Facilitating Student Achievement with Assistive Technology · Facilitating Student Achievement with Assistive Technology Howard P. Parette and George R. Peterson-Karlan Illinois State

Facilitating Student Achievement with Assistive Technology

Howard P. Parette and George R. Peterson-KarlanIllinois State University

Abstract: This article discusses an evolving understanding of the relationship of assistive technology (AT) tostudent achievement. Clarifying the compensatory nature of AT and its role in creating a ‘floor of opportunity’for students with disabilities, the authors then emphasize the importance of AT for access to and productivitywithin both the life skills and academic curricula. The distinction between AT, instructional technology, anduniversal design for learning (UDL) is clarified. Emphasis is then placed on three distinct aspects of theeducational process for students with developmental disabilities in which the ‘consideration’ of AT is involved.These include IEP development, including placement alternatives; instructional interventions; and studentprogress monitoring. A statement is then made regarding the outcomes of AT interventions--student achievementin the academic and life skills curricula as evidenced by district- or state-wide measures of student progress.

In today’s educational environments, thereare immense responsibilities placed on publicschools for accountability (Anderson &Anderson, 2005; Wehmeyer, Lattin, & Agran,2001), with particular emphasis on facilitatingachievement among all students--includingthose with developmental disabilities (NoChild Left Behind Act of 2001 [NCLB]). Ba-sically, all children are now expected to par-ticipate in the general education curriculumand demonstrate academic progress, regard-less of the nature of any existing developmen-tal disability. This impetus is one of numerousconvergent, ‘student achievement-related fac-tors’ creating new opportunities and new de-mands on education professionals to integratelearning and assistive technologies into curric-ulum development and implementation(Peterson-Karlan & Parette, 2008). This articleexplores issues related to the role of assistivetechnology (AT) in supporting students withdevelopmental disabilities in the curriculum.It presents a discussion of student achieve-ment related AT factors that expands on thecompensatory nature of AT and its relation-ship to student achievement. A descriptionthe process of AT consideration will be also

examined, with emphasis on education pro-fessional roles in this decision-making process.

An Evolving Understanding of AT and ItsRelationship to Student Achievement

The professional literature is replete with rep-etition of the federal definition of AT, i.e.,“any item, piece of equipment or product sys-tem, whether acquired commercially or offthe shelf, modified, or customized, that isused to increase, maintain, or improve func-tional capabilities of individuals with disabili-ties” [20 U.S.C. § 1401(251)]. This definitionplaces emphasis on the ‘compensatory’ natureof AT, i.e., it compensates for something astudent cannot functionally do or perform.Unfortunately, no guidance has been pro-vided by the federal government with regardto helping education professionals under-stand this compensatory function, and whatdevices are helpful in compensating for stu-dent deficits that are barriers to studentachievement.

Peterson-Karlan, Hourcade, Parette, andWojcik (in press) observed that since the firstAT products were focused on physical, sensoryand communication impairments, typical de-vices often found in classroom settings forstudents with developmental disabilities mayhave included such things as (a) communica-tion wallets, (b) electronic communication de-vices, (c) wheelchairs, (d) prone standers, (e)

Correspondence concerning this article shouldbe addressed to Howard P. Parette, Department ofSpecial Education, Illinois State University, Box5910, Normal, IL 61790-5910. Email: [email protected]

Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 2007, 42(4), 387–397© Division on Developmental Disabilities

Facilitating Student Achievement / 387

adapted eating utensils, (f) large print orbooks-on tape, (g) Braille watches, closed cir-cuit television (CCTV) units, (h) hearing aids,(i) sound field amplification systems, and (j)alternatives to the mouse or keyboard. Suchtechnology exhibits a clear relationship be-tween the student’s function that is lost orimpaired and the function the AT replaces orenhances (e.g., the ability to communicate; tomove in space, stand erect, grasp and hold; toperceive printed text; to hear others speak; tomanipulate the keyboard; Peterson-Karlan etal.). Blackhurst (2005) stated that the func-tions for which the AT enhances, improves ormaintains the student’s performance capabil-ities include: (a) activities of daily living; (b)communication; (c) body support; (d) protec-tion and positioning; (e) travel and mobility;(f) environmental interaction; and (g) sports,fitness and recreation. The Supreme Court inan early ruling (Hedrick Hudson School District v.Rowley) provided a legal foundation that sup-ports the compensatory nature of AT in rulingthat schools are required to provide a ‘floor ofopportunity’ when making curricula and stu-

dent support decisions for students with dis-abilities (see Figure 1). This has importantimplications regarding the compensatory na-ture of AT. Acknowledging that students withdisabilities fall below an expected level of per-formance in academic and life skill curricularareas, a performance gap subsequently existsbetween these students and their typical peerswith regard to access to and participation inthe curriculum (Parette, Peterson-Karlan, &Wojcik, 2007). AT, in essence, levels the play-ing field for students with developmental dis-abilities by compensating for deficits and cre-ating a floor of opportunity that then createsthe potential for achievement (educationalprogress) in the curriculum.

