designed curriculum is an approach that does not classify programs as being either regular education or special education. Rather it views learning as being on a continuum. (Education for All: Expert Panel Report on Special Education, 2005). A universal design approach looks at barriers to learning that are not within the learner. Planning is focused on methods and materials which are flexible and adjustable (Rose, 2000; Rose & Meyer, 2002). It considers barriers from the start to plan proactively. ACT plays a role in the provision of instruction based on universal design. Technological solutions for students with learning problems are just as advantageous to many other students. While some students may not require ACT to access the curriculum, it will support learning for many other students. If ACT is used to plan for universal design from the outset and is useful to many students, it will not be viewed as extra programming, but a natural part of classroom activities. (Morrison, 2007. P. 88)
Characteristic 2- Longitudinal attention to student outcomes
All four models address student outcomes by reviewing student progress data to inform decision making.
Characteristic 3- Documentation
The Chambers’ Model, Educational TECH Points and SETT framework include processes for collection of student data.
Characteristic 4- Team Problem Solving
Chambers’, Educational TECH Points and SETT Framework provide for inclusion of the student in the decision making process. They stress the need to have different perspectives and expertise to solve assistive technology questions.
Family’s role is critical in motivation for ACT use by students (Ebner,
2004). Students should be involved in the decision making process where
appropriate. Research shows that students are more likely to be
motivated to use ACT when they are involved in the initial decision
making process (Schlosser et al., 2000). An appropriate
student/technology match is critical (Bryant & Bryant, 1998). Each
student should be assessed to evaluate the appropriate tool for making
the student/technology match (Bryant & Bryant, 1998; Edyburn, 2000).
The most significant factors for introducing technology to the general education classroom are shared responsibility for participation and decision-making, and for securing and sharing resources. Shared accountability for student outcomes is necessary (Cook & Friend 1996; White et al., 2003).
Researchers who have studied the use of technology with individuals with learning problems have concluded that access to this technology is an equity tool and has the potential to meet the learning needs of these individuals (Edyburn, 2002, Fitzgerald & Koury, 1996; Woodward & Rieth, 1997).
Characteristic 5- Individual Supports
Educational TECH Points, SETT Framework accentuate “the individualization of the assessment process based on particular student needs.
Some
researchers have identified the importance of examining the
instructional environment and the setting demands it places on students.
Setting demands are those tasks that students are asked to perform in
their classes and the prerequisite skills needed to complete the
requirements (Bryant & Bryant 1998; Riegel, 1988; Rieth &
Everston, 1988). A key step in effective ACT implementation involves
identification of setting demands and the student’s ability to perform
those tasks with appropriate ACT.
Characteristic 6- Educator Self Assessment
Only Chamber's model accommodate this important feature that "team members answer questions related to their knowledge of assistive technology and available resources. This questioning and reflecting process is repeated periodically and is incorporated into the IEP process."
Teachers are one of the most critical factors if ACT implementation is to be successful. They are key individuals who motivate students to use ACT (Lahm & Nickels, 1999). It is important that teachers become proactively seek training opportunities. Self education, locally developed workshops and mentoring opportunities are avenues currently available to teachers seeking to improve their understanding of ACT. Membership in professional organizations and communities of practice may provide additional opportunities for professional development. It may also be useful for teachers to approach ACT implementation from researched approaches that have been developed and implemented elsewhere.
Teachers are also required to delegate, plan, direct, monitor, coach and manage educational assistants but report little preparation for such responsibilities (French, 1999, 2001). Teachers themselves may have little training on the use of ACT, to support student’s access to the curriculum, let alone to train educational assistants on the use of the technology.
School systems leaders, ie. principales, department heads and VPs, can also encourage the development of IEP teams that include ACT consideration. Some IEP team decisions are supported by providing expert personnel on the use and implementation of ACT. ACT has changed and improved at a rapid rate and it is often too difficult for the average teacher to keep on top of the new innovations.
An assistive technologist would remain current and bring their expertise to teachers. They would consult with teachers, assess ACT effectiveness and make recommendations about appropriate ACT for individual students. Support would be provided to IEP teams with ongoing supports as a service provider. Assistive technologists bring credibility to ACT service delivery (Lahm, 2003). They provide assessment services to insure that ACT is being used effectively to maximize benefit to students. Currently, two barriers exist for the provision of assistive technologists.
- Funding for personnel
- Finding personnel qualified to provide ACT services are difficult challenges.
Lack of a common vision for ACT use and implementation is a commonly cited problem (Beigel, 2000; Edyburn 1998 & 2000).
ACT plans can be developed that outline long term goals for the implementation of ACT as board and provincial initiatives. Plans could include a shared rationale for ACT use, qualifications of personnel, assessment criteria and support for teachers implementing ACT in their classes
To be efficient, training teams can be organized to be multidisciplinary in composition (Newton, 2004; Quality Indicators of Adaptive Technology, 2003). Innovative models for training should be considered.
Currently there is no requirement in pre-service programs to provide any course work on ACT. Most pre-service programs do offer some special education instruction, but there is currently no standard for the provision of such coursework province wide. Some researchers argue that pre-service programs have not changed with changing times (Elliot et al., 2003; Lahm 2003; Lahm & Nickels 1999).
One means of impacting ACT implementation is through training (Derer et al., 1996; McGregor & Pachuski, 1996). School systems can address these needs by making a commitment to provide time and resources to meet training needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
1- Watts, E.H., O’Brian, M., & Wojcik, B.W., (2004) Four models of assistive technology consideration: How do they compare to recommended educational assessment practices? Journal of Special Education Technology, 19, 1, pp. Retrieved 9/7/07 from: http://jset.unlv.edu/shared/volsmenu.html
3- Haines, Len, (2000), Assessment Models and Software Support for Assistive Technology Teams, Assessment for Effective Intervention, 25, 4, pp. 291-305
4- A. C. Chambers Consideration flow chart retrieved from: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CF4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fatto.buffalo.edu%2Fregistered%2FATBasics%2FFoundation%2FAssessment%2Fchambers.pdf&ei=LtipT-KvG43rgQeV3qXQAQ&usg=AFQjCNFtPrQcCEfUHZYUfDGx8_kIQOH01A
5- Lynda S. Hartman Human Activity Assistive Technology Model (HAAT) Info, retrieved from : &source=web&cd=1&ved=0CGIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fassistivetech-4alllearners.wikispaces.com%2Ffile%2Fview%2FHAAT%2Bmodel%2Binfo.pdf&ei=JGmqT8qYL-Wt0AGz2KWuBQ&usg=AFQjCNGOBWP_UPzwjMs2xqIedMxOqbSEmA
6- John Hopkins CTE Article Summary retrieved 5/9/2012 from: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CHUQFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmatnonline.com%2Folms%2Ftmp%2Ffile%2FMATN%2FAT%2520Decision%2520Making%2FRdg_Watts_Assessment_Models%2520of%2520Consideration.doc&ei=mneqT_iROOPt0gGnjNwv&usg=AFQjCNHs1MzeGMfKcChcZGkSpolQub0IoA
7- Morrison, K., (2007) IMPLEMENTATION OF ASSISTIVE COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY (ACT): A MODEL FOR SCHOOL SYSTEMS, International Journal of Special Education, Vol 22, No.1, pp. 83-95.