Sadly, despite the widespread availability ofresources containing descriptions of devicesavailable to education professionals (see e.g.,Abledata.com, n.d.; Rehabtool.com, 2004;Warger, 2005) there is still misunderstandingabout the ‘compensatory’ nature of these ATdevices. We propose a more effective defini-tion for education professionals, that AT is “atool that allows a person to do a task they

Figure 1. AT compensates for functional performance gaps and creates a ‘floor of opportunity’ for partici-pation. © 2007, SEAT Center. Used with permission.

388 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-December 2007

could not do without the tool at the expectedperformance level” (Parette et al., 2007). Thisworking definition recognizes both the com-pensatory nature of AT (reflected in the fed-eral definition) in the context of the modernacademic or life skills curriculum where thereis an expectation for progress toward somedesignated level of achievement (NCLB).

A particularly important student achieve-ment-related factor is the legal requirementthat education professionals must ‘consider’assistive technology (AT) when developing in-dividualized education programs (IEPs; Indi-viduals with Disabilities Education Improve-ment Act of 2004 [IDEIA 2004]). Suchconsideration requires new AT skill setsamong practitioners that are not emphasizedin most teacher preparation programs cur-rently (Parette, Peterson-Karlan, Smith, Gray,& Silver-Pacuilla, 2006; Parette, Peterson-Kar-lan, & Wojcik, 2005; Peterson-Karlan et al., inpress). Similarly, given the ongoing reliancethat school districts place on experts to as-sume leadership roles in AT decision-making(Parette et al., 2006), development of a broadbase of knowledgeable and effective AT prac-titioners who understand the nature of ATand the AT consideration process remains acurrent challenge to the field (Parette, 2006;Parette et al., 2006). This process will be de-scribed in more detail in a later section.

Another student achievement-related factoris reflected in the mandate of IDEIA 2004 foreducation professionals to use (a) ‘universallydesigned’ curriculum materials, whenever fea-sible [118 STAT. 2668(C)(v)], and (b) acces-sible digital print materials [118 STAT.2794(e)(2)]. Both of these factors are ladenwith AT issues, again requiring an AT knowl-edge base among practitioners that is not yetevident among school district personnel na-tionally.

These powerful student achievement-re-lated factors are even more glaringly obviousagainst the dazzling backdrop of technologyinnovation permeating all aspects of modernsociety. More than 25,000 AT devices are cur-rently available in the marketplace to assiststudents with developmental and other dis-abilities (Abledata cited in Edyburn, 2000).Such availability also places practitioners inthe position of having to demonstrate somefamiliarity with the process of identifying

which AT devices should be considered forstudents with developmental disabilities. Thepromise of this wide array of available technol-ogy was observed by Silver-Pacuilla (2006),who noted that “it has become easier to useand customize, more powerful and robust,and available at lower costs, making it attrac-tive as part of a school-wide solution” (p. 11).

Access and Productivity

In the evolution of the field of special educa-tion, it was once typical that AT was viewed asdevices provided to persons having physical,sensory (hearing and vision), and communi-cation disabilities. Such ‘visible’ disabilitiesamong children with developmental disabili-ties often required something special to com-pensate for the deficits exhibited by these chil-dren. Typically, the responses from educationprofessionals was to provide AT to enable phys-ical access to educational and community pro-grams and services. However, the current con-vergence of student achievement-relatedfactors, such as those noted above, have em-phasized not just physical access, but ratherthe prominent role of AT in facilitating accessto educational experiences as a means to achiev-ing important curricular outcomes. Therenow should be an emphasis on student produc-tivity using AT in the academic and life skillscurriculum. For example, in the academiccurriculum, two particularly important shiftsthat have occurred for students with develop-mental disabilities has been an emphasis onusing AT to (a) acquire and use informationfrom print, and (b) express one’s knowledgein written form. In the life skills curriculum,emphasis has shifted from mere inclusion in avariety of educational and community settingsto the ability to do things such as (a) makingand following a schedule, (b) completing ajob that facilitates wage earning, and (c) man-aging one’s living space and finances. In eachof these curricula areas, AT plays a powerfulrole both in ensuring student access to educa-tional experiences and in supporting educa-tional achievement.

AT, Instructional Technology, and UniversalDesign for Learning

Compounding the challenges of using AT tofacilitate student achievement is the ‘blurring’


of understanding about varying types of tech-nology found in classrooms today. Peterson-Karlan et al. (in press) have noted that devel-opment of technology has more recentlyevolved to encompass educational functions(Blackhurst, 2005) often associated with aca-demic deficiencies and learning disabilities(Behrmann & Jerome, 2002; Edyburn, 2000;Hasselbring, Lott, & Zydney, n.d.; Silver-Pa-cuilla, Ruedel, & Mistreet, 2004; Thompson,Bakken, Fulk, & Peterson-Karlan, 2005).There is a range of technology that can sup-port reading, writing, math, information ac-quisition, organization, and cognitive process-ing (Hasselbring et al.; Silver-Pacuilla et al.;Thompson et al.) that are evidence-based.

However, the distinctions between instruc-tional technology (IT) and AT are often con-fused. IT has been defined as the applicationof “scientific knowledge about human learn-ing to the practical tasks of teaching andlearning” (Newby, Stepich, Lehman, & Rus-sell, 2000, p. 10). Application and use of ITaddresses the three desired learning out-comes of instruction: increased (a) instruc-tional effectiveness, (b) instructional effi-ciency, and (c) instructional appeal (Newby etal.). Instructional effectiveness results in the stu-dent learning in a better way than would havebeen accomplished without the experience.Instructional efficiency results in the sameamount (or more) of learning occurring butin a shorter amount of time. Instructional ap-peal enhances the possibility that students willdevote time and energy to the learning task.To attain these outcomes, instructional tech-nology supports teaching the curriculum con-tent as well as the planning and evaluation ofinstruction. Thus, the tools of IT are used toplan instructional interventions, prepare print,audio, video or digital instructional materials,instruct the relevant content (knowledge andskills), and assess student learning (Newby etal.). IT tools used in classrooms for studentswith developmental disabilities either teachnew skills, supplement or expand the curricu-lum, or remediate skill deficits. They are help-ful in facilitating learning, but are not essen-tial, i.e., the student can learn in other ways ifan IT tool is removed. Conversely, when stu-dents with developmental disabilities requirethe continued use of the IT tool after its use intypical “learning situations” is done for the

student without disabilities, the tool then be-comes ‘compensatory’ and is AT, i.e., is indi-vidually matched to and uniquely required fora student to make educational progress orparticipate in the curriculum and/or class-room (Lewis, 1993; Rose et al., 2005). A casein point would be reading as a skill and read-ing as a means to obtain information. IT, inthe form of computer-based software, mightbe used to teach or remediate reading-specificskill such as phonemic awareness or oral read-ing fluency. AT, in the form of text-to-speechsoftware might be used to insure that the stu-dent is able to obtain relevant social studies orscience information from print sourcesthrough conversion of digital text to auditoryinformation. These are not mutually exclusive(Peterson-Karlan et al., in press). For a stu-dent in 6th grade, instruction in reading skillsand support for participation in the academiccurriculum are converging interventions ITand AT converge upon the goal of enhancingthe progress of students with developmentaldisabilities in the academic curriculum. IT in-creases the effectiveness and efficiency of theinstruction in the curriculum (Newby et al.)while AT permits students to

access the classroom, materials, media andinstructional activities, to enhance their pro-ductivity by increasing amount, frequency,rate or duration of communication andwork output while decreasing cognitive orphysical effort or time, and, ultimately toimprove the quality or accuracy of their com-munication, interaction with others, andwork products (King, 1999; Smith, 2000).(Peterson-Karlan et al., 2008, p. 197)

Recent emphasis of the IDEIA 2004 on uni-versally designed learning [UDL; 118 STAT.2668(C)(v)] further compounds the blurringof distinctions between IT and AT. UDL isbased on principles of universal designadopted decades ago in engineering and ar-chitecture, but emphasizes the special pur-pose of learning environments to support andfoster changes in knowledge and skill (Rose etal., 2005) among diverse learners, includingbut not limited to those with disabilities. UDLdiffers from AT in that it is not a uniquelydesigned solution for a single learner; instead,it attempts to anticipate the needs and learn-


ing styles of a diverse range of learners (Roseet al.) with cost-effective solutions, such asauditory form of texts (e.g., book on CD) ortext-to-speech options for any screen text.However, UDL solutions for the needs of alllearners with disabilities, especially those withsignificant cognitive, sensory or physical dis-abilities may not be available, may be too cum-bersome, complex, or cost-effective to provideto all learners as a UDL solution and so AT isneeded to provide access and to supportlearning (Rose et al.). Another way to think ofUDL is that it provides “standard” snaps, but-tons, and zippers for AT to be added. Giventhat UDL is about all students—both with andwithout disabilities—having multiple meansof accessing and participating in the curricu-lum, AT is added when the student with adevelopmental disability cannot access the ex-isting universally designed learning curricu-lum and a compensatory tool is needed.

AT Consideration in the Educational Process

There are three distinct aspects of the educa-tional process for students with developmen-tal disabilities in which the consideration ofAT is involved. These include (a) IEP devel-opment, including placement alternatives; (b)instructional interventions; and (c) studentprogress monitoring.

IEP Development

In developing the IEP, education profession-als are required by IDEIA 2004 to consider AT[§614(B)(v)]. This is more than simply ‘mak-ing a check mark’ on the IEP that the teamhas considered AT; rather, AT considerationmay occur at multiple steps of the IEP devel-opment process.

Numerous models and frameworks havebeen proposed for the process of ‘consider-ing’ AT (e.g., Bowser & Reed, 1995; Center forTechnology in Education and Technologyand Media Division, 2005; Chambers, 1997;Edyburn, 2005; Melichar & Blackhurst, 1993;Zabala, 1993). Though there are distinctionswith regard to specific elements in the respec-tive processes of these approaches, there arecommonalities that provide broad directionfor practitioners working with students havingdevelopmental disabilities (see Figure 2). Thisprocess has been described in particular detailelsewhere (see Center for Technology in Ed-ucation and Technology and Media Division)and modified by others (Parette et al., 2007).The focus here is upon understanding thepoints during the development of a student’sIEP that the need for, role of, or integration ofAT might occur.

During review of present levels of performance(PLP) and other pertinent information. In thisinitial step of IEP development, team mem-

Figure 2. Sample goal and objective statements incorporating AT. © 2007, SEAT Center. Used with permis-sion.


bers must review current and prior IEPs forfunctional performance levels as well as pastand current AT use and evidence of effective-ness (Center for Technology in Educationand Technology and Media Division, 2005).The central AT-related question being ex-plored is “Is AT needed?” Of particular impor-tance is that the team summarizes the stu-dent’s performance with quantifiable indices.As Parette, Peterson-Karlan, Wojcik, and Bardi(2007) advocated,

This involves more than naming the prob-lem, e.g., “the student cannot communicate”or “has difficulty writing.” Problem identifica-tion requires that the extent of the discrep-ancy between the current and desired perfor-mance is identified and confirmed throughmultiple sources of information (i.e., data(Friend & Cook, 2003, p. 23).

To appropriately describe any discrepancybetween the current and desired perfor-mance, statements should be made regardingany discrepancy both with and without AT. Forexample, in making functional statements re-garding the student’s PLP, statements such as,“Johnny performs at a 3rd grade level writinglevel when using his talking word processor.Without AT, Johnny performs at 1st gradelevel” (Parette et al., 2007). Thus, at the veryearliest phase of the AT consideration pro-cess, thought is given to whether performancecould be improved with AT. This broader in-terpretation of AT “consideration” is reflectedin the language of IDEIA 2004 (118 Stat.2647) wherein teams are now mandated toconsider whether AT is “needed” rather than“required” (Mittler, 2007). The need for ATmay be more easily demonstrated by consid-ering the size of the discrepancy between cur-rent and expected performance and the im-mediacy of the need to engage in theexpected performance.

During development of annual goals. Goalsand benchmarks/objectives should addressfunctional capabilities to actively participate (ac-cess) and to make educational progress. Theyshould reflect what is and will be needed inthe academic and life skills curricula (Paretteet al., 2007). They also should reflect what thestudent with developmental disability willneed to know and be able to do as s/heprogresses (Center for Technology in Educa-tion and Technology and Media Division,

2005). Direction in making such determina-tions is gained by examining state standards,district curricula, and required assessments tobe taken by students with developmental dis-abilities. An important question to ask duringthis point in the decision-making process is,“Will it be difficult or impossible for the stu-dent to perform at the expected level of per-formance during the next year?” (Center forTechnology in Education and Technologyand Media Division). This again addresses thequestion “Is AT needed” and may require datato determine the student’s expected perfor-mance level (for a comprehensive examina-tion of AT data strategies see Parette et al., inpress).

A second important point in developinggoals and benchmarks/objectives is to distin-guish between ‘operational use’ of AT and‘functional skills improvement’ when usingthe AT (see Figure 2). It typically takes timefor students with developmental disabilities tolearn to use new AT devices before marked,sustained progress can be achieved on func-tional tasks. Thus, separate objectives orbenchmarks may need to be written to address(a) functional skill improvement (e.g., in-creasing the number of spontaneous requeststo engage in preferred activities from 2 to 6per day) and (b) operational use of the AT(e.g., instruction in how to activate and re-trieve messages from a dynamic display voiceoutput communication device). Functionalperformance is the benchmark against whicheducational progress is measured. Opera-tional competence is tool-specific and mayneed to be written after a period of consider-ation of several different devices (see “Step 6:Trial implementation” below).

During consideration of placement alternatives.AT may also be considered when decisions aremade about placement alternatives. When ATis placed in a particular educational environ-ment, it becomes problematic if the studentparticipates in several different settings (e.g.,special or general education classroom) dur-ing the school day. As noted by Dubbels(n.d.),

Removal of the student from one educa-tional setting to access AT located in an-other is not appropriate except in situationswhere it is beneficial to the student and not


because the device or service is located out-side of the classroom for staff convenienceor administrative convenience.

To remove the student would both denyaccess to participation in the least restrictivesetting identified by the team, while also po-tentially communicating a message that AT isnot accepted in the environmental setting. Ofparticular importance is for the team to con-sider the least complex support that will removebarriers or enhance performance on the partof the student (Center for Technology in Ed-ucation and Technology and Media Division,2005). For example, if a student has difficul-ties reading print, a less complex solution tothis challenge when the student is in gym classwould simply be to have a classmate read anyprinted directions presented to all students(given that relatively little reading is typicallyexpected in such classes). However, when thesame student is in a classroom environmentwhere considerable reading is required, use ofa text reader, such as ReadPlease® (2005) orUltra Hal Reader (Zabaware, 2007) may beappropriate in a class or environment where agreat deal of reading is required.

During identification of appropriate supportsand services, including existing AT. At thispoint, the team should determine whetherany of the supports available to the student,teacher and family include AT and documentthis in the student’s IEP. This step is particu-larly important given that it provides docu-mentation for all—including future decision-makers—regarding what is known about thestudent (Center for Technology in Educationand Technology and Media Division, 2005),the available supports, and the relative effec-tiveness of the existing supports in specificactivities and environments. It is useful to re-member that, as far back as IDEA 1990, ATconsists of both devices (including software)and services; such services may include (butare not limited to) assessments or evaluationsneeded to select or implement AT, assistancein the acquisition of AT, modifications of ex-isting equipment or materials, training of thestudent, family or staff in the use and applica-tion of the AT, and maintenance of or up-grades to existing AT.

Instructional Interventions

With regard to academic instructional inter-ventions, Lahm and Morrissette (1994) sug-gested that there are seven areas where ATcould assist students: these include (a) orga-nization (e.g., graphic organizers, outliningfeatures in word processing software); (b)note taking (e.g., structured outlines, opticalcharacter recognition software, VCR paper,portable keyboards); (c) writing assistance(e.g., word processing software, grammar/spell checkers, dictionaries, thesaurus pro-grams); (d) productivity (e.g., calculators,spreadsheets, databases, personal digital assis-tants [PDAs]); (e) access to reference materi-als (e.g., electronic encyclopedias, library ref-erences, and online publications, multimediamaterials); (f) cognitive assistance (e.g., soft-ware for instructing students through tutori-als, drill and practice, problem-solving, andsimulations; CD-ROM-based application pro-grams); and (g) materials modification (e.g.,multimedia authoring software). When con-sidering life skill interventions, AT can assiststudents with organization (e.g., schedules,materials lists); memory and cognition (e.g.,task sequence charts; problem-solving scripts);communication (e.g., communication boardsor devices); mobility (e.g., wheelchairs); andmanipulation (e.g., adapted materials andequipment for personal hygiene or food prep-aration).

There are two important and distinct as-pects of the relationship of AT to instructionalinterventions: (a) consideration of AT thatmight be needed within various academic orlife skill activities and tasks in which desirededucational goals are accomplished (i.e., whatAT might be needed?); and (b) considerationof whether the AT selected is actually effectivein enhancing performance within the tar-geted activities (i.e., is AT effective?).

Identify tasks and AT tools needed to accomplishgoals. Understanding the demands placedon students when performing specific tasksthat are embedded within various academicenvironments is an important facet of AT con-sideration. Ultimately, AT is a tool that en-hances the individual’s performance or func-tional capabilities in completing a task. Teammembers must examine activities across thecurriculum and identify the routines and


tasks, which comprise those activities. Exam-ples of activity areas in the life skills curricu-lum would include such things as personalmaintenance, domestic maintenance, recre-ation and leisure activities, community trans-portation, shopping or work. Each of theseactivity areas would have embedded tasks. Forexample, personal maintenance includes thetasks of grooming, toileting, and bathing.Each of these tasks also has varying physical,cognitive, and linguistic (symbolic interpreta-tion) demands (King, 1999). To bath oneself,one must meet the physical demands of turn-ing handles in the bathtub or shower, lower-ing oneself into the tub or stepping into theshower stall, scrubbing one’s body with asoapy washcloth, rinsing appropriately, anddrying off with a towel. Cognitive demandsinclude remembering the time of day for thebathing to occur and sequencing the stepsappropriately. Linguistic (symbolic) demandsinclude differentiating the hot and cold waterhandles or shampoo and creme rinse bottles.Each of these varying demands may poten-tially require different AT solutions for thestudent with a developmental disability.

When considering the academic curricu-lum, activity areas that team members wouldconsider are the broad curricula areas underwhich daily academic activities are organized.For example, at the preschool level such ac-tivities might include Circle Time, SnackTime, Show and Tell, Reading Activity Area,etc. In Circle Time, students have the tasks ofsitting with peers, attending to the teacher,and responding to and asking questions. Eachof these tasks has varying physical, cognitive,and/or linguistic demands placed on the stu-dents. At the Elementary level, activity areasmight include Math, Language Arts (includ-ing Reading, Writing, Spelling), Science, andSocial Studies. Even writing is not a single taskbut several different embedded tasks includ-ing planning and organization or the compo-sition, transcription of ideas into text form,and revising and editing the composition.Each of these embedded tasks has its owncognitive, physical and linguistic demands re-quiring different types of compensatory tools(e.g., content-specific outlines, pencil grips orkeyboarding devices, editing guides with em-bedded prompts; Peterson-Karlan, 2007). Atthe junior or high school level, activities would

be the specific subject area classes such asEnglish, History, Geometry, Civics, and Con-sumer Economics. Beyond the elementarylevel, reading, writing, and spelling are nolonger specific instructional activity areas, butare skill processes employed across multipleactivity areas (e.g., reading is required in His-tory, English, and Geometry classes).

Initial or “trial” implementation. In orderfor education professionals to document theimpact of a chosen AT device on a student’sperformance, and his or her subsequentachievement in the curriculum, a distinctionmust be made between ‘operational’ compe-tence and ‘functional’ competence with de-vices (see Figure 2). A student must learn touse a particular AT device first, before thecompensatory potential of the device can befully realized in life skills and academic curric-ula activities. Thus, implementation will focuson building proficiency with using devices be-fore measures of success with functional taskscan be reliably measured. This, however,raises the question of, “How long is “longenough” for functional competence to devel-opment to occur?” The answer is, “It de-pends.” Three related factors will affect thetime required to develop operational compe-tence: (a) the student and his or her charac-teristics; (b) the features of the device; and (c)the physical, cognitive, and linguistic de-mands of using the device’s features. Somedevices will be relatively simple to use andrequire little time for the student to becomefamiliar with, depending again on the natureand severity of the student’s disabilities. Otherdevices will be more complex, having morefeatures, and thus require greater time andeffort on the student’s part to develop thenecessary operational competence to be aneffective user of the AT device.

Student Progress Monitoring

A final aspect of AT consideration is exhibitedin activities associated with school districtmonitoring of student participation in assess-ment activities. The Individuals with Disabili-ties Education Act of 1997 (IDEA ‘97) re-quired that all students with disabilities beincluded in regular statewide assessments,with accommodations as appropriate. IDEA’97 also required that those students who


could not be assessed with regular assessmentsbe assessed through an alternate assessment todetermine annual yearly progress (AYP) man-dated by NCLB. Participation rates of studentswith disabilities in recent years have been dueto three primary factors (Thurlow, Powers,Lewis, Laitusis, & Breslin-Larson, in press).First, two federal policies have contributed toincreased participation of students with dis-abilities: the (a) Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act of 1997 (IDEA ‘97) requiredthat students with disabilities be included inregular statewide assessments, with accommo-dations as appropriate (and that those whocould not be assessed with regular assessmentsbe assessed through an alternate assessment).Also, NCLB added accountability on the partof school districts to the participation require-ments. IDEIA 2004 merely reinforced thealignment of this legislation and NCLB(Cortiella, 2006). However, great variabilityexists across states regarding accommodationsmade for students with disabilities when tak-ing large-scale assessments that provide dataagainst which schools are evaluated regardingstudent progress (Thurlow et al.)

Generally, state issues regarding the use ofAT as an accommodation focus on whether ornot “the accommodation produces a validscore – one that does not violate the constructbeing measured” (Arthur & Cavalier, 2004;Thurlow et al., in press). Table 1 presents arecent summary of current accommodationpractices across the U.S. Thurlow et al. (in

press) have stated that increase in AT amongstates and increasing computer access, cou-pled with state education agency (SEA) effortsto implement the IDEIA 2004 requirementsfor implementation of universal design of as-sessment [§ 61216(E)] will culminate in allstates offering similar accommodations in thefuture.

Outcomes of AT Interventions

The growing national interest in AT outcomesis reflected in a range of professional publica-tions in recent years (Assistive TechnologyOutcomes Measurement System, 2006; Edy-burn, Higgins, & Boone, 2005; Hasselbring etal., n.d.; National Center for Technology In-novation, 2007; Silver-Pacuilla et al., 2004). Aunique journal—Assistive Technology Outcomesand Benefits—has also emerged and specifi-cally targets the reporting of AT outcomesactivities (see http://www.atobjournal.org). Itis clear on examination of a growing body ofresearch that AT outcomes, and more specif-ically, achievement that is supported by AT inthe life skills and academic curriculum, ismore than merely knowledge of individualpieces off equipment. Equipment is constantlyevolving and new products find their way intothe educational marketplace at a dizzyingpace.

To understand the role of AT and its rela-tionship to student achievement requires ed-ucation professionals to understand both how

TABLE 1

Sample of State Accommodation Policies for Students with Disabilities – 2005

Response AccommodationN StatesAllowed

N State Allowedwith

RestrictionsN States

Prohibited

Proctor/Scribe 35 13 0Tape Recorder 33 4 0Computer/Machine 27 17 0Sign Responses 26 4 0Communication Device 24 4 0Speech to Text 15 4 0Spell Checker 13 16 2

Source: Adapted from: Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., Lail, K. E., Eisenbraun, K. D., & Kato, K. (2006). 2005state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 64).Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Used with permission.


and why AT works. As described previously inthe discussion of the AT consideration pro-cess, education professionals must develop abetter understanding of the demands placedon students with developmental disabilities.These demands must, of necessity, be exam-ined in the context of specific physical, cogni-tive, and linguistic demands that are embed-ded in task requirements of major activitiesthat students participate in across school set-tings. Equally important is that education pro-fessionals recognize that achievement of stu-dents with developmental disabilities is oftencontingent upon use of AT that allows accessto educational or life skill experiences. Finally,access is insufficient in and of itself; it must bepaired with consideration of student produc-tivity, (i.e., increased amount of performanceand/or increased quality or accuracy of per-formance). Ultimately, the benchmarks fordetermining AT effectiveness are studentachievement in the academic and life skillscurricula as evidenced by district- or state-widemeasures of student progress.

References

Abledata.com. (n.d.). Welcome to ABLEDATA. Re-trieved June 7, 2007, from http://abledata.com/

Assistive Technology Outcomes Measurement Sys-tem. (2006). About the ATOMS Project RetrievedJune 8, 2007, from http://www.r2d2.uwm.edu/atoms/about/

Behrmann, M. & Jerome, M. K. (2002). Assistivetechnology for students with mild disabilities: Up-date 2002. ERIC Digest E623, Document No. EDO-EC-02-01.

Blackhurst, A. E. (2005). Historical perspectiveabout technology applications for people withdisabilities. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R.Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technol-ogy research and practice (pp. 3–29). Whitefish Bay,WI: Knowledge by Design.

Bowser, G., & Reed, P. (1995). Education TECHpoints for assistive technology planning. Journal ofSpecial Education Technology, 12, 325–338.

Center for Technology in Education and Technol-ogy and Media Division. (2005). Considering theneed for assistive technology within the individualizededucation program. Columbia, MD: Author.

Chambers, A. C. (1997). Has technology been consid-ered: A guide for IEP teams. Reston, VA: Council forExceptional Children.

Cortiella, C. (2006). NCLB and IDEA: What parentsof students with disabilities need to know & do. Min-

neapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, NationalCenter on Educational Outcomes.

Dubbels, K. (n.d.). Assistive technology in the individ-ual education plan outline. Retrieved June 7, 2007,from http://www.nls.org/atiep.htm

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

Edyburn, D., Higgins, K., & Boone, R. (Eds.).(2005). Handbook of assistive technology research andpractice. Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

Edyburn, D. L. (2005). Assistive technology andstudents with mild disabilities: From consider-ation to outcome measurement. In D. Edyburn,K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of specialeducation technology research and practice (pp. 239–270). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2003). Interactions: Collabo-ration skills for school professionals (4th ed.) Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

Hasselbring, T. S., Lott, A. C., & Zydney, J. M. (n.d.).Technology-supported math instruction or students withdisabilities: Two decades of research and development.Retrieved June 7, 2007, from http://www.techmatrix.org

Hedrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 206,102 S. Ct. 3051 (1982)

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amend-ments of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

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

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improve-ment Act of 2004, 118 Stat. 2647

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

Lahm, E., & Morrissette, S. (1994, April). Zap ’emwith assistive technology. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of The Council for ExceptionalChildren, Denver, CO.

Lewis, R. B. (1993). Special education technology: Class-room applications. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

MacArthur, C. A., & Cavalier, A. R. (2004). Dicta-tion and speech recognition technology as ac-commodations in assessments for students withlearning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 43–58.

Melichar, J. F., & Blackhurst, A. E. (1993). Introduc-tion to a functional approach to assistive technology[Training Module]. Lexington, KY: Departmentof Special Education and Rehabilitation Counsel-ing.

Mittler, J. (2007, February/March). Assistive tech-nology and the Individuals with Disabilities Ed-ucation Improvement Act. TAM Connector, 1– 4.Retrieved May 9, 2007, from http://www.tamcec.org/assets/connector/2007FebMar.pdf

National Center for Technology Innovation.(2007). NCTI technology in the works 2007.


Retrieved June 8, 2007, from http://www.nationaltechcenter.org/index.php/funding/ncti-technology-in-the-works-2007/

Newby, T. J., Stepich, D. R., Lehman, J, D., & Rus-sell, J. D. (2000). Instructional technology for teachingand learning: Designing instruction, integrating com-puters, and using media (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle,NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301 etseq.

Parette, H. P., Peterson-Karlan, G. R., & Wojcik, B. W.(2005). The state of assistive technology servicesnationally and implications for future development.Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 2, 13–24.Retrieved June 13, 2007, from http://www.atia.org/atob/ATOBWeb/ATOBV2N1/Documents/ParetteATONV2N1.pdf

Parette, H. P., Peterson-Karlan, G. R., & Wojcik,B. W. (2007, January). Facilitating student achieve-ment using assistive technology. Workshop presentedat the 10th International Conference on CognitiveDisabilities/Mental Retardation, Autism, & OtherDevelopmental Disabilities, Kona, HI.

Parette, H. P., Peterson-Karlan, G. R., Smith, S. J.,Gray, T., & Silver-Pacuilla, H. (2006). The stateof assistive technology: Themes from an out-comes summit. Assistive Technology Outcomes andBenefits, 3, 15–33. Retrieved June 13, 2007, fromhttp://www.atia.org/atob/ATOBWeb/ATOBV3N1/Documents/Article1.pdf

Parette, H. P., Peterson-Karlan, G. R., Wojcik, B. W.,& Bardi, N. (2007). Monitor that progress! Inter-preting data trends for AT decision-making.Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(7), 22–29.

Parette, P. (2006, March). Assessment for assistive tech-nology. Workshop presented at the National Asso-ciation of School Psychologists 2006 Annual Con-vention, Anaheim, CA.

Peterson-Karlan, G. R. (2007, July). Technology-basedtools to support writing by learners with academic andlearning disabilities: A review of evidence-based find-ings. Normal IL: SEAT Center, Illinois State Uni-versity.

Peterson-Karlan, G. R., & Parette, H. P. (2008).Integration of technology into the curriculum. InH. P. Parette & G. R. Peterson-Karlan (Eds.),Research-based practices in developmental disabilities(pp. 183–214). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Peterson-Karlan, G. R., Hourcade, J. J., Parette,

H. P., & Wojcik, B. W. (in press). Special educa-tion professionals and assistive technology: Re-quirements for preparation in a Digital Age. Jour-nal of the American Academy of Special EducationProfessionals.

ReadPlease®. (2005). Welcome to ReadPlease®! Re-trieved June 8, 2007, from http://www.readplase.com

Rehabtool.com. (2004). Welcome to rehabtool.com. Re-trieved June 7, 2007, from http://rehabtool.com/

Rose, D. H., Hasselbring, T. S., Stahl, S. & Zabala, J.(2005). Assistive technology and universal designfor learning: Two sides of the same coin. In D.Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Hand-book of special education technology research and prac-tice (pp. 507–518). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledgeby Design.

Silver-Pacuilla, H. (2006). Moving toward solutions:Assistive and learning technology for all students.Washington, DC: National Center for TechnologyInnovation.

Silver-Pacuilla, H., Ruedel, K., & Mistreet, S.(2004). A review of technology-based approaches forreading instruction: Tools for researchers and ven-dors. Retrieved June 7, 2007, from http://www.techmatrix.org

Smith, R. O. (2000). Measuring assistive technologyoutcomes in education. Diagnostique, 25, 273–299.

Thompson, J. R., Bakken, J. P., Fulk, B. M., & Peter-son-Karlan, G. (2005). Using technology to improvethe literacy skills of students with disabilities. RetrievedJune 7, 2007, from http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/literacy/disability.pdf

Thurlow, M., Tindal, G., Powers, R., Lewis, P., Lai-tusis, C. C., & Breslin-Larson, J. (in press). Re-search on AT outcomes and large scale assess-ments. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits.

Warger, C. L. (Ed.). (2005). Technology and media foraccessing the curriculum. Instructional support for stu-dents with disabilities. Columbia, MD: Center forTechnology in Education and Technology andMedia Division.

Zabala, J. (1993, October). The SETT framework: Crit-ical issues to consider when choosing and using assistivetechnology. Paper presented to the Closing theGap, Minneapolis, MN. Zabaware. (2007). UltraHal TTS reader. Retrieved June 8, 2007, fromhttp://www.zabaware.com/reader
